Andreas Kostenberger has commenced a weekly blog. It is a little unusual in that there don't appear to be any permalinks, so articles are tough to link to directly.

His March 23 blog entry is a respsonse to Ben Witherington, who posted on 1Ti 2.8-15 a few weeks back. Ben's post is good, it and its comments should be read.

In the comments of Dr. Kostenberger's entry he and Dr. Witherington interact a bit. The interaction is good; if this is a topic that you're studying the back-and-forth would be good for you to read.

First, I owe an apology to David Ritsema. I made a comment about his translation being colored by presupposition when I had only deduced that and hadn't asked him about it. I should have, and I should have done it before I posted. I apologize for that, David, and I'm sorry.

And do please read David's comments on the previous post where he offers some clarifying thoughts for some of the translational choices he made.

Second, please note the following posts on the subject:

• The Birth of the Child by Suzanne McCarthy on the Better Bibles Blog (from Dec. 2005)
• Saved by Childbirth in 1Tim 2.15 on the Better Bibles Blog (which links to and interacts with my previous post on this topic). In response to Wayne's comment, I should say that I don't think a woman's primary role is that of childbearing and nurturing. I think the primary role of anyone — male or female — is to glorify God.

My basic understanding as I was examining the text (1Ti 2.8-15) and some of the literature I have at hand was that in the overall scheme of the letter, Paul is exhorting men and women to return to roles they had abandoned in following false teaching. Paul wanted to restore them in doctrine and in practice, and I think this passage is part of his attempt at restoring practice. I'm still confused as to how 1Ti 2.13-15 fits in that mix.

I must not have said it clearly in the previous post, but this doesn't mean that I see the role of women as that of silent, never speaking, never talking, never teaching, and locked up at home having babies in the hopes that they might be saved. And I don't see men as authoritarian and dictatorial figures in family or in an ecclesial setting.

Now, so there isn't any misunderstanding, the following is me "thinking aloud". You know, blogging. Throwing something up and seeing what happens. "Open" dialog and all that. Please read and (if you'd like) react in that spirit.

If one of the false teachings propagated in Ephesus had to do with promotion of ascetic tendencies (specifically, discounting of marriage and therefore likely family), why wouldn't an exhortation to bear children be an appropriate way to refute that false teaching and show that one was not bound by it — that one adheres to the sound doctrine and is saved?

Here's 1Ti 4.1-5:

Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer. (1Ti 4.1-5, ESV)

What better way to renounce a teaching that forbade marriage than for those who were married to be restored and have children? Wouldn't this publicly and undeniably show that the false teaching was renounced?

You might think I'm going off of the deep end here. Maybe I am. But the thought did occur, outlandish though it might be, so why not bring it up?

Maybe 1Ti 2.15| really is an oblique reference to a prophecy of Christ as child of Eve who will save the world, complete with problematic noun number shifting and verbs with ambiguous subjects. I'm wide open to that being the case. Language is messy and people don't always write with perfect grammar and syntax — this author included, though I likely didn't need to tell you that.

Bonus Question: Note that 1Ti 3.1 starts out with, "This is a faithful saying". That phrase is formulaic in the Pastorals, a sort of "cue". It occurs before or after a saying that is especially worthy of noting. Note also that the NA27 joins this textual cue at the end of 1Ti 2.15 and breaks the paragraph after the textual cue, right in the middle of 1Ti 3.1. Most English translations break the paragraph before the start of 1Ti 3.1. The NA27 paragraph formatting implies the saying is previous to the cue; most English translations imply the saying is after the cue.

Now the bonus question: Which is the 'faithful saying'? The saying about childbirth (thus 1Ti 2.13-15) or the following text about "If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task"?

There's a discussion in the blogosphere going on regarding 1Ti 2.15. Well, there always seems to be a discussion going on regarding that verse, doesn't there?

