Bible Commentaries
1 Timothy 6

Verse 1

Chapter VI

Ver. 1. Whoever are under the yoke as bond-servants, let them reckon their own masters worthy of all honour. The rendering in the Authorized Version, “as many servants as are under the yoke,” gives not an incorrect impression of the meaning to an English reader; but it does so merely from the ambiguity of the term servants, which may or may not mean bondmen. But in the Greek δοῦλοι there is no such ambiguity; its proper meaning was slave (having its root in δέω , I bind hence bondman), and, as ordinarily used, the δοῦλοι were those under yoke. (It must be noted, however, that while the meaning here and in many other passages i s plain enough, the usage of the New Testament in regard to δοῦλος is of some latitude. The usage, indeed, is derived from the Sept., in which the Hebrew עֶבֶד is sometimes rendered by δοῦλος, even in the case of persons whose service was entirely free (as David’s towards Saul, 1Sa 19:4 ; 1 Samuel 26:18; 1 Samuel 29:3, etc.). It is, moreover, applied there to the relation and service of God’s more peculiar instruments of working, very often by David to himself with reference to God, to whom he felt bound to render the fullest obedience (2 Samuel 7:21; Psalms 19:11; Psalms 27:9, and often elsewhere). This naturally led to a more extended and honourable use of the word by the New Testament writers than is found with classical. It is applied there to true Christians generally (Romans 6:16; 1 Peter 2:16; Revelation 2:20; Revelation 7:3, etc.); to apostles, prophets, and ministers of the New Testament church (Matthew 20:27; Matthew 24:45; Luke 2:29; Acts 4:29; Gal 1:10 ; 2 Timothy 2:24, etc.); to Moses, the highest authority in the old dispensation (Revelation 15:3); and even to Christ, the highest in the new (Philippians 2:7). In all such cases, the rendering slave, or bondman, would convey an entirely false impression; for while there is implied in the relation a binding or constraining element, it is that of willing, devoted love not of legal or outward compulsion. In some cases, also, when the relation is simply human, the term δοῦλος denotes plainly the higher class of dependants stewards or overseers (as in Matthew 18:23; Matthew 21:34; Matthew 25:14 sq.), not bondmen of any sort.) The general description properly goes first as many as, or whosoever are under the yoke; and then δοῦλοι specifies the particular kind of yoke under the yoke as bondmen. The tendency and purport of the exhortation manifestly is, to caution this part of the Christian community to beware of abusing their liberty in the gospel, of imagining that their spiritual calling and privileges entitled them to spurn the outward restraints under which they lay, and disregard the duties of their station. They were rather, on this very account, to behave toward their masters with becoming regard and submission, lest otherwise, as Chrysostom puts it, “if the master should see them carrying themselves loftily because of their faith, he should blaspheme, as if the doctrine were the ground of their insubordination; whereas, if he should see them obedient, he may the more readily believe, and attend to the things that are spoken.” Hence the special reason given by the apostle for the dutiful behaviour of the Christian bondmen is, that the name of God and His doctrine (or the teaching, namely, of the gospel) may not be blasphemed.

Verse 2

Ver. 2. But supposing the masters themselves had embraced the gospel, and master and slave stood on the common footing of brethren in Christ, were those under the yoke still to be held bound to esteem and honour the masters who so held them? Should not the old relations in such a case rather give way? Practically, no doubt, they would in a great measure do so. But formally it was not the slave’s part to demand this, or to act as if, by reason of his church-fellowship with his master, he could claim civil freedom as his right; for this had been to turn the gospel into a political charter, and give rise to the greatest confusion. The change in that direction must be wrought for the slave, not asserted by him, and could only be brought about by the gradual diffusion of right views respecting men’s relation to God, and, growing out of this, their relation one to another. Meanwhile, the most effectual way to secure a partial amelioration, and ultimately a general abolition, of the evil, was by the Christian slaves themselves bearing their burden and doing their part with Christian meekness and generosity, as the apostle here exhorts: But such as have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren as if the spiritual equality had effaced the civil distinction; but the rather serve them, because they who receive the benefit are faithful and beloved. Some (for example, Wetstein) would understand these latter epithets of the slaves, which grammatically might be considered tenable; but the connection is against it, as the object of the apostle manifestly is to present motives which should induce Christian slaves to continue stedfastly in a course of well-doing; and here, in particular, from the position and character of the masters. They were faithful and beloved; and whatever benefit might accrue from the conscientious and diligent labour of the bondmen, these had the satisfaction of knowing it was reaped by persons who were worthy to receive it. The verb ἀντιλαμβάνω , elsewhere used in the sense of laying hold of, with a view to helping or aiding (Luke 1:54; Acts 20:35), must here mean to lay hold of in the sense of sharing in, or obtaining the participation of the accruing good, a sense of the word not unknown in other writers. These things teach and exhort those, namely, which had respect to the behaviour of bondmen. (For further remarks on the New Testament treatment of slavery, see Appendix C.)

Appendix C Page 232. The Treatment of Slavery in New Testament Scripture (1 Timothy 6:2 ; Titus 2:10 )

This subject, in its relation to the spirit and teaching of Christianity, naturally falls into three closely-related parts: first, the direct instructions it gave to those standing to each other in the relation of slave and slave-owner; second, the principles it unfolded tending indirectly, yet most materially, to bear on the relation; and third, the practical measures which, under the influence of one or the other of these, came to be adopted with a view to the improvement of the existing order of things.

1. As regards the first of these points, it is to be borne in mind that the original heralds of Christianity had to do with slavery as not only an existing, but a time-honoured and widely-ramified institution, with a recognised place in the laws and usages of the empire, and of such gigantic proportions that in the gospel age a slave for every freeman has been thought a moderate computation for the provinces of the empire at large. (This is Gibbon’s estimate.) In particular districts the proportion was much greater, though in others probably somewhat less. It was such, indeed, that in the more populous parts of the empire nearly all menial employments must have been discharged by servile hands, as well as much besides that belonged to the category of skilled labour. Now, with this vast system of legalized property in human flesh, the evangelists and apostles of our Lord came into contact chiefly as it bore on the class, not of owners, but of owned of bondmen, not of those who held them in bondage; for the gospel drew at first the great body of its adherents from the lower grades of society, and those who ranked immediately above them. Of the first generation of believers in Christ, an extremely small proportion, it may be confidently assumed, would be owners of slaves; but not a few, in all probability, of the slaves themselves, whose depressed and suffering condition would naturally dispose them to hail a religion which looked so benignly on the afflicted, and held out such elevating prospects to all who sincerely embraced it. We thus quite readily account for the circumstance that the prescriptions in New Testament Scripture bearing on the relation in question are most numerous and pointed with respect to the slaves; and that sometimes, when charges are given as to the behaviour becoming them, none are delivered on the correlative duties of masters. It was not that the one class required the word of counsel or admonition more than the other; but because there were as yet scarcely any of the higher class who professed subjection to Christ, while there were many of the lower.

Having, therefore, mainly to do with those who occupied the lower place in this relationship, the authorized ambassadors of Christ naturally regarded them as peculiar objects both of pity and concern. They found them in an abject and humiliating condition, which they had no power, however they might have wished it, to alter or amend, a condition which, in all its essential features, was fixed and regulated by the legislation of the empire. While the gospel of Christ could not break the chains which outwardly lay upon them, it could, and did also, in a moral and spiritual respect, mightily relieve and benefit their state; and, in return, it justly called them to prize the better things which it brought within their reach, and to show their profiting therein by discharging in another manner than before the duty of service exacted of them to eye, in all they did, the divine rather than the human authority under which they stood: that so they might honour and commend to others the Master whom now it was their delight and glory to serve. They were thus, by their very calling as Christians, elevated within their own sphere to the high rank of witnesses of Christ, and instruments in His hand for diffusing abroad that saving light and truth by which alone the greater disorders of society could be rectified, and the troubles of the more afflicted portions of mankind effectually removed. By taking the line of conduct prescribed, also, they would pursue the course which was almost sure to react beneficially on their social position. They necessarily became patterns of active virtue; and such were the encouragements given under the system of Roman slavery for obtaining freedom as the reward of good conduct, that Christian slaves, who in their daily procedure exhibited the spirit of the gospel, might be said to be on the high road toward manumission.

