Original Meaning
IT WAS NO ordinary mission that Timothy was called to, in contrast to the time when Paul had sent him to Thessalonica “to strengthen and encourage you in your faith” (1 Thess. 3:2). Apparently Timothy was already at Ephesus when it becomes clear to Paul that conditions are critically unhealthy there because of false teaching by immoral persons. Paul therefore has to “urge” Timothy (v. 3) to “stay” there for a specific purpose: to command these false teachers to stop. He had originally urged Timothy to do this on a previous occasion as Paul was heading to Macedonia, and he is now reinforcing that charge.1
The verb to urge (parakaleo) has a warm, personal feel (though strong) in contrast to the impersonal and imperatival overtones of the following verb of command. Paul gives Timothy the authority to require the false teachers to desist from spreading error. The verb he uses in verse 3 for “command” (parangello) occurs thirty-two times in the New Testament (mainly in the Gospels and Acts), five of which are in 1 Timothy. This letter also has two out of the five New Testament occurrences of the noun form (parangelia). The verbal form of another word that means command (epitasso) is not used at all in the Pastoral Letters, but three of seven occurrences of the noun form (epitage) are in these letters (we have already met one of them in 1:1). This indicates how important the idea of authority is in the Pastoral Letters.
In some translations, the Greek words in the parangell-group are rendered by English words that have a lighter connotation than commanding, such as merely instructing or directing. It is helpful to study the accounts of Jesus’ feeding of the multitudes. In the feeding of the four thousand, Jesus gives directions to the crowd with the word parangello, whereas different verbs, keleuo and epitasso, occur in the similar instructions to the five thousand. Since these accounts are similar verbally and since keleuo and epitasso generally have the strong connotation of “command,” we can assume that the other verb, parangello, also carries that ring of authority.2 Note also the use of parangello in the commands the authorities gave to the apostles to desist from preaching in the name of Jesus (Acts 4:18; 5:28, 40). All this, far from being mere statistics, cautions us to give proper weight to the authority that Timothy is to exercise at Ephesus.3
The word translated “teach false doctrines” (heterodidaskaleo) reappears in 6:3. That context shows that it is not merely something “different” (as in the NRSV), as the etymology of this word (“teach [something] different”) might by itself imply. Since in chapter 6 this verb is set in contrast to “the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ” and to “godly teaching,” we know that what is not “sound” is not only different; it is false. In Galatians 1:6–8 Paul says that the “different gospel” that people were turning to was “really no gospel at all” and that anyone who preached another “gospel” should be “eternally condemned.” To weaken heterodidaskaleo is to undervalue Paul’s strong teachings about truth and error.
The word “nor” at the beginning of verse 4 does not introduce something additional to the false teachings, but identifies specific aspects of those teachings. “To devote oneself to something” means here to pay or give attention to it. One can be overly attracted to something intellectually without necessarily giving it personal devotion. In this case “myths” and “genealogies” hold some kind of fascination for the false teachers and their followers. While folk myths may have value as referring to ways in which a society has expressed the origin of certain customs or beliefs, the kind of myth referred to in the New Testament is profane (i.e., not sacred, 1 Tim. 4:7), contrary to truth (2 Tim. 4:4; Titus 1:14), and slyly concocted, without a true basis or a noble tradition (2 Peter 1:16).
The fact that “genealogies” are linked with “myths” here, which in turn are called “Jewish” in Titus 1:14, and with “quarrels about the law” in Titus 3:9 suggests that these are genealogies found in sacred Jewish writings (perhaps including Genesis). Some have looked to the heresy of Gnosticism as the referent, with its lists of cosmic figures. This is anachronistic, since Gnosticism as a system appeared later. But it did incorporate some elements of Judaism, and it is often difficult to trace origins of various aspects of Gnostic thought. The Jewish context of the references to genealogies in the Pastoral Letters requires putting any developing Gnostic ideas as secondary at best.4 But it is not necessary to identify the source or nature of the “myths” and “endless genealogies” precisely to realize their detrimental effect on Christian thought, which, in this context, is the important point.
That effect is to “promote controversies,” the latter word (ekzetesis) being unique in the Greek New Testament. It is an extension of a word meaning investigation, controversy, or discussion. The NIV “controversies” captures that extended meaning but does not express the basic idea of intellectual speculation.5 In 1 Timothy 6:4 a related word (zetesis) is paired with “quarrels about words” and in Titus 3:9 with “arguments and quarrels.” Therefore, “controversial speculations” may express the nuance best.
