1 Timoteo 1:3-5

‘As I exhorted you to stay awhile at Ephesus, when I was going into Macedonia, so that you might charge certain men not to teach a different doctrine, nor to give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questionings, rather than a household management of God which is in faith; so do I now. But the end of the charge is love out of a pure heart and a good conscience and faith unfeigned,’

‘As I exhorted you to stay awhile at Ephesus.’ Timothy had been ministering in Ephesus, and Paul had exhorted (or ‘requested’) him to stay there for the good of the church. It would appear that Timothy felt that it was time that he left there, for he would be well aware that he was young and inexperienced, but Paul was asking him to remain there in order, among other things, to combat this foolish teaching in so important and influential a church. And when Paul made a request to a godly young man like Timothy it was in the nature of a command, for he would be seen as speaking in God’s name.

‘When I was going into Macedonia.’ All this tells us is that Timothy knew that Paul was going into Macedonia. It does not tell us what his starting point had been. There is therefore no reason for assuming that Paul had been in Ephesus just prior to the letter. (Its force depended simply on the information that Timothy had. There is no ‘natural’ way of reading it apart from that, and we do not know what Timothy’s information was). So Paul reminds Timothy how he (Timothy) had been in Ephesus, while Paul was going to Macedonia, and how he had exhorted him to remain there for a while. Timothy had clearly wanted to leave Ephesus, finding the going a little hard for one who was sensitive, as well as being young and relatively inexperienced, and feeling insufficient in himself. But Paul asked him to remain there in order to combat foolish teaching, and he did so. It is a reminder that the pathway of our choosing is not necessarily the one that will be the best for the work of God.

It should be stressed that Paul does not say that he himself had been at Ephesus. He simply states his destination. Paul’s previous exhortation might have been by letter or through messengers as he was organising the activities of his missionary band throughout Asia Minor and Greece. By means of messengers he kept in close touch with his ‘assistants’, and indeed sometimes they were his messengers.

Some, reading into it that Paul is saying that he had been at Ephesus with Timothy, have pointed out that Paul had told the Ephesian elders in Acts 20:22 that they would see his face no more. But that statement may in fact simply have meant ‘not in the near future’ simply because he knew of the trials that lay ahead of him. For that time at least, and for the foreseeable future, he wanted them to know that he would not be travelling again through Asia Minor, with the consequence being that they must not depend on his coming to them again. But that was not to close the door on him ever coming again to them. Paul knew only too well that his life was being directed for him. It was not therefore for him to determine the distant future. He knew only of what lay close at hand, and wanted the elders to become God-sufficient.

Besides Paul would not be the first person to have said, ‘you won’t be seeing me again’, only for circumstances to change. Such a statement can only ever mean, ‘not this time around’. But however that might be Paul may not even have been at Ephesus this time. He may simply have sent Timothy there to give encouragement and teaching, and to pass on his love and concern for their welfare while he was active elsewhere. With a rapidly extending church he could not be everywhere, and the world was a large place and the Christian resources spread thinly.

‘So that you might charge certain men not to teach a different doctrine, nor to give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questionings.’ One reason that Paul had wanted Timothy to remain at Ephesus was in order to counter some spurious teaching that was in vogue there. He had wanted him to put straight some of the elders and teachers who were straying into false ideas (in a young church with no New Testament it was inevitable that some would begin to speculate, especially in view of a tendency among some to interpret Scripture symbolically and the kind of ideas that were constantly floating around in the wider world). Thus Timothy was to put their doctrine straight, and ensure that they stuck firmly with the main essentials and did not stray into speculative and unimportant lines of thinking. It was important rather that the church be solidly based on a foundation of the central truths.

‘Certain men.’ That the erring teachers were probably elders of the house-churches in Ephesus comes out in that they saw themselves as 'teachers of the law' (1 Timothy 1:7. See also 1 Timothy 3:2; 1 Timothy 5:17). Also by the fact that it was Paul himself and not the church leadership who dealt with the main offenders (1 Timothy 1:20 - it would appear that it required his authority). Note too the repeated concern shown about the leadership in this letter, both in regard to their qualifications (1 Timothy 3:1-13), and to their behaviour (1 Timothy 5:20) and original appointment (1 Timothy 5:22).

‘Not to teach a different doctrine, nor to give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questionings.’ He especially wanted to persuade them not to get involved in ‘fables and endless genealogies which minister questions’, that is, ideas which were based on the inventiveness of the human mind and were speculative (compare 1 Timothy 4:7), and led to further questionings which would lead nowhere. They were ‘endless’ because there is no limit to the fertility of the human mind when unrestrained. Furthermore the word ‘genealogies’ is a word which may well include family histories as a similar word does in Genesis (compare its use in Genesis 37:2 where it is not strictly connected with a genealogy and RSV translates as ‘family history’). 1 Timothy 1:7 suggests that these were in some way connected with teaching the Law. Such speculations were very prevalent in Judaism, especially Hellenistic Judaism.

Genealogies were indeed especially important to the orthodox Jews, whose leaders considered that good descent was everything. A number of Christian Jews may well thus have been emphasising the need for those of ‘pure descent’ to remain ‘true’ to Jewish practises, and by the use of invented or exaggerated genealogical thinking have been ‘proving’ how many were included in that definition (see Titus 1:14; Titus 3:9 which specifically connects these things against which Paul is speaking with the Jews, while 1 Timothy 1:6-7 below confirm a connection with ‘the Law’).

