2 Timothy 2:1–2 – Strengthened by Grace

Paul wants Timothy to find strength in the grace he has already received from Jesus. This strengthening is continual. Like taking vitamins, one does not take vitamins for a few days and then quit; you would just get weak and sickly again. It is the regular use of vitamins that build up some health and strength.

Popeye and SpinachWhy does Timothy need to be strengthened? He is suffering some sort of hardship, probably from within his churches. He is likely attacked for being too young, probably those who have defected from Paul see him as Paul’s deputy and therefore suspect, and he is possibly suffering some physical problems as well (“take a little wine for your stomach’s sake” might imply illness).

How does this strengthening happen? Paul gives no steps, but only states that it is “by grace in Christ Jesus.” This may seem a bit frustrating to the modern Christian since we would have preferred “ten steps to being strong in Jesus” at this point in the letter. Our relationship with Christ is not a series of hoops we have to jump through or achievement badges we earn. Our relationship with God in Jesus is more like a parent-child relationship. We do not start our at level one and work our way up to level ten, we are wholly a child of God from the moment we accept Christ as our savior.

Once again Timothy is simply told “be what you are,” a child of God. That status alone is the source of his strength – he can do all things through Christ (Phil 4:13).

In order to strengthen the whole church, Timothy is to pass along the things he has already heard from Paul to people who can be trusted to pass it along to a third generation. This is the chain of tradition we have already encountered in 2 Timothy. To whom is the tradition to be passed on? Paul calls the “faithful,” with the sense of trustworthy (sense of “competent, qualified and able”). By analogy, there are some people who you might think are reliable enough to house sit for you. If you get an untrustworthy person, then when you come home, your plants are dear and your pets are starved because they forgot to carry out their responsibility.

What is remarkable here is that Paul sets himself up as a standard, what Timothy heard from Paul in front of many reliable witnesses is to be passed along. This is like saying, make sure they know the standard Pauline sermon. That is foundational to everything else! This is not private teaching, or some sort of speculative teaching, but the sorts of things that Paul has always taught as truth and everyone knows is the core of the gospel.

The others who receive this tradition will teach in the future. Paul is not thinking of Timothy’s generation, but the people Timothy will disciple and prepare for ministry, they will be waning people that will be born long after Paul and Timothy are dead! This is really what all church work is about, preparing the next generation for serving Christ. Perhaps the reason that churches die is that they did not prepare the next generation to preserve to the Gospel.

Paul certainly would include lay leaders here, but looking ahead to the metaphors which follow, he has some kind of specialized training in mind. Not everyone is called to be a soldier nor should everyone train to be a soldier.

Just because you watched war movies does not qualify you to be an officer in the military. Sadly, many Christians think that watching YouTube sermons qualify them to be pastors, often leading to disaster!

2 Timothy 1:13-14 – Handing Down Good Teaching

Second TimothyPaul was “appointed a preacher and apostle and teacher” of the Gospel (1:11). This description of Paul’s ministry is similar to 1 Timothy 2:7. The “preacher” in the ESV is better a “herald,” or “proclaimer.” This is a person who is appointed to deliver a particular message, in Paul’s case, from God. The language is a little different in 1 Tim 1:18, 6:20 and 2 Tim 2:2. In these later books, Timothy is encouraged to guard or protect the deposit given to him. Like the old “town crier,” Timothy is to take this deposit of tradition and accurately proclaim it to his community.

Paul mentions things passed down to him in his other letters. Two traditional elements were handed down to him from the apostles: 1 Corinthians 11:2 (the Lord’s table) and 1 Corinthians 15:1 (witnesses to the resurrection). In 2 Thessalonians 2:15 Paul encourages the congregation to “stand firm” in the traditions which Paul delivered to them. Even in his earliest letter, Paul considers his gospel a tradition which cannot be modified (Galatians 1:14).  It is likely that Paul alludes to the words of Jesus in 1 Thessalonians 5, words that are eventually collected in Matthew’s Olivet Discourse.

Paul is clear, however, that much of what he preached he received directly from Jesus through a special revelation. For some doctrines, this is a direct revelation that could not be deduced from the Hebrew Bible. For example, in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 Paul says that the Lord himself gave him the revelation of the rapture. That Jews and Gentiles are saved into a single body without requiring the Gentiles to keep the Law is a “mystery” which was not revealed in the Hebrew Bible. In Galatians 1:11-12 Paul claims that the Gospel he preaches is “not of human origin” but rather “received by revelation.”

