If you point these things out to the brothers, you will be a good minister of Christ Jesus, brought up in the truths of the faith and of the good teaching that you have followed. Have nothing to do with godless myths and old wives’ tales; rather, train yourself to be godly. For physical training is of some value, but godliness has value for all things, holding promise for both the present life and the life to come. (1 Timothy 4:6-8)

There are certain foundational principles in the Christian system on which the whole structure rests. There is one God. This God is a unity of Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. Man was created good, in the image of God, but he fell from his initial station because of sin, which is a transgression of God’s law. To redeem his people, that is, those individuals that he has chosen to save from among sinful humanity, God the Son took upon himself a human nature, in order that he might be the sole mediator between God and men. He is the only way to God and to salvation. Those who are saved by him are not only bound to him, but they are also liberated in him, so that no other person, no other religion or philosophy, and no man-made system of rituals and regulations can exercise any authority over their souls. He is the true shepherd, and the sheep hear his voice. The voice of another they will not follow, nor are they obligated to pay any attention to it.

A good minister of Jesus Christ continually reminds people of these foundational principles of the gospel and warns them against false doctrines. Since false doctrines tend to contradict the basic truths, the most effective way to protect believers from deception is to reinforce the prominent themes of the Christian faith over and over again, on various occasions and from various angles. Then, when a threat arises, believers will either detect it by themselves, or they will quickly recognize the danger when a faithful minister draws attention to it. The doctrines of demons that Paul has in mind in this letter include the prohibition against marriage and abstinence from certain foods, probably on a religious basis. But this is against the very basic truths of God’s creation, the goodness of this creation, the sufficiency of Christ, and the believer’s entire dependence on Christ for his forgiveness, justification, and free access before God.

The minister has no hope of building up believers in the faith and protecting them from seducing doctrines if he himself has a weak grasp of the gospel. So he must be a person who is “trained in the words of the faith and of the good doctrine” (ESV). Then, Paul tells Timothy, “Train yourself to be godly.” This also suggests the vigorous and persistent study of sound doctrine, since the apostle states this as a contrast against “myths” and “tales.” Avoid nonsense. Pursue truth. This is an essential principle for the minister of the gospel. This is the way he must live his life. It is his motto.

By referring to the pursuit of godliness as training, Paul employs the imagery of an athlete, although he is not talking about physical training, but rather applies the concept to spiritual training. Commentators like to assert that the apostle does not belittle physical exercise, only that he is asserting the greater importance of spiritual exercise. This seems to be reading into the text something that they would like Paul to acknowledge rather than what he actually says. His statement might not belittle physical training in itself, but physical training is not mentioned by itself. Rather, it is referred to as a contrast against spiritual training, so that the apostle indeed belittles physical training at least in relation to spiritual training. A paper cup is of some value, but a mansion is of great value. A paper cup is not of zero value, or even negative value, but when compared to a mansion, the statement does not do much to commend the paper cup.

The Bible makes a sharp distinction, and often a sharp contrast, between the physical and the spiritual. It also pounds on the idea, again and again, that the spiritual is more important than the physical. Certainly, you can perform physical training for the honor of God. The Bible teaches that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, and it follows that you should care for it, so that you may serve God with your body and make the faith of Jesus Christ reputable. That said, you can honor God with physical training until you are blue in the face, but Paul still says that spiritual training is more valuable. It is different. It is superior. In sharp contrast against mere physical training, spiritual training has value “for all things.”

There are some Christians who despise this distinction, this contrast, and this prioritization between the spiritual and the physical, because they regard this way of thinking as a product of Greek thought. Now, I cannot care less what the Greeks thought, or what people think what the Greeks thought (since they often misrepresent the Greeks) – Greek or not, the Bible says what it says right here. If you say that the Greeks agreed, then so much the better for the Greeks, and so much the worse for you if you disagree, but it does not change what the Bible says.

Theologians often talk about how Greek philosophy has distorted Christian theology. However, they have become so obsessed with this that, for a long time, the assumption that Greek contamination pervades our thinking has itself become a force that shapes the theological thinking of many people. The assumption that Greek philosophy has distorted Christian theology – this assumption itself, and the obsession to identify and correct this distortion – has in turn distorted Christian theology. In their campaign to blast away anything that they perceive as Greek, they have also bulldozed over actual biblical teachings. At times they have ended up teaching the very opposite of what the Bible asserts. They have in mind the things that they think characterize Greek philosophy, and then simply assume that the Bible teaches the opposite, even when the explicit statements of the Bible affirm what they think is Greek contamination. Far from biblical, their theology is a product of anti-Greek philosophy. They have created their own unbiblical tradition, perhaps one that enables them to sound a righteous gong while conveniently excusing them from rejecting clear biblical teachings.

For example, there is the assumption that Greek philosophy teaches that there is a sharp distinction between the soul and the body, and that the body is inherently evil. And from the idea that the body is evil, or at least worthless, certain principles are inferred that cannot be reconciled with the biblical view. In contrast, they claim, Hebrew thought maintains that the human person is a unity, and there should be no sharp distinction between the soul and the body. One theologian mocked the supposedly Greek teaching by calling it the “ghost in a machine” theory. But then he himself brought up the question as to how one can still remain a human person after death. He said, “It is a mystery.”

This pathetic answer, of course, can be used to defend any view at all. It ends all arguments not by answering the challenge, but by throwing the whole debate into a black hole. But it is not a mystery – he was simply wrong. The Bible says that a human person consists of soul and body, and the defining element is the soul. Jesus told his disciples not to fear men, who could only kill the body, but to fear God, who could torment both the body and the soul. He said that what enters into a body through the mouth passes through the body and exits it as waste. So no food is inherently unclean. But what comes out of a person, from his heart or soul, is that which makes him unclean, because from it can come murder, adultery, idolatry, and so on. Paul writes that, for the Christian, although the body decays, the inner man is renewed every day. Both Paul and Peter note that women should not make themselves beautiful by adorning the body, but by adorning the soul – that is, by a meek and quiet spirit, which would admittedly exhibit its qualities through good deeds. Peter refers to his body as a tent or house that he would soon leave behind. This might not be the same as “ghost in a machine,” but perhaps we cannot expect anything closer in first-century language. In making a point about faith, James says that without the spirit, the body is dead. And here Paul says that the physical is distinguished from the spiritual, and the spiritual is more valuable.

Theologians of the Reformed tradition, like the one just mentioned, often boast of bringing a corrective to Greek distortions in Christian theology, but they inflict much greater damage by their insistence to teach the opposite of what they think constitutes Greek thought. In shrugging off as a mystery something that cannot be reconciled with Scripture, this theologian was willing to sacrifice the clarity and the certainty of the Christian revelation to protect his prejudice and tradition. This is not better than Greek contamination. (I would say that the rejection of divine timelessness as a Greek influence is itself a result, not of competent biblical exegesis or sound theological thinking, but of an anti-Greek reaction that has resulted in a denial of biblical doctrine. The contaminant is not Greek thinking, but anti-Greek thinking, neither of which has anything to do with what the Bible says.)

Just as few verses earlier, Paul writes, “For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected.” This is supposed to be one of the biblical verses that refute the “sacred vs. secular” distinction. And from this rejection of the distinction, a host of other ideas have been articulated – including justification for capitalism, democracy, sports, movies, and just about anything else that one wishes to engage in, supposedly, “for the honor of God” in the process of fulfilling the cultural mandate. This line of thought is common in Reformed theology, and is touted as a corrective against much abuse in doctrine and practice, including how believers regard their occupations and daily activities. While it has indeed been a corrective in some cases, it has also created a number of problems and strange applications. Here I will not argue whether or not the biblical doctrine ought to be expressed as a denial of the “sacred vs. secular” distinction, since this entails a cloud of confusion that cannot be presently resolved. But whether or not the doctrine is sound as stated like this, let us consider some of the inferences that have been drawn from this idea.

The doctrine is commonly associated with the priesthood of all believers, a doctrine that I heartily affirm and commend. But not all applications are legitimate. One scholar writes, “Since all believers are priests, this means that all jobs are holy.” This is false and dangerous. If all jobs are holy, then it would be holy for believers to be prostitutes, assassins, and drug dealers. If it is said that true believers will never participate in these occupations, then the doctrine no longer stands, but it has become, “Since all believers are priests, this means that they will not accept unholy occupations.” This destroys the initial claim that arises from the priesthood of all believers. It is a false inference from the doctrine.

A milder claim, also common, is that because of the priesthood of all believers, we can honor God in whatever situation we find ourselves, and one occupation is not more holy or honorable than another. Even preaching is not superior to other occupations. Preaching is not more important than, say, accounting or construction. However, the same theologians would insist that whether one does accounting or construction is a matter of indifference, or at least of individual preference, but in another context would also insist that all believers must preach the gospel, and that preaching is not a matter of indifference or preference. You can do accounting or not do accounting, but you must preach the gospel. But if accounting is just as holy, just as important, just as honoring to God as preaching, then why not just do more accounting? If the reply is that Scripture commands preaching and not accounting, then is this not an admission that Scripture has made a distinction between the two? Whether we call the distinction “sacred vs. secular” is one aspect of the debate, but that there is a huge distinction is not subject to dissent, unless one wishes to betray his allegiance to human tradition over divine revelation. Now, there are hundreds of thousands of other examples. If this does not destroy the theory of those who oppose the “sacred vs. secular” distinction, at least it seems to destroy almost all of their applications of the theory. It appears that even if Scripture endorses a doctrine resembling what they assert, they have exaggerated its application.

Their way of thinking has produced much Scripture-twisting, and has inflicted much damage to Christian doctrine and practice. For example, Paul writes to the Colossians, “Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things.” This is unacceptable to those who think that such distinctions should not be made if all of God’s creation is good, if all believers are priests, and if all of life is to be considered “sacred.” So one writer asserts that the distinction between “things above” and “earthly things” is not spatial, but ethical. This is what he must say in order to maintain his tradition, but the passage does not allow this interpretation. Paul defines “above” as the place “where Christ is seated at the right hand of God” – it is a spatial reference. Even if one regards the “right hand” as symbolic, the ascension is not symbolic. In asserting that the reference is merely ethical and not spatial, the writer in effect attacks a central doctrine of the Christian faith, that is, the physical ascension of the Lord Jesus Christ, and thus commits blasphemy by implication. This is how dangerous a stubborn insistence on this false doctrine, or at least a false application of a true doctrine, can be.

Paul is indeed saying that we should focus on things “above.” As with the verse on physical training, some might say that he nevertheless does not belittle earthly things. But the apostle disappoints them, since he adds, “not on earthly things.” Now, whether Paul is making a “sacred vs. secular” distinction is something that I do not care to discuss in this place, but he is making some kind of distinction, and it is one that is unacceptable among some circles today. I urge them to reconsider, and restore this biblical teaching into their theology, lifestyle, and preaching.