Reflections on First Timothy is now available in PDF and paperback. You are permitted to print and distribute unlimited copies of our publications for non-commercial purposes as long as the author is clearly identified and the text unaltered.
But you, man of God, flee from all this, and pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, endurance and gentleness. Fight the good fight of the faith. Take hold of the eternal life to which you were called when you made your good confession in the presence of many witnesses. In the sight of God, who gives life to everything, and of Christ Jesus, who while testifying before Pontius Pilate made the good confession, I charge you to keep this command without spot or blame until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, which God will bring about in his own time – God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen. (1 Timothy 6:11-16)
The Christian life is a fight. Now, a Christian may struggle with doubts, fears, lusts, doctrinal perplexities, and such things, and broadly speaking, this is part of the fight that each believer engages in. It has to do with one's personal growth in knowledge and sanctification. But our passage is talking about the fight of "the faith," as in the Christian religion as a system of thought and a way of life, and its progress and prominence in the world. It refers to the objective and public aspect of the fight.
The letter itself tells us what this fight entails. Paul tells Timothy to "command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer." He instructs believers to make prayers and intercessions for all kinds of people, including those in authority, so that we may live peaceful and quiet lives. He sets forth principles for the selection of elders and deacons. He warns against the doctrines of demons. He urges Timothy to give himself wholly to his life and doctrine. His progress is to have a public effect. Paul gives instructions on charity, and here the fight is against the neglect of widows by relatives, and against ungodly widows claiming the church's support. Elders who perform their work well are to be paid well, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching, but the elders who sin are to be publicly rebuked.
The fight, therefore, is fought on behalf of "the faith" – for promoting sound doctrine, for establishing church order, for maintaining an excellent reputation for the gospel of Jesus Christ, and for counteracting the evil influences of this world. There is much opposition against the Christian faith. There is only one way to God and to salvation, but the world invents many alternatives to lure people away from the truth. Non-Christians, or wicked men, argue against us. They mistreat us and persecute us. They attempt to undermine our every effort at telling the truth and doing good works. They will do whatever they can to make us compromise or even recant our faith. Fighting for the faith means that, even in the face of all this, we will make "the good confession" and stand by it.
Our supreme model is the Lord Jesus Christ, who made "the good confession" as he testified before Pontius Pilate. Jesus said that he was a king, that he came into this world to bear witness to the truth, and that everyone on the side of truth would listen to him (John 18:37). As his disciples, we maintain this same confession before the church and the world: Jesus Christ is the King of kings and the Lord of lords. He came into the world and bore witness to the truth, and everyone on the side of truth listens to what he said. At the preaching of his word, anyone who is on the side of truth will agree and submit, and anyone who does not agree and submit is not on the side of truth. Any person who resists the king's decree is a rebel and a traitor. The penalty is execution. And under the rule of Christ, this means hellfire and brimstone.
But godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into the world, and we can take nothing out of it. But if we have food and clothing, we will be content with that. People who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs. (1 Timothy 6:6-10)
False teachers think that "godliness is a means to financial gain." Perhaps not all false teachers think this way, but there are some who do. Although Paul may have specific individuals in mind, the statement lends itself to broader applications. Some false teachers operate within Christian congregations. Then, there are others who address a wider audience, but who attempt to infiltrate congregations with their ideas. They teach various philosophies, speculations, and approaches to life that divert people from the plain gospel of Jesus Christ. They appeal to the lusts, hopes, and the desperation of men, inspiring them for all the wrong reasons, and motivating them with false and deceptive foundations. Those who are not grounded in a sound understanding of biblical doctrines are taken captive in their thinking by fanciful fables and theories, and once the false teachers have captured their minds, they have captured their wallets as well.
Spirituality is a huge industry. There is only one truth, but many alternatives to it, and this industry embraces them all. For the more intellectual type, or for those who would like to think of themselves this way, there are heresies that are complex and technical. For the mystical type, there are New Age and occult teachings. For those who wish to better themselves apart from repentance, faith, and the power of God through Jesus Christ, there are thousands of inspirational gurus to choose from. They are bound to make even the lowest loser feel like a winner. For the health-conscious, and for those who wish to attain peace without truth, and tranquility without redemption, there are various kinds of mediation, yoga, and hypnosis. For the scientific-minded, or even for those who enjoy pseudo-science, as if there is a difference, there are materials produced by psychologists, physicists, and other researchers. People will pay for what they want. They will pay for explanations, for stories, for solutions. And there will always be teachers to give them what they want for a price.
Paul writes, "For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil." We must correct two misinterpretations. First, it does not say that money itself is a root of all kinds of evil, but that the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. This means that both the rich and the poor can be guilty of this. No one should judge himself safe from this pitfall by the amount of wealth he possesses. In fact, there is no necessary relationship between the two. If you love money – either to gain more, or to keep what you have – Paul is talking about you. Second, it does not say that the love of money is the root of every instance of evil, but that it is one root of all kinds of evil. In other words, the love of money has produced evil of all kinds, but it is not the cause or motive for every instance of evil, and the statement leaves room for other causes and motives for evil.
A person who loves money is weak and vulnerable. The world has something he wants, and he is more likely to compromise truth and conscience to get it. He is susceptible to temptation, since there is something in his soul that the devil can appeal to in order to manipulate him. The love of money can lead to total disaster: "Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs." A person who loves money is foolish. As Jesus said, "What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul?" And most likely, he will not gain the whole world, not even a little of it, and still lose his soul.
