2017/3: Ministerial Training Today (2 Tim. 2:1- 15)
The imperative of training ministers of the gospel has never been questioned. Every denomination of churches has its own training schools. This has been the case from time immemorial. A key passage on ministerial training is 2 Timothy 2:2, “the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.” This verse must be understood in context, in its plain sense, and compared with other relevant scriptures. Our basic aim is to establish the fact that formal ministerial training is envisaged and enjoined. What is commanded in this verse? How is the command to be carried out? These are the basic questions we seek to answer, and to apply to ourselves today.
I. What is commanded?
The truth to be passed down
The executive word in the verse is “commit” or “deposit” (Gk., parathou), the noun of which is found in Chapter 1:12, 14. It is in the imperative, aorist tense — a command to be carried out decisively. The command concerns the things that Timothy had learned from Paul, which was to be passed down to faithful men, with the view that they teach others. While four generations of godly teachers are referred to here, the intention is clear — the system of truth which Paul received and which has been passed on to Timothy, was to be handed down to later generations faithfully until Christ returns. Paul’s teaching was no different from the teaching of the other apostles (Gal. 2:9). What Timothy learned from Paul was no different from what others had learned from him. There were “other witnesses” who had learned the same things from Paul. The Scriptures teach a system of truth that may be clearly defined. In Jude 3, it is called “the faith”. In Acts 20:27, it is referred to as “the whole counsel of God”. Then, in 1 Timothy 6:20 and 2 Timothy 1:12, 14, it is called the “deposit” in the KJV — translated as “what was committed to your trust” and “that (good) thing which was committed to you” in the NKJV of the Bible. Here, Paul calls it “the things you have heard”. While not all parts of the Bible are equally clear, and not all Christians are always agreed on every point of doctrine, it will not do for us to be vague on the teaching of the Bible.
The Creeds and Confessions of Faith handed down to us are attempts to define that faith. Consider the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Heidelberg Confession, the Westminster Confession, and the 1689 Baptist Confession as examples. In these documents, the doctrine of God, of salvation, and of the Christian life are clear. In the present passage of Scripture, we are told in verse 10, “I endure all things for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.” Timothy was to train teachers who would pass down the truth in order that the elect might be saved through its proclamation, and be prepared for eternal glory. We are told in verse 5, “If anyone competes in athletics, he is not crowned unless he competes according to the rules.” Faithful obedience to God’s word is needed to complete our spiritual race and arrive safely in heaven. In verse 15 we have these words, “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” There is such a thing as “the word of truth” that needs to be handled with accuracy and care.
The command, then, is to pass down the system of truth of the Bible to future generations, by training faithful teachers of the word.
The type of persons to be trained
Timothy was to select faithful persons for training. He was himself a faithful man although he seemed to have been somewhat timid (2 Tim. 1:7, 8; 1 Cor. 16:10). In verses 3 and 4, he is singled out as an example of the sort of people he should train. We read in verses 3 and 4, “You therefore must endure hardship as a good soldier of Jesus Christ. No one engaged in warfare entangles himself with the affairs of this life, that he may please him who enlisted him as a soldier.” Timothy was perhaps the most trustworthy and able man ever trained by Paul (1 Cor. 4:17). He had learned well in the school of adversity. He had the ability to discern errors and to “rightly divide the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:14, 15 cf. 1 Tim. 4:15-16), and he was an experienced evangelist (2 Tim. 4:5). Verse 2 must be seen in this light — Timothy was to “commit these to faithful men…”
Faithful men are men who are loyal to God and to His truth. He keeps covenant with God, and will pass on the truth without change in content or in intent. The prophet Hosea had an unfaithful wife. Israel was unfaithful to the Lord. We are not to be unfaithful to our God and Saviour. A faithful man will pass on the truth of God faithfully to the next generation. Another thing about a faithful man is that he is full of faith. Stephen, one of the first deacons of the church in Jerusalem, was “a man full of faith and the Holy Spirit” (Acts 6:5). Our text is plainly referring to training that is over and above that found in the normal ministry of the church, to which all church members are open to. It is the training of those who are serious about gospel ministry, just as soldiers are enlisted for service. In short, persons with proven spiritual character and giftedness are to be trained to pass on the truth.