So much did the apostles set by conformity in this respect to the mind of Christ, and so confidently did they reckon upon other desirable ends being thus in due time attained, that they scarcely ever touched on the civil aspect of the question on the acquirement of liberty. Incidentally the subject comes up in the Epistle to Philemon, with respect to Onesimus, his runaway slave; and yet it is so considerately and delicately handled by the apostle, that, while he shows distinctly enough his appreciation of a brotherly as contrasted with a servile relation, he would not have the former in any case acquired by fraud would not even have it wrung from the legal owner by a reluctant concession; yet, if frankly conferred, would esteem it a most worthy expression of enlightened and sanctified feeling. In another place a passage in the First Epistle to the Corinthians the subject is also briefly treated in connection with a more general question, namely, how the reception of the gospel should be regarded as affecting people’s family and social relationships? Were they still to continue in these after they had become Christians? Or were they to find in their Christianity a reason for abandoning them? The apostle’s direction is: Abide as you are, and where you are, if you can do so consistently with Christian principle; and in so far as anything in your existing relations may be trying and irksome, instead of hastily ridding yourselves of it by a self-chosen method of escape, seek rather by your meek, patient, noble Christian bearing, to rise above the disadvantages of your outward position, and in the interests of godliness triumph over them. This is the general principle of action enunciated; and when applied to those who, on becoming Christians, found themselves oppressed by the yoke of slavery, it meant that they were not to use any power or opportunity they might have to break the yoke violently asunder; that they were rather to regard this as a part of the burden which, meanwhile, they had to bear for the sake of Christ; and that, while it was not good to be in slavery to man, it was possible even in this to be Christ’s freeman: and to be such was so noble and blessed a thing, that their civil disabilities might be borne, while they lasted, with comparative indifference. This seems plainly the gist and bearing of the apostle’s treatment of the subject, however we interpret the particular expressions. (It is only in respect to chap. 7:21 that any diversity of interpretation prevails. See at the close of this Dissertation, p. 448.) It did not, when fairly considered, betoken any insensibility in the apostle’s mind to the evils of slavery, taken by themselves. It is impossible, indeed, that he and the other heralds of the cross should have thought lightly of them, seeing they were in themselves so numerous and flagrant, and so contrary to the spirit of philanthropy which breathed in the gospel of Christ, and which was also exemplified so finely in the conduct of its divinely-commissioned teachers. But these men of God knew that the promptings of nature were likely to furnish a sufficient stimulus in that direction, and were not forgetful also of the effect which the new wine of the kingdom might have in the same direction fermenting, as it would naturally do, in the minds of Christian slaves, with thoughts and aspirations in ill accord with their depressed and abject condition. It was therefore the part of Christian wisdom to throw the fence mainly on the more exposed side, and urge them, as their main concern, to the cultivation of those graces and habits which tended to elevate them as rational and immortal beings.

On this side of the question, then, wisdom was manifestly justified of her children; but was it equally so in the reserve practised, on the other side, toward the masters? If the apostles were right in plying the oppressed class with exhortations to virtue and obedience, why should they not have pressed those who had the power to let the oppressed go free? They certainly did not do this. The considerations chiefly urged upon the masters are, that they should remember they had to do with One who is no respecter of persons; who stood to them in the relation of a Master, as they to their fellow-creatures; and that they should consequently forbear, not the use of the lash merely, but even threatening, and should give to all under their control what is just and equal. Such injunctions, if properly carried out, would at least secure practical freedom to the slave such freedom as would enable him to serve God faithfully in the humble duties of his station. But we can scarcely say apostolical precept, in its direct and explicit requirements of the slave-owner, goes further; especially as, when the supposition is made of believing servants under the yoke having also believing masters (1 Timothy 6:2), the latter are spoken of as still retaining their proprietary rights, and the former are enjoined to do their work of service all the more cheerfully that they were under believing masters. If, however, we take into account not the letter merely, but the spirit also of the exhortations given, we shall doubtless see that something further is required of the parties in question, and that they could not have intelligently and cordially done so much without feeling impelled in ordinary circumstances to do more. For if the master consented, as he was expressly required, to treat his bondmen as rational beings, capable of the same exalted privileges and hopes as himself, how could he desire to have them kept in a position which exposed them to treatment of another kind, treatment from which his own spiritual nature must have recoiled? Plainly he could not with hearty good-will take the one part of a Christian behaviour, without feeling drawn to do something also in respect to the other. And that the Apostle Paul thought persons in that situation should have so felt and acted, is evident from the style of address in his letter to Philemon respecting Onesimus, in which, as already indicated, he did not indeed claim strictly as a right, or demand as by divine authority, yet besought with powerful suasion, the reception of Onesimus, not merely as a forgiven bondman who had wronged his master, but in a higher character “above a slave (as he expressed himself), a brother beloved.” To yield to this affectionate entreaty, and yet re-assert over Onesimus his proprietary rights as a slaveholder, had been impossible; the very attempt to do so would have been justly branded as a pitiful evasion.

But if such were the mind of the apostles, and the certain tendency of their instructions, might it not have been better to go straight to the point, and lay upon every Christian slave-owner the authoritative injunction to enfranchise his slaves? So some have, even in our time, been bold enough to assert. But had the course in question been taken, how many enfranchisements might have been expected through its operation? Or what progress was Christianity likely to have made in ameliorating the social evils of the Empire? With this startling demand among its requirements, in the very front, we may say, of these requirements (for it was sure to be the first that should ever meet the eye of the slave-owner), persons of this class would with one consent have denounced Christianity as the opponent of their legal interests and hereditary rights; they would have everywhere met it with their determined opposition would have put it, in fact, under the ban of the Empire, as a system that, under the guise of religion, aimed at unsettling the foundations of society, and kindling the flames of a servile war. It was at once the wiser and the more humane course to make the direct prescriptions of the gospel bear only on the just and equitable treatment of the slave, so that the moment he was placed under the dominion of a believing master he should become practically free to move within the ordinary sphere of Christian duty; and in addition to this, to place the master as well as the slave under motives and considerations of a higher kind, which, in proportion as they were realized and acted on, necessarily led to the readjustment or removal of whatever in their mutual relationship was at variance with the essential principles of rectitude and goodness.

2. This touches, however, upon the second point the higher influences brought by the gospel to bear on the hearts of slave-owners, and tending indirectly to loose the bonds of slavery. The whole spirit and tendency of the religion of the gospel must have wrought in this direction.

The view given in Scripture of the common origin and natural relationships of mankind even this, which is implied in the revelations of the gospel, rather than directly announced could not, if thoughtfully pondered, be without effect in this particular line. That all should be the offspring of one parent, inheritors of one blood, and partakers of the same rational and immortal nature, and yet that they should make merchandise of one another, as if some belonged to a different world, or a different order of creation from the rest; who that justly considers the one can find it in his heart to do the other? How especially could he do so, if he coupled with men’s brotherly relation to himself their filial relation to God, though he should only think of that relation as it exists in nature, implying the formation of all alike in God’s image, and their calling as such to occupy the earth, and use its means and opportunities of good for Him? To treat a human being so formed, so constituted and destined by the hand of his Maker, as from the mere accidents of position bereft of freedom of will and independent action, were virtually to disown and shamefully dishonour the claims and interests of such a natural relationship.

Yet this is but the preliminary ground or implied basis of Christianity, not its proper substance; and its influence in this direction becomes much greater when its grand central doctrine of the incarnation and death of the Son of God for the salvation of mankind is brought distinctly into view. This, when rightly known and considered by men, could not but be felt to be like the letting in of a new light upon the world, tending by a moral necessity to raise the common platform of humanity to a higher than its former level. It is from hence, most of all, that has sprung the idea of the brotherhood of mankind of their original equality in God’s sight, and of the honour and blessedness of ministering to their wellbeing, apart from all the outward and artificial distinctions which in the heathen world entered so largely into men’s estimation of their fellow-men, and threw something like an impassable gulf between race and race, and one condition of life and another. The infinite condescension and glorious example of Christ virtually established for all a claim to the highest offices of kindness, and, wherever practically known, gave such an impulse to the more generous feelings of the heart, and the more active charities of life, that everything like cruel neglect or lordly oppression toward even the humblest grades of society could not fail to be regarded otherwise than as an outrage on humanity.

Then, regard to the interests of salvation must have wrought in the same direction. From the moment that any one became a genuine believer, it was part of his obligations to see that everything of a proper and fitting kind was done to bring all under his influence or control to partake with him in the blessings of salvation. But how could the slave-owner commend to others about him the offers of a love, of which it was but too clear he had not yet received the full impression in his own bosom? How could he desire in earnest to see them rising to the possession and enjoyment of the liberties of God’s dear children? The attainment of such a standing in spiritual things, with its high privileges and endowments, he could not but see, would only render them the more deeply conscious of the ignoble chains which rested on their bodily condition; for how could they possess the rank of sons in God’s house, and realize their title to the glorious inheritance of the saints in light, without feeling the incongruity and the dishonour of being denied the place of citizens of earth, or of being allowed to take an independent part in the ordinary concerns of a present life? It was obviously impossible that the intelligent Christian slave should have felt otherwise than is now represented; and if not absolutely impossible, at least not very natural or easy, for his master to become a sincere convert to the gospel, and still keep the yoke of bondage riveted on the neck of a Christian brother.