This one apparently started at a blog I'm unfamiliar with called Aaron's Corner, where there is a significant comment thread (do check it out). Aaron refers to an article by Andreas Kostenberger, Saved through Childbearing? A Fresh Look at 1 Timothy 2:15 Points to Protection from Satan’s Deception where Kostenberger notes similarity of 1Ti 2.15 to 1Ti 5.14-15. David Ritsema picked up the thread and blogged a response; be sure to check it out.

There are a bunch of touchy issues with this verse (and the larger context, 1Ti 2.8-15); Stanley Porter has isolated them in his article "What Does it Mean to be 'Saved By Childbirth'? (1Ti 2.15)", published in Studies in the Greek New Testament: Theory and Practice. Porter isolates the following six "lexical and grammatical" issues (Porter, 255-256):

• the subject of the verb σωθήσεται with respect to "the woman" of v. 14
• the sense of the verb σῴζω
• the denotation of the term τεκνογονία
• the function of the preposition διά
• the shift in number of the verbs from singular to plural
• the use of the third class conditional construction

Porter then walks through each of these phenomenon in building his case: That the Greek is difficult to read any other way than the plain sense. Porter's conclusion, however, needs to be set in the context of his entire discussion. If you're interested in this you really should read Porter's article as he tries to come at the text lexically and grammatically to provide a foundation for interpretation instead of reading modern theological and cultural presuppositions back into the text. And this is why I don't really like Ritsema's translation of 1Ti 2.14-15; it seems to start with the presupposition that the verses can't really mean what they seem to say so plainly and then works back through the text with this understanding.

Another essay that has been helpful for me in considering these issues is that of Thomas R. Schreiner, "An Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2.9-15: A Dialogue with Scholarship" in Andreas Kostenberger's Women in the Church: An Analysis and Application of 1 Timothy 2.9-15 (second edition). Schreiner surveys recent literature on the issue and interacts with it, drawing conclusions along the way. It is a helpful read to get a quick understanding of the major paths that most interpreters take on this passage.

As for me, Porter, Kostenberger and Schreiner have helped inform my perspective on this confusing text. From my perspective, the overall sense of the passage (1Ti 2.8-15) is an argument from creation order (reinforced by the allusions to Ge 2.7 and Ge 3.12-16 in 1Ti 2.13-15) urging men and women both to return to foreordained roles; with men leading and women supporting and nurturing. This is why I like to include verse 8 in the pericope; it urges men to set disagreements aside and return to prayer and worship (as 1Ti 2.1-7 exhorts believers to prayer). This is something that, in the context, only men can do as they are the leaders of the fellowship. They set the tone and manage their families (cf. 1Ti 3.1-7 and 1Ti 3.8-13) and are in positions of leadership. They can work to remove anger and bickering from the fellowship and restore the focus to sound doctrine and proper worship.

Starting with verse 9 women are likewise exhorted to similarly return to propriety by clothing themselves modestly — both physically and spiritually. Women are also to return relationships to proper order, and to focus on something that is uniquely feminine: the bearing of children.*

Men and women both are to forsake an apparently growing asceticism (cf. the discussion refuting false teachers on how marriage and foods are good and proper (1Ti 4.1-4), refuting myths/geneaologies as improper to focus upon (1Ti 1.3-4), etc.) and return to the lives they were pursuing under the sound doctrine given by Paul focused on the gospel of Christ.

In other words, the ascetic-leaning false teachers are wrong and there is no need for married couples to abstain from sex and bearing children. So they should refute the ascetics and copulate. The false teachers prescribe a sexless, separated focus on a personally-enforced purity? Refute them by returning to your spouse (husbands to wives; wives to husbands) and get back to the business of being fruitful and multiplying. The false teachers say some foods are bad and should be avoided? Forget that, just pray and consecrate it to God prior to eating it (cf. 1Ti 4.3-4).

