Albert Barnes Commentary 1 Timothy 6

1 Timothy Chapter 6

Analysis of the Chapter

This chapter embraces the following subjects of counsel and exhortation:—

1. The kind of instruction that was to be given to servants (1 Timothy 6:1–5). They were to treat their masters with all proper respect (1 Timothy 6:1); if their masters were Christians, they were, on that account, to serve them with more fidelity (1 Timothy 6:2); and any opposite kind of teaching would tend only to stir up strife, produce dissatisfaction and contention, and could proceed only from a proud and self-confident heart.
2. The advantage of piety and of a contented mind (1 Timothy 6:6–8). The argument for this is that we brought nothing into the world and can carry nothing out, that our essential needs here are food and clothing, and that, having enough to make us comfortable, we should be content.
3. The evils of a desire to be rich (1 Timothy 6:9–10); evils seen in the temptations to which it leads; the passions that it fosters; and the danger to religion itself.
4. An exhortation to Timothy, as a minister of religion, to pursue higher and nobler objects (1 Timothy 6:11–16). He was:
   • to avoid these worldly things;
   • to pursue nobler objects.
   He was to follow after righteousness and to fight the good fight of faith. To do this, he was to be encouraged by the assurance that the great and only Potentate would, in due time, place the crown on his head.
5. The duty of those who were rich—for it is supposed that some Christians will be rich, either by inheritance or by prosperous business (1 Timothy 6:17–19). They are:
   • not to be proud;
   • nor to trust in their riches so as to forget their dependence on God;
   • to do good with their property; and
   • to make their wealth the means of securing eternal life.
6. A solemn charge to Timothy to observe these things, and not to be turned from them by any of the arguments and objections of pretended science (1 Timothy 6:20–21).

Let as many servants. On the word here rendered servants—douloi—see the notes on Ephesians 6:5.

The word is that which was commonly applied to a slave, but it is so extensive in its meaning as to be applicable to any kind of servitude, whether voluntary or involuntary.

If slavery existed in Ephesus at the time when this epistle was written, it would be applicable to slaves; if any other kind of servitude existed, the word would be equally applicable to that.

There is nothing in the word itself which essentially limits it to slavery (Matthew 20:27; Mark 10:44; Luke 2:29; John 15:15; Acts 2:18; Acts 4:29; Acts 16:17; Romans 1:1; 2 Corinthians 4:5; Jude 1:1; Revelation 1:1; Revelation 2:20; Revelation 7:3).

The addition of the phrase "under the yoke," however, shows undoubtedly that it is to be understood here of slavery.

As are under the yoke. On the word yoke, see the notes on Matthew 11:29.

The phrase here properly denotes slavery, as it would not be applied to any other kind of servitude (Dem. 322.12; zugov doulosunhv Rob. Lex.).

It sometimes denotes the bondage of the Mosaic law as being a severe and oppressive burden (Acts 15:10; Galatians 5:1).

It may be remarked here that the apostle did not regard slavery as a light or desirable thing. He would not have applied this term to the condition of a wife or a child.

Count their own masters worthy of all honour. Treat them with all proper respect. They were to manifest the right spirit themselves, whatever their masters did; they were not to do anything that would dishonour religion. The injunction here would seem to have particular reference to those whose masters were not Christians.

In the following verse, the apostle gives particular instructions to those who had pious masters.

The meaning here is that the slave ought to show the Christian spirit towards his master who was not a Christian; he ought to conduct himself so that religion would not be dishonoured; he ought not to give his master occasion to say that the only effect of the Christian religion on the mind of a servant was to make him restless, discontented, dissatisfied, and disobedient.

In the humble and trying situation in which he admittedly was—under the yoke of bondage—he ought to show patience, kindness, and respect for his master, and as long as the relation continued, he was to be obedient.

This command, however, was by no means inconsistent with his desiring his freedom and securing it, if the opportunity presented itself.

See the notes on 1 Corinthians 7:21. Compare, on the passage before us, the notes on Ephesians 6:5, Ephesians 6:6–8, and 1 Peter 2:18.

That the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. This means that religion should not be dishonoured and reproached, and that there should be no occasion to say that Christianity tends to produce discontent and lead to insurrection.

If the effect of religion had been to teach all who were servants that they should no longer obey their masters, or that they should rise up against them and assert their freedom by violence, or that their masters were to be treated with indignity on account of their usurped rights over others, the effect would have been obvious.

