5 Minute Bible

short | crisp | provocative

Browsing Posts in 1&2 Tim; Titus

This passage, which begins and ends with Paul’s suffering, centres on Scripture. It contains the verse which in Evangelical circles is probably the second best known (after John 3:16) Bible reference of all (more rightly it should be two verses, since one cannot understand 2 Tim 3:16 without the purpose declared in 2 Tim 3:17).

2 Timothy 3:16-17 All Scripture … is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that those who belong to God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Missed out the debated word “theopneustos”. This is a hapax legomenon1 though it does occur occasionally outside Scripture, so the Greek-speaking Jewish writer Josephus around this time says of Scripture: talks of the prophets who wrote the 22 sacred books2 who wrote according to theopneustia that comes from God.

It is quite clear he means “divine inspiration” he did not think theopneustos meant “God breathed” because “according to the God breathed quality that comes from God” is a daft thing to say, and Josephus wasn’t daft!

So in 2 Tim 3:16-17 Paul tells us Scripture is inspired by God, and then tells us how we can know that it is, and how we can use it rightly: 16 “teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness“, and in v.17 tells us its purpose: “so that those who belong to God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work“.

Take-aways from this passage:

  • Scripture is inspired (by God, no less!) so it is useful to teach, reprove and correct, and train us – in short in these ways it equips us to belong to God and to work for him.
  • Scripture is good: anyone who makes it achieve other results fear, isolation, oppression… is misusing it!

.

  1. a word that only occurs once in Scripture []
  2. the Hebrew Bible our Old Testament []

There are two takeaways from this chapter. The first is the lovely poem (or verse from a hymn) in vv.11-13

If we have died with him, we will also live with him;
12 if we endure, we will also reign with him;
if we deny him, he will also deny us;
13 if we are faithless, he remains faithful-
– for he cannot deny himself.

The other is the apparent contradiction between Paul’s advice to Timothy (2 Timothy 2:14) “avoid wrangling over words”, suggesting that there are details that do not matter, and him then going on to correct someone teaching nutty stuff, in the strongest terms (2 Timothy 2:16-18).

There is a tension here, how do we distinguish “wrangling over words” (v.14) from the sort of false teaching that needs calling gangrene (v.17)? There’s a double answer…

.

Traditionally red type in Bibles indicates words of Jesus, but suppose it indicated passages that we wanted to censor? (Photo by LivingOS)

Sometimes it is the very people who respect the Bible most who are moost tempted to censor Scripture. This passage is a fine example of how we are tempted to massage Scripture to remove “difficulties” and make it sound more like something our world can understand.

Why does our reading begin at v.3?

The chapter divisions are sometimes in the wrong place, but is that so here?

  • Is the topic of 1-2 very different from that of 3-21?
  • Do these verses connect more strongly with the material in ch.5?

The answer to both questions is NO – they don’t connect strongly to ch.5 (which was about a whole collection of good and bad deeds and seems to reach a conclusion in vv. 24-5. By contrast 1 Timothy 6:1-2 dealing with masters and slaves does fit well with talk of wealth and money in ch.6.

But all this talk of Christian slaves and Christian slave owners is uncomfortable for the heirs of William Wilberforce or Christians living in the USA (where a civil way was fought over slavery).I think the organisers of E100 did not want to associate Paul’s advice to Christian slaves to be respectful, well-behaved slaves with his strong warning against teaching “otherwise and not agreeing with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ”! They have (I expect unconsciously) censored the Bible!

This discomfort – and the consequent temptation (or even need) to censor the Bible – comes about because we forget that the Bible comes to us in human words. Muslim’s claim that the Q’ran was dictated to one man by God, it therefore contains divine words that MUST NOT be translated – for that would contaminate them. The Bible was written by dozens of people, inspired by God, but not taken as dictation. Therefore the Bible contains not the words of God but God’s message. Therefore, by contrast, it MUST be translated!

.