This still leaves a strange taste in the mouth as it seems to endorse a works-based salvation: women are saved by having children, not by the blood of Christ. But I don't think that is what it says, particularly because of the clarification added at the end of verse 15: "if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control." Here I'll defer to Schreiner, who writes:

Paul is not asserting in 1 Timothy 2.15 that women merit salvation by bearing children and doing other good works. He has already clarified that salvation is by God's mercy and grace (cf. 1Ti 1.12-17). The term σωθήσεται is used rather loosely here, so that Paul does not specify in what sense women are saved by childbearing and doing other good works (e.g., Ro 3.19-4.25; Ga 2.16-3.14; 2Ti 1.9-11; Titus 2.11-14; Titus 3.4-7), I think it is fair to understand the virtues described here as evidence that the salvation already received is genuine. Any good works of the Christian, of course, are not the ultimate basis of salvation, for the ultimate basis of salvation is the righteousness of Christ granted to us (Schriener 119).

This is, admittedly, a little wiggly. But I think it is fair (also see Porter 266-267 on this third-class conditional statement). As Schreiner next reminds us, a very similar issue shows up in 1Ti 4.11-16, where Timothy is told:

Keep a close watch on yourself and on the teaching. Persist in this, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers (1Ti 4.16).

Does this mean that Timothy's words and persistence are the things that save Timothy and those who hear him? Not likely. But Timothy's obedience in doing these things are visible evidence of his salvation — just like obeying the call to return to proper roles in the fellowship and the family (for both men and women) is visible evidence of salvation.

This doesn't mean that married women must bear children in order to merit or even evidence salvation. But the act of shedding the imposition of false doctrine and false practices and returning to sound doctrine and the lives we are called to lead does evidence salvation.

I should note at this point that I'm not set in this view; I'm still working through it. I think there are issues with just about any interpretation of this passage, but at this time the above seems acceptable. Any comments or further feedback is appreciated.

---

* I can't help but think there's also something to the idea that painful childbirth is mentioned as a curse of the fall in Ge 3.16} (along with the husband "ruling over" the wife) and that childbirth is mentioned in 1Ti 2.15 as well. Whether this is a further reminder that the pain experienced is a result of the fall and therefore a reminder that salvation is coming or something else I can't really say, but the link seems to be there.

I've been a bit stumped by 1Ti 4.10 for awhile now; that means I need to think through it. One way I do that is by writing. Please realize the below reflects my process of thought, not necessarily final conclusions. Comments or private email with further discussion or thought is welcome.

Here's the verse:

For this we work hard and we agonize, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is Saviour of all people, especially believers. (1Ti 4.10, my own translation)

I've read a few articles (T.C. Skeat here and Vern Poythress here) and Poythress makes more sense to me. While Skeat's proposal of "God, who gives salvation to all men — that is to say, to all who believe in Him" is attractive because it makes the verse easier to fit into an overall theology of election, it is tough to justify for the reasons Poythress brings to light; primarily that none of Skeat's supporting examples demand it.

But that leaves me in the same spot. Actually, it leaves me in a worse spot because I now I can't lean on Skeat's proposal to wriggle out of my perplexed state.

Relation to 1Ti 2.1-7

I do think (as do others, particularly Knight) that the way one interprets 1Ti 2.1-7 has impact on how 1Ti 4.10 is interpreted. The verses from chapter 2 are below.

First of all, then, I encourage supplications, prayers, petitions, and praises to be made on behalf of all people, on behalf of kings and all in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. This is good and pleasing in the sight of God our Saviour, who desires all people to be saved and come to knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who sacrificed himself as a ransom on behalf of all, the witness at the proper time. Into this I was appointed herald and apostle—I speak the truth, I do not lie—a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth. (1Ti 2.1-7, my own translation)

I think 2.1-7 are key because they deal with the same language (all people, salvation) in the same letter.* I don't think that all people here means "all sorts of people" (contra Knight). I do think that all people in 1Ti 2.1 is qualified in a particular way. In 1Ti 2.4, all people is qualified as those whom God our Saviour desires to be saved. Thus we are to pray for all people because God desires that they be saved. Our evangelism is to be based on the premise that God wants people saved. We cannot be effective in our prayers for others (kings, as v. 2 indicates, or anyone else) if we do not believe that God can save them.

