Albert Barnes Commentary 1 Timothy 1:3

"As I exhorted thee to tarry at Ephesus, when I was going into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge certain men not to teach a different doctrine," — 1 Timothy 1:3 (ASV)

As I besought thee still to abide at Ephesus. It is clear from this that Paul and Timothy had been labouring together at Ephesus, and the language accords with the supposition that Paul had been compelled to leave before he had completed what he had designed to do there. See the Introduction, 2.

When I went into Macedonia. Having been driven away by the excitement caused by Demetrius and his fellow craftsmen, Acts 20:1. See the Introduction, 2 and 3.

That thou mightest charge some. The word “charge” here—paraggeilhv—seems to mean more than is commonly implied by the word as we use it. If it had been a single direction or command, Paul himself could have given it before he left. Instead, it seems to refer to that continuous instruction which would convince these various errorists and lead them to inculcate only the true doctrine.

Since they may have been numerous, may have embraced various forms of error, and might have had plausible grounds for their belief, this was evidently a work requiring time. Therefore, Timothy was left to accomplish this with the time needed. It would seem that the wrath that had been stirred up against Paul had not affected Timothy, allowing him to remain and labour without disturbance. It is not certainly known who these teachers were, but they appear to have been of Jewish origin and to have inculcated the peculiar sentiments of the Jews respecting the law.

That they teach no other doctrine. That is, no other doctrine than that taught by the apostles. The Greek word used here is not found in classical writers and does not occur elsewhere in the New Testament except in 1 Timothy 6:3 of this epistle, where it is rendered “teach otherwise.” We may learn here what was the purpose for which Timothy was left at Ephesus.

1. It was for a temporary purpose and not as a permanent arrangement. It was to correct certain prevailing errors there, which Paul himself would have been able to correct soon if he had been permitted to remain. Paul expected to return to him again soon, and then they would continue their work together (1 Timothy 4:13; 1 Timothy 3:15).
2. It was not so that he might be the “bishop” of Ephesus. There is no evidence that he was “ordained” there at all, as the subscription to the second epistle declares (see Notes on that subscription). Nor were the functions he was to perform those of a prelatical bishop. He was not to take charge of a “diocese,” or to ordain ministers of the “second rank,” or to administer the rite of confirmation, or to perform acts of discipline. He was left there for a specified purpose, and that purpose is as far as possible from what are now regarded as the appropriate functions of a prelatical bishop. Perhaps no claim ever made has had less semblance of argument than the one asserting that Timothy was the “bishop of Ephesus.” See this clause examined in my “Inquiry into the Organization and Government of the Apostolic Church,” [pp. 91–114, London edition].