Setting Right Those Other Texts - 34
Who was Paul writing to and for what reason?
We must look at Scripture to decide what is normative for us today. That is the rule. When we stop to consider those three other topics from Paul’s first letter to Timothy, we find that they are not so much questions of cultural differences at all.
For instance:
1. Women are not being taught that braided hair, pearls and gold are off limits. The point Paul is making is that women concerned about godliness should dress modestly with self-control. She shouldn’t be concerned about ostentatious apparel, but good works should become her focus.
Scripture supports Scripture here as the Apostle Peter makes the same point, but more obviously. He writes, “Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear— but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious.” (1 Peter 3:3-4)
Certainly, Peter was not banning clothing?! Just as he was not banning gold jewelry or braided hair. Peter, like Paul, was simply setting priorities. A woman should clothe appropriately the heart and spirit, for that is what God is after.
2. Paul tells Timothy, “No longer drink only water, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments.” (1 Timothy 5:23) To whom does that Scripture apply? To Timothy. He was the one with the frequent stomach problems. Paul advises wine in a medicinal way to his younger Christian brother.
Does this apply today? I think there are universal things we might glean from it. For eg. our fundamentalist brothers should not be quick to condemn the drinking of wine, for the Apostle would not have told young Timothy to sin. Also, there might very well be medicinal, or perhaps, calming effects produced by the drinking of wine. However, the biblical instruction is for Timothy. Period.
It should not difficult for us to limit the application to Timothy, for it is Timothy that Paul directly intended to follow his recommendation. Timothy was the “audience”.
3. Finally, Paul wrote, “This charge I entrust to you, Timothy, my child, in accordance with the prophecies previously made about you, that by them you may wage the good warfare, holding faith and a good conscience. By rejecting this, some have made shipwreck of their faith, among whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme.” (1 Timothy 1:18-20)
To whom does this text apply? Is it a universal prescription to the Church? Perhaps if your name is Timothy, Hymenaeus, or Alexander!
No. The biblical instruction was quite limited to the persons Paul names. However, we can still take a couple of universal applications away.
Firstly, there is a “good warfare” that is able to be waged; and “faith and a good conscience” play a part in it. Such Christian warfare is repeated in other New Testament passages and applied to the Church as whole and not just Timothy - thought he too is a member of the Church.
Secondly, we learn that men have been known to shipwreck their faith. That is a word we should not take lightly.
Thirdly, we learn that Satan has been used by a Church authority (Paul) to teach blasphemers a lesson. And that is a theme that reoccurs in Scripture as well.
Some people belittle Scriptural passages as “culturally bound”. They don’t like when others try to apply the Bible to today’s generation. They mock such attempts. They consider many portions of God’s Word outdated and meant for another people in another time, just not ours!
I side with J. Robertson McQuilkin. He writes, “...To set aside any of Scripture simply on the basis that it is cultural and therefore valid only for one specific cultural setting is to establish a principle that can be used to set aside any or even all biblical teaching. The interpreter thus becomes the authority over Scripture...”.1
McQuilkin, J. Robertson, Problems of Normativeness in Scripture: Cultural Versus Permanent, from Hermeneutics, Inerrancy, & the Bible, Editors: Radmacher and Preus, copyright 1984, p. 238. McQuilkin also states emphatically, “…a fully authoritative Bible means that every teaching in Scripture is universal [normative] unless Scripture itself treats it as limited.”