Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Timothy 1:6
From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling;
6. from which ] Plural from which things, that is the love and its threefold helpers, in the grace, the life, and the creed.
having swerved ] Lit. ‘having missed the mark,’ another of the words peculiar to these epistles, occurring only ch. 1Ti 6:21 and 2Ti 2:18.
vain jangling ] empty talking; the word occurs in the adjective form once again, in the still stronger warning against the same class of teachers in Tit 1:10, where they are said to be mostly ‘of the Circumcision,’ and to give heed to ‘Jewish fables.’ The law of which they are setting themselves up to be teachers is of course the law of Moses, but corrupted by allegorical interpretations and philosophisings which whittled away the keen edge of its moral precepts and blunted all sense of the paramount necessity of holy living.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
From which some having swerved – Margin, not aiming at. The word here used – astocheo – means properly, to miss the mark; to err; and then, to swerve from compare 1Ti 6:21; 2Ti 2:18. It does not mean that they had ever had that from which they are said to have swerved – for it does not follow that a man who misses a mark had ever hit it – but merely that they failed of the things referred to, and had turned to vain talk. The word which hon, in the plural, refers not to the law, but to the things enumerated – a pure heart, a good conscience, and unfeigned faith.
Have turned aside unto vain jangling – Vain talk, empty declamation, discourses without sense. The word here used does not mean contention or strife, but that kind of discourse which is not founded in good sense. They were discourses on their pretended distinctions in the law; on their traditions and ceremonies; on their useless genealogies, and on the fabulous statements which they had appended to the law of Moses.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 6. From which some having swerved] From which some, though they have pretended to aim at the , scope, or mark, have missed that mark. This is the import of the original word .
Turned aside unto vain jangling] The original term, , signifies empty or vain talking; discourses that turn to no profit; a great many words and little sense; and that sense not worth the pains of hearing. Such, indeed, is all preaching where Jesus Christ is not held forth.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
6. From whichnamely, from apure heart, good conscience, and faith unfeigned, the well-spring oflove.
having swervedliterally,”having missed the mark (the ‘end’) to be aimed at.” It istranslated, “erred,” 1Ti 6:21;2Ti 2:18. Instead of aiming atand attaining the graces above named, they “have turned aside(1Ti 5:15; 2Ti 4:4;Heb 12:13) unto vain jangling”;literally, “vain talk,” about the law and genealogies ofangels (1Ti 1:7; Tit 3:9;Tit 1:10); 1Ti6:20, “vain babblings and oppositions.” It is thegreatest vanity when divine things are not truthfully discussed (Ro1:21) [BENGEL].
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
From which some having swerved,…. The apostle, in this verse and the next, describes the persons he suspected of teaching other doctrines, and of introducing fables and endless genealogies; they were such who departed from the above things; they erred from the commandment, or law, notwithstanding their great pretensions to a regard unto it; at least they missed the mark, the end and design of it; they went astray from that, and instead of promoting charity or love, created feuds, contentions, and divisions in the churches; and were far from having a pure heart, being filthy dreamers, and sensual persons, destitute of the Spirit of God, and were such who put away a good conscience, and made shipwreck of faith: such were Hymenaeus, Philetus, Alexander, and others, of whom he also says, they
have turned aside to vain jangling; which he elsewhere calls empty talk, and vain babblings, 1Ti 6:20, from the solid doctrines of the Gospel, and a solid way of handling them, they turned to vain, idle, useless, and unprofitable subjects of discourse, and to treating upon subjects in a vain, jejune, and empty manner; entertaining their hearers with foolish and trifling questions and answers to them about the law, and with strifes about words, which were unserviceable and unedifying; they were unruly and vain talkers, Tit 1:10.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Having swerved (). First aorist active participle of , compound Koine verb (Polybius, Plutarch) from ( privative and , a mark), “having missed the mark.” In N.T. only here, 1Tim 6:21; 2Tim 2:18. With the ablative case (which).
Have turned aside (). Second aorist passive indicative of , old and common verb, to turn or twist out or aside. In medical sense in Heb 12:13. As metaphor in 1Tim 1:6; 1Tim 6:20; 2Tim 4:4.
Vain talking (). Late word from , only here in N.T., in the literary Koine.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Having swerved [] . Past o. In LXX, Sir. 7 19; 1Co 7:9. It means to miss the mark.
Have turned aside [] . o P. Comp. 1Ti 5:15; 1Ti 6:20; 2Ti 4:4; Heb 12:13.
Vain Jangling [] . N. T. o. o LXX o Class. The word Illustrates the writer’s fondness for unusual compounds. Jangling is an early English word from the old French jangler, comp. Jongleur a teller of tales. Hence jangling is empty chatter So Chaucer, “Them that jangle of love.” Troil, and Cress 2 800.
And Piers Ploughman, “And al day to drynken At diverse tavernes And there to jangle and jape.” Vision, Pasc. 2 1069.
Shakespeare, “This their jangling I esteem a sport.” Mids. Night ‘s D. 3 2.
Wiclif, Exo 17:7 (earlier version), uses jangling for wrangling. “And he clepide the name of the place Temptynge for the jangling of the sons of Israel.”
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1)“From which some having swerved” (hon tines astochesantes) “From which things some having missed the mark” – in point of fact, having neglected to cultivate love.
2) “Have turned aside” (heksetrapesan) “Corrupted in mind,” 1Ti 6:5, being “branded in their conscience,” 1Ti 4:2; and “reprobate concerning the faith,” 2Ti 3:8.