Not all who are formally trained need enter full-time ministry, or to remain in full-time ministry for ever. The circumstances in a person’s life may change and God’s providential dealings with individuals differ. However, we would expect that all those who seek formal training are serious Christians, among whom would be many who are thinking of full-time gospel ministry of some kind. Indeed, we would expect many of them to have had a clear sense of calling to the gospel ministry. However, a seminary that only accepts those with a clear sense of calling might be depriving those who are not yet sure of their calling. This is true especially of the younger men. It takes time for many men who are called by God to come to an assurance of their calling. C. H. Spurgeon’s policy for his Pastors’ College was to accept only men who were already in ministry but lacked training. Such a policy worked well for his time, although we would question whether he missed out on the opportunity to train many who were contemplating ministry. Then, we must consider those who desire theological training with the view of engaging in the supportive ministries of the gospel — those who would become elders and not pastors, those who become Bible translators and book reviewers, those who become religious teachers in schools, etc.
The training envisaged is for faithful and spiritually gifted persons who would be in full-time pastoral ministry, primarily, but not excluding others who would be in the supportive ministries of the gospel.
Including women, too!
We put forward here a point on ministerial training that may horrify many — namely that women are to be included in formal theological training. We want to quickly add that we do not mean women may become ministers in churches, for they are specifically excluded from the elder’s office in the qualifications listed in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9. Those passages clearly require that a man (Gk., andros) of one wife may be considered for office (1 Tim. 3:2; Tit. 1:6). The apostle Paul specifically forbids women to teach in the public services of the church (1 Tim. 2:11-15; 1 Cor. 14:34-35). Teaching in church is linked to the wielding of authority over men, which is clearly forbidden to women (1 Tim. 2:12; 1 Cor. 11:3, 10). This is based on God’s will from creation (1 Tim. 2:13-15 cf. Matt. 19:4). We do not believe in the ordination of women to office — whether that of the elder or that of the deacon. We are aware that some churches have deaconesses, although not believing in the appointment of women elders or women pastors. The appeal to 1 Timothy 5:3ff. (on the support of widows) for the office of deaconesses is not convincing to us. The elder’s office is a clearly defined one, and so is the deacon’s. Having made that clear, it is to be noted that the word translated as “men” in 2 Timothy 2:2 is the general word for “people” or “persons” (Gk., anthropos), as is found elsewhere, e.g. in 1 Timothy 2:1; 2 Timothy 3:2. This is different from the word for males (Gk., andros) used in other instances such as 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6. It seems odd that Paul, who is so clear about the role of women — forbidding them to teach and to hold office in church — does not use the word for males, and uses instead the general word, “persons”, here.
It is to be noted that women are not forbidden to be involved in gospel ministry by accompanying their husbands, ministering to the needs of the missionary team, and even witnessing to unconverted men. In Romans 16:1, Paul says that Phoebe is “a servant of the church in Cenchrea” who “has been a helper of many and of myself also.” In Romans 16:3, the couple Priscilla and Aquila are mentioned as “my fellow workers in Christ Jesus”. In verse 6, Mary is described as one “who laboured much for us”. In verse 7, the couple Andronicus and Junia are “my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles (i.e. messengers or missionaries)”. In verse 12, the sisters Tryphena and Tryphosa (meaning “delicate” and “dainty”) “have labored in the Lord”. In the same verse, we are told that “Persis also laboured much in the Lord”. In Philippians 4:3, Paul refers to Euodia and Synteche as “women who laboured with me in the gospel”. It seems clear that some of the men who accompanied Paul in ministry had brought along their wives, and some single women had been helpers in gospel work in the places where Paul preached. Paul asks in 1 Corinthians 9:5, “Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?” If the practice of taking along the wives in gospel ministry was so well-established in the church of Jerusalem, we would expect it in Paul’s ministry as well. These ladies would have taught the women and children, and possibly even men as well when the occasion called for it. Women are forbidden only to speak in the public services of the church, but not in witnessing to unbelieving people, including to unbelieving men.
