Barnes' Notes on the Bible · 1 Timothy Chương 1

提摩太前書導論

第一節　提摩太生平的相關記載

關於提摩太，如今所能確知的，幾乎都必須從新約聖經中得著。他是特庇或路司得人，但究竟屬於哪一城，已無法確知（Acts 16:1）。保羅巡訪那些地方時在當地遇見了他，此前似乎與他並不相識。他的母親名叫友尼基，是猶太婦人，為人敬虔，他的外祖母羅以也是如此（2 Timothy 1:3）。他的父親是希利尼人，但顯然並不敵視猶太教，因為提摩太自幼受了聖經的悉心教導（2 Timothy 3:15）。保羅來到特庇和路司得、得以認識提摩太，約在主後51或52年；但提摩太當時確切的年齡，如今已無法查考。不過，有理由認為他當時還是個年輕人（1 Timothy 4:12）。此外，他似乎也是一位前途格外可期的青年，曾有一些特別的徵兆表明，他將成為宗教上傑出的人物，並要為宗教發揮廣遠的影響（1 Timothy 1:18）。保羅初次遇見提摩太時，他已是「門徒」，即歸信基督的人；至於他藉著何種方式歸信，則不得而知。提摩太的母親此前已歸信基督（Acts 16:1），提摩太在路司得和以哥念一帶城邑的基督徒中間也廣為人知。保羅和巴拿巴在以哥念、特庇、路司得傳福音，比記載所說保羅遇見提摩太之時早約六七年（Acts 16:1），因此這位青年在那段期間歸信，也並非沒有可能。

看來有幾項因素共同促使使徒把他帶進傳道事工，並使他成為旅行同伴：他的年輕、他對聖經的熟悉、「從前指著他的預言」、他的才幹、他在教會中的一般聲望，似乎還有他性情的溫和可親——足以使他成為令人愉快的同伴——這一切都吸引了使徒的注意，使保羅渴望他能作自己的同工。為要顧及猶太人的偏見，並杜絕任何可能針對他擔任傳道職分之資格而生的反對，保羅給他行了割禮（Acts 16:3）；提摩太則藉「眾長老的按手」受按立，擔任傳道的職分（1 Timothy 4:14）。這次按立發生在何時已不可考，但它多半是在提摩太隨保羅出行之前，因為我們知道保羅當時在場，並在這事上居主導的地位（2 Timothy 1:6）。

提摩太與保羅、西拉會合之後，隨他們同行，探訪弗呂家和加拉太的眾教會，把耶路撒冷所定的規條交付他們遵守（Acts 16:4及以下）。這事既畢，他們想一同往庇推尼去——那是小亞細亞西北部的一個省份——卻受了攔阻，於是往每西亞和特羅亞去（Acts 16:8）。路加似乎在這裏與他們會合；他們從這裏出發，因順從保羅所見的異象，往馬其頓去，先在腓立比傳福音，並在那裏建立了教會。在這城裏，保羅和西拉被下在監裏；但值得注意的是，關於提摩太和路加，經文竟隻字不提，他們是否也分嘗了當地逼迫的苦楚，不得而知。然而，種種情形都使「提摩太當時與他們同在腓立比」這一推測更為可信：經上提到他與他們一同起行（Acts 16:3）；而且，在使徒出監之後、於帖撒羅尼迦和庇哩亞傳道以後，我們便在庇哩亞看見提摩太（Acts 17:14）。保羅從那裏被送往雅典，卻留下吩咐，叫西拉和提摩太儘快到他那裏去。這事果然辦到了；只是提摩太到了雅典之後，保羅深感帖撒羅尼迦教會在患難中需要有人去探訪安慰，又因自己無法親往，便不惜使自己大受不便，打發提摩太回到那教會去。提摩太在那裏辦完了當辦的事，就在哥林多與使徒重新會合（Act 18:5）——寫給帖撒羅尼迦人的第一封書信正是從那裏寫成的；見帖撒羅尼迦前書導論，以及1 Thessalonians 1:1和1 Thessalonians 3:2的註釋。這些事件約發生於主後52年。

保羅在哥林多住了一年零六個月（Acts 18:11），提摩太和西拉大概也一直與他同在；見2 Thessalonians 1:1。保羅從哥林多啟航往敘利亞，有百基拉和亞居拉同行；他似乎在途中把他們留在了以弗所（Acts 18:18-19, Acts 18:26）。提摩太和西拉是否同行，經上並未提到；但在保羅去過該撒利亞和安提阿、再回到以弗所以後，我們又在那裏看見提摩太與他同在（Acts 18:22; Acts 19:1, Acts 19:22）。保羅從以弗所打發提摩太和以拉都往馬其頓去（Acts 19:22），但為了何事、停留多久，均不可知。從1 Corinthians 4:17看來，保羅指望提摩太此行會在哥林多停留，按那教會的處境給予合宜的教導。保羅在以弗所一直住到因底米丟所掀起的擾亂而不得不離開，隨即起身往馬其頓去（Acts 20）。

在這段期間，提摩太是否已從馬其頓回到以弗所，歷史記載沒有明說；但這樣的推想並非全無可能。保羅在以弗所居留的初期似乎安靜作工（Acts 19:9-10），而提摩太是在底米丟掀起擾亂之前被打發走的（Acts 19:22）。保羅打算不久跟著前去，然後往耶路撒冷，再往羅馬（Acts 19:21）。保羅在以弗所前後約有三年（Acts 20:31）；因此，設想在提摩太被打發往馬其頓之後，保羅仍在那裏住了足夠他往返的時間，並非不合情理。若是這樣，那麼保羅自己離開時，就可能是把提摩太留在那裏代替自己；比較1 Timothy 1:3。通行的意見認為，提摩太前書正是在這時候寫的——或是在使徒往馬其頓去的路上，或是在馬其頓停留期間。但這一見解並非全無爭議。

保羅往馬其頓去，約在主後58或59年。在Acts 20:4，提摩太再次被提為與保羅同行的人——那時保羅在希臘住了三個月，取道馬其頓往敘利亞去。他與其他許多人陪同保羅往「亞西亞」去。他們先行，在特羅亞等候保羅（Acts 20:5），隨後無疑也伴隨他往耶路撒冷去。保羅在米利都向以弗所教會的長老們作臨別的囑咐，正是在這一次（Acts 20:17）。保羅在馬其頓的時候寫了哥林多後書，那時提摩太與他同在，因為保羅在問安中把他聯同署名（2 Corinthians 1:1）。在這次行程中，保羅從哥林多寫羅馬書的時候，提摩太也與使徒同在（Romans 16:21）。

提摩太生平其後的事蹟，所知較少。使徒行傳並未顯示提摩太在保羅於該撒利亞被囚兩年期間、或航行往羅馬期間與他同在。然而可以確定的是，保羅寫腓立比書、歌羅西書和腓利門書的時候，提摩太在羅馬與使徒同在（Philippians 1:1; Colossians 1:1; Plm 1:1）。從Hebrews 13:23也可見，提摩太曾與使徒同在那裏，只是那封書信寫成時，他正因某項重要使命在外，而保羅正盼望他早日歸回；見該節的註釋。在保羅於羅馬第一次和第二次被囚之間，再無關於提摩太的記載，也不知他身在何處、是否隨保羅出行。保羅第二次在羅馬被囚時，寫了提摩太後書，信中請提摩太到羅馬來，並把他留在特羅亞的幾件東西帶來（2 Timothy 4:9-13, 2 Timothy 4:21）。提摩太若依使徒所請去了羅馬，他多半就在那裏目睹了保羅的殉道。

關於提摩太的晚年，沒有甚麼可信的記載。出自傳統的通行說法是：他是以弗所的「監督」，在那裏去世並安葬，遺骨後來遷往君士坦丁堡。相信他是以弗所「監督」的說法，主要依據提摩太後書末尾的「附記」——而它毫無權威可言（見該附記的註釋）。關於他究竟是不是以弗所的主教級高級聖職人員，讀者可參看筆者的《使徒教會的組織與治理探究》88-107頁。認為他死於以弗所、其後遷葬君士坦丁堡的推測，並沒有確實的歷史根據。

提摩太長久作使徒保羅的同伴和朋友，保羅常帶著深摯的關懷提到他。事實上，在他的眾同工之中，似乎沒有一人像提摩太那樣得他如此熱切的親愛；見1 Timothy 1:2, 1 Timothy 1:18; 2 Timothy 1:2; 2 Timothy 2:1; 1 Corinthians 4:17，那裏保羅稱他為自己的「真兒子」；又如2 Timothy 1:4，那裏他表達了切切想見提摩太的心，並提到提摩太離別時所流的眼淚；再如1 Corinthians 16:10-11，那裏他請哥林多人厚待接待提摩太；又1 Corinthians 16:10; Romans 16:21; 1 Thessalonians 3:2，那裏他講到提摩太的忠信、他在保羅勞苦中對他的功用，以及他對使徒所建立之眾教會的關切。