That which ought to be promoted instead of controversial speculation is “God’s work [oikonomia].” Paul uses this word for God’s plan and work, especially (though not exclusively) administered as a stewardship by Paul (cf. 1 Cor. 9:17; Eph. 3:2, 9; Col. 1:25).6 This work is in contrast to controversial speculation, probably in part because it is effective and unifying but specifically here because it is “by faith.” One should think and act out of a confidence in what God is doing. False teaching, spawning endless detrimental discussions, is the concern of this letter. It arises from disbelief in what God has revealed. Thus, the rejection of faith is not a mere addendum to the sentence, but a major factor in the deterioration of the Ephesian church.
Faith is a basic term in the Christian vocabulary, as is love. Paul goes on to cite love as “the goal of this command.” The recognition of purpose is important in this letter. In verse 3 Paul has told Timothy to stay in Ephesus for the purpose of commanding certain people to refrain from false teaching; this is in the first place the command that should lead to love. Note that the verb “command” in verse 3 and the noun “command” in verse 5 have the same linguistic root.
Yet since Christian love would seem to be the goal of a greater command than merely one that opposes false teaching, perhaps we should look further for its referent. The mention of “the law” in verse 7 and the major subject of verses 8–11 suggest the possibility that it is also the Old Testament law, specifically the law of Moses, that Paul refers to as the command that leads to love. Note Romans 13:10, where Paul says that “love is the fulfillment of the law.” Nevertheless, he nowhere else uses the word parangelia (“command” in this verse) to refer to the law. Furthermore, in 1 Timothy 1:18 Paul refers to “this instruction,” using this same Greek word. Thus we may conclude that the “command” referred to in verse 5 is Paul’s whole instruction to Timothy, which, in turn is consistent with God’s law when properly applied.
Several further observations bear this out. (1) The word “this” in the phrase “this command” represents the Greek definite article used as a demonstrative pronoun, and so it points to a topic in the context. (2) The command not to teach false doctrines has application beyond that local situation. God’s revealed Word (and that includes the Old Testament laws) must not be skewed by false teachings. (3) In the further use of the word epangelia in verse 18 (“instruction”), there is also a reference to a goal, this time introduced by “so that.”
The “goal of this command,” like the fulfillment of the law (Rom. 13:8— 10), is “love.” The solidity of the love Paul speaks about in verse 5, in contrast to mere feeling, is established by the fact that it requires an integrity of character to exist: “a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith” (v. 5). As the introduction of all three aspects by a single preposition “from” (ek) indicates, they belong together; they are not separate, disparate characteristics. The Greek word for conscience, syneidesis, occurs thirty times in the New Testament, six of them in the Pastoral Letters.7
Paul pursues this matter of integrity further by stating in verse 6 that some people had “deviated from these” (NRSV, i.e., the virtues of v. 5). The NIV “wandered” can be misunderstood to imply a casualness; the verb used here (astocheo) means to miss the mark, deviate, or deliberately depart from something.8 The heretics turned away from Christian character to empty, “meaningless” talk, a striking contrast between steadfast doing or being and vacuous speaking. The word “meaningless” contains the idea of futility, but in Titus 1:10 Paul classes “mere talkers” (a different form of the same root term, matios) with the rebellious and deceivers, so the idea of emptiness is not neutral but negative. The root term can be translated by such words as “useless, futile, empty, fruitless.” In the Pastoral Letters it appears in Titus 3:9, where it describes controversies and quarrels.9 Second Peter 2:18 says that heretics “mouth empty, boastful words” (NRSV, “speak bombastic nonsense”) and appeal to the low, lustful nature of people who have just escaped from people living in error. The use of this kind of terminology in 1 Timothy underlines the danger facing the church at Ephesus if the false teachers are allowed to continue unchecked.
It is ironic that the same people whose speech is empty “want to be teachers” (v. 7) and that those who repudiate love, a pure heart, a good conscience, and sincere faith want to be teachers “of the law.” The irony continues in verse 7 with the statement that they do not comprehend either what they are talking about or what they are asserting with great confidence. The word translated “teachers of the law” occurs in Luke 5:17, and it describes the great teacher Gamaliel in Acts 5:34. The implication from that and from the context here is that these people wanted to be recognized authorities in the Old Testament, perhaps especially regarding case law applying to the Ten Commandments. Such teachers would have the heady experience of telling people what they ought or ought not to do in specific “cases” or instances. Luke 12:13 provides an example of the status they may have sought, where Jesus is approached as an authority on the law by someone who says, “Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me.”
