Understanding this these verses may be understood as explaining the meaning of verse 8, primarily the proper use of the law. This connection between these verses is made clear in some translations; for example, New Revised Standard Version “This means understanding that….” Or one may say “We understand, of course, that….”

In the Greek, law is without the definite article; it is possible therefore to take law here as referring to any law. However, considering the reference to sound doctrine in verse 10, “the glorious gospel” in verse 11, and the reference to “God’s law” or “the law” (Good News Translation) in verse 8, it seems that law does not include secular laws but is limited to various rules and regulations that are included in the Torah, or the Law of Moses. So it will be possible to translate understanding this, that the law is not laid down for as “We understand, of course, that Moses did not give these laws just for….”

Laid down refers to the enactment and proclamation of the law, and in many languages it will be more natural to use an active expression and say, for example, “Moses gave (or, enacted) these laws,” or if translators understand the law to refer to “laws” in general (compare Good News Translation), then one may translate “These laws are given (or, enacted)” or “They [unknown agents] gave the laws.” The just is literally “the righteous one”; the singular is used here in a generic sense, referring to all those who are “righteous.” As to the meaning of the expression itself, some take it in the generic sense, hence “good” (Good News Translation), “upright people,” “law-abiding people,” or else not violating any law, hence “innocent” (New Revised Standard Version). In this sense it is contrasted with lawless in the next part of the verse. Others, however, take it in its specific Christian sense of referring either to being restored into a right relationship with God (compare Contemporary English Version “people who please God”) or to the result of such a restoration in one’s ethical and moral life, that is, being empowered to live in obedience to the will of God. Either one is possible, depending on how law in the first part of the verse is interpreted. If law is taken as generic, the first alternative will seem more likely. However, if law is interpreted as referring specifically to the law of Moses or to precepts and commandments found in the Scriptures, then the more specific understanding of just will be much more appropriate. Here again, a literal translation will not contain any clue as to what the expression really means. Alternative translation models for the first part of this verse are “We understand, of course, that Moses did not give these Laws just to control people who please God (or, are living in obedience to God)…” or “We also understand that laws are made (or, they [unknown agents] make these laws) not for good people….”

What follows is a catalog of vices, with the clear message that it is for people with such vices that the law is enacted. The function of the law in this case is not primarily to expose these vices but to judge those who do these things. Some things can be said about this catalog. First, this is one of several lists of vices that are found in the New Testament letters. Among the other lists are those found in Rom 1.29-31 and Gal 5.19-21. Some of the lists of vices are followed immediately by a list of virtues, as, for example, Gal 5.22-23. The presence of these lists in the New Testament seems to indicate that these were part of the body of material used in the church’s nurture program. Scholars have noted the absence of the catalog form in rabbinic Judaism, which tends to indicate that here is another instance of Greek influence in New Testament writings.

Secondly, the list is not meant to be exhaustive, but it only includes vices that are considered serious and unusual.

Thirdly, this list has a structure that is unique to itself. It consists first of all of four pairs connected with the conjunction and. These four pairs are followed by six single vices. The list as a whole reflects the order of the Ten Commandments (the Decalogue), although there is no unanimity regarding the details of this relationship. Some aspects of this relationship will be pointed out in this Handbook.

The first three pairs consist of generic terms that describe people in their attitude toward the law, toward God, and toward spiritual matters. The first pair consists of two general terms that describe people in terms of their negative attitude toward the law. Lawless describes people who have no regard for the law and who wouldn’t think twice before breaking it; so “law-breakers” (Good News Translation). Disobedient (Good News Translation “criminals”) translates a word that refers to people who rebel and disobey the law instead of submitting to it. The second pair (ungodly and sinners) are also generic terms describing people in terms of their attitude toward God. Ungodly translates a term that is used of people who are impious, irreverent, and who find no place for God in their lives. Other ways to express ungodly are “people who do not worship God,” “people who have no use for God,” or “people who are not faithful to God.” Sinners on the other hand refers to people who consistently commit acts that are against God and against the law. The third pair likewise are generic terms, but this time they describe people in terms of their attitude toward religious or spiritual matters. The unholy (Good News Translation “those who are not religious”) are the irreligious, the impious, people who have no place for the sacred in their lives. Many languages will not have a set expression for either “religious” or “irreligious.” In such cases they may call unholy or “irreligious” people “those who don’t customarily worship or pray to God.” The profane on the other hand are those who not only regard anything spiritual as irrelevant but who also treat it with contempt and ridicule. In some languages profane will be expressed as “people who speak evil of God” or “people who hate God.” Good News Translation‘s “not … spiritual” is too weak.