3) “Unto vain jangling;” (eis mataiologian) “To vain talking,” accountable idle words, Mat 12:36; Tit 1:10; Tit 3:9.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
6 From which some having gone astray He continues to pursue the metaphor of an object or end; for the verb ἀστοχεῖν, the participle of which is here given, signifies to err or go aside from a mark. (12)
Have turned aside to idle talking This is a remarkable passage, in which he condemns for “idle talking” (13) all the doctrines which do not aim at this single end, and at the same time points out that the views and thoughts of all who aim at any other object vanish away. It is, indeed, possible that useless trifles may be regarded by many persons with admiration; but the statement of Paul remains unshaken, that everything that does not edify in godliness is ματαιολογία, (14) “idle talking.” We ought; therefore to take the greatest possible care not to seek anything in the holy and sacred word of God but solid edification, lest otherwise he inflict on us severe punishment for abusing it.
(12) “Here he makes use of a metaphor taken from those who shoot with a bow; for they have their mark at which they aim, and do not shoot carelessly, or at random. Thus Paul shews that God, by giving us the law, has determined to give us a sure road, that we may not be liable to wander like vagabonds. And, indeed, it is not without reason that Moses exhorteth the people, ‘This is the way, walk ye in it,’ as if he had said that men do not know where they are, till God has declared to them his will; but then they have an infallible rule. — Let us carefully observe that God intends to address us in such a manner that it shall not be possible for us to go astray, provided that we take him for our guide, seeing that he is ready and willing to perform that office, when we do not refuse such a favor. This is what Paul meant by this metaphor; as we are told that all who have it not as their object to rely on the grace of God, in order that they may call on God as their Father, and may expect salvation from him, and who do not walk with a good conscience, and with a pure heart toward their neighborhood, are like persons who have wandered and gone astray.” — Fr. Ser.
(13) “ De vanite et mesonge.” — “For vanity and falsehood.”
(14) “ Ματαιολογία has reference to the interminable and unprofitable ζητήσεις mentioned at 1Ti 1:4, and called κενοφωνίας at 1Ti 6:20; this vain and empty talk being, by implication, opposed to the performance of substantial duties.” — Bloomfield.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(6) From which some having swerved have turned aside.This sentence is rendered more accurately: From which some, having gone wide in aim, have turned themselves aside. These words seem to tell us that these teachers had once been in the right direction, but had not kept in it; indeed, from the whole tenor of St. Pauls directions to Timothy it is clear that these persons not only had been, but were still, reckoned among the Christian congregations of the Ephesian Church. The presiding presbyter appointed by St. Paul could have exercised no possible authority over any not reckoned in the Churchs pale.
Unto vain jangling.These men, having missed the true aim of the commandment, have now turned themselves to vain, empty talking, which could lead to nothing except wranglings and angry disputations.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
6. Having swerved The Greek, missing the mark, as an archer. They undertook to hit the mark, the end, but were induced by the seductions of the fables and genealogies to waver and miss.
Jangling This word, in which the sense is indicated by the sound, is suitably selected by our translators for a word not belonging to classic Greek, used by St. Paul to express contempt of the fables and genealogies with which the errorists were befooling themselves.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
A Description Of The False Teachers Who Desire To Be Teachers Of The Law ( 1Ti 1:6-7 ).
‘From which things some having swerved have turned aside to vain talking, desiring to be teachers of the law, though they understand neither what they say, nor that of which they confidently affirm.’
Paul then stresses that these false teachers have strayed away from such things as love out of a pure heart and a good conscience and faith unfeigned, and have rather replaced them with vain talking. As they desired to be teachers of the Law this would appear to suggest that they were weaving fantastic ideas out of either the Law of Moses, or the Old Testament seen as ‘the Law’, rather than providing good solid teaching which pointed to Christ and encouraged godly living. And the point is that they wanted recognition and admiration for their scholastic ability, instead of being concerned for the truth.
They had ‘swerved’, that is, they were off course, they had ‘missed what they were aiming at’. Even though they thought of themselves as teaching the Law they were talking in vain. (The internet today is full of such vain talking). For, says Paul, they made confident assertions, but they did not know what they were talking about, nor did they fully understand what they were saying. They were fantasising, instead of searching out the truth.
For the word ‘teachers of the Law’ (nomodidaskaloi) compare Act 5:34, although Paul hastily stresses that they were not really so.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
1Ti 1:6-7 . At 1Ti 1:6 the apostle passes to the heretics.
] refers to the ideas immediately preceding: . . ., not as Wiesinger rightly remarks to direct, “since manifestly denotes a false goal in contrast with the true goal, which is .” [52]
] This verb occurs only in the Pastoral Epistles, in this passage and also in 1Ti 6:21 and 2Ti 2:18 (where it is joined with and the accusative). Here it stands in its original sense: a scopo sive meta aberrare (comp. Plut. de Defect. Oracul. chap. 10), which corresponds to the mentioned in 1Ti 1:5 , and gives us to understand that the heretics had at first been on the way which leads to the goal, but had not remained in it. In this way Schleiermacher’s criticism (p. 90), that the word here is far from clear, loses its force.
] has its full force (Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 18: ) in this verb, which, except in Heb 12:13 , only occurs in the Epistles to Timothy. The goal to which they have come after turning from the is . This word (only found here; Tit 1:10 : ) characterizes the heresy as empty in nature, contributing nothing to the furtherance of the Christian life. It consists on the one hand of , on the other of such definitions regarding the law as were opposed to evangelic doctrine. This latter reference is proved by the close connection of the verse with what follows.
