Getting Bible Translations Right (or That the Man of God May Be Proficient, Equipped)

Getting Bible Translations Right (or That the Man of God May Be Proficient, Equipped)

by (Msgr.) C. Anthony Ziccardi

In a recent address, Pope Leo counseled priests not to rely on artificial intelligence for the composition of their homilies. “Like all the muscles in the body, if we do not use them, if we do not move them, they die. The brain needs to be used, so our intelligence must also be exercised a little so as not to lose this capacity….”¹ The priest’s intelligence is, of course, to be exercised in understanding his congregation, the Sacred Scriptures, and the nexus of the two.

Regarding the composition of homilies, advice to preachers has not been lacking throughout the centuries, most expertly formulated early on in De doctrina christiana of St. Augustine, who, while promoting the usefulness of eloquence in sermons, insisted on the preacher’s need of divine wisdom drawn from the Scriptures. “Now a man speaks with more or less wisdom just as he has made more or less progress in the knowledge of Scripture” (IV.7). In our own times, Saint John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI spoke forcefully of the need of preachers to know the Scriptures with both mind and heart.² The Bishops of the United States drew abundantly upon the teaching of both popes in their 2013 instruction Preaching the Mystery of Faith: The Sunday Homily, not least of all by naming the preacher a “man of Scripture.”

The epithet “man of Scripture” reminds this priest of the expression “man of God” that Saint Paul directs twice to his ministerial protégé Timothy, first in 1 Tim 6:11 and then in 2 Tim 3:16-17, because this latter text draws a connection between the Scriptures and the preacher denominated as “man of God”: “All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be proficient, equipped for every good work.”

In Pastores dabo vobis (no. 58), John Paul II cited this Pauline declaration with reference to the training of priesthood candidates. In Preaching the Mystery of Faith (p. 22), the U.S. Bishops had recourse to this same Pauline affirmation, but they, by contrast, employed it to show the importance of Scripture in every Christian’s walk of discipleship. What explains this use of 2 Tim 3:17? The answer is surely to be found in the wording of their quotation: “…. that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.” Where did the U.S. Bishops derive this wording? They tell us in the front of their document: “Scripture excerpts used in this work are taken from the New American Bible, rev. ed. © 2010….”

In working with this wording of 2 Tim 3:17, the U.S. Bishops were misled by their approved translation and trusted translators to apply a biblical expression inexactly and inappropriately; consequently, the bishops inadvertently weakened the basis for their casting the preacher in the role of a “man of Scripture.” This is a pity. For more accurately understood and more clearly translated, 2 Tim 3:17 indicates that it is “the man of God” or preacher, represented by Timothy, not every Christian believer that is a “man of Scripture.” It is to Timothy and church leaders like him that the Scriptures are properly useful “for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness” (3:16). This is a matter of mistranslation, resting upon broader exegetical confusion, now embedded in important Bible versions.

By its wording of 2 Tim 3:16-17, the New American Bible Revised Edition (NABRE) recommends study of the Scriptures “so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.” In employing the phrase “one who belongs to God,” the NABRE aligns itself with the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), which says, “that the person of God may be proficient, equipped for every good work.” But before revision, both the NAB and the RSV had here “the man of God.” What motivated the change? What is the original text that stands underneath the revised translations? Are the revisions more accurate? Do they improve upon prior translations?

If it is sometimes difficult to decipher what the exact meaning of anybody’s word choices might be, it is doubly difficult to decode the motivations that stand behind them. Yet in the case of 2 Tim 3:17 we might safely imagine the worthy motives of democratization and/or gender inclusivity. This is to say that the changes were probably made to 2 Tim 3:17 in order to suggest the application of this Pauline affirmation to all Christians and not merely to Christian men or specifically to ministers of the word: the Scriptures equip all godly persons or believers for good works. If neither inclusivity nor democratization was the motivating intention, certainly both are laudable effects of the new translations. Should we not be inclusive? Should we not be democratic? Yes, of course, but only if we remain simultaneously true to what the original text affirms. Yet are we being true to the text? That is the question! The answer? Maybe. Maybe not. We shall see.

The hint that something may be amiss in this affair is provided by the disjunction in translations between 1 Tim 6:11 and 2 Tim 3:17; for, whereas both the NABRE and the NRSV render 2 Tim 3:17 in such wise as to have it apply to all godly persons, they have retained from prior editions “man of God” in 1 Tim 6:11. Yet both letters are ostensibly from the same “Paul” to the same “Timothy”, and the original Greek wording of 1 Tim 6:11, ō anthrōpe theou, is equivalent to the expression ho tou theou anthrōpos of 2 Tim 3:17. Why, then, “o man of God” for 1 Tim 6:11, but “person of God/one belonging to God” for 2 Tim 3:17?

Indeed, the expression “person of God/one belonging to God” is unknown in the Bible, whereas “man of God” is readily recognizable even to the casual reader of the Old Testament (OT). The expression “man of God” occurs about 72 times in the OT, in the Hebrew (Masoretic) text as ’îsh hā’^ělohîm and in the Greek (Septuagint) text as (ho) anthrōpos (tou) theou; and the Greek expression carries with it no sexist overtones since anthrōpos means human being or human person. But, of course, when it occurs in the OT it is naturally and universally translated as “man of God” because the expression is used therein almost exclusively in reference to male human beings, namely, Moses (Deut 33:1; Josh 14:6; Ps 89:1), David (2 Chr 8:14; Neh 12:24), and the prophets. Specifically, the prophets include Samuel (1 Sam 9:6-10), Elijah (1 Kgs 17:18, 24; 2 Kgs 1:9-13; 4:9, 16, 22), Elisha (2 Kgs 8:2-8; 13:19), and Shemaiah (1 Kgs 12:22). But the epithet is also used for a certain Igdaliah (Jer 35:4), about whom we know nothing, except that his grandsons had a chamber in the house of the Lord, and also for the “messenger/angel of the Lord” who appears to Manoah and his wife in Judg 13:3-21. This OT data points to the expression “man of God” as an appellation for servants and messengers of God and for leaders of the people, especially those of a prophetic stripe; for Moses, the lawgiver, was simultaneously considered a prophet (Deut 18;18; 34:10), and God’s Spirit rushed upon David at his anointing (1 Sam 6:13; 2 Sam 23:1-2; cf. Matt 22:43; Mark 12:36; Acts 1:16; 4:25).

Because the meaning of words depends on their linguistic-cultural context and because the OT constitutes the context for Paul and Timothy—after all, the very term “Scriptures” in 2 Tim 3:17 is a reference to the OT—when Paul uses “man of God” in 1 Tim 6:11 and 2 Tim 3:17, the presumption is that Paul is harking back to OT servants, messengers, and prophetic leaders and implying thereby that Timothy is akin to these figures by virtue of the Spirit given to him at ordination (2 Tim 1:6-7; cf. 1 Tim 4:14) and because of his corresponding role of evangelist and servant/minister (2 Tim 4:5). It is seemingly to preserve the connection between Timothy and OT prophetic leaders that many English translations retain the expression “man of God” in both 1 Tim 6:11 and 2 Tim 3:17. Notable among such translations is the careful and scholarly ESV or English Standard Version that retains “man of God” with an explanatory footnote: “That is, a messenger of God (the phrase echoes a common Old Testament expression).”

The presumption that Paul is using “man of God” to connect Timothy to OT messengers and leaders in 1 Tim 6:11 and 2 Tim 3:17 may be called into question by other data from the linguistic-cultural context of Second Temple and Hellenistic Judaism in which the New Testament (NT) emerged. In the so-called Letter of Aristeas to Philocrates (no. 140), that was probably composed between the 3rd and early 2nd centuries BC, the plural expression “men of God” is said to be used by Egyptian priests to refer to all Jews because, in contrast to the rest of humankind, they are worshippers of the true God. In the Dead Sea scrolls, all of which were produced before AD 70, Moses is referred to as “the man of God” (4Q377), but also a noncanonical psalm is tagged therein to an anonymous “man of God” (4Q381). Contemporaneously, Philo of Alexandria, the Hellenistic Jewish philosopher who died in about AD 50, applied the expression “man of God” to reason or the Logos principle of creation (De confusione linguarum, no. 41). In line with the OT, Philo applied “man of God” to Moses (Quod deterius, 162), and he asserted that this appellation might appropriately be bestowed on anyone who has reached the highest level of human, intellectual improvement (De mutatione nominum, nos. 24-26). Philo maintains, for example, that it might have been aptly used for Abraham; for in virtue of his philosophical pursuits and ethical improvement, Abraham was born of God and became God’s minister (De gigantibus, nos. 62-64). Finally, at the conclusion of the Testament of Job (53:4), a text originally composed in Greek sometime between 100 BC and AD 100, the biblical personage of Job, who was not a prophet, is mourned over as “the man of God” and given a splendid burial “since he received a name renowned in all generations” (54:8); ostensibly, the “name renowned in all generations” is that of “the man of God.”

This non-biblical data complicates the picture because it may be taken to mean that by the time of Paul’s correspondence with Timothy, the expression “man of God” might have assumed wider application or been “democratized” so to refer to any “godly person.” This is possible. But it is only the remotest of possibilities. The evidence, all just reviewed above, is quite scant for such usage. Also, this evidence is less than clear; this is to say, in the non-biblical texts cited above, the epithet “man of God” is still used primarily of important biblical personages of great renown and it is secondarily suggested for wider application to the virtuous, unless we are to believe that not only Egyptian priests but also all Egyptians routinely referred to all Jews as “men of God”! Not likely. Moreover, how would such scant examples of the application of the epithet “man of God” to non-leaders and non-prophets, or ordinary believers in God, have had any influence on the author of the Pastoral Epistles—or any other NT author? For in fact, in all 27 documents of the NT, the expression “man of God” is found only in 1 Tim 6:11 and 2 Tim 3:17. And yet we should assume that “man of God” was common nomenclature in NT times for any godly person? Not likely. Otherwise, the NT would be peppered with it.

A more likely explanation is provided by the OT data rehearsed above and by further considerations that follow here. We shall see that such considerations may seem initially to justify the new translations of 2 Tim 3:17 (“person of God”/“one who belongs to God”), but they will ultimately refute them.

In 1 Timothy, Paul is speaking to Timothy as a true teacher of the faith and contrasting him to charlatan teachers (1 Tim 6:3-10); hence, when Paul addresses Timothy by ō anthrōpe theou in 6:11, he is quite probably reminding Timothy of his high calling by associating him with significant OT leaders. And because Paul is directly addressing Timothy, who is a male person, it surely seemed natural and non-offensive to the NABRE and NRSVE translators to employ “man of God” for the vocative expression in 1 Tim 6:11. In 2 Tim 3:17 the nearly identical expression is employed, ho tou theou anthrōpos, but it is applied indirectly to Timothy. For Paul does not here formulate the expression in the vocative as he did in 1 Tim 6:11; rather, ho tou theou anthrōpos is the subject of the clause and is followed by the third-person subjunctive of the verb “to be.” And this grammatical difference between direct address in 1 Tim 6:11 and indirect reference in 2 Tim 3:17 might, at first, seem to justify the understanding that in using ho tou theou anthrōpos in 2 Tim 3:17 Paul is not thinking of Timothy specifically or any Christian leader like him. Furthermore, in the wider context of 2 Timothy, Paul does indeed speak about any believer who wants to live a pious life (3:12) in contrast to those who do not so live (3:1-9), and then he tells Timothy to persevere in the teaching he (3:14-15). It would seem, then, that if Paul has Timothy or leaders like him in mind in 2 Tim 3:17, it is as “mere Christians” rather than as leaders or preachers. The extra-biblical evidence rehearsed above, though scant, and these further considerations expressed here may, then, be seen to justify those commentators and translators who have given to ho tou theou anthrōpos in 2 Tim 3:17 a democratized or inclusive sense such as “one who belongs to God” or “person of God.”⁴

But this approach to understanding and translating ho tou theou anthrōpos in 2 Tim 3:17 is problematic.⁵ Both in the context of 2 Timothy as a whole and in the immediate context of 3:17, Paul is not advising Timothy merely in regard to his Christian walk but reminding him of Paul’s ministry (4:11: diakonia) and the ministry (4:5: diakonia) that Timothy received from him and to which he must dedicate himself (1:6, 12-14; 4:1-5). It is a ministry that is based on Paul’s example and sound words (logos) and teaching (didaskalia) (1:13; 2:3-6; 3:10). Following Paul’s example of patience (makrothumia), Timothy must remind others of this teaching and transmit it to other faithful men who will be able to teach (didaskō) others in turn (2:2, 14). By this, Timothy will be “approved, a worker (ergatēs) … rightly handling the word (logos) of truth (alētheia)” (2:15) … “a servant (doulos) of the Lord” (2:24) … “useful to the Master, ready for every good work (ergon)” (2:21) ….

Just before 3:17 where Paul uses the expression ho tou theou anthrōpos, Paul counsels Timothy regarding his ministry. In 3:14-16, Paul tells Timothy that he must exercise the ministry by remaining in what he has learned (v. 14) and in what he has known of the Scriptures (v. 15: grammata; v. 16: graphē); for these Scriptures are useful for teaching (didaskalia), reproof (elengmos), correction, and training (paideia) in righteousness (v. 16), so that ho tou theou anthrōpos be “equipped for every good work (ergon)” (v. 17). And what does Paul mean here by “every good work (ergon)”? And whose works are they anyway? Clearly, Paul does not mean “good works” in general, but precisely those activities which he has just named in preceding verse (v. 16): teaching (didaskalia), reproof (elengmos), correction, and training (paideia). Without question, these are not the works of every Christian; rather, as the wider context of 2 Timothy indicates, they are the works of the pastoral worker (ergatēs) of 2:15, the servant (doulos) of 2:24, who in 2:25 must train (paideuō) the resistant, the opponents. Indeed, these are exactly the kind of works that Paul goes on to demand of Timothy in the verses which follow immediately in 4:1-5. He must “preach the word (logon)” and “reprove (elenchō) …. with all patience (makrothumia) and teaching (didachē)” because people do not tolerate sound teaching (didaskalia) but turn to permissive teachers (didaskalos) and turn away from the truth (alētheia). In response to this situation, Timothy must do the work (ergon) of an evangelizer, thereby fulfilling his ministry (diakonia).

Timothy must do all this as ho tou theou anthrōpos, “the man of God” so dubbed in 3:17. In other words, he must do it in the mold of the leaders, prophets, and messengers named in the Scriptures.⁶ He must do it as one who has been made proficient and has been equipped by these same Scriptures that are useful for the teaching, reproof, correction, and training of those in his pastoral care.⁷ The “man of God” is and must be a “man of Scripture.” The Scriptures are essential to “the man of God” in his leadership role relative to rank-and-file believers.

A note of caution is in order. The foregoing exegetical clarification is not proffered to say that lay Christians cannot draw from 2 Tim 3:16-17 motivation for themselves to learn well the Scriptures for their personal formation as disciples of Jesus, but only that Paul’s declaration in 2 Tim 3:16-17 must not be evacuated of its original and intended meaning: that by learning the Scriptures thoroughly, the Christian leader and preacher or “the man of God” is equipped for every good work that belongs inescapably to his ministry of teaching, reproving, correcting, and training.⁸

Surely, it is important for all Christians, in the measure that they can manage, to learn the Scriptures for their own Christian walk. To say less would be to sidestep Jesus’ lesson about God’s word in the parable of sower and the seed (Matt 13:4-9, 18-23). It would be to miss out on the blessing that Jesus pronounced on those who treasure God’s word (Luke 11:28). And it would be to disobey James’ (1:21) directive to believers to “welcome the word that has been planted in you and is able to save your souls.” At the same time, “Bible study for all” was not Paul’s precise message in 2 Tim 3:16-17. Rather, his words were aimed at the Christian leader and preacher. He wanted to say that if all Christians would do well to be instructed by the Scriptures, a point that he makes elsewhere in his letters (e.g., Rom 15:4; 1 Cor 10:11), then this is necessarily and pre-eminently the case for the ministers who lead Christ’s flock.

After thirty-five years of ordained ministry and daily interactions with fellow clergy and seminarians, this priest is sure that Paul’s encouragement to Christian leaders and future leaders has regularly been missed, misunderstood, or evaded. If the routine surveys of parishioner satisfaction—which surveys point to frequent dissatisfaction with homilies and sermons—are truly representative of the sentiment of lay Christians, then what is clear to me is also clear to the laity: the clergy know the Scriptures too little to be truly effective preachers and teachers. With the arrival of artificial intelligence, another temptation has presented itself to priests and preachers whereby we might avoid learning the Scriptures thoroughly with mind and heart. An additional “stone of stumbling” need not be put in our way by a poor understanding and translation of 2 Tim 3:16-17 where “the Apostle to the nations” (Rom 11:3) gives us priceless insight into both our burden and our boon.

Endnotes

1. The meeting occurred on February 19, 2026, and the Pope’s comments were made public the following day. See the Vatican News Agency (accessed on March 5, 2026): https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2026-02/pope-dialogue-priests-rome-young-people-internet-prayer-study.html

2. The instruction of John Paul II in Pastores dabo vobis (no. 26) was repeated by Benedict XVI in his post-synodal exhortation Verbum Domini (no. 80): “[T]he priest himself ought first of all to develop a great personal familiarity with the word of God…. He needs to approach the word with a docile prayerful heart so that it may deeply penetrate his thoughts and feelings and bring about a new outlook in him—‘the mind of Christ’ (1 Cor 2:16). Consequently, his words, his choices and his behavior must increasingly become a reflection, proclamation and witness of the Gospel….”

3. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Preaching the Mystery of Faith: The Sunday Homily (Washington, DC: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2013), 33-34.

4. The for such a democratized or inclusive interpretation cuts across confessional lines. A Catholic such as R. J. Karris, The Pastoral Epistles (Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1979), 35, takes this option as does an evangelical Protestant like I. H. Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1999), 796.

5. Gordon D. Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1984), 230, intuits and states concisely what will be developed here: “[T]he context, plus the use of the title ‘man of God’ in the singular, almost demand that Paul is … concerned with Timothy, as the one responsible for giving instruction…. Paul’s concern is clear enough. By continually nurturing his own life in the Scriptures that he is to use in his ministry, Timothy will be fully qualified and equipped ‘for every good work,’ which here means not only Christian behavior but the ministry of the gospel as well, and especially points forward to 4:1-5.”

6. See Sean C. Martin, Pauli Testamentum (Rome: Pontificia Università Gregoriana, 1999), 32-34, who maintains that the “man of God” expression in 2 Tim 3:17 is meant to echo the epithet of Moses and point to the authority of Timothy as Paul’s agent and apostolic heir.

7. Commenting on 2 Tim 3:16-17, Martin Dibelius and Hans Conzelmann, The Pastoral Epistles (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972), 120, indicate that it is the author’s intention to say that the “understanding of the scriptures … makes the leader of the congregation (emphasis is mine) fit for the fight against false teachers.” Similarly, Ben Witherington III, Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians, vol. 1 (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2006), 361-362, states: “[S]ince this (i.e., 2 Timothy 3:16-17) is directed to Timothy, ‘person/man of God’ here refers to a minister of some sort. Paul then would be talking about equipping the minister by means of studying the Scriptures. The emphasis on the usefulness or profitable nature of Scripture is what one would expect in a deliberative discourse (cf. 1 Tim 4:8; Tit 3:8).”

8. In this direction, note the comment of Philip H. Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2006), 593, who writes: “[W]hile salvation and the doing of good works are the rightful domain of all believers, these matters [i.e., teaching, reproof, correction, and training] are specifically addressed in this discourse (emphasis is mine) to Timothy; that is, they apply to the one engaged in ministry as well as to the typical believer, but the shape or scope of ‘good works’ may in Timothy’s case necessarily include ministerial activities.”