Recently, in discussing the character and omnipotence of God Titus 1:2 was cited to extend the argument that while God may have all power (omnipotence) to do what lends itself to being accomplished, there are certain tensions one must also accept. Namely, there are some things God cannot do or be. Despite having all power God does not tempt people to do evil (Jas 1:13), nor is it possible for God to lie (Heb 6:18). It was argued then that temptation and deception are against his nature despite all of his power.
Is Choice Implied?
There seemed to be some confusion, however, based on the translation of the phrase ho apseudēs theos, “God, who does not lie” (NIV, REB, NAB), “God, never lies” (ESV, NRSV), and the older, “God, who cannot lie” (KJV, NKJV, ASV, NASB95). These are the most common translations of two terms in Titus 1:2, the adjective apseudēs (truthful/deceitless) and God (theos).
It was suggested in a discussion that the translation of the NIV (cf. LEB, REB, NABR, TEV, NIRV, JB, NLT), could lend itself to the notion that it is possible for God to lie but He does not because He chooses not to lie. This would reframe the discussion of the nature and character of God by opening the possibility that God is good by choice rather than being good by nature.
This raises the question of whether the character of God is immutable, that is whether his holy character changes over time or not. The immutability of God means, for example, that God is holy and will always be holy.[1] On this view, there will never be a time when God is not holy. If God’s character is mutable (subject to change), however, then it is possible for God to act in an unholy manner. This view is inconsistent with the overall theme of God’s infinite holy character.
Does Titus 1:2 lend itself as evidence to this point of view? No, for three reasons. First, the term apseudēs is used in various Greek sources as a description (as an adjective) for “gods and divine things.”[2]Second, the adjective is verbless and without action. Third, the context of the letter to Titus contrasts the lying Cretans (1:12) against the truthful God (1:2).
The Adjective
First. Apseudēs is used in various Greek sources as a description (an adjective) for “gods and divine things”; however, Titus 1:2 is its only biblical use. It is also found once in Greek Jewish wisdom literature regarding the “unerring knowledge” given by God (Sirach 7:17 NRSV). Unlike the usual positive word for “truth” in the NT (alétheia), apseudēs is a negative word (non-liar) which means: “without lie and deceit, … sincere, trusty,”[3] “free from all deceit, … trustworthy,”[4] and “pertaining to not speaking falsehood — ‘truthful.’”[5]
The word is a striking description of “divine beings” and God. This use is found between the 5th century BC to the early second century AD.[6] Paul is known to quote ancient Greek sources as in the probable use of the playwright Menander in 1 Corinthians 15:33: “Bad company ruins good morals” (Thais). Paul usedthe infamous saying of the Cretan teacher named Epimenides (500 BC) in Titus 1:12: “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.”
Plato said, “the divine and the divinity are free from falsehood” and “that Phoebus’ divine mouth could not lie” (Republic 2.382e, 383b). Ignatius, a known disciple of John, spoke of Jesus’ mouth as “the unerring mouth” of revelation (Romans 8.2). In the Martyrdom of Polycarp, Polycarp prays to God at his death “you are the unerring and true God” (14.2). Greeks used the term to describe their gods; meanwhile, Christians used it to describe the true God.[7]
It is important to remember that Paul leans on the thought patterns of the Hebrew Bible (Rom 3:3–4, 2 Tim 2:13).[8] Balaam spoke the Lord’s word when he said, “God is not man, that he should lie” (Num 23:19), and Samuel told King Saul that “the Glory of Israel [i.e. God] will not lie…” (1 Sam 15:29). Likewise, in keeping with these verses are the inspired words, “it is impossible for God to lie” (Heb 6:18).
The Descriptive
Second. The adjective is verbless and without action. In English, adjectives often are said to describe a person, place, thing, or function. For example, “it was a fast train” and “the clock was fast.” In Greek, however, the adjective can function in two technical ways, it either (a) makes an assertion about the noun — the word is good (predicate), or (b) limits or tells what noun we are referring to — the good word (attributive). The adjective, then, “modifies a noun by ascribing a quality to it.”[9]
Here are a couple of examples of how this plays out in other passages with a similar grammatical structure as Titus 1:2:
“the first day” = “the day — namely thefirst one” (Phil 1:5)
“the good shepherd” = “the shepherd — namely the good one” (John 10:11)
“the good wine” = “the wine — namely the good one” (John 2:10)
In the same way, the adjective here describes God as deceitless, not that God chooses to not lie. He is God — namely the deceitless One. Thus, Titus 1:2 is not a statement of action, but a description of Divine character (God’s attributes). God does not lie because God is void of falseness.
