Tag: 1 Tim 5:16

Who is to Care for the Widows? (1 Tim 5:16)

On By Jovan PayesIn 1 Timothy, Articles, Christian Ethics, Ecclesiology, Greek Studies, New Testament, Paul's Letters, Technical Studies, Textual Criticism, Translation, Women Studies
college papers

If any believing woman has relatives who are widows, let her care for them. Let the church not be burdened, so that it may care for those who are truly widows. (ESV)

If any believing man or woman has widows, let them relieve them, and do not let the church be burdened, that it may relieve those who are really widows. (NKJV)

The opening words of 1 Timothy 5:16 is plagued with four variant readings. At the outset, this paper will follow the order of the fifth revised edition of The Greek New Testament (UBS5)[1] textual apparatus in arranging the variant readings. The first reading is in that which is in the main body of the UBS5 Greek text, “a woman that believes” (pistē), the second variant reading is “a man that believes” (pistos), the third variant reading is the longer “man or woman that believes” (pistos e pistē), and the fourth variant reading is the accusative plural “women that believe” (pistas).

The variants throw into question who are the believers to care for their widows. Is it Christian women or men (variants 1-2)? Is it either or (variant 3), or is it a general call to care (variant 4)? The following processes will be followed: (1) evaluate the external and internal evidence, then (2) observe its effect on modern translations, and then (3) apply the most probable reading to approach an understanding of the reading in 1 Timothy 5:16.

Evaluating the Evidence

External Evidence

The weight of the external evidence of the four variant readings are early, but they are not of the same strength. In particular, the second (pistos) and fourth (pistas) variant readings are void of extant Greek manuscripts. The second reading is represented by the Ethiopic tradition from the sixth century, half of Ambrose (397), Augustine (430), and a Latin translation of Theodore of Mopsuestia, Cilicia. The meager witnesses for the fourth reading are exclusively translational itg (ninth) and vgmss (fourth and fifth).

The third longer reading (pistos e piste) is represented with witnesses which begin in the fourth and fifth centuries. The reading appears early in patristic witnesses such as John Chrysostom (407), Ambrosiaster (post 384), and also Ambrose; moreover, it has witness in Old Latin translations from the third and sixth centuries (itb, d). The earliest extant Greek manuscript witness, however, is the bilingual (Greek and Latin) sixth-century uncial Codex Claromontanus (D 06).[2]

Despite the earlier witness of the longer variant reading against pistos and pistas, the uncials which support the first reading (pistē) are much earlier. These witnesses are from the fourth and fifth centuries and are traditionally more substantial in their textual value.[3] The fourth-century evidence has Aleph (Sinaiticus), along with fifth-century codexes Alexandrinus (A) and palimpsests Ephraem (C 04), and uncial 048.[4] Patristic evidence has early witnesses as Athanasius (373) and mid-fifth century Pelagius. Translational evidence for the preferred reading is in the fourth-century Sahidic Coptic text in Egypt (copsa). The early dates of the external evidence weigh in agreement with the UBS5 inclusion of the preferred reading.

Geographic Distribution

The geographical distribution is spread somewhat evenly among Eastern and Western text-type lines. The longer reading is distributed widely in the West more so than in the East. The inclusion of the longer reading is supported by Alexandrian Uncials, Western D, and Byzantium readings (K 018, L020). It is also distributed in the Greek Church (Chrysostom, and a majority of Lectionary readings) and Latin Fathers Ambrosiaster and Ambrose. Nevertheless, pistē has the widest breadth of distribution, impressively stretching from Greek Father Athanasius (373) in Alexandria, Egypt, in the East to the Latin Father Pelagius (418) in Britain in the far West at roughly the same time. The overlap of both readings in the translational evidence is also equally distributed and this is best typified by Latin Father Ambrose who is a witness to both readings; however, the longer reading is mainly supported by the Western witnesses. The geographical distribution of the second and third readings are both substantially Western.

Regarding text-type affinities and other aspects of these particular variants, the first and third variants share text types and there is some external evidence that needs to be considered. First, the first and third readings both share Alexandrian and Western text types, with the longer reading, having late witnesses from the Byzantium text type. The second and fourth readings have no text-type witnesses. Second, in the evaluation of the external evidence of the four readings, it is clear that the second and fourth readings have connections to early witnesses but are relegated to translational evidence in Old Latin and the Vulgate.

