1–2 Timothy, Titus

Brill Exegetical Commentary

Series

Editorial Board

Stanley E. Porter (McMaster Divinity College, Ontario, Canada)

David Mathewson (Denver Seminary, Colorado, USA)

volume 1

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/becs

1–2 Timothy, Titus

By

David W. Pao

leiden | boston
The Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available online at https://catalog.loc.gov
lc record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2023031780

Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/brill‑typeface.

issn 2589-7063
isbn 978-90-04-68153-8 (hardback)
isbn 978-90-04-68154-5 (e-book)

Copyright 2024 by David W. Pao. Published by Koninklijke Brill nv, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Koninklijke Brill nv incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Schöningh, Brill Fink, Brill mentis,
Brill Wageningen Academic, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Böhlau and V&R unipress.
Koninklijke Brill nv reserves the right to protect this publication against unauthorized use. Requests for
re-use and/or translations must be addressed to Koninklijke Brill nv via brill.com or copyright.com.

This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

Contents

Author’s Preface ix

Introduction 1
1 Unity of the Pastoral Epistles 1
2 Early Reception of the Pastoral Epistles 2
2.1 Text 2
2.2 Attestation and Canonicity 4
2.3 Acts of Paul and the pe 7
3 Authorship 8
3.1 Language 9
3.1.1 Vocabulary 9
3.1.2 Grammar and Style 12
3.1.3 Stylometric Analyses 14
3.1.4 Sociolinguistic and Register Analyses 16
3.1.4.1 Mode of Discourse 18
3.1.4.2 Tenor of Discourse 18
3.1.4.3 Field of Discourse 19
3.2 Ecclesiastical Structure and Early Catholicism 21
3.3 Theological Tendencies 22
3.3.1 Faith 23
3.3.2 God the Savior 23
3.3.3 Christ and His Manifestations 24
3.3.4 Holy Spirit and Its Power 24
3.3.5 Godliness and Good Works 25
3.3.6 Eschatology and the Apocalyptic Framework 26
3.3.7 Law and Jewish Traditions 26
3.3.8 Paul and His Protégé 27
3.4 Other “Contributors” 28
3.4.1 Fragmentary Hypothesis 28
3.4.2 Amanuensis Hypothesis 29
3.4.3 Transcriber, Editor, Collaborator, and Co-
author 32
3.4.4 Pseudonymity Hypothesis 33
4 Historical Setting 35
4.1 Setting of the Author 35
4.1.1 Within Acts 35
4.1.2 After Acts 36
4.2 Setting of the Recipients 38
vi contents

5 Genre 39
6 Purpose 41
6.1 False Teachers and Their Teachings 43
6.2 Accommodation and Subversion 46
7 Outline 49

Introduction Bibliography 52
General Bibliography 64
Grammatical Analysis Short Titles 67
1 Timothy 69
i Opening Salutation 1:1–2 69
ii Danger of the False Teachers 1:3–20 76
A Warning against the False Teachers 1:3–7 76
B Clarifying the True Purpose of the Law 1:8–11 88
C Paul as an Example of a Saved Sinner 1:12–17 102
D Charge to Timothy and His Mission 1:18–20 120
iii Worship of God the Savior of All 2:1–15 129
A Submission of All in the Presence of God 2:1–7 129
B Men and Women Believers in the Presence of God 2:8–15 154
iv Household of God as the Bulwark of the Truth 3:1–16 194
A Overseers in the Household of God 3:1–7 194
B Deacons in the Household of God 3:8–13 217
C Christ’s Authority in the Household of God 3:14–16 231
v False Teachers and Their Deception 4:1–16 251
A Dualistic Framework of the False Teachings 4:1–5 251
B Responsibility of Timothy in Combatting These False Teachings
4:6–10 264
C Responsibility of Timothy in Providing a Positive Example
4:11–16 278
vi Needs of Different Groups in the Church 5:1–6:2a 294
A The Old and the Young 5:1–2 294
B Widows 5:3–16 300
C Elders 5:17–25 328
D Slaves 6:1–2a 349
vii False teachers and Their Use of Wealth 6:2b–19 358
A False Teachers and Their View on Wealth and Benefaction
6:2b–10 358
B God and Christ as True Benefactors 6:11–16 378
C General Teachings on Wealth and Benefaction 6:17–19 394
viii Final Words to Timothy 6:20–21 404
contents vii

Titus 411
i Opening Salutation 1:1–4 411
ii In Response to the False Teachers 1:5–16 421
A Appointment of Elders 1:5–9 421
B Rebuke of the False Teachers 1:10–16 432
iii Responsibilities of Household Members 2:1–15 451
A Directives to Various Household Members 2:1–10 451
B Basis of These Directives 2:11–15 472
iv Responsibilities of Believers to the Wider Society 3:1–11 487
A Be Ready for Good Work 3:1–8 487
B Avoid Divisiveness 3:9–11 506
v Final Words to Titus 3:12–15 513

2 Timothy 524
i Opening Salutation 1:1–2 524
ii Thanksgiving 1:3–5 528
iii Call to Timothy to Be Faithful 1:6–18 536
A To Remember, Hold Fast, and Guard What He Had Received
1:6–14 536
B Negative and Positive Examples 1:15–18 559
iv Call to Timothy to Be Committed 2:1–26 569
A To Share in Suffering 2:1–13 569
B To Be an Example in Response to the False Teachers 2:14–26 597
v Living in the Last Days 3:1–4:8 626
A False Teachers as Eschatological Enemies Opposing the Truth
3:1–9 626
B Godly Living Grounded in the Truth 3:10–17 647
C Urgency of Proclamation in view of the Eschatological Judgment
4:1–8 673
vi Human Desertion and Divine Presence 4:9–18 695
vii Final Word to Timothy 4:19–22 719

Index of Modern Authors 731

Index of Ancient Sources 743
Index of Subjects 823
Author’s Preface

Those expecting an apologia here for burdening modern readers with yet
another commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (pe) will be disappointed. Pre-
vious works have not exhausted either the meaning or the nuances of the pe,
nor will this one. While the textual data argue against limiting the pe to either
an abstract manual of ecclesiastic order or a narrow contextual response to the
false teachings of the time, a consensus appears to have developed in certain
circles where the author is considered to be a follower of Paul who reinvents
Christianity into a faith that accommodates itself to the wider mainstream
society. A reexamination of linguistic and conceptual patterns often seen as
reflecting such an accommodating stance may, however, point in a different
direction. Perhaps the subversive voice of the Pauline gospel can be heard
afresh with the renewed appreciation of not only the rhetorical strategies of
the author but also the theological significance of such strategies. And so the
journey continues. It is my prayer that with this and subsequent commentaries,
the complexity and richness of the pe will be further appreciated by those who
may find this gospel equally relevant and urgent in the contexts they find them-
selves.
I am grateful to Stan Porter, the general editor of this Brill Exegetical Com-
mentary Series, for his invitation to contribute to this important series. I am also
grateful to the Board of Regents of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School for the
sabbaticals granted for the research and writing of this commentary. A number
of my research assistants throughout these past years have contributed at the
various stages in the writing of this commentary: Kevin Collier, Sam Freney, Jen-
nifer Guo, Deze He, Chi-ying Wang, Cindy Ou, Helen Jiao, Lanie Walkup, Pan-
cha Yahya, Saeyoung Park, Kazusa Okaya, and Jeffrey Stone. Thanks to Chuck
Bumgardner and Fook-kong Wong, who have provided invaluable bibliographic
help. Special thanks to my good friend of more than thirty years, David Warren,
for providing numerous helpful comments on the manuscript. Thanks also to
David Mathewson, who has worked through the entire draft in preparation for
publication.
My wife Chrystal, a geneticist by training, has tolerated endless hours of my
monologue on various aspects of the Greek text of the pe. Without her prayerful
support and joyous companionship, the completion of this project (a relief to
her as well as to me) would not have been possible. When I began this project,
our daughters, Charis and Serena, were still in middle school. Now that they are
young adults living in a century that is in many ways no less challenging than
the first, I pray that the powerful message embedded in the pe will continue
x author’s preface

to speak to their generation as they seek to stand firm in the subversive gospel
that challenges all competing ideologies.
This year marks the twenty-fifth anniversary of my teaching ministry at Trin-
ity Evangelical Divinity School. The many graduates who are now heralds of the
Word (cf. 2Tim 4:2) continue to testify to the power of this Word throughout
the world. It is to these faithful followers of Christ that I dedicate this volume.
Soli Deo gloria.

David W. Pao
Introduction

The reading of any text necessarily takes place within a framework built upon
assumptions that are, in turn, formulated by prior readings of the text. This
introduction focuses narrowly on these assumptions, and thus it is “introduc-
tory” in the formal sense of the term, providing a necessary explanation of the
reading strategy adopted in the commentary proper. A secondary purpose is
to provide a survey of scholarship on these introductory issues, and, as such, a
context in which this present commentary is to be read.

1 Unity of the Pastoral Epistles

The identification of Paul’s letters to Timothy and Titus as “the Pastoral Epis-
tles” can be traced back to a lecture delivered in 1726 (Anton 1753), although
these letters (together with Philemon) have long been understood as uniquely
focused on eclesiastice descepline (Mur. Frag. 62–63; cf. Tertullian, Marc. 5.21).
The perceived unity of these letters is further reinforced by their similarities in
language (Eichhorn 1812: 315–328) and theological emphases (Holtzmann 1880:
159–190), especially as they differ from the earlier Paulines (cf. Fuchs 2003).
Recent discussion points further to the perceived uniformity in the social loca-
tion of these letters, which is especially reflected in gender differentiation
(Huizenga 2013: 240–244) and the portrayal of Pauline authority with respect
to his protégé (Hutson 1997: 37–40).
Some have viewed these letters as completing the earlier Pauline collection
(Trummer 1981: 122–145), while others further see Titus as an introductory let-
ter (Quinn 1978: 72) and 2Timothy as the “last word” (Wolter 1988: 240) of the
apostle. As a corpus, a double pseudonymity of these letters is often assumed
with fictive author(s) and recipients.
Those who affirm the authenticity of these letters often read them as dis-
tinct literary units rather than as parts of a unified corpus (Towner, 88–89).
Some who consider them pseudepigraphical also recognize their diversity to
the extent that they even posit three different authors for these three letters
(Richards 2002: 238–239). Arguments against the unity of these letters include
differences in genre (with the juxtaposition of paraenetic and successive con-
cerns; Johnson 2008: 23), implied Sitz im leben (from external challenges to the
community to internal diachronic concerns surrounding the finality of Paul’s
mission; Fuchs 2003: 31), theological emphases (in Christology, soteriology, por-
trayals of false teachers and the apostle Paul; Engelmann 2012: 118–535), uses of

© David W. Pao, 2024 | doi:10.1163/9789004681545_002

2 introduction

vocabulary (e.g., varying uses of εὐσέβεια, δεσπότης, ἀγαπ- and φιλ-word groups;
Engelmann 2012: 218–219; Fuchs 2006: 15–33), portrayals of Paul (with Paul’s
authority more explicitly articulated in 2Timothy; Burnet 2000: 77–91) and the
addressees (with varying ethnic identities and roles within the ecclesial struc-
ture of power; Caulley 1987: 550–564), and literary structures (even with similar
concerns with ecclesial order in 1Timothy and Titus; Fuchs 2006: 45–82). More-
over, there is no evidence that the pe circulated as an independent corpus (with
only Titus found in extant papyri [𝔓32, 61]), and the degree of resemblance of
these letters with the earlier Paulines also differs, with 1 Timothy but not Titus
resembling 1Corinthians (Johnson, 82), and 2Timothy alone recalling the tone
and pattern of Philippians (Aageson 2008: 73–78).
These three letters should indeed be read as distinct literary entities, but
there are sufficient connections among them that justify considering them as a
group of three individual letters. These include distinct expressions (e.g., πιστὸς
ὁ λόγος), distinct rhetorical strategies (e.g., the use of personal paradigms), their
grouping together in early uncials (‫ א‬A C Dp), and the difficulties in situating
their embedded itineraries within the chronology of Acts. As will be argued
below, it is best to consider these letters as written by Paul himself towards
the final period of his life. That they belong to the work of the same author
but during different historical, geographical, and ecclesial contexts may explain
both their resemblance with each other as well as their distinctiveness as com-
pared to Paul’s earlier writings. Though a term with its own convoluted history,
“the Pastoral Epistles” remains a useful one in that these letters are distinctly
and explicitly addressed to ecclesial leaders concerning ecclesiastical matters.
Moreover, if the term “pastoral” is understood broadly to include the devel-
opment of a proper relationship between teacher and student as well as the
cultivation of the student’s inner character as within ancient philosophical
schools (Winter 2013: 249–250; see also Yarbrough, 1–11, who argues for “soul
care” as the center of pastoral concerns), and in this case “for the service of the
gospel” (Gourgues, 43), then the “Pastoral Epistles” (pe) remains an appropriate
label for all three letters.

2 Early Reception of the Pastoral Epistles

2.1 Text
Only two papyri contain parts of the pe, both limited to Titus. A fragment of the
second (or early third) century 𝔓32 contains Titus 1:11–15 on the recto and 2:3–8
on the verso. From the placement of the text within the two sides of the frag-
ment, it seems likely that this fragment belongs to a “multi-text codex” which
introduction 3

may include other Pauline letters (Gathergood 2013: 594). If so, this allows for
the possibility of the grouping of (parts of) the pe within a larger Pauline col-
lection. That it testifies to an independently circulating corpus of the pe is,
however, unlikely since the physical evidence of this text within the fragment
suggests the possibility of a text following Titus, likely Philemon.
Another papyrus, 𝔓61, consisting of eight fragments from the eighth century,
contains Titus 3:1–5, 8–11, 14–15 with parts of Romans, 1 Corinthians, Philippi-
ans, 1Thessalonians, and Philemon. Though relatively late, the reading con-
tained in this papyrus mostly aligns with the early Alexandrian uncials (‫[ א‬01]
A [02] C [04]; see, especially, the variants in Titus 3:3, 8, 10, 15).
Claims have been made for the presence of papyrus fragments of 1 Tim 3:16–
4:1 in the Qumran documents (7Q4; O’Callaghan 1972: 372–367); however, this
identification cannot be made with certainty because of the size and legibil-
ity of these fragments and the need to posit variant readings within them (cf.
Leaney 1976: 292–300).
The pe are notably absent in 𝔓46, which contains 86 leaves, beginning with
Rom 5:17 and ending with 1Thess 5:28, with likely seven leaves missing at
the beginning and the end. The initial conclusion reached by editors when
the text was published was that the remaining seven leaves likely contained
2 Thessalonians with the possibility of blank pages or Philemon, but such a
space “is not enough for the Pastoral Epistles” (cf. Kenyon 1936: x). This con-
clusion is challenged by Jeremy Duff (1998: 578–590), who argues for the com-
pression of writing towards the end of the papyrus with the likely intent of the
scribe to include the pe. This, in turn, has been challenged by David Parker
(2008: 253–254) and Edgar Ebojo (2014: 212–228) on the grounds of the scribal
habit reflected in the extant leaves. A final conclusion has yet to be reached
regarding the missing leaves and the possibility of supplemental folios that
were attached to this papyrus.
Among the uncials, the pe are notably absent from B (03),1 but parts or all
of the pe can be found in more than 25 uncials, which include notable Alexan-
drian (‫[ א‬01] A [02] C [04]) Western (D [06abs] F [010] G [012]), and Byzan-
tine (K [018] L [020])2 witnesses (see Textual Analysis for the validity of the
“thoroughgoing eclecticism” that downplays the relative significance of textual
families in the evaluation of the variants of pe).

1 Codex Vaticanus (B [03]) is, however, a defective manuscript with a missing section; it lacks
the pe as well as Philemon.
2 These labels for textual families are primarily heuristic devices for grouping manuscripts
that share similar literary tendencies and characteristics. That they correspond to particular
regions and their history is not assumed.
4 introduction

Among the minuscules that contain at least a part of the pe is the notable
tenth-century 1739, whose Pauline texts are considered especially reliable de-
spite the age of the manuscript (Parker 2008: 262). This minuscule may have
been related to the important 𝔓46 and B (03) (Zuntz 1946: 78–84), which is par-
ticularly important in the present case since the pe are missing in both. As in
the case of the other Pauline letters, the readings of the pe in this minuscule
are often aligned with the early Alexandrian witnesses.
Several general observations on the textual variants contained in these let-
ters can be made. First, ‫[ א‬01] is one of the most reliable witnesses for the
pe, though it contains a series of unintentional omissions (1 Tim 2:6 [τό]; 3:8
[σεμνούς]; 4:8 [πρός]; Titus 1:13 [ἐν] cf. Jongkind 2007: 317–318). Second, the influ-
ence of the early Paulines can be felt in textual traditions via cognate parallels
(e.g., 1Tim 1:12 [ἐνδυναμοῦντί, Phil 4:13]; 1:17 [σοφῷ, Rom 16:27]; 5:18 [κημώσεις,
1 Cor 9:9]; Lock, xxxv). Third, the influence of the apocryphal Acts of Paul in
the textual tradition of 2Timothy can also be felt with additional material
inserted into the eleventh-century minuscules (see Textual Analysis on 2 Tim
3:11; 4:19).

2.2 Attestation and Canonicity

Evidence of the knowledge of the pe can be traced back to the beginning
of the second century. Formal influence can possibly be identified already in
Ignatius’s personal letter to Polycarp, which may also reflect the teachings of
1 Tim 6:7 in his exhortations concerning the widows (Ignatius, Pol. 4; Merz 2004:
140–194). Parallels to the Epistle of Barnabas have also been proposed (Barn. 5.6
[2Tim 1:10; 3:16]; Barn. 1.4, 6 [Titus 1:2; 3:7]; Barn. 7.2 [2 Tim 4:1]; Barn. 1.3 [Titus
3:6]; Spicq 1.164–165), but the most explicit and clear uses of the pe among
the Apostolic Fathers is Polycarp. Not only are passages from 1 and 2 Timothy
evoked, but they are also indirectly attributed to Paul himself. Kenneth Berding
has demonstrated that clusters of quotations from Paul follow the three explicit
mentions of the name “Paul,” and within all three, one finds the use of the let-
ters to Timothy (Polycarp, Phil. 3.2 [1Tim 6:7, 10 within the cluster in 3.2–4.1];
9.1 [2Tim 4:10 within the cluster in 9.1–10.11]; 11.2 [2 Tim 2:25 within the cluster
in 11.2–12.1]) with possible allusions to Titus as well (1999: 349–360). Dating this
work to ad 115, one can assume that the pe are widely circulated by the end of
the first century.
In the mid-second century, verbal dependence on the pe in the form of par-
allel conglomeration of terms can be found in Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho
(7.3; 35.2 [1Tim 4:1]; 47.6 [Titus 3:4]; 125.2 [Titus 1:7]; Looks 1999: 252–257), tes-
tifying to the continued use and influence of the pe. In light of these uses,
their omission in Marcion’s list of Pauline letters is notable. For Tertullian, Mar-
introduction 5

cion “has rejected” (recusaverit) these volumes (Marc. 5.21), which appears to
assume that Marcion was aware of them, though no reasons for their rejection
were offered. Those who question Tertullian’s judgment suggest that Marcion
was unaware of them, and that the pe may have been composed against Mar-
cion (Hoffmann 1984: 281–305). The use of the pe in Polycarp and others argue
against this late dating.
In the second half of the second century, several authors may provide evi-
dence for the inclusion of the pe formally in the Pauline canon (Gamble 2009:
337). Among them, Athenagoras concludes his defense of the Christian life by
expressing the desire to “live a peaceful and quiet life” (ἤρεμον καὶ ἡσύχιον βίον
διάγοιμεν, Leg. 37.3 [1Tim 2:2b]) within the context of an address “to the emper-
ors/rulers” (αὐτοκράτορσιν, Leg. Prologue [cf. ὑπὲρ βασιλέων καὶ πάντων τῶν ἐν
ὑπεροχῇ ὄντων, 1Tim 2:2a]).
A more prominent use of the pe can be found in Irenaeus’s Adversus haere-
ses. The allusion to 1Tim 6:20 (ἀντιθέσεις τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως) in the origi-
nal title of this work (Ἔλεγχος καὶ ἀνατροπὴ τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως, cf. Euse-
bius, Hist. eccl. 5.7.1) as well as an explicit quotation of 1 Tim 1:4 in the prologue
of its first book points to the “programmatic, intertextual relationship between
Adversus haereses and the Pastoral Epistles” (White 2011: 128), with Paul being
“the Apostle” that “he tries to imitate” (Warren 2001: 315). The content that fol-
lows contains five additional explicit citations introduced by a formula that
identifies the apostle Paul as the author (1.16.3 [Titus 3:10–11]; 2.14.7 [1 Tim
6:20]; 3.3.3 [2Tim 4:21]; 3.3.4 [Titus 3:10–11]; 3.14.1 [2 Tim 4:9–11]) and more than
twenty probable allusions throughout the work (White 2011: 131–132). Irenaeus’s
use of the pe shows that the influence of these letters in the West is firmly estab-
lished by the second half of the century.
More difficult is the relevance of the Canon Muratori. Recent challenges to
the traditional late second-century dating begin with Albert Sundberg (1973:
1–41) and culminate in the extensive treatment by Geoffrey Hahneman (1992),
who argues for a fourth-century dating, but many remain unconvinced by these
challenges (cf. Schnabel 2014: 246–253). More recently, even its authenticity
has been questioned, thus pushing the possible date of this fragment to as
late as “the eighth or ninth century when the codex in which it appears was
copied” (Rothschild 2018: 82). The debate concerning the value of this fragment
as a window for second-century Christianity will likely continue (Guignard
2019:73–90). If, however, an early (or earliest) dating is accepted, this fragment
would testify to the inclusion of the pe within the Pauline collection by the end
of the second century, unlike “others that cannot be received in the catholic
church” (alia plu ra quae in catholicam eclesiam recepi non potest, Mur. Frag.
65–67).
6 introduction

By the late second and early third centuries, the pe are firmly located within
the Pauline collection. When quoting from Titus 2:11–13, Clement of Alexandria
identifies these words as “according to the inspired apostle of the Lord” (κατὰ
γὰρ τὸν θεσπέσιον ἐκεῖνον τοῦ κυρίου ἀπόστολον, Protr. 1.7.2). Before his citation
from 2Tim 3:15, Clement also identifies such teachings of Paul as “truly divine”
(θείαν ὄντως, Protr. 9.87.1). Commenting on 1Tim 6:20–21, Clement suggests that
the heretics were convicted by Paul and, therefore, rejected his two letters to
Timothy (Strom. 2.11.52). For Tertullian, the pe become an important resource
in his response to the heretics, even more so than in his discussion of ecclesi-
astical order (Aageson 2008: 174). Against Marcion, he considers the pe among
the Pauline letters (Marc. 5.21), and against other heretics, he argues that pas-
sages in 1 and 2Timothy in particular need to be read in their proper contexts
(Praescr. 25; Frisius 2011: 73–74).
By the end of the fourth century, one finds systematic commentaries on the
pe by Ephrem Syrus (in Syriac) and Theodore of Mopsuestia, and in the form of
homilies by John Chrysostom, along with the commentary on Titus by Jerome,
possibly drawing from a commentary on the same book written earlier by Ori-
gen (cf. Heine 2000: 118). The existence of these commentaries further testifies
to the authoritative status of these texts that demands reappropriation for a
new generation of readers.
The first reference to a collection of Pauline writings as “Scriptures” (τὰς
… γραφὰς) appears already in the nt (2Pet 3:16), and such an early date may
argue for the role of nt personalities in the formation of this “collection.” These
individuals may begin with Paul (Trobisch 1994: 55–96) and/or his immediate
circle of coworkers, which may include Luke and Timothy (Porter 2004: 125),
both of whom are intimately involved in the writing and reception of the pe
(see below). The earliest “list” of Pauline writings can be found in Marcion that
excludes the pe, though the reasons remain unclear. Because of the polemical
intent of Tertullian’s comment on Marcion’s exclusion of the pe and the lack of
other corroborating evidence, it is difficult to determine the value of Marcion’s
list in the reconstruction of the development of the Pauline canon during the
early second century.
It is clear that there is no evidence of the independent circulation of the pe
as a “corpus,” a separate collection of questionable authenticity (Trummer 1981:
133). Even when the authority of the pe is doubted, it is not because of issues of
authorship but of a reaction by those who considered themselves criticized by
these letters (cf. Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 2.11.5–6), or of their perceived
limited value as letters addressed to individuals (cf. Mur. Frag. 62–63; Gamble
2009: 337). As we have demonstrated, by the third century the pe are firmly
included in the Pauline collection of letters. Whether such a recognition of the
introduction 7

“canonical status” of the pe signals a “diminution” of the nt to a form of “book

religion” that reflects an era of “early Catholicism” (Barton 1997: 67–68) is a
topic that will be addressed below as we examine whether the pe betray the
spirit of the early Paulines.

2.3 Acts of Paul and the pe

A different kind of relationship with the pe may be attested in the Acts of
Paul. Both bodies of works are concerned with the authority and legacy of Paul
among his successors, and both contain a similar list of geographical (2 Tim
3:11) and personal (2Tim 1:15; 2:17; 4:10, 21) references. Though gender issues lie
at the center of both, they appear to reflect divergent socio-political agendas,
with the pe insisting on a conservative patriarchal model that limits the role
of women to domestic constraints and the Acts of Paul promoting a more egal-
itarian model that promotes the freedom of celibate women. The divergence
of the two is best illustrated in Paul’s commands to and concerning women in
1 Tim 2:12 (“I do not permit a woman to teach”) and Acts of Paul 4.16 (“Go and
teach the word of God”). Because of the relative dating of the two works, many
have assumed that the Acts of Paul borrows from and reacts against the pe (cf.
Rohde 1968: 303–310). In 1983, the work of Dennis MacDonald (17–77) provided
a strong challenge to this consensus where he argues that it is the pe that pro-
vide a response to the oral legends behind the Acts of Paul; in the end, the pe
won and “the modern church has amnesias” of the competing legacy of Paul
behind the Acts of Paul (97). To MacDonald, the strongest argument for this
reading is its explanatory power for both the similarities and the differences
between the two works.
Despite the popularity of MacDonald’s thesis (cf. Pervo 1994: 47), several
weaknesses remain. First, the fact that the pe are to be dated at least half a
century before the Acts of Paul remains a factor that cannot be ignored, even
with the appeal to the oral traditions behind the Acts of Paul. Second, the diver-
sity of early Christianity in the second century and our limited knowledge of
this period of time caution against an argument for literary dependence that
defies the relative dates of the written works (cf. McGinn 1994: 803–804). Third,
details in the two texts argue for a literary dependence of the Acts of Paul on
the pe and not the other way around. In 2Tim 4:17, for example, Paul’s use of
the lion’s mouth imagery that is drawn from Ps 21:22 (22:21) is transformed into
an actual encounter with a lion in the Acts of Paul 9 (Bauckham 1993: 125–126).
Fourth, there are discrepancies between the positions of the false teachers tar-
geted in the pe and those defended by the Acts of Paul, thus making a strict
linear direction from the pe unlikely (Häfner 2001: 69). Finally, the differences
between the treatments of women in these two works may have been exagger-
8 introduction

ated. The suppression of women does not represent the agenda of the author
(see 1Tim 2:9–15), and a consensus is emerging that the Acts of Paul does not
betray an egalitarian agenda as an earlier generation of scholars had assumed
since Thecla is an ambiguous figure whose goal is not to challenge conventional
cultural norms (cf. Hylen 2015: 89–90).
Instead of prioritizing the (traditions behind) Acts of Paul, the dependence
of the apocryphal work on the pe (especially 2Tim and possibly Titus) provides
a better reading of both, with the likelihood that the author seeks to extend
his story beyond the canonical Acts (Bauckham 1993: 107–139). Even if direct
literary dependence between the two cannot be established, a similar set of
issues dealt with in the Acts of Paul “reappear … in dramatically different forms
reflecting different social circumstances” (Aageson 2005: 245), and these “cir-
cumstances” clearly postdate the context of the pe. In a different way, the Acts
of Paul may still be considered an indirect witness to the reception of the pe in
the second century.

3 Authorship

Consistent with the witnesses of the church fathers are the manuscript tradi-
tions that affirm the Pauline authorship of the pe. In the subscriptions that
include the name of the author, Paul is the only one mentioned as the author
of at least one of these letters (cf. H 1739c 𝔐). Equally important is the abso-
lute absence of any doubt of the author’s self-identification at the beginning of
these letters (Παῦλος, 1Tim 1:1; 2Tim 1:1; Titus 1:1) in the manuscript traditions
as is the case in the church fathers.
This consensus was broken at the end of the 18th century by the British
scholar Edward Evanson, who questioned the authenticity of a number of nt
books and considered Titus pseudonymous on the basis of the author’s self-
identification (1:1; 3:3), the use of the Cretan “prophet” (1:12), and characteri-
zation of the church of Crete as well as the heresy plaguing it (Evanson 1792:
267–269; cf. van Nes 2016: 319). Soon after in Germany, Johann Schmidt (1804:
263–265) and Friedrich Schleiermacher (1807: 3–239) turned their attention
to 1Timothy and argued against its authenticity on historical and linguistic
grounds. This German tradition culminated in the work of Heinrich Holtzmann
(1880: 253–282), who considered the pe as a corpus written in the mid-second
century. Holtzmann’s study set the agenda for the subsequent discussion as
he deals with issues of historical setting (15–53), linguistic peculiarities (84–
118), theology (159–190), and ecclesiastical structure (190–252), as well as the
distinct portrayal of Paul (53–64), Timothy and Titus (65–83), and the false
introduction 9

teachers (126–158). Percy Harrison extended the linguistic argument, in partic-

ular, through a detailed examination of grammar, style, and vocabulary, stating
that the pe “cannot be the work of the Apostle [Paul]” (5) though it does contain
a series of genuine Pauline notes (115–126).

3.1 Language
Our discussion will begin with the linguistic arguments, especially in light of
the influence of Harrison’s study in the English-speaking world. Our emphasis
lies in socio-linguistic considerations (3.1.4) that will include the possibility of
“subversion” as a “register” and pave the way for our discussion on “Accommo-
dation and Subversion” (6.2) at the end of our Introduction.
Though there are those who hold to the authenticity of one or two letters
within the pe (see below), the majority who question any of the pe reject them
all. This present discussion will therefore focus on the pe as a whole.

3.1.1 Vocabulary
Harrison begins with the distinct vocabulary of the pe (1921: 20–86). First, the
presence of 175 nt hapax legomena in the pe is striking, with 1 Timothy contain-
ing 15.2 per page, 2Timothy containing 12.9, and Titus containing 16.1, compared
to 3–6 per page in the rest of the Pauline letters. Moreover, 131 words in the pe
are shared with the rest of the nt apart from the Pauline writings. Of the 175
nt hapax, 61 occur in the Apostolic Fathers, two to seven times higher per page
than the other Pauline letters.
Second, the unPauline use of Pauline words in the pe also argues for the dis-
tinctness of the pe. Of the 50 distinctly Pauline words (that appear nowhere
else in the nt), only 7 occur in more than one of the pe. Within this common
vocabulary of Paul and the pe, many of them “are used in a radically differ-
ent way” in the pe (1921: 27); these include γράμμα (for the sacred Scripture in
2 Tim 3:15, but always in a negative sense in the earlier Paulines), ἐπαγγέλλομαι
(for human profession in 1Tim 2:10; 6:21, but in reference to divine promise in
the earlier Paulines), κοινός (in a positive sense for common faith in Titus 1:5,
but a negative one for the unclean in Rom 14:24), and οἶκος (as church in 1 Tim
3:15, the dwelling of God, but for private houses in the earlier Paulines).
Third, the absence of certain Pauline words in the pe is also noteworthy.
Harrison pointed to more than 80 words that appear in at least five earlier
Paulines but are missing entirely in the pe. Beyond individual words, the ἐνεργ-
word group that appears 28 times in all 10 of the earlier Paulines points to “a
profound modification of the whole mental and spiritual outlook” for which
several years of aging fails to explain (1921: 34). Added to these are almost half
of the “particles” (a category that includes particles, enclitics, prepositions, pro-
10 introduction

nouns … etc.), which appear in the early Paulines, that are missing in the pe;
such an absence points to a deviation from “Paul’s habitual modes of thought
and expression” (1921: 35).
The weight of such differences cannot be dismissed. Whether the shift in
authorial identity accounts for these differences remains unclear, however. On
the issue of the hapax, several observations can be made. First, the method-
ological problem with counting hapax per page rather than per text has long
been noted. In a direct response to Harrison, Wilhelm Michaelis (1929: 73)
argues that the comparison lies in the ratio of the number of hapax over
the total number of words within a text. If the individual letters of the pe
are compared to Romans 261:993 (0.263), for example, the numbers are com-
parable: 2Tim 114:413 (0.276), Titus 81:293 (0.276), 1 Tim 173:529 (0.327). Com-
pared to Colossians 58:409 (0.142), the pe fall much closer to Romans. Simi-
larly, a per-text comparison also provides a different picture for the richness
of vocabulary of individual works (1929: 75). If compared to Romans, which
is much longer (993 words:26 pages=38.2), the vocabulary of the pe is indeed
much richer (1Tim 529:6.33=83.5; 2Tim 413:4.66=88.3; Titus 293:2.66=109.9), but
these numbers are comparable to the shorter Paulines (Phil 429:6=71.5; 2 Thess
243:3=81, Phlm 129:1.25=103.2). Subsequent studies have improved on method-
ology, though some that confirm Harrison’s findings consider the pe as a whole,
which provides a different result than when examining the individual letters
within the pe (cf. Morgenthaler 1958: 67–157).
More recent studies provide further nuances to the accepted conclusions of
the previous generation. Jermo van Nes (2017: 149–153), for example, argues that
a number of hapax in the pe have been formed by the addition of a preposi-
tion, a trend that exists in the earlier Paulines. If such hapax and proper nouns
are removed, then the hapax contained in the individual letters of the pe will
be within the trajectory of the early Paulines (for other compound words, see
bdf §114; van Nes 2017: 52–54). Others have attributed a significant number
of hapax to specific responses to the false teachings embedded in these letters
(Mounce, civ–cvii; see 3.1.4 below; for further consideration of the hapax within
stylometric analyses, also see 3.1.3 below).
As for the affinity with the vocabulary of the Apostolic Fathers, it should also
be noted that almost all of the nt hapax found in the pe have been used in the
first half of the first century, and almost the entire vocabulary can be found
in Philo (cf. Hitchcock 1940: 113–135). Moreover, the same conclusion can be
reached in the case of 1Corinthians, where its vocabulary is consistent with that
of the Apostolic Fathers (Turner, Style, 102–103). Guthrie (1956: 12) further notes
that 78 of the hapax in the pe occur in the lxx, “18 more than in the Apostolic
Fathers.”
introduction 11

For the unPauline use of Pauline words, the data presented by Harrison (and
others) is also misleading. The presence of these terms has often been consid-
ered to be marks of interpolated or questionable elements within a letter that is
otherwise considered authentic (e.g., εὐαγγέλιον in 1 Cor 15:3–5 [Strecker, ednt
2:70–74]; μιμηταὶ … τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν τοῦ θεοῦ in 1Thess 2:14 [Richard 2007: 119];
σῶμα in 1Cor 15:35–41 [Bultmann 1951: 192]). Three questionable assumptions
lie behind these claims. First, a few terms that Paul uses (e.g., κοινός, ἐπαγγέλλο-
μαι) are often assumed to be “technical” terms that carry a narrow, specific, and
stable set of meanings determined by the common knowledge shared within
a particular community (cf. Justeson and Katz 1995: 10l). Writing to emerging
communities that are struggling with the implications of the strikingly new
gospel, this assumption remains unlikely.
Second, the reverse is also true: Words that are used in a commonly under-
stood sense may carry a special nuance when Paul is interacting with a particu-
lar conceptual framework. The use of οἶκος in 1Tim 3:15 may differ from the early
Paulines when Paul is interacting with competing structures of power that are
often articulated in household language in Greco-Roman contexts.
Third, in determining which is Pauline, a prior Pauline canon has to be estab-
lished, and such a canon is often formed by the two cardinal letters, Romans
and Galatians, especially among “Protestant critics” (Johnson, 56). To judge
other letters written in temporal and socio-historical contexts that differ from
these cardinal letters is problematic (for other terms, see 3.3.3 below).
Within the pe, one may also find a non-pe use of pe terms when the individ-
ual letters are allowed to be read as individual entities. Such motivsemantische
variations (cf. σως-, ἐπιφαν-, οἰκ-, πρεσβυτερ-, εὐσεβ-, μυθ-, γενεαλογ-, παραθη-
word groups, Engelmann 2012: 118–597) as well as the preference of different
word groups (ἀγαπ- and φιλ-word groups, Fuchs 2006: 15–33) among these let-
ters point to the flexibility of ancient authors.
The three assumptions behind the argument from the unPauline use of
Pauline words also apply to the argument concerning the absence of certain
early-Pauline vocabulary in the pe. That Paul is operating with and is limited
by a stable vocabulary in every context for various addressees is a thesis that
cannot be maintained. Harrison (1921: 32) himself admits that only three nt
words (apart from the “particles”) can be found in the remaining nine of the
Pauline Epistles (discounting Philemon because of its size), but are missing in
the pe: ἐνεργέω, οὐρανός, and περιπατέω. Even if the concept of “Pauline terms”
can be accepted, the variation is best explained by variables other than author-
ship (see 3.1.4 below).
The argument from the absence of Pauline “particles” in the pe may appear
to carry more weight since the absence cannot be attributed to a “change in
12 introduction

subject-matter” (Harrison 1921: 51); subsequent works on statistical analyses

also recognize that “noncontextual words” are better indicators for “minor or
perhaps unconscious preferences of the author” (Mosteller and Wallace, 1989:
119). A close examination of the list of 112 “particles” provided by Harrison
reveals a different picture, however. As J.W. Roberts (1957: 134) has shown, “of
the 112 words, thirty-five occur in only one of Paul’s epistles, fifty-eight in only
two epistles, 70 in only three epistles, and eighty-four in only four of the ten
works which Harrison allows as Pauline.” Equally striking is that only ἕκαστος
occurs in nine Paulines, and none occurs in all ten (Harrison 1921: 37). Such
numbers can hardly prove what is and is not “habitual” for Paul.
Van Nes (2017: 168) questions Harrison’s categorization of these “particles”
since conjunctions, adverbs, prepositions, numerals, pronouns, and adjectives
are also included; instead, he proposes using the category of “indeclinables.”
Analyzing the number of missing indeclinables against the word count of each
book, van Nes concludes that “the alleged deutero- and trito-Paulines do not
significantly lack indeclinables” as compared to the undisputed Paulines (172);
cf. also Guthrie 1956: 13.
On the specific missing indeclinables identified by Harrison, some such as
ἄν are often used in constructions (in this case, contrary-to-fact conditional
clauses) that are demanded by the particular line of argument required by its
context (Roberts 1957: 134–135). The lack of such arguments in the pe would nat-
urally eliminate any need for their use. Similarly, some of these indeclinables
reflect the particular rhetorical strategy adopted in a particular work. This may
explain the disproportionate use of εἴτε in 1Corinthians (27×) and 2 Corinthians
(14×), which occurs no more than six times in any of the other Paulines.

3.1.2 Grammar and Style

Extending from his discussion of the particles, Harrison points to the limited
use of the article in the pe (1921: 38–39), including the absence of the ὁ μὲν … ὁ
δέ construction and the use of ὁ with nominative (for a vocative), an infinitive,
an adverb, an interjection, and a whole clause. Also missing are the adverbial
use of ὄντως, ὡς with a participle, adverb, and ἄν, and the use of different prepo-
sitions in reference to the same subject within the same sentence (39–40).
In reference to the style of the pe, Harrison points to the absence of “irregu-
larities” found often in the earlier Paulines: “the tendency to fly off at a tangent,
the sudden turns and swift asides, the parentheses and anacolutha, the fre-
quent inclusions of the unexpected” (1921: 41). From these absences, Harrison
suggests that “the style of the Pastorals is by comparison sober, didactic, static,
conscientious, domesticated.” Among other distinct stylistic features, Harrison
identifies the notable presence of compound words, especially the φιλο-word
introduction 13

group and the α-privatives (44), which may further confirm the pe as a product
of a more conscientious author. Many have followed Harrison in proclaiming
that “au style du prophète a succédé celui du moraliste” (Dornier 1969: 21; cf.
Hanson, 3–4).
The significance of the missing article may be overdrawn. Contrary to Har-
rison’s claim, the ὁ μὲν … ὁ δέ construction does appear in the pe (2 Tim 2:20;
cf. 4:4). Moreover, many early Paulines lack the uses of the article noted by Har-
rison. ὁ with a nominative for a vocative appears in only four Paulines, and with
numerals only in six (van Nes 2017: 66). On the other hand, the more common
use of the article with adverb found in most of the Paulines except Philemon
can also be found in all three of the pe (1Tim 1:13; 4:8; 6:17, 19; 2 Tim 4:10; Titus
2:12); that it is missing in some of the shorter letters (e.g., Colossians, Philemon)
may argue for the length of the individual letters in the pe being a factor in the
absence of some of the uses of the article. Similar statistics apply to the other
“missing” constructions in the pe (e.g., ὡς with a participle, adverb, and ἄν is
also limited to a few of the earlier Paulines).
As for the presence of the Pauline “irregularities,” Harrison admits to the
occasional presence of parentheses in 1Tim 2:7; 2 Tim 1:18; 4:7, 14, 16, but dis-
misses the first instance as an imitation of Rom 9:1 while the rest belong to
the “fragments of genuine Pauline notes” (1921: 43). A statistical analysis (van
Nes 2017: 203–204) provides further nuance to Harrison’s conclusion: 1 Timothy
contains proportionately more parentheses (4) than most earlier Paulines,
while 2Timothy’s number of ellipses (27) is proportionately more than Eph-
esians (30), Colossians (23), 1Thessalonians (23) and Philemon (1). The number
of anacolutha in each of the pe (1Tim [1], 2Tim [0], Titus [2]) is indeed lower
than most, but comparable to Philippians (4), 1 Thessalonians (3), and Phile-
mon (0). Others have further suggested that Harrison’s argument from these
“irregularities” cannot be sustained because the comparison is made between
the pe and the paraenetic sections of the earlier Paulines (Lock, xxviii; Turner,
Style, 101–102). Even if it be granted that the pe contain fewer “irregularities,”
this can be explained by the mode of expression and the temporal availability
of the author in the composition of a work (see 3.1.4).
Harrison’s conclusion noted above that the pe are “static” and “domesti-
cated” (1921: 42) is partly drawn from the impression that in these letters, one
finds “a certain looseness” and a lack of “any strong logical coherence” (43). The
presence of a dramatic change in the vividness and tone of two works by the
same author in antiquity (e.g., Cicero, Atticus and Marius; Massey 2014: 82–84)
argues against the shift in authorship as the best explanation of the impression
one has in reading the pe. Beyond drawing a firm conclusion on impression
alone, the logical connectedness of a work can be measured by the ratio of
14 introduction

hypotactic vs. paratactic constructions, with the higher number of hypotactic

constructions reflecting a more complex system of presentation. The percent-
age of hypotactic constructions in the pe (1Tim [53 %]; 2 Tim [46 %]; Titus
[58%]) resembles that of most of the earlier Paulines (46–58 %) except for
1 Corinthians, which lies outside of the trajectory of Pauline style (40 %; van
Nes, 2017: 292). Without denying the distinct impression a reader of the pe
receives, to identify the pe as without having “strong logical coherence” remains
subjective.

3.1.3 Stylometric Analyses

Modern stylometry attempts to apply quantitative analysis to literary features
of a text within a critical statistical model, often with the aid of computer,
and draws implications on the chronology or authorship of one or a series of
works. The basic principles are laid out in an article on “Principes de stylomé-
trie” by the classical philologist Wincenty Lutoslawski (1890), but the use of
statistics for the determination of the authorship of particular Pauline letters
can be traced further back to an 1851 letter written by the British mathemati-
cian August de Morgan, who relied on word length to determine the distinct
style of an author (cf. Morton 1978: 166). While Harrison’s 1921 study noted
above provides an in-depth discussion on a number of similar linguistic data,
his analysis as well as presentation lacks statistical rigor. While claiming an
identifiable development from the earlier Paulines to the pe, for example, “the
apparent steady progress is achieved by rearranging the epistles in a differ-
ent order in each diagram, usually with an impossible chronology” (Barr 2004:
99).
Responding to the criticism of Harrison for relying on the number of words
per page, Kenneth Grayston and Gustav Herdan (1959) examined “the rela-
tion between vocabulary and frequency of occurrence to relate the number of
words peculiar to a text to the total vocabulary of the latter” (6). They further
posit a sophisticated “C” formula that takes into consideration the size of the
vocabulary of a particular text and conclude that Harrison is correct in his con-
clusion based on the examination of the hapax in the pe. Though they argue
that “the linguistic evidence is strong enough to justify the conclusion of a very
different style in the Pastorals” (15), they do not argue for authorship variation
as the only possible explanation. For twenty-five years, Grayston and Herdan’s
work was considered the definitive study that vindicated Harrison, but a seri-
ous challenge was presented by Thomas Robinson (1984), who pointed out that
despite their claim, the “C” formula failed to account for the length of the text
(among other factors), thus challenging the mathematical precision of the con-
clusion claimed by these authors.
introduction 15

While Grayston and Herdan extend Harrison’s argument from the hapax,
the Scottish mathematician Andrew Morton and his colleagues extend Harri-
son’s argument from the indeclinables by providing computational analysis of
non-content laden elements of the text (such as sentence-length and certain
common conjunctions shared in multiple texts) to show that Paul is not the
author of the pe (e.g., Morton and McLeman 1964: 24–35). Despite the appear-
ance of being scientific and objective, neither sentence length nor the use of
certain indeclinables (see 3.1.1 above) sufficiently establishes claims of author-
ship.
A more ambitious study is that of Anthony Kenny (1986), who examines mul-
tiple literary features for the entire nt, including conjunctions, particles, prepo-
sitions, nouns and pronouns, adjectives and adverbs, etc. His study concludes
that the pe are not necessarily a separate group apart from the earlier Paulines,
for 2Timothy closely resembles Romans and Philippians, though Titus may
appear to deviate more from the other Paulines (100).
While Kenny examines various distinct literary features of the text, it was
Kenneth Neumann (1990) who applies computer-assisted multivariate and dis-
criminant analyses to the Pauline letters, examining multiple literary features
simultaneously against selections from other nt (Hebrews), early Christian
(1Clement, Ignatius), Hellenistic Jewish (Josephus, Philo), and secular Greek
(Epictetus) writings. For Ephesians, Colossians, and 2 Thessalonians, he con-
cludes that “there is little reason on the basis of style to deny the authenticity
of the disputed letters” (215), but he concludes that the pe resemble that of a
later writer (212–213). Extending the work of Neumann’s multivariate approach
is the careful study by James Libby, who seeks “to explore the stylistic boundary
of the Pauline Canon” within the larger nt canon (2016: 123). Libby concludes
that clusters of nt letters are often attributed to genre rather than authorship.
Lexically and semantically, 1Timothy and Titus do not deviate from the other
Paulines, but they do in reference to paradigmatics. Such a deviation is best
explained by a shift in genre since both are to be identified as mandata principis
epistles (186–187). 2Timothy, then, becomes clustered with 1 Peter as examples
of “testament epistles” (182–183).
Two more recent studies depart notably from the stylometric analyses of
the previous generations. Applying scalometric analysis to the nt, George Barr
seeks “the measure of scale and its effects” (2004: 1) of the Pauline letters,
with the definition of “scale” as “the proportion which the representation of an
object bears to the object itself” (7). This measure of scale is carried out by iden-
tifying patterns of the grouping of sentences of varying lengths. He concludes
that the pe belong with the other Paulines though he does allow for secondary
interpolations within these letters (98–106).
16 introduction

Most recently, Jermo van Nes has provided a quantitative “linear regression
analysis to investigate linguistic variation in the Corpus Paulinum” (2017: 120).
Unlike previous statistical studies, this analysis aims at “making predictions
of variables, based on the relationship between a dependent and an indepen-
dent factor” (120). This is supplemented by qualitative analyses where explana-
tory models for numerical differences are not limited to a change of author-
ship. The quantitative analysis shows considerable linguistic variation within
both the early and later Paulines, and the pe do not fall outside the earlier
Paulines. Where the pe (especially 1 and 2Timothy) do depart from the early
Paulines, pragmatic factors better explain these differences (221–223; see 3.1.4
below).
Computational stylometric analyses provide significant advances beyond
the studies of the 19th and early 20th centuries while challenging the consensus
perceived to have been reached during that generation of scholarship. Several
of the more recent studies have argued against seeing the pe as a unified corpus
that departs from the earlier Paulines. Even with their distinct style, a shift in
authorship ceased to provide the only or best explanatory model.
Several limitations of these statistical analyses remain. First, a lingering
problem with such analyses is the length of the texts to be examined, espe-
cially when individual letters of the pe are examined independently. The pe,
each less than 1500 words, do not meet even the more conservative estimate of
a minimum of 2500–5000 words for reliable results (Eder 2015: 167–182).
Second, to directly attribute a change in style in a particular text to a change
in authorship is complicated by the ancient practice of προσωποποιία. Some
have claimed that the author of the pe adopts this rhetorical strategy of writing-
in-character (Theon of Alexandria, Prog. 10; Lampe 2010: 15). If so, the reliability
of the results of a comparative analysis of the pe with either the earlier Paulines
or the later apostolic writings needs significant qualification.
Finally, despite the claims to be objective and scientific, any statistical anal-
ysis performed on complex textual entities would involve the subjective selec-
tion and prioritization of means of measurement. Even those that argue against
the authenticity of the pe may not be able to provide statistical models in
explaining the deviations and variations within the earlier Paulines (cf. Savoy
2019: 1089–1097). This may also explain the contradictory conclusions reached
by some of these studies, which point to the need to supplement quantitative
analysis with rigorous qualitative analysis informed by sociolinguistics.

3.1.4 Sociolinguistic and Register Analyses

The limitation of a mechanical statistical analysis practiced by some called
for more responsible and rigorous qualitative analyses. That “circumstances
introduction 17

alter cases” is a fact recognized by even Harrison (1921: 48) as possibly carrying
explanatory power for the distinct literary features of a work, though he finally
dismissed it as insufficient in the case of the pe. In responding to Harrison,
Guthrie finds the change in subject matter, genre, as well as other “psycho-
logical” reasons, significant enough to demand further examination (1956: 15).
Similar concerns persist: “Can we examine a text purely from its stylistic or lin-
guistic point of view without attention to its genre or its context or contents?”
(Mitchell 2009: 369).
Though many have found these contextual questions important, the anal-
yses provided are often speculations concerning the possible influence of a
variety of factors external to the literary texts. A number of recent studies have,
however, drawn on the well-developed field of sociolinguists in providing evi-
dence for the significance of some of these factors. As noted by the sociolinguist
Allan Bell, “the foundation of all sociolinguistics is that speakers have choices
when they talk” (2014: 103); as such, this discipline promises to provide some
control in the evaluations of contextual factors that may explain some of the
literary features within the text.
In two essays published in 2000, Stanley Porter laid the groundwork for
subsequent sociolinguistic studies on the Pauline texts. In his “Dialect and Reg-
ister,” he draws on Michael Halliday’s definition of dialect as “variety according
to the user” and register as “variety according to use” (2000a: 197; cf. Halliday
and Hasan 1985: 41), with register analysis focusing on the context in which the
user operates. In his “Functional Distribution of Koine Greek in First-Century
Palestine,” Porter also draws on the work of Douglas Biber (1988: 101–169) and
provides register analysis to selected Pauline texts and concludes that the pe are
concerned with the transmission of information (rather than personal interac-
tion, 2000b: 69) but are the least abstract with the most explicit referencing in
the text (70–71).
Also published in 2000 is the study of Matthew O’Donnell (255–297), who
likewise draws from Halliday and Biber in creating a tabulation of a list of com-
ponents, an expansion and revision of which is developed by Andrew Pitts in
2013 (113–152) for the specific examination of issues of “style and pseudonymi-
ty.” A modified version of Pitts’s “register profile” (136–137) will be used here,
with the various “situation types” grouped under mode (“what role is being
played by language and other semiotic systems in the situation”), tenor (“who is
taking part in the situation”), and field (“what’s going on in the situation;” Hal-
liday 2014:33). Emphasis will be placed on the “subversion” register with “field
of discourse”; one that would extend the discussion on the distinct emphasis
of the pe.
18 introduction

3.1.4.1 Mode of Discourse

Registers under “mode” include channel (written or oral), setting (public or
personal), and genre (narrative or non-narrative). Though all of the Paulines
survived in written form, some may have been orally dictated while others,
being intentionally written pieces, are consciously constructed as such. Com-
parisons between oral and written forms of communication must take into
account the difference in the size of the vocabulary that is available to the same
author. If so, the richer vocabulary of the pe can be explained by the lengthier
time available to their author (Baum 2008: 290). Pauline irregularities such as
the parentheses and anacolutha noted by Harrison are typical of oral discourse
(Reiser 2001: 157), and their absence in the pe may further attest to its “written”
nature (Baum 2008: 288). The earlier Paulines were mostly written by secre-
taries and thus were possibly dictated (cf. Rom 16:22; 1 Cor 16:21; 2 Cor 10:1; Gal
6:11; Col 4:18; 2Thess 3:17; Phlm 19; van Nes 2017: 166), while the pe may fall more
on the “written” side of the spectrum where Paul (or his amanuensis) takes on
a different mode of writing. Such a change in the mode of discourse may also
explain the use of different indeclinables as well as the shift in style and sen-
tence structure (van Nes 2017: 183–187, 198–200).
The personal setting of the pe is reflected by their being the “most explicit of
(Pauline) discourses” in “the use of relative pronouns, coordination of phrases,
and nominalizations and proper nouns” (Porter 2000: 70). Even ecclesiastical
matters addressed to a protégé or close coworker will carry characteristics of a
“personal” (though not “private”) letter (in the case of 1 Timothy, see Reed 1993:
90–118), and, as such, set these letters apart even from Philemon, which is an
official letter distinctly addressed to the leaders of a house church (Phlm 1–2;
Pao 2012: 363–365).
Narrativity relates to the mode of discourse rather than to the larger generic
form. The pe are marked by both narrative (e.g., perfective and stative aspects)
and non-narrative (e.g., imperfective aspect) concerns (Porter 2000: 69), which
may point to their distinct rhetorical situation as a discourse that lies at the
intersection of distinct personal histories of the characters involved and the
theoretical concerns that are addressed.

3.1.4.2 Tenor of Discourse

The identity of and circumstances surrounding the addresser and addressees
of a work contribute to its tenor. If Paul is to be understood as the author of
the pe, both his age and his experience in the final years of his life may have
contributed to the distinct flavor of the pe. Despite the claims of an earlier
generation of scholars (cf. Grayston and Herdan 1959: 5), age is increasingly
recognized by sociolinguists to be “the most fundamental social factor structur-
introduction 19

ing any study of language variation,” especially considering its “social, cultural
and psychological dimensions” (Bell 2014: 223). Lexical richness, for example,
has been shown to increase with age (Sankoff and Lessard 1975: 689–690; van
Nes 2017: 162–163). Even a first-century literary critic (Pseudo-Longinus, Subl.
9.12–14) speculated on the general change of style in Greek writers as they age.
In an advanced life stage, Paul’s experience certainly contributes to the style
of his later writings, especially when they were written with succession con-
cerns in view. Whether his experience in Rome and possibly elsewhere in the
Roman west contributes to evidence of an increased influence of Latin in the
pe remains unclear (cf. Turner, Style, 104). Similar diachronic tendencies are
absent in Josephus during his writing career in Rome (Pitts and Tyra 2016: 260–
261).
A shift in addressee is also evident in the pe, with two individuals being
claimed to be the primary audience. The hapax in the pe may reflect the
“shared vocabulary” between the author and coworker or disciple (Pitts 2013:
143). The target communities behind Timothy and Titus may shape the lan-
guage choice of the pe. The use of πρεσβύτερος, for example, only in the pe
(1 Tim 5:1, 2, 17, 19; Titus 1:5) of the Paulines may reflect the presence of the
elder(ly) in the churches only towards the end of Paul’s career (Barclay 2007:
227, 240). Moreover, the ecclesiastical context presupposed in 1 and 2 Timothy
differs from that of the language in Titus, which may reflect the relatively
younger age of the community of believers in Crete (Trebilco, 206; Walker 2012:
14).

3.1.4.3 Field of Discourse

Registers under “field” include factuality, purpose, tone, and possibly “subver-
sion.” Factuality includes the use of performed traditions, which invariably
would affect the language of the text. According to Earle Ellis (1987: 247), 41 % of
1 Timothy, 16% of 2Timothy, and 46% of Titus can be attributed to “preformed
traditions,” and these traditions made a mark in the literary form of these let-
ters. Mark Yarbrough (2009) has reaffirmed the heavy use of these traditions
throughout 1Timothy, in particular (see commentary). A fragmentary hypoth-
esis, such as the one proposed by Harrison (1921: 87–135), will only create a
circular argument when language that is identical to that of the early Paulines
is discounted for the consideration of the authenticity of the pe. Moreover, the
seamless integration of “preformed traditions” into the pe also argues against
the kind of fragmentary hypothesis Harrison proposes.
The Paul of 1Timothy (and Titus) has often been described as one “who
expresses very little emotion and reveals scarcely a personal feeling” (Jervis
1999: 695). Instead of casting doubt on the identity of the author, this may
20 introduction

reflect a “cognition of a secondary audience” (Yarbrough 2009: 175), especially

considering that Paul is addressing the false teachers and their followers in
Ephesus. A sociolinguistic analysis of the pe also reveals these being focused
on “information production” (rather than “personal interaction”); they consis-
tently rank highest in noun-verb ratio, type-token ratio, average word length,
and the saturation of attributive adjectives among the Paulines (Porter 2000:
68). Paul’s focus here is not on securing his relationship with his protégé, but
on transmitting information as he faces the end of his life.
The subject matter is also determinative in the vocabulary and related liter-
ary features of the pe. Related to literary characteristics of works that focus on
“information production” is the observation that lexical diversity is expected
in discussions on impersonal topics (Yu 250–251; van Nes 2017: 137). This is
consistent with the observation that the Pauline hapax in the pe are con-
centrated in discussions on Paul’s rebuke of the false teachers and the cor-
responding positive set of behavior that he is promoting (cf. Mounce, civ–
cvii).
Also to be included is the “subversion” register, since the vocabulary and
mode of expression can be affected by that which the author aims to sub-
vert. This can be variably taken as a register of “inversion” (Wallace 2014: 30–
40) or “contratextuality” (Cranny-Francis and Martin 1991: 286–344) within
subversive literature. In such literature, forms of code-switching between lan-
guages or language patterns of different socio-political groups are expected
(cf. Devarenne 2006: 105–120), and language patterns within these subversive
pieces may differ from that of the other works by the same author.
Subversive literature adopts an adaptive strategy that does not necessar-
ily aim at overthrowing the cultural or socio-political status quo (Pierce and
Williams 2016: 171–188; contra Huttunen 2020: 6). Contradictory positional
statements, vis-à-vis the perceived dominant power, are not only expected, but
they are also essential to the texture of such discourse. Their subversiveness
derives from the “mix of mainstream and oppositional discourses” with this
dialectic process “manipulated semiotically” for the resolution of the discourse
(Cranny-Francis and Martin: 1991: 339). This register is not one that has been
sufficiently studied, and subversiveness is inherently evasive and resists explicit
identification (cf. Lakoff 1993: 368). Nevertheless, the adoption of a set of vocab-
ulary absent in the early Paulines, as well as their use in particular contexts in
the pe that deviates from the wider linguistic community from which they are
drawn, would argue for the presence of this register within the pe. As such, the
pe may present a case of “backstage resistance” behind the disguise of “frontage
compliance” (cf. Ybema and Horvers 2017: 1233–1251; see 6.2 Accommodation
and Subversion).
introduction 21

3.2 Ecclesiastical Structure and Early Catholicism

Taken to be “the clearest examples” of Early Catholicism (Dunn 1977: 363), the
pe have been read as representing a post-Pauline era characterized by the insti-
tutionalization of the church that shifts from a charismatic community to a
hierarchical one (MacDonald 1988). Illustrating this shift is the move from the
depiction of the church as “the body of Christ” (Rom 12:4–5; 1 Cor 12:12–31) to
that of the “household” (1Tim 3:5, 15; 2Tim 2:20), an imagery that is considered
to reinforce a centralized male-dominated hierarchical structure with stabiliz-
ing tendencies as it interacts with mainstream culture (Oberlinner 2001: 162–
163). This structure is deemed incompatible with the egalitarian Paul found in
the earlier Paulines (thus Merklein 1997: 254–255, who considers 1 Cor 14:34–36
a post-Pauline interpolation). Corresponding to the development of this rigid
structure is that of “a rigid administration of Church-discipline” (Cramer 1887:
13). These developments are considered signs where structural “authority” has
replaced the power of the “spirit” in an age that witnesses the eclipse of the
apocalypticism found in the early Paulines (von Campenhausen, 1969: 55–75).
It cannot be denied that discussions of ecclesiastical order are more explicit
in the pe, but this is not unexpected in letters written to leaders of the church.
Moreover, one should not assume that the ideal structure presented is imme-
diately attainable at the point of writing, especially when the difficulties faced
by at least the Ephesian community noted in 1Timothy were not resolved in
2 Timothy.
More importantly, to suggest a linear development from charismatic and
egalitarian to structured and hierarchical/patriarchal communities relies too
heavily on Max Weber’s (1968: 48–65) typology without sufficient attention
to the diversity within the early Pauline communities. Subsequent studies
demonstrate that organizations often develop in a more organic manner as
charisma itself carries institution-building tendencies (Robinson 1985: 181–
203). Such organizations are often influenced by the multiple existing models
of structure available in their own contexts, as in the case of the Pauline com-
munities (Kloppenborg 2019: 23–54).
Moreover, ἐπίσκοπος and πρεσβύτερος have both been used to refer to the
same office in Acts 20:17, 28 (cf. Titus 1:5, 7; see comments on 1 Tim 3:1–7),
whereas a similar two-tiered structure in 1Timothy (ἐπίσκοπος/πρεσβύτερος–
διάκονος, 1Tim 3:1–13) can already be found in Phil 1:1 (ἐπίσκοπος–διάκονος). The
existence of two terms in the pe for the same office may also point to an early
stage in the development of ecclesiastical structure (Trebilco, 465–467), and
the use of these different terms for churches in Ephesus and Crete may reflect
the early stages in the formalization of ecclesiastical structure as well as the
influence of local contexts in the adoption of particular forms of structure
22 introduction

(Tellbe 2009: 89; cf. Engelmann 2012: 235–283). In any case, though one can
perhaps talk about a more developed structure towards the end of Paul’s life,
this cannot be compared to the rigid structure found in Ignatius (Magn. 2.1; 6.1;
Trall. 2.1–3) towards the end of the first century.
The characterization of the earlier Pauline communities as uniformly
“charismatic” is also problematic since only 1Corinthians can perhaps be char-
acterized as such (Herzer 2008: 556). Similarly, the deterioration of an egalitar-
ian community into a hierarchal one is also an oversimplification that is not
supported by the textual evidence, since early Christian communities resem-
ble many contemporary associations in being both egalitarian and hierarchical
(Ascough 2003: 59–60). Even in 1Timothy, which may give an impression of the
silencing of women (see comments on 1Tim 2:9–15), “these gendered norms of
modesty did not exclude women from civic participation” as testified by the
presence of deaconesses in 3:11–13 (Hylen 2015: 60).
Household language is already present in the earlier Paulines (cf. 1 Cor 3:11;
4:1). It should also be understood in light of the rhetorical strategy of the
pe (especially 1Timothy), which is to challenge Roman imperial propaganda
where the emperor is considered the pater patriae (Cassius Dio, Ann. 56.9)
who reigns over the household subjects (Cicero, Off. 17.54; Taniguchi, 2002:
94–98). This may explain why the explicit identification of the church as οἶκος
θεοῦ (1Tim 3:15) is immediately followed by a proclamation of Christ’s cosmic
kingship (1Tim 3:16). The absence of this use of household language in Titus
reaffirms its particular rhetorical function in 1Timothy (cf. Herzer 2008: 562).
Also worth noting is that neither Timothy nor Titus was considered the head of
the household since their authority derives from their relationship with Paul,
the apostle of Christ Jesus (1Tim 1:1–2; 2Tim 1:1–2; Titus 1:1–4), pointing to an
emphasis on prophetic authority (cf. 1Tim 1:18; 4:4) that is independent of the
rigid hierarchical household structure of the church (see Polaski 2005: 257).

3.3 Theological Tendencies

Despite similarities with the early Paulines, there are “certain marked differ-
ences of theological tone, perhaps also of theology” when one turns to the
pe (Kelly, 16), and some would label such differences as indicating “a decided
change in the general doctrinal position” (Horton, 7). Whether such differences
are to be attributed primarily to a change of authorship remains unclear. A
sketch of some of the issues raised will be provided here, while a more detailed
examination is to be reserved for the Theological Analysis sections in the com-
mentary below.
Two preliminary issues need to be raised before highlighting selected
themes. First, one should not examine the pe as a closed system when com-
introduction 23

pared to the block of early Paulines and thus conclude that the pe are infe-
rior to them. Many holding to pseudonymous authorship of the pe concede
that they are written by a “Paulinist”; these letters would, therefore, presup-
pose the theological framework of the early Paulines while providing spe-
cific emphases in response to a different set of concerns (Stettler 1998: 314–
322).
Second, a developmental model of Paul’s theology is questionable, and a lin-
ear one is particularly so. It is possible that Paul’s theology was already “mature”
and “developed” before penning the first letter, and the various applications of
his own theology found in the series of letters may, in turn, reflect the rela-
tive maturity of the recipients instead (Walker 2012: 130). Even if development
is assumed, a linear model fails to recognize the complexity involved in how
ideas evolve, especially when such ideas are expressed within and among vary-
ing geographical, social, and political locations.

3.3.1 Faith
The articular ἡ πίστις (cf. 1Tim 1:19; 3:9; 4:1, 6; 5:8; 6:10, 12, 21; 2 Tim 3:8; 4:7; Titus
1:13), which is repeatedly used in the pe in reference to the objective content
of faith, is considered the “crystallization of the faith into set forms” that best
characterizes early Catholicism (Dunn 1977: 359), and the subjective aspect of
this “faith” is reduced to one virtue among many (1 Tim 4:12; 6:11; 2 Tim 3:10; Titus
2:2).
This, however, is too simplistic given that πίστις is used in a variety of senses
with and without an article in the pe. πίστις as the content of faith already
occurs in the early Paulines (Rom 10:8; 1Cor 16:13; Eph 4:13; Col 2:7) as well
as in Josephus (A.J. 18.14), although πίστις of the pe is closer to its usage in
the lxx, where the πιστ-word group is used in a variety of ways to define
divine-human relationship (Lindsay 1993: 99–100, 187–188). In Gal 1:13, 23, πίστις
appears as “a metonymy for the church” (Winger 1999: 157), paving the way
for similar notes in the pe where the church is “the pillar and bulwark of the
truth” (1Tim 3:15). Moreover, the early Pauline conception of faith as a κανών
(Gal 6:16; cf. Rom 4:16; Gal 3:12) anticipates the creedal nature of this faith.
Nevertheless, the vast majority of uses of the πιστ-word group in the pe refer
to the dynamic relationship between God and human beings (1 Tim 1:4, 5, 14;
2 Tim 1:5; 3:15; Mutschler 2010: 383–402), rather than the abstract object of
faith.

3.3.2 God the Savior

In 1Timothy, σωτήρ is applied to God (1:1; 2:3; 4:10), whereas it is applied to Christ
in 2Timothy (1:1), and to both in Titus (1:3, 4; 2:10, 13; 3:4, 6). Based on these
24 introduction

varied uses of the title, some claim that 2Timothy is closer to the early Paul
(Engelmann 2012: 148), who always identifies Christ as σωτήρ (Eph 5:23; Phil
3:20).
Instead of seeing this as a betrayal of the earlier Paul, however, the unique
function of σωτήρ language in these letters needs to be recognized. For 1 Tim-
othy, the identification of God as σωτήρ is but an extension of the claim that
“God was pleased to save (σῶσαι) those who believe” (1 Cor 1:21; cf. Rom 10:13).
Moreover, within this letter, this title may also have been used in response to
the Roman imperial cult that identifies the Roman emperor as “the savior and
benefactor of the world” (τῷ σωτῆρι καὶ εὐεργέτῃ τῆς οἰκουμένης, ogis 668; see
comments on 1Tim 2:1–7). In 2Timothy, a singular focus on Christ as σωτήρ fits
well as Paul reflects on his impending death and life after death, which is depen-
dent on Christ who is raised from the dead (1:10; 2:8; Wieland 2006: 175). Finally,
the parallel acts of God and Christ in the process of salvation lie at the center
of Titus (Thurston 1999: 177), which explains the application of σωτήρ to both.

3.3.3 Christ and His Manifestations

Appearing only once in the early Paulines for Jesus’s return (cf. 2 Thess 2:8),
the ἐπιφάνεια/ἐπιφαίνω word group is used repeatedly in the pe for both Jesus’s
earthly appearance (2Tim 1:10; Titus 2:11; 3:4) and his return (1 Tim 6:14; 2 Tim
4:1, 8; Titus 2:13). In laying emphasis on Jesus’s manifestations, the author of the
pe is accused of reducing the drama of salvation into a revelation schema for-
mulated within Hellenistic syncretism (Hasler 1977: 193). Moreover, “there is no
explicit reference to the cross or to the sufferings of Christ in the Pastorals, one
of the strongest reasons for holding that they are not Pauline” (Hanson 1987:
169).
Though the cross event is not explicitly mentioned, this event is implied
in the use of “ransom” language (1Tim 2:5–6; cf. Titus 2:14) as well as the
σωτήρ/σῴζω word group (1Tim 1:15; Titus 3:4–6; Brown 2014: 126–128). The unity
of Jesus’s manifestations and his ransom death is provided by an emphasis on
him as the unique mediator between God and human beings (1 Tim 2:5), an
identity that he reveals in his earthly ministry that culminates in his death and
his return. The ἐπιφάνεια/ἐπιφαίνω word group not only provides a response
to the false teachers (Stettler 1998: 295–297) and the Roman imperial propa-
ganda (cf. sig 760; Trebilco, 357), but it also points forward to the culmination
of salvation-history in the climactic return of Christ (Titus 2:13).

3.3.4 Holy Spirit and Its Power

The pe contain few references to the work of the Holy Spirit (1 Tim 4:1; 2 Tim 1:7,
13; 4:22; Titus 3:5), the most explicit of which is in Titus 3:4–7, a paragraph taken
introduction 25

to represent the institutionalization of the work of the Spirit mediated through

cultic leaders in the rite of baptism (Donelson, 143). Moreover, the dynamic
Spirit is understood to have been reduced to merely “the preserver of the past
tradition” (Dunn 1977: 361; 2Tim 1:12–14).
Though not among the main focus of the pe, the teachings on the Spirit dur-
ing the believer’s conversion (cf. Titus 3:4–7) and subsequent growth (2 Tim 1:7)
are consistent with that of the earlier Paulines (Towner 1989: 58). There is no
indication that the work of the prophetic Spirit is limited to the past (1 Tim 1:18;
4:1–3, 14) and that the power of the Spirit is limited to the cultic leaders in the
pe (cf. Titus 1:7; Haykin 1985: 294–300). The use of χάρισμα only in reference to
Timothy in 1Tim 4:14 and 2Tim 1:6 is not unexpected since Timothy is the pri-
mary recipient of these letters. This use of χάρισμα in the context of Timothy’s
ministry also “robustly subverts any notion of an indispensable ex officio basis
for the exercise of power or authority” (Clark 2014: 218). Moreover, Titus 3:4–
7 should not be read narrowly in a cultic sacramental sense, especially when
neither baptism nor the Lord’s Supper is mentioned in the pe. It is in this pas-
sage that one finds a christocentric pneumatology presented with ot language
within an eschatological context, and this would be expected from Paul himself
(see commentary below).

3.3.5 Godliness and Good Works

Entirely absent in the earlier Paulines, the εὐσεβ-word group plays a central role
in the pe, especially 1Timothy (2:2; 3:16; 4:7, 8; 5:4; 6:3, 5, 6, 11; cf. 2 Tim 3:5, 12;
Titus 1:1; 2:12). Some argue for the deterioration of the Pauline religion since
“in the Greek tradition εὐσέβεια includes … more definite moral duties, less
depth of spirit” (Falconer, 31). It is also claimed that εὐσέβεια lies at the center of
second-century imperial propaganda where submission, stability, and loyalty
to the imperial ideology become a controlling virtue, which, in turn, argues for
a late dating of the pe (cf. Standhartinger 2006: 80).
To date the pe to the second century based on the use of this word group is to
ignore the significance of pietas, the Latin equivalent to εὐσέβεια, in Augustan
propaganda (cf. Res Gestae 34). If the imperial background is to be assumed,
Paul’s response in the pe is not merely an ethical one but also a christological
one, as best illustrated in 1Tim 3:16, where τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον is defined
by revelation, proclamation, and reception of Christ’s kingship. This political
aspect of εὐσέβεια draws from the ot (Isa 11:2) and Hellenistic Jewish (4 Macc
5:24) traditions where godliness is defined by submission to the Lordship of
the one and only God (see comments on 1Tim 2:2 below). Noting the political
context in which this word group operates would argue for a strong christo-
centric basis of the call to godliness in the pe despite its different nuances in
26 introduction

the three individual letters (cf. Engelmann 2012: 348). Far from being a deteri-
oration from the Pauline ideals, these ethics cannot be reduced to an “outward
form” without drawing from its “power” (2Tim 3:12).
A similar theological basis also lies behind the repeated reference to “good
work(s)” (ἔργον ἀγαθόν: 1Tim 2:10; 5:10; 2Tim 2:21; 3:17; Titus 1:16; 3:1; ἔργον καλόν:
1 Tim 3:1; 5:10, 25; 6:18; Titus 2:7, 14; 3:8, 14). Instead of merely a call to live an
ethical and honorable life, the call to “good work(s)” is a call to imitate Jesus: as
Jesus gave the “good” confession before Pontius Pilate (1 Tim 6:13), believers are
to give the “good” confession (6:12) by being rich in “good works” (6:18) in the
recognition of God as the benefactor who “richly provides us with all things”
(6:17; see commentary below).

3.3.6 Eschatology and the Apocalyptic Framework

The presence of an epiphanic Christology is considered to have replaced the
Pauline salvation-historical framework, resulting in the fading of the apocalyp-
tic fervor (Hasler 1977: 193–209), while “references to the future recedes behind
the consciousness of present salvation” (Bultmann 1955: 185). The description
of contemporaneous events as if they would take place “in the last days” (ἐν
ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις, 2Tim 3:1; cf. ἐν ὑστέροις καιροῖς, 1 Tim 4:1) is also considered a
sign of pseudepigraphy (Bauckham 1988: 492–493).
Even those who consider the pe as pseudepigraphic notice the shift from a
more explicit eschatological emphasis in Colossians and Ephesians (Harding
2004: 160). Not only are there references to the parousia (1 Tim 6:13–15; 2 Tim
4:1, 8; Titus 2:13), but the author also explicitly argues against an over-realized
eschatology by pointing to its future consummation (cf. 1 Tim 4:1–10). Beyond
explicit statements that refer to the end, an apocalyptic worldview also frames
these letters (Downs 2005: 657–659): (1) the presence of Satan/the devil (1 Tim
1:20; 3:6–7; 5:15; 2Tim 2:26; cf. 1Tim 4:1) and angels (1 Tim 3:16; 5:19–21); and
(2) the periodization of history assumed behind the various temporal markers
used in these letters (1Tim 2:6; 4:1; 6:15–17; 2Tim 1:9; 3:1; 4:10; Titus 1:2–3; 2:12).
The self-understanding of the author as participating in the final age coin-
cides with the earlier Paul’s self-identity as the apostle to the Gentiles whose
gospel fulfills God’s promises to the prophets of old (Pate 2013: 14). Moreover,
unlike their singular counterparts, the plural ἐν ὑστέροις καιροῖς (1 Tim 4:1) and
ἐν ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις (2Tim 3:1) should be taken to refer to a period of time before
the final consummation of this age (e.g., Acts 2:17; see 2 Tim 3:1).

3.3.7 Law and Jewish Traditions

Perceived to have held a consistently negative view of the Law, the author of
the pe is accused of lacking “a ‘double self-understanding’ of Christianity (as in
introduction 27

Paul), i.e., of a special proximity and connection to the Jewish tradition” (Stege-
mann 1996: 277). This conclusion would depend partly on one’s understanding
of the earlier Paul’s view of the Law.
A faithful student of Paul would have easily borrowed Paul’s repeated emp-
hasis on his own identity as a (faithful) Jew (cf. Rom 9:1–5; Phil 3:4–6), but
the polemical contexts of the pe would be sufficient to explain the author’s
one-sided arguments against certain aspects of Jewish traditions. This polemic
may explain the numerous parallels between Galatians and 1 Timothy (Johnson
2008: 37) and Titus (cf. Marshall 2008: 798). Even the “double self-understand-
ing” one finds in Romans can also be identified in 1 Tim 1:8–11, where one finds
the affirmation of both the value of the Law and its limitations (Thornton 2014:
142–158). Not to be missed is how the assumption that many of the terms within
the pe are to be understood only within a Greco-Roman context. The com-
mentary proper will demonstrate the significance of the lxx (within wider
Hellenistic Jewish traditions) behind terms that are familiar even in the Greco-
Roman moral and political discourse.

3.3.8 Paul and His Protégé

Another oft-repeated argument for taking the pe as a work by an admirer of
Paul is the portrayal of Paul as an ideal exemplar (cf. 2 Tim 3:10–12), one who is
able to worship God “with a clear conscience” (2 Tim 1:3), and one who alone is
“a herald,” “an apostle,” and “a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and in truth” (1 Tim
2:7). Moreover, commissioned to proclaim the “gospel to which [he has] been
entrusted” (1Tim 1:11), he alone “has fulfilled this commission in a global man-
ner that embraces the whole church” (cf. 2Tim 4:17; Strecker 2000: 586). Some
(Läger 1996: 177) would even suggest that Paulologie has taken precedence over
Christologie in the pe.
The Paul of the earlier Paulines frequently points to himself as an exam-
ple that believers should imitate (1Cor 4:16; 11:1; Phil 3:17; 4:9; 1 Thess 1:6; Gray
2014: 54). The portrayal of Paul’s authority varies within the pe (Engelmann
2012: 433–535), with 1Timothy being most notable, Titus being the least, and
2 Timothy focusing rather on succession concerns. Variations in the socio-
historical contexts of these letters can best explain such differences. The desire
to preach to “all the nations” (2Tim 4:17) is not an overexaggerated claim, but
one that points to the possibility of proclaiming the gospel to the highest
Roman court during his final defense, a setting that represents the center of
“all the nations” (see comments on 2Tim 4:17). Even before his arrival in Rome,
his plans to travel to other parts of the Mediterranean world for the sake of the
gospel are already noted in the earlier Paulines (cf. Rom 15:14–33), and the pe
witness to Paul’s missional strategy (Köstenberger 2019: 49–64).
28 introduction

Even when the focus appears to be on Paul in the pe, the attention is quickly
redirected to Christ himself (1Tim 1:12–17; 2Tim 1:1–13). Similarly, the unique
use of κῆρυξ (“herald,” 1Tim 2:7; 2Tim 1:11) among the Paulines belongs to king-
ship discourse that draws attention to the sovereignty of God the Savior and
Jesus Christ the one mediator (cf. 1Tim 2:1–8; cf. κηρύσσω, 1 Tim 3:16; 2 Tim 4:2).
The claim to have held “a clear conscience” fits into the rhetorical context of
these letters, which contain repeated calls to hold a “good/clear” conscience
(1 Tim 1:5, 19; 3:9) against those who suffer from a “seared/defiled” conscience
(1 Tim 4:2; Titus 1:15).
The portrayal of Paul’s protégé has likewise raised questions concerning the
authenticity of these letters. The Timothy who serves as a short-term worker
dealing with crisis situations in the early Paulines appears to be different from
the one in 1 & 2Timothy, where he becomes a “city-based supervisor” (Kenskey
2014: 35–36), but in both his role is largely determined by the need and con-
text of the respective communities. Moreover, most concede that the depiction
of the church leaders (overseer and deacons) is not modeled after Timothy
(Kenskey 2014: 54), which would have likely been the case if double pseude-
pigraphy is assumed.
That the young Timothy (and Titus) of the pe (1 Tim 4:12; cf. Titus 2:15) would
be “an anachronistic Timothy” (Malina 2008: 126) by the end of Paul’s life is mis-
leading when “youth” is defined more broadly within the binary nature of the
young-old pair in the pe (see comments on 1Tim 4:12). In the case of Timothy,
if he were in his late teens when he started traveling with Paul in Acts 16:1–4, he
would only be around 30 by the end of Paul’s life (cf. Walker 2012: 10). Finally,
the lack of appreciation for the faithful ministry of Paul’s long-term associates
(Hincks 1897: 100) is also not unexpected given that these letters represent but
a sliver of communication between close associates and coworkers.

3.4 Other “Contributors”

The discussion above assumes the polarity of Pauline and pseudonymous au-
thorship, but various other possibilities remain that may contribute to the dif-
ferences between the pe and the earlier Paulines. Three such proposals will be
noted here, and versions of the second and third can fall under “Pauline author-
ship,” where the responsibility for the final product rests with Paul himself.

3.4.1 Fragmentary Hypothesis

While questioning the authenticity of most of the material in the pe, Harrison
(1921: 93–102) himself suggests that these letters contain at least two blocks of
material that can be considered authentic (2Tim 4:6–22; Titus 3:12–15). These
contain “a series of personal details” without a trace of “doctrinal controver-
introduction 29

sies” or “ecclesiastical situation” that occupy much of the pe (93). Besides the
criterion of “personal details,” Harrison also suggests that these fragments pass
the “linguistic tests” (96). Harrison’s conclusion is followed by a more extensive
study by James Miller (1997), who includes the openings and closings of these
letters as well as a few more short sections to the list.
As Holtzmann has already recognized, a pseudepigraphic work would un-
doubtedly include authentic details to make it convincing (Holtzmann 1880:
125). Harrison’s response with the results of “linguistic tests” merely demon-
strates that when the Paul of the pe writes on similar topics (i.e., his own life),
he uses similar language; when he addresses new or localized “doctrinal con-
troversies” or “ecclesiastical situations,” his language changes. This argues for
contextual variation as a better explanation than authorial variation. Introduc-
ing a fragmentary hypothesis creates a circular argument with a nonfalsifiable
hypothesis.
Furthermore, the unity and the cohesion of the pe have been demonstrated
by Ray van Neste (2004; cf. Barr 2004), who reaffirms the earlier study of David
Cook (1984) that argues for the consistency of language and style between the
personal fragments and the rest of the pe. Even the letter openings and the
personal details of Paul as he addresses Timothy and Titus fit well within the
specific rhetorical context of these three letters (Caulley 1987: 561–563). Finally,
the historical improbability of the writing and preservations of such fragments
casts further doubt on this “scrap theory” that “requires so much credulity on all
sides” (Moule 1965: 448). The Grammatical Analysis sections of this commen-
tary will demonstrate the cohesiveness of the various sections with the pe.

3.4.2 Amanuensis Hypothesis

More promising is the possibility of the involvement of an amanuensis, which
may be relevant in various ways. That Paul had used secretaries in his earlier
letters is an indisputable fact when on at least one occasion the name of the
amanuensis is provided (Rom 16:22; cf. Gal 6:11); for some of the other letters,
the naming of “Timothy” in the open salutation may suggest his involvement
in the writing process (2Cor 1:1; Phil 1:1; Col 1:1; 1 Thess 1:1; 2 Thess 1:1; Phlm 1;
cf. “Sosthenes,” 1Cor 1:1). With no secretaries mentioned, the pe may represent
Paul’s own words, thus explaining the differences between these and his earlier
letters. After all, even those who normally receive help from secretaries prefer
to write personal letters themselves (Cicero, Att. 2.23.1; Seneca, Lucil. 26.8; Prior
2001: 15). The shift of Timothy from being a contributor to the recipient of two
of the letters in the pe may have also contributed to those differences (Prior,
45), though some would resist attributing “the more pedestrian presentation
in the Pastorals” to Paul himself (Marshall 2010: 275).
30 introduction

On the other hand, the fact that Paul had used secretaries increases the like-
lihood of him using one in the pe, though perhaps this time “a man skilled in
rabbinical lore and at the same time a master of the higher koine” (Kelly, 26–
27). While Paul’s authority stands behind these secretaries (Neudorfer, 15–19),
their level of involvement varies (see 3.4.3 below), thus casting doubt on the
reliability of stylometric analyses unless the amanuensis factor is carefully cal-
ibrated into such analyses (for the case of other works that may have employed
an amanuensis, see Kestemont, Moens, and Deploige 2004: 219).
If Paul did employ an amanuensis for the writing of the pe, and if this
amanuensis was among Paul’s coworkers, Luke would be the most probable
candidate. First proposed by Heinrich Schott in 1830 (325; cf. van Nes 2017: 33),
the presence of Luke during the final days of Paul’s life (2 Tim 4:11) at least
provides historical probability to this hypothesis. August Strobel (1969: 192)
lays the groundwork for this discussion by noting that out of the 848 words in
the pe, 493 are also found in Luke-Acts. These statistics can be further refined
by noting that while only 36 words appear in both the pe and Luke-Acts but
nowhere else in the nt, 93 words appear in both the pe and Luke-Acts but not
in the other Paulines. Among these 93 words are πρεσβύτερος, which appears
28 times in Luke-Acts and the pe, personal (e.g., Πόντιος Πιλᾶτος, Ἀλέξανδρος,
Τρόφιμος) and geographical (e.g., Μίλητος, Κρήτη; cf. Κρής) names, terms that
play an important role in the argument of the pe (e.g., εὐσέβεια, εὐσεβέω, ἐπι-
φαίνω, σωφροσύνη), compound words (e.g., νομοδιδάσκαλος, ἀντιλαμβάνω, φιλάρ-
γυρος, μεταλαμβάνω, ἀγαθοεργέω, παραδέχομαι, ζῳογονέω, ὑπομιμνῄσκω, παρακο-
λουθέω), α–privatives (e.g., ἄνοια, ἀχάριστος) and indeclinables (e.g., μήποτε).
In recognizing the limitation of linguistic arguments alone (cf. Brox 1970:
63–77), Stephen Wilson (1979: 12–124) provides a sustained argument for the
thematic parallels between Luke and the pe on eschatology, salvation, the
Christian citizen, church and ministry, Christology, Law and Scripture, and the
portrait of Paul. He concludes that “in their approach to many themes Luke-
Acts and the Pastorals reveal a similar, and often identical, stance” (1979: 136).
In addition to these linguistic and thematic parallels, specific details within
the two corpora may further support some literary relationships between the
two: the use of vocabulary in a particular sense (e.g., μένω in a physical/geo-
graphical sense: 2Tim 4:19; cf. Luke 8:27; 10:7; 19:5; Acts 9:43; 20:5, 15; 27:31; Quinn
and Wacker, 828), the historical note on “Antioch, Iconium, and Lystra” (2 Tim
3:11; cf. Acts 13–14), the importance of the Pauline mission in Ephesus in Acts 19–
20 (Witetschek 2008: 259–262), the conceptual parallels between Paul’s speech
in Acts 20:17–31 and the pe (Wilson 1979: 117–118), the knowledge of and sensi-
tivity to the differences between Timothy and Titus (Fuchs 2003: 31), similar
emphases in the depiction of widows (1Tim 5:5–6; cf. Luke 2:36–38; Fee, 117), a
introduction 31

similar portrayal of Paul and his importance for the structure of local commu-
nities (Schröter 2007: 77–104), and similar descriptions of Paul’s past (1 Tim 1:13;
cf. Acts 9, 22, 26; Wolter 1989: 48–66).
Perhaps most telling is the use of Luke 10:7 with Deut 25:4 in 1 Tim 5:18,
with both introduced by the formula, λέγει γὰρ ἡ γραφή. With the use of ἡ
γραφή, the author is likely drawing from the Third Gospel (rather than Q, Han-
son, 62; Fiore, 111), since elsewhere Paul had not referred to an oral saying of
Jesus as Scripture (Campbell 2014: 362; cf. 1Cor 7:10, 12; see comments on 1 Tim
5:18).
Despite these parallels, there are also clear differences between the two
corpora. Wilson himself points to the following: the lack of distinct ethical
teachings in Luke-Acts (1979: 48), the identification of “the apostles” with “the
twelve” only in Luke (66), the church being more organized in the pe (67),
they address a different set of concerns in reference to the ot and the Law
(104–106), and Luke provides more information concerning the standing of
Paul among other Christian leaders (116). The difference between the two can
be explained by genre (narrative vs letter) and audience (missionary vs pas-
toral) (Riesner 2006: 239–258), and, of course, the involvement of Paul in the
pe.
Among those who see a literary relationship between the two corpora, three
main interpretive options have been proposed: (1) Luke is Paul’s amanuensis
for the pe (Moule 1965: 434), (2) Luke wrote the pe in Paul’s name after his
death (Wilson 1979: 136–143) to complete the trilogy of Luke-Acts-pe (Quinn
1978: 62–75; cf. Riesner 2015: 397), and (3) the author of the pe is dependent on
Acts (Kaestli 1995: 122–124). Option (3) is least likely to explain the linguistic
and conceptual parallels since these parallels extend beyond an explicit bor-
rowing of historical data and theological vocabulary. Moreover, if the author is
dependent on Acts, the implied chronology of Paul in the pe should be more
easily reconcilable to that of Acts.
Option (2) suffers from a similar critique with the change of genre and a
break in the implied historical narrative underlying the two corpora. The exten-
sive parallels between Luke and Acts have to be downplayed when a third vol-
ume is assumed, and the connection between this third volume with Acts is of
a very different nature than the one between Luke and Acts. Even when the pe
are not conceived as the third volume, the differences in language, style, and
theological expressions between these two corpora testify against the identifi-
cation of Luke as their author.
Option (1) best accounts for both the similarities and the differences be-
tween the two corpora while alleviating some weight from the differences
between the pe and the early Paulines. The main objection is that “the style
32 introduction

of the pe is no closer to that of Luke than it is to that of Paul” (Marshall, 87).

The force of this objection diminishes significantly, however, when Luke is con-
sidered merely an amanuensis and at best a collaborator in this work, with Paul
still being responsible for the final product. Studies have shown that “when two
authors are involved in the same texts, the end result need not resemble the
writing style of one of the two individually; the result might rather resemble
that of a ‘new,’ third author” (Kestemont, Moens, and Deploige 2004: 220). It is
to the concept of collaboration that we shall now turn.

3.4.3 Transcriber, Editor, Collaborator, and Coauthor

While the evidence may argue for the possibility of Luke being the amanuensis,
it is not sufficient in moving this beyond a mere possibility. One of the difficul-
ties involved is the lack of clarity in regard to the role of an amanuensis, which
can range from “transcriber” (P.Mich. 514; P.Oxy. 724) to “composer” (Cicero, Att.
11.5; Fam. 1.10; Richards; 2004: 64–79). Simon Butticaz (2016: 321–322) has fur-
ther argued for the blurring of the distinction between author, transcriber, and
editor, as illustrated by this paragraph from Pliny the Younger that illustrates
the complexity of the writing process:

First of all, I go through my work myself; next, I read it to two or three

friends and send it to others for comment. If I have any doubts about their
criticisms, I go over them again with one or two people, and finally I read
the work to a larger audience; and that is the moment, believe me, when
I make my severest corrections, for my anxiety makes me concentrate all
the more carefully. (Ep. 7.17.7–8 [Radice, lcl])

The complexity not only explains the difficulty in defending the authorship of
a work and in establishing the identity and involvement of an amanuensis, but
it also points to the complexity of the writing process that a pseudepigraphic
reading would not allow (Donfried 2008: 168).
Nevertheless, the question of power and authority cannot be separated from
the issue of authorship. Modern concerns of authorship may contribute to this
discussion when a distinction is made between authorship/coauthorship and
multiple authorship, with authors and coauthors taking responsibility “for the
work as a whole” but not works by multiple authors (Hick 2014: 153). The issue of
power, authority, and responsibility fails to be resolved in I. Howard Marshall’s
argument for “allonymity” (83–84), which attempts to tread a path between
Pauline authorship and pseudonymity by suggesting that an editor can sub-
stantially alter and extend the words of a deceased author. Greco-Roman writ-
ers were conscious of the ethical responsibility of an author, as illustrated in
introduction 33

the self-reflections of Isocrates (Antid.; Behme 2004: 197–215) and Quintilian

(Inst. 10; Logie 2003: 365–366), and they were not oblivious to the distinction
between author and copier/editor as they considered only the one responsible
for the content to be the author of a work (Galen, Hippocratis ii; Baum 2013: 28;
cf. Mülke 2008). To argue for the existence of “allonymity” in the ancient world
in order to avoid the accusation of deception is without basis in the ancient
literature, even when the complexity of the writing and editing processes are
recognized.

3.4.4 Pseudonymity Hypothesis

While we have shown that there are insufficient reasons to deny Pauline author-
ship of the pe, the problems surrounding pseudonymity lend further support
to the position held for almost 1800 years. Different versions of a pseudonymity
hypothesis exist, but we will focus on the more common assumption of double
pseudonymity of author and recipient.
Pseudepigraphy as a practice is found in Greco-Roman philosophical
schools (e.g., Iamblichus, Pyth. 29) and Jewish apocalyptic writings (e.g., 1 En.),
but a near-consensus in modern scholarship has emerged that “irrespective
of context, genre, or motive, pseudonymous writings are in their very nature
deceptive, misleading the reader about the identity of the author” (Gamble
2009: 356). While motives may range from material benefits to admiration
(Metzger 1972: 5–11), “his deception is key to the author’s whole ethic” (Donel-
son 1988: 111). The concept of authority and responsibility is invariably tied with
authorship in both Jewish and early Christian practices, and the presence of
pseudonymous writings in Jewish apocalyptic literature does not provide “any
hard evidence of nondeceptive pseudepigrapha” (Donelson, 10). To evoke the
ot prophetic traditions (e.g., Isaiah) as a parallel (Meade 1986: 17–43) also fails
because Isaiah is anonymous and the assumed growth of the Isaianic tradition
is not evident in the case of the pe (Porter 1995: 116–117). Moreover, “apocryphal
apostolic letters” are extremely rare in the early Christian centuries, and those
that are identified as such are rejected (cf. 3Corinthians; Bauckham 1988: 485–
487). Even those who assume that the pe are pseudonymous (e.g., Merz 2004:
198–199) concede that a non-deceptive open pseudepigraphic practice is highly
improbable in early Christianity.
In the early church, apocryphal books have often been rejected because
they are pseudonymous (e.g., Tertullian, Bapt. 17.4–5, Athanasius, Ep. fest. 39.2;
Augustine, Civ. 15.23; 18.38; cf. Augustine, Doctr. chr. 2.8; Baum 2013: 13–17), and
no nt books that are deemed pseudonymous have been recognized as authori-
tative and canonical even if authenticity is not the primary criterion (Brox 1975:
26–36). The assumption of the fluidity of the pseudonymous-authentic spec-
34 introduction

trum in the ancient world is not supported by literary evidence, and to suggest
that the authenticity of a document does not guarantee its acceptance into the
canon (Oberlinner 2014: 270) does not alter the fact that pseudonymous writ-
ings are consistently rejected in the early church.
In the case of the pe, the concern for truthfulness is explicitly noted (Titus
1:12–13), and the concern for the authenticity of Paul’s own writings is also
found in earlier Paulines (2Thess 2:2; 3:17). Not only is Paul claimed to be the
author of all three letters (1Tim 1:1; 2Tim 1:1; Titus 1:2), but there are also exten-
sive autobiographical sections within them (1Tim 1:12–17; 2 Tim 1:3–14; 4:6–18;
Titus 3:12–14). To assume that the pe are written by someone other than Paul
is to argue that the author “undertook a deceitful writing strategy in falsifying
the authorship of the letters and risked rejection of his writing” (Marshall 2008:
789).
To attribute authorship of the pe to a “Pauline school” (Thiessen 1995: 342–
348) creates another set of problems, beyond the sheer lack of evidence for the
existence of such a school. If Timothy is part of this “school” and the author
of this letter (Stepp 2005: 199–200), the intent to deceive remains since he is
named the recipient of two of these letters. If another of Paul’s coworkers or
students is responsible for these letters, the question remains as to why they
were not written before Paul’s death. As Hans-Josef Klauck (2006: 405) has con-
cluded, “even with all our apologetic skills we will not be able to remove all
offense from early Christian pseudepigraphy.”
Even if the deceptive practice of pseudepigraphy can be justified, this hy-
pothesis remains one plagued with limited explanatory power and internal
inconsistencies. First and foremost is the failure to explain the presence of
three individual letters that are different in form, structure, and assumed Sitz
im Leben, but with significant repetitive elements. Nor is this hypothesis able
to clarify how the author receives and uses the Pauline traditions since neither
a dependence on Paul’s earlier letters nor the use of oral legends concerning
Paul appears to be supported by the textual evidence (cf. Lohfink 1988: 169–
188). Moreover, this hypothesis fails to explain the lack of a coherent time-
line among these three letters and between the pe and the earlier Paulines
or Acts. The differences with the pseudonymous 3 Corinthians in reference to
the characterization of the false teachings as well as the way earlier Pauline
expressions are used also argue against these being true parallels (Dunn 2000:
63–70). Finally, the absence of any hint of the circumstances surrounding Paul’s
death is surprising if these were the product of a later author familiar with
Paul.
introduction 35

4 Historical Setting

The assumption of Pauline authorship established above provides modern

readers with a more definitive understanding of the dating of these letters and
the events embedded in them. Corresponding with these is the general under-
standing of the contexts within which the recipients are located.

4.1 Setting of the Author

Considering Paul as the author of the pe, parts or all of the pe can be dated
either within the chronology of Acts or beyond.

4.1.1 Within Acts

For those who locate the pe within Acts, most would separate 1 Timothy and
Titus from 2Timothy since 1Tim 3:14 and Titus 3:12 portray Paul as a travel-
ing missionary, while 2Tim 1:16–17 and 4:16–17 portray him as a prisoner. Paul’s
third missionary journey (Acts 18:23–21:26) provides a possible timeframe for
the events embedded in 1Timothy and Titus. Van Bruggen (1981: 31–40) locates
Paul’s traveling noted in 1Timothy and Titus, which partly overlaps with his
journeys reflected in the Corinthian correspondence, in the gap between the
summary statement of Acts 19:20 and the note of the beginning of a new jour-
ney in 19:21 (for a more recent defense, see Fuchs 2011: 33–58).
John A.T. Robinson also dates 1Timothy and Titus to Paul’s third missionary
journey, but in light of the echo of Paul’s speech to the Ephesian elders (Acts
20:17–35) in Titus (1:5–12; 3:8, 12, 14), he dates Titus to the end of Paul’s stay in
Ephesus (1976: 81–82). 1Timothy was slightly earlier than Titus, with 1 Tim 1:3
likely referring to Acts 20:1 (1976: 82). Peter Walker (2012: 7–15) provides a more
recent defense of dating both Paul’s ministry in Acts 20, which allows Titus 1:5 to
be read without having to assume Paul’s visit to Crete (see commentary below).
Though 2Timothy can conceivably be forced into the same period of time
if an imprisonment is assumed in Corinth (Acts 20:3; Mullins 1993: 201), most
who argue for an early dating of 1Timothy and Titus would argue for the Roman
imprisonment of Acts 28:30–31 as the context for 2 Timothy (cf. van Bruggen
1981: 48–58). Robinson (1976: 67–80), however, argues for an early Caesarea
imprisonment (Acts 24–26), while Walker (2012: 121–125) considers 2 Timothy
the first letter Paul wrote upon his arrival at Rome (28:14), accounting for the
different tone from his other prison letters.
These attempts to date the pe within Acts have the advantage of explaining
Paul’s statement concerning Timothy’s youth in 1 Tim 4:12 (but see commentary
below); however, a number of objections argue against the probability of this
dating: (1) the common language and style within the pe argue against splitting
36 introduction

these letters into different temporal and socio-historical settings (see above);
(2) to place 1Timothy and Titus within the same authorial setting with the
Corinthian correspondence fails to account for numerous differences between
these corpora (Porter 2013: 78–79); (3) the focus on the older men (1 Tim 5:1)
and women/widows (1Tim 5:3–16) in the pe as well as the clearer articulation
of the structure of the church argue for a later stage in Paul’s life; (4) to place
the prison letters and the pe within the same Roman imprisonment fails to
explain the affinities and cohesion shared within those two corpora, and to
move 2Timothy to an earlier Caesarean or Corinthian imprisonment would
make it difficult to explain 2Tim 1:15–18; (5) the solemn tone as well as a sense of
finality in 2Timothy; and (6) certain details remain difficult, such as the loca-
tion of Trophimus in Miletus (2Tim 4:20), Timothy’s apparent lack of aware-
ness of Erastus in Corinth (2Tim 4:20), and the itinerary of Titus before Crete
and the notes on Titus in 2Corinthians (Keener 2014: 3026). While Luke Tim-
othy Johnson is correct that the problems created by the historical references
are “of no greater magnitude than those presented by Galatians, Philemon, and
Philippians” (68), the force of the objections noted above remains.

4.1.2 After Acts

The historical reconstruction that sees Paul released from his Roman imprison-
ment recorded in Acts 28, followed by a period of traveling before his second
Roman imprisonment in the late ad 60s, best accounts for the biographical
details in the pe as well as the distinct tone and sense of finality of 2 Timothy.
First, within the nt, Paul anticipates a period of ministry that would lead him
back to the East (cf. Phil 1:18–19, 24–26; Phlm 22; Fee, 22). Also explicitly noted
is his plan to travel to Spain at the end of his third missionary journey (Rom
15:24, 26).
Isolated references in early Christian writings appear to affirm the materi-
alization of Paul’s earlier plans. Clement of Rome contains a reference to the
“boundary of the West” (τὸ τέρμα τῆς δύσεως, 1Clem. 5.7), best understood as a
reference to Spain (cf. τὸ τῆς Εὐρώπης τέρμα, Philostratus, Vit. Apoll. 5.4; Löhr
2001: 207–209; cf. Simpson, 4), which is made explicit in the Canon Muratori
that mentions Paul leaving Rome for Spain (lines 38–39). Acts of Peter 1 also
claims that Paul had received a vision in Rome to go as a physician to the peo-
ple in Spain, a sea-journey that would only take a week or less (Pliny, Nat. 19.1.4;
Murphy-O’Connor 1996: 361). No direct evidence of Paul’s ministry in Spain can
be cited, but the memory of his time there survived (cf. Eastman 2011: 144–153).
Judging from the content of the pe, Paul’s return to the East may have
been prompted by the difficulties encountered by the churches there. Though
his final period of ministry in the East is not well documented, traces of it
introduction 37

can still be identified. First, the subscriptions of a number of notable manu-

scripts of 1Timothy suggest Laodicea as its place of origin (A P 241 1739c 1881
boms 𝔐), a surprising reference that likely points to an independent tradi-
tion since Laodicea is not mentioned at all in the pe (cf. Swinson 2006: 11–12).
Second, textual and archaeological evidence may point to traditions of Paul’s
final period of ministry in Philippi (Callahan 1998: 83). These isolated pieces
of evidence provide the possible context for the composition of 1 Timothy and
Titus.
Eusebius mentioned the tradition of Paul entering Rome “a second time”
(δεύτερον) after being sent on “the ministry of proclamation” (τὴν τοῦ κηρύγμα-
τος διακονίαν) following his release from his first Roman imprisonment (Hist.
eccl. 2.22.1–2). The reference to “the second time” (ἐκ δευτέρου) in Rome also
appears in the subscriptions of 2Timothy in the manuscript traditions (1739c
𝔐). 2Timothy is best located during this second Roman imprisonment (see
comments on 2Tim 4:6), the terminus ad quem is ad 67, the death of Nero under
whom Paul suffered martyrdom (Hist. eccl. 2.25.5). Luke’s silence on events
beyond Acts 28 should not be taken as “contradicting” (cf. Bassler, 19) the subse-
quent church traditions that testify to Paul’s travel after probable release from
his first imprisonment
Even with the assumption of a second Roman imprisonment, the few ref-
erences in the pe are not able to provide enough information for a detailed
itinerary. This is merely one possibility that accounts for the details within and
beyond the text: After his (brief) mission in Spain, Paul went with Titus and
Timothy to Crete, where there was likely already a vibrant Christian community
founded since the time of the Pentecost (Acts 2:11). Titus was left in Crete (Titus
1:5) while Paul and Timothy traveled to Ephesus where Timothy stayed to deal
with the problems there (1Tim 1:3). Paul then probably traveled to Laodicea and
wrote 1Timothy there (based on subscriptions on select manuscripts of 1 Tim)
when he received news from Tychicus (2Tim 4:12). From Laodicea, he traveled
all the way to Macedonia, likely stopping in Philippi (based on early Christian
traditions) and then onto western Greece where he wrote Titus.
Paul was planning to travel to Nicopolis (Titus 3:12) while the letter to Titus
was to be delivered by Zenas and Apollos (Titus 3:13), possibly on their way
to Alexandria (cf. Acts 18:24). As Tychicus was sent to Ephesus (2 Tim 4:12)
to assist or replace Timothy, Artemas was sent to Crete (Titus 3:12). At a cer-
tain point, Titus started serving in Dalmatia (2 Tim 4:10), north of Nicopolis,
where Paul was planning to spend the winter (Titus 3:12). From Nicopolis, Paul
traveled back to the East through Macedonia along the Via Egnatia. Arriv-
ing in the province of Asia, he stopped by Troas where he left some of his
belongings (2Tim 4:13). Traveling south along the coast to Ephesus (2 Tim 4:14–
38 introduction

15) and Miletus (2Tim 4:20), he was arrested. He might have made a stop in
Corinth on his way back to Rome for his second imprisonment, where he wrote
2 Timothy.

4.2 Setting of the Recipients

Outside of Paul, Timothy first appears in Acts 16:1–3 as a disciple whose mother
was Jewish and whose father was Greek. He became a companion of Paul
in his mission (cf. Acts 17:14; 18:5; 20:4) and appears often as a co-author of
his letters (2Cor 1:1; Phil 1:1; Col 1:1; 1Thess 1:1; 2 Thess 1:1). A trusted coworker
(Rom 16:21) and a dedicated follower of Christ (Phil 2:21), his “successful trip
to Philippi, Thessalonika, and Corinth as change-agent aide shows his ability
in this regard” (Malina 2008: 93), thus well-prepared for the tasks in Ephesus.
Though 1Timothy is addressed to Timothy (see 3.3.8 above), its focus is also on
the Ephesian community of believers. This would explain both the personal
tone of the letter as well as its focus on structural concerns of the wider com-
munity. The Ephesian setting would also explain 2 Timothy, though the form
and content shift drastically because of the change in Paul’s own situation (see
section 5 below).
That Paul spent three years in Ephesus may suggest that it was a particularly
difficult situation for the community of believers to flourish (Acts 20:33–35;
1 Cor 4:12; 1Thess 2:9; Billings 2011: 541–569). The difficulties may be related to
the origin of the community, which can be traced back to the ministry of Apol-
los with Priscilla and Aquila (Acts 18:24–26), or even to those returning from
Pentecost if “believers” (Acts 18:27) had already existed prior to the arrival of
Apollos (Trebilco, 109). Moreover, the age of the church may account both for
the relatively structured community assumed in 1 Timothy as well as the vari-
ous kinds of problems that had developed by the mid-60s.
Not unlike Corinth, Ephesus is an important port city with the conver-
gence of trade routes (note the customs regulations in the Monumentum Eph-
esenum, seg 1180), which may explain the similarities between 1 Corinthians
and 1Timothy as the communities face a similar set of struggles (Johnson, 82).
Moreover, since the time of Augustus, there were attempts by the Ephesians
to honor the Roman emperor (cf. Immendörfer 2017: 94), thus explaining the
marked interaction with Roman imperial propaganda in this letter. This focus
on the Roman imperial system coexisted with the Ephesian Artemis cult, espe-
cially when Artemis was considered the guardian of the imperial household (cf.
Ἄρτέμιδος Σωτείρας Σεβαστοῦ γένους, IEph 1265; see section 6.2. below). There
is also a significant Jewish presence in Ephesus, with an inscription noting the
presence of the head of a synagogue and other elders (IEph 1251; Horsley 1987:
215).
introduction 39

Our knowledge of Titus is relatively limited. He was a Gentile follower of

Paul (Gal 2:1, 3) and was heavily involved in Paul’s dealings with the Corinthi-
ans (cf. 2Cor 2:13; 7:6–16). Paul left Titus at Crete (Titus 1:5), the largest of the
Greek islands with a significant Jewish population (Philo, Legat. 282). Though
the Christian community can be traced back to the Jewish pilgrims who had
returned from Pentecost (Acts 2:11), judging from the simpler structure of the
church, Paul’s visit (with Titus) might have played an important role in the orga-
nizing and revitalizing of the community.
Compared to the Roman province of Asia, the province of Crete and Cyre-
naica (combined as one in 27bc) is far less well-off, which may explain the lack
of emphasis on wealth in the letter to Titus. Titus might have been stationed
in Gortyn, the convergence of roads and the most populated city in Crete, or
in Knossos, a Roman colony and a notable city (Strabo, Geogr. 10.4.11; Chevrol-
lier 2016: 16). Pottery remains from Ephesus since the Hellenistic period show
that Crete is a transit point for traveling between Asia Minor and Egypt (Gal-
limore 2015: 272), and Paul’s possible travel from Crete back to Asia Minor likely
followed these age-old sea routes.

5 Genre

Two of the emerging consensuses in genre studies are that any author needs to
maintain “a balance between constraint and choice” and that “genre sets are
always evolving in response to various exigencies” (Swales 2009: 5). Despite
these general agreements, it remains unclear how the identification of the
genre of a work is to be made. Should it be defined by form, content, or func-
tion? By labels noted by ancient theorists or by actual samples written by them?
These questions may clarify some of the confusion in identifying the genre of
the particular letters in the pe. Some proposals can be easily dismissed, includ-
ing that of an “epistolary novel” (Pervo 1994: 25–47; cf. Glaser 2009: 168–322),
not only because of the lack of parallels in the early imperial period but also
because of the striking differences between these letters and a “novel” in at least
form and content. Moreover, this is not a genre recognized by ancient theorists,
and it denies the close formal resemblance between these letters and the ear-
lier Paulines.
For 1Timothy and Titus, the various proposals can be grouped into two cate-
gories. The first draws attention to the power discrepancy between the author
and the recipients. These include: (1) mandata principis letters written by an
authoritative figure to his delegates. These focus on the character of the dele-
gates, the rules these delegates are to impose within their own communities,
40 introduction

and the character of these delegates themselves (Johnson 137–142), with exam-
ples in P.Tebt. 703 (cf. Johnson, 140) and the decree of Antiochus iii (cf. Jose-
phus, A.J. 12.148–153; Fiore, 64). The main problem with these is that mandata
principis letters are not an established genre, and the final parts of P.Tebt. 703
resemble the concerns of 1Timothy and Titus (Mitchell 2002: 364–365). The
decree of Antiochus iii focuses on the decree with no concern for the moral
health of its recipient. (2) “Administrative letters” as those found among the
Egyptian documentary papyri (Kidson 2014: 97–116). Unlike P.Tebt. 703, a closer
example of a letter is found in P.Tebt. 27, though the hortatory function is still
not at the center of these letters. (3) Also to be included in this category are
the “Friendship (φιλικός) Letters,” which are also written from a superior to an
inferior while focusing on the relationship between the two (Harding 1998: 91).
These appear in Pseudo-Libanius’s handbook (Ἐπιστολιμαῖοι Χαρακτῆρες), and
they provide the bridge to the second category since it also focuses on the dis-
tinct function of the pe.
The second category focuses instead on the paraenetic aspect of a large
part of 1Timothy and Titus. Significant use of vocabularies such as παραγγέλλω,
παραγγελῖα, ἐλε͂γχω, and ἐλεγμός points to the paraenetic focus of these let-
ters (Popkes 2004: 29), with Jerome Quinn, in particular, claiming that “the pe
as a collection slip like a hand into the glove of pseudo-Libanius’ description
of the paraenetic epistolary style” (Quinn 1990: 193). Listed first in Pseudo-
Libanius’s catalog of letter types, paraenesis provides an apt description of at
least 1Timothy and Titus since it contains an emphasis on responsibility within
a particular structure, the importance of tradition, the uses of personal exam-
ples, and the reference to the future to encourage a particular course of action
(Popkes 2004: 22). Nevertheless, if one adopts a formal definition, paraenesis
“was not a type of text, even less a literary genre …, but a practice” (Engberg-
Pedersen 2004: 53).
Noting the flexibility of genre categories and the various possible ways of
identifying a genre, some have identified “paraenetic literature” as “a secondary
literary genre” (Gammie 1990: 45), in this case within the broader category
of “letters.” If ancient parallels are to play a part in the genre identification,
Seneca’s Epistulae morales provide close parallels since they are letters with
a wider audience in view, they are instruction from a superior to his pro-
tégé, and they were eventually collected to be read as a whole (Hutson 1997:
60). Paul is not, however, constrained by the form of the genre. While parae-
netic literature falls comfortably within Greco-Roman moral traditions that
emphasize human reason, for Paul “Scripture” and “apostolic tradition” play
a more fundamental role (2Tim 3:14–17; Titus 1:9; Malherbe 2004: 316). Not-
ing the limitation of paraenesis as a secondary genre label, “paraenetic epistle”
introduction 41

remains an appropriate label as it takes into account both the power discrep-
ancy between Paul and his protégé and also the main function of 1 Timothy and
Titus.
For 2Timothy, two (overlapping) labels have also been proposed. Consider-
ing this as the final letter of Paul, many argue that it is “the conscious imitation
of the testamental genre” (Klauck 2006: 327; cf. Collins, 181–185; Malina and
Pilch, 143). Seán Martin (1997), in particular, points to the explicit reference to
Moses in 2Tim 3:8–9 and argues for the presence of a Moses-Joshua typology,
with Joshua fulfilling Deut 18:15–19 in his succession of Moses. Distinguishing
themselves from their Greco-Roman counterparts, paraenetic elements play a
more significant role in Jewish testamentary literature, thus providing a closer
parallel to 2Timothy (cf. Harding 1998: 147). Besides a general concern for the
end of Paul’s ministry, some have argued against this identification by point-
ing to the absence of a preamble, narrative sections, eschatological sections,
and burial plans in 2Timothy as one would have expected in Jewish testamen-
tary literature (Richards 2002: 135). Nevertheless, considering the flexibility in
observing generic rules and the need to adapt to particular “various exigencies”
(see above), the presence of testamentary elements should at least be granted,
considering that the entire letter is dominated by succession concerns and the
end of Paul’s life and ministry.
As noted above, some would group 2Timothy within the general category
of paraenetic literature. This is confirmed by a discourse analysis that demon-
strates the importance of “Greco-Roman moral tradition” in 2 Timothy (West-
fall 2010: 225). Even for Luke Timothy Johnson, who argues for different generic
identifications between 1Timothy/Titus and 2Timothy, the latter is the nt’s
“most perfect example of a personal paraenetic letter” (2008: 23). After all, what
appears as a succession narrative that focuses on Paul and Timothy is trans-
formed into one that aims at drawing attention to Christ himself, while address-
ing the wider concerns of the moral and spiritual development of believers (see
commentary on 2Tim 2:1–14). The concern for Paul’s death is transformed into
a concern for the spread of the gospel among “all the nations” (2 Tim 4:17). Con-
sidering the unity of the pe, all three should be read as paraenetic letters, with
elements of testamentary literature present in 2 Timothy.

6 Purpose

As noted above, as early as the Muratorian Fragment, the pe are considered to

be focused on eclesiastice descepline (Mur. Frag. 62–63), which later received
the descriptor “the Pastoral Epistles” (Anton 1753). Many continue to see 1 Tim-
42 introduction

othy and Titus, in particular, as primarily concerned with “ ‘church order,’ a

cipher for what can be considered as the structure(s) of the church” (Collins
2001: 137). Moving beyond this narrow definition, Andreas Köstenberger sug-
gests that while these are not “generic manuals of church order,” they are
focused on “the orderly transition from the apostolic to the postapostolic
period” (2010: 9). In arguing against the dominance of particular concerns
behind 1Timothy, for example, Köstenberger points to “the structural markers
in 1Tim 2:1 and 3:15–16 that set off chaps. 2–3 from chaps. 4–6 respectively” (9),
with chapters 2–3 focusing on the general behavior expected of believers in the
house of God.
Many have, however, pointed to the occasional nature of the pe. Without
denying the universal significance of these letters, they have to be first exam-
ined within a particular historical framework. Gordon Fee (1985: 142) represents
many in pointing to 1Tim 1:3 as an explicit statement of the main purpose of
1 Timothy as Timothy was called “to remain in Ephesus to charge certain people
not to spread a different teaching.” Fee further argues from Acts 20:30 that the
basic structure of the church of Ephesus was already in place before Paul wrote
1 Timothy, a letter that focuses on how church leaders can provide an effective
response against the false teachers. As David Verner (1991: 147–150) has noted,
neither the function of the ecclesial offices nor the relationship between them
is discussed; the focus, therefore, is not on “describing and defending a particu-
lar ecclesiastical structure” (150), but the use of such a structure in responding
to the false teachers.
Beyond explicit statements on the false teachers and their teachings (see
below), several markers can be identified in their importance in these let-
ters. First, the “preformed traditions” in these letters, especially in 1 Timothy,
are often directed against the false teachers (Yarbrough 2009: 186). Second, in
response to the false teachers, vocabulary related to “speaking” and “teaching”
form a threat through all three letters (cf. 1Tim 1:6–7; 4:7; 6:4, 20, 21; 2 Tim 2:14;
Titus 1:10; 3:9; Redekop 1990: 237). Third, the emphasis on the church as “the
household of God” aims also at the false teachers because this church is “the
pillar and bulwark of the truth” (1Tim 3:15; Mappes 1999: 454–455). Fourth, in
all three letters, the positive encouragement to teach the truth is to fight against
the false teaching (cf. 1Tim 3:2; 4:6; 5:17; Titus 1:5, 9; 2 Tim 2:2; Hutson 1997: 363–
364).
In response to the structural markers noted by Köstenberger, it is unclear
whether those markers are meant to separate the occasional from the general
instructions. Ray van Neste (138) has demonstrated that 1 Tim 1:3–20 and 6:3–
21 form an inclusio that draws attention to the consistent focus of combatting
the false teachers in the sections they bracket, while Jeffrey Reed identifies this
introduction 43

sustained attack on the false teachers as providing “the letter’s cohesiveness”

(1992: 146).
To focus on combatting the false teachers and their teachings does not, how-
ever, downplay the “pastoral” nature of these letters when the term is under-
stood in the wider sense of the cultivation of the soul and character of a student
in response to challenges (Winter 2013: 232–250), both immediate and general
(see 6.2 below). This unifying focus should also not diminish the unique con-
text and emphases of these individual letters. Paul sent Timothy to Ephesus
to combat the false teachers, and 1Timothy that was subsequently sent con-
tains a wider vision of the church that stands for “the faith.” Titus was sent to a
younger church where a proper structure was to be established for the defense
of the gospel. Anticipating his own death, Paul, in his second letter to Timothy,
speaks to Timothy and “to faithful people who will be able to teach others as
well” (2Tim 2:2), so people would not follow those who “have strayed from the
faith” (2:18).

6.1 False Teachers and Their Teachings

Despite the different emphases noted below, there are sufficient common ele-
ments implied in the similar responses provided in the three letters. We will
begin with these elements and evaluate some of the proposals provided con-
cerning the identity of these false teachings. To achieve greater clarity on the
nature of these false teachings, we will also discuss the identity of some of the
false teachers, which are not to be confused or completely identified with the
false teachings themselves.
These false teachings include:
(1) Emphasis on speculations and debates (1Tim 1:6; 5:13; 6:4; 2 Tim 2:14, 16,
23–24; Titus 3:9) and claims to special knowledge (cf. τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώ-
σεως, 1Tim 6:20; see also, 2Tim 2:25; 3:7; Titus 1:1).
(2) Some relations to Jewish laws (νομοδιδάσκαλοι, 1 Tim 1:7; ὁ νόμος, 1 Tim
1:8–9; μάχας νομικάς, Titus 3:9; cf. ἀνομίας, Titus 2:14) and “Jewish myths”
(Ἰουδαϊκοῖς μύθοις, Titus 1:14; cf. μύθοις καὶ γενεαλογίαις, 1 Tim 1:3–4).
(3) A focus on the present reality of the resurrected life (cf. τὴν ἀνάστασιν
ἤδη γεγονέναι, 2Tim 2:18) and an over-realized eschatology (1 Tim 4:8; 6:14;
2Tim 4:18; Titus 2:13; 3:7).
(4) Promotion of ascetic behavior (1Tim 4:3–5, 8; Titus 1:15; cf. 1 Tim 2:15),
which may also reflect Jewish purity concerns (cf. 1 Cor 9:19–27) and/or
an over-realized eschatology (cf. Col 2:16–19; 3:1–4).
(5) Tolerance of an immoral lifestyle, which may also stem from an over-
realized eschatology (1Tim 1:10; 4:12; 5:2, 6, 11; 2 Tim 2:22; 3:2–4; Titus 2:3,
5, 12).
44 introduction

(6) Reliance on wealth (1Tim 2:9; 6:7–10, 17–19) and manifestations of greed-
iness (cf. 1Tim 3:3, 8; Titus 1:7, 11).
(7) Deception (cf. 1Tim 2:7, 14; 4:2; Titus 1:2, 12) and a general betrayal of “the
truth” (1Tim 2:7; 6:5; 2Tim 2:18; 3:8; 4:3), “the faith” (1 Tim 1:19; 3:9; 4:1; 6:21;
2Tim 3:8), and “the sound words/teachings” (1 Tim 6:3; 2 Tim 1:13; 4:3; Titus
1:9).
Unique in 1Timothy is the urgency of the challenges of these false teachers; in
Titus, less emphasis on the Jewish practices (especially striking is the absence
of the reference to the law in Paul’s autobiographical statement in Titus 3:4–
7; Neudorfer 2012: 200); and in 2Timothy, the presence of physical opposi-
tion/persecution and the comparison of the behavior of his opponents with
those evil-doers “in the last days” (2Tim 3:1). Nevertheless, there are enough
common elements among the three to conclude that similar groups of false
teachings are being targeted in the pe.
More difficult is identifying these false teachers. Some have suggested that
“the description of the opponents is not meant to say anything accurate about
‘them,’ but rather to describe the boundaries of the in-group” (Solevåg 2013:
90), but this would not explain the specificity of the criticisms launched against
them in the pe. Even Robert Karris, who argues for the use of “a schema … tradi-
tional to the polemic of philosophers against sophists” (1973: 551), points to the
distinct elements in the critique of the false teachings in the pe. To Karris, these
distinct elements point to Jewish Christian teachings that promote an ascetic
lifestyle based on an over-realized eschatology (562–563). Moreover, the use
of stereotypical charges does not automatically eliminate them from having
historical referential value when such charges (e.g., greediness, irresponsible
behavior of persons of a particular gender) are well integrated into the more
specific characterization of those promoting such teachings.
The general nature of the false teachings criticized and the lack of substan-
tial theological engagement with these false teachings have led some to suggest
that a later author, writing in Paul’s name, “does not intend to describe any par-
ticular group … [but only] to point to typical phenomena of heresy in general”
(Koester 1982: 304). This predicates on a pseudonymous authorship of the pe
as well as the assumption that Paul’s opponents were more easily identifiable
in his earlier writings, which does not seem to be the case. Moreover, the speci-
ficity of the description as well as the urgency of 1 Timothy, in particular, argues
against this conclusion, unless the deceptive nature of pseudonymous writings
is carried to its logical end: the author merely addresses the future general con-
dition of the church (cf. 1Tim 4:1; Strecker 2000: 592).
Nothing in the text suggests a second-century dating, which would rule
out a Gnostic, Marcionite, or Montanist reading of the false teachings. Those
introduction 45

who consider these teachers to be promoting “a Jewish-Christian Gnosis in

the broadest sense” (Schmithals 1983: 115) will have to emphasize “the broad-
est sense,” because neither the mythic elements nor the soteriological function
of knowledge is clearly articulated in the pe. μῦθος in the pe should be taken
to refer to Jewish exegetical traditions (cf. Ἰουδαϊκοῖς μύθοις, Titus 1:14) given
that μύθοις καὶ γενεαλογίαις (cf. 1Tim 1:3–4) are tied with μάχας νομικὰς in Titus
3:8–9. Moreover, τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως in 1Tim 6:20 is not uncommon in Hel-
lenistic Jewish polemic (ἡ ψευδώνυμος φιλόσοφος/φιλοσοφία, Philo, qe frag. 7; cf.
Plutarch, Mor. 479e) and is here serving as a contrast to the “knowledge of the
truth” (ἐπίγνωσις ἀληθείας, 2:4; cf. 2Tim 2:24; 3:7).
A Marcionite background is also unlikely in light of the negative portrayal
of Jewish tradition, especially in Titus (1:10, 14). Troy Martin argues for the
presence of an “intra-Christian” debate within the pe, but with Titus reject-
ing the Jewish roots of Christianity while 1Timothy affirms such connections
(2000: 21). Not only does this require a late dating of the pe, but the differ-
ences between 1Timothy and Titus are also exaggerated. The arguments against
μύθοις καὶ γενεαλογίαις in 1Timothy are against the misuse of the Torah (see
above), while Titus is not shy from using ot language for his own argument (cf.
Titus 2:14). A Montanist (or proto-Montanist) background would be even less
likely since it rests primarily on the general references to prophetesses (1 Tim
2:9–15) and the “deceitful spirits” (1Tim 4:1; Ford 1971: 340).
If the roots of these false teachings can be traced back to the earlier Paulines,
Philip Towner (1989: 29–36) argues for the affinity of these teachings with
those which Paul combatted in 1Corinthians and Colossians, with emphases
on gnosis, ascetic practices, and an over-realized eschatology. Dillon Thornton
(2016) also focuses on the earlier Paulines but suggests that the false teach-
ers misunderstood Paul’s complex eschatological program (cf. 1 Cor 7:29–31).
For Margaret Michell (2008: 44), who holds pseudonymous authorship, this
“Paul” presents himself as engaging “in self-correction (though he is not that
self) which has in mind correction of others (who also make claims on that
Pauline self).”
Towner’s approach remains the most fruitful one, clarifying references to the
Jewish law that find their affinities to the false teachings behind 1 Corinthians
rather than Galatians. Nevertheless, this merely defers the debate to the field
of Corinthian studies since consensus is lacking as to what lies behind the false
teachings there. Here in the pe, the presence of Jewish elements cannot be
denied, but these elements may interact with some (mis)appropriations of the
Pauline gospel, including teaching on resurrection and a version of the egali-
tarian gospel (Trebilco, 230–231). The Colossian connection is also helpful as
it points to a form of syncretism within Hellenistic Jewish traditions that car-
46 introduction

ries an elitist ascetic mentality (cf. Col 2:16–19). As in the case of the Colossian
syncretism (cf. Arnold 1995: 103–244), the incorporation of local folk religious
beliefs and practices may explain the slight variations between the false teach-
ings in Ephesus and those in Crete. The influence of Artemis may also con-
tribute to the Ephesian false teachings (cf. Ames 2010: 71), while other pagan
religions may have contributed to the Cretan version when believers were less
influenced by the teachings of the synagogue (Neudorfer 2012: 37). Neverthe-
less, to identify this as a form of syncretism is an admission to our limitation to
fully identify the community that holds these beliefs. To further identify such
syncretism as a form of Hellenistic Jewish Gnosticism (Schenk 1987: 3429) is
anachronistic and without sufficient textual basis.
Besides identifying the conceptual framework of these false teachings, the
identity of the false teachers themselves may also explain Paul’s polemic in
these letters, especially since Paul is not merely engaging in abstract systems of
thought. Most would agree that the false teachers came from within the com-
munity of believers (1Tim 1:6; 5:15; 2Tim 2:18; 3:5; Titus 1:16), and that they were
likely leaders with considerable power and influence (1 Tim 1:7; 2:12; 3:6–7; 5:19–
20; 6:17–19; 2Tim 2:2, 14–17; Titus 1:6). Instead of fighting against a particular sys-
tem, some see the pe primarily targeting those struggling “for power to occupy
leadership positions in the Christian community” (Tamez 2007: 22). The main
concern is, therefore, “the restoration of order” rather than “the refutation of
heresy” (Kidd 1990: 98). This may explain the lack of sustained engagement
with the theological positions of these teachers since they were deemed unwor-
thy to be theological dialog partners. The use of the household metaphor (1 Tim
3:15) is then entirely appropriate as it “represents that which is contained, con-
trolled, and ordered” (Streete 1999: 308).
These false teachers may also have promoted a particular set of behaviors
without consistently grounding them on a theological system. This may be an
ascetic movement (cf. 1Tim 4:1–5; Theobald 2014: 315–338) and/or one that
empowers women believers (cf. 1Tim 2:9–15; 5:3–16; Huizenga 2013: 218–219).
Even if they have their own theoretical basis, Paul chose to focus on the center
of the gospel (cf. 1Tim 1:12–17; 2:3–7; 3:16; 4:10; 6:13–16; 2 Tim 1:9–10; 2:8–13; 4:1;
Titus 1:1–3; 2:11–14; 3:4–7) while rhetorically silencing their theological justifica-
tions.

