In View Of What Christ Has Done Paul Lays Out The Battle Plan For The Future And Organises God’s Forces In Order To Ensure That His Church Will Be The Mainstay Of All That He Has Accomplished (1.18-3.16).

Calling on Timothy to prepare for spiritual warfare (1.18-20), he exhorts prayer for all men, and especially for all in high places, in order that the work of God might go forward peaceably among all men, for that was why He had sent His Mediator as a man among men and as a ransom for all (2.1-7). All are to play their part in accordance with what God has revealed. Christian men (including women) are all to participate in this prayer, lifting up holy hands in Christian oneness, while Christian women are also to play their part by godly sobriety, and being careful to maintain their rightful place, lest the error of the Garden of Eden be repeated. Avoidance of this, and fulfilling of their major role in child-bearing, will then turn out for their blessing and salvation (2.8-15). Meanwhile the principles of leadership are laid out as Paul gives advice to Timothy about the appointment of male ‘bishops/overseers’ and ‘deacons’, and also of ‘women’ (3.1-13), and he concludes the section by pointing out that his instructions are being sent to him so that he might know how men and women are to behave within the household of God, that is the church of the living God (3.14-15). Finally he ends by again directing his own and their minds to heavenly things (compare 1.17), but this time in terms of the coming of the Incarnate One and what He has accomplished (3.16), a truth of which the church is to be the mainstay in the world (3.15).

We can summarise this section something like this:

• Warring the good warfare and the collapse of some of the fabric (1.18-20).
• Rallying the troops both male and female to make use of their spiritual weapons (chapter 2).
• Choosing the officers, both male and female (3.1-13).
• The responsibility of the Church as the pillar and mainstay of the truth and the description of the One Whose incredible accomplishment guarantees the success of the warfare and provides its incentive (3.14-16).

The Charge To Prepare For Spiritual Warfare (1.18-20).

Paul commences this new section by assuring Timothy that he is committing to him the charge which he has just been describing, in accordance with the prophecies that had first led to his appointment. He is reminding him that it was not just he, Paul, who had chosen him, but that his (Timothy’s) appointment had been as a result of such prophecies. The church led by the Spirit had set him aside for God’s service. And it was because of this that he felt able to put on him such a great responsibility.

For, as he was well aware, he was introducing Timothy into a war, a war against falsehood and false teaching, and a war for the truth and for the souls of men (compare 2 Corinthians 10.2-6; Ephesians 6.10-18). And he wanted him to ‘war a good warfare’. And this would include getting the church down to prayer and the regulating of the lives of both men and women (2.1-15), and especially those who were to take office in the church (3.1-13). It was essential, therefore, that he held both faith and a good conscience, and not be like some who had thrust faith and conscience from them, ending up as shipwrecks in respect to the faith. And one of his guides in this was to be Paul’s instruction.

1.18-19 ‘This charge I commit to you, my child Timothy, according to the prophecies which led the way to you, that by them you may war the good warfare, holding faith and a good conscience; which some having thrust from them made shipwreck concerning the faith,’

It is clear from what is said here that at some time in the past Timothy’s calling had been brought into effect and confirmed by the testimony of ‘prophets’ (see 4.14), including at some stage Paul himself (2 Timothy 1.6). It had thus been divinely confirmed, and along with this confirmation Timothy had been given the necessary gifts which would render him effective (4.14; 2 Timothy 1.6). This was one reason why Paul had been led to him and had such confidence in him. Now he was being called on to be inspired by the prophecies and make use of the gifts in this vital work that lay before him. There is no point in having gifts, Paul is saying, if you do not use them. Indeed he might have added that not to use them is dereliction of duty.

So now he was calling on him to war a good warfare in respect of the ‘charge’ now being given to him. The idea of a ‘charge, from a military viewpoint was of an urgent obligation. The one who was ‘charged’ was under a strict responsibility to carry out his orders. With respect to Timothy this necessitated him holding ‘faith and a good conscience’, which he would be able to do through wearing the armour of God, which included right belief and right use of the word of God (1 Thessalonians 5.8; Ephesians 6.10-18; 2 Corinthians 6.7; 10.3-6; Romans 13.12; 1 Peter 4.1). ‘Faith’, which indicates both right belief and right response, and a constant looking to Jesus Christ (Galatians 2.20; Hebrews 12.1-3), would keep him in touch with God and with His truth, and ensure that he persevered on the way, and ‘a good conscience’ (‘good’ (kalos) meaning not only a working conscience and a moral conscience, but also one that is ‘lovely’, that is seemly and loving and moulded by the truth) would act like a road map and signpost, and a light along the way, and if followed and not thrust away, would keep him walking in the truth both in his teaching and in his life. For ‘faith and a good conscience’ see 1.5; 3.9; Hebrews 10.22. It was necessary for him, as for us all, to trust and obey, and obedience included being obedient to the truth.

But some, alas, instead of ‘holding’ to a good conscience, had thrust it from them (the verb is forceful), and the result was that they had been shipwrecked as far as true faith was concerned. They had ‘swerved’ away from ‘love out of a pure heart, a good conscience and faith unfeigned’ (1.5-6). And it had resulted in ‘shipwreck’. For it is in the conscience that backsliding always begins. It is when we begin to relax our spiritually guided moral life, and begin to follow worldly desire that spiritual difficulties soon appear, leading on, if we continue in that way, to total shipwreck. The shipwreck here probably resulted from the desires of the mind. They had so fantasised their beliefs (1.4), and had been so gripped by the fantasies, that they had lost their way (1.5), and then, following that, all that they had believed in. And sadly some of them probably did not even yet realise it. Others are similarly shipwrecked by the course of this world, the desires of the flesh, and that evil spirit who works in the children of disobedience (Ephesians 2.2-3). In each case had they listened to their good conscience and looked off to Jesus in faith it would never have happened.

1.20 ‘Of whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I delivered to Satan, that they might be taught not to blaspheme.’

Paul then gives two well known example, something that he does not often do. This is probably because they had been prominent members of the church at Ephesus, even possibly elders, although it may also be because of the seriousness of their offence. They were guilty of blasphemy. These men had clearly been a great disappointment to him, and had let him and God down badly.

For Hymenaeus see also 2 Timothy 2.17. He was clearly prominent amongst those who taught foolish things, but had also taught that the resurrection was already past, upsetting the faith of others. We do not know precisely how he did this, but we can see why it was seen as blasphemy. He had rid the cross of its power, replacing it with some psychological or mystical experience. Perhaps his claim was that some had already become ‘divine’ as a result of some spiritual resurrection, which only applied to initiates. He may well have been misrepresenting Paul’s teaching in Ephesians 1.19-2.6.

About Alexander we know nothing further. There is no reason for seeing this Alexander at Ephesus as the same Alexander who did much harm to Paul in 2 Timothy 4.14. That was not at Ephesus, and Alexander was a common name. But these two had also thrust their consciences to one side and their behaviour had been so bad that Paul had felt it necessary to act openly against them

Paul then goes on to say that he had "delivered them over to Satan so that they might learn not to blaspheme," and that raises the question as to exactly what this means. A number of suggestions have been made.

• 1). That he was thinking of the Jewish practise of excommunication. According to synagogue practise, if a man was an evildoer he was first publicly rebuked. If that was ineffective, he was banished from the synagogue for a period of thirty days. And then if he was still stubbornly unrepentant, he was put under ‘the ban’. This put him into a position where he was seen as accursed, and debarred from both the society of good men and the fellowship of God.
• 2). That he was saying that he has barred them from the fellowship of the church. The world outside the church was seen as being in the arms of the evil one (1 John 5.19). Thus to exclude them from the church may well have been seen as delivering them to Satan. The aim would be to bring about repentance as a result of their exclusion. However, this suggestion does not strictly tie in with the idea of ‘the destruction of the flesh’ in 1 Corinthians 5.5 unless Paul also expected that God’s punishment would follow, which may well be the case (see 1 Corinthians 11.30). It does, however, tie in with Matthew 18.17; 2 Thessalonians 3.14.
• 3). That he was saying that he has handed them over to Satan in a similar way to that in which Job was handed over to Satan (although in his case it was because he was such a man of faith). The point then is that he has called on God to let Satan have his way with them so that they will become subject to suffering in order that it might make them rethink their position. We can compare here the man in the church at Corinth who was guilty of incest. Paul's advice was that he should be delivered to Satan "for the destruction of the flesh, so that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus" (1 Corinthians 5.5). The hope would be that, after chastisement, he might finally be saved. We can compare the blindness which fell on Elymas because of his opposition to the gospel (Acts 13.11). It could well be that it was Paul's prayer that these two men should be subjected to some painful experience which would be both a punishment and a warning.

