Truth: That Elusive Fellow
I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these things to you so that, if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of truth.
I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these things to you so that, if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of truth.
Paul has clearly stated his reason for writing Timothy in the above verses (1 Timothy 3.14-15). Given the prevailing relativism of a western postmodernist worldview Paul statement must seem strange indeed. The church, Paul contends, is the repository of truth about the work and person of Jesus Christ. Knowledge of and acceptance of this truth is essential for all people in all places and at all times. Whatever else one may claim to be true, it is subservient to Christ who is the image of the invisible God, the first born of all creation (Colossians 1.15-20). This is not to minimize the importance of the empirical sciences, nor to devalue the speculations of philosophy. Yet these things may only be properly appreciated when they are understood in the context of their relationship to the purpose of creation. In this relatively short two-part essay, we will first consider how truth is popularly conceived and in the second part what Paul has to say about the truth of work and person of Christ.
Truth in a postmodern world
Can anyone know right from wrong? A few years ago such a question would have raised more than a few eyebrows. Today hardly a person would claim to know the answer to that question. What does the Bible have to say about it? In a culture that is increasingly confused about morality, there are few people who speak up about moral absolutes. Relativism is the prevailing and determinative epistemology (theory of knowledge). Alan Bloom argues in his book, The Closing of the American Mind, that the open mindedness of pluralism will be the savior of western culture. (Let me add parenthetically that G. K. Chesterton said he always kept an open mind until he found something solid on which to close it.) Religiously minded people, in an attempt to be sensitive to the thoughts and feelings of others, are often seduced by an ill-founded appeal to be tolerant of the thoughts of others to recognize the obviousness that all things are somewhat relative. But the truth is that relativism is simply a variant form of anti-rationalism. It is a war against reason that has come to dominate the way in which people process information. In the academic circles of literature, social sciences and philosophy it is frequently referred to as the deconstructionist movement. Addressing this movement in education, Dinesh D’Souza commented in an issue of the Atlantic Monthly (March 1991): it is no exaggeration to say that the changes that are taking place are a revolution in ‘higher education.’ There is a kind of liberal closed mindedness that is driven by political expediency rather than a quest for truth and excellence.
Jacques Derrida, a past professor at Duke University and known as the intellectual father of deconstructionism, rejected the idea that human beings can rise above their circumstances. That is, everyone is presumed to be a product of his or her race, gender, class, and sexual orientation. All principles and standards are subordinate to political and social pressure and expediency. However, when these forces drive a culture in an ‘undesirable direction,’ it is impossible, under the terms now considered politically correct, to develop any reason to resist these social movements which are not deemed arbitrary. Of course, one cannot properly study or discuss the nuances of deconstructionism without depending on ‘un-deconstructed’ concepts. Though many people are influenced at a popular level by this system of thought, it is in the end a house of cards. It is a philosophical labyrinth that succeeds only in distorting true morality. There are no moral or ethical absolutes. There is no moral truth that transcends culture. A popular consensus is all that remains of morality. The rules of relativism prohibit ethical debates. The questions that remain focus on what is politically correct. Having forsaken God’s moral absolute in the Garden of Eden (And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die” – Genesis 2.16) the only thing that remains is an arbitrary indignation and a rage at subjectively perceived injustices.
Biblical truth and science
A few years ago I read John Polkinghorne’s little book, Quarks, Chaos & Christianity, and was impressed once again with the reasonableness of a biblical faith. Polkinghorne was a particle physicist and the former president of Queen’s College at Cambridge. When he retired from research and teaching he took orders to become an Anglican clergyman. Many might consider these two disciplines about as compatible as the solubility of oil and water. Of course, it is common to think of religion as a matter of the heart (or a flight of fantasy), which, by definition, is incompatible with the hard facts of science. Religion, so the argument goes, is speculative but science is investigative. The former deals with the metaphysics of the mind and the latter with the reality of the cosmos. The popular habit of segregating “truth” is nothing more than the illegitimate child of logical positivism (a philosophy which postulates that only sense perceptions can be adequate building blocks for epistemology). The fact is, truth knows of no such boundaries between science and religion. What is true of science is also true in the realm of religion. Faith is not something devoid of reason. Indeed, Paul Davies, in his book, God and the New Physics, says, “It may seem bizarre, but in my opinion science offers a surer path to God than religion.” Indeed, there is a rapidly growing list of scientists and a philosophers who have come to espouse a faith in God because the weight of scientific evidence suggests His existence. The Bible gives the only adequate definition of God (read Philosophers Who Believe, Inter Varsity Press).