For some of Paul’s teaching, he may have been led by the Holy Spirit to interpret biblical texts differently, or to combine texts from the Hebrew Bible in unique ways which supported the idea that Jesus is the Messiah or that salvation is apart from works. Romans 4 indicates that the story of Abraham could be interpreted in a way that supported Paul’s gospel – this is exegesis guided by the Spirit of God. Much of the argument of Galatians is based on applications from stories in Genesis. Paul was trained as a scholar and interpreted Scripture in his sermons and letters in a way consistent with other Jewish teachers of his day.  This “interpretation of scripture” is part of the tradition Timothy is to guard and pass along.

In some cases the tradition is handed down from the apostles through Paul, to Timothy and then to the qualified elders in Ephesus. In other cases Paul is the source. But in either case Paul commands Timothy to guard this tradition carefully and to pass it to the next generation of believers.

For some American Christians, tradition is very important. I recently heard a sermon in the radio which cited the Canons of Dordt and the Westminster Confession. In the twenty minutes I listened, no Scripture. I realize the classic formulations of doctrine are rich in Scripture, but is this what Paul is talking about in 2 Timothy?

On the other hand, how does the principle of “handing down good teaching” work in a modern culture where “tradition” is routinely rejected? In other churches, if something is even vaguely traditional, it is ignored as useless for the modern church. Scholars and pastors often push ideas well-past traditional boundaries simply for the joy of being different. How might Paul react to this sort of thing?

Titus 3:9-11 – Dealing with Those Who Disagree

Because of the descriptions of the false teachers in the background of 1 Timothy and Titus, scholars often suggest the letters were written well into the second century. There is some similarity between the description in Titus to the followers of Marcion (explaining why Marcion would not have accepted the books as authentically Pauline) or an early form of Montanism. Montanism was a charismatic revival of the middle/late second century and the Pastorals Epistles do not mention the ecstatic gifts of the Spirit.

Other scholars suggest the description of the false teachers is “generic.” There is no specific threat to the churches overseen by Timothy and Titus, but this is the sort of generic anti-heretic language which could be applied to any number of churches. This is similar to modern political rhetoric, Republicans always accuse Democrats as favoring “tax and spend” and Democrats always accuse Republicans of being in the pocket of the NRA. Whether those things are true or not about a given politician, the accusation will almost always be made. In Titus, Paul could be laying out a laundry list of the typical things his opponents have said and done, whether he has a specific false teacher in mind.

Could the be a an early form of Gnosticism or Montanism? This is always possible, depending on the definition of “proto.” The mixture of Greek philosophy and Jewish asceticism that becomes Gnosticism later in the second century may have its roots in the very churches planted by Paul. But the false teachings that the writer is dealing with is not at all close to the Gnostic teachings of the second century. To argue against “foolish myths and genealogies” as Paul does here is applicable in the first century as much as the second (or third or twenty-first!)

Regardless of the source of false teachers in Ephesus and Crete, Paul provides a three-step method for dealing with these troublemakers. The steps seem reasonably clear, but it is hard to know how to use them in a contemporary context. Paul is not describing a medieval excommunication or some sort of strange shunning-ritual. He wants his churches to be unified around a core yet also to preserve some diversity within the members of the church. How does this work?

The first step is to avoid teachings which create quarrels and dissensions. This cannot include the core elements of the Faith, the things Paul has already defined as “sound doctrine” in Titus 3. What things might be considered “divisive” our context? Paul is talking about drawing lines which include some and exclude others. to a large extent, the modern church has dealt with this by dividing up into a wide range of denominations. This would be intentionally divisive attitude designed to cause quarrels in the church. I have occasionally been asked to preach at conservative a church which used the King James Bible only; if I intentionally preached out of a NIV Bible, the congregation would be so angry they would never hear a single word I said. Imagine if I were asked to preach in a Christian Reformed church and did a classic dispenstionalist sermon on the Rapture!

Second, if there is a person who cannot set their divisiveness aside, then they are to be warned. The text says the false teacher “stirs up dissension,” indicating they are looking for an opportunity to argue over his special doctrine. This too becomes a difficult to apply in a modern context since people want to share their views in a welcoming and affirming environment. But the divisive person is not discussing an issue in order to gain a clearer understanding, they are pushing their agenda in order to make coverts to their fringe position. I understand what it is like to have a view out of step with the majority and I try not to be divisive on the issues I know will cause people to be upset.

