A Parish HouseThis an epistle (a letter) written from Paul to Timothy, one of his constant companions. The letter was likely written in between Paul’s two prison experiences in Rome (the last of which ends in his death). Timothy is in Ephesus where he has been left to continue the work of planting churches and protecting those that already exist (the threats will be evident within the first chapter).
Paul’s opening shows a very close connection with Timothy, that of a father to a son. It’s kind of a joke in the church to seek for/to be a Timothy to someone’s Paul. That’s cheesy and frankly our modern discipleship does not mirror closely the work these fellas were doing (although it should, something to aspire to).
Timothy remains in Ephesus guarding against false teachers. The nature of these false teachings seem to include a number of things. The details really are speculative, but either way it involves people chasing things that are untrue. My guess is that this is similar to the modern day folks who chase end times information by connecting weird dots to create a false picture that they want to see or those who elevate past figures that we know very little about to make them appear as though they are more important than they are/were.
Why are they doing this? Selfish reasons. It is to give them power over others, a source of pride, a way to make themselves important. It is false, of course, as Paul says the aim of their charge (and implicitly any church authority) is to love from a pure heart, a good conscience and a sincere faith. These other fellas are in it for themselves with speculative information. But because it is largely untrue, others don’t know it, and having knowledge others don’t brings prominence with it if you can convince people that what you know is important. Obviously, we are not immune from this today. Test for false teachers. If they know things the church hasn’t known for the last 2,000 years and there is not evidence of a pure heart, good conscience and sincere faith, give them no time or interest.
It seems that saying that the law is not good may also be part of what these folks are teaching. I won’t rehash the list, but the broad point is that the law is good insomuch as it is “…in accordance with the gospel of the blessed God which which I have been entrusted.” This must be the good news of Jesus and His Kingdom, which means where the good news coincides with the law, it is good. Where it does not, it is no longer necessary. This is still a matter of debate today by smart people who love Jesus.
Paul reminds Timothy next of where he has come from, more specifically, what Jesus has rescued him from. In Paul, the extensive depth of the mercy of God is shown. Paul was indeed the foremost of sinners, speaking specifically against Jesus, calling him a liar, and persecuting His church. However, Jesus came into the world to save sinners, Paul included, so that we might get a glimpse of the extreme nature of the patience and mercy of Jesus. This is not hyperbole and should be something at the forefront of our minds and discussions with those who believe they are too far gone for the love and grace of Jesus to reach them. That is a lie, and Paul’s life is here to prove it.
In this we are to rightly understand God, not only for his mercy and love, but for his power. He is the King of ages, immortal, invisible who deserves all honor and glory forever.
Paul ends this section with what he started with, false teachers, reiterating that Timothy’s good work should rest in holding faith and keeping a good conscience. For those who have given up these things for their own gain, H and A here have been blaspheming as well. Paul says he turned them over to Satan. This is most likely to mean that they were kicked out of the church, noting that Paul expects them to “learn not to…” speak against Jesus. This is the same action Jesus recommends when things can’t be resolved with someone. So, seems harsh but otherwise right.
In chapter 2, Paul moves into some practical life stuff, answering the ever-present New Testament question: how then shall we live? His urge to Timothy is to constantly be petitioning God on behalf of everyone (yikes, that’s a lot of people), which is to include kings and all those in high positions. Our prayers are agnostic to the political climate around us, power always needs prayer.
But look at the outcome. We do this “…so that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way.” There’s multiple ways to take this, but I think we can safely assume that praying for everyone will take up plenty of time to keep you out of trouble. It will also always frame those with power around you as someone who you are rooting for (at least spiritually) and keep you from becoming some kind of political hack on one side or the other. Prayer helps maintain right perspective on the world in its fallen state and the fallen people who walk, work and weep within it.
And Paul says this makes God happy, as he desires all to be saved (the praying is the connection here). The footnotes in the ESV make a shallow argument at best for a Reformed view on this passage. The claim is that “…God’s greater desire is to display the full range of his glory which results in election depending upon the freedom of his mercy and not upon human choice.” I fail to see how His glory is not displayed through human choice, and the commentary leaves this undiscussed, it just assumes there is greater glory in humans not having a choice.
Speaking of things unclear, I’m not sure why Paul deems it necessary to assure Timothy he is not lying about being appointed a preacher and an apostle, ultimately a teacher of the Gentiles. I would assume by now that Timothy certainly knows the truth of this. In either case, Gentiles do indeed seem to be Paul’s part in the “all people” who God desires to be saved. The basic description of the good news “…there is one God, and there is one mediator…” seems to represent the type of thing he might say to the Gentiles that stands conversely against other ways Gentile folk may think eternal life or deities may work.
