What Does 1 Timothy 6:20 Mean?

(20) **O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust.**—More literally and better rendered, *O Timothy, keep the trust committed to thee.* It is a beautiful thought which sees in these few earnest closing words the very handwriting of the worn and aged Apostle St. Paul. The Epistle, no doubt dictated by the old man, was in the handwriting of some friend of St. Paul and the Church, who acted as his scribe; but, as seems to have been sometimes his habit (see especially the closing words of the Galatian Letter), the last pleading reminder was added by the hand of the Apostle himself. “O Timothy”—he writes now no longer addressing church or pastor, but his own favourite friend and pupil, the loved heir of his God-inspired traditions and maxims, which so faithfully represented the doctrine and teaching of Jesus of Nazareth—“O Timothy, keep the sacred trust committed to thy charge.” This “sacred trust,” so solemnly committed as the parting charge to Timothy, was “the doctrine delivered by St. Paul to him to preach,” the central point of which, we know from the Apostle’s other writings, was the teaching respecting the atonement and the precious blood of Christ. There is a beautiful, though somewhat lengthened, paraphrase of the “Trust” in the *Commonitorium* of Vincentius Lirinensis, composed about A.D. 430. “What is meant,” he asks, “by ‘*keep* the trust?’ The disciple of St. Paul must keep the sound doctrine of his master safe from robbers and foes. . . . What is meant by ‘the *trust?*’ Something intrusted to you to keep—not a possession you have discovered for yourself; something you have received from another—not what you have thought out for yourself . . . of this ‘trust,’ remember, you are nothing but the guardian. . . . What, then, is the meaning of ‘*keep the trust?*’ It is surely nothing else than ‘guard the treasure of the Catholic faith.’ . . . Gold have you received*;* see that you hand gold on to others.” “Is there, then,” asks this same wise writer “to be no progress, no development in religious teaching? Yes,” he answers; “there should be a real progress, a marked development, but it must partake of the nature of a progress, not of a change. . . . Let religion in the soul follow the example of the growth of the various members which compose the body, and which, as years roll on, become ever stronger and more perfect, but which, notwithstanding their growth and developed beauty, always remain the same.” **Avoiding profane and vain babblings.**—The Apostle has before in this Epistle warned Timothy against these useless, profitless discussions. Anything like theological controversy and discussion seems to. have been distasteful to St. Paul, as tending to augment dissension and hatred, and to exalt into an undue prominence mere words and phrases. **Oppositions of science falsely so called.**—Rather, *of knowledge falsely so called.* These “oppositions” have been supposed by some to be a special allusion to some of the Gnostic theories of the opposition between the Law and the Gospel, of which peculiar school, later, Marcion was the great teacher. It is hardly likely that any *definite* Gnostic teaching had as yet been heard in Ephesus, but there is little doubt that the seeds of much of the Gnosticism of the next century were—when St. Paul wrote to Timothy—being then sown in some of the Jewish schools of Ephesus and the neighbouring cities. (Comp. the allusions to these Jewish and cabalistic schools in St. Paul’s letter to the Colossian Church.) The “oppositions” here may be understood as referring generally to the theories of the false teachers, who were undermining the doctrine of St. Paul as taught by Timothy.