2 Timothy Chapter 4

vs 13

This is one of those verses that I always point out as an obvious example of why we can't just simply follow all the commands that are given, especially in the NT. Although I don't know of any Christian sect dumb enough to have, say, a yearly pilgrimage from Troas to Rome carrying a cloak, some scrolls and parchments, the church has in the past and probably does in the present things that are almost equally stupid, and probably less biblical.

vs 14-15

Probably an idol-maker. They obviously had something to lose by Paul turning people away from idols. This might be Paul's way of saying "watch out for him, but don't go and try to punish him on my account - God'll zap him". I don't know what it says about the political situation of the empire when people can whip up frenzied riots over the preaching of one man, but sufficed to say that if people have pent-up frustration which they can't take out on the political leadership due to oppression, they do tend to do things like this. Still happens today.

vs 16

That must have been very painful for Paul, but he is obviously drawing a parallel to Jesus' ministry. This happens all through Acts, so no reason Paul's not allowed to do it. But we also have to be prepared to go it alone if things get tough - there's no reason our friends and Christian family will be any different if it really hits the fan.

vs 17

But God didn't ever leave Paul's side, and although Paul might have suffered some bad things, the gospel was able to be preached. That's what Paul really cares about - God wasn't with him just to minister to him in his sufferings (although he did save him from the lion's mouth, whatever that was), but was with him to ensure that the job God had given Paul would be done.

vs 18

Note that God won't rescue Paul and bring him safely back to Antioch necessarily, or to anywhere else other than his heavenly kingdom. God's got the priorities right, and it would seem Paul does too.

vs 19-22

Good old Priscilla and Aquila, and Onesiphorus. Not much more here, except that it's interesting that Paul is happy to leave people behind (like Trophimus sick in Miletus) but doesn't want to be left alone himself. That either means that Paul has a huge double standard, or that he understands why people have left him to go and continue their work.

2 Timothy chapter 4

vs 1

Whatever Paul is about to say, in the context of judgement and eternity it is going to be important.

vs 2

Again the call for patience is made when instructing others. The word "careful" isn't in the greek (that I have).

"In season" is literally eukairos, which means 'seasonably' or 'when the opportunity occurs'. So Paul's idiom here means to preach the word whether there is an opportunity or not. It's not like there was "a season for preaching" or anything - he's just saying preach it all the time. And this isn't necessarily an evangelistic sort of preaching - simply proclaiming the truth of Christ. Preaching about the good news is actually a different greek word.

vs 3

Yes, people do that now too. Those nutters who think the KJV is the only true Bible and all other Bible translations are of the devil like to band together and buy each others' books and scratch each others' ears. In pointing them out I am perfectly in line with this verse - as they have abandoned sound doctrine. Why? Because it suits them to have the "one true holy translation". That's what they desire.

Of course, that's not the controversy that Paul was talking about, but it's a commonplace enough one in Australia (perhaps Queensland) to cause trouble.

vs 4

This is one important thing to look out for - when people start heavily relying on extra-biblical materials for their arguments, or from generally accepted rules and methods of Bible interpretation, or just plain old rumours and myths - that's when you know this stuff is happening. Quite often the whole thing gets mixed in and it's hard to separate - so you'll have someone who knows the evangelical statement of faith, but who also believes the Catholic church controls Islam, and that the KJV is the only true translation, and they usually also have a whacked out view of eschatology, and a whole other bunch of craziness tied up too (regarding JFK or the Martin Bryant killings or whatever - almost every church has one of these nutters, and I've meet heaps of them. I'm like a nut-magnet).

vs 5

"Keep your head" is literally 'be sober'. "Endure hardship" is literally 'endure evil'. But as you can see, the translation suffices to give the meaning in both. Here is the call to evangelism for Timothy, along with fulfilling the duties of the ministry he was called to (helping to lead the Ephesian church I guess, or more generally the work of preaching from the gifts given to him).

vs 6

Paul knows his time is short. The sentence may have already been passed, or he might just feel it in his bones. Information like this helps us date the book.

vs 7

Paul is joyful because he is satisfied that he has done his bit. This is not always the case with strongmen of the faith - people like John Wesley, who did incredible things for the Lord in the midst of much opposition, sometimes die completely unsure if they have served the Lord faithfully. I think it was Wesley who spent his dying days taking communion daily and worrying that he didn't devote his life to Christ enough. Paul wasn't worried.

vs 8

So Paul is not just aware, but joyfully awaiting the Day of the Lord, when he knows that he will be rewarded for his faithfulness. To him, that day is such a reality and so to look forward to that it fills him with joy. And that's not just for him, he reminds us. Paul isn't some special saint that gets benefits we don't. All who long for Christ's appearing should have the same joy.

vs 9

Now Paul shares his true heart with Timothy. He wants him to be close, because he knows he's not long for this world.
vs 10

Others, whose names we may or may not have heard throughout Scripture, have departed from him. Not necessarily departed from God - just gone to do other work. They may have left him thinking they had time to spare, but not being aware that his sentencing took place when they were gone. Who knows.

vs 11

Luke stayed with him though, and he surely finds that encouraging.

Paul also calls for Mark - the person who he ditched because he was unreliable, and which split up the Paul-Barnabas duo. But he doesn't want to rebuke him. Instead, Paul sees Mark as useful to his ministry.

vs 12

Not everyone abandoned him - he sent Tychicus away (although it would seem if he went to Ephesus he was probably bringing this letter to Timothy, and would bring him back). Paul doesn't care about interrupting people's ministry, you see - he thinks he deserves to have some personal, relational support during this time in which he is suffering. And he's not afraid to call it in either. Visits to people in need or who are suffering hardship or enduring evil are so worth it.

2 Timothy Chapter 3

vs 10

So Paul is not just placing the emphasis of the truth of the gospel on it's own correctness, but on the authority and trustworthiness and reality of its messenger - him! It's not just what he taught(his wording here is most probably a reference to the fact he taught, rather than what he was teaching), but the life and purpose he led.

vs 11

His persecutions also speak loudly in favour of his message, but not just that he suffered - his rescue from his sufferings is also a statement that speaks for his message.

vs 12

The reason Paul's suffering is important is because this will be a universal experience of the Christian life. But not just any old Christian life - the life of a godly person. It is the godly who will be persecuted, and when you put it like that, it's far more obvious a truth.

vs 13

Yes, the evil people will be deceived and do some deceiving of their own - but they aren't the ones getting persecuted. Yes, they might get just punishment for their actions. They might even get ridiculed. But persecution is saved for the godly. This is an Ecclesiastes-type statement - it's not universally going to happen every single time, but you'll recognise that it seems to be a general pattern.

vs 14

Timothy's journey consisted of learning about God and Christ (probably through his grandmother and mother), but then being convinced of it, and also through knowing those who taught it. Obviously a boy is going to trust his ma and his gram-gram, but Timothy obviously also had a deep relationship with Paul, and so could trust his message. The messenger is so important!

vs 15

Obviously Timothy didn't know the Scriptures when he was an infant. Perhaps as a Christian infant (young in the faith I mean). Note the purpose of Scripture here - it is to make you wise for salvation, and that only through Christ Jesus. It is not to teach you science, or history, or geography or sociology or culture or anything else. Sure, there are interesting things you can glean from it in this regard, but its purpose is for your salvation! So next time you're seeking to make a historical point or a scientific argument from the Bible, just remember that it's not what it was built for.

vs 16

Who doesn't have this memorised? Start learnin'. Remember that in greek, spirit and breath have the same root and are basically the same word, pneuma, so God-breathed is also "infused with God's Spirit". I would also think by inference that teaching, correcting, rebuking and training all link to the "in righteousness" - so all these things, once again, are for the growth of righteousness.

vs 17

And it is through your righteousness that you can be equipped for good works that God has prepared for us to do (bit of an Ephesians crossover there). So Scripture is for wisdom to lead you to salvation. It is for growing your righteousness, and that is so you can do good works for God. Do we now understand what the Bible is for?

