PAUL'S FIRST LETTER TO TIMOTHY

Introduction and Salutation

1 Timothy 1:1-2:15

INTRODUCTION

Author and Date

Most NT scholars (who happen to be liberal) claim that 1 Timothy along with 2 Timothy and Titus (the Pastoral Letters) were not written by Paul but rather by a Christian who lived around 80 AD and who incorporated some personal notes by Paul into this letter. They claim that the style of writing in these 3 letters differs from the style Paul uses in Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Romans, the 4 letters they claim Paul in fact did write. Moreover, they claim that the church's organization is so advanced in the Pastoral Letters that in no way would the churches in Paul's day have been this advanced organizationally.

In response to these 2 objections we need to remember that Paul most of the time did not personally write his own letters but rather worked through secretaries called amanuensises. Each amanuensis would incorporate his own style of writing into the letter being written. Also, differences in style between the letters may be due to the fact that people do change their style of writing over a period of time and may change it due to the audience they're addressing. For example, when I wrote my dissertation, I used a formal style of writing using words I would never use in writing Bible study notes for lay people. With regards to church organization, there is no compelling reason why the church from its very outset would not have been highly organized. The church already had a model in the synagogue with its elders and order of worship to implement in the church. Maybe Paul didn't write the Pastoral Letters--I believe he did though I can't prove it; however, there is no overwhelming reason to reject his authorship.

When did Paul write these letters? There is general agreement that Paul wrote these letters following his first Roman imprisonment with 2 Timothy being written right before he died. In this case Paul wrote these letters between the years 60 and 64 AD.

Purpose

In spite of who wrote the letter and when it was written, 1 Timothy informs us of the purpose of the letter: "But in case I am delayed, I write so that you may know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth" (3:15). Paul cannot be any clearer than that as to the purpose of this letter.

The first element in his purpose in writing the letter is that Timothy may know how to conduct himself in the household of God. The word translated "conduct" refers to the way we relate to others, to other things, while the phrase "household of God" refers to the church as being the family of God. Paul here is picturing the church as the family of God; he is trying to show us how we relate in the church to one another as family members.

Next Paul develops what he means by the "household of God." In addition to being a family, this group of Christians is nothing less than the "church of the living God," literally, "those who have been called out [of this world and unto God] by the living God." In other words, this church is God's, the living God's. Too often I've heard people say that Christians need to take ownership of their church because it will help them get more involved in the church. There are several problems with this principle. Whenever I take ownership of something, I can control it. Wrong! Second, when I take ownership of something, it belongs to me. That is downright wrong. It is not my church; it is not your church. It is God's church. As a result, the way we conduct ourselves should agree with the principles God has laid down (as in 1 Timothy) with regards to the way we conduct our affairs in the church. Moreover, because He is the living God, He is going to hold us accountable for the way we conduct ourselves.

We need to take this very seriously. I've heard people refuse to do certain things in the church because they said they were trying to be gracious and forgiving--even though what they were doing conflicted with what God said. Paul is going to say such an attitude is sheer arrogance (1 Tim. 6:3-4). Such an attitude implies (1) that I know more than God, (2) that I am more gracious than God, or (3) that I am more forgiving than God. That is the reason such an attitude reflects sheer arrogance.

Finally, Paul claims that the church is the pillar and support of the truth. Here truth may be likened to the bust of a person sitting on top of a pillar or to a building supported by pillars. The church has the responsibility to uphold that truth because if it does not, then nobody and nothing else will. When the church refuses to honor the principles God has laid down (such as the ones in 1 Timothy), then the truth of God comes crashing down in the area in which that church exists. There are bigger things at stake here than just an individual; God's truth is at stake. As God's church, we have the responsibility to uphold that truth. (We in the church cry about the relativism in the world; yet there is no wonder there is relativism in the world today whenever the church--the pillar of the truth--does not stand up for the truth.)

