From:
Comparative
Commentary on 1 Timothy Return to Home
By
Roland H. Worth, Jr. © 2020
All reproduction of
text in paper, electronic, or computer
form both permitted and encouraged so long as
authorial
credit is given and the text is not altered.
Covering
In Spite of These Dangers and
Obligations,
Timothy Is Not to Neglect the
Development of His Own
Spirituality
(4:12-16)
TCNT: 12 Do not let any one look down on you because you are young, but, by your conversation, your conduct, your love, your faith, and your purity, be an example to those who hold the Faith. 13 Till I come, apply yourself to public reading, preaching, and teaching. 14 Do not neglect the divine gift within you, which was given you, amid many a prediction, when the hands of the Officers of the Church were laid on your head.
15 Practice
these things, devote yourself to them, so that your
progress may be plain to every one. 16 Look to
yourself as well as to your teaching. Persevere in this, for your doing so will
mean Salvation for yourself as well as for your hearers.
Timothy must function as a role
model for other believers in spite of his youth (
Comparative translations of Timothy’s youthfulness: In describing his age there is not much
different a way to describe his “youth” (retained in ESV, Holman, WEB;
“youthfulness,” NASB) than to change it to “young” (GW, ISV, NET, NASV; “young
man,”
Even
so how old was Timothy? The range
of 25-30 has been speculated[1] as well as 30-40,[2] and 35-40.[3] The standard of
comparison does not seem to be mainly chronological since high childhood death
rates would have made somewhere in the 30s as being a rather “respectable” age
by any statistical standard. To us in
the technological “modern age” he seemingly had reached the equivalent of
“middle age”--or close to it. By our standards. The first century though
considered such people, in effect, “young” until physical infirmities proved
they weren’t. “Young” but finally ready
to fully launch onto the sea of adult political and religious
responsibilities.
We
have indirect evidence about the Gentiles from the way laws and expectations
were fixed in popular thought.[4]
In
the early 7th Century BC, the Greek poet Hesiod wrote
that a man should marry “when you are not much less than 30, and not much
more”. Meanwhile, ancient
There was no Torah command pointing to thirty as the key year for full adult religious responsibility, but there were at least limited hints that such was the case. The Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (on Luke 3:23) notes that, “The age of 30 was that at which a Levite might enter on his full services (Numbers 4:3; Numbers 4:47), and the age at which Joseph had stood before Pharaoh (Genesis 41:46), and at which David had begun to reign (2 Samuel 5:4), and at which scribes were allowed to teach.” Ezekiel began his prophetic work when he was this age (Ezekiel 1:1). The cases of David and Ezekiel may have been mere coincidence; the others were matters of settled policy.
The Talmud indicates thirty is the pivotal year. In the Pirke Avot (second century) it is asserted:[5]
At age 5,
one studies Bible.
At ten, the Mishna.
At
thirteen, one is responsible for the mitzvoth.
At
fifteen, one studies Talmud.
At
eighteen, one is ready for marriage.
At
twenty, one begins a career.
At thirty, one is at the height of one’s powers.
At
forty, one achieves understanding [bina].
At
fifty, one is prepared to give wise counsel [aitzah].
At
sixty, one is given the deference of seniority.
At
seventy, one is considered a sage.
Eighty
is the age of heroic strength.
The view that thirty was still youth was one accepted by
those in the evolving Christian movement as well. For example, however much the anti-heretic
apologist Irenaeus errs in claiming Jesus had to be
fifty years old when He died (making His ministry about 20 years long!) he
certainly was aware of how popular opinion held firmly to the belief that
“youth” carried over into the late 30s:[6]
They, however, that they may establish
their false opinion regarding that which is written, “to proclaim the
acceptable year of the Lord,” maintain that He preached for one year only, and
then suffered in the twelfth month. In
speaking thus, they are forgetful to their own disadvantage, destroying His
whole work, and robbing Him of that age which is both more necessary and more
honorable than any other; that more advanced age, I mean, during which also as
a teacher He excelled all others.
For how could He have had disciples, if He
did not teach? And how could He have
taught, unless He had reached the age of a Master? For when He came to be baptized, He had not
yet completed His thirtieth year, but was beginning to be about thirty years
of age (for thus Luke, who has mentioned His years, has expressed it: “Now Jesus was, as it were, beginning to be
thirty years old,” when He came to receive baptism); and, according to these
men, He preached only one year reckoning from His baptism. On completing His thirtieth year He suffered,
being in fact still a young man, and who had by no means attained to
advanced age.
Now, that the first stage of early life
embraces thirty years, and that this extends onwards to the fortieth year, every
one will admit; but from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to
decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the
office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify; those who
were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, affirming that
John conveyed to them that information. (2.22.5.)
Clearly
he could not conceive of any contemporary denying that “youth” lasted throughout
one’s thirties—it simply wasn’t controversial.
It wasn’t doctrinally centered in the least; it was centered on
the common perception of apparently Christian and polytheist alike. For whatever it may be worth, he does not,
however, describe Timothy as a “young” man in anything he had to say on First
Timothy.
We
naturally conclude from our survey, that Paul could have, quite reasonably and
realistically, described Timothy in “youth” language. On the other hand he did not have to
be that old either.
Calculating Timothy’s age hinges upon two things: (1) The number of years that had passed
since beginning joint labor with the apostle Paul and (2) his age at the time
that work began. Most folk would
probably agree with a minimum of fourteen years difference between the two
events.
One way
too minimize Timothy’s age at the time of this epistle is to assume that he
began accompanying Paul before he was 17.
R. L. Serralta Nogués argues that the
17 or under scenario is simply not realistic both on the grounds of what we
know and on the basis of what we can reasonably assume in reading Acts 16:1-3:
a) It
was not fit that Paul would drag a teenager through his hard and dangerous life
of missionary endeavors.
b) When Paul
first met Timothy, he was already a disciple (verse 1), which suggests that he
was not a boy or a teenager. In those times a youngster became an adult at the age
of twenty.
c) Timothy
was a well known man in at least two cities, Lystra and Iconium (verse 2), which tells us that he
was old enough to have been traveling between at least these two cities for
some time, and relating with their inhabitants.
d) The
brethren of these two cities spoke well of him, which tells us that they knew
him, his doings, behavior, and attitude, for some years before Paul met him.
Points “c” and “d” are certainly challengeable on the grounds
that it was quite realistic for a teenager to be traveling with other
family members on family or other business matters. Not in charge, but with them, and
thereby developing his skills and talents.
Technically
as a Jew, Timothy today would be counted as an adult as of age 13 and the time
of his Bar Mitzvah celebration. The Biblical rationale for this has been
found in Genesis 21:8 in the celebration when Isaac was weaned. This is interpreted as being weaned not off
the breast but from childhood habits and failures.
It
appears that the Bar Mitzvah concept became “world wide” only in the
1500s. The roots for it, however, do
go back to the first century. The Talmud
speaks of becoming subject to the commandments of the Torah at that age—which
is not exactly the same thing as it fully marking the transition into adulthood
. . . unless we wish to merge together both religious adulthood and
responsibility and physical adulthood and responsibility.[7] (In all fairness, in the ancient world there
may not have been a reason to make any serious distinction because the
bulk of the population was relatively poor and every one was needed to assure
family income and food.)
This
might well be the reason that we find the incident in Luke 2, though the text
does not quite come out and directly say that this was at the end of
Jesus’ twelfth year and as He was getting ready to start his 13th:
41 His parents went to
48 So
when they saw Him, they were amazed; and His mother said to Him, “Son, why have
You done this to us? Look, Your father and
I have sought You anxiously.” 49 And
He said to them, “Why did you seek Me? Did you not know that I must be about My
Father’s business?” 50 But they did not understand the
statement which He spoke to them.
Although no formal “event” is referred to as taking place to
mark the occasion, he is certainly manifesting the sense of religious
responsibility and independence that would naturally accompany a young man
reaching what was societally regarded as the
beginning of adult religious accountability.
Point “a” of Nogués certainly
appeals both to our human emotions and the sense of responsibility that any
sensible adult has for someone still so young.
Even so people had to “grow up younger” back then--out of necessity.
