A Testimony About the Gospel
This paragraph is so clearly a digression in the argument of the letter that it is easy to read it, or comment on it, apart from its immediate context. But to do so is to miss a large part of its significance. The whole paragraph flows directly out of the preceding one. First of all, it is a presentation of the “gospel” (v. 11) as a bold expression of God’s grace toward sinners. Even though it takes the form of personal testimony (note the eleven occurrences of I or me), the emphasis throughout is on God’s grace set forth in Christ, which in turn prompts the doxology in verse 17. As such, the paragraph stands in contrast with verses 8–10, where, although it is not expressly said, Paul has again shown the helplessness of the Law, which was said to exist for sinners. But the Law can only “keep them in check,” as it were; God’s grace brings with it faith and love and offers eternal life.
This affirmation of the gospel is made, however, in the form of personal testimony, flowing directly from the words “entrusted to me.” In sheer wonder at the grace lavished upon him, Paul puts himself forward as “Exhibit A” of such grace for all sinners. The testimony, too, serves as a contrast to the false teachers. Paul’s authority finally lies in the authentic nature of his gospel, as he both preached and experienced it.
1:12–13 Having mentioned the “gospel” that “was entrusted” to him, Paul does a natural thing for him—bursts into thanksgiving (cf. Rom. 6:17; 7:25; 1 Cor. 15:57; 2 Cor. 2:14; 8:16; 9:15). Although most of these thanksgivings are short, this one, very much like 2 Corinthians 2:14, expands into a personal word, reminding his hearers of his own relationship to the gospel (cf. 1 Cor. 15:9–10; 2 Cor. 2:14–7:4; Eph. 3:1–13).
It is unusual for Paul to direct his thanks to Christ, rather than to God, but this has been determined here by the qualifier who has given me strength (which precedes Christ Jesus in the Greek text). For Paul, this verb ordinarily refers to the work of Christ rather than to that of the Father (see Phil. 4:13; Eph. 6:10; 2 Tim. 2:1; 4:17). In saying that Christ has given me strength, Paul is not referring to his having received inward strength of some kind (as in Phil. 4:13). Rather, the verb refers to the “entrusting” in verse 11 and therefore might be better translated, “who enabled, or empowered, me” (cf. NEB: “made me equal to the task”). His gratitude also embraces two further realities: Christ considered me faithful, thus appointing me to his service. By considered me faithful (better, “trustworthy”; see note), Paul does not mean that he received appointment because God thought so highly of him—such an idea would contradict the whole passage—but that it is all the more amazing to him that God would ever entrust him with the gospel at all, as verses 13 and 14 make clear. To restate his point: “To think that he would consider me, of all people, worthy of this trust.” His appointment here, it must be noted, is referred to not as apostleship but as the work of a servant, to his service (diakonia, “service, ministry.” a Pauline favorite).
As in 1 Corinthians 15:9–10 and Galatians 1:13–16, passages very similar to this one, Paul’s understanding of his conversion and ministry as expressions of grace finds its focus in the vivid memory of his past. The wonder for him—and what thus magnifies God’s grace—is that Christ should ever have considered him at all (v. 12), since at the time of his call he actively was a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent man. This, of course, refers to his persecution of the church (Acts 8:3; 9:1–2; 22:4–5; 26:9–11). He not only denied Christ (“blasphemed”) but, by persecution and violence (cf. Gal. 1:13, “made havoc of it”), tried to force others to do the same, until finally he was himself arrested—by grace.
But I was shown mercy, he goes on, because I acted in ignorance and unbelief. At first blush, this sounds contradictory, as though he received mercy because he had it coming. But the whole paragraph indicates otherwise. Paul is here reflecting on the OT distinction between “unwitting” and “purposeful” sinning (e.g., Num. 15:22–31). His former conduct is not thereby less culpable or grotesque, but for Paul this distinction at least explains why he became an object of God’s compassion rather than his wrath.