Rallying The Troops. Paul’s Exhortation To The Men And Women Of The Church To Pray (2.1-10).

Having called Timothy to war the good warfare, while ensuring that he maintained faith and a good conscience, and having given examples of those who had not, Paul now calls on all the men and women in the church to join in that warfare. And they are to do that first by praying for all in authority, praying that they would govern wisely and justly so that all Christians may be able to lead a tranquil and quiet life in godliness and all seriousness of purpose. For this will then lead on to the progress of the Gospel which will be pleasing to God Who wants all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth.

And he stresses that there is only one truth which offers salvation, and that is that there is One God, and one Mediator between Himself and men, the Man Christ Jesus, Who gave Himself a ransom for all, in a once and for all action, although testimony to it would be borne to it at the right times. This indeed was why he, Paul, was appointed as a preacher and Apostle, bringing faith and truth to the Gentiles. So in view of this all Christians in every place where Christians meet are to pray genuinely in total unity of spirit, ensuring that their hands are holy (unstained by sin and sanctified to God), and their manner of dress modest (for the same reason), and that there is no anger or dissension in their hearts.

Note the continued emphasis on ‘all’ and Paul’s emphasis that he was appointed as the Apostle of the Gentiles (verse 7). This would serve to confirm the Jewish nature of the false teaching being combated by Timothy.

Analysis.

• a I exhort therefore, first of all, that supplications, prayers, intercessions, thanksgivings, be made for all men, for kings and all that are in high places; that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and gravity (1-2).
• b This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, who would have all men to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth (3-4).
• c For there is one God, one mediator also between God and men, himself man, Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all, the testimony to be borne in its own times (5-6).
• b To which I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I speak the truth, I lie not), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth (7).
• a I desire therefore that the men pray in every place, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and disputing. In the same way that women adorn themselves -- through good works (8-10).

Note that in ‘a’ Paul seeks for prayer for all in authority for peace and tranquillity so as to aid the spread of the Gospel, and in the parallel he seeks prayer from all men and women in the church, offered from a pure heart and spirit, with pure hands, or in modest apparel with good works, ensuring peace and tranquillity in the whole body of Christ. In ‘b’ he declares God’s desire that all levels of men and women, from the highest to the lowest, may be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth, and in the parallel he declares that that was why he was made a preacher, Apostle and teacher to the Gentiles (‘to the Gentiles’ being so that people of all kinds may be saved), himself operating in faith and in truth. Centrally in ‘c’ he reiterates the Gospel message (1.15) in a slightly different form.

2.1-2 ‘I exhort therefore, first of all, that supplications, prayers, intercessions, thanksgivings, be made for all men, for kings and all that are in high place; that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and gravity.’

‘Therefore.’ To what does this ‘therefore’ refer? The only answer is that it has in mind the spiritual warfare in which Timothy was to engage. Here is, as it were, the first bombardment of the war.

And Paul here brings out that the first essential in the present warfare is prayer. He thus exhorts ‘first of all’ that much spiritual effort be put into praying and giving thanks for all who are in high places, among all nations (this last is what ‘kings and all in high places’ has very much in mind). Note the accumulation and multiplication of the thoughts, ‘supplications, prayers, intercessions, thanksgivings’. The powers that be are needful of prayer of all kinds, and are, as it were, to be flooded with and surrounded by both prayers of all kinds and thanksgiving. If we are to distinguish them we may see supplications as referring to prayers for the physical and emotional needs of men, prayers as indicating prayers for the spiritual needs of men, intercessions as revealing that we come as subjects to a King on behalf of others because we have privileged access, and thanksgiving as revealing that we are grateful for all the He does, and has done, for us.

‘For all men’, that is, for all men at all levels of society, including all levels of authority. And the aim was so that Christians might be able to live in peace and tranquillity, and live godly and serious lives (compare Jeremiah 29.7). This does not mean that they should be humourless. The godliness was so that they might please their Father in Heaven by the purity of their lives and worship, the gravity was because they must take seriously their world responsibility described in the next verse. All Christians are to be very grave when they are considering the evangelising of their neighbourhood as part of world evangelisation.

‘Godliness.’ That is piety, Godly faith, genuineness towards God from a worshipful heart’. This is a word not used previously by Paul, but Paul is here writing to a prominent church leader, and therefore portraying things from a different angle than he does in his earlier letters. This is, in fact, the explanation for many of his new terms found in the Pastoral letters.

‘Gravity.’ Aristotle places the word halfway between complacency and wilfulness. It signifies concern about what is important and right. Thus the Christian’s concern is first to be towards God, and then concerning what is important and right.

But we must not overlook the important lesson here that Christians are not just to be tied up in themselves and their own little world. They are to have broad vision, and they must even have an effect on ‘kings’, and both Josephus and the inscriptions indicate that this title included Caesar himself. It thus referred to kings large and small. For the peace and tranquillity of the world matters to God. Peace is His aim, and indeed final peace and tranquillity in Heaven is His final aim. This is made clear in some of the earliest words of Jesus, ‘Blessed are the peace-makers, for theirs is the Kingly Rule of Heaven’ (Matthew 5.9).

This is the other side of the daily prayer, ‘bring us not into testing, but deliver us from evil’ (Matthew 6.13). While testing, trial and persecution is often the lot of the Christian, his prayers should be to avoid testing, not to be tried and to escape persecution, for he is aware of his own weakness and frailty. He is to look for peace and tranquillity. Then he knows that whatever comes to him comes from God, and he will be able to rejoice in it (James 1.2).

2.3-4 ‘This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, who would have all men to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth.’

For a world at peace is pleasing and acceptable to God our Saviour Whose one aim is to bring all levels of men, from high to low, from all nations, to Himself. Notice that ‘all men’ has been defined by verse 1. He wants all levels of men from all nations to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth. We know from 1.15 that ‘saved’ refers to sinners. It is sinners whom God wants to save. Christ died for the ungodly (Romans 5.6). Note the equating of ‘being saved’ with ‘coming to the knowledge of the truth’. It is a ‘true spiritual knowledge’ (epignowsis) of the truth that brings about salvation in those who believe and are saved. But the emphasis is on the truth and not on the knowledge. There is a knowledge that is to be refuted and rejected (1.4, 6). It is the genuine knowledge of the truth that matters.

‘God our Saviour.’ And the Saviour to Whom they must look is no secondary figure. It is God Himself. We are very much in the area here of the clearly stated elsewhere, ‘our God and Saviour Jesus Christ’ (Titus 2.13; 2 Peter 1.1, compare 11). It is not the Father alone Who is the Saviour, it is God in the fullness of His Being.

Some see here a general will of God that desires the salvation of all men. Compare also such verses as ‘God so loved the world --’ (John 3.16), and ‘The Lord is --- not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance’ (2 Peter 3.9), ‘a propitiation for the sins of the whole world’ (1 John 2.2). And certainly there is no reason for denying God’s benevolence towards all men (‘He sends the rain on the just and the unjust’ - Matthew 5.45). Furthermore He does through His servants truly make His offer of salvation open to all men, and He would if it were possible save them all. But that it is not possible is clear from the consequences. No one is more clear than Jesus on the fact that not all men will be saved (e.g. Matthew 7.13-27).

However, we should note that from the beginning God has for a time preserved all men for a period from the judgment that they deserved, preserving them for a time from the fate that awaited them, and offering them salvation if they would respond to Him. In that sense He is the Saviour of all men without distinction. He saves them from wrath for a time. But in the end His full salvation is only for those who believe, and therefore in the final sense His Saviourhood also is only for those who believe (compare 4.10). Some have distinguished between His potential Saviourhood and His actual Saviourhood which is what 4.10 appears to infer, and this may be helpful to some, but that is merely to simplify what we have described.

2.5-6 ‘For there is one God, one mediator also between God and men, himself man, Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all, the testimony to be borne in its own times,’

The Saviourhood of God is now defined. The words here are delicately balanced. ‘There is one God’, God the Saviour (verse 3). In this description is summed up the whole of the Godhead, Father, Son and Holy Spirit in their eternity of Being. But from the Godhead came One Who entered into the world and became man, and in that Manhood He has become the mediator (the One Who brings two parties together) between God and man. Thus it is no intermediate being to whom we look, but to One Man Who is the mediator between God and man, and that Man ‘Christ Jesus’. The relationship and mediatorship is as close as can be, and as that Man is Christ Jesus, He is therefore also ‘the Lord’ (1.1, 2, 12), and therefore also truly God, which is why He can bring man to God.

