1 Timothy 1:3–7

1:3 The beginning of this verse locates Paul’s remarks historically. As indicated in the Introduction to the Pastoral Epistles, Paul wrote 1 Timothy after the events recorded in the book of Acts. Paul instructed Timothy to remain in Ephesus for pastoral reasons. There were “certain persons”—probably within the church—who had begun to teach “different doctrine” to God’s people. Some translations render the phrase as “false doctrine,” but this does not quite capture the meaning. The teaching was indeed false, but its falseness consisted in its being “different”—not in the sense of being weird but in the sense of being a departure from a norm. But from what norm does the false teaching depart?

This question is answered explicitly in 6:3, where Paul uses the same word (heterodidaskalei). Paul defines “different doctrine” as that which departs from “the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ” and from “the teaching that accords with godliness.” In other words, “different doctrine” contradicts Jesus’ own teaching as preserved in the apostolic tradition.

The fundamental characteristic of this false teaching is that it does not agree with the “sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ.” This phrase indicates that Paul believes his gospel to come from Jesus (cf. Gal. 1:11–12). Because he is an apostle, Paul understands his teaching as Christ speaking through him (2 Cor. 13:3). Thus “sound” teaching refers to those words that conform to the standard of Christ’s words, which Christ himself commissioned Paul to speak (Acts 9:15; 26:16). So, when Paul speaks as an apostle, he is speaking the very words of the Spirit of Christ. To teach “different doctrine” means to teach that which does not agree with the authoritative apostolic standard.

1:4 Verse 4 continues the prohibition of verse 3. Timothy must command “certain persons” (v. 3) not to give attention to “myths and endless genealogies.” The term “myth” indicates a fictional story as in a tale, story, or legend (BDAG, s.v. μῦθος). We are not sure what stories may be in view here, but we know that they are not grounded in Scripture or the apostles’ teaching (cf. “Jewish myths”; Titus 1:14). George W. Knight writes that a myth is an “unreal tale that only the gullible believe and follow, which produces nothing of value.”¹ Thus a myth is plainly contrary to what the church has received.

BDAG notes that “genealogies” has been understood in one of two ways. It has sometimes been interpreted as a reference to Gnostic teachings. Another interpretation—going back as far as Ambrosiaster and Jerome—posits that the background is Jewish and involves rabbinical speculation on biblical genealogies. Here too it is difficult to know which interpretation is correct. If the aforementioned “myths” are Jewish in nature, then perhaps rabbinical speculation is in view here as well. That these false teachers desire to teach the law (1 Tim. 1:7) also suggests that their error has Jewish roots. Both the myths and the genealogies are “endless” in the sense that they are “tiresome” (BDAG, s.v. ἀπέραντος).

Whatever the source of the “myths and endless genealogies,” we know that they do not derive from a true understanding of Scripture or the apostle’s teaching. These fables do not rally God’s people in unity around the truth. Rather, they distract God’s people from the “stewardship from God that is by faith.” The term translated “stewardship” could also be rendered “administration” or “plan.” God has a plan of salvation that he is administering through Christ on behalf of sinners. The administration of that plan happens by faith. The myths and genealogies, therefore, distract from God’s plan of salvation.

1:5 “The aim of our charge” connects back to the “charge” of verse 3: “charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine.” The “charge” in both verses means command. Timothy is to command people not to teach error (v. 3). The goal of this command is love (v. 5). The “aim of our charge” does not address the goal of Paul’s teaching in general but relates specifically to the false teachers Timothy must address. Yes, Paul wants Timothy to protect the flock, but he also wants the false teachers to be corrected—to produce “love” in the hearts of these errant teachers. But not just any love; Paul desires it to be a love that grows out of some very specific motives. He desires the love to grow out of a “pure heart,” a “good conscience,” and a “sincere faith.” A pure heart is one that has been washed by the Spirit. A good conscience is one that walks in the deeds of the Spirit. A sincere faith is one that relies on Jesus alone for salvation.

1:6 Verses 6 and 7 describe false teachers who persist in their error. Paul warns that “certain persons, by swerving from these [i.e., a pure heart, good conscience, sincere faith], have wandered away.” In other words, false teaching grows out of hearts that are impure, consciences that are not good, and faith that is insincere. False teaching, therefore, is not merely a failure of the mind; it is a failure of the heart. And when the heart swerves from the truth, it veers into “vain discussion”—disputes and speculations that have no good purpose or outcome.

1:7 Paul notes that false teachers aim to teach “the law,” i.e., the OT law of Moses. This verse must be understood in connection to the fascination with “myths and endless genealogies” in verse 4. The false teachers are reading the law, but they do not understand it correctly. This is why their teaching is a perversion of God’s Word rather than a faithful exposition of it. Perhaps they have been drawn into fictional stories about biblical characters and speculations about the genealogical lists in Moses’ writings. Whatever the reason for their misinterpretation, the point is that false teachers often use the Bible. In fact, a large part of the appeal of false teaching is that it uses biblical rhetoric to promote unbiblical error. But when false teachers use the Bible this way, they do not really know what they are talking about. They may have confidence, but they do not have the truth.