1:14 Still caught up in the wonder of it all, Paul says it again, only this time the emphasis shifts from his ministry (vv. 11–12) to his actual conversion. Although stated with some unusual turns of phrase (e.g., our Lord [Christ Jesus] as the bestower of grace), the theology of this passage is thoroughly Pauline. Grace had been poured out on him abundantly, a grace that brought about both his faith and his love. For Paul, God’s is always the prior action. Faith is a response to grace (Rom. 3:23–25; Eph. 2:8), and faith acts in love (Gal. 5:6; cf. 1:5). Moreover, that faith and love are in Christ Jesus shows clearly that they are not human qualities but indications that grace has been operative. They are “visible expressions of a living relationship with the Savior” (Kelly).
All of this is surely in contrast to the erring elders, who have turned away from faith and love (1:6), who “blaspheme” (1:20) and are engaged in strife (6:4), and who have thus abandoned the gospel of grace here being illustrated.
1:15–16 Having given this personal word about how the grace of Christ overflowed to a former persecutor, Paul is reminded that what happened to him is in full accord with a (probably) well-known saying, which apparently has roots in Jesus himself (Luke 19:10; cf. John 12:46; 18:37). He begins with the formula here is a trustworthy saying (lit., “faithful is the saying”), which will recur four more times in these letters (3:1; 4:9; 2 Tim. 2:11; Titus 3:8) and which has been the subject of considerable discussion. In this instance, the formula precedes the saying, and the extent of the saying itself is clear. Such is not always the case (e.g., 3:1 and 4:9). Furthermore, nothing quite like it occurs elsewhere in the NT. However, the similar formula, “faithful is God,” is common in Paul (e.g., 1 Cor. 1:9; 10:13; 2 Cor. 1:18) and probably is the source of this present formulation.
The emphasis in Greek, as in NIV, lies on the trustworthiness of the saying. This is emphasized further by the addition that deserves full acceptance. There is some ambiguity here about whether there is an intensive (NIV, full; cf. RSV, NEB, GNB), or extensive (“accepted by all,” Weymouth, Book of Common Prayer), sense to the adjective pasēs. A similar formula in 6:1 that can only be intensive (“worthy of full respect”) lends support to the NIV translation; however, a good case can also be made from the context for an emphasis on its being worthy of universal acceptance.
In the saying itself, Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, two points are made: Incarnation and Redemption, with the emphasis on the latter. To say that he came into the world, of course, does not in itself necessarily imply pre-existence, but such an understanding would almost certainly have been intended. Here the reason for his coming, and Paul’s reason for including it, is emphasized—to save sinners. Sinners! That was a term common enough in Pharisaic Judaism (Paul’s own tradition). It referred to all those who did not stringently keep the Law, especially Gentiles (even Paul can so use it in Gal. 2:15). But here, and elsewhere in Paul, sinners is a universalizing term. All humanity, both Jew and Gentile, belong together at this one point (Rom. 3:19–20, 23). But Christ came to save such.
Salvation for Paul is primarily an eschatological term; that is, it has to do with human destiny, what happens to people at the end (Gk., eschaton). But such eschatological salvation has already begun in the present in the work of Christ, hence “saving sinners” also means to save them from their present sinfulness. Both the present and future aspects seem to be in view here (cf. v. 16, “believe unto eternal life”).
To personalize the saying, Paul adds of whom I am the worst, not as a form of hyperbole, as some would have it, or because he was morbid about his sinful past, but precisely because of his own experience of God’s mercy and grace. Such statements are to be understood in light of the intersection in Paul’s life of the simultaneous overwhelming sense of his own sinfulness and utter helplessness before God and the fact of God’s grace lavished freely on him and God’s unconditionally accepting him despite his sin. It should also be noted that he says I am, not “I was.” Even one like Hanson who believes the letter to be a forgery admits that this is a “truly Pauline touch.” But it is so, not because of Paul’s abiding sense of sinfulness (as Bernard and others), but because he recognized himself as always having the status of “sinner redeemed.”