PRIORITY OF MEN PRAYING DURING CORPORATE WORSHIP (2:1-8)

The Call of Prayer (2:1)

Although prayer is the second topic Paul addresses in 1 Timothy, it is not second in his list of priorities for the church. Corporate public prayer tops the list of Paul's priorities for the church: "First of all then" as in "First of all in importance" (so A. T. Robertson, RWP 4:567). This should not surprise us because Christ Himself attached premium significance to prayer. Upon cleansing the Temple, Jesus told the merchants: "My Father's house shall be called a house of prayer" (Matt. 21:13). Moreover, when discipling the 12, Jesus informed them that God attached so much importance to corporate prayer that He would answer positively the prayers of at least 2 people who agreed on the prayer request (Matt. 18:19). (Paul uses several words for prayer--entreaties, prayers, petitions, and thanksgiving; he is urging us to engage in all the different kinds of prayers available to us.)

Through gentle persuasion God has been prompting me to get up earlier than usual each morning so that I will spend an abundant amount of time in prayer with Him. For the longest, after I have studied the passage for the next Sunday's lesson, I pray through the passage and what God wants me to say before I commit it to writing. Praying through the passage, I believe, endows the lesson with His spiritual life. Moreover, I am being led more and more not simply to pray for people but to pray with people. When somebody asks me to pray for them, I no longer tell them that I will. Instead I get with them and pray for them right then. Prayer is not a substitute for Bible study, for fellowship, or for witnessing; however, it is the most important of the spiritual disciplines according to Paul.

Prayer for Government Officials (2:2a)

Although Paul commands us to pray for all people, he especially commands us to pray for "kings and all who are in authority." Approximately 2 months before the 2000 presidential election, I believed that God wanted me to pray for the election in the 40 days leading up to the election. I did not know why I felt this urgency other than it being from the Lord; however, after the events of 9/11 I believe I know why it was so important that a certain person win the presidential election. During those 40 days I promised the Lord that if the person I was praying for won the election, then I would pray for him every day during his administration.

Through that process the Lord began to convict me about my attitude and response to the previous president. I remember living under the administrations of all the presidents starting from Kennedy. Although I did not vote for some of the ones who won, I always respected them and even defended them. I could not do this though with a clear conscience regarding Bush's predecessor. I believe though that Christ has convicted me about the fact that if I and other conservative evangelical Christians had prayed for him as much as we had badmouthed him, then his administration might have been a lot different. It is true that each person is ultimately responsible for his own actions; however, we are responsible for what we could have achieved through prayer.

"But," you might say, "this President was immoral." True, but what does that matter? The emperor ruling over the Roman empire while Paul was writing 1 Timothy was none other than sadistic bisexual Nero who murdered his first wife and also his conniving murderous mother. If Paul could urge the Ephesian Christians to pray for Nero, then I think we can pray for whomever becomes President on Nov. 2, 2004.

The Reason We Should Pray for Governing Authorities--Evangelism (2:2b-7)

The reason Paul commands us to pray for governing authorities is that we may be more effective in our evangelism: "in order that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. This is good and acceptable in the sight of God who desires all me to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (2:2b-3). Now we make much out of the fact that Christianity flourishes during times of persecution. That though is a tribute to how creative and powerful God is; yet that is not His plan. For example, we make much out of the fact that Paul wrote Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 2 Timothy, and Philemon while he was in prison. We most likely would not have those epistles if Paul had not been thrown into prison; HOWEVER, look at what Paul wrote when he was NOT in prison: Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, and Titus. While he wrote 5 letters in prison, he wrote 8 while not in prison. Moreover, we know of no churches Paul established while in prison in Caesarea, while out of prison he established the churches of Cyprus, of central and western Asia, and of all Greece. Later after he was released from his first Roman imprisonment, he founded churches in Spain. Christ can and does work through persecution; however, the church can seriously grow during times of peace and tranquility.