6.2 Accommodation and Subversion

While disagreements persist on the identity of the false teachers and their
teachings, a consensus has emerged that sees the pe as reinventing Pauline
Christianity into one that accommodates itself to the wider mainstream cul-
ture. In doing so, Pauline Christianity is “domesticated” beyond recognition (cf.
introduction 47

Gourgues 2004: 5–18). Martin Dibelius and Hans Conzelmann (8) have already
argued for “good citizenship” being the ideal promoted by the author, and
this ideal often promotes “upper-class interests,” though the church still con-
sists largely of those outside of the axis of power (Zamfir, 45). This represents
a “‘bourgeois’ movement in early Christianity” where “bishops and deacons
should be good household managers, widows should limit their ministry, and
slaves should honor their civically upstanding masters” (Shaner 2018: 92).
Beyond this conception of the structure of the early Christian community,
this movement adopts a language of self-control and submission that belong
to the moral vision of Hellenistic society and the theo-political propaganda of
Roman imperialism. This is best illustrated by the repeated uses of the ἐυσεβ-
(εὐσέβεια: 1Tim 3:16; 4:7, 8; 6:3, 5, 6, 11; 2Tim 3:5; Titus 1:1; εὐσεβέω: 1 Tim 5:14;
εὐσεβῶς: 2Tim 3:12; Titus 2:12; cf. ἀσέβεια: 2Tim 2:16; Titus 2:12; ἀσεβής: 1 Tim
1:9; cf. Hoklotubbe 2015) and σωφρ- (σωφροσύνη, 1 Tim 2:9, 15; σώφρων, 1 Tim 3:2;
Titus 1:8; 2:2, 5; σωφρονισμός, 2Tim 1:7; σωφρονίζω, Titus 2:4; σωφρονέω, Titus 2:6;
σωφρονέω, Titus 2:12; cf. North 1966) word groups.
This consensus does not, however, hold up as well as some would have
expected when the texts are allowed to be examined within the assumption of
Pauline authorship. A comparison with 1Corinthians would reveal, for exam-
ple, that even the discussion of gender in the pe does not betray the earlier
Pauline gospel (cf. Klinker-De Klerck 2013). Others have also suggested that
while the general call to faithfulness may not appear to be radical, it is already a
counter-cultural stance when the early Christian movement encounters chal-
lenges from mainstream culture (Spicq, 1.243). Moreover, in plotting the vision
of the pe within the spectrum of “world-affirming” versus “world-rejecting” reli-
gious movements, Paul’s experience of and call to suffering in these letters also
questions the identification of the pe as betraying a world-affirming mentality
(cf. Delbridge 2001: 304). Reggie Kidd (1989: 35–109) also challenges the socio-
logical model accepted by many that the early Christian movement developed
from a lower class into one that is comfortable within the culture of the social
elite.
Even beyond challenging the notion of accommodation, there are hints
within the text that point to a subversive stance towards mainstream culture.
Two specific examples will suffice. First, an interaction with, if not a critique of,
the Artemis propaganda may be present, especially in 1 Timothy. 1 Tim 2:1–7 can
be considered a response to the claim of “Artemis the Savior” (Ἄρτέμιδος Σωτεί-
ρας, IEph 1265) to be the greatest among many (IEph 24; Horsley 1987: 75–76),
while 1Tim 3:14–16 employs vocabulary that is familiar within the Artemis pro-
paganda: μέγα (IEph 27), εὐσέβεια (IvS 653), and μυστήριον (IEph 987; cf. Rogers
2012: 134; Immendörfer 2017: 171). The difficult section of 2:9–15 may also con-
48 introduction

tain such indirect references when the priestesses within the Artemis cult are
considered benefactors (IEph 987), and when adorners (κοσμήτειρα, IEph 989;
cf. κοσμεῖν 1Tim 2:9; Van Tilborg 1996: 155) played an important role within the
cult.
Noting the use of vocabulary familiar to the Roman imperial propaganda
(cf. σωτήρ, ogis 458; 668 [1Tim 1:1; 2Tim 1:10; Titus 1:3]; IEph 251; θεός, ogis 458
[1Tim 1:1; 2Tim 4:1; Titus 1:3]; ἐπιφάνεια, IEph 251 [1 Tim 6:14; 2 Tim 1:10; Titus
2:13]; φανερόω [1Tim 3:16; 2Tim 1:10; Titus 1:3]; εὐαγγέλιον, ogis 458 [1 Tim 1:11;
2 Tim 1:10]; εὐσέβεια, seg 1092 [1Tim 2:12; Titus 1:1; Judge 2002: 22]), some have
also identified the presence of an anti-imperial polemic in the pe (cf. Gill 2008:
88–100). This subversive reading is possible, especially when the author of a
work that contains repeated use of imperial language claims to be one suffer-
ing under such an imperial system (Maier 2013: 195).
Nevertheless, this polemic should be understood within the subversive
stance against the wider benefaction system. After all, acts of benefaction are
part of imperial propaganda (cf. εὐεργεσία, ogis 458) as the emperor is consid-
ered “the benefactor of the world” (εὐεργέτην τοῦ κόσμου, seg 1092; cf. εὐεργέ-
της; ogis 668). In 1Timothy, God is portrayed as the ultimate benefactor, with
Jesus being the one and only mediator (2:1–7; cf. pontifex maximus, Augustus,
Res Gestae 7.3). Unlike the Roman emperor who claims to be the head of the
household (cf. patrem patriae, Augustus, Res Gestae 35.1–2), the church is “the
household of God” (1Tim 3:15) whose norms and values are not to be dictated
by the wider society. Those who are of means cannot exert authority because of
their social status (2:9–15), while slaves who have no status can, in turn, act as
benefactors with their “act of benefaction” (τῆς εὐεργεσίας, 6:2). No one should
“despise” (καταφρονείτω) those who are outside the axis of power (4:12), but
believers are called to “honor” (τίμα) even the widows (5:2). Similarly, wealthy
benefactors are called “not to be haughty” (μὴ ὑψηλοφρονεῖν, 6:17), and when
they are called “to do good” (ἀγαθοεργεῖν) and to be “rich in good works” (πλου-
τεῖν ἐν ἔργοις καλοῖς, 6:18), this “good” is defined not by acts of power but by
imitating Jesus, who gave “the good confession” (τὴν καλὴν ὁμολογίαν) before
Pontius Pilate (6:13). Similar warnings to wealthy benefactors can be detected
in 2Tim 3:2 with φιλάργυροι recalling ἡ φιλαργυρία of 1 Tim 6:10, and with the
descriptors that follow (ἀλαζόνες, “boasters,” ὑπερήφανοι, “proud,” and βλάσφη-
μοι, “blasphemers”) recalling μὴ ὑψηλοφρονεῖν of 1 Tim 6:17.
The depiction of God as a benefactor is even more explicit in Titus, where
God’s salvific act through the death of his Son is described as “the benevolence
and philanthropy (ἡ χρηστότης καὶ ἡ φιλανθρωπία) of God our Savior” (Titus
3:4). In this context, the title σωτήρ does include the Hellenistic conception of
a benefactor (Mott 1978: 43–46). This theological basis provides the justifica-
introduction 49

tion for the role and authority of Timothy and Titus, who are portrayed as ones
apart from the household structure (cf. Polaski 2005: 260).
To pitch an accommodation stance against a subversive one may fail to
acknowledge the complex reality of religious movements seeking to consol-
idate their boundaries in establishing their own identity. The pe testify to
this “complex negotiation” with the world in which believers find themselves
(Maier 2013: 145), a negotiation that has started already in the early Paulines
(cf. Rom 13:1–7; 1Cor 5:1; 7:13–24; 10:14–22; Herzer 2006: 117). Nevertheless,
to downplay the power of the subversive message that challenges the cul-
tural ethos of the time is to ignore the distinctive contribution of the pe,
which seek to demonstrate the power of the gospel for an ever-changing audi-
ence.

7 Outline

Numerous outlines of the individual letters within the pe have been proposed
based on rhetorical categories (Dormeyer 2004: 59–93), particular sub-genre of
Hellenistic letters (Quinn, 25–47; cf. Stowers 58–173), shifts in topics (e.g., Peng
2010: 10–18), verbal patterns (e.g., Burggraff 2011: 214–257), and cohesion within
and across individual discourse units (van Neste 2004: 142–143, 224–233, 281).
Rhetorical categories often focus on the letter body without sufficient attention
paid to epistolary analysis (Klauck 2006: 225). Moreover, it is unclear whether
such categories derived from oral performance can be directly transferred to
written letters (Porter 1993: 115–116). An outline based on the sub-genre of Hel-
lenistic letters suffers from the continued uncertainty of genre identification of
the individual letters as well as the likelihood of the use of mixed genres or the
modification of existing generic forms.
Our outlines will be informed by formal (epistolary conventions), linguis-
tic (verbal patterns), discourse (unit cohesiveness), and content (progression
of argument) considerations. Detailed justification of the outline will be pro-
vided in the Linguistic Analysis sections of the commentary below.

1 Timothy
i. Opening Salutation 1:1–2
ii. Danger of the False Teachers 1:3–20
A. Warning against the false teachers 1:3–7
B. Clarifying the true purpose of the Law 1:8–11
C. Paul as an example of a saved sinner 1:12–17
D. Charge to Timothy and his mission 1:18–20
50 introduction

iii. Worship of God the Savior of all 2:1–15

A. Submission of all in the presence of God 2:1–7
B. Men and women believers in the presence of God 2:8–15
iv. Household of God as the bulwark of the truth 3:1–16
A. Overseers in the household of God 3:1–7
B. Deacons in the household of God 3:8–13
C. Christ’s authority in the household of God 3:14–16
v. False Teachers and their deception 4:1–16
A. Dualistic framework of the false teachings 4:1–5
B. Responsibility of Timothy in combatting these false teachings 4:6–
10
C. Responsibility of Timothy in providing a positive example 4:11–16
vi. Needs of different groups in the church 5:1–6:2a
A. The old and the young 5:1–2
B. Widows 5:3–16
C. Elders 5:17–25
D. Slaves 6:1–2a
vii. False teachers and their use of wealth 6:2b–19
A. False Teachers and their view on wealth and benefaction 6:2b–
10
B. God and Christ as true benefactors 6:11–16
C. General teachings on wealth and benefaction 6:17–19
viii. Final words to Timothy 6:20–21

Titus
i. Opening Salutation 1:1–4
ii. In response to the false teachers 1:5–16
A. Appointment of Elders 1:5–9
B. Rebuke of the False teachers 1:10–16
iii. Responsibilities of household members 2:1–15
A. Directives to various household members 2:1–10
B. Basis of these directives 2:11–15
iv. Responsibilities of believers to the wider society 3:1–11
A. Be ready for good work 3:1–8
B. Avoid divisiveness 3:9–11
v. Final words to Titus 3:12–15

2 Timothy
i. Opening Salutation 1:1–2
ii. Thanksgiving 1:3–5
introduction 51

iii. Call to Timothy to be faithful 1:6–18

A. To remember, hold fast, and guard what he had received 1:6–14
B. Negative and Positive Examples 1:15–18
iv. Call to Timothy to be committed 2:1–26
A. To share in suffering 2:1–13
B. To be an example in response to the false teachers 2:14–26
v. Living in the last days 3:1–4:8
A. False teachers as eschatological enemies opposing the truth 3:1–9
B. Godly living grounded in the truth 3:10–17
C. Urgency of proclamation in view of the eschatological judgment
4:1–8
vi. Human desertion and divine presence 4:9–18
vii. Final word to Timothy 4:19–22
Introduction Bibliography

Aageson, James W. Paul, the Pastoral Epistles, and the Early Church. Peabody, MA: Hen-
drickson, 2008.
Aageson, James W. “The Pastoral Epistles and the Acts of Paul: A Multiplex Approach
to Authority in Paul’s Legacy.” ltq 40 (2005): 237–248.
Ames, Frank Ritchel. “Prayer and Syncretism in 1Timothy.” ResQ 52 (2010): 65–80.
Anton, Paul. Exegetische Abhandlung der Pastoral-Briefe Pauli an Timotheum und Ti-
tum, im Jahr 1726 und 1727. Halle: Wäysenhaus, 1753.
Arnold, Clinton E. The Colossian Syncretism. wunt 2.77. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
1995.
Ascough, Richard S. Paul’s Macedonian Associations: The Social Context of Philippians
and 1Thessalonians. wunt 2.161. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003.
Barclay, John M.G. “There is Neither Old Nor Young? Early Christianity and Ancient
Ideologies of Age.” nts 53 (2007): 225–241.
Barr, George K. Scalometry and the Pauline Epistles. JSNTSup 261. London: T & T Clark,
2004.
Barrett, C.K. Foi et Salut selon S. Paul (Épître aux Romains 1, 16). Colloque oecuménique
à l’Abbaye de S. Paul hors les Murs. ab 42. Rome: Institut Biblique Pontifical, 1970.
Barton, John. Holy Writings, Sacred Text: The Canon in Early Christianity. Louisville, KY:
Westminster John Knox, 1997.
Bauckham, Richard. “The Acts of Paul as a Sequel to Acts.” In The Book of Acts in Its
Ancient Literary Setting. Ed. Bruce W. Winter and Andrew D. Clarke, 105–152. bafcs 1.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993.
Baum, Armin D. “Authorship and Pseudepigraphy in Early Christian Literature: A Trans-
lation of the Most Important Source Texts and An Annotated Bibliography.” In Paul
and Pseudepigraphy. Ed. Stanley E. Porter and Gregory P. Fewster, 9–63. Pauline
Studies 8. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2013.
Baum, Armin D. “Semantic Variation within the Corpus Paulinum: Linguistic Consider-
ations Concerning the Richer Vocabulary of the Pastoral Epistles.” TynBul 59 (2008):
271–292.
Behme, Tim. “Isocrates on the Ethics of Authorship.”Rhetoric Review 23 (2004): 197–215.
Bell, Allan. The Guidebook to Sociolinguistics. West Sussex, UK: Wiley Blackwell, 2014.
Berding, Kenneth. “Polycarp of Smyrna’s View of the Authorship of 1 and 2 Timothy.” vc
53 (1999): 349–360.
Biber, Douglas. Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1988.
Brox, Norbert. Falsche Verfasserangaben: Zur Erklärung der frühchristlichen Pseude-
pigraphie. sbs 79. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1975.
introduction bibliography 53

Brox, Norbert. “Lukas als Verfasser der Pastoralbriefe?” jac 13 (1970): 63–77.
Brown, Peter Dunstan. “The Use of Ransom Language in 1 Timothy 2:1–7 and Titus 2:11–
14.” Ph.D. diss., Catholic University of America, 2014.
Bultmann, Rudolf. Theology of the New Testament. Vols. 1–2. Trans. Kendrick Grobel.
New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1951–1955.
Burggraff, Philip D. “A Corpus Linguistic Verb Analysis of the Pauline Letters: The Con-
tribution of Verb Patterns to Pauline Letter Structure.” Ph.D. diss., McMaster Divinity
College, 2011.
Burnet, Régis. “La pseudépigraphie comme procédé littéraire autonome: L’exemple des
Pastorals.” Apocrypha 11 (2000): 77–91.
Butticaz, Simon. “Auctorialite et autorite dans les lettres de Paul.” NovT 58 (2016): 318–
337.
Callahan, Allen Dwight. “Dead Paul: The Apostle as Martyr in Philippi.” In Philippi at
the Time of Paul and after His Death. Ed. Charalambos Bakirtzis and Helmut Koester,
67–84. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1998.
Campbell, Douglas A. Framing Paul: An Epistolary Biography. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2014.
Caulley, Thomas Scott. “Fighting the Good Fight: The Pastoral Epistles in Canonical–
Critical Perspective.” sblsp 26 (1987): 550–564.
Chevrollier, François. “From Cyrene to Gortyn: Notes on the Relationship between
Crete and Cyrenaica under Roman Domination (1st Century bc—4th Century ad).”
In Roman Crete: New Perspectives. Ed. Jane E. Francis and Anna Kouremenos, 11–26.
Oxford: Oxbow, 2016.
Clark, Matthew. “The Pastoral Epistles.” In A Biblical Theology of the Holy Spirit. Ed.
Trevor J. Burke and Keith Warrington, 213–225. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2014.
Collins, Raymond F. “The Origins of Church Law.” Jurist 61 (2001): 134–156.
Cook, David. “The Pastoral Fragments Reconsidered.” jts 35 (1984): 120–131.
Cramer, Michael J. “Of the Peculiarities of the Pastoral Epistles.” Journal of the Society
of Biblical Literature and Exegesis 7 (1887): 3–32.
Cranny-Francis, A., and J.R. Martin, “Contratextuality: The Poetics of Subversion.” In
Literacy in Social Processes. Ed. F. Christie, 286–344. Darwin: Centre for Studies in
Language in Education, Northern Territory University, 1991.
Davies, Stevan L. The Revolt of the Widows: The Social World of the Apocryphal Acts. Car-
bondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 1980.
Davis, Ellen F. “Reasoning with Scripture,” atr 90 (2008): 513-19.
Delbridge, Mary Lynnette, “‘Family’ as a Problem for New Religious Movements: The
Pastoral Epistles’ Collaboration with the Greco-Roman Household.” Ph.D. diss.,
Union Theological Seminary, 2001.
Devarenne, Nicole. “‘In hell you hear only your mother tongue’: Afrikaner Nationalist
Ideology, Linguistic Subversion, and Cultural Renewal in Marlene van Niekerk’s Tri-
omf.” Research in African Literatures 37 (2006): 105–120.
54 introduction bibliography

Donelson, Lewis R. “The Structure of Ethical Argument in the Pastorals.” btb 18 (1988):
108–113.
Donfried, Karl P. “Rethinking Scholarly Approaches to 1 Timothy.” In 1 Timothy Recon-
sidered. Ed. Karl Paul Donfried, 153–182. Colloquium Oecumenicum Paulinum 18.
Leuven: Peeters, 2008.
Dormeyer, Detlev. “The Hellenistic Letter-Formula and the Pauline Letter-Scheme.” In
The Pauline Canon. Ed. Stanley E. Porter, 59–93. Pauline Studies 1. Leiden/Boston:
Brill, 2004.
Duff, Jeremy. “𝔓46 and the Pastorals: A Misleading Consensus?” nts 44 (1998): 578–
590.
Dunn, James D.G. Unity and Diversity in the New Testament. 2nd ed. London: scm, 1977.
Dunn, Peter W. “Testing Pauline Pseudonymity: 2Corinthians and the Pastoral Epistles
Compared.” Proceedings: Eastern Great Lakes and Midwest Bible Societies 20 (2000):
63–70.
Eastman, David L. Paul the Martyr: The Cult of the Apostle in the Latin West. Atlanta:
Society of Biblical Literature, 2011.
Ebojo, Edgar Battad. “A Scribe and His Manuscript: An Investigation into the Scribal
Habits of Papyrus 46.” Ph.D. diss., University of Birmingham, 2014.
Eder, Maciej. “Does Size Matter? Authorship Attribution, Small Samples, Big Problem.”
Digital Scholarship in the Humanities 30 (2015): 167–182.
Eichhorn, Johann Gottfried. Einleitung in das Neue Testament. Vol. 2. Leipzig: Weid-
mann, 1812.
Ellis, E. Earle. “Traditions in the Pastoral Epistles.” In Early Jewish and Christian Exege-
sis. Ed. Craig A. Evans and William F. Stinespring, 237–253. Atlanta: Scholars Press,
1987.
Engberg-Pedersen, Troels. “The Concept of Paraenesis.” In Early Christian Paraenesis in
Context, 47–72. Ed. J. Starr and T. Engberg-Pedersen. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004.
Evanson, Edward. The Dissonance of the Four Generally Received Evangelists and the Evi-
dence of Their Respective Authenticity Examined. Ipswich: Jermyn, 1792.
Fee, Gordon D. “Reflections on Church Order in the Pastoral Epistles, with Further
Reflection on the Hermeneutics of ad hoc Documents.” jets 28 (1985): 141–151.
Ford, J. Massyngberde. “A Note on Proto-Montanism in the Pastoral Epistles.” nts 17
(1971): 338–346.
Frisius, Mark A. Tertullian’s Use of the Pastoral Epistles, Hebrews, James, 1 and 2 Peter,
and Jude. StBibLit 143. New York: Peter Lang, 2011.
Fuchs, Rüdiger. “Eine vierte Missionsreise des Paulus im Osten? Zur Datierung des
ersten Timotheusbriefs und des Titusbriefs.” JETh 25 (2011): 33–58.
Fuchs, Rüdiger. “Ist ‘die Agape das Ziel der Unterweisung’ (1.Tim 1,5)?—zum unter-
schiedlichen Gebrauch des ἀγαπ- und des φιλ-Wortstammes in den Schreiben an
Timotheus und Titus.” EuroJTh 15 (2006): 15–33.
introduction bibliography 55

Fuchs, Rüdiger. Unerwartete Unterschiede: Müssen wir unsere Ansichten über die Pas-
toralbriefe revidieren? Bibelwissenschaftliche Monographien 12. Wuppertal: Brock-
haus, 2003.
Gallimore, Scott. An Island Economy: Hellenistic and Roman Pottery from Hierapytna,
Crete. New York: Peter Lang, 2015.
Gamble, Harry Y. “Pseudonymity and the New Testament Canon.” In Pseudepigra-
phie und Verfasserfiktion in frühchristlichen Briefen. Ed. Jörg Frey et al., 333–362.
wunt 246. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009.
Gammie, John G. “Paraenetic Literature: Toward the Morphology of a Secondary
Genre,” Semeia 50 (1990): 41-77.
Gathergood, Emily. “Papyrus 32 (Titus) as a Multi-text Codex: A New Reconstruction.”
nts 59 (2013): 588–606.
Gill, Malcolm. Jesus as Mediator: Politics and Polemic in 1 Timothy 2:1–7. Bern: Peter Lang,
2008.
Glaser, Timo. Paulus als Briefroman erzahlt. ntoa 76. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 2009.
Gourgues, Michel. “La première lettre à Timothée, témoin d’une ‘domestication’ et
d’une adaptation de la foi et de l’expérience ecclésiale.” ScEs 56 (2004): 5–18.
Grayston, Kenneth, and Gustav Herdan. “Authorship of the Pastorals in the Light of
Statistical Linguistics.” nts 6 (1959): 1–15.
Guignard, Christophe. “The Muratorian Fragment as a Late Antique Fake? An Answer
to C.K. Rothschild.” RevScRel 93 (2019): 73–90.
Guthrie, Donald. The Pastoral Epistles and the Mind of Paul. London: Tyndale, 1956.
Häfner, Gerd. “Die Gegner in den Pastoralbriefen und die Paulusakten.” znw 92 (2001):
64–77.
Hahneman, Geoffrey M. The Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992.
Halliday, M.A.K., and R. Hasan. Language, Context, and Text: Aspects of Language in a
Social-Semiotic Perspective. Geelong: Deakin University Press, 1985.
Hanson, Anthony Tyrrell. The Paradox of the Cross in the Thought of St. Paul. JSNTSup
17. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1987.
Harding, Mark. “Disputed and Undisputed Letters of Paul.” In The Pauline Canon. Ed.
Stanley E. Porter, 129–168. Pauline Studies 1. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2004.
Harding, Mark. Tradition and Rhetoric in the Pastoral Epistles. sbl 3. New York: Peter
Lang, 1998.
Harrison, Percy N. The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles. London: Oxford University Press,
1921.
Hasler, Victor. “Epiphanie und Christologie in den Pastoralbriefen.” tz 33 (1977): 193–
209.
Haykin, Michael A.G. “The Fading Vision? The Spirit and Freedom in the Pastoral Epis-
tles.” EvQ 57 (1985): 291–305.
56 introduction bibliography

Heine, Ronald E. “In Search of Origen’s Commentary on Philemon.”htr 93 (2000): 117–

133.
Herzer, Jens. “»Das ist gut und nützlich für die Menschen« (Tit 3,8). Die Menschenfre-
undlichkeit Gottes als Paradigma christlicher Ethik.” In Eschatologie und Ethik im
frühen Christentum. Greifswalker theologische Forschungen 11. Ed. C. Böttrich, 101–
120. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2006.
Herzer, Jens. “Rearranging the ‘House of God’: A New Perspective on the Pastoral Epis-
tles.” In Empsychoi Logoi—Religious Innovations in Antiquity. Ed. Alberdina Hout-
man et al., 547–566. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2008.
Hick, Darren Hudson. “Authorship, Co-Authorship, and Multiple Authorship.” Journal
of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 72 (2014): 147–156.
Hincks, E.Y. “The Authorship of the Pastoral Epistles.” jbl 16 (1897): 94–117.
Hitchcock, F.R.M. “Philo and the Pastorals.” Herma 56 (1940): 113–135.
Hoffmann, R. Joseph. Marcion: On the Restitution of Christianity. Chico, CA: Scholars
Press, 1984.
Hoklotubbe, T. Christopher. “The Rhetoric of Pietas: The Pastoral Epistles and Claims
to Piety in the Roman Empire.” Th.D. diss., Harvard Divinity School, 2015.
Holtzmann, Heinrich Julius. Die Pastoralbriefe, kritisch und exegetisch behandelt. Leip-
zig: Engelmann, 1880.
Horsley, G.H.R. “An archisynagogos of Corinth?” NewDocs 4 (1987): 213–230.
Horsley, G.H.R. “Holy Days in Honour of Artemis.” NewDocs 4 (1987): 74–82.
Hutson, Christopher R. “My True Child: The Rhetoric of Youth in the Pastoral Epistles.”
Ph.D. diss., Yale University, 1997.
Huttunen, Niko. Early Christians Adapting to the Roman Empire: Mutual Recognition.
NovTSup 179. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2020.
Hylen, Susan E. A Modest Apostle: Thecla and the History of Women in the Early Church.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015.
Immendörfer, Michael. Ephesians and Artemis. wunt 2.436. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2017.
Jeremias, Joachim. Die Briefe an Timotheus und Titus. ntd 9. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht, 1975.
Jervis, L. Ann. “Paul the Poet in First Timothy 1:11–17; 2:3b–7; 3:14–16.” cbq 61 (1999):
695–712.
Johnson, Luke Timothy. “First Timothy 1,1–20: The Shape of the Struggle.” In 1 Timothy
Reconsidered. Ed. Karl Paul Donfried, 19–39. Colloquium Oecumenicum Paulinum
18. Leuven: Peeters, 2008.
Jongkind, Dirk. Scribal Habits of Codex Sinaiticus. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2007.
Judge, E.A. “Thanksgiving to the Benefactor of the World, Tiberius Caesar.” NewDocs 9
(2002): 22.
Justeson, John S., and Slava M. Katz. “Technical Terminology: Some Linguistic Prop-
introduction bibliography 57

erties and an Algorithm for Identification in Text.” Natural Language Engineering 1

(1995): 9–27.
Kaestli, Jean-Daniel. “Luke-Acts and the Pastoral Epistles: The Thesis of a Common
Authorship.” In Luke’s Literary Achievement. Ed. C.M. Tuckett, 110–126. JSNTSup 116.
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995.
Karris, Robert J. “The Background and Significance of the Polemic of the Pastoral Epis-
tles.” jbl 92 (1973): 549–564.
Keener, Craig. Acts: An Exegetical Commentary, vol. 3. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2014.
Kensky, Meira Z. “Timothy and ‘Timothy’: Crisis Management, Church Maintenance,”
Early Christianity 5 (2014): 35–67.
Kenny, Anthony. A Stylometric Study of the New Testament. Oxford: Clarendon, 1986.
Kenyon, Frederic G. The Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri, Fasciculus iii Supplement: Pau-
line Epistles, Text. London: Emery Walker, 1936.
Kestemont, Mike, Sara Moens, and Jeroen Deploige. “Collaborative Authorship in the
Twelfth Century: A Stylometric Study of Hildegard of Bingen and Guibert of Gem-
bloux.” Digital Scholarship in the Humanities 30 (2015): 199–224.
Kidson, Lyn. “1Timothy: An Administrative Letter.” Early Christianity 5 (2014): 97–116.
Klauck, Hans-Josef. Ancient Letters and the New Testament. Waco, TX: Baylor University
Press, 2006.
Klinker-De Klerck, Myriam. Herderlijke regel of inburgeringscursus? Een bijdrage aan
het onderzoek naar de ethische richtlijnen in 1 Timoteüs en Titus. Zoetermeer: Boeken-
centrum, 2013.
Kloppenborg, John S. Christ’s Associations: Connecting and Belonging in the Ancient
City. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2019.
Läger, Karoline. Die Christologie der Pastoralbriefe. Münster: Lit, 1996.
Lakoff, Robin Tolmach. “Lewis Carroll: Subversive Pragmaticist.” Pragmatics 3 (1993);
367–385.
Lampe, Peter. “Rhetorical Analysis of Pauline Texts—Quo Vadit?” In Paul and Rhetoric.
Ed. J. Paul Sampley and Peter Lampe, 3–21. London: T & T Clark, 2010.
Leaney, A.R.C. “Greek Manuscripts from the Judean Desert.” In Studies in New Testa-
ment Language and Text. Ed. J.K. Elliott, 292–300. Leiden: Brill, 1976.
Levison, Jack. “Is Eve to Blame? A Contextual Analysis of Sirach 24:25,” cbq 47 (1985):
617–623.
Libby, James A. “The Pauline Canon Sung in a Linguistic Key: Visualizing New Tes-
tament Text Proximity by Linguistic Structure, System, and Strata.” bagl 5 (2016):
122–201.
Logie, John. “‘I Have No Predecessor to Guide My Steps’: Quintilian and Roman Author-
ship.” Rhetoric Review 22 (2003): 353–373.
Lohfink, Gerhard. “Die Vermittlung des Paulinismus zu den Pastoralbriefen.” bz 32
(1988): 169–188.
58 introduction bibliography

Löhr, Hermut. “Zur Paulus-Notiz in 1Clem 5.5–7.” In Das Ende des Paulus: Historische,
theologische und literaturgeschichtliche Aspekte. Ed. F.W. Horn, 197–213. bznw 106.
Berlin: de Gruyter, 2001.
Looks, Carsten. Das Anvertraute bewahren: Die Rezeption der Pastoralbriefe im 2. Jahr-
hundert. Münich: Herbert Utz, 1999.
Lutoslawski, Wincentry. “Principes de stylométrie.” reg 41 (1890): 61–81.
Malherbe, Abraham J. “Paraenesis in the Epistle to Titus.” In Early Christian Paraenesis
in Context. Ed. J. Starr and T. Engberg-Pedersen, 297–317. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004.
Maier, Harry O. Picturing Paul in Empire: Imperial Image, Text and Persuasion in Colos-
sians, Ephesians and the Pastoral Epistles. London/New York: Bloomsbury, 2013.
Malina, Bruce J. Timothy: Paul’s Closest Associate. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press,
2008.
Mappes, David A. “The Heresy Paul Opposed in 1Timothy.” BSac 156 (1999): 452–458.
Marshall, I. Howard. “The Pastoral Epistles in Recent Study.” In Entrusted with the
Gospel: Paul’s Theology in the Pastoral Epistles. Ed. Andreas J. Köstenberger and Terry
L. Wilder 268–312. Nashville: B&H Academic, 2010.
Marshall, John W. “‘I Left You in Crete’: Narrative Deception and Social Hierarchy in the
Letter to Titus.” jbl 127 (2008): 781–803.
Massey, Preston T. “Cicero, the Pastoral Epistles, and the Issue of Pseudonymity.” ResQ
56 (2014): 65–84.
McGinn, Sheila E. “The Acts of Thecla.” In Searching the Scriptures. Ed. Elisabeth Schüs-
sler Fiorenza, 800–828. New York: Crossroads, 1994.
Meade, David G. Pseudonymity and Canon. wunt 39. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986.
Merklein, Helmut. “Im Spannungsfeld von Protologie und Eschatologie: Zur kurzen
Geschichte der aktiven Beteiligung von Frauen in paulinischen Gemeinden.” In
Eschatologie und Schöpfung. Ed. Martin Evang et al., 231–259. bznw 89. Berlin: de
Gruyter, 1997.
Metzger, Bruce M. “Literary Forgeries and Canonical Pseudepigrapha.” jbl 91 (1972): 3–
24.
Michaelis, Wilhelm. “Pastoralbriefe und Wortstatistik.” znw 28 (1929): 69–76.
Mitchell, Margaret M. “Le style, c’est l’homme: Aesthetics and Apologetics in the Stylis-
tic Analysis of the New Testament.” NovT 51 (2009): 369–388.
Mitchell, Margaret M. “PTebt 703 and the Genre of 1Timothy: The Curious Career of a
Ptolemaic Papyrus in Pauline Scholarship,” NovT 44 (2002): 344–370.
Morgenthaler, Robert. Statistik des neutestamentlichen Wortschatzes. Zürich: Gotthelf,
1958.
Morton, Andrew Q. Literary Detection: How to Prove Authorship and Fraud in Literature
and Documents. Epping, UK: Bowker, 1978.
Morton, Andrew Q, and James McLeman. Christianity in the Computer Age. New York:
Harper & Row, 1964.
introduction bibliography 59

Mosteller, Frederick, and David L. Wallace. “Deciding Authorship.” In Statistics: A Guide

to the Unknown. Ed. Judith M. Tanur et al., 115–131. Pacific Grove, CA: Wadsworth and
Brooks, 1989.
Moule, C.F.D. “The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles: A Reappraisal.”bjrl 47 (1965): 430–
452.
Mülke, Markus. Der Autor und sein Text: Die Verfälschung des Originals im Urteil antiker
Autoren. ulg 93. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008.
Mullins, Terence Y. “A Comparison Between 2Timothy and the Book of Acts.” auss 31
(1993): 199–203.
Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome. Paul: A Critical Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996.
Neumann, Kenneth J. The Authenticity of the Pauline Epistles in the Light of Stylostatis-
tical Analysis. sblds 120. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990.
North, Helen. Sophrosyne: Self-Knowledge and Self-Restraint in Greek Literature. Ithaca,
NY: Cornell University Press, 1966.
O’Callaghan, José. “¿1Tim 3,16; 4,1.3 en 7Q4?” Bib 53 (1972): 362–367.
O’Donnell, Matthew Brook. “Designing and Compiling a Register-Balanced Corpus of
Hellenistic Greek for the Purpose of Linguistic Description and Investigation.” In
Diglossia and Other Topics in New Testament Linguistics. Ed. Stanley E. Porter, 255–
297. JSNTSup 193. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000.
Oberlinner, Lorenz. “Öffnung zur Welt oder Verrat am Glauben? Hellenismus in den
Pastoralbriefen.” In Der neue Mensch in Christus. Ed. J. Beutler, 135–163. Freiburg:
Herder, 2001.
Oberlinner, Lorenz. “Paulus als Garant der Kontinuität in der diskontinuität christ-
lichen Glaubenslebens des 1. Jh.: Zum Anspruch des pseudepigraphischen Ver-
fassers der Pastoralbriefe.” In Lukas—Paulus—Pastoralbriefe. Ed. Rudolfe Hoppe
and Michael Reichardt, 253–270. Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 230. Stuttgart: Katholis-
ches Bibelwerk, 2014.
Parker, David C. An Introduction to the New Testament Manuscripts and Their Texts.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.
Pate, C. Marvin. Apostle of the Last Days. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2013.
Peng, Kuo-Wei. “The Structure of 1Timothy Reconsidered.” bt 61 (2010): 10–18.
Pervo, Richard I. “Romancing an Oft-Neglected Stone: The Pastoral Epistles and the
Epistolary Novel.” Journal of Higher Criticism 1 (1994): 25–47.
Pierce, Joseph, and Olivia R. Williams. “Against Power? Distinguishing between Acquis-
itive Resistance and Subversion.” Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography
98 (2016): 171–188.
Pitts, Andrew W. “Style and Pseudonymity in Pauline Scholarship: A Register Based
Configuration.” In Paul and Pseudepigraphy, 113–152. Ed. Stanley E. Porter and Gre-
gory P. Fewster. Pauline Studies 8. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2013.
Pitts, Andrew W, and Joshua D. Tyra. “Exploring Linguistic Variation in an Ancient
60 introduction bibliography

Greek Single-Author Corpus: A Register Design Analysis of Josephus and Pauline

Pseudonymity.” In The Language and Literature of the New Testament. Ed. Lois
K. Fuller Dow et al., 257–283. BibInt Series 50. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2016.
Polaski, Sandra Hack. “‘Let No One Despite Your Youth’: The Deconstruction of Tradi-
tional Authority in the Pastoral Epistles.” ltq 40 (2005): 249–263.
Popkes, Wiard. “Paraenesis in the New Testament: An Exercise in Conceptuality.” In
Early Christian Paraenesis in Context. Ed. J. Starr and T. Engberg-Pedersen, 13–46.
Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004.
Porter, Stanley E. “Pauline Authorship and the Pastoral Epistles: Implications for
Canon.” bbr 5 (1995): 105–123.
Porter, Stanley E. “The Functional Distribution of Koine Greek in First-Century Pales-
tine.” In Diglossia and Other Topics in New Testament Linguistics, 53–78. JSNTSup 193.
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000.
Porter, Stanley E. “The Theoretical Justification for Application of Rhetorical Categories
to Pauline Epistolary Literature.” In Rhetoric and the New Testament. Ed. Stanley
E. Porter and Thomas H. Olbricht, 100–122. JSNTSup 90. Sheffield: Sheffield Aca-
demic Press, 1993.
Porter, Stanley E. “When and How Was the Pauline Canon Compiled? An Assessment
of Theories.” In The Pauline Canon, 95–127. Ed. Stanley E. Porter. Pauline Studies 1.
Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2004.
Prior, Michael. “Revisiting the Pastoral Epistles.” ScrB 31 (2001): 2–19.
Quinn, Jerome D. “Paraenesis and the Pastoral Epistles.” Semeia 50 (1990): 189–210.
Quinn, Jerome D. “The Last Volume of Luke: The Relation of Luke-Acts to the Pastoral
Epistles.” In Perspectives in Luke-Acts. Ed. Charles Talbert, 62–75. Macon, GA: Mercer,
1978.
Redekop, Gloria Neufeld. “Let the Women Learn: 1Timothy 2:8–15 Reconsidered.” sr 19
(1990): 235–245.
Reed, Jeffrey T. “Cohesive Ties in 1Timothy: In Defense of the Epistle’s Unity.” Neot 26
(1992): 131–147.
Reed, Jeffrey T. “To Timothy or Not? A Discourse Analysis of 1 Timothy.” In Biblical
Greek Language and Linguistics. Ed. S.E. Porter and D.A. Carson, 90–118. JSNTSup
80. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993.
Reiser, Marius. “Paulus als Stilist.” seå 32 (2001): 151–165.
Richard, Earl J. First and Second Thessalonians. sp 11. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press,
2007.
Richards, E. Randolph. Paul and First-Century Letter Writing: Secretaries, Composition
and Collection. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2004.
Riesner, Rainer. “Once More: Luke-Acts and the Pastoral Epistles.” In History and Exe-
gesis. Ed. S.-W. Son, 239–258. New York/London: T & T Clark, 2006.
Riesner, Rainer. “Paul’s Trial and End according to Second Timothy, 1 Clement, the
introduction bibliography 61

Canon Muratori, and the Apocryphal Acts.” In The Last Years of Paul. Ed. Armand
Puig i Tàrrech, John M.G. Barclay, and Jörg Frey, 391–409. wunt 352. Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2015.
Roberts, J.W. “The Bearing of the Use of Particles on the Authorship of the Pastoral
Epistles.” ResQ 1 (1957): 132–137.
Robinson, Jean C. “Institutionalizing Charisma: Leadership, Faith and Rationality in
Three Societies.” Polity 18 (1985): 181–203.
Robinson, John A.T. Redating the New Testament. London: scm, 1976.
Robinson, Thomas A. “Grayston and Herdan’s ‘C’ Quantity Formula and the Authorship
of the Pastoral Epistles.” nts 30 (1984): 282–288.
Rogers, Guy MacLean. The Mysteries of Artemis of Ephesos. New Haven: Yale University
Press, 2012.
Rohde, Joachim. “Pastoralbriefe und Acta Pauli.” se v (1968): 303–310.
Rothschild, Clare K. “The Muratorian Fragment as Roman Fake.” NovT 60 (2018): 55–82.
Sankoff, David, and Réjean Lessard. “Vocabulary Richness: A Sociolinguistic Analysis.”
Science 190 (1975): 689–690.
Savoy, Jacques. “Authorship of Pauline Epistles Revisited.” Journal for the Association for
Information Science and Technology 70 (2019): 1089–1097.
Schenk, Wolfgang. “Die Briefe an Timotheus i und ii und an Titus (Pastoralbriefe) in
der neueren Forschung (1945–1985).” anrw ii.25.4 (1987): 3404–3438.
Schleiermacher, Friedrich D.E. Ueber den sogenannten ersten Brief des Paulos an den
Timotheos: Ein kritisches Sendschreiben an J.C. Gass. Berlin: Realschulbuchhandlung,
1807.
Schmidt, Johann E.C. Historisch-kritische Einleitung in’s Neue Testament. Giessen:
Tasche und Müller, 1804.
Schmithals, Walter. “The Corpus Paulinum and Gnosis.” In The New Testament and
Gnosis. Ed. A.H.B. Logan and A.J.M. Wedderburn, 107–124. Edinburgh: T & T Clark,
1983.
Schnabel, Eckhard J. “The Muratorian Fragment: The State of Research.” jets 57 (2014):
231–264.
Schott, Heinrich A. Isagoge Historico-Critica in Libros Novi Foederis Sacros. Jena: Walzi,
1830.
Schröter, Jens. “Kirche im Anschluss an Paulus. Aspekte der Paulusrezeption in der
Apostelgeschichte und in den Pastoralbriefen.” znw 98 (2007): 77–104.
Shaner, Katherine A. Enslaved Leadership in Early Christianity. New York: Oxford Uni-
versity Press, 2018.
Stepp, Perry L. Leadership Succession in the World of the Pauline Circle. New Testament
Monographs 5. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2005.
Stettler, Hanna. Die Christologie der Pastoralbriefe. wunt 2.105. Tübingen: Mohr Sie-
beck, 1998.
62 introduction bibliography

Stowers, Stanley K. Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity. lec 5. Philadelphia: West-

minster, 1986.
Strecker, Georg. Theology of the New Testament. Louisville: Westminster John Knox,
2000.
Streete, Gail Corrington. “Askesis and Resistance in the Pastoral Letters.” In Asceticism
and the New Testament, 299–316. Ed. L.E. Vaage and V.L. Streete. New York: Routledge,
1999.
Strobel, August. “Schreiben des Lukas? Zum sprachlichen Problem der Pastoralbriefe.”
nts 15 (1969): 191–210.
Sundberg, Albert C. “Canon Muratori: A Fourth-Century List.” htr 66 (1973): 1–41.
Swales, John M. “Worlds of Genre—Metaphors of Genre.” In Genre in a Changing World.
Ed. Charles Bazerman et al., 3–16. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor, 2009.
Swinson, L. Timothy. “Textual Criticism and Authorship Traditions: An Examination of
the Superscriptions in 1 and 2Timothy.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the Evangelical Theological Society, Washington, DC, November 16, 2006.
Tamez, Elsa. Struggles for Power in Early Christianity. Trans. Gloria Kinsler. Maryknoll,
NY: Orbis, 2007.
Taniguchi, Yuko. “To Lead Quiet and Peaceable Lives: A Rhetorical Analysis of the First
Letter of Timothy.” Th.D. diss., Harvard University, 2002.
Tellbe, Mikael. Christ-Believers in Ephesus. wunt 242. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009.
Theobald, Michael. “Eucharistische Anspielungen in der Weisung an die Reichen 1 Tim
6,17–19: Anfrage an ihre ‘individualethische’ Deutung.” In Lukas—Paulus—Pastoral-
briefe. Ed. Rudolfe Hoppe and Michael Reichardt, 315–338. Stuttgarter Bibelstudien
230. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2014.
Thiessen, Werner. Christen in Ephesus: Die historische und theologische Situation in vor-
paulinischer und paulinischer Zeit und zur Zeit der Apostelgeschichte und der Pas-
toralbriefe. Tübingen: Francke, 1995.
Thornton, Dillon T. “Sin Seizing an Opportunity through the Commandments: The Law
in 1Tim 1:8–11 and Rom 6–8.” hbt 36 (2014): 142–158.
Thurston, Bonnie Bowman. “The Theology of Titus.” hbt 21 (1999): 171–184.
Trobisch, David. Paul’s Letter Collection: Tracing the Origins. Minneapolis: Fortress,
1994.
Trummer, Peter. “Corpus Paulinum—Corpus Pastorale: Zur Ortung der Paulustradi-
tion in den Pastoralbriefen.” In Paulus in den neutestamentlichen Spätschriften. Ed.
K. Kertelge, 122–145. qd 89. Freiburg: Herder, 1981.
Van Bruggen, Jakob. Die geschichtliche Einordnung der Pastoralbriefe. Wuppertal: Brock-
haus, 1981.
Van Nes, Jermo. “On the Origin of the Pastorals’ Authenticity Criticism: A ‘New’ Per-
spective.” nts 62 (2016): 315–320.
Van Nes, Jermo. Pauline Language and the Pastoral Epistles: A Study of Linguistic Varia-
tion in the Corpus Paulinum. lbs 16. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2017.
introduction bibliography 63

Van Nes, Jermo. “The Pastoral Epistles: Common Themes, Individual Compositions? An
Introduction to the Quest for the Origin(s) of the Letters to Timothy and Titus.” jspl
9 (2019): 6–29.
Van Tilborg, Sjef. Reading John in Ephesus. NovTSup 83. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 1996.
Verner, David C. The Household of God: The Social World of the Pastoral Epistles.
sblds 71. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981.
Von Campenhausen, Hans. Ecclesiastical Authority and Spiritual Power in the Church of
the First Three Centuries. Trans. J.A. Baker. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1969.
Walker, Peter. “Revisiting the Pastoral Epistles.” EuroJTh 21 (2012) 4–16, 120–132.
Wallace, Natalie. “Ideology and Subversion: Linguistic Registers in Barbara Kingsolver’s
The Poisonwood Bible.” ba Honors Thesis, University at Albany, State University Of
New York, 2014.
Warren, David H. “The Text of the Apostle in the Second Century: A Contribution to
the History of Its Reception.” Th.D. diss., Harvard University, 2001.
Weber, Max. On Charisma and Institution Building. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1968.
Westfall, Cynthia Long. “A Moral Dilemma? The Epistolary Body of 2 Timothy.” In Paul
and the Ancient Letter Form. Ed. Stanley E. Porter and Sean A. Adams, 213–252. Lei-
den: Brill, 2010.
White, Benjamin L. “How to Read a Book: Irenaeus and the Pastoral Epistles Reconsid-
ered.” vc 65 (2011): 125–149.
Wilson, Stephen G. Luke and the Pastoral Epistles. London: spck, 1979.
Winger, M. “From Grace to Sin: Names and Abstractions in Paul’s Letters,” NovT 41
(1999): 145–175.
Winter, Martin. “Die ‘Pastoralbriefe’: Ihr Name im Licht der popularphilosophischen
Seelenleitung.” kd 59 (2013): 232–250.
Witetchek, Stephan. Ephesische Enthüllungen 1: Frühe Christen in einer antiken Großs-
tadt zugleich ein Beitrag zur Frage nach den Kontexten der Johannesapokalypse.
bts 6. Leuven: Peeters, 2008.
Wolter, Michael. Die Pastoralbriefe als Paulustradition. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ru-
precht, 1988.
Wolter, Michael. “Paulus, der bekehrte Gottesfeind: Zum Verständnis von 1. Tim 1:13.”
NovT 31 (1989): 48–66.
Ybema, Sierk, and Martha Horvers. “Resistance Through Compliance: The Strategic and
Subversive Potential of Frontstage and Backstage Resistance.” Organization Studies
38 (2017): 1233–1251.
Yu, Guoxing. “Lexical Diversity in Writing and Speaking Task Performances.” Applied
Linguistics 31.2 (2009): 236–259.
Zuntz, Günther. The Text of the Epistles: A Disquisition upon the Corpus Paulinum. Lon-
don: Oxford University Press, 1946.
General Bibliography

(Commentaries and General Works on the pe, cited by author’s last name and page
number)
Barrett, C.K. The Pastoral Epistles in the New English Bible. ncb. Oxford: Clarendon, 1963.
Baugh, S.M. “The Pastoral Epistles.” In Zondervan Illustrated Bible Background Commen-
tary, vol. 3. Ed. C.E. Arnold, 444–511. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001.
Bassler, Jouette M. 1Timothy, 2Timothy, Titus. antc. Nashville: Abingdon, 1996.
Bénétreau, S. Les épîtres pastorales: 1 et 2 Timothée, Tite. Commentaire éangeliques de
la Bible. Vaux-sur-seine: Edifac, 2008.
Bernard, John H. The Pastoral Epistles. Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and
Colleges. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1899.
Collins, Raymond F. 1 & 2Timothy and Titus: A Commentary. ntl. Louisville: Westmin-
ster John Knox, 2002.
Dibelius, Martin, and Hans Conzelmann. The Pastoral Epistles. Hermeneia. Trans. P.
Buttolph and A. Yarbro. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972.
Donelson, Lewis R. Pseudepigraphy and Ethical Argument in the Pastoral Epistles.
hut 22. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986.
Dornier, P. Les épîtres pastorales. sb. Paris: Gabalda, 1969.
Drury, Clare. “The Pastoral Epistles.” In The Pauline Epistles. The Oxford Bible Commen-
tary. Ed. J. Barton and J. Muddiman, 244–262. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.
Dunn, James D.G. “The First and Second Letters to Timothy and the Letter to Titus.” In
The New Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 11. Ed. L.E. Keck, 775–880. Nashville: Abingdon, 2000.
Engelmann, Michaela. Unzertrennliche Drillinge? Motivsemantische Untersuchungen
zum literarischen Verhältnis der Pastoralbriefe. bznw 192. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012.
Elliott, James Keith. The Greek Text of the Epistles to Timothy and Titus. SD 36. Salt Lake
City: University of Utah Press, 1968.
Falconer, Robert. The Pastoral Epistles. Oxford: Clarendon, 1937.
Fee, Gordon D. 1 and 2Timothy, Titus. nibc. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1984.
Fiore, B. The Pastoral Epistles: First Timothy, Second Timothy, Titus. Sacra Pagina 12. Col-
legeville: Liturgical Press, 2007.
Gorday, P. Colossians, 1–2Thessalonians, 1–2Timothy, Titus, Philemon. Ancient Christian
Commentary on Scripture. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2000.
Gourgues, Michel. Les deux lettres à Timothée, La letter à Tite. CbNT 14. Paris: Cerf, 2009.
Guthrie, Donald. The Pastoral Epistles. tntc. Leicester: InterVarsity, 1957.
Hanson, A.T. The Pastoral Epistles. ncb. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1982.
Horton, R.F. The Pastoral Epistles. Century Bible. Edinburgh: T.C. & E.C. Jack, 1901.
Huizenga, Annette Bourland. Moral Education for Women in the Pastoral and Pythago-
rean Letters: Philosophers of the Household. NovTSup 147. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2013.
general bibliography 65

Johnson, Luke T. The First and Second Letters to Timothy: A New Translation with Intro-
duction and Commentary. ab. New York: Doubleday, 2001.
Keegan, T.J. First and Second Timothy, Titus, Philemon. New Collegeville Bible Commen-
tary. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2006.
Kelly, John N.D. A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles. bntc. London: Black, 1963.
Kidd, Reggie M. Wealth and Beneficence in the Pastoral Epistles: A “Bourgeois” Form of
Early Christianity. sblds 122. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990.
Kidson, Lyn. “1Timothy: An Administrative Letter.” Early Christianity 5 (2014): 97–116.
Kilpatrick, G.D. The Pastoral Letters and Hebrews: A Greek-English Diglot for the Use of
Translators. London: British and Foreign Bible Society, 1963.
Köstenberger, Andreas J. Commentary on 1–2Timothy and Titus. Biblical Theology for
Christian Proclamation. Nashville: Holman, 2017.
Krause, Deborah. 1Timothy. Readings. London: T & T Clark, 2004.
Lau, Andrew Y. Manifest in Flesh: The Epiphany Christology of the Pastoral Epistles.
wunt 2.86. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996.
Liefeld, W.L. 1 and 2Timothy, Titus. nivac. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999.
Lock, Walter. The Pastoral Epistles. icc. T & T Clark, 1924.
MacDonald, Margaret Y. The Pauline Churches: A Socio-historical Study of Institution-
alization in the Pauline and Deutero-Pauline Writings. sntms 60. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press, 1988.
Malina, Bruce J., and John J. Pilch. Social-Science Commentary on the Deutero-Pauline
Letters. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013.
Marshall, I.H., in collaboration with P.H. Towner. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary
on the Pastoral Epistles. icc. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1999.
Martin, Seán Charles. Pauli Testamentum: 2Timothy and the Last Words of Moses.
tgst 18. Rome: Gregorian University Press, 1997.
Merz, Annette. Die fictive Selbstauslegung des Paulus: Intertextuelle Studien zur Inten-
tion und Rezeption der Pastoralbriefe. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004.
Miller, James D. The Pastoral Letters as Composite Documents. sntsms 93. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1997.
Montague, G.T. First and Second Timothy, Titus. Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scrip-
ture. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008.
Mounce, William D. Pastoral Epistles. wbc 46. Nashville: Nelson, 2000.
Mutschler, Bernhard. Glaube in den Pastoralbriefen: Pistis als Mitte christlicher Existenz.
wunt 256. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010.
Neudorfer, Heinz-Werner. Der erste Brief des Paulus an Timotheus. hta. Wuppertal:
Brockhaus, 2004.
Neudorfer, Heinz-Werner. Der Brief des Paulus an Titus. hta. Wuppertal: Brockhaus,
2012.
Oberlinner, Lorenz. Die Pastoralbriefe. htknt 11.1–3. Freiburg: Herder, 1994–1996.
66 general bibliography

Prior, Michael. Paul the Letter-Writer and the Second Letter to Timothy. JSNTSup 23.
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989.
Quinn, Jerome D., and William C. Wacker. The First and Second Letters to Timothy: A New
Translation with Notes and Commentary. Eerdmans Critical Commentary. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.
Richards, William A. Difference and Distance in Post-Pauline Christianity: An Epistolary
Analysis of the Pastorals. Studies in Biblical Literature 44. New York: Peter Lang, 2002.
Roloff, Jürgen. Der erste Brief an Timotheus. ekknt 15. Zürich/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Ben-
ziger/Neukirchener, 1988.
Saarinen, R. “The Pastoral Epistles.” In The Pastoral Epistles with Philemon and Jude, 19–
196. Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible. Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2008.
Scott, Ernest F. The Pastoral Epistles. Moffatt New Testament Commentary. London:
Hodder and Stroughton, 1936.
Simpson, E.K. The Pastoral Epistles. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954.
Smith, Craig A. 2Timothy. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2016.
Spencer, Aída Besançon. 2Timothy and Titus. nccs. Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2014.
Spicq, Ceslas. Saint Paul: Les Épitres Pastorales. 2 vols. 4th ed. Paris: J. Gabalda, 1969.
Towner, Philip H. The Letters to Timothy and Titus. nicnt. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2006.
Trebilco, Paul. The Early Christians in Ephesus from Paul to Ignatius. wunt 166. Tübin-
gen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004.
Twomey, J. The Pastoral Epistles Through the Centuries. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009.
Van Neste, Ray. Cohesion and Structure in the Pastoral Epistles. JSNTSup 280. Lon-
don/New York: T & T Clark, 2004.
Wall, Robert W., and Richard B. Steele. 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2012.
Weiser, Alfons. Der zweite Brief an Timotheus. ekknt xvi/1. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neu-
kirchener, 2003.
Wieland, George M. The Significance of Salvation: A Study of Salvation Language in the
Pastoral Epistles. Bletchley, UK: Paternoster, 2006.
Witherington, Ben, iii. Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians, vol. 1: A Socio-
Rhetorical Commentary on Titus, 1–2Timothy and 1–3 John. Downers Grove, IL: Inter-
Varsity, 2006.
Yarbrough, Robert. The Letters to Timothy and Titus. Pillar New Testament Commen-
tary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018.
Young, Frances. The Theology of the Pastoral Epistles. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1994.
Zamfir, Korinna. Men and Women in the Household of God: A Contextual Approach to
Roles and Ministries in the Pastoral Epistles. ntoa 103. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 2013.
Grammatical Analysis Short Titles

Abel, Félix-Marie. Grammaire du grec biblique: Suivie d’un choix de papyrus. Etudes
biblique. Paris: Gabalda, 1927. [Abel, Grammaire]
Barr, James. The Semantics of Biblical Language. London: scm, 1961. [Barr, Semantics]
Blass, F., and A. Debrunner. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early
Christian Literature. Trans. R.W. Funk. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961.
[bdf]
Fanning, Buist M. Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek. otm. Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1990. [Fanning, Verbal Aspect]
Fantin, Joseph D. The Greek Imperative Mood in the New Testament: A Cognitive and
Communicative Approach. Studies in Biblical Greek 12. New York/Berlin: Peter Lang,
2010. [Fantin, Greek Imperative]
Halliday, M.A.K. Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar. Rev. Christian M.I.M.
Matthiessen. London: Routledge, 2014. [Halliday, Functional Grammar]
Heckert, Jakob K. Discourse Function of Conjoiners in the Pastoral Epistles. Dallas, TX:
Summer Institute of Linguistics, 1996. [Heckert, Discourse]
Hill, David. Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1967. [Hill, Greek Words]
Huffman, Douglas S. Verbal Aspect Theory and the Prohibitions in the Greek New Testa-
ment. sbg 16. New York/Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2014. [Huffman, Verbal Aspect]
Levinsohn, Stephen H. Discourse Features of New Testament Greek. 2nd ed. Dallas: Sum-
mer Institute of Linguistics, 2000. [Levinsohn, Discourse]
Levinsohn, Stephen H. “Some Constraints on Discourse Development in the Pastoral
Epistles.” In Discourse Analysis and the New Testament: Approaches and Results. Ed.
Stanley E. Porter and Jeffrey T. Reed, 316–333. JSNTSup 170. Sheffield: Sheffield Aca-
demic Press, 1999. [Levinsohn, “Some Constraints”]
Moore, Bruce R. Doublets in the New Testament. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics,
1993. [Moore, Doublets]
Moule, C.F.D. An Idiom-Book of New Testament Greek. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1959. [Moule, Idiom]
Moulton, James H. A Grammar of New Testament Greek. i. Prolegomena. 3rd ed. Edin-
burgh: T & T Clark, 1908. [Moulton, Prolegomena]
Moulton, James H., and G. Milligan. Vocabulary of the Greek Testament. London: Hodder
& Stoughton, 1930. [M.-M.]
Peters, Ronald D. The Greek Article: A Functional Grammar of ὁ-items in the Greek New
Testament with Special Emphasis on the Greek Article. Linguistic Biblical Studies 9.
Leiden: Brill, 2014. [Peters, Greek Article]
Porter, Stanley E. Idioms of the Greek New Testament. Sheffield: jsot Press, 1994. [Porter,
Idioms]
68 grammatical analysis short titles

Porter, Stanley E. Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, with Reference to Tense
and Mood. sbg 1. New York: Peter Lang, 1989. [Porter, Verbal Aspect]
Radermacher, Ludwig. Neutestamentliche Grammatik: Das griechisch des Neuen Testa-
ments im Zusammenhang mit der Volkssprache dargestellt. 2nd ed. Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 1925. [Radermacher, Neutestamentliche Grammatik]
Robertson, Archibald T. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical
Research. 4th ed. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1923. [Robertson, Grammar]
Smyth, Herbert W. Greek Grammar. Rev. G.M. Messing. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uni-
versity Press, 1956. [Smyth, Greek Grammar]
Turner, Nigel. A Grammar of New Testament Greek. iv. Style. Edinburgh: T & T Clark,
1976. [Turner, Style]
Turner, Nigel. A Grammar of New Testament Greek. iii. Syntax. Edinburgh: T & T Clark,
1963. [Turner, Syntax]
Turner, Nigel. Grammatical Insights into the New Testament. Edinburgh: T & T Clark,
1963. [Turner, Grammatical Insights]
Von Siebenthal, Heinrich. Ancient Greek Grammar for the Study of the New Testament.
Berlin: Peter Lang, 2019. [Siebenthal, Greek Grammar]
Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New
Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996. [Wallace, Grammar]
Westcott, B.F., and F.J.A. Hort, Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek
with Notes on Selected Readings. New York: Harper, 1882. [Westcott and Hort, Selected
Readings]
Winer, Georg B. A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testament Greek Regarded as a Sure
Basis for New Testament Exegesis. Trans. and ed. W.F. Moulton. Edinburgh: T & T
Clark, 1908. [Winer, Grammar]
Young, Richard A. Intermediate New Testament Greek: A Linguistic and Exegetical Ap-
proach. Nashville, tn: Broadman & Holman, 1994. [Young, Intermediate New Testa-
ment Greek]
Zerwick, Maximilian. Biblical Greek. Ed. J. Smith. Rome: Scripta Pontificii Instituti Bib-
lici, 1963. [Zerwick, Biblical Greek]
1Timothy

i Opening Salutation (1:1–2)

1 Translation
1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the command of God our Savior and of
Christ Jesus our hope, 2 to Timothy, my genuine child in the faith. Grace, mercy,
and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.

2 Text-Critical Analysis
▪ 1 ἐπιταγήν: Likely influenced by 2Timothy 1:1, the notable Codex Sinaiticus
(‫ )א‬here reads ἐπαγγελίαν (cf. Gal 3:29). The na/ubsgnt reading has the sup-
port of manuscripts across textual traditions (A D F G I Ψ 33 1739), including
the majority of the later Byzantine manuscripts (𝔐). This form, instead of the
Attic ἐπίταγμα, may testify to the early dating of this reading (and may also
have prompted the change to the Attic ἐπαγγελίαν, Elliott, 15). κατ’ ἐπιταγήν also
appears in Titus 1:3.

▪ 1 καὶ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ: In some minuscules (42 51 104 234 327 463), καί is omitted
(with the inversion of Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ into Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ), thus identifying Jesus
Christ as θεοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν. This may be an example of an “anti-adoptionistic
corruption of Scripture” where Jesus is identified as God (Ehrman 2011: 102). On
the other hand, it may merely reflect the tendency to align this text with earlier
Pauline tradition where Jesus is ὁ σωτήρ (Phil 3:20).

▪ 2 πατρός: The seventh- to ninth-century correctors of Codices Sinaiticus (‫א‬2)

and Claromontanus (D2), the majority of the Byzantine minuscules (𝔐), and
a number of versions (ar vgmss sy sa bomss) insert ἡμῶν after πατρός. Elliott (17)
argues for its inclusion based on symmetry with σωτῆρος ἡμῶν in v. 1, but the
weight of the external witnesses, which include the original reading of ‫ א‬and D
together with the significant minuscule 1739, argues for its omission.

Bibliography
Ehrman, Bart. The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2011.

3 Grammatical Analysis
Paul opens this letter with two independent clauses containing subjects and
complement/adjunct but lacking stated predicates. These succinct clauses are

© David W. Pao, 2024 | doi:10.1163/9789004681545_006

70 1 timothy

contrasted with the next section (vv. 3–7), where Paul explicitly addresses Tim-
othy with carefully crafted sentences comprising dependent and embedded
clauses. The numerous personal names (Παῦλος, Τιμοθέῳ, θεοῦ, Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ)
and their modifiers (ἀπόστολος, σωτῆρος ἡμῶν, τῆς ἐλπίδος ἡμῶν, γνησίῳ τέκνῳ,
πατρός, τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν) provide cohesion to this unit. Cohesion is further
accomplished through the repeated use of the formula θεοῦ … καὶ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ
in both clauses.
As expected in this epistolary prescript, both the author (Παῦλος) and the
primary addressee (Τιμοθέῳ) are identified, but the imbalance in their power
relationship is grammaticalized in the weight given to Paul, who is marked
by a complex word group (ἀπόστολος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ κατ’ ἐπιταγὴν θεοῦ σωτῆ-
ρος ἡμῶν καὶ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ τῆς ἐλπίδος ἡμῶν), in contrast to Timothy, who is
simply identified as γνησίῳ τέκνῳ ἐν πίστει. While this is not unusual in the
Pauline Epistles (e.g., Rom, Gal), this asymmetry is not the norm (cf. 1–2 Cor,
Eph, Phil, Col, 1–2Thess; Brannan 2006:7). In this case, the asymmetry is fur-
ther reinforced by the contrastive lexemes of ἀπόστολος and τέκνῳ. With ἀπό-
στολος taken as a status marker, τέκνῳ should be understood as primarily a
marker of subordination. Within this pair, the significance of γνησίῳ can be
further appreciated. While there are endless debates as to whether this term
should be taken as a term of endearment (M.-M. 128: “an epithet of affection-
ate regard”) or legitimacy (Collins, 24: “legitimate and faithful”), in relation
to ἀπόστολος, which is further defined by κατ’ ἐπιταγὴν …, γνησίῳ, it should
best be understood as a term denoting legitimacy, subordination, and faithful-
ness.
The repeated appearances of θεοῦ … καὶ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ point to the close
proximity of the two. This also paves the way for identifying either with appel-
lations that are more often applied only to one in the early Pauline letters.
The rhetorical effect is to stress the connection between the two as Paul, in
turn, would emphasize his connection with Christ, a connection that is to be
extended to Timothy (1:12–17).

▪ 1 Παῦλος ἀπόστολος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ. Παῦλος is the head term of a noun phrase
that consists of an appositional modifier followed by a relatively lengthy prepo-
sitional phrase. ἀπόστολος, standing in apposition to Παῦλος, identifies him as
one in authority, and the genitive modifier Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ points to the basis
of this authority. Those who understand ἀπόστολος as “the sent one” would
naturally consider Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ as a genitive of source (Towner, 95), but this
diachronic and etymological approach should be resisted. A synchronic read-
ing of ἀπόστολος would instead lead to a consideration of Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ as a
possessive genitive (Porter, Idioms, 93).
1:1–2 71

Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ is the expected form in the pe, although the inverse order does
appear occasionally (6:3; 2Tim 2:8; Titus 2:13; 3:6; cf. Titus 1:1). The order Χριστοῦ
Ἰησοῦ is often preferred, possibly because Χριστοῦ can provide a more precise
case identification, especially in genitive and dative cases; however, the titular
use of Χριστός may have also contributed to this preference.

▪ κατ’ ἐπιταγὴν θεοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν καὶ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ τῆς ἐλπίδος ἡμῶν. Par-
alleling Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ, this prepositional phrase provides further definition
to Paul’s authority. The preposition κατ’ modifies the embedded verbal idea
of the previous word group; judging from the parallels in the letter open-
ings of Romans (1:1) and 1Corinthians (1:1), one can postulate κλητός being
the implied verbal adjective that the present prepositional phrase modifies.
Departing from the openings of his earlier letters where διὰ θελήματος θεοῦ is
employed (1Cor 1:1; 2Cor 1:1; Eph 1:1; Col 1:1; cf. 2 Tim 1:1), Paul here uses ἐπιτα-
γήν, which falls within the same semantic domain of ἀπόστολος (LNd § 33.194,
33.326) and in this case communicates involvement of members of disparate
statuses. This collocation of the two lexemes does not simply aim at buttress-
ing Paul’s authority, but it also emphasizes his relative status in reference to
both God/Christ, who is his superior, and Timothy, who is under his author-
ity.
The parallel genitive modifiers θεοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν and Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ τῆς ἐλπί-
δος ἡμῶν point to the close identification of the two. Elsewhere in the pe, one
finds σωτήρ, ἐλπίς, and perhaps even θεός all applied to Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, all within
one object clause (Titus 2:13). Closer to our letter opening is 1:15–17, where the
saving work of God through his Son to provide the hope for eternal life is artic-
ulated. Both genitives, σωτῆρος and ἐλπίδος, stand in apposition to and restrict
the head terms.

▪ 2 Τιμοθέῳ γνησίῳ τέκνῳ ἐν πίστει. The addressee is defined by a briefer comple-

ment, which is sufficient as one who is to receive instructions from the author-
itative apostle. As noted above, the appositional γνησίῳ should be understood
in the sense of legitimacy and loyalty, and τέκνῳ should also be understood in
relation to the marker of authority in the title ἀπόστολος.
πίστει in this prepositional phrase defines the (abstract) sphere in which γνη-
σίῳ τέκνῳ is to be understood (Porter and Pitts 2009: 50). Timothy is the loyal
and legitimate son of Paul within the web of networks created by their rela-
tionship with Christ through faith.

▪ χάρις ἔλεος εἰρήνη ἀπὸ θεοῦ πατρὸς καὶ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν. The
absence of the copulative καί in this asyndetic sequence of χάρις ἔλεος εἰρήνη
72 1 timothy

may accomplish the effect of emphasizing the whole without drawing atten-
tion to its individual elements (bdf §460).
The absence of a predicate may argue for an implied imperative (ἔστω) or
optative (εἴη; Wiles 1974: 36–38), but in this case, where nominative absolutes
are used in nominal clauses (Porter, Idioms, 85), an elision of a verb no longer
needs to be assumed.
The singular ἀπό that introduces the adjunct with two parallel word groups,
θεοῦ πατρός and Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν, points to the “singularity of
the source” (Harris 2012: 62) rather than to the absolute identity of the two.
The pronoun ἡμῶν could apply to both πατρός and τοῦ κυρίου, especially since
θεοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν appears often in Pauline letter openings (Rom 1:7; 1 Cor 1:3;
2 Cor 1:2; Gal 1:3), though God is never explicitly identified as πατήρ ἡμῶν in the
pe.

Bibliography
Brannan, Rick. “Modifiers in the Pastoral Epistles: Insight for Questions of Style.” Paper
presented at the ets Annual Meeting. November 2006.
Porter, Stanley E., and Andrew W. Pitts, “Πίστις with a Preposition and Genitive Mod-
ifier: Lexical, Semantic, and Syntactic Considerations in the πίστις Χριστοῦ Discus-
sion.” In The Faith of Jesus Christ: The Pistis Christou Debate. Ed. Michael F. Bird and
Preston M. Sprinkle, 33–53. Milton Keynes, UK: Paternoster, 2009.
Wiles, Gordon P. Paul’s Intercessory Prayers. sntsms 24. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, 1974.

4 Historical Analysis
This letter opening blurs the distinction between Hellenistic official and per-
sonal letters (Adams 2010: 36–38). While the prior relationship between the
author and the recipient as well as the use of fictive kinship language (τέκνον)
may point to the personal nature of this letter, the asymmetrical emphasis
on the status of the author (ἀπόστολος), the explicit use of language (ἐπι-
ταγή) that defines the relative status of characters, the evocation of both God
and Christ Jesus, as well as the emphasis on the legitimacy of the recipi-
ent (γνήσιον τέκνον) underline the public nature of this letter that defines
the power relationship of the various parties involved (Ceccarelli 2013: 297–
330).
This brief opening is not sufficient, however, to identify the particular sub-
genre of this letter. The imbalance in power relationship between the author
and the recipient is consistent with this being a mandata principis letter (John-
son, 157), but the emphasis on Paul’s authority can be found in his other letters
with the presence of false teachings (e.g., Gal 1:1–5; Col 1:1–2). Moreover, suc-
1:1–2 73

cession concerns in all three of the pe may further explain the connection
between God/Christ and Paul on the one hand, and Paul and Timothy on the
other (2Tim 1:1–2; Titus 1:1–4).

▪ 1–2a It is not unusual for Paul to identify himself as ἀπόστολος in letter open-
ings (Rom 1:1; 1Cor 1:1; 2Cor 1:1; Gal 1:1; Eph 1:1; Col 1:1; 2 Tim 1:1; Titus 1:1), a term
that is often used in Greek literature in reference to a messenger (Herodotus,
Hist. 1.21; 5.38; bdag 122). Its significance should not, however, be drawn pri-
marily from its verbal cognate ἀποστέλλω, especially since the two words never
appear together in the same context in the Pauline writings (2 Cor 12:11–21 does
not qualify as an exception when ἀπόστολος is applied to Paul, since the verb
ἀποστέλλω is used in reference to those he sent). Moreover, the term is never
used in the lxx even when the Hebrew verb ‫ ָשַׁלח‬is used in reference to the
one being sent (cf. 1Kgs 14:6; contra Spicq, tlnt 1:188). In functional compara-
tive terms, ἀπόστολος overlaps with the function of an ot prophet (Aune 1996:
219–221), but for Paul the term often denotes status by pointing to the basis of
his authority.
ἐπιταγή further highlights the discrepancy in the power relationship; this
word always appears in the lxx where the royal rule is in view (Dan 3:16; Wis
18:12; Sir 14:17; 18:15; 19:6; 1Esd 1:16; 3Macc 7:20). This discrepancy of the power
relationship is to be carried over to the relationship between Paul and Timothy
as Paul prepares to extend his authority to Timothy. As such, this phrase should
not be considered as a mere equivalent to the phrase διὰ θελήματος θεοῦ (1 Cor
1:1; 2Cor 1:1; Eph 1:1; Col 1:1; 2Tim 1:1), though a similar function can be found in
Titus 1:1.
Outside the pe (2:3; 4:10; Titus 1:3; 2:10, 13; 3:4), the title σωτήρ is rarely
applied to God (Luke 1:47; Jude 25), but this use can be traced back to the lxx
(Deut 32:15; 1Sam 10:19; Ps 23:5; Mic 7:7; 3Macc 6:29) as well as the tendency to
“hypostasize God’s saving activity” in Second Temple traditions (Quinn 1980:
251; cf. Wis 16:7). Nevertheless, the relatively rare use of this title in the lxx as
well as the lack of a sustained trajectory throughout Hellenistic Jewish authors
(and the Apostolic Fathers; Wieland, 21–28) casts doubt as to the significance
of this background alone in explaining the use of this term.
The frequent uses of σωτήρ in books related to an Asia Minor context (John
4:42; Eph 5:23; 2Pet 1:1, 11; 2:20; 3:2, 18; 1John 4:14; Jude 25) argues for the signif-
icance of contextual considerations in understanding σωτήρ here (Fiore, 32).
Particularly important are the references to Ephesian Artemis, who is often
tied with the ruler cult (IEph 46; 251; 271; 272; 274; 791; 800; 1243; 3029; Immen-
dörfer 2017: 204; Long, 2018: 223); this may indicate that Paul is using this ot
title to subvert the dominant ethos of his time and not just borrowing from
74 1 timothy

Hellenistic moral traditions (e.g., Malherbe 2005: 336–341). To consider these

uses as “acculturation” (Trebilco, 361) fails to notice the theological significance
of such a title in Paul’s argument here: first, the emphasis on God as σωτήρ
argues against the false teachers in Ephesus who proclaim competing ways of
salvation (4:6–10); second, elsewhere in the pe, the description of Jesus also
as σωτήρ (2Tim 1:10; Titus 1:4; 2:13; 3:6) also provides a strong christological
statement as Paul emphasizes the link between God and Jesus in salvation his-
tory.
The identification of Jesus as τῆς ἐλπίδος ἡμῶν is significant, especially in
light of Ps 64:6 (lxx), where God is depicted as both ὁ σωτὴρ ἡμῶν and ἡ ἐλπίς.
Beyond the identification of Jesus with God, in Paul when ἡ ἐλπίς is applied to
Jesus, the focus is on Christ as both the content (1 Thess 1:3; 5:8; Col 1:5, 23) as
well as the basis (Rom 4:18; 1Cor 9:10) of one’s anticipation of the outworking of
God’s eschatological salvation (Brown 2014: 81). That ἐλπίς is not to be under-
stood primarily in an individualistic sense becomes clear when this lexeme is
absent in 2Timothy, Paul’s final work as he anticipates his own death.
Timothy’s identification here as Paul’s γνησίῳ τέκνῳ ἐν πίστει refers to his
past as Paul’s convert (cf. Acts 16:1–3) with ἐν πίστει understood in the confes-
sional sense (Titus 1:4) rather than simply in a subjective personal sense (e.g.,
“spiritual,” Mounce, 7). This identification also refers to the present (or future)
if γνησίῳ τέκνῳ is understood in the sense of legitimacy, as testified by parallel
uses in Greek literary sources where the phrase is used in reference to legitimate
children in contrast to illegitimate ones (Apollonius of Rhodes, Argonautica
1.809; Euripides, Hipp. 1455; Philo, Ios. 74.3; Spec. 4.203; Josephus, A.J. 17.45) and
also legitimate heirs of rulers in contrast to illegitimate ones (Plutarch, Art. 18.6;
Josephus, B.J. 1.545). This fits the context here where the authority of Timothy
is at stake.

▪ 2b As often in Hellenistic letters, the implied εἴη is missing in this formu-

laic greeting (though see εἴη ἂν ὡς ἐγώ in P.Eleph. 13 [Sel.Pap. § 96]). Instead
of the expected verb of greetings (χαίρειν; see, in particular, bgu 1206 where
this greeting is followed by a health wish in prayer form), Paul again uses
the theologically significant χάρις together with εἰρήνη, the Jewish peace greet-
ings (the equivalent of which is found in Aramaic letters; Porten 1980: 398–
413).
The insertion of ἔλεος into the formula found in Paul’s earlier letters may
represent yet another stage of Paul’s letter writing when the collocation of
χάρις and εἰρήνη was no longer a mere combination of Hellenistic and Hebraic
greetings, but they, together with ἔλεος, convey the power of the gospel. The
identification of θεός as σωτήρ may further reflect a Septuagintal blessing for-
1:1–2 75

mula in which the ἔλεος word group is not unexpected (e.g., Ps 23:5 lxx; Pss. Sol.
17.3). Furthermore, the inclusion of ἔλεος would pave the way for Paul’s account
of the Damascus event when he received God’s mercy (ἠλεήθην, 1:13). For the
significance of χάρις, see v. 14 below.

Bibliography
Adams, Sean A. “Paul’s Letter Opening and Greek Epistolography: A Matter of Relation-
ship.” In Paul and the Ancient Letter Form. Ed. Stanley E. Porter and Sean A. Adams,
34–55. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2010.
Aune, David E. “Paul: One of the Prophets? A Contribution to the Apostle’s Self-
Understanding.” jts 47 (1996): 219–221.
Brown, Peter Dunstan. “The Use of Ransom Language in 1 Timothy 2:1–7 and Titus 2:11–
14.” Ph.D. diss., Catholic University of America, 2014.
Ceccarelli, Paola. Ancient Greek Letter Writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.
Immendörfer, Michael. Ephesians and Artemis. wunt 2.436. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2017.
Long, Fredrick J. “Ἐκκλησία in Ephesians as Godlike in the Heavens, in Temple, in γάμος,
and in Armor.” In The First Urban Churches 3: Ephesus. Ed. James R. Harrison and
L.L. Welborn, 193–234. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2018.
Malherbe, Abraham J. “‘Christ Jesus Came into the World to Save Sinners’: Soteriology
in the Pastoral Epistles.” In Salvation in the New Testament. Ed. Jan G. van der Watt,
331–358. NovTSup 121. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2005.
Porten, Bezadel. “Address Formulae in Aramaic Letters: A New Collection of Cowley 17.”
rb 90 (1980): 398–413.
Quinn, Jerome D. “Jesus as Savior and Only Mediator (1 Tim 2:3–6). Linguistic Paradigms
of Acculturation.” In Fede e cultura alla luce della Bibbia. Ed. J.D. Barthélemy, 249–
260. Torino: Editrice Elle Di Ci, 1981.

5 Theological Analysis
This brief greeting carries significant theological weight as Paul introduces his
letter to Timothy. In terms of delineating the power relationship among the
various characters, Paul identifies himself as one who has the authority com-
ing from both God and Christ Jesus. This paves the way for his exhortation to
Timothy his legitimate heir, the one who is to see himself as extending Paul’s
apostolic mission as well as God’s salvific work through Christ.
In securing the connection between Timothy’s mission and his own, Paul
emphasizes the close identity between God the Father and his Messiah. That
Jesus is called κύριος presupposes the completion of the critical stage of God’s
salvific work as σωτήρ (cf. Cullmann 1959: 241–242, who further argues that the
subsequent identification of Jesus as σωτήρ builds on this prior identification
76 1 timothy

of God the Father). The paralleling of God the Father and Christ Jesus twice in
this brief section underlines the significance of this linkage: As Jesus extends
the work of God the Father, Timothy is to extend the apostolic mission of Paul.
Paul grounds these linkages in “the faith,” a concept that will play an impor-
tant part in this letter. This faith is grounded in God’s eternal salvific will (κατ’
ἐπιταγὴν θεοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν) while anticipating the accomplishment of this
will in the unfolding of God redemptive plan grounded in Christ Jesus our
hope.

Bibliography
Cullmann, Oscar. The Christology of the New Testament. Rev. ed. Trans. S.C. Guthrie and
C.A.M. Hall. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1959.

ii Danger of the False Teachers (1:3–20)

A Warning against the False Teachers (1:3–7)

1 Translation
3 As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, to remain in Ephesus to charge
certain people not to spread a different teaching, 4 nor to occupy themselves
with myths and endless genealogies. Such things promote speculations rather
than stewardship from God in the faith. 5 But the goal of our charge is love that
comes from a pure heart, a good conscience, and a genuine faith. 6 From these
some have gone astray and turned to empty talk. 7 They wish to be teachers of
the law, but they do not understand what they are saying or what they confi-
dently assert.

2 Text-Critical Analysis
▪ 4 ἐκζητήσεις: This hapax, supported by important uncials (‫ א‬A), is replaced
by the more usual ζητήσεις (2Tim 1:17) in many Western (D F G; Iren.) and later
Byzantine (𝔐) texts. Those who make a distinction between the meaning of
ἐκζητήσεις (“research”) and ζητήσεις (“dispute”) consider the latter to be more
“suitable in the context” (Elliott, 18). Nevertheless, as a hapax, ἐκζητήσεις is the
more difficult reading and is, therefore, more likely to be changed by a scribe.
The semantic distinction between the two is less than clear. ἐκζητήσεις is prefer-
able, especially in light of its strong external attestation.

▪ 4 οἰκονομίαν: The Western traditions read οἰκοδομήν (D* latt Iren [οἰκοδομίαν,
D2 625]) instead, which is considered to be original by Elliott (19) because
“it was objected to by Atticist scribes.” This “thoroughgoing eclectic” conclu-
1:3–7 77

sion ignores the significant agreement between Alexandrian (‫ א‬A, cf. 1739) and
Byzantine (𝔐) witnesses as well as the support of isolated Western texts (F
G). Even internal considerations would support οἰκονομίαν, as it fits the context
here and is paralleled by θεοῦ οἰκονόμον in Titus 1:7. The use of the οἶκος-word
group may also pave the way for the identification of the church as οἴκῳ θεοῦ in
3:15 since οἰκονομίαν θεοῦ here connotes both management of God’s household
and “God’s way of ordering reality” (Johnson 1999: 96).

Bibliography
Johnson, Luke Timothy. “Oikonomia Theou.” hbt 21 (1999): 87–103.
Treu, Kurt. “Neue neutestamentliche Fragmente der Berliner Papyrussammlung.”
Archiv für Papyrusforschung und verwandte Gebiete 18 (1966): 23–38.

3 Grammatical Analysis
The transition from the salutation to the main body of this letter is grammati-
calized by the shift in syntactical structure and participant characterization as
well as a move from an emphasis on continuity/succession to that of disconti-
nuity/contrasts. An asyndetic construction is expected when the letter moves
from its opening to its body (2Tim 1:3; Titus 1:5; Levinsohn, “Some Constraints,”
330–331). Moreover, the two verbless clauses in the salutation are replaced by
complex sentences with the use of a wide range of verbal forms (indicatives,
infinitives, participles, subjunctives) and dependent clauses. For participant
characterization, the named participants are now embedded in the verbs and
pronouns, while their opponents make their appearances in the notable use of
the indefinite pronoun τις (vv. 3, 6, 7).
The focus on the continuity between God-Jesus-Paul-Timothy in the saluta-
tion is replaced by the contrasts between the true faith as embodied in God-
Jesus-Paul-Timothy and the false teachings in their opponents; this contrast is
underlined by the repeated uses of the marked μή/μηδέ/μήτε (vv. 3, 4, 7 [3×]) as
well as the comparative adverb μᾶλλον (v. 4; cf. Zerwick, Biblical Greek § 445).
The shift from vv. 1–2 to vv. 3–7 is a natural one since the basis of Paul’s right to
issue a call to Timothy (παρεκάλεσα, v. 3) lies in his apostolic authority (v. 1), and
the right to make a distinction between the true and false teachings (vv. 4–7) is
based on Timothy’s relationship with the apostle Paul (v. 2; Stepp, 2005: 121).
The integrity of vv. 3–7 is maintained primarily by words of the same seman-
tic domain of communication (παρεκάλεσα, παραγγείλῃς, ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖν,
παραγγελίας, ματαιολογίαν, νομοδιδάσκαλοι, λέγουσιν, διαβεβαιοῦνται; LNd § 33)
and by the contrast between right and false teachings (see below). Verse 7
(which serves as the transition verse) identifies the false teachers as the teach-
ers of the law (νομοδιδάσκαλοι), and the unit that follows provides an extended
78 1 timothy

discussion of the law (νόμος, v. 8; νομίμως, v. 8; νόμος, v. 9; ἀνόμοις, v. 9). Moreover,

the marked number (first-person plural) and tense (perfect) of the opening
verb in v. 8 (οἴδαμεν) also signal the beginning of a new unit (despite the aspec-
tual ambiguity due to its lexis).
The syntactic structure of this unit points to its emphasis. The conjunction
καθώς introduces an anacoluthon where the expected apodosis (οὕτως καὶ νῦν
παρακαλῶ, ἵνα παραγγεἰλῃς κ.τ.λ.; Winer, Grammar, 713) is missing, thus taken
to have resulted in “utter chaos” (bdf §467). Some considered this as asserting
the continued force of the original (implied) command (Roloff, 62–63; Ober-
linner, 1.11), while others take the infinitive προσμεῖναι in v. 3a (Fee, 84), the
subjunctive in v. 3b (παραγγείλῃς; Turner, Syntax, 95), or the indicative παρα-
τίθεμαί in v. 18 (Marshall, 363) in an imperatival sense introducing the corre-
sponding apodosis. Some would blame such an ellipsis (cf. P.Oxy. 1299; M.-M.
314) on Paul’s carelessness (Collins, 26). If, however, one notices the shift from
the least marked καθώς to the highly marked ἵνα that follows closely (Porter and
O’Donnell 2007: 3–14), perhaps Paul aims at heightening the local-semantic sig-
nificance of the purpose clause. The lack of the apodosis, therefore, redirects
the attention to the need for Timothy to stay in Ephesus to combat the false
teachings.
The subject of the false teachings is presented in its contrast to the true
gospel. First, embedded in the purpose clause of v. 4 is the characterization
of the false teachings as promoting ἐκζητήσεις rather than οἰκονομίαν θεοῦ,
and the contrast is highlighted by the μᾶλλον ἤ construction (Zerwick, Bibli-
cal Greek §445). Second, on the inter-clausal level, this contrast is also under-
lined by the second independent clause introduced by the postpositive δέ in
v. 5. The “adversative force” cannot be denied, though it lies not in the seman-
tic value of the conjunction δέ as is often assumed (bdf § 447) but in the
pragmatic value of the conjunction particle in its context (Levinsohn, “Some
Constraints,” 320). Consistent with its usage elsewhere, δέ here should be con-
sidered as a marker of change where the author further points to the goal of
the “charge” (παραγγελίας) already alluded to in v. 3 (παραγγείλῃς; cf. Buth 1981:
54).

▪ 3 Καθὼς παρεκάλεσά σε προσμεῖναι ἐν Ἐφέσῳ πορευόμενος εἰς Μακεδονίαν. In

this protasis introduced by καθώς, the predicate παρεκάλεσα with its two com-
plements (σέ and προσμεῖναι ἐν Ἐφέσῳ) are followed by an adjunct participial
phrase (πορευόμενος εἰς Μακεδονίαν). παρεκάλεσα introduces a long series of
first-person singular verbs whose subject is consistently Paul, while the reduced
participant embedded in the second-person singular pronoun σέ echoes the
grammaticalized participant (Τιμοθέῳ) of v. 2.
1:3–7 79

The aorist παρεκάλεσα with its aorist infinitive complement (προσμεῖναι)

grammaticalizes perfective aspect as Paul has his exhortation to Timothy as a
whole in mind. παρακαλέω points to a request, but in light of the imbalance in
the power relationship between its subject and object, a command is implied.
The present participle (πορευόμενος) that follows the verb it modifies, παρεκά-
λεσα, indicates a contemporaneous (or even subsequent) act.

▪ ἵνα παραγγείλῃς τισίν. ἵνα παραγγείλῃς may function as an imperative in light of

the lack of an apodosis in the previous clause, the possible use of ἵνα with sub-
junctive as an imperative (bdf §387[3]), the lexical semantic force of the verb
it modifies (παρεκάλεσα), and the contrast between the unmarked καθώς and
the highly marked ἵνα. Though a deontic construction differs in force and atti-
tude from an imperative (Sim 2006: 267), in this verse pragmatic factors allow
for the translation “I urge you … to charge.”
The aorist subjunctive παραγγείλῃς is expected in descriptions of specific
events. The use of an indefinite pronoun τισίν to introduce the false teachers
is noteworthy. Indefinite pronouns that assume the existence of a particular
group can be highly marked (Bertocchi et al. 2010). In this case, the false teach-
ers were likely known both to Paul and Timothy since at least two were explic-
itly condemned in 1:20. If so, the use of this indefinite pronoun may aim at
rhetorically stripping those who were still working within the community of
their existence and prominence.

▪ μὴ ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖν. This complement of παραγγείλῃς is paralleled by another

complement in the next verse (μηδὲ προσέχειν) as both serve as negative com-
mands. These two present tense verbs portray an action as in progress, the
results of which remain unknown. The translation “not to continue teaching
a different gospel” (Mounce, 18) is possible, but the sense of continuity is not
grammaticalized in this present tense verb.

▪ 4 μηδὲ προσέχειν μύθοις καὶ γενεαλογίαις ἀπεράντοις. Paralleling the previous

infinitive clause, this clause introduced by the negative disjunctive particle
μηδέ further identifies the content of the “different teaching” (in the implied
complement of the previous infinitive ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖν) as μύθοις καὶ γενεαλο-
γίαις ἀπεράντοις. παϱαγγέλλω with μή + infinitive and μηδέ + infinitive recurs in
6:17, where the second infinitival clause also provides further specification of
the first.

▪ αἵτινες ἐκζητήσεις παρέχουσιν μᾶλλον ἢ οἰκονομίαν θεοῦ τὴν ἐν πίστει. In Koine

Greek, a semantic distinction between ὅς and ὅστις is often blurred, especially
80 1 timothy

in the nominative case (Spottorno 1982); therefore, the use of the indefinite
pronoun αἵτινες (in reference to μύθοις καὶ γενεαλογίαις) is not unexpected. In
contexts such as this, it can also take on the pragmatic value of providing the
grounds for the previous statement (Titus 1:11). μᾶλλον ἢ here is used as a “com-
parative expressing exclusion” (bdf §245a).
θεοῦ in οἰκονομίαν θεοῦ can be taken as a possessive genitive (“God’s way of
ordering things,” Johnson, 164; cf. Perkins, 7) or genitive of source (“steward-
ship from God,” cf. Mounce, 22). In light of the importance of the οἰκος-word
group in the pe, the latter is to be preferred.
The articular prepositional phrase (τὴν ἐν πίστει) provides further defini-
tion to the class represented by the anarthrous noun that it modifies, thereby
bestowing “special prominence” (Winer, Grammar, 174) on this class through
this definition. ἐν πίστει should be understood in the same sense as the ἐν πίστει
in v. 2. With the opening definition of the primary frame of reference for the
understanding of the places of individuals and the way they are to relate, Paul
here extends this network to the community in which Timothy is to exercise
his authority.

▪ 5 τὸ δὲ τέλος τῆς παραγγελίας ἐστὶν ἀγάπη ἐκ καθαρᾶς καρδίας καὶ συνειδήσεως

ἀγαθῆς καὶ πίστεως ἀνυποκρίτου. This second clause of the unit that begins with
the postpositive δέ serves as a contrast to the teachings of the false teachers.
This contrast is established by the nominal form of παραγγείλῃς (v. 1) as Paul
now shifts his attention to τὸ … τέλος τῆς παραγγελίας.
The syndetic triad governed by the preposition ἐκ identifies the source of
ἀγάπη, and this triad, in turn, points to major themes in this letter.

▪ 6 ὧν τινες ἀστοχήσαντες ἐξετράπησαν εἰς ματαιολογίαν. The relative pronoun ὧν

that introduces this dependent clause finds its antecedents in καρδίας, συνειδή-
σεως, and πίστεως, although some would prefer to identify the use of this plural
pronoun as a reference to “a vague general idea” (Robertson, Grammar, 714).
This is best taken as a genitive of separation (Winer, Grammar, 245; Moule,
Idiom, 41), governed by the aorist participle ἀστοχήσαντες that modifies the
aorist indicative ἐξετράπησαν.
The aorist indicative ἐξετράπησαν views the event as a whole, while the cor-
responding participle ἀστοχήσαντες points to the logical (and likely also tem-
poral) antecedent of the act. The two verbs are closely related within the same
semantic domain (LNd §31.68 and 31.65) and can be read as a “figurative dou-
blet” (“swerving … wandered”; Moore, Doublets, 54).
The indefinite pronoun τινές echoes the one in v. 3, and the polemical tone
of this highly marked use is even more explicit here when they are labeled as
those who had wandered away.
1:3–7 81

▪ 7 θέλοντες εἶναι νομοδιδάσκαλοι, μὴ νοοῦντες μήτε ἃ λέγουσιν μήτε περὶ τίνων

διαβεβαιοῦνται. The shift in tense from the previous two aorists (ἀστοχήσαντες,
ἐξετράπησαν) to the five present verbs here (θέλοντες, εἶναι, νοοῦντες, λέγουσιν,
διαβεβαιοῦνται) is significant as Paul turns from the description of the wander-
ing away of the false teachers as a whole to their attitude within this process of
wandering away. Although it is possible to take the two participles θέλοντες and
μὴ νοοῦντες as parallel adjuncts modifying ἐξετράπησαν of v. 6, it is best to take
μὴ νοοῦντες as modifying θέλοντες, with the infinitive clause εἶναι νομοδιδάσκαλοι
as its complement. The concessive sense of the entire adjunct is clear, though
it is debated whether θέλοντες (e.g., Marshall, 372) or νοοῦντες (e.g., Mounce, 27)
should be the primary bearer of this concessive sense.
At this letter opening, Paul is already discrediting these false teachers as
νομοδιδάσκαλοι who failed to meet the basic criterion of one who claims to
teach (μὴ νοοῦντες ….). The relative clause introduced by ἃ is not unexpected
after verbs of knowing (bdf 293[5]), and as a relative pronoun that introduces
a relative clause that serves as the object of a verb, its content is not assumed
but is provided by the author in that which follows (λέγουσιν; cf. Peters, Greek
Article, 125).
Within the prepositional clause περὶ τίνων διαβεβαιοῦνται, the interrogative
pronoun τίνων takes on a similar function as the relative pronoun ἃ in the pre-
vious parallel clause (Robertson, Grammar, 737). The participle διαβεβαιοῦνται
has been considered a subjunctive because of its ambiguous morphological
form (Abel, Grammaire §19s), though in this context it parallels the indicative
λέγουσιν.

Bibliography
Bertocchi, Alessandra, Mirka Maraldi, and Anna Orlandini, “Quantification.” In Con-
stituent Syntax: Quantification, Numerals, Possession, Anaphora, 19–173. Ed. P. Baldi
and P. Cuzzolin. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 2010.
Buth, Randall. “On Levinsohn’s ‘Development Units.’” start 5 (1981): 53–56.
Fuchs, Rüdiger. “Bisher unbeachtet—zum unterschiedlichen Gebrauch von ἀγαθός,
καλός und καλῶς in den Schreiben an Timotheus und Titus.”EuroJTh 15 (2006): 15–33.
Porter, Stanley E., and Matthew Brook O’Donnell, “Conjunctions, Clines and Levels of
Discourse.” Filologia Neotestamentaria 20 (2007): 3–14.
Sim, Margaret Gavin. “A Relevance Theoretic Approach to the Particle Ἵνα in Koine
Greek.” Ph.D. diss., University of Edinburgh, 2006.
Spottorno, Victoria. “The Relative Pronoun in the New Testament: Some Critical Re-
marks.” nts 28 (1982): 132–141.
Stepp, Perry L. Leadership Succession in the World of the Pauline Circle. New Testament
Monographs 5. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2005.
82 1 timothy

4 Historical Analysis
The placement of direct instructions to Timothy before the thanksgiving sec-
tion that often follows the opening greetings in Pauline letters (Rom 1:8–15; 1 Cor
1:4–9; 2Cor 1:3–11; Phil 1:3–11; Col 1:3–8; 1Thess 1:2–5; 2 Thess 1:3–4; 2 Tim 1:3–
5; Phlm 4–7) points to the unique nature and purpose of this letter. With the
imbalance in power relationship between Paul and Timothy highlighted with
the use of παρακαλέω (v. 3), this letter can be taken as a “mandata principis let-
ter” (Johnson, 173), an “Official Deliberative letter” (Richards, 179), or a variation
of the “Hellenistic royal letters” (Klauck 2006: 326). Whether these constitute a
distinct genre among Hellenistic letters remains unclear, especially since much
of the content fits comfortably within Hellenistic paraenetic letters even when
“[t]he assumption of an office or the undertaking of a major task is a traditional
occasion for paraenetic letters” (Stowers 1986: 103). More importantly, depart-
ing from Hellenistic official letters, the power relationship depicted in this unit
is not limited to that of Paul and Timothy. Continuing with the concern of the
previous unit where Paul’s authority is linked with that of Christ Jesus and God
himself, here, Paul’s charge is also grounded in God (v. 4) as he instructs Timo-
thy (παρακαλέω, v. 3) to further such charge (παραγγέλλω, v. 4) to those who are
to listen to him (παραγγελία, v. 5).

▪ 3 παρακαλέω can evoke the prophetic traditions that point to the eschatologi-
cal comfort brought about by God’s decisive redemption act (2 Cor 1:4–6; cf. Isa
40:1–2), but at the beginning of a letter (1Cor 1:10) or a unit (Rom 12:1; 15:30; 16:17;
1 Cor 3:16; Eph 4:1; 1Thess 5:14), it is consistent with Hellenistic epistolary uses
to urge the audience to carry out a particular course of action, especially with
the use of deliberative rhetoric (e.g., Demosthenes, Letters, 1.10). Here, together
with παραγγέλλω (v. 4) and παραγγελία (v. 5), it may also carry the stronger sense
of command.
Whether Timothy was with Paul when he was going (πορευόμενος) to Mace-
donia remains unclear, and the call for Timothy to remain (προσμεῖναι) in
Ephesus could also mean “to go and stay” there (Marshall, 363–364) without
assuming that Timothy (or even Paul) was in Ephesus. In Acts 20:1–3, Paul
was on his way from Ephesus to Macedonia, and he might have left Timo-
thy there “in order to keep him out of [the] danger” he would face when
he arrived at Jerusalem (Murphy-O’Connor 2008: 261). Nevertheless, Timothy
apparently did not remain in Ephesus (Acts 20:4) though Paul could have “sent”
him back en route to Macedonia, but the content of 1 Timothy (and the rest
of the pe) still appears to reflect a time quite distant from that of Acts 20,
especially when Paul could have dealt with the problems himself when he was
there.
1:3–7 83

In light of an apparent release after Paul’s first Roman imprisonment (2 Tim

4:16–17) with the possibility of a missionary journey to Spain (Eusebius, Hist.
eccl. 2.22), it is likely that the traveling alluded to in this verse points to his
traveling before the second and final Roman imprisonment (Lightfoot 1904:
223; see Introduction). Independent of early Christian traditions of Paul’s mis-
sionary journey to the West and his final martyrdom in Rome, there are also
other traditions of Paul’s missionary activity in Macedonia after his first Roman
imprisonment (Bakirtzis and Koester 1998). The writing of the pe fits comfort-
ably between these two imprisonments.
The use of τις in reference to the false teachers is not unexpected (see Gram-
matical Analysis). ἑτεροδιδασκαλέω appears only in this letter (6:3), but its use
is comparable to εὐαγγέλιον ἕτερον in the earlier Pauline letters (2 Cor 11:4; Gal
1:6). The otherness (ἕτερος) may assume the existence of a definite set of accept-
able teachings, and the existence of other teachings may also point to the lack
of unity that can be perceived as violating an accepted criterion of truth. In
Greek moral and political discourse, consensus is often considered an invio-
lable criterion of truth, and its lack a threat to the community (Saxonhouse
1992: 93–184). To promote a different set of teachings (ἑτεροδοξεῖν) is, therefore,
to promote false teachings (δόξαν εἶναι ψευδῆ, Plato, Theaet. 190e), and doing so
signals the lack of agreement (οὐ συμφερόμενοι) and the presence of falsehood
(Philo, Her. 247.6).

▪ 4 A hapax in the Pauline writings but a word frequently used by Luke (e.g.,
Luke 12:1; 17:3; 20:46; Acts 5:35; 8:6), προσέχειν carries the meaning of “to be
obsessed with” in this polemical context (3:8; 4:1; Titus 1:14). The phrase μύθοις
καὶ γενεαλογίαις offers the first clue concerning the nature of the false teach-
ings. This may well be a stock phrase against one’s opponents, and those who
are concerned with τὰς γενεαλογίας καὶ μύθους would not be interested in the
serious investigation of states of affairs (Polybius 9.2.1). μῦθος is a label applied
to a tale that cannot be trusted (Plato, Theaet. 164d) and verified (Plutarch, Mor.
917f). Even in inscriptions originating in Egypt, the clear historical accounts
(πράξεις ἐναργεῖς) of Isis are contrasted with the myths (μυθολογία) of the Greek
deities (D.S. 1.25.4; Oster 1987: 80). Nevertheless, Ἰουδαϊκοῖς μύθοις in Titus 1:14
as well as the link between γενεαλογίας and μάχας νομικάς in Titus 3:9 points to a
specific form of Jewish teachings, a reading further confirmed by the notes con-
cerning the Jewish law in vv. 7–9 below. Church Fathers also take this phrase
as a reference to Jewish teachings (e.g., Ignatius, Magn. 3.8), especially those
teachings that deviate from the ot (e.g., Athanasius, Hist. Arian. 66.4; John
Chrysostom, Hom. 1Tim. 1). To further suggest that these represent gnostic
myths (Yarbro Collins 2011: 169) is without sufficient textual basis even if one
adopts a second-century dating of the pe.
84 1 timothy

The adjective ἀπέραντος is a nt hapax, and in this context points to the futil-
ity of such “endless” discussion, for “they have no end, they have no use, and
they are hard to comprehend by us” (ἤτοι πέρας οὐδὲν ἐχούσαις, ἢ οὐδὲν χρήσιμον,
ἢ δυσκατάληπτον ἡμῖν, John Chrysostom, Hom. 1 Tim. 1). This futile discussion
is further depicted by, ἐκζήτησις, a word that is yet undocumented in extant
Greek literary sources; in the pe ζήτησις is used in reference to controversies
and disputes (6:4; 2Tim 2:23; Titus 3:9; cf. John 3:25; Acts 15:2, 7; 25:20).
In Paul, οἰκονομία can refer to the redemptive plan of God (Eph 1:10; 3:2;
3:9; cf. Johnson 1999: 96: “God’s way of ordering reality”), or the responsibil-
ity of stewardship committed by God (1Cor 9:17). In light of the pervasive use
of household language in the pe (οἶκος, 3:4, 5, 12, 15; 5:4; 2 Tim 1:16; 4:19; Titus
1:11; οἰκοδεσποτέω, 5:14; οἰκονόμος, Titus 1:7; οἰκουργός, Titus 2:5), the latter is pre-
ferred. The political significance of this household term should not be down-
played (Mitchell 1991: 101), especially when Paul here commissions Timothy to
restructure the local communities in light of the challenge from competing par-
ties. Besides household concerns, this term also carries the sense of putting
things in their appointed order, a sense that is reflected in the pairing of οἰκονο-
μία and τάξις in Greek literature (e.g., Posidonius, Frag. 194a; Diodorus of Sicily,
Hist. 36.5.2). If so, the prepositional phrase ἐν πίστει clarifies the nature of this
household responsibility as one that centers on the community formed by “the
faith” (cf. v. 2).

▪ 5 ἀγάπη (instead of φιλία or ἔρος) is often understood as carrying a special

“religious usage” pointing to “a calculated disposition of regard and pious incli-
nation toward God and one’s fellows” (Fiore, 41). The use of ἀγάπη and ἀγαπάω
in secular Hellenistic Greek literature fails to confirm this understanding (e.g.,
Joly 1968). Moreover, in the pe φιλία/φιλέω is also used in Titus (3:15) in refer-
ence to those who are ἐν πίστει. In this context, ἀγάπη refers primarily to the
love between one another, especially when it is said to be ἐκ … πίστεως (Gal
5:6), though this love is undoubtedly grounded in one’s love for God.
The syndetic triad, καθαρᾶς καρδίας καὶ συνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς καὶ πίστεως ἀνυ-
ποκρίτου, has been taken to refer to the Shema of Deut 6:4–5, where one is to
love God with one’s whole heart, soul, and strength (Quinn and Wacker, 79).
This parallel falls, however, since ἀγάπη refers to one’s love for one another, and
the content of the triad does not match that of the Shema. καρδία refers to the
seat of the will and emotions, and with the adjective καθαρά it refers to a pure
and wholehearted devotion to God (Mark 5:8; Heb 10:22), as explicitly noted in
2 Tim 2:22 (τῶν ἐπικαλουμένων τὸν κύριον ἐκ καθαρᾶς καρδίας).
More difficult is the lexeme συνείδησις. This is often understood as equivalent
to the English word “conscience,” and, therefore, “that innate and universal …
1:3–7 85

knowledge that condemns wrong and commends right” (Mounce, 24), and a
“good conscience” would then refer to an act carried out with moral purity. If
so, a “good conscience” and a “pure heart” would both point to an undivided
devotion to the Lord. While this definition may fit the context of some Pauline
passages (e.g., Rom 2:15), it is insufficient in explaining the connection between
knowledge and conscience in Paul (1Cor 8:7, 12). Even in Rom 2:15, the point is
not the existence of an independent moral compass, but that the truth behind
the conscience of the Gentiles points to the insufficiency of the Torah (Rom 2:2,
8; cf. Bosman, 269–281). The close connection between truth and conscience is
particularly evident in the pe where “faith” (i.e., truth) and “conscience” can-
not be separated (1:19; 3:9; 4:2), and those who oppose the truth have corrupted
minds and consciences (Titus 1:15). Such a “conscience” would, therefore, be
closely tied with another English word of the same word group: “conscien-
tiousness” (cf. “consciousness,” lsj 1704). “Good conscience” is, therefore, the
commitment to act according to “a genuine faith” (i.e., “true knowledge”) with
“a pure heart” (i.e., “wholehearted devotion”).1 Those who have a “seared” con-
science, on the other hand, exemplify “the hypocrisy of liars” (4:2) since they
failed to act according to what they know. Outside of Paul, 1 Peter 2:19 best illus-
trates this understanding when συνείδησις is followed by the genitival θεοῦ with
the phrase understood in the sense of the conscientiousness of God or a con-
science dictated by the knowledge of God.
The third item, πίστεως ἀνυποκρίτου, completes the triad. While the subjec-
tive sense of πίστις here cannot be denied (i.e., “trust”) especially with the use of
ἀνυπόκριτος, in this context its connection to the objective faith should also be
recognized. Hypocrisy (ὑπόκρισις) in the nt does not refer primarily to the dis-
crepancy between word and deed, but between inner and outer beings (Matt
23:28; Gal 2:13; Via 1990: 92). Therefore, the α-privative ἀνυπόκριτος comes close
to the idea of wholehearted devotion expressed in the preceding phrase καθα-
ρᾶς καρδίας.

▪ 6 In contrast to the goal of his charge, Paul now returns to his depiction of the
false teachers. Both ἀστοχέω and ἐκτρέπω appear only in the pe, and they both
point to the main criticism of these false teachers, that they have departed from
the true gospel. This is made explicit in the other two uses of ἀστοχέω in the pe
with the prepositional phrases περὶ τὴν πίστιν (6:21) and περὶ τὴν ἀλήθειαν (2 Tim
2:18). The other uses of ἐκτρέπω, in turn, point to the false teachings to which

1 For the distinction between ἀγαθός and καλός in the Pastoral Epistles, with ἀγαθός on the inner
commitment of an individual and καλός on the external witness of God’s goodness, see Fuchs
2006: 15–33.
86 1 timothy

they have turned, which are characterized as belonging to Satan (5:15), empty
chatter and contradictory false knowledge (6:20), and myths (2 Tim 4:4). In Hel-
lenistic Jewish wisdom traditions, ἀστοχέω is used in reference to the avoidance
of the path of the fools (Sir 7:19; 8:9). ἐκτρέπω finds its home in Greco-Roman
moral traditions in references to turning to the vices (Epictetus, Diatr. 1.6.42; cf.
Philo, Spec. 2.23; Josephus, A.J. 8.251; de Villiers, 146–147).
ματαιολογία is a nt hapax, but ματαιολόγος is used in Titus 1:10 also as a label
for the false teachers (cf. μάταιος, Titus 3:9). Its rhetorical function can be com-
pared to κενοφωνία of 6:20 (cf. 2Tim 2:16) with the use of the same verb ἐκτρέπω.
With this rhetoric, Paul is claiming that the false teachings are devoid of any
element of truth (see, for example, the paralleling of κενὴν ματαιολογίαν with
τὴν τῶν πολλῶν πλάνην in Polycarp, Phil. 2.1).

▪ 7 Rare in Greek literature prior to the nt (cf. νομοδιδάκτης; Plutarch, Cat.

Maj. 20.6), νομοδιδάσκαλος provides the first clear indication of the Jewish
nature of the false teachings. It remains unclear whether this νόμος would
refer to the Mosaic Law, the Pentateuch, or general ethical principles (thus
Zamfir, 177); the evocation of the Ten Commandments in connection with
νόμος in vv. 8–10 below argues for a more specific reference to the Mosaic
Law.
That the ability to understand is the requirement of any teacher of the law
needs no defense, as is best illustrated in Josephus’s depiction of Joshua as the
new “Moses, a teacher for godliness towards him [i.e., God]” (Μωυσῆν διδάσκα-
λον τῆς πρὸς αὐτὸν εὐσεβείας), the one who has “the distinct ability to under-
stand” (νοῆσαί … ἱκανώτατον, A.J. 3.49). διαβεβαιόομαι is used in a positive sense
in Titus 3:8, but here it mocks the false teachers for confidently asserting not
only what they cannot comprehend, but also that which has no constructive
content (cf. ματαιολογία, v. 5).

Bibliography
Bakirtzis, Charalambos, and Helmut Koester, eds. Philippi at the Time of Paul and After
His Death. Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1998.
Bosman, Philip. Conscience in Philo and Paul: A Conceptual History of the Synoida Word
Group. wunt 2.166. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003.
De Villiers, Pieter G.R. “‘Empty Talk’ in 1Timothy in the Light of its Graeco-Roman Con-
text.” Acta Patristica et Byzantina 14 (2003): 136–155.
Fuchs, Rüdiger. “Bisher unbeachtet—zum unterschiedlichen Gebrauch von ἀγαθός,
καλός und καλῶς in den Schreiben an Timotheus und Titus.”EuroJTh 15 (2006): 15–33.
Johnson, Luke Timothy. “Oikonomia Theou: The Theological Voice of 1 Timothy from
the Perspective of Pauline Authorship.” hbt 21 (1999): 87–103.
1:3–7 87

Joly, Robert. Le vocabulaire chrétien de l’amour est-il original? Φιλεῖν et Ἀγαπᾶν dans le
grec antique. Brussels: Universitaires de Bruxelles, 1968.
Klauck, Hans-Josef. Ancient Letters and the New Testament. Waco, TX: Baylor University
Press, 2006.
Lightfoot, J.B. Biblical Essays. 2nd ed. London: MacMillan, 1904.
Mitchell, Margaret. Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation. Philadelphia: Westminster
John Knox, 1991.
Mitchell, Margaret. “Speaking of God as He was Able: A Response to Luke Timothy
Johnson and Jerry L. Sumney.” hbt 21 (1999): 124–139.
Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome. St. Paul’s Ephesus: Texts and Archaeology. Collegeville, MN:
Liturgical Press, 2008.
Saxonhouse, Arlene. Fear of Diversity: The Birth of Political Science in Ancient Greek
Thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992.
Via, Dan. Self-Deception and Wholeness in Paul and Matthew. Philadelphia: Fortress,
1990.

5 Theological Analysis
Paving the way for the arguments in the rest of this letter, Paul provides a suc-
cinct characterization of the false teachings and points to the basic strategy for
combatting such teachings. The false teachings are considered to be contrary
to the true gospel (ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖν v. 3), useless and without basis (μύθοις καὶ
γενεαλογίαις ἀπεράντοις, v. 4), void of content (ματαιολογίαν, v. 6), and spread
by those who lack true understanding (μὴ νοοῦντες, v. 7). The further identifica-
tion of these false teachers as “teachers of the law” (νομοδιδάσκαλοι, v. 7) point
to the Jewish context of these teachings. In response to these teachings/teach-
ers, Paul points to the need of “stewardship from God” (οἰκονομίαν θεοῦ, v. 4).
This “stewardship” is to be exercised within the framework of faithful respon-
sibilities to be carried out within the household of God, a concern expressed
throughout the body of this letter (2:1–6:19). This strategy of combatting politi-
cal and ideological issues within a community is familiar within Greco-Roman
political discourse (Aristotle, Pol. 1253a; Seneca, Ep. 94.1) as well as the tradi-
tions of Israel (Deut 5–6; cf. Grant 1947: 1–17).
In the midst of these discussions, Paul introduced a theological motif that
will reappear throughout this letter: love (ἀγάπη, v. 5). This love does not merely
represent a vague emotional response corresponding to one’s preference; the
prepositional phrases that follow (ἐκ καθαρᾶς καρδίας καὶ συνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς
καὶ πίστεως ἀνυποκρίτου) highlight issues of purity, goodness, and authenticity,
concepts that are to be understood with reference to the truth of the gospel.
Embedded with concerns of the heart and one’s faithfulness is the word “con-
science” (συνειδήσεως), understood in the sense of “conscientiousness” that ties
88 1 timothy

one’s behavior with one’s knowledge of the truth. The connection between
“love” and “truth” can be found throughout this letter: this love is to be found
“in Christ Jesus” (1:14), one that is tied with both “faith” and “holiness” (2:15;
cf. 4:12; 6:11), and one that is to be contrasted with one’s “love of money” (6:10).
To Paul, therefore, this love is to be defined as a way of living out one’s purpose
within the working out of God’s redemptive plan within his household. Within
the wider biblical-theological framework, this understanding of love resembles
that of the Johannine literature where love cannot be separated from truth, and
that which is at stake is not the absence of love, but the danger of loving the
wrong object (1John 3:18–24; Perkins 1982: 104–122).

Bibliography
Grant, Robert M. “The Decalogue in Early Christianity.” htr 40 (1947): 1–17.
Perkins, Pheme. Love Commands in the New Testament. New York: Paulist, 1982.

B Clarifying the True Purpose of the Law (1:8–11)

1 Translation
8 We know that the law is good if one uses it as it is intended to be used,2 9
because we know that the law is not laid down for the righteous, but for the
lawless and rebellious, the ungodly and sinners, the unholy and profane, the
killers of fathers or mothers, murderers, 10 the sexually immoral, those involved
in homosexual acts, kidnappers, liars, perjurers—and anyone else who opposes
the sound teaching. 11 This3 is grounded in4 the gospel that manifests the glory
of the blessed God, the gospel to which I have been entrusted.

2 Text-Critical Analysis
▪ 9 ἀνόμοις: Some Western witnesses (F G) include the stronger adversative ἀλλά
before ἀνόμοις, but this is unnecessary in light of the discourse function of δέ
(Levinsohn, “Some Constraints,” 320–321).

▪ 9 δέ: Some Western witnesses (F G) have τέ instead, and here Elliott (22) is
correct in suggesting that this can be explained by the frequency of τέ in the
later neo-Attic Greek writers.

2 νομίμως (“as it is intended to be used”) can be rendered “lawfully” in the sense of conforming
to the divine intent of the law.
3 The use of a new sentence in this translation makes it clear that the prepositional phrase
modifies κεῖται of v. 9 and all that follow, rather than narrowly τῇ ὑγιαινούσῃ διδασκαλίᾳ that
precedes.
4 Or “according to.”
1:8–11 89

▪ 10 ἐπιόρκοις: The uncials D* P read ἐφιόρκοις, apparently a common confusion

in Koine Greek (mht 2.315), though Elliott (24) considers ἐπιόρκοις yet another
Atticistic correction despite overwhelming external support.

3 Grammatical Analysis
In this second unit of the opening section (vv. 3–20), Paul provides further def-
inition to the problems Timothy faces. Just as the beginning ἵνα-clause of the
previous unit contains a call for the false teachers μὴ ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖν (v. 3),
the end of this unit contains a warning against τι ἕτερον τῇ ὑγιαινούσῃ διδασκα-
λίᾳ ἀντίκειται (v. 10). Just as the complement of the final clause of the previous
unit identifies the false teachers as those who wished to be νομοδιδάσκαλοι (v. 7),
this unit also begins by expanding on the notion of νόμος (1:8, 9; cf. νομίμως: 1:8;
ἄνομος: 1:9).
The shift between these units is clearly grammaticalized by the change in
the grammatical number and tense of the main verb (οἴδαμεν) of this long sen-
tence. The first appearance of this highly marked first-person plural verb (and
the only one in the larger section of vv. 3–20), reinforced by the marked perfect
tense, signals the presence of a significant affirmation of the law. Not only is
the first-person plural form the most marked person/number available to the
author (and with οἶδα being a true perfect that is marked, Porter, Verbal Aspect,
283), but its application to the lexeme οἶδα may also point to the presence of a
confession or a preformed tradition as confirmed by the subsequent evocation
of the Ten Commandments in vv. 9–10.
Cohesion within this unit is accomplished through a number of linguistic
elements, particularly noteworthy of which are the νόμος and οἶδα word groups
that appear within a parallel structure in vv. 8–9 (Van Neste, 22):

οἴδαμεν … ὅτι … ὁ νόμος … νομίμως

εἰδὼς … ὅτι … νόμος … ἀνόμοις

Moreover, in both clauses, a perfect active predicate (οἴδαμεν, εἰδὼς) is followed

by a present middle one (χρῆται, κεῖται), the final of which (κεῖται) provides
another link with the next predicate of the same word-stem and morphologi-
cal features (ἀντίκειται). Between these two latter related lexemes lies a list of 14
masculine plural dative semantic units, of which more than half achieve allit-
eration through the initial α.
This unit that consists of one long sentence also provides its syntactical
cohesion. The postpositive δέ that introduces the independent clause takes on
its expected role in signaling the beginning of a new discourse unit that extends
the previous material (Levinsohn, “Some Constraints,” 320). The main clause is
90 1 timothy

followed by an object clause introduced by ὅτι (v. 8) as well as by a particip-

ial clause introduced by εἰδώς (vv. 9–11). The object clause that is modified by
the protasis of a conditional clause hints at the misuse of the law, while the
participial clause provides an explicit contrast between the righteous who will
not be condemned by the law and the lawless ones who will. This participial
clause ends with a relative clause (v. 11b: ὃ ἐπιστεύθην ἐγώ) that serves also as a
transition to the section that follows. This transition is signaled by a shift to the
aorist tense (ἐπιστεύθην) as well as the presence of the marked first-person sin-
gular pronoun ἐγώ. With this relative clause, the audience is alerted to the shift
from the general discussion of the law to an account of Paul’s own experience
of God’s grace while he was still a sinner (vv. 12–17).

▪ 8 Οἴδαμεν δὲ ὅτι καλὸς ὁ νόμος, ἐάν τις αὐτῷ νομίμως χρῆται. The postpositive δέ
denotes primarily development rather than contrast (contra Mounce, 31). The
distinction between οἶδα and γινώσκω in Classical Greek does not automatically
carry over into the Koine period (Turner, Grammatical Insights, 153), though
these two words should not be treated as absolute synonyms. Because of the
absence of a full range of aspectual choices in οἶδα, the two verbs should instead
be treated in a hyponymous relationship, with the superordinate γινώσκω being
more capable of expressing mode and/or means of acquisition (Porter, Verbal
Aspect, 284–287; cf. Cruse 2002).
The content of this knowing is presented in a third-class conditional sen-
tence with the object clause introduced by ὅτι. This use of the conditional
sentence is consistent with other examples of gnomic sentences where general
truths are applied in a specific deliberative context to persuade the audience
to adopt a particular course of action.
The placement of the adjectival complement καλός before the subject ὁ νόμος
may aim at clarifying Paul’s affirmation of the value of the law. Situated in
the protasis, the present subjunctive χρῆται points to a generic and possibly
ongoing context as consistent with the use of the indefinite pronoun τις. The
rhetorical strength of this sentence is further enhanced by the use of parono-
masia in the pair νόμος and νομίμως (Robertson, Grammar, 1201). While νομίμως
is often used for the observance of the law (C. Ap. 2.152, 218; 4 Macc 6.18; cf.
Spicq, 1.332), Paul here likely uses a term familiar to his audience but directs
their attention to the intended purpose of the law (2 Tim 2:5; Thornton 2014:
146; cf. Rom 7:16, 21).

▪ 9a εἰδὼς τοῦτο, ὅτι δικαίῳ νόμος οὐ κεῖται. εἰδώς could be taken to modify the
immediately preceding present subjunctive χρῆται (Porter, Idioms, 397), though
this would be the only instance of a perfect participle modifying a subjunctive
1:8–11 91

in Paul. It is best to take it as modifying the perfect indicative οἴδαμεν instead,

with both carrying similar aspectual force: “we know that the law is good …
because we know that the law is not laid down for the righteous …”. The combi-
nation οὗτος ὅτι, where ὅτι stands in apposition to οὗτος, is not unusual in Paul
(Rom 6:6; 1Cor 1:12; 2Cor 5:14; Phil 1:6; 2Tim 1:15). In using this demonstrative
within a formulaic expression that is kataphoric in force, the author chooses a
deictic marker that heightens the markedness of the statement that follows.
δικαίῳ is a dative of disadvantage here (Abel, Grammaire § 45i). The present
indicative κεῖται grammaticalizes imperfective aspect, which considers the pro-
cess from within. It primarily depicts the ongoing process of the outworking of
the law among the covenantal people of God.

▪ 9b–10a ἀνόμοις δὲ καὶ ἀνυποτάκτοις, ἀσεβέσι καὶ ἁμαρτωλοῖς, ἀνοσίοις καὶ βεβή-
λοις, πατρολῴαις καὶ μητρολῴαις, ἀνδροφόνοις πόρνοις ἀρσενοκοίταις ἀνδραποδι-
σταῖς ψεύσταις ἐπιόρκοις. The postpositive δέ connects this clause with the pre-
vious one, while the conjunction καί that follows connects the two adjectives
ἀνόμοις and ἀνυποτάκτοις. The interclausal conjunction δέ signals a develop-
ment in the discourse when the focus turns to those condemned by the law.
The first four pairs in this list of fourteen vices (or those bearing those vices)
contain the conjunction καί, while the remaining are asyndetic:

ἀνόμοις … καὶ ἀνυποτάκτοις

ἀσεβέσι καὶ ἁμαρτωλοῖς
ἀνοσίοις καὶ βεβήλοις
πατρολῴαις καὶ μητρολῴαις
ἀνδροφόνοις
πόρνοις
ἀρσενοκοίταις
ἀνδραποδισταῖς
ψεύσταις
ἐπιόρκοις

The lack of a clear literary pattern as well as the inclusion of lexemes from
diverse semantic domains demands further explanation. The presence of καί
in only a few pairs may simply be a case of stylistic variation (Robertson, Gram-
mar, 427), although its consistent appearance in the first four pairs may point
to an intentional grouping. It is possible that καί is here used to connect syn-
onyms or near-synonyms in the first four pairs (Moore, Doublets, 54) that may
represent the first tablet of the Ten Commandments, while the remaining vices
represent the second (Fiore 2007: 43). This is to assume that the author agrees
92 1 timothy

with the strand within Jewish traditions that considers the fifth commandment
part of the first tablet (see Historical Analysis).

▪ 10b καὶ εἴ τι ἕτερον τῇ ὑγιαινούσῃ διδασκαλίᾳ ἀντίκειται. The conjunction καί

here functions as a marker of addition that joins two semantic units of dif-
ferent weights (Heckert, Discourse, 80). This is consistent with Classical Greek
usage where καί can introduce a clause that functions as an etcetera (Denniston
1954: 289–290); such a clause is not unexpected at the end of a vice or virtue list
(Fitzgerald 1997: 288). This etcetera takes the form of a conditional clause where
an indefinite pronoun (in this case, τι) functions as the subject for the sake of
argument, a usage common in this letter (3:1, 5; 5:4, 8, 16; 6:3, 4; Porter, Verbal
Aspect, 320); with ἕτερον, this phrase aims at covering all bases in enhancing the
rhetorical force of this discourse unit. A similar use of the τι/τις ἕτερον/ἕτερα
construction can be found in Rom 13:9, after explicitly quoting from the Ten
Commandments. In this context, however, the use of ἕτερον is not simply for-
mulaic since τὶ ἕτερον τῇ ὑγιαινούσῃ διδασκαλίᾳ ἀντίκειται here may echo the call
μὴ ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖν of v. 3.
This description of the teachings of the false teachers is further marked by
ἀντίκειται with the use of the ἀντί-prefix as a marker of discontinuity (cf. κεῖται,
v. 9): The law does not oppose those who are righteous, but the lawless ones
oppose the healthy teaching that promotes the lawful use of the law. For τῇ
ὑγιαινούσῃ διδασκαλίᾳ, see Historical Analysis.

▪ 11 κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τῆς δόξης τοῦ μακαρίου θεοῦ, ὃ ἐπιστεύθην ἐγώ. This preposi-
tional phrase with its relative clause concludes this unit by providing the basis
for that which precedes. Though most have taken this prepositional phrase
adjectivally and narrowly linked it to the immediately preceding adjunct (τῇ
ὑγιαινούσῃ διδασκαλίᾳ; cf. Quinn and Wacker, 83; Johnson, 172), it is best to take
it adverbially as modifying κεῖται in v. 9 and, therefore, applying more broadly
to the outworking of the law in vv. 8–10 (Marshall, 382) since it is the status and
outworking of the law that is at stake. Grounded in the gospel, the preceding
comments on the law are to be trusted.
In grounding the discussion on the law in the gospel, Paul not only shifts the
focus from the law (and its misuses) to the gospel, but he also relativizes the
law by subjecting it to the final authority of the gospel. This accords with the
use of κατά in reference to the “standard for evaluation” (Porter, Idioms, 163).
All teachings, including that of the law, are to be judged by the true gospel.
The focus on the gospel is grammaticalized by both the number of modifiers
the head term τὸ εὐαγγέλιον carries as well as the lexemes used. The genitival
modifier τῆς δόξης should best be taken as a genitive of content (“the gospel
1:8–11 93

that manifests the glory [of God],” cf. Dibelius and Conzelmann, 25; see also
“objective genitive,” Perkins, 15) rather than an attributive genitive (“the glori-
ous gospel,” cf. Johnson, 174), especially in light of the parallel in 2 Cor 4:4 (τοῦ
εὐαγγελίου τῆς δόξης τοῦ Χριστοῦ; cf. 4:6). With the modifiers τῆς δόξης and τοῦ
μακαρίου θεοῦ, the exalted status of the gospel is secured, with which the false
teachings cannot be compared. As possible markers of “structure peak,” this
use of exalted language contributes to this “cumulative thrust” that provides a
proper conclusion to this discourse unit (Longacre 1996: 48).
The relative clause ὃ ἐπιστεύθην ἐγώ provides the transition to the next sec-
tion, where Paul’s autobiographical comments serve to illustrate the power of
the gospel among sinners (vv. 12–17). The relative pronoun ὅ here introduces a
non-redefining relative clause in a hypotactic structure to further elaborate on
a head term (τὸ εὐαγγέλιον) that is already fully identified (Halliday, Functional
Grammar, 461). The implied agent of the passive ἐπιστεύθην is likely the imme-
diately preceding τοῦ μακαρίου θεοῦ, though the christocentric focus of the next
unit as well as the repeated uses of the passive ἠλεήθην in vv. 13 and 16 with
Christ possibly being the implied agent would argue for the inclusion of Christ
in the agency of this act (Fee 2007: 423). In any case, the use of the passive verb
and the aorist tense which grammaticalizes perfective aspect diverts attention
away from the implied agent to the recipient of such an act as confirmed by the
presence of the marked first-person singular pronoun ἐγώ.

Bibliography
Cruse, D.A. “Hyponymy and Its Varieties.” In The Semantics of Relationships. Ed.
R. Green et al., 3–21. Dordrecht, Kluwer, 2002.
Denniston, J.D. The Greek Particles. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1954.
Fee, Gordon F. Pauline Christology: An Exegetical-Theological Study. Peabody, MA: Hen-
drickson, 2007.
Fitzgerald, J.T. “The Catalogue in Ancient Greek Literature.” In The Rhetorical Analysis
of Scripture, 275–293. Ed. S.E. Porter and T.H. Olbricht. Sheffield: Sheffield: Academic
Press, 1997.
Longacre, Robert E. The Grammar of Discourse. 2nd ed. New York: Plenum, 1996.
Ramsaran, Rollin A. “Paul and Maxims.” In Paul in the Greco-Roman World. Ed. J. Paul
Sampley, 429–456. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2003.
Thornton, Dillon T. “Sin Seizing an Opportunity through the Commandments: The Law
in 1Tim 1:8–11 and Rom 6–8.” hbt 36 (2014): 142–158.

