1 Timothy 1:8

Ver. 8. The apostle turns here from the false to the true, gives his own view of the nature of the law, and of the right use of it, as contradistinguished from that which he had condemned in others. We know, indeed (so δὲ here may be best rendered), that the law is good: our quarrel, therefore, with those pretentious law-teachers is not about the quality of the instrument they profess to handle, but only about their manner of handling it; we know it to be like Him from whom it proceeds good. The theme, in this point of view, had been already discussed at considerable length in other parts of the apostle's writings, especially in his Epistle to the Romans. Here, as what he says is of the nature of an admission, he merely asserts it; and then brings in a regulating principle as to that respecting which there was a difference betwixt him and the false teachers at Ephesus, namely, as to the use or application to be made of the law. The principle is , if one use it lawfully; that is, in accordance with its proper nature and design. For, if a man mistakes regarding this, he cannot possibly handle the law rightly; he necessarily turns it into a wrong direction, and loses at least the spirit, if not also the substance, of its teaching.

Ver. 8. I wish, then (the οὖν at once resuming the subject of prayer, with an exhortation to which in a particular direction this part of the epistle commenced, and pressing as a conclusion from the views more recently advanced I wish, then), that prayer be made in every place by men, lifting lip holy hands, without wrath and doubting. In the verb Βούλομαι the active wish is expressed, as of one who, having a right to speak in the name of Christ, should in expressing a wish be regarded as virtually uttering a command. If it had been ἐθέλω, the apostle would merely have said he was willing that the thing in question should be done; but in using Βούλομαι he indicates his desire or wish that such a course should be pursued. (See Donaldson, Cratylus, § 463, for the clear exhibition and proof of this distinction. (Donaldson has gone into the discussion of this point at great length, refuting an opposite view which had been advanced by Buttmann in his Lexilopis. As regards Biblical usage, the respective meanings of the two verbs are corre ctly and succinctly stated by Mr Webster, Syntax and Synonyms of the Greek Testament, p. 197: “Βούλομαι expresses a wish, intention, purpose, formed after deliberation, and upon considering all the circumstances of the case; θε ́ λω denotes a natural impulse or desire, the ground of which is generally obvious, or for which it is unnecessary to assign a reason. Matthew 1:19, μη ̀ θε ́ λων, being reluctant, as was naturally the case; ἐβουλη ́ θη, ‘was minded,' deliberately purposed, intended after careful consideration.” He refers to the contrary view of Buttmann, that Βούλεσθαι indicates mere inclination, passive desire; but points to James 4:4, also to 1 Timothy 6:9, in both of which cases he justly says θε ́ λειν would be altogether out of place. On the contrary, in 1 Timothy 5:11, where the impulse of natural desire is in question, θε ́ λειν is the proper word, and Βούλομαι would be unsuitable.)) In respect to the object of his wish, the point of greatest prominence undoubtedly is the praying hence the προσεύχεσθαι stands first: it is the immediate object of the desire he was breathing in connection with the proper place and responsibilities of believers. But as these are contemplated with reference to the public worship of God, so a certain degree of prominence is also given to the men to whom it properly belongs to manage and direct such worship; while for women, who are presently after mentioned, duties of a more retired and quiet kind are assigned. It seems, however, an awkward way of indicating this subordinate distinction, which is but allusively introduced, to translate with Alford, “that the men pray,” which is formally correct, no doubt, as the article is found in the original (τοὺς ἄνδρας), but gives a sense which to English readers must appear abrupt and unnatural. Indeed, Alford himself seems partly conscious of this, since he admits that the distinction in respect to men cannot be regarded as the apostle's main object in this verse, and that their relation to public prayer is taken for granted. If so, the kind of double end aimed at in the passage is better gained by such a rendering as we have adopted, giving the act of prayer the chief prominence, but giving the subject, men, also a sort of prominent position by throwing it a little forward, and thus also rendering the transition easy and natural from the male to the female section of believers: that prayer be made in every place, by men lifting up, etc.; likewise also that women... In mentioning every place in connection with the offering of prayer, the apostle is not to be regarded, with some, as indicating any contrast with the temple, the synagogue, or other conspicuous places of worship, but merely as giving expression to the universal nature of the duty; so that wherever the assemblies of Christian worshippers might meet, there prayer should be offered. And with the duty he couples a brief description of the spirit and manner in which it should be done by the persons who conduct it: lifting up holy hands, without wrath or doubting (ὁσίους, a masculine termination joined to the feminine; χεῖρας, as οὐρανίου at Luke 2:13, and ὅμοιος; in Revelation 4:3). The lifting up of the hands in their more formal exercises of devotion appears to have been common among the nations of antiquity, Jew as well as Gentile (Genesis 14:22; Psalms 28:2; Psalms 63:4; Psalms 134:2; Virgil, AEn. i. 92); and from the Jewish it naturally passed into the Christian assemblies. Here it is referred to without explanation, as a thing familiarly known; so also by the Roman Clement in his letter to the Corinthians, c. 29, where, with evident respect to the words of the apostle, he says: “Let us come near to Him in holiness of soul (ἐν ὁσιότητι ψυχῆς), raising pure and undefiled hands toward Him.” (In this primary stage the lifting of the hands in public prayer is spoken of as a mere usage or custom, which was deemed suitable and appropriate. But by and by, like other things of a like kind, it was turned into a piece of sacred pantomime or symbolism, and to make it more expressive the stretched-out hands and arms were thrown into the figure of the cross. See quotations to this effect in Bingham, B. xiii. 10, from Tertullian, Minutius, and many others.) The hands so employed might fitly be regarded as bearing the petitions of the suppliants heavenwards, and, in accordance with the action, should themselves possess a character of holiness; in other words, should be the hands of those who are not pursuing courses of iniquity, but are lovers of what is pure and good. All spiritual excellence is necessarily implied in this; yet the apostle adds the further qualifications, without wrath and doubting: without wrath, to which especially, in their relation to the heathen, the early Christians were often under great provocation, and might consequently be disposed to offer up imprecations rather than supplications in regard to them. What, however, is meant precisely by the other term (διαλογισμοῦ) whether it is to be understood of disputation in the ordinary sense, contendings with others, or disputation in one's own mind, thought contending with thought, doubting interpreters are not agreed. As the word may be understood either way, Ave are thrown upon the connection for something to determine our judgment; and in this point of view the second of the two senses indicated seems plainly the most natural and fitting: for the indispensable condition of acceptable prayer is faith; and therefore doubting, which is the mark of a wavering spirit, the conflict between faith and unbelief, must, so far as it prevails, be a hindrance to success. Prayer offered without wrath and doubting is simply prayer animated by a spirit of meek, generous loving-kindness in respect to those for whom it is presented, and by a spirit of faith or assured confidence in Him whom we supplicate in their behalf This is intelligible, and perfectly cognate to the subject; but not so the reference supposed by some to personal disputations among the parties concerned in the exercise of devotion. Nothing had been said or implied which might seem to call for any particular reference to this.