] The participle does not express contrast: “although;” it gives rather a more precise definition of the previous verb . Some expositors (de Wette: wish to be , without being so in reality; Bengel has temere ; so also Plitt) rightly urge that expresses an allegation of their own; Hofmann, on the other hand, wrongly takes it in the sense of “arbitrary assumption.” [53]
] Luther’s translation is, “masters of the Scripture” (and similar explanations are given; Heinrichs has “teachers”); but this does not give the full force of . By we must of course understand the Mosaic law, though it does not follow that the heretics here were Judaizers such as those against whom Paul contends in the Epistles to the Romans and to the Galatians: they might rather be men who acquired the name by laying down arbitrary commands in their interpretations of the law, and calling these the right knowledge of the law. Baur’s theory, that Paul gave this name to the heretics because of their antinomianism, is quite arbitrary, and contrary to the natural meaning of the words. De Wette rightly disproves this by referring to Tit 1:14 , from which it is abundantly clear that the heretics made it their business to lay down arbitrary commands. Baur’s appeal to 1Ti 1:8 , according to which he thinks the heretics must have declared that the law was not good, must decidedly be rejected, since the idea is only an arbitrary importation into 1Ti 1:8 . [54]
] This participle expresses contrast (Leo: quamquam ignorant), “without, however, understanding.” The object of is given in a sentence of two clauses: . The first: , is clear in itself; the second: , has been variously explained. Most find the difference between the clauses to lie in this, that the one refers to the utterances themselves, the other to things of which the utterance was made, i.e. to the subject-matter of the doctrine (so Raphelius, Leo, Matthies, Wiesinger, Plitt, Oosterzee, Hofmann). De Wette, again, thinks that this explanation rests on a grammatical error, and that “ does not refer to the things of which corroboratory assertions were made, but to these assertions themselves” (Luther: what they say or what they suppose ). In support of this opinion de Wette wrongly appeals to Tit 3:8 . [55] He is wrong, too, in translating . by “corroborate;” it means rather: “give full assurance.” Hofmann says, “to express oneself with confidence regarding anything.” The expression is quite general, and Mack seems to be arbitrary in limiting the thought by explaining how . refers to expressions in the law brought forward as proofs of assertions with which they had no real connection, and . . to those assertions for which proofs out of the law were given, and which in themselves had no meaning. Paul merely says that the possessed no insight into the nature of the law, and hence they made assertions regarding it which were not understood even by themselves. [56]
[52] Hofmann is wrong in disputing the reason given by Wiesinger, and maintaining that and not is opposed to . There is no ground also for his assertion that has here the general sense of “to leave uncared for.” The clearly shows that is to be taken in its own proper sense.
[53] Hofmann’s reason for this explanation is, that “ , who make the law of Israel the subject of their instruction, have no business in the church of the gospel.” This is altogether wrong, as may be seen when, further on, Paul appears as a .
[54] Contrary to the train of thought, van Oosterzee remarks on : “not in a good, rather in a bad, non-evangelical meaning of this word; men who mixed up law and gospel.” In this explanation he overlooks the .
[55] The classical usage is against de Wette’s explanation; comp. Plutarch, Fabii Vita , chap. 14: ; Polyb. xii. 12. 6 : .
[56] On the conjunction of the relative and interrogative pronouns , see Winer, p. 159 [E. T. p. 211].
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
6 From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling;
Ver. 6. Some having swerved ] . “Having missed the mark,” as unskilful shooters, being “heavenly wide,” as Sir Philip Sidney translateth that proverb, Toto errant caelo.
Having turned aside unto vain jangling ] Ignoble quarrels, ubi vincere inglorium est, atteri sordidum, wherein a man cannot quit himself so as to come off with credit or comfort. (Mr Burroughs.) Mr Deal never loved to meddle with controversies of the times; he gave that reason, he found his heart the worse when he did. Grinseus, provoked by Pistorius to dispute, sent back the letters (not so much as opening the seal) with this answer out of Chrysostom, Inhonestum est, honestam matronam cum meretrice litigare, It is no honour for an honest matron to scold with a harlot. (Melch. Adam.) See Trapp on “ 1Ti 1:4 “
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
6 .] (the connexion is it was by declining from these qualities that these men entered on their paths of error) of which (the , , and the sources of , which last they have therefore missed by losing them) some having failed (reff.: ‘missed their mark:’ but this seems hardly precise enough: it is not so much to miss a thing at which a man is aiming, as to leave unregarded one at which he ought to be aiming: as Schweigh. Lex. Polyb., ‘rationem alicujus rei non habere, et respectu ejus sibi male consulere.’ Thus Polyb. i. 33. 10, , , , ; v. 107. 2, , : see also vii. 14. 3) turned aside to ( -, away from the path leading to the , 1Ti 1:5 , in which they should have been walking: the idiom is often found in the examples cited by Wetst.: e.g. Plato, Phdr., , Thuc. v. 1:65, , and in Polyb., , vi. 4. 9, , ib. 10. 2 and 7: and in Hippocr. de temp. morbi, even nearer to our present phrase, ) foolish speaking (of what kind, is explained 1Ti 1:7 , and Tit 3:9 , which place connects this expression with our 1Ti 1:4 . It is the vain questions arising out of the law which he thus characterizes. Herod. (ii. 118) uses of an idle tale , an empty fable : , ), wishing to be (giving themselves out as, without really being: so Paus. i. 4. 6, . Cf. Palm and Rost’s Lex. sub voce) teachers of the law (of what law? and in what sense? To the former question, but one answer can be given. The law is that of Moses; the law , always so known. The usage of (reff.) forbids our giving the word, as coming from a Jew, any other meaning. That this is so, is also borne out by Tit 1:14 . Then as to the sense in which these men professed themselves teachers of the law. (1) Clearly not, as Baur, by their very antinomianism, teachers of the law by setting it aside: this would at best be an unnatural sense to extract from the word, and it is not in any way countenanced by 1Ti 1:8 ff. as Baur thinks: see below. (2) Hardly, in the usual position of those Judaizing antagonists of St. Paul against whom he directs his arguments in Rom., Gal., and Col. Of these he would hardly have predicated , nor would he have said . . . Their offence was not either of these things, promulgating of idle fables, or ignorance of their subject, but one not even touched on here an offence against the liberty of the Gospel, and its very existence, by reintroducing the law and its requirements. (3) We may see clearly by the data furnished in these pastoral Epistles, that it was with a different class of adversaries that the Apostle had in them to deal: with men who corrupted the material enactments of the moral law, and founded on Judaism not assertions of its obligation, but idle fables and allegories, letting in latitude of morals, and unholiness of life. It is against this abuse of the law that his arguments are directed: no formal question arises of the obligation of the law: these men struck, by their interpretation, at the root of all divine law itself, and therefore at that root itself does he meet and grapple with them. (See more in Prolegg.) Hence the following description), understanding neither (notice , making the two branches of the negation parallel, not progressively exclusive, as would be the case with : they understand as little about the one as about the other) the things which they say (the actual diatribes which they themselves put forth, they do not understand: they are not honest men, speaking from conviction, and therefore lucidly: but men depraved in conscience ( Tit 1:14-15 ), and putting forth things obscure to themselves, for other and selfish purposes), nor concerning what things they make their affirmations (nor those objective truths which properly belong to and underlie the matters with which they are thus tampering. This explanation of the sentence is called in question by De W., on the ground of the parallel expression in Tit 3:8 , , in which he maintains that in , represents the mere thing asserted , not the objective matter concerning which the assertion is made, and he therefore holds our sentence to be a mere tautology, answering exactly to . But in reply we may say, that there is not the slightest necessity for such a construction in the passage of Titus: see note there. And so Huth., Wies. Cf. Arrian. Epict. ii. 21, , , ).
