What REALLY Happens When You're Born Again

The 4 Steps to Demon Deliverance

POWERFUL MESSAGE: Persecution Coming Like a Freight Train!

‘The Testimony About the Lord’, ‘Borne by the Lord’, or Both?

By Greg A. Couser

An Insight into Paul and Jesus in the Pastoral Epistles (2 Tim. 1:8)

Summary

Precisely what is Paul referring to in 2 Timothy 1:8 by τὸ μαρτύριον τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν? The lexical possibilities for τὸ μαρτύριον and the grammar of the phrase allow at least three possibilities. Three lines of investigation will be pursued: (1) a contextual and paradigmatic investigation to get at the meaning of τὸ μαρτύριον; (2) a more general investigation of the references to Christ in the Pastorals to see if there is any particular stress placed on the actual words and acts of Jesus; and (3) an enquiry into the structure of the immediate context of 2 Timothy 1:8 with a view to its implications for the meaning of the phrase in question. What we will suggest is that the above lines of enquiry at least suggest a plenary sense for the genitive construction. However, in the final analysis, it seems best to see the phrase simply as a reference to the testimony the Lord bore in his word and life to the saving plan of God.

1. Introduction

In 2 Timothy 1:8 Timothy is encouraged by Paul[1] not to be ashamed of the ‘testimony of our Lord’ nor of Paul himself, ‘his (Christ’s) prisoner’.[2] The question before us in this paper is what exactly is Paul referring to by the ‘testimony of our Lord’ (τὸ μαρτύριον τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν)? The lexical possibilities for ‘testimony’ and the grammar of the phrase would suggest at least three possibilities. First, is this essentially equivalent to Paul’s declaration in Romans 1:16 that he was ‘not ashamed of the gospel’, such that τὸ μαρτύριον is essentially a synonym for ‘gospel’ and the genitive, τοῦ κυρίου, should be understood as objective? This would give the whole phrase the sense of, ‘don’t be ashamed of the testimony about our Lord’ (i.e. the gospel). This would tend to suggest that Paul had in mind the apostolic summaries of the ministry and work of Christ that formed the content of the gospel.[3] Second, Paul could be understood as asking Timothy not to be ashamed of the ‘testimony Christ bore’, making τὸ μαρτύριον a direct reference to that which Christ said and/or did and giving τοῦ κυρίου a subjective sense.[4] This rendering would emphasise a more direct connection of the ‘testimony’ here to the life and words of Christ than to those factors as mediated through the apostolic summaries. Third, adopting a category from D. Wallace’s grammar,[5] Paul could be intentionally playing on the ambiguity of the phrase to allow for both a direct and indirect association of τὸ μαρτύριον with the life and work of Christ. This would carry a sense of, ‘do not be ashamed of the testimony born by Christ and the apostolic testimony (gospel) which testifies to it.’

A brief survey of contemporary approaches finds the objective rendering, accompanied by an understanding of ‘testimony’ as essentially equivalent to ‘gospel’, to have a clear majority – though the subjective has a rare defender. Thus, G. Knight, coming alongside the NIV, RSV, and NEB, simply states that the testimony is ‘Christian preaching and the gospel generally’ and, as such, τοῦ κυρίου should be understood as objective. Paul is referring to the ‘testimony … “about” “our Lord”.’[6] Mounce argues similarly that, although this phrase could mean ‘“the testimony borne by the Lord”, i.e. his death’, it is more probable that it is an ‘objective genitive: “the testimony concerning our Lord”.’[7] Yet, little is proffered by way of support for this rendering. When support is offered, reference is most frequently made to, what is seen to be, the clearly objective sense of the close parallel in 1 Corinthians 1:6, τὸ μαρτύριον τοῦ Χριστοῦ,[8] or, occasionally, to contextual concerns. For example, Mounce suggests that the objective sense is a better fit against the backdrop of ‘Paul’s imprisonment for the gospel’.[9] Of the few dissenting voices arguing for the subjective sense one might point to R. Collins. In his recent commentary on the Pastorals, although he renders the phrase ‘the testimony about our Lord’, he seems to allow for at least a plenary sense. He argues that the ‘testimony’ is ‘not synonymous with “the gospel” … Rather, it should be taken as a reference to the trial and eventual death of Jesus (see 1 Tim. 2:6; 6:13).’[10] By stating it in this way, the line between ‘testimony about’ and ‘borne by’ is decidedly blurred. L. T. Johnson provides a clearer example of a subjective understanding when, against the backdrop of 1 Timothy 2:6 and 6:13, he renders the phrase, ‘the witness given by our Lord’.[11]

In order to test the predominant understanding of both μαρτύριον and its attached genitive, τοῦ κυρίου, three lines of investigation will be pursued. One line will be both a contextually and paradigmatically[12] oriented investigation intended to get at the meaning of τὸ μαρτύριον.[13] Particular emphasis will be placed on those occasions where it, or its cognates/near synonyms, is brought into relationship with the ministry and teaching of Christ (1 Tim. 2:6; 6:12). A second line of investigation will be to look more generally at the letters when they make reference to Christ to see if there is any particular stress placed on the actual words and acts of Jesus (e.g. 1 Tim. 1:15; 5:18; 6:3; 2 Tim. 1:12; 2:12; 4:1, 8, 17–18). Finally, a third line of enquiry will focus on the considerations arising from the immediate context of 2 Timothy 1:8. What we will suggest is that the above lines of evidence at least suggest a plenary sense for the genitive construction which, at the same time, plays on the dual sense of μαρτύριον as gospel and as a reference to the historical work of Christ in fulfillment of God’s saving plan. However, in the final analysis, it does seem best to see the phrase simply as a reference to the testimony Christ bore in his word and life to the saving plan of God.

2. The Meaning of μαρτύριον

First, we want to look at the other occurrence of μαρτύριον as well as the use of its cognates/near synonyms in the Pastorals to see if there are grounds for seeing a more direct association of the term in 2 Timothy 1:8 with the work and words of Christ. Does it necessarily refer to the apostolic summaries of the gospel (as has been argued in seeing εὐαγγέλιον and κήρυγμα as its near synonyms), or might it be more directly connected to the acts and words of the historical Christ? Could it stand, for example, in a hyponymous relationship[14] with εὐαγγέλιον and κήρυγμα such that μαρτύριον refers more particularly and directly to the words and acts of Christ which stand as the foundational building blocks of the apostolic gospel/kerygma? What is interesting is that this term and its cognates, unlike its suggested near synonyms (εὐαγγέλιον and κήρυγμα), seems to occur in close relation to statements more directly associated with the words or acts of the historical Christ. The most central passage in this respect is the only other passage where μαρτύριον appears in the Pastorals, 1 Timothy 2:6. A second central passage is 1 Timothy 6:13 which speaks of ‘Christ Jesus’’ testimony before Pontius Pilate: Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ μαρτυρήσαντος ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου τὴν καλὴν ὁμολογίαν.

1 Timothy 2:6: Central to an understanding of μαρτύριον in 1 Timothy 2:6 is the relationship of the phrase of which it is a part to that which precedes. Robertson reflects the difficulty here when he states that this phrase ‘is in the accusative without any immediate connection unless it is in apposition with the preceding clause or is loosely united with δοὺς.’[15] Consequently, scholars are divided over whether it refers to the whole of the ‘traditional’ statement in verses 5–6a[16] or to the final clause only, ὁ δοὺς ἑαυτὸν ἀντίλυτρον ὑπὲρ πάντων.[17]

Concerning the former, J. Roloff has argued that this phrase refers to the apostolic testimony encapsulated in the liturgical fragment of verses 5–6a with the following καιροῖς ἰδίοις referring to the salvation-historical ground of the apostolic proclamation of that message (cf v. 7).[18] In support, Roloff appeals to the fact that μαρτύριον is a ‘technical term of the apostolic proclamation’ in the deutero-Paulines (2 Tim. 1:8; 2 Thess. 1:10; cf. Acts 4:33); that the ‘the right time’ in Titus 1:3 refers to the ‘present point in time of the proclamation’; and that verses 5–6a are a pre-formulated tradition inserted in this context by the author.[19]

In response, concerning μαρτύριον, of the three passages cited, only 2 Thessalonians 1:10 could possibly support its designation as a ‘technical term’.[20] However, even there, the fact that the apostolic proclamation is in view is made clear by the appended ἡμῶν, a designation noticeably absent in the present passage. Second, concerning Titus 1:3, since the author’s use of φανηρόω elsewhere (1 Tim. 3:16; 2 Tim. 1:10) refers to the appearances of Christ,[21] a number of scholars understand it as a reference to the appearance of ‘Jesus’ as that event which brings to light the pre-historic promise of eternal life. As the ‘grace of God appeared’ in terms of Christ’s first advent (Tit. 2:11), so here the promise of God, the referent of τόν λόγον, was brought to light in the Christ-event (cf. 2 Tim. 2:10).[22] It is that event, and not the apostolic proclamation, which occurred at the καιροῖς ἰδίοις. Ἐν κηρύγματι serves to extend the time of fulfilment in terms of the mediation to the present of what God accomplished in the past Christ-event.[23] Lastly, in light of the previous observations, it is of little significance for the issue at hand whether the whole of verses 5–6 comprise a pre-formed fragment taken up by the author[24] or (more likely) not.[25] When these points are brought together, the need to explore other options suggests itself.

A more satisfactory approach can be found in that which connects this phrase with the immediately preceding ὁ δοὺς . . . ὑπὲρ πάντων of the μεσίτης.[26] First, such a rendering is not without conceptual parallels in the Pauline corpus. This rendering parallels the thought of Paul in Romans 3:24–26 where the redemptive death of Jesus is set forth (προτίθημι) by God as the ‘demonstration’ of his ‘righteousness’, an event which gains ‘public character’ in the proclamation of the gospel.[27] But more importantly, that this latter phrase would warrant such a pointed characterization lies in the fact that it is undoubtedly dependent, although in a more Hellenised form,[28] on Mark 10:45 – a passage which, on tradition-historical grounds, probably reflects the earliest known NT form of the concept of redemption.[29] Moreover, as Marshall states, ‘there is good reason to argue’ that Mark 10:45 ‘is an authentic saying of Jesus’.[30] So also, R. Watts sees Mark 10:45 as an attempt by Mark to faithfully relay a ‘new exegesis of Isaiah 53’ whose genesis ‘lay with Jesus’ because it was ‘recognized as crucial to his (Christ’s) self-understanding.’[31] The likelihood of a close connection with the sayings of Jesus receives further support from P. Wolfe’s comments regarding the role of Jesus’ words in the Pastoral Epistles generally. He holds that the ‘PE (Pastoral Epistles) uphold the words, or teaching of Jesus as possessing an inherent authority and representing a standard, that is, a canon, akin to that of γραφή.’[32] Thus this concept could have stood within the community as a principal element of their faith,[33] an element whose form of expression speaks of a more direct connection to the life and teaching of Christ himself (cf. 1 Tim. 5:18; 6:3).[34]

Furthermore, the thought that God is here setting forth the work and words of Jesus as a μαρτύριον to his salvation plan, is paralled in the LXX usage of the term for David in Isaiah 55:4. There, David is put forward (δέδωκα) by Yahweh, in virtue of all that he has granted to him and allowed him to accomplish, as a μαρτύριον ἐν ἔθνεσιν, ‘a factual proof’[35] to the gentiles of his power to nurture his people and accomplish his purposes in the world. David’s historical accomplishments ‘bear witness’ to theological realities. Notice also here how the twelve’s act of shaking the dust off of their feet bears witness, is a μαρτύριον, to God’s repudiation of those who reject their message (Luke 9:5). These uses of μαρτύριον allow for an understanding of the term that embraces both acts and words; the whole of a life or an event can stand as a testimony (cf. Mark 13:9).[36]