4 Historical Analysis
Paul begins with a gnomic sentence (Quintilian, Inst. 8.5; Ramsaran 2003: 431,
438) stating the usefulness of the law, followed by a vice list that illustrates
94 1 timothy

those who are to be condemned by the law. Vice lists are common in Pauline
letters (Rom 1:25–31; 13:13; 1Cor 5:10–11; Eph 5:3–4; 1 Tim 6:4–5) as they are in
Greco-Roman (Plato, Gorg. 525; Epictetus, Diatr. 3.20.5–6) and Hellenistic Jew-
ish (Philo, Spec. 3.37–42; Josephus, B.J. 2.21) writings. In the ot, the Ten Com-
mandments (Exod 20:1–17; Deut 5:6–21) provide the foundation for later ot lists
(Jer 7:9; Hos 4:2), and its influence extends to Paul’s own writings (e.g., Rom
13:8–10; 1Cor 5:9–10). In this vice list, Paul’s dependence on the Ten Command-
ments cannot be denied, but three distinct features require further comments:
(1) the unique arrangements of these offenders, (2) the absence of the tenth
commandment, and (3) the dramatic nature of some of its content.
(1) On the arrangements of these offenders, the final few items have been
taken as a “midrashic rendering of the fifth through the ninth commandments”
(Ellis 1987: 242):

the killers of fathers or mothers (cf. Exod 20:12; Deut 5:16)

murderers (cf. Exod 20:13; Deut 5:17)
the sexually immoral, those involved in homosexual acts (cf. Exod 20:14;
Deut 5:18)
kidnappers (cf. Exod 20:15; Deut 5:19)
liars, perjurers (cf. Exod 20:16; Deut 5:20)

Others have further suggested that the first few items correspond to the first
four commandments, with “the lawless and rebellious” ones as the general
heading of the list (Knight, 84):

the lawless and rebellious ones:

the ungodly (cf. Exod 20:3)
the sinners (cf. Exod 20:4–6)
the unholy (cf. Exod 20:7)
the profane (cf. Exod 20:8)

While the allusions to the Ten Commandments are clearer in the second half
of the list, the first few items seem to be of a more general nature. More impor-
tantly, the fact that the first eight came in pairs with the conjunction καί while
the remaining are asyndetic is noteworthy. The lack of a strict parallel with the
Ten Commandments in the first three pairs may be explained by the nature of
these “vice” lists where specific Jewish ethnic markers (such as the Sabbath)
are avoided. More importantly, the references to fathers and mothers in the
fourth pair may group the fifth commandment with the first half of the Ten
Commandments since to honor one’s parents is to receive the Torah from them
1:8–11 95

(Deut 6:1–7). This five-five division is reflected in both the ot (Lev 19:2–4), Sec-
ond Temple Jewish traditions (4Q416; Philo, Her. 168; Josephus, C.Ap. 2.206),
and elsewhere in Paul when the second table of the Ten Commandments is
noted without the fifth (Rom 13:8–10).
(2) The absence of the tenth commandment can be explained in light of
the uniqueness of this commandment that supplies the motive for the previ-
ous ones (Freedman 2000: 153–158). In the context of this letter, however, the
tenth commandment may have been reserved for the end of the letter, where
an extended treatment on covetousness (6:6–10, 17–19) forms the proper con-
clusion of yet another vice list (6:4–5). Moreover, to end with references to lying
may aim at false teachers who are incapable of speaking the truth.
(3) The “dramatic” nature of this list is often noted, especially in reference
to the note on father- and mother-killers (Libation Bearers; Quinn and Wacker,
2000: 96), and possibly also the mentioning of kidnappers and those who steal.
These descriptions may aim at matching “the extravagant characterization of
Paul in his former life” (Johnson 2008: 31), but they may also serve as strong
warnings to those who are departing from the true gospel. As for the two terms
for sexually immoral behavior, the Pauline list is consistent with Hellenistic
Jewish moral discourse where sexually deviant Gentile behavior is often repeat-
edly noted (Philo, Decal. 24; cf. Rom 1:26–27; 13:13; 1 Cor 5:10–11; Eph 5:3; Col 3:5).
Sexual rules served to consolidate “social boundaries” (Douglas 1996: 74) in
marking God’s people as a holy people (contra Davis 2008: 517, who considers
such notes as primarily against exploitative sexual behavior).
Another way to explain the “dramatic” nature of this list that departs from
the wordings of the Ten Commandments is to acknowledge the influence of
Greco-Roman vice lists, especially the list in Pollux, Onom. 6.151, where sig-
nificant linguistic parallels exist, with the use of ἀνδροφόνος, ἀσεβής, ἀνδραπο-
διστής, πατρολῴας/πατραλοίας, and μητρολῴας/ματραλοίας (Harrill 1999: 99; see
also Apollonius of Tyana, Epist. 65.6).

▪ 8 The οἴδαμεν … ὅτι formula is often used to introduce a common tradition

(Rom 6:9; 1Cor 8:1, 4; 1Thess 5:2) or a set of accepted beliefs (Rom 2:2; 3:19; 8:22;
2 Cor 4:14; 5:1; Gal 2:16) as the basis of Paul’s argument; in this case, both would
apply (cf. εἰδὼς τοῦτο, v. 9). The dependence on the Ten Commandments has
already been noted, and the fact that nine out of the thirteen terms in the list
that follows are nt hapax further points to the traditional nature of this list
(Yarbrough 2009: 65).
καλός is a theologically significant term in the pe: elsewhere in Paul it ap-
pears 17 times but in the pe 24 times. It is used in reference to the good fight
(1:18), the good prayer (2:3), the good works (3:1; 5:10, 25; 6:18; 2 Tim 2:14; Titus
96 1 timothy

3:14), good creation (4:4), good teaching (4:6), good context (6:12), good confes-
sion (6:12, 13), good foundation (6:19), good deposit (2 Tim 1:14), and good soldier
(2Tim 2:3). On the other hand, ἀγαθός, which can depict the inner deposition
of a person (e.g., 1:5; 2:10), is also used frequently in reference to good works
(2:10; 5:10; 2Tim 2:21; 3:17; Titus 1:16; 3:1), even in the context when καλός is used
(5:10). The various uses of καλός all point to a valuation in the sight of a partic-
ular theological framework, while ἀγαθός may carry a more general sense (thus
Fuchs 2006: 15–33), though the use of both in reference to good works argues
against a strict distinction.
νόμος has been taken to refer to rules of a community or voluntary associa-
tion (ig 2.1275; LaFosse 2011: 191), general ethical norms (Zamfir, 177), or even
universal natural law (Roloff, 73), but the reference to the teachers of the law in
v. 7 and the allusions to the Ten Commandments that follow argue for a refer-
ence to the Jewish laws. Corresponding to νόμος, νομίμως should be understood
in a narrower sense of “the way the law is intended to be used,” as its only use
in the lxx testifies (4Macc 6:18; cf. Sib. Or. 9.109; Josephus, C.Ap. 2.217). How-
ever, it can also take on a sense of legality (Philo, Hypoth. 7.8) or propriety (Dio
Chrysostom, Virt. 5; Plutarch, Mor. 405c).

▪ 9a κεῖται here does not mean “to be valid” (contra Mounce, 33), since Paul’s
focus is not on the validity of the law but its application, and thus “to exist [for
the purpose of]” (LNd §13.73; cf. Luke 2:34; Heb 9:10). Elsewhere in Greek liter-
ature, the use of κεῖμαι with νόμος often refers to the act of establishing the law
through divine oracles (Plato, Leg. 624a; cf. Josephus, A.J. 11.238) and acts that
are done according to the established laws (Herodotus, Hist. 1.196.4). Paul is,
therefore, not limiting the validity of the law, but he is specifying its intended
purpose, especially in condemning those who “oppose” (ἀντί-κειται, v. 10) the
sound teaching. Elsewhere Paul does point to humanity, which is supposed to
be subject to the law (Rom 8:7; Spicq, 1.333), and the failure to do so would bring
about the consequence of its violation.
δίκαιος does not suggest the possibility of being “righteous” by observing the
law. On the contrary, Paul asserts that those who claim to teach the law are
actually against “sound teaching” (v. 10) and, therefore, do not qualify to be
labeled as “righteous” (Rom 10:3; cf. 5:7). Nevertheless, the secular sense of this
word cannot be ruled out when used in connection with a vice list (Titus 1:8; cf.
Plutarch, Mor. 1058c; Dio Chrysostom, De lege. 1).

▪ 9b ἀνόμοις δὲ καὶ ἀνυποτάκτοις can serve as the general description of those

that follow, especially since those who claim to be “teachers of the law” (νομο-
διδάσκαλοι, v. 7) are now labeled as the “lawless” (ἄνομοι). ἄνομος can refer to
1:8–11 97

those without the law (i.e., Gentiles; Luke 22:37 [Isa 53:12]; Acts 2:23; see the
contrast between ethnic Israel [Ἰσραὴλ γένους] and the lawless Gentiles [ἀνό-
μων ἐθνῶν] in 3Macc 6:9) or the lawbreakers (1Thess 2:8; cf. 2 Pet 2:8; see the
contrast between the lawless [ἄνομος] and the law-abiding, godly, and orderly
[νόμιμος καὶ θεοφιλὴς καὶ κόσμιος] in Dio Chrysostom, 1 Regn. 43). The latter def-
inition fits this context well, especially when paired with ἀνυπότακτος, a word
that appears only once in the lxx (Exod 18:18) and among Pauline letters only
in the pe (Titus 1:6, 10; cf. Heb 2:8), in reference to those who are unrestrained
(Philo, Her. 4) and insubordinate (Josephus, A.J. 11.218).
ἀσεβέσι καὶ ἁμαρτωλοῖς are likewise general terms not entirely distinguish-
able from the first pair, especially when ἄνομος and ἁμαρτωλός often appear
together in the lxx (Pss 72:3; 103:35; Isa 1:4, 28, 31; Ezek 33:8; 1 Macc 2:44). The
ἀσεβ-word group (ἀσέβεια, ἀσέβημα, ἀσεβέω) is often used in contrast to the
righteous (e.g., Gen 18:23, 25; Ps 10:5; Prov 10:7) as it is here (δίκαιος, v. 9a); it
is also often tied with ἁμαρτωλός (Pss 1:1; 57:11; Ezek 33:8; Sir 12:6; 41:5). In the
pe where the εὐσεβ-word group (εὐσέβεια, εὐσεβέω, εὐσεβῶς, εὐσεβής) plays a
prominent role, this α-privative takes on added significance.
ἀνοσίοις καὶ βεβήλοις are closely related terms. In the nt, ἀνόσιος appears only
here and in the vice list in 2Tim 3:2. Though undeniably a cultic term in origin
(Wis 12:4), it is used in references to wicked and evil people (Ezek 22:9; 2 Macc
7:34; 8:32; 3Macc 2:2; 5:8). βέβηλος likewise appears almost exclusively in the pe
in the nt (4:7; 6:20; 2Tim 2:16; cf. Heb 12:16), and the cultic sense of “profane”
(in contrast to the sacred) can be found primarily in its verbal form (βεβηλόω;
Matt 12:5; Acts 24:6). This pair belongs to the polemic of Hellenistic Jewish writ-
ers (3Macc 2:2; Philo, Mos. 2.199) and is used here in labeling the false teachers
as apostates and enemies of God’s people.
πατρολῴαις καὶ μητρολῴαις likely represents an extreme form of the violation
of the fifth commandment (Exod 20:12; Deut 5:16) though it could be consid-
ered as examples of “murderers” (ἀνδροφόνοις). Outside of the lxx and the nt,
these two word groups are used in reference to murderers of fathers and moth-
ers, though etymological concerns have convinced some to take this phrase
as a reference to “strikers” (cf. ἀλοάω) of fathers and mothers (Knight, 85), an
observation that can be traced to the second-century ad grammarian Phryn-
ichus (Praeparatio Sophistica 25). The pair πατρολῴας/πατραλοίας and μητρο-
λῴας/μητραλοίας appears as early as Plato (Phaed. 114a), which is also connected
with examples of “lawless acts” (παρανόμους). Such labels are considered insult-
ing and shameful (Lysias, Against Theomnestus 1.10.8; 1.11.4).
ἀνδροφόνοις is related to the previous pair as a general label for murderers for
both men and women, despite the stem ἀνήρ (bdag 76). A nt hapax, it appears
once in the lxx (2Macc 9:28) but is often used in Greek literature since Homer
98 1 timothy

(e.g., Il. 1.242; 6.134; Od. 1.261). As in this context, it is linked with the killing of
both parents (πατρο-κτόνος, Philo, Ios. 226.4) and sexual sins (μοιχός, Ios. 84.2).
In his lengthy discussion on murder (κατὰ ἀνδροφόνων), Philo considers such
a crime as the greatest of all sacrilege (ἱεροσυλιῶν ἡ μεγίστη) since no created
beings are more god-like than humans (Spec. 3.83).

▪ 10 πόρνος appears often in the nt (1Cor 5:10; Eph 5:5; Rev 21:8; 22:15) and Greco-
Roman (Dio Chrysostom, Alex. 91; Philostratus, Vit. Apoll. 4.22) vice lists as a
general term for those who have committed sexual immorality, and it is closely
related to adultery (1Cor 6:9; Heb 13:4) and sexual sins (1 Cor 6:9). The seman-
tic range of this term is compared to that of πορνεία, which includes “unlawful
sexual intercourse, prostitution, unchastity, fornication” (bdag 854), but cultic
prostitution should not be considered the primary frame of reference, espe-
cially with the absence of any evidence of cultic prostitution in first-century
Ephesus (Baugh 1999).
ἀρσενοκοίτης falls within the general category of πόρνος but with a specific
reference to homosexual acts, a combination not foreign in Greco-Roman
moral discourse (e.g., τί δ’ ὅτι καὶ πόρνους καὶ πόρνας, καὶ γελωτοποιοὺς οὐχ ὅτι
ἄνδρας ἀλλὰ καὶ γυναῖκας, Cassius Dio, Hist. 45.28.2). ἀρσενοκοίτης likely derives
from ἄρσενος … κοίτην of Lev 28:22 lxx (cf. Lev 20:13), a term possibly coined by
Paul in light of its use in Leviticus (though see Sib. Or. 2.73, which may predate
Paul; Gagnon, 2001: 313) in reference to general male homosexual acts (for post-
nt references, see Hippolytus, Haer. 5.26.22–23; Eusebius, Praep. Ev. 6.10.25; cf.
Martin 1996: 121–122). The term has been taken to refer to a male prostitute
(Boswell 1980: 344), but these compound verbs with the ἀρσενο-prefix usually
denote the object of the verbal act (Wright 1984: 129–130). It should also not be
understood primarily in reference to pederasty (Scroggs 1983: 108), especially in
light of the decline of this practice in the early Roman imperial period (Smith
1996: 233–234).
ἀνδραποδιστής may refer to “kidnappers” if the Ten Commandments is in
view (cf. “you shall not steal,” Exod 20:15; Deut 5:19), though a more specific ref-
erence to “slave traders” may also be in view (2Cor 6:12–20; 7:23; Harrill 2003:
599). For Philo, the greatest offense is not the transfer of slaves among traders,
but the act of forcing captives to be slaves (Spec. 4.13–14, 17), an act that repre-
sents “the crown [of wickedness]” (Ios. 18.2). If slave-trading is indeed in view,
then what Paul is advocating here could be considered a direct challenge to
the oppressive practice of the time (Kartzow 2012: 105). Nevertheless, the use
of ἀνδραποδιστής instead of the more explicit ἀνδραποδοκάπηλος may argue for
a “kidnapper” reading when ἀνδραποδιστής is more often used in reference to
kidnappers in the early Roman imperial period (Geiger 2009: 50–51). Even so,
1:8–11 99

the term is used to evoke imageries of abuse and violent acts (Polybius 12.8.2–
3; Aristophanes, Thesm. 815; Harrill 1999: 101), acts parallel to those of tyrants
(Plutarch, Mor. 612c–748d).
ψεύστης (“liars”) and the more specific example of such, ἐπιόρκος (“perjur-
ers”), correspond to the ninth commandment (“you shall not steal,” Exod 20:16;
Deut 5:19). ψεύστης appears in both the lxx (Ps 115:2; Prov 19:22; Sir 15:8) and
the nt (John 8:44; Rom 3:4; Titus 1:12; 1John 1:10), but ἐπίορκος is a nt hapax (cf.
ἐπιορκέω) that appears only once in the lxx (Zech 5:3). Among Greco-Roman
moralists, perjury is not merely an unethical act but is an “unholy” one (ἐπι-
ορκοτάτους … άνοσιωτάτους; Antiphon, Chor. 6.48) because it often involves the
invocation of the divine name in the making of (false) oaths (Fitzgerald 1995:
173–174). In this context, the notes on lying and perjury pave the way for Paul’s
portrayal of the false teachers as “liars” (ψευδολόγων, 4:2).
τῇ ὑγιαινούσῃ διδασκαλίᾳ is elsewhere identified as τῆς καλῆς διδασκαλίας
(4:6), and that which opposes this healthy teaching is διδασκαλίαις δαιμονίων
(4:1). In the nt, the use of ὑγιαίνω/ὑγιής in reference to the true teachings
appears only in the pe (6:3; 2Tim 1:13; 4:3; Titus 1:9, 13; 2:1, 2, 8) and is famil-
iar among Greco-Roman moralists who consider their teachings as healing the
mind of their audience (e.g., Pseudo-Diogenes, Epist. 27; 49; Malherbe 1989:
129). In this context, therefore, the focus is not simply on the content of the
teachings, but also on the effect of such teachings on those who receive them.

▪ 11 εὐαγγέλιον lies at the heart of Paul’s proclamation to the extent that he can
claim this to be his gospel (Rom 2:16; cf. τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ἡμῶν, 2 Cor 4:3; 1 Thess 1:5;
2 Thess 2:14). As such, κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιόν μου of 2 Tim 2:8 becomes a shorthand
for κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον … ὃ ἐπιστεύθην ἐγώ here, while κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον points
to the gospel as the criterion through which all are to be evaluated (Rom 2:16;
16:25).
Though by this time a well-known label for Paul’s proclamation, εὐαγγέλιον
appears only here in this letter. This term reflects an ot background (Isa 40:9;
41:27; 52:7; Stuhlmacher 1968: 109–179), though it would also likely evoke Roman
imperial propaganda among the readers in Asia Minor (ogis 458). Other ref-
erences to terms familiar in Roman Imperial propaganda further support this
connection (see comments on 2:1–7).
The connection between δόξα and θεός is not unexpected (e.g., Rom 3:23;
1 Cor 10:31; 2Cor 4:14; Phil 2:11), but when linked with the gospel, it serves to
provide a contrast between the false teachers and the Pauline proclamation:
while ὁ νόμος draws attention to the sinfulness of the evildoers (vv. 9–10), τὸ
εὐαγγέλιον focuses on the glory of God. The application of the label μακάριος
to God is often taken as a reference to Hellenistic depictions of deities who
100 1 timothy

are immune from human suffering (Diogenes Laertius, Vit. 10.123; Fiore, 44),
though it is appropriated in Hellenistic Jewish authors as a label for the exalted
God (Philo, Sacr. 101; Spec. 4.48). Here it serves as a similar rhetorical function
as δόξα in underlining the superiority of the Pauline gospel that centers on the
one and only God.
The relative clause ὃ ἐπιστεύθην ἐγώ is comparable in function to οὗ ἐγενό-
μην ἐγὼ Παῦλος διάκονος of Col 1:23, where Paul is now shifting his attention
from what God did through Christ to his own apostolic mission. The use of the
πιστευ-word group may be intentional, especially in light of its prominence in
the next unit (πιστόν, v. 12; ἀπιστίᾳ, v. 13; πίστεως, v. 14; πιστός, v. 15; πιστεύειν,
v. 16).

Bibliography
Baugh, Steven M. “Cult Prostitution in New Testament Ephesus: A Reappraisal.” jets 42
(1999): 443–460.
Boswell, John. Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1980.
Douglas, Mary. Natural Symbols: Explorations in Cosmology. London: Routledge, 1996.
Ellis, E. Earle. “Traditions in the Pastoral Epistles.” In Early Jewish and Christian Exege-
sis. Ed. Craig A. Evans and William F. Stinespring, 237–253. Atlanta: Scholars Press,
1987.
Fitzgerald, John T. “The Problem of Perjury in Greek Context: Prolegomena to an Exege-
sis of Matthew 5:33; 1Timothy 1:10; and Didache 2.3.” In Social World of the First Chris-
tians. Ed. L. Michael White and O. Larry Yarbrough, 156–177. Minneapolis: Fortress,
1995.
Fuchs, Rüdiger. “Bisher unbeachtet—zum unterschiedlichen Gebrauch von ἀγαθός,
καλός und καλῶς in den Schreiben an Timotheus und Titus.”EuroJTh 15 (2006): 15–33.
Gagnon, Robert A.J. The Bible and Homosexual Practice. Nashville: Abingdon, 2001.
Geiger, Stephen H. “Distinction in Terms—The Slave Trade in Imperial Rome (1 Timothy
1:9–11).” Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly 106 (2009): 49–51.
Harrill, J. Albert. “Paul and Slavery.” In Paul in the Greco–Roman World. Ed. J. Paul Sam-
pley, 575–567. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2003.
Harrill, J. Albert. “The Vice of Slave Dealers in Greco-Roman Society: The Use of a Topos
in 1Timothy 1:10.” jbl 118 (1999): 97–122.
Johnson, Luke Timothy. “First Timothy 1,1–20: The Shape of the Struggle.” In 1 Timothy
Reconsidered. Ed. Karl Paul Donfried, 19–39. Colloquium Oecumenicum Paulinum
18. Leuven: Peeters, 2008.
Kartzow, Marianne Bjelland. Destabilizing the Margins: An Intersectional Approach to
Early Christian Memory. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2012.
LaFosse, Mona Tokarek. “Age Matters: Age, Aging and Intergenerational Relationships
1:8–11 101

in Early Christian Communities, with a Focus on 1Timothy 5.” Ph.D. diss., University
of Toronto, 2011.
Malherbe, Abraham J. Paul and the Popular Philosophers. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989.
Martin, Dale B. “Arsenokoitês and Malakos: Meanings and Consequences.” In Bibli-
cal Ethics and Homosexuality: Listening to Scripture. Ed. Robert L. Brawley, 117–136.
Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 1996.
Ramsaran, Rollin A. “Paul and Maxims.” In Paul in the Greco-Roman World. Ed. J. Paul
Sampley, 429–456. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2003.
Scroggs, Robin. The New Testament and Homosexuality. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983.
Smith, Mark D. “Ancient Bisexuality and the Interpretation of Romans 1:26–27.” jaar
64 (1996): 223–256.
Stuhlmacher, Peter. Die paulinische Evangelium, 1: Vorgeschichte. frlant 95. Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1968.
Thornton, Dillon T. “Sin Seizing an Opportunity through the Commandments: The Law
in 1Tim 1:8–11 and Rom 6–8.” hbt 36 (2014): 142–158.
Wright, David. “Homosexuals or Prostitutes? The Meaning of αρσενοκοιται (1 Cor.
6:9, 1Tim 1:10).” vc 38 (1984): 125–153.
Yarbrough, Mark M. Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy. lnts 417.
London: T & T Clark, 2009.

5 Theological Analysis
The central concern of this unit is the usefulness of the law, though its relation-
ship with that of the earlier Pauline Epistles is disputed. Those who consider
this as a later reworking of Rom 3:21, 28; 7:12 see a distinct development (Roloff,
124). Compared to stronger statements in Gal 3:19–22, the differences become
even more notable (Fiore, 42). Three issues are at stake: (1) the function of such
a discussion here in this context as compared to Paul’s earlier discussions, (2)
the earlier Pauline material to which this is to be compared, and (3) the context
of the audience. In terms of function, Paul is not aiming to provide a definition
of the usefulness of the law; instead, he aims to highlight its proper role in his
critique of those “teachers of the law” (v. 7). In terms of content, Romans 7 is
no doubt its closest parallel; despite their different foci, a closer examination
of Paul’s wider argument in Romans 6–8 shows that this earlier Paul is con-
sistent with the Paul of Frist Timothy in three areas: the usefulness of the law,
the differentiated target of the law, and the particular function of the law for
the wicked (Thornton 2014: 142–158). In terms of the context of the audience,
while the Ten Commandments supplies the framework of this embedded vice
list, its content is partially derived from Greco-Roman moral traditions (Apol-
lonius of Tyana, Epist. 65.6). This may signal an audience that is different from
the Judaizers behind Galatians (and possibly Romans as well).
102 1 timothy

At the end of this unit, Paul moves from the exalted God to his own apos-
tolic mission; a move that appears to depart from even the letters from his
first Roman imprisonment. In Colossians, for example, embedded between the
work of the Father (1:3–14) and Paul’s own mission (1:24–2:5) is the christo-
logical hymn that highlights the climactic work of the Son (1:15–23). Such an
explicit christological note appears to be missing here. Nevertheless, in the por-
trayal of the gospel as one that “manifests the glory of the blessed God” (v. 11),
one may still be able to identify the distinct work of Christ. Reading this in light
of Titus 2:13, where δόξα is applied to Christ, the reference to the glorious man-
ifestation of God through Christ in the accomplishment of God’s redemptive
plan takes on added significance (2Cor 3:7–4:6; Fee 2007: 423). The unique role
of Christ will be the center of discussion in the unit that follows (vv. 12–17).

Bibliography
Thornton, Dillon T. “Sin Seizing an Opportunity through the Commandments: The Law
in 1Tim 1:8–11 and Rom 6–8.” hbt 36 (2014): 142–158.

C Paul as an Example of a Saved Sinner (1:12–17)

1 Translation
12 I thank him who has strengthened me, Christ Jesus our Lord, because he
considered me faithful, appointing me to his service, 13 though I was formerly
a blasphemer, persecutor, and an insolent opponent. But I received mercy
because I had acted in ignorance and unbelief, 14 and the grace of our Lord
was fully abundant, with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. 15 This say-
ing is trustworthy and deserves wholehearted5 acceptance: Christ Jesus came
into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the worst. 16 But I received mercy
for this reason, that in me the worst sinner, Jesus Christ might show his utmost
patience as an example for those who were to believe in him for eternal life. 17
To the King of eternity,6 immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory
forever and ever. Amen.

2 Text-Critical Analysis
▪ 12 ἐνδυναμώσαντί: A few witnesses (‫*א‬33 51 g sa) read ἐνδυναμοῦντι instead,
which Elliott (25) considers to be original in light of scribal tendencies to
change from the present to the aorist in non-indicative moods (cf. margin
of Westcott-Hort). Those who support ἐνδυναμώσαντί argue that the aorist is

5 This translation reflects the intensive use of πάσης.

6 Or “of the ages.”
1:12–17 103

more appropriate in this context since “the paragraph is throughout concerned

with the past event of Paul’s conversion” (Marshall, 386). This reading depends
heavily on the traditional understanding of Aktionsart that assumes an aorist
participle necessarily denotes a past punctiliar act. Nevertheless, this aorist par-
ticiple is supported by significant witnesses in both the Alexandrian (‫א‬c A) and
Western (D F G) traditions, including a vast majority of the later Byzantine
minuscules (𝔐). The change to ἐνδυναμοῦντι was perhaps prompted by Phil 4:13
(Lock, xxxv).

▪ 13 τὸ πρότερον: Correctors of early uncials (D2 HC), several 8–9th-century

uncials (K L), and the majority of late minuscules (630 [which was misclas-
sified as supporting τὸ πρότερον in na27 and earlier editions] 1241 1505 𝔐) read
τὸν πρότερον instead, thus taking πρότερον as an adjective rather than an adverb
(which takes a neuter rather than a masculine article). The earliest and most
reliable uncials (‫ א‬A D*) and minuscules (33 1739) all support τὸ πρότερον, which
is consistent with nt usage (John 6:62; 9:8; Gal 4:13).

▪ 15 πιστός: Instead of πιστός, several Latin witnesses (b m r vgmss, and codices

known to several western fathers including Ambrosiaster and Jerome) have
humanus, while the Greek equivalent ἀνθρώπινος appears in several witnesses
for 3:1. This variant is no longer noted in na28 (cf. na27), but it has had a long
list of supporters (Elliott, 27; cf. Moule 1966: 222). Though supported only by the
Latin witnesses, it could testify to a Greek prototype as early as the second cen-
tury, assuming that Ambrosiaster based his reading on an Old Latin manuscript
(North, 58). It could also be considered a more difficult reading (thus explain-
ing the change to πιστός) since the meaning of humanus/ἀνθρώπινος remains
unclear in this context. Nevertheless, with the lack of support among the Greek
witnesses, πιστός is to be preferred at least here (see also P.Berlin 13977; Treu
36–37; cf. 3:1 below).

▪ 16 πρώτῳ: A few witnesses (Ψ Η 69 104 pc) have the adverb πρῶτον instead
(cf. 1Tim 2:1; 2Tim 1:5). The adjectival form πρώτῳ has overwhelming external
support across textual traditions and fits the context better, especially in light
of the use of the same adjective in v. 15. The confusion between the two may
have led to the omission of this word entirely in some Western witnesses (D*
d).

▪ 16 Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς: The order of these terms has created numerous variant
readings in the pe, ten of which can be found in 1 Timothy alone (1:1, 2, 15,
16; 2:5; 4:6; 5:21; 6:3; 13, 14). In this case, the external witnesses, which include
104 1 timothy

significant uncials (esp. ‫ ;א‬cf. D2 H K L P), various versions (ar vgmss sy), and
the majority of the later Byzantine minuscules (𝔐), slightly favor Ἰησοῦς Χρι-
στός. Internal considerations also prompted Kilpatrick (635) and Elliott (201) to
support Ἰησοῦς Χριστός since the author of the pe prefers this order except in
dative (1Tim 1:12, 14) and genitive (1Tim 1:2; 5:21) cases. The scribal change may
have been due to the influence of early Pauline Epistles, where Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς
is more common. This variant (see ‫ )א‬should be considered the preferred read-
ing.

▪ 17 ἀφθάρτῳ ἀοράτῳ: Part of the Western textual tradition (D*, c lat syrhmg) reads
ἀθανάτῳ ἀοράτῳ, while a few remaining Western witnesses (F G) have ἀφθάρτῳ
ἀοράτῳ ἀθανάτῳ. ἀφθάρτῳ ἀοράτῳ has the strongest external support across tex-
tual traditions (‫ א‬A H I Ψ 1739 𝔐) and can best explain the two variants. The
conceptual parallel in 1Tim 6:16 (ὁ μόνος ἔχων ἀθανασίαν) may have influenced
some scribes here, and the popularity of ἀθάνατος in Patristic authors who
have “a more developed theology” (Elliott, 30) also argues against its authen-
ticity. The conflation of ἀφθάρτῳ and ἀθανάτῳ in the ninth-century uncials (F
G) points to yet another stage of textual development.

▪ 17 μόνῳ: A wide range of later witnesses (‫א‬2 D1 Hc K L P Ψ 1881 𝔐 syh) inserted

σοφῷ before θεῷ, but the shorter reading is supported by earlier and equally
diverse witnesses with an impressive spread of versions (‫ *א‬A D* F G H* 33
1739 lat vg syp co arm eth arab). Though some have pointed to a possible case of
homoeoteleuton (μονωσοφω; Elliott, 31), most have considered this a scribal
gloss introduced from Rom 16:27, especially in light of the presence of the same
variant in Jude 25 as noted already in the margin of Tischendorf (843).

Bibliography
Moule, C.F.D. Birth of the New Testament. London: Black, 1966.
North, J. Lionel. “‘Human Speech’ in Paul and the Paulines: The Investigation and Mean-
ing of ἀνθρώπινος ὁ λόγος (1Tim. 3:1).” NovT 37 (1995): 50–67.
Treu, Kurt. “Neue neutestamentliche Fragmente der Berliner Papyrussammlung.” Ar-
chiv für Papyrusforschung und verwandte Gebiete 18 (1966): 23–38.

3 Grammatical Analysis
After grounding his discussion on the law on τὸ εὐαγγέλιον that was entrusted
to him, Paul now uses his own example as a paradigm for the outworking of
this gospel. This discourse unit is clearly delineated by the formulaic phrase
χάριν ἔχω (2Tim 1:3) that introduces the thanksgiving. The connection with the
opening salutation can still be detected, however, with (1) the prominent role
1:12–17 105

the grammaticalized participants in the salutation (Παῦλος … Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ …

θεοῦ, v. 1) play as grammatical subjects of every clause in this unit, and (2) the
reuse of a word group that is absent from the other earlier Pauline letter open-
ings: ἔλεος (cf. ἠλεήθην, vv. 13, 16).
Departing from the complex hypotactic structure of the preceding unit
(vv. 8–11), this unit contains four shorter sentences with their independent
clauses modified mostly by ὅτι-clauses (vv. 12, 13, 15). Cohesion is achieved pri-
marily through three elements. First, moving from the focus on the false teach-
ings in both preceding units (vv. 3–7, 8–11), the final clause in v. 11 now shifts to
τὸ εὐαγγέλιον. This gospel is not only illustrated by common terms often related
to the Pauline presentation of the gospel (χάρις, πίστις, σῴζω, ζωή, αἰώνιος, Χρι-
στός Ἰησοῦς/Ἰησοῦς Χριστός; cf. Van Neste 2010: 99) but also by the intense focus
on Paul the prototypical convert (as grammaticalized in the first-person sin-
gular verbs: ἔχω, v. 12; ἠλεήθην, v. 13; ἐποίησα, v. 13; εἰμι, v. 15; ἠλεήθην, v. 16) and
the one who saved him (as presented by the appellations Χριστός Ἰησοῦς/Ἰησοῦς
Χριστός, vv. 12, 14, 15, 16).
Second, the unit is also held together by the πιστις-word group (πιστόν, v. 12;
ἀπιστίᾳ, v. 13; πίστεως, v. 14; πιστός, v. 15; πιστεύειν, v. 16) which has already been
introduced in ἐπιστεύθην of v. 11.
Third, the two-part structure also holds this unit together:

vv. 12–13a Christ came to save sinners like Paul (with an ὅτι-clause)

v. 13b Condition reversed by an act of mercy (ἀλλά + ἠλεήθην)

v. 14 Identification of the divine actor (δέ)

v. 15 Christ came to save sinners like Paul (with an ὅτι-clause)

v. 16 Condition reversed by an act of mercy (ἀλλά + ἠλεήθην)

v. 17 Identification of the divine actor (δέ)

This unit begins with an independent clause followed by a ὅτι-clause that pro-
vides the reason for the claim made (vv. 12–13a), followed by another indepen-
dent clause introduced by ἀλλά ἠλεήθην. The adversative particle ἀλλά reverses
the expectation created by the prior clause (Heckert, Discourse, 23), thus illus-
trating the powerful reversal brought about by the gospel of the merciful God,
a point restated and elaborated by another independent clause connected by
the postpositive δέ (v. 14) using exalted language (ὑπερεπλεόνασεν).
106 1 timothy

To provide further basis for his argument, Paul again uses two independent
clauses (vv. 15–16) connected by the adversative particle ἀλλά that is followed
by the passive verb ἠλεήθην (v. 16; cf. v. 13b). This second half of the unit again
concludes with another independent clause connected by the postpositive δέ
(v. 17; cf. v. 14) that draws attention to the merciful God through a final doxology
using exalted language.

▪ 12 Χάριν ἔχω τῷ ἐνδυναμώσαντί με Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ τῷ κυρίῳ ἡμῶν. Departing from

the customary use of the εὐχαριστία word group in his introductory thanksgiv-
ings (Rom 1:8; 1Cor 1:4; 2Cor 1:11; Eph 1:16; Phil 1:3; Col 1:3, 12; 1 Thess 1:2; 2 Thess
1:3; Phlm 4), Paul here uses χάρις instead (cf. 2Tim 1:3). Both word groups can be
used in the same context (Col 3:15–17), and χάρις is often used in Paul’s earlier
letters in reference to thanksgiving (Rom 6:17; 7:25; 1 Cor 10:30; 2 Cor 2:14). The
use of χάρις in this context may be prompted by the emphasis on grace in this
unit (1:14). With the close connection between χάρις, τιμή, and δόξα in Greek
literature (Xenophon, Mem. 3.12.4; cf. Ledogar 1968: 92), χάρις may also serve to
form an inclusio with τιμή and δόξα that conclude this unit.
The complement Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ τῷ κυρίῳ ἡμῶν is modified by the attributive
participle τῷ ἐνδυναμώσαντί that draws attention to the active salvific work of
God through Christ. This articular participle is timeless, though in context it
points to an antecedent act in relation to the present ἔχω, and it paves the way
for Paul’s autobiographical account of his encounter with Christ.

▪ ὅτι πιστόν με ἡγήσατο θέμενος εἰς διακονίαν. This ὅτι has been taken as introduc-
ing a causal (Johnson, 177) or content (Dibelius and Conzelmann, 23) clause.
Following an expression of gratitude, a clear distinction between the two can-
not be made, but the interchangeable uses of ὅτι (Rom 1:8; 1 Cor 1:14; 2 Thess
1:3) and an adverbial participle (Col 1:3–4; 1Thess 1:2–3; Phlm 4–5) after such an
expression of gratitude argue for a causal reading. The aorist participle θέμενος
that follows the aorist indicative ἡγήσατο here depicts a contemporaneous act,
following the general tendency that an aorist participle following its head term
often denotes a concurrent act (Porter, Verbal Aspect, 381).

▪ 13 τὸ πρότερον ὄντα βλάσφημον καὶ διώκτην καὶ ὑβριστήν. The second participial
clause that modifies ἡγήσατο likewise denotes a past event as is made explicit by
the temporal marker τὸ πρότερον. In this contrastive context, the participle ὄντα
should be read as a concessive participle (contra Wallace, Grammar, 191). The
word group βλάσφημον καὶ διώκτην καὶ ὑβριστήν, in turn, serves as the comple-
ment that is marked with multiple words highlighting Paul’s own acts against
God and his people.
1:12–17 107

▪ ἀλλὰ ἠλεήθην, ὅτι ἀγνοῶν ἐποίησα ἐν ἀπιστίᾳ. ἀλλά reverses the expected punish-
ment that should have fallen upon the one being characterized by the series of
derogative labels, and thereby introduces a more prominent declaration of the
mercy of God/Christ. Some have considered the implied agent of the passive
ἠλεήθην to be Christ (Fee 2007: 423), but elsewhere in Paul the acts of mercy
are often attributed to God the Father (Rom 9:14–18; cf. Roloff, 94). Perhaps the
ambiguity is intentional when the acts of Christ Jesus who entered the realm of
humanity (v. 15) are to be taken as the visible manifestation of the mighty acts
of the invisible God (v. 17).
The ὅτι-clause explains why his treatment was considered an undeserved
act of mercy. The present participle ἀγνοῶν could draw attention to the act
contemporaneous to the aorist indicative ἐποίησα, but when it is taken as a
modal participle (Robertson, Grammar, 1127; Turner, Syntax, 154), the tempo-
ral relationship between the two is not the focus. Moreover, the function of
this participle is comparable to that of the preposition phrase ἐν ἀπιστίᾳ when
both adjuncts modify the predicate ἐποίησα. With these two adjuncts, Paul is
drawing parallels between the state of ignorance and the state of unbelief. As
Paul’s ignorance reflects his state of unbelief, so the teachings of the ignorant
(μὴ νοοῦντες, v. 7) false teachers would also lead one away from the genuine faith
(πίστεως ἀνυποκρίτου, v. 5).

▪ 14 ὑπερεπλεόνασεν δὲ ἡ χάρις τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν μετὰ πίστεως καὶ ἀγάπης τῆς
ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ. As in the concluding sentence of the second half (v. 17),
this sentence consists of one simple independent clause that provides an
appropriate climax to the subunit. The climax of this subunit is achieved by
the use of the compound verb ὑπερεπλεόνασεν and the two-fold identifica-
tion (τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν, Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ) of the source of grace, faith, and love.
With its ὑπέρ-prefix, ὑπερεπλεόνασεν in this context should be understood in
an elated, if not superlative, sense (thus “fully abundant”), even though com-
pound words do not always carry an additional layer of meaning (cf. Rom
5:20).
Κύριος in this letter always refers to Jesus, and it often appears with the plu-
ral pronoun ἡμῶν (1:2, 12; 6:3, 14). The prepositional phrase μετὰ πίστεως καὶ
ἀγάπης locates faith and love as the “attendant circumstance” of the manifes-
tation of God’s grace (Fee 2007: 426), and it ties one’s reception of the Christ
event with one’s response to it. Following πίστεως καὶ ἀγάπης, the article τῆς
signals the adjectival use of the prepositional phrase ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ that pro-
vides definition to the preceding phrase. In a more general sense, this ἐν Χριστῷ
Ἰησοῦ phrase may also evoke the “in Christ” formula elsewhere in Paul (Holtz,
46).
108 1 timothy

▪ 15 πιστὸς ὁ λόγος καὶ πάσης ἀποδοχῆς ἄξιος, ὅτι Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς ἦλθεν εἰς τὸν
κόσμον ἁμαρτωλοὺς σῶσαι, ὧν πρῶτός εἰμι ἐγώ. The formula πιστὸς ὁ λόγος makes
its first appearance in this letter (3:1; 4:9; cf. 2Tim 2:11; Titus 3:8). Syntactically,
πάσης ἀποδοχῆς ἄξιος parallels πιστός as a subject of the clause with ὁ λόγος
being the complement. In an attributive structure, the adjective πάσης takes on
an intensive use, thus “worthy of ‘the most complete and wholehearted’ accep-
tance” (Knight, 100; Porter, Idioms, 120; cf. 6:1).
As a “marker introducing direct discourse” (bdag, 732), ὅτι introduces the
confessional statement. For those taking the tense of the aorist indicative ἦλθεν
and its complementary infinitive σῶσαι primarily as temporal markers, these
aorists “describe the historical mission of Christ” (Marshall, 398). Others who
emphasize the continued saving works of Christ would consider these “gnomic
aorists” that state a general truth (Belleville 2013: 230). It is best to consider
these aorists as encoding perfective aspect that views Jesus’s coming to save
sinners as a singular (but presently continuing) event.
The relative clause introduced by ὧν does not aim at defining its antecedent
ἁμαρτωλούς since it is already fully specified, but at including the author into
this class. Those taking the present indicative εἰμί in a temporal sense will be
puzzled by Paul’s claim that he is “presently” the worst sinner; therefore, πρῶτος
has to be taken in a temporal sense as well: “I am the first sinner to be saved.”
If εἰμί is taken as encoding imperfective aspect, then a narrow temporal iden-
tification is unnecessary, thus allowing for πρῶτος to be read in a qualitative
sense: “I am the worst sinner to be saved.” Reinforced by ἐγώ, this qualitative
reading is confirmed by the next clause, where πρῶτος reappears in the con-
trast between the severity of Paul’s offenses and the immensity of the grace of
Christ.

▪ 16 ἀλλὰ διὰ τοῦτο ἠλεήθην, ἵνα ἐν ἐμοὶ πρώτῳ ἐνδείξηται Ἰησοῦς Χριστός τὴν ἅπασαν
μακροθυμίαν πρὸς ὑποτύπωσιν τῶν μελλόντων πιστεύειν ἐπ’ αὐτῷ εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον.
Paul now extends the relevance of the confessional statement to the wider
humanity. This wider application explains the place of this unit (vv. 12–17)
within the entire opening section (vv. 3–20), as Paul makes it clear that his own
example is meant to illustrate the abundant grace of Christ Jesus to those who
provide a proper response to it.
As the climax of his argument proper, the prominence of this sentence is
marked by several semantic features. First, a clause introduced by the adver-
sative ἀλλά is more prominent than the clause with which the contrast is
made (cf. v. 13b). Second, the use of the demonstrative pronoun τοῦτο before
ἵνα draws attention to that which follows (Abel, Grammaire § 34c). Third, the
highly marked ἵνα draws attention to the purpose clause that follows. Fourth,
1:12–17 109

the intensive use of the adjective ἅπασαν recalls the use of πάσης in the previous
clause (v. 15) and lays emphasis on the incomparable mercy of Christ.
As in v. 13, the adversative ἀλλά reverses the expectation of the readers: the
one who is supposed to receive the worst punishment now receives the most
mercy. The διὰ τοῦτο … ἵνα construction is not unusual in Paul (Rom 4:16; Phlm
15; Zerwick, Biblical Greek §112), and it draws attention to the wider application
of Paul’s earlier point since his own experience is but a paradigm for all believ-
ers. The preposition ἐν in the phrase ἐν ἐμοὶ πρώτῳ can be understood as rein-
forcing the two datives of respect (Harris 2012: 121), though pragmatic factors
may encourage some to identify it as an “exemplary use” (Moule, Idiom, 1959).
πρώτῳ ties this back to the previous clause, and both should be understood pri-
marily in a qualitative sense (without denying a temporal sense), especially as
it is contrasted with the phrase τὴν ἅπασαν μακροθυμίαν where one finds the
only attributive use of ἅπας in the nt (“the utmost [‘perfect’] patience of which
he is capable,” bdf §275[7]): the patience of Christ is all the more remarkable
because of the severity of Paul’s offense.
The present articular participle τῶν μελλόντων with the complementary in-
finitive πιστεύειν grammaticalizes imperfective aspect, and its lexis points to an
impending ongoing process. In light of the possible allusion to Isaiah 28 (see
Historical Analysis), it seems unwise to draw a sharp distinction between the
usual Pauline πιστεύω + dative (cf. 2Tim 1:12; Titus 1:3) and the formulation here
(cf. Abel, Grammaire, §45b).

▪ 17 Τῷ δὲ βασιλεῖ τῶν αἰώνων, ἀφθάρτῳ ἀοράτῳ μόνῳ θεῷ, τιμὴ καὶ δόξα εἰς τοὺς
αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων, ἀμήν. This doxology concludes this subunit (vv. 15–17) as
well as the entire discourse unit (vv. 12–17). This exalted note begins and ends
with the genitival modifier τῶν αἰώνων, and it uses the titles τῷ βασιλεῖ and
θεῷ, the formula τιμὴ καὶ δόξα, as well as an asyndetic series of markers of
discontinuity that begins with two α-privatives (ἀφθάρτῳ, ἀοράτῳ) plus a class-
distinguishing adjective (μόνῳ) that separates the one being honored from the
created order.
The genitive τῶν αἰώνων that modifies the head term τῷ βασιλεῖ has been
taken as a genitive of subordination that identifies God as “superior to the
emperor or any human ruler whose reign is limited to just one age” (Collins,
45), but in light of its use at the end of the doxology (τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώ-
νων), it should best be taken as an attributive genitive (“the king of eternity,”
Quinn and Wacker, 117). εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας is common in Jewish liturgical traditions
(see Historical Analysis) with the additional genitival τῶν αἰώνων conveying the
superlative sense.
110 1 timothy

Bibliography
Belleville, Linda L. “Christology, Greco-Roman Religious Piety, and the Pseudonymity
of the Pastoral Letters.” In Paul and Pseudepigraphy, 221–243. Ed. Stanley E. Porter
and Gregory P. Fewster. Pauline Studies 8. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2013.
Fee, Gordon D. Pauline Christology: An Exegetical-Theological Study. Peabody, MA: Hen-
drickson, 2007.
Ledogar, Robert J. Acknowledgment: Praise-Verbs in the Early Greek Anaphora. Rome:
Herder, 1968.
Wallis, Ian G. The Faith of Jesus Christ in Early Christian Traditions. sntsms 84. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.

4 Historical Analysis
This thanksgiving section has been considered as “dislocated, from the point
of view of the normal positioning of the thanksgiving prayer in the ancient
epistolary genre as well as in other letters of Paul” (Quinn and Wacker, 122).
This conclusion is, however, unwarranted. Arzt (1994: 29–46) has convincingly
demonstrated that an “introductory thanksgiving” is not an established part
of Greek papyri letters in the Hellenistic and early imperial periods, and sub-
sequent studies have failed to point to the presence of the χάρις/εὐχαριστῶ
formula in papyri letters in the first century (contra Reed 1996: 87–99). What
is consistently present, however, is the formula valetudinis (“health wishes”) in
the Hellenistic letters of Paul’s time, a formula that appears even in the shorter
letters (P.Princ. iii 160.1–2), and sometimes in abbreviated form (e.g., with the
absence of an apodosis in P.Par. 43.1–2: εἰ ἔρρωσθαι; Pao 2010: 111). It is at least
clear that Paul does not merely follow epistolary convention in his use of the
thanksgiving section; an epistolary analysis has to be supplemented by a rhetor-
ical one where the particular function of a section is to be recognized within
the individual writings of Paul (Watson 1997: 398–426).
While other Pauline thanksgiving sections often focus on God’s work among
the audience (1Cor 1:4–9; 1Thess 1:2–10) or their faithful responses to such
divine acts (Rom 1:8–15; Phil 1:3–11; Col 1:3–14; 2 Thess 3:1–12; Phlm 4–7), this
section focuses on Paul’s own experience. Instead of an encomium by his disci-
ple, the focus is on his impotence and his utter dependence on God, who alone
deserves all honor (for thanksgiving as a vehicle of acknowledging one’s debt
to God, see also 1QH 12; Richards, 172). This is marked by a shift from an auto-
biographical note (vv. 12–14) to a doxology (v. 17) through the redemptive act of
Christ Jesus encoded in a creedal statement (v. 15).

▪ 12 On the use of the χάρις word group in notes of thanksgiving in papyri let-
ters, see P.Giss. 17; P.Oslo 155; P.Oxy. 113 (Reed 1996: 91–92). Instead of assuming
1:12–17 111

that Paul is deviating from a “typical” pattern of introductory thanksgivings,

the fluidity of Paul’s thanksgiving has to be recognized (Pao 2010: 116). In terms
of content, this section resembles that of 1Corinthians (1:4–9), one that also
lacks a prayer report often found in other thanksgiving sections (Rom 1:10; Phil
1:4; Eph 1:16; Col 1:9–12; 1Thess 1:2; 2Thess 1:11; 2 Tim 1:3; Phlm 4–6). The lack
of a prayer report here draws attention to God’s work on Paul himself rather
than the recipient(s) to whom he is writing. This may also explain the use of
χάρις, which is the focus of this section and draws attention to the grace and
mercy of God in his call of Paul (v. 14). While rare in Paul, χάρις + ἔχω is used
in Luke 17:9 (cf. Acts 2:47) and its use here may reflect possible Lukan influ-
ence.
Paul’s application of ἐνδυναμόω here may recall his general statement in Phil
4:13 (πάντα ἰσχύω ἐν τῷ ἐνδυναμοῦντί με; cf. 2Tim 4:17), but if one assumes the
presence of the Lukan hand, the contrast to the Damascus call account in Acts
9 becomes notable. In contrast to Acts 9:22, where Saul/Paul is described as
being “capable” (ἐνεδυναμοῦτο) of persecuting the believers, here, Paul states
that such a persecution reveals his impotence in the presence of God, who
alone is the one “who has strengthened” (τῷ ἐνδυναμώσαντί) him after his recep-
tion of divine mercy.
διακονίαν has been taken as a reference to the gospel “ministry” rather than
to the “service” of Christ Jesus (Collins 1990: 215), but even if the focus is on
the gospel ministry (2Tim 4:5, 11), this is understood as a service to Christ Jesus
(διάκονος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ, 1Tim 4:6).

▪ 13 The βλασφημ-word group plays an important role in the pe. It is used to por-
tray the false teachers (βλασφημία, 1Tim 6:4) who are among those who oppose
the truth in the last days (βλάσφημος, 2Tim 3:2). Four of the six appearances of
the verb βλασφημέω appear in the pe in reference to false teachers (1:20), slaves
(6:1), older women (Titus 2:5), and all believers (Titus 3:2), the last of which
is particularly relevant for the use of this word group here when the behavior
of the outsiders is contrasted with those who are “saved according to his own
mercy” (κατὰ τὸ αὐτοῦ ἔλεος ἔσωσεν, Titus 3:5; cf. 1 Tim 1:13, 15, 16). This verse
makes it clear that Paul’s self-portrayal is meant to serve as a critique of the
false teachers who refuse to rely on God’s mercy (note the connection between
βλάσφημος and ἀνδροφόνος [v. 9] in 2Macc 9:28). The inclusion of the descriptor
βλάσφημος has been taken to be a notable departure from other accounts of his
call (Acts 9:1–19; 22:1–21, 26:12–28; Gal 1:13–17) as Paul establishes an “inductive
paradigm” for his followers (Donelson, 101), though elsewhere Paul is described
as having intended to force believers to blaspheme as he was on his way to Dam-
ascus (Acts 26:11).
112 1 timothy

διώκτης is a nt hapax, but the verbal form διώκω often appears in Paul’s
call/conversion accounts when he is identified as one who persecutes the
church (Acts 9:4, 5; 22:4, 7, 8; 26:11, 14, 15; Gal 1:13, 23). This nominal form is
appropriate within the contexts of a vice list (vv. 9–10; cf. Did. 5.2; Barn. 20.2).
ὑβριστής is also used in Rom 1:30 within a vice list for the description of an “inso-
lent opponent,” and, as such, Paul is not merely identifying his former self as a
zealous but unbelieving Jew, but also a disobedient Gentile. Though rare in the
nt, it is used frequently in the lxx, especially in the Wisdom literature (Prov
15:25; 16:19; 27:13; Job 40:11; Sir 35:21). As in this context, it is also linked with mur-
derers (cf. v. 9) in Hellenistic Jewish vice lists (ὑβρισταῖ … ἀνδροφόνοις, Philo, Ios.
84.2; cf. ὑβριστὴς … μοιχός, Dio Chrysostom, 1 Tars. 53). This former persecutor
and insolent person would later suffer the same fate as he was being perse-
cuted and suffered insolence for the sake of Christ (ἐν ὕβρεσιν … ἐν διωγμοῖς,
2 Cor 12:10).
The use of the passive form of ἐλεέω in reference to one’s conversion recalls
Eph 2:4–10, while the description of salvation as the reception of mercy recalls
the history of Israel that receives such mercy despite their rebellious past (Rom
9:15 [Exod 33:19]; 9:18; 11:30–32), and through God’s work in Christ this mercy is
extended to the Gentiles as well (Rom 15:9).
Paul’s note on ignorance (ἀγνοῶν) does not aim at relying on the distinc-
tion between intentional and unintentional sins to exonerate himself (contra
Mounce, 53) because the prepositional phrase that follows (ἐν ἀπιστίᾳ) cer-
tainly offers no excuse for such offenses. Instead, this note of ignorance iden-
tifies his former self with those of the false teachers who are also ignorant (μὴ
νοοῦντες, v. 7) and are thus leading people from the genuine faith (πίστεως ἀνυ-
ποκρίτου, v. 5). In Acts, both Jews (cf. κατὰ ἄγνοιαν, Acts 3:17) and Gentiles (cf.
χρόνους τῆς ἀγνοίας, Acts 17:30) acted in ignorance before their encounter with
Christ, a sentiment shared by Paul himself (Rom 11:25; Eph 4:18). In this con-
text, the focus on God’s mercy would also explain why Paul, who had acted in
“unbelief” (ἐν ἀπιστίᾳ), would eventually be found “faithful” (πιστόν) by Christ
Jesus (v. 12; cf. 1Cor 7:25; 2Cor 4:1; Wieland, 45).

▪ 14 The πλεονάζω word group is familiar in the Pauline writings, and is applied
repeatedly to both χάρις (Rom 6:1; 2Cor 4:15; Rom 5:20) and ἀγάπη (1 Thess 3:12;
2 Thess 1:3). This theologically significant use of the verb is absent in the lxx,
and is particularly useful for Paul in his articulation of the abounding grace
of God, especially in Romans 5 with the repeated use of terms of abundance
(περισσεύω, 5:15; περισσεία, 5:17; πλεονάζω, 5:20 [2×]; ὑπερπερισσεύω, 5:20) in the
depiction of the eschatological climax of redemptive history (Harrison 2003:
227). This abundant grace creates a covenantal community of love that testi-
1:12–17 113

fies to the continued work of God that climaxes in the return of the Lord Jesus
(1 Thess 3:13; cf. Phil 1:9).
With its third appearance in this letter (vv. 2, 12), χάρις here takes on full the-
ological force. This lexeme takes on the meaning of both “gift” (Rom 3:24; 5:15;
Eph 1:6; 2:8) and “power” (Acts 6:8; 20:32; 1Cor 12:9; Eph 3:7); both apply here
as Paul points to the undeserved grace that he receives and the transforma-
tive power of this gift that produces both “the faith and love that are in Christ
Jesus.” Some have attempted to limit this powerful gift to Paul’s apostolic call,
thus connecting this χάρις primarily with v. 12 (Wieland, 46); others consider
this in primary reference to his conversion in light of v. 15 (Fee, 52; cf. Spicq,
1.343). The connection with what follows cannot be denied, especially when
the verb ἐλεέω, used in the previous clause (v. 13), reappears in v. 16, though this
verb can also be used in reference to both conversion (Rom 9:15, 18; 11:30–32)
and call (1Cor 7:25; 2Cor 4:1). This dichotomy can be avoided if Paul’s Damas-
cus experience is understood not simply as a conversion account, but as a call
account as well (Stendahl 1976: 7–23; Dunn 1990: 89–107). The mercy that Paul
experienced through the powerful grace of God called him to a life and ministry
in Christ Jesus.
πίστις and ἀγάπη as a pair often point to the human response to the prior
acts of God through Christ (Gal 5:6; Col 1:4; 2Tim 1:3), although they them-
selves are also the result of such acts, as the adjectival phrase τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ
Ἰησοῦ indicates (cf. Gal 2:20; Spicq, 1.343). To claim that they are “characteris-
tics of Christ … rather than human responses to God’s grace in Christ” (Wallis
1995: 136) is to insist on a dichotomy alien to the logic of this unit. Though
πίστις and ἀγάπη often appear together in the pe (2:15; 2 Tim 1:13; cf. 1:5; 4:12;
6:11; 2Tim 2:22; 3:10; Titus 2:2), their use is not merely formulaic. Part of a word
group that provides cohesion to this unit (πιστόν, v. 12; ἀπιστίᾳ, v. 13; πίστεως,
v. 14; πιστός, v. 15; πιστεύειν, v. 16), ἀπιστίᾳ in v. 13 is particularly relevant: in his
state of unbelief he was granted grace with faith (μετὰ πίστεως) in Christ Jesus.
Though parallel in construction, [μετὰ] ἀγάπης would be best considered as the
outworking of faith as noted already in v. 5 (ἀγάπη ἐκ … πίστεως ἀνυποκρίτου).
The emphasis on the love of God and others in this letter may also be prompted
by Paul’s critique of the false teachers as those who love money (φιλαργυρία,
6:11).

▪ 15 The formula πιστὸς ὁ λόγος appears five times in the pe (3:1; 4:9; 2 Tim
2:11; Titus 3:8), but nowhere else in the nt. In Greco-Roman literature, similar
phrases can be identified (e.g., φανεῖται πιστὸς ὁ λόγος, Dio Chrysostom, Def. 3),
especially in Dionysius of Halicarnassus (γενήσεται δέ μου πιστὸς ὁ λόγος, Ant.
rom. 3.23.17; πιστὸς εἶναι ὁ λόγος, 7.66.2; 9.19.3), though such phrases are not used
114 1 timothy

in reference to preformed sayings nor are they used in reference to the work
of a deity. In a papyrus dated to the first century ad, it is used to reaffirm the
reliability of prophetic utterances that convey the divine will, but not the trust-
worthiness of the deity itself (pg 37.1457–1458; Llewelyn 2002: 13, where λόγοις
πιστοῖσι and θείοισι λόγοις appear in the same context, though πιστοῖσι and θεί-
οισι function as attributive adjectives). More fruitful is the Pauline phrase πιστὸς
ὁ θεός (1Cor 1:9; 10:13; 2Cor 1:18; cf. πιστὸς … ἐστιν ὁ κύριος, 2 Thess 3:3) derived
from the ot (Deut 7:9; 32:4; Lindsay 1993:159).
With the lack of exact parallels in contemporary literature, this formula
could have been created by the author, as is evidenced by (1) the prevalence of
the πίστος word group in this section (πιστόν, v. 12; ἀπιστίᾳ, v. 13; πίστεως, v. 14;
πιστός, v. 15; πιστεύειν, v. 16); (2) the presence of the abbreviated form (except
4:9) after this longer formula that includes the phrase καὶ πάσης ἀποδοχῆς ἄξιος;
and (3) the flexibility in terms of the function of this formula in the various
contexts. While it has been established that this formula carries a dual func-
tion to mark a quotation and to give it added credibility (Knight 1969: 19–20),
one often dominates. However, in this context both are clearly present, point-
ing to the priority of 1Timothy in this collection.
Assuming an ot background, πίστος here does not merely point to the reli-
ability of an abstract statement, but also to the faithfulness of Christ Jesus
in accomplishing his will (Mutschler, 142–145). The close connection between
πίστος and the ἀληθής word group is made clear in 1 Tim 4:3 (τοῖς πιστοῖς καὶ ἐπε-
γνωκόσι τὴν ἀλήθειαν; cf. πιστὸς καὶ ἀληθινός, Rev 3:14; 19:11; 21:5; 22:6), and it fits
the context well. Unlike the false teachers who “do not understand what they
are saying” (v. 7), what is affirmed here is true; unlike the “empty talk” (v. 6)
promoted by them, what is noted here is reliable.
The language of ἦλθεν εἰς τὸν κόσμον resembles that of the Johannine writ-
ings (John 1:9; 3:19; 11:27; 18:37), although it is not absent in secular literature
(Plutarch, Mor. 421c; Galen, Nat. fac. 2.122). While this clause may not aim pri-
marily at downplaying the centrality of the cross (pace Gerber 2000: 463–477),
it does draw attention to the soteriological significance of Christ’s earthly life
(see also 1Tim 2:6; 3:16). Those who argue for an early Pauline origin of the
entire saying would point to Gal 4:4–5 and Rom 8:3–4 (Towner 1989: 280), while
others argue for a gospel origin (cf. Mark 2:17; Roloff, 90–91), especially Mark
10:45 in light of the influence of this ransom saying in 2:5–6 below (cf. Brown
2014: 97). The possibility of Lukan influence may also suggest Luke 19:10 where
both ἔρχομαι and σῴζω are used in a similar context (Oberlinner, 1.43; cf. John
12:47).
πρῶτος should be understood primarily in a qualitative (“worst”) rather than
temporal (“first”) sense. Some who adopt the latter consider this portrayal of
1:12–17 115

Paul to be a product of a later admirer whose archetypal Paul is inconsis-

tent with the one who self-identified as the least of the apostles (1 Cor 15:5–9;
Schröter 2007: 84). This, however, misses the point of Paul’s argument here
where the focus is on the God of mercy who can even save the worst sinner
like himself (v. 16).

▪ 16 Through the use of the prepositional phrase διὰ τοῦτο, the reappearances
of the verb ἐλεέω (cf. v. 13) and the adjective πρῶτος (cf. v. 15), Paul not only
applies the previous saying to himself but also extends the relevance of his own
experience to those of other believers. It does not follow, however, that this
application is limited to the apostolic call in v. 13 (contra Wieland, 42), espe-
cially when his call and conversion cannot be clearly separated.
The purpose clause makes a notable christological statement when both the
verb ἐνδείκνυμι (e.g., Rom 9:17, 22; Eph 2:7) and the noun μακροθυμία (e.g., Rom
2:4; 9:22; Col 1:11) are elsewhere consistently applied to the manifestation of God
and his attributes in the Pauline writings. The use of μακροθυμία is particularly
relevant here in the discussion of withholding the divine wrath on one who
deserves it (Isa 57:15; Jer 15:15; cf. Exod 34:6; Num 14:18; Neh 9:17; Ps 102[103]:8;
Joel 2:13). The use of the adjective ἅπας with μακροθυμία appears only here in
contemporary Greek literature (cf. πάσῃ μακροθυμίᾳ, 2 Tim 4:2), highlighting the
contrast between the utter unworthiness of Paul and the magnitude of divine
grace.
ὑποτύπωσις denotes a pattern, example, or standard to be followed or com-
pared to (2Tim 1:13; cf. Philo, Abr. 71.3; Diogenes Laertius, Vit. 9.78). The precise
nature of this example can be (1) the magnitude of God’s grace and patience
(Johnson, 183); (2) Paul’s recognition of his own impotence and unworthy past,
and thus the humble reception of God’s grace and an example for Gentile con-
verts (Young, 124); (3) the ethical outworking of such a reception in his subse-
quent life of “faith” and “love” (cf. v. 14; Fiore 1986: 199–201); or (4) his entire life
and teaching providing the standard of orthodoxy (Donelson, 102). The last two
can be ruled out since this unit is not a moral discourse nor an encomium for
Paul, but an account of Paul’s dramatic experience of God’s grace. Moreover,
throughout this letter Paul does not function as an ethical paradigm but as one
that lives out the power of the gospel (see also 2:7; 3:15; Jervis 1999: 695–712).
The first two cannot be separated, especially when both are critical elements
in Paul’s Damascus experience. Within the purpose clause, the magnitude of
God’s grace and patience is indeed the focus, but within this unit Paul’s role as
an impotent sinner at the mercy of God is in view. The target is on the false
teachers who appear to teach a different gospel that distracts one away from
the gospel of God’s mercy.
116 1 timothy

Elsewhere in the nt, the use of πιστεύω with ἐπί + dative is in direct reference
to Isa 28:16 (Rom 9:33; 10:11; 1Pet 2:6; cf. Luke 24:25), which increases the likeli-
hood of an allusion to this passage (one that is also evoked in 2 Tim 2:19) in the
present context (Roloff, 98). Moreover, the twice-appearance of ἠλεήθην in this
unit (vv. 13, 16) may also echo ἐλεημοσύνη in Isa 28:17. These allusions to Isaiah
28 may also explain the reference to eternal life since Isa 28:18 makes further
reference to the abolition of “the covenant of death” (τὴν διαθήκην τοῦ θανάτου).
This reference to “eternal life” (ζωὴν αἰώνιον) paves the way to the doxology of
the “King of eternity” (τῷ δὲ βασιλεῖ τῶν αἰώνων, v. 17).

▪ 17 The basic form of Pauline doxologies consists of (1) the use of dative in
reference to God, the addressee, (2) the ascription of glory or honor to God, (3)
with a temporal note of eternity, and (4) the liturgical note of “Amen.” The basic
form can be found in Rom 11:36b (αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν; cf. Gal 1:5;
2 Tim 4:18), with the most extended form found in Rom 16:25–27. These dox-
ologies are influenced by blessing formulae in the ot (see Pss 18:46; 41:13; 72:19)
that survive in more explicit forms in certain Pauline benedictions (2 Cor 11:31;
Eph 1:3; cf. Black, 1990: 327–338).
In this doxology, notes of eternity (τῶν αἰώνων … εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώ-
νων) bracket the intervening material that provides further definition to God
(ἀφθάρτῳ ἀοράτῳ μόνῳ θεῷ), who is identified with the royal epithet τῷ δὲ βασι-
λεῖ. A more extended form can be found at the end of this letter (6:15–16); in
both doxologies, one finds the merging of Jewish liturgical formula and Hel-
lenistic Jewish philosophical apologetics in the description of the exalted status
of God.
In Paul, the identification of God as ὁ βασιλεύς appears only here and in the
concluding doxology of 6:15. This royal language may reflect the influence of (or
polemic against) Roman imperial propaganda (Spicq, 1.346–347) or local Hel-
lenistic kingship traditions (IEph 565; 615; 1537; 2018; cf. Van Tilborg 1996: 36–
37), but this identification of God is familiar in ot liturgical traditions (Ps 5:3[2];
23[24]:8; 46:3[47:2]) and survives in Hellenistic Jewish apologetics (Philo, Gig.
65; Spec. 1.18; Cher. 99; Opif. 88; Mos. 1.166; Mott 1978: 41). Moreover, ὁ βασιλεὺς
τῶν αἰώνων is also familiar in the lxx (Tob 13:7; cf. Ps 28[29]:10) and Hellenistic
Jewish traditions (1 En. 9.4; 12.3; cf. Pss. Sol. 17.46; Sib. Or. 8.218).
The α-privatives ἀφθάρτῳ and ἀοράτῳ here serve to underline the unique-
ness and superiority of this “only God” (μόνῳ θεῷ). Though the use of nega-
tive predication is not unheard of in Jewish liturgical traditions (Apos. Con.
7.35.9; Neyrey 2005: 76), it is often found in Hellenistic Jewish apologetics (e.g.,
Wis 12.1; 18:4; Philo, Leg. 3.36; Cher. 86.9; Sacr. 95.5; cf. Col 1:15, 16; Acts Andr.
16.17). The identification of God as the “only” God is not simply a monotheis-
1:12–17 117

tic creedal affirmation, but it also points to his supremacy and incomparability
(Ps 85[86]:10).
τιμή and δόξα can be considered synonymous terms (Neyrey 2005: 78),
though δόξα more often appears alone in Pauline doxologies with the only
exceptions being in this letter (1:17; 6:16). τιμή belongs to the language of Greco-
Roman honorific inscriptions for benefactors and is here transferred to God,
who alone deserves such recognition (Harrison 2003: 215–216).
εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων reflects Jewish usage (Ps 83:5; 4 Macc 18:24; cf. εἰς
τὸν αἰῶνα [τοῦ] αἰῶνος, Pss 9:7; 88:30; 118:44; Tob 6:17; Hill, Greek Words, 186–
189). It builds on the more familiar εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα (309 times in lxx), with the
additional genitival τῶν αἰώνων conveying the superlative sense in this climac-
tic conclusion to this unit.

Bibliography
Arzt, Peter. “The ‘Epistolary Introductory Thanksgiving’ in the Papyri and in Paul.” NovT
36 (1994): 29–46.
Black, Matthew. “The Doxology to the Pater Noster.” In A Tribute to Geza Vermes: Essays
on Jewish and Christian Literature and History. Ed. Philip R. Davies, 327–338. JSOT-
Sup 100. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990.
Brown, Peter Dunstan. “The Use of Ransom Language in 1 Timothy 2:1–7 and Titus 2:11–
14.” Ph.D. diss., Catholic University of America, 2014.
Collins, John N. Diakonia: Re-Interpreting the Ancient Sources. New York/Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1990.
Dunn, James D.G. Jesus, Paul and the Law. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1990.
Fiore, Benjamin. The Function of Personal Example in the Socratic and Pastoral Epistles.
AnBib 105. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1986.
Gerber, Daniel. “1Tm 1,15b: L’indice d’une sotériologie pensée prioritairement en lieu
avec la venue de Jésus?” rhpr 80 (2000): 463–477.
Harrison, James R. Paul’s Language of Grace in its Graeco-Roman Context. wunt 2.172.
Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003.
Jervis, L. Ann. “Paul the Poet in First Timothy 1:11–17; 2:3b–7; 3:14–16.” cbq 61 (1999):
695–712.
Knight, George W. The Faithful Sayings in the Pastoral Letters. Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1969.
Lindsay, Dennis R. Josephus and Faith: Πίστις and Πιστεύειν as Faith Terminology in the
Writings of Flavius Josephus and in the New Testament. agju 19. Leiden: Brill, 1993.
Llewelyn, S.R. “Faithful Words.” NewDocs 9 (2002): 9–14.
Mott, Stephen Charles. “Greek Ethics and Christian Conversion: The Philonic Back-
ground of Titus 2:10–14 and 3:3–7.” NovT 20 (1978): 22–48.
Neyrey, Jerome H. “‘First,’ ‘Only,’ ‘One of a Few,’ and ‘No One Else’: The Rhetoric of
Uniqueness and the Doxologies in 1Timothy.” Bib 86 (2005): 59–87.
118 1 timothy

Pao, David W. “Gospel within the Constraints of an Epistolary Form.” In Paul and the
Ancient Letter Form. Ed. Stanley E. Porter and Sean A. Adams, 101–127. Pauline Stud-
ies 6. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2010.
Reed, Jeffrey T. “Are Paul’s Thanksgivings ‘Epistolary’?” jsnt 61 (1996): 87–99.
Schröter, Jens. “Kirche im Anschluss an Paulus. Aspekte der Paulusrezeption in der
Apostelgeschichte und in den Pastoralbriefen.” znw 98 (2007): 77–104.
Stendahl, Krister. Paul among Jews and Gentiles and Other Essays. Philadelphia: For-
tress, 1976.
Towner, Philip H. The Goal of Our Instruction: The Structure of Theology and Ethics in
the Pastoral Epistles. JSNTSup 34. Sheffield: jsot Press, 1989.
Van Tilborg, Sjef. Reading John in Ephesus. NovTSup 83. Leiden: Brill, 1996.
Watson, Duane F. “The Integration of Epistolary and Rhetorical Analysis of Philip-
pians.” In The Rhetorical Analysis of Scripture. Ed. Stanley E. Porter and Thomas
H. Olbrich, 398–426. JSNTSup 146. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997.
Wolter, Michael. “Paulus, der bekehrte Gottesfeind: Zum Verständnis von 1. Tim 1:13.”
NovT 31 (1989): 48–66.

5 Theological Analysis
This unit contains significant notes on God, Christ, and Paul, and their inter-
relationship. If praise is an act of theological critique of those who seek to
compete with God, this unit that concludes with extended doxology not only
affirms the supremacy of God and him alone but also paves the way for oth-
ers who seek to challenge his authority. Within Paul’s theological landscape,
the affirmation of God’s oneness finds its fullest expression here when God
is claimed to be “the only God” (v. 17; cf. 2:5; 6:15–16), a claim consistent with
the earlier Pauline affirmations (Rom 16:25) to the extent that even those who
argue for pseudonymous authorship of the pe would still recognize that these
“confessions are his” (Dunn 1998: 32). This monotheistic affirmation echoes the
Shema, the central confession of Israel (Deut 6:4; cf. 1 Cor 8:4–6; Eph 4:6), a
confession that forms the basis of Paul’s ecclesiological claim that Jews and
Gentiles are to be one people of this one God (2:7; cf. Rom 3:30; Gal 3:20; Bruno
2013: 2).
Within this monotheistic framework, a robust christocentricism can be ar-
ticulated. Christ is the center of God’s redemptive plan (v. 15) and Paul is the
beneficiary of the call to receive his mercy (vv. 13, 16) and his service (v. 12).
The use of the “in Christ” formula in reference to the “faith” and “love” mani-
fested in the lives of Paul and other believers also points to the consistency of
this letter with the Christology of the earlier Pauline letters (Gal 5:6; Col 1:4).
The significance of the creedal statement in v. 15 cannot be downplayed. That
it parallels the Johannine language of “coming into the world” (cf. John 1:9)
1:12–17 119

within the Johannine prologue makes it possible that a similar interpretive

move is made here with the assumption of Christ’s preexistence. Both John
and Paul share a common ot thought structure where the Hebrew verb ‫בּוֹא‬
is often used in epiphany contexts when applied to God (Schnutenhaus 1964:
15–17), whose preexistence is assumed. Within theological discourses of Israel
and the early church, therefore, such language makes a notable christological
statement.
Extending from God’s redemptive work through Christ, Paul situates his own
ministry within this trajectory. As Christ’s earthly ministry (v. 15) makes visi-
ble the work of the “invisible” God (v. 17), Paul’s reception of mercy becomes
a visible “example” (v. 16) to others who follow him (Jervis 1999: 706). The
details of the autobiographical note have been deemed contradictory to Paul’s
own statements in his earlier letters: (1) to consider “ignorance” as an excuse
seems incompatible with Paul’s general statement of sinful humanity having
no excuse (Rom 1:32; 2:1; Becker 1993: 58); (2) the understanding of Paul’s con-
version as “an example of Christ’s personal mercy to Paul, not divine providence
in general,” is incompatible with the earlier Paul (Krause, 40); and (3) the sin-
gular focus on Paul as an example of the first converted sinner is inconsistent
with his self-understanding as the least of the apostles (1 Cor 15:5–9; Schröter
2007: 84).
None of these are valid for reaching this conclusion, however. (1) When par-
alleled with “unbelief,” “ignorance” is not considered an excuse, but the basis
for the recognition of the underserved mercy of God. To suggest that Paul is
providing an excuse for himself is contrary to the intent of this passage, which
exalts the magnitude of God’s redeeming grace. Moreover, when “ignorance” is
understood in reference to an “ignorance” of the identity of Jesus the Messiah,
then this ignorance is no different from that which is applied to the Jews by the
earlier Paul (Rom 10:2–4), which is an explanation rather than an excuse (Gray
2014: 52). (2) The application of “personal mercy on Paul” is not incompatible
with the affirmation of the wider plan of God, since the individual application
of divine mercy is part of the execution of his divine will (Rom 9:15–16). (3) Tak-
ing πρῶτος in a qualitative (“worst”) rather than temporal (“first”) sense, Paul is
only boasting of his own weakness (2Cor 11:30; 12:5) rather than his unique sta-
tus as the first convert. In the end, Paul does not consider his apostolic office
as that which is to be passed on, but the central creedal confession that “Christ
came into the world to save sinners” (Von Lips 2014: 313–314), and it is this chris-
tocentric and theocentric emphasis that leads to the final extended doxology
(v. 17).
120 1 timothy

Bibliography
Becker, Jürgen. Paul: Apostle to the Gentiles. Trans. O.C. Dean, Jr. Louisville, KY: West-
minster/John Knox, 1993.
Bruno, Christopher R. ‘God is One’: The Function of Eis ho Theos as a Ground for Gentile
Inclusion in Paul’s Letters. lnts 497. London: T & T Clark, 2013.
Dunn, James D.G. The Theology of Paul the Apostle. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.
Gray, Patrick. “Perspectives on Paul the Sinner.” bbr 24 (2014): 45–55.
Jervis, L. Ann. “Paul the Poet in First Timothy 1:11–17; 2:3b–7; 3:14–16.” cbq 61 (1999):
695–712.
Schnutenhaus, Frank. “Das Kommen und Erscheinen Gottes im Alten Testament.” zaw
76 (1964): 1–22.
Schröter, Jens. “Kirche im Anschluss an Paulus. Aspekte der Paulusrezeption in der
Apostelgeschichte und in den Pastoralbriefen.” znw 98 (2007): 77–104.
Von Lips, Hermann. “Paulus als ‘Erster’ in Sünde und Gnade: Überlegungen zu 1 Tim
1,15f.” In Lukas—Paulus—Pastoralbriefe: Festschrift für Alfons Weiser zum 80. Geburt-
stag. Ed. Rudolfe Hoppe and Michael Reichardt, 303–314. Stuttgarter Bibelstudien
230. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2014.

D Timothy and His Mission (1:18–20)

1 Translation
18 This charge7 I put before you, Timothy, my child, in accordance with the
prophecies once made concerning you, so that marshaled by them you may
fight the good fight, 19 by holding on to faith and a good conscience. By rejecting
this, some have suffered shipwreck with respect to the faith. 20 Among them
are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan to be taught
not to blaspheme.

2 Text-Critical Analysis
▪ 18 στρατεύῃ: Among the earliest witnesses, the original readings of Codices
Sinaiticus (‫ )*א‬and Claromontanus (D*) led Tischendorf to adopt the aorist
subjunctive (στρατεύσῃ), while correctors of these codices (‫א‬2 D1)8 plus other
texts of the Alexandrian (A), Western (F G) and Byzantine traditions (𝔐) sup-
port the present subjunctive of the Westcott-Hort and the current na/ubsgnt
texts. Elliott considers the present subjunctive as original and the change to the
aorist to “convey a future idea” (21), but this temporal reading of the tenses of
the subjunctive should not be considered the deciding factor (Porter 1989: 322).

7 This “charge” refers primarily to that which follows.

8 na28 corrected na27 in listing the corrector to Claromontanus as D1 instead of D2.
1:18–20 121

Perhaps the change to the aorist subjunctive was prompted by the consistent
use of ἵνα + aorist subjunctive in its immediate context (1:3, 16, 20).

3 Grammatical Analysis
The boundary between this and the previous unit is clearly marked by the pres-
ence of the doxology in v. 17. Shifting from the focus on Paul’s own experience to
a direct exhortation to Timothy, this section provides a proper conclusion for
the entire section through the various semantic and grammatical links with
the previous units. The connection with vv. 1–2 is established by the use of the
appellation τέκνον Τιμόθεε in v. 18 that evokes Τιμοθέῳ γνησίῳ τέκνῳ ἐν πίστει in
v. 2. The connection with vv. 3–7 is established by the first reappearance of the
second-person singular (στρατεύῃ, v. 18) since παραγγείλῃς in v. 3, the nominal
παραγγελίαν (v. 18) that evokes the παραγγέλλω word group in v. 3, the use of
πίστις and συνείδησις in v. 19 (cf. v. 5), and the reference to the false teachers by
τις/τινες in v. 19 (cf. vv. 3, 6, 7). The connection with the immediately preceding
vv. 12–17 is secured by the πίστις word group that is used twice in v. 19 (cf. πιστόν,
v. 12; ἀπιστίᾳ, v. 13; πίστεως, v. 14; πιστὸς, v. 15; πιστεύειν, v. 16) and the βλασφημέω
word group in v. 20 (cf. βλάσφημον, v. 13). The lack of direct correspondence
between this concluding unit and vv. 8–11 (except for ἐπιστεύθην, v. 11) may sup-
port those who consider that unit as a digression on the νόμος (Collins, 29).
The cohesion of this unit is achieved through a single sentence that is tightly
structured around one main clause followed by a series of dependent clauses.
In the midst of these dependent clauses, the shift emerges when Paul moves
from his exhortation to Timothy (vv. 18–19a) to a comment on those who have
fallen away (vv. 19b–20), and both sections end with a ἵνα-clause (vv. 18b, 20b).

▪ 18 Ταύτην τὴν παραγγελίαν παρατίθεμαί σοι, τέκνον Τιμόθεε. With this verse, Paul
moves from his autobiographical reflections (vv. 12–17) to a direct address to
Timothy. The emphasis on both Paul the speaker and Timothy the recipient is
grammaticalized in the use of the middle voice in παρατίθεμαί that “expresses
more direct participation” (Porter, Idioms, 67) and the highly marked voca-
tives τέκνον Τιμόθεε that places additional weight on the complement that is
already presented in the personal pronoun σοι. This emphasis may reflect the
urgency of the situation as well as the need to pass on the tradition from
Paul the apostle to one of his successors (Oberlinner, 1.51–55), especially when
the nominal form of the verb παρατίθεμαι makes its appearance at the end of
this letter, where Timothy is asked to guard that which has been entrusted
(τὴν παραθήκην, 6:20) to him (a similar link between the verbal and nominal
forms can be found in 2Tim 1:12 [παραθήκην], 14 [παραθήκην] and 2:2 [παρά-
θου]).
122 1 timothy

Many would consider ταύτην τὴν παραγγελίαν as a reference back to τῆς

παραγγελίας in v. 5 (Johnson, 184; Towner, 155), but since τῆς παραγγελίας in
v. 5 introduces the body of the letter, ταύτην τὴν παραγγελίαν is best taken to
refer primarily to that which follows (Spicq, 1.349; Quinn and Wacker, 141),
which may include the instructions found throughout this letter (Dibelius and
Conzelmann, 32).

▪ κατὰ τὰς προαγούσας ἐπὶ σὲ προφητείας, ἵνα στρατεύῃ ἐν αὐταῖς τὴν καλὴν στρα-
τείαν. Κατά introduces an adjunct modifying the predicate παρατίθεμαι. The
present participle προαγούσας within the attributive construction refers to a
prior act as grammaticalized in its lexis (cf. Heb 7:18: προαγούσης ἐντολῆς).
Syntactically ἐπὶ σέ can be taken to modify the participle προαγούσας (thus:
“before you;” cf. Quinn and Wacker, 141) or the verbal noun προφητείας (thus:
“concerning you;” cf. Porter, Idioms, 186), but since (1) προαγούσας should best
be understood in a temporal (as is common in koine usage; M.-M. 537; 1 Tim
5:24) rather than spatial sense, and since (2) it is highly unusual to have an ἐπί
phrase modifying προάγω, it is best to take ἐπὶ σέ in the sense of “concerning
you.”
The ἵνα clause could be taken to modify the verbal noun προφητείας to indi-
cate the content of the prophecy (cf. Sim 2006: 4, 273), but it is best to take it as
a purpose clause modifying the indicative παρατίθεμαι, especially in light of the
parallel in the second half of this unit (παρέδωκα … ἵνα, v. 20), thus: “This charge
I put before you … so that … you may ….” The present subjunctive στρατεύῃ
points to a generic and open-ended process, while the cognate accusative τὴν
… στρατείαν modified by καλήν reveals the content of this fight (cf. 6:12; Robert-
son, Grammar, 477). The use of καλήν aligns this act with that which pleases
God (2:3), and it paves the way for the contrast to those who had abandoned
their faith (v. 20).
αὐταῖς clearly refers to προφητείας, and ἐν αὐταῖς should be taken in an instru-
mental sense (“with/by them”) as most commentators do (cf. 2 Tim 1:6–7; Spicq,
1.354; contra Fiore, 48). The verbal idea that this instrumental phrase modifies is
only implied, however, with the following suggestions: “by remembering/recall-
ing these” (Knight, 109; Marshall, 410; Towner, 154), “by following them” (Fee,
57), “supported by them” (Spicq, 1.349). In view of its military context, perhaps
“marshaled by them” (Krause, 24) would work best.

▪ 19 ἔχων πίστιν καὶ ἀγαθὴν συνείδησιν, ἥν τινες ἀπωσάμενοι περὶ τὴν πίστιν ἐναυ-
άγησαν. Modifying στρατεύῃ, the participial clause introduced by the present
tense ἔχων expresses the means by which Timothy could fight a good fight. The
shift from Timothy to those who had wandered away parallels the one in vv. 5–
1:18–20 123

6—in both, one finds πίστις and ἀγαθὴ συνείδησις, and in both, the shift takes
place with the use of a relative pronoun (ἥν/ὧν) followed by the indefinite pro-
noun τινές.
Paralleling ἔχων, ἀπωσάμενοι, modifying ἐναυάγησαν, should also be read as
an instrumental adverbial participle. The shift from the present verbs (στρατεύῃ
[v. 18], ἔχων) applied to Timothy to the aorist verbs (ἀπωσάμενοι, ἐναυάγησαν)
applied to those who had wandered away is significant. While pragmatic factors
may point to this being a temporal shift contrasting Timothy’s present/future
act with the past act of the others, this change in tense also points to the shift
in markedness when the fate of the others serve as a foil (and warning) to Tim-
othy, who is now called to be faithful in his calling. The use of περί + accusative
can be understood in the sense of “in respect to” (cf. Phil 2:23; 1 Tim 6:4, 21; 2 Tim
2:18; 3:8; Titus 2:7; Robertson, Grammar, 619; Moule, Idiom, 62; Turner, Syntax,
270).
The articular τὴν πίστιν likely refers to the objective teachings (“the faith”),
although a personal response (“their faith”) cannot be ruled out. The sense of
“faithfulness” will be least likely since this articular noun following a prepo-
sition is never used in this ethical sense (cf. Porter and Pitts 2009: 33–53).
Some (e.g., Mounce, 66) have taken ἐναυάγησαν in a transitive (“some have ship-
wrecked the faith”) rather than an intransitive (“some have suffered shipwreck
in respect to the faith”) sense, but this is unlikely because (1) the verb ναυαγέω is
most often used in an intransitive sense (“to suffer shipwreck,” bdag 666); and
(2) while a περί phrase rarely functions as a direct object of a transitive verb,
περὶ τὴν πίστιν never functions as such in the pe (cf. 6:21; 2 Tim 3:8). Therefore,
Paul appears to be referring to the severity of the damage done to those who
wander away.

▪ 20 ὧν ἐστιν Ὑμέναιος καὶ Ἀλέξανδρος, οὓς παρέδωκα τῷ σατανᾷ, ἵνα παιδευθῶσιν

μὴ βλασφημεῖν. Continuing with this series of relative clauses (ἥν … ὧν … οὓς),
this clause introduced by the partitive genitive ὧν provides two named exam-
ples of those who “have suffered shipwreck with respect to the faith” (v. 19);
being a non-defining relative clause, it stands in a hypotactic relation with the
preceding clause (cf. v. 11). The use of the singular ἐστίν with the two names is
not unexpected, especially when the verb stands before the first name (cf. 2 Tim
2:17; bdf §135). The relative clause that follows makes it clear that the naming
of these two persons is not simply to provide an example of those who had
wandered away, but to emphasize the urgency of the present crisis.
παρέδωκα τῷ σατανᾷ echoes παραδοῦναι … τῷ σατανᾷ of 1 Cor 5:5 and may be
considered a formulaic expression referring a disciplinary act. The aorist sub-
junctive παιδευθῶσιν within the ἵνα-clause corresponds to the aorist ἐναυάγησαν,
124 1 timothy

and this subjunctive should not be considered necessarily referring to a future

act. παιδεύω points to an act of instruction, discipline, and possibly restoration
(cf. 2Tim 2:24–25; LNd §36.10), and βλασφημεῖν recalls βλάσφημον of v. 13 that
depicts Paul himself as the restored blasphemer.

Bibliography
Porter, Stanley E., and Andrew W. Pitts, “Πίστις with a Preposition and Genitive Mod-
ifier: Lexical, Semantic, and Syntactic Considerations in the πίστις Χριστοῦ Discus-
sion.” In The Faith of Jesus Christ: The Pistis Christou Debate. Ed. Michael F. Bird and
Preston M. Sprinkle, 33–53. Milton Keynes, UK: Paternoster, 2009.
Sim, Margaret Gavin. “A Relevance Theoretic Approach to the Particle Ἵνα in Koine
Greek.” Ph.D. diss., University of Edinburgh, 2006.

4 Historical Analysis
Echoing the direct exhortation to Timothy in vv. 3–7, these verses extend the
discussion of the presentation on the power relationship among the various
parties involved. As Paul’s charge is grounded in God (v. 4) in his instruction to
Timothy (παρακαλέω, v. 3) to further such a charge (παραγγέλλω, v. 4) to those
who are to listen to him (παραγγελία, v. 5), Paul here extends this charge (παραγ-
γελία, v. 18) while again grounding it on divine oracles (προφητεία, v. 18). Moving
beyond the primary concerns of Hellenistic official letters, this section (and
the entire letter) draws attention to the continuity of traditions that are to be
passed on.

▪ 18 The fact that Paul’s concern is not merely to establish his control over Tim-
othy is reinforced by the use of the verb παρατίθημι in the pe. Two of the three
Pauline uses appear in the pe (cf. 1Cor 10:27): here, it points to the direction of
instruction from Paul to Timothy, and in 2Tim 2:2, it is from Timothy to those
who are to continue his teaching ministry. The nominal form (παραθήκη) con-
veys the same message as it is used to depict that which is entrusted to Paul
(2Tim 1:12) and also that to Timothy (6:20; 2Tim 1:14). The connection between
Paul and Timothy is further established by fictive kinship language that under-
lies the legitimacy in the transmission of tradition (τέκνον; cf. γνησίῳ τέκνῳ ἐν
πίστει, v. 2).
With the participle προαγούσας marking a prior act, and the prepositional
phrase ἐπὶ σέ taken in the sense of “concerning you” (see Grammatical Analy-
sis), τὰς … προφητείας would have taken place in a specific event where Timothy
was commissioned to serve. Without identifying this as the moment of his
“ordination” (contra Roloff, 102; Mounce, 71), this should best be understood
in light of the practice in Acts 13:1–3, where Paul and Barnabas were commis-
1:18–20 125

sioned to serve in the gospel ministry. The “laying on of hands” (ἐπιθέντες τὰς
χεῖρας, Acts 13:3) on that occasion is consistent with the event described in
4:14 below, where prophecy (προφητείας) is given with the “laying on of hands”
(ἐπιθέσεως τῶν χειρῶν). The use of the plural (accusative) here instead of the
singular (genitive) in 4:14 may point to “a variety of prophetic activity” on the
occasion of Timothy’s commissioning (Fee 1994: 759), one of which is the recep-
tion of “the spiritual gift” (4:14; cf. 2Tim 1:6).
Several things should be noted in reference to these “prophecies.” First, in
Paul, emphasis on the references to prophecies lies not merely on their con-
tent but also on the Spirit that works behind such prophetic acts (cf. 1 Thess
5:19–20). Here, Timothy is to be reminded of the work of the Spirit through
which (ἐν αὐταῖς) Timothy can fight the good fight (cf. Acts 20:28). Related to
this point is the fact that while prophecies are necessarily products of divine
revelatory acts (1Cor 2:13; Gal 2:2), the predictive element is neither a con-
stant nor the focus of these oracles (Aune 1983: 247–262). The point is not
that the Spirit had predicted that Timothy would be a leader of the church,
but that his work is to be understood within the wider redemptive plan of
God. Finally, the importance of the public proclamation of such prophecies
is one that distinguished it from glossolalia (1Cor 12:10; 14:6; see Forbes 1995:
220), and the public aspect of prophetic acts should be noted when Paul
is not merely writing to Timothy, but to the communities Timothy is serv-
ing.
The use of a military metaphor (στρατεύῃ … τὴν καλὴν στρατείαν) here recalls
that of 2Cor 3–4, where the point is on the divine help in the midst of struggles
and challenges. The formulation recalls that of 1 Tim 6:12 (ἀγωνίζου τὸν καλὸν
ἀγῶνα τῆς πίστεως) with the apparent use of athletic imagery. Often considered
a case of mixed metaphors, the “game” of warfare can be compared with the
“games” of the athletes (Quinn and Wacker, 529). It is possible, however, behind
the two metaphors lies the imagery of a “gladiator,” where fighting becomes “the
ultimate, most visceral, and most severe” form of athletic games (Seesengood
2006: 101).
The phrase ἡ καλή στρατεία appears only here in ancient Greek literature
(cf. καλὸν στρατιώτην, Aeschines, De falsa legatione 167.1; στρατευσάμενον ἄρι-
στα τὰς στρατείας, Plutarch, Comp. Ages. Pomp. 4.3), but it recalls other similar
phrases in this letter (e.g., καλὸν ἔργον, 3:1; μαρτυρία καλή, 3:7; βαθμὸν … καλόν,
3:13; καλὸς … διάκονος, 4:6; καλὴ διδασκαλία, 4:6) and, as such, it denotes the war
that is pleasing to God. The closest conceptual parallel can be found in 4 Macc
9:24 (ἱερὰν καὶ εὐγενῆ στρατείαν στρατεύσασθε περὶ τῆς εὐσεβείας) with the use of
εὐσεβεία, a word that also plays an important role in this letter (2:2; 3:16; 4:7, 8;
6:3, 5, 6, 11).
126 1 timothy

▪ 19 The use of πίστις and συνείδησις recalls that of 1:5, but with ἀγάπη missing
here, pointing to the more specific polemic function of this reference to πίστις
and συνείδησις. In that which follows, the false teachers are described as having
suffered shipwreck in respect to “the faith” (τὴν πίστιν; cf. 4:1; 6:10, 21), and are
having their “conscience” (συνείδησιν, 4:2) seared. Here, “good conscience” (ἀγα-
θὴν συνείδησιν, in the sense of “conscientiousness,” see 1:5) is the commitment
to act according to a “faith” (πίστιν) that is grounded in “the faith” (τὴν πίστιν).
While the anarthrous πίστιν at the beginning of the verse is best understood
as referring to the personal response of faith, the articular τὴν πίστιν refers to
the objective teachings of the gospel. This is consistent with the articular uses
of πίστις elsewhere in this letter (3:9; 4:1, 6; 5:8; 6:10, 12, 21), and having “suffered
shipwreck with respect to the faith” (περὶ τὴν πίστιν ἐναυάγησαν) is the result of
those who have “strayed from the faith” (περὶ τὴν πίστιν ἠστόχησαν, 6:21).
The metaphor of suffering a shipwreck (ἐναυάγησαν) not only points to the
dire consequences of those who do not remain in the faith (Spicq, 1.353), but
it also points to the loss of direction and self-control on the part of those
who abandon the faith. In Philo, this metaphor is similarly applied to the total
destruction of one’s soul by unbridled passion and desires (Philo, Mut. 216.1;
Somn. 2.147; Legat. 371.4).

▪ 20 Some consider Hymenaeus and Alexander “a ‘historical’ example [which]

is a familiar ploy in Hellenistic rhetoric” (Collins, 49), while others see these
two individuals named because they were “leaders in the opposition” (Mounce,
67). In light of Paul’s customary avoidance of naming those who oppose him
(cf. τινές, v. 19), however, it is most plausible that these two are named because
they were not his primary opponents. This is consistent with the emphasis here
where they were merely counted as among the many (ὧν) who have strayed
from the faith, and for some of these followers, the possibility of repentance is
noted (cf. ἵνα παιδευθῶσιν …).
Hymenaeus is otherwise unknown, though it is likely the same person noted
in 2Tim 2:17, where he was again named among those (ὧν) who have strayed
away. Alexander is a common name in the first century (Mark 15:21; Acts 4:6)
even among the Jews (Acts 19:33–34), and this Alexander may also be the “cop-
persmith” noted among Paul’s opponents in 2Tim 4:14. However, if this Alexan-
der is to be identified with the one who had appeared with Paul in Ephesus
(Acts 19:33; thus Lampe 1992: 71–73), then he would be an example of one who
was affiliated with Paul’s earlier ministry but has now fallen away.
παρέδωκα τῷ σατανᾷ recalls παραδοῦναι … τῷ σατανᾷ of 1 Cor 5:5, and, as such,
has led some to conclude that this is Paul’s disciple imitating his revered teacher
(Roloff, 105). Nevertheless, this could merely be Paul writing the way he usu-
1:18–20 127

ally does. This may also be a formula familiar to the contemporary audience,
as testified by a close parallel in an inscription of the Roman imperial period:
“whoever performs any wicked treachery against this tomb, I hand him over to
the infernal gods (παραδίδωμι αὐτὸν θεοῖς καταχθονίοις)” (igsk: Iznik 87 [Şahin
1979: 85a]; Horsley 1987: 75–76).
The reference to Satan here as the spiritual adversary draws from a rich
biblical tradition (‫ָשָׂטן‬, translated as διάβολος in lxx 1 Chron 21:1; Job 1:6–12;
2:1–7; Zech 3:1, 2), though it is debated whether this Satan should be read in
light of the later traditions that identify this figure as a prototypical spiritual
adversary (Day 1988). Though ‫ ַהָשָּׂטן‬has often been understood as referring to
“the accuser” (ὁ κατήγωρ, cf. Rev 12:10), this word group often denotes violent
attack; if so, Satan should be understood primarily as “the attacker” or “the exe-
cutioner” (Stokes 2014: 251–270). In Paul, this σατανᾶς (transliterated from the
Aramaic ‫ )ָשָׂט ָנא‬is the evil one who attacks people by leading them astray (1 Tim
5:15; cf. 1Cor 7:5); this evil one will eventually suffer final defeat at the hands of
God (Rom 16:20).
In the lxx, delivering over to human (e.g., Josh 24:33; Isa 37:10; Jer 39:28, 36;
Bar 4:6) or spiritual adversaries (cf. παραδίδωμί σοι [i.e., τῷ διαβόλῳ] αὐτόν, Job
2:6) is not unusual, but often not for the purpose of discipline. In light of 1 Cor
5:5, ἵνα παιδευθῶσιν μὴ βλασφημεῖν here can be understood in the sense of ἵνα τὸ
πνεῦμα σωθῇ ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τοῦ κυρίου.
βλασφημεῖν here recalls βλάσφημον of v. 13 within Paul’s self-portrayal of a
redeemed blasphemer. As such, ἵνα παιδευθῶσιν μὴ βλασφημεῖν should be under-
stood as carrying a positive purpose of encouraging them to “learn to not blas-
pheme” (Huffman, Verbal Aspect, 222) rather than “that they may be delivered
from their blasphemy through punishment” (Dibelius and Conzelmann, 32).

Bibliography
Aune, David E. Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983.
Day, Peggy L. An Adversary in Heaven: śāṭān in the Hebrew Bible. hsm 43. Atlanta: Schol-
ars Press, 1988.
Fee, Gordon D. God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul. Pea-
body, MA: Hendrickson, 1994.
Forbes, Christopher. Prophecy and Inspired Speech in Early Christianity and its Hellenis-
tic Environment. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995.
Horsley, G.H.R. “παραδίδωμι.” NewDocs 4 (1987): 165.
Lampe, Peter. “Acta 19 im Spiegel der ephesischen Inschriften.” bz 36 (1992): 59–76.
Şahin, Sencer. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien Band 9, Museum Iznik
(Nikaia). Teil i. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt und Verlag GmbH, 1979.
128 1 timothy

Seesengood, Robert Paul. “Contending for the Faith in Paul’s Absence: Combat Sports
and Gladiators in the Disputed Pauline Epistles.” ltq 41 (2006): 87–118.
Stokes, Ryan E. “Satan, Yhwh’s Executioner.” jbl 33 (2014): 251–270.

5 Theological Analysis
Paul begins and ends this section with reference to the realm of divine activi-
ties, thus situating both the ministry of Timothy and the fate of the false teach-
ers within wider redemptive history. The note on “prophecies” (v. 18) draws
attention away from Paul as Timothy’s ministry is to be grounded in divine com-
missioning. The note on Satan also draws attention to the fact that Hymenaeus,
Alexander, and the group to which they belong are not personal enemies of
Paul; instead, wider cosmic powers are involved.
Within this framework that alludes to the role of cosmic powers lies the sig-
nificance of “faith.” For Timothy, Paul makes it clear that the good fight is fought
by his “holding on to faith and a good conscience” while those who are not par-
ticipating in this good fight “have suffered shipwreck with respect to the faith”
(v. 19). The centrality of faith in this letter is again affirmed as it plays the central
role by being the one important criterion separating those who belong to the
community of the gospel and those who do not. Significantly, both the objec-
tive and subjective aspects are emphasized: to reject the objective “the faith”
is to reject the gospel, and to hold on to this gospel is to live it out with “faith
and a good conscience.” To tie this “faith” with “good conscience” (v. 19; 3:9) and
other virtues or ethical acts (1Tim 1:14; 2:15; 2Tim 3:10; Titus 2:2) is to denote a
human response of “faithfulness” to “the faith” (cf. Stuhlmacher 2018: 455).
To hand those who have strayed away from this faith “to Satan to be taught
not to blaspheme” (v. 20) is significant for Paul’s understanding of God and the
responsibility of those dealing with false teachers. First, to subsume the acts of
Satan under God’s wider redemptive acts is to affirm God’s sovereignty over all.
This is consistent with the understanding of Satan as God’s servant elsewhere
in the canon (Job 1–2; Zech 3:1–2; 1Chron 21:1; Page 2007: 449–465). The pro-
cession of the gospel, in which both Paul and Timothy are playing their parts
in the midst of opposition and challenges, further testifies to God’s power and
control.
Equally important is the responsibility of those guarding this faith. The pur-
pose clause “to be taught (παιδευθῶσιν) not to blaspheme” (v. 20) points to the
positive anticipated result of this act of discipline. This is made clear in the
close parallel in 2 Tim 2:25 with the use of the same verb παιδεύω while pointing
to the hope of repentance: “correcting (παιδεύοντα) opponents with gentleness,
(so that) perhaps God may grant them repentance that leads to a knowledge
of the truth” (2Tim 2:25). This is consistent with Paul’s earlier statement in
2:1–7 129

1 Cor 5:5, where Satan also plays an unwitting role in God’s redemptive purpose
(Thornton 2015: 137–151).

Bibliography
Page, Sydney H.T. “Satan: God’s Servant.” jets 50 (2007): 449–465.
Stuhlmacher, Peter. Biblical Theology of the New Testament. Trans. Daniel P. Bailey.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018.
Thornton, Dillon T. “Satan as Adversary and Ally in the Process of Ecclesial Discipline:
The Use of the Prologue to Job in 1Corinthians 5:5 and 1 Timothy 1:20.” TynBul 66
(2015): 137–151.

iii Worship of God the Savior of All (2:1–15)

A Submission of All in the Presence of God (2:1–7)

1 Translation
1 Now9 I urge, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgiving
be offered for all people—2 for kings and for all who are in authority—that we
may live a quiet and peaceful life in all godliness and dignity. 3 This is good and
pleasing before God our Savior, 4 who desires all people to be saved and there-
fore10 to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God, even as
there is one mediator between God and human beings, Christ Jesus the human
being, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper
time. 7 For this I was appointed to be a herald and an apostle—I am telling the
truth, I am not lying—a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and in truth.

2 Text-Critical Analysis
▪ 1 παρακαλῶ: Some Western witnesses (D* F G b vgms; Ambst) have the imper-
ative παρακάλει. παρακαλῶ is supported by the more reliable Alexandrian wit-
nesses (‫ א‬A; cf. 1739) as well as the majority of the later Byzantine witnesses (𝔐).
Internal considerations also argue against the imperative reading: (1) while
παρακαλῶ often appears at the beginning of the sentence in Paul’s epistles
(e.g., Rom 12:1; 15:30; 16:17; 1Cor 1:10; 4:16; Eph 4:1; Phlm 10) as in this verse, the
imperatival form of the same verb never does; (2) the first (of 30) indisputable
second-person imperatives is found in 4:16, with none appearing in the first

9 This is to take οὖν in a developmental sense (see Grammatical Analysis).

10 The use of “therefore” here is to make explicit the epexegetical function of the conjunction
καί.
130 1 timothy

half of the epistle; (3) παρακαλῶ starting off this section would be paralleled by
another indicative starting off the next, βούλομαι (2:8), and both express Paul’s
own wish. The change to the imperative was perhaps influenced by παρακάλει
in 5:1 and 6:2.

▪ 2 εὐσεβείᾳ: Two late witnesses (P 1891) read εὐλάβεια here, likely an ortho-
graphical error. The two do have overlapping semantic domains. In the nt εὐλα-
βής appears only in the Lukan Writings (Luke 2:25; Acts 2:5; 8:2; 22:12), notably
in Luke 2:25 with the variant εὐσεβής.

▪ 3 τοῦτο: γάρ is inserted after τοῦτο in manuscripts of diverse textual traditions

(‫א‬2 D F G H K L P Ψ pc. 𝔐 latt sy), but it is absent in the best of the Alexandrian
witnesses (‫ *א‬A; cf. 1739) and rightly omitted by Tischendorf, Westcott-Hort,
and the na-ubsgnt texts. γάρ is perhaps “a variant to asyndeton” (Levinsohn,
Discourse, 119) though τοῦτο can take on the function of a conjunction (Elliott,
35).

▪ 6 τὸ μαρτύριον καιροῖς ἰδίοις: Various changes have been made to this diffi-
cult phrase: replacing τό with καί in ‫*א‬, omitting τὸ μαρτύριον in A, inserting
οὗ before τὸ μαρτύριον in D* F G 104 ar (m) vgs Ambst, and inserting ἐδόθη after
ἰδίοις in D* F G it vgmss Ambst. The widely attested οὗ τὸ μαρτύριον καιροῖς ἰδίοις
ἐδόθη in the Western traditions takes τὸ μαρτύριον as a reference to God’s reve-
lation through the entire life and death of Jesus noted in vv. 5–6a (Oberlinner,
1.75–76), while the omission of τὸ μαρτύριον in A allows καιροῖς ἰδίοις to modify
ὁ δούς at the beginning of the verse. The more difficult τὸ μαρτύριον καιροῖς ἰδίοις
can best explain these diverse variants.

▪ 7 εἰς ὃ ἐτέθην: This is replaced by ὃ ἐπιστεύθην in A, while some Western wit-

nesses (F G L vg) have ἐν ᾧ ἐτέθην instead. The Western reading involves a mere
change of the preposition with the corresponding case of the relative pronoun,
but εἰς ὅ fits the context better as it denotes the purpose of Paul’s appointment
(cf. 2Tim 1:11). ὃ ἐπιστεύθην, on the other hand, may involve the dropping out
of εἰς (as in 81: ὃν ἐτέθην) due to homoeoteleuton with the preceding ἰδίοις, and
then assimilation with 1:11 or Titus 1:3 (Elliott, 37).

▪ 7 λέγω: ἐν Χριστῷ is inserted after λέγω in ‫ *א‬D2 H K L pc. 𝔐 ar vgmss, proba-

bly influenced by Rom 9:1 (Bernard, 37), which was considered by some to be
the source of a direct quote here (Mitchell 2008: 51). With stronger and more
diverse external support (‫א‬2 A D* F G P Ψ 1739 lat sy co), the shorter reading is
preferred.
2:1–7 131

▪ 7 πίστει: In place of πίστει, ‫ א‬has γνώσει and A has πνεύματι. The changes
in these otherwise reliable Alexandrian witnesses were likely caused by the
unusual combination of πίστει καὶ ἀληθείᾳ. The change to γνώσει may have been
prompted by the paralleling of γνῶσις and αλήθεια in Rom 2:20 (Elliott 38),
though εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας in the immediate context (1 Tim 2:4) may have
had a more direct influence (Comfort, 661). The change to πνεύματι finds its
closest parallel outside the pe (ἐν πνεύματι καὶ ἀληθείᾳ, John 4:23, 24; cf. Lock,
xxxv), though the conglomeration of terms such as πνεῦμα, πίστις, and διδασκα-
λία in the context of the contrast between truth and falsehood in 4:1 could have
contributed to this reading.

Bibliography
Mitchell, Margaret M. “Corrective Composition, Corrective Exegesis: The Teaching on
Prayer in 1Tim 2,1–15.” In 1Timothy Reconsidered. Ed. Karl P. Donfried, 41–62. Leuven:
Peeters, 2008.

3 Grammatical Analysis
With this unit, one enters into the body of the letter. The boundary of this unit
is clearly marked by the opening words παρακαλῶ οὖν (v. 1), which individu-
ally (παρακαλῶ: Rom 15:30; 1Cor 1:10; Phil 4:2; 1Thess 4:1; οὖν: Rom 3:1, 9, 27; 1 Cor
14:26; 2Cor 3:12; 5:11; Phil 2:1; 2Tim 2:1) and together (Rom 12:1; 1 Cor 4:16; Eph 4:1)
often signal the beginning of a new unit. While both the previous (1:18–20) and
the present units are directed to Timothy, Timothy is the focus of the previous
(cf. vocatives [τέκνον Τιμόθεε, v. 18], second-person singular pronoun [σέ, v. 18]
and verb [στρατεύῃ, v. 18]), while the community of believers (cf. first-person
plural διάγωμεν) or even all humanity (πάντων ἀνθρώπων, v. 1; πάντας ἀνθρώπους;
v. 4; πάντων; v. 6) are the focus of this unit.
This shift to the body of the letter has been taken to indicate a shift from the
false teachers in the letter opening to a relatively more abstract discussion of
church order (Köstenberger 2010: 9). This, however, downplays its connection
with the previous units as well as its ending. As the previous chapter alludes
to the false teachers who claim to be teachers of the law (νομοδιδάσκαλοι, 1:7)
whose teachings are contrary to healthy teachings (cf. τῇ ὑγιαινούσῃ διδασκα-
λίᾳ ἀντίκειται, 1:10), Paul now describes himself as διδάσκαλος ἐθνῶν ἐν πίστει καὶ
ἀληθείᾳ. The explicit description of the false teachers as promoting τῆς ψευδωνύ-
μου γνώσεως at the end of this letter (6:20) is also anticipated by this unit when
God is described as one who wishes all people to arrive at ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας
(v. 4), and Paul likewise describes himself to be one promoting this true knowl-
edge (ἀλήθειαν λέγω οὐ ψεύδομαι, v. 7). The polemic intent should, therefore, not
be excluded from the hortatory nature of this letter body (cf. Gill 2008).
132 1 timothy

Some label this unit “instructions on prayer” (Johnson, 188), but discussion
on prayer is limited to v. 1. Cohesion of this unit is provided by πᾶς (vv. 1 [2×], 2
[2×], 4, 6) and salvation language (τοῦ σωτῆρος, v. 3; σωθῆναι, v. 4; εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν
ἀληθείας ἐλθεῖν, v. 4; ἀντίλυτρον ὑπὲρ πάντων, v. 6; διδάσκαλος ἐθνῶν ἐν πίστει καὶ
ἀληθείᾳ, v. 7) instead. This led to the conclusion that “prayer is the context, sal-
vation the content” (Mounce, 76; cf. Gourgues, 98–99). Moving from individual
phrases to the structure of this unit, however, the focus shifts from an anthro-
pocentric concern of human salvation to the theocentric affirmation of God as
the one and only Savior:

First-person statement (παρακαλῶ vv. 1–2)

Declaration with an implied third-person verb (τοῦτο καλὸν καὶ ἀπόδε-

κτον; v. 3)

Declaration with an implied third-person verb (εἷς … θεός; v. 5a)

Declaration with an implied third-person verb (εἷς … μεσίτης θεοῦ καὶ

ἀνθρώπων; v. 5b)

Declaration with an implied third-person verb (τὸ μαρτύριον καιροῖς ἰδί-

οις; v. 6b)

First-person statement (ἐτέθην ἐγὼ, λέγω, ψεύδομαι, v. 7)

The center of this unit lies in the middle two (of the four) verbless indepen-
dent clauses on the affirmation of the one and only God (v. 5a) and the one
and only mediator (v. 5b). This would explain the opening exhortation, where
instead of an accommodational stance (cf. Roloff, 124) one finds βασιλέων καὶ
πάντων τῶν ἐν ὑπεροχῇ ὄντων (v. 2) grouped among πάντων ἀνθρώπων (v. 1) who
are “all” beneficiaries but not objects of prayers. As such, they are subjected to
the one and only God, who is the Savior of all. The repeated uses of πᾶς like-
wise draw on the εἷς-clauses, as claims of the universal scope of salvation can
only be offered with a radical monotheistic stance (cf. Rom 3:29–30; Nicholson
2011). The proper focus of this unit is, therefore, God the Savior who alone is to
be worshipped, a theme already introduced in 1:17.
The two εἷς-clauses that form the center of this unit may contain a suc-
cinct preformed confession, but whether this would include the independent
clause that follows (τὸ μαρτύριον καιροῖς ἰδίοις, v. 6) remains unclear. Its ambigu-
ity in meaning and its apparent lack of direct connection with Paul’s editorial
2:1–7 133

comment that follows (v. 7) argue for its inclusion within this confession. The
parallel between vv. 5–7 and the use and application of a kerygmatic statement
in 2Tim 1:9–11 also argue for its inclusion:

1 Tim 2:5–7 2Tim 1:9–11

God and the offering of his salvation God and the offering of his salvation
through Christ (Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς, ὁ δοὺς through Christ (τὴν δοθεῖσαν ἡμῖν ἐν
ἑαυτὸν vv. 5–6) Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, vv. 9–10)
Paul the Apostle of this gospel (εἰς Paul the Apostle of this gospel (εἰς
ὃ ἐτέθην ἐγὼ κῆρυξ καὶ ἀπόστολος … ὃ ἐτέθην ἐγὼ κῆρυξ καὶ ἀπόστολος καὶ
διδάσκαλος ἐθνῶν, v. 7) διδάσκαλος, v. 11)

In both, the Pauline application of the gospel embedded in the confession is

introduced by εἰς ὅ. In light of 2Tim 1:11, where the application directly follows
the confession, the asyndetic τὸ μαρτύριον καιροῖς ἰδίοις should best be consid-
ered as part of the confession (contra Mounce, 77; Johnson, 192) even though
the individual parts of this confession may not have come from one single
source.

▪ 1 Παρακαλῶ οὖν πρῶτον πάντων ποιεῖσθαι δεήσεις προσευχὰς ἐντεύξεις εὐχαρι-

στίας ὑπὲρ πάντων ἀνθρώπων. The postpositive οὖν may carry an inferential or
resumptive sense (Heckert, Discourse, 99), though it is best to see it primarily
as a marker of distinctive development (Levinsohn, “Some Constraints,” 318,
328).
The marking of this distinct stage of Paul’s argument is enhanced by a num-
ber of lexical and semantic features in this verse. First, the present παρακαλῶ
+ infinitive (ποιεῖσθαι) not only aims “to urge strongly” (bdag 765), but it also
expresses a command with personal and emotional investment. This present
verb with the complementary infinitive has been taken as a “gnomic present”
(Wallace, Grammar, 526), but instead of considering this an exceptional use of
the “temporal present,” it is best to see this “omnitemporal” use of the present
(Porter, Verbal Aspect, 224–225) that grammaticalizes imperfective aspect as
foregrounding this command. Second, πρῶτον should not be taken primarily
in a temporal sense (Knight, 114); with πάντων it is a marker of importance (cf.
Mark 12:28). Third, the asyndetic list that consists of nouns of the same seman-
tic domain (δεήσεις προσευχὰς ἐντεύξεις εὐχαριστίας, LNd § 33) also draws atten-
tion to the general act of prayer. Finally, πάντων ἀνθρώπων and the repeated πᾶς
134 1 timothy

throughout this unit (vv. 2 [2×], 4, 6) place emphasis on the universal scope of
God’s salvation (instead of the act of prayer).

▪ 2 ὑπὲρ βασιλέων καὶ πάντων τῶν ἐν ὑπεροχῇ ὄντων. The second adjunct of the
predicate ποιεῖσθαι is introduced by the repeated ὑπέρ. The absence of the con-
junction καί at the beginning of this adjunct as well as the reappearance of ὑπέρ
allows for the paralleling of πάντων ἀνθρώπων and βασιλέων καὶ πάντων τῶν ἐν
ὑπεροχῇ ὄντων as kings and rulers are included in the wider category of πάντων
ἀνθρώπων. As such, the status of βασιλέων καὶ πάντων τῶν ἐν ὑπεροχῇ ὄντων is
reduced to the level of πάντων ἀνθρώπων as they are both creatures to be prayed
for instead of objects of worship (cf. 1Pet 2:13; see also Schlier 1958: 1–16). This
subversive stance relativizes all earthly powers as it paves the way for the affir-
mation of God as the only Savior and Christ as the only mediator (v. 5).
This reading may explain the plural βασιλέων, which has been taken as a ref-
erence to the successive Roman emperors (Towner, 167) or the ruling Roman
emperor and his petty kings (Spicq, 1.359). Within this context, however, this
plural is best taken as a general reference to human kings and rulers, confirmed
by πάντων τῶν ἐν ὑπεροχῇ ὄντων, which covers all layers of human authorities
and dignitaries.

▪ ἵνα ἤρεμον καὶ ἡσύχιον βίον διάγωμεν ἐν πάσῃ εὐσεβείᾳ καὶ σεμνότητι. This ἵνα
clause reveals the purpose of the call to prayer; it modifies praying for both
πάντων ἀνθρώπων (v. 1) and βασιλέων καὶ πάντων τῶν ἐν ὑπεροχῇ ὄντων (v. 2). In
light of our reading of the two being in parallel with the purpose of highlight-
ing the inclusion of human rulers among human beings in general, however,
the emphasis rests on the latter. The wider focus on the supreme authority of
God (vv. 5–6) would likewise argue for the focus on the believers’ interaction
with human rulers. The shift to the first-person plural διάγωμεν within the ἵνα
+ subjunctive draws attention to the application of this command to the wider
Christian community. While this purpose clause has led some to conclude that
the author “has the interior life of the community” in view (Krause, 47), both
sets of lexemes argue against this reading. ἤρεμον καὶ ἡσύχιον βίον points to liv-
ing an acceptable life that witnesses to others, while πάσῃ εὐσεβείᾳ καὶ σεμνότητι
points to political and social values in the public sphere. Together with διάγω-
μεν, which may carry the notion of making oneself visible (“sichtbar,” Roloff,
116) in this context, it forms a challenge to all competing claims of honor.

▪ 3 τοῦτο καλὸν καὶ ἀπόδεκτον ἐνώπιον τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν θεοῦ. This clause begins a
series of four independent clauses (vv. 3, 5a, 5b, 6b) with implied third-person
verbs. Γάρ is inserted in some manuscripts to clarify its relationship with the
2:1–7 135

previous sentence, but the presence of τοῦτο may take the place of this con-
junction since οὗτος often marks a point of departure in discourse (Levinsohn,
Discourse, 119). In this case, τοῦτο appears to refer to both v. 1 (Gill 2008: 152) and
v. 2 (Collins, 59) since this entire sentence (vv. 3–4) affirms both the unique sta-
tus of God as τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν (and thereby relativizing the status of βασιλέων
καὶ πάντων τῶν ἐν ὑπεροχῇ ὄντων, v. 2) and one who πάντας ἀνθρώπους θέλει σωθῆ-
ναι (and thereby affirming his concern for πάντων ἀνθρώπων, v. 1).
A case can be made for ἐνώπιον τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν θεοῦ to modify only ἀπόδε-
κτον (Spicq, 1.363) in light of the parallel in 5:4 (ἀπόδεκτον ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ) and
the use of καλός in 6:12 in reference to other human beings (τὴν καλὴν ὁμολογίαν
ἐνώπιον πολλῶν μαρτύρων). This conforms to Paul’s earlier statement that one
should be mindful of that which is “right not only before (ἐνώπιον) the Lord but
also before (ἐνώπιον) [other] human beings” (2Cor 8:21). Nevertheless, without
the presence of ἐνώπιον ἀνθρώπων after καλόν, and consistent with the use of
doublets in the previous verse (ἤρεμον καὶ ἡσύχιον, εὐσεβείᾳ καὶ σεμνότητι), both
καλόν and ἀπόδεκτον should be considered as a unit. Moreover, the use of καλός
with ἐνώπιον in reference to God belongs to the language of the lxx (cf. Prov
3:4; Mal 2:17), and the unique focus on God in this sentence is underscored by
the appositional phrase τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν as well as by the relative clause that
follows in v. 4.

▪ 4 ὃς πάντας ἀνθρώπους θέλει σωθῆναι καὶ εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας ἐλθεῖν. ὅς intro-
duces a hypotactic relative clause aimed not at identifying its antecedent but
at providing additional information concerning the scope of God’s benevolent
act as σωτήρ. While in Paul the object often follows the verb θέλω (Rom 7:19;
1 Cor 12:1; 14:15; Gal 6:13; 1Thess 4:13; cf. Gal 4:17; Phlm 14), the placement of πάν-
τας ἀνθρώπους before the verb may again draw attention to the primary concern
of this unit. In this context, πάντας ἀνθρώπους should be taken in a qualitative
(every people group) rather than a quantitative (every single individual) sense
in light of v. 7, where Paul discusses his mission to the Gentiles. The verb θέλω
almost always appears in the present tense in encoding imperfective aspect
that views the process from within (cf. Porter, Verbal Aspect, 488), while the
events that are embedded in the two aorist infinitives (σωθῆναι, ἐλθεῖν) that fol-
low are considered distinct events.
The conjunction καί that connects σωθῆναι with εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας ἐλθεῖν
can be read as a simple coordinating particle that links two separate events
(Collins, 60), but it can also function in an epexegetical sense where the second
item explicates and further particularizes the first (bdf § 442[9]). In this con-
text, to receive salvation is to come to the knowledge of the truth, but ἐπίγνωσιν
ἀληθείας ἐλθεῖν provides further specificity since the phrase ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας
136 1 timothy

is used elsewhere in the pe in a polemic sense as a contrast between the true

gospel Paul preaches and the lies the false teachers promote (2 Tim 2:25; 3:7;
cf. Titus 1:1). Consistent with this reading is the extended logical and temporal
sense when σωθῆναι is to lead naturally to εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας ἐλθεῖν (Winer,
Grammar, 692).

▪ 5 Εἷς γὰρ θεός, εἷς καὶ μεσίτης θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπων, ἄνθρωπος Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς. In
support of the previous claims, Paul here provides a succinct confessional state-
ment. Though the conjunction γάρ has often been understood in primarily a
causal sense (Zerwick §473), here it strengthens the immediately preceding
note on the will of God that πάντας ἀνθρώπους … σωθῆναι (v. 4), which, in turn,
supports the call to offer prayers ὑπὲρ πάντων ἀνθρώπων (v. 1). The connection
between the two becomes clear once the primary force of Jewish monotheism
is appreciated. Second Temple Jewish monotheism was not inward- (i.e., focus-
ing on the nature of God) but outward-looking (i.e., focusing on the sovereign
will of God for the entire humanity; cf. Wright 2013: 619–643); this is carried
through especially in the Lukan (e.g., Acts 10:31) and Pauline traditions (Rom
3:29–30), where the affirmation of the one God provides both a critique of other
competing claims as well as an invitation for all to participate in the people of
this one God.
The two εἷς clauses are connected by an adverbial καί, where εἷς … μεσίτης
parallels the non-contiguous θεός with prominence ascribed to the repeated
εἷς (Heckert, Discourse, 64). The rich history of the term μεσίτης (see Histor-
ical Analysis) connects this theocentric confession (θεοῦ) with the concern
for ἀνθρώπων that is to be understood in the sense of πάντων ἀνθρώπων (vv. 1,
4). The repetition of the lexeme ἄνθρωπος in ἄνθρωπος Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς further
supports Jesus’s qualification as μεσίτης. The repeated lexemes as well as the
qualifiers embedded in the relative clause that follows (v. 6a) serve to connect
Jewish monotheism through the christocentric gospel to a universalistic appli-
cation:

εἷς … θεός
εἷς … θεοῦ … ἀνθρώπων
ἄνθρωπος Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς …
ὑπὲρ πάντων

The connection between oneness (εἷς) and universalism (ὑπὲρ πάντων ἀνθρώ-
πων) is, therefore, established through the mediator Jesus Christ, and the prayer
for all human beings is firmly grounded in theological and christological prin-
ciples.
2:1–7 137

▪ 6 ὁ δοὺς ἑαυτὸν ἀντίλυτρον ὑπὲρ πάντων. The articular participle provides fur-
ther description of the work of ἄνθρωπος Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς that justifies the claim
that he is μεσίτης θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπων. If this is a reworking of the ransom saying of
Mark 10:45 (δοῦναι τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ λύτρον ἀντὶ πολλῶν; cf. Matt 20:28), then this
common Pauline ἑαυτὸν (Gal 1:4; 2:20; Eph 5:2; Phil 2:8; Titus 2:14) can be con-
sidered equivalent to a periphrasis with ψυχή (Moulton, Prolegomena, 87, 105)
as is already evident in the switch from τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ in Luke 9:24 to ἑαυτὸν
in 9:25 (Turner, Syntax, 43). The switch from ἀντί (in Mark 10:45) to ὑπέρ should
not be considered a significant one, especially when the ἀντί-prefix is used here
in ἀντίλυτρον; both carry ideas of exchange and substitution, as is evident also
in the use of ὑπέρ instead of ἀντί in a similar context in Mark 14:24 (cf. Turner,
Syntax, 271). Nevertheless, the use of the hapax ἀντίλυτρον here with ὑπέρ may
lay emphasis on ideas of both exchange and substitution (Brown 2014: 104),
though the simpler formation in Titus 2:14 without the ἀντί-prefix (ὃς ἔδωκεν
ἑαυτὸν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, ἵνα λυτρώσηται ἡμᾶς) may not be less emphatic. If this confes-
sion is indeed grounded in Mark 10:45, then the change from πολλῶν to πάντων
again draws attention to the universalistic emphasis in this unit (cf. vv. 1, 2, 4).

▪ τὸ μαρτύριον καιροῖς ἰδίοις. The exact meaning and function of this clause
remain unclear. Syntactically, τὸ μαρτύριον is best taken in apposition to the
previous clause, ὁ δοὺς ἑαυτὸν ἀντίλυτρον ὑπὲρ πάντων (Winer, Grammar, 669;
cf. Couser 2004: 300–301). This is supported by its asyndetic structure that ties
this clause with the previous confessional statement. To identify τὸ μαρτύριον
merely as the apostolic testimony (Roloff, 123–124) is to ignore the significant
transition in v. 7, where the ministry of Paul is clearly marked with the first-
person pronoun (ἐγώ) and verbs (ἐτέθην, λέγω, ψεύδομαι). As the antecedent
to the relative pronoun ὅ in v. 7, τὸ μαρτύριον provides the content of Paul’s
mission, one that points to the prior work of Christ Jesus. A similar use of the
μαρτύριον word group can be found in 6:13, where the verb μαρτυρέω is applied
to the testimony of Jesus Christ himself when he was about to give his life for
all.
καιροῖς ἰδίοις (see comments on 6:15) should likewise be understood in ref-
erence to the work of Christ Jesus within the salvation plan of God. While this
argument cannot be grounded on the distinction between καιρός and χρόνος
(Barr, Semantics, 225–226), the phrase καιροῖς ἰδίοις does point to the revelation
of Jesus Christ himself (cf. 1Tim 6:15).

▪ 7 εἰς ὃ ἐτέθην ἐγὼ κῆρυξ καὶ ἀπόστολος, ἀλήθειαν λέγω οὐ ψεύδομαι, διδάσκα-
λος ἐθνῶν ἐν πίστει καὶ ἀληθείᾳ. With this “predicative amplification” (Winer,
Grammar, 550), Paul links his testimony with the one borne by Christ Jesus
138 1 timothy

in his atoning death. A similar connection between the confession of the sav-
ing power of Christ Jesus and Paul’s role as his κῆρυξ καὶ ἀπόστολος καὶ διδά-
σκαλος can also be found in 2Tim 1:9–11. This final clause applies the general
statements that precede to the specific context in first-century Ephesus. First,
through a series of lexical and grammatical features, Paul provides a critique of
the false teachers. The passive verb ἐτέθην grounds his apostolic ministry in a
divine act, a point reinforced by the title κῆρυξ καὶ ἀπόστολος that directs atten-
tion not to himself but to the one from whom this authority originates (see
Historical Analysis). With such a divine sanction, Paul can claim to be a true
διδάσκαλος, unlike the self-proclaimed νομοδιδάσκαλοι (v. 7) who are attempt-
ing to ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖν (v. 3). The authenticity of his gospel is emphasized by
the marked placement of ἀλήθειαν before the foregrounded present verb λέγω,
the repetition of the same point through οὐ ψεύδομαι (as in the oath formula
of Rom 9:1), and its reiteration in the final phrase, πίστει καὶ ἀληθείᾳ (taking ἐν
for respect/manner). This anticipates his later labeling of the false teachings as
ὑποκρίσει ψευδολόγων (4:2).
Second, the genitival modifier that restricts (primarily) διδάσκαλος identi-
fies the earlier references to πάντων ἀνθρώπων (vv. 1, 4) as ἐθνῶν, and therefore
reveals the reason behind the universalistic emphasis of this unit. διδάσκα-
λος ἐθνῶν is marked by asyndeton (cf. 2Tim 1:11) and the interruption of the
list (κῆρυξ καὶ ἀπόστολος … διδάσκαλος) by the oath formula ἀλήθειαν λέγω
οὐ ψεύδομαι (for the emphatic force of this “affirmation plus negated denial,”
see Siebenthal, Greek Grammar, 559). Because of the distinct Jewish nature
of the false teachings that question the universal scope of the true gospel,
Paul identifies himself as the true teacher of the Gentiles as he proclaims the
gospel of the one Savior God and the One Mediator (v. 6). This same point will
be made explicit within another creedal statement in 3:16 (ἐκηρύχθη ἐν ἔθνε-
σιν).

