The Beginning of the Epistle and Its Subject

Charge all to avoid devoting themselves to other teachings and fables, and to direct all their attention and zeal toward what is essential—the holy Christian life through faith.

1 Tim. 1:3, 4. As I urged you when I was going into Macedonia, remain in Ephesus so that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine, nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than the economy of God that is by faith.

“As.” The corresponding particle to this “as” is not present in the text. It must be supplied by one’s own thought, thus: as I urged you to remain in Ephesus to do such and such, so go and do it. I will set out for you some instructions and rules for this. These rules are the content of the Epistle. — “I urged.” “It was not fitting for a son to be entreated by his father; but out of warm love for him, and also to show him an example of humility, the Apostle entreats him” (Ambrosiaster). There may also have been an element of mutual love at work here. Saint Timothy wished to go with Saint Paul, fearing for him on account of the difficulties and dangers he might encounter on the road ahead, given the hostility of unbelievers toward him—the very hostility that had probably driven him from Ephesus as well. For this reason, Timothy had to be entreated to separate himself for a time from the beloved teacher-father whom he so carefully watched over. And Saint Paul could not but see the labors and dangers that Saint Timothy would face by remaining in Ephesus. Therefore he does not command him authoritatively: remain, but entreats him, so that it might be an act of Timothy’s own free will—which would give him more strength to bear the labors and dangers, and would remove any possibility of discontent. Saint Chrysostom says: “Listen to how gentle the speech is, how he addresses him not as a teacher but as a servant. He did not say: I commanded, or—I ordered, or even—I persuaded; but what? ‘I urged you.’ — Yet we ought not to deal in this way with all disciples, but only with the gentle and well-disposed; with others—the corrupt and not entirely devoted—differently: just as he himself, writing elsewhere, says: ‘rebuke with all authority’ (Tit. 2:15).”

“To remain in Ephesus,” προσμειναι,—to wait through a little while, to stay for a short time without me; for the Apostle intended to return soon, unless some need to delay should arise (1 Tim. 3:14, 15).

“Going into Macedonia.” Saint Paul would not have left Ephesus without setting everything in order there, had not some pressing need compelled him. This need may have concerned him personally, as on the first occasion even before his imprisonment, when the believers urged him to withdraw because his life was threatened. Or the need may have come from the Macedonian churches. Something there urgently required the personal presence of Saint Paul. And so he departed there, leaving Saint Timothy as his deputy in Ephesus, confident that he alone would be able to handle what needed to be handled there.

“That you may charge certain persons,” παραγγειλης; which means both simply to announce, and to announce a command and precept, to order, to bind with authority to something. “He did not say: entreat, but: ‘charge’—which carries a tone of authoritative strictness” (Saint Chrysostom, blessed Theophylact). “Certain persons.” He does not name specific individuals, because they were of course known to Saint Timothy. Or perhaps by this he is suggesting to Saint Timothy: when speaking to the believers, do not name the teachers of different doctrine by name, lest this provoke them still further. Saint Chrysostom says: “He does not list them by name, so that the public exposure of the rebuke should not make them still more shameless.” Nevertheless, further on he names two of them—Hymenaeus and Alexander, handed over to Satan (1 Tim. 1:20).

“Not to teach any different doctrine,” μη ετεροδιδασκαλειν,—which means: “to introduce other teachings” (blessed Theophylact), to teach “differently,” not as commanded. The standard of Christian teaching had been given by the Lord, confirmed and completed by the Holy Spirit, and constituted the “pattern of sound words” (2 Tim. 1:13) that the Apostles everywhere transmitted to the newly enlightened. Since the divine origin of this teaching—from God, who is truth itself—was so palpably evident to the Apostles, they rightly considered every teaching that was not only contrary to it, but merely different from it, to be incompatible with the Christian faith—and this conviction they handed on to all believers. They did not permit believers to enter into debate, but straightforwardly, at first glance, turned away from every teaching that was “different.” You have the certain truth, they said; therefore everything “different” is not truth, and there is no reason to defile your hearing by opening it to such discourses. As soon as someone appeared who, having picked up “different” teachings elsewhere, began to speak of them openly before the believers, they stopped his mouth, forbidding him to speak, or expelled him entirely from the company of the faithful if he refused to submit to such a prohibition. As they themselves acted, so they commanded those whom they left in the churches in their place to act—and so Saint Paul now commands Timothy: do not allow anyone to introduce different teachings.