Lastly, the phrase immediately following μαρτύριον in 1 Timothy 2:6, καιροῖς ἰδίοις, is consistently used within the Pastorals to connect the past and yet future epiphanies of Christ to the saving plan of God. In 1 Timothy 6:15 καιροῖς ἰδίοις identifies the future epiphany of Jesus as an event occuring at God’s determined time. Likewise, in Titus 1:3, as argued above, it is the first advent of Christ which occurred καιροῖς ἰδίοις, i.e. at the time appointed by God. In the end, καιροῖς ἰδίοις seems to designate the event to which it refers as divinely determined and, more particularly, as proceeding from God’s salvation plan.37 As a matter of fact, this phrase brings out explicitly what is prevalent in these letters – the close connection of the work of Christ to the saving plan of God (cf. also 2 Tim. 1:9–10; Titus 2:11, 14; 3:4, 6). For one implicit example integral to our understanding of 1 Timothy 2:6, in 1 Timothy 1:15 the past epiphany (Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς ἦλθεν εἰς τὸν κόσμον ἁμαρτωλοὺς σῶσαι; cf. 2 Tim. 1:10) is depicted as the central element[38] of ‘the gospel’ (1:11) of the ‘King over the ages’ (1:17) which, as such, emphasises that the first advent of Christ occurred under the auspices of God’s sovereign redemptive plan. The deliberate, though implicit, framing of the first advent of Christ such that it is firmly rooted in the divine redemptive plan is confirmed by an analysis of the structure of the immediate context (1:11–17) and the book as a whole.[39] This regular explicit and implicit emphasis throughout the Pastorals on the past and future Christ-events being firmly attached to the redemptive plan of God would argue strongly for the close association of the whole phrase with the ὁ δοὺς of Jesus, the price of the ἀντίλυτρον.[40] In this light, τὸ μαρτύριον of verse 6b, whose referent is the self-giving death of Jesus, serves as ‘the’ testimony κατ ̓ ἐζοχήν to God’s plan for the salvation of mankind.[41] The universal saving character of the ‘One God’ was borne out on the plane of history in the mediator’s redemptive death, an understanding of that event anchored in Christ’s own words. Furthermore, this event so understood, by virtue of the fact it is located within the καιροῖς ἰδίοις, is inextricably linked to God and his saving provision.[42]

At this point we are ready to see if our understanding of 1 Timothy 2:6 can help us determine the nature of the semantic relationship between μαρτύριον, εὐαγγέλιον and κήρυγμα. As mentioned earlier, all three terms are closely tied together. To add one more linkage between them not already mentioned, all three sustain some type of relationship to that which Paul has been ‘entrusted with’ by God (1 Tim. 1:11; 2:7; Tit. 1:3). However, to look at κήρυγμα first, this term is used in Titus 1:3 with reference to God’s promise of life made manifest in Christ; the coordination of the promise with the appearance of Christ is secured by referring to the latter as an event occurring at καιροῖς ἰδίοις.[43] The κήρυγμα is the means whereby the promise is mediated to the present (and beyond) so as to merge the past advent of Christ and its present proclamation into one seamless extended process.[44] Thus, as a reference to God’s premundane promise of life realised in Christ, it would appear that κήρυγμα has a broader set of referents than the μαρτύριον of 1 Timothy 2:6. Similarly, the association of εὐαγγέλιον with God in 1 Timothy 1:11 (τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τῆς δόξης τοῦ μακαρίου θεοῦ) and the explication of it in verses 12–17, a passage which draws a connection between a saying closely associated with Jesus’s self-understanding of his mission[45] and the sovereign governance of the ‘King over the ages’, would suggest a broader set of referents than implied by the usage of μαρτύριον in 2:6. This impression may receive further confirmation by a look at the three other appearances of the εὐαγγέλιον in the Pastorals, 2 Timothy 1:8, 10 and 2:8. To take the latter first, a synonym for the gospel here is ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ (v. 9).[46] This may suggest what is implied in the appending of κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιόν μου to the core elements that Timothy is being asked to recall, i.e. ‘Jesus Christ, raised from the dead, descended from David’ (v. 8). Here the core elements are in ‘accord with’ Paul’s gospel. This suggests that the gospel includes, but is most likely broader in content than, these affirmations alone.[47] As in 1 Timothy 1:12–17, the gospel is not to be simply equated with these select, core understandings of Christ. Lastly, in 2 Timothy 1:8 and 10 the two occurrences of εὐαγγέλιον form a nice inclusio framework around its elucidation in verses 9–10 (see figure 1, below). Once again, unlike μαρτύριον in 1 Timothy 2:6, εὐαγγέλιον appears to be more comprehensively used such that it includes the thought of the plan of God from before the ‘beginning of time’ to give believers a death-nullifying, life-giving grace in the Christ-event. One final note on this passage, as with ἐν κηρύγματι in Titus 1:3, the second appearance of εὐαγγέλιον in this passage (διὰ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, v. 10) serves to seamlessly tie together within the plan of God the past realization of God’s plan in Christ encapsulated in the gospel with its present realization through the proclamation of that gospel.[48]

In conclusion, a contextual and paradigmatic investigation of the only other occurrence of μαρτύριον within the Pastoral Epistles suggests that the use of the term refers to a saying which very likely goes back to Christ’s own understanding of his death. This, of course, opens the possibility of seeing its use in 2 Timothy 1:8 as a reference to that testimony which ‘our Lord’ bore. Also, paradigmatically speaking, it suggests that this term, at least in this case, can have a narrower set of referents than either εὐαγγέλιον or κήρυγμα. It is possible that μαρτύριον in 1 Timothy 2:6 stands in a hyponymous relationship with εὐαγγέλιον and κήρυγμα such that it refers to a specific word/act of Christ that stands at the core of the more comprehensive εὐαγγέλιον/κήρυγμα. Before we leave this passage behind, we want to take a brief pause to address one possible link between these terms that seems to militate against the semantic ordering we have suggested. Earlier we mentioned that all three sustain some type of relationship to that which Paul has been ‘entrusted with’ by God (1 Tim. 1:11; 2:7; Titus 1:3). Would this not suggest that μαρτύριον in 1 Timothy 2:7 is not related to the others in a hyponymous fashion? In response, that which Paul was entrusted with by God for its advancement (εἰς ὃ ἐτέθην ἐγὼ;, v. 7a), given the relationship of this ‘entrusting’ motif also to εὐαγγέλιον and κήρυγμα and given their consistently broader set of referents, should most likely be understood to refer to the whole of verses 5–6a.[49] For it is these statements together which best represent Paul’s message to the gentiles (v. 7b). It is a message which places the work of Christ within the framework of God’s saving purpose, something not clear in verse 6b alone.

1 Timothy 6:13: Turning to our second key passage, we find a close relationship between a verbal cognate of μαρτύριον, μαρτυρέω (as well as some of its near synonyms, ὁμολογία and ὁμολογέω) and the words/acts of the historical Christ. In 1 Timothy 6:13 Timothy is exhorted by Paul to ‘confess the good confession’ to which ‘Christ Jesus bore witness before Pontius Pilate’ (Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ μαρτυρήσαντος ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου τὴν καλὴν ὁμολογίαν). This is a notoriously enigmatic passage when it comes to specifying just what it is that Christ confessed and, thus, what it is that Timothy is to confess so as to correspond to Christ in some way. To begin to unravel this tangle of seemingly unqualified general terms/phrase, we will attempt to delineate the relationship of the various phrases to one another within verses 12–13.

In 6:12a, ἀγωνίζου τὸν καλὸν ἀγῶνα τῆς πίστεως, appears to be shorthand for the more detailed instructions in 6:11 concerning Timothy’s response to the issues at Ephesus.[50] As such it is very similar to the role of the parallel phrase in 1 Timothy 1:18, 19a, ἵνα στρατεύῃ ἐν αὐταῖς τὴν καλὴν στρατείαν ἔχων πίστιν καὶ ἀγαθὴν συνείδησιν. In its context, this phrase entails Timothy’s particular charge at Ephesus which is itself set within, and is an outworking of, God’s saving work (1:4), a work that focuses on belief in Christ unto eternal life (1:16).[51] Against this backdrop, 6:12b, ἐπιλαβοῦ τῆς αἰωνίου ζωῆς, becomes a restatement and clarification of 6:12a and the climax which calls forth the elaboration of 12c and the strong adjuration of 6:13–16.[52] Further, this suggests that ‘the commandment’ (τὴν ἐντολὴν, v. 14) might best be understood to refer back to ἐπιλαβοῦ τῆς αἰωνίου ζωῆς, the nearest and, given its emphasis here, most probable sense antecedent of ‘commandment’ in the context.[53] The centrality of the command to ‘lay hold of life’ is further confirmed by the condemnation of the temporal perspective of the antagonists (6:7, 17), a condemnation which sandwiches the whole of 6:11–16, and by the fact that the prescribed remedy for this temporal mindset is a lifestyle driven by the pursuit of ‘real life’, ἵνα ἐπιλάβωνται τῆς ὄντως ζωῆς (6:19).[54]

In understanding verse 12c as an elaboration of τῆς αἰωνίου ζωῆς, specifying that it was this life unto which Timothy was called and unto which he confessed ‘the good confession before many witnesses’, provides the necessary backdrop to understand Christ’s ‘good confession’. One could say that the correspondence between the two need not be pressed beyond the fact of faithfulness/perseverance in one’s mission in the face of opposition.[55] However, while that certainly seems to be part of the emphasis, three lines of evidence argue for a slightly fuller conception of the relationship. First, there is the constant association of Christ’s work in these letters with bringing God’s promise of life/salvation to fruition (1 Tim. 1:16; 2:4–6;[56] 2 Tim. 1:10; Tit. 1:2–3). Second, the letters make much of Paul’s and Timothy’s ministry being in service of this same divine promise of life (1 Tim. 1:16; 4:8: 6:12; 2 Tim. 1:1, 10–11; 2:10). This is structurally emphasised in 1 Timothy as well in that each of the sections where Paul addressed Timothy personally either locate Paul’s life in service of God’s promise of life or refer to Timothy’s service as that which is focused on life.[57] Third, 1 Timothy 2:6 summarises Christ’s ‘testimony’ in terms of that which he did on the cross that, as the testimony that occurred ‘at God’s own time’ (καιροῖς ἰδίοις), is inextricably linked to God’s comprehensive saving plan (v. 4a). Christ’s self-understanding of his mission which has now, at this point in the life of the church, been embodied in his death on the cross is set forward by Paul as that which bears witness to God’s comprehensive saving purposes. This is a salvation plan that has already been developed in 1:11–17 under the title: τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τῆς δόξης τοῦ μακαρίου θεοῦ. There the content of the gospel is the ‘glory’ of the ‘blessed God’, ‘the King of the Ages’ (v. 17), a glory which consists of the historical work of Christ who ‘came into the word to save sinners’ (v. 15), which embraces and appoints messengers for its proclamation (vv. 12, 14, 16), and which issues forth into ‘eternal life’ for all who embrace it by faith (v. 16). In other words, to say that Christ bore witness in his death to God’s comprehensive saving plan is also to say that he bore witness to his promise of life (cf. 1 Tim. 4:8–10 where the ‘promise of life’ is linked to the hope in the ‘living God, the savior of all men …’).[58]

What this suggests for our understanding of the testimony Christ bore in 1 Timothy 6:13 is that the confessions of Timothy and Christ are tied together by more than just the ideas of perseverance and faithfulness to God’s mission. From the centrality of the motif of God’s saving plan, understood as his promise of life brought to fruition in the Christ-event and proclaimed by appointed messengers, the witnessing of Christ refers most likely to the whole of his finished work in fulfillment of God’s saving plan. Consequently, this was a testimony that he bore during the time of Pontius Pilate as opposed to a direct reference to the specific words uttered by Christ in the presence of Pilate (cf. Matt. 27:11; Mark 15; 2; Luke 23:3; John 18:33–37).[59] Not only is Timothy to identify with Christ in his perseverance and faithfulness, but he is to identify with him is maintaining his firm ‘hold of’, in life and word, God’s saving message of life.

Conclusions:The study of μαρτύριον and its near cognates in 1 Timothy has suggested that there are good grounds for seeing them as a references to the historical work of Christ undertaken in order to enact God’s saving plan which consequently stands as a witness to that plan. Μαρτύριον in particular has a narrower set of referents than εὐαγγέλιον and κήρυγμα, specifying a core statement concerning Christ that stands at the core of the more comprehensive ‘gospel/kerygma’. The latter terms consistently combine, or intimate a combination of (e.g. 2 Tim. 2:8), the elements of Christ’s testimony with the broader plan of God.

3. The General Emphasis on the Words and Acts of Christ

Our second brief line of investigation will be to look more generally at the letters when they make reference to Christ to see if there is any particular stress placed on the actual words and acts of Jesus. The purpose of this section is to show that there is a particular emphasis on the relevance of Christ’s historical acts and words as well as on his present (and future) direct involvement in the ministries of Paul and Timothy. When this personal emphasis on Christ is coupled with the relationship of μαρτύριον in 1 Timothy 2:6 to just that, the words and acts of Christ, this adds yet another line of evidence which suggest the plausibility of considering a plenary or, more probably, a subjective rendering for τὸ μαρτύριον τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν in 2 Timothy 1:8.

