Wikipedia states that the expression "man of God" occurs 78 times in 72 verses of the Bible. I searched using the ESV and Blue Letter Bible: my results were that "man of God" occurs 78 times in 73 verses of the Bible. See https://www.blueletterbible.org/search/search.cfm?Criteria=%22man+of+god%22&t=ESV#s=s_primary_0_1
Compare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_of_God
Using the KJV, my search yielded the same results. See https://www.blueletterbible.org/search/search.cfm?Criteria=%22man+of+God%22&t=KJV#s=s_primary_0_1
As I stated earlier in the com-boxes for this blog, Paul is likely addressing Timothy as a "man of God" in the correspondences to Timothy and this expression chiefly applies to elders, no doubt. However, I agree with Bill Mounce when he says the term applies to all Christians by extension or implication.
Another thing that stands out to me is the only NT writer to use "man of God" is Paul, it seems. Even Jesus does not use the phrase and no writer applies it to him.
Sunday, February 06, 2022
"Man of God" Search in the Bible: How Many Times?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
47 comments:
Still disagree (but that's normal).
Was Timothy a ministerial servant and an elder at the same time? 1 Tim 3:15.
Timothy is in neither category. He is "man of god". 1 Tim 4:11-14. - one has to wonder why "men of god" are nowhere mentioned?
Also note the discrepancy at 1 Tim 4:14 "the body of elders laid their hands on you" vs 2 Tim 1:6 "For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands."
I don't have any specific solutions to this as yet but it does deserve scrutiny.
Whatever other letters imply are secondary to this point.
I'm not sure where the points of disagreement are. Maybe you cover them here.
I don't think Timothy was both a servant and elder, especially from what we know about the offices at the time. I don't think he's ever identified as a "ministerial servant" or "deacon" in these correspondences.
Are you denying that Timothy was an elder then? "Man of God" is probably used for one who serves in the congregation as an elder/overseer. It's clear that the expression is only employed twice in the NT and that's by Paul and no other NT writer. That fact cannot be disputed.
Just because a term isn't used in the Bible doesn't mean the concept isn't there. As I added to my post, was Jesus a man of God? After all, no writer identifies him as such.
I don't see a discrepancy between 1 Timothy 4:14 and 2 Timothy 1:6: both statements could be true. There is no inherent conflict between them.
Here's the NABRE comment on 1 Timothy 4:14:
"Of the presbyterate: this would mean that each member of the college of presbyters imposed hands and appears to contradict 2 Tm 1:6, in which Paul says that he imposed hands on Timothy. This latter text, however, does not exclude participation by others in the rite. Some prefer to translate 'for the presbyterate,' and thus understand it to designate the office into which Timothy was installed rather than the agents who installed him."
First, you raised a question about the anointing, then moved from that to the man of God subject and laying on of hands. One thing about the man of God subject, as you can see, is that there's limited data tow work with, when looking in the NT. Two verses don't tell us a lot. And when Mounce said other persons are men of God by implication, he wasn't talking about other letters, but the very texts in question (1 Timothy 6:11; 2 Timothy 3:17). He was stating that other persons are men/women of God by implication. That is not necessarily based on what other letters say.
"First, you raised a question about the anointing, " - no.
"Are you denying that Timothy was an elder then? " - where in any book does it state that he is?
"Man of God" is probably used for one who serves in the congregation as an elder/overseer. - I see no evidence to make that claim in these two letters & this is the only place that "man of god" is used.
1 Timothy 5:1 contrasts on age and not ability.
"This latter text, however, does not exclude participation by others in the rite." - reaching - I am saying that there is either a discrepancy OR these are two different events (as noted and already quoted in other thread that 2 Tim indicates some unstated spiritual gift). 1 Tim with out the definite article for "man of god" and 2 Tim for "the man of god". ὦ != ὁ τοῦ.
NLT - "God uses it to prepare and equip his people to do every good work." - going beyond what is written!
"Just because a term isn't used in the Bible doesn't mean the concept isn't there. " - agreed, to which we must analyse OT usages.
I am saying that these two letters make Timothy something more than an elder (and he is not old).
Before elders there where chiefs - Deut 33:1 And this is the blessing wherewith Moses the man of God blessed the children of Israel before his death.
Josh 14:6 Then the children of Judah drew nigh unto Joshua in Gilgal; and Caleb the son of Jephunneh the Kenizzite said unto him: 'Thou knowest the thing that the LORD spoke unto Moses the man of God concerning me and concerning thee in Kadesh-barnea.
Note the use of "children" again.
For Judges 13:6-8 A "man of god" speaks of a son (child).