Of the force of these considerations the history of the subject has yielded two very instructive and convincing illustrations. The first is the reluctance commonly exhibited by slave-owners to let those under their sway enjoy the full benefit of Christian instruction and privilege. How far this was the case in ancient times we can only infer from what has happened among the modern representatives of the class; but inthe particular point under consideration, it is likely to have been worse rather than better in the earlier as compared with the later ages. Yet, as regards these later ages, no one in the least acquainted with the history of slavery can be ignorant how commonly slave-owners have been jealous of the diffusion of Christian knowledge and instruction among their slaves what restraints they have generally laid upon it how often even they have expressly and by severe penalties interdicted it. Viewed as a whole, it is not too much to say of their conduct, that it has betrayed an unmistakeable conviction that the light and liberties of the gospel carry along with them a certain danger to their proprietary interests, and involve views of truth and duty materially different from their own. The other confirmatory fact consists in the grounds and reasons which have most commonly induced believing slave-owners to grant liberation to their bondmen. It appears that in the actual progress of events the spirit of the gospel, imperfectly as it was too often understood and imbibed, played an important part. While the work of emancipation made slow advances compared with the progressive advancement of an external Christianity, it still was always proceeding, and generally did so within the professing church as a response to the undeserved mercy of Heaven an act of becoming tenderness and compassion in the recipients of divine grace and blessing. This may be seen by referring to the ancient charters of that description given by Du Cange, or even from the specimens selected out of them by Dr. Robertson ( Charles V., note 20). We find there grants of freedom made by sundry persons in favour of their slaves made “for the love of God,” “for the benefit of the soul” of the grantor, or something to that effect. When Pope Gregory the Great bestowed liberty on some slaves that had become his property, he prefaced the deed thus: “The Redeemer made Himself a propitiation to free men from the yoke of bondage, and restore them to their pristine condition; whence it well became men to restore those whom the law of nations, not nature, had brought into servitude, to the freedom which originally and properly belonged to them.” Hence also a large number of manumissions appear to have been granted by persons on their death-beds, when their near approach to the judgment-seat rendered their consciences more alive to the great realities of the gospel, and the corresponding obligations: they granted the boon, it is commonly stated, “for the redemption of their soul.” And hence also occasions of special favour and blessing were not unfrequently seized for conferring the grant; the benefit received on the one side being naturally felt to call for the bestowal of a like benefit on the other.

Indeed, it is difficult to understand how any one, if he could only divest himself of the perverting bias of habit, or the still more perverting bias of worldly interest, and would calmly look at the matter in the light of gospel truth, could come to another conclusion than that of either abandoning his right of property in his fellow-men, or of disclaiming allegiance to the authority of Christ. I do not see how, even with the kindest and most considerate treatment of his slaves, he could feel that he had discharged his obligations according to the requirements of the gospel without releasing them from their bondage. By one of these requirements he is called to be an imitator of Christ in that very walk of love wherein Christ has at once set so illustrious an example and given so costly a sacrifice. By another, he is enjoined to do to others whatsoever he would that they should do to him. By a third, he is urged to do good to all around him, as he has opportunity to do it beyond the measure of the heathen, and for the promotion especially of the higher interests of mankind. But, on the supposition of his continuing to be a slave-owner, what honour do such precepts receive at his hands? He deliberately prefers holding men subject to bondage, while it was the special glory of his Master to deliver them from it; he practises upon them a wrong; and if he does not personally inflict, he leaves them in a position in which they may have inflicted upon them, insults and injuries, pains and cruelties, which no man of sane mind would wish another to have the power of inflicting upon himself. And instead of using his opportunities to do the part of a wise benefactor and moral regenerator of the world, he lazily and selfishly contributes to the maintenance of one of the foulest stains on the brotherhood of mankind; he lends his countenance and support to a system of which, as a whole, and as regards its inherent tendency, it has been not more eloquently than justly said: “It darkens and depraves the intellect; it paralyzes the hand of industry; it is the nourisher of agonizing fears and of sullen revenge; it crushes the spirit of the bold; it is the tempter, the murderer, and the tomb of virtue; and either blasts the felicity of those over whom it domineers, or forces them to seek for relief from their sorrows in the gratifications, and the mirth, and the madness of the passing hour.” (Speech of Dr. Andrew Thomson, Edinburgh.)

It is proper to add, however, that there may have been persons in ancient times, as there are known to have been some in later, who were not insensible to the considerations now noticed, and yet refrained from granting liberation to their slaves, out of regard chiefly to the present temporal comfort of the slaves themselves. In those States where slavery has become a widely-extended and compact system, the manners and usages of society so adapt themselves to it, that emancipation in individual cases, or on isolated properties, might have the effect of throwing the emancipated out of one class without being able to secure their introduction into another, better, or even so well, situated for employment and comfort as the one they had. They might, in consequence, if enfranchised, become exposed to neglect and want. There can be no doubt that such was the case, about the gospel era and before it, with many freedmen in certain districts of Italy, where, from the general employment of slaves in the cultivation of the soil, the free part of the population often fell into a very depressed and pitiable condition. The same may have happened, and doubtless did happen, in other provinces of the empire, of which we have less specific information; and it is also known to have happened in particular portions of what but lately were the slave states of the West Indies and of America. So that it would not always be simply from the power of the gospel not being felt, or from a deliberate disregard of its claims in this particular direction, that the bondmen of Christian masters did not regain their freedom. A benevolent regard to their present wellbeing, even though possibly a somewhat mistaken or undue regard, may have often contributed to the result.

3. We turn now, lastly, to the practical measures in which, so far as we know, the early teachers and representatives of the gospel gave effect to the direct instructions, and the indirect, the higher considerations under which, in this respect, they were placed by their belief of the truth.

On this point our means of information are very limited and fragmentary, and there is much we should like to know of the earlier periods of church action of which we must be content to be ignorant. Undoubtedly the process of relief within the church would have been quick and satisfactory, compared with what we have reason to believe it was, if all in the position of slave-owners, who professed obedience to the gospel, had risen at once to the proper height of knowledge and attainment in this branch of their calling. But we are not at liberty to suppose that; the pleading alone in the Epistle to Philemon, shows plainly enough how slowly the very best of the early converts grasped here the full results and consequences of their faith. There would doubtless be many who at once felt it their duty to give hearty obedience to the precepts of the gospel, in so far as these required a kind and considerate treatment of their dependants, who yet, from the force of habit or other influences, would never think of bringing the system itself of slavery to the test of the great principles of the gospel. The case of John Newton, in modern times, may be cited in proof, since, after undergoing one of the most remarkable conversions on record, he continued for a time not only insensible to the common evils of slavery, but even actively engaged in the inhuman transactions of the slave-trade, conceiving all his obligations in the matter to be discharged if only he looked after the bodily comfort of the unhappy victims who fell into his hands. The utterly antichristian character of the traffic disclosed itself but gradually to his mind. A bequest may also be noticed in the same connection, which was left by an American gentleman of last century to the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel “a plantation stocked with slaves.” “An odd legacy,” says Warburton, in the sermon preached by him for the Society of the same year; “an odd legacy to the promulgators of the law of liberty, but intended, perhaps, as a kind of compensation for these violations of it.” Custom had in all probability rendered the individual entirely unconscious of the inconsistence.

It should not therefore surprise us to learn that, in the church of the apostolic and immediately subsequent age, there were Christian slave-owners as well as Christian slaves in her communion, with a relaxation no doubt of the bond, and a tendency begun toward its dissolution, yet still no general movement made for its formal extinction. Slaves and masters alike, on their professing Christianity, came under the discipline of the church, and were amenable to it for their actual behaviour. This was of itself a great security against all harsh treatment, considering what discipline was in those early times how impartial and how stringent; and it is probably the main reason why so little is said on the subject of slavery in the more ancient Patristic writings, although doubtless the ascetic tendency which so early began to tell on leading men in the church exercised, to some extent, an unfavourable influence also here. The so-called Apostolic Fathers Justin Martyr, also Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian very rarely refer to the subject of slavery in any way, and give no special instructions concerning it. Even in the voluminous writings of Augustine, we shall scarcely find a more explicit or pointed testimony than the following: “A Christian should not possess a slave after the same manner that he does a horse or a piece of silver” ( De Serm. Dom. In Monte, L. i. § 590). And when giving a summary of what the church, as the true mother of all Christians, enjoins upon her children, the whole he says in her behalf as to the relation of master and servant is: “Thou teachest servants to cleave to their masters, not so much from the necessity of their condition, as from delight in the duties of their calling. Thou makest masters placable toward their servants, from regard to the great God, their common Lord, and more ready to give counsel than to practise coercion” ( De Mor. Eccl. Cath. § 63). Chrysostom failed even more than Augustine to bring out on this point the true spirit of the gospel; and his continuous commentaries on the epistles of the New Testament furnished him also with better opportunities. In his exposition of Philemon, while he speaks strongly enough of the scandal brought on Christianity by slaves running away from their masters, and of Christians abetting and aiding them in their attempts to do so, he does not say a single word on the duty of Christian masters to grant liberty to their slaves; he speaks also quite familiarly of our custom of purchasing slaves with money, and of its being esteemed the glory of a master to have many of them. He is somewhat better at Ephesians 6:9, where masters are enjoined to do the same things toward their slaves that the slaves themselves were exhorted to do, and to forbear threatening, as knowing that they had a Master in heaven, with whom there is no respect of persons. Here Chrysostom presses the consideration that masters shall assuredly have their measure meted back to them; that they must do as they hope to be done to; and that they should teach their slaves to be pious and godly, and then all would go well. But emancipation is not once hinted at.