This evidence can be broken out along a number of lines. First, we want to look at those passages which present Christ as the actor in reference to Paul and Timothy’s ministry. Three passages are important in this regard in 1 Timothy 1:12–16; 4:6; 6:12–13. In the first passage, Paul gives thanks to the one who empowered him, to Christ Jesus, an empowering for the message/task which had been entrusted to him, the proclamation of the gospel whose content is the glory of the blessed God (v. 11). Paul goes on to marvel at Christ’s consideration of him as worthy of his, Christ’s, trust, such that he placed Paul into his service, διακονίαν.[60] Moreover, Paul’s ministry is but an aspect of the salvation plan of God[61] embodied in the raison d’être of ‘Christ Jesus’. In the divine plan Paul’s unsuitability (v. 13, 15c) served as a platform, since he was a ‘pattern’ (ὑποτύπωσιν, v. 16b), from which ‘Christ Jesus’ could demonstrate his long-suffering grace for the benefit of future believers (v. 16). Christ’s direct and immediate involvement in Paul’s διακονία is clearly emphasised here.

As we move on to 1 Timothy 4:6 there is one important additional note we need to make about the present passage. What is also interesting about this passage is that Paul’s reminiscence, which emphasises his unworthiness in order to point to the sufficiency of Christ’s enablement for ministry, functions in the broader context of chapter one to encourage Timothy to complete the task that he has been given by God at Ephesus. This is a task mentioned initially in verses 3–4 and then recalled in verse 18 where,[62] at the same time, it is reinforced positively by locating Timothy’s task in the prophetic direction of the Spirit (v. 18b) as well as negatively by the sober recollection of two who have been disciplined because of their opposition to God’s purposes (vv. 19b–20). The importance of this broader setting for Paul’s reminiscence is that it implies Timothy’s task is similarly at Christ’s behest (explicit in, e.g., 2 Tim. 2:1, 3) and makes it understandable why Paul would characterise Timothy as a διάκονος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ in 4:6. Moreover, what was implied in chapter one is more concretely intimated here in that Timothy as ‘a servant of Christ Jesus’ is also, as Paul, one who has been appointed by God (v. 14) to be a ‘pattern’ (τύπος, v. 12) in life and word, a ‘pattern’ that will be in service of God’s promise of eternal life, ‘life now and to come’ (v. 8). This is not to suggest that there is no distinction to be drawn between their callings, Timothy’s after all was no Damascus Road experience. It is only that both callings are seen to be connected directly to the work of Christ.

Lastly, to return to 1 Timothy 6:12–13, we need only to be reminded of our earlier investigations where the work of the historical Christ was seen to be in view and it is that which Timothy is to substantially imitate in his own calling. His life, as Christ’s, is to be given to the promotion of God’s promise of life. Moreover, the adjuration formula of verse 14 emphasises just how close the ties are between Timothy’s ministry and that of Christ’s as well as the ongoing interest by Christ (and God) in Timothy’s ministry.[63] Paul admonishes Timothy ‘in the presence of’ Christ. The One who set the standard for bearing witness to the saving plan of God is the very one who will assess Timothy in the end. He will be both judge and the standard of judgement.

The role of Christ as judge will provide us with a convenient jumping-off point to consider passages in 2 Timothy where Christ is portrayed as intimately involved in the ministry of Paul and Timothy now and at the end of the age. There is a decided emphasis in 2 Timothy on Christ as the soon-to-appear judge (4:1) who will bestow rewards from God (παρὰ κυρίου, 1:18)[64] on the faithful (6:8) or punishment (4:14; cf. 4:16; 2:12b[65]) on those who desert God’s promise of life for what the present age has to offer (4:10). Paul encourages Timothy to approach ministry with the real awareness of the fact that Christ observes and will hold one accountable for ministry. Undoubtedly this emphasis finds its genesis in the occasion of the letter itself – that of Paul’s impending death (4:6, 16–18).

However, the ‘Lord’ is also very much involved in the present beyond the implied observation of Paul and Timothy’s ministry. He is available to bestow mercy on those in need (1:16). He alone is present with Paul in his imprisonment empowering him to complete what he has called Paul to do (4:17). Furthermore, Paul is confident that Christ will deliver him from every evil work and ultimately consummate his salvation (4:17–18). Finally, we note that the Lord bestows understanding upon his servant Timothy to illumine him with regard to gaining a grasp on his own calling (2:7).

Our second and last set of passages are those which refer to the traditions about Christ. They are made up of two types. One group has strong ties to his own representation of his self-understanding as portrayed in Gospels. The other group draws from his teaching, also as represented in the Gospels. Of the former, we simply make mention of 1 Timothy 1:15 (Luke 19:10, along with possible Johannine influence) and 2:6 (Mark 10:45), passages which very likely represent synoptic material and both relate to presentations of Christ’s self-understanding.[66] Drawing from his teaching, 1 Timothy 5:18’s statement that ‘the workman is worthy of his hire’ most nearly resembles Luke 10:7 (cf. Matt. 10:10). Finally, 2 Timothy 2:12b, εἰ ἀρνησόμεθα, κἀκεῖνος ἀρνήσεται ἡμᾶς, is reminiscent of Matt. 10:33, ὅστις δ᾿ ἂν ἀρνήσηταί με ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων, ἀρνήσομαι κἀγὼ αὐτὸν ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ πατρός μου τοῦ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς. These observations suggest that Knight has good grounds for paraphrasing 1 Timothy 6:3, λόγοις τοῖς τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, as ‘the words that have come from our source of authority, “our Lord Jesus Christ”.’[67]

In conclusion there does seem to be a detectable emphasis in 1 and 2 Timothy on the words and acts (past, present, and future) of Christ. His words are regarded with canonical authority (cf. 1 Tim. 5:18) and, as we saw earlier with 1 Timothy 2:6, serve as the central witness to God’s saving work. Christ is active in Paul and Timothy’s ministry both in the present and the future, the latter involvement informed by the former. These last two factors in particular give grounds for considering 2 Timothy 1:8 as a call for Timothy not to be ashamed of the testimony borne by his Lord so as to emphasise that commitment to the gospel, the broader plan of God in Christ, is a personal commitment to his Lord.

4. 2 Timothy 1:8

Finally, we come to the passage in question. What remains for us here is to see if the context of the passage itself supports such a rendering. Can we provide contextual reasons for seeing μαρτύριον as a reference to the testimony Christ bore to stress that, just as a commitment to the gospel is a commitment to identify with Paul, the prisoner, so a commitment to the gospel is fundamentally a commitment to identify with the witness borne by Christ, his words and acts?

First, it is important to note that, not only do the Pastorals emphasise the acts and words of Christ and their importance for the genesis, prosecution, and fulfillment of Paul and Timothy’s ‘service’, but the genitive modifier of τὸ μαρτύριον, τοῦ κυρίου, sustains a very personal, intimate character for most of its uses in 2 Timothy (1:8; 16, 18a; 2:7; 3:11; 4:8, 14, 17–18, 22). This fact alone renders the technical status of this phrase suspect and suggests that the person of the Lord may be more in view than those accounts about him. Further, the combination of μαρτύριον with ἐπαισχυνθῇς is noteworthy.68 We have already noted Paul’s penchant in these letters for drawing from the traditions about Christ found in the synoptic material (cf. 1 Tim. 1:15; 2:6; 5:18; 2 Tim. 2:12b), illustrating particularly what is referred to generally in 1 Timothy 6:3, i.e. the authority and importance in these letters of ‘the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ’. This raises the not unlikely possibility of Paul using this particular combination of ἐπαισχυνθῇς and τὸ μαρτύριον τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν to draw Timothy’s mind once again to the Jesus tradition, along the lines, conceptually, of what he certainly does in 2 Timothy 2:12b (Matt. 10:33; cf. Lk. 12:9).69 Paul’s phrasing here could be viewed as a concise expression of the dual emphasis on faithfulness to Christ’s person and message found in Mark 8:38: ‘If anyone is ashamed of me and my words (ἐπαισχυνθῇ με καὶ τοὺς ἐμοὺς λόγους) in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father’s glory with the holy angels.’ [70]

As one last contributing factor to a possible subjective rendering permit me to return to an earlier observation about the structure of 2 Timothy 1:6–10. Our earlier observations pointed to the inclusio effect of two references to the εὐαγγελίον on either side of the gospel summary (vv. 8b & 10c, see Figure 1, below). On further examination of the larger section of which verses 8–10 are a part, that appears to be just one small part of a much larger chiastic structure (Figure 1). The importance of this observation is in the relation of B and B’. Both sections repeat the need to not be ashamed. However, only B provides that which one is not to be ashamed of, i.e. the testimony borne by the Lord and Paul, his prisoner. Given the chiastic structure, should the same twofold object be understood for the shame in B’? In other words, could Paul be affirming in verse 12b that he is not ashamed of his imprisonment nor of the testimony borne by the Lord and thus presenting himself ‘as an example of the attitude which he commended to Timothy’ in verse 8?[71]

If this be the case, it would suggest that Christ is the antecedent of the ᾧ[72] of verse 12b so that, although the freedom from shame at his (Paul’s) suffering for the gospel is certainly in view, the thrust of the repetition in B’ is on the reason why the testimony borne by the Lord is trustworthy. Paul’s confidence that he will not be shamed arises from his convinced knowledge of the one in whom he has placed his trust. He is convinced that Christ will keep what he ‘has entrusted to him’ (Christ),[73] that is his very life, up until the realization of his final salvation.[74]

Figure 1:

A. Draw on the God-given Enabling of the Spirit

6 For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands. 7 For God did not give us a Spirit (πνεῦμα) of timidity, but a spirit of power, of love and of self-discipline.

B. Not Ashamed

8 So do not be ashamed (ἐπαισχυνθῇς) of the testimony borne by our Lord, or ashamed of me his prisoner.

C. Suffer for the Gospel

But join with me in suffering for the gospel (συγκακοπάθησον τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ), by the power of God,

D. The Gospel

9 who has saved us and called us to a holy life-- not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time, 10 but it has now been revealed through the appearing of our Savior, Christ Jesus, who has destroyed death and has brought life and immortality to light

C’. Suffer for the Gospel

through the gospel(τοῦ εὐαγγελίου). 11 And of this gospel I was appointed a herald and an apostle and a teacher. 12 That is why I am suffering (πάσχω) as I am.

B’. Not Ashamed

12 Yet I am not ashamed (ἐπαισχύνομαι), because I know whom I have believed, and am convinced that he is able to guard what I have entrusted to him for that day.

A’. Draw on the God-given Enabling of the Spirit

13 What you heard from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Christ Jesus. 14 Guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you-- guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit (πνεύματος ἁγίου) who lives in us.

Thus, when 1:8 is read over against its structural counterpart in verse 12, the very personal reference to his Lord in verse 12 gives further grounds for seeing a more directly personal reference in (and thus for a subjective rendering of) τὸ μαρτύριον τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν.

5. Conclusion

Although this may seem like we have built a big porch for a small house, to adapt an old homiletical metaphor, the preliminary work was necessary to establish the possibility, even warrant, for over-turning (or significantly adjusting) the current consensus on 2 Timothy 1:8. Moreover, it is a consensus that probably does have a precedent in Paul’s usage elsewhere (1 Cor. 1:6).[75] However, a subjective (or, less specific, plenary) rendering is very plausible against the backdrop of our understanding of μαρτύριον in 1 Timothy 2:6; of our paradigmatic analysis of its suggested synonyms (εὐγαγγέλιον and κήρυγμα) made possible by that investigation; of our further confirmation of the probable thrust of μαρτύριον in 1 Tim 2:6 through the investigation of the use of its near synonyms in 6:13, a passage which also highlighted the importance of the life and words of Christ to Paul in these letters; and, finally, of our attention to the importance of the words and acts of Christ (past, present and future) throughout the two letters generally. Moreover, our limited attention to the immediate context of 2 Timothy 1:8, its wording, concepts, and structure, provide additional reasons for supporting a subjective rendering for τοῦ κυρίου there. In sum, it seems likely that τὸ μαρτύριον τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν is a reference to the testimony the Lord bore, in his words and life, to the saving plan of God.