The conversation continues with Paul’s vision of how these groups of “all people” look like in worship to God. Dudes are together, lifting holy hands together and not fighting. Ladies are drawing attention to themselves because of their good works, not their hair or out-of-control-ness. This seems to have been a problem as Paul continues on that ladies are supposed to be quiet while learning and to not teach or exercise authority over any of these dudes lifting holy hands together. This, as you can imagine in today’s culture, is a freakin’ hornets nest.
Things to consider for context. It’s interesting that we don’t generally take “lifting holy hands” as a firm command for the dudes but treat the adornment and silence of the ladies as if it is a firm command. Further, if we don’t over-isolate this particular conversation, it seems to sit within the context of Paul talking about the kinds of things that might happen when these “all people” get together to praise God. The dudes don’t argue and lift hands and the ladies stop dressing like street-walkers and stop interrupting and making a scene. In these perspectives, the context can appear limited to just Paul’s situation (or at least the situation of that era of folk.)
However, his justification for not having ladies teach is significantly more far-reaching. Paul points back to the creation order to establish this who teaches who stuff, and further to Eve’s propensity to deception. I get the first one, the second I have a hard time with (Adam also sinned, failed to protect his wife as well as the situation he was in, and all ladies kind of get sacked for this behavior. Although, if there is a sinful nature, Adam gets tagged with that for all humanity, so there you go.) Either way, the reasoning for not allowing ladies teach certainly reaches beyond that time period and harkens back to a truth that has been around since creation. Further, in chapter 3, the qualifications for elder/pastor are male oriented, which would support something beyond Paul’s context as well.
What do we do with this then? I’m hard-pressed for a firm answer. Although I think the context may allow these distinctions to be non-binding outside of Paul’s world, the justification he gives for the restriction does not. Further, the posturing in the discussion in modern circles presupposes that the declaration, at face value, is not a good one and must be explained away some how. I worry that we miss something that is good, albeit counter to modern culture, while trying to wrestle it into something we are more comfortable with.
That said, Paul often lifts up women who work around him, including Priscilla, whom is listed before her husband Aquila by both Paul and Luke (in Acts) and who is credited with helping to teach Apollos. Here is a point where we should acknowledge that there are faithful people who love Jesus who are working prayerfully through the implications of this passage as it relates to both the modern context and that of its time. Missing a clear conviction on either side, I can only propose grace until then.
This chapter ends with further complication. Paul seems to insinuate that ladies can be saved through childbearing, if they continue in faith and love and holiness and self-control. I don’t know man, that last part calls back to the start of the chapter which ties all of what he wrote together as simple, faithful instructions on what we ought to be about as followers of Jesus. That childbearing business throws it for a loop. The best I can discern is that we’re to see childbearing as an example of faithful work that mimics maturity physically the same way remaining faithful and praying for others and such does spiritually. I’m about 20% confident in that explanation, though.
This section moves from chapter 2, which attempts to address what ideal communal worship looks like, to talking about the types of folks who should be leaders in the church. (These also stand right after and seemingly in direct opposition to the authority that is not allowed to ladies in chapter 2.)
Paul tells Timothy that it is indeed a noble task to aspire to be an overseer in the church. This word for overseer, by the way, can be used interchangeably with elder, pastor, or shepherd. There is not a Scriptural distinction for a paid, dedicated clergy and the folks discussed here; same group. What follows is a collection of descriptions intended to show the types of qualities an appropriate pastor has. It’s not an exhaustive list, obviously (and I mean obviously, churches that use this as a checklist would be forced to accept Vlad the Impaler if they followed it to the letter while ignoring the overall picture it paints.) In general, an overseer should be a mature believer whose life reflects being changed by God.
Most of these aren’t surprises. Yes, there are churches that take “husband of one wife” to mean that you can’t be single or divorced to be an overseer. That is an unnecessarily literal reaction to the Greek which straight-read is “of one woman man”. Proper way to read it is probably to mean they are faithful husbands and, you know, not polygamists. This is postured, though, towards fellas and the language does not permit it to be applied universally to ladies as well.
The one about the children tends to be a sticking point as well. What does it mean to say the children should be submissive? I mean, everyone has a kid who is a nut and disobeys in front of other church folk. The follow up description basically explains this as a test. You can BS some of these other things in the list and fool other people. But if all of your progeny are pretentious wild apes, there’s no dodging that. Without being too utilitarian on the thing, I think you can have one who is going through a phase or one of them who is particularly quarrelsome and still be a pastor. But, you know, if your kids are pretty good evidence that you can’t guide them spiritually, you shouldn’t take on the important responsibility of overseeing a community of folks either. No worries, there’s plenty of other work to do.