It is not, as Polkinghorne readily admits “science works, therefore God exists, Q.E.D.” Frankly it does not seem possible either to prove or disprove God’s existence, and the Bible simply assumes it. However, the existence of the Creator explains why the world is in fact so profoundly intelligible, and there is nothing else that explains the world as we know it better than the Bible. Yet, the debate about God’s existence and character cannot be settled by an incontrovertible argument. There isn’t any such case to be made for God. However, neither is there any simple and single case to be made in science that will resolve the physics of quantum mechanics. Quantum physics is too complicated for that. And if such is the case for something so simple as this new physics (though it’s not really so new anymore), then it is reasonable to assume that the nature of God is also an issue that is too complex to quantify with some simplistic formula. That is not to say that we cannot make simple and true statements about God that a child can understand. But the ultimate nature of God is not simple. Just as we look for clues about the origin of the universe and, as a result of our inquiry, construct postulates and theorems, so too we are able to set forth truths about the nature of God and man from the evidence in creation that is apparent to all who diligently inquire after it. Moreover, the nature of the inquiry into these two fields of study is not altogether different (read Polkinghorne’s book for a further exposition of the similarities).
The Bible is not an exhaustive resource on all things, but it provides everything one needs to know about salvation. It instructs Christians how to live their lives in a manner that pleases God (2 Corinthians 7.1) and it is a logical alternative to philosophical skepticism. The Westminster Confession of Faith reads: “The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men” (Chapter 1, para. 6). One may argue the truth of Scripture is supported by its internal consistency (40 authors written over a period of 1600 years). Certainly archeological discoveries also confirm the biblical witness and the prophetic passages in the Old Testament are validated in the New Testament.
Although some may argue, not incorrectly, that such reasoning is circular, such a contention is not unwarranted. The theologian Wayne Grudem says, “Everyone either implicitly or explicitly uses some kind of circular argument when defending his or her ultimate authority for belief.” Grudem cites some examples: “‘my reason is my ultimate authority because it seems reasonable to me to make it so.’ ‘Logical consistency is my ultimate authority because it is logical to make it so.’ ‘The findings of human sensory experiences are the ultimate authority for discovering what is real and what is not, because our human senses have never discovered anything else: Thus, human sense experience tells me that my principle is true’” (Grudem, Bible Doctrine, 37–38). The Christian begins where the Bible begins: In the beginning, God …
Francis Schaeffer, in his book “He is There and He is not Silent” asserts that the biblical view of creation has a personal beginning to all things. “That is, it was not by chance (evolutionary hypothesis) that we are here on this planet. It is the direct result of a God who is there and is not silent. Within this framework, why would it be unthinkable that the non-created Personal (God) should communicate with the created personal (man) in a verbalized form if the non-created Personal made the created personal a language communicating being” (p. 93)? It is not at all incongruous that a personal and loving God should wish to communicate with His own creation. To have a personal relationship with God is not a non-cognitive experience, but one where every facile agency of the mind is needed.
Having come to such a conclusion, we can reasonably assume that one can know God through his own self-disclosure, namely, the Bible. Indeed I am constrained to believe that the Bible is the best starting place for knowing about God. Christians may begin with the assumption that while they may not know God exhaustively, they can know some things about him that are true. Their relationship with God is not wholly subjective. Thus, they ought not unwittingly to treat faith as an irrational belief system and subject it to inherent contradictions. Scripture advocates loving God with all of one’s mind, soul and strength. Consequently, any insistence upon the need to curb logic flies in the face of the Biblical mandate. Remember, God does not ask men to believe in their hearts that which is incompatible with their minds. In short, faith is not against reason, although the necessary consequence of revelation may require a belief in that which is beyond human experience: the Trinity, for example.