Notes

1. Space will not allow a full presentation of why this author sees the traditional view of Pauline authorship as the most historically plausible and convincing explanation for the production, content, and canonical status of these letters. For a thorough defense, as well as a nearly complete bibliography on the issue of the authenticity of these letters, see W. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, WBC 46 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2000): lxxxiii-cxxix. For a concise overview of the issues with penetrating insights, see Porter, ‘Pauline Authorship and the Pastoral Epistles’, BBR 5 (1995): 105-23 and ‘Pauline Authorship and the Pastoral Epistles: A Response to R. W. Wall’s Response’, BBR 6 (1996): 133-38.
2. D. G. Reid (‘Prison, Prisoner’, in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, ed. G. Hawthorne, et. al. [Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1993]: 753) suggests that this phrase carries the pregnant sense of a prisoner for the sake of Christ in accordance with his purposes (cf. Phil. 1:29–30).
3. G. Fee has chronicled the ‘rich variety of metaphors and images’ that Paul uses throughout his letters to ‘express the heart of the gospel, “salvation in Christ”’ (‘Toward a Theology of 2 Timothy–from a Pauline Perspective’, SBL Seminar Papers, 1997, 36 [Chico, Calif.: Scholars, 1997]: 737; cf. also God’s Empowering Presence: the Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul [Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1994]: 48 n. 39). These apostolic summaries of the gospel contain core concepts concerning God’s saving work in Christ. At the same time, the ‘form’ and ‘imagery’ used to express that content, according to Fee, is ‘predicated almost altogether on either 1) the aspect of the human predicament from which God is saving his people, or 2) the nature of the error that he perceives his gospel as standing in opposition to’ (‘Theology of 2 Timothy’, 737–38; italics his).
4. Note here the subjective genitive construction in 2 Cor. 2:12, τὸ μαρτύριον τῆς συνειδήσεως ἡμῶν. P. Barnett renders it, ‘our conscience testifies’ (The Second Epistle to the Corinthians [NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997]: 92).
5. Wallace appeals to the recognised presence of double entendre, puns, word-plays, etc. within the NT as grounds for the plausibility of ‘intentional ambiguity’ on the part of biblical authors (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996]: 120 n. 134). He titles this use of the genitive as the ‘plenary genitive’ with the identifying marks being that: 1) the genitive is used with ‘head nouns that involve a verbal idea’ (112); 2) both the objective and subjective renderings fit the context (120); and, 3) both renderings ‘do not contradict but rather complement one another’ (120; italics his). He cites 2 Cor. 5:14 (ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ Χριστοῦ συνέχει ἡμᾶς), Rev. 1:1 (Ἀποκάλυψις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ), and Rom. 5:5 (ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ θεοῦ ἐκκέχυται) as possible examples.
6. Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992): 372.
7. Pastoral: 479–80. Cf. also G. Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus (NIBC 13; Peabody: Hendrickson, 1988): 228; D. Guthrie, The Pastoral Epistles (TNTC 14; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957): 127; and, apparently, P. Towner, The Goal of Our Instruction: The Structure of Theology and Ethics in the Pastoral Epistles (JSNTSup 34; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988): 124.
8. E.g. J. N. D. Kelly, The Pastoral Epistles (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1988, rep. 1960): 160.
9. Pastoral: 480.
10. 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus (NTL; Westminster: John Knox, 2002): 198.
11. The First and Second Letters to Timothy (New York: Doubleday, 2001): 192, 347, 359. Cf. also, N. White, The First and Second Epistles to Timothy and the Epistle to Titus (EGT 4; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1910, 1983 repr.): 156.
12. A paradigmatic approach to semantics brings the synonyms and/or antonyms of a term in view in order to more precisely define that term by comparison and contrast (see G. Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics [Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1991]: 84).
13. Towner, in an attempt to specify the meaning of διδασκαλία in the Pastorals, places εὐαγγέλιον, μαρτύριον and κήρυγμα in a ‘special category.’ Their close association with traditional formulations of the kerygma and the idea of suffering move him to see them as united in denoting ‘the message of God’s grace in Christ, the purpose of which is the dissemination of salvation in the world’ (Goal: 124).
14. Hyponymy is a type of synonymity where the synonyms are related hierarchically along the spectrum from the general to the specific, e.g. ‘creature–animal–mammal–dog–terrier–“Bozo”’ (Osborne, Spiral: 86).
15. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament (Nashville: Broadman, 1934): 490-91; cf. Rom. 8:2, where τὸ ἀδύνατον and its associated modifiers stands in an appositional relationship to the phrase, κατέκρινεν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν ἐν τῇ σαρκί (C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, vol. 1 [ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1975]: 378).
16. J. Roloff, Die Erste Briefe an Timotheus (EKKNT 15; Zürich/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Benziger/Neukirchener, 1988): 123; Fee, Timothy, Titus: 66; I. H. Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles (ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1999): 433.
17. E. F. Scott, Pastoral Epistles (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1948): 22; Kelly, Pastoral: 64; M. Dibelius & H. Conzelmann, The Pastoral Epistles (ET; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972): 43; Guthrie, Pastoral: 72–73.
18. Cf. A. A. Trites, The New Testament Concept of Witness (SNTSMS 31; Cambridge: CUP, 1977): 207-08.
19. Erste Briefe: 107, 112, & 123–24.
20. Here he cites 2 Tim. 1:8, which is, of course, the passage in question. With regard to Acts 4:33, the second passage, the content of the ‘testimony’ is specified by a following objective genitive, τῆς ἀναστάσεως τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ (cf. Strathmann, ‘μάρτυς’, TDNT 4 [1967]: 504). In addition, there is certainly nothing particularly deutero-pauline or late about such a usage (cf. 1 Cor 1:6; 2:1 [if μαρτύριον is the correct reading here; cf. Metzger, TCGNT (London: UBS, 1971): 545, with G. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987): 88 n. 1]).
21. The referent point of the term elsewhere in the NT is also frequently the appearance of Christ (cf. D. Lührmann, Das Offenbarungsverständis bei Paulus und in paulinischen Gemeinden [WMANT 16; Neukirchen: Neukirchener, 1965]: 160; R. Bultmann & D. Lührmann, ‘φαίνω’, TDNT 9 [1974]: 4-5). In this connection, it is worth recalling that ἐπιφάνεια refers exclusively to the appearances of Christ (1 Tim 6:14; 2 Tim. 1:10; 4:1, 8; Titus 2:13) and ἐπιφαίνω refers to the manner of God’s dealing with men (χάρις, Titus 2:11; ἡ χρηστότης καὶ ἡ φιλανθρωπία, Titus 3:4) brought to light by the ἐπιφάνεια of Christ.
22. The structure of vv. 2–3 points to τὸν λόγον as a restatement of or alternate expression for the promised ζωῆς αἰωνίου (cf. Kelly, Pastoral: 228; H. von Lips, Glaube-Gemeinde-Amt [FRLANT 122; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979]: 43).
23. P. Towner, Goal: 109, 127–28. Cf. G. Delling, ‘καίρος’, TDNT 3 (1965): 461; Guthrie, Pastoral: 182; W. Lock, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1924): 126.
24. H. Merkel, ‘Christologische Traditionen in den Pastoralbriefen’ (paper presented at the SNTS conference, Canterbury, England, 1983); E. Ellis, ‘Traditions in the Pastoral Epistles’, in Early Jewish and Christian Exegesis (ed. C. Evans and W. Stinespring; Atlanta: Scholars, 1987): 246-47.
25. K. Wengst, Christologische Formeln und Lieder des Urchristentums (StNT 7; Gutersloh: Mohn, 1972): 72; A. T. Hanson, The Pastoral Epistles (NCBC; London: Marshall, Morgan, and Scott, 1982): 68-67; Towner, Goal: 82. In this regard, it is noteworthy that the passage reflects concepts (cf. the ‘universal’ emphasis in 1 Tim. 2:2, 4; 4:10; 2 Tim. 4:17; Titus 2:11 and the development of 6b in Titus 2:14) and vocabulary (beside the μαρτύριον of 2 Tim. 1:8, cf. μαρτυρία, 1 Tim. 3:7; Titus 1:13; μαρτυρέω1 Tim. 5:13; 6:13; and, καιροῖς ἰδίοις, 1 Tim. 6:15; Titus 1:3) which are those of Paul in these letters. At the least, this argues strongly that the passage, is a reflection of Paul’s own theology and that he may be responsible for the bringing together of traditional elements in order to sustain his line of argument.
26. See e.g. Dibelius, Pastoral: 43; N. Brox, Die Pastoralbreife (RNT; Regensburg: Verlag Freidrich Pustet, 1969): 129; Hanson, Pastoral: 69; Kelly, Pastoral: 64.
27. M. Theobald, ‘Das Gottesbild des Paulus nach Röm 3, 21–31’, SNTSU 6/7 (1981–82): 143-44.
28. J. Jeremias, ‘Das Lösegeld für Viele (Mark 10:45)’ in Abba (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966): 216-29; H. Merkel, ‘Christologische Traditionen’.
29. I. H. Marshall, ‘The Development of the Concept of Redemption in the New Testament’ in Jesus the Saviour: Studies in New Testament Theology (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1990): 249-51; J. Jeremias, ‘Die älteste Schicht der Menschensohn-Logien’, ZNTW 58 (1967): 159-72, esp. 166–67; E. Lohse, Märtyrer und Gottesknecht: Untersuchungen zur urchristlichen Verkündigung vom Sühntod Jesu Christ (FRLANT 64; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1963): 117.
30. ‘Redemption’: 250.
31. ‘Jesus’ Death, Isaiah 53, and Mark 10:45’, in Jesus and the Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 and Christian Origins (ed. W. Bellinger and W. Farmer; Harrisburg, PA: Trinity, 1998): 150-51. Likewise, R. T. France understands the Marcan saying to be an authentic saying of Jesus about ‘the purpose for which he came …’; The Gospel of Mark (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002): 421.
32. P. Wolfe, ‘Scripture in the Pastoral Epistles: Premarcion Marcionism?’, PRS 16/1 (1989): 14.
33. See P. Trummer, Die Paulustradition der Pastoralbriefe (BBET 8; Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 1978): 198.
34. Cf. P. M. Casey, ‘General, Generic and Indefinite: The Use of the Term ‘Son of Man’ in Aramaic Sources and in the Teaching of Jesus’, JSNT 29 (1987): 42-43.
35. H. Strathmann, ‘μάρτυς’, TDNT 4 (1967): 485.
36. Marshall (Pastoral: 432) states that μαρτύριον is ‘either the act of bearing witness or the content, a piece of evidence, thus “the Christian message”.’
37. See Roloff, Erste Briefe: 23–124; Fee, Timothy, Titus: 66; Kelly, Pastoral: 64; Scott, Pastoral: 22; Dibelius & Conzelman, Pastoral: 43, 131; O. Cullmann, Christ and Time (trans. F. V. Filson; London: SCM, 1951): 39-43; A. J. Malherbe, ‘“In Season and Out of Season”: 2 Timothy 4:2’, JBL 103 (1984): 243; G. Delling, ‘καιρός’ TDNT 3: 460–61.
38. A. Lau (Manifest in the Flesh: The Epiphany Christology of the Pastoral Epistles [WUNT 2:86; Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1996]) has convincingly argued 1) that 1:15 falls within the OT theophanic framework that lies behind the epiphany conception prevalent in these letters and, thus, is essentially a synonym for epiphany (66, 179–225), and 2) that 1:15 serves as the ‘linchpin’ of the entire section, 1:12–17 (71).
39. For an analysis of the structure of this section and of the letter as a whole, see G. Couser, ‘God and Christian Existence in the Pastoral Epistles: Toward Theological Method and Meaning’, NovT 42:3 (2000): 262-83, esp. 280–81.
40. On the meaning of ajntivlutron, see L. Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross (London: Tyndale, 1960): 9-49, esp. 35, 48–49; E. Stauffer, New Testament Theology (ET; London: SCM, 1963): 147; Marshall, ‘Redemption’: 239–57.
41. Kelly, Pastoral: 64; Towner, Goal: 83; E. F. Scott, The Pastoral Epistles (MNTC; London: Harper, 1936): 22.
42. As an aside, it is important to note that the author’s use of this traditional thought, one which emphasises so strongly the individual initiative of ‘Christ Jesus’ (G. Delling, ‘Partizipiale Gottesprädikationen in den Briefen des Neuen Testaments’, ST 17 [1963]: 37), as well as his full development of the Christological thought in relation to it, forcefully repels attempts to swallow up Christology in Theo-logy (contra V. Hasler, ‘Epiphanie und Christologie in den Pastoralbriefen’, TZ 33 [1977]: 202). For the author, Christology decisively (τὸ μαρτύριον) reinforces Theo-logy (εἷς θεός), the result being a united theological front in regard to the nature and scope of the divine saving provision in the present time (cf. Marshall, ‘Redemption’: 256 n. 70, whose position is adopted by Fee, Timothy, Titus: 65, 68).
43. Towner, Goal: 127–28. The other occurrence of κήρυγμα in 2 Tim. 4:17 would seem to concur with this assessment since it is that which Paul wishes ‘all the gentiles’ to hear.
44. Towner, Goal: 127–28.
45. Knight, Pastoral: 101–2.
46. Guthrie, Pastoral: 144; T. Lea & H. Griffin, 1, 2 Timothy, Titus (NAC; Nashville: Holman, 1992): 207.
47. Kelly, Pastoral: 177.
48. Towner, Goal: 99, 127.
49. Mounce notes the possibility of taking the relative pronoun either to refer to martuvrion or to the whole of vv. 5–6a (Pastoral: 92).
50. For the detailed structural, conceptual and lexical connections between chapters one and six of 1 Tim, see G. Couser, ‘Christian Existence’: 272–75; P. Bush, ‘A Note on the Structure of 1 Timothy’, NTS 36 (1996): 152-56; J. Thuren, ‘Die Struktur der Schussparänese 1 Tim. 6, 3–21’, TZ 26 (1970): 242-44; and Towner, Goal: 30–31.
51. For the structure of 1 Tim. 1 and the consequent interrelation of concepts, see Couser, ‘Christian Existence’: 273, 278.
52. For similar adjuration formulas in these letters, see 1 Tim. 5:21; 2 Tim. 2:14; & 4:1. On this form generally, see G. Stählin, ‘Zum Gebrauch von Beteuerungsformeln im Neuen Testament’, NovT 5/6 (1962/63): 115-43, esp. 125 n. 7.
53. Cf. B. S. Easton, Pastoral Epistles (London: SCM, 1948): 166; Guthrie, Pastoral: 127–28.
54. On the structure of 1 Tim. 6 see R. Kidd, Wealth and Beneficence in the Pastoral Epistles (SBLDS 122; Atlanta: Scholars, 1990): 94-96.
55. So apparently Mounce, Pastoral: 357–58.
56. For the close connection of 1 Tim. 1:11–17 with 2:4–6 so as to be able to see God’s promise of life at issue in both, see Couser, ‘Christian Existence’: 278–79.
57. Couser, ‘Christian Existence’: 276.
58. Couser, ‘Christian Existence’: 276.
59. So Kelly, Pastoral: 143–44; contra Knight, Pastoral: 265–66.
60. Fee, Timothy, Titus: 51; Knight, Pastoral: 94. It is very likely that the backdrop of this whole episode is Paul’s Damascus Road experience (Mounce, Pastoral: 50).
61. This plan is implicit in the passive verbs (ἠλεήθην, vv. 13, 16) and in the inclusio framework which sets this paragraph off as an explication of ‘the gospel of the blessed God’ (v. 11) and concludes it with a doxology (v. 17) to that God in a manner emphasizing the sovereignty implicit in ‘blessed’ (μακαρίου; cf. Couser, ‘Christian Existence’: 279–80).
62. The two are lexically held together by the παραγγείλης of v. 3 and the τὴν παραγγελίαν of v. 18 (cf. C. Spicq, ‘παραγγελία’, TLNT 3 [1994]: 9-11).
63. By the incorporation in ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ in 5:21 and ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ . . . καὶ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ in 6:13, a more immediate involvement of God is envisioned in that this form implies God’s presence at the delivery of the declaration as well as, respectively, his ongoing monitoring and enabling role in relation to the believer’s response to that which is declared. The ‘witness-factor’ yields a greater emphasis to the conduct so enjoined and possibly suggests the prophetic character of the declaration (Couser, ‘God and Christian Existence in 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus’ [Ph.D. diss., Kings College, Aberdeen, 1992]: 74.)
64. Kelly, Pastoral: 170; Mounce, Pastoral: 496.
65. On 2:12b see Towner, Goal: 106.
66. Marshall, ‘The Christology of the Pastoral Epistles’, SNTU-A 13 (1988): 164-65; Knight, Pastoral: 102, 121.
67. Pastoral: 250; Roloff, Erste Briefe: 331. Marshall (Pastoral: 639) opts against the view taken here but offers something very similar, i.e. ‘teaching coming from Christ where he is seen as the authority behind it.’
68. Johnson (Timothy: 347), pointing to the second object of ἐπαισχυνθῇς ἐμε, contends that the consequent stress on commitment to a person should weight our understanding of τὸ μαρτύριον τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν toward the subjective.
69. Marshall, Pastoral: 741; Mounce, Pastoral: 517; Brox, Pastoral: 244.
70. Note also that the eschatological backdrop evident in Mark 8 is evident in 2 Tim 1:12 (εἰς ἐκείνην τὴν ἡμέραν), the structural counterpart of 1:8 (see figure 1 below). This verse was helpfully brought to my attention by Peter Head.
71. Marshall, Pastoral: 709.
72. Marshall (Pastoral: 710) suggests that the referent could be either God or Christ. However the structure would argue strongly for the latter (contra Mounce, Pastoral: 487 and Knight, Pastoral: 379).
73. For this subjective rendering of μου in v. 12, see Fee, Timothy, Titus: 232; Mounce, Pastoral: 488; Knight, Pastoral: 380; Lau, Manifest: 31–35.
74. Note how this also accords with the structure and the thought of 2 Tim. 4:18, where Christ’s ability to effect Paul’s final salvation is in view.
75. It should be noted here that though many take τοῦ Χριστοῦ of 1 Cor. 1:6 as self-evidently objective (e.g. Fee, First Corinthians: 40) and then take this passage as nearly decisive for understanding the phrase in question in 2 Tim. 1:8, such a conclusion is not necessary to protect or maintain a consistency within Paul nor is it based on a necessarily sound lexical procedure. The relative rarity (5x; cf. 1 Cor. 1:6; 2 Cor. 1:12; 2 Thess. 1:10; 1 Tim. 2:6; & 2 Tim. 1:8) and diversity (cf. the uses in 1 & 2 Cor.) of the use of μαρτύριον by Paul coupled with his preference for εὐαγγέλιον (1:8, 10; 2:8; 4:5) and other related synonyms (2:9; 2:15; 4:3) both in 2 Tim. and elsewhere (see P. O’Brien, ‘Thanksgiving and the Gospel in Paul’, NTS 21 [1975]: 149) when referring to the apostolic proclamation, make it hard to argue for this term as a technical term (as we have also argued above). Moreover, a brief reflection on Paul’s use of νόμος reminds us of the importance of context and of Paul’s lexical sophistication. After all, what is being argued here, should this passage differ from 1 Cor. 1:6 (though W. Orr & J. Arthur allow for both the subjective and objective senses there [1Corinthians {ABC; New York: Doubleday, 1976}: 145]), is a contextual, situationally driven limitation of the referents of μαρτύριον to bring into sharp relief a subset of those lying behind its use in 1 Cor. 1:6 and to make more explicit the activity of Christ in them.

