The Heresy Paul Opposed in 1 Timothy

By David A. Mappes

[David A. Mappes is Assistant Professor of Bible, Cedarville College, Cedarville, Ohio.]

Bible students differ in their views on the purpose of 1 Timothy. Many look to 3:15 as a statement of the epistle’s purpose: “I write so that you may know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God.”[1] Thus the epistle has been understood as the earliest manual on church order and administration.[2]

More recently, however, other scholars have argued that the letter’s purpose and occasion are restricted to Paul’s injunction in 1:3 to correct false teachers: “Remain on at Ephesus, in order that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines.” Fee, for example, says, “Everything in the letter has to do with 1:3.”[3] Paul also addressed the matter of false doctrines in 6:3 (“if anyone advocates a different doctrine, and does not agree with sound words. .. and with the doctrine conforming to godliness”) and 6:20–21 (“O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, avoiding worldly and empty chatter and the opposing arguments of what is falsely called ‘knowledge’-which some have professed and thus gone astray from the faith”).

Yet Paul’s letter seems to address a wide variety of topics. He told Timothy to keep the faith (1 Tim. 1:19), to show himself as an example (4:6–12), not to neglect his spiritual gift, to pay attention to his teaching (4:14–16), and to avoid the love of money while seeking contentment with godliness (6:6–20). Paul also discussed ecclesiological issues of church function and administration, including prayer (2:1–8), the roles of women (2:9–15), qualifications of church officers (3:1–13), regulations for widows (5:3–16), slave regulations (6:1–2), and the discipline and remuneration of elders (5:17–25). In addition, several times he mentioned a heresy that was prevalent (1:3–11; 4:1–5; 6:3–5, 20).

Does 1 Timothy Have a Single Purpose?

As a result some scholars believe 1 Timothy has no logical cohesive structure. Dibelius and Conzelemann write, “All these observations justify the hypothesis that the regulations in 1 Timothy are not a uniform piece, but rather represent a collection of various materials.”[4] In addition Hanson wrote that “the Pastorals are made up of a miscellaneous collection of materials. They have no unifying theme; there is no development of thought.”[5]

However, the personal nature of 1 Timothy partially explains why Paul did not interact directly in a typically Pauline fashion of lengthy, coherent, logical argumentation. In 1 Timothy Paul appealed to an existing dogma of established known truth in his warning against the false teachers, as opposed to developing a sustained argument against them.[6]

In his emphasis on church order Paul spoke of the church as “the household of God,” “the church of the living God,” and “the pillar and support of the truth” (3:15). The terms “pillar” (στῦλος) and “support” (ἑδραίωμα, better “foundation”) express the idea that the church functions as a platform for disseminating the gospel.

This emphasis on truth alludes to the church’s defense against heresy. Thus the qualifications of leaders and the proper behavior of believers (as members of God’s “household”) relate to the exposing of heresy. Proper conduct forms an implicit moral polemic and defense against the errorists. Marshall writes, “Thus the maintenance of Godly order in the church, which depends upon a properly instituted set of Godly leaders, is closely tied up with the character of the church as the foundation of truth. It is because of the nature of the church as the foundation of the truth over against the attacks of heresy that there must be such care taken about the character of its leaders.”[7]

These errorists then were a threat to the very existence of the church, since they opposed sound teaching. Paul’s explicit and implicit polemic against them, his biographical reminiscences, and the personal nature of the letter to Timothy help explain why the structure of the letter only appears to be without logical cohesion. The emphasis in the epistle is on the contrast between the sound teaching of the deposit of truth, and the challenge offered it by the false teaching of others.[8] Sound doctrine and teaching are mentioned, for example, in 1:10; 3:2; 4:6, 11; and 6:2–3.

Paul discussed this contrast between false and true teaching in regard to his ministry, Timothy’s ministry, and the Christian church. Paul’s utmost desire was that the church remain a stronghold for the gospel of truth. This hope necessarily involved eradicating false doctrine.

What Was the Heresy Paul Opposed in 1 Timothy?

