Uncovering The “Mystery” In 1 Timothy 3

By Gregory S. Magee

I. Introduction

In recent decades scholars have arrived at the general consensus that Paul, building upon Jewish notions of mystery and revelation, typically uses the term μυστήριον (“mystery”) to highlight the past obscurity of God’s newly disclosed salvation in Christ.[1] But the specific nuance of the term in 1 Tim 3:9 and 16 in particular has remained somewhat of a mystery.[2] In these two verses μυστήριον surfaces in a verbal environment that lacks close parallel in Paul’s other writings.[3] This observation has led some scholars to conclude that μυστήριον is functioning in a way that is distinct from the typical Pauline usage.[4] Others argue that the continuity in the use of the term between Paul’s earlier writings and in 1 Timothy 3 is discernible upon closer investigation.[5] In this article it will be proposed that the term μυστήριον in 1 Timothy reflects the meaning of the term in Paul’s earlier works. Paul draws on the rich significance of the familiar concept of mystery to both accentuate the divine roots of Christian teaching and distinguish the authentic conception of the faith from illegitimate substitutes. Incorporated into an immediate context devoted to Christian practice, the doctrinally-rich μυστήριον contributes to Paul’s goal of fostering exceptional standards for Christian practice. An exploration of relevant connections to other sections in the Pastoral Epistles will accompany a close study of 1 Tim 3:9 and 1 Tim 3:14-16 in the hopes of demonstrating the precise nuance, referent, and purpose of the mystery in these verses.[6]

II. Pauline Perspectives On Mystery And Revelation

Prior references to μυστήριον in the Pauline corpus yield three predominant characteristics about the concept. First, the content of the mystery was previously hidden in the eternal plans of God. The mystery has been predestined by God before the ages (1 Cor 2:7) and hidden in God for ages (Eph 3:9). Such description highlights the divine origin and eternal nature of the truth contained in the mystery. Second, the content of the mystery has been revealed to God’s chosen messengers. God, according to his initiative (Eph 1:9; Col 1:27), revealed his truth to messengers such as Paul (Eph 3:5), allowing Paul to connect his teaching to the eternal plans of God (Rom 16:25; 1 Cor 2:7; Eph 3:3; Col 1:25-26). Finally, the content of the mystery revolves around Christ, in whose life, death, and resurrection the plans of God are culminated. The centrality of Christ in the mystery is evident in Rom 16:25; 1 Cor 2:7 (see especially 2:2, 8); Eph 1:9 (see 1:10); Eph 3:3-4; Eph 3:9 (see 3:8); Col 1:26-27; Col 2:2; and Col 4:3. Each of these three characteristics contributes to the overall richness of μυστήριον, giving it a slightly different nuance from related terms involving doctrine and truth.

Two passages in the Pastoral Epistles that do not mention the term μυστήριον nonetheless demonstrate that Paul was continuing to operate with a paradigm similar to that of the mystery passages mentioned above.[7] In 2 Tim 1:9-11, Paul praises God for his salvation, which was planned in eternity past but revealed through Christ according to the gospel preached by Paul. Likewise in Titus 1:2-3, Paul treasures the eternal life that God planned long ago but only recently unveiled in the gospel. In both passages, Paul highlights the divine, eternal quality of his gospel message, which by implication assures the veracity and worth of his teaching. It will be argued that a similar emphasis on an authoritative message of divine origin lies at the heart of Paul’s use of μυστήριον in 1 Tim 3:9 and 3:16.

III. The Mystery Of The Faith

In the first of two occurrences in 1 Timothy, μυστήριον appears in the section on standards for deacons in 1 Tim 3:8-13. In the phrase τὸ μυστήριον τῆς πίστεως (3:9) Paul envisions the eternal truths of God entrusted to the church. Related passages in the Pastoral Epistles confirm a doctrinal reference for faith (πίστις), with the modifying phrase ἐν καθαρᾷ συνειδήσει reflecting Paul’s concern in the Pastoral Epistles for a harmonious relationship between faith and practice. The insertion of the term μυστήριον into the equation serves to highlight the divine origins of the truth and its reception by recognized spiritual authorities, echoing characteristics of the Christian mystery from Paul’s earlier letters. These ideas will be developed and defended in more detail in the following paragraphs.

A. The Meaning Of Πίστις 1 Tim 3:9

What is the meaning of πίστις in this verse? BDAG groups the use in 1 Tim 3:9 under the heading “true piety, genuine devotion,”[8] but this emphasis on the subjective human response without a stronger connection to the objective content is deficient for several reasons.

First, 1 Tim 3:2 and Titus 1:9 help point to a doctrinal element in 1 Tim 3:9. Though the two passages prescribe qualifications for overseers rather than deacons, the attributes in all three lists are very similar, allowing for insight into the meaning of πίστις in 1 Tim 3:9. Specifically, all three lists appear to share a common requirement related to the content of faith. This expectation for overseers in 1 Tim 3:2 is stated using the adjective διδακτικός, which denotes an ability to teach.[9] As the parallel passage in Titus 1:9 suggests, this teaching responsibility has correct doctrine as its central focus.[10] How does this relate to the mystery of the faith in 1 Tim 3:9? The deacons, instead of teaching the faith, are commissioned to maintain (ἔχοντας) the faith. This corresponds to the first part of the overseer’s ministry (see Titus 1:9—ἀντεχόμενον τοῦ κατὰ τὴν διδαχὴν πιστοῦ λόγου), without the overseer’s additional mandate to teach. Thus, while the deacon’s responsibility to the faith differs somewhat from that of the overseer, both have responsibility for a faith that consists of an objective or doctrinal core.

Second, 1 Tim 3:9 and 4:1 portray a contrast between two groups of people in relation to faith. This contrast reflects the juxtaposition between orthodox and heterodox belief that is found throughout the letter. In 3:9 Paul charges deacons with ἔχοντας τὸ μυστήριον τῆς πίστεως‚ while in 4:1 he warns that ἀποστήσονταί τινες τῆς πίστεως.[11] Paul signals that ἡ πίστις in these contexts is something to be believed rather than a mere attitude of devotion by associating deviation from the faith with doctrinal error (note διδασκαλίαις δαιμονίων in 4:1).