Contentment grants a person immunity to temptation. Paul writes, "People who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction." A person who is content, by definition, cannot be ensnared by these "foolish and harmful desires." But the power of contentment is much broader, for the reason that temptation appeals to some need or desire, and thus dissatisfaction within the person. Did not Eve fall from righteousness for this reason? Satan did not offer her money, but he stirred up discontent in her, and then he seized upon it and suggested a solution that plunged her into "ruin and destruction." Never underestimate the power of contentment, or the danger of its opposite.
The word for "contentment" comes from a Stoic term that refers to self-sufficiency. If I am self-sufficient, I cannot be bribed and bullied. You have nothing that I want. There is no desire in me that you can use to entice or to control me. I am untouchable. Thus contentment is not a weakness, but an inward strength that enables a person to possess himself and to exercise self-control. It is an inward quality that grants a person independence, and liberates him from the pressure of external circumstances.
Nevertheless, regardless of what Stoic philosophy means by the term, it takes on a Christian meaning in Paul's usage. Elsewhere he calls contentment a "secret" to the Christian life. He writes, "I am not saying this because I am in need, for I have learned to be content whatever the circumstances. I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want" (Philippians 4:11-12). There is the element of self-sufficiency, of independence from circumstances. It does not mean that he never has anything, since he says, "I know what it is to have plenty." But it means that contentment is unaffected by circumstances. He is content when he has plenty. He is content when he is in need.
Then, Paul tells us the reason, or the basis, for his contentment: "I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation…I can do everything through him who gives me strength" (v. 12-13). This adds another dimension to our understanding of contentment.
We learn that this "secret" is not some hidden password or incantation, or some technique that, if faithfully practiced, would lift a person to some mystical heights, above all his cares and problems. Rather, this secret of power for service and immunity to temptation stems from the essence of the gospel – confidence in the Lord Jesus Christ. This means that all Christians have the potential to attain it. The resources of Christ is open to everyone who believes. And it also means that it eludes all non-Christians. Although it is declared in the open, it is closed to unbelievers. The Bible says that they are without God and without hope. Non-Christian contentment is a counterfeit, a make-believe, and a warping of the human personality. True contentment is found only in Christ, and as long as non-Christians reject the gospel, it will remain out of their reach. It is something that they are unable to attain even if the "secret" is plainly explained to them.
Moreover, we learn that the self-sufficiency associated with contentment is relative. It is not an absolute and supreme self-sufficiency. Only God is self-sufficient in this sense. But it is an independence from circumstances, and from other creatures and objects. Certainly, it does not refer to an independence from God. In fact, it means the opposite – the basis of Christian contentment, the quality that makes a person unaffected by circumstances, is a complete dependence on God, and in the resources that he has made available to us through Jesus Christ.
This brings us to the most important lesson on contentment. That is, contentment is not mainly negative, but there is a strong positive focus. It is not achieved by a mere denial of desires, which leaves one empty. Rather, it entails a deliberate focus on the immeasurable treasures that we already possess in Christ. It is not produced by an exercise of willpower, but it is a natural outcome of knowledge. And instead of indifference, it is characterized by an obsession with true riches. Contentment, therefore, is not a satisfaction with defeat and lack, but an affirmation of our victory and abundance in Jesus Christ.
If anyone teaches false doctrines and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, he is conceited and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions and constant friction between men of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain. (1 Timothy 6:3-5)
Paul talks about the false teachers again and again. As usual, he condemns them in strong and descriptive terms, offering no flattery and showing no sympathy. He condemns not only the doctrines, but the persons. He condemns not only the actions, but the motives. He does not invite the false teachers to engage in dialogue with him to produce mutual respect and understanding. Christ's government does not negotiate with theological terrorists.
Contemporary believers take the opposite approach. They avoid outright and graphic condemnations. When they must express disagreement, they introduce their statements with flattery, citing the false teachers' credentials and contributions to the church's mission or to the academic world. Although they must disagree, they stress that they sympathize with the false teachers' perspective. They try to focus on the false doctrines, and not the persons who promote them. Certainly, they will not take it upon themselves to condemn their motives. Contrary to the examples of the Lord Jesus, the prophets, and the apostles, who often speak to people's motives, which by definition would make this a Christian thing to do, they rather think that this is an unchristian thing to do. The only people they would condemn as harshly as Paul does are those who condemn false teachers as harshly as Paul does. With the rest, they prefer mutual flattery and compromise.
These modern believers operate by an ethical standard that comes from the world, from the non-Christians, and not from Scripture. They have become proper and professional according to the world's standard. For a little respect, for a little academic credibility, they have sold out to the unbelievers, and have become their whores. Then they have the gall to turn around and condemn those who follow Paul's example as unloving lunatics who use "name-calling" and "ad hominem" arguments. Guess who taught them to say that!
Admittedly, there is no need to unleash a barrage of invectives every time we detect a tiny disagreement. Some doctrinal differences can be discussed cordially, and corrected over a period of time. The errors that Paul has in mind, whether by direct contradiction or by implication, would undermine some central principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ. That said, the fact is that many doctrinal errors and differences do precisely this. They are more than tiny disagreements, and they do challenge the supremacy of Christ or his status as the sole mediator between God and men. If, as a matter of principle, a Christian refuses to condemn false teachers in the most harsh and vivid language, offering them no flattery, sympathy, or compromise, and to condemn their persons and motives, but even criticizes those who do, then, to say the least, he falls short of the biblical model. He is unfaithful to the Lord Jesus.
Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses. Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that the others may take warning. (1 Timothy 5:19-20)
The details of this story elude me, but I think I have the gist of it. Some church members saw their preacher enter a bar and became upset about it. Those of you who are accustomed to using "everything God created is good" to justify all your activities and associations might not understand this, since you do things like this all the time and can perceive nothing amiss here. But some of us also believe with Paul that "All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not" (1 Corinthians 10:23, KJV). Nevertheless, these church members were beyond curious, and assumed that the preacher was up to no good. Later it was discovered that the preacher entered the establishment with a guitar, went on the stage and sang a few gospel songs. His performance so moved the audience that some professed faith in Christ, and some were drawn back to the faith from their apostasy. Jesus taught us to judge not according to the appearance, but to make a righteous judgment (John 7:24). Some people think that they are God's watchdogs, but they are just busybodies who judge others' good works by their own evil intentions.
Christians love scandals. They love to find out about them and to talk about them. Rather than being students of the word of God, they enjoy becoming experts on who has said or done what to whom. Of course they lament the scandals, the false doctrines, and the moral failures of others. And how much they enjoy the lament! What an emotional outlet! What a marvelous way to express righteous indignation! What a shortcut to a feeling of sainthood! There must be a profitable market for Christian gossip tabloids. I am out of touch with the talebearers club – maybe they already exist, at least in the form of web sites.
Christians love scandals, because they are bored with the gospel, and because they prefer to achieve a sense of righteousness by looking at the failures of others than to trust in Jesus Christ and to obey his commandments. Some of them publish books and web sites that are almost entirely dedicated to reporting current scandals and to dispensing their opinions about them. And they call that doing apologetics. It does not matter whether the scandals pertain to religion and doctrine, politics, economics, education, history, or science – they love them all. Nothing excites them more than a new heresy, or the downfall of a religious or political figure. They enjoy nothing more than to discuss how another person has blasphemed the Lord, and how another new trend seeks to subvert his influence.
Then, Christians love to forgive those who are involved in scandals, and they love to make a big display of their forgiveness. Their favorite saying is, "He that is without sin, let him cast the first stone." And by this they mean the same thing as when non-Christians say, "Nobody is perfect." Wait, do Christians say this more, or non-Christians? Christians preach what non-Christians say so often and with so much conviction that it is hard to tell whether silly slogans like these should be attributed to one or the other. In any case, forgiving a scandal on this basis makes Christians feel very magnanimous, and they can hardly wait until the next scandal breaks out so they can forgive that one also. This is admittedly a generalization. Many Christians who enjoy scandals are happy enough without the forgiveness part.
Of course, we can say that these are bad Christians. And if so, there is a superabundance of very bad Christians. The Bible's teaching on the subject represents the opposite of these two tendencies. It tells us to hate scandals and to shun gossip. As long as something is mere hearsay, I do not want to hear about it. It is none of my business. I am not interested in it. However, an accusation that is supported by multiple witnesses is another matter. If it is discovered that a church leader is in sin, whether we are referring to heresy, adultery, or some other misconduct, we are not to shrug it off and call that forgiveness. The Bible commands us to publicly expose and rebuke this person, to make an example of him in a way that others may fear the same treatment. We are to demand his repentance, and in many cases, the person should be removed from office.
Verse 19 says, "Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses." This does not mean that an accusation brought by two or three witnesses is necessarily true. It is possible that the witnesses are dishonest or incompetent. The point is that unless an accusation is brought by at least two witnesses, "do not entertain" it. This is to protect the accused from unjust and frivolous complaints. No person should have his reputation damaged or his work derailed by a baseless accusation. This safeguard is especially important for church leaders, since their work often makes them the target of people's jealous and malicious attacks. The principle is an application of Deuteronomy 19:15-21. There it is said that "the judges must make a thorough investigation." So a mere accusation is not sufficient to convict a man, but an accusation that seems to have some basis is sufficient to demand an investigation.
The passage also provides a principle on how to deal with a false witness: "If the witness proves to be a liar, giving false testimony against his brother, then do to him as he intended to do to his brother. You must purge the evil from among you. The rest of the people will hear of this and be afraid, and never again will such an evil thing be done among you. Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot." God looks upon perjury or slander with extreme disapproval, especially a false testimony with the potential to harm another person. As it is said in the Ten Commandments, "You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor." The church must not only take plausible accusations seriously, but it must also share God's hatred for false testimony.
The prescription is to "do to him as he intended to do to his brother" and to "purge the evil from among you." In our context, if it is discovered that a church member has offered false testimony against a leader, with the intend to embarrass him, to damage his reputation, undermine his influence, or even remove him from office, then the public rebuke and discipline that would have applied to the leader should now be applied to the false witness. The church should launch an investigation against this witness, and if it is confirmed that he has offered false testimony, the church should denounce him in public, and demand him to repent and to make any appropriate restitution to set things right, including a public apology to the accused and a public statement of clarification to the congregation. If it is ascertained that he has deliberately offered false testimony, he should be removed from any church office that he holds, and stripped of all authority and influence in the church. Unless full repentance and restitution are offered, he is an evil that must be purged from the Christian community – he should be excommunicated.
Now, any church leader who is evil enough to warrant dismissal, and any church member who is evil enough to slander an innocent leader, is probably also evil enough to sue the church for enforcing the biblical instruction to publicly expose the offender. Many church members value their dignity far more than the commandments of God and the welfare of the church. This is because there are too many false believers in our congregations. Indeed, lawsuits arising from church discipline are not unheard of. Therefore, it would be wise for a church to consult with an attorney as to how it can remain protected as it implements biblical policies. Many of these policies should be stated in the church bylaws that officers and members are required to sign before they are accepted into their positions.