Divergent, Insurgent Or Allegiant? 1 Timothy 5:1–2 And The Nature Of God’s Household

By Gregory A. Couser

[Cedarville University]

Abstract

This study asks how Paul’s household conception of the church in 1 Tim 5:1–2 compares to the social norms characteristic of the Greco-Roman household. First, 5:1–2 is set within the overall flow of the book’s argument to show how this passage rests on a carefully developed theological substructure. Second, the passage itself is closely examined to delineate the social norms that emerge in the manner of engagement urged upon Timothy with respect to the various strata of the household. This study argues that Paul is extending a pre-existing, theologically-shaped notion of God’s household as he guides Timothy. Drawing on the OT as mediated through Jesus and his own earlier apostolic reflection, Paul determines the character and manner of Timothy’s interaction within the family of God. It is this theologically-shaped conception of God’s household which drives the re-appropriation (or reclamation) of the social spaces in the secular household toward the fulfillment of God’s purposes in and through his family. Contacts with Greco-Roman social norms are incidental and not fundamental.

* * *

Throughout 1 Timothy the central metaphor Paul chooses to inform and drive Timothy’s mission at Ephesus is the church as God’s household (1:4; 3:15; cf. 3:5, 12).[1] The household owes its existence to God’s saving work in Christ by the Spirit (esp. 3:15–16). In addition, God’s household takes its shape (on the personal and corporate level) and its mission from God’s saving mission in Christ (2:1–7).[2] The problem that brings Timothy to Ephesus at the behest of Paul is that God’s “household rules,” his saving purposes for his people, are effectively being re-written.[3] The over-realized eschatology of the erring elders has essentially distorted the way in which God saves in the present.[4] Inept, speculative (yet confident) OT eisegesis abounds (1:7) as the false teachers have abandoned the “gospel” as the norming norm for their reading of the OT.[5] Consequently, their affirmations are anything but “sound” or “healthy” (1:10). The already/not yet tension of Paul’s eschatology has been resolved decidedly in favor of the already.[6] Hence, the theology that regulates the members of the household and the household as a whole—with respect to its creation, internal life, and mission in the world—has been gravely distorted. The family of God has been turned away from the life of love. Instead, it has been turned against itself and away from its mission through the influence of false teachers (1:3b–4).

Within this broader context of family dysfunction, in 5:1–2 Paul instructs Timothy on how to approach the various strata of the family. A harsh, stinging rebuke is prohibited. Rather, Paul wants him to “exhort” or “appeal” (he uses παρακαλέω). However, BDAG holds this passage together with two other Pauline texts (1 Cor 4:13 and 1 Thess 2:12) and cannot make up its mind about how to render the word in these texts. It lists three possibilities: (1) “invite” in the sense of asking someone to come and be where the speaker is; (2) “invite in, conciliate, be friendly to or speak to in a friendly manner” in the sense of “treat someone in an inviting or congenial manner”; or (3) “to urge strongly, appeal to, urge, exhort, encourage.”[7] Beyond the contrast with a “harsh rebuke,” the manner of address envisioned by παρακαλέω is to be conditioned by the family status of the individual(s) receiving it. As a result, the manner of address is shaped not only in contrast to a harsh, stinging rebuke but also by accepted norms with respect to the treatment of fathers, mothers, brothers, and sisters.

It is here that the present investigation gets its focus. What does this understanding of the church as a household and of Timothy’s approach to its dysfunction say about the cultural forces shaping the church itself? Is this an example of where the prevailing conceptions surrounding the Greco-Roman household are re-shaping the ecclesiology, and the families making up the ecclesia, along lines discordant with earlier Pauline conceptions?[8] Though it is not possible to thoroughly answer these questions from two verses, this text is directly related to the issue and provides us with a genuine point of entry into the discussion. In the end, this study hopes to determine the points of overlap and/or discontinuity with contemporary secular household norms assumed or commended in 1 Tim 5:1–2. This will be accomplished through attention to the social norms that emerge in the manner of engagement urged upon Timothy with respect to the various strata of “God’s household.” Ultimately, this study hopes to give greater definition to the contours of Paul’s conception of the church as the “household of God.”

