1 Timothy and Titus: Introduction (Part 2)

1 Timothy — Steve Gregg

Next in this series

1 Timothy 1

00:00

1 Timothy and Titus: Introduction (Part 2)

1 TimothySteve Gregg

This discussion provides a deeper understanding of the books of 1 Timothy and Titus in the New Testament. Steve Gregg discusses the relationship between Gnosticism and Christianity, emphasizing that Gnostics believed that the physical world was evil, and that Jesus was a physical being. He also highlights the importance of sound doctrine and teaches that Christians should lead a good life that reflects their beliefs. Additionally, he points out that the pastoral epistles are crucial in understanding the concept of eternal security.

Transcript

Okay everybody, let's get back into our consideration of pastoral epistles. I'd like to use this session again to finish out an introduction to the three epistles, 1 Timothy and Titus, and then it should be tomorrow that we get into 1 Timothy and the rest in due time. We've talked about who Timothy and Titus were.

We've talked about who the author of the epistles was. Obviously, it's Paul, unless you have some kind of unreasonable bias against it being Paul. There clearly is Paul who wrote the epistles.

We talked a little bit about when it was written. Apparently, after Paul was released from his first imprisonment, and therefore after the period of time recorded in Acts, Paul made some other journeys which are referred to in these epistles, and they were probably written about 67 A.D., just prior to his death, particularly 2 Timothy. He is imprisoned at the time of writing and expects his death to be soon.

Now, before we go into these epistles verse by verse, I'd like to consider two other important things, namely, what the nature of the heresy is that Paul is combating, because as is the case in many of the epistles in the New Testament, the presence of some particular false teaching is the occasion for writing the letters. Many of the letters in the New Testament are written either to combat some problem in the Church of misbehavior, or more frequently of wrong doctrine. And in the pastoral epistles, frequently reference is made to people who are departing from the faith, departing from sound doctrine, people who are teaching things they ought not, raising questions that are vain and empty, vain janglings, the King James Version says, and idle talk, and endless genealogies, and all kinds of things that Timothy is said to not only avoid, but also to rebuke and to put down.

And Titus also is said to do so. So, we need to be aware, if we can, of what exactly Paul is concerned about here. And as I mentioned in our previous session, scholars have fairly, I think, well identified the heresy as Gnosticism.

Gnosticism was an attempt to join Greek philosophy and Eastern mysticism into a synthesis along with Judaism and later Christianity. It was sort of a parasitical kind of a heresy. It was not just a religion of its own, but it attached itself to Judaism earlier and then later on to Christianity as sort of a parasite, sort of trying to claim authority from the Jewish scriptures and later from Christian scriptures.

And the elements of Greek philosophy that were there largely are based on the dichotomy that Plato is so famous for of separating between the material and the spiritual realms and identifying the material realm as evil and the spiritual realm as good. That's largely where the Greek philosophy is seen in Gnosticism, the attempt to say that whatever is material and physical is ipso facto evil, and whatever is non-material or spiritual is good. Now, obviously Christianity cannot agree with this.

First of all, we cannot agree, nor can Judaism, that whatever is physical is evil because God created the whole heavens and the earth and everything in them, all the physical materiality he created, and yet after he made them it says everything he made himself is very good. There is nothing intrinsically evil about atoms and molecules and the things of which material is made. Now, of course, the Bible does say that the material world and our own bodies have been corrupted by sin, but that does not mean that the very physicalness of them is a moral indictment of them, that being physical is an evil thing.

Nor does the Bible indicate that everything spiritual is good. There are demons that are spirits. So, obviously, this Gnostic and Greek assumption is very contrary to Christianity, and it led to a denial of certain important Christian truths.

It led to a denial, for example, of the incarnation of Jesus. It was believed that since Jesus was a deity that he could not have become physical, because God is too pure and too good to really have direct contact with the physical realm. And, therefore, the suggestion that Jesus was literally made of flesh and bones like we are was offensive to the Gnostics, and they taught, at least some of them did, I think it was the Corinthians, no, the Doctrines taught, they were a branch of Gnostics, that Jesus existed as a deity, but not as a real human being in the flesh.

That, for instance, Doctrines taught that when Jesus walked around he didn't leave footprints, that he wasn't really a physical being at all, but an apparition, a ghost-like person. And that's one reason, apparently, that John, in his epistles, stressed that Jesus Christ came in the flesh, and anyone who says that Jesus Christ did not come in the flesh is not a god. He seems to be answering this Gnostic idea, and Paul himself may have some hints in the Pastoralis that he's answering that objection.

When he says in 2 Timothy, no, 1 Timothy 2.5, excuse me, 1 Timothy 2.5 he says, For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man, Christ Jesus, stressing that he was a man, though he is a mediator between God and man, and we'll talk about mediatorship in Gnosticism too, but the man, Christ Jesus, stressing that he was a human being. And, in chapter 3, verse 16, 1 Timothy 3.16, Paul says, Without controversy greater than mystery and godliness, God was manifested in the flesh, stressing again that Jesus was flesh. He was made of flesh like we are.

Now, by the way, if you have another translation, it may say he, or who, was manifested in the flesh. There is a textual discrepancy here. The text is receptive and says God was manifested in the flesh, which makes a very good proof of the deity of Christ when dealing with Jehovah's Witnesses, essentially.

But the Jehovah's Witness Bible, like many modern translations, follows the Alexandrian text instead, which does not say God was manifested in the flesh, but says who was, or he was manifested in the flesh. So, if you have a modern translation, it will not say specifically God was manifested in the flesh, but that's not the most important thing for our present point. The present point is that it's referring to Jesus, and all would agree with that.

And it says he, we have no problem saying God, but even if we don't have that as the text reading that we approve, he was manifested in the flesh. This is the flesh part that's important here. To prove that he was not an ethereal spirit creature who didn't leave footprints, he was flesh, just like we are.

He was physical, and this would be something the Gnostics would deny, and therefore Paul might need to accentuate. Wasn't there a card about Calvin and Arminus that showed Jesus was, he was in the flesh, but it really wasn't him, but it was the spirit of Jesus that descended on some guy? That, I believe, is Sorinthianism. Now, I hope I'm not getting Dostatism and Sorinthianism mixed up.

There's two branches of Gnosticism. The Dostatism, I believe, is that which taught that Jesus wasn't physical at all, that he was just a spirit being. The Dostatists were the ones I was just representing.

I believe it was Sorinthus, another Gnostic leader, who taught, no, the man Jesus was a physical man, but he was not the Christ inherently, but the Christ came upon him at his baptism and departed from him shortly before his death. The Christ is a spiritual essence that rested upon this ordinary man, Jesus, and only for a period of three and a half years. That when Jesus was growing up, he was a mere ordinary person, and when he died, he was an ordinary person, but when he was baptized, the Christ spirit came upon him and left him just before his death, so that the Christ is not too intimately associated with the man.

Now, by the way, this is very agreeable with, of course, modern New Age thinking. They use the term Christ in the same way that the Sorinthian heresy did. They believe that Jesus was the Christ in the same sense that we're all the Christ, that the Christ is just a spiritual essence that can be upon us all, or that dwells in us all, but that Jesus was not the Christ in any special sense.

Of course, the argument, biblically, against that view is that the word Christ is simply the Greek word for the Messiah, and the Messiah in the Old Testament already has a history of meaning. Now, when the New Testament authors spoke of Jesus as the Christ or Messiah, they had this Old Testament framework, not some Greek framework, and in the Old Testament, Messiah is not so much a spiritual essence as he is simply the name of an office. It's an office he holds.