Third, Paul speaks of faith as a corpus of truth to be believed and preserved elsewhere in the letter. Most notably, τοῖς λόγοις τῆς πίστεως is paired with τῆς καλῆς διδασκαλίας in 1 Tim 4:6, where Paul advocates fidelity to the essential truths Timothy received.[12]

Finally, the subjective element in the deacon’s perspective towards doctrine in 1 Tim 3:9 is found not in the term πίστις but in the modifier ἐν καθαρᾷ συνειδήσει. The term συνείδησις in the Pastoral Epistles functions as an overall summary of character and spiritual health, with an emphasis on inner purity.[13] In this verse, the tight connection between doctrine and piety observed throughout the Pastoral Epistles finds its expression in the pairing of πίστις and συνείδησις in 3:9.[14] Paul’s point is that the sacred teachings of Christianity are to be upheld by deacons who are governed by a pure and consistent orientation towards God. The phrase as a whole develops Paul’s concern for practice, but πίστις itself retains its emphasis on doctrine. The weight of the evidence suggests that πίστις should be understood in this passage as encompassing more that just the believer’s sense of devotion towards God.

B. The Association Of Μυστήριον And Πίστις

The genitive relationship between μυστήριον and πίστις can best be described as epexegetical in this context.[15] After Paul introduces the concept of mystery he specifies that the mystery pertains to the content of the Christian faith. In Paul’s other letters μυστήριον is never tied to the term πίστις. But given the meaning for πίστις proposed above, a similar association can be found in Eph 6:19 (τὸ μυστήριον τοῦ εὐαγγελίου), and less directly in Rom 16:25 and Col 1:25-26.[16] The mystery, however, is seen with relevance to a different audience in 1 Tim 3:9: whereas the use of mystery in Rom 16:25; Eph 6:19; and Col 1:25-26 appears within the context of Paul’s own ministry, the use in 1 Tim 3:9 occurs in the context of the deacons’ relationship to the mystery.[17] Instead of unveiling a previously hidden gospel, the deacons are to remain committed to the teaching of the revealed faith. Bornkamm explains the attachment of mystery to a more static idea like the content of faith in terms of the “transition from the hidden event to its proclamation.”[18] In other words, more time has passed since the original revelation of the mystery to Paul and other first generation apostles. Even as early as the later stages of Paul’s own ministry, the mystery would have less reference to groundbreaking revelation and more emphasis on preserving the content of the revealed message.[19]

Examining the function of μυστήριον in this verse raises the question of why Paul uses the phrase τὸ μυστήριον τῆς πίστεως instead of simply the term τὴν πίστιν.[20] Harvey surmises that the use of “mystery” in this passage is influenced by Hellenistic connotations of secretive religious practices.[21] His reasoning is as follows: 1) in general the term μυστήριον need not be restricted to either Greek or Jewish understandings; 2) the term may be understood exclusively as being derived from Jewish use only when there is a “juxtaposition” of the ideas of “mystery” and “revealing,” as is the case in passages such as Rom 16:25-26; Eph 3:4-5; and Col 1:26-27;[22] 3) this association between mystery and revelation is absent in 1 Tim 3:9; 4) therefore, the meaning of μυστήριον likely includes Hellenistic imagery in this verse.[23] Harvey thus opts to highlight the secretive dimension of the mystery in this passage over the revealed dimension.

In response, it is noted first that apart from the exceptions of Mark 4:11 and 1 Tim 3:16, all other passages Harvey cites (Matt 13:11; Luke 8:10; 1 Cor 4:1; 13:2; 14:2) as examples of Greek influence contain the plural form μυστήρια. Hellenistic mystery passages likewise employ the plural form rather than the singular form.[24] It is not safe to assume that conclusions about the plural form can be applied to the singular form, especially for the Pauline corpus. Apart from the 1 Timothy passages in question, Paul always uses the plural (μυστήρια) outside of clearly revelatory contexts and the singular (μυστήριον) within such contexts. In addition, the correlation between the overseers who teach the faith and the deacons who keep the faith implies that the meaning of the latter is more probably associated with professing publicly acknowledged truth (as taught by the overseers) rather than guarding inside information.[25] Finally, Harvey relies too heavily on an argument from silence by requiring that the concept of revelation be present in order to arrive at a predominantly Jewish idea of μυστήριον. Such logic does not increase the probability that Greek religious ideas are at the forefront in the phrase.[26]

The absence of contextual features that are expected to accompany a discussion of mystery does not preclude a Jewish understanding centered on the eternal plans of God. This is because the inclusion of concepts such as hiddenness, revelation, and recipients of the message is unnecessary for Paul’s rhetorical purposes. His trusted associate Timothy does not need additional explanation on the theology of mystery, having already been exposed to Paul’s teaching on this issue.[27] Furthermore, Paul’s primary intent in the passage is to provide a list of standards for deacons, rather than to discourse on the nature of truth and revelation. Finally, 1 Tim 3:16 expands on the concept of mystery in the form of a hymn, allowing the reader to refer to that content for elaboration on the substance of the mystery.

C. Paul’s Purpose For Using Μυστήριον In 1 Tim 3:9

Instead of using μυστήριον to imply the idea of ongoing secrecy, Paul enlists the term in order to draw on the traditional connotations of the Christian mystery. As seen earlier from a survey of related passages in the Pauline corpus, the concept of mystery connects the eternal truths of God with the teaching of Paul and the other apostles. This understanding of mystery has the twofold purpose of distinguishing Paul’s teaching from the doctrines of the false teachers and elevating the perceived worth of the teaching the deacons are inheriting.

Two observations support the proposal that Paul is using the term μυστήριον to differentiate between legitimate faith and competing varieties. First, the contrast between truth and error that forms the backdrop of mystery passages in Paul’s earlier writings also appears as a common theme in 1 Timothy. In settings in which the revealed mystery is positioned against deficient teachings about Christ (1 Cor 2:1-16; Col 1:26-2:3), God’s truth, rather than being attained by human wisdom, is divinely revealed and grounded in Christ and events related to him. First Timothy likewise speaks of true teaching against the backdrop of heresy.[28] Paul contrasts μύθοις καὶ γενεαλογίαις with οἰκονομίαν τὴν ἐν πίστει (1:4),[29] ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖ with τῇ κατ’ εὐσέβιαν διδασκαλίᾳ (6:3), and ἀντιθέσεις τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως with τὴν παραθήκην (6:20), showing that the theme of true versus false teaching runs throughout the letter.[30] Within this setting, μυστήριον can be understood as pointing to divinely approved, normative teaching.[31]

Second, the portrayal of Paul’s ministry of communicating divinely received truth in 1 Timothy aligns well with his status as a recipient of the divine mystery in earlier works. In 1 Timothy Paul speaks of his ministry in terms of being entrusted with the responsibility of preaching the gospel (1 Tim 1:11; 2:7; also 2 Tim 1:11; Titus 1:3). This conforms to Paul’s description of himself as a messenger of the revealed mystery in Eph 3:2-3, 8-9, 6:19-20; Col 1:25-26. In the Pastoral Epistles Paul entrusts his message to the next generation of leaders (1 Tim 1:18; 3:2; 6:20; 2 Tim 1:13-14; 2:2; Titus 1:9). Using the concept of mystery (1 Tim 3:9), Paul reinforces the fact that the message he is committing to his heirs originates in the truths that God revealed to him as his chosen minister. The authoritative teaching inherited from Paul is distinguished from the deviant versions that threaten the church.

