Lesson 14 “Courage
for the Gospel” 2
Timothy 1:1-18
ID:
Inductive Questions (Asking the text questions like who, what, where, when,
why, & how?”)
CR: Cross
References (Comparing Scripture to Scripture, understanding the vague by the
clear.)
WS: Word
Study (Understanding definition, theological meaning, and usages in other
passages.)
The
WORD: What does the Bible say?
Context: Read all four chapters in 2 Timothy if you have
time. Look for hints about where Paul
was when he wrote this letter (1:8, 16: 2:9; 4:6)? Keep an eye out for repeated words and
ideas. What is the main theme or “melodic
line” for 2 Timothy (1:7-8;
2:3-4; 3:14-15; 4:5-7)? Read 2
Timothy 1:1-18 again in a more literal or
more dynamic translation
than you usually use.
1. ID: (1:1-5) What do we learn about Paul and Timothy in
these verses?
2. ID: (1:6, 8, 13, 14) What was Timothy commanded to do in
this chapter? What reasons were given
for each command?
3. WS: (1:11) What were Paul’s three roles toward the
gentiles? What is the difference between
them?
4. CR: (1:12) What had Paul committed to the Lord? What is “that day?” (Start your study with a
review of how Paul uses this phrase in his letters to the Thessalonians
and Timothy.)
5. ID: (1:15-18) Who were Phygellus
and Hermogenes? Who was Onesiphorus,
and what did he do to help Paul?
6. ID: Christ is mentioned or referred to over ten times in
this chapter. Summarize all the things
we learn about Christ in 2nd Timothy chapter one.
The
WALK: What should I do?
1. Do you have a gift that needs to be stirred up? Can you think of way you served the Lord in
the past but has been neglected recently?
2. Do you have times when you are “ashamed” of Christ? How can the truths in verse 8-12 embolden us?
3. Are Christians in chains for the Gospel in our modern
times? How can we share in the
sufferings for the Gospel of other believers?
4. Take some time to pray together for the “persecuted
Church.” You may want to refer to some
reports of persecution by Open
Doors USA, Christian Solidarity Int., or Voice of the Martyrs.
5. CSBI: What are some common misunderstandings about the
meaning of inerrancy as it relates to the Bible?
Going Beyond: 1.
Memorize 2 Timothy 1:7 or 1:12. 2. What areas of theology are touched on in
this passage?
q The Bible (Bibliology) q God (Theology Proper) q The Father (Paterology)
q The Lord Jesus Christ (Christology) q The Holy Spirit (Pneumatology) q Man (Anthropology)
q Salvation (Soteriology) q The Church (Ecclesiology) q Angels & Satan (Angelology)
q
Future Things (eschatology)
THE WORD OF GOD AND TRUTH
The meaning of “truth” should be self-evident, but
this has not been the case where discussions of the truthfulness of the Bible
are concerned. What is truth? Some have argued that the Bible is not
truthful unless it conforms to modern standards of scientific precision -no
round numbers, precise grammar, scientific descriptions of natural phenomena,
and so forth. Others have taken an
entirely opposite view, arguing that the Bible is truthful so long as it
attains its general spiritual ends, regardless of whether it actually makes
false statements. Articles XIII through
XV thread their way between these extremes. They maintain that the Bible is to be
evaluated by its own principles of truth, which do not necessarily include
modern forms of scientific expression, but argue at the same time that the
statements of Scripture are always without error and, therefore, do not mislead
the reader in any way. Article XIV deals
with the way apparent discrepancies involving problems not yet resolved should
be handled.
ARTICLE
XIII: TRUTH
We affirm the propriety of using inerrancy as a
theological term with reference to the complete truthfulness of Scripture.
We deny that it is proper to evaluate Scripture
according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or
purpose.
We further deny that inerrancy is negated by biblical phenomena
such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or
spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods,
the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material,
variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free
citations.
With the
combination of the affirmation and denial of Article XIII regarding the term
inerrancy, it may seem to some that, in view of all the qualifications that are
listed in the denial, this word is no longer a useful or appropriate term to
use with respect to the Bible. Some have
said that it has “suffered the death of a thousand qualifications.” The same, of course, could be said about the
word “God.” Because of the complexity of
our concept of God, it has become necessary to qualify in great detail the
differences in what is being affirmed and what is being denied when we use the
term God. Such qualifications do not
negate the value of the word, but only serve to sharpen its precision and
usefulness.
It is
important to note that the word inerrancy is called a theological term by
Article XIII. It is an appropriate
theological term to refer to the complete truthfulness of Scripture. That is basically what is being asserted with
the term inerrancy: that the Bible is completely true, that all its
affirmations and denials correspond with reality. Theological terms other than inerrancy are
frequently in need of qualification and cannot be taken in a crass, literal
sense. For example, the term
omnipotence, when used to refer to God, does not literally mean what it may
seem to. That is, omnipotence does not
mean that God can do anything. The
omnipotence of God does not mean that God can lie or that God could die or that
God could be God and not God at the same time and in the same relationship. Nevertheless, as a term that has reference to
God’s complete sovereign control and authority over the created world,
omnipotence is a perfectly useful and appropriate term in our theological
vocabulary. Because the term inerrancy must be qualified, some have thought that it
would be better to exclude it from the church’s vocabulary. However, the qualifications of the term are
not new nor are they particularly cumbersome, and the word serves as an appropriate
safeguard from those who would attack the truthfulness of Scripture in subtle
ways.