There would have been a loud and united outcry against the new religion, and it could have made no progress in the world.

Instead of this, Christianity taught the necessity of patience, meekness, and forbearance in enduring all wrong—whether from private individuals (Matthew 5:39–41; 1 Corinthians 6:7), or under the oppressions and exactions of Nero (Romans 13:1–7), or amidst the hardships and cruelties of slavery.

These peaceful injunctions, however, did not demonstrate that Christ approved the act of him that smote on the one cheek, or that Paul regarded the government of Nero as a good government—and just as little do they prove that Paul or the Saviour approved of slavery.

And they that have believing masters. This refers to masters who are Christians. It is clear from this that Paul supposed that, at that time and under those circumstances, a man who had slaves under him might become a Christian. However, how long he might continue to hold his fellow human beings in bondage and yet be a Christian is quite a different question.

It is quite clear from the New Testament, as well as from present facts, that God may convert people when they are pursuing any kind of wickedness. The effect of religion, however, will in all cases be to lead them to cease doing wrong. It is not improbable that many who had owned slaves, in accordance with the prevailing custom in the Roman Empire, may have been converted—for the fact that a person has been living a life of sin does not prevent the possibility of their conversion.

There is no evidence that Paul refers here to any who had bought slaves after they were converted, nor is there any indication of any such transaction among Christians in the New Testament. Nor is there any indication that he regarded it as right and best that they should continue to hold slaves, nor that he would approve their making arrangements to persevere in this as a permanent institution.

Nor is it to be fairly inferred from this passage that he meant to teach that they might continue this practice and yet be entitled to all the respect and confidence due to the Christian name, or be regarded as maintaining a good standing in the church. Whatever may be true on these points, this passage only proves that Paul considered that a man who was a slaveholder might be converted and be spoken of as a "believer," or a Christian.

Many have been converted in similar circumstances, just as many have been converted in the practice of all other kinds of wickedness. What their duty was after their conversion was another question, and what the duty of their "servants," or slaves, was, was another question still. It is only this latter question that the apostle is considering here.

Not despise them, because they are brethren. This means not to treat them with any lack of the respect due to their station. The word used here sometimes denotes to neglect, or, not to care for (Matthew 6:24; Luke 16:13). Here it is not necessary to suppose that it denotes actual contempt, but only that lack of respect which might possibly arise in the mind, if not well instructed or not on its guard, among those who were servants or slaves.

It was to be expected that the effect of both the master and the slave embracing religion would be to produce in the mind of the servant a lack of respect and deference for his master. This danger was to be expected from the following causes:—

1. Christianity taught that all people were made of one blood (Acts 17:26) and were by nature equal. It was natural, therefore, for the slave to infer that by nature he was equal to his master, and it would be easy to pervert this truth to make him disrespectful and insubordinate.

2. They were equal to them as Christians. Christianity taught them that they were all "brethren" in the Lord and that there was no distinction before God. It might be natural to infer from this that all distinctions in society were to be abolished and that, in all respects, the slave was to regard himself as on a level with his master.

3. Some, who did not well understand the nature of Christianity or who might have been disposed to cause trouble, may have taken advantage of the undeniable truths about the equality of people by nature and by redemption to produce discontent on the part of the slave. They may have endeavored to embitter the feelings of the slaves towards their masters who held them in bondage. The effect, it is easy to see, may have been to lead those who were in a state of servitude to manifest open and marked disrespect. In opposition to this, the apostle would have Timothy teach that Christianity did not rudely assail the existing institutions of society and especially did not teach those who were in subordinate ranks to be disrespectful to those above them.

But rather do them service. That is, serve them with more cheerfulness and readiness than they did before the master was converted, or serve them with more cheerfulness because they were Christians. The reasons for this were that the master was now more worthy of affectionate regard, and the servant might look for better treatment from him. (Compare to the notes on Ephesians 6:6).

Because they are faithful. That is, because they are believers, or Christians—pistoi; the same word that in the beginning of the verse is rendered believing. It does not mean here that they were "faithful" to their servants or their God, but merely that they were Christians.

And beloved. This probably means "beloved of God," for the word is often used this way. As they are the friends of God, those who are servants should show them more respect. The idea is simply that one whom God loves should be treated with more respect than if he were not so loved; or, a good person deserves more respect than a wicked person. In all relationships of life, we should respect those above us more in proportion to the excellence of their character.