He is Jesus who holds the office of Messiah, the Anointed One, the Savior, the King, and therefore, to say that Jesus is the Christ doesn't mean that he had Christ consciousness, or that some Christ essence came upon him, but rather simply by virtue of who he was, he holds that title, as no one else can, of the Christ, the Messiah. He is the fulfillment of the Messianic prophecies, in other words. So, again, these Gnostic ideas are quite contrary to Christianity and Judaism, actually, because they do teach the evilness of matter and the goodness of all spirit, and the way that those Gnostic ideas attach themselves to Christianity in particular denied the incarnation of Christ, so that writers in the New Testament who were combating Gnosticism often affirmed it the more strongly for that reason.

And they also denied the physical resurrection. In 1 Corinthians 15, it is probably not Gnosticism, it's simply straight Greek philosophy that Paul is opposing when he talks about the resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15. We don't have any reason to believe that Gnosticism was a problem in Corinth, but we know there were Greeks, and they were affected by Greek philosophy, and it is this very element of Gnosticism that is the problem here, this Greek idea that matter is evil, and you know that in 1 Corinthians 15, Paul acknowledges there were some Christians, even people in the church, Greeks, who denied the resurrection as a reality.

The idea of a physical resurrection was a particular offensive doctrine to the Greek and to the Gnostic, because the suggestion is that this physical body is going to be with us forever, and to the Gnostic the idea was that the sooner we can get rid of this physical body, the better. This body is a prison, this body is an evil thing, and when our spirit is released from it in death, we are in a far better condition, and the suggestion that God is going to raise up a physical body in a physical state and we're going to be in it forever was entirely contrary to the set of values promoted by the Greeks and Gnostics, and therefore Greek Christians in the first century had difficulty accepting the wisdom and the validity of the bodily resurrection, apparently of Christ as well, but I don't know, but especially the bodily resurrection of Christians. So in 1 Corinthians 15, Paul argues strongly mostly for the resurrection of Christians.

He does mention the resurrection of Christ, but only as an argument for the resurrection of Christians in the last day. Likewise, we read that some of the heretics mentioned in Timothy, particularly 2 Timothy 2.18, seem to be squeamish about the doctrine of the resurrection. We're talking about Hymenaeus and Philetus.

2 Timothy 2.17 and 18 says, their message will spread like cancer. Hymenaeus and Philetus are of this sort, who have strayed concerning the truth, saying that the resurrection is already passed, and they overthrow the faith of some. Now you might say, how in the world could anybody credibly argue in the first century that the resurrection was passed? I mean, couldn't you just go to the graveyard and take a look and see the bodies are still there? Well, it is likely that they were not saying that a physical resurrection had already taken place.

We know that in the early church, people like Paul himself taught that rebirth is itself a form of resurrection. We were dead in our sins and now we've been made alive. We've been raised to life with Christ, and so forth.

And that these teachers were probably saying that the hope of resurrection that Christianity teaches is entirely fulfilled in the spiritual resurrection of rebirth. And that no physical resurrection is to be expected. Therefore, in saying that the resurrection is passed, they don't mean that the physical resurrection is passed.

That would be an absurd thing to say, which could be easily disproven by a Byzantine cemetery. But they're denying the reality of physical resurrection altogether, and saying the resurrection that we've already experienced, namely rebirth, is the only one to which we shall expect. And, therefore, the resurrection promises of the Bible are already passed.

That is, they are fulfilled and are being born again. Now, the sad thing about this is there is an element of truth, because Paul does, and Jesus does, speak of rebirth as a resurrection. But they do not teach it as the only resurrection.

It is the first resurrection, but there will be also a resurrection of dead bodies on the last day, as Jesus himself makes clear, and Paul and others. So, it would appear that the heresy that Paul is arguing is here seems to deny the physical resurrection. It may, in fact, deny the Incarnation, because Paul stresses the Incarnation in the way he does here, although there's no proof that that's what the heresy was teaching again.

It was very possibly anti-marriage as well. There certainly is some direct evidence of this in 1 Timothy 4, but there's some lesser evidence of it in other parts of these pastorals. Now, marriage, of course, well, let me put it this way.

Gnosticism, because it taught that the body is evil, because it is physical, and all physical things are evil, had two different responses to it. One set of Gnostics chose asceticism, which means they thought, like, since the body is evil, we shouldn't do anything to please it at all. We should just put the body under.

We should not satisfy any of its desires. You know, be very harsh with our bodies, and don't allow ourselves any physical pleasure. These would be people like Stoics.

On the other hand, you would have Gnostics who said, well, since the body is incorrigibly evil anyway, no sense in trying to make it be good. Might as well just let it have free course. Just go out and have a blast.

Fulfill all your desires, because this body is not eternal anyway, and it's evil, and you can't make it any better, and it's evil by nature. Therefore, why fight it? And these, you know, the Epicureans were those who taught that, you know, pleasure is really what it's all about. Seek pleasure.

And they tended to be antinomians, a word that you're familiar with, I know, because we've talked about it before. An antinomian was one who denied any rules. Now, therefore, you had two opposite reactions to Gnosticism within Gnosticism.

Some Gnostics, because they knew the body was evil, chose asceticism, which is a very strict, legalistic denial of pleasure. Other Gnostics took the opposite approach of Epicureanism and antinomianism. They said, hey, might as well just live it up.

Since the body is evil anyway, nothing's going to change that. Might as well just live with the fact, and live in harmony with that fact, and just go ahead and exercise all of its desires. And this is a fact.

There was asceticism and antinomianism, two opposite errors in the Church, and both of them appear to be a problem that Paul is addressing in these. For one thing, we see some evidence that there was antinomianism, because Paul stresses the conscience, and how people have departed from their conscience. I don't know if you noted this as you went through, as you read through the pastoral, but they mention the conscience more often than any other comparable length portion of Scripture.

Clean conscience Christianity is a main concern of Paul here, and it may be because people who are antinomians, who say, well, we're not under any law, they obviously have to deny the law in their own heart, their own conscience. If they're going to go out and live in immorality, and live in debauchery, and so forth, initially their conscience is going to protest. But they'll have to ignore their conscience.

They'll have to, as he says, sear their conscience. They'll put away a good conscience, make their faith shipwrecked, he says. There's a lot of references to the conscience and the need for a clean conscience, which may suggest that part of the error that was rampant was people just ignoring their conscience, and acting as if there's no law, and no morality to govern them.

That would be antinomianism. At the same time, we have evidence of asceticism, the other branch of Gnosticism, the other response to Gnostic philosophy. We have, for example, in chapter 4, Paul talking about deceivers that he expects to arise very quickly, or in latter times, we don't know what times he means there, but he says that in verse 2, they speak lies and hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron.

They forbid to marry, and they command to abstain from foods which God gave us to enjoy. Now, this is asceticism, saying that marriage is wrong, because, of course, it's the place where sexual activity is practiced, among good people, and eating foods, certain foods, were restricted. This is an unchristian asceticism, suggesting that the pleasures of marital life and of eating foods are simply not appropriate.

And, we have another suggestion of asceticism in Titus, chapter 1, verse 15. After it talks about the error of the wicked, it says in verse 15, to the pure all things are pure, but to those who are defiled, and I'm believing nothing is pure, but even their mind and their conscience are defiled. Again, the conscience is seen.

Now, to the pure all things are pure is, of course, talking about foods. He doesn't mean that homosexuality or immorality are pure, but it means that all foods are clean to a person who is himself clean. But if your heart is not clean, then nothing is pure.

And, his need to say this suggests that there were some people trying to restrict them in their eating, in their diet. And, those seem to be teaching Jewish laws and fables, because part of the error that Paul is dealing with is Jewish in nature. This is apparently a Gnostic brand of Judaism, or Judaism with Gnosticism attached.

That was a problem. We can see that from a number of places. There's a lot of Jewish legalism suggested.