第二節　本書信寫作的時間與地點

書信末尾的附記說，本信寫於老底嘉。但這些附記毫無權威，其中許多還是錯的；見哥林多前書末尾的註釋。關於本書信寫成的時間，以及隨之而定的寫作地點，向來眾說紛紜。單憑書信本身所能確定的只有：它是寫給在以弗所的提摩太的，而且是在保羅離開那城往馬其頓去之後不久（1 Timothy 1:3）。使徒行傳提到保羅曾兩次在以弗所（Acts 18:19-23; Acts 19:1-41）。第一次訪問之後，他直接去了耶路撒冷，因此本信不可能寫於那時。於是問題只剩一個：本信究竟是在保羅因底米丟所掀起的騷動而被逐離那城時寫的（Acts 20:1），還是在他第一次於羅馬被囚之後——也就是路加在使徒行傳的敘事結束之後——某次再訪以弗所時寫的？若是前者，約在主後58或59年；若是後者，約在主後64或65年。批評家們在這一點上意見分歧，問題至今未有定論，恐怕也無法完全確定地解決。

主張前一種見解的，有Theodoret、Benson、Zachariae、Michaelis、Schmidt、Koppe、Planck、Grotius、Lightfoot、Witsius、Lardner、Hug，以及Stuart教授等人。主張後一種見解——即本信寫於保羅第一次於羅馬被囚之後——的，有Paley、Pearson、L'Enfant、LeClerc、Cave、Mill、Whitby、Macknight等人。

關於支持這兩種年代見解的各項理由的考察，可見於Paley的《Horae Paul.》、Macknight的著作、Hug的《Intro.》，以及Koppe的《Prolegomena》。

Eichhorn的理論獨樹一幟，有若干巧妙而貌似有理、卻非決定性的論證支持，可以參看他的《Einleitung in das neue Test.》第3冊314-352頁。

由於本書信的寫作年代眾說紛紜，要毫不存疑地斷定這問題，是不可能的。然而，經筆者對這題目所能作的最仔細考察之後，在我看來前一種見解是正確的：本信是在保羅因底米丟所掀起的騷動而被逐出以弗所之後不久寫成的，正如Acts 19和Acts 20:1所記。持此見解的理由，簡述如下。

1. 這是新約聖經中唯一記載使徒從以弗所往馬其頓去的記錄；見上文。因此，除非其中存在無法克服的難處，自然當認為1 Timothy 1:3所指的就是這一次。

2. 並無確實的證據表明保羅在第一次於羅馬被囚之後曾訪問以弗所教會。他當然可能去過，但新約聖經沒有這次訪問的記載，別處也沒有任何歷史記錄。他獲釋之後若真有這樣一次訪問，而本信又寫於那時，那麼使徒在信中對自己的被囚竟毫無暗示，對自己從羅馬的死亡危險中得脫一事也全然不提，就實在令人費解；比較2 Timothy 4:16-17。

3. 本信寫於上述時間的假設，比其他說法更符合書信的性質，以及提摩太被留在以弗所的目的。從本信可以看出，教會在某些方面仍處於未安定的狀態，而且看來提摩太在當地的任務之一，就是要使教會納入合宜的組織。這件事保羅顯然原打算親自完成；但從1 Timothy 1:3可知，他離開時工作尚未完成，便把原定要做的事交在提摩太手中，由他去完成。然而，論到保羅第一次於羅馬被囚之後的時期，我們有一切理由認為教會那時已完全組織起來了。甚至當保羅從馬其頓上耶路撒冷去的時候（Acts 20），以弗所教會已經設有治理教會的「長老」，保羅還把他們召到米利都，向他們作臨別的囑咐，並就教會的事給予最後的指示。

4. 保羅寫本信的時候，提摩太還是個年輕人——一個青年（1 Timothy 4:12）。誠然，若如一般所推想，他進入傳道工作時約二十歲，那麼即使在保羅被囚之後，這話也未必完全不合宜；但這話更適合用來指比那時的提摩太還要年輕一些的人。

5. 還可以加上保羅在1 Timothy 3:14所說「指望快到你那裏去」的宣告。這話與以下設想十分吻合：他比自己原定離開的時候提前被逐，在那裏尚有想完成而未完成的工，並且指望局勢很快就能好轉，使他可以回去。另有一項雖非決定性、卻也頗為要緊的情節，也不妨一提：保羅在米利都會見以弗所教會的長老時，曾說自己不再指望見他們的面——「我素常在你們中間來往、傳講神國的道、如今我曉得你們以後都不得再見我的面」（Acts 20:25）。筆者不以為這話當理解為受默示的預言，以絕對的確實性斷言他絕不能再見他們；不如說，他是因當時的處境而表達了這樣的憂慮（Acts 20:22-23）。儘管如此，這節經文表明他說這話時並不指望再訪以弗所——而他寫信給提摩太的時候，顯然是指望再去的。

這些考量本似十分有力，足以使人不再存疑；只是有若干事項，在許多人看來無法與這設想調和。這些難點如下。

1. 保羅往馬其頓去之前，曾先打發提摩太和以拉都在他前頭走（Acts 19:22），打算不久跟去，經過馬其頓和亞該亞，然後上耶路撒冷，之後再往羅馬（Acts 19:21）。既在離開以弗所前不久才打發提摩太先行，試問保羅自己往馬其頓去時，提摩太怎能被留在以弗所呢？對這反對理由可以這樣回答：提摩太很可能在保羅被逐之前，已完成馬其頓之行的任務，回到以弗所使徒那裏，這絕非不可能。從敘事看來，既看不出提摩太受託了需時甚久的使命，也看不出保羅指望他留在馬其頓等自己前來。他打發提摩太和以拉都去的目的，經上雖未明言，但多半與他計劃為耶路撒冷的貧窮聖徒所辦的捐輸有關；見Acts 19:21-22的註釋；比較1 Corinthians 16:1-6。若目的只在於預備眾教會辦這項捐輸，就無需多少時間，提摩太也不必在一地久留；而且他回到以弗所，向使徒報告所辦的事和捐輸的展望，也是順理成章。Hug在《新約引論》第104、109節中已清楚說明，這樣一趟行程，在使徒打發提摩太和以拉都往馬其頓之後仍留以弗所的期間內，輕而易舉即可完成。

2. 第二個反對理由——Paley視之為對「本信寫於此時」之說的決定性反證——是：從哥林多後書（1 Corinthians 1:1）可見，在本信假定寫成的時候，提摩太正與使徒同在馬其頓。哥林多後書無疑寫於保羅這次停留在馬其頓期間，那時提摩太與他同在；見哥林多後書導論第三節。既是這樣，怎能設想提摩太在以弗所呢？這件事又怎能與「提摩太被留在那裏」的設想——特別是與保羅對他所說「指望快到你那裏去」（1 Timothy 3:14）的宣告——相調和呢？保羅指望提摩太至少在以弗所停留一段時日，這一點從1 Timothy 3:15的話——「倘若我耽延日久，你也可以知道在神的家中當怎樣行」——以及1 Timothy 4:13的話——「你要以宣讀、勸勉、教導為念，直等到我來」——可以清楚看出。這難點唯一的解法是：提摩太離開了以弗所，跟隨使徒往馬其頓去了。這裏唯一的問題只是：使徒既定意他留在以弗所，又打算自己回去與他相會，提摩太離開那裏往馬其頓去，是否說得通。使徒行傳確實沒有記載這事，但那算不得甚麼重大的反對——因為不能設想使徒們行程中發生的每一件事都被記錄下來。不過，有兩三項情節，足以使「提摩太或經保羅同意、或奉保羅私下傳達的指示，比原先所定的更早離開以弗所，往馬其頓與他重新會合」這一設想顯為可信。

（1）其一，提摩太奉派在以弗所要辦的主要事情——鄭重囑咐那裏的幾個人，除了保羅所教導的以外，不可傳別的教訓（1 Timothy 1:3）——本可迅速辦妥。保羅是倉促被逐的，既無法如願親自辦理這事，便把它交託提摩太。但這件事並不需要花費很長的時間。

（2）其二，在當地教會之上設立合宜的職分人員，同樣可能很快就辦妥。事實上，我們知道那教會在此之後不久便已有了合宜的職分人員，因為保羅在往耶路撒冷的路上，曾從米利都打發人請長老們到那裏相會。這話是按「提摩太在當地所當辦的事工之一，是在教會之上設立合宜的職分人員」這一見解說的。但並無證據表明那是他任務的一部分。保羅在1 Timothy 1:3提到把他留在那裏的目的時，並未說到這一點；而且，使徒在以弗所花了將近三年那麼長的時間（Acts 20:31），若說教會始終沒有以合宜的職分人員組織起來，也難以置信。況且，保羅在米利都對長老們所說的話，暗示他們在保羅離開之前就已經受了任命；見Acts 20:18-35，特別是Acts 20:35。本信中保羅就教會職分人員應有之資格所給提摩太的指示，並不能證明他當時要在以弗所設立職分人員，因為那些是一般性的指示，並非特別針對當地教會，而是為指引他畢生的事工而賜下的。因此，提摩太在以弗所所當盡的職責之中，沒有一項會攔阻他早日跟隨使徒往馬其頓去。