And wonderfully this God-Man gave Himself a ransom ‘on behalf of’ (huper) all (but ‘in the place of’ (anti) many - Mark 10.45). Humanly speaking all could respond. None must feel excluded. The word ransom (antilutron) brings out the greatness of the price that He paid on the cross, and the ‘anti’ reveals its substitutionary nature. It was a substitutionary ransom. He paid a price (1 Corinthians 6.20; 1 Peter 1.1.18-20) that we could not. And it was sufficient for all the sin that could ever have been committed, for it is measured not in terms of quantity but in terms of quality. He did not die for all sins, but for all sin. Thus it is sufficient for all. And while only those will be saved who truly respond to Him and believe, the ransom will achieve its full quota, for it will cover all who believe, who are in the final analysis those on whose behalf it was offered.

The picture is being described from the human side. In the words of the hymn, ‘Whoever will, may come’ (Matthew 7.24 and often; John 3.15, 16; 6.40; 11.26; 12.46; Acts 2.21; 10.43; Romans 9.33; 10.11, 13; Revelation 22.17). The divine side, the fact that it is all His work, is revealed elsewhere (e.g. John 6.37, 44; Romans 8.28-30; Ephesians 1.4; James 1.18).

‘The testimony to be borne in its own times.’ The ransom having been paid, and the Mediatorship having been offered, testimony concerning them had to be borne to the world. And that testimony is a part of the whole. Without it the ransom would have been ineffective. What it had achieved had to be communicated, and it was through the proclamation of the word. ‘Its own times’ indicates an indefinite period as determined by God, and has been the period from the cross until now, and those ‘due times’ will go on until the end of time. And it includes Paul’s time as the next verse makes clear. God having acted in redemption the next stage was the offering of the testimony. And that was the purpose and reason behind Paul’s appointment. It was made his responsibility to bring this huge eternal event, for in a sense He was offered before time began (Acts 2.23), to all men, including the Gentiles. It is now also in our hands to be offered to the world. How then can we hesitate for a moment?

Note. The Jews believed in many intermediaries between God and man in the persons of the angels, because of man’s unworthiness. The Gnostics believed in many emanations between God and man because flesh was corrupt and spirit was pure. The Roman Catholics believe in many intermediaries in the persons of the saints and Mary. But Paul tells us that there is but One Mediator, and He God Himself. End of note.

2.7 ‘To which I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I speak the truth, I lie not), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.’

Humbled at the magnificent thought that he has offered, Paul now exults in the privilege that was his. This is not just an added comment. This was an essential part of the eternal plan of salvation (‘when it was the good pleasure of God, who separated me even from my mother’s womb, and called me by His grace, to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles’ - Galatians 1.15-16). Humanly speaking without the preacher the ransom would have been ineffective. And without this additional statement the words ‘to be testified to in due times’ would have been left hanging in the air. So he points out that God had already determined on the next step, and thus had he been appointed as a preacher, and an Apostle (yes, truly an Apostle, this is no lie) of the Gentiles.

‘To the Gentiles’ is important. He is explaining how the ransom can be ‘for all’. The One God of the Jews had arranged from the beginning to send him to the Gentiles. Thus none have been left out. Note the order of the privileges. First the preacher/proclaimer. For that message initially called for a preacher. It was through the preaching of the cross that what it had accomplished became effective (1 Corinthians 1.18). Then the Apostle, for as the Apostle he had to oversee what the preaching had accomplished. And as an Apostle he had to be a Teacher, so that men might not only hear and respond, but might also be built up in the truth.

‘In faith and truth.’ And he has taken the message with a heart full of faith and truthfulness, offering the truth to all men and women whose hearts were responsive in faith. ‘Faith and truth’ is both the source of the message and the ground in which the Gospel flourishes.

Some have cavilled at the thought that Paul would have so asserted his Apostleship to Timothy in this way, but that is to miss the point of the assertion. It was firstly in order to indicate how God’s plan was complete and demonstrated that the Gentiles were included in the universal offer of salvation (to us it is a commonplace, but in those days it was still a marvel. This also helps to confirm that the main heresy being faced in Ephesus is based on Jewish exclusivism. Compare Paul’s emphasis on ‘all’ throughout this passage). And secondly it was not Timothy that he wanted to convince. His words were for those to whom his letter would be passed on (as the closing greeting makes clear it is to be - 1 Timothy 6.21).

‘I speak the truth, I lie not.’ There is a strong inference here that others do not speak the truth, and that they do lie. The Ephesians need to consider the very foundations that prove, or otherwise, a Teacher, and ask what is the source of their teaching.

2.8 ‘I will therefore that the men pray in every place, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and disputing.’

In the light of all this then he calls on all Christian men (andras) in every place where the church is found (for the Gospel is universally applicable) to lift up holy hands in full benevolence of spirit and harmony. Notice the ‘I will that --.’ His important part in the plan of salvation as the Apostle to the Gentiles (verse 7) has made him able to make total demands on those who hear.

‘Men.’ His use of aner (andras), which is a word regularly used as a contrast with ‘woman’, and also contrasts specifically with his use of anthrowpos (mankind) earlier (verses 1, 4, 5), must here be seen as specifically indicating males, especially in view of what follows. This is what is to be the major responsibility of men, along with the women (verses 9-10).

This exhortation to pray does not, of course, cancel out all the other things required of men, without which they could not have ‘holy hands’. It is, however, to indicate how prominent prayer should be.

< ‘Lifting up holy hands.’ The lifting up of hands was a common method of praying (compare Isaiah 1.15), but Paul stresses that they must be holy hands. They must be hands that are set apart for God, and therefore kept spiritually clean and pure (compare James 4.8). They may be covered with oil or dust or grit, but spiritually and morally they must be pure. They must be the hands of those who are doing their Father’s will, for ‘if I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me’ (Psalm 66.18). They must remember that ‘the Lord is near to those who are of a broken heart and saves such as are of a contrite spirit’ (Psalm 34.18), and ‘the Lord is near to all who call on Him, to all who call on Him in truth’ (Psalm 145.18). See also Psalm 15 which details the requirements for approaching God;

Consider also Psalm 26.6, ‘I will wash my hands in innocence, so will I have dealings with your altar’. Holy hands are a vital part of prayer, whether lifted up or kept firmly clasped.

‘Without wrath and disputing.’ As God desires peace and tranquillity in the world (verse 2), so there must be peace and tranquillity among the people of God, for they are God’s mirror and pattern to the world. Among God’s people there is to be a loving spirit (John 13.35 and often) and a controlled tongue (James 3.2-12; Matthew 12.36-37). Those who are filled with anger towards others can only pray for themselves. Those who are looking for, or participating in, an angry argument or a quarrel cannot expect that God will hear them. For those who would come to Him must be at one with one another (Matthew 5.23-25).

‘In every place.’ A typical Paulinism, compare 1 Corinthians 1.2; 2 Corinthians 2.14; 1 Thessalonians 1.8). For the idea of prayer in every place see Malachi 1.11 LXX; John 4.20-24.

2.9-10 ‘In the same way, that women adorn themselves in modest clothing (or ‘with a modest demeanour’), with modesty and sobriety, not with braided hair, and gold or pearls or costly raiment, but (which is becoming to women professing godliness) through good works.’

In the same way as men are to ‘lift up holy hands’ when praying, so must women when praying also ensure that they are adorned with modesty, either with modest clothing, or with a modest demeanour (the word can mean either), as an indication of their dedication to God. The point is that in places of public worship especially they must avoid ostentation and seeking to be objects of admiration and of men’s attention. In the place where God is being worshipped this would be seeking to take attention away from God and would be the equivalent of idolatry and blasphemy. It would thus demonstrate a wayward heart.

It is equally true of a woman who comes to public worship scantily dressed, or deliberately revealing her feminine attractions. Rather women should be ‘dressed’ in good works (although even then not ostentatiously) as well as modest clothing. For this is what is becoming to those who profess to love and honour God. Being ‘dressed through good works’ is the equivalent of having holy hands. It means that they come to God as those seen through their lives to be dedicated to His will and desirous of pleasing Him. It demonstrates that their hearts are right. (Of course, we should remind ourselves that ‘holy hands’ will also have been doing good works).

Undoubtedly a major point in mind here is the danger of attracting worship to themselves rather than to God. But equally as important is the attitude of heart that it reveals. There is nothing God-like in ostentation. It depicts someone who is vain and thoughtless. Many poor women would be present in the worship meetings and would feel humiliation when they compared themselves with these women, because of their own poverty of dress and lack of ornaments. Thus to deliberately make a show of wealth would be both obnoxious and unkind. There is nothing holy about that.