At this point Paul could have gone on to his next point; instead he stops to dwell on the nature of the salvation and evangelism he has just introduced. Paul has urged us to pray for all men--most likely that they be saved. But does God want all people to be saved, and if so, why?

First, Paul claims that God "desires all men to be saved." The word translated "desires" is also the word we normally use for "wills." In other words, God wills all people to be saved. Second, what is the basis for Paul's claim that it is God's will that all people saved? Monotheism, that is, the belief that God is One. You see, if some people were predestined to hell and some were predestined to heaven, then one of 2 things would be true: (1) there are 2 gods with one sending his people to heaven and the other sending his people to hell or (2) God is schizophrenic in that He can't decide what He wants--people's salvation or their damnation. Now many of our Christian friends believe a system which supports the second option. They apparently have no problem with that because they (like all of us) are fractured; therefore, it is easy to have God be a fractured God. God though is not us. He is One; He is Whole. As a result, He has one will for all mankind--salvation. (The reason all people are not saved is that we have to exercise faith in receiving this salvation.)

Not only is there one will regarding salvation; there is also one way: "one Mediator also between God [the Father] and man, the Man Christ Jesus who gave Himself a ransom for all, the testimony born at the proper time" (2:6). The idea behind the word "ransom" is that of freeing prisoners of war. According to the Bible we are all involved in a spiritual war between God and Satan (see Rev. 19:11ff.). In this war we have all become prisoners of Satan because we have all sinned. God though wants to free us from being Satan's prisoners. He does so by paying a ransom which sets us free. This ransom is nothing less than the blood Christ shed on Calvary.

At this time a lot of focus is being put on Jesus because of Mel Gibson's movie The Passion of the Christ. Gibson has been taking a lot of shots because he has graphically portrayed the sufferings and crucifixion of Christ. One student from Brite Divinity School in Ft. Worth protested against the movie saying that we should focus only on the love, acceptance, and forgiveness Jesus extends to us. With all due respect, Christianity is a bloody religion. This does not make it a primitive religion. Instead the sufferings Christ endured show us first the depth of our sins and second the depth of God's love for us. Our sins are so black that nothing less than the excruciating death of Christ could atone for our sins. (If you will notice, the word "exCRUCIating" has the root for CRUCIfixion in the middle of it.) Moreover, the sufferings Christ endured reveal to us the depth of God's love for us. Only great love would send a Son to die for somebody else's sins, and that is precisely the love shown us on Calvary.

Finally, Paul concludes this section by commanding "the men in every place to pray." Many times we use the word "man" or "men" in a generic sense to stand for all people, males and females. That is not the word Paul uses here. Actually he is using the Greek word for "male" here. He is commanding the males to pray in the context of corporate worship.

One of two things is operating here. First, he may be commanding the males to pray and not commanding the ladies to pray because unlike ladies, men need to be commanded to pray. It just does not fall within our comfort zone. Somehow or other women seem to be more inclined towards prayer. Prayer tends to be more an act of emotion and submission, 2 things alien to most men. Second, but more likely, Paul commands the males to pray in that he wishes for them to lead out in prayer in the worship service as opposed to the ladies leading out in prayer. Whereas we may not like this interpretation, it seems to fit better with what Paul says in the next section regarding the role--or lack of it--for the women in the church.

THE ROLE OF THE WOMAN IN THE CHURCH (2:9-15)

What follows next is one of the most controversial passages in the Bible regarding the role of women in the church. It is controversial not in that people do not understand what it means (they do understand the meaning of this passage) but in that people do not like and want to accept what it means. I want to present briefly what Paul says here though and then look at some important considerations in dealing with this passage.