Last, if the person continues to stir up dissension, then the church is to shun the person as a false teacher. This is very controversial since ostracizing someone from a group is a very “un-American.” Paul seems very prejudiced and arrogant to force someone who believes differently out of the church! “Shun the heretic” has a positively medieval sound to it which most modern people would like to avoid. We want to have open and honest discussions about our differences and come to a respectful understanding whether we agree or not. But for Paul, the presence of someone teaching unhealthy doctrine or advocating impure practices in the church can only damage the church.

Most likely these steps will look different in different cultures (African churches vs. American churches, for example). I have been a university professor for many years, and every once in a while I have a student who seems to want to argue about everything I say. It is not that they want to learn anything new, they just like to debate and argue (and probably waste class time so the test gets postponed). In a few cases the student was not interested in an open discussion of new ideas, they wanted to shut down anything they disagreed with and force their ideas on the group. I can think of examples from the most Fundamentalist students ever to the hyper-Calvinist (and one really odd Arminian). Although I have yet to shun a student, I have asked them to realize they are not in debate club and other students want to learn.

How do we use this material to preserve the unity and promote diversity within a local church?

Titus 3:4-8 – What is Sound Doctrine?

This long sentence might be a summary of what Paul means by “sound doctrine” in Titus 2:1. Gordon Fee called these lines “semi creedal” (1-2 Timothy, Titus, 200)  and nearly all agree that this section was used in some form of liturgy. Paul concludes by declaring this a “trustworthy saying,” indicating verses 4-7  were well-known to the church. Since virtually every word can be traced to earlier Pauline writings, it is possible Paul himself is the source, or someone created the song out of the theology of Paul’s letters. In either case, these few verses are a clear statement of Paul’s understanding of our salvation.Old Manuscript

God has acted on our behalf and saved us out of our foolishness (verse 4-5a). The appearance of the kindness of love of God refers to Jesus. The work of Jesus on the cross is God’s decisive act in history to solve the problem of sin. Kindness and love are unusual ways to describe God’s motivation for sending Jesus into the world, but the words may reflect the Hebrew idea of hesed, God’s loyalty to his promises and covenant. Because God is a faithful covenant partner, he acted in Jesus to enable those who are in Christ to keep the covenant in perfection.

Because of Jesus, we can be saved. The word “saved” is in fact a metaphor which we miss since we use the term so frequently. We were not just in danger, we were lost and in need to rescue.  In the Psalms David occasionally describes his personal salvation with being pulled out of a flood or a muddy pit, rescued from certain death and set in a level, firm place.

This salvation is not because of “works of righteousness,” rather it is based on the mercy of God. The idea of “works of righteousness” ought to be understood in the light of the false teachers who likely insisted on things like circumcision or keeping elements of the law. Rather than a covenant which promises blessings for obedience, this salvation is based entirely on the mercy of God.

This salvation is a rebirth and renewal through the Holy Spirit (verse 5b-6). Paul uses a metaphor in this verse to describe the role of the Holy Spirit in our new birth. “Washing” (λουτρόν) and the cognate verb (λούω) frequently refers to ceremonial washing which cleanses one from impurity. The words are used in the context of preparing for worship or entering into the sanctuary. For example, the verb is used more than a dozen times in Leviticus 15 in the context of physical impurity. In Leviticus 8:6 Aaron and his sons are ceremonially washed when they are ordained as priests. In Leviticus 16 the verb is used to describe the washing of the high priest prior to entering the Holy of Holies.

Paul is therefore developing a metaphor which any person living in the first century would have understood. If we are to be servants of God, we must be cleansed and made holy so that we are able to serve him (as priests in nay religion might have been cleansed). It is the action of the Holy Spirit at the moment of salvation which “washes us” and makes us right with God. He may have in mind a text like Isa 1:16, where the Lord demands the people wash themselves of their sins, or Isa 4:4 where the filthiness of the nation of Israel will be washed away by a “spirit of judgment” and a “spirit of burning.”

Paul therefore has in mind the rebirth or recreation of the person who is dead in their sins; they are “made alive” in Christ through the Holy Spirit.This is a hint of eschatology here as well, since the dawning of the new age is described with this same term (παλιγγενεσία). This is the same regenerating work of the Spirit found in 1 Corinthians 6:1 and Ephesians 5:26.