（3）看來保羅雖然或曾有意——若可行的話——在往耶路撒冷的路上，照1 Timothy 3:14-15和1 Timothy 4:13所暗示的訪問以弗所；但他若真有此意，後來也改變了主意，認為必須另作安排。Acts 20:16說，「保羅早已定意越過以弗所，免得在亞西亞耽延」；就是說，他定意不進以弗所、徑自駛過。而且這項決定多半在他離開馬其頓之前就已作成，因為經上說他「早已定意」（ἔκρινεν ekrinen）；若是這樣，那麼設想他曾以某種方式示意提摩太，要他在自己離開馬其頓之前離開以弗所來與他相會，並無任何不合情理之處。

（4）事實上，與這設想相符，我們看見保羅那一次往「亞西亞」去的時候，提摩太與他同行（Acts 20:4-5）。以上種種考量，使以下看法更為可信：本信是保羅因底米丟所掀起的騷動離開以弗所、往馬其頓去之後不久，寫給提摩太的。保羅既在意料之外被逐，又未完成原定在當地要作的事，那麼他抓住最早的機會，給提摩太合宜的指示，使他知道怎樣完成那工，這是再自然不過的事。

第三節　本書信的緣起與目的

這在1 Timothy 1:3已經說明了。保羅在以弗所還未完全辦妥原定要作的事，就突然被逐，往馬其頓去了。他把提摩太留在那裏，要他「囑咐那幾個人不可傳異教」——就是不可傳與他自己先前在那裏所傳不同的教訓。由此可以看清：當時當地正流行若干錯謬，保羅認為糾正它們是至關重要的事。關於這些錯謬，可參看以弗所書導論和歌羅西書導論。本書信緣起的一些情節，可從使徒行傳的歷史中收集；另一些則可從書信本身推知。從這些資料來源，我們得知以弗所教會當時的如下情形；正是這些情形，使提摩太被留在那裏、並受這些指示來規範他的行事，成為合宜之舉。

（1）當地居住的猶太人對使徒保羅多有反對（Acts 19:8-9）。

（2）教會中有一些教師，力圖強制推行猶太律法的規條，並把那律法說成對基督徒有約束力（1 Timothy 1:6-7）。

（3）當地一些猶太人沉迷於趕鬼之術，企圖利用基督教和耶穌的名，成全自己的私圖（Acts 19:14；比較1 Timothy 1:4）。

（4）猶太教師極其看重家譜和遺傳，並酷愛就律法的種種問題進行辯論（1 Timothy 1:4-6）。

（5）關於婦女的權利，以及她們在教會中當佔的地位，流行著錯誤的見解（1 Timothy 2:8-15）。

（6）教會職分人員的組織，尚未照保羅所願望的完成。一部分職分人員可能已經設立，關於他們的職責也可能已有所指示，但整體的安排尚未完成（1 Timothy 3:4）。

（7）關於當怎樣合宜地對待寡婦，尚有若干問題未有定論（1 Timothy 5）。

（8）使徒在講道中教導了仁愛的原則，並主張人人天然平等；看來有人竟藉此在作僕人的人中間煽起不滿和不馴之風。

當時似乎有人提出這樣的說法：既然人人平等，又都靠同一位的寶血蒙了救贖，那麼先前為奴的人，就脫離了一切服事主人的義務。顯然有人企圖煽動奴僕叛亂，打破社會的等次，造成不馴和混亂的局面（1 Timothy 6；比較Ephesians 6:5-10; Colossians 3:22; Colossians 4:2）。

使徒被迫突然離開以弗所時，情形似乎就是這樣。直到那時，當地教會的事務主要由他親自管理，他也一直努力糾正當時流行的錯謬，使教會立在正確的根基上。各樣事情正朝著可期的結果發展：信仰在教會成員中間愈來愈根深蒂固（Acts 19:18-20）；錯謬正節節敗退；社會大眾愈來愈感受到基督教的價值；偶像崇拜的影響力日漸衰微（Acts 19:23）；教會完全組織化的各項安排也在進行之中。這些方面的情形既如此可觀，使徒便盼望不久就能離開以弗所，而且實際上已作了離開的安排（Acts 19:21）。但他的安排尚未完全就緒，在未完成之前，他就因底米丟所掀起的騷動不得不離開了。於是他把提摩太留下來完成這些安排，並在這第一封書信裏，把引導他完成那工所需的一切指示都賜給了他。

這樣領會使徒被迫離開以弗所時當地的情形，就能明白本書信的大旨，以及信中各樣題目何以被引入。同時，這些指示的性質極其普遍，不僅在以弗所，更在提摩太一生之中，都是他無價的指南；不僅對他是這樣，對歷世歷代、各地各方的福音傳道人也是這樣。這些題目更詳細的論述，將見於本書信各章之前的分析。

提摩太前後書和提多書在新約聖經中佔有極重要的地位；若沒有它們，受默示的書卷中就會出現明顯而重大的缺欠。它們的正典權威從未受到教會大多數人的質疑，它們出自使徒保羅之手，也沒有可懷疑的餘地。若仔細考察他所寫的各封書信，以及新約聖經的其他各卷，就會發現每一卷都是為成就一項重要目的而設的，其中任何一卷若被除去，都會造成重大的缺口。當然，除去其中任何一卷，並不至於使新約聖經殘缺到某項基要教義變得模糊、或叫人無法從其餘部分得知救恩之路的地步；但這會損傷真理的美麗與勻稱，使整套教訓的體系變得有缺欠、不完全。

提摩太前後書和提多書的正典價值，與其他書信一樣正是如此。它們填補了新約聖經中別無他卷能補足的一個範圍；若沒有它們，神關於救贖賜給人的教訓就不完全。它們主要是論到「傳道的職分」。固然，救主親自就這職分留下了重要的指示（Matthew 10; Mark 16及其他地方），在保羅向以弗所長老所講的話（Acts 20）以及哥林多前後書裏，也有關於這職分的寶貴提示；但這職分在教會組織中的地位如此重要，更充分、更完全的指示似乎是必不可缺的。這些指示正是載於這幾封書信之中。關於這職分的性質、擔任的資格，以及由它而生的種種本分，它們的講論已充分完全，無以復加。

這幾封書信不僅足以引導提摩太和提多去作他們特別受派的工，也足以勸導歷世歷代、各地各方的傳道人。教會的品質和福祉，即使不是全然、也在很大程度上繫於傳道人的品質，這是顯而易見的。傳道的職分是神為保守純正的信仰、並使它傳遍世界所設立的重大制度。傳道職分愈受尊崇、愈顯出勝任其工的資格，教會就愈持守真理、在信心上得建立，並以愛心、純潔和熱心著稱。歷世歷代，教會中的腐敗無不從傳道人開始；而福音得以熱切廣傳、教會得以在其能力與榮美中興起的地方，恰恰是神把他的靈豐厚澆灌在那些擔任聖職者身上的地方。可見這職分對教會和世界的福祉何等重要，因此在啟示的書卷中，就其性質和目的提供充分的指示，實在是必要的。這樣的指示，我們在這幾封書信中已經得著；新約聖經中，教會寧可放棄哪一部分、也難以放棄提摩太前後書和提多書的，幾乎沒有。倘若傳道事工始終如這幾封書信所設想的那樣；倘若歷來擔任聖職的人都具有這裏所描述的品格和資格，我們可以相信，教會早就能免去那些把它撕裂的紛爭，純正的福音也早已傳遍世界了。

然而，這幾封書信價值如此重大的對象，並不限於傳道人。它們對全教會也幾乎同等重要。教會的生命力、純潔、免於紛爭的自由，以及傳福音時的熱心、愛心與得勝，都繫於傳道人的品格。教會若要世世代代興旺，講臺就必須由敬虔、博學、勤勞、獻身的傳道人充任；而確保這樣的傳道人，應當是教會首要的關切之一。這一重大目標，再沒有比把這幾封書信的教訓恆常擺在教會成員心中更能達成的了。固然，其中很大一部分特別適用於福音的傳道人，但教會自身若要增進自己的純潔與興旺，也沒有別的途徑，比懷著禱告的心仔細研讀提摩太前後書和提多書更好。