Another thing to note is that the verb “to teach” (Gk., didasko) is used in our text, and not “to preach” (Gk., kerusso) or “to exhort” (Gk., parakaleo). In the New Testament, “teaching” is a general term that covers all modes of imparting knowledge by words (e.g. 1 Tim. 3:2; 4;11; 6:3; 1 Cor. 12:28-29; James 3:1). It is shown in Ephesians 4:11-16 that the teaching of God’s word to build up the faith of believers is an important aspect of the church’s ministry. The general act of teaching may be subdivided into two distinct modes of delivery of God’s word, viz. teaching (used in the more specific, technical, sense) and preaching. The Lord engaged in teaching and preaching (Matt. 4:23; 9:35; 11:1). If there were no difference at all between the two activities — although allowing for considerable overlap between the two — why are two different words used? We have noted that women are forbidden to teach in the public services of the church. Such public teaching would be considered as “preaching”, since a mix congregation of men and women, including the elders, would be present. However, there is no explicit command forbidding women to teach the children and other women — whether in the home or in the church (2 Tim. 1:5 cf. 3:15; Tit. 2:3-5). Instead, there is explicit command for older women to be “teachers of good things” and to “admonish the young women” (Tit. 2:3, 4). While the men are to engage in teaching and preaching, the women may engage in teaching (the word used in its limited, technical, sense) only. From the many examples in the New Testament of women who were engaged in ministry by accompanying their husbands, and under the leadership of men, would it not be an asset if such women are trained today?
We contend that 2 Timothy 2:2 includes the training of men and women for the supportive ministries of the gospel, although the emphasis is upon the training of men for full-time pastoral ministry. In practice, this would require that the school makes arrangement for separate accommodation of the male and the female students, and for married couples. Rules of appropriate behaviour between them will be needed in the sustained interaction in the school.
II. How is the task to be carried out?
The establishment of a school
We have considered what is commanded by our text. The command is for the system of truth of the Bible to be passed down to men and women who are godly and gifted, who are to teach others. Along the way, we alluded to the fact that this is formal training that requires the establishment of a school. This is what we shall show next.
Paul was released from his first Roman imprisonment in AD 64. After preaching in Crete, Paul left Titus on the island with the instruction, “…you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city (Tit. 1:5)”. He had similarly left Timothy in Ephesus with the same task — to set in order the things that were lacking, and to appoint elders in every city in Asia. This is deduced by parallel reasoning, and from 1 Timothy 3:15, which says, “…if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.” These words follow the qualifications needed for the appointment of elders and deacons in the same chapter of 1 Timothy. Paul wrote his second epistle to Timothy round about the year AD 67, during his second Roman imprisonment. By that time, the church in Ephesus had existed for about 17 years. Ephesus had spawned a number of other churches in the Roman province of Asia. In “Jensen’s Survey of the New Testament”1, we are told that “Timothy’s ministry extended to all the local congregations in and around Ephesus, so any reference in this book [of 1 Timothy] to the “mother” church at Ephesus includes the satellite churches as well.” Following the example of the Lord, who trained the twelve on the move, Paul had trained Timothy, Titus, Silas, Epaphroditus, Luke, and a number of other men while on the move (Acts 20:1-6). However, the pioneering days were now over. The churches needed to be stabilised and the members built up in the faith (cf. Eph. 4:11-16). A school for the training of teachers was needed. From these considerations, we believe that 2 Timothy 2:2 is about the establishment of a school to train teachers of God’s word on a formal basis.