One is in the passage we just looked at in Titus, chapter 1, in verse 14. It says, not giving heed to Jewish fables and commandments of men who turn from the truth. Jewish fables suggest that there's a Jewish element to the doctrine that's causing the problems.

Likewise, over in 1 Timothy, chapter 1, when Paul first introduces the subject of those who are teaching the wrong thing, you'll notice in verse 7, 1 Timothy 1, 7, it says, they desire to be teachers of the law. Unfortunately, though, they don't understand what they say or the things that they affirm. So, they want to be teachers of the law.

That certainly suggests the Jewish law. They teach Jewish fables, according to Titus. So, this is Gnosticism attached to Jewish teachings, and probably largely a strict legalism.

Now, as far as the character of the teachers, there's a few things to observe. One is Paul indicates that they do it for the money. In Titus, chapter 1, in verse 11, by the way, notice Titus 1, 10, says especially those of the circumcision, another indicator that Jewishness is part of the problem there.

Titus 1, 10. But then he says in verse 11, whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole households, teaching things which they ought not for the sake of dishonest gain. Now, he tells us what their motives are.

They're motivated by desire for money. There were many traveling rabbis and traveling philosophers among the Greeks, and the Jews, who would sell their advice and their teaching. They would charge for classes and so forth.

They would charge for their instruction. Of course, the apostle Paul would never do such a thing, nor would any apostle, or apparently in the first century, any Christian at all. They would not charge for their teachings, and Paul made it very clear that he would not.

But these people did, and what they did, they did for the sake of gain, for the sake of money. Over in 1 Timothy, chapter 6, we see the same motivation, and he talks about the useless wranglings of men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain. The King James says, who suppose that gain is godliness, and I don't know how many other translations are like the New King James saying godliness is a means of gain.

There's a couple of ways of understanding this. If we understand that they think that gain is godliness, it would almost be like the idea that if you're prospering, you must be a godly person, because gain is a mark of godliness. Gain, of course, has to do with money.

The prosperity is a mark that you're godly and spiritual, and therefore they would be using a person's financial status as a gauge of spirituality. Now, I don't think that's what it means here. It could, that's the way the King James renders it, it could be that way.

Most newer translations go along as the New King James does, that they see gain as a means, I mean godliness as a means to gain. That is, they use religion for the same reason that other people use other things, namely, to gain money, to get rich. They are simply making merchandise of people, and they are professional religionists or teachers or philosophers who earn it for the money.

They don't think of godliness as something you do out of obligation to God, because your conscience compels you. They see godliness as simply another way of making a buck. They see religion as just another scam to use to get money out of people.

And so, that's how I understand it, and that's how it seems to be in the modern translations in 1 Timothy 6, 5. So, we have evidence from Titus and 1 Timothy that these teachers were, they weren't doing it out of philanthropy or benevolence, they were doing it for the money. And Paul knew that, not only were they taking pay, but that's why they were in it. They were in it for the money.

Now, I might just add that if anything I've just said would make you feel bad toward a pastor or a worker of a religious organization or a teacher who charges money, I would point out that the fact that somebody takes money for their ministry or even charges money for their ministry does not necessarily mean that they're in it for the money. I mean, they may be in it for the Lord, and the fact that they receive a salary is simply a fringe benefit or just something that, you know, that's a separate issue altogether. But they would do it even without the salary.

It just so happens that the position they're in is a salary position. And so, I'm not trying to blast ministers, and I don't think Paul's necessarily trying to blast ministers who would receive a salary. However, Paul himself would not, and his companions would not, and the teachers that he is against did.

Now, of course, you can't argue from that that every Christian who takes money for teaching is evil for doing so. But we would say this, that anyone who charges for religious instruction is doing something more like what those teachers did than what Paul would do, in that respect, as far as financial policy. But, again, we shouldn't extend that too far to judge people's motives.

Paul knew the motives of these teachers. We don't know the motives of Christians who may receive a salary. I'm sure Billy Graham receives a salary.

In fact, in many cases, ministers receive a salary in order to stay accountable financially. A person like myself, I don't receive a salary, but I do receive money, free will offers. It's unpredictable, but I'll get it.

And a lot of times I don't get very much, but sometimes I get a lot. Sometimes I'll get a lot of money, in a short period of time, because it just happens. I don't think it just happens, I think the Lord does it, but the point is, sometimes very little money comes in a long period of time, sometimes a lot comes at once.

I was talking to another minister, in fact, well, I won't tell you who he is because you know his name, and I don't want you to think bad of him, and I don't think bad of him for this, but he was asking me about my financial policies when I travel. And he says, do you take a salary from your organization? I said, no, I just, you know, whatever honorariums come, I keep and that's what I live on. And he said, oh, well, he says, when I travel, I don't keep any of the honorariums.

All the gifts when I travel, all the offerings and stuff they're taking, they go to the organization and they pay me a salary. And I was thinking, well, that might even be a more way of keeping, a way of being modest. It depends, you know, I mean, a guy like Jimmy Swagger, for instance, I don't know whether he took a salary or not, he probably did, but if he didn't, if he just said, all the gifts that come to our ministry are mine, you know, that would be a little more self-indulgent than if they went to the ministry and they just gave him a reasonable salary.

I don't know, I mean, what I'm saying is, you can't say that someone's being more or less honest or more or less humble by taking a salary or not taking a salary, because the person who's taking a salary may, in fact, be taking a lower salary than he would get if he simply kept all the gifts that came in, you know. But if all the gifts are going to the organization, then it pays him a salary. So, anyway, I'm just trying to put some balance on this.

These false teachers were teaching for the sake of money. There are teachers in the Christian Church who teach and charge money or receive salary, but that doesn't necessarily mean that's what motivates them or that's why they do it. Though, clearly, there are.

There are bad guys in the Church. There are ministers who are here just for the money, and some of them get exposed from time to time. It's clear that holiness is not their concern, but money is, prosperity.

Anyway, let's move along here. Further on the motivation or the character of these teachers, we can see that they're proud, and it says so over in, where is it? First Timothy 6, 4. Well, 3 and 4. If anyone teaches otherwise and does not consent to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to Godliness, he is proud, knowing nothing, but obsessed with disputes and arguments over words, from which come envy, strife, rebelling, and evil suspicions. Excuse me.

Now, this pride is apparently manifested in a false intellectualism. This is certainly true of the Gnostics. The very word Gnostic comes from the Greek word gnoso, which means to know, and they claim to be the ones who knew.

Actually, the Gnostics believe that salvation comes through knowledge of mysteries. This is where the Eastern mysticism came into Gnosticism. There were mystery religions throughout Europe and Asia before Christianity got there, and they had all kinds of mystical elaborate rituals reminiscent of Freemasonry, that kind of stuff, and all these ceremonies and passwords and so forth.

This is all part of the mystery religions as a region, and Gnosticism was a mixture of some of these with the Greek philosophy and so forth. Now, because of the Gnostic idea that God was pure spirit and all good, and that all matter was evil, they believed that God could not have direct contact with the material world. They believed, in fact, that the material world existed for as long as God existed, that he didn't make it.

He can't be blamed with it. It's evil, and he didn't make it. And when it came to the time that he wanted to make some use of it, to form it into his present state and so forth, they believed, that he could not have direct contact with the corrupt material world, and therefore they postulated a group of emanations from God.

God was pure spirit, earth and material were pure evil, and in between God there were several stages, mediators. Each one is an emanation of God. Each one got somewhat a little more remote from God, a little more touchable to the material world.

They believed that Jesus was simply one of those emanations from God. Now, these emanations could be personalized or not, but the idea was that God never had direct contact with man, and there were all these very mediating emanations. When Paul says there's one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus, he seems to be coming against this idea of all these emanations.