Bishop Izabela Wilucka-Kowalska with Catholic Mariavte Church of Poland (Wikimedia)

In this chapter Paul sets out some simple effective rules for Timothy about who are suitable people to be leaders in churches in particular he deals with “Bishops” and “Deacons”. Deacon means very different things today in Anglican and in Baptist churches, to name only two of the bewildering variety of leaders called “deacon” (all claiming to be biblical).  And Bishops are potentially even more divisive – if only because some of us don’t have them. Some translations mitigate the problem by using different words: NIV e.g. uses “overseer” but keeps “deacons” – there is obviously a modern theological agenda at work here between NRSV (heavier with more established denominations) with Bishop and Deacon and NIV (with more Baptists and the like) having Overseer and Deacon.

The third group mentioned here intensifies the issues! In v.11 is it “women” NRSV or “wives [of these male leaders implied] NIV? If women, is it women in general, or women leaders?

If we use the band aid approach to reading the Bible the problem is solved because Paul has said the leaders (of both sorts) must be “the husband of one wife” which means they must be male (unless you think Paul allowed lesbian marriages ;) BUT the bandaid approach is dangerous – the Bible several times (using the band aid approach) says “there is no God” – so Christians are all called to be atheists!

If however we ask:
What were the main things Paul wanted Timothy to “get” from this passage?
Or more explicitly on this issue:
Is Paul determined that Timothy does not ordain women?
The answer is “obviously not”, if that had mattered to him he could have said: “All leaders must be men”. Or “All Bishops must be men”. Paul doesn’t say all leaders in church must me men because in Romans 16:1 he refers to Phoebe as a deacon.1 Then in Rom 16:3 Priscilla is his “fellow worker in Christ Jesus” (in 1 Cor 16:19 he reverses the usual order to talk about Priscilla first and her husband Aquilla after instead of listing Aquilla (as the man) first. This suggests her importance to Paul as a church leader.  In Romans 16:7 Paul refers to a male apostle, Andronicus, and a female apostle, Junia, as “outstanding among the apostles” (NIV) Every Greek and Latin church Father until Giles of Rome (circa 1000 CE) acknowledged  that Junia was a woman.

So we need to ask the question: What did Paul want Timothy to “get” when he read this chapter?

.

  1. NIV translates diaconos “servant” here, but usually e.g. 1 Tim 3 it renders “deacon” []

The “Pastoral epistles” 1 & 2 Tim and Titus offer advice to two young companions of Paul’s travels called to church leadership – Timothy, in the big city of Ephesus and Titus on the island of Crete.

There is even more debate about whether these letters were written by Paul than was the case for Ephesians – but as always the issues are highly technical and one needs good Greek as well as significant knowledge of both what we know and how we know it about the development of the earliest churches so I’ll ignore the issue here ;) and as I did for Ephesians and Colossians just call the author “Paul” since that’s what he calls himself!

Because of the nature of the topics in this epistle there are always questions about where and how far Paul’s advice is ad hoc. And to what extent it is timeless. That question is badly posed. ALL Paul’s advice is timebound and culturally determined! We saw in Luke’s account of Paul’s preaching in Athens that he was too good a missionary not to be culturally sensitive!

If all the advice here is timebound and culturally sensitive then how can we draw teaching for running our churches today from it?

This is where the five step plan comes into its own! (The Five Step Bible Programme: Part 1: Introduction or for all the posts in order from the bottom of the list):

  • 1. What DID it say (back then, to the first hearers)?
  • 2. What is the difference (between then and now)?

Among the differences here are different forms of church organisation, different cultural contexts and taboos, different expectations on young and old, women and men…

  • 3. What does it teach about God and God’s relationship with the world and us (theology)?

This is always the key step – looking for the principles about God, and God’s relationship with the world and humanity – because if we really spot what principle(s) Paul was applying or asking Timothy to apply we can then in step 5 see how they apply today.

  • 4. How does Jesus fulfill (fill out fully) this passage?
  • 5. What DOES it mean (here and now)?

Applying this simple process will ensure a strong, biblically based, yet culturally sensitive application of the message of Scripture today.

.