IS PAUL A POOR THEOLOGIAN (I TIMOTHY 1:17)

 I want to start off with a rather critical comment on this verse by A.T. Hanson: “We may note the alternative reading 'immortal' (atnanatoi) for 'invisible' (the word rendered immortal by RSV is probably 'incorruptible'). This is the only passage in the entire New Testament in which God is described as invisible without the accompanying assertion that he has made himself known in Christ or in his works of creation. Compare 6:16, where the invisibility of God is strongly emphasized, but his intention of manifesting Christ at the parousia [Second Coming] is also asserted. Compare Rom. 1:20; Col. 1:15; Jn 1:18; 6:46. This is no doubt an oversight on the author's part; he was no great theologian.”

Hanson's comments bring up several issues which cry out for a response.

Authorship

My title is a bit misleading since I should not accuse Hanson of purposefully criticizing Paul's theology. But he is only free of such a criticism because he, in line with many other more liberal commentators, does not at all believe that Paul wrote this letter. That is why Hanson refers at the end of his statement to “the author” rather than to “Paul.” However, that is not a universally held position by scholars.

The most likely options appear to be: (a) a traditional Pauline authorship, (b) various “fragment” theories in which an editor assembled and expanded upon some scraps of genuine writings by Paul, (c) the amanuensis theory whereby an associate of Paul’s put his heavy stamp upon Paul’s communications, and (d) a pseudonymous author. The pros and cons of these various views have been voluminously reviewed elsewhere with varying conclusions reached. Despite a lack of consensus on this point, the at-least-indirect involvement of Paul in writing the Pastorals has by no means been ruled out by modern scholars, and the possible involvement of Luke in the process has also been suggested by several commentators. Certainly no one in his right mind would dare to question the theological qualifications of either Paul or Luke.

Text

Hanson begins his comments by referring to “the alternative reading.” That language usually refers to one of two things: a different translation of the same Greek word or, more often, to a variant Greek reading found in one or more manuscript. The problem is that neither one of these two possibilities applies in this case. In regard to the first possibility, the Greek words for immortal [athanatoi] and invisible [ahorato] are totally different, and neither one can be translated as the other.

Secondly, in reference to the authentic Greek text of this verse, not a single English translation or paraphrase deletes the word “invisible” or even attaches a footnote giving an alternative reading referring to it. In terms of the comments of known textual scholars, Metzger lists no alternative readings for this verse. But contrast, Comfort does mention that a few early Greek manuscripts do have the following variant readings: “indestructible, invisible;” “immortal, invisible;” and “indestructible, invisible, immortal.” Note that even in these cases, none proposes deleting “invisible” in favor of another description. So I would have to conclude that Hanson is “no great commentator.”

The Uniqueness of I Timothy 1:17
Next Hanson states that this is “the only passage in the entire New Testament” where God's invisibility is not coupled with a statement to the effect that God has been revealed in the person of Christ. The impression is that there are a great number of such other passages. Let us consider the facts. From consulting a number of commentaries, I have compiled a list of over thirty cross-references to I Timothy 1:17 that may possibly bear on the subject. Here is the breakdown of what is contained in those passages:

    Discarded as having nothing pertinent to say on the subject: John 5:19; 9:8; 9:39; 11:1; 12:40; 21:21; II Corinthians 12:6; Hebrews 2:9

    Mentioning the revelation of Christ but not God's invisibility: Matthew 11:27; John 1:14; 9:37-38; 12:40; 14:8-10; II Corinthians 4:6

    Seeing both God and Christ at the same time: Acts 7:55-56; Revelation 22:4

    Mentioning God's invisible nature only: I Timothy 1:17; Hebrews 11:1-3; I John 3:2; 4:40; Revelation 4:3

    God's invisibility stated and possibly the revelation through Christ: John 6:40,46; II Corinthians 4:6,18; I Timothy 6:14-16

    Both God's invisible nature and Christ's revelation stated: John 1:18; Colossians 1:15; I John 4:12-14

From this tabulation, one can deduce the following: Hanson is way off-base in his declaration that other than I Timothy 1:17, all New Testament references to God's invisibility are accompanied by mention that Christ has revealed Him to us. In fact, there are five clear example in which no such accompaniment is found. And if one wishes to include those passages in which it is a rather dubious whether Christ's revelation is also included, then that adds another two such examples.

Actually, the above statistics show only three times in the NT when both God's invisibility and His revelation through Christ are clearly stated. That hardly accounts for Hanson's hyperbole which gives the impression that there are many such NT passages which do so. Even if one includes the rather dubious verses above, that would still only account for a total of six such references, one of which happens to also be in I Timothy. That brings up my next point.

Hanson grants that the author of I Timothy does give the complete formulation of invisibility plus revelation in 6:14-16, but still faults him for not including it in 1:17 also. At this point, it is helpful to back up a point and review a principle I have mentioned again and again in my many posts – the ubiquitous utilization of repetition throughout the Bible. One of the clearest examples is seen in Hebrew poetry, which accounts for a large portion of the Old Testament writings. Poetic parallelism is the term used to refer to the repetition, with minor variations, found between separate stanzas within a given verse. Below is an example chosen at random:

        “Prove me, O LORD, and try me;

        test my heart and mind.” (Psalm 26:2)

Note that both lines express the same thought even though synonyms (prove, try, test) are used. However, the first line makes it clear who is doing the testing while the second line clarifies what is being tested – both heart and mind.

Less clear in prose passages, but still very much present, are parallel lines which may be widely separated within a single book of the Bible. Thus, for the epistle in question, one can see the following arrangement present (for further information, see my post on the literary structure of I Timothy):

Figure 1: The Structure of I Timothy

I. Charges to Timothy (1:1-20)

A. “Charge” to Timothy, “my son” (1:1-5)

B. “Certain persons” (1:6-11)

C. Thanksgiving (1:12-17) – ending “AMEN”

A'. “Charge” to Timothy, “my son” (1:18-19a)

B'. “Certain persons” (1:19b-20)

II. Household Codes (2:1-3:13)

III. Instructions to Timothy (3:14-4:16)

II'. Household Codes (5:1-22)

I'. Charges to Timothy (5:23-6:21)

A. Advice to Timothy–true wisdom (5:23-25)

B. Servants (6:1-2a)

C. False teachers (6:2b-10)

C'. True teachers (6:11-16) – ending “AMEN”

B'. The Rich (6:17-19)

I have highlighted the two parallel passages in question. Here is how each of these passages reads:

    “To the King of the ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.” (I Timothy 1:17)

    “He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords. It is he alone who has immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has ever seen or can see; to him be honor and eternal dominion. Amen.” (I Timothy 6:15b-16)

Towner remarks on I Timothy 6:15b-16, “The parallel with 1:17 is evident though this description is more elegant than its earlier counterpart...All that is left after so majestic a litany is an expression of doxology uttered in awe (cf. 1:17; Rom 11:33-36)

So these two passages are obviously a matched pair in the same manner of the two stanzas of Psalm 26:2 shown earlier. And just as in that case, there are both many similarities between the two parallel passages (invisibility, King, honor, Amen, and eternality) and items which are mentioned in one passage but not the other (“glory” only in 1:17 and the revelation of Christ only in I Timothy 6, if one counts v. 14). So to say that the author made an oversight by neglecting to mention the revelation of Christ in 1:17 is to ignore the fact that both passages are to be read together, with each doxology illuminating the other one, just as in the poetic parallelism of the Old Testament.

Both 1:17 and 6:16 have been called “theology cast as doxology” due to the wealth of doctrinal issues faced in these passages. (A. Smith)

That brings up the final slap in the face made by Hanson “The author was no great theologian.” I could go on and on with quotations from scholars who would greatly disagree with his statement and provide examples to prove it, but here is just one tiny example coming out of the disputed verse 1:17. Paul uses the phrase “the only God,” a strong statement of the most basic doctrine coming out of the OT scriptures: the unique nature of God. One can make the case that the author here is stating something which actually goes beyond any similar declaration found elsewhere in the NT. Thus, the best we can come up with in other New Testament books in terms of a monotheistic teaching are the following:

    “Who can forgive sins but God alone?” (Luke 5:21)

    “only true God” (John 17:3)

    “only wise God (Romans 16:27; Jude 25)

As Guthrie says, “The omission of the adjective ['wise'] here provides a more emphatic expression of Jewish monotheism.”

Final Thoughts

In conclusion, here are some additional comments made regarding the two doxologies in I Timothy:

“' Whom no person has seen or can see' [6:16]...is based on Exod. 33:20 and may be a loose reworking of it: 'And he said, You shall not be able to see my face; for no one can see my face and live.'” (Towner)

Litfin says regarding 1:17, “Immortal and invisible speak of two of the central attributes of God: His eternality and His spiritual essence.”

Mounce on Revelation 4:3 – “The Psalmist spoke of God as one who covered himself 'with light as with a garment' (Ps. 104:2), and Paul described the Lord as dwelling 'in unapproachable light, whom no man has ever seen or can see' (I Tim 6:16). The source of the description is the vision of Ezekiel 1 in which the throne appears like sapphire surrounded by a rainbow (1:26-28).”

Hendricksen: “God, being imperishable, is also invisible...It is only in his Image (Col. 1:15,16) that man 'sees Him who is 'invisible,' and then only by faith (Heb. 11:27). He sees parallels to I Timothy 6:15-16 in Exodus 33:20; Deuteronomy 4:12; and Isaiah 6:5.