2 Timothy chapter 3

vs 1

So even though Paul has spoken about being gentle to these people who aren't on the right track, he wants us (and possibly them) to be very aware of what the truth is.

vs 2-4

Isn't it funny how disobeying your parents always pops up. The concept of love and where your love is directed is very important in this passage. If you're curious, it's "phila" every time. The word for lacking self control literally means "incontinent" which I thought was funny. Heh.

vs 5

These people pretend to act in a godly way (perhaps on meeting days?) but in reality are denying the need to do so or the power of doing so (very gnostic). You're not meant to hang around with heretics and false teachers.

vs 6-7

Another list of what they do. In the greek they only creep into houses and capture silly women. Now here the NASB infers by its punctuation that it's these women who are weighed down with sins, and I thought the NIV punctuation more accurately gives the flow of the verse by putting the false teachers as those who are loaded with sin and so on. But in the greek, weighed down (lit. heaped up), swayed (lit. being led), and learning and never able are all agreeing with "silly women". So these verses are describing the women whom these guys worm their way into the houses of. I guess then that this is a warning as much about the fact that there are people who do the worming, as to look out for the ones with whom they will worm.

vs 8

Back to the men now. The use of Jannes and Jambres in this example points to the fact that even though the church Timothy is working in is mainly (probably almost entirely) greek, they still had an understanding of the OT. Many were probably God-fearers. We have to be wary here - the people Paul is talking about are rejected from the faith. We can't apply these verses to anyone - they are actually not faithful Christians who have gone astray. They are faithless people who may still be in the church, but are not believers.

vs 9

Thankfully, says Paul, such folly is clear and it should be easy to spot them, so people shouldn't fall for their facades (except silly women of course, who it turns out are like a litmus test for heretics).

2 Timothy Chapter 2

vs 14

Once again Paul wants Timothy to remind these people of the truths of the gospel, and to warn them against arguing over words. What does arguing over words mean? It sounds to me like useless pedantry over specific words. Of course we get into that all the time - I mean, I do it on here comparing translations! No doubt they would have done the same thing, but more probably with the Old Testament (as they would have only had scraps of any NT books). And it doesn't take much imagination to see what sorts of wierd heresies come out of arguments over words in the OT.

The lesson for us is not to base too much on the use of any one word. Definitions of words help us to qualify meanings, and in a way we need to do it in a comparative way to understand how the word was naturally understood in its context. But focussing on words to the exclusion of their context in the whole is dangerous. A fine balance I guess.

vs 15

This exhortation to Timothy shows just how important it is to act the part. You can't just be given it (by laying on of hands or whatever) - you've got to live it.

Accurately handling is literally "orthotomeo", which means "cutting straight". The idea being that you cut a straight path, so you don't deviate. Only time that word is used in the NT.

vs 16

Well, I would continue writing about verse 16, but I have to go and pick up my stolen car! Praise the Lord for answering my prayer!

Anyway, back to study. It's quite important to find out what the definition of "godless chatter" is for you to make sense of this verse. It comes later down this passage.

The point being that if you get involved in this godless chatter, then it makes you ungodly.

vs 17

This verse was probably very meaningful to Timothy, because he knew who these guys were. But we've got precious little idea, so we can't really compare their teaching except for what Paul tells us about them here.

vs 18

It turns out that they have wandered from the truth. In talking about the resurrection of all people, they say it has already happened, which destroys some people's faith and also gives us a fair idea of what Paul means by 'godless chatter'. It's not godless because it's not about God - it's godless becuase it's not from God.

vs 19

I don't know where the second quote comes from. But the point is that even though these guys might talk a lot of crap, God's truth is laid on the foundation of Christ, not on what they say.

vs 20-21

Ok, wha? For those people who like to take things literally, tell me that this verse doesn't mean you should only have silver and gold things in your house. Of course, that would be dumb.

So what does it really mean? The point seems to be that if you clear away your ignoble purposes, then you will be ready to do noble purposes for God. In the context of the verse, we can assume that Paul is talking about the next few verses, and this is just an illustration.

vs 22

Our desires here are not necessarily to be controllable by us. We might still have a desire for some evil thing, but we are to flee it and replace it with a pursuit of godliness. We might not even have a great deal of desire for it at times, but we are to pursue it none the less. So should all the other Christians we know, so we should join together in doing it. Probably makes it easier, like having a diet buddy.

vs 23

To us having a quarrel might not seem like too bad a thing. But in a society where relationships are very important, this is dynamite. Breaking up relationships by having arguments about stupid things is just not on. And a lot of us are not immune from having these stupid arguments - me included.

vs 24

The way of the servant of God is not to quarrel, but to teach, and to be kind and not resentful. It's harder than it sounds, especially when you collect with it the stuff from the other verses.

vs 25

This attitude shows a hell of a lot of faith in God. A lot of the time we want our excellent arguments to sway people's opinions, and so we get quite passionate about them. But this says that we've got to do our instruction gently, in the hope that God will do the work. The truth is that God might not work in them, and they might just keep on going in their stupid ways. But to do it any other way denies the work of God in people's lives.

vs 26

We can't really blame them though. Paul says here that these people are trapped by Satan, and Satan takes them captive to do his will. I wonder if people outside of Christianity often feel trapped by the advertising pushy individualistic expectationist world out there?

2 Timothy chapter 2

vs 1

Timothy is encouraged to draw his strength from the grace of Christ. This is a typical statement of us not needing to draw on our own strength, but of our ability to draw on God's strength, which logically is far more likely to work.

vs 2

Those that we remember in the Christian church either stuffed something up so royally that it's unforgettable, or were given the organisational skills to keep their work going long after they were gone. Everyone knows the names of Jonathon Edwards (US Revivalist) and John Wesley (started the Methodists), but who knows the name of George Whitefield? Even though he was fundamental in the starting of the revivals both in America and in England, Whitefield never started a movement.

Paul here is starting a movement, by ensuring that what he taught is passed on to other teachers to teach.

vs 3

Paul wants to start an analogy about endurance - in particular enduring hardship.

vs 4

In modern scholarship using the historical-critical method, we would seek to independently verify whether this statement about soldiers and civil matters was true. While this method of criticism is valuable for historical certainty, since I think we can trust Paul to not be lying, we can just assume that soldiers on the whole who wanted to please their commanders didn't get involved in civilian matters.

The NASB (and greek) explain it a little better, saying that "No soldier in active service entangles himself in the affairs of everyday life, so that he may please the one who enlisted him as a soldier." Remember that regular armies are not in existance. They are raised up out of the population for specific purposes. Even 'enlist' is probably a bit of a misnomer - some people had less choice than others, depending on the culture.

The fact is that whether you're doing compulsory service, or you are being forced, you don't want to make your boss unhappy. So you stick to the job at hand that you have been given.

vs 5

I don't like this translation at all. Literally it reads "And if you wrestle with someone, you are only crowned if you are wrestling lawfully". It sort of gives me the idea that if you grab someone off the street and beat the snot out of them, you're not going to get a medal for it. Of course I agree that you've got to follow the rules as well - but if you know greek wrestling, you'll know there isn't many rules. People don't get medals for pub brawls - only in wrestling rings. You've got to do things at the right time and in the right way.

vs 6

Now this statement is a funny one. I would say that here Paul is again defending his statement that a worker deserves his wages from 1 Timothy. If you put all of these previous statements into the context of verse 2, then you will see that Paul wants teachers of the gospel to stay focused on their teaching (remember the Apostles in Acts got distracted because of the needs of widows etc), to teach by the rules (probably means to teach Paul's stuff and not false stuff - but also that you can only teach the gospel if you're prepared to live by its rules), and finally here to accept that you do have a reasonable claim to some fruit from your ministry.

vs 7

Thankfully, if we don't get all this stuff right straight away, God will give us insight into it. It seems Timothy might have needed it as much as we do.

vs 8

Paul's succinct gospel (this time) is Jesus the man, as Christ the anointed one of God, raised from the dead by God's power, descended from David as a king. These summary statements of the gospel are really precious. They give us a great insight into what Paul thought were the key points people needed to understand.

vs 9

This is what Paul preaches, and what gets him into gaol. But just because he is in gaol, the word of God is not trapped with him. He has been teaching people to teach, and so they are going out and doing it! Of course we know that Paul was able to teach some people while under arrest, but his influence was far more widely felt because of his instruction of teachers.

vs 10

Paul is getting on, and is starting to feel like his own suffering is ver much in the mould of Christ. Just as Christ suffered for the salvation of the elect, so Paul is now suffering for bringing that message to them. It's not the same thing, but it is a vital part of the work of Christ, and Paul is doing it in obedience, to the point of sharing in the sufferings of Christ - which we are all called to do.

vs 11

An early hymn or song or perhaps even liturgy. Paul certainly wants it to be trustworthy, because the first part directly relates to him! If we die in the pattern of Christ (ie for the gospel) then we will live forever with him

vs 12

If we don't die, but instead we endure this life and stick to our faith, we will also live with him (but changing it to reign with him probably makes it sound better in greek).

