1.1 Along with 2 Timothy and the letter to Titus, 1 Timothy belongs to the group of letters known as the “Pastorals.” These three letters are written not to churches, as was the case with most of Paul’s letters, but to individuals who held positions as church leaders (i.e., “pastors”). The purpose of the letter was to “provide guidance in the problems of church administration, and to oppose false teaching of a speculative and moralistic type.” (The New Oxford Annotated Bible, 1973 ed., p.1440.)
Although the author introduces himself as “Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus,” a majority of modern scholars consider 1 Timothy, and indeed all three pastoral letters, to have been written decades after Paul died, by someone writing in his name. There are a number of features that point to this conclusion. The following points are among those noted by the authors of The Oxford Bible Companion, pp.1220-1221:
1) “The organization of the church under officers such as bishops and deacons . . . mirrors the situation found in late first-century and early second-century Christian writings.” [N.B. – Paul died in the early 60s A.D.]
2) The letters “contain teaching of the most rudimentary kind which close associates might be expected to know.”
3) The pastoral letters lack “the fire and passion of the original Pauline epistles.”
4) The role of the law is fundamentally different from that presented in the original letters of Paul.
It is often pointed out that, in the ancient world, writing under the name of some famous authority (“pseudepigraphy”) was common and not considered deceptive. However, for those who consider all the books of the Bible to be divinely inspired writings, it is extremely difficult to explain why any divinely inspired author would feel the need to falsely ascribe his work to another person. If the book starts out with a lie, then the credibility of the whole work is called into question.
The phrase “God our Savior” is unusual. It occurs nowhere in the genuine letters of Paul, but appears five times in 1 Timothy and in Titus. The slight variant, “God my Savior,” appears once, in Luke 1:47 (the Magnificat).
1:2 Timothy, the companion of Paul, is mentioned several times in Acts (e.g., 16:1; 17:14; 19:22). He also is mentioned in several of Paul’s genuine letters (e.g., Romans 16:21; 1 Corinthians 4:17, etc.).
1:3 The situation described here, where Timothy remained at Ephesus while Paul was traveling to Macedonia, does not correspond to any of the travels described in Acts or in Paul’s authentic letters. This does not mean that it could not have occurred as 1 Timothy portrays it, but the chronology of Paul’s travels is difficult enough to piece together from the clues in Acts and the letters, and this additional trip would merely add to the complexity of constructing a coherent sequence of events out of the available fragments. It has been noted that any such trip to Macedonia from Ephesus would have necessarily been a short one, and there is “no explanation as to why Paul communicated so much and such important material by letter and through Timothy when shortly he himself could have communicated it directly.” (The Interpreter’s Bible, vol.11, p.381.)
1:4 In warning against a preoccupation with “myths and endless genealogies,” the author may have in mind the speculations of the gnostics, but the advice may apply equally to the speculative – and contradictory – genealogies of Jesus presented in Matthew 1:1-16 and Luke 3:23-38.
1:8 In the genuine letters, Paul’s position on the Jewish law is confused and contradictory. But we can hardly imagine him making the simple statement found here, that “the law is good,” without introducing some complexity or context. Thus, Paul can say that “the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good” (Romans 7:12), while also declaring that the law is a curse from which Christ has redeemed his followers (Galatians 3:13).
1:9 The law is said to be not for the just, but for the lawless. This implies that the just and the lawless existed first, and then the law was introduced in order to constrain the latter. But one cannot be lawless unless there is first a law to violate. The law must have come first, before the distinction between the just and the lawless had any meaning.
The relationship of Christians to the law is a confusing one in the Pauline and pseudo-Pauline letters. Christians are said to be freed from the constraints of the law (Galatians 3:13; 1 Corinthians 10:23; Romans 6:14), but are nevertheless ordered to follow a code of conduct (Romans 6:12-13; 1 Corinthians 6:18; 10:7; Ephesians 5:18; Colossians 3:8-9), which is not called “the Law” but amounts to the same thing.