Scholars differ on the nature of the heresy Paul addressed in 1 Timothy and the other Pastoral Epistles.[9] The heresy may be related, some suggest, to one or more of these four categories:[10] (a) Jewish false teachers, also noted in Colossians 2:8, 16–23,[11] (b) a type of proto-Jewish or pre-Christian Gnosticism;[12] (c) a proto-Marcionism or Montanism;[13] (d) a developed form of Gnosticism.[14] (Another view is that the Pastoral Epistles are anonymous letters written to provide a model on how to encounter any heresy.)[15]

These false teachers had an interest in myths (1 Tim. 1:4; 4:7; 2 Tim. 4:4; Titus 1:14) and genealogies (1 Tim. 1:4; Titus 3:9), in teaching the Law (1 Tim. 1:4; Titus 1:7, 14; 3:9), and in ideas called knowledge (1 Tim. 6:20). This so-called knowledge led to speculation and controversy (1 Tim. 1:6; 6:4, 20; 2 Tim. 2:14, 16, 23; Titus 1:10; 3:9–10) and such vices as deception (1 Tim. 4:1–3; 2 Tim. 3:6–9; Titus 1:10–13) and immorality (1 Tim. 1:19–20; Titus 1:10–13). They desired material gain through their teaching (1 Tim. 6:5; 2 Tim. 3:2–4; Titus 1:11). They advocated asceticism (1 Tim. 4:1–5), forbidding marriage and eating meat, and they promoted the idea that the resurrection had already taken place (2 Tim. 2:18; cf. 1 Tim. 1:19–20).[16]

A close link emerges between the false teachers’ heterodoxy and their moral decay. In 1 Timothy 1:9–10 Paul associated the false teachers with the worst of sinners, though they may not have been involved in all the sins listed in the passage. These errorists were demonically deceived and had seared their consciences through hypocritical living (1 Tim. 4:1–2). Paul charged them with conceit and greed. In 2 Timothy 3:2–5, Paul painted a picture of sinful vice that is identified with these false teachers.[17]

These false teachers and their heresy were a present and dangerous reality in the Ephesian community and not simply a fictional fabrication, as Dibelius and Conzelemann, Koester, and others propose. Timothy was commanded to stop these men from teaching strange doctrines (1 Tim. 1:3–4; cf. Titus 1:9–14). Paul said “sound words” and “doctrine conforming to godliness” were a litmus test to determine the authenticity and veracity of the teachers (1 Tim. 6:3–4). Some of these false teachers were presumably teachers or leaders in the church (1:3; 6:3). The apostle’s emphasis on the character of church leaders and his discussion about the discipline of leaders (5:19–21) also suggest that these false teachers were within the church.[18]

Paul had anticipated that some elders in Ephesus would draw the disciples away by speaking “perverse things” (Acts 20:30). Furthermore the prophecy in 1 Timothy 4:1 about those who would fall away from the faith along with those who had already fallen (see 1:6; 6:21; 2 Tim. 2:18) suggests that the errorists had once been identified with the faith. So the community of believers were being led astray by the very men who had been commissioned to help ground them in sound doctrine. “The picture of a ‘mixed’ church found in 2 Tim 2:19–21 confirms that the false teachers’ source and base of operation was within the church.”[19]

Paul’s reference to handing Hymenaeus and Alexander over to Satan for discipline (1 Tim. 1:19–20) implies that these men were within the church’s jurisdiction[20] and it showed Timothy how important it was to stop these false teachers.[21]

The exact nature of the heresy is difficult to determine, though Paul did mention three false teachings: prohibition of marriage (4:3), abstinence from certain food (4:3), and the claim that the resurrection had already taken place (2 Tim. 2:18).

These false teachers did not deny the resurrection; they said it had already occurred. Therefore they had to have spiritualized it in some way.[22] Their claim that the resurrection already had taken place suggests these false teachers maintained that they were presently experiencing what God said would occur in the future.[23] Thus they claimed to be experiencing some fuller form of the eschaton.[24] The false teachers’ ascetic prohibitions may be linked to their self-proclaimed superior status. Since these errorists said they, as the enlightened ones, comprehended this spiritual resurrection, they may have claimed special insight into the Law and engaged in ascetic practices.

Towner notes that a verbal link between 2 Timothy 2:15–18 and 1 Timothy 6:20–21 shows that these teachers’ knowledge (γνώσις) was indeed the belief that the resurrection had come.[25] In each passage Timothy was told to pay careful attention to his treatment of the gospel: Timothy was to “guard” the deposit (1 Tim. 6:20), and he was to “handle accurately the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15). In 1 Timothy 6:20 and 2 Timothy 2:16 the false teaching is called “empty chatter” (τὰς βεβήλους κενοφωνίας), a phrase found nowhere else in the New Testament. In both passages the false teaching turned people away from the truth.

One cannot precisely determine if the spiritualized resurrection teaching was part of (a) a proto-Jewish Gnosticism, (b) a unique New Testament eschatological problem, (c) speculating tendencies, or (d) perhaps a combination of all three.[26] Whatever the case, it was probably only one aspect of the theological problem.