The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, "Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain," and "The worker deserves his wages." (1 Timothy 5:17-18)
Scripture defines the gospel ministry as work, and the preacher as a worker. Referring to the ministry of his disciples, Jesus says in Matthew 10, "the worker is worth his keep," and in Luke 10, "the worker deserves his wages." Paul echoes this way of thinking in our passage. And when he writes on this subject in a letter to the Corinthians, he illustrates this point by comparing the minister to one who "serves as a soldier," or who "plants a vineyard," or who "tends a flock," or who "plows" or "threshes." He even uses the image of a priest who receives food from the altar (1 Corinthians 9). In other words, the ministry is an occupation in its own right, and it must be regarded as such in any discussion about ministry and wages. One who works in the ministry, regardless of the way he is viewed by the state or the church, is an employed person.
Since the ministry is an occupation, the minister must be paid for his work. The same passages that define the ministry as work, as an occupation, also inseparably associate this fact with the right of the minister to receive hospitality, food, shelter, and wages. Paul is explicit about this: "The Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel" (1 Corinthians 9:14). Just as an accountant makes his living from accounting, or a chef makes his living from cooking, a minister equally makes his living from performing the work of ministry, especially preaching. Since ministry is an occupation, money paid to the minister is considered a wage.
By definition, a wage is something owed rather than voluntarily donated. It is not charity. Since the money paid to the minister is a wage, this means that it is something owed to the one who works by those who receive the benefit of the work. In his letter to the Corinthians, Paul refers to the preacher's right to receive material compensation for his work. From the perspective of the minister, it is a right. From the perspective of those who benefit from his ministry, it is a debt.
Although the biblical principle that a worker deserves his wages applies to all legitimate occupations, there is a difference when it comes to the ministry. Outside of the ministry, this principle is implemented by human agreement. If the one who receives the benefit of the work has never agreed to hire a worker or to pay him, then the worker cannot generate such a debt by performing the work anyway. In contrast, the debt owed to a minister arises not by human agreement, but by a divine command that transcends it. When Jesus sent his disciples to preach, and when Paul preached the gospel to people, those who received the benefit of their ministry never agreed beforehand to pay them for their work. Indeed, it would be impossible to secure a human agreement for wages from those they planned to evangelize before they evangelized them. The debt was generated solely because the work was done for their benefit. Therefore, the minister has not only an equal claim to a wage as workers in other occupations, but a superior claim to it.
Since a wage is owed to the preacher, those who fail or refuse to pay him are thieves and robbers, defrauders, oppressors, and sinners. God's curse is upon them. As James writes, "Look! The wages you failed to pay the workmen who mowed your fields are crying out against you." The money that you save by neglecting to pay the preacher testifies against you, and screams out your sin to the Lord day and night. The minister might have to take another job outside of the ministry because of your covetousness and oppression – his every ounce of effort, his every drop of sweat, his every sigh is a testimony of your guilt. The Lord counts every tear his wife sheds against you. He curses you for every pang of hunger his children feel. It is a wicked thing that you do, and the Lord promises to punish you because of your cruelty and hard-heartedness. Even greater is your condemnation if you attempt to persuade others that a preacher should always work without pay.
Sometimes covetous church members and self-righteous leaders seize upon Paul's example, in that he ministered without charge. However, any reader of even minimal competence should perceive that this is the glaring exception that proves the rule. This is because the place where he explains the exception is also the place where he asserts most strongly and in the greatest detail the right of the minister to obtain material support (1 Corinthians 9).
First, he explained to the Corinthians that his policy of preaching without charge was the forgoing of a right. That is, he had the right to receive payment but did not exercise this right. If it was a right that he did not exercise, then it was a right that he could have exercised. Thus the Corinthians indeed owed him, but he pardoned the debt. Second, if it was his right to receive payment, then he was the only one who could refuse payment. It was not up to the Corinthians to withhold from him. Third, he said that "the Lord's brothers and Cephas" exercised this right. The exception was not universally practiced even among the apostles. Fourth, this policy of refusing payment was in effect toward only certain congregations. For example, he accepted money from the Philippians, and the language in his letter to them indicates that he did so at least twice, since it says that they sent him aid "again and again."
Fifth, he was clear in his reasons for declining payment from the Corinthians and certain other congregations. When the reasons did not apply, then the exception did not apply. He said that he did not exercise his rights when to exercise them would have hindered the gospel. And the reasons it might have hindered the gospel was because of their immaturity, bad attitude, and lack of discernment. Perhaps there were some who would have become suspicious of his motives. This would have distracted them from hearing the message of the gospel. Or, perhaps some would have tried to place Paul under their control if he had accepted payment from them. In contrast, the Philippians considered themselves partners with Paul in the spread of the gospel, repeatedly sending money and supplies to him. They had a right understanding of the nature of the work and of their relationship with the preacher. By all indications, Paul did not accept payment from some people because he considered them either unbelievers or believers who suffered from retarded development. In fact, Paul's ministry to them was a case of charity. You do not ask retarded people to pay you – if possible, you help them without charge.