With the addition of that last word, of whom I am the worst, Paul is now in position to make his final point in this testimony to God’s grace. The reason for Christ’s saving Paul, the worst of sinners, was that he could thereby set Paul forth as a primary exhibit for all other sinners who would believe on him for salvation. Paul’s point is simple: “If God would—and could—do it to me, given who I was and what I did, then there is hope for all” (cf. 2:3–7). And so he repeats, I was shown mercy, but now adds this new reason.
By saving Paul, Christ Jesus has demonstrated his unlimited patience (or, “the full extent of his forbearance”) in dealing with sinners. Forbearance as a characteristic of the deity in dealing with human rebellion is a thoroughly Pauline idea (Rom. 2:4; 3:25–26; 9:22–23; cf. 2 Pet. 3:9, 15). Such patience is seen in his dealing with me, the worst of sinners, precisely so that Christ might have an example, a prototype, for those who would believe on him and thus also receive eternal life. The Greek for eternal life means not so much life with endless longevity as it does the “life of the coming age,” life that is ours now in Christ to be fully realized at his “appearing” (see 6:12–15; 2 Tim. 4:6–8; Titus 2:11–14).
1:17 What began as thanksgiving and then moved on to testimony of God’s abundant grace now concludes with doxology. How else? Reflecting on God’s grace often does that to Paul (e.g., Gal. 1:5; Eph. 3:21; Phil. 4:20). A similar doxology appears at 6:15–16. What marks off these two from earlier doxologies is their emphasis on God’s “otherness” and eternity. Both have a decidedly liturgical ring to them, being deeply rooted in Hellenistic Jewish piety. They probably reflect doxologies from the Diaspora synagogue, where Paul had his own roots as well as where he began his missionary endeavors.
The King eternal (lit., “the King of the ages”) picks up the theme of eternal life in verse 16. God is eternal in that he rules in/over all the ages. God is likewise the immortal (lit., “incorruptible,” a term from Hellenistic Judaism), invisible (a recurrent OT motif; cf. Rom. 1:20; Col. 1:15), and only (the primary OT motif) God. Therefore all honor and glory (cf. Rev. 4:9, 11; 5:12, 13; 7:12) are due him for ever and ever. The amen pronounced in the synagogues in assent to doxologies and benedictions had already passed into Christian worship (see esp. 1 Cor. 14:16) and often concludes the NT doxologies as well (e.g., Gal. 1:5; Rom. 16:27).
With this doxology, Paul brings the digression to a sudden conclusion. He has indeed come a considerable distance from the opening charge to Timothy to remain in Ephesus to oppose the false teachers (vv. 3–4). But as we have seen, none of this is without purpose. Lingering just behind every word are the erring elders and their “diseased” teaching (1:11), with its emphasis on Law and speculations, which stands over against the pure gospel of grace that produces faith and love. Now it is time for him to return to the matter at hand.
Additional Notes
1:12–13 Some early MSS have the verb for “strengthens” in the present tense, “who strengthens me,” but this is a harmonization to Phil. 4:13 and rather thoroughly misses Paul’s point here.
By translating considering me faithful, the NIV misses what appears to be a play on words. Paul was entrusted (v. 11), was considered trustworthy (v. 12), and even though he was among the untrusting (v. 13; NIV, “acted in ignorance”), God’s grace to him came with faith (trust in God, v. 14).
D-C argue that “only the designation ‘persecutor’ applies to the specific case of Paul,” and that the man who wrote Phil. 3:4–6 could not have used “blasphemer” to describe his past. But that is to miss too much. From the standpoint of his former life in Judaism, it is true that Paul could not have seen himself in this way, but the standpoint here is his present life in Christ; from this perspective his former attitude toward Christ must be considered “blasphemy”—just as the attitudes of the false teachers are now considered blasphemy (v. 20).
The words I acted in ignorance and unbelief literally say, “I acted in [a state of] unbelief.” Three times in Romans he says a similar thing about the Jewish response to Christ (3:3; 11:20, 23).
1:14 Grace … poured out abundantly translates the verb hyperepleonasen (lit., “super-abounded”). The verb occurs nowhere else, but such hyper compounds are a Pauline trademark (see e.g., “more than conquerors,” Rom. 8:37; “highly exalted,” Phil. 2:9; “exceeding joyful,” 2 Cor. 7:4; “groweth exceedingly,” 2 Thess. 1:3 [all KJV], plus six others).