Moreover, even the patristic witnesses for the second reading are Latin such as Ambrose and Augustine, and even the witness from Greek Father Theodore of Mopsuestia, Cilicia, is only found in a Latin translation. This suggests that unless better evidence emerges, the second and fourth readings should continue to be viewed as inferior readings which are probably translational in origin.[5]

One piece of the manuscript evidence which has not been considered is that the textual apparatus also lists a considerable amount of minuscule evidence for the longer reading both from Western and Eastern text types; however, the earliest minuscule witnesses are from the tenth century (1175, 1739, 1912), eleventh century (104, 256, 424, 459, 1962), and later. This evidence is consistent with the late witnesses from the ninth century in Byzantium uncials K and L, and the Alexandrian 044 from a similar period. The abundance of these manuscripts which are geographically dispersed very well may prove to be sufficient evidence for their primacy as the text reading; however, the majority of late manuscripts are not weightier than the strong early Alexandrian texts which support the preferred text of the UBS5.

There are strong lines of evidence for dismissing the second and fourth readings because the external evidence is purely translational and patristic. The first and the third readings have competitive manuscript witnesses and have comparative geographic distribution, which slightly leans toward the third reading; nevertheless, the quality of the early uncial witnesses, translational evidence, and distribution between patristic fathers from Alexandria to Britain in the same window of time favor the preferred reading of “woman that believes” (pistē).

Internal Probabilities

Next, it is important to evaluate the internal evidence of the four variants readings and determine which reading has the best transcriptional probability of being the correct reading.[6] Currently, the editorial committee of the UBS5 places a {B} rating for the short reading piste which “indicates that the text is almost certain.”[7] Among the variants, there are three short readings (piste, pistos, pistas) and one longer reading (pistos e pistē).

The shortest reading (pistē) with the most external support is a difficult reading, for it makes Christian women solely responsible for the care of widows,[8] as opposed to a more general statement that calls all believers to care for the widows of the Christian community. It would certainly be more likely to have been broadened, especially in light of a few broad tis statements in 1 Timothy 5 (4, 8, 15).

Among the shorter readings, the second (pistos) and fourth (pistas) readings appear as linguistic changes intended to understand the care for widows as a broad Christian responsibility (“if any believer” and “if anyone has widows who are believers”). It would be likely for a scribe, or translator, to broaden the responsibility to “anyone” or to “a believer” than to limit it to the more difficult shorter reading, “a woman who believes” (i.e. a Christian sister). The latter best explains the former two readings.

The shorter reading and in the longer third reading (pistos e pistē). The longer reading makes the care of widows a gender-inclusive responsibility in the church (“any man or woman who believes”). Regarding longer variant readings, the conventional textual critical wisdom prefers a longer reading so long as the change is unintentional;[9] from a practical point of view, a copyist would “more likely” omit words than to add words.

Metzger concedes that “it is possible” that, if the longer reading is original, a copyist may have accidentally omitted pistos e;[10] however, the longer reading has late attestation and may be best explained as a conflation of the variants (pistos and pistas) attempting to broaden the responsibility to care for widows in 1 Timothy 5:16 to both male and female believers (cf. 4, 8). This would effectively diminish the leading role of believing women that Paul had in mind.[11] However, the more difficult reading is piste and is better attested; in fact, it requires an explanation as to why Christian sisters are called to care for their widows. The first reading, then, is better attested, shorter, and more difficult; and in terms of probability is a natural impetus to explain the other variants.

How English Translations Stack

The direction most modern translations go is to follow the strength of the textual basis for piste, “a woman who believes” over the longer reading in 1 Timothy 5:16.

Major English New Testaments which take the longer variant reading, however, are the AV/KJV tradition (1611, 1979), Moffatt (1922), NEB (1961); moreover, less familiar versions such as The Living Oracles/Sacred Writings (1828) and McCord’s Everlasting Gospel/FHV5 (2005) also include the longer reading.

Since the time of the American Standard tradition (1901, 1971, 1995), the following major translation has accepted the shorter reading: the Revised Standard tradition (1952, 1990), JB tradition (1966, 1985), the NAB tradition (1970, 1986, 2011), TEV (1976), the NIV tradition (1984, 2002, 2011), ETR (1987), REB (1989), NCV (1991), CEV (1995), NET (1996-2006), HCSB (1999), and ESV (2001). The less-known Plain English Bible (2003), The Voice Bible (2012), and the Jehovah’s Witness’ NWTR (2013) also have shorter and better-attested reading.