Saint Paul does not specify what this different teaching was or who the teachers of different doctrine were. It is enough that the teaching was different and that those who taught it taught differently—reason enough to turn away from both them and it. If this rule had always been maintained among believers, how many departures from the truth might have been prevented by this alone!

These teachers of different doctrine could have come from among the Gentiles, who, attempting to reconcile the Christian faith with pagan philosophies, were composing some kind of mixed teaching and beginning to preach it. But it is more probable that they were from among the Jews, for at that time Jews were the only ones who could speak on matters of faith with any degree of tolerance. Our commentators say exactly this—that they were Jews. Saint Chrysostom says: “There were certain false apostles here from among the Jews, who wanted to draw the faithful back to the (Mosaic) Law; this is what the Apostle reproaches them for everywhere. Meanwhile they did this not so much out of conviction of conscience as out of vainglory and desire for disciples; for they were rivals of the blessed Paul and bore envy toward him.” And the other commentators say the same.

“Nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies.” — “Nor to devote themselves”—to pay no attention, to keep nothing in mind, not to occupy oneself, not to treat these as subjects one typically says ‘I can’t get this out of my mind,’ but rather as those about which one says: is it even worth thinking or speaking of this? Saint Paul makes it a law that as soon as any teaching is different from the divinely transmitted teaching, one should immediately turn away both ear and mind from it, without entering into arguments and debates.

“Myths and genealogies” existed both among the Gentiles and among the Jews. “Myths,” μυθοι,—the pagan kind—were all the speculations of the pagans, especially their mythology, the content of which consisted of genealogies of their gods. Blessed Theophylact writes: “It is very likely that the Apostle here is alluding also to the Greeks; for they too have myths and genealogies, in which they catalogue their gods” (likewise in Saint Chrysostom). Genealogies among the Jews were what “they would customarily list—their grandfathers and great-grandfathers—imagining thereby to claim some historical glory for themselves” (blessed Theophylact). “They traced the list of grandfathers and great-grandfathers all the way back to Abraham, thinking to adorn themselves thereby, while themselves doing nothing worthy of praise” (Oecumenius). The Jewish myths are “not the very teaching of the Law, but the Jewish interpretation of it, called among them the Mishnah” (blessed Theophylact). “Endless” (απεραντοις, from περας — limit, aim, end)—the Apostle so describes these myths and genealogies either because the discussions about them have no end, or because these discussions have no worthy aim and yield no benefit, or because they are tangled, lack precision, and are hard to grasp with the mind (Saint Chrysostom, Oecumenius, blessed Theophylact). In our own day, the myths from which one should turn away both ear and mind may be said to include the fantastic account of the world’s self-formation, without the creative action of God.

“Which promote speculations.” — “Speculations,” εκζητησεις,—inquiries, investigations, disputes, probings. “A speculation inquires what, from what, for what, how, in what manner such and such a thing came to be and is—which does not assist but rather hinders salvation” (Ambrosiaster). The aforementioned myths and genealogies, being human inventions, do not bear the seal of an authoritative guarantee of truth; they therefore stimulate curiosity and engender speculations or investigations, forming a habit of this. One who has acquired this habit occupies himself with nothing but probing; and as a result the realm of faith is overshadowed, grows dim, is forgotten, and the soul fills with empty and fruitless notions and reasonings. Faith then falls dormant; and if in this state curiosity produces self-invented definitions and conclusions that are inconsistent with faith, then faith is entirely destroyed.

Thus speculations do not promote “the economy of God that is by faith.” — “Economy,” οικονομιαν,—stewardship. Stewardship is concerned with the household’s good—its acquisition, increase, and employment, so that all in the house should have everything in sufficient measure. The house of God is the Church, which orders the salvation of believers. God has filled this house with every good thing for our salvation. God’s economy in this house consists in ensuring that all may freely benefit from every good thing contained in it and thereby arrange their salvation. Everything here is administered by God’s grace; the hand that receives from it the necessary good is faith. Whatever promotes faith promotes the reception of every good from grace for the completion of salvation, and thereby favors God’s economy; and whatever does not do so does not favor God’s economy. The Apostle affirms that speculations generated by human inventions are unfavorable to God’s economy—“the economy of God that is by faith”—they undermine faith, that sole hand appointed and fitted to receive the good from God’s economy dispensed abundantly by grace, and thereby cut off the work of salvation that is built by grace through faith. Our commentators especially draw attention to this harmful effect on faith that comes from speculations and investigations. Blessed Theophylact writes: “God introduced such an economy that in it everything is to be received by faith; but these people introduce speculations that undermine this economy of God.” Oecumenius asks: “What is God’s economy?” — and answers: “That His good things be received by faith, for they are incomprehensible; and to engage in speculation regarding each of them is contrary to God’s arrangements for His household.” Blessed Theodoret clarifies this: “Excessive speculations are foolish, whereas faith enlightens the mind and opens up the Divine economy.”

Saint Chrysostom discusses this subject at greater length, and reading his judgments is not without profit at any time. We cite them here.

“Do you see how he condemns untimely investigation? For where there is faith, investigation is not needed; where there is nothing to investigate, why engage in investigation? Investigation destroys faith: one who investigates something has not yet arrived at (the knowledge of) it; it is impossible that one who engages in investigation should believe. Therefore the Apostle says: let us not engage in investigations, for investigation is no longer faith; for faith brings the mind to rest. But (someone may say), did not Christ the Lord Himself say: ‘Seek, and you will find’ (Matt. 7:7) and: ‘Search the Scriptures’ (Jn. 5:39)? In the first place, ‘seek’ means petition, earnest desire; while in the other, ‘search the Scriptures’ not only imposes no obligation to investigate but even removes it; ‘search’ means: study and learn the genuine meaning of Scripture, not in order to be perpetually engaged in investigation, but to put an end to all investigation. God willed to give us many things, but our mind does not comprehend the greatness of His economy. Therefore what constitutes the greatest medicine for our souls must be accomplished with the aid of faith: our investigations are not in keeping with the economy of God. And what is accomplished with the aid of faith? That we receive God’s benefactions, become better, doubt nothing, are perplexed about nothing, and come to perfect rest. Meanwhile, what faith accomplishes and orders, our curiosity destroys, raising a multitude of questions and overturning faith. — Let us not therefore engage in investigations; for we are called believers precisely in order that we should believe without question what has been told us, and doubt nothing. If what has been said to us came from men, then one ought to investigate it; but since it comes from God, one need only revere it and believe it. If we do not believe it, we shall not be persuaded even that God exists. For how can you know that God exists, when you subject His words to investigation? The first sign that you know God is that you believe what He has said, without requiring either explanations or proofs. It is right to subject the teaching of the Greeks to investigation, for it was invented by human wisdom; but our teaching has been revealed to us by the grace of the Holy Spirit.”

1 Tim. 1:5. The aim of our charge is love from a pure heart, a good conscience, and sincere faith.

Having said above what one ought not to occupy oneself with, here he indicates what all attention and zeal should exclusively be directed toward. The chief thing here is love, and its qualification, enlivening, and direction come from a pure heart, a good conscience, and sincere faith. And all of them are inseparable—each enters into the other, each supports and nurtures the other. Love is the abundant fruit-bearing tree of paradise, while purity of heart, the peace of conscience, and sincere faith are the soil, atmosphere, warmth, light, and moisture necessary for its nourishment and growth. This is what one ought to strive for, and this is how all care and exertion of energy must be directed! This is the end of all things.