But according to Gnosticism, the way to salvation was to learn secret passwords and rituals that would help you climb this ladder through the different emanations into pure spirit eventually. And so salvation was through knowledge of mysteries. And, of course, because Gnostics believed that, they believed they were the ones who knew these mysteries, and everybody else didn't, of course, and therefore the Gnostics had a sense of superiority and intellectual pride, like their knowledge surpassed everybody else's, and they knew the things that really mattered to be known, and everybody else was ignorant, and so forth.

And that is the attitude of Gnosticism. It's also the attitude of many modern cults. The idea that only a few know these things, and we're them.

We're the ones, and we're the only ones to say it. That's how the Gnostics felt. Well, Paul describes the heretics, as we just pointed out in 1 Timothy 6, 4, as proud, loving to dispute.

In chapter 6, 1 Timothy 6, in verse 20, he warns Timothy about knowledge falsely so-called. The King James says science falsely so-called. The word science simply means knowledge.

But in 1 Timothy 6, 20, he says, O Timothy, guard what was committed to your trust, avoiding the profane and vain babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge. What is falsely called knowledge is these false intellectual musings of Gnosticism. They think they have the knowledge.

By the way, 1 John, a letter that is written to combat Gnosticism, stresses the word knowledge a great deal. When you read 1 John, you'll find that, oh, many, many times, John says, in a very short space of five chapters, he says, for we know, we know that we've passed from death to life. We know this, we know that.

And the idea of knowledge is stressed. What Christians know. And this is because Gnostics felt like they were the only ones who knew anything of importance.

And John says, no, we Christians who are not Gnostics, we know all that we need to know. We don't need hidden mysteries that the Gnostics profess to have uncovered to be saved. We have relationship with God because we know Him and we know His Son, and so forth.

Likewise, Paul stresses knowledge of the truth. Probably for the same reason that John did in 1 John. In the pastoral epistles, we see frequent references to knowing the truth.

In 1 Timothy 2.4, Paul says that God desired all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. By the way, this comes against the exclusivism of Gnosticism too. Gnostics thought they were some narrow group of people, you know, the few and the elite, who would know the truth.

No, God wills that everybody would be saved. God is not narrow-minded about this. He wants everybody to be saved and everyone to come to the knowledge of the truth.

And by the way, this universal concern of God is also expressed in chapter 2, verse 6. 1 Timothy 2.6, it says, who gave himself ransom for all. We testified in due time. Again, God is not very exclusive.

He wants everyone saved. Likewise, in 1 Timothy 4.10, Paul says, Now, by the way, these three passages, 1 Timothy 2.4, 2.6, and 4.10, are all good passages to prove that God is not interested in just an elite few. He's interested in them all.

That not only contradicts the exclusivism of Gnosticism, it also contradicts the exclusivism of what other theological system? Calvinism. Calvinism teaches that only the elect are to be saved, and that Christ only died for the elect. Christ did not die for the sins of everybody, they say.

They say, this is the third cardinal point of Calvinism, is that it's a limited atonement. The atonement, or the sacrifice of Christ, was only intended for the elect, not for everybody. And yet, these verses in 1 Timothy seem to argue against a limited atonement, just as much as against Gnosticism, because it says, in verse 4, God desires all men to be saved.

In verse 6, who gave himself ransom for all, not just for the elect, he ransomed all. And, in chapter 4, verse 10, he's the savior of all men, and especially those who believe. In some sense, his salvation is available to all men, of course.

Of course, he is, in reality, the savior of those who come to embrace that salvation through faith. Anyway, we see this apparent pseudo-intellectualism, exclusivism, asceticism, possibly some antinomianism, probably an opposition to the incarnation and the resurrection. These are the factors of the heresy that point in the direction of Gnosticism.

And the fact that Paul mentions that there are teachers of the law, and follow Jewish fables, and there are the circumcision, and so forth, only tells us that this is Gnosticism attached to Judaism, which is not uncommon. It was not at all uncommon in those particular periods. Now, by the way, the Jewish Kabbalah, which is an occultic writing of the Jews, and followed by many of the European Jews, is basically Jewish Gnosticism.

I don't know if you've heard of the Kabbalah, or read of the Kabbalah. It is a Jewish book, but it is the book of Jewish Gnosticism, and it has been, and is, followed by many Jews, especially Polish Jews, and Russian Jews, not all, but you even hear people in the United States talking about the Kabbalah as if it has some authority, too. I don't know if I can.

I think it's K-A-B-A-L-L-A-H. I think that's how you spell it. The Kabbalah.

I'm sure they have a copy of it over at Lenton, in the library. Okay. Okay, we've talked about the heresy.

I think it's a fair assumption due to all the data, given that it is probably Gnosticism that is the problem here. Although, as we pointed out in the first session, Gnosticism was not a full-blown systematized system until the second century, early in the second century, but it certainly had all its elements in motion in the first century, and that's clearly a problem to some of the churches that Paul wrote to, and the churches that John wrote to. Okay? Now, let's talk about some of the prevailing vocabulary and concerns and themes in these epistles.

I mentioned that we can pretty well affix a date to 2 Timothy, because it speaks of Paul's imprisonment just before his death. I mean, that can be determined. If, as the Church Fathers tell us, Paul was executed by Nero in 67 A.D., then we have identified the date of 2 Timothy as very close to that time.

I said, however, that 1 Timothy and Titus also belong to that period of time in all likelihood, although they don't give this evidence of their date. The reason for saying so is because of the considerations that I'd like to bring up right now, and that is that there are just so many thoughts, vocabulary, words, and expressions, and concerns that are thick in the pastorals that are either absent from other writings, or else used rarely in other writings. That is, they have an emphasis and a visibility in the pastorals that give the impression that all these letters were written about the same time and about the same concerns.

As I said, we have the same reason for believing that Ephesians and Colossians were written at the same time. The circumstances and the concerns and the themes of those epistles are almost identical to each other, and we'll find that true in these epistles, too. In fact, I wish I had included on your self-study questions on the pastorals some requirement that you dig out themes and vocabulary words in the pastorals that are used either exclusively in the pastorals, or at least more frequently in the pastorals than elsewhere.

You could have gotten a long list. I made a list of my own over the weekend as I was reading it. I've got one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, fifteen themes that I've found that are, as I said, either exclusively found in the pastorals, or they are found there more than in other places, that is, in other comparable-sized documents in the New Testament.

One of the main stressed points, and actually there's two that are one, is that there's stress on teaching and on doctrine. The word doctrine appears very frequently in these epistles. Occasionally, the expression sound doctrine is used.

Only in the pastorals do you find the expression sound doctrine. This expression is used three times in the pastorals, and a similar expression, good doctrine, or wholesome doctrine, or something like that, is also found. But the word doctrine itself is found very frequently, and the companion term teaching.

I'm going to give you the references, and we'll look at them, but I want you to see that probably more than any other theme in this book, Paul is concerned about doctrine and teaching. Now, doctrine simply means teachings. We think of doctrine frequently as theology, and that's not wrong to do.

But it's not simply theology, it's not just doctrines of what the correct concepts about God are, but rather moral teachings also are part of the doctrine that Paul is concerned about. In fact, probably more than anything. Almost always whenever Paul gives us some clue as to what he means by doctrine, it has to do with practical behavior.

The teachings of the Church, the teachings particularly of Christ. The doctrine of the Church, Paul identifies with the words of our Lord Jesus Christ. In chapter 6, verse 3, chapter 6, verse 3 says, If anyone teaches otherwise, does not consent to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, enter the doctrine, which is according to Godliness.

Notice, the words of our Lord Jesus Christ. This is very important. Because a lot of people, even modern Christians, are more concerned about the words of Paul or some other part of Scripture than about the words of Jesus.

