Category: Freed-Hardeman University

Canonization of Scripture and 2 Peter 3:15-16

On By Jovan PayesIn 2 Peter, 2004, College Work, FHU, Freed-Hardeman University, Graduate Work, New Testament, New Testament Canon, Paul's Letters, Peter's Letters, Research Papers2 Comments
college papers

It is generally the case that many critical issues arise from the study of the canonical letter 2 Peter. Objectively, this may be said for any canonical New Testament work. Since, however, the majority of modern scholarship basically denies Petrine authorship (relegating it as a second-century composition by some unknown author), any discussion which is principally based upon 2 Peter requires interaction with this critical problem. Failure to consider this vital element of Petrine studies in the discussion of any textual topic seems to stop short of objectivity. The need to grapple with this issue is readably seen in a consideration of the canonization of Scripture as studied in light of the statement penned in 2 Pet 3:15-16.

The view taken regarding the authorship of 2 Peter plays a major role not only in the evaluation of any passage but also the implications derived from it. As in the case of 2 Peter 3:15-16, divergent views regarding the canonization process, nature of Scripture, Pauline literature, and ethics of deception arise due to one’s position of authorship. For example, the statements from 3:15-16 may argue either that the apostle Peter believes that Pauline letters are “Scripture” and should always be regarded as such;[1] in contradistinction, the passage may be employed as evidence to demonstrate that some second century disciple, writing under Peter’s name and authority attempted to contribute to the normative use of the Pauline corpus as Scripture.[2]

The divergence here centers upon which argumentation for authorship is accepted by the student. Again, if 2 Peter is penned by some fictitious “Simeon Peter” (2 Pet 1:1), purporting to be an apostle of Jesus Christ, what ethical impact does this have upon the normative prohibitives of bearing false witness (Exod 20:16)? This poses an ethical dilemma, especially when the author warns against “false prophets” who employ “false words” (2:1-3).

The canonization of Scripture and 2 Peter 3:15-16 will be evaluated in 3 steps. First, the argument of 2 Peter 3:15-16 will be evaluated at face value in light of the rest of document. Second, the concept of canon and a sketch of the New Testament canon will be outlined as it relates to 2 Peter. Finally, we will consider evidence for the first-century use of 2 Peter and its implications for an early collection of Paul’s letters (i.e. a Pauline corpus).

The Argument of 2 Peter 3:15-16 in Context

To gain as near as possible to a proper understanding of 2 Peter 3:15-16 and its place in the process of the canonization of Scripture, attention must be given to the argument of the passage.

Jerome H. Neyrey depends upon a rhetorical model in order to outline and understand the flow of argument of 2 Peter,[3] suggesting that the letter is best divided into three rhetorical phases: (1) the exodium (1:3-15), (2) the probatio (1:16-3:13), and (3) the peroratio (3:14-18).[4] The exordium “announces the hortatory intention of the speaker/writer, suggests the topics to be developed in the remainder of the writing, and requests a serious hearing” (1:3-15).[5] The probatio is basically the “proof” of the author’s case which is to persuade the intended audience by refuting the opposition’s claims, thus demonstrating the validity of Peter’s claims (1:16-3:13).[6] Finally, the peroratio which consists of two integral parts: the recapitulation (repetitio) of central ideas of the document (i.e. a summation), and an emotional appeal (adfectus) to the audience based upon the validity of the arguments found within the body of the letter (3:14-18).[7]

In this light, 2 Peter 3:14-18 should then be viewed in balance to the “themes and issues raised” from the beginning of the letter (1:16-3:13); namely, eschatological godliness through knowledge, and this knowledge mediated through genuine and normative teaching (the prophetic scritpures).[8] Fittingly, this section begins with the use of the inferential conjunction dió (“therefore”) in 3:14 which serves to show these verses are logically connected either as a deduction, conclusion or even as a summary. It brings into clear view that the logical connection is “self evident” (2 Pet 1:10, 12).[9] Without laboring this point much more, dió transitions to Peter’s insistence “that the link between faith and conduct must be maintained.”[10]

The arguments raised against the heresy –a religio-philosophical school of thought– addressed in 2 Peter 2 concludes with an exhortation to live right (2 Pet 3:1-13). Thomas R. Schreiner notes that here “many themes from its [2 Peter’s] beginning reappears” and astutely observes:

Peter’s argument is not pragmatic […] he did not invent the idea of a future judgment to foster ethical living now. On the contrary, the day of the Lord, consisting of both judgment and salvation, was bedrock reality for him. On the basis of this reality, believers are exhorted to godliness.[11]

Thomas R. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude (Broadman, 2003)

Bauckham likewise shows how this moral argument is given weight and authority throughout 3:14-18 in three ways:[12] (1) “eschatology supplies a motive for ethical conduct” (3:14-15a), (2) accurately exegeted Pauline literature supports this rationale (3:15b-16), and (3) by way of a reminder of 2 Peter’s polemic against these false teachers (3:17).

2 Peter 3:14-17 is consequently the capstone of a moral argument set forth throughout the letter, rising from both apostolic theology and eschatology. The text may be translated as follows:

[14] Therefore, loved ones, since you wait for these things be eager to be found by him as spotless ones and blameless ones in peace; [15] and consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as also our beloved brother Paul (according to the wisdom entrusted to him) wrote to you, [16] as also by all [his] letters addressing these things in them, in which it is hard to understand some things, which those who are ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction as also the remaining Scriptures. [17] You therefore, loved ones, knowing in advance, be on your guard, in order that you may not be carried away from [your] firm footing by the error of lawless people. (Author's Translation)

Of particular interest here is the vocabulary employed in versus 15-16. 2 Peter employs the authoritative weight of the Apostle Paul and a collection of his letters (pásais taís epistolaìs, “all [his] letters”) to support his argument. The false teachers, moreover, are characterized as “ignorant” (amatheìs) and “unstable” (astēriktoi), are twisting (streblōsousin) Paul’s words and the “remaining Scriptures” (tàs loipàs graphàs) to their “destruction” (apōleian).

The language itself embraces canonical language; in other words, the sort of language which recognizes normative revelation.[13] The recipients of 2 Peter were expected to obey these words. Conceptionally, then, the author of 2 Peter is appealing to an inspired holy prophet (i.e., Paul 3:15; cf. 1:20-21; 3:2), the normative Scriptures of the Hebrews (3:5-6), and himself implicitly as one who can identify the “prophetic word” (1:19). This simple observation must not be overlooked. Neyrey, who questions the validity of the argument here, recognizes that this may be a claim of “legitimacy” since there “is only one tradition of teaching of God’s judgment and Jesus’ parousia.”[14] This has the double effect of authenticating 2 Peter’s argument, while “automatically discrediting” the false teachers.[15] Richard Bauckham likewise agrees that the author, whoever he is, “wishes to point out that his own teaching (specifically in 3:14-15a) is in harmony with Paul’s because Paul was an important authority for his readers.”[16] The appeal to a normative standard is definitely a necessity in order to demonstrate the validity of the argument. Is that not a canonical concept?

If the author of 2 Peter is employing normative, or standard, theological argumentation based upon authoritative figures (i.e. Paul and the Old Testament) the implication is that the false teachers are not. Yet, the text show that the false teachers are so misconstruing Paul and the Old Testament’s affirmations that they are “torturing” them, to the point of making them appear as if they teach something that they do not (streblōsousin);[17] thus, the audience is to understand that there is a normative standard which is being replaced by a foreign “interpretation” (2 Pet 1:20-21). The language of the passage is again revealing. Paul is regarded as one who was endowed with wisdom (dotheisan autō sophían), which is a natural allusion to his direct reception of revelation elsewhere synonymously described (1 Cor 2:11-13; Gal 1:12-17).[18] Paul’s letters are saturated with wisdom, but his words are subject to specious interpretive methods which disjoint their intent and meaing, and lead to a behavior that leads to a self-imposed destruction.

It seems, then, that this destruction stems from the fact that Paul’s letters and “the remaining Scriptures” (tàs loipàs graphàs) in some way share the same character.[19] 2 Peter 3:16 connects this torture of tàs loipàs graphàs to their destruction as well, meaning that the same kind of punishment awaiting those who distort the meaning of Paul’s letters is awaiting those who twist the “rest of the Scriptures.”[20] Contextually, this phrase refers to the Old Testament Scriptures since the New Testament had not been collected and collated as modern Christians experience.[21] Even Bauckham, who is opposed to Petrine authorship of 2 Peter, acknowledges that “it would make no sense to take graphàs in the nontechnical sense of ‘writings’; the definite article requires us to give it its technical sense” though he conceives of other books in the author’s purview.[22] Likewise, Earl J. Richard simply observes, “that the author means to include in this category the OT Scriptures is obvious, but beyond that it is unclear what Christian works would have been thus labeled.”[23] 

From these observations, the proposition is advanced here that the author of 2 Peter grounds his argumentation in a reference to accepted authority (tradition, or standard). This authority is threefold: (1) his prophetic office as an apostle, (2) the Apostle Paul’s letters, and (3) the rest of the writings (i.e., Old Testament). This internal textual argumentation is generally accepted despite some questions regarding 2 Peter 3:15-16 and its admission of the “hard sayings” in Paul’s treatment of some matters.[24]

2 Peter and the New Testament Canon

In order to properly evaluate the relationship between 2 Peter, the Pauline corpus, and the balance of the New Testament documents, let us consider a working sketch of the development of the New Testament canon.

The Term. Harry Gamble makes the observation that if examined “within the full context of early Christian literature, the documents which came to constitute the NT canon are not, as a group, recognizably unique.”[25] It still remains, according to King McCarver, that “the formation of the canon cannot be understood apart from divine authority.”[26] McCarver argues that the initial recipients of the New Testament books could identify these works, and because of the ability to distinguish (with varying degrees) those documents from other early Christian literature. Gamble must be taken in balance with this observation.

The term canon (kanōn) is a semitic loanword which for our purpose has three basic meanings which play, as Gamble observes, some role in the conception of the canonization of Scripture.[27] First, deriving from the literal origin of being a reed of bulrush or papyrus, kanōn came to denote for the craftsman a “measuring rod,” a “rule,” or simply put “a tool for measurement or alignment” hence a “straight rod.”[28] Second, the literal meaning gave way to metaphorical usage in keeping with the concept of standardization; thus, canon became also synonymous with “an ideal standard, a firm criterion against which something could be evaluated and judged.” Third, kanōn also came to mean “a list” or “a catalogue” which seems to have been based upon the calibration marks on the reed stick.[29] All these uses of kanōn have also found their way into the broader limits of the liberal arts for identifying unparalleled standards, but when it applies to sacred literature “canon denotes a list or collection of authoritative books.”[30] Canon, when addressing Christian literature regarded as Scripture, means that these works are “the rule of faith” (regula fidei) and “the rule of truth” (regula veritatis); consequently, they are governing normative standards of apostolic faith.[31]

A brief note on the use of kanōn in the New Testament is relevant here. Its use in the New Testament is minimal, a total of four times. Of these four uses only Galatians 6:16 carries this sense of a standard rule, “And as for all who walk by this rule [tō kanóni], peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.” The other three uses are found in the same context of 2 Corinthians 10 in the sense of a measured area of ministerial labor and growth outlined by God (10:13, 15-16). This shows the spectrum of the use and meaning of kanōn in the New Testament and how the term canon came to be used to describe the authoritative writings of God’s people.

A Historical Sketch. A sketch of the development of the New Testament canon will assist to properly evaluate the relationship between 2 Peter and the letters of Paul.

For purpose of this study attention is given (1) to some factors which impeded the canonization process,[32] (2) to some of the debates among the extant Apostolic Fathers.[33]

First, factors which impeded the canonization process. Dowell Flatt in his lecture, “Why Twenty Seven New Testament Books?,” notes that there are at least seven important factors which impeded the canonization process of the New Testament documents.[34] In summary form, these are:

  1. The early church accepted the Hebrew Bible as an authoritative body of divine literature and interpreted it christologically; consequently, “it did not immediately appear that another set of books would be needed.” 
  2. The early church was still under the shadow of the Lord’s presence and life, and many of them would feel “no need for a written account of his life.”
  3. Eyewitness testimony (i.e. apostles and close disciples) to the Lord’s life and work was still abundant and alive (1 Cor 15:6); consequently, so long as living witnesses were available there was a low need for a written account (#2).
  4. Oral tradition was a vital element in the early Jewish culture and the make-up of the early church, and “as strange as it might sound to modern ears, many Jewish teachers did not commit their teachings to writing.” Oral tradition was important even around 130 A.D., for Papias felt that “the word of a living, surviving voice” was more important than “information from books.”[35] Other factors placing an importance upon oral tradition are the expense of books, the spectrum of literacy and illiteracy among the classes,[36] and that there is no record of Jesus specifically writing nor commanding a written record be composed.[37] 
  5. The nature of many apostolic writings was letters, not literary works, so is it understandable that “such writings” as the letters “were slow to be fully recognized as Scripture.” 
  6. The early church manifested in a belief of a first-century return of Jesus to consume the age (eschatology) had “some influence” to hinder the canonization process.
  7. The divinely inspired would speak a prophetic word, and while this was available the church was in no need of a written record per se. Kurt Aland observes the second-century church, living beyond this blessing, “began to carefully distinguish between the apostolic past and the present.”[38]

McCarver adds to this list an eighth factor which slowed the canonization process:

  • There was no “ecclesiastical organization” which “composed or established the canon,” but instead the slow reception of these works at various intervals, across a large geographical region, of the early church was the context of the early sifting process before the councils.[39]

No doubt other factors were in play but these allow us to appreciate the forces at work in the early church during this process.

Second, some of the debates among the extant Apostolic Fathers centered on early Christian literature and their authority. Gamble presents the various discussions and canonical debates in two significant time periods:[40] (1) the second century and (2) the third and fourth centuries. Gamble’s survey demonstrates that it was not an easy time for the early church. There were many signs of the church in transition. In particular, it manifiested in a responsibility that had never been the universal church’s responsibility, namely, the collecting and sorting out the authoritative documents of the new covenant. These were extraordinary times indeed.

The extant records of the Apostolic Fathers demonstrate that not all churches had the same documents. Furthermore, some viewed certain works inspired while others did not, meanwhile, some would use certain documents later found to be spurious and reject them.[41] One of the largest subjects to discussed was the authenticity of the Gospel narratives and that of the letters of the Apostle Paul; especially, their place when compared to other similar gospel accounts and letters. Some employed Gospel narratives which are not in our present canonical and others rejected the use of some of Paul’s letters.[42] Kurt Aland observes that “contemporary with the abating of the prophetic impulse there developed the awareness of history.”[43] In other words, the church was truly without the aid of the apostles and prophets, and its future would be now in the hands of the documents they left behind (John 16:13).

Cecil M. Robeck, Jr., gives a detailed analysis of another major problem of the second century, and well into the third century, namely that the early church had to begin sifting through Christian literature which claimed prophetic inspiration.[44] The early church was consequently embroiled in a matrix of canonical upheaval, but building upon the growing recognized canon and “the rule of faith,” it wrestled back and forth accepting what they thought was prophetic and rejecting documents having no validity and those which were inconsistent with apostolic tradition.[45] Gamble observes the travels of Origen, who was considerably informed of what documents the church had in its possession, and summarizes the items which lacked in the both the eastern and western church.[46]

The fourth century provides the work of Eusebius who was one the most informed leaders of his time. In his Church History, Eusebius informs his readers as follows regarding the state of “canonical affairs”:

At this point is may be appropriate to list the New Testament writings already referred to. The holy quartet of the Gospels are first, followed by the Acts of the Apostles. Next are Paul’s epistles, 1 John, and 1 Peter. The Revelation of John may be added […] These are the recognized books. Those that are disputed yet known to most are the epistles called James, Jude, 2 Peter, and the so-named 2 and 3 John, the work of the Evangelist or of someone else with the same name.[47]

Eusebius: The Church History – A New Translation with Commentary, trans. Paul L. Maier (Kregel, 1999)

Eusebius continues this discussion with another brief list, of spurious and heretical works under which the book of Revelation (some viewed it spurious) was still not fully recognized. These disputed volumes were often styled the antilegomena; meaning, they were not heretical, they was simply a continued debate over their authority. Still, Gamble concludes from Eusebius, “It seems that little development had taken place during the third century” for those works where were acknowledged are “precisely” those acknowledged at the end of the second century.[48] The fourth century would see a significant change in this accepted list.

Various lists are extant from the fourth century, besides that offered by Eusebius. The Cheltenham canon (A.D. 360) recognized our entire canon except Hebrews, James, Jude, 2 Peter, and 2 and 3 John.[49] The Festal Letter of Athanasius (A.D. 367) set forth for the first time a list named “as exclusively authoritative exactly the twenty-seven books which make up our NT.”[50] This did not sway the eastern church for a number of reasons. The most basic was that the Syrian church was going through its own sifting system and was recognizing books in its own time; consequently, “into the early fifth century, the Syrian church typically admitted only twenty-two books.”[51] For example, 2 Peter, 2-3 John, Jude, and Revelation did not appear in the early original Peshitta collections of the New Testament until 508 AD in the Philoxenian revision of the whole Syrian Bible.[52]

The early church was indeed grappling with the issue of canon for at least 350 years, traditionally somewhere in the mid-second century and encroaching into the fifth century A.D. During this time the Apostolic Fathers, as a body of strong church leadership evaluated what the communities of believers had received as Scripture. It is important to focus again to an important point, that there were factors which encouraged a slow process of canonization as mentioned above, and that early on there was no ecclesiastical government to encourage the universal collection, the collation, and the transmission of apostolic documents. Furthermore, it has been advanced above that the first recipients of the documents would have recognized the apostolic authority behind them and would have made a distinction between them and those which were regarded traditional but not authoritative.

In light of these points, Simon J. Kistemaker argues that the documents themselves were intrinsically authoritative, but it took time for the church universal to sift through this tremendous body of literature and come to an agreement. In other words, the early church was working to make a distinction between the words of the Spirit versus the words of Christian teachers. Kistemaker argues that the church was accepting a qualitative canon until it accepted a quantitative canon:

The books themselves, of course, have always been uniquely authoritative from the time of their composition. Therefore, we speak of a qualitative canon in early stages that led to a quantitative canon centuries later. The incipient canon began to exist near the end of the first century. The completed canon was recognized by the Church near the end of the fourth century.[53]

“The Canon of the New Testament,” JETS 20 (1977)

Consequently, as has often been maintained, “the church did not create the canon,”[54] but instead, developing from the early post-apostolic church structure to the top in the various councils to give focused attention to the authenticity of these works.[55] We may argue then that while the canon did not come into existence in a simple moment, and that the canon did increase as each document was published by a New Testament apostle and prophet (qualitative canon), but that it took a historical process to separate these individual volumes from similar Christian documents which the early church had incorporated into its lifeblood (quantitative canon). 

First-Century Evidence for 2 Peter and a Pauline Corpus?

Finally, there is the first-century evidence for 2 Peter and collection processes of the letters of Paul. Robert E. Picirilli has shown that 2 Peter cannot be quickly dismissed as a second-century document, and finds evidence 2 Peter through allusions by late first-century and early second-century Apostolic Fathers.[56] Also, E. Randolph Richards likewise provides some context for evaluating the some of the natural movements for the collection of an early Pauline corpus.[57]

A brief history of the developing canon of the New Testament shows that 2 Peter and the letters of Paul had different historical “experiences” in their reception by the church universal. 2 Peter was often grouped with others volumes that were debated as to their authority, whereas Paul’s letters were often grouped together in different collections subject to criticisms due to their content by the likes of the gnostic heretic Marcion who reduced Paul’s letters to ten. In Marcion’s case, he may have done more to force the church to evaluate and determine what are the canonical New Testament documents.

It is sometimes argued that 2 Peter has no external attestation until late second century AD, but Picirilli’s work argues to the contrary. 2 Peter has early attestation through allusions by the late first-century and early second-century Apostolic Fathers.[58] Allusions are different from quotations, of course, as quotations are much stronger evidence than allussions since the quotation is a direct appeal to the source text; however, if the allusion has significant verbal similarity (correspondence) to a source, then its passing reference should not be, nor cannot be, ignored as a witness to its text source.