1:15 “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners.” This phrase seems to encapsulate the essence of Christian doctrine, or at least the common modern conception of it. However, it is remarkable that the phrase “to save sinners” appears nowhere else in the New Testament. “The language is certainly not that of Paul, who nowhere speaks of Jesus as ‘coming into the world.’” (The Interpreter’s Bible, vol.11, p.391.) Even Jesus “does not say he came to save sinners, but to call sinners to repentance.” (ibid.) Who Jesus was and what his mission was are questions that find no consistent answers in the New Testament.
1:20 This is not the only instance where Paul is portrayed as turning wayward Christian brothers over to Satan. In 1 Corinthians 5:5 Paul instructed the Corinthians to deliver one of their number to Satan “for the destruction of the flesh.” We know that the Hymenaeus and Alexander mentioned here in 1 Timothy are wayward Christians, and not pagans, because in v.19 it is said that they made a “shipwreck” out of their faith. In turning these backsliders over to Satan, it can hardly be said that Paul and the anonymous author of 1 Timothy are practicing forgiveness toward their brethren. And yet, according to Jesus, those who do not forgive others will not have their own sins forgiven. (Matthew 6:15)
2:1-2 Prayer is urged for all men, but the purpose of this praying is so that “we may lead a quiet and peaceable life.” Thus, the purpose of the prayer is to benefit the Christians, not the person being prayed for. As for leading a “quiet and peaceable life,” Jesus had a different purpose in mind, when he said “I came not to bring peace, but a sword.” (Matthew 10:34) Jesus went on to say that he intended to set family members against each other. This is hardly consistent with the goal of leading a “quiet and peaceable life.”
The rationale behind the advice in 1 Timothy can be understood when we consider that in the early 2nd century, Christians were criticized for separating themselves from society at large and refusing to take part in public activities. By praying for public authorities, the early Christians might be able to tone down the hostility they received from some quarters in pagan society.
2:3 This is the second occurrence of the phrase “God our Savior,” whose rarity in the New Testament was noted in the comment to 1:1.
2:4 If God indeed wants “all men to be saved,” then why did he predestine many of them to eternal damnation? Not only are the saved predestined from the beginning (Ephesians 1:5; Romans 8:29-30), but so are the unlucky ones damned from the beginning, according to the parable of the potter in Romans 9:22. Jesus also declared that “many are called, but few are chosen.” (Matthew 22:14) To make matters worse, God even hardens the heart and blinds the eyes of the unchosen, so they will not be able to see the truth that would save them. (John 12:37-40) And the reason Jesus spoke in parables was so that the non-elect would not understand. (Mark 4:11-12) These can hardly be considered the actions of a God who wants to see “all men” saved.
2:5 Here we read that there is only one God, and there is one mediator between God and man. That mediator is Christ Jesus, but more importantly, he is “the man Christ Jesus.” And yet we read elsewhere that Jesus Christ is not merely a man, but “our God and Savior.” (2 Peter 1:1) And Jesus himself proclaimed that “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30), which could not be true if he was in fact a man, and which also could not be true if he was a mediator, since a person cannot “mediate” (i.e., stand in the middle of) between himself and someone else. Jesus is also identified as a “man” in Acts 2:22, and the Greek word used (andra) denotes a physical male human being, not a generic “person” or “human.”
As previously noted, the New Testament is full of contradictory statements as to who or what Jesus actually was. At the time the New Testament writings were composed, there was no doctrine of the Trinity to reconcile such contradictions. That strategem came much later, as an attempt to respond to such contradictions as we have noted. The first surviving credal statement of the Father, Son, and Spirit as the holy trinity does not occur until the second half of the third century. (See “The Blessed Trinity,” in the Catholic Encyclopedia online.
2:7 “I am not lying” is a phrase that occurs three times in the genuine letters of Paul (Romans 9:1; 2 Corinthians 11:31; Galatians 1:20). It would, of course, be easy for any writer familiar with this habit of Paul’s to incorporate the phrase into his own work, to give the impression that it was writen by Paul himself. The real Paul would scarcely have needed to assure his close companion Timothy that he was not lying, or that he had indeed been appointed a preacher and apostle.
