Interpreters of 1 Timothy encounter two well-known difficulties in 6.6–19. First, this section consists of two discourses on wealth (vv. 6–10 and 17–19) that are separated brutalement by a personal address to Timothy in vv. 11–16.Footnote ¹ Second, the intruding address includes a solemn charge to keep ‘the commandment’, but there is no indication in the text which commandment is in view: ‘I command you—in the presence of God who gives life to all things and of Christ Jesus who testified the good confession before Pontius Pilate—to keep the commandment (τηρῆσαί σε τὴν ἐντολήν) without spot or blame until the appearance of our Lord Jesus Christ’ (6.13–14).Footnote ² The sudden and unexplained definiteness of τὴν ἐντολήν has elicited a multiplicity of interpretations, none of which has gained supremacy.Footnote ³ Some commentators catalogue the many possibilities and cast a half-hearted vote for one or more.Footnote ⁴ By way of contrast, Philip H. Towner avers that ‘the reference is surely to what Paul has charged Timothy to do in Ephesus, introduced in 1.3–5 and filled out in the course of the letter’.Footnote ⁵ Yet, the wide range of opinions demonstrates that the meaning of ἡ ἐντολή is anything but ‘sure’.

I would like to propose a solution which I believe is not only more plausible than anything suggested thus far, but which also promises to explain both of this passage's cruces interpretum in a single stroke. To anticipate my conclusion: ‘the commandment’ refers to almsgiving—an idiom that is common in rabbinic literature and may go back to the second temple period. According to this construal, vv. 11–16 are not a violent intrusion into a discussion of the proper use of wealth, but an integral part of the author's argument—an argument that concludes in vv. 18–19 with a call for the rich to give alms.

In 1946 Saul Lieberman noted that in rabbinic Hebrew and Aramaic מצוה (commandment) frequently means ‘almsgiving’.Footnote ⁶ To keep the commandment, then, means to give alms, and the Aramaic phrase בר מצוותא means ‘man of almsgiving’. Leviticus Rabbah 3.1, for instance, says ‘Better is he who goes and works and gives charity of that which is his own, than he who goes and robs or takes by violence and gives charity of that belonging to others… It is his ambition to be called a man of almsgiving (בר מצוותא)’.Footnote ⁷

Lieberman pointed to a tradition in Testament of Asher that closely parallels the passage from Leviticus Rabbah and shows that the idiom ‘to do the commandment’ appears outside of rabbinic literature: ‘And by the power of his wealth he destroys many, and out of his excessive wickedness, he does the commandments (καὶ ἐκ τῆς ὑπερόγκου κακίας ποιεῖ ἐντολάς)’ (2.8).Footnote ⁸ The problem with this literal translation of the Greek is obvious: how can one do the commandments out of excessive wickedness? Lieberman argues that ‘the commandments’ must refer to alms here, noting that ποιεῖ ἐντολάς is the exact equivalent of the rabbinic עושה מצות.Footnote ⁹ The saying would then be translated ‘And by the power of his wealth he destroys many, and out of his excessive wickedness [i.e. perhaps, out of the wealth gained through wickedness] he gives alms’.Footnote ¹⁰ The context of the saying confirms Lieberman's insight. The passage as a whole concerns the ‘two-fold aspect’ of those who do something good while also doing something evil, especially those who steal money and yet give alms:Footnote ¹¹

Verse 8 simply continues this line of thought, speaking of those who use their money for evil ends, while also giving money to the poor. Note that the author varies the terms used to describe almsgiving: first ἐλεέω, then an alternative form of the same word, ἐλεάω, then ἀναπαύω—not a technical term for almsgiving, but the context makes its meaning clear—and finally ποιεῖν ἐντολάς.

Gary Anderson argues that the book of Tobit shows that the idea that almsgiving was the commandment extends back at least as far as the third or second century bce.Footnote ¹² When Tobit instructs his son to obey the commandments, the one example he gives is almsgiving (4.5–11). Similarly, the angel Raphael also focuses his instruction to Tobit on almsgiving (12.8–10), and the book closes with Tobit's dying exhortation to give alms (14.8–11). Sirach is also worth considering in this regard. Sirach contains a number of statements praising almsgiving (e.g., 3.30; 35.1), and in ch. 29 the author says that those who give alms keep the commandments: ‘The one who gives alms loans to his neighbor and the one who helps with his hand keeps the commandments’ (29.1). And again:

It is not as clear here as in Testament of Asher that the author is using ‘keep the commandments’ as an idiom meaning ‘give alms’. Indeed, it is possible that the author is alluding to specific biblical injunctions to help the poor.Footnote ¹³ Nevertheless, the close association between almsgiving and keeping the commandments is striking. This text, like Tobit, shows that the idea of almsgiving as the commandment par excellence existed before the first century.Footnote ¹⁴