If we drop Christ, he drops us too. Now not everyone agrees with me, but this fits my model of salvation-losing pretty well. I totally agree that there is nothing that can strip us of our salvation (height, depths, you know the drill). But there's a difference between us having our salvation taken away, and we ourselves deciding that we want to turn our backs on God and drop our salvation. This model of course has its problems (what happens to people who fall away but then turn back?) but it is, in my opinion, just as reasonable as a moderate calvinist position, and more reasonable than a hyper-calvinist one.

vs 13

But even if we are faithless and do not hold out for Christ, then he is still faithful, because Christ is not reliant on us to do his work. We are only in him in the first place because of him. He cannot disown his own work. We don't have to worry about him letting us down.

2 Timothy Chapter 1

vs 10

So even though we have been marked for salvation since before the beginning of time, we could only really see it because of Christ's appearance. I mean, you might have caught a whiff of the fact that we would be living forever in eternal glory with God somehow, but that would have been a long shot. But when Jesus came and said "I'm going to die to give you eternal life, then I'll be resurrected from the dead to prove it", well, then it's easy to see the plan with 20/20 hindsight. But Jesus doesn't just bring this whole thing to light through his actions - he does it through the gospel. His life, actions and words all seek to bring to fufillment the salvation-history of God's great plan.

Why does Paul use the term "life and immortality"? Well, the word is aphtharsia and I think it would be better translated "incorruption" even though that sounds stupid. Certainly I'm not saying immortality is wrong - just that saying life and "not death" sounds funny to me. It probably sounds better in greek.

vs 11

The gospel - not just Jesus' death and resurrection, but the entire story of God's work to bring mankind back to himself - is what drove Paul. It is what God appointed him to bring and to shout and to teach.

vs 12

Who can't read this verse and think of that hymn based on it? Ugh. Hymns that require you to be castrated are bad, mmmk? Paul is suffering, and he's suffering because of the gospel and his job in spreading it. Not only is he suffering, but he is suffering at the hands of people with lots of "authority" - Jewish religious leaders (he probably knew some of them!) and Roman officials. And it's easy when you're being persecuted by figures in authority to feel ashamed. But Paul doesn't. He knows that the important thing - his eternal life in Christ - is guarded in heaven, and no matter what they do to him, God can protect that.

vs 13

Paul is, after all, the one who was appointed to teach this stuff, so keeping to what he taught is probably a good idea. But the teaching on its own isn't enough - without faith and love in Christ, it is just empty words.

vs 14

Just as Paul knows that God can keep his eternal life secure with him up in heaven, he trusts Timothy to keep the message of the gospel secure. But this message isn't something that can be stolen. Rather, it is in danger of being corrupted by false teaching, or distorted and forgotten because of useless arguing. The Holy Spirit is needed to keep us on track with the gospel, with the important things.

vs 15

Paul's in a dark place. He feels deserted, and to some extent he has been. Many of those who were seeking to comfort him and bless him have moved on. They might have even moved on to do the Lord's work. But he still feels lonely and abandoned.

vs 16

Onesiphorus is a name I hope I don't have to type often. I'm glad Paul was the writer of the majority of the NT books rather than him! However, he was a blessing to Paul. Note that Paul says that he was not ashamed of Paul's chains - which suggests that others might have been, and were too ashamed to go visiting someone who was in prison (it probably almost certainly marked you as a Christian).

vs 17

But Onesiphorus was dead keen to serve Paul. I can't imagine Rome was anything like as huge as it is today, but it still would have been one of the biggest, if not the biggest, city in the whole western world. So searching for someone there is no mean feat.

vs 18

I think we're assumed to know what 'that day' is. I assume he means on the day of glory, the Day of the Lord. And of course, while Timothy might have well known all the things Onesiphorus did for Paul in Ephesus, we have no idea. I guess we don't need to know. But he did do stuff, and he was from Ephesus (or at least with Paul in Ephesus). That's a little important - Paul probably did have other people there with him (that comes out later in the letter) but he probably mentions Onesiphorus because he's from Ephesus, and the church there would know him and would appreciate his example of service.

2 Timothy chapter 1

vs 1-2

Hey, this looks fairly similar to the last letter I did. Written by Paul, sent to Timothy.

vs 3

This is the sort of sentence that high school kids write and get bad marks for in their creative writing. The NASB at least tries to take a few commas out. So Paul serves God with a clear conscience, just as his forefathers did. And he thanks God when he remembers Timothy in his prayers.

vs 4

Paul has been reminded of Timothy's tears (I don't quite know what this means), but it is this reminding that makes him want to go and see Timothy, and such a visit would fill him with joy.

Most probably Timothy is upset because Paul is on his way to be executed, or at least has been in prison for a long time. He might also be upset because things aren't going so well for him in Ephesus.

vs 5

Timothy's grandmother and mother were both Christian (or at least failthfully Jewish), and this has flowed on to Timothy. Not in a hereditary way, though - notice that Paul needed to be convinced that this sincere faith was in him. It's interesting that his father or grandfather aren't mentioned. This might suggest that only the female lineage was affected by the message, or that Jewishness comes through your mother.

vs 6

Another reference to a gift of God being given through the laying on of hands. Last letter it was through a prophecy and a laying on of hands from the elders. Whether laying on hands is some symbol of acceptance is uncertain - certainly there's no reason God couldn't cause people to gain gifts at range. In other parts of the Bible, it does seem exclusive to gifts being given or things happening, but necessary to the acceptance of people, whether it be to the church or to a ministry by the church.

vs 7

Because Timothy's gift was one of speaking, he was to go and use it! But even way back in the stupid ages, public speaking was still frightening. But through the Holy Spirit, Timothy should be dominated not by timidity, but by power, love and self-discipline.

vs 8

Perhaps we are now in the stupid ages - I mean, all we are afraid of is that people will think we're stupid or bad at speaking. Paul here is saying "Don't be ashamed to be linked to Christ or to me - sure, I'm in gaol and they nailed Christ to a cross, and it seems that things are in fact only getting worse for those who do testify to him. But come and suffer with me, huzzah!"

vs 9

And we do this crazy thing by the power of God who not only saved us, but has separated us from the normal life people lead. God was moved by grace to act on our behalf, but he also has his own purposes. He's had a plan for ages, and everthing is going according to plan. Yes, that includes your suffering.

1 Timothy Chapter 6

vs 11

No, Timothy is not the Elect Vessel of the Exclusive Brethren. Man I'm getting sick of hearing about them.

Paul here offers Timothy an alternative - a wealth of character. But in order to do so, you must flee from the temptation of money wealth, probably much like Joseph fled from Potiphar's wife.

vs 12

Timothy is not to flee from defending the faith, only from ungodly desires and false doctrines. He is to have nothing to do with them. You could actually translate this verse "struggle the good struggle". So the having nothing to do with these things is not a monastic separation from them, but a "meet them only on the battlefield" type thing.

Timothy was called to eternal life - by God or by preacher (Paul?) it doesn't really matter, because Paul is now exhorting him to grasp hold of it. Note that Paul's call to Timothy here is not a conversion call! He's already made his confession in front of witnesses (probably at baptism). We also have no reason to believe that Timothy was sliding away from his faith - after all, he's in charge of the church at Ephesus. Paul's words here are a continuing encouragement. And yet if someone told us to hold firmly to our salvation, we'd probably take it as an insult, "Are you saying I'm weak in the faith?".

vs 13

Paul is now giving Timothy a solemn charge. He does it in almost a vow-like fashion, making it in the sight of God in his position as life-giver, and Jesus in his position as confessor to himself (as Lord and as Son of God - but actually more accurately he confessed himself as King of the Jews before Pilate according to Luke. And I use Luke because Paul quoted it earlier). What is the charge?

vs 14

No doubt the command is to hold on to your eternal life. It might stretch back as far as vs 11, but if it does then it just gets harder and harder to do without spot or blame. And considering it's a command from God, it's probably impossible to keep anyway. But that is what Timothy is to strive for.

vs 15-16

When will Jesus return? In God's own time! There's the answer we've all been looking for - all you number-crunching verse-dismantling wackos can stop berating me about it now.

Paul now goes into a doxology about God, which is focused on God's rulership and authority. He speaks of a powerful, unapproachable God. Very different to your average doxology. Amen.

vs 17

Having an attitude of haughtiness or arrogance because you are rich is completely counter to God's ideal, and it shows that even if you don't put your hope in wealth to save you, you probably still put your hope in it for something. I know some of the pentes (but not only them) who preach a false prosperity doctrine, they put their hope in wealth. Not to save them (they know only Jesus can do that) but for them their wealth is proof to them that God has blessed them. So they put their hope in their wealth as being a badge of honour showing their salvation to be true. But wealth is uncertain!

