The False Teachings Censured
Because of the content of 3:14–16—the statement of purpose climaxed by the hymn—it is easy to think of chapter 3 as bringing us to some kind of conclusion, or major break, in the middle of the letter. But to view 3:14–16 that way is to miss the very close tie between chapter 4 and what has preceded.
Paul is about to elaborate in some detail upon the two matters expressed in the charge in chapter 1: the nature of the errors of the false teachers (4:1–5; cf. 1:3–11, 19–20) and Timothy’s role in Ephesus (4:6–16; cf. 1:18–19). The intervening instructions of chapters 2–3, on “what kind of conduct befits a member of God’s household,” are themselves to be understood against the backdrop of the teachings and activities of the straying elders. Now, in 4:1–5, Paul returns to these teachers. First, he says that their emergence should have come as no surprise—the Spirit clearly forewarned about them; second, he indicates that the true source of their teaching is demonic; and third, he gives some specifics of their errors and the reasons why they are errors.
4:1–2 This paragraph is joined to 3:14–16 by the conjunction de (untranslated in NIV), which could mean “now” (as KJV, meaning “to move on to the next matter”) or “however,” The latter seems preferable. In 3:15–16 Paul declared that the church has been entrusted with the truth—the truth we sing about Christ. “However,” he goes on, the Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith [i.e., the truth].
But who are these some [people]? In this case—and surely this is the great urgency of the letter—they are not the false teachers themselves but the members of “God’s household” (3:15), who are being led astray by the hypocritical liars (the false teachers) of verse 2. Note how this same concern is expressed in 2 Timothy 2:16–18; 3:13; and 4:3–4.
We are not told how the Spirit clearly says. Such a formula is never used by Paul when referring to the OT. But whether this refers to the prophetic Spirit’s having spoken in the church (as Barrett) or to the Spirit speaking to Paul as he writes (or earlier, as in Acts 20) cannot be known. In any case, Paul sees the present “apostasy” (he has here used the verb form of apostasia, “rebellion, falling away”) as something the Spirit has plainly announced beforehand.
In later times refers to their present situation. The early church had long before seen the advent of the Spirit as the beginning of the End. Paul himself believed, and belonged to a tradition that believed, that the End would be accompanied by a time of intense evil (cf. 2 Thess. 2:3–12), including a “falling away” of some of the people of God (see 2 Tim. 3:1; cf. Matt. 24:12; Jude 17–18; 2 Pet. 3:3–7). Thus the present scene was clear evidence for Paul of their living in the later times (the time of the End).
What had only been hinted at before (2:14; 3:6–7) is now boldly stated. The ultimate source of the false teachings is Satan himself. The deceiving spirits and things taught by demons, which some will follow, probably refer to the same reality—the demonic nature of teaching that opposes the gospel (cf. 2 Cor. 4:4; 11:3, 13–14).
That such teachings come through hypocritical liars is a particularly strong indictment against the false teachers. Not only are their teachings demonic in nature, but they themselves are liars (lit., “speakers of falsehood”). The translation liar could be somewhat misleading, since it implies a deliberate attempt to state as fact what one knows not to be true. The Greek word implies simply that they are saying things about the gospel that are not true; that is, they are speaking falsehood rather than truth. These “lies” are furthered by hypocritical means, implying that they are outwardly false and therefore that their abstinence in verse 3 is mere pretense or outward show.
Finally, they are characterized as men whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. Paul’s Greek is not all that clear. The implication of the NIV (also RSV, GNB, NAB) is that they have had the seat of their moral judgments totally seared (we get the word cauterized from this verb); thus they are unable to discern truth from falsehood. But it is equally possible that he intends to suggest that their consciences carry Satan’s brand (as NEB, Bernard, Kelly). This seems more in keeping with the context. By teaching in the guise of truth what is actually false, they have been branded by Satan as belonging to him and doing his will.