The Contextual Purpose
Third. The context of the letter to Titus contrasts the lying Cretans (1:12) against the truthful God (1:2). The description of God as apseudēs (deceitless) is in contrast to the Cretans who are pseustai — liars. It is the only time both words are used in Titus. The significance of the connection is found in 1:2, speaking of the hope of eternal life established by God who is deceitless in the quality of His character (Heb 6:18). This message and hope are contrasted with the teachers on the island of Crete who are asserted to be deceivers (“liars,” 1:12).
The difference is subtle but the difference is everything.
Interestingly, Epimenides’ infamous saying is based on the Cretan claim “to possess a tomb of Zeus, who, of course, as a god, cannot have died!”[10] It is said that even in ancient times this was criticized by Callimachus (305–240 BC) as inconceivable that the king of the gods should be dead and buried.[11] The absurdity illustrates the need to reject and silence the false teachers who are equally “liars,” opportunists, and reject the truth (Titus 1:10-16).
Titus, on the other hand, bears a message of hope and salvation, and embraces truth (1:1) because it issues from the “God, whose very nature is the absence of falsehood.”[12]
Conclusion
This short piece only reminds us that human language has limits when we engage “God talk” (i.e., theology), but we can usually find a reasonable understanding.
Does Titus 1:2 suggest that God chooses to be truthful and not lie, or is this a statement about God’s character as being deceitless, a non-liar? The above lines of reasoning suggest that the Greek phrase ho apseudēs theos is a description of God’s character, God — namely the deceitless God.
Unfortunately, to make the thought more natural in English translations supply an action verb, but this is not the sense. Still, it is perhaps best, but not perfect, to translate Titus 1:2 as: “Our God is no liar” (The Voice).
Endnotes
R. C. Sproul, What Can We Know About God? (Orlando, FL: Reformation Trust, 2017), 8.
Martin Dibelius and Hans Conzelmann, Pastoral Epistles, trans. P. Buttolph and A. Yarbro (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972), 131.
H. G. Liddell, Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon, electronic ed. (1888; repr., Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, 1996), 142.
BDAG 161.
L&N 88.40.
Dibelius and Conzelmann, Pastoral Epistles, 131.
BDAG 161
George W. knight, III. Pastoral Epistles (1992; repr., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013), 284.
James A. Brooks and Carolton L. Winbery, Syntax of New Testament Greek (1979; repr., Lanham: University Press of America, 1988), 70.
Gordon D. Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus (1988; repr., Peabody: Hendrickson, 2000), 179.
Ralph P. Martin, “1, 2 Timothy, Titus,” in Harper’s Bible Commentary, ed. James L. Mays (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988), 1243.
Homer A. Kent, Jr., The Pastoral Epistles: Studies in 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus, rev. ed. (1986; repr., Winona Lake, IN: BMH Books, 2006), 210.
Sources
(BDAG) Bauer, Walter, et al. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd edition. Chicago: University of Chicago, 2000.
Brooks, J.A., and C.L. Winbery. Syntax of New Testament Greek. 1979. Reprint, Lanham: University Press of America, 1988.
Dibelius, M., and H. Conzelmann. Pastoral Epistles. Trans. P. Buttolph and A. Yarbro. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972.
Fee, Gordon D. 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus. 1988. Reprint, Peabody: Hendrickson, 2000.
Kent, H.A., Jr. The Pastoral Epistles: Studies in 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus. Revised ed. 1986. Reprint, Winona Lake, IN: BMH Books, 2006.
Knight, George W., III. Pastoral Epistles. 1992. Reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013.
(L&N) Louw, J.P., and E.A. Nida. A Greek-English Lexicon Based on Semantic Domains. 2d edition. New York: United Bible Societies, 1996.
Liddell, H.G. Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon. 1888. Reprint, Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, 1996.
Martin, Ralph P. “1, 2 Timothy, Titus” in Harper’s Bible Commentary, edited by James L. Mays. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988.
Sproul, R. C. What Can We Know About God? Orlando, FL: Reformation Trust, 2017.
[Chapter submission for the 84th Annual Freed-Hardeman University Lectureship (2020), Henderson, Tennessee. This is part of the “Anticipating the Future: My Story is His Story” Series. Our Place in His Story: Remembering the Past, Anticipating the Future (Link to book). Listen to the audio lecture as delivered clicking here.]
Everyone has a past. Every conversion to Christ has a past from which it starts and a future to which it clings. Early in Paul’s letter to the Thessalonians he wrote of their decisive change from paganism to the faith and hope that is found in Christ, noting, “how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come” (1 Thess 1:9–10). [All Scripture references are from the English Standard Version unless otherwise stated.] This is the basic grammar of the Christian life: a conversion to serve God awaiting future deliverance at the return of Jesus. Between these two bookends (the past and future) the Christian experiences grace which is greater than our all past associations.
The Past is Worthless
In his autobiographical moments, Paul affirmed that the grace he experienced as a Christian—and apostle—surpassed any value attached to his past Jewish heritage. For example, in Philippians 3, Paul weighs the value of his life outside of Christ against what he finds “in Christ.” His past and present reads much like a “pros” (present) and “cons” (past) list. His past was filled with Israelite hubris and Jewish accolades (3:5–6). Richard Peace well observes,
not only was he blessed by birth with impeccable religious credentials, but as the result of his own accomplishments he had risen to the pinnacle of first-century Jewish spirituality. (31).
Richard Peace, Conversion in the New Testament (1999)
On paper, he was truly a “Hebrew of Hebrews” and it showed. Paul had been a blameless Benjamite Pharisee who zealously persecuted the church. Yet, at the time, his “zeal for God” was “not according to knowledge” (Rom 10:2). On the other side of the ledger, the “gain” (kérdos) this activity afforded him —Jewish “street cred”—amounted to being “loss” (Phil 3:7, 8) and “rubbish”[1] (3:8). Real “gain” is found in Paul’s slogan, “to live is Christ, and to die is gain [kérdos]” (Phil 1:21). Why? Paul had attained a full and realized relationship with Jesus Christ (3:8–16) manifested in the Lord’s “grace” (1:2, 7; 4:23). This is what every Christian shares in, grace that is greater than one’s past associations.
1 Timothy 1:12–14
Lost in Speculation (1 Tim 1:3–7)
Another important autobiographical statement by Paul is found in 1 Timothy 1:12–14.[2] Contextually, it comes off the heals of his reminder to Timothy that he was charged to address the dangers of “certain ones” (tís) bringing into the church religious “speculations” (ekzétesis) which emerge from teaching other doctrine(s) (hetero + didaskaleín) and indulging in myths and genealogies (1:3–4). Paul’s stress for doctrinal purity is well established. In Galatians 1:6, for example, Paul is opposed to any desertion to a “different gospel” (héteron euangélion). In Ephesus, the “end game” of those teaching other doctrines was simply “the inquiry” into the theoretical which subverts the actual carrying out of the plan of God (oikonomía; Knight 75) empowered by faith. The economy of God’s plan is not empowered by theory but by a Christian whose love is saturated by their pure heart, good conscience, and sincere personal faith (1:5). A Christian, distracted by “overthinking,” untouched by the work of God in their life will never be able to truly carry out their call to share the gospel of Jesus (1:6–7).
Healthy Teaching Restrains Evil (1 Tim 1:8–11)
There is no sin in exploring the contours of the faith nor engaging in deep religious and theological conversations, but this must never hinder teaching the law of God with its concrete condemnation of sin in all of its forms. Paul mentions thirteen types of “lawless” ones (1:9–10) for whom the law properly applies (nomímōs, 1:8). Paul affirms it is the primary purpose of the law “to restrain evil doing” (Guthrie 74) and this is why those that teach other doctrine(s) (1:3) fail in their endeavor to be “teachers of the law” (nomodidáskaloi, 1:7). Their speculations only offer that which is “contrary” (antíkeimai), and different (héteros),[3] to what is “healthy teaching” as concretely found and expressed in the law (1:10). This is the source of the convicting component of the gospel message, for through it God convicts humanity of sin but he does not leave sinners in their judgment. He incorporates them into the economy of his plan. This may be restated as, “no matter who you are, no matter where you have been, no matter what you have done, there is a place for you in the kingdom of God” (Payes). This key principle is the foundation for Paul’s own autobiographical thanksgiving in the next verses (1:12–14).