2:8 “Men” should pray in every place, but we read later that women should keep silent. (v.12). “Men” is here “andras,” which again means male human beings, and is not generic for “people.”
2:9 On women’s dress and adornment, see also 1 Corinthians 11:3-15; 1 Peter 3:3-5.
2:11-12 This view of women’s role is consistent with what is expressed in Paul’s own letter to the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 14:34-35). Also compare Ephesians 5:22-24.
2:13-14 The rationale for woman’s subordinate position: Adam, the man, was made first. Also, in Genesis 3:1-6, it was the woman who was first led astray by the serpent. The implication is that woman’s judgment is faulty, so she cannot be trusted to be a teacher or leader to men. However, it was God himself who made woman as man’s companion, and declared her a “suitable helper” for him (Genesis 2:18), so who bears the ultimate responsibility for making the woman susceptible to the serpent’s wiles? Perhaps God is the one who should remain silent and submissive.
2:15 The theological implications of this statement are rather bizarre, but here we learn that a woman can be saved by bearing children, but only if she also continues in faith, and love, and holiness, with sound judgment. This verse has been subject to much commentary, but “the simplest and probably the best interpretation is that woman’s salvation depends upon her devotion to the purpose for which she was created, viz., to bear children, and of course upon her faithfulness to a chaste Christian life. Her divinely ordained place is in the home; her function, the bearing and rearing of children.” (The Interpreter’s Bible, vol.11, p.407.) We should, of course, expect nothing else from an ancient society whose notions of gender were profoundly different from our own. But it is dishonest for liberal Christians to profess the faith while ignoring such teachings, or modifying them to suit modern preferences.
3:1 “The saying is true.” But which saying? Does this statement go with 2:15 or with 3:1? There is no way to tell. Such ambiguities create difficulties for those who claim the Bible to be the inerrant word of God. How can it be inerrant if we can’t tell for sure what it says?
3:2 Ambiguity also attends the use of the term translated as “bishop.” The Greek episkopos has as its basic meaning “administrator,” or “overseer.” It eventually came to signify a specific office within the church hierarchy, but whether it had come to mean such an office at the time 1 Timothy was written is unknown, because the date of the letter is uncertain. The later the letter is dated (e.g., 120-130 A.D.) the more likely that a specific church office is meant.
3:3-5 These qualities of a successful bishop might apply generally to any position of responsibility. Indeed, they would seem to describe a respectable bourgeois gentleman of any era. But how is he going to keep his children “submissive” when Jesus himself came to set children against their father? (Matthew 10:35-36)
In verse 5, the word for “church” has no definite article in Greek, and neither does “God.” Thus, the literal translation is “a church of God,” not “the church of God.”
3:7 In a sign that the author has completely sold out the revolutionary teaching of Jesus for the respectability of pagan society, he teaches that bishops must be well thought of by outsiders. Even Paul conceded on this point. (“Give no offense either to Jews or to Gentiles.” 1 Corinthians 10:32) Possibly such concessions allowed the early church to avoid being wiped out by imperial persecution. But if Christianity was indeed the true faith backed by God, why would it need to win the respect and tolerance of non-Christians in order to survive?
3:9 The qualifications for deacon are similar to those required for the bishop. However, as a qualification for bishop the author did not say that he must “hold the mystery of the faith with a pure conscience.” But in Titus 1:9 this requirement of doctrinal orthodoxy is explicitly stated for bishops as well.
3:11 The “women” referred to are not women in general, but women in the position of deacons (as for example, Phoebe, whom Paul mentions in Romans 16:1), or perhaps the wives of deacons. The latter interpretation is taken by the NIV, KJV and by Martin Luther in his translation. RSV and NASB have “women” without explicitly identifying them as wives. Again, the cause of the uncertainty is the ambiguity of the Bible itself, which ill fits the idea of an inerrant, divinely inspired work of divine guidance.