4:3a As illustrations of the “things taught by demons” that “come through hypocritical liars,” Paul mentions two items: They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods. These catch us a bit by surprise, although they are perhaps related to these men “wanting to be teachers of the Law” (1:7). It is not altogether easy to see how these items relate to the “myths and wearisome genealogies” of 1:4 or the teaching that “the resurrection has already taken place” (2 Tim. 2:18). Some kind of asceticism, perhaps similar to that in Colossae (Col. 2:16–23), is probably involved. This may have also been mixed with a kind of over-realized eschatology (that the End had not just begun, but had arrived in fullness; cf. 2 Thess. 2:1–2; 1 Cor. 15:12). In Corinth this kind of view about the End was apparently linked to Hellenistic dualism, which believed matter to be corrupt, or evil, and only spirit to be good. Just as some Corinthians denied a future bodily resurrection (1 Cor. 15:12, 35), and some at least took a dim view of sex (7:1–7) and marriage (7:25–38), it is altogether likely that something very much like that is being given out as “Law” in Ephesus. Hence the road to purity was marked off for them through abstaining from marriage (to be like the angels after the resurrection [Matt. 22:30]?) and from certain foods. (See the Introduction, pp. 7–10, for further discussion.)
We have already noted (2:8–15) how this teaching that forbids people to marry had probably affected some of the women in Ephesus (cf. 5:6, 11–15). For the rest of this paragraph, Paul will respond only to the prohibition against certain foods.
4:3b–5 Paul has had to contend with the matter of eating or not eating certain foods several times before—in 1 Corinthians 10:23–33; Romans 14:1–23; Colossians 2:16, 21. Each of these situations was different, thus accounting for what appears to have been some ambivalence on his part. However, some consistent guidelines emerge: Food is a matter of indifference; therefore, one mayor may not partake as one wishes. However, one who abstains may not judge the one who partakes (Rom. 14:3, 10; 1 Cor. 10:29–30), and when one goes beyond mere “judging” to demanding abstinence for religious or theological reasons, as in Colossians 2, Paul comes out fighting. One may do as one wishes before God, but one may not impose those “wishes” as regulations for others to follow. The response here combines some things said in 1 Corinthians 10:25–26 and 29–30 within a context of anti-abstinence polemic similar to Colossians 2:16 and 21–23.
The reasons given for Paul’s anti-abstinence stance are basically twofold—repeated and elaborated several times: God created those foods … to be received; and they are received (lit., “shared in,” “partaken of”) with thanksgiving by those who believe.
The first point speaks directly against any form of dualism that would impute impurity, ritual or ethical (although the context is ritual here), to any created thing (see also Titus 1:14–16). God created those foods—those rejected by the false teachers, but by implication, all foods—to be partaken of by those who believe and who know the truth (for this combination, cf. Titus 1:1). Those who believe the gospel are freed from the food laws (cf. Mark 7:19; Acts 10:9–16). One reason for this is an appeal to a repeated motif in Genesis 1—everything created is good. That is, the very fact that God created something has inherent in it the fact of its goodness. Therefore, nothing is to be rejected, implying rejection for reasons of ritual uncleanness (cf. Rom. 14:14: “Nothing is unclean of itself”).
The second reason appeals to the common fact that a benediction, or thanksgiving, always accompanied meals in Judaism and the early church. This is evidenced both in the Gospels (Mark 6:41; 8:6; 14:22–23 and synoptic parallels; Luke 24:30) and in Paul (1 Cor. 10:30; Rom. 14:6). Indeed by the second century in Judaism, “it is forbidden a man to enjoy anything of this world without a benediction” (Babylonian Talmud, Berakoth 35a). Paul’s point is the same as in 1 Corinthians 10:30: How can one condemn another for eating that for which the thanksgiving has been offered? Implied in this is not that the prayer in itself consecrates it, but that the prayer of thanksgiving has inherent in it the recognition of God’s prior creative action. It is thus the believer’s response to God as creator, and the word of God and prayer together consecrate it (lit., “sanctify it,” keeping the ritual imagery).
There has been considerable debate as to what the word of God means in verse 5. Many see it as referring to the words of the OT often used in the thanksgiving prayer (e.g., Ps. 24:1, used by Paul in his argument in 1 Cor. 10:25–26). However, Paul does not use the term word of God to refer to the OT as an objective, inscripturated reality. In the PE, the word of God invariably refers to the gospel message (2 Tim. 2:19; Titus 1:3; 2:5; cf. 1 Tim. 5:17; 2 Tim. 2:15; 4:2). If that is the case here then it reflects the idea of believers’ having come to know the truth (v. 3) that in Christ there are no food laws. On the other hand, it may (perhaps more likely in the context) refer to the word God spoke in Genesis 1 that declared everything created by God to be good, not referring to an OT text per se but to the fact of God’s having declared all food good.