It must be noted that Paul was familiar with formal theological training. He was himself a student in the school started by the most celebrated rabbi of the day, Gamaliel (Acts 22:3 cf. 5:34). Gamaliel’s school in Jerusalem was known to have catered for 500 students.2 Paul was further trained as a Pharisee (Acts 23:6; Phil. 3:5). The schools to train the scribes and Pharisees had a long tradition. The Jews were familiar with “the school of the prophets” in the Old Testament, started by Samuel at Ramah (1 Sam. 19:19-20). In the days of Elijah and Elisha, such schools flourished in Bethel (2 Kings 2:3), Jericho (2 Kings 2:5), and Gilgal (2 Kings 4:38). The “sons of the prophets” lived in colonies for religious training, to study the law and its interpretation. They became teachers and preachers who denounced the sins of Israel (1 Kings 20:35-42; 2 Kings 17:13). In the days of Ezra and Nehemiah, the Levites were trained to be teachers of the Law (Neh. 8:7-9; Ezra 7:10). With such historical precedent and personal experience in training and being trained, it should not surprise us that what the apostle Paul had in mind was a school for the training of teachers of the word.
If Paul intended Timothy to establish a formal training school, as we are claiming, where would the needed tutors come from? Did Timothy have a team of able and qualified tutors to help him teach? During his second Roman imprisonment, Paul desired to see Timothy before his demise (2 Tim. 4:9). Mark appeared to be with him in Ephesus at this time (2 Tim. 4:11). Paul was sending Tychicus to replace Timothy during his absence (2 Tim. 4:12). Timothy was to see Paul in Rome by travelling via Troas (2 Tim. 4:13). William Hendriksen comments that “Troas was not far from Timothy’s headquarters at Ephesus.”3 On an earlier occasion, Paul had wanted Titus to join him in missions (Tit. 3:12-13). He was sending Artemas or Tychicus to replace him in his absence. Two other men, Zenas and Apollos had been with Titus in Crete to help in the work there. We see from all this arrangement that there were other men available to help Timothy. Furthermore, as Timothy engaged in training teachers, there would be those among them who graduated and became teachers together with Timothy (cf. Acts 13:1; 14:23). Timothy had been trained to “rightly divide the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15), and expression meaning “to cut straight” — referring to the exactness required in trades such as carpentry and the tent-making Paul was involved in. Timothy had also gone through the rigours of training in evangelism and church-planting, involving hardship, hard work, and perseverance (cf. 2 Tim. 2:3-7). The intellectual and practical training that he received while accompanying Paul would have formed the basis of his training of others. We can be sure that it was not a problem for Timothy quickly to have a team of qualified helpers to operate the training school.
The school to be established by Timothy was to maintain a strong mission-mindedness. We know that men like Timothy and Titus did not merely focus on their local ministry and neglect wider church planting. The principle that local church growth must go hand-in-hand with wider church planting is set down by Paul in 2 Corinthians 10:15-16, “…not boasting of things beyond measure, that is, in other men’s labors, but having hope, that as your faith is increased, we shall be greatly enlarged by you in our sphere, to preach the gospel in the regions beyond you, and not to boast in another man’s sphere of accomplishment.” Local church growth is alluded to in the increase in faith of the Corinthian church, while wider church planting is explicitly stated. In Acts 20, when Paul met with the Ephesian elders at Miletus, he showed that he had preached the gospel (vv. 20-21), taught the believers “the whole counsel of God’s word” (v. 27), and quietly done much good works (v. 35). The apostle had consciously followed the threefold ministry set by the Lord in Matthew 4:23 and 9:35. As a teacher of the church in Antioch, Paul took time off to carry out the Great Commission (Acts 13:1-3). As the pastor in Crete, Titus took time off to join Paul in wider church planting (Tit. 3:12).
The Nonconformists of the 17th and 18th centuries understood this principle well. John Owen (1616-1683) spoke typically: “When, therefore, there are great opportunities and providential calls for the preaching of the gospel unto the conversion of souls, and, the harvest being great, there are not labourers sufficient for it, it is lawful, yea, it is the duty of pastors of particular churches to leave their constant attendance on their pastoral charge in those churches, at least for a season, to apply themselves unto the more public preaching of the word unto the conversion of the souls of men.”4 Sadly, this principle of ministry is largely lost to many Reformed pastors today because of being unwittingly influenced by the writings of Episcopalian writers, especially Richard Baxter and Charles Bridges, who hold to a settled ministry that is tied to the territorial church concept.5 Many Reformed preachers today travel distances around the world to speak at, or attend, conferences and church camps, which is different from travelling to win souls and to plant churches.