Paul’s incorporation of the term μυστήριον serves the additional purpose of recalling the sacred quality of the teachings of Christianity. Paul’s chief aim in this passage is to call for high standards of character for leaders of the church. These leaders must have integrity and relational ability that complement the doctrine they represent. The term μυστήριον has the effect of placing great value on the teaching committed to the deacons by pointing to the divine roots of the mystery in the eternal plans of God. The character of the deacons, described most immediately by the phrase ἐν καθαρᾷ συνειδήσει, must align with this impressive origin and nature of Christian teaching. The use of μυστήριον thus heightens the sense of responsibility Paul wants the deacons to feel in upholding the treasured teachings of the faith.

D. Conclusions About Μυστήριον In 1 Tim 3:9

We have seen that the mystery of the faith in 1 Tim 3:9 is shaped by previous Pauline references to the concept. In Paul’s earlier writings, he characterized μυστήριον as the divinely established, apostolic interpretation of the Christ event, in contrast to all erroneous competing interpretations. This nuance of μυστήριον likely stands in the background of 1 Tim 3:9 as well. Paul incorporates the notion of mystery in order to emphasize the connection between his teaching and the eternal plans of God. In doing so, Paul hopes that deacons will perceive the sacred significance of their responsibility to uphold the faith entrusted to them and recognize that truth is located only in teaching that agrees with the instruction they have received from Paul. As we have seen though, Paul’s mandate to the deacons is not limited to doctrine. Paul speaks of a divine mystery whose orthodox content is preserved by Christian leaders of high moral character. The connections between doctrine and character in relation to mystery are unpacked further in 1 Tim 3:14-16.

IV. The Mystery Of Godliness

In 3:14-16 Paul expresses his concern for conduct in the Christian community, as part of an interlude between instructions governing specific groups of people in 2:1-3:13 and 5:1-6:2.[32] It will be proposed that Paul’s key point in 3:14-16 is that godly Christian practice must be consistent with the church’s sacred identity and the greatness of God’s revealed mystery. The greatness of God’s work is exemplified by a hymn magnifying the triumph of Christ and his message. The picture of μυστήριον in 1 Tim 3:14-16 thus advances one of Paul’s key’s themes in the Pastoral Epistles (the link between faith and practice) and also grounds true teaching in the Christ event and its divinely revealed significance.

A. Paul’s Concern For Christian Conduct In 1 Tim 3:14-16

At the beginning of the paragraph Paul signals one of his main purposes for writing to Timothy ([τ]αῦτα σοι γράφω . . . ἵνα).[33] He wants Timothy to be clear about the high standards of conduct expected for various groups of people within the community of believers (ἵνα εἰδῇς πῶς δεῖ ἐν οἴκῳ θεοῦ ἀναστρέφεσθαι). The passive form of the verb ἀναστρέφω has an active sense and points to an intentional pattern of behavior.[34] Christian practice is clearly at the forefront of Paul’s purpose in this passage.

B. The Relationship Between The Church’s Conduct And The Truth

The discourse continues in the following clause and phrase. The relative pronoun ἥτις[35] identifies the house/household of God with the ἐκκλησία θεοῦ ζῶντος, with the emphasis resting squarely on the genitive modifier θεοῦ ζῶντος. Paul’s rhetorical purpose in this clause is to reinforce the lofty identity of the church, through its association with the living God, for the purpose of motivating the believers to aspire to excellent conduct. The title “the living God” functions in a similar way in 1 Tim 4:10, where the vision of God as a living God accentuates the value of the believer’s hope. This focus on the living God is the first of several ways in which Paul promotes excellent conduct by reinforcing the significance of the church’s identity and calling.

The appositional phrase that follows (στῦλος καὶ ἑδραίωμα τῆς ἀληθείας) further describes the role and calling of the church.[36] Disagreement over the meaning of this phrase and its implications on theology tends to obscure the point Paul is trying to make.[37] Paul envisions a key role for the Christian community with respect to the truth of the gospel. He expects that a healthy and effective church will strengthen and support the truth of the gospel.[38] Part of Paul’s concern here is that the church’s witness contributes to the positive reception of the truth in the world. Examples of a similar dynamic on an individual level are given in other passages in the Pastoral Epistles. Titus 2:10 calls for upright behavior motivated by a desire to make the gospel attractive (ἵνα τὴν διδασκαλίαν τὴν τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν θεοῦ κοσμῶσιν ἐν πᾶσιν). Likewise in 1 Tim 6:1, Paul cautions against sullying the gospel through rebellious behavior.[39] In contrast, the ungodly behavior of the false teachers undercuts their message (θεὸν ὁμολογοῦσιν εἰδέναι‚ τοῖς δὲ ἔργοις ἀρνοῦνται, Titus 1:16; see also 2 Tim 3:1-9, especially v. 9). In general, sound doctrine and piety are viewed as inseparable in the Pastoral Epistles (1 Tim 1:4-5, 19; 4:16; 6:3-5; 11-12; 2 Tim 2:16; Titus 1:1; 2:7-8; 3:8-9). In this case the imagery of the στῦλος and ἑδραίωμα suggests that in 1 Tim 3:15 Paul wants to portray a properly functioning church, in keeping with its rich identification with the living God, as facilitating the preservation and advance of God’s truth.[40]

C. Introduction To The Mystery Of Godliness

The next verse as a whole communicates Paul’s third motivation for godly behavior in the church. The clause begins with the particle καί, which places the clause in close connection with the preceding material.[41] According to Levinsohn’s analysis of particles in the Pastoral Epistles, καί does not function to move the discourse in a new direction but rather maintains a focus on the general topic at hand.[42] The particle thus introduces material in 3:16 that reinforces Paul’s ideas on the church, conduct, and truth. The presence of καί indicates that Paul is enlisting the christological material in 3:16 to buttress his comments on the church’s calling in 3:15.