The result of our rebirth is our membership in God’s family (verse 7).  Verse seven begins with a purpose clause and an aorist passive participle. Our membership in God’s family is predicated on our having been made righteous, or justified, by God’s grace.  While he does not make the point here, justification by grace is always “not of works, lest anyone should boast.”  The verb is passive, we do not justify ourselves nor can we create our own righteousness, we are dependent wholly on God’s grace and mercy.

Since we have been justified, we are “heirs” in God’s family. This is an allusion to the theme of adoption from Paul’s earlier letters (Romans 8, for example). “Be what you are, a child of God.”  This status in God’s family is a guarantee of our future hope.  We know that our inheritance is held by God and that our eternal life is secure in him.

Therefore be devoted to doing good (8b). To be “devoted” to something (φροντίζω) means to think about it, constantly pursue it, perhaps even to worry about it.  This is more than simply “keep it in mind.”  (I find that when someone says “I’ll keep that in mind” they usually mean, “I am going to ignore what you just said and do what I was going to do anyway.”) The word may be translated “pay attention to” doing good works.

It is remarkable that Paul can say in one line that we are not saved by works, salvation is totally an act of God’s grace, yet in the next line say that we need to do good works. But the order of the lines is critically important!   To reverse them is to destroy the foundation of “sound doctrine” described in these verses.

Titus 1:5–9 – Damaged and Damaging Pastors

The false teachers described in the book are coming from within Titus’s churches on Crete. They are elders who are not spiritual leaders and have defected from sound teaching and are behaving in a way that brings dishonor to the church. The list of qualifications in Titus are concerned with reputation of the elder outside of the church. The main reason for this is the elder is a model of spiritual life for the congregation. If the elder has a bad reputation in the community, so too will the church become associated with that bad reputation and therefore be shamed.

Keep out of the ChurchNotice that twice Paul says the elder must be “above reproach” (1:6-7). The noun ἀνέγκλητος has the sense of “free from reproach, without stain, guiltless” (TDNT 1:356), even a sense of innocence. Like 1 Timothy, the ideal elder is one who lives the “quiet life” and has a good reputation with outsiders. Perhaps this helps explain the always-difficult requirement the elder be a “husband of one wife.” The emphasis may be less on gender than reputation in the community. If the elder is a womanizer he will likely have a bad reputation in the community or created enmity in the community.

Titus must therefore examine the family of the potential elder as well. His children must be believers and models of Christian faith and behavior. This is another difficult text to apply since most people know a “pastor’s kid” who did not follow in their parent’s faith. Should that pastor be removed from ministry? Paul’s concern is for the reputation of the community. The child of a church leader cannot be open to the charge of “debauchery or insubordination” (ἀσωτίας ἢ ἀνυπότακτα). The first word can have the sense of being wasteful (financially) but is also associated with “wild living.” The second refers to rebels or flagrant law-breakers (BDAG). In short, even the family of the elder ought to live a quiet life that gains the respect of everyone in their community.

Verse nine says the elder must guard the faith. Elder were the people who were especially educated and trained by Titus. Perhaps they are the members of the community who have been Christians the longer and therefore have devoted themselves to more study than the others. The elder was to be a shepherd for the congregation, guarding them from potential threats. They are responsible for teaching proper doctrine and practice to the congregation. This seems to be one of the source of the problems on Crete: elders are not teaching proper doctrine as it was handed down to them from Paul and Titus.

The solution is for Titus to “put things in order” by appointing qualified elders. The current leadership is “broken” and cannot be restored; it must be replaced. Titus is told to appoint qualified leaders, and in doing so, he is replacing the “unqualified leaders” who are destroying congregations.

It seems to me one of the greatest threats to the church are church leaders themselves. Christians are not spiritually damaged by outsiders very often, it is usually an elder, pastor or other church leader who hurts people and drives them from the church. What is more, these damaging leaders create a bad reputation for a local church or denomination. Why attend church if you are going to be judged and treated without respect?

How can Paul’s guidance in the letter of Titus help modern church create a church leadership to build a good reputation in the community?