The school to be started by Timothy was to train those who not only would teach in the churches but also engage in soul winning and church planting. Those to be trained included men who would become pastors of churches, as well as men and women who would be engaged in other gospel ministries.
Firmly church-based
We have noted that the church in Ephesus was the “mother” of the other churches in Asia. The book of Revelation mentions “the seven churches which are in Asia” (Rev. 1:4) when, in reality, there were more than seven churches in the Roman province of Asia. We know, for example, that there were churches in Colosse (1 Col. 1:2), Hierapolis (Col. 4:13) and Troas (Acts 20:7). Being a book of prophecy, “seven” is used as a round number to symbolise the perfect and complete number of Christ’s churches throughout the gospel age, which will end with His return to judge the world. Paul spent over three years in Ephesus, during which time he preached the gospel (Acts 20:20-21), taught the disciples “the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27), and quietly did much good works (Acts 20:34-35). As noted already, he was imitating the Lord’s pattern of ministry, taught in Matthew 4:23 and 9:35. Paul understood that the Great Commission is a command to the local church, to plant other local churches (Acts 13:1-3; 14:21-28). The principle of “the centrality and uniqueness of the local church in the purposes of God” was never lost sight of.
In the New Testament, churches are mentioned according to regions — “the seven churches which are in Asia” (Rev. 1:4), “the churches of Galatia” (Gal. 1:2), “the churches throughout all Judea, Galilee, and Samaria” (Acts 9:31), and “the churches of Macedonia” (2 Cor. 8:1). There were a number of churches in Crete (Tit. 1:5). The churches in each region were in close fellowship with one another — sharing in teaching (Col. 4:13), good works (2 Cor. 8:1), preaching the gospel, mutual support, and prayer (Acts 13:; 17:10, 14; 1 Thess. 1:6-8). Were the regional groups of churches bound together by rules? It would seem that rules-based associations had not come into existence in those days. Today, there is much discussion on church associationism. While this is not the place to discuss the issue, it is appropriate to note that the 1689 Confession seems to recognise the natural fellowship that binds churches that are planted by the same person(s) or spawned from the same church(es). We read of these words in the 1689 Confession (Chap. 26:14): “… the churches (when planted by the providence of God so as they may enjoy opportunity and advantage for it) ought to hold communion amongst themselves for their peace, increase of love, and mutual edification.” (Emphasis added.)
Since a training school is part-and-parcel of gospel ministry, it should be firmly church-based, i.e. held accountable to the church, or churches, which operate it. It should never be allowed to become a para-church organisation. Historically, this was not the case — schools and missionary societies became independent of the churches that started them, and soon departed from the original beliefs and objectives.
The norm for us today
When Paul said in 1 Corinthians 11:1, “Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ”, it must be understood that he intended us to imitate him not just in Christian living but in gospel ministry as well. Timothy was an apostolic delegate, carrying out the instructions of his mentor. In Philippians 3:17, Paul said, “Brethren, join in following my example, and note those who so walk, as you have us for a pattern.” Note the plural in the last words of this verse. The Philippian believers were to follow the example of others, such as Timothy and Epaphroditus (Phil. 2:19, 20), as well. The ministry of the apostolic delegates was an extension of the ministry of Paul. Knowing that his death was near, Paul’s instructions to Timothy, including the establishing of a training school, were his last. Whether or not Timothy managed to see Paul in Rome before his death is not known. The important thing to note is that Timothy was inheriting the ministry of Paul — one that transitioned from the foundational apostolic age to the normative age of the gospel. Passages such as 1 Corinthians 4:17; 7:17; 11:16; 14:33 show that local churches are to adopt certain practices, regardless of cultural and geographical differences, because of the unchanging underlying principles. Our text, 2 Timothy 2:2, must be seen in this light. John Owen states that an apostolic example “hath the force of a divine institution”.6 In other words, the establishment of a training school is a norm for churches today.