Bridging Contexts
FAITH, TRUTH, AND LOVE. Given the importance of right doctrine in this passage, one might have expected that the goal of the command in 1:5 would be doctrinal correctness. Instead it is love. This is not a sentimental turn in Paul’s instructions; love in Scripture is not weak emotion. Love is “as strong as death, its jealousy unyielding as the grave. It burns like blazing fire, like a mighty flame” (Song 8:6). Theologically, “love is the fulfillment of the law” (Rom. 13:10) and the heart of the two great commandments (loving God and loving one’s neighbor, Matt. 22:36–39). Love is the divinely appointed, intentional object of God’s law. It is also the motivating force in God’s sending of his Son (John 3:16), in our Lord’s death for us (Gal. 2:20), and in our sacrificial service to him (2 Cor. 5:14).10
Love (v. 5) issues from having one’s heart purified and from a “good conscience.” These in turn are possible only to those who have “a sincere faith.” And where these three—the pure heart, the good conscience, and a sincere faith—exist together in their wholeness, the result is love. Jesus showed one aspect of this relationship when he said that a person “who has been forgiven little loves little” (Luke 7:47).
In contrast to the false teachers, Timothy should hold on to both “sincere faith” and “a good conscience.” The word “sincere” that modifies faith adds force to the importance of a clear conscience. When Paul refers to faith as “sincere,” he is not dealing with the question of whether one has faith or not (i.e., is a believer or an unbeliever), nor is he concerned with whether one has little or great faith.11 It is rather a matter of whether faith is genuine or hypocritical, well-intentioned or postured. Once more he is dealing with one’s character. Paradoxically those whose consciences are corrupt are the very ones who are practicing asceticism (1 Tim. 4:2–5) and no doubt congratulating themselves on their righteousness. Sincerity and having a good conscience, therefore, are both marks of the integrity that must characterize the servant of the Lord.
The expression “pure heart” (v. 5) immediately calls to mind Jesus’ beatitude, “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.” The heart represents the total inner person in both Old and New Testaments. It appears frequently in the Psalms and Proverbs.12 In 2 Timothy 2:22 Paul counsels Timothy: “Flee the evil desires of youth, and pursue righteousness, faith, love and peace, along with those who call on the Lord out of a pure heart.” That verse and the present one have the words “love” and “faith” in common as well as “pure heart.” In addition, the words “a good conscience” and “faith” occur both here and near the end of the chapter (v. 19).13
An important theme. This is the first occurrence in the Pastoral Letters of the blend of beliefs and character, of orthodoxy and orthopraxy, sound doctrine and moral living, that will be developed as a major theme in the Pastoral Letters. The integrity of the Lord’s servant is both important in itself and in contrast to the lives of the false teachers, who, like their teachings, are despicable. The fact that there are references in these letters to vices and virtues that are similar to conventional moral standards in the first century does not detract from their authenticity, but rather shows their relevance. Servants of the Lord, including elders and deacons and their families, must not live on a moral level below that of their neighbors. Gentiles also had morals, in spite of some of the gross things they practiced, and they were quick to criticize inconsistent Christians and dismiss their teachings.
In this connection, when Paul tells Timothy clearly and forcibly that heresy is not to be tolerated, he makes it clear that the most important characteristic of the heretics here is their provocation of controversy.14 Note the contrast to this characteristic, love, the goal of the command (v. 5). If, therefore, Timothy undertakes his commission to wipe out heresy as a license to vent his anger (as some bellicose defenders of the faith have done throughout history), he will be like the false teachers in attitude, forgetting the “goal.”
Of the three expressions discussed in verse 5, “a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith,” the middle one, “a good conscience” is probably generally least understood. Conscience is an innate God-given ability to make moral judgments. It does not tell us what is right or wrong, but, on the basis of what we have been taught, it discerns whether or not a particular moral option accords with that knowledge. We are responsible to make decisions according to conscience. If there is doubt about the rightness of a particular behavior, Romans 14:23 directs us not to follow it. Such action is not based on faith, and “everything that does not come from faith is sin.”