The adverb ὁμολογουμένως functions to heighten the force of what will follow,[43] though it is difficult to ascertain which of two possible meanings the term possesses here. One interpretation adopts the common Hellenistic meaning of the term (“undeniably”) over a meaning associated with a Christian confession.[44] Some scholars prefer to maintain a stronger link between ὁμολογουμένως and the cognate term ὁμολογέω (which in some contexts can be defined as “to confess”) in light of the confessional material that follows.[45] As Marshall concludes, the difference in meaning between the two is subtle.[46] In the end the rhetorical effect of the adverb remains clear, serving as part of the introductory formula for the hymn that follows.[47]

Paul uses the next term μέγα to comment on a characteristic of the mystery of godliness (μέγα ἐστιν τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον). It is tempting to refer immediately to another mystery verse in Eph 5:32 (τὸ μυστήριον τοῦτο μέγα ἐστίν). In that context Paul employs the adjective μέγα for the purpose of highlighting the profound correspondence between the Christ-church relationship and the husband-wife relationship. Some have suggested that the reference in Eph 5:32 even carries connotations of incomprehensibility.[48] If a similar notion were to be applied to 1 Tim 3:16, it could be supposed that Paul’s chief interest is in the unsearchable depths of the mystery of godliness. An ineffable aspect to the mystery in Eph 5:32 is contested, however.[49] Moreover, a similar construction to that in 1 Tim 3:16 occurs twice in Acts 19:28, 34: μεγάλη ἡ ῎Αρτεμις ᾿Εφεσίων.[50] There, μεγάλη simply serves to accentuate the excellence of Artemis. As will be seen, the mystery unfolded in the hymn of 1 Tim 3:16 likewise highlights Christ’s superiority and excellence. In particular, lines 2, 3, 5, and 6 portray Christ as exalted and triumphant.[51] On the whole, it appears that Paul is concerned primarily with the excellence of the mystery, without necessarily magnifying any incomprehensible quality.[52]

D. The Relationship Between Εὐσέβεια And Μυστήριον

The substantive phrase that is characterized by the predicate adjective μέγα is translated as “the mystery of godliness.” The genitive construction in Greek is different from the construction τὸ μυστήριον τῆς πίστεως in 1 Tim 3:9. In 1 Tim 3:16, the head noun follows the genitive (τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον). This difference could be an innocent variation in style, though Paul might be placing greater emphasis on εὐσέβεια by moving it forward in the construction.[53] Insight into the relationship between εὐσέβεια and μυστήριον can be gleaned from two similar passages in the Pastoral Epistles. First Timothy 6:3 speaks of τῇ κατ’ εὐσέβιαν διδασκαλίᾳ, and Titus 1:1 refers to ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας τῆς κατ’ εὐσέβειαν. The terms διδασκαλία and ἀλήθεια are virtual synonyms for the revealed mystery in 1 Tim 3:16.[54] BDAG notes that some types of κατά constructions (including the ones in 1 Tim 6:3 and Titus 1:1) are semantically equivalent to genitive phrases. In both cases (κατά constructions and genitive constructions) the wording functions “to express the perspective from which something is to be perceived or understood.”[55] Applied to the three passages in the Pastoral Epistles, εὐσέβεια is positioned as the perspective from which to examine the notions of mystery, teaching, and truth. In other words Paul views mystery in 1 Tim 3:16 with the specific interest of εὐσέβεια in mind.[56]

E. The Meaning Of Εὐσέβεια

This leads us to a discussion of the meaning of εὐσέβεια in this context and in the Pastoral Epistles as a whole. First, some scholars want to equate the notions of εὐσέβεια and πίστις in 1 Tim 3:16 and 3:9, so that τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον is equivalent to τὸ μυστήριον τῆς πίστεως.[57] But as was argued above τὸ μυστήριον τῆς πίστεως highlights the doctrinal content of the teaching revealed to and passed down from the apostles. In contrast, the typical understanding of εὐσέβεια in the Pastoral Epistles incorporates more than just an objective notion of “religion” but also a strong component of Christian practice. The term describes an inward devotion that has outward expression in pious behavior. It functions as more of an overarching descriptor, encompassing both inward and outward purity that is founded on a correct appraisal of God.

A survey of relevant passages in the Pastoral Epistles demonstrates that the term εὐσέβεια originates from a right knowledge of God and results in holistic piety.[58] In 1 Tim 2:2; 4:7-8; and 6:11, godliness is envisioned as a worthy goal and characterization of the Christian’s life. These verses view εὐσέβεια from the perspective of devoted, pious behavior.[59] At the same time, εὐσέβεια is also intertwined with the concept of true Christian teaching. In Titus 1:1, the Christian truth is identified as a truth that is according to (κατά) godliness. Paul contrasts a doctrine according to godliness with false doctrines in 1 Tim 6:3, implying that the false doctrines fall short in part because they do not result in godliness. In conclusion, just as Paul in the Pastoral Epistles as a whole claims that knowledge of truth and Christian practice must not be separated, Paul insists that εὐσέβεια be the final outcome and measure of true doctrine. With Towner, it is perceived that εὐσέβεια “consists of a genuine knowledge of God and the corresponding lifestyle.”[60] The term εὐσέβεια in 1 Tim 3:16 and its relationship to μυστήριον signals that Paul’s aim in recounting the mystery is to enhance godliness within the church, in keeping with Paul’s expressed purpose in 1 Tim 3:14.

F. The Introduction To The Hymn

The clause of 16a has prepared the reader for a climactic presentation of the mystery of godliness in the hymn of 16b. Paul introduces this poetic material with the relative pronoun ὅς. Though there are two alternate readings for this term, the reading in the text of the NA27 is judged to be the original on both external and internal grounds.[61] No consensus exists for how ὅς fits grammatically with the surrounding material. The gender of the pronoun does not align with the gender of the only probable antecedent (μυστήριον) mentioned directly in the text. Whether the masculine gender of the relative pronoun is influenced by attraction to the unstated referent (Christ), or the pronoun serves as an introductory marker for the hymn, the move from the mystery to the subject of the mystery, without intervening words, is rhetorically effective.[62] In a single term, ὅς, Paul has both signaled the arrival of additional description of the mystery and indicated the focus of that description.[63] With this compact discourse, Paul associates the mystery of godliness directly with a person, Jesus Christ.[64] For Paul, the truth that shapes everything about the believer’s identity and practice is founded ultimately upon the events and significance of Christ’s experience, as seen in the hymn that follows.[65]

G. The Structure And Meaning Of The Hymn

A variety of opinions about the structure of the hymn in 1 Tim 3:16 vie for supremacy.[66] Scholars attempt to determine the structure by discerning possible chronological progression and by identifying potential parallel features:

Line 1 ὃς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί

Line 2 ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι

Line 3 ὤφθη ἀγγέλοις

Line 4 ἐκηρύχθη ἐν ἔθνεσιν

Line 5 ἐπιστεύθη ἐν κόσμῳ

Line 6 ἀνελήμφθη ἐν δόξῃ

A strict chronology for the hymn is unlikely, since lines 4 and 5 are more naturally understood as occurring after the ascension of Christ, which is probably being depicted in line 6.[67] And even if lines 4 and 5 are interpreted as falling within the period of Christ’s earthly ministry, then lines 2 and 3 must be understood as preceding lines 4 and 5 in some way in order to maintain the chronological flow.[68]

If a more thematic and less chronological arrangement is admitted, then potential cases of parallelism take center stage. Lines 1 and 2 exhibit strong parallelism in the σάρξ/πνεῦμα contrast. Some also see intentional contrasts between lines 3 and 4 (ἄγγελοι/ἔθνη) and 5 and 6 (κόσμος/δόξῃ). Such a scheme would suggest a three stanza hymn, where one line in each pair focuses on the earthly dimension of the life and gospel of Christ, and the other line comments on the heavenly dimension, following an a-b-b-a-a-b pattern.[69] The parallelism does look quite pronounced between 1 and 2.[70] But while the other pairs (3 and 4, 5 and 6) are legitimate possibilities, they are not as clear cut as the first pair, so other options should still be pursued.[71]

Another perspective concentrates on the synthetic parallelism present in the hymn. This type of parallelism is most evident in lines 4 and 5, which present Christ preached and Christ received.[72] Lines 1, 2, and 3 may also be understood as a progression, from Christ’s incarnation, to his resurrection, to his ascension.[73] This leaves line 6, which may then be interpreted as not just a restatement of the ascension (in line 3), but as the overall glorious assessment of Christ, which is witnessed dramatically at the ascension.[74] The line has the additional function of concluding the hymn as a whole, serving as a fitting contrast to Christ’s incarnation in line 1.[75] Viewing the hymn in this way yields a two stanza pattern, in which the third line in each stanza brings the movement to a climax. The first stanza traces the Christ-event from incarnation to resurrection to ascension. The second stanza traces the message of the Christ-event from proclamation to reception to glorious acclamation.

Though confident conclusions about the hymn’s structure are unlikely given the ambiguity of certain relationships, the two-stanza option has slight structural and thematic advantages. The a-b-c-a-b-c progression betrays a clearer symmetry than the a-b-b-a-a-b pattern in the three-stanza variety. In addition, the two-stanza focus has a thematic flow that highlights the supremacy of Christ more clearly than the three-stanza version, where the juxtaposition of earthly versus heavenly perspectives detracts somewhat from the movement towards Christ’s exaltation. Whatever the exact structure, the content of the hymn recalls the foundational events in Christ’s life and their significance, which accords well with the mystery as it is unpacked in other passages.[76]

H. The Contribution Of The Hymn Towards Paul’s Argument

Now that the general contours and orientation of the hymn have been unfolded, Paul’s purpose for quoting the hymn in relation to μυστήριον can be examined. Paul wants Timothy and the church in Ephesus to aspire to excellent conduct in order to fulfill the vision of the church as a representative of the living God and as στῦλος καὶ ἑδραίωμα τῆς ἀληθείας.[77] The material that follows concerning the revealed truth of the gospel, expressed using the concept of mystery, suggests that shifting the focus to the divine truth about Christ will further Paul’s aim.[78] Paul describes the revealed mystery with an agenda of godliness in view, confirming Paul’s continuing interest in a pious life that is interrelated with correct doctrine.[79] The substance of the mystery is located in the person of Christ, whose significance is portrayed in a hymn.[80] As suggested by the predicate adjective μέγα, the hymn is enlisted to illustrate the greatness or excellence of the mystery.[81] The hymn focuses on Christ, his greatness, and the greatness of the gospel message concerning him.[82] By linking this doctrinal material with the concept of godliness, Paul is showing that the Christian life is governed by excellent truths about an excellent Savior.[83]

The question remaining concerns the specific contribution the concept of mystery makes to 1 Tim 3:14-16. Paul enlists mystery in v. 16 in order to once again emphasize the divine connotations of authoritative Christian truth. The position of godliness in the phrase τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον shows that godliness is the main topic of concern.[84] The divine origin of the mystery thus serves to support the call to godliness in the church. This parallels the pattern in v. 15, where theological description of the church’s identity encourages aspirations for excellent conduct. The rich language of mystery also communicates a proper introduction to a hymn that celebrates events about Christ and the gospel that were eternally ordained by God and then revealed in human history. With the reference to μυστήριον, explicated by the hymn exalting Christ, Paul is seeking to anchor the identity of the church to the greatness of the Christ event, providing a motivation for Timothy and other believers to pursue godliness in belief and practice.

V. Conclusion

Taking 1 Tim 3:9 and 3:16 in concert, the picture of mystery emerging in this passage develops from earlier Pauline foundations while advancing Paul’s specific agenda to promote the inseparable bond between orthodoxy and piety in 1 Timothy. The traditional Christian connotations of an eternal mystery once hidden but now revealed through the preaching of the apostolic gospel forms the backdrop for Paul’s conception of mystery in these verses. The mystery of the faith and godliness transmitted by Paul rests upon the foundation of the Christ event, where the eternal plans of God find their culmination. As new generations of leaders are entrusted with leadership, they are charged with remaining true to the timeless teachings of the faith as revealed to the apostles. At the same time, in response to the specific occasion facing Timothy and the church at Ephesus, Paul’s mystery is tightly bound to a vision of the church marked by comprehensive godliness. The leaders receiving responsibility for the gospel must exhibit a lifestyle that reflects well on the truth professed, since the truth has divine roots and worth. The church as a whole draws on the riches of its identity and its relationship to the great mystery in its quest for excellent conduct. Thus both leaders and members of the church are encouraged to embrace the implications of an “according to godliness” faith.

