Charles Ellicott Commentary 1 Timothy 6:10

"For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil: which some reaching after have been led astray from the faith, and have pierced themselves through with many sorrows." — 1 Timothy 6:10 (ASV)

And with all deceivableness.—“Deceivableness” does not mean “readiness to be deceived,” but, according to older English usage, has an active meaning; the words include and expand the list just given: “in all sham power and signs and wonders, and, in fact, in every iniquitous fraud.”

In them that perish.—Rather, for them. These are not the persons who exercise the fraud, but the objects of it. The word depends not only on “deceivableness,” but on the whole sentence: “his coming (for them) is,” and so on. St. Paul adds the words as a consolation to “them that are saved”: it will not be possible to seduce the elect (Mark 13:22). “They that perish” (1 Corinthians 1:18; 2 Corinthians 2:15; 2 Corinthians 4:3) is a phrase that contains no reference whatever to the doctrine of predestination, but merely describes the class; the men who let themselves be thus duped are, as a plain matter of fact, in the process of perishing.

Because.—Here the question of God’s decree does arise. The phrase translated “because” means “as a consequence of the fact that,” which at once implies that their being duped by Antichrist’s coming is a judicial visitation. (See next verse.) They did not receive, that is, it was offered to them, and they refused it; not, as Calvinism would teach, because it was not given to them.

The grace of love of the truth is offered to us along with every new presentation of truth; if we are too indolent to examine whether it is truth, we are rejecting the love of the truth. This is a worse thing than not accepting the truth itself: if they had only aspired to know what was the truth they would have been saved, even if, in fact, they had been in error.

For the love of money is the root of all evil.—Some would dilute this strong expression by translating the Greek words as “a root of all evil,” instead of “the root,” making this alteration on the basis that the article is not prefixed to the Greek word translated as “root.” This change, however, is grammatically unnecessary, as the article disappears before the predicate, in accordance with the well-known rule respecting subject and predicate.

St. Paul had just written (1 Timothy 6:9) of men being plunged into destruction and perdition—the awful consequence of yielding to those lusts into which the fatal love of riches had guided them.

He now sums up the teaching contained in these words by pithily remarking: “Yes, for the love of money is the root of all evil,” meaning by this, not that every evil necessarily must come from “love of money,” but that there is no conceivable evil that can happen to people which may not arise from covetousness—a love of gold and wealth.

Which while some coveted after.—There is a slight irregularity in the image here, but the sense of the expression is perfectly clear. It is, of course, not the “love of money,” strictly speaking, which “some have coveted,” but the money itself. The thought in the writer’s mind probably was: the man coveting gold longs for opportunities in which his covetousness (love of money) may find expression. Such inaccuracies in language are not uncommon in St. Paul’s writings, as, for instance, in Romans 8:24, where he writes of “hope that is seen.”

They have erred from the faith.—Better translated, they have wandered away from the faith. This vivid picture of some who had, for the sake of a little gold, given up their first love—their faith—was evidently drawn by St. Paul from life. There were some in that well-known congregation at Ephesus, once faithful, now wanderers from the flock, over whom St. Paul mourned.

And pierced themselves through with many sorrows.—The language and thoughts of Psalm 16:4 were in St. Paul’s mind when he wrote these words: “Their sorrows shall be multiplied that hasten after another (god).” The “many sorrows” here are, no doubt, the “gnawings of conscience,” which must again and again harass and perplex the man or woman who, for the sake of covetousness, has deserted the old paths and has wandered away from the old loved communion of Christ.

The imagery used in this tenth verse seems to be that of a man who wanders from the straight, direct path of life to gather some poisonous, fair-seeming root growing at a distance from the right road on which he was travelling. He wanders away and plucks it; and now that he has it in his hands, he finds himself pierced and wounded by its unsuspected thorns.

When He shall come.—Not simply a repetition of the temporal date mentioned in 2 Thessalonians 1:7—when the Lord, etc.—but an introduction of the contrast that will be presented in that day by the spectacle of the glory of the saints. Thus, the penalty of 2 Thessalonians 1:9 is made to appear greater, while at the same time the readers’ minds are turned back to a more wholesome subject for meditation.

To be glorified in His saints.—This is not exactly the purpose, but the effect of His coming. A comparison of John 13:31-32; John 14:13; John 17:10; and 2 Thessalonians 1:12 shows that the saints are the objects on which and by which the glorious perfection of Christ is exhibited: to see what the saints will be exalted to in that day will make all observers acknowledge, not the holiness or greatness of the men, but the divine power of Him who was able so to exalt them.

As the persecutors were divided into two classes to be punished, so the saved are described under two aspects: in contrast with them that know not God they are saints, i.e., fully consecrated to God; in contrast with them that obey not the gospel they are they that believed (for the past tense is the better reading), i.e., accepted the gospel. As the profane Gentiles, looking on the saints, recognize the glory of the God whom they knew not, so the disobedient Jews, seeing the faithful, are aptly filled with wonder (Acts 13:41), before they perish, at the glory to be attained by obedience to the law of suffering.

Because our testimony.—Introduced to show why the writers had said specially in all them that believed (the past tense is employed because it looks back from the Judgment Day to the moment when the gospel was offered and the divergence between believers and unbelievers began); the reason was, because among all them that believed the Thessalonians would be found included.

In that day.—Added at the end to make the readers look once more (as it were) upon the wonderful sight on which the writer’s prophetic eyes were raptly fixed.

For even.—The sequence of thought is a little difficult, but it seems best to regard this “for” as connecting its sentence, not with 2 Thessalonians 3:9, but rather with 2 Thessalonians 3:6. It does not give the reason why St. Paul and his companions worked: “because we strictly commanded you to work, and therefore could not be idle ourselves.” Rather, it justifies the reiteration of the command: “We do not hesitate to command you now to repress this disorderly conduct, so contrary to the example set for you; for, in fact, when we were with you we used to lay down this law.” So Theodoret takes it: “It is no new thing that we write to you.”

We commanded.—The tense in the original is that of constant re-assertion, which brings out once more the thorough grounding which the Apostles gave immediately to their converts. (See Note on 2 Thessalonians 3:6: “the tradition; ” also the Note on 2 Thessalonians 2:5.) The same definite precept is referred to in 1 Thessalonians 4:11.

If any would not work.—The word “would” stands for “is not willing,” “refuses.” St. Paul would be very tender toward any weakness or incapacity for work, unless it was a matter of the person's own choice; the vice consists in the defective will. The canon (in the original) is laid down in the pointed form of some old Roman law like those of the Twelve Tables: “If any man choose not to work, neither let him eat.” It does not mean, “let him stop eating,” putting it to the man’s own conscience to see the necessary connection between the two things (Genesis 3:19); but, “let him not be fed.” The Thessalonians are not to be misled into a false charity: giving food in Christ’s name to persons who are capable of working and able to get work, and are too indolent to do so.

The support which is here forbidden to be given to these disorderly persons might come either directly from the private liberality of individuals, or from some collected church fund administered by the deacons. It does not seem at all impossible that this Thessalonian Church, which St. Paul himself declares to have taken the churches of Judaea for a model (1 Thessalonians 2:14), may have copied its model in adopting some form of communism, or, at any rate, some extensive use of the agapè which we see to have been in use at Corinth, established by the Apostle at the very time of writing this Letter (1 Corinthians 11:21).

Such a supposition would give much more point to St. Paul’s canon, as well as to other phrases in both these Epistles, and would enable us to understand better how this discipline could be actively enforced. That the ordinary agape was a matter of considerable importance to the poorer classes is evident from 1 Corinthians 11:22.