This reality shows that even Christians who follow their consciences faithfully may differ in their behavior, since the basis (standards they have adopted and with reference to which their consciences function) may differ from one another. No one’s conscience is infallible. Even those who do not know God’s law have a conscience and are morally responsible (Rom. 2:12–16), but their moral judgments may be flawed. Sincerity and a good conscience are important characteristics for the Lord’s servant. Such qualities may seem too weak or fuzzy to be prime requirements at times when (as has happened in notorious periods of church history) error has been rampant. At such times the battle lines have been drawn and the indomitable zeal of a crusader seems to be the most important qualification for leaders. But that is precisely why we need the Pastoral Letters—to set our priorities straight.
Contemporary Significance
HOW TO ADDRESS ERROR. The message of the Pastoral Letters for us today is not only how to identify a particular kind of heresy. The message is also (and perhaps even more important in some circumstances), the way such deviations are to be addressed. It will become increasingly clear in the study of the Pastorals that how the sound teacher should confront heresy shares the spotlight with what heresies to confront. A major application of the Pastoral Letters today—and it can be argued that it is the distinguishing one in that corpus—is not simply maintaining correct doctrine, much less insisting on some form of church organization that we may discern in those letters, but the importance of the integrity of doctrine and life.
When Paul was on his missionary journeys, he had occasion to meet and to hear about itinerant pagan preachers, such as philosophic missionaries and cultic practitioners, who were making a living off their naive supporters and converts. We have ample evidence from those days that the reputations of some of these wandering preachers revealed a slurry of bad teaching and evil living.15 But even in Christianity, as churches were being established and Paul’s span of control became too broad to be effective, he increasingly observed instances of such a mixture in the lives of teachers within the churches. He observed ungodliness that was coupled with corrupted and corrupting teaching (1 Tim. 1:18–20; 4:1–2; 2 Tim. 2:16–17; 3:1–9; Titus 1:10–14). Therefore, Paul urged not just pure doctrine or just a pure life, but a blend of these to counter the evil slurry of impure doctrine and impure life. The doctrine he called for was not only correct, but “sound.” A sound, or healthy, doctrine produces moral, healthy living. This blend is not only important in Christians and especially in Christian teachers, but is, in itself, a testimony to the truth of the message.16
Identifying error. The foregoing does not minimize the contemporary task of confronting doctrinal error. What do the Pastorals teach us about doing this? In order to apply New Testament passages that warn against doctrinal deviation to our own circumstances, it is helpful to understand as fully as possible the biblical background. This can be a frustrating task in the Pastorals, however, since they do not present the heresy cohesively. This is not a defect since, as noted in connection with the terms in the salutation, the recipients had information that later readers do not. They could put the pieces together.
Yet there are a number of hints throughout the letters as to what constituted the areas of disagreement. As we have seen already, in 1:3 Paul mentions “false doctrines,” so we know that it was not just a matter of practices or opinions but truth that was at stake. He refers to “myths and endless genealogies,” but these terms are somewhat obscure, so they do not help us greatly to discern the nature of the error. We also know that there is something about the law that these people have misunderstood, because apparently they are not using it “properly” (v. 8). Further bits of information will be discovered in later passages of the Pastorals. But even if we are unable to paint as accurate and as colorful a picture as we would like of these deviations from truth, are we at a complete loss? Does that mean that we cannot extract from a passage such as 1:3–7 anything that is concrete enough to help us discern doctrinal deviation today? On the contrary, there are several ways in which we can apply the text.
(1) Even though we may not be able to identify a specific contemporary error corresponding to what was in Paul’s mind as he wrote, we can usually discern enough of the shape of things in the churches of the first century to be able to flesh out a corresponding potential problem in our own situation. The proper use of the law, for example, has been a matter of debate for many centuries, and there are legitimate differences among branches of Christianity. But if we encounter a strong legalistic attitude or its opposite, libertarianism, we can probe for a doctrinal assumption that may lie behind this erroneous abuse of the law.
(2) Another approach is to note the presence of any hindrances to normal growth in our church (or fellowship of churches). One hindrance may be controversy, as in the church at Ephesus (1:4). This does not mean that controversy always indicates heresy, for even orthodox theologians and church leaders can let their personal agendas and sinful motives propel them into controversies. But controversy can also arise from underlying differences in basic doctrinal assumptions, especially if one or the other embraces ideas that are incompatible with orthodoxy. Another clue that a doctrinal virus may be present is if God’s work is not going forward by faith (cf. again v. 4). While monetary interests and personal “empire building” can displace faith, so can aberrant doctrine. There can be an erosion of dependence on God, with the consequent subtle shifting of the ground underneath a newly planted church or missionary work.