Or they may have become involved in some of the fantasies about genealogies found in those who had been influenced by Philo’s more extravagant teaching issuing from among the Jews of Alexandria. Among other things with him the names in the genealogies represented the various conditions of the soul. Others built up stories around them, and then speculated on them. We all know of those today who can use and interpret names in genealogies and build stories around them in order to build up a picture which is simply an invention of their own minds, and pure speculation, but can sound convincing until it is examined by someone who knows what they are talking about. There is no need to see incipient Gnostic speculation here, although such may well have been going on at the time, for the seeds of Gnosticism were clearly around when Paul wrote Colossians. So it is probably with a view to countering such uses of ‘genealogies’ as are described above that Paul was writing. For one example of how genealogies were used among Jews in the wider sense see the Book of Jubilees with its mythical fables and histories. But the problem was that the use of genealogies in this way limited the truth in men’s minds rather than expanding it, and made it dependent on useless inventions which came from small minds. Whichever way it was it had to be stopped, for it was leading into the kind of questioning and speculation that was distinctively unhelpful, and was diverting men from the truth. (Those with a scholastic bent were clearly equally as inventive then as they are now, and with less restraints. But the problem that Paul had with it there was that it was being fed to the ordinary people as though it was the Gospel). The impression being given is not of a dangerous heresy, but of things which were a foolish waste of time, simply diverting people from the central truths. They may often have appeared more interesting than sound doctrine, but they gave no genuine basis for faith, which if it was to be genuine had to be founded on reasonably rational ideas and related to true life situations. Sound doctrine always has a good rational and historical basis.

Interestingly Rabbi Benjamin echoes Paul’s description (admittedly in 11th century AD) when he refers to some Jews in his time, who were Rechabites, and were very numerous, and had a prince over them of the house of David; and, adds that they have a genealogical book "and extracts of questions" (Massaoth, p. 83). Compare Paul’s ‘genealogies which minister questions’. Such throwbacks to the past might well have preserved very ancient tradition so that this may be seen as helping to confirm that the phrase itself has a Jewish background.

‘Rather than a household management (oikonomia) of God which is in faith.’ He wanted rather to ensure that their teaching was more positive and that it established the ‘household’ of the people of God in their faith, and kept them looking to and trusting in God. It was the responsibility of the elders and teachers to ‘manage the household and dispense truth’. And they must do so on the foundation of what all true Christians saw as ‘the faith’, the basic central doctrines which the Apostles had taught. Or alternately he was suggesting that the people’s faith in Christ must be what was emphasised and encouraged. What they were not to be involved with were speculations into irrelevancies invented by men, not based on genuine history and on Apostolic teaching.

‘So do I now.’ This phrase is actually not there in the Greek text. Paul had tailed off without finishing his sentence, as he often did (something which sticks out more in a translation than in the original Greek). So the sense has to be read in. It is clear that Paul saw the charge as still effective.

‘But the end of the charge is love out of a pure heart and a good conscience and faith unfeigned.’ He then makes clear what the purpose behind his ‘charge’ is (‘charge’ is a military term indicating ‘command’ and refers to the responsibility that he was putting on Timothy which he had to pass on to the elders and teachers). It was in order that first Timothy, and then the elders and teachers, and then the whole congregation, might maintain love from ‘a pure heart, a good conscience and a faith that was genuine (and not simply a show)’. Philosophical speculation does not on the whole tend to result in practical love, but Christian doctrine was supposed to do precisely that. Paul was concerned that true and genuine love, love towards God, towards each other, and towards the world, which was central to the Gospel, was being set aside because of these speculations.

‘Love from a pure heart --.’ This meant love towards God Himself (not towards mythical ideas), love to all men, and love for one another, each of which was central to the Gospel (Deuteronomy 6:5; Matthew 5:42-48; Matthew 22:37-39; John 13:34-35). The purity of heart included sound doctrine which would result in sound living. If the eye was full of light then so would their ways be (Matthew 6:22). Those whose hearts were sound in that way would then live in full purity of life which was the second aspect of a pure heart (Psalms 15:0). Let the heart but be stayed on Christ, and the life would fall into place. But let the vision of Christ be dimmed, and then anything could happen. True morals rested on true faith, and that was the source of love.

‘A good conscience.’ That is a conscience that was satisfied that it was not straying from the truth, and one that could be satisfied that it was abiding by Christ’s teaching as depicted, for example, in the Sermon on the Mount. It was the conscience of a person whose heart was fixed on Christ, and who ‘walked in the light’ by following Him. The word means literally ‘a knowing along with’. It may thus mean ‘knowing that one’s behaviour is in line with that of their fellows’ or ‘a knowing of oneself’, an inner knowledge with the mind thinking along with the spirit. But its connection with ‘the truth’ in Paul’s eyes comes out in 1 Timothy 4:2, where the speaking of lies acts as a brand on the conscience, demonstrating that it is false. To be valid conscience has to be satiated in truth.

‘A genuine faith (faith unfeigned).’ Faith had to be properly and rightly fed if it was to remain genuine. And it was necessary to ensure that it really was faith in Christ Himself, and what He had taught, and not in endless speculations built up around His Name. For a similar use of ‘unfeigned’ see 2 Corinthians 6:6; Romans 12:9.

‘Oikonomia.’ A typical Pauline word which, apart from its use in Luke 16:2-4, is found only in 1 Corinthians 9:17; Colossians 1:25; Ephesians 1:9; Ephesians 3:9; and here.