It is said that our Queen takes her role seriously because she believes she is the Lord’s anointed. This claim is not simply based on Rom 13 which says that God has appointed all authorities in the world, but on a misguided medieval idea held by many European monarchies which saw them in the role of King David in the Old Testament.
This could lead to a doctrine of the divine right of kings, as with the Bourbons in France or the Stewarts in Britain, but need not necessarily do so.
The Queen is and recognizes herself to be, a constitutional monarch. This means that her powers are strictly limited by parliament. However her Coronation Oath was taken on a Bible which she believes to be the Word of God. If this is so then how can she approve legislation which goes against that Word?
For the first time in many years Christians have been prosecuted for their beliefs and practices and found guilty. I refer to the case of the B and B owners who refused to let a room to two homosexual men. They prosecuted the Christian couple and won their case. However they only won it because, as the judge said, the law has changed to reflect changing attitudes in society.
That is so, but does God’s attitude change? No it does not. It is as clear in the New Testament as in the Old. Homosexuality is a sin. Not all sin is necessarily a legal offence, and rightly so. We do not live in a Theocracy. But when the law upholds sinful actions then there is something wrong.
This was true in the Roman Empìre of the First Century and yet the apostles did not call for Christian legislation. That is a fair point. But Britain has had a 1,500 year Christian heritage and 500 years of Reformation heritage. This is reflected in the Coronation Oath, taken on the Bible, to uphold the Reformed Faith.
One may argue that the Reformed Faith is wrong, or even that the Bible is not the Word of God. But these were not the suppositions of anyone when the present Queen took that Oath. She has knowingly approved laws which blatantly contradict the Bible on which she swore that Oath. If she is God’s anointed, then how will she answer to him for the moral state of the country she was elected by him to govern?
And before antimonarchists smirk at her dilemma, remember that we are a representative democracy. That means that each one of us is responsible before God for the legislation approved by our Parliament on our behalf. Legislation no longer sets the moral standard, it lamely reflects it. If Christians are being persecuted for their faith and practice it is because the man and woman in the street feel this is correct. Each one will answer to God for this.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Book Review: I AND II TIMOTHY AND TITUS Gordon D. Fee,
I AND II TIMOTHY AND TITUS
in New International Biblical Commentary,
Gordon D. Fee,
Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, Massachusetts
Paternoster Press, Carlisle 1988,
332 pp. $10.17; £11.95
ISBN 0-85364-667-8
The New International Biblical Commentary is based on the text of the NIV and is written from the perspective of what is ‘Evangelical’ in modern scholarship, although not all the authors in the series would conform to the meaning of that word as historically understood in English usage.
One who does so is Gordon Fee of Regent College, an internationally recognized New Testament scholar who has written several books including other, more technical commentaries. Here Fee’s volume on the Pastoral Epistles conforms to the aim of the series:
[T]o provide for the benefit of every Bible reader reliable guides to the books of the Bible.-representing the best of contemporary scholarship presented in a form that does not require formal theological education to understand. (p. vii)
In this he succeeds admirably. This edition is revised to conform to the text of the NIV, the original (1984) being written with the GNB as the main text. However the format conforms to that of the rest of the series.
The abbreviations pages show the usual journals and commentaries to be sighted with a slight preponderance of Evangelical publications, as is to be expected of both the author and the series. However this is by no means the whole story and standard liberal, Catholic and even Jewish sources are also listed.
An Introduction deals with the recipients, the historical situation of Paul, and the occasion and purpose of each letter as well as the theology and authorship of each. This latter is already assumed to be Pauline as the previous section on the historical situation of Paul implies. Nevertheless Fee does examine the main arguments against his position and answers them fairly.
The section on theology deals with the Gospel, Ethics, Eschatology and Church Order. Here he recognizes the problems of modern scholarship with what is seen as the non-Pauline content of this theology, which at first sight appears to deal with ‘the more developed concerns of a latter time’ (p. 14). Bearing in mind the occasional and non- systematic writings of Paul, Fee does not see this as a major problem, as he goes on to show in the various sections outlined above.
The epistles are then taken in turn, with each being divided into sections corresponding to paragraphs in the text. If one takes each section as a paragraph then one also has a good guide as to the length of each unit for preaching these books or studying them in small groups or privately. Biblical text where cited is in bold type and technical details are left to endnotes on each section. Greek is also transliterated, which is a great help to the majority of readers who do not have the biblical languages at their fingertips.
Fee interacts with other scholars of the period when his commentary was written and does not ignore the scholarly issues, but comes down firmly in favour of Pauline authorship for each of the epistles. This he does on the basis of their style, which is more Pauline than not, their historical settings, and the purpose for which they were written. He also takes seriously the issue of false teachers which Paul addresses in I Timothy, seeing 1:3 as the key to understanding that epistle. This avoids taking the book as a ‘church manual’, as so many have seen it and puts the emphasis correctly on confronting the false teachers in Ephesus.
On specific passages Fee is not afraid to indicate his personal views, though he does so in an irenic way. Regarding women teaching (I Tim 2) he holds that what was at stake was the fact that in Ephesus the women were being influenced by the false teachers and so should be limited to learning ‘in a quiet demeanor’. In other churches, such as Corinth they did teach.
Whilst Fee holds to a high view of inspiration, he rightly sees II Tim 3:16 as alluding to the normal Jewish belief of the day and not defining the doctrine of Scripture, but rather emphasizing its function in the teaching task of Timothy and the church in general. This is not to say that this text does not have a legitimate application to the debate on scriptural inspiration, but merely to indicate that the primary concern of Paul is its use, a high view of inspiration being assumed in both Jewish and Christian circles in the first century.
Here again we see a concern to deal with the issues which Paul was addressing and not to tackle later doctrinal developments and controversies for which the text has been used. This conforms to his stated purpose in the preface: ‘… there has been every attempt to remove dogmatic or partisan applications. Hence the reader for the most part has been left on her or his own to “make the applications”’ (p. xiii).
The note on the chiastic nature of much of Titus (1:10-3:11), coming as it does on page 210 in the section dealing with 3:9-11 might have been better placed at 1:10 where it could have helped in the understanding of the whole argument as it was taking place and not at 3:9-11 (the end of the chiasmus) where it only serves to make one want to re-read the previous sections to see exactly how this is worked out.
On a slightly facetious note, one wonders what was going on in Fee’s mind when he wrote the second paragraph of his note on Titus 1:1a (p. 170) where he assures us ‘The word order “Jesus Christ” occurs in the PE only here and at 2Tim. 2:8, except for four occasions where it occurs in conjunction with another title (1 Tim 6:3, 14; Titus 2:13[?]; 3:6).’ In other words it occurs six times in all.
A general introduction takes 31 pages and then 132 are given to I Timothy, which is divided into 19 sections, 52 to Titus, which has eight sections, and 87 to II Timothy, which has 15 sections. These proportions seem about right to cover the material in each of the epistles. A nine page bibliography seems fairly up to date at the time of publication, sections being devoted to commentaries, authorship, background and theology, exegetical studies, and ‘Other Useful Books’. These are followed by a ten page subject index and an eight page Scripture index.
These are all very useful, and the bibliography shows a wide range of reading both in terms of history and variety of theological perspective. One has the clear impression that one is in the hands of a scholar who has done considerable research.
Nevertheless, Fee does not forget that he is writing for those who do not necessarily have any theological training and in dealing with the text he is in no way pretentious nor does he flaunt his scholarship.
The current price of the book is probably about a third of the price of the usual academic commentaries. It is not highly academic, but nor is it either devotionally simplistic or dogmatic in a rigid and closed sense. It is a substantial work in its field and yet fully accessible to the non-specialist. It is to be highly recommended as having fulfilled the task it set out to achieve.
Footnotes
1 Prices taken from Amazon.com and Amazon.co.uk 18/01/10
2 See his Additional Note referencing Warfield on p.282
in New International Biblical Commentary,
Gordon D. Fee,
Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, Massachusetts
Paternoster Press, Carlisle 1988,
332 pp. $10.17; £11.95
ISBN 0-85364-667-8
The New International Biblical Commentary is based on the text of the NIV and is written from the perspective of what is ‘Evangelical’ in modern scholarship, although not all the authors in the series would conform to the meaning of that word as historically understood in English usage.
One who does so is Gordon Fee of Regent College, an internationally recognized New Testament scholar who has written several books including other, more technical commentaries. Here Fee’s volume on the Pastoral Epistles conforms to the aim of the series:
[T]o provide for the benefit of every Bible reader reliable guides to the books of the Bible.-representing the best of contemporary scholarship presented in a form that does not require formal theological education to understand. (p. vii)
In this he succeeds admirably. This edition is revised to conform to the text of the NIV, the original (1984) being written with the GNB as the main text. However the format conforms to that of the rest of the series.
The abbreviations pages show the usual journals and commentaries to be sighted with a slight preponderance of Evangelical publications, as is to be expected of both the author and the series. However this is by no means the whole story and standard liberal, Catholic and even Jewish sources are also listed.
An Introduction deals with the recipients, the historical situation of Paul, and the occasion and purpose of each letter as well as the theology and authorship of each. This latter is already assumed to be Pauline as the previous section on the historical situation of Paul implies. Nevertheless Fee does examine the main arguments against his position and answers them fairly.
The section on theology deals with the Gospel, Ethics, Eschatology and Church Order. Here he recognizes the problems of modern scholarship with what is seen as the non-Pauline content of this theology, which at first sight appears to deal with ‘the more developed concerns of a latter time’ (p. 14). Bearing in mind the occasional and non- systematic writings of Paul, Fee does not see this as a major problem, as he goes on to show in the various sections outlined above.
The epistles are then taken in turn, with each being divided into sections corresponding to paragraphs in the text. If one takes each section as a paragraph then one also has a good guide as to the length of each unit for preaching these books or studying them in small groups or privately. Biblical text where cited is in bold type and technical details are left to endnotes on each section. Greek is also transliterated, which is a great help to the majority of readers who do not have the biblical languages at their fingertips.
Fee interacts with other scholars of the period when his commentary was written and does not ignore the scholarly issues, but comes down firmly in favour of Pauline authorship for each of the epistles. This he does on the basis of their style, which is more Pauline than not, their historical settings, and the purpose for which they were written. He also takes seriously the issue of false teachers which Paul addresses in I Timothy, seeing 1:3 as the key to understanding that epistle. This avoids taking the book as a ‘church manual’, as so many have seen it and puts the emphasis correctly on confronting the false teachers in Ephesus.
On specific passages Fee is not afraid to indicate his personal views, though he does so in an irenic way. Regarding women teaching (I Tim 2) he holds that what was at stake was the fact that in Ephesus the women were being influenced by the false teachers and so should be limited to learning ‘in a quiet demeanor’. In other churches, such as Corinth they did teach.
Whilst Fee holds to a high view of inspiration, he rightly sees II Tim 3:16 as alluding to the normal Jewish belief of the day and not defining the doctrine of Scripture, but rather emphasizing its function in the teaching task of Timothy and the church in general. This is not to say that this text does not have a legitimate application to the debate on scriptural inspiration, but merely to indicate that the primary concern of Paul is its use, a high view of inspiration being assumed in both Jewish and Christian circles in the first century.
Here again we see a concern to deal with the issues which Paul was addressing and not to tackle later doctrinal developments and controversies for which the text has been used. This conforms to his stated purpose in the preface: ‘… there has been every attempt to remove dogmatic or partisan applications. Hence the reader for the most part has been left on her or his own to “make the applications”’ (p. xiii).
The note on the chiastic nature of much of Titus (1:10-3:11), coming as it does on page 210 in the section dealing with 3:9-11 might have been better placed at 1:10 where it could have helped in the understanding of the whole argument as it was taking place and not at 3:9-11 (the end of the chiasmus) where it only serves to make one want to re-read the previous sections to see exactly how this is worked out.
On a slightly facetious note, one wonders what was going on in Fee’s mind when he wrote the second paragraph of his note on Titus 1:1a (p. 170) where he assures us ‘The word order “Jesus Christ” occurs in the PE only here and at 2Tim. 2:8, except for four occasions where it occurs in conjunction with another title (1 Tim 6:3, 14; Titus 2:13[?]; 3:6).’ In other words it occurs six times in all.
A general introduction takes 31 pages and then 132 are given to I Timothy, which is divided into 19 sections, 52 to Titus, which has eight sections, and 87 to II Timothy, which has 15 sections. These proportions seem about right to cover the material in each of the epistles. A nine page bibliography seems fairly up to date at the time of publication, sections being devoted to commentaries, authorship, background and theology, exegetical studies, and ‘Other Useful Books’. These are followed by a ten page subject index and an eight page Scripture index.
These are all very useful, and the bibliography shows a wide range of reading both in terms of history and variety of theological perspective. One has the clear impression that one is in the hands of a scholar who has done considerable research.
Nevertheless, Fee does not forget that he is writing for those who do not necessarily have any theological training and in dealing with the text he is in no way pretentious nor does he flaunt his scholarship.
The current price of the book is probably about a third of the price of the usual academic commentaries. It is not highly academic, but nor is it either devotionally simplistic or dogmatic in a rigid and closed sense. It is a substantial work in its field and yet fully accessible to the non-specialist. It is to be highly recommended as having fulfilled the task it set out to achieve.
Footnotes
1 Prices taken from Amazon.com and Amazon.co.uk 18/01/10
2 See his Additional Note referencing Warfield on p.282
Introduction to Hebrews
Theme
The basic plea of this letter is that the believer ‘go on to maturity’ (6:1) and that he not go aside nor return to his former state. On the one hand, throughout the whole letter solemn warnings are included to indicate the dangers of neglect, unbelief, immaturity and apostasy. One should not depart from the truth and the privileges of the Gospel. On the other hand, the superiority of Christ is emphasized to a point unequalled in the rest of the New Testament. He is above men, angels and the rituals of the Old Testament. He is God’s last and greatest revelation (1:1,2) and the Mediator of a new and better covenant (8:6).
The initial phrase of the ‘letter’ summarizes the totality of biblical revelation. God, who has spoken through the prophets, has now spoken in his Son and this last word has been the culmination of revelation, because it came in someone who is described as Inheritor, Creator, Divine, Sustainer and Redeemer (1:2,3). Now he lives ‘at the right hand of the majesty on high’ as our High Priest (4:14). Thus he is superior to the angels, because he created them (1:4; 2:8). He is superior to Moses because he is the owner over the servant (3:1-4). He is superior to Aaron and his successors because he is the High Priest who obscures inferior priests (4:14; 7:28). The new covenant, of which he is mediator, is superior to the old (8:1-3) and his sacrifice is superior to the ceremonial offerings of bulls and goats (9:1-10:18).
The second major section (10:19-13:25) refers to faith as a superior form of life. Chapters 11 and 12 are the most important in this section. The former shows in what form the faith of the saints of the Old Testament was submitted to trial, the latter shows why the priest is submitted to a testing of faith, just like our faith. The heroes of the faith demonstrated what it meant to walk with God, to live and die depending on his promises. Christ is the major example of all, ‘the Author and Finisher of the faith’ (12:2). We must consider him (12:3) and learn that God, when he permits trials to correct us, guides and cares for us as his children in order to bring us to maturity and ultimately to perfection.
Along with the two principal ideas of the ‘letter’ we find the warning sections.
Outline
I The Superiority of Christ 1:1-10:18
A The Last Revelation 1:1-4
B Superior to the Angels 1:5-2:8
C Greater than Moses 3:1-4:13
D Greater than the Priests 4:14-7:28
E He is Mediator of the New Covenant 8:1-10:18
II The Superiority of Faith 10:19-12:29
A Access to God by means of Christ 10:19-39
B The Faith of the Ancients 11:1-40
C The Son and the Sons 12:1-17
D Mount Sinai and Mount Zion 12:18-29
III Conclusion 13:1-25
The ‘letter ‘ to the Hebrews differs in form from the other letters in the New Testament. In fact the question has been asked if it really is a letter or not. It begins like a tract, later it changes into a sermon and finally it ends like a letter.
One cannot doubt that it is a tract of the highest literary category. The great reality which it expounds is that of the possibility of coming to God in a free way and without work on our part. It is also a sermon, in which there are exhortations to do certain things and to apply its teachings. There are censures, encouragements and admonitions. Nevertheless, it is a letter, although it does not contain an initial greeting, but it does end in the current form of letters of the time. The final greetings and personal messages add a note of more reality to this book.
Autor
Who was this writer, who had found in Christ such blessings and who felt such a great concern for some of his brothers in the faith? There is still no firm answer to this question today. For centuries the common consensus it was attributed to Paul, though this consensus was slow in coming in the West and almost all now deny it. Despite much speculation the reality is that it is anonymous.