Bibliography
Brown, Peter Dunstan. “The Use of Ransom Language in 1 Timothy 2:1–7 and Titus 2:11–
14.” Ph.D. diss., Catholic University of America, 2014.
Couser, Greg A. “‘The Testimony about the Lord,’ ‘Borne by the Lord,’ or Both?” TynBul
55 (2004): 295–316.
Gill, Malcolm. Jesus as Mediator: Politics and Polemic in 1 Timothy 2:1–7. Bern: Peter Lang,
2008.
Köstenberger, Andreas J. “Hermeneutical and Exegetical Challenges in Interpreting the
Pastoral Epistles.” In Entrusted with the Gospel: Paul’s Theology in the Pastoral Epis-
tles. Ed. Andreas J. Köstenberger and Terry L. Wilder, 1–27. Nashville: B&H Academic,
2010.
2:1–7 139

Nicholson, Susanne. Dynamic Oneness. Cambridge: James Clarke & Co., 2011.
Schlier, Heinrich. “Die Beurteilung des Staates im Neun Testament.” In Die Zeit der
Kirche, 1–16. 2nd ed. Freiberg: Herder, 1958.
Wright, N.T. Paul and the Faithfulness of God. Philadelphia: Fortress, 2013.

4 Historical Analysis
It is widely recognized that beginning with this section Paul is being more
direct in addressing particular issues of the church. In terms of literary form,
the importance of Haustafel cannot be denied, dealing with concerns of the
“household of God” (οἶκος θεοῦ, 3:15). Along with matters related to stewards
(3:1–7), servants/laborers (3:8–16), the young (4:1–16) and the old (5:1–2), wid-
ows (5:3–24) and slaves (6:1–2), one also finds the treatment of wealth (6:3–
19), a topic that fits comfortably within Hellenistic Haustafeln (Aristotle, Pol.
1253b). The widespread uses of this form in Greco-Roman (Dio Chrysostom, Lib.
myth. 348–351; Seneca, Ep. 94.1; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 2.25.4–
26.4) and Hellenistic Jewish (Philo, Decal. 165–167) literature as well as in nt
(Eph 5:22–6:9; Col 3:18–4:1; 1Pet 2:18–3:7) and early Christian literature (Did.
4.9–11; 1Clem. 21.6–9) argue for the possibility that Paul is indebted to this form
here, though he is certainly not bound by it when dealing with local ecclesi-
astical issues. If we include issues related to men/husbands and women/wives
in this discussion, then 2:8–15 should also be considered a part of this wider
household discussion.
With the absence of any sustained discussion on the role of the householder
in 2:8–6:19, the focus on “God our Savior” (v. 3) as the “one God” (v. 5) and on
Christ Jesus as the “one mediator between God and human beings” (v. 5) fits
well within this wider household discussion when the head of the household
is clearly identified as God himself and Christ Jesus the mediator. 1 Tim 2:1–7,
therefore, forms the first section (Kamlah 1964: 197–199) or at least the theolog-
ical foundation (Couser 2011: 279) of the household discussion that dominates
the rest of this letter.
The use of Haustafel in structuring this and the following sections has been
taken as yet another example of accommodation when the church is incorpo-
rated into the wider ideology of the state (Zamfir, 146–147), especially when
believers are here asked to offer prayers to kings and those who are in author-
ity (v. 2). Nevertheless, the subversive note cannot be missed even in relation to
this call since (1) the call to pray for kings and those in authority are relativized
by the prior call to offer such prayers “for all people” (v. 1), and (2) believers are
only called to pray “for” (ὑπέρ) them, rather than “to” them, since they are not
the object of worship. Instead, the universal claim of dominion belongs to God
himself, who is the Savior of “all” (πᾶς, vv. 1 [2×], 2 [2×], 4, 6).
140 1 timothy

The reference to “kings and for all who are in authority” (v. 2) may be directed
against Roman imperial propaganda where certain Roman emperors are hon-
ored as “savior” (σωτήρ, v. 3) in Asia Minor (ogis 458) and even in the city of
Ephesus (IEph 251), while εὐσέβεια is also a term linked with such propaganda
(seg 1092). Paul’s description of Jesus as the “one mediator between God and
human beings” (v. 5) may be a response to Augustus, who first claimed to be
pontifex maximus (Res Gestae 7.3), and the placement of “God the Savior” as
the head of the household counters the claim of the Roman emperor as Patrem
Patriae (Res Gestae 35.1–2). Moreover, the portrayal of God and Christ Jesus as
the benefactor of all when Christ “gave himself as a ransom for all” (v. 6) pro-
vides a direct challenge to Roman emperors who claim to be “the savior and
benefactor of the world (τῷ σωτῆρι καὶ εὐεργέτῃ τῆς οἰκουμένης)” (ogis 668).
This reading is possible in light of the Roman influence in first-century Eph-
esus (Gill 2008: 7–139), and the wealth of archaeological remains that testify to
this fact (Thomas 1995: 81–117).
An assumption of Pauline authorship would also allow the local cult of
Artemis to become a relevant context within which this passage can be read.
First, the emphasis on God as “Savior” (τοῦ σωτῆρος, v. 3) and on his will for all
“to be saved” (σωθῆναι, v. 4) may also echo Artemis’s own appellation as Σώτειρα
(IEph 1265) as “she alone is able to save those who take refuge in her” (αὐτῇ μόνῃ
τοὺς ἐπ’ αὐτὴν καταφεύγοντας ἔξεστι σώζειν; Achilles Tatius, Leuc. Clit. 8.8). Not
only is Artemis claimed to be the one and only Savior, but she is also the uni-
versal Savior whose shrines and altars are spread throughout the Greek world
and beyond (IEph 24; Horsley 1987: 75–76), a claim denied by Paul, who coun-
ters that there is only “one God” (εἷς … θεός, v. 5), and he is the one “who desires
all people (πάντας ἀνθρώπους) to be saved” (v. 4). The call to believers to live a
life “in all godliness” (ἐν πάσῃ εὐσεβείᾳ, v. 2) echoes the use of εὐσέβεια in refer-
ence to the proper response by those participating in the Artemis cult (IvS 653),
where the cultic dancers are explicitly called εὐσεβεῖς (IEph 1008; Rogers 2012:
158).
The first readers may not have had to choose between an imperial and
an Artemisian context in the reading of this section because of the intercon-
nection between the two. In the early imperial period, the restoration of the
Artemis cult was funded by the Roman emperor (IEph 459), and its properties
were protected by imperial authority (IEph 3501; Horsley 1992: 156). Artemis,
in turn, was honored as “the protector of the imperial household” (Σωτείρας
Σεβαστοῦ γένους, IEph 1265), while public monuments were often dedicated to
both Artemis and the emperor (Immendörfer 2017: 119, 175). In the mid-first
century ad, the Artemisian cult dancers took on the title φιλοσέβαστοι as an
expression of their loyalty to the Roman emperor (IEph 1008; Rogers 2012: 158).
2:1–7 141

Acknowledging the possibility of reading this section within such religious and
political contexts does not, however, assume that its individual parts can all be
explained by this polemic. The emphasis on Jesus’s humanity (ἄνθρωπος Χρι-
στὸς Ἰησοῦς, v. 5), for example, should best be understood in light of the false
teachings Paul is combatting.

▪ 1 δέησις, προσευχή, and εὐχαριστία are familiar terms in the Pauline writings,
but ἔντευξις (cf. 4:5) appears only in this letter in the nt. The pair δέησις and
προσευχή is a familiar one in the lxx (1Kgs 8:38; 2 Chron 6:19, 29, 36; Ps 16[17]:1;
Dan 9:17; Bar 2:14). By itself, δέησις can refer simply to the general act of prayer
(2Cor 1:11; Phil 1:4), but when used with προσευχή, δέησις may denote petitionary
prayer under the general category of προσευχή, as illustrated in the Pauline use
in Eph 6:18 (διὰ πάσης προσευχῆς καὶ δεήσεως προσευχόμενοι …). Besides peti-
tion, προσευχή, the more common term for general prayer, may include acts of
thanksgiving (Eph 1:16; 1Thess 1:2; Phlm 4) as is the case here.
ἔντευξις stands out from this list since it does not appear in the earlier writ-
ings of Paul, and its only occurrence in the lxx takes on the sense of a general
request to a superior authority (2Macc 4:8). This is consistent with its use in
secular writings where ἔντευξις can be used with δέησις with a significant over-
lap in their semantic range (e.g., Plutarch, Phoc. 17.6; Heliodorus, Aeth. 7.19).
εὐχαριστία does not appear in the canonical portions of the lxx (Add Esth
16:4), though it does appear with acts of petition (ἐντυγχάνειν) in Wis 16:28. εὐχα-
ριστία comes to prominence in its verbal and nominal forms only in Hellenistic
writings (Schermann 1910: 376–377) and is widely used by Philo in reference
to thank-offerings in both its literal form as well as verbal expression (cf. Spec.
1.167). This paves the way for its importance in the Pauline writings (1 Cor 14:16;
2 Cor 4:15; 2Cor 9:11; Eph 5:4; 1Thess 3:9), even within a list that resembles the
one here (ἐν παντὶ τῇ προσευχῇ καὶ τῇ δεήσει μετὰ εὐχαριστίας, Phil 4:6).
The phrase “for all people” has also been understood in various ways. Those
who consider this section as focusing on prayer would point to a possible allu-
sion to Jesus’s saying in Mark 11:17, where Isa 56:7 is quoted (“my house will be
called a house of prayer for all nations”), especially in light of the identification
of the church as the “household of God” in this letter (3:15; cf. Couser 2011: 284).
Those who consider salvation as the main theme will point to the universality
of the offer of salvation as the point of this phrase (e.g., Gill 2008:140). With-
out denying this ecclesiological point, the theological and christological points
should instead be considered the focus of this section, especially in light of its
interaction with the claims of both the Artemis cult and the Roman imperial
propaganda. The emphasis on “all” (πᾶς) in this section (vv. 1 [2×], 2 [2×], 4, 6)
does not simply point to the universal offer of salvation, but it also points to
142 1 timothy

God the Savior who has the ability to save all, and is, therefore, the ultimate
object of prayer and worship.

▪ 2 In the Roman East, βασιλεύς was applied to the Roman emperors (ig 3.12)
and the plural could indeed refer to the succession of Roman emperors (Jose-
phus, B.J. 3.341; 4.596; Gill 2008: 141). But the pair, “kings” (βασιλεῖς) and “all who
are in authority” (πάντες οἱ ἐν ὑπεροχῇ ὄντες), should best be taken as a general
reference to human kings and rulers. They were used interchangeably in ref-
erence to rulers of (city-)states in Classical (Aristotle, Eth. nic. 1161a; [Mund.]
398b) and Hellenistic (Polybius 22.20.7; Strabo, Geog. 15.12.67) Greek authors
as well as in Hellenistic Jewish writings (Ep. Arist. 175.4). Situated in this sec-
tion, however, a veiled reference to the Roman imperial authorities cannot be
denied. Elsewhere in this letter, the title βασιλεύς has always been applied to
God himself, who is “the King of eternity” (τῷ … βασιλεῖ τῶν αἰώνων, 1:17) and
“the King of kings” (ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν βασιλευόντων, 6:15). That one should only
pray “for” (ὑπέρ) these human rulers and not “to” (εἰς) them (cf. Aelius Aristides,
Or. 26.32; Lendon 1997: 162) shows that they are no different from “all people”
for whom (ὑπὲρ πάντων ἀνθρώπων) prayers are to be made to “the only God”
(μόνῳ θεῷ, 1:17). To pray (or to offer sacrifices) for pagan kings is a familiar strat-
egy for diaspora Jews (1Macc 7:33; Josephus, B.J. 2.197) as they seek to prosper
in foreign lands, but survival strategy does not exhaust the call to prayer in this
section.
διάγω has been taken to refer to “living a public/visible” life (Roloff, 116),
which fits this context well, though the verb itself does not always carry this
connotation (cf. “living,” Titus 3:3). Both ἤρεμος and ἡσύχιος are hapax in Paul’s
writings with the latter only appearing once elsewhere in the nt (1 Pet 3:4). ἤρε-
μος is rarely used prior to the nt, and in two of its rare occurrences it appears
with στάσιμον (“steadfast,” Callisthenes, Frag.; Pseudo-Andronicus of Rhodes,
Pass. 4.4), with both denoting a peaceful and calm demeanor. ἡσύχιος is far
more common for orderly and temperate people (Plato, Charm. 159b), and it
often appears with the σωφρ-word group (Plato, Charm. 160b–c; Chrysippus,
Frag. mor. 632.3; Arius Didymus, Liber de phil. 85.2) as in the next section with
the related form of ἡσύχιος (ἡσυχία, vv. 11, 12; σωφροσύνη, vv. 9, 15).
The use of ἤρεμος and ἡσύχιος here has been understood in four ways: (1) con-
forming to the pagan vision of an ideal life (Plutarch, Mor. 1033c–d; Epictetus,
Diatr. 1.10.2; Fiore, 57); (2) a passive posture “in proper submission to the civil
authorities” for the sake of the gospel mission (Couser 2011: 293); (3) a response
to the false teachers who have created a community “marked by strife and dis-
ruption” (Gill 2008: 147–148; cf. 2:11, 12); and (4) an active call to create a context
of worship where the gospel of peace will be heard (Wieland, 53).
2:1–7 143

The evocation of the pagan vision of an ideal life does not fit the context
here, especially when the exact linguistic parallel is missing. The passive pos-
ture is contradicted by Paul’s later words to Timothy that those who desire “to
live a godly life” (εὐσεβῶς ζῆν; cf. ἐν πάσῃ εὐσεβείᾳ, 2:2) will be persecuted (2 Tim
3:12). The third and final option fits well in this context where Paul is respond-
ing to the false teachers while taking an active stance in the call to worship the
one God. ἤρεμος here may evoke the Jewish call to Shalom within a covenantal
relationship between God and his people (if ἤρεμος καὶ ἡσύχιος is taken in the
sense of εἰρήνη καὶ ἡσυχία, cf. 1Chron 22:9); and ἡσύχιος can also carry theolog-
ical significance when quietness is the posture of the reception of the Torah in
Hellenistic Jewish writings (Philo, Spec. 2.60–64; Mos. 2.36; Wieland, 53). If so,
rather than advocating a position of accommodation, Paul is drawing attention
to the proper response in the presence of the one God and one mediator.
The ἐυσεβ-word group plays an important role in the pe (εὐσέβεια: 3:16; 4:7, 8;
6:3, 5, 6, 11; 2Tim 3:5; Titus 1:1; εὐσεβέω: 5:14; εὐσεβῶς: 2 Tim 3:12; Titus 2:12; cf. ἀσέ-
βεια: 2Tim 2:16; Titus 2:12; ἀσεβής: 1:9). It has been taken merely as a moral term
“to describe a quality of Christian life in a manner that would make it intel-
lectually appealing to a literate reader” (Malherbe 2005: 346), and, as such, it
contributes to the wider strategy of the author who seeks to portray a church
that conforms to the ideal institution within the Roman world (Hoklutubbe
2015).
This accommodation reading does not, however, take into sufficient consid-
eration the religious and political import of this term as it is used in Greco-
Roman literature as well as in the pe. First, while εὐσέβεια can be used in ref-
erence to those “living a quiet life” (ζῶντας καθ’ ἡσυχίαν) in accordance with
societal customs and expectations (Posidonius, Frag 45.32), it is not divorced
from the religious and political realms. In the most general sense, εὐσέβεια is
used in reference to an individual’s self-understanding within one’s web of rela-
tionships, within one’s household, (city-)state, and god(s). As such, it is used to
translate the Latin pietas (Res Gestae 34), understood not in an inner “spiritual”
sense but in a socio-political sense (D’Angelo 2003: 140–141) since εὐσέβεια is
concerned with one’s participation in the cult as well as in one’s own commu-
nity (Polybius 5.10.6; 5.12.1; Diodorus of Sicily, Hist. 12.20.3). For similar reasons,
even Hellenistic Jewish authors would identify εὐσέβεια as that which encom-
passes all virtues (Josephus, C.Ap. 2.170; cf. Philo, Spec. 4.135). εὐσέβεια is, there-
fore, an appropriate term in relation to the discussion of the “household of God”
(3:15; cf. τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον, 3:16).
Since εὐσέβεια is often understood in a cultic context (Polybius 4.20.2; Dio-
dorus of Sicily, Hist. 16.30.2), it is not to be categorized merely as an ethical act,
though the close connection between the two cannot be denied, a connection
144 1 timothy

illustrated by how εὐσέβεια can be mentioned alongside with justice/righteous-

ness in both Greek (Posidonius, Frag. 81.3) and Hellenistic Jewish (Ep. Arist.
210.2; 215.3) authors.
Cultic acts are inevitably political acts, especially in first-century Asia Minor.
The use of εὐσέβεια in reference to the Artemis cult has already been noted
above (IvS 653; IEph 1008). The use of εὐσέβεια in imperial cult contexts has
also been well documented (Price 1984: 227–233), and a similar connection can
also be found in Hellenistic Jewish literature. Already in the ot, what came
to be understood as the royal messianic figure in Isaiah is promised to receive
“the spirit of knowledge and godliness (εὐσεβείας)” (Isa 11:2). In 4 Maccabees, it
appears more than forty times in the polemical context against Antiochus iv:
“[our philosophy] teaches us godliness (εὐσέβειαν) so that we worship the only
true God in a way that befits his majesty” (4Macc 5:24). The use of εὐσέβεια lan-
guage in political contexts persists in Hellenistic Jewish authors (2 Macc 3:1; Ep.
Arist. 215.2; Sib. Or. 12.198; Josephus, A.J. 11.132; C.Ap. 2.131).
As Paul argues here that God is the Savior and benefactor of all (vv. 3–6), the
proper response of εὐσέβεια is, therefore, an acknowledgment of him and him
alone to be the object of worship. As the author of the Epistle of Aristeas states,
“What is the essence of godliness (τῆς εὐσεβείας)? … The realization that God is
the benefactor of all” (Ep. Arist. 210.2). It is this subversive godliness that affirms
Christ to be the Lord of all (3:16) and therefore argues against a dualistic form
of godliness that separates the spiritual from that of this created world (cf. 4:7–
8; 2Tim 3:5). Those who live out this confession in godliness will be persecuted
(2Tim 3:12).
In the nt, σεμνότης only appears in the pe (3:4; Titus 2:7; cf. σεμνός: Phil 4:8;
1 Tim 3:8, 11; Titus 2:2). This word group can refer to the general sense of rever-
ence (cf. Aristotle, Eth. eud. 1233b); in the lxx, however, it is used in reference
to the sanctity of the temple (2Macc 3:12) and of the name of God (2 Macc
8:15). Being part of honor and shame language (Polybius 9.10.12; 11.9.7; Philo,
Spec. 2.149) where honor and dignity are competitively ascribed to individuals
(Lendon 1998: 227; cf. Oprisko 2012: 121–122), the call to live a life of dignity is
to live in light of the doxological confession that God himself is “the only God”
who alone deserves “honor and glory forever and ever” (1:17). In Greek litera-
ture, εὐσέβεια and σεμνότης can also be found together in a context of honor
and benefaction (Aelius Aristides, Rhet. 2.4.1).

▪ 3 The phrase καλὸν καὶ ἀπόδεκτον first appears here in extant Greek literature
(cf. καλὸν θεῷ καὶ εὐάρεστον, T.Dan 1.3), and should be taken together as a unit in
continuation of the use of doublets from the previous clause. If so, ἀπόδεκτον
ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ in 5:4 can be taken as shorthand for καλὸν καὶ ἀπόδεκτον ἐνώ-
2:1–7 145

πιον τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν θεοῦ here (cf. τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ, τὸ ἀγαθὸν καὶ εὐάρεστον
καὶ τέλειον, Rom 12:2). In this context, to identify God as σωτήρ not only echoes
the earlier identification in 1:1, but it also draws attention to God as the one and
only Savior against all competing claims.
This focus on the status of God may also explain the phrase ἐνώπιον τοῦ σωτῆ-
ρος ἡμῶν θεοῦ that draws attention to God as the primary frame of reference for
all discourses. God is repeatedly evoked as the final authority or reliable wit-
ness in the pe (5:4, 21; 6:13; 2Tim 2:14; 4:1), and this evocation lends authority to
Paul as he combats the false teachers who are neither “good” (κακός, 6:10; 2 Tim
4:14; Titus 1:12) nor “pleasing” (cf. ἀσεβής: 1:9) in the eyes of God.

▪ 4 The desire of God “for all people to be saved” (πάντας ἀνθρώπους … σωθῆ-
ναι) has been taken to include even kings and ruling authorities (Mounce, 86),
but v. 7 suggests that this inclusive “all” points primarily to the inclusion of the
Gentiles. If so, the background of this statement does not reside primarily in
the universal vision of the Wisdom tradition (Wis 16:7, 12; cf. Brown 2014: 96),
but in the historical-redemptive plan of God that points to the election of God’s
people for the purpose of being a blessing to “all (πᾶσαι) the tribes of the earth”
(Gen 12:3) so that “all (πᾶσα) flesh will see the salvation of God” (Isa 40:5).
The focus of this clause is not merely an ecclesiological one, however, since
this “all” will draw attention to the unique status of the “one” (εἷς) God and “one”
(εἷς) mediator (v. 5). Over against the Roman emperor who receives acclama-
tion as the “savior” (σωτῆρα) for bringing good tidings to “the world (τῷ κόσμῳ)”
(ogis 458), Paul asserts that it is God the Savior who desires “to save all human
beings.” If so, assertions found in texts such as Isa 2:7 become a more relevant
background to this clause: “every person (πᾶς ἄνθρωπος) shall be humbled …
and the Lord alone (μόνος) will be exalted on that day” (cf. 1 Tim 1:17).
God’s desire for all to “come to the knowledge of the truth” (εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν
ἀληθείας ἐλθεῖν; cf. Titus 1:1) is contrasted with the false teachers in 2 Tim 3:7,
who are “never able to arrive at the knowledge of the truth (εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἀλη-
θείας ἐλθεῖν)” (cf. 2Tim 2:25). “Truth” (ἀλήθεια) is repeatedly emphasized in the
pe (2:4, 7; 3:15; 4:3; 6:5; 2Tim 2:15, 18, 25; 3:7, 8; 4:4; Titus 1:1, 14), and God is
considered to be “the pillar and bulwark of the truth” (3:15). “Knowledge” (ἐπί-
γνωσις/γνῶσις) is also an important label, especially when the false teachers
also claim to possess the “so-called knowledge” (τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως, 6:20).
“The knowledge of the truth” (ἐπίγνωσις ἀληθείας) can refer to a distinct com-
prehension of that which leads one into the community of believers as it is
used here and in 2Tim 2:25 (cf. Heb 10:26), but it can also point to the process
of growth in the path of godliness (Titus 1:1). In light of the parallelism between
ἐπίγνωσις/γνῶσις and ἀλήθεια in both the lxx (Prov 22:21; Hos 4:1; Wis 6:22) and
146 1 timothy

the nt (Rom 2:20), the genitive ἀληθείας can be taken as a genitive of appo-
sition, though an objective genitive is still possible in light of one of the rare
appearances of the phrase (cf. ἐπίγνωσις [τῆς] ἀληθείας in Philo, Prob. 74.3).

▪ 5 Neither the form (two statements of unequal length followed by an enig-

matic conclusion) nor the content (that merely identifies the role of God and
Christ in salvation) demands vv. 5–6 to be read as a preformed statement. What
is clear is that here one finds the continuation of Paul’s thoughts that are drawn
from earlier (ot, sayings of Jesus) traditions, but are at the same time molded
in a way that serve the argument of the present context well.
The affirmation of the “one God” (εἷς … θεός) echoes the central confession of
Israel (κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν κύριος εἷς ἐστιν, Deut 6:4). Already in the ot, the affir-
mation of the one God is explicitly tied to the eschatological manifestation of
his unique royal power and authority over all: “the Lord will be king over all the
earth; on that day the Lord will be one (ἔσται κύριος εἷς) and his name will be
one” (Zech 14:9). The affirmation of the one God is a familiar one in Hellenis-
tic Jewish apologetic when the “one God (θεὸς εἷς)” is considered “the leader
and ruler of all things (ἡγεμὼν καὶ ἄρχων ἁπάντων)” (Philo, Opif. 100.10; cf. Leg.
3.105.5), and that “God is one (θεός ἐστιν εἷς)” entails that “he alone must be wor-
shipped (τοῦτον δεῖ σέβεσθαι μόνον)” (Josephus, A.J. 3.91).
In this context, this confession is consistent with Paul’s thought elsewhere
as it not only emphasizes the inclusion of the Gentiles (Rom 3:29–30; Eph
4:5–6; Spicq, 1.366), but it also paves the way for the high christological state-
ment to follow when Christ’s role and identity are incorporated into the strong
monotheistic confession (1Cor 8:6; Brown 2014: 99), all the while challeng-
ing all competing claims (Rom 13:1–7; Wall 2012: 16). If a creedal statement is
defined by its versatility in addressing theological, christological, and ecclesi-
ological concerns, then this first clause would provide an apt introduction to
this creedal statement.
The monotheistic affirmation accompanied by a christological one recalls
both Eph 4:5–6 and 1Cor 8:6, with 1Cor 8:6 providing the closest parallel:
ἡμῖν εἷς θεὸς … εἷς κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός. While most would consider 1 Cor 8:6
a notable antecedent, some argue for an unpauline development when the
absence of the first-person plural pronoun ἡμῖν here “renders the statement
εἷς θεός no longer a statement of intractably proprietary religious possession
(‘for us there is one God’), but one of universal ontological predication (‘God is
one’)” (Mitchell 2008: 55). This conclusion is questionable. First, 1 Corinthians
provides an intra-community anti-idol polemic where the confession provides
coherence for the community; in that context, the first-person plural pronoun
becomes most appropriate. In 1Timothy 2, however, the point is on the abso-
2:1–7 147

lute and final authority of God and Christ Jesus, where a universal confessional
statement is expected. Moreover, one can also argue for a higher Christology in
1 Cor 8:6, where Christ is involved in the process of creation (cf. Col 1:15–20). It
is clear, however, that the precise formulation of 1 Tim 2:5–6 is dictated by the
needs of Paul’s argument. This need would also apply to the move from lord-
ship language to that of a mediator. Finally, to identify this as an ontological
statement (in a way that 1Cor 8:6 is not) is puzzling, when it is the redemptive
acts of God and Christ that are in view.
In the lxx, μεσίτης appears only in Job 9:33, but not in reference to a media-
tor between God and human beings. Elsewhere in Paul, it appears only in Gal
3:19–20 (cf. Heb 8:6; 9:15; 12:24), where Moses was considered a mediator (cf.
Philo, Mos. 2.116; Somn. 1.143; Josephus, A.J. 7.193; T.Mos. 1.14; 3.12; Fiore, 60),
which makes it possible that Paul is arguing for the superiority of Jesus over
Moses to affirm the universal significance of Christ’s death (ὑπὲρ πάντων, v. 6)
or in response to the false teachers who claim to be the “teachers of the law”
(1:7). Even so, the concept of mediation may be present elsewhere in Paul when
reconciliation language is used instead (Rom 5:6–11; 2 Cor 5:18–19; Roloff, 122).
A closer parallel can perhaps be identified in contemporary Jewish litera-
ture when Michael the Archangel was identified as μεσίτης θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπων
(T.Dan. 6.2), the only other place this phrase is used in ancient Greek litera-
ture. This tradition allows an angelic being who is neither God nor a human
to be a mediator (cf. Quinn 1980: 255), and it fits with the wider tradition that
the angels were directly involved in the deliverance of the law to God’s people
(Gal 3:19; cf. Acts 7:38). That this mediator is traditionally understood not to be
human may explain Paul’s emphasis that Jesus himself is one (ἄνθρωπος Χριστὸς
Ἰησοῦς).
In its immediate context, where “kings” and “all who are in authority” (v. 2)
are not to be compared to “God our Savior” (v. 3), the Roman understanding of
their emperors as mediators should also be noted when Augustus takes on the
title of pontifex maximus in 12 bc (Res Gestae 7.3; prior to Augustus, members
of the Roman Senate were considered as the mediators of the divine will; see
Livy 22.1.8–20; Gill 2008: 116). Here, Paul emphasizes that it is Christ Jesus who
is the “one mediator.”

▪ 6 Two related questions have to be raised concerning the second part of this
creedal statement: First, whether the two parts of the creedal statement are
already connected in the sources. Some would suggest that 1 Cor 8:6 provides a
clear precedent where one finds “the same combination of the monotheistic
confession with another striking christological assertion” (Lau, 73). The evi-
dence of 1Cor 8:6 is ambiguous, however, since the parallel merely points to
a possible pattern of Paul’s theological formulation. The differences between
148 1 timothy

the two are notable (even if the precise provenance of the two parts cannot
be clearly identified), and a common preformed source cannot be established.
Moreover, the inclusion of the phrase ἄνθρωπος Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς provides a pos-
sible link to the two distinct theological ideas.
The related question surrounds the source of the second part of this state-
ment, especially the clause ὁ δοὺς ἑαυτὸν ἀντίλυτρον ὑπὲρ πάντων. The clearest
conceptual parallel can be identified in Mark 10:45 (δοῦναι τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ
λύτρον ἀντὶ πολλῶν), with the recognition that this Pauline saying has been Hell-
enized with the antecedent changing from ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου to ἄνθρωπος, and
the Semitic τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ to ἑαυτὸν (Jeremias 1947–1948: 263–264; Roloff, 111),
though this Hellenized form may also conform to Paul’s own usage (see Gram-
matical Analysis). Without assuming that Paul has direct access to Mark, the
pre-Markan tradition of this saying should also be considered.
This saying can conceivably go back to Jesus (Kim 1983: 38–61), whose self-
understanding may have been influenced by the Isaianic Servant Songs, espe-
cially Isa 52:13–53:12 (Hooker 1959: 74–79). Paul himself could also have drawn
from Isaiah 40–55 in the formulation of the two ransom sayings in the pe, where
the two ἵνα-clauses in Titus 2:14 are considered to be an echo of Isa 42:6–7 and
49:6–7 (cf. Barn 14.6–8; Edwards 2009: 264), and where Isa 43:1–12 provides the
language for the two-part saying in 1Tim 2:6 (λυτρόω: 43:1; ὑπέρ: 43:3, 4[2×]; πᾶς:
43:7, 9; μάρτυς: 43:9, 10[2×], 12[2×]; cf. σῴζω: 43:3, 11, 12; Brown 2014: 118–119).
With the paucity of direct references to Mark in the pe, it is possible that Paul
draws from the sayings of Jesus while using Isaianic language to create his own
formulation of this ransom saying. Consistent with Paul’s thought elsewhere is
the idea of Jesus “giving himself” (δοὺς ἑαυτόν: Gal 1:4; cf. παραδιδόναι ἑαυτόν: Gal
2:20; Eph 5:2, 25) “for” (ὑπέρ: Rom 5:6, 8; 8:32; 14:15; 1 Cor 1:13; 2 Cor 5:14, 15; Gal
1:4; 2:20; 1Thess 5:10) “all” (πάντων: 2Cor 5:14, 15).
The distinction between ἀντί and ὑπέρ is blurred when the hapax ἀντίλυτρον
here is used with ὑπέρ (see Grammatical Analysis), as illustrated by the parallel
in the Epistle of Diognetus 9.2–5, where λύτρον ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν is similarly used with
ἀνταλλαγή in emphasizing the idea of substitution (Robertson, Grammar, 631).
Appearing here for the first time in Greek literature, ἀντίλυτρον is built on the
more familiar λύτρον, a word used only in Matt 20:28 and Mark 10:45 in the nt
in reference to the atoning significance of Jesus’s death. The λυτρ-word group
appears often in the Lukan corpus (λυτρόω: Luke 24:21; λύτρωσις: Luke 1:68; 2:38;
λυτρωτής: Acts 7:35) and nowhere else in the earlier Pauline writings (cf. λυτρόω,
Titus 2:14), which makes it possible that this word group is mediated through
Luke, who is himself aware of the Markan ransom saying (cf. Luke 22:27). In the
lxx, this word group is used in reference to God redeeming his people from
their servitude in Egypt (Exod 6:6; 16:13), and it is used primarily in the sense of
2:1–7 149

the “price of deliverance (of a slave or prisoner)” (Spicq, tlnt 2.426; see, in par-
ticular, Exod 21:30). In the nt, however, the related ἀπολύτρωσις is often used in
Paul with a view to the new life gained through the payment of ransom (Rom
8:23; 1Cor 1:30; Eph 1:7, 14; 4:30; Col 1:14; cf. Luke 21:28). In the present context
within 1Tim 2:1–7, ἀντίλυτρον denotes not only the costly death of Christ, but
also the lowly status of all humanity who are to be redeemed, including those
of “kings” and “all who are in authority” (v. 2).
τὸ μαρτύριον is best taken as a reference to the redemptive work of Christ
rather than “der apostlischen Verkündigung” (Roloff, 123), thus consistent with
the distinct use of the word group in the lxx where “Yahweh Himself is the
subject of the μαρτυρεῖν contained in the μαρτύριον” since he himself is the sub-
ject of the revelation given to Israel (Strathmann, tdnt 4:486; cf. Exod 25:22).
The redemptive work of the one mediator can itself be the content of the tes-
timony. This line of thought may parallel that of Rom 3:24–26, where Christ’s
redemptive death provides a public demonstration of God’s righteousness as
“God publicly displayed him at his death … to demonstrate his righteousness
…, and this was also to demonstrate his righteousness in the present time”
(Couser 2004: 301). Following the lxx where this testimony is itself God’s self-
revelation (Lev 16:13; lsj 1082), however, the act of revelation takes precedence
over the need for a public demonstration as τὸ μαρτύριον is Christ himself who
is “revealed in the flesh, was vindicated in the realm of the spirit” (1 Tim 3:16).
When τὸ μαρτύριον is understood as a reference to Christ’s redemptive death,
καιροῖς ἰδίοις should be limited to the Christ event and not an umbrella term
that includes the subsequent proclamation of Christ’s death (contra Balge 2001:
292). God’s public revelation of the testimony of Christ Jesus at “the proper
time” (v. 6) and the subsequent call for Paul to proclaim it (v. 7) is also found
in Titus 1:3. This is also consistent with Paul’s message in Romans, where the
public testimony of Jesus’s atoning death (Rom 3:25) is revealed at the proper
time (Rom 5:6; cf. Gal 4:4–5).

▪ 7 Paul expands his self-identification as ἀπόστολος in 1:1 to κῆρυξ καὶ ἀπό-

στολος …, διδάσκαλος here (cf. κῆρυξ καὶ ἀπόστολος καὶ διδάσκαλος, 2 Tim 1:11),
with the additions of both κῆρυξ and διδάσκαλος due to clear contextual fac-
tors. κῆρυξ draws attention to God the Savior and Christ the mediator whom
Paul represents, while διδάσκαλος points to the audience of his proclamation
(i.e., ἐθνῶν).
In Paul’s writings, κῆρυξ appears only here and in 2 Tim 1:11 (cf. 2 Pet 2:5)
though the verb often appears in relation to teaching (Rom 2:21; cf. Acts 28:31)
and the general proclamation of the gospel (Rom 10:14–15; 1 Cor 1:23; 2 Cor 11:4;
Phil 1:15; 1Thess 1:9). The general use of the verb should not, however, distract
150 1 timothy

from the distinct nuance of κῆρυξ, especially in this context. In a context where
the status of God the Savior and Christ the mediator is affirmed against com-
petitive claims from kings and other rulers (βασιλέων καὶ πάντων τῶν ἐν ὑπεροχῇ
ὄντων), this word takes on particular significance as it points to Paul as the her-
ald of the one who is truly in power. Since Homeric times κῆρυξ is often the term
applied to the official messenger in the royal court (cf. Il. 2.97; 3.268; 18.556;
Od. 8.256; 8.469; 16.335), and this usage survives especially in Classical and
Hellenistic Greek historians (Herodotus, Hist. 3.62.17; 3.63.1; 4.128.1; Xenophon,
Anab. 2.1.7; 2.1.9; Polybius 4.72.3; 16.27.2). Closer to the thought-world of Paul
is the lxx, where one finds a “herald” demanding the king’s command to be
heard (4Macc 6:3). But the clearest parallel that may have influenced Paul’s
formulation here is Dan 3:4–5, where an earthly Gentile king demanded to be
worshiped through the words of his herald: “And the herald heralded (ὁ κῆρυξ
ἐκήρυξε) to the crowds: ‘It is commanded to you, nations (ἔθνη) [of different]
lands, peoples [of different] languages …., you should fall down and worship
the golden image that King (βασιλεύς) Nebuchadnezzar had set up.’” Reading
in light of Daniel 3, what Paul asserts is that the one God and one mediator
should instead be the object of worship for all nations, and Paul himself is
the herald who is “appointed (ἐτέθην)” by God (cf. 1 Cor 12:28) to speak on his
behalf.
The oath formula ἀλήθειαν λέγω οὐ ψεύδομαι echoes Rom 9:1 though the dif-
ferences in the context have prompted some to see this as an inferior imita-
tion of Paul by a later writer (Roloff, 124; Mitchell 2008: 51–53). This, however,
ignores how variations of this formula are found in Paul in various contexts
(2Cor 11:31; Gal 1:20). In this case, Paul is consciously modifying this formula for
his own purposes, especially when he highlights the issue of truth (ἀλήθειαν; cf.
ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας, v. 4).
Paul’s self-identification as διδάσκαλος counters the false teachers who claim
to be νομοδιδάσκαλος (v. 7; cf. 2Tim 4:3). As κῆρυξ draws attention to the author-
ity figure Paul represents, διδάσκαλος now points to his audience who is to
submit to God the Savior. In view of the possible influence of Dan 3:4–5, ἐθνῶν
(cf. 3:16; 2Tim 4:17) can refer to “nations” (Kelly, 64), but in light of the earlier
references to teachers of the law (v. 7) and the Jewish law (vv. 8–9), a more spe-
cific application to the Gentiles is possible (cf. Rom 11:13). ἐν πίστει καὶ ἀληθείᾳ
provides further contrast to the false teachers who are behaving as Paul once
did (ἀγνοῶν ἐποίησα ἐν ἀπιστίᾳ, 1:13). Both πίστις (cf. 1:2) and ἀλήθεια (cf. 2:4)
are important word groups in this letter (cf. Ps 110[111]:7; Wis 3:9; Pss. Sol. 1.4).
For Paul, those who abandon the faith (cf. ἀποστήσονταί τινες τῆς πίστεως, 4:1)
are those who succumb to the hypocrisy of liars (cf. ὑποκρίσει ψευδολόγων,
4:2).
2:1–7 151

Bibliography
Balge, Richard D. “1Timothy 2:6—‘The Testimony Given in its Proper Time.’” Wisconsin
Lutheran Quarterly 98 (2001): 291–292.
Brown, Peter Dunstan. “The Use of Ransom Language in 1 Timothy 2:1–7 and Titus 2:11–
14.” Ph.D. diss., Catholic University of America, 2014.
Couser, Greg A. “‘Prayer’ and the Public Square: 1Timothy 2:1–7 and Christian Political
Engagement.” In New Testament Theology in Light of the Church’s Mission. Ed. Jon
C. Laansma et al., 277–294. Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2011.
Couser, Greg A. “‘The Testimony about the Lord,’ ‘Borne by the Lord,’ or Both?” TynBul
55 (2004): 295–316.
D’Angelo, Mary R. “Εὐσέβεια: Roman Imperial Family Values and the Sexual Politics of
4Maccabees and the Pastorals.” BibInt 11 (2003): 139–165.
Edwards, J. Christopher. “Reading the Ransom Logion in 1 Tim 2,6 and Titus 2,14 with
Isa 42,6–7; 49,6–8.” Bib 90 (2009): 264–266.
Gill, Malcolm. Jesus as Mediator: Politics and Polemic in 1 Timothy 2:1–7. Bern: Peter Lang,
2008.
Hoklotubbe, T. Christopher. “The Rhetoric of Pietas: The Pastoral Epistles and Claims
to Piety in the Roman Empire.” Th.D. diss., Harvard Divinity School, 2015.
Hooker, Morna. Jesus and the Servant: The Influence of the Servant Concept of Deutero-
Isaiah in the New Testament. London: spck, 1959.
Horsley, G.H.R. “Holy Days in Honour of Artemis.” NewDocs 4 (1987): 74–82.
Horsley, G.H.R. “The Inscriptions of Ephesos and the New Testament.” NovT 34 (1992):
105–168.
Immendörfer, Michael. Ephesians and Artemis. wunt 2.436. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2017.
Jeremias, Joachim. “Das Lösegeld für Viele (Mk. 10,45).” Judaica 3 (1947–1948): 249–264.
Kamlah, Ehrhard. Die Form der katalogischen Paränese im Neuen Testament. wunt 7.
Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1964.
Kim, Seyoon. “The ‘Son of Man’” as the Son of God. wunt 30. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
1983.
Lendon, J.E. Empire of Honour: The Art of Government in the Roman World. Oxford:
Clarendon, 1997.
Malherbe, Abraham J. “‘Christ Jesus Came into the World to Save Sinners’: Soteriology
in the Pastoral Epistles.” In Salvation in the New Testament. Ed. Jan G. van der Watt,
331–358. NovTSup 121. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2005.
Mitchell, Margaret M. “Corrective Composition, Corrective Exegesis: The Teaching on
Prayer in 1Tim 2,1–15.” In 1Timothy Reconsidered, 41–62. Ed. Karl Paul Donfried. Col-
loquium Oecumenicum Paulinum 18. Leuven: Peeters, 2008.
Oprisko, Robert L. Honor: A Phenomenology. New York/London: Routledge, 2012.
Price, S.R.F. Rituals and Power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984.
152 1 timothy

Rogers, Guy MacLean. The Mysteries of Artemis of Ephesos. New Haven: Yale University
Press, 2012.
Schermann, Theodor. “Εὐχαριστία und Εὐχαριστεῖν in ihrem Bedeutungswandel bis 200
n. Chr.” Philologus 69 (1910): 375–410.
Thomas, Christine M. “At Home in the City of Artemis.” In Ephesos: Metropolis of Asia.
Ed. Helmut Koester, 81–117. Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1995.
Von Lips, Hermann. Glaube, Gemeinde, Amt: Zum Verständnis der Ordination in den
Pastoralbriefen. frlnt 122. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979.
Wall, Robert W. “Empire, Church, and Missio Dei: On Praying for Our Kings (1 Timothy
2:1–2).” Wesleyan Theological Journal 47 (2012): 7–24.
Witetchekm, Stephan. Ephesische Enthüllungen 1: Frühe Christen in einer antiken Großs-
tadt zugleich ein Beitrag zur Frage nach den Kontexten der Johannesapokalypse.
bts 6. Leuven: Peeters, 2008.

5 Theological Analysis
In this section, which opens with a call to prayer, the relationship between God,
Christ, Paul, ruling authorities, and all humanity are defined by their relative
status within this web of relationship.
God is not simply defined by his title “Savior” (v. 3; cf. 1:1), but he is also the
“one” Savior to whom all prayers are to be directed, including prayers for kings
and ruling authorities and for all people (vv. 1–2). While “kings” are reduced to
the level of “all people,” God is recognized to be the Savior of “all” (vv. 1 [2×],
2[2×], 4, 6). It is within this framework that the question of universalism can
be addressed. The note that God “desires all people to be saved” (v. 4) has been
at the center of the debate on Paul’s understanding of the scope of salvation
in the early church (Teske 2014: 14–34). However, it is doubtful that this verse
alone is able to clarify Paul’s position since, here, soteriology is in the service
of theology, and it is not the scope of salvation but the identity of the one who
is willing to save “all” that is in view. When universalism is an important part
of Roman imperialism as illustrated by imperial cult structures in Asia Minor
(see, for example, the imperial propaganda in the Sebasteion in Aphrodisias;
Smith 1988: 50–77), Paul’s assertion concerning God’s desire is to be understood
as a theological statement rather than a soteriological one. The note on the
efficacy of Christ’s ransom “for all” (v. 6) should be understood likewise as a
christological one since the premise of Paul’s argument in this letter rests on
the need for the gospel to be spread (v. 7) and properly received (3:16; cf. Punt
1980: 46).
As God is the one Savior, the unique role and status of Christ is also depicted
by the label “one mediator.” Against its Roman background where the Roman
emperor takes on a priestly role (pontifex maximus), Christ Jesus the media-
2:1–7 153

tor fulfills his role not by military might but by his redemptive death on the
cross. Against its Jewish background, ἄνθρωπος Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς distinguishes
Jesus from the Torah and angelic mediators. In the context of this creedal state-
ment, however, this phrase also provides the link to the second part of the
statement where humanity (ὑπὲρ πάντων, v. 6) is identified as the beneficiary
of Christ’s death. This is consistent with Paul’s earlier writings where Christ’s
humanity allows him to go through his redemptive death (Rom 8:3–4; Gal 4:4–
5; Phil 2:7–8), and some would further see this ἄνθρωπος language as evoking
the new Adam Christology (Cullmann 1959: 144–145; Lau, 82). Though media-
tion rather than representation seems to be the focus, the foundation of this
christology lies in Christ’s incarnation (Belleville 2013: 233).
Equally important is the ransom terminology here. While the entire ransom
theology cannot be read into this one term, it does provide a significant link
from Jesus’s saying in Mark 10:45 to the full-blown ransom theology developed
later. Other than the cost of redemption, the further idea of release from slavery
(cf. 1Cor 7:22–23; Gal 3:13) may also be detected here (for ransom in Paul, see
Grogan 2008: 88–91). If so, this is a challenge to the Jewish teachers of the law
(νομοδιδάσκαλοι, 1:7) who insist on a particular observance of the law (cf. 1:9) as
well as to the “kings and … all who are in authority” (2:2) who consider them-
selves as the masters of all.
With the affirmation of the unique status God the Savior and Christ Jesus
the mediator, the apostle Paul becomes the “herald” (κῆρυξ, v. 7) who speaks on
behalf of “the King of eternity” (1:17). Though κῆρυξ does not appear in Paul’s
earlier writings, this is consistent with Paul’s portrayal of his responsibility as a
herald elsewhere, in which the verbal form κηρύσσω is used for the proclama-
tion of the gospel of “Jesus Christ as Lord” (Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν κύριον, 2 Cor 4:5) and
his own status as its “servant” (διάκονος, Col 1:23).
Corresponding to Paul’s recognition of his own status in the presence of the
eternal King is the relativization of the power of “kings” and “all who are in
authority” (v. 2); they are no different than “all people” (v. 1) who are at the
mercy of Christ’s ransom death (v. 6). It is in this sense that Paul becomes
“a teacher of the Gentiles (ἐθνῶν)” (v. 7), not for the sake of making progress
in their moral education, but to proclaim the sovereignty of the Lord over all
nations.
As the Isaianic Servant Songs provide the background for the ransom say-
ing, they also explain the work of the Servant’s mediation for all peoples: “I
make you a covenant mediator for a people, and a light to the nations (ἐθνῶν)”
(Isa 42:6; “Covenant mediator” (net) is an appropriate translation for δια-
θήκη/‫ְבּ ִרית‬, especially in light of the covenant background for the lexeme μεσί-
της that became important in the Hellenistic period; cf. Spicq, tlnt 2:468).
154 1 timothy

These “nations” that were nothing before God (Isa 40:17) have now become the
beneficiaries of his redemptive acts. No longer benefactors, they have become
clients who are to surrender to this one Lord of all.

Bibliography
Belleville, Linda L. “Christology, Greco-Roman Religious Piety, and the Pseudonymity of
the Pastoral Letters.” In Paul and Pseudepigraphy. Ed. Stanley E. Porter and Gregory
P. Fewster, 221–243. Pauline Studies 8. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2013.
Cullmann, Oscar. The Christology of the New Testament. Rev. ed. Trans. S.C. Guthrie and
C.A.M. Hall. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1959.
Punt, Neal. Unconditional Good News: Toward an Understanding of Biblical Universal-
ism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980.
Smith, R.R.R. “Simulacra Gentium: The Ethne from the Sebasteion at Aphrodisias.” jrs
78 (1988): 50–77.
Teske, Roland. “1Timothy 2:4 and the Beginnings of the Massalian Controversy.” In
Grace for Grace: The Debates after Augustine and Pelagius. Ed. Alexander Y. Hwang
et al., 14–34. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2014.
Grogan, Geoffrey. “The Atonement in the New Testament.” In The Atonement Debate.
Ed. Derek Tidball et al., 83–95. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008.

B Men and Women Believers in the Presence of God (2:8–15)

1 Translation
8 Therefore, I desire that the men should pray in every place, lifting up their
hands in holiness, without anger or dispute. 9 Likewise I desire that the women
should dress in appropriate clothing, with modesty and self-control, not
adorned with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, 10 but with
good works, as is appropriate for women who profess reverence for God. 11 Let
a woman learn in quietness and in full submission to God.11 12 I do not permit
a woman to teach in a way that assumes dominance12 over a man; she must
remain in quietness. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was
not deceived, but the woman became a sinner when she was deceived. 15 But
women13 will be delivered through childbearing, if they continue in faith and
love and holiness with self-control.

11 “To God” or “to the gospel” (rather than “to man”) is implied.
12 This is to consider “to teach” and “to assume dominance” as related but not separate acts.
13 This is to take the typological Eve who represents all women as the subject of the third-
person singular σωθήσεται.
2:8–15 155

2 Text-Critical Analysis
▪ 8 διαλογισμοῦ: The plural (διαλογισμῶν) appears in ‫א‬2 F G H 1739 sy al and is
adopted by Westcott and Hort. Elliott (39) also prefers the plural since this form
is more common in the nt with reference to “evil intentions” (e.g., Matt 15:19;
Luke 24:38; Rom 12:21), but this may be the reason that prompted a scribe to
change the original singular into plural. Moreover, the singular reading is sup-
ported by the best of the Alexandrian uncials (‫ *א‬A) as well as by other Western
(D lat) and Byzantine (K L P 𝔐) texts and is rightly adopted by Tischendorf and
Kilpatrick.

▪ 9 [καὶ] γυναῖκας: The Alexandrian witnesses (‫ *א‬A, also H P 33 81 1175) pro-

vide the shortest reading without the καί, while the predominantly Western
witnesses (‫א‬2 D* F G 6 365 1739) include this conjunction, and the majority
of the Byzantine witnesses (D1 K L Ψ 𝔐) also include the article (καὶ τάς).
Not only does the shortest reading (cf. Westcott-Hort) have the strongest exter-
nal support, but it also best explains the origin of the other two readings: the
inclusion of the conjunction (cf. Tischendorf) after ὡσαύτως may have been
influenced by the same construction in 5:25 (though its omission can also be
explained by Atticistic influence; cf. Elliott, 208), and the inclusion of the arti-
cle (cf. Kilpatrick, 637) may have been influenced by the parallel of τοὺς ἄνδρας
in v. 8.

▪ 9 κοσμίῳ: A number of mainly Western witnesses (‫א‬2 D* F G H 33 365 1739

1881) have the adverb κοσμίως instead, probably due to confusion regarding the
preceding word καταστολῇ which in classical Greek means “decorum” rather
than “clothing,” in which case the adverb is more appropriate here: “fittingly
and with decorum” (Elliott, 40; Marshall, 443). It is also possible that this adverb
is encouraged by the following prepositional phrase (μετὰ αἰδοῦς), which can
also carry the meaning of “fittingly,” thus creating a possible “doublet” (Moore,
Doublets, 54).

▪ 9 πλέγμασιν καί: Outside the Alexandrian tradition, most witnesses (D2 H K L

Ψ 81 104 365 𝔐 lat syh al) have ἤ instead of καί, likely secondary as an attempt
to align with the following two occurrences of ἤ.

▪ 9 χρυσίῳ: This diminutive form is replaced by χρυσῷ in some of the best manu-
scripts across the textual traditions (‫ א‬D K L Ψ 365 630 1241 𝔐) and is accepted
by Tischendorf (and in the margin of Westcott-Hort). Nevertheless, it is easier
to explain the change from χρυσίῳ because of the general scribal dislike of the
diminutive (Elliott, 41) and the use of χρυσός elsewhere in Paul (1 Cor 3:12).
156 1 timothy

▪ 13 πρῶτος ἐπλάσθη: the order is inverted in mainly Western witnesses (F G lat

cop syp). In 1Timothy, πρῶτος can come before (1:15, 16; 5:12) or after (3:10; 5:4)
the verb, but in this case the external witnesses favor πρῶτος ἐπλάσθη.

▪ 14 ἐξαπατηθεῖσα: Some consider the omission of the prefix ἐξ- in ‫א‬2 D1 K L 630
1241 1505 𝔐 the result of a tendency to shorten compound verbs (Elliott, 44),
but a similar change is absent in the other occurrences of ἐξαπατάω in the nt
(Rom 7:11; 16:18; 1Cor 3:18; 2Cor 11:3; 2Thess 2:3). This change is more likely due
to the influence of the use of ἠπατήθη in the first half of this verse (Bernard, 37),
which, in turn, is dependent on Gen 3:13 (lxx).

Bibliography
Zamfir, Korinna, and Joseph Verheyden. “Text-Critical and Intertextual Remarks on
1Tim 2.8–10.” NovT 50 (2008): 376–406.

3 Grammatical Analysis
The boundary of this unit is clearly marked by βούλομαι οὖν, which echoes παρα-
καλῶ οὖν (2:1) at the beginning of the previous unit. The ties with the previous
unit are maintained by a number of word groups (προσευχή [v. 2]/προσεύχο-
μαι [v. 8], ἡσύχιος [v. 2]/ἡσυχία [vv. 11, 12], εὐσέβεια [v. 2]/θεοσέβεια [v. 10], σωτήρ
[v. 4]/ σῴζω [vv. 4, 15], διδάσκαλος [v. 7]/διδάσκω [v. 12]), but distinct develop-
ment is clearly present in vv. 8–15. First, the general concern for the posture
of human beings in the presence of the sovereign God, well reflected in the
repeated uses of πάντες ἄνθρωποι (vv. 1, 4; cf. πάντων, v. 6), is replaced by specific
discussions on the roles of men (ἀνήρ, vv. 8, 12) and women (γυνή, vv. 9, 10, 11,
12, 14).
Moreover, unlike the previous unit constructed with a relatively more com-
plex clausal structure with the inclusion of a number of dependent clauses (ἵνα,
v. 2; ὅς, v. 4; εἰς ὅ, v. 7), this section is staccatoed by a series of independent
clauses that concludes with the protasis of a conditional sentence. This sim-
pler structure leads to the first appearance of the imperative (μανθανέτω, v. 11)
in this letter as well as the use of οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω (v. 12).
While the gendered discussion and the sense of urgency provide cohesion
to this entire unit, two embedded breaks should also be noted. The first break
is between v. 8 and vv. 9–15, with the first independent clause focusing on men
(v. 8), and the remaining clauses focusing on women (vv. 9–15).
The second break between vv. 8–10 and vv. 11–15 is more clearly marked by
syntactical differences. Vv. 8 and 9–10 are connected by the adverb ὡσαύτως,
and both independent clauses are governed by the first-person indicative βού-
λομαι followed by relatively more developed complements. But the shift in v. 11
2:8–15 157

is marked by an asyndetic clause with the use of the third-person imperative

μανθανέτω followed by significantly shorter complements. References to ἀνήρ
and γυνή are plural in vv. 8–10 but singular in vv. 11–15 (with the possible excep-
tion in μείνωσιν of v. 15).
The difference in subject matter is also noticeable, with vv. 8–10 focusing on
the external appearance and behavior of men and women and vv. 11–15 focus-
ing on women and teaching. Moreover, vv. 11–15 appear to be a self-contained
unit with the basic principle presented in vv. 11–12 utilizing a series of present
tense verbs (μανθανέτω, διδάσκειν, ἐπιτρέπω, αὐθεντεῖν, εἶναι) and the repeated
use of the phrase ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ that frames these two verses (vv. 11a, 12b). This basic
principle is then supported by the scriptural grounds introduced by γάρ and a
number of aorist (ἐπλάσθη, ἠπατήθη, ἐξαπατηθεῖσα, vv. 13–14a) and perfect (γέγο-
νεν, v. 14b) verbs, with the conclusion presented in a conditional sentence with
the predicate of the main clause in future tense (σωθήσεται, v. 15).
To identify the focus of this entire unit, four questions need to be answered:
(1) Why is the weight disproportionately placed on the treatment of women
(vv. 9–15)? (2) Why is there a two-part structure (vv. 8–10, 11–15) to this unit? (3)
Why is there such an urgency in this unit? (4) What is the connection between
this unit and the previous one (vv. 1–7)?
While an examination of the historical context of first-century Ephesus
may contribute to answering some of these questions, textual evidence found
within this letter takes priority. Two passages will shed light on the importance
and function of this unit, with the first noted already by some (Fee 1990: 12–13):

1 Tim 2:9–15 1Tim 5:3–16

2:9 dress in modesty 5:6 warning against pleasure

2:10 good works (ἔργων ἀγαθῶν) 5:10 good works (ἔργῳ ἀγαθῷ)
2:10 proper for women who proclaim 5:7 beyond reproach
reverence for God
2:12 woman not to teach 5:13 talking about things she should
not
2:13 woman deceived (by Satan) 5:15 turned and followed Satan
2:15 bearing children (τῆς τεκνογονία) 5:14 bearing children (τεκνογονεῖν)
2:15 remain in faith (πίστει) 5:12 keeping the faith (τὴν … πίστιν)

Paul’s warning against women teaching in this present unit should be read in
light of Paul’s subsequent teachings for the widows. Though it is not explicitly
158 1 timothy

stated in 2:8–15 that women were spreading false teachings, its parallel with
5:3–16 and the link between women and false teachings in 4:7 would at least
make this a viable reading.
What is absent in 5:3–16 is the more detailed warnings against wealth in
vv. 9–10. This focus on wealth goes beyond mere indulgence, and it is this focus
that leads one to look beyond 5:3–16 in the search for a conceptual parallel.
Moreover, the connection between 2:1–7 and 2:8–15 still needs to be addressed,
especially when the theocentric affirmation of God as the one and only Savior
is considered the focus of the previous unit. An almost exclusive focus on gen-
der roles in 2:8–15 has led many to miss another significant parallel to 2:8–15 (or
the wider discussion in 2:1–15), one that would address the remaining questions
noted above: the teaching on wealth in 6:2b–19.

1 Tim 2:1–15 1Tim 6:2b–19

2:1 to exhort (παρακαλῶ) 6:2 to exhort (παρακάλει)

2:2, 10 godliness (εὐσεβείᾳ), worship 6:3, 5, 6, 11 godliness (εὐσέβειαν)
of God (θεοσέβειαν)
2:3 in the presence of God (ἐνώπιον 6:13 in the presence of God (ἐνώπιον
τοῦ … θεοῦ) τοῦ θεοῦ)
2:4, 15 salvation 6:12, 19 to take hold of (eternal) life
2:4, 7 truth (ἀληθείας, ἀλήθειαν, ἀλη- 6:5 truth (τῆς ἀληθείας)
θείᾳ)
2:5–6 confessional statement on the 6:15–16 confessional statement on the
work of God through Christ in “the work of God through Christ in “the
proper time” (καιροῖς ἰδίοις) proper time” (καιροῖς ἰδίοις)
2:6 testimony (τὸ μαρτύριον) 6:12 witnesses (μαρτύρων)
2:7, 12 teacher (διδάσκαλος) and to 6:2, 3 to teach (δίδασκε), to teach
teach (διδάσκειν) other/false teachings (ἑτεροδιδασκα-
λεῖ), teaching (διδασκαλίᾳ)
2:8 anger 6:4–5 envy, dissension, slanders, evil
suspicion, discord
2:8 verbal dispute (διαλογισμοῦ) 6:4 verbal disputes (λογομαχίας)
2:9 gold, pearls, expensive adornment 6:9, 17 to be wealthy (πλουτεῖν), the
rich (τοῖς πλουσίοις), wealth (πλού-
του), richly (πλουσίως)
2:10 good work (ἔργων ἀγαθῶν) 6:18 to do good work (ἀγαθοεργεῖν),
good work (ἔργοις καλοῖς)
2:8–15 159

(cont.)

1 Tim 2:1–15 1Tim 6:2b–19

2:14 to be deceived (ἠπατήθη, ἐξαπα- 6:10 to be deceived/led astray (ἀπε-

τηθεῖσα) πλανήθησαν)
2:15 faith (πίστει) 6:10, 11, 12 faith (τῆς πίστεως, πίστιν)
2:15 love (ἀγάπῃ) 6:11 love (ἀγάπην)

Beyond the linguistic parallels between these passages is the presence of the
confessional statements at the center of both that affirm God as the sole bene-
factor and relativize all claims to wealth, status, and authority. The focus on
God as the benefactor of all humanity through his Son provides an explana-
tion of the presence of the central passage (6:11–16) that separates the two
sections on wealth (6:2b–10, 17–19) since it is this central passage that pro-
vides the theological groundwork of Paul’s critique of the misuse of wealth.
Similarly, the confessional statement in 2:5–6 provides the theological back-
ing for the wider concerns of both units, with the first (2:1–8) focusing on God
as the Savior of all humanity, and the second (2:9–15) focusing on the need
for false (women) teachers to submit to the authority (of God/Christ). The
link between the competition to be honored as benefactors and false teach-
ing is reflected in the repeated notes on teaching in both passages (2:7, 12; 6:2,
3).
Reading in light of both 5:3–16 and 6:2b–19, four questions raised earlier
can now be tentatively addressed: (1) the weight of this unit (2:8–15) is dispro-
portionately placed on women (vv. 9–15) because of the connection between
some women and the false teachings that are propagated (5:13; contra those
who resort to source-critical solutions, cf. Zamfir and Verheyden 2008: 383–
385); (2) the two-part structure (vv. 8–10, 11–15) can only be appreciated when
both women and wealth are connected with false teachings as noted in the sec-
tions that follow (contra those who limit concerns for adornment to the setting
of public worship, cf. Dibelius and Conzelmann, 45); (3) the urgency of this
unit assumes the presence of false teachings/teachers that are made explicit
in the subsequent passages (contra those who exclude this passage from the
wider concerns of false teachings; cf. Schreiner 2001); and (4) the connection
with the previous unit is established when the centrality of the confessional
statement that affirms God to be the only savior and benefactor is recognized
(contra those who see traditional material as mere interruptions in this collec-
tion of teachings, cf. Miller, 69, 92–93).
160 1 timothy

Having answered the four questions raised earlier, the central theme of this
unit can now be discussed, especially as it relates to gender roles. For some,
the note on prayer at the beginning of this unit (v. 8), one that links it with
the previous one (v. 1), points to public prayer as its controlling theme (Quinn
and Wacker, 207). Beyond the beginning verse, however, prayer seems to fade
from the center of attention. Others, therefore, argue for a wider setting of pub-
lic worship since some of the concerns raised appear to reflect disruptions in
such a setting (e.g., Mounce, 105). Those who focus on the dissension and strife
among men (v. 8) and the note on the importance of deeds among women
(v. 10) would argue for a more general ethical reading of the passage, especially
in its cultural milieu (Judge 1992: 18–23).
While the role these three themes play in this passage cannot be denied, sev-
eral other elements cannot be entirely accounted for within these frameworks:
emphasis on wealth and adornment (v. 9), focus on good works (v. 10), prohi-
bition of certain forms of teaching (v. 12), and the issue of authority and power
(v. 12). Reading in light of 5:3–16 and 6:2b–19, the issue of powerful wealthy
women benefactors who promote a teaching that challenges the final authority
of God the benefactor may lie at the center of the individual concerns within
this unit. This would explain the shift from clothing as a status symbol (vv. 9–10)
to the question of submission (vv. 11–15; cf. Roloff, 127–128); acts of benefaction
likewise shift from material gifts to the “good works” (v. 10) of faithful living
(v. 15), a logical move that resembles that of 5:10 and 6:18. This reading fits with
the wider focus on wealth, power, and status in this letter (Tamez 2007), and it
is also consistent with the understanding of the significant influence of wealthy
women benefactors in the cultic (Nelson 2007) and social contexts of the mid-
to late first-century Greek East (Trebilco, 512–513). More importantly, the teach-
ings promoted by these assertive benefactors demand to be corrected by the
strong affirmation contained in the confessional statement of 2:5–6, as is the
case of 6:15–16 as well.

▪ 8 Βούλομαι οὖν προσεύχεσθαι τοὺς ἄνδρας ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ. Besides being a marker
of distinctive development (cf. v. 1), an inferential function of οὖν cannot be
excluded: (1) since there is only one God and one mediator, men everywhere
(ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ) have to submit to this God and mediator in a proper manner;
and (2) since Paul is appointed to participate in this salvation plan of God, he
has the authority to express his will (βούλομαι) that is to be followed.
The imperatival force of βούλομαι can be derived from its preceding con-
text (vv. 5–7) with similar usages elsewhere in the pe (5:14; Titus 3:8). βούλομαι
here grammaticalizes imperfective aspect as this verb often does (Porter, Verbal
Aspect, 489), and this is retained with the use of the present infinitive προσεύ-
2:8–15 161

χεσθαι. τοὺς ἄνδρας has been taken as referring to “husbands” rather than “men”
(see, in particular, Hugenberger 1992: 350–354) because the example of Adam
and Eve is considered to deal with the marital relationship and because the
pair ἀνήρ and γυνή often appears in marital contexts. Nevertheless, the focus
on Adam and Eve in vv. 13–14 is not on their marital relationship but on their
role as primordial male and female. Moreover, within the form of the Hellenis-
tic Haustafel, the pair ἀνήρ and γυνή that may otherwise refer to “husbands”
and “wives” take on additional significance when wider ecclesiological and cul-
tic issues are addressed. With references to cultic practices (v. 8) and acts of
(public) benefaction (v. 10), this passage should not be limited to a narrower
domestic context. Not only does προσεύχεσθαι point to a cultic act, but the
phrase ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ (instead of πανταχοῦ) may also carry the same cultic sig-
nificance (see Historical Analysis).

▪ ἐπαίροντας ὁσίους χεῖρας χωρὶς ὀργῆς καὶ διαλογισμοῦ. The present partici-
ple ἐπαίροντας depicts an action contemporaneous with the present infinitive
προσεύχεσθαι that it modifies. Though most commentators have assumed that
the adjective ὁσίους modifies the feminine χεῖρας when ὁσίους is taken as a
two-termination adjective capable of modifying a feminine noun (Abel, Gram-
maire, §8c), grammarians have long noted the possibility of ὁσίους modifying
the masculine participle ἐπαίροντας instead (Winer, Grammar, 80). Porter (2015:
339–346) has provided two further arguments in support of the latter read-
ing. First, in secular literature before and after the nt, the feminine form ὅσια
(instead of the masculine ὅσιος) is always used with χείρ (see, for example,
Heliodorus, Frag. 4171.6; Galen, Ant. 14.145). Second, in context the focus is on
the quality of the act rather than on the quality of the part of the body. If
so, ἐπαίροντας ὁσίους should be translated as “lifting up [their hands] in holi-
ness.”
The difference between this and the majority reading may not be as sig-
nificant since many commentators who consider ὁσίους χεῖρας as a two-word
complement consider χεῖρας a synecdoche, where a part is meant to repre-
sent the whole; therefore, “raising [their] holy hands” essentially means “raising
[their] hands while living in holiness” (cf. Spicq, 1.373). Nevertheless, to read
ὁσίους adverbially (as supported by extra-canonical uses) does draw attention
to the quality of the act itself; therefore, ἐπαίροντας … χεῖρας would provide the
context (in prayer) where the quality (i.e., “holy”) of the act is emphasized.
Further support for an adverbial reading of ὁσίους can be found in another
adverbial phrase that follows: χωρὶς ὀργῆς καὶ διαλογισμοῦ. Reading ὁσίους as
an adverb would further underline its contrast to ὀργῆς καὶ διαλογισμοῦ, where
χωρὶς ὀργῆς καὶ διαλογισμοῦ becomes an elaboration of what it means to be ὁσί-
162 1 timothy

ους. διαλογισμοῦ has been taken to refer specifically to the disagreement with
the apostolic teachings (Krause, 58), but taken with ὀργῆς it is best to consider
the phrase as referring to disruptive behavior in general, in which verbal dis-
pute is one of its expressions, a usage comparable to the use of λογομαχίας in
6:4. It is also the disruptive behavior that lies at the center of Paul’s teaching
concerning the behavior of women in vv. 11–15.

▪ 9 Ὡσαύτως [καὶ] γυναῖκας ἐν καταστολῇ κοσμίῳ μετὰ αἰδοῦς καὶ σωφροσύνης

κοσμεῖν ἑαυτάς, μὴ ἐν πλέγμασιν καὶ χρυσίῳ ἢ μαργαρίταις ἢ ἱματισμῷ πολυτελεῖ.
The identification of the issue behind vv. 9–10 should begin with noting the
structure of these clauses:

General Affirmation: Ὡσαύτως [καὶ] γυναῖκας ἐν καταστολῇ κοσμίῳ μετὰ

αἰδοῦς καὶ σωφροσύνης κοσμεῖν ἑαυτάς

Negative Clarification: μὴ ἐν πλέγμασιν καὶ χρυσίῳ ἢ μαργαρίταις ἢ ἱματι-

σμῷ πολυτελεῖ

Positive Clarification: ἀλλ’ ὃ πρέπει γυναιξὶν ἐπαγγελλομέναις θεοσέβειαν,

δι’ ἔργων ἀγαθῶν

Those who consider women’s adornment the main focus of this subsection
(Hanson, 71) build their case on one definition of καταστολή as “something
to cover the body,” while others who consider the behavior of women the
main focus build on another definition: “the character one exhibits in personal
deportment” (bdag 527). The second definition further allows for two different
foci: sexual modesty (Batten 2009) and the proper use of wealth (Tamez 2007).
The general concern for women’s adornment cannot fully account for the first
statement, where αἰδοῦς καὶ σωφροσύνης points beyond mere external clothing.
Moreover, this reading places undue weight on the negative clarification but is
inexplicable in the contrast presented in the ἀλλ-clause, where one would have
expected the listing of appropriate clothing instead. Sexual modesty cannot be
ruled out since αἰδώς and σωφροσύνη often carry sexual connotations, especially
when applied to women; but in the listing of inappropriate attire (πλέγμασιν καὶ
χρυσίῳ ἢ μαργαρίταις ἢ ἱματισμῷ πολυτελεῖ), it is one’s social status rather than
sexual expression that is in view (Wagener 1994: 86–88).
The adverb ὡσαύτως in an asyndetic structure often points to a change of
topic with a certain degree of continuity with the material that precedes (1 Tim
3:8; Titus 2:3, 6; Levinsohn, “Some Constraints,” 331). In this context, this change
of topic takes place within a particular template of household discussion as
2:8–15 163

Paul now moves to a different member of the male-female pair. A stronger con-
nection with v. 8 can, however, be detected when both are related to acts of
worship though not in a narrow cultic context: both prayers offered in holiness
and godly acts of benefaction honor the true benefactor of “all people” (2:1, 4).
In this reading, the implied verb in this clause should simply be βούλομαι
(Roloff, 125; Towner, 204) rather than βούλομαι … προσεύχεσθαι (Zamfir and
Verheyden 2008: 386) since v. 9 should not be limited to a prayer context. More-
over, in v. 10 (and even in v. 12), where βούλομαι is to be assumed, προσεύχεσθαι
appears to be out of place.
As in the case of τοὺς ἄνδρας in v. 8, some read γυναῖκας as “wives” instead of
“women,” especially in light of the apparent parallel in 1 Pet 3:1–7 (Hugenberger,
355–356). The relevance of 1Pet 3:1–7 is questionable, however, since the con-
trast presented there is between external appearance and inner beauty; here,
the critique centers on the misuse of one’s power and status that are built on
one’s wealth. Moreover, the parallel with 5:3–16 further points to the targets of
his teaching that would at least include the widows.

▪ 10 ἀλλ’ ὃ πρέπει γυναιξὶν ἐπαγγελλομέναις θεοσέβειαν, δι’ ἔργων ἀγαθῶν. ἀλλά is

used here as a mid-level marker of discontinuity, providing contrasts on the
level of word groups (rather than clauses). In contrast to that which is negated
(μὴ …, v. 9b), prominence is placed here on that which is positively affirmed.
Two ways of understanding the relationship between the relative and prepo-
sitional clauses are possible:

[Βούλομαι γυναῖκας κοσμεῖν ἑαυτάς]

δι’ ἔργων ἀγαθῶν
ὃ πρέπει γυναιξὶν ἐπαγγελλομέναις θεοσέβειαν

[Βούλομαι γυναῖκας κοσμεῖν ἑαυτάς]

[ἐν τούτῳ] ὃ πρέπει γυναιξὶν ἐπαγγελλομέναις θεοσέβειαν
δι’ ἔργων ἀγαθῶν

The second reading is adopted by a number of recent commentators (“but

rather with what is fitting for women who profess the worship of God: with
good works,” Dibelius and Conzelmann, 46; cf. Johnson, 200), but the first read-
ing is preferred (“but it comes through their excellent deeds—that suits women
who are professing real godliness,” Quinn and Wacker, 198; cf. Fiore, 64–65).
The second reading would require the additional insertion of ἐν τούτῳ or the
use of ἐν ῷ πρέπει instead of ὃ πρέπει (Winer, Grammar, 197); therefore, the first
reading that considers δι’ ἔργων ἀγαθῶν a parallel to the previous ἐν καταστολῇ
164 1 timothy

κοσμίῳ (Moule, Idiom, 57) is a simpler solution. The use of διά here may further
pave the way for διὰ τῆς τεκνογονίας in 2:15.
[ὃ] πρέπει is formulaic (Ps 92:5[93:5]; 1Macc 12:11; 3 Macc 3:25; 7:13, 19; Sir
33:29; Matt 3:15; 1Cor 11:13; Titus 2:1), where the present tense that grammatical-
izes imperfective aspect is expected. ἔργων ἀγαθῶν belongs to the vocabulary
of benefaction, but in the pe it points to good works that are of eternal value
(6:18–19) because they are done for the divine benefactor (cf. 2 Tim 2:21).

▪ 11 Γυνὴ ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ μανθανέτω ἐν πάσῃ ὑποταγῇ. A distinct break between vv. 9–

10 and vv. 11–15 cannot be denied, though the two are also intimately related as
they are both dealing with the same group (of women) that appears to demand
special attention from Paul. This connection is best illustrated in the structure
of vv. 11–12 that recalls that of vv. 9–10, as both begin with a general positive
statement followed by a negative clarification marked by a negative particle
(μή/οὐκ) and a positive clarification introduced by ἀλλά (see comments on v. 9):

General Affirmation: Γυνὴ ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ μανθανέτω ἐν πάσῃ ὑποταγῇ

Negative Clarification: διδάσκειν δὲ γυναικὶ οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω οὐδὲ αὐθεντεῖν

ἀνδρός

Positive Clarification: ἀλλ’ εἶναι ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ.

The parallel structure ties this section with the previous: a discussion on
women teaching cannot be separated from that on the power and status of
the wealthy women. In both sections, women are called to adopt a posture
of submission. Despite being inextricably linked with the previous subsection
(vv. 9–10), this verse is marked with prominence with (1) the shift to the singu-
lar γυνή in stating a general command, (2) the first appearance of an imperative
verb (μανθανέτω) in this letter, and (3) the use of πᾶς in the call to full obedience
(ἐν πάσῃ ὑποταγῇ).
As in v. 9, γυνή applies to women in general and not only “wives.” This sin-
gular noun is to be taken as an “anarthrous generic noun” (Wallace, Grammar,
254), though its parallel in the statement of v. 9, as well as its historical context
in first-century Ephesus, has to be considered before concluding that it is a uni-
versal general command. Even if this reference is to be limited to the “wives”
(Towner, 213), the principle would still apply in a public setting when their or
other “husbands” are present (Engel 1904–1905: 189–190).
ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ has been taken to mean “in silence” (Dibelius and Conzelmann, 47;
Moo 1981: 199), but most commentators understand it to mean “in quietness”
2:8–15 165

(cf. Spicq, 1.379; Towner, 214–215) with the support of several textual observa-
tions: (1) the concerns for quietness and order dominate this context (vv. 2, 8,
11, 12); (2) if complete silence is intended, σιγή (Acts 21:40; Rev 8:1)/ σιγάω (Luke
9:36; Acts 15:12, 13; Rom 16:25; 1Cor 14:34) would have been expected (Payne
2009: 315); (3) the parallel phrase that follows (ἐν πάσῃ ὑποταγῇ) also points
to quiet submission rather than to silence; (4) even if silence is required, it is
to be limited only to the time of their learning since ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ modifies only
μανθανέτω; and (5) the use of the verb μανθάνω in the closely related passage
concerning the widows (5:4, 16) emphasizes both orderliness and appropri-
ateness rather than silence. Further support for this reading can be found in
the use of the ἡσυχία word group in contemporaneous literature (see Historical
Analysis).
With μανθανέτω, one finds the first appearance of an imperative in this letter.
A present imperative that grammaticalizes imperfective aspect is appropriate
in the context of a general command, and the use of the third-person imper-
ative also places a heavy burden on the second-person (i.e., Timothy) to carry
out the command of the speaker (cf. Fantin, Greek Imperative, 269–270). The
second adjunct (ἐν πάσῃ ὑποταγῇ) that modifies this predicate provides further
definition to the first (ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ). The use of πᾶς in a prepositional anarthrous
phrase often carries an elative sense (Johnson 2004: 82), and in this case it
marks ὑποταγῇ with special prominence. The implied object of the verbal noun
ὑποταγῇ is God or his gospel rather than man since the (male) false teachers
were characterized as having the need to learn not to be unsubmissive to God
(cf. παιδευθῶσιν μὴ βλασφημεῖν; 1:20) and therefore serve as warnings to the oth-
ers (women). Even if these women are called to submit to Paul and Timothy,
these leaders do not represent “men” in general (Padgett 2011: 99), but the true
gospel that they represent (cf. 1:16, 18).

▪ 12 διδάσκειν δὲ γυναικὶ οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω οὐδὲ αὐθεντεῖν ἀνδρός, ἀλλ’ εἶναι ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ.
Three questions need to be raised here: (1) the function of δέ and the con-
nection between this clause with the previous one; (2) the force of the verb
ἐπιτρέπω; and (3) whether διδάσκειν and αὐθεντεῖν (connected by οὐδέ) refer
to similar or different acts. Reserved for Historical Analysis below is the exact
meaning of αὐθεντέω.
(1) Those who take δέ as pointing to a contrast see this negative command
(οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω) as a contrast to the previous positive call (μανθανέτω, v. 11), with
women being urged “to learn, but not to teach” (cf. Knight, 140). Nevertheless, δέ
should best be understood as a marker introducing another stage of the devel-
opment of the argument (Heckert, Discourse, 37); this is consistent with the
earlier uses of δέ in this letter (1:5, 8, 17). If so, what is presented here is an
166 1 timothy

extension and clarification of the phrase ἐν πάσῃ ὑποταγῇ in the previous clause
(Spicq, 1.379–380; Quinn and Wacker, 199).
(2) Attempts have been made to limit the force of the present indicative ἐπι-
τρέπω by focusing on its tense, mood, as well as its lexis. The present tense is
taken to refer to a specific instruction for a limited context (thus, “I am not
permitting,” Fee, 72) since “this verb tense [implies] a timely and specific per-
mission (or prohibition) is involved” (Witherington 1990: 193). The use of the
indicative rather than imperative mood is considered to carry a lesser force
(Perriman 1993:129–130), and the choice of this lexis is considered to be inten-
tional since it is suggested that it is often used for conditional commands, at
least in the lxx (Gen 39:6; Job 32:14; Wis 19:2; 1Macc 15:6; Toews 1983: 84).
These semantic (vs. pragmatic) considerations fail, however, to limit the
force of this verb. First, the tense itself does not limit the applicability of this
command. Although it does not necessarily emphasize a continuous action
(“I continually do not permit,” Blomberg, 2006: 315), the present tense that
grammaticalizes imperfective aspect is expected in general commands and
prohibitions. Second, the indicative mood is expected in commands or prohi-
bitions using ἐπιτρέπω, which is rightly identified as a “prohibitory emulation
statement” (Huffman, Verbal Aspect, 331: “I do not permit” is to be taken as “do
not permit”); furthermore, Paul’s apostolic authority as asserted in v. 7 stands
behind this indicative (cf. βούλομαι [v. 8]) as an authoritative command. Third,
although the verb ἐπιτρέπω itself can be used in conditional expressions of per-
sonal wish, it can also be used to express general and universal commands
even in the lxx (4Macc 5:26). Moreover, even if the affirmative use can be
of limited force, its negated use (οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω) does not allow for exceptions
in its intended context (Josephus, A.J. 2.295; Clement of Alexandria, Strom.
5.11.74). A contextual reading does not depend on downplaying the force of this
present indicative verb since the force of this verb may point to a situation that
demands such urgency.
(3) The two infinitives connected by the conjunction οὐδέ, διδάσκειν and
αὐθεντεῖν, can be understood as two separate acts that Paul prohibits; however,
commentators have now come to a consensus that the two acts are related
in some ways though the relationship between them remains disputed. Not-
ing Paul’s repeated use of “pairs of partly synonymous words or expressions
to make his main points” in this wider context (cf. δεήσεις προσευχὰς ἐντεύ-
ξεις εὐχαριστίας, v. 1; εὐσεβείᾳ καὶ σεμνότητι, v. 2b; καλὸν καὶ ἀπόδεκτον, v. 3;
ἀλήθειαν λέγω οὐ ψεύδομαι, v. 7; ὀργῆς καὶ διαλογισμοῦ, v. 8; αἰδοῦς καὶ σωφρο-
σύνης, v. 9), Blomberg argues that the two “are closely related” (2006: 317).
Providing further definition to this relation, Merz (288–295) concludes that
διδάσκειν is to be understood as a specific outworking of αὐθεντεῖν. Payne and
2:8–15 167

Köstenberger both accept this conclusion, though they strongly disagree on

exactly what this entails. Payne (2008: 235–253) begins his study by arguing
that the οὐκ + οὐδέ + ἀλλά structure in Paul (e.g., Rom 2:28–29; 1 Cor 2:6–7;
Gal 1:11–12; Phil 2:16–17) almost always conveys “a single idea,” and the more
specific οὐκ + finite verb + infinitive + οὐδέ + infinitive + ἀλλά + infinitive
structure in extra-canonical literature further confirms this conclusion (Poly-
bius 30.5.8; Josephus, A.J. 7.127). He further points to the earliest known com-
mentary on 1Tim 2:12 that treats διδάσκειν and αὐθεντεῖν as a single prohibi-
tion.
His proposal for a “single idea” has been taken as an argument for “hendi-
adys” and therefore considered unlikely since they are “separated by five words”
(Mounce, 128). This, however, is a misreading of Payne since instead of a “hen-
diadys,” he argues for a basic contrast in light of the οὐκ + οὐδέ + ἀλλά structure
where the two ideas connected by οὐδέ should be understood as a contrast to
that which is affirmed by the ἀλλά-clause.
A more substantial critique (of an earlier version of Payne’s argument)
comes from Köstenberger (2005: 53–84), who criticizes Payne’s contention
that this “single idea” is the “single specific prohibition of women assuming
authority [in an aggressive manner] to teach men” (Payne 2008: 248). This,
to Köstenberger, is to take a “positive” verb (διδάσκειν) with a “negative” one
(αὐθεντεῖν) in an infinitive + negated finite verb + οὐδέ + infinitive construc-
tion, an obvious deviation from the common pattern found in ancient Greek
literature, where two verbal entities connected by οὐδέ are either both pos-
itive or both negative. Since διδάσκειν is understood as a positive act in the
pe, αὐθεντεῖν should also be understood as exercising authority over men.
This conclusion is challenged by Payne, who listed a number of exceptions
(e.g., 2Cor 7:12; 2Thess 3:6–13; 2014: 27–31); though the general rule seems
to apply in most cases, the exegetical conclusions that are reached remain
unclear.
First, linguistically, to place a verb within a “positive vs. negative” binary rela-
tionship is untenable. Meaning does not reside primarily in a single word, but
in a discourse unit (i.e., paragraph) that provides a framework for the study of
individual words (Longacre 1979: 115–133).
Second, as Payne has pointed out in his response to Köstenberger, “when
οὐδέ conveys a single idea, its component elements are not separately positive
or negative” (Payne 2014: 26; cf. Gal 3:28).
Third, whether “teaching” can be understood as a “positive” act is itself
debated. In the pe, one often finds positive modifiers for the διδασκαλ-word
group when “positive” teaching is referred to (1:10; 2:7; 4:6; Titus 1:9; 2:1), whereas
in cases when such modifiers are absent, one has to rely on the context to arrive
168 1 timothy

at the conclusion that Paul is referring to an approved activity or content result-

ing from such an activity (1Tim 5:17; 6:1, 2). There are cases where the term
is used in an ambiguous way when positive or negative modifiers are absent
(1 Tim 4:16; Titus 2:7), and in 2Tim 4:3 the unmodified διδασκαλίας clearly refers
to false teachers. These examples point to the fact that teaching is not inher-
ently “positive” or “negative,” though it can be used as an instrument of power
restructuring with various parties involved (Roose 2003: 443). Therefore, it is
unjustifiable to claim that “the term διδάσκειν is used absolutely in the nt for
an activity that is viewed positively in and of itself” (Köstenberger 2005: 62),
especially in light of the parallel between this passage and 5:3–16 and 6:2b–19
and in light of the context of this letter where false teachings are at the center
of Paul’s attention.
Fourth, related to the focus on false teaching, the context of this entire unit
is a negative one as Paul repeatedly warns both men and women against cer-
tain patterns of behavior. Therefore, “it is contrary to the immediate context to
suggest that Paul is prohibiting a good behavior in 2:12” (Hübner 2015: 68). In
determining the meaning of individual words, such contextual considerations
take precedence.
Finally, without coming yet to a conclusion that αὐθεντεῖν is to be taken in
a positive or negative way (see Historical Analysis), the mere use of this rare
verb likely points to a specific context to which Paul is writing. To identify διδά-
σκειν as a positive act and then to infer that αὐθεντεῖν must belong to the same
category is problematic.

▪ 13 Ἀδὰμ γὰρ πρῶτος ἐπλάσθη, εἶτα Εὕα. The placement of Ἀδἀμ marks a shift
in focus (Porter, Idioms, 295–296), though its connection with the previous
clauses is well secured by the conjunction γάρ. While most take γάρ in an illa-
tive sense, some have taken it in an explanatory (Payne 2009: 402) or illustrative
(Spencer 1974: 219) sense instead. Two arguments made by Moo (1981: 202–204)
have successfully refuted these non-illative readings: (1) A non-illative use of
γάρ is very rare in Paul, and contextual clues are often present for those uses
(e.g., parenthetical clause; Rom 7:1; 1Cor 16:5; bdag 189). (2) More importantly,
γάρ following an imperatival clause is always illative, especially in the pe (e.g.,
1 Tim 3:13; 4:5; 5:4; 2Tim 1:7; 2:7; 3:6; 4:3; Titus 1:10; 2:11; 3:3).
Two additional points should be made here: (1) Recent discussions on the
use of γάρ have questioned whether it is helpful to draw a sharp divide between
its illative and non-illative uses when its general function is to be taken as
“strengthening some aspect of the previous assertion” (Levinsohn, Discourse,
91). Both illative and non-illative uses would serve this purpose, although the
intensity and magnitude of such strengthening may vary. This is best illustrated
2:8–15 169

by the only two possible non-illative uses of γάρ in the pe (1 Tim 3:13; 2 Tim 2:11),
both of which clearly also lend support to the wider argument presented in its
context.
(2) The use of γάρ with ot texts, traditions, and patterns often serves as
more than mere illustration or explanation because of the inherent authority
attached to such traditions (Matt 3:3; Mark 7:10; Luke 20:42; Acts 1:20; 13:36; Rom
2:24; 1Cor 6:16; Gal 3:18; 1Tim 5:18). The level of support would vary according to
the nature of the material evoked. In this case, it would be difficult to deny the
support the account of Adam and Eve provides for the statements Paul made.
Establishing this use of γάρ does not solve the problem of how exactly the
account of Adam and Eve contributes to Paul’s argument. The focus is on nei-
ther Eve as Adam’s partner (Belleville 2004: 222) nor their common identity
(Witherington 1990: 195), but on the temporal priority of Adam as indicated
by the πρῶτος … εἶτα structure (cf. Mark 4:28; 1 Tim 3:10) within the context
where the Genesis creation account is clearly evoked through the use of ἐπλά-
σθη (Gen 2:7, 8, 15, 19). Though many would then conclude that this argu-
ment from temporal priority directly supports Paul’s understanding of rela-
tive “headship and submission” in the relationship between men and women
(Knight, 142), this application is problematic when considered within the wider
biblical-theological framework (see Historical Analysis). Moreover, the func-
tion of this clause can only be clarified when it is considered together with the
next.

▪ 14 καὶ Ἀδὰμ οὐκ ἠπατήθη, ἡ δὲ γυνὴ ἐξαπατηθεῖσα ἐν παραβάσει γέγονεν. The

exact relationship between this and the previous clause reveals both the main
purpose of Paul’s evocation of the account of Adam and Eve in Genesis 1–3 and
the intended applicability of this unit. This relationship has been understood
in four ways: (1) v. 13 states the basic principle of leadership and submission,
while v. 14 “demonstrates in the most absolute way the divine consequences
of a reversal of leadership roles” (Knight, 143); (2) v. 14 provides a new (Spicq,
1.381) or second (Johnson, 201–202) argument that supports Paul’s prohibition
in 2:12; (3) v. 14 is the natural continuation of v. 13 as Paul’s midrash builds on
the sequence of Gen 1–3 (Collins, 70–71); and (4) v. 14 presents the main support
for Paul’s argument whereas v. 13 merely paves the way for this main point (Fee,
74). While (3) can go together with any of the other three options, (4) provides
the best way to understand Paul’s use of the Genesis account here.
If the conjunctive καί here links “contiguous constituents” (Levinsohn, Dis-
course, 101) and, as such, links the two clauses that are introduced by the sin-
gular γάρ in support of Paul’s prohibition in v. 12, then verses 13–14 should
indeed be taken together. Though to be taken together, verse 14 receives promi-
170 1 timothy

nence through (1) the additional participle (ἐξαπατηθεῖσα) and prepositional

phrase (ἐν παραβάσει) that modifies γέγονεν (as compared to the much shorter
εἶτα Εὕα in v. 13); (2) the use of the compound verb ἐξαπατηθεῖσα that both
echoes and goes beyond ἠπατήθη in the first part of the verse; (3) the use of
the highly marked perfect γέγονεν; and (4) the use of γυνή instead of the name
Εὕα that paves the way for the general principle that applies to all women in
v. 15.
The use of the Genesis account that climaxes here in v. 14 aims at addressing
a parallel context where women are (again) deceived by Satan and, therefore,
should not be allowed to teach, a context that is particular to late first-century
Ephesus as confirmed by 5:15 (cf. 2Tim 3:6–9). This reading also challenges
those who consider v. 14 as “the absolution of Adam [that] is at odds with Paul’s
view of the universality of sin” (Zamfir, 245; cf. Rom 5:12–14) since the point is
not that Adam did not sin, but that he was not deceived by Satan as Eve was
(Gen 3:1–5) and was deceived instead by Eve (Gen 3:6), and therefore in a par-
allel context when women are again deceived by Satan (cf. 5:15) they are not
allowed to teach men (v. 12).

▪ 15 σωθήσεται δὲ διὰ τῆς τεκνογονίας, ἐὰν μείνωσιν ἐν πίστει καὶ ἀγάπῃ καὶ ἁγι-
ασμῷ μετὰ σωφροσύνης. Those who consider vv. 11–14 a universal prohibition
against women teaching are forced to consider v. 15 not a proper “conclusion”
but merely “a parenthetical correction of a possible misconception” (Mounce,
142). This, however, is a misunderstanding of v. 15. First, consistent with the use
of δέ earlier in this unit (vv. 12, 14), the use of this conjunction here “builds on
and develops from the previous material” in providing a coherent case (Levin-
sohn, “Some Constraints,” 320; cf. Perkins, 46). Second, as vv. 13–14 alludes to
the story of creation and fall in Genesis 2:18–3:7, this verse continues this argu-
ment from Genesis by the evocation of Gen 3:16 through the word τεκνογονίας.
Rather than an extended qualifying note, v. 15 is an integral part of Paul’s argu-
ment. Third, the use of the verbal form τεκνογονεῖν in 5:14, where Paul deals
with the widows, points to the significance of the phrase διὰ τῆς τεκνογονίας
here. This is not an afterthought, but a direct response to those among the
women/widows who had followed the ways of Satan (5:15). Fourth, the use of
the future σωθήσεται that grammaticalizes “a marked and emphatic expecta-
tion toward a process” (Porter, Verbal Aspect, 414) is also consistent with the
emphasis placed on this clause, especially with the additional semantic weight
provided by the conditional clause that follows. Finally, the inclusio formed by
σωφροσύνης at the end of this verse that echoes the σωφροσύνης of v. 9 further
points to the cohesion of this unit as well as the intentionality of this final
note.
2:8–15 171

σωθήσεται has been taken in a non-eschatological sense with διά taken in a

locative or circumstantial sense, thus, “she will be kept safe through this ordeal
of childbearing …” (Hubbard 2012: 751; cf. Mutschler, 274–277). The use of σῴζω
in the sense of physical deliverance is not unusual, especially outside of the
Pauline corpus (Matt 14:30; Mark 3:4; Luke 6:9; 21:19; 23:35–39; Acts 27:20, 31),
and διά + genitive has also been used in the locative or circumstantial sense
even in Paul (cf. 1Cor 3:15). Variations of this include taking σωθήσεται as spir-
itual (but non-eschatological) deliverance (Jebb 1969–1970: 221–222), or διά as
“despite” rather than “through” (Coupland 2001: 303).
Despite perceived theological difficulties, the eschatological reading of
σωθήσεται with the instrumental διά remains the best option: (1) the verb σῴζω
is almost always used in Paul in the salvific/eschatological sense, especially in
the pe (1:15; 2:4; 4:16; 2Tim 1:9; Titus 3:5). In 2Tim 4:18 where both ῥύομαι and
σῴζω are used, it is clear that ῥύομαι refers to the (physical) deliverance from
present circumstances while σῴζω refers to eschatological salvation, as is made
clear by the phrase that follows.
(2) When διά follows either the active (1Cor 1:21; Titus 3:5) or the passive
(Rom 5:9; Eph 2:8) form of σῴζω, it almost always takes on an instrumental
sense. It may be helpful to add that it is not unusual for διά to introduce the
intermediate rather than final means (cf. 1Cor 1:21).
(3) Salvation of all humanity is one of the foci of this larger unit, as is made
clear in v. 4 (cf. vv. 6, 7); therefore, it would be odd for σῴζω to take on a different
sense within this same section.
(4) πίστει καὶ ἀγάπῃ καὶ ἁγιασμῷ that follows is best understood within con-
cerns of eschatological salvation when faith and love (1:4, 5, 14) as well as holi-
ness (4:5) are connected to the working of God’s redemptive plan.
τεκνογονία is best understood as referring to the act of childbearing rather
than its product. If so, of the numerous options proposed (see Historical Anal-
ysis), it is best to consider τεκνογονία as representing the role of women in the
household as a wife and mother, and thus a rejection of the ascetic teachings
that are propagated by the false teachers. The possibility of understanding διά
as expressing intermediate means may, however, allow for a two-stage reading
in this verse: “a woman will be saved from the allure of the heretical message
by bearing children …, thus … she will also be saved in the absolute sense of the
word” (Bassler 1988: 56).
This reading would take the subject of the plural μείνωσιν within the pro-
tasis of this third-class conditional sentence as referring to women believers.
To explain the shift from the singular σωθήσεται to the plural μείνωσιν, some
argue for the children (embedded in the preceding τεκνογονίας) being the sub-
ject of this plural verb instead (Winer, Grammar, 787), a reading supported by
172 1 timothy

the Syriac Peshitta: “She will be saved through her children, if they remain …
in the faith” (Ulrichsen 1993: 99–104). The focus of this verse in its context is
to address the issue of women who are being deceived. Without resorting to
source-critical speculations that two sources were to be blamed for this shift
(Miller, 73), it is best to consider the singular σωθήσεται as a reference to the
typological Eve of Gen 3:16 (Roloff, 140) and the plural μείνωσιν as an application
to all women believers. A similar switch between the plural and the singular is
also found in vv. 9 and 11, where Paul moves from the particulars to the singular
general principle.

Bibliography
Bassler, Jouette. “Adam, Eve, and the Pastor: The Use of Genesis 2–3 in the Pastoral
Epistles.” In Genesis 1–3 in the History of Exegesis. Ed. Gregory Allen Robbins, 43–
65. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen, 1988.
Batten, Alicia J. “Neither Gold nor Braided Hair (1Timothy 2.9; 1 Peter 3.3): Adornment,
Gender and Honour in Antiquity.” nts 55 (2009): 484–501.
Belleville, Linda L. “Teaching and Usurping Authority.” In Discovering Biblical Equal-
ity: Complementarity without Hierarchy. Ed. Ronald W. Pierce and Rebecca Merrill
Groothuis, 205–223. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2004.
Blomberg, Craig L. “Neither Hierarchicalist nor Egalitarian: Gender Roles in Paul.” In
Paul and His Theology. Ed. Stanley E. Porter, 283–326. past 3. Leiden/Boston: Brill,
2006.
Coupland, Simon. “Salvation Through Childbearing? The Riddle of 1 Timothy.” ExpTim
112 (2001): 302–303.
Delbridge, Mary Lynnette, “‘Family’ as a Problem for New Religious Movements: The
Pastoral Epistles’ Collaboration with the Greco-Roman Household.” Ph.D. diss.,
Union Theological Seminary, 2001.
Engel, G. “Let the Women Learn in Silence.” ExpTim 16 (1904–1905): 189–190.
Fee, Gordon D. “Women in Ministry: The Meaning of 1 Timothy 2:8–15 in Light of the
Purpose of 1Timothy.” Christian Brethren Research Fellowship Journal 122 (1990): 11–
18.
Frayer-Griggs, Daniel. “Neither Proof Text nor Proverb: The Instrumental Sense of διά
and the Soteriological Function of Fire in 1Corinthians 3.15.” nts 59 (2013): 517–534.
Hubbard, Moyer. “Kept Safe through Childbearing: Maternal Mortality, Justification by
Faith, and the Social Setting of 1Timothy 2:15.” jets 55 (2012): 743–762.
Hübner, Jamin. “Revisiting αὐθεντέω in 1Timothy 2:12: What Do the Extant Data Really
Show?” Journal for the Study of Paul and His Letters 5 (2015): 41–70.
Hugenberger, Gordon P. “Women in Church Offices: Hermeneutics or Exegesis? A Sur-
vey of Approaches to 1Tim 2:8–15.” jets 35 (1992): 341–360.
Jebb, S. “A Suggested Interpretation of 1Tim 2:15.” ExpTim 81 (1969–1970): 221–222.
2:8–15 173

Judge, E.A. “A Woman’s Behavior.” NewDocs 6 (1992): 18–23.

Köstenberger, Andreas J. “A Complex Sentence: The Syntax of 1 Timothy 2:12.” In Women
in the Church: An Analysis and Application of 1Timothy 2:9–15. Ed. Andreas J. Kösten-
berger and Thomas R. Schreiner, 53–84. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005.
Longacre, R. “The Paragraph as a Grammatical Unit.” In Syntax and Semantics: Dis-
course and Syntax, 115–133. Ed. Talmy Givon. New York: Academic Press, 1979.
Merklein, Helmut. “Im Spannungsfeld von Protologie und Eschatologie: Zur kurzen
Geschichte der aktiven Beteiligung von Frauen in paulinischen Gemeinden.” In
Eschatologie und Schöpfung: Fest. Erich Gräßer. Ed. Martin Evang et al., 231–259.
bznw 89. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997.
Moo, Douglas J. “The Interpretation of 1Tim. 2:11–15: A Rejoinder.” TrinJ 2 (1981): 198–
222.
Nelson, P.G. “Inscription to a High Priestess at Ephesus.” Journal for Biblical Manhood
and Womanhood 12 (2007): 14–15.
Padgett, Alan G. As Christ Submits to the Church: A Biblical Understanding of Leadership
and Mutual Submission. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2011.
Payne, Philip B. “1Tim 2.12 and the Use of οὐδέ to Combine Two Elements to Express a
Single Idea.” nts 54 (2008): 235–253.
Payne, Philip B. Man and Woman, One in Christ. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009.
Payne, Philip B. “Οὐδέ Combining Two Elements to Convey a Single Idea and 1 Timothy
2:12: Further Insights.” In Missing Voices, 24–34. Minneapolis: Christians for Biblical
Equality, 2014.
Perriman, Andrew C. “What Eve Did, What Women Shouldn’t Do: The Meaning of
αυθεντεω in 1Timothy 2:12.” TynBul 44 (1993): 129–142.
Porter, Stanley E. Linguistic Analysis of the Greek New Testament: Studies in Tools, Meth-
ods, and Practice. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2015.
Roose, Hanna. “Dienen und Herrschen: Zur Charakterisierung des Lehrens in den Pas-
toralbriefen.” nts 49 (2003): 440–446.
Schreiner, Thomas R. “Women in Ministry.” In Two Views on Women in Ministry. Ed.
J.R. Beck and C.L. Blomberg, 175–235. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001.
Spencer, Aida D.B. “Eve at Ephesus (Should Women Be Ordained As Pastors According
to the First Letter to Timothy 2:11–15?).” jets 17 (1974): 215–222.
Tamez, Elsa. Struggles for Power in Early Christianity. Trans. Gloria Kinsler. Maryknoll,
NY: Orbis, 2007.
Thiselton, Anthony C. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. nigtc. Grand Rapids: Eerd-
mans, 2000.
Toews, John. “Women in Church Leadership: 1Timothy 2:11–15—A Reconsideration.” In
The Bible and the Church. Ed. A.J. Dueck et al., 84–90. Hillsboro, KS: Kindred, 1983.
Ulrichsen, Jarl Henning. “Heil durch Kindergebären: Zu i Tim 2,15 und seiner syrischen
Version.” seå 58 (1993): 99–104.
174 1 timothy

Wagener, Ulrike. Die Ordnung des »Hauses Gottes«: Der Ort von Frauen in der Ekklesi-
ologie und Ethik der Pastoralbriefe. wunt 2.65. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994.
Witherington, Ben, iii. Women and the Genesis of Christianity. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1990.
Zamfir, Korinna, and Joseph Verheyden. “Text-Critical and Intertextual Remarks on
1Tim 2:8–10.” NovT 50 (2008): 376–406.

4 Historical Analysis
The textual/grammatical analysis above has demonstrated that this section
cannot be read as providing abstract moral imperatives devoid of any historical
particulars or references. Of those who are mindful of the possible historical
circumstances under which this section can be read, five general approaches
need to be considered. (1) First, many who consider the pe a product of a
later author consider this section an example of how the egalitarian vision
of the authentic Paul is now reduced to a survivalist strategy as the church
settles into its bourgeois mentality in the late first or early second century
(e.g., Merz, 279–303). Some would further suggest that this paragraph resem-
bles that of 1Cor 14:33b–35, also taken as a product of a pseudo-Paul, where
both attempt to qualify the more nuanced treatment of the gender roles in
1 Corinthians 11 (Zamfir and Verheyden 2008: 389; cf. Gourgues 108–109). As
such, “it is an oppressive text, and therefore not authoritative” (Nadar, 2005:
307). With pseudonymity assumed, this reading fails to explain the different
contexts in which 1Corinthians 14 and 1Timothy 2 appear, even when similar
formulations can be easily explained by the postulation of Pauline authorship
for both. More importantly, to assume a late dating assumes a general context
that can no longer explain the peculiar tone and syntactical and lexical choices
made in this section (see below), and it also flattens out Paul’s distinct argu-
ment here that flows from the section that precedes (vv. 1–7).
(2) A different but related approach rests less on the deterioration of Paul’s
theology than on the missiological impulse of the early church as it attempts
to reach a wider audience with the growth of the early Christian movement.
Some, for example, consider it an expected development when the church
moves from private houses to the public sphere where “[g]reater numbers of
conversions amongst the city elite in this era … probably contributed to the
formal expression of the ideal of women’s silence” (Capper 2005: 314). This por-
trayal of the modest women in accordance with the Greco-Roman ideal woman
aims at “commend[ing] the Christian gospel to outsiders rather than correcting
the immodest behavior of certain anonymous women” (Wall 2004: 86–87; cf.
Becker 2010: 241–266). Though this reading is not predicated on pseudonymity
or a late dating of the pe, the same critique applies as it does not pay suffi-
2:8–15 175

cient attention to the peculiar tone and syntactical and lexical choices made.
As in those who see this as a betrayal of Paul’s authentic voice, this Paul is also
seen as one who yields to the socio-cultural milieu of the time in preaching an
oppressive gospel (Schottroff 1995: 69–78).
(3) Those who emphasize the ad hoc nature of this letter place greater
emphasis on the influence of the false teachers and their teachings. The first
appearance of an imperative (μανθανέτω, v. 11) as well as the marked οὐκ ἐπι-
τρέπω (v. 12) within this section that consists of a series of independent clauses
culminating in the protasis of a conditional sentence argues for this section
being a response to the false teachers/teachings. While most would agree that
women were among the victims of the false teachers (5:15; cf. 2 Tim 3:6–9;
Blomberg 2006: 313) with some even arguing that the victims are “exclusively”
women (Foster 2016: 4), the description of the activities of some widows in
5:13 may suggest that women were those among the false teachers (Trebilco,
512–513). While the presence of false teachings/teachers does contribute to the
reading of this section, their presence as well as the content of their teachings
alone will not be sufficient in explaining the note on women’s clothing as well
as their authority within the community.
(4) Arguing for the emergence of the “new women” in the early impe-
rial period, Winter (2003) points to the presence of financially independent
women who are no longer constrained by the social and cultural norms of
the previous generation. Against these “new women,” Paul calls for the return
to “the virtues of a modest wife” who demonstrates modesty and self-control
(Winter 2003: 97). Despite its influence among commentators (e.g., Towner
2006: 196–197), this general portrayal of “new women” suffers on two fronts:
the widespread emergence of these women fails to explain the urgency of this
section, especially in light of the otherwise positive portrayal of women else-
where in the Pauline writings, and the broad stroke consideration of these
women as sexually promiscuous does not do justice to the specificity of the
text especially in terms of lexical choice. If the problem lies within one (small)
segment within Greco-Roman society, one wonders whether the hypothesis of
these “new women” are necessary (Batten 2009: 497) when similar “enterpris-
ing” women can be identified throughout the ancient writings (Maier 2013: 191).
(5) Finally, some attempt to locate this text within the specific social and reli-
gious context of first-century Ephesus. Among the more ambitious proposals
is the one by Kroeger and Kroeger who identify the presence of a “Gnostic-like
myth which claimed an existence for Eve prior to that of Adam” (1992: 170), with
this myth being traced back to the Anatolian Goddess cults in first-century Eph-
esus (Gritz 1991). Most, however, find their arguments unconvincing, especially
with an anachronic reading of the gnostic material, an over-generalization of
176 1 timothy

the gender culture of first-century Ephesus, an unjustifiable claim for the over-
whelming presence of a “divine maternal principle … underlying the political,
economic, and social existence of Ephesus” (Kroeger and Kroeger 1992: 57), and
the disputed understanding of Artemis Ephesia as a fertility goddess (Baugh
1994: 153–171).
Such criticisms should not, however, deter modern readers from situating
this text within the socio-cultural and religious milieu of first-century Ephesus.
This reconstructed historical context will not, however, deliver the final key
to reading this section since it will at best remain a tentative proposal due to
the limitation of the historical sources available. Nevertheless, with attention
paid to the importance of (mostly) inscriptional evidence and with sufficient
methodological caution, such reconstruction may further reinforce the conclu-
sions already reached above through an examination of the text alone.
Framed by references to cultic practices (προσεύχεσθαι, v. 8; ἐπαίροντας ὁσίους
χεῖρας χωρίς, v. 8), the profession of devotion to God (ἐπαγγελλομέναις θεοσέ-
βειαν, v. 10), and concern for salvation (σωθήσεται, v. 15) with a focus on the role
of women among these concerns, the dominant cult of first-century Ephesus,
which happens to be a goddess cult, deserves attention. This is especially so
since a disproportionate amount of space in the Lukan account of the Pauline
mission is devoted to the depiction of the challenge to the Artemis cult by
the gospel (Acts 19:23–41); here the adjective μεγάλης is ascribed four times to
Artemis and her cult (19:27, 28, 34, 35) and Luke notes that the gospel that Paul
preaches is robbing Artemis of “her majesty” (τῆς μεγαλειότητος αὐτῆς, 19:27). A
similar challenge to the Artemis cult by the Pauline gospel should not be ruled
out here.
The note on the decline of the majesty of Artemis in Acts 19:27 should not
be taken as signaling its final demise, although the neglect of the cult by the
proconsul is evident at least in the second century (cig 2954; Oster 1984: 233–
237). Several pieces of evidence on the practices of this cult in the early imperial
period may provide some context for this section. The notable role women play
in this cult is the most obvious contact point as they are allowed to serve as
high priestesses (ἀρχιέρεια) and priestesses (ἱέρεια). Further, the influence of
these women can be felt beyond the confines of this cult as a disproportionate
number of women serve as high priestesses even for male deities (ig 1571; IEph
814) and for related imperial cults that can be found throughout Ephesus (IEph
424; 643; 810; 933; 980; 1030; 1060) and the surrounding area (Kearsley 1986: 184).
The influence of the priestesses of the Artemis cult on the civic life of Ephesus
is evident by the relatively high number of women occupying the leadership
position of πρύτανις in the βουλή of Ephesus (Van Tilborg 1996:158) as well as
other feasts and games (Nelson 2007: 14). While this does not argue for the pres-
2:8–15 177

ence of a feminist movement in Ephesus nor does it prove that most civic and
cultic institutions are controlled by men (Baugh 1994: 166), it does argue for the
presence of these notable women leaders in Ephesus and surrounding regions
(as consistent with the significant presence of women in leadership positions
in the synagogues in those regions; Trebilco 1991: 104–126).
Perhaps more important than the mere presence of women in leadership
positions is the social status of some of these women. Inscription evidence
points to priestesses often as benefactors of the city (IEph 987, 997); in fact,
being a benefactor to the city itself may be a requirement for being a priestess in
the cult (Knibbe, Engelmann, and Iplikçioglu 1989: 176). While these were pos-
sibly “young daughters of Ephesian aristocrats” (Baugh 1999: 458; cf. IEph 989
where financial support from the family is noted), the source of their wealth
should not disqualify them from being recognized as possessing certain social
and political status, as in the case of the widows who might have benefited
from their former husbands (cf. 5:6, 9–10). This is consistent with the picture
emerging from Asia Minor, where female benefactors are honored in inscrip-
tions for providing substantial support for others “as frequently as in those for
men” (cf. ig 12.5; cig 347; Van Bremen 1983: 228, 239). The close connection
between cultic leadership and wealth led to notable corruption when civic
leaders appointed the highest bidders as priestesses (IEph 18; Harrison 2018:
253, 266), a situation that may resemble the chaos in the Christian community
in Ephesus when some women benefactors might have extended their influ-
ence based on their financial status. That the behavior of women benefactors
is the focus of this section may explain the connection between 2:1–7 and 2:8–15
with both affirming that God is the only benefactor to be honored. This would
also explain the seemingly out-of-place discussion on adornment and expen-
sive clothing in vv. 9–10.
The call for women to “dress (κοσμεῖν) in appropriate clothing (ἐν καταστολῇ
κοσμίῳ)” and “not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes” (v. 9)
fits well within this cultic context where adornment is a major concern for the
Artemis cult. In the early imperial period, the cultic figure of Artemis Ephesia
herself is adorned with removable expensive clothing and fine jewelry (Fleisher
1981: 302–303), and priestesses who take on the office of κοσμήτειρα (IEph 989;
1026) are responsible for dressing Artemis and for the safekeeping of her vest-
ments. Among items dedicated to Artemis are articles of clothing (Strelan 1996:
49), while the cover on Artemis Ephesia, taken to be breasts after the second
century, may be elaborate adornment on her outer garment (LiDonnici 1992:
391–392).
Against the multiple identities of this cult figure throughout the differ-
ent time periods, the first-century Aretmis Ephesia is a virgin and one who is
178 1 timothy

not directly identified as a fertility goddess, as the later understanding of the

multi-breasts figure may indicate (Trebilco, 23). Moreover, there is no evidence
of cultic prostitution related to this goddess cult (Baugh 1999: 449). Instead,
priestesses are recognized in terms that closely resemble those used in our
present section, including acting modestly (κοσμίως, IEph 3059; cf. καταστολῇ
κοσμίῳ, v. 9) with piety (εὐσέβεια; cf. θεοσέβειαν, v. 9), faithfulness (πίστις; cf.
πίστει, v. 15), and self-control (σωφροσύνη; cf. σωφροσύνης, v. 15; IEph 683; Harri-
son, 2018: 268–270). Cautions concerning clothing and adornment are, there-
fore, not directed against the sexually liberated women but those wealthy and
influential benefactors (Tamez 2007: 159) who would follow an ascetic lifestyle
(cf. 4:1–4).
Finally, the curious note on “childbearing” (τῆς τεκνογονίας, v. 15) may also be
understood within this cultic context. While the first-century Artemis Ephesia
is not a fertility goddess, she is connected with midwifery and the ability to pro-
tect the newborn (Horsley 1992: 142). The Orphic Hymn to Prothyrea explicitly
identifies Artemis as the goddess of childbirth (Hymn i) and, as such, she fulfills
the title often ascribed to her, Σώτειρα (IEph 1265). Whether this background
by itself would sufficiently explain this difficult note as some would claim (cf.
Weissenrieder 2014: 313–336) remains unclear, however.

▪ 8 In a context where it is used with θέλω, βούλομαι may carry the additional
sense of premeditation and planning for the wish to be fulfilled (Matt 1:19;
Acts 17:20; cf. Josephus, A.J. 14.233), though the distinction between the two is
not always evident (cf. Josephus, A.J. 14.26). In the pe, the first-person indica-
tive βούλομαι is always used in a context where Paul issues a demand that is
expected to be fulfilled (cf. 5:14; Titus 3:8), and this is consistent with the con-
temporary uses of this verb in official decrees (P.Lond. 904; P.Oxy. 244; M.-M.
115).
ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ should best be taken as a reference to places of worship
(cf. 1Cor 1:2; 2Cor 2:14; 1Thess 1:8) as anticipated by the lxx use of τόπος in
reference to the Jerusalem Temple (1Kgs 8:29, 30, 35, 42; Ferguson 1991: 67; cf.
ὁ ἅγιος τόπος, 2Macc 2:18; 8:17; 3Macc 2:14). The entire phrase may also recall
the democratization and decentralization of cultic acts in Mal 1:11 in post-exilic
times (cf. Jer 8:3; 24:9; 31:37; Amos 8:3), a theme that is consistent with the uni-
versalistic emphasis in v. 4. In Josephus, A.J. 8.227, πᾶς τόπος is explicitly used in
reference to the presence of God beyond the Jerusalem temple. This is consis-
tent with Paul’s understanding of the church as the “household of God” (3:15)
and, as such, men who are lifting up their hands in prayer “in holiness.”
In its immediate context, “anger” and “dispute” provide counterexamples of
“holiness.” Within the entire sentence when prayer is recognized as an act of
2:8–15 179

submission to the “one God” (vv. 1–7), anger and disputes are signs of insub-
ordination. This call paves the way for Paul’s similar call to women not to be
disruptive in the context of worship. In Paul, ὀργή is often used in reference
to God’s wrath on the disobedient (Rom 1:18; 2:8; 12:19; 1 Thess 1:10), but in his
later writings it also appears in vice lists together with other verbal offenses
(Eph 4:31; Col 3:8), as is the case here. διαλογισμός finds its expression in verbal
behavior (Rom 14:1; Phil 2:14), but it can also refer to the thoughts from which
such behavior springs forth (cf. Rom 1:21) as is often the case in the lxx (Isa
59:7; Jer 4:14; 1Macc 2:63; Wis 7:20; Sir 27:5). If this refers primarily to verbal
dispute, it may refer to disagreement among men themselves as in a “volun-
tary association where discussions (or debate) take place” (Tsiparis 2007: 88)
or with other women (Foster 2016: 5) who might have been influenced by the
false teachings. On the other hand, when paired with ὀργή, it is best to take it
as referring to disruptive behavior in general, which may, in turn, be sparked by
verbal disputes.

▪ 9 Without seeing the significance of women as benefactors, this note on

women’s adornment has often been understood merely as a detour (Zamfir and
Verheyden 2008: 394–395), and to say that “just as the men are to stop fighting,
the women are to dress appropriately” (Mounce, 108) is insufficient in clarifying
the relationship between the two unless dressing inappropriately necessarily
and primarily denotes acts of sexual impropriety that are disruptive within a
cultic community. This cluster of words can indeed carry a sexual connotation.
The verb κοσμέω can take on the connotation of “to reveal the beauty of,” and in
this context has been taken to mean “to make attractive” (Redekop 1990: 238);
ἐν καταστολῇ κοσμίῳ can refer to the inner beauty of a woman when καταστολή
can take on the meaning of “restraint” (IPriene 109; 186–187; bdag 527) whereas
κόσμιος often appears with the σώφρων word group (cf. 3:2) in reference to pro-
priety and chastity (see Philo, Spec. 1.102, where κόσμιος καὶ σώφρων is used for
the virtuous life of one who used to be a prostitute; cf. Ios. 50.4). αἰδῶς also
appears often with κόσμιος (Plutarch, Nic. 29.2) and especially the σώφρων word
group (Musonius Rufus, Frag 4; Philo, Spec. 3.51; Mut. 217.3; Aelius Aristides,
Rhet. 2.3.1), and they denote the absence of shameful acts within the prescribed
role of a woman. The use of αἰδῶς with σώφρων with an explicit note on a
garment decorated with gold (χρυσόπα[στα]) appears in another inscription
that contrasts the demeanor of an honorable woman with that of a prostitute
(P.Haun. 2.13; Judge 1992: 20–21).
Despite these parallels, sexual promiscuity is not the focus of this section.
First, the note on gold, pearls, and especially expensive clothes (ἱματισμῷ πολυ-
τελεῖ) points to the social status of the woman rather than their moral living.
180 1 timothy

This is especially the case when the issue of wealth figures prominently in
this letter (πλουτεῖν, 6:9; τοῖς πλουσίοις, 6:17; πλούτου, 6:17; πλουσίως; 6:17). Sec-
ond, this discussion is placed within a public cultic context (cf. Clement of
Alexandria, Paed. 3.11.66). The absence of the explicit status marker πολυτελής
in 1Pet 3:3 points to a different underlying problem, while the use of πλέγμα
instead of ἐμπλοκή (1Pet 3:3) in reference to hair may also argue for a differ-
ent context when the πλέγμα word group is elsewhere used for the depiction
of Artemis’s head covering (Ephesiaca 1.2.2.4; Hoag 2011: 154–155). Third, sex-
ual immorality is often one manifestation of wealth and power even when the
critique rests on oppression and exploitation (cf. Rev 17:4–5; 18:9–17; on the
morality of wealth in a limited good society, see Malina 1986: 354–367). Fourth,
in ancient literature, especially when written by men, the portrayal of women
as promiscuous and dangerous can be a critique of women who threaten the
power of men (cf. Solevåg 2013: 119). While not denying the sexual compo-
nent of such discourse, the focus lies elsewhere. Finally, the surprising shift not
only to good behavior but also to acts of benefaction (ἔργων ἀγαθῶν) points
to concerns related to wealthy women. Consistent with critiques of the bene-
faction system that draw attention to the status of the benefactor, the call to
the proper worship of God the benefactor (θεοσέβειαν) becomes appropriate.
Secular acts of benefaction are, therefore, subsumed under this act of submis-
sion.
The σώφρ-word group plays an important role in the pe (σωφροσύνη, vv. 9, 15;
σώφρων, 3:2; Titus 1:8; 2:2, 5; σωφρονισμός, 2Tim 1:7; σωφρονίζω, Titus 2:4; σωφρο-
νέω, Titus 2:6; σωφρόνως, Titus 2:12), and it forms an inclusio for this section
(vv. 9, 15). This word group is an important one in Hellenistic moral discourse,
and its appearance with κόσμιος and αἰδῶς in contemporary literature has been
noted above. Being one of the four cardinal virtues that are popularized espe-
cially by the Stoic philosophers, σωφροσύνη (self-control) is further defined by
εὐταξία (orderliness), κοσμιότης (propriety), αἰδημοσύνη (modesty), and ἐγκρά-
τεια (self-mastery; cf. Chrysippus, Frag. 264.9; 295.4). Applied to women, it
highlights the virtues of sexual modesty and submission to the order of a patri-
archal household (Dionysius Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 2.24–25; Josephus, A.J.
2.59; 18.73; cf. Philo, Spec. 1.138). This gendered distinction can be traced back
to the Hellenistic focus on the individual when danger is now defined by that
which threatens the individual (i.e., passion) rather than the state (i.e., military
powers), and women are often seen as being dangerous and seductive (cf. North
1966: 205–206). The use of σωφροσύνη in this discussion of women is not sur-
prising, but it should be read within the new order established by the one God
and Savior (vv. 3, 6), a subversive stance repeated in Titus where one also finds
the frequent uses of this word group that concludes with the affirmation of the
2:8–15 181

existence of the one God and Savior (Titus 2:1–14). Paul here uses a word group
that defines the structure of honor and power of a household (Lendon 1997: 41–
42) and applies that to the household of God by warning some women against
hubris in their role as benefactors (cf. 6:17) as there is only one benefactor that
is to be the object of all honor (vv. 3–6).

▪ 10 In Paul’s earlier writings, ἐπαγγέλλομαι appears twice with God as the sub-
ject in both, carrying the sense of “to promise” (Rom 4:21; Gal 3:19; cf. Titus 1:2);
in this letter it is used with human subjects for acts of profession (6:21; cf. Wis
2:13), which is not unexpected in this cultic context when in inscriptions this
verb is often used for the announcement of public sacrifices (e.g., sig 258; M.-
M. 227).
θεοσέβεια is rarely used in Greco-Roman literature (Xenophon, Anab. 2.26.2;
Plato, [Epin.] 985c; 990a), but it does appear often in the lxx for the fear of
God (Gen 20:11; Job 28:28; 4Macc 7:6; Sir 1:25; Bar 5:4). In Philo, this is the rev-
erence due to the creator (Congr. 130.7; Fug. 150.2) and the primary “virtue”
(ἀρετή) that begets others (Abr. 114.3). As such, its semantic range overlaps
with that of εὐσέβεια and echoes ἐν πάσῃ εὐσεβείᾳ of the previous section
(v. 2).
ἔργον ἀγαθόν is a phrase (in singular and plural) that appears often in Paul
(Rom 2:7; 13:3; 2Cor 9:8; Eph 2:10; Phil 1:6; Col 1:10; 2 Thess 2:17) and figures
prominently in the pe (5:10; 2Tim 2:21; 3:17; Titus 1:16; 3:1) though the form ἔργον
καλόν appears only in the pe among the Pauline writings (3:1; 5:10, 25; 6:18; Titus
2:7, 14; 3:8, 14), with no apparent difference between these two formulations
(note that the two are used interchangeably in 5:10; Mutschler, 233). The call to
perform good works in the pe (1Tim 5:25; 2Tim 2:21; 3:17; Titus 1:16; 2:7; 3:1; cf.
Rom 2:7; Eph 2:10) rests on the prior work of God, as it is made clear in Titus 2:14
when the eagerness of God’s people to do good rests on God giving himself for
his people. These “good” deeds cannot be separated from the “good confession”
(τὴν καλὴν ὁμολογίαν) that Christ made on his way to the cross (1 Tim 6:13; cf.
Phil 2:16).
The link between God’s prior good work and those of the believers can
be understood within the Greco-Roman benefaction system, where honor is
bestowed on benefactors “for their good works” (ἀντὶ καλῶν/ἀγαθῶν ἔργων; cf.
ig 237; 95; cig 3943; IOlympia 449; Williams 2014: 52–53). In the pe, the connec-
tion between the two is likewise expressed in benefaction language, especially
in 1Tim 6:11–19 and Titus 3:4–8 when “good works” become the proper response
to acts of beneficence of the one and only benefactor. This framework best
explains this concept here in 1Tim 2 where wealthy women are to act according
to their status as benefactors not by flaunting their wealth but by good works
182 1 timothy

that honor their own benefactor “who gave himself as a ransom for all” (v. 6).
θεοσέβεια then becomes an appropriate term for this submission to the one and
only benefactor.

▪ 11 Textual evidence argues for taking ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ to mean “in quietness” (see
Grammatical Analysis), and this is consistent with the use of the ἡσυχία word
group within and beyond the nt. First, the noun ἡσυχία (2 Thess 3:12), together
with its verbal (ἡσυχάζω; cf. Luke 23:56; Acts 11:18; 21:14; 1 Thess 4:11) and adjec-
tival (ἡσύχιος; cf. 2:2; 1Pet 3:4) counterparts, are often used in contexts where
quietness and orderliness rather than silence are clearly implied. Moreover,
the frequent collocation of εἰρήνη and ἡσυχία in the lxx (1 Chron 4:40; 22:9;
Ezek 38:11), which serves as the parallel to ἤρεμον καὶ ἡσύχιον in v. 2 above, also
argues against the lack of verbal expression as the primary use of the lexeme
ἡσυχία.
In contemporaneous literature, “stillness” is often implied even when the
word can be taken to mean “silence” (cf. Lucian, Vit. auct. 3; lsj 779). The
sense of quietness often dominates, as illustrated by how this virtue of quiet-
ness is equated with “peace” (εἰρήνη, Philo, Ebr. 25.2; Plutarch, Mor. 408b) and
contrasted with “rashness” (προπέτεια, Diogenes Laertius, Vit. 7.97) and “wars”
(πόλεμοι, Plutarch, Comp. Cim. Luc. 1.3). Directly relevant for our context is the
how ἡσυχία is considered a sign of modesty for “honorable people” (αἰδοῦς,
Philo, Conf. 10.5; cf. μετὰ αἰδοῦς, 1Tim 2:9) and can be equated with the virtue of
“contentment” (αὐτάρκεια, Plutarch, Mor. 101b; cf. σωφροσύνης, 1 Tim 2:9). When
both “silence” and “quietness” are in view, the author could make it clear by
using the phrase σιωπή τε καὶ ἡσυχία (Dio Chrysostom, Sec. 11). In light of the
use of this lexeme in ancient literature, with considerations given to the prag-
matic markers noted above (in Grammatical Analysis), ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ is best taken
in the sense of “in quietness.”
Unlike ἡσυχία, ὑποταγή is rarely used in Greco-Roman literature, but its rare
appearance in the first-century Jewish work is noteworthy as it is used in the
context of Eve’s disobedience to God (οὐκ ἐφύλαξεν Εὔα τὴν ἐντολὴν τοῦ θεοῦ,
lae 10.3), although the word itself is applied to the beast who is disobedient
to “the image of God” (τῇ εἰκόνι τοῦ θεοῦ, lae 10.7). In Paul’s earlier writings, it
appears twice, in reference to the obedience to the “gospel of Christ” (2 Cor 9:13)
and the refusal to submit to human authorities (Gal 2:5). In this context, the
object of submission should best be considered God or his gospel (see Gram-
matical Analysis).