It is true that Jesus said to his disciples, "Freely you have received, freely give." However, immediately after this, he told them not to bring any money or extra supplies, because "the worker is worth his keep." The statement concerned how they were to dispense the message and the powers of the gospel, and not whether they could accept material support from the people. That is, Jesus instructed them to perform their ministry "freely," but at the same time to expect all their needs to be supplied by the people who received the benefit of their work. His point was not that the disciples should refuse hospitality and payment, but that they must not demand compensation for each unit of work done or for each instance of ministry.
It is a prescription for how a person should approach the work of ministry. The statement, "Freely you have received, freely give," was made right after the commission to preach, heal, and cast out demons, and again, right before the instruction to expect those who received the ministry to pay for everything. In other words, Peter could not say to someone who had a demon, "I have received power from Christ to cast out this demon, but you must pay me this amount of money, or I will not do it." No, he must cast out the demon without charge, but afterward, the person who was set free was morally obligated to compensate Peter for his work. In doing so, he would not be only supporting Peter, but he would have testified by his action that he endorsed the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Suppose someone comes to me and say, "What must I do to be saved?" I must not reply, "I know how you can be saved. Pay me this amount of money and I will tell you, but if you do not pay me, I will let you go to hell." No, I must preach the gospel to this person freely, without consideration as to whether I will obtain any material reward. My responsibility is to teach him the truth, and to do it without favoritism, withholding nothing. His responsibility is to recognize me as a messenger from God who brings him good news that can save his soul, and then to offer me his material support. As Paul writes, "If we have sown spiritual seed among you, is it too much if we reap a material harvest from you?" and "Anyone who receives instruction in the word must share all good things with his instructor." Whether he does his part or not, I will do my part. If he is retarded, then I will forgo my rights for the sake of the gospel. Nevertheless, this does not relieve him of his responsibility before God.
Clearly, all of this means that it is possible to cheat the minister of his rightful wages, and this is often what happens. But God is faithful. He will meet all our needs according to his glorious riches in Christ Jesus. He will vindicate his servants, and curse those who rob and oppress them. Therefore, pay your ministers. If they perform their work well, pay them well, especially if they work hard at preaching and teaching.
To those who work in the ministry, you should feel no shame in accepting financial support from believers. If possible, the amount of support should be sufficient to sustain your entire family and ministry. By God's command, this is your right and their obligation. In making your living from the work of the gospel, at least as much as possible, you are following the example of all the apostles, including Paul, and also of the Lord Jesus, who according to Luke, received support from a group of women. The amount of money involved must have been considerable, as it was sufficient to sustain the living and traveling expenses of at least thirteen people (Luke 8:3). This does not necessarily mean that all their money came from these women, but the point is that they accepted funds from supporters, and that they took in enough to meet the needs of more than a dozen men. In fact, they had enough money to require a money bag (John 12:6), and enough to give some of it to the poor (it seems the disciples considered this as routine; John 13:29), and even enough for Judas to steal from it without being discovered by anyone (at least at first, since it seems reasonable to assume that the other disciples would have reacted if they had known; John 12:6), except the Lord, who knew his true nature since the beginning (John 6:64, 70).
The widow who is really in need and left all alone puts her hope in God and continues night and day to pray and to ask God for help. But the widow who lives for pleasure is dead even while she lives.
No widow may be put on the list of widows unless she is over sixty, has been faithful to her husband, and is well known for her good deeds, such as bringing up children, showing hospitality, washing the feet of the saints, helping those in trouble and devoting herself to all kinds of good deeds.
As for younger widows, do not put them on such a list. For when their sensual desires overcome their dedication to Christ, they want to marry. Thus they bring judgment on themselves, because they have broken their first pledge. Besides, they get into the habit of being idle and going about from house to house. And not only do they become idlers, but also gossips and busybodies, saying things they ought not to. So I counsel younger widows to marry, to have children, to manage their homes and to give the enemy no opportunity for slander. Some have in fact already turned away to follow Satan.
If any woman who is a believer has widows in her family, she should help them and not let the church be burdened with them, so that the church can help those widows who are really in need. (1 Timothy 5:5-6, 9-16)
The ancient church was intelligent and principled in the distribution of aid. Perhaps it lacked the bureaucracies of the modern world, but tediousness should not be confused with developed management. Paul's instructions concerning the widows show that the early church appreciated several essential factors in the effective administration of charity. There were clear and precise terms to define individuals who qualified to receive aid. Need alone was insufficient to constitute a legitimate claim to the resources of the church – it was significant that the apostle placed much emphasis on whether the people fulfilled their responsibilities as measured by the precepts of the gospel.
The fact that there was a list of widows who qualified to receive aid implies deliberateness and organization. They had a system of giving that entailed much more than handing out money and supplies to anonymous individuals waiting in a line at random hours. Further, the terms were much stricter than those of any contemporary church charity that we have encountered, in that they demanded an established record of holy conduct. Those who did not satisfy the requirements were outright excluded even if they appeared to be in need. If the church made some exceptions for very special cases, certainly they were exceptions that proved the rule.
Those who did not qualify to receive aid as widows might have obtained some form of assistance on another basis – perhaps as individuals who needed help to survive. However, even if this happened, it would have been occasional, spontaneous, and temporary, and insufficient to maintain one's livelihood. Otherwise, the entire system of charity to widows would have been pointless. This program for supporting the widows arose from the church's intent to exercise compassion with intelligence and integrity. The restrictions were designed to both limit the burden on the church, as well as to prevent any scandal that would bring the name of Christ into disrepute. True Christian ethics always places God's honor above the very lives of the men and women that we are supposed to assist. This is an inflexible principle that must govern all our charitable works without any exception or hesitation.