Book Review: David Instone-Brewer, Moral Questions of the Bible

Instone-Brewer, David. Moral Questions of the Bible. Bellingham, Wash.: Lexham Press, 2019. 286 pp.; Pb.  $12.99  Link to Lexham Press

Instone-Brewer’s Moral Questions of the Bible reminds me of a discussion starter book a youth pastor might have used for Bible studies in the 1970s. Each chapter is a short introduction to an issue intended to stimulate thinking about difficult issues. Instone-Brewer does not intend to solve any of these issues in the few pages he devotes to them, rather these are intentionally brief teasers which invite for further meditation. This is exactly the kind of book that would make for a good small group Bible study since it gives some information on the topic but is open ended enough to generate a stimulating discussion. This book covers thirty topics in six sections. The topics include difficult ethical and moral issues such as abortion, homosexuality, racism and slavery. Some topics include personal issues like childlessness divorce submission in marriage. Others concern the practice of the church, such as female leaders and self-promoting leaders. 

Moral Questions of the BibleAs should be expected by anyone familiar with Instone-Brewer’s other work, he does an excellent job comparing the culture of the Roman and Jewish first century to the culture of contemporary society. In many cases, he concludes culture is different today than the first century. This difference may very well help us to understand how to apply a text in a modern context. This is certainly the case for several of the topics which concern the role of women in society in church. He observe long hair in the Roman world was advertising for casual sex. It would be like “wearing fishnet stockings or pending a condom package to your lapel today” (236). 

The first section deals with larger questions of method. Instone-Brewer asks if the Bible can be used as a foundation for Christian morality. For some, the Bible is an ancient book that has very little to do with contemporary issues. Someone might scan down the list of topics in the table of contents and assume that the Bible, especially the Old Testament, has nothing to say about most of them. But as Instone-Brewer suggests in his first topic (“can God’s law change?”) the value of the Old Testament Law lies in its message about God’s purposes. It is through the Law God taught his people what was supremely valuable to him. There’s certainly examples of laws that have changed from the old covenant to the new, such as allowing polygamy in the Old Testament and ruling it out in the New Testament. But Instone-Brewer is clear, God’s principles are unchangeable.

If the Bible can be used for a foundation of Christian morality, what method should a Christian reader use to determine which rules are “for them and which ones still apply to us”?  In the second chapter of the book, Instone-Brewer suggests the rule of love and identifying timeless commands which reflect God’s character and/or expressed or implied in the same way throughout the Bible. This is in contrast to commands Instone-Brewer describes as not timeless. For example, some commands are tied to a particular time and place. He points out that the biggest group of changeable commands concern how to worship God and how God’s people are to live lives of holiness. In the Old Testament living a holy life involved sacrifices and purification rituals. In the New Testament, Christians no longer sacrifice or follow the commands concerning purification rituals before worship. God had changed his Law from an outward ritual to an inner spirituality. For Instone-Brewer, this is the result of Jesus’s death in the presence of the Holy Spirit in their lives. 

The second section is entitled children, and covers for topics including abortion and infanticide, rebellious children, childlessness, and whether girls should be educated. This last topic seems surprising, of course girls should be educated! However, in the history of the church, this is not always been the case. Instone-Brewer shows how the command to allow women to learn in 1 Timothy 2:11 implies that women ought to be educated. (they are to learn in exactly the same way the men should learn). He believes this lays the foundation for a society that would educate both girls and boys.

The third section of the book deals with sex and marriage. Here he covers things like sexual immorality including homosexuality polygamy but also divorce and marrying non-believers. He also has a short section on what it means for a wife to submit to her husband for the sake of the gospel. For the most part there’s nothing surprising here, he agrees with the New Testament teaching there should be no polygamy, but he does recognize the divorce happens, and believers should avoid marrying non-believers. 

Instone-Brewer entitles the fourth section of the book “church issues” such as female leaders, self-promoting leaders, church discipline. He also has a brief discussion on conversion or tolerance. Since many readers will immediately go to the chapter on female leadership in the church, I will point to his conclusion is that society have changed so that women are no well-educated in perfectly able to teach. However, he does point out that no one should except the authority of either a man or a woman who teaches, preaching should be based on the authority of the Bible. He says “today, both the church and society have listened to Paul’s plea that women should be educated and trusted” because in Christ there is neither male nor female (p. 140). 

Section five covers personal vices. Here are sections on alcohol, drugs, gluttony and crude language. Remarkably, he includes racism under this heading as well. American readers tend to think of racism as a black versus white issue, but as he points out, there are all sorts of racist attitudes throughout the world. He relates this to xenophobia found in most societies. What is Jesus said in the parable of the good Samaritan, Christians are to do good to those who are in need regardless of their race or background.