Whereas in the early Church, what was called sound doctrine was simply what Jesus taught. And an awful lot of what Jesus taught had to do with what you ought to do in certain situations. How you ought to behave in marriage.

How you ought to react if somebody wants to take you to court. What you ought to do with your money. And many things like that.

Forgiving people. And things like that. I mean, the teachings of Jesus are practical for the most part.

Sure, there's some doctrinal things there, but they're practical. Therefore, Paul's concern here is that sound doctrine be taught as opposed to the teachings of false doctrine. Now, let me run through as many references as I found without a concordance to teaching and some of these will also overlap with the verses I have about doctrine.

I have two lists. One list of passages about teaching. One list of passages about doctrine.

And in some cases, doctrine and teaching are the same verse. We'll start at 1 Timothy 1.3 I urged you when I went to Macedonia remain in emphasis that you may charge some that they teach no other doctrine. They will have teaching and doctrine both.

Don't teach any other doctrine, he says. In 1 Timothy chapter 1.10 we first encounter an expression of sound doctrine. He says for fornicators and sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, these are who the law is given for.

If there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine. Now notice what sound doctrine is. The things that are contrary to it is murdering, fornicating, sodomizing, kidnapping, lying, perjuring.

In other words, sound doctrine has to do with moral behavior. These things are contrary to sound doctrine. Okay, we next come to 1 Timothy 2.12 where he says, and I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man.

Of course, we'll talk about that separately. But the interest in teaching is there. In chapter 3 and verse 2 a bishop at the end of that verse is said to be able to teach.

Chapter 4 verse 6 again we encounter a reference to sound doctrine. If you instruct the brethren in these things you will be a good minister of Jesus Christ nourished in the words of faith and of good doctrine which you have carefully followed. Okay, and then the next verse no, not the next verse.

Verse 11 1 Timothy 4.11 These things command and teach. And then verse 13 Till I come give attention to reading to exhortation to doctrine which is simply teaching. And also verse 16 Take heed to yourself and to the doctrine.

Okay, so he's doctrine and teaching are very prominent here. We go to chapter 5 verse 17 Let the elders who rule well be kind of worthy of double honor especially those who labor in the word and doctrine, that is in teaching. Chapter 6 verse 1 Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor so that the name of God and his doctrine may not be blasphemed.

Likewise, verses 2 through 3 And those who have believing masters let them not despise them because they are brethren but rather let them serve them because they are to be benefited And exhort these things. Last line in verse 2 Teaching exhorts these things verse 3 of Ammon teaches otherwise and does not consent to all some words. We read that already.

And to the doctrine which is according to God. Notice how many times here he's concerned about doctrine and the issue of teaching. Likewise, in 2 Timothy chapter 2 the same concern runs through this book.

2 Timothy 2.2 He says And the things that you have heard from me among faithful witnesses many witnesses commit these to faithful men who also will be able to teach others. He wants to make sure that the teachings he's given continue to be taught after he's gone. Likewise, in verse 24 2 Timothy 2.24 And the servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all able to teach.

2 Timothy 3.10 says But you have carefully followed my doctrine manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, love, perseverance the doctrine, again. Also verse 16 2 Timothy 3.16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God is profitable for doctrine that is for teaching. And chapter 4 verse 2 3 Preach the word, be ready in season and out of season convince, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and teaching for the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine but according to their own desires because they have itching ears they will heap up for themselves teachers.

So we've got enough concern about false teachers and true teachers and sound doctrine and those who depart from sound doctrine. In Titus 1.11 again or 1.9 actually 1.9 1.11 In 1.9 he says An elder should hold fast the faithful word as he has been taught that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and convince those who come today. An elder should be a teacher of doctrine.

Verse 11 Whose mouths must be stopped to subvert whole households teaching things which they ought not for the sake of dishonest gain. Also in chapter 2 of Titus Titus 2.1 again sound doctrine appears but as for you speak the things which are proper for sound doctrine. Then verse 4 That they admonish the young women to love their husbands to love their children The word admonish means teach.

Or at least it's related same concept. Verse 7 That in all things showing yourself a pattern of good works in doctrine showing integrity integrity of doctrine. Verse 10 Not fell free but showing all good fit that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior in all things.

And finally in verse 12 The grace of God has appeared teaching us. And so throughout 1st and 2nd Timothy and Titus we have probably more references to teaching and doctrine than anything else. It's one of the most prominent ideas.

And therefore Paul shows at the end of his lifetime a concern largely for teaching. He also shows a concern for evangelism and preaching. He does say do the work of evangelists he does say preach the word he does say exhort and rebuke but more often than anything he says teach.

Make sure that people don't teach the wrong things. Make sure you teach the right things. Make sure you commit the things you have to commit to others so that they can teach because the word of God is given to us to teach us that we can have it's proper for doctrine.

And so Paul is Paul begins to see the ministry within the church that is most needed is teaching. Now as we were saying earlier since these epistles seem to be written so that a man might know how to conduct himself in the house of God and there is more in these epistles than any other about how a church ought to run how a church ought to be organized it becomes quite clear that one of the main activities of the church ought to be teaching. Teaching good doctrine and what is good doctrine? It is the words of our Lord Jesus Christ Paul says.

So what the church ought to be about doing is teaching people the thing Jesus said to teach them. Jesus said go and teach all nations teaching them to do all things I have commanded you. Therefore the task of the church and the main activity of the church should be to teach people to do what Jesus said.

That's that. And we see that certainly as Paul's concern here. You may have noticed in reading through the pastoral how many times the expression these things occurs.

You ever notice that? Teach these things. If you teach and exhort these things if you remind them of these things you will be a good minister. Let me give you a few references to that.

This may get tedious because you will have a very comprehensive list when you are done. I could have you fishing more often. You probably cheat and use a concordant.

In 1 Timothy 4 No I shouldn't say that. You are honest people. I wouldn't think of doing such a thing.

1 Timothy 4.6 If you instruct the brethren in these things you will be a good minister of Jesus Christ. Notice he actually he tells Timothy what to teach. Teach these things.

Timothy is not supposed to innovate new interpretations new doctrines. He is supposed to teach the things that Paul told him to teach. That is what we saw and we won't look there now but 2 Timothy 2.2 The things that you have heard from me in the presence of everyone is the same commitment to faithful men who will teach others those things.

Well, if you instruct the brethren in these things you are a good minister he says. Also, verse 11 same chapter 1 Timothy 4.11 These things come in and teach. And also in verse 15 Meditate on these things give yourself entirely to them.

These things in the pastoral epistles are apparently very important. You should meditate on them teach them give attention to them. Further use of the same expression is found in chapter 5 verse 7 And these things command that they may be blameless.

Chapter 6 verse 2 Chapter 6 verse 2 at the end of that verse teach and exhort these things. 2 Timothy 2.14 Remind them of these things. Titus 2.15 Speak these things.

Exhort and rebuke with all authority. Also Titus 3.8 This is a faithful saint and these things I want you to affirm constantly. Now this expression these things obviously is very common very frequent in the pastoral epistles and it usually has to do with these things that are to be taught.

Paul, as I said tells Timothy exactly what things a minister of God ought to teach. Therefore any minister of God ought to pay attention to these things in the pastoral epistles so that he might be a good minister as Paul told Timothy he should be. Another thing you probably found frequently though not quite as frequently reading through the pastoral epistles was the expression this is a faithful saint.

You might have a translation that reads a little different. Some say this is a trustworthy word or something like that or this saying is true or something but in the Greek it's literally this is a faithful word. A faithful saint.

On one occasion when he says this he seems to be quoting something and that is in chapter 2 Timothy 2.11 this is a faithful saint and then he quotes what as I pointed out earlier something is a creedal statement some would call it a hymn and therefore he would be saying this is a saying that you well know and I want to tell you it's a true one it's a faithful one we can trust this one. We can't trust the idle speculations of these false teachers but we can trust this. However most of the time when he says this is a faithful saint he does not appear to be quoting anything in particular any kind of a creedal statement he's just making a statement of his own and affirming that it is a trustworthy statement.

And it's interesting because we don't find this expression anywhere else in the Bible. This is a faithful saint. It is found in Jewish liturgy however in Old Testament times as well as I think modern.

After the Shema is uttered at the beginning of a synagogue service the Jews have certain prayers they offer and there are references in the prayers to the faithful saints this is a faithful saint and Paul no doubt picked up the expression from his Jewish background but essentially he didn't use it earlier in his epistles he used it only in these. But apparently he needed to stress certain points which were being contested by Paul's teachers and he wanted to emphasize a little bit like Jesus emphasized things by saying verily verily I say unto you which simply means truly truly it's a way of saying this is a true statement not as if everything else he said wasn't quite as true but you had better hang on to this truth more than ordinary statements because this is a very important statement that is faithful and needs to be adhered strictly to. Yes? Do you think that it's a possibility that some of these are moral things? Scripture in a Jewish half-Jewish home the expression this is a faithful saying may have been very familiar to Timothy from the synagogue service whereas as you mentioned the other letters were not usually written to Jewish audiences and therefore maybe that's why they have it but it's a good point.