Notwithstanding such comparative failures, however, on the part of the standard-bearers of the church, the mild, beneficent, love-embracing spirit of the gospel made way, first lightening the yoke, and then subverting the existence of slavery. This appears especially in the efforts put forth from time to time to obtain the freedom of Christians who by misfortune had been reduced to slavery, and the fresh facilities that were given to slave emancipation by legal enactment. The barbarous treatment of the servile class was openly condemned by the ministers and councils of the church. Clement of Alexandria absolutely prohibited the acceptance of any oblations from cruel and sanguinary masters; and several councils appointed temporary excommunications to be pronounced against those who, without any judicial sentence, put their slaves to death. Acacius, bishop of Amida, had the gold and silver vessels of his church melted to redeem 7000 captives, whom the Romans had brought from Persia, and sent them back free. Ambrose did something of the same sort at Milan. Cases are even mentioned of persons who sold their whole property to purchase the freedom of their fellow-Christians. One Melania is said to have liberated so many as 8000 slaves; Obidius, a Gaulish Christian, 5000, etc. And so congenial did the work of manumission seem to the spirit of the gospel, that Constantine, while suspending ordinary work on the Lord’s day, expressly allowed the manumission of slaves, as having in itself the essential characteristics of a pious and charitable action. (Guizot, Hist. of Civil. in France, ii. p. 128; Bingham, Ant. B. xx. c. 2, 5.)

In another respect, also, the ancient church did good service: she guarded the chastity of female slaves, and servile birth formed no disqualification for the sacred offices of the priesthood. The legal statutes, for a considerable time, embarrassed her operations, and made the progress of the work more difficult. The Code of Justinian recognised, indeed, the original equality of mankind, but it admitted the forfeiture of this equality by the casualties which use and wont had allowed to entail the loss of freedom. Still, what was not removed was in several respects alleviated. Masters were forbidden to abandon their slaves when sick or enfeebled with age they were obliged to have them privately cared for, or sent to the hospitals. In heathen times, slaves could not properly marry; their union was merely concubinage; and for a free person to marry a slave was even held a capital offence. The Christian church struggled long and stedfastly against such things, and at last succeeded in getting legal sanction to the marriage of slaves, and gave to marriages of this kind, as well as others, her benediction. The tendency of the imperial legislation became increasingly favourable to the interests of the slave; and Gibbon says of Justinian’s Code, that “the spirit of his laws promoted the extinction of domestic servitude.” But the extinction was much retarded, especially by two causes.

The first of these was the growing worldliness and corruption of the church. The salt, to a very large extent, had lost its savour. In process of time, churches themselves came to hold property in slaves, and even had their property in this respect guarded by special enactments. While churches were constituted asylums for runaway slaves, slaves that belonged to ecclesiastics or sacred foundations, if they became runaways, were denied all right of protection; any one who harboured them became liable to pay a triple fine (Milman’s Lat. Christianity, i. 365). The other circumstance was the enormous multiplication of slaves consequent upon the irruption of the northern nations. This increased the evil to such an extent that, by its very excess, it helped to work out the remedy. Slaves ceased in a manner to be saleable; they became serfs labourers attached to the soil; and by this appropriation they had conceded to them a measure of security against the caprice and despotism of the masters. In this state one could not be sold, save as part and parcel of the ground on which he resided; and while thus bound to a kind of hereditary serfdom, his position was regulated by law guarded, though still but imperfectly, from the freaks of arbitrary violence and oppression. Other changes, mainly effected by trade and commerce, came in to ameliorate their condition; and after centuries of delay, and a step-to-step progress, serfdom itself passed, throughout the different countries of Europe, into personal and social freedom.

Broken, therefore, and chequered as the history is, interrupted by many haltings and even temporary reverses, it has still been an advancement Christianity has vindicated her title to the character of a friend of the captive and the bond. She would have done so, it is true, far more speedily and extensively if she had herself remained free from the corruptions of the world, and if her grand aims for the good of mankind had been properly carried out. But, as matters actually stood, a gradual rectification took place; a milder and better tone was diffused throughout society; a standard of generosity and loving-kindness was everywhere raised, which might be said to frown on the intolerance and cruelty of slavery, and prepared the world for giving practical effect to the feeling of a common brotherhood. Nothing, indeed, can be more certain, from the struggles and triumphs of the past, than that this horrid institution, which is alike dishonouring to God and injurious to the best interests of society, cannot stand with a healthful and robust Christianity: as the one lives and thrives, the other of necessity gives way; and were there a gospel everywhere triumphant, there would infallibly be a free as well as a righteous and a blessed world.

NOTE to p. 435, On 1 Corinthians 7:21

In illustration of the general principle that people, on becoming Christians, should abide in the calling wherein they were called, the apostle refers, along with some other cases, to that of bondmen: “Wast thou called, being a slave? Care not for it. But if also (or indeed) thou art able to become free, use it rather.” “That is,” says Chrysostom, “rather be a slave. And why, then, does he bid him, who had it in his power to become free, to continue a slave? He did it to show that slavery no way injures, but rather profits ( ὅτι ὀυδεν βλάπτει ἡ δουλεία , ἀλλὰ καὶ ὠφελεί ).” Rather Strange doctrine, surely, to ascribe to one who in his own case valued so highly, not merely his common liberty, but his special freedom as a Roman citizen, that he would not allow its rights to be trampled on; and who, in respect to his convert Onesimus, showed how well he could distinguish between the disadvantages of a slave’s place and the honourable position of a brother! Chrysostom adds that he was aware there were some who understood the use recommended of liberty: if you are able to become free, embrace freedom rather. But he rejects this view as against the connection, which (he thinks) requires that even if a believing slave had the option of becoming free, he should prefer his slavery. And the same view is taken by Theodoret, Theophylact, also by various modern commentators of note, in particular by Estius, Wolf, Bengel, Meyer, Alford. Several of them hold it to be the only view grammatically tenable; for when καὶ succeeds εἰ , it does not belong to εἰ , but to the following clause, which it is spread over and qualifies; so that the meaning (it is alleged) can only be: But if even thou canst be free, use it namely, slavery rather. Dean Stanley hesitates between the two modes of explanation. Whether freedom or slavery is to be supplied to the verb use, he conceives to be “one of the most evenly balanced questions in the interpretation of the New Testament.” And he goes on to state, with his wonted dexterity, the considerations that appear to make for the two views respectively, but commences with the strange assertion that the verb χρῆσαι “may either be choose, or make use of, although it leans rather to the former, and thus favours the first interpretation” that, namely, which would couple it with slavery. He does not, however, produce any passage in the New Testament in support of the sense of choosing; nor can a single one be produced. In the two Epistles to the Corinthians it occurs, besides the present passage, six times ( 1Co 7:31 , 1 Corinthians 9:12, 1 Corinthians 9:15; 2Co 1:17 , 1 Corinthians 3:12, 1 Corinthians 13:10), but never in the sense of choosing always in that of using, making use of. And retaining this as the only allowable meaning, how could the apostle exhort any Christian slave, who had the opportunity of becoming free, to use slavery rather? Slavery is not a gift or talent to be used, but a restraint, a hardship to be borne or submitted to if necessary but no more. And with all its tendency to asceticism, and to a foolish self-imposition of outward restraints, the ancient church still had common sense enough, and native instincts remaining, to dispose her members generally so to regard it. The well-known practice of Christians in freely spending of their means to liberate their brethren from servitude, when by some calamity reduced to it, was a virtual protest against the inflated oratory of Chrysostom, and his false exegesis.

As to the grammatical canon, very formally propounded by Alford, that καὶ after εἰ qualifies the succeeding clause, so as to mark a gradation upward if even, one has only to look at the passages in which the particles occur to see how far it will carry us. Sometimes, no doubt, the ascensive force is plain enough, as at Philippians 2:17, “But if I even be offered ( ἀλλὰ εἰ καὶ σπένδομαι ); “to which may be added 1 Peter 3:14. But take other examples such as 2 Corinthians 11:15, where, speaking of Satan and his instruments of working, the apostle says, “No great wonder, therefore, if also ( εἰ καὶ ) his ministers are transformed as ministers of righteousness.” Here the particles indicate merely an additional and subordinate fact if progress at all, a progress downward, not upward. So also at 1 Corinthians 4:7, “What hast thou, that thou didst not receive? But if also (or indeed) thou didst receive it εἰ δὲ καὶ ἔλαβες ” (also 2 Corinthians 5:16, 2 Corinthians 7:8); on which Alford is himself obliged to let go the ascensive force. It does not appear that for the New Testament usage one can go further with a grammatical principle in the matter than as stated by Winer: “In general, εἰ καὶ signifies although, si etiam, quanquam, indicating something as an actual fact; “or, as Mr. Moulton puts it in a note, indicating either that what the sentence expresses is, in the writer’s belief, an actual fact, or a concession on his part that the supposition is correct ( Gr. § 53, 7, Clark’s ed.). Mr. Moulton, however, himself adopts the ascensive force in the passage before us.