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
1Ti 1:6 . : i.e. , the disposition, conscience, and faith as qualified. : see note on 1Ti 1:3 . : ( aberrantes , Vulg.; recedentes , [254] 7 ; excedentes , [255] 50 ). In the other passages where this word occurs the A.V. and R.V. have erred ; here swerved . They missed the mark in point of fact. It may be questioned whether they really had aimed at a pure heart, etc. But having missed, being in fact “corrupted in mind” 1Ti 6:5 ; “branded in their conscience,” 1Ti 4:2 ; and “reprobate concerning the faith,” 2Ti 3:8 , they did not secure as their own love , practical beneficence, but its exact opposite, empty talking, vaniloquium , Tit 1:10 . The content of this empty talking is analysed in Tit 3:9 .
[254] Speculum
[255]
It is more natural to suppose that is governed by (Huther, Grimm, Alf.) than by (Ellicott). is used absolutely with elsewhere in the Pastorals; but in Ecclus. it governs a genitive directly. governs both gen. and acc.; the latter in 1Ti 6:20 .
Moulton and Milligan, Expositor , vii., vii. 373, quote examples of from papyri (ii. B.C. ii. A.D.) in the sense “fail” or “forget,” e.g. , . introduces a new metaphor: they had turned aside out of the right path . : Here only; but occurs, Tit 1:10 . See 1Ti 6:20 : “Vanitas maxima, ubi de rebus divinis non vere disseritur, Rom 1:21 ” (Bengel).
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
1 Timothy
THE END OF THE COMMANDMENT
1Ti 1:6 .
The Apostle has just said that he left Timothy in Ephesus, in order to check some tendencies there which were giving anxiety. Certain teachers had appeared, the effect of whose activity was to create parties, to foster useless speculations, and to turn the minds of the Ephesian Christians away from the practical and moral side of Christianity. In opposition to these, the Apostle here lays down the broad principle that God has spoken, not in order to make acute theologians, or to provide materials for controversy, but in order to help us to love. The whole of these latest letters of the Apostle breathe the mellow wisdom of old age, which has learned to rate brilliant intellectualism, agility, incontroversial fence and the like, far lower than homely goodness. And so, says Paul, ‘the end of the commandment is love.’
Now he here states, not only the purpose of the divine revelation, but gives us a summary, but yet sufficient, outline of the method by which God works towards that purpose. The commandment is the beginning, love is the end or aim. And between these two there are inserted three things, a ‘pure heart,’ a ‘good conscience,’ ‘faith unfeigned.’ Now of these three the two former are closely connected, and the third is the cause, or condition, of both of them. It is, therefore, properly named last as being first in order, and therefore last reached in analysis. When you track a stream from its mouth to its source, the fountain-head is the last thing that you come to. And here we have, as in these great lakes in Central Africa–out of which finally the Nile issues–the stages of the flow. There are the twin lakes, a ‘good conscience’ and a ‘pure heart.’ These come from ‘unfeigned faith,’ which lies higher up in the hills of God; and they run down into the love which is the ‘end of the commandment.’ The faith lays hold on the commandment, and so the process is complete. Or, if you begin at the top, instead of at the bottom, God gives the word; faith grasps the word, and thereby nourishes a ‘pure heart’ and a ‘good conscience,’ and thereby produces a universal love. So, then, we have three steps to look at here.
I. First of all, what God speaks to us for.
‘The end of the commandment is love.’
Now, I take it that the word ‘commandment’ here means, not this or that specific precept, but the whole body of Christian revelation, considered as containing laws for life. And to begin with, and only to mention, it is something to get that point of view, that all which God says, be it promise, be it self-manifestation, be it threatening, or be it anything else, has a preceptive bearing, and is meant to influence life and conduct. I shall have a word or two more to say about that presently, but note, just as we go on, how remarkable it is, and how full of lessons, if we will ponder it, that one name for the Gospel on the lips of the man who had most to say about the contrast between Gospel and Law is ‘commandment.’ Try to feel the stringency of that aspect of evangelical truth and of Christian revelation.