This, of course, does not mean that every church is able to carry out this work, and that every pastor is sufficiently equipped for this task (Rom. 12:3; 1 Cor. 12:29; James 3:1). All we are saying is that there is a duty placed upon the church in every generation to train up teachers of the word. “The harvest truly is plentiful, and the labourers are few (Matt. 9:37).” While we pray the Lord of the harvest to send out labourers, we must also train such labourers. The sovereign Lord is pleased to use means. Just as Timothy was to train up persons who were faithful to pass down the truth, so must we today. Practically, a church that is better endowed in a grouping of churches must undertake this task. Suitably qualified tutors are to be appointed, to teach suitably qualified students. The students are to be trained to become “diligent” workers who are “approved of God”, who “do not need to be ashamed”, who are able to “rightly divide the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15).
What we have learned up to this point may be summarised as follows:
(i) A training school is to be established when a number of churches have been established;
(ii) The training school is to be based in the church best able to carry out this work;
(iii) The training school is to be operated in fellowship with like-minded churches.
(iv) The training school is to consist of a faculty of qualified and experienced tutors.
(v) The training school is to produce men for the pastoral ministry, primarily, and men and women for the supportive gospel ministries, secondarily.
(vi) The training school is to produce teachers of the word who are able to edify the local church and engage in wider church planting at the same time.
In days gone by the complaint against seminary-trained men was that they were “man-made” ministers.7 Aspersion was cast upon formal training, the claim being that to be filled with the Spirit is different from acquiring “human learning”.8 Today, there are people who continue to protest that academic qualification does not necessarily make good preachers. This is a case of pitting one extreme against another, or using one extreme to justify another. While C. H. Spurgeon was a mighty preacher without seminary training, he nevertheless started the Pastors’ College to train men for the ministry. Similarly, the mighty preacher Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones did not receive formal theological training but he encouraged the establishment of the London Theological Seminary, LTS, (not to be confused with the London School of Theology, LST) to train men for the ministry. Spurgeon and Lloyd-Jones were not against formal training per se but against the mere pursuit of academic degrees. With that, no one in his right mind would disagree. However, is the pursuit of theological degrees wrong under all circumstances? In the busyness of the infancy years, the starting of a training school would not be viable. With time, a training school would be needed to ensure that a continuous stream of preaches are produced, without which the “plateau effect” would set in. This is when the conferment of degrees and the need for validation of the school becomes useful, and even necessary. God uses means to further His cause, and formal training for ministry is one of them. Some men can become self-made preachers. The majority of men need the rigours of seminary training to become “man-made” preachers, who are nevertheless godly and seeking to be used by God. It is not for us to judge the godliness of those who pursue degrees.
IV. Conclusion
The establishment of a school to train gospel workers is not an option but a command of Scripture. This is a task to be undertaken by a well-established church, in fellowship with like-minded churches. The aim is to train gospel workers who are able to heed the admonition, “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15). May we heed this injunction. May God have all the glory. Amen.
References
1. Jensen, I. L., 1977. “Jensen’s Survey of the New Testament”, Moody Press, p. 375.
2. Santala, R., “Paul, The Man And The Teacher, by Risto Santala”, Keren Ahvah Meshihit. http://www.ristosantala.com/rsla/Paul/paul01.html.
3. Hendriksen, W., “New Testament Commentary: 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus”, Banner of Truth, p. 323.
4. Owen, J., Works, Banner of Truth, Vol. 16, p. 85.
5. Baxter, R., “The Reformed Pastor”, and Bridges, C., “The Christian Ministry”, both published by the Banner of Truth. These books have influenced many Reformed preachers of today.
6. Owen, J., Works, Banner of Truth, Vol. 16, p. 197.
7. Bogue, D. and Bennett, J., 2000. “History of Dissenters”, Vol. I, p. 207).
8. Hayden, R, 2006. “Continuity and Change: Evangelical Calvinism among eighteenth-century Baptist ministers trained at Bristol Academy, 1690-1791”, p. 21.