▪ 12 Beyond the three critical grammatical/syntactical issues of this difficult

verse (see Grammatical Analysis) lies the exact meaning and significance of
2:8–15 183

αὐθεντέω, which can be dealt with by addressing three additional questions: (1)
the range of meaning, (2) the possible reason for the use of this relatively rare
verb, and (3) the context of the usage of this verb.
(1) Wilshire is among the first to examine more than three hundred refer-
ences to αὐθεντέω and its cognates contained in the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae,
and he argues that there is movement from a more negative connotation in
Attic Greek to a neutral one in the patristics (1988: 120–134); he concludes that
the verb is best understood in the sense of “instigating violence” in 1 Tim 2:12
(1993: 53). In his more recent study, he maintains the validity of this conclusion
and suggests considering this verse “a response to an ad hoc situation of violent
self-assertion in a rhetorically defined form of instruction” (Wilshire, 2010: 32).
Expanding on Wilshire’s earlier survey, Baldwin includes the evidence from
documentary papyri and argues for five general categories of meanings for
αὐθεντέω (1995: 73, 272–274): (1) “to rule, to reign sovereignly” (Philodemus,
Rhet. 133.14); (2) “to control, to dominate” (Ptolemy, Tetrabiblos 3.13) (3) “to act
independently” (John Chrysostom, Hom. Matt. 12:46–49); (4) “to be primarily
responsible for or to instigate something” (Eusebius, Vit. Const. 2.48.1.8); and (5)
“to commit murder” (Scholia Vetera on Aeschylus, Eumen. 42a). (1) is ruled out
for 1Tim 2:12 because of the context, and (5) is impossible because this meaning
is unattested for the verbal form (Wolters 2000: 54) before the tenth century ad
(even this tenth-century reading is questionable, see Huttar 2001: 615–625). For
Baldwin, variations of (2) and (3) are possible, with possible positive and neg-
ative connotations (1995: 79–80). What is noteworthy is that only three uses
in both literary and non-literary sources can be identified up to the second
century ad (bgu 1208 [27bc]; Philodemus, Rhet. [1st bc]; Ptolemy, Tetrabib-
los [2nd ad]), though a fourth can now be added to the list, one that carries
a neutral meaning (Methodus mystica [Cat. Cod. Astr.] 7.1; Wolters 2011: 673–
684).
What can be concluded from these studies is that the limited contempora-
neous uses make it quite difficult to argue for one “dominant” usage in the first
century. If usages can indeed be categorized as either “positive” or “negative,”
most would agree that both can be found among those four early samples even
if the translations offered for them may differ (contra Wolters 2000: 145–175).
A near-consensus is reached, however, for at least one usage (out of the four)
that can be understood as “to dominate” (Ptolemy, Tetrabiblos 3.13), and thus
can assume a negative meaning if applied to the women of 1 Tim 2:12 (Hübner
2015: 57–58).
(2) That Paul could have used the more familiar ἐξουσιάζω (1 Cor 6:12; 7:4)
or κυριεύω (6:15; cf. Rom 6:9, 14; 7:1; 14:9; 2Cor 1:24) if he were merely arguing
against women to exercise authority in the community has often been noted,
184 1 timothy

and this remains an important observation with the frequent uses of these two
verbs in the lxx (ἐξουσιάζω [14×]; κυριεύω [50×]).
Without reducing the usages of these terms to being “positive” or “negative”
(see Grammatical Analysis), the statistical observation would instead argue for
this being a choice made because of a more “specific” (Belleville 2004: 209–216)
context with possibly a “stronger” (Towner 1989: 68) connotation. To further
suggest that Paul might have chosen this verb because of his criticism of an
obsession with oneself, as quite a few members of the αὐτο-word group (e.g.,
αὐθάδης, αὐθαίρετος, αὐτάρκης, αὐτοκατάκριτος, αὐτόχειρ) may imply, remains
only a possibility (Hübner 2015: 65), but one that is consistent with Paul’s cri-
tique of the wealthy benefactors in this context.
(3) Finally, the context in which αὐθεντέω appears also needs to be consid-
ered, though a brief statement is sufficient in light of the previous discussion.
If the wealthy women addressed in vv. 9–10 are indeed benefactors who are
flaunting their wealth, the prohibition against them exerting their power over
other men is not unexpected. Moreover, the pattern of general affirmation, neg-
ative clarification (with μή/οὐκ), and positive clarification (introduced by ἀλλά)
that one finds in both vv. 9–10 and vv. 11–12 argues for taking διδάσκειν δὲ γυναικὶ
οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω οὐδὲ αὐθεντεῖν ἀνδρός in a negative sense. Moreover, this prohibi-
tion that leads into the story of Eve’s deception (vv. 13–14) suggests αὐθεντέω to
be an unacceptable and disorderly act.
This discussion of αὐθεντέω should end with a note on διδάσκω. Though a
much more common verb, it also needs to be understood in context. When
used within a positive command and exhortation, it points to an activity to
be encouraged (4:11; 6:2), but when the false teachers are identified as νομο-
διδάσκαλοι (1:7) and their activities as ἑτεροδιδασκαλέω (1:3, 6:3), this word
group takes on a different nuance (see Grammatical Analysis). In this context
where a prohibition is issued, teaching can be an act of domination instead
of service (Roose 2003: 443), not unlike Jesus’s prohibition of teachers that
lord over the people (cf. Matt 23:8–12; Pierce 1993: 349). For Paul, this act of
domination becomes a direct challenge to his vision of a faithful “scholas-
tic” learning community (cf. Smith 2012: 61) and is therefore not to be toler-
ated.

▪ 13 The temporal priority of Adam is clearly established by the πρῶτος … εἶτα

structure within the context of the Genesis creation account (cf. ἐπλάσθη; see
Grammatical Analysis), though it remains unclear whether the superiority of
Adam (or men) is necessarily implied. First, in Genesis 2, temporal priority does
not affirm the relative status of Adam. In light of ancient Near Eastern liter-
ature the reverse is probably the case, where the one created last represents
2:8–15 185

the climax of creation (as shared by some Second Temple Jewish authors, cf.
Philo, Opif. 22.67). If so, the creation of Eve after Adam may provide a subver-
sive note where men are no longer to be considered the climax of creation;
this subversive reading is reinforced by the surprising note of a man leaving his
family in being unified with a woman (Gen 2:24; cf. Lawton 1986: 97). What is
clear is that the submission of women is a result of the Fall (Gen 3:16). If Paul is
not equating priority with superiority, he can no longer be accused of “drawing
an unfounded conclusion from a decontextualized detail of the story” (Zamfir,
245).
Second, in the wider context of Genesis, the practice of primogeniture is
significantly qualified as the rights of the firstborn are repeatedly transferred
to their younger siblings (Ishmael-Isaac, Essau-Jacob, Reuben-Judah). For Paul
to evoke temporal priority as the basis for one’s status and authority is, there-
fore, inconsistent with the Genesis account, especially when he himself argues
against temporal priority in the allegory that involves the two sons of Abraham
in Gal 4:21–31.
Third, it cannot be denied that in the Jewish traditions of Paul’s time, the
temporal priority of Adam does point to his superiority as “the first-being” (τῷ
πρώτῳ γενομένῳ, Philo, Leg. 2.14; cf. Leg. 3.185; qg 1.27; for rabbinic references,
see also Küchler 1986: 17–30), and creation order is explicitly noted as point-
ing to the relative status of a created being (lae 14.4–6). But when Paul alludes
to the temporal priority of Adam in reference to head covering (1 Cor 11:8–9),
the climax that evokes the authority of “the Lord” (ἐν κυρίῳ, v. 11) emphati-
cally challenges the applicability of this principle. In light of the widespread
assumption of the superiority of Adam (thus Spicq, 1.380), Paul’s note that “man
[also] comes through woman” and that “all things come through God” (v. 12)
should be considered as nothing less than a critique of the general validity of
the priority-superiority equation. If the note on creation order here in 1 Tim 2:13
is to be considered as an independent argument against the status of women,
then those who consider this a departure from the Paul of 1 Corinthians are jus-
tifiable (cf. Zamfir and Verheyden 2008: 402).
If the equation between priority and superiority cannot be maintained, then
other possible functions of this verse have to be considered. (1) This being a
response to an argument that rests on the priority of Eve in creation cannot
be ruled out (see μύθοις καὶ γενεαλογίαις, 1:4; cf. 4:7), though literary evidence
remains lacking for such a set of teachings in the first century (contra Kroeger
and Kroeger 1992: 145–170). (2) The temporal argument can also be taken as a
critique of that which is new; “being made first” then becomes “a metaphor for
having older, sounder doctrine” (Padgett 2011: 99). While it is true that those
who stray from the faith (1:6; 6:10, 21) is a major concern of this letter, temporal
186 1 timothy

priority is not explicitly evoked in the call for people to repent. (3) Though this
note does not establish the ontological superiority of men, it may still serve a
specific purpose in this ad hoc context where Paul warns these wealthy bene-
factors not to be proud (cf. 6:17) and not to be dominant over men (cf. 2:8).
However, by itself, this reading is insufficient since it does not lead naturally
into the clause that follows in v. 14. (4) The more plausible reading is to con-
sider this as paving the way for the note on deception: though Adam was
created first, it was Eve who was deceived. Therefore, those who are deceived
should be silent and not exert influence on the men who do not belong to their
party.

▪ 14 The prohibition for women to teach and be dominant over men lies in
the fact that Eve was deceived but Adam was not, a point built on the Gen-
esis creation account where the verb ἀπατάω (and the related form ἐξαπατάω)
recalls the account of how the serpent “deceived” (ἠπάτησεν) Eve (Gen 3:13). The
parts Adam and Eve played when confronted by the serpent have received sub-
stantial attention in subsequent Jewish traditions (Schüngel-Straumann 1989:
54–90). Following Gen 3:13 where ἀπατάω is only applied to Eve, Adam is under-
stood as not having direct contact with the serpent even though he was its
original target (2 En. 31.6). He was not, however, completely exonerated as some
would point to him as responsible for the consequence of the fall (4 Ezra 3.7; cf.
Rom 5:12–14).
Much more widespread is the portrayal of Eve as the one being deceived
and thus responsible for the fall of humanity. One of the earliest notes comes
from Sir 25:24: “from a woman is the beginning of sin, and on account of her
we all die,” though it remains unclear whether this “woman” (γυναικός) is to be
identified as Eve (or the “generic evil wife,” Levison 1985: 617–623). Clearer ref-
erences can be found in 2 En. 30.17 (“And I created for him [i.e., Adam] a wife, so
that death might come [to him] by his wife” otp 1:152; cf. Apoc. Mos. 21.6) and
lae 3.1 (“it is because of me [i.e., Eve] that the Lord God is angry with you”
otp 2:258; cf. lae 9.1–2). Because of Eve, women are considered to be prone to
deception (Philo, qg 1.33). Some have further suggested that Eve was seduced
by the serpent (4Macc 18:8) or even the angels (Apoc. Abr. 23.1), and the sexual
nature of Eve’s deception survives into the Rabbinic traditions (b. Šabb. 146a).
But there is no evidence that the deception Eve suffers here in 1 Tim 2:14 is of a
sexual nature, especially in light of the ascetic tendencies of the false teachers
(cf. 4:1–5) and the identification of the remedy for these women in “childbear-
ing” (v. 15).
This verse clarifies a number of issues with this section. That this verse points
to a direct application of the Genesis story to the Ephesian women is made clear
2:8–15 187

by the shift from Εὕα (v. 13) back to γυνή (v. 14; cf. vv. 10, 11, 12). Not only does it
draw attention to this verse as the point of the evocation of Adam/Eve, but it
also points to the importance of deception (ἀπατάω, ἐξαπατάω). This emphasis
on deception, in turn, points to a context where the false teachings/teachers
are in view.
If so, this should not be taken as a universal statement on the gullibility of
women. Some have further pointed to Paul’s statements elsewhere on the cul-
pability of Adam and him alone as a confirmation of the ad hoc nature of this
verse, especially those where Adam becomes the first to fall into “transgression”
(παραβάσεως, Rom 5:14; cf. 1Cor 15:22) as Eve is here claimed to be (cf. παρα-
βάσει). Others have suggested that Rom 5:12–21 actually reinforces the federal
headship of Adam, and thus his unique “status in salvation history” (Moo 1996:
319). More relevant is perhaps Romans 7, where Paul uses the same verb that
is applied to Eve’s deception (ἐξαπατάω) and applies it to himself as being rep-
resentative of the struggles of all humanity (Rom 7:11). The parallels between
Paul and the depiction of Eve have led some to argue further that in Romans 7
Paul speaks through the character of Eve (Elder 2018: 743–763). Even if this is
not the case, he clearly considers himself being deceived and having died. To
argue for a universal application of this verse would therefore contradict Paul’s
statements elsewhere.
In this context, the women who are deceived may start to assume the role of
the false teachers in “talking about things that they should not” (5:13). There-
fore, the fall of Eve becomes a warning to them so that they would not introduce
death and destruction to those who follow their footsteps.

▪ 15 Building on the grammatical analysis of this verse provided above, sev-

eral options may now be evaluated. (1) Safety during childbirth: Taking σῴζω
in a non-eschatological sense, and διά + genitive in a locative or circumstantial
sense, some have argued for physical safety through the process of giving birth
(cf. Keener, 1992: 118–120). The present context would, however, argue for tak-
ing σῴζω in an eschatological sense, and διά + genitive in an instrumental sense
(see Grammatical Analysis).
(2) Birthing virtues: Noting the presence of the virtue list that follows (πίστει
καὶ ἀγάπῃ καὶ ἁγιασμῷ μετὰ σωφροσύνης) and how virtues are sometimes con-
sidered offspring of the virtuous person in Greek (Plato, Symp. 209d–e; Phaed.
105d) and Hellenistic Jewish (Philo, Gig. 5; Deus 117–118) literature, Waters
(2004: 703–735) argues that childbearing should be understood as fruit-bearing
in the earlier Pauline writings (Rom 6:21–22; 7:4–5; Gal 5:22–25; Phil 1:11), and
thus: “All women and men must give birth to and continue in faith, love, holi-
ness, and temperance in order to be saved” (735; cf. Solevåg 2013: 77–79). Despite
188 1 timothy

the ingenuity of this proposal, it fails to consider the special role Eve/women
played in this section to which this saying is the conclusion, and it downplays
the importance of Gen 2–3 in this section.
(3) Messianic reading: Those who take τεκνογονία as a reference to the prod-
uct of childbearing often see Gen 3:15 behind this verse and therefore point to
the anticipated Messiah as the one who can achieve the salvation of women
(and other human beings) by defeating Satan (Winger 2017: 283–300), building
on the typology between Eve and Mary that exists in early Christian traditions
(Riesner 2004: 164–165). The main problem with taking it as referring to its
product lies in the fact that every occurrence of the rare τεκνογονία refers to the
act of childbearing rather than its product (Chrysippus, Frag. mor. 611; Arius
Didymus, Liber de phil. 76; Antiochus, Frag. 7). More importantly, the use of
τεκνογονία does not primarily evoke the promise in Gen 3:15, but rather the
curse in 3:16 (τέξῃ τέκνα).
(4) Domestic duties of women: Some (Moo 1980: 72; Köstenberger 1997: 141;
Zamfir, 260–261) have taken it as a synecdoche in reference to the fulfillment of
the domestic duties of a woman, but the verbal cognate in 5:14 where τεκνογο-
νεῖν is distinguished from acts of marriage (γαμεῖν) and household management
(οἰκοδεσποτεῖν; cf. Porter 1993: 95–96) would argue against this reading. More-
over, Eve was not saved by performing a list of household duties, and without
sufficient qualifications this reading may contradict Paul’s emphasis on grace
even in this letter (cf. 1:13–14) and the unique role of Jesus Christ as mediator
(cf. 1:15; 2:5).
(5) Women as wives and mothers: Related to the previous proposal is one
that focuses less on the general duties of women within the household, but
on the particular act of procreation (Porter 1993: 102; Huizenga, 342). Though
the close connection between marriage duties and childbearing in 5:14 as well
as in other uses of this word in contemporaneous literature (see, for example,
Chrysippus, Frag. mor. 611: καὶ εἰς γάμον καὶ εἰς τεκνογονίαν) cannot be ignored,
the fact that only childbearing is mentioned in v. 15 is noteworthy, and it can
be explained by its dependence on Gen 3:16 in pointing to the reversal of the
curse (Pierce 1993: 351).
Moreover, this odd reference may also contain a veiled reference to the
false teachings in the church in first-century Ephesus, as the repeated use
of this rare word group in 5:14 testifies. Arguing against ascetics, Paul here
points to the original intent of creation with the creation of Eve as wife and
mother (cf. 1Tim 4:1–5, 7–8; Fuhrmann 2010: 34–39). In its historical context of
first-century Ephesus, an implicit critique of Artemis, the protector of child-
birth, cannot be ruled out (cf. Weissenrieder 2014: 313–336; see discussion
above).
2:8–15 189

Bibliography
Baldwin, H. Scott. “A Difficult Word: αὐθεντέω in 1 Timothy 2:12.” In Women in the
Church: A Fresh Analysis of 1Timothy 2:9–15. Ed. Andreas J. Köstenberger, Thomas
R. Schreiner, and H. Scott Baldwin, 65–80. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995.
Batten, Alicia J. “Neither Gold nor Braided Hair (1Timothy 2.9; 1 Peter 3.3): Adornment,
Gender and Honour in Antiquity.” nts 55 (2009): 484–501.
Baugh, Steven M. “Cult Prostitution in nt Ephesus: A Reappraisal.” jets 42 (1999): 443–
460.
Baugh, Steven M. “The Apostle Among the Amazons.” wtj 56 (1994): 153–171.
Becker, Matthias. “Ehe als Sanatorium: Plutarchs Coniugalia Praecepta und die Pas-
toralbriefe.” NovT 52 (2010): 241–266.
Belleville, Linda L. “Teaching and Usurping Authority.” In Discovering Biblical Equal-
ity: Complementarity without Hierarchy. Ed. Ronald W. Pierce and Rebecca Merrill
Groothuis, 205–223. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2004.
Blomberg, Craig L. “Neither Hierarchicalist nor Egalitarian: Gender Roles in Paul.” In
Paul and His Theology. Ed. Stanley E. Porter, 283–326. past 3. Leiden/Boston: Brill,
2006.
Capper, Brian J. “To Keep Silent, Ask Husbands at Home, and Not to Have Authority
Over Men. (1Corinthians 14:33–36 and 1Timothy 2:11–12).” tz 61 (2005): 113–131, 301–
319.
Elder, Nicholas. “‘Wretch I Am!’ Eve’s Tragic Speech-in-Character in Romans 7:7–25.”
jbl 137 (2018): 743–763.
Ferguson, Everett. “Τόπος in 1Timothy 2:8.” ResQ 33 (1991): 65–73.
Fleisher, Robert. “Artemis Ephesias und Aphrodite von Aphrodisias.” In Die orientalis-
chen Religionen in Römerreich. Ed. Maarten J. Vermaseren, 298–315. epro 93. Leiden:
Brill, 1981.
Foster, Timothy. “1 Timothy 2:8–15 and Gender Wars at Ephesus.” Priscilla Papers 30
(2016): 3–10.
Fuhrmann, Sebastian, “Saved by Childbirth: Struggling Ideologies, the Female Body,
and a Placing of 1Tim 2:15a.” Neot 44 (2010): 31–46.
Gritz, Sharon Hodgin. Paul, Women Teachers, and the Mother Goddess at Ephesus. Lan-
ham, MD: University Press of America, 1991.
Harrison, James R. “Ephesian Cultic Officials, Their Benefactors, and the Quest for Civic
Virtue: Paul’s Alternative Quest for Status in the Epistle to the Ephesians.” In The
First Urban Churches 3: Ephesus. Ed. James R. Harrison and L.L. Welborn, 253–297.
Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2018.
Hoag, Gary C. “Decorum and Deeds in 1Timothy 2:9–10 in Light of Ephesiaca by
Xenophon of Ephesus.” ExAud 27 (2011): 134–160.
Hübner, Jamin. “Revisiting αὐθεντἐω in 1Timothy 2:12: What Do the Extant Data Really
Show?” Journal for the Study of Paul and His Letters 5 (2015): 41–70
190 1 timothy

Huttar, David K. “αυθεντειν in the Aeschylus Scholium.” jets 44 (2001): 615–625.

Judge, E.A. “A Woman’s Behavior.” NewDocs 6 (1992): 18–23.
Kearsley, R.A. “Asiarchs, Archiereis and the Archiereiai of Asia.” grbs 27 (1986): 183–192.
Keener, Craig S. Paul, Women and Wives: Marriage and Women’s Ministry in the Letters
of Paul. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1992.
Knibbe, D., H. Engelmann, and B. Iplikçioglu, “Neue Inschriften aus Ephesos xi.” jöai
59 (1989): 163–237.
Köstenberger, Andreas J. “Ascertaining Women’s God-Ordained Roles: An Interpreta-
tion of 1Timothy 2:15.” bbr 7 (1997): 107–144.
Kroeger, Richard Clark, and Catherine Clark Kroeger. I Suffer Not a Woman: Rethinking
1Timothy 2:11–15 in Light of Ancient Evidence. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992.
Lawton, Robert B. “Genesis 2:24: Trite or Tragic.” jbl 105 (1986): 97–98.
Lendon, J.E. Empire of Honour: The Art of Government in the Roman World. Oxford:
Clarendon, 1997.
LiDonnici, Lynn R. “The Images of Artemis Ephesia and Greco-Roman Worship: A
Reconsideration.” htr 85 (1992) 389–415.
Maier, Harry O. Picturing Paul in Empire: Imperial Image, Text and Persuasion in Colos-
sians, Ephesians and the Pastoral Epistles. London/New York: Bloomsbury, 2013.
Moo, Douglas J. “1Timothy 2:11–15: Meaning and Significance.” tj 1 (1980): 62–83.
Moo, Douglas J. The Epistle to the Romans. nicnt. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996.
Nadar, Sarojini. “Paradigm Shifts in Mission: From an Ethic of Domination to an Ethic
of Justice and Love: The Case of 1Tim. 2:8–15.” Missionalia 33 (2005): 303–314.
Nelson, P.G. “Inscription to a High Priestess at Ephesus.” Journal for Biblical Manhood
and Womanhood 12 (2007): 14–15.
North, Helen. Sophrosyne: Self-Knowledge and Self-Restraint in Greek Literature. Ithaca,
NY: Cornell University Press, 1966.
Oster, Richard E. “Acts 9:23–41 and an Ephesian Inscription.” htr 77 (1984): 233–237.
Pagels, Elaine. Adam, Eve, and the Serpent: Sex and Politics in Early Christianity. New
York: Random House, 1988.
Pierce, Ronald W. “Evangelicals and Gender Roles in the 1990s: 1 Tim 2:8–15: A Test Case.”
jets 36 (1993): 343–355.
Porter, Stanley E. “What Does It Mean to Be ‘Saved by Childbirth’ (1 Timothy 2:15)?” jsnt
49 (March 1993): 87–102.
Riesner, Rainer. “Genesis 3,15 in der vorlukanischen und vorjohanneischen Tradition.”
sntsu 29 (2004): 119–178.
Roose, Hanna. “Dienen und Herrschen: Zur Charakterisierung des Lehrens in den Pas-
toralbriefen.” nts 49 (2003): 440–446.
Schottroff, Luise M. Lydia’s Impatient Sisters: A Feminist Social History of Early Chris-
tianity. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1995.
Schüngel-Straumann, Helen. Die Frau am Anfang: Eva und die Folgen. Freiburg: Herder,
1989.
2:8–15 191

Smith, Claire S. Pauline Communities as ‘Scholastic Communities.’ wunt 2.335. Tübin-

gen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012.
Solevåg, Anna Rebecca. Birthing Salvation: Gender Class in Early Christian Childbearing
Discourse. BibInt 121. Leiden: Brill, 2013.
Strelan, Rick. Paul, Artemis, and the Jews in Ephesus. bznw 80. Berlin/New York: de
Gruyter, 1996.
Tamez, Elsa. Struggles for Power in Early Christianity. Trans. Gloria Kinsler. Mary-
knoll, NY: Orbis, 2007.
Trebilco, Paul. Jewish Communities in Asia Minor. sntsms 69. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1991.
Tsiparis, Agneta Enermalm. “Gates Opened, Doors Closed: The Status of Women Ac-
cording to the Gospel of Thomas and the First Letter to Timothy.” seå 72 (2007):
75–94.
Van Bremen, Riet. “Women and Wealth.” In Images of Women in Antiquity. Ed. Averil
Cameron and Amélie Kuhrt, 223–242. London: Croom Helm, 1983.
Van Tilborg, Sjef. Reading John in Ephesus. NovTSup 83. Leiden: Brill, 1996.
Wall, Robert W. “1Timothy 2:9–15 Reconsidered (Again).” bbr 14 (2004): 81–103.
Waters, Kenneth L. “Saved Through Childbearing: Virtues as Children in 1 Timothy 2:11–
15.” jbl 123 (2004): 703–735.
Weissenrieder, Annette, “What Does σωθήσεθαι δὲ διὰ τῆς τεκνογονίας ‘To Be Saved by
Childbearing’ Mean (1Timothy 2:15)? Insights from Ancient Medical and Philosoph-
ical Texts.” Early Christianity 5 (2014): 313–336.
Williams, Travis B. Good Works in 1Peter: Negotiating Social Conflict and Christian Iden-
tity in the Greco-Roman World. wunt 337. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014.
Wilshire, L.E. Insight into Two Biblical Passages. Lanham, MD: University Press of Amer-
ica, 2010.
Wilshire, L.E. “The tlg Computer and Further Reference to αυθεντεω in 1 Timothy
2.12.” nts 34 (1988): 120–134.
Winter, Bruce W. Roman Wives, Roman Widows: The Appearance of New Women and the
Pauline Communities. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003.
Wolters, Albert. “A Semantic Study of αὐθέντης and its Derivatives.” Journal of Greco-
Roman Christianity and Judaism 1 (2000): 145–175.
Wolters, Albert. “An Early Parallel of αὐθεντεῖν in 1Tim 2:12.” jets 54 (2011): 673–684.
Zamfir, Korinna, and Joseph Verheyden. “Text-Critical and Intertextual Remarks on
1Tim 2:8–10.” NovT 50 (2008): 376–406.

5 Theological Analysis
This section does not provide us with a full and abstract discussion of gender
roles and the role of men and women in ministry, and a sufficient treatment of
this difficult issue cannot be provided here. Several issues that emerge in our
discussion above do, however, deserve further attention.
192 1 timothy

With Paul’s evocation of the order of creation, many would argue for the
general applicability of particular statements within this section:

Paul’s arguments from creation in 1Timothy 2:13–14 directly follow the

prohibition for women not to teach or have authority over men. As a
result, verses 13 and 14 are best taken as the grounds for that prohibition
and thus are transcultural. Therefore, the command for women not to
teach or have authority over men should be upheld in the church today.
(Merkle 2006: 548)

Beyond the particular ways “teaching” and “having authority” should be under-
stood, it is unclear whether the mere evocation of the Genesis creation should
be taken as establishing a “transcultural claim” when Paul is often able to
make such transcultural and universal claims without resorting to the creation
account. Behind the above statement lies the questionable assumption that the
biblical creation account itself is transcultural, especially when many would
now recognize the Genesis creation account as both historical and subver-
sive in challenging many assumptions behind ancient Near Eastern creation
accounts (Collins 2018: 107–157).
More importantly, Paul’s evocation of the creation paradigm needs to be sit-
uated within a wider redemptive history that includes God’s original intent in
the first creation, the fall, and the new creation. All three are contained here
since the note on the creation order (v. 13) is followed by the fall (v. 14) and thus
the need for eschatological salvation (v. 15). All three should be considered in
the construction of a biblical theology of gender roles. The Genesis creation
account affirms that both Adam and Eve are created in the image of God (Gen
1:27), and the identification of the role of Eve as the “helper” (‫ֵﬠ ֶזר‬, Gen 2:18, 20)
should not be taken as one that reduces Eve to a subservient status since this
label is never used for a person of an inferior status but most often is applied to
God himself (Exod 18:4; Deut 33:7, 26, 29; Pss 20:2; 33:20; 70:5; 89:19; 115:9, 10, 11;
121:1, 2; 124:8; 146:5; Hos 13:9). Moreover, the word often rendered as “suitable”
(‫ ) ֶנ ֶגד‬should be understood to mean “of the same status as” (or even “surpass,”
Rosenzweigh 1986: 277–280). The dominance of men over women is explicitly
noted as a consequence of the fall (Gen 3:16).
Already in the ot, Joel points to the eschatological restoration when both
men and women are to prophesy to God’s mighty works (Joel 2:28–32 [3:1–5]).
This vision of Joel forms a significant basis for the subsequent conception of the
new age, including the important Pentecostal speech of Peter (Acts 2:17–21; cf.
Acts 10:45; 16:10). It is within this trajectory that Gal 3:28 should be understood
since this passage does not simply provide an explicit declaration of Paul’s egal-
2:8–15 193

itarian vision as is often assumed. It also points to the reiteration of the vision
of Joel through the lens of the cross (Dauitzenberg 1982: 197–198), which, in
turn, explains the influence of Joel 2:28–32 elsewhere in the Pauline tradition
(Rom 10:13; 1Cor 1:2; Titus 3:6; Strazicich 2007: 289–330), including possibly
1 Cor 11:2, where Paul praises the Corinthians for keeping the tradition passed
on to them (likely a reference to the Pentecost; Thiselton 2000: 811) before
addressing the issue of men and women prophesying. It is within this wider
redemptive-historical framework that 1Tim 2:8–15 should be understood and
applied.
As noted above, the presence of false teachers/teachings cannot be denied,
even though it may not be possible to reconstruct the precise scenario because
of the limitations of historical documents. The text itself reaffirms the contex-
tual nature of this section: (1) the disproportionate space devoted to women
in this section (vv. 9–15) points to the urgency of the situation; (2) Paul’s affir-
mation of the teaching role of women in the pe (2 Tim 1:5; 3:14–15) and his
early writing (Rom 16:3; cf. Acts 18:18–26) argue against taking his prohibition of
women to teach as a universal command; and (3) the inclusion of the note on
women flaunting their wealth argues for reading this section in light of 6:2b–
19 (and 5:3–16). This section remains highly relevant for the church as it warns
against a particular segment of the community that is tempted to use its wealth
and influence in leading the community from recognizing the true benefactor
of all (vv. 5–6). The danger then is no longer from without, but the “victims”
from within are assuming the role of false teachers in destroying the house-
hold of God. Recognizing the urgency of the situation, Paul’s strong statements
demand obedience, once properly understood.

Bibliography
Collins, C. John. Reading Genesis Well: Navigating History, Poetry, Science, and Truth in
Genesis 1–11. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2018.
Dautzenberg, Gerhard. “‘Da ist nicht männlich und weiblich’: Zur Interpretation von
Gal 3,28.” Kairos 24 (1982): 181–206.
Merkle, Benjamin L. “Paul’s Arguments from Creation in 1 Corinthians 11:8–9 and 1 Tim-
othy 2:13–14: An Apparent Inconsistency Answered.” jets 49 (2006): 527–548.
Rosenzweigg, Michael L. “A Helper Equal to Him.” Judaism 86 (1986): 277–280.
Strazicich, John. Joel’s Use of Scripture and the Scripture’s Use of Joel. BibInt 82. Leiden/
Boston: Brill, 2007.
Thiselton, Anthony C. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. nigtc. Grand Rapid: Eerd-
mans, 2000.
194 1 timothy

iv Household of God as the Bulwark of the Truth (3:1–16)

A Overseers in the Household of God (3:1–7)

1 Translation
1 This saying is trustworthy: those who crave to be an overseer are those who
are ideally14 craving for good works. 2 Therefore, the overseer must be above
reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hos-
pitable, able to teach, 3 not a drunkard, not violent, but gentle, not quarrelsome,
and not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own household well, such as15
keeping his children in submission, with all dignity, 5 for if someone does not
know how to manage his own household, how can he take care for the church
of God? 6 He must not be a recent convert lest he become arrogant and fall
into the condemnation of the devil, 7 and he must be well thought of by the
outsiders, lest he fall into disgrace, that is the snare of the devil.

2 Text-Critical Analysis
▪ 1 πιστός: As in 1:15 where some Latin witnesses read humanus rather than
fidelis (for πιστός), here a number of Western witnesses (D* b g m Ambrosi-
aster Speculum) read ἀνθρώπινος instead. North (1995: 65–66) provides the
most recent defense of this variant reading by suggesting that the “desire for
office” is at best a human desire, though a tolerable one in light of the need for
such a structure in the early Christian communities. When the change is made
from ἀνθρώπινος to πιστός, “what had originally been a concession to human-
Christian ambition has become canon law” (North 1995: 67). Nevertheless, one
could just as easily imagine a scribe making the change from πιστός to ἀνθρώπι-
νος, especially when ἀνθρώπινος can mean “common,” “popular,” or “human.” If
πιστὸς ὁ λόγος is to be taken with the previous clause (2:15b), then the difficulty
of that saying may have prompted a scribe to label it as merely a “human saying”
(cf. Rom 6:19). If the phrase is taken with the clause that follows (3:1b), then the
scribe may have been encouraged to consider what follows as merely reflecting
a “common” sentiment, especially since it is apparently a claim that is devoid
of significant theological content (Westcott and Hort, Selected Readings, 132),
unlike other “trustworthy” sayings (1:15; 4:8–9; 2Tim 2:11–13; Titus 3:6–8). Some
would further argue that the presence of this variant supports taking the phrase
πιστὸς ὁ λόγος with that which follows (Yarbrough 2009: 92). More importantly,

14 “Ideally” is inserted here to clarify the ironic tone of this statement (see Grammatical Anal-
ysis).
15 “Such as” is inserted here to point to the illustrative nature of this clause.
3:1–7 195

despite the early dating of the Old Latin witnesses that support ἀνθρώπινος, the
witnesses for πιστός are diverse and include the best manuscripts.

▪ 3 μὴ πλήκτην: After this phrase, many Byzantine witnesses (𝔐) insert μὴ

αἰσχροκερδῆ, likely influenced by Titus 1:7.

▪ 5 θεοῦ: This word is omitted in some late witnesses (1311 1874) and part of the
Western tradition (lat Ambrose Augustine), probably because after the apos-
tolic period ἐκκλησία was understood as a reference to the ἐκκλησία θεοῦ. The
immediate context that contrasts one’s household with the church of God
demands this genitive qualifier, however.

▪ 7 δέ: αὐτόν is inserted after δέ in selected Western (D Augustine Jerome al.)

and the majority of the Byzantine witnesses (K L P 𝔐 pm), but is omitted by
the more reliable Alexandrian (‫ א‬A; cf. I 1739txt) and selected Western (F Gc)
witnesses. “Thoroughgoing eclectic” critic Elliott (51) argues for its inclusion
because “the addition of the personal pronoun is essential to the sense,” but its
omission would make it the more difficult reading, which is more likely to be
the original.

Bibliography
North, J. Lionel. “‘Human Speech’ in Paul and the Paulines: The Investigation and Mean-
ing of ἀνθρώπινος ὁ λόγος (1Tim. 3:1).” NovT 37 (1995): 50–67.
Yarbrough, Mark M. Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy. lnts 417.
London: T & T Clark, 2009.

3 Grammatical Analysis
The shift to ἐπισκοπή clearly signals the beginning of a new unit, though it
remains unclear whether πιστὸς ὁ λόγος should be taken with the phrase that
precedes or follows. Those who take it as a reference to the difficult saying in
2:15 argue that all such sayings focus on the topic of salvation (Collins, 78), and
the fact that 2:15 falls short of the expectation of a typical creedal statement
has prompted some to take the phrase to mean merely “a reliable opinion”
(Johnson, 203). Despite growing support (as reflected in na26/27/28) for this
anaphoric reading, this phrase is best read as a reference to the saying that fol-
lows. First, the presence of the variant humanus/ἀνθρώπινος in a number of
Western witnesses (see Text-Critical Analysis) points to an early kataphoric
reading since the saying that follows apparently expresses a human desire.
More importantly, even though it is uncertain whether εἴ τις ἐπισκοπῆς ὀρέγε-
ται, καλοῦ ἔργου ἐπιθυμεῖ is a preformed saying, the programmatic nature of this
196 1 timothy

saying cannot be denied (contra Campbell 1994). Using two words of desire that
occur elsewhere in Paul only in negative contexts (ὀρέγω: 6:10; ἐπιθυμέω: Rom
7:7; 13:9; 1Cor 10:6; Gal 5:17), Paul is making a striking point: for those who crave
for power in seeking the office of an overseer, they should indeed crave for the
“good works” defined by vv. 2–7 in honor of God the true benefactor (see com-
ments on v. 1 below).
The boundary of this asyndetic unit is marked by the naming of a particu-
lar role within the household of God (ἐπισκοπῆς), a literary strategy followed
at the beginnings of several comparable semantic units that follow (διακόνους,
3:8; πρεσβυτέρῳ, 5:1; χήρας, 5:3; πρεσβύτεροι, 5:17; δοῦλοι, 6:1). The move to a new
topic and context is also indicated by the shift from the use of βούλομαι (2:8)
that carries Paul’s apostolic authority, as well as the marked imperative μανθα-
νέτω (2:11) and the equally forceful οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω (2:12) in the previous unit, to
the use of the impersonal verb δεῖ (vv. 2, 7) in the present unit.
Despite this clear boundary, this unit and the previous one both reflect
household concerns in the management of the household of God (3:4, 5;
cf. 1Tim 3:15). Beyond the presence of a similar set of vocabulary from the
same semantic domain (ἀγαθός [2:10]/καλός [3:1, 7]; αἰδώς [2:9]; κόσμιος [2:9;
3:2]; σεμνότης [3:4]; σωφροσύνη [2:9, 15]/ σώφρων [3:2]; LNd § 88) that outlines
the proper behavior of individuals in their respective social roles, these two
units also share the same concerns with issues of wealth and teachings. As
2:9–10 urges women to replace their excessive adornment that showcases their
wealth and status with good work, those who aspire to be overseers are also
urged not to be “lover[s] of money” (ἀφιλάργυρον, 3:3; cf. 6:5–6, 10) but to desire
“good works” (3:1). As 2:11–15 reflects concerns of deception and false teachings
among women, overseers must be “able to teach” (διδακτικόν, 3:2). The fact that
both “lover[s] of money” and “able to teach” stand out in the list of require-
ments that otherwise resembles contemporary Greco-Roman virtue lists (see
Historical Analysis) points to the ad hoc nature of this discussion (cf. Zamfir,
117).
The first half of this unit also resembles the structure of the previous one.
As 2:9–10 and 11–15 are both organized according to the framework of gen-
eral affirmation, negative clarification marked by a negative particle (μή/οὐκ),
and a positive clarification introduced by ἀλλά, 3:2–4 also follows this pat-
tern:

General Affirmation: δεῖ οὖν τὸν ἐπίσκοπον ἀνεπίλημπτον εἶναι, μιᾶς γυναι-
κὸς ἄνδρα, νηφάλιον σώφρονα κόσμιον φιλόξενον διδακτικόν

Negative Clarification: μὴ πάροινον μὴ πλήκτην

3:1–7 197

Positive Clarification: ἀλλὰ ἐπιεικῆ ἄμαχον ἀφιλάργυρον, τοῦ ἰδίου οἴκου

καλῶς προϊστάμενον, τέκνα ἔχοντα ἐν ὑποταγῇ, μετὰ πάσης σεμνότητος

This first part of the unit essentially contains a list of virtues to practice and
vices to avoid, but its ending receives prominence when ἔχοντα is modified
by two prepositional phrases (ἐν ὑποταγῇ and μετὰ πάσης σεμνότητος). The
conditional sentence that follows provides further support for the statement
in v. 4, thus confirming the relative prominence placed on household con-
cerns.
The final two clauses both contain a warning introduced by ἵνα μή and a ref-
erence to τοῦ διαβόλου (vv. 6–7). This final subsection, which begins with an
asyndetic construction, departs from the vice and virtue lists in vv. 2–4 in that it
draws attention to distinctly Christian concerns, with the final call (δεῖ … μαρτυ-
ρίαν καλὴν ἔχειν ἀπὸ τῶν ἔξωθεν) serving as the proper conclusion for this entire
unit. With cohesion provided primarily by the subject matter (ἐπισκοπή), this
unit provides a distinct call to lead a certain lifestyle both because they are to
represent the household of God and that they may combat false teachers and
avoid the work of ὁ διάβολος.

▪ 1 πιστὸς ὁ λόγος, εἴ τις ἐπισκοπῆς ὀρέγεται, καλοῦ ἔργου ἐπιθυμεῖ. As noted above,
πιστὸς ὁ λόγος should best be taken with the saying that follows. The origin of
this saying is unclear, though with the use of ἐπισκοπῆς it apparently comes
from the early church. This could also have been a saying modified by Paul him-
self since ἐπισκοπή is not often used for the office of the overseers in the time
of Paul.
The εἴ … τις construction is used repeatedly in 1 Timothy (3:5; 5:4, 8, 16; 6:3),
and elsewhere in Paul it is often used in reference to his opponents or false
teachers (Gal 1:9; 6:3; Phil 3:4; 2Thess 3:10, 14). Noting the relationship between
the protasis and the apodosis of this first-class conditional sentence as one of
“relation of equivalence” (Porter, Verbal Aspect, 319–320) and noting the nega-
tive connotation of both the ὀρέγω and ἐπιθυμέω/ἐπιθυμία word groups within
the same unit in 6:9–10, it appears that Paul is here imposing a definition on
those who (selfishly) desire to be an overseer with a touch of irony: “those who
crave to be an overseer are those who are [ideally] craving for good works.” Such
a use of the conditional sentence is comparable to that of 5:10, where the five
εἰ-clauses contribute to a larger argument that aims at correcting the behavior
of some. The sense of this “trustworthy saying” can then be compared to that
of Titus 3:8, where a call to “good works” is issued. Therefore, this saying does
not aim simply “to underscore the value of the work of the office of the bishop”
(Knight 1969: 54), but also to call those who desire to hold this office to perform
198 1 timothy

“good works” in honor of the one who is the benefactor of all. This would also
explain the οὖν-clause that follows, as it lays out what it means to perform “good
works.”

▪ 2 δεῖ οὖν τὸν ἐπίσκοπον ἀνεπίλημπτον εἶναι, μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα, νηφάλιον
σώφρονα κόσμιον φιλόξενον διδακτικόν. The inferential οὖν here moves the discus-
sion forward from the “office” (ἐπισκοπή) to the one who is to hold this “office”
(ἐπίσκοπος).
The use of δεῖ with an accusative singular followed by a list is common
in describing the virtues or responsibilities of an ideal leader (Stobaeus, Ecl.
2.67, 21–22; Malherbe 2012: 73–74); therefore, the singular τὸν ἐπίσκοπον does
not need to be taken as a reference to a singular overseer. The use of the sin-
gular here naturally follows εἴ τις in the previous verse, and this use of the
singular is anticipated by the generic singular of γυνή in 2:11, 12. The article
τόν should then be taken as the “categorical” use of the article (Porter, Idioms,
105).
Within the asyndetic list of virtues, the meaning of μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα is the
most disputed. Though grammatical issues are involved, historical arguments
also play an important role; therefore, it will be discussed below with the other
virtues listed (see Historical Analysis).

▪ 3 μὴ πάροινον μὴ πλήκτην, ἀλλὰ ἐπιεικῆ ἄμαχον ἀφιλάργυρον. For Mounce (175),

Paul is here turning from a positive list to a negative one, but structurally the
negative list consists of only two adjectives modified by μή (with δεῖ … εἶναι
from v. 2), and this negative list is clarified by the positive virtues introduced
by ἀλλά (with the α-privatives ἄμαχον ἀφιλάργυρον taken as positive terms). As
such, this structure of general affirmation, negative clarification marked by a
negative particle (μή/οὐκ), and a positive clarification introduced by ἀλλά fol-
lows the ones found in 2:9–10 and 11–15. Without noticing this wider pattern,
ἀλλὰ ἐπιεικῆ is often taken to qualify merely μὴ πλήκτην (Levinsohn, Discourse,
114) instead of the wider contrasts between μὴ πάροινον μὴ πλήκτην and ἀλλὰ
ἐπιεικῆ ἄμαχον ἀφιλάργυρον. Both readings, however, point to Paul addressing
the particular concerns of the Ephesian community.

▪ 4 τοῦ ἰδίου οἴκου καλῶς προϊστάμενον, τέκνα ἔχοντα ἐν ὑποταγῇ, μετὰ πάσης σεμνό-
τητος. With this verse, which structurally falls under the ἀλλά of the previous
verse, Paul concludes the list of requirements for those seeking to be an over-
seer. Instead of being merely an additional series of virtues, however, this verse
points to the central concern of this list surrounding ὁ οἶκός:
3:1–7 199

Principle: τοῦ ἰδίου οἴκου καλῶς προϊστάμενον (v. 4a)

Illustration: τέκνα ἔχοντα ἐν ὑποταγῇ, μετὰ πάσης σεμνότητος (v. 4b)

Support: εἰ δέ τις τοῦ ἰδίου οἴκου προστῆναι οὐκ οἶδεν, πῶς ἐκκλησίας θεοῦ
ἐπιμελήσεται (v. 5).

The first part of this verse names the general virtue to be practiced as it points to
the significance of managing one’s household (τοῦ ἰδίου οἴκου), a phrase picked
up in v. 5 as Paul explains its significance by linking the management of one’s
household with ἐκκλησίας θεοῦ, which is explicitly identified as οἴκῳ θεοῦ in
v. 15. Between the stating of the principle (v. 4a) and its support (v. 5), Paul
provides a particular illustration of household management with a particip-
ial clause (τέκνα ἔχοντα) followed by two prepositional phrases (ἐν ὑποταγῇ and
μετὰ πάσης σεμνότητος, v. 4b), though likely not parallel in reference, with the
first referring to the children, and the second to the father, since σεμνότης is
always used in reference to adult men in the pe (cf. 2:2; Titus 2:7). This is to be
considered as a “particular illustration/application,” because unlike the gen-
eral principle stated in v. 4a, the various parts of v. 4b all recall elements in the
immediately preceding units: τέκνα/ τεκνογονίας (2:15); ἐν ὑποταγῇ/ἐν … ὑποταγῇ
(2:11); πάσης σεμνότητος/πάσῃ … σεμνότητι (2:2). An overseer is thus portrayed as
a household manager in maintaining the integrity of the gospel.

▪ 5 εἰ δέ τις τοῦ ἰδίου οἴκου προστῆναι οὐκ οἶδεν, πῶς ἐκκλησίας θεοῦ ἐπιμελήσεται;
This verse is placed in parenthesis in na 27/28 and is often considered a par-
enthetical thought (Knight, 162), especially when δέ is taken to carry primarily
a contrastive sense (Winer, Grammar, 567), and since it is not governed by δεῖ
… εἶναι, as the surrounding clauses are (vv. 2–4, 6; cf. Knight, 162). In terms of
the development of Paul’s argument, however, this parenthetical thought also
provides grounds for v. 4a, as noted above. A developmental use of δέ can still
be detected here, where Paul moves from the concerns of one’s household (τοῦ
ἰδίου οἴκου) to that of the wider community (ἐκκλησίας θεοῦ; cf. Heckert, Dis-
course, 49–50).
Εἰ … τις links this condition back to v. 1 and serves here as a short form for
those who desire to be an overseer. The perfect οἶδεν grammaticalizes stative
aspect, and in this context makes a timeless claim (Porter, Verb Aspect, 269).
The future tense ἐπιμελήσεται in the apodosis of a conditional sentence is often
considered a rhetorical “deliberative future” (Robertson, Grammar, 1934), and
this rightly emphasizes the use of the future not as an expression of an objec-
tive state of reality (which is impossible for a future tense) but as a subjective
200 1 timothy

commitment to the certainty of an alternate state of affairs (Long 2013: 269;

contra Caragounis 2004: 157).
On the relationship between οἶκος and ἐκκλησία, see Historical Analysis.

▪ 6 μὴ νεόφυτον, ἵνα μὴ τυφωθεὶς εἰς κρίμα ἐμπέσῃ τοῦ διαβόλου. Two statements
in vv. 6–7 outline requirements specifically related to the gospel ministry. Both
begin by stating the necessary requirement, followed by a ἵνα μή clause with a
reference to ὁ διάβολος:

[δεῖ] … ἵνα μὴ … εἰς … ἐμπέσῃ τοῦ διαβόλου (v. 6)

δεῖ … ἵνα μὴ εἰς … ἐμπέσῃ … τοῦ διαβόλου (v. 7)

As in vv. 3–4, δεῖ … εἶναι is likely implied with the complement μὴ νεόφυτον. The
aorist τυφωθείς and ἐμπέσῃ grammaticalize perfective aspect, which fits well
within this “negated conjunctive purpose clause” (Huffman, Verbal Aspect, 269)
that reinforces the urgency of the call not to appoint a νεόφυτον as an overseer.
τοῦ διαβόλου should best be taken as a subjective genitive in light of the parallel
in v. 7, which is consistent with the reference to the active work of Satan in 1:20
(contra Mounce, 182).
τοῦ διαβόλου has been taken as a reference to “slanderer” (cf. 3:11; 2 Tim 3:3;
Titus 2:3), thus the false teachers (MacDonald, 167), but the articular use always
points to the Devil, as the parallel construction of 3:7 (παγίδα τοῦ διαβόλου) and
2 Tim 2:26 (ῆς τοῦ διαβόλου παγίδος) demonstrates. The distinction between the
two should not be overdrawn, however, since the Devil is indeed the one who
works behind the slanderers (cf. 2Tim 2:24–26).

▪ 7 δεῖ δὲ καὶ μαρτυρίαν καλὴν ἔχειν ἀπὸ τῶν ἔξωθεν, ἵνα μὴ εἰς ὀνειδισμὸν ἐμπέσῃ
καὶ παγίδα τοῦ διαβόλου. Following the developmental δέ, the adverbial καί that
follows marks this with prominence (cf. Titrud 1991: 4–6), drawing attention
to the importance of the standing of the Christian community among the out-
siders. This emphasis not only provides a fitting conclusion to this section, but it
also explains the heavy emphasis on virtues that are familiar among the Greco-
Roman audience. This possible agentive use of ἀπό (cf. LNd § 90.87) is rare in
the nt, but its use in both Classical Greek and Modern Greek may testify to its
presence in the Koine period (Bortone 2010: 175). The articular ἔξωθεν refers to
those outside of the Christian community, though elsewhere Paul prefers to use
ἔξω instead (1Cor 5:12, 13; Col 4:5). This is a general reference, and the use of the
Greek article here merely points to an adverbial idea that is concrete without
necessarily referring to a definite object beyond its context.
3:1–7 201

The concern for outsiders is reinforced by the use of ὀνειδισμόν, a term that
draws its meaning and power from the judgment of others. Since both ὀνειδι-
σμόν and παγίδα τοῦ διαβόλου are governed by εἰς, it is best to take καί in an
epexegetical sense (“that is”) rather than a temporal sequential (“then;” John-
son, 217) or an ascensive (“even;” Spicq, 1.439) sense. If so, being insulted by the
outsiders is equated with falling into the trap of Satan, and both are understood
as εἰς κρίμα ἐμπέσῃ τοῦ διαβόλου in the parallel clause above (v. 6).

Bibliography
Bortone, Pietro. Greek Prepositions from Antiquity to the Present. Oxford: Oxford Uni-
versity Press, 2010.
Campbell, R. Alastair. “Identifying the Faithful Sayings in the Pastoral Epistles.” jsnt 54
(1994): 73–86.
Dodd, C.H. “New Testament Translation Problems ii.” bt 28 (1977): 101–116.
Knight, George W. The Faithful Sayings in the Pastoral Letters. Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1969.
Long, Craig M. “The Discourse Function of the Greek Future Tense-Form.” Ph.D. diss.,
Trinity International University, 2013.
Malherbe, Abraham J. “Overseers as Household Managers in the Pastoral Epistles.” In
Text, Image, and Christians in the Graeco-Roman World. Ed. Aliou Cissé Niang and
Carolyn Osiek, 72–88. ptms 176. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2012.
Papademetriou, Kyriakoula, “The Dynamic Semantic Role of Etymology in the Mean-
ing of Greek Biblical Words: The Case of the Word ἐκκλησία.” In Biblical Lexicology:
Hebrew and Greek. Ed. Eberhard Bonx et al., 261–280. bzaw 443. Berlin: de Gruyter,
2015.
Söding, Thomas. “1 Timotheus 3: Der Episkopos und die Diakone in der Kirche.” In
1Timothy Reconsidered. Ed. Karl Paul Donfried, 63–86. Colloquium Oecumenicum
Paulinum 18. Leuven: Peeters, 2008.
Taniguchi, Yuko. “To Lead Quiet and Peaceable Lives: A Rhetorical Analysis of the First
Letter of Timothy.” Th.D. diss., Harvard University, 2002.
Titrud, Kermit. “The Overlooked Καί in the Greek New Testament.” Notes 5 (1991): 1–28.

4 Historical Analysis
This section is firmly situated within a wider section that begins with 2:1, where
the center of the authority of God’s household is explicitly identified. As such,
the discussion of “overseer” (ἐπίσκοπος) should not be considered an abstract
presentation of all that is to be discussed pertaining to this “office.” Two related
issues still need to be considered: (1) the relationship between “overseer” (ἐπί-
σκοπος) and “elder” (πρεσβύτερος), especially when the two appear in the same
context in Titus 1:6–8 (the relationship between “overseer” and “deacon” will be
dealt with in 3:8–13); and (2) the possible origins of this list of qualifications.
202 1 timothy

On the relationship between “overseer” and “elder,” at least five general posi-
tions have been proposed: (1) a popular reading among scholars of an earlier
generation is one that considers an “overseer” as a monarchial bishop, distinct
in status, power, and responsibility from those of the elders. This reading often
locates the pe close to the writings of Ignatius of Antioch, who is considered
to have witnessed a clear shift in the early church from charismatic to insti-
tutionalized hierarchical communities where “the singular” overseer suggests
that “monarchical episcopacy is by now the prevailing system” (von Campen-
hausen 1969: 107). This reading places undue weight on the singular ἐπισκοπή,
which should best be understood as a “categorical singular” (see Grammati-
cal Analysis). Moreover, this letter does not reflect a hierarchical relationship
between an “overseer” and a “deacon,” and the fluidity between the titles “over-
seer” and “elder” in Titus 1:6–8 is consistent with Paul’s address to the Ephesian
leaders in Acts 20, where “elders” (πρεσβύτεροι, 20:17, 18) are addressed as “over-
seers” (ἐπίσκοποι, 20:28).
(2) Related to (1) are those who consider the overseer as selected from a
council of elders; they are their leaders, but still part of them (Spicq, 1.450–
455; Söding 2008: 72). This remains an attractive solution since it takes into
full account the overlapping of the two titles while recognizing the overseer’s
distinct responsibility to teach (v. 2), and that at least some of the elders are
said to have the authority to rule (5:17). This model also corresponds well with
the two-tiered leadership structure of the synagogues in Ephesus that consists
of a council of elders (ἀρχισυνάγωγοι) and their leader (πρεσβύτεροι, IEph 1251;
Tellbe 2009: 89).
This reading again rests primarily on the singular ἐπίσκοπος being a “mo-
nadic” (rather than “categorical”) singular, and it is difficult to explain why
in this context Paul singles out the overseer instead of addressing the elders
as a group if indeed the overseer is part of the council of elders (Stewart
2014: 16–17). The argument for an overseer as a city-wide leader further neces-
sitates taking the preposition κατά as a marker of subordination (Campbell
1994: 196–198), though elsewhere in the nt, the phrase κατὰ πόλιν is always
used in a distributive sense instead (Luke 8:1, 4; 13:22; Acts 15:21, 36; 20:23;
bdag 512).
(3) The reverse has also been proposed, that “the term presbyteroi … denotes
a gathering of Christian leaders who individually in their own communities
are known as episkopoi” (Stewart 2014:17). This is based primarily on a compar-
ative reading of 1Timothy and Titus with the former testifying to a more mature
Christian community in Ephesus with the existence of elders (cf. 1 Tim 5:17–19),
whereas the introduction of elders has just commenced for the latter (cf. Titus
1:5). This reading requires that the πρεσβύτεροι of 1 Tim 5 carry a different set
3:1–7 203

of functions than those of Titus 1. The lack of any indication of the existence
of the collective πρεσβύτεροι who are in charge of citywide affairs in 1 Timothy
further casts doubts on this reading.
(4) The fact that the discussion of πρεσβύτεροι is relegated to the later sec-
tions of this letter when older men and women are addressed (5:1–25) have
suggested to some that πρεσβύτεροι is not a title for office-holders, although
leaders often emerged from among this respected group of believers (Harvey
1974: 318–332). If this letter is to be considered on its own, then one can indeed
claim that for the Ephesian community, “the presbyters are an ecclesiastical
class (kirchlicher Stand) but do not perform any ecclesial office (kirchliches
Amt)” (Stewart 2014: 149). Nevertheless, though it is disputed whether “elders”
are office-holders, in both Jewish (1Macc 14:20; Ep. Arist. 310; Josephus, A.J. 11.83;
12.406) and early Christian literature (Acts 15:2, 4, 6, 22–23; 16:4; 20:17–18; James
5:14), this is a label applied to a specific group of leaders with specific author-
ity and responsibilities, and not just a reference to their seniority within the
community.
(5) The best way to account for the textual data is to consider ἐπίσκοπος and
πρεσβύτερος as referring to the same office, though not necessarily synonymous
in the history and reference of these titles. Taking the two as synonymous is
the near consensus in the nineteenth century (Lightfoot 1869: 95–99), and it
remains a position supported by many recent commentators (Marshall, 181;
Towner, 247). This reading is supported by (a) the interchangeable uses of these
terms in the nt (Titus 1:5–7; Acts 20:17, 28; 21:18; 1 Pet 5:1–2) and early Christian
literature (1Clem. 42.4–5; 44.1–5); (b) the two-fold structure in other nt pas-
sages (Phil 1:1; 1Tim 3:1–13); (c) the repeated uses of the “categorical singular”
in this context (2:15); (d) the absence of a reference to πρεσβύτεροι in 1 Tim 3
(where qualifications of overseers and deacons are discussed); (e) the absence
of any discussion of qualifications for elders in the pe; and (f) the significant
overlap in function for overseers and elders (for a detailed recent defense, see
Merkle 2003:121–161).
The existence of a difference in nomenclature may be traced back to their
respective Jewish and Greek origins (Roloff, 169–189; Thiessen 1995: 290–316)
or an attempt to accommodate to these different audiences (Blasi 1995: 248).
These two terms continue to coexist plausibly when πρεσβύτερος is used pri-
marily in reference to status and character and ἐπίσκοπος to function (Merkle
2010: 190) especially given that a similar use of the two terms can be found
even in Greco-Roman literature (cf. τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους οἷον ἐπισκόπους … ἔχον-
τες, Plutarch, Mor. 272c). On the other hand, in a stage when ἐπίσκοπος is yet
taken as a formal title as testified by its rare occurrence in the nt, the precise
reason why this term is used may be dictated by its immediate literary context.
204 1 timothy

In the lxx, the term is often applied to a person serving under God as an over-
seer “for the house of the Lord” (εἰς τὸν οἶκον κυρίου, 2 Kgs 11:18; cf. 2 Kgs 12:12;
2 Chron 34:12, 17; Neh 11:22). In 1Timothy 3 where the church is likewise con-
sidered “the household of God” (οἴκῳ θεοῦ, v. 15; cf. ἐπισκόπους ποιμαίνειν τὴν
ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ θεοῦ, Acts 20:28), the term ἐπίσκοπος is most appropriate for one
who is serving under the one and only God (1Tim 2:5), who is the final Over-
seer above all (cf. Job 20:29; Wis 1:6). This term, therefore, denotes the derivative
nature of the authority of this “office-holder,” a sense found in most of its other
occurrences in the nt where the person is explicitly noted to be serving under
the final authority of God (Acts 20:28; Phil 1:1; Titus 1:7). Therefore, while ἐπί-
σκοπος and πρεσβύτερος are used in reference to occupants of the same office,
they are not entirely synonymous. What is clear is that both 1 Tim 3 and Titus
1 testify to these being documents pointing to the early stages in the develop-
ment of the structure of early Christian communities, where a certain fluidity
in the use of terms and titles is not unexpected.
For the possible origin of this list, many point to the duty codes for spe-
cific occupations (Berufspflichtenlehren), especially those for military generals
(Onosander, Strat. 1.1), dancers (Lucian, Salt. 81), and midwives (Soranus, Gyn.
13; Dibelius and Conzelmann, 50–51), that provide verbal parallels to virtues
in this list of qualifications for overseers (e.g., ἀνεπίλημπτος, v. 2; σώφρων, v. 2;
κόσμιος, v. 2; ἀφιλάργυρος, v. 3; cf. ἐγκρατής, Titus 1:8). In terms of content, how-
ever, the cura morum texts that list the responsibilities of Roman censors con-
tain notable overlapping areas of concerns: household relationships, the use of
alcohol, and religion (Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 20.13.3; Plutarch,
Cat. Maj. 16.1–3; Valerus Maximus, 2.9; Paschke 2007: 112–115). However, the
identification of an overseer as θεοῦ οἰκονόμος in Titus 1:7 may also argue for the
importance of Greco-Roman expectations of domestic stewards (οἰκονόμοι) as
providing both verbal and content parallels to the lists in 1 Tim 3:2–4 and Titus
1:6–8 (Xenophon, Oec. 14; Columella, Rust. 1; Malherbe 2012: 76; Goodrich 2013:
88–96).
Despite these possible parallels, it remains doubtful whether literary depen-
dence can be established, especially when the responsibilities of domestic
stewards are general and not unexpected. The distinct hand of Paul can still be
felt in these lists, especially in response to false teachers (e.g., διδακτικός, v. 2;
ἀντεχόμενος τοῦ κατὰ τὴν διδαχὴν πιστοῦ λόγου; Titus 1:9; Mounce, 156–158; Tre-
bilco, 366) and in reference to the requirements (μὴ νεόφυτος, v. 6) and distinct
virtues (δίκαιος, ὅσιος, Titus 1:8) of early Christian leaders.

▪ 1 In this context where ἐπισκοπή refers to the position and responsibility of

ἐπίσκοπος (v. 2), the origin of these two terms should be considered together.
3:1–7 205

This word group is relatively rare in contemporaneous Hellenistic literary

sources, though it is very common in the lxx, where ἐπισκοπή is used in ref-
erence to the visitation and appearance of God (Gen 50:24–25; Exod 3:15; Isa
10:3; 29:6; Ezek 7:22; Sir 16:18) and of human beings (Job 34:9; 3 Macc 5:42), and
to the general sense of care and protection (Exod 13:19; Job 10:12; Wis 2:20; 4:15).
It can be used as a general reference for an office or position (Ps 108[109]:8), and
in Num 4:16, it is notably used with ἐπίσκοπος in references to the responsibil-
ity of an “overseer” of the people (Num 7:2). ἐπίσκοπος, in turn, often denotes a
supervisor with various degrees of responsibilities in various contexts and orga-
nizations, including the military (Num 31:14; Neh 11:14), the Levites (Neh 11:22),
temple guards (2Kgs 11:15, 18) and workers (2Kgs 12:11; 2 Chron 34:12), and the
people of God in general (Neh 11:9; Isa 60:17).
In non-literary sources, however, ἐπίσκοπος can denote a leader in various
types of organizations, including those of associations (ig 12.329), law courts
(P.Oxy. 237), and temples (igl 1990), and often with financial responsibilities;
this title is also found in lists of various officers, including priests and scribes
(ILindos 208; Spicq, 1.441; Ascough 2003: 81). The convergence of Septuagin-
tal and inscriptional evidence argues for taking this word group as a common
label for community leaders, though the few uses of ἐπισκοπή in the nt (Luke
19:44; Acts 1:20; 1Pet 2:12) argue against taking this as a formal designation of an
ecclesial “office;” instead, it should best be taken as referring to one who takes
on the general responsibility of managing a household (Josephus, C.Ap. 2.284).
ἐπίσκοπος, on the other hand, does appear with what are later considered to be
ecclesial titles (Acts 20:28; Phil 1:1; cf. Titus 1:7), though such rare uses again cast
doubt on the universality of such designations.
ὀρέγω and ἐπιθυμέω are closely related in Greek (Aristotle, Eth. nic. 1119a)
and Hellenistic Jewish (Philo, Leg. 3.211) literature, both denoting acts of desire
and passion. In the pe, ἐπιθυμία is consistently used for “worldly passions” (τὰς
κοσμικὰς ἐπιθυμίας) to be avoided (Titus 2:12; cf. 1 Tim 6:9; 2 Tim 2:22; 3:6; 4:3;
Titus 3:3). Here, Paul calls for those who desire to be an overseer to desire also
for “good works.” καλὸν ἔργον does not merely refer to “the noble task” (Mar-
shall, 475; cf. Spicq, 1.428–429) of being an overseer, but also the “good work”
that an overseer should perform in combatting the evil desires of this world
(see Grammatical Analysis). καλὸν ἔργον is familiar in Hellenistic Jewish liter-
ature for a lifestyle that distinguishes God’s people from the Gentiles (Sib. Or.
2.313; 3.220; T.Levi 8.5), and this survives in the Gospels (Matt 5:16) and the Pales-
tinian Targumim (Tg. Neof. Gen 17:1; Deut 18:13; cf. McNamara 2001: 332–334).
Paul again evokes this in a context that provides definition to the household of
God that climaxes in the identification of the head of the household in 3:14–
16.
206 1 timothy

▪ 2 This list of qualifications begins with ἀνεπίλημπτος (“above reproach”), and

its position in the list may point to it being an umbrella term being explicated
by the virtue and vice list that follows (cf. ἀνέγκλητος, 3:10; Titus 1:6); similar
expectations are found in domestic stewards and slaves who take on the general
responsibility of the household (Plutarch, Mor. 4b; Goodrich 2013: 88). As such,
it should not be taken in the sense of “perfection,” nor should it be understood
merely as an attempt to accommodate to Greco-Roman cultural expectations
when ἄμεμπτος, the more familiar term in Paul that overlaps in semantic range,
is understood in the sense of “holiness” (ἁγιωσύνη) in expectation of the escha-
tological presence of the Lord Jesus (1Thess 3:13). In line with the Greco-Roman
moralists, however, is the expectation for leaders who are to serve as examples
for their community to be “above reproach” (cf. Lucian, Demon. 3.16).
Most of the readings of μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα fall within one of four categories:
(1) requirement to be married; (2) prohibition against polygamy; (3) prohibition
against remarriage after the first marriage; and (4) prohibition against adultery
and infidelity. Those who argue for (1) point to the rhetoric of the political dis-
course of the time, when a (complete) household forms the basis of a political
unit (Aristotle, Pol. 1253b). One’s marital status becomes, therefore, the pre-
requisite for an officeholder in the church that considers itself a competing
political unit of the first century (Taniguchi 2002: 145, 168). Others see this as
an attempt to exclude slaves who do not have the legal right to determine one’s
marital status (Zamfir, 123), or to exclude those who would continue to advo-
cate teachings of celibacy (cf. 2:15; Paschke 2007: 113–114). This reading rests
primarily on historical reconstructions of the situation behind 1 Timothy but
ignores the emphasis on μιᾶς in this phrase. Winer’s observation over a cen-
tury ago still holds true in that “no careful writer could use εἷς for the indefinite
article … [and] μίαν γυναῖκα ἔχειν cannot be used for γυναῖκα ἔχειν” (Grammar,
146).
Option (2) would recognize the importance of μιᾶς in arguing against poly-
gamy (West 2004: 171), although polygamy does not appear to be a widespread
practice in the first-century Greco-Roman world (Scheide 2009: 280–291). More
importantly, this would not apply in 5:9, where a similar phrase (ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς
γυνή) is used for the widows.
The parallel in 5:9 may support (3), where the phrase is taken to mean “once-
married” (Spicq, 1.430–431) in the exclusion of remarriage after the death of
one’s spouse. This prohibition, then, encourages an exceptional degree of sex-
ual restraint on man, and similar expectations of the ideal woman can be
found in Greco-Roman literature (Plutarch, Mor. 140b; Delbridge 2001: 213–
214). This reading also receives support from later Christian authors who con-
sider remaining single after the death of a spouse a life pleasing to the Lord
3:1–7 207

(Athenagoras, Legatio 33.4–5; Tertullian, Ad uxorem 1.7; Malina and Pilch, 119;
cf. Bockmuehl 2003: 21). This view contradicts Paul’s teachings elsewhere (cf.
Rom 7:2–3; 1Cor 7:9, 38) and is based primarily on later Christian authors who
betray the influence of monastic ideals. Some have conceded that the author
of this letter is here influenced by the ascetic practices of the false teachers
(Verner 1981: 131), an unlikely possibility in light of the strong polemic against
such teachers in this letter, especially in reference to childbearing (2:15) and
marriage (4:1–5). Moreover, to read this as a prohibition against remarriage after
the death of one’s spouse is to contradict 5:14 that encourages younger widows
to remarry. An extension of this view can be found in the understanding that
this phrase condemns remarriage after divorce (Söding 2008: 78). If the empha-
sis lies in remarriage because of the immorality of seeking a divorce beyond
exceptions noted by Jesus (Matt 5:32; 19:8–9) and his followers (1 Cor 7:15), then
the prior immoral act should first be addressed. If, however, this phrase aims
at addressing this prior immoral act, then this reading will be akin to the next
one, to which we now turn.
The final reading considers the requirement of μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα as a (4)
prohibition against adultery and infidelity, and this appears to be the most
viable reading not only because of the problems related to the other readings
but also because it best fits this context. First, as in other virtues and vices on
this list, the focus is not on the past act of an overseer but his present act, espe-
cially one that is visible to all, for the sake of the reputation of the church.
Second, this is consistent with the virtue of ἀνεπίλημπτον that heads this list,
a virtue that is public in nature and is linked with a moral and self-controlled
lifestyle (cf. 5:6–7). Third, as Page (1993: 119) has noted, besides a more general
term like ἁγνός (5:22), there appears to be no specific positive term in describ-
ing fidelity within marriage. If so, μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα may have been a phrase
coined by Paul to highlight this virtue, one that is comparable to ἕκαστος τὴν
ἑαυτοῦ γυναῖκα ἐχέτω and ἑκάστη τὸν ἴδιον ἄνδρα ἐχέτω in 1 Cor 7:2 in the context
of discussions of sexual immorality (διὰ … τὰς πορνείας ἕκαστος). The choice of
μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα here may reflect an emphasis on the duty of an overseer
in his own household (cf. 1Tim 3:4; Dodd 1977: 115), especially when the false
teachers have challenged the importance of domestic life (4:1–5; cf. Perkins,
51).
νηφάλιος (“temperate”) also appears in reference to deaconesses (3:11) and
older men (Titus 2:2). In Greek literature, it often appears in discussions of the
use of wine (cf. μὴ πάροινον, 3:3), at times in cultic contexts where libation is
involved (Theophrastus, Piet. Frag. 12; Philochorus, Frag. 12; Plutarch, Rom. 4.1).
This may serve as the context for Hellenistic Jewish authors who insist that
those who participate in cultic activities are to abstain from wine (Philo, Leg.
208 1 timothy

1.100; Spec. 4.191; Josephus, A.J. 3.279), and that sobriety is to be considered an
offering to God (cf. νηφάλια θύειν, Philo, Ebr. 126.3).
For the use of the σώφρων (“self-controlled”) word group with κόσμιος (“re-
spectable”), see 2:9 above, where they are applied to women. The two often
appear together from classical literary sources (Plato, Leg. 802e; [Def.] 414e)
through Hellenistic inscriptions (Pfuhl/Möbius, ii.1606; Horsley 1987: 151), but
when applied to men, this pair (and especially the σώφρων word group; cf. Titus
1:8; 2:2, 6) is not as closely linked with the activities within the household but
more with the inner control of the desires of individuals as well as their appro-
priate behavior within the polis (Rademaker 2005: 252–269).
φιλόξενος (“hospitable”) is a deeply ingrained virtue in the Greek traditions
since the Homeric times (Od. 6.121; 9.176). In Jewish traditions, Abraham is
considered righteous and thus the model of hospitality (δίκαιος καὶ φιλόξενος
Ἁβραάμ, T.Abr. 1.9; cf. T.Abr. 4.25). In this context, this is particularly relevant
as it is a virtue distinctly tied with the responsibility of one who manages the
household (thus also required of the overseers [Titus 1:8] and the widows when
they are left to be in charge of the household [cf. ξενοδοχέω, 5:10]), since the
responsibility of a domestic steward is to welcome the guests of his master
(cf. Cato, Agr. 5.3; Goodrich 2013: 92). For Paul, the reception by the Messiah
compels one to receive others as guests (cf. Rom 15:7; Jipp 2017: 63–67). Here,
hospitality further provides the context for the spread of the apostolic message
(thus διδακτικός).
Concluding this list of positive requirements is διδακτικός (“able to teach”),
which ties this list firmly within the context of Paul’s argument in this letter that
begins with a call “not to spread a different teaching” (cf. μὴ ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖν,
1:3). As such, διδακτικός is not referring to the gift of teaching, but the commit-
ment to teach the “good teaching” (τῆς καλῆς διδασκαλίας, 4:6).

▪ 3 πάροινος (“drunkard”) appears also in the requirements of overseers in Titus

1:7. In the nt, being drunk refers not merely to the isolated act of the excessive
consumption of alcohol, but unbridled desires (cf. ἐν ἀσελγείαις, ἐπιθυμίαις, οἰνο-
φλυγίαις, κώμοις, 1Pet 4:3) and behavior related to the manifestations of such
desires (cf. μέθη, Rom 13:13), and is thus contrary to the life “in the Spirit” (Eph
5:18). Greco-Roman moral philosophers agree with such an assessment of the
danger of excess consumption of alcohol (Plutarch, Mor. 716f), which can lead
to violent behavior (cf. μάχας παροίνους, Anacreon, Frag. 42). In this context,
πάροινος is also tied with being violent (cf. πλήκτης) and is contrasted with self-
control (νηφάλιος, v. 2), gentleness (cf. ἐπιεικής) and not quarrelsome (ἄμαχος).
The focus is, therefore, less on alcohol itself but on the undisciplined use of it
(cf. 5:23).
3:1–7 209

πλήκτης (“violent”) in Titus 1:7 is coupled with “quick-tempered” (ὀργίλος) as

manifestations of a “drunkard” (πάροινος). In Aristotle, violence (πλήκτης) and
anger (ὀργή) are also expressions of a drunkard (οἰνόφλυγες) who fails to submit
his passion under reason (Eth. eud. 1221b). ἐπιεικής (“gentle”) and ἄμαχος (“not
quarrelsome”) both appear in the general exhortation in Titus 3:2. ἐπιεικής is
part of Pauline vocabulary in the depiction of the general behavior of believ-
ers (Phil 4:5) that is modeled on Christ himself (cf. ἐπιείκεια, 2 Cor 10:1), but
here it serves as a contrast to being “violent” and a “drunkard.” For the Greeks,
gentleness is a manifestation of self-control (σώφρων, Plutarch, Ti. C. Gracch.
14.5; Cassius Dio, Hist. 72.4; cf. Josephus, A.J. 7.391), but for the Jews, kindness
to humanity (πρὸς ἀνθρώπους ἐπιεικής) corresponds with devotion to God (πρὸς
θεὸν ὅσιος) as basic requirements of God’s people (Josephus, A.J. 10.83).
In the nt, ἄμαχος only appears in the pe (cf. Titus 3:2). In Greek literary
sources, it often appears in military contexts for the invincibility of a warrior
(Philostratus, Ep. 12) but rarely as a virtue (cf. Cos 325.9; M.-M. 25). Its use here
may therefore be driven by Paul’s argument against the false teachers who are
involved in quarrels and controversies (μάχας, 2Tim 2:23; Titus 3:9).
ἀφιλάργυρος (“not a lover of money”) appears only here in Paul’s writings
(cf. Heb 13:5), but similar prohibitions against greed are issued for deacons (μὴ
αἰσχροκερδεῖς, 3:8) and elders (μὴ αἰσχροκερδῆ, Titus 1:7). Warnings against greed
are commonplace in the criticism against the Sophists for teaching for profit
(Plato, Hipp. maj. 282d–e; Tell 2011: 40–45). ἀφιλάργυρος, however, is rarely used,
though it does appear in one pre-nt virtue list (Diodorus of Sicily, Hist. 9.11) and
in Onosander’s duty code for military generals (Strat. 1.1; 1.8). In this context, the
use of this precise α-privative adjective anticipates the argument against greed-
iness in 6:10 (φιλαργυρία; cf. φιλάργυροι, 2Tim 3:2), which is directed against
benefactors who are called not to be proud and to rely on the wealth of this age
(6:17–20). This warning to benefactors connects this section with the previous
one, where wealthy women appear to exert their influence and authority over
the Christian community (2:9–10).

▪ 4 The shift to the household is marked by the first of a series of three appear-
ances of the phrase ὁ ἴδιος οἶκος (vv. 4, 5, 12), leading to the identification of the
church as οἶκος θεοῦ (v. 15). Beyond the fact that early Christian communities
met in private homes (Acts 2:46; 5:42; Rom 16:5; 1 Cor 16:19; Col 4:15), οἶκος pro-
vides the context in which the power structure of these communities is defined.
Serving under the “one God … [and] one mediator” (2:5), an overseer is but the
manager of God’s household (θεοῦ οἰκονόμος, Titus 1:7; contra Oberlinner 2007:
295–308). Equally important is the relativization of the power and authority
of the imperial ruling powers who are no longer the object of worship (2:2)
210 1 timothy

when the household belongs to God himself (οἶκος θεοῦ, v. 15). Instead of con-
sidering the οἶκος terminology as a sign of the institutionalization of the church
(Roloff, 211–217) and a framework to reinforce “the rule of the socially superior”
(Zamfir, 62), it represents a dynamic challenge to the socio-political reality of
first-century Asia Minor.
In Paul, προΐστημι can denote both acts of leading (Rom 12:8; 1 Thess 5:12;
cf. 1Tim 5:17) and acts of caring (Titus 3:8, 14; bdag 870). In this context, the
primary focus is on protection and care (contra Johnson, 216: “ruling … over”)
where προΐστημι is paralleled by ἐπιμελέομαι in v. 5, reaffirming the unique focus
on God himself as the head of the household (2:5; 3:15). This is consistent with
the evidence from the lxx where προΐστημι does not denote status but respon-
sibility and protection in all three of its uses with οἶκος (2 Sam 13:17; Prov 23:5;
Amos 6:10). This sense is best expressed by Plutarch when “those who stand
before a house (τοὺς δὲ προεστῶτας οἴκου) … should be its protector, frightening
to strangers, but gentle and kind to those inside” (Mor. 276f).
Both ὑποταγή and σεμνότης recall the preceding sections, with σεμνότης con-
sistently applied to adult men (cf. 2:2), and ὑποταγή to other members of the
household (cf. 2:11). The submission of children is a constant theme in Hellenis-
tic Haustafeln (see, in particular, Aristotle, Pol. 1253b) as is reflected in its nt
renditions (Eph 6:1–4; Col 3:20) with significant qualifications that affirm the
final lordship of Christ (Eph 5:20–21; Col 3:15–17). The submission of children
often appears in Greco-Roman household discussions, since (1) the honor of
a man is affected by the behavior of his children when “a man’s family was
part and parcel of his social persona” (Lendon 1997: 45), which explains the
reference to the father’s dignity (μετὰ πάσης σεμνότητος); and since (2) the well-
being of a household reflects on the well-being of the wider society (Pompeius
Trogus, Hist. Philip. 20.4; Malherbe 1986: 82), which explains the proverbial
statement that follows in v. 5.

▪ 5 ἐπιμελέομαι draws attention to the use of προΐστημι (v. 4) in the sense of

protection and care, and this verb is used only in Luke 10:34–35 elsewhere
in the nt. It is a common verb in contemporaneous literature Greco-Roman
(Plutarch, Mor. 303a) and Hellenistic Jewish (Philo, Mut. 115; Josephus, A.J. 2.18,
259) authors for the care a shepherd offers to his flock (cf. ποιμήν, Eph 4:11).
ἐκκλησία θεοῦ (cf. v. 15) and ἡ ἐκκλησία τοῦ θεοῦ (1 Cor 1:2; 10:32; 11:16; 15:9;
2 Cor 1:1; Gal 1:13; 1Thess 2:14; 2Thess 1:4) are common labels applied to the
early Christian communities in the Pauline writings (cf. Acts 20:28), with its
roots likely in the use of ἐκκλησία κυρίου for ‫ ָקָהל יהוה‬in the lxx (Deut 23:2,
3, 4, 9; 1Chron 28:8; Mic 2:5). This self-identification by the early Christians
may be an attempt to distinguish themselves from the Jewish synagogues (Tre-
3:1–7 211

bilco 2011: 440–460). The exact phrase ἐκκλησία θεοῦ appears already in Neh 13:1,
but in Philo’s quotation of Deut 23:2, ἐκκλησίαν κυρίου is replaced by ἐκκλησίαν
θεοῦ (Leg. 3.8). In light of the widespread use of the term ἐκκλησία for politi-
cal assemblies in the Hellenistic world, which may have already contributed to
the usage of this term in the lxx, such a sense cannot be ruled out especially
in Ephesus (cf. cig 325; Acts 19:39; bdag 303; Long 2018: 193–204). If so, that
which is ascribed to the ἐκκλησία will have wider implications in its social and
political milieu (Zamfir 2014: 511–528). A parallel case exists in the Hellenistic
associations that also borrow the ἐκκλησία terminology for their political use
(Ascough 2003: 74).
The political connotation of the ἐκκλησία terminology would also explain
the connection Paul makes between household management and civic respon-
sibilities in the public realm. (see Plutarch, Mor. 144c [lcl, Babbitt, 332]; cf.
Delbridge 2001: 122).

▪ 6 νεόφυτος, appearing only here in the nt, likely carries the sense of a “recent
convert.” Though the word is used in the lxx, its “figurative” use is considered
to be found only in the nt (bdag 669; M.-M. 425). Nevertheless, the distinction
between “literal” and “figurative” is unclear for this imagery (and linguistically
a problematic distinction; cf. Sperber and Wilson 2008: 84–105). If the growth
of a plant (cf. “newly planted,” Dibelius and Conzelmann, 53) is considered to
be the “literal” sense (Job 14:9; cf. Aristophanes, Frag.; Jos. Asen. 25.2; Philo,
Virt. 28.2), then the application of this imagery to the growth of a person will
already be a “figurative” one (Ps 144:12). But if the boundary of a “literal” appli-
cation of this imagery is to be found in references to the physical growth of a
living organism, then what is likely a reference to spiritual growth here could
perhaps be considered a distinct development in the life of this adjective. The
Qumran community also considered themselves as God’s plantation (1QS 8.5–
6, 8–9; 11.8; 4Q265), paving the way for Paul’s understanding of the church as
“God’s field” (θεοῦ γεώργιον; for the possibility of literary influence, see Kuhn
2006: 161–162). The absence of this requirement for overseers/elders in Titus
may indicate that the community of believers in Crete is younger, and thus this
requirement may not be an appropriate one.
The warning against pride (ἵνα μὴ τυφωθείς) may aim at the specific con-
text in the Ephesian community since the same verb (τυφόω) is applied to the
greedy ones who spread false teachings (6:4; cf. μὴ ὑψηλοφρονεῖν, 6:17). The con-
vergence of concerns over teaching, wealth, and pride may point to the undue
influence certain benefactors have within the community. It is in this context
that the two senses of τυφόω can both be present, “to be conceited” (Johnson,
216) or “to lack understanding” (Spicq, 1.437), with the latter being the expres-
sion or the result of the former.
212 1 timothy

The singular articular τοῦ διαβόλου is best understood as “the devil,” with the
genitive being a subjective genitive (see Grammatical Analysis). Unlike 1:20,
where the focus is on Satan being the agent of God, the point is the sever-
ity of being conceited and thus assuming the position that is occupied by
God alone. εἰς κρίμα denotes a verdict (Luke 24:20; John 9:30; 1 Cor 11:34; cf.
Hab 1:12; Jer 26:28), and in this case a negative one (“condemnation”). That
ὁ διάβολος is the one from whom κρίμα is issued first appears here in extant
Greek literature. In the lxx it is repeatedly affirmed that judgments are to
come from the Lord (1Sam 2:10; 1Chron 16:14; 2 Chron 9:8; Ps 9:17[16]; Hab
1:12). But in Hellenistic Jewish literature, humans who align themselves with
the devil are to experience the condemnation (i.e., death) the devil himself
had introduced to human existence (Wis 2:24). It is this sense of condemna-
tion that ὁ διάβολος is promised to unleash upon those who oppose the true
gospel.

▪ 7 Elsewhere in the pe, μαρτυρία can be used for the testimony from out-
siders (Titus 1:13), but within this letter, this word group may have a more
specific reference. μαρτύριον, which first appears in 2:6, refers to the redemp-
tive work of Christ (cf. 2Tim 1:8), and μαρτυρίαν καλήν here may pave the
way for the fuller argument in 6:12–13, where the call to make a “good confes-
sion in the presence of many witnesses” (τὴν καλὴν ὁμολογίαν ἐνώπιον πολλῶν
μαρτύρων) is built upon “Christ Jesus who gave testimony to the good con-
fession in the days of Pontius Pilate” (Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ μαρτυρήσαντος ἐπὶ
Ποντίου Πιλάτου τὴν καλὴν ὁμολογίαν). If so, the phrase μαρτυρία καλή, which
appears only here in the nt and nowhere else in contemporaneous Greek lit-
erature, may carry added significance: an overseer who is well-thought of by
the outsiders is one whose testimony is ultimately grounded in the work of
Christ.
ὀνειδισμόν is equated with παγίδα τοῦ διαβόλου where καί is taken in an epex-
egetical sense. ὀνειδισμός evokes honor and shame language already found in
the lxx where it is paralleled by αἰσχύνη (Isa 30:3, 6; 54:4; Dan 3:33) and con-
trasted with δόξα and τιμή (Sir 3:11). Echoing κρίμα ἐμπέσῃ τοῦ διαβόλου of v. 6,
παγίς τοῦ διαβόλου draws attention to the importance of the witness to out-
siders. παγίς τοῦ διαβόλου appears twice in the pe (2 Tim 2:26) and may echo
Luke’s account of Jesus’s temptation (συντελέσας πάντα πειρασμὸν ὁ διάβολος,
Luke 4:13), where παγίς is understood in the sense of πειρασμός in 6:9 below.
παγίς τοῦ διαβόλου resembles παγίς διαβολῆς γλώσσης in Sir 51:2, though there
the anarthrous διαβολή does not refer to the Devil. A closer parallel can per-
haps be found in the phrase παγίς θανάτου (Ps 17:6; Prov 14:27; Tob 14:10; cf. Did.
2.4).
3:1–7 213

Bibliography
Ascough, Richard S. Paul’s Macedonian Associations: The Social Context of Philippians
and 1Thessalonians. wunt 2.161. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003.
Blasi, Anthony J. “Office Charisma in Early Christian Ephesus.” Sociology of Religion 56
(1995): 245–255.
Campbell, R. Alastair. The Elders: Seniority within Earliest Christianity. London/New
York: T & T Clark, 1994.
Delbridge, Mary Lynnette, “‘Family’ as a Problem for New Religious Movements: The
Pastoral Epistles’ Collaboration with the Greco-Roman Household.” Ph.D. diss.,
Union Theological Seminary, 2001.
Ellis, E. Earle. “Traditions in the Pastoral Epistles.” In Early Jewish and Christian Exegesis.
Ed. Craig A. Evans and William F. Stinespring, 237–253. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987.
Goodrich, John K. “Overseers as Stewards and the Qualifications for Leadership in the
Pastoral Epistles.” znw 104 (2013): 77–97.
Horsley, G.H.R. “εὐλογέω.” NewDocs 4 (1987): 151.
Jipp, Joshua W. Saved by Faith and Hospitality. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017.
Kuhn, Heinz-Wolfgang. “The Impact of Selected Qumran Texts on the Understanding of
Pauline Theology.” In The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Ed. James H. Charlesworth,
153–185. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2006.
Lendon, J.E. Empire of Honour: The Art of Government in the Roman World. Oxford:
Clarendon, 1997.
Lightfoot, J.B. Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians. London: Macmillan, 1869.
Long, Fredrick J. “Ἐκκλησία in Ephesians as Godlike in the Heavens, in Temple, in γάμος,
and in Armor: Ideology and Iconography in Ephesus and Its Environs.” In The First
Urban Churches 3: Ephesus. Ed. James R. Harrison and L.L. Welborn, 193–234. Atlanta:
Society of Biblical Literature, 2018.
Malherbe, Abraham J. Moral Exhortation, A Greco-Roman Sourcebook. lec. Philadel-
phia: Westminster, 1986.
Malherbe, Abraham J. “Overseers as Household Managers in the Pastoral Epistles.” In
Text, Image, and Christians in the Graeco-Roman World. Ed. Aliou Cissé Niang and
Carolyn Osiek, 72–88. ptms 176. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2012.
McNamara, Martin. “Some Targum Themes.” In Justification and Variegated Nomism,
vol. 1. Ed. D.A. Carson et al., 303–356. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001.
Merkle, Benjamin L. “Ecclesiology in the Pastoral Epistles.” In Entrusted with the Gospel:
Paul’s Theology in the Pastoral Epistles. Ed. Andreas J. Köstenberger and Terry L. Wil-
der, 173–198. Nashville: B&H Academic, 2010.
Merkle, Benjamin L. The Elder and Overseer: One Office in the Early Church. New York:
Peter Lang, 2003.
Oberlinner, Lorenz. “Gemeindeordnung und rechte Lehre: Zur Fortschreibung der
paulinischen Ekklesiologie in den Pastoralbriefen.” tq 187 (2007): 295–308.
214 1 timothy

Oberlinner, Lorenz. “Öffnung zur Welt oder Verrat am Glauben? Hellenismus in den
Pastoralbriefen.” In Der neue Mensch in Christus: Hellenistische Anthropologie und
Ethik im Neuen Testament. Ed. J. Beutler, 135–163. Freiburg: Herder, 2001.
Paschke, Boris A. “The cura morum of the Roman Censors as Historical Background for
the Bishop and Deacon Lists of the Pastoral Epistles.” znw 98 (2007): 105–119.
Rademaker, Adriaan. Sophrosyne and the Rhetoric of Self-Restraint: Polysemy and Per-
suasive Use of an Ancient Greek Value Term. Mnemosyne Supplementa 259. Boston/
Leiden: Brill, 2005.
Smith, Claire S. Pauline Communities as ‘Scholastic Communities.’ wunt 2.335. Tübin-
gen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012.
Söding, Thomas. “1 Timotheus 3: Der Episkopos und die Diakone in der Kirche.” In
1Timothy Reconsidered. Ed. Karl Paul Donfried, 63–86. Colloquium Oecumenicum
Paulinum 18. Leuven: Peeters, 2008.
Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson. “A Deflationary Account of Metaphor.” The Cam-
bridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought. Ed. Ray Gibbs, 84–105. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press, 2008.
Stewart, Alistair C. The Original Bishops: Office and Order in the First Christian Commu-
nities. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2014.
Tell, Håkan. Plato’s Counterfeit Sophists. Hellenic Studies 44. Washington, DC: Center
for Hellenic Studies, 2011.
Tellbe, Mikael. Christ-Believers in Ephesus. wunt 242. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009.
Thiessen, Werner. Christen in Ephesus: Die historische und theologische Situation in vor-
paulinischer und paulinischer Zeit und zur Zeit der Apostelgeschichte und der Pas-
toralbriefe. Tübingen: Francke, 1995.
Trebilco, Paul. “Why Did the Early Christians Call Themselves ἡ ἐκκλησία?”nts 57 (2011):
440–460.
Verner, David C. The Household of God: The Social World of the Pastoral Epistles.
sblds 71. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981.
Von Campenhausen, Hans. Ecclesiastical Authority and Spiritual Power in the Church of
the First Three Centuries. Trans. J.A. Baker. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press,
1969.
West, Gerald. “Taming Texts of Terror: Reading (against) the Gender Grain of 1 Timothy.”
Scriptura 86 (2004): 160–173.
Zamfir, Korinna. “Is the ekklēsia a Household (of God)? Reassessing the Notion of οἶκος
θεοῦ in 1Tim 3.15.” nts 60 (2014): 511–528.

5 Theological Analysis
With this section, many see signs of institutional Christianity that are foreign
to the charismatic and egalitarian vision of the authentic Paul (see Von Camp-
enhausen 1969: 116–117). Beyond the mere existence of ecclesiastical offices,
3:1–7 215

possible parallels with secular Berufspflichtenlehren or expectations of domes-

tic stewards, perceived emphasis on hierarchy and submission, and apparent
concerns for the acceptance by outsiders further reinforce this reading (Mac-
Donald, 203–220).
Without denying a certain development in the structure of Pauline churches
(or churches in areas with distinct Pauline influence), several qualifying notes
should be made. First, general statements on institutionalization should not be
made for the pe without noting the differences between 1 Timothy and Titus,
in particular. The fluidity of the titles “overseer” and “elder,” the absence of pro-
hibition against the appointment of new converts, and the absence of deacons
in Titus argue for a different history of the Cretan churches.
Even in 1Timothy, the fluidity of the labels attached to the different “offices”
points merely to the beginning stages of institutionalization (Trebilco, 465–
467). πρεσβύτερος, for example, is used as a general reference for older men
(5:1–2), though it can also refer to those serving as overseers (5:17); similarly,
διάκονος can refer to a servant (4:6), though it can also apply to those holding a
specific position in the church (3:8, 12). Moreover, the lack of hierarchy clearly
delineated among the various offices and the absence of corresponding lists
of responsibilities for these offices also point to the early stages of this process.
What is contained in the pe may then be closer to that reflected in Paul’s earlier
letters (Phil 1:1) than that of Ignatius, who further provides theological justifi-
cation for the unique authority of these officeholders (Ignatius, Eph. 2; Magn.
2; 3; 6; Trall. 2; 3; Phld. 1, 3; Smyrn. 8; 9). This would also explain the lack of titles
applied to either Timothy or Titus, as they assume authoritative roles in their
respective communities.
The inevitable shift from a charismatic to an institutional structure is based
on the now dated paradigm popularized by Max Weber (1968), and subsequent
studies have pointed to institutional tendencies inherent in charismatic com-
munities, including those in the Pauline tradition (Holmberg 1980: 161–192).
The case of the Qumran community confirms the existence of a charismatic
community with a rigid hierarchical structure (1QS 5.20–23; 6.2–3; Ellis 1989:
89; Downs 2005: 648–649). Moreover, Paul has always insisted on the need
for his communities to submit to his own authority, and his own writings are
insufficient in the reconstruction of the development of the structure of those
communities (cf. Saldarini 1983: 121).
Similarly, the move “from the model of an egalitarian community of ἀδελ-
φοί toward the model of a hierarchical household-community” (Horrell 2001:
310) is often less clear than what this statement may imply. An ἀδελφοί com-
munity may be less egalitarian than is often assumed especially within the
framework of fictive kinship (Clarke 2008: 93), and οἶκος terminology is not
216 1 timothy

applied to the Christian community in Titus, thus pointing to its unique func-
tion in this letter. Moreover, paralleling Hellenistic associations that are both
hierarchical and egalitarian, Christian communities may reflect the same com-
plex structure when it is “hierarchical with respect to patrons and offices
and egalitarian with respect to the general membership” (Ascough 2003: 59–
60).
Finally, the ad hoc nature and missional function of this list should not be
downplayed. That this list carries a polemic function against the false teachers
has been well-documented (cf. Mounce, 156–158); instead of accommodating
to mainstream culture, this list also reflects the “missionary vocation” of the
church as it seeks to extend the gospel through the right behavior and teachings
in anticipation of a post-apostolic era (cf. Wall 2004: 40–41). It is this missional
focus that points to the wider significance of this list in Paul’s vision of an ideal
Christian community.

Bibliography
Ascough, Richard S. Paul’s Macedonian Associations: The Social Context of Philippians
and 1Thessalonians. wunt 2.161. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003.
Clarke, Andrew D. A Pauline Theology of Church Leadership. lnts 362. New York/Lon-
don: T & T Clark, 2008.
Downs, David J. “‘Early Catholicism’ and Apocalypticism in the Pastoral Epistles.” cbq
67 (2005): 641–661.
Ellis, E. Earle. Pauline Theology: Ministry and Society. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989.
Holmberg, Bengt. Paul and Power: The Structure of Authority in the Primitive Church as
Reflected in the Pauline Epistles. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980.
Horrell, David G. “From ἀδελφοί to οἶκος θεοῦ: Social Transformation in Pauline Chris-
tianity.” jbl 120 (2001): 293–311.
Saldarini, Anthony J. “History. Part One: The Biblical Period.” In Papal Infallibility: An
Application of Lonergan’s Theological Method, 118–126. Ed. Terry J. Tekippe. Wash-
ington, DC: University Press of America, 1983.
Von Campenhausen, Hans. Ecclesiastical Authority and Spiritual Power in the Church of
the First Three Centuries. Trans. J.A. Baker. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press,
1969.
Wall, Robert W. “The Function of the Pastoral Letters within the Pauline Canon of the
New Testament: A Canonical Approach.” In The Pauline Canon. Ed. Stanley E. Porter,
27–44. Pauline Studies 1. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2004.
Weber, Max. Economy and Society: An Interpretive Sociology. 2 Vols. Ed. Guenther Roth
and Claus Wittich. Trans. T. Parsons et al. New York: Bedminster, 1968.
3:8–13 217

B Deacons in the Household of God (3:8–13)

1 Translation
8 Deacons likewise must be dignified, not gossips, not indulging in much wine,
not greedy for gain, 9 but16 holding fast to the mystery of the faith with a clear
conscience. 10 They must also be tested first; then, those who are found blame-
less are to serve as deacons. 11 The women likewise must be dignified, not
slanderous, but17 temperate, faithful in all things. 12 The deacons must be hus-
bands of one wife, managing their children and their own households well. 13
For those who serve well as deacons earn a good standing for themselves and
great boldness in their faith in Christ Jesus.

2 Text-Critical Analysis
▪ 8 σεμνούς: This is omitted in ‫( *א‬and a few late witnesses, e.g., 1874), one of a
number of unintentional omissions in Codex Sinaiticus (cf. 2:6 [τό]; 4:8 [πρός];
Jongkind 2007: 317–318).

▪ 10 οὗτοι: Read αὐτοί in the sixth-century H (and a minuscule 442), this variant
is considered original by Elliott (53), who sees the change to οὗτοι as yet another
case of Atticistic influence (despite weak external support), a conclusion not
shared by other “thoroughgoing eclectic” critics (cf. Kilpatrick, 4).

Bibliography
Jongkind, Dirk. Scribal Habits of Codex Sinaiticus. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2007.

3 Grammatical Analysis
The shift to διακόνους clearly signals the beginning of a new unit, and this is
reinforced by the asyndetic ὡσαύτως (cf. 2:9; Titus 2:3, 6; the reuse of this struc-
tural marker in v. 11 draws parallels to v. 8 here rather than starting a separate
independent discourse unit). The shift from the singular ἐπισκοπή in the previ-
ous unit to the plural διάκονοι (and γυναῖκες) in the present is also reflected in
the consistent use of the plural verbs in this unit. In terms of syntactic structure,
the relatively complex structure in the previous unit that consists of both con-
ditional (vv. 1, 5) and purpose clauses (vv. 6, 7) is replaced by a simpler structure
consisting of primarily shorter independent clauses.
Though this is clearly a new discourse unit, its connection with the previous
is reflected in the verbless clause (besides the participle προσέχοντας) in v. 8

16 In this context, ἀλλά is implied in the participle ἔχοντας.

17 As in v. 9, ἀλλά is again implied.
218 1 timothy

where δεῖ … εἶναι from v. 2 is implied. Moreover, both sections contain a similar
list of virtues and vices in the discussion of the respective offices.
Cohesion in this unit is maintained by the focus on διάκονοι (vv. 8, 12; cf.
διακονείτωσαν, v. 10; διακονήσαντες, v. 13) throughout this section. The main dif-
ficulty lies in v. 11 where attention is turned to γυναῖκας, while the surrounding
material focuses on the deacons (vv. 8–10, 12–13). To some, this awkward change
of subject is best explained if γυναῖκας refers to the deacons’ wives (Van Neste,
44). This, however, does not remove the awkwardness of this structure since the
discussion on γυναῖκας should follow v. 12 if it is to be limited to domestic life.
Other factors would point, rather, to this being a reference to deaconesses
(see below), and the structural parallel between the requirements of the dea-
cons (v. 8) and these γυναῖκας (v. 11) would argue for this reading as both begin
with the title (διακόνους, γυναῖκας) followed by the adverb ὡσαύτως and a form
of the adjective σεμνός followed by three additional virtues/vices. The return to
διάκονοι still needs to be explained. Some have suggested that Paul “returned
to a point which had been temporarily forgotten (v. 12) before reaching his
general conclusion on the topic (v. 13)” (Marshall, 494), but before resorting
to this assumption of unintelligibility, two more possibilities should be consid-
ered. First, if μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρες is to be considered as an expression of marital
fidelity (see comments on v. 2 above) and if προΐστημι is not to be limited to the
responsibility of a man within a household (Payne 2009: 452), then the imper-
atival clause of v. 12 can be considered a general conclusion applicable to both
deacons and deaconesses. Second, even if v. 12 is to apply primarily to male
deacons, it would still be an appropriate conclusion for this entire discussion
because of the emphasis placed on household concerns throughout this let-
ter.

▪ 8 Διακόνους ὡσαύτως σεμνούς, μὴ διλόγους, μὴ οἴνῳ πολλῷ προσέχοντας, μὴ

αἰσχροκερδεῖς. The accusative διακόνους serves as the subject of the implied
εἶναι, part of the δεῖ … εἶναι structure that draws from v. 2. The general term
σεμνός is followed by four specific types of behavior to be avoided, as intro-
duced by the negative particle μή. σεμνός should best be understood as a general
description of having “good character” (LNd §88.47), defined here by the three
prohibitions that follow. The general nature of this word is also reflected in the
use of the cognate noun σεμνότης in 2:2 and 3:4, qualified in both instances by
the inclusive πᾶς. The most telling is 2:2, where it is used in parallel with εὐσέ-
βεια and applied to all believers. Applied to the overseer in 3:4, it is also removed
from the general virtue and vice lists (3:2–3) and used in reference to the man-
agement of his household. The deacons, therefore, are to represent the ideals
of the community of believers, as the overseer does.
3:8–13 219

▪ 9 ἔχοντας τὸ μυστήριον τῆς πίστεως ἐν καθαρᾷ συνειδήσει. With the shift from the
three adjectival phrases modified by μή to this positive call, the contrastive idea
is embedded in the participle ἔχοντας. If so, the familiar pattern from 2:9–10, 11–
15, and 3:2–4 can again be detected here in vv. 8–9, where a general affirmation
is followed by a negative clarification marked with a negative particle (μή/οὐκ)
and by a positive clarification introduced with an implied ἀλλά. This is to take
σεμνούς in a general sense (as noted above) and ἀλλά as implied in the participle
ἔχοντας:

General Affirmation: Διακόνους ὡσαύτως σεμνούς

Negative Clarification: μὴ διλόγους, μὴ οἴνῳ πολλῷ προσέχοντας, μὴ

αἰσχροκερδεῖς

Positive Clarification: [ἀλλά] ἔχοντας τὸ μυστήριον τῆς πίστεως ἐν καθαρᾷ

συνειδήσει.

As in v. 8, ἔχοντας follows the implied δεῖ … εἶναι. In this context, ἔχοντας carries
the sense of “holding fast” (Kelly, 82). That the use of this lexeme is meant to dis-
tinguish this act from the act of teaching (Mounce, 200) is without basis since
the use of the same verb in v. 7 certainly carries an expressive sense within the
clause δεῖ … μαρτυρίαν καλὴν ἔχειν ἀπὸ τῶν ἔξωθεν.
The genitival τῆς πίστεως within τὸ μυστήριον τῆς πίστεως should best be
taken as an epexegetical genitive and understood as “the sum total of orthodox
doctrine” (Towner 1989: 122). This use of τῆς πίστεως together with συνειδήσει
that follows recalls the use of both terms in 1:19 in reference to the Christian
faith (Bockmuehl 1990: 210). τὸ μυστήριον paves the way for a more explicit
discussion of what this entails in the confessional statement of v. 16, a state-
ment that, in turn, challenges those who have turned away from τῆς πίστεως
(4:1).

▪ 10 καὶ οὗτοι δὲ δοκιμαζέσθωσαν πρῶτον, εἶτα διακονείτωσαν ἀνέγκλητοι ὄντες. The

adverbial καί may refer back to the overseers (Knight, 169; Oberlinner, 1.138) but
more probably refers to v. 9 (Mounce, 200–201; Fiore, 80), especially since such
testings are not explicitly mentioned in the discussion of the overseer. In this
context καί marks that which follows with prominence, as reinforced by the use
of the imperatives δοκιμαζέσθωσαν and διακονείτωσαν. From a general discus-
sion of the requirements of deacons, Paul now turns to the direct application
in the selection of these deacons in a particular local context. The use of οὗτοι
also reminds the audience that the deacons are now (temporarily) the center
220 1 timothy

of attention when elsewhere it is Timothy who is the direct addressee of the

letter.
The two present imperatives δοκιμαζέσθωσαν and διακονείτωσαν grammati-
calize imperfective aspect, as is appropriate in this context of a general com-
mand. The two clauses are linked with the adverb εἶτα, creating a paratactic
structure indicating their temporal relationship. The use of this adverb may
aim at emphasizing the importance of the relative temporal priority of the first
step over the second (cf. 2:13). διακονείτωσαν refers not simply to “serving” but
“serving in the capacity of the deacons” (Collins 2002: 99). More difficult is the
participle ὄντες. Taking it in a conditional sense (“if they are found blameless;”
cf. Towner, 265) would assume a selection process with the availability of a
wider pool of candidates, while a temporal (“when they are found blameless”)
or even substantival (“those who are found blameless;” cf. Quinn and Wacker,
276) reading would focus on the command to those who have already passed
the test to serve (“those who are blameless should become deacons,” Wallace,
Grammar, 633). The surrounding context (with the δεῖ … εἶναι structure) does
not focus simply on the selection process, as it also addresses those who are
already serving as deacons. Therefore, the substantival reading is preferred, and
the third-person imperative retains its stronger imperatival sense.

▪ 11 Γυναῖκας ὡσαύτως σεμνάς, μὴ διαβόλους, νηφαλίους, πιστὰς ἐν πᾶσιν. As in v. 8,

one finds a subject (γυναῖκας), the adverb ὡσαύτως, and a general term (σεμνάς)
followed by specific vices and virtues. The general pattern detected in vv. 8–9
reappears, though in a much-abbreviated form:

General Affirmation: Γυναῖκας ὡσαύτως σεμνάς

Negative Clarification: μὴ διαβόλους

Positive Clarification: [ἀλλά] νηφαλίους, πιστὰς ἐν πᾶσιν.

The center of the dispute lies in the identification of γυναῖκας, whether it refers
to deacons’ wives or deaconesses (see above). Some have pointed to the Greco-
Roman emphasis on how the behavior of one’s wife would reflect on the status
of the husband (Delbridge 2001: 206–207), but it would be difficult then to
explain why the same requirement would not apply to the wives of the over-
seers. That the same word is used in the next verse in reference to the wife of the
deacon (Van Neste, 44) can be explained by the formulaic nature of the phrase
μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρες in that context (cf. 3:2); moreover, only a few verses ear-
lier the same word was used for women in general (2:12; cf. 2:14). The argument
3:8–13 221

against the possibility of the author of this letter endorsing the office of dea-
coness because of the prohibition of women having authority in 2:15 (Krause,
69) assumes the pseudepigraphic nature of this letter since elsewhere Paul does
mention such a deaconess (Rom 16:1).
Other observations further support the deaconess reference held by “ancient
interpreters” (Horton, 110). First, the lack of any possessive pronoun or article
(in place of the pronoun, cf. Eph 5:22, 28; Col 3:18, 19) makes it unlikely that
the word refers to “wives.” Second, not only did deaconesses exist in the early
church (Rom 16:1; Didascalia 2.26.6; 3.12.2–4), but early Christian authors also
took this reference as referring to deaconesses (Chrysostom, Hom. 1 Tim. 11;
Theodoret of Cyrus, Interpr. Ep. i ad Tim. 3; Zamfir, 13). Third, the fact that the
Greek word for “deaconess” (διακόνισσα) is used in only third-century Christian
writings (cf. Epiphanes, Pan. 3.478, 522; Apost. Con. 3.11; 8.19, 20, 28) may explain
the use of γυναῖκας here. Finally, the virtues attached to these women are not
gender-specific, nor are they tied to specific domestic duties as the responsi-
bilities of wives would be (cf. 2:9–15). It is, therefore, best to consider these
officeholders as female deacons, as ὡσαύτως and the implied δεῖ … εἶναι in both
vv. 8 and 11 indicate.
The relationship between deacons and deaconesses is not clearly delineated,
however. The fact that this is a comparatively briefer note embedded in discus-
sions of διάκονοι (vv. 8–10, 12–13) has led some to conclude that these are mere
assistants to the male deacons (Oberlinner, 1.142), while others see both dea-
cons and deaconesses serving in the same office although their relative status
in the church may vary (Steifel 1995: 456). If, however, vv. 12–13 is to be under-
stood as applying to both male and female deacons, then v. 11 is no longer only
a parenthetical thought. The mere appearance of deaconesses in this short dis-
cussion points to their significance in at least the church of Ephesus.

▪ 12 διάκονοι ἔστωσαν μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρες, τέκνων καλῶς προϊστάμενοι καὶ τῶν
ἰδίων οἴκων. As the implied δεῖ … εἶναι construction in vv. 8–9 is followed by the
use of third-person plural imperatives in v. 10 (δοκιμαζέσθωσαν and διακονείτω-
σαν), the implied δεῖ … εἶναι construction in v. 11 is here followed by the use of
another third-personal plural imperative (ἔστωσαν). As is often the case with
the use of third-person imperatives in the nt where the second-person is also
the implied addressee (Fantin, Greek Imperative, 269, 272), these imperatives
are directed not only to the deacons but also to Timothy, who is to carry out the
instructions from Paul.
The concern for marital fidelity (μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρες) and the proper man-
agement of the household (τέκνων καλῶς προϊστάμενοι καὶ τῶν ἰδίων οἴκων)
repeats the concerns in the instructions for the overseer in vv. 2 and 4. The
222 1 timothy

absence of the phrase ἐν ὑποταγῇ (v. 4) here in reference to the children has
been taken to mean that these deacons do not need to “enforce obedience
from their children perhaps because their taxis in God’s household is already
one of ‘servant’ rather than ‘master’” (Streete 1999: 311). It is doubtful, however,
that this point can be established from the absence of this phrase when this
clause with one participle ([καλῶς] προϊστάμενοι) governing two separate com-
plements (τέκνων and τῶν ἰδίων οἴκων) is clearly an abbreviated version of the
two participial clauses found in v. 4 (τοῦ ἰδίου οἴκου καλῶς προϊστάμενον and
τέκνα ἔχοντα ἐν ὑποταγῇ). Reading in light of v. 4, ἐν ὑποταγῇ is implied when
καλῶς προϊστάμενοι is applied to τέκνων in the present verse.

▪ 13 οἱ γὰρ καλῶς διακονήσαντες βαθμὸν ἑαυτοῖς καλὸν περιποιοῦνται καὶ πολλὴν

παρρησίαν ἐν πίστει τῇ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ. The conjunction γάρ lends support to
v. 12 or more probably to the entire section of vv. 8–12. διακονέω, understood in
the sense of “serving in the office of a deacon,” points again to the subject mat-
ter of this section (διακονέω, vv. 10, 13; διάκονος, vv. 8, 12), while καλῶς (and καλόν
that follows) captures the main focus of both this and the previous section on
the two offices (καλῶς, vv. 4, 12; καλός, vv. 1, 7). Moreover, the aorist διακονή-
σαντες, the only aorist in this section, grammaticalizes perfective aspect and
considers the entire service of the deacons as a whole. As such, it also serves as
a fitting conclusion when the reward of their service is noted.
The idea of a reward is reflected in the construction ἑαυτοῖς … περιποιοῦνται,
where a middle verb occurs with the redundant reflexive pronoun (Robertson,
Grammar, 811) in drawing attention to the subject as the recipient of the verbal
act. Used with περιποιέω, it carries the sense of “earning for oneself” (cf. Philo,
qg 2.11; Josephus, Vita 37). βαθμὸν … καλόν then would refer to good standing
or respect earned. Paul does not make it clear among whom these deacons
are to receive such a standing or respect, but with καλός referring to the out-
siders in v. 7 and with the numerous terms that highlight the importance of
the respectability of the Christian leaders (cf. ἀνεπίλημπτος v. 2; σεμνότης, v. 4;
σεμνός, vv. 8, 11), it is best to consider βαθμὸν … καλόν as referring to the respect
that outsiders held for these believers.
Turning from the interactions among humans to their relationship with God,
the second reward of serving well as deacons is the boldness of faith. Concern-
ing πίστει τῇ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, Winer (Grammar, 174) is correct that the articular
attributive modifier τῇ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ marks πίστει with “special prominence,”
though this does not clarify the meaning of πίστει. ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ that follows
πίστις often refers to the designation of one’s faith (Rom 3:25; Gal 3:26; 2 Tim
3:15) and is, therefore, comparable to πίστις Χριστοῦ when Χριστοῦ is taken as
an objective genitive. In this context, then, πίστις should best be read as one’s
3:8–13 223

personal faith in Christ Jesus (cf. 1:14; Marshall, 497) rather than “the faith that
Jesus demonstrated in his humanity” (Johnson, 230). This emphasis on the
designation of one’s faith may also pave the way for the critique of the false
teachers who rely on their self-directed confidence (cf. 4:2–3; Spicq, 1.463).

Bibliography
Beale, G.K., and Benjamin L. Gladd. Hidden But Now Revealed: A Biblical Theology of
Mystery. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2014.
Bockmuehl, Markus. Revelation and Mystery in Ancient Judaism and Pauline Christian-
ity. wunt 2.36. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1990.
Collins, John N. Deacons and the Church. Harrisburg, PA: Morehouse, 2002.
Stiefel, Jennifer H. “Women Deacons in 1Timothy: A Linguistic and Literary Look at
‘Women Likewise …’ (1Tim 3.11).” nts 41 (1995): 442–457.
Streete, Gail Corrington. “Askesis and Resistance in the Pastoral Letters.” In Asceticism
and the New Testament. Ed. L.E. Vaage and V.L. Streete, 299–316. New York: Routledge,
1999.

4 Historical Analysis
The discussion above on the genre of the list of requirements for overseers also
applies to this present list for deacons. Much has been made, however, of the
absence of the requirement to be an effective teacher (διδακτικόν, v. 2) for the
deacons (Merkle 2010: 191–192). Nevertheless, the requirement of being hos-
pitable (φιλόξενον, v. 2) is likewise absent, though it is unclear whether that is
to be considered the distinguishing mark of the two offices. The requirement
of the deacons to be in firm grasp of τὸ μυστήριον τῆς πίστεως (v. 9) certainly
implies that they are to pass this on in words and in deeds, especially since this
μυστήριον is to be revealed and proclaimed among all the nations (v. 16). In the
parallel list of the requirements of the overseer in Titus, to have a firm grasp
of the message of faith (πιστοῦ λόγου) is to be prepared to teach this message
(Titus 1:9).
Moreover, while candidates for the office of overseer are merely not to be
recent converts (νεόφυτον, v. 6), candidates for the office of deacon have to be
tested first (δοκιμαζέσθωσαν πρῶτον) before they can assume office. The fact that
these διάκονοι are not said to serve the ἐπισκοπή should argue against a strict
hierarchical reading of the relationship between the two offices, and the fact
that neither list is comprehensive should prevent us from drawing firm conclu-
sions concerning the respective responsibilities of those who hold these offices.
The relative status of the two hinges on the understanding of the office of
deacons. ἐπίσκοπος and διάκονος appear together in Phil 1:1, and the placement
of ἐπίσκοπος before διάκονος there and in this letter may argue for the relative
224 1 timothy

significance of the office of overseers. Nevertheless, this does not necessarily

limit the service of the deacons to menial tasks. Though the διάκονος word
group does denote service, it is rarely used as a label for those of an inferior
class. Even if one does not agree completely with the work of Collins (1990:
73–191), who argues from both literary (Plato, Resp. 370–371; Pol. 290; Gorg. 517–
518; Aelius Aristides, 2.187; Josephus, A.J. 5.349) and non-literary (P.Oxy. 1299;
P.Lond. 2052) sources that this word group denotes the work and status of a
“go-between” emissary, a subsequent study further argues for the frequent use
of this word group for honorable service in the nt, especially in reference to
the foundational texts of Mark 10:45; Luke 22:27; Acts 6:1–6; Phil 1:1, Eph 4:12;
and 1Tim 3:8–13 (Hentschel 2007: 90–432).
To many, Acts 6:1–6 points to the beginning of the office of deacons, and,
as such, provides the definition of this office (Merkle 2010: 193). This is highly
questionable, especially with the absence of the noun διάκονος (cf. διακονία, 6:1,
4; διακονέω, 6:2). More importantly, the Seven are leaders of the Hellenists, and
two of them serve as significant preachers and apologists (Acts 7:1–60) and
“evangelists” (εὐαγγελιστής, Acts 21:8; cf. Acts 8:1–40). Their call to “serve on
tables” (διακονεῖν τραπέζαις) is best understood in light of Jesus’s own ministry
of table fellowship with the outcasts (cf. Luke 5:27–32; 7:34; 15:1–2) since they
are the ones who heed the call of Jesus to serve as he himself is “the one who
serves” (ὁ διακονῶν, Luke 22:27; Pao 2011: 127–144).
Though absent from the synagogues, διάκονοι do have notable responsibil-
ities in associations, even as priests and priestesses (cig 3037; cf. cig 1793; ig
774; M.-M. 149; Ascough 2003: 82–83). In the earlier Pauline Epistles, the one
reference to διάκονος that provides a profile of this office-holder is Rom 16:1–2,
where Phoebe is portrayed as a “benefactor” (προστάτις, bdag 884; for διάκονος
as a leadership position in this context, see Arichea 1988: 401–409). The por-
trayal of deacons as respectable leaders rather than lowly servants continues
to be a consistent theme beyond the nt (Did. 15.1; Herm. 13.1; Ignatius, Magn.
6.1; Trall. 2.3; Phld. 4.1; Latvus 2008: 150, 156).

▪ 8 The requirements for both deacons and deaconesses (v. 11) begin with
σεμνός, which should be understood as a general label further defined by that
which follows. In 2:2, the noun σεμνότης is used in parallel with εὐσέβεια, a
term that resurfaces in the next section (3:16) that is likewise used as a general
descriptor for piety and godliness. In Greco-Roman literature, the σεμνός word
group is part of honor and shame language, especially in benefaction discourse,
while cultic connotations can be further detected in Jewish usages (see 2:2).
δίλογος, a nt hapax, is a rare Greek word that reappears in Polycarp (Phil. 5.2)
in a similar discussion of the requirements for deacons, though there Polycarp
3:8–13 225

appears to be dependent on the requirements of both overseers and deacons in

this chapter. Those who resort to etymological analysis argue for the translation
“gossips” for things “twice-said” (δίς + λόγος; Mounce, 199), while others argue
for the dependence of the Latin bilinguis denoting hypocrisy (Spicq, 1.457). The
translation “gossips” is supported by the parallel requirement for deaconesses,
“not slanderers” (μὴ διαβόλους); equally important is Polycarp, Phil. 5.2, where
μὴ διάβολοι precedes μὴ δίλογοι. If so, δίλογος can be compared to δίγλωσσος
of the lxx (Prov 11:13; Sir 5:9, 14, 15; 28:13). Apparently, gossiping is a problem
among the Ephesian community of believers (cf. φλύαροι, 5:13).
μὴ οἴνῳ πολλῷ προσέχοντας recalls a similar requirement for overseers (μὴ
πάροινον, 3:3; cf. Titus1:7) with wordings resembling that of Titus 2:3 (μὴ οἴνῳ
πολλῷ δεδουλωμένας). προσέχω + dative is used for devotion, and in the pe often
in a negative context (1:4; 4:1; Titus 1:4; cf. 4:13). Ancient Greeks are quite aware
of the problems caused by excessive drinking, evidenced by the repeated calls
to dilute wine with water, the most popular recommendation being five parts
water to two parts wine, with water considered to be the antidote to the poi-
sonous wine (Davidson 2011: 46).
μὴ αἰσχροκερδεῖς recalls ἀφιλάργυρον for the overseers (3:3), whereas in Titus
1:7 this same adjective is used (μὴ αἰσχροκερδῆ; cf. Titus 1:11, αἰσχροῦ κέρδους).
αἰσχροκερδής is a manifestation of φιλάργυρος in Aristotle (Eth. eud. 1232a), and
a manifestation of one who loves pleasure (φιλήδονος) in Philo (Sacr. 32.22).
That this word makes frequent appearances in Greco-Roman and Hellenistic
Jewish vice lists should caution against seeing this trait as “one of the tenden-
cies of the false teachers” (Marshall, 489), though the wider concern for the use
of wealth, especially among those who claim to be benefactors, may indeed
reflect on the challenges of this community (cf. 6:3–10, 17–19).

▪ 9 In Greek literary sources, μυστήριον is most often used in reference to the

mystery cults, although usually the plural form is preferred in those contexts
(Diodorus of Sicily, Hist. 1.23.2; 1.29.2–3; 3.55.9; Strabo, Geogr. 1.50; 3.10). Paul,
however, is likely indebted to the Jewish background (Brown 1968). In Daniel,
μυστήριον refers to the redemptive plan of God to be revealed in the future (Dan
2:18, 19, 27, 28, 30, 47), and subsequent uses in Jewish apocalyptic literature
point specifically to its eschatological fulfillment (1 En. 9.6; 10.7; 16.3; 104.12; cf.
4 Ezra 12.36–39). In Paul, this eschatological use is best illustrated in 1 Cor 2:6–
7 and Col 1:26 in reference to the revelation of that which is hidden at the end
of times. Here in 3:9, with the genitival modifier τῆς πίστεως understood in ref-
erence to the gospel, τὸ μυστήριον can be taken as referring to the entire gospel
(Rom 16:25) or one aspect of it (1Cor 15:51; cf. 1Cor 2:1, 7; Bockmuehl 1997: 186).
Without sufficient contextual clues, the former is possible (Carson 2004: 424),
226 1 timothy

but with the emphasis on the inclusion of the Gentiles in the explication of
this μυστήριον in 3:16, a more specific reference cannot be ruled out (cf. Rom
11:25; Eph 3:1–9; Col 1:26–27). This can be read in light of 2 Tim 1:6–13, where the
hiddenness-revelation framework is again present (though without the use of
μυστήριον) in reference to the apostolic calling of Paul, a calling linked with his
mission to the Gentiles (cf. 2Tim 4:17).
Paul’s use of the μυστήριον language may also evoke the Mystery of Artemis
in the mind of the audience. Though the first-century Ephesian Artemis cult
may not be a traditional mystery cult with its initiation rites (Baugh 1999: 459),
τὰ μυστήρια τῆς Ἀρτέμιδος remains an important festival in Ephesus (IEph 26;
987; 988) with its cultic practices (IEph 26; 213; 987; Immendörfer 2017: 171; cf.
Rogers 2012: 122–123; 260). If Paul is trying to interact with this cult, he is using
ot language in pointing to Jesus as the only object of worship, whose life and
rebirth is to be recognized as the only foundation story for this community.
On συνείδησις, see comments on 1:5, where ἀγαθὴ συνείδησις (cf. 1:19) is pos-
sibly a functional equivalent for καθαρὰ συνείδησις here (cf. 2 Tim 1:3); if so, “a
clean conscience” is a commitment to act according to τὸ μυστήριον τῆς πίστεως
that has been revealed and now held by these deacons.

▪ 10 Though the verb δοκιμάζω has been used as a “term. techn. for passing as fit
for a public office” (M.-M. 167; cf. ogis 90), and that a process of testing (δοκιμα-
σία) is applied to those participating in associations (cf. ig 2.1361) with similar
processes in the Qumran community (1QS 5.20–22; Eckhardt 2019: 89–90), it
is unclear whether a formal process is implied here. Elsewhere, Paul claims
to have sent someone whom “we have tested (ἐδοκιμάσαμεν) often and found
eager in many ways” (2Cor 8:22), a statement that implies a conclusion reached
through a period of informal observation. The verb appears only here in the pe,
but the adjective δόκιμος in 2Tim 2:15 points to service that is pleasing to God
(cf. Rom 4:18).
That formal testing is not in view may explain the absence of this exact
requirement for the appointment of an overseer, and the requirement that
this candidate is not “a recent convert” (v. 6) may be a functional equivalent
for such informal testing and observation. In the Didache, appointments can
be made only when candidates for overseers and deacons “have been tested”
(δεδοκιμασμένους, 15.1), after receiving approval through informal observation
and being known by those in the community (cf. Did. 12.1; 1 Clem. 42). Only in
Ignatius does one find a formal process where the bishop is involved in the test-
ing (Smyrn. 8.2).
διακονέω can carry the general sense of service (cf. 2 Tim 1:18), but it refers
specifically to serving as a deacon here and in v. 13 (cf. LNd § 53.66, “to be a
3:8–13 227

deacon, to minister to”). ἀνέγκλητος (cf. Titus 1:6, 7) has significant overlap in
semantic range with ἀνεπίλημπτος used in the list for an overseer (v. 2), and in
both contexts they are used as general terms for a life “beyond reproach” (cf.
Plutarch, Phoc. 14.7, where ἀνέγκλητος is used with the general term σώφρων,
a term that appears together with ἀνεπίλημπτος in v. 2). Both adjectives are
familiar in Greek literature, and both can be used together in a general sense of
“without dispute” (Lucian, Nav. 46.2). In moral discourse, however, these terms
denote a blameless life (cf. ἀνέγκλητος, P.Oxy. 281; ἀνεπίλημπτος, P.Tebt. 5; M.-M.
40, 41).

▪ 11 With γυναῖκας understood as a reference to deaconesses, it is noteworthy

that none of the requirements that follow are gender-specific. The missing note
on leadership within the household has been taken as a way “to diminish their
independence and importance in the eyes of his audience” (Delbridge 2001:
206). This, however, is to ignore the possibility that vv. 12–13 could be applied to
both deacons and deaconesses; less likely is the proposal that deaconesses were
unmarried, thus devoid of household responsibilities (Quinn and Wacker, 286).
The first three requirements closely resemble that of their male counterparts
in v. 8. σεμνή (“to be dignified”) recalls σεμνός, though the expected manifesta-
tion of a dignified life might differ between men and women (Hylen 2015:61–
62); such differences are not immediately noticeable here.
μὴ διάβολος (“not slanderous”) recalls μὴ δίλογος, especially when δίλογος is
understood as referring to gossiping (see comments on v. 8); if so, the sugges-
tion that “the language of slander implies the potential for devilishness on the
part of women” (Shaner 2018: 97) is without basis. This does not deny, however,
that Paul does identify some widows in the Ephesian community as gossipers
and slanderers (5:11–13).
νηφάλιος (“temperate”) appears on the list for overseers (v. 2; cf. Titus 2:2),
and parallels μὴ οἴνῳ πολλῷ προσέχων (v. 8; cf. μὴ πάροινος, v. 3). The frequent
concern for being temperate, especially in cultic contexts (cf. v. 2), may further
argue for seeing these women as deaconesses rather than wives.
πισταὶ ἐν πᾶσιν is a general descriptor that concludes the list, not unlike ἀνέγ-
κλητοι ὄντες that concludes the list for deacons above (v. 9). Though πιστός is to
be understood in terms of faithfulness, it is anchored in ἡ πίστις that is in Christ
Jesus (Towner 1989: 79). As such, it points back to τὸ μυστήριον τῆς πίστεως of
the previous clause (v. 9) and anticipates the general call to both deacons and
deaconesses to be bold ἐν πίστει τῇ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ that follows (v. 13).

▪ 12 With μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρες taken as an expression of marital fidelity (cf. v. 2),
this can apply to both deacons and deaconesses. If so, v. 12 can serve as the
228 1 timothy

proper conclusion to the discussion on both. Otherwise, a return to the house-

hold discussion may aim at paving the way for the identification of the church
as οἶκος θεοῦ (v. 15). The sustained concern for the household is reinforced by
how this requirement is repeated for the overseers (vv. 2, 4). Some consider the
absence of ἐν ὑποταγῇ (v. 4) here as appropriate for deacons who are by def-
inition servants in God’s household and are, therefore, not to act as masters
in relation to their own children (cf. Streete 1999: 311), though this reading is
unnecessary since ἐν ὑποταγῇ (v. 4) is likely implied when καλῶς προϊστάμενοι
is applied to τέκνων.
Even if the deacons are of a lower social status than the overseers, house-
hold management remains their responsibility. It should be noted, however,
that having households to manage does not necessarily mean that they are well
off, even if such households contain slaves (Meggitt 1998: 129–131). It is difficult
from these lists of requirements to identify the social location of these church
leaders.

▪ 13 The expression βαθμὸς … καλός (or βαθμὸς ἀγαθός) is rarely used in con-
temporary literature, and appears only here in the nt, partly explained by the
repeated uses of καλός in this letter (see 1:8). βαθμός, however, is a nt hapax,
and is elsewhere understood as a physical step (1 Sam 5:5; 2 Kgs 20:9–11; Sir 6:36;
Josephus, A.J. 8.140; B.J. 5.196–197) or a grade on a scale (2 Kgs 20:9; Josephus,
B.J. 4.171). In this context, it can refer to the inner accomplishment of the person
in achieving a certain status in the presence of God (cf. Philo, Aet. 58.4–6); as
the list of requirements for the overseers concludes with concerns of the out-
siders especially with the use of καλός (μαρτυρίαν καλὴν ἔχειν ἀπὸ τῶν ἔξωθεν,
v. 7), here βαθμὸς … καλός should best be understood in view of the opinion of
outsiders. Inscriptional evidence testifies to the use of this word in this sense
of social standing, with honor ascribed to those worthy of this position (ig 243;
M.-M. 101).
παρρησία carries a sense of boldness, especially in public. It belongs to the
vocabulary of political discourse (lsj 1344; Missiou 2007: 1063) and is often
used in the nt for boldness in public proclamation in speech (Acts 2:29; 4:13;
28:31; Eph 6:19) and in behavior (2Cor 3:12; Phil 1:20). In this context, confi-
dence in their relationship with God (πίστει τῇ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, with πίστει
taken in reference to personal faith) is not limited to their own standing before
God, but a commitment to boldly live out their faith as a public proclamation
for others. Their “good standing” is, therefore, but a means to an end, for the
public proclamation of the “mystery of godliness” (τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον,
v. 16).
3:8–13 229

Bibliography
Arichea, Daniel C., Jr. “Who was Phoebe? Translating Diakonos in Romans 16.1.” bt 39
(1988): 401–409.
Baugh, Steven M. “Cult Prostitution in New Testament Ephesus: A Reappraisal.” jets 42
(1999): 443–460.
Bockmuehl, Markus. Revelation and Mystery in Ancient Judaism and Pauline Christian-
ity. wunt 2.36. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1990.
Bosman, Philip. Conscience in Philo and Paul. wunt 2.166. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2003.
Brown, Raymond E. The Semitic Background of the Term “Mystery” in the New Testament.
Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968.
Carson, D.A. “Mystery and Fulfillment.” In Justification and Variegated Nomism, vol. 2.
Ed. D.A. Carson, 412–425. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004.
Collins, John N. Diakonia: Re-Interpreting the Ancient Sources. New York/Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1990.
Davidson, James N. Courtesans and Fishcakes: The Consuming Passions of Classical
Athens. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011.
Delbridge, Mary Lynnette, “‘Family’ as a Problem for New Religious Movements: The
Pastoral Epistles’ Collaboration with the Greco-Roman Household.” Ph.D. diss.,
Union Theological Seminary, 2001.
Eckhardt, Benedikt. “The Yahad in the Context of Hellenistic Group Formation.” In T
& T Clark Companion to the Dead Sea Scrolls. Ed. George J. Brooke and Charlotte
Hempel, 86–96. London: T & T Clark, 2019.
Hentschel, Anni. Diakonia im Neuen Testament. wunt 2.226. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2007.
Hylen, Susan E. A Modest Apostle: Thecla and the History of Women in the Early Church.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015.
Immendörfer, Michael. Ephesians and Artemis. wunt 2.436. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2017.
Latvus, Kari. “The Paradigm Challenged: A New Analysis of the Origin of Diakonia.” st
62 (2008): 142–157.
Meggitt, Justin J. Paul, Poverty and Survival. sntw. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1998.
Merkle, Benjamin L. “Ecclesiology in the Pastoral Epistles.” In Entrusted with the Gospel:
Paul’s Theology in the Pastoral Epistles. Ed. Andreas J. Köstenberger and Terry L. Wil-
der, 173–198. Nashville: B&H Academic, 2010.
Missiou, A. “The Vocabulary of Democracy.” In A History of Ancient Greek. Ed. A.F. Chris-
tidis, 1062–1069. Trans. Deborah Whitehouse. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2007.
Pao, David W. “Waiters or Preachers: Acts 6:1–7 and the Lukan Table Fellowship Motif.”
jbl 130 (2011): 127–144.
230 1 timothy

Rogers, Guy MacLean. The Mysteries of Artemis of Ephesos. New Haven: Yale University
Press, 2012.
Shaner, Katherine A. Enslaved Leadership in Early Christianity. New York: Oxford Uni-
versity Press, 2018.
Stiefel, Jennifer H. “Women Deacons in 1Timothy: A Linguistic and Literary Look at
‘Women Likewise …’ (1Tim 3.11).” nts 41 (1995): 442–457.
Streete, Gail Corrington. “Askesis and Resistance in the Pastoral Letters.” In Asceticism
and the New Testament. Ed. L.E. Vaage and V.L. Streete, 299–316. New York: Routledge,
1999.
Towner, Philip H. The Goal of Our Instruction: The Structure of Theology and Ethics in
the Pastoral Epistles. JSNTSup 34. Sheffield: jsot Press, 1989.