The wholesale selection of the shorter reading by the vast majority of modern English translations provides a supportive scholastic culture to the present evaluation of the external and internal evidence in favor of pistē.

Applying “Believing Woman”

Finally, it is critical to find the application of the present conclusion that the shorter variant has the strongest probability to be the text of 1 Timothy 5:16 and understand Paul’s instruction to Timothy regarding the care of widows in the church. The verse is situated in the final words of the pericope concerning directives for the care of widows and the expectations of young widows (1 Tim 5:3-16).[12] 

There is a strong distinction made between the church (5:8b, 9, 16) and Christian families with widows (5:4, 8a), and a distinction made between vulnerable widows to which the church has a responsibility to (5:5-7, 9-10) and young widows who should remarry and establish a proper family life (5:11-15). The last verse (5:16) apparently weaves these four counterpoint groups into a praxis for ministry towards widows which brings the Christian family to the forefront of such benevolent ministry; moreover, every Christian sister (widowed or not) is placed at the focal point to care for any widows they are related to (“she has”).

The counterpoint in this text is that such family ministry in Christian homes, carried out by a “woman who believes,” allows the church to care for the widows who are truly vulnerable (5:3, 5a, 16b). Bruce Winter observes:

Christian women were being called upon to relieve the church of the extra mouths to feed who were their widowed relatives. There is no censure in v. 16, but a call to shoulder responsibility for kinship relationships so that the church can adequately support widows who are without relatives.[13]

Bruce W. Winter, “Providentia for the Widows of 1 Timothy 5:3-16.” TynBul 39 (1988)

Indeed, this Pauline injunction demonstrates a corrective in the Ephesian church culture where Timothy evangelized. Apparently, the church had been “burdened” and “exhausted” (bareō/omai) financially for sure;[14] but also, perhaps the capacity to serve had reached its limit and so the church was significantly fettered.

Nevertheless, Paul is clear there are widows whom the church, as a community, must help (the true widow), but there are widows who must be cared for by their Christian families. In the latter point, Paul argues out the principle at stake: “if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Tim 5:8). Paul then calls upon Christian women specifically to meet this ministry need.

In the ideal realm, Christian families are responsible for their own widowed grandmother as a demonstration of godly repayment (5:4). Christians males (5:8) are responsible for this service (presumably the husband of the family), but the transition to women believers (remarried women, wives) is significant since they are described as the ones who “run” and “control” their household (5:14).[15]

Part of the power of connecting “wife” and household authority is that it “implies the new and improved position which was secured to women by the Gospel.”[16] Furthermore, this requires a full range of administrative responsibilities.[17] The practical application, then, appears to ask of the “believing woman” her full range of resources and ability to care for “her widow.” As such, if “a woman took good care of her household [including her widow], the enemy would not be able to say anything against them.”[18]

This understanding would encourage a multi-generational inclusive model of family responsibilities as part of a Christian worldview. There are, however, many methods of care for the older members of the family. Still, as Walter Liefeld[19] observes, a few considerations should be made to evaluate the need of a widow:

  1. Determine the actual needs of the widow. Do not presume to know their needs or abilities. It is critical to appreciate their abilities – known or latent. Moreover, consider that not all needs are physical (financial, home); some needs are emotional, spiritual, and intellectual.
  2. Revisit and reaffirm family ties and responsibilities. For family cultures that tend to live far from each other, it is vital to reconnect and reestablish family ties. Distance is not an excuse. Communication, visitation, and creating space for one’s widow to find their new or expanded niche.
  3. One must take into account a widow’s responsibility. Truly, a widow must learn to grieve in a healthy manner. Paul encouraged the younger widows to reestablish a family and marry. He further recognized a widow’s need to manage and maintain her relationship with God. Ultimately, she must find her role in ministry to others.
  4. The church has a role in supporting a family to care for their widow. (a) Consider enlisting a member to qualify for hospice care in order to be a bridge between the congregation and the grieving widow. (b) Develop an awareness of the stages of bereavement to better help to bring comfort and encouragement. (c) Develop a team that is knowledgeable of basic financial instruments and entitlement programs one might be amenable to. This would help bring awareness of issues. (d) There should be a visitation program that the elders, deacons and preachers, and members should participate in to check in on various needs. (e) While a congregation should not act as a private investigator’s office, a congregation should not act blindly toward senior abuse.