For the flock, this is the ultimate goal of moral striving; and for the pastor, it is the “aim of the charge,” παραγγελιας,—of pastoral exhortations, counsels, commands, labors, and cares. Direct your activity toward this, and when you succeed in making those under your care such that the aforementioned virtues—wholehearted, conscientious love penetrated by faith—form the distinctive features of their character, then you will appear as a good shepherd, a worker who need not be ashamed. “It is your task, Saint Paul says to Timothy, to teach them to love God their benefactor sincerely and to have a pure faith supported by the witness of conscience” (blessed Theodoret). Then no different teaching will penetrate them, and they will not busy themselves with any myths. Different teaching produces division. When the bond of love is strong enough that no divisive influence can break it apart, then, not yielding to the dividing force of different doctrine, it will also repel the different doctrine itself. “If you plant love in them, no corrupted dogma will find a place among them,” writes blessed Theophylact. And Saint Chrysostom says: “Nothing does such harm to the human race as the neglect of friendly relations and insufficient care to preserve them; while again nothing can give such a good direction to life as the effort to maintain them with all one’s strength. Such neglect was the source of all heresies. — Therefore Paul, having said: ‘charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine,’ points to love as the path by which this can be achieved.”

“The aim of the charge is love.” What kind of love? All-encompassing—both toward God and toward neighbors. Love toward God is zealous for the glory of God, and consequently for the reign of God’s truth everywhere; such zeal will not allow falsehood—which is opposed to God’s truth—to raise its head anywhere. Love toward neighbors is zealous for their temporal well-being, and even more for their eternal blessedness; and since the latter depends on preserving faith pure and undefiled, it is zealous that no different teaching should damage the purity of their faith.

“Love from a pure heart”—for there is also love from an impure heart (Oecumenius), and love that makes the very heart impure. This is carnal love. There is also egotistical love, which loves not for the good of the beloved but for one’s own sake; so that as soon as a sacrifice of self-denial is required, it fails the test and draws back. True love fills the whole heart and loves without any calculations, not limiting itself to mere feeling but always hastening to action. Saint Chrysostom interprets: “What kind of love does the Apostle speak of? Sincere love—which is not limited to words alone, but flows from a disposition of the soul, from good understanding and compassion. ‘From a pure,” he says, “heart’—that is, from straightforward mutual fellowship, or sincere friendship.”

“Love from a good conscience”—either such love as does not allow conscience to reproach one for not having done everything it demanded for the beloved, or such love as, with all its readiness and effort to do everything for the good of another, nonetheless does not permit anything contrary to the demands of conscience or to the direct commandments of God. It loves a brother, but not more than God—rather, for God’s sake, for whose will conscience always stands as its bearer. Or love from a good conscience is that love, of whose presence in the heart conscience bears witness—love of which not a word or an outward display speaks, but “the inner thought, which cannot lie even to itself. For is there anyone who would dissemble before himself, or attempt to hide from himself?” (Oecumenius).

“Love from sincere faith.” Mutual love is planted in the heart; it is a natural feeling in us. All would naturally love one another if egoism had not entered as a consequence of the Fall. After this, alongside the sympathetic feelings that flow from love, there also stand egotistical feelings that quench sympathetic love. In the natural order, some are dominated by egotistical feelings, and then the demands of love have no room; while others are dominated by sympathetic feelings, and then love has greater scope. This latter love, acting by the natural disposition of sympathy and compassion, is a quality worthy of esteem; yet it does not have full value or weight unless it is hallowed by its relation to God—that is, unless it is penetrated by faith, from which to draw its original impulse, inspiration, and strength. Only then does love rise to the level of love that is strong as death; for without this there is nothing to sustain the self-denial, the sacrifices of which the works and labors of love demand at every moment.