5 Theological Analysis
Being the only sustained discussion of the deacons in the nt, this section
provides significant material for the understanding of this office in the early
church. Many consider deacons “assistants” (Fiore, 80) whose tasks consist of
“the daily serving required in the church” (Mounce, 207). Neither of these con-
clusions concerning the status and function of these deacons is the focus of this
section, however, even if historical evidence from a later period of time would
suggest so.
On the status of the deacons, its perceived subordinating status is primar-
ily derived from the order in which it is presented in this letter. Though the
overseers may indeed be the leaders over the deacons, the precise relationship
between the two is not articulated. What is the focus, however, is that both
offices are subordinated to the final authority of the “one God” (2:5), who alone
is the head of the household (cf. οἴκῳ θεοῦ, v. 15). A diachronic reading of the
term διάκονος fails to highlight the honorable role such an office-holder holds,
and the significance of the διακονέω word group points to the grounding of this
office on the διάκονος par excellence, Jesus himself, who is the one who serves
(Luke 22:27; cf. Mark 10:45; Clarke 2008:65). One is, therefore, justified to claim
that “the Early Church saw delineated in the deacon’s office more than any-
where else the likeness of Jesus, the servant of the Lord” (Torrance 1966: 4).
Candidates to this office are to be “tested” (v. 10) since they represent the ideals
of this community, and the respect due to this office is well stated in the con-
clusion of this section when its faithful occupants would “earn a good standing
for themselves” (v. 13).
On the function of these deacons, whereas the overseers are to be “able to
teach” (v. 2), the absence of this requirement for the deacons has been under-
stood as limiting their role. Nevertheless, the note on “great boldness” (v. 13)
can only be understood when the public proclamation of the gospel is implied.
3:14–16 231

More importantly, the requirement to hold fast to “the mystery of the faith”
not only assumes the passing on of such a mystery, but it also anticipates the
significant confession to come in reference to “the mystery of godliness” in
v. 16. These deacons are then to continue the role of Paul, who considers him-
self a “servant” (διάκονος) to “fulfill the word of God” (Col 1:25). As Paul is a
servant of “the gospel” (Col 1:23), these deacons are also called to serve the
Word.
It is only with a proper understanding of both the status and function
of these deacons that the note on the deaconesses can be fully appreciated.
The parallel requirements for deacons and deaconesses suggest that these
women are not mere “assistants” to their male counterparts (Knight, 171); they
are their coworkers (Stiefel 1995: 442–457). The role of these women is still
limited if deacons are understood as having a “nonauthoritative, nonruling
ecclesiastical role” (Köstenberger 2010: 25). When, however, the male dea-
cons are not treated as mere “assistants” to the overseers, the participation of
these women as “servants” of the Word becomes significant. In contrast to the
women who are involved in the false teachings in 2:9–15, these deaconesses
are to provide a positive model for women as they live out the gospel ide-
als.

Bibliography
Clarke, Andrew D. A Pauline Theology of Church Leadership. lnts 362. New York/Lon-
don: T & T Clark, 2008.
Köstenberger, Andreas J. “Hermeneutical and Exegetical Challenges in Interpreting the
Pastoral Epistles.” In Entrusted with the Gospel: Paul’s Theology in the Pastoral Epis-
tles. Ed. Andreas J. Köstenberger and Terry L. Wilder, 1–27. Nashville: B&H Academic,
2010.
Torrance, T.F. “Service in Jesus Christ.” In Service in Christ. Ed. James I. McCord and
T.H.L. Parker, 1–16. London: Epworth, 1966.

C Christ’s Authority in the Household of God (3:14–16)

1 Translation
14 These things I am writing to you, even though I hope to come to you as soon
as possible, 15 in case I am delayed, so that you may know how one ought to
behave as a member of the household of God,18 which is the church of the liv-
ing God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth. 16 And confessedly great is the
mystery of godliness: He was revealed in the flesh, was vindicated in the realm

18 For the rendering of ἐν οἴκῳ θεοῦ, see Grammatical Analysis.

232 1 timothy

of the spirit; appeared to angels, was preached among the nations; was believed
in the world, was taken up in glory.

2 Text-Critical Analysis
▪ 14 πρὸς σέ: This phrase is absent in F G 6 1739 1881 vgms sa, and it is placed
before ἐλθεῖν in a few witnesses (and the Vulgate) and after τάχιον or ἐν τάχει
in some others (and some Old Latin witnesses). Its omission is likely due to
the repetitive “to you” (σοι) in this short sentence, and its placement elsewhere
in the verse is secondary in light of the omission of this phrase in some ear-
lier witnesses. The earliest and best witnesses across textual traditions (‫ א‬A D
K L P 𝔐 pm) support its inclusion after ἐλθεῖν; furthermore, the fact that this
is unnecessary in light of the earlier σοι makes its inclusion the more difficult
reading.

▪ 14 ἐν τάχει: This prepositional phrase, supported by A C D* P Ψ 33 81, is

replaced by the comparative adverb τάχιον in an even more impressive list of
witnesses that span the Alexandrian, Western, and Byzantine traditions: ‫( א‬D2)
F G K L 104 365 1739 1881 𝔐 al. This variant is accepted by Tischendorf primarily
because of Codex Sinaiticus. The lack of “any express mention of the standard
of comparison” may have led to the change to ἐν τάχει (Winer, 303–304). The rel-
ative rarity of this adverb might have also led to a scribal correction in John 13:27
(also to ἐν τάχει), though ταχέως does appear elsewhere in the pe (2 Tim 4:9). As
such, τάχιον is a more difficult reading but one that is not inconsistent with the
style of the author. With additional support from the external evidence, τάχιον
is the preferred reading (as adopted in na25).

▪ 16 ὅς: This masculine pronoun is strongly supported by the original hands of

the three earliest manuscripts (‫ *א‬A* C*), a few Western witnesses (F G), and a
few other minuscules (33 365 1175 pc). Correctors of the earliest witnesses (‫א‬3
Ac Cc) together with a majority of the Byzantine witnesses (K L P Ψ pm 𝔐) and
notable minuscules, such as 1739, read θεός instead. The original hand of the
important Western uncial D* is almost alone in having the neuter pronoun (ὅ),
which was changed to θεός by a later corrector (D2). External evidence strongly
supports ὅς: (1) none of the ancient versions read θεός here, and this reading
is unknown to the Greek Fathers before the end of the fourth century (Fee
1993: 206); (2) despite arguments that the original reading of A might have the
nomen sacrum ΘϹ (with a line above) rather than ΟϹ (Burgon 1883: 431–437),
Westcott and Hort have earlier concluded that a careful examination shows
the original reading in A had “oc without a transverse stroke, and without a
bar above” (Selected, 133); (3) the earliest dating of θεός in Greek manuscripts is
3:14–16 233

in the 9th century with several Byzantine uncials (K L P), while the correctors
of Sinaiticus come even later;19 (4) the neuter pronoun ὅ in the original read-
ing of D* can only be explained by a change from ὅς since it would be almost
impossible to explain the change from θεός to a neutral relative pronoun.
Internal evidence also supports the priority of ὅς. It would be difficult to
explain the change from the theologically significant θεός to the pronoun, while
the move from ὅς is more likely, especially with the absence of the antecedent
for this masculine pronoun.

▪ 16 On the possibility of the presence of a papyrus fragment of 1 Tim 3:16–4:1

in Qumran cave 7, see O’Callaghan 1972: 372–367 and the response in Leaney
1976: 292–300.

Bibliography
Burgon, John W. The Revision Revised. London: John Murray, 1883.
Ehrman, Bart D. Studies in the Textual Criticism of the New Testament. Leiden/Boston:
Brill, 2006.
Fee, Gordon D. “The Majority Text and the Original Text of the New Testament.” In Stud-
ies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism. Ed. Eldon. J. Epp
and Gordon D. Fee, 183–208. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993.
Frary, Stephen W. “Who was Manifested in the Flesh? A Consideration of Internal Evi-
dence in Support of a Variant in 1Tim 3:16a.” Filologia Neotestamentaria 16 (2003):
3–18.
Leaney, A.R.C. “Greek Manuscripts from the Judean Desert.” In Studies in New Testa-
ment Language and Text. Ed. J.K. Elliott, 292–300. Leiden: Brill, 1976.
Milne, H.J.M., and T.C. Skeat, Scribes and Correctors of the Codex Sinaiticus. London:
British Museum, 1938.
O’Callaghan, J. “¿1Tim 3,16; 4,1.3 en 7Q4?” Bib 53 (1972): 372–367.

3 Grammatical Analysis
This unit begins with ταῦτα (v. 14), often a marker of a new discourse unit in
this letter (1:18; 4:6, 11; 6:2b). From the focus on the plural διάκονοι (vv. 8, 12; cf.
διακονείτωσαν, v. 10; διακονήσαντες, v. 13), the attention is now shifted to Paul’s
direct address to Timothy as marked by the second-person singular pronouns
(σοι, σέ; v. 14) and the first-person singular verbs (γράφω, v. 14; βραδύνω, v. 15). In
terms of syntax, the catalog of requirements embedded in the short indepen-

19 na28 provides a more precise identification of the corrector as ‫א‬3 instead of ‫א‬c as in na27.
For a discussion of these correctors, see Milne and Skeat 1938: 65.
234 1 timothy

dent clauses of the previous unit (vv. 8–13) is replaced by a complex structure
containing an incomplete conditional clause (ἐὰν …, v. 15), a purpose clause
(ἵνα …, v. 15), an indirect discourse (εἰδῇς …, v. 15), and a series of relative clauses
(ἥτις …, v. 15; ὃς … v. 16), all within a long sentence.
Though clearly an independent unit, its connection with the previous unit
is established first by the word ταῦτα (v. 14), a word that likely refers to the pre-
vious instruction as Paul provides a christological and ecclesiological basis for
the instructions for the various groups (cf. Roloff, 210). The fact that the second-
person singular pronoun reappears in this unit (σοι, σέ, v. 14) after 1:18 (σέ) may
point to the entire intervening material (2:1–3:13) as implied in this ταῦτα.
The question of cohesion cannot be separated from that of structure, espe-
cially in this unit. The syntax of vv. 14–15 is unusual, with ταῦτά σοι γράφω
modified by the adjunct ἐλπίζων ἐλθεῖν πρὸς σὲ ἐν τάχει, but apparently serving at
the same time as the apodosis of the incomplete conditional clause introduced
by ἐὰν δὲ βραδύνω, and further modified by a ἵνα-clause. Following this complex
cluster of dependent clauses, it is a bit surprising to have the next indepen-
dent clause introduced merely by the conjunctive καί. Within this paratactic
structure, the confessional statement that is loosely connected with the previ-
ous clauses transcends its immediate context as it serves to anchor the wider
argument of this letter.
The lack of cohesion in terms of content may question the rhetorical func-
tion of this unit. While vv. 14–15a focus on Paul’s personal travel plans, v. 15b
appears to shift to ecclesiological concerns as the community of believers is
identified as οἶκος θεοῦ and ἐκκλησία θεοῦ ζῶντος. Another shift takes place
in v. 16, with the focus now centered on Christ himself. Behind these shifts,
however, a notable affirmation of the unique authority of Christ emerges. The
travelogue in vv. 14–15a is embedded in the apostolic parousia formula with a
significant twist in the material that follows: the focus on the presence of the
apostle in vv. 14–15a is shifted to the universal presence of Christ in v. 16. Embed-
ded between these two notes on “presence” is the affirmation of the community
as οἶκος θεοῦ and ἐκκλησία θεοῦ ζῶντος, both polemic titles against competing
claims of authority in both political and religious realms (see Historical Analy-
sis). These individual parts all serve to affirm the unique and final authority of
Christ, a point that lies at the center of Paul’s argument beginning with 2:1.

▪ 14 Ταῦτά σοι γράφω ἐλπίζων ἐλθεῖν πρὸς σὲ τάχιον· The two appearances of the
second-person pronoun (σοι, σέ, v. 14) mark this section with prominence as
it paves the way for the confessional statement in v. 16, and the fact that it
reappears after 1:18 (σέ) indicates that intervening material is to be understood
behind ταῦτα. Even though the material that follows cannot be excluded (Spicq,
3:14–16 235

1.464), the content of the purpose clause (ἵνα εἰδῇς πῶς δεῖ ἐν οἴκῳ θεοῦ ἀναστρέ-
φεσθαι) that follows points to that which precedes when δεῖ recalls the δεῖ …
εἶναι structure of the previous units (3:2–4, 8–9, 11).
ἐλπίζων could be taken as communicating concessive force (contra Dibelius
and Conzelmann, 60), when the act of writing (γράφειν) substitutes for the
presence of the author. The hope ἐλθεῖν … τάχιον (instead of ἐν τάχει, see Text-
Critical Analysis) also implies the likelihood of a delay (thus ἐὰν δὲ βραδύνω,
v. 15) that further necessitates the writing of this letter. The use of the adverb
τάχιον further reinforces this comparative sense (cf. Winer, Grammar, 303),
although in English that with which it is compared does not always have to be
made explicit (cf. “as soon as possible,” see T.Iss. 6; bdag 992). The less marked
aorist infinitive ἐλθεῖν that grammaticalizes perfective aspect stands out in the
midst of present verbs (γράφω, ἐλπίζων) as it depicts the act of coming as a
whole.

▪ 15 ἐὰν δὲ βραδύνω, ἵνα εἰδῇς πῶς δεῖ ἐν οἴκῳ θεοῦ ἀναστρέφεσθαι. ἐὰν δὲ βραδύνω
introduces a third-class conditional sentence and is often considered the pro-
tasis of an incomplete conditional sentence (Mounce, 219), though ταῦτά σοι
γράφω (v. 14) can be taken as the apodosis: “I am writing these … in case I am
delayed” (cf. Kelly, 86). The postpositive δέ provides further development from
the concessive clause and points to the increased possibility of the delay.
The ἵνα-clause likewise modifies the earlier ταῦτά σοι γράφω. The perfect
subjunctive εἰδῇς should be taken as a true perfect despite the apparent lack
of lexical choice (Campbell 2008: 63–64), and in this context, it frontgrounds
the main concern of this letter. Within the disclosure formula, ἵνα + subjunc-
tive takes the place of the expected finite θέλω in reinforcing this purpose
statement (cf. Reed 1993: 110). In light of the consistent concerns of the pub-
lic witness of the believers, ἐν οἴκῳ θεοῦ does not refer to the conduct within
the confines of the household of God (cf. Hanson, 82), but the “kind of conduct
[that] befits a member of God’s household” (Fee, 92). This does not, however,
rule out the possibility of the reference to the church as God’s temple in the
phrase οἴκῳ θεοῦ (see Historical Analysis). The singular second-person verb
εἰδῇς may encourage the readers to consider Timothy as the implied subject
of the infinitive ἀναστρέφεσθαι, and this may receive support from the com-
mands elsewhere for Timothy to teach “these things” (ταῦτα, 4:6, 11; 5:7; Reed
1993: 111–112). Nevertheless, the infinitive follows the impersonal verb δεῖ rather
than εἰδῇς, and the context points to the leaders who exemplify the behavior
expected of the entire community of believers, especially when both δεῖ and
οἶκος (and ἐκκλησία) appear in 3:4–5 in the depiction of the behavior expected
of the Christian leaders. Moreover, this also provides an apt description of the
236 1 timothy

purpose of the letter (ταῦτά σοι γράφω, v. 14) when Timothy is to be informed of
how others should behave.

▪ ἥτις ἐστὶν ἐκκλησία θεοῦ ζῶντος, στῦλος καὶ ἑδραίωμα τῆς ἀληθείας. The indefinite
relative pronoun ὅστις is often used as a definite relative pronoun, especially
in the nominative case (cf. bdf §293). The antecedent of ἥτις is οἴκῳ, but its
gender reveals its attraction to ἐκκλησία that follows. The relationship between
οἶκος and ἐκκλησία has already been noted in 3:5, but this context does not sim-
ply equate the two; rather, the phrase ἐκκλησία θεοῦ ζῶντος provides further
definition of οἴκῳ θεοῦ, with the emphasis on θεοῦ ζῶντος. The phrase θεοῦ ζῶντος
appears often in the lxx, and every occurrence can be found in a context that
affirms the unique sovereignty of God against competing claims (Deut 4:33;
5:26; 1Sam 17:36; 2Kgs 19:4, 16; Isa 37:4, 17; 3Macc 6:28), a usage carried over
in the nt especially within an anti-idol polemic (Acts 14:15; 2 Cor 6:16; 1 Thess
1:9). This identification of the community of God’s believers paves the way for
the next verse that explicitly affirms the kingship of Christ. This usage recalls
the polemic claim of 2:3–5, where God is the Savior of all, and Christ Jesus is
the mediator between this God and human beings. Again in 4:10 below, this
title is explicitly tied with the proclamation of God as the Savior of all (ἐπὶ
θεῷ ζῶντι, ὅς ἐστιν σωτὴρ πάντων ἀνθρώπων), one that challenges all competing
claims.
στῦλος καὶ ἑδραίωμα τῆς ἀληθείας has been taken as referring primarily to Tim-
othy because of his role as a successor of Paul in guarding the gospel (1:10; 6:3)
and in light of Paul’s reference to leaders of the church as στῦλοι elsewhere in
his writings (Gal 2:9; Gourgues 2007: 176). Others who take ἀναστρέφεσθαι as
referring to Timothy will also argue for a consistent reference throughout this
part of the sentence (Wall and Steele, 110). Nevertheless, as noted above, ἀνα-
στρέφεσθαι has a wider reference, and in none of the numerous relative clauses
in this letter does one find a subsequent phrase or clause that modifies an ele-
ment from beyond the confines of the relative clause (cf. 1:20). Moreover, the
focus of this entire section is on the wider responsibility of the Christian lead-
ers as they represent believers in general. Therefore, it is best to take στῦλος καὶ
ἑδραίωμα τῆς ἀληθείας as referring to ἐκκλησία instead.

▪ 16 καὶ ὁμολογουμένως μέγα ἐστὶν τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον· The conjunctive καί
links the confession that follows with τῆς ἀληθείας. The confessional statement
is introduced as τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον, a phrase that finds no parallel in
contemporaneous literature. τῆς εὐσεβείας should best be taken as a genitive of
content, especially when εὐσέβεια is taken not simply as a pious sentiment but
a piety that lives out the confession of the sovereign rule of God and his Christ.
3:14–16 237

▪ ὃς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι, ὤφθη ἀγγέλοις, ἐκηρύχθη ἐν ἔθνεσιν,

ἐπιστεύθη ἐν κόσμῳ, ἀνελήμφθη ἐν δόξῃ. What is clear in these six clauses is the
rhythmic parallelism and the focus on Christ. Each of these six independent
clauses begins with a third-person passive verb and ends with a dative noun,
and all six focus on Christ himself. The θεοῦ ζῶντος of v. 15 is found embedded
in the passive verbs as the focus shifts from the community of God’s believers
(οἴκῳ, ἐκκλησία) to Christ himself.
While the focus of the six clauses is clear, the structure is not. Most proposals
can be grouped under three general outlines: (1) Six clauses as six parallel lines
organized according to chronological order (Barrett, 66):

ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί: incarnation

ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι: resurrection
ὤφθη ἀγγέλοις: ascension
ἐκηρύχθη ἐν ἔθνεσιν: preaching of the gospel
ἐπιστεύθη ἐν κόσμῳ: response to the gospel
ἀνελήμφθη ἐν δόξῃ: final victory

The main problems with this reading are the difficulty in fitting the final clause
within this chronological outline, the awkward relationship among the various
clauses, and the failure to demonstrate how this chronological outline serves
the argument of Paul in this literary context.
A modified proposal considers the first and sixth lines as providing the
chronological framework and the intervening clauses as supplying the various
responses (Martin 2013: 109–119):

ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί: incarnation

ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι: divine response
ὤφθη ἀγγέλοις: angelic response
ἐκηρύχθη ἐν ἔθνεσιν: human response
ἐπιστεύθη ἐν κόσμῳ: human response
ἀνελήμφθη ἐν δόξῃ: ascension

While this eases the problem concerning the final line, it fails to explain the
relationship among the four responses and the function of this entire hymn
within its context.

(2) Two stanzas with three clauses each, with the first half on the life of Christ
and the second on the reception of his life and ministry (Lock, 45; Lau, 106–
107):
238 1 timothy

Life of Christ:
ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί: incarnation
ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι: resurrection
ὤφθη ἀγγέλοις: ascension

Reception of Christ:
ἐκηρύχθη ἐν ἔθνεσιν: preaching of the gospel
ἐπιστεύθη ἐν κόσμῳ: people coming to faith
ἀνελήμφθη ἐν δόξῃ: reception in glory

Though this would also ease the difficulty of the final clause, the internal orga-
nization within the two stanzas is less than apparent. If the call to preach the
gospel is the main point of the inclusion of this statement, the final clause
that focuses on the reception of “Christ” in glory is again difficult. Moreover,
this two-stanza structure ignores the three pairs embedded in this statement:
flesh/spirit, angels/nations, world/glory.
(3) Three stanzas with two clauses each, corresponding to the revelation,
proclamation, and reception of Christ, with the earth-heaven polarity in each
stanza (Spicq, 1.468–469; Gundry 1970: 208; Roloff, 192–193):

Revelation of Christ:
ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί: earth
ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι: heaven

Proclamation of Christ:
ὤφθη ἀγγέλοις: heaven
ἐκηρύχθη ἐν ἔθνεσιν: earth

Reception of Christ:
ἐπιστεύθη ἐν κόσμῳ: earth
ἀνελήμφθη ἐν δόξῃ: heaven

This outline recognizes the importance of the earth-heaven antithesis in each

pair, and it best accounts for the existence of the final phrase (cf. Rom 1:3–4).
More importantly, this arrangement points to one possible literary form behind
this statement—the enthronement hymn consisting of revelation, proclama-
tion, and reception of the king—a form claimed to be dependent on Egyptian
enthronement rituals (Jeremias, 25; Malina and Pilch 2013: 125; see Historical
Analysis). Regardless of the origin of this three-part structure, this emphasis
on Christ the king fits the context provided by the verses that precede (vv. 14–
3:14–16 239

15). The heaven-earth polarity also paves the way for the section that follows
(4:1–5), where one finds a strong critique of the material-spirit dualism that
plagues the teachings of the false teachers.
The use of the relative pronoun ὅς at the beginning of a confessional state-
ment is not unexpected (Col 1:15; Phil 2:6; cf. Heb 1:3) despite early attempts to
replace it with θεός (see Textual-Critical Analysis). It can be considered a “spe-
cial use” of the relative pronoun within a hymn (or hymnic fragment), and, as
such, the search for an antecedent is unnecessary (Fee 1980: 118; Wallace, Gram-
mar, 341).
ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί is best taken to refer to the incarnation when φανερόω
elsewhere in the pe points to the revelation of Christ (2 Tim 1:10) and by exten-
sion to the gospel of his salvation (Titus 1:3). When applied to Christ, σάρξ refers
to his human existence (cf. Rom 1:3; 8:3; 9:5; Eph 2:14; Col 1:22), while the prepo-
sition ἐν takes a locative sense. As a reference to the incarnation, it provides
the fitting introduction of this christological statement (cf. Phil 2:6–7); but in
light of the rest of this hymn that points to various other periods of the Christ
event, this note on the incarnation can be extended to cover his entire earthly
existence (Lau, 96).
ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι has been understood as a reference to the vindication
of Christ by the Holy Spirit when he was raised from the dead (cf. Rom 8:11).
δικαιόω should indeed be understood in the sense of vindication (see Histor-
ical Analysis), but “by the Holy Spirit” is to take ἐν in an instrumental sense
(Harris 2012: 117), a usage that deviates from the locative use of ἐν elsewhere in
this hymn. In contrast to ἐν σαρκί in the preceding clause, ἐν πνεύματι should be
understood as “in the realm of the spirit” (Arichea 2007: 183), though this does
not necessarily exclude any reference to the Holy Spirit (cf. Trebilco 2013: 180).
A parallel can be found in Rom 1:3–4 (cf. 1Pet 3:18 [𝔓72]), where the human and
the divine natures of Christ are contrasted without excluding a possible refer-
ence to the Holy Spirit. As the previous statement points to Christ’s entrance
into human existence in his incarnation, this statement points to his entering
the realm of the spirit in his resurrection (cf. Rom 1:4; Roloff, 204–205).
Extending from the first pair of the contrast between the earthly and the
heavenly realms, ὤφθη ἀγγέλοις refers to the appearance of Christ to and among
the angels. The passive ὤφθη often takes on an active sense of “to appear” in the
nt (Acts 2:3; 7:26; Heb 9:26; Rev 11:19; bdag 719) and is often used with refer-
ence to the appearance of the risen Christ (Luke 24:34; Acts 13:31; 1 Cor 15:5–8);
it can be extended to the appearances of God (Acts 7:2), those from the ancient
past (Matt 17:3; Mark 9:4), and especially angels (ἄγγελος, Luke 1:11; 22:43; Acts
7:30). ἄγγελος here likely refers to (heavenly) angels when its only other appear-
ance in this letter has a similar reference (5:21). ὤφθη ἀγγέλοις should then be
240 1 timothy

understood as the post-resurrection/ascension appearance of Christ among

the angels in the heavenly realm (contra Johnson, 233, who takes ἀγγέλοις as
human messengers). The dative ἀγγέλοις are the recipients (rather than the
agents) of ὤφθη, especially since the (implied) subject of ὤφθη in the ὤφθη +
dative construction in the nt is always the one who performs the act (Wallace,
Grammar, 165). Therefore, this appearance can be more specifically understood
as an appearance “to angels.”
Corresponding to the appearance of Christ in the heavenly realm, ἐκηρύχθη
ἐν ἔθνεσιν points to the proclamation of his gospel among the nations. That
Christ is the object of this universal proclamation is clear with ὅς being the
subject of the passive ἐκηρύχθη. As with other aorist verbs of this hymn, this
aorist conceives of the act as a whole but does not exclude the objective reality
of the continuous nature of this act.
Moving from proclamation to reception, ἐπιστεύθη ἐν κόσμῳ represents the
reception of the gospel on earth. ὅς is again the subject of the passive verb ἐπι-
στεύθη, although in its active form, a dative object is expected (bdf § 312[1]; cf.
Winer, Grammar, 326). ἐν κόσμῳ points, therefore, to the location rather than
the object of this act (Wallace, Grammar, 359).
Corresponding to the reception of Christ on earth, ἀνελήμφθη ἐν δόξῃ cele-
brates his reception in heaven via his ascension (ἀνελήμφθη). ἐν here has been
taken as an attendant circumstantial use (Harris 2012: 117), as in the comparable
phrase in 1Cor 15:43: ἐγείρεται ἐν δόξῃ; but in light of the parallel with ἐν κόσμῳ
in the previous statement it should best be taken also in a locative sense.

Bibliography
Arichea, Daniel C. “Translating Hymnic Materials: Theology and Translation in 1 Tim-
othy 3.16.” bt 58 (2007): 179–285.
Beale, G.K., and Benjamin L. Gladd. Hidden But Now Revealed: A Biblical Theology of
Mystery. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2014.
Brown, Raymond E. The Semitic Background of the Term “Mystery” in the New Testament.
Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968.
Campbell, Constantine. Verbal Aspect and Non-Indicative Verbs: Further Soundings in
the Greek of the New Testament. sb 15. New York/Berlin: Peter Lang, 2008.
Ellis, E. Earle. “Traditions in the Pastoral Epistles.” In Early Jewish and Christian Exe-
gesis: Studies in Memory of William Hugh Brownlee. Ed. Craig A. Evans and William
F. Stinespring, 237–253. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987.
Fee, Gordon D. “The Majority Text and the Original Text of the New Testament.” bt 31
(1980): 107–118.
Gourgues, Michel. “‘Colonne et socle de la vérité’: Note sur l’interprétation de 1 Timo-
thée 3,15.” ScEs 59 (2007): 173–180.
3:14–16 241

Gundry, Robert H. “The Form, Meaning and Background of the Hymn Quoted in
1Timothy 3:16.” In Apostolic History and the Gospel. Ed. W. Ward Gasque and Ralph
P. Martin, 203–222. Exeter: Paternoster, 1970.
Harris, Murray J. Prepositions and Theology in the Greek New Testament. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 2012.
Hill, David. Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1967.
Martin, Brice L. “1Timothy 3:16—A New Perspective.” EvQ 85 (2013): 105–120.
Pao, David W. “Jesus’s Ascension and the Lukan Account of the Restoration of Israel.”
In Ascent into Heaven in Luke-Acts. Ed. David K. Bryan and David W. Pao, 137–155.
Minneapolis: Fortress, 2016.
Reed, Jeffrey T. “To Timothy or Not? A Discourse Analysis of 1 Timothy.” In Biblical
Greek Language and Linguistics. Ed. S.E. Porter and D.A. Carson, 90–118. JSNTSup
80. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993.
Trebilco, Paul. “1Timothy 3.16 as a Proto-Rule of Faith.” In Ears that Hear: Explorations
in Theological Interpretation of the Bible. Ed. Joel B. Green and Tim Meadowcroft,
170–190. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2013.

4 Historical Analysis
Issues of cohesion for this short section naturally lead to the question of genre.
As noted above, the apostolic parousia provides the framework for this section,
while the confessional statement in v. 16 may be understood as an enthrone-
ment hymn.
This section contains the major components of an apostolic parousia identi-
fied by Funk (1967: 252; cf. Richards, 174) as a major component in Paul’s earlier
writings (Rom 1:8–15; Rom 15:14–22; 1Cor 4:14–21; 16:1–11; 2 Cor 8:16–23; 9:1–5;
12:14–13:13; Gal 4:12–20; Phil 1:19–24; 1Thess 1:17–3:13; Phlm 21–22): statement on
writing (ταῦτά σοι γράφω), intention of a visit (ἐλπίζων ἐλθεῖν πρὸς σέ), eagerness
of a visit (τάχιον), possible hindrance of a visit (ἐὰν δὲ βραδύνω), purpose of writ-
ing (ἵνα εἰδῇς …), and invocation of the divine (ὃς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί …). While
Funk sees these sections as exerting Paul’s apostolic authority (1967: 249), it is
Paul’s creative use of such an epistolary formula in various socio-literary set-
tings that is worth noting (cf. Johnson 2006: 481–501). In this present context,
the note on Paul’s own absence (v. 14) does not aim at directing attention to his
impending visit (contra Reed 1993: 115); instead, it paves the way for the magis-
terial statement on Christ’s own presence in both the earthly and the heavenly
realms (v. 16). The expected invocation of the divine at the conclusion of this
apostolic parousia becomes the climax where the enthronement of Christ is
presented. It is precisely this shift to the final authority of God and his Messiah
that can also explain the identifications of the Christian community as οἶκος
242 1 timothy

θεοῦ and ἐκκλησία θεοῦ ζῶντος (v. 15), labels that challenge competing political
and ideological claims.
Introduced by the ὁμολογέω word group (ὁμολογουμένως), v. 16 can be taken
as a preformed creedal statement (Rom 10:9–10; cf. John 1:20; Acts 24:14), espe-
cially since its content resembles that of 1Pet 3:19–22, though the use of the
relative pronoun at the beginning of this statement as well as its parallel struc-
ture may argue for its hymnic nature (cf. Ellis 1987: 246), with ὤφθη ἀγγέλοις
(with the absence of ἐν) as evidence of redaction (Murphy-O’Connor 1984:
178–187). Its parallel structure resembles Jewish hymns, and while its strophic
arrangement may not satisfy the requirement of “meter” in Greek hymns, a
hymn in the Greco-Roman world is not merely defined by formal features but
also by its content, with the focus on the divine as its proper subject (Fowl 1990:
45).
More important is the possible “origin” of this creedal statement, especially
in relation to its structure and content. Many consider a three-part structure is
necessarily dependent on the three-step Egyptian enthronement rituals: reve-
lation, proclamation, and reception (Jeremias, 25; for papyri evidence of these
rituals, see Mystery Play of the Succession; Frankfort 1978: 105–109). This, how-
ever, is neither necessary nor likely. First, this three-stage process is common
in many ancient Near Eastern cultures, as is evident even in the coronation of
Saul, with revelation (1Sam 10:17–22), proclamation (1 Sam 10:24a), and recep-
tion (1Sam 10:24b). Similar procedures can be found in the enthronement
of subsequent kings (e.g., Jehu: revelation, 2Kgs 9:1–3; proclamation, 9:6–10;
reception, 9:13), even though David’s own enthronement account is expanded
and convoluted as he gains control of the various tribes (revelation, 1 Sam 16:1–
13; proclamation and reception, 2Sam 2:4–7; 5:1–5).
Many of the themes contained in this creedal statement find their parallels
in the enthronement psalms of Israel: greatness ascribed to God (cf. μέγας, lxx
Pss 46:3; 94:3); confession (cf. ἐξομολόγησις, lxx Pss 94:2; 95:6; 99:1); authority
over the whole world (οἰκουμένη/γῆ, lxx Pss 47:3; 92:1; 97:4; 99:1), nations (τὰ
ἔθνη; lxx Pss 95:3; 97:2), and even divine beings (οἱ θεοί, lxx Pss 94:3; 95:4; 96:9)
and angels (οἱ ἄγγελοι, lxx Ps 96:7); glory (δόξα, lxx Pss 95:3; 96:6); and heaven
and earth duality (lxx Ps 95:10).
The verbs in this statement are linked to the common Christian kerygma
(φανερόω, John 21:1, 14; Col 3:4; 2Tim 1:10; Titus 1:3; ὁράω [passive], Luke 24:34;
Acts 9:17; 1Cor 15:5–8; κηρύσσω, Mark 1:7; 6:12; Acts 8:5; 20:25; 1 Cor 1:23; 15:12;
2 Cor 4:5; Gal 2:2; 5:11; 1Thess 2:9; πιστεύω, Mark 1:15; Luke 1:45; John 1:12; 20:31;
Acts 11:27; Rom 1:16; 1Cor 15:11; 1Thess 4:14; ἀναλαμβάνω, Mark 16:19; Acts 1:2, 11,
22), with δικαιόω being a significant Pauline vocabulary (Rom 2:13; 3:20; 4:5; Gal
2:16; 3:11).
3:14–16 243

If so, Paul here draws from the Scriptures of Israel, the common Christian
kerygma, and his own explication of such a kerygma in presenting the three
stages of Christ’s enthronement: revelation, proclamation, and reception. That
each part has two clauses corresponding to the earthly/material and heav-
enly/spiritual realms fits this context well as Paul paves the way for his polemic
against the dualistic framework of the false teachers in the section that follows
(4:1–5).

▪ 14 Paul’s absence may be due to both the needs elsewhere that prevent him
from traveling immediately to Ephesus (Mounce, 219) and the urgency of the
situation in Ephesus that demands immediate address (Fee, 91), but the liter-
ary and rhetorical function of this apostolic parousia should not be missed as
it aims at shifting the focus away from Paul to Christ’s own presence in v. 16. A
similar shift can be found in 1Thessalonians, where Paul shifts from his absence
(2:17–18) to the revelation of Christ’s authority in his parousia (ἐν τῇ αὐτοῦ
παρουσίᾳ; cf. Koester 1979: 37). In both letters, the familiar apostolic parousia
period serves primarily as the framework for the affirmation of the unique rev-
elation of the authority of Christ himself.
τάχιον (or ἐν τάχει, see Text-Critical Analysis) should not be taken merely
as a temporal marker denoting a relatively short period of time (cf. ἐν τάχει,
Acts 25:4; τάχιον, Heb 13:23), but as a note on the intensity of the desire to carry
out a particular course of action (cf. ἐν τάχει, Luke 18:8; ταχέως, 2 Thess 2:2), in
this case the desire for a personal visit (cf. 2Tim 4:9; see also 1 Cor 4:19; Phil
2:24).

▪ 15 βραδύνω (“I am delayed”) has been rendered “I wait” due to the fact that it is
an “active intransitive” verb (Mounce, 219), but the lexeme βραδύνω conveys the
idea of a failure to meet an anticipated timeline, anticipated (or wished) either
by the subject himself/herself as is the case here, or by the audience as is the
case in 2Pet 3:9. As such, “I am delayed” (or “I delay,” LNd § 67.124) is preferred
because of the lexical choice.
The active form of ἀναστρέφω carries the sense of “to return” (cf. Acts 5:22;
15:16), but in the middle/passive voice it often denotes “to conduct oneself,”
as is the case here and elsewhere in Paul (2Cor 1:12; Eph 2:3). In Paul the ἀνα-
στρέφω/ἀναστροφή word group is used in reference to (1) the contrast between
the present lives of believers in Christ and their former lives (Gal 1:13; Eph 2:3;
4:22), and (2) the demonstration of one’s faithfulness to those within (1 Tim 4:12)
and beyond (2Cor 1:12). The latter appears to be the focus in this context and
thus is tied with the earlier emphasis on witnessing to outsiders (2:2–4; 3:2, 7,
10, 13).
244 1 timothy

This verse contains one of the most striking ecclesiological statements in

the pe, with various labels applied to the community of God’s believers. Behind
these labels is the convergence of a number of traditions and concerns.
First, to the Jewish audience these labels evoke the imagery of the temple.
In the lxx, οἶκος θεοῦ is often applied to the Jerusalem temple (1 Chron 29:2–
3; 33:7; 34:9; 36:18; Ezra 1:3; 7:16; 8:17; Neh 10:32; 13:4; Ps 133[134]:2; Joel 1:13; Nah
1:14; Zech 12:8) or other sanctuaries (Gen 28:17; Judg 9:27; 1 Chron 10:10; Ezra
1:7).
ἐκκλησία is likewise used in reference to the assembly of God’s people in
his presence (Deut 4:10; 9:10; 18:16; cf. ἐκκλησία κυρίου, Deut 23:2–4; 1 Chron
28:8; Mic 2:5), whereas ἐκκλησία θεοῦ ζῶντος may recall the wilderness assembly
(ἐκκλησία, Deut 4:10) that receives the “voice of the living God” (φωνὴν θεοῦ ζῶν-
τος, Deut 5:26). The Deuteronomic context may extend beyond this particular
phrase as Paul exhorts believers to conduct themselves in a manner consis-
tent with their status as God’s people (Deut 4:9; 6:12; 8:11; 24:8; Wieland, 94).
That ἐκκλησία θεοῦ ζῶντος may evoke Temple imagery is confirmed by 2 Cor 6:16,
where Paul explicitly identifies believers as “the temple of the living God” (ναὸς
θεοῦ … ζῶντος; cf. Rom 9:26). With the equation of ἐκκλησία θεοῦ ζῶντος with
οἶκος θεοῦ here, Paul makes it clear that he is not referring to the physical struc-
ture but to God’s covenantal people.
Στῦλος καὶ ἑδραίωμα may also evoke a similar imagery; στῦλος (Exod 26:15–
37; 27:9–19; 38:9–31; Num 4:31–32; 1Kgs 7:40–47; 2 Chron 3:15–17; cf. Rev 3:12)
is frequently used in reference to God’s sanctuary, whereas ἑδραίωμα is rarely
used in the contemporaneous Greek literature, though the more familiar θεμέ-
λιος can point to the same imagery (Ezra 4:12; Pss 86[87]:1; 136[137]:1; cf. Eph
2:20; Rev 21:14) given that Paul elsewhere uses θεμέλιος with θεοῦ οἰκοδομή (1 Cor
3:9–10) in the context where believers are identified as ναὸς θεοῦ (1 Cor 3:16).
That the Qumran community considers themselves both “the foundation of
the truth” and “the temple of God” (1QS 5.5–6; 1QS 8.7–9; Gärtner 1965:66–71)
may provide further confirmation of the prominence of the temple imagery
here.
Second, with the Roman Empire conceived as a household with the emperor
assuming the title of pater patriae (Res Gestae 35.1–2), this identification of the
Christian community as οἶκος θεοῦ can be taken as a reaction to Roman impe-
rial propaganda. This reading is consistent with the challenge to the Roman
imperial claims in 2:1–7 as well as the connection between household man-
agement and the management of a political entity in 3:5 above. The politi-
cal connotation of the label ἐκκλησία may further define the Christian com-
munity as “a polis of God” (Zamfir 2014: 527), whereas the appellation θεὸς
ζῶν that belongs to the vocabulary of ot polemic against the Gentiles and
3:14–16 245

their gods (Deut 5:26; 1Sam 17:26; Esth 6:13; Isa 37:4, 17; cf. Acts 14:15; 2 Cor 6:16)
provides a direct challenge to the competing political and ideological claims.
Equally important is the definition of θεὸς ζῶν with the politically charged
σωτὴρ πάντων ἀνθρώπων in 4:10 below. This polemic here in v. 15 paves the way
for the enthronement of the true king in v. 16, who demands and receives uni-
versal submission and acclamation.
Finally, in its literary context, the depiction of the church as στῦλος καὶ ἑδραί-
ωμα τῆς ἀληθείας directs attention again to the importance of truth. Household
language provides the context where “stewardship from God in the faith” (οἰκο-
νομίαν θεοῦ τὴν ἐν πίστει, 1:4) is to be lived out in opposition to those who “spread
a different teaching” (1:3), and, as such, the household refers not only to a par-
ticular structure but also to a set of teachings to be lived out (cf. ἀναστρέφεσθαι,
v. 15; see Herzer 2008: 558). The concern for truth also anticipates Paul’s criti-
cism against teachings influenced by the “hypocrisy of liars” (ὑποκρίσει ψευδο-
λόγων, 4:2) in the next section.

▪ 16 ὁμολογουμένως is a nt hapax which, in contemporary usage, can mean

merely “admittedly” (P.Par. 66; M.-M. 449). The three uses in the lxx refer
to the common basis on which an argument can be built (4 Macc 6:31; 7:16;
16:1), and, as such, it is consistent with the use of the ὁμολογ-word group in
the nt in the sense of common confession (ὁμολογέω, Luke 12:8; John 1:20;
Acts 24:14; Rom 10:9–10). It remains unclear, however, whether the use of
this lexeme alone can determine the confessional nature of that which fol-
lows.
τὸ μυστήριον figures prominently in both Greco-Roman and Jewish tradi-
tions. This confessional statement may remind the Greco-Roman audience of
the foundational drama of the mystery cults (Jervis 1999: 707); particularly rele-
vant is τὰ μυστήρια τῆς Ἀρτέμιδος that remains an important festival in Ephesus
(IEph 26; 987; 988). If so, μέγας may also evoke this goddess cult (cf. τὴν μεγί-
στην θεὸν Ἄρτεμιν, IEph 27; μεγάλη ἡ Ἄρτεμις Ἐφεσίων, Acts 19:28; Immendörfer
2017: 155; Bitner 2018: 145–149), and the hymn that follows can be considered
as a response to the Artemis cult (Oster 1976: 43). Nevertheless, the primary
background for this singular μυστήριον is likely primarily grounded in a Jewish
context where the foundation story is to be located in God’s revelation of his
eschatological plan through his Son (Dan 2:17–49; cf. Rom 11:25; 1 Cor 2:7; 15:51;
Eph 1:9; 3:4; 5:32; Col 1:26–27; 2:2; 4:3, see v. 9 above).
τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον is comparable to a description in the Epistle to
Diognetus where a similar phrase (τὸ … τῆς ἰδίας αὐτῶν θεοσεβείας μυστήριον;
Diogn. 4.6) is used in contrast to Jewish religious practices (MaGee 2008: 258).
A similar function of τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον can be identified here, where
246 1 timothy

the affirmation of the sovereignty of God and his Christ challenges other com-
peting claims (for εὐσεβείας, see 2:2).
The use of φανερόω is not unexpected especially following τὸ μυστήριον (cf.
Col 1:26) and is appropriate here to introduce this hymn since the verb is famil-
iar in early Christian proclamation for the incarnation and commencement
of Jesus’s earthly ministry (John 1:31; 2:11; Heb 9:26; 1 Pet 1:20; 1 John 1:2; 4:9; cf.
Bockmuehl 1988: 98, who considers this use as consistent with the revelation-
formula found in Rom 3:21). That σάρξ refers to Christ’s earthly existence is
consistent with Paul’s earlier uses (Rom 8:3; 9:5; Eph 2:14; Col 1:22; cf. 1 Pet 3:18),
and the use of φανερόω with σάρξ is found in 2 Cor 4:11 for the manifestation
of Jesus’s life in that of the believers. Those who consider ἐν πνεύματι in the
next clause a reference to the Holy Spirit may consider σάρξ “the redemptive-
historical mode of existence” where individuals are identified with the old age
(Rom 8:4–5; 2Cor 1:17; 10:2–3; Beale and Gladd 2014: 253), but such a contrast
is not apparent here since the other two pairs point rather to contrasts in spa-
tial realms. If, however, the familiar Pauline contrast between flesh and Spirit is
understood as a contrast between earthly and divine existence (cf. Laato 1991:
94–97), then a sharp distinction between the use of σάρξ for physical existence
and for existence in the old redemptive-historical realm does not need to be
made. What is clear is that ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί here refers to Jesus’s incarnation
as elsewhere ὅταν ὁ Χριστὸς φανερωθῇ … ἐν δόξῃ (Col 3:4) refers to his return.
ἐδικαιώθη is best taken in the sense of vindication as it is often used in the
lxx to translate the Hebrew root ‫( צדק‬cf. Ps 50:6 lxx [Rom 3:4]; Hill 1967: 107–
109, contra Johnson 233: “made righteous by spirit”). The use of δικαιόω in Rom
3:4 remains forensic in nature when δικαιωθῇς ἐν τοῖς λόγοις σου is explicated
by νικήσεις ἐν τῷ κρίνεσθαί σε, and the forensic sense predominates in the doc-
umentary papyri (P.Ryl. 119; sb 9861; 7033; P.Tebt. 444; P.Oxy. 653; M.-M. 163;
Spicq, tlnt 1:337) and the gospels (Matt 11:19; Luke 7:35). However, the declar-
ative sense applied to sinners who are guilty of the charges brought against
them, as is often the case elsewhere in Paul (Rom 3:24, 28; 4:2; 5:1, 9; Gal 3:11,
24), extends the meaning of this to the extent that it could be considered as a
distinctly Pauline use (Fung 1977: 16–21). In this case, as consistent with Paul’s
use of traditional material elsewhere (see also Rom 3:20 [lxx Ps 142:2]; 4:2 [Gen
15:6]), the lxx sense of vindication fits well with this context. With the loca-
tive use of ἐν, the anarthrous πνεύματι without an adjectival modifier likely
refers to the “realm of the spirit” (cf. Gal 6:1) without denying the role of the
Holy Spirit. Though ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι is likely a reference to Jesus’s resur-
rection, to limit this πνεῦμα to the human spirit of Jesus (Bernard, 63; Kelly,
90–91) is unnecessary and does not fit the structure of these three pairs of
clauses.
3:14–16 247

ὤφθη ἀγγέλοις should best be understood as an appearance to or among

angels. The passive ὤφθη is used often in reference to the appearance of Jesus,
and it belongs to the common kerygma and confessions of early Christian-
ity (Luke 24:34; 1Cor 15:6, 7, 8). In Paul, ἄγγελος almost always refers to heav-
enly/spiritual beings (Rom 8:38; 1Cor 4:9; 2Cor 11:14; Gal 1:18; Col 2:18; 2 Thess
1:7; 1Tim 5:21) and never to human messengers (cf. Matt 11:10; Mark 1:2; Luke
7:27; James 2:25). The pairing of (heavenly) angels and human beings (ἐν ἔθνε-
σιν) is similar to that of 1Cor 4:9: καὶ ἀγγέλοις καὶ ἀνθρώποις. The absence of
the mention of Jesus’s post-resurrection appearances to his disciples is con-
sistent with other christological hymns and creedal statements in Paul that
move directly from the cross to Jesus’s exaltation, with the resurrection and the
ascension considered one continuous event (Rom 1:3–4; Phil 2:6–11; Col 1:15–
20).
The κηρύσσω–κῆρυξ–κήρυγμα word group elsewhere in the pe is almost
always applied to Paul’s own mission (2:7; 2Tim 1:11; 4:17; Titus 1:3; cf. 2 Tim 4:2
[Timothy]) in reference to the preaching of the gospel to the Gentiles, which
may be the primary reference of ἔθνεσιν here. Nevertheless, within this heaven-
earth pair where the emphasis is placed on the universality of the gospel procla-
mation, “nations” will be the more appropriate translation (Lau, 105–106; Mar-
shall, 528), as is further confirmed by κόσμῳ below. This ambiguity can be traced
back to the prophetic traditions in the lxx where at times it remains unclear
whether ἔθνη is to be understood in reference to the Gentiles or the nations that
include God’s elect (Isa 25:6–7; 52:10; Jer 1:5, 10; 3:17). In these prophetic tradi-
tions, the nations/Gentiles will witness the powerful redemptive act of God (Isa
2:1–4; 40:5; 42:6; 49:6), but in this hymn Christ becomes the locus of this revela-
tion. In early Christian kerygma, the proclamation of the gospel to the nations
fits comfortably within the center of christological confession (Luke 24:46–47;
Acts 26:23; cf. Matt 28:18–20), which, in turn, forms the basis of Paul’s apostolic
mission (1Tim 2:7; Dupont 1982: 290–301).
Elsewhere in the nt, the passive ἀνελήμφθη is almost always used in refer-
ence to Christ’s ascension (Mark 16:19; Acts 1:2, 22; cf. Acts 10:16), and the passive
form is particularly appropriate in early Christian confessions, where Jesus’s
exaltation by God the Father is often the climax (Acts 2:33; 5:31; Phil 2:9; Heb
7:26). The focus here is not, however, on the finality of his earthly existence and
his “exit from the sphere of time and history” (Murphy-O’Connor 1984: 183), but
his reception into glory. With δόξα being the location of the heavenly Father
(John 17:5; Acts 7:55; cf. 2Tim 2:10) and his kingdom (Mark 10:37), ἀνελήμφθη ἐν
δόξῃ points to Christ’s reception by his heavenly Father, a concept anticipated
by lxx Ps 109:1 as appropriated in Acts 2:34 in reference to Christ’s ascension
(Pao 2016: 147–150).
248 1 timothy

Bibliography
Beale, G.K., and Benjamin L. Gladd. Hidden But Now Revealed: A Biblical Theology of
Mystery. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2014.
Bitner, Bradley J. “Acclaiming Artemis in Ephesus: Political Theologies in Acts, 19.” In
The First Urban Churches 3: Ephesus. Ed. James R. Harrison and L.L. Welborn, 127–
169. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2018.
Bockmuehl, Markus. “Das Verb φανερόω im Neuen Testament: Versuch einer Neuaus-
wertung.” bz 32 (1988): 87–99.
Dupont, Jacques. “La Mission de Paul d’après Actes 26.16–23 et la Mission des Apôtres
d’après Luc 24.44–49 et Actes 1.8.” In Paul and Paulinism, 290–301. Ed. M.D. Hooker
and S.G. Wilson. London: spck, 1982.
Ellis, E. Earle. “Traditions in the Pastoral Epistles.” In Early Jewish and Christian Exege-
sis. Ed. Craig A. Evans and William F. Stinespring, 237–253. Atlanta: Scholars Press,
1987.
Fowl, Stephen E. The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul. JSNTSup 36. Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1990.
Frankfort, Henri. Kingship and the Gods. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978.
Fung, Ronald Y.K. “The Forensic Character of Justification.” Them 3 (1977): 16–21.
Funk, Robert W. “The Apostolic Parousia: Form and Significance.” In Christian History
and Interpretation. Ed. William R. Farmer et al., 249–268. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1967.
Gärtner, Bertil. The Temple and the Community in Qumran and the New Testament.
msnts 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965.
Herzer, Jens. “Rearranging the ‘House of God’: A New Perspective on the Pastoral Epis-
tles.” In Empsychoi Logoi—Religious Innovations in Antiquity. Ed. Alberdina Hout-
man et al., 547–566. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2008.
Immendörfer, Michael. Ephesians and Artemis. wunt 2.436. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2017.
Jervis, L. Ann. “Paul the Poet in First Timothy 1:11–17; 2:3b–7; 3:14–16.” cbq 61 (1999):
695–712.
Johnson, Lee A. “Paul’s Epistolary Presence in Corinth: A New Look at Robert Funk’s
Apostolic Parousia.” cbq 68 (2006): 481–501.
Koester, Helmut. “1Thessalonians—Experiment in Christian Writing.” In Continuity
and Discontinuity in Church History. Ed. F. Forrester Church and T. George, 33–44.
Leiden: Brill, 1979.
Laato, Timo. Paulus und das Judentum. Åbo: Åbo Academy, 1991.
MacLeod, David J. “Christology in Six Lines: An Exposition of 1 Timothy 3:16.” BSac 159
(2002): 334–348.
MaGee, Gregory. “Uncovering the ‘Mystery’ in 1Timothy 3.” tj 29 (2008): 247–265.
Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome. “Redactional Angels in 1Tim 3:16.” rb 91 (1984): 178–187.
3:14–16 249

Oster, Richard. “The Ephesian Artemis as an Opponent of Early Christianity.” jac 19

(1976): 24–44.
Reed, Jeffrey T. “To Timothy or Not? A Discourse Analysis of 1 Timothy.” In Biblical
Greek Language and Linguistics. Ed. S.E. Porter and D.A. Carson, 90–118. JSNTSup
80. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993.
Zamfir, Korinna. “Is the ekklēsia a Household (of God)? Reassessing the Notion of οἶκος
θεοῦ in 1Tim 3.15.” nts 60 (2014): 511–528.

5 Theological Analysis
Despite its brevity, this section provides strong statements on Christology,
ecclesiology, and (Paul’s) apostolic mission, and the interrelationship among
them. In terms of Christology, three issues emerge in the text and recent dis-
cussions of it. First and foremost is the question of the preexistence of Christ.
Though not the focus of this hymn, preexistence cannot be denied when the
enthronement ritual itself presupposes the prior existence of the one being
coronated (contra Dunn 1989: 237; even with the use of “begotten” language
for his exaltation [Acts 13:33 [Ps 2:7] cf. Heb 1:5], Jesus’s enthronement presup-
poses his prior existence, especially when sonship language has already been
applied to him in the divine pronouncement during his baptism [Luke 3:22];
McCann 1993: 45–46). Moreover, φανερόω (v. 16), which is used elsewhere for
Jesus’s incarnation (John 1:31; 2Tim 1:10; Heb 9:26; 1 Pet 1:20; 1 John 1:2; 3:5), may
also suggest a preexistent son of God (Lau, 97), while ἐν σαρκί appears to assume
a prior mode of existence. Reading in the light of the creedal statement in 1:15,
where preexistence is also assumed, Paul’s use of this hymn may convey the
same idea.
Nevertheless, the high Christology embedded in this hymn is not expressed
primarily via preexistence language. More prominent is the emphasis on Christ
assuming the role and status of God himself. Even with a three-part structure, it
is still important to recognize that the hymn is framed by the act of God through
his Son, with God being the origin and goal of his life and ministry (cf. Phil 2:6–
11; Martin 2013: 109). Within this framework, Christ takes on the role of God the
Father as he is now the one appearing before/with angels, proclaimed among
the nations, and the object of trust. In this hymn, with its vocabulary drawn
from the lxx (Strelan 1996: 154), the distinct portrayal of the status and recep-
tion of the one enthroned takes on added significance.
In terms of ecclesiology, v. 15 has been considered the critical center of the
entire corpus of the pe (Roloff, 190) and a verse that reveals “the letter’s ulti-
mate purpose” (Krause, 74). The application of temple language on the church
itself is noteworthy, especially when it is followed by the high Christology in
the hymn. The church takes on significant political significance when God is
250 1 timothy

identified as the head and benefactor of this household (on the importance of
οἶκος in the definition of power-relationships within the Greco-Roman bene-
faction system, see Billings 2011: 541–569), and the identification of this house-
hold as ἐκκλησία θεοῦ ζῶντος challenges the claims of competing communities.
More importantly, within the context of this letter, the use of temple language
together with its anti-idol claims, allows this community to be defined by a
“holy calling” according to his saving purpose (2 Tim 1:9). God’s saving purpose
defines the necessity (δεῖ) of a certain set of behaviors (ἀναστρέφεσθαι), and it
provides justification for the instructions that precede and the polemic against
the false teachers that follows.
In terms of apostolic mission, the note on the eagerness of an impending
visit may serve to exert authority upon Timothy and those in his community
(Reed 1993: 115), but this apostolic parousia also shifts attention away from
Paul’s own absence to the presence of Christ both on earth and in the realm
of the spirit. When the proclamation of Christ “among the nations” (ἐν ἔθνε-
σιν, v. 16) becomes a part of the christological program, Paul’s own mission as a
“teacher of the Gentiles” (διδάσκαλος ἐθνῶν, 2:7) is but an extension of Christ’s
redemptive work.
In ancient political and cultic contexts, “acclamations … [often] gave voice to
groups of people who may or may not have had official status or representation
in civic and political contexts” (Bitner 2018: 135). The confession in v. 16 likewise
provides a voice to the community of believers in Ephesus, and to Paul (and
Timothy) who serves under Christ. Their voice, in turn, testifies to the power
of the enthroned Christ, who continues to reign through his apostles and com-
munity of believers.

Bibliography
Billings, Bradly S. “From House Church to Tenement Church: Domestic Space and the
Development of Early Urban Christianity—The Example of Ephesus.” jts 62 (2011):
541–569.
Bitner, Bradley J. “Acclaiming Artemis in Ephesus: Political Theologies in Acts, 19.” In
The First Urban Churches 3: Ephesus. Ed. James R. Harrison and L.L. Welborn, 127–
169. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2018.
Dunn, James D.G. Christology in the Making. 2nd ed. London: scm, 1989.
Martin, Brice L. “1Timothy 3:16—A New Perspective.” EvQ 85 (2013): 105–120.
McCann, J. Clinton, Jr. A Theological Introduction to the Book of Psalms: The Psalms as
Torah. Nashville: Abingdon, 1993.
Strelan, Rick. Paul, Artemis, and the Jews in Ephesus. bznw 80. Berlin/New York: de
Gruyter, 1996.
4:1–5 251

v False Teachers and Their Deception (4:1–16)

A Dualistic Framework of the False Teachings (4:1–5)

1 Translation
1 Now the Spirit explicitly says that in the last days some will desert the faith by
occupying themselves with deceitful spirits and demonic teachings, 2 through
the hypocrisy of liars whose consciences are seared, 3 who forbid marriage and
demands abstinence from foods that are created to be received with thanksgiv-
ing by those who believe and know the truth. 4 For everything created by God
is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5 for it
is sanctified through the word of God and prayer.

2 Text-Critical Analysis
▪ 1 πλάνοις: The genitive singular πλάνης is found in a few late witnesses (P Ψ),
though it was claimed to be found in an earlier fifth/sixth-century fragment
(Bartlet 1917: 309–311). The support of some Old Latin witnesses (lat) may also
point to this earlier dating, and the change from the dative plural to the genitive
singular is attributed to an attempt to remove the Hebraic influence (Bartlet
1917: 310). Nevertheless, the support for πλάνοις, which includes the earliest and
best witnesses across the textual traditions, is overwhelming. The change is
likely a case of itacism (na28), as is reflected in yet another variant reading
(πλανις) in minuscule 489.

▪ 2 κεκαυστηριασμένων: This reading is supported by the best Alexandrian wit-

nesses (‫ א‬A al), but a different spelling of the same word, κεκαυτηριασμένων, a
form that many scribes probably preferred as being more polished (Elliott, 62;
cf. lsj),20 appears in most of the later witnesses (C D G I K P Ψ 33 1739 1881 pm
𝔐). Perhaps due to a confusion of sounds, a few took the perfect reduplication
prefix κε- as the conjunction καί, thus καὶ καυτηριασμένων (F 424 1319) and καὶ
καυστηριασμένων (2400).

▪ 3 κωλυόντων γαμεῖν, ἀπέχεσθαι: There are no variants in ancient witnesses, but

the presence of the two parallel infinitives that appear to carry opposite senses
has led Bentley (Bentleii critica sacra, 68) to insert κελευόντων before ἀπέχε-
σθαι, a conjecture widely accepted by grammarians (Abel, Grammaire § 82b;

20 This variant noted in na27 is omitted in na28, likely because it is merely a different
spelling of the same word.
252 1 timothy

bdf §479[2]),21 while Westcott and Hort argue for a misreading of ἡ ἅπτεσθαι
or καὶ γεύεσθαι (Selected Readings, 134).

Bibliography
Bartlet, J. Vernon. “A New Fifth-Sixth Century Fragment of 1 Timothy.” jts 18 (1917): 309–
311.
Bentley, Richard. Bentleii critica sacra. Ed. A.A. Ellis. London: Bell and Daldy, 1862.

3 Grammatical Analysis
Most consider 4:1–5 a distinct unit, though belonging to a larger section that
encourages Timothy to provide a proper response to the false teachers (4:1–
16; cf. Marshall, 530; Towner, 286). The shift to the second-person singular in
v. 6 (ἔσῃ) that continues through v. 7 (παραιτοῦ, γύμναζε) marks a notable shift
from the third-person verbs that dominate the long sentence in vv. 1–5 (λέγει,
v. 1; ἀποστήσονταί, v. 1; ἔκτισεν, v. 3; ἁγιάζεται, v. 5), and, as such, points to v. 5 as
the end of this unit.
The connection with the previous unit (3:14–16) is often understood to lie
primarily in the contrast between the church as the foundation and pillar of
the truth (3:15) and the false teachers who are portrayed as being unfaithful
(ἀποστήσονταί … τῆς πίστεως, v. 1) and deceitful (πλάνοις, v. 1; ψευδολόγων, v. 2;
cf. Van Neste, 89). Nevertheless, a more important connection can be identified
in the content of the hymn that affirms Christ as the Lord of both heaven and
earth (3:16), thus challenging the dualistic framework within which the false
teachers operate as they promote certain ascetic behaviors (vv. 3–4). Despite
these connections, the boundary between the two units is clearly marked by the
introductory formula τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα ῥητῶς λέγει even though it is unclear whether
this formula introduces a traditional saying (Ellis 1987: 240) or a prophetic word
to a contemporary audience (Yarbrough 2009: 104).
This one complex sentence provides cohesion to this entire unit. The intro-
ductory formula introduces an object clause (ὅτι, v. 1b) describing the false
teachings concerning marriage and food, which become the center of Paul’s
exhortation in the relative clause introduced by ἃ (v. 3b), with the grounds
of this exhortation provided by two causal clauses (ὅτι … γάρ, vv. 4, 5). In the
midst of this complex sentence, two perfect participles stand out and provide
marked contrasts between the false teachers and those who remain faithful to
Paul’s gospel (κεκαυστηριασμένων, 2b; ἐπεγνωκόσι, 3b). The false teachers are
described as liars who have seared their conscience, while those who follow

21 na28 no longer includes a note on this conjecture as na27 did.

4:1–5 253

Paul’s gospel are the faithful ones who know the truth. As the first two perfect
verbs in this letter apart from οἶδα (1:8, 9; 3:5, 15) and γέγονεν (2:14), these per-
fects draw attention to the main concerns of this letter as Paul urges Timothy
and his followers to be obedient to the truth.

▪ 1 Τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα ῥητῶς λέγει ὅτι ἐν ὑστέροις καιροῖς ἀποστήσονταί τινες τῆς πίστεως.
The postpositive δέ introduces a new development in Paul’s argument as it
extends the discussion of τῆς ἀληθείας in v. 15 by addressing those who abandon
τῆς πίστεως here (Heckert, Discourse, 46). The introductory formula τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα
ῥητῶς λέγει functions not simply to introduce the statement that follows, it
also incorporates the anticipated betrayal of the truth into the eschatological
unfolding of God’s plan. The emphasis lies in the clarity of the prophecy: in
the Pauline letters, λέγω is almost never modified by an adverb (besides tem-
poral [νῦν] and sequential [πάλιν] markers; see, however, 1 Cor 9:10); therefore,
the use of the nt hapax ῥητῶς takes on added significance. Rather than seeing
λέγει as a gnomic present (Mounce, 234), it is better to see this present verb as
grammaticalizing imperfective aspect as is expected in the introduction of a
discourse, especially a prophetic word or a scriptural saying (Rom 4:3; 9:17; 11:2;
Gal 4:30; 1Tim 5:18).
In Koine Greek, ὑστέροις can be used as either a comparative or a superlative
adjective (bdag 1044); a superlative sense is likely here, thus “the last days” (cf.
Robertson, 668; bdf §62; contra Dibelius and Conzelmann, 64: “future times”).
With this clear temporal deictic indicative, ἀποστήσονται provides a clear exam-
ple of the prospective use of the future (Porter, Verbal Aspect, 427). The subject
of this future indicative, τινές, recalls earlier uses of this indefinite pronoun in
reference to the false teachers (1:3, 6, 7, 19) and now applied to their followers
as well.

▪ προσέχοντες πνεύμασιν πλάνοις καὶ διδασκαλίαις δαιμονίων. The participle προσ-

έχοντες introduces a lengthy adjunct that extends through ἀπέχεσθαι βρωμάτων
of v. 3. The adverbial προσέχοντες points to the means through which these
false teachers abandoned the faith. The two phrases πνεύμασιν πλάνοις and
διδασκαλίαις δαιμονίων form two alliterative units, but in terms of meaning
πλάνοις fits better with διδασκαλίαις, while δαιμονίων goes better with πνεύμα-
σιν. This may qualify as an example of amplification through accumulation
with a string of words with identical meaning (Quintilian, Inst. 8.4.26–27; cf.
Campbell, 1997: 194), though it may be an intentional rhetorical strategy to
identify these false teachings as closely associated with the demonic spirits. δαι-
μονίων is often taken as a subjective genitive (Winer, Grammar, 233; Robertson,
Grammar, 499), but in light of its parallel with the adjective πλάνοις it should
254 1 timothy

best be taken as an attributive genitive, thus “demonic teachings” (or “demonic

doctrines,” Quinn and Wacker, 348).

▪ 2 ἐν ὑποκρίσει ψευδολόγων, κεκαυστηριασμένων τὴν ἰδίαν συνείδησιν. ἐν is best

taken in an instrumental sense (Mounce, 237), and thus introduces another
party here identified as ψευδολόγων who are the agents through whom some
have deserted (ἀποστήσονται, v. 1) from the faith. These agents are likely the
false teachers or the leaders of those who are deserting the faith. Within this
unit, the parallels between this verse and the next should again be noted, as
both stand out with their uses of perfect verbs:

ἐν ὑποκρίσει ψευδολόγων, κεκαυστηριασμένων τὴν ἰδίαν συνείδησιν (v. 2b)

τοῖς πιστοῖς καὶ ἐπεγνωκόσι τὴν ἀλήθειαν (v. 3b)

Beyond the use of the perfect verbs, ὑποκρίσει is contrasted with τοῖς πιστοῖς
since the faithful believers cannot deny the truth, a concept best captured in
2 Tim 2:13 when the faithful God is portrayed as one who cannot deny himself
(ἐκεῖνος πιστὸς μένει, ἀρνήσασθαι γὰρ ἑαυτὸν οὐ δύναται). ψευδολόγων, in turn, is
contrasted with τὴν ἀλήθειαν, and the highly marked perfect κεκαυστηριασμένων
and ἐπεγνωκόσι provide contrastive responses to the truth.

▪ 3 κωλυόντων γαμεῖν, ἀπέχεσθαι βρωμάτων, ἃ ὁ θεὸς ἔκτισεν εἰς μετάλημψιν μετὰ

εὐχαριστίας τοῖς πιστοῖς καὶ ἐπεγνωκόσι τὴν ἀλήθειαν. In terms of structure, this
participial clause parallels the one introduced by κεκαυστηριασμένων in v. 2 as
both provide definition for ψευδολόγων. The two infinitives that follow (γαμεῖν,
ἀπέχεσθαι), however, provide further specificity of the activities of the false
teachers. κωλυόντων γαμεῖν, ἀπέχεσθαι βρωμάτων is a case of zeugma, where
the participle applies to only one of the two lexical units (cf. Abel, Grammaire
§ 82b); another participle (e.g., κελευόντων; cf. Bentley, Bentleii critica sacra, 68;
bdf §479[2]) is implied that, in turn, takes on the complementary infinitive
ἀπέχεσθαι.
The antecedent of ἅ is likely βρωμάτων (Marshall, 542; Collins, 112), though
the arguments that follow would also apply to γαμεῖν, especially when marriage
is considered an institution established in the first creation (Gen 2:24). τοῖς
πιστοῖς is a reference to “those who believe” rather than “those who are faith-
ful” (cf. Johnson, 241): (1) the parallel clause ἐπεγνωκόσι τὴν ἀλήθειαν emphasizes
the reception of the gospel rather than the fidelity to it; (2) the contrast to τοῖς
πιστοῖς καὶ ἐπεγνωκόσι τὴν ἀλήθειαν can be found in Paul’s description in 1:13
(ἀγνοῶν ἐποίησα ἐν ἀπιστίᾳ) where ἀπιστίᾳ clearly refers to a refusal to accept
4:1–5 255

the gospel rather than infidelity; and (3) οἱ πιστοί is the primary label applied to
believers in this letter (cf. 4:10, 12; 5:16; 6:2) since they are the ones who accept ἡ
πίστις (1:19; 2:7; 3:9; 4:1; 5:8, 12; 6:10; Trebilco 2012: 100–101). These arguments for
taking τοῖς πιστοῖς as a reference to “those who believe” also argue for under-
standing τὴν ἀλήθειαν as the gospel. The article τοῖς governs both πιστοῖς and
ἐπεγνωκόσι, and the καί that connects the two is an epexegetical καί where τοῖς
… ἐπεγνωκόσι τὴν ἀλήθειαν provides definition for τοῖς πιστοῖς.

▪ 4 ὅτι πᾶν κτίσμα θεοῦ καλὸν καὶ οὐδὲν ἀπόβλητον μετὰ εὐχαριστίας λαμβανόμενον.
This ὅτι clause provides the grounds for the previous claim that ὁ θεὸς ἔκτισεν
εἰς μετάλημψιν μετὰ εὐχαριστίας (v. 3), and the two are lexically linked with the
use of the same word groups: ἔκτισεν/κτίσμα and μετὰ εὐχαριστίας/μετὰ εὐχαρι-
στίας. The connection with ἔκτισεν is further enhanced by the use of κτίσμα
rather than κτίσις since κτίσις is often a generic term referring to the entire
creation (Rom 1:20; 8:19–22; 2Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15; Col 1:15), whereas the Pauline
hapax κτίσμα (cf. James 1:18; Rev 5:13; 8:9) is often more specifically tied with
the verb κτίζω in depicting “that which is created” (bdag 573). In this context,
πᾶν κτίσμα refers to the particular products of such an act of creation rather
than to creation in general, and with the absence of an article, this phrase can
be understood in a categorical sense, “every [kind of] creature” (Johnston 2004:
72).
Taking λαμβανόμενον as an explicit (Wallace, Greek Grammar, 633) or implied
(Robertson, Grammar, 1022) conditional participle in this context, it forms the
protasis of the conditional clause. The implied verb of the apodosis οὐδὲν ἀπό-
βλητον can be an indicative (“none is despicable,” Quinn and Wacker, 290) or
an imperative (“none is to be rejected,” Dibelius and Conzelmann, 64), though
in light of this syllogism an imperative force is likely implied (cf. Donelson,
83, who identifies it as yet another example of enthymeme when [2] is merely
implied):
1. Every kind of creature that is created by God is good
2. (All) food is created by God, therefore
3. (All) food ought to be used.

▪ 5 ἁγιάζεται γὰρ διὰ λόγου θεοῦ καὶ ἐντεύξεως. The postpositive γάρ provides the
basis for the claim that every kind of food can be consumed with thanksgiv-
ing (v. 4). God is the implied agent of this passive ἁγιάζεται, a verb that points
beyond the physical cleanliness of that which is to be consumed (2 Tim 2:21; cf.
Spicq, 1.499). With God as the subject, διά + genitive points to the intermedi-
ate means through which the divine will is accomplished (Moule, Idiom, 56; cf.
Turner, Syntax, 267).
256 1 timothy

λόγου θεοῦ here should best be taken as a reference to the gospel. If so, θεοῦ
can be a genitive of source (“the gospel originated from God”) or even an objec-
tive genitive (“the gospel about God”). Syntactically, ἐντεύξεως may also be a
genitival modifier with θεοῦ (“word of God and [word of] petition,” Perkins, 82),
but in light of the formulaic nature of λόγος [τοῦ] θεοῦ (Rom 9:6; 1 Cor 14:36; 2 Cor
4:2; Col 1:25; 1Thess 2:13; 2Tim 2:9; Titus 2:5) and the contextual considerations
that point to λόγος as gospel, this reading is unlikely.

Bibliography
Campbell, Barth. “Rhetorical Design in 1Timothy 4.” BSac 154 (1997): 189–204.
Ellis, E. Earle. “Traditions in the Pastoral Epistles.” In Early Jewish and Christian Exege-
sis. Ed. Craig A. Evans and William F. Stinespring, 237–253. Atlanta: Scholars Press,
1987.
Johnston, J. William. The Use of Πᾶς in the New Testament. sbg 11. New York: Peter Lang,
2004.
Swinson, L. Timothy. What is Scripture? Paul’s Use of Graphe in the Letters to Timothy.
Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2014.
Trebilco, Paul. Self-Designations and Group Identity in the New Testament. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2012.
Yarbrough, Mark M. Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy. lnts 417.
London: T & T Clark, 2009.

4 Historical Analysis
With the use of τὸ … πνεῦμα ῥητῶς λέγει (v. 1), some have detected the use of
preformed traditions when this formula is taken as a formal citation formula
for a prophetic oracle (2Sam 23:2; Acts 21:11; Heb 3:7; Rev 14:13; 22:17; Ellis 2002:
413). Nevertheless, in this context, the precise words of the Spirit are not clearly
delineated, and it seems best not to see this as a formal introductory formula
that introduces a cluster of sayings, but one that aims primarily at reinforcing
the critique that follows (Yarbrough 2009: 106–107). The evocation of the Spirit
here serves to combat the false teachers who are depicted as preoccupied with
“deceitful spirits” (πνεύμασιν πλάνοις, v. 1).
This section provides the first explicit glimpse of the teachings promoted
by the false teachers, though it has to be considered with data elsewhere in
this letter (see Introduction). The ascetic practices noted have been understood
within several possible contexts. Those who see Paul’s note on the goodness of
creation as a theological premise he shared with the false teachers point to a
more general background of ascetic practices (cf. Merz, 40–44), while those
who do not would point to a proto-gnostic background, especially with the
reference to the knowledge of the truth (cf. ἐπεγνωκόσι τὴν ἀλήθειαν, v. 3; see
4:1–5 257

also 2Tim 2:25; 3:7; Titus 1:1; Bouteneff 2008: 53) and the earlier references to
“myths and endless genealogies” (1:4; cf. 4:7; Dehandschutter 2005: 218). While
it remains unclear whether the goodness of creation is a shared belief, the lack
of direct engagement with proto-gnostic myths (however they are perceived)
is noteworthy, especially when the creedal statement that precedes appears to
be concerned with a dualistic worldview.
Those who consider these ascetic practices as having developed within the
Pauline tradition point to a possible appeal to Rom 14:17 (οὐ γάρ ἐστιν ἡ βασιλεία
τοῦ θεοῦ βρῶσις καὶ πόσις; cf. ἀπέχεσθαι βρωμάτων, 1 Tim 4:3) when understood
within a realized eschatological framework (Lane 1965: 165). This is clearer in
2 Timothy (2:18), but in this section that follows the creedal statement in 3:16,
where future resurrection or deliverance is not emphasized, this reading can-
not be confirmed. Nevertheless, the heavier eschatological emphasis of the
next section (cf. vv. 6, 10) is consistent with this reading.
In the end, a general ascetic impulse may be sufficient to explain Paul’s
response here (Spicq, 1.497–498). This impulse fits well within the histori-
cal context of first-century Ephesus, where Artemis Ephesia is understood
as a model of chastity rather than a fertility goddess (Baugh 1999: 449–452),
although virginity in the ancient world is often not perceived in moral terms but
in terms of power and freedom (cf. Strelan 1996: 49). If the preceding creedal
statement (3:16) aims at responding to the claim of the Artemis cult, such a
background may also lie behind this section even though a direct Artemisan
ideology need not be assumed.

▪ 1 This is the first and only reference to the Holy Spirit in this letter (see com-
ments on ἐν πνεύματι in 3:16), but this is consistent with the earlier Pauline
writings that portray the Spirit as the eschatological Spirit (Rom 1:4; 7:6; 8:11;
2 Cor 1:22; Gal 3:8; cf. Acts 2:17–18) who speaks to God’s people through prophe-
cies and revelations (1Cor 2:4; 12:10; Eph 3:5; cf. Acts 4:6; 20:23). Exactly how
the Spirit speaks is not specified. In the nt, the Spirit is said to have spoken
through the ot (Matt 22:43; Mark 12:36; Acts 4:25; 28:25; Heb 3:7; 10:15–17) and
early Christian prophets (Luke 1:67; Acts 2:17; 21:11; cf. Luke 12:12; John 14:26). In
this case where it is not followed by a direct quotation, this reference may not
refer to particular ot and early Christian prophetic utterances, but to the gen-
eral pattern of teachings found in such utterances (cf. Fee 1994: 769: “what [the
Spirit] has been saying in a whole variety of ways from the time of Jesus”). If so,
ῥητῶς should be taken in the sense of “explicitly” (Philo, Leg. 1 18.60; Eusebius,
Praep. ev. 1.8.7).
ἐν ὑστέροις καιροῖς refers to “the last days” (cf. ἐν ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις, 2 Tim 3:1;
see Grammatical Analysis), although this formulation is unique here in the nt
258 1 timothy

and the ot (see, however, T.Benj. 11.2). ἀφίστημι … τῆς πίστεως signifies acts of
apostasy (see Heb 3:12; cf. Luke 8:13). Apostasy in the last days is a common
theme in Jewish (1QpHab 2.1–10; 1 En. 80.2–8; 90.22–27; 4 Ezra 5.1–12) and early
Christian writings (Matt 24:10–12; Jude 17–18; 2Pet 3:3–7; Rev 13:11–18). What is
noteworthy is how Paul identifies the false teachers as the eschatological oppo-
nents of God.
πνεύματα πλάνα provides a contrast to the Holy Spirit (τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα) and is
consistent with Paul’s portrayal of these false teachers and their followers as
under evil spiritual forces (1:20; 2:14; 3:6–7; 5:15). πνεῦμα is often used for evil
spirits in the gospels (Matt 12:43; Mark 1:23–27; Luke 4:36; 6:18; 13:11) but rarely
in Paul (cf. 1Cor 12:10; Eph 2:2). The label πλάνος recalls the portrayal of the
eschatological false teachers as those who deceive (Matt 24:11, 24; Mark 13:6;
Luke 21:8) and is also consistent with Paul’s description of the false teachers in
2 Tim 3:13 (πλανῶντες καὶ πλανώμενοι). διδασκαλίαι with δαιμόνια likewise draws
attention to the evil spiritual influence of the false teachings. Noted in 1:10, διδα-
σκαλία will be the main concern of the rest of this letter (4:6, 13, 16; 5:17; 6:1, 3).
To identify evil and demonic spiritual forces behind the false teachings may
be a response to those who claim that the ascetic practices they promote are
“spiritual” exercises aimed at the transcendence of the self in encountering the
divine (cf. Col 2:20–23; see also Fraade 1986: 253–288).

▪ 2 Both ὑπόκρισις and ψευδολόγος can evoke a wide range of connotations,

and in this context both play a significant role in Paul’s rhetorical strategy. In
English, “hypocrisy” usually points to a discrepancy between words and deeds,
but in the nt ὑπόκρισις (and its word group) is often used in reference to the
discrepancy between inner being (i.e., heart) and outward appearance (Matt
22:15–18; 23:25–28; Powell 1995: 75–81), while in Paul this word group can also
refer to the discrepancy between an agreement and the practice of those who
deviate from it (cf. Gal 2:13; Marshall 2002: 142–143). With the use of ψευδολό-
γος here, a certain discrepancy with reality is assumed, whether the liars were
themselves deceived or not (cf. 2Tim 3:13). ψευδολόγος is set up as a contrast to
ἀλήθεια, emphasized repeatedly in this letter (2:4, 7; 3:15; 4:3; 6:5). ὑπόκρισις is
explicitly contrasted with ἀλήθεια especially in contemporary Jewish literature
(Philo, Fug. 156.4; T.Benj. 6.5). The use of both ὑπόκρισις and ψευδολόγος may
also imply intentionality or at least culpability.
In this context, such a discrepancy involves the violation or contradiction of
τὴν ἰδίαν συνείδησιν. All three prior references to συνείδησις are explicitly linked
to πίστις (1:5, 19; 3:9), where συνείδησις can be understood as the appropria-
tion of the faith (rather than an innate sense of morality); ὑπόκρισις, then, is
to act against this appropriation of the faith. καυστηριάζω, a nt hapax and an
4:1–5 259

extremely rare verb in Greek literature, refers to the act of searing or brand-
ing. It can refer to the marking of a slave or a criminal (Strabo, Geogr. 5.1.9)
and thus marking the false teachers as “slaves of satanic and demonic powers”
(Schneider, tdnt 3:644), but here it can also carry the sense of “to be com-
pletely insensitive to” (LNd §27.54). The latter is preferable since conscience
is not considered a bodily organ here, but a sense of “conscientiousness” (see
1:5) that can become insensitive to God and the truth. A “seared conscience”
is, therefore, a “corrupted conscience” (cf. μεμίανται αὐτῶν ἡ συνείδησις, Titus
1:15), and is contrasted with “a pure heart” and “a good conscience” (1:5; cf. 1:19;
3:9).

▪ 3 Two examples of ascetic practices are listed here: the prohibition against
marriage and against (certain kinds of) food. Prohibition against marriage can
be understood in a variety of ways: (1) the least likely is the prohibition against
marrying certain types of individuals as is sometimes prescribed for the priests
(Lev 21:7; cf. Josephus, A.J. 3.276: γαμεῖν τὰς ἡταιρηκυίας ἐκώλυσε, μήτε δούλην μήτ’
αἰχμάλωτον ….), especially when paralleled with the prohibition against certain
kinds of food. (2) In light of Paul’s teachings elsewhere, the focus is possibly on
sexual activity “within or outside of marriage” (Marshall, 541); if so, it is consis-
tent with the teachings of some in Corinth (1Cor 7:1; Johnson, 240). This also
parallels the false teachings in Colossae, where dietary concerns are connected
with “the gratification of the flesh” (πλησμονὴν τῆς σαρκός, 2:23). (3) While the
focus does appear on sexual activities, a wider reference should not be ruled
out since references to household responsibilities are noted throughout this
letter (2:15; 3:4–5, 12; 5:4–10); this would be consistent with the understanding
that marriage is the foundation of the household (cf. γῆμαι καὶ παιδοποιήσασθαι,
2 Macc 14:25).
Abstinence from certain kinds of food (βρῶμα) can likewise be understood
within various contexts. (1) For the early Christians, this can refer to foods
offered to idols (εἰδωλόθυτον; cf. Acts 15:20, 29; 1 Cor 8:1–13; Rev 2:14, 20), but
Paul’s response that all creation is good would appear inappropriate. (2) More
plausible is the Jewish concern for abstinence from unclean foods (Lev 11:1–
47; Judg 13:7, 14; Acts 10:14–15; Rom 14:15, 20; Titus 1:10–16; cf. 1 Macc 1:62–63;
4 Macc 1:34; Josephus, C.Ap. 2.141). (3) This concern to abstain from unclean
foods may be coupled with ascetic tendencies that originate from a dualistic
framework where matters of “food and drink” (ἐν βρώσει καὶ ἐν πόσει, Col 2:16)
are linked with “harsh treatment of the body” (ἀφειδίᾳ σώματος, Col 2:23). This is
consistent with ancient ascetic practices that aim at the transformation of the
material in preparation for a divine encounter (Ware 1998: 12). Paul’s response
that God’s creation is good fits well with this reading.
260 1 timothy

Reference to God as creator paves the way for the affirmation that all cre-
ation is good (v. 4; see below). μετὰ εὐχαριστίας is likely a reference to the
thanksgiving prayer before meals, especially given the reference to ἐντεύξεως in
v. 5 (Dibelius and Conzelmann, 64). Prayer before (and after) meals is a Jewish
practice (1QS 6.4–8; m. Ber. 6–8, 20b, 35a; cf. Deut 8:10; 4Q434 frag. 2; Weinfeld
1992: 429–437) that continues on in the early church (Acts 27:35; 1 Cor 11:24; Did.
9.2–3; cf. Matt 14:19; 15:36; Mark 6:41; 8:6–7; Luke 22:17; 24:30). Paul’s argument
here resembles that of 1Cor 10:30, but the implicit assumption there is that God
has provided the blessing in response to the thanksgiving prayer, while here in
1 Tim 4:3–5 the acceptability of that which is to be consumed rests explicitly
on God’s creative act (in the past) which leads to the declaration of creation as
“good.”
τοῖς πιστοῖς is to be taken as a reference to “those who believe,” and τὴν
ἀλήθειαν to “the gospel.” To limit τὴν ἀλήθειαν to Ps 24:1 as cited in 1 Cor 10:26
(Mounce, 242) is to read this letter in light of 1 Corinthians, nor should it be
limited to the premise of the present argument that is to follow (that “every-
thing created by God is good,” v. 4; cf. Knight, 191) when τοῖς … ἐπεγνωκόσι τὴν
ἀλήθειαν provides definition to τοῖς πιστοῖς. Significantly, a similar formulation
has already appeared in 2:4 (εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας), where ἀλήθεια is clearly
used in reference to the gospel and all that it entails (cf. 2 Tim 3:7). Even within
this section, τοῖς πιστοῖς are the ones who hold on to “the faith” (τῆς πίστεως,
v. 1), which can be considered as the definition of τὴν ἀλήθειαν (Trebilco 2012:
101–102).

▪ 4 ἀπόβλητον is taken in a cultic sense by some (e.g., “unclean,” Mounce, 232)

when καλόν is considered a reference to the “cultically pure” (Mounce, 240).
Nevertheless, ἀπόβλητος is not used in the lxx or nt in cultic contexts, and
καλόν is likely a reference to the Genesis creation account when all things are
proclaimed to be good (Gen 1:4, 8, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31; 2:9, 12; cf. κτίσμα καλόν,
3 Macc 5:11). ἀπόβλητον should, therefore, be taken as a general reference to
the act of rejection (cf. ἀποβάλλω, Mark 10:50; Heb 10:35), a contrast to the
act of reception in λαμβανόμενον (λαμβάνω and ἀπόβλητος belong to the same
semantic domain though of contrasting ideas; LNd § 57.125, 57.141). The cultic
connotation only appears in the next clause with the use of ἁγιάζεται.
Beyond the Genesis creation account, the goodness of creation is reiterated
in Second Temple Jewish literature (Tob 4:19; Wis 2:6; Sir 16:29; 39:16). This
explicit evocation of the goodness of creation can only be explained if it is
a belief rejected by the false teachers likely because of their dualistic world-
view, one that the creedal statement in 3:16 already anticipates when Christ is
revealed, proclaimed, and received by all creation.
4:1–5 261

▪ 5 The cultic significance of ἁγιάζω is evident when the same verb is used in
the Levitical dietary regulations (Lev 11:44) but rarely in contemporary Greek
literature. In the lxx, that which is “holy” (ἅγιος) is often contrasted with that
which is “unclean” (ἀκάθαρτος; Lev 10:10; Isa 35:8; Ezek 22:26; 44:23; 1 Macc 4:43),
a contrast carried into the nt (Acts 21:28; 1Cor 7:14). Although Jewish cultic
practices may not be the only concern here, Jewish purity laws likely are the
primary focus.
Whereas ἐντεύξεως likely refers to mealtime prayer which points to God as
the source of all creation (μετὰ εὐχαριστίας, vv. 3, 4), the referent of λόγου θεοῦ
is less than clear. Options include: (1) ot scriptural passages used in mealtime
prayer (Fiore, 91); (2) specific ot texts in reference to creation as “good” (Gen
1–2; Mounce, 241); (3) nt teachings on “marriage” (Matt 5:31–32; 19:1–2; Mark
10:11–12; Luke 16:18) and “food” (Matt 15:1–20; Mark 7:1–23; Luke 11:37–41; Swin-
son 2014: 67–68); (4) divine benediction over the food (Spicq, 1.500); and (5)
the gospel itself (Roloff, 227). Outside of the πιστὸς ὁ λόγος formula (1:15; 3:1; 4:9;
2 Tim 2:11; Titus 3:8), λόγος is rarely used in reference to a particular saying, let
alone a scriptural saying. Closer parallels can be found in phrases like τὸν λόγον
τῆς ἀληθείας (2Tim 2:15), τὸν λόγον (2Tim 4:2), and especially ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ
(Titus 2:5), all of which refer to the gospel. In this context with prior reference
to τὴν ἀλήθειαν (v. 3), it seems best to consider λόγου θεοῦ as a reference to the
gospel.
If so, all kinds of foods are considered cultically clean through the gospel that
abolishes the distinction between clean and unclean, as Paul elsewhere claims
(Rom 14:14); there, foods are also sanctified through the prayer of thanksgiving
that acknowledges that all things are created by God and are therefore “good”
(cf. Rom 14:6). For the agency of “the word of God” in the process of sanctifica-
tion, see also Eph 5:26.
In the nt, ἔντευξις appears only here and in 2:1 above. A familiar term in
Greek literary sources (Plutarch, Phoc. 17.6; Heliodorus, Aeth. 7.19), but rarely
used in the lxx (3Macc 4:8) or Hellenistic Jewish literature (1 En. 99.3; 103.14;
Philo, Sacr. 35.3; Det. 92.5; Mos. 2.242; Legat. 276.2) for prayers. The shift from
εὐχαριστία to ἔντευξις has been taken to refer specifically to the request for God
to cleanse the food (Marshall, 547), though the appearance of the two in 2:1
without clear distinction may render this explanation unnecessary.

Bibliography
Baugh, Steven M. “Cult Prostitution in New Testament Ephesus: A Reappraisal.” jets 42
(1999): 443–460.
Bouteneff, Peter C. Beginnings: Ancient Christian Readings of the Biblical Creation Nar-
ratives. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008.
262 1 timothy

Dehandschutter, Boudewijn. “The History-of-Religions Background of 1 Timothy 4:4:

‘Everything that God has Created is Good.’” In Creation of Heaven and Earth: Re-
interpretations of Genesis I in the Context of Judaism, Ancient Philosophy, Christian-
ity, and Modern Physics. Ed. George H. van Kooten, 211–221. Leiden/Boston: Brill,
2005.
Ellis, E. Earle. The Making of the New Testament Documents. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2002.
Fee, Gordon D. God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul. Pea-
body, MA: Hendrickson, 1994.
Fraade, Steven D. “Ascetical Aspects of Ancient Judaism.” In Jewish Spirituality: From
the Bible through the Middle Ages. Ed. Arthur Green, 253–288. New York: Crossroad,
1986.
Lane, William L. “i Tim. iv.1–3. An Early Instance of Over-Realized Eschatology?” nts 11
(1965): 164–167.
Marshall, I. Howard. “Who Is a Hypocrite?” BSac 159 (2002): 131–150.
Perkins, Pheme. Gnosticism and the New Testament. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993.
Powell, Mark Allan. God with Us. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995.
Strelan, Rick. Paul, Artemis, and the Jews in Ephesus. bznw 80. Berlin/New York: de
Gruyter, 1996.
Trebilco, Paul. Self-Designations and Group Identity in the New Testament. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2012.
Ware, Kallistos. “The Way of the Ascetics: Negative or Affirmative?” In Asceticism. Ed.
Vincent L. Wimbush and Richard Valantasis, 3–15. New York: Oxford University
Press, 1998.
Weinfeld, Moshe. “Grace after Meals in Qumran.” jbl 111 (1992): 427–440.
Yarbrough, Mark M. Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy. lnts 417.
London: T & T Clark, 2009.

5 Theological Analysis
In challenging the ascetic practices promoted by the false teachers, Paul locates
their activities in the realm of darkness while providing a robust theological
response that aims at the ideological foundation of their practices. The sever-
ity of the problem noted in v. 1 is underlined by various familiar Pauline topoi:
the admonition of the Holy Spirit, the imminent arrival of the end times, apos-
tasy during such end times, and the dominance of the demonic power. Within
this context, the label Paul applies to the false teachers, the “liars” (ψευδολό-
γοι), takes on added significance; this label can be understood as pointing to
false messiahs, or the antichrist. The deception of the anti-messiah figure can
be found across early Christian traditions. Matthew depicts false messiahs and
false prophets appearing at the end of times (Matt 24:11, 24; cf. Mark 13:22), and
the dragon of Revelation 12 is the one who “deceives the whole world” (Rev 12:9).
4:1–5 263

In the Johannine tradition, the devil is identified as the “liar” and “the father of
lies” (John 8:44), and the liar is the “antichrist” (1 John 2:22); those who lie will
have no place in God’s kingdom (Rev 21:8, 27; 22:15). For Paul, the false teach-
ings are to be taken most seriously, as they are opposed to “the stewardship
from God” (1:4) and become the tool of evil spiritual forces.
In response, God is portrayed as the creator (vv. 3, 4), a label that is also sig-
nificant across biblical traditions. Beyond merely a supporting argument for
the goodness of things created, creation language is often the vehicle through
which God’s power and sovereignty are affirmed. In both cultic (Pss 74:12–
17; 77:12–20; 89:5–37; 136:4–17) and prophetic (Isa 40:12–31; 45:9–18; 48:12–16;
51:12–16) traditions, God’s powerful redemptive acts are expressed with cre-
ation language where the act of creation is also an act of subduing the evil
forces (Levenson 1988: 3–50). This would also explain the prevalence of cre-
ation language in anti-idol polemic where the power of God is asserted against
competing claims (Pss 115:2–16; 135:5–18; Isa 40:18–24; 41:4–7; 46:1–4; cf. Rom
1:25; Col 1:15–17). Here, in this polemic against “deceitful spirits and demonic
teachings” (v. 1), the rhetorical force of the affirmation of God as the creator
should not be ignored.
It is within this rhetorical context that the note on thanksgiving should be
understood. With the note on thanksgiving in v. 3 and its reiteration in v. 4, one
can possibly detect a development from mere grace before meals to the affir-
mation of divine lordship and sovereignty. For Paul, thanksgiving is primarily
a concern of worshipping the one Lord of all (Pao 2002: 25–38); it is, therefore,
not surprising that all three Pauline passages that connect food with notes on
thanksgiving are all grounded in the lordship of God and his Messiah (1 Cor
10:26, 30; Rom 14:6; 1Tim 4:3–4). If so, Paul is subverting Jewish meal-time prac-
tices: the thanksgiving prayer that is supposed to mark the food as that which
conforms to Jewish purity laws now becomes the vehicle to affirm the accept-
ability of all foods in light of God’s universal lordship (cf. Acts 10:1–11:18; Bovon
1970: 22–45; Dupont 1987: 229–236). When thanksgiving is understood as a vehi-
cle in affirming the lordship of the creator God, issues of marriage can also be
addressed since marriage was instituted by God himself when he created male
and female (cf. Gen 2:18–24).

Bibliography
Bovon, François. “Tradition et redaction en Actes 10,1–11,18.” ThZ 26 (1970): 22–45.
Brownlee, William H. “The Wicked Priest, the Man of Lies, and the Righteous Teacher:
The Problem of Identity.” jqr 73 (1982): 1–37.
Dupont, Jacques. “‘Le Seigneur de tous’ [Ac 10:36; Rm 10:12]: Arrière-fond scripturaire
d’une formule christologique.” In Tradition and Interpretation of the New Testa-
264 1 timothy

ment. Ed. Gerald F. Hawthorne and Otto Betz, 229–236. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1987.
Levenson, Jon D. Creation and the Persistence of Evil. New York: Harper & Row, 1988.
Pao, David W. Thanksgiving: An Investigation of a Pauline Theme. nsbt. Downers Grove,
IL: InterVarsity, 2002.

B Responsibility of Timothy in Combatting These False Teachings

(4:6–10)
1 Translation
6 By pointing out these things to your brothers and sisters, you will be a good
servant of Christ Jesus, training yourself by the words of the faith and of the
good teaching that you have followed. 7 Reject profane and foolish myths.
Rather train yourself for godliness, 8 for physical training is of value for a lit-
tle while, but godliness is of value forevermore since it holds promise for the
present life and the life to come. 9 This saying is trustworthy and deserves
wholehearted22 acceptance. 10 For to this end we labor and strive, because we
have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, that is, those
who believe.

2 Text-Critical Analysis
▪ 6 ᾗ: Codex Alexandrinus (A) and a few minuscules read ἧς instead, but the
external support of ᾗ is diverse and extensive. ἧς likely represents a case of
attraction (cf. Robertson, Grammar, 717).

▪ 6 παρηκολούθηκας: A few mostly Western witnesses (C F G 1319 2005 pc) read

the aorist παρηκολούθησας; it was considered original by Elliott (65) because of
the rarity of the perfect in the pe. The external witnesses for the perfect include
the best and earliest manuscripts of the Alexandrian (‫ א‬A) and Western tradi-
tions (D) as well as most of the Byzantine witnesses (K L P 𝔐). The change to
παρηκολούθησας may have been prompted by the appearance of this form in
the best witnesses of 2Tim 3:10.

▪ 10 κοπιῶμεν: The ninth-century Western text (F G) and the majority of the

Byzantine witnesses (K L 𝔐) include καί before κοπιῶμεν, but it is missing in
the earlier manuscripts (‫ א‬A C D P Ψ 1739 pm) and versions (lat sy) from diverse
textual traditions. The insertion may have been prompted by the ϰαὶ … καί con-
struction in 4:16 (cf. Titus 1:15).

22 As in 1:15, this translation reflects the intensive use of πάσης.

4:6–10 265

▪ 10 ἀγωνιζόμεθα: This reading is supported by ‫ *א‬A C F G K Ψ 33 104 326 1175

1505 al, but other witnesses (‫א‬2 D 0241vid 1739 1881 𝔐) read ὀνειδιζόμεθα instead.
Though the best of the Alexandrian uncials (‫ *א‬A) support ἀγωνιζόμεθα, the
notable 1739 (which may reflect an earlier Alexandrian reading; cf. Parker, 262)
and three early versions (latt syr co) support ὀνειδιζόμεθα. Internal evidence is
equally ambiguous: those who favor ὀνειδιζόμεθα would consider ἀγωνιζόμεθα “a
correction suggested by Col 1:29” (Bernard, 64); furthermore, the fact that ἀγω-
νίζομαι fits well in this context (Moffatt) and appears five times elsewhere in
Paul, two of them in the pe (1Tim 6:12; 2Tim 4:7), while ὀνειδίζω appears only
once in Rom 15:3, may make ὀνειδιζόμεθα the more difficult reading. Departing
only here in 1Timothy from na27/28, sblgnt has adopted ὀνειδιζόμεθα. Nev-
ertheless, the same contextual factors that make ὀνειδιζόμεθα a more difficult
reading may, in turn, argue for ἀγωνιζόμεθα, especially in light of the pervasive
athletic imagery in this section (γύμναζε, 4:7; γυμνασία, 4:8; Lock, xxxvii). The
later reality of the persecution of the church may have prompted this change
from ἀγωνιζόμεθα to ὀνειδιζόμεθα (Elliott, 68).

▪ 10 ἠλπίκαμεν: A few witnesses (D* 33) replace this perfect with the aorist ἠλπί-
σαμεν, but the perfect has overwhelming external support. The tendency to
change from the perfect to the aorist can be found elsewhere (cf. 4:6).

Bibliography
Parker, D.C. An Introduction to the New Testament Manuscripts and their Texts. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.

3 Grammatical Analysis
With this unit, the focus shifts from the false teachers (vv. 1–5) to the responsi-
bility of Timothy, a shift reflected in the change of verbal patterns and discourse
structure. While the previous unit is dominated by third-person verbs (λέγει,
v. 1; ἀποστήσονται, v. 1; ἔκτισεν, v. 3; ἁγιάζεται, v. 5), second-person singular verbs
reappear (for the first time since εἰδῇς in 3:15) in vv. 6–10 (ἔσῃ, v. 6; παρηκολού-
θηκας, v. 6; παραιτοῦ, v. 7; γύμναζε, v. 7). One also finds the first appearances of
second-person singular imperatives in this letter (παραιτοῦ, v. 7; γύμναζε, v. 7).
In terms of structure, the single long and complex sentence in the previous unit
is replaced by short independent clauses in the present one as the letter moves
from a theological critique of the false teachers to direct address to Timothy,
who is to immerse himself in τοῖς λόγοις τῆς πίστεως καὶ τῆς καλῆς διδασκαλίας
(v. 6).
This focus on healthy teaching also provides cohesion for the unit, and such
a focus is further enhanced by the use of the two participles belonging to the
266 1 timothy

same semantic domain of teaching (ὑποτιθέμενος [LNd § 33.230] and ἐντρεφό-

μενος [33.242; Van Neste, 48]). Lexemes that denote discipline and strenuous
work (γύμναζε, v. 7; γυμνασία, v. 8; κοπιῶμεν, v. 10; ἀγωνιζόμεθα, v. 10) also provide
cohesion to this unit as Paul points to the eternal benefits of the work of the
gospel.
While most would consider 4:6 the beginning of a new unit, the end of the
unit is less clear. Because of the continued exhortation to Timothy in vv. 11–16,
many consider vv. 6–16 a single unit (cf. Spicq, 1.501; Collins, 119–120). While the
thematic connection between the two units cannot be denied, a shift can still
be detected in v. 11. While the second-person singular imperatives in this letter
first appear in this section (παραιτοῦ, γύμναζε, v. 7), they dominate in vv. 11–16
(παράγγελλε, v. 11; δίδασκε, v. 11; γίνου, v. 12; πρόσεχε, v. 13; ἀμέλει, v. 14; μελέτα, v. 15;
ἴσθι, v. 15; ἔπεχε, v. 16; ἐπίμενε, v. 16). Moreover, in contrast to the clauses in vv. 6–
10 that are connected by either δέ (vv. 7, 8) or γάρ (vv. 8, 10), vv. 11–16 consists
mainly of asyndetic clauses (vv. 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 [2×], 16 [2×]; cf. Burggraff 2011:
223). The implied target of Paul’s rhetoric (via his instructions to Timothy) also
differs: with the end of this present unit shifting the attention from the false
teachers to the believers (v. 10), vv. 11–16 focus entirely on these believers (τῶν
πιστῶν ἐν λόγῳ, v. 12; τοῦ πρεσβυτερίου, v. 14; τοὺς ἀκούοντάς σου, v. 16). If so, v. 11
that calls Timothy to teach (the believers) should be considered the beginning
of a new unit.
This unit consists of a series of independent clauses that begin with a pair of
clauses that move from the indicative to the imperative: Timothy, who is nour-
ished (ἐντρεφόμενος as an adjectival participle) by the right teaching, will be a
good servant of Christ by (ὑποτιθέμενος as an instrumental participle) instruct-
ing others (v. 6), and, as such, he is to reject the myths and train himself for
godliness (v. 7). Expanding on this call to proper training, Paul provides a con-
trast between physical training and godliness with a clear parallel structure
(v. 8, see below). This contrast is supported by the participial clause (introduced
by ἔχουσα) that points to the eternal benefits of godliness. This contrast is con-
sidered a trustworthy saying (πιστὸς ὁ λόγος, v. 9), with the final clause pointing
to this eternal hope as the goal of Paul’s mission (v. 10).

▪ 6 Ταῦτα ὑποτιθέμενος τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς καλὸς ἔσῃ διάκονος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ, ἐντρεφό-
μενος τοῖς λόγοις τῆς πίστεως καὶ τῆς καλῆς διδασκαλίας ᾗ παρηκολούθηκας. While
some have taken the plural demonstrative pronoun ταῦτα to refer most broadly
to the entire letter prior to this point (Mounce, 248), a narrower reference to
the explicit mention of the false teachers in the immediately preceding unit
(vv. 1–5) is more probable (Spicq, 1.501), especially when the contrast to the
false teachers and their teachings is highlighted by the use of the adjective
καλός/καλῆς and the phrase τοῖς λόγοις τῆς πίστεως here.
4:6–10 267

Within the adjunct (ταῦτα ὑποτιθέμενος τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς), the present partici-
ple ὑποτιθέμενος depicts an act contemporaneous with the predicate (ἔσῃ) that
it modifies. The future ἔσῃ not only depicts an anticipated event, but it also
“expresses a volition” and represents a “marked and emphatic expectation
toward a process” (Porter, Verbal Aspect, 414). As in the case of σώσεις (v. 16) of
the next unit, the use of this future verb points to the pressure exerted on Tim-
othy to follow a path that would lead to a particular outcome (cf. Tuggy 1992:
58). διάκονος here should be understood in the general sense of service (cf. διη-
κόνησεν; 2Tim 1:18) rather than the titular sense earlier in this letter (3:8, 12). The
repeated use of καλός in this verse (καλῆς, v. 6b) fits into a larger pattern of the
use of this adjective (see 1:8) whereby Timothy is called to exemplify a pattern
of behavior that testifies to the “good confession” (τὴν καλὴν ὁμολογίαν, 6:13).
ἐντρεφόμενος should best be taken as an attributive participle modifying
διάκονος, with the participle understood within the context of “training” (see
Historical Analysis). With the emphasis on Timothy’s commitment, this mid-
dle/passive form should be taken as a middle as it depicts training in the form
of “self-teaching” (Smith 2012: 472). The instruments through which this “self-
teaching” can be performed are τοῖς λόγοις τῆς πίστεως and τῆς καλῆς διδασκα-
λίας. The head term τῆς καλῆς διδασκαλίας is marked by the relative clause ᾗ
παρηκολούθηκας, which also receives heightened emphasis with the use of the
perfect indicative. The Aktionsart reading of this perfect indicative that pro-
duces the translation “has followed and continues to follow” (Knight, 195; cf.
Moessner 2016: 282) is acceptable here only because of pragmatic considera-
tions.

▪ 7 τοὺς δὲ βεβήλους καὶ γραώδεις μύθους παραιτοῦ. Γύμναζε δὲ σεαυτὸν πρὸς εὐσέ-
βειαν· The first postpositive δέ signals the development from the indicative (ἔσῃ
διάκονος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ, v. 6) to the imperatives (παραιτοῦ, γύμναζε) as atten-
tion shifts to Paul’s direct instruction for Timothy. The second δέ contrasts
that which Timothy is to avoid (τοὺς … βεβήλους καὶ γραώδεις μύθους) with the
goal of his training (εὐσέβειαν). With the use of the first second-person imper-
ative (παραιτοῦ) in this letter as well as the two-fold adjectival modifiers (βεβή-
λους, γραώδεις) that provide further definition for the head term, prominence
is placed on the combatting of the myths (τοὺς … μύθους). Moreover, the use of
the derogatory μύθους and its adjectival modifiers (βεβήλους, γραώδεις) provides
further rhetorical force to this critique. The remaining discourse on εὐσέβειαν
(vv. 8–10) serves, in turn, as a countermeasure to the influence of τοὺς … μύθους.
The present imperatives παραιτοῦ and γύμναζε grammaticalize imperfec-
tive aspect as is expected in the context of a generalized instruction (and is
more common than aorist imperatives in the Pauline corpus). The emphasis on
268 1 timothy

the reflexive notion in σεαυτόν is confirmed by the saying that follows, where
Timothy’s own commitment to godliness is the focus (v. 8). πρὸς εὐσέβειαν is
often taken in a telic sense where godliness is considered the goal of his train-
ing (bdag 874; Johnson, 249), although it can also be taken in the sense of “in
godliness,” especially in light of the parallelism between εὐσέβεια and σωματικὴ
γυμνασία in v. 8 (Knight, 197). The difference may not be so stark, however, since
the telic sense cannot be ruled out even in the phrase σωματικὴ γυμνασία, where
“physical training” is for the building/health of the body (the same ambiguity
exists for πρὸς πάντα in v. 8).

▪ 8 ἡ γὰρ σωματικὴ γυμνασία πρὸς ὀλίγον ἐστὶν ὠφέλιμος, ἡ δὲ εὐσέβεια πρὸς πάντα
ὠφέλιμός ἐστιν ἐπαγγελίαν ἔχουσα ζωῆς τῆς νῦν καὶ τῆς μελλούσης. The postpos-
itive γάρ strengthens the call in the previous clause (γύμναζε δὲ σεαυτὸν πρὸς
εὐσέβειαν) with two parallel clauses connected by the conjunction δέ that serves
primarily as an adversative marker in this context where bodily exercise is con-
trasted with godliness:

ἡ γὰρ σωματικὴ γυμνασία πρὸς ὀλίγον ἐστὶν ὠφέλιμος,

ἡ δὲ εὐσέβεια πρὸς πάντα ὠφέλιμός ἐστιν

A secondary function of δέ here is developmental (Heckert, Discourse, 37, 43),

providing further definition for εὐσέβειαν noted in the previous clause. Instead
of a simple contrast, ἡ … σωματικὴ γυμνασία serves as a foil for ἡ … εὐσέβεια,
and it is here that asymmetrical weight is placed on ἡ … εὐσέβεια with the
inclusion of the additional adjunct: ἐπαγγελίαν ἔχουσα ζωῆς τῆς νῦν καὶ τῆς μελ-
λούσης.
When contrasted with ἡ … εὐσέβεια, ἡ … σωματικὴ γυμνασία is best under-
stood in reference to physical training. If, however, an allusion to ascetic prac-
tices can be detected (cf. vv. 1–5; Gasparro 1998: 134), then this can also be
understood as a rhetorical strategy to reduce such practices to the level of phys-
ical training (Fiore, 93). The nature of the contrast between the two options
hinges on the understanding of πρὸς ὀλίγον and πρὸς πάντα. πρὸς ὀλίγον can be
taken in a quantitative sense (“in a limited away,” Johnson, 249; cf. Collins, 122),
but a temporal sense (“for a little while,” Mounce, 253) is familiar in both the
lxx (4Macc 6:20; 15:27) and the nt (James 4:14). This temporal reading is con-
firmed by ζωῆς τῆς νῦν καὶ τῆς μελλούσης that follows, and the contrast between
πρὸς ὀλίγον and πρὸς πάντα is then one between “up to a point” and “all the way”
(Kelly, 97).
ἔχουσα functions in a causal manner (Robertson, Grammar, 1129; Porter,
Idioms, 191), providing the reason why godliness surpasses physical training
4:6–10 269

in long-term value. Within the phrase ζωῆς τῆς νῦν, the adverb νῦν takes on
the function of an adjective (cf. Robertson, Grammar, 547) that parallels the
attributive participle [τῆς] μελλούσης, and τῆς in both cases functions as a rel-
ative pronoun that introduces “the identifying characteristics of the referent”
(Peters, Greek Article, 202), though the anarthrous ζωῆς is first conceived as an
indefinite entity (Winer, Grammar, 174; cf. Burk 2006: 39).

▪ 9 πιστὸς ὁ λόγος καὶ πάσης ἀποδοχῆς ἄξιος. It is debated whether the article
ὁ here should be taken as anaphoric or kataphoric. Those who argue for a
kataphoric reference do so primarily based on the fact that most “trustwor-
thy readings” in the pe relate to aspects of soteriology (cf. Mounce, 247–228;
Yarbrough, 2009: 111–114), but the saying in 3:1 challenges the strength of this
basis. Other textual features point to an anaphoric reference that likely includes
both clauses in v. 8. First, v. 8 contains one nt hapax (γυμνασία) and another
Pauline one (σωματική), pointing to the possible presence of a preformed say-
ing (Knight 1969: 62). The use of ζωῆς … τῆς μελλούσης for eternal life, instead of
the expected τῆς αἰωνίου ζωῆς (6:12; cf. 1:16), also reinforces this possibility. Sec-
ond, the structure of the two parallel clauses in v. 8 points to the stereotypical
nature of the saying, while v. 10 does not betray the structure of a preformed
saying. Third, the programmatic nature of v. 8 is apparent as it draws attention
to the eternal benefit of godliness, a theme picked up in v. 10 with the use of
θεῷ ζῶντι, which has already appeared in 3:15 (θεοῦ ζῶντος). The fact that v. 10
represents the telos of Paul’s argument only reconfirms the foundational sig-
nificance of the premise established in v. 8. Fourth, εἰς τοῦτο in v. 10 likely refers
back to the saying in v. 8 since κοπιῶμεν καὶ ἀγωνιζόμεθα builds on the agon-
motif stemming from the imagery of physical training (ἡ … σωματικὴ γυμνασία)
in v. 8 (cf. Pfitzner 1967: 102–103). Verse 10 should then be understood as the out-
working of the prior saying. Fifth, γάρ in v. 10 is best read as strengthening the
“trustworthy saying” of v. 8 (Fee, 105) even when the presence of this conjunc-
tion does not immediately disqualify a statement from being a “trustworthy
saying” (cf. 2Tim 2:11).

▪ 10 εἰς τοῦτο γὰρ κοπιῶμεν καὶ ἀγωνιζόμεθα, ὅτι ἠλπίκαμεν ἐπὶ θεῷ ζῶντι, ὅς ἐστιν
σωτὴρ πάντων ἀνθρώπων μάλιστα πιστῶν. εἰς τοῦτο refers back to the saying in v. 8
that provides the reason for Paul’s labor, and the postpositive γάρ introduces
a clause that strengthens the claim in v. 9 that the preceding saying is trust-
worthy and deserves full acceptance (cf. Heckert, Discourse, 36). The present
indicatives κοπιῶμεν and ἀγωνιζόμεθα grammaticalize imperfective aspect with
the labor and struggle of Paul and Timothy viewed from within the process. ὅτι
points to both the motivation and the ground of the prior statement (Roloff,
270 1 timothy

247–248). The marked perfect ἠλπίκαμεν moves the discussion from the gen-
eral reference to eternal life (ζωῆς … τῆς μελλούσης) to God, who is the basis for
this hope.
The theocentric focus is confirmed by the title θεῷ ζῶντι as well as by the
hypotactic (and thus non-defining) relative clause that provides further char-
acterization of this God (σωτὴρ πάντων ἀνθρώπων μάλιστα πιστῶν). The use of
μάλιστα is puzzling, especially in reference to the extent of the salvific work
of God: (1) Some would argue for the intentionality of this tension since Paul
wants to emphasize both the authority of God (as Savior of all) and the particu-
lar target of his saving grace (believers) in the unfolding of his plan of salvation
(Oberlinner, 1.197); (2) the anarthrous σωτήρ is taken as a reference to God the
benefactor (rather than “savior”) and “God is especially beneficent to those who
train themselves in godliness because he not only cares for the earthly needs of
believers but also for their needs in ‘the life to come’” (Baugh 1992: 338; cf. Spicq,
1.509); (3) μάλιστα is understood in the sense of “namely, that is” (cf. 2 Tim 4:18;
Titus 2:10; Skeat 1979: 174–175), and μάλιστα πιστῶν therefore constrains πάντων
ἀνθρώπων; and (4) God is potentially the Savior of all people, but in a spe-
cial way only the Savior of believers (Mutschler 2010: 293). Acknowledging the
tension (option [1]), further clarification of the precise relationship between
πάντων ἀνθρώπων and μάλιστα πιστῶν is still necessary. Option (2) fails to rec-
ognize the consistent use of the σῴζω/σωτήρ word group in reference to the
granting of eternal life through Christ Jesus on those who believe (cf. 1:15; 2:3–
4; 2Tim 1:9–10; 4:18; Titus 1:3–4; see Historical Analysis). Option (3) provides the
best reading despite ambiguities in some of the extra-canonical sources cited
(P.Oxy. 1411, 3253, 3302; cf. Poythress 2002: 524), and it can be taken together
with (4), especially when it is read in light of 2:4, thus: God desires all people
to be saved, but he is the actual Savior only of those who believe (cf. Fitzmyer
2002: 187–188).

Bibliography
Baugh, Steven M. “‘Savior of All People’: 1Tim 4:10 in Context.” wtj 54 (1992): 331–340.
Burggraff, Philip D. “A Corpus Linguistic Verb Analysis of the Pauline Letters: The Con-
tribution of Verb Patterns to Pauline Letter Structure.” Ph.D. diss., McMaster Divinity
College, 2011.
Burk, Denny. Articular Infinitives in the Greek of the New Testament. New Testament
Monographs 14. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2006.
Fitzmyer, Joseph A. “The Savior God: The Pastoral Epistles.” In The Forgotten God:
Perspectives in Biblical Theology. Ed. A. Andrew Das and Frank J. Matera, 181–196.
Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002.
Gasparro, Giulia Sfameni. “Asceticism and Anthropology: Enkrateia and ‘Double Cre-
4:6–10 271

ation’ in Early Christianity.” In Asceticism. Ed. V.L. Wimbush and R. Valantasis, 127–
146. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Knight, George W. The Faithful Sayings in the Pastoral Letters. Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1969.
Moessner, David P. “Luke as Tradent and Hermeneut.” NovT 58 (2016): 259–300.
Pfitzner, Victor C. Paul and the Agon Motif. NovTSup 16. Leiden: Brill, 1967.
Poythress, Vern Sheridan. “The Meaning of μάλιστα in 2 Timothy 4:13 and Related
Verses.” jts 53 (2002): 523–532.
Skeat, T.C. “‘Especially the Parchments’: A Note on 2Tim 4:13.” jts 30 (1979): 173–177.
Smith, Claire S. Pauline Communities as ‘Scholastic Communities.’ wunt 2.335. Tübin-
gen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012.
Tuggy, John C. “Semantic Paragraph Patterns: A Fundamental Communication Concept
and Interpretive Tool.” In Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation. Ed. David
Alan Black et al., 45–67. Nashville: Broadman, 1992.

4 Historical Analysis
Within this section that betrays a distinct paraenetic tone and function, one
finds a proverbial saying in v. 8 that has been identified as a “gnomic sentence”
(Ramsaran 2003: 448; cf. Quintilian, Inst. 8.5.3–34), one that may reflect the
influence of Cynic-Stoic philosophy (Dibelius and Conzelmann, 68) or Hel-
lenistic Jewish wisdom tradition (Brändl 2006: 371–375). With the use of the
faithful-saying formula that follows and the parallel structure of its two parts,
this is likely a preformed saying (Yarbrough 2009: 108), but the exact source is
difficult to ascertain, especially when much of the vocabulary fits well within
the context and is not in tension with Pauline uses elsewhere (see below).
Verse 10 has further been identified as an “oath formula” (cf. 6:11–12; 2 Tim
4:6–8; Seesengood 2006: 50), though a commitment to strive in view of the
eschatological hope may simply reflect a pattern in Paul’s thought (Rom 15:4;
2 Cor 1:10; Phil 1:20; Col 1:23; 1Thess 1:3) which resembles especially Col 1:29
(Roloff, 240–241).

▪ 6 Elsewhere in Paul, the verb ὑποτίθημι only appears in the active form within
the idiom τράχηλον ὑποτίθημι, for “risking one’s life” (Rom 16:4; cf. Sir 6:24; 51:26;
Epictetus, Diatr. 1.77). The middle form often takes on the meaning of “suggest-
ing” or “advising” (bgu 1301) instead, though in legal documents, the sense of
power and authority can also be present (P.Ryl. 162; M.-M. 661). In this context, a
slightly stronger sense than mere “suggesting” or “advising” is to be understood,
especially since Paul is here urging Timothy to act in the capacity of διάκονος
Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ.
While other titles are reserved for various leaders of the community, within
the portrayal of the household of God, οἱ ἀδελφοί likely refers to believers.
272 1 timothy

If so, the translation “brothers and sisters” will be appropriate, since women
are among the leaders of the church (see 3:11). The relatively rare use of this
fictive-kinship label (cf. 6:2; 2Tim 4:21) has been considered to be a significant
departure from Pauline practice (Collins 2011: 321–336), and a focus on the hier-
archical structure of this household has often been proposed to explain this
rarity (Horrell 2001: 306–309). However, the discussion is not concerned with
the relative power and authority of the overseers and elders within their com-
munity. Moreover, the subversive undertone of the discussion on slavery where
sibling language appears should also be noted (see comments on 6:2). More
importantly, sibling language by itself denotes mutual dependence rather than
an egalitarian relationship (Phil 2:25; Phlm 16; Clarke, 2004: 151–164).
διάκονος language should be understood within this fictive kinship frame-
work. Instead of an established title as in 3:8–13, Timothy is considered to be
one with authority, and this authority is here articulated by the descriptor διά-
κονος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ. As noted earlier (3:8), διάκονος does not simply denote the
one who renders service to a superior, it also points to the honorable role of an
emissary with power. Together with the already familiar adjective καλός (1:18;
2:3; 3:1; 4:4), Paul is situating Timothy within the good plan of the powerful mas-
ter.
ἐντρεφόμενος can be a middle or passive participle. It is often claimed that
the middle means “to nourish oneself” while the passive means “to be trained
in” (Marshall, 549; Towner, 304), but this distinction can only be inferred. This
nt hapax is most often used in contexts of training (Plato, Leg. 798a; Epictetus
4.4.48; bdag, 341), which fits the context of this letter where metaphors of edu-
cation (παιδεύω, 1:20) and training (γυμνάζω, 4:7) dominate. This is consistent
with its uses in Hellenistic Jewish authors for the training in law codes (Jose-
phus, C.Ap. 1.270), with a particularly close parallel in Philo where the verb is
used with another (ἐνασκέω) within the same semantic domain of “training,”
in reference to the “Sacred Writings” (οὐκ ἐνετράφης οὐδὲ ἐνησκήθης τοῖς ἱεροῖς
γράμμασιν, Legat. 195.4; cf. Sacr. 76.7; Fug. 173.2).
οἱ λόγοι τῆς πίστεως may allude back to τὸ μυστήριον τῆς πίστεως in 3:9, while
ἡ καλὴ διδασκαλία, which appears nowhere else in contemporary Greek litera-
ture, is synonymous with ἡ ὑγιαίνουσα διδασκαλία (1:10) but in contrast to διδα-
σκαλίαι δαιμονίων (4:1). The perfect παρηκολούθηκας depicts Timothy not only
as a casual observer or an objective investigator but also as a faithful follower
who has been fully immersed in the tradition for a lengthy period of time; this
is consistent with the use of the perfect form of this verb elsewhere to depict
“one who is already knowledgeable and can make judgments without having to
go back and retrace developments or conduct research” (Moessner 2016: 278,
italics his; cf. Demosthenes, Aristocr. 187.2; Cor. 172.3; [Olymp.] 40.4; Luke 1:3).
4:6–10 273

▪ 7 The use of μῦθος for the false teachings recalls μύθοις καὶ γενεαλογίαις of 1:4,
which may point to a Jewish context if Ἰουδαϊκοῖς μύθοις of Titus 1:14 refers to
a similar set of teachings (cf. γενεαλογίας καὶ … μάχας νομικάς Titus 3:9). Here,
however, in the context of training and education (cf. γύμναζε) that includes
physical training, an allusion to the common critique against the Homeric
myths may also be possible (Plato, Resp. 376e–412b; Blumenfeld 2001: 167). The
cultic label βέβηλος appears above within the pair ἀνοσίοις καὶ βεβήλοις (1:9),
and it is used in contrast to that which has been sanctified by God (cf. ἁγιάζε-
ται, v. 5).
Etymologically, the nt hapax γραώδης can carry the sense of “old wives’ tale”
(from γραῦς) and is taken as a reference to (1) the stories told by women (Mac-
Donald 1983: 59); (2) their audience being gullible women (Kelly, 99); (3) Paul’s
strategy to effeminate his opponents (Kartzow 2012: 104); or (4) the author’s
pejorative view of women (Zamfir, 181). These readings may, however, fall prey
to an etymological fallacy; it is difficult to prove whether this remains a gen-
dered reference in the first century when most literary writers are themselves
men. The use of this adjective with μῦθος (and its related word group) is not
uncommon (Posidonius, Frag 290a.442; Strabo, Geogr. 1.2.3), and it may merely
convey the sense of baseless tales.
The verb γύμναζε (γυμνάζω) only appears here in Paul, but the noun γυμνα-
σία is used in the next verse. A particularly relevant parallel can be found in
4 Macc 11:20 with the use of γυμνασία in the context of a discussion on εὐσέβεια.
Some consider this imperative an appropriation of the call to the training of the
soul by Greco-Roman moralists (Pseudo-Isocrates, Nic. 11; Demon. 21; Epictetus,
Diatr. 1.4.3; Johnson, 249; Malherbe 2005: 344). In this immediate context, how-
ever, Paul is not advocating for an accommodation to the Greco-Roman vision
of moral education. He is instead fighting against those who advocate a regi-
men of “physical training” (v. 8) that conforms to the ascetic ideals (v. 3). As
such, the reuse of the term εὐσέβεια is of particular importance, a term expli-
cated with the confessional statement of 3:16, where the sovereign reign of
Christ transcends the divide of the physical and the spiritual.

▪ 8–9 With the faithful-saying formula in v. 9 (see comments on 1:15) referring

back to the saying in v. 8, these two verses should be considered together. While
the contrast between physical training (ἡ … σωματικὴ γυμνασία) and godliness
(ἡ … εὐσέβεια) is clear, what “physical training” is referring to is not. Four possi-
ble readings have been proposed. (1) The point is not to evaluate the benefits of
“physical training,” since “physical training” is merely “a poetic creation to bal-
ance the real emphasis: godliness” (Mounce, 253). This renders the search for
the reference behind “physical training” unnecessary, but the sustained inter-
274 1 timothy

est in training (and that which is not worth training for) in the surrounding
context questions this reading.
(2) Considering this as referring to physical training in general is consistent
with the way athletic imagery is used in 1Cor 9:24–27 in reference to the failure
of bodily exercise in curbing the passion of the flesh (Holtzmann, 339; Marshall,
552). The main argument for this general reading rather than a more specific
reference to ascetic practices (see below) is the perceived unlikelihood that
Paul would ascribe “some value” (ὀλίγον) to ascetic practices. This, however, is
an insufficient objection against a more specific reading since Paul is merely
ascribing a possible value for ascetic practices in the present age (πρὸς πάντα
understood in a temporal sense).
(3) Reading in light of κοπιῶμεν καὶ ἀγωνιζόμεθα in v. 10, “physical training”
is understood to refer to the present struggle for the gospel (Roloff, 245–246).
This reading is least likely since the trustworthy saying noted in v. 9 refers back
to v. 8 rather than to v. 10, and the concern throughout this section is with the
limited value of ascetic practices.
(4) To consider “physical training” as a reference to ascetic practices remains
the most plausible reading (Pfitzner 1967: 171–177). Taking v. 8 as a preformed
saying allows this saying to take on added significance in a new context, espe-
cially since the γυμνασία word group is already used in a metaphoric sense in
v. 7. This word group is often used in the general sense of training (Plutarch,
Mor. 526f) even when “physical training” itself is considered a form of dis-
cipline (Plutarch, Lyc. 77.2; Philostratus, Gymn. 58), including the discipline
of the soul (see, for example, Philo, Prov. 2.56; Mut. 172; Somn. 1.129; Plato,
Resp. 410). This fits the context well, and a concern for ascetic practices may
also be reflected in the choice of the term σωματικός when the word group
is used in Paul against certain forms of ascetic practices (cf. ἀφειδίᾳ σώματος,
Col 2:23). Moreover, the use of physical training to curb bodily passions in
1 Cor 9:24–27 may not be unrelated to certain kinds of ascetic practices, and
a similar line of argument can be found in Col 2:23 with an explicit reference
to the more extreme forms of ascetic practices advocated by the false teach-
ers.
The relative benefits of the care of the soul as compared to physical train-
ing are well documented in ancient literature (Aristotle, Eth. nic. 1104a; Lucian,
Anach. 21), but the focus here is on ἡ … εὐσέβεια, which does not fall within
one side of the physical-spiritual spectrum, but redirects the attention to God
and his Messiah, whose sovereignty is established ἐν σαρκί and ἐν πνεύματι
(3:16).
In light of ζωῆς τῆς νῦν καὶ τῆς μελλούσης, the contrast between πρὸς ὀλίγον
and πρὸς πάντα should also be understood in a temporal sense (see Grammat-
4:6–10 275

ical Analysis). As ἡ … εὐσέβεια is a notable political term, the reference to “the

life to come” (ζωῆς … τῆς μελλούσης) likewise carries significant social and eco-
nomic weight within and beyond one’s community when the call to “make the
good confession” (ὡμολόγησας τὴν καλὴν ὁμολογίαν) is embedded in the call to
lay hold of “the eternal life” (τῆς αἰωνίου ζωῆς) in 6:12 (cf. 6:17–19; Herzer 2005:
309–310).