Abstinence, therefore, has nothing to do with the gospel; mandatory abstinence from marriage or foods is ultimately the teaching of demons, and the church in Ephesus is not to be deceived thereby.
Additional Notes
4:1–2 The fact that early Christians understood themselves to be living in later times, at the time of the End, often perplexes twentieth-century Christians. But one must be careful not to overstress the idea of “imminence”—although it may well often have been there. Rather, living in later times has to do with a new understanding of existence. The End has already begun; believers are to be the people of the Future in the present age, even though the consummation of what has begun still lies in the Future. Thus Christian existence always belongs to the later times, already begun with the advent of the Spirit. For an overview of this framework of understanding in Paul, see, e.g., G. E. Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, pp. 360–75.
4:3a For the possibility that the heresy involved a form of “over-realized eschatology,” see W. L. Lane, “I Tim. iv 1–3. An Early Instance of Over-realized Eschatology?”
4:3b–5 There are at least three other interpretations of the word of God in this sentence, including the possibility that the prayer itself functioned as God’s word, that it meant a word of blessing from God in response to the prayer (Hendriksen), or that it referred, in a most circuitous way, to the bread and wine of the Eucharist (Hanson).
Timothy’s Personal Responsibilities
Paul turns at last to say some things to Timothy personally, things we might have expected much earlier in the letter, given the address (1:2) and the charge with which it began (1:3, 18–19a). But even here, these matters are subordinated to the main concern of the letter.
The instructions in the first paragraph (vv. 6–10) are clearly given vis-à-vis the false teachers. In contrast to these false teachers, who have been deceived by Satan and in turn are deceiving others, Timothy must guard his own life and the teaching of the truth with great care. The appeal is for Timothy personally, that he not get caught up in their godless myths, but rather train himself for true godliness (v. 7). This latter is an athletic metaphor that Paul then typically exploits to further advantage.
But the second paragraph (vv. 11–16), though filled with personal matters, makes it plain that Paul thereby wants Timothy to function as a model (vv. 12, 15), both for godly living (v. 12) and for ministry (vv. 13–14)—all for the sake of his hearers (vv. 15–16).
4:6 The first paragraph begins by gathering up what has been said from 2:1 to 4:5 and urging Timothy to point these things out to the brothers. The brothers, of course, means not the church leaders, but as always in Paul, the church community as a family of brothers and sisters (cf., e.g., Phil. 4:1, which moves on in v. 2 to address some of the sisters). By pointing these things out to the church Timothy will fulfill his own ministry as a good minister (diakonos, better “servant,” see disc. on 3:8) of Christ Jesus. The first concern, then, as throughout, is for the church in Ephesus.
But Paul then elaborates for Timothy’s sake—without losing sight of the church—what it means for him to be a good servant. The participle that follows is a metaphor from child rearing, having to do with nurturing (training or nourishing). By translating it in the past tense, brought up in, the NIV quite deflects Paul’s point. “Brought up” implies that Paul is reminding Timothy of his youthful training (cf. NEB “bred”), whereas Paul’s present participle intends something concurrent with the main verb, “you will be.” Thus Paul’s concern is with Timothy’s continuing to nourish himself (cf. GNB “feed yourself spiritually”), so that he will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, as he points these things out to the brothers and sisters. The source of such spiritual nourishment is the truths (lit. “words”) of the faith and of the good teaching. By “words” of the faith Paul clearly means the content of the gospel; but it is not quite so clear whether the good teaching also refers to the gospel, or to the correct use of Scripture (as in 2 Tim. 3:14–16). In either case, this appeal includes a reminder of Timothy’s long association with Paul: the teaching that you have always followed (cf. 2 Tim. 1:13; 2:2; 3:10). (The gist of this sentence will be repeated with more detail in 2 Tim. 3:14–16.)