However, the mention of good works gives the words a wider connection, and we should therefore also see this as a warning against ostentation and vanity in all aspects of life. The Christian woman should always be an example to her sex of sobriety and godliness. This does not, however, mean that she has to be dowdy. Carelessness of dress can be as bad a witness as being overdressed.

The Part To Be Played By God’s Special Reserve. Christian Women Are Not To Strive To Be Teachers Or Leaders, But To Ensure That They Are Good Mothers And Evangelists Of Their Children, Bringing Them Up In A Godly Environment As Their Part In The Outworking Of Salvation (2.12-15).

As we enter what is today dangerous territory (we might almost say No Man’s Land) we can see why Paul has been emphasising godliness, peace and tranquillity, and avoidance of disputation. It is as though he had seen ahead to what was to happen in the future. All we can hope to do is present as honestly as we can what it seems to us that Paul is teaching, and trust that God will guide each heart into his truth, whatever that might be, remembering that it is so easy to dismiss or misinterpret the word of God because it does not please us.

Certainly it is right that we recognise that Paul is speaking to a church lacking the New Testament, and the great advances in education in the modern day. On the other hand we must also recognise that the church would have had a solid basis of Apostolic tradition, delivered to it both orally and in writing, and that though times may change, the psychological make up of the sexes does not necessarily do so, and we will do well to consider what the Scriptures say about that.

The thought of women at prayer leads Paul on to consider the Scriptural view of the prime function of women. He would have experienced the excitability of Ephesian women when he had seen their behaviour in the Ephesian Riot (Acts 19.29-41), and he had no doubt often come across situations where powerful women used their influence to the detriment of God’s people (e.g. Acts 13.50). Furthermore he was an observant man and well versed in the Scriptures, and he believed that ultimately both men and women were equal in importance and standing before God (Galatians 3.28). He therefore wished to ensure that women played an active role in the church while at the same time behaving with modesty and decency, and accomplishing the purpose that God had for them. He did not want bodies of wealthy women (Acts 13.50) gaining overriding influence in the church, or vociferous women swaying the church’s decisions or marring their assemblies. Nor did he want the intuitiveness of a woman’s brain, as revealed at its worst in the Garden of Eden, to override the more rationally minded slant of men’s brains when it came to doctrine, for in the Garden it was the woman who had proved how easily she could be deceived and go astray in her views about God. He considered, as he thought about these matters before God, that it would be dangerous therefore for women to have authority over the teaching of the church. They would rather do better by concentrating their efforts on what the Scriptures had appointed for them, being a good mother to their children, thereby maintaining the very core of the church.

Analysis.

• a Let a woman learn in quietness with all subjection (11).
• b But I do not permit a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness (12).
• c For Adam was first formed, then Eve (13).
• b And Adam was not beguiled, but the woman being beguiled has fallen into transgression (14).
• a But she will be saved through her child-bearing, if they continue in faith and love and sanctification with sobriety (15).

Note that in ‘a’ the woman’s manner of life is laid out, and the same applies in the parallel. In ‘b’ she is not to teach or have dominion over a man, and in the parallel the reason for this is explained. Centrally in ‘c’ Adam’s priority is stressed.

2.11 ‘Let a woman learn in quietness with all subjection.’

Paul wanted no unseemly behaviour by over-excitable women in church. It is difficult for us today to appreciate the release that Christianity had brought to the average woman. But the danger was that they could over-react. So they were rather to listen peaceably, treating the Teacher with due respect.

‘With all subjection.’ This simply means that they must humbly recognise their rightful place in the scheme of things. We must not get too excited over the word ‘subjection’. It is a word that is at the heart of Christian behaviour. Children are to be subject to their parents (3.4), and Christians are to recognise others as better than themselves (Philippians 2.3 -for while they are not aware of the truth about others, but they certainly know the sinfulness of their own hearts). And all Christians are told to be in subjection one to another in the fear of Christ (Ephesians 5.21) and in all humility (1 Peter 5.5). The idea is thus simply of showing due respect, listening quietly and behaving courteously, without pushing themselves forward, or behaving arrogantly, accepting their due place, whether high or low, in modesty and humility. Of course the pride of man (and of woman) does not like being ‘subject’ to anyone or anything. But the truth is that we are all usually subject to the law, and to the authorities (Romans 13.1, 5), except when they get it badly wrong. In the same way should we be subject to the requirements of being considerate and thoughtful as required by Scripture. For a woman it goes one step further. It is to acknowledge that the man has the last word, not as a domineering tyrant (no Christian male should be that), but as the final arbiter after coming, if possible, to common agreement. We may see the male as the ideal chairman, who comes to the final decision after taking into account the views of all parties, after which all accept the position without acrimony.

2.12 ‘But I do not permit a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness.’

It is quite clear that this does not mean that a woman cannot teach any others the Scriptures, for Paul will specifically cater for older women to teach younger women (Titus 2.4). But it is noticeable that the emphasis there is on the teaching of good Scriptural behaviour, rather than of Christian doctrine. It would appear also that Priscilla (with Paul’s approval) helped her husband Aquila in his private teaching of others, even with so important a man as Apollos, and was possibly even the major player (Acts 18.6), while Paul took it for granted that women would ‘prophesy’ (1 Corinthians 11.5), although we are not told in what kind of meeting. The daughters of Philip the evangelist were prophetesses (Acts 21.9). The thought here must therefore be of authoritative public teaching, especially when authority was being exercised over men.

As the Christian church grew it rightly exercised careful authority over who could teach. Only those duly authorised would normally be allowed to do so, although that could include a recognised travelling prophet who had a letter of introduction. Thus it is probable that Paul’s guidance here has in mind teaching in the main assembly of the church. Moreover we must recognise that many men in those days, as is true in parts of the world today, would have been offended if a woman had preached to them, especially those men who like Paul had been brought up as Pharisees (Pharisees prayed daily, ‘I thank you that you have not made me a woman’). Paul was certainly free of that bias, otherwise he could not have written Galatians 3.28. But many of his compatriots were not. However, while that may have been a factor, we must not lay too much emphasis on it, for it is not the reason that Paul gives.

2.13-14 ‘For Adam was first formed, then Eve, and Adam was not beguiled, but the woman being beguiled has fallen into transgression,’

The reasons that Paul gives are twofold. Firstly man’s priority to woman in creation, (‘Adam was first formed, then Eve’), and secondly that the woman proved the fallibility of her thinking by allowing herself to be deceived in the Garden of Eden.

a). The priority of man over the woman in creation. Paul deals with this subject in 1 Corinthians 11 where he points out the order of creation. God is the head of Christ. Christ is the head of man. Man is the head of the woman. This neither demeans Christ, nor the man, nor the woman. It merely indicates their place in God’s scheme of things. If no one is set over anyone else the result will only be chaos. This is seen in the fact that human employers grade their workers and make some ‘head’ over the others. It may not always be ‘fair’, but as a rule we accept it. It makes for good employer/employee relations, and usually for good management. In the same way accepting God’s appointments makes for good relationships with God. And God’s appointment is that the man will be ‘head’ of the woman.

Of course, God can always intervene to arrange exceptions, as He did in the cases of Deborah (Judges 4-5) and Huldah (2 Kings 22.14), both prophetesses. And the work of women on some mission fields have proved His case. But we would be foolish to accept such appointments as a matter of course just because some of them worked. And this is especially so as Jesus had many women disciples, but never appointed one as an Apostle (not even an Apostle to women). Nor would it be true to say that in the days of the early church a woman never lorded it over men outside church circles. Influential women often did so in certain societies, and many Christian slaves were owned by women. But women were never allowed to behave like that in the orthodox Christian church. Indeed a Christian woman slave-owner might well have come to the church and found that her slave was one of the elders, and while no doubt, being her slave, he would be very careful what he did and said, she would be subject to his authority within the church, and would submit to him in that regard. Nor did any women that we know of rebel against the fact in New Testament days. They humbly recognised the authority of the Apostles, and the wisdom of their decisions. In fact the word of God is quite clear on the matter, wives are to subject themselves to their husbands, and the Christian woman is to subject herself to the male leadership. And this is seen to be a ressult of the order of creation. The Scriptural position is that for us to deny this principle is to rebel against God’s word, and ultimately against God.

b). The fallibility of women’s thinking as revealed in the Garden of Eden. In this regard Paul stresses that Adam was not beguiled. He sinned knowingly. It was Eve who was beguiled, and while that made her less culpable, it also made her less intellectually reliable. Furthermore, while it is not to deny their overall quality of intellect, nor that some women are the intellectual superior of most men, even the most biased person arguing the woman’s case cannot deny that women think differently from men. And therein lies the danger. They tend to be intuitive rather than logical. And when it comes to sound teaching that can be dangerous, especially at a time when there was no New Testament to act as a final arbiter.