▪ 10 κοπιάω is a familiar term in the earlier Pauline writings in the context of

ministry (Rom 16:6, 12; 1Cor 15:10; 16:16; Gal 4:11; Phil 2:16; 1 Thess 5:12), while
ἀγωνίζομαι appears mostly in his later writings (Col 1:29; 4:12) with the notable
exception of 1Cor 9:25, where it is used with an athletic metaphor (cf. 1 Tim 6:12;
2 Tim 4:7). This latter use provides a link with γυμνασία of v. 8 with both being
in the same semantic domain (LNd §50.1; 50.7).
κοπιῶμεν καὶ ἀγωνιζόμεθα here may extend the previous call to “train your-
self for godliness” (v. 7; Dibelius and Conzelmann , 69), but it may also serve a
wider purpose as a call to missionary service, as in the case of Col 1:29, where
both verbs are also used (κοπιῶ ἀγωνιζόμενος). This wider call fits the context
well, especially when the trustworthy saying in v. 9 serves as a break to the nar-
rower focus on training, while the use of the title σωτήρ may further point to
this missionary endeavor (cf. 1:1; Godwin 1996: 71–73).
θεῷ ζῶντι is an appropriate appellation for the one who bestows life among
his people (v. 8). Within a missionary context, θεὸς ζῶν (see 3:15) is often used
within anti-idol polemic (Acts 14:15–17; 1Thess 1:9–10; cf. Josh 3:10; 1 Sam 17:36;
2 Kgs 19:4; Isa 37:4) and should be understood primarily in this sense here
(Wieland, 91–92), where Paul is providing a critique of the practices promoted
by the false teachers.
The anarthrous σωτήρ has been taken to refer to “benefactor” rather than
“savior,” with the focus placed on God’s acts rather than on his nature (Baugh
1992: 331–335). This, however, is questionable. First, the distinction between
act and nature, and thus between “benefactor” and “savior,” is not always clear.
These two titles were bestowed upon Roman emperors in recognition of their
actions as deliverers and benefactors (cf. ogis 458). Paul’s application of this
title to God does not diminish God’s divinity; instead, it challenges compet-
ing imperial claims. Second, even with the presence of an article, σωτήρ can
still signify primarily a benefactor (cf. τῷ σωτῆρι καὶ εὐεργέτῃ τῆς οἰκουμένης,
ogis 668). Third, πάντων ἀνθρώπων here echoes the soteriological statement
in 2:4: πάντας ἀνθρώπους θέλει σωθῆναι, and this salvation is offered to believ-
ers (μάλιστα πιστῶν) and is not limited to the present life (v. 8; Fitzmyer 2002:
187).
276 1 timothy

Bibliography
Baugh, Steven M. “‘Savior of All People’: 1Tim 4:10 in Context.” wtj 54 (1992): 331–340.
Blumenfeld, Bruno. The Political Paul: Justice, Democracy and Kingship in a Hellenistic
Framework. JSNTSup 210. London/New York: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001.
Brändl, Martin. Der Agon bei Paulus: Herkunft und Profil paulinischer Agonmetaphorik.
wunt 2.222. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006.
Clarke, Andrew D. “‘Equality or Mutuality?’ Paul’s Use of ‘Brother’ Language.” In The
New Testament in its First-Century Setting. Ed. Peter Williams et al., 151–164. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004.
Collins, Raymond F. “Where Have All My Siblings Gone? A Reflection on the Use of
Kinship Language in the Pastoral Epistles.” In Celebrating Paul. Ed. Peter Spitaler,
321–336. cbqms 48. Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2011.
Fitzmyer, Joseph A. “The Savior God: The Pastoral Epistles.” In The Forgotten God:
Perspectives in Biblical Theology. Ed. A. Andrew Das and Frank J. Matera, 181–196.
Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002.
Herzer, Jens. “Die »Verheissung des Lebens« (1Tim 4,8) im Spannungsfeld zwischen
öffentlicher Verantwortung und persönlicher Hoffnung.” In Leben—Verständnis,
Wissenschaft, Technik. Ed. E. Herms, 300–311. Gütersloh: Gütersloher, 2005.
Horrell, David G. “From ἀδελφοί to οἶκος θεοῦ: Social Transformation in Pauline Chris-
tianity.” jbl 120 (2001): 293–311.
Kartzow, Marianne Bjelland. Destabilizing the Margins: An Intersectional Approach to
Early Christian Memory. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2012.
Knight, George W. The Faithful Sayings in the Pastoral Letters. Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1969.
MacDonald, Dennis Ronald. The Legend and the Apostle. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983.
Malherbe, Abraham J. “‘Christ Jesus Came into the World to Save Sinners’: Soteriology
in the Pastoral Epistles.” In Salvation in the New Testament. Ed. Jan G. van der Watt,
331–358. NovTSup 121. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2005.
Moessner, David P. “Luke as Tradent and Hermeneut: ‘As One Who Has a Thoroughly
Informed Familiarity with All the Events from the Top’ (παρηκολουθηκότι ἄνωθεν
πᾶσιν ἀκριβῶς, Luke 1:3).” NovT 58 (2016): 259–300.
Pfitzner, Victor C. Paul and the Agon Motif. NovTSup 16. Leiden: Brill, 1967.
Ramsaran, Rollin A. “Paul and Maxims.” In Paul in the Greco-Roman World. Ed. J. Paul
Sampley, 429–456. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2003.
Seesengood, Robert Paul. Competing Identities: The Athlete and the Gladiator in Early
Christianity. lnts 346. New York/London: T & T Clark, 2006.
Standhartinger, Angela. “Eusebeia in den Pastoralbriefen: Ein Beitrag zum Einfluss
römischen Denkens auf das Entstehende Christentum.” NovT 48 (2006): 51–82.
Yarbrough, Mark M. Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy. lnts 417.
London: T & T Clark, 2009.
4:6–10 277

5 Theological Analysis
In this section, Paul presents further arguments in his critique of the false
teachers and the ascetic practices they advocate. Already in the previous sec-
tion, one finds Paul locating the dangers of such false teachings within the
challenges expected at the end of times. Here, the full force of this argument
can be felt as Paul shifts the attention from the spatial/ontological dualism that
forms the foundation of the ascetic practices to a temporal one that focuses on
the eternal value of a different kind of “training.” In extending the temporal
horizon from the present back to the beginning of times in God’s creative acts
(vv. 1–5) and to the future in “the life to come” (v. 8) as “we have our hope set
on the living God” (v. 10), Paul argues for the importance of a form of training
that “is of value forevermore” (v. 8; for another possible formulation of the rela-
tionship between asceticism and eschatology in the early Christian encratic
traditions, see Zamfir 2010: 281–303). The parallels with Paul’s earlier writings
become apparent, especially in Colossians where Paul moves from the limited
value of ascetic practices (Col 2:21–23) to a robust eschatological vision where
the climax of all spiritual exercises is to be located at the time when believers
are to be “revealed with him [Christ] in glory” (Col 3:4; cf. Lincoln 1981: 122–134).
If a similar logic can be identified here, the reference to “Christ Jesus” (1 Tim
4:6) may not be merely a casual one, even though this section betrays a more
theocentric focus, since the “promise for the present life and the life to come”
(1 Tim 4:8) rests on what God did through Christ in his death and resurrection,
especially since this Christ is “your life” (Col 3:4).
As Paul moves from private and individualistic spiritual exercises to the pub-
lic revelation of Christ’s glory in Col 3:1–4, so here Paul similarly moves from
“physical training” to training in “godliness” (εὐσέβεια, vv. 7, 8). What is striking
is the absence of a “physical” vs. “spiritual” dichotomy. Instead, “godliness” is
defined by the working out of Christ’s sovereignty in both the earthly and heav-
enly realms (3:16), as well as in both the future and the present life (v. 8). This
godliness, in turn, grounds the identity of the Christian community vis-à-vis
competing political entities (cf. Standhartinger 2006: 51–82). This is consistent
with the earlier Paul, where the “citizenship” of believers is in heaven where
we anticipate “a savior from there” (Phil 3:20), though here the title “savior” is
applied to God himself.
The question of universalism arises with the descriptor of God being “the
Savior of all people” (σωτὴρ πάντων ἀνθρώπων, v. 10). That all people are saved
regardless of their response (or “conscious” response, cf. Punt 1980: 48–49) to
the gospel would render Paul’s own apostolic mission irrelevant (cf. 1:1, 15; 4:10;
2 Tim 2:10; Titus 1:3), and a narrower scope is implied with the concept of “the
elect” (cf. 2Tim 1:9; 2:10). Reading in light of 2:4, “the Savior of all people” could
278 1 timothy

mean that God is the Savior “who desires all people to be saved,” while the
stronger affirmation here may aim at highlighting God’s universal sovereignty
over all (cf. Wis 16:7; Philo, Fug. 162), especially following the claim that he is the
creator of all (v. 4). The final and difficult phrase in v. 10, μάλιστα πιστῶν, may
provide a partial solution when understood in the sense of “namely, believers”
(see Grammatical Analysis). Though clumsy, this entire statement achieves two
purposes: the affirmation of the universal authority of God as Savior, and the
constraint of the object of his soteriological act to those who believe. This con-
forms to the confession in the prophetic traditions, as mediated through the
earlier Paul: “everyone (πᾶς) who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved
(σωθήσεται)” (Rom 10:13; cf. Joel 2:32[3:5]; see also Crockett 1986; Hillert 1999).

Bibliography
Crockett, William. “Universalism and the Theology of Paul.” Ph.D. diss., University of
Glasgow, 1986.
Hillert, Sven. “Limited and Universal Salvation: A Text Oriented and Hermeneutical
Study of Two Perspectives in Paul.” Ph.D. diss., Uppsala University, 1999.
Lincoln, Andrew T. Paradise Now and Not Yet: Studies in the Role of the Heavenly Dimen-
sion in Paul’s Thought with Special Reference to His Eschatology. sntsms 43. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981.
Punt, Neal. Unconditional Good News: Toward an Understanding of Biblical Universal-
ism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980.
Standhartinger, Angela. “Eusebeia in den Pastoralbriefen: Ein Beitrag zum Einfluss
römischen Denkens auf das Entstehende Christentum.” NovT 48 (2006): 51–82.
Zamfir, Korinna. “Asceticism and Otherworlds in the Acts of Paul and Thecla.” In Other
Worlds and their Relation to this World: Early Jewish and Ancient Christian Traditions.
Ed. Tobias Nicklas et al., 281–303. JSJSup 143. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2010.

C Responsibility of Timothy in Providing a Positive Example (4:11–16)

1 Translation
11 Command and teach these things. 12 Let no one despise you because of your
youth, but set an example for the believers in word, in deed, in love, in faith,
in purity. 13 Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading,23 to the exhor-
tation, to the teaching. 14 Do not neglect the gift you have, which was given to
you through prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the body of elders. 15
Pay attention to these things; immerse yourself in them, so that your progress

23 While “the Scripture” is implied here, it should not be made explicit in the translation
because the following two acts (“the exhortation” and “the teaching”) are also intimately
related to the Scripture.
4:11–16 279

may be visible to all. 16 Watch yourself and your teaching. Persist in them, for
by doing so you will save both yourself and those who listen to you.

2 Text-Critical Analysis
▪ 12 ἐν πίστει: Before ἐν πίστει, a number of 9th-century Byzantine uncials (K L
P) and the majority of minuscules (365 630 1241 𝔐) insert ἐν πνεύματι, perhaps
influenced by the phrase ἐν ἀγάπῃ πνεύματί in 1Cor 4:21 or other similar Pauline
formulations (cf. Col 1:8; 2Cor 6:6; Bernard, 64). However, its omission in the
best of the Alexandrian (‫ א‬A; cf. 1739) and Western (D F G) manuscripts with
the various early versions (latt sy co) argues against this reading.

▪ 14 πρεσβυτερίου: A few manuscripts (‫ *א‬1881c) have πρεσβυτέρου instead, per-

haps motivated by scribes who mistook πρεσβυτερίου as a diminutive (Elliott,
71) or by those who attempted to avoid an apparent contradiction between the
reference to a “college of elders” and the presence of Paul himself in 2 Tim 1:6
when Timothy received his commission (Mounce, 245; cf. Daube 1957: 125).

▪ 15 πᾶσιν: ἐν is inserted before πᾶσιν in some of the later Western (D2 vgmss) and
Byzantine (K L P Ψ 𝔐 pm) witnesses but is omitted in the earlier witnesses of
diverse textual traditions (‫ א‬A C D* F G 1739 pm lat co). Its insertion is perhaps
influenced by ἐν πᾶσιν elsewhere in the pe (1Tim 3:11; 2 Tim 2:7; 4:5).

▪ 16 ἔπεχε: A few minuscules have πρόσεχε instead, which is considered to be less

tainted by Atticistic influences and is, therefore, the preferred reading (Elliott,
72). Nevertheless, the external support is minimal, and the frequent uses of
προσέχω in 1Timothy (1:4; 3:8; 4:1, 13; cf. Titus 1:14) may have prompted this
change.

Bibliography
Daube, David. “Evangelisten und Rabbinen.” znw 48 (1957): 119–126.

3 Grammatical Analysis
This unit is closely tied with the previous (vv. 6–10) in that both sections pro-
vide direct exhortation to Timothy, but a shift can still be felt in v. 11 since this
section is saturated by ten present imperatives, formed by a list of asyndetic
independent clauses, and focused on believers rather than false teachers.
More specifically, this present unit focuses uniquely on Timothy, and this,
in turn, provides cohesion to the unit: (1) except for the final γάρ-clause that
provides the conclusion of the unit, every independent clause in this list of ten
asyndetic clauses is controlled by a present imperative (παράγγελλε, v. 11; δίδα-
280 1 timothy

σκε, v. 11; καταφρονείτω, v. 12; γίνου, v. 12; πρόσεχε, v. 13; ἀμέλει, v. 14; μελέτα, v. 15;
ἴσθι, v. 15; ἔπεχε, v. 16; ἐπίμενε, v. 16). Except for the third-person singular imper-
ative καταφρονείτω that also carries the force of a second-person imperative
in light of its parallel with γίνου in v. 12, these are all second-person singular
imperatives that point directly to the responsibility and character of Timo-
thy.
(2) The focus on Timothy is further marked by the repeated use of the
second-person personal (σου, vv. 12, 15; σοι, v. 14 [twice]) and reflexive (σεαυτῷ,
σεαυτὸν, v. 16) pronouns.
(3) The nature of the subject matter also provides a special link with Tim-
othy. The focus on his youth is particularly noteworthy, especially in a letter
that deals with various members of the household (of God). Elsewhere Paul
directly addresses various groups in the household that include male (2:8),
female (2:9–15), widows (5:3–16), slaves (6:1–2), and benefactors (6:17–19), but
here his address to the youths is issued through his direct instructions to Tim-
othy because of the latter’s given location within this age-group.
(4) Finally, the asyndetic lists in vv. 12 (ἐν λόγῳ, ἐν ἀναστροφῇ, ἐν ἀγάπῃ, ἐν
πίστει, ἐν ἁγνείᾳ) and 13 (τῇ ἀναγνώσει, τῇ παρακλήσει, τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ) further
draw attention to the importance of Timothy’s character and tasks. It is this
intense focus on Timothy that binds this unit together.
The structure of this unit is relatively straightforward with a string of ten
independent clauses, a few of which are modified by temporal (ἕως ἔρχομαι,
v. 13), relative (ὃ ἐδόθη σοι διὰ προφητείας μετὰ ἐπιθέσεως τῶν χειρῶν τοῦ πρε-
σβυτερίου, v. 14), and purpose (ἵνα σου ἡ προκοπὴ φανερὰ ᾖ πᾶσιν, v. 15) clauses.
Departing from this pattern is the final γάρ-clause in v. 16b that consists of the
only adverbial participle (ποιῶν) and future indicative (σώσεις) in this unit. As
such, it provides the conclusion for the preceding material (cf. τοῦτο) by noting
the grounds (cf. γάρ) for the urgency of Paul’s instructions to Timothy as well as
the transition to the next unit by turning its attention to those beyond Timothy
himself (cf. τοὺς ἀκούοντάς σου). The use of the future σώσεις also provides an
appropriate ending to this unit since the future tense is considered the impo-
sition of the volition of the speaker on a current state of affairs in view of the
ideal that is envisioned (Long 2013: 269).

▪ 11 Παράγγελλε ταῦτα καὶ δίδασκε. The two second-person singular imperatives

introduce a long list of present imperatives in this unit, all of them grammati-
calizing imperfective aspect, as expected in general instructions (Fanning, Ver-
bal Aspect, 337). Echoing παραγγείλῃς at the beginning of this letter (1:3), παράγ-
γελλε reminds Timothy (and the readers) of his primary task of extending the
work of the gospel. Equally important is the use of the διδασκ-word group with
4:11–16 281

the verb παραγγέλλω in 1:3 in reference to the false teachers (παραγγείλῃς τισὶν μὴ
ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖν). In light of this reference, παράγγελλε … δίδασκε can be taken
as a hendiadys where δίδασκε provides further definition of the general παράγ-
γελλε, and both are used possibly also with the false teachings in mind; μηδείς
that follows (v. 12) may also recall the indefinite pronoun τισίν in 1:3 that makes
reference to the false teachers. The use of δίδασκε with another imperative with
ταῦτα as the object can also be found in 6:2 (ταῦτα δίδασκε καὶ παρακάλει), where
Paul is explicitly arguing against those who spread false teachings (cf. εἴ τις ἑτε-
ροδιδασκαλεῖ …, 6:3). ταῦτα may recall the ταῦτα of v. 6 in reference to Paul’s
teachings in this letter up to that point, especially the instructions against the
false teachings as noted in vv. 1–5 (Spicq, 1.501).

▪ 12 Μηδείς σου τῆς νεότητος καταφρονείτω, ἀλλὰ τύπος γίνου τῶν πιστῶν ἐν λόγῳ,
ἐν ἀναστροφῇ, ἐν ἀγάπῃ, ἐν πίστει, ἐν ἁγνείᾳ. Μηδείς may refer to a general hypo-
thetical party, but this indefinite adjective may also refer more specifically to
the opponents of Timothy who may challenge his authority because of his age.
In support of this latter reading is the use of μηδείς as a negative form of τις (cf.
οὐδὲν … τι, 6:7) and the repeated use of the indefinite pronoun τις in reference
to the false teachers (cf. 1:3, 6, 10, 19; 4:1; 5:15, 24; 6:3, 10, 21). Behind this general
exhortation may, therefore, lie those who oppose Timothy and his authority.
καταφρονείτω is the only third-person singular imperative in this unit, and as
in the case of other third-person imperatives, it has direct relevance for the
second-person (Fantin, Greek Imperative, 269). In this case, Timothy is respon-
sible for creating a context in which proper honor is given to whom it is due
(see Historical Analysis). The article in τῆς νεότητος characterizes νεότητος as
concrete, and here also marks its place in this discourse (Peters, Greek Article,
245).
While the older are supposed to serve as the example for the younger, Timo-
thy is now called to serve as an example (τύπος) for all believers. In light of the
parallel with 1:12 where ἐπ’ αὐτῷ serves as the object of πιστεύειν, τῶν πιστῶν
here should likewise be taken as “those who believe [in Christ]” (i.e., “believ-
ers,” Hanson, 92) rather than “those who are faithful” (Johnson, 251).
The repeated use of the preposition ἐν in the asyndetic list that follows takes
the place of the conjunction καί while drawing attention to the individual areas
to which Timothy has to attend (cf. Heckert, Discourse, 82). ἐν λόγῳ and ἐν ἀνα-
στροφῇ form a natural pair (cf. ἀναστροφῆς … λόγου, 1 Pet 3:1) in reference to
“word” and “deed,” and the final three refer to three distinct Christian virtues.
ἀγάπῃ, πίστει, and ἁγνείᾳ is possibly a variation of the Pauline triad (see Histor-
ical Analysis), with ἀγάπη and πίστις appearing already earlier in this letter (1:5,
14; 2:15; cf. 6:11), while ἁγνεία will reappear in 5:2.
282 1 timothy

▪ 13 ἕως ἔρχομαι πρόσεχε τῇ ἀναγνώσει, τῇ παρακλήσει, τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ. The use of

ἕως with the present indicative is not uncommon (cf. John 21:22; Plutarch, Lyc.
29.2; Winer, Grammar, 370). When the Greek tenses are understood as express-
ing the perspective of the author, this present tense should best be understood
in terms of the certainty of (Abel, Grammaire, § 68j) or emphasis on (Porter,
Idioms, 32) the event. The possibility of delay noted earlier (3:14–15) is reme-
died by this note of the intentionality of his plan to visit with Timothy.
The asyndetic list of nouns preceded by the repeated use of the article τῇ
resembles the corresponding asyndetic list in v. 12 with the repeated use of ἐν;
here, the individual items each demands Timothy’s attention. The use of the
article has been taken to refer to “recognized items in the congregational meet-
ing for worship” where τῇ ἀναγνώσει, τῇ παρακλήσει, and τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ are acts
to be performed by Timothy for the sake of the others (Kelly, 105), but oth-
ers have pointed to the same article as evidence for particular activities that
Timothy is called to attend to for his own benefit, thus the “private” reading
of Scripture, the attention paid to the exhortation that he has received, and
the teachings that he has inherited (cf. Hutson 1997, 329–330). It is doubtful,
however, whether the use of the article can settle this debate since, unlike the
English article, the Greek article characterizes a noun as concrete primarily by
“the writer’s provision of the information necessary for identification” with-
out giving any “indication to the listener or reader of how or where to locate
the identity of the noun” (Peters, Greek Article, 227). Pragmatic considerations,
however, argue for a public setting for these activities (see Historical Analysis).

▪ 14 μὴ ἀμέλει τοῦ ἐν σοὶ χαρίσματος, ὃ ἐδόθη σοι διὰ προφητείας μετὰ ἐπιθέσεως
τῶν χειρῶν τοῦ πρεσβυτερίου. If μή + present imperative is taken to refer to a
prohibition of the continuation of an act, then μὴ ἀμέλει in this context would
suggest that Timothy has been unfaithful in the use of his gifts (cf. Zerwick,
Biblical Greek, §246); nevertheless, this is based on a questionable distinction
between the negative present (“to not continue to do”) and aorist (“to not begin
to do”) imperatives (cf. Porter, Verbal Aspect, 358). Even some who hold to such
a distinction concede that in this case, μὴ ἀμέλει means no more than πάντοτε
μελέτα (Moulton, Prolegomena, 125).
χάρισμα is often understood to be “a momentous Pauline word in a soterio-
logical environment,” one that carries a “special sense” within “Christian Greek”
in reference to the “gift of God’s grace” (Nigel Turner 1980: 430). This conclusion
is rightly challenged by semanticists since Paul’s use of the term is consis-
tent with that of his contemporaries in reference to the gracious gift by the
giver as an expression of the favor bestowed on the undeserved (Baumert 1986:
223; Max Turner 2010: 205). Pragmatic considerations can, however, point to
4:11–16 283

markers that carry additional theological value. In this case, προφητείας, ἐπιθέ-
σεως τῶν χειρῶν, and τοῦ πρεσβυτερίου instill added significance to these gifts in
the context of public (cultic) service. ὅ introduces a hypotactic relative clause
that provides further characterization of the gifts. It is best to consider God
the implied agent of the passive ἐδόθη (cf. τὸ χάρισμα τοῦ θεοῦ, 2 Tim 1:6). The
aorist indicative ἐδόθη, the only aorist verb in this unit, grammaticalizes per-
fective aspect where the event of Timothy’s reception of the gift is viewed as a
whole.
The relationship between the verb ἐδόθη and the two verbal nouns, προφη-
τείας and ἐπιθέσεως, rests on the understanding of the function of the preposi-
tions διά and μετά. διὰ προφητείας has often been taken in the sense of accom-
paniment (“with,” Harris 2012: 77), manner (“in the presence of,” Turner, Syn-
tax, 267), or attendant circumstance (“accompanying,” Moule, Idiom, 57), but
an instrumental sense remains a viable option in light of the similar use of
διά+genitive in its immediate context (cf. διὰ λόγου θεοῦ καὶ ἐντεύξεως, 4:5) and
the possibility of understanding προφητείας as a short-hand for the Spirit of
prophecy since “prophecy” (προφητεία) is “given through the Spirit” (διὰ τοῦ
πνεύματος δίδοται, 1Cor 12:8, 10). This will also explain the use of a different
preposition here in the same clause when an instrumental sense is lacking:
μετά in this case carries the sense of accompaniment (“with,” Porter, Idioms,
165).

▪ 15 ταῦτα μελέτα, ἐν τούτοις ἴσθι, ἵνα σου ἡ προκοπὴ φανερὰ ᾖ πᾶσιν. The primary
function of this verse is to reinforce that which has already been presented. The
imperative μελέτα here is comparable to the negated (μή) alpha-privative ἀμέ-
λει in v. 14, with both μελέτα and ἀμέλει from the same stem (μέλω, bdag 52,
627) and both belonging to the same semantic domain (LNd § 30), although
ταῦτα here extends to the instructions of the entire unit. ἐν τούτοις ἴσθι repeats
the call in ταῦτα μελέτα, while ἵνα σου ἡ προκοπὴ φανερὰ ᾖ πᾶσιν reiterates τύπος
γίνου τῶν πιστῶν of v. 12. The imperative ἴσθι carries the senses of “to remain in”
(cf. Exod 24:12; thus the parallel with ἐπίμενε in v. 16 below) and “to immerse in”
(cf. Prov 3:5; 23:17).
The use of φανερά may pave the way for the salvation language (σώσεις) in
the next verse; the φανερ- and σωτηρ-/σωζ-word groups that have been applied
to God (1:1; 2:3–4; 3:16; 4:10; cf. φανερωθεῖσαν δὲ νῦν διὰ τῆς ἐπιφανείας τοῦ σωτῆ-
ρος ἡμῶν Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ, 2Tim 1:10; ἐφανέρωσεν δὲ καιροῖς ἰδίοις τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ ἐν
κηρύγματι, ὃ ἐπιστεύθην ἐγὼ κατ’ ἐπιταγὴν τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν θεοῦ, Titus 1:3) are
now applied to Timothy, as Timothy is called to extend God’s salvific work. The
connection between God’s work through Christ and Timothy’s own task will
help in explaining the difficult clause below that concludes this unit (v. 16b).
284 1 timothy

▪ 16 ἔπεχε σεαυτῷ καὶ τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ, ἐπίμενε αὐτοῖς· τοῦτο γὰρ ποιῶν καὶ σεαυτὸν
σώσεις καὶ τοὺς ἀκούοντάς σου. The structure of this verse parallels that of the
previous (cf. Van Neste, 53):

μελέτα … ἴσθι … ἵνα …

ἔπεχε … ἐπίμενε … γάρ …

Both lines begin with two present imperatives and conclude with a clause
that supports the imperatival clauses. The four present imperatives (μελέτα,
ἴσθι, ἔπεχε, ἐπίμενε) emphasize the need for Timothy to pay attention to and
remain steadfast in the tasks to which he is called. The ἵνα and γάρ clauses
that follow also take on a similar function, though separately ἵνα often intro-
duces a purpose clause, while γάρ provides the grounds for a preceding asser-
tion.
If the biblical hapax ἔπεχε σεαυτῷ is comparable to the more common πρό-
σεχε σεαυτῷ (Exod 23:21; 34:12; Deut 4:9; 11:16; 15:9; cf. Wieland, 99) that is often
found in exhortations from a figure who carries divine authority over a sub-
ordinate, then the use of this phrase is appropriate here since Paul is giving
instruction to his “child” (1:2, 18) as Paul himself is under the authority of God
and Christ (1:1). This would further reinforce Paul’s call to Timothy to serve as
an example (τύπος, v. 12) as he himself is a proto-example (ὑποτύπωσις, 1:16) of
the work of God through Christ.
The ϰαὶ … καί construction in the phrase καὶ σεαυτὸν … καὶ τοὺς ἀκούοντάς
σου, where the adverbial καί that precedes marks the entire phrase with promi-
nence while the conjunctive καί that follows connects the two substantives,
further explicates the scope of God’s salvation noted earlier (πάντων ἀνθρώπων),
though again with particular application to those who believe (τοὺς ἀκούον-
τάς σου, v. 16). This emphatic ϰαὶ … καί construction is further marked by the
future indicative σώσεις that grammaticalizes the volition of the speaker on an
expected alternate state of affairs (cf. Long 2013: 272).

Bibliography
Baumert, N. “Charisma und Amt bei Paulus.” In L’apôtre Paul: Personnalité, style, et con-
ception du ministère. Ed. Albert Vanhoye, 203–228. betl 73. Leuven: Peeters, 1986.
Harris, Murray J. Prepositions and Theology in the Greek New Testament. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 2012.
Hutson, Christopher R. “My True Child: The Rhetoric of Youth in the Pastoral Epistles.”
Ph.D. diss., Yale University, 1997.
Long, Craig M. “The Discourse Function of the Greek Future Tense-Form: A Corpus
Linguistic Discourse Analysis.” Ph.D. diss., Trinity International University, 2013.
4:11–16 285

Pao, David W. “Let No One Despise Your Youth: Church and the World in the Pastoral
Epistles.” jets 57 (2014): 743–755.
Turner, Max. “Modern Linguistics and Word Study in the New Testament.” In Hearing
the New Testament. Ed. Joel B. Green, 189–217. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010.
Turner, Nigel. Christian Words. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1980.

4 Historical Analysis
Those reading through the lens of pseudonymity often argue that in this let-
ter, “Timothy functions as a superior church leader who is passing the Pauline
tradition to other churches and church leaders” (Koester 1995: 125), and that
this section aims at legitimizing Paul’s continued influence within the commu-
nity through his disciple(s) (Oberlinner, 1.203–204). In support of this reading
is the observation that this section contains general and traditional topoi found
in advice to leaders (Isocrates, Dio Chrysostom, and Plutarch; Fiore, 2007: 96),
with a view of the church as a stagnant organization “stratified according to the
age/gender divisions of the patriarchal household” (Schüssler Fiorenza, 1983:
289; cf. Gourgues 2004: 5–18).
This reading does not, however, take into sufficient consideration the focus
on and defense of Timothy’s youth, which does not support the portrayal of
an ideal figure who is to continue Paul’s legacy. The notes on charisma and
prophecy (v. 15) become necessary because of the perceived deficiency in Tim-
othy’s age. Such a defense, in turn, challenges the stratification of the “patriar-
chal household.”
An assumption of authenticity does not, however, settle the issue of the his-
torical context or rhetorical function of this section. Reading v. 12 in light of
1 Cor 16:10, some have concluded that Timothy was timid and not necessarily
ready to serve among those who were older than he was (Guthrie, 126). Others
have pointed to the historical situation of the Ephesian community that may
be too difficult for an inexperienced novice to handle (Spicq, 1.512; cf. Kensky
2014: 35–67). While both are possible, these historical readings are insufficient
in explaining either the function of this section within this letter or the precise
language used, especially in v. 12.
Both of these concerns are addressed by a reading that highlights the sub-
versive nature of v. 12: instead of reinforcing the stratification of a traditional
patriarchal household ideology, this section argues for honor to be ascribed
to one who is faithful to his calling regardless of his social status (Pao 2014:
743–755). This reading is confirmed by (1) the general strategy of Paul in incor-
porating Timothy into the household framework despite his lack of social sta-
tus (cf. Polaski 2005: 249–263); (2) the reading of καταφρονέω in the sense of
“despise” (v. 12) in light of the wider use of honor-shame language in this letter
286 1 timothy

(cf. τιμή, δόξα, 1:17; εὐσέβεια, σεμνότης, 2:2; σωφροσύνη, 2:9; θεοσέβεια, 2:10; ἀνεπί-
λημπτος, σώφρων, 3:2, σεμνότης, 3:4, μαρτυρία καλήν, 3:7, σεμνός, 3:8, ἀνέγκλητος,
3:10; τιμάω, 5:3; ἀνεπίλημπτος; 5:7; τιμή, ἀξιόω, 5:17; τιμή, κράτος, 6:16; Pao 2014:
747); (3) the use of Timothy as an example for the wider church wherein his
own conduct (ἐν ἀναστροφῇ, v. 12) becomes a model for all believers as “mem-
bers of the household of God” (3:15; Redalié 2008: 105); and (4) the emphasis
on Timothy’s role as “an example” (τύπος, v. 12) when benefactors are often
called to serve as examples (cig 2776). Therefore, instead of seeing Timothy as
“a temporary teacher with a remedial task” (Perry 2010: 25), Timothy becomes
an enduring ideal figure who exemplifies the gospel that subverts traditional
social conventions.

▪ 11 As a transition verse that connects the previous section (via ταῦτα under-
stood in primarily an anaphoric sense) with the present, it also carries a distinct
rhetorical force in light of Paul’s lexical choice. While the διδασκ-word group is
used often in response to the false teachers (as is the case in 1:3, where ἑτε-
ροδιδασκαλέω appears with παραγγέλλω), παραγγέλλω locates Timothy within
the power structure in the symbolic universe constructed by this author. That
Timothy is under the authority of Paul is made clear when the imperative is
directed to Timothy and when Paul himself would use the same verb in com-
manding Timothy in 6:13 (παραγγέλλω [LNd §33.326]; cf. ταύτην τὴν παραγγελίαν
παρατίθεμαί σοι, 1:18), all the while as Paul himself is also under the command
(ἐπιταγή [LNd §33.327]) of God and Christ (1:1). Here, however, Timothy is to
be the one issuing the command to the believers in Ephesus (1:3; 5:7; 6:17; cf.
παραγγελία, 1:5). With a similar logic, as Paul considers himself an “example”
(ὑποτύπωσις, 1:16 [LNd §58.59]) for those following him, Timothy likewise is to
serve as an “example” (τύπος, v. 12 [LNd §58.59]) for those under him. With Tim-
othy placed in this position of power, the question of his youth then needs to
be dealt with (v. 12).

▪ 12 In Greco-Roman times, those who are under their mid-forties can be con-
sidered “young” in the more general sense (Eyben 1993: 6–9; cf. Josephus, A.J.
18.143–239; Irenaeus, Haer. 2.22.5), although a more detailed seven-stage char-
acterization (Xenophon, Symp. 4.17; Dio Chrysostom, Diffid. 10) can limit νεό-
της/νεανίσκος to the fourth stage, between ages 21–28 (Polybius 18.12.5; Over-
street 2009: 541–545). In this letter, however, it is the binary nature of the young-
old pair that is operative, where the old are considered dignified and thus are
able to rule (Plutarch, Mor. 789f; Barclay 2007: 234). Timothy’s youthfulness is,
therefore, contrasted with the respectability of the “older men” (πρεσβύτεροι,
5:17) of the community. The subordination of the youth can be attributed to
4:11–16 287

three factors (Kleijwegt 1991: 49): (1) the dominant role of the male head of the
household in a patriarchal domestic structure, (2) the gerontocratic culture in
political structure; and (3) the limitations in avenues to express one’s individ-
ual identity. Within this socio-cultural framework, the call for Timothy not to
be despised becomes most relevant.
καταφρονέω is best understood within the context of Greco-Roman honor
and shame discourse, where it is often contrasted with τιμάω (Plutarch, Lys.
17.5; Dio Chrysostom, Dic. exercit. 18.2; Philostratus, Vit. Apoll. 1.28; Diogenes
Laertius, Vit. 2.140; Josephus A.J. 6.80; Pao 2014: 748). Particularly relevant is
4 Macc 6:18–22, where an “example/pattern” (τύπος) of godliness (εὐσέβεια) and
“ungodliness” (ἀσεβεία) is discussed in relation to “old age” (γῆρας) and “the
young” (ὁ νέος); in the midst of such a discussion the issue of “honor/reputa-
tion” (δόξα) and “shame” (αἰσχρός) is noted with the use of the verb καταφρονέω.
In this context, to be shamed is to be despised, and thus to become a model of
ungodliness. Instead, the elders are to serve as examples for the youth so that
they can act honorably. Within such a cultural framework, Paul’s call challenges
the dominant honor code: the young can also act honorably and serve as exam-
ples as they live out the gospel.
To follow the example of those who are older is the responsibility of the
young (Cicero, Off. 2.13.46), and the young should “honor and emulate and
follow” (τιμᾶν καὶ ζηλοῦν καὶ ἀκολουθεῖν) those who are older (Plutarch, Mor.
487a). For many ancient writers, having the young serve as examples for the
old is as laughable as having babies serve as examples for their parents (Juve-
nal, Sat. 14.49; cf. Dion 1988: 118). Here, in subverting the cultural code of the
time, the young Timothy is called to serve as such an example for all believers,
and this is possible when Timothy follows Paul: as Paul earlier portrays him-
self an example (ὑποτύπωσιν) for those who are about to believe in Christ (τῶν
μελλόντων πιστεύειν ἐπ’ αὐτῷ, 1:16), so Timothy is now likewise called to be an
“example” (τύπος) for “the believers” (τῶν πιστῶν). The relationship between
Paul and Timothy has thus been understood as one between “prototype” and
“type” (Donelson, 83), but it is best to see both as extending what God did in
Christ in the unfolding of his redemptive plan (cf. Redalié 2008: 87–108).
ἀγάπῃ, πίστει, and ἁγνείᾳ may be a variation of the traditional (Pauline) triad
of ἀγάπη, πίστις, and ἐλπίς (Rom 5:1–5; 1Cor 13:13; Gal 5:5–6; 1 Thess 1:3; 5:8)
where purity/holiness takes the place of hope (cf. καθαρᾶς καρδίας, 1:5, 2 Tim
2:22; ἁγιασμῷ; 2:15). ἐλπίς (and ἐλπίζω), however, is not forgotten in this letter,
but it serves as the foundation for both ἀγάπη and πίστις (cf. Col 1:4–5) and
therefore finds its appearance apart from such lists (1 Tim 1:1; 4:10; 5:5; 6:17).
ἁγνεία understood primarily in the sense of sexual purity (Plutarch, Num. 10.1;
Philo, Abr. 19.15; Josephus, A.J. 3.78) not only anticipates 5:2 (ἐν πάσῃ ἁγνείᾳ),
288 1 timothy

but its appearance here in relation to Timothy’s youth may also reflect Paul’s
concerns regarding his “youthful passion” (νεωτερικὰς ἐπιθυμίας, 2 Tim 2:22).

▪ 13 Taken together, ἀνάγνωσις, παράκλησις, and διδασκαλία likely point to public

activities performed in an ecclesial setting. The verb δίδασκε at the beginning of
this unit points to Timothy’s responsibility in the church, and the call to be an
example for the believers (τύπος γίνου τῶν πιστῶν) in the preceding clause like-
wise points to Timothy’s public responsibilities. Moreover, since διδάσκω/διδα-
σκαλία (1:10; 2:12; 4:1, 6, 16; 5:17; 6:1, 2) and the παρακαλέω/παράκλησις (1:3; 2:1;
5:1; 6:2) word groups have been used for the extension of the Pauline gospel in
this letter (cf. ταῦτα δίδασκε καὶ παρακάλει, 6:2), τῇ ἀναγνώσει should likewise be
understood in the sense of the “public reading” of Scripture.
By itself, ἀνάγνωσις also likely points to the public reading of (ot) Scripture
as it does in its two other occurrences in the nt (Acts 13:15; 2 Cor 3:14–15). The
public reading of Scripture is well testified in both the ot (Deut 31:11–12; 2 Chron
34:18–19; Neh 8:7–8) and Second Temple Jewish literature (Philo, Somn. 2.127;
Josephus, C.Ap. 2.175; 1QS 5.5–8; 8.11–12; 9.12–14; cf. Towner 2003: 44; Graves
2007: 469–472). In the nt, at least some of the Pauline letters are expected
to be read in the public gatherings of believers (1 Thess 5:27; Phlm 2; Eph 3:4;
Col 3:4; cf. Rev 1:3). By the time of the writing of this letter, such public readings
of Scripture may include both the ot and parts of the nt, especially in light of
the possible allusions to the nt in the pe (cf. 5:18).
A “word of exhortation” (λόγος παρακλήσεως, Acts 13:15; cf. Luke 4:16–21; Heb
13:22) is expected to follow the public reading of Scripture in synagogue wor-
ship, although in this letter the παρακαλέω/παράκλησις word group can be used
in the wider sense of a general exhortation (1:3; 2:1; 5:1; 6:2). διδασκαλία is like-
wise connected with “the encouragement of the Scriptures” (τῆς παρακλήσεως
τῶν γραφῶν, Rom 15:4), but a wider application is again possible in this letter
given the pervasive use of the διδασκ-word group when the false teachers are in
view (διδασκαλία: 1:10; 4:1, 6, 16; 5:17; 6:13; διδάσκω: 2:12; 4:11; 6:2; διδάσκαλος: 2:7;
νομοδιδάσκαλος: 1:7; ἑτεροδιδασκαλέω: 1:3; 6:3).

▪ 14 Outside of the nt, χάρισμα appears mostly in Hellenistic Jewish literature

(Sib. Or. 2.54; Philo, Leg. 3.78.4, 8; Ebr. 11.3). In Paul, it appears in various con-
texts, with general references carrying a soteriological sense (Rom 5:15, 16; 6:23),
and more specific references pointing to the individual gifts believers receive
for the ministry within the community of believers (Rom 12:6; 1 Cor 12:4–31). An
“institutional” sense has often been read into Paul’s use of the term here, though
this label is linguistically questionable, especially when the general sense of
“(gracious and generous) gift” still applies (Turner 2010: 207).
4:11–16 289

The use of the prepositional phrase ἐν σοί may argue for τοῦ ἐν σοὶ χαρίσμα-
τος being the shorthand for the presence of the Spirit and the manifestation
of the gifts of this Spirit when the “gift of God” (τὸ χάρισμα τοῦ θεοῦ) cannot
be separated from the “Spirit” (πνεῦμα, 2Tim 1:6–7; Fee 1994: 773–774), and the
indwelling of this Spirit in believers is explicitly noted in the pe (πνεύματος
ἁγίου τοῦ ἐνοικοῦντος ἐν ἡμῖν, 2Tim 1:14; cf. Rom 8:9, 11; 1 Cor 3:16; 6:19).
The relationship between the divine origin of the gift, the relevance of
prophecy, and the role of the elders may not be clearly articulated, but it is
clear that the divine origin of Timothy’s gift as well as its public confirmation
is emphasized. The order of the two prepositional clauses, where references
to prophecy (διὰ προφητείας) precede that of the laying on of hands (μετὰ ἐπι-
θέσεως τῶν χειρῶν), argue for the temporal and logical priority of divine acts
(Dowd 2002: 214), a priority reflected also in Num 27:18, where the laying on of
hands is an affirmation of the presence of the πνεῦμα (cf. Acts 13:2–3). In this
context, προφητεία should best be understood as a reference to “the Spirit of
prophecy” (see also 1:18).
The practice of the laying on of hands can be traced back to the ot (Num
27:18–23; Deut 34:9) and continues in the early church with the commission-
ing of Barnabas and Saul in Acts 13:1–3. Some consider the sign of blessing
by Jesus as a more direct antecedent to the Pauline practice (cf. Mark 1:31, 41;
5:41; Ferguson 1975: 4), but such acts find their background in the general ges-
ture of blessing in both healing (cf. 1QapGen ar 20.16–32; Flusser 1957: 107–108)
and cultic (cf. Philo, Spec. 1.203) contexts, rather than in a commissioning set-
ting.
The use of πρεσβυτέριον in the sense of a “body of elders” argues for the loca-
tion of this practice within the general Jewish context where the term can refer
to members of the Sanhedrin (cf. Luke 22:66; Acts 22:5), even if the Sanhedrin
should not be conceived as a stable council of elders during the time of Jesus
(Sanders 1985: 312–317). The term is later often used with ἐπίσκοπος in reference
to the hierarchy of ecclesial leadership (Ignatius, Eph. 2.2.5; Trall. 7.2; Smyrn.
12.2).
The apparent contradiction with διὰ τῆς ἐπιθέσεως τῶν χειρῶν μου in 2 Tim 1:6
has been resolved in a number of ways. (1) The phrase ἐπιθέσεως τῶν χειρῶν τοῦ
πρεσβυτερίου is understood as a reference to ‫( ְסִמיַכת ְזֵק ִנים‬cf. b. Sanh. 13b), refer-
ring to the rabbinic rite of “the leaning on of hands on persons in order to make
elders, Rabbis, of them” (Daube 1956: 244); if so Timothy is not commissioned
by elders but is himself ordained as one. Problems with this reading include
the unjustifiable distinction made between ‫“( סמך‬to lean upon”) and ‫“( שׂים‬to
touch”) when both are translated by ἐπιτίθημι in the lxx (cf. Ferguson 1975: 1),
the questionable dating of rabbinic sources, the unintelligibility of such a for-
290 1 timothy

mula in Gentile (or even Hellenistic Jewish) circles, and the absence of textual
evidence pointing to Timothy as an elder.
(2) According to O’Connor (1991: 411), “if the texts are accepted at face value,
what they prove is that the authors of 1 and 2Tim are not the same person,”
but this position has limited explanatory power since it ignores the different
rhetorical function of these statements in their respective contexts. Moreover,
it assumes that the presumably pseudonymous author of 1 Timothy is unaware
of 2Timothy, which is considered to be an earlier letter within this hypothesis.
(3) The two passages refer to two different occasions, with 1 Tim 4:14 refer-
ring to a commissioning/ordination, and 2Tim 1:9 to his conversion (Hutson
1997: 50). This is also unlikely in view of the similar formulations of the two
statements, both using χάρισμα instead of δωρεά (cf. Dunn 1970: 167).
(4) The best reading is to consider Paul himself as presiding over a coun-
cil of elders in the commissioning of Timothy (Beasley-Murray 1993: 8–9) and
that the focus here is on the public witness of Timothy’s commissioning while
in 2Tim 1:6, it is on the personal relationship between Paul and Timothy (Fee
1994: 786).

▪ 15 φανερός belongs to the language of the revelation of God’s redemptive plan

(Rom 1:9), often appearing in eschatological contexts (1 Cor 3:13; 11:19; Gal 5:19;
cf. Prov 15:11; 16:2; Isa 64:2; 2Macc 12:41). φανερός appears with προκοπή in Phil
1:12–13 for the progress of the gospel in the midst of Paul’s own imprisonment.
Earlier in this letter, Paul notes that “Jesus Christ might show (ἐνδείξηται) his
utmost patience as an example for those who were to believe in him for eternal
life” (1:16), in the same way Timothy is to be an example visible to all for the
sake of the gospel (cf. Redalié 2008: 108).
It is in light of this wider context that ἡ προκοπή here should be understood.
The Stoic background of προκοπή has often been noted (Seneca, Ep. 32; 75;
Epictetus, Diatr. 1.4.1; 1.4.4; 1.4.18–21), and Paul’s use is considered to be medi-
ated through Hellenistic Jewish traditions (Philo, Leg. 2.81; Det. 46; cf. Deming,
2003: 384–403). However, as in Paul’s use of terms for education and training
(γυμνάζω, v. 7; γυμνασία, v. 8), a term familiar in Greco-Roman moral discourses
becomes a vehicle for expressing a pattern of behavior in view of the reality of
the eschatological salvation (v. 16; cf. ἐπαγγελίαν … ζωῆς τῆς νῦν καὶ τῆς μελλού-
σης, v. 8b).

▪ 16 διδασκαλία provides an inclusio for this section as it echoes the call to teach
(δίδασκε) at the beginning of this section; it also connects this section with the
previous two, where false teachings are at the center of attention (διδασκαλία,
vv. 1, 6). In this context, teaching centers on soteriological concerns (cf. 2:3–
4:11–16 291

8; 4:6–10), and it becomes a means through which Timothy is to serve as the

leader of the believing community (cf. Roose 2003: 440).
The command chain from God/Christ to Paul (as ὑποτύπωσις, 1:16) to Tim-
othy (τύπος, v. 12) explains the enigmatic claim that Timothy can save himself
and those who listen to him: this can be so only because he exemplifies the
life and teachings of Paul, who exemplifies God himself, “who is the Savior of
all people, that is, those who believe” (ὅς ἐστιν σωτὴρ πάντων ἀνθρώπων μάλιστα
πιστῶν, v. 10; cf. Pao 2014: 751–752).
Even in this verse, therefore, the “salvation” promised refers to the consum-
mation of one’s hope “on the living God” (v. 10) in “the life to come,” (v. 8) rather
than merely the present experience of this reality of salvation (contra Hut-
son 1997: 331). As such, this promise that Timothy will save himself (cf. σεαυτὸν
σώσεις) departs from the use of this verb with the second-person reflexive pro-
noun as is often found in pagan Greek literature (Aeschylus, Prom. 374; Plato,
Crito 45b; Menander, Mon. 2.18), lxx (Gen 19:17; 1 Sam 19:11; 4 Macc 10:13), and
the Gospels (Mark 15:30; Luke 23:37), where it refers to the present deliverance
from physical danger.

Bibliography
Barclay, John M.G. “There Is Neither Old Nor Young? Early Christianity and Ancient
Ideologies of Age.” nts 53 (2007): 225–241.
Beasley-Murray, Paul. “Ordination in the New Testament.” In Anyone for Ordination? A
Contribution to the Debate on Ordination. Ed. Paul Beasley-Murray, 1–13. Tunbridge
Wells, UK: marc, 1993.
Daube, David. The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism. London: Athlone, 1956.
Deming, Will. “Paul and Indifferent Things.” In Paul in the Greco-Roman World. Ed.
J. Paul Sampley, 384–403. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2003.
Dion, Suzanne. The Roman Mother. Normal, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 1988.
Dowd, Sharyn. “‘Ordination’ in Acts and the Pastoral Epistles.” PRSt 29 (2002): 205–217.
Dunn, James D.G. Baptism in the Holy Spirit. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1970.
Eyben, Emiel. Restless Youth in Ancient Rome. Trans. Patrick Daly. London: Routledge,
1993.
Fee, Gordon D. God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul. Pea-
body, MA: Hendrickson, 1994.
Ferguson, Everett. “Laying on of Hands: Its Significance in Ordination.” jts 26 (1975):
1–12.
Flusser, David. “Healing through the Laying-on of Hands in a Dead Sea Scroll.” iej 7
(1957): 107–108.
Gourgues, Michel. “La première lettre à Timothée, témoin d’une ‘domestication’ et
d’une adaptation de la foi et de l’expérience ecclésiale.” ScEs 56 (2004): 5–18.
292 1 timothy

Graves, Michael. “The Public Reading of Scripture in Early Judaism.” jets 50 (2007):
467–487.
Hutson, Christopher R. “My True Child: The Rhetoric of Youth in the Pastoral Epistles.”
Ph.D. diss., Yale University, 1997.
Kensky, Meira Z. “Timothy and ‘Timothy’: Crisis Management, Church Maintenance.”
Early Christianity 5 (2014): 35–67.
Koester, Helmut. “Ephesos in Early Christian Literature.” In Ephesos: Metropolis of Asia.
Ed. Helmut Koester, 119–140. Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1995.
Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome. “2Timothy Contrasted with 1 Timothy and Titus.” rb 98
(1991): 401–418.
Overstreet, R. Larry. “The Greek Concept of the ‘Seven Stages of Life’ and Its New Tes-
tament Significance.” bbr 19 (2009): 537–563.
Pao, David W. “Let No One Despise Your Youth: Church and the World in the Pastoral
Epistles.” jets 57 (2014): 743–755.
Perry, Gregory R. “Phoebe of Cenchreae and ‘Women’ of Ephesus: ‘Deacons’ in the Ear-
liest Churches.” Presb 36 (2010): 9–36.
Polaski, Sandra Hack. “‘Let No One Despise Your Youth’: The Deconstruction of Tradi-
tional Authority in the Pastoral Epistles.” ltq 40 (2005): 249–263.
Redalié, Yann. “«Sois un modèle pour les croyants» Timothée, un portrait exhortatif,
1Tim 4.” In 1Timothy Reconsidered. Ed. Karl Paul Donfried, 87–108. Colloquium Oec-
umenicum Paulinum 18. Leuven: Peeters, 2008.
Roose, Hanna. “Dienen und Herrschen: Zur Charakterisierung des Lehrens in den Pas-
toralbriefen.” nts 49 (2003): 440–446.
Sanders, E.P. Jesus and Judaism. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985.
Schüssler Fiorenza, Elisabeth. In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction
of Christian Origins. New York: Crossroad, 1983.
Towner, Philip H. “The Function of the Public Reading of Scripture in 1 Timothy 4:13
and in the Biblical Tradition.” Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 7 (2003): 44–54.
Turner, Max. “Modern Linguistics and Word Study in the New Testament.” In Hearing
the New Testament. Ed. Joel B. Green, 189–217. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010.
Wright, David F. “Ordination.” Them 10 (1985): 5–9.

5 Theological Analysis
In view of the pervasive use of honor and shame language in this letter, the call
for Timothy not to allow anyone to “despise” him takes on added significance
as it provides a critical piece in Paul’s reconstruction of a symbolic universe
where honor and shame are to be redefined (Pao 2014: 743–755). In a letter
framed by two doxologies declaring that honor (τιμή) belongs to the one and
only God (μόνῳ θεῷ, 1:17) who alone possesses immortality (6:16), those who are
traditionally perceived to be outside of the circle of power can now become
4:11–16 293

an instrument where salvation can be dispensed (4:16). As Paul urges Timothy

not to let anyone “despise” (καταφρονείτω) him because of his youth (4:12), so
he would have the Ephesian believers “honor” (τίμα) the widows who are also
counted among those in the margin.
Instead of accommodating to the wider society, Paul calls Timothy to live in
light of a reality to be defined by a life in a different realm as they place their
hope “on the living God” (4:10) while anticipating “the manifestation of our
Lord Jesus Christ” (6:14). For Paul, this does not lead to a naïve escapism, how-
ever, and his argument for living faithfully to the gospel while being in tension
with the dominant culture resembles that of the other early Christian writers
(cf. Harland 2000: 99–121). In his advice to the young Timothy, therefore, many
responsibilities traditionally understood to belong to youth remain, including
the respecting of elders (5:1–2), the avoidance of youthful passions (5:2), the
care of the elderly (5:3–8), and being content within the present existence (6:6–
10).
In a letter with limited references to the Holy Spirit (cf. 4:1), this section
stands out with its references to “gift” (χάρισμα) and “prophecy” (προφητείας,
v. 14). The role of the Spirit in this letter is often understood as limited to the
past, thus subordinated to “the teaching” (v. 13), or “reduced to a formalized
element within the ritual of ordination” (Dunn 1990: 361). This, however, fails
to appreciate the importance of the Spirit and his role within this context.
First, the continued work of the eschatological Spirit has already been noted
in v. 1, and the prepositional phrase ἐν σοί in v. 14 argues for the work of the
Spirit through the gifts bestowed on Timothy and other believers. The close
relationship between the Spirit and teaching in this letter can be understood
as a response to the “spiritualism” of the false teachers that drives a wedge
between the two (Donelson, 153). Moreover, this relationship between tradition
and the work of the Spirit is consistent with the earlier Paul, whose pneuma-
tology is always christocentric (Rom 1:4, 9; 8:1–11; 2 Cor 3:17; Gal 4:6; Phil 1:19; cf.
Clark 2014: 216), especially where “teaching” refers directly to the work of Christ
(cf. 1Tim 1:10–11; 6:3) and where to be a “good servant of Christ Jesus” is to be
well-trained in “the words of the faith and of the good teaching” (v. 6).
The final statement (v. 16) draws attention to the centrality of the soteriolog-
ical concerns in this letter as it raises the question of intermediate agency. This
letter begins with the identification of God as “our Savior” and Christ Jesus as
“our hope” (1:1), and this Christ Jesus “came into the world to save sinners” (1:15).
In the last statement, Paul not only locates himself among these sinners, but he
also becomes “an example” (ὑποτύπωσις) for those who are to believe in Christ
(1:16). This note is followed immediately by Paul’s call to Timothy to continue
to fight this “good fight” (1:18). As Paul participates in God’s redemptive plan,
294 1 timothy

Timothy is now called to do likewise. That he is to “save … those who listen to

[him]” (v. 16) is to recognize his role in the extension of this redemptive plan
that belongs to God, who alone “is the Savior of all people” (v. 10).
The claim to be able to save belongs to the language of the prophetic tradi-
tions when God promises to “save” his people (Isa 38:6; 43:12; 46:4; Jer 39:17–18;
Ezek 34:22), but the precedent of a human agent claiming to be able to save
can already be found in the earlier Paul when he considers his apostolic min-
istry as having direct soteriological significance (σώσω τινὰς ἐξ αὐτῶν, Rom 11:14),
although he also makes it clear that his ability to save some (cf. τινὰς σώσω, 1 Cor
9:22) rests entirely on the power of the gospel (cf. διὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, 1 Cor 9:23).
Here, Timothy is likewise called to be faithful to “the teaching” (ἡ διδασκαλία,
vv. 13, 16) since “the sound teaching” (ἡ ὑγιαίνουσα διδασκαλία) is “grounded in
the gospel” (κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, 1:10–11).

Bibliography
Clark, Matthew. “The Pastoral Epistles.” In A Biblical Theology of the Holy Spirit. Ed.
Trevor J. Burke and Keith Warrington, 213–225. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2014.
Dunn, James D.G. Unity and Diversity in the New Testament. 2nd ed. London: scm, 1990.
Harland, Philip A. “Honouring the Emperor or Assailing the Beast: Participation in Civic
Life among Associations (Jewish, Christian and Other) in Asia Minor and the Apoc-
alypse of John.” jsnt 77 (2000): 99–121.
Oprisko, Robert. Honor: A Phenomenology. New York: Routledge, 2012.
Pao, David W. “Let No One Despise Your Youth: Church and the World in the Pastoral
Epistles.” jets 57 (2014): 743–755.

vi Needs of Different Groups in the Church (5:1–6:2a)

A The Old and the Young (5:1–2)

1 Translation
1 Do not insult an older man, but encourage him as a father, younger men as
brothers, 2 older women as mothers, younger women as sisters with all purity.

2 Text-Critical Analysis
▪ 1 ὡς πατέρα: This phrase is omitted in the original reading of Codex Sinaiticus
(‫)*א‬, possibly because of the lack of a head noun before the ὡς-construction
as in the phrases that follow (νεωτέρους ὡς ἀδελφούς, πρεσβυτέρας ὡς μητέρας,
νεωτέρας ὡς ἀδελφὰς).
5:1–2 295

3 Grammatical Analysis
As Paul discusses the age of Timothy, the focus here is also on the old (πρε-
σβυτέρῳ, v, 1; πρεσβυτέρας, v. 2) and the young (νεωτέρους, v. 1; νεωτέρας, v. 2).
Continuing with the verbal pattern of the previous unit, both verbs in this
unit are imperatival (μὴ ἐπιπλήξῃς, παρακάλει, v. 1) and draw attention to the
responsibility of Timothy upon those he serves. In terms of structure, this unit
is also dominated by short independent clauses. Nevertheless, a shift can also
be detected with this unit. The intense focus on Timothy himself in the pre-
vious unit, as marked by the repeated use of the second-person personal (σου,
4:12, 15; σοι, 4:14 [twice]) and reflexive (σεαυτῷ, σεαυτὸν, 4:16) pronouns, gives
way to the concern about the men and women he is to serve.
Introducing the material that follows (πρεσβυτέρῳ, v. 1 [vv. 17–25]; πρεσβυτέ-
ρας, νεωτέρας, v. 2 [vv. 3–16]), this unit takes on two additional functions. First,
the various members of the church are now to be considered members of God’s
household (cf. 3:15). The warning expressed in the μή + aorist subjunctive (μὴ
ἐπιπλήξῃς) serves as the foil for the four positive commands that follow, all con-
trolled by the same imperative (παρακάλει) with the new web of relationships
marked by the comparative particle ὡς:

παρακάλει [πρεσβυτέρους] ὡς πατέρα

νεωτέρους ὡς ἀδελφούς,
πρεσβυτέρας ὡς μητέρας,
νεωτέρας ὡς ἀδελφάς

Within this new web of relationships, a new set of behaviors is to be expected.

Second, though often considered to be general instructions for members
of God’s household (Mounce, 269), this focus on the new set of relationships
should not be separated from Paul’s wider response to the false teachers/teach-
ings. The lengthy discussion on the widows that follows may point to a dis-
rupted community where some of these widows might have served as instru-
ments for the spreading of the false teachings (vv. 13, 15). Maintaining a proper
order of these members within the template of God’s household is therefore
necessary, and those who refuse to do so are denying their faith (v. 8). There-
fore, to ground this discussion in the wider household of God does not merely
mirror concerns of the Hellenistic moral philosophers (Ramelli 2011: 562–581),
but it also reflects a consistent effort in imposing a pattern of behavior upon a
community that is to become an honorable witness within the wider society.

▪ 1 Πρεσβυτέρῳ μὴ ἐπιπλήξῃς ἀλλὰ παρακάλει ὡς πατέρα, νεωτέρους ὡς ἀδελφούς.

In light of the contrast to the young (νεωτέρους, νεωτέρας, v. 2; cf. πρεσβύτας/πρε-
296 1 timothy

σβύτιδας vs. νέας/νεωτέρους, Titus 2:2–6) and within the pair with older women
(πρεσβυτέρας, 1Tim 5:2), πρεσβυτέρῳ should best be taken as referring to “older
men” rather than the “elders” who are leaders of the church (thus most com-
mentators). Nevertheless, in light of the reference to the “elders” (πρεσβυτε-
ρίου) in 4:14 and the use of πρεσβύτεροι in reference to these “elders” in 5:17
(cf. 5:19), it is difficult to draw a sharp distinction between these two groups.
Moreover, in a context where seniority in leadership structure is established
by seniority in age, it is possible that while these “older men” may not occupy
the “ecclesiastical office” of the elders, they do belong to this “ecclesiastical
class” (Stewart 2014: 14). Paul’s admonition concerning these “older men” may
then pave the way for this discussion of the “elders” in 5:17–19. In this wider
context, however, there is no hint that this connection should be extended to
other related terms; therefore, πρεσβυτέρας is not to be taken as a reference
to female presbyters (contra Bailey 1998: 214–216), and νεωτέρους and νεωτέρας
are not “neophytes in the faith” (contra Elliott 1970: 379; cf. Spicq 1969: 518–
527).
While the aorist prohibition expressed in μή + second-person aorist sub-
junctive does not semantically grammaticalize a punctiliar act (Moulton, Pro-
legomena, 124–125; Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 370), in its context where ἐπιπλήξῃς
is contrasted with the present imperative παρακάλει, this reading is supported
by pragmatic considerations since the urge for the complete avoidance of a sin-
gular act is followed by a call to carry out a positive course of action (Huffman,
Verbal Aspect, 192). In contrast to ἐπιπλήξῃς, παρακάλει expresses a gentler act
that is particularly appropriate in a familial context (Luke 15:28; Rom 12:1; 1 Cor
1:10; 16:12; 1Thess 2:11–12; Phlm 10; Heb 13:22). In the parallel constructions that
follow, παρακάλει should be supplied to the other clauses.

▪ 2 πρεσβυτέρας ὡς μητέρας, νεωτέρας ὡς ἀδελφὰς ἐν πάσῃ ἁγνείᾳ. ἐν πάσῃ ἁγνείᾳ

recalls ἐν ἁγνείᾳ of 4:12 with the call to chastity, a concern repeated in the next
unit (vv. 11–12). In this context where various sets of relationships are involved,
however, a wider reference to that which is proper may be intended. First, the ἐν
πάσῃ + noun construction is used in this letter in reference to the importance of
the proper order of relationships (2:2, 11). Second, ἁγνεία can take on the sense
of “propriety,” as illustrated in the comparable phrase μετὰ πολλῆς ἁγνείας καὶ
νομίμων (“with much propriety and lawful customs,” IEph 213; Horsley 1987: 94).
Instead of merely a concern for the morality of an individual, this call to Timo-
thy represents a call to the proper structure of power relationships within and
without the household of God.
5:1–2 297

Bibliography
Bailey, Kenneth E. “Women in the New Testament: A Middle-Eastern Cultural View.”
Evangelical Review of Theology 22 (1998): 208–226.
Elliott, John H. “Ministry and Church Order in the nt: A Traditional-Historical Analysis
(1Pt 5,1–5 & plls.).” cbq 32 (1970): 367–391.
Horsley, G.H.R. “Petition Concerning Ephesian Mysteries.” NewDocs 4 (1987): 94–95.
Ramelli, Ilaria L.E. “The Pastoral Epistles and Hellenistic Philosophy: 1 Timothy 5:1–2,
Hierocles, and the ‘Contraction of Circles.’” cbq 73 (2011): 562–581.
Spicq, Ceslas. “La place ou le role des jeunes dans certaines communautés néostesta-
mentaries.” rb 76 (1969): 508–527.
Stewart, Alistair C. The Original Bishops: Office and Order in the First Christian Commu-
nities. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2014.

4 Historical Analysis
Despite its brevity, this unit provides a strong statement on “how one ought
to behave as a member of the household of God” (3:15). An established genre
cannot be identified here, nor is it apparent that a preformed tradition is being
used. Calls to honor older men and women can often be found in the ot (Lev
19:32; Prov 20:29; 23:22; Ezek 22:6–8), and discussions of the responsibility of
various members of the household extend from the ot (Prov 4:1–4; 6:20–21;
22:6) through Second Temple Jewish literature (4 Macc 18:10–19; Jub. 8.2; 19.14;
Philo, Legat. 115; Spec. 2.247–248; Yarbrough 1993: 41–53).
Closer parallels to this fictive kinship discussion can, however, be found
in the pagan moral philosophers (Plato, Resp. 463c; 465b; Aristotle, Eth. eud.
1242a; Pol. 1262b). Particularly relevant is Epictetus’s portrayal of an ideal Cynic
as the father of all, with men being his sons and women being his daugh-
ters. As a minister of Zeus, he had the right and responsibility to rebuke those
around him (Epictetus, Diatr. 3.22.82). The point of orientation is strikingly
different in this section, however. Whereas Epictetus assumed the traditional
hierarchical social structure in justifying the rebuke of the head of this fictive
household on its other members, Paul addressed how young Timothy should
operate within such a setting, although Timothy’s young age and status may
not grant him the right to assume the position of a leader as traditionally con-
ceived.
In terms of the specific content of Paul’s command to Timothy, the Hel-
lenistic moral philosopher Hierocles provides another helpful parallel. Not only
does he urge one to encourage rather than to rebuke an older man (Stobaeus,
Flor. 79.53), but he also calls for caring and honoring those who are beyond
one’s immediate circle as fathers, mothers, and siblings (Flor. 84.23; cf. Ramelli
2011: 570–574). If Paul is aware of these traditions, his emphasis on purity shows
298 1 timothy

also the importance of clear boundaries for the ideal community that is to be
constricted by the one true gospel (vv. 8, 15).

▪ 1–2 The nt hapax ἐπιπλήσσω often carries the sense of “rebuke” or “reprove”
(bdag 377), but the fact that Timothy is later called to “rebuke” all (ἐλέγχω,
5:20; cf. 2Tim 4:2; Titus 1:9, 13; 2:15), including the elders, has prompted some
to seek a stronger sense for ἐπιπλήσσω here (e.g., “rebuke harshly,” Kelly, 110;
“beat up on,” Malherbe 2008: 273). While the sense of “sharp rebuke” is sup-
ported in Greek literature (Plato, Leg. 805b; Prot. 327a; Philo, Leg. 2.46; Johnson,
260), this stronger sense is not required by the verb itself (Herodotus, Hist.
3.142; Plutarch, Demetr. 20.6; Josephus, A.J. 1.246; 12.204), especially when it
can be used with ἐλέγχω in the same context with no apparent distinction
between the two (Philo, Deus 126.3; Clement of Alexandria, Paed. 1.9.75). Prag-
matic considerations, however, do suggest a differentiation between the two
here in 1Timothy 5, with the use of ἐπιπλήσσω implying an unjustified use of
power (Josephus, A.J. 12.204; Diodorus of Sicily, Hist. 16.87.2; LaFosse 2011: 236–
237). The same sense is used in Hierocles, where one also finds the contrastive
ἐπίπληξις-παράκλησις word groups, and there it is explicitly noted that older
people are not to be treated “as it is customary to do with those who are our
inferiors” (cf. καθάπερ εθος προς τους έλάττονας, Stobaeus, Flor. 79.53; Ramelli
2009: 85). If so, “insult” will be a more appropriate translation, especially since
issues of honor and shame are involved in the wider context (cf. τίμα, v. 3).
Within this contrast, παρακαλέω can mean simply to “treat someone in an
inviting or congenial manner” (bdag 765; cf. 1Cor 4:13; 1 Thess 2:12). Unlike ἐπι-
πλήσσω, παρακαλέω can be used to address someone who has a higher social
status and is even appropriate in depicting an appeal to a deity (P.Lond. 1244;
M.-M. 484). The sense of “rebuke” may not be absent (cf. παρακάλει καὶ ἔλεγχε,
Titus 2:15), but this is to be done with respect and sensitivity. To let no one
despise one’s youth does not give Timothy the license to “despise” others regard-
less of their social and cultural location.
To treat “older men” and “older women” as “fathers” and “mothers” assumes
the need to honor them, which may allude to the fifth commandment (τίμα τὸν
πατέρα σου καὶ τὴν μητέρα, Exod 20:12; Deut 5:16; cf. Sir 3:3, 5, 8). A notable paral-
lel to this call is in Philo’s discussion of Joseph, where he claimed that the king,
“though he is older, honored me as a father” (πρεσβύτερος ὢν ὡς πατέρα τιμᾷ,
Ios. 242.3).
To treat others of comparable age as “brothers” and “sisters” denotes affec-
tion in a fictive kinship context (cf. Acts 22:1). Even when older men are ad-
dressed as ὁ πατήρ in letters, it is customary for the sender to identify himself
as ὁ ἀδελφός instead of ὁ υἱός (cf. P.Oxy. 3858; upz 65; P.Mich. 209; sb 6263; Bridge
5:1–2 299

2012: 164–167). A close parallel can be found in an inscription where the bene-
factor Theokles became “as a brother to the men of his own age” (cig 2059;
Harrison 2003: 325).
In reference to younger women, ἐν πάσῃ ἁγνείᾳ likely refers to sexual purity,
though ἁγνεία is often used in a cultic sense (Num 6:2, 21; 2 Chron 30:19; 1 Macc
14:39; Josephus A.J. 19.331; cf. ἁγνείας τε πάσης, Plutarch, Mor. 351e). This note on
ἁγνεία repeats the concern expressed in v. 12 and may be prompted by the need
to remind Timothy of his “youthful passion” (2Tim 2:22). This note concerning
younger women also paves the way for the section to follow where concerns
are also expressed for the younger widows (5:14).

Bibliography
Bridge, E.J. “A Difficult (?) Request to ‘Beloved Father’ Diogenes.” NewDocs 10 (2012):
164–169.
Malherbe, Abraham J. “How to Treat Old Women and Old Men: The Use of Philosoph-
ical Traditions and Scripture in 1Timothy 5.” In Scripture and Traditions. Ed. Patrick
Gray and Gail R. O’Day, 263–290. NovTSup. Leiden: Brill, 2008.
Ramelli, Ilaria L.E. Hierocles the Stoic: Elements of Ethics, Fragments, and Excerpts.
wgrw 28. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2009.
Ramelli, Ilaria L.E. “The Pastoral Epistles and Hellenistic Philosophy: 1 Timothy 5:1–2,
Hierocles, and the ‘Contraction of Circles’.” cbq 73 (2011): 562–581.
Yarbrough, O. Larry. “Parents and Children in the Jewish Family of Antiquity.” In The
Jewish Family in Antiquity. Ed. Shaye J.D. Cohen, 39–59. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993.

5 Theological Analysis
Read alone, this section may give the impression that Paul is merely reinforc-
ing the traditional age hierarchy “as a way to move the group in the direction
of an honourable reputation” (LaFosse 2011: 236). Read with the previous sec-
tion, where one finds a strong subversive note that challenges this age hierar-
chy, however, this brief section should be understood primarily as providing
an important qualifying note so that honoring the young does not become a
license to abuse others. The important role of Timothy is not to be slighted,
however, since through “encouragement” it remains his duty to correct those
who are older than he is. In the first-century context, this call signals a signif-
icant departure from contemporary social conventions. In a Jewish context in
particular, the call to correct others may signal the presence of a divine author-
ity, since God alone can transcend the authority of one’s parents and elders (cf.
Balla 2003: 104–109).
In the midst of pressure and challenges, this section provides the clearest
statement on the interrelationships of members within this fictive kinship.
300 1 timothy

Within certain boundaries (respect for older people and purity among the
young), cohesion established among members of this community will testify
to the power of God as the Savior—the Savior for all (cf. 2:3–7; Ramelli 2011:
580). This tension between internal cohesion and the missionary impulse of
the early Christian movement is consistent with Paul’s earlier writings (Rom
10:1–17; 12:9–21; Eph 4:7–16) and provides a way to bridge the twin emphases on
particularism and universalism in Paul’s gospel and beyond (cf. Roldán 2004:
151–177).

Bibliography
Balla, Peter. The Child-Parent Relationship in the New Testament and Its Environment.
wunt 155. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003.
LaFosse, Mona Tokarek. “Age Matters: Age, Aging and Intergenerational Relationships
in Early Christian Communities, with a Focus on 1Timothy 5.” Ph.D. diss., University
of Toronto, 2011.
Ramelli, Ilaria L.E. “The Pastoral Epistles and Hellenistic Philosophy: 1 Timothy 5:1–2,
Hierocles, and the ‘Contraction of Circles.’” cbq 73 (2011): 562–581.
Roldán, A.F. “The Priesthood of All Believers and Integral Mission.” In The Local Church,
Agent of Transformation. Ed. Tetsunao Yamamori and C. René Padilla, 151–177. Trans.
Brian Condignly. Buenos Aires: Kairos, 2004.

B Widows (5:3–16)
1 Translation
3 Honor those widows who are real widows. 4 If a widow has children or grand-
children, let them first learn to show godliness in their own household—to
repay their parents, for this is pleasing before God. 5 The real widow, who is
left alone, has set her hope on God and continues in supplications and prayers
night and day, 6 but she who lives in an extravagant lifestyle is dead even though
alive. 7 Command these things as well, so that they may be beyond reproach.
8 Anyone who does not provide for his own, and especially for members of
his household,24 has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. 9 Let a
widow be enlisted if she is not less than sixty years old, the wife of one husband,
10 and is known for her good works: as one who has raised children, shown
hospitality, washed the feet of the saints, cared for the oppressed, and devoted
herself to every good work. 11 But do not enlist younger widows, for when their
passions lead them against Christ, they desire to marry, 12 incurring judgment
on themselves for breaking their former faith. 13 At the same time, they learn

24 I.e., “the household of God.”

5:3–16 301

to be idlers, going about from house to house, and not only idlers, but also talk-
ers of nonsense and meddlers, talking about things that they should not. 14 So I
want younger widows to marry, bear children, and manage their households, so
to give the adversary no opportunity for slander. 15 For some have already gone
astray after Satan. 16 If any believing woman has relatives who are widows, let
her help them. Let the church not be burdened, so that it may help those who
are real widows.

2 Text-Critical Analysis
▪ 4 μανθανέτωσαν: A few primarily Western witnesses (945 d f m vgcl; Ambst
Pel Spec) read the singular μανθανέτω instead, probably due to the perceived
unusual shift in the subject from the singular χήρα in the previous clause to the
plural τέκνα in the present clause.

▪ 4 ἀπόδεκτον: A few minuscules (323 365 945 pc) and versions (samss bo got
arm) insert καλὸν καί before ἀπόδεκτον, likely influenced by 2:3 above.

▪ 5 ἐπὶ θεόν: An impressive list of witnesses (‫א‬2 A D2 K L 104 365 630 1175 1241
1505 1739 1881 𝔐) includes the article τόν before θεόν, which is included (within a
bracket) by Westcott-Hort in the main text. Despite weaker external support for
ἐπὶ θεόν among Greek witnesses (C F G P Ψ 048), Tischendorf is likely correct in
considering it the preferred reading since the article never appears within the
ἐπὶ θεόν construction in the nt (cf. 4:10, ἠλπίκαμεν ἐπὶ θεῷ ζῶντι). A few notable
witnesses have τὸν κύριον (D* 81 pc vgmss [or κυριον, ‫)]*א‬, which is accepted by
some (Kilpatrick, 639), but this is possibly an assimilation to the Pauline usage
elsewhere where κύριος Ἰησοῦς is the object of hope (Phil 2:19; Comfort, 664) or
is more likely influenced by the language of the ot psalmists (cf. ἐλπίσατε ἐπὶ
κύριον, Ps 4:6; Bernard, 79).

▪ 8 μάλιστα οἰκείων: Departing from this reading supported by the best wit-
nesses from diverse textual traditions (‫ א‬A D* F G I Ψ 048 1739), numer-
ous, mainly late, Byzantine witnesses (C D1 K L P pm 𝔐)25 include an arti-
cle τῶν before οἰκείων, possibly an assimilation to the other occurrence of
an article after μάλιστα (cf. 5:17; 2Tim 4:13; Titus 1:10). Against the argument
that an arthrous ἰδίων demands an arthrous οἰκείων (Elliott, 76) is the paral-
lel in Eph 2:19, where the second anarthrous term provides definition for the
first.

25 Correcting the listing of D2 in na27, na28 has D1 instead for this variant.
302 1 timothy

▪ 8 προνοεῖ: Instead of the active προνοεῖ (‫א‬2 A C D1 L P Ψ 1739 pm 𝔐; Westcott-

Hort), some read the middle προνοεῖται (‫ *א‬D* F G I K 104 1991; Tischendorf).
The external evidence is split with witnesses from diverse traditions supporting
both variants. Detecting an Atticistic tendency in the middle προνοεῖται, Elliott
(76) prefers the active προνοεῖ. It is also possible that this middle is an assimila-
tion to the middle ἤρνηται that follows.

▪ 15 ἤδη … σατανᾶ: This entire verse is omitted (most likely unintentionally) in

1739, which represents the most significant deviation from the Alexandrian wit-
nesses in the pe of this otherwise reliable minuscule.

▪ 16 πιστή: Instead of πιστή, notable Western (D b vgmss) and the majority of

Byzantine (K L Ψ pm 𝔐) witnesses have πιστὸς ἢ πιστή, with a few versions
(g eth [arm]) and Latin fathers (Theo-Moplat Aug Amst) reading only πιστός,
which was considered a “patristic peculiarity” (Elliott, 80). Those who argue for
this longer reading consider homoeoarcton and/or homoeoteleuton the rea-
son behind the omission of πιστός ἤ (Kilpatrick, 640; cf. Synge 1965: 200–201).
Nevertheless, the shorter and more difficult reading πιστή receives more sub-
stantial support that includes the Alexandrian (‫ א‬A; see also C F G P 1739 1881)
witnesses and a number of versions (m vg co), and the inclusion of πιστός ἤ is
likely an attempt to include male believers in the call to take care of the wid-
ows. The responsibility of the male believers has already been dealt with in vv. 4
and 8, and the inclusion of πιστός is superfluous, especially when εἴ τις by itself
could have been sufficient to express this inclusive idea (cf. 3:1; 6:3).

▪ 16 ἐπαρκείτω: Instead of the active ἐπαρκείτω, which is supported by manu-

scripts of diverse textual traditions (C D K L P 1739 1881 𝔐), selected Alexan-
drian (‫ א‬A) and late Western (F G) witnesses read the middle ἐπαρκείσθω. Elliott
(54) notes the possibility of assimilation to the ending of βαρείσθω that follows,
especially since the middle form is rare in Classical-Koine Greek according to
Liddell-Scott. The middle does, however, appear in Greek literature after the
fourth century ad (Theodotus, Epist. 326.1), and the variant ἐπαρκείτω may
reflect this later Greek usage.

Bibliography
Comfort, Philip W. New Testament Text and Translation Commentary. Carol Stream, IL:
Tyndale, 2008.
Opatrný, Dominik. “Theologically Significant Textual Variants in the Pastoral Epistles.”
In The Process of Authority: The Dynamics of Transmission and Reception of Canoni-
cal Texts. Ed. Jan Dušek and Jan Roskovec, 229–239. dcls 27. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2016.
Synge, Francis C. “Studies in Texts: 1Timothy 5:3–16.” Theology 68 (1965): 200–201.
5:3–16 303

3 Grammatical Analysis
The call for the proper treatment of younger and older women (πρεσβυτέρας,
νεωτέρας, v. 2) in the previous section provides an introduction to this unit
that discusses older (vv. 9–10) and younger (vv. 11–16) widows. The opening call
to “honor” the widows (v. 3) also connects this larger unit with the previous
call for Timothy not to let anyone “despise” his youth (4:12). Using fictive kin-
ship language (5:1–2) in the midst of honor and shame discourse, Paul calls for
an alternative ethic for the interaction among the members of God’s house-
hold.
Though this unit cannot be entirely separated from the general introduction
in vv. 1–2, a distinct break can still be detected in v. 3 with the first use of the
term χήρα in this letter, one that, in turn, provides cohesion to the entire unit
with eight uses of this term in this unit (vv. 3 [2×], 4, 5, 9, 11, 16 [2×]). Moreover,
the simpler structure of vv. 1–2 that contains five independent clauses (four of
which are asyndetic) is replaced by a more complex hypotactic structure that
includes causal (v. 12) and purpose (vv. 7, 16) clauses and a notable number of
conditional clauses marked by the repeated use of εἰ in the protasis (vv. 4, 8,
10 [5×], 16). That vv. 3–16 form a distinct unit is also signaled by the asyndetic
οἱ καλῶς προεστῶτες πρεσβύτεροι in v. 17 where Paul turns his attention to the
(male) elders, and the issue of “honor” (τιμῆς) reappears.
Since this unit begins with a note on the widows who are in need (vv. 3–4)
and since both subunits (vv. 3–8, 9–16) end with a call for the family mem-
bers of these widows to take care of them, many have concluded that this unit
deals with “the financial support of the Ephesian widows” (Mounce, 273), a
problem possibly caused by either the abuse of support given by the church
(Longenecker 2010: 148) or the lack of resources of this church (Bassler 1984:
27). Nevertheless, a sustained argument for the support of the needy widows
is lacking. Instead, one finds arguments against indulgence (v. 7) and pas-
sion (v. 11) together with calls to carry out a variety of good works appropri-
ate for a woman that begins with (vv. 10, 14) and extends beyond her house-
hold (v. 13). The emphasis on the household responsibility of these women
is particularly highlighted by marked linguistic features in vv. 10 and 14. In
v. 10, the five apodoses all modify the negative imperative of v. 9 (καταλεγέσθω
μὴ):

εἰ ἐτεκνοτρόφησεν,
εἰ ἐξενοδόχησεν,
εἰ ἁγίων πόδας ἔνιψεν,
εἰ θλιβομένοις ἐπήρκεσεν,
εἰ παντὶ ἔργῳ ἀγαθῷ ἐπηκολούθησεν.
304 1 timothy

Similarly, in v. 14, a number of infinitives that modify the imperatival use of the
present indicative βούλομαι also place emphasis on these household duties:

γαμεῖν
τεκνογονεῖν
οἰκοδεσποτεῖν

Notably, neither of these lists provides direct support for the financial support
of the widows. This discrepancy between form and content is compounded by
the fact that more space is devoted to the widows than any other group, and
that a discussion of their male counterparts or the orphans is lacking.
To explain this tension between form and content, several types of solutions
have been suggested: (1) a source-critical solution has often been proposed
where it is observed that this unit is “confused and obscure in some places,
probably because the author is adapting an existing church order source” (Han-
son, 96), or this confusion shows that this is “a collection of previously inde-
pendent sayings on the care of widows” (Miller, 84). Neither of these solutions
is consistent with the observation that this letter is otherwise a carefully con-
structed letter.
(2) The presence of different kinds of widows may contribute to the com-
plexity of this unit. Some have suggested up to four different kinds of widows:
“real widows” who are without family (5:3, 5, 16), widows who are supported
by family members (5:4, 8), older widows who serve as models for the com-
munity (5:9–10), and younger widows who should be remarried (5:11–15), with
some overlap among these groups (LaFosse 2011: 245). Others detect three kinds
instead since the older widows may be considered either “real widows” (v. 3) or
those who are with family (5:4; Towner 1989: 182–183; Collins, 134–135). To fur-
ther complicate the picture is the possibility that at least some of the younger
widows are those who had taken the pledge to remain virgins (cf. Ignatius,
Smyrn. 13.1; Pietersen 2007: 23; see also v. 3).
(3) Historical concerns of the first-century Ephesian community have also
been noted. These include the prominence of the concern for the financial and
social well-being of the widows, the possible existence of an “order” of wid-
ows, the issue of power within a patriarchal community, and the relationship
between the false teachers and some of these widows. These will be dealt with
in Historical Analysis below.
Despite these complexities, certain structural markers are still present in this
unit.
The succinct statement in v. 3 provides the subject heading of this unit (χήρας
τίμα τὰς ὄντως χήρας), and the first set of clauses that follow in v. 4 form an
5:3–16 305

inclusio with the final set in v. 16 with both containing a conditional clause that
opens with εἰ δέ τις in the protasis as well as a third-person present active imper-
ative (μανθανέτωσαν, v. 4; ἐπαρκείτω, v. 16) in the apodosis. Moreover, in both,
one finds a call for family members to care for their own widows.
Three additional linguistic features contribute to holding this unit together.
First, imperatives, including the imperatival sense in the use of βούλομαι, out-
line the series of commands Paul issues (τίμα, v. 3; μανθανέτωσαν, v. 4; παράγ-
γελλε, v. 7; καταλεγέσθω, v. 9; παραιτοῦ, v. 11; βούλομαι v. 14; ἐπαρκείτω, v. 16;
μὴ βαρείσθω, v. 16). Second, the use of δέ marks the development of this dis-
course as Paul reinforces his teachings primarily through contrastive state-
ments (vv. 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 13). Notably, if we exclude the framing verses (vv. 3, 4,
16), all the imperatives (and implicit demands) and the δέ-clauses center on
the correction of the false teachings rather than merely on the support of the
widows:

“Command” (παράγγελλε, v. 7) these (i.e., now [δέ, v. 5] to support the

needy widows who lay their hope in God, rather than [δέ, v. 6] those who
yield to their pleasure), and (δέ, v. 8) those who do not follow are worse
than unbelievers.

To be “enlisted” (καταλεγέσθω, v. 9) are widows who are over sixty years old
and lead an exemplary life, but (δέ) “do not enlist” (παραιτοῦ, v. 11) younger
widows since they may yield to their passion … and (δέ, v. 13) they go from
house to house learning to be lazy, and (δέ, v. 13) saying things they should
not.

“I want” (βούλομαι, v. 14) younger widows to pay attention to their house-

hold responsibilities.

The issue concerning the support of the widows appears to serve primarily as
the framework within which Paul again attempts to thwart the progression of
the false teachings.

▪ 3 Χήρας τίμα τὰς ὄντως χήρας. The head noun χήρας, modified by the phrase
τὰς ὄντως χήρας that limits the sense of the head noun, marks the subject mat-
ter of this unit. The present imperative τίμα is expected in general instructions,
and this introduces a series of six other present imperatives in this unit. Three
possible readings have been ascribed to this verb in this context: (1) Those who
consider v. 9 as a description of the existence of an order of widows often see
this verse in the sense of proper compensation for duties performed by wid-
306 1 timothy

ows as office-bearers of the church (Wagener 1994: 148), but even those who
would translate τίμα as “give honoraria” admit that this verb should best be read
together with the nominal διπλῆς τιμῆς (v. 17), a phrase best understood within
an honor-shame context (cf. Fiore, 108). Moreover, the existence of an official
order of widows is less than clear (see Historical Analysis).
(2) Most consider this a reference primarily to the “financial support” offered
to the widows because of their needs (Johnson, 260; cf. Towner, 337–338), a
usage attested in contemporaneous literature (Sir 38:1; bdag 1005). Considera-
tion of material support of widows in vv. 4, 8, 16 lends support to this.
(3) Nevertheless, in light of the use of honor-shame language in its con-
text (cf. καταφρονείτω, 4:12; ἀνεπίλημπτοι, 5:7), a wider reference may have been
intended (Spicq, 1.525). In a Jewish context, this language may evoke the fifth
commandment (Winter 1988: 92), and in a Greco-Roman one, it may point to
the subversion of the role of the benefactor when the one without resources is
now to be honored (Taniguchi 2002: 155). This final usage fits well in this con-
text, especially when material support is recognized to be a major instrument
through which honor can be bestowed.
The need to specify the widows addressed as τὰς ὄντως χήρας points to the
multiple ways this term could have been used by members of the Christian
community (see Historical Analysis).

▪ 4 εἰ δέ τις χήρα τέκνα ἢ ἔκγονα ἔχει, μανθανέτωσαν πρῶτον τὸν ἴδιον οἶκον εὐσεβεῖν
καὶ ἀμοιβὰς ἀποδιδόναι τοῖς προγόνοις· τοῦτο γάρ ἐστιν ἀπόδεκτον ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ.
The developmental δέ introduces the contrast between the “real widows” that
the church needs to care for and those that are to receive support within their
own households. The use of τις in the protasis of a conditional sentence for the
sake of argument is common in this unit (5:4, 8, 16; cf. 5:9–10) as it is through-
out this letter (1:10; 3:1, 5; 6:3, 4; cf. Porter, Verbal Aspect, 320). In the apodosis,
Paul uses the third-person imperative to encourage a course of action for both
Timothy and those whom he is to instruct (cf. 3:12; Fantin, Greek Imperative,
272).
The subject of the plural imperative μανθανέτωσαν is debated. A number of
Western witnesses read the singular μανθανέτω instead and therefore consider
the singular χήρα as the subject. Those who see these widows as the subject
while still affirming the plural reading of μανθανέτωσαν consider τις χήρα a col-
lective noun, thus taking a plural verb (cf. Rev 14:11; Winer, Grammar 787). But
in light of vv. 8 and 16, where the needs of the widows are in view, it is best to
consider τέκνα the subject of the imperative (Quinn and Wacker, 430), a read-
ing that will fit well with the use of τίμα since the younger are to show respect to
the older (cf. Marshall, 584–585). Moreover, while ἀμοιβὰς ἀποδιδόναι τοῖς προ-
5:3–16 307

γόνοις could refer to the respect paid to one’s (i.e., the widows’) ancestors, the
logic of the argument would argue for a reference to the duties of the adult
children who are to repay their parents for what they had received when they
were their dependents. Taking the conjunction καί in an epexegetical sense,
for these adult children to care for their parents is to fulfill their proper duty in
their “own household” (τὸν ἴδιον οἶκον).
τοῦτο … ἐστιν ἀπόδεκτον ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ is anticipated by the use of the
infinitive εὐσεβεῖν earlier in this verse. Bracketed by references to both godliness
(εὐσεβεῖν) and the presence of God (ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ), caring for one’s parents
becomes an act of worship that lives out the lordship of Christ and God the
benefactor of all (cf. 3:16).

▪ 5 ἡ δὲ ὄντως χήρα καὶ μεμονωμένη ἤλπικεν ἐπὶ θεὸν καὶ προσμένει ταῖς δεήσεσιν
καὶ ταῖς προσευχαῖς νυκτὸς καὶ ἡμέρας. The developmental δέ not only resumes
the discussion of τὰς ὄντως χήρας of v. 3 (Knight, 218), but it also extends the
discussion by providing a further definition of these widows.
This definition is introduced by the marked perfect participle μεμονωμένη
and should best be taken together with χήρα as both are governed by the arti-
cle ἡ. Those who take it in a concessive sense (“even though she has been left
alone,” Huizenga, 387) ignore the article-substantive-καί-substantive construc-
tion (Granville Sharp’s Rule, cf. Wallace, Grammar, 270–275; cf. the use of the
epexegetical καί in v. 4). The true widow is now identified as one who does not
have the support of her wider household. The second definition is likewise pro-
vided by a perfect verb (ἤλπικεν) that draws attention to her dependence on
God (ἐπὶ θεόν; cf. the use of dative in ἠλπίκαμεν ἐπὶ θεῷ, 4:10).
The present indicative προσμένει that grammaticalizes imperfective aspect
does not stand in a strict parallel with the perfect indicative ἤλπικεν, but it does
point to the practical outworking of the act of placing one’s hope in God. As a
specific-general doublet (Moore, Doublets, 54), the difference between ταῖς δεή-
σεσιν and ταῖς προσευχαῖς should not be overdrawn, especially since these two
nouns are used together with the closely related ἔντευξις and εὐχαριστία in the
asyndetic list of 2:1. The genitive νυκτὸς καὶ ἡμέρας is part of a set construction
that appears often in Greek literature (cf. 2Tim 1:3; George, 2014: 289–292) and
here reinforces the continuous sense expressed by προσμένει.

▪ 6 ἡ δὲ σπαταλῶσα ζῶσα τέθνηκεν. δέ signals a significant stage in the devel-

opment of Paul’s argument when he moves beyond the financial support of
the (real) widows to the lifestyle of those whom he condemns. The articular
present participle ἡ … σπαταλῶσα is timeless in semantic value and in this con-
text points to those who continuously adopt a particular style.
308 1 timothy

The contrast to those who place their hope in God is further accentuated
by another use of the perfect indicative (τέθνηκεν). The context in which the
participle ζῶσα (that modifies τέθνηκεν) occurs suggests a concessive sense
(“although alive, she is dead,” Abel, Grammaire, § 55s). References to “before
God” (ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ) in v. 4, to hope (ἤλπικεν) in v. 5, to live (ζῶσα) and to die
(τέθνηκεν) in this verse, and “judgment” (κρίμα) in v. 12 all point to the context
of the final judgment with the appearance of God and his Christ Jesus “who is
to judge the living and the dead” (2Tim 4:1).

▪ 7 καὶ ταῦτα παράγγελλε, ἵνα ἀνεπίλημπτοι ὦσιν. καί functions adverbially and
takes on two related functions. First, it marks the clause that follows with
prominence (Titrud 1991: 4), and with the use of the imperative παράγγελλε it
demonstrates the exercise of Paul’s apostolic authority (cf. 1:3, 4:11; 6:13, 17; see
also παραγγελία in 1:5, 18).
Second, καὶ ταῦτα παράγγελλε not only recalls παράγγελλε ταῦτα of 4:11, but it
also constrains this section to “parallel processing” with the section introduced
by 4:11 (Heckert, Discourse, 88). In light of its use in 4:11 as an introduction to the
entire section concerning Timothy’s youthfulness (4:12–16), ταῦτα here likely
refers to the entire subunit as well (vv. 3–8; Spicq, 1.530), if not more specifi-
cally to the three immediately surrounding clauses introduced by δέ (vv. 5, 6,
8).
If ταῦτα refers to vv. 5, 6, 8, then the subject of ὦσιν would include both the
widows and those who are to take care of them, though the note in v. 8 would
point more specifically to members of the widows’ households (cf. Johnson,
263). This narrower reference is consistent with the only other use of a third-
person plural verb in this subunit with relatives of the widows as the subject of
μανθανέτωσαν (v. 4).

▪ 8 εἰ δέ τις τῶν ἰδίων καὶ μάλιστα οἰκείων οὐ προνοεῖ, τὴν πίστιν ἤρνηται καὶ ἔστιν
ἀπίστου χείρων. With yet another δέ-clause, Paul not only contrasts those who
reject their duties to their parents with others who perform them with the
use of οὐ in the apodosis (cf. Abel, Grammaire, § 75b), but he also underlines
the seriousness of the offense with references to both the faith and the out-
siders. Though governed by one article (τῶν), the exact relationship between
ἰδίων and οἰκείων is not immediately clear. Many consider οἰκείων a subset of
ἰδίων, where ἰδίων refers to a wider circle of relatives or even freedmen, while
οἰκείων points to those who live in the same household (Winter 1988: 91; Wal-
lace, Grammar, 281). Several problems, however, can be identified with this
reading: (1) the exact delineation between ἰδίων and οἰκείων seems less than
clear; (2) such a delineation does not contribute to this argument when ἰδίων
5:3–16 309

would have been sufficient; (3) this apodosis appears to be redundant when
read with the one in v. 4; and (4) the transition to the second subunit seems
abrupt.
Arguing against this near-consensus, Alistair Campbell (1995: 157–160)
agrees that ἰδίων refers to members of one’s household but sees οἰκείων as a
reference to the wider circle of believers: (1) elsewhere in Paul, οἰκεῖος is only
used in reference to members of God’s household, thus believers (Gal 6:10; Eph
2:19); (2) the parallel with Gal 6:10 is particularly noteworthy with the use of
both μάλιστα and οἰκεῖος in reference to good works; (3) the reference to the
church as “the household of God” (οἴκῳ θεοῦ) in 3:15 paves the way for identify-
ing believers as members of this household; and (4) as in 4:10, μάλιστα can carry
the sense of “namely.” This reading not only clarifies the relationship between
ἰδίων and οἰκείων, but it also provides the transition to v. 9, where Paul moves
from the duties of the widows’ own household (ἰδίων) to that of the believers
(οἰκείων) as he addresses the enlisting of the “real widows.” As such, this verse
does not simply repeat the conditional clause of v. 4, it also extends its discus-
sion and paves the way for the second subunit.
The present indicative προνοεῖ grammaticalizes imperfective aspect and is
appropriate in this context that depicts ongoing practices, while the marked
perfect indicative ἤρνηται issues an urgent call to believers to act accordingly.
The verb ἀρνέομαι carries a range of meanings, even in the pe, from a general act
of rejection (2Tim 3:5; Titus 1:16; 2:12) to an act of apostasy (2 Tim 2:12). In this
case, with reference to “the (Christian) faith” (τὴν πίστιν), it comes close to an
act of apostasy (contra Mounce, 285). Though it appears to be a harsh note of
condemnation, the urgency and seriousness of Paul’s teaching cannot be dis-
missed. After this reference to “the faith” of God, Paul turns to the perception
of such acts outside of the community of believers: those (family members and
believers) who do not take care of their widows are worse than nonbelievers.
The use of ἀπίστου may play on the clause τὴν πίστιν ἤρνηται, especially since in
Titus 1:15–16 the “unbelieving” ones (τοῖς … ἀπίστοις) are the ones who “deny”
(ἀρνοῦνται) God.

▪ 9 Χήρα καταλεγέσθω μὴ ἔλαττον ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα γεγονυῖα, ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή. As

the asyndetic χήρα in v. 1 introduces the entire unit, the asyndetic χήρα in this
clause signals the beginning of the second subunit. Moving beyond the focus
on the need of family members to care for their widows in vv. 3–8, this open-
ing sentence introduces the idea of “enlisting” while making note of the age
and moral requirements of this enlisting. The two subunits are closely linked,
however, since it is assumed that this χήρα is one of the “real widows” (τὰς
ὄντως χήρας, v. 3) who are in need, as is clear in the conclusion of this subunit
310 1 timothy

(v. 16). Consequently, vv. 9–16 should not be considered a separate unit (cf.
Winer, Grammar, 738).
The imperative καταλεγέσθω can be taken in a number of ways: (1) to be
“enrolled” (bdag 520; cf. Johnson, 264) in an “official list” (Kelly, 115; cf. Spicq,
1.532–533) in an order of widows who are to carry out their duties within the
church. However, the evidence for the existence of an order of widows in the
first century is lacking, and neither proper “qualifications for tasks” nor “duties”
of these “enrolled” widows are specified in this unit. (2) To be “enlisted” to
receive material support from the church (Barrett, 75; Marshall, 591). This read-
ing is consistent with the repeated references to the material needs of the
widows (vv. 4, 5, 8, 16), but the focus of this subunit (vv. 9–15) shifts from their
financial concerns to the exemplary lives they are to live. Therefore, the final
option is preferred: (3) to be “enlisted” to serve as examples for others to follow,
although these may also be widows who are to receive financial support from
the church. This use of the verb καταλέγω is attested in contemporaneous lit-
erature (see Historical Analysis) and fits the immediate context here (LaFosse
2011: 287). While receiving material support is assumed, this narrow “list” of
widows who have proven to lead a virtuous life are to be models for the other
women in the church.
The use of the perfect tense that grammaticalizes stative aspect marks the
participle γεγονυῖα with prominence, especially when contrasted with the pres-
ent μαρτυρουμένη that follows in v. 10 (cf. Porter, Verbal Aspect, 248–249). This
participle (γεγονυῖα) should best be considered an attributive participle (“who
is not less than sixty years of age,” cf. Huffman, Verbal Aspect, 238; contra
Mounce, 286 who treats it as conditional).
As with the phrase μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα in 3:2, here ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή should
best be understood in reference to marital fidelity.

▪ 10 ἐν ἔργοις καλοῖς μαρτυρουμένη, εἰ ἐτεκνοτρόφησεν, εἰ ἐξενοδόχησεν, εἰ ἁγίων

πόδας ἔνιψεν, εἰ θλιβομένοις ἐπήρκεσεν, εἰ παντὶ ἔργῳ ἀγαθῷ ἐπηκολούθησεν. The
present participle μαρτυρουμένη parallels the perfect participle γεγονυῖα in the
previous clause as an attributive participle (thus “who are well spoken of”),
though the shift in tenses reflects the relative prominence of the two sets of
requirements (see above).
Syntactically the list of εἰ + aorist indicative verbs are the protases that mod-
ify the imperative καταλεγέσθω in the apodosis of v. 9, but in its context it serves
to illustrate what “good works” (ἔργοις καλοῖς) entail as the final clause εἰ παντὶ
ἔργῳ ἀγαθῷ ἐπηκολούθησεν illustrates. The use of asyndetic lists is not unusual
in this letter (cf. 1:10; 3:2; 4:12), though in this case they are verbs preceded
by εἰ. Why these virtuous deeds are included remains unclear, though the list
5:3–16 311

does include deeds performed to various parties, from those within the widow’s
household (ἐτεκνοτρόφησεν) to those beyond (ἐξενοδόχησεν, ἁγίων πόδας ἔνιψεν,
θλιβομένοις ἐπήρκεσεν). The “good works” of these widows are not simply char-
acterized by the specific acts they perform, but also by the range of people
groups they serve. If so, the use of πᾶς in the concluding παντὶ ἔργῳ ἀγαθῷ may
likewise serve to emphasize the various kinds of good works applied to “all”
people groups.

▪ 11 νεωτέρας δὲ χήρας παραιτοῦ· ὅταν γὰρ καταστρηνιάσωσιν τοῦ Χριστοῦ, γαμεῖν

θέλουσιν. The developmental δέ connects this clause with the previous by con-
trasting those who are to be “enlisted” (καταλεγέσθω, v. 9) with those to be
“rejected” (παραιτοῦ). The shift from the singular χήρα (v. 9) to the plural χήρας
here may signal a shift from the collective ideal widows to the specific trou-
blemaking younger widows among the believers in Ephesus. Unlike 4:7, where
παραιτέομαι is used in the sense of “to avoid,” in this context the sense of “to
decline” (i.e., “do not enlist”) is to be understood (contra Johnson, 265), a sense
documented in literary (Heb 12:25) and non-literary (cmrdm 1.164.14–18; Hors-
ley 1983: 78) sources. Within this honor-shame discourse, however, to decline a
widow for enlisting in such a list is also to encourage the community to avoid
that person.
The conjunction γάρ here introduces material that strengthens the impera-
tive that precedes. With ὅταν, the aorist subjunctive καταστρηνιάσωσιν projects
the commencement of a particular event. The nt hapax καταστρηνιάω likely
carries a sense similar to that of στρηνιάω (“living in sensual luxury,” Rev 18:7, 9),
but it is uncertain how the κατα-prefix adds to this meaning. To read this pre-
fix as describing a self-indulgence that is “directly opposed to Christ” (Mounce,
290; cf. bdf§181) is justifiable when the verb is followed by τοῦ Χριστοῦ, a com-
plement in the genitive as required by the κατα-prefix. The problem with the
desire to (re)marry (γαμεῖν θέλουσιν) will be made explicit in the next clause.

▪ 12 ἔχουσαι κρίμα ὅτι τὴν πρώτην πίστιν ἠθέτησαν. The adverbial present partici-
ple ἔχουσαι depicts an act contemporaneous with their desire to marry (γαμεῖν
θέλουσιν, v. 11). κρίμα likely carries the sense of “divine judgment”: (1) In Paul,
κρίμα almost always refers to divine judgment (Rom 2:2–3; 3:8; 5:16; 11:33; 1 Cor
11:29, 34; Gal 5:10) unless the agents are specifically noted (1 Cor 6:7; 1 Tim 3:6);
(2) the accusation against the younger widows whose “passions lead them
against Christ” (v. 11) naturally leads to judgment from God; and (3) numerous
eschatological references in this unit (vv. 4–6) point to divine judgment.
τὴν πρώτην πίστιν ἠθέτησαν provides the reason (ὅτι) these younger widows
are “incurring (divine) judgment” on themselves. Four major lines of interpre-
312 1 timothy

tation have been proposed for τὴν πρώτην πίστιν. (1) “The first pledge” (or “the
first agreement”), referring to the vow of celibacy committed by those who had
first enrolled in the “order” of widows (Dibelius and Conzelmann, 75; Hanson,
98). Even if we postulate the existence of an “order of widows,” there is no evi-
dence of a vow of celibacy for such an order in its earliest stages (cf. Sand 1971:
186–197).
(2) The “former pledge,” referring to the pledge not to remarry after the death
of one’s husband (Spicq, 1.535–536; Spencer, 130). This would contradict Paul’s
teachings in v. 14 and elsewhere (1Cor 7:39). Moreover, the word πρώτην does
not add to the meaning of this phrase.
(3) “The first pledge”, referring to the pledge of faithfulness to Christ. This
reading fits the context well, though the articular τὴν … πίστιν in this letter
almost always refers to the Christian faith (1:19; 3:9; 4:1, 6; 5:8; 6:10, 12, 21), which
leads to the final option.
(4) The “first/former faith,” referring to their commitment to Christ and the
Christian faith, and their rejection of this faith as signaled by their marrying a
man outside the community of believers (Barrett, 77; Collins, 141). This is con-
sistent with Paul’s teaching elsewhere that a widow can only marry someone
“in the Lord” (μόνον ἐν κυρίῳ, 1Cor 7:39). Moreover, their marrying non-believers
may be a manifestation of their lack of self-control (v. 11). This reading would
also explain the language of judgment in the previous clause as well as the iden-
tification of some of these widows as those who “have already gone astray after
Satan” (v. 15). The aorist indicative ἠθέτησαν that grammaticalizes perfective
aspect depicts this act of betrayal as a whole event.

▪ 13 ἅμα δὲ καὶ ἀργαὶ μανθάνουσιν περιερχόμεναι τὰς οἰκίας, οὐ μόνον δὲ ἀργαὶ ἀλλὰ
καὶ φλύαροι καὶ περίεργοι, λαλοῦσαι τὰ μὴ δέοντα. Through a series of adverbs and
conjunctions (ἅμα δὲ καί … οὐ μόνον δὲ … ἀλλὰ καί), Paul extends his criticism of
these widows. The first series (ἅμα δὲ καί) extends from the widows’ breaking
of their “first/former faith” to their idleness (ἀργαί), and the second (οὐ μόνον δὲ
… ἀλλὰ καί) extends from their idleness to their spreading of things that they
should not. The contrast to the ideal behavior of believers in vv. 4–5 becomes
clear: while family members of widows are to “learn” (μανθανέτωσαν, v. 4) to
fulfill their household duties, some younger widows “learn” (μανθάνουσιν, v. 13)
instead to be idlers; while the real widows are busy (cf. προσμένει … νυκτὸς καὶ
ἡμέρας, v. 5), some younger widows become “idlers” (ἀργαί, v. 13 [2×]); while the
real widows are engaging in verbal acts in “petitions and prayers” (v. 5), some
younger widows are “talking about things that they should not” (v. 13).
ἅμα almost always functions as an adverb in the nt (Robertson, Grammar,
638); its use with δὲ καί is not unusual (cf. Phlm 22) where the conjunction δέ
5:3–16 313

takes on its expected developmental sense while the adverbial καί marks what
follows with prominence. The construction ἀργαὶ μανθάνουσιν περιερχόμεναι is
awkward with the absence of a complementary infinitive after μανθάνουσιν. It
is best to consider ἀργαί the predicate of the implied εἶναι with περιερχόμεναι
as an adverbial participle of attendant circumstance (Radermacher, Neutesta-
mentliche Grammatik, 209; see Text-Critical Analysis), especially since further
description of ἀργαί is provided in the clause that follows.
δέ in the οὐ μόνον δὲ … ἀλλὰ καί construction points to yet another develop-
ment in the criticism against the younger widows by expanding the boundary
of the characterization marked by οὐ μόνον with material introduced by ἀλλὰ
καί. φλύαροι καὶ περίεργοι can take on different connotations but is best taken
as referring to “talkers of nonsense and meddlers” here (see Historical Analy-
sis).
The participle λαλοῦσαι modifies the implied εἶναι that governs both ἀργαί
and φλύαροι καὶ περίεργοι, while the negated attributive participial τὰ μὴ δέοντα
carries imperatival force, “talking about things that they should not” (i.e., “they
must not say these things,” Huffman, Verbal Aspect, 128).

▪ 14 Βούλομαι οὖν νεωτέρας γαμεῖν, τεκνογονεῖν, οἰκοδεσποτεῖν, μηδεμίαν ἀφορμὴν

διδόναι τῷ ἀντικειμένῳ λοιδορίας χάριν· The postpositive conjunction οὖν often
draws its referential force from γάρ, which often appears in the material that
precedes (cf. 5:11; see also 2:8; 2Tim 1:8; Levinsohn, “Some Constraints,” 329). As
in the preceding clause, this clause introduced by βούλομαι also carries imper-
atival force since it is coming from one who holds apostolic authority (cf. 1:1).
βούλομαι itself often grammaticalizes imperfective aspect even when it is not
in the present tense as it is here (see 1Tim 2:8).
The three complementary infinitives, γαμεῖν, τεκνογονεῖν, and οἰκοδεσποτεῖν,
find their conclusion in the final negative complementary infinitive that carries
the same imperatival force as the earlier implied commands. The singular τῷ
ἀντικειμένῳ likely refers to Satan (cf. ὁ ἀντικείμενος, 2 Thess 2:4), who is explicitly
identified in the next clause (τοῦ σατανᾶ, v. 15; cf. 3:6, 7); for human oppo-
nents the plural form is always used (1Cor 16:9; Phil 1:28; cf. Luke 13:17; 21:15).
The theological undercurrent cannot be missed: those who are faithful in their
household roles and duties are pleasing God (v. 4) and are setting their hope in
him (v. 5), but those who are unfaithful deny their faith (v. 8) and are against
Christ (v. 11) while yielding to Satan (vv. 14, 15).

▪ 15 ἤδη γάρ τινες ἐξετράπησαν ὀπίσω τοῦ σατανᾶ. The postpositive γάρ strength-
ens the preceding claim in that it explains the urgency of Paul’s call to avoid
leaving room for the work of “the adversary” (v. 14). With the use of the deictic
314 1 timothy

marker ἤδη, the aorist indicative ἐξετράπησαν portrays the past actions of those
who have followed or even promoted the false teachings. In the midst of a series
of conditional clauses (vv. 4, 8, 10, 16), this statement makes it clear that Paul’s
concerns are grounded in the events that have already taken place. Likewise,
the use of the indefinite pronoun τινές in reference to those who have departed
from the faith should not be interpreted as merely operating within the realm
of possibilities.

▪ 16 εἴ τις πιστὴ ἔχει χήρας, ἐπαρκείτω αὐταῖς καὶ μὴ βαρείσθω ἡ ἐκκλησία, ἵνα
ταῖς ὄντως χήραις ἐπαρκέσῃ. This unit concludes with two independent clauses,
both modified by a dependent clause. The first independent clause (ἐπαρκείτω
αὐταῖς) serves as the apodosis of a conditional sentence modified by a prota-
sis (εἴ τις πιστὴ ἔχει χήρας), and the second independent clause (μὴ βαρείσθω
ἡ ἐκκλησία) parallels the first with a third-person present imperative and is
modified by a purpose clause that points back to the concern for the “real
widows” (ἵνα ταῖς ὄντως χήραις ἐπαρκέσῃ; cf. vv. 3, 4, 8). Whether the first set
of clauses is a mere reiteration of the concerns noted above or an exten-
sion of the prior discussion depends on the understanding of the identity
of πιστή. (for more on the difficulties of this verse, see Text-Critical Analy-
sis).
With the final third-person imperatives of this unit (ἐπαρκείτω, [μὴ] βαρεί-
σθω; cf. μανθανέτωσαν, v. 4; καταλεγέσθω, v. 9), Paul again commands both the
targeted group as well as Timothy the intermediary concerning the caring of
the widows. The believing woman is to help (ἐπαρκείτω) the widows as the “real
widows” model their own act of helping (ἐπήρκεσεν, v. 10) others. Correspond-
ing to the positive command in ἐπαρκείτω, the present imperative μὴ βαρείσθω
commands that the church “not be getting burdened” (Huffman, Verbal Aspect,
169). In the final purpose clause that modifies μὴ βαρείσθω, an aorist form of the
verb ἐπαρκέω is used instead, viewing the assistance the church is to offer as a
complete whole.

Bibliography
Bassler, Jouette. “The Widows’ Tale: A Fresh Look at 1 Tim 5:3–16.” jbl 103 (1984): 23–41.
Campbell, R. Alastair. “και μαλιστα οικειων—A New Look at 1 Timothy 5.8.” nts 41
(1995): 157–160.
George, Coulter H. Expressions of Time in Ancient Greek. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, 2014.
Harrison, James R. “Benefaction Ideology and Christian Responsibility for Widows.”
NewDocs 8 (1998): 106–116.
LaFosse, Mona Tokarek. “Age Matters: Age, Aging and Intergenerational Relationships
5:3–16 315

in Early Christian Communities, with a Focus on 1Timothy 5.” Ph.D. diss., University
of Toronto, 2011.
Lindsay, Dennis R. Josephus and Faith: Πίστις and Πιστεύειν as Faith Terminology in the
Writings of Flavius Josephus and in the New Testament. agju 19. Leiden: Brill, 1993.
Longenecker, Bruce W. Remember the Poor: Paul, Poverty, and the Greco-Roman World.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010.
Merz, Annette. “Amore Pauli: Das Corpus Pastorale und Das Ringen um die Interpreta-
tionshoheit bezüglich des paulinischen Erbes.” ThQ 187 (2007): 274–294.
Padgett, Alan. “Wealthy Women at Ephesus: 1Timothy 2:8–15 in Social Context.” Int 41
(1987): 19–31.
Peterman, G.W. Paul’s Gift from Philippi. sntsms 92. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1997.
Pietersen, Lloyd K. “Women as Gossips and Busybodies? Another Look at 1 Timothy
5:13.” ltq 42 (2007): 19–35.
Sand, A. “Witwenstand und Ämterstrukturen in den urchristlichen Gemeinden.”BibLeb
12 (1971): 186–197.
Taniguchi, Yuko. “To Lead Quiet and Peaceable Lives: A Rhetorical Analysis of the First
Letter of Timothy.” Th.D. diss., Harvard University, 2002.
Wagener, Ulrike. Die Ordnung des “Hauses Gottes.” wunt 2:65. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
1994.
Winter, Bruce W. “Providentia for the Widows of 1Timothy 5:3–16.” TynBul 39 (1988):
83–99.

4 Historical Analysis
This long and difficult section has been read within various socio-historical
frameworks, leading to different understandings of its purpose within this let-
ter. (1) Few would deny the importance of the financial and social needs of the
widows in this section when the “real widow” is understood to be one “who
was left alone” (v. 5; cf. vv. 3–4, 8, 16). This emphasis is consistent with the bib-
lical traditions where widows are often listed among orphans and foreigners
who are to be protected and cared for (Exod 22:21–22; Deut 10:18; 24:19–21; Isa
1:17, 23; Ezek 22:7; Zech 7:10). Being deprived of the network once shared by
her marriage to her husband, a widow is often considered a marginal mem-
ber of society (2Sam 14:5–7; Ezek 18:18), and her fate is comparable to one who
is without a father (Ps 146:9) or a son (Job 24:21). The suffering of God’s faith-
less people is compared to the widows (Isa 47:8–10), and their deliverance is
the end of their widowhood (Isa 54:1–4). Laws are stipulated to help the poor,
among them the widows (Deut 24:19–21), and tithing funds are made available
to them (Deut 14:28–29). Similar concerns for the widows are found in other
ancient Near Eastern cultures (cf. Galpaz-Feller 2008: 231–253), but for Israel
316 1 timothy

it lies at the very center of their identity since they themselves were once an
oppressed people (cf. Exod 22:21–22).
One can point to Acts 6:1–6 as evidence of a circle of widows under the
care of the church (cf. Wagener 1994: 131–132), although there is insufficient
textual data for the details of the arrangements made. Glimpses of such prac-
tices among Jewish communities may be found in the later rabbinic material
(m. Ketub. 13.1–2; m. Pesaḥ. 8.2–9, 10.1; m. Šeqal. 5.6; m. Peʾah 8.7; Jeremias 1969:
132–134), with possible parallels found among the practices of the Essenes (cf.
Philo, Hypoth. 11.4–11; Capper 1996: 351). Moreover, an established mechanism
exists within Jewish synagogues for the provision of needy widows (cf. Nickle
1966: 93–95). Evidence from this section may testify to yet another stage of early
Christian practices in caring for widows. Nevertheless, the lack of a sustained
argument for the support of the need of widows within this unit (see Gram-
matical Analysis) should prevent this from being considered the focus or the
primary purpose of this section.
(2) From the verb καταλεγέσθω (v. 9) and the description that follows in v. 10,
many have argued for the presence of an “order” of widows (Thurston 1989: 45–
53); this unit is, therefore, no longer concerned with the caring of those in need
but with the practical management of this order in Ephesus (Kelly, 112). The
textual evidence for the existence of an order of widows in first-century Eph-
esus is lacking, however. The term καταλεγέσθω (v. 9) is best understood in the
sense of “enlisting” for the purpose of financial support or as examples for the
wider community, rather than “enrolling” in a particular office (see comments
below). Even if one can talk about the “rank” of widows, it is difficult to argue
for the existence of such an “office” based on this text (Roloff, 286). Moreover,
the list in v. 10 should not be considered as having the same function as the
lists of requirements for the overseers or deacons that begin with δεῖ … εἶναι
(3:2; cf. 3:8 ὡσαύτως with the implied δεῖ … εἶναι), since the list for the widows
does not point to the present action of the widows but to virtues that any Chris-
tian (woman) should exemplify (LaFosse 2011: 306–307). Similarly, no specific
“duties” for these widows are listed.
(3) Highlighting the issue of power, some see here “the gradual patriarchal-
ization of the church and its leadership” as reflected in the attempt to limit the
influence of the younger widows by limiting the number of those who are qual-
ified as “real widows” (Schüssler Fiorenza 1983: 315). The widows as symbols of
freedom can indeed be found in the later early Christian writings, especially the
Apocryphal Acts (cf. Davies 1980: 70–94), but the general call to lead a moral life
is consistent with that of the earlier Paul (cf. 1Cor 7:9). Moreover, the attempt to
limit the influence of some male elders (5:17–25) as well as benefactors (6:2b–
10, 17–19) in the sections that follow fails to substantiate this patriarchy thesis.
5:3–16 317

(4) If “widows” includes those who are spreading false teachings that involve
forms of asceticism (cf. 4:1–5), then attempts to limit their power and influence
are to be understood as attempts to curb the spread of false teachings when
they travel “from house to house … talking about things that they should not”
(v. 13; cf. Tsuji 2001: 92–104). These younger widows may represent a group that
is spreading a corrupted version of Paul’s earlier teachings concerning marriage
and remarriage (cf. 1Cor 7:25–40; Müller-Bardorff 1958: 129–130), though they
were not even able to control their own passion (v. 11; Huizenga, 388). More-
over, if some of the younger widows are counted among those propagating the
false teachings while receiving financial benefits from the community (cf. 1 Tim
6:5), then supporting them will be funding the cause of these false teachers
(cf. Thornton 2016: 122). This reading not only explains Paul’s focus on the wid-
ows (rather than widowers), but it is also consistent with the noted similarities
between this unit and Paul’s explicit prohibitions against women teaching in
2:8–15 as both focus on issues of power as related to wealth, benefaction (cf.
ἀμοιβὰς ἀποδιδόναι, v. 4; Harrison 2003: 325), and hospitality (cf. ἐξενοδόχησεν,
v. 10). Paul will return to these issues as he redirects the attention to God the
true benefactor in 6:15–16.

▪ 3 In the early Roman imperial period, women were expected to be married

between 12–18 years old, while their husbands were often ten years older. With
a higher mortality rate among men, one estimate suggests that almost 30 % of
adult women were expected to be widows if χήρας is understood in the sense
of the woman whose husband has passed away (Krause 1994: 7–46). If, how-
ever, χήρας is understood as one who is no longer living with a husband, then
unbelieving men leaving their wives may further contribute to the high rate
of widowhood within the Christian community (cf. 1 Cor 7:15; Bassler 1984: 35).
Also worth noting is the possibility of those who are virgins who have commit-
ted to an ascetic lifestyle to claim to be among the ranks of widows (see, for
example, the equation of “widows” with “virgins of Christ” in Acts of Peter 29;
cf. Pietersen 2007, 23), even if this possibility cannot be secured by the word-
ings of v. 12.
In this unit, at least two factors are involved in the discussions of the differ-
ent kinds of widows: age and material needs (cf. ἡ … ὄντως χήρα, vv. 5 and 16).
The widows to be enlisted in v. 9 would have been at least of a certain age with
particular material needs, with additional requirements of an exemplary life
including ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή, which may aim at those “widows” who are virgins
committed to an ascetic lifestyle. That they should be honored argues for their
full incorporation into the center of the Christian community.
318 1 timothy

▪ 4 With τέκναas the subject of the imperative μανθανέτωσαν, this verse refers
to the care to be provided to one’s parents, especially the widows. Taken with
τίμα of v. 3, an allusion to the fifth commandment is possible when the way to
honor one’s parents is expressed in financial terms as one should honor God
the Father in a similar way (Prov 3:9–12). This tradition survives in both the nt
(Mark 7:9–13) and in later Jewish traditions (m. Naš. 3.1).
The argument from reciprocity may, however, draw from Greco-Roman tra-
ditions. ἀμοιβὰς ἀποδιδόναι belongs to benefaction language (2 Cor 6:13; Phil 4:15;
Harrison 2003: 325) and is natural in this context where parents are considered
to be the benefactors of their children (Aristotle, Eth. nic. 1161a; Seneca, Ben.
5.5.2; Philo, Spec. 2.229; cf. Peterman 1997: 192), though ἀμοιβὰς ἀποδιδόναι has
never been applied directly to πρόγονος in ancient literature. Greek traditions
have long emphasized the need for children to repay their parents (Xenophon,
Mem. 2.2.3) to the extent that imprisonment becomes a possibility for those
who did not (Lerat 1943: 62–86). The situation appears to be different in Roman
households, where the paterfamilias has complete financial control and there-
fore does not rely on his children, but widows who are without children would
be in most dire circumstances (Seneca, Marc. 19.2; Parkin 2003: 212–213).
The εὐσέβ-word group (cf. 2:2) is here applied to the caring of one’s parents
since it is an act that is pleasing to God. ἀπόδεκτον ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ can be
considered an abbreviated version of ἀπόδεκτον ἐνώπιον τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν θεοῦ
(2:3); if so, benefaction language used between children and parents is explic-
itly grounded in God the benefactor (τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν).

▪ 5 Preceded by a discussion of the material needs of the widows (v. 4) and

followed by a contrast to those who are able to live “an extravagant lifestyle”
(v. 6), the participle μεμονωμένη is best understood as a reference not simply
to social isolation, but one without the support of a network once provided by
her husband. The prepositional phrase ἀπ’ ἀνδρός is, therefore, likely implied
(see Pollux, Onom. 3.47.2; cf. χήρα, ἡ ἔρημος καὶ μονωθεῖσα, Philoxenus, Frag.
631.7).
The ἐλπίς word group first appears in 1:1, where God is presented as “our
Savior” (σωτῆρος ἡμῶν) and Christ Jesus as “our hope” (τῆς ἐλπίδος ἡμῶν, 1:1).
For the connection between God as savior (ὁ σωτήρ) and hope (ἡ ἐλπίς) see
Ps 64:6 (lxx). This connection between salvation and hope sheds light on the
use of ἤλπικεν in this verse: the true widow is the one who relies on God rather
than on human beings (even though her human relatives are called to support
her).
The call for real widows to dedicate themselves to prayers recalls the exam-
ples of Judith (Jdt 8:4–8; 11:17; 16:22) and Anna (Luke 2:36–37), and some have
5:3–16 319

read μεμονωμένη in light of such examples and therefore exclude any refer-
ence to financial needs (Wagener, 1994: 127–143). As noted above, however, this
ignores the context in which this verse is situated. The focus here is on the piety
of the real widows, rather than on limiting their Christian service to the private
sphere of prayers (Apos. Con. 3.1.4–5).

▪ 6 σπαταλάω carries connotations of “extravagant” and “intemperate” living

(LNd §88.252) that include the misuse of wealth and perhaps even sexual wan-
tonness, which is consistent with the portrayal of those who fail to adhere to
the true gospel (cf. 2:9; 5:11; 6:9–10). In its few occurrences in Greek literature,
this rare verb is used in contexts that do not merely mark the economic well-
being of individuals, but also their moral deficiency in their failure to live a
noble and self-controlled life (Polybius 36.17.7; Pseudo-Diogenes, Epist. 28). The
merging of the two senses can also be found in its two uses in the lxx, where
the one who lives in an extravagant lifestyle is depicted as a fool (Sir 21:15–16)
who is prone to committing lawless acts (Ezek 16:19–50). In its only other occur-
rence in the nt, indulging in wealth is likewise considered a moral failure listed
among other violent acts (James 5:1–6; cf. Rev 18:4–20). In the present context
of the first-century Ephesian community of believers, morality is not merely
defined in terms of private and individual ethical needs since wealth provides
justification for certain uses of power (cf. 2:9).
“Dead even though alive” (ζῶσα τέθνηκεν) reverses the common Pauline affir-
mations that we are alive even as we are dead/dying, in both soteriological (cf.
Rom 6:11, 13; 8:10–11; Eph 2:5) and missional (cf. 2 Cor 6:9) senses. As Timothy
and the real widows are to place their hope in the “living God” (θεῷ ζῶντι; 4:10;
cf. 5:5), these widows are to be considered “dead” (τέθνηκεν) without such a
hope.

▪ 7 The primary intended audience of ἀνεπίλημπτοι is likely the outsiders of the

church (cf. 3:2), as reinforced by ἔστιν ἀπίστου χείρων in v. 8. Nevertheless, in
light of the concentration of judgment language in this unit, a secondary ref-
erence to God cannot be ruled out, especially with the use of ἀνεπίλημπτος in
6:14 in view of the final appearance of Christ.
This secondary reference is important since Paul’s command for the church
to behave in a certain way does not merely aim at fulfilling the expectations of
others; ultimately it aims at seeking approval from God. As in 3:2, the focus is
not on “perfection” (contra Schwarz 1983: 45–46) but on an appropriate witness
before outsiders in view of God’s judgment. What is often considered as strate-
gies of accommodation (Page 1993: 115) serves a more fundamental missional
purpose (cf. 2:4; 3:13; 4:16).
320 1 timothy

▪ 8 The προνοέω/πρόνοια word group belongs to benefaction language (Dio

Chrysostom, 3 Regn. 50; Josephus, A.J. 7.259; Harrison 1998: 111–112) and should
be understood in light of the language of reciprocity in v. 4 (ἀμοιβὰς ἀποδιδόναι;
cf. ἀποδιδόντες-προνοούμενοι, Rom 12:17).
Contextual considerations argue for οἰκεῖος being a reference to the wider
community of believers. Elsewhere in Paul, it refers to members of the house-
hold of faith/God (Gal 6:10; Eph 2:19), and this usage fits well with these earlier
references (cf. M.-M. 440; contra Michel tdnt 5:134–135). Similar usages can
also be found in the lxx (cf. Isa 31:9; 2Macc 15:12). In contemporary Greek lit-
erature, it has been used in parallel with πολίτης (Plutarch, Ages. 3.5) and φίλος
(Plutarch, Mor. 559b; cf. Pseudo-Demosthenes, Callip. 15) as well as a general
reference to members of the same military unit (Appian Hist. rom. 5.13; 12.15)
and ethnic group (Josephus, B.J. 2.367). In light of the explicit identification of
the church as οἶκος θεοῦ in 3:15, οἰκεῖος should be understood in this wider sense.
The use of ἀρνέομαι with reference to ἡ πίστις denotes apostasy in early Chris-
tian usages (Heb 11:23; Rev 2:13). The severity of Paul’s warning directed against
those who fail to care for the real widows resembles that which is reserved
for the younger widows since both discredit his gospel and allow the false
teachings to flourish. Those who neglect the real widows have forsaken their
duty to the church and are, therefore, considered to be “worse than an unbe-
liever” because even pagans would provide for their own parents (cf. Cicero,
Off. 1.17.37).