4:7–8 Almost as a reflex action, Paul’s mentioning the good teaching calls forth a contrast with the bad kind. Indeed, his own word order, with the imperative coming last, serves to highlight the contrast. “But (Gk. de, untranslated in the NIV) godless myths and old wives’ tales, have nothing to do with.” For myths, see discussion on 1:4. Here they are characterized as godless, meaning profane in the sense of being radically opposite to what is sacred, and as coming from old wives’ tales, a sarcastic expression often used in philosophical polemic comparing an opponent’s position to the tales perpetuated by the older women of those cultures as they would sit around weaving and the like.
In contrast to godless myths and old wives’ tales, which promote speculations and have nothing to do with genuine godliness (eusebeia), Paul urges Timothy to give himself vigorously to the latter. In doing so he changes metaphors—from child rearing (v. 6) to athletics: Train yourself (gymnaze) for eusebeia (to be godly). Paul’s point is that, like the athlete, Timothy should keep himself in vigorous training for the practice of genuine godliness, understood here as both the content of the truth and its visible expression in correct behavior (see disc. on 2:2 and 3:16).
Having used the metaphor of physical training, Paul, in typical fashion, pauses to reflect on the metaphor itself for a moment. There is another kind of training, he says, physical training (gymnasia), which is of some value. This statement has been the cause of some puzzlement. Is Paul herewith trying to encourage Timothy to take a little physical exercise? Almost certainly not. Such a concern is irrelevant to the context and quite beside the point. What, then? Most likely the reason for it lies with the metaphor itself. Having just urged gymnaze (train yourself) for eusebeia (godliness), Paul now picks up both ends of that imperative, and with perfectly balanced sentences presses home the reason for Timothy’s training himself in godliness. Paul will allow that physical training (gymnasia) is of some value, a value, however, that is limited strictly to this age. But he says that only to set up his real concern. Eusebeia (godliness) is where the real value lies. Indeed, it has value for all things (better, “in every way”), because it holds promise for life, both the present life and the life to come. (The idea of godliness as holding promise of life is reiterated in Titus 1:2.) Here is a clear reference to Paul’s understanding of Christian existence as basically eschatological. Life, which means “eternal life” (see 1:16), has already begun. The life of the future is therefore both a present reality and a hope of life to come. (See further the note on 4:1.)
Paul’s argument has strayed a bit, but not without purpose. The word eusebeia (“true godliness”) is used throughout 1 Timothy to express genuine Christian faith—the truth and its visible expression. It is this quality that the false teachers lack. Thus “godliness,” though contrasted with physical training, really stands in contrast to the godless myths, precisely because it has to do with life, both present and future.
4:9 This is the third time (cf. 1:15; 3:1) we meet the trustworthy saying formula, in this instance exactly as it is in 1:15, with the addition of that deserves full acceptance. But what is the saying? Four options have been suggested: (1) What immediately follows in verse 10 (NEB): “With this before us we labour and struggle, because we have set our hope on the living God, who is the Saviour of all men.” (2) The second half of verse 10 (NIV): “We have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe.” (3) All of verse 8, with the balanced pairs of physical training and godliness (Barrett, Knight). (4) The second part of verse 8: “Godliness is profitable in every way, because it promises life both for the present and the future” (NAB, Kelly).
For several reasons the fourth seems by far the best option. First, as we shall see, verse 10 is not an independent saying but a further reflection on verse 8b, and gramatically totally dependent on it. Second, even though verse 8 starts with balanced pairs, the point is only in the second part. The first part, as we have seen, comes about because of what has been said in verse 7 and exists strictly to set up a contrast for what follows in 8b. Third, verse 8b has the epigrammatic nature of a saying, and that alone is what verse 10 will go on to elaborate.
4:10 In order to make the second part of this verse the trustworthy saying, the NIV runs rather roughshod over Paul’s own perfectly meaningful Greek, which needs no parenthesis. The verse is tied to v. 9 with a “for” (translated “and” in NIV, for which there is no known precedent), thus intending what follows to be further elaboration in terms of their ministry as to why this trustworthy saying “deserves full acceptance.” The words for this (reason) refer to the promise of life found in godliness (v. 8b). Thus the sentences are tied together as follows:
(1) v. 8b, the faithful saying itself, with its emphasis on eusebeia promising life both for now and the future;
(2) v. 9, the declaration that this (referring to 8b) is in fact a trustworthy saying;
(3) v. 10, “For” (referring to v. 9, that the content of 8b is a trustworthy saying) “for this reason” (referring to the promise of life both for now and the future), we labor and strive.