Truth entrusted to the church
The central theme of Scripture is the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ and the truth of it is entrusted to the church. The commission to hold forth the truth of the gospel is the most important task ever undertaken. It is the church’s responsibility to preserve the truth of the gospel without addition or subtraction and to propagate its message throughout the world. As Calvin observed, the church is the mother of all believers. Those who receive the truth of Christ are regenerate through the preaching of the Scriptures. It is by the word that believers are educated, strengthen and nourished throughout their lives. It is the immeasurable greatness of Christ, the limitless depth of his love and the wonder of his person and work that occupies the rarest minds of the centuries. The more one knows of Christ the better he is able to worship him.
The occasion for writing
During Paul’s second missionary journey (a mission that eventually took him to Greece) he added Timothy, whom he met in Lystra, to his missionary entourage. Following Paul’s release from Roman imprisonment and further mission to the east, he left Timothy behind at Ephesus to continue the apostle’s work with that fledgling church. Though there was more to be done, Paul had already spent an extended time in the region of Ephesus and he was resolved in the Spirit to continue on to Macedonia. It was Paul’s concern for the Ephesian church that prompted him to leave Timothy at Ephesus, thus providing them with sound leadership (1 Timothy 1.3-7). Paul realized that false doctrinal teaching might easily corrupt the thinking of new converts. This concern is voiced in the following section of his letter: Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth (1 Timothy 4.1-3).
Paul’s purpose in writing
Though Paul hoped to come to Timothy soon he has given him some basic instructions in case he was delayed. Paul’s instructions may have been things that Timothy already knew, but Paul intends to give him apostolic support and encouragement to persevere, thereby providing the leadership that is sorely needed in this logistically important church. In 1 Timothy 3.1-13 Paul instructs Timothy about the character traits of godly leadership. The overseers of the household of God (the church) are responsible to guard the souls of those who have been entrusted to them (1 Timothy 4.16; cp. Acts 20.28). The purpose of his writing is to insure that Timothy instructs the household of God to behave in a proper manner. Such behavior is to be expected from those who have been entrusted with the truth about the work and person of Jesus Christ. Indeed, the church of the living God is a pillar and buttress of truth. In the following hymnic statement Paul identifies six things that pertain to Christ. As members of the household of God it is incumbent on everyone to understand something about the work and person of Jesus Christ. After all, it is God who is at work in the life of every believer (Philippians 2.13). God is alive and so is the church!
The mystery of godliness
Paul introduces the work and person of Christ with the emphatic statement: Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness. Without confessing Christ as savior there can be no salvation. The confession that Jesus is Lord and savior is a necessary requirement of salvation. As Paul writes: if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved (Romans 10.9-10). With the revelation that Jesus is the Christ, the last word of salvation history has been uttered. Previously, no one completely understood how God would fulfill his covenant promises. It was a mystery of sorts that had been long hidden. Then, at just the right moment (Galatians 4.4), God’s plan was made clear to everyone (Romans 16.25; Ephesians 3.1-13; Colossians 1.24-2.3). Of course, Paul is not using the phrase, the mystery of godliness, in a proto-Gnostic or cultic sense. Some of Paul’s contemporaries were members of mystery cults, which taught that “salvation” was available only to the initiates of the mystery cult. The events surrounding the birth of Christianity, by way of contrast, were public knowledge. Indeed, everything about Jesus’ life and ministry was attested publicly. Even though the events of Jesus’ life, that is, his work and ministry, was public knowledge having been witnessed by a great many people (Acts 26.26), yet, only the elect received by faith the benefits of his efficacious work: The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned (1 Corinthians 2.14).
The work and person of Christ
Paul’s six-fold statement regarding Christ was probably an often-repeated liturgical affirmation of the work and person of Christ. Whether it was hymnic or creedal in its origin is a matter of debate. The section begins with a relative pronoun, which indicates it has an antecedent in a section of a liturgical document not included by Paul, though the subject matter of the section suggests it had reference to Christ. That Paul is referring to Christ is not debated, but precisely how these six lines are to be connected has not been universally agreed upon. It is not unreasonable however, to view the six lines as three couplets dealing with the revelation of Christ, the proclamation of Christ and the reception of Christ.