There are various possibilities of relating these first three pairs with the first commandments in the Decalogue. One way is to relate the first pair to the commandment “You shall have no other gods,” the second pair to the commandment “You shall not make for yourself a graven image,” and the third pair to the commandments “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain” and “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.” Another possibility is to take the first pair as a general introduction to the catalog, the second pair as related to the first and second commandment cited above, and the third pair as related to the third and fourth commandments cited. A third option is to take all three pairs as related in a general way to all these commandments cited, but without a pattern of one-to-one relationship. But, finally, it is also possible to take these as general descriptions of people in terms of their attitude toward the law and toward God but without any specific relationship to the Decalogue. In the least, it will add to their understanding and appreciation of the passage.

Beginning with the fourth pair, the list moves to specific acts, and here it is much easier to identify parallelisms and relationships with specific parts of the Decalogue, as shown by the following outline:

murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers = “Honor your father and your mother.”
manslayers = “You shall not kill.”
immoral persons and sodomites = “You shall not commit adultery.”
kidnapers = “You shall not steal.”
liars and perjurers = “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.”
whatever else = “You shall not covet….”

Murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers must refer to children who murder their own parents. This is a much more severe example of the violation of the commandment to honor parents. These terms appear only here in the New Testament. It is tempting to speculate on why such an item is included in the list, since the practice of killing one’s own parents must not have been prevalent at that time. But perhaps this just stresses the importance of faithfully obeying that commandment, and of not mistreating one’s parents in any way.

Manslayers are also murderers, but this time the object is other people and not one’s own parents. Since murdering parents has just been mentioned, it would be much more accurate to translate manslayers as “other murderers.” These are people who deliberately kill others, but not in warfare.

Immoral persons translates a term that can be understood in a general sense as referring to people who do evil things, but more accurately, as describing people who engage in sexual immorality. A specific example of sexual immorality is now given, namely, that of homosexual relationships; the term sodomites refers to male partners in such relationships. Many languages do not have specific vocabulary for such activity. In such cases one may translate sodomites as “men who perform sexual intercourse with other men” or “men who engage in abnormal sexual activity.”

Kidnapers refers generally to those in Biblical times who sold people as slaves (so New Revised Standard Version “slave traders”), and specifically to those who used kidnaping as a way of capturing people for the purpose of selling them into slavery. Liars is a general term for those who do not tell the truth, and perjurers (literally those who swear falsely) refers specifically to those who “give false testimony” (Good News Translation), particularly in court. Whatever else would include other actions (so Good News Translation “who do anything else”) that are not specifically mentioned but are nevertheless violations of the law. Some scholars have identified this last unspecific statement as referring to the commandment not to covet, since it does not receive a specific example in the list, probably because of the difficulty of identifying acts of covetousness. At any rate, this seems to be a convenient way to refer to any violation of the law that is not specifically mentioned in the list.

To be included as a violation, an action must be contrary to sound doctrine. The word for doctrine is used fifteen times in the Pastoral Letters, four times in the other letters, and twice in the Gospels (Matt 15.9 and Mark 7.7). The word itself can refer either to the act of teaching or to the content of what is being taught; this latter meaning seems to fit the context in the present verse and in the Pastoral Letters as a whole. It does seem that, at the time the Pastorals were written, there was a body of Christian teaching (or doctrine) that was the basis for determining the validity and acceptability of certain teachings or beliefs. Sound doctrine aptly describes a body of teaching that is correct, accurate, valid, and which contributes to the well-being and building up of the church. Other ways of expressing this final clause are “who do anything else that is against correct Christian teachings” or “who go against correct Christian teachings in any other way.”

Quoted with permission from Arichea, Daniel C. and Hatton, Howard A. A Handbook on Paul’s First Letter to Timothy. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1995. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .