Timothy is
to struggle and to find his strength by looking to the grace provided by God in
the person and work of Jesus Christ. This is to be an encouragement and a
buttress that will withstand the flood and the assaults of the enemy. We find
our strength not by looking inward to ourselves as the world teaches us, but by
looking to Christ and trusting in his strength, and in his example.
The Spirit
strengthens us and intercedes for us, convicts our consciences and stirs our
hearts. There is also a component of activity. Timothy is exhorted to 'be
strong'. Christian faith is not passive or retiring. This will be troubling to
some models of salvation and their definitions of saving faith. There is a
recurring theme in this section of endurance, something quite foreign to much
of modern Protestant and Evangelical theology. Their understandings of
Justification and in many cases Election won't allow them to fully appreciate
the points and exhortations found here and in many other New Testament passages.
In verse 2,
Paul tells Timothy to commit these teachings to faithful men who will be able
to 'teach others' or in other words pass along or perpetuate the true gospel,
or 'my' gospel as Paul refers to it in verse 8.
Rome has run
rampant with this passage and it is one upon which they build their fallacious
notion of sacred tradition and canon law. They argue the teachings Paul refers
to are oral and that these were passed on by the true custodians who preserved
them. They live on in the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church and with this comes the erroneous notion of Apostolic Succession.
The things
Paul refers to are the doctrines previously mentioned in chapter 1 and we can
be confident based on Paul, Peter and John's statements regarding Scripture
that we have the canonical tradition preserved for us in the writings of Sacred
Scripture. There is no other oral tradition, let alone one full of doctrines in
many cases diametrically opposed to the written word.
Paul is
passing the torch as it were. He's telling Timothy that not only will your
generation be taking over but you had better start working toward preparing the
next generation after you. And indeed, it did prove important in the Early
Church that teachers could produce something in the way of credentials, not a
degree or certification but a theological pedigree.
The false
teachers who hang in the background of the New Testament epistles were
apparently claiming that some of their teachings came from Paul himself. Paul
encourages Timothy to commit the truths heard among witnesses. Timothy would be
able to say "Paul said this," and there would be witnesses to verify
that fact. The false teachers would not be able to do this. Their doctrines and
claims to authority were false.
Today the
equivalent of that would be an appeal to Scripture, particularly the New Testament.
Do the words and teachings of a particular teacher match up with what the New
Testament teaches? If not then his claims are to be rejected. Traditions are
not to be respected.
Timothy is
to endure hardship or share in the sufferings (1.8) as a good soldier of
Christ. The weapon, the tactic of the Christian soldier is suffering. Timothy
has already been exhorted to this end in 1 Tim 1.18. There are many who would
restrict this passage and its three examples to the clerical class. But I think
this is a mistake. The exhortation and example of warfare is something
universally applicable to Christians. We all share in this (Romans
8.36-37/Ephesians 6). It may be said that Church leaders take this 'warfare' to
another level and it is more specific to their calling, but in no way can this
passage be restricted to clerical exhortations. Doing so divorces this triad of
examples from the message of suffering for the testimony of the gospel...
certainly applicable to all Christians (1 Tim 3.12).
Rome takes
these examples and utilizes them to emphasize the wholly separate nature, not
of Christians in general vis-à-vis the world, but in how clergy are a separated
class. They would point to their priesthood and emphasize how they are called
to a holy calling of celibacy etc...
On the
surface Protestant clericalism rejects this, but not really. They might reject
the specifics of Rome's application but they accept them in principle. Many
Protestant commentators believe the example of disentanglement means that
'ministers' shouldn't hold secular jobs. Some would allow for 'tent-making' but
suggest it is the pursuit of money etc... that ministers should avoid. They
would buttress this by arguing the farming example of v.6 refers to
remuneration, the financial support or harvest of the church being given to its
leaders. They would appeal to Paul's similar example in 1 Cor 9.
Some even
would go so far to suggest the 'rules' of v.5 suggest formal training in
theological principles and hint at a sort of proto-seminary programme or
something to that end.
These all
miss the point of the passage. Clericalism is a false assumption and bringing
this baggage to the text leads to a misreading of it. In addition many Roman
Catholics and Protestants holding Sacralist/Dominionist assumptions cannot
bring themselves to take the exhortation of v.4 seriously and apply it to
Christians in general. The implications regarding separation and a patent
non-Dominionist posture are far too disturbing.