I recall that when I was a young boy, there was a group of churches united in their doctrine and opposed to what was then called modernism. One church in that fellowship, however, did not seem to have the strength or make the progress of the others. One wise Christian detected a serious flaw in the preaching of the pastor of that church. The fundamentals of the faith were not being clearly proclaimed. It was not long before that pastor left and joined an institution that had no commitment to what we today would call evangelical faith. For many, that pastor’s move came as a complete surprise. But it was not so to those who had discerned that the cause, for the weakness in “God’s work” was at heart doctrinal.
(3) It might seem, given the history of confrontations between so-called modernists and fundamentalists, and more recently between liberals and evangelicals, that it would be harder today than formerly for those whose doctrine is not sound to escape being detected and called into account. Today also we have the advantage of a number of excellent, theologically sound seminaries whose faculties and alumni are well equipped to identify heresy and deal with it. Nevertheless, there are reasons for a widespread and dangerous ignorance concerning the Bible and doctrine. (a) One reason is the lack of references in the public schools to Bible facts and church history.
(b) Another is the diminishing of family Bible reading and instruction, due in part to the disappearance of the family evening dinner hour.
(c) Moreover, the preoccupation of pastors with administrative duties, community-related events, and counseling often means less time for study.
(d) It is also possible for preachers to be so intent on reaching the unchurched or the younger generation that doctrinal preaching suffers. It is now widely recognized that newer generations have difficulty in following extended nonrelational sermons, and that contemporary sermons often, in the sincere process of adaptation to this audience, are doctrinally thin. Unless some provision is made for doctrinal instruction, both Christians and seekers may lack the foundation needed to deal knowledgeably with doctrinal issues. Cult members coming to the door are often better trained in stating their beliefs than the Christians they visit are grounded in biblical truth. It is possible for people to hear modern equivalents of “myths and endless genealogies” and not know how to deal with them. And when teachers “confidently affirm” (v. 7) doctrinal matters—whether about the law or other topics more current today—the average person has little idea that those teachers “do not know what they are talking about.”
Addressing relativism. Another contemporary problem is that in contrast to a dogmatic stand for theological purity, discussions about religious and ethical topics often include relativistic terms like pluralism and values. Christian teachings are often assessed as having only proportionate worth. Eclecticism is a way of looking at religion and beliefs in which one is not committed to any one religious organization or belief system, but instead chooses aspects of these at will. Any teaching or ethical yardstick that is personally appealing is considered valid. Thus many Catholics today accept traditional Catholic teachings about Mary but dismiss Catholic teachings on birth control. Religious authority and theological absolutism are dismissed.
The term values seems harmless and even good, but it can be a poor substitute for morals. Differing value systems claim equal status with moral absolutes. In various cultures around the world and over the years, Christian missionaries have had to decide how to acknowledge genuine values in the beliefs and practices of the people they are seeking to reach, without compromising either the gospel itself or the moral standards and the doctrine they are commissioned to bring.
1. Paul’s actual sentence structure is “As I urged you to stay…”; there is no main verb in the sentence. There are several ways to express what he meant: (1) “As I urged you,…stay” (NIV); (2) “I urge you, as I did…[earlier], to remain” (NRSV); (3) “I urged you to stay” (NLT); or (4) possibly, “I want you to stay, as I urged you to….”
2. See Matt. 15:35; Mark 8:6 (Gk. parangello), NIV “he told” (the crowd of 4,000 is told to sit down to be fed); Matt. 14:19 (Gk. keleuo), NIV “he directed” (the 5,000); Mark 6:39 (Gk. epitasso), NIV “Jesus directed” (the 5,000).
3. The NIV has “command certain men not to teach false doctrines,” NLT has “stop those who are teaching wrong doctrine,” NRSV has “instruct certain people not to teach any different doctrine.” Notice how the NIV has the strongest wording (“command…false”), the NLT a moderate wording (“stop…wrong”), and the NRSV the weakest wording: “instruct…different.” The paraphrase in The Message hardly communicates the seriousness either of the command or of the error: “Stay right there on top of things so that the teaching stays on track.” The erroneous impression this gives is that the teaching at Ephesus was sound, “on track,” and that the teachers did not need any corrective command from Timothy, as long as he could “stay on top of things.”