The two verbs, labor and strive, occur frequently in Paul and refer to his and others’ ministries (cf. Col. 1:29, where they also occur together). The first verb, we labor, has to do with engaging in athletic contests (see disc. on 6:12; cf. 2 Tim. 4:7; 1 Cor 9:25) and thus continues the athletic metaphor begun in verse 7. The verb strive is more frequent; it occurs again in 5:17 regarding the teaching ministry of the elders.
What the NIV translates as “that” (following its parenthesis) should in fact be translated “because.” Thus Paul concludes the paragraph by giving further elaboration of the trustworthy saying of 8b, while at the same time picking up several earlier themes in the letter. For this, the present and future life that godliness promises, we “contest” and strive, because (or “in that”) we have put our hope in the living God, who alone can give life now and to come. Our hope rests in him, because he is the Savior of all men, that is, he would save (give life to) all people (see disc. on 2:4–6), but his salvation is in fact effective especially for those who believe. This latter addition makes it clear that the universal scope of salvation argued for so strongly in 2:4–6 is not at the same time an expression of universalism.
This paragraph, therefore, that began as a word to Timothy vis-à-vis false teachers moves by way of these contrasts to an exhortation to discipline himself in true godliness and concludes by telling him why: The result is life, now and forever, not only for those of us who have put our hope in the living God, but for all those who will believe (cf. 1:16).
The next paragraph (vv. 11–16) returns to Paul’s personal concern for Timothy, both his life and ministry, but does so in the context of his relationship to the church. The paragraph is a string of ten imperatives (commands), whose content is summarized in verse 16: Watch your life (v. 12) and “teaching” (vv. 13–14), for by so doing, you will save both yourself and your hearers (vv. 11–12, 15).
4:11 Paul begins by reminding Timothy that the pursuit of true godliness with its promise of life is not just for him but for the church as well. Command (the same verb as the “charge” in 1:3, 5, 18) and teach these things (at least vv. 8–10; perhaps everything from 2:1; cf. 4:6). Note how this charge is repeated throughout (5:7; 6:2b; 2 Tim. 2:2, 14; Titus 2:15).
4:12 We now discover what is probably a hidden agenda that made it necessary for Paul to write this letter—Timothy’s youthfulness. To say, don’t let anyone look down on you because you are young, is very likely two-edged. It is first of all a word of encouragement to Timothy, because he was in fact a younger man (thirty to thirty-five)—and perhaps timid (cf. 1 Cor. 16:10–11; 2 Tim. 1:6ff.). In a culture where “elders” were highly regarded, and in a church where the elders would have been older than he, this is not an insignificant encouragement. But for the same reasons, it is likewise a word to the community, to let them know that, despite his youth, he has Paul’s own authority to command and teach these things (v. 11).
On the contrary, not only are they not to look down on him because he is young, but they are to “look up” to him. He is to set (lit., “become”) an example for the believers. That the people of God are to learn Christian ethics by modeling after the apostolic example is a thoroughgoing, and crucial, Pauline concept (see 1 Thess. 1:6; 2 Thess. 3:7, 9; 1 Cor. 4:6; 11:1; Phil. 3:17; cf. 2 Tim. 1:13).
The virtues Timothy is to model for them are those that some scholars have felt to be missing in the list of qualifications for church leadership (see note on 3:2). But even here they stand in contrast to the conduct of the false teachers: in speech (not involved in arguments; cf. this virtue in Col. 3:8; 4:5–6); in life (better, “conduct,” the broad term for behavior and a favorite of 1 Peter); in love, in faith (which the false teachers have abandoned; 1:5–6); and in purity (the real thing, in contrast to their false asceticism; cf. 5:22–23).
