2 Timothy 3 Q&A

Here are some of the questions asked in response to the sermon on 2 Timothy 3.

Question: John Dickson’s Christ Files talks of Paul not having read the Gospels, and so we can treat them as separate primary sources of the events. Does 1 Tim 5:18c say that he probably would have?

It’s a great question. Without doing any actual research, here’s my gut feeling…

There’s two options it would seem.

1. 1. It’s possible that Paul had no knowledge of any of the gospels, in which case he may have only heard the saying as oral tradition (possibly from Luke?). This would weaken the “Paul quotes Luke as Scripture” argument – although the “Peter calls Paul Scripture” argument stands regardless. Or…

2. 2. I think that Paul plausibly DID have knowledge of Luke’s gospel, but not necessarily the others (at the time of writing 2 Timothy).

We don’t know the timeframe between 1 Timothy and 2 Timothy, but they may have been fairly close…I think…

In any case, we know that Luke was a close associate of Paul’s (from Acts), and we also know that Luke was with Paul as when Paul wrote 2 Timothy (2 Tim 4:11). I wonder whether at Paul, in thinkingabout his immanent death, was particularly concerned to ensure the preservation of the message, and so began setting about to preserve the message in Scriptural form. 2 Tim 4:11-13 is intriguing…”Luke is with me…bring Mark with you…and especially bring the parchments…”.

To me, that sounds like a “hotbed of who’s who” for Gospel composition, or Gospel consolidation.

That is, if the Scriptures weren’t written yet (which they may have been), then Paul was keen to make sure an authoritative version/versions were gathered and preserved.

I find this second option very intriguing. It doesn’t quite answer your question, I realise, but I think that everyone is trying to fill in some large-ish blanks. It would seem that Paul either knew of Luke’s gospel, or else knew of the ‘form’ that became Luke’s gospel (Luke 10:7) and perhaps had some role personally, in marshalling it.

Of course, this is “first impressions” and “musings”…I haven’t specifically researched this question, so the whole theory might well come crumbling down very quickly. I know some suggest that 2 Cor 8:18 says that Luke’s gospel had to have been written prior to 2 Cor (c 55AD), but I’m not sure if that’s valid or not. If you find out anything to knock down my suggestions, I’d be glad to hear them, and learn more.

Anyway…hope that’s helpful in some way. You could always try asking John D. if you ever see him, why he argues that Paul had no knowledge of any of the gospels, given 1 Tim 5:18 etc…

In Christ,

Ben.

Question: Just a small question: v17 ‘the man of God’. Just a question from the perspective of a Christian woman, why does the Bible use ‘man’ for ‘mankind’? Sometimes I feel that God in his word could have trumped cultural context and included women in these types of descriptions of blessing and relating to him!! Is it related to translation?

I’ll make a few quick comments and hope they are helpful…please grab me to talk more at church if I’ve misunderstood the question or you’d like to clarify anything.

First, “the man of God” is a semi technical term referring to the leader of God’s people. In that sense, there is a reality that the leaders/overseers of the congregation ARE to be men. However, the idea in 2 Tim 3 does not seem contained to this. It’s not as though the Scriptures are only useful for the leaders of God’s people (though you can understand why Paul, in speaking to Timothy might emphasise this angle!).

More generally, though, the problem is partly in English, and partly in Greek/Hebrew, and partly in us.

In English: There has been a transition in meaning in recent years. Ppreviously, “man”, had been a perfectly intelligible translation for “humanity” OR “male adults”, and context was used to determine meaning. This was no more intending to be oppressive of women than the use of “right” as meaning “correct” is intended to be oppressive the left-handers (though as a left hander, I do regret the language at times, and feel marginalised…only in a very small way, but still…J). Recently however, such ambiguity has been seen as unacceptable, since it assumes male as the ‘default’. Bible translations (and common speech) is still catching up with this change.

In Greek/Hebrew: there were similar but different issues. I won’t go into the details here, but suffice it to say that there were different words that could be used if you NEEDED to specify maleness, or a more general word that could mean ‘adult male’ OR ‘humanity’ (by context). In many places, it is perfectly clear what is intended, but occasionally ambiguity does remains, and care needs to be taken in working out the context clearly.

In us: We, of course, are deeply culturally conditioned. This is nothing to be ashamed of , but it is inevitable, and we need to recognise it. Because we live in a period of transition (linguistically and socially), these things can sting particularly acutely. However, I think it would be unwise to assume that our cultural sensitivities mean that God has been remiss in the formation of the Canon. The Scriptures have served God’s people wonderfully over many centuries, and (God willing) will continue to do so. I can’t say precisely why God chose to utilise the Greek and Hebrew languages in the way that he did, but that he has spoken for us the words of life at all is remarkable and praiseworthy!

Conclusion: In short, it is a matter of translation in many ways. If you read some translations, they very consciously ALWAYS go to gender neutral phrases, but this can sometimes weaken the sense, and in some cases leads to major heresy. God is NOT our ‘parent’ – he is our FATHER. Jesus is not the ‘child’ of God – he is the eternal SON. There are ideas caught up in ‘fatherhood’ that are different from ‘parenthood’, and we miss out to blur these. That’s why the ESV generally uses gender-neutral language where it clearly DOESN’T matter, but retains the gender where it does or where it might matter (often with a footnote to clarify) – and we are basically asked to ‘get over’ our cultural position. Whether this is the right way to do it or not is up for much debate, but hopefully that helps explain things for you a little more. God bless,

Ben.