4. Among the sources of information and opinion on the matter are F. Büchsel, “
,” TDNT, 1:663–65; “
,” BAGD, 153; Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, 41–42; Knight, Pastoral Epistles, 73–74; Kelly, Pastoral Epistles, 44–45. Towner, referring to Philo (Moses 2.46–47) and the Dead Sea Scrolls (1QS 3:13–15), says that these “make it clear that the term itself was a reference not just to lists of family names and descendants but also to edifying stories about significant Old Testament figures” (i-2 Timothy & Titus, 45–46). Given the uncertainty of the meaning of the word as used here, it is better to keep the literal “endless genealogies” (NIV, NRSV) rather than creating such paraphrases as “spiritual pedigrees” (NLT) or “fanciful family trees” (The Message).
5. The NRSV has simply “that promote speculations,” NLT has a paraphrase that includes the expression “endless speculation,” and The Message reduces the clause to “that digress into silliness.”
6. Knight has a helpful discussion of oikonomia, referring to J. Reumann, “OIKONOMIA- Terms in Paul in Comparison With Lucan Heilsgeschicte,” NTS 13 (1966–67): 147–67.
7. See Towner, 1–2 Timothy & Titus, 47; see also J. M. Gundry-Volf, “Conscience,” DPL, 153–56, for the understanding of conscience throughout Paul’s letters. Unlike readers in our modern Western culture, Paul’s readers would have thought in corporate terms of honor and shame rather than in terms of individual conscience. In that culture one sensed the opinion of the group. This does not dilute Paul’s emphasis on individual responsibility. In addition to 1:5, the other occurrences in the Pastorals are 1 Tim. 1:19 (“holding on to faith and a good conscience”); 3:9 (“they must keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience”); 4:2 (the false doctrines at Ephesus “come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron”); 2 Tim. 1:3 (“I thank God, whom I serve…with a clear conscience”); and Titus 1:15 (“to those who are corrupted and do not believe…both their minds and consciences are corrupted”).
8. Another word Paul uses in the Pastoral Letters is planao (see 1 Tim. 3:13; Titus 3:3), to wander or deceive, which has a significant history in ancient religious controversies.
9. See also Acts 14:15; 1 Cor. 3:20; 15:17; James 1:26; 1 Peter 1:18; and related forms in Rom. 1:21; 8:20; 2 Peter 2:18.
10. The Pastoral Letters refer to love in 1 Tim. 1:14; 2:15; 4:12; 6:10, 11; 2 Tim. 1:7, 13; 2:22; 3:3, 10; Titus 2:2, 4; 3:4, 15.
11. See Jesus’ comments on “little faith” in Matt. 6:30; 8:26; 14:31; 16:8; 17:20; Luke 12:28. Jesus uses this expression to describe not so much an amount of faith measured on a broad scale as much as a lack of faith in a given situation; if the disciples had even a tiny particle of faith they could move mountains.
12. A few examples: “I praise you, O LORD, with all my heart” (Ps. 9:1; cf. 111:1); “my heart rejoices” (13:5; cf. 16:9; 28:7); “my heart fails” (40:12; cf. 73:26), “my heart is steadfast” (57:7; cf. 108:1; 112:7); “apply your heart to understanding” (Prov. 2:2; cf. 2:10; 23:15); “create in me a pure heart, O God” (Ps. 51:10).
13. See also 4:2 and comments.
14. The Greek word hairesis does not appear in the Pastoral Letters. Heresy and heretic are used in this commentary because (1) it has (over the course of time) the meaning of choice, a philosophic system, a sect, a faction, dissension; and (2) it has also come to mean doctrinal error. It therefore appropriately describes the destructive situation that was happening at Ephesus.
15. Slurry is a term used in mining and metallurgy for a mixture of particles such as clay, cement, and coal in a liquid. I use it as descriptive of the mixture of impure doctrine and deeds.
16. The passages where Paul emphasizes this “blend,” the integrity of doctrine and life, are 1 Tim. 1:5, 19; 2:8–15; 3:2–13, 15–16; 4:2, 6–7, 11–12, 15–16; 5:5–6, 8, 10; 6:1–2, 6–10, 11–12; 2 Tim. 2:19–22; Titus 2:1–10; 3:8 (see also Introduction).