Then I need not remind you how here the indefinite expression ‘love’ must be taken, as I think is generally the case in the New Testament, when the object on which the love rests is not defined, as including both of the twin commandments, of which the second, our Master says, is like unto the first, love to God and love to man. In the Christian idea these two are one. They are shoots from the one root. The only difference is that the one climbs and the other grows along the levels of earth. There is no gulf set in the New Testament teaching, and there ought to be none in the practice and life of a Christian man, between the love of God and the love of man. They are two aspects of one thing.
Then, if so, mark how, according to the Apostle’s teaching here, in this one thought of a dual-sided love, one turned upwards, one turned earthwards, there lies the whole perfection of a human soul. You want nothing more if you are ‘rooted and grounded in love.’ That will secure all goodness, all morality, all religion, everything that is beautiful, and everything that is noble. And all this is meant to be the result of God’s speech to us.
So, then, two very plain practical principles may be deduced and enforced from this first thought. First, the purpose of all revelation and the test of all religion is–character and conduct.
It is all very well to know about God, to have our minds filled with true thoughts about Him, His nature, and dealings with us. Orthodoxy is good, but orthodoxy is a means to an end. There should be nothing in a man’s creed which does not act upon his life. Or, if I may put it into technical words, all a man’s credenda should be his agenda ; and whatsoever he believes should come straight into his life to influence it, and to shape character. Here, then, is the warning against a mere notional orthodoxy, and against regarding Christian truth as being intended mainly to illuminate the understanding, or to be a subject of speculation and discussion. There are people in all generations, and there are plenty of them to-day, who seem to think that the great verities of the Gospel are mainly meant to provide material for controversy–
‘ As if religion were intended For nothing else but to be mended’;
and that they have done all that can be expected when they have tried to apprehend the true bearing of this revelation, and to contend against misinterpretations. This is the curse of religious controversy, that it blinds men to the practical importance of the truths for which they are fighting. It is as if one were to take some fertile wheat-land, and sand it all over, and roll it down, and make it smooth for a gymnasium, where nothing would grow. So the temper which finds in Christian truth simply a ‘ministration of questions,’ as my text says, mars its purpose, and robs itself of all the power and nourishment that it might find there.
No less to be guarded against is the other misconception which the clear grasp of our text would dismiss at once, that the great purpose for which God speaks to us men, in the revelation of Jesus Christ, is that we may, as we say, be ‘forgiven,’ and escape any of the temporal or eternal consequences of our wrongdoing. That is a purpose, no doubt, and men will never rise to the apprehension of the loftiest purposes, nor penetrate to a sympathetic perception of the inmost sweetness of the Gospel, unless they begin with its redemptive aspect, even in the narrowest sense of that word. But there are a miserable number of so-called and of real Christians in this world, and in our churches to-day, who have little conception that God has spoken to them for anything else than to deliver them from the fear of death, and from the incidence on them of future condemnation. He has spoken for this purpose, but the ultimate end of all is that we may be helped to love Him, and so to be like Him. The aim of the commandment is love, and if you ever are tempted to rest in intellectual apprehensions, or to pervert the truth of God into a mere arena on which you can display your skill of fence and your intellectual agility, or if ever you are tempted to think that all is done when the sweet message of forgiveness is sealed upon a man’s heart, remember the solemn and plain words of my text–the final purpose of all is that we may love God and man.
But then, on the other side, note that no less distinctly is the sole foundation of this love laid in God’s speech. My text, in its elevation of sentiment and character and conduct above doctrine, falls in with the prevailing tendencies of this day; but it provides the safeguards which these tendencies neglect. Notice that this favourite saying of the most advanced school of broad thinkers, who are always talking about the decay of dogma, and the unimportance of doctrine as compared with love, is here uttered by a man who was no sentimentalist, but to whom the Christian system was a most distinct and definite thing, bristling all over with the obnoxious doctrines which are by some of us so summarily dismissed as of no importance. My very text protests against the modern attempt to wrench away the sentiments and emotions produced in men, by the reception of Christian truth, from the truth which it recognises as the only basis on which they can be produced. It declares that the ‘commandment’ must come first, before love can follow; and the rest of the letter, although, as I say, it decisively places the end of revelation as being the moral and religious perfecting of men into assimilation with the divine love, no less decisively demands that for such a perfecting there shall be laid the foundation of the truth as it is revealed in Jesus Christ.
And that is what we want to-day in order to make breadth wholesome, and if only we will carry with us the two thoughts, the commandment and love, we shall not go far wrong. But what would you think of a man that said, ‘I do not want any foundations. I want a house to live in’? And pray how are you going to get your house without the foundations? Or would he be a wise man who said, ‘Oh, never mind about putting grapes into the vine vat, and producing fermentation; give me the wine!’ Yes! But you must have the fermentation first. The process is not the result, of course, but there is no result without the process. And according to New Testament teaching, which, I am bold to say, is verified by experience, there is no deep, all-swaying, sovereign, heart-uniting love to God which is not drawn from the acceptance of the truth as it is in Jesus Christ.
II. And so I come, secondly, to note the purifying which is needed prior to such love.
Our text, as I said, divides the process into stages; or, if I may go back to a former illustration, into levels. And on the level immediately above the love, down into which the waters of the twin lakes glide, are a pure heart and a good conscience. These are the requisites for all real and operative love. Now they are closely connected, as it seems to me, more closely so than with either the stage which precedes or that which follows. They are, in fact, two twin thoughts, very closely identified, though not quite identical.
A pure heart is one that has been defecated and cleansed from the impurities which naturally attach to human affections. A ‘good conscience’ is one which is void of offence towards God and man, and registers the emotions of a pure heart. It is like a sheet of sensitive paper that, with a broken line, indicates how many hours of sunshine in the day there have been. We need not discuss the question as to which of these two great gifts and blessings which sweeten a whole life come first. In the initial stages of the Christian life I suppose the good conscience precedes the pure heart. For forgiveness which calms the conscience and purges it of the perilous stuff which has been injected into it by our corruptions–forgiveness comes before cleansing, and the conscience is calm before the heart is purified. But in the later stages of the Christian life the order seems to be reversed, and there cannot be in a man a conscience that is good unless there is a heart that is pure.