It also says that you shouldn’t be a new believer. This is primarily because it makes you susceptible to use this power poorly and be taken in by the risks associated with that. (It’s not power in a dominating sense, it’s influence, which pastors should have. It’s also responsibility.) Finally, you should be thought well of by outsiders. It’s not good enough to be the business just within the church community, you’re representing the Lord and His people by this role, gotta do it well.
Next he moves in on the deacons, which is distinct from the elder/pastor/overseer role. The qualifications are much the same, though, except they are not required to be able to teach. (See, there’s hope for you shy bros yet.) Just like pastors, though, this isn’t a political office, it’s an active, working role; a distinction identified by how people treat you, not what title was given to you. By serving others, they gain a good standing for themselves and their personal faith is also emboldened.
The chapter ends with summarizing his intent to teach Timothy how things should be when the Christian community gathers and a reminder that they are the pillar and buttress of the truth (basically, they do the work of holding up truth and sharing the mystery of the faith, captured in the “hymn” that finishes the chapter).
Chapter 4 moves away from what things should be back to where there is trouble (false teaching) and how to combat it. When Paul says, “…the Spirit expressly says…” we have to take his word on it, there isn’t a Bible referent that validates it directly. (Not a big deal, could’ve been revealed to him at some point. However, it does bring up an interesting conversation around personal revelation outside of Scripture that is still valuable to the Kingdom folk at large. Another day.)
The concern is around folks who stop following Jesus and instead “…devote themselves to deceitful spirits and teaching of demons through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.” Man, that’s a long sentence. Couple things. First, this is obviously happening during Timothy’s time, one of his primary calls is to combat it. So, when Paul writes “…in later times…”, we can’t pull that out of his time period and say that it is a prophecy of what will happen sometime in the future. No, the “later times” or “last days” in the New Testament generally refer to the time between Jesus’ ascension and his second coming. They are the “last days” in that, once Jesus returns, there simply won’t be any more days (no reason to count, eternity is at hand!)
That said, the second point is obviously that we share the “later days” with Timothy as this sounds very much like our modern situation. (For those who think things are getting progressively worse societally, I’d note that there is nothing new under the sun, people have been bankrupt and debased and trying to take governments and institutions with them forever. If you don’t believe that, I have a tower in Babel I’d like to sell you.) An acute risk in our day, with the wide proliferation of media and accessibility to a diversity of thought, is the confusion that can come with it. It is easy to make things sound like Jesus may have said them, or pull them out of context and create a movement with it, or take a Biblical idea and bend it, twist it, generalize it until it’s not recognizable and then tag it as if it originated from the throne of Jesus. I’m willing to run down any rabbit hole that is trying to rightly understand the Word we have been given to ensure that I don’t miss what Jesus is really after because of some inherent bias or cultural assumption or trust in some slick willy interpretation. But I won’t ever accept Bible-lite or some lame philosophy that smells a little like Scripture but also smells like profit and vibes and cultural-personality horseradish.
Also, don’t reject good things God has given you. (I’m looking at you, Daniel fast.)
Paul instructs Timothy to take these truths and share them with the brothers. Don’t chase myths and help others to stop chasing them (I had a wingding of a conversation this week with a dude trying to find end-times significance in some constellation formation in September this year. 20 texts in and I’m not sure we made much progress. It’s the work, though.) There’s also a call to “train yourself” for godliness (which I apparently double-underlined at some point in the past. I’m assuming it was an excuse to not also take care of my body.) Paul says that there is some value in taking care of your body, but there is all-value in training yourself spiritually (that does work in this life and the next. Your beach bod only has value in this life. Stay healthy, Adonis, just keep it in the right balance/priority with spiritual training.) How do we do that? We’re doing it now. (Unless you’re not keeping up with the reading, in which case you’re not doing it. Pull it together.)
Paul then says something that causes people to write books and set up blogs and ignore the rest of Scripture: “…we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially those who believe.” Yay! Everyone is saved, even if they turn their backs on Jesus and do whatever they want because the living God is the Savior of all people! Can’t be right. If this were true, and we’ll ignore for the moment Jesus saying things like narrow gate and repeated descriptions of eternal separation, then Paul’s instructions to Timothy IN THIS CHAPTER ALONE make no sense. Why protect right doctrine and avoid myths if it doesn’t matter at all?