本章分析

本章——1 Timothy 1——包含以下題目：

（1）向提摩太問安，照保羅書信開首慣用的方式（1 Timothy 1:1-2）。

（2）保羅把他留在以弗所的目的（1 Timothy 1:3-4）。那是為要糾正當地某些教師錯誤的教訓，特別是（看來如此）關於律法正當用途的教訓。他們過分看重摩西律法中的某些事，不明白那些律法真正的性質和目的，又在自己的教訓中攙雜了許多純屬荒渺無憑的傳說。

（3）律法真正的用途和目的（1 Timothy 1:5-11）。律法是為產生愛，不是為虛妄的爭辯。它不是要用虛空而煩瑣的苦修和儀文捆住良心，而是要約束、禁制惡人。按這些教師以及當時流行的猶太觀念，律法的用處在於規定繁多的儀文，並藉著一大堆煩瑣累贅的禮儀和規條，確保外在的遵從。保羅指示提摩太教導他們：出於清潔的心和無虧的良心的愛，是信仰的根本原則；「律法」主要是為約束、轄制惡人而設的；而福音把這一重要真理光照出來，並加以確立。

（4）在這脈絡中提到福音，便引使徒為神將這救恩的信息託付給他而獻上感謝（1 Timothy 1:12-17）。他從前與別人持同樣的見解，但他蒙了憐憫，並蒙准傳揚那榮耀的福音——它既把如此大的光照在神的律法上，又啟示了一個配得普世領受的救恩之法。

（5）如今，保羅把這傳福音的嚴肅職分交託提摩太（1 Timothy 1:18-20）。他說，提摩太是照著先前指著他所發的預言蒙召擔任這工的——那些預言預期他將在教會中發揮功用；保羅也指望他不致像某些人那樣，在信仰上遭遇船破的災禍。

保羅，耶穌基督的使徒——見Romans 1:1的註釋。

照神的命令——見1 Corinthians 1:1的註釋。

我們的救主——「救主」這名號之於父神，與之於主耶穌基督同樣合宜，因為神是救恩偉大的創始者；見Luke 1:47的註釋；比較1 Timothy 4:10; Titus 2:10; Jde 1:25。

還有主耶穌基督——使徒保羅的使命是直接從他領受的；見Galatians 1:11-12的註釋。

他是我們的盼望——見Colossians 1:27的註釋。

寫信給提摩太——關於提摩太的記述，見導論第一節。

就是我因信主作我真兒子——即藉著我的事奉歸信基督，並被我以父親的親情看待；見1 Corinthians 4:15的註釋。保羅自己沒有兒女，他便收提摩太為兒子，始終這樣看待他、對待他。他對提多也有同樣的感情（Titus 1:4）；比較Galatians 4:19的註釋；1 Thessalonians 2:7和1 Thessalonians 2:11的註釋；以及Plm 1:10的註釋。

願恩惠、憐憫、平安……——見Romans 1:7的註釋。

我勸你仍住在以弗所——由此可見，保羅和提摩太曾在以弗所一同勞碌；這話也與以下設想吻合：保羅在完成原定的工作之前，被迫離開那城。見導論第二節。

我往馬其頓去的時候——即被底米丟和他的同行工匠所引起的騷動逐走之後（Acts 20:1）。見導論第二、三節。

好囑咐那幾個人——這裏譯作「囑咐」的詞παραγγειλης parangeilēs，其含義看來多於我們平常對這詞的理解。若只是單獨一次的指示或命令，保羅自己離開前原可頒下；這詞看來更是指持續不斷的教導，好說服那些形形色色的謬誤者，引導他們只教導純正的道理。這樣的人可能為數不少，可能持守各樣形式的錯謬，他們的信念也可能有貌似有理的根據；所以這顯然是一件需要時間的工作，提摩太因此被留下，好從容成就此事。看來那針對保羅而起的怒潮並未波及提摩太，他蒙准留下，不受攪擾地作工。這些教師是誰，已不能確知；但他們似乎是猶太出身的人，教導猶太人關於律法的特殊見解。

不可傳異教——就是不可傳與使徒所教不同的教訓。這裏所用的希臘詞不見於古典作家，在新約中也只出現於本書1 Timothy 6:3，譯作「傳異教」。由此我們可以看出提摩太被留在以弗所的目的。

（1）那是為一時的目的，不是長久的安排。乃是為糾正當地流行的某些錯謬——保羅若蒙准留下，原可親自迅速糾正。保羅指望不久再回到提摩太那裏，然後他們要同心繼續工作（1 Timothy 4:13; 1 Timothy 3:15）。

（2）那不是要他作以弗所的「監督」。沒有任何證據表明他曾照提摩太後書末尾附記所說在那裏「受按立」（見該附記的註釋）；他所要履行的職務，也不是主教制監督的職務。他不是受託管理「教區」，不是按立「第二品級」的聖職人員，不是施行堅信禮，也不是執行懲戒。他被留在那裏，是為了一個明確指定的目的，而這目的與今日所視為主教制監督固有職務的事，相距不可以道里計。恐怕再沒有一個主張，比「提摩太是以弗所的監督」這主張更缺乏論證的表象了。關於這句話的考察，見筆者的《使徒教會的組織與治理探究》84-107頁。

也不可聽從荒渺無憑的話語——就是不可把心思放在荒渺的傳說上，不可把這類無關緊要的瑣事看作要緊。這裏所說的「荒渺的話語」，大概是指猶太拉比空洞而幼稚的迷信和玄想。譯作「荒渺無憑的話語」的詞（μῦθος muthos），本義是「言語」或「講論」，隨後指寓言、虛構或神祕的講論。這類東西在希臘人和猶太人中都不勝枚舉，但此處大概特指後者。它們由瑣碎無據的故事構成，猶太人卻視為十分重要，似乎還想把它們攙入基督教的教訓之中。保羅既在這些迷信中長大，一眼便看出它們必引人心離開真理，敗壞真宗教。那惡者最成功的伎倆之一，就是把荒渺之事與真理攙混；當牠不能以正面的抵擋推翻真理時，就攙入大量虛妄無益之物，使真理失去效力。

和無窮的家譜——這也是指猶太人的教導。希伯來人謹守家譜的記錄，因為這是保持支派區分所必需的。幾個世紀累積下來，這些譜表自然變得繁多、複雜而冗長——不必怎樣誇張，也足以稱為「無窮的」。猶太人極其看重它們，堅持要謹慎保存。然而，彌賽亞既已來臨，猶太人的政制既將終止，他們與外邦人之間的分隔既不再必要，支派的區分如今也已成為無用，基督徒再看重這些區分，就沒有甚麼正當理由了。況且，這整套體系與基督教的精神相悖，因為它只助長血統和出身之誇耀。

這等事只生辯論——它們只供給煩擾而惱怒的爭論題材。這些事往往難以裁斷、難以明白，變得複雜而使人困惑。再沒有甚麼比解開一份龐大的家譜表更難的了。因此，這樣的事往往引起爭競；即使查明白了，又會進一步引起關於地位和先後的爭論。

並不發明神在信上所立的章程——這些探究於促進人靈魂中的真宗教毫無貢獻。它們不確立任何持久的真理原則，不裁定任何真正關乎人得救的事。人可以窮一生之力追求它們，卻沒有一個靈魂因此歸信；它們可以被極其精確地裁定，卻沒有一顆心因此變好。教會中今日許多的爭論和咬文嚼字，豈不仍是這樣？凡不能使人脫離罪惡、或不能確立任何促進真宗教之重要原則的爭論點，無論怎樣裁定，都不值得花費多少氣力。「你要這樣行。」這幾個字是我們的譯者補上的，但於文意是必要的。意思就是：提摩太當留在以弗所，忠心履行他被留在那裏所當盡的職責。

但命令的總歸——見Romans 10:4的註釋。提摩太要成就他受派的目的，就必須對律法的目的持正確的見解。他所提的那些教師極力強調律法的義務和重要性；保羅有意表明，他並不是要教導說律法無關緊要、也不是說律法在正確理解之下並無約束力。然而，他們並沒有正確理解律法的性質和用途；因此，提摩太灌輸關於律法頒賜之目的的正確觀念，是極要緊的。「命令」一詞，有人理解為福音（多德里奇），有人理解為使徒在此給提摩太的特定吩咐（Benson、Clarke和Macknight）；但它更自然地是指神所吩咐的一切——他全部的律法。這些教師的錯謬既起因於對律法之性質和目的的不當見解，保羅便說，這目的當被明白。律法不是要製造分門別類和惱怒的爭競，不是要用瑣碎而沉重的規條捆鎖基督徒的心思，而是要產生愛。

就是愛——關於這詞的含義，見1 Corinthians 13:1的註釋。

這愛是從清潔的心——真實的愛必須出於聖潔的心。命令的目的不是僅僅要確保愛的外在表現，而是要產生以心為根基的愛。

和無虧的良心——指脫離罪咎的良心。當然，人若不斷違背良心的聲音，或明知自己不斷行錯，就無法對神有真實的愛。人若想擁有愛神的憑據，就必須保持無虧的良心。人若明知自己活在罪中而仍談愛，那完全是虛偽。