So, I don't see 1Ti 2.4 as stating unequivically that God will save everyone. It is not a foundation for universalism. But it does reinforce that man is in need of salvation, and that from our perspective as Christians we are to interact with everyone believing that God wants them saved, and can act to save them.

This, in turn, means I have to apply the same conclusion to 1Ti 4.10. But this is tough for me because the text doesn't say that the living God desires all people to be saved, it says that He is Saviour of all people, and then goes on to qualify that further with especially believers.

But is this different from 1Ti 2.1-7? Taking some time to step back and consider it, I really don't think it is all that different. In 4.10, there are "believers" and there are "all people". In 2.1-7, there are the ones doing the praying, and the "all people" being prayed for. God is the Saviour of those who believe, this is sure. But He is also the Saviour of those who don't believe. God is the only one who can save them, thus — even if He doesn't act to save them — He is still the only one who is able to save them, whether He has acted to save them or not.

Often, I find myself thinking that God is Saviour because He has saved me. That is, he is my Saviour, thus when I read Saviour I think, "Yes, praise God, He has saved me!" But he was no less my Saviour before I was led by the Holy Spirit to believe in Him.

For anyone, then, believer or unbeliever, God is Saviour. We are to realize that in our interaction, particularly with those that we know do not believe.

Returning to 1Ti 4.10

Now, take this and plug it into 1Ti 4.10:

For this we work hard and we agonize, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is Saviour of all people, especially believers. (1Ti 4.10, my own translation)

Can the especially believers bit be in reference to the fact that the ones who believe are those who are saved, they are those whom the Holy Spirit has led and are able to return praise to God for His salvation? Because of the saving act of Jesus Christ, those who believe (the faithful ones) know they are saved. This text doesn't say that God will save all people, and it doesn't say that God will save "all kinds of people". It says that God is Saviour. The believers, those who are beneficiaries of God's salvation not through merit but through mercy and grace, are especially distinct among all people.

What Do Commentaries Say?

As I check commentaries on 1Ti 4.10, I find the discussion on this verse lacking. Hermeneia is relatively silent. It has only one paragraph, and most of that focuses on identifying the "goal" (this in my translation). In what it does say it seems to jive with what I've written here:

For Paul all men are, theoretically, capable of becoming believers. The Pastorals are reconciled to the fact that the faithful represent only a portion of humanity. Thus the church is not just a preliminary form of the kingdom of God but already its substitute. (Hermeneia, p. 69)

Mounce (WBC) has discussion that is worth reading but too long to reproduce here, but he specifically addresses and criticises the approach that 1Ti 4.10 can be used as a basis of universal salvation.

Knight (NIGTC) refers to his discussion on 1Ti 2.3-4 where he takes the "all kinds of people" approach. Regarding especially believers, Knight specifically cites (and seems to recommend) Skeat's approach.

Ellicott writes as follows:

The declaration is made to arouse the feeling that the same God who is a living is a loving God, one in whom their trust is not placed in vain; the Saviour of all men, chiefly, especially, of them that believe. ... God is the σωτὴρ of all men, in the greatest degree of the πιστοί; i.e. the greatest and fullest exhibition of His σωτηρία, its complete realization, is seen in the case of the πιστοί; comp. Gal 6.10. (Ellicott, pp. 62-63)

There are others, but those are the primary commentaries I consult. What I've mused upon above fits into what Hermeneia and Mounce discuss. It doesn't really fit into Knight, though it isn't specifically precluded. Ellicott ... well, one has to get their mind into mid 19th century European scholarship to fully grok Ellicott. I don't think 1Ti 4.10 has to do with degrees of salvation (one is saved or one isn't, there is no middle ground); but I'm not really sure if that is what Ellicott is proposing.

I've run on for a bit, and need to wrap this up. Again, if you have comments or thoughts, please feel free to leave them here. Or email me. Or write on your own blog and leave a trackback here.