Contextual Topography

First Timothy 5:1–2 marks the resumption of Paul’s guidance meant to go through Timothy to the (house) churches at Ephesus (“in every place”; 1 Tim 2:8). Paul hopes to realign God’s family with his saving purposes in response to the present crisis. Paul initiated this guidance in 2:1–3:13, directly linking it to Timothy’s commission and God’s saving purposes (specified in 1:3–20 and tied in by the οὖν of 2:1).[9] Similar to this earlier section, he resumes his guidance in chapter five with general advice for dealing with the whole of the household before turning to the needs of particular social groups (widows [5:3–16], elders [5:17–25], and slaves [6:1–2]). However, in 3:15–4:16 Paul interrupted this line of thought by a return to Timothy’s commission so that he might further define and ground it in light of God’s saving work in Christ and the circumstances of the current dysfunction in Ephesus. This interplay between sections which recall God’s saving work and Timothy’s commission borne out of a desire to promote that work and those sections which re-order the community as a whole in light of God’s saving work (with particular emphases for certain social strata), forms a pervasive conceptual environment where theology, particularly soteriology, interpenetrates ethics. This is further confirmed as the book concludes with Paul yet again recalling Timothy’s commission while restating and further elaborating on the circumstances and theology driving and shaping Timothy’s commission (6:3–19; cf. Figures 1 and 2 below).[10]

Not only does 1 Tim 5:1–2 resume the household material from 2:1–3:13 but it could be seen as a hinge passage which looks both backwards and forwards. It is not hard to see its relevance for Paul’s instructions in 2:1–3:14 where Timothy is called upon to deal with the body as a whole (2:1–7), adult men and women in particular (2:8–15), as well as with any man (and his wife and family) who aspires to the offices of elder or deacon (3:1–13). More directly, perhaps, it provides a fitting preface to the household material to follow.[11] The difficult dynamics of the issues surrounding widows (5:3–16), especially from the perspective of dealing with them as a young man,[12] readily make sense of Paul’s guidance for dealing with older and younger women. In particular, Paul’s concern for sexual purity in Timothy’s interaction with the young women anticipates the dangers of the sexually charged situation among young widows intimated in 5:11–13, 15 (cf. 4:3).[13]

FIGURE 1
1 Timothy Structure and Inter-relationships
Greeting: Authoritative, Soteriological Focus with a Hint of Opposition (1:1–2) Timothy’s Commission 1: Oppose False Teaching so that God’s Saving Work can be Promoted (1:3–20) Commission Recalled: Nature and Cause (1:3–11) Attacks Confident Perversion of OT (source of false teaching; 1:3, 6) Paul as Encouragement and Counter-Example (1:12–17) Commission Strongly Restated (1:18–20) God’s Salvation Plan & Family Adjustments Required (2:1–3:13) A Corporate Focus on God’s Purpose in Salvation: Paradigmatic Instruction (2:1–7) Men: Don’t Detract from God’s Purposes through Competitive, Theological Squabbling (2:8) Women: Don’t Detract from God’s Purpose in Your Adornment or by Your Relationship to Leadership (2:9–15) Choose Leadership that Is Focused on God’s Purposes (3:1–13) Elders (Teacher/Overseer; 3:1–7) Deacons (Helper/Assistant; 3:8–13)	Timothy’s Commission 2: Oppose False Teaching so that God’s Saving Work can be Promoted (3:14–4:16) Commission Recalled: Nature and Cause (3:14–4:5) Attacks Asceticism (effect of OT Perversion; 4:3) Timothy as Encouragement and Counter-Example (4:6–10) Commission Strongly Restated (4:11–16) God’s Salvation Plan & Family Adjustments Cont’d (5:1–6:2a) Appropriate Family Relationships in General (5:1–2) Appropriate Care of Widows (5:3–16) Appropriate Approach to the Appointment, Assessment, & Discipline of Leadership (5:17–25) Appropriate Behavior for Slaves (6:1–2a) Timothy’s Commission 3: Oppose False Teaching so that God’s Saving Work can be Promoted (6:2b–21) Commission Recalled: Nature and Cause (6:2b–10) Attacks “Money-love” (effect of Immaturity; 6:3, 10) Timothy as Encouragement and Counter-Example (6:11–16) Commission Strongly Restated (6:17–21a) Closing Wish-Prayer for Grace (6:21b)

 At the same time, given that family members are abrogating their responsibilities to their widowed parents (5:8, 16) and that some young widows are a community-wide destructive influence (5:13), there is little doubt that Timothy would be interacting with every social strata in order to address these issues. Additionally, assuming that those who functioned as elders in Ephesus would be drawn both from the ranks of older men as well as peers,[14] Paul’s instructions here would certainly be needed to accomplish what he calls for in 5:17–25. Finally, to engage household members who are slaves (6:1–2) calls for a type of interaction within the community that would be no respecter of age, gender or stage of life. In particular, his ability to model brother to brother behavior with a sensitivity to appropriate family dynamics would be crucial for teaching the slaves how to respond to their “brothers” whom they serve (6:2).[15]

“Exhort” Or “Encourage”: What Is The Nature Of Action Envisioned In Παρακαλέω?

Παρακαλέω is the governing verb in 5:1–2. It is contrasted with ἐπιπλάσσω and it is the expressed or understood verb shaping Timothy’s engagement with each age/gender grouping. As intimated above, there is a diversity of opinion about how this term should be understood. Just what type of interaction is depicted by this term in this context? Does Paul’s counsel reflect an indebtedness to the Greek moral tradition? Would Timothy’s actions be commonplace given contemporary social norms?

R. Mounce contends that Paul is not envisioning Timothy’s interaction with the opponents. In that setting Timothy is to be “firm and commanding, a figure of authority.”[16] Instead, παρακαλέω takes on a gentle tone as Paul prohibits “rebuke.” For Mounce, this seems to “indicate that these instructions apply not so much to the refutation of heresy and the opponents as to Timothy’s general conduct within the church.”[17] In sum, Mounce, citing the secular social customs of the time and the broader biblical mandate (cf. Lev 19:32; Lam 5:12; Sir 8:8), calls for an approach that involves “gentle persuasion rather than browbeating,” a demeanor and approach that grants him (or her) “respect, dignity, and honor.”[18] In terms of BDAG’s aforementioned options, this sounds closest to the sense of “invite in, conciliate, be friendly to or speak to in a friendly manner” so that Timothy might treat the respective parties in “an inviting or congenial manner.” In this light, Timothy’s actions would mark a convergence between secular and biblical social norms.

At the same time, contextual factors seem to demand a stronger rendering for παρακαλέω here. First, the relationship of 5:1–2 to the wider context is important. As discussed above, it functions as a hinge or, perhaps more fittingly, as an introduction to 5:3–6:2. There seems to be no reason for not envisioning what follows in 5:3–6:2 as the content and manner of delivery envisioned by the παρακαλέω of 5:1. This is especially so as the ταῦτα of 6:2b that Timothy is to “teach and urge” (παρακαλέω) looks backward.[19] In other words, the fact that his duties do involve the rebuke and correction of men and women of all ages and positions of authority, makes it harder to see “gentle persuasion” as a necessary or sufficient rendering. Second, the cognate noun (παρακλήσις) in 4:13 accrues strong overtones of authoritative exhortation from the surrounding context. Its goal, when done in conjunction with reading the Scriptures publically and teaching doctrine, is conformity to the correct teaching and, thus, the promotion of God’s saving purposes in and through Timothy (cf. 4:11–16). Earlier (1 Tim 1:3; 2:1), παρακαλέω itself occurs in contexts urging the subjects enjoined to take action. With Timothy as the subject (1:3), Paul recalls the moment when he “urged” him to take up the prophetically assigned “mandate”[20] for the churches at Ephesus (cf. 1:18). In 2:1 the use of παρακαλέω finds Paul, through Timothy, urging those churches toward a communal posture in the world that is consistent with their role in the outworking of God’s saving purposes in Christ. Moreover, the παρακλήσις of 2:1–7, where the re-ordering requested is explicitly grounded in God’s saving work in Christ, is likely intended as a paradigmatic introduction to the whole of the household material that re-orders the various social strata of God’s household affected by the false teaching (i.e., the material in 2:8–3:13 and 5:1–6:2).[21] And here, the activity envisioned by παρακαλέω involves taking shared doctrine, envisioning the type of action needed by the listeners to appropriately respond to that doctrine, and then urging movement toward that response (cf. also 6:2).[22] Also, the extreme harshness of what is prohibited in 5:1 (μή ἐπιπλήξῃς) creates ample semantic space to contrast such treatment with παρακαλέω without necessitating a sense that moves it outside the sphere of urgent, authoritative direction.[23]

FIGURE 2
1 Tim 1:3–20	1 Tim 3:14–4:16	1 Tim 6:2b–21
Key Aspects of the Defection and Pointed Response
1:3–11	3:14–4:5	6:2b–10
Attacks OT perversion of “some” (vv. 3, 6) Promotion of God’s οἰκονομίαν (“saving plan”; v. 4), with its christological core (v. 15), as the alternative.	Attacks asceticism of “some” (4:1–5) Instruction for living ἐν οἴκῳ θεοῦ (“house of God” = ἐκκλησία θεοῦ [“church of God”]), which is grounded in the christologically-focused το τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον (“the mystery of godliness”; 3:15–16), as the alternative.	Attacks “money-love” of “some” (vv. 3, 10) Εὐσέβεια (“godliness”), set alongside the “words of Christ Jesus,” as the alternative (vv. 3, 5, 6).
Personal Call/Charge from God
1:12–17	4:6–10	6:11–16
Paul placed εἰς διακονίαν (“into ministry”) by Christ Jesus (v. 12) God’s goal for Paul in God’s saving work (vv. 11, 15, 17): to be a ὑποτύπωσιν (“pattern”) of Christ’s patience for those yet to believe εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον (“unto eternal life”). This also makes Paul an encouragement for Timothy and the reverse image of the OT-based antagonism, i.e., he used to be a blasphemer (v. 12) like Hymenaeus and Alexander (v. 20).	Timothy exhorted to be a good διάκονος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ (“minister of Christ Jesus”; v. 6) God’s goal for Timothy in God’s saving work (vv. 10, 14; cf. 1:18): to be a τύπος...τῶν πιστῶν (“pattern...for the believers”; v. 12) in his pursuit of εὐσέβεια (“godliness”), for it alone holds God’s promise of ζωῆς τῆς νῦν καὶ τῆς μελλούσης (“life now and to come,” v. 8; cf. v. 16). This makes Timothy, in his steadfast, holistic adherence to the truth, the reverse image of the ascetics.	Timothy exhorted to confess Christ’s καλὴν ὁμολογίαν (“good confession”; vv. 12, 13) God’s goal for Timothy in God’s saving work (vv. 11–13, 15–16): “Keep the commandment spotless” (v. 14), which the context suggests is equivalent to the ἐπιλαβοῦ τῆς αἰωνίου ζωῆς (“lay hold of eternal life”; v. 12) or the εὐσέβεια μετὰ αὐταρκείας (“godliness with contentment”; v. 6). This makes Timothy, in his focus on “real life”/“godliness with contentment,” the reverse image of the wealth-obsessed antagonists.
Stand Strong in Your Opposition by Holding to Your Call
1:18–20	4:11–16	6:17–21
Charge at Ephesus enjoined (ταύτην τὴν παραγγελίαν παρατίθεμαι σοι [“I entrust the aforementioned command to you”], v. 18) with an explicit reference to the antagonists (v. 20).	Call to fulfill the charge at Ephesus (παράγγελλε [“command”], v. 11) with an implicit reference to the antagonists (v. 12).	Call to fulfill the charge at Ephesus (παράγγελλε [“command”], v. 17; cf. 13) with an explicit reference to the antagonists (vv. 17–19, 21).

In the end, with Mounce, this passage can be partially accounted for as a caution to Timothy not to overreact given the disrespect he is receiving from some because of his youth (4:12; cf. 2 Tim 2:22–26). However, by all indications, παρακαλέω still involves an exercise of authority, though one that should be conditioned to some degree by the social circumstances. Importantly, as G. Knight notes, this is where parallels to Greek moral teaching differ significantly. Timothy is not just to honor but to instruct those older than himself. The former is a commonplace in the Greek moral tradition,[24] but not the latter. He writes, “The keynote of this passage is the responsibility and authority of the minister of God to give such instruction, albeit to give it with respect, and this makes it different from those accounts in its most central aspect.”[25] Paul’s admonition does not treat social boundaries as sacrosanct. The household of God privileges truth, centrally in 1 Timothy, the promotion of God’s saving purposes in Christ by life and word (cf. esp. 3:15–16). Aspects of behavior proper to the social space of the “older man” (father-figures) are shockingly taken over by the “younger” Timothy. Even Timothy’s interaction with the other social strata, older women and male and female peers, gets re-ordered as son/brother. Timothy stands in a position of authority over the whole family.[26] Social norms for ages/stages are relativized and/or re-appropriated without abolishing them in some senses.[27]

Exhorting Family Members

What is the impact on παρακαλέω when it is conditioned by the conceptions of the recipients as fathers, mothers, brothers, and sisters? In 1 Tim 5:1–2, παρακαλέω carries the sense of authoritative exhortation that has conformity to the correct teaching as its goal. Yet, Paul goes on to call for this activity to be further conditioned by the age and gender of those addressed. In doing so, Paul does not define how this would condition Timothy’s exhortation. What this would mean is assumed. Does Paul simply assume distinctly Christian or broadly secular ideals here? If it is the latter, does he do it because they conform to a (partially) pre-existing, theologically-shaped notion of the household of God? Or, does he transform/conform God’s household to the household conceptions expressed in Greek moral teaching?