無偽的信心生出來的——指對神不加掩飾的信靠。這似乎不是特指對主耶穌的信，而是說，這律法所要產生的一切對神的真愛，都必須建立在對他的信靠上。對他沒有信靠的人，怎能愛他呢？對一個我們並不信任的自稱的朋友，我們能施以愛嗎？可見，在律法之下如同在福音之下一樣，信心是必需的。

有人偏離了這些——邊註作「不瞄準」。這裏所用的詞ἀστοχέω astocheō，本義是未中目標、犯錯，隨後指偏離；比較1 Timothy 6:21; 2 Timothy 2:18。這不是說他們曾一度擁有那被說成偏離了的東西——因為未中目標的人未必曾擊中過它——只是說他們未能達到所述的那些事，反而轉向虛談。複數的「這些」（ὧν hōn）不是指律法，而是指前文列舉的事——清潔的心、無虧的良心和無偽的信心。

反去做虛浮的話——即空洞的言論、虛無的雄辯、毫無意義的講論。這裏所用的詞不是指爭競或爭吵，而是指那種不以健全判斷為根基的言談。那是關於他們在律法中臆造的分別、他們的遺傳和儀文、無用的家譜，以及他們附在摩西律法之上的荒渺說法的講論。

想要作律法師——就是想得精通摩西律法、有資格向別人講解的名聲和聲望。這在猶太人中是崇高的榮譽，這些教師也要求同樣的尊榮。

卻不明白自己所講說的——就是說，他們不明白自己試圖向別人講解的那律法真正的性質和目的。這對猶太教師是真實的，對教會中那些試圖講解律法的以弗所人也同樣真實。他們似乎是照猶太人中流行的原理講解律法，因此他們的教導大大敗壞福音的信仰。他們斷言自己一無所知的事；他們雖發出滿有自信的議論，卻往往是關於自己毫無認識的事。人只需對猶太拉比的教學方式、或他們遺傳中的內容略知一二，便可以看出使徒這話的準確。充分的例證可見於艾倫的《現代猶太教》（Modern Judaism）。

我們知道律法原是好的——我們承認這一點；這是我們眾人都同意的。使徒顯然作這宣告，是要防範人設想他是律法的仇敵。凡持守他剛才所表達見解的人，無疑都會招來這指控。他既如此論到那些教師看為律法中極重要的事，他們自然會宣稱他是律法本身的仇敵，樂見律法的一切要求被廢除。保羅說，他決無此意。他承認律法是好的；他從未有一刻想質疑它。他所要求的，只是律法當被正確理解、妥善講解。無論律法怎樣臨到他或別人，保羅從未想質疑律法的卓越和效用；比較Romans 7:12和Acts 21:21-26的註釋。

只要人用得合宜——即以合宜的方式、為律法被設立的目的而用它。律法固可佔極重要的地位，卻不可被濫用。保羅所要求的，只是它當被正確使用；為此，他接著要說明律法真正的目的。

Knowing this - That is, "If anyone knows, or admits this, he has the prover view of the design of the law." The apostle does not refer particularly to himself as knowing or conceding this, for then he would have uses the plural form of the participle (see the Greek), but he means that anyone who had just views of the law would see that that which he proceeds to specify was its real purpose.

The law is not made for a righteous man - There has been great variety in the interpretation of this passage. Some suppose that the law here refers to the ceremonial laws of Moses (Clarke, Rosenmuller, Abbot); others to the denunciatory part of the law (Doddridge and Bloomfield); and others that it means that the chief purpose of the law was to restrain the wicked. It seems clear, however, that the apostle does not refer merely to the ceremonial law, for he specifies that which condemns the unholy and profane; the murderers of fathers and mothers; liars and perjured persons. It was not the ceremonial law which condemned these things, but the moral law. It cannot be supposed, moreover, that the apostle meant to say that the law was not binding on a righteous man, or that he was under no obligation to obey it - for he everywhere teaches that the moral law is obligatory on all mankind.

To suppose also that a righteous man is released from the obligation to obey the law, that is, to do right, is an absurdity. Nor does he seem to mean, as Macknight supposes, that the law was not given for the purpose of justifying a righteous man - for this was originally one of its designs. Had man always obeyed it, he would have been justified by it. The meaning seems to be, that the purpose of the law was not to fetter and perplex those who were righteous, and who aimed to do their duty and to please God. It was not intended to produce a spirit of servitude and bondage. As the Jews interpreted it, it did this, and this interpretation appears to have been adopted by the teachers at Ephesus, to whom Paul refers. The whole tendency of their teaching was to bring the soul into a state of bondage, and to make religion a condition, of servitude. Paul teaches, on the other hand, that religion was a condition of freedom, and that the main purpose of the law was not to fetter the minds of the righteous by numberless observances and minute regulations, but that it was to restrain the wicked from sin. This is the case with all law. No good man feels himself lettered and manacled by wholesome laws, nor does he feel that the purpose of law is to reduce him to a state of servitude. It is only the wicked who have this feeling - and in this sense the law is made for a man who intends to do wrong.

For the lawless - To bind and restrain them. The word here used means, properly, those who have no law, and then those who are transgressors - the wicked. It is rendered transgressors in Matthew 15:28; Luke 22:37, and wicked, Acts 2:23; 2 Thessalonians 2:8.

And disobedient - Those who are insubordinate, lawless, refractory. The word properly means those who are under no subjection or authority. It occurs in the New Testament only here, and Titus 1:6, Titus 1:10, where it is rendered unruly, and Hebrews 2:8, where it is translated not put under; that is, under Christ.

For the ungodly - Those who have no religion; who do not worship or honor God. The Greek word occurs in the following places, in all of which it is rendered ungodly; Romans 4:5; Romans 5:6; 1 Timothy 1:9; 1 Peter 4:18; 2 Peter 2:5; 2 Peter 3:7; Jde 1:15. The meaning is, that the law is against all who do not worship or honor God.

And for sinners - The word used here is the common word to denote sinners. It is general, and includes sins of all kinds.

For unholy - "Those who are regardless of duty to God or man," Robinson, Lexicon. The word occurs in the New Testament only here, and in 2 Timothy 3:2. It has particular reference to those who fail of their duty toward God, and means those who have no piety; who are irreligious.

And profane - This does not necessarily mean that they were profane in the sense that blasphemed the name of God, or were profane swearers - though the word would include that - but it means properly those who are impious, or who are scoffers; notes, Hebrews 12:16. The word occurs only in the following places, in all of which it is rendered profane: 1 Timothy 1:9; 1 Timothy 4:7; 1 Timothy 6:20; 2 Timothy 2:16; Hebrews 12:16. A man who treats religion with contempt. mockery, or scorn, would correspond with the meaning of the word.

For murderers of fathers - The Greek properly means a "smiter of a father" (Robinson), though here it undoubtedly means a parricide. This was expressly forbidden by the law of Moses, and was a crime punishable by death; Exodus 21:15. It is said to have been a crime which the Roman law did not contemplate as possible, and hence that there was no enactment against it. It is, indeed, a crime of the highest order; but facts have shown that if the Romans supposed it would never be committed, they did not judge aright of human nature. There is no sin which man will not commit if unrestrained, and there is in fact no conceivable form of crime of which he has not been guilty.

Murderers of mothers - A still more atrocious and monstrous crime, if possible, than the former. We can conceive nothing superior to this in atrocity, and yet it has been committed. Nero caused his mother to be murdered, and the annals of crime disclose the names of not a few who have imbrued their own hands in the blood of those who bare them. This was also expressly forbidden by the law of Moses; Exodus 21:15.

For manslayers - This word occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. It means a homicide - a murderer. The crime is expressly forbidden by the law; Exodus 20:13; Genesis 9:6.

For whoremongers - Leviticus 19:29; Leviticus 20:5.

For them that defile themselves with mankind - Sodomites. See the evidence that this crime abounded in ancient times, in the notes on Romans 1:27. It was forbidden by the law of Moses, and was punishable with death; Leviticus 20:13.

For menstealers - The word here used - ἀνδρᾶποδιστής andrapodistēs - occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. It properly means one who steals another for the purpose of making him a slave - a kidnapper. This is the common way in which people are made slaves. Some, indeed, are taken in war and sold as slaves, but the mass of those who have been reduced to servitude have become slaves by being kidnapped. Children are stolen from their parents, or wives from their husbands, or husbands from their wives, or parents from their children, or whole families are stolen together. None become slaves voluntarily, and consequently the whole process of making slaves partakes of the nature of theft of the worst kind. What theft is like that of stealing a man's children, or his wife, or his father or mother? The guilt of manstealing is incurred essentially by those who purchase those who are thus stolen - as the purchaser of a stolen horse, knowing it to be so, participates in the crime. A measure of that criminality also adheres to all who own slaves, and who thus maintain the system - for it is a system known to have been originated by theft. This crime was expressly forbidden by the law of God, and was made punishable with death; Exodus 21:16; Deuteronomy 24:7.