This was a main reason for refusing aid to licentious young widows. Paul provided no other route for them to receive support from the church. They were forced to remarry and settle down, or starve to death. Unlike the modern church, ancient believers refused to sponsor sinful living in the name of compassion. This is shocking to contemporary humanistic sentiments, whether inside or outside of the church, but it is not a dubious inference from an isolated passage. The apostle also commands elsewhere, "If a man will not work, he shall not eat." There he provides no other way for such a man to survive. If a man can work but will not work, the church is not to support him with money and supplies. The man will then either be forced to work (if appropriate, the church can even hire him), in which case he will not starve, or he will remain idle and die, in which case it would be a case of suicide.
Scripture demands every person to assume his own responsibility before he can receive aid from the church. A man who can work, must work. The same thinking applies here, as the apostle says, "But the widow who lives for pleasure is dead even while she lives." We can keep her alive with food and shelter, but if she wallows in worldliness, then she is already "dead" in a deeper sense. She is a walking corpse. When a person chooses to kill himself, albeit slowly, we can only delay it for so long, but eventually he will succeed. The church incurs no guilt in such cases.
Children must support parents who are in need. Nevertheless, when this is necessary, it presupposes some failure in the parents. This is because Paul writes elsewhere, "After all, children should not have to save up for their parents, but parents for their children." That is, children should not have to save or provide for their parents, but parents should be able to sustain themselves their whole lives and still have an inheritance left for their children when they die. Instead of passing on debts and burdens from generation to generation, it is better to pass on savings and possessions. This is the ideal, but it does not always happen. And when the parents are unable to provide for themselves, the children are to support them.
Paul's instructions would prevent most people from cheating the system, or to exploit the kindness of Christians. A widow could have lied about her age, but it would have been much harder to counterfeit an established reputation for faithfulness to one's husband and "all kinds of good deeds." Again, it must be emphasized that if widows who do not qualify are nevertheless included on the list, we would render pointless the apostle's demands. Since respect for divine inspiration means that we must not ignore his instructions, then neither can these demands be bypassed or relaxed. When the world defines compassion so differently, and when it favors human life and comfort so much more than God's honor, it takes courage and obedience to implement this sort of program in the church. Humanistic charity helps someone just because he is a fellow man and not because of God's command. If we are acting on the basis of God's command, then we will do what he actually says, and that is to exclude unqualified widows and to allow idle men to starve.
Sometimes people think that we have advanced very much in thought and intelligence, and also in our ethical standards. But this is based more on arrogance and misconception than truth. It would be a mistake to suppose that the ancient church was unsophisticated, and that the modern church possesses superior principles to regulate the management of charitable aid. No, insofar as it followed the approach set forth by the apostle, the church exercised intelligence without tedious bureaucracies, and it administered its resources according to the principles of the gospel, always with a view to honor the name of Christ in all that it does. The modern church has sometimes slipped into the humanistic trap of caring more about meeting the material needs of the people, and has forgotten to enforce principles of character and responsibility that arise from the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Command and teach these things. Don't let anyone look down on you because you are young, but set an example for the believers in speech, in life, in love, in faith and in purity. Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to preaching and to teaching. Do not neglect your gift, which was given you through a prophetic message when the body of elders laid their hands on you.
Be diligent in these matters; give yourself wholly to them, so that everyone may see your progress. Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers. (1 Timothy 4:11-16)
An older man recently referred to me and my wife as "kids." He did not intend this to be derogatory or condescending, but it reflected the way he perceived us due to the age difference, just as I might call someone much younger than me the same thing. Although I have been teaching people of his age since I was sixteen, after so many years the difference remains large enough that someone of his age would still think of me as a kid. Timothy was not a child or a teenager. He could have been older than me, but he was still considered young in the context of his culture and relative to some of the people in his congregation, so that perhaps they found it difficult to take direction from him or to accept his authority. We cannot know if Timothy in fact faced this problem, but the apostle considered it a possibility.
Paul's comments are instructive, and suggest applications that are useful beyond the immediate context. When he says earlier that a church leader should not be a new convert, this has no necessary relationship with the age of a person. An old man can be a new convert, and it is possible for a relatively young person to be a seasoned believer. Before other considerations, however legitimate or needful, it is the truth that counts. He does not tell Timothy to speak through an older person, or through someone that the community naturally looks up to due to age, education, wealth, or some such thing, but to take it upon himself to "command and teach these things." As for the resistance or suspicion that might arise because of his youth, this is not to be overcome solely by a stern rebuke against prejudice, although a church leader certainly could challenge cultural assumptions that hinder ministry. Rather, Paul tells Timothy to prove himself by setting an example in conduct and by devoting himself to doctrine.
Both actions and words are important, but greater precision is needed so that we can grasp how they are important. Contrary to the slogan, actions do not speak at all in the way that words do, so that actions can never speak "louder" than words as if they can be compared on the same scale. It is true that actions can "speak" in a purely figurative sense, but the speaking is in fact not done until the points that the actions are supposed to make are put into words. Nevertheless, these statements would be interpretations of the actions. They are not the actions themselves, nor are they statements that necessarily arise from the actions. Whether true or false, valid or invalid, they are verbal interpretations of things that in themselves do not speak and that do not convey any information.