As previously suggested, Mounce sees two streams converging in the family emphasis. Paul’s “teaching not only builds on the social custom of the time that demanded a high degree of respect and honor for one’s parents, but in a much more significant sense it is an extension of the gospel teaching that all believers are fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters (Mark 3:31–35).”[28] Although Mounce claims it is reminiscent of “common Greek instruction,” he agrees with Knight that “the motivation and ultimate truth of the teaching is based not on social custom or etiquette but on the reality of the corporate nature of Christian salvation, that all who are in Christ are part of the same body.”[29]

Towner, however, sees a more thoroughgoing indebtedness to “Greek moral teaching.” With “as” (ὡς) Towner contends for a “fictive” view of the relationships depicted here (“as if”). Paul’s instructions call into play the relational dynamics proper to a family without arguing that this is indeed what the church is. Nonetheless, this “dynamic of kinship,” though fictive, serves to “strengthen the cohesion of the otherwise diverse group of believers and provide the church with the structural and behavior paradigm of family responsibilities and rules for relating.”[30] There is a transference of the carefully patterned behavior related to age, gender, and role for those related by blood to those related by faith. This is something Towner once again traces back to Greek moral conventions. In sum, this backdrop can account for both facets of Paul’s instructions to Timothy. Not only does Paul help Timothy conform to what “Greek moral teaching” specifies with respect to appropriate demeanor toward age groups, but he also helps him navigate the tensions arising from that teaching due to his youth (cf. 4:12).[31]

At the same time, given the previously argued force of παρακαλέω and the pervasive, developed theological backdrop (which is itself a response to an OT-infused distortion of the way God saves in the present), it is at least fair to ask if the contact is essentially incidental or fundamental. This line of enquiry gains additional traction when the OT backdrop of the teaching concerning widows and elders is noted, as will be seen below.

What is often left out of the discussion of 5:1–2 is that it is followed by two sections of exhortation (as 6:2 indicates) where Paul develops his thought with strong ties to the OT. It is likely that Paul’s exhortation concerning widows is an elaboration on the implications of the fifth commandment (Exod 20:12).[32] B. Winter argues that Paul is applying the commandment to the current problematic situation of providing providentia for widows in the church.[33] As with the fifth commandment, this passage makes explicit the necessity of proper respect (5:3; LXX, τιμάω) for parents, although coopting contemporary terminology to elaborate on it (εὐσεβέω; v. 4a).[34] Honoring one’s parents now includes satisfying the demands of godliness with respect to them. Additionally, it is this mode of conduct which meets with God’s approval, “for this is good and acceptable in the sight of God” (v. 4b; God’s approval is expressed in Exodus by the promise of blessing from God for the obedient). Consequently, the indebtedness to OT ethical structures is evident both in the allusion to the fifth commandment and by the way the exhortation is grounded. It is a commonplace in OT ethics that conduct finds its determinative ground in the expressed will of God, which is in essence a call to conformity to his own character (e.g., Lev 19:2, 9, 14). As W. Kaiser states regarding OT ethics: “The standard for the good, the right, the just, and the acceptable is nothing less than the person of the living God . . . .”[35]

An even stronger tie to OT ethical thought is evident in Paul’s exhortation regarding the handling of elders (5:17–25). W. Fuller’s study takes its key from the “two or three witnesses” principle quoted in 5:19.[36] Fuller submitted Deut 19:15–20 and 1 Tim 5:19–25 to a thoroughgoing comparison. Conceptually, as in Deuteronomy, he noted that 1 Tim 5:21 lies within an “ethico-legal” context where the concern revolves around “the obligation of the community to ensure a fair examination of the man accused of ‘sinning’” (cf. Deut 10:15 and 1 Tim 5:20). Moreover, in both passages fairness is assured through witnesses (Deut 19:15; 1 Tim 5:19); the desired effect is fear (Deut 19:20; 1 Tim 5:20); and there is a warning against partiality in judgment (Deut 19:21; 1 Tim 5:21). Finally, structurally, he contends that both in Deut 19:17 and 1 Tim 5:21 “there is a triad of persons whose job it is to make sure that the trial is fair to those being examined”; the triad in both passages results from the outworking of the “two to three” principle.[37] Fuller concludes that there appears to be more than a casual dependence on the Deuteronomy passage as “the argument seems to have been developed almost step for step with the development of the argument of Deut 19, ” pointing to a single common “OT seed-bed.”[38] Though Fuller’s work may overstate the OT connections at some points and may miss other factors at play,[39] his work is still significant. It suggests that Paul’s exhortation concerning elders has strong, substantial ties to the OT ethical tradition

In addition to the OT underpinnings, an additional supporting thread for Paul’s exhortations emerges explicitly in 5:17. Paul’s exhortation regarding elders involves something similar to what he does in 1 Cor 9:8–14. There, Paul appeals to the teaching of Jesus (v. 14)[40] in conjunction with OT teaching (vv. 9, 13). In 1 Tim 5, he offers an explicit source of what he essentially credits to Jesus in 1 Corinthians. Alongside Deut 25:4, he appeals to Jesus’ teaching as relayed in Luke 10:7: “the worker deserves his wages.”[41] This tie to Jesus suggests another possible influence that could account for what is assumed in Paul’s use of family terminology. When Jesus’ teaching is brought into view, his teaching on the impact of the kingdom on family ties seems especially relevant. Jesus relativizes the blood family but co-opts the social institution of family in order to structure and define the nature of the relationships within the people of God. Jesus’ family is made up of “whoever does God’s will” (Mark 3:35, par). At the same time, for those who give up family as a consequence of embracing Christ, they will receive a family in return—not just in the age to come but for the present age as well. Should faithfulness forfeit a relationship with a father, mother, sister or brother, the believer will find many a mother, brother, or sister to stand in their place (Mark 10:29–30). Even beyond providing a family for those socially orphaned, the new family relativizes the old so that the primary loyalties now shift to God’s family in Christ. Additionally, Paul frequently uses family terminology to describe his relationships to his coworkers (e.g., 1 Tim 1:2; Phil 2:22, 25) and to the church (e.g., 1 Cor 4:14–15; 1 Thess 2:11–12), as well as the relationship of the members of the church to each other (e.g., Gal 6:10; Rom 16:13).[42] In fact, B. Witherington argues that “Paul by no means simply Christianized or baptized the Greco-Roman household structure, nor did he take his cues from that structure when he exhorted the body of Christ.”[43] And J. Hellerman adds, “For both Jesus and Paul, commitment to God was commitment to God’s group. Such an outlook generates a rather different set of priorities, one that more accurately reflects the strong group-perspective of the early Christians: (1st) God’s Family—(2nd) My family—(3rd) Others.”[44] In sum, there is a rich source of background material to inform Paul’s approach here. Moreover, since this manner of treating the various genders, ages, and roles is not absolutized (i.e., these relationships shape the way Timothy brings the truth to these groups but does not call for him to subordinate his message or ministry to those who stand above him in the social hierarchy), the biblical tradition coming through Jesus makes for a more likely backdrop to Paul’s instruction here.

Any consideration of the biblical tradition as the backdrop for the substance of what is assumed by father, brother, mother, sister raises the question as to whether “fictive” is an appropriate descriptor (i.e., “exhort . . . as if . . .”). God’s saving work in Christ has constituted his people as a family. They are the “assembly of the living God” (3:15).[45] In saying that they are the “assembly of the living God” this means that they are a people among whom God dwells, manifesting his presence for their blessing and thrusting ethical obligations upon those vouchsafed with his glory and mission (cf. Eph 2:19; 3:15; 5:1). There is something substantive and real to their family bonds effected by God’s saving work in Christ by the Spirit (1 Tim 3:16). This household is made up of all the sinners from every corner of the world that have believed on Jesus (cf. 1:15–16; 2:5–7; 3:16). There are real bonds in Christ that unite the various ages and genders. Paul can truly call Timothy “a genuine child in the faith” (1:2; cf. 2 Tim 1:4; Titus 1:4). In the light of the family bonds effected by God’s saving work as illustrated in Paul’s designation of Timothy as his “genuine son in the faith,” it seems fair to see Paul’s use of ὡς as a way to draw on a rich vein of an established redemptive reality. Paul’s designation of Timothy as his “genuine son in the faith” conditions the exhortation consistent with someone who occupies the social space of a father (or mother, brother, sister) within God’s household.[46]

This, of course, does not mean that Timothy’s treatment of the various age/gender strata would be wholly incommensurate with what one would find in the Greco-Roman surrounding culture. The following exhortation gives examples of Paul doing what he is admonishing Timothy to do in 5:1–2, i.e., exhorting various strata within the household with an appropriate sensitivity to the social space they occupy given their age/gender. Paul’s παρακλήσις to the widows and the elders can be taken as a sub-species of what he wants Timothy to do in any encounter with the various strata of the household.[47] Paul treats these strata against the backdrop of what is expected of members of God’s household so that his affirmations, corrections, or rebukes are driven by who they are as members in God’s family. There is overlap with Greek moral tradition where that tradition complements or corresponds with expectations for Gods family, e.g., as suggested by Winter’s work with respect to secular concepts of providentia and Paul’s teaching on the care of widows.[48] Yet, given the extensive OT backdrop of Paul’s teaching, one should not read 1 Tim 5:8 as implying that Paul’s teaching is merely a recapitulation of the accepted ethical expectations of the surrounding culture, much less that those expectations are reshaping God’s family into the mold of the secular household. While a believer’s neglect of their widowed mother would make them “worse than an unbeliever,” what it means for a believer to care for their widow is driven and uniquely shaped by the demands of “godliness” (εὐσεβεῖν), the manner of life throughout these letters that is driven and shaped by God’s saving mission in Christ.[49] The driving forces giving shape to what is assumed for “exhort older men as a father, older women as mothers, etc.” are coming from above (OT teaching mediated through the teaching of Jesus and, now, Paul), not from below. In fact, this is the only way to account adequately for the appropriateness of Timothy’s activity with any of the age groups/genders. Taking an authoritative posture toward those above him in the social hierarchy as well as toward his peers, especially in regard to the basis of his authority and the direction toward which it is exercised, puts him outside secular cultural expectations.

Conclusion

It seems clear that Paul’s direction to Timothy in 5:1–2 goes against the cultural grain. Indeed, the role that he plays at Ephesus would be shocking on many levels. It is hard to account for Timothy’s prescribed pattern of behavior given contemporary cultural norms. And, alongside Pao’s work on 1 Tim 4:12,[50] the role that Timothy plays adds additional reasons for seeing Paul’s ethic as fundamentally driven from “above.” Paul seems to be extending a pre-existing, theologically-shaped notion of the character and manner of life appropriate in the household of God. Drawing on the OT as mediated through Jesus and his own earlier apostolic reflection, Paul determines the character and manner of Timothy’s interaction within the family of God.

God’s saving purposes are primary for God’s household. It is only those purposes which can sufficiently account for its creation, for the shape of its internal life, and for its mission in the world. It is those purposes which drive the re-appropriation (or reclamation) of the social spaces in the secular household toward the fulfillment of God’s purposes in and through his family. As such, they are co-opted and reinvested with new norms which both overlap and diverge from their secular counterparts.