In none of this advice is there even the remotest hint that Jesus may appear at any moment and render all these directives moot. The immediacy of Christ’s return is completely absent, unlike in Paul’s letters where we read that “the day is at hand” (Romans 13:11-12), and that “the ends of the world have come” (1 Corinthians 10:11), and that “the time is short” (1 Corinthians 7:29).
3:15 Once again, “Paul” gives advice to Timothy that a close associate would already be expected to know. Can we really believe that Timothy, who had worked with Paul throughout his missionary travels, would need to be instructed on “how one should behave in the house of God”? The TIB considers verses 14 and 15 to be a “literary fiction.” (The Interpreter’s Bible, vol.11, p.419.) But a literary fiction is nonetheless a fiction, and undermines yet again any notion that the books of the New Testament represent the inerrant word of God.
4:1 It is clear that the author believes he and his readers are living in these “later times” during which “some shall depart from the faith” due to the teaching of deceitful spirits and devilish doctrines. In v.7 he urges his readers to have nothing to do with such silliness, showing that the “later times” is not meant to apply to some far-off generation, but to those to whom he is writing. This is another instance where an early Christian writer mistakenly thought he was living in the last times, at the end of history, when in fact history has rolled along its merry way for another 2000 years. The author of 1 John makes the same mistake when he writes that “it is the last hour.” (1 John 2:18)
There is no place in the Old or New Testament writings where the holy spirit “expressly” predicts that some Christians will fall away from the faith. The idea that false prophets will arise in the end times is common enough. E.g., Jesus himself says as much in Mark 13:22. But there is no passage where the falling away of believers is “expressly” attributed to the holy spirit.
4:3 Those who forbid marriage and who preach abstinence from certain foods (as the Old Testament required) are classified as “liars” who follow devilish doctrines. This comes very close to condemning the teaching of Paul, who did not go so far as to forbid marriage, but certainly counseled against it in 1 Corinthians 7:8. And Paul would also be among those who taught abstinence from certain foods, as in Romans 14:21 (“It is good not to eat meat or to drink wine.”) It is true that Paul arrives at this conclusion by a different line of reasoning than the ancient Hebrews who were told by God that certain foods were unclean, but Paul nonetheless preaches abstinence, which is a sign of false teachers, according to the standard here in 1 Timothy.
4:4 “Each thing created by God is good.” This leads the Christians into a logical dilemma, which can be demonstrated by a formal syllogism. The premises are: 1) God is the creator of everything which exists (Jeremiah 10:16; Psalm 146:6; Ecclesiastes 11:5; John 1:3); and 2) Each thing created by God is good. (1 Timothy 4:4) Therefore, everything which exists is good. However, some things are not good. (Genesis 6:5; 1 John 3:8; 5:19); Therefore, we conclude that the premises are not true. Either God did not create everything which exists, or not everything created by God is good. Either way, the Bible contradicts itself. But even worse for the Christians is that the syllogism leads to theologically unpleasant conclusions. If God did not create everything, then he is diminished in stature, and must contend with other independent forces (e.g., the evil one) for control of the world. And if not everything created by God is good, then God is the author of evil. There is no good news for the Christians in this line of reasoning.
4:8 The author acknowledges that bodily training has “some value,” but he does not encourage his readers to pursue it as he does for training in godliness.
4:10 Unlike 2:4, which merely says that God “desires” all men to be saved, 4:10 expressly says that God is the savior of all men, and “especially” (but not exclusively) of those who believe. Thus, the author expresses a universalism that is not present in other passages of the New Testament. (E.g., Matthew 25:46; 2 Thessalonians 1:8-9)
4:14 The specific gift which “Timothy” possesses is not identified, but he received it by the laying on of hands from the elders. Paul also lists a variety of gifts that are granted to the Christians (e.g., the gift of healing, or of prophecy, or of tongues, etc.), but in his description the Spirit seems to bestow these directly on the recipients, without any intervention through the hands of elders. (1 Corinthians 12:1-11)
5:1 Assuming that 1 Timothy is a letter to a church leader (pastor) from a higher official, this section introduces a series of principles which guide the pastor’s interactions with various groups in the congregation. As the TIB notes, the advice is not original with the author, or with Christianity: “The parallel with Plato is striking, ‘He [the Guardian] must regard everyone whom he meets as brother or sister, father or mother, son or daughter, grandchild or grandparent” (Republic V. 463C).” (The Interpreter’s Bible, vol.11, p.434.)