The contrasts are between flesh and Spirit, angels and nations, and world and glory and may be summarized as repetitions of the one antithesis of earthy and heavenly. Furthermore, if this analysis is correct, the six lines present also a chiastic pattern of a-b, b-a, a-b. The first of the three couplets presents Christ’s work accomplished, the second his work made known, and the third his work acknowledged.
Gundry suggests, on the other hand, that the hymn is framed by lines 1 and 6 and filled out by synthetically parallel lines 2-3 and 4-5. For all the insightfulness and plausibility of this view, it does not seem more plausible than the analysis of the statement into three pairs of contrasting couplets. The linkage of lines 1 and 6 is not readily evident over that between 1 and 2 and between 5 and 6 (George W. Knight III, The Pastoral Epistles, p. 183).
Revelation of Christ (1st couplet)
1. Jesus was manifested in the flesh: New Testament believers understood this to mean that Jesus Christ was truly God and truly man. That is, he was the pre-existent and eternal Word (John 1.1-14; Philippians 2.5-11) and that he was incarnate through the miraculous conception of the virgin Mary (this, indeed, is a mystery but it is not irrational). In all of this there is a suggestion that Jesus’ prior existence was voluntarily concealed in human flesh. “Massinger suggests that ‘although there is a grammatical irregularity in referring the masculine relative pronoun ὅς [he] to the neuter pronoun μυστήριον [mystery], the result is a wonderful truth, namely that the mystery of godliness is Christ Himself; that godliness, hidden in ages past, has now been revealed, and is seen not to be an abstract ideal, a mere attribute of personality, but actually a person, the Lord Jesus Christ’” (William Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, p. 227). John Donne poetically expresses the reason for the incarnation:
“And Jacob came cloth’d in vile harsh attire
But to supplant, and with gainful intent:
God cloth’d himself in vile man’s flesh, that so
He might be weak enough to suffer woe” (John Donne, Divine Poems 7).
2. He was vindicated by the Spirit: The content of the gospel was certainly validated by Jesus’ life and ministry (Matthew 3.16; John 9.31), but it was also vindicated by the Holy Spirit in his resurrection: and [Jesus] was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord (Romans 1.4; cp. 8.11). Jesus predicted that three days after his crucifixion he would of his own authority and power arise from the dead. Unlike those cults that despised the work of the flesh, the Spirit, through the resurrection, vindicated everything Jesus did in his body so that the world might believe that Jesus is the Christ of God.
Proclamation of Christ (2nd couplet)
3. He was seen by angels: The contrast between the heavenly beings in line three and the earthly disciples in line four accentuates the supernatural witness to the work and person of Christ. Angels bore witness to his birth (Luke 2.9-14), they witnessed and gave testimony to his resurrection (Matthew 28.2-7), and they explained the meaning of the ascension to the disciples who witnessed his departure from the earth (Acts 1.10-11). At each of these pivotal junctures there is a heavenly attestation to Christ’s salvific work.
4. Jesus was proclaimed among the nations: If all this be true, then what else can a man do but preach and teach the eternal truth that Jesus is Lord of heaven and earth. Jesus required nothing less than this of his disciples: Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Matthew 28.19-20; cp. 2 Timothy 4.2).
Reception of Christ (3rd couplet)
5. Believed on in the world. Men and women from every walk of life have committed themselves to Christ and worship him as Lord and Savior. When the good news of Jesus Christ is faithfully preached, people will believe in him to the saving of their souls: you [the Lamb] ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation, and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth (Revelation 5.9-10).
6. Taken up in glory. The Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world returned to the glory he enjoyed with his Father from all eternity past. In line one of this hymnic fragment Jesus is incarnate. In the final line he returns to the glory he knew with the Father before the world began (John 17.5; Acts 1.9-11). Jesus is now at the right hand of the Father (see my essay on The Session of Christ).
These truths then are entrusted to the church and believers are responsible for keeping them without additions or subtractions.