The pivotal issue is point “b”—which gives every indication
of also being quite true: “In those times a
youngster became an adult at the age of twenty.”
In the
wilderness the people were cursed with a forty year period of wandering short
of their ultimate goal due to their sin.
The dividing line on who was punished was whether a person had attained twenty
years of age:
29 The carcasses of you who have complained
against Me shall fall in this wilderness, all of you
who were numbered, according to your entire number, from twenty years old
and above. 30 Except for Caleb the son of Jephunneh and Joshua the son of Nun, you shall by no means
enter the land which I swore I would make you dwell in. 31 But your little ones, whom you said
would be victims, I will bring in, and they shall know the land which you have
despised (Numbers 14).
10 So the Lord’s anger was
aroused on that day, and He swore an oath, saying, 11
“Surely none of the
men who came up from Egypt, from twenty years old and above, shall see
the land of which I swore to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, because they have not
wholly followed Me” (Numbers 32).
Although
they aren’t called “young,” the dividing point for criminal
responsibility is put at
There are
other indications that this was the decisive turning point into full adulthood
responsibility: The age to offer
offerings to God was twenty years of age and up (Exodus 30:14), as was the age
for going to war (Numbers 1:2-3).
Now to
tie this in with what age Timothy was when he was declared a mere “youth” in 1 Timothy: Add 20
and a minimum of 14 joint years of work and you have him at 34. Since the epistle is likely later than a mere
14 years after beginning their collaboration, you do seem pushed to a time
between 35 and 40 years of age for Timothy at the time of the epistle being
written.
Before we
pass on, however--Paul himself uses the same term to describe his own
early adult life in
The strong language of “despise” (ESV, Holman,
WEB) is softened to a less intense “look down on you” among quite a few (GW,
ISV, NASB, NET, NIV). Either way the
message being conveyed is the danger of having your good judgments and sound
teaching dismissed because of your age.
Only
The
Greek here is rather emphatic. “Despise”
does the job well, but it also includes the ideas of scorning and looking at
with contempt.[9] Likewise Robertson’s
Word Pictures defines the term as “to think down on, to despise.”
Yes, people “look down on
you.” Although that is the kind of
language we most naturally associate with class condescension, it fits
condescension of all types. Perhaps a
contemporary colloquialism would be, “They think you’ve made a fool out of
yourself. You can’t be right because you
are simply too young to be right.”
The
Contemporary English Version is thinking along that line when it renders our
text, “Don’t let anyone make fun of you,
just because you are young.” The Mounce Reverse Interlinear New Testament reads, “Let no one treat you
contemptuously because of your youth.”
Paul doesn’t say Timothy has erred, but that he must actively
fight the danger of being so labeled through the tool of his behavior and
actions. His youth can be turned into a
tool against him.
When
the rejection and contempt grows out of our behavior, the solution is to avoid
the behaviors that breed it. But such
doesn’t work in a case like Timothy when it is age alone rather than
“youthful indiscretions” that are doing the undermining. Words aren’t likely to get one very
far in convincing others to dismiss their age prejudice, but it can still be fought
by a “positive example.” That
theme Paul turns to next in language retained by all our cross section of
alternative translations. Only the
support words vary with “be an example” predominating (Holman, ISV, NET, WEB,
All
of these convey the idea of consciously setting out to be an
example. That means we are alert to the
behaviors that would undermine us and attempt to avoid them. Not just things that would give them an easy
tool to throw back at us. But also
things that could be interpreted ambiguously by potential critics; we try to
find a way to avoid that ambiguity so that our intents and purposes are made
crystal clear.
Of
course the targeted audience is “believers” (ESV, GW, Holman, ISV, NET, NIV),
“those who believe” (NASB, WEB,
Timothy
established a lengthy track record of both working with the apostle Paul and
also being sent on assignments to work independently. As one scholar concisely sums it up,[10]
Timothy is mentioned often as being in Paul’s presence,
for instance as the ‘co-author’ of several epistles (2 Corinthians,
Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, and Philemon), and just as
often as being away from Paul on strategic trips (1 Corinthians 4:17; 16:10-11;
1 Thessalonians 3:1-2; Philippians 2:19-24); of course the Pastoral Epistles [also]
testify to Timothy’s independent pastoral ministry.
What
we don’t know is how much personal self-confidence Timothy had when
working alone. (This is without
factoring in the health problems of his:
the “frequent infirmities in 1 Timothy
Hence
Timothy “might be lacking in confidence to face controversial issues.” By proceeding on the basis of what Paul was
writing, however, he would intellectually know he was approaching the
issues the right way. And by the epistle
being read before the congregation—surely upon repeated occasions, since
it was, uniquely, an epistle to a minister who was theirs—the
congregation itself would recognize that Timothy was only doing what the
apostle wanted as well.[11] But there can be a
profound gap between what one knows with the mind and what one knows with the
emotions. Bringing them into agreement
can become a major challenge.
Even
without that the “young” Timothy was, well, young. Who is this young puppy to give reliable
counsel? Or to provide insight into the
scriptures that is contrary to what is traditional? Simply as a participating Bible class
member—not as a preacher—I remember in my early twenties contributing a certain
interpretation of a text and having it dismissed. Five years or so later we had a gospel
meeting and the same interpretation was presented and the members
thought it had provided them a great insight they had previously missed! “You are too young and inexperienced in
scripture and things of this world. You
can’t possibly have it right.” Except, of course, when you do.
This
is likely a significant part of the problem that Timothy faced as well. Years had not given him enough “gravitas”—or
wrinkles—to assure the audience that the teaching was fully credible
rather than just fanciful. Paul
recommends this be dealt with in the only manner one can: develop a reputation for being an exemplary
Christian. That way
your audience will be strongly encouraged to judge the validity of what you say
by its inherent logical and loyalty to scripture rather than cavalierly
dismissing it on the basis of your age.
He proceeds to give a list of five areas in which this is to be
pursued—six if one follows the Greek text underlying the KJV and NKJV.
Today
we add new problems to the “youthful” ones that existed in Paul’s day. Timothy would have dressed, behaved, and
looked rather consistent with Paul and those of the apostle’s generation. Today that is not necessarily so. Being younger nowadays can quite possibly
involve acting in ways that seem a bit odd to those who are older. It would be quite easy to attribute such
actions to the worst possible explanation.
For example, I did not understand in my youth the fake poverty style
clothing popular among my contemporaries in the 60s and 70s; it remains around
among many in 2020, and if anything, is even more
exaggerated: Paying good money for
“pre-torn clothing?” I still
don’t comprehend the rationality of it.
Now
we add in this strange compulsion for obvious and visible tattoos. Evil, no. Ill-advised, quite possibly: Like it or not, the person you are ten or
twenty years from now will likely vary significantly from what you are now. Will you still want that “endearing” visual
tattoo of (fill in the blank) or the one that says (fill in the blank)?
One
could easily interpret such things as evidence of “worldliness” or “blindness”
and why a preacher’s
judgment can’t possibly be taken seriously.
Even if he is just as sound—or sounder—in the
faith than the critics actually are.
The
contemporary man who wishes to be a bridge to Christ has to consider
whether he is turning what would otherwise be an idiosyncrasy into a barrier to
those who are significantly older. If
your visible appearance is taken to reflect the nature of “Christianity,” quite
a few will simply not want to be part of it.
Not necessarily because of what faith demands, but the “public image”
you are presenting of a Christian.
Frankly I’m highly pleased I’m not of an age where working out the
“right balance” in such matters will be important.
Timothy is to have a lifestyle
worth of imitation by others: “be an
example to the believers” (
The
apostle wrote in the same warning / encouraging manner to Titus: “In all
things showing yourself to be a pattern of good works” (Titus
2:7): “an example” (GW, Holman, ISV, NET), “a model” (ESV). Elders are also instructed to be such (1
Peter 5:3) and Paul held himself up as a role model on the subject: “Imitate
me, just as I also imitate Christ” (1 Corinthians 11:1). “Join in following my example” (Philippians
How
else can a person seriously hope to get others to act in a certain manner if
one’s own example is the very opposite?
Whether we want to be or not, every Christian is a role model for
others. This is even more so for
preachers since they are supposed to have a deeper insight into scripture than
(most) other members and their “professional job” is
to encourage a superior lifestyle.
By
actually living that way, he could neutralize their criticism of his
youthfulness. “He had walked the walk
and talked the talk.” He is not told to teach
them to respect him; he is instructed to, by his behavior, give them abundant reason
to.[12]
(1) He is to be an
example “in word.” That is, in what he has to say. “Speech” is overwhelmingly the replacement
for “word” in most other translations (ESV, GW, Holman, ISV, NASB, NET
NIV,
There
are many applications of this principle.
Everything James has to say about control of the tongue—against it being
used in a destructive manner—have an obvious application here (James
3:1-12). But so do things that are not
so obvious: When is the best time
to say something to someone? What
are the best arguments to use to back it up?
How do you deal with potential objections?
In
opposing evil it is much easier to rant than to reason—much easier to scald the
hide of the opponent than to try to convince him. God isn’t interested in how much we “roar”
against evil. He’s interested in how
much we effectively undermine its acceptance by those who are tempted by
it.
A
historical illustration from the field of temporal warfare: “During the war between Alexander the
Great and Darius, king of
(2) He is to be an
example “in conduct.” The only real translation alternative
to “conduct” (with the “in” included [ESV, Holman, NASB, NIV] or with it
excluded [NET,
This refers to “public life, general behavior, ways of dealing with people. The word covers a multitude of practical matters involving such things as work habits and business dealings as well as morals and leadership.”[14] As recently as forty or fifty years ago there was still the lingering expectation that public leaders in even secular and business matters should be “respectable” and exhibit a positive lifestyle worthy of imitation.
In private things could easily far fall short. There is a fascinating 1977 volume entitled Fishbait: The Memoirs of the Congressional Doorkeeper that will walk you through decades of odd (and often amusing) conduct by members of the House of Representatives. Even where the Congressional bar was hidden during Prohibition!
Now all
that seems to be expected is that leaders be
“discrete” and what they need to be “discrete” over becomes ever more extreme. Ironically we live in a period when
technological advances and quick mass communication make even that increasingly
impossible. Do we need even mention a widespread
attitude that “it doesn’t really matter”--especially since such an incredibly
wide variety of strange and eccentric behaviors are outright glorified? And I don’t necessarily mean merely “sinful,”
but seriously weird?
Even so how you act still reveals what you regard as truly
important. It separates the “omitable” from the “essential.” It reveals what your priorities are. Lifestyle constitutes an “acted out
sermon,” revealing both the similarities with the truth you teach and whether
or not there are elements you are willing to omit in everyday life. And if you omit them, why should your Sunday
“audience” feel any differently?
(3) He is to be an
example “in love.” Whether with or
without the “in” included, our sample is unanimous in retaining “love” as the
translation. What Paul meant by
it is most exhaustively discussed in 1 Corinthians 13.
You
may do right because it is Divine law and you, thereby, meet the exact letter
of what God demands. That is
praiseworthy! But He also wants you to
manifest this loyalty through genuine concern for others as well. Full love lifts right behavior into that
realm. This demonstrates love to
God—it lifts it up from “rhetoric” into “lived joint experience” through it
being embraced by others as well.
Jesus Himself
taught that these should walk hand-in-hand (Matthew
Actually
it is exactly the opposite of hate! It is
because we love them that we urge them to set their moral life
aright. If they don’t, they only face
the promise of Divine wrath in eternity.
In such a case, to set aside God’s standards would be like knowing the Titanic
is sinking but regarding it as too “hurtful” and “alarming” to point the
passengers toward the lifeboats.
(4) He is to be an
example “in spirit.” With only one translation of our
sample retaining this (WEB) it is overwhelmingly omitted by all the others
(ESV, GW, Holman, ISV, NASB, NET, NIV,
If
we include the wording, the idea would likely be that we are to have the right
attitude in our actions and behavior.
Even preachers don’t always do things for the right reason. Factors of self-promotion, animosity, and
being stubborn and muleheaded occur among them just
as among everyone else.
The
wording reminds me of Jesus’ rebuke of the idea of calling down fire from
heaven to destroy a village that would not receive them: “But He turned and rebuked them, and said,
‘You do not know what manner of spirit you are of’ ” (Luke
(5) He is to be an
example “in faith.” The reference to “faith” (with or
without the “in”) is retained by all our surveyed list
(ESV, GW, Holman, NASB, NIV, WEB,
There would be trials and hardships that would
hit Timothy—just as other congregational members—and he would need to behave in
the same manner he expected them to. A
lot easier to teach “the right way,” than to practice it under pressure, isn’t
it?
(6) He is to be an
example in personal character: “purity.” This final
entry about “purity” (again, with or without the “in”) is maintained by our
entire sample of translations (ESV, GW, Holman, ISV, NASB, NET, NIV, WEB,
This is
an application of the principle Paul lays down in Romans 12:2: “Do not
be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your
mind. . . .” What goes into the mind, shapes the mind.
No wonder Paul says in the current chapter we are studying: “Meditate on these things; give
yourself entirely to them, that your progress may be evident to all” (1 Timothy
Such
a person follows a firm and consistent positive life pattern. He is not hemming and hawing one way and then
another. He attempts his level best to
maintain the same moral standards day in and day out. He avoids both conscious hypocrisy and the efforts
to remove the demands his faith imposes upon him. He is pure both in regard to sexual behavior and all other parts
of life as well.[17]
The requirements necessary to become
such a role model (
(1) The need to be
an informed preacher (4:13a): “Till I come, give attention
to reading. . . . ” “Till I come” means that this is not something
that can safely be postponed until Paul arrives. Nor is it in any way likely to carry the
connotation of “begin what you haven’t been doing previously.” (If that had been the case, surely
there would have been some clear and overt censure for his omission!) Rather the idea is to continue in a
course he is already following. To do
something sporadically is far easier than doing something systematically
and on an on-going basis. And it is a
human failure all too easy to fall into—even for preachers!
“Give
attention to” means he must put an emphasis on.
If one seeks an alternative to a translation emphasizing “attention,”
the GW suggests “concentrate on” and the ISV “give your full
concentration.” The element of
commitment to the effort is also emphasized when the wording is shifted to
“devote yourself” (ESV, NIV).
Although
“reading” is maintained as the complete text in only two of our comparison
texts (WEB,
That there would be public reading would be natural since copies of the text were handwritten and expensive. This would be the easiest way for most Christians to have access to it. For a similar reason, public reading of texts was standard procedure in the synagogues.
Even if Timothy did not have the responsibility of safeguarding whatever copies were available for the congregation—see more on this below--it is impossible to believe that whoever did would hesitate to allow him maximum unfettered access outside the congregational meetings. Similarly if there were no congregational copies as such but only copies in the hands of various individuals. Is it likely those folk would say “no” to any request of him for a “loan” of their copy? And if they did have hesitancy, refuse him permission to come to their residence and study it there?
Timothy
certainly had his copy of the current epistle and it would stun the imagination
if copies were not made for others as well.
To this must be added whatever other manuscripts he had, such as some
other apostolic texts. Either his own or those of other members of the congregation. Limited in number due to the cost of the
material for the scrolls and the need to have someone with good writing
ability, one would anticipate at least their limited presence among wealthier
members.
We know
that copies of these texts were exchanged from an early date, thereby
multiplying their availability for additional copying: “Now when
this epistle is read among you, see that it is read also in the church of the Laodiceans, and that you likewise read the epistle from Laodicea”
(Colossians 4:16).
We
also know that the available epistles were read publicly in a congregational
setting, “I charge you by the Lord that this
epistle be read to all the holy brethren” (1 Thessalonians
Indeed,
any effort to avoid reading the texts would be a fertile breeding ground for
either fears that “something is being hidden” . . . or as an encouragement of
Gnosticism with its fantasy that God would endorse a “secret” teaching
available just for the spiritual elite.
The
same reasoning backs the assumption that any personal copy that a disciple
might have of apostolic correspondence would be happily quoted as proof of
their own teaching. The same is true of
any copy of Old Testament texts that were possessed. Indeed we have the clear implication that Paul
himself had copies of such, though it was not always possible for him to have
them with him: “Bring the cloak that I left with Carpus
at
What constituted the collection of Paul’s personally
owned treasures we have no idea. But he loved his books so much that he missed
having them. Which
argues that he enjoyed reading and re-reading them. This, in turn, brings us back to where we
began: “Till I come, give attention to reading.” However much the Old and New Testament texts
would be read publicly, does this not sound like Paul had in mind private
reading and meditation?
The
congregation would only gather so often.
But by having his own collection of spiritual reading matter, he could
immerse himself in this as often as he wished.
Even on a daily basis. So even
though it is true that Timothy would read his texts to the congregation,
the apostolic emphasis is actually on Timothy’s personal immersion in
all settings public and private.
Furthermore,
against the public reading being exclusively in mind is that Paul
doesn’t specify what Timothy was to read. That scripture would have top priority is a
“given,” but that it would be the only thing on Timothy’s reading agenda
seems inherently unlikely—unless we are going to foolishly assume that
scripture is the only proper source
of our reading and the only source
from what we can gain knowledge. (Pre-eminent and the most important knowledge, of course. But, really, the only? I think not.)
I
rather like the words of the great Baptist preacher Charles Spurgeon on 2
Timothy 4:13:[19]
We do not know
what the books were about, and we can only form some guess as to what the
parchments were. Paul had a few books
which were left, perhaps wrapped up in the cloak, and Timothy was to be careful
to bring them. Even an apostle must
read. Some of our very ultra
Calvinistic brethren think that a minister who reads books and studies his
sermon must be a very deplorable specimen of a preacher. A man who comes up into the pulpit, professes
to take his text on the spot, and talks any quantity of nonsense, is the idol
of many. If he will speak without
premeditation, or pretend to do so, and never produce what they call a dish of
dead men's brains—oh! that is the preacher.
How rebuked are
they by the apostle! He is inspired, and
yet he wants books! He has been
preaching at least for thirty years, and yet he wants books! He had seen the Lord, and yet he wants
books! He had had a wider experience
than most men, and yet he wants books!
He had been caught up into the third heaven, and had heard things which
it was unlawful for a men to utter, yet he wants
books! He had written the major part of
the New Testament, and yet he wants books!
The apostle says
to Timothy and so he says to every preacher, “Give thyself
unto reading.” The man who never reads
will never be read; he who never quotes will never be quoted. He who will not use
the thoughts of other men's brains, proves that he has no brains of his
own. Brethren, what is
true of ministers is true of all our people. You need to read. Renounce as much as
you will all light literature, but study as much as possible sound theological works, . . . and
expositions of the Bible. . . . You may
get much instruction from books which afterwards you may use as a true weapon
in your Lord and Master’s service. Paul
cries, “Bring the books”—join in the cry.
A congregational setting for the
reading? The Greek word here is anagnósis and of the two other times it occurs, it is explicitly
used in one text of the public reading of scripture: “after the reading of the Law and the Prophets, the rulers of the
synagogue sent to them” (Acts
The word was used in Greek in a
secular setting of the public “reading of wills, petitions, dispatches and
reports.”[20] This and Acts
Although a few have “reading” standing
alone in our text (WEB,
We can verify easy enough—from texts
where this expression isn’t used—that there was an overwhelming precedent for
the reading of Old Testament passages in the public worship of the Jewish
synagogue:
Jesus Himself had participated
in worship as such a reader: “16 So He came to
At the Council of
Paul made the same
assertion: “27 For those who
dwell in
Paul was invited to
speak in the synagogue in Antioch after one such set of readings: “15 And
after the reading of the Law and the Prophets, the rulers of the
synagogue sent to them, saying, ‘Men and
brethren, if you have any word of exhortation for the people, say on’ ” (Acts 13).
There
was nothing inherently wrong with the custom.
Since familiarity with the revealed word was obviously desirable and
since copies were expensive, worship was a natural setting for the sharing of
the word. Furthermore, as we saw above, there was direct apostolic command to read
the apostolic texts to the people and it is hard to believe that such readings
did not become systematic, as in the synagogue, to remind one and all what had
been said and by whom. And, quite
likely, serve as the text for the speaker of the day.
There
are multiple advantages to the oral presentation of the sacred text on Sunday
and other days of joint meeting:[21]
Reading the Scriptures aloud
in worship has several advantages.
First, it helps the congregation become more acquainted with the content
of the Word of God. Second, reading the Bible aloud to God’s people guarantees
that they will hear divine truth. Even
if the preacher has an off week or inadvertently delivers a mistaken teaching,
having the Scriptures read aloud in the service ensures that the Lord’s flock
receives God’s truth and can be encouraged to heed it. Third, it is also worth noting that the
Scriptures have been designed to be read aloud.
During the period in which the Scriptures were written, very few people
could read, and even those who could read seldom owned their own copies of any
portion of the Bible. They learned the
Word of God by hearing it.
Perhaps
the greatest benefit text reading has is that it puts the stress on the authority
behind whatever theme is to be developed that Sunday. It emphasizes that we are not going to be
talking about mere personal opinion.
Although
all this is true it is still hard to believe that this alone is what
Paul has in mind. Will congregational
reading alone be enough for Timothy’s spiritual needs and
development? Remember our text is
clearly emphasizing what will be of personal value to the man. The amount of public reading will,
inherently, be far less than private consideration. You have only “X” amount of time for public
reading within a congregation: Five
minutes? Ten minutes? Surely not much more.
Yet,
assuming you have that text available, in private you can read for an hour at a
time. If you are preparing a sermon and
want to deal with a certain passage, you can go through the text dozens of
times, thinking about the implications and applications that can rightly be
made. You can make notes of them for
your sermon. (Nor would it be improper,
as noted previously, to consult non-inspired resources when they would be
useful.)
To what
extent Timothy’s sermons envolved inspired
preaching we do not know. But if one believes that such
a phenomena genuinely existed (as we do), it is still hard to believe
that all, or even the majority, was such. Otherwise you were little more than a
“recitation machine” for God. Hence I
conclude that Timothy usually had to “sweat the text” just as we do, so
that we can be sure that we understand it correctly and present it
accurately. He would prove his by appealing
to texts both he and they regarded as authoritative.
This
custom of public reading combined with an application of the texts by the
speaker became a hallmark of ancient Christianity. In Justin Martyr’s First Apology
(I.67)--written sometime in mid-second century--he preserved an account not
just of this but of Christian worship at the time in general. Since many readers are likely to be
unacquainted with this source, we include both the part that is of immediate
interest but also the remainder of his remarks as well for they provide us with
an insight as to how things were as of that date:[22]
And on the day called Sunday, all
who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the
memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time
permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs,
and exhorts to the imitation of these good things.
Then we all rise together and pray,
and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are
brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings,
according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a
distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been
given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons.
And they who are well to do, and
willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the
president, who succours the orphans and widows and
those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are
in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all
who are in need.
But Sunday is the day on which we
all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having
wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ
our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that
of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of
the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these
things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration.
(2) The need to encourage others in what he has
learned (4:13b): “Till I come . . . give
attention to exhortation. . . .”
The vast bulk of versions continue this reading (ESV, Holman,
NASB, NET, WEB,
All of these envolve both “the interpretation and application of the text.”[23] For the Scriptures to be of value we must hear not only the words but their underlying intent—sometimes obvious; sometimes possible only after considerable thought. And then what we’ve learned needs to be personally applied in whatever manner it may be directly relevant to our own life.
The importance of a positive, encouraging element to this can hardly be over emphasized: Life can be hard; in many societies throughout history, life is hard for most people. Even when one is attempting to follow God and do the right thing, words of encouragement are needed. As well as shared insight into how the Divine revelation applies to our own specific changing situation.
It is hard
to believe it was mere coincidence that the reading was put first. For it was not Timothy or
any other preacher who was the true authority. True authority lay in what was revealed. It was their job to relay that to the
audience, to explain it, to apply it. To
whatever extent such folk have “authority” it is not in place of the
revealed word but as perceptive presenters and explainers of it.
(3) The need to
stress doctrine (4:13c): “Till I come, give attention . . . to doctrine.” Here the unanimous
shift is to “teaching” (ESV, GW, Holman, ISV, NASB, NET, NIV, WEB,
Such
can even be done in a less formal setting in the context of a church
service. On Sunday evenings when the
communion is finished, our small congregation becomes a de facto adult Bible
study. It wasn’t intended this way; it
happened by accident. I was new to the
congregation where I now worship and one of the members asked questions several
times during services and I followed right along, assuming that was customary. And we kept doing it and others start joining
in. It was only years later that I
discovered that I was getting the credit for the innovation. I had just assumed I was doing what had
always been done!
But
this approach certainly has advantages.
Just like the morning adult Bible class, it permits immediate listener
feedback if anything is unclear or if other applications of
the preacher’s point occurs to the listeners. It is no longer passive listening; it is
active envolvement by anyone with something to
suggest. Just like in the ideal
situation in a secular classroom; teacher and students working together for a
shared goal of greater insight.
(4) The need to
cultivate the internal gift he already had (
“Do
not neglect” remains the preferred English reading (ESV, Holman, ISV, NASB,
NET, NIV) except for those who make it a more colloquial, “don’t
neglect” (GW, WEB). It does not
necessarily carry the connotation “do not be
careless” (
We have the modern idiom of “use it or lose it.” Whatever spiritual capacities we may have are much the same: don’t use them and the “edge” falls off the ability to effectively utilize them. To use a car analogy: a brand new sports car gets converted into a Model T. To use an athletic analogy: Once we could easily run a hundred yard dash; now we have trouble getting through the race at all. Of what ongoing usefulness is having crippled capacities that once were in full bloom?
Neglect creates problems in every other area of life. “Neglect always has its attendant consequences: by neglect the roof sinks in; the field overgrows with briars and weeds; the cow breaks out of the pasture; the door is left unlocked, an invitation to the thief.”[24] Why should we expect things to be any different in regard to the spiritual?
“The gift which was given you.” All of our samples retain the “gift” language
though one shifts to “gifts” in the plural (
The gift was the subject of “prophecy” (
This sounds like it had been prophesied that he would
receive this gift and the receiving occurred at the time of the laying on of
hands.
Although we have an almost instinctive tendency to look upon “prophecy” as meaning foretelling, scripturally it can just as well mean forthtelling--miraculously speaking about God’s will or revelation. For there to be a Divine revelation that he had already received it seems inherently absurd. Hence the likely intent is to explain why the elders had laid their hands on him in the first place: the suggestion or intent to do so had been “confirmed by prophetic words” as to its propriety . . . that they were going to be doing the right and proper thing.
Alternatively, if this is reference to a prophetic message received after the gift: perhaps it was to assuage any remaining doubts or concerns that abided in Timothy’s mind. You may intellectually “know” something; but to emotionally “feel” it as valid may take something additional. In this case Divine revelation.
Another scenario takes these to be
“predictive prophecies” about Timothy’s future.
The apostle “cites those prophecies as the basis for Paul’s entrusting
the order to Timothy” to fight the good fight of faith in
Both of these options seem
significantly weaker than interpreting the language as indicating that the reason
hands were laid on him in the first place was due to “prophecy” (=
inspired teaching; not the prediction of future events) that had been
given. Either the order
to do so or the confirmation that the decision to endorse Timothy
through the laying on of hands was the right and proper thing to do.
The receipt of the gift is somehow interlocked with the
actions of the eldership: “with the
laying on of hands of the eldership.” WEB continues that exact reading, shifting
only “eldership” to “elders.”
Since this was done by all the elders at the same time, the NASB speaks of “with the laying on of hands by the presbytery,” although that runs the danger of inserting contemporary concepts of “presbytery” (council of elders) back into the first century. Holman is probably better here, leaving it a tad more ambiguous by speaking simply of “the council of elders,” a preference shared by the ESV. The NIV embraces “the body of elders” i.e., the collective group of elders . . . all of them.
The GW marches to its own drummer when it speaks of “when the spiritual leaders placed their hands on you [to ordain you].” Note that the additional words may imply an editorial evaluation of the nature of the “gift”--his being ordained to the ministry.
Another
interesting shift is from this being done “with” their laying on of hands
(Holman, NASB, WEB) to “when” the elders did this (ESV, GW, ISV, NET, NIV,
Weymouth). Both
conveying, with different words, that the gift was seemingly received at the same
time as the laying on of hands.
Why were hands laid on Timothy at all? Every
society has a means of emphasizing the importance and solemnity of an
occasion. In courts it is the swearing
in of witnesses. When legislation is of
special importance, the President typically signs the document on live
television in front of witnesses. When
something particularly grievous has happened, a governor or the President will
stand before the legislative assembly and give a special address on how he or
she plans on dealing with what has happened.
The
ancient Hebrew world did as well. Bruce
Edwards, Jr., rightly points out that the symbolism intended often has to be
understood through examples of it being invoked:[26]
In order to understand
and appreciate the nature of some of the incidents in the lives of Biblical
characters, we must cast ourselves back- into their historical context. Many
symbolic gestures and rituals which occur in the Scriptural record are
relatively meaningless to us simply because our culture has no such custom (cf.
“holy kiss” or “feet-washing”). . . .
A
typical means of visually and symbolically stressing the significance of what
was being done in Bible days was through the laying on of hands. It was an ancient “acted out” means of
conveying to the recipient and all observers that something important was being
given, transferred, or authorized.
To keep the discussion brief, we’ll note the concise summary of William
R. Vincent:[27]
“The custom,” says Lange, “is as old as the race.” The Biblical custom rests on the conception
of the hand as the organ of mediation and transference. The priest laid his hand on the head of the
bullock or goat (Leviticus 1:4) to show that the guilt of the people was
transferred. The hand was laid on the
head of a son, to indicate the transmission of the hereditary blessing (Genesis
48:14); upon one appointed to a position of authority, as Joshua (Numbers
27:18-23); upon the sick or dead in token of miraculous power to heal or to
restore to life (2 Kings 4:34). So Christ (Mark 6:5; Luke
In each of
these instances, the particular sacrifice or individual involved was set apart
for a honor, duty or responsibility in a “ceremony”
which involved the “laying on of hands.”
This act symbolized the respective sanctification (setting apart) without any
peculiar connotation of the miraculous or special gifts. Indeed these examples establish the fact
that the “laying on of hands” has historically often meant something other than
the impartation of spiritual gifts.
It
also symbolized the acceptance of the task and responsibility by those
receiving the blessing. Whether anything
more is conveyed or not, can any doubt that a “gift of responsibility”--“gift
of receiving a Divine commission for a specific task”--was inherent in what
Timothy went through?
What eldership laid their hands on Timothy? Two possibilities
easily come to mind: Either Ephesus or Lystra.[28]
The
second option is Lystra, which is commonly assumed to
be his birthplace. In Acts 16:2 he is
described as “well spoken of by the brethren
who were at Lystra and Iconium.” What more likely place to “commission” him as
an on-going preacher—or simply a local preacher—than the place he was attached
to by birth and upbringing?
The
obvious problem is that he is identified with “Lystra
and Iconium,” making either arguable from this
text. When Paul left where he was in
Acts 20:4 we read that, “And Sopater of
This
could well be simple verbal variety and nothing more. The NIV clearly believes this was the case
for it speaks of “Gaius from Derbe, Timothy also,” but
none of the other of our ten comparative translations takes that step.
As to which
city he had hands laid on him by the eldership, I would think
Others
find it more appealing to make the eldership event occur at the beginning of
his labors with Paul at Lystrra: “acknowledging
the prophetic call of Timothy to the work of an evangelist and assistant of
Paul.” Jim Jonas goes on to argue that
we should seriously hesitate to say Paul gave him a supernatural gift
because “there is no record of his ever using it. More likely, Paul refers to the commencement
of Timothy’s work with him and the concurrent actions of himself and the elders
at Lystra to formally appoint him to the work.”[29] Potentially reinforcing his argument is that
we read nothing in 1 Timothy of the young man being given
guidelines on usage of any supernatural gift--whatever form it may have taken--in
obvious contrast to the speaking in tongues provisions in 1 Corinthians.
What was this gift that was received: something miraculous? Was it at the same time as--or through the
agency of--the elders laying their hands on him? If this
was a miraculous spiritual gift why do we read of it in connection with
the laying on of their hands in particular?
We do know that the elders did lay on
hands upon occasion. However when
miraculous gifts are given—and clearly identified or required to be such by the
context—that is always done by direct miraculous action of the Holy Spirit . .
. or through the Spirit acting through the intermediary means of apostolic
action.
Wayne
Jackson provides an effective and concise summary of what Paul seems to have in
mind:[30]
The New Testament teaches that spiritual
(miraculous) gifts were received in the first century in only two ways:
1. Holy Spirit baptism — which
came upon the apostles (Acts
2) and
upon the household of Cornelius (Acts 10).
2. By
the laying on of the apostles’ hands (Acts
Some allege, however, that 1 Timothy
1.
Paul states that Timothy possessed a gift.
2.
The gift was given “by prophecy,” i.e., its bestowal was accompanied by
prophecy.
3. The event occurred at the same
time the young evangelist was appointed to a ministry by an eldership. It was “with [meta] the laying on of
the hands of the presbytery.” A.T.
Robertson observes that meta “does not express
instrument or means, but merely accompaniment” (Word Pictures in the New
Testament, Vol.IV, p. 581). Timothy’s miraculous gift actually came
“through [dia] the laying on of [Paul’s] hands” (2
Timothy 1:6).
The
responsibility assigned Timothy through the laying on of hands of the elders
might well be considered a kind of “gift”—a “gift” of specific responsibility
and obligation. The specific
“gift” Paul gave may well have been given upon the same occasion. But it was not “gifted” through what the
elders did but through his own laying hands,
thereby providing a miraculous gift of an unidentified nature. If you wish, two gifts upon the same
occasion—one a “gift” of duty and one a miraculous gift . . . but with Paul
choosing to remind Timothy of the importance of the latter in particular.
William
J. McRae has argued along the same line as Wayne Jackson that the actual terms
used to refer to the apostolic and presbyterial laying on of hands establishes that two distinctly different
actions and functions were carried out:[31]
The prepositions used in these two verses are critical to
the interpreter. Timothy’s gift was “through”
the instrumentality of prophecy (1 Timothy
In 1 Timothy
Ben
Witherington III appeals directly to the Greek
to make that last point as well, “The preposition here is meta,
not dia, and should be translated
‘with,’ referring to an accompanying action: the human recognition by church leaders that
God had done something in Timothy’s life.”[32]
The relationship of Paul to the receiving of Timothy’s gift has been approached in two diametrically different manners. One approach is to blend Paul into the group of elders who gave the gift by the laying on of hands--as a distinct member of it: “A presbytery is a gathering of elders who are called by God for this purpose. . . . Paul was part of the presbytery that prayed and prophesied over Timothy, imparting spiritual gifts to equip him for his ministry.”[33]
The initial problem here is that scripturally we know that the Holy Spirit could act either directly and independently (in regard to speaking foreign languages) or through the apostles for a broad range of spiritual gifts. We have no evidence that the presbytery of any congregation had such an ability. Even a greater problem is that Paul was not and could not be a member of the presbytery: In chapter three of this very book Paul specifies that an elder had to be married and Paul wasn’t. By his own list of qualifications he could not serve as part of the presbytery!
One could
attempt to get around this by arguing that Paul independently and upon the
same occasion also laid his hands
on Timothy. There would certainly be no
scriptural problem with that. One could
also argue that Paul independently joined in with the commissioning of
Timothy—not as an elder but as an apostle and respected Christian. In neither case was he
part of the presbytery, however.
In
contrast, others leave out any role of Paul in what was happening and shift the
mechanism to a direct action by the Holy Spirit Himself at the time of the
presbytery’s laying on of hands: “Regarding
the ‘laying on of hands,’ again, Timothy was ordained in the usual way for the
apostolic age, and, at that ordination, the Spirit conferred upon him new
gifts.”[34]
The
problem here is that when we find the Spirit acting directly (Acts 2 and 10) it
was only to provide the gift to speak in tongues—contextually, languages
otherwise unknown to the speakers. (Acts
2 is specially emphatic on this point: “7 Then
they were all amazed and marveled, saying to one another, ‘Look, are not all
these who speak Galileans? 8 And how is
it that we hear, each in our own language in which we were born?’
”) In regard to
Timothy, there is no evidence that he had this particular gift of the Spirit.
Either
of these approaches faces a further potentially fundamental roadblock: “Do not neglect the gift that is in you,
which was given to you by prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the
eldership” (
The
best “proof” that Paul laid his hands on Timothy at the same time as the elders
is found in 2 Timothy 1:6, “Therefore I remind
you to stir up the gift of God which is in you through the laying on of my
hands.” No mention or hint is made,
however, that this was in conjunction with anything elders did. Paul speaks of what elders did (1 Timothy 4) and what he himself did (2 Timothy 1) but does
not provide any conclusive indication that these were done simultaneously. A reasonable scenario can be constructed for either
case.
One can
easily imagine, for example, that Paul provided one or more gifts of the Spirit
on Timothy via laying on of hands and afterwards the elders formally appointed
him to the task of ministry or, more likely, to a specific ministerial task--as
Paul and Barnabas had been commissioned for one by inspired prophets in Acts
13:1-5 and in both cases it envolved the laying on of
hands.
But
even then we are really talking about two quite distinct actions in terms of origin,
who does it, and purpose. They coincide (at the most) with the time
when they were (simultaneously?) done, but nothing else. So long as one does not insist that Paul was part
of the “eldership,” there is nothing objectionable in this
reconstruction.
Before
leaving our topic, it should be again noted that a powerful case is made that
the underlying Greek requires that what Paul was giving was separate,
distinct, and different from what the elders were doing in their laying on
of hands. We have mentioned this briefly
but it might well be good to go into greater detail: Dave Miller writes (and documents through the
parenthetical inclusion of Greek lexicons and Greek specialists):[35]
In 2 Timothy 1:6, Paul plainly declared that the “gift of
God” which Timothy possessed was conferred “through the laying on of my
hands.” How does one harmonize 1 Timothy 4:14 with 2 Timothy 1:6? Was Timothy’s miraculous ability conferred
upon him by Paul, by the eldership, or by both?
The grammar of the text provides the answer. In 2 Timothy 1:6, where Paul claimed sole
credit for imparting the gift to Timothy, the Holy Spirit employed the Greek
preposition dia with the genitive, which means
“through” or “by means of” (Machen, 1923, p. 41; Dana
and Mantey, 1927, p. 101).
However, in 1 Timothy
In other words, Paul--as an apostle--imparted the miraculous
gift to Timothy. It came from God
through Paul. . . . Consequently, 1
Timothy 4:14 provides no proof that miraculous capability could be received
through other means in addition to apostolic imposition of hands and the two
clear instances of Holy Spirit baptism.
What then was this gift:
non-miraculous? A distinct and realistic possibility
is that it was the gift of a special responsibility or charge, labeled a “gift”
because Timothy in particular had it--it was not one being shared or given to
others at the same time. In contrast we
read of the gift/responsibility of a specific preaching task/mission being
symbolically bestowed on two individuals simultaneously in the same
manner:
1 Now in the
church that was at
Because
of the revelation of the Holy Spirit (verse 4), the prophets and teachers sent
them out on this specific teaching and preaching effort. At the conclusion of the mission we read that
“they sailed to
Regardless
of whether this is an example of inspired elders doing so or not, it is
certainly evidence that a preaching task might be given by revelation and those
envolved as key players in the task publicly
confirmed in the role by the laying on of hands. No mention is made of a spiritual gift being
provided. The role of the Holy Spirit is
identified (verse 4) not as a gift of the Spirit being given thru their
hands, but by the fact that it was the Holy Spirit who instructed/motivated
them to send out these teachers.
We have a
similar case in Acts 6 and the appointment of “deacons” in
1 Now in those days, when the
number of the disciples was multiplying, there arose a complaint against
the Hebrews by the Hellenists, because their widows were neglected in the daily
distribution. 2 Then the twelve summoned the multitude of
the disciples and said, “It is not desirable that we should leave the word of
God and serve tables. 3 Therefore, brethren, seek out from among
you seven men of good
reputation, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this
business; 4 but we will give
ourselves continually to prayer and to the ministry of the word.”
5 And the saying pleased the whole
multitude. And they chose Stephen, a man
full of faith and the Holy Spirit, and Philip, Prochorus,
Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas, a proselyte from
There has
been much discussion of whether these are truly “deacons.” That there is a distinct difference between
these men and those discussed in 1 Timothy 3 can rightly be argued from the far
more detailed requirements set forth in the Pauline epistle. There the responsibilities are left
open-ended, presumably to be fulfilled according to the varying individual
needs of the specific congregation.
Here the
duties are mission specific:
handling the “daily distribution” of food. In other words, hands are laid upon them to
formally endorse and specify them as the agents for a specific purpose and
that alone. The laying on of hands
is, again, job/mission specific rather than position specific.
Although
the sense of the “gift” being synonymous with being given (= gifted with)
the assignment would certainly fit in both these cases from Acts, it still
seems far better to identify what happened in 4:14 as a case when the elders
laid hands on Timothy; Paul, during the same event, laid his own hands on
Timothy and passed on a miraculous gift of some type.
Was the “gift” that of eldership? Robert J. Karris is convinced that this verse establishes the right of the young to be designated to the church office of elder:[36]
Through the person
of Timothy the author asks his communities to consider young men for leadership
posts. . . . By “young man” the author
probably means someone between thirty and forty years of age. Verse 14 points out the innovative character
of this lowering of the age requirement for a church leader, especially if we
follow another possible way of translating that verse, namely, ‘‘when hands
were laid upon you to make you an elder.”
An “elder” is no longer the leader who is elder in age; an “elder” can
be a young man.
Karris’
closing sentence would seemingly make previous elders into a strictly
chronological position (“no longer the leader who is elder in age”) . . . they
had previously been gaining the post strictly because of how old they were. (Or, at the least, it was the pivotal
factor.) Now it no longer matters. No, a person becomes an elder in
authority because he has met the prerequisite qualifications and has been
appointed and accepted as such. The text
has nothing to do with redefining the meaning of the term.
There
is a profound difference between a person being “a church leader”—a vague
expression that can encompass a variety of de facto responsibilities—and that
of being a church “elder” in particular.
That is a particular post with the qualifications Paul had laid
out in the preceding chapter.
If
that was in his mind, why didn’t Paul come out and make the allusion
specific: “Do not neglect what comes
with your being appointed an elder”?
Indeed Karris is convinced that a “possible way of translating that
verse” explicitly says the laying on of hands was to “make you an
elder.” I have just scanned through
literally dozens of alternate translations and none of them do that.[37] Does that not
suggest “possible” really means “barely possible” at the best? In addition, would we not anticipate a
reference in chapter 3, “Those who wish to be an elder as you are should
meet these qualifications” . . . and then given the list of qualifications that
begin that chapter?
The
closest I can find to what Karris wants is in the God’s Word translation: “Don't
neglect the gift which you received through prophecy when the spiritual leaders
placed their hands on you to ordain you” and even there the final words
are marked as an interpretive addition by the translation through the use of
half-brackets.[38]
And there is no reason, even if you
accept, the speculative propriety of the addition to assume that it was
ordination to the post of elder in particular. In 1 Timothy 3 we read of deacons; wouldn’t that
appointment also envolve something that could well be
called an “ordaining?” Or to that of minister for that matter.
In the print edition of GW that I
have used for many years it provides the possible alternative translations of
only the first and last of these: “Or
‘pastors,’ or ‘elders.’ ” (Although we
in the church of Christ don’t like “pastors” as a synonym for preachers
virtually everyone else in the religious world uses it that way and it is
surely their intent.) It should be
stressed that these are their alternative translations of what their
half-brackets indicate is an interpretive addition in the first place!
Finally,
if Timothy was in the 30-40 age span—especially toward the higher number—would
he not have had plenty of time to get married and successfully raise
children? In other
words, to meet the qualifications given in chapter 3 for an elder? In short he was already in the right age span
to qualify for the post. Hence the text
can not possibly mean that the age to be an elder was now drastically
reduced from what it had previously been . . . assuming the text has anything
to do with being an elder in the first place.
The rewards of acting in
the way Paul has just described (
These tasks are to be carried out whole-heartedly so that
his spiritual advancement will be obvious to everyone (
Comparative translations: The
instruction to “meditate on these things” This roughly means,
as in the ISV, “think on these things.”
The Greek word can carry both the ideas of “meditate” and “(make a
pattern of) thinking on these things.”
However it can easily also carry considerably more conceptual freight
along with that: “It was used frequently
by Greek writers of that period in the sense of ‘practice, cultivate, take
pains with’ . . . .”[40] “Keep on practicing
these things” in the words of Robertson’s Word Pictures.[41] Schaff’s
Popular Commentary on the New Testament argues that it means “literally, live,
be, exist in them.”[42]
When the
instruction is immediately followed by “give yourself
entirely to them,” Paul certainly doesn’t have just book study and analysis in
mind, the mental “hashing and rehashing” of what is said into “what does this
mean for me.” That is good as far as it
goes and is certainly praiseworthy in its own right.
But far
more than just this is in mind. It
includes the more expansive meaning of “practice these things” (ESV,
GW, Holman) or better yet “habitually practice these duties” (
This was not a new principle. Centuries before the Psalmist made the connection between study and its lived out results: “Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor stands in the path of sinners, nor sits in the seat of the scornful; but his delight is in the law of the Lord, and in His law he meditates day and night” (Psalms 1:1-2).
The persistence element in the instruction is stressed by the NIV and WEB when they speak of the need to “be diligent” in regard to them. Although the NASB and NET are correct that this involves the need to “take pains with these things,” “diligent” would seem to convey the intent better.
The point
is not to let these matters remain mere matters of just “brain knowledge.” Instead they are to shape actual behavior and
attitudes.
The commitment is supposed to be total: “give yourself entirely to them.” The NIV and WEB retain this, with the substitution of “wholly” for “entirely.” The ESV conveys the idea of complete dedication by speaking of how they should “immerse yourself in them.”
“Devote
your life to them” (GW, ISV) marginally moves away from that image while “be
absorbed in them” (NASB, NET,
Implicit in
the admonition is a rejection of “pick and choose” theology: “I’ll be really strong on these points, but
these others I can safely set aside and ignore.” The commitment to the faith of Christ was
intended to be a “package deal”—commitment to all or to none. Partial commitment might, indeed, make you
feel better but it’s rather like taking confidence in the fact that you
“believe” in Christ while you ignore the personal implications of the
“repentance” taught and demanded by the same Christ. It’s a theoretical faith rather than a
truly functional one.
No
one is all they can be overnight.
Insight and growth take time. But
the sincerity and depth of your commitment will alter you one step at a time. So far as others go, your improvements should
prove that Christianity can, indeed, work such a transformation. It provides a living text, so to
speak, to show it can be done.
Hence
Paul’s desire “that your progress may be evident to all.” The NASB substitutes “will be” for “may be”
and retains this order of words. WEB
retains it with the single difference of substituting “revealed” for evident.”
A common
substitution is to restructure the order of the words: “so that everyone will [or may or can] see your progress” (ESV, GW, Holman, ISV, NET, NIV).
Even there
Paul is certainly not encouraging a “show off” mentality—“Look at how great I
am now!” Instead he wants Timothy to
spiritually advance not only because it is good for the man himself, but also
because he encourages others to do so as well.
Teaching others “how they should live” is best supported by a life that demonstrates
it in personal practice.
By paying attention to both personal behavior and
doctrine, salvation will occur for both himself and his audience (
Faithfulness to God envolves
not just how we live but also what we believe. Hence Timothy needed to “take heed . . . to
the doctrine” as well as to his own life. Only one translation keeps “doctrine” (NIV),
everyone else preferring to substitute “teaching” (ESV, GW, Holman, ISV, NASB,
WEB,
Julius Soyinka rightly stresses that the admonition involves four things: “(1) a knowledge in the doctrine; (2) a loyalty to the doctrine; (3) a zeal for the doctrine; and (4) a faithful proclamation of the doctrine.”[43]
He goes on to stress how Paul’s injunction also envolves more than just these “intellectual” requirements. It does no good if one gets the doctrine “letter perfect” and your teaching crystal clear, but ruins one’s own character. In a similar way it does no good if one is an exemplar of every moral virtue, but in your teaching set aside what God has revealed. It is very easy for us to define success in life in terms of one narrow aspect of it in which we excel. Paul’s plea is that Timothy not fall into this kind of trap
“Continue in them:” “Literally, ‘abide by them,’ ‘cling to them.’ ”[44] “ ‘Stay by them,’ ‘stick to them,’ ‘see them through,’ ” is the practical definition of Robertson’s Word Pictures.[45] In other words never abandon them--even temporarily. This is a rock solid principle you must ever embrace in order to assure your own salvation and that of those you work among.
Hence this
attention to personal life and integrity of teaching is not to be a kind of
“annual checkup;” it is to be ongoing, “continue in them” “Persevere” is a typical and dominant
substitution (Holman, ISV, NASB, NET, NIV,
What this envolves: A preacher’s job heavily stresses the spiritual well being of others. In a limited and constructive sense he is, by occupation, “a professional busy body.” He is to point out what is sin, some of which will be done simply as part of his broad preaching and teaching range of topics and, in some cases, because of specific problems known within the local congregation. In doing this it is easy to fall into the trap of being so interested in helping others—and all criticism should be firmly rooted in that goal—that one allows one’s own life to slide. In the final analysis everything we preach to others should also be preaching to ourselves as well. We need to remember the same lessons and moral principles.
Hence it
comes as no surprise that Paul implores Timothy to “take heed to yourself.” That means
to “pay attention” (WEB) and even “close attention” (Holman, ISV, NASB). “Watch your life . . . closely” (NIV)
describes what happens as well as “keep a close watch on yourself”
(ESV). “Be on your guard as to yourself”
(Weymouth) is a substitution that reminds us that the purpose of this is not
just to know whether we have done the wrong thing, but to protect ourselves
from doing so in the first place.
Using less obvious rhetoric to convey Paul’s point, NET speaks of how Timothy should “be conscientious about how you live.” Take it seriously. Regard it as of major importance. GW tries to convey this image by speaking of how Timothy should “focus on your life.” Behavior is as important as doctrine to the salvation of the soul of the preacher. God is no more going to tolerate idiocy on our part than on that of any other church member.
And who wishes to fuel His anger
because we have caused a needless stumbling block that causes others to fall
away? “He who loves his brother abides
in the light, and there is no cause for stumbling in him” (1 John
There is a reward that comes from this style of behavior:
“in doing this you will save both
yourself and those who hear you.”
Note that the result hinges upon successfully following the agenda Paul
has laid out: “In doing this” salvation
is made possible (language maintained by WEB); it is “because” of these
behaviors (ISV, NET, NIV). It is “by”
these actions that it occurs (ESV, Holman,
We learn
here the importance of Timothy’s teaching.
It is not merely a matter of academic or scholarly interest: it can save both his own soul as well as
“those who hear you” (GW, WEB; without the “you,” NASB); “your hearers” (ESV,
Holman, NIV,
“Those who
listen to you” (ISV, NET) perhaps carries an extra stress on not only hearing
but also heeding what is said. Of
course this is implicit in the very demand for “hearing” in the first
place. Paul himself had stressed that “for not the hearers of the law are just
in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified” (Romans
In the short term this “salvation” would be from the influence of false teaching and teachers they have been warned against. In the long term, the teaching would prepare them for facing the Divine judgment and, by adhering to it, to be living by the standards required for salvation.
To use a
rough human analogy: Jesus is the car or
vehicle that takes us to heaven, but preachers are the earthly intermediaries
who put the gas in the tank. At least
when they are doing their job right, they are providing the admonition and
encouragement that motivate us to do the right thing on an ongoing, rather than
sporadic basis. They help make possible
our salvation by making sure we have the right “spiritual fuel” to get us to
our heavenly destination.
[1] Robert G. Bratcher, 42.
[2] Robert J.
Karris, Pastoral, 86.
[3] Stuart
Allen, Pastoral Epistles, 288.
[4] Amanda Ruggeri, “Do We
Really Live Longer Than Our Ancestors?,” part of the BBC
Future website, at:
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20181002-how-long-did-ancient-people-life-life-span-versus-longevity. (Dated:
[5] Edward Feinstein, “The Wisdom of Jewish Adulthood,” part of
the Valley Beth Shalom website, at:
https://www.vbs.org/worship/meet-our-clergy/rabbi-ed-feinstein/sermons/wisdom-jewish-adulthood. (Written: 2004; accessed: January 2020.)
[6] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2.22.5; Book 2 part of the Early
Christian Writings website, at:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/irenaeus.html. (Accessed: October 2016.)
[7] Stephen Katz, “The
Messianic Bar Mitzvah,”
Part of the Jews for Jesus website, at:
https://jewsforjesus.org/publications/havurah/mm96-02/barmitzvah. (Accessed: October 2016.)
[8] J. H.
Bernard, on
[10] Theopulos, “Paul and Timothy,” at:
https://www.fuller.edu/next-faithful-step/resources/paul-and-timothy/. (Posted:
2019; accessed: January 2020.)
[12] Warren E. Berkley, “Paul’s
Counsel for Timothy & All Evangelists Or—Earning Respect the Biblical Way
(1 Timothy
[13] George Barrow,
editor, 1-2 Timothy, unidentified author on
[14] Reese, 182-183 as quoted by Mark Dunagan,
internet edition.
[16] Robert G. Bratcher, 43.
[17] Ibid.
[19] Charles Spurgeon, “Paul—His
Cloak and His Books,” Sermon 542, preached November 29, 1863, at the
Metropolitan Tabernacle, part of the Spurgeon Archive website, at:
http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0542.htm. (Accessed: March, 2015).
[20] John Stott, Guard,
121.
[21] [Unidentified Author], “Reading Scripture in Worship,” from
Tabletalk Magazine, at:
https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/reading-scripture-worship/. (Accessed: February 2020.)
[22] Justin Martyr, “First Apology.”
[23] Robert G. Bratcher, 43.
[24] Jim McDonald, “Neglect Not
the Gift,” at: http://lawofliberty.com/study%20aids/new%20testament%20studies/Resources/28-neglectnotthegift.pdf. (Accessed: January 2016.)
[25] Gundry, Testament, 834.
[26] Bruce Edwards, Jr., “Spiritual
Gifts (VI): The Laying on of Hands,” Truth
Magazine,
[27] Vincent, Word Studies, internet edition on
4:14.
[28] Derek Prince, Foundational Truths for Christian Living,
Revised Edition ([n.p.]: Chrisma Media, 2006),
355.
[29] Jim Jonas, Jim, “The Laying On of
Hands (Part 1),” from the Centreville Journal of
[30] Wayne Jackson,
[31] William J. McRae, The Dynamics of Spiritual
Gifts (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1983), at:
Google Books.
(Accessed:
January 2016.)
[32] Ben Witherington
III, Letters and Homilies, 259.
[33] Petros B. Scientia, “1 Timothy
[34] Robin A. Brace, “Can You
Explain 1 Timothy
[35] Dave Miller, “Laying On of Hands,”
part of the Apologetics Press website, at:
https://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=3782.
(Posted:
2011; accessed: February 2020.)
[36] Robert J. Karris, Pastoral,
86.
[37] At: https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/1%20Timothy%204:14. This includes 59 translations. Coming in by their primary entry, you can ask
for a specific verse and a note at the bottom will allow you to call up a
comparison list of all those they have in their memory bank.
[38] At: https://biblehub.com/1_timothy/4-14.htm but
not in the listing at the previous multi-translation site just mentioned.
[39] Robert G. Bratcher, 44.
[40] Ralph Earle, 375.
[41] Internet edition.
[42] Internet edition.
[43] Julius Soyinka, “Take Heed
Unto Yourself and the Doctrine,” aAt:
https://sermons.faithlife.com/sermons/122293-take-heed-unto-yourself-and-the-doctrine-%22take. (Accessed: February 2020.)
[44]
Humphreys,
[45] Internet edition.