Well it seems like when Jesus said to the Pharisees a couple of times go and learn what that meant he was using the expression that the Jews themselves used as speaking like a rabbi. So Paul also when he wanted to affirm something he sometimes in these epistles as nowhere else would preface it but this is a faithful saying I won't look them all up I'll give you the references though 1 Timothy 1.15 then the next one is 1 Timothy 3.1 then you have it again in 1 Timothy 4.9 then 2 Timothy 2.11 and then Titus 3.8 I'm not sure that these so-called faithful sayings have any more importance than the other things in the epistles the reason for pointing them out like this is simply to show how these three epistles do come from the same author quite obviously and concern probably the same period of his life because in earlier times or in other epistles he didn't use that expression but he uses it in all three of these epistles again it's another one of those binding cords of vocabulary that tie these epistles to each other that this is in all of them. Another thing that I observed long ago not just this most recent time when I was digging things up but something I noticed several years ago is how prominent the word committed is in the pastoral epistles things that are committed for example in 1 Timothy 1.11 Paul says according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust and then in verse 18 Paul says this charge I commit to you son Timothy and then in 1 Timothy 6.20 he says oh Timothy guard that which was committed to your trust something was committed to Paul in 1.11 and then committed to Timothy in 1.18 and 6.20 then in 2 Timothy 1.12 he says for this reason I also suffer these things nevertheless I'm not ashamed for I know whom I believe and I'm persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed to him until that day God had committed the gospel to Paul Paul committed the gospel to Timothy and he committed something to God namely his own life I presume and therefore God will keep that which I have committed then also 2 Timothy 1.14 that good thing which was committed to you keep by the Holy Spirit who dwells in you then in 2 Timothy 2.2 and the things which you have heard from me among many witnesses commit these to faithful men so Paul committed them to Timothy now he wants him to commit them to faithful men Paul himself had committed to him from God Titus also uses the expression in Titus 1.3 but has in due time manifested his word through preaching which was committed to me according to the commandment of God our Savior again there may be nothing overly significant about the use of this word except that it's an unusual word elsewhere I mean he doesn't use it with quite the same frequency in other writings but it's a very so small a body of writing since the past or epistles it appears in a disproportionately large number of cases which suggests that it's a thought that was on his mind how that he has been committed to something he's been entrusted some translations say entrusted which is perhaps another way a good way to look at it because the idea is that he's a steward of something that's been committed to his charge if somebody commits a piece of work to you you have a responsibility you can't just walk away from it it's been entrusted to you your loyalty and your faithfulness is at stake that which is entrusted to you or committed to you you have an obligation to fulfill or else you will lose credibility you'll lose faith you will not be able to establish trust easily again and so falsely it's a way of his speaking of his obligation to preach the gospel God has committed something to him entrusted something to him and he's got to keep it in good condition like a steward who's been given ten talents or something he's got to be able to deliver those back undestroyed if anything increased but Paul says the message I preach is something God has committed to me I don't want to tamper with it I don't want to give it I have to stand on judgment day and say the thing he committed to me got all torn to pieces and it's in no good condition anymore because the truth was lost through these heresies and so forth so Paul sees his teaching which he had committed to him he commits to Timothy and Timothy is to commit it on to faithful men to carry it on it's like a trust that's been given to Paul from God now he passes along to Timothy he's supposed to pass it on to another generation beyond himself the term good works is extremely frequent in these epistles and that's important because these epistles also teach justification by grace especially Titus chapter 3 verse 5 has a very clear statement of justification by grace and yet it makes it clear that Paul's doctrine of justification by grace through faith does not eliminate the need for good works if anything these epistles stress good works as no other part of the Bible does more than James you know James is sometimes thought to be the one who presses for good works he does press for good works in one place these epistles do throughout excuse me let's examine this theme in these epistles 1 Timothy 2.10 before his first encounter it says women should not be adorned with embroidered hair or gold or pearls or costed clothing but with that which is proper for women professing God is good works they should be adorned with good works later on in this we don't have ourselves but in Titus chapter 2 it says that when servants behave as they should they adorn the doctrine of God in Titus 2.10 servants should not be pilfering but showing all good fidelity that they may adorn the doctrine of our God women should be adorned with good works when they are they will also adorn the gospel of God that is make it attractive to people our lives and our good works should attract people to the gospel it should be it should adorn the gospel Jesus said that too let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works and glorify your father God is glorified by good works in the lives of Christians so a woman's main adornment should be that of her works not her clothing and styles next time we encounter good works and we do quite a few times chapter 3 verse 1 this is a faithful saying if a man desires a position of a bishop he desires a good work being a bishop being an overseer being an elder is a good work for a Christian to aspire to and if God has informed him chapter 5 verse 10 says that the widows who are considered to be supported by the church should be well reported for good works ok and in chapter 5 verse 25 he talks about in verse 24 some men's sins are clearly evident preceding them to judgment those of some men follow later likewise the good works of some are clearly evident and those that are otherwise cannot be hidden we'll talk about the meaning of that verse later but he says to talk about good works there as well favorably chapter 6 verse 18 the rich are exhorted to do good that they may be rich in good works ok so the true adornment of a woman is to be good works the true riches of a rich man are to be his good works he is to be rich in good works and the woman is to be adorned in good works and good works are simply to be good the main characteristic of the Christian life is Christians do good things they should live a good life and do good things and adorn the gospel that way in 2nd Timothy there are also references to good works 2nd Timothy 2 21 says therefore if anyone cleanses himself from the latter he will be a vessel of honor sanctified and useful for the master prepared for every good work and chapter 3 verse 17 says that he is more good per chapter than any of these other places in Titus 1 16 says they profess to know God but in works they deny him being abominable disobedient and disqualified for every good work now we talk about people being ready for good works or prepared for good works equipped for good works these people are unqualified for good works because in their actions they deny God even though they profess to know him these are professing Christians but they are not Christians they deny him by their actions Titus 2 7 in all things showing yourself to be a pattern of good works so Titus is to demonstrate himself to be a good a person of good works likewise 2 14 Titus 2 14 Christ gave himself for us that he might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for himself his own special people zealous for good works we are redeemed not by good works but by what Jesus did but we are redeemed to be zealous for good works he redeemed the people who he intended to find zealous for good works chapter 3 verse 1 Titus remind them to be subject to rulers and authorities to obey to be ready for every good work again good work chapter 3 verse 8 this is a faithful saying in these things I want you to affirm constantly that those who have believed in God should be careful to maintain good works and finally in Titus 3 14 and let our people also learn to maintain good works to meet urgent needs that they may not be unfruitful so we can see good works a leading theme if you ever need to talk to people who are antinomian and by the way the stress on good works may suggest that he is trying to counter antinomianism in a way that he doesn't have to in other epistles so much because this kind of stress on good works certainly is in contrast to the idea that it doesn't matter how you live you are just saved by faith anyway no you are saved by faith but it certainly does matter how you live I mentioned earlier that conscience is a leading vocabulary word in these epistles and Paul mentions conscience in a few places elsewhere mainly in 2nd Corinthians and also in Acts a couple of times he says in Acts that he has maintained a good conscience before God and that he makes it his priority to maintain a good conscience before God and man likewise in Timothy and Titus we find the need for a clean conscience as paramount Paul talks about a clean conscience in these epistles as if it has got to be one of the leading concerns of course that is close to good works because if you do good works you will have a clean conscience if you do evil works you won't you do evil works your conscience will condemn you but if you do good works you will have a clear conscience and so this is very closely connected to maintain a clean conscience is a paramount requirement of living the Christian life and of course that is done by avoiding evil works and doing good works and also of course when you do fall out of the sin seeking cleansing of the conscience through the blood of Jesus Christ by confessing your sins but notice for example 1st Timothy 1.5 now the purpose of the commandment some tradition say the goal of our instruction which I like a little better than the purpose of the commandment but anyway the purpose of the commandment is love from a pure heart from a good conscience and from sincere faith from which that is from sincere faith and good conscience and pure heart some have been strayed and turned aside to idolatry so some have more or less violated their conscience and turned aside to these heresies that he has so much to say against later again in the same chapter in verse 19 he says having faith and a good conscience which some having rejected concerning the faith have suffered shipwreck and he gives a couple of examples a couple of men have shipwrecked their faith because they put away the need to maintain a good conscience they have ignored their conscience in other words they have gone into sin and error despite the fact that their conscience once protested in chapter 3 verse 9 speaking of the qualifications of deacons chapter 3 verse 9 he says holding the mystery of the faith with a pure conscience deacons have to be clean conscience Christians 1st Timothy 4 2 those who are the false teachers are said to speak lies in their hypocrisy having their own conscience seared with a hot iron one of their main problems their conscience is no longer sensitive in 2nd Timothy 1 3 2nd Timothy 1 3 Paul says I thank God whom I serve with a pure conscience as my forefathers did he serves God with a pure conscience Titus 1 15 describing those who are evil he says in the latter part Titus 1 15 he says but to the unbelieving to those who are defiled and unbelieving nothing is pure but even their mind and conscience are defiled we'll talk more about the conscience when we go through but I just want to point out how frequently that theme appears in these letters likewise the expression good and acceptable it only appears twice but it's an unusual enough expression that even to appear twice in one letter shows a stylistic preference on Paul's part but in 1st Timothy 2 3 after he tells us to pray for rulers that we might have a peaceable and honest life he says in 1st Timothy 2 for this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior it is good and acceptable if you're going to maintain a clean conscience you're going to be concerned about things that are good and acceptable with God because pleasing God is is how you maintain a clean conscience before God and he uses this expression this is good and acceptable he uses the same expression over in chapter 5 verse 4 where he says if any widow has children or grandchildren let them first learn to show piety at home and repay their parents for this is good and acceptable before God the same expression this is good and acceptable to God and then over in Titus 3 8 we have not the same expression but a very similar one Titus 3 8 at the end of that verse it says these things are good and profitable to men now the expression we consider it elsewhere says good and acceptable to God so now it says good and profitable to men to do what is acceptable to God is profitable to you certainly it's not profitable for you to do things that are not acceptable to God and good things are I mentioned that there's frequent reference to knowing the truth I don't think I gave you all the references to that we will encounter those as we go through you'll probably recall that there's quite a few references to people departing from the faith one of the main themes is people departing from the faith that makes the pastoral epistles an important source of information when considering the question of eternal security they're not the only source but they are a rich source on the question of eternal security that is on whether a person can lose their salvation or not because probably more than any other comparable length passages in the bible they are full of references to people denying the faith departing from the faith making their faith shipwrecked and so forth and if one asks whether it is possible for a believer to depart from the faith and to have departed from the faith certainly would imply no faith no salvation because you're saved by faith these passages