▪ 9 καταλέγω can be used in the sense of “to enlist” or “to select” in reference to
military recruitment (Justin, 1 Apol. 39.5) or membership in a religious group
(P.Oxy. 416.4; bdag 520). Particularly relevant is Philo, Virt. 42, where individ-
uals are selected as moral examples, a usage that seems to parallel the present
wording here (cf. LaFosse 2011: 287).
The rationale for the precise age requirement (ἔλαττον ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα, with
ἔλαττον taking a genitive of comparison, bdf §185[4]) remains unclear. Julian’s
legislation demands widows and divorced women to be remarried by age fifty
so that they can bear children (Ulpian, Reg. 16), and the extension to age sixty
here may represent a more stringent requirement to limit the number or influ-
ence (D’Angelo 2003: 162) of these widows within the church, especially when
enlistment is assumed to an order of widows within the church. Nevertheless,
a younger contemporary Ephesian author considers sixty as the upper limit
for menopause (Soranus, Gyn. 1.20; cf. Amundsen and Diers 1970: 79–86), and
up to a third of the widows may be over the age of sixty in the early imperial
Roman period (Krause 1994: 67). For those who consider enlistment here as
related to the financial needs of the widows, age sixty may be a mark when
5:3–16 321

widows are less likely to earn a living (Towner, 246), though evidence for this
age limitation for employment is lacking.
More promising is the possibility that this age is considered the age when
widows are to be honored as examples in the community, which support our
understanding of the point of “enlistment” (see above). Age 60 has been con-
sidered the age requirement for priestesses (Plato, Leg. 759d; Spicq, 1.532), and
when wisdom and experience are expected to be demonstrated (Diodorus of
Sicily, Hist. 19.41.2; 30.20.1). The context of this present age requirement points
to the exemplary lives these older widows are to lead (v. 10) and argues for this
reading.
Together with μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα in 3:2, here ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή underlines the
importance of marital fidelity. To consider this a prohibition against remarriage
(Johnson, 264) and promotion of the Roman ideal of univira (Wagener 1994:
174–175) would contradict 5:14, which encourages younger widows to remarry
(unless these “younger widows” are limited to unmarried virgins; see comments
above). This marital fidelity reading is also consistent with the possibility that
ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή is rooted in ἑνὶ ἀνδρί of 2Cor 11:2, where the idea of purity is
underlined by παρθένον ἁγνήν that follows (cf. de la Potterie 1979: 619–638).

▪ 10 μαρτυρέω is often used for “strong commendation” (Acts 6:3; 10:22; 16:2; Rom
3:21; Yarbrough, 273) as is the case here. The reputation “for … good works” (ἐν
ἔργοις καλοῖς) repeats the concern for “good works” found throughout this let-
ter (2:10; 3:1; 5:25; 6:18). This does not merely apply to her past deeds (Mounce,
288), but it also provides a sample of deeds to be performed as an example for
those around her.
Some have taken ἐτεκνοτρόφησεν to refer to the rearing of others’ children
since the “real widows” are those who have no children who could take care
of them (cf. 5:4; Dibelius and Conzelmann, 75), but 5:4 simply rules out the
availability of adult children who are capable of taking care of these widows.
Moreover, the use of the related verb τεκνογονέω in 5:14 (cf. τεκνογονία, 2:15)
in reference to the household responsibility of the widows make it likely that
τεκνοτροφέω (a nt hapax) here refers to the raising of the widows’ own children
(cf. ig 12.5, 655.8; Horsley 1982: 194).
ἐξενοδόχησεν may refer to the hospitality shown to any guest (ξένος), includ-
ing those within (cf. Rom 16:23) and beyond (Eph 2:12) the community of believ-
ers, but the term “saints” (ἁγίων) clearly refers to believers (note the contrast
between “guests/foreigners” [ξένοι] and “the saints” [οἱ ἅγιοι] in Eph 2:19). The
verb ξενοδοχέω is also rare, but its Attic form (ξενοδοκέω) does appear a few
times when hospitality to strangers is connected with acts of piety towards
deities (Plato, Resp. 419a; Nicolaus of Damascus, Frag. 43.10).
322 1 timothy

ἁγίων πόδας ἔνιψεν may recall the practice of the Johannine community that
is also centered in Ephesus (cf. John 13:20), but in this case it is neither a mutual
act nor primarily an act that symbolizes the humble service of a leader for his
followers. Washing the feet of guests is often considered the service to be ren-
dered by a servant or a woman (Gen 18:4; 19:2; 24:32; 43:24; 1 Sam 25:41; Wagener
1994: 189), but it could also be an act of love rendered by a respectable member
of the community (LaFosse 2011: 311).
In Paul the verb θλίβω is always used in contexts of Christian suffering and
persecution (2Cor 1:6; 4:8; 7:5; 1Thess 3:4; 2Thess 1:6, 7), where the “oppressed”
(θλιβομένοις) are those persecuted for the sake of the gospel. Here, however, it
may refer to the caring for those who are in need instead. This general reference
is supported by the general nature of the verb ἐπαρκέω (cf. 5:16; see also 1 Macc
8:26; 11:35) and by the use of both verbs in Acts Thom 56.18 (ἐπαρκήσασαι τοῖς
τεθλιμμένοις) in reference to the care for the needy.
The concluding note again makes reference to “good works,” but the use of
ἀγαθός instead of καλός has been taken to distinguish “the everyday good works
performed willingly over a life time [sic] of service” from “the virtuous noble
deeds” of an old widow (LaFosse 2011: 312). The interchangeable use of these
two adjectives in this letter does not argue for this distinction, however. What
is noteworthy is the use of πᾶς that denotes the all-encompassing nature of the
good works of these widows.

▪ 11 The nt hapax καταστρηνιάω is absent from extant pre-nt Greek literature,

but the related στρηνιάω does appear in the nt (Rev 18:7, 9) for the leading of a
sensual and indulgent lifestyle (cf. στρῆνος, 2Kgs 19:28; Rev 18:3). A sexual con-
notation cannot be ruled out here, and the failure to remain faithful to God
has also been expressed in terms of sexual infidelity in the ot (Isa 50:1; Jer
3:1–4:4; Hos 1:2; 2:4; 3:1; 4:11–12; 6:10; cf. Moughtin-Mumby 2008: 49–116). This
link with the ot is strengthened if indeed the sensuous and immoral woman
of Rev 18:7–8 is modeled on the unfaithful widow of Isa 47:7–9 (Beale 1999:
903). It is, therefore, unnecessary to assume that Paul is here merely using the
ancient topos of “the sexually experienced, seductive widow” (Maier 2013: 175)
when marital infidelity is used in reference to their lack of faithfulness towards
Christ.
In light of v. 14, the “desire to marry” here that is led by “their passions [that]
lead them against Christ” should best be understood as violating the principle
of marrying “only in the Lord” (1Cor 7:39), which is breaking “their former faith.”
The mere use of the active θέλουσιν for the widows here may point to a devia-
tion from the honorable behavior of a respectable woman who is supposed to
be “given to marriage” (Luke 20:34–35; Malina and Pilch, 135).
5:3–16 323

▪ 12 ἀθετέω can be used for the nullification of an oath (1 Macc 6:62; Polybius
11.29.3) or the cancellation of a loan/contract (1 Macc 14:44–45; 2 Macc 13:25;
Polybius 12.12.1; P.Oxy. 1120; M.–M. 12). Here, it is used in a more general sense
of rejection (Isa 24:16; Jer 5:11; 15:16; Polybius 12.14.6; cf. Gal 2:21; 1 Thess 4:8) or
rebellion (1Kgs 12:19; 2Kgs 1:1; 24:20) where τὴν πρώτην πίστιν is taken in the
sense of their commitment to the Christ and the Christian faith; this reading,
in turn, supports the understanding of κρίμα as a reference to the divine judg-
ment.
The abandonment of the “faith” is a concern especially in the second part of
this letter, and, as such, τὴν πρώτην πίστιν ἠθέτησαν echoes and builds on both
ἀποστήσονταί τινες τῆς πίστεως (4:1) and τὴν πίστιν ἤρνηται (5:8), while anticipat-
ing notes of judgment for those who stray from this faith (6:10, 21).

▪ 13 ἀργαί (“idlers”) here can denote both the misuse of time (thus “lazy;” Matt
20:3, 6; Titus 1:12; cf. Sir 37:11) and therefore being unproductive (thus “useless;”
Matt 12:36; James 2:20; 2Pet 1:8; cf. Wis 14:5; 15:15). Those who consider lazi-
ness as the main concern consider this as a criticism against widows who do
not occupy themselves in the management of the households (Marshall, 602),
but in the immediate context being unproductive appears to be the main con-
cern since Paul criticizes them for occupying themselves with useless and false
teachings (Wagener 1994: 205–206).
The meaning of φλύαροι καὶ περίεργοι is also disputed. While many transla-
tions adopt the reading “gossips and busybodies,” φλύαροι is rarely used specif-
ically in reference to “gossipers.” It likely refers to “talkers of nonsense” rather
than merely those who spread rumors of a personal nature (φλυαρῶν; 3 John
10; Fee, 122), a reading that is evident in ancient literature (4 Macc 5:11; Jose-
phus, Vita 150; Strabo, Geogr. 1.2.7; Plutarch, Cic. 2.2; Epictetus, Diatr. 2.19). The
reading of “gossipers” may reinforce the ancient stereotype of women being
gossipers (cf. Rohrbaugh 2007: 126–128), while that of “talkers of nonsense”
shifts the focus to the concern with the false teachings.
περίεργοι, on the other hand, has been used in reference to those who prac-
tice magic (Acts 19:19; cf. P.Leid. 12; M.-M. 505) and has been understood in this
context as describing women who went around “engaging magical practices”
(Pieterson 2007: 31). περίεργοι can, however, take on a more general meaning
of being “meddlesome” (Apollonius of Tyana, Epist. 59; Plutarch, Ti. C. Gracch.
2.3; Dio Chrysostom, Rhod. 2), and λαλοῦσαι τὰ μὴ δέοντα that follows likewise
focuses on illegitimate verbal acts. Therefore, it is best to understand φλύαροι
καὶ περίεργοι as “talkers of nonsense and meddlers” without denying the pres-
ence of spiritual and religious overtones.
When φλύαροι is understood as “talkers of nonsense” rather than “gossipers,”
λαλοῦσαι τὰ μὴ δέοντα can have a more specific reference to the spread of false
324 1 timothy

teachings. If so, λαλέω here refers to acts of teaching, with the same verb used
in Titus 2:1, 15 in reference to the propagation of sound teaching (Wagener 1994:
206–207). As false teachers “must” (δεῖ) remain silent (Titus 1:11), these young
widows also must cease to speak of “the things that they should not” (τὰ μὴ
δέοντα).

▪ 14 The content of the three indirect commands, γαμεῖν, τεκνογονεῖν, and οἰκοδε-
σποτεῖν, are related to activities and relationships within the household. Those
who have taken ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή in v. 9 as a requirement for not remarrying
consider this call to marry directed to virgins who carry the label “widows”
(Trebilco, 526). This would further solve the apparent inconsistency with v. 11,
where the desire to marry (γαμεῖν θέλουσιν) appears to be discouraged. Never-
theless, neither verse demands these widows to be virgins if ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή
is taken in the sense of chastity and γαμεῖν θέλουσιν as the desire to marry an
unbeliever.
The nt hapax τεκνογονέω is extremely rare in contemporaneous Greek litera-
ture (cf. Appian, Bas. Frag. 1.2), and its nominal form (τεκνογονία) is consistently
used for the act of childbearing (see 2:15). οἰκοδεσποτέω, another nt hapax that
is also relatively rare in Greek literature, refers to the management of house-
holds and those carrying such responsibilities (cf. Josephus, C.Ap. 2.129), though
its nominal form, οἰκοδεσπότης, is quite common even in the nt (Matt 10:25;
13:27; 24:43; Mark 14:14; Luke 22:11).
Two reasons may lie behind this series of commands, though the second
would be more relevant in this context: (1) the proper management of the
household is a notable concern since believers met in homes (Rom 16:3, 5; 1 Cor
16:19) and the church is understood as the “household of God” (3:15); and (2)
the false teachers had apparently disrupted the running of the household by
their insistence on ascetic practices (2:15; 4:3). Earlier in this unit, families of
widows are told to be attentive to their household duties (vv. 4, 8), and now the
(younger) widows are told to fulfill their own responsibilities within the house-
hold.
λοιδορία is common in Greek literature, and it can be used in contexts of
blasphemy and insults where spiritual powers are involved within both pagan
(Agathon, Frag. 4.10) and Hellenistic Jewish (Philo, Decal. 75.3; Josephus, A.J.
3.299; B.J. 5.459; cf. Exod 17:7; Num 20:24) literature. In this context, it is Satan
“the slanderer” that is the focus of Paul’s warning.

▪ 15 The language used in this verse recalls the opening section of the body of
this letter, where indefinite pronouns are likewise applied to the false teachers
(cf. 1:3, 6) who have “gone astray” (ἐξετράπησαν) into empty talk (1:6). This con-
5:3–16 325

nection with the false teachers is reinforced by the reference to Satan in the
portrayal of those who have rejected the faith (1:20).

▪ 16 The “believing” women could be: (1) wealthy widows (Quinn and Wacker,
446) who are to take care of the younger ones. (2) The focus on women may
be due to the fact that some young widows have rejected the care of older
widows (i.e., their mothers or grandmothers), therefore causing disruption in
the running of the household and shifting the burden to the church (Fee, 124).
Related to this reading, (3) some see the possibility of the presence of some
“middle-aged women” who failed to support the older widows and provide
proper guidance to the younger ones (LaFosse 2011: 365). Though not explic-
itly named, these women are considered to be the primary audience of Paul’s
discourse here.
The previous two readings ([2] and [3]) are possible in light of the consis-
tent effort in combatting particular problems in the church in Ephesus. These
two specific possibilities can be combined with the final reading that provides a
more general background. (4) Paul may be addressing a wider group of “wealthy
women” who have the resources to take care of others. The nt text points to a
number of such women (Acts 16:14–15; Rom 16:1–2; 1 Cor 1:11), as is evident even
in this letter (2:9; 5:10; cf. Padgett 1987: 19–31). Limiting this call to women may
be due to the inappropriateness of men to take care of women in other house-
holds (Kelly, 121).

Bibliography
Amundsen, Darrel W., and Carol Jean Diers, “The Age of Menopause in Classical Greece
and Rome.” Human Biology 42 (1970): 79–86.
Beale, G.K. The Book of Revelation. nigtc. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999.
Capper, Brian. “The Palestinian Cultural Context of Earliest Christian Community of
Goods.” In The Book of Acts in Its Palestinian Setting. Ed. Richard Bauckham, 323–
356. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996.
D’Angelo, Mary R. “Εὐσέβεια: Roman Imperial Family Values and the Sexual Politics of
4Maccabees and the Pastorals.” BibInt 11 (2003): 139–165.
Galpaz-Feller, Pnina. “The Widow in the Bible and in Ancient Egypt.” zaw 120 (2008):
231–253.
Horsley, G.H.R. “Maria the Diakonos.” NewDocs 2 (1982): 193–195.
Jeremias, Joachim. Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus. Trans. F.H. Cave and C.H. Cave.
Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969.
Krause, Jens-Uwe. Verwitwung und Wiederverheiratung. Witwen und Waisen im römis-
chen Reich 1. Stuttgart: Steiner, 1994.
LaFosse, Mona Tokarek. “Age Matters: Age, Aging and Intergenerational Relationships
326 1 timothy

in Early Christian Communities, with a Focus on 1Timothy 5.” Ph.D. diss., University
of Toronto, 2011.
Lerat, Lucien. “Une loi de Delphes sur les devoirs des enfants envers leurs parents.”
RevPhil 17 (1943): 62–86.
Maier, Harry O. Picturing Paul in Empire: Imperial Image, Text and Persuasion in Colos-
sians, Ephesians and the Pastoral Epistles. London/New York: Bloomsbury, 2013.
Moughtin-Mumby, Sharon. Sexual and Marital Metaphors in Hosea, Jeremiah, Isaiah,
and Ezekiel. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.
Müller-Bardorff, J. “Zur Exegese von 1 Timotheus 5,3–16.” In Gott und die Götter. Ed.
G. Delling, 113–133. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1958.
Nickle, Keith F. The Collection: A Study in Paul’s Strategy. Naperville, IL: Allenson, 1966.
Page, Sydney. “Marital Expectations of Church Leaders in the Pastoral Epistles.” jsnt
50 (1993): 105–120.
Parkin, Tim G. Old Age in the Roman World. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press,
2003.
Pietersen, Lloyd K. “Women as Gossips and Busybodies? Another Look at 1 Timothy
5:13.” ltq 42 (2007): 19–35.
Potterie, Ignace de la. “‘Mari d’une seule femme,’ le sens théologique d’une formule
paulinienne.” In Paul de Tarse. Ed. L. de Lorenzi, 619–638. Rome: Abbaye de Saint
Paul, 1979.
Rohrbaugh, Richard L. The New Testament in Cross-Cultural Perspective. Eugene, OR:
Cascade, 2007.
Schüssler Fiorenza, Elisabeth. In Memory of Her. New York: Crossroad, 1983
Schwarz, Roland. Bürgerliches Christentum im Neuen Testament? Eine Studie zu Ethik,
Amt und Recht in den Pastoralbriefen. öbs 4. Klosterneuburg: Österreichisches Ka-
tholisches Bibelwerk, 1983.
Thurston, Bonnie Bowman. The Widows: A Women’s Ministry in the Early Church. Phila-
delphia: Fortress, 1989.
Tsuji, Manabu. “Persönliche Korrespondenz des Paulus: Zur Strategie der Pastoralbriefe
als Pseudepigraph.” nts 56 (2010): 253–272.
Wagener, Ulrike. Die Ordnung des »Hauses Gottes«: Der Ort von Frauen in der Ekklesi-
ologie und Ethik der Pastoralbriefe. wunt 2.65. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994.

5 Theological Analysis
This section builds on the ot emphasis on the care for widows (see above)
and grounds this discussion within the cosmic battle between God and Satan
and on an eschatological framework. Taking the “adversary” in v. 14 as a ref-
erence to Satan, this section does not simply aim at addressing the concerns
and expectations imposed by the outsiders, but it also locates the lifestyle
of the widows within the crossfire between God and Satan in their cosmic
5:3–16 327

battle (cf. Yarbro Collins 2011: 160). The explicit references to God (vv. 4, 5),
Christ (v. 11), and Satan (v. 15) are, therefore, significant rhetorical markers in
redirecting the attention to the theological horizon of this discussion. It is
this theological orientation that points to the underlying concern of this sec-
tion.
The reference to “hope” (v. 5) not only connects this section with the christo-
logical confession of this letter, where Christ himself is presented as “our hope”
(1:1), but it also recalls the note on hope in 4:10, where the discussion of Tim-
othy’s youth (4:11–16) is likewise situated within an eschatological framework.
In both sections, this hope subverts the social convention of the time as a new
structure of reality provides the foundation of one’s behavior in the present age.
This tradition is again grounded in the ot, where widows and orphans rest their
hope in God (cf. Ps 145:5, 9); as such, this transcends the Greco-Roman bene-
faction system that rests merely on the principle of reciprocity (Harrison 1998:
115–116). The reference to judgment (v. 12) further reinforces this eschatological
emphasis.
Even with this note on hope, however, benefaction language still plays an
important role. The call to “honor” (τίμα, v. 3) the widows places this section
firmly within such a discourse, as with the adoption of benefaction language
within it (cf. ἀμοιβὰς ἀποδιδόναι, v. 4; προνοέω, v. 8). As in 4:12 (μηδείς … κατα-
φρονείτω), honor-shame language is used to draw attention to the importance
of the marginal members within the community of believers: though they are
often located outside the center of power, they are the ones to be honored.
Moreover, as the young Timothy is to serve as an “example” (τύπος, v. 12) to those
around him, these widows are also to be “beyond reproach” (ἀνεπίλημπτοι, v. 7)
in the community.
It is in light of such use of benefaction language that subverts the social con-
vention of the time that the question of women in leadership should (again)
be addressed. This extensive discussion of the behavior expected of both the
older and younger widows has often been taken as an attempt to limit the
“social freedom” of these widows who exist apart from the traditional patriar-
chal household structure (cf. Bassler 1984: 23). The specific constraints placed
upon those to be enlisted (v. 11) have also been considered an attempt to limit
the influence of women in the church (Tamez 2007: 54–55). The latter assumes
the existence of a formal order of widows that plays a leadership role in the
church, an assumption that cannot be validated in the late first century ad.
The suggestion that Paul attempts to limit the social freedom of these widows
also underestimates the complexity of the social life of widows in the first and
second centuries. Studies on women in the early church have shown that they
have various avenues to exert power within and beyond their own communi-
328 1 timothy

ties (Hylen 2015: 66–67), and the restrictions imposed on those to be enlisted
are not a realistic measure to limit the influence of women in the church or in
their wider community.
Finally, Paul’s comments on marriage and remarriage within this section
(vv. 11, 14) have to be considered in light of his earlier comments in 1 Corinthians
7. Some consider this a pseudonymous attempt to revise Paul’s earlier posi-
tion by his later disciple (Merz 2007: 288–291), but this is to ignore both the
Corinthian and Ephesian contexts which these letters address. Moreover, even
within this section, the apparent tension between vv. 11 and 14 demands the
postulation of a particular scenario in which both can coexist (see comments
above). What is clear is that Paul desires younger widows to marry instead of
being led astray by their passion, a position also affirmed in 1 Cor 7:9, and to
marry within the believing community (v. 14), as affirmed in 1 Cor 7:39 (μόνον ἐν
κυρίῳ).

Bibliography
Bassler, Jouette. “The Widows’ Tale: A Fresh Look at 1 Tim 5:3–16.” jbl 103 (1984): 23–41.
Harrison, James R. “Benefaction Ideology and Christian Responsibility for Widows.”
NewDocs 8 (1998): 106–116.
Hylen, Susan E. A Modest Apostle: Thecla and the History of Women in the Early Church.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015.
Merz, Annette. “Amore Pauli: Das Corpus Pastorale und Das Ringen um die Interpreta-
tionshoheit bezüglich des paulinischen Erbes.” ThQ 187 (2007): 274–294.
Tamez, Elsa. Struggles for Power in Early Christianity. Trans. Gloria Kinsler. Mary-
knoll, NY: Orbis, 2007.
Yarbro Collins, Adela. “The Female Body as Social Space in 1 Timothy.” nts 57 (2011):
155–175.

C Elders (5:17–25)
1 Translation
17 Let the elders who lead well be considered worthy of double honor, namely
those who labor in speaking and teaching. 18 For the Scripture says, “Do not
muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain,” and, “The worker deserves his
wages.” 19 Do not accept an accusation against an elder, except on the testi-
mony of two or three witnesses. 20 As for those elders26 who are involved in
sin, rebuke them before everyone, in order that the rest might stand in fear. 21 I

26 The context makes it clear that Paul is addressing “the elders” who are sinning, see Gram-
matical Analysis.
5:17–25 329

charge you before God and Christ Jesus and the elect angels to follow these
directives without prejudice, doing nothing out of favoritism. 22 Do not lay
hands on anyone hastily, and do not participate in the sins of others. Keep your-
self pure. 23 Stop being just a water-drinker, but use a little wine for the sake of
your stomach and for your frequent illnesses. 24 The sins of some are obvious,
going before them into judgment, but the sins of others will follow them. 25
In the same way, good works are obvious, and even those that are not cannot
remain hidden.

2 Text-Critical Analysis
▪ 18 βοῦν ἀλοῶντα οὐ φιμώσεις: This reading adopted by na28 receives the
strongest support from witnesses from diverse textual traditions, including the
best Alexandrian witness (‫)א‬, a number of Western witnesses (D2 F G [it vgms;
Cl]), and the majority of the Byzantine manuscripts (K L pm 𝔐). A different
word order (οὐ φιμώσεις βοῦν ἀλοῶντα) can be found in an equally diverse group
of witnesses (A C I P Ψ 048 pc; Or Ambst), though they are inferior in both qual-
ity and quantity. This variant is likely an assimilation to the word order of lxx
Deut 25:4 (cf. Philo, Virt. 145.2: ἀλοῶντα … φιμώσεις).

▪ 18 τοῦ μισθοῦ: Contained in a quotation that is apparently taken from Luke

10:7, τοῦ μισθοῦ is supported by most witnesses except for ‫*א‬vid (ar* Cl), which
follows Matt 10:10 in having τῆς τροφῆς instead. The Lukan reading not only
receives overwhelming external support, but it is also confirmed by the possi-
ble awareness of the Lukan gospel elsewhere in the pe.

▪ 19 ἐκτὸς εἰ μὴ ἐπὶ δύο ἢ τριῶν μαρτύρων: This allusion to Deut 19:15 is omit-
ted in certain Latin witnesses (b Ambst Pel); if intentional, this may reflect
a later context when the authority of the church leaders was not to be ques-
tioned (cf. Elliott, 84; see also Opatrný 2016: 235–237). Its inclusion is not
only demanded by the overwhelming external support, but it also paves the
way for a further allusion to Deut 19:15–20 in 1Tim 5:20–25 (Fuller 1983: 258–
263).

▪ 20 τοὺς ἁμαρτάνοντας: δέ is inserted after τούς in a number of mostly West-

ern witnesses (A D* [F G] 1175 it vgmss Ambst), and Westcott-Hort places it
within brackets in the main text. This insertion may reflect an attempt to avoid
the asyndeton (Elliott, 214)). Its omission is preferred, especially in light of the
strong external evidence.
330 1 timothy

▪ 21 Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ: The order is inverted (Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ) in a few witnesses (F Ψ

1175 1739 1881 boms), but Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ is supported by significant Alexandrian
(‫ א‬A) and Western (D* G latt Cl) witnesses. Moreover, this is the natural order
for this genitival construction where the case of Χριστοῦ is shown unambigu-
ously (1:1, 2; 4:6; 6:13; cf. Elliott, 201). The longer reading with the inclusion of
the christological title in κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ is clearly secondary, though sup-
ported by many late and primarily Byzantine manuscripts (D2 K L P pm 𝔐) and
versions (syp [hl] goth arm eth).

▪ 21 πρόσκλισιν: A significant number of witnesses from diverse textual tradi-

tions (A D L P Ψ 33 1739 pm 𝔐) read πρόσκλησιν instead, possibly due to itacism.
The two are likely orthographical variants (M.-M.; bdag).

▪ 23 τὸν στόμαχον: Some Western (D2 F G vg) and Byzantine (K L pm 𝔐) wit-

nesses inserted σου after τὸν στόμαχον, which was considered original by some
since “parts of the body are often qualified by possessives in the N.T.” (Eliott, 86;
cf. Kilpatrick, 7). Nevertheless, Alexandrian (‫ א‬A) and selected Western (D* b
m* r vgmss Ambst) witnesses provide stronger support for its omission, and the
appearance of this personal pronoun later in the verse suggests its inclusion
here may be redundant.

▪ 25 ὡσαύτως καί: δέ is inserted after ὡσαύτως in A F G 81 ar mc vgmss, perhaps

influenced by Rom 8:26, though the combination ὡσαύτως δὲ καί is otherwise
uncommon in Paul (cf. ὡσαύτως καί, 1Cor 11:25; 1 Tim 2:9; Elliott, 214). Its omis-
sion is supported by the best witnesses in various textual traditions (‫ א‬D 1739
1881 pm 𝔐 lat sy).

▪ 25 πρόδηλα: This ellipsis is supported primarily by the Alexandrian (‫ א‬A 044

1739 1881) witnesses, while many Western (D F G 33 424* 1243 1720 it vg Or) wit-
nesses added the plural εἰσί(ν) after πρόδηλα, and Byzantine (K L M 69 131 𝔐
Chr) witnesses preferred the singular ἐστί(ν). The external evidence seems to
favor the omission of εἶναι, though ellipsis is slightly more common in Atticist
literature (Elliott, 87). If the inclusion of a form of εἶναι is preferred, it is eas-
ier to imagine a scribal change from εἰσί(ν) to ἐστί(ν), which is expected after a
neuter plural (Hippolytus, Phil. 4.28.5; Gregory of Nyssa, Hom. 15.6).

▪ 25 δύνανται: Instead of the plural δύνανται, some witnesses (‫ א‬F G L 6 326 1739
pm) read the singular δύναται, likely to conform to Attic usage where a neuter
plural subject takes a singular verb (bdf §133).
5:17–25 331

Bibliography
Fuller, J. William. “Of Elders and Triads in 1Timothy 5.19–25.” nts 29 (1983): 258–263.
Opatrný, Dominik. “Theologically Significant Textual Variants in the Pastoral Epistles.”
In The Process of Authority: The Dynamics of Transmission and Reception of Canoni-
cal Texts. Ed. Jan Dušek and Jan Roskovec, 229–239. dcls 27. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2016.

3 Grammatical Analysis
The transitional paragraph in 5:1–2 points to the treatment of the old and the
young, with the call for the proper treatment of younger and older women
(πρεσβυτέρας, νεωτέρας, v. 2) introducing vv. 3–16, and the call for the proper
treatment of “older men” (πρεσβυτέρῳ, v. 1) being picked up here in v. 17 with
the discussion of the “elders” (οἱ … πρεσβύτεροι). The intense use of present
imperatives in the previous unit (vv. 3, 4, 7, 9, 11, 16 [2×]) continues in this unit
(vv. 17, 19, 20, 22 [3×], 23 [2×]). Both begin with the naming of the subject of the
respective units (χήρας, v. 3; οἱ … πρεσβύτεροι, v. 17), and both begin with a call
to honor (τίμα, v. 3; διπλῆς τιμῆς ἀξιούσθωσαν, v. 17) those within their respective
categories that deserve to be honored (τὰς ὄντως χήρας, v. 3; οἱ καλῶς προεστῶτες
πρεσβύτεροι, v. 17).
While all commentators agree on the starting point of this unit (v. 17), its end-
ing point is less than clear. The apparent awkwardness of the personal advice
for Timothy to drink wine in v. 23 following the call to keep himself pure in
v. 22 has prompted some to see a break in v. 21, with vv. 22–25 as “Miscella-
neous admonitions” (Miller, 86; cf. vv. 23–25; Oberlinner, 1.261). Though v. 23
has often been considered “altogether mystifying” (Johnson, 281), its inclusion
in this wider unit may not be as awkward as it initially appears to be. First, many
consider this to be a warning against an extreme form of ascetic behavior pro-
moted by the false teachers (Krause, 113), and it fits well within the structure
of this unit, which highlights the issue of sinfulness even among leaders of the
community (see below).
Second, this additional note on drinking wine may also serve to qualify Paul’s
call to purity in v. 22. Arguing against strict abstinence that may threaten one’s
health, Paul may intend this additional note to clarify what he meant by purity
(cf. Marshall, 623) and to distinguish himself from the forms of asceticism that
he opposes (Delbridge 2001: 243).
Beyond the repeated use of the present imperatives and the general con-
cern with the behavior of the elders, the structure of this unit also provides
cohesion. A chiastic structure can be identified here, and at the center of this
structure is the responsibility of Timothy (Meier 1973: 336, who instead labels
v. 23 a “digression”):
332 1 timothy

Elders who are to be honored (vv. 17–18)

Elders who are to be rebuked (vv. 19–20)

Responsibility of Timothy (vv. 21–23)

Sins of the elders who are to be rebuked (v. 24)

Good works of the elders who are to be honored (v. 25)

Several observations can be made in regard to this structure. First, honor and
shame language dominate this section (καλῶς, v. 17; τιμῆς, v. 17; ἀξιούσθωσαν,
v. 17; τοὺς ἁμαρτάνοντας, v. 20; ἔλεγχε, v. 20; ἁμαρτίαις, v. 22; ἁγνόν, v. 22; αἱ
ἁμαρτίαι, v. 24; τὰ ἔργα τὰ καλά, v. 25), binding both the positive and nega-
tive statements together. The concern for honoring/affirming the behavior of
some while shaming/criticizing the behavior of others may point to a more
specific context of this unit as Paul confronts the community of believers in
first-century Ephesus. This may, in turn, explain the inclusion of the odd say-
ing in v. 23.
Second, the center section (vv. 21–23) that is dominated by second-person
verbs (φυλάξῃς, v. 21; ἐπιτίθει, v. 22; κοινώνει, v. 22; τήρει, v. 22; ὑδροπότει, v. 23;
χρῶ, v. 23) highlights how Paul’s concerns for the elders are also aimed at Timo-
thy, who is to implement his commands. Nevertheless, the sections that bracket
this central section are dominated by third-person plural verbs that draw atten-
tion to the work of the elders (ἀξιούσθωσαν, v. 17; ἔχωσιν, v. 20; ἐπακολουθοῦσιν,
v. 24; δύνανται, v. 25).
Third, this structure is based primarily on verbal and semantic patterns.
Syntactically, this unit consists mainly of asyndetic clauses, with only v. 18
being introduced by a conjunction (γάρ). This stands in contrast to the more
complex and intentional structure in the previous unit. Perhaps the use of
scriptural sayings in v. 18 and possibly also a preformed tradition in vv. 24–
25 (cf. Yarbrough 2009: 122–125) may contribute to the final form of this unit.
Even the isolated statements in vv. 20–22 may find their connection when read
in light of Deut 19:15–20, with the focus on justice and the deterring effect
of a just judgment, warnings against partiality, and the evocation of the “tri-
adic high court” (the Lord, priests, and judges in Deut 19:17 corresponding
to God, Christ Jesus, and the elect angels in 1 Tim 5:21; cf. Fuller 1983: 258–
263). Behind this collection of sayings is an intentionality that can still be
detected.
5:17–25 333

▪ 17 Οἱ καλῶς προεστῶτες πρεσβύτεροι διπλῆς τιμῆς ἀξιούσθωσαν, μάλιστα οἱ κοπι-

ῶντες ἐν λόγῳ καὶ διδασκαλίᾳ. Οἱ … πρεσβύτεροι point back to πρεσβυτέρῳ of v. 1
and undoubtedly refer to those who are advanced in age. In this context, how-
ever, this label should best be understood as a reference to the leaders of the
church (see Historical Analysis).
The prominently placed καλῶς προεστῶτες introduces this section as one
that is not focused on an abstract discussion of the elders, but one that con-
trasts the honorable ones with those to be rebuked. This contrast is further
foregrounded by the use of the perfect προεστῶτες. The meaning of τιμῆς is
disputed, with many taking it merely as a reference to financial remuneration,
primarily because of the use of διπλῆς and the support by the two scriptural say-
ings in v. 18 (Roloff, 308; Johnson, 277–278). Nevertheless, the use of τιμάω/τιμή
in this letter always refers primarily to respect and honor rather than to finan-
cial or material remuneration (1:17; 6:1, 16; cf. 5:3). Moreover, the context is
saturated with honor language (καλῶς, ἀξιούσθωσαν), and no financial conse-
quence is applied to the group contrasted with this group that is to be honored
(τοὺς ἁμαρτάνοντας, v. 20).
The use of the third-person imperative ἀξιούσθωσαν draws attention to both
the persons to be honored as well as to Timothy, who is to implement this act
of honoring (cf. Fantin, Greek Imperative, 269–270). This paves the way for the
focus on Timothy in vv. 21–23. As in 4:10 and 5:8, μάλιστα here should best be
taken as a marker of explanation and identification (“namely”); therefore, οἱ
κοπιῶντες ἐν λόγῳ καὶ διδασκαλίᾳ provides the definition of οἱ καλῶς προεστῶτες
πρεσβύτεροι. Those who reject this reading point to the absence of the mention-
ing of the ruling function of elders (Kim 2004: 365–368), but this absence can
be explained by the contextual concerns of Paul since his focus throughout this
letter is on false teachings that threaten the Ephesian community of believers.

▪ 18 λέγει γὰρ ἡ γραφή· βοῦν ἀλοῶντα οὐ φιμώσεις, καί· ἄξιος ὁ ἐργάτης τοῦ μισθοῦ
αὐτοῦ. γάρ introduces a clause that strengthens the one that precedes. The
present tense λέγει grammaticalizes imperfective aspect, as is expected in a
quotation formula (contra Mounce, 310). βοῦν ἀλοῶντα οὐ φιμώσεις quotes from
Deut 25:4 with a slight change in the word order (οὐ φιμώσεις βοῦν ἀλοῶντα;
cf. Philo, Virt. 145). Whereas the original order is preserved in 1 Cor 9:9 (which
Roloff, 309, considers to be the basis of this quotation), the change made here
may be intended to draw attention to the ox, which represents the elders who
are faithful in their duties. The function of the future φιμώσεις as a command
may reflect Semitic influences (Porter, Verbal Aspect, 419).
ἄξιος ὁ ἐργάτης τοῦ μισθοῦ αὐτοῦ closely resembles Luke 10:7 (ἄξιος γὰρ ὁ ἐργά-
της τοῦ μισθοῦ αὐτοῦ; cf. ἄξιος γὰρ ὁ ἐργάτης τῆς τροφῆς αὐτοῦ, Matt 10:10). Some
334 1 timothy

who do not see Paul citing Luke as Scripture (ἡ γραφή) would argue that this
combination quotation parallels that of Mark 1:2, where the head noun (“Isa-
iah”) only modifies a part of the quotation, and therefore ἡ γραφή only applies to
the quote from Deut 25:4 (Fee, 134; cf. Oberlinner, 1.255). Nevertheless, a closer
parallel can be found in other passages where a quotation formula + saying
+ καί + saying points to the quotation of two scriptural passages (Mark 7:10;
Acts 1:20; Heb 1:8–10; see also 2Tim 2:19; Wolfe 2010: 213–215). Moreover, instead
of an afterthought, ἄξιος ὁ ἐργάτης τοῦ μισθοῦ αὐτοῦ appears to be the more
important of the two quotations, as it is verbally linked with ἀξιούσθωσαν of
v. 17 (Meier 1999: 76). It is best to consider Paul as quoting from Luke here (see
Historical Analysis), which is considered on the same level as the ot text, as ἡ
γραφή.

▪ 19 κατὰ πρεσβυτέρου κατηγορίαν μὴ παραδέχου, ἐκτὸς εἰ μὴ ἐπὶ δύο ἢ τριῶν μαρτύ-

ρων. The placement of κατὰ πρεσβυτέρου draws attention to the thematic sub-
ject of this unit. παραδέχου starts a series of present imperatives in this unit, all
of them grammaticalizing imperfective aspect as is appropriate in general com-
mands. The pleonastic ἐκτὸς εἰ μή is not unexpected in Hellenistic Greek (cf.
the classical εἰ μή in 2Cor 12:5; Gal 1:7; Turner, Syntax, 321), as is evidenced by its
three appearances in the nt (1Cor 14:5; 15:2; 1Tim 5:19; Moule, Idiom, 83), though
it occurs only here without an explicit verb. With the implied ἐστίν, ἐκτὸς εἰ μὴ
ἐπὶ δύο ἢ τριῶν μαρτύρων modifies the independent clause that precedes.
ἐπί is used in reference to an appearance before a ruling authority (1 Tim 6:13)
or, in this case, before witnesses (Winer, Grammar, 469; cf. Abel, Grammaire,
§ 50u, “on the testimony of”; cf. Deut 19:15).

▪ 20 Τοὺς ἁμαρτάνοντας ἐνώπιον πάντων ἔλεγχε, ἵνα καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ φόβον ἔχωσιν. Tak-
ing τοὺς ἁμαρτάνοντας as a reference to some of the elders, this verse lies at the
heart of Paul’s command for Timothy in dealing with those elders who are to
be shamed. The function of ἐνώπιον is also comparable to that of ἐπί in the pre-
vious clause, and both reappear in 1Tim 6:13 with similar function (ἐνώπιον τοῦ
θεοῦ … ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου). In the clause that follows, one finds the reappear-
ance of ἐνώπιον followed by a ἵνα-clause. These three clauses point to the grave
responsibility of Timothy in dealing with the problems among the leaders of
his community.
Though often taken to express an ongoing act (Fee, 134; Mounce, 312), the
tense of the present participle ἁμαρτάνοντας does not demand this (cf. Kelly,
127). A prior sin act cannot be ruled out when Paul calls Timothy to provide
the proper response. Reading ἐνώπιον πάντων with ἐπὶ δύο ἢ τριῶν μαρτύρων of
the previous clause, and both in light of 6:13, this phrase should best be taken
5:17–25 335

as modifying ἔλεγχε, thus denoting a public rebuke. The present imperative

ἔλεγχε can be taken in the sense of “rebuke for the sake of correction” (cf. Lev
19:17; Kugel 1987: 32–61), and its repeated uses with παρακαλέω in the pe (2 Tim
4:2; Titus 1:9; 2:15) may support this nuance. On the other hand, the sense of
“expose” cannot be excluded, especially with the use of ἐνώπιον πάντων here
(see Historical Analysis).
ἵνα introduces a purpose clause, while the conjunction καί marks οἱ λοιποί
with prominence (Titrud 1991: 4), as it is compared primarily with τοὺς ἁμαρτά-
νοντας. If ἐνώπιον πάντων refers to the entire community of believers instead of
merely “all” the elders, then this public admonition would also have an effect
on those within this entire community.

▪ 21 Διαμαρτύρομαι ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ καὶ τῶν ἐκλεκτῶν ἀγγέλων,
ἵνα ταῦτα φυλάξῃς χωρὶς προκρίματος, μηδὲν ποιῶν κατὰ πρόσκλισιν. The first-
person διαμαρτύρομαι underlines the solemnity of Paul’s charge (cf. 2 Tim 2:14;
4:1), and with μαρτύρων of v. 19 it may again evoke a law-court setting (thus also
προκρίματος). Although the shift to Timothy’s responsibility can already be felt
in the use of second-person imperatives in vv. 19–20, the direct and solemn
charge to Timothy in this clause points to the shift of attention from those who
sin to Timothy’s responsibility to minister to them.
The Granville Sharp’s rule may not apply to τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ
because of the use of personal names (Wallace 2009: 233) unless Χριστοῦ is
taken as a title and separated from Ἰησοῦ. The phrase τῶν ἐκλεκτῶν ἀγγέλων is
unique in the biblical text and its inclusion may fulfill the requirement of the
three witnesses (v. 19).
As in the previous verse, the main clause is followed by a ἵνα-clause. Many
take the ἵνα as introducing an object clause (Wallace, Grammar, 475), while oth-
ers consider this as a possible example of an “imperatival ἵνα clause” (Huffman,
Verbal Aspect, 233). This distinction may be an arbitrary one that finds its root
in a diachronic analysis since ἵνα often functions as a flexible marker to indi-
cate intentionality and desire (Sim 2006: 4, 9). Moreover, διαμαρτύρομαι does
not usually take an object clause introduced by ἵνα (cf. 2 Tim 2:14; 4:1–2), and
in the διαμαρτύρηται … ἵνα construction of Luke 16:28, ἵνα introduces a purpose
clause instead. μηδὲν ποιῶν further modifies φυλάξῃς and functions as a sec-
ondary charge for Timothy not to show favoritism.

▪ 22 χεῖρας ταχέως μηδενὶ ἐπιτίθει μηδὲ κοινώνει ἁμαρτίαις ἀλλοτρίαις· σεαυτὸν ἁγνὸν
τήρει. The first two clauses linked by μηδενὶ … μηδέ provide specific definition
for the more general and positive command contained in the third clause,
σεαυτὸν ἁγνὸν τήρει. The two negated present imperatives (μηδενὶ ἐπιτίθει …
336 1 timothy

μηδὲ κοινώνει) in this context are prime examples that negated present imper-
atives should not always be rendered as the cessation of the progression of an
act (Porter, Verbal Aspect, 358; cf. Moulton, Prolegomena, 124–125). Here, the
present (negated) imperatives issue general commands (“make it your prac-
tice not to do,” Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 337), though not necessarily continuous
ones.
μηδέ can be taken as introducing a second clause that aims at “spelling out
the consequences” of the first (Mounce, 318). The other examples in the pe fail
to confirm this narrow reading, however (cf. 1Tim 1:4; 6:17; 2 Tim 1:8), though
contextual concerns may support this reading here. It is best to consider μηδέ
as introducing another closely linked idea, especially when it is preceded by a
related negative particle or adjective, as μηδενὶ … μηδέ does here (cf. μὴ … μηδέ,
6:17).
The final clause σεαυτὸν ἁγνὸν τήρει is surprising since one would have
expected Paul to focus on the purity of the community rather than Timothy
himself, as marked by the emphatic reflexive pronoun σεαυτόν. Nevertheless,
its use points again to the twin foci of this unit: the treatment of the elders as
well as Timothy’s own responsibility.

▪ 23 Μηκέτι ὑδροπότει, ἀλλὰ οἴνῳ ὀλίγῳ χρῶ διὰ τὸν στόμαχον καὶ τὰς πυκνάς σου
ἀσθενείας. Instead of a digression, this verse fits well within its present con-
text when the focus of this subunit is on Timothy’s responsibility and behavior
(vv. 21–23). This subunit is characterized by the repeated use of second-person
singular verbs (φυλάξῃς, v. 21; ἐπιτίθει, v. 22; κοινώνει, v. 22; τήρει, v. 22; ὑδροπότει,
v. 23; χρῶ, v. 23) as well as words with the embedded μή (μηδέν, v. 21; μηδενί, v. 22;
μηδέ, v. 22; μηκέτι, v. 23). Moreover, all three verses within this unit contain pro-
hibitions that strengthen the force of the positive commands (φυλάξῃς … μηδὲν
ποιῶν κατὰ πρόσκλισιν, v. 21; μηδενὶ ἐπιτίθει μηδὲ κοινώνει … σεαυτὸν ἁγνὸν τήρει,
v. 21; μηκέτι ὑδροπότει, ἀλλὰ οἴνῳ ὀλίγῳ χρῶ, v. 23).
By itself, the present imperative ὑδροπότει with μηκέτι does not convey the
sense of “stop doing so” (contra Moulton, Prolegomena, 124–125), but in this
context, it does call Timothy to stop being a “water-drinker.” The distinction
between ὑδροποτεῖν (“to be a water-drinker”) and ὕδωρ πίνειν (“to drink water”)
is an important one since the former denotes one who exclusively drinks water,
while the latter does not without the presence of μόνον (Winer, Grammar, 624).
ἀλλὰ οἴνῳ ὀλίγῳ χρῶ confirms the meaning of ὑδροπότει as a reference to being
an exclusive water-drinker. The contrastive function served by ἀλλά could be
further defined as one of “correction” rather than “contradiction” (see Heckert,
Discourse, 21), and διὰ τὸν … τὰς … provides the basis for this correction.
5:17–25 337

▪ 24 Τινῶν ἀνθρώπων αἱ ἁμαρτίαι πρόδηλοί εἰσιν προάγουσαι εἰς κρίσιν, τισὶν δὲ καὶ
ἐπακολουθοῦσιν· The final two verses of this unit provide further support for
Paul’s earlier call to Timothy not to lay hands on these elders “hastily” (ταχέως,
v. 22), and these two verses connected by the comparative adverb ὡσαύτως
present the similar fate of those who commit sins and those who do good
works. Both verses contain πρόδηλοι, and both end with a third-person present
indicative verb (ἐπακολουθοῦσιν, v. 24; δύνανται, v. 25). τινῶν ἀνθρώπων and εἰσίν
explicit in this verse have to be supplied for its parallel clause in the next verse,
thus [τινῶν ἀνθρώπων] τὰ ἔργα τὰ καλὰ πρόδηλα [εἰσιν].
The use of the enclitic τινῶν as an indefinite pronoun at the beginning of the
sentence is not unusual (Matt 27:47; Luke 6:2; John 13:29; Phil 1:15; Robertson,
Grammar, 235). This plural indefinite pronoun is consistently used in this letter
in reference to the false teachers and their followers (1:6, 19; 4:1; 5:15; 6:10, 21).
The developmental δέ points to the contrast to the previous clause, while
καί sets up this second clause in parallel processing with the first (cf. Heckert,
Discourse, 55). Some sins are immediately apparent, while others are not.

▪ 25 ὡσαύτως καὶ τὰ ἔργα τὰ καλὰ πρόδηλα, καὶ τὰ ἄλλως ἔχοντα κρυβῆναι οὐ δύναν-
ται.
With ὡσαύτως marking the two clauses in this verse for parallel processing
with the verse that precedes, τὰ ἄλλως ἔχοντα should be understood as a contrast
to πρόδηλα rather than τὰ ἔργα τὰ καλὰ, and therefore referring to “good deeds
[that] fail at present to attract the attention they deserve” (Kelly, 130) rather
than “deeds that are not good” (Johnson, 283, italics his). The aorist infinitive
κρυβῆναι grammaticalizes perfective aspect and is particularly appropriate in
the portrayal of an act that will not materialize.

Bibliography
Delbridge, Mary Lynnette, “‘Family’ as a Problem for New Religious Movements: The
Pastoral Epistles’ Collaboration with the Greco-Roman Household.” Ph.D. diss.,
Union Theological Seminary, 2001.
Fuller, J. William. “Of Elders and Triads in 1Timothy 5. 19–25.” nts 29 (1983): 258–263.
Hutson, Christopher R. “My True Child: The Rhetoric of Youth in the Pastoral Epistles.”
Ph.D. diss., Yale University, 1997.
Irwin, Brian P. “The Laying on of Hands in 1Timothy 5:22: A New Proposal.” bbr 18
(2008): 123–129.
Kim, Hong Bom. “The Interpretation of μαλιστα in 1 Timothy 5:17.” NovT 46 (2004):
360–368.
Kugel, James L. “On Hidden Hatred and Open Reproach: Early Exegesis of Leviticus
19:17.” htr 80 (1987): 32–61.
338 1 timothy

Meier, John P. “Presbyteros in the Pastoral Epistles.” cbq 35 (1973): 323–345.

Meier, John P. “The Inspiration of Scripture: But What Counts as Scripture?”Mid-Stream
38 (1999): 71–78.
Sim, Margaret Gavin. “A Relevance Theoretic Approach to the Particle Ἵνα in Koine
Greek.” Ph.D. diss., University of Edinburgh, 2006.
Wallace, Daniel B. Granville Sharp’s Canon and Its Kin. sbg 14. New York: Peter Lang,
2009.
Wolfe, B. Paul. “The Sagacious Use of Scripture.” In Entrusted with the Gospel: Paul’s
Theology in the Pastoral Epistles. Ed. Andreas J. Köstenberger and Terry L. Wilder,
199–218. Nashville: B&H Academic, 2010.
Yarbrough, Mark M. Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy. lnts 417.
London: T & T Clark, 2009.

4 Historical Analysis
In this context, οἱ … πρεσβύτεροι that points back to πρεσβυτέρῳ of v. 1 is likely
identical or closely related to the overseers of 3:1–7. First, the use of the verb
προΐστημι here points to the ones in a leadership position, such as the overseers
of 3:4, 5. Second, the description of the elders in Titus 1:5–9 resembles that of
the overseers in 1Tim 3:1–7, and in Titus, both πρεσβυτέρους (1:5) and τὸν ἐπίσκο-
πον (1:7) appear in the same unit and are likely used in reference to the same
group. Third, the reference to teaching (κοπιῶντες ἐν λόγῳ καὶ διδασκαλίᾳ) is also
consistent with the description of the overseers, who are to be gifted in teach-
ing (διδακτικόν, 3:2). Finally, in Acts 20:17 and 28, the two labels also appear to
be interchangeable.
πρεσβύτεροι is a familiar term in Jewish society. Though no synagogue has
been identified from first-century Ephesus, πρεσβύτεροι and ἀρχισυνάγωγοι do
appear in a first-century inscription (IEph 1251; Horsley 1987: 215) pointing
to the prominence of these titles within the Jewish community. It remains
unclear, however, whether the Pauline elders modeled directly on their Jewish
counterparts (cf. Harvey 1974: 318–332).
The unclear structure and eclectic nature of its content point to the ad hoc
nature of this section. Some would argue for the presence of a preformed tra-
dition in vv. 24–25, where one finds a set of “paraenetic proverbs” serving as
the conclusion of the section (Yarbrough 2009: 122–125). The use of preformed
tradition is less clear in the first half with the exception of the explicit use of
scriptural traditions in v. 18. The influence of Scripture does, however, extend to
v. 19 with the note on “two or three witnesses” (Deut 17:6; 19:15), while the wider
influence of Deut 19:15–20 may be also detected behind vv. 20–25 with parallel
concerns for justice and the judicial processes (Fuller 1983: 258–263).
5:17–25 339

▪ 17 A number of reasons may explain the use of the term πρεσβύτεροι instead of
ἐπίσκοποι here. First, in this wider section where Paul is dealing with age-related
matters in dealing with youths (4:11–16), younger and older widows (5:1–16),
and older men (5:17–25), the use of age-related labels is not unexpected. Sec-
ond, while 3:1–7 focuses on the qualifications of these leaders, 5:17–25 focuses
on their treatment by one who is younger (i.e., Timothy). Some have made a
further distinction between overseers who may be wealthy benefactors versus
these elders who may need financial assistance (cf. Kidd, 107–108), but this dis-
tinction depends heavily on one reading of διπλῆς τιμῆς.
προΐστημι is best understood in the sense of providing leadership or proper
management of the household (of God), which includes protection and care,
as it is elsewhere used in Paul (see 1Tim 3:5; cf. Rom 12:8; 1 Thess 5:12). In this
work, it is used with the adverb καλῶς to denote effective leadership and man-
agement of the household (3:4, 12) and likewise should be understood in this
sense here (rather than “carrying out a fuller range of duties,” Marshall, 612).
Taking μάλιστα in the sense of “namely” (cf. 4:10; 5:8), to “lead well” is further
defined by their commitment to laboring in “speaking and teaching.”
Extending from contextual arguments noted above, the use of διπλῆς τιμῆς
does not necessarily demand a material reading (cf. Aelius Aristides, Rhet. 81.8),
and in this context διπλῆς can simply refer to the weightiness of the honor
bestowed (Matt 23:15; Rev 18:6) based on the principle of reciprocity often
found in the earlier Paul (Rom 15:26–27; 16:1–2; 1 Cor 9:3–11; 2 Cor 8:8–9; Har-
rison 2003: 342). This is not to rule out the inclusion of the material expression
of such an honor; reading διπλῆς τιμῆς in the sense of “twofold honor” (i.e.,
“respect” and “remuneration” Fee, 129) is, however, unnecessary.
The use of the underlying principle behind the scriptural sayings in the next
clause also does not demand a material reading. Moreover, the financial con-
straints of the local community of believers noted in the discussion of the
widows (vv. 3–8, 16) argue against the call to “double pay” these elders, and the
absence of evidence for paid leadership in the first century further challenges
a primarily material reading (cf. Fiore, 111).
An exclusive reference to financial compensation also stands in tension
with Paul’s own example as one who demands no such compensation (2 Thess
3:7–10; cf. Acts 20:33–35; cf. Redalié 2008: 87–108). Leaders of early Christian
communities were often self-sufficient householders who did not lack finan-
cial resources (see Zamfir, 113–114 for further discussion on benefactors paying
an honorarium [summa honoraria] upon entering office) unless one postu-
lates that the church has already moved out from a household setting to a
public space beyond the patronage of these householders (cf. Capper 2005:
311).
340 1 timothy

The verb κοπιάω here is used in reference to the labor for the gospel min-
istry (4:10; cf. Rom 16:6, 12; 1Cor 4:12; Gal 4:11; Eph 4:28; Phil 2:16), while ἐν λόγῳ
καὶ διδασκαλίᾳ recalls the positive reference to τοῖς λόγοις τῆς πίστεως καὶ τῆς
καλῆς διδασκαλίας (1Tim 4:6) as well as the warning in regard to that which
does not agree with ὑγιαίνουσιν λόγοις τοῖς τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ
τῇ κατ’ εὐσέβειαν διδασκαλίᾳ (6:3), though the connection between λόγος and
διδασκαλία is a familiar one (cf. Josephus, A.J. 3.5; 4.264). In light of the present
concern in regard to the false teachings, this formulation does not address the
issue as to whether every elder has the responsibility to teach or not; neverthe-
less, it appears that this is assumed if μάλιστα is taken in the sense of “namely,”
especially given the ability to teach is among the qualifications for the over-
seers/elders (3:2; Keller 1999: 49).

▪ 18 βοῦν ἀλοῶντα οὐ φιμώσεις is a quotation from Deut 25:4 with a different

word order (see Grammatical Analysis). The use of the same text in 1 Cor 9:9
for the financial support of Christian workers does not limit its use here in this
present context. In 1Corinthians 9, Paul makes it clear that he is limiting his
application to the area of financial or material support (φαγεῖν καὶ πεῖν, 9:4; τὰ
σαρκιά, 9:11), an application that appears to be narrower than the concern of
Deut 25:4, which is immediately preceded by regulations that prevent fellow
Israelites from shaming (ἀσχημονήσει) one of their own (Deut 25:3). This sham-
ing language may, in turn, provide the basis for applying this verse in this similar
context where the honor (διπλῆς τιμῆς, 1Tim 5:17) of God’s worker is addressed.
In both Deuteronomy 25 and 1Timothy 5, this honor may include but not lim-
ited to material support. In any case, Paul’s use of Deut 25:4 in his two different
letters should not simply be equated.
In contemporary (and later) Jewish literature, Deut 25:4 is used in reference
to the care of the ox (Philo, Virt. 145) and other animals (m. B. Qam. 5.7), and
this care is extended to other humans (Philo, Virt. 160), especially those at the
margin of society (Josephus, A.J. 4.233), a concern that is noted in the context of
Deut 23:15–25:19. Here in 1Tim 5:18, another application is deemed appropriate:
elders who lead well are to be honored.
Various sources have been proposed for ἄξιος ὁ ἐργάτης τοῦ μισθοῦ αὐτοῦ that
closely resemble Luke 10:7 (ἄξιος γὰρ ὁ ἐργάτης τοῦ μισθοῦ αὐτοῦ): (1) an oral tra-
dition behind Luke 10:7 (Oberlinner, 1.254), (2) a saying from Q (Hanson, 62), or
(3) from “some apocryphal writing” that lies behind Luke 10:7 (Kelly, 126), (4) a
common proverb known to the audience (Ramsaran 2003: 431, 448), and (5) the
written text of Luke 10:7. The use of ἡ γραφή makes it more likely that a writ-
ten and authoritative source is intended (Swinson 2014: 111). Moreover, there
is evidence that Paul is familiar with Luke, who may have also contributed to
5:17–25 341

the final form of this letter (see Introduction). Textual evidence that reflects a
Matthean reading (ἄξιος ὁ ἐργάτης τῆς τροφῆς αὐτοῦ, ‫*א‬vid [ar* Cl]; cf. Matt 10:10)
further points to an early recognition that this originated from a gospel source
(cf. Comfort 2008: 665).
That the second quotation is more directly relevant to Paul’s argument is
supported by the use of ἄξιος that provides a verbal link with ἀξιούσθωσαν in the
preceding verse. While in Luke 10 ὁ μισθός does refer to material benefit, it is not
limited to this sense in its wider context (cf. Luke 6:35). Moreover, the focus is
on worthiness (ἄξιος; i.e., honor) as well as the principle of reciprocity. Elders
are to be repaid by receiving appropriate honor, which may include material
benefits, but the focus is on bestowing proper honor to this and other deserv-
ing groups within the household (cf. 5:3; 6:1).

▪ 19 The nature of the “accusation” (κατηγορία) that is potentially launched

against the elders is not specified. In Titus 1:6, the same term is used in reference
to elders as they are to be blameless and not to be charged for an undisciplined
lifestyle (μὴ ἐν κατηγορίᾳ ἀσωτίας ἢ ἀνυπότακτα). A more specific reference may
be possible here in light of the repeated references to “sins” (ἁμαρτίαι, vv. 22,
24; cf. ἁμαρτάνω, v. 20). This may involve the misuse of money (Marshall, 617),
issues of insubordination (Mounce, 312), or any act that would bring shame to
the community of believers (Quinn and Wacker, 464). In light of the persistent
focus on false teachers in this letter as well as the note on “speaking and teach-
ing” (v. 17) in this section, these charges may be related to the spread of the
false teachings. That κατηγορία can be used in a formal, legal, and judicial set-
ting (John 18:29; cf. κατηγορέω, Mark 15:3–4; Luke 23:2; Acts 22:30; 24:2, 8; 25:5,
19) does not demand that such is the case here (cf. Büchsel, tdnt 3:637); even
with reference to witnesses, a formal judicial setting is not required as is the
case elsewhere in Paul when witnesses are evoked (cf. 2 Cor 13:1; Woodington
2018: 1003–1018).
ἐπὶ δύο ἢ τριῶν μαρτύρων likely draws from Deut 19:15 (ἐπὶ στόματος δύο μαρτύ-
ρων καὶ ἐπὶ στόματος τριῶν μαρτύρων; cf. Deut 17:6, ἐπὶ δυσὶν μάρτυσιν ἢ ἐπὶ τρισὶν
μάρτυσιν; see also Matt 18:16; 2Cor 13:1; Heb 10:28), a text and a principle widely
evoked in Jewish traditions for the warning directed to sinners (1QS 6.1; cd 9.3)
as well as for the protection of those who might be falsely accused (Josephus,
A.J. 4.219; Philo, Spec. 4.53–54; Mek. Exod. 1). In this case, the latter appears to
be the reason for the use of this principle.

▪ 20 The use of Deut 19:15–20 that provides cohesion to vv. 19–21 further argues
for reading τοὺς ἁμαρτάνοντας as a reference to the elders who sin instead of gen-
eral members in the congregation (Collins, 146–147) or even “those who accuse
the elders” (LaFosse 2011: 366).
342 1 timothy

Elsewhere in the pe ἐλέγχω can be used with specific reference to the rebuke
against false teachers (Titus 1:9, 13), but it can also be used within general exhor-
tations (2Tim 4:2; Titus 2:15; cf. 2Tim 3:16 v.l.). In this section, this “accusation”
launched against the elders may again be related to the spread of false teach-
ings. The use of this verb may also draw from Lev 19:17 (ἐλεγμῷ ἐλέγξεις τὸν
πλησίον σου), yet another ot text that deals with the correction of an individual
within one’s own community in a fair and responsible way (cf. Lev 19:15). If so,
this text stands within a larger tradition that draws upon this important text
in the discussion of issues of community discipline (cf. Sir 19:12–16; 1QS 5.24;
cd 6.21–7.3; 9.2–8; T.Gad 6.3–7; Matt 18:15–17; Hultin 2008: 181).
The modifier ἐνώπιον πάντων, taken to refer to the entire community, may
argue for taking ἐλέγχω in the non-verbal sense of “bringing to light” or “expos-
ing” (cf. Eph 5:11, 13), as is the case of Lev 19:17; Eph 5:11, 13, and here in 1 Tim 5:20.
Timothy is to be careful in evaluating the charges brought before the elders
(v. 19), but he is also responsible in confronting those who are truly guilty of
the substantiated charges.
The fear to be instilled within the community echoes Deut 19:20 (see above),
with οἱ λοιποί referring to those elders who have not committed the sins charged
as well as the wider community of believers. Situated within an eschatological
context (cf. v. 21), this fear is to serve a redemptive purpose for the commu-
nity as they anticipate the final judgment. This restorative and redemptive
emphasis on acts of discipline within the believing community is one that is
emphasized in Jewish (1QS 5.23b–6.1b), nt (Matt 18:15–17), and early Christian
(Did. 15.3) traditions (see Van de Sandt 2005: 173–192).

▪ 21 In the nt, διαμαρτύρομαι appears often in the Lukan Writings for acts of
warning (Luke 16:28; Acts 2:40; 10:42; 20:23; cf. 1Thess 4:6) and testifying (Acts
8:25; 18:5; 20:21; 23:11; 28:23; cf. Heb 2:6), but διαμαρτύρομαι ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ only
appears in the pe for a solemn charge (cf. 2Tim 2:14; 4:1). Within such a for-
mula, διαμαρτύρομαι can be considered an emphatic form of μαρτύρομαι, which
is used in Paul together with παρακαλέω and παραμυθέομαι for exhortation and
encouragement (1Thess 2:12). A closer parallel, however, can be found in the
lxx where διαμαρτύρομαι is used in the formula of an oath or a solemn declara-
tion (cf. διαμαρτύρομαι ὑμῖν σήμερον τόν τε οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν, Deut 4:26; 30:19;
31:28) and often appears in divine declarations and utterances (Exod 18:20; 2 Kgs
17:13; Pss 49[50]:7; 80:9[81:8]; Jer 6:10; Ezek 16:2).
The charge to be issued ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ conforms to sim-
ilar formulations elsewhere in the pe (2Tim 4:1; cf. 1 Tim 6:13). The demand of
three witnesses (cf. 5:19) may have created a need to include a third party, while
this triad may echo the reference to the Lord, priests, and judges of Deut 19:17
5:17–25 343

(Fuller 1983: 258–263). Nevertheless, the focus has shifted from that of witness-
ing in 1Tim 5:19 to that of judgment in vv. 19–20; if so, the role of angels in the
eschatological judgment cannot be ignored (Matt 13:41; 16:27; 25:31; Mark 13:27;
Luke 12:8–9; 2Thess 1:7).
The phrase τῶν ἐκλεκτῶν ἀγγέλων is absent elsewhere in the biblical text, and
the use of the comparable phrase ἐνώπιον ἀγγέλων ἁγίων in Rev 14:10 has been
taken as a contrast to the fallen angel (Hanson, 103). On the other hand, the
mentioning of the angels (οἱ ἄγγελοι) with the elect ones (οἱ ἐκλεκτοὶ) and the
sons of the Most High in Joseph and Aseneth 16.14 may argue for the under-
standing of the phrase ἐκλεκτῶν ἀγγέλων as a reference to members of the
divine court (cf. Tob 8:15). If so, these “elect angels” cannot be distinguished
from the heavenly angels of 1Tim 3:16. Also worth noting is the close connec-
tion between the angels and both God and Christ Jesus the elect one (ὁ χριστὸς
τοῦ θεοῦ ὁ ἐκλεκτός, Luke 23:35; cf. 1Pet 2:4–6). This text may pave the way for the
development of a certain trend in early Christologies (see Theological Analy-
sis).
In the pe φυλάσσω is always used in the sense of “to protect” or “to pay close
attention to” (6:20; 2Tim 1:12, 14; 4:15), hence “to pay close attention and follow
these (i.e., the preceding) instructions” here. But in this legal context (cf. δια-
μαρτύρομαι, χωρὶς πρόκριμα), φυλάσσω can mean “to keep or obey (a command-
ment)” (Matt 19:20; Luke 18:21; Rom 2:26; Gal 6:13), and ταῦτα can, therefore, be
taken as “these directives” (Quinn and Wacker, 454).
πρόκριμα is a nt hapax and is rarely used in Greek literature (though the
verb προκρίνω is commonly used to indicate a preference, e.g., Wis 7:8; Dio
Chrysostom, 1 Melanc. 15; Isocrates, Evag. 74), but χωρὶς πρόκριμα does appear
in the documentary papyri as a legal term for “without prejudgement” (Robert-
son, Grammar, 621; cf. P.Flor. 68; M.-M. 542) and is probably a Latinism (absque
praejudicio; cf. Spicq, 1.546). The call to impartiality is explicated by the clause
μηδὲν ποιῶν κατὰ πρόσκλισιν, which may provide the possible reason for form-
ing pre-judgment before the careful evaluation of the available evidence. The
nt hapax πρόσκλισις is also a relatively rare term that can be used in the posi-
tive sense of predisposition (Ep. Arist. 5.2; contra bdag 881) or in the negative
sense of partisanship or bias (1Clem. 21.7).

▪ 22 The laying on of hands (χεῖρας … ἐπιτίθει) has been taken as a gesture of for-
giveness and restoration (Hanson, 103), though no evidence of such a practice
can be found prior to the third century (cf. Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 7.2; Tertullian,
Pud. 18.9; Kelly, 128; Spicq, 1.547–548). The more recent proposal that it signifies
an act of accusation (cf. Lev 24:14; Add Dan 13:34; Irwin 2008: 123–129) not only
suffers from the same lack of a parallel in early Christian literature, but it is also
344 1 timothy

redundant when the same caution has already been noted in 1 Tim 5:19. More-
over, μηδὲ κοινώνει ἁμαρτίαις ἀλλοτρίαις that follows suggests that the laying on
of hands is a sign of affirmation and confirmation.
Even if the parallels in 1Tim 4:14 and 2Tim 1:6 (cf. Acts 13:1–3) do not point
to an official act of ordination, they do point to a public affirmation of one’s
gifts and the utilization of such gifts within an ecclesial setting (a consen-
sus reading of the early Fathers; cf. Coppens 1925: 124–131). The progression of
thought is clear in this context: as 1Tim 5:19 warns against hastiness in accept-
ing an accusation against an elder, here Paul likewise warns against hastiness
in identifying the ones who are to replace those elders who are indeed found
guilty.
κοινωνέω can be used in the sense of sharing in an act (Phil 4:15) or the
benefits of an act (cf. Rom 15:27; Gal 6:6), but the concern here is tied with
the previous clause (μηδενί … μηδέ) that centers on the public recognition and
endorsement of the leader of the church, which, in turn, builds on 1 Tim 5:20
where the issue of accountability (ἐνώπιον πάντων) is at stake. The closest con-
ceptual parallel can be found in 2John 11, where sharing in the evil deeds of
others (κοινωνεῖ τοῖς ἔργοις αὐτοῦ τοῖς πονηροῖς) is manifested in the act of public
greetings, where one welcomes a false teacher rather than becoming his or her
actual accomplice. Elsewhere, κοινωνέω with ἁμαρτία can refer to active partici-
pation in the sins of others (Apos. Con. 2.14), but it can also denote an unwitting
or indirect accomplice when identifying with another sinner in some way (Prot.
Jas. 2.3; Philodemus, Poem. Frag. 15.10; cf. κοινωνῆσαι σημαίνει τῶν ἁμαρτημάτων
ἐκείνῳ, Artemidorus, Onir. 3.51). In this context, Paul is urging Timothy to be
cautious because he is responsible for the acts of those he appoints.
Even if κοινώνει ἁμαρτίαις ἀλλοτρίαις is to be understood in light of σεαυτὸν
ἁγνὸν τήρει, it does not turn this concern into merely that of the private moral
life of Timothy the individual. Already in 1Tim 4:12, Timothy is called to embody
the ideals of this community of believers in his call to be their “example,” a call
that climaxes with ἐν ἁγνείᾳ. Similarly, in this context, the focus on Timothy’s
purity (ἁγνός) is also on the moral life of the community (cf. οἱ λοιποί, 5:20). Else-
where in the pe, the call to be “pure” (ἁγνός) is also for the sake of the spread
of the true gospel (cf. ἵνα μὴ ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ βλασφημῆται, Titus 2:5). There-
fore, this concern for “purity” should not be limited to a sexual connotation (cf.
“keep yourself chaste,” Quinn and Wacker, 454) since in its context it carries
the sense of being “blameless” in the management of God’s household, for the
leader must be “blameless as God’s steward” (Titus 1:7).

▪ 23 In this context, where drinking water is contrasted with the (modest)

consumption of wine, ὑδροπότει is best understood as a reference to an exclu-
5:17–25 345

sive water-drinker (see Grammatical Analysis). This contrast also appears in

Herodotus’s portrayal of the Persians who “do not drink wine, but are water
drinkers” (οὐκ οἴνῳ διαχρέωνται, ἀλλὰ ὑδροποτέουσι, Hist. 1.71).
The medicinal value of wine is well documented. Particularly relevant is
the opinion of the physician Dioscorides Pedanius, a contemporary of Paul,
who advises the use of wine with honey for the healing of “those who have a
weak stomach” (τοῖς ἀσθενῆ [τὸν] στόμαχον ἔχουσιν) because of its mild diuretic
value and its ability to increase bowel movement (Mat. med. 5.7.1). The ben-
efit of wine for treating constipation is widely circulated, as noted explicitly
in a second-century papyrus with the specification that it should be “a little
new wine diluted slightly with water” (οἰνάριον κεκραμένον νέον ἔμβραχυ ὑδραές,
P.Mich. 1469; cf. Youtie and Youtie 1981: 431–436). Hippocrates also prescribes
drinking wine and exercising for those who are sick, though he would prefer
that they drink “not a little wine” (οἶνον μὴ ὀλίγον, Epid. 7.43).
While Hippocrates’s discussion of the benefit of wine is foundational in
Greek medical traditions, it is the second-century ad author Galen who is
remembered as providing the most extensive discussion of wine in his numer-
ous works (for wine and medicine in the Greek traditions, see Jouanna 2012:
173–193). The debate between the benefit and harm of the consumption of wine
has well been recognized (cf. Plato, Symp. 176c–d; Pliny the Elder, Nat. 23.31),
and it is noted that while the young need to be careful with wine, the elderly
may benefit more from it (Galen, San Tu. ii 6.334). This may further contribute
to the background of Paul’s emphasis that Timothy should use wine for his ail-
ments, but only “a little” (ὀλίγος).

▪ 24 The act of “going before [them]” can simply refer to the unveiling of that
which is hidden (John Chrysostom, Hom. 1Tim. 16), but it may also remind
one of the roles of the “herald” who makes the announcement before the
arrival of the sinner (cf. Bernard, 89; Mounce, 320). The wider use of courtroom
metaphors (μαρτύρων, v. 19; διαμαρτύρομαι, v. 21; προκρίματος, v. 21; κρίσιν, v. 24)
may further point to the use of προάγουσαι as a reference to the entrance of
the witnesses into the courtroom. Elsewhere the use of προάγω with κρίσις also
denotes the presentation of material relevant to the rendition of a judgment
(cf. Oenomaus, Frag. 6.4; Eusebius, Praep. ev. 24.1).
Elsewhere in Paul, κρίσις appears only in 2Thess 1:5, which also involves the
context of eschatological judgment, and the verb κρίνω is often used in a sim-
ilar context in reference to God’s judgment, especially in contrast to believers
judging one another (Rom 2:1–3; 3:4–7; 14:1–18; 1Cor 11:31–32). Within these con-
trastive statements, τισὶν δὲ καὶ ἐπακολουθοῦσιν should be understood as the
revelation of the hidden sins in the eschatological judgment, a point that is
346 1 timothy

repeatedly noted in Paul (Rom 2:16; 1Cor 4:5) and elsewhere in the nt (Matt
10:26; Mark 4:22; Luke 8:17). The formulation here is closest to τὰ γὰρ ἔργα αὐτῶν
ἀκολουθεῖ μετ’ αὐτῶν in Rev 14:13, though here it is used in a positive sense for
the good works of the saints (cf. 1Tim 5:25).

▪ 25 In this letter, “good works” (τὰ ἔργα τὰ καλά) are often defined by the fulfill-
ment of one’s particular responsibilities as a member of God’s household (3:1;
5:10). If so, “the sins” (αἱ ἁμαρτίαι) of v. 24 are not merely isolated acts that vio-
late God’s moral laws; they are acts that challenge the order and reputation of
God’s household. But if “good works” are to be understood within the frame-
work of benefaction language (cf. 6:18), then “the sins” are those that violate
the “good confession” (τὴν καλὴν ὁμολογίαν, 6:12, 13) in the rejection of God, who
is the true benefactor of all, a point made in the following sections (cf. 6:2b–
19).
The contrast presented in a temporal sense (v. 24) is now presented in a
spatial sense, with the focus shifted to the good works. A strict distinction
between the two senses cannot be made, however, since that which is revealed
later is now hidden. If so, the parallel with Rev 14:13 noted above becomes
particularly relevant. πρόδηλος carries the sense of “being known by others”
(cf. πρόδηλός ἐστιν … ἔγνω πᾶς ὁ λαός, Jdt 8:29), and it is naturally contrasted
with κρυπτός/κρύπτω (Aesop, Fab. 5.1; 5.8; Aristotle, [Plant.] 815a; Alexander of
Aphrodisias, Probl. 1.149), although the familiar contrast in Paul is between κρυ-
πτός/κρύπτω and φανερός/φανερόω (1Cor 4:5; 14:25; 2 Cor 4:2). As sins cannot
be hidden forever (v. 24), so also good works (cf. 1 Cor 15:58). As such, Tim-
othy is called to be as careful in honoring the elders who labor for the true
gospel (vv. 17–18) as in disciplining those who are involved in sins (vv. 19–
20).

Bibliography
Comfort, Philip W. New Testament Text and Translation Commentary. Carol Stream, IL:
Tyndale, 2008.
Coppens, Joseph. L’imposition des mains et les rites connexes dans le Nouveau Testament
et dans l’église ancienne. Paris: Gabalda, 1925.
Fuller, J. William. “Of Elders and Triads in 1Timothy 5.19–25.” nts 29 (1983): 258–263.
Harrison, James R. Paul’s Language of Grace in Its Graeco-Roman Context. wunt 2.172.
Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003.
Harvey, Anthony Ernest. “Elders.” jts 25 (1974): 318–332.
Horsley, G.H.R. “An Archisynagogos of Corinth?” NewDocs 4 (1987): 213–220.
Hultin, Jeremy F. The Ethics of Obscene Speech in Early Christianity and Its Environment.
NovTSup 128. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2008.
5:17–25 347

Jouanna, Jacques. Greek Medicine from Hippocrates to Galen. Studies in Ancient Medi-
cine 40. Trans. Neil Allies. Leiden: Brill, 2012.
Keller, Brian R. “1Timothy 5:17—Did All πρεσβύτεροι Proclaim God’s Word?” Wisconsin
Lutheran Quarterly 96 (1999): 43–49.
LaFosse, Mona Tokarek. “Age Matters: Age, Aging and Intergenerational Relationships
in Early Christian Communities, with a Focus on 1Timothy 5.” Ph.D. diss., University
of Toronto, 2011.
Ramsaran, Rollin A. “Paul and Maxims.” In Paul in the Greco-Roman World. Ed. J. Paul
Sampley, 429–456. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2003.
Redalié, Yann. “«Sois un modèle pour les croyants» Timothée, un portrait exhortatif,
1Tim 4.” In 1Timothy Reconsidered, 87–108. Ed. Karl Paul Donfried. Colloquium Oec-
umenicum Paulinum 18. Leuven: Peeters, 2008.
Swinson, L. Timothy. What is Scripture? Paul’s Use of Graphe in the Letters to Timothy.
Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2014.
Towner, Philip H. “1–2Timothy and Titus.” In Commentary on the New Testament Use
of the Old Testament. Ed. G.K. Beale and D.A. Carson, 891–918. Grand Rapids: Baker,
2007.
Van de Sandt, Huub. “Two Windows on a Developing Jewish-Christian Reproof Prac-
tice: Matt 18:15–17 and Did. 15:3.” In Matthew and the Didache. Ed. Huub van de Sandt,
173–192. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005.
Woodington, J. David. “A Precedented Approach: Paul’s Use of the Law of Witnesses in
2Corinthians 13:1.” jbl 137 (2018): 1003–1018.
Yarbrough, Mark M. Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy. lnts 417.
London: T & T Clark, 2009.
Youtie, Louise C., and Herbert C. Youtie, “A Medical Papyrus.” In Scritti in onore di
Orsolina Montevecchi. Ed. Edda Breschiani et al., 431–436. Bologna: Clueb, 1981.

5 Theological Analysis
This section begins by pointing to the elders who are to be “considered wor-
thy of double honor” (v. 17), and this is followed by a consistent use of honor
and shame language throughout the section (see Grammatical Analysis). This
language subverts the existing ethos by creating a frame of reference that rede-
fines both the identities of individuals and their relationship with one another.
Those worthy to be honored are not the benefactors who are often respected
because of their wealth and social status (cf. 6:17–19), but those who “labor in
speaking and teaching” (v. 17). In the same way, those who are to be shamed
are not those who are at the margin of society, but the ones whose sin may not
even be noticeable to those around them (v. 24).
In subverting the existing ethos of the time, Paul again bases his argument
on theological grounds by situating a new structure of power within a temporal
348 1 timothy

framework foreign to many among the Greco-Roman audience. First, to evoke

“God and Christ Jesus and the elect angels” (v. 21) is to point to a heavenly court
whose power relativizes competitive religio-political claims, a concept familiar
in the ot within its ancient Near Eastern context (Job 1:6; 2:1; Ps 82:1–8; 103:20–
22; 148:1–2; Miller 1987: 57–71). This is a continuation of a redefinition of the
center of power that begins with the identification of God as “our Savior” in 1:1,
which is made explicit in 2:1–8 where the authority of “kings and for all who are
in authority” (2:2) are subsumed under the “one God” and “one mediator” (v. 5),
and climaxes in the recognition of a radically different way to achieve power
and dominion over all by this God giving life to all and by this mediator mak-
ing his “good confession in the days of Pontius Pilate” (6:13). Throughout this
letter, one finds this robust theological undercurrent within particular issues
that are addressed.
Second, the reference to the final judgment in v. 24, when all that is hidden
will be revealed (v. 25), grounds this discussion on an eschatological plane. This
(future) eschatological framework that promises justice to both the sinners and
those who are involved in “good works” (v. 25) relativizes the present age and all
that it promises (see comments on 2Tim 4:1–5). While this eschatological refer-
ence provides urgency to the task of Timothy as he deals with various groups of
elders, it also relieves him from the responsibility of serving as the final judge
since some sinful acts and good works will remain hidden even with the proper
procedure in place. At least here, one fails to detect an idealistic portrayal of
Paul’s disciple who is deprived of the eschatological conviction of the earlier
Paul (contra Roloff, 213).
Apart from the heavenly court context, the unique formulation of “God and
Christ Jesus and the elect angels” (v. 21) demands further attention. In the lxx,
[ὁ] ἄγγελος κυρίου often represents God himself (Gen 16:7–13; Exod 3:2–4; 14:19;
23:20; Num 20:16; Judg 6:11–22; Isa 63:9; Hos 12:4–5; Juncker 2001:34), whereas
in Second Temple Jewish tradition angels have been “venerated” as protectors
of the community (11QBer) as well as their intercessors (T.Levi 5.5–6) to the
extent that some would consider such veneration as an “accommodation” of
monotheism in Judaism (Stuckenbruck 1995: 48–51, 201). That angels are not
the proper “object” of worship is clear in Jewish traditions (cf. Tob 12:16–22;
Bauckham 1981: 322–341).
That angel veneration continues in segments of early Christianity, includ-
ing certain Pauline circles, is evident in Col 2:18, and, at least in other segments
(cf. Rev 1:13–16; 14:14; 19:11–16; Carrell 1997: 129–219), a positive appropriation of
these Jewish traditions may have paved the way for the portrayal of Jesus as a
divine being in a glorious and visible form. If ἄγγελος does provide a category
for the understanding of Christ within some traditions in early Christianity,
6:1–2a 349

the present reference in this later work of Paul may testify to a possible path in
which Christ’s deity can be incorporated into Jewish monotheistic traditions.
However, the evidence is insufficient to make this a probable case. Equally
problematic is to see here a full-blown trinitarian statement even given that
angels are conceived as “spirits” (Acts 23:9; cf. 1 Tim 3:16), since these angels
may only be “spectators of the human scene” (cf. 1 Cor 4:9; 11:10) and witnesses
of Jesus’s exaltation (1Tim 3:16; Ladd 1993: 440).
Finally, the significance of the inclusion of a saying from the Gospel of Luke
in the scriptural citations in v. 18 should be noted. If the saying can indeed
be identified as Luke 10:7, then at least one Gospel was considered Scripture
in the second half of the first century (cf. Spicq, 1.543–544). Moreover, if the
early Christian writings “functioned as scripture before they were actually des-
ignated ‘scripture’” (McDonald 1995:143), then this note provides an important
testimony of the early recognition of at least one written gospel as Scripture.

Bibliography
Bauckham, Richard. “The Worship of Jesus in Apocalyptic Christianity.” nts 27 (1981):
322–341.
Carrell, Peter R. Jesus and the Angels: Angelology and the Christology of the Apocalypse
of John. sntsms 95. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.
Juncker, Günther H. “Jesus and the Angel of the Lord: An Old Testament Paradigm
for New Testament Christology.” Ph.D. diss., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School,
2001.
Ladd, George E. A Theology of the New Testament. Rev. Donald A. Hagner. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1993.
McDonald, Lee M. The Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon. Rev. ed. Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson, 1995.
Miller, Patrick D. “Cosmology and World Order in the Old Testament: The Divine Coun-
cil as Cosmic-Political Symbol.” hbt 9 (1987): 53–78.
Stuckenbruck, Loren T. Angel Veneration and Christology: A Study in Early Judaism and
in the Christology of the Apocalypse of John. wunt 2.70. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
1995.
Zanker, Paul. The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus. Trans. Alan Shapiro. Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1988.

D Slaves (6:1–2a)
1 Translation
1 Let all who are under the yoke as slaves consider their masters as worthy of
full honor, in order that the name of God and the teaching might not be blas-
phemed. 2a Let those who have believing masters not despise them because
350 1 timothy

they are brothers; instead, let them serve all the better since those who benefit
from their act of benefaction are believers and beloved.

2 Text-Critical Analysis
▪ 1 τοῦ θεοῦ: A few primarily Western witnesses (D* 33 2400 d f g m r vg Amst)
read [τοῦ] κυρίου instead, likely because of the frequency of the phrase ὄνομα
[τοῦ] κυρίου in the nt (Matt 21:9; Mark 11:9; Luke 13:34; Acts 2:21; 9:28; James 5:10,
14). In Paul, this formulation appears only within either ot quotations (Rom
10:13; 2Tim 2:19) or the phrase τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (or vari-
ations of it; cf. 1Cor 1:2, 10; 5:4; Eph 2:20; Col 3:17; 2 Thess 1:12); therefore, [τοῦ]
κυρίου would be inconsistent with Paul’s usage elsewhere. Within this verse, ἵνα
μὴ τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ θεοῦ … βλασφημῆται may parallel Paul’s earlier use of Isa 52:5
in Rom 2:24 (τὸ γὰρ ὄνομα τοῦ θεοῦ … βλασφημεῖται). Both internal and external
considerations therefore favor τοῦ θεοῦ.

3 Grammatical Analysis
As the use of nominative plurals signals the beginning of the previous units
(χήρας, 5:3; πρεσβύτεροι, 5:17), here the use of δοῦλοι also signals the beginning of
another unit. While this unit is a continuation of the discussion of the behavior
of members of the household, a distinct break can be felt in 6:1, where the atten-
tion is shifted from age to class when slaves are addressed. Both the relative
brevity of this unit and the lack of contrasts between exemplary and deviant
members of its group distinguish this unit from the previous two, and both may
point to the possibility that the slaves are not posing as urgent a problem for
Paul as did members of the previous two groups. This lack of urgency may, in
turn, explain the lack of second-person verbs in this brief unit.
Whether the clause ταῦτα δίδασκε καὶ παρακάλει (6:2b) belongs to this unit
(Marshall, 626–627) or the next (Knight, 242–243) is disputed. While the ana-
phoric ταῦτα may argue for its inclusion in this unit, it is unlikely that ταῦτα
refers only to material in 6:1–2a. If ταῦτα δίδασκε καὶ παρακάλει recalls παράγ-
γελλε ταῦτα καὶ δίδασκε of 4:11, ταῦτα δίδασκε καὶ παρακάλει may include material
from 4:11 to 6:2a. Moreover, since ταῦτα δίδασκε is contrasted with ἑτεροδιδα-
σκαλεῖ in v. 3, ταῦτα δίδασκε καὶ παρακάλει should best be taken with the next
unit.
Cohesion in this unit is maintained by the use of slavery language that clearly
marks the subject matter of this unit (ζυγὸν, v. 1; δοῦλοι, v. 1; δεσπότας, v. 1; δεσπό-
τας, v. 2; δουλευέτωσαν, v. 2), but the use of honor-shame language points to
the primary concern of Paul’s teaching in this unit (τιμῆς, v. 1; ἀξίους, v. 1; βλα-
σφημῆται, v. 1; καταφρονείτωσαν, v. 2; cf. Lendon 1997: 276–278). This intense use
of honor-shame language fits well with the wider argument of this letter, that
6:1–2a 351

proper order within a household has to be maintained for the reputation of the
church (v. 1), but this community of the gospel also challenges the status quo
(v. 2).
Structurally, this unit consists of two asymmetrical parts. The first centers
on the imperative (ἡγείσθωσαν) that calls the slaves to honor their masters,
followed by a ἵνα purpose clause that provides the theological rationale for
this call. The longer second part contains a more complex structure, with two
contrastive imperatival clauses (καταφρονείτωσαν, δουλευέτωσαν) connected by
ἀλλά, each modified by a ὅτι clause that provides the basis for the imperative
that it modifies. While the second part focuses on the treatment of believing
masters, the first may focus on the non-believing ones (Marshall, 629–630),
though without an explicit note to the effect that a more general reference to
all masters cannot be ruled out (Mounce, 326).

▪ 1 Ὅσοι εἰσὶν ὑπὸ ζυγὸν δοῦλοι, τοὺς ἰδίους δεσπότας πάσης τιμῆς ἀξίους ἡγείσθω-
σαν, ἵνα μὴ τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ἡ διδασκαλία βλασφημῆται. The correlative ὅσοι
can take on the sense of “all who” (cf. 2Tim 1:18; bdag 729), which fits the con-
text here. The use of πάσης with ἀξίους is consistent with the style of this author
(cf. 1:15; 4:9), but in this context πάσης τιμῆς is surprising when τιμή is repeat-
edly ascribed to God himself (1:17; 6:16). Perhaps the purpose of πάσης here is
precisely to make it clear that honor given to God does not prevent one from
depriving others of receiving their proper respect. The use of present imper-
atives continues with ἡγείσθωσαν, and the marked middle voice stresses the
personal involvement demanded of the slaves.
τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ θεοῦ has been taken as a simple subject followed by an adverbial
καί, with ἡ διδασκαλία as the complement after the passive βλασφημῆται, thus:
“that indeed the teaching might not be blasphemed (βλασφημῆται) regarding
the name of God” (Porter, Verbal Aspect, 332). Nevertheless, when two phrases
of the same case are connected by καί followed by a passive verb, it is better to
take the καί as a conjunction and the two phrases as compound subjects of the
passive verb (cf. 2Tim 3:13): “that the name of God and the teaching might not
be blasphemed.”

▪ 2a οἱ δὲ πιστοὺς ἔχοντες δεσπότας μὴ καταφρονείτωσαν, ὅτι ἀδελφοί εἰσιν. The con-

junction δέ marks the development of Paul’s argument as he now focuses on οἱ
… πιστοὺς ἔχοντες δεσπότας. The contrast between the ὅσοι in v. 1 and this group
that is further defined by an attributive participle (with the implied δοῦλοι) may
point to this group being a subset of ὅσοι εἰσὶν ὑπὸ ζυγὸν δοῦλοι. The present par-
ticiple ἔχοντες grammaticalizes imperfective aspect and portrays an occurrence
contemporaneous with the present imperative καταφρονείτωσαν.
352 1 timothy

ὅτι ἀδελφοί εἰσιν has often been considered as providing the reason for the
contempt some slaves may have for their believing masters (Johnson, 284).
However, grammatically this ὅτι clause modifies μὴ καταφρονείτωσαν and not
the implied act of contempt that prompts this prohibition. Moreover, the struc-
ture of the two parts of this verse argues for taking both ὅτι clauses as providing
the grounds for the preceding command (Mounce, 328). Therefore, it seems
best to take this ὅτι clause as providing the grounds for the imperative, μὴ κατα-
φρονείτωσαν. Nevertheless, the reason for their contempt may also be implied
in this prohibition, thus: do not despise your believing masters because they
are your brothers, although you might have done so precisely because they are
your brothers.

▪ ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον δουλευέτωσαν, ὅτι πιστοί εἰσιν καὶ ἀγαπητοὶ οἱ τῆς εὐεργεσίας ἀντι-
λαμβανόμενοι. The adversative conjunction ἀλλά aims at correcting the behavior
that is assumed by the prohibitive μὴ καταφρονείτωσαν (rather than the content
within the preceding ὅτι clause). The comparative adverb μᾶλλον can be taken
in reference to a greater commitment to serve (“they should be all the better
slaves,” Kelly, 133) but also in the sense of “instead of” (Marshall, 631; cf. 1 Tim
1:4; 2Tim 3:4). In either case, the reason provided should move beyond that
which is given in the previous clause (ἀδελφοί εἰσιν). This additional reason lies
in the descriptor, οἱ τῆς εὐεργεσίας ἀντιλαμβανόμενοι. The verb ἀντιλαμβανόμενοι
can have the sense of “to devote oneself to” (bdf § 170[3]) or “to derive benefit
from” (cf. Spicq, 1.554–555). The former considers the master as the benefactor
(the master who offers “acts of beneficence,” [τῆς εὐεργεσίας]), while the latter
understands the slave as the benefactor (the master to derive benefit from the
“act of beneficence” [τῆς εὐεργεσίας] of the slaves). The strongest support for
the master-as-benefactor reading lies in the superior status of the master, who
alone can provide for those who serve him (Kidd, 142–155). Nevertheless, the
focus of this entire unit is on the service rendered by the slaves rather than the
master. It is precisely the unconventional use of the slave-as-benefactor lan-
guage (see Historical Analysis) that allows Paul to provide another reason for a
call for slaves to serve their masters.

Bibliography
Lendon, Jon E. Empire of Honour: The Art of Government in the Roman World. Oxford:
Clarendon, 1997.
Solevåg, Anna Rebecca. Birthing Salvation: Gender Class in Early Christian Childbearing
Discourse. BibInt 121. Leiden: Brill, 2013.
Taniguchi, Yuko. “To Lead Quiet and Peaceable Lives: A Rhetorical Analysis of the First
Letter of Timothy.” Th.D. diss., Harvard University, 2002.
6:1–2a 353

4 Historical Analysis
Many who hold deutero-Pauline authorship consider this brief unit a correc-
tion of the Pauline gospel of liberation embedded in Gal 3:28 (Lampe 2003:
497–498) or Phlm 16 (Merz 2007: 287–288). In light of the repeated references
to local problems in this letter, other historical and contextual factors cannot be
ignored. Suggested scenarios include the influx of slaves in the early Christian
community (Gülzow 1969: 57–92) and the problems caused by slaves who are
believers (Fee, 136–137). With limited textual data, a definitive historical recon-
struction will not be possible, but the relative emphasis on the behavior of the
believing slaves in 6:2 may support the latter reading.
Instead of dealing with specific problems in the Ephesian community of
believers, Paul may also have drawn from common perceptions of slaves in
the ancient world. There were agricultural and industrial slaves in first-century
Roman society, but Paul is likely referring to domestic slaves in charge of menial
tasks around the households here, although the distinction between the two
may not be as pronounced in the early imperial period (Hopkins 1978: 11). Slaves
are often considered to be prone to immoral and deceptive acts, which may lie
behind Paul’s promise to repay Philemon for what Onesimus owes (Phlm 18),
though this may merely be a rhetorical strategy of anticipating an objection
(Anaximenes, Rhet. Alex. 36; Martin 1991: 330). Paul’s discussion of slaves else-
where may reinforce such perceptions of slaves (Eph 6:6–7; Col 3:22–23; Titus
2:9–10), but he is also aware of the violence done to the slaves (1 Cor 9:27; 2 Cor
11:20; cf. Rom 8:21–23; Harrill 2003: 577). Paul’s interest in the behavior of the
slaves points to their significant presence in the early Christian communities.
Slaves are considered “generally dishonored persons” (Patterson 1982: 13) and
are expected to regard their masters as “worthy of full honor” (v. 1). What is
surprising is the portrayal of slaves as benefactors while their masters are por-
trayed as recipients of their acts of beneficence (v. 2). While some slaves can
themselves own slaves and become benefactors to them (cf. P.Oxy. 50; Meg-
gitt 1998: 129–132), and while others can also serve as co-benefactors with their
masters (IEph 20; Harrison 2018: 35–36), it defies social convention for slaves
to be considered benefactors to their masters, especially when they would
continue to serve as their master’s clients after manumission (freedmen often
found themselves serving more than one benefactor after manumission, cf.
Epictetus, Diatr. 4.1.35–37; Bradley 1987: 81–112). The rhetorical force of Paul’s
statement therefore needs to be appreciated as Paul challenges the social and
cultural conventions of his time. To identify these slaves as benefactors is an act
of “blurring clear power structures in early Christian communities” as those
who are enslaved can hold power within a community of believers (Shaner
2018: 107). Such blurring is also reflected in the use of fictive kinship language
354 1 timothy

when masters are identified as “brothers” and, therefore, also “believers” and
“beloved” (v. 2).
This subversion makes it unnecessary for Paul to provide additional admon-
ishment to these masters as he does elsewhere (Eph 6:9; Col 4:1), not because
he is affirming the status quo (Oberlinner, 1.264), but because he has already
challenged the asymmetrical power relationship between these masters and
their slaves. Those outside of the center of power are to be honored and not
despised (cf. 4:12; 5:3).

▪ 1 The masculine δοῦλοι is used in reference to all slaves as slaves are often iden-
tified “without any gender differentiation,” though male and female slaves have
different sets of responsibilities (Solevåg 2013: 111). To move from gender roles to
class differentiation is expected in Hellenistic Haustafeln (Aristotle, Pol. 1253b;
Dio Chrysostom, Lib. myth. 5.348–351; cf. Eph 5:22–6:9; Col 3:18–4:1).
With the explicit reference to δοῦλοι, the phrase ὑπὸ ζυγόν in the sense of
the “yoke of slavery” (cf. Gal 5:1) seems superfluous, although this phrase does
appear in classical Greek (Euripides, Tro. 678) and Hellenistic Jewish (Sib. Or.
3.567; 8.326; cf. Lev 26:13) literature. This phrase may point to the dire condition
of a slave (Hanson, 105) or may aim at highlighting the common fate of suffering
humanity, of which the slave is a part (Kelly, 131). In its context, this phrase may
simply be a reminder to the slaves of the continuation of their status of bondage
under their human masters even when they experience freedom in Christ.
The threat of the harmful influence of foreign cults on the slaves has long
been documented, especially from the cults that were not sanctioned by the
state (Cicero, Leg. 2.8.19). Also recognized is the fact that such cults often “pro-
vided opportunities for marginalized groups to advance their social status in
ways that would otherwise be denied to them” (Rives 2007: 128; cf. ils 3127).
However, such opportunities do not often materialize, even within the early
Christian movement (Glancy 2011: 461–468). Apart from the subversive note
that follows in v. 2, the point here is not merely the continued submission of
Christian slaves to their Christian masters. Christians should never take advan-
tage of their membership within the early Christian community for their own
benefit in terms of social status.
The use of honor and shame language (τιμή, ἄξιος, βλασφημέω) locates Paul’s
instructions to the slaves here within the larger concern for the reception of the
gospel. ἡ διδασκαλία, which parallels τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ θεοῦ, should best be under-
stood as the gospel itself (cf. 4:6); both suffer when proper respect is not given
to human masters. The concern for the reputation of “the name of God and the
teaching” may point to at least the inclusion of non-believing masters in the
reference to τοὺς … δεσπότας.
6:1–2a 355

▪ 2a The use of εὐεργεσία in reference to the good works of the slaves is impor-
tant as the term is often used for acts of beneficence performed by a patron
to his clients (P.Flor. 61; P.Ryl. 96; M.-M. 260), which includes a master to his
slaves (4 Bar. 3.12), and this term is often found within an honor-shame con-
text (Isocrates, Aeginet. 19.40; Libanius, Orat. 12.51; Aristotle, Rhet. 1361a; Dio
Chrysostom, Rhod. 44). While wealthy slaves are known to serve as benefactors
to those under them (see above), and while even masters have been considered
recipients of such acts when slaves have gone beyond their expected realm of
duty in serving their masters (Seneca, Ben. 3.18–20; Spicq, 1.555), what Paul does
here is to identify the slaves as taking the place of their masters and acquiring
the dignity of a benefactor in performing good works to them (cf. Taniguchi
2002: 186–188).
This subversive stance continues with the two sections on wealth below
(vv. 2b–10, 17–19) that center on the “good” confession of Christ who died on the
cross (vv. 12, 13), and this Christ takes on the role of the slave as he becomes the
benefactor of all by performing “good” deeds. The point is clear that the wealthy
patrons cannot claim to be benefactors of this world; instead, they should be
rich in a different kind of “good” deeds (v. 18) by living out the confession of the
one who died on the cross.

Bibliography
Bradley, K.R. Slaves and Masters in the Roman Empire. New York: Oxford University
Press, 1987.
Glancy, Jennifer. “Slavery and the Rise of Christianity.” In The Cambridge World His-
tory of Slavery: Volume 1. Ed. Keith Bradley and Paul Cartledge, 456–481. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2011.
Gülzow, Henneke. Christentum und Sklaverei in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten. Bonn:
Rudolf Habelt, 1969.
Harrison, James R. “An Epigraphic Portrait of Ephesus and Its Villages.” In The First
Urban Churches 3: Ephesus. Ed. James R. Harrison and L.L. Welborn, 1–67. Atlanta:
Society of Biblical Literature, 2018.
Hopkins, Keith. Conquerors and Slaves. Sociological Studies in Roman History 1. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978.
Lampe, Peter. “Paul, Patrons, and Clients.” In Paul in the Greco-Roman World, 488–523.
Ed. J. Paul Sampley. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2003.
Martin, Clarice J. “The Rhetorical Function of Commercial Language in Paul’s Letter to
Philemon (Verse 18).” In Persuasive Artistry. Ed. Duane F. Watson, 321–337. Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1991.
Meggitt, Justin J. Paul, Poverty and Survival. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1998.
Merz, Annette. “Amore Pauli: Das Corpus Pastorale und Das Ringen um die Interpreta-
tionshoheit bezüglich des paulinischen Erbes.” ThQ 187 (2007): 274–294.
356 1 timothy

Patterson, Orlando, Slavery and Social Death. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press, 1982.
Rives, James B. Religion in the Roman Empire. Oxford: Blackwell, 2007.
Shaner, Katherine A. Enslaved Leadership in Early Christianity. New York: Oxford Uni-
versity Press, 2018.
Towner, Philip H. “Romans 13:1–7 and Paul’s Missiological Perspective: A Call to Political
Quietism or Transformation?” In Romans and the People of God. Ed. Sven K. Soder-
lund and N.T. Wright, 149–169. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999.
Winter, Bruce W. “The Public Honouring of Christian Benefactors: Romans 13.3–4 and
1Peter 2.14–15.” jsnt 34 (1988): 87–103.

5 Theological Analysis
The focus of this section should be understood to lie in the call to respect one’s
master while recognizing the subversive nature of the gospel that challenges
contemporary socio-cultural values. The use of honor-shame language in this
section (τιμῆς, v. 1; ἀξίους, v. 1; βλασφημῆται, v. 1; καταφρονείτωσαν, v. 2) is to be
read within the larger rhetorical program of this letter that is bracketed by the
affirmations of God being the one and only Lord who deserves eternal honor,
glory, and power (τιμὴ καὶ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων, 1:17; καὶ κράτος αἰώ-
νιον, 6:16). When God is understood to be the final and ultimate object of all
ascriptions of honor, believers are called to honor both the ones at the center
(i.e., masters, 6:2) as well as those at the margin (i.e., youths, 4:12; widows, 5:3) of
society. The underlying purpose of this call is neither the reinforcement nor the
destruction of traditional societal structure, but that the gospel of “the glory of
the blessed God” (τῆς δόξης τοῦ μακαρίου θεοῦ, 1:11) might not be “blasphemed”
(βλασφημῆται, 6:1; cf. 1:10). This use of honor and shame language in redefining
the structure of power within a reconstructed frame of reality is not unique to
this letter. The most extensive example in Paul can be found in Romans, where
a consistent and extensive use of this language allows him to present the power
of the subversive gospel (Rom 1:22–26; 2:17–24; 3:21–23; 12:3–16; 13:1–7; 16:27; cf.
Jewett 1997: 258–273). This honor and shame value system is unique neither to
the Mediterranean world (cf. Horden and Purchell 2000: 501–523) nor to the
second half of the biblical canon (cf. Olyan 1996: 201–218).
Equally important is the use of benefaction language in this section, where
Paul calls the slaves to take on the role of benefactors in performing the “act
of benefaction” (τῆς εὐεργεσίας) to their masters (v. 2). While there are exam-
ples where masters are urged to receive extraordinary acts of kindness from
their slaves (Seneca, Ben. 3.18–20), Paul here calls the slaves to do so as bene-
factors. This striking move builds on a strong ideological basis that challenges
the social values of the time, especially when understood in light of the affir-
6:1–2a 357

mation of God as the final benefactor who “richly provides us with all things for
our enjoyment” (τῷ παρέχοντι ἡμῖν πάντα πλουσίως εἰς ἀπόλαυσιν, 6:17; cf. 2:3–6)
and in light of Paul’s similar move elsewhere that challenges the status of those
who claim to be human benefactors (see comments above on Rom 13:3; contra
Zamfir, 144). Understood within the wider framework of honor and shame in
this letter, the power of this challenge cannot be downplayed.
Reading in light of Paul’s use of benefaction language within the honor and
shame framework, the position on slavery in this letter can now be compared to
that of Philemon. The use of the term ἀδελφός in v. 2 has often been contrasted
with its use in Philemon, where Philemon is called to treat Onesimus “no longer
as a slave, but more than a slave, a beloved brother (ἀδελφόν)” (Phlm 16). While
some see behind this call to Philemon a call to manumission (Stuhlmacher
2004: 43), it appears that Paul points rather to a new framework within which
the relationship between Philemon and Onesimus is to be viewed (Aasgaard
2004: 257–260). Moreover, this use of sibling language should be understood
within the wider framework of fictive kinship language in Philemon, where
God is the “father” and Jesus Christ is the “Lord” (Phlm 3). Under the author-
ity of the divine paterfamilias, fellow believers are to relate to one another as
“brother” (Phlm 1) and “sister” (Phlm 2). The identification of Philemon as a
“brother” (Phlm 7, 20) becomes, therefore, significant when he, in turn, is to
treat Onesimus as his “brother” (Phlm 16).
In this letter, however, slaves are called not to abuse this sibling relationship
when they are serving their earthly masters (v. 2). To some, this is a warning to
slaves “not to draw social consequences from this (i.e., that they are brothers)”
(Horrell 2001: 307), and this “neutralizes once and for all the critical potential
of Phlm. 16, in the one-sided interest of Christian slave-owners” (Merz 2006:
130). This conclusion, however, ignores the distinct use of benefaction language
within the wider framework constructed by honor and shame language in this
letter. Paul does not obliterate the contemporary social system in Philemon,
and he does not recognize such a system without challenging its underlying
principle in this section (cf. v. 2) and elsewhere in the pe (cf. 2 Tim 2:24, where
believers are identified as δοῦλοι serving their heavenly δεσπότης). In both let-
ters, the concern is for the witness of the Christian community in the spread of
the gospel (v. 2; Phlm 4–7).

Bibliography
Aasgaard, R. “My Beloved Brothers and Sisters!”: Christian Siblingship in Paul. JSNTSup
265. London: T & T Clark, 2004.
Gülzow, Henneke. Christentum und Sklaverei in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten. Bonn:
Rudolf Habelt, 1969.
358 1 timothy

Horden, Peregrine, and Nicholas Purchell. The Corrupting Sea: A Study of Mediter-
ranean History. Oxford: Blackwell, 2000.
Horrell, David G. “From ἀδελφοί to οἶκος θεοῦ: Social Transformation in Pauline Chris-
tianity.” jbl 120 (2001): 293–311.
Jewett, Robert. “Honor and Shame in the Argument of Romans.” In Putting Body and
Soul Together. Ed. Alexandra R. Brown and Virginia Wiles, 258–273. Valley Forge, PA:
Trinity Press International, 1997.
Lampe, Peter. “Paul, Patrons, and Clients.” In Paul in the Greco-Roman World. Ed. J. Paul
Sampley, 488–523. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2003.
Merz, Annette. “Amore Pauli: Das Corpus Pastorale und Das Ringen um die Interpreta-
tionshoheit bezüglich des paulinischen Erbes.” ThQ 187 (2007): 274–294.
Merz, Annette. “The Fictitious Self-Exposition of Paul: How Might Intertextual Theory
Suggest a Reformulation of the Hermeneutics of Pseudepigraphy?” In The Intertex-
tuality of the Epistles. Ed. T.L. Brodie et al., 113–132. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press,
2006.
Olyan, Saul M. “Honor, Shame, and Covenant Relations in Ancient Israel and Its Envi-
ronment.” jbl 115 (1996) 201–218.

vii False Teachers and Their Use of Wealth (6:2B–19)

A False Teachers and Their View on Wealth and Benefaction (6:2B–10)

1 Translation
2b Teach and urge these things. 3 If anyone spreads a false teaching and does
not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching
according to godliness, 4 he is conceited and understands nothing, but has a
diseased craving for controversies and disputes about words, out of which come
envy, strife, slander, evil suspicions, 5 constant friction among people who are
corrupted in respect to the mind and deprived of the truth, who think that god-
liness is a means of gain. 6 Now godliness characterized by contentment is great
gain. 7 For we brought nothing into the world, and as a result we cannot take
anything out of it. 8 If we have food and clothing, we will be content with these.
9 Those who desire to be rich fall into temptation and a trap and many sense-
less and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. 10 For
the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil; by desiring it some have wan-
dered from the faith and pierced themselves with many pains.

2 Text-Critical Analysis
▪ 3 προσέρχεται: The original reading of ‫ *א‬and some primarily Western wit-
nesses (lat vg Cyp Amst Pel) read προσέχεται instead, which is accepted by
6:2b–10 359

Tischendorf (cf. Elliott, 90; Lock, xxxvii; see also the verb προσέχω in 1:4; 3:8;
5:1, 13). Nevertheless, the external support for προσέρχεται is significant, and
the change to προσέχεται (“to hold to”) is likely because προσέρχεται (“to come
to”) appears not to fit the context, although προσέρχεται does have the attested
meaning of “occupying oneself with” (bdag 878).

▪ 4 γίνεται: Instead of the singular γίνεται, which is supported by the majority

of the witnesses from diverse textual traditions (‫ א‬F G Ψ 1739 1881 pm 𝔐), a
few witnesses (81 330 547 2400 vg) have the plural γίνονται, likely an attempt
to conform to the plural φθόνοι (read by D* 330 547 latt bo) that follows or the
plural relative pronoun that precedes. A few Western witnesses (D*.c lat) have
the plural γεννῶνται, possibly influenced by the use of a birth metaphor in this
context (see 6:6) as well as a similar metaphoric use in 2 Tim 2:23.

▪ 4 φθόνος: Some (D* 330 547 latt bo) read the plural φθόνοι instead, likely to
conform to the plurals that follow (for ἔρις/ἐρεῖς, see below). The external sup-
port for the singular is overwhelming; furthermore, this word always appears
in the singular in Paul (Rom 1:29; Gal 5:21; Phil 1:15; Titus 3:3).

▪ 4 ἔρις: A few (primarily Western) witnesses read ἔϱεις instead, likely only as
an alternative to ἔρις (cf. the variant readings in Gal 5:20; 1 Cor 3:3; 2 Cor 12:20;
Robertson, Grammar, 267) since the proper plural is ἔριδες (1 Cor 1:11). ἐρεῖς may
have been taken as a plural by Atticist scribes (Elliott, 92), thus conforming it
to the other plurals that follow.

▪ 5 διαπαρατριβαί: A hapax in the nt and a word not found prior to this epistle,
διαπαρατριβαί receives support from early Alexandrian (‫ א‬A; cf. 1739), West-
ern (D F G r vg), and Byzantine (L P 33) witnesses. The rarity of this double
compound word likely led to the change to the shorter and far more popular
διατριβαί (K 319 327 642 999 1505), or another equally unattested form, παραδι-
ατριβαί (𝔐 d f m).

▪ 5 ἀπεστερημένων: Isolated witnesses have different readings here, likely due to

accidental scribal changes: ἀπεστραμμένων από (D*), ἀπεστηρημένων (F 1962),
and ἀπερριμμένων (365). ἀπεστερημένων receives support from witnesses of
diverse textual traditions (‫ א‬A G 33 1739 1881 𝔐) and belongs to the vocabulary
of the author (1Cor 6:7, 8; 7:5).

▪ 5 εὐσέβειαν: Some Western witnesses (D2 ar b m vgmss Cyp Lcf Amst) and early
versions (sy gothms arm ethpp), followed by a majority of Byzantine witnesses
360 1 timothy

(K L P pm 𝔐), insert ἀφίστασο ἀπὸ τῶν τοιούτων, likely a “pious but banal gloss”
(Metzger, 575) and might have been influenced by similar calls in Rom 16:17 and
2 John 10 (contra Keller 2000: 294–296).

▪ 7 ὅτι: The difficulties in determining the function of ὅτι have likely led to sev-
eral variants. Some Western witnesses (D* ar b vgmss Amst Spec) insert ἀληθές
before ὅτι, while many primarily Byzantine witnesses (‫א‬2 D1 K L P Ψ pm 𝔐 Marc
Org; cf. Kilpatrick, 8)27 insert δῆλον instead, perhaps influenced by 1 Cor 15:27.
The omission of ὅτι has some patristic support (Eph Jer Aug Cyr), and this may
support Hort’s contention that ὅτι is the “accidental repetition” of the last two
letters of κοσμον, with on read as oti (Westcott and Hort, Selected Readings,
134). Nevertheless, the widely attested (‫ *א‬A F G 33 81 1739 1881 r) ὅτι is the more
difficult reading, and best explains the others.

▪ 8 διατροφάς: This plural is supported by several notable Alexandrian (‫ א‬A

cf. 1739mg vid) and many Byzantine (L Ψ 33 81 pm 𝔐) witnesses, while the sin-
gular διατροφήν is read in mainly Western (D F G K P 048vid 1739txt.c it vgmss syp
co; Cyp Ambst) witnesses. Internal evidence favors διατροφήν with the scribe
changing it in assimilation to the plural σκεπάσματα (Kilpatrick, 8); but with
an overwhelming preference for the singular form of διατροφή in both Classical
and Koine Greek, the scribe could have been making a change to the singular
to conform to common usage. Since the external evidence slightly favors the
plural, διατροφάς should be adopted.

▪ 9 παγίδα: A number of Western witnesses (D* F G pc it vgcl Spec) insert τοῦ

διαβόλου after παγίδα, likely in assimilation to 3:7 (cf. 2 Tim 2:26).

▪ 9 ἀνοήτους: This is replaced, likely unintentionally, by ἀνονήτους in the late

629 (pc) and a few Western witnesses (lat Cyr Ambst). Stylistic considerations
also favor a form of ἀνόητος, which appears in Titus 3:3 (cf. Rom 1:4; Gal 3:1, 3),
whereas ἀνόνητος is absent in the nt.

▪ 10 πολλαῖς: The original ‫ *א‬and the sixth-century uncial H read ποικίλαις

instead. Both πολύς (3:8, 13; 6:9, 10, 12; 2Tim 2:2, 16; 3:9; 4:14; Titus 1:10; 2:3) and
ποικίλος (2Tim 3:6; Titus 3:3) appear in the pe, and both words would fit the
context here. Elliott (98) suggests that the threefold appearance of πολύς in this
section (6:9, 10, 12) might have prompted some to make a change for stylistic

27 Correcting the listing of D2 in na27, na28 has D1 instead for this variant.
6:2b–10 361

reasons, but a similar change is not evident elsewhere when another passage is
equally saturated with this word (e.g., 7× in Rom 5:15–17).

Bibliography
Caragounis, Chrys C. The Development of Greek and the New Testament. wunt 167. Tüb-
ingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004.
Keller, Brian R. “1Timothy 6:5 (Variant)—‘Withdraw Yourself from Such [People].’ ” Wis-
consin Lutheran Quarterly 97 (2000): 291–296.

3 Grammatical Analysis
The transitional sentence ταῦτα δίδασκε καὶ παρακάλει in 6:2 signals the begin-
ning of a new unit. Recalling παράγγελλε ταῦτα καὶ δίδασκε of 4:11, the anaphoric
ταῦτα here may refer to the preceding material that extends all the way back to
4:12. That this clause belongs to a new unit is reflected in the contrast provided
between δίδασκε and ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖ of 6:3. While the extended block of mate-
rial from 4:11 to 6:2 is saturated with imperatives, 6:3–10 contains none (but
instead contains 13 indicatives). This shift is also signified by the verb ἑτεροδι-
δασκαλεῖ (v. 3), as this unit focuses directly on false teachings and the behavior
of the false teachers who promote them.
That which separates this unit from the previous also provides its cohe-
sion as it focuses on false teaching and the acquisition or use of wealth. Part
of the problem is, however, the relationship between vv. 3–5 and 6–10. The
location of this unit within the wider section that covers the final portion of
this letter needs to be addressed first. Among the connections between the
various units within this wider section is the undeniable one between the
warning concerning wealth in v. 10 and the return to the discussion of wealth
in v. 17, with a block of intervening material in vv. 11–16. Around this brack-
eted material, a chiastic structure can be detected (cf. Dschulnigg 1993: 60–
77):

vv. 3–5 On False Teachings

vv. 6–10 On Wealth and Benefaction

vv. 11–16 On God and Christ as Benefactors

vv. 17–19 On Wealth and Benefaction

vv. 20–21 On False Teachings

362 1 timothy

This structure points to the connection between the false teachings (vv. 3–5,
20–21) and wealth (vv. 6–10, 17–19), and both find their solution in the affirma-
tion of Christ as the benefactor of all. Though human benefactors are called to
commit to “good works” (ἔργοις καλοῖς, v. 18), such “good works” are not to be
defined by the accumulation of money, which is the root of “all kinds of evil”
(πάντων τῶν κακῶν, v. 10). Instead, such “good works” are to be defined by Christ,
who “made the good confession” (ὡμολόγησας τὴν καλὴν ὁμολογίαν, vv. 12, 13) and
God, who “gives life to all” (τοῦ ζῳογονοῦντος τὰ πάντα, v. 13). “Good works” are,
therefore, not defined by one’s financial resources but by the life-giving acts of
God through Christ.
Within this structure, vv. 3–5 (vv. 20–21) and 6–10 (vv. 17–19) connect the
false teachings with the misuse of wealth, and the work of God through Christ
as the counter-model of true benefaction (vv. 11–16). Unjustified is the claim
that there is “no logical connection” between vv. 3–10 and 11–16 (Miller, 91), or
between vv. 3–10 and 17–21 (Bénétreau 2008: 49–60). Rather, vv. 3–5 and 6–10
are to be taken together, as the indicatives in these two subunits mark them
from both the preceding and following units.
This unit begins with a transitional statement (v. 2b) that concludes the pre-
ceding unit (with the anaphoric ταῦτα) and introduces the one that follows
(with δίδασκε in contrast to ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖ, v. 3). The first subunit (vv. 3–5)
consists of one complex sentence with the main clause (τετύφωται …, v. 4a)
modified by its protasis (εἰ …, v. 3), followed a vice list (vv. 4b–5) that depicts
the results (ἐξ ὧν γίνεται, v. 4b) of an interest in “controversies and disputes”
(v. 4a). The second subunit (vv. 6–10) consists of two parts, both introduced
by δέ (vv. 6, 9) and followed by supporting statements marked by γάρ (vv. 7,
10). With δέ, v. 6 provides a correction to πορισμὸν εἶναι τὴν εὐσέβειαν in the
preceding clause (v. 5) by repeating the phrase while introducing the concept
of “contentment” (ἐστὶν … πορισμὸς μέγας ἡ εὐσέβεια μετὰ αὐταρκείας), a con-
cept supported by two statements (γὰρ …, vv. 7–8). Introduced again by δέ,
v. 9 notes the consequences for those who do not seek contentment, with a
complex sentence that supports the warning of such dire consequences (γὰρ
…, v. 10).

▪ 2b Ταῦτα δίδασκε καὶ παρακάλει. The use of παρακάλει recalls v. 1, and if so, may
indicate that the anaphoric ταῦτα refers primarily to the preceding sections in
5:1–6:2b (cf. Malherbe 2010: 386). The similar formulaic phrase in 4:11 (παράγ-
γελλε ταῦτα καὶ δίδασκε), however, argues for a broader reference to the material
following 4:11. The two present imperatives δίδασκε and παρακάλει, which gram-
maticalize imperfective aspect, are again appropriate for general commands.
As in the case of παράγγελλε … καὶ δίδασκε in 4:11, these two imperatives can
6:2b–10 363

be considered as a hendiadys, with δίδασκε being the controlling verbal idea as

testified by the related ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖ in v. 3.

▪ 3 εἴ τις ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖ καὶ μὴ προσέρχεται ὑγιαίνουσιν λόγοις τοῖς τοῦ κυρίου

ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ τῇ κατ’ εὐσέβειαν διδασκαλίᾳ. With this protasis of the
conditional sentence (with the apodosis in v. 4), Paul resumes his direct engage-
ment with the false teachings. The use of the indefinite pronoun (τις) with
εἰ is not unexpected (3:1, 5; 5:4, 8, 16), and it can be considered merely as an
“assertion for the sake of argument” (Porter, Verbal Aspect, 320); nevertheless,
in light of its previous uses in and beyond this letter (Gal 1:9; 6:3; Phil 3:4; 2 Thess
3:10, 14) in reference to false teachers, this indefinite pronoun may again reflect
an attempt to silence the false teachers by not naming them. This use of the
indefinite pronoun with the verb ἑτεροδιδασκαλέω also recalls 1:3 (ἵνα παραγγεί-
λῃς τισὶν μὴ ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖν), where Paul apparently has some (known) false
teachers in mind.
μή is used rather than οὐ, which is expected with indicatives in the protasis,
especially in Koine Greek (bdf §428[1]; Moule, Idiom, 148); however, a distinc-
tion between the two should not be assumed (contra Radermacher, Grammatik,
212). τοῖς τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ provides further definition to ὑγιαίνου-
σιν λόγοις (cf. τῇ ὑγιαινούσῃ διδασκαλίᾳ, 1:10). τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ can
be taken as a subjective or objective genitive, with three possible shades of
meaning: (1) words that Jesus spoke, as contained in the gospels, particularly
the Gospel of Luke (cf. 5:18 [Luke 10:7]; Spicq, 1.557); (2) the gospel that orig-
inated from Jesus (Fee, 141); and (3) the gospel about Jesus (Fiore, 118). Since
the focus here is not on the reliability of the particular sayings of Jesus, read-
ing (1) is unlikely. Both (2), which takes the phrase as a subjective genitive, and
(3), which takes it as an objective genitive, are possible since both refer to the
gospel, but in light of the link between τῇ ὑγιαινούσῃ διδασκαλίᾳ and τὸ εὐαγ-
γέλιον τῆς δόξης τοῦ μακαρίου θεοῦ in vv. 10–11 where τὸ εὐαγγέλιον is followed
by a genitive of content (see comments on v. 11 above), (3) is the best read-
ing.
This objective genitive reading is confirmed by the phrase that follows, τῇ
κατ’ εὐσέβειαν διδασκαλίᾳ. The prepositional phrase κατ’ εὐσέβειαν embedded
in the articular τῇ … διδασκαλίᾳ does not merely identify the head noun but
also marks εὐσέβειαν with prominence, especially in view of its wider role in
the discourse.

▪ 4 τετύφωται, μηδὲν ἐπιστάμενος, ἀλλὰ νοσῶν περὶ ζητήσεις καὶ λογομαχίας, ἐξ

ὧν γίνεται φθόνος ἔρις βλασφημίαι, ὑπόνοιαι πονηραί. The perfect indicative τετύ-
φωται is marked with prominence, both for its role as the main verb of the
364 1 timothy

apodosis and as the primary criticism against the false teachers as developed in
the following verses. τυφόω is best understood in the sense of “conceited” (see
Historical Analysis), and μηδὲν ἐπιστάμενος fits well with this reading when ἐπι-
στάμενος is taken as a concessive participle.
ἀλλά marks a contrast between the act of knowing (nothing) and craving
something less than knowledge. περί + accusative (ζητήσεις καὶ λογομαχίας)
reflects the tendency to move from the genitive to the accusative in Koine Greek
(1:19; 6:21; Turner, Syntax, 270).
ἐξ ὧν γίνεται introduces a non-defining relative clause that stands in hypotac-
tic relation with the preceding clause, which contains its antecedents (ζητήσεις
καὶ λογομαχίας). This is followed by an asyndetic vice list that extends to v. 5:
φθόνος ἔρις βλασφημίαι, ὑπόνοιαι πονηραί, διαπαρατριβαί.

▪ 5 διαπαρατριβαὶ διεφθαρμένων ἀνθρώπων τὸν νοῦν καὶ ἀπεστερημένων τῆς ἀλη-

θείας, νομιζόντων πορισμὸν εἶναι τὴν εὐσέβειαν. The two perfect participles διε-
φθαρμένων and ἀπεστερημένων stand in parallel, marking with prominence the
deficiencies in the minds of the false teachers, and both find their specific man-
ifestation in the present participle νομιζόντων, which is, in turn, the result of
having a corrupted and deprived mind. All three participles should be taken as
attributive participles in the definition of ἀνθρώπων (contra Marshall, 642). διε-
φθαρμένων means “corruption” (rather than “destruction,” Luke 12:33; Rev 8:9),
and the accusative τὸν νοῦν after the passive verb should best be taken as an
accusative of respect (cf. bdf §159[3]).
νομιζόντων here introduces an indirect discourse (bdf § 157; Smyth, Greek
Grammar, §2018; contra Wallace, Grammar, 183), with τὴν εὐσέβειαν as the sub-
ject of εἶναι. With εὐσέβειαν of v. 3, τὴν εὐσέβειαν here brackets the content of this
subunit while paving the way for ἡ εὐσέβεια (v. 6) of the next subunit. πορισμόν
here points to material profit as the word is commonly understood (Horsley
1987: 169), while the same word in the next clause takes on a different nuance
when Paul focuses on that which transcends material wealth.

▪ 6 Ἔστιν δὲ πορισμὸς μέγας ἡ εὐσέβεια μετὰ αὐταρκείας· As is often the case else-
where in this letter, the primary function of δέ here is developmental (“now,”
Johnson, 296) rather than contrastive (“but,” Knight, 253). This developmental
δέ is reinforced by a slightly different nuance of πορισμός here when the focus
shifts from the negative financial aspect. As such, μετά does not provide the
condition for which godliness can be of profit (cf. “if it is coupled with,” Dibelius
and Conzelmann, 84); instead, it provides the definition of true godliness that
would be of profit.
αὐτάρκεια here takes on the sense of “contentment” (see Historical Analysis).
6:2b–10 365

▪ 7 οὐδὲν γὰρ εἰσηνέγκαμεν εἰς τὸν κόσμον, ὅτι οὐδὲ ἐξενεγκεῖν τι δυνάμεθα. γάρ con-
strains this “preformed saying” (Yarbrough 2009: 129) that seeks to strengthen
the material that precedes. This again argues for the unity of the two subunits
(vv. 3–5, 6–10). The aorist indicative εἰσηνέγκαμεν that grammaticalizes perfec-
tive aspect is an example of the “omnitemporal use of the aorist” (Porter, Verbal
Aspect, 223), and the relatively marked present tense δυνάμεθα draws attention
to the focus (and application) of this saying.
The function of ὅτι is unclear, as reflected in the textual history (see Text-
Critical Analysis). Some argue for a causal sense (Marshall, 648), which does
not work well since the justification of the first clause does not contribute to
the argument here. Related to this is the reading that sees the causal sense as
justifying the making of the first statement instead (“we brought nothing into
the world [and this statement is justifiable because] we cannot take anything
out of it,” Menken 1977: 532–541), a possible reading when the first statement is
understood as clearly a quoted (or well-known) saying (see below). Others take
this ὅτι in a weakened sense (“and,” Mounce, 343), a consecutive sense (“so,” cf.
Zerwick, Biblical Greek, §420), or even an adversative sense (cf. ἀλλά, Pol. Phil.
4.1), which would not explain this word choice.
More plausible is a “consecutive” use that expresses result: “so that (as a
result) we can take nothing out of it” (bdag 732). Though most nt examples
can only be found within interrogatives (John 7:35; 14:22; Heb 2:6), the notable
exception in Luke 7:47 (Quinn and Wacker, 508) may make this a viable option.
Another viable reading lies in the recognition of this (in whole or part) being
a proverbial and possibly also an abbreviated saying. Possible solutions then
include (1) as a marker of discourse, with the possibility of (only) the second
part of this verse being a saying known to the audience: “we bring nothing into
this world, and as it is said, neither can we bring anything out” and (2) within an
ellipsis (Rom 5:8), as posited by some many Byzantine witnesses: “[it is clear]
that …” (Knight, 254).

▪ 8 ἔχοντες δὲ διατροφὰς καὶ σκεπάσματα, τούτοις ἀρκεσθησόμεθα. This verse

should best be considered as paralleling v. 7 in providing the grounds (γάρ, v. 7)
for vv. 5–6, and the relationship between the two is reflected in the clusters of
first-person plural verbs (εἰσηνέγκαμεν, v. 7; δυνάμεθα, v. 7; ἀρκεσθησόμεθα, v. 8),
not found since 4:10. ἀρκεσθησόμεθα reinforces the earlier αὐταρκείας, which
shares the same stem in drawing attention to the main theme of contentment.
ἔχοντες should best be read as a conditional participle (Wallace, Grammar,
633), a usage not unfamiliar in this letter (cf. λαμβανόμενον, 4:4), modifying ἀρκε-
σθησόμεθα in the apodosis. διατροφάς and σκεπάσματα, being objects of ἔχοντες,
form a pair for basic necessities of existence. The future ἀρκεσθησόμεθα could
366 1 timothy

be taken as an imperative (cf. φιμώσεις, 5:18; Marshall, 648), but this sense is
unnecessary in the context of this proverbial saying.

▪ 9 οἱ δὲ βουλόμενοι πλουτεῖν ἐμπίπτουσιν εἰς πειρασμὸν καὶ παγίδα καὶ ἐπιθυμίας

πολλὰς ἀνοήτους καὶ βλαβεράς, αἵτινες βυθίζουσιν τοὺς ἀνθρώπους εἰς ὄλεθρον καὶ
ἀπώλειαν. While the preceding δέ connects two independent clauses (vv. 7 and
8), here δέ provides a development from the block of two sayings in vv. 8–9.
The present tense βουλόμενοι grammaticalizes imperfective aspect, as is often
the case for this particular verb (see 1Tim 2:8) without definitive temporal
value. Similarly, both aorist and present tenses of the complementary infinitive
are often used following βούλομαι without a clear distinction in the temporal
framework. Therefore, the use of the present infinitive alone here does not lead
to the conclusion that the phrase meant “those who are determined to main-
tain their wealth” rather than “those who are determined to become wealthy”
(Kidd, 95–96).
This verse focuses on combatting the “desire” to be wealthy without assum-
ing that the wealthy had satisfied their desire to be so, as reflected in the struc-
ture of the second half of this verse. First, the paralleling of ἐπιθυμίας with
πειρασμόν and παγίδα draws attention to the snare of such a desire. Second,
ἐπιθυμίας is marked with prominence by both the adjectival phrase (πολλὰς
ἀνοήτους καὶ βλαβεράς) as well as the lengthy relative clause (αἵτινες βυθίζουσιν
τοὺς ἀνθρώπους εