My lovely wife and I have been reading through Ecclesiastes in our devotional time. Last night we read Ec 5.13-17:

13 There is a grievous evil that I have seen under the sun: riches were kept by their owner to his hurt, 14 and those riches were lost in a bad venture. And he is father of a son, but he has nothing in his hand. 15 As he came from his mother’s womb he shall go again, naked as he came, and shall take nothing for his toil that he may carry away in his hand. 16 This also is a grievous evil: just as he came, so shall he go, and what gain is there to him who toils for the wind? 17 Moreover, all his days he eats in darkness in much vexation and sickness and anger. (Ec 5.13-17)

This reminded me of 1Ti 6.6-10:

6 Now there is great gain in godliness with contentment, 7 for we brought nothing into the world, and we cannot take anything out of the world. 8 But if we have food and clothing, with these we will be content. 9 But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. 10 For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs. (1Ti 6.6-10)

And, to a degree, 1Ti 6.17-19:

17 As for the rich in this present age, charge them not to be haughty, nor to set their hopes on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who richly provides us with everything to enjoy. 18 They are to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous and ready to share, 19 thus storing up treasure for themselves as a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of that which is truly life. (1Ti 6.17-19)

This sample covers 1Ti 5.17-19.

Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.” Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses. (1Ti 5.17-19, ESV)

I'm almost hesitant to post this as my thoughts on this section are far from resolved. I'm most confused by the concept of "double honor". Does it involve monetary compenasation?

Also, what really was the structure of the church at this point? How do overseers (ἐπίσκοπος) and elders (πρεσβύτερος) relate to each other? Are all overseers elders, but not all elders overseers?

You'll see that I have many notes to myself in the footnotes, and I discuss sorts of things that I don't typically discuss in these studies. This is just me working through issues on paper, much of it will likely be cut in future revisions that are more "word study" focused.

Please see my overview post for further details on what this is all about.

Comments via email or through the commenting system here are appreciated.

Thanks!

This sample covers 1Ti 5.9-10 and 1Ti 5.11-16:

Let a widow be enrolled if she is not less than sixty years of age, having been the wife of one husband, and having a reputation for good works: if she has brought up children, has shown hospitality, has washed the feet of the saints, has cared for the afflicted, and has devoted herself to every good work. But refuse to enroll younger widows, for when their passions draw them away from Christ, they desire to marry and so incur condemnation for having abandoned their former faith. Besides that, they learn to be idlers, going about from house to house, and not only idlers, but also gossips and busybodies, saying what they should not. So I would have younger widows marry, bear children, manage their households, and give the adversary no occasion for slander. For some have already strayed after Satan. If any believing woman has relatives who are widows, let her care for them. Let the church not be burdened, so that it may care for those who are really widows. (1Ti 5.9-16, ESV)

This is actually covered as two parts (vv. 9-10 and vv. 11-16) of a larger section (vv. 3-16).

Please see my overview post for further details on what this is all about.

Comments via email or through the commenting system here are appreciated.

Thanks!

This sample covers 1Ti 5.3-8:

Honor widows who are truly widows. But if a widow has children or grandchildren, let them first learn to show godliness to their own household and to make some return to their parents, for this is pleasing in the sight of God. She who is truly a widow, left all alone, has set her hope on God and continues in supplications and prayers night and day, but she who is self-indulgent is dead even while she lives. Command these things as well, so that they may be without reproach. But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. (1Ti 5.3-8, ESV)

This is actually covered as two parts (v. 3 and vv. 4-8) of a larger section (vv. 3-16).

Please see my overview post for further details on what this is all about.

Comments via email or through the commenting system here are appreciated.

Thanks!

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.

This sample covers 1Ti 5.1-2:

Do not rebuke an older man but encourage him as you would a father. Treat younger men like brothers, older women like mothers, younger women like sisters, in all purity. (1Ti 5.1-2, ESV)

Please see my overview post for further details on what this is all about.

Comments via email or through the commenting system here are appreciated.

Thanks!

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.

Paul's parenthetical comment to Timothy — 1Ti 5.23 — has confused me for awhile. Why is it there?

I should preface this post by saying I haven't checked commentaries, I'm just thinking about the text. I'm willing to be wrong (very wrong); and I'll check this against commentaries later. Also, I think the argument for Paul writing the Pastorals is better than other authorship arguments (you'll buy no points from me with style arguments, particularly if they include comparions of hapax legomenon as a prominent point — the corpus is just too small). So I'll refer to "Paul" as the author and have the underlying assumption that each letter is a single unredacted unit.

Here's the whole section, 1Ti 5.17-25 in — for a change — my own translation. It isn't perfect but it is serviceable. I've placed verse 23 in italics:

The elders who lead well are considered worthy of double honor, especially the ones who work hard in speaking and teaching. For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle a threshing ox” and “The worker is worthy of his wages.” Do not accept an accusation against an elder except on the basis of two or three witnesses. Those continuing in sin you are to rebuke before everyone, so that the remaining elders might have fear. I solemnly urge you before God and Christ Jesus and the elect angels, so that these you might observe without prejudging, doing nothing from partiality. Do not hastily lay hands upon another; nor be partner in the sins of others: keep yourself pure. (No longer drink only water, but use a little wine on account of your stomach and your frequent ailments.) The sins of some men are quite obvious, going before them into judgment, but the sins of others come along later. Likewise also, good works are quite obvious and those that are not cannot remain hidden. (1Ti 5.17-25)

So there it is: "No longer drink only water, but use a little wine on account of your stomach and your frequent ailments." Why was this placed in this context? There are a few things to note.

First, note the phrase that precedes v. 23: "keep yourself pure". Perhaps in exhorting Timothy to stay pure, Paul recalls a vow Timothy made in the past (much like Paul had made Nazirite vows). In recalling this, Paul remembers to tell Timothy to not let poor health jeopardize his ministry; to attend to issues of health.

And there might be something to that. As I recall, that seems to be the usual route that commentators take.

Second, however, I notice there are eight imperatives in vv. 17-23. This includes the verbs in the parenthetical comment. Paul really means whatever it is he is saying here, the tone carries straight into the parenthesis.

Could Paul perhaps also be adding some positive testimony in here (i.e., cover) for Timothy? That is, Paul says that where two or three witnesses, charges against the elder are to be pursued. We can, I think, deduce that Timothy has stomach problems and likely even a delicate constitution. Perhaps, when necessary, he medicates his condition with wine. We know that Paul and Timothy have spent years together in ministry (likely at least a decade) so it seems reasonable to think that Paul would know Timothy's state of health and his methods for dealing with his "frequent ailments".

In the context of dealing with purity and enforcing the line that elders remain accountable — if the above is reasonably accurate — Timothy might open himself up for charges of impurity and sin due to his use of wine to medicate his weak stomach and frequent ailments. If so, it is likely that two or three witnesses could be easily rounded up to testify that Timothy had, in fact, drank wine.

But he'd have a get-out-of-jail-free card (of sorts) because of Paul's own acceptance of this practice is documented in this letter. It is not carte blanche acceptance of irresponsible and free use of alcohol; it is acceptance that one attend to issues of health and to properly balance health with ministry.

Discussion questions:

• Is there something to this? Or am I looney?
• If there is something to it, how should a teetotaler respond to one who has a glass of red wine with dinner on the advice (and perhaps even prescription) of a registered, reputable, board-certified cardiologist?
• Even tougher: what about the medical use of marijuana? (Again, in a similar reasonable use and prescription context — say a terminal cancer patient with a prescription from a real, bonafide doctor of medicine. Let's even say they're both Christian.)

Actually, those last questions are decent questions even if my blathering suppostions are way out in left field and the usual take is more proper.

Comments are, of course, open (as are trackbacks). They are moderated so they will not appear immediately; I'll try to check them occasionally over the next few days.

Ben Witherington has an interesting post on 2Ti 3.16. He talks just a bit about the grammar/syntax of the verse and also some about θεόπνευστος. Please do check it out.

I haven't made it into Second Timothy yet (I'm through chapter 5 of First Timothy, though!) so I haven't muddled through some of the issues Ben's post dwells on.

Ben also mentions a forthcoming commentary of his on "the Pastorals and Johannine Epistles, which is due out next November". Part of his bloc post uses his commentary as source. I'm of course interested to see what he's come up with. If you need advance readers, Ben, please let me know!

In 1Ti 3.14-15, we have:

I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these things to you so that, if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of truth.

The Greek in the NA/UBS text of this phrase is στῦλος καὶ ἑδραίωμα τῆς ἀληθείας; the key words being στῦλος (pillar) and ἑδραίωμα (buttress).

Eusebius uses this same phrase in Hist. Eccl. Book V, 1.17:

But the whole wrath of the populace, and governor, and soldiers was aroused exceedingly against Sanctus, the deacon from Vienne, and Maturus, a late convert, yet a noble combatant, and against Attalus, a native of Pergamos where he had always been a pillar and foundation, and Blandina, through whom Christ showed that things which appear mean and obscure and despicable to men are with God of great glory, through love toward him manifested in power, and not boasting in appearance.

The underlying Greek of Eusebius is στῦλον καὶ ἑδραίωμα τῶν ἐταῦθα ἀεὶ γεγονότα, again using στῦλος and ἑδραίωμα. I retrieved this citation from The Genuineness and Authorship of the Pastoral Epistles by J.D. James, published in 1907 (on p. 6). The Eusebius citation is from the Letter of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons which, according to James, dates to 180.

James offers several other citations/allusions/common phrases between the Pastoral Epistles and other somewhat contemporary literature; I may detail some of them here as I work through them. Some are interesting (like this one), others are not too exciting.

In the past I mentioned a book called The Christian Ecclesia by Fenton John Anthony Hort. It deals with the idea of church as described by use of the word ἐκκλησία.

I've recently become aware that Hort's book is available online from the ever-helpful CCEL.

If you're studying the Pastoral Epistles, particularly chapter 3 (see 1Ti 3.5 and 1Ti 3.15) then you need to consult The Christian Ecclesia.

While you're there, make sure to take a peek at the other stuff from Hort that the CCEL have digitised and placed online.

Rob Bradshaw (BiblicalStudies.org.uk) points to a few articles on the topic One of the articles Rob points to is the intro to a review of the updated edition of Andreas Kostenberger's study on 1Ti 2.9-15. I've read and have a very short description of the first edition of Women in the Church on PastoralEpistles.com.

Check 'em out. Kostenberger's book is well worth reading. I had borrowed a copy of the first edition from a friend; I'm happy to have my own copy now — and an updated edition at that!

1Ti 5.13 has the following text:

Besides that, they learn to be idlers, going about from house to house, and not only idlers, but also gossips and busybodies, saying what they should not. (1Ti 5.13, ESV)

The phrase "going about from house to house" (περιερχόμεναι τὰς οἰκίας) is the one I have questions about. I'm curious about the houses that these younger widows were circulating between. We read this today and likely think that these younger widows were dropping in and out of neighbors' houses. Next door, across the street, down the street, across the back fence. You get the picture.

But I'm skeptical. I know that the Pastorals use ἐκκλησία for church (as in people gathered together as a community of believers); but these folks likely met in houses. You know, τάς οἰκίας, which is what is used here. Could the widows have been going from house-church to house-church, picking up a pastiche of teaching and not being bound to any of them? Were they house-hopping amongst the houses of the false teachers who seemingly had some influence in Ephesus at that time? Or were they simply visiting houses of other believers in the ἐκκλησία and gabbing about all sorts of non-edifying stuff?

Anyone with insight, feel free to contact me (my email address is on the sidebar) with references or pointers. Or — better — leave a comment.

Thanks!

Suzanne McCarthy has a post on the topic of 1Ti 2.13-15 over at the Better Bibles Blog. Check it out. It's a tough verse and I don't know that we'll ever know exactly what was intended.

In working through the Pastoral Epistles, one runs across 1Ti 4.16:

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.

This sort of phrasing is also seen in some writings of the Apostolic Fathers:

I do not think that I have given trivial advice about self-restraint. And whoever takes my advice will have no regrets, but will instead save both himself and me, the one who has given the advice. There is no small reward for the one who converts a person who is going astray toward destruction, that he may be saved. (2Cl 15.1, Ehrman)

Do not be deceived, my brothers; those who corrupt their households will not inherit the kingdom of God. If then those who do such things according to the flesh die, how much more the one who corrupts the faith of God through an evil teaching, the faith for which Jesus Christ was crucified? Such a person is filthy and will depart into the unquenchable fire; so too the one who listens to him. (IEph 16.1-2, Ehrman)

There are others, of course, and they're listed in the article. What I've done is create a few very general patterns (based on morphology of portions of the phrase in 1Ti 4.16) and searched other corpora for that pattern. The PDF article simply lists semi-relevant instances that I culled from the 100+ hits located in corpora such as the Apostolic Fathers, OT Pseudepigrapha, Works of Philo and Works of Josephus.

Just today, I received an email from Thomas C. Black announcing a sermon series on 1 Timothy:

I’ve just begun a sermon series on 1 Timothy, and I’ll be posting my Study notes on my blog at www.stilltruth.com.

The entire collection will be made available as Thomas preaches through the text; I'd guess he'll update weekly.

Check it out when you have the chance.

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.

I just came across this article in the online version of Biblica. The summary is as follows:

The distinctive way of honoring gods or God was to celebrate what is unique about them, that is, praise of persons who were the "first", "only", or "one of a few" to do something. Rhetoric from Aristotle to Quintilian expounded the theory of "uniqueness", which the authors of Greek hymns and prayers employed. One finds a Semitic counterpart in the "principle of incomparability" describing Israelite kings. "Uniqueness" pervades the New Testament, especially its doxologies. In them, "uniqueness" was richly expressed in rhetorical mode, as well as by predicates of negative theology which elevated the deity above those praising.

The article is available as HTML or PDF.

None of the essays in New Testament Greek and Exegesis directly concern the Pastoral Epistles, but at least one of the essays may be helpful in a specific area. One image used twice in the Pastoral Epistles is that of the "snare of the devil" (παγίδα τοῦ διαβόλου .

The essay in question is Finding the Devil in the Details: Onomastic Exegesis and the Naming of Evil in the World of the New Testament by Douglas L. Penney. In discussing how adjectives describing things at times end up becoming names (particularly in the realm of angels and demons), Penney discusses Ps 91.3-6, which mentions "the snare of the fowler". Penny refers to Akkadian magical texts that discuss "net-demons":

The phrase "snare of the fowler," although admittedly cumberson in the Hebrew poetry, nevertheless reflects a well-attested Mesopotamian belief in net demons. (p. 48)

After about a page of this discussion, Penny continues:

The words, phrases, and images employed in the magical literature are very long-lived. In spite of the dearth of Semitic magical texts from the Roman period and especially from Second Temple Palestine, many words, phrases, and motifs appear in Aramaic magical texts from the Islamic period almost unchanged from their antecedents in the Akkadian texts. This longevity points to a continuous surviving tradition of magical texts in spite of the paucity of archaeological finds. The concept of nets and net demons also follows this pattern. Later Aramaic and Greek magical texts continue this tradition, speaking of nets as demonic weapons. The same concept lies behind the NT metaphor "snare of the devil." [cf. 1Ti 3.7; 2Ti 2.26] The invisible demonic nets may cause physical or intellectual stumbling. Even in relatively recent times the net as a metaphor for the devil's tool or agent continues. (pp. 49-50)

Searching through Technorati for other things, I happened across a blog post on a blog called Parableman about the use of αυθεντειν in 1Ti 2.12.

The comments for the post list a paper by Franklin Pyles, An Exegetical Study of 1 Timothy 2.11-15. I know nothing about Dr. Pyles or about the gent who posted the reference to Dr. Pyles' paper. I've not yet read Dr. Pyles' paper, but I have printed out a copy and hope to get to it sometime in the next few weeks. Based on the comments on the original blog post, though, I'd guess I won't be too convinced by anything in Dr. Pyles' paper. We'll see though.

I was browsing through the Hosted Articles at BiblicalStudies.org.uk and came across the following:

Robert H. Gundry, "The Form, Meaning and Background of the Hymn Quoted in 1 Timothy 3:16," W. Ward Gasque & Ralph P. Martin, eds., Apostolic History and the Gospel. Biblical and Historical Essays Presented to F.F. Bruce. Exeter: The Paternoster Press, 1970. Hbk. ISBN: 085364098X. pp.203-222.

The article is available as a PDF file. The site has scads of other content as well, be sure to check it out to see if there is anything else there that interests you.

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.

I was reading Parsons/Culy on Ac 7.27 this morning and came across the word ἀπώσατο. I knew I'd looked into this word before, but couldn't remember where until I saw the cross-reference to 1Ti 1.19. The whole context is below:

This charge I entrust to you, Timothy, my child, in accordance with the prophecies previously made about you, that by them you may wage the good warfare, holding faith and a good conscience. By rejecting this, some have made shipwreck of their faith, among whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme. (1Ti 1.18-20, ESV, emphasis mine)

I'd looked into the use of ἀπωθέω when I was working on this verse. At that time, I'd noted that ἀπωθέω is used in a similar sense in Ro 11.1-2:

I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew. Do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he appeals to God against Israel? (Ro 11.1-2, ESV, emphasis mine.)

And I even went to Ac 7.39 and noted similarities:

Our fathers refused to obey him, but thrust him aside, and in their hearts they turned to Egypt, (Ac 7.39, ESV, emphasis mine).

The "him" in the above verse is Moses. I don't know why I didn't notice this before, but Ac 7.27 uses ἀπωθέω with Moses as the object of the "pushing aside" too:

But the man who was wronging his neighbor thrust him aside, saying, ‘Who made you a ruler and a judge over us? (Ac 7.27, ESV, emphasis mine)

Here one of the two Israelites who were fighting "thrust aside" Moses. In reading Parsons/Culy this morning, they note that this instance is typically assumed to be a physical "pushing aside". BDAG lists this usage as a literal, physical meaning. But Parsons/Culy are not convinced and think that this usage may be metaphorical as well.

I'd not noticed that the same sort of language (the "thrusting aside" of Moses) was used by the same speaker (Stephen) in the same context (his speech prior to his martyrdom).

The word ἀπωθέω also occurs in the Epistle to Diognetus (EpDiog 9.2:

And when our iniquity had been fully accomplished, and it had been made perfectly manifest that punishment and death were expected as its recompense, and the season came which God had ordained, when henceforth He should manifest His goodness and power (O the exceeding great kindness and love of God), He hated us not, neither rejected us, nor bore us malice, but was long-suffering and patient, and in pity for us took upon Himself our sins, and Himself parted with His own Son as a ransom for us, the holy for the lawless, the guileless for the evil, the just for the unjust, the incorruptible for the corruptible, the immortal for the mortal. (EpDiog 9.2, Lightfoot, emphasis mine)

Now, the questions:

• Does the usage of ἀπωθέω in Acts (occuring 6x in the NT, including Ac 13.46 which I've not quoted here) have any influence on how we understand the use of ἀπωθέω in 1Ti 1.19?

• If the Acts instances have no bearing (or little bearing) on our understanding of the usage of ἀπωθέω in First Timothy, then why are the instances in Acts translated (at least in the ESV) in the way they are? ("thrust aside" in Acts vs. "rejected" everywhere else).

• Is the difference in English translation due to the context of a direct speech, where Stephen is trying to prove a point and thus ἀπωθέω is translated with more strength/emphasis? If so, then why is Ac 13.46 translated the same way, yet it is outside of Stephen's speech? Is it again due to the mysterious catch-all "emphasis"? If so ... why doesn't the context of casting Alexander and Hymenaeus over to Satan provide enough contextual "emphasis" to translate ἀπωθέω as "thrust aside" in 1Ti 1.19?

I know I don't have comments enabled. If you send me email (see sidebar for address) or post comments on your own blog with responses/thoughts, I'll post a follow-up to this post with links to blogs or reproductions of email comments (provided you grant permission).

I was working through 1Ti 4.5 this weekend. Here's the text (ESV):

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 4.4-5)

The context is simple enough. Paul (or "the author", whichever you prefer) is warning against false teachers who will come and who will make false requirements of believers — denying marriage, and requiring abstinence from certain foods. Paul's retort is that everything was created by God for "those who believe and know the truth" (1Ti 4.3).

But as I was looking at this, I wondered — is this process of receiving food in thanksgiving and, through prayer, asking for it to be purified (like many Christians ask a blessing before they eat even today) a picture of the what God does for His Own children?

That is, Paul says that if what is received is prayed for, the word of God will purify it and make it acceptable to those who know God. The power of God is not bound. If the food has been offered to idols, then the prayer invoking the word of God (blessing) will be effective, and the food may be consumed.

Is this a smaller picture of what it is that God does for His people? When one approaches God and asks for forgiveness of sin through Jesus Christ, that person is forgiven and is able to approach God as he is seen through the blood of Jesus Christ. He, for all intents and purposes, has been purified since he is able to now approach God through Jesus Christ.

It seemed to me that a similar thing was specified for these practices or things which may be questioned, particularly food. The food is or may be impure. Upon petitioning God, the food is purified and may be consumed.

I know it's a stretch, but it got me thinking. So I thought I'd mention it.

I'm currently working through chapter 4 of First Timothy. Tonight I was in 1Ti 4.3 and came across the phrase by those who believe and know the truth.

The Greek of this is: τοῖς πιστοῖς ἐπεγνωκόσι τὴν ἀλήθειαν.

Upon hitting the phrase "know the truth", I thought immediately of 1Ti 2.4: " ... who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth".

The Greek of the phrase in 1Ti 2.4 is: ὅς πάντας ἀνθρόπους θέλει σωθῆναι και εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας ἐλθεῖν.

First of all, I was amazed because this is one of the few times (but starting to become more frequent) where I noticed a cross-reference based on the Greek phrase instead of an English phrase. After reading 1Ti 4.3 I thought "I think there's similar language in 1Ti 2.4 ... " so I looked.

Second, could 2.4 be an echo of 4.3? Could these verses be using similar language to refer to the same group? 2.4 mentions "people to be saved", 4.3 mentions "those who believe"; 2.4 mentions "the knowledge of the truth", 4.3 mentions those who "know the truth".

I think so. I don't think the repetition is an accident. I'll have to do some searching around on variations on the phrase. I'm not proposing some sort of larger unit that runs from 2.1 through 4.5 with the phrase supplying some sort of inclusio, that wouldn't make much sense. But the similar phrasing does help indicate cohesion between sections within First Timothy. I'll also have to check Van Neste to see if he mentions it.

Over on B-Greek, a question was asked about the phrase translated "seen of angels" (ὤφθη ἀγγέλοις) in 1Ti 3.16.

Stephen Lo Vullo's response (which expanded on Carl Conrad's initial response) was most instructive. The primary point of Mr. Lo Vullo's response is:

Jesus, of course, had been seen on many, many occasions by Cephas, his apostles, and others. But it is the special post-resurrection appearances that are here in view. I think it is the post-resurrection Christ who is also in view in 1Ti 3.16, and that BDAG is correct in saying that the appearance in 1Ti 3.16 is of "the triumphant Christ ... to the angelic powers." Of course the angels had seen Christ since their creation, but he certainly hadn't appeared to them in his resurrection glory until after his actual resurrection. The point in 1Ti 3.16, I think, is that angels, such important and glorious beings (see 1Ti 5.21), were witnesses of the resurrection. This fact lends authority to the gospel, just as the mention of angels in 1Ti 5.21 lends authority to Paul's charge.

When I was recently examining this verse for my own project on the Pastorals, I came to much the same conclusion though I didn't examine all of the evidence that Mr. Lo Vullo does in his B-Greek post. The primary NT cross-reference I dealt with was Lu 24.33-34. Mr. Lo Vullo points us to examine 1Co 15, primarily 1Co 15.5-8. I'll have to re-examine that in light of his comments.

I'm working through 1Ti 3.15. The word in question is ἑδραίωμα. This is a hapax legomenon; BDAG doesn't have much beyond the basics. That is, it doesn't tell me anything beyond what is obvious.

But at the end of the BDAG article is the ever-frequent "M-M. TW." which refers the reader, of course, to Moulton & Milligan as well as TDNT. Since I use BDAG (and TDNT) electronically in Logos Bible Software, I head to TDNT first (simple keylink directed to TDNT from the BDAG article headword — neat little trick, saves some time). This article (the last few lines) is somewhat helpful.