But however that may be–and it does not affect the general question before us–mark how distinctly Paul lays down here the principle that you will get no real love of God or man out of men whose hearts are foul, and whose consciences are either torpid or stinging them. I need not dwell upon that, for it is plain to anybody that will think for a moment that all sin separates between a man and God; and that from a heart all seething and bubbling, like the crater of a volcano, with foul liquids, and giving forth foul odours, there can come no love worth calling so to God, nor any benevolence worth calling so to man. Wherever there is sin, unrecognised, unconfessed, unpardoned, there there is a black barrier built up between a man’s heart and the yearning heart of God on the other side. And until that barrier is swept away, until the whole nature receives a new set, until it is delivered from the love of evil, and from its self-centred absorption, and until conscience has taken into grateful hands, if I might so say, the greatest of all gifts, the assurance of the divine forgiveness, I, for one, do not believe that deep, vital, and life-transforming love to God is possible. I know that it is very unfashionable, I know it is exceedingly narrow teaching, but it seems to me that it is Scriptural teaching; and it seems to me that if we will strip it of the exaggerations with which it has often been surrounded, and recognise that there may be a kind of instinctive and occasional recognition of a divine love, there may be a yearning after a clear light, and fuller knowledge of it, and yet all the while no real love to God, rooted in and lording over and moulding the life, we shall not find much in the history of the world, or in the experience of ourselves or of others, to contradict the affirmation that you need the cleansing of forgiveness, and the recognition of God’s love in Jesus Christ, before you can get love worth calling so in return to Him in men’s hearts.
Brethren, there is much to-day to shame Christian men in the singular fact which is becoming more obvious daily, of a divorce between human benevolence and godliness. It is a scandal that there should be so many men in the world who make no pretensions to any sympathy with your Christianity, and who set you an example of benevolence, self-sacrifice, enthusiasm for humanity, as it is called. I believe that the one basis upon which there can be solidly built benevolence to men is devotion to God, because of God’s great love to us in Jesus Christ. But I want to stir, if I might not say sting, you and myself into a recognition of our obligations to mankind, more stringent and compelling than we have ever felt it, by this phenomenon of modern life, that a divorce has been proclaimed between philanthropy and religion. The end of the commandment is love, out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience.
III. Lastly, notice the condition of such purifying.
To recur to my former illustration, we have to go up country to a still higher level. What feeds the two reservoirs that feed the love? What makes the heart pure and the conscience good? Paul answers, ‘faith unfeigned’; not mere intellectual apprehension, not mere superficial or professed, but deep, genuine, and complete faith which has in it the element of reliance as well as the element of credence. Belief is not all that goes to make faith. Trust is not all that goes to make faith. Belief and trust are indissolubly wedded in the conception of it. Such a faith, which knows what it lays hold of–for it lays hold upon definite truth, and lays hold on what it knows, for it trusts in Him whom the truth reveals–such a faith makes the heart pure and the conscience good.
And how does it do so? By nothing in itself. There is no power in my faith to make me one bit better than I am. There is no power in it to still one accusation of conscience. It is only the condition on which the one power that purges and that calms enters into my heart and works there. The power of faith is the power of that which faith admits to operate in my life. If we open our hearts the fire will come in, and it will thaw the ice, and melt out the foulness from my heart. It is important for practice that we should clearly understand that the great things which the Bible says of faith it says of it only because it is the channel, the medium, the condition, by and on which the real power, which is Jesus Christ Himself, acts upon us. It is not the window, but the sunshine, that floods this building with light. It is not the opened hand, but the gift laid in it, that enriches the pauper. It is not the poor leaden pipe, but the water that flows through it, that fills the cistern, and cleanses it, whilst it fills. It is not your faith, but the Christ whom your faith brings into your heart and conscience, that purges the one, and makes the other void of offence towards God and man.
So, brethren, let us learn the secret of all nobility, of all power, of all righteousness of character and conduct. Put your foot on the lowest round of the ladder, and then aspire and climb, and you will reach the summit. Take the first step, and be true to it after you have taken it, and the last will surely come. He that can say, ‘We have known and believed the love that God hath to us,’ will also be able to say, ‘We love Him because He first loved us.’ ‘And this commandment have we of God, that he who loves God loves his brother also.’
Fuente: Expositions Of Holy Scripture by Alexander MacLaren
having swerved. Greek. astocheo. Elsewhere, 1Ti 6:21. 2Ti 2:18.
have. Omit,
turned aside. Greek. ektrepowai. Elsewhere, 5, 15; 1Ti 6:20. 2Ti 4:4. Heb 12:13.
unto. App-104.