True words are true even if the speaker's actions do not correspond. True words impose moral obligations upon the hearers to assent and to obey even if the person who speaks these words is a hypocrite. It is common for preachers to warn us that if we do not walk in love or live a holy life, then "no one" will believe our gospel, and some even say that no one should. This is the world's wisdom, and the Bible is directly against it. Jesus told his own disciples that they should do what the Pharisees said when they spoke in line with Moses, but should not follow their example, since they were hypocrites (Matthew 23:1-3). The truth itself carries the power to compel assent and the authority to impose obligation. It is rather pretentious of people to suppose that this power and authority rest on their conduct.
Still, our actions are important, only that they are not important for the communication of information, and they are not necessary for persuasion. Rather, first, it is important that our conduct is consistent with our doctrine because this is our moral obligation. The gospel is true whether or not we conform to it, but if we are true disciples of Jesus Christ, then we will also strive to follow his commands and teachings. Second, although our actions do nothing to convey truth, they provide illustrations to the truth that we convey by our words, although since actions cannot speak, these illustrations themselves must be pointed out and explained by our words. Third, when our conduct is consistent with our doctrine, this serves as authentication to the genuineness of our own faith and ministry. It is not necessary to authenticate the faith of Jesus Christ, which is true no matter what we do, but it serves to authenticate us as his disciples.
Fourth, although our conduct has no necessary relationship to the truth of the Christian faith, there are many people who would make such a connection in their minds, and so when our conduct is consistent with our doctrine, it helps to convince the irrational. Again, it is a gross exaggeration to say that "no one" would believe our doctrine when our conduct does not match, since the Spirit of God is not impotent, and the gospel – not our holy conduct – is the power of God for salvation. By the grace of God at work in the minds of his chosen ones, not everyone is stupid. Why would the inconsistencies of Christians prevent me from believing in the gospel? The Bible itself teaches that believers are not perfect. I saw this even as I read the Bible as an infant. It is not some complicated and hidden truth. And why would I stumble because of some scandal in the church, or because some famous minister commits fraud or adultery? It is entirely consistent with what the Bible predicts, so what is there to stumble over? Why would I doubt the Christian faith when what it tells me would happen, actually happens? But some people are stupid, and it is our obligation to make sure that we do not allow our actions to become stumbling blocks to them, however irrational it is for them to perceive them as such.
Meanwhile, we must not tolerate this illegitimate connection between conduct and truth. If we allow it to perpetuate, we implicitly grant people permission to disbelieve or abandon the gospel on the basis of our failures. Instead, we must echo Jesus' policy, that is, hypocrites are condemnable, but truth is truth even when it comes from their mouths, and the moral obligation imposed by truth remains in full force. In our preaching and teaching, we must expose the false connection. As long as Jesus Christ is not a hypocrite, the gospel is true, and is to be believed and obeyed. And if you stumble because of another person's failure, not only are you stupid, but you remain culpable for violating the truth of the gospel.
Although our conduct says nothing about the truth of our doctrine, it says something about us, and about our own commitment to the doctrine we espouse. And although even a hypocrite, if he speaks the truth, must be heeded, as a hypocrite he is not qualified to lead the church. Paul says that if Timothy seems to be young to some of the people, then he should show himself to be mature, and capable of leading God's people and giving them authoritative direction. There is no problem with the idea of a young minister, but whether young or old, a person who assumes the position must show that he has been taught and transformed by the Ancient of Days.
We have focused our attention on conduct, but only to correct a common misunderstanding about its relation to doctrine and to ministry. The apostle also instructs his son in the faith to closely watch his doctrine and to diligently develop his gift for ministry. Again, if there is a tendency in some people to look down on the minister because of his youth, he is to prove himself by his maturity in character, his dedication and competence in the ministry of the word, and his continual progress. The work of the Spirit in a man is God's own testimony that the minister is legitimate, and this work of God is evidenced by conduct, doctrine, and spiritual endowment.
He says that the gift was given to him through a prophetic message when some elders laid their hands on him. Many Christians no longer permit the prophetic, although they have no biblical warrant for this. The dread of deception should not be relieved by denying spiritual manifestations, but by testing all claims to their occurrences. The Bible is sufficient to do this. A lack of emphasis on spiritual gifts, which is really a lack of dependence on God's Spirit, explains the powerlessness in most ministers and churches. Ordination is an empty gesture, a formality that signals mere human recognition with no divine power to accompany it. A total destruction of all charismatic tendencies would, of course, eliminate all false claims of supernatural power, but it does not demonstrate a faithfulness to Scripture. Paul commands us to covet spiritual gifts, the powerful manifestations and endowments of God's Spirit. Nowadays many Christians seem to think that it is carnal to desire spiritual gifts, as if the Bible itself teaches this. How far have we fallen! I covet spiritual power, because the Bible commands it, and because I recognize that I am entirely inadequate in myself. I need the power of the Holy Spirit, and I want people's faith to rest in God's power instead of my natural talents.
God is merciful and generous. Although some of us are hardened by tradition and unbelief, he still give gifts to his church, if not by prophetic utterances or the laying on of hands, then by the direct action of the Spirit, so that his word may be spread abroad and his people edified. If God wants to do something, and if he wants to do it a certain way, then all our traditions cannot stop it. The church cannot stop it. Scholars cannot stop it. Denominational leaders cannot stop it. False creeds, traditions, and theologies cannot stop it. He will do what he wants to do. Yet people ought to take care lest they find themselves fighting against God for the sake of their traditions, and in order to hide their insecurities, jealousies, and deficiencies.
There is a wider application to all of this. That is, when someone looks down on you because of your age, race, appearance, level of formal education, social or economic background, or some other thing that should have no necessary relevance to your competence as a minister of the gospel, the biblical answer is to prove yourself by exhibiting godly character and conduct. Watch your life and doctrine closely. Throw yourself entirely into improvement in these things, and into the work of preaching and teaching.