For liars - Leviticus 6:2-4; Leviticus 19:11.

For perjured persons - Those who swear falsely; Leviticus 19:12; Leviticus 6:3; Exodus 20:7.

And if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine - To sound or correct teaching - for so the word doctrine means. The meaning is, if there is anything else that is opposed to the instruction which the law of God gives.

According to the glorious gospel - The gospel is a system of divine revelation. It makes known the will of God. It states what is duty, and accords in its great principles with the law, or is in harmony with it. The law, in principle, forbids all which the gospel forbids, and in publishing the requirements of the gospel, therefore, Paul says that the law really forbade all which was prohibited in the gospel, and was designed to restrain all who would act contrary to that gospel. There is no contradiction between the law and the gospel. They forbid the same things, and in regard to morals and true piety, the clearer revelations of the gospel are but carrying out the principles stated in the law. They who preach the gospel, then, should not be regarded as arrayed against the law, and Paul says that they who preached the gospel aright really stated the true principles of the law. This he evidently intends should bear against the false teachers who professed to explain the law of Moses. He means here that if a man wished to explain the law, the best explanation would be found in that gospel which it was his office to publish; compare Romans 3:31.

Of the blessed God - Revealed by the blessed God - the same God who was the Author of the law.

Which was committed to my trust - Not to him alone, but to him in common with others. He had received it directly from the Lord; 1 Corinthians 9:17; notes, Galatians 1:1.

And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord - The mention of the gospel 1 Timothy 1:11, and of the fact that it was committed to him, leads the apostle to express his gratitude to him who had called him to the work of preaching it. The Lord Jesus had called him when he was a blasphemer and a persecutor. He had constrained him to leave his career of persecution and blasphemy, and to consecrate himself to the defense and the propagation of the gospel. For all this, though it had required him to give up his favorite projects in life, and all the flattering schemes of ambition, he now felt that praise was due to the Redeemer. If there is anything for which a good man will be thankful, and should be thankful, it is that he has been so directed by the Spirit and providence of God as to be put into the ministry. It is indeed a work of toil, and of self-denial, and demanding many sacrifices of personal ease and comfort. It requires a man to give up his splendid prospects of worldly distinction, and of wealth and ease. It is often identified with want, and poverty, and neglect, and persecution. But it is an office so honorable, so excellent, so noble, and ennobling; it is attended with so many precious comforts here, and is so useful to the world, and it has such promises of blessedness and happiness in the world to come, that no matter what a man is required to give up in order to become a minister of the gospel, he should be thankful to Christ for putting him into the office. A minister, when he comes to die, feels that the highest favor which Heaven has conferred on him has been in turning his feet away from the paths of ambition, and the pursuits of ease or gain, and leading him to that holy work to which he has been enabled to consecrate his life.

Who hath enabled me - Who has given me ability or strength for this service. The apostle traced to the Lord Jesus the fact that he was in the ministry at all, and all the ability which he had to perform the duties of that holy office. It is not necessary here to suppose, as many have done, that he refers to miraculous power conferred on him, but he makes the acknowledgment which any faithful minister would do, that all the strength which he has to perform the duties of his office is derived from Christ; compare John 15:5 note; 1 Corinthians 15:10 note.

For that he counted me faithful - This is equivalent to saying that he reposed confidence in me. It means that there was something in the character of Paul, and in his attachment to the Saviour, on which reliance could be placed, or that there was that which gave the assurance that he would be faithful. A sovereign, when he sends an ambassador to a foreign court, reposes confidence in him, and would not commission him unless he had reason to believe that he would be faithful. So it is in reference to all who are called by the Redeemer into the ministry. They are his ambassadors to a lost world. His putting them into the ministry is an act expressive of great confidence in them - for he commits to them great and important interests. Hence, learn:

(1) that no one ought to regard himself as called to the ministry who will not be "faithful" to his Master; and,

(2) that the office of the ministry is most honorable and responsible. Nowhere else are there so great interests entrusted to man.

Who was before a blasphemer - This does not mean that Paul before his conversion was what would now be regarded as an open blasphemer - that he was one who abused and reviled sacred things, or one who was in the habit of profane swearing. His character appears to have been just the reverse of this, for he was remarkable for treating what he regarded as sacred with the utmost respect; see the notes on Philippians 3:4-6. The meaning is, that he had reviled the name of Christ, and opposed him and his cause - not believing that he was the Messiah; and in thus opposing he had really been guilty of blasphemy. The true Messiah he had in fact treated with contempt and reproaches, and he now looked back upon that fact with the deepest mortification, and with wonder that one who had been so treated by him should have been willing to put him into the ministry. On the meaning of the word blaspheme, see the notes on Matthew 9:3; compare Acts 26:11. In his conduct here referred to, Paul elsewhere says, that he thought at the time that he was doing what he ought to do Acts 26:9; here he says that he now regarded it as blasphemy. Hence, learn that people may have very different views of their conduct when they come to look at it in subsequent life. What they now regard as harmless, or even as right and proper, may hereafter overwhelm them with shame and remorse. The sinner will yet feel the deepest self-reproaches for that which now gives us no uneasiness.

And a persecutor - Acts 9:1 ff; Acts 22:4; Acts 26:11; 1 Corinthians 15:9; Galatians 1:13, Galatians 1:23.

And injurious - The word here used (ὑβριστής hubristēs), occurs only in one other place in the New Testament, Romans 1:30, where it is rendered "despiteful." The word injurious does not quite express its force. It does not mean merely doing injury, but refers rather to the manner or spirit in which it is done. It is a word of intenser signification than either the word "blasphemer," or "persecutor," and means that what he did was done with a proud, haughty, insolent spirit. There was wicked and malicious violence, an arrogance and spirit of tyranny in what he did, which greatly aggravated the wrong that was done; compare the Greek in Matthew 22:6; Luke 11:45; Luke 18:32; Acts 14:5; 1 Thessalonians 2:2; 2 Corinthians 12:10, for illustrations of the meaning of the word. Tyndale and Coverdale render it here "tyrant."

But I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief - compare notes on Luke 23:34. The ignorance and unbelief of Paul were not such excuses for what he did that they would wholly free him from blame, nor did he regard them as such - for what he did was with a violent and wicked spirit - but they were mitigating circumstances. They served to modify his guilt, and were among the reasons why God had mercy on him. What is said here, therefore, accords with what the Saviour said in his prayer for his murderers; "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." It is undoubtedly true that persons who sin ignorantly, and who regard themselves as right in what they do, are much more likely to obtain mercy than those who do wrong designedly.

Yet we cannot but regard - Paul's "ignorance in unbelief" as, in itself, a grievous sin, He had abundant means of knowing the truth had he been disposed to inquire with patience and candor. His great abilities and excellent education are a further aggravation of the crime. It is, therefore, impossible to acquiesce in any solution of this clause which seems to make criminal ignorance a ground of mercy. The author, however, intends nothing of this kind, nor would it be fair to put such construction on his words. Yet, a little more fullness had been desirable on a subject of this nature. It is certain, that, independent of the nature of the ignorance, whether willful or otherwise, the character of crime is affected by it. He who should oppose truth, knowing it to be such, is more guilty than he who opposes it in ignorance, or under the conviction that it is not truth, but falsehood. In a certain sense, too, this ignorance, may be regarded as a reason why mercy is bestowed on such as sin desperately or blasphemously under it. Rather, it is a reason why they are not excluded from mercy. It shows why persons so guilty are not beyond its pale. This is, we think, the true key both to the passage, and that in Luke 23:34. The ignorance is not a reason why God should bestow mercy on such persons, rather than on others left to perish, but a reason why they obtain mercy at all, who, by their blasphemies had been supposed to have reached the sin against the Holy Spirit.

Now consider the passage in this view. The apostle had just been showing how great a sinner he had formerly been. His criminality had been so great that it went near to shutting him out from mercy altogether. Had he maliciously persecuted and blasphemed Christ, knowing him to be the Messiah, his had been the unpardonable sin, and his lot that of judicial, final obduracy. But he had not got that length. He was saved from that gulph, and obtained mercy, because, sinning ignorantly and in unbelief, he was not beyond its range.

That Paul should set himself to excuse his guilt is altogether impossible. He does the very reverse. He has but escaped the unpardonable sin. He is chief of sinners. He owes his salvation to exceeding abundant grace. All long-suffering has been exercised toward him. He affirms, that mercy was extended to him, that, to the end of time, there might be a proof or pattern of mercy to the guiltiest. Had he been assigning a reason why he obtained mercy, rather than others left to perish, doubtless that had been what he has elsewhere assigned and defended, "God will have mercy on whom he will have mercy, and he will have compassion on whom he will have compassion;" Romans 9:15.