5:3 Not every woman who loses her husband is to be considered as a “real widow” eligible for support from the church. Those who have children or other relatives are expected to get support from their families. The eligibility of widows for church support was the cause of the dispute between the Hebrew and Hellenistic factions of the early church, as described in Acts 6:1.
5:8 At various places in the New Testament, additional conditions for salvation crop up that seem quite idiosyncratic. Nevertheless, the teaching here is clear: Anyone who does not provide for his own relatives (including those outside his immediate family), has “denied the faith, and is worse than an unbeliever.” Thus, the universality of such salvation formulas as John 3:16; Acts 16:31; and Romans 10:9 is called into question by this additional condition.
5:9 “Enrolled widows are Christian workers whose qualifications are detailed; they pledge themselves to the service of Christ.” (The New Oxford Annotated Bible, 1973 ed., p.1443.)
5:11-13 Young widows are idlers and gossips, and unfit for service to the church.
5:14 The author advises younger widows to marry. He has already dismissed the whole group as untrustworthy, whereas Paul seems to allow the choice to depend on the individual. Paul advises those widows who cannot practice self control to marry, but for the others it is best to remain unmarried. (1 Corinthians 7:8-9)
5:15 It would appear that straying after Satan is a particular weakness of young widows, to which older widows, and indeed all other individuals, are apparently immune.
5:17-18 These verses support the notion of merit pay for those elders who rule well. It is clear that “double honor” means “double pay,” because of the scriptures which are quoted in support. (These are from Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7.) This advice is another indication that the letter was written at a relatively late date, when the organizational structure of the church was more developed than in the early days when informal gatherings in a believer’s house were the norm.
5:19 This legal principle is from ancient Hebrew law (e.g., Deuteronomy 19:15), where it has general applicability, and is not specifically directed at elders.
5:20 This advice on how to handle sinful behavior among the congregation omits two previous steps which Jesus taught. In Matthew 18:15-17, Jesus decreed that a brother who sins should first be shown his error in private, and if that has no effect, one or two more should confront him, before bringing the matter to the whole congregation. Here in 1 Timothy, the advice is to rebuke the sinner in the presence of all, as an example to the others.
5:23 As we have already noted, Paul taught that “it is good neither to eat meat nor drink wine” (Romans 14:21), in contrast to the advice given here. However, Jesus at least by implication approved the consumption of wine when he turned the water into wine in John 2:3-9. Other passages oppose the excessive use of wine (Ephesians 5:18; Titus 1:7; 2:3) but do not forbid it entirely. Note that the advice here in 1 Timothy is based on wine’s supposed medicinal properties.
6:1-2 This is one of the numerous references to slavery in the New Testament (others are Titus 2:9-10; Ephesians 6:5-9; Colossians 3:22-25; 1 Peter 2:18-20). The emphasis is always on the duty of the slave to be obedient, submissive, and respectful toward the master. Nowhere in the entire Bible is there any hint that the institution of slavery is in any way contrary to God’s will. Apologists will point out that the lot of a typical slave in ancient Rome was not as severe as that of black slaves in the southern U.S., but that didn’t stop southerners from quoting scripture in defense of their “peculiar institution.” See for example the pamphlet “A Scriptural View of Slavery,” by the Rev. Thornton Stringfellow, a Baptist minister in Culpeper County, Virginia. Extensive selections from this work can be found in Slavery Defended: The Views of The Old South, edited by Eric L. McKitrick (Prentice-Hall, 1963), pp. 86-98. These verses from 1 Timothy are referred to on p.97.
6:3 The words of Jesus Christ are invoked in support of “these duties” of slaves, but the words are not quoted. We do not know what source the author may have used for the words of Jesus on this topic, but the author’s position is nevertheless clear that any teaching which opposes these instructions on slavery also opposes the teaching of Jesus Christ himself, which conforms to “godliness.”