My words and thoughts do both express this notion,
that life hath with the sun a double motion.
The first is straight, and our diurnal friend;
The other hid, and doth obliquely bend,
One life is wrapt in flesh, and tends to earth;
The other winds towards him, Whose happy birth
Taught me to live here so that still one eye
Should aim and shoot at that which is on high;
Quitting with daily labour all my pleasure,
To gain at harvest an eternal treasure [cp. Colossians 3.1-4].
George Herbert
Truth in a postmodern world
Can anyone know right from wrong? A few years ago such a question would have raised more than a few eyebrows. Today hardly a person would claim to know the answer to that question. What does the Bible have to say about it? In a culture that is increasingly confused about morality, there are few people who speak up about moral absolutes. Relativism is the prevailing and determinative epistemology (theory of knowledge). Alan Bloom argues in his book, The Closing of the American Mind, that the open mindedness of pluralism will be the savior of western culture. (Let me add parenthetically that G. K. Chesterton said he always kept an open mind until he found something solid on which to close it.) Religiously minded people, in an attempt to be sensitive to the thoughts and feelings of others, are often seduced by an ill-founded appeal to be tolerant of the thoughts of others to recognize the obviousness that all things are somewhat relative. But the truth is that relativism is simply a variant form of anti-rationalism. It is a war against reason that has come to dominate the way in which people process information. In the academic circles of literature, social sciences and philosophy it is frequently referred to as the deconstructionist movement. Addressing this movement in education, Dinesh D’Souza commented in an issue of the Atlantic Monthly (March 1991): it is no exaggeration to say that the changes that are taking place are a revolution in ‘higher education.’ There is a kind of liberal closed mindedness that is driven by political expediency rather than a quest for truth and excellence.
Jacques Derrida, a past professor at Duke University and known as the intellectual father of deconstructionism, rejected the idea that human beings can rise above their circumstances. That is, everyone is presumed to be a product of his or her race, gender, class, and sexual orientation. All principles and standards are subordinate to political and social pressure and expediency. However, when these forces drive a culture in an ‘undesirable direction,’ it is impossible, under the terms now considered politically correct, to develop any reason to resist these social movements which are not deemed arbitrary. Of course, one cannot properly study or discuss the nuances of deconstructionism without depending on ‘un-deconstructed’ concepts. Though many people are influenced at a popular level by this system of thought, it is in the end a house of cards. It is a philosophical labyrinth that succeeds only in distorting true morality. There are no moral or ethical absolutes. There is no moral truth that transcends culture. A popular consensus is all that remains of morality. The rules of relativism prohibit ethical debates. The questions that remain focus on what is politically correct. Having forsaken God’s moral absolute in the Garden of Eden (And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die” – Genesis 2.16) the only thing that remains is an arbitrary indignation and a rage at subjectively perceived injustices.
Biblical truth and science
A few years ago I read John Polkinghorne’s little book, Quarks, Chaos & Christianity, and was impressed once again with the reasonableness of a biblical faith. Polkinghorne was a particle physicist and the former president of Queen’s College at Cambridge. When he retired from research and teaching he took orders to become an Anglican clergyman. Many might consider these two disciplines about as compatible as the solubility of oil and water. Of course, it is common to think of religion as a matter of the heart (or a flight of fantasy), which, by definition, is incompatible with the hard facts of science. Religion, so the argument goes, is speculative but science is investigative. The former deals with the metaphysics of the mind and the latter with the reality of the cosmos. The popular habit of segregating “truth” is nothing more than the illegitimate child of logical positivism (a philosophy which postulates that only sense perceptions can be adequate building blocks for epistemology). The fact is, truth knows of no such boundaries between science and religion. What is true of science is also true in the realm of religion. Faith is not something devoid of reason. Indeed, Paul Davies, in his book, God and the New Physics, says, “It may seem bizarre, but in my opinion science offers a surer path to God than religion.” Indeed, there is a rapidly growing list of scientists and a philosophers who have come to espouse a faith in God because the weight of scientific evidence suggests His existence. The Bible gives the only adequate definition of God (read Philosophers Who Believe, Inter Varsity Press).