Sincere faith encompasses all the dogmas; and they are indeed all such that, as soon as they are held sincerely by the heart, they inevitably call forth feelings and works of love and inspire them—especially the dogmas of Providence, redemption, and future blessedness. God sees all things and accepts everything done out of love for Him for the brethren as though it were done directly for Him; how will one who believes this not hasten to place what is required through a brother’s hand into God’s hand? The Son of God, having been incarnate, gave Himself for us; will one who believes this begrudge offering to Him the required sacrifice in aid of brethren in the Lord? Faith suggests that what is sacrificed for a brother is laid up in God’s eternal dwelling-places, there to serve as, so to speak, an eternal provision in the Kingdom of Heaven for the very one who makes the sacrifice; so which believer who holds this sincerely will be stingy about sowing “bountifully,” in order also to “reap bountifully” (2 Cor. 9:6)? Thus love is inspired, hallowed, multiplied, and strengthened by sincere faith.

1 Tim. 1:6. Certain persons, having swerved from these things, have wandered away into vain talk.

“Having swerved.” αστοχησαντες. “The word αστοχειν is used of those who shoot unskillfully” (blessed Theophylact)—who aim their arrows not at the target but beside it. The Apostle has pointed out the goal of pastoral and teaching labors—love from a pure heart, a good conscience, and sincere faith; now he speaks of the bad consequences when some among these fail to direct their cares and efforts toward this, and of the consequences for them personally as teachers. Some, he says, not directing their teaching labors toward this goal, have wandered into vain talk—that is, toward what he condemned just before: myths, genealogies, and fruitless speculations. “Have wandered away,” εξετραπησαν,—have strayed from the straight road, have turned aside. Saint Chrysostom says: “The Apostle expressed it correctly: αστοχησαντες; for skill is needed in order to aim blows straight at the target and not beside it. It is therefore necessary that they be guided by the Holy Spirit; for there are many causes that turn one from the straight path—yet only one goal must be kept in view.” There is one standard of truth—divinely transmitted; whatever lies outside the domain it circumscribes cannot bear the seal of truth, and whoever speaks of it speaks emptily. And what kind of teacher is one who speaks empty words? Thus one who departs from the stated goal thereby loses the title of a true teacher.

1 Tim. 1:7. Desiring to be teachers of the Law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions.

Having said that they strayed from the straight path, he now explains wherein this straying consists (blessed Theophylact)—namely, in their wanting or conceiving the idea of teaching the Law when the time of the Law had already passed. There was a time for the Law, and then whoever taught the Law did not speak emptily; but now, when the force of the Law has already ceased, to come forward as its teacher means laboring in vain, speaking emptily. Acting in this way, the Apostle continues, they “understand not what they say”—they do not know what they are saying—they convict themselves of the fact that “they do not know the goal of the Law, nor the time for which it was destined to hold sway” (blessed Theophylact). “If they had known the Law, they would have believed in Christ; for knowing the Law as they ought, they would have seen that it leads to Christ” (Oecumenius). The words “say” and “make assertions” do not point to different subjects but to degrees of intensity in teaching. They assert, they persistently insist, that without such and such things determined in the Law there is no possibility of salvation. Blessed Theophylact writes: “What is it they assert? Perhaps things concerning purifications and various other bodily acts observed under the Law.” He derived this from Saint Chrysostom, who says: “They were probably discoursing about the Law and speaking much about purifications and other external rites.”

But who were they? As it appears, they were among the believers, but did not understand the power of faith and discoursed about the force of the Law. Blessed Theodoret writes: “The Apostle gives us to understand that he is speaking not of open adversaries, but of those who claim to have believed in the Lord yet corrupt the Gospel’s teaching, having supposed their foolish reasonings to be wiser than the words of God. And that they were from among the Jews is made clearly evident by the words: ‘desiring to be teachers of the Law.’”

Saint Chrysostom here makes a general observation on the darkening of the mind that comes from departing from the chief goal—wholehearted and conscientious love in the spirit of faith. “Ignorance,” he says, “has its origin in the departure from love. When the soul gives itself over to fleshly things, its perceptiveness is dulled; and when it departs from love, its intellectual sight is darkened. One in whom attachment to passing things takes root, being in a state of intoxication from the passions, can no longer be an impartial judge of truth.”