This theological error had immediate impact on the community of believers. Denial of a future resurrection with emphasis on a present spiritual resurrection affected their view of the Christian life. Perhaps this partially explains why Paul emphasized the present reality of their salvation and the fact that godliness is profitable for the present time as well as the future life (1 Tim. 4:8; 6:12, 19).[27] Paul presented salvation as a past event (2 Tim. 1:9; Titus 3:5), a present reality (1 Tim. 1:15; 4:8), and also a future event (4:8, 16; 2 Tim. 4:18).[28]

Some scholars suggest that this “overrealized” eschatology caused believers to disrupt the normal social structure. Slaves disobeyed masters, women usurped the role of men in the church as women were emancipated from the traditional domination of husbands, and widows became attracted to an ascetic lifestyle. The false teaching adversely affected families (Titus 1:11) as well as the church. This domestic upheaval resulted from individuals believing they were now living in the eschaton. Thus they no longer were required to obey the instruction concerning domestic-ethical behavior.[29]

Those leaders and believers who understood and accepted God’s current saving or sanctifying process in their lives would maintain the high qualifications required of elders and the standards for all believers. Thus the elder qualifications and other virtue lists may be related to the Ephesian errorists.

Summary

The heresy at Ephesus was the occasion that led Paul to write to Timothy. This heresy, in part, involved spiritualizing the resurrection and promoting ascetic practices relating to Jewish elements. This ascetic syncretism led to the errorists’ gross speculation, false knowledge, and immoral behavior. Paul’s instruction to Timothy and to the church includes establishing proper church order, personal admonitions to Timothy to follow Paul’s example, and specific indictments against the false teachers.