There are a number of options here, I think Occam’s Razor applies (the simplest is the most likely explanation). The confusion hinges on the word “especially”, which is interpreted in slightly different ways throughout the Bible. In some cases it is a further distinction (“all the saints salute you, specifically those within Caesar’s household”, Philippians 4:22) and in some cases an exact distinction (“Of whom I have no certain thing to write unto my lord. Wherefore I have brought him forth before you, and specially before thee, O king Agrippa, that, after examination had, I might have somewhat to write”, Acts 25:26.) In this Timothy instance, I think it’s the second option. “…we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, specifically those who believe.” He died to save the world, the ones who are saved are those who have faith in Him, believing that they needed it and that He did it.
The chapter finishes with Paul encouraging Timothy to not be dissuaded from his work and to live as an example to everyone around him. To hit one of Paul’s previous points, youth is not an issue, but maturity is. Don’t put yourself in a position you know you’re not mature enough to have. Pastoral work is an older fellas game for a reason (I reflect upon my own situation cautiously in this regard as well.) That said, where God has gifted and sent you, let no “normal” barriers contain you. Wisdom is being mindful of cautions but unafraid when the boundary of caution is to be crossed. For Timothy, he is to devote himself to the work, teaching, reading Scripture, and demonstrating his progress to those around him (I’d generally assume through his teaching but could be otherwise I guess). By persisting, committing to his calling, it has an impact on him and the people around him.
Where chapter 4 primarily focused on how Timothy was to go about his responsibilities as a pastor, chapter 5 mixes in how he can help other folks in his community act appropriately within their church family. The opening sentence sets the tone, guiding Timothy in how to go about leading those around him, encouraging him to do so in the same way he would with his own father, mother, brother and sister. The two distinctions to note are that 1.) Timothy is certainly called to approach all these people in rebuke where it is necessary (he substitutes “encouragement” for “rebuke” further in the description and 2.) he’s to do so in all purity.
This advice isn’t limited to pastors. In the course of a life following Jesus you’ll notice that age barriers start to disintegrate and with growing ease you recognize the common walk you share. In this, you’ll find yourself in a position to provide encouragement to folks 20-30 years your senior and junior. Where you’re the right person, you treat them like family (which means you do what you have to do and you do it out of love. You also keep your personal stuff out of it, you’re on the Lord’s work and the goal is reconciliation to the Lord, not vindication for you.)
Next up, widows. This we can fairly summarize in fairly rational ways. Where folks are truly widows (by age and situation) the church needs to care for them. Where they have family that can care for them or are of an age where they can still care for themselves and/or get remarried, they should do that and the church should not support them. Before reacting too harshly, remember Paul’s letters to the Thessalonians, idle hands are something Paul consistently identifies as a risk for people and the church. Here, he’s just specifically applied it to younger, widowed women. Basically, if they don’t need it, they shouldn’t take it.
All this, though, highlights Paul’s instructions about family responsibilities. Specifically, the direct condemnation of “…anyone (who) does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” This is hard to swallow if we come from a perspective that has wrongly separated belief and the changed reality and work that implicitly follows. However, where we couple those things correctly, this makes a ton of sense. If I love my family I will care for them, serve them. If I say I love them but do not care for or serve them, then something isn’t right in there. Basically, the kerfuffle on this verse is unnecessary. Are you trying to dodge caring for your family? Are you trying to find a hole in the call to be a servant of all? If not, this is a big nothing-burger. If so, you’re not posturing to follow Christ and have bigger problems (like, worse than an unbeliever because you know the difference and refuse to submit to it.)
Moving on, where the pastor is doing the work well in what he is called to do, he deserves honor for that and deserves the benefit of the doubt when folks accuse him of something. (Don’t think there’s a hush-hush action here, the next part says the pastor doesn’t get the one on one rebuke from Matthew 18, he gets in front of all the overseers and the rest of the church if he needs a rebuke. Rough times.) However, when a fella keeps to God’s word and is in the rebuking business, someone is going to take it poorly and try to retaliate. So, have the man’s back and take care of him. Unless he sucks, then rebuke him and know the court of heaven stands ready to affirm such a rebuke.
Back to Timothy directly. Stay impartial because, again, it’s the Lord’s work you’re after. Lay hands on folks like mad fire and, oddly coupled with that, don’t take part in the sins of others. And, you know, still kind of off the wall, go ahead and have a little wine with your belly troubles, Timmy, water ain’t cutting it.
The laying of hands thing could be prayer and calls for healing but the connotation here is probably in identifying leaders and ordaining them for work. This makes the last part of this chapter make more sense as it is advises Timothy to be careful as both sin and good works can reveal themselves on the sly. Be patient, evaluate for both in due time.