For 1 Samuel 2:27 The child Samuel and the "man of god".
I will look at others tomorrow.
For Samuel 9:6-10 - 10:6 The spirit of the LORD will grip you, and you will speak in ecstasy along with them; you will become another man. (sefaria.org).
I guess we could go back and forth all day, but you did raise a question about who anointed Timothy. You asked whether it was God or Paul? I can quote the exact words and provide a reference on request. But I can also move on.
Maybe neither Pastoral correspondence specifically calls Timothy and elder although there may be implications in the text. Not everything is explicitly spelled out in these books. Like, where is Jesus ever called a man of God?
The only place "man of God" is used in the NT is in Timothy (1st and 2nd). That doesn't mean we can't get an idea of what the phrase could mean from other sources.
You may have a point about 1 Timothy 5:1, but it doesn't negate Timothy possibly being a "man of God" in the sense that he was an elder/overseer. Paul mentions the qualifications of an overseer in 1 Timothy 3:1ff. Why did he write these words to the "non-elder" Timothy?
All I'm saying (and the NABRE confirmed) is that one does not have to take the verses in 1 and 2 Timothy as discrepancies. They could be two different events or the same event, viewed from different perspectives. It's like saying that a certain body of elders appointed a brother and then attributing the same appointment to one of their group. That would not be a discrepancy.
Back in the first century, a person could be appointed and receive the gift of the holy spirit. We also can't read these texts through 21st century spectacles.
You basically alluded to a good reason why one use of "man of God" has the article while the other does not: one use is vocative; the other use employs the article generically. One could use 2 Timothy 3:17 to show that Timothy was not the only "man of God" because the reference is generic.
I hardly ever use the NLT. It's not that good for study purposes and I did not quote it, far as I can recollect.
Firstly, one doesn't have to be old in order to be an elder. Secondly, what more than an elder could Timothy have been. Paul sure did a good job of hiding this unspecified office Timothy purportedly held.
Duncan, I'm gonna play the advocate here. How does the word "children" in Joshua 14:6 shed light on Moses, the man of God? In other words, the mention of "children" or NET renders the Hebrew, "The men of Judah" doesn't help us to see in what sense Moses is the "man of God." And children might not even be the best translation here.
In Judges 13:6-8, again, the man of God and child are two different things. They are not intrinsically or immediately related to one another. Finally, the man of God in 1 Sam. 2:27 is separate from the child, Samuel. Not a direct connection IMO.
"I guess we could go back and forth all day, but you did raise a question about who anointed Timothy. " - that just word games. I have just word searched all comments on other thread and I never say "anointed", so you would need to point out exactly what I did say?.
"They could be two different events or the same event, viewed from different perspectives. " - from a single author? I don't think so.
Jesus was "son of god" not "man of god" & I don't think there is equivalency.
David was called "man of god" but Solomon was called "son of god".
My point regarding "children" & "man of god" is that the "children" were NOT children but includes the chieftains of Israel (IMO equivalent to elders in the new scheme). Its a difference in status.
"One could use 2 Timothy 3:17 to show that Timothy was not the only "man of God" because the reference is generic." - comparative evidence for this assertion as opposed to an elevated status from the definite article?
On the subject of elders, see 1 Timothy 5:17-18.
https://www.sefaria.org/II_Chronicles.11.2?lang=bi
See V2 & V3.
This "son" status again.
https://www.sefaria.org/I_Kings.13.2?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en
See V2 "a son shall be born"
For 1 Tim 5:17-18 compare https://www.sefaria.org/Numbers.11.17?lang=bi&aliyot=0 V16-18
Correction - I did say - "So where did Timothy get his anointing from, god or Paul? Wouldn't this come from dedication and baptism and the acquisition of faith an knowledge?"
I was meaning the spiritual gift, not the status of being "anointed" which was common to all "the body of Christ".
Thanks for clarifying on the anointed question.
Here something for starters about the generic article: https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2015/01/revisiting-greek-articles-generic-use.html?m=1
It seems incredible to me that Jesus would not be a man of God. He was Son of God, Son of Man and a prophet greater than Moses.
Depending on how precise you want to be, I don't think Solomon is ever called "son of God" or God's son." See 2 Samuel 7:12-16.
God would be father to him, and Solomon would be son (a son) to YHWH but not really given a title or precise description there.
Before positing that these men were chieftains, it would take more legwork IMO. Maybe you're right about that point. However, I would have to see more data before assenting to the proposition.
The generic article is not uncommon in Greek, and it seems to be the intent of 2 Timothy 3:17.