---

• If you think Miller's approach of fragmentary sources and heavy redaction has merit, you'll disagree with me or at least minimise the importance that 1Ti 2.1-7 holds in examining 1Ti 4.10. I think Miller's approach is a caricature of redaction theory and is of little value. If one considers the Pastorals cohesive (at a minimum) or of one author (as I do), then this has to be a consideration.

This final article in the Trinity Journal dialogue between Moo and Philip B. Payne. Payne's previous article discusses criticisms of Moo's interpretation of 1Ti 2.11-15. Moo directly responds to Payne's criticisms. Regarding Moo's general approach in this response, he writes:

I will say at the outset that I remain convinced that the general interpretation of the passage which I set out in my article is correct. Many of Payne's criticisms pertain to minor matters which hardly affect the over-all interpretation. Others would certainly critically weaken my general interpretation; but, interestingly, I find these to be the least acceptable of his alternative suggestions. Payne's criticisms fall essentially into three areas: exegetical points; the role of women in the NT church generally; and the situation in the Ephesian church. These basic areas provide the outline of my reply. As much as possible I will follow the order of Payne;s criticisms, so that the reader can more readily evaluate the conflicting opinions. I also encourage the reader to become familiar with the argument of the original article.

The interpretation of 1Ti 2.11-15 is a difficult issue. The forthright dialogue between Moo and Payne on the topic is helpful if only to get a glimpse at how these two perspectives of interpretation view each other; how they view the strengths and weaknesses of the alternate interpretation.

This article is Philip B. Payne's response to the Douglas J. Moo article on the topic of 1Ti 2.11-15. Payne disagrees with Moo's conclusions, offering explanation of points where he disagrees. Payne discusses the approach of his article:

Our response will consider, first, exegetical weaknesses, and second, logical weaknesses in Moo's evaluation of the meaning and significance of 1Ti 2.11-15. Third, we will examine more closely the situation in the Ephesian church which 1 Timothy addressed. Finally, we will examine whether Paul intended 1Ti 2.12 as a universal prohibition of women teaching or having authority over men.

Note that Moo does offer a response to Payne's criticisms in a subsequent Trinity Journal article.

This is Douglas J. Moo's often-cited Trinity Journal article on 1Ti 2.11-15. Notable due to the ensuing published dialogue between Moo and Philip B. Payne, this article conveys Moo's perspective on this difficult passage. His approach is described thusly:

As an organizing method, the study will be divided into two general stages. In the first, I will attempt to determine the “meaning” of the text; that which Paul sought to communicate to Timothy in the setting of First Century Ephesus. In the second stage, the crucial question of “significance” will be investigated: to what extent is Paul’s instruction applicable to the contemporary church? While these two questions are distinguishable, they must not be regarded as separate: the exegetical conclusions directly and importantly influence the question of normativeness.

The entire interchange between Moo and Payne is well worth reading, in order of publication.

This book is a re-working of Holmes' PhD thesis. Holmes considers traditional interpretations of 1Ti 2.9-15 and their reliance on passages such as Ge 2-3; Gal 2.28; 1Co 11.3-16; 1Co 14.34-35 and finds them all exhibiting some degree of inadequacy. Holmes writes in his preface:

The research had its genesis in the painfully slow realization that my understanding of 1Ti 2.9-15 was more the result of supposition than of what the Greek text and context actually specify. As I explored the literature, I discovered that, generally speaking, the syntactical peculairities and semantic ambiguities of the passage are not so much explained as explained away. That is to say they are interpreted by some combination of: other problematic passages ... not always convincing historical backgrounds; speculation; and unsubstantiated assertion. No interpretation I was able to find struck me as altogether compelling.

When I heard about this book from a friend (who let me borrow his copy) my initial reaction was "Hoo-boy, yet another book and perspective on 1Ti 2.9-15 ... ". But after reading the preface and introduction, I'm encouraged. Even if I don't end up agreeing with Holmes' perspective, I think I'll appreciate his argument.