First, Paul wishes the women to dress demurely whenever they enter the church for worship. He does not want the women to focus attention on their outward appearance to such an extent that they draw unnecessary attention to their external physical appearance by braiding their hair, and wearing gold, pearls, and costly garments. (I don't think Paul means that the women should not look pretty. He is speaking here about being ostentatious. Some women with holy buns on top of their heads can be ostentatious.) Rather their focus should be on the good works they do for others. (P.S. In today's society men need to honor this same principle. We too can get fixated on our hair, our rippling muscles, Gucci shoes, 3-piece suits, etc.)

Next, Paul commands the women to receive the teaching of the church quietly and submissively. In fact Paul goes on to say that women should not teach and exercise authority over men in the church.

What is the basis for this command? Some claim that culture should be a consideration here. During Paul's day this was just not acceptable; however, in today's culture the exact opposite would not be considered acceptable. The only problem with this argument is that Paul does not appeal to culture. Others claim that the particular instances in the churches at Corinth and Ephesus (the home church for Timothy) called for these measures. In other churches Paul did not command the women to be silent. The only problem with this argument is that it contradicts what Paul says in 1 Cor. 14:34 and 17: "They are not permitted to speak . . . just as the LAW also says. . . . the things which I write to you are the Lord's command."

Instead Paul bases this command first upon the priority of man in the act of creation and second upon the scriptural teaching that woman sinned first. (Now, ladies, don't get rankled. Something wonderful is about to be uttered towards the end of this passage.) The ancients believed that whatever existed first superseded that which came later. Because Moses wrote before Isaiah, Ezekiel, etc., the Jews believed that he ranked higher than them. John the Baptist appeals to this same concept when he asserts that Jesus outranks him: "He who comes after me (in time) has a higher rank than I because He existed before me" (John 1:15). Because Jesus preexisted John (throughout eternity), He outranked John the Baptist. (We see this also in the writings of Philo, a first-century Jewish philosopher, one of the greatest minds in Judaism.) According to Paul when God created man before the woman, He gave man priority in their relationship. Also, because it was Eve who sinned first and then enticed Adam to sin, God has given man priority in his relationship with the woman. (Please don't make this argument silly by saying that Adam was standing right beside her when she sinned and that he should have stopped her. Since the Bible does not go there, neither should we.)

So am I wrong as the Education Minister to allow women to teach in Sunday School not only coed classes but also women's classes? Paul seems to be saying women are simply not to teach. I believe that the second function Paul associates with teaching is critical for understanding this passage: "I do not allow a woman to teach or EXERCISE AUTHORITY over a man . . ." This helps us understand what Paul is referring to when he writes about teaching. Whoever this teacher was, he not only taught, he also exercised authority over the church. SS teachers do not exercise authority in their roles as SS teachers. They may teach authoritatively in that the Scripture they teach has authority; yet this person in 1 Timothy 2:9-15 is exercising authority. He both teaches and exercises authority, not necessarily at the same time. The role referred to here is that of pastor/teacher. That role he delegates to men and men only. Since teaching SS does not involve the exercise of authority, there is no reason why a woman should not be able to teach SS.

Not only does this seem logical, it is also in agreement with God does. Study Acts 2 when the people prophesy, that is, preach to the Jews on the day of Pentecost. It's not just men who are preaching; it's women (Acts 2:17): "In that day I will pour forth of My Spirit upon all mankind, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy . . . " Moreover, the women were the first heralds of the good news that Jesus rose from the dead. They preached the resurrection while the men either didn't get it or else refused to share that good news (John 20:8-10, 18).

Why though does Paul limit the role of the pastor to men, especially when there are many women who are a whole lot more competent in ministry than I and other men? In addition to Paul's appeal to the events of Creation and the Fall in 1 Timothy 2, Paul indicates that "man is in the image of God and that woman is in the image and glory of man" (1 Cor. 11:7). In other words, the man more so than the woman can represent God. Why? Because God is masculine--I didn't say male, I said masculine. C. S. Lewis quoting Augustine said that God in fact is so masculine that we all become feminine in our relationship with Him. In our world male and masculinity go hand in hand, while femininity and female go together. There is something very unnatural about the male being feminine and the female being masculine. Since the pastor more than any other person in the church represents Christ to the community (hence the need for ministers to adhere to Christian standards more strenuously than non-ministers), it is important for the pastor to be a man.