4:13–14 From instructions regarding personal conduct, Paul turns to Timothy’s ministry while in Ephesus. Until Paul himself arrives back on the scene (cf. 3:14), Timothy is to devote himself to the public reading of Scripture, to preaching and to teaching. Many are tempted to see here a kind of pattern of public worship, modeled after the synagogue. Although this certainly refers to what Timothy is to do in public worship, it is too narrow a view to see this as intending to provide a model. We know from other sources that public worship included prayers (2:1–7; 1 Cor. 11:2–16), singing (Col. 3:16; 1 Cor. 14:26; cf. 1 Tim. 3:16), charismatic utterances (1 Thess. 5:19–22; 1 Cor. 11:2–16; 12–14), and the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11:17–34).
Rather than providing an example of the pastor’s specific duties in worship, these three items basically refer to the same thing—the reading, exhortation, and exposition of Scripture—and as such are to be Timothy’s positive way of counteracting the erroneous teachings (cf. 2 Tim. 3:14–17). The last two words, preaching and teaching, are repeated as imperatives in 6:2b about what Timothy is to do with the contents of this letter.
The next imperative, do not neglect your gift (lit. “do not neglect the gift that is in you”), follows naturally out of verse 13. The word gift [charisma] means something like “gracious endowment”; because in Paul there is frequently a close tie (as here) between charisma and “Spirit” (cf. 1 Cor. 1:7; 12:4, 31; Rom. 1:11), the word is frequently translated “spiritual gift” (as NASB, GNB here). In this case the gift “that is in him” almost certainly has to do with his calling and gift for ministry as a preacher/teacher of the Word. It is precisely through his role as preacher/teacher that he is to overcome the influence of error, a point made even more clearly in 2 Timothy (1:13–14; 2:15; 2:24–26; 3:14–4:5). But Timothy must ultimately rely on the Holy Spirit, who, as 2 Timothy 1:6–7 and 14 make plain, is the source of the gift he is not to neglect (amelei, “disregard,” or “not take care of”).
The gift for ministry, as in 1:18, is said to have been given through a prophetic message (cf. 1:18). In this instance, however, because of the broader concern for Timothy’s relationship to the community, Paul adds that the giving of the gift through prophetic utterances was “accompanied by” (the Greek meta means “with,” not “when” as the NIV or “through” as the NEB) the laying on of the hands of the body of elders (lit., “the presbytery”). The precise relationship of the three elements (Timothy’s spiritual gift, the prophecies, and the laying on of hands) is not altogether clear and is ambiguous in the NT itself. The background for such laying on of hands is found in the OT (Deut. 34:9; cf. Num. 27:18–23) and appears in contemporary Judaism. The most probable analogy, however, is to be found in Acts 13:1–3, where the Spirit speaks (v. 2), apparently through the prophets (v. 1), in response to which the prophets and teachers lay on hands in some form of consecration. In any case, the evidence there and elsewhere (2 Tim. 1:6–7) indicates that the Spirit is the crucial matter; the laying on of hands, though not insignificant, is the human side (response) to the Spirit’s prior activity. It is probably something of an anachronism to refer to this event as an “ordination,” although the language surely reflects a concern to note the believing community’s recognition of Timothy’s ministry from the very beginning.
4:15–16 Paul now sums up the concerns of the previous verses: Be diligent in these matters; give yourself wholly to them. The first verb may mean “give your mind to” (cf. KJV, “meditate upon”), but it also frequently is used for “cultivating” or “practicing,” the latter thus picking up the athletic metaphor from verses 7–10.
The purpose for such practice and devotion to these matters is that everyone may see your progress. The evidence from 2 Timothy 2:16 and 3:9 suggests that progress was one of the slogans of the false teachers, perhaps as a kind of elitist appeal to those who wanted to “advance” into “deeper truths” by engaging in their speculative nonsense (see disc. on 1:3–4, 6–7; 6:20–21). If so, then this is a bold counterstatement to their kind of progress, which in 2 Timothy 2:16 is ironically labeled “progress in ungodliness [asebeia].” By Timothy’s being a faithful minister of the word of the gospel, the people will be able to see the real thing.