And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant - That is, in his conversion under these circumstances and in the aid which was afterward imparted to him in his work.

With faith and love which is in Christ Jesus - Accompanied with the exercise of faith and love; or producing faith and love. The grace which was imparted to him was seen in the faith and love which it produced; see the notes, 1 Corinthians 15:10.

This is a faithful saying - Greek, "Faithful is the word," or doctrine - ὁ λογος ho logos. This verse has somewhat the character of a parenthesis, and seems to have been thrown into the midst of the narrative because the mind of the apostle was full of the subject. He had said that he, a great sinner, had obtained mercy. This naturally led him to think of the purpose for which Christ came into the world - to save sinners - and to think how strikingly that truth had been illustrated in his own case, and how that case had shown that it was worthy the attention of all. The word rendered "saying," means in this place doctrine, position, or declaration. The word "faithful," means assuredly true; it was that which might be depended on, or on which reliance might be placed. The meaning is, that the doctrine that Christ came to save sinners might be depended on as certainly true; compare 2 Timothy 2:11; Titus 3:8.

And worthy of all acceptation - Worthy to be embraced or believed by all. This is so, because:

(1) all are sinners and need a Saviour. All, therefore ought to welcome a doctrine which shows them how they may be saved.

(2) because Christ died for all. If he had died for only a part of the race, and could save only a part, it could not be said with any propriety that the doctrine was worthy of the acceptance of all. If that were so, what had it to do with all? How could all be interested in it or benefited by it If medicine had been provided for only a part of the patients in a hospital, it could not be said that the announcement of such a fact was worthy the attention of all. It would be highly worthy the attention of those for whom it was designed, but there would be a part who would have nothing to do with it; and why should they concern themselves about it? But if it was provided for each one, then each one would have the highest interest in it. So, if salvation has been provided for me, it is a matter claiming my profoundest attention; and the same is true of every human being. If not provided for me, I have nothing to do with it. It does not concern me at all.

See this subject discussed at length in the supplementary note on 2 Corinthians 5:14.

(3) the manner in which the provision of salvation has been made in the gospel is such as to make it worthy of universal acceptation. It provides for the complete pardon of sin, and the restoration of the soul to God. This is done in a way that is honorable to God - maintaining his law and his justice; and, at the same time, it is in a way that is honorable to man. He is treated afterward as a friend of God and an heir of life. He is raised up from his degradation, and restored to the favor of his Maker. If man were himself to suggest a way of salvation, he could think of none that would be more honorable to God and to himself; none that would do so much to maintain the law and to elevate him from all that now degrades him. What higher honor can be conferred on man than to have his salvation sought as an object of intense and earnest desire by one so great and glorious as the Son of God?

(4) it is worthy of all acceptance, from the nature of the salvation itself. Heaven is offered, with all its everlasting glories, through the blood of Christ - and is not this worthy of universal acceptation? People would accept of a coronet or crown; a splendid mansion, or a rich estate; a present of jewels and gold, if freely tendered to them - but what trifles are these compared with heaven! If there is anything that is worthy of universal acceptation, it is heaven - for all will be miserable unless they enter there.

That Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners - The great and unique doctrine of the gospel. He "came into the world." He therefore had a previous existence. He came. He had, therefore, an object in coming. It makes his gospel more worthy of acceptation that he had an intention, a plan, a wish, in thus coming into the world. He came when he was under no necessity of coming; he came to save, not to destroy; to reveal mercy, not to denounce judgment; to save sinners - the poor, the lost, the wandering, not to condemn them; he came to restore them to the favor of God, to raise them up from their degradation, and to bring them to heaven.

Of whom I am chief - Greek, "first." The word is used to denote eminence - and it means that he occupied the first rank among sinners. There were none who surpassed him. This does not mean that he had been the greatest of sinners in all respects, but that in some respects he had been so great a sinner, that on the whole there were none who had surpassed him. That to which he particularly refers was doubtless the part which he had taken in putting the saints to death; but in connection with this, he felt, undoubtedly, that he had by nature a heart eminently prone to sin; see Romans 7. Except in the matter of persecuting the saints, the youthful Saul of Tarsus appears to have been eminently moral, and his outward conduct was framed in accordance with the strictest rules of the law; Philippians 3:6; Acts 26:4-5. After his conversion, he never attempted to extenuate his conduct, or excuse himself. He was always ready, in all circles, and in all places, to admit to its fullest extent the fact that he was a sinner. So deeply convinced was he of the truth of this, that he bore about with him the constant impression that he was eminently unworthy; and hence he does not say merely that he had been a sinner of most aggravated character, but he speaks of it as something that always pertained to him - "of whom I am chief." We may remark:

(1) that a true Christian will always be ready to admit that his past life has been evil;

(2) that this will become the abiding and steady conviction of the soul; and,

(3) that an acknowledgment that we are sinners is not inconsistent with evidence of piety, and with high attainments in it. The most eminent Christian has the deepest sense of the depravity of his own heart and of the evil of his past life.

Howbeit for this cause - That is, this was one of the causes, or this was a leading reason. We are not to suppose that this was the only one. God had other ends to answer by his conversion than this, but this was one of the designs why he was pardoned - that there might be for all ages a permanent proof that sins of the deepest dye might be forgiven. It was well to have one such example at the outset, that a doubt might never arise about the possibility of forgiving great transgressors. The question thus would be settled for ever.

That in me first - Not first in the order of time, as our translation would seem to imply, but that in me the first or chief of sinners (ἐν ἐμοὶ ποώτῳ en emoi poōtō) he might show an example. The idea is, that he sustained the first rank as a sinner, and that Jesus Christ designed to show mercy to him as such, in order that the possibility of pardoning the greatest sinners might be evinced, and that no one might afterward despair of salvation on account of the greatness of his crimes.

Might shew forth all long-suffering - The highest possible degree of forbearance, in order that a case might never occur about which there could be any doubt. It was shown by his example that the Lord Jesus could evince any possible degree of patience, and could have mercy on the greatest imaginable offenders.

For a pattern - ὑποτύπωσιν hupotupōsin. This word occurs no where else in the New Testament, except in 2 Timothy 1:13, where it is rendered "form." It properly means a form, sketch, or imperfect delineation. Then it denotes a pattern or example, and here it means that the case of Paul was an example for the encouragement of sinners in all subsequent times. It was that to which they might look when they desired forgiveness and salvation. It furnished all the illustration and argument which they would need to show that they might be forgiven. It settled the question forever that the greatest sinners might be pardoned; for as he was "the chief of sinners," it proved that a case could not occur which was beyond the possibility of mercy.

Which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting - All might learn from the mercy shown to him that salvation could be obtained. From this verse we may learn:

(1) that no sinner should despair of mercy. No one should say that he is so great a sinner that he cannot be forgiven. One who regarded himself as the "chief" of sinners was pardoned, and pardoned for the very purpose of illustrating this truth, that any sinner might be saved. His example stands as the illustration of this to all ages; and were there no other, any sinner might now come and hope for mercy. But there are other examples. Sinners of all ranks and descriptions have been pardoned. Indeed, there is no form of depravity of which people can be guilty, in respect to which there are not instances where just such offenders have been forgiven. The persecutor may reflect that great enemies of the cross like him have been pardoned; the profane man and the blasphemer, that many such have been forgiven; the murderer, the thief, the sensualist, that many of the same character have found mercy, and have been admitted to heaven.

(2) the fact that great sinners have been pardoned, is a proof that others of the same description may be also. The same mercy that saved them can save us - for mercy is not exhausted by being frequently exercised. The blood of atonement which has cleansed so many can cleanse us - for its efficacy is not destroyed by being once applied to the guilty soul. Let no one then despair of obtaining mercy because he feels that his sins are too great to be forgiven. Let him look to the past, and remember what God has done. Let him remember the case of Saul of Tarsus; let him think of David and Peter; let him recall the names of Augustine, and Colonel Gardiner, and the Earl of Rochester, and John Newton, and John Bunyan - and thousands like them, who have found mercy; and in their examples let him see a full proof that God is willing to save any sinner, no matter how vile, provided he is penitent and believing.

Now unto the king eternal - This ascription of praise is offered to God in view of the mercy which he had shown to so great a sinner. It is the outbreak of that grateful emotion which swelled his bosom, and which would not be denied expression, when Paul recalled his former life and the mercy of God to his soul. It somewhat interrupts indeed the train of his remarks, but the heart was so full that it demanded utterance. It is just an instance of the joy and gratitude which fill the soul of a Christian when he is led along in a train of reflections which conduct him to the recollections of his former sin and danger, and to the fact that he has obtained mercy and has now the hope of heaven. The apostle Paul not unfrequently, in accordance with a mode of writing that was common among the Hebrews, interposes an expression of praise in the midst of his reasonings; compare Romans 1:25; 2 Corinthians 11:31. God is called King here, as he is often in the Scriptures, to denote that he rules over the universe. A literal translation of the passage would be, "To the King of ages, who is immortal," etc. The meaning of this expression - "the King of ages" - βασιλει τὼν αἰώνων basilei tōn aiōnōn - is, that he is a king who rules throughout all ages. This does not mean that he himself lives for ever, but that his dominion extends over all ages or generations. The rule of earthly monarchs does not extend into successive ages; his does. Their reign is temporary; his is enduring, and continues as one generation after another passes on, and thus embraces them all.

Immortal - This refers to God himself, not to his reign. It means that he does not die, and it is given to him to distinguish him from other sovereigns. All other monarchs but God expire - and are just as liable to die at any moment as any other people.

Invisible - 1 Timothy 6:16; see the notes on John 1:18.

The only wise God - notes, Romans 16:27. The word "wise" is missing in many mss., and in some editions of the New Testament. It is omitted by Griesbach; marked as doubtful by Tittman, and rejected in the valuable edition of Hahn. Erasmus conjectures that it was added against the Arians, who maintained that the Father only was God, and that as he is here mentioned as such, the word wise was interpolated to denote merely that the attribute of perfect wisdom belonged only to him. Wetstein regards the reading as genuine, and suspects that in some of the early manuscripts where it is missing it was omitted by the transcriber, because it was regarded as inelegant for two adjectives to be united in this manner. It is not easy to determine as to the genuineness of the reading. The sense is not materially affected, whichever view be adopted. It is true that Yahweh is the only God; it is also true that he is the only wise God. The gods of the pagan are "vanity and a lie," and they are wholly destitute of wisdom; see Psalm 115:3-8; Psalm 135:15-18; Isaiah 40:18-20; Isaiah 44:10-17.

Be honour - Let there be all the respect and veneration shown to him which is his due.

And glory - Praise. Let him be praised by all for ever.

Amen - So be it; an expression of strong affirmation; John 3:3. Here it is used to denote the solemn assent of the heart to the sentiment conveyed by the words used; see the Matthew 6:13 note; 1 Corinthians 14:16 note.

This charge - This command or injunction. It does not refer to any "charge," or "cure," which he had as bishop or minister, as the word is sometimes used now, but to the commands or injunctions which he was delivering to him. The command particularly referred to is that in 1 Timothy 1:8.

According to the prophecies which went before on thee - The general meaning of this is plain. It is, that Paul was committing to him an important trust, and one that required great wisdom and fidelity; and that in doing it he was acting in conformity with the hopes which had been cherished respecting Timothy, and with certain expressed anticipations about his influence in the church. From early life the hope had been entertained that he would be a man to whom important trusts might be committed; and it had been predicted that he would be distinguished as a friend of religion. These hopes seem to have been cherished in consequence of the careful training in religion which he had had 2 Timothy 2:1; 2 Timothy 3:15, and probably from the early indications of seriousness, prudence, and piety, which he manifested. It was natural to entertain such hopes, and it seems, from this place, that such hopes had even assumed the form of predictions.

It is not absolutely necessary to suppose that these predictions referred to by the word prophecies were inspired, for the word may be used in a popular sense, as it is often now. We speak now familiarly of predicting or foretelling the future usefulness of a serious, prudent, studious, and pious youth. We argue from what he is, to what he will be, and we do not deem it unsafe or improper to hazard the prediction that, if he lives, he will be a man to whom important interests may be entrusted. As there were, however. prophets in the Christian church (Acts 11:27 note; 1 Corinthians 14 notes), and as it is possible that in some cases they were inspired to foretell future events, it cannot be regarded as improper to suppose that some of them had foretold the future usefulness of this religiously educated youth. Whatever may be meant by the expression, this general observation may be made, that when a young man enters on the active duties of life, and when great interests are entrusted to him, it is not improper to remind him of the hopes which had been cherished of him; of the anticipations which had been formed of his future usefulness; and of the expressions which have been used by the pious and the discerning respecting his future character. This is a kind of reminiscence which will rather increase his sense of responsibility than flatter his vanity; and it may be made a means of exciting him to diligence and fidelity. A virtuous young man will not willingly disappoint the long-cherished hopes of his friends. He will be likely to be made more diligent by the remembrance of all their fond anticipations of his future success.

That thou by them - By those prophecies. That is, that being stimulated and excited by those predictions and hopes, you might be led to fidelity and usefulness.

Mightest war a good warfare - The Christian life is often compared to a warfare or struggle for victory (compare Ephesians 6:10-17; 1 Corinthians 9:7; 2 Corinthians 4:4), and the services of the Christian ministry especially are likened to those of a soldier; 2 Timothy 2:3-4; 2 Timothy 4:7. The meaning here is, that he should contend with earnestness as a Christian and a minister in that holy service in which he was engaged, and endeavor to secure the victory. He "wars a good warfare" who is engaged in a righteous cause; who is faithful to his commander and to his post; who is unslumbering in observing the motions of the enemy, and fearless in courage in meeting them; who never forsakes his standard, and who continues thus faithful until the period of his enlistment has expired, or until death. Such a soldier the Christian minister should be.

Holding faith - Fidelity to the cause in which you are enlisted - as a good soldier should do. This does not mean, as it seems to me, that Timothy should hold to the system of doctrines revealed in the gospel, but that he should have that fidelity which a good soldier should have. He should not betray his trust. He should adhere to the cause of his master with unwavering steadfastness. This would include, of course, a belief of the truth, but this is not the leading idea in the phrase.

And a good conscience - see the notes, Acts 23:1. A good conscience, as well as fidelity, is necessary in the service of the Redeemer. A good conscience is that which is well informed in regard to what is right, and where its dictates are honestly followed.

Which some having put away - That is, which good conscience some have put from them, or in other words, have not followed its dictates. The truth thus taught is, that people make shipwreck of their faith by not keeping a good conscience. They love sin. They follow the leadings of passion. They choose to indulge in carnal propensities. As a matter of course, they must, if they will do this, reject and renounce the gospel. People become infidels because they wish to indulge in sin. No man can be a sensualist, and yet love that gospel which enjoins purity of life. If people would keep a good conscience, the way to a steady belief in the gospel would be easy. If people will not, they must expect sooner or later to be landed in infidelity.

Concerning faith - In respect to the whole subject of faith. They are unfaithful to God, and they reject the whole system of the gospel. "Faith" is sometimes used to denote the gospel - as faith is the principal thing in the gospel.

Have made shipwreck - There is an entire destruction of faith - as a ship is wholly ruined that strikes on a rock and sinks.

Of whom is Hymeneus and Alexander - Hymeneus is nowhere else mentioned in the New Testament, except in 2 Timothy 2:17, where he is mentioned in connection with Philetus as a very dangerous man. An Alexander is mentioned in Acts 19:33, which some have supposed to be the same as the one referred to here. It is not certain, however, that the same person is intended; see the notes on that verse. In 2 Timothy 4:14, Alexander the coppersmith is mentioned as one who had done the apostle "much evil," and there can be little doubt that he is the same person who is referred to here. One of the doctrines which Hymeneus held was, that the "resurrection was past already" 2 Timothy 2:18; but what doctrine Alexander held is unknown, It is not improbable, as he is mentioned here in connection with Hymeneus, that he maintained the same opinion, and in addition to that he appears to have been guilty of some personal injury to the apostle. Both also were guilty of blasphemy.

Whom I have delivered unto Satan - On the meaning of this expression, see the notes on 1 Corinthians 5:5.

That they may learn not to blaspheme - It cannot be supposed that Satan would undertake to teach them not to blaspheme, or that Paul put them under him as an instructor on that subject. The instructions of Satan tend rather to teach his followers to blaspheme, and none in his school fail to be apt scholars. The meaning here is, that Paul excommunicated them, and not improbably brought upon them, by giving them over to Satan, some physical maladies, that they might be reformed; compare notes on 1 Corinthians 5:5. It is not entirely clear what is meant by blaspheme in this place; compare notes on 1 Timothy 1:13. It cannot be supposed that they were open and bold blasphemers, for such could not have maintained a place in the church, but rather that they held doctrines which the apostle regarded as amounting to blasphemy; that is, doctrines which were in fact a reproach on the divine character. There are many doctrines held by people which are in fact a reflection on the divine character, and which amount to the same thing as blasphemy. A blasphemer openly expresses views of the divine character which are a reproach to God; an errorist expresses the same thing in another way - by teaching as true about God that which represents him in a false light, and, to suppose which, in fact, is a reproach. The spirit with which this is done in the two cases may be different; the thing itself may be the same. Let us be careful that we hold no views about God which are reproachful to him, and which, though we do not express it in words, may lead us to blaspheme him in our hearts.