So I move on to Moulton & Milligan. This is in print, so I start flipping pages. I end up on pp. 180-181. Here there is a reference to Hort, Christian Ecclesia, p. 174 with very brief mention of the Latin term firmamentum.

I happen to own Christian Ecclesia, so I grab it and go to page 174. Here's the paragraph speaking about the phrase " ... which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of truth":

There are few passages of the New Testament in which the reckless disregard of the presence or absence of the article has made wilder havoc of the sense than this. To speak of either an Ecclesia or the Ecclesia, as being the pillar of the truth, is to represent the truth as a building, standing in the air supported on a single column. Again there is no clear evidence that the rare word ἑδραίωμα ever means 'ground' = "foundation." It is rather, in accordance with the almost universal Latin rendering firmamentum, a "stay" or "bulwark".

The point: If I would've been content to sit with BDAG's entry (or even BDAG and TDNT), it would've been awhile before I got to the reference in Hort's book (if ever). But checking references, even if only the ones available at hand, provided further information that helps in understanding what's going on. And that is the goal, isn't it? So why aren't we more diligent about looking up references when we're researching things?

OK, perhaps I should say "me" or "I" instead of "we" there, but you get the picture.

John Lee's A History of New Testament Lexicography surveys the development of New Testament lexicography. Lee's survey includes case studies on several words.

One of the words is οἰκονομία, which occurs in 1Ti 1.3-4. Lee discusses this on pp. 305-310 of his book.

Lee calls into question Bauer's sense of training in his definition of οἰκονομία, working through some citations to show that Bauer's examples may not merit this conclusion.

Folks —

I've put together a sample draft of my comments on 1Ti 3.1-7. The PDF file is approx. 325kb. It includes a partial Table of Contents and also an in-process introduction that still needs a lot of work. There are approx. 30 pages of comments and 15 pages of introduction.

The PDF file is here.

The title of the whole ball o' wax is still in flux; for now it is Lexical Studies in the Pastoral Epistles. That could very easily change.

I'm posting this because I really want to know what folks think. Please feel free to send feedback via email to pe | pastoralepistles | com, or comment on the thread I've reserved for comments over at my personal blog.

Thanks in advance.

Stanley Porter's collection of essays concerning various NT passages includes, as its final chapter, an essay on 1Ti 2.15 and being "saved by childbirth". The essay is titled What Does it Mean to be "Saved By Childbirth" (1 Timothy 2:15)". It runs from pp. 255-268.

Porter doesn't have any silver bullets stashed away, but he does take a serious look at the Greek of this verse to determine what it does — and does not — say. This is strictly a look at the Greek, it is not exegesis or interpretation.

Porter's opening paragraph closes with:

The major lexical and grammatical questions raised in this single verse include determining (a) the subject of the verb σωθήσεται with respect to "the woman" of v. 14, (b) the sense of the verb σῴζω, (c) the denotation of the term τεκνογονία, (d) the function of the preposition δία with the genitive case, (e) the shift in number of the verbs from singular to plural, and (f) the use of the third class conditional construction. In themselves, each of these issues may not be particularly complex, but their composite understanding is necessary to avoid irresponsible interpretation. (pp. 255-256)

This book is volume 6 in Peter Lang's excellent Studies in Biblical Greek series.

Köstenberger and his fellow-contributors have put together a solid resource on a tough passage. This is a series of essays examining this difficult-to-interpret passage (1Ti 2.9-15) from a number of different angles.

One essay is on Ephesus and its background, and the degree to which worship of the goddess Diana may have allowed women to play a larger role in the Ephesian society.

H. Scott Baldwin has an excellent essay on the known usages of the word αὐθεντέω from 1Ti 2.12. He discusses everything he can get his hands on and ends up with a solid lexical study of this word and what it can and cannot mean in certain contexts.

Köstenberger follows Baldwin's essay, discussing syntactical issues of 1Ti 2.12 and comparing the syntax with similar spots in the New Testament and other classical literature in an effort to determine the proper way to handle the text.

There is also a survey of other modern literature that interprets these verses and works through them in light of the essays of Baldwin, Köstenberger and others.

There are other essays too — these are simply the ones I remember (I borrowed the book from a friend). If you are looking at this question in 1Ti 2.9-15, then Köstenberger's book is worth looking into.