It is not, as Polkinghorne readily admits “science works, therefore God exists, Q.E.D.” Frankly it does not seem possible either to prove or disprove God’s existence, and the Bible simply assumes it. However, the existence of the Creator explains why the world is in fact so profoundly intelligible, and there is nothing else that explains the world as we know it better than the Bible. Yet, the debate about God’s existence and character cannot be settled by an incontrovertible argument. There isn’t any such case to be made for God. However, neither is there any simple and single case to be made in science that will resolve the physics of quantum mechanics. Quantum physics is too complicated for that. And if such is the case for something so simple as this new physics (though it’s not really so new anymore), then it is reasonable to assume that the nature of God is also an issue that is too complex to quantify with some simplistic formula. That is not to say that we cannot make simple and true statements about God that a child can understand. But the ultimate nature of God is not simple. Just as we look for clues about the origin of the universe and, as a result of our inquiry, construct postulates and theorems, so too we are able to set forth truths about the nature of God and man from the evidence in creation that is apparent to all who diligently inquire after it. Moreover, the nature of the inquiry into these two fields of study is not altogether different (read Polkinghorne’s book for a further exposition of the similarities).
The Bible is not an exhaustive resource on all things, but it provides everything one needs to know about salvation. It instructs Christians how to live their lives in a manner that pleases God (2 Corinthians 7.1) and it is a logical alternative to philosophical skepticism. The Westminster Confession of Faith reads: “The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men” (Chapter 1, para. 6). One may argue the truth of Scripture is supported by its internal consistency (40 authors written over a period of 1600 years). Certainly archeological discoveries also confirm the biblical witness and the prophetic passages in the Old Testament are validated in the New Testament.
Although some may argue, not incorrectly, that such reasoning is circular, such a contention is not unwarranted. The theologian Wayne Grudem says, “Everyone either implicitly or explicitly uses some kind of circular argument when defending his or her ultimate authority for belief.” Grudem cites some examples: “‘my reason is my ultimate authority because it seems reasonable to me to make it so.’ ‘Logical consistency is my ultimate authority because it is logical to make it so.’ ‘The findings of human sensory experiences are the ultimate authority for discovering what is real and what is not, because our human senses have never discovered anything else: Thus, human sense experience tells me that my principle is true’” (Grudem, Bible Doctrine, 37–38). The Christian begins where the Bible begins: In the beginning, God …
Francis Schaeffer, in his book “He is There and He is not Silent” asserts that the biblical view of creation has a personal beginning to all things. “That is, it was not by chance (evolutionary hypothesis) that we are here on this planet. It is the direct result of a God who is there and is not silent. Within this framework, why would it be unthinkable that the non-created Personal (God) should communicate with the created personal (man) in a verbalized form if the non-created Personal made the created personal a language communicating being” (p. 93)? It is not at all incongruous that a personal and loving God should wish to communicate with His own creation. To have a personal relationship with God is not a non-cognitive experience, but one where every facile agency of the mind is needed.
Having come to such a conclusion, we can reasonably assume that one can know God through his own self-disclosure, namely, the Bible. Indeed I am constrained to believe that the Bible is the best starting place for knowing about God. Christians may begin with the assumption that while they may not know God exhaustively, they can know some things about him that are true. Their relationship with God is not wholly subjective. Thus, they ought not unwittingly to treat faith as an irrational belief system and subject it to inherent contradictions. Scripture advocates loving God with all of one’s mind, soul and strength. Consequently, any insistence upon the need to curb logic flies in the face of the Biblical mandate. Remember, God does not ask men to believe in their hearts that which is incompatible with their minds. In short, faith is not against reason, although the necessary consequence of revelation may require a belief in that which is beyond human experience: the Trinity, for example.
Truth entrusted to the church
The central theme of Scripture is the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ and the truth of it is entrusted to the church. The commission to hold forth the truth of the gospel is the most important task ever undertaken. It is the church’s responsibility to preserve the truth of the gospel without addition or subtraction and to propagate its message throughout the world. As Calvin observed, the church is the mother of all believers. Those who receive the truth of Christ are regenerate through the preaching of the Scriptures. It is by the word that believers are educated, strengthen and nourished throughout their lives. It is the immeasurable greatness of Christ, the limitless depth of his love and the wonder of his person and work that occupies the rarest minds of the centuries. The more one knows of Christ the better he is able to worship him.