Thankful for the Grace of Jesus (1 Tim 1:12–14)
Paul frequently uses the Greek word chárin (grace, thanks, gift, favor, etc.) in his letters (100 times). In fact, he opens and closes all of his letters with chárin. This segment of 1 Timothy likewise opens (1:12) and closes (1:14) with this word, but with two different emphases—gratitude and favor (MM 684). Paul’s gratitude to his Lord Christ Jesus recognizes not only the enabling power (endunamóō) he receives from the Lord, but also the confidence placed on Paul to serve in his ministry (diakonía). Participating in the economy of God’s saving plan gave the apostle the experience of an overflowing “grace” (chárin). Paul never forgot his past, grace does not delete the past. It is clear that Paul’s past as “a blasphemer, persecutor, and insolent opponent” served as a motivation for his gratitude and zeal (Petrillo 18). His example demonstrates that God’s grace and mercy provides the means to cross the bridge from condemnation (1:8–10) to arrive at the healing place which creates the pure heart, good conscience, and a sincere faith (1:5) within the “foremost” sinner (1:15).
Paul’s “unbelief” (apistía) was met with the Lord’s compassion (eleéō), his “sins” and lawless behavior was met with the embrace of “the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus” (1:14). When Paul was brought into the “in Christ” relationship mercy was shown to him, he did not have to earn it. In his case, however, his rebellion was in ignorance while zealous for God (cf. Rom 10:2); nevertheless, he was in sin, and he acknowledged that God initiated a relationship with him out of compassion. Luke records this divine extension of mercy and Paul’s response (Acts 9:1–19; 22:16). On paper, Paul should stand condemned, but God does the overflowing abundant thing by empowering him to be an example to every believer after him (1 Tim 1:16).
Grace Greater than the Past
If one is not careful there is no greater enemy than the past. The powerful functions of the brain to store and to recall memories, decisions, mistakes, sins, and to imprint on them feelings anew can leave a person in an emotionally dangerous depressive cycle. If ever there was a divine commentary to how the human conscience lives in agony face to face with the evil done in the body it is David and his penitential prayer in Psalm 51. It is felt in the imperatives of the first two verses: have mercy, blot out, wash me, cleanse me. David makes these petitions trusting in God’s “steadfast love” (chesed) and “abundant mercy” (rōb + rahamim). Grief over moral failure is real, it hurts, and it lingers; however, the Lord provides the healing presence of his Spirit to find “a clean heart” and a renewed “right spirit” (10–11). It will require working through grief and regret, and to take these weaknesses that will always be there, and allow God to supply the power of his overflowing grace to take such weaknesses and turn them into strengths (2 Cor 12:9–10). There are some Christians who will never let go, they will hold grudges, but God’s grace is greater than past moral failures and greater than the self-righteous critics.
The reason grace is so powerful is that God turns human expectations on their heads and forces his people to reorient themselves to accommodate how the grace of God is rolled out. The Scottish wordsmith theologian, William Barclay (1907–1978), wrote about “the essential grace” in his volume The Mind of Paul. There are a few points to appreciate. First, “grace always moves in the realm of winsomeness, of loveliness, of attractiveness, of beauty and of charm” (154). Second, “grace has always in it the idea of a gift which is completely free and entirely undeserved” (155). For Barclay, grace always has an esthetic value, it can be appreciated for its beauty and attractiveness, and it also can be exchanged without quid pro quo. Third, God’s grace is inexhaustible as well as “undeserved generosity” (161–62). Indeed, Barclay affirms:
Grace is not a thing of narrow limitations, it is not a thing measured out in painstakingly accurate quantities with just enough and no more, as an ingredient might be in a recipe for some concoction; in grace there is a certain infinity; a certain complete adequacy; a certain inexhaustibility and illimitableness. No demand that can ever be made on it can exhaust it or strain its capacity and its power. (Barclay 163)
William Barclay, The Mind of Paul (1958)
It enabled Paul to embrace and celebrate the Christian experience of grace in all of its surpassing capacity (2 Cor 9:8, 14; Rom 5:20; Eph 1:7, 2:7).
Grace empowers the child of God to move forward, it is not a crutch to revert back into lawlessness. There is no cheap grace with God. Grace is rich and deep, but it is not an excuse to continue in sin (Rom 6:1–2). The connection between immersion and grace is firmly established with the Christian’s identification with Jesus’ resurrection, for the risen Christian emerges to serve God in grace (6:3–14). The past is not ignored, but the legal metaphor[4] based on the Roman slave trade is employed to paint the transition in ownership explains how Christians went from servants of sin to become “servants of righteousness” and experiencing the grace of God (Rom 6:15–23). Grace enables the Christian to serve God unimpeded.