This may really rankle some women; however, once you look closer at the movement which seeks to elevate women to the pastorate, you begin to see the danger. It is this movement which has promoted the gender-neutral Bible. In these Bibles references to God as Father or as a masculine being are deleted. In fact some go so far as to call God "She" or "Mother God." (If you think I'm joking, listen to comments Oprah Winfrey makes about God.) Maybe this movement is right in their view of God; we will find out on Judgment Day. Yet the truth is that this view does not accurately reflect the clear teachings and emphases of Scripture. I believe we need to stand with Scripture.

So have I added to the pain that women endure because many men have beaten them down? I hope not, especially in light of what I believe Paul says in v. 15. The literal translation of v. 15 is NOT: "But women shall be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue . . . " The literal translation is: "But she shall be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue . . ." Whereas this distinction may not seem all that important to you, the distinction is critical.

Who is Paul referring to when he says "she" and why does he go back to the plural "they" in the second half of the verse? There is an antecedent for she--Eve in verses 13 and 14: "It was Adam who was first created and not EVE; Adam was not deceived but the WOMAN being quite deceived . . ." When Paul next writes "she," it seems only logical that he is referring to Eve. What then is Paul saying in v. 15 regarding Eve?

Up to this point Paul in agreement with Genesis is quite hard on Eve (and women); yet a wonderful promise is given to Eve the main culprit which is not given to Adam. To be sure Eve's sin was greater. This is seen in the fact that the curse upon the woman (pain in childbirth) is harder than the one placed upon the earth which affects the man (difficulty in managing the earth). To be sure the woman is lowered and will suffer mightily; however, God pities her. Because she suffers the most and suffers degradation by being forced to submit to the man, God exalts her higher than the man. In what sense? To Eve was given the promise that HER Son, not the man's, will be the One to destroy Satan (Gen. 3:15). She, not man, will receive glory in the great redemption that God is bringing to mankind because only through her was God's Son brought into the world. Man was completely left out of the equation when God became a man. It was Mary, not Joseph, who sang "My soul doth magnify the Lord" (Luke 1:46). The incarnation came about by means of the VIRGIN BIRTH, not the stag birth. It is the Woman, not the man, who is glorified in Revelation 12. In that passage she is a celestial being who has the moon as her pedestal and the 12 stars for her crown. She is clothed with the sun. Why is the Woman glorious? Because she is giving birth to the One who will rule the nations. (The fact that John calls the dragon in Rev. 12:9 the "serpent of old" lets us know that he is associating this event with God's promise to Eve in Gen. 3:15.)

Recently many of us viewed Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ. Evangelical conservative Christians have been so intent on reacting to Catholics' presentation of Mary that we have reduced her to almost nothing. Whereas Mary by no means deserves worship, the movie shows us once more how special she was. The early church recognized her significance, not only for her character but for her role as the mother of Jesus. In fact she was viewed as the New Eve. In calling her the New Eve, the church was attaching to her the fulfilment of the promise God made to Eve in the Garden. Through Mary, Eve experienced the fulfilment of that promise. Believing women likewise share in that fulfilment and exaltation.

Ladies, be very careful in wanting to be equal with men. Like Minnette Drumwright (the wife of the late Dean of the School of NT at SWBTS) said: "I don't want equal rights with men. Because of the way my husband treats me now, that would be a step down for me." I admit that it is tough for ladies in today's society as it was in Paul's society; however, the glory that awaits them because of their gender affiliation with Eve surpasses the glory of men. (The fact that Paul changes the subject from the singular "she" to the plural "they" shows that he includes believing women in receiving the promise God made to Eve.) Just as they have shared in her pain, they will share in her exaltation.