The difficulty, as appears to me, in giving a natural and proper explanation of the passage has been aggravated by supposing that either ἐλευθερία , freedom, or δουλεία , bondage, must be supplied for the verb χρῆσαι . The more natural construction is to supply the noun involved in the preceding verb; the stress lies on it on δύνασαι . “Wast thou called, being a slave? Care not for it. But if also thou art able ( δύνασαι ) to become free, use it (the δύναμις , ability) rather;” having the power, turn it rather to account. It is not properly the use of the freedom which the apostle advises (in which case we should certainly, as Alford remarks, have judged ἐλευθερία to be the proper word to be supplied to χρῆσαι ), but the use of the power to obtain freedom; and either this, or the whole clause, power to become free, is the thing to be supplied. Thus viewed, two suppositions are made in the verse: first, slavery without the power of escaping from it in which case the principle of abiding in one’s station holds without any qualification, and under the elevating influence of the gospel a noble indifference is recommended; second, the power of acquiring freedom, with an advice to take advantage of the opportunity. Then, in the following verse, a twofold consideration is introduced by γὰρ , suited to the two suppositions going before: the bondman, even though remaining such, is the Lord’s freeman, and the freeman is the Lord’s bondman. Either way a qualifying circumstance in the one case tending to abate the natural evil, in the other to circumscribe and regulate the natural good. But to leave no doubt that the apostle was not insensible to the superiority of a free over an enslaved condition, and regarded the former as alone properly suited to the place of a believer, he adds, 1 Corinthians 7:24, “Ye were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men.” Seeing how great a price has been given to raise you into the glorious liberty of the gospel, do not act an unseemly part by becoming bondmen to your fellow-creatures. And of course, if they should not voluntarily become such, neither should they voluntarily continue such, when it was in their power to escape from the anomalous position.

Interpreted in this manner, the exhortation of the apostle is throughout reasonable and consistent. His general direction is that people, on becoming Christians, should continue in the relations which they at the time occupied the married (though to a heathen spouse) in wedlock, the uncircumcised in uncircumcision, the slave in bondage. But where a change to the better might be found practicable, let it be adopted the Christian wife drawing over to the faith her unbelieving husband, or, failing in that, and finding domestic peace impracticable, retiring into privacy; the slave having the power to become free, using that power; but the free on no account bartering their freedom for a state of bondage, since that would be unsuitable to their high calling as the redeemed children of God in Christ.

Verse 3

Ver. 3. If any one teacheth other doctrine, and does not assent to sound words, those [namely] of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the instruction that is according to godliness. This description of the false teacher incidentally arose out of the charge in the immediately preceding clause, to teach and exhort after the manner enjoined by the apostle. The word ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖν has already occurred 1 Timothy 1:3; and both there and here means to teach otherwise, or differently, that is, as compared with a proper kind of teaching, expressed or understood. This latter sort of teaching has here again, as at 1 Timothy 1:10, the epithet sound or wholesome attached to it, and is explicitly connected with the prophetic agency of Christ the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ; not necessarily meaning those which were directly spoken by Him, but such as bear upon them the stamp of His authority; along with His own, therefore, those also of His divinely commissioned apostles and evangelists. The teaching which emanated from this source was emphatically of a healthful character, being at once clear in its enunciations and practical in its aim, disposing the soul to grapple with the great interests of its being, and creating in it a distaste for idle speculations and questions that cannot profit. Hence it is said of such Christian teaching, that it is according to godliness; that is, in accordance with the nature and interests of godliness. Hence, also, it augured ill for any persons wishing to be regarded as teachers in the church, that they should refuse to come into proper accord with it. Προσέρχεσθαι is the word employed; (Tisch., in his eighth edition, follows the single authority of the Sinaitic in adopting here the easier reading προσε ́ χεται, instead of προσέρχεται, which has the support of A, D, F, G, K, L, P, the Goth., Syr., Sah., Co p., Ethiop. versions. The received text seems clearly entitled to the preference.) it means primarily, to come near to, to approach, then to coincide with, to assent to; thus used also by Philo, de Gigant., μηδενὶ προσέρχεσθαι γνώμῃ τῶν εἰρημένων ; Migr. Abr., προσελθόντες ἀρετῇ .

Verses 4-5

Vers. 4, 5. Here follows the result, in a didactic point of view, of the person who so turns aside from the right course of instruction: he is carried with conceit (or besotted with pride; see at 1 Timothy 3:6), knowing nothing (that is, having no right sense or apprehension of anything), doting ( νοσῶν , as in a distempered and sickly condition, the opposite of a state adapted to receive the wholesome food of the gospel) about questions and word-fightings: things of little or no moment in themselves, but hurtful from the pugnacious spirit which they served to engender and exercise. For thence, as the apostle states, come envy, strife, blasphemies, evil surmisings, settled feuds: διαπαρατριβαὶ , the correct reading, (It is that of א , A, D, F, L; the παραδιατριβαι ́ of the received text has no uncial support whatever.) in which the διὰ , as usual, intensifies the meaning of the compound term, giving it the sense of continued enmities, or conflicts of a more lasting kind (Winer, Gr. § i6, b; Ellicott). And these settled feuds are further characterized as pertaining to men corrupted in their mind ( τὸν νοῦν used, as often in New Testament Scripture, of the whole inner man, with respect to moral as well as intellectual qualities), and destitute of the truth, who suppose that godliness is gain; not as our translators have put it, “that gain is godliness,” which the position of the article before εὐσέβειαν alone renders grammatically untenable, and also against the general feelings of mankind; for no one scarcely would think of identifying gain absolutely with godliness. But there have never been wanting those who suppose godliness to be gain, consider it as a lucrative concern, and profess it only in so far as they find it serviceable to their worldly interests. We have the same sentiment expressed, and with reference to the same class of corrupt teachers, in Titus 1:11, where they are said to “teach things which they ought not, for the sake of base gain.” How the selfish end aimed at by such was actually accomplished, we are not distinctly informed. We may certainly infer it to have been carried on altogether apart from the constituted order and worship of the church by privately humouring the capricious tastes and unregulated fancies of certain individuals of a semi-religious, speculative cast. Setting themselves forth as men of profound lore, teachers of curious and far-fetched knowledge about sacred things, they drove a trade which found dupes enough to make it by no means unremunerating. It is well known that, both before and subsequent to the gospel era, many of the more depraved and covetous Jews resorted to even baser methods than these, cunningly working upon the fears of the superstitious by plying the arts of magic and soothsaying, in the face of the most express prohibitions and threatenings of the law of Moses. One need not, therefore, be surprised to learn that others with somewhat less, at least, of open disregard of the authorities they professed to reverence, yet with the same low desire for worldly gain, should have sought to gratify the religious idlers and speculatists of the time by pretended disclosures of the unseen world, and dogmatical assertions on matters that were at best learned frivolities. They might not inaptly be designated the spiritualists and rappists of early times, and in some cases perhaps stood in a similar relation to the Christian church that persons of that description do now. They were real, though not always the professed, antagonists of its sound doctrine and holy aims. (The addition in the received text, ἀφιστατο ἀπο ̀ τῶν τοιου ́ των, from such withdraw thyself, is wanting in the best authorities, א , A, D, F, and most of the versions; only two uncials have it, K, L.)

Verse 6

Ver. 6. But godliness with contentment is great gain: the true, in contrast to the fancied or false. It is the mark of a base disposition to cultivate godliness for the sake merely of the temporal gain it may yield; but there is, at the same time, a real and most important temporal gain connected with it (for it is plainly of gain in this sense alone that the apostle here speaks), only it must be godliness of the right stamp: hence godliness with contentment; that is, godliness cultivated for its own sake, not as a stepping-stone to wealth or worldly consideration, and so bringing its own dowry of good along with it, making the soul “satisfied from itself.” A thought not materially different is expressed by the apostle in Galatians 6:4: “Let every man prove his own work, and then shall he have rejoicing in himself alone.” For to prove one’s own work is but a fuller mode of expressing what is meant by true godliness; and the rejoicing that follows rejoicing in oneself alone is nothing else than the sweet content and peace of soul which comes from the possession of a conscience purged from dead works, and enabled to relish the communion and service of God.

Verse 7

Ver. 7. A reason is here given for the preceding statement, that the real good for man lies in what he is as a rational and moral being, not in the outward means and possessions he may gather into his lot: for we brought nothing into the world, because neither are we able to take anything out of it. Such seems to be the correct reading. The received text has δῆλον before ὅτι with mss. K, L; but the best authorities, א , A, F, G, want it, and it was in all probability inserted to soften the apparent hardness or difficulty of the connection between the two clauses, and render the import more perspicuous. Taking the passage as it stands in the best supported form, the apostle not merely says that we both enter and leave the world in a state of destitution as to worldly goods, but that the one is ordered with a certain respect to the other: we brought nothing with us of earthly treasure when we were ushered into life here, because neither could we take aught with us when we leave it; thus having a lesson embodied in our very birth, in order that we might keep in view the solemn exemplification it was to find at the hour of death. If we do so, we shall live in the habitual recollection that all we can accumulate of the things of earth during our sojourn in it, is adventitious merely of the nature of a temporary appendage and not, therefore, for a moment to be compared with the state of the soul itself in reference to God and righteousness. Here, and here alone, lie the essential elements of our well-being.

Verse 8

Ver. 8. But ( δὲ , contrasting the avaricious desires of some with what we actually need) if we have food and raiment, with these we shall be satisfied, or have sufficient; ἀρκεσθησόμεθα , fut. pass., we shall be sufficed, have all that we really need. Many, after Luther, among others our translators, have taken it in an imperative sense, which the future sometimes undoubtedly bears (Winer Gr. § 43. 5). But here it is best to retain the original form, as the apostle is indicating what, on the condition supposed, should be regarded as a fact. The two words employed in the conditional clause διατροφὰς and σκεπάσματα occur only here in the New Testament; and though the latter has sometimes been taken in the more general sense of covering, so as to include our dwellings as well as our clothes, yet the other is the more natural, as the apostle is speaking simply of what is proper to the individual man to his proper life and being. In this sense it is taken by the ancient expositors, and is found also in Josephus ( Wars, ii. 8. 5) and other writers (see in Robinson’s Lex.). If one, therefore, has these two essentials for the bodily life, more may be dispensed with; nature has the little it can do with; whatever besides is given may be thankfully received and found available to usefulness and comfort only, not necessary.

Verse 9

Ver. 9. But they who aim at being rich (the opposite class of characters to the preceding, having their hearts set upon the superfluities of life, large possessions), such persons get into a perilous, and what usually becomes a downward and ruinous course: first, they fall into temptation that is, are in danger of betaking to means of compassing their end which are not consistent with integrity of character; not only into temptation, but also a snare their haste to be rich involving them in entanglements through which they find it impossible to work their way with a good conscience; then, as riches increase, the carnal desires and appetites to which these minister grow, they fall into many foolish and hurtful lusts, indulge in pleasures and gratifications which are in themselves unreasonable, and in their effects deteriorate the moral well-being of the soul. And these, again, have their downward and deepening tendency they are such as ( αἵτινες ) sink men into destruction and perdition. Truly a tristis gradatio, as Bengel remarks; and one that in all ages, and within the pale also of the professing church, has ever-recurring exemplifications. We see it constantly proceeding before our eyes; nor can anything effectually arrest it but that grace of God which brings salvation, and carries the affections of the soul upwards to the things which are not seen and eternal.

Verse 10

Ver. 10. For a root of all evils is the love of money or simply, root of all evils. Putting it in the latter way, the exact counterpart of the original, which also gives prominence to the term root, as the apostle undoubtedly meant, we might evade the question whether, if an article were employed, it should be the definite or the indefinite. It is certainly more in accordance with English idiom in such a passage to use an article; and if one is used, then I think, with Middleton, Huther, Conybeare, and Ellicott, against Alford, that the indefinite is the fittest a root of all evils is, etc., or the love of money is a root of all evils. No doubt the definite article might also be employed, as Alford contends, for the purpose simply of emphasizing root, designating avarice as such a vicious passion, that if it stood alone, all manner of evils might spring out of it. But, on the other hand, the expression so put is ambiguous; for it may also mean that it is the one thing which is so prolific of evil there is no other of which the same could be predicated: and that is not the case; for it might be said of ambition, and some other passions as well. The question is not, therefore, as Alford seems to consider, whether one might not here, as in other cases, use the definite article in English, where there is none in the Greek, in order to bring out the proper emphasis: one may well enough do so, as in the passage referred to by him (1 Corinthians 11:3), where, as there is but properly one thing of the kind to be thought of, it can occasion no ambiguity. But where the reverse is the case, as in the present instance, it is better to avoid it by employing the indefinite article, even though it should be with a partial sacrifice of the emphasis. The sentiment is, that there is no kind of evil to which the love of money may not lead men, when it once fairly takes hold of them. And the apostle further characterizes the affection by saying, which some, reaching after, have wandered away from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many pangs. There is a certain looseness in the structure of the passage, since avarice, or the love of money ( φιλαργυρία ), being itself an affection of the mind, a lust, one cannot strictly be said to reach or long after it. The passion is obviously identified by the apostle with its object money as a thing loved and sought after; and some, he says, reaching forth in their desires after this, made a twofold shipwreck: first, of their Christian principles, departing from the faith; and second, of their happiness, piercing themselves through ( περιέπειραν , transfixed) with many pangs. What precisely these were we are left to infer; but the expression seems to point to inward rather than to outward troubles to sorrows of heart, the pungent rebukes of conscience, which came upon the individuals referred to when they saw, and had time to reflect on, the shameful course they had pursued.

Verse 11

Ver. 11. But thou, O man of God, flee these things; different in character and aims, let your course be also different. The designation man of God was in ancient times in frequent use for prophet, because standing in a peculiarly close relation to God, acting as His representative and spokesman to the people; and it is but natural to suppose that, with some reference to that ancient usage, the designation is here applied to Timothy, reminding him by the very term, that in the special, semi-apostolic agency now entrusted to him, he in effect stood on the relatively elevated position of a prophet, and should take heed to conduct himself accordingly. It might, no doubt, with many commentators, be understood in a more general sense, with reference simply to Timothy’s state and calling as a believer. But the whole passage evidently has respect to Timothy’s destination as a public witness and servant of the Lord; and the distinctive epithet, both in itself and in its usage, best accords with that idea. It is again similarly used in 2 Timothy 3:17; and these are the only two passages where it occurs in New Testament Scripture. The things Timothy is exhorted to flee are plainly those mentioned in the immediately preceding context the love of money, and all the hurtful lusts, and corrupt as well as foolish and unbecoming practices to which it gives rise. But with this negative exhortation the apostle couples a positive: and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness of spirit ( πραϋπαθίαν , the reading of א , A, F, somewhat stronger than the received πρᾳότητα ). “As Christian virtues to which Timothy must apply himself, Paul names six, of which each pair stand in a close relation to one another: the two most general ideas go first righteousness and godliness; then follow faith and love as the fundamental principles of the Christian life; and finally, patience and meekness of spirit, which denote the conduct proper to a Christian amid the enmity and opposition of the world to Christ’s gospel” (Huther).

Verse 12

Ver. 12. Maintain the good contest of the faith literally, contend the good contest; but this does not quite accord with English usage; and I deem it better to depart a little from the precise form of the original, than to use an unsuitable combination of words, or convey a wrong impression. This last is what is done by fight the fight of the Authorized Version, and strive the strife of Ellicott and Alford. Neither strife nor fight suggests to an English ear the kind of struggle here indicated under a form of expression that bears respect to the ancient games. These games were simply strenuous contests for the mastery in trials of strength and skill; and it is of importance to retain the term contest, though we can scarcely couple it with the cognate verb. The contest, however, is characterized as good, to distinguish this spiritual contest from the carnal and ambitious wrestlings on the arena. And it is further characterized as that of the faith meaning thereby the specific exercise of faith in the person and work of Christ. The adherents of this faith were like men contending for the mastery against the powers of evil working everywhere in the world around them; they must therefore quit themselves like men, in order to succeed in the conflict. Then the connection is indicated between the contest and the prize: lay hold of eternal life, which, as Winer notes ( Gr. § 43, 2), must mean, Do it in and through the contest; for the laying hold of eternal life is not represented as the result of the contest (though it might have been so), but as itself the substance of the contest: one must grasp the reality, in a measure now, in order to maintain the struggle aright, and reach the life in its full and final heritage of blessing. (The change of tense, too, is significant, the first imperative in the present, ἀγωνίζου, the second in the aorist, ἐπιλαβοῦ the former having respect to an action already commenced and to be continued, the latter to an action which is in a manner done at once (see Winer, § 43, 3).)

Having mentioned eternal life, the apostle now drops the figure, and brings the great reality into connection with the Christian calling: unto which thou wert called, and didst confess the good confession before many witnesses. The period referred to is undoubtedly that of his formally embracing the faith of Christ’s gospel. Timothy was then called to receive the gift of eternal life (Romans 6:23; 1 Peter 5:10); and then also made confession of his belief in the truth in Christ, though the precise moment of his doing so in public before many witnesses, as it is here put, might be either at his baptism or his ordination to the work of the ministry. These are the occasions that naturally present themselves to one’s mind in connection with such a statement, and it is needless to think of any other.

Verse 13

Ver. 13. The mention of that confession or witness-bearing which had been made by Timothy seems to have suggested to the apostle’s mind another and still higher act of the same kind, which he interweaves in a solemn appeal and charge to Timothy: I charge thee before God, who preserveth alive (The correct text appears to be ζωογονοῦντος, the reading of A, D, F, G, not ζωοποιοῦντος, which is the received text, and is the reading of א , K, L; and th e meaning of ζωογ. in the sense of preserving alive is confirmed by the only other passages where it occurs, Luke 17:33, Acts 7:19.) all things, and Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed the good confession. The object of this appeal, and of the specific characters under which God and Christ are here presented, is obviously to strengthen the exhortation which follows, and brace the mind of Timothy to its faithful discharge. God is represented as the preserver of all, and consequently as able to minister protection and support to those who were ready to obey His will, and hazard all for His glory. Then, as the highest example of One who did thus show that He made account of nothing in comparison of the fealty he owed to the claims of truth and righteousness, the apostle points to the fearless and uncompromising testimony given by Christ before Pontius Pilate. ( Ἐπὶ admits of being taken in the sense either of under, with the Vulgate, Gothic, English versions, De Wette, Ellicott, etc., or before, as the Syriac, Chrysostom, Huther, Alford, etc.; but the latter seems the more natural sense, as it is only in connection with the closing scenes of our Lord’s life, and especially with the testimony He then bore to His own person and kingdom, and so shortly after sealed with His blood, that the evangelical record brings Him into contact with Pontius Pilate.) And in regard to the testimony itself, there is, I think, room for the distinction drawn between it and Timothy’s in the preceding verse, indicated by Bengel: testari confessionem, erat Domini; confiteri confessionem, Timothei. The one was of a fundamental or primary character, the other responsive and secondary. Christ bore witness to the truth respecting Himself and His kingdom, as in the closest manner identified with it, and being it; and His confession, as Bengel justly says, “animates all other confessions” Timothy’s among the rest gave birth to them, indeed. But we may still say, with Huther, that the confession which the disciple of Christ is called to make, and which is declared to have been made by Timothy, is as to its nature nothing else than that which was testified by Christ; and hence it is in each case “ the good confession” a specific and formal utterance in respect to the essentials of the Christian faith differing, it may be, and doubtless often does, in words, but coinciding in the substance of the doctrines confessed. Some commentators appear to broaden the difference between the confessions beyond what the language necessarily implies, or even properly admits of.