The phrase "The saying is trustworthy" occurs five times in the Pastoral Epistles and nowhere else in the New Testament. Knight's study examines each of these instances in depth and attempts to identify the "sayings" regarded as "faithful", and then discusses the sayings in light of their prominence.

From the introduction:

The phrase "Faithful is the saying" (πιστὸς ὁ λόγος) elicits one's attention by virtue of its five-fold occurrence in the Pastoral Letters. This repeated phenomenon in the Pastorals is all the more striking because of the absence of this exact phrase, or anything closely approximating it, anywhere else in Paul or for that matter in the N.T. Equally striking is the addition "and worthy of all acceptation" (καὶ πάσας ἀποδοχῆς ἄξιος) in two of the five occurrences but not at the other three. Coupled with this striking phrase are the sometimes more evident, sometimes less evident, sayings to which it refers. Here indeed is a fascinating situation worthy of serious investigation. And strangely enough here is a situation which has received virtually no intensive and comprehensive study. Thus this dissertation is an attempt to provide at least a beginning in investigating with some measure of care the phenomenon of the faithful sayings in the Pastoral Letters.

Knight also notes the article by H.B. Swete in Journal of Theological Studies xvii (published in 1917) on the subject The Faithful Sayings (click on "Articles and Papers", look for article #44), which should be examined in conjunction with Knight's work.

Ellicott's commentary hails from the late 19th century, but don't let that scare you away. The commentary is on the Greek directly. I'm not sure of the Greek edition, though. I'd thought it was Tischendorf's editio octava maior, but I can't confirm that at present. Perhaps it is Textus Receptus.

Either way, Ellicott's work is worth examining, primarily because he really is commenting critically on the language. He also brings in readings from Latin, Syriac and Gothic and examines them along with the Greek where he deems appropriate. He references readings from various uncial texts frequently. There are several references to classical Greek works as well.

His Revised Translation is his attempt to update the KJV. Most helpful in this translation is his apparatus of alternate English readings, with several English versions represented.

I have only consulted the first edition of this book (published 1957). A second edition is currently available.

Guthrie's work is accessible and clear. This commentary should be near the top of the list for those embarking on a study of the Pastorals, particularly if a technical commentary (e.g. WBC, Hermeneia, NIGTC) is seen as overkill.

From the preface:

I have been conscious of many difficulties in approaching my task of commenting upon these letters. Over a considerable period serious doubts have been cast upon their authenticity by many scholars and this has tended to decrease their authority. I have felt obliged to make a thorough investigation of these objections, and the results are given as fully as space will permit in the Introduction. A special examination has been mde of the linguistic problem. Because of the technical nature of this study, the conclusions reached are gien in an Appendix.

Gordon Fee's NIBC volume is a solid entry in the list of commentaries on the Pastoral Epistles. The text is readable and clear yet not condescending.

Fee doesn't comment on the original language, but he's obviously done the homework in that area. If you're someone who doesn't get into Greek but wants a serious, in-depth look at the Pastoral Epistles, then Fee's commentary may be what you're looking for.

From the preface:

The basic concern throughout is with exegesis, an exposition of Paul's intent in writing these letters to Timothy and Titus in their historical context.

This book is part of SIL's Exegetical Summary series. It works throught the text, phrase by phrase, pointing to different lexicons and translations of the phrase at hand. It also points to the opinion of different commentaries.

The book is extremely helpful for one who is working through the text at the phrase level. It serves as an index to both commentaries and lexicons. In addition, the text asks (and answers) several questions along the way.

This book is part of SIL's Exegetical Summary series. It works throught the text, phrase by phrase, pointing to different lexicons and translations of the phrase at hand. It also points to the opinion of different commentaries.

The book is extremely helpful for one who is working through the text at the phrase level. It serves as an index to both commentaries and lexicons. In addition, the text asks (and answers) several questions along the way.