Among the earliest sources with allusions to 2 Peter are 1 Clement (95-95)[59] and 2 Clement (98-100?).[60] Picirilli claims that there are “three distinctive phrases that are common to Clement and 2 Peter”:[61] (1) a periphrasis (an indirect way) for the name of God (1 Clem 9:2), (2) the description of the Christian life (1 Clem 35:5), and (3) the description of the Scriptures (2 Clem 11:2). Picirilli pays careful attention to this verbal similarity, and argues for the priority of 2 Peter to demonstrate the dependence of 1 and 2 Clement.

First, Clement writes “Let us fix our eyes on those who perfectly served his magnificent glory” (1 Clem 9:2).[62] This indirect reference to God as “his magnificent glory” (tē megaloprepei dóxe autou) has strong verbal agreement to 2 Peter 1:17.[63] Here it is says, “For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory [tēs megaloprepous doxēs], ‘This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased’” (ESV).

Second, 1 Clement 35:5 calls the Christian life, “the way of truth” (tē hodō tēs alētheías), which resembles 2 Peter 2:2, calling attention to some who are blaspheming the Christian lifestyle – “the way of truth” (hē hodòs tēs alētheías).[64]

Third, 2 Clement 11:2 refers to the Scriptures as “the prophetic Word” (ho prophētikos lógos); and in like manner 2 Peter 1:19 “the prophetic word” (ton prophētikon lógon). This latter example seems impressive since the argument in 2 Clement is to support eschatology in exactly the same polemic context as 2 Peter, against false teachers (2 Clem 10:1-11.7; 2 Pet 1:16-3:13).[65]

In observing this verbal agreement between 2 Peter and 1 and 2 Clement, Picirilli affirms, “it is interesting that three of 2 Peter’s distinctive phrases, unique in the Bible, are used in ‘Clement’, and in exactly the same way.”[66] Picirilli recognizes that several objections can be made against his researched conclusion, but despite all these objections the Apostolic Fathers demonstrate to be a strong verbal source for other allusions to 2 Peter within the first century.[67]

In addition, Guthrie argues that the greater amount of early external attestation one gets, then the greater support for the traditional date of 2 Peter.[68] Both Picirilli and Guthrie have been criticized by Michael J. Gilmour.[69] Gilmour argues that Picirilli’s observations are not helpful in arguing for an early origin of 2 Peter despite the possible allusions from the late first-century AD, because scholars who believe it was penned prior to the second century still hold that it is pseudonymous. Further, Guthrie’s point is weakened for Paul still had to warn against contemporary pseudonymous writers (2 Thess 2:1-2).[70] In other words, possible allusions do not prove authoriship since even the first-century saw the problem of assuming Paul’s name in order to distribute their views.

However, Picirilli’s work is a response to the constant argument that 2 Peter is not known in the first century, nor quoted until late into the second. After demonstrating that significant verbal allusions to 2 Peter exist within the first-century, he argues that those who still wish to oppose the traditional view of 2 Peter must prove that “their convictions of 2 Peter’s lateness is based on some grounds other than lack of possible allusions.”[71] Gilmour may be right that allusions do not prove authorship, but he does not discredit Picirlli’s demonstration of first-century verbal allusions.

Plainly stated, 2 Peter is a first-century document strikingly alluded to by Christian leaders in the late first-century. For the purpose of this study, the present point is sufficient, though we maintain the strength of Peter’s authorship of 2 Peter. So this makes its reference to a body of Paul’s letters all the more important. It is a major feature of its final conclusion which pleads his recipients to adhere to authoritative (orthodox) writings for the shaping of their faithful lives, and apparently, Paul’s letters were meaningful in this process.

2 Peter 3:15-16, then, reflects the existence of a Pauline corpus of indefinite size (en pásais taís epistolaìs) that both the author and his audience were (presumably) aware of. Therefore, some consideration of an early Pauline corpus must be given. Some concept of how Paul’s letters were collected and then circulated must be considered. It is argued here that the process was both gradual in scope but immediate to Paul.

The basis for this belief is grounded in slow circulation among the churches,[72] the typical secretarial duty to make copies, and the arrival and usage of the codex.[73] McCarver observes that the occasional nature of the epistles highlights the point that there was some specificity to a given locale, and consequently as other churches desired copies the “exchange and copying” was gradual.[74] Randolph Richards argues that the collection was unintentional, but provides evidence that on the analogy of ancient letter writers Paul would have had a copy of any letter in which he employed a secretary, or letter-writer (an amanuensis).[75] Likewise, consistent with this analogy, the secretary would have a copy of the letters for records.[76] Consequently, a collection of Paul’s was inevitable due to custom.

2 Timothy 4:11-13 also contributes to this discussion. Despite the fact that 1-2 Timothy and Titus are often considered pseudonymous by many scholars, a strong case can be made in favor of Pauline authorship. Still, the text reads:

Luke alone is with me. Get Mark and bring him with you, for he is very useful to me for ministry. Tychicus I have sent to Ephesus. When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas, also the books, and above all the parchments. (1 Tim 4:11–13, ESV)

The term “the parchments” (tàs membránas) is rather interesting since Paul, according to Richards, “is the only Greek writer of the first century to refer to membra€nai, a Roman invention.”[77] Parchments codices were used to retain copies of letters for future use to prepare rough drafts of other letters later written for delivery.[78] Richards does engage how this passage is affected if the 2 Timothy is non-Pauline. In agreement, we argue that it only affects the explicit claim by Paul, but one can still “contend for Paul’s retaining his copies in a codex notebook solely because of customary practice.”[79] 

Thus, 2 Peter’s reference to a body of Pauline writings is consistent with available evidence of cannonical history, the use of 2 Peter, and the practice of collecting letters among ancient letter writers.

Concluding Thoughts

Attention now turns to drawing some conclusions. The traditional view towards 2 Peter would argue that 2 Peter 3:15-16 is the earliest apostolic witness to a corpus of Pauline letters which a community of Christians also knew about. The implicit awareness that the community of 2 Peter possibly owned a copy of a corpus, of indefinite proportion, is a tremendous support for the fact that the letters were authoritative not only for the original recipient, but this authority extends any community of believers dealing with the same issues. Consequently, despite these letters being directed for an alternative audience, its contents are “the rule of faith” (regula fidei) and “the rule of truth” (regula veritatis) for Peter’s recipients. In other words, they are: normative, an authoritative standard, canonical. Moreover, despite the limited acknowledgement of 2 Peter throughout the canonical history, and some of the problematic issues with the reception of the Pauline corpus, these letters are (with the above presupposition) authoritative.

If 2 Peter is the product of a pseudonymous author, despite its ethical problems, 2 Peter is still a product of the last half of the first-century AD, and at the very least the author was aware of a Pauline corpus. Moreover, if as Bauckham observes, 2 Peter is a testamentary letter where the audience understood that the letter is a fictitious document the audience then, it seems, would be also aware of a Pauline corpus of indefinite size. It therefore must be one of the earliest, if not the first, in the list of post-apostolic literature that appeals to a set standard to theology and ethics based upon an authoritative set of works (or canon), the prophetic office, the Old Testament, and Pauline literature. Even then, when viewed as a late first-century AD document, canonicity is a major and early grounding point in the minds of some in the early church, who were living in the shadows of the apostolic authority. This observation also implies that grounding teaching upon an authoritative group of documents is not strange but expected.

In summary, the meaning of 2 Peter 3:15-16 demonstrates a strong appeal to an authoritative body of literature based on the prophetic-apostolic office, the Old Testament, and Pauline literature. The concept of canon and a sketch of the history of the New Testament canon highlighted the complex matrix the Apostolic Fathers found themselves in. In this setting, the process was slow and developed differently in the east and the west. The unique vocabulary of 2 Peter is arguably found in the first century A.D., and despite some criticism concerning the implications which stem from this fact, a first century placement is a strong viable case. The Pauline corpus grew very naturally as both a quick and gradual process, by means of slow copying and exchange of the churches, the work of a secretary who would make multiple copies for the author and amanuensis, and the usage of a codex (membránas) made it available for a collection to exist and grew as Paul produced more letters. All these factors are particularly important when evaluating 2 Peter 3:15-16 and the process of canonization.

Endnotes

  1. Raymond C. Kelcy, The Letters of Peter and Jude (Abilene, TX: Abilene Christian University Press, 1987), 109-16; Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 4th ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1990), 812.
  2. Fred B. Craddock, First and Second Peter and Jude (Louisville, KY: WJK, 1993), 122; Archibald M. Hunter, Introducing the New Testament, 3rd edition (Philadelphia, PA:  Westminster, 1972), 186.
  3. Despite scholars showing variation in the structural outline of 2 Peter, on the main there is agreement on in the thought outline of the document. Thomas R. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude (Nashville, TN: Broadman, 2003), 282; Richard J. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter (Waco, TX: Word Publishing, 1983), 135; Michael Green, 2 Peter and Jude (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002), 65-66; Simon J. Kistemaker, Exposition of the Epistles of Peter and of the Epistle of Jude (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987), 232-33.
  4. Jerome H. Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (New York, NY: Doubleday, 1993), 113-18.
  5. Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude, 113.
  6. Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude, 116.
  7. Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude, 117-18.
  8. Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude, 247.
  9. L&N 89.47.
  10. D. Edmond Hiebert, “Selected Studies from 2 Peter Part 4: Directives for Living in Dangerous Days: An Exposition of 2 Peter 3:14-18a,” BSac 141 (1984): 331.
  11. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, 393; cf. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 334; Luke T. Johnson, The Writings of the New Testament: An Interpretation (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1986), 449.
  12. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 334-37.
  13. Hiebert, “2 Peter 3:14-18a,” 336.
  14. Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude, 250.
  15. Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude, 250.
  16. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 328.
  17. BDAG 948.
  18. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 329.
  19. Hiebert, “2 Peter 3:14-18a,” 336; Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, 397-98; L&N 1:61.
  20. BDAG 602; W. Günther H. Krienke, “Remnant, Leave,” NIDNTT, 3:252.
  21. Kelcy, Letters of Peter and Jude, 162; Tord Fornberg, An Early Church in a Pluralistic Society: A Study of 2 Peter, trans. Jean Gray (Sweden: Boktryckeri, 1977), 22; Krienke, “Remnant, Leave,” 252.
  22. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 333.
  23. Earl J. Richard, Reading 1 Peter, Jude, and 2 Peter: A Literary and Theological Commentary (Macon, GA: Smyth, 2000), 390.
  24. Johnson, Writings of the New Testament, 443-44; Richard, Reading 1 Peter, Jude, and 2 Peter, 388; Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude, 250.
  25. Harry Y. Gamble, The New Testament Canon: Its Making and Meaning (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1985), 13.
  26. King McCarver, “Why are These Books in the Bible? – New Testament” in God’s Word for Today’s World: The Biblical Doctrine of Scripture, Don Jackson, et al. (Kosciusko, MS: Magnolia Bible College, 1986), 89.
  27. Gamble, New Testament Canon, 15-18; Hermann W. Beyer, “kanōn,” TDNT 3:596-602; BDAG 507-08; L&N 33.335, 80.2; H. G. Liddell, An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon, Logos electronic ed. (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1996), 399.
  28. Gamble, New Testament Canon, 15; M-M 320.
  29. Gamble, New Testament Canon, 15.
  30. Richard N. Soulen and R. Kendall Soulen, Handbook of Biblical Criticism, 3rd ed. (Louisville, KY: WJK, 2001), 29.
  31. Cecil M. Robeck, Jr., “Canon, Regulae Fidei, and Continuing Revelation in the Early Church” in Church, Word, and Spirit:  Historical and Theological Essays in Honor of Geoffrey W. Bromiley, eds. James E. Bradley and Richard A. Muller (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987), 70; Gamble, New Testament Canon, 16-17; Linda L. Belleville, “Canon of the New Testament” in Foundations for Biblical Interpretation, eds. David S. Dockery, et al. (Nashville, TN: Broadman, 1994), 375; Thomas D. Lea and David Alan Black, The New Testament: Its Background and Message, 2d ed. (Nashville, TN: Broadman, 2003), 70-71.
  32. Dowell Flatt, “Why Twenty Seven New Testament Books?” in Settled in Heaven:  Applying the Bible to Life, ed. David Lipe (Henderson, TN: Freed-Hardeman University Press, 1996), 138-40.
  33. Gamble, New Testament Canon, 23-56.
  34. Flatt, “Why Twenty Seven New Testament Books?” 139; James A. Brooks, Broadman Bible Commentary, ed. Clifton J. Allen (Nashville, TN: Broadman, 1969), 8:18-21.
  35. Paul L. Maier, trans. Eusebius: The Church History – A New Translation with Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 1999), 127.
  36. Alan Millard, Reading and Writing in the Time of Jesus (Sheffield, England: Sheffield, 2001), 154-84.
  37. Flatt, “Why Twenty Seven New Testament Books?” 139; D. I. Lanslots, The Primitive Church: The Church in the Days of the Apostles (1926; repr., Rockford, IL: Tan, 1980), 102-09.
  38. Kurt Aland, “The Problem of Anonymity and Pseudonymity in Christian Literature of the First Two Centuries,” JTS 12 (1961): 47.
  39. McCarver, “Why are These Books in the Bible?” 88; Kistemaker, “The Canon of the New Testament,” JETS 20 (1977): 13.
  40. Gamble, New Testament Canon, 24-56.
  41. Montague Rhodes James, trans., The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1969), xii-xxii.
  42. Gamble, New Testament Canon, 28-34, 44-46.
  43. Aland, “The Problem of Anonymity,” 47.
  44. Robeck, “Canon, Regulae Fidei, and Continuing Revelation,” 72-74.
  45. Robeck, “Canon, Regulae Fidei, and Continuing Revelation,” 75-86.
  46. Robeck, “Canon, Regulae Fidei, and Continuing Revelation,” 50-53.
  47. Maier, Eusebius, 115.
  48. Gamble, New Testament Canon, 53.
  49. Gamble, New Testament Canon, 54.
  50. Gamble, New Testament Canon, 54.
  51. Gamble, New Testament Canon, 55.
  52. Frederick F. Bruce, The Books and the Parchments: Some Chapters on the Transmission of the Bible, 3rd ed. (Westwood, NJ: Revell, 1963), 200.
  53. Kistemaker, “The Canon of the New Testament,” 13.
  54. Kistemaker, “The Canon of the New Testament,” 13; McCarver, “Why are These Books in the Bible?” 88-90; Flatt, “Why Twenty Seven New Testament Books?” 140-42.
  55. Kistemaker, “The Canon of the New Testament,” 13.
  56. Robert E. Picirilli, “Allusions to 2 Peter in the Apostolic Fathers,” JSNT 33 (1988): 58-74.
  57. E. Randolph Richards, “The Codex and the Early Collection of Paul’s Letters,” BBR 8 (1998): 155-62.
  58. Picirilli, “Allusions to 2 Peter,” 57-83.
  59. J. B. Lightfoot and J. R. Harmer, trans., The Apostolic Fathers, 2d edition, ed. Michael W. Holmes (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2000), 25.
  60. Lightfoot and Harmer, Apostolic Fathers, 65-67.
  61. Picirilli, “Allusions to 2 Peter,” 60-61.
  62. Lightfoot and Harmer, Apostolic Fathers, 33.
  63. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 218.
  64. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 242.
  65. Picirilli, “Allusions to 2 Peter,” 60-61.
  66. Picirilli, “Allusions to 2 Peter,” 60.
  67. Picirilli, “Allusions to 2 Peter,” 74-77.
  68. Guthrie, Introduction, 810-11.
  69. Michael J. Gilmour, “Reflections on the Authorship of 2 Peter,” EvQ 73 (2001): 298-99.
  70. Gilmour, “Authorship of 2 Peter,” 299.
  71. Picirilli, “Allusions to 2 Peter,” 75.
  72. McCarver, “Why are These Books in the Bible?” 88.
  73. Richards, “The Codex and the Early Collection,” 155-66.
  74. McCarver, “Why are These Books in the Bible?” 88.
  75. Richards, “The Codex and the Early Collection,” 158-59.
  76. Richards, “The Codex and the Early Collection,” 156.
  77. Richards, “The Codex and the Early Collection,” 161.
  78. Richards, “The Codex and the Early Collection,” 161.
  79. Richards, “The Codex and the Early Collection,” 159-62.
Continue reading “Canonization of Scripture and 2 Peter 3:15-16” →

Philippians 4:10-13: Exegesis and Syntax

On By Jovan PayesIn Bible Study, Commentary, Discipleship, Exegesis, FHU, Freed-Hardeman University, Graduate Work, Greek Grammar, Interpretation, New Testament, Paul's Letters, Philippians, Technical Studies, Translation2 Comments
college papers

The writing of a letter in ancient times was a special thing, yet it seems the estimation of what a letter is has escaped the modern person.[1] In an age where communication is as instant as the punch of a button, at text, or a voice-to-text there appears to be as E. Randolph Richards observes:

a struggle to understand how much a handwritten letter, which was already weeks old, meant to the reader. Although usually battered from the journey, such letters did more than just bring news; one could almost feel the warmth of the hand that wrote it and the sound of the voice that spoke it.[2]

Letters are not cold mechanical communiques. Charles B. Cousar mentions how letters “are always sent as surrogates for a visit,”[3] and usually in ancient times the trusted courier (“emissary”) would also “supplement” the written message with an oral greeting from the sender.[4] The arrival of a letter and a message was, therefore, a joyous occasion (Phil 2:19).

Adapting the letter for church use was, therefore, natural and ingenious.[5] The Philippian letter then, being a product of an ancient letter society, is not necessarily unique so far as its general composition is concerned;[6] however, it is inherently valuable because it is inspired instruction (2 Tim 3:16-17).[7] It allowed the apostle Paul to make his presence felt so that he might personally address a few matters (Phil 2:12). It also gave him a platform to reconnect with his beloved Philippians, those who always supported him in his ministry (Phil 1:5, 4:15).

It is this last thought which forms the focus of this study. In Philippians 4:10-13, Paul acknowledges the gift from this Macedonian congregation. Yet, this “thank you” memo quickly turns into an opportunity to stress a spiritual perspective which he himself had to learn, and one which he desperately desires them to learn: the source of strength to do the humanly impossible does not come from within, it comes from above.

This is an important lesson for the church to reflect upon. There is a temptation to derive strength from within. There is also something unnerving to surrender oneself over to the strengthening influence of an invisible God when in the presence of visible and tangible problems. We can only transcend our surroundings through God.

Background and Context

Philippians 4:10-13 follows after the paraenetic section[8] of Philippians (3:1-4:9), where despite some harsh words regarding false teachers, he encourages the Philippian church to forebear through joy and peace.[9] Handley Moule agrees noting, “the directly didactic message of the Epistle is now over and he turns to the personal topic of the alms, for himself and his work, received through Epaphroditus from Philippi.”[10] There is a hint at the beginning of the letter regarding the longevity of their support of Paul (1:3-7), but nothing explicit regarding a recent “gift” until 4:10-20 of which only verses 10-13 will be discussed below.

Letter writing often, revelation notwithstanding, was usually mitigated at the knowledge of an associate traveling.[11] Epaphroditus had arrived from Philippi, but after recovering from an illness Paul sends him with  Timothy to Philippi (2:19-30). It is without doubt that one of Paul’s purposes for the letter is to express thanksgiving for the gift he has received.[12] This created the reason for the letter.

Yet, if grattitude was one of the main reasons for ne of Paul’s reasons for sending the letter being to thank the brethren at Philippi, “it seems strange,” as Donald Guthrie writes:

on a first reading that Paul should conclude by a reference to the Philippians’ revived concern for him. It almost savours [sic] of ingratitude to be so casual about it. And yet he may have had a purpose in postponing until the end the mention of the Philippians’ gifts.[13]

Indeed, placement of some vocabulary within Paul’s section of thanksgiving has made this passage subject of much discussion.