vain jangling. Greek. mataiologia. Only here. Compare Tit 1:10.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
6.] (the connexion is-it was by declining from these qualities that these men entered on their paths of error) of which (the ,- , and -the sources of , which last they have therefore missed by losing them) some having failed (reff.: missed their mark: but this seems hardly precise enough: it is not so much to miss a thing at which a man is aiming, as to leave unregarded one at which he ought to be aiming: as Schweigh. Lex. Polyb., rationem alicujus rei non habere, et respectu ejus sibi male consulere. Thus Polyb. i. 33. 10, , , , ; v. 107. 2, , : see also vii. 14. 3) turned aside to (-, away from the path leading to the , 1Ti 1:5, in which they should have been walking: the idiom is often found in the examples cited by Wetst.: e.g. Plato, Phdr., ,-Thuc. v. 1:65, ,-and in Polyb., , vi. 4. 9,- , ib. 10. 2 and 7: and in Hippocr. de temp. morbi, even nearer to our present phrase,- ) foolish speaking (of what kind, is explained 1Ti 1:7, and Tit 3:9, which place connects this expression with our 1Ti 1:4. It is the vain questions arising out of the law which he thus characterizes. Herod. (ii. 118) uses of an idle tale, an empty fable:- , ), wishing to be (giving themselves out as, without really being: so Paus. i. 4. 6, . Cf. Palm and Rosts Lex. sub voce) teachers of the law (of what law? and in what sense? To the former question, but one answer can be given. The law is that of Moses; the law, always so known. The usage of (reff.) forbids our giving the word, as coming from a Jew, any other meaning. That this is so, is also borne out by Tit 1:14. Then as to the sense in which these men professed themselves teachers of the law. (1) Clearly not, as Baur, by their very antinomianism,-teachers of the law by setting it aside: this would at best be an unnatural sense to extract from the word, and it is not in any way countenanced by 1Ti 1:8 ff. as Baur thinks: see below. (2) Hardly, in the usual position of those Judaizing antagonists of St. Paul against whom he directs his arguments in Rom., Gal., and Col. Of these he would hardly have predicated , nor would he have said … Their offence was not either of these things, promulgating of idle fables, or ignorance of their subject, but one not even touched on here-an offence against the liberty of the Gospel, and its very existence, by reintroducing the law and its requirements. (3) We may see clearly by the data furnished in these pastoral Epistles, that it was with a different class of adversaries that the Apostle had in them to deal: with men who corrupted the material enactments of the moral law, and founded on Judaism not assertions of its obligation, but idle fables and allegories, letting in latitude of morals, and unholiness of life. It is against this abuse of the law that his arguments are directed: no formal question arises of the obligation of the law: these men struck, by their interpretation, at the root of all divine law itself, and therefore at that root itself does he meet and grapple with them. (See more in Prolegg.) Hence the following description), understanding neither (notice , making the two branches of the negation parallel, not progressively exclusive, as would be the case with : they understand as little about the one as about the other) the things which they say (the actual diatribes which they themselves put forth, they do not understand: they are not honest men, speaking from conviction, and therefore lucidly: but men depraved in conscience (Tit 1:14-15), and putting forth things obscure to themselves, for other and selfish purposes), nor concerning what things they make their affirmations (nor those objective truths which properly belong to and underlie the matters with which they are thus tampering. This explanation of the sentence is called in question by De W., on the ground of the parallel expression in Tit 3:8, , in which he maintains that in , represents the mere thing asserted, not the objective matter concerning which the assertion is made,-and he therefore holds our sentence to be a mere tautology,- answering exactly to . But in reply we may say, that there is not the slightest necessity for such a construction in the passage of Titus: see note there. And so Huth., Wies. Cf. Arrian. Epict. ii. 21, , , ).
Fuente: The Greek Testament
1Ti 1:6. , from which) a pure heart, etc.-) The same word is found at ch. 1Ti 6:21; 2Ti 2:18. is said of him who misses the point at which he aimed, who does not obtain his end.-, have turned away) Not only did they not become better, but worse. A false and preposterous elevation and extent of knowledge renders its possessor more estranged from the faith, and from the sense of good and evil, etc., than is any illiterate person.- , unto vain jangling) Tit 1:10; Tit 3:9. He comprehends in this one term the empty (vain) babblings and oppositions, ch. 1Ti 6:20. It is the greatest vanity where Divine things are not truthfully discussed; Rom 1:21.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
1Ti 1:6
from which things some having swerved have turned aside unto vain talking;-These words teach that those teachers had once been in the right way, but had not remained in it; indeed, it is clear that these persons, not only had been, but were still reckoned among the members of the Ephesian church, and were engaged in disputations that brought no good to anyone.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
From which some having swerved: or, Which some not aiming at, 1Ti 6:21, 2Ti 2:18,*Gr: 1Ti 4:10
turned: 1Ti 5:15, 1Ti 6:4, 1Ti 6:5, 1Ti 6:20, 2Ti 2:23, 2Ti 2:24, Tit 1:10, Tit 3:9
Reciprocal: 1Ti 6:3 – any 2Ti 2:14 – that Jam 2:20 – O vain
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
1Ti 1:6. From which refers to the good things mentioned in the preceding verse. To swerve means to deviate from some established path or way of life. If a person gets off of the proper road, he generally gets mixed up in some uncertain situation. Hence if a disciple departs from the road marked out by an unfeigned faith, it is no wonder if he falls into vain jangling. This term means “idle talking” according to Thayer’s lexicon, and certainly the fables and endless genealogies mentioned in verse 4 would fall into that class.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
1Ti 1:6. Having swerved. The missing of the mark, the losing of the way, that comes, not from taking aim and failing, but from making no effort to reach the markthe temper, i.e., which is the exact opposite of that which St. Paul describes as his own in 1Co 9:26; Php 3:13. In such cases heresy had its root in ethical evil rather than in intellectual error.
Vain jangling. The Greek word was possibly a word coined for the occasion. The history of the English word is not without interest. From the Latin joculator, the teller of jests and good stories, came the French jongleur, and the English juggler or jangler. The word is defined by Chaucer in the Parsons Tale: Jangelying is when a man speketh to moche beforn folk, and clappeth as a mille, and taketh no keep what he saith. Its application to sweet bells jangled out of tune was of later date.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Verse 6
From which; that is, from the promotion of kindness and good-will between man and man, mentioned above as the end and aim of the divine commands.–Vain jangling; useless and irritating disputes.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
CHAPTER 4
Years ago we met a young couple in Bible college. They were helping a small AMF Sunday school that was kind of playing with becoming a church. They asked us to assist in the little work so we dove right in. I taught the Adult Sunday school for a time and we traded off doing a short “teaching time” in the effort to move into a church service.