Notes

1. W. Lock, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (Edinburgh: Clark, 1924), 42; C. K. Barrett, The Pastoral Epistles (Oxford: Clarendon, 1963), 63; and C. Spicq, Les Épîtres Pastorales (Paris: Gabalda, 1969), 1:32.
2. J. N. D. Kelly, A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, Black’s New Testament Commentaries (London: Adam & Charles Black, 1963), 59–61.
3. Gordon D. Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, New International Biblical Commentary (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1988), 7. Also see Gordon D. Fee, “Reflections on Church Order in the Pastoral Epistles, with Further Reflections on the Hermeneutics of ad hoc Documents,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 28 (1985): 142. Alan Padgett also posits this view (“Wealthy Women at Ephesus: 1 Timothy 2:8–15 in Social Context,” Interpretation 41 [1987]: 20-31).
4. Martin Dibelius and Hans Conzelmann, The Pastoral Epistles, Hermeneia, trans. Philip Buttolph and Adela Yarbro (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972), 5. Donald Guthrie, who accepts the Pauline authorship of 1 Timothy, writes, “There is a lack of studied order, some subjects being treated more than once in the same letter without apparent premeditation. The various brief doctrinal statements are intermixed with personal requests or ecclesiastical advice. These letters are, therefore, far removed from literary exercises” (The Pastoral Epistles, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990], 18).
5. A. T. Hanson, The Pastoral Epistles, New Century Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 42.
6. While this contrast of logical argumentation between 1 Timothy and some of Paul’s other epistles does exist (e.g., Romans and Ephesians), critical scholars have overstated the contrasts and often ignored the literary and theological development within 1 Timothy. Hanson writes, “Editors have also observed that the author of the Pastorals does not argue with his theological opponents as Paul does. Almost invariably he is content to abuse them” (ibid., 4). Paul did develop cohesive argumentation in the individual sections of the epistle. He developed the section on prayer (2:1–7), his rationale behind gender issues (2:11–15), elder qualifications (3:1–7), and others. Paul’s arguments concerning the master-slave relationship in 6:1–2 are akin to statements in Ephesians and Colossians (George W. Knight III, The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992], 22–24).
7. Howard Marshall, “Church and Ministry,” in Pulpit and People, ed. Nigel M. Cameron and Sinclair B. Ferguson (Edinburgh: Rutherford House, 1986), 53.
8. Michael Prior, Paul the Letter-Writer and the Second Letter to Timothy (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1989), 65.
9. André Lemaire writes, “The time is no more when the ‘heretics’ of the Pastorals were simply identified with the 2nd century Gnostics. Greater attention to some currents of Judaism, contemporaneous with early Christianity (now better known from the discoveries at Qumran), and closer study of the texts have brought about a revision.. .. The heretics of the Pastorals are increasingly less connected with the Greek milieu and more with the Jewish” (“Pastoral Epistles: Redaction and Theology,” Biblical Theology Bulletin 2 [February 1972]: 34).
10. John J. Gunther provides an extensive list of views concerning the false teachers in the Pastorals (St Paul’s Opponents and Their Background: A Study of Apocalyptic and Jewish Sectarian Teachings [Leiden: Brill, 1973], 4–5).
11. Knight, The Pastoral Epistles, 3.
12. Spicq says these false teachers were Judeo-Christians associated with a religious group in the Qumran community (Les Épitres Pastorales, 1:85–119). See also Edwin Yamauchi, Pre-Christian-Gnosticism: A Survey of the Proposed Evidence (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973), 49–51.
13. Massingberd Ford, “A Note on Proto-Montanism in the Pastoral Epistles,” New Testament Studies 17 (1970–71): 338-46. Ford examines the hypothesis of proto-Montanism as the backdrop of the heresy but concludes that it is only a hypothesis.
14. Charles W. Hedrick and Robert Hodgson Jr., eds., Nag Hammadi, Gnosticism, and Early Christianity (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1986).
15. Helmut Koester, Introduction to the New Testament: History and Literature of Early Christianity, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982), 2:297–305; and Dibelius and Conzelmann, The Pastoral Epistles, 7–8, 66. Morgan P. Gealy writes, “As the writer regards his own ministry as being in the true line of succession from Paul, so likewise he is careful to insist that the Timothys and Tituses of his own day-his ‘children’ as well as Paul’s-must regard themselves as fully accredited churchmen apostolically commissioned to establish and maintain faith and order in the church” (“I and II Timothy, Titus,” in The Interpreter’s Bible, ed. George A. Buttrick [New York: Abingdon, 1955], 11:345). For a refutation of this view see Phillip H. Towner, The Goal of Our Instruction (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1989), 22–24.
16. Knight, The Pastoral Epistles, 11–12.
17. The vices in this list are associated with the false teachers throughout the Pastoral Epistles (e.g., 1 Tim. 1:20; 6:5, 9; Titus 1:11–12).
18. Thomas D. Lea and Hayne P. Griffin, 1, 2 Timothy, Titus, New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman, 1992), 43.
19. Towner, The Goal of Our Instruction, 25–26.
20. Ibid., 25-26, 134–36.
21. Lea and Griffin, 1, 2 Timothy, Titus, 43.
22. Lock, The Pastoral Epistles, 99.
23. Homer Kent argues that the false teachers believed that Christians are reigning now. “The prospect of reigning with Christ was removed. The implication to be drawn was that we should be reigning now, instead of suffering” (The Pastoral Epistles: Studies in 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus [Chicago: Moody, 1982], 267).
24. Newport J. D. White, “The First and Second Epistles to Timothy,” in The Expositor’s Greek Testament, ed. W. Robertson Nicoll (reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 4:166–67. This position does not necessitate that one adhere to a developed form of Gnosticism. The problem in Ephesus is probably analogous to the issues in Thessalonica (2 Thess. 2:2) and Corinth (1 Cor. 15; cf. 4:8). This false teaching might have resulted from a mishandling of Paul’s instruction that Christians are presently raised with Christ (Rom. 6:1–11; Eph. 2:6; 5:14; Col. 2:12–13; 3:1–4) (Knight, Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, 14).
25. Towner, The Goal of Our Instruction, 32–33; and P. H. Turner, “Gnosis and Realized Eschatology in Ephesus (of the Pastoral Epistles) and the Corinthian Enthusiasm,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 31 (October 1987): 95-124.
26. The most apparent characteristics of the heresy involved both Jewish and Gnostic elements. The heretics claimed to be teachers of the Law (1 Tim. 1:7; and in Titus 1:10 they are referred to as the circumcision), and they engaged in disputes about the Law. However, as already noted, they also promoted ascetic practices. Their claim to possessing a higher knowledge (1 Tim. 6:20) suggests a sense of superior spirituality characteristic of Gnosticism (Kelly, The Pastoral Epistles, 11).
27. William L. Lane, ”1 Tim 4:1–3. An Early Instance of Over-Realized Eschatology,” New Testament Studies 11 (October 1964-July 1995): 164-67.
28. Philip Towner, “The Present Age in the Eschatology of the Pastoral Epistles,” New Testament Studies 32 (1986): 427-28.
29. Mark A. Ellis writes, “As the believer was in the ‘final state,’ certain aspects such as eating certain foods and sexual union were considered inappropriate” (“Apostasy and Perseverance in the Pastoral Epistles” [Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1988], 53).