First, it must be noted that the thanksgiving for the gift should not be viewed as the sole reason for the letter, since the letter has other specific areas that it addresses. Archibald T. Robertson suggests that Paul “seemed about to forget it in his eager discussion of other things and so he checked himself before it was too late.”[14] But again, there is no reason to treat Paul as “the absent minded apostle,” for the unity of the letter is sound.

In fact, there is an interesting parallel between “the important verbal parallels between thanksgiving (1:3-11) and the closing note of thanks (4:10-20),”[15] demonstrating a planned arrangement consistent with epistolary composition.[16] Epistolary productions were not a haphazard endeavor, there was a process from draft to final copy.[17] Gordon Fee observes that the gratitude section’s “placement at the end of the letter is most likely due to the combined influence of orality and Pauline rhetoric.”[18]

Second, Paul’s appreciation is sometimes regarded as savoring “of ingratitude to be so casual about it”; moreover, Gerald Hawthorne refers to this section as “this so-called ‘thank you’ section, since Paul does not use the verb eucharistein (‘to thank’ someone for something).”[19] But, as Gerald Peterman demonstrates, some scholars approach this issue “without taking cognizance of first century social conventions related to gratitude.”[20]

These conventions demonstrate that the use of eucharistein was inappropriate among intimate friends,[21] that instead of a verbal (i.e. written) thank you a material one of some kind was rendered, and that verbal gratitude “is an expression of debt or of one’s intention to repay.”[22] It is interesting that Paul promises God will repay the Philippians for their troubles (Phil 4:19). Consequently, the Philippian letter is in “keeping with the thankless thanks practiced in the first century Graeco-Roman [sic] world.”[23] Peterman’s observations, however, have not swayed all students of this letter.

Exegesis of Philippians 4:10-13

10 | I rejoiced in the Lord greatly that now at length you have revived your concern for me. You were indeed concerned for me, but you had no opportunity.[24]

The postpositive de is often omitted in English translations and in general it may be of minor importance since it is one of the weakest of connective conjunctions; however, the fact that it is a conjunction demonstrates that what Paul says here is related to what is previously stated. In other words, de is transitional here,[25] and its importance is Paul rhetorically demonstrating that he had not forgotten to show his thanksgiving of the Philippians.[26]

Alfred Plummer expands the de and translates the particle as “but I must not omit,”[27] and suggests that this “indicates that something has just occurred to him. He has been meaning to say it, but might have forgotten. The de looks back to vv. 4-9, or perhaps earlier. ‘I have been exhorting you to rejoice and to imitate me: so I must thank you for making me rejoice.’”[28] Paul’s “words have to be read in the light of the deep mutual affection existing between him and the Philippian church and in the light of his well-attested financial policy.”[29]

Echaren,[30] I rejoice, is the aorist passive indicative verb (chairo, “I rejoice” and “I am glad”). The word here basically expresses a “state of happiness and wellbeing.”[31] There is a complication regarding how chairo should be taken here, made evident by two renditions of echaren. The ESV renders chairo in the present force “I rejoice” (ASV, TEV, NIV, RSV, JB, NEB, NET); however, other translations render chairo with its aorist tense expressed “I was glad” (KJV, NKJV, ASV fn., NASU, FHV).

On the main, chairo is rendered as an epistolary aorist, which “is most often found in letters where there is a time gap between writing and reading”; furthermore:

As a courtesy to the reader, the writer adopts the time perspective of the reader, which is different from his own. He uses the aorist tense to describe an event which is present or future for him but which will be in the past by the time the reader receives the letter. Since there is no such idiom in English, such aorists are usually translated by using the present or future tense.[32]

While the epistolary aorist[33] makes sense, the aorist aspect of the verb[34] also makes perfect contextual sense.[35] Taking the aorist naturally, the apostle would be referring to the joy he experienced when he received the “care package” sent by the Philippians through Epaphroditus (Phil 1:5, 7; 2:25, 30; 4:18). Nevertheless, despite the plausibility of this latter translation, there is nothing requiring the interpreter to exclude the syntactical for the idiomatic association, and vice versa.[36] With this in mind, either take on the aorist verb makes sense, and this ambiguity only allows us to specifically regard Paul’s great joy as being initiated by the entire Philippian exchange.[37]

The phrase en kurio megalos, in the Lord greatly, appears to be as vivid a conception as it is unique. Albrecht Oepke observes that en kurio is a formula that is “not found prior to Paul” and is “rare outside the Pauline corpus.”[38] In fact, Oepke speculates that not only is this formula “peculiar to Paul,” but that such constructions perhaps find origin with him. The phrase en kurio “characterizes an activity or state as Christian.”[39] The activity, which is particularly a Christian activity, is the joy Paul is experiencing (Phil 4:10). Hans Conzelmann suggests that en kurio has “ecclesiological significance” since it is the sphere of this unique Christian joy.[40] This significance is seen in its eschatological emphasis as well; this latter sense is seen here in Paul’s joy, as he looks forward to the heavenly account from which the Philippians will reap spiritual dividends (Phil 4:17-20). Furthermore, Paul’s unique experience of Christian joy is enhanced by the adverb megalos, greatly, and cannot be contextually understood apart from it. When Paul rejoiced, the location of his joy was nowhere else active, aside from it being in the Lord.

The reason for such a joy was that now at length (hoti ede pote) the Philippians had revived concern for (anethalete to huper emou phronein) Paul. The expression hoti ede pote provides great insight into the mind of the Philippians, and into Paul’s knowledge of their activities. The phrase ede pote should be taken to mean, “that after so long a time you again were in a position to show […] to be in a state identical to a previous state.”[41] The “previous state” is the concern (to huper phronein) regarding Paul’s situation. Against Guthrie,[42] this does not appear to be an indictment, for anethalete (second aorist, active indicative, 2nd person, plural) as it means here, “you caused to rekindle,” demonstrates Paul’s awareness that after so long a time the Philippians had a moment to finally act out on their concern (phronein). This is more apparent in connection with imperfect verbs ephroneite and ekaireisthe later addressed.

The Philippian concern for the Apostle is more evident with the following vocabulary – to huper emou phronein– which the ESV translates your concern for me. They had, as Paul understands them, “caused to rekindle your thoughts on behalf of myself.” The expression to huper emou phronein[43] should most definitely be translated as a unit, taking the articular infinitive and the huper emou construction, to express the overarching idea that Paul was a major concern for the Philippians.[44] They were prepared to act on his behalf when the opportunity presented itself again, and the arrival of Epaphroditus demonstrates that such an avenue arose.[45] “I know that had there been a earlier moment for you to continue caring for my well being, you would have done so. Despite how much time had lapsed since you last helped me, you acted instantaneously,” is probably closest in sentiment to Paul here.[46]

The phrase eph’ ho kai, literally “upon which also,” refers back to what the Philippians were already concerned for (ephroneite); thus, the ESV translates eph’ (from epi) ho kai ephroneite as You were indeed concerned for me. The syntactical construction of the text makes a literal rendering into English somewhat awkward, however, a literal rendering of the text would result this alternative, “upon which also you had concern.” The ESV rendering retains the emphasis upon the Philippian concern for Paul, as it inserts for me, and also completes the thought in English by providing a direct object for the verb to act towards.[47] Still, the Imperfect Active Indicative 2nd person plural ephroneite, also from phroneo, rendered here, as you were concerned, fills in the chronological blanks which ede pote creates, because the latter expression implicitly suggests a lapse in time before the Philippians could revive their concern. The imperfect active indicative form of phroneo suggests continued action in the past; consequently, the picture Paul elaborately canvasses is that despite the long duration which had elapsed, the Philippian congregation’s actual concern and meditation remained constant demonstrated by this most recent financial fellowship.[48] The point is: they had never forgotten the Apostle Paul whether in action or in thought, and Paul knew it![49]

Paul again reaffirms his understanding of the situation that circumscribed the Philippians’ gift, and tells them but I know that you had no opportunity (ekaireisthe de). The transitional particle de here moves from the long-standing concern (ephroneite), to the long-standing vacuum of opportunity (ekaireisthe) to send some assistance to Paul. You had no opportunity derives from the imperfect, middle deponent, indicative, 2nd person plural verb form of akaireomai, meaning “to have no time”[50] or “to not have a favorable opportunity to do something […], to have no chance.”[51] Placing the nature of this verb in the imperfect tense, Paul details a parallel picture with ephroneite; whereas, the Philippians always had Paul on their minds, here ekaireisthe shows the Philippians suffered with the dual issue that they had no convenient moment to act out their good will towards the apostle. Robertson suggests possibly that ekaireisthe could mean, “lacked means,”[52] but akaireomai[53] is a “temporal” verb;[54] consequently, the only “means” that was lacking for them was a point in time to assist Paul.[55]

Only speculation can approximate what the hindrance was which limited the Philippians’ gift(s). Bruce suggests Paul requested the lengthy temporal retardation of financial assistance.[56] Hawthorne postulates that “time” refers to unfavorable weather conditions and a lack in traveling funds, setting up a barricade through which the Philippians could not penetrate.[57] Martin also extrapolates that perhaps there was no time available to the Philippians because of their poverty, but also speculates that Paul may have been in an “inaccessible place.”[58] Martin’s appraisal of the situation seems much far more compelling than the rest, but since there is insufficient testimony regarding why the delay, the issue must be left open.

11 | Not that I am speaking of being in need, for I have learned in whatever situation I am to be content.

Paul moves from expressing his understanding of the historical background behind the Philippian gift, where he assures them that he understands their plight, to describing his own situation. Not that I am speaking of being in need (oux hoti kath’ husteresin lego),[59] demonstrates that Paul is making a clarification of some kind. In light of the Philippians’ concern for Paul, perhaps they had let their imagination get the better of them. Thus, when Epaphroditus met with Paul, this hyper-concern was revealed to Paul as a major impetus for the gift (1:12-14), so he clarifies that he is not in such dyer straights as they perhaps had thought. From grammatical considerations, it appears that Paul is explaining that (hoti) his joy, which he is speaking about (cf. lego),[60] is not the result from being in need (kath’ husteresin) when he received the gift. Instead, kath’, from kata, with the accusative singular husteresin, demonstrates that Paul affirms that the void which the gift was to fill was neither (oux) consistent, nor the reason,[61] for his joy. This seems odd since Paul uses the word husteresin, rendered as need in the ESV, which means, “the condition of lacking that which is essential” and “want in general, or poverty.”[62] It is taken here that Paul is not denying that he is in “an impoverished situation” (husteresin),[63] but instead he is elevating his joy in the Lord and denying that it was only inaugurated by receiving the a physical gift.

As noted above, Paul’s joy is the result of spiritual reflection as he looked upon the Christian fortitude demonstrated by the Philippian congregation.[64] His joy is in the Lord, not in the gift, which alleviated his “impoverished situation.” This is later demonstrated in 4:17, when he affirms, “Not that I seek the gift, but I seek the fruit that increases to your credit,” which is later expressed as being credited in the form of God’s care (cf. 4:19).[65] U. Wilckens notes that Paul’s joy “is not the joy of a poor person whose needs has been met”;[66] instead, as Gromacki observes Paul was “more grateful for the givers than for the gifts,” and as Vine concludes, “What they had sent he regarded not as so much relief, though that is was, but as a token of their spiritual prosperity.”[67] Paul’s joy is Christian in scope, and breaks away from being an “intrinsically […] secular term” as it is colored by the inspired Apostle to connote a joy that results from spiritual insight.[68]

Martin suggests that 4:11b to 4:13 is a parenthetical section, amplifying Paul’s meaning of his joy, labeling it as an “impressive statement of his ‘contentment.’”[69] The connections between 4.10-13 appear to go against Martin’s suggestion, since Paul moves from his “joy” (v. 10) towards an explanation on how he has arrived at this unique joy (vv. 11-13). Paul eventually reveals how, naming his empowering source for this joy as God (4:13); consequently, Martin’s parenthetical break appears to be unnecessary and possibly inconsistent with Paul’s thought processes. Since Paul denies that his joy stems from the gift within itself, for (gar) serves to prepare his readers’ mind for the true source of his joy. The apostle frankly admits I have learned (ego emathon). The verbal construction is emphatic, meaning “I myself found out (learned the secret).” Emathon, 2nd aorist active indicative, 1st person singular form of manthano,[70] which is a somewhat complex word, carrying three basic meanings, but contextually denotes coming “to a realization, with implications of taking place less through instruction than through experience or practice” and “reflection.”[71] Martin suggests that the aorist tense implies that “the lesson he learnt came to him in a moment of time”;[72] but, against this ambiguous evaluation of the aorist in this context, is Plummer, Robertson, Gromacki, and Hawthorne. Plummer suggests that this is a Greek idiom where the aorist, is better understood in the English perfect,[73] which corroborates with Robertson’s claim that it is a “timeless aorist” to be taken as a “constative aorist and sums up all the life of Paul as one experience.”[74] More likely, emathon “views all of his learning experiences as a whole.”[75]

The seasoned imprisoned apostle (1:7; 2 Cor 11:16-29) is sharing a spiritual pearl of wisdom, to which all ears must listen should they desire the joy he experiences; but, what he is sharing took time for even him to understand.[76] He explains that what he has learned allows him, in whatever situation (en hois) to be content (autarkes einai). The phrase, I am to be content (eimi autarkes einai) is emphatic, demonstrated by the two present active “be” verbs (eimi, “I am”; einai, “I am to be”) working together to underscore Paul’s own personal interaction with whatever situation may come his way. There is a tremendous personal emphasis made on the part of the apostle, that “he himself” learned that “he himself” must be content. No one else can do this for Paul, and no one can do it for the concerned mature Christian.

What then does Paul mean when he uses the word contentment? Contentment comes from autarkes, meaning, “pertaining to being happy or content with what one has – ‘[…] content with the circumstances in which one exists.’”[77] Moulton and Milligan have several examples of autarkes, “but” as they caution they are “only in the simple sense of ‘enough’”;[78] however, the non-literary papyri demonstrate that autarkes was employed to express “sufficiency” as in the example ton autarke keramon, translated “a sufficient number of jars.”[79] Furthermore, agreeing with Kennedy’s discussion of the philosophical usage of autarkes,[80] Moulton and Milligan express that “the [nonliterary papyri] record lends some emphasis to the Pauline use of the word in the philosophic sense of ‘self-sufficient, contented’ […] Paul could use the technical words of thinkers in their own way.”[81] Philosophically, G. Kittel observes, it carries the idea of a person who became “independent […] sufficient to himself and in need of none else”; distinctly Christian however, the word takes on the meaning of “capacity for external contentment and privation.”[82]

When Paul says, “I myself found out (learned the secret) that under whatever circumstances I myself am to be content (self-sufficient),” he is explaining why he is not rejoicing principally because of the gift. The gift within itself added nothing, from a spiritual vantage point, to Paul’s existence because he already had the mind set that he had everything necessary to exist –God (4:13, 19). Whereas “the pagan virtue is self-made, the Christian [virtue] rests upon God, [and] on his provident love and care.”[83] W. Barclay writes that the philosophical background of autarkes, promoted self-sufficiency, but Paul was God-sufficient.[84] The point in this passage is similar to that found in 2 Corinthians 1:9, where Paul says, “we felt that we had received the sentence of death. But that was to make us rely not on ourselves but on God who raises the dead” (ESV cf. 2 Cor 3:5).[85] In light of Paul’s imprisonment, his words are astounding:

Though deprived of every comfort, and cast as a lonely man on the shores of the great strange metropolis, with every movement of his clanking a fetter, and nothing before him but the lion’s mouth or the sword, he speaks serenely of contentment.[86]

“Paul could face anything, because in every situation he had Christ; the man who walks Christ can cope with anything.”[87] Mature Christians need to learn from this to “change what ought to be changed for the better. What cannot be cured has to be endured.”[88]

12 | I know how to be brought low, and I know how to abound. In any and every circumstance, I have learned the secret of facing plenty and hunger, abundance and need.

What comes next in the text are extremes which Paul lists to demonstrate what he has experienced, and there is a hint of implication that these are the lands of existence Paul pilgrimage through to learn his lesson of how to obtain Christian joy through Christian contentment. Paul employs oida twice in this passage, being a perfect active tense verb that has a present active tense meaning,[89] 1st person singular form related to ginosko, “I know.” The word means, “to have the knowledge as to how to perform a particular activity or to accomplish some goal,”[90] and in this context is employed to demonstrate Paul’s first had knowledge as to “how” to perform “not only”[91] (kai) when he is brought low (tapeinousthai) “but also” (kai) when he abounds (perisseuein). This is a sample of Paul’s defining experiences that helped him see the joy and contentment that God had been revealing to him.

Paul declares I know how to be brought low (oida kai tapeinousthai), which is the same as saying that Paul had expertise gained through experience (cf. manthano 4.11) on how to focus on the essentials when he was “subject to strict discipline” where constrainment and mortification was his reality (tapeinousthai).[92] Guthrie is right when he writes, “‘Abased or abounding’ fairly sums up the natural alternatives.”[93] Tapeinousthai is the present passive infinitive of tapeinoo, coupling the perfect-present tense of oida, Paul composes the idea that he had from the past learning, experience, and coping with being brought low, and after a history with this he could now say that I can perform if he was left to undergo such difficult circumstances. Moreover, he adds and I know how to abound (oida kai tapeinousthai), where perisseuein is the present active infinitive, of perisseuo, meaning to “have an abundance.”[94] Consequently, Paul is addressing his history of circumstance where he considered himself rich and states that he knows what it takes to be “an abundance” maker. However, should he go that route in life, Paul learned in whatever situation he was in to be content (4:11), which is Paul point here as he uses tapeinoo and perisseuo as his conflicting motifs.

With in any and every circumstance (en panti kai en pasin), Paul further develops how significant the extent of his joy making contentment. There is no circumstance, from Paul’s mind, that can shake his Christian deportment. No matter what, Paul has the disposition that he can smile in the face of adversity.[95] Besides disclosing that he had learned (ego emathon), or had an experiential knowledge regarding contentment, he now states I have learned the secret of facing plenty (memuemai, kai chortazesthai). Memuemai is the perfect passive indicative form of mueo, meaning, “to learn the secret of something through personal experience or as the result of initiation.”[96] This is somewhat a synonymous phrase, but there appears to be difference as Bruce suggests a more esoteric concept, “I have been initiated” by God.[97] Due to the perfect tense, the verb embraces two time periods at the exact same time – the past and the present. Here, the ESV rendering is a precisely vivid, and the message is this: Paul has had this secret with him for quite some time, and it because of its proven worth, it is still a faithful principle upon Paul builds his life.

Paul recounts his experience with plenty and hunger (kai chortazesthai kai peinan), and with abundance and need (perisseuein kai hustepeisthai), and affirms that he lived through them with Christian joy as his compass. These are four interesting present infinitive verbs, placed in two contrasting formulas, and connected by four consecutive kai’s:

  • kai chortazesthai (present passive infinitive): and to be filled with food
  • kai peinan (present active infinitive): and to hunger
  • kai perisseuein (present active infinitive): and to have abundance
  • kai hustepeisthai  (present passive infinitive): and to be made deficient

Another aspect of these contrasts is that one verb from each contrasting set is a passive verb; meanwhile, the other verb is an active verb. Aside from the any revelatory intentionality regarding the text, it hardly seems accidental that these are placed in this quadra-kai construction, or that a shift voice shift exists in each set. Perhaps Paul is touching on items the Philippians were concerned about, but what is definite is the case Paul is building regarding Christian joy stemming from spiritual contentment. This is the knowledge which he has been initiated into and which he wishes to share with his beloved brethren.[98]

Before considering these two sets as individual paradigms of what Paul can face, because of the experience he has with such matters, one line of thought needs to be evaluated. This is the nature of the quadra–kai construction. Lenski observes this quadra–kai construction, and takes them to mean “both – as well as” in each case.[99] This seems reasonable, and makes perfect sense; thus, it is suggested that the quadra–kai construction must not be ignored in the interpretation of this section. First, Paul says that he has the secret to face both plenty as well as hunger (kai). Chortazesthai is the present passive infinitive of chortazo, I “fill with food,”[100] meaning here, “to be filled with food”; thus, what Paul is referring to is be satiated with food.[101] The verb peinan, the present active infinitive form of peinao, means “hunger” and serves as the exact opposite of chortazo, meaning here “to feel the pangs of lack of food.”[102]

Second, Paul says that he has the secret to face both abundance as well as need (kai perisseuein kai hustepeisthai). Perisseuein is the present active infinitive verb form of perisseuo, meaning as noted above to “have an abundance.”[103] Opposing perisseuo, the verb hustepeisthai is employed by Paul to accentuate these two antithetical words. Hustepeisthai, the present passive infinitive of hustepreo, denotes here “to experience deficiency in something advantageous or desirable.”[104] These contrasts are interesting, because they are usually things that one would not necessarily view as dangerous, particularly the positive ideas of “satiation” (chortazesthai) and abundance (perisseuein); however, each group Paul mentions can be dangerous.[105] Paul then uses these contrasts that can be used to describe the majority of life, and moves into what he really wants to tell the Philippians – the one that empowers me through these difficult times is God; consequently, I cannot but feel joy and contentment.

13 | I can do all things through him who strengthens me.

Paul has finally prepared his readers in Philippi for better absorption of this next point, I can do all things (panta iskuo). G. Kittel makes the observation that “panta iskuo (v.13) seems to be fully identical with the philosophical autarkes en panti […] Yet the root is en to endunamounti.”[106] Kittel suggests that while the philosophers depended upon their own empowering volition, the Christian has God as their empowering presence. The word iskuo, is the present active indicative, 1st person singular verb which means, “I am strong,” or having the “requisite personal resources to accomplish” a task.[107] Self-sufficiency only makes sense to the Christian if God is the empowering agent that the Christian has to make them self-sufficient. Paul in the Colossian letter explains it in this fashion, “giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in light” (Col 1:12).

That is why Paul affirms strongly that he can do all things through him who strengthens me (en to endunamounti me). The phrase endunamounti me, having the dative masculine singular, present active participle, of endunamao, means, “to cause one to be able to function or do something” (i.e., strengthen).[108] Here, the participle in association with me should be understood as “the one who strengthens me.”

Some would argue that Paul is vague and makes no explicit claim as to who is “the one who strengthens” him. However, the context shows that “the one who strengthens” Paul is the Lord. We have argued elsewhere that contextually, “the one who strengthens me” (4:13b) goes back to the presence of Jesus (“in the Lord”) in 4:10a and it is obvious that this is Paul’s intended meaning, even though it is not Paul’s words.[109] 

As Hendrickson words it, “The Lord is for Paul the Fountain of Wisdom, encouragement, and energy, actually infusing strength into him for every need.”[110] God is the enabler (endunamounti), through Whom Paul can face the trials of life with a smile (2 Cor 12:9-10).[111]

With these observations in hand, it is important to state a limitation to this Scripture. It is often thought that Paul’s words offer limitless promise; however, the “do all things” is best conceived of as “endure all things.” It is that Paul has learned the Christian secret that he can endure all the challenges thus far because the Lord empowers him to endure which is at the heart of this passage.

To illustrate this point, missionary Gary Reaves shares an interesting anecdote:

Once in a class at Freed-Hardeman University, my professor, Dowell Flatt, brought a scroll of papyrus to class to show us what some of the New Testament was written on. Out of nowhere he asked, “Rusty, can you see this scroll?” It is important to know that Rusty is blind.

For a moment he teased Rusty saying, “What’s the matter, if your faith was stronger you could see this… well I guess you just need to pray harder.” Then, he began the most fascinating discourse on Philippians 4.13 I had ever heard.

So often people convey a message that you can do everything through Christ who strengthens you; you can do it! But can you really do everything?[112]

No, Paul’s words are a not a limitless billboard promise that in Christ we an do anything. Some things are not subject to being done. However, they do stress that in Christ all of life’s circumstances can be endured in anticipation of gaining the hope Christ offers.

Endnotes

  1. Davis discusses the practical value of the ancient papyrus sheet upon which letters were written. See W. Hersey Davis. Greek Papyri of the First Century: Introduction, Greek Text, English Translation, Commentary, Notes (repr., Chicago, IL: Ares, 1933), xx.
  2. E. Randolph Richards, Paul and First-Century Letter Writing: Secretaries, Composition and Collection (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 13.
  3. Charles B. Cousar, The Letters of Paul (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1996), 30; Richard N. Longenecker, “On the Form, Function, and Authority of the New Testament Letters,” Scripture and Truth, eds. D. A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1983), 101-02, 104.
  4. Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, Paul the Letter-Writer: His World, His Options, His Skills (Collegeville, PA: Liturgical Press, 1995), 39.
  5. Sidney Greidanus, The Modern Preacher and the Ancient Text: Interpreting and Preaching Biblical Literature (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003), 312.
  6. Harry Y. Gamble, The New Testament Canon: Its Making and Meaning (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1985), 13; William G. Doty, Letters in Primitive Christianity (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1988), 18; Richard N. Longenecker, “Ancient Amanuenses and the Pauline Epistles,” New Dimensions in New Testament Study, eds. Richard N. Longenecker and Merrill C. Tenney (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1974), 283.
  7. Longenecker, “On the Form,” 101.
  8. Paraenesis is the “Greek word for ‘advice.’ Ethical, edifying material, often associated with moral instruction or preaching” (Doty, Letters in Primitive Christianity, 83); Richard N. Soulen and R. Kendall Soulen, Handbook of Biblical Criticism, 3rd rev. and expanded ed. (Louisville, KY: WJK, 2001), 132-33.
  9. Richard N. Longenecker catalogues Philippians as a pastoral letter, “conveying the apostolic presence, teaching, and authority” and thus as a pastoral letter it would have been “read widely in the churches (cf. their salutations and such verses as Col 4:16; 1 Thess 5:27). Yet as letters arising from a particular situation and speaking to that situation, their message was more circumstantially than systematically delivered. They are not tractate- or essay letters. They are real letters dealing pastorally with issues then current, and they must be interpreted accordingly” (“On the Form,” 104).
  10. Handley C. G. Moule, Studies in Philippians (1893; repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 1977), 116.
  11. Murphy-O’Connor, Paul the Letter-Writer, 40.
  12. William Hendrickson, Exposition of Philippians (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1962), 19.
  13. Donald Guthrie, Epistles from Prison: Philippians, Ephesians, Colossians, Philemon (New York, NY: Abingdon, 1964), 47.
  14. Archibald T. Robertson, Paul’s Joy in Christ: Studies in Philippians (New York, NY: Revell, 1917), 245-46.
  15. John D. Harvey, Listening to the Text: Oral Patterning in Paul’s Letters (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1998), 245-46. Harvey demonstrates three particular parallels within the section under discussion: chairo (1:4; 4:10), huper with phroneo (1:7; 4:10), and perisseuo (1:9; 4:12). These parallels may not alone prove the unity case, but as Harvey demonstrates there is considerable evidence to show a literary relationship between 1:3-11 and 4:10-20 (246).
  16. E. Iliff Robson, “Composition and Dictation in New Testament Books,” JTS 18 (1917): 289-91; Gordon J. Bahr, “Paul and Letter Writing in the First Century,” CBQ 28 (1966): 470.
  17. Murphy-O’Connor, Paul the Letter-Writer, 8-16.
  18. Gordon D. Fee, To What End Exegesis? Essays Textual, Exegetical, and Theological (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001), 284.
  19. Gerald F. Hawthorne, Philippians (Nashville, TN: Nelson, 1983), 195.
  20. Gerald W. Peterman, “‘Thankless Thanks’: The Epistolary Social Convention in Philippians 4:10-20,” TynB 42 (1991): 261.
  21. Fee, To What End Exegesis?, 283-87.
  22. Peterman, “‘Thankless Thanks,’” 264.
  23. Peterman, “‘Thankless Thanks,’” 270.
  24. All Scripture references are from the English Standard Version unless otherwise noted.
  25. Richard C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistles to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, and to the Philippians (1937; repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2001), 886.
  26. Hawthorne, Philippians, 196.
  27. Alfred Plummer, A Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians (London: Roxburghe, 1919), 100.
  28. Plummer, Epistle to the Philippians, 100.
  29. Frederick F. Bruce, Philippians (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002), 148.
  30. The Greek text underlying this discussion is The Greek New Testament (UBS4), 4th revised ed., eds. Barbara Aland, et al. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2002).
  31. BDAG 1074.
  32. James A. Brooks and Carlton L. Winbery, Syntax of New Testament Greek (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1979), 102.
  33. Here are a few examples of the epistolary aorist within the Pauline corpus where it “is merely looking at the letter from the standpoint of the recipient” (Archibald T. Robertson and W. Hersey Davis, A New Short Grammar of the Greek New Testament, 10th ed. [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1979], 296): (1) Tuchikos… hon epempsa pros humas: Tychicus whom I am sending to you (Col 4:7-8); (2) Ego Paulos egrapsa te eme cheiri: I, Paul, write (this) with my own hand (Philem 19); (3) anangkaion hegesamen Epaphroditon… pempsai pros humas: I consider (it to be) a necessary thing to send Epaphroditus to you (Phil 2:25). See also Brooks and Winbery, Syntax of New Testament Greek, 102.
  34. Hawthorne, Philippians, 196.
  35. This is possibly an aorist ingressive. Jacobus Johannes Müller, The Epistles of Paul to the Philippians and to Philemon (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1955), 145; Moule, Studies in Philippians, 116. However, Lenski argues that this is “a simple aorist of fact” (Philippians, 886).
  36. Müller, The Epistles of Paul to the Philippians and to Philemon, 145; J. Hugh. Michael, The Epistle of Paul to the Philippians (London: Hodder, 1928), 212; Hendrickson, Exposition of Philippians, 203.
  37. Robert G. Gromacki, Stand United in Joy: An Exposition of Philippians. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1980), 186. In addition, Robertson suggests that Paul’s joy stemmed from the difficulty the apostle experienced as he would often be supported by those he ministered to, he would often defend his right to receive support and at times he would be attacked from his lack or use of financial support. Since the Philippians supported him time and again, Robertson concludes, “He rejoiced in the church at Philippi because they trusted him and understood him. They gladly and frequently made contributions for the support of his work elsewhere” (Paul’s Joy in Christ, 246-47). Gromacki further contributes: “He rejoiced because God had met his need and because God had constrained the Philippians to give. This same principle was designed to encourage the Corinthians to participate in the welfare collection (2 Cor 9:11-13)” (Stand United in Joy, 186).
  38. Albrecht Oepke, “en,” TDNT 2:541.
  39. Oepke, “en,” TDNT 2:541.
  40. Hans Conzelmann, “chaírō, chará, sungchaíro,” TDNT 9:369.
  41. L&N 1:152.
  42. Guthrie, Epistles from Prison, 47.
  43. Present active infinitive, of phroneo, “I think.” Hawthorne observes that “because phronein characterized the relationship of the Philippian Christians meant that they of necessity would be personally involved in promoting the welfare of the apostle by whatever means they had at their disposal” (Philippians, 196-97).
  44. J. Gresham Machen, in his beginner’s Greek grammar, discusses the difficulty sometimes undergone transferring the articular infinitive into the English language. The articular infinitive “is usually to be translated into English by a clause introduced by a conjunction. But it must not be supposed that the details of such translation have anything to do with the details of the Greek original. It is rather the total idea expressed by the Greek phrase which is transferred into a totally different idiom” (New Testament Greek for Beginners (1923; repr., Unicoi, TN: Trinity Foundation, 2000), 139.
  45. Harry Angus A. Kennedy, “The Epistle to the Philippians,” EGT 3:469.
  46. Robert Johnstone, Lectures Exegetical and Practical on the Epistle of Paul to the Philippians (1875; repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1955), 393; Lenski, Interpretation, 888; Müller, Epistles of Paul, 146; Gromacki, Stand United in Joy, 186; Albert Barnes, Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians, updated ed., ed. Robert Frew (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1949), 217; William E. Vine, “Philippians,” in The Collected Writings of W.E. Vine (Nashville, TN: Nelson, 1996), 2:323; Wayne Jackson, The Book of Philippians: A Grammatical and Practical Study (Abilene, TX: Quality, 1987), 85; William Barclay, The Letters to the Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians, revised ed. (Louisville, KY: Westminster, 1975), 84; Ralph P. Martin, Philippians, revised ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987), 177.
  47. As an aside, it is interesting to note that such an object may be implied contextually and make perfect sense in the Greek language.
  48. Jackson, Philippians, 85.
  49. The Philippians had not forgotten Paul, “he had not been out of their thoughts, but he had been beyond their reach! When, however, opportunity presented itself, their thoughts blossomed into action!” (Jackson, Philippians, 85).

  50. Gerhard Delling, “ákairpos, akairéō, eúkairos, eukairía,” TDNT 3:462.

  51. L&N 1:630.
  52. Robertson, Paul’s Joy in Christ, 248.
  53. This word is a hapax legomena in the New Testament.
  54. BDAG 34.
  55. L&N 1:629.
  56. Bruce, Philippians, 148-49.
  57. Hawthorne, Philippians, 197.
  58. Martin, Philippians, 177.
  59. oux hoti is elsewhere evident in this epistle (3.12), where Paul guards “against misapprehension” (Robertson, Paul’s Joy in Christ, 248).
  60. Lego indicates and points back to something already under discussion, or to give the proper meaning about something already known (BDAG 588); here, Paul’s kairo appears to be the best candidate. Michael, Philippians, 214.
  61. BDAG 1044; Ulrich Wilckens, “hústeros, hústeron, husteréō, aphusteréō, hustérēma, hustérēsis,” TDNT 8:598.
  62. Kata, with the accusative construction, is a “marker of norm, of similarity or homogeneity” and may be translated as “according to, in accordance with, in conformity with, according to” and here according to BDAG the “norm is the reason” (512). BDAG further embellishes this meaning here by stating that contextually it connotes both the idea of “in accordance with and because of are merged” – consistency and reason (512).
  63. A. Plummer infers from that the word husteresin implies “actual penury” (Epistle to the Philippians, 101). Against this observation is Bruce, who affirms, “Paul greatly appreciated the Philippians’ kind thought, but he assures them that he had not been in need of support of this kind” (Philippians, 149). Cf. Karl Barth, The Epistle to the Philippians, trans. James W. Leitch (Richmond, VA: Knox, 1962), 127. Bruce bases his case upon a supposed Pauline “policy” of not living “at the expense of his converts” (2 Thess 3:9), though he had the right to (1 Cor 9:12; Philippians, 149); however, while he did not accept support from “his [Corinthian] converts,” he “robbed” from “his [Macedonian] converts,” and received “wages” to preach full time at Corinth (2 Cor 11:7-9 ASV). Furthermore, Paul recanted from this optional situation at Corinth, seeing that it caused his ministry more harm than good (2 Cor 11:12-15) –“forgive me this wrong” (2 Cor 12:11-13). Hence, Bruce’s argumentation is flawed because its supposition is false.
  64. Lenski, Philippians, 888.
  65. “And my God will supply every need of yours according to his riches in glory in Christ Jesus” (ESV).
  66. Wilckens, “hústeros, hústeron, husteréō, aphusteréō, hustérēma, hustérēsis,” TDNT 8:599; Jackson, Philippians, 86.
  67. Gromacki, Stand United in Joy, 186; Vine, “Philippians,” 323.
  68. Conzelmann, “chaírō, chará, sungchaíro,” TDNT 9:366.
  69. Martin, Philippians, 177.
  70. This is same word used to describe Jesus in Heb 5:8 (L&N 1:327).
  71. BDAG 615; L&N 1:327.
  72. Martin, Philippians, 178.
  73. Plummer, Epistle to the Philippians, 101.
  74. Robertson, Paul’s Joy in Christ, 250; Brooks and Winbery, Syntax, 99: “The constative aorist views the action in its entirety with no reference to its beginning, its end, its progress, or its result. The action is simply stated as a fact.”
  75. Gromacki, Stand United in Joy, 186; Hawthorne, Philippians, 198.
  76. As Guthrie points out, “such contentment is not automatic” (Epistles from Prison, 47).
  77. L&N 1:299.
  78. MM 93.
  79. MM 93.
  80. “Dr. Johnson talked with approbation of one who had attained to the state of the philosophical wise man, that is, to have no want of anything. ‘Then, sir,’ said he, ‘I do not mean simply being without, – but not having a want’” (469-70). Kennedy, “The Epistle to the Philippians,” EGT 3:469-70; Gerhard Kittel, “arkéō, arketós, autárkeia, autárkēs,” TDNT 1:466.
  81. MM 93.
  82. Kittel, “arkéō, arketós, autárkeia, autárkēs,” TDNT 1:466-67.
  83. Lenski, Philippians, 889.
  84. Barclay, Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians, 85.
  85. Leander E. Keck, Paul and His Letters, 2d edition (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1988), 121.
  86. Frederick B. Meyer, The Epistle to the Philippians: A Devotional Commentary (London: Religious Tract Society, 1912), 241.
  87. Barclay, Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians, 85.
  88. Robertson, Paul’s Joy in Christ, 252.
  89. L&N 2:172.
  90. L&N 1:335; BDAG 694.
  91. The kai-kai lends itself to the “both… and” and the “not only… but also” translation (BDAG 495).
  92. BDAG 990.
  93. Guthrie, Epistles from Prison, 47.
  94. BDAG 805.
  95. Robertson, Paul’s Joy in Christ, 252.
  96. L&N 1:327.
  97. Bruce, Philippians, 151; MM 418; Bruce’s suggestion is based upon the root derivation of the verbal to musterion (Philippians, 151). Following Bruce’s suggestion, it appears that the word carries the idea of initiation “into the mysteries,” which of has allusion to “religious secrets” of the mystery cults. Henry H. Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (New York, NY: American Book Co., 1889), 419-20.
  98. Guthrie, Epistles from Prison, 47, Moule, Studies in Philippians, 116.
  99. Lenski, Philippians, 890, Robertson,  Paul’s Joy in Christ, 254-55.
  100. BDAG 1087.
  101. MM 690.
  102. MM 501; BDAG 792.
  103. BDAG 805.
  104. BDAG 1044.
  105. Jackson, Philippians, 86.
  106. Kittel, “arkéō, arketós, autárkeia, autárkēs,” TDNT 1:467.
  107. BDAG 484.
  108. BDAG 333.
  109. Jovan Payes, “Philippians 4:13: Did Paul Write Christ?,” BiblicalFaith.wordpress.com (25 November 2015).
  110. Hendrickson, Philippians, 206.
  111. Plummer, Epistle to the Philippians, 102.
  112. Gary Reaves, “Philippians 4:13: Can You Do, or Endure?,” Livingstoncoc.wordpress.com (6 March 2011).

Bibliography

Aland, Barbara, et al. Eds. Greek New Testament. Fourth revised ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2001.

Bahr, Gordon J. “Paul and Letter Writing in the First Century.” CBQ 28 (1966): 465-77.

Barclay, William. The Letters to the Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians. Revised ed. Louisville, KY: Westminster, 1975.

Barnes, Albert. Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians. Updated ed. Edited by Robert Frew. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1949.

Barth, Karl. The Epistle to the Philippians. Translated by James W. Leitch. Richmond, VA: Knox, 1962.

(BDAG) Bauer, Walter, Frederick W. Danker, William F. Arndt, and Wilbur Gingrich. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2000.

Brooks, James A., and Carlton L. Winbery. Syntax of New Testament Greek. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1979.

Bruce, Frederick F. Philippians. NIBC. New Testament Series. Edited by W. Ward Gasque. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002.

Cousar, Charles B. The Letters of Paul. Interpreting Biblical Texts Series. Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1996.

Davis, W. Hersey. Greek Papyri of the First Century: Introduction, Greek Text, English Translation, Commentary, Notes. Repr., Chicago, IL: Ares, 1933.

Doty, William G. Letters in Primitive Christianity. Guides to Biblical Scholarship. New Testament Series. Edited by Dan O. Via, Jr. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1988.

Fee, Gordon D. To What End Exegesis? Essays Textual, Exegetical, and Theological. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001.