We must repeat that, as there were in Old Testament days with people like Deborah and Huldah, there are no doubt exceptions, especially in view of today’s standard of training for all, but the rules could not be based on exceptions. They had to be based on everyday life and the general course of things. And this regulation of Paul’s no doubt prevented many from teaching and falling into heresy. Revelation 2.20 gives us an example of such a fall, and it devastated many lives.

Today, of course, in Western societies women claim ‘equality’ with men, although no one has yet defined the meaning of equality. Men are not equal with each other, so how can women be equal with men? (What many women mean, of course, is that they want their piece of the action and to dominate men, because they think that they are better and wiser). And certainly we cannot argue with the principle of equal opportunity in modern society. We can also recognise that because we have the New Testament the dangers of allowing women access to ministry on a similar basis to that of men is not so great as regards the whole church as it would otherwise have been. The danger begins to arise when there is lack of immediate oversight over doctrine. Paul is saying that in such situations women are more likely to go doctrinally astray (although it must be admitted that some men have also made a good job of it). Thus as in the present day they begin to multiply in church leadership it is probable on the basis of the words of Scripture that it will begin to result in even more heresy within the church, and cause great spiritual harm to some individual congregations. So the Scriptural viewpoint is that while exceptions may be allowed under adequate controls, takeover by women is not to be seen as being on the whole for the good of the Christian church (in spite of women’s frustration). But like many important lessons it will probably be proved only too late, after it has done a great deal of harm. This is not a question of the general capability of women. We do not doubt a woman’s ability for such minor things as running a country, or even the United Nations, what we doubt is the ability of women, on the whole, to keep Christian doctrine sound. (The introduction of God as a woman, that then leads on to unsatisfactory inferences, is a case in point). To put it bluntly, women’s lib in the church, while possibly good for women, will probably not be good for Scriptural truth, which is why Paul emphasised his restrictions.

2.15 ‘But she will be saved through her child-bearing, if they continue in faith and love and sanctification with sobriety.’

The question may then arise, ‘in that case what can women do? Are they to be prevented from having a major role in God’s purposes’ We have in fact seen one answer to that already, she can abound in ‘good works’ (see also 5.10; Romans 16.2), and she can teach other women, although not so much in theological doctrine as in practical living (Titus 2.4). But Paul’s experience of younger women in this regard was not a very happy one. He thus recognised their weaknesses (5.11-15). He might have seen it differently today with some women who genuinely determine to remain single. But his argument is that they would do better to marry and have children (5.14). Indeed he takes it one step further. He declares that child-bearing is a major element in women experiencing full salvation.

So what does he mean here? The first thing to recognise is that when Paul uses the word ‘saved’ it never means what it can in the Gospels, the healing of the sick. To Paul the word ‘saved’ does not refer to sickness, but has to do with the work of God in men’s lives. Thus it is unlikely here that it has to do with the physical aspects of child birth. However, that being said, he does use it in a number of ways. He can use it of a person’s once for all acceptance by God (2.4; Ephesians 2.8; 2 Timothy 1.9; Titus 3.5). He can also use if of the future consummation. But he also uses it of the continual work of God on someone who has ‘been saved’, by speaking of them as ‘being saved’ or the equivalent (1 Corinthians 1.18; 2 Corinthians 2.15; 7.10; Philippians 2.12; 1 Timothy 4.16; 2 Timothy 3.15; Hebrews 2.10). In these latter cases the idea is of a process going on within the lives of those who ‘have been saved’ whereby their salvation is being worked out within them. They are in process of being changed from glory to glory (2 Corinthians 3.18). That would therefore seem to be Paul’s use here. The idea then is that as she goes through the pains of child-bearing hand in hand with Him, and as she continues in the bringing up of those children in the Lord, God will continue the process of salvation within her. He will work within her through what she is undergoing, causing her to ‘will and do of His good pleasure’ (Philippians 2.13), and fashioning and moulding her into His image. She will be ‘saved’ by her child-bearing, being changed from glory into glory, as her children grow up ‘continuing in faith and love and sanctification with sobriety.’ This stated connection with salvation makes this a vital part of the picture being supplied in this section.

‘She will be saved through her child-bearing.’ Compare 1 Corinthians 3.15, ‘he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire’. The fire was not the basis of his salvation but a means by which his salvation was applied to him so that he would come through it finally acceptable before God. The same applies here to child-bearing.

Nor should we see child-bearing as just a secular occupation. It is to be seen as intimately connected with salvation. The truth is that the solid core of the church of God is built on children borne by Christian women. In some ways they are the lifeblood of the church, and the mission field has certainly owed a huge debt to the children of missionary parents. Without them the church would, humanly speaking, have been in a far worse state than it is today. Indeed one of the dangers of the present day is that enthusiastic Christian women, eager to be involved in what they see to be of prime importance, are planning to restrict their families, or not have one at all, thus unconsciously robbing the church of its central base. (Meanwhile Roman Catholics and Muslims are ensuring the health of their positions by multiplying children). The ‘debt’ that eternity will reveal as owed to godly mothers is beyond telling, and their final influence will probably be seen, in the consummation, to have exceeded that of the majority of ‘elders’ in the church, to say nothing of the ordinary male members. For they are God’s ‘secret service’.

‘If they continue in faith and love and sanctification with sobriety.’ Paul is not by this ‘if’ making the continuing process of salvation taking place in the mothers dependent on successful Christian living. Rather he is saying that if God is truly working in them the process of salvation (Philippains 2.13) these consequences or ‘fruits’ will follow. He is stressing how important their faithfulness to their task is. It is only if they live like this that their children will grow up in godliness, in the way that Paul will leter emphasise that Timothy has (2 Timothy 1.5; 3.15). The mothers are to put every effort into ensuring that their children continue in faith (being founded solidly on the truth) and in love (genuinely loving God and living out His truth in the world) and in sanctification (being made continually more dedicated and more like Christ), and live serious and valuable lives. And part of the way in which they will do this is by their own example.

So Paul's point is not that their behaviour will result in their final salvation. It is rather to indicate that anyone who fails to live by these standards is unikely to be in the process of 'being saved'. For these are the fruits of salvation, the ‘fruit of the Spirit’ (Galatians 5.22). Those who profess Christianity but fail to lie like this are like the seed sown on rocky ground, outwardly flourishing short term but destined for destruction. Thus it is not a question of - 'if you do this you will be saved'. It is rather a question of 'if you do not do this it shows that it is unlikely that you are in the process of being saved'.

Choosing The Officers For The Local Church: Bishops, Deacons, and Deaconesses (3.1-13).

No task was more serious for the young Timothy, (nor for the older Titus), than that of the selection of good officers to lead the Lord’s army forwards. We come now, therefore to what the qualifications are for ‘bishops’ (overseers and teachers of the local church), and ‘deacons’ and deaconesses (servants of the church and spiritual assistants to the overseers). Only men could be bishops, but both men and women could seemingly be deacons.

The Qualifications For A Bishop In The Local Church (3.1-7).

The church in each city and town was run by a group of elders (presbuteroi) of whom some, if not all (Acts 20.17 with 28), would be appointed ‘bishops’ (episkopoi - the word is rare in secular literature where it indicates ‘oversight’). It was the task of the latter to oversee the teaching of the church members (they must be ‘apt to teach’ - verse 2). But in order to qualify as teachers they also had to make the grade in their lives. Those qualifications are now laid out.

Analysis.

• Faithful is the saying, If a man seeks the office of a bishop (overseer), he desires a good work (1).
• The bishop therefore must be without reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, orderly, given to hospitality, apt to teach, no brawler, no striker; but gentle, not contentious, no lover of money, one who rules well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity (2-4).
• But if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God? (5).
• Not a novice, lest being puffed up he fall into the condemnation of the devil (6).
• Moreover he must have good testimony from those who are without, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil (7).

Note that in ‘a’ the office of bishop is ‘a good work’ and in the parallel he must therefore be well thought of by outsiders, for to them he is the face of the Christian church. In ‘b’ the qualifications are laid out, and in the parallel the warning that he must not be a novice. Centrally in ‘c’ he must have proved himself fit to take charge of the household of God, this being evidenced by how he runs his own household.

3.1 ‘Faithful is the saying, If a man seeks the office of a bishop (overseer), he desires a good work.’