The young man had a real knack for preaching the word with a real life application. We then assisted with them in another work where he was preaching every Sunday. He was one of the best preachers I have had the privilege to sit under. He always applied the Word to where we were living.
He began studies at a seminary that had a real over emphasis on academics. As his education progressed his preaching became more involved in detail and academic matters. At the end before, moving away, he was one of the poorest preachers I have ever been under. He was teaching a particular method of study and everyone in the church including his wife disagreed with what he was doing.
He was in my view at that point in his life turned from the mark of being a great preacher to one that was a vain jangler.
A. W. Tozer puts our text into our own context in his subtle toe stomping way.
“We have gotten accustomed to the blurred puffs of gray fog that pass for doctrine in churches and expect nothing better. From some previously unimpeachable sources are now coming vague statements consisting of a milky admixture of Scripture, science, and human sentiment that is true to none of its ingredients because each one works to cancel the others out. Little by little Christians these days are being brainwashed. Evidence indicates that an increasing numbers of them are becoming ashamed to be found unequivocally on the side of truth. They say they believe, but their beliefs have been so diluted as to be impossible of clear definition. Moral power has always accompanied definite beliefs. Great saints have always been dogmatic. We need a return to a gentle dogmatism that smiles while it stands stubborn and firm on the Word of God that lives and abides forever.”
1Ti 1:6 From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling;
Does it seem to you that because they left the love and other items in verse five, which should have been there, that they have turned to vain jangling? It seems that is the easiest way to view it. The NASB follows this thought as well.
Vain jangling has the thought of vain talking or empty talk. One writer mentions this as one that utters empty senseless things. I don’t know for sure where that line is between senseless and sensible. I assume there is a little bit of perspective in this. What one views as sensible may be seen by others as senseless. What is empty and senseless to a husband certainly isn’t empty and senseless to their wife – and the women all said – AMEN!
Job knew well what vain words or empty words were. He mentions in Job 16:1 “Then Job answered and said, 2 I have heard many such things: miserable comforters [are] ye all. 3 Shall vain words have an end? or what emboldeneth thee that thou answerest?”
Another example of vain jangling might well be the outworking of an improper spiritual life. It seems to me that a loose living Christian’s testimony can be capable of becoming vain jangling? If a person looks at a Christian that is preaching one thing and living another it will appear to them as vain jangling – jibberish!
I would like to consider some examples of what I would call vain jangling.
In ages past there have been many questions to consider. One such follows this line of thinking. God is all-powerful, and God can do anything that he wants to do. So, can he create a rock so big that He can’t pick it up?
The question has some valid information to deliver; however, after a point it would be vain jangling to continue the discussion on the subject.
Some suggest that the discussion method of teaching is “pooled ignorance. If discussion is not used correctly, this method of teaching often declines to vain talking. Yes, there are times when I would agree. However, the discussion method of teaching need not be this way if used properly.
There is one question that usually pops up in this discussion. How many angels can stand on the head of a pin? Well, this discussion can go on for quite awhile, however since they are spirit beings, it would seem logical that all of them could stand on the head of one physical pin.
Another application might lead us to question just what our fellowship is these days. Is it fellowship or empty talk? I spoke in a little Baptist church in Chugwater, WY (a little town you have to see if you have time!) and mentioned several times in the message that most fellowship was news, weather and sports. After the service a ranchers wife came to me and said, “I agree with you in principle, but in Chugwater it isn’t news, weather and sports, it is fences, weather and bulls!
We don’t talk of God, we don’t talk of what God is doing in our lives – we talk about empty things – things that do not bring edification.
As we set forth a pure heart, good conscience and a sincere faith, the result will be some powerful teaching, preaching and living of the Word of God. Take some time to consider how Christians live their lives. How do we live our lives?
Barnes mentions about these teachers, “they failed of the things referred to, and had turned to vain talk. The word “which” in the plural, refers not to the law [or commandment in the King James], but to the things enumerated – a pure heart, a good conscience, and unfeigned faith.”
I trust that you have gotten to know some of the great missionaries of the past. Men like Carey, Hudson Taylor, etc. These men knew of the pure heart, of good conscience and sincere faith! To read their life story is to know of their great love for their God and their great desire to serve Him.
Those they witnessed to and ministered to, also knew of the impact of these men on their lives. We need some Careys and Taylors in the church today in a big way.
Paul goes on to state bluntly that not only did they swerve from what was right and that they are empty talkers – now he says:
Fuente: Mr. D’s Notes on Selected New Testament Books by Stanley Derickson
1:6 {5} From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling;
(5) That which he spoke before generally of vain and curious controversies, he applies to those who, pretending a zeal of the Law, dwelled upon outward things, and never made an end of babbling of foolish trifles.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
The "Law" is the Mosaic Code but also the Scriptures of Paul’s day, the Old Testament, particularly the legal parts of it. Paul probably did not mean that these erring teachers failed to understand the letter of their content, though this may have been true of some of them. He probably meant that they did not understand what they were really saying and not saying by their emphasis. They missed the point of the Law.
Their "main interest seems to have been to rival contemporary Rabbinical exegesis, rather than to expound the gospel." [Note: Guthrie, p. 60.]
". . . Paul’s description of their ’confidence’ implies in this context stubbornness, a refusal to be denied. We might say they are dogmatic, which (along with the claim to authority) Paul regards with irony, since they have no real understanding of the matters they teach." [Note: Towner, 1-2 Timothy . . ., pp. 48-49. See David A. Mappes, "The Heresy Paul Opposed in 1 Timothy," Bibliotheca Sacra 156:624 (October-December 1999):452-58.]
"This ’apostasy’ on the part of both the erring elders and their followers is the great urgency of 1 Timothy." [Note: Fee, p. 44.]