The occasion for writing
During Paul’s second missionary journey (a mission that eventually took him to Greece) he added Timothy, whom he met in Lystra, to his missionary entourage. Following Paul’s release from Roman imprisonment and further mission to the east, he left Timothy behind at Ephesus to continue the apostle’s work with that fledgling church. Though there was more to be done, Paul had already spent an extended time in the region of Ephesus and he was resolved in the Spirit to continue on to Macedonia. It was Paul’s concern for the Ephesian church that prompted him to leave Timothy at Ephesus, thus providing them with sound leadership (1 Timothy 1.3-7). Paul realized that false doctrinal teaching might easily corrupt the thinking of new converts. This concern is voiced in the following section of his letter: Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth (1 Timothy 4.1-3).
Paul’s purpose in writing
Though Paul hoped to come to Timothy soon he has given him some basic instructions in case he was delayed. Paul’s instructions may have been things that Timothy already knew, but Paul intends to give him apostolic support and encouragement to persevere, thereby providing the leadership that is sorely needed in this logistically important church. In 1 Timothy 3.1-13 Paul instructs Timothy about the character traits of godly leadership. The overseers of the household of God (the church) are responsible to guard the souls of those who have been entrusted to them (1 Timothy 4.16; cp. Acts 20.28). The purpose of his writing is to insure that Timothy instructs the household of God to behave in a proper manner. Such behavior is to be expected from those who have been entrusted with the truth about the work and person of Jesus Christ. Indeed, the church of the living God is a pillar and buttress of truth. In the following hymnic statement Paul identifies six things that pertain to Christ. As members of the household of God it is incumbent on everyone to understand something about the work and person of Jesus Christ. After all, it is God who is at work in the life of every believer (Philippians 2.13). God is alive and so is the church!
The mystery of godliness
Paul introduces the work and person of Christ with the emphatic statement: Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness. Without confessing Christ as savior there can be no salvation. The confession that Jesus is Lord and savior is a necessary requirement of salvation. As Paul writes: if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved (Romans 10.9-10). With the revelation that Jesus is the Christ, the last word of salvation history has been uttered. Previously, no one completely understood how God would fulfill his covenant promises. It was a mystery of sorts that had been long hidden. Then, at just the right moment (Galatians 4.4), God’s plan was made clear to everyone (Romans 16.25; Ephesians 3.1-13; Colossians 1.24-2.3). Of course, Paul is not using the phrase, the mystery of godliness, in a proto-Gnostic or cultic sense. Some of Paul’s contemporaries were members of mystery cults, which taught that “salvation” was available only to the initiates of the mystery cult. The events surrounding the birth of Christianity, by way of contrast, were public knowledge. Indeed, everything about Jesus’ life and ministry was attested publicly. Even though the events of Jesus’ life, that is, his work and ministry, was public knowledge having been witnessed by a great many people (Acts 26.26), yet, only the elect received by faith the benefits of his efficacious work: The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned (1 Corinthians 2.14).
The work and person of Christ
Paul’s six-fold statement regarding Christ was probably an often-repeated liturgical affirmation of the work and person of Christ. Whether it was hymnic or creedal in its origin is a matter of debate. The section begins with a relative pronoun, which indicates it has an antecedent in a section of a liturgical document not included by Paul, though the subject matter of the section suggests it had reference to Christ. That Paul is referring to Christ is not debated, but precisely how these six lines are to be connected has not been universally agreed upon. It is not unreasonable however, to view the six lines as three couplets dealing with the revelation of Christ, the proclamation of Christ and the reception of Christ.
The contrasts are between flesh and Spirit, angels and nations, and world and glory and may be summarized as repetitions of the one antithesis of earthy and heavenly. Furthermore, if this analysis is correct, the six lines present also a chiastic pattern of a-b, b-a, a-b. The first of the three couplets presents Christ’s work accomplished, the second his work made known, and the third his work acknowledged.