You may be tempted to threaten people into giving you superficial respect, but if you are satisfied with that, then you are indeed the spiritual and moral loser that they think you are, and it just proves that their prejudice against you is after all justified. Perhaps they harbor their prejudice because of people like you. You might threaten them into silence, but not appreciation and acceptance. You cannot fool all of them. They will know that you just want to silence them without admitting faults and without making improvements, and they will despise you even more in their hearts. It is time to stop complaining and making excuses. If their prejudice is unfounded, then admonish them, but also contradict them by exhibiting excellence in your conduct, attitude, and doctrine.
If you point these things out to the brothers, you will be a good minister of Christ Jesus, brought up in the truths of the faith and of the good teaching that you have followed. Have nothing to do with godless myths and old wives’ tales; rather, train yourself to be godly. For physical training is of some value, but godliness has value for all things, holding promise for both the present life and the life to come. (1 Timothy 4:6-8)
There are certain foundational principles in the Christian system on which the whole structure rests. There is one God. This God is a unity of Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. Man was created good, in the image of God, but he fell from his initial station because of sin, which is a transgression of God's law. To redeem his people, that is, those individuals that he has chosen to save from among sinful humanity, God the Son took upon himself a human nature, in order that he might be the sole mediator between God and men. He is the only way to God and to salvation. Those who are saved by him are not only bound to him, but they are also liberated in him, so that no other person, no other religion or philosophy, and no man-made system of rituals and regulations can exercise any authority over their souls. He is the true shepherd, and the sheep hear his voice. The voice of another they will not follow, nor are they obligated to pay any attention to it.
A good minister of Jesus Christ continually reminds people of these foundational principles of the gospel and warns them against false doctrines. Since false doctrines tend to contradict the basic truths, the most effective way to protect believers from deception is to reinforce the prominent themes of the Christian faith over and over again, on various occasions and from various angles. Then, when a threat arises, believers will either detect it by themselves, or they will quickly recognize the danger when a faithful minister draws attention to it. The doctrines of demons that Paul has in mind in this letter include the prohibition against marriage and abstinence from certain foods, probably on a religious basis. But this is against the very basic truths of God's creation, the goodness of this creation, the sufficiency of Christ, and the believer's entire dependence on Christ for his forgiveness, justification, and free access before God.
The minister has no hope of building up believers in the faith and protecting them from seducing doctrines if he himself has a weak grasp of the gospel. So he must be a person who is "trained in the words of the faith and of the good doctrine" (ESV). Then, Paul tells Timothy, "Train yourself to be godly." This also suggests the vigorous and persistent study of sound doctrine, since the apostle states this as a contrast against "myths" and "tales." Avoid nonsense. Pursue truth. This is an essential principle for the minister of the gospel. This is the way he must live his life. It is his motto.
By referring to the pursuit of godliness as training, Paul employs the imagery of an athlete, although he is not talking about physical training, but rather applies the concept to spiritual training. Commentators like to assert that the apostle does not belittle physical exercise, only that he is asserting the greater importance of spiritual exercise. This seems to be reading into the text something that they would like Paul to acknowledge rather than what he actually says. His statement might not belittle physical training in itself, but physical training is not mentioned by itself. Rather, it is referred to as a contrast against spiritual training, so that the apostle indeed belittles physical training at least in relation to spiritual training. A paper cup is of some value, but a mansion is of great value. A paper cup is not of zero value, or even negative value, but when compared to a mansion, the statement does not do much to commend the paper cup.
The Bible makes a sharp distinction, and often a sharp contrast, between the physical and the spiritual. It also pounds on the idea, again and again, that the spiritual is more important than the physical. Certainly, you can perform physical training for the honor of God. The Bible teaches that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, and it follows that you should care for it, so that you may serve God with your body and make the faith of Jesus Christ reputable. That said, you can honor God with physical training until you are blue in the face, but Paul still says that spiritual training is more valuable. It is different. It is superior. In sharp contrast against mere physical training, spiritual training has value "for all things."
There are some Christians who despise this distinction, this contrast, and this prioritization between the spiritual and the physical, because they regard this way of thinking as a product of Greek thought. Now, I cannot care less what the Greeks thought, or what people think what the Greeks thought (since they often misrepresent the Greeks) – Greek or not, the Bible says what it says right here. If you say that the Greeks agreed, then so much the better for the Greeks, and so much the worse for you if you disagree, but it does not change what the Bible says.
Theologians often talk about how Greek philosophy has distorted Christian theology. However, they have become so obsessed with this that, for a long time, the assumption that Greek contamination pervades our thinking has itself become a force that shapes the theological thinking of many people. The assumption that Greek philosophy has distorted Christian theology – this assumption itself, and the obsession to identify and correct this distortion – has in turn distorted Christian theology. In their campaign to blast away anything that they perceive as Greek, they have also bulldozed over actual biblical teachings. At times they have ended up teaching the very opposite of what the Bible asserts. They have in mind the things that they think characterize Greek philosophy, and then simply assume that the Bible teaches the opposite, even when the explicit statements of the Bible affirm what they think is Greek contamination. Far from biblical, their theology is a product of anti-Greek philosophy. They have created their own unbiblical tradition, perhaps one that enables them to sound a righteous gong while conveniently excusing them from rejecting clear biblical teachings.
For example, there is the assumption that Greek philosophy teaches that there is a sharp