The final verse in the paragraph partly repeats the injunctions of verse 15, but it does so in such a way as to summarize the whole. The first two admonitions clarify the meaning of these matters in verse 15. Watch your life, Paul says, referring to his being an example for the believers (v. 12); and doctrine, (better, “teaching”; as in v. 13 the noun here emphasizes the act of teaching more than its content, although the latter is not excluded) referring to his ministry to them (vv. 13–14). So one more time Paul enjoins, persevere in them, because by so doing Timothy will save both himself, and especially his hearers. As in 2:15 above and 1 Corinthians 7:16, the language may not be theologically precise, but the meaning is clear. Salvation involves perseverance; and Timothy’s task in Ephesus is to model and teach the gospel in such a fashion that it will lead the church to perseverance in faith and love and hence to final, eschatological salvation. Thus both paragraphs in this section conclude with the great concern of the gospel—people’s salvation (cf. 1:15; 2:4–6; 4:10).
Additional Notes
4:6 Some see these things as limited to 4:1–5. But since the last personal charge to Timothy was in 1:18–20 and everything since then has been instruction for the church, the tauta (“these things”) logically includes the whole of 2:1–4:5.
The verb translated point out means “to set before” or “enjoin.” Some interpreters, enamored of its derivation from two words that mean “to lay under,” see a metaphorical reference to laying a foundation for the church. But such etymological understandings are seldom relevant at a later stage in a word’s use and are certainly irrelevant here.
4:7–8 For a similar use of “old-wives’ fables” in a polemical context, see Lucian, Lover of Lies 9: “Your stories still remain old wives’ fables.”
There has been a significant tradition of interpretation that sees physical training to be a metaphor in these sentences to refer to a degree of allowable asceticism (e.g., Bernard, Calvin, Easton): “the discipline of the body … to be practiced in moderation … is profitable for a little” (Bernard). But as Kelly says, “It … seems incredible that, after denouncing the sectaries’ asceticism as devilish, Paul should end up by conceding that physical mortification has a limited value” (p. 100). Indeed, the very use of such a metaphor more likely speaks directly against their extreme asceticism. See V. C. Pfitzner, Paul and the Agon Motif, pp. 171–77, although he, too, allows that “the verdict that it has little value does not amount to a complete negation of the necessity for self-denial and control over the body” (p. 174).
4:9 For a more detailed discussion of the problems with this saying, see G. W. Knight, The Faithful Sayings in the Pastoral Letters, although he argues for the third option.
4:10 The older versions (Latin and Syriac) and the majority of later Greek manuscripts have “we suffer reproach” for we labor. The variant probably arose from the ideas expressed in 2 Tim. 1:8, 12; 2:9–10. See Metzger, TCGNT, pp. 641–42.
Some interpreters (e.g., Calvin, Guthrie, Barrett) perceive theological difficulties with the final clause of this verse and suggest that Savior means “Preserver.” All are thus “preserved” by God, but only the believers obtain eschatological salvation. But this seems to miss the obvious tie to 2:4–6 and argues for a usage of Savior found nowhere else in the NT. God is the Savior of all in the same sense that Christ gave himself a ransom for all (2:6). Neither sentence suggests that all people will indeed be saved.
4:12 For a substantial collection of evidence that men in their thirties were often referred to as young, see the footnote in Bernard. That Timothy must have been thirty to thirty-five is based on the date of his joining Paul (ca. 49–50) and the date of this letter (ca. 62–64).
4:13–14 Because the singular “presbytery,” reflecting the elders as a body, seems awkward to some, it has been suggested that the genitive, “of the presbytery,” should be seen as a Greek rendering of a Hebrew term, thus producing “your ordination as an elder” (NEB margin). But this suggestion produces a most unnatural meaning of the Greek phrase, including a disregard of the definite article. It also seems to miss the point in context, which is not that Timothy was ordained an elder but that he received a spiritual gift through a prophetic message.
It is often argued that “ordination” is in view, on the basis of rabbinic ordination, which Paul, or the pseudonymous author, borrowed from Judaism. But the date of such ordinations, as well as their nature, is not very clear from the texts; and in any case, the crucial element here, the Spirit, is missing from the Jewish texts. For a discussion of “ordination” in early Judaism, see M. Warkentin, Ordination: A Biblical-Historical View, pp. 16–28.