The author never mentions himself nor reveals his identity. On the other hand Paul always began his letters by mentioning his name and authenticated them at the end. For the most part Paul cites the Old Testament from the Hebrew text, whilst this author uses the LXX. But the strongest argument against Pauline authorship is that the author includes himself amongst those to whom the Gospel came from the mouths of men who heard the Lord and to whom the Gospel had been authenticated by miracles (2:3,4). However, Paul always strongly defends the fact that he had not received the Gospel from any man, but by revelation (Gal 1:12).
There are various conjectures and traditions about other possible authors such as Barnabas, who belonged to the pauline circle and knew Timothy (13:23). He was a capable man of high moral standards. As a levite one could think that he contemplated the work of Christ in terms of the mosaic ritual. He came from Cyprus, where pure Greek was spoken and he knew the church in Jerusalem and other circles of Hebrew Christians.
Another candidate is Apollos, who was well qualified for such a task. He was a Christian Jew from Alexandria, a man of culture and great knowledge of Scripture (Acts 18:24). He also taught diligently the things concerning the Lord, and it is possible that such a man could have written this work.
Other suggested authors are Silas, Luke, Peter, Clement, Philip and Acquila and Priscilla. But we are on safer ground if we follow the conclusion of Origen ‘but who wrote the epistle God only knows certainly’ (Carson, Moo and Morris, 1992, pp.394-397; Guthrie, 1970, pp. 685-698; Bruce, 1971, pp. xxxv-xlii; Hagner, 1995, pp.8-11).
But such uncertainty does not take away from the greatness of the work. It is an incomparable presentation of the glories of Christ, the Redeemer, the High Priest, the Immutable (1:3; 2:17; 4:14-16; 7:25; 10:13; 13:8). The superiority of Christ and of the life of faith is the double theme of the book.
Style
Its style is Hellenic with a complex structure. The brusqueness, digressions and disorder of Paul are absent. There are differences of theological emphases between Paul and Hebrews. Paul emphasizes the resurrection of Christ, whilst Hebrews emphasizes his exaltation; Paul emphasizes redemption, Hebrews sanctification; there is more emphasis on the new covenant in Hebrews than in Paul. The conflict between the flesh and the spirit and the doctrine of union with Christ are absent in Hebrews. Paul see the Law as our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ (Gel 3), but generally it is something antagonistic to us in Paul. Hebrews sees the Law more positively as anticipating Christ and teaching Christian standards.
The High Priesthood of Christ is dominant in Hebrews, but rare in Paul (cf. I Tim 2:5; Rom 8).
Readers
The readers of this work are also hard to identify. The title ‘To the Hebrews’ could indicate Jews or Jewish Christians. But where were they located?
The most common and obvious conjecture is that they were in Jerusalem. In this city there was a large Jewish Christian community in the middle of the first century of the Common Era (Acts 21:20). Nevertheless there are problems with this theory: the Jerusalem church was known for its poverty whilst the readers of this work were known for their charity to others (6:10; 10:34). It is also doubtful that anyone would censure the Jerusalem church for its failure and inability to understand and teach the Gospel (5:12).
Yigael Yadin has suggested that it was written to the Essene community at Qumran in order to persuade them to convert to faith in Jesus as the Messiah.- this on the basis of the common interest in Melchizedek (Bruce, 1971, p. xxvii).
Other possible addressees include the Christians of Asia Minor, Antioch, Alexandria or Rome (Carson, Moo and Morris, 1992, pp. 400-401; Guthrie, 1970, pp. 698-703; Bruce, 1971, pp. xxiii-xxxv; Hagner, 1995, pp. 1-7). The uncertain location of the readers nevertheless is of less importance than their former experiences and the present condition, which are the occasion of this work.
References
Bruce, F.F. 1971 The Epistle to the Hebrews in New London Commentary on the New Testament, Marshall, Morgan & Scott, London
Carson, D.A., Moo D.J., Morris L., 1992, An Introduction to the New Testament, Apollos, Leicester.
Guthrie, D., 1970, New Testament Introduction, The Tyndale Press, London.
Hagner, D.A., 1990 Hebrews in New International Biblical Commentary, Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, Massachusetts
The basic plea of this letter is that the believer ‘go on to maturity’ (6:1) and that he not go aside nor return to his former state. On the one hand, throughout the whole letter solemn warnings are included to indicate the dangers of neglect, unbelief, immaturity and apostasy. One should not depart from the truth and the privileges of the Gospel. On the other hand, the superiority of Christ is emphasized to a point unequalled in the rest of the New Testament. He is above men, angels and the rituals of the Old Testament. He is God’s last and greatest revelation (1:1,2) and the Mediator of a new and better covenant (8:6).
The initial phrase of the ‘letter’ summarizes the totality of biblical revelation. God, who has spoken through the prophets, has now spoken in his Son and this last word has been the culmination of revelation, because it came in someone who is described as Inheritor, Creator, Divine, Sustainer and Redeemer (1:2,3). Now he lives ‘at the right hand of the majesty on high’ as our High Priest (4:14). Thus he is superior to the angels, because he created them (1:4; 2:8). He is superior to Moses because he is the owner over the servant (3:1-4). He is superior to Aaron and his successors because he is the High Priest who obscures inferior priests (4:14; 7:28). The new covenant, of which he is mediator, is superior to the old (8:1-3) and his sacrifice is superior to the ceremonial offerings of bulls and goats (9:1-10:18).
The second major section (10:19-13:25) refers to faith as a superior form of life. Chapters 11 and 12 are the most important in this section. The former shows in what form the faith of the saints of the Old Testament was submitted to trial, the latter shows why the priest is submitted to a testing of faith, just like our faith. The heroes of the faith demonstrated what it meant to walk with God, to live and die depending on his promises. Christ is the major example of all, ‘the Author and Finisher of the faith’ (12:2). We must consider him (12:3) and learn that God, when he permits trials to correct us, guides and cares for us as his children in order to bring us to maturity and ultimately to perfection.
Along with the two principal ideas of the ‘letter’ we find the warning sections.
Outline
I The Superiority of Christ 1:1-10:18
A The Last Revelation 1:1-4
B Superior to the Angels 1:5-2:8
C Greater than Moses 3:1-4:13
D Greater than the Priests 4:14-7:28
E He is Mediator of the New Covenant 8:1-10:18
II The Superiority of Faith 10:19-12:29
A Access to God by means of Christ 10:19-39
B The Faith of the Ancients 11:1-40
C The Son and the Sons 12:1-17
D Mount Sinai and Mount Zion 12:18-29
III Conclusion 13:1-25
The ‘letter ‘ to the Hebrews differs in form from the other letters in the New Testament. In fact the question has been asked if it really is a letter or not. It begins like a tract, later it changes into a sermon and finally it ends like a letter.
One cannot doubt that it is a tract of the highest literary category. The great reality which it expounds is that of the possibility of coming to God in a free way and without work on our part. It is also a sermon, in which there are exhortations to do certain things and to apply its teachings. There are censures, encouragements and admonitions. Nevertheless, it is a letter, although it does not contain an initial greeting, but it does end in the current form of letters of the time. The final greetings and personal messages add a note of more reality to this book.
Autor
Who was this writer, who had found in Christ such blessings and who felt such a great concern for some of his brothers in the faith? There is still no firm answer to this question today. For centuries the common consensus it was attributed to Paul, though this consensus was slow in coming in the West and almost all now deny it. Despite much speculation the reality is that it is anonymous.
The author never mentions himself nor reveals his identity. On the other hand Paul always began his letters by mentioning his name and authenticated them at the end. For the most part Paul cites the Old Testament from the Hebrew text, whilst this author uses the LXX. But the strongest argument against Pauline authorship is that the author includes himself amongst those to whom the Gospel came from the mouths of men who heard the Lord and to whom the Gospel had been authenticated by miracles (2:3,4). However, Paul always strongly defends the fact that he had not received the Gospel from any man, but by revelation (Gal 1:12).
There are various conjectures and traditions about other possible authors such as Barnabas, who belonged to the pauline circle and knew Timothy (13:23). He was a capable man of high moral standards. As a levite one could think that he contemplated the work of Christ in terms of the mosaic ritual. He came from Cyprus, where pure Greek was spoken and he knew the church in Jerusalem and other circles of Hebrew Christians.
Another candidate is Apollos, who was well qualified for such a task. He was a Christian Jew from Alexandria, a man of culture and great knowledge of Scripture (Acts 18:24). He also taught diligently the things concerning the Lord, and it is possible that such a man could have written this work.
Other suggested authors are Silas, Luke, Peter, Clement, Philip and Acquila and Priscilla. But we are on safer ground if we follow the conclusion of Origen ‘but who wrote the epistle God only knows certainly’ (Carson, Moo and Morris, 1992, pp.394-397; Guthrie, 1970, pp. 685-698; Bruce, 1971, pp. xxxv-xlii; Hagner, 1995, pp.8-11).
But such uncertainty does not take away from the greatness of the work. It is an incomparable presentation of the glories of Christ, the Redeemer, the High Priest, the Immutable (1:3; 2:17; 4:14-16; 7:25; 10:13; 13:8). The superiority of Christ and of the life of faith is the double theme of the book.
Style
Its style is Hellenic with a complex structure. The brusqueness, digressions and disorder of Paul are absent. There are differences of theological emphases between Paul and Hebrews. Paul emphasizes the resurrection of Christ, whilst Hebrews emphasizes his exaltation; Paul emphasizes redemption, Hebrews sanctification; there is more emphasis on the new covenant in Hebrews than in Paul. The conflict between the flesh and the spirit and the doctrine of union with Christ are absent in Hebrews. Paul see the Law as our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ (Gel 3), but generally it is something antagonistic to us in Paul. Hebrews sees the Law more positively as anticipating Christ and teaching Christian standards.
The High Priesthood of Christ is dominant in Hebrews, but rare in Paul (cf. I Tim 2:5; Rom 8).
Readers
The readers of this work are also hard to identify. The title ‘To the Hebrews’ could indicate Jews or Jewish Christians. But where were they located?
The most common and obvious conjecture is that they were in Jerusalem. In this city there was a large Jewish Christian community in the middle of the first century of the Common Era (Acts 21:20). Nevertheless there are problems with this theory: the Jerusalem church was known for its poverty whilst the readers of this work were known for their charity to others (6:10; 10:34). It is also doubtful that anyone would censure the Jerusalem church for its failure and inability to understand and teach the Gospel (5:12).
Yigael Yadin has suggested that it was written to the Essene community at Qumran in order to persuade them to convert to faith in Jesus as the Messiah.- this on the basis of the common interest in Melchizedek (Bruce, 1971, p. xxvii).
Other possible addressees include the Christians of Asia Minor, Antioch, Alexandria or Rome (Carson, Moo and Morris, 1992, pp. 400-401; Guthrie, 1970, pp. 698-703; Bruce, 1971, pp. xxiii-xxxv; Hagner, 1995, pp. 1-7). The uncertain location of the readers nevertheless is of less importance than their former experiences and the present condition, which are the occasion of this work.
References
Bruce, F.F. 1971 The Epistle to the Hebrews in New London Commentary on the New Testament, Marshall, Morgan & Scott, London
Carson, D.A., Moo D.J., Morris L., 1992, An Introduction to the New Testament, Apollos, Leicester.
Guthrie, D., 1970, New Testament Introduction, The Tyndale Press, London.
Hagner, D.A., 1990 Hebrews in New International Biblical Commentary, Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, Massachusetts
Monday, January 17, 2011
Hebrews: Exegetical Essay
Hebrews 4:14-5:10
The book of Hebrews, whoever its author or readers might have been, was addressed to people who, having professed faith in Jesus as the Christ, were tempted to return to Judaism. Therefore the author sets out to show that Christ is superior to everyone and everything in the O.T. He is greater than angels (1:5-2:9), than Moses and the Law (3:1-6), than Joshua (4:1-10) and the aaronic priesthood (4:14-7:28), and that the New Covenant which he has initiated is greater than the first one initiated by Moses (8:1-10:18).
In all this Christ is not something new, but rather is the fulfillment of all the Scriptures of the O.T. which pointed to his coming, person and work in all that they said. So Christianity is not a new religion, rather it is the continuation of the faith of the patriarchs (11:1-39), without which they would not be perfected without us (11:40).
Interspersed throughout this argument are passages warning of the consequences of abandoning the new faith for the old (2:1-4; 3:7-19; 5:11-14; 6:4-8; 10:26-31;12:14-29). These often break up the argument of the epistle so that it is necessary to remember where it left off.
This is so in the case of one of the central themes of the book, that of priesthood. Hebrews is the only book in the N.T. which explicitly calls Christ a priest, though obviously there are many references to the nature of his death as a sacrifice. The central theme of the Christology of Hebrews is that Christ is high priest. The priesthood of the O.T. was only a shadow of the reality and could not solve the problem of sin. By his death Christ solved this problem. So, to apostatize from Christ means death, because there is no other solution.
There is an allusion to this idea already in 1:3, but it becomes clear in 2:17-3:1 which speak of him as ‘merciful and faithful’ and ‘able to help those who are being tempted’. The theme is then set aside, this time not due to a warning passage, but rather to a comparison with Moses (3:1-6), which leads to the second warning passage (3:7-19) and in turn to a consideration of the Israelites in the wilderness (4:1-10) as a further warning. The theme of priesthood is then resumed (4:14-5:10), only to be interrupted again because the readers are not mature enough to understand it (5:11-6:3). There then follows another warning passage (6:4-8) and it is only in 6:20 that the author returns to the theme in order to finally show that Christ has a higher order of priesthood than that of Aaron, the Order of Melchizedek.
However it is the passage from 4:14 to 5:10 which we wish to examine as this shows the writers understanding of priesthood generally (5:1-4), which he shared with the Jews of the period of the Second Temple. Having established this he then goes on to argue that Jesus is a high priest in his own right, although not descended from Aaron.
TEXTUAL PROBLEMS
Whilst there are various problems of translation in this passage the only textual problem is in 5:6 where P46 has ‘ἐπεύξ, “precentor,” a leader of prayer and praise, for ἱερεύς, “priest”’ (Lane 1991 110 note r). However, since this is in a quotation from Ps 110:4 it is obviously a mistake. The conjectural emendation of Harnack in 5:7 ‘he was not heard’ is generally rejected as not only unnecessary, but ‘actually subversive of the writer’s intention’ (Lane 1998, 110 fn u).
4:14-7:28 THE SUPERIOROTY OF CHRIST OVER THE AARONIC PRIESTHOOD
4:14-5:10 QUALIFICATIONS OF A HIGH PRIEST
The exhortation to enter into rest is reinforced by considering the character of the high priest whom we have. ‘Jesus is one with his people and for them he offers the perfect sacrifice. This is seen largely in terms of the Day of Atonement ceremonies in which the role of the high priest (and not simply any priest) was central.’ (Morris, 1999, in loc.).
4:14 This verse serves to introduce the main theme of the letter. - to show the superiority of Christ over the priests of the line of Aaron. It is also a theme to encourage us: he has gone through the heavens. We need not enumerate these as Paul (II Cor 12:2) or the Talmud (Hagigah 12b) do. The plural reflects the Hebrew word, as often in the LXX and N.T. What is emphasized is his transcendence (7:26; cp. Eph 4:10). This is the evidence that his sacrifice was accepted by God. But he also knows our human condition so we may approach him with confidence. Furthermore, we share the access of our high priest (10:19).
The Word ‘great’ puts this high priest above all those of the aaronic order. Jesus is great because of who he is, ‘the Son of God’. But the emphasis is also on the exaltation of Christ (1:3; 7:28). It is not into an earthly tabernacle that our great high priest has entered, but into the presence of God himself (see 9:24). Furthermore this is not a temporary appearance for a short time, as with the aaronic high priest who passed through the veil and entered once a year into the Most Holy Place. He is now resident in heaven and seated there majestic in power and glory (1:3).
‘Jesus’ denotes his humanity (2:9; 3:1) and thus his qualification to be a high priest. It also indicates the salvation which is found in him (Mat 1:21). ‘Jesus’ is not used in 1:1-14 where his glory is under consideration. When the theme is incarnation, suffering, death and consequent empathy with humanity it is used (2:9ff). He could not be in heaven as our great high priest without first having performed his priestly work on earth. But this he has done, and has now entered into his rest
‘The Son of God’ expresses his unique relation with the Father as the Second Person of the Trinity (cp. 1:1-14). This is the first use of this phrase in the epistle, although it is assumed up until now. It ‘is no doubt intentionally introduced here to combine the humanity and divinity of Jesus as the perfect qualifications for a high priest who was to be superior to all others’ (Guthrie, 2003, 121).
The two titles together suggest both sympathy and power
The author maintains his practical interest of exhortation in this theme: Since this is the nature of our high priest we are encouraged to ‘hold firmly to the faith we profess.’ (NIV), or to ‘our confession’ (NASB). The idea is of clinging to something with determination (Guthrie, 2003, 114) and suggests a certain danger of failing to do so. There is a need for public confession at this time of crisis.