Verse 14

Ver. 14. Here follows the thing charged upon Timothy: that thou keep the commandment spotless and unrebukeable until the appearance of our Lord Jesus Christ. Various shades of meaning have been put upon the commandment ( τὴν ἐντολὴν ) which Timothy was enjoined to observe or keep. As there is nothing of a special kind mentioned in the preceding context to which it can fitly be referred, it is most naturally understood of the moral obligation generally, the injunction or rule implied in the very nature of the gospel to adhere to the great principles of truth and righteousness, or to give the gospel as to what it teaches and requires a practical and embodied form. This practical imperative of the gospel (if we may so speak) the apostle calls Timothy to keep spotless and unrebukeable, a somewhat peculiar form of exhortation, certainly, as these epithets are strictly applicable to persons only, though there are not wanting instances of a more extended application in other writers (as in Philo, de Opif., ἡ ἀνεπίληπτος τέχνη ; Plato, Phil. 43, ἀνεπιληπτότερον τὸ λεγόμενον ). Considered by itself, of course, a thing inherently good cannot become subject to any real tarnish or defilement: it must ever remain what its own essential nature makes it; and of nothing involving moral obligation may this more properly be said than in respect to the ethical bearing of the gospel. But contemplated from a popular point of view, a reproach or charge is naturally conceived to be brought on a scheme of doctrine or duty when its acknowledged representatives give an exhibition of it which palpably offends against men’s notions of the pure and good; or, in the case of the gospel, is contrary to its real character. And this is plainly what is meant here: it is that Timothy might be careful so to bear himself in the ministry of the gospel, and the intercourse of daily life, as to prevent God’s word and service from suffering reproach through his failures; and though the expressions used by the apostle have immediate respect to the commandment itself, not to the observance of Timothy, yet practically it is all one with saying, as Chrysostom puts it, that Timothy should beware of contracting any stain in respect to his doctrine or manner of life. And this till the appearance (the epiphany) of our Lord Jesus Christ the second advent, which was certainly contemplated by the eye of faith as near, yet not so as to be confidently expected at any definite period, or within the limits of that generation. This is rendered clear by the statements of Paul in one of his earliest epistles (2 Thessalonians 2:1-12), and also in a measure by what follows here.

Verses 15-16

Vers. 15, 16. These verses begin with a more particular description of the expected appearance of Christ in its relation to God, and then run out into a doxology, celebrating the incomparable greatness and glory of God. This Baur and others would regard as a protest against the semi-polytheism or dualism of the Gnostics an entirely fanciful and unnatural view. The object seems rather to have been to fortify the mind of Timothy to a consistent and persevering adherence to the Christian faith and life amid the scorn or opposition of worldly powers of the stamp of Pontius Pilate, by placing distinctly before him the sole supremacy, the peerless eminence, and infinite sufficiency of Him who has decreed the future manifestation in glory of Christ, as He had done that of His past humiliation. This affords a reason perfectly cognate to many others introduced by the apostle in this epistle (1 Timothy 1:18-19, 1 Timothy 2:5-7, 1 Timothy 3:15-16, 1 Timothy 5:21, etc.), and in proper keeping with the connection. Which (namely, appearance) in His own seasons He shall show, [who is] the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who only has immortality, dwelling in light that is unapproachable, whom no man hath seen nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen. In regard to what is said at the outset about the appearing of Christ, that it is to take place in God’s own seasons, there is plainly indicated a certain indefiniteness, as in regard to a matter which belongs to the secret things of God, not therefore to be pronounced upon by the superficiality and littleness of human foresight (Bengel: brevitatem temporis non valde coarctuans). The words remind us perhaps were purposely designed to remind us of the address given by our Lord before His ascension to the disciples on this very subject: “It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in His own power” (Acts 1:6), the seasons, namely, which concern the greater movements of Christ’s kingdom, and especially, as here, His advent in glory. Nay, our Lord Himself had previously told them, that as regards the precise period when He should come to manifest Himself in the glory of that kingdom, even He did not know it in His humiliation (Mark 13:32), doubtless because He did not wish to know it; the knowledge would have been unsuited to that transient and provisional state of things. God is here designated the blessed, as at 1 Timothy 1:11 the antithesis of everything that can be called sorrow or vexation; also the only Potentate ( μόνος δυνάστης ) alone in the universe possessed of independent right, absolute sovereignty. The epithet King of kings and Lord of lords is, with a slight variation in the form, directly applied to Christ in Revelation 17:14, Revelation 19:16; for in this, as in all divine prerogatives, “all that the Father hath is His.” But it is plainly God the Father that is here the subject of discourse, as some parts of the description are not properly applicable to Christ as the God-man. When it is said of God that He only has immortality, the meaning plainly is, He alone has it of Himself it is in Him as its fountainhead. John 5:26, which declares the Father to have life in Himself life in the full and absolute sense is substantially parallel. Further, He is represented as dwelling in an atmosphere of light light that from its excessive splendour and intense brilliancy is incapable of being approached or looked upon by the eye of man: compare John 1:18; 1 John 1:5; Psalms 104:2. The whole of this sublime representation concludes, and is most appropriately wound up, with an ascription of honour and power to God, as alone entitled to receive the homage and adoration of His intelligent creatures.

Verse 17

Ver. 17. The apostle here again reverts to the subject of riches, but now under a different aspect, with reference not to those who made wealth their idol, and were ready to sacrifice principle and character for its attainment, but to such as, having acquired riches, still retain their Christianity, and are willing to use what they possess in accordance with the truth of God and their own best interests. Charge them that are rich in this world not to be high-minded, nor to set their hopes on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who ministers to us all things richly for enjoyment. The instruction to give such a charge obviously implies, that there already were persons in the church at Ephesus to whom the epithet rich might not improperly be applied. But that, as every one knows, is a relative term, and in one country or one stage of social progress might include persons whom none almost would think of associating with it in another. It is absurd, therefore, to find an argument against the early existence of the epistle as is done by Schleiermacher and others in the mention of rich persons in the church at Ephesus; and, indeed, the disturbance occasioned there many years before the real date of the epistle by Demetrius and his craftsmen, was alone a proof that even then the movement from the old worship in favour of Christianity must have embraced individuals in various grades of society; not a few that were well-to-do in the world, as well as those who were comparatively poor. The persons who might be deemed relatively rich were to be exhorted not to be high-minded, nor to have their hopes set on the uncertainty of riches ἠλπικέναι ἐπὶ πλούτου ἀδηλότητι , a very Striking expression. The verb is in the perfect; and being used in connection with a charge to the persons in question, it must mean that they ought not to have done so in the past, nor continue to do so now not so to hope in such an object as if it were a settled and abiding habit of mind. Then, instead of putting riches as the object of the hope, the apostle rather indicates the quality in riches which rendered it peculiarly unsuitable for such a purpose. It is a rhetorical rather than a strictly grammatical construction; for the term for riches is undoubtedly the principal substantive, and the natural construction would have been to put it in the dative, and couple it with an adjective, expressive of the uncertain element adhering to them πλούτῳ τῷ ἀδήλῳ ). But the mode of expression in the text is not arbitrary; as Winer remarks ( Gr. § 34, 3, a), “it is chosen for the purpose of giving more prominence to the main idea, which, if expressed by means of an adjective, would be thrown more into the background: hence it belongs to rhetoric, not to grammar.” To trust in riches, the apostle would have it understood, is virtually to make uncertainty one’s confidence, since both their continuance with us, and our possession of them, may at any moment come to a termination. The contrast to such an insecure foundation is God, the eternal, the all-sufficient, who ministers richly to His people’s necessities and just desires, and who, as a source of enjoyment to those who trust in Him, can never fail.

Verse 18

Ver. 18. Here we have in one or two particulars the positive aspect of rich men’s duties: that they do good ( ἀγαθοεργεῖν ), that they he rich in excellent deeds ( ἐν ἔργοις καλοῖς , deeds inherently noble and praiseworthy), free in distributing, ready to communicate (or, as Alford puts it, free-givers, ready-contributors), not merely imparting of their substance to the relief of the needy and the promotion of good objects, but doing it with a frank generosity and a liberal hand. To act thus is nobly to realize the stewardship of wealth, and, according to the word of our Lord, to make to oneself friends of what, taken merely by itself, is the mammon of unrighteousness (Luke 16:9).