As the letter begins to wind down, Paul winds up on something that causes undue confusion in our day but was certainly counter to normal instincts in his day as well. Still in the middle of a conversation intended to help Timothy guide those in the church on how to live, he instructs that those who are slaves how to treat their masters. Basically, Paul says to serve them well. Do it for a good witness if the master is not a Jesus man, serve them all the better if they are Jesus folk because they are brothers (apparently Paul is thinking of slaves who might try to take advantage of the forgiving or generous nature of their masters.)
Now, we have to read this through the lens of 1st century Roman society, not 18th-20th century America. The word here is doulos, sometimes translated as bond servant (which is a clearer translation of the circumstance.) The bondservant would work for the master for a given amount of time/value in exchange for either relief of a debt between the two or in a situation that is best described as a firmly committed job (the master really serving as more of a patron). In either case, it was voluntary, an option used to solve a problem. Paul encourages them elsewhere to buy their freedom if they can.
Paul also lists “enslavers” as lawless and disobedient in chapter 1 yet doesn’t condemn the Christian master here. The distinction here is forceful vs. voluntary. You can’t kidnap folk and make them do what you want, that’s a violation of Exodus 20 and basic decency. However, folks can put themselves under your charge (“care” is probably an overly optimistic description of the relationship) in exchange for money or shelter or whatever. The Christian on either side of that equation needs to serve the other faithfully.
Back to protecting against false doctrine. I like the simplicity of this, if someone doesn’t agree with Jesus, they are conceited and don’t understand anything. This is true, of course, if Jesus is God and knows everything and you have taken the position that you are more enlightened on one matter or another, you indeed don’t understand anything. The context to this extends into the next few verses. We’re talking about an enlightened individual who has moved beyond the wisdom of Jesus and is using his own brains to cause trouble in the church and between people who should know better. (This is why Bible study and sound doctrine are important. The church isn’t here to pass-on good and reasonable ideas, to be productive members of a relative society, we’re here to espouse and live out Jesus’ ideas and do our very best to change the world with the Good News we’ve been given. Where our teaching and end-goals of community don’t start and end with Jesus, we’re lost.)
The other angle here are those who teach “…godliness as a means of gain”. We know better than this. We can’t follow a man who calls us to be servant of all, who dies on the cross for the sake of others, and have this idea that gospel work and integrity living are designed to produce monetary gain. There wasn’t a payday waiting at the foot of the cross. We need to be extremely careful about calling monetary or status gain related to gospel work a sign of the Lord’s blessing. If we are comfortable that Jesus and the remaining 11 bros were faithful followers of Jesus, and everyone one of them was martyred (except John, who they tried to boil in oil and failed), then perhaps as disciples (students, those who learn from the teacher), our expectations should bend more that way.
Now, Paul makes the caveat for us here. You “gain” from following Jesus, but it’s not money or fame, it’s contentment. (Creflo can’t get a plane with that kind of propaganda next to the offering plates.) Paul says you can’t take anything with you and if we can get food and clothing (Maslow and Paul high five here) that’ll be fine. Once you get enough money to not worry about food and clothing, perhaps you should consider your neighbor and whether he has food and clothing. Wealth breeds risk. It’s not inherently bad but it introduces risks, options that you don’t have when you are content with the basics and giving the balance towards other stuff going on in the world.
Think now about the things you think you need (really, do it). How about the things you want? What about the things you have now that are getting old, that you’d like to replace? Starting to understand the value of contentment now? I have a long list of stuff that ain’t food and clothing that make me discontent because I don’t have it or under the thought that I might have to live without it. However, I don’t have a lot of cash so it’s less of a risk. Add cash, add risk. Sounds like some in Paul’s day have walked away from the faith because of this. It’s a powerful temptress, don’t even agree to a casual coffee with her. Hear me correctly, fellas. Get money, get lots of it. But don’t use it to invest in risks, in opportunities to refuse God’s contentment. Nah, anyone can do that. But not everyone can change the world, only the Good News that Christians bring can do that. Put your resources to that work.
What’s Timothy to do with all of this? Flee! Pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, steadfastness and gentleness. Fight the good fight! Your eternal life has already started, live it! A basic summary of the end is that we serve a good and powerful God, be faithful to him and to those you are called to serve. Don’t swerve from the task, don’t give an inch in your fight to live out the very best of what God is up to so that you gain the right things (contentment, assurance of eternal life) and help change the world as ambassadors of the good news of which you have been given. If you are rich, it isn’t a sign of Gods blessing, it’s a sign of your responsibility to be a blessing to others. That’s true life, it’s a real salve to the soul.
To end, a reminder to keep faithful to the Word and stay out of trying to mediate a gaggle of fools who don’t agree that Jesus is right and they are not.