1:15–16 For a full discussion, with complete bibliographies, of the five “faithful sayings” see G. W. Knight, The Faithful Sayings in the Pastoral Letters.
Although the precise formulation found in the saying does not occur elsewhere in Paul, it most assuredly reflects his theology. See esp. Gal. 4:4–5 and Phil. 2:5–11.
The word for worst is actually “first” in Greek, but “first” in the sense of “foremost,” hence worst. The KJV, therefore, misses the point by translating, “of whom I am chief … that in me first.” Paul’s point is as the NIV translates: I am the worst … so that in me, the worst.
1:17 Some later copyists added the word wise after only on the pattern of Rom. 16:27.
The Charge Renewed
The argument that began in verses 3–7 returns full circle in this final paragraph of chapter 1. In fact, one might note how easily verses 18–20 read hard on the heels of verse 7. The resumptive nature of the paragraph is even clearer in the Greek text, where the word here translated instruction (v. 18) is the same translated command in verses 3 and 5 (cf. the RSV, which consistently translates “charge”).
This paragraph, however, does not simply repeat verses 3–7; rather, by way of verses 12–17, Paul now charges Timothy in a very personal way to “stick it out.” He does so by reminding Timothy of his own call to ministry, and by setting that in contrast to two who failed.
1:18–19a Reverting to the vocative of familiarity (lit., “child Timothy”), Paul renews this “command,” first given in verse 3. Here Paul gives it to him, a Greek word which has to do with entrusting something into someone else’s care (see esp. 6:20; 2 Tim. 1:12, 14; 2:2).
To reinforce the giving of the charge, Paul reminds Timothy of his calling. It is not Paul, finally, who has left Timothy “in charge,” but the Holy Spirit. This instruction is in keeping with the prophecies once made about you; and it is by following them that Timothy is to fight the good fight.
But what are these prophecies? Paul will mention this event in Timothy’s life twice more in these letters. In 4:14 he refers to Timothy’s ministry (apparently) as a “spiritual gift,” and there we also learn that the prophecies were accompanied by the elders’ laying on of hands. In 2 Timothy 1:6, where the concern is with their own personal relationship, Paul narrows the focus to his own laying on of hands. But what precisely happened, and when, is not known. Most likely Paul is referring to an experience in Timothy’s early days whereby he was recognized to have received the gift of the Spirit for ministry, a recognition that was made clear through some prophecies.
In any event, Paul reminds him of those prophecies so that by following them (lit., “that by means of them” or “in the strength of them”), he might better engage in the current fight (“wage the noble war”). Fight here is a military metaphor (cf. 2 Tim. 2:3–4). In contrast to his athletic metaphors of “fighting” (1 Cor. 9:24–27; 1 Tim. 6:12; 2 Tim. 4:7–8), where the general contest of the Christian life or his ministry in general is in view, Paul regularly uses the military metaphor in contexts where the struggle is against opponents of his gospel or against spiritual forces (2 Cor. 10:1–6; Philem. 1 [cf. Col. 4:17]; Eph. 6:10–17). Thus Timothy’s fight is against the false teachers and their errors, and he is further to engage in the fight holding fast at all times to his faith and a good conscience (see v. 5).
1:19b–20 As in verses 5 and 6, the mention of faith and a good conscience prompts Paul to reflect on some men who have rejected these. Literally, he says they have “repudiated” or “rejected,” both faith (trust in God) and conscience. In so doing, with a typical change of metaphor, Paul adds, they have shipwrecked their faith. It is not their faith that is shipwrecked—although that, too, has happened—but the faith. By rejecting faith (their complete trust in God’s grace), they are at the same time in the process of bringing the faith (the gospel itself) to ruin.
A rather unusual thing now happens. Paul gives names. Hymenaeus will be mentioned again, with Philetus, in 2 Timothy 2:17, as well as in the second-century apocryphal Acts of Paul and Thecla. He is otherwise unknown. An Alexander is mentioned two other times in connection with Ephesus: In Acts 19:33–34 a Jew by that name is shouted down by the mob, and in 2 Timothy 4:14–15 Paul warns Timothy of an Alexander the metalworker, about whom it is ambiguous whether he was inside or outside the church. At least two different people seem to be involved. The Alexander mentioned here is sometimes identified with the metalworker in 2 Timothy; others identify the Acts and 2 Timothy references and see the present one as someone else. There is simply no way that one can be sure (but see disc. on 2 Tim. 4:14–15 for a hypothesis). In any case, the two men mentioned here are almost certainly leaders, therefore probably elders, as in 2 Timothy 2:17–18.
What Paul means next has been the subject of some debate. Literally, he says, “I turned them over to Satan.” Much of the debate is related to one’s understanding of the phrase “for the destruction of the flesh” that appears in a similar sentence in 1 Corinthians 5:5. Possibly the clause means that Paul has handed them over to Satan with the expectation of physical punishment (cf. GNB). It seems more likely, however, that the phrase “hand over to Satan” simply means “to put back out into Satan’s sphere,” outside the church and the fellowship of God’s people; whether he also expected some physical harm to occur is a moot point, but less likely.
Paul expects that by such an “excommunication” they will be taught not to blaspheme. The word to teach, which he uses again in 2 Timothy 2:25, probably means in this instance to “correct by discipline.” At least Paul expects his action to have an educative element. What they are to learn is not to blaspheme. What this means is not at all certain; but in verse 13 Paul describes his former self as a “blasphemer,” and in 6:4 “blasphemies” (NIV, “malicious talk”) is listed as one of the results of the false teachers’ “sickly appetite for controversy.” It is probably the latter, the conscious rejection of God’s grace in favor of arguments, that Paul has in mind here. When this excommunication took place is not stated, but see the note on verse 3.
With this paragraph the reason for the letter is brought to its conclusion. Timothy has been left in Ephesus to stop the false teachers. After some digressions that offer contrasts with these teachers and their errors, Paul concludes with this personal charge to Timothy himself, but once again with the false teachers clearly in view.
Additional Notes
1:18–19a The this of this instruction points forward in this sentence to Timothy’s “waging the good warfare” (RSV). Nonetheless, it also refers back to the charge given earlier.
There is a difference of opinion as to whether the word proagousas means once made (NIV; cf. GNB), or “pointed to you” (RSV), or “first pointed you out to me” (NEB). But the NIV is the far most likely, both because the prefix pro is almost always a temporal reference and (more significantly) because the point in the context has to do with Timothy’s recalling his own call to ministry, not how he was first discovered by Paul.
Many would differ with the interpretation offered here that sees 1:18; 4:14; and 2 Tim. 1:6 as all referring to the same reality. The objections arise from an apparent need to reconcile the language of each with greater precision. But the differences are no more than what often happens when one repeats the same event but does so in each case to make a different point. Nothing in the language is in fact irreconcilable. Furthermore, the very differences point to authenticity; a pseudepigrapher could have been expected to be more careful.
O. Bauernfeind (TDNT, vol. 7, p. 711) suggests that the military metaphor in this verse has as its starting point “human life in general, and hence also of the Christian.” But this seems to miss the context rather widely.
1:19b–20 The nature and purpose of “excommunication” in the three relevant NT texts (2 Thess. 3:14–15; 1 Cor. 5:3–5; 1 Tim. 1:20) is a subject on which not all agree. This is due partly to the nature and meaning of some of the language used. For example, does “for the destruction of the flesh” in 1 Cor. 5:5 refer to his “sinful nature” (NIV), or to literal physical punishment (GNB)? In all three cases there seems to be a clearly redemptive concern. Yet how does Satan fit into that? The stance taken here is that Paul is using language that has become semitechnical and thus does not mean literally giving them over to Satan to “go to work on them,” as it were, but simply removing them from the church, the sphere of the Spirit, where God is actively at work in people’s lives and putting them back out into the sphere where Satan is still at work. What exactly Paul expects to happen seems much less certain than some would suggest.