Guthrie sees this expression as forming a beginning and an end to this major section (4:14-10:19). Both have the ideas of holding on to our confession and drawing near to God with confidence through a great high priest.
The writer now takes up a number of motifs introduced in 2:17–18: Jesus’ solidarity with the people of God in their trials, his priestly compassion, his experience of testing through the suffering of death, and his ability to help those who are exposed to the ordeal of testing. The formulation of 4:15–16 recalls the announcement of these themes in 2:17–18 and prepares for the exposition of Jesus’ appointment to the high priestly office in 5:1–10 (Lane, 1998, 111)
4:15 The nature of our high priest is next considered. He can ‘sympathize with our weaknesses’ (NIV) or ‘feel our weaknesses with us’ (Lane 1991 114)., because he has suffered all the strength of the enemy and triumphed over his temptations. His humanity means that he experienced the full range of temptation. Thus he can help us (2:17-18).
There is a double negative here (‘we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize’) perhaps to counter an idea that Jesus was too remote from us to understand us fully. Only here and in 10:34 is the word ‘sympathize’ used in the N.T. It has the idea of ‘suffering along with’ others, but also of active help (Lane, 1991, 114). Here it occurs with reference to ‘our weaknesses’ and is in contrast to their absence in his case (cp. 5:2; 7:28 in a contrast between his and Aaron’s priesthoods at just this point). These weaknesses refer to ‘together with external evils, the feelings of the souls such as fear, sorrow, the dread of death, and similar things’ (Calvin, in loc.).
He can do this because he was tempted ‘in every way, just as we are’. He is the same as us so far as concerns temptation. The idea is of exposure to testing. He felt this just as the readers were now feeling it.
‘Without sin’ has been taken by some to mean that Jesus suffered all the kinds of temptation which we suffer except those which come as a result of previous sin on our part (Morris, 1999; Hagner, 1990). But it can also simply mean that he did not succumb to sin as a result of his temptations, as we do.
We may represent the truth to ourselves best by saying that Christ assumed humanity under the conditions of life belonging to man fallen, though not with sinful promptings from within. (Westcott loc cit)
This theme of the sinlessness of Christ is important to the writer of the epistle (7:26ff) as it is in the rest of the N.T. (II Cor 5:21; I Jn 2:9; I Pet 2:22).
4:16 Because he triumphed we can draw near (The present tense gives the idea of continually doing this.) with confidence to God through him. The idea is of freedom of expression and deliverance from fear (Guthrie, 2003, 124).
A throne is a symbol of sovereignty and majesty and should inspire awe, especially as it is understood to be God’s throne. But we are told to approach it (a term from the Temple cultus cp. 7:25; 10:1, 22; 11:6; Lev. 21:17, 21; 22:3 LXX) with confidence, because for us it is a throne of grace where God dispenses his favour. Perhaps there is an allusion to the ‘atonement cover’ (9:5) (Hagner, 1990, 79; Bruce, 1971, 86). Jesus is seated at the right hand of the throne (8:1; 12:2; cp. 1:3) and so guarantees it as a place of grace. He has brought the sacrifice of himself and now invites us weak and tempted sinners to approach what has thus become a throne of grace. Because of this the right of priestly approach is open to all Christians, a privilege which Israel never enjoyed.
There is thus in this phrase a reference to Jesus as both king and high priest. The mediation of Christ as high priest depends on his relationship not only to God, but also with us, so it was necessary that he was made flesh (2:9-18).
‘Mercy’ and ‘grace’ are what God gives at this throne and they are just what we need.
Man needs mercy for past failure, and grace for present and future work. There is also a difference as to the mode of attainment in each case. Mercy is to be ‘taken’ as it is extended to man in his weakness; grace is to be ‘sought’ by man according to his necessity. (Westcott in loc.)
Mercy is God’s tender compassion; grace is his goodness and love.
Help is timely. It comes not constantly, but rather just when needed. When we approach his throne of grace God will hear and answer for Jesus’ sake.
Now the author shows the nature of the high priestly office and the qualifications for it (5:1-4) and then goes on to show how Christ fulfils these. The qualifications needed by the priests for their work included a relationship with the people they represented, compassion and appointment by God.
Lane (1998, 111) gives the structure of the passage as:
A The old office of high priest (5:1)
B. The solidarity of the high priest with the people (5:2-3)
C. The humility of the high priest (5:4)
C’ The humility of Christ (5:5-6)
B’ The solidarity of Christ with the people (5:7-8)
A’ The new office of high priest (5:9-10)
5:1 Firstly ‘every high priest is selected from among men’, he is one of them, sharing their nature and weaknesses. This was necessary as he had ‘to represent them in matters related to God’. The work of a priest has to do with God and his character and requirements. Its object is to reconcile sinful men to God. There is the idea of positive action here.
He was also ‘appointed’ to his office. (The passive mood suggests that the appointment was made by God.- which in fact was the case in the O.T.) He was essentially a mediator between God and men, not only bringing ‘gifts and sacrifices’ to God on behalf of the people, but also instructing the people regarding God’s will (Mal 2:7). There is no relationship between men and God except through a priest as men are now sinful and need someone to present sacrifices on their behalf.
The work of a priest was to offer ‘gifts and sacrifices for sins’ (see 8:3) to God on behalf of the people. Because of sin in the world there was no other way of access to God. The phrase refers to sacrifices of all kinds, bloody and unbloody, ‘But when ‘gifts’ and ‘sacrifices’ are distinguished the former mark the ‘meal-offering’ … and the latter the bloody offerings. Comp. 8:3; 9:9.’ (Westcott in loc.)
5:2,3 Inner disposition is not a requirement for the high priest in the O.T. and this, along with other considerations, has led Lane (1991, 114-116) to consider that 5:1-4 is based on 4:15-16 and that the contrast is not between Aaron and Christ, but between Christ and Aaron, with Christ as the model to which Aaron could not fully conform.- therefore Christ is superior to him.
He must show gentleness and sympathy in his dealings with others (see Num 14:5; 16:22, 47). The idea of the word ‘gently’ (metriopaqei'n) is one of moderation in his emotions. It is a middle course between the apathy so admired by the stoics, and anger. He is to be neither indifferent nor harsh.
‘Those who are ignorant and going astray’ are the people he represents. There was no provision for deliberate sins of provocation of God (Num 15:30; Ps 95:7-11) under the Law, so the high priest had to know how to distinguish these from those of ignorance for which sacrifices could be made (Num 15:28). Sins of ignorance were those committed due to not paying attention to what the Law said. Those ‘going astray’ due to such ignorance are not hardened rebels, and so there is a way back provided for them.
A priest must offer first for his own sins (Lev 9:7; 16:6, 11, 15-16). He is in the same condition as those he represents. With this knowledge of his own weakness he can have compassion for others. The Mishna represents a prayer of the high priest on the Day of Atonement as follows:
"O God, I have committed iniquity and transgressed and sinned before thee, I and my house and the children of Aaron, thy holy people. O God, forgive, I pray, the iniquities and transgressions and sins which I have committed and transgressed and sinned before thee, I and my house" (M Yoma 4:2).
But Christ was without sin, and did not need to offer first for himself (7:27). This makes him superior to them. But even so his mercy is greater than any other priest (2:17-18).
5:4 It was also necessary for a priest to be called by God. The appointment of Aaron set the pattern for this (Exod 28:1-3; Lev 8:1). His appointment extended to his heirs and successors (Num 20:23ff; 25:10ff). Others who attempted to take his office suffered the consequences of their folly (Num 16; I Sam 13:8ff; II Cron 26:16ff). The emphasis is not on the exalted nature of the call but rather on the humility of the one called: he did not presume to enter into his office but rather was appointed to it.
This was not the case in contemporary Judaism since the time of Antiochus IV as high priests were regularly made and unmade by men (Bruce, 1971, 92 fn 19). However the writer is not interested in present practice, but in biblical principles. The calling of God was important and the office was an ‘honour’.
Whatever is done among the people of God regarding appointment to office or adoration which is offered without a command of God does not have divine approval and incurs divine judgement. (Lev 10:1-3; II Cron 26:16-21). This principle was enunciated by the Reformers on the basis of this and similar texts.
5:5 Here, as in the case of comparison with Moses (3:1-6), the writer begins by showing the similarities between Christ and Aaron (‘just as Aaron, so Christ’), only to highlight the contrast later. God has given the office of high priest to Christ. Even as the Anointed One (Christ), he did not put himself into this office, but was called to it by his Father (Jn 8:54).
The use of the official title ὁ Χριστός, “the Christ/the Anointed One” (cf. 9:28), already affirms the fact of divine appointment. The primary proof that Jesus displayed the humility required of his office and did not take for himself the honor of becoming high priest is provided on the basis of Scripture. (Lane 1998, 117)
His natural relation as Son qualified him for the priesthood (Ps 2:7). Here begins the contrast with Aaron, although it is not fully developed until 7:1-28. The emphasis here is on God’s appointment declared in this Psalm and Psalm 110. There are parallels with the opening verses of the epistle where the list of quotations begins with Ps 2:7 and ends with Ps 110:1 (1:5-14). There the important point was to establish the unique sonship of Christ. Here it is to link that sonship with his priesthood. Whilst Ps 110:1 is not quoted again here, it is obviously the link between Ps 2:7 and Ps 110:4.
5:6 Christ is different from Aaron.- but like another priest, Melchizedek (Ps 110:4) who was both a king and a priest, whilst Aaron was only a priest. Christ fulfils these two offices of King and priest forever. Whilst Ps 110:1 is quoted in various parts of the N.T. (Mat 22:43; I Cor 15:25; Acts 2:34f), only in Hebrews is verse 4 used to describe Christ (5:6; 7:17, 21 and various allusions). Its introduction here prepares the way for the teaching on Melchizedek in the later chapters. Christ is a priest who truly fulfils the functions of his office and brings about atonement, unlike Aaron and his successors who could only do so symbolically.
Another contrast is that Christ is a priest ‘forever’ and does not pass away or is not succeeded by others as was the case with Aaron. Thus he is a priest ‘of the same kind as Melchizedek’. Most translate ‘in the order of’, but there was no order of Melchizedek as he had no successor, and therefore it is correct to see this as meaning ‘of the same kind’ (Lane, 1998, 110 fn s; Morris, 1999 loc. cit.)
Christ has no successor, nor any need of one, because his sacrifice and entrance into the presence of God are completed (Heb. 9:12, 14; 13:20.).
Reference to the oath which established this priesthood is reserved for 6:13ff and that to the historical figure who met Abram (Gen 14:18-20) will not be treated until chapter 7. Nevertheless the introduction to the theme is made here.
In Israel kingship and priesthood were maintained as separate offices (but see the prophecy of Zac 6:13), unlike in other societies in the Fertile Crescent where they were combined. The Hsasmonean dynasty was the first to combine them, but not all accepted this (eg. Qumran). Here however the offices are united in one person, Christ, and this is given a historical and a biblical precedent in the enigmatic figure of Melchizedek whom chapter 7 will show to be superior to Aaron in many ways.
5:7-10 are kerigmatic and confessional Jesus participated fully in the human condition (cp. Phil 2:5-8)
5:7 refers to the sufferings of Christ in general during his life in the ‘flesh’, (the condition of human weakness which he shared) but with special reference to Gethsemane and Calvary. These sufferings equipped Christ to be a high priest with compassion (4:15).
‘He offered up prayers and petitions’ just as Aaron offered ‘gifts and sacrifices for sins’ (5:1). It was a priestly action (Lane, 1998, 119; Kistermaker, 1985, 136). But it also indicates his dependence upon God as a human being. ‘Prayers’ is a general term, but ‘petitions’ describes the supplication of someone in need of help in overwhelming circumstances.
‘With loud cries and tears’ expresses the intensity of his agony. This is not referred to directly in the Gospel accounts though there are references which could account for the use of such an expression (Luk 22:44; Mat 27:46).
If we continue to think in terms of the cultus then ‘he was heard’ perhaps indicates that his offering was accepted by God, ‘the one who could save him from death. Lane (1998, 120) sees this as simply a title for God and of no further significance in the context. But some (Hagner, 1990, 81) feel that it does refer to Christ’s deliverance in his exaltation following his death. However this although a popular idea, is perhaps artificial.
Rather ‘he was heard’ possibly refers to the response to his submission. Even though he desired that the cup would pass from him, his prayers were conditioned by the will of his Father. Thus it was this petition for the will of his Father to be done which was heard (Mat 26:39; Mar 14:36; Luk 22:42). In this case it was not merely that this will be done to him, but that he would actively do it (Jn 4:34; 6:38; Heb 10:5-9). Consequently he was given strength not only to endure the ordeal which awaited him but to actively offer himself (9:14; 25-26) and thus to sanctify those for whom he made the offering (10:10).
The phrase ‘because of his reverent submission.’ (NIV) or ‘godly fear’ (12:28) suggests the thoughtful shrinking from over-boldness. Some however (Cullmann, 1971, 96) understand the word simply to mean ‘fear’. ‘The whole context forces upon one the sense of ordinary human fear as the meaning of eulabeia’. He had the ordinary human fear of death and he was heard because he conquered this fear when he prayed not for his own will but for that of the Father to be done.
This idea makes even more sense if we add the older view that what he feared was death as the wrath of God coming upon him for the sins of his people which he would bear. Here there is no trace of Docetism but the clearest indication of the humanity of Christ. This is seen even more clearly in the following verse.
5:8 With his equality with God as Son he was ready to be obedient as man (Gal 4:4-5; Phil 2:6-8).
‘Son though he was’ he did not cling to this privilege of eternal sonship (Phil 2:6,7) but received it as Mediator from the Father as a reward for his death (Phil 2:9-11)
‘He learned obedience’ refers to his conscious experience in action which was always present in principle. There is a great difference between a desire to obey and obedience. The suggestion is of a process of development (Luk 2:52) which is complete only when it ends in the obedience of atoning suffering (cp. Phil 2:8). This Jesus had to learn. There is no conflict here between this and his deity, but rather the recognition of his having come as Mediator and the implications which this brought.
How did he learn obedience? We know how it happens with us. We learn to be obedient through the unpleasant things which happen when we are disobedient! But it was not like this for him.
‘He set out from the start on the path of obedience to God, and learned by the sufferings which came his way in consequence just what obedience to God involved in practice in the conditions of human life on earth’ (Bruce, 1971, 103)
So there is not progress from disobedience to obedience but rather expansion in his obedience. In every situation he was obedient to the full extent of the divine demand. But these demands became more and more extensive as he advanced to the climax and their implications became more fully known and understood. This demanded increasing resources of his will and so he learnt obedience. Thus his death was the supreme act of obedience
The idea of obedience again is something active (see 5:1). Jesus does not merely suffer passively, but is active in his obedience towards God (9:14, 25-26).
The verb for ‘suffer’ in Hebrews is used only of the passion of Jesus (2:9,10; 9:26; 13:12). Here then it refers to his unique redemptive sufferings in his high priestly office. Learning occurs in the reception of Scripture as the Word of God. From this Jesus learned that his death was part of the saving will of God and therefore part of his calling. Therefore ‘obedience’ is to this call to suffer.
Jesus freely accepted the suffering of death because Scripture, and through it God, appointed him to this sacrifice for the sake of his office. (Lane, 1998, 121)
These two verses show his qualification to be a sympathetic high priest. The readers can see that he identifies with them in that he did not use his divine power to escape death, any more than he did to escape suffering in the wilderness (Mat 4:1-11). Thus he learnt by his human experience. His obedience was learned through suffering and prayer.
5:9 He was always morally perfect, otherwise his sacrifice would not have been accepted. Here ‘made perfect’ refers to his perfect aptitude for his office. Having completed God’s will he himself reaches a state of completeness. His suffering did something. By it he arrived at the goal appointed for him by God and is fully qualified as high priest in a way that even Aaron did not qualify. It was attested by his sitting at the right hand of God, his work finished (1:3).
His triumph gained our eternal salvation. Thus he is its ‘source’ (NIV) or meritorious cause (2:10). His obedience is what achieves salvation (Rom 5:19; Heb 10:10) What does not come through him is not true salvation. He brings his people into the life of the world to come. It is ‘eternal salvation’.- something stable and enduring (Isa 45:17).
‘For all who obey him’: genuine participation in this salvation is always accompanied by obedience No one who is rebellious can be saved (4:1-10). Obedience is the sign of real faith (cp. 4:3). The believer’s obedience to Christ answers to the Son’s obedience to the Father.
Here also salvation is opened to everyone and no longer restricted to the Jews. Christ came to offer salvation to all men.. Whilst Hebrews is addressed primarily to Jewish Christians there is also a great emphasis not on Christ’s jewishness, but on his humanity. He came as the Saviour of the human race and all who obey him find salvation.