Notes

1. This is seen especially in Rom 16:25; 1 Cor 2:1 (which is textually suspect), 2:7; Eph 1:9; 3:3, 4, 9; 6:19; Col 1:26-27; 2:2; 4:3. The idea behind μυστήριον in these passages follows the Jewish precedent, particularly as used in Daniel 2 in the Septuagint. In other passages (Rom 11:25; 1 Cor 15:51; Eph 5:32; 2 Thess 2:7), the term appears in discussions of topics that relate to a more specific component of Christian truth. In another direction, Paul appears to use the plural form (μυστήρια) to refer more generally to spiritual knowledge (1 Cor 4:1; 13:2; 14:2). For broad treatment of mystery language in the Pauline corpus see Markus Bockmuehl, Revelation and Mystery in Ancient Judaism and Pauline Christianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990) and D. A. Carson, “Mystery and Fulfillment: Toward a More Comprehensive Paradigm of Paul’s Understanding of the Old and the New,” in The Paradoxes of Paul (ed. D. A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid; vol 2 of Justification and Variegated Nomism, ed. D. A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004).
2. A survey of Bible translations reveals the lack of consensus on the meaning intended in the phrases. Some translations highlight the obscure or profound nuance of mystery: “deep truths of the faith” (3:9, NIV, TNIV), “the deep truths of our faith” (3:9, NEB), “the mystery of our religion is very deep indeed” (3:16, JB). Others opt for an emphasis on the revealed status of the mystery: “revealed truths of the Christian faith” (3:9, NLT, NET footnote), “revealed truth of the faith” (3:9, TEV). Still others speak of mystery as a key to understanding the faith: “how great is the secret of our religion” (3:16, TEV), “the secret of our life of worship is great” (3:16, NCV).
3. In this paper the authenticity of all of Paul’s letters in the NT is accepted as a starting point. Pauline authorship of the Pastoral Epistles is ably defended by C. Spicq (Les Épîtres pastorales [4th ed.; EBib 29; Paris: Gabalda, 1969], 157-214), Donald Guthrie (The Pastoral Epistles: An Introduction and Commentary [TNTC 14; Leicester: Inter-Varsity, 1992], 17-62), William D. Mounce (Pastoral Epistles [WBC 46; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2000], lxxxiii-cxxix), and Luke Timothy Johnson (The First and Second Letters to Timothy: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AB; New York: Doubleday, 2001], 20-97).
4. BDAG, “μυστήριον,” 662, places the two occurrences in 1 Timothy 3 along with Eph 5:32 under the category “that which transcends normal understanding.” G. K. Beale believes that these two mystery verses are unique in their lack of connection to “fulfillment of prophecy” (John’s Use of the Old Testament in Revelation [JSNTSS; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999], 251). See also Martin Dibelius and Hans Conzelmann, The Pastoral Epistles (trans. Philip Buttolph and Adela Yarbro; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972), 58.
5. J. N. D. Kelly, The Pastoral Epistles (BNTC; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1993), 82; Raymond E. Brown, The Semitic Background of the Term “Mystery” in the New Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968), 68.
6. 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus share common features of style, content, and historical occasions of writing. Though the three should be recognized as separate letters (and not the single work by an author posing as Paul), these shared characteristics call for the interpreter to consult Titus and 2 Timothy as primary resources for understanding the meaning of 1 Timothy. Some connections (instructions for selecting deacons and overseers in Titus) are more pertinent than others (Paul’s reflections on his imprisonment in 2 Timothy) for this study. Care will be taken to allow relevant passages in the Pastoral Epistles only as much authority as is warranted in each argument.
7. See Philip H. Towner, The Goal of Our Instruction: The Structure of Theology and Ethics in the Pastoral Epistles (JSNTSup 34; Sheffield: JSOT, 1989), 63. Bockmuehl also recognizes the relevance of these passages, though he observes that the precise terminology and framework from the earlier mystery passages in the Pauline corpus is not transferred to the passages in the Pastoral Epistles (Bockmuehl, Revelation and Mystery, 212-13).
8. BDAG, “πίστις,” 819. See also Charles J. Ellicott, The Pastoral Epistles of St. Paul: with a Critical and Grammatical Commentary, and a Revised Translation (5th ed.; London: Longmans, Green, 1883), 46.
9. BDAG, “διδακτικός,” 240.
10. In Titus 1:9, Paul clarifies that relaying orthodox doctrinal content is the focus of the overseer’s teaching responsibility in two ways. First, the phrase κατὰ τὴν διδαχὴν πιστοῦ λόγου denotes an inherited standard of doctrine to which the overseers must subject themselves. Second, the goals of teaching sound doctrine and correcting errors reveal that the overseer’s teaching ministry is concerned primarily with right belief.
11. Towner, The Goal of Our Instruction, 122.
12. In contrast, Paul highlights examples of those who have abandoned the teaching of genuine Christianity in 1 Tim 6:10 and 21.
13. The usage of the term as a key general descriptor for spiritual health is reflected in 1 Tim 1:5 and 1:19. The inner component surfaces in conjunction with the καρδία (1 Tim 1:5) and νοῦς (Titus 1:15) and motive for service (2 Tim 1:3).
14. For a similar pairing, see 1 Tim 1:19 (Bockmuehl, Revelation and Mystery, 210), though in that instance πίστις is anarthrous.
15. Spicq, Épîtres pastorales, 458; Bockmuehl, Revelation and Mystery, 210. The two terms are in different case forms, so the implication is that mystery and faith are not simply interchangeable in the context, but that faith is the particular facet of mystery that Paul is highlighting. See Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 95-96, for a detailed discussion of the epexegetical genitive.
16. Other passages have conceptual connections between mystery and the content of belief, but the three examples cited contain explicit verbal connections.
17. In light of the different parties involved, Brown refers to the mystery of faith as the message of salvation believed rather than the message of salvation preached (Brown, Semitic Background, 67).
18. G. Bornkamm, “μυστήριον,” TDNT, 4:822.
19. This observation is supported by the absence of overt references to hiddenness in the related passages of 2 Tim 1:9-11 and Titus 1:2-3.
20. Some scholars propose that μυστήριον adds little to the meaning of the phrase: “Indeed, ‘mystery of faith’ is almost the equivalent of the simple expression ‘faith’” (Dibelius and Conzelmann, Pastoral Epistles, 58).
21. A. E. Harvey, “The Use of Mystery Language in the Bible,” JTS 31 (1980): 321-32. He does not claim that the Christians in Ephesus were engaging in Hellenistic ceremonial rites but that the Greek connotations of the term μυστήριον carried over from those practices. He references passages from Philo’s De Cherubim to contend that Jewish or Christian writers occasionally applied the imagery of Greek mystery religions to Jewish contexts.
22. Ibid., 330.
23. For Harvey, this argument also applies to 1 Tim 3:16.
24. Bockmuehl, Revelation and Mystery, 211.
25. Robinson suggests that a Hellenistic idea would be more likely if the overseers had been positioned as keepers of the mystery rather than the deacons (J. Armitage Robinson, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians: A Revised Text and Translation with Exposition and Notes [2d ed.; London: Macmillan, 1928], 239). Since the overseers were charged with passing down the faith, it is implausible that the deacons would be responsible for protecting against the disclosure of the very same faith.
26. At best, the evidence is inconclusive, since 1 Tim 3:9 lacks clear contextual indicators of either Greek or Jewish concepts of mystery.
27. For instance, Timothy assisted Paul when he wrote the letter to the Colossians, which contains extensive discussion on the topic of mystery (Col 1:24-2:3; 4:3).
28. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, lxix-lxxvi, gives a thorough treatment of the nature of the heresy confronted by Paul in 1 Timothy and concludes that it is “similar to the errors at Colossae and Corinth, mixed with portions of aberrant Judaism, speculative superstition, and possibly magic” (lxxv).
29. Note the association of orthodoxy with the term οἰκονομία, which occurs in a number of mystery passages (1 Cor 4:1; Eph 1:10; 3:2; Col 1:25).
30. See also 1 Tim 1:6-7, 19-20; 4:1-7.
31. See also I. Howard Marshall, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (with Philip H. Towner; ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1999), 490-91. Marshall says that the mystery of the faith “characterises the apostolic, accepted expression of the Christian faith, in contrast to the perversions of it introduced by the heresy.”
32. See the thorough discussion on the structure of 1 Timothy in Ray Van Neste, Cohesion and Structure in the Pastoral Epistles (JSNTSup 280; London: T & T Clark, 2004), 131-44.
33. Paul entrusts Timothy, as his emissary, with instructions on church conduct. As seen by the broader context of chs. 2 and 3, these instructions are to be passed on to church participants.
34. BDAG, “ἀναστρέφω,” 72.
35. Ibid.
36. Other options for the grammatical function of στῦλος καὶ ἑδραίωμα τῆς ἀληθείας fail to persuade. Johnson (Timothy, 231-32) posits the theory that the description is in “delayed apposition” to ἀναστρέφεσθαι, indicating how church leaders can edify the rest of the community of believers. But Marshall (Pastoral Epistles, 510) observes that “there is no noun with which the phrase could stand in apposition,” if it applied to the deacons and overseers. Guthrie (Pastoral Epistles, 100) rejects a forward reference of the phrase to τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον on the grounds of “the awkwardness of such a construction in Greek and the anticlimax involved in the thought.”
37. Linguistically, the actual term ἑδραίωμα does not appear in any other relevant literature (Jerome D. Quinn and William C. Wacker, The First and Second Letters to Timothy: A New Translation with Notes and Commentary [ECC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000], 294), making its exact meaning somewhat elusive. Theologically, concern is expressed over seeing the truth as being too dependent on the church as an institution.
38. Marshall offers a concise summary: “Together the two terms express the ideas of visible support and solidity” (Pastoral Epistles, 510). An extension of the meaning to include the notion of “protection” (Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 223) cannot be established with certainty but fits well enough in the context.
39. See also Titus 2:5.
40. Scholars have noted that both terms are anarthrous, indicating that the church is not the sole support for the truth (Guthrie, Pastoral Epistles, 100; Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 223).
41. Apart from the contribution of καί, Van Neste (Cohesion and Structure, 45-46) provides additional evidence for cohesion between vv. 14-15 and v. 16.
42. Stephen H. Levinsohn, “Some Constraints on Discourse Development in the Pastoral Epistles,” in Discourse Analysis and the New Testament: Approaches and Results (ed. Stanley E. Porter and Jeffrey T. Reed; JSNTSup 170; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999), 318, 326-27, 333.
43. With Guthrie, Pastoral Epistles, 100.
44. BDAG, “ὁμολογουμένως,” 709.
45. In fact, some scribes (reflected in the original D, 1175 and some later Byzantine manuscripts) apparently divided ὁμολογουμένως so that it read ὁμολογουμέν ὡς (“we confess”). The lack of widespread external support for this variant reading suggests that it is unlikely to be the original.
46. Marshall, Pastoral Epistles, 522.
47. Ralph P. Martin identifies ὁμολογουμένως as an example of an “introductory phrase” used as a marker for an early Christian hymn (“Hymns, Hymn Fragments, Songs, Spiritual Songs,” in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters [ed. Gerald F. Hawthorne and Ralph P. Martin; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1993], 421).
48. Chrys C. Caragounis, The Ephesian Mysterion: Meaning and Content (ConBNT 8; Lund: Gleerup, 1977), 30.
49. See for instance Harold W. Hoehner, Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 775.
50. Few scholars see a conscious refutation by Paul of the Ephesians’ idolatry here, even though Timothy was serving in Ephesus (Kelly, Pastoral Epistles, 89, calls this idea unlikely but refuses to rule it out altogether). Rather, it is the use of the term μέγα that is recognized as equivalent.
51. Lines 1 and 4 are introductory points that set the stage for elevating Christ. The structure and meaning of this hymn will be examined more carefully later.
52. Brown (Semitic Background, 68) brings Enoch 63:3 into the discussion, where the focus is on mysteries of God that remain out of reach to human subjects. The warrant for seeing a parallel to 1 Tim 3:16 is insufficient in light of how Paul reveals the content of the mystery of godliness quite clearly in the Christ-hymn.
53. More commonly, as in 1 Tim 3:9, the genitive follows the head noun. But Diogn. 4.6 serves as a helpful parallel to 1 Tim 3:16. The construction τὸτῆς ἰδίας αὐτῶν θεοσεβείας μυστήριον follows descriptions of Jewish religion practice. The word order of θεοσεβείας μυστήριον thus highlights that Christian revelation about God stands in contrast to Jewish conceptions.
54. See previous discussion in 1 Tim 3:9 about how the apostolic mystery stands in contrast to the false teachings that oppose truth and sound doctrine.
55. BDAG, “κατά,” 513. In such cases the constructions function with the force of an attributive adjective.
56. Titus 2:1 displays a parallel concern, with Paul advocating sound doctrine as a springboard for promoting godly conduct.
57. A. T. Hanson, The Pastoral Epistles: Based on the Revised Standard Version [NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982], 84; Dibelius and Conzelmann, Pastoral Epistles, 61.
58. See Towner’s extensive discussion in Goal of Our Instruction, 147-54.
59. See also the cognate εὐσεβῶς used as a goal in 2 Tim 3:12 and Titus 2:12. In the same way, Paul casts ungodliness (ἀσέβεια) as something to be avoided in 2 Tim 2:16 and Titus 2:12.
60. Ibid., 151.