As a quick
aside, it needs to be pointed out that Paul's examples of the soldier, athlete
and farmer in no way suggest the apostle is somehow looking up to these
professions or somehow validating them. They are merely cultural examples that
would be familiar to Timothy and the larger audience. Just as we might use the
example of a computer programmer, an astronaut, Facebook, a smart-phone or a
television remote control to tell a story or make a point, it doesn't mean that
we're necessarily endorsing these things or occupations. They are props and
examples that would be universally understood.
As
Christians we are engaged in warfare, but our war and certainly are weapons are
of a wholly different nature (2 Cor 10.4ff). If we are to suffer, then that
pre-supposes we will not be in positions of power nor will we be seeking them.
As strangers and pilgrims, as ones who look at this life as something that is
passing away (1 Cor 7.29-31) and temporary (2 Cor 4.16-18) there is indeed a
certain level of disengagement.
We live our
lives, plant our gardens, marry and raise our children. But this is not our
home. We are neither interested in or excited by the American Dream. To think
in terms of investment, property, building businesses, getting ourselves
established, secure or respectable are not our concern. We are not culturally
integrated. As the Church we are necessarily counter-cultural. We are not
invested in the project of society. We are not political, we're not trying to
take down the state, but at the same time we're hardly 'good citizens' who are
civically engaged and working to build up Babylon.
The
implications of the passage are clear. The problem isn't the passage but the
theology of many readers. Paul's exhortation directly contradicts the
theological assumptions they hold dear. Commentators are desperate to point out
that their hearers and readers avoid the 'Fundamentalist' reading of the
passage which views it as a call to separation. Fundamentalism is not above
criticism but that is exactly what Paul is teaching.
We don't
become monks, we don't avoid entanglement by legalistic prohibitions, a trap
many Fundamentalists have fallen into. But we are in some way detached from the
society at large and here's the important part. This disentanglement implies
suffering. Suffering implies antagonism either from Pagan Rome (as it were) or
the later 'Christian' Rome. Either way, we're not on their side.
It means we
won't be privileged. Following Christ we don't stand up for our rights (Mat
5.40), we don't call upon the state to defend us. We don't return evil for
evil. As Christians we will indeed be taken advantage of and we will be
perceived as fools. Our weapons of defense are not retribution but a testimony
of integrity and a witness of truth which will shame all but the most hardened
reprobates.
As per
Romans 8.36.-37 we 'conquer' (a military term) by being the slaughtered sheep.
Like Jeremiah suffering in prison we refuse to compromise, we refuse to embrace
the lie. We see the Truth and though the world thinks us to be insane and
foolish we cannot turn back to the lie.
Let goods
and kindred go, this mortal life also
The body
they may kill, God's truth abideth still
The affairs
of this life are secondary. This mindset will affect how we think about
success, money and status. Suddenly all the things the world chases after and
thinks are important are of little importance to us.
What are we
here for? To conquer and rule the world? Even if it cannot be honest with
itself, that's where most of the Church has been at throughout its history. And
yet the true Church, those who cling to and hold fast the words of Scripture
has always understood that this world is a vapour, a passing phase, an epoch
already condemned to the fires of judgment. We are citizens of the Kingdom of
Heaven, our hearts are there and it is there we lay up our treasures. And thus according
to His promise, we look for the new heavens and earth, the righteous realm. And
as Peter says, we therefore are to look forward to this and be diligent to be
found without spot and blameless.
Rejecting
the world leads to suffering and that's what we're called to. There have been
many that have abused the notion of Spiritual War. We think back to the Peretti
novels and the abuses of the Charismatic movement. We reject the dualism so
often portrayed in fantasy stories that posits the forces of good and evil on
equal terms. No, God is supreme and above all. He is the Lord of history and
nothing moves apart from His will.
Yet, the
Scriptures also present to us a historical picture that delineates a real and
true spiritual struggle on both the angelic and earthly levels. We cannot fully
understand how this functions. Somehow God is over all and though the outcome
is sure the struggle is very real. We must endure and fight these battles. Our
souls and the souls of others are at stake.
This too
will upset many due to perceived problems of consistency. How can we be saved and
yet have to struggle? How can our salvation be sure and by grace, and yet
there's a need to endure, to be diligent? Too often these Scriptures are
explained away but we must not do so. We must expand our understanding and
rather than seek coherence and logical consistency we must endeavour to make
our thinking analogous to God's revelation. We must shape our thinking so that
it corresponds with revealed truth, truth from the eternal realm which most
certainly will transcend and surpass our understanding.
The war and
struggle are real and yet we need not fear. We must (like Timothy) be strong in
the grace that is in Christ Jesus.