(FHV) McCord, Hugo. The Everlasting Gospel. 4th ed. Henderson, TN: Freed-Hardeman University Press, 2000.

Gamble, Harry Y. The New Testament Canon: Its Making and Meaning. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1985.

Greidanus, Sidney. The Modern Preacher and the Ancient Text: Interpreting and Preaching Biblical Literature. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003.

Gromacki, Robert G. Stand United in Joy: An Exposition of Philippians. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1980.

Guthrie, Donald. Epistles from Prison: Philippians, Ephesians, Colossians, Philemon. Bible Guides. No. 19. Edited by William Barclay and Frederick F. Bruce. New York, NY: Abingdon, 1964.

Harvey, John D. Listening to the Text: Oral Patterning in Paul’s Letters. ETS Studies. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1998.

Hawthorne, Gerald F. Philippians. WBC. Edited by Bruce Metzger, David A. Hubbard, and Glenn W. Barker. Nashville, TN: Nelson, 1983.

Hendrickson, William. Exposition of Philippians. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1962.

Jackson, Wayne. The Book of Philippians: A Grammatical and Practical Study. Abilene, TX: Quality Publications, 1987.

Johnstone, Robert. Lectures Exegetical and Practical on the Epistle of Paul to the Philippians. 1875. Repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1955.

Keck, Leander E. Paul and His Letters. 2d ed. Proclamation Commentaries. Edited by Gerhard Krodel. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988.

Kennedy, Harry Angus Alexander. “The Epistle to the Philippians.” Vol. 3 of The Expositor’s Greek Testament. Edited by W. Robertson Nicoll. New York: Doran, n.d.

Lenksi, Richard C. H. The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistles to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, and to the Philippians. 1937. Repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2001.

Longenecker, Richard N. “Ancient Amanuenses and the Pauline Epistles.” Pages 281-97 in New Dimensions in New Testament Study. Eds. Richard N. Longenecker and Merrill C. Tenney. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1974.

—. “On the Form, Function, and Authority of the New Testament Letters.” Pages 101-14 in Scripture and Truth. Eds. Donald A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1983.

(L&N) Louw, Johannes P., and Eugene A. Nida. Eds. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains. 2d ed. New York, NY: United Bible Society, 1989.

Machen, Gresham J. New Testament Greek for Beginners. 1923. Repr., Unicoi, TN: Trinity Foundation, 2000.

Martin, Ralph P. Philippians. Revised ed. TNTC. Edited by Leon Morris. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987.

Metzger, Bruce. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. 2d ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2001.

Meyer, Frederick B. The Epistle to the Philippians: A Devotional Commentary. London: Religious Tract Society, 1912.

Michael, J. Hugh. The Epistle of Paul to the Philippians. Moffatt New Testament Commentary. Ed. James Moffatt. London: Hodder, 1928.

Moule, Handley Carr Glyn. Studies in Philippians. 1893. Repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 1977.

(MM) Moulton, James H., and George Milligan. Vocabulary of the Greek Testament. 1930. Repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997.

Mounce, William D. Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar. 2d ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2003.

Müller, Jacobus Johannes. The Epistle of Paul to the Philippians and to Philemon. NICNT. Ed. Ned B. Stonehouse. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1955.

Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome. Paul the Letter-Writer: His World, His Options, His Skills. Good News Studies. Vol. 41. Collegeville, PA: Liturgical Press, 1995.

Peterman, Gerald W. “‘Thankless Thanks’: The Epistolary Social Convention in Philippians 4.10-20.” TynB 42 (1991): 261-70.

Plummer, Alfred. A Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians. London: Roxburghe, 1919.

Richards, E. Randolph. Paul and First-Century Letter Writing: Secretaries, Composition and Collection. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004.

Robertson, Archibald T. Paul’s Joy in Christ: Studies in Philippians. New York, NY: Revell, 1917.

—, and W. Hersey Davis. A New Short Grammar of the Greek New Testament. 10th ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1979.

Robson, E. Iliff. “Composition and Dictation in New Testament Books.” JTS 18 (1917): 288-301.

Soulen, Richard N., and R. Kendall Soulen. Handbook of Biblical Criticism. 3rd revised and expanded ed. Louisville, KY: WJK, 2001.

(TDNT) Kittel, Gerhard. Ed. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Translated and edited  by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964.

Vine, William E. “Philippians.” Pages 277-327 in vol. 2 of The Collected Writings of W.E. Vine. Nashville, TN: Nelson, 1996.

Lecture: “Leaders Stand Up for the Weak” (Mark 10:14)

On By Jovan PayesIn Articles, Christian Ethics, Church Leadership, Freed-Hardeman University, Kingdom Ethics, Leadership Ethics, Lectures1 Comment

Audio Resources (1)

“Leaders Stand Up for the Weak (Mark 10:14)” was a part of The Master’s Plan for Leadership series for the 80th annual Freed-Hardeman University lectures.  The 2016 theme was In My Place: The Servant Savior in Mark (Get book).

The Lecture Audio

Lecture Summary

In Mark 10:14, Jesus corrects his disciples for rebuking those that brought children to Jesus. In this kingdom saying, Jesus explains that he and the kingdom are at the disposal of those most vulnerable and often forgotten elements of our society. He sets the stage for a reversal of their rejection by receiving them into his arms (10:16). The passage is a powerful corrective and guideline for Christian servant-leaders, focusing on proper discipleship means to be at the disposal of those coming to Jesus, for to such belong the kingdom of God.

The Lecture Presentation Slides

Notes

  • The chapter for this lecture and the lecture follow different pathways but come to the same conclusion. Please read the essay “Leaders Stand Up for the Weak (Mark 10:14).”
  • The statement on aphesis/aphiemi in connection with Barabbas is a generalization of one of its meanings but is not technically used (apolūo is) in the passages discussing his release (Mark 15:6-15). Thayer has “release, as from bondage, imprisonment, etc.: Lk 4:18 (19)” (“aphesis,” Greek-English Lexicon, 88). The ESV renders aphesis as “liberty” twice in Luke 4:18 and refers to those liberated (released) from their bondage. Aphesis is quite significantly the term used to describe “forgiveness” in its redemptive sense predominately in the New Testament. The term used in the Barabbas texts is apolūo which more often than not is used in the sense of “release” from incarceration though it can have the sense of forgiveness. I apologize for the inaccurate portrayal on that point.

 

“Leaders Stand Up for the Weak” (Mark 10:14)

On By Jovan PayesIn Church Leadership, Freed-Hardeman University, Kingdom Ethics, Leadership Ethics, Lectures, Technical Studies1 Comment

[Chapter submission for the 80th Annual Freed-Hardeman University Lectureship (2016), Henderson, Tennessee. This was a part of The Master’s Plan for Leadership series. In My Place: The Servant Savior in Mark (Link to book). Listen to the audio lecture as delivered here.]

There are numerous moments in the Gospel of Mark where Jesus is involved in ministry towards children undergoing a variety of problems (5:23, 41; 7:24-30; 9:14-29). But it is in Mark 10:13-16 where one of the most memorable interactions with children take place. Jesus here declares, “Let the children come to me; do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God.” [All Scripture references are from the English Standard Version unless otherwise noted.] Left alone, ripped from its context, these words stand as a tender and compassionate invitation to children to experience salvation in the kingdom of God.[1] Is this what the passage addresses? Or, is this passage another corrective to the well-intended but misguided actions of the disciples—the future leaders of the kingdom of God? The answer rests upon the latter.

There is no stated rationale for the disciples’ action of hindering and rebuking those who brought children to Jesus (yet many theories abound). When Jesus addressed his disciples for rebuking and hindering those who brought children to the home where he was (Mark 10:10), he set forth a principle which serves as a guide for servant-leadership in the kingdom of God. In Summary, the episode centers upon Jesus’ rebuke and the two kingdom sayings followed by his tender reception of the children; yet, in 10:14 he teaches that his disciples must not hinder those who are coming to him. Jesus, then, discloses that the rationale for reversing their actions is grounded in the fact that the kingdom is at the disposal of those that come to him (“for to such belongs”). The kingdom of God is, then, at the disposal of those that are willing to come into the presence of Jesus. Disciples must, therefore, realize that there can be no hindrance to that process. The narrative of Mark 10:13-16 sadly demonstrates that well-intended leaders and disciples can become roadblocks to those seeking Jesus. Instead of creating artificial barriers between those who seek Jesus and the Lord, disciples need to provide and create unimpeded access to Jesus and the kingdom of God.

There must be vigilance against good intended actions which may actually hinder those seeking the Jesus and the kingdom of God. To do so, there will be a consideration of Mark 10:14 to explore its exegetical content. Then, a consideration will be given to its implications for Christian service in the kingdom of God.

Exegetical Considerations

First, the broad context. There is general agreement that Mark 10:13-16 is found in the latter part of a broad context (8:26-10:52) concerned with discipleship in the kingdom of God (Stanton 50). Mark 8:34 anticipates the theological frame for discipleship, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.” The movements in this section convey a series of tensions between the disciples who seem to never learn, and Jesus who is constant need to correct them. In the process, the “disciples —and the reader—are being taught the full implications of what it means to be a follower Jesus” (Stanton 50). Discipleship, and especially Christian leadership, comes then with the commitment to humility and self-denial, rejection and suffering. This observation is strengthened by the three announcements Jesus makes regarding his betrayal, death and resurrection (8:31; 9:30-31; 10:32-34). His death is a commitment to serve others so that they may benefit from his intercession (10:45; Isa. 53:12). The disciples, then, are often corrected for their misguided dispositions which hinder their service in the kingdom.

Second, the immediate context. Two themes within Mark find strong connecting points with Mark 10:13-16: kingdom of God and reversals in the kingdom. Mark is concerned with connecting the ministry of Jesus to the kingdom of God (basileia tou theou). The phrase is used fifteen times in this connection.[2] After the prologue (1:1-13), Mark begins with the transition to Jesus’ ministry where he announces that the kingdom of God “is at hand” (1:15). In general, kingdom in the teaching of Jesus is not a reference to a political system (its natural meaning), but instead, kingdom of God (Heaven) is “what the world would be if God were directly and immediately in charge” (Crossan 55). The ministry of Jesus demonstrates in profound ways the practical, transformative nature of the kingdom of God (Rochester 313-15). This plays an important role in understanding the Lord’s use of this phrase (10:14-15).

The kingdom of God is not only “at hand” (1:15), but it is “coming” soon (9:1), and is something one may “enter” (10:23-24), and be received (10:15). This demonstration of God’s sovereign presence brings about a series of reversals in Mark. Consider, for example, the disenfranchised leper who is returned to life within Israel (1:40-45), the dependent paralytic is made independent (2:1-12), the endowed apostles are powerless exorcists due to a lack of piety (9:14-29), the greatest among Jesus’ disciples are to be servants of all (9:33-37), the maxim of it being “better” to be crippled, blind, or missing a limb upon arrival into the kingdom, than to be completely healthy but lost (9:42-50), and the blind Bartimaeus can see the true identity of Jesus as the son of David (10:46-52). These reversals showcase the power of God’s kingdom.

Finally, the threefold literary flow of the episode where Jesus blesses the children (Mark 10:13-16). The first (10:13-14a) and the last (10:16) movements comprise the narrative framework which Mark was inspired to write. The second movement sets forth the Lord’s corrective teaching in two “kingdom of God” sayings (10:14b-15). The passage is lightning fast. The flashpoints are driven by Jesus’ anger (Spitaler 430-34), an emotion which runs deeper than indignation (ayanáktesen; Spicq 1:6-7). There is tension, correction, and resolution. The disciples hinder and rebuke. Jesus is furious, then rebukes and teaches them. Jesus undoes the actions of his disciples by embracing the children in his arms. If the disciples cannot receive children like Jesus wants them to, then they will be hard pressed to receive the kingdom or enter it (10:15). The rationale appears not to be about the quality of the children which one must take on, but upon one’s capacity to receive the kingdom “as though the kingdom were a child” (Eubanks 403).[3]

Leadership Considerations

Christian leaders must always consider their responsibility to represent Jesus, his interests, and his ethics. This requires at times a challenge to conventional ways of thinking. The early church struggled with realizing the global nature of the gospel until Peter broke through the conventional thinking about Jewish-Gentile relations with divine revelation (Acts 10:1-11:18; 15:6-11). It would be a gross neglect to ignore that Mark 10:14 points to a social component in Jesus’ challenge regarding children. The challenge of Mark 10:14 will give Christian leaders the proper vision to lead God’s people in healthy ways to receive all those who would come to Jesus and the kingdom of God.

It must be pointed out, that children in the ancient Mediterranean world were esteemed quite lowly in many places. Instead of romanticized for their naivety, in most circles of the ancient world children were treated as “nobodies” until their father accepted them into the family (Crossan 62-64). As an example, an extant letter from a worker named Hilarion writes to his pregnant wife on June 17 in 1 B.C., “Above all, if you bear a child and it is male, let it be; if it is female, cast it out [to die]” (P.Oxy 4.744).[4] There was a tendency in Roman and Greek culture to practice the exposure of children if they did not provide advancement for the family (Bell 241).

There is no place for a bureaucratic barrier to those seeking Jesus and the kingdom of God.

Moreover, the word Mark uses for “children” (paidion) can extend to children from birth onwards (cf. Luke’s use of brephos), but it was also used as a term for “slave” (Moulton and Milligan 474). For example, “see that the slaves [ta paidia] give attention to the sowing of our private land.” A note requests that a “little slave” (to mikron paidion) named Artemidorus be placed under pledge. The word choice in Mark 10:13-16 is no accident. Jesus had previous affirmed, “If anyone would be first, he must be last of all and servant [diakonos] of all” (9:35). To illustrate this point of being “a waiting man” Liddell 189), Jesus embraces a child (paidion, 9:36-37). Likewise, in Mark 10:14, Jesus means to call attention to the most vulnerable, easily rejected and dismissed, an element of society who are often taken for granted—children/servant. Yet, they have a place in the presence of Jesus and the kingdom of God. The reversing power of the kingdom of God is again manifested in how Jesus receives the children.

Christian leaders must learn from the intention of those who brought the children to Jesus, not the disciples. First, there were some who brought children so that Jesus would touch them. Christian leaders must realize that Jesus is accessible to all those that seek an audience with him. Jesus clearly affirms that “the kingdom of God is for the benefit of such ones” (Mark 10:14b; author’s translation). There is no place for a bureaucratic barrier to those seeking Jesus and the kingdom of God. Good intentions which create bad barriers to blessings are not kingdom. Second, after Jesus rebuked and corrected the disciples’ behavior, he took them into the fold of his arms. Christian leaders must accept that servant-leadership in the kingdom is a hands- on flesh and blood ministry. Mark demonstrates that Jesus touched people in his ministry regardless of their condition, gender, or background. If hurting and vulnerable people cannot come to God’s people so that they may bring them to Jesus, the problem most likely does not reside with the seeker.

Third, it is within the arms of Jesus that he blesses the children. Jesus demonstrates that servant-leaders provide unfettered access to the transformative experience in the kingdom of God. The flow of Mark 10:16 demonstrates that Jesus was busy blessing the children. Those seeking Jesus should receive the benefits of finding Jesus no matter who they are, where they have been, or what they have done. Finally, Jesus lays his hands on them. Only Mark records this symbolic demonstration of his teaching. Christian leaders have an opportunity to show those coming to Jesus that, in a world gone wrong, Jesus can make things right again in his kingdom.

Conclusion

There is an irony to the story for had it not been for the misguided actions of the disciples such a lesson could have been lost. Mark 10:14 raises considerable questions at the practical level for how the church creates unfettered access to those who are seeking Jesus. How does the church receive those seeking the kingdom of God? Only the church can answer that question. Regardless, Jesus’ double command still stands: “allow the children to come to me” and “stop hindering them” (author’s translation).

On a personal note, I was sitting on my couch watching television when my youngest child Noah sat on my lap and cradled himself into the fold of my arm. Immediately, to use a Markan phrase, I asked myself, “am I receiving the kingdom of God as I have embraced my son?” Am I at the disposal of my children’s need for care, and if so, then I might just know how to be at the disposal of others seeking Jesus and the kingdom of God.

Endnotes

  1. Mark 10:14 is a launching point for many to promote infant baptism. Richard Lenksi argues for the baptism of infants. He imports Luke’s use of brephe, emphasizes the “bringing” of the little ones, Jesus’ “double command,” and the rationale “for to such belongs the kingdom of God” (425-28). Contextually, the problem is ultimately about the disciples’ danger of missing the kingdom due to their attitude. Others have argued there is an embedded baptismal tradition found in the use of koluein. However, Jack P. Lewis has ably demonstrated that such argumentations “readily lapse into fallacy” (129-34).
  2. Mark 1:15; 4:11, 26, 30; 9:1, 47; 10:14-15, 23-25; 11:10; 12:34; 14:25; 15:43.
  3. Larry Eubanks observes, “Jesus does not call on the disciples to become children or to take on the qualities of children; he simply says that they must be willing to welcome children” in their circle (403; Spitaler 425). The view taken here is that paidion in 10:15 as an accusative of apposition with ten basileian makes the best sense of the grammar and expectations of Jesus.
  4. The letter is in Columbia University’s Advanced Papyrological Information System (http://wwwapp.cc.columbia.edu/ldpd/apis/item?mode=item&key=toronto.apis.17).

Works Cited

Bell, Albert A., Jr. Exploring the New Testament World: An Illustrated Guide to the World of Jesus and the First Christians. Nashville: Nelson, 1998.

Crossan, John Dominic. Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography. New York: HarperCollins, 1994.

Eubanks, Larry L. “Mark 10:13-16.” RevExp 91.3 (Sum 1994): 401-05.

Lenski, Richard C. H. The Interpretation of St. Mark’s Gospel. 1946. Repr., Peabody: Hendrickson, 2001.

Lewis, Jack P. “Mark 10:14, Koluein, and Baptizein.” ResQ 21.3 (1978): 129-34.

Liddell, Henry G. An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon. New York: American, 1889.

Moulton, James H., and George Milligan. Vocabulary of the Greek Testament. 1930. Repr., Peabody: Hendrickson, 1997.

Rochester, Stuart T. “Transformative Discourse in Mark’s Gospel with Special Reference to Mark 5:1-20.” TynB 60.2 (2009): 313-15.

Spicq, Ceslas. Theological Lexicon of the New Testament. Translated and edited by James D. Ernest. 1994. Repr., Peabody: Hendrickson, 1996.

Spitaler, Peter. “Welcoming a Child as a Metaphor for Welcoming God’s Kingdom: A Close Reading of Mark 10:13-16.” JSNT 31.4 (June 2009): 423-46.

Stanton, Graham N. The Gospels and Jesus. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989.

An Exegetical Analysis of 1 Timothy 2:11-15

On By Jovan PayesIn 1 Timothy, Bible Study, Christian Leadership, Church Leadership, Essays, Exegesis, FHU, Freed-Hardeman University, Graduate Work, Greek Grammar, Greek Studies, Interpretation, New Testament, Paul's Letters, Research Papers, Technical Studies, Translation, Women Studies
college papers

There is a considerable body of research and literature available to discuss 1 Tim 2:11-15 which is one of the key New Testament passages discussing gender roles in worship and ministry of the church. This paper can only hope to provide introductory insight to the issues and difficulties of bringing the words of Paul from Greek into English so that the church can apply these apostolic words in the twenty-first century. In fact, Ann L. Bowman, a complementarian, summarizes the difficulties every exegete must face when sifting through the various grains of this passage.[1] In spite of these difficulties, a satisfactory translation of 1 Tim 2:11-15 can be rendered into English, the epistolary pericope can be analyzed syntactically, and the results from this analysis can be helpful in providing guideposts for application in the worship and ministry of the Lord’s body.

