Why the phrase “man of God” in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 does not refer to every Christian generally but to Church leaders specifically.
Earlier, I examined 2 Timothy 3:16-17 to show why Scripture cannot be said to claim for itself all-sufficiency. Here are the verses once more:
Every Scripture is God-inspired and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness, in order that the man of God may be perfect, equipped for every good work (2 Timothy 3:16-17)
Thanks to a comment from Perry Robinson to me, I was compelled to look at this phrase in 2 Timothy 3:17, “man of God.” The phrase occurs more than sixty times in the Scriptures, more than forty of them in 1-2 Kings, where they refer most often to Elijah, Elisha, and the unnamed prophet out of Judah of chapter 13. In all “man of God” refers to the prophets--all instances of the phrase are to named prophets or unnamed but specific prophets--nearly fifty times, Moses (eight times), David (three times), the angel that appeared to Samson's parents (twice), to the son of Igdaliah (Godolias in the LXX), a Levitical priest (once), to St. Timothy (once at 1 Timothy 6:11), and to the unspecified “man of God” in our text under consideration, though contextually its most proximate target would be St. Timothy.
From this follows 4 observations and a corollary:
1. “Man of God” is never used in Scripture to refer to the people of God generally, but to specific persons.
2. “Man of God” always refers to a prophet, priest, King or Church leader, never to the general people of God. Since this is so for every other occurrence, then even 2 Timothy 3:17, though it does not name a specific person, contextually can only refer to a Church leader.
3. We know from passages such as Acts 15:35; 18:11; 20:20, 28-31; Romans 12:7; Colossians 1:28; Ephesians 4:11; 1 Timothy 3:2; 2 Timothy 2:24; 4:2; Titus 1:10-14 and Hebrews 13:7 that teaching and correction was an essential part of Church leadership (though Colossians 3:16 could be construed more broadly to apply to Church members generally, and 1 Corinthians 14:26 to those with the charism of teaching, which only the more emphasizes teaching and correction as essential to Church leadership).
4. Given 1-3, then, St. Paul is telling St. Timothy that Scripture is useful for Church leaders “for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness.” Whatever else we may say about Scripture and Christians generally, this specific verse is not for application to Christians generally, but to Christian leaders specifically.
5. As a corollary to 4--especially in light of such verses as Acts 15:1; 20:28-31; Colossians 2:22; Titus 1:10-14--when Christians who are not Church leaders make use of Scripture, they should ensure that their teaching conforms to the teaching of the Church leadership.
As I have indicated in my arguments elsewhere, Church leaders are responsible for the faithful transmission of the tradition of the Apostles, which ultimately means that all Scriptural interpretation, especially that of the laity, must conform to what the Church has always taught and believed from the beginning.
So, given my previous argument regarding 2 Timothy 3:16-17, that it does not claim the all-sufficiency of Scripture, and given this argument that the verses only apply to Church leaders specifically, it is now indisputable that Protestants cannot appeal to these verses for Scriptural all-sufficiency, for not only do the verses not make this claim (as I've previously proven), neither are they useful for any Christian generally, but for Church leaders particularly, and so even if their all-sufficiency were provisionally granted, it would not apply to all Christians indiscriminately, and therefore would violate the purported claim to be all-sufficient.
Posted by Clifton at August 11, 2005 01:46 PM | TrackBack“That the man of God may be perfect.” For this is the exhortation of the Scripture given, that the man of God may be rendered perfect by it; without this therefore he cannot be perfect. Thou hast the Scriptures, he says, in place of me. If thou wouldest learn anything, thou mayest learn it from them. And if he thus wrote to Timothy, who was filled with the Spirit, how much more to us!
- St John Chrysostom
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf113.v.iv.ix.html
Posted by: Huw Raphael at August 11, 2005 04:06 PMIndeed, Huw. And as I said in the post: "Whatever else we may say about Scripture and Christians generally, this specific verse is not for application to Christians generally, but to Christian leaders specifically." If it applies to us generally, it only does through the primary specific application.
Also, as I noted yesterday, these arguments are of limited value since they are taking place under certain specific rubrics ("Bible only"). Were I to speak of these verses to Orthodox, I would speak of the specific intent, but include a broader application.
Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at August 11, 2005 04:13 PMThere is a big differencebetween saying that the Scriptures ought to be read and saying that each individual has by right the authority to formulate doctrine by himself. The idea that the individual is bound by only what he himself can grasp or perceive in Scripture is not to be found in 2 tim 3. If that idea is part of SS, then it is not supported by 2 tim 3.
Posted by: Perry Robinson at August 11, 2005 06:44 PMI read St John's comments differently to say that if "man of God" and the exhortations applies to Timothy - who had the holy spirit - how much more does it apply to the rest of us. As far as the Orthodox teaching goes we are all of us - both clergy and laity, no more nor less - responsible for the transmission of the faith. We do not rely on clergy because they can err. We do not rely on one man, of course. And certainly not each ourself alone. But We are each the "man of God" that must take the correction of the Holy Spirit.
But I am confused by your reply - as well as by this series of posts - If you are trying to justify your points from a Bible-only stand point, are you not trying to do what you are saying you can not do? Maybe I misread something.
Posted by: Huw Raphael at August 11, 2005 09:20 PMI don't know the context of St. John Chrysostom's comment. Its possible that the "us" he is referring to is the priesthood. Just a thought?
However, I believe St. Augustine uses the "man of God" in 2 Timothy in a more general sense.
This is one time when a plain "let Scripture interpret Scripture" Bible-only method goes against the Protestant interpretation (if there is such a thing), but the Protestant interpretation agrees with the Church Father's interpretation.
I tend to think that the "man of God" refers those specially called (i.e. Church leadership), though its hard to be dogmatic about it.
Ken
Posted by: Ken at August 12, 2005 06:42 PMKen,
I agree...and wonder why the "double-standard"...why one set of behaviors for one class of Christian and another set of behaviors for the other class of Christian?
Not to disagree with Timothy, but maybe it is not that there are two classes, but an issue of success at following Christ. But if success is the issue, then where is grace...and around and around we go!
Posted by: Tripp at August 13, 2005 12:35 PM"Notional" Protestantism is such a different animal than what you are familiar with, Cliff. The prooftexting that you allude to, historical as it may be, and perhaps even contemporary, are so foreign to me.
I guess I do come from a more "Notional" viewpoint. I would not use the Timothy verse to prove nor disprove the theological stance that all are called to be men of God. No. I would try to demonstrate how being a man of God is indeed a prophetic witness, a gift of the Spirit, no more or less important than teaching, preaching or pastoring...and has nothing to do specifically with the priesthood at all.
All are called to perfection. All are called in some way to be people of God. All are called to the royal priesthood. The speifics are inessential.
Posted by: Tripp at August 14, 2005 12:18 PM