The sixth section of the book deals with Christian responsibility towards others. The first to deal with variations on hospitality, including visiting prisoners. He includes slavery here but then also several rather practical issues. He deals with fashion, eating animals, and retirement. Remarkably he has a short section on Jesus’s effeminate hair. This chapter also includes the section on head coverings, always a very difficult problem on the application. Instone-Brewer conclude hairstyle is not a timeless command. However, hairstyles or head coverings may hinder the gospel in some cultures.

ConclusionMoral Questions of the Bible succeeds as a collection of brief discussion starters. For the most part the issues that he included in this book will address many of the questions Lee people have in the church today. However, I find it strange that he has not included anything on science or medical ethics. There are many topics which Christians have questions about, such as in vitro fertilization, end-of-life issues, or genetic modifications. Although he has a section on what to eat, it would have been interesting to include a discussion of genetically modified foods. 

Although Instone-Brewer does ground his comments in both the culture of the first century and the importance of the question in the modern world, leaders will need to do some additional homework in order to be fully versed in these topics. The book could have been improved with a short for further reading section at the end of each topic for a bibliography of other detailed studies of applied Christian ethics. 

 

NB: Thanks to Lexham Press for kindly providing me with a review copy of this book. This did not influence my thoughts regarding the work.

1 Timothy 6:20 – The Faith as a Deposit

Paul uses an economic metaphor in 1-2 Timothy to describe the content of the Gospel. This faith is a “deposit” (παραθήκη) which has been entrusted to Paul and Timothy to guard until the day when Christ returns as judge.

Timothy with his mother

A problem for us in reading 2 Timothy is the use of the word ‘tradition.”  This is not a tradition in the sense of a longstanding practice that we have “always done,” but rather a body of beliefs and behavioral expectations that define what it means to be a Christian (as opposed to a pagan or a Jew).  The tradition to be guarded is “an unchangeable deposit. Whether the church stands or falls depends upon leaders who are qualified to guard this deposit” (Towner, 294).

What is the Source of this “Deposit”? Paul was “appointed a preacher and apostle and teacher” of the Gospel (2 Tim 1:11). This description of Paul’s ministry is similar to 1 Timothy 2:7.  The “preacher” in the ESV is better a “herald,” or “proclaimer.”  This is a person who is appointed to deliver a particular message, in Paul’s case, from God.  The language is a little different in 1 Timothy 1:18, 6:20 and 2 Timothy 2:2. In these later books, Timothy is encouraged to guard or protect the deposit given to him.

Paul mentions things passed down to him in his earlier letters: Two traditional elements were handed down to him from the apostles, such as 1 Cor 11:2 (the Lord’s table) and 15:1 (witnesses to the resurrection). In 2 Thessalonians 2:15 Paul encourages the congregation to “stand firm” in the traditions which Paul delivered to them.   Even in his earliest letter, Paul considers his gospel a tradition which cannot be modified (Gal 1:14).  Paul is clear, however, that much of what he preached he received directly from Jesus through a special revelation.

For some doctrines, this is a direct revelation that could not be deduced from the Hebrew Bible. For example, in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 Paul says the Lord himself gave him his teaching on the future resurrection. That Jews and Gentiles are saved into a single body without requiring the Gentiles to keep the Law is a “mystery” which was unrevealed in the Hebrew Bible. In other cases the tradition is handed down from the apostles through Paul, to Timothy and then to the qualified elders in Ephesus. Sometimes Paul is the source, but in either case Paul commands Timothy to guard this tradition carefully.

For some of Paul’s teaching, he may have been led by the Holy Spirit to interpret biblical texts differently, or to combine texts from the Hebrew Bible in unique ways which supported the idea that Jesus is the Messiah or that salvation is apart from works.  Romans 4 implies the story of Abraham could be interpreted in a way that supported Paul’s gospel. This is exegesis guided by the Spirit of God. (Spirit-led exegesis and scholarship which applies Scripture to new situations is in fact a source of proper teaching!)

In any case, the body “tradition” which Paul handed on to Timothy is to be guarded and invested, and passed on to the next generation of Christian leaders.

 

Bibliography:  Philip H. Towner, “Pauline Theology Or Pauline Tradition In The Pastoral Epistles: The Question Of Method,” Tyndale Bulletin  46 (1995): 285-314.  See also  P. H. Towner, The Goal of Our Instruction: The Structure of Theology and Ethics in the Pastoral Epistles (JSNTSupp 34; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1989).

Enhanced by Zemanta