Oct 21
Scripture: "useful" to whom?
The unfamiliarity of the NRSV’s rendition of 2 Timothy 3 caught me off balance in thinking about today’s lectionary readings.
All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:16-17 my emphasis)
That emphasized phrase is intended as an inclusive rendering of the traditional “man of God” (ὁ τοῦ θεοῦ ἄνθρωπος). But I think here it’s a mistake. Versions of that phrase often occur as a title of dignity, if not office, in the Greek Bible. (NB In the following not exhaustive list of references Hebrew / English verse numbers are in brackets where they differ) In Deuteronomy 33:1, Joshua 14:6 and the ascription to Psalm 89 (90), Moses is “the man of God.” In Nehemiah 12:24, 36 it is David. In 1 Samuel 9:6,10 the initially anonymous “man of God” is referred to as a “seer” (v11) and turns out to be Samuel (v14). In 2 Kings 6 & 7 it is used for Elisha. In 1 Kings 13 “the man of God” is anonymous and does the work of a prophet. and similarly in 1 Kings 21:28 (20:28). Judges 13:6 is anomalous in referring it to “the angel of the LORD” but all other references are to men who perform a particular and usually significant role.
Given both the scriptural resonances, and implied context of 2 Timothy where Paul is stiffening his protégé’s sinews to exercise authority, it seems we need to retain that phrase “man of God” and see it emphasizing the importance of Timothy’s instructional role. It is, in context, specifically for the duly appointed teacher, that Scripture is useful, and that interpretation is borne out by the fact that it is “useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness”, that is, teaching, reproving, correcting and training others primarily, though also, implicitly, himself.
If this is correct, then is it not also correct to say that this much quoted verse in support of the authority of scripture actually commends it first and foremost as a tool in the hands of the Church’s called and appointed teachers? It’s usefulness to individuals studying it for their own teaching and training must then be worked out as a secondary and subordinate application of this verse. But its primary contextual meaning does not give clear such clear support to this most common individualist use.
October 22nd, 2007 at 5:03 am
Very cool, Doug. There are of course plenty of other passages that imply that a devotional reading of scripture, while insufficient on its own, was hardly frowned upon. The passage that pops most readily to mind involves the Ethiopian eunuch.
REB over against NRSV, NAB, and NJB is the only one of the four that retains ‘man of God’ across Deut 33:1 and this passage. One gets the impression that often in these translations, the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing.
Does it matter? I think it matters a lot.
October 23rd, 2007 at 12:07 am
Indeed, John, I don’t mean to frown upon the devotional reading of scripture. (When are you going to try a translation of Psalm 119?) But, despite the normal use of this text, it seems to me to underline the teaching role of scripture in the exercise of an authorised ministry, and that is a different kettle of fish.
October 25th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
It is worth remembering that many of the Old Testament men of God were hardly equivalent to “the Church’s called and appointed teachers”, in being “called and appointed” by the priestly or secular authorities. Elisha was called and appointed by God and by Elijah, but remained at arm’s length from any institutions. Similarly the man of God in 1 Kings 13 and 20:28 (what version numbers this 21:28?). So you cannot use this argument in favour of use of and access to the Scriptures being restricted to those authorised by the church.