God provides everything for our enjoyment. It is actually ok to have stuff and enjoy it. We don't need to live in sparse monk cells with nothing to concentrate on but a cross we've drawn in the sand with our own finger. If you really think you should give away everything you've got because you've got some complex about being rich while other people are poor, then go donate a kidney and part of your liver, because that's the logical conclusion of such beliefs. In 2 Corinthians, Paul states that godly equality is the rich not being too rich, and the poor not being too poor. Now the rich are always going to point at the "richer" and say those are the ones that are too rich. We could all probably trim some fat from our largesse. But the poor are always going to be poor. I'm not saying we shouldn't try to make them rich like us, I'm certainly not saying we shouldn't try, but we'll never reach an equality. And we don't have to. The act of trying is what God wants from us.

vs 18

Your mind should be more on good deeds and being wealthy in goodness, rather than in wealth. Such an exercise is a good way of separating yourself from your wealth, and seeing that there's more to life than money. Why do you think people like Bill Gates and Richard Branson donate huge amounts of money to charity? Not because of this verse I assure you, but because the doing of good deeds is a wealth of its own. That and it gives them more press coverage.

The command here is to be willing to share, not to be willing to give it all up. Of course, you do have to be willing to give it all up - but not to the poor. Just because the poor come knocking is not a reason to sell your house. But if God comes knocking and says "I need to give your stuff to the poor now" then you have to say "OK!".

vs 19

The "you can't take it with you" argument is back again. But this time it's got its cure as well. The good deeds of the Christian are eternal - because they are pleasing and obedient to an eternal God, because they will give you a foundation in your own eternal life, and because they will most probably effect the eternal life of others too.

vs 20

We get a whiff here at the end that there is a gnostic or proto-gnostic heresy going down (because knowledge of course is gnosis). That is why it is all the more reason for Timothy to guard the message that he has been given. Those who are chattering and preaching the heresy of gnosticism are going to try and take the gospel away, but he can't let them do it.

vs 21

An obvious statement that this heresy is in fact heretical, and those who stick to it don't have the right faith in Christ. And that's the end of that story.

1 Timothy chapter 6

vs 1

What people expect from a slave is respect. It might also be a bit of a fatalistic attitude - that if God has put you in the position of a slave, then be the best darn slave you can be. But Paul puts a different slant on it - if people see a Christian slave doing the right thing, then it will give them respect for God's name and the teaching of Christ. Now, that's not always how it works, but it is a generally accepted principle.

vs 2

And this is the sort of verse you expect to be followed by "And masters, if you've got slaves that are also saved, then free them - they're your brothers!". But no such verse exists (except the suggestion of it in Philemon).

The gospel isn't tied to one particular culture - the gospel is counter-cultural in every human culture, but usually has enough touching points to show its truth. How much of our own culture we should assimilate is a difficult question. I mean, we are always going to have part of it in us, and if we try to replace it we usually just end up replacing it with a false Christian culture (based on whatever our warped perceptions are of the first century greek/jewish culture we read about in the Bible).

Slavery to me is like divorce. God does not allow it because it is good - he allows for it because he is gracious. God does not want anyone to divorce, and in the same way doesn't want people to own slaves. But people are going to do it, and Christians are even going to do it (and Jews were even going to do it way back when). So God is gracious enough to show us how to deal with these matters when we get stuck in them, rather than leave us out in the cold.

vs 3-4

Could these verse numbers be in any worse places? Anyway, the point they make is powerful. People who are disagreeing with Jesus' teaching, and who are teaching things which are different to Paul and to Christ, these people are teaching out of their own brains, and so they know nothing. Then Paul shows how to pick these people - it is their unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrelsome topics. A focus on particular points of the gospel is fine, and a striving to understand some of the more difficult aspects is commendable. After all, the gospel is a mystery, and although it has been revealed to us, we still get stuck on topics like the Trinity, eschatology, the deep bones of salvation, the Holy Spirit and so on.

But a focus on conspiracies and on debatable things doesn't cause people to grow in Christ - it causes strife, and evil suspicions (like "are they really saved if they don't believe the Pope is the antichrist?") and malicious talk ("that guy's such a nutter, he can't stop talking about the Catholics controlling the Muslims to blow up the Twin Towers"). Envy is one I don't quite get - I'm open to suggestions there.

vs 5

Constant friction is a bad thing for any organisation - but in a family like the church, it is absolutely devastating. The worst thing is that this friction isn't even natural to the church! It's caused by false teachings by men who have a corrupt mind! I don't know how many of them think that it's a path to financial gain, but I will say there's a hell of a lot of crappy books out there that they write and sell.

vs 6

This attitude of Paul's completely turns capitalism and materialism on its head. The greatest gain cannot be measured with a dollar sign or a percentage. The greatest gain is not to get more money than anyone else - it is to have an attitude where you are content with what you have. Then, suddenly, you really do have more than the person who has so much. And with a healthy walk with God, that gives you contentment and eternal salvation. You're pretty rich if that's what you've got.

vs 7

Even non-Christians say "you can't take it with you" but I wonder how many of them actually let that rule their lives. Christians know where they're going, why they can't take it with them and why it doesn't matter even now, but they still live as though they can.

vs 8

Paul had learned the secret of contentment. And a content heart is capable of serving God in a way that one which is striving for all sorts of things never can.

vs 9

People who want to get rich seem to do a lot of falling. It's not the money that is the problem - it is the desires that come with money. Money brings temptation - usually a temptation to use it in a dishonest way (that is, any way which falsely suggests it's your money in the first place). It traps us (compare striving with contentment, and see the trap that has been built for the person who strives for money). And the foolish and harmful desires that money brings are many and plentiful! People desire a bigger house, a nicer car, a bigger family. They don't do it because they want to rule evil empires. They just want these things because they make life more comfortable. But what a price they pay! What sort of decisions to they have to make to get those things? Less time with that family. More mercenary attitudes in their moneymaking. A false understanding of objects, how we end up with them and what their importance is. Separation from God!

vs 10

There has never been a truer word about money ever spoken. Money represents power, influence, security, supply, plenty, comfort, measurable gain and worst of all happiness. It's a whole bunch of lies bundled into little metal coins and pieces of paper! How much more obvious could its falseness be! Money is not powerful, it is not influential. It does not bring security, plenty, happiness or comfort. It is a false measure of gain.

God is powerful. God is influential. God is security, supply, plenty, comfort. God is joy. And our godliness and our contentment are true measures of gain.

I find this a damn hard lesson to learn. There is so much stuff to want in our society. It is geared to feed it to us and convince us of our need. It's hard to be content. But that contentment is a vital part of the gospel. And I think only God, the great supplier, can bring us that contentment.

Of course, we shouldn't build a false dichotomy between contentment and striving. People who strive for money are not wrong because they are striving - they are wrong because they are striving for the wrong thing. Striving is a part of contentment, and we should be constantly striving for God. If we plateau out, or if we stagnate, we will not be content in our walk with God. And I think that's an important truth for our society, because we've got this false idea of reaching a point and then being content. But it doesn't work in spirituality any more than it works in money-mongering.

1 Timothy Chapter 5

vs 13

There wasn't really much in the way of welfare back in the old days, but this verse shows us that wherever there is welfare, there are welfare cheats. Dole bludgers I've heard many Christians call them. Of course, remember that this system of mercy to those who cannot support themselves through an income is entirely a matter of graciousness from God.

This verse tells us that the amount that the widows were supported by the church was enough to support them completely. They had the time to be idle and busybodies, which means they were supported to a liveable standard. I'm not saying that standard was high. But they didn't starve.

vs 14

You might think it's harsh that Paul is telling someone to remarry after becoming a widow, and that if they don't they might not get any help from the church. But their culture wasn't like ours. Getting remarried would be a lot like getting married - you are pretty limited in who you marry. Most likely your parents or some other person will choose someone for you. Some in this position did choose not to remarry (a lot of people think Paul was a widow), but for the majority of people, marriage was a way of life rather than finding your perfect partner.

vs 15

Whether this means they have fallen into de facto relationships with someone, or just that they've become the busybodies that Paul said they would, it's not clear.

vs 16

This is the same principle as verse 8, but with a different purpose - along with looking after family for the sake of your faith, you should also do this because it means they will be less imposition on the church. Remember that churches weren't big cathedrals demanding tithes or anything at this point. They were just small houses of people who gave what they could to help people out.

vs 17

The idea of being deserving of "double honour" is an interesting one. I've heard it said that this is a verse which supports the payment of those who lead the church, the argument being that "double honour" refers to the honour of being in the position and the honour of being paid. From the words as they stand it doesn't jump out at you, but I suppose there could be some sort of greek colloquial meaning to the term.