Verse 19

Ver. 19. The description is here wound up by a word which very strikingly exhibits the connection between such a course of action on earth and its issues in eternity: treasuring up ( ἀποθησαυρίζοντες , off from what would otherwise be lost, and so up) for themselves a good foundation for the future, in order that they may lay hold of what is life indeed. (Such seems to be the correct reading, τῆς ὄντως ζωῆς, א , A, D, F, Ital., Vulg., Syr., Cop. versions, and most of the Fathers; while the received text, τῆς αἰωνι ́ ου ζωῆς, is the reading of only two uncials, K, L, with little collateral support. This is also the reading which might naturally suggest itself as an explanation.) Two important practical points are here forcibly presented. The first is, the doctrine of a future recompense, the proper employment of one’s means in charitable and pious uses, and consequently the doing of good deeds generally, being said to constitute a treasure for the world to come; a treasure which is not an uncertainty, like riches when contemplated by themselves and sought for their own sake, but a foundation ( θεμέλιον ), or well-grounded basis of hope, for the great future. The doctrine could scarcely be more unequivocally put, and is the more remarkable as coming from him who was emphatically the preacher of grace: he saw no incompatibility between a free salvation, the gift of sovereign grace to the sinful, and the placing of those who have become partakers of grace under the law of recompense. And in the teaching of our Lord Himself, the same two doctrines are equally marked characteristics (comp., for example, in Matthew 5:3-10, the first four beatitudes with the second four; or the two parables, Luke 16:1-12, Matthew 18:23-35). The link of connection between the two is, that the grace which brings salvation as a divine gift, becomes from its very nature to those who receive it their great talent, wherewith they must do service to God, and hereafter be dealt with according as they have themselves done. But is not such a prominent exhibition of the doctrine of reward at variance with the disinterested nature of true excellence? It might be so, if isolated from other parts of the Christian system, but not when taken in its proper connection. “For the truth is, that the Christian’s love of virtue does not arise from a previous desire of the reward; but his desire of the reward arises from a previous love of virtue. The first and immediate effect of his conversion is to inspire him with the genuine love of virtue and religion; and his desire of the reward is a secondary and subordinate effect, a consequence of the love of virtue previously formed in him. For of the nature of the reward it promises, what does the gospel discover to us more than this, that it shall be great and endless, and adapted to the intellectual endowments and moral qualities of the human soul in a state of high improvement? ‘It doth not yet appear what we shall be; but we know that when He shall appear we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is.’” (Horsley’s 2d Sermon on Philippians 3:15.) This resemblance is even represented in Scripture as the most essential element both of the Christian state here and of the heavenly state hereafter; and therefore not the actions simply which appear in the life, but the motives also and principles from which those actions proceed, must go together in any just expectation that is formed of future recompense. Beneficent deeds and good deeds generally are valuable most of all on this account, that they are the indications and fruits of a regenerated nature; and such a nature, so proved and exercised, will at last “as by its own elasticity spring to heaven,” while that which is in an opposite condition shall not less certainly “descend by its own dead weight to kindred darkness” (A. Butler). (A well-known passage in Newman’s discourses puts the matter happily, as regards the present relation of goodness to the beneficial consequences that spring from it: “All virtue and goodness tend to make men powerful in this world; but they who aim at the power have not the virtue. Again: Virtue is its own reward, and brings with it the truest and highest pleasures; but they who cultivate it for the pleasure-sake are selfish, not religious, and will never gain the pleasure, because they can never have the virtue.”) The other point here presented is the emphasis laid on life in the higher sense life that really may be called such: rich Christians are exhorted to deal with their earthly means in the manner prescribed, in order that they may lay hold of this. Simply as rich men, they were in danger of suffering it to escape from them; certain to fail of it, if they set their hearts on worldly lucre, and the enjoyments to which it ministers. What is meant by such life? It is nothing else than that participation of a divine nature already referred to, which has its beginning here in all spiritual excellence and fruitful working, but will reach its consummation when that which is in part shall be done away, and the perfect shall have come. In this passage, it may be added, St. Paul approaches more nearly to St. John’s mode of representation concerning the Life ( ζώη ) than anywhere else Life, without anything further; Life in the reality being viewed as the one and all of a blessed condition. To exhibit this life as having its fountainhead in the Father, and coming to men as His gift in Christ, is the common teaching of both, and indeed of all the New Testament writers; to St. John only it is peculiar to represent Him, through whom the gift comes, as the Life (John 1:4, John 11:25, John 14:6, etc.). “In the Father, things are shut up and hidden which manifest themselves in the Son; therefore all things which the Son has belong to the Father: but in the Son the properties of the Father are revealed to men, in order that His name may be celebrated with praise. Life thus lying concealed with the Father in the beginning was manifested to men in the Son; so that when the Father is manifested, the Son is to be seen” (Olshausen, Opuscula, p. 193). In regard to men, life in this higher sense is predicated only of such as have, through the action of the Holy Spirit on their souls, been brought to participate of that which is in Christ. The merely natural man ( ψύχικος ) is dead, even while as an inhabitant of the world he lives; “it is the Spirit that quickeneth.” And this quickening energy entering into the soul, and linking it through faith in’ Christ to the proper heritage of life, the body also, by reason of its connection with the soul, must share in the glorious possession; and when both soul and body reach thus their destined perfection, there shall be the full enjoyment of what is here called the life indeed life in its completeness of purity and blessing.

Verses 20-21

Vers. 20-22. The conclusion, containing another very earnest charge to fidelity: O Timothy, keep the deposit ( τὴν παραθήκην , used again in 2Ti 1:12 , 2 Timothy 1:14, and each time with the same verb). What deposit? Neither here nor in the other two passages in which the word is employed, first with reference to Paul, and then with reference to Timothy, is any further description given of it: the apostle himself commits to Christ’s keeping what he calls a deposit; and Timothy had committed to him a deposit to keep, which is simply characterized as good. So far, however, the connection here throws some light upon the subject; for the deposit is plainly represented as what, if faithfully kept, would preserve Timothy from the false teachings of the Gnostic school, which were already beginning to make themselves heard: turning away from the profane babblings and oppositions of knowledge (the gnosis) falsely so called, which some professing, erred concerning the faith. So that remaining stedfast in the one, he should avoid the dangers of the other. And what could possibly avail for such a purpose, but the sound faith or doctrine of the gospel? This is what the apostle himself, in various passages, sets against the false tendency in question, as the only true antidote; for example, at chap. 1 Timothy 1:3, 1 Timothy 1:11, 1Ti 1:18 , 1 Timothy 4:6, 1 Timothy 6:3, etc. So Chrysostom, who identifies the deposit with faith, on the ground that “where faith is not, there is no knowledge; when anything is produced of one’s own thoughts, it is not knowledge:” in other words, the errors to be guarded against are the teachings of man; the safeguard against them is what is received by faith from the teaching of God. Tertullian also not only explains it in the same way, but argues against the abuse made of the passage by the Gnostic teachers, to support their assertion that the apostles taught certain things secretly and to a few, which they withheld from others. “What (says he) is this deposit, so secret, that it may be reckoned another sort of doctrine?” And referring to the charge given in 1 Timothy 1:18, 1 Timothy 6:13, of this epistle, as probably pointing to the same thing, he proceeds: “From what is written in the preceding and subsequent context, it will be perceived that there is no allusion in the form of expression to any secret doctrine, but rather that he is warned against admitting any other doctrine than that which he had heard from himself (viz. Paul), and that openly Before many witnesses, says he (2 Timothy 2:2). If by those many witnesses they are unwilling to understand the church, it is of no moment; since nothing could be secret which was set forth in the presence of many witnesses “( de Prcescrip. Haeret. c. 25). The modern advocates, therefore, of a secret traditional doctrine handed down from Patristic testimony, follow not the Fathers, but the Gnostics, in their use of this passage; and in the interpretation they put on it, they always assume two things which are absolutely incapable of proof, first, that Timothy’s deposit embraced something of importance not in Scripture; and second, that Patristic tradition is an infallible informant as to what that deposit was (see Goode’s Rule of Faith, ii. p. 78). Even Vincentius Lirinensis, in a long passage regarding the deposit in his Commonitorium, expressly designates it, like Tertullian, as no more of private teaching, than of private invention: “Quid est depositum? . . . rem, non ingenii sed doctrinae, non usurpationis privatae sed publicae traditionis;” nothing else, in short, than the great facts and principles which constituted the burden of apostolic teaching.

The profane babblings and oppositions of the falsely-named knowledge have already been referred to, both in the Introduction to the epistles and at 1 Timothy 1:6, 1 Timothy 1:19-20. What is meant is that peculiar kind of religious speculation which originated in the East, but gradually spread westward to Asia Minor, Greece, and Egypt, and which bears the general name of Gnosticism, because of the predominant account it made of gnosis, or knowledge. It was this, however, still only in an incipient form, not as ultimately developed into the regularly constructed systems, which appeared one after another in the second and third centuries, and which, though courting alliance with Christianity, were always denounced as essentially antichristian by the Fathers. It was this in spirit and character, even in its earlier and more sporadic existence, in which it assumed a variety of phases and manifestations; so that it cannot be either very particularly characterized or identified with any single locality and individual, but was the native fruit of the spirit of the age, animated and influenced by the circumstances of the time (see Reuss, Theol. Chretienne, vol. ii. p. 641). But being in its very nature of a presumptuous and pragmatical tendency, whenever yielded to, it was sure to lead men away from the simple and earnest faith of the gospel.

The grace (namely, of God) be with you! (The best authorities have ὑμῶν, א , A, F, G, P, which at 2 Timothy 4:22 is the reading also of the received text.) or simply, Grace be with you: thee, and those with thee.

(For the subscription, see close of INTRODUCTION.)