Textual Observations

The textual basis for this translation of 1 Tim 2:11-15 is the fifth revised edition of The Greek New Testament (UBS5), supplemented by the 28th revised edition Novum Testamentum Graece (NA28).[2] There are only two textual matters of interest, the first being a textual variant in 2:14 and other focuses upon whether “the faithful saying” (3:1a) concludes the paragraph at 2:15. A third issue is the way certain words can or should be translated, especially the hapax legomenon authentéō. In the first case, the NA28 critical apparatus shows a variant in 2:14. Instead of the eksapatētheîsa (“having been thoroughly deceived”) found in the main text, late manuscript evidence has apatētheîsa (“having been deceived”). Clearly, the manuscript evidence for eksapatētheîsa is earlier (4th to 6th centuries) and stronger (Aleph*, A, D*), than the late (7th-9th centuries) and weaker evidence for apatētheîsa (Aleph2, D1). The late reading most likely is a result of late editorial harmonization of the apatáō verbs in 2:14.

Second, the paragraph structure in UBS5 and NA28 are in agreement the “faithful saying” of 3:1a conclude the paragraph. introduce the “saying” regarding guardians (3:1b). A. T. Robertson, for example, affirms this “phrase points to the preceding words (not like 1:15) and should close the preceding paragraph.”[3] However, the “faithful saying” can be viewed as introducing the protasis, “if someone aspires…,” in the present simple conditional clause of 3:1b.[4] Third, certain constructions and verbals were significantly difficult to translate with precision. The prepositional phrase en hēsuchía in 2:11, 12 may be translated as the act of “silence,” or “quietness, gentleness” as a quality of behavior. The perfective compound aorist passive participle eksapatētheîsa “when she was fully deceived in transgression”[5] in balance with the force of historic use of the perfect active indicative gégonen is unsatisfactorily rendered into English as “was.”[6] Two more substantial problems for translation and interpretation are the verbs authentéō (2:12) and sōzō (2:15a).

A Translation of 1 Timothy 2:11-15

The tentative translation which follows is presented based on the analysis and considerations and interpretive decisions as explained later in this paper.

11 Let a woman learn in silence in full submission; 12 and I do not permit a woman to teach nor to have authority over a man, but to be in quietness. 13 For Adam was formed first, afterwards Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but as for the woman, she was when she was fully deceived in transgression; 15 but she shall be delivered by bearing children, if they continue in faith and love and consecration with sound judgment. (Author's Translation)

One of the concerns this translation intends to address is to express, as clear as possible, that the domestic realm is where submissive women find non-soteriological “deliverance.”

Context and Exegetical Analysis

It is important to observe that 1 Tim 2:11-15 is a part of larger context specifically dealing with the connection of Christian women and the assembly of the church.[7] This topic begins in 2:9, although an argument can be made that the theme begins in 2:8 since it establishes the location where Paul’s instructions are to take place with the phrase en pantì tópō (“in every place”). This locative expression appears to be a shorthand for “in every place of assembly.”[8] It is in this context that the third movement of desired conduct “in every assembly” of the church is argued (2:8, 9-10, 11-15). First, godly Christian men are to lead prayer in the place of assembly (2:8). Second, Christian women are to profess godliness through good works (2:9-10). Thirdly, as an extension of 2:9-10, Christian women are instructed to exhibit submissiveness in the assembly by being learners, not instructors (2:11-15).

The overall structure of 1 Tim 2:11-15 may be subdivided into two groups marked by Paul’s imperatival command, manthanétō (11-12), followed by the explanatory gàr (13-15) which directs his reader(s) to the rationale for this command. Each group is bound structurally with the postpositive dè, marking their internal connection and transitions. This then provides a structural framework toward from: 11 dè 12, gàr 13 kaì 14 dè, dè 15. This does not remove the complexity of the passage as a whole, but the grouping does allow the exegete to focus on the syntax of these two movements.

In the first group, for example, the subject of the present active imperative manthanétō could have been supplied from 2:9-10 (gunaîkas, gunaiksin), but the word order of 2:11 begins with an anarthrous nominative gunē.[9] Its repetition along with the verb can be viewed as an important “topic marker or shifter” (295);[10] hence, the command “let a woman learn” shifts toward a new topic from 2:9-10.[11] Paul places “a requirement” upon the “woman” in the assembly[12] which he expects to be followed in “an ongoing process.”[13] The manner of learning in the assembly is defined by the two dative prepositional phrases (en hēsuchía and en pásē hupotagē). The meaning for hēsuchía pivots between “silence” and “quietness, rest,”[14] but uses of the prepositional phrase en hēsuchía in non-biblical Greek (Philo and Ignatius)[15] meaning “in silence” provides some insight here and in verse 12.[16] The manner (action or circumstance) under consideration, then, is probably “in silence.” Likewise, the silence is en pásē hupotagē (instrumental of manner), “in full submission” anticipates further nuance in verse 12.

1 Tim 2:12 nuances the prohibition with a list of three complementary infinitives[17] and the gnomic present active indicative[18] verb epitrépō. The postpositive dè marks this connection and transition. Furthermore, if S. E. Porter is right, placing the infinitival didáskein first in its clause marks it as the “most important element” in its clause.[19] The prohibition’s main concern then is didáskein gunaikì (“to teach by a woman”) and its counterpart authenteîn andrós (“to have authority over a man”). Paul specifically prohibits (ouk) theses activities within the assembly. Despite some difficulty in ascertaining the precise contextual meaning of authenteîn (taken here as “to have authority over”),[20] oudè joins these two infinitives to “explains what sort, or what manner, of teaching is prohibited to women.”[21] The contrastive alla is brought in to provide a strong contrast to the prohibition by setting up the “permission” eînai en hēsuchía (“to be in quietness”). The implied helper verb epitrépō reinforces, as an exhortation, the positive command in 2:11 to “learn in silence in full submission.” This second use of the instrumental of manner en hēsuchía gives strength to the view that verses 11-12 solidifies submission and quietness as the hallmarks of Christian women receiving instruction in the assembly.[22]

The second group of verses (2:13-15) is marked by an explanatory gàr providing insight into the prohibition of 2:11-12. The explanation in 2:13 does not stem from any noticeable wordplay within the context; instead, a logical appeal is made to biblical texts outside of 1 Tim. The argument and explanation is derived from Genesis 2-3 in the LXX, and it serves as the foundation for the boundaries of Christian women in the church assembly.[23] The aorist passive indicative verb eplásethē is constative in force and views the formation (the creation) of Adam and Eve as completed.[24] The emphasis is laid upon the order of creation marked by the use of the adjectival use of prôtos, which suggest “first of several” in order to provide clarity to the substantive it modifies.[25] Thus, the prôtos and adverbial eîta have the chronological force of, “Adam, the first one, was formed, next Eve was.”[26]

Paul extends his thought with kaì, adding a “second fact” to his argument.[27] He begins the clause with a subject and its predicate (2:14). The first clause takes Adam and the aorist passive constative ouk ēpatēthē  (“Adam was not deceived”);[28] in the second clause, dè calls “attention to the singularity” of the woman being “deceived in transgression”;[29] hence, the translation, “but as for the woman, she was [deceived].”[30] The perfect active indicative verb (gégonen) takes on the historic emphasis calling dramatic attention to the act of “being” deceived. In addition, the compound anarthrous nominative aorist passive participle eksapatētheîsa is perhaps perfective[31] in that ek intensifies the verb (“fully deceived”). Following hē gunē argues for it to be read adjectivally, and places the adjectival participle in the predicate position; asserting, that it is “the woman who was fully deceived.” It is this large subject which is modified by the dative of reference en parabásei “with reference to transgression.” The subject and its modifiers are viewed historically (gégonen), and echoes Eve’s confession, “The woman [hē gunē ] said, ‘the serpent deceived [ēpátēsén] me” (Gen 3:13).[32] “Paul bases his arguments,” observes egalitarian T. C. Geer, “on the creation stories in Genesis.”[33]

As in verse 12, the dè in 2:15 marks the sustained continuity from 2:13-14 which serve as the logical basis for Paul’s command in 2:11 and prohibition in 2:12. 1 Timothy 2:15 concludes the argument with an inverted third class conditional statement.[34] While there are several important “exegetical cruxes” in 2:15,[35] this is the overarching grammatical crux since it is the verse’s organizing principle. First, conditional sentences are comprised of two clauses, the “if” clause (protasis) and the “then” clause (apodosis). In general, the first clause contains the contingency under consideration; meanwhile, the second clause is a statement (the portrayal) about what will happen, or not happen, should the contingent action occur. There may be, however, other relationships at work besides a cause and effect one, and context must inform the exegete.[36] Second, contrary to a usual “if-then” structure, the apodosis is introduced first followed by the protasis (“then-if”). This can be done since the apodosis is “grammatically independent,” but it is still “semantically dependent” upon the protasis for understanding its fulfillment (Matt 4:9; Heb 6:3).[37]

1 Timothy 2:15, then, begins with the fulfillment clause sōthēsetai (apodosis), and concludes with the condition clause eàn meínōsin (protasis). The first clause, then, portrays the future expectation (portrayal) of “being saved” by means (ablative) of “bearing children” (dià tēs teknogonías). Arranging the apodosis first connects the future active indicative third person verb sōthēsetai to the nominative feminine singular hē gunē “the woman will be saved” (2:14).[38] The verb sōthēsetai is future passive indicative (“will be saved”) and serves to “grammaticalize,” as Porter observes, “a projection or expectation, not an assertion, about reality.”[39] The question, here, concerns the portrayed future meaning of sōzō, a verb which has a wide lexical range.[40] In what way will she be saved? The context must provide the answer.[41] Its use in 2:15, however, is connected to the transgression (parabásei) of Eve (2:14), so the natural “Christian” sense of salvation is certainly possible as component of lives which profess godliness (5:14, teknogoneîn).[42] This expectation, however, only has a probability of occurring “when the conditions stated in the protasis are met.”[43]

The second clause (2:15b) marks the protasis of the third class condition, eàn with the aorist active subjunctive. The protasis, eàn meínōsin (“if they continue”), points to the woman’s salvation (2:15a) rather than the subjects of the third person plural verb here (2:15b).[44] Knight sees this “as a fact assumed to be true”;[45] hence, the sense, may very well be, “it is assumed to be true that if they continue.” The nearest antecedent to meínōsin (“if they continue”) is perhaps implied by teknogonías (2:15a), which is children.[46] Alternatively, however, “woman” is the subject of the entire pericope[47] and this is most likely the implied semantic subject for meínōsin. Consequently, the verb refers to Christian women who “continue in faith and love and consecration with sound judgment.” This is the condition of the protasis. If Christian women continue a life of godliness and faith, then they will be saved by means of their reception of their domestic role.

Ralph Gilmore once observed, “it is easier to show what the biblical principles involved are than to apply them in specific instances.”[48] The implications of this evaluation of the syntax of 1 Tim 2:11-15 are not easily summarized, but a few suggested guideposts can be suggested. The passage does divide into two main lines of thought (11-12 and 13-15).

The occasional nature of the problem, however, does not undermine the truth which it teaches. The guidelines may have emerged from a need to address heresy; however, heresy is corrected by truth. In 1 Tim 2:4, Paul made it clear that God “desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of truth.” This instruction then is to provide the truth regarding the contours of gender responsibilities in the assembly and outside of the assembly. This instruction can be difficult to digest, but that is a modern problem of application. It perhaps reflects a contemporary bias rather than an internal problem of the text itself. Moreover, Paul introduces the foundation for the command and prohibitions of 2:11-12 in the next verses (2:13-15).

First, 2:11-12 represents the second main injunction upon women in the assembly (2:8). It is first introduced as a command and then nuanced by two prohibitions, and finally balanced by an exhortation towards “quietness.” Despite some difficulty in the proper meaning of en hēsuchia, the fact that the phrase brackets the internal works of Paul’s command, prohibition, and exhortation, would suggest that the content defines how Paul used the phrase. In other words, having a focus on receiving biblical instruction (learn), while refraining from giving instruction in the assembly (not to teach) and having (therefore using) authority over a man, serve as explaining en hēsuchia . An attitude of gentleness which manifests itself in silence and full submission. This does perhaps imply that there was a serious breach in the Pauline protocol for women in the assembly which required instruction.

Second, 2:13-15 is a clear explanation that the command and prohibitions are logically connected to the creation narrative of Adam and Eve, and the narrative of the serpents deception of Eve and the willful participation to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen 2-3). Despite the literary mountain of literature designed to reconstruct the religious and philosophical world of Ephesus which may or may not provide insight into the internal problems of heresy in 1 Tim, the appeal to Gen 2-3 demonstrates that these “scriptures are not tied to culture. They are tied to creation.”[49] This is a significant commitment to the words of Paul. If the argument stems from Gen, then matters such as the order of creation, headship, Eve as a complement to Adam, Eve’s role in the fall by being deceived, Adam’s role in the fall void of deception, and the Divine punishments upon Adam, Eve, and the serpent are all integral parts of the theological foundation for 2:11-12.

Christian men and Christian women are to understand their identity and roles in this world from Scripture. Three particular issues are brought up to shape Paul’s readers understanding of gender roles in the assembly and when not assembled. First, Adam was formed first. When Adam was formed, it was not good that man should be alone so God “constructed” Eve out of his rib. Eve as a complement to Adam demonstrates a joint purpose and companionship; however, the fact remains Adam was formed first. There is an inherent position of responsibility and privilege for the first born males of a family in the Old Testament. This implies a standing expectation or responsibility on the part of men; however, this does not diminish women nor provide a reason to abdicate any responsibility or authority she may have.

Second, Eve was deceived and transgressed God’s command. When Paul quotes and alludes from Gen 3, he provides a window into Eve’s plight. Why did the serpent focus upon Eve? Speculations abound. The fact is she was full deceived in transgression. Gen 3 piers into Eve’s mind, “the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise” (Gen 3:6 ESV). What is interesting is the LXX arranges the verb in the aorist active indicative “he deceived/enticed me”; however, in 1 Tim 2 Paul places the verbs in the aorist passive “he was formed/she was deceived.” Eve alone concedes to being deceived (Gen 3:16). In all of this, it must be remembered that regardless of the order of creation, regardless of the deception, regardless of the transgression, the woman as a profound role in the framework of God saving the world through Jesus.

Third, the limitations which exist when the church is assembled is not a reflection on her salvation. The true measure of the salvation which she longs to have is found in “child bearing/bearing children,” the unique capacity and role to be, like Eve, the mother of all the living (Gen 3:20). In fact, the “renaming” of Eve in LXX into Zoe following the Hebrew text, demonstrate that even outside of Eden, in the shadow of the garden there was still a profound role Eve played. The mirror image, or type and antitype, is seen in the profound role of continuing on in a manner consistent with faith, love, and sanctification with sound judgment. The implications from this study no doubt raises many questions to our “modern” ears.

Conclusion

Bruce Morton summarizes well our understanding of the text in the face of negative reactions. He writes,

In a time filled with male and female ability and confidence, the teaching swims against a strong current. But the apostle is not saying that women should avoid teaching the Word. Instead, he is announcing the purposes and roles within church assemblies.[50]

Deceiving Winds: Christians Navigating the Storm of Mysticism, Leadership Struggles and Sensational Worship (21st Century Christian, 2009)

1 Timothy 2:11-15 is as profound as it is complicated, but if one focuses on the flow of the syntax the exegete can eliminate some biases, whether they be complementarian or egalitarian. Personally, I have no vested interest in either point of view; what matters is how the syntax and the internal logic of the passage develops. The most difficult problem I see in applying 1 Tim 2:11-15 is that “the assembly” of first-century churches was vastly different than contemporary assemblies. This factor alone causes some the majority of the problems with concepts such as “having authority” and being “in silence/quietness.” In the end, churches and leaders always need to reassess their practices by what the text says, and here the boundaries of women participating in the assembly are based on creation and its principles not upon culture.