5:10 God designated Christ as a high priest like Melchizedek. This confirms that he has all the qualifications necessary for his office. This should be an encouragement to the readers as they face a life of suffering for obedience to the revealed will of God.
But before he develops this theme he speaks of his readers’ immaturity (5:11-6:3) and warns them of the dangers of such a position (6:4-8), before returning gradually to it (6:9-19) and finally taking it up again (6:20-7:28).
This passage, whilst doctrinal in content, is extremely pastoral in intent. Its purpose is to encourage the readers to persevere in the salvation which Christ gained for them as their priest and in order to do that it invites them to come to God in prayer with confidence because they have a better high priest that Aaron. Jesus fulfils the requirements for being their priest, even though he was not a descendent of Aaron. His is a superior priesthood. He is one with them and so sympathizes with them and can help them. He can bring them near to God, whom he has reconciled to them by his obedient sacrifice of himself.
This should give them confidence not only to come to God by him, but also to trust God and obey him as Jesus himself did, knowing that he is dependable as he showed in the personal human experience of Jesus.
Jesus is also their example in his obedience and dependence on God for the strength and courage to do his will. They should look to him then as high priest, sacrifice for sin, encourager and example. With him before them, how can they fail to approach God with confidence and so obtain the needed timely grace to persevere in the midst of their trials and persecutions?
The book of Hebrews, whoever its author or readers might have been, was addressed to people who, having professed faith in Jesus as the Christ, were tempted to return to Judaism. Therefore the author sets out to show that Christ is superior to everyone and everything in the O.T. He is greater than angels (1:5-2:9), than Moses and the Law (3:1-6), than Joshua (4:1-10) and the aaronic priesthood (4:14-7:28), and that the New Covenant which he has initiated is greater than the first one initiated by Moses (8:1-10:18).
In all this Christ is not something new, but rather is the fulfillment of all the Scriptures of the O.T. which pointed to his coming, person and work in all that they said. So Christianity is not a new religion, rather it is the continuation of the faith of the patriarchs (11:1-39), without which they would not be perfected without us (11:40).
Interspersed throughout this argument are passages warning of the consequences of abandoning the new faith for the old (2:1-4; 3:7-19; 5:11-14; 6:4-8; 10:26-31;12:14-29). These often break up the argument of the epistle so that it is necessary to remember where it left off.
This is so in the case of one of the central themes of the book, that of priesthood. Hebrews is the only book in the N.T. which explicitly calls Christ a priest, though obviously there are many references to the nature of his death as a sacrifice. The central theme of the Christology of Hebrews is that Christ is high priest. The priesthood of the O.T. was only a shadow of the reality and could not solve the problem of sin. By his death Christ solved this problem. So, to apostatize from Christ means death, because there is no other solution.
There is an allusion to this idea already in 1:3, but it becomes clear in 2:17-3:1 which speak of him as ‘merciful and faithful’ and ‘able to help those who are being tempted’. The theme is then set aside, this time not due to a warning passage, but rather to a comparison with Moses (3:1-6), which leads to the second warning passage (3:7-19) and in turn to a consideration of the Israelites in the wilderness (4:1-10) as a further warning. The theme of priesthood is then resumed (4:14-5:10), only to be interrupted again because the readers are not mature enough to understand it (5:11-6:3). There then follows another warning passage (6:4-8) and it is only in 6:20 that the author returns to the theme in order to finally show that Christ has a higher order of priesthood than that of Aaron, the Order of Melchizedek.
However it is the passage from 4:14 to 5:10 which we wish to examine as this shows the writers understanding of priesthood generally (5:1-4), which he shared with the Jews of the period of the Second Temple. Having established this he then goes on to argue that Jesus is a high priest in his own right, although not descended from Aaron.
TEXTUAL PROBLEMS
Whilst there are various problems of translation in this passage the only textual problem is in 5:6 where P46 has ‘ἐπεύξ, “precentor,” a leader of prayer and praise, for ἱερεύς, “priest”’ (Lane 1991 110 note r). However, since this is in a quotation from Ps 110:4 it is obviously a mistake. The conjectural emendation of Harnack in 5:7 ‘he was not heard’ is generally rejected as not only unnecessary, but ‘actually subversive of the writer’s intention’ (Lane 1998, 110 fn u).
4:14-7:28 THE SUPERIOROTY OF CHRIST OVER THE AARONIC PRIESTHOOD
4:14-5:10 QUALIFICATIONS OF A HIGH PRIEST
The exhortation to enter into rest is reinforced by considering the character of the high priest whom we have. ‘Jesus is one with his people and for them he offers the perfect sacrifice. This is seen largely in terms of the Day of Atonement ceremonies in which the role of the high priest (and not simply any priest) was central.’ (Morris, 1999, in loc.).
4:14 This verse serves to introduce the main theme of the letter. - to show the superiority of Christ over the priests of the line of Aaron. It is also a theme to encourage us: he has gone through the heavens. We need not enumerate these as Paul (II Cor 12:2) or the Talmud (Hagigah 12b) do. The plural reflects the Hebrew word, as often in the LXX and N.T. What is emphasized is his transcendence (7:26; cp. Eph 4:10). This is the evidence that his sacrifice was accepted by God. But he also knows our human condition so we may approach him with confidence. Furthermore, we share the access of our high priest (10:19).
The Word ‘great’ puts this high priest above all those of the aaronic order. Jesus is great because of who he is, ‘the Son of God’. But the emphasis is also on the exaltation of Christ (1:3; 7:28). It is not into an earthly tabernacle that our great high priest has entered, but into the presence of God himself (see 9:24). Furthermore this is not a temporary appearance for a short time, as with the aaronic high priest who passed through the veil and entered once a year into the Most Holy Place. He is now resident in heaven and seated there majestic in power and glory (1:3).
‘Jesus’ denotes his humanity (2:9; 3:1) and thus his qualification to be a high priest. It also indicates the salvation which is found in him (Mat 1:21). ‘Jesus’ is not used in 1:1-14 where his glory is under consideration. When the theme is incarnation, suffering, death and consequent empathy with humanity it is used (2:9ff). He could not be in heaven as our great high priest without first having performed his priestly work on earth. But this he has done, and has now entered into his rest
‘The Son of God’ expresses his unique relation with the Father as the Second Person of the Trinity (cp. 1:1-14). This is the first use of this phrase in the epistle, although it is assumed up until now. It ‘is no doubt intentionally introduced here to combine the humanity and divinity of Jesus as the perfect qualifications for a high priest who was to be superior to all others’ (Guthrie, 2003, 121).
The two titles together suggest both sympathy and power
The author maintains his practical interest of exhortation in this theme: Since this is the nature of our high priest we are encouraged to ‘hold firmly to the faith we profess.’ (NIV), or to ‘our confession’ (NASB). The idea is of clinging to something with determination (Guthrie, 2003, 114) and suggests a certain danger of failing to do so. There is a need for public confession at this time of crisis.
Guthrie sees this expression as forming a beginning and an end to this major section (4:14-10:19). Both have the ideas of holding on to our confession and drawing near to God with confidence through a great high priest.
The writer now takes up a number of motifs introduced in 2:17–18: Jesus’ solidarity with the people of God in their trials, his priestly compassion, his experience of testing through the suffering of death, and his ability to help those who are exposed to the ordeal of testing. The formulation of 4:15–16 recalls the announcement of these themes in 2:17–18 and prepares for the exposition of Jesus’ appointment to the high priestly office in 5:1–10 (Lane, 1998, 111)
4:15 The nature of our high priest is next considered. He can ‘sympathize with our weaknesses’ (NIV) or ‘feel our weaknesses with us’ (Lane 1991 114)., because he has suffered all the strength of the enemy and triumphed over his temptations. His humanity means that he experienced the full range of temptation. Thus he can help us (2:17-18).
There is a double negative here (‘we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize’) perhaps to counter an idea that Jesus was too remote from us to understand us fully. Only here and in 10:34 is the word ‘sympathize’ used in the N.T. It has the idea of ‘suffering along with’ others, but also of active help (Lane, 1991, 114). Here it occurs with reference to ‘our weaknesses’ and is in contrast to their absence in his case (cp. 5:2; 7:28 in a contrast between his and Aaron’s priesthoods at just this point). These weaknesses refer to ‘together with external evils, the feelings of the souls such as fear, sorrow, the dread of death, and similar things’ (Calvin, in loc.).
He can do this because he was tempted ‘in every way, just as we are’. He is the same as us so far as concerns temptation. The idea is of exposure to testing. He felt this just as the readers were now feeling it.
‘Without sin’ has been taken by some to mean that Jesus suffered all the kinds of temptation which we suffer except those which come as a result of previous sin on our part (Morris, 1999; Hagner, 1990). But it can also simply mean that he did not succumb to sin as a result of his temptations, as we do.
We may represent the truth to ourselves best by saying that Christ assumed humanity under the conditions of life belonging to man fallen, though not with sinful promptings from within. (Westcott loc cit)
This theme of the sinlessness of Christ is important to the writer of the epistle (7:26ff) as it is in the rest of the N.T. (II Cor 5:21; I Jn 2:9; I Pet 2:22).
4:16 Because he triumphed we can draw near (The present tense gives the idea of continually doing this.) with confidence to God through him. The idea is of freedom of expression and deliverance from fear (Guthrie, 2003, 124).
A throne is a symbol of sovereignty and majesty and should inspire awe, especially as it is understood to be God’s throne. But we are told to approach it (a term from the Temple cultus cp. 7:25; 10:1, 22; 11:6; Lev. 21:17, 21; 22:3 LXX) with confidence, because for us it is a throne of grace where God dispenses his favour. Perhaps there is an allusion to the ‘atonement cover’ (9:5) (Hagner, 1990, 79; Bruce, 1971, 86). Jesus is seated at the right hand of the throne (8:1; 12:2; cp. 1:3) and so guarantees it as a place of grace. He has brought the sacrifice of himself and now invites us weak and tempted sinners to approach what has thus become a throne of grace. Because of this the right of priestly approach is open to all Christians, a privilege which Israel never enjoyed.
There is thus in this phrase a reference to Jesus as both king and high priest. The mediation of Christ as high priest depends on his relationship not only to God, but also with us, so it was necessary that he was made flesh (2:9-18).
‘Mercy’ and ‘grace’ are what God gives at this throne and they are just what we need.
Man needs mercy for past failure, and grace for present and future work. There is also a difference as to the mode of attainment in each case. Mercy is to be ‘taken’ as it is extended to man in his weakness; grace is to be ‘sought’ by man according to his necessity. (Westcott in loc.)
Mercy is God’s tender compassion; grace is his goodness and love.
Help is timely. It comes not constantly, but rather just when needed. When we approach his throne of grace God will hear and answer for Jesus’ sake.
Now the author shows the nature of the high priestly office and the qualifications for it (5:1-4) and then goes on to show how Christ fulfils these. The qualifications needed by the priests for their work included a relationship with the people they represented, compassion and appointment by God.
Lane (1998, 111) gives the structure of the passage as:
A The old office of high priest (5:1)
B. The solidarity of the high priest with the people (5:2-3)
C. The humility of the high priest (5:4)
C’ The humility of Christ (5:5-6)
B’ The solidarity of Christ with the people (5:7-8)
A’ The new office of high priest (5:9-10)
5:1 Firstly ‘every high priest is selected from among men’, he is one of them, sharing their nature and weaknesses. This was necessary as he had ‘to represent them in matters related to God’. The work of a priest has to do with God and his character and requirements. Its object is to reconcile sinful men to God. There is the idea of positive action here.
He was also ‘appointed’ to his office. (The passive mood suggests that the appointment was made by God.- which in fact was the case in the O.T.) He was essentially a mediator between God and men, not only bringing ‘gifts and sacrifices’ to God on behalf of the people, but also instructing the people regarding God’s will (Mal 2:7). There is no relationship between men and God except through a priest as men are now sinful and need someone to present sacrifices on their behalf.
The work of a priest was to offer ‘gifts and sacrifices for sins’ (see 8:3) to God on behalf of the people. Because of sin in the world there was no other way of access to God. The phrase refers to sacrifices of all kinds, bloody and unbloody, ‘But when ‘gifts’ and ‘sacrifices’ are distinguished the former mark the ‘meal-offering’ … and the latter the bloody offerings. Comp. 8:3; 9:9.’ (Westcott in loc.)
5:2,3 Inner disposition is not a requirement for the high priest in the O.T. and this, along with other considerations, has led Lane (1991, 114-116) to consider that 5:1-4 is based on 4:15-16 and that the contrast is not between Aaron and Christ, but between Christ and Aaron, with Christ as the model to which Aaron could not fully conform.- therefore Christ is superior to him.
He must show gentleness and sympathy in his dealings with others (see Num 14:5; 16:22, 47). The idea of the word ‘gently’ (metriopaqei'n) is one of moderation in his emotions. It is a middle course between the apathy so admired by the stoics, and anger. He is to be neither indifferent nor harsh.
‘Those who are ignorant and going astray’ are the people he represents. There was no provision for deliberate sins of provocation of God (Num 15:30; Ps 95:7-11) under the Law, so the high priest had to know how to distinguish these from those of ignorance for which sacrifices could be made (Num 15:28). Sins of ignorance were those committed due to not paying attention to what the Law said. Those ‘going astray’ due to such ignorance are not hardened rebels, and so there is a way back provided for them.
A priest must offer first for his own sins (Lev 9:7; 16:6, 11, 15-16). He is in the same condition as those he represents. With this knowledge of his own weakness he can have compassion for others. The Mishna represents a prayer of the high priest on the Day of Atonement as follows:
"O God, I have committed iniquity and transgressed and sinned before thee, I and my house and the children of Aaron, thy holy people. O God, forgive, I pray, the iniquities and transgressions and sins which I have committed and transgressed and sinned before thee, I and my house" (M Yoma 4:2).
But Christ was without sin, and did not need to offer first for himself (7:27). This makes him superior to them. But even so his mercy is greater than any other priest (2:17-18).
5:4 It was also necessary for a priest to be called by God. The appointment of Aaron set the pattern for this (Exod 28:1-3; Lev 8:1). His appointment extended to his heirs and successors (Num 20:23ff; 25:10ff). Others who attempted to take his office suffered the consequences of their folly (Num 16; I Sam 13:8ff; II Cron 26:16ff). The emphasis is not on the exalted nature of the call but rather on the humility of the one called: he did not presume to enter into his office but rather was appointed to it.
This was not the case in contemporary Judaism since the time of Antiochus IV as high priests were regularly made and unmade by men (Bruce, 1971, 92 fn 19). However the writer is not interested in present practice, but in biblical principles. The calling of God was important and the office was an ‘honour’.
Whatever is done among the people of God regarding appointment to office or adoration which is offered without a command of God does not have divine approval and incurs divine judgement. (Lev 10:1-3; II Cron 26:16-21). This principle was enunciated by the Reformers on the basis of this and similar texts.
5:5 Here, as in the case of comparison with Moses (3:1-6), the writer begins by showing the similarities between Christ and Aaron (‘just as Aaron, so Christ’), only to highlight the contrast later. God has given the office of high priest to Christ. Even as the Anointed One (Christ), he did not put himself into this office, but was called to it by his Father (Jn 8:54).
The use of the official title ὁ Χριστός, “the Christ/the Anointed One” (cf. 9:28), already affirms the fact of divine appointment. The primary proof that Jesus displayed the humility required of his office and did not take for himself the honor of becoming high priest is provided on the basis of Scripture. (Lane 1998, 117)
His natural relation as Son qualified him for the priesthood (Ps 2:7). Here begins the contrast with Aaron, although it is not fully developed until 7:1-28. The emphasis here is on God’s appointment declared in this Psalm and Psalm 110. There are parallels with the opening verses of the epistle where the list of quotations begins with Ps 2:7 and ends with Ps 110:1 (1:5-14). There the important point was to establish the unique sonship of Christ. Here it is to link that sonship with his priesthood. Whilst Ps 110:1 is not quoted again here, it is obviously the link between Ps 2:7 and Ps 110:4.
5:6 Christ is different from Aaron.- but like another priest, Melchizedek (Ps 110:4) who was both a king and a priest, whilst Aaron was only a priest. Christ fulfils these two offices of King and priest forever. Whilst Ps 110:1 is quoted in various parts of the N.T. (Mat 22:43; I Cor 15:25; Acts 2:34f), only in Hebrews is verse 4 used to describe Christ (5:6; 7:17, 21 and various allusions). Its introduction here prepares the way for the teaching on Melchizedek in the later chapters. Christ is a priest who truly fulfils the functions of his office and brings about atonement, unlike Aaron and his successors who could only do so symbolically.