Notes

1. The following assumes that the apostle Paul is the author of 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus. However, space prohibits a defense of Pauline authorship as the most historically plausible and convincing explanation for the production, content, and canonical status of these letters. For a robust defense, see W. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles (WBC 46; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2000), lxxxiii–cxxix. For an important recent treatment of pseudonymity and these letters, see T. Wilder, “Pseudonymity, the New Testament and the Pastoral Epistles,” in Entrusted with the Gospel: Paul’s Theology in the Pastoral Epistles (ed. A. Köstenberger and T. Wilder; Nashville: B&H, 2010), 28-51.
2. For the relationship of 2:1-7 to the household material generally, see G. Couser, “‘Prayer’ and the Public Square: 1 Tim. 2:1-7 and Christian Political Engagement,” in New Testament Theology in Light of the Church’s Mission (ed. J. Laansma, G. Osborne, and R. Van Neste; Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2011), 278-81.
3. Οἰκονομίαθεοῦ carries a salvation-historical emphasis along the lines of Eph 1:10; 3:9, namely, God’s arrangement for the redemption of mankind. See L. Donelson, Pseudepigraphy and Ethical Argument in the Pastoral Epistles (Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1986), 133; F. Young, The Theology of the Pastoral Letters (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 55; and Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus (NIBC 13; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1988), 42, 48, 92.
4. For fuller treatments of the over-realized eschatological dimensions of the false teaching assumed here, cf. P. Towner’s seminal study, The Goal of Our Instruction: The Structure of Theology and Ethics in the Pastoral Epistles (JSNTS 34; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989), 21-45 and G. Couser, “The Sovereign Savior of 1 and 2 Tim and Titus,” in Entrusted with the Gospel, 119-22. For helpful insights on the issue of over-realized eschatology generally, see A. Thiselton, “Luther and Barth on 1 Corinthians 15: Six Theses for Theology in Relation to Recent Interpretation,” in The Bible, the Reformation and the Church (ed. W. P. Stephens; JSNTSup 105; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1995), 258-89.
5. Cf. G. Couser, “Using the Law Lawfully: A Short Study on Paul and the Law in 1 Timothy,” Midwestern Journal of Theology 2.1 (2003): 47-52.
6. G. Knight, commenting on 2 Tim 2:18, describes the theological aberration succinctly: “The error can affect how one regards Jesus’ resurrection and its significance for one’s future standing and hope for eternity, and thus also how one thinks of the Christian’s present relationship to Christ and one’s perspective on the body and conduct in this life and attitude toward material creation. Therefore, Paul regards it as striking at the heart of Christianity and thus a departure from the truth” (The Pastoral Epistles [NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992], 414).
7. BDAG, 617.
8. According to R. W. Gehring, the fact that the churches met in the homes of their wealthy members led to those members naturally assuming leadership within the church itself. As they came in, “it was quite natural that household patterns impressed themselves upon the social reality of the congregation” (House Church and Mission: The Importance of Household Structures in Early Christianity [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004], 298; cf. also R. A. Campbell, The Elders: Seniority within Earliest Christianity [SNTW; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994], 153 and D. C. Verner, The Household of God: The Social World of the Pastoral Epistles [SBLDS 71; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983], 160).
9. In 1:3-20 God’s redemptive work in Christ forms the backdrop of Paul’s instruction to Timothy concerning his service at Ephesus (1:1, 4, 12-17, 18). This redemptive work is then concisely recapitulated in 2:1-7, even while it is more fully elaborated and further authorized by tradition (“the testimony,” v. 6). This brings God’s saving work in Christ explicitly into contact with Paul’s realignment of the community as a whole. It further suggests that this theology is driving all of the instruction directed at the various segments of the household of God.
10. For the argumentation behind these figures, see G. Couser, “God and Christian Existence in the Pastoral Epistles,” NovT 42.3 (2000): 262-68.
11. P. Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 330.
12. Discussions on the definition of “youth” in the first century range from the twenties (R. Overstreet, “The Greek Concept of the ‘Seven Stages of life’ and Its NT Significance,” BBR 19 [2009]: 543-45, 559-61) to early forties (E. Eyben, Restless Youth in Ancient Rome [trans. Patrick Daly; London: Rutledge, 1993], 6-9). Plausibly, Overstreet suggests that Timothy was in his late twenties in the mid-sixties AD (561).
13. With regard to καταστρηνιάω in 5:11, Winter notes that it “does not occur elsewhere in Greek but the meaning is clear from στρηνιάω = ‘to run riot, become wanton’ and the use of κατά simply enforces it” (B. Winter, “Providentia for the Widows of 1 Timothy 5:3-16, ” TynB 39 [1988]: 97). Winter sees this unbecoming behavior as most likely tied to the way certain young widows were pursuing another marriage.
14. The term πρεσβύτερος, “elder,” as a designation of office primarily conveyed “the idea of a wise, mature leader who was honored and respected by those of the community” (B. Merkle, “Ecclesiology in the Pastoral Epistles,” in Entrusted with the Gospel, 190). It cannot be merely equated with “old man.” Yet, given that age was venerated within the Christian (cf. 1 Tim 5:1; Titus 2:3-4) and secular culture (cf. J. Barclay, “There is Neither Old Nor Young? Early Christianity and Ancient Ideologies of Age,” NTS 53 [2007]: 234) and that Timothy’s youth was apparently at issue (1 Tim 4:12), there is little doubt that some of the elders were men older than Timothy as well as men esteemed more highly than Timothy in their respective settings. Their older age also would be likely if some of the wayward elders Timothy is to silence were drawn from the ranks of the established local elites (cf. R. Kidd, Wealth and Beneficence in the Pastoral Epistles [SBLDS 122; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990], 97-100).
15. For the relational dynamics here in light of the letter’s backdrop, see Couser, “The Sovereign Savior of 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus,” in Entrusted with the Gospel, 122-23.
16. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 269.
17. Ibid.; cf. also I. H. Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles (ICC; London: T&T Clark, 1999), 573.
18. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 270.
19. “As before (3:14; 4:6, 11; 5:7, 21), these things refer to what has already been said, in this case at least to 5:3-6:2, although given the concluding nature of what follows it may go all the way back to 2:1” (G. Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, 140).
20. On this term, and its relationship to παρακαλέω, see C. Spicq, “Παραγγελία,” TLNT 3:11.
21. Cf. Couser, “‘Prayer’ and the Public Square,” 280.
22. Cf. C. Spicq, “Παραμυθέομαι,” TLNT 3:33.
23. “[I]t suggests a very severe censure” (Marshall, Pastoral Epistles, 573).
24. Cf. M. Dibelius and H. Conzelmann, The Pastoral Epistles (Philadelphia: Fortress), 72 and Marshall, Pastoral Epistles, 573-74.
25. Knight, Pastoral Epistles, 215.
26. At the same time, this is not wholly distinct from first century understandings of “brother.” Contra D. G. Horrell (“Disciplining Performance and ‘Placing’ the Church: Widows, Elders and Slaves in the Household of God,” in 1 Timothy Reconsidered [ed. K. P. Donfried, Colloquium Oecumenicum Paulinum 18; Leuven: Peeters, 2008], 116), brother connotes relationships of mutuality rather than equality. The relationship depicted is one that implies a close bond and a solidarity but would not preclude distinctions in status and authority within the home (A. D. Clarke, “Equality or Mutuality: Paul’s Use of ‘Brother’ Language,” in The New Testament in Its First Century Setting: Essays on Context and Background in Honour of B. W. Winter on His 65th Birthday [ed. A. D. Clarke et al.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004], 164). Timothy’s function here is still striking with respect to older men and maintains its distinctiveness from the broader secular culture in terms of the gospel basis of his authority (cf. 4:10) and, thus, the direction toward which his authority is exercised (cf. 1:4-5; cf. A. Mahlerbe’s related comments in “Paraenesis in the Epistle to Titus,” in Early Christian Paraenesis in Context [ed. J. Starr and T. Engberg-Pedersen; BZNW 125; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2004], 316-17).
27. For similar conclusions with particular reference to 1 Tim 4:12, see D. Pao, “Let No One Despise Your Youth: Church and the World in the Pastoral Epistles,” JETS 57.4 (2014): 743-55. Note also, M. Y. MacDonald who notes that “there is a sense that the Pastorals leave room for younger men exercising authority in surprising ways” (The Power of Children: The Construction of Christian Families in the Greco-Roman World [Waco, TX; Baylor, 2014], 125; cf. also 145). MacDonald, however, leaves this observation largely unexplored.
28. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 269.
29. Ibid.; cf. Knight, Pastoral Epistles, 215.
30. Towner, Letters to Timothy and Titus, 330.
31. Ibid.; cf. Marshall, Pastoral Epistles, 572-73.
32. So C. K. Barrett, The Pastoral Epistles (NCB; Oxford: Clarendon, 1963), 74.
33. Winter, “Providentia,” 83-99, esp. 98. The concern for widows is commonplace in Jewish and Christian piety (cf. Deut 14:29; Job 31:16; Ps 146:9; Isa 1:17, 23; Luke 2:36-38; Acts 6:1; Jas 1:27).
34. Dibelius and Conzelmann, Pastoral Epistles, 74.
35. W. Kaiser, Toward Old Testament Ethics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983), 6.
36. W. Fuller, “Of Elders and Triads in 1 Timothy 5. 19-25, ” NTS 29 (1983): 258-63; cf. also P. Wolfe, “The Place and Use of Scripture in the Pastoral Epistles” (PhD dissertation; University of Aberdeen, Scotland, 1990), 43-48 and G. Couser, “God and Christian Existence in 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus” (PhD dissertation; University of Aberdeen, Scotland, 1992), 57-64.
37. Ibid., 260.
38. Ibid., 260-61.
39. Fuller’s work presses the correspondence between 1 Tim 5 and Deut 19 to a breaking point at times. E.g., the tribunal of “the Lord . . . the priests and the judges” (Deut 19:17) functions to ascertain the veracity of the witnesses, while the tribunal of “God, Christ Jesus and the elect angels” in 1 Tim 5:21 functions as witnesses to the admonition given in order to encourage the individual concerned (Timothy) to act impartially in his role as judge. Timothy’s witnesses will hold him accountable for his actions. Similar to Paul’s approach in 1 Cor 6:1-6, it seems better to see Paul drawing from a number of relevant OT texts (e.g., Exod 18:15-27 and Deut 1:15-18) to guide Timothy in this difficult matter (cf. B. Rosner, “Moses Appointing Judges: An Antecedent to 1 Cor 6, 1-6?” ZNW 82 [1991]: 275-78).
40. “In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel” (cf. Matt 10:10; Luke 10:7).
41. See the convincing case for a connection to the Lucan Jesus in P. Wolff, “The Sagacious Use of Scripture,” in Entrusted with the Gospel, 211-16.
42. See Clarke, “Equality or Mutuality,” 152.
43. Ben Witherington, The Paul Quest (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1998), 268.
44. J. Hellerman, When the Church was a Family: Recapturing Jesus’ Vision for Authentic Christian Community (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2009), 94. It is important to note here that this does not call for a paradigm that encourages a believer to sacrifice their family on the altar of ministry, as if the call of Christ justifies an abrogation of one’s role as father, mother, etc. This is to assert that the reality of membership in God’s family provides the potential, shapes the direction and prescribes the limits of how one lives out their role within the biological family. E.g., what it means for a father to love his family as a father is driven by God’s expectations for fathers within his family, not by cultural expectations. This holds true for whatever social space a believer might occupy and it holds true for believers whether they are in believing or unbelieving households. This does mean, as Jesus taught (cf. Matt 10:21-33) and Paul reflects (cf. 1 Cor 7:15), that believers may not be able to preserve their relationship with their biological family. Relationships to biological family members stand subordinate to a believer’s commitment to Christ. Believers are obligated to stand over against family if to maintain their relationship would mean that they must deny or reject their primary identity as a member of the family of God. Likewise, believers may have to accept the dissolution of their relationship with their biological family if their biological family rejects them because of their commitment to Christ.
45. The indefinite relative, ἥτις, which links οἴκος τοῦ θεοῦ with what follows, is feminine by attraction to ἐκκλησία. Attraction “occurs when the focus of the discourse is on the predicate nom.: the dominant gender reveals the dominant idea of the passage” (D. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996], 338; cf. also J. Roloff, Die Erste Brief an Timotheus [EKK 15; Zürich: Benziger, 1988], 199). Thus, grammatically, ἐκκλησία stands as the controlling metaphor for Paul’s use of the preceding οἴκῷ θεοῦ. Moreover, its controlling function is reinforced contextually by the extensive elaboration in the following phrase, “belonging to the living God, a support and pillar of the truth.” The οἴκῷ θεοῦ is nothing other than the ἐκκλησία, the people who experience God’s active presence which both constitutes them as a people and drives and constrains their life as a people. Once again, this points away from the surrounding culture as the driving force shaping Paul’s conception of what it means to be in “God’s household.”
46. For the importance and theologically shaped nature of “social spaces” for Paul’s re-ordering of God’s household in 1 Timothy, see discussion of the “quiet and tranquil life” in Couser, “‘Prayer’ and the Public Square,” 291-93.
47. J. Quinn and W. Wacker (The First and Second Letters to Timothy [ECC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000], 411) suggest that the singular suggests a man-to-man encounter and separates it from the public admonishment required for the sinning Elder (5:19-20). However, this reading seems hard to sustain. Rightly, Towner sees Elders as at least a part of the group envisioned here. 5:1-2 are intended to shape the envisioned correction so that it is “done in a conciliatory and positive way, one that seeks to restore fellowship rather than to isolate those in error” (Letters to Timothy and Titus, 331).
48. Winter, “Providentia,” 83-99.
49. P. Towner, Goal of Our Instruction, 150; Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 83; Knight, Pastoral Epistles, 117; and Marshall, Pastoral Epistles, 142-43.
50. Pao, “Let No One Despise Your Youth,” 743-55.