Endnotes

  1. Ann L. Bowman points to the difficulty of “unusual vocabulary … awkward grammar … references to the Old Testament … significant theological issues … and a flow of thought that is not so clear as it may seem at first glance.” See “Women in Ministry: An Exegetical Study of 1 Timothy 2:11-15,” BSac 149.594 (April-June 1992): 193.
  2. Barbara Aland, et al., eds., The Greek New Testament, 5th rev. ed. (Germany: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2014); Eberhard Nestle and Erwin Nestle, Novum Testamentum Graece, 28th rev. ed., eds. Barbara Aland, et al. (Germany: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012).
  3. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (1931; repr. Nashville, TN: Broadman, n.d.), 4:572.
  4. Gordon D. Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, rev. ed. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1988. repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2000), 79. Herbert W. Smyth, A Greek Grammar for Colleges (New York, NY: American Book Company, 1920), par. 2297. Walter Lock, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1924), 35.
  5. James A. Brooks and Carlton L. Winbery, Syntax of New Testament Greek (Langham, MD: University Press of America, 1979), 146.
  6. Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 578-79.
  7. See George W. Knight, III, The Pastoral Epistles (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1992; repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2013), 130-49.
  8. Everett Ferguson, “Tópos in 1 Timothy 2:8,” ResQ 33.2 (1991): 65-73. Ferguson disputes the entry in “topos,” BAGD, as “everywhere that Christian people or Christians live” (822). To this Ferguson affirms, “This is inadequate, for a stronger statement may be made to the effect that among Jews ‘place’ acquired in some contexts a technical reference to the ‘place of worship’” (66). The force of Ferguson’s contribution did not affect, unfortunately, the entry of the third edition (“topos,” BDAG 1011).
  9. Stanley E. Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament, 2d ed. (1992; repr., Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2005). Porter describes this word order structure as “Subject-predicate” which is a very basic pattern, but it does point to gune as the expressed subject (294-95). It is grammatically legitimate for manthaneto to find its subject in 2:9 (gunaikas), so the repetition (the “expressed subject”) is important as a “form of topic marker or shifter” (295).
  10. Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament, 295.
  11. As a caveat, this is not a prohibition, which “forbids an action,” for it lacks the customary structural mē. This also dispels any notion to view the phrase as a suggestion or an option. See Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 486-87.
  12. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 486.
  13. Robertson and Hersey remind that “all imperatives are future in idea” which underscores the anticipation of obedience. See, Archibald T. Robertson and W. Hersey Davis, A New Short Grammar of the Greek Testament, 10th ed. (New York, NY: Harper & Brothers, 1933; repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1979), 165. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 485. Chamberlain reminds that “the present imperative may have any of the characteristic ideas of linear action.” William D. Chamberlain, An Exegetical Grammar of the Greek New Testament (New York, NY: Macmillan, 1941; repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1981), 86.
  14. “hēsuchia,” BDAG 440.
  15. Philo, On Dreams 2.263, and Ignatius Eph 19.1; see “hēsuchia,” BDAG 440.
  16. Jack P. Lewis, “Quietness or Silence?” Gospel Advocate 130.7 (July 1988): 11-12. Lewis writes, “That silence from sound is an undisputed meaning of hēsuchia, plus the parallels to the prepositional phrase en hēsuchia, which we have cited, creates the presupposition that that is the proper meaning of 1 Timothy 2:11, 12. I would be glad to see a linguistic demonstration to the contrary” (12).
  17. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 598-99. Wallace cites epitrepo as a “helper verb” which requires an infinite to supplement and complete its meaning.
  18. Brooks and Winbery, Syntax of New Testament Greek, 86-87. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 525. Wallace argues extensively as to why epitrepo should be taken as a gnomic present over descriptive (progressive) present. Three points in particular were persuasive. There are no temporal indicators, the present tense is used with a generic object (gunaiki), and the exhortation is tied to creation.
  19. Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament, 296.
  20. Barclay M. Newman, “authenteo,” A Concise Greek-English Dictionary to the New Testament, rev. ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2010), 29; The meaning of this New Testament hapax is the subject of considerable study and debate and beyond the scope of this paper. In BDAG it falls under the basic category “to assume a stance of independent authority” such as “to give orders to, dictate to” (150); however, semantically, L&N have “to control in a domineering manner” (37.21). For opposing views, see Richard Clark Kroeger and Catherine Clark Kroeger, 1 Suffer not a Woman: Rethinking 1 Timothy 2:11-15 in Light of Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1992; repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2001), 87-98; Andreas J. Köstenberger and Thomas R. Schreiner, eds., Women in the Church: An Analysis and Application of 1 Timothy 2:9-15, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2005).
  21. Kroeger and Kroeger, I Suffer not a Woman, 83-84.
  22. Some see a chiastic structure in 11-12 with en hēsuchia marking this group as a unit. (A) gunē en hēsuchia manthaneto en pasē hupotagē· (B) didaskein de gunaiki ouk epitrepo (B’) oude authentein andros, (A’) all’ einai en hēsuchia (Bowmann, “Women in Ministry,” 202-03).
  23. This citation to the Greek Genesis record reveals that there are corresponding verbs and nouns demonstrating an intentional recapitulation of the events in Eden in order to provide the rationale for the gender roles played out “in every place of assembly” (2:8-15).
  24. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 557-58.
  25. “protos,” BDAG 725. George Benedict Winer, A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament, 7th ed. enl. and impr. ed., ed. Joseph H. Thayer, trans. Gottlieb Lünemann (Andover: Draper, 1886), 464.
  26. Whereas Paul uses aorist passive indicative third person singular form, eplasthē, the LXX employs aorist active indicative third person singular, eplasen, four times in Gen 2 each time as a reference to God’s formation of Adam (7, 8, 15, 19). Moreover, a different word is used to describe the construction of Eve in Gen 2:19: okodomesen kurios ho theos ten pleuran … eis gunaika.
  27. R. C. H. Lenski writes, “kai adds the second fact to the first. This is not done because a second is needed; yet Paul lets two witnesses speak.” The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians, to the Thessalonians, to Timothy, to Titus, and to Philemon (Lutheran Book Concern, 1937; repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2001), 567.
  28. Albrecht Oepke, “apatáō, eksapatáō, apátē,” TDNT 1:384-85. Oepke demonstrates briefly that the LXX use of the verb is seen commonly “to deceive” or “entice,” but only provides one tentative example of eksapatáō in the second century A.D. by Jewish translator Theodotion (Sus 56). The Old Greek version uses apatáō. In this passage, either verb attempts to offer a distortion (to entice, deceive).
  29. “de,” BDAG 212.
  30. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 578-79.
  31. Bruce M. Metzger, Lexical Aids for Students of New Testament Greek, 3rd ed. (Princeton, NJ: Theological Book Agency, 1969; repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2002), 79, 82. Knight does not place too much emphasis on the compound verb, but keeps this point open (The Pastoral Epistles, 144).
  32. eîpen hē gunē Ho óphis ēpátēsén me (Gen 3:13 LXX).
  33. Thomas C. Geer, Jr., “Admonitions to Women in 1 Tim. 2:8-15,” in vol. 1 of Essays on Women in Earliest Christianity. ed. Carroll D. Osburn (Joplin, MO: College Press, 1993; repr., Joplin, MO: College Press, 1995), 295. Geer is right that the order of creation does not point to male “superiority” and that it is a reminder of complement Eve is to Adam, but he ignores that the Old Testament does give a voice to “the first born” as a pecking order for authority, responsibility, and privileges (Bowman, “Women in Ministry,” 204-05).
  34. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 696-97. Dana and Mantey observe, that the contingency implies a certain level of “uncertainty,” yet it carries a tone of being “hopeful but hesitant.” Harvey E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (1927; repr., New York, NY: Macmillan, 1957), 290.
  35. Knight, The Pastoral Epistles, 144-49.
  36. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 682-87. Wallace points out that some conditional relationships may have a semantic force such as “evidence-inference” or even “equivalence” (687).
  37. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 684. Wallace goes on to say that the protasis is “grammatically dependent, but semantically independent.” The apodosis can form a complete thought, but the protasis inherently cannot.
  38. Making this connection does not resolve the difficulty of coming to a conclusion as to the meaning of sōthēsetai.
  39. Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament, 262.
  40. Newman, “sōzō,” A Concise Greek-English Dictionary to the New Testament. Newman has the following glosses: “save (of Christian salvation); save, rescue, deliver; keep safe, preserve; cure, make well” (179).
  41. In 1 Tim the use of the verb (1:15, 2:4, 4:16) shows connection to eternal life (1:15-16), arrive at gospel truth (2:4), and the result of remaining in the teaching (4:16).
  42. Werner Foerster, “sōzō, sōtēria,” TDNT 7:995. Foerster, observes, such a view “cannot be ruled out at” grammatically. Bowman surveys six possible interpretations and argues that an “interpretation that satisfies the grammatical and lexical problems and that also fit the larger context is … women will enter into eschatological salvation, with its accompanying rewards, through faithfulness to their proper role, exemplified in motherhood and in godly living generally” (“Women in Ministry,” 208).
  43. Brooks and Winbery, Syntax of New Testament Greek, 183.
  44. Carl Spain, The Letters of Paul to Timothy and Titus (Austin, TX: Sweet Co., 1970), 52.
  45. Knight, The Pastoral Epistles, 148.
  46. Spain, The Letters of Paul to Timothy and Titus, 52.
  47. Knight, The Pastoral Epistles, 148. Knight makes an excellent point, “The concept of ‘remaining’ or ‘continuing’ would also seem to tie the subject of this verb to the subject of the previous clause (gunēγ); one does not talk about ‘continuing’ with a new subject but with a continuation of the previous subject.”
  48. Robert Randolph, et al., Gender and Ministry: The Role of the Women in the Work and Worship of the Church (Huntsville, AL: Publishing Designs, 1990), 77.
  49. Randolph, Gender and Ministry, 57.
  50. Bruce Morton, Deceiving Winds: Christians Navigating the Storm of Mysticism, Leadership Struggles and Sensational Worship (Nashville, TN: 21st Century Christian, 2009), 135.

Guardians of the Church: A Reading of 1 Timothy 3:1-7

On By Jovan PayesIn 1 Timothy, Bible Study, Christian Leadership, FHU, Freed-Hardeman University, Graduate Work, Greek Grammar, Greek Studies, Interpretation, New Testament, Pastoral Leadership, Paul's Letters, Technical Studies, Translation1 Comment
college papers

In Philippians 1:1, Paul addresses himself “to all the holy ones in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi with the guardians and servants.” In Acts 20, Paul addresses “the elders of the church” from Ephesus and calls them to a commitment to their pastoral ministry. In this admonition, he reaffirms that it was the Holy Spirit that “set them forth as guardians” (Acts 20:28). These few references point to the organization structure of the early Christian congregations in apostolic times but provide little by way of an exposition of qualifications needed to assume such a role.

Moreover, there are approximately four terms that are used in concert when touching the topic of church leadership; their common glosses are elder, overseer (“guardian”), shepherd (“pastor”), and steward. While this connection demonstrates their interdependence upon each other to explain the function of such leaders, only two pericopes develop the qualifications with specific details.[1] These are 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9 which show some variation in terminology, though “the same ideas are often expressed.”[2] The former is the focus of this reading.

Understanding the qualifications for those aspiring to the episkope in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 is a pressing need for the body of Christ, in general, and local congregations in particular which seek to establish their organizational model upon the pattern of the primitive church reflected in the New Testament. A reading of this passage will be accomplished in three progressions. First, 1 Timothy 3:1-7 must be understood in its connection to the previous chapters. Second, the passage must be taken as a whole along with its subdivisions. Finally, translation and reading of the passage will provide a proper understanding of the qualification of the guardians.

Evaluating the Internal Context

The context of the previous chapters must be considered. In the assumption that 1 Timothy is a genuine Pauline document, Paul is writing to Timothy at the beginning to the sixth decade of the first century A.D., to excel in his ministry of the word in Ephesus against various false teachers and threats to church life (1 Tim 4:11-16).[3]

Contextually, in the first two chapters Paul leads his letter with a reminder of his warning against false teachers and immorality (1:3-11), then balances the rebuke against false teachers with another reminder of God’s “mercy” (1:12-17), ending with a call to wage war against false teacher and detractors (1:18-20). In the second chapter, Paul shifts into another call for action and this time in reference to prayer that it may result in, among many things, lives framed in “dignity” in matters of authority, gender roles, and domestic roles (2:2; 2:1-15; cf. 3:4, 8; Tit 2:7).

From here, Paul transitions quickly into the qualifications of the “guardians” (3:1-7) and “servants” (3:8-13) which are framed in a virtue list. As such, then, Paul uses a common literary tool to “communicate his own theological intent.”[4] “Guardians” are part of the solution to protect and lead the church.

Breaking Down 1 Timothy 3:1-7

The pericope can be subdivided into reasonable progressions beyond the broader paragraph.[5] Gordon D. Fee organizes his analysis of this passage into five progressions (3:1, 2-3, 4-5, 6, 7).[6] Others focus on the two main aspects of this section: the faithful saying (3:1) and the qualifications (3:1-7).[7] This reading will follow a three-movement progression: the faithful saying (3:1), the things which must be (3:2-5), and the dangers of the Devil (3:6-7).

The first progression is based upon the introductory statement of 3:1, which is used elsewhere in the letter (1:15, 4:9). The second progression is established by the leading statement regarding the things which are “fitting” (or “necessary”) “to be” (i.e. the qualifications) in 3:2, introducing the virtue list which technically concludes in verse 7.

However, 3:6-7 are unique in the section because they set up two warnings in connection with two qualifications (“not a new convert” and “a good testimony from non-Christians”). For this reason, these last verses are seen as a final progression.

An outline of 1 Timothy 3:1-7 is as follows:

  1. The Faithful Saying (3:1)
  2. What the Guardian Must Be (3:2-5)
  3. Two Warnings for the Guardians (3:6-7)

A Reading of 1 Timothy 3:1-7

A reading and translation of 1 Timothy 3:1-7 a proper appreciation of the flow and meaning can be gained with the intention of having true “guardians” of church based upon the fifteen virtues in the apostle Paul’s list.

The First Progression. The first section of the pericope begins with no particle of transition or connective conjunction;[8] instead, 3:1 begins with the introductory slogan, “The statement is true” (pistos ho logos).

The nominatives stand grammatically separate, and the adjective πιστὸς stands in the predicate position to ho logos. Robertson disagrees with this slogan beginning the section; instead, he affirms this “phrase points to the preceding words (not like 1:15) and should close the preceding paragraph.”[9] In brief response, the “faithful saying” better introduces the protasis, “if someone aspires…,” in the present simple conditional clause in 3:1b.[10] In the end, the phrase is used to emphasize the following truth:[11] “If someone aspires to the responsibility of a guardian, he desires to secure a good work” (3:1b).

The second half of the verse contains the trustworthy maxim. First, consider the logic of 3:1b. As previously mention, it is a present simple conditional statement. The present middle indicative protasis, ei tis and oregetai, includes within it the personal emotional interest (lit. “I stretch myself to reach”)[12] of the one “aspiring to the responsibility of a guardian.” The verb oregetai takes the genitive episkopes as its direct object which suggests that episkopes defines what is the aspiration.[13] It is the episkopes and “no other” which serves as the root idea of the verb.[14]

The present active indicative apodosis, kalou ergou epithumei, portrays the simple consequence, “he desires to secure a good work.”  Another verb of emotion, epithumei likewise has a genitive as its direct object.[15] This verb is often associated with an inordinate emotion (i.e. sexual lust, covet, etc.), but in this instance the connotation of a positive desire as colored by its object “a good work.”

Second, there is a need to briefly explain why the term “guardian” (episkopos) and the phrase “responsibility of a guardian” (episkope) has been selected over its contemporary gloss “overseer” and “office of an overseer.” In brief, the New Testament use of these terms does not inherently suggest an “office” (status) as they do stress a responsibility (function). There is evidence in the papyri showing the use as a title and an office;[16] however, its contextual use in the New Testament emphasizes function over office.[17] Categories of use in the New Testament such as “one being present watching over” to care or to punish (Luke 19:44; 1 Pet 2:12), or “a position of responsibility” due to an assignment (Acts 1:20), and the act of “supervision.”[18]

In 1 Peter 2:25, God is both shepherd and “guardian” of our souls; moreover, in 1 Peter 5:2 “being guardians” displays the function of “overseeing.”[19] Agreeably, it does seem “important to try to combine the concepts of both service and leadership […] the responsibility of caring for the needs of a congregation as well as directing the activities of the membership.”[20] This is not an appeal for an exclusive gloss, but an attempt to emphasize the function of “guardian.”

Second Progression. In the second progression of 1 Timothy 3:1-7, Paul begins his virtue list regarding the “guardian” of the church of God (3:2-5). After the “faithful saying” of 3:1a, the impersonal present active indicative verb of obligation dei (lit. “it is necessary”) and oun transitions Paul’s readers to the virtue list with, “It is, then, fitting” (3:2). There is also the difficulty due to the wide “colloquial” use of dei, because it complicates how to view the nature of the obligation. Generally, it refers to “something that happens because” it is “fitting” (due to internal or external reasons) and is often followed by an infinitive verb as here (einai).[21]

In such a case, the infinitive may function as “the subject of a finite verb”[22] as it has been rendered here: “It is, then, fitting to be.” However, due to English grammar, the subject of the infinitive (ton episkopon) is translated along with the leading verb dei;[23] hence, “It is, then, fitting for the guardian to be.” The semantic force here displayed is what Wallace calls the “potential indicative” for it places an emphasis on the desire, not upon the doing.[24] This is a blanket declarative statement for each adjectival qualification.[25]

In keeping with what is fitting, the “guardian” (ton episkopon) stands as a representative of this class of church leadership.[26] In other words, in keeping with a virtue list which will be compared or contrasted against “deacons” or false teachers, the category of the “guardian” is in focus.  From 3:2b-5, Paul develops thirteen different qualifications, all adjectival words or participles in the accusative case. With a few exceptions, the terms are straightforward. Paul writes:

It is, then, fitting for the guardian to be: irreproachable, a-man-of-one-woman, clear-headed (i.e. wineless), self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, skilled in teaching, not quarrelsome, not combative, but forbearing, peaceable, not a lover of money, one who is engaged in the care of his own household, having children in submission with all dignity (but if he does not know how to care for his own household, how will he take care of God’s church?). (1 Tim 3:2-5 AT)

Of the thirteen terms enlisted above, three phrases were of interest in this reading. The most controversial phrase is “a-man-of-one-woman” (mias yunaikos andra, cf. 3:12, 5:12).[27] The anarthrous accusative andra is modified by the genitive mias gunaikos. Before any theological meaning can be derived from the phrase, the syntactical limits of the phrase must be established. It seems a qualitative[28] or descriptive genitive,[29] or a possessive genitive[30] are three of the best options. Of these three, a qualitative or descriptive genitive is probably under consideration as each of these uses underscores character over mere possession of a woman or wife.[31]

The second term, emphasizes the type of character which has as its primary meaning to be free of the influence of wine (i.e. wineless);[32] consequently, as a secondary meaning portrays a person who is “level-headed”[33] and “clear-headed.”[34] This is in contrast to the negative “not quarrelsome” (me paroinon) which has a primary meaning of being “given to drinking too much wine” as in being “addicted to wine;”[35] consequently, this refers to a person who would is abusive or brash, everything a guardian is not supposed to be.

The third phrase, is a present middle participle meaning “one who is engaged in the care of his own household” it describes “involvement or leadership” which must first be demonstrated “in house;” hence, the potential “guardian” must show himself to be an “active” family man who plays an important role in training and developing his children.[36] This last phrase is the subject of a parenthetical statement (3:5). In this statement, the apostle Paul forms a question in a present simple conditional sentence setting a portrayal of the sort of “guardianship” God intends to occur. “If he does not know how to care for his own household, how will he take care of God’s church?” In other words, if one has not been involved at home to personally mature and develop those in their care, the portrayal goes, the “guardian” of the church will not have the “how to” of experience.

The Third Progression. Finally, the last two verses (3:6-7) reflect the final progression with two strong warnings of how well-intended leadership can go bad. This last progression is built upon dei and einai from 3:2. It is, then, fitting for the guardian to not be “a new convert, so that he may not —having become conceited— fall into the judgment of the Devil” (3:6). The warning against a newly planted Christian becoming a “guardian” is seen in the hina and subjunctive clause, reflecting the potential result of such a fall into judgment. The same sort of warning closes the pericope: “But, it is also fitting to have a good testimony from non-Christians, so that he may not fall into the disgrace and snare of the Devil” (3:7).[37]

The section closes with a few similarities from within the pericope (3:1-7), in that a combination of an impersonal present active verb dei (lit. “it is necessary”) and the present active infinitive echein (lit. “to have”): “it is fitting to have.” The subject of the infinitive is the accusative “a good testimony” modified with the genitive of source “from non-Christians.” The point is, there is a certain fall out which results if these qualifications are not met.

The genitive of source is in contrast to the failures or work of the Devil, which depends upon how one reads tou diabolou in 3:6 and 7. In connection with 3:6-7, the genitive of tou diabolou shows there is a connection between the two “he may fall” statements and the Devil. What that connection may be is debated. The Devil may be the subject of the condemnation received from God or condemnation one endures at the hands of Satan (3:6).[38] It is read here with the former in mind; namely, in 3:6 the warning is against judgment as a result of arrogance. This is genitive of possession (“the Devil’s guilty verdict”) and it fits with the overall biblical context of the Devil’s standing before God (John 16:11).

In 3:7, there is a good reason to consider the genitive of agency or source. The context is of having a good testimony, which has its hindrances; namely, those which are done by or have their origin from tou diabolou (lit. “the adversary”). The Devil is ready to bring a shameful charge or a snare upon a would-be “guardian” to entrap him so that he falls. In both cases, the Devil stands as a warning to a prospective guardian. The Devil is the “poster child” for falling prey to arrogance, and in 3:7 stands as an ever-present enemy to those seeking to establish marturian kalen.

Concluding Thoughts

Jack P. Lewis once wrote, “Words create the patterns in which men think.”[39] It then follows that a reading and translation of this passage should help in this endeavor to think in the patterns Paul deems fitting regarding “guardians.” This reading of 1 Timothy 3:1-7 originates from a pressing need to explore the inner workings one of the two “complete” virtue lists in the New Testament for the “guardians of the church.”

The immediate context demonstrates Paul making a theological assertion about the leadership qualities of the “guardians” which reflect one who has restraint and conviction, steady relationships in the home and in the community, and is compassionate and genuine, a leader in the things which matter most in life and faith.

Endnotes

  1. Donald A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005). As Carson and Moo observe, “It comes as something of a surprise to realize that, apart from the Pastoral Epistles, the New Testament has very little to say about it (and with it does, it speaks of forms like the apostle or the prophet, which, at least in their narrowest definitions, have ceased to exist). It is accordingly important that 1 Timothy has so much to say about ministers —more, indeed, than has any other New Testament writing” (575). The same can be said for the episkopos.
  2. Everett Ferguson, The Church of Christ: A Biblical Ecclesiology for Today (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996), 323.
  3. Carson and Moo, An Introduction, 571.
  4. David A. Mappes, “Moral Virtues Associated with Eldership,” BSac 160 (April-June 2003): 211.
  5. There are many popular commentaries that outline 1 Timothy broadly then focus verse by verse. David Lipscomb and J. W. Shepherd, 1-2 Thessalonians, 1-2 Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, ed. J.W. Shepherd (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate, 1942), Wayne Jackson, Before I Die: Paul’s Letters to Timothy and Titus (Stockton, CA: Christian Courier Publications, 2007), Denny Petrillo, Commentary on 1, 2 Timothy (Abilene, TX: Quality Publications, 1998), Carl Spain, The Letters of Paul to Timothy and Titus (Austin, TX: Sweet Publishing, 1970), William E. Vine, “1 Timothy,” volume 3 of The Collected Writings of W.E. Vine (Nashville, Tenn.: Nelson, 1996).
  6. Gordon D. Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus (1988; repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2000), 79-83.
  7. J. W. Roberts, Letters to Timothy (Austin, TX: Sweet Publishing, 1961), Walter Lock, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (1924; repr., Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1959), Walter L. Liefeld, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1999).
  8. R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians, to the Thessalonians, to Timothy, to Titus, and to Philemon (1937; repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2001), 576.
  9. Archibald T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (1931; repr., Nashville, TN: Broadman, n.d.), 4:572. This is also how the editorial committee of the NA28 have rendered the paragraph.
  10. Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, 79. Herbert W. Smyth, A Greek Grammar for Colleges (New York, NY: American Book Company, 1920), par. 2297. Lock, Pastoral Epistles, 35.
  11. Spain, The Letters of Paul, 34-35.
  12. BDAG 721; Archibald T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (1923; repr., Nashville, TN: Broadman, 1934), 508.
  13. James A. Brooks and Carlton L. Winbery, Syntax of New Testament Greek (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1979). “Some verbs have a root idea (i.e. meaning) which is so closely related to the root idea of the genitive (i.e. description, definition) that they take their direct object in the genitive rather than the accusative case” (20).
  14. Archibald T. Robertson and W. Hersey Davis, A New Short Grammar of the Greek Testament, 10th ed. (1958; repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1979), 230; cf. Robertson, Grammar, 506.
  15. Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 132. Wallace advises not to make much out of this construction because it generally takes a genitive direct object.
  16. G. Adolf Deissmann, Bible Studies, trans. Alexander Grieve (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1901; repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1988), 230-31.
  17. James H. Moulton and George Milligan, Vocabulary of the Greek Testament Illustrated from the Papyri and Other Non-Literary Sources (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1914-1929; repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997), MM 244-45.
  18. BDAG 379.
  19. L&N 35.43.
  20. L&N 53.71. Barclay M. Newman, Jr., A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament, revised ed. (Stuttgart: German Bible Society, 1993). Newman provides the following glosses: “overseer, guardian, supervisor” (72).
  21. BDAG 214.
  22. Ernest De witt Burton, Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in New Testament Greek, 3rd ed. (1900; repr., Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel Publications, 1994), 153.
  23. Burton, Syntax, 153.
  24. Wallace, Greek Grammar, 451-52. Wallace goes on to say that it “is important to understand that normal force of the indicative mood is not thereby denied; rather, the assertion is simply in the desire, not the doing. Thus, this usage is really a subcategory of the declarative indicative” (451). This seems to be the force here and in 3:6 (dei de and echein).
  25. Robertson, Grammar, 1168-72.
  26. Harvey E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey. A Manuel Grammar of the Greek New Testament (1927; repr., New York, NY: Macmillan, 1957), 144. Stanley E. Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament, 2d ed. (1994; repr., London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2005). Porter calls this the “categorical” use of the article, whereby, the article makes a substantive represent a category of items (104-105).
  27. Ed Glasscock, “‘The Husband of one Wife’ Requirement in 1 Timothy 3:2.” BSac 140 (July-Sept. 1983): 244-58, Robert L. Saucy, “The Husband of One Wife.” BSac 131 (July-Sept. 1974): 229-40.
  28. Wallace, Greek Grammar, 86-88.
  29. Wallace, Greek Grammar, 79-81.
  30. Wallace, Greek Grammar, 81-83.
  31. J. W. Roberts, “Exegetical Helps,” ResQ 2.3 (1958): 128-131. Andreas J. Köstenberger, “Hermeneutical and Exegetical Challenges in Interpreting the Pastoral Epistles,” Entrusted with the Gospel: Paul’s Theology in the Pastoral Epistles, eds. Andreas J. Köstenberger and Terry L. Wilder (Nashville, TN: B&H, 2010), 1-27.
  32. MM 426.
  33. BDAG 672.
  34. Richard J. Goodrich and Albert L. Lukaszewski, A Reader’s Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2003), 459.
  35. BDAG 780.
  36. Ron Clark, “Family Management or Involvement? Paul’s Use of Proistemi in 1 Timothy 3 as a Requirement for Church Leadership,” Stone-Campbell Journal 9 (Fall 2006): 251.
  37. Newport J. D. White, EGT 4:114. There “is something blameworthy in a man’s character if the consensus of outside opinion be unfavorable to him; no matter how much he may be admired and respected by his own party.”
  38. White, EGT 4:114.
  39. Jack P. Lewis, Leadership Questions Confronting the Church (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate, 1985), 11-12.

Organizing God’s House in 1-2 Timothy and Titus

On By Jovan PayesIn Commentary, Ecclesiology, Exegesis, FHU, Freed-Hardeman University, Graduate Work, Greek Grammar, Interpretation, Leadership Ethics, New Testament, Pastoral Leadership, Paul's Letters2 Comments
college papers

The ekklesia of the Pastoral Epistles (PE) is a challenging study.[1] Part of its challenge is that the study is can be very quickly clouded by the assertions against Pauline authorship from interpreters which make large assumptions based upon a perceived problems with the way the organization of the church is detailed in the PE; and, although a majority of New Testament interpreters categorize the PE as pseudonymous, and deutero-Pauline, there are salient and thoughtful responses to such criticisms[2] against Pauline authorship.[3]

This particular investigation looks into the use of ekklesia in the 1-2 Timothy and Titus (PE) and seeks an understanding of how these letters articulate the organization of the church, and to present a preliminary conclusion of whether or not this reflects a post-Pauline setting.

Ekklesia in Perspective

To begin with, of the 114 instances of ekklesia in the New Testament Paul’s use of the term accounts for 62 (54.39%) of these, three of which are only in the PE (2.63%).[4] The word is used in both non-biblical and biblical contexts.[5] In its ordinary sense, it refers to “the popular assembly of the full citizens of the polis, or Greek city state” (Acts 19:32, 41).[6]

It is incorporated into Jewish theology through the Septuagint (LXX) frequently to translate the Hebrew term qahal.[7] It is found in references to the assembly of Israel during  “their desert wanderings.”[8] It also would describe “Israel when it assembled to hear the Word of God on Mt. Sinai, or later on Mt. Zion where all Israel was required to assemble three times a year.”[9] There was the assembly “of the Lord” (Deut 23:2), or “of the people of God” (Judges 20:2; Acts 7:38).[10] It seems proper to understand ekklesia, then, as a word which in many cases depicts an assembly of God’s people prepared to hear God’s Word (Matt 16:18).

Ekklesia in 1-2 Timothy and Titus

The first matter to discuss is the usage of ekklesia in the PE. The limits of the use of ekklesia in the PE perhaps underscore Luke T. Johnson’s concerns regarding certain tendencies in how “the three letters are invariably treated together as a group.” This tendency results in the “characterization” of the PE by “coalescing” their contents and in effect “dulls the perception of the individual letters.”[11] There must be an internal reason for this limited use of ekklesia in the PE. Despite the data and Johnson’s concern, the concepts associated with church life are interwoven throughout the PE, demonstrated by the fact that ministerial concerns are ultimately church concerns: “Keep a close watch on yourself and to the teaching. Remain in them, for by doing these things you will save both yourself and your hearers” (1 Tim 4:16).[12]

The three uses of ekklesia in 1 Timothy are found in 3:5, 15, and 5:16. These will be considered in the order of their appearance. 1 Timothy 3:5 is a parenthetical maxim: “but if someone does not know how to care for his own household [tou idiou tou idiou oikou], how will he take care of God’s church [ekklesias theou]?” Not much later, Paul writes, “but if I delay, that you might know how one ought to behave in the household of God [en oiko theou], which is the church of the living God [ekklesia theou zontos], the pillar and the foundation of truth” (3:15). At the end of the discussion regarding the ministry toward widows, Paul writes, “If any believing woman has widows, let her provide them help and do not let the church [he ekklesia] be burdened, in order that She (i.e. the church) may provide for the ones who are truly widows” (5:16).

1 Timothy 3:5 and 15 are the most closely linked together not only in proximity but also the way they are integrated into Paul’s argument for the expected conduct in the ekklesia (3:15). In 3:5, the care given in the guardian’s[13] “own home” reflects his capacity to care for the “household of God”; moreover, this very “household of God” bears the “characteristic quality” (hetis)[14] as “the church of the living God” (3:15). The syntax may be understood in a few a ways. These institutions may find their origin in God (ablative of source); or, the genitive reflects them as God’s possession, if not they are defined by their relationship with God.[15] In either case, what God creates He possesses and has a relationship with what is His (John 1:12).

While these three are legitimate grammatical options, contextually the contrast between the household of the guardian and the household of God lays the emphasis upon possession: “God’s household” and “the Living God’s church.” Hence, as George W. Knight, writes, the Christian life is to be lived out in “the home built and owned by God and indwelt by him as the living one.”[16]

In 5:16, the closing statement requires the care for widows and presents a prohibition against burdening “the church” unnecessarily (he ekklesia). This is the anaphoric use of the article, pointing back to 3:15, which implicitly suggests this is a reference to the local congregation.[17] “The church” is the same as “the church of the living God” for as K. L. Schmidt observes, “the words tou theou are implied even when they are not specifically added, just as basileia in the NT always means the basileia tou theou unless some earthly kingdom is expressly mentioned.”[18] This fits well with the context, where there is a strong distinction made between one’s responsibility to “one’s own household” (5:4) and “member of the family” (5:8) with the responsibility he ekklesia has to care for its members who are “genuine widows.”

Taking a wider view, the phrase ekklesia theou is found in connection of the work of guardians who function as shepherds in Acts 20:28; moreover, the phrase ekklesia theou is found in the so-called “genuine” Pauline letters (1 Cor 1:2, 10:32, 11:16, 22, 15:9; 2 Cor 1:1; Gal 1:13; 1 Thess 2:14) and “deutero-Pauline” references such as 2 Thessalonians 1:4.[19]

The exclusive use of ekklesia in 1 Timothy demonstrates a few things. First, ekklesia must be understood in its connection to the genitival theou, which here emphasizes God’s ownership of the church. Second, ekklesia theou is explanatory revealing the “characteristic quality” (hetis) of the household of God (oiko theou 3:15). Third, the genitival construction ekklesias theou is consistent with the so-called “genuine” letters of Paul. This is significant since it is a consistent Pauline phrase to describe the saints in Christ (2 Cor 1:1). Fourth, as the “household of God” the church is distinct from the household of the “guardians” (3:1b, 5) and of the “servants” (3:12), and of the Christian families who must care for their own households (5:1-16).

1 Timothy’s use of ekklesia then is bound within what this writer would describe as a concentric responsibility. Guardians, servants, and Christian families must take care of their own households as part requisite to serve in greater echelons of the household of God, the church of the living God. The household metaphor will be explored next since it is pervasive in the PE.

The “Household” in 1-2 Timothy and Titus

The second matter to consider is the church organizational structure found in the PE. Despite the limited use of the ekklesia various church leaders are discussed within the PE. In 1 Timothy and Titus there those who would take on “the responsibility of a guardian” (episkope; 1 Tim 3:1-7; Tit 1:5-9). Only 1 Timothy provides a virtue list for those who would be “servants” (deacons) in the church (3:8-13). There is an “enrollment of the widows” which may refer to an “order” of godly women who are supported by the church (1 Tim 5:1-16). Again, Johnson’s caution is reiterated that the PE are individual letters in spite of many overlapping features, and these distinctions must be respected. Nevertheless, the familiar Greco-Roman metaphor of “household” is evident throughout the PE and provides the organizing principle for churches in Ephesus and Crete.[20]

The “household” metaphor is significantly used throughout the PE. It is not without precedent that Paul uses metaphors (the body, the bride, the temple, etc.) to describe the interworking relationships of the church. David J. Williams introduces his research on metaphors in Pauline literature by calling attention to the literary fact that

metaphor is a way of presenting a truth that is wholly or partly unknown by likening it to something that is known to the person or persons under instruction. A metaphor is an aid to the perception of a truth (its intuitive recognition). It helps us to “get a handle” on a truth, but it does not necessarily furnish an explanation, certainly not a complete explanation, of the truth in question.[21]

In the Greco-Roman backdrop, the household metaphor lent itself to the political realm. According to P. H. Towner, the Roman emperor “came to be viewed as a father and the state as his household. And many functions or positions in relation to the state were derived from the ‘household’ root.”[22] As such, the metaphor of “household” would include derivative analogies such as immediate family members, slaves, freedmen, servants and laborers, and many other household personnel.

It is clear that “household” is an overarching metaphor Paul draws from in the PE. This is seen in the PE’s phrase, “how one ought to behave in God’s house” (1 Tim 3:15b). Paul does use the term “house” in his correspondences in the sense of one’s own home (1 Cor 11:22) and in the sense of where Christians meet (Rom 16:5; Phlm 2). Yet, it is in the metaphor of household that the PE develop the analogy of the church as “a social unit, made up of various members, each responsible to one another and ultimately to the householder.”[23]

This emphasis on household imagery could explain the omission of spiritual gifts as the connective tissues of church organization and leadership, which is a critical concern that some interpreters find to be evidence pointing against Pauline authorship. Therefore, if it is granted to Paul that the household metaphor better pointed out “truth” to his recipients then at the very least the viability of Pauline authorship cannot be dismissed lightly. Such criticisms, which centers on the PE’s use of non-Pauline metaphor for ekklesia, appears forced and arbitrary.

The household metaphor for the church organization, then, is developed in the PE in the following ways. In 2 Timothy 2:20-21 there is a brief comparison of the church to “a great house” (en megale oikia). Such a comparison suggests that the house must have various elements of worth. 1 Timothy 2:1-3:13 more emphatically develops that there are expectations in the household of God (3:15).[24]

Let us summarize a few points regarding expectations. First, 1 Timothy 2:1-15 develops the roles of the church as a whole (2:1-7), and gender role expectations in the assembly (2:8-15). Second, 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9 addresses the qualifications for the managerial and senior members of the household of God (guardians and elders). Moreover, Titus 1:7 calls the elder and guardian a “steward of God” (theou oikonomon), which refers to a member of the household who is entrusted with a task by the master of the household.[25] Third, 1 Timothy 3:8-13 provides a virtue list for servants (diakonous) who function in various roles in a household. In this connection, Timothy himself is described as a diakonos Christou Iesou who later on is called to fulfill his work as an evangelist (2 Tim 4:5).[26] Fourth, there is the familial treatment between Christian “siblings” and the care of widows as members of the household of God (1 Tim 5:1-16). Timothy and Titus are both regarded as a “true child” (1 Tim 1:2; Tit 1:4), and Timothy is also described as “beloved child” (2 Tim 1:2).

Does this Fit with Paul’s Authorship?

With the evaluation of much of the internal evidence of the PE, it must be considered whether the picture of the church is of such a state that it weighs against Pauline authorship. The use of the household metaphor for organizing “the church of the living God” in the PE is pervasive, providing analogies for every ministry of ekklesia; moreover, it is all inclusive with specific guidelines for the various ministries considered.

Gerd Theissen, however, argues that “the notions of the community are not very Pauline. The image of the body of Christ in which all members have equal rights is absent.”[27] Quite to the contrary, the “notions of community” in the PE are every bit as comparable to so-called “authentic” Pauline teaching of the body of Christ. In Romans 12:3-8 the body of Christ is filled with many members with differing gifts. Paul writes the gifts are given “each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned” (3 ESV), and “so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another” (5 ESV).

Furthermore, in 1 Corinthians 12 Paul makes a similar argument. All the spiritual gifts are from a single source, but every Christian has a different ministry: “there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit” (4 ESV).  In this context, Paul raises the issue of church leadership: “Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles?” (29 ESV).

There appeared to be equal opportunities to serve but different areas of ministry based upon the will of God. This is precisely how the household metaphor presents ministry in the PE. Such evidence ought to reduce the weight of observations like those of Theissen who reject Paul’s authorship on the belief that the community in the PE is inconsistent with the so-called “authentic” letters of the apostle.

Some Conclusions

The conclusions drawn here are preliminary, but they lean toward a realization that each letter in the PE must be respected for their individual contribution and voice. Yet, for the focus given to individual church leaders (Timothy and Titus) and their concerns for conduct in the household of God, there is a commonality between them which can be evaluated in unison. There are three preliminary conclusion which can be made at this time.

First, the limited data of the use of ekklesia in the PE demonstrates that 1 Tim has particular expectations for its members to understand the difference between one’s own household and God’s household. This clearly suggests a rebuke and an attempt to recalibrate the Christian behavior. Titus and 2 Timothy apparently had different church concerns.

Second, the church organization revealed in the PE is quite clearly patterned after the metaphor of “household” with God as the master. In employing this metaphor, the PE reveals that leadership roles are subject to God’s prerogative to entrust a task for His household servants. Timothy and Titus along with the other leaders and servants appear cooperative; there does not appear to be a portrayal of a second century monarchical type of hierarchy as in Clement of Rome and Ignatius.[28]

Finally, the criticism that the PE “office holders” have replaced a “charismatic-functional church structure”[29] overlooks the pervasive and organic nature of the “household” organizing principle, and upon closer look reflects similar levels of diversity of ministries and personnel.

Endnotes

  1. Pastoral Epistles (PE) will be used throughout this essay. There is some objection raised as to the use of this nomenclature due to the correct view that neither Timothy nor Titus are pastors in the modern sense. However, Paul does address the qualifications for the episkopos, the overseers, or the guardians of the church; so, in this sense as documents which speak to this office these letters are viewed as pastoral, if not episcopal, in the New Testament sense.
  2. The internal areas of discussion are fourfold: the historical problem of fitting the PE into the historical scheme of Acts and the Pauline corpus, the connection between church organization in the PE and second century church organization, the distinct style of the PE and its unfamiliar robust vocabulary, and the dissimilar use of Pauline theological terms and lack of common doctrinal concerns.
  3. Donald A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005), 554-68; Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 4th ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1990), 612-36; a centrist, Luke Timothy Johnson and Todd C. Penner, The Writings of the New Testament: An Interpretation, rev. ed. (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1999), 424-28.
  4. Peter T. O’Brien, “Church,” DPL 124. Cognates of ekklesia are used throughout in 1 Timothy (6:12) and 2 Timothy (1:9; 2:20, 22), but they are not used in Titus.
  5. “ekklesia,” BDAG 303-04.
  6. O’Brien, “Church,” 123.
  7. O’Brien, “Church,” 124; Karl Ludwig Schmidt, “ekklesia,” TDNT 3:527; BDAG 303.
  8. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Pauline Theology: A Brief Sketch (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1967), 76.
  9. O’Brien, “Church,” 124.
  10. See also the assemblies in 1 Kgs 8:55 and 1 Chr 29:10; interestingly, the Hebrew writer speaks of the redeemed in a similar way (Heb 12:22-24).
  11. Johnson and Penner, The Writings of the New Testament, 424.
  12. Unless otherwise noted all translations are those of the author.
  13. “episkopos,” L&N 35:43.
  14. “hostis, hetis, hoti,” BDAG 729.
  15. Boyce W. Blackwelder, Light from the Greek New Testament (1958; repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Hook House, 1976), 131; James A. Brooks and Carlton L. Winbery, Syntax of New Testament Greek (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1979), 8-9, 23
  16. George W. Knight, III, The Pastoral Epistles (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1992; repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2013), 181-82.
  17. Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 217-20.
  18. Schmidt, “episkopos,” TDNT 3:507.
  19. Blackwelder, Light from the Greek New Testament, 131; Charles B. Cousar, The Letters of Paul (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1996), 89-90, 163-80.
  20. Cousar, Letters of Paul, 178, 202.
  21. David J. Williams, Paul’s Metaphors: Their Context and Character (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999; repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004), 1. Williams sees the use of “household of God” (oiko theou) as a probable metaphor for the church in 1 Tim 3:5 and 15, and he compares this with the “household of faith” in Galatians 6:10 (30).
  22. Philip H. Towner, “Households and Household Codes,” DPL 417.
  23. Towner, “Households and Household Codes,” 418.
  24. Cousar, Letters of Paul, 202; Towner, “Households and Household Codes,” 418.
  25. “oikonomos,” BDAG 698.
  26. This is of particular importance since Timothy is thought of as a type of monarchial bishop from the second century. Neither Timothy nor Titus are so named.
  27. Gerd Theissen, Fortress Introduction to the New Testament, trans. John Bowden (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2003), 136.
  28. Howard Lee Kee, Understanding the New Testament, 4th ed. (Englewood, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1983), 315. Although Kee rejects Pauline authorship, he does concede that there is “no hint” of a single bishop in a city or territory with central authority over the Church in the PE.
  29. Udo Schnelle, The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings, trans. M. Eugene Boring (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1998), 330; trans. of Einleitung in das Neue Testament (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994).