A Personal Aside
It is easy to get lost in the academic side of this study, but grace is not a sterile observable entity. Grace is an environment of generosity designed to rehabilitate those made in the image of God through the gospel (2 Cor 5:17). Over twenty years ago, I was on a street corner in the Mission District of San Francisco. I was a drug dealer and user. I abused alcohol. I was sexually immoral. I was in a gang. I was violent. I was a criminal. I contributed to the urban system of violence and fear. I was a sinner. But by the grace of God, I had the opportunity to read about Jesus in a Bible I found under my bed. The beauty of his grace was attractive. I desired it and wanted to share it with others. I traded in my old life for a life in Christ and was immersed for the forgiveness of my sins (Acts 2:38).
I never expected to be a preacher—I never expected to live past 18 years old. Today I am more than twice that age, and by the grace of God I preach the gospel and share it with my community in Bakersfield, CA. I’ve had some serious growing pains in the course of my Christian life. Some will only see me for my mistakes. Others have spurred me along because they too know that the grace of God is greater than our past associations and failures. Let us all ever be so minded.
Endnotes
The word skúbalon is translated variously as “dung” (KJV, NET, CSB), “rubbish” (ESV, NABRE, NASB95, NKJV, NRSV), “refuse” (ASV, RSV), or “garbage” (CEV, NIV2011). Some think this word is either a swear/crude word (i.e, the s-word) or the closest thing to it. It certainly is a word that may literally mean “dung” (Sir 27:4) so in this sense it is construed as a vulgar word (TDNT 7:446; Wallace); however, the available lexical data does not support its use as an invective curse word (Manning). According to Friedrich Lang’s research, skúbalon is found to be an apt religious and philosophical analog for human “corruptibility” and “worthlessness” (TDNT 7:445). This appears to be clearly Paul’s point as he intensifies from “loss” to skúbalon; as in, his past is “all worthless trash” (ERV). It would have provided some shock value but not because it was a curse word.
While some scholars argue that certain internal and contextual factors surrounding 1 Timothy—along with 2 Timothy and Titus—are not in keeping with the traditional view that Paul is its author (Dibelius and Conzelmann 1–5), they are however far from definitive (Knight 21–52) and do not make Pauline authorship impossible (Guthrie 58). The present study presupposes Pauline authorship for the thirteen letters traditionally associated to him.
The ASV reads, “if there be any other thing [héteros] contrary to the sound doctrine” (1:10), which more clearly keeps at the forefront Paul’s use of héteros than the rendering of the ESV, “whatever else [héteros].”
For further reading on the legal metaphor in Romans 6 see, Francis Lyall, “Legal Metaphors in the Epistles,” TynB 32 (1981):81–95.
Works Cited
Barclay, William. The Mind of Paul. 1958. Repr., New York: Harper & Row, 1975.
Dibelius, Martin, and Hans Conzelmann. The Pastoral Epistles. Translated by Philip Buttolph and Adela Yarbro. Herm. Edited by Helmut Koester, et al. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972.
Guthrie, Donald. The Pastoral Epistles: An Introduction and Commentary. 2d edition. TNTC. Vol. 14. Edited by Leon Morris. 1990. Repr., Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2009.
Knight, George W., III. The Pastoral Epistles. NIGTC. Edited by I. Howard Marshall and W. Ward Gasque. 1992. Repr., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013.
Lang, Friedrich. “skúbalon.” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Vol. 7. Edited by Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964.
Lyall, Francis. “Legal Metaphors in the Epistles.” TynB 32 (1981): 81–95.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
“ekklesia,” BDAG 303-04.
O’Brien, “Church,” 123.
O’Brien, “Church,” 124; Karl Ludwig Schmidt, “ekklesia,” TDNT 3:527; BDAG 303.
Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Pauline Theology: A Brief Sketch (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1967), 76.
O’Brien, “Church,” 124.
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).
Johnson and Penner, The Writings of the New Testament, 424.
Unless otherwise noted all translations are those of the author.
“episkopos,” L&N 35:43.
“hostis, hetis, hoti,” BDAG 729.
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
George W. Knight, III, The Pastoral Epistles (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1992; repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2013), 181-82.
Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 217-20.
Schmidt, “episkopos,” TDNT 3:507.
Blackwelder, Light from the Greek New Testament, 131; Charles B. Cousar, The Letters of Paul (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1996), 89-90, 163-80.
Cousar, Letters of Paul, 178, 202.
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).
Philip H. Towner, “Households and Household Codes,” DPL 417.
Towner, “Households and Household Codes,” 418.
Cousar, Letters of Paul, 202; Towner, “Households and Household Codes,” 418.
“oikonomos,” BDAG 698.
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.
Gerd Theissen, Fortress Introduction to the New Testament, trans. John Bowden (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2003), 136.
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.
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).
biblicalfaith.online 