These church overseers were seemingly responsible for the main teaching in the church (‘apt to teach’), and would thus be seen as the face of the church by outsiders. It was to them that direction would be made by Christians if people came to them with questions, or to learn more about the church. They had therefore to be of good repute. Furthermore, because of the importance and centrality of their role, they had to be good role models.

3.2-4 ‘The bishop therefore must be without reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, orderly, given to hospitality, apt to teach, no brawler, no striker; but gentle, not contentious, no lover of money, one who rules well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity.’

Paul provides a formidable check list for one who would take up the important position of ‘overseer’ and shepherd (Acts 20.28).

‘Without reproach.’ That is, ‘unexceptionable, irreproachable’. There must be no stain on their characters and be well thought of both inside and outside the church. This would not necessarily exclude those who (like Paul) had a shady past, but only once they had lived it down and proved that the change was permanent. The word signifies that they must be blameless, not just be seen as being.

‘The husband of one wife’. The stress on ‘one’ would suggest that the main aim of this injunction is to bar polygamists and divorcees on the grounds that they have disobeyed God’s requirement as found in Genesis 2.24, and are therefore necessarily ‘living in sin’ and not above reproach. It may also, however, be intended to include a requirement that they are married. This prohibition would have startled the ancient world. Marriages came and went, and it was not unusual to marry a number of times. Until they became Christians and became aware of Jesus’ teaching they would simply have thought this idea a freak of Paul’s imagination, and in the Gentile world wives were expected to have love affairs, which undoubtedly Paul is also forbidding here.

‘Temperate, sober-minded, orderly.’ They are to be self-controlled, not given to excess, wise of behaviour, efficient and well balanced.

‘Given to hospitality.’ Hospitality was seen as an important virtue in the days of the early church when visitors to a city would require somewhere to stay. Inns were rare and usually not very respectable. One who saw his possessions as belonging to the Lord would necessarily welcome such visitors, especially when they were fellow-Christians.

‘Apt to teach.’ Compare 2 Timothy 2.24. The idea is that he should have the ability, required knowledge and willingness to teach, which was clearly seen as an important function of an episkopos.

‘No brawler, no striker; but gentle, not contentious.’ ‘No brawler.’ That is not one given to excess of wine resulting in becoming tipsy and rowdy, and therefore indicating one who is always no more than a moderate drinker. ‘No striker.’ Not volatile and likely to act in an uncontrolled way. ‘Gentle.’ Someone well controlled and affable, and so of gentlemanly behaviour, gracious and considerate, and even magnanimous. ‘Not contentious.’ Not someone who loves provoking an argument, but is placable and pacific. Someone able to take the sting out of a situation.

‘No lover of money.’ He must not be someone to whom money is obviously too important, or whose life is directed and controlled by the love of money.

‘One who rules well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity.’ And the final test is whether he is able to control his own household and bring up his children properly. If he is seen to be lax with his household, he will probably be lax with the household of God. On the other hand if he is seen to be too harsh with his household, he will probably be too harsh for running the household of God. He will probably tend to treat others in the same way as he treats his own family.

It will be noted, then, that a bishop was to be a well rounded character of good reputation, kind and generous disposition, considerate and thoughtful, not gripped by worldliness and the desires of the flesh, and most importantly truly capable of teaching.

3.5 ‘(But if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?).’

Paul clearly rated highly a man’s ability to control with love, and organise, those for whom he was responsible. For those were the gifts that the household of God would need in abundance. (It is difficult to see how a celibate could have his children in subjection or be seen as running a household).

This staccato question is typical of Paul’s style, compare 1 Corinthians 14.8; Romans 10.14-15.

3.6 ‘Not a novice, lest being puffed up he fall into the condemnation of the devil.’

A further important qualification was that he should not be new to the Christian faith, or someone with no experience of giving guidance and doctrinal help. Otherwise one danger for him would be that he might become puffed up (literally ‘wrapped in smoke’, but developing to signify ‘being conceited’. Possibly we might render ‘lost in clouds of conceit’) and pretentious, swaggering around and beginning to think of himself as better than he ought to think, with the result that he might come under the same condemnation as the Devil as one who leads men astray, is motivated by too much pride, and is unwilling to respond to the reins. Alternately ‘falling under the condemnation of the Devil’ may parallel being handed over to the Devil (1.20) and indicate excommunication. It may well be that some of the false teachers were novices who had been promoted too quickly.

The Ephesian church was now well established and had been for some time. There was therefore now no necessity to look to new converts for elders. The passage of only a few years would bring about such a situation, so this is not an indication of lateness. Interestingly Paul omits this in his guidance to the more newly formed Cretan church.

3.7 ‘Moreover he must have good testimony from those who are without, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.’

This takes up the idea of being beyond reproach (which when taken in depth included much of what followed) and applies it specifically to witness to outsiders. It was important that a bishop be a good advertisement for the church, and one important test of this was how outsiders whose opinion could be trusted thought of him. (not, of course, those who had become riled by his spirituality or his forthrightness in preaching the Gospel). For if he was not of a suitable character he might well unnecessarily bring reproach on the church and himself by his behaviour, and find himself tripped up by the Devil (for he would become a targetman both for outsiders and for the Devil) to the detriment of the church as a whole. It was necessary that he be able to maintain his reputation in the eyes of fair-minded people even when under attack in one way or another.

The idea of ‘hoi exow’ (those outside) is thoroughly Pauline. See 1 Corinthians 5.12; Colossians 4.5; 1 Thessalonians 4.12.

The Qualifications For Deacons and Deaconnesses (3.8-13).

The fact that there is no reference to teaching in these requirements points to the fact that deacons were not seen as authoritative teachers, but it would be unrealistic not to recognise that they would certainly engage in some form of teaching. As they moved around assisting the bishops in fulfilling the functions of the church throughout the city, and especially in their own locality, acting as ‘servants’, and presumably among other things having responsibilities with regards to almsgiving and church support to the needy, they would inevitably find themselves asked questions by those to whom they went, and by new Christians with whom they came in contact, and be required to give guidance in spiritual matters, and it may well be that they would give a word of teaching in small local groups that they attended. We can see how easily that would happen from Acts 6. Some may even have been local ‘prophets’, for there is no reason to doubt that some of the gifts of the Spirit (1 Corinthians 12) would be exercised in even the smallest groups. That was indeed partly their purpose. To make up for the dearth of teachers in such groups. But their words would not be seen as the official teaching of the church. Nevertheless it could become extremely influential within those groups, and it may well be that some of those criticised as false teachers were in fact deacons involved in such situations and doing the best that they could, although having said that, it was, of course necessary to set them right. The requirements for deacons, while not as strict as those for bishops, were nevertheless searching.

This is partly confirmed by the fact that they too needed to prove their ability to ‘rule the household’, and needed to be sound in the mysteries of the faith.

Analysis.

• a In a similar way deacons must be grave, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre, holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience (8-9).
• b And let these also first be proved, then let them serve as deacons, if they are blameless (10).
• c Women in the same way must be grave, not slanderers, temperate; faithful in all things (11).
• b Let deacons be husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well (12).
• a For those who have served well as deacons gain to themselves a good standing, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus (13).

Note in ‘a’ the moral behaviour expected of the deacons and their holding of the mystery of the faith, and in the parallel they thus gain a good standing and great boldness in that faith. In ‘b’ they are to be proved, and in the parallel we learn one way in which they are to be proved. Centrally in ‘c’ women are numbered among them, and if the chiasmus is accepted are given fairly prominent mention.

3.8-9 ‘In a similar way deacons must be grave, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre, holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.’

What is said about the deacons largely parallels what is said about the bishops from a behavioural point of view in slightly abbreviated form, as indeed, given the nature of the material we would expect. They are to be ‘high minded, serious in how they go about things’, ‘not double-tongued’ and thus saying one thing in one place and another in another (or alternatively ‘tellers of tales’, compare Leviticus 19.16), a grave danger for those who moved around among church members, temperate in their use of wine, and not gripped by a love of money. Thus they must control their lives, their tongues and their attitude to money, for they must be acceptable to those to whom they go, careful in what they say, and able to be trusted with money.

