I Timothy 1-6
Have nothing to do with irreverent, silly myths. Rather train yourself for godliness; for while bodily training is of some value, godliness is of value in every way, as it holds promise for the present life and also for the life to come.
I Timothy 4:7-8
“Godliness” runs throughout this letter from Paul to his protégé, Timothy. The word itself occurs nine times here. (I Timothy 2:10, 3:16, 4:7,8, 5:4, 6:3,5,6,11) (It shows up only six other times in the New Testament.) Aside from the explicit use of the word, the idea of godliness pervades the letter, as in the qualifications for the offices of bishop and deacon. In essence, godliness is the “proof in the pudding” for sound doctrine. Godliness results from adherence to the Truth of the Gospel. Ungodliness results from straying away from that Gospel into false teachings, error, and greed.
So stick to the Gospel and pursue godliness.
See also:
I am a little behind (of course!) and want to comment on 1 Timothy 5:18. In the NIV Chronological Bible, the second half of this verse (The worker deserves his wages), the scriptural reference is to Luke 10:7. But I’m not sure that the gospel of Luke could have been a reference for Paul — it should be an Old Testament verse. I found two OT verses that are similar but not precisely the same: Leviticus 19:13 and Deuteronomy 24:15. Maybe there are others. I am pretty sure that the reference to Luke must be a mistake because of the chronology, but then what verse was Paul quoting? The trouble is when we read a translation (and I certainly don’t read any Greek or other ancient languages), weird little things like this can slip by us — we are depending on someone else to get things right. Does anyone else have any comments on this?
I think we can simply say that Paul is quoting Jesus and that Luke is likewise quoting Jesus. Hence, Paul need not have the fully written Gospel of Luke in hand per se. We should also note that Luke is a frequent companion of Paul, and there is surely plenty of conversation between them. That is, Paul doesn’t need the written Gospel of Luke. Paul has Luke himself.
Also, as an aside, we do not really know when Luke wrote his Gospel. One theory, put forth by John W. Mauck in his book, Paul on Trial: The Book of Acts as a Defense of Christianity, is that Luke wrote the Book of Acts as a kind of legal brief in defense of Paul at his trial. If that was the case, then Paul could very well have had both the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts in hand when writing his final pastoral letters to Timothy and Titus.