Here's also Smyth on the generic article: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0007%3Apart%3D4%3Achapter%3D40%3Asection%3D74
Bare in mind that Jesus is also called "son of David". Legitimacy in the gospels is based on the OT tradition.
IMO everything is written with purpose. Compare Luke 4:9, Mat 4:8, John 2:19.
Thematically the totality of Samuel 7 is in respect to David's son (god's son) building a temple.
When Satan tempts Jesus, is Jesus "a son of god" or "the son of god"? Even though many translations are in error.
Deut 1:9-18 come to mind. Compare group overseers and go bags.
There is little doubt that functionally these have much in common.
Structure and hierarchy but not one of those is "man of god".
Moses was "man of god" and Jesus was greater than Moses. I think you are answering your own question. To say that anyone is a godly man or A man of god is not the same as the Hebraic term, as it is used very selectively.
Numbers 27 is very worthy of note in relation to both letters to Timothy. Joshua was appointed to something different than the cheiftains, by the laying on of hands something came from Moses.
https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2015/01/revisiting-greek-articles-generic-use.html?m=1 is all about possibilities in the Greek language but I am talking about possibilities from the Hebraic culture. 2 Tim 3 is being directed squarely at Timothy and his knowledge of a certain set of writings. Σὺ δὲ.
2 Timothy 3:14 is also interesting, learned what from whom?
https://studybible.info/interlinear/2%20Chronicles%208:14
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0142064X7800100103?journalCode=jnta
Unfortunately I have not kept up with the current state of debate on "son of man" language. You probably know more about it than I do?
https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2011/11/14/exit-the-apocalyptic-son-of-man/
https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/christ-the-lord/sonofman_bruce.pdf
My time is limited today, but while I don't object to reading the NT with Hebraic culture in mind, I feel that we cannot ignore the Graeco-Roman influence and how Paul and others used Greek syntax as we find in other documents. I also view Jesus as Son of God, Son of Man and man of God although the last phrase is not applied to him.
https://biblehub.com/text/matthew/18-17.htm
This is probably the most obvious example of "categorical article".
Matthew 4:3-Καὶ προσελθὼν ὁ πειράζων εἶπεν αὐτῷ Εἰ υἱὸς εἶ τοῦ θεοῦ, εἰπὸν ἵνα οἱ λίθοι οὗτοι ἄρτοι γένωνται.
Luke 4:3-εἶπεν δὲ αὐτῷ ὁ διάβολος Εἰ υἱὸς εἶ τοῦ θεοῦ, εἰπὲ τῷ λίθῳ τούτῳ ἵνα γένηται ἄρτος.
In both cases, υἱὸς is anarthrous: therefore, some might be inclined to render the verse "a Son of God," and that is probably correct. However, absence of the article doesn't necessarily mean that the noun is indefinite--it could be definite but I don't think it is. Context will be the final determinant of how one renders υἱὸς in these passages.
See this example:-
https://studybible.info/interlinear/2%20Kings%201:9-13
This is what I have a problem with - the definite article is translated for "the commander of fifty" but it is "o man of god" & "a man of god".
There is no context here that makes those decisions. At this point in time Elijah IS "the man of god" - there is no other.
You know why the translation is "O man of God." It's because άνθρωπε is vocative. Addressing someone as "O man of God" would not negate the special status of the prophet or representative of God. YHWH is the God in the Hebrew Bible--the one and only God with the status of Most High, true God and so forth. Yet the LXX uses the vocative for theos, doesn't it? So one can address YHWH as "O God" without diminishing his status as the Most High God or maximally excellent being.
Doesn't the vocative of the LXX just reflect the Hebrew text wherein Elijah the prophet is being addressed? These words occur within the midst of a dialogue, so the vocative case is appropriate.
And, "a man of God"?
https://journals.co.za/doi/10.10520/EJC101395
'O' or 'you' obscure the meaning and translating this way in English hides the import of the article.
Keep in mind that the Greek article functions in various ways, including to make nouns generic or indicate that they are. But the article can function anaphorically, cataphorically and so many other ways in Greek. It'a also common to use 'O' or some such indicator when rendering vocative expressions into English. I still think that the function of an article should be derived from context or syntax.
https://biblehub.com/text/2_kings/1-9.htm Note the rendering hear. "a captain" & "Man of god" capital M.
Worth reading, but the price is prohibitive. See https://www.amazon.com/Son-Man-Problem-Critical-Readings/dp/0567670120
Ellicott Commentary: Thou man of God.—Heb., man of the god, i.e., the true God. (So in 2Kings 1:11; 2Kings 1:13, infra.)