6:4-5 The author now berates those who do teach otherwise – i.e., those who oppose the instructions on slavery that opened this chapter. He calls them names, but does not give any indication of what their teaching actually was. Might there have been teachers among the early Christians who opposed the institution of slavery? If there were, then they were “men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth.”
6:8 To be content with basic necessities such as food and clothing is “the very essence of Stoicism.” (The Interpreter’s Bible, vol.11, p.451, quoting Burton S. Easton, The Pastoral Epistles, Scribner’s, 1947). We often find that the alleged moral excellence of the Christians is borrowed from other, non-Christian, traditions.
6:10 “The love of money is the root of all evil” is a well-known saying, but finds contradiction within the Bible. It turns out that evil existed before money arrived on the scene, as we are told in 1 John 3:12 that Cain, the son of Adam and Eve, already belonged to the evil one when he killed his brother Abel. We cannot imagine that Cain’s actions were the result of his love of money. An economy consisting of only four people would hardly have any need for money as a medium of exchange. Note also that it is not money itself that is said to be the root of all evil, but the love of money.
The author already has insisted that bishops not be lovers of money (3:3), although he omits this requirement when describing the qualifications of deacons (3:8-10).
6:13 This oath calls upon Christ Jesus who “testified the good confession before Pontius Pilate.” The problem here is that Jesus did not testify anything before Pontius Pilate. The claim of Jesus’s testimony before Pilate “does not fit neatly with any of our gospel accounts.” (The Oxford Bible Commentary, p.1227) The gospels of both Matthew and Mark report that Jesus evaded Pilate’s question about being king of the Jews, and did not answer to even a single charge before Pilate (Matthew 27:11-14; Mark 15:2-5). No testimony is recorded in Luke’s gospel either. And the philosophical repartee between Jesus and Pilate in John’s gospel (John 18:33-38) can hardly be called a confession of any type of belief at all. Even though Jesus tells Pilate that he came into the world to “bear witness to the truth,” he does not do so in this exchange with Pilate as recorded in John’s gospel. Thus, the claim here by the author of 1 Timothy contradicts the gospel record on Jesus’s testimony (or lack thereof) before Pilate.
6:14 The author at least gives lip service to the expectation that Jesus Christ will someday re-appear, although there is no urgency in his words. If Jesus’s return were expected soon, there would be no point in giving such an elaborate list of behavioral rules for church officials as we find in this letter.
6:15-16 The appearance of Jesus Christ is to be made manifest by “the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords,” but the author goes on to make the claim that no man has ever seen this King of Kings, or Lord of Lords. He can only be referring either to God or Jesus, yet the Bible records instances where both were seen. Jesus, of course, was followed around by crowds wherever he went, so there can be no doubt that he was seen by many. God, too, was seen by various people, according to Exodus 24:11; Isaiah 6:1; and 1 Kings 22:19. And Jesus also said that “He who sees me sees him who sent me.” (John 12:45) So whether the author of 1 Timothy means God or Jesus, he is contradicted by other passages in the Bible on the question of whether any man has ever seen either of them.
6:17-19 This advice to the rich is very much watered down from Jesus’s own teaching. The author of 1 Timothy neglects to remind the rich that “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” (Matthew 19:24) Jesus also instructed a rich young man that in order to inherit eternal life, he had to sell all his possessions and give the proceeds to the poor. (Mark 10:17-21) The advice here to “do good” and be generous would no doubt be well-received by the rich Christians of the era in which 1 Timothy was written, unlike the rich young man in Mark’s tale, who was much saddened at Jesus’s advice, and went away grieving.
6:20 That which is falsely called “knowledge” (Greek gnosis) may be a clue that the false teachers targeted in this letter are Gnostics, an early Christian sect whose members believed that salvation comes through knowledge – specifically the knowledge of divine mysteries that only a few people possess the ability to fully understand. For more on the Gnostics, see “Gnosticism” in the Catholic Encyclopedia online.