61. The reading in the text (ὅς) is a difficult reading, though not impossible, as will be shown later in the paragraph in the main text. This reading is supported by the original hand of Alexandrian manuscripts א, A, and C, as well as Western uncials F and G, the Alexandrian minuscule 33, and a minority of Byzantine manuscripts. The first variant reading of ὅ enjoys the support of only the original D and some early Latin versions. The reading can be explained as an attempt to match the gender of the relative to its possible antecedent μυστήριον. A second variant reading (θεός) surfaces in later witnesses, including corrections to א, A, C, and D, and in Ψ, 1739, 1881, and the bulk of the Byzantine group. Metzger lists plausible intentional and unintentional reasons for changing ὅς to θεός (Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament [2d ed.; Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 1994], 641). In short, the substantial external and internal strengths of the reading in NA27 attest to its authenticity.
62. Scholars who propose that the gender of the pronoun adapts to the referent of the mystery rather than following its antecedent include Towner, Goal of Our Instruction, 87; Richard A. Young, Intermediate New Testament Greek: A Linguistic and Exegetical Approach (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1994), 76; Marshall, Pastoral Epistles, 523. Among those understanding ὅς as an introductory marker for the hymn, according to the pattern seen in Phil 2:6 and Col 1:15, are Gordon D. Fee, “The Majority Text and the Original Text of the New Testament,” BT 31 (1980): 118; Bockmuehl, Revelation and Mystery, 211; Wallace, Greek Grammar, 341; Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 227. In this second group, disagreement persists over whether ὅς actually appeared in the original hymn (Bockmuehl, Revelation and Mystery, 211) or whether it was added as a way to introduce the hymn (Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 227).
63. Even if ὅς is judged to introduce the hymn, the parallels of Phil 2:16 and Col 1:15 demonstrate that as a relative pronoun ὅς still carries a retrospective force, supporting a seamless insertion of a hymn into its broader context.
64. The relative pronoun itself need not bear the entire weight of the connection between 16a and 16b, since 16a taken as a whole directs the reader to the hymn (Van Neste, Cohesion and Structure, 46). The cohesive function of ὅς simply reinforces the intimate conceptual link between 16a and 16b.
65. Towner, Goal of Our Instruction, 88.
66. Gundry provides a thorough summary of the various positions (Robert H. Gundry, “The Form, Meaning and Background of the Hymn Quoted in 1 Timothy 3:16,” in Apostolic History and the Gospel: Biblical and Historical Essays presented to F. F. Bruce on his 60th Birthday [ed. W. Ward Gasque and Ralph P. Martin; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970], 203-8). For a more recent analysis, see Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 215-18.
67. Lea and Griffin, who do not advocate the strict chronological approach, offer the creative suggestion that since the command to preach to the nations occurred before the ascension in history, the preaching and its results were placed before the ascension in the hymn (Thomas D. Lea and Hayne P. Griffin Jr., 1, 2 Timothy, Titus [NAC 34; Nashville: Broadman, 1992], 126). MacLeod attempts to preserve chronology by locating line 6 at Christ’s second coming instead of the ascension (David J. MacLeod, “Christology in Six Lines: An Exposition of 1 Timothy 3:16,” BSac 159 [2002]: 347). The problem with MacLeod’s interpretation of line 6 as referring to the Parousia is that the verb ἀναλαμβάνω is associated with the ascension elsewhere, in Mark 16:19; Acts 1:2, 11, 22 (Marshall, Pastoral Epistles, 528).
68. Line 2 is interpreted as referring to the resurrection by a vast majority of scholars. Paul relates the Spirit and resurrection directly in Rom 8:11 and possibly Rom 1:4. Line 3 is usually understood as a post-resurrection appearance to either the disciples or angels (see discussion below).
69. This arrangement is followed by Dibelius and Conzelmann, Pastoral Epistles, 61; and Kelly, Pastoral Epistles, 92.
70. See Rom 1:3-4, where Christ’s incarnation and resurrection are similarly paired.
71. Fee challenges the three-stanza position by questioning the validity of the world/glory contrast in lines 5 and 6. He points to “heaven” as “the only antithesis to ‘earth’ used in the NT” (Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, 96).
72. The strong connection between lines 4 and 5 exposes a weakness of the three-stanza approach. Though the chiastic structure of the three-stanza theory tries to maintain a connection between the lines, a good case can be made for keeping these two closely related lines in the same stanza.
73. Agreeing with most commentators, ἄγγελοι in line three refers to the angels who behold the ascended Christ rather than to human witnesses of the resurrected Christ. In 1 Tim 5:21, angels are grouped with God and Christ as witnesses to Paul’s sincerity, so the idea of angels as witnesses is not foreign to this letter.
74. See Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, 94; Andrew Y. Lau, Manifest in Flesh: The Epiphany Christology of the Pastoral Epistles (WUNT 2/86; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1996), 106-7.
75. Towner, Goal of Our Instruction, 92-93; Gundry, “1 Timothy 3:16,” 208. While they both see lines 1 and 6 in this way, neither Towner nor Gundry adopts the two-stanza view as a whole.
76. Brown (Semitic Background, 68) attempts to connect the content of each line with different aspects of mystery discussed in other passages. It is unlikely, though, that Paul chose the hymn as a summary statement for his teachings on mystery elsewhere. Instead, he chose it for the way it magnifies Christ through his personal victory as well as through the triumph of the gospel.
77. The key idea from the previous discussion of this phrase is that the church’s role, properly enacted, creates positive consequences for the strengthening and reception of the truth of the gospel.
78. As seen earlier the particle καί serves to unite 1 Tim 3:15-16 into a coherent unit, implying a close relationship between the two verses.
79. An analysis of τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον yielded these conclusions.
80. The conceptual relationship between the mystery and the hymn was shown to be supported by the relative pronoun ὅς, which connects the referent of the pronoun (Christ) to the immediately preceding mystery.
81. A meaning approaching “excellent” rather than “incomprehensible” was adopted for μέγα.
82. Towner, Goal of Our Instruction, 93, infers that “it is probable that this traditional piece was carefully chosen for its interweaving of the historical Christ-event and salvation.”
83. The doctrine-practice emphasis stands in even greater prominence when viewed against the refutation of heresy that occurs throughout the Pastoral Epistles. False teachers exhibit their error in both doctrine and life (1 Tim 1:19; 6:3-4; see also 2 Tim 3:1-9; Titus 1:13-16). For the immediate context, the orthodox hymn also sets up “the subsequent polemics against the false teachers” (Lau, Manifest in Flesh, 108).
84. Ultimately, Paul is using the hymn to promote godliness rather than orthodox belief for its own sake, as suggested by Paul’s purpose statement in 1 Tim 3:15 and by the overall focus on Christian practice in 2:1-3:16. It is in other sections of the letter that Paul is concerned primarily with advancing orthodox belief (1:3-14; 4:1-5; 6:20-21). See also Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 225: “The hymn presents the salvific Christ event and the demands for proper conduct that stem from it.”