‘Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.’ Compare 2 Timothy 1.3. The Gospel as a ‘mystery’ (something hidden now revealed) was hidden from past ages but now made known to God’s people (Mark 4.11; Romans 16.25; 1 Corinthians 2.7; Ephesians 3.9-10; Colossians 1.26-27; 4.3). With this significance the word is almost uniquely Pauline (apart from Mark 4.11). It stresses the newness of what is being proclaimed. And the fact that the deacons had to be well versed in this so that they could ‘hold’ it gives at least a hint that it was expected that they would at times have to communicate it. They were not just dispensers of charity. ‘In a pure conscience’ indicates as usual (1.5, 19) that they must not only hold it but genuinely live and speak in accordance with it, and indicates their understanding of the mystery. You cannot have a pure conscience about something that you do not understand.

3.10 ‘And let these also first be proved, then let them serve as deacons, if they are blameless.’

These words ‘proved after scrutiny’ suggest that they underwent a probationary period (although not necessarily an official one) during which their worthiness and ability was tested, after which if they came out of the test ‘blameless’ they could be appointed as full deacons. That this was not considered necessary for the elders may suggest that they would mainly come from the ranks of the deacons, and would therefore already be proven (some might arrive as elders from other churches).

3.11 ‘Women in the same way must be grave, not slanderers, temperate; faithful in all things.’

In a section dealing with church offices this can only refer to women deacons, in reality if not by title. Had it referred to wives we would have expected a similar mention with regard to the bishops and besides, would have expected it to follow verses 12-13, and we do know that there were women deacons (see Romans 16.1-2). Thus women deacons were recognised functionaries in the churches. They would in fact be very necessary in order to cater for some of the needs of womenfolk, and in order to avoid such dangers as are probably portrayed in 2 Timothy 3.6, while in some social circles it may even have been a positive necessity. For some the intrusion of men might well not have been acceptable. They may well have been older women, and were mainly known for their practical ministry (Romans 16.2), but also possibly for the teaching of women in practical Christianity (see 5.5, 10; Titus 2.3-5), although this would inevitably involve some doctrine. It would only secondarily, however, be that of the authoritative voice of the church.

The requirements for these ‘women deacons’ were similarly strict. They had to be grave, taking life and the prospect of their position very seriously, not slanderers who would pass on gossip about those whom they visited, temperate and wise, and ‘faithful in all things’ (absolutely trustworthy). The word for slanderers is diabolos which is the name also of the Devil, but means ‘the Slanderer. Its use as signifying ‘slanderers, backbiters, gossipers’ is found in classical literature, and is well in place here, however in view of the earlier references to the Devil (verse 6,7) we might well consider that Paul intended that idea to be found within it. Thus ‘women who do not behave like the Devil’ in his insidious, deceitful and untrustworthy ways, possibly even having in mind that some of this number had been passing on the false teaching that he has previously decried..

The position of this verse in the chiasmus suggests that Paul was deliberately highlighting this unusual ministry of women deacons, and that he therefore saw it as important. The lack of an official title suggests an early rather than a late date.

3.12 ‘Let deacons be husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.’

Like the elders, deacons are to be husband of one wife, not polygamists or divorced. In view of their inevitable ministry among women someone with strong sexual urgings and not quite such a pure conscience would be unsuitable for the work. And again one of the ways in which they would be ‘proved’, would be by considering how well they ruled their own households and their children.

Note how there was nothing ‘super-spiritual’ about the appointments. The church would certainly pray and expect some spiritual confirmation, and would no doubt set them aside by the laying on of hands, but they were not to be appointed without careful scrutiny. It was not just to be a case of ‘the Lord showed us’, with that then being it.

3.13 ‘For those who have served well as deacons gain to themselves a good standing, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.’

The importance of the office in the eyes of the early church, comes out in this final comment. Those who serve well as deacons both gain good standing before God, and great boldness in their approach to God, and in their expectation of That Day. If they remain true they will one day hear His, ‘well done good and faithful servants’.

‘Gain to themselves a good standing.’

‘The faith which is in Christ Jesus.’ It is questioned as to whether this refers to their faith or to ‘the faith’ as signifying a kind of statement of faith. It must, however, be seen as questionable whether at this stage such a clear distinction would be made. They would certainly have had at least primitive ‘statements of faith’ but they would equally certainly have been expected to have a positive faith about them.

The use of ‘Christ Jesus’ might be seen as pointing to Paul, although it has been objected that the use here is not quite in accord with his usual usage. But he is here dealing with titles (‘bishop’, ‘deacon’), and the title Christ preceding Jesus would fit the formality of the situation indicating that he is a servant of the Christ.

Paul Finishes The Section With An Emphasis On God’s Wondrous Purpose For The Church As It Acts As The Pillar And Mainstay For The Even More Wondrous Work Of Christ (3.14-16).

Paul now brings out why the success of the war of 1.18 is so important. It is because the church that is being established and made sure, and is taking its full part in that warfare, is the mainstay of the truth concerning God’s amazing intervention in history in Christ Jesus. That is why the behaviour of men within it is so important, and why it has to be so carefully and morally regulated. Through its prayers, and as a result of the integrity of its members, and especially of its leadership, whose behaviour is of such importance, the truth in respect of the great mystery of God which has unfolded in Christ, is being upheld and is going forward to conquer the world. In Paul’s words in Ephesians 3.9-11, ‘now to the principalities and powers in heavenly places’ is being ‘made known through the church the manifold wisdom of God, according to the eternal purpose which He purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord.’

3.14-15 ‘These things write I to you, hoping to come to you shortly, but if I linger here long, that you may know how men ought to behave themselves in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and mainstay of the truth.’

‘These things I am writing to you --.’ This has in mind and refers back to, ‘This charge I commit to you --. (1.18). He wants Timothy to be aware of what he has been telling him even if he is delayed from coming to see him, (although he hopes to see him shortly), so that as a result of it he will know how men ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and mainstay of the truth, in the light of the revelation of what Christ has accomplished.

‘The household of God’ (see Ephesians 2.19) is ‘the dwellingplace of God through the Spirit’ (Ephesians 2.22), the people of God. It is the church of the living God composed of all believers everywhere. And it is the pillar and mainstay of the truth, that is it supports and upholds it. And what is that truth? It is depicted in verse 16. It is what the risen Christ has accomplished on behalf of His people.

‘Which is the church of the living God.’ Oh, listen Timothy. We are talking about the living God. And the church is His assembly, His people, through which this living God will act. And as the pillar and mainstay of the truth it must allow Him to do so, for He has no other plan. For the use of stulon (pillar) compare Galatians 2.9. Hedraiowma probably means ‘mainstay’, indicating something which is ‘firm and steadfast’ and is a word found only here.

3.16 ‘And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness (or ‘of obligation fulfilment’); He who was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the spirit, Appeared to angels, Preached among the nations, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory.’

Almost as an aside Paul now reveals the content of that truth. No one can have any doubt that the mystery of God’s activity, now revealed to both man and the heavenly beings (Ephesians 3.8-11), is great. Indeed it is almost beyond comprehension, and yet there can be no doubt about it for it is without controversy, that is, it is believed by common consent.

‘The word translated ‘godliness’ (eusebia), which is not really a satisfactory translation as the word does not necessarily involve God, signifies ‘the fulfilment of obligation’, whether to God (and therefore true worship and piety) or men, and if it is in fact God or Christ Who is here seen as fulfilling His obligations (resulting from His promises) then this would have in mind God’s mighty activity (note how ‘impersonal’ the whole verse is, which makes this interpretation possible). Alternately we might see it as having the regular meaning found in 1 Timothy of ‘true worship and piety, true religion’ and thus as indicating ‘the truth’ that has just been mentioned, but with a similar implication in mind, that that truth is found in what happens in verse 16. As someone has translated, ‘As everyone must confess, great is the secret which God has revealed to us in our religion.’

Alternately it may be pointing out that what is about to be described is the mysterious but revealed explanation for the godliness of His people. Compare how the mystery of the faith was required to be ‘held’ by the deacons with a pure conscience verse 9), which is why it is revealed here. That was and is how the church could be the pillar and mainstay of the truth.

We are then given a number of rapid-fire statements describing Christ’s birth and life, and what followed that, up to His final triumph, and in fact there is no clear mention of any historical details as such, not even a reference to the crucifixion and resurrection, although both are assumed. The concentration is all on Jesus Himself. The lines may well have been taken from a Christian hymn with the crucifixion and resurrection having previously been mentioned. (Each line is opened by the verb and the verbs translated "manifested," "justified," "appeared to," "preached," "believed on," and "received up," all end with -the in the Greek text, with the preposition en following each verb (the latter apart from "appeared to," which has no following preposition).

The hymn is majestic, commencing with Jesus leaving behind His glory and becoming flesh, and ending with His being received up in glory. In between He is vindicated, appears to angels, is proclaimed among all nations, and believed on in the world, as God’s purposes go forward.