Another contrast is that Christ is a priest ‘forever’ and does not pass away or is not succeeded by others as was the case with Aaron. Thus he is a priest ‘of the same kind as Melchizedek’. Most translate ‘in the order of’, but there was no order of Melchizedek as he had no successor, and therefore it is correct to see this as meaning ‘of the same kind’ (Lane, 1998, 110 fn s; Morris, 1999 loc. cit.)
Christ has no successor, nor any need of one, because his sacrifice and entrance into the presence of God are completed (Heb. 9:12, 14; 13:20.).
Reference to the oath which established this priesthood is reserved for 6:13ff and that to the historical figure who met Abram (Gen 14:18-20) will not be treated until chapter 7. Nevertheless the introduction to the theme is made here.
In Israel kingship and priesthood were maintained as separate offices (but see the prophecy of Zac 6:13), unlike in other societies in the Fertile Crescent where they were combined. The Hsasmonean dynasty was the first to combine them, but not all accepted this (eg. Qumran). Here however the offices are united in one person, Christ, and this is given a historical and a biblical precedent in the enigmatic figure of Melchizedek whom chapter 7 will show to be superior to Aaron in many ways.
5:7-10 are kerigmatic and confessional Jesus participated fully in the human condition (cp. Phil 2:5-8)
5:7 refers to the sufferings of Christ in general during his life in the ‘flesh’, (the condition of human weakness which he shared) but with special reference to Gethsemane and Calvary. These sufferings equipped Christ to be a high priest with compassion (4:15).
‘He offered up prayers and petitions’ just as Aaron offered ‘gifts and sacrifices for sins’ (5:1). It was a priestly action (Lane, 1998, 119; Kistermaker, 1985, 136). But it also indicates his dependence upon God as a human being. ‘Prayers’ is a general term, but ‘petitions’ describes the supplication of someone in need of help in overwhelming circumstances.
‘With loud cries and tears’ expresses the intensity of his agony. This is not referred to directly in the Gospel accounts though there are references which could account for the use of such an expression (Luk 22:44; Mat 27:46).
If we continue to think in terms of the cultus then ‘he was heard’ perhaps indicates that his offering was accepted by God, ‘the one who could save him from death. Lane (1998, 120) sees this as simply a title for God and of no further significance in the context. But some (Hagner, 1990, 81) feel that it does refer to Christ’s deliverance in his exaltation following his death. However this although a popular idea, is perhaps artificial.
Rather ‘he was heard’ possibly refers to the response to his submission. Even though he desired that the cup would pass from him, his prayers were conditioned by the will of his Father. Thus it was this petition for the will of his Father to be done which was heard (Mat 26:39; Mar 14:36; Luk 22:42). In this case it was not merely that this will be done to him, but that he would actively do it (Jn 4:34; 6:38; Heb 10:5-9). Consequently he was given strength not only to endure the ordeal which awaited him but to actively offer himself (9:14; 25-26) and thus to sanctify those for whom he made the offering (10:10).
The phrase ‘because of his reverent submission.’ (NIV) or ‘godly fear’ (12:28) suggests the thoughtful shrinking from over-boldness. Some however (Cullmann, 1971, 96) understand the word simply to mean ‘fear’. ‘The whole context forces upon one the sense of ordinary human fear as the meaning of eulabeia’. He had the ordinary human fear of death and he was heard because he conquered this fear when he prayed not for his own will but for that of the Father to be done.
This idea makes even more sense if we add the older view that what he feared was death as the wrath of God coming upon him for the sins of his people which he would bear. Here there is no trace of Docetism but the clearest indication of the humanity of Christ. This is seen even more clearly in the following verse.
5:8 With his equality with God as Son he was ready to be obedient as man (Gal 4:4-5; Phil 2:6-8).
‘Son though he was’ he did not cling to this privilege of eternal sonship (Phil 2:6,7) but received it as Mediator from the Father as a reward for his death (Phil 2:9-11)
‘He learned obedience’ refers to his conscious experience in action which was always present in principle. There is a great difference between a desire to obey and obedience. The suggestion is of a process of development (Luk 2:52) which is complete only when it ends in the obedience of atoning suffering (cp. Phil 2:8). This Jesus had to learn. There is no conflict here between this and his deity, but rather the recognition of his having come as Mediator and the implications which this brought.
How did he learn obedience? We know how it happens with us. We learn to be obedient through the unpleasant things which happen when we are disobedient! But it was not like this for him.
‘He set out from the start on the path of obedience to God, and learned by the sufferings which came his way in consequence just what obedience to God involved in practice in the conditions of human life on earth’ (Bruce, 1971, 103)
So there is not progress from disobedience to obedience but rather expansion in his obedience. In every situation he was obedient to the full extent of the divine demand. But these demands became more and more extensive as he advanced to the climax and their implications became more fully known and understood. This demanded increasing resources of his will and so he learnt obedience. Thus his death was the supreme act of obedience
The idea of obedience again is something active (see 5:1). Jesus does not merely suffer passively, but is active in his obedience towards God (9:14, 25-26).
The verb for ‘suffer’ in Hebrews is used only of the passion of Jesus (2:9,10; 9:26; 13:12). Here then it refers to his unique redemptive sufferings in his high priestly office. Learning occurs in the reception of Scripture as the Word of God. From this Jesus learned that his death was part of the saving will of God and therefore part of his calling. Therefore ‘obedience’ is to this call to suffer.
Jesus freely accepted the suffering of death because Scripture, and through it God, appointed him to this sacrifice for the sake of his office. (Lane, 1998, 121)
These two verses show his qualification to be a sympathetic high priest. The readers can see that he identifies with them in that he did not use his divine power to escape death, any more than he did to escape suffering in the wilderness (Mat 4:1-11). Thus he learnt by his human experience. His obedience was learned through suffering and prayer.
5:9 He was always morally perfect, otherwise his sacrifice would not have been accepted. Here ‘made perfect’ refers to his perfect aptitude for his office. Having completed God’s will he himself reaches a state of completeness. His suffering did something. By it he arrived at the goal appointed for him by God and is fully qualified as high priest in a way that even Aaron did not qualify. It was attested by his sitting at the right hand of God, his work finished (1:3).
His triumph gained our eternal salvation. Thus he is its ‘source’ (NIV) or meritorious cause (2:10). His obedience is what achieves salvation (Rom 5:19; Heb 10:10) What does not come through him is not true salvation. He brings his people into the life of the world to come. It is ‘eternal salvation’.- something stable and enduring (Isa 45:17).
‘For all who obey him’: genuine participation in this salvation is always accompanied by obedience No one who is rebellious can be saved (4:1-10). Obedience is the sign of real faith (cp. 4:3). The believer’s obedience to Christ answers to the Son’s obedience to the Father.
Here also salvation is opened to everyone and no longer restricted to the Jews. Christ came to offer salvation to all men.. Whilst Hebrews is addressed primarily to Jewish Christians there is also a great emphasis not on Christ’s jewishness, but on his humanity. He came as the Saviour of the human race and all who obey him find salvation.
5:10 God designated Christ as a high priest like Melchizedek. This confirms that he has all the qualifications necessary for his office. This should be an encouragement to the readers as they face a life of suffering for obedience to the revealed will of God.
But before he develops this theme he speaks of his readers’ immaturity (5:11-6:3) and warns them of the dangers of such a position (6:4-8), before returning gradually to it (6:9-19) and finally taking it up again (6:20-7:28).
This passage, whilst doctrinal in content, is extremely pastoral in intent. Its purpose is to encourage the readers to persevere in the salvation which Christ gained for them as their priest and in order to do that it invites them to come to God in prayer with confidence because they have a better high priest that Aaron. Jesus fulfils the requirements for being their priest, even though he was not a descendent of Aaron. His is a superior priesthood. He is one with them and so sympathizes with them and can help them. He can bring them near to God, whom he has reconciled to them by his obedient sacrifice of himself.
This should give them confidence not only to come to God by him, but also to trust God and obey him as Jesus himself did, knowing that he is dependable as he showed in the personal human experience of Jesus.
Jesus is also their example in his obedience and dependence on God for the strength and courage to do his will. They should look to him then as high priest, sacrifice for sin, encourager and example. With him before them, how can they fail to approach God with confidence and so obtain the needed timely grace to persevere in the midst of their trials and persecutions?
The Pastoral Epistles: Exegetical Essay
II Timothy is generally believed to be the last of Paul’s writings, addressed to Timothy, who was in Ephesus, from Paul’s prison in Rome. It deals with disorder and heresy in the church and counsels Timothy to confront the situation with firmness. Now that Paul is no longer present and will soon be taken from the churches (4:8) Timothy must depend on the word of God which he has learnt since his childhood (3:14-17) and preach and teach it against all opposition (4:1-5). Paul’s own experience and his hope of a future reward (4:6-8) are more than the final confident outpourings of the apostle, they are to be an encouragement to Timothy as he pursues his ministry in the absence of his mentor.
The generally accepted portrait of Timothy as timid (I Cor 16:10, 11; II Tim 1:7?) is belied by the history of his ministry as seen in Acts and the Pauline epistles. He was sent on special missions to Thessalonica and is associated with Paul in both the letters to that church. He was with Paul at Corinth (II Cor 1:19) and was sent on another important mission to Macedonia from whence he was to proceed to Corinth (I Cor 4:17). Even though it appears this mission was not successful (II Corinthians) he accompanied Paul on his next visit to Corinth (Rom16:21) and was with him in Jerusalem (Acts 20:4,5) and as he wrote his prison epistles. And Paul announces that he is sending him to Philippi . Following Paul’s release from prison he left Timothy at Ephesus (I Tim 1:3) to sort out the difficult situation in the church there. Obviously Paul had confidence in his ability to handle the situation
It appears that there were defections among the Pauline congregations including some of Paul’s fellow-workers (4:10, 16) and people no longer wanted to hear the truth (3:4). In these circumstances there is an appeal for faithful witness in the face of opposition (1:6-2:7) in the light of Paul’s example (2:8-13) and warnings against the false teachers (2:14-3:9). Since evil people will go from bad to worse (3:13), Timothy, in contrast to the false teachers, must maintain the teaching which he has received (3:14).
In the light of this situation Timothy is repeatedly encouraged to teach the word of God (2:2, 15, 24). This is the theme of the section to be examined in detail. - 3:14-4:8.
3:14-15 Paul reminds Timothy of his early persecutions (3:10-12) but urges him to continue as he has begun (3:13-17). The emphasis is on the need for Timothy to ‘continue’ in the teaching which he has received. ‘In contrast to the false teachers with their constant endeavour to advance to something new, Timothy may be satisfied with what he has already received’ (Guthrie, 1969, 162). This is a sacred trust which must be passed on to others (2:2).
Throughout the passage Paul appears to be referring not only to the O.T. but also to the message of Jesus and the apostles. A Christian evangelist can hardly be expected to rely on the O.T. ignoring the specific gospel message of Jesus Christ. So the gospel message is understood to underlie the whole section (3:15), even when references are specifically to the O.T. (3:16)
The gospel has been the theme of the epistle so far. Timothy is not to be ashamed of it, but to suffer willingly for its message (1:8-10). Paul was called to announce it and suffers as a consequence (1:11-12). Timothy is to follow his pattern of sound words (1:13), guard it (1:14) and entrust it to reliable men who will transmit it to others after he in turn has departed (2:2). It is the word of truth (2:15, 25; 3:7) and Timothy must teach it (2:24). In the light of all this the call to constancy must include the gospel message in ‘what’ (plural) he had learnt and was convinced of. The word which he is to proclaim (4:2), whilst it includes the O.T. must also refer to the message of the gospel, especially if he is to ‘do the work of an evangelist’ (4:5).
In the face of possible future persecution he should remember not only Paul’s example, but also what he was taught from his childhood (3:15; see 1:5). Those from whom he learned it (1:5) are worthy of his confidence. Their character, based on their message, is in contrast with that of the false teachers, which is also based on their message (Mounce, 2000, 563). As the message marks the character of the teacher so the character of the teacher reflects the message he brings. Another contrast with the false teachers is seen in that Scripture can mane Timothy ‘wise unto salvation’ (3.15) whereas they are not wise (3:9, 13) because they do not teach the sacred writings but rather the commandments of men (cp. Tit 1:14).
He must recall what he already knows (2:23; I Tim 1:9; Tit 3:11). Jewish children (avpo. bre,fouj) were customarily taught the law at an early age, and they had to commit parts of it to memory. (Deut 6:7, 9; Prov 1:8; 6:20; 22:6; see Pirke Aboth 5:21 where R. Judah ben Tema is credited with the saying ‘five years for the Scripture…’). It seems that Timothy, despite his gentile father, was given such training by his mother and grandmother (1:5) (Marshall, 1999, 789). However he also learnt from the Apostle (3:10) and this must also be included in the thought here. Ultimately what he had received was the teaching of the ‘Holy Scriptures’ which were ‘God-breathed’.
But not only had he learnt as a child and a young man, he had ‘become convinced of’ the truth of this teaching.
The phrase ‘holy Scriptures’ occurs only here in the N.T. However it is a common phrase in Hellenistic Judaism for the Jewish Scriptures (Marshall, 1999, 789 fn 65). These Scriptures have an innate ability: they can make Timothy ‘wise for salvation’ as they themselves taught (Ps 19:8; 119:98¸same word as here in LXX 18: 8; 118:98), but in this case they require a specifically Christian interpretation in order to do so. ‘
Salvation’ in the N.T.is ‘the spiritual deliverance from bondage to sin that Christ brings’ (Knight, 1992, 444). This is the message which Timothy must preach to others (4:2). This comes through ‘faith which is in Christ Jesus’, which may mean that which has Christ as its object (Knight, 1992, 444) or faith which is given us in Christ or in union with him (see 3:12).
3:16 Paul then speaks of the nature and purpose of Scripture. Here there is an allusion to the normal Jewish belief of the day and not a definition of the doctrine of Scripture. This is not to say that this text does not have a legitimate application to the debate on scriptural inspiration, but merely to indicate that the primary concern of Paul is its use, a high view of inspiration being assumed in both Jewish and Christian circles in the first century.
Rather it emphasizes its function in the teaching task of Timothy and the church in general.
There are several exegetical problems at the beginning of this verse: (a) the term grafh;; (b) the syntax of the adjective pasa; (c) the syntax of the verbless clause; and (d) the meaning of qeopneustoõ (Marshall, 1999,, 790-1; see Knight, 1992, 444).
(a) Grafh was used for any piece of writing, but in the N.T. it is used only of Scripture, as is seen here in its parallelism with ‘holy Scripture’ (3:15) (Knight, 1992, 445). It can refer to a specific passage or a collection of these (II Pet 3:16). But it may also refer to the collection of Scripture as a whole (II Pet 1:20; see Mounce, 2000, 567-8), though normally this is the case with the use of the plural.
Paul’s use of the term generally would suggest that this is the case. ‘It should also be noted that the singular pasa grafh, “all Scripture,” is parallel to the plural iera grammata, “sacred writings,” which refers to the entire OT.’ (Josephus Against Apion 1:8; Mounce, 2000, 567).
(b) Pasa has been understood in three different ways in this passage: (1) ‘all of the Scripture’ that is the whole O.T.(KJV; NIV; Knight 1992, 445); (2) ‘every passage of Scripture’ (RV; NRSV marg;) ; and (3) ‘every kind of inspired writing’. The third option is not in keeping with the rest of N.T. literature, but between the first two: Scripture as a whole or an individual text of Scripture there is little to choose. With certain collectives the meaning ‘all’ is intended (Rom 11:26; Mat 28:18). In the end there is little difference in meaning, ‘all Scripture’ sees Scripture as a whole, and ‘every Scripture’ sees it in terms of its component parts. The first is more likely in the context. Most consider the reference to be to the O.T., but some have seen it as extending to N.T. writings already in existence (I Tim 5:18; II Pet 3:15-16) (Hendriksen, 1976, 300-302; Knight, 1992, 447-8).
Whilst Paul nowhere calls his writings ‘Scripture’ he comes close to it in several places. He directs that his letters be read publically in Christian assemblies (Col 4:16; I Thes 5:27) and speaks with the authority of Christ (II Cor 2:17; 13:3; Gal 4:14), calling his message ‘the word of God’ (I Thes 2:13; see I Cor 2:13) (Stott, 1973, 101).
(c) The two adjectives qeo,pneustoj kai. wvfe,limoj can be understood as: (1) ‘every/all Scripture which is inspired is profitable for...’; or (2) ‘Every/all Scripture is inspired and profitable for...’. Both translations are theoretically possible. The first is a common style of phrase (See 3:17; 4:18). But the phrase is awkward and there were easier ways of saying this first option. Furthermore it implies that there may be some Scriptures which were not inspired a point of view unlikely either for the author or the readers of the epistle. Whilst there are no other examples of the second option) it should be accepted as the most natural understanding of the phrase (so Knight, 1992, 446-7). ‘When two adjectives follow the subject and are connected by kai, it is natural to treat them both the same way.... Because Scripture comes from God, it is profitable for Timothy’s preparation for ministry.’ (Mounce, 2000, 569).
(d) The significance of qeo,pneustoj. The form is passive and means ‘God-breathed’. The word was possible coined by the author, but the idea of inspiration is present in the O.T. (Num 24:2; cp. Hos 9:7) and in both Rabbinic and Hellenistic Judaism. This means that Paul sees the source of all Scripture in the breath of God. It is therefore the word of God. (Jn 10:35 shows the same parallel.)
But the emphasis is on the second adjective. Because all Scripture is inspired by God it is therefore ‘useful’, or of practical benefit, for various purposes. There are four uses of Scripture: ‘teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness’. Some have seen these as two pairs, the first doctrinal (positive and negative) and the second practical (negative and positive) (Guthrie, 1969, 176; Stott, 1973, 103; Knight, 1992, 449-50), but others see this as artificial (Marshall, 1999, 795). Marshall (1999, 795) and Mounce (2000, 570) see both a chiasmos (Stott, 1973, 103) ‘with terms for teaching/education and conviction/correction’ and also a sequence in which ‘teaching’ is qualified by ‘a sequence of three describing the steps in the conversion of sinners’.
‘Spicq... explains the four phrases as (a) Scripture is the only true source for pastoral and doctrinal teaching, (b) Scripture is the best ammunition for rebuking the false teachers, (c) Scripture will not only stop the deviations of the false teachers but straighten out and improve the condition, and (d) Scripture is necessary for the training of truly virtuous Christians.’ (Mounce, 2000, 570)
Stott (1973, 102) puts it more succinctly when he says that ‘The profit of Scripture relates to both creed and conduct’ He illustrates this by his use of the NEB translation: ‘As for our creed, Scripture is profitable “for teaching the truth and refuting error”. As for our conduct, it is profitable “for reformation of manners and discipline in right living.”’
‘Teaching’ (I Tim 1:10) is instruction (Rom 15:4). Scripture instructs by means of its content.
‘Rebuking’ refers to ‘refuting error’ (NEB). It is the conviction of false doctrine. Scripture is the standard and pattern of truth (1:13) and Timothy is to use it to guard the truth (1:14) and convict of error. The word is a hapax in the N.T. ‘If the four purposes of scripture listed here are reflected in the four duties in 4:2 (“preach the word... reprove, rebuke, exhort”), then this hapax is elucidated by elegcw there.’ (Knight, 1992, 449).
‘Correcting’ is also a hapax in the N.T. which refers to ‘setting right’ probably referring to conduct, as in extrabiblical literature. This is the positive side of pastoral activity.
‘Training in righteousness’ is designed to produce conduct where righteousness is a reality (2:22; I Tim 6:11). Scripture provides the content of belief and the guidelines for conduct.
3:17 The purpose of all this is to equip the ‘man of God’ for ‘every good work’. This probably refers to the Christian teacher in the congregation (I Tim 6:11; cp. Deut 33:11; I King 17:18) (Guthrie, 1969, 165). It may however have a general sense, referring to any Christian. The idea is of completeness, proficiency or qualification. He should be able to meet all demands. Scripture equips the man of God to meet the demands which God places upon him (Rom 15:4; I Cor 9:9-10). This is particularly apt for the Christian leader (cp. 4:2).
That for which they are equipped is ‘every aspect and task of the Christian life, and in Timothy’s case of the Christian ministry’ (Knight, 1992, 450) (Ephes 4:12, 13). God has created Christians for good works and called them to do them (Eph 2:10; Tit 3:1; II Tim 2:21). He has also given Scripture so that they know in principle ‘what duty God requires of man’ (WSC A 3) and can be prepared to do the ‘good work’ expected in each situation. The Gospel will always have a practical outworking. Good works are the marks of the true servants of God in distinction to the false teachers (2:21).
4:1-5 The final exhortation (4:1-5) is urgent and sums up all that has gone before.
‘There are nine imperatives, eight of them spelling out activities that Timothy must engage in as aspects of his ministry and attitudes that must characterize him in his work (vv. 2,5) and the last, “fulfil your ministry” (v 5), summarizing the specific commands in this subsection and the demands made on Timothy earlier in the letter’ (Knight, 1992, 451).
4:1 Timothy is solemnly warned of the importance of his task in the light of coming of Christ to judge (2:14; I Tim 5:21). There is a possible legal setting here as Paul leaves a charge to his successor. This may initially sound like a threat, but in the light of verse 8 it should probably be seen as an incentive to Timothy to press on with his task. Paul here acts with his full apostolic authority as seen in the use of the first person singular (cp. 1:1). He charges Timothy solemnly ‘in the presence of’ (lit. ‘before’) ‘God and of Christ Jesus’. The phrase is used with ‘God’ (2:24; Gal 1:20) and with ‘and Christ Jesus’ here and in I Tim 5:21 and 6:13. Both observe what Timothy is doing.
The one who came in flesh as Jesus (Mat 1:21) and is God’s anointed (Acts 10:38), will one day judge Timothy, as he will judge all men (II Cor 5:10; Jn 5:22, 27; Acts 17:31). ‘The living and the dead’ (see Acts 10:42; I Pet 4:5) refers to the whole human race at the time of the judgement. Christ will judge those who are alive then, as well as those who have died before this final day (I Thes 4:13-17). Just as this thought motivated Paul (II Cor 5:9-11), so he wanted it to motivate Timothy.
NIV translates the next phrase ‘and in view of his appearing and his kingdom’. This is probably correct as it indicates ‘the accusative used with swearing or adjuring (cf. BDF 149, see, e.g. I Thes. 5:27)’ (Knight, 1992, 452). Christ will appear to manifest his kingdom in its fullness and will then reward his faithful servants. This should be an encouragement for Timothy as it is for Paul himself (4:8).
4:2 Timothy must herald out the word (1:11). Here this refers to the word of God (2:9, 15; I Tim 1:15) though it is not qualified as such. Timothy has learnt this word (3:14-16) and it is profitable for his ministry (3:17) and therefore he must proclaim this word of truth. He is not at liberty to invent his message, but must ‘preach the word’ which God has spoken and deposited in Scripture. Once again the role of Scripture is central in his ministry (1:13-14; see I Tim 4:6-16; 6:20). However he must know that his hearers will not put up with it (4:3).
In order to carry out this duty he must be ready to grasp all opportunities which come his way, whether the time is convenient or not. Normally rhetoricians advised their students to grasp the correct opportunities to address their hearers. Paul here ignores that advice and instead tell Timothy to preach in all circumstances (Ezek 3:11). There is urgency to the task. The Christian minister must always be on duty.
Timothy is to preach the word. As he does so it will conflict with the teaching of others and Timothy must ‘correct’ this, ‘rebuke’ those who will not listen and ‘exhort’ those who will.
He must ‘correct’ them and show them that they are sinners (I Tim 5:20). The word is used of correcting an opponent (Tit 1:9, 13; 2:15). Here Paul picks up what he said about Scripture in 3:16. Sinners are under reproof. The fourth imperative is used of rebuke, censure or preventing or ending an action. The idea is of a public process, but private dealings are not ruled out. ‘In the third imperative Timothy is charged to speak to those who are in error or doing wrong and to attempt to convince them of that; in the fourth he is charged to tell those doing wrong to stop’ (Knight, 1992, 454). ‘Rebike’ is a strong word used of Christ’s rebuking demons (Mar 3:12; 8:33; Luk 9:55; 19:39-40).
But positively he is to teach (I Tim 3:2; Acts 20:20, 27) and encourage as well. He must ‘appeal to’ them and urge or exhort them.
The four terms used here parallel the four used to describe the usefulness of Scripture. All that Timothy needs for his ministry is found in the God-breathed Writing which he knows and in which he has confidence. There is a logical order to his activity. He is to confront the false teachers and if they do not listen, he must ‘rebuke’ them. But if they listen to him he is to ‘exhort’ them to live a life of righteousness.
In this and in all his activities he must have patience (3:10; I Tim 1:16) as required by the work he is to do and the need for perseverance and forbearance in dealing with the people and difficulties envisaged in the next verse.
He is to use every kind of instruction. It is by what one has been taught that elders are able to ‘exhort’ and ‘rebuke’ (Tit 1:9). Christian exhortation must have a solid basis in the sound teaching of the Gospel. ?To rebuke without instruction is to leave the root cause of error untouched’ (Guthrie, 1969, 167).
4:3 This verse shows the need for the solemnity of 4:1 and the urgency of 4:2. Such exhortations are necessary, not only in view of the general work of the ministry, but by the tendency of the hearers to fall away from the truth (gar as giving the reason). ‘It is human nature to hear only what we want to hear and to close our ears to anything that counters our distorted ideas of truth and pleasure.’ (Liefeld, 1999, 291). An inconvenient time will come. Timothy should not be surprised or disenchanted. The future tense speaks of certainty and warns against surprise (Knight, 1992, 455), and perhaps indicates what will happen if the advice of 4:2 is not followed. Corrupt men will seek teachers who will confirm them in their false beliefs. ‘Desires’ are always sinful in the Pastoral Epistles (I Tim 6:9). Doctrine cannot be separated from behaviour. Because their actions are controlled by their desires their teaching is wrong.
This is why it is necessary to preach the word in all circumstances if such activity is to be curbed. ‘Sound doctrine’ is what Paul taught and urged Timothy to teach (1:13; see I Tim 1:10; Tit 1:9; 2:1). It is also what the false teachers and their followers ‘will not put up with’ (Heb 13:22; see Ezek33:32). They have made themselves the measure of what they should hear and of who should teach them and what teaching is acceptable. This is because their own subjective desires are evil and selfish (See I Tim 6:9; Tit 2:12; 3:3). So they will not put up with the objective truth (4:4). They substitute their own ideas for God’s truth. They gather a large number of teachers whom they choose themselves (Knight, 1992, 455). They ‘heap up’ (lit.) or ‘accumulate’ these teachers (Jer 5:31). They are curious for something new (Acts 17:21) and the teachers they have accumulated satisfy this curiosity.
4:4 They deliberately turn away from the truth they once professed (1:15). ‘The truth’ is the message of Christianity as absolute (2:15, 18, 25; 3:7, 8). They then ‘turn aside to myths’ (I Tim 1:6). The idea is of wandering to myths with no idea that truth has been left behind (Guthrie, 1969, 167). Myths are what are not true, or historical and lack reality (I Tim 1:4; 4:7; Tit 1:4). Nothing is said of their content or provenance here, but it is obvious that they are false as they are the opposite of the truth. They probably relate to the speculative reinterpretation of the O.T. (I Tim 1:4).
4:5 In the light of this reality Timothy, in contrast, (‘but you’) is exhorted to four things. Firstly he must keep his head. He must be sober and well-balanced. The present tense probably indicates the need for this to be a continuous action. - ‘in all situations’ Again he must ‘endure suffering’ patiently (2:3; see 1:8, 12) just as Paul did (2:9). Perhaps this is needed especially in this case due to the mental and spiritual anguish of seeing the apostle’s and his own work undone by these apostates.
In these circumstances he is not to give up but rather to ‘do the work of an evangelist’. His apologetics and polemics against the false teachers are no substitute for evangelism. He is not to put the latter on hold until he has sorted out the problems in the church. Or perhaps, having lost much of his congregation to the false teachers he is not to despair, but rather go out and evangelize in order to build up a new congregation.
To sum up, he is to discharge all the duties of his ministry. He must persevere until his task is complete (See Col 4:17). It is a call to sacrificial service. So concludes Paul’s charge to Timothy. The reason for the urgency in this charge (gar in 4:6) is that Paul will no longer be there for Timothy.
4:6 Paul now talks about the fulfilment of his own service. His purpose here is threefold: to set an example for Timothy to follow; to indicate that Timothy and others must now take the place he is vacating; and to assure him of the promise of reward for faithful service. He uses the concepts he mentioned earlier in order to encourage Timothy (2:1-7) to speak of his own ministry and thus show that what he has asked of Timothy can be accomplished by the grace of God working in the minister’s life (4:7). You, Timothy, must carry out the ministry (4:5) because I, Paul, am about to depart (4:6).
Paul is ready to be poured out as a libation. The background for this idea is probably in the O.T. (Ex 29:40-41; Lev 23:13; Num 15:5-10; 28:7; see Phil 2:17) and not the pagan world of the Roman Empire. The present tense indicates a process already begun, in this case in his imprisonment. His death will not take place immediately, as he hopes to see Timothy (4:9, 21) and that he will bring some items (4:13). But it is certain and near. But it is not a defeat. The time for the loosing of his moorings (Phil 1:23) is imminent and he is ready to depart from this life to the next.
4:7 ‘Three parallel clauses sum up Paul’s career. Each is metaphorical.’ (Marshal, 1999, 807). Some see the metaphors as of war, athletics and stewardship. However it is better to see all three as referring to athletics and the victor’s crown is that given at the games. In the third case it is the athlete keeping the rules (cp. 2:5; , but in a Christian context we should probably see this as a more literal statement.
‘The objects are placed first to draw attention not to what Paul has done but to the fight, the race and the faith that are the Lord’s’ (Mounce, 2000, 579). All say the same thing: Paul has finished his ministry.
He has struggled (1:8, 12; 2:9-10; 3:11, but it has been a ‘good’ struggle ‘because he has engaged in it for God and the gospel’ (Knight, 1992, 459). The perfect tense here and in the next two clauses indicates that Paul is referring to his entire ministry. His example urges Timothy once again to be a good soldier of Christ (2:3).
He has finished the race (Acts 20:24), the course set out for him when God called him to the task (2:11; see I Tim 1:12; 2:7. By God’s grace he has completed his ministry.
The third phrase can be understand as ‘I have kept on believing’ (Rev 2:13; 14:12) or remained faithful (Hendriksen, 1976, 316). On the other hand it could mean ‘I have preserved the faith intact’ Knight (1992, 460) regards the first of these as primary and the second as secondary. Marshall (1999, 808) agrees. The other two clauses speak of perseverance and so this is probably the main sense here as well.
But in this epistle with its emphasis on ‘sound doctrine’ (4:3. 4), ‘sound words’ (1:13) and the ‘word of truth’ (2:15) the idea of the faith as a treasure to be kept (1:14) cannot be entirely excluded from the apostle’s thought. Furthermore in the Pastoral Epistles ‘the faith’ always refers to ‘the objective, creedal sense of the Christian faith (Mounce 2000, 580). In this sense Paul has guarded the deposit of the Gospel (1:14). This would also e in line with the previous two phrases as well as the emphasis in the epistle that the Gospel is under attack (2:18, 25; 3:8) and that Timothy must protect it (1:13, 14; 2:15).
4:8 Having dealt with the past and the present he now looks to the future.
Paul has finished hid course and the next event which awaits him is his crowning in heaven. So he is confident that his reward awaits him in heaven and that he will receive the victor’s crown from the hand of Christ ‘the righteous judge’ (Heb 6:10). The ‘crown of righteousness’ is either the crown consisting of righteousness, the genitive being appositional (‘the crown, namely righteousness’) (Knight, 1992, 461). Other passages support this interpretation (I Thes 2:19; Jas 1:12; I Pet 5:4; ReV 2:10; 21:1; i Cor 9:25). On the other hand it could mean a crown appropriate for a righteous person. Those who live a life of righteousness (3:16) will receive a crown. This fits better with the idea of an athlete’s crown and the idea that it is already ‘in store’ for him. The verb apodidwmi has the idea of a reward for services rendered.
‘The Lord in the Pastoral Epistles is always Christ and he is a righteous judge in distinction to earthly judges such as Nero. ‘He is thus qualified to judge righteously and give ‘the crown of righteousness’. This ‘crown of rightesouness’ is a gift from ‘the righteous judge’ given on the basis of Christ’s death and righteous life (1:10).
That day’ is the well-known (1:12, 18; 4:1) final day of judgement when Paul hopes to be among a multitude who will obtain the same crown. They are defined in terms of their ‘love’ or ‘longing’ for Christ’s appearing. The perfect tense indicates that such ‘longing’ has been a constant characteristic of their lives. Paul, who is about to die, wants Timothy, who will live on, ‘to live and die in the light of Christ’s return and kingdom’ (Knight, 1992, 462). ‘As the leaders of the former generation die, it is all the more urgent for those of the next generation to step forward bravely and to take their place.’ (Stott, 1973, 116).