Partakers of the benefit. This refers to the benefit that the gospel imparts—for the connection requires us to understand it this way. It cannot mean, as many have supposed, that they were "partakers of the benefit of the labors of the servant," or enjoyed the fruits of their labors—for how could this be a reason for treating them with more respect?

It would instead be a reason for treating them with less respect, because they were living on the proceeds of unrequited toil. But the true reason given is that the master had been permitted by the grace of God to participate in the same benefits of salvation as the servant. He had received, like him, the pardon of sin, and he was to be regarded as a fellow heir of the grace of life.

The expression here might be rendered, "they are partakers of, or are devoted to, the good cause" (Rob. Lex.). The argument is that they were not infidels, or strangers to religion, or those who would try to hinder the progress of what was dear to the heart of the servant. Instead, they were united with them in that same good work; they participated in the blessings of the same salvation, and they were really endeavoring to further the interests of religion. Therefore, more respect should be shown to them, and more cheerful service rendered to them.

If any man teach otherwise. This means teaching anything other than that respect should be shown to masters, and that a more cheerful and ready service should be rendered because they were Christians. It is evidently implied here that some might be disposed to inculcate such views of religion as would produce discontent and a spirit of insubordination among those who were held to servitude.

Who they were is not known, nor is it known what arguments they would employ to do it. It would seem probable that the arguments which would be employed would be such as these:—that God made all men equal; that all had been redeemed by the same blood; that all true Christians were fellow-heirs of heaven; and that it was wrong to hold a Christian brother in bondage, etc.

From Undeniable principles it would seem that they drew the inference that slaves ought at once to assert their freedom; that they should refuse obedience to their masters; and that the tendency of their teaching was, instead of removing the evil by the gradual and silent influence of Christian principles, to produce discontent and insurrection.

From some of the expressions here used by the apostle, as characteristic of these teachers, it would seem probable that these persons were Jews. They were men given to subtle disputations, and those who doted about questions and verbal disputes, and who were intent on gain, supposing that that which conduced to mere worldly prosperity was, of course, religion. These characteristics apply well to Jewish teachers.

And consent not to wholesome words. These are words conducing to a healthful state of the church; that is, doctrines tending to produce order and a due observance of the proprieties of life; doctrines leading to contentment, and sober industry, and the patient endurance of evils.

Even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ. These are the doctrines of the Savior—all of which tended to a quiet life and to a patient endurance of wrongs.

And to the doctrine which is according to godliness. This refers to doctrine which tends to produce piety or religion; that is, the doctrine which would be most favorable to an easy and rapid propagation of the gospel.

The idea seems to be that such a state of insubordination and discontent as they would produce would be unfavorable to the promotion of religion. Who can doubt it?

He is proud. That is, he is lifted up with his fancied superior acquaintance with the nature of religion. The Greek verb properly means to smoke, to fume; and then to be inflated, to be conceited, etc. The idea is that he has no proper knowledge of the nature of the gospel, and yet he values himself on a fancied superior acquaintance with its principles.

Knowing nothing. The marginal note says, a fool. This means that he does not understand the nature of religion as he supposes he does. His views regarding the relationship between masters and servants, and the bearing of religion on that relationship, show that he does not understand the genius of Christianity. The apostle expresses this in strong language by saying that he knows nothing (see the notes on 1 Corinthians 8:2).

But doting. The marginal note says, sick. The Greek word — nosew — properly means to be sick, then to languish, or to pine after. The meaning here is that such persons had a sickly or morbid desire for debates of this kind. They did not have a sound and healthy state of mind on the subject of religion. They were like a sickly man who has no desire for solid and healthful food, but only for that which will gratify a diseased appetite. They desired no sound doctrine, but rather controversies about unimportant and unsubstantial matters—things that bore the same relation to important doctrines as the things a sick man pines after bear to substantial food.

Questions and strifes of words. The Jews frequently engaged in disputes of this sort, and it would seem probable that the persons referred to here were Jewish teachers (see the notes on 1 Timothy 1:6, 1 Timothy 1:7, and Acts 18:15).

Whereof cometh envy. The only fruit of such disputes is to produce envy. That is, the appearance of superior knowledge, the boast of being profoundly acquainted with religion, and the show of an ability for subtle argumentation, would produce envy in a certain class of people. Envy is uneasiness, pain, mortification, or discontent, excited by another's prosperity, or by his superior knowledge or possessions (see the notes on Romans 1:29).

Strife. Or contentions with those who will not readily yield to their opinions.

Railings. This refers to harsh and abusive language towards those who will not concede a point—a common effect of disputes, and more commonly of disputes about small and unimportant matters than of those which are of great importance. Such railings often accompany disputes that arise from fine and subtle distinctions.

Evil surmisings. These are suspicions that they are led to hold their views not by the love of truth, but from sordid or worldly motives. Such suspicions are very likely to accompany an angry debate of any kind. It might be especially expected to occur concerning such a question as the apostle refers to here—the relationship between a master and a slave. It is always very hard to do justice to the motives of one who seems to us to be living in sin, or to believe it possible that he acts from right motives.

Perverse disputings. The marginal note reads, gallings one of another. Regarding the correct reading of this passage, see Biblical Repository, Volume 3, pages 61-62. The word used here in the Received Text—paradiatribh—occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. It properly means misemployment; then, idle occupation (Robinson's Lexicon). The verb from which this is derived means to rub in pieces, to wear away; and therefore the word here used refers to what was a mere wearing away of time.

The idea is that of employments that merely consumed time without any advantage. The notion of contention or dispute is not necessarily implied in the passage, but the allusion is to inquiries or discussions that were of no practical value but were a mere consumption of time. Compare Koppe on the passage.

The reading in the margin is derived from the common usage of the verb to rub, and therefore our translators attached the idea of rubbing against each other, or of galling each other, as by rubbing. This is not, however, the idea in the Greek word. The phrase "idle employments" would better suit the meaning of the Greek than either of the phrases which our translators have employed.

Of men of corrupt minds. That is, of wicked hearts.

And destitute of the truth. Not knowing the truth, or not having just views of truth. They show that they have no correct acquaintance with the Christian system.

Supposing that gain is godliness. That which contributes to an increase of property is, of course, true religion; or that it is proper to infer that any course which contributes to worldly prosperity must be sanctioned by religion. They judge of the consistency of any course with religion by its tendency to promote outward prosperity.

This they have exalted into a maxim, and this they make the essential thing in religion. But how could anyone do this? And what connection would this have with the subject under consideration—the kind of instruction that was to be given to servants?

The meaning of the maxim seems to be that religion must necessarily promote prosperity by promoting temperance, industry, and length of days; and since this was the case, it was fair to infer that anything which would not do this could not be consistent with religion.

They adopted it, therefore, as a general rule of judging—and one in entire accordance with the wishes of their own hearts—that any course of life that would not do this must be contrary to the true spirit of religion.

This maxim, it would seem, they applied to the relation of the slave and his master. As the tendency of the system was always to keep the servant poor and in a humble condition, they seem to have inferred that the relation was contrary to Christianity and therefore to have incited the servant to disaffection.

In their reasoning, they were not far from the truth, for it is fair to infer that a system that tends to produce uniform poverty and to perpetuate a degraded condition in society is contrary to the spirit of Christianity. They were wrong.

1. In making this a general maxim by which to judge of everything in religion;

2. In so applying it as to produce insubordination and discontent in the minds of servants towards their masters;

3. In supposing that everything which produced gain was consistent with religion, or that they could infallibly judge of the moral quality of any course of life by its contributing to outward prosperity. Religion will uniformly lead to that which conduces to prosperity, but it does not follow that every way of making money is therefore a part of piety.

It is possible, also, that in some way they hoped for "gain" to themselves by inculcating those principles. It may be remarked here that this is not an uncommon maxim practically among people: that "gain is godliness." The whole object of life for them is to make money; the rule by which they judge everything is by its tendency to produce gain, and their whole religion may be summed up in this, that they live for gain.

Wealth is the real object of pursuit, but it is often with them cloaked under the pretense of piety. They have no more religion than they suppose will contribute to this object; they judge of the nature and value of every maxim by its tendency to make people prosperous in their worldly business; they have as much as they suppose will promote their pecuniary interest, and they sacrifice every principle of religion which they suppose would conflict with their earthly advancement.

From such withdraw yourself. That is, have no communion or fellowship with them. Do not recognize them as religious teachers; do not countenance their views. Timothy was, in no way, to show that he regarded them as inculcating truth or to patronize their doctrines. From such people, as having any claim to the character of Christians, everyone should withdraw with feelings of unutterable pity and loathing.

This passage (1 Timothy 6:1–5) is often appealed to by the advocates and apologists for slavery to prove that Christianity countenances that institution, and that no direct attempt should be made by the ministers of the gospel, or other Christians, to show the evil of the institution and to promote its abolition, and to prove that we have no right to interfere in any way with what pertains to these "domestic relations." It is of importance, therefore, in view of the explanation that has been given of the words and phrases in the passage, to sum up the truths which it inculcates. From it, therefore, the following lessons may be derived:

1. That those who are slaves, and who have been converted to Christianity, should not be indolent or disorderly. If their masters are Christians, they should treat them with respect, and all the more because they are fellow-heirs of the grace of life. If they are not Christians, they should yet show the nature of religion on themselves and bear the evils of their condition with patience—showing how religion teaches them to endure wrong. In either case, they are to be quiet, industrious, kind, meek, respectful. This Christianity everywhere enjoins while the relation continues. At the same time, however, it does not forbid the slave earnestly to desire his freedom or to use all proper measures to obtain it. See 1 Corinthians 7:21.

2. That the ministers of religion should not labor to produce a spirit of discontent among slaves or excite them to rise upon their masters. This passage would undoubtedly forbid all such interference, and all agencies or embassies sent among slaves themselves to inflame their minds against their masters, in view of their wrongs; to put arms into their hands; or to induce them to form combinations for purposes of insurrection.

   It is not so much in the true spirit of Christianity to go to those who are wronged as to those who do the wrong. The primary message in such cases is to the latter; and when it does go to the former, it is to teach them to be patient under their wrongs, to evince the Christian spirit there, and to make use only of those means which are consistent with the gospel to free themselves from the evils under which they suffer.

   At the same time, nothing in this passage, or in any other part of the New Testament, forbids us to go to the master himself and to show him the evil of the system, and to enjoin upon him to let the oppressed go free. Nothing in this passage can be reasonably construed as teaching that an appeal of the most earnest and urgent kind may not be made to him; or that the wrongs of the system may not be fully set before him; or that any person or group of people may not lawfully lift up in his hearing a loud and earnest voice in favor of the freedom of all.

   And in like manner, there is nothing which makes it improper that the slave himself should be put fully in possession of that gospel which will apprise him of his rights as a man, and as redeemed by the blood of Jesus. Every human being, whether held in bondage or not, has a right to be made acquainted with all the provisions and truths of that gospel, nor has any person or group of people a right to withhold such knowledge from him. No system of things can be right which contemplates that that gospel shall be withheld, or under which it is necessary to withhold it in order to the perpetuity of the system.

3. The passage teaches that it is possible that a man who is a slaveholder may become a Christian. But it does not teach that, though he may become a Christian while he is a slaveholder, it is proper for him to continue this relation after he becomes a Christian.

   It does not teach that a man can be a Christian and yet go into the business of buying and selling slaves. It does not teach that a man can be a Christian and continue to hold others in bondage, whatever may be true on that point. It does not teach that he ought to be considered as maintaining a "good standing" in the church if he continues to be a slaveholder; and whatever may be the truth on these points, this passage should not be adduced as demonstrating them. It settles one point only in regard to these questions—that a case was conceivable in which a slave had a Christian master. It settles the duty of the slave in such a case; it says nothing about the duty of the master.

4. This passage does not teach that slavery is either a good thing, or a just thing, a desirable relation in life, or an institution that God wishes to be perpetuated on the earth. The injunctions to slaves to be patient, meek, industrious, and respectful, no more demonstrate this than the command to subjects to be obedient to the laws proves that God regarded the government of Nero as such an administration that He wished to be perpetuated on the earth. To exhort a slave to manifest a Christian spirit under his oppressions and wrongs is not to justify the system that does him wrong, nor does it prohibit us from showing to masters that the system is contrary to the gospel and that it ought to be abandoned.

5. This passage, therefore, furnishes no real support for slavery. It can no more be adduced in favor of it than any exhortation to those who are oppressed, or in any degrading situation in life, to be patient, proves that the system which oppresses and degrades them is a good one. Nor does the fact that a man might be converted who was a slaveholder, and might be spoken of as a pistov, or believer, prove that it would be right and desirable that he should continue that relation, any more than the fact that Saul of Tarsus became a Christian when engaged in persecution proves that it would have been right for him to continue in that business; or than the conversion of the Ephesians who "used curious arts" (Acts 19:19), proved that it would have been proper for them to continue in that employment. People who are doing wrong are converted in order to turn them from that course of life, not to justify them in it.