The king.—In the Hebrew emphatic, as if to say, the king’s power is irresistible, even by a man of God. The true God was thus insulted in the person of His prophet.
Cambridge Bible: Thou [R.V. O] man of God] The original is precisely as in verse 13. But in the two first addresses the title was given no doubt in mockery. In the mouth of one who really felt the force of the words there could have followed them no such sentence as ‘the king hath said, Come down’. For a contrast see 1 Kings 17:18; 1 Kings 17:24.
On the other hand, Pulpit Bible Commentary denies that Elijah was being mocked by the use of the title, "man of God."
As you know, the LXX uses the vocative form in this verse. And the context is one of address.
https://www.studylight.org/interlinear-study-bible/hebrew/1-kings/13-14.html
"The man of God"
"man of the gods"
"man of the God"
All possible but I will stick with "The man of God" for now.
https://biblehub.com/text/deuteronomy/33-1.htm
The book you listed looks interesting.
Conybeare discusses the vocative case's function in the LXX and NT. See https://www.ccel.org/ccel/conybeare/lxxgrammar.vii.v.html
In case others want to read the article you cited, see https://www.academia.edu/39322169/Ddefiniteness_and_the_Vocative_in_Biblical_Hebrew
Hans Conzelmann and Martin Dibelius (Pastoral Letters in the Hermeneia Series) have an excursus in their commentary that begins on page 70. It deals with the laying on of hands.
As for the phrase "man of God" in 1 and 2 Timothy, Dibelius and Conzelmann write:
"The term, therefore, refers to any Christian, specifically to him who has been baptized; i.e., one who has been endowed with the spirit of God, and who henceforth 'serves' God. This does not exclude the
possibility that the author refers particularly to Timothy, the prototype of a 'man of God' since he is the leader of the congregation" (page 88).
There's lots more, but I encourage you to see the contents for yourself.
http://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/3506/1/339937.pdf
This is the most comprehensive study that I can find.
See pg. 252 for an alternative interpretation.
I disagree with the conclusion of the thesis on 1 &:2 Tim, regarding the two accounts on the basis of "the man of god" function in the OT which appears to be an organising force on the "sons" that was an individual.
Now that Paul was leaving the area and subsequently being imprisoned he hands the authority of organiser over to Timothy which is indicated by the Laying on of hands in the second instance and the "the man of God" being equipped for every good work.
IMO this is far more Hebraic than the author admits.
The organisation of Paul's church, not the whole church though.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=HbpeEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA82&lpg=PA82&dq=sumerian+%22man+of+god%22&source=bl&ots=oAFnVtA38x&sig=ACfU3U0zzWsLpiN2uhuASib9wRaUGMd03w&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjP-4HF6YP2AhXGOcAKHT-nATQQ6AF6BAg8EAI#v=onepage&q=sumerian%20%22man%20of%20god%22&f=false
"Man of god" - "ox driver"
An example of the approaching of a prophet for an oracle is found in 1 Sam 9. Here Saul is looking for his father's donkeys, and is just about to turn back when his squire (1173) says that there is a "man of God" (DTI^N 2TN) in the town who might be able to tell them where to find them (v. 6). There is a discussion about what they are to pay him, and then an explanatory note: "Formerly in Israel, a man who was going to consult (CTIIlb) God would say, 'Come, let us go to the seer (rwin),' for what is called a prophet (»'I33) today was formerly called a seer."132 "Man of God" is a phrase most often used of Elijah and Elisha, of whom McCarter remarks, "[They] also prophesy, for the ability to know unseen things, whether past, present, or future, is also within the province of the man of God. But the designation 'man of God'...carries none of the special force of neighbouring cultures regardless of his god or gods, and would have been consulted on any matters of concern.134 It would thus appear that the seer or prophet135 was ordinarily consulted, both at the time of the narrative and at the time of its redaction.
https://epdf.pub/queue/sacred-dan-religious-tradition-and-cultic-practice-in-judges-17-18-library-of-he.html
Awil-Ili "man of god"
It's interesting to see what a diachronic picture of "man of God" looks like and I don't have any major objections to anything you've posted of late, but while I agree that there is Semitic influence in Paul's words to Timothy, I think the net is cast wider in terms of other influences.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiC9MT3ooX2AhVBlWoFHYdGC5A4RhAWegQICBAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fses.library.usyd.edu.au%2Fbitstream%2Fhandle%2F2123%2F18740%2FGraham_BM_thesis.pdf%3Fsequence%3D2%26isAllowed%3Dy&usg=AOvVaw13a-CRjNk-RdvrS9FVz6-K
https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/W_1898-0711-52
1822BC-1763BC
Post a Comment