But note that it's not all elders - it's only those who do their job well, especially those who preach and teach. So those who don't do their job so well are probably worthy of honour because of the position they hold, but the others are worth double, because they do it well.

vs 18

This is the part that suggests they should be paid. I mean, these quotes from Scripture are obviously about getting paid your fair share. Now you could try and argue that this only stands for the church that Timothy was with, but Paul is quoting Scripture to back it up, so that's a hard argument to back.

What is very interesting about this verse is that it quotes as Scripture Deuteronomy 25:4, but it also quotes New Testament and calls it Scripture (Luke 10:7)! Probably far more important theologically, and Paul wasn't even wanting to make the point - he's talking about elders getting paid.

vs 19

Any position of authority requires a certain level of respectability and protection from slander. This verse provides that for elders. We don't really employ the whole "two or three witnesses" thing in the church much (but it's in the Bible all the time) but I reckon we'd probably still do this if an elder were being charged with something.

vs 20

Notice that the punishment for an elder being found out doing something wrong is rebuking publicly. It's not kicking them out of the office of eldership. This sort of grace and mercy has been lost to the church for many, many years. Our faith in God to be able to rehabilitate one of our congregation is completely gone. The thing is, you should really only stop someone from being an elder if they don't qualify for it. Just because they commit a sin (like everyone else in the whole world will, remember) does not exclude them from eldership, or else we'd have none.

vs 21

The elect angels eh? Well, now I'll do it. Wierd.

Christians constantly show favourtism which is good - favouring our families, favouring our church family, deferring to an elder. But you can't punish one elder for doing something and then not punish the next one for doing the same thing. You can't not put one young woman on the widow's list because she should get married if you put another young woman on because she's your daughter.

vs 22

As far as we know regarding the laying on of hands, it was used far more often as a transmission of authority or blessing from the church (to achieve something) rather than for healing people or passing around the Holy Spirit (sorry Pentes). In this context, it seems obvious to me that Paul is saying not to be hasty in the appointment of people to positions, but to find the right person. Otherwise, it may be possible that you will share in the sins of their disobedience in office, because you were the one who appointed them.

vs 23

Well, good luck applying this one.

vs 24

It's an interesting truth that even though some people will be preceeded by their reputation for doing things wrong, quite often their sins "drag behind them" and even though they rock up to your church and seem like a good, possibly new Christian, you've got to be on your toes - they might have been to half a dozen other churches who have already fallen prey to their activities. This is why patience is valuable - because even though their sins trail behind them, eventually they'll catch up.

vs 25

Good deeds are also sometimes obvious, but again even hidden good deeds will come out eventually. Sometimes they don't come to the fore for years. But eventually people will realise that something really good was done. Certainly God will see it.

1 Timothy chapter 5

vs 1

Even though Timothy is not to allow others to despise him for his age, he is not supposed to lord himself over them. Instead, within the church he is to maintain respectful relationships akin to a family. Note that even if Timothy is treating an older man as a father, he is allowed to exhort him! So even parents are not untouchable by children. Respect does not mean prostrate unthinking obedience.

vs 2

Everyone in the church is treated as part of the family. My reading of the greek actually carries the command to exhort to all of these relationships as well. So everyone ought be encouraged by you, in whatever relationship is proper.

vs 3-4

It's a different community and a different culture that we come across in these verses. There were no retirement villages and there were no pensions. There was hereditary religion. The principle of blood looking after blood first is sort of still around in our society, but notice Paul's caveat - that they should practice their religion. So if a widow's children have abandoned her because she is Christian, then the church is the only family she's got. We can't expect someone's non-Christian family to look after them.

This doesn't mean that as Christians today we are immune from having to look after our blood families. In fact, blood families will always be a powerful thing in any culture, and so looking after them even in a society where that isn't highly valued will be a good witness to Christ.

vs 5

Really helpless people, whether they are widows or whatever, will look somewhere for help. And if the church is seen as a place where help can be found, then people will look there. Is your church a place where people think help can be found?

vs 6

I think what Paul is saying is that rich widows won't have a reason to come to church - they will be happy spending their cash and living it up.

vs 7

I think this verse points to the verse coming after it. That's counter intuitive to an english reading, but I think it makes more sense.

vs 8

There is a lot of cultural baggage in this statement, but to the extent that family is well regarded in any culture, it is necessary. But that's not the only reason. Christianity is a family-based religion. The unit of measure in Christianity is not the individual (like in our society). It is the family. Whether that is your immediate family, or whether it is your larger church family, these are the units in which Paul and Jesus and God want us to think in. That is why this whole passage cannot be ignored by our individualistic culture.

vs 9-10

It's surprising that Paul puts these limitations on who the church will help. It won't help adulterers, bad mothers, and selfish and self-absorbed women (or young women). Now the question really needs to be asked here - does this help only represent help the church gives to families within the church, or does this help (and these limitations) extend beyond the church's walls to those unchurched people the church is trying to reach for Christ? We so desparately want it to be the former. But the latter fits in surprisingly well with Paul's idea of church culture at the time. I don't know what the answer is to that. The idea of a "list of widows" sounds like an internal church thing, like that expressed in early Acts.

vs 11

So the reason young women are not put on is not because they are bad people, but just for a practical reason. They've been married once, and they may well want to marry again.

vs 12

The idea here is that in their lust they put aside matters of the faith (like the widow who is in need in verse 5) and as such they will be judged on their lustful feelings instead of their devotion to Christ. Not necessarily an eternal judgement - it may very well be just your regular kind of judgement that people make when they look at other people.

vs 13

There's also a practical reason for it - because they become used to living on support (and for young people, isn't it what we've always wanted?) instead of getting some work done, whether it be for themselves or for a husband. The necessity for a husband is very much a cultural one, but the principle is still there.

1 Timothy Chapter 4

vs 9-10

Verse 9 is basically a redundant verse on it's own theologically, but it does cause a problem, as do many statements like it - we don't know for sure whether the trustworthy saying is what Paul just said, or what he's about to say. The statement is a common enough one in greek, and yet it doesn't have a formal standardised useage. The translators of the NIV obviously think it links foward to vs 10. But in vs 10, try swapping the word "that" for the word "because" (the greek 'hoti' is translated 'because' 212 times in the NASB) and then see how it reads.

It makes me think that vs 9 actually refers to vs 8 and the value of godliness. And that is what Paul labours and strives towards, because he has faith in Christ who saves. If he didn't have faith in a savior, then perhaps physical training would be more valuable.

But that is absolutely nothing compared to this statement by Paul that Jesus is the saviour of all men, especially believers. Pantone (a declension of pas) is used to mean 'all' and declensions of pas are used well over a thousand times in the Bible. This is worth knowing, because the word means (when used collectively) 'some of all types'. So if you're talking about men (people), then God is the saviour of 'some of all types of people' - whether it be racial types, social class types, employment types, gender types, age types. It is to show that the salvation of Christ is not restricted. So Paul is basically saying that all types of people are saved by Christ - the thing they have in common is that they are all believers.

vs 11

The verse guy went nuts here, making every few syllables a verse it seems.

vs 12

How young was he? No idea. But young enough that people would make something of it. But as many of us know - young in years does not necessarily make young in Christian maturity. History has shown us that God takes some people by the hand and leads them in baby steps through their faith. Others he catapults forward in flaming balls of explosive maturity. Guess which ones tend to survive longer? In this world, those who mature in leaps and bounds usually tend to accomplish an enormous amount through God's grace and power, and then end up dying at a ripe young age of 35 or so. It's those people who take seriously Jesus' command to sow their lives as a seed, because whoever loses their life for the gospel will save it.

Paul's telling Timothy to set an example, and people might well have not taken him seriously for his "youthful" enthusiasm as much as his youth. But people who are on fire for God are still enthusiastic, even when old. People who talk about it wistfully as being in their youth but "now I'm old, and I've got some perspective" have really lost something.

vs 13

Public reading of Scripture is something that was going on well into the early 20th century. Somehow we lost it - around the same time people only wanted to come to church for an hour.

This command is fairly specific to Timothy - we can't all be dedicated to reading the Scriptures publically, preaching and teaching. Some just don't have the gifts. But that was what Timothy was there for, so that's what he was to be devoted to.

vs 14

And we shouldn't lose sight of the things God has given us to do. We might not have been given our gift through a prophetic message. Our elders may not have laid hands on us. But God gave him his giftings, and he gives us giftings. We should not neglect their use.

vs 15

And the more we do them, the more we will progress in them. Whether that means accomplishing more, or being able to do the job better, it will it will be an encouragement to others to see it happening.

vs 16

The NASB translates this as "ensure salvation" - but it's not like that in the greek. No, Paul said it in the confusing and problematic way. Of course he did. Not much I can say here really - that is what it says. We all know what it means, of course.

One thing is that it is both your life and your doctrine that will save (or proclaim the saving message of God). Not just doctrine. Knowing all the right stuff, and saying all the right stuff, isn't enough. People have to see it work, and you've got to put it into practice in your life. 1 John makes this painfully clear, and it is a biblical truth - that those who don't put their faith into practice must be questioned as to whether they really have faith at all.

1 Timothy chapter 4

vs 1

Paul obviously didn't end his letter in chapter 3, even though it sounded like he was going to. Paul has finished his section on the worthiness of good teaching and good leadership, and now he goes onto a section about the dangers of false teaching and bad leaders. He starts with what sounds like a fairly pragmatic statement "people are always going to leave the faith" - and yet to him it isn't simply pragmatism, because the Spirit (and most probably the OT too) have clearly stated that some will abandon God to follow demons.

vs 2

The way they do this is through false teaching. Just think of Israel in the wilderness, and Aaron building Mooby the golden calf. Or the countless times they turn from the teachings of God to listen to the peoples aroun them. That is how people fall away. People start listening to the society around them, which now doesn't tell them to worship Balaak, it tells them to worship money or reason or status or prestige or security. If we saw them as false gods, would we respect them so much?

I'm not 100% sure whether your conscience being seared with a hot iron means that you've had it burned away, or that it's now so sensitive that you pick up lots of little things. The things Paul names them as doing are not necessarily bad things - Paul might have called the disputable matters in Romans 14 - but the teaching of these things as God's word is what Paul is against. Perhaps that is why they are hypocritical, because in most cases these people with sensitive consciences are usually overly sensitive about one thing, but not nearly as sensitive about another, perhaps more important issue. It's a lot easier to be fervent about a small issue, like "We should only use the KJV because all other Bibles are Satan!" than to keep up fanaticism for "My whole life is there to serve Jesus", because one has a very small perview, and the other is very wide ranging.

vs 3

Does the creation here refer both to the marriage and the foods, in that both are created for us to receive with thanksgiving? I think so. Its an interesting idea that they are created for the enjoyment of those who believe and know the truth. So everyone else who gets to enjoy them is just one more little injustice? No, I think more likely that those who know the truth can enjoy them, while those who are hypocritical liars cannot enjoy them because of their stupid teachings. There is also a question on how much you can really enjoy something if you don't give thanks to God for it, because those who don't put these things in their proper place (especially marriage, but things like food too) can then elevate the things to a false value, instead of accepting them for what they are (gifts from God for our enjoyment) and valuing them as such.

vs 4

The word ktisma means "created thing". So this verse does not just refer to food. Anything that God has created (including animals and plants that we eat) is good. And if you can receive it with thanksgiving, then you don't need to reject it. That doesn't mean we need to eat poisoned berries or enjoy having spiders in the house. But it does mean that there are very few things that are by nature "evil". There are some things that are evil (against God's will) and Paul gives a great guidance on how to tell them apart straight away!

vs 5

However, notice that Paul is not giving us a carte-blanche to go nuts and fulfil any mad desires we might have. You can't just go out and have sex with everything that moves. It's got to have been sanctified by a word of God and with prayer. Now when it comes to me eating cereal, I don't feel the need to open my Bible and see what it says. But when I became a Christian and I started wondering about whether I should keep roleplaying, then I did need to take a good strong look at that. Sex is fine, but only in the ways defined by God - in a marriage relationship between a man and a woman.

vs 6

It is a worthy service to the people of God to teach them about these things. Minister is literally deaconos, so I wonder if Timothy was a deacon? If Timothy, as a deacon, is meant to be teaching these things to people, then have we got our roles of eldership and deaconhood a little too defined? Probably not - when you use a function word like "minister" or "servant" as a title, you're going to get into these situations where you have to use them to denote fuction and people might get confused and think you're talking about a title. Such is life.

But all this stuff that Paul is saying Timothy should already know, because it is a heritage of the faith he has and the teaching in that faith he has received. But knowing it isn't enough - he's also got to be serving the church by teaching it.

vs 7

There are so many godless myths and old wives' tales we know, and even if we don't follow them, we let them infiltrate our langauge and that means that eventually they will infiltrate our thinking, even if only subconsciously. This is a problem in the church, especially in a society where we value culture and heritage, and people get very defensive about these things that their grandmothers may have said.

vs 8

Yes, lifting weights and going for long runs is of some value, but Paul's comparison to godliness shows just how limited it's value is. Your physical fitness will only be of value in this world, and will be of no value to you or anyone else for eternity.

1 Timothy Chapter 3

vs 9

This is a far more practical role, and yet deacons are expected to hold to the truth of the gospel in a way that does not compromise their actions.

My question is, why do deacons have to hold on to the deep truths (lit. mysteries) of the faith, and yet this is not a requirement for a presbyteros? Let me tell you what I think, even though it's just what I think. The role of an overseer is peculiarly to oversee the spiritual health and welfare of the church. Therefore, there are some things about the role which "go without saying" - and keeping hold of the Christian truth is probably one of them. It's like when you advertise for a job position - if you advertise for an accountant, you assume you don't need to put "needs a good grasp of numbers".

However, one thing you will notice is that "ready access to the Scriptures" or "strong familiarity with the Scriptures" is not there. And we might say that this is also an assumed necessity. But of course not everyone could read! And I don't think that would necessarily have kept people from being an elder - at least in the beginning. After a generation or two, especially with the New Testament starting to make its rounds and the invention of the codex, people probably started appointing elders who could read as a matter of course.

vs 10

There is also a test for deacons (which is not listed here, nor anywhere else in the Bible I can think of). So there is a test for deacons, but not for elders?

One of the frustrating things about both these passages is that they assume we know what exactly the job of an elder and a deacon are. But because we don't, we are left to guess from verses in Acts and by looking at who was appointed and how.

vs 11

The word is either wives or women. It can mean either, depending on context. Of course, the context is difficult to ascertain here. We know some churches had deaconesses. But Paul goes on in the next verse to talk about deacons again, so he could be talking about their wives. That then gives us the same problem as above - why aren't elder's wives spoken about?

You might think that "in the same way" makes it refer to deacons and deaconesses, but it could also simply refer to the same actions. Again, no easy answer here. The repetition in the NIV is redundant (wives... women) and not reflected in the greek.

vs 12

Basically in the same way that an elder must.

vs 13

This is a noteable acclaim, because we are talking about people who serve the church in the manner of a servant - waiting tables, going and giving alms to the poor and looking after widows. I can certainly imagine this sort of work assuring you in your faith, which is a reward in itself - whereas it could be argued that elders were paid.

vs 14-15

Paul is hoping at this stage to return to Ephesus. But if he can't, he wants Timothy to start building the church up in its leadership, and to help people know how to conduct themselves. See, these rules for living do not pertain only to elders and deacons. Although there can only be so many people in those positions (especially elders if they are paid), everyone should aspire to them, so these rules of conduct are far broader than for the members of leadership.

Paul also makes the point that the ecclesia is the pillar and foundation of truth. It's an important statement, for how true can God's promises be if there exists no church for him to bless and keep? The proof of God's work in this world is in the church. People shouldn't need to wait for miracles and signs and wonders, if they have a church that they can see.

vs 16

I don't know where "beyond all question" comes from. The NASB renders it "By common confession" which is closer to the translation in my opinion. That is the great confession of the church of truth - of the one true and living God. This little song is one of the more complete understandings of the truth of the miraculous Christ event. It talks about his incarnation, his vindication, his spiritual authority (or possibly his death), his message being spread and believed in (as miraculous as any of the other things he did!), his ascension into glory. Often we think of the spreading of the church in the Colossian manner - what Christ did not achieve in his own sufferings is up to Paul and those like him. But this is not a true reading, not even of what Paul said - he is constantly aware that it is not him that makes the gospel of God spread, but Christ in him.

1 Timothy chapter 3

vs 1

Why does Paul use the word presbyteros (translated 'elder') in Titus, but uses episcopis (translated 'overseer' or 'bishop') here? Most of us would say it doesn't matter, and that they mean the same thing. The Catholics (and the Anglicans too) see a big difference - to them, a bishop is the person who has control over a number of churches, whereas an elder is a position over a single church. Their method of episcopal church governance is based on this distinction - made partly from the Bible and partly from church history.

Of course, in Titus Paul uses the terms interchangeably from one sentence to another...

Whatever Paul means, his idea is that the offices of church governance are a good work for people to aspire to.

vs 2

This list is very similar to the one in Titus. Some scholars think Titus is just a shortened form of 1 Timothy. Others probably think 1 Timothy is an expanded version of Titus. Whatever.

There are some interesting things in this list. Able to teach is one I think is interesting. We have a leadership committee at our church, and of the three people on it when I arrived, only one regularly gives sermons. Do the others not teach? Well, they can - but it doesn't necessarily mean giving sermons. Indeed, in their pastoral duties, being hospitable and respectable (and even beyond reproach to a degree) is far more important in many ways.

The next question is - should they be married? It says the husband of "but one wife" so they obviously shouldn't be a polygamist, but can they be unmarried? Well, in the society Paul is writing to and living in, being unmarried really isn't an option. Very few people remained unmarried.

vs 3

Many of these qualities are good and worthwhile simply because they mean you are less likely to harm relationships. We often have difficulty understanding the value of relationships in such a society, and the social faux pas it is to do something which harms them. Not quarrelsome is a hard one for me.

vs 4-5

Here Paul gives a nice little commentary on why their family should be well managed - because if they can't control rowdy kids, then they can't control a church. Having children who didn't respect you would have been a mighty blow to your respectability. I mean, today people can have kids screaming all over the place, and while someone might say "if those were my kids, 'POW!'", generally people don't have that same attitude anymore. Only two kinds of people do in our society I am told - those with children who are perfect, and those who don't have children. Maybe Paul writing this comment shows he didn't have children? Who knows.

vs 6

Of course you don't put new converts in charge of a whole church. These are all common sense really. To us they seem like grand commandments from God. To Paul, they are probably just a list of common sense necessities for good leaders so that he knows what to look for. To us some of them may seem excessive, or we might think it's impossible for a person to be all of these things. And you know what? It probably is! I don't think Paul would have knocked back anyone from this position because they didn't fulfil one of these criteria. These are things to aspire to as much as to fulfil.

Remember also that some of these churches might only be less than two years old - so how new is a new convert?

vs 7

This is a hard one. The need for someone who has a good reputation with outsiders is a breath of fresh air - it means that the position of eldership is not the position for someone locked inside a church building. People outside the church should know him as someone who is of good reputation. An extra-church role is seen for elders here.

But how does having a bad reputation make you disgraceful and fall into a devil's snare? Firstly, I think we've got to separate the disgrace from the snare. I think Paul's talking about two separate things that will happen.

Well, reputation is literally "witness". So an elder must have a good testimony to outsiders. If they don't, it seems, firstly they will be an object of scorn or contempt, or people will find fault with them and they will be blameworthy.

They will also, it seems, be ripe to fall into activities with outsiders that will harm their testimony. A bishop who goes around sleeping with people's wives is the most obvious example (and may well have been what Paul was insinuating with the trap metaphor). But an elder who rips people off in business would be the same - his weak testimony to outsiders would make him a disgrace, and bring disgrace on the church by him being its representative.

vs 8

Deacons (deaconos - servant, minister) have very similar expectations of them. But we'll get on to them more tomorrow.

1 Timothy Chapter 2

vs 8

This is one of the classic verses which doesn't get followed because it is not "culturally appropriate" to lift your hands up in prayer. Although I can't be 100% sure about when this practice stopped, I can be sure that such a thing would have been frowned upon and derised in the Latitudinarian period, when "religious enthusiasm" was stamped out of a large portion of the Western Church.

And I personally don't have a problem with us not doing it. Sure, the Bible says we should, but it's just an action. We don't kneel, and we don't prostrate ourselves, even though the Bible says to do those too. The operative terms in this verse are that we should pray together, without anger or disputing. This command is probably just to men (because there's a command just to women after it) - not because men only should pray, but more likely because men are the ones who need to pray without anger or disputing.

vs 9

In the same way, men shouldn't dress without modesty - it's just that, as men are more likely to have disputes with each other, women are more likely to want to dress more attractively (and men are more likely to stumble over that, and women may even be more likely to get into disputes about each other's dress habits).

vs 10

The point of verses 9 and 10 isn't even about clothes! Paul certainly isn't saying that Christian women should dress themselves with good deeds instead of clothes! The idea is that wearing attractive stuff isn't what makes Christian women attractive - it is their good and appropriate deeds that should make them attractive. You could almost read these verses "If the only thing attractive about you is your pearls and hair, then you don't really have much attractive about you as a Christian woman".

vs 11

I would personally say that any person who is learning should do so in this way. People who are loud, obnoxious, distracted or uncooperative are very difficult to teach. In fact, although we lump this verse in with the next one (which is peculiarly about women) we don't need to - it's just as bad for a man to be unteachable as it is for women to pray together in anger.

vs 12

Paul means what he says here. It's not just a personal matter for him. When he says "I do not permit" he is not making a suggestion to how Timothy should run his church. Paul is the leader of this church - he just deputised Timothy to do the work for him. This is a command to Timothy on how the church should be run.

Had this issue already come up in Ephesus? Or was Paul pre-empting it because he'd come up against it elsewhere? Hard to say from the letter.

vs 13

This and verse 14 are really the contentious verses of this passage. Verse 12 is just a command - like lifting holy hands in prayer, it could be ignored because it could simply be a cultural imperative. But the reason Paul gives for that command (that it is enshrined in God's creation) is not a cultural phenomenon. It's a biblical principle. Even if you don't believe in a literal 6-day creation, you can still believe that God put those early verses in Genesis there to teach us something about the created order. And Paul is telling us that this is what God is teaching there.

vs 14

The second argument Paul uses is that Eve was the one who was deceived, and Adam fell when he listened to her. Hence, women shouldn't teach because they can be easily deceived and then men will listen to them.

We hit a conundrum here. I can easily argue, and from the Bible, that men are just as easily deceived as women, and that men can teach falsehoods to each other, and probably teach them to women too. And although that argument might be correct, what Paul has written is still scripture.

This isn't an easy passage. Of all the arguments about women's role in church, the one about teaching (and leadership) is the most volatile, and its verses are also the least forgiving. We can't discount the cultural element here - but neither can we discount the biblical precepts given.

One argument I've heard is that Paul is using a Rabbinical form of argument. Why that means we can ignore it I'm not sure. But if you think you're out of the wilderness of difficult-to-understand, wait till the next verse...

vs 15

This verse simply can't mean what it says it means when you read it at face value (the 'simple' or 'straight' reading if you like). This verse demands interpretation, because you cannot be saved through childbearing any more than you can be saved through any other activity.

The footnotes of the NIV have "she" as a replacement for "women", and the greek version I have only has "she" because the whole greek word is sotheseisa, which means "she will be saved". This only confuses the verse more, because later on it still says "they". So the childbearing could refer to Eve, but the faith, love, holiness and propriety could refer to women of the church. Of course, she could be plural - it wouldn't have the translation footnote if it were easy ;)

1 Timothy chapter 2

vs 1

This sounds like the full gamut of the prayer arsenal! Here Paul says he wants this for everyone, but in the next verse he says he wants it for kings and people in authority. The better translation would say "on behalf of all men" - and you could almost argue that this means that all men should be praying for kings and authorities if it didn't then go on to say "on behalf of kings..." with the exact same words.

So assuming Paul isn't writing here to a church made up of kings and authorities, I think we've got to assume that Paul is writing about prayer for all people, but then his focus narrows to the others. The point possibly being that all humanity can and must be prayed for. This isn't just a last resort "oh, we can't do anything else, let's pray". This his his first urging, and should be our first response. Harder than it sounds.

vs 2

The church is being persecuted by those in authority. Paul gives the reason for praying for those in the high up positions as the ability of the church to live a peaceful, quiet, godly and holy life. We've actually got that here in Australia - how much do we send up prayers of thanks for it?

vs 3

I'm not sure whether Paul is saying that the ability to live that quiet life is good, or whether praying for kings is good. The peaceful life is the most immediate. I am sure that both are good and pleasing to God, and so Paul might be referring to the situation generally.

vs 4

Now notice here the attribute of God which Paul mentions in relation to God being pleased in this regard - it is his love and desire for all people to be saved. Does this refer to praying for kings and those in authority, so that they might be saved and their example will be powerful and effective on others? Or does it refer to the ability for Christians to live a peaceful and quiet life so that their holiness and godliness shines forth and they are able to witness more effectively than if they were being persecuted?

Christians really should be able to live holy and godly lives no matter what the circumstances. Now peaceful and quiet lives, these are more difficult to find under persecution. And such persecution or oppression does prevent people from coming to know God. Paul was probably seeing that.

The salvation of kings does cause major social reform. Look at the conversion of Constantine. Christianity changed almost immediately, and the transformation was immense. But it wasn't all rosy either. The beginning of the Christian Empire is also the beginning of nominalism.

The problem we face is that because the New Testament was written entirely under a system of persecution, we have the documents of a persecuted church. But the Western church hasn't been actively persecuted for 1700 years. Sure, it lost a lot of its cultural relevance in the last couple hundred years, but that's not the same thing. People ignoring the church and people destroying the church are two different things. This is just one more reason why a literalistic reading of the NT will only be very vaguely applicable to our current church situation. Now, when you go to China or the Middle East, it's a hell of a lot more applicable in a simple straightforward way. But we've got to work harder to understand its modern relevance. It's relevant - no doubt about it - but we've got to be sensitive in understanding how and why.

vs 5-6

Before there were church councils, before there were books on systematic theology, all you had was a knowledge that God was there, and that Jesus was his Son, and that his death somehow paid for our sins. Makes it easy to get mixed up about how things actually go together, and so Paul's statement, while fairly obvious to us, would have helped to clear up some inconsistencies in people's beliefs.

And Paul points out that there is something perfect about the timing in which this living testimony was given. Considering his next verse, he might well be thinking about the perfect timing of Christ with regards to the cultural mix between Judaism and Greek (Roman), and the existence of synagogues all over the empire.

vs 7

Because Paul's job is to teach this truth to the Gentiles, the non-Jews. If Jesus had turned up during the Macabbean revolution, then he might have won Israel to his cause, but it would have been a lot harder to win over a ruling society with which you were at war.

Paul also sees the need to defend his position as an apostle. He does this frequently. I mean, he didn't see Jesus like all the normal apostles did. So it's only fair for people to doubt his Damascus road experience. But to him and to us it is vital, because it gives him an authority he would otherwise simply not have.

1 Timothy Chapter 1

vs 12

Paul often uses himself as an object lesson. Here he talks about how thankful that he has been given the message that he has just been talking about. He is thankful for his ability to render service to God. And he is thankful for Jesus giving him strength.

vs 13

Perhaps he is talking about these things because he was once like the people he is reprimanding - and indeed much worse than them. It's interesting that he notes that he was shown mercy because of ignorance and unbelief. It could be possible that Paul is separating his attitude from his actions - even though his actions were completely sinful, Paul may have wanted to serve and obey God. What does that mean for pre-conversion Paul? Not much really - he was still a flagrant sinner, and still needed God's mercy and grace.

vs 14

Mercy, grace, faith and love... I'm waiting for him to finish off his typical cycle with hope. But it doesn't come yet.

vs 15

For all the things Jesus accomplished while he was here, his purpose was the salvation of sinners. And Paul's glad for that, because he was plenty sinful.

vs 16

But Paul' very salvation is an object lesson to us all. No matter how crappy our lives are, not many of us can see we actively sought to kill Christians and destroy the church. That's something special. It probably weighed on Paul constantly, and Jewish people he met would no doubt constantly remind him.

vs 17

Obviously the immensity of this fact isn't lost on Paul, and so he feels the need to add a little doxology here.

vs 18

There were some prophecies made about Timothy. They were obviously something to do with him being in leadership and doing the stuff that Paul is talking about in this letter. How did they work? We just don't know.

vs 19-20

He compares Timothy, who is standing firm to fight the good fight and holding to his faith and a good conscience, to others who have not done so. He describes their faith as literally shipwrecked. Paul describes two people who are in this position, which is great for Timothy, because it means he knows exactly what Paul's talking about. For us, we have to wonder a bit. Then we also have this wonderful term "handed over to Satan". Some people think it means "booted out of the church". It could also mean Paul's given up on them for the time being, or stopped meeting with them. But even Paul knows that anything Satan has God can take away from him.

1 Timothy chapter 1

vs 1

Paul is the author of this letter. And although you might think "why does he need to justify himself to Timothy - he must know Paul is an apostle" remember that the church Timothy is with (Ephesus) probably needs a reminder that Paul is a king-bean.

vs 2

Timothy is getting the letter. You can see how deeply Paul appreciates Timothy's partnership and his work.

The crazy old verse-guy decided to put the to whom line and the cordial greeting line in the same verse here, but not in other letters. Just goes to show that the verse numbers aren't inspired ;)

vs 3

If you look at Acts, you might notice that everything Paul says in 1 Timothy and Titus don't add up strictly with his movements in Acts. Acts, of course, is not exhaustive, and it is thought that the stuff that Paul is talking about happened either outside of Acts (so after his first imprisonment in Rome) or simply isn't mentioned in Acts (Luke glossed it over).

So, at some point in time, Paul has left Ephesus to go to Macedonia, and told Timothy to stay in Ephesus, specifically to stop certain people from teaching some kinds of false doctrine.

vs 4

Devotion to myths and genealogies are aalso spoken against, and something Timothy is to keep a lid on. The reason Paul gives is because these false teachings and stupid topics are ripe for controversy, and people should focus less on controversy and more on God's work. Faith is the key here.

When Paul says "which is by faith" does he mean God's work happens by faith, or does he mean we by faith can concentrate on God's work, or something else? Well, the Greek doesn't really say God's work. The Greek is more like "charge those certain people not to teach differently or to pay attention to tales or unending genealogies, which provide questionings rather than a stewardship of God - in faith". To me, that reads more like "false teachings and stupid questionings don't lead to faith" - the stewardship or administration of God being the faith you have received. But I'm open to interpretation there.

vs 5

Paul's goal in setting down these rules, and in leaving Timothy to overrule on them, is love. And love can only be in existence when these three things exist.

vs 6

Some people have missed the mark, and so instead they are just jibber-jabbering. This is what happens when people aren't doing what you should be doing to maintain your pure heart, good conscience and sincere faith.

vs 7

The people Paul is warning about are, in the Ephesian case, seeking to become teachers. So they obviously like talking. The problem is that they don't really understand the stuff that they are teaching (and probably its implications), let alone the stuff that a true teacher of the law would be teaching!

So, is Paul charging these people as wanting to become teachers in the church, or is he charging them with the possibly more heinous crime of wanting to become "teachers of the law"? Well, the Greek term is specifically about either those interpreters of the Law among the Jews, or the Christians who do the same job - interpreting the Mosaic Law. So it's probably a bit of both. His discussion about the Law immediately after is probably a testimony to the fact that these guys really don't know how to read the Law.

vs 8

So the OT Law does have its role in the Christian Church, but in order for its role to be fully seen, we need to understand its proper use.

vs 9-10

First of all, we've got to understand that the Law isn't for perfect prissy princesses. It's for scum. Paul goes to great lengths here to show you how scummy he means. One interesting addition to this list is slave traders. I don't think this exists anywhere else in the whole NT. The word is literally andrapodistes, and can mean either one who unjustly forces men into slavery, or one who steals another person's slaves and sells them.

The word translated 'pervert' in the NIV ('homosexual' in the NASB, 'them that defile themselves with mankind' in the longwinded KJV) is literally arsenokoites. It comes from arrhen (meaning 'male') and koite (meaning 'bed', but also 'sexual intercourse'). So well done to the NIV translators, who managed to somehow translate that 'pervert' when the word is a simple compound word meaning "mansex".

vs 11

I went over 1 verse today, because I got up early (6:20am - sigh) but also because this verse is vital to the understanding of this concept Paul's going on about, and because I didn't want to wait till tomorrow.

The second thing we have to understand about the Law is that it must conform to the gospel! Remember that the gospel is more than just John 3:16. The "good news" is basically the entire salvation history of humanity, which includes God's working among the Israelites. So what I think Paul is saying is this: "When you read the Law, remember two things, Firstly, it's written for scum. It's written for a people who are constantly straying from God and need constant boundaries set in place to keep them near to God. Secondly, remember that the Law is not the be-all and end-all of the salvation story! It is just one part of the whole redemption of humanity, which has culminated in Jesus Christ's substitutionary atonement. That's what God has given me to go around teaching, and I don't want you guys to just focus on one part by itself. That's stupid." (Ok, so I added that last part in, but Paul's with me I'm sure.)