Gundry suggests, on the other hand, that the hymn is framed by lines 1 and 6 and filled out by synthetically parallel lines 2-3 and 4-5. For all the insightfulness and plausibility of this view, it does not seem more plausible than the analysis of the statement into three pairs of contrasting couplets. The linkage of lines 1 and 6 is not readily evident over that between 1 and 2 and between 5 and 6 (George W. Knight III, The Pastoral Epistles, p. 183).
Revelation of Christ (1st couplet)
1. Jesus was manifested in the flesh: New Testament believers understood this to mean that Jesus Christ was truly God and truly man. That is, he was the pre-existent and eternal Word (John 1.1-14; Philippians 2.5-11) and that he was incarnate through the miraculous conception of the virgin Mary (this, indeed, is a mystery but it is not irrational). In all of this there is a suggestion that Jesus’ prior existence was voluntarily concealed in human flesh. “Massinger suggests that ‘although there is a grammatical irregularity in referring the masculine relative pronoun ὅς [he] to the neuter pronoun μυστήριον [mystery], the result is a wonderful truth, namely that the mystery of godliness is Christ Himself; that godliness, hidden in ages past, has now been revealed, and is seen not to be an abstract ideal, a mere attribute of personality, but actually a person, the Lord Jesus Christ’” (William Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, p. 227). John Donne poetically expresses the reason for the incarnation:
“And Jacob came cloth’d in vile harsh attire
But to supplant, and with gainful intent:
God cloth’d himself in vile man’s flesh, that so
He might be weak enough to suffer woe” (John Donne, Divine Poems 7).
2. He was vindicated by the Spirit: The content of the gospel was certainly validated by Jesus’ life and ministry (Matthew 3.16; John 9.31), but it was also vindicated by the Holy Spirit in his resurrection: and [Jesus] was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord (Romans 1.4; cp. 8.11). Jesus predicted that three days after his crucifixion he would of his own authority and power arise from the dead. Unlike those cults that despised the work of the flesh, the Spirit, through the resurrection, vindicated everything Jesus did in his body so that the world might believe that Jesus is the Christ of God.
Proclamation of Christ (2nd couplet)
3. He was seen by angels: The contrast between the heavenly beings in line three and the earthly disciples in line four accentuates the supernatural witness to the work and person of Christ. Angels bore witness to his birth (Luke 2.9-14), they witnessed and gave testimony to his resurrection (Matthew 28.2-7), and they explained the meaning of the ascension to the disciples who witnessed his departure from the earth (Acts 1.10-11). At each of these pivotal junctures there is a heavenly attestation to Christ’s salvific work.
4. Jesus was proclaimed among the nations: If all this be true, then what else can a man do but preach and teach the eternal truth that Jesus is Lord of heaven and earth. Jesus required nothing less than this of his disciples: Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Matthew 28.19-20; cp. 2 Timothy 4.2).
Reception of Christ (3rd couplet)
5. Believed on in the world. Men and women from every walk of life have committed themselves to Christ and worship him as Lord and Savior. When the good news of Jesus Christ is faithfully preached, people will believe in him to the saving of their souls: you [the Lamb] ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation, and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth (Revelation 5.9-10).
6. Taken up in glory. The Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world returned to the glory he enjoyed with his Father from all eternity past. In line one of this hymnic fragment Jesus is incarnate. In the final line he returns to the glory he knew with the Father before the world began (John 17.5; Acts 1.9-11). Jesus is now at the right hand of the Father (see my essay on The Session of Christ).
These truths then are entrusted to the church and believers are responsible for keeping them without additions or subtractions.
My words and thoughts do both express this notion,
that life hath with the sun a double motion.
The first is straight, and our diurnal friend;
The other hid, and doth obliquely bend,
One life is wrapt in flesh, and tends to earth;
The other winds towards him, Whose happy birth
Taught me to live here so that still one eye
Should aim and shoot at that which is on high;
Quitting with daily labour all my pleasure,
To gain at harvest an eternal treasure [cp. Colossians 3.1-4].
George Herbert