When we speak of inerrancy, then, we are speaking
of the fact that the Bible does not violate its own principles of truth. This does not mean that the Bible is free from
grammatical irregularities or the like, but that it does not contain assertions
which are in conflict with objective reality. The
first denial that “the Bible ought not to be evaluated according to standards
of truth and error alien to its own use or purpose” indicates that it would be
inappropriate to evaluate the Bible’s internal consistency with its own truth
claims by standards foreign to the Bible’s own view of truth. When we say that the truthfulness of Scripture
ought to be evaluated according to its own standards that means that for the
Scripture to be true to its claim it must have an internal consistency
compatible with the biblical concept of truth and that all the claims of the
Bible must correspond with reality, whether that reality is historical, factual
or spiritual.
The second
denial gives us a list of qualifications that is not intended to be exhaustive
but rather illustrative of the type of considerations which must be kept in
mind when one seeks to define the word inerrancy.
Modern
technical precision. Inerrancy is not vitiated by the fact, for example, that the Bible occasionally uses round numbers.
To say that truth has been distorted when, for example, the size of a crowd or
the size of an army is estimated in round numbers would be to impose a
criterion of truth that is foreign to the literature under examination. When a newspaper even in modern times says
that 50,000 people assembled for a football game they are not considered to be
engaging in falsehood, fraud or deceit because they have rounded off a number
of 49,878, for example, to 50,000. It is
an appropriate use of quantitative measurement in historical reporting that
does not involve falsehood.
Irregularities
of grammar or spelling. Though it is more beautiful and attractive to speak the truth with a
fluent style and proper grammar, grammatical correctness is not necessary for
the expression of truth. For example, if
a man were on trial for murder and was asked if he killed his wife on February
13, and replied “I ain’t killed nobody never,” the crudity of his grammar would
have nothing to do with the truth or falsehood of his statement. He can hardly be convicted of murder because
his plea of innocence was couched within the context of rough and “errant” grammar.
Inerrancy is not related to the
grammatical propriety or impropriety of the language of Scripture.
Observational
descriptions of nature. With respect to natural phenomena it is clear that the Bible speaks
from the perspective of the observer on many occasions. The Bible speaks of the sun rising and setting and of the sun moving
across the heavens. From the perspective of common observation it is perfectly
appropriate to describe things as they appear to the human eye. To accuse the Bible of denying planetary
motion would again be to impose a foreign perspective and criterion on the
Scriptures. No one is offended when the
weatherman speaks of sunrises and sunsets. No one accuses the weather bureau of seeking
to revert to a medieval perspective of geocentricity or
of falsifying the weather forecast by speaking of sunsets and sunrises. Those terms are perfectly appropriate to
describe things as they appear to the observer.
The reporting
of falsehoods. Some have maintained that the Bible is not inerrant because it reports
falsehoods such as the lies of Satan and the fraudulent teachings of false
prophets. However, though the Bible does
in fact contain false statements, they are reported as being lies and
falsehoods. So this in no way vitiates
the truth value of the biblical record, but only enhances it.
The use of hyperbole. The use of hyperbole has
been appealed to as a technical reason for rejecting inerrancy. However, hyperbole is a perfectly legitimate
literary device. Hyperbole involves the
intentional exaggeration of a statement to make a point. It provides the weight of intensity and
emphasis that would otherwise be lacking. That the Bible uses hyperbole is without
doubt. That hyperbole vitiates
inerrancy is denied. The framers of the
document maintain that the use of hyperbole is perfectly consistent with the
Bible’s own view of truth.
Other matters, such as the topical arrangement of
material, the use of free citations (for example, from the Old Testament by the
New Testament writers) and various selections of material and parallel accounts,
where different writers include some information that other writers do not have
and delete some information that others include, in no way destroys the
truthfulness of what is being reported. Though
biblical writers may have arranged their material differently, they do not
affirm that Jesus said on one occasion what he never said on that occasion. Neither are they claiming that another
parallel account is wrong for not including what they themselves include. As an itinerant preacher Jesus no doubt said
many similar things on different occasions. By biblical standards of truth and error is
meant the view used both in the Bible and in everyday life, viz., a
correspondence view of truth. This part
of the article is directed toward those who would redefine truth to relate
merely to redemptive intent, the purely personal or the like, rather than to
mean that which corresponds with reality. For example, when Jesus affirmed that Jonah was in “the belly of the great fish” this
statement is true, not simply because of the redemptive significance the story
of Jonah has, but also because it is literally and historically true. The same may be said of the New Testament
assertions about Adam, Moses, David and other Old Testament persons as well as
about Old Testament events.
------------------------------------------------------------