seem to point in a certain direction in that way also there's a higher visibility of Satan in Paul's writings here than in most of his writings he mentions Satan and the devil more frequently than in most of his writings in 1st Timothy 1.20 when he talks about the two heretics Hymenaeus and Alexander he says at the end of 1.20 that the two delivered to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme then again in 1st Timothy 3 verses 6 and 7 when it's talking about the qualifications of an elder 1st Timothy 3 6 and 7 by the way I dug all these things out of concordance this weekend what did you do? I hope you read as carefully the pastoral epistles but I enjoyed it I enjoyed it I hope you did and I'm giving you the benefit of my hard work I hope you enjoyed I hope you appreciate me not really chapter 3 verses 6 and 7 the elder should be not a novice lest being puffed up with pride he fall into a poor translation here the same condemnation as the devil actually the Greek says the condemnation of the devil ok the next verse says moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside lest he fall into the reproach and the snare of the devil so the devil is seen as a problem I don't know whether now or later is the best time to tell you why I don't like the translation of verse 6 what it actually says is that the person who is puffed up with pride can fall into the condemnation of the devil now that expression can mean two things it can mean condemnation from the devil the devil condemns him puts him under condemnation or it could mean the same condemnation the devil has fallen under the same condemnation as the devil now notice the New King James Translators have done you a disservice of deciding for you which it means and they have unfortunately made the wrong choice Paul does now see this this particular interpretation they take of course supports the idea that Satan fell because of pride because they say if the elder falls because of pride he'll experience the same condemnation the devil did in other words he'll be following in the example of the devil which comes from the assumption that the devil is a fallen angel followed by pride however the wording of Paul does not support this he used the expression the condemnation of the devil which could conceivably taken in isolation mean what they have here but look at the next verse the end of chapter 7 verse 7 says the snare of the devil the same sort of form of speech the condemnation of the devil the snare of the devil the guy has to be aware of the condemnation of the devil and the snare of the devil are we supposed that they should translate this the same snare the devil got snared in the translators don't try that there's obviously a parallelism in the form of these two verses in the way they end one warns about the condemnation of the devil the other the snare of the devil the snare of the devil is the snare which the devil lays the snare which the devil perpetrates therefore the condemnation of the devil should be understood in the same sense the condemnation that the devil perpetrates not the condemnation that the devil fell into so I'm a little disappointed with the New King James translation for departing from literalism here in order to get to the end of the church it's the kind of thing you expect from the NIV but you don't expect that from the New King James ok more references to the devil are found elsewhere chapter 5 verse 15 1st Timothy 5 15 Paul says some have already turned aside after Satan so Paul really sees the devil at work in these churches here in 2nd Timothy chapter 2 and verse 26 and that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil having been taken captive by him to do his will by the way there's the same expression snare of the devil that we found in chapter 3 verse 7 and if anyone argued that snare of the devil means the snare that the devil has fallen into they would have to justify it here which they cannot here it's clearly the devil that lays the snare so the devil and Satan are mentioned more frequently in these passages than in many and also there's a strong recurrence of the spiritual warfare motif reference to the good fight the good soldier the good warfare interesting there's four passages in the pastoral in 1st and 2nd Timothy four passages that use this warfare motif and in every case whether it's talking about warfare fight or soldier it always prefaces with good the good soldier the good fight the good warfare presuming that there's another kind of warfare another kind of warfare that isn't good that'd be physical warfare I believe but spiritual warfare is good warfare as opposed to the evils of ordinary warfare anyway examples for that are in 1st Timothy 1.18 Paul certainly sees himself and Timothy locked into a battle with error with the devil and he says this charge I commit to you in 1st Timothy according to the prophecies previously made concerning you that by then you may wage the good warfare chapter 6 verse 12 he says fight the good fight of faith and lay hold on the eternal life you've got the good warfare and the good fight in 2nd Timothy chapter 2 verses 3 and 4 you therefore must endure hardship as you as a good soldier of Jesus Christ no one engaged in warfare entangles himself in the affairs of this life that he may please him who has enlisted him as a soldier he doesn't use the word good warfare or good soldier in verse 4 because he's talking about natural warfare and natural soldiers there is an example but the Christian is in the good warfare he's a good soldier he's got to behave as a good soldier and then the final reference of this type is in 2nd Timothy verse 7 where Paul says I have fought the good fight I have finished the race so the references to the good fight the good warfare the good soldier there's four references in the two books of Timothy to this Christian warfare idea it suggests that he sees this doctrinal error this Gnosticism is actually the work of Satan he says many have already turned aside after Satan and he is locked into battling against Satan and it's a good warfare to be in and you've got to be a good soldier you've got to have the same attitude that a soldier has a couple of other points I can make quickly in the next few minutes that are prominent there are some passages that may suggest that there were some problems with women in the Ephesian church and possibly in Crete there's more references that look toward the Ephesian church now we know very well I'm sure you're familiar with the fact that one of the most important statements that seems to limit the ministries of women is found in 1st Timothy chapter 2 where he says I do not permit a woman to teach and usurp the authority of a man some believe that this teaching only applies to that particular situation in Ephesus Timothy was in Ephesus and there was apparently doctrinal problems heretics and so forth in Ephesus some argue that some of these heresies were promoted by women teachers now that may be true that may be true the question of whether that teaching extends beyond Ephesus into the church of all time we'll have to consider at the proper time when we deal with that passage but I believe there is some evidence that there were some problems with some women in the church now by the way this is not an anti-woman statement because there were problems with some men he also makes reference to men that were troublemakers and he names some of them all I'm saying is that whereas in many cases only the men are troublemakers in Ephesus it would appear there might have been some women who were in some respect involved in leading problems areas too the first reference is in 1 Timothy chapter 2 in verses 9 through 15 he tells what a woman ought to behave like and he ends that passage by suggesting that women should not be teaching or in positions of authority over men we'll examine the limits of that teaching or whatever when we come to it but the first passage where there may be some suggestion that women may need to be kept in their place or something in 1 Timothy chapter 4 let me see if I've got the right one here I'm looking at 2 Timothy 4 1 Timothy chapter 4 in verse 7 he says but reject profane and old wives fables and exercise yourself rather to godliness now in 1 Timothy old wives fables suggests that there may be he talked earlier about Jewish fables and so forth that were a problem there might have been some old women in the church that were promoting some of these wrong teachings he says stay away from those old wives fables chapter 5 verses 13 and following he says and besides they meaning widows younger widows who are unmarried besides they learn to be idle wandering about from house to house not only idle but also gossips and busybodies saying things which they ought not therefore I desire that the younger widows marry and bear children and manage the house and give no opportunity to the adversary oh there's the devil again I missed that reference there's another reference to Satan there to the adversary to speak reproachfully of course the adversary might not be the devil the adversary might be just the opponent of Christianity and there were some but he does say in verse 15 for some have already turned aside after Satan and the word Satan means adversary however Satan is a Hebrew word in verse 14 we have the Greek word for the adversary but interestingly he's talking about women here some women have already turned after Satan and they go around as busybodies saying things they shouldn't say and they give occasion to the enemy and so forth so there may have been some problems with some of the women in Ephesus also in 2nd Timothy on this point 2nd Timothy 2nd Timothy chapter 3 6 he talks about male teachers who subvert women it says in chapter 3 verse 6 of 2nd Timothy of this sort are those who creep into households and make captives of gullible women loaded down with sins led away by various lusts now exactly what kind of captivity he has in mind is not specifically stressed but it's quite clear that certain women have been victimized because they're gullible and lustful and they have followed up these false teachers and whether the women then after having done so have become you know promulgators of the teaching is not clear in Titus chapter 2 in verses 3 through 5 he gives specific instructions to several categories of people old men young men old women young women and he tells the older women in verse 3 likewise that they should be reverent in behavior not slander not giving them much wine teachers of good things now old women should teach they should teach good things whom should they teach verse 4 they should admonish the young women to love their husbands to love their children to be discreet chaste keepers of home good obedience to their own husbands that the word of God may not be blasphemed so it sounds like he was concerned and he was mindful that the word of God sometimes is blasphemed by women who are not in their proper role and perhaps there were some people in some women in Ephesus that were a problem because he mentions it frequently enough in these epistles we can't be certain but there may be some hint that among the perpetrators of false teaching or troublemakers were women in the church two other passages of interest and that is in 1st and 2nd Timothy both Paul predicts that worse things can be expected in the future in other words things are bad now and he's waging a good fight against them but he knows from what God has shown him that things are going to get worse before they get better in 1st Timothy 4 1 he says now the spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith giving heed to seducing spirits and so forth it goes on he talks about demons there as well doctrines of demons so he predicts that in the future things are not going to be really better but worse likewise in 2nd Timothy 3.1 2nd Timothy 3.1 he says but know this that in the last days perilous times will come now here we seem to see the term last days used a little differently than he uses it and other writers use it elsewhere because in all other occurrences in the New Testament last days seems to refer to the time in which the writer lives whereas here Paul seems to treat it as a future period the last days of what? well if as I've suggested elsewhere last days means the last days of the Jewish system he could still be looking for the future because this was 67 AD there were still three and a half years before Jerusalem fell and those three and a half years were the worst years they were perilous times indeed because in those very years those very three and a half years before Jerusalem fell were the years when there was all kinds of upheaval in the Roman Empire and it was not just Jerusalem that suffered that was the three and a half years of the Jewish war which ended in 70 AD with the fall of Jerusalem the Jews revolted and the Jews in 66 AD and that's what brought war in Palestine and it was a bloody war the Jews actually drove back the Romans a couple of times and it almost seemed like they would win so that the Romans suffered heavy losses later after this Nero committed suicide and there was bloody civil war in Rome and several people vying for position as emperor there was one year where there were five emperors Nero and then three successors in rapid succession who reigned for one month and three months and six months and then finally Vespasian became emperor but there was a lot of unrest a lot of danger a lot of perilous times came in the last days just before the fall of Jerusalem we're talking now 66 to 70 AD and all these things happened it was not just the Jews but the whole Empire experienced tremendous upheavals in that period of time and so Paul may well have those last days in mind he in some of his writings indicates he is living in the last days and his readers are but he may mean now the very last part of the last days the few remaining years before the fall of Jerusalem and it's going to get real bad and I think if you read Josephus you'll find that the description of the way people will be in the last days in verses 1 through 5 of section 53 is pretty much like what you find in Jerusalem during the siege and during the Anyway, those are the main themes I'm sure that it has seemed labored for many of you that's the kind of labor I enjoy you may not I love to dig those kind of things out when I study the Bible but I at any rate when we get into it we will now encounter familiar material at every turn so when we start going through 1 Timothy tomorrow in our classes a lot of these ideas will already be familiar with you because we've surveyed them in this manner so we will start going through the material hopefully we'll finish it by early Friday so that we can get into Hebrew time I'm not sure