The synoptic account of the rich young man (Matt 19.16–22 and par.) is also relevant. The man asks how to inherit eternal life so Jesus tells him to obey the commandments (τὰς ἐντολάς), and names the second table of the Decalogue. The man claims to have kept these from his youth and Jesus responds: ‘If you desire to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven, and come follow me’ (19.21). Almsgiving—albeit in its most extreme form—is presented here as the culmination or perfection of the commandments.Footnote ¹⁵

The fact remains, however, that aside from the possible exception of Sirach 29 the first instance of the idiom ‘to do the commandment’ appears in Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, a text that is notoriously difficult to date. The terminus ad quem is Origen's citation at the beginning of the third century.Footnote ¹⁶ Howard Clark Kee suggests it was composed in the middle of the second century bce.Footnote ¹⁷ M. de Jonge and, more recently, Joel Marcus argue for a date around 200 ce, very close to Origen's citation, though neither de Jonge nor Marcus deny that it contains earlier traditions.Footnote ¹⁸ Origen himself appears to think the text is of some antiquity, citing it alongside Psalms, Romans, and Sirach as evidence for the reality of more than one ‘satan’. To be sure, he is careful to note that Testaments is not canonical, but this very fact is suggestive; if Origen had thought Testaments was a recent concoction he presumably would not have needed to distinguish between Psalms, Romans, and Sirach on the one hand, and Testaments, on the other, on the basis of the latter's lack of canonical status.

In light of the tenuousness of any proposed date for Testaments it is worth mentioning that 1 Timothy itself is also difficult to date. Those, such as Luke Timothy Johnson, who think that the letter was written by Paul himself are committed to a date in the 60s at the latest.Footnote ¹⁹ Most scholars, however, argue for a date in the late first century, if not later.Footnote ²⁰ In such a scenario it may be prudent to turn to the evidence of 1 Timothy itself. In other words, given that this use of ‘commandment’ is (a) widespread in rabbinic literature, (b) has precursors beginning in the third or second century bce, and (c) is found in a tradition (T. Ash. 2) that may predate 1 Timothy, but that also may postdate it by over one hundred years, it is certainly possible, though far from certain, that the author of 1 Timothy would have known this idiom. The only way to decide is to turn to the text itself.

As noted above, 1 Tim 6.6–19 is commonly divided into two discourses on wealth (vv. 6–10 and 17–19), with a personal address to Timothy crammed in-between in vv. 11–16. I would suggest, on the contrary, that vv. 11–16 continue the admonition of 6–10 and lead naturally into the advice for those who are already rich in 17–19. After warning Timothy that the pursuit of money leads to destruction (vv. 9–10) the author addresses him directly (note: τηρῆσαι τὴν ἐντολήν is translated ‘give alms’ for the sake of argument):

The shift in v. 11 is anything but abrupt; those who pursue money find destruction, but Timothy is to pursue righteousness et cetera, to fight the good fight and take hold of eternal life. Then the author gives a more specific alternative to the pursuit of money, solemnly commanding Timothy to give alms until the return of the Lord, perhaps implying that at that time he will be rewarded.Footnote ²¹

After the command to give alms the author tarries a bit in the doxological description of the one who is to return (6.15–16), but then returns to the subject at hand:

Commentators frequently fail to recognize that these verses are an almost point-by-point restatement of the admonitions of 11–16, altered slightly to apply to those who already have money. Timothy is to (a) flee from the love of money, (b) pursue instead righteousness, godliness etc., and (c) take hold of eternal life (ἐπιλαβοῦ τῆς αἰωνίου ζωῆς) and keep the commandment until Christ appears. Similarly, the rich are (a) not to be proud because of their money nor put their hope in it; (b) rather, they should put their hope in God, and (c) give their money away in order to take hold of true life (ἐπιλάβωνται τῆς ὄντως ζωῆς). If ‘the commandment’ here refers to almsgiving then the author would simply be telling Timothy the same thing that Timothy is to tell the rich: instead of pursuing money, pursue eternal life and give alms.Footnote ²²

There is strong contextual reason to suppose, therefore, that the author is using the idiom found in Testament of Asher and in rabbinic literature: ‘the commandment’ means almsgiving. Verses 11–16 are not an abrupt intrusion into a discussion of the proper use of wealth, but an integral part of the argument. Verses 6–10 describe how the pursuit of money can lead to spiritual ruin. In vv. 11–16 the author gives Timothy the antidote to such ruin, telling him to pursue eternal life and give alms. Verses 17–18 repeat this advice, adapting it to apply to the rich; rather than hoping in their wealth they should give alms in order to attain true life. The idiom of almsgiving as ‘the commandment’ not only explains why the author simply speaks of ‘the commandment’ with no further clarification; it also fits hand in glove with 6.6–19 as a whole.Footnote ²³