These are but a few items to consider in the quest toward New Testament discipleship concerning the care of widows.

Concluding Thoughts

While this paper was specifically focused upon the injunction by Paul to “any woman of faith” and her responsibility to care for “her” widow, it is critical to remember that this is one side of the coin for the care of widows in the church. It is true that the church should not be so burdened that it cannot function to carry out its mission; however, the community of the church has a responsibility toward its widows who are widows indeed.

The conclusion drawn here is that the shorter, well-attested variant reading piste best explains the other variants. Furthermore, it better weaves within the counterpoints in the discussion which finds closure in verse 16. It provides insight into the service which Christian women rendered on behalf of their faith, as an extension of their Christian family, and as an asset to the church and its ministry to its own widows. To add the fourth reading (pistos e pistē) provides an additional counterpoint that detracts from the focus on the “younger widows” (5:11).

Instead of carousing (5:11-13) they are to remarry and minister to their own widows whoever they may be (14-15). Knight legitimately proposes the possibility that this ministry to widows is an extension of the Christian sister’s husband and her household;[19] therefore, it seems reasonable to conclude that when she ministers to her widows, she ministers to her family’s widow.

The focus on “a woman who believes” is a powerful reminder of the importance Christian sister have in the church’s ministry and in their Christian homes. As in the early church, so today the need for “women of faith” to minister still exists within the church and their families.

The Voice Bible rendering reflects this emphasis:

Tell any woman of faith: if you have a widow in your family, help her so the church is unencumbered and is free to extend aid to the widows who are truly in need of its help.[20]

Endnotes

  1. (UBS5) Barbara Aland, et al., eds., The Greek New Testament, 5th rev. ed. (Stuttgart, Germany: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2014).
  2. Frederick G. Kenyon, The Text of the Greek Bible: A Students Handbook, Rev. ed. (London: Duckworth, 1949), 96.
  3. (NA28) Eberhard Nestle and Erwin Nestle, Novum Testamentum Graece, 28th rev. ed., eds. Barbara Aland, et al. (Stuttgart, Germany: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012), 63*. There exists no papyrus testimony which supports any of the variant readings in 1 Timothy 5:16.
  4. The fourth-century Codex Vaticanus (B) is silent on the variant readings due to the fact that it lacks the letters to Timothy. See Neil R. Lightfoot, How We Got the Bible, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2003), 38.
  5. Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2d ed. (1994; repr., Stuttgart, Germany: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2001), 574-75.
  6. Metzger, Textual Commentary, 12*-14*; J. Harold Greenlee, Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism, Rev. ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964; repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999), 111-14.
  7. Metzger, Textual Commentary, 14*.
  8. Donald Guthrie, The Pastoral Epistles: An Introduction and Commentary (1957; repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978), 104.
  9. Greenlee, New Testament Textual Criticism, 112.
  10. Since the extant evidence for these two variants is translational it is possible that the variants emerged in that process (Metzger, Textual Commentary, 575), or in the process of oral transmission since pistos and pistas may be pronounced the same (Greenlee, New Testament Textual Criticism, 57).
  11. Walter L. Liefeld, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, Kindle ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1999), loc. 9699. Liefeld writes, this “would not be the first time that an ancient copyist changed the text to give preference to the male” (fn 21).
  12. Bruce W. Winter, “Providentia for the Widows of 1 Timothy 5:3-16.” TynBul 39 (1988): 83-99.
  13. George W. Knight, III, The Pastoral Epistles (1992.; repr., Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2013), 222. Winter, “Providentia for the Widows of 1 Timothy 5:3-16,” 94.
  14. Gottlob Schrenk, “baros, barus, bareō,” TDNT 1: 561.
  15. Karl Heinrich Rengstorf, “despotes, oikodespotēs, oikodespoteō,” TDNT 2: 49.
  16. Walter Lock, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1924), 61.
  17. Linda Belleville, “Commentary on 1 Timothy,” Cornerstone Biblical Commentary, ed. Philip W. Comfort (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2009), CBC 17: 95.
  18. Belleville, CBC 17: 101.
  19. Liefeld, 1 & 2 Timothy, 186-88 (loc. 3722-65).
  20. Knight, The Pastoral Epistles, 229.
  21. The Voice Bible: Step into the Story of Scripture (Nashville, TN: Nelson, 2012).

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).