The encouragement given to Timothy in this passage is centred in the O.T. and the Gospel. Mounce (2000, 555) summarizes this well when he says:
This theme appears five times in this passage: Timothy has learned the OT and the gospel and is convinced of their truth (3:14); he has known the OT (“holy writings”) from childhood (3:15); “Scripture” comes from God and is therefore sufficient to train Timothy fully for ministry (3:16-17; cf. 4:5); Timothy is to preach the word in season and out (4:2); Timothy’s message is the truth, healthy instruction that the opponents are trading in for myths (4:4). Although Paul uses different terms to describe the OT and the gospel, they all refer to the message of God and need to be interpreted together. Timothy’s ministry centers on Scripture: the OT and the gospel message.
So Paul’s charge to Timothy in the light of his departure is to continue to trust in the Scriptures which he learnt from infancy and to proclaim their message in all circumstances, even when that results in rejection and persecution. He is to remember that he is before God and Christ. So the church has always proclaimed the message of God’s word when she has been faithful to it.
The generally accepted portrait of Timothy as timid (I Cor 16:10, 11; II Tim 1:7?) is belied by the history of his ministry as seen in Acts and the Pauline epistles. He was sent on special missions to Thessalonica and is associated with Paul in both the letters to that church. He was with Paul at Corinth (II Cor 1:19) and was sent on another important mission to Macedonia from whence he was to proceed to Corinth (I Cor 4:17). Even though it appears this mission was not successful (II Corinthians) he accompanied Paul on his next visit to Corinth (Rom16:21) and was with him in Jerusalem (Acts 20:4,5) and as he wrote his prison epistles. And Paul announces that he is sending him to Philippi . Following Paul’s release from prison he left Timothy at Ephesus (I Tim 1:3) to sort out the difficult situation in the church there. Obviously Paul had confidence in his ability to handle the situation
It appears that there were defections among the Pauline congregations including some of Paul’s fellow-workers (4:10, 16) and people no longer wanted to hear the truth (3:4). In these circumstances there is an appeal for faithful witness in the face of opposition (1:6-2:7) in the light of Paul’s example (2:8-13) and warnings against the false teachers (2:14-3:9). Since evil people will go from bad to worse (3:13), Timothy, in contrast to the false teachers, must maintain the teaching which he has received (3:14).
In the light of this situation Timothy is repeatedly encouraged to teach the word of God (2:2, 15, 24). This is the theme of the section to be examined in detail. - 3:14-4:8.
3:14-15 Paul reminds Timothy of his early persecutions (3:10-12) but urges him to continue as he has begun (3:13-17). The emphasis is on the need for Timothy to ‘continue’ in the teaching which he has received. ‘In contrast to the false teachers with their constant endeavour to advance to something new, Timothy may be satisfied with what he has already received’ (Guthrie, 1969, 162). This is a sacred trust which must be passed on to others (2:2).
Throughout the passage Paul appears to be referring not only to the O.T. but also to the message of Jesus and the apostles. A Christian evangelist can hardly be expected to rely on the O.T. ignoring the specific gospel message of Jesus Christ. So the gospel message is understood to underlie the whole section (3:15), even when references are specifically to the O.T. (3:16)
The gospel has been the theme of the epistle so far. Timothy is not to be ashamed of it, but to suffer willingly for its message (1:8-10). Paul was called to announce it and suffers as a consequence (1:11-12). Timothy is to follow his pattern of sound words (1:13), guard it (1:14) and entrust it to reliable men who will transmit it to others after he in turn has departed (2:2). It is the word of truth (2:15, 25; 3:7) and Timothy must teach it (2:24). In the light of all this the call to constancy must include the gospel message in ‘what’ (plural) he had learnt and was convinced of. The word which he is to proclaim (4:2), whilst it includes the O.T. must also refer to the message of the gospel, especially if he is to ‘do the work of an evangelist’ (4:5).
In the face of possible future persecution he should remember not only Paul’s example, but also what he was taught from his childhood (3:15; see 1:5). Those from whom he learned it (1:5) are worthy of his confidence. Their character, based on their message, is in contrast with that of the false teachers, which is also based on their message (Mounce, 2000, 563). As the message marks the character of the teacher so the character of the teacher reflects the message he brings. Another contrast with the false teachers is seen in that Scripture can mane Timothy ‘wise unto salvation’ (3.15) whereas they are not wise (3:9, 13) because they do not teach the sacred writings but rather the commandments of men (cp. Tit 1:14).
He must recall what he already knows (2:23; I Tim 1:9; Tit 3:11). Jewish children (avpo. bre,fouj) were customarily taught the law at an early age, and they had to commit parts of it to memory. (Deut 6:7, 9; Prov 1:8; 6:20; 22:6; see Pirke Aboth 5:21 where R. Judah ben Tema is credited with the saying ‘five years for the Scripture…’). It seems that Timothy, despite his gentile father, was given such training by his mother and grandmother (1:5) (Marshall, 1999, 789). However he also learnt from the Apostle (3:10) and this must also be included in the thought here. Ultimately what he had received was the teaching of the ‘Holy Scriptures’ which were ‘God-breathed’.
But not only had he learnt as a child and a young man, he had ‘become convinced of’ the truth of this teaching.
The phrase ‘holy Scriptures’ occurs only here in the N.T. However it is a common phrase in Hellenistic Judaism for the Jewish Scriptures (Marshall, 1999, 789 fn 65). These Scriptures have an innate ability: they can make Timothy ‘wise for salvation’ as they themselves taught (Ps 19:8; 119:98¸same word as here in LXX 18: 8; 118:98), but in this case they require a specifically Christian interpretation in order to do so. ‘
Salvation’ in the N.T.is ‘the spiritual deliverance from bondage to sin that Christ brings’ (Knight, 1992, 444). This is the message which Timothy must preach to others (4:2). This comes through ‘faith which is in Christ Jesus’, which may mean that which has Christ as its object (Knight, 1992, 444) or faith which is given us in Christ or in union with him (see 3:12).
3:16 Paul then speaks of the nature and purpose of Scripture. Here there is an allusion to the normal Jewish belief of the day and not a definition of the doctrine of Scripture. This is not to say that this text does not have a legitimate application to the debate on scriptural inspiration, but merely to indicate that the primary concern of Paul is its use, a high view of inspiration being assumed in both Jewish and Christian circles in the first century.
Rather it emphasizes its function in the teaching task of Timothy and the church in general.
There are several exegetical problems at the beginning of this verse: (a) the term grafh;; (b) the syntax of the adjective pasa; (c) the syntax of the verbless clause; and (d) the meaning of qeopneustoõ (Marshall, 1999,, 790-1; see Knight, 1992, 444).
(a) Grafh was used for any piece of writing, but in the N.T. it is used only of Scripture, as is seen here in its parallelism with ‘holy Scripture’ (3:15) (Knight, 1992, 445). It can refer to a specific passage or a collection of these (II Pet 3:16). But it may also refer to the collection of Scripture as a whole (II Pet 1:20; see Mounce, 2000, 567-8), though normally this is the case with the use of the plural.
Paul’s use of the term generally would suggest that this is the case. ‘It should also be noted that the singular pasa grafh, “all Scripture,” is parallel to the plural iera grammata, “sacred writings,” which refers to the entire OT.’ (Josephus Against Apion 1:8; Mounce, 2000, 567).
(b) Pasa has been understood in three different ways in this passage: (1) ‘all of the Scripture’ that is the whole O.T.(KJV; NIV; Knight 1992, 445); (2) ‘every passage of Scripture’ (RV; NRSV marg;) ; and (3) ‘every kind of inspired writing’. The third option is not in keeping with the rest of N.T. literature, but between the first two: Scripture as a whole or an individual text of Scripture there is little to choose. With certain collectives the meaning ‘all’ is intended (Rom 11:26; Mat 28:18). In the end there is little difference in meaning, ‘all Scripture’ sees Scripture as a whole, and ‘every Scripture’ sees it in terms of its component parts. The first is more likely in the context. Most consider the reference to be to the O.T., but some have seen it as extending to N.T. writings already in existence (I Tim 5:18; II Pet 3:15-16) (Hendriksen, 1976, 300-302; Knight, 1992, 447-8).
Whilst Paul nowhere calls his writings ‘Scripture’ he comes close to it in several places. He directs that his letters be read publically in Christian assemblies (Col 4:16; I Thes 5:27) and speaks with the authority of Christ (II Cor 2:17; 13:3; Gal 4:14), calling his message ‘the word of God’ (I Thes 2:13; see I Cor 2:13) (Stott, 1973, 101).
(c) The two adjectives qeo,pneustoj kai. wvfe,limoj can be understood as: (1) ‘every/all Scripture which is inspired is profitable for...’; or (2) ‘Every/all Scripture is inspired and profitable for...’. Both translations are theoretically possible. The first is a common style of phrase (See 3:17; 4:18). But the phrase is awkward and there were easier ways of saying this first option. Furthermore it implies that there may be some Scriptures which were not inspired a point of view unlikely either for the author or the readers of the epistle. Whilst there are no other examples of the second option) it should be accepted as the most natural understanding of the phrase (so Knight, 1992, 446-7). ‘When two adjectives follow the subject and are connected by kai, it is natural to treat them both the same way.... Because Scripture comes from God, it is profitable for Timothy’s preparation for ministry.’ (Mounce, 2000, 569).
(d) The significance of qeo,pneustoj. The form is passive and means ‘God-breathed’. The word was possible coined by the author, but the idea of inspiration is present in the O.T. (Num 24:2; cp. Hos 9:7) and in both Rabbinic and Hellenistic Judaism. This means that Paul sees the source of all Scripture in the breath of God. It is therefore the word of God. (Jn 10:35 shows the same parallel.)
But the emphasis is on the second adjective. Because all Scripture is inspired by God it is therefore ‘useful’, or of practical benefit, for various purposes. There are four uses of Scripture: ‘teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness’. Some have seen these as two pairs, the first doctrinal (positive and negative) and the second practical (negative and positive) (Guthrie, 1969, 176; Stott, 1973, 103; Knight, 1992, 449-50), but others see this as artificial (Marshall, 1999, 795). Marshall (1999, 795) and Mounce (2000, 570) see both a chiasmos (Stott, 1973, 103) ‘with terms for teaching/education and conviction/correction’ and also a sequence in which ‘teaching’ is qualified by ‘a sequence of three describing the steps in the conversion of sinners’.
‘Spicq... explains the four phrases as (a) Scripture is the only true source for pastoral and doctrinal teaching, (b) Scripture is the best ammunition for rebuking the false teachers, (c) Scripture will not only stop the deviations of the false teachers but straighten out and improve the condition, and (d) Scripture is necessary for the training of truly virtuous Christians.’ (Mounce, 2000, 570)
Stott (1973, 102) puts it more succinctly when he says that ‘The profit of Scripture relates to both creed and conduct’ He illustrates this by his use of the NEB translation: ‘As for our creed, Scripture is profitable “for teaching the truth and refuting error”. As for our conduct, it is profitable “for reformation of manners and discipline in right living.”’
‘Teaching’ (I Tim 1:10) is instruction (Rom 15:4). Scripture instructs by means of its content.
‘Rebuking’ refers to ‘refuting error’ (NEB). It is the conviction of false doctrine. Scripture is the standard and pattern of truth (1:13) and Timothy is to use it to guard the truth (1:14) and convict of error. The word is a hapax in the N.T. ‘If the four purposes of scripture listed here are reflected in the four duties in 4:2 (“preach the word... reprove, rebuke, exhort”), then this hapax is elucidated by elegcw there.’ (Knight, 1992, 449).
‘Correcting’ is also a hapax in the N.T. which refers to ‘setting right’ probably referring to conduct, as in extrabiblical literature. This is the positive side of pastoral activity.
‘Training in righteousness’ is designed to produce conduct where righteousness is a reality (2:22; I Tim 6:11). Scripture provides the content of belief and the guidelines for conduct.
3:17 The purpose of all this is to equip the ‘man of God’ for ‘every good work’. This probably refers to the Christian teacher in the congregation (I Tim 6:11; cp. Deut 33:11; I King 17:18) (Guthrie, 1969, 165). It may however have a general sense, referring to any Christian. The idea is of completeness, proficiency or qualification. He should be able to meet all demands. Scripture equips the man of God to meet the demands which God places upon him (Rom 15:4; I Cor 9:9-10). This is particularly apt for the Christian leader (cp. 4:2).
That for which they are equipped is ‘every aspect and task of the Christian life, and in Timothy’s case of the Christian ministry’ (Knight, 1992, 450) (Ephes 4:12, 13). God has created Christians for good works and called them to do them (Eph 2:10; Tit 3:1; II Tim 2:21). He has also given Scripture so that they know in principle ‘what duty God requires of man’ (WSC A 3) and can be prepared to do the ‘good work’ expected in each situation. The Gospel will always have a practical outworking. Good works are the marks of the true servants of God in distinction to the false teachers (2:21).
4:1-5 The final exhortation (4:1-5) is urgent and sums up all that has gone before.
‘There are nine imperatives, eight of them spelling out activities that Timothy must engage in as aspects of his ministry and attitudes that must characterize him in his work (vv. 2,5) and the last, “fulfil your ministry” (v 5), summarizing the specific commands in this subsection and the demands made on Timothy earlier in the letter’ (Knight, 1992, 451).
4:1 Timothy is solemnly warned of the importance of his task in the light of coming of Christ to judge (2:14; I Tim 5:21). There is a possible legal setting here as Paul leaves a charge to his successor. This may initially sound like a threat, but in the light of verse 8 it should probably be seen as an incentive to Timothy to press on with his task. Paul here acts with his full apostolic authority as seen in the use of the first person singular (cp. 1:1). He charges Timothy solemnly ‘in the presence of’ (lit. ‘before’) ‘God and of Christ Jesus’. The phrase is used with ‘God’ (2:24; Gal 1:20) and with ‘and Christ Jesus’ here and in I Tim 5:21 and 6:13. Both observe what Timothy is doing.
The one who came in flesh as Jesus (Mat 1:21) and is God’s anointed (Acts 10:38), will one day judge Timothy, as he will judge all men (II Cor 5:10; Jn 5:22, 27; Acts 17:31). ‘The living and the dead’ (see Acts 10:42; I Pet 4:5) refers to the whole human race at the time of the judgement. Christ will judge those who are alive then, as well as those who have died before this final day (I Thes 4:13-17). Just as this thought motivated Paul (II Cor 5:9-11), so he wanted it to motivate Timothy.
NIV translates the next phrase ‘and in view of his appearing and his kingdom’. This is probably correct as it indicates ‘the accusative used with swearing or adjuring (cf. BDF 149, see, e.g. I Thes. 5:27)’ (Knight, 1992, 452). Christ will appear to manifest his kingdom in its fullness and will then reward his faithful servants. This should be an encouragement for Timothy as it is for Paul himself (4:8).
4:2 Timothy must herald out the word (1:11). Here this refers to the word of God (2:9, 15; I Tim 1:15) though it is not qualified as such. Timothy has learnt this word (3:14-16) and it is profitable for his ministry (3:17) and therefore he must proclaim this word of truth. He is not at liberty to invent his message, but must ‘preach the word’ which God has spoken and deposited in Scripture. Once again the role of Scripture is central in his ministry (1:13-14; see I Tim 4:6-16; 6:20). However he must know that his hearers will not put up with it (4:3).
In order to carry out this duty he must be ready to grasp all opportunities which come his way, whether the time is convenient or not. Normally rhetoricians advised their students to grasp the correct opportunities to address their hearers. Paul here ignores that advice and instead tell Timothy to preach in all circumstances (Ezek 3:11). There is urgency to the task. The Christian minister must always be on duty.
Timothy is to preach the word. As he does so it will conflict with the teaching of others and Timothy must ‘correct’ this, ‘rebuke’ those who will not listen and ‘exhort’ those who will.
He must ‘correct’ them and show them that they are sinners (I Tim 5:20). The word is used of correcting an opponent (Tit 1:9, 13; 2:15). Here Paul picks up what he said about Scripture in 3:16. Sinners are under reproof. The fourth imperative is used of rebuke, censure or preventing or ending an action. The idea is of a public process, but private dealings are not ruled out. ‘In the third imperative Timothy is charged to speak to those who are in error or doing wrong and to attempt to convince them of that; in the fourth he is charged to tell those doing wrong to stop’ (Knight, 1992, 454). ‘Rebike’ is a strong word used of Christ’s rebuking demons (Mar 3:12; 8:33; Luk 9:55; 19:39-40).
But positively he is to teach (I Tim 3:2; Acts 20:20, 27) and encourage as well. He must ‘appeal to’ them and urge or exhort them.
The four terms used here parallel the four used to describe the usefulness of Scripture. All that Timothy needs for his ministry is found in the God-breathed Writing which he knows and in which he has confidence. There is a logical order to his activity. He is to confront the false teachers and if they do not listen, he must ‘rebuke’ them. But if they listen to him he is to ‘exhort’ them to live a life of righteousness.
In this and in all his activities he must have patience (3:10; I Tim 1:16) as required by the work he is to do and the need for perseverance and forbearance in dealing with the people and difficulties envisaged in the next verse.
He is to use every kind of instruction. It is by what one has been taught that elders are able to ‘exhort’ and ‘rebuke’ (Tit 1:9). Christian exhortation must have a solid basis in the sound teaching of the Gospel. ?To rebuke without instruction is to leave the root cause of error untouched’ (Guthrie, 1969, 167).
4:3 This verse shows the need for the solemnity of 4:1 and the urgency of 4:2. Such exhortations are necessary, not only in view of the general work of the ministry, but by the tendency of the hearers to fall away from the truth (gar as giving the reason). ‘It is human nature to hear only what we want to hear and to close our ears to anything that counters our distorted ideas of truth and pleasure.’ (Liefeld, 1999, 291). An inconvenient time will come. Timothy should not be surprised or disenchanted. The future tense speaks of certainty and warns against surprise (Knight, 1992, 455), and perhaps indicates what will happen if the advice of 4:2 is not followed. Corrupt men will seek teachers who will confirm them in their false beliefs. ‘Desires’ are always sinful in the Pastoral Epistles (I Tim 6:9). Doctrine cannot be separated from behaviour. Because their actions are controlled by their desires their teaching is wrong.
This is why it is necessary to preach the word in all circumstances if such activity is to be curbed. ‘Sound doctrine’ is what Paul taught and urged Timothy to teach (1:13; see I Tim 1:10; Tit 1:9; 2:1). It is also what the false teachers and their followers ‘will not put up with’ (Heb 13:22; see Ezek33:32). They have made themselves the measure of what they should hear and of who should teach them and what teaching is acceptable. This is because their own subjective desires are evil and selfish (See I Tim 6:9; Tit 2:12; 3:3). So they will not put up with the objective truth (4:4). They substitute their own ideas for God’s truth. They gather a large number of teachers whom they choose themselves (Knight, 1992, 455). They ‘heap up’ (lit.) or ‘accumulate’ these teachers (Jer 5:31). They are curious for something new (Acts 17:21) and the teachers they have accumulated satisfy this curiosity.
4:4 They deliberately turn away from the truth they once professed (1:15). ‘The truth’ is the message of Christianity as absolute (2:15, 18, 25; 3:7, 8). They then ‘turn aside to myths’ (I Tim 1:6). The idea is of wandering to myths with no idea that truth has been left behind (Guthrie, 1969, 167). Myths are what are not true, or historical and lack reality (I Tim 1:4; 4:7; Tit 1:4). Nothing is said of their content or provenance here, but it is obvious that they are false as they are the opposite of the truth. They probably relate to the speculative reinterpretation of the O.T. (I Tim 1:4).
4:5 In the light of this reality Timothy, in contrast, (‘but you’) is exhorted to four things. Firstly he must keep his head. He must be sober and well-balanced. The present tense probably indicates the need for this to be a continuous action. - ‘in all situations’ Again he must ‘endure suffering’ patiently (2:3; see 1:8, 12) just as Paul did (2:9). Perhaps this is needed especially in this case due to the mental and spiritual anguish of seeing the apostle’s and his own work undone by these apostates.
In these circumstances he is not to give up but rather to ‘do the work of an evangelist’. His apologetics and polemics against the false teachers are no substitute for evangelism. He is not to put the latter on hold until he has sorted out the problems in the church. Or perhaps, having lost much of his congregation to the false teachers he is not to despair, but rather go out and evangelize in order to build up a new congregation.
To sum up, he is to discharge all the duties of his ministry. He must persevere until his task is complete (See Col 4:17). It is a call to sacrificial service. So concludes Paul’s charge to Timothy. The reason for the urgency in this charge (gar in 4:6) is that Paul will no longer be there for Timothy.
4:6 Paul now talks about the fulfilment of his own service. His purpose here is threefold: to set an example for Timothy to follow; to indicate that Timothy and others must now take the place he is vacating; and to assure him of the promise of reward for faithful service. He uses the concepts he mentioned earlier in order to encourage Timothy (2:1-7) to speak of his own ministry and thus show that what he has asked of Timothy can be accomplished by the grace of God working in the minister’s life (4:7). You, Timothy, must carry out the ministry (4:5) because I, Paul, am about to depart (4:6).
Paul is ready to be poured out as a libation. The background for this idea is probably in the O.T. (Ex 29:40-41; Lev 23:13; Num 15:5-10; 28:7; see Phil 2:17) and not the pagan world of the Roman Empire. The present tense indicates a process already begun, in this case in his imprisonment. His death will not take place immediately, as he hopes to see Timothy (4:9, 21) and that he will bring some items (4:13). But it is certain and near. But it is not a defeat. The time for the loosing of his moorings (Phil 1:23) is imminent and he is ready to depart from this life to the next.
4:7 ‘Three parallel clauses sum up Paul’s career. Each is metaphorical.’ (Marshal, 1999, 807). Some see the metaphors as of war, athletics and stewardship. However it is better to see all three as referring to athletics and the victor’s crown is that given at the games. In the third case it is the athlete keeping the rules (cp. 2:5; , but in a Christian context we should probably see this as a more literal statement.
‘The objects are placed first to draw attention not to what Paul has done but to the fight, the race and the faith that are the Lord’s’ (Mounce, 2000, 579). All say the same thing: Paul has finished his ministry.
He has struggled (1:8, 12; 2:9-10; 3:11, but it has been a ‘good’ struggle ‘because he has engaged in it for God and the gospel’ (Knight, 1992, 459). The perfect tense here and in the next two clauses indicates that Paul is referring to his entire ministry. His example urges Timothy once again to be a good soldier of Christ (2:3).
He has finished the race (Acts 20:24), the course set out for him when God called him to the task (2:11; see I Tim 1:12; 2:7. By God’s grace he has completed his ministry.
The third phrase can be understand as ‘I have kept on believing’ (Rev 2:13; 14:12) or remained faithful (Hendriksen, 1976, 316). On the other hand it could mean ‘I have preserved the faith intact’ Knight (1992, 460) regards the first of these as primary and the second as secondary. Marshall (1999, 808) agrees. The other two clauses speak of perseverance and so this is probably the main sense here as well.
But in this epistle with its emphasis on ‘sound doctrine’ (4:3. 4), ‘sound words’ (1:13) and the ‘word of truth’ (2:15) the idea of the faith as a treasure to be kept (1:14) cannot be entirely excluded from the apostle’s thought. Furthermore in the Pastoral Epistles ‘the faith’ always refers to ‘the objective, creedal sense of the Christian faith (Mounce 2000, 580). In this sense Paul has guarded the deposit of the Gospel (1:14). This would also e in line with the previous two phrases as well as the emphasis in the epistle that the Gospel is under attack (2:18, 25; 3:8) and that Timothy must protect it (1:13, 14; 2:15).
4:8 Having dealt with the past and the present he now looks to the future.
Paul has finished hid course and the next event which awaits him is his crowning in heaven. So he is confident that his reward awaits him in heaven and that he will receive the victor’s crown from the hand of Christ ‘the righteous judge’ (Heb 6:10). The ‘crown of righteousness’ is either the crown consisting of righteousness, the genitive being appositional (‘the crown, namely righteousness’) (Knight, 1992, 461). Other passages support this interpretation (I Thes 2:19; Jas 1:12; I Pet 5:4; ReV 2:10; 21:1; i Cor 9:25). On the other hand it could mean a crown appropriate for a righteous person. Those who live a life of righteousness (3:16) will receive a crown. This fits better with the idea of an athlete’s crown and the idea that it is already ‘in store’ for him. The verb apodidwmi has the idea of a reward for services rendered.
‘The Lord in the Pastoral Epistles is always Christ and he is a righteous judge in distinction to earthly judges such as Nero. ‘He is thus qualified to judge righteously and give ‘the crown of righteousness’. This ‘crown of rightesouness’ is a gift from ‘the righteous judge’ given on the basis of Christ’s death and righteous life (1:10).
That day’ is the well-known (1:12, 18; 4:1) final day of judgement when Paul hopes to be among a multitude who will obtain the same crown. They are defined in terms of their ‘love’ or ‘longing’ for Christ’s appearing. The perfect tense indicates that such ‘longing’ has been a constant characteristic of their lives. Paul, who is about to die, wants Timothy, who will live on, ‘to live and die in the light of Christ’s return and kingdom’ (Knight, 1992, 462). ‘As the leaders of the former generation die, it is all the more urgent for those of the next generation to step forward bravely and to take their place.’ (Stott, 1973, 116).
The encouragement given to Timothy in this passage is centred in the O.T. and the Gospel. Mounce (2000, 555) summarizes this well when he says:
This theme appears five times in this passage: Timothy has learned the OT and the gospel and is convinced of their truth (3:14); he has known the OT (“holy writings”) from childhood (3:15); “Scripture” comes from God and is therefore sufficient to train Timothy fully for ministry (3:16-17; cf. 4:5); Timothy is to preach the word in season and out (4:2); Timothy’s message is the truth, healthy instruction that the opponents are trading in for myths (4:4). Although Paul uses different terms to describe the OT and the gospel, they all refer to the message of God and need to be interpreted together. Timothy’s ministry centers on Scripture: the OT and the gospel message.
So Paul’s charge to Timothy in the light of his departure is to continue to trust in the Scriptures which he learnt from infancy and to proclaim their message in all circumstances, even when that results in rejection and persecution. He is to remember that he is before God and Christ. So the church has always proclaimed the message of God’s word when she has been faithful to it.
Friday, June 25, 2010
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Peruvian Society III Getting and Keeping a Job
Peruvian Society
(An Ocasional Series)
These articles are not written from a superior attitude which despises Peruvian society. If they are critical, it is the criticism of someone who is trying to understand and then to explain, what he has observed as a foreigner living in Peru. As such, they are a humble attempt to explain matters to outsiders from the point of view of an outsider who has had the privilege of “insider” knowledge.
They are not the product of profound reading, but of simple observation, and are personal reflections from an Evangelical perspective and with application to evangelicalism in Peru. All that is said in them should be seen in this light.
Getting and Keeping a Job
Like many other places in the world, getting a job in Peru often boils down not to what you know, but to who you know. Relatives are one source of getting into work. Another way is through the system of padrinos. The translation often given for “padrino” is “Godfather” (not necessarily in the Mafia sense). But padrinos are acquired at a child’s baptism, a girl’s fifteenth birthday party, a graduation, and weddings (instead of a best man). Usually parents will look for an influential padrino for their children so that they can help them through life. The padrinos at a wedding are life-long marriage counselors, for example. Ahijados have responsibilities to their padrinos, but padrinos not only help out with crises in a marriage but also look out for their ahijados in every aspect of life, including providing openings in the job market.
Another way to get a job, at least in the public sector, is by political affiliation. This is precarious at times as when your particular party is out of power then you are out of a job. This results in full-scale exploitation of the position whilst one is there as in a few years time one may not be. Many people in Peru have membership cards for several political parties so that they can take advantage of various options.
Once one is in a job then your authority obviously increases the higher up you are, or even the higher up your padrino o relative is. Qualifications are becoming increasingly important, but even with a degree; it is not what you know but who you know which counts.
However once one is in a position of authority it is normal to abuse this, especially with people below you. So job applicants can be asked to pay so much if they want a particular post. This may be a lump sum or even several months’ wages promised in advance. In the case of women, sexual favours are quite commonly expected as an entrance requirement.
Once a person is in a job he or she is still not clear of problems. Those higher up the ladder often expect those lower down to do them favours, which they see as their right. So people will run errands for their bosses during or even outside working hours. They may also look after the boss’s children as a matter of course.
The boss may not be very competent, but this is not important. The important thing is to make others below you look incompetent. This may lead to inefficiency, but again, that is not an issue.- the issue is, does the boss look good? The answer to that is, surprisingly, “yes”. The reasoning is simple: no one can do the job properly unless the boss is directly supervising.
So a boss will deliberately withhold vital information (telephone numbers, keys of a safe, computer passwords, or reports) o even delay a signature. This gives him or her a sense of power: “no one can do anything unless I allow them to do it”. So a boss will go off on holiday leaving everything in order but withholding vital information which means that work cannot be done. When he returns he is a heroe. Everyone is incompetent, or stupid, or lazy, or all three, but fortunately he has returned to save the day. The office cannot possibly run without him, but fear not! Wonderwoman, or Superman is here to put things in order.
Keeping people waiting for a signature is a sure way of letting underlings, or the general public, know who is in charge. Another trick is to tell someone they need certain forms, or photos or whatever in order to apply for what they want, and then when they arrive having gathered the necessary documentation, to tell them that of course they should also have brought another document. This can go on several times before all the right papers are in place and even then all is not well. People can queue for over an hour only to arrive at the window to be told that the office has closed for lunch. This may mean that a person has to return several hours later as siestas are long here. It may even mean coming back the next day as there is no attention to the public in the afternoons.
The final signature is delayed because the boss is “in a meeting”, or even more blatantly, he is off today as it is his birthday. When told the boss is not in today, my wife often asks, “why? Is it the cat’s birthday?” Instead of being indignant, the underling will often give a furtive smile. A sense of humour is a great help. You don’t have to be mad to work here, but it helps!
(An Ocasional Series)
These articles are not written from a superior attitude which despises Peruvian society. If they are critical, it is the criticism of someone who is trying to understand and then to explain, what he has observed as a foreigner living in Peru. As such, they are a humble attempt to explain matters to outsiders from the point of view of an outsider who has had the privilege of “insider” knowledge.
They are not the product of profound reading, but of simple observation, and are personal reflections from an Evangelical perspective and with application to evangelicalism in Peru. All that is said in them should be seen in this light.
Getting and Keeping a Job
Like many other places in the world, getting a job in Peru often boils down not to what you know, but to who you know. Relatives are one source of getting into work. Another way is through the system of padrinos. The translation often given for “padrino” is “Godfather” (not necessarily in the Mafia sense). But padrinos are acquired at a child’s baptism, a girl’s fifteenth birthday party, a graduation, and weddings (instead of a best man). Usually parents will look for an influential padrino for their children so that they can help them through life. The padrinos at a wedding are life-long marriage counselors, for example. Ahijados have responsibilities to their padrinos, but padrinos not only help out with crises in a marriage but also look out for their ahijados in every aspect of life, including providing openings in the job market.
Another way to get a job, at least in the public sector, is by political affiliation. This is precarious at times as when your particular party is out of power then you are out of a job. This results in full-scale exploitation of the position whilst one is there as in a few years time one may not be. Many people in Peru have membership cards for several political parties so that they can take advantage of various options.
Once one is in a job then your authority obviously increases the higher up you are, or even the higher up your padrino o relative is. Qualifications are becoming increasingly important, but even with a degree; it is not what you know but who you know which counts.
However once one is in a position of authority it is normal to abuse this, especially with people below you. So job applicants can be asked to pay so much if they want a particular post. This may be a lump sum or even several months’ wages promised in advance. In the case of women, sexual favours are quite commonly expected as an entrance requirement.
Once a person is in a job he or she is still not clear of problems. Those higher up the ladder often expect those lower down to do them favours, which they see as their right. So people will run errands for their bosses during or even outside working hours. They may also look after the boss’s children as a matter of course.
The boss may not be very competent, but this is not important. The important thing is to make others below you look incompetent. This may lead to inefficiency, but again, that is not an issue.- the issue is, does the boss look good? The answer to that is, surprisingly, “yes”. The reasoning is simple: no one can do the job properly unless the boss is directly supervising.
So a boss will deliberately withhold vital information (telephone numbers, keys of a safe, computer passwords, or reports) o even delay a signature. This gives him or her a sense of power: “no one can do anything unless I allow them to do it”. So a boss will go off on holiday leaving everything in order but withholding vital information which means that work cannot be done. When he returns he is a heroe. Everyone is incompetent, or stupid, or lazy, or all three, but fortunately he has returned to save the day. The office cannot possibly run without him, but fear not! Wonderwoman, or Superman is here to put things in order.
Keeping people waiting for a signature is a sure way of letting underlings, or the general public, know who is in charge. Another trick is to tell someone they need certain forms, or photos or whatever in order to apply for what they want, and then when they arrive having gathered the necessary documentation, to tell them that of course they should also have brought another document. This can go on several times before all the right papers are in place and even then all is not well. People can queue for over an hour only to arrive at the window to be told that the office has closed for lunch. This may mean that a person has to return several hours later as siestas are long here. It may even mean coming back the next day as there is no attention to the public in the afternoons.
The final signature is delayed because the boss is “in a meeting”, or even more blatantly, he is off today as it is his birthday. When told the boss is not in today, my wife often asks, “why? Is it the cat’s birthday?” Instead of being indignant, the underling will often give a furtive smile. A sense of humour is a great help. You don’t have to be mad to work here, but it helps!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)