It will be noted that each pair goes together. ‘Manifested in the flesh -- justified in the spirit’ (Contrast and paralleling of flesh and spirit). Seen of angels -- preached among the nations (contrast and paralleling of the heavenly angels and the earthly nations). Believed on in the world -- received up in glory (contrast of and paralleling of the world and glory). We should also notice the parallel of ‘appeared to angels’ with ‘received up in glory’. This might suggest a pattern of two lines connected with earth followed by a line connected with Heaven. Alternatively we might see a pattern of three earthly connections, incarnated, proclaimed among nations, believed on in the world, and three supernatural connections, justified in spirit, appeared to angels, received in glory.

‘He who was manifested in the flesh.’ As John put it, ‘the Word (Who was God) was made flesh and dwelt among us’ (John 1.14). Here we have Jesus revealed in a human body that was His own. Leaving His former glory, He came among us and hungered and thirsted as we do. And He shared our human weakness, although not our sinfulness (or at least not until He was made sin for us). In the powerful words of Philippians 2.7-8a, ‘He emptied Himself, took on Him the form of a servant and was made in the likeness of men, being found in fashion as a man’. There may well be a hint here directed against those who degraded the flesh and exalted the spirit (4.1-6).

We must, however, take account of the verb used. ‘Manifested’ indicates openly revealing something as it is. Thus we must see here an indication that in His coming in the flesh He was ‘made known to us’. He was revealed as He really is. In this regard we should consider Matthew 11.2-6 where He indicates that His mighty works revealed Him as the Coming One, His reference to the fact that His casting out of evil spirits revealed that the Kingly Rule of God had come in Him (Matthew 12.28), and the reference to His teaching being totally without comparison thus revealing someone totally unique (Mark 1.22, 27; 11.18; John 7.46). We must consider also His words to Philip, ‘he who has seen Me, has seen the Father’ (John 14.9). Jesus was thereby declaring that in His coming in the flesh He had manifested the divine Being of His Father.

‘Justified in the spirit.’ This clear parallel and contrast with ‘manifested in flesh’ (compare 1 Peter 3.18, ‘being put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit’) may be interpreted in a number of ways, and may have been intended to be so interpreted as bringing out the overall magnificence of Jesus Christ the Lord. Thus:

• It may mean that as a result of His spirit revealed in His manner of life, while He was being manifested in flesh, He did not reveal the weakness of the flesh as other men did, but rose above it so that His supreme righteousness was recognised and acknowledged, either by man, or by God, or by both.
• Alternatively it could signify that He was vindicated by God in the receiving of the Spirit and the voice at His baptism (Matthew 3.16-17).
• Alternatively it may have in mind the cross which was followed by the release of His spirit in death when He committed His spirit it to God (Luke 23.46), and was then fully ‘acknowledged to be righteous’ as a result of having ‘humbled Himself and becoming obedient to death, yes, even death on the cross’ (Philippians 2.8). This connection would agree with the words in Hebrews 9.14, ‘Who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself to God’.
• Or it may mean that all through his earthly life Jesus was enabled in His sinlessness by the power of the Spirit, Who guided Him in the right way. His perfect submission to His Father through the Spirit thus keeping Him without sin, so that He was seen to be truly righteous.
• Or it may mean that Jesus' claims were vindicated by the action of the Spirit who dwelt in him. Thus when Jesus was accused by the scribes and Pharisees of healing demoniacs by the power of the devil, his reply was: "If I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the Kingly Rule of God is come upon you" (Matthew 12.28). The power that was in Jesus is then seen to be the power of the Spirit, and the mighty acts He performed may be seen as the vindication of the tremendous claims which He made.
• Or it may refer to the Spirit’s vindication of Him by the resurrection, when as a result of coming out of His tomb His acceptance by God as righteous was made clear to all, so that He was ‘declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection of the dead’ (Romans 1.4; compare 1 Peter 3.18).
• Or, indeed, in mind may be all of these, for these are deliberately enigmatic and all-inclusive statements.

But the main overall point from the words was that His supreme righteousness was in one way or another revealed and acknowledged, both in life and in death.

‘Appeared to angels.’ The verb used here means specifically ‘appeared to, made himself seen to’. This may refer to:

• Their watch over His earthly life (e.g. Luke 2.13-14; Matthew 4.11 with Hebrews 1.14, compare also 1 Peter 1.12). Note how Paul also considers that he and Timothy appeared ‘to the elect angels’ (4.21).
• His self-manifestation to the angels as they comforted Him in the Garden of Gethsemane (Luke 22.43) and watched in anguish over His suffering, ready at any instant to draw the sword at God’s command (Matthew 26.53, compare again 1 Peter 1.12).
• His manifestation to the evil powers that He fought while on the cross (Colossians 2.15).
• His manifestation to the angels present after His resurrection (Luke 24.4-6). They were thus able to declare, ‘He is not here, He is risen’.
• His manifestation to all heavenly beings as He was raised to God’s right hand (Ephesians 1.20-22).
• His manifesting of Himself to ‘the spirits in prison’ in 1 Peter 3.19 when His triumphant victory was presumably announced to them.

  His manifestation in Heaven (Revelation 5.12; see also Ephesians 3.10).

Whichever way it is, and most may be included, (it may be saying ‘He appeared to the denizens of the heavenly realm of all kinds’) heavenly beings were very much involved in His triumph.

‘Preached among the nations.’ In contrast with His welcome in Heaven by those who could only wonder is the advancement of His purposes on earth by the proclamation of men who toiled and suffered in order to take His Name to the nations. This may have in mind His preaching during His earthly life among both Jews and Gentiles (if it is to be seen as prior to His being received in glory), for He had preached before ‘every nation under Heaven’ when He preached in the Temple (compare Acts 2.5), or more likely it has in mind the advance of the Gospel as described in Acts, with emphasis being placed on His being brought to the nations as the Saviour of all men. Note the contrast between appeared to angels and preached among the nations. The angels could only watch in wonder, it was weak men like Paul and Timothy who had to take the message to the world.

‘Believed on in the world.’ This indicates the success of the above preaching, and may also be intended to indicate the widespread nature of the success. But central to the thought is probably that within the unbelieving world into which He came as a light into the darkness, were those who believed and responded to Him. ‘He came to His own world, and His own people received Him not, but to as many as did receive Him to them gave He the right to be sons of God, even to those who believed on His Name’ (John 1.12). Note the progression, ‘preached among -- believed on’.

‘Received up in glory.’ This almost certainly refers to the resurrection and ascension, when He was to receive the glory that had been His before the world was (John 17.5). He was ‘highly exalted, and given the Name which is above every name, that in the Name of Jesus every knee should bow -- and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father’ (Philippians 2.9-11). For God ‘raised Him from the dead and made Him sit at His right hand in heavenly places, far above all rule, and authority, and power, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come’ (Ephesians 1.20-21). And here it contrasts with what had happened in the world. At this point He Who had emptied Himself from being in the form of God (Philippians 2.6-7a), was glorified and made both Lord and Christ (Acts 2.36).

Thus, as we have already seen, the purpose of these words is to indicate the coming of Jesus in the flesh and the way in which, as a result of that coming, He has been vindicated, so that the Gospel has spread effectively, being wondered at in Heaven (Ephesians 3.10) and experienced on earth, and resulting in His final triumph in the resurrection and ascension. Here is the guarantee of the success of Timothy’s ‘warring the warfare’ (1.18). The emphasis is on the externals of what was accomplished, with the cross and resurrection being assumed, and not seen as directly relevant to Paul’s particular purpose here, except in so far as they are a part of His becoming man and being finally glorified.

So we come to the end of this section which began with Timothy having to war his warfare, and being required to call on the church to do the same, and ends with the church being seen as the church of the living God and connected with the certainty of Christ’s triumph which revealed the power of the living God as nothing else could. Note also how the first section of the letter (1-17) ended with the triumph and mysteriousness of the King of the Ages, incorruptible, invisible, the only God, while here we have portrayed what the King of the Ages did when He came down to earth, the incorruptible took on Himself a corruptible body, the invisible made Himself visible, manifesting Himself in the flesh, the only God became man, and finally, having triumphed, returned to His former glory at the right hand of His Father, but now also as One Who had been made man, and could act as a mediator between God and men (2.5-6). In so far as it was possible the incarnation had actually added to God’s glory. That is the wonder of the incarnation as expressed in this hymn.

Return to Home Page

Go back to section 1 of 1 Timothy

Go forward to section 3 of 1 Timothy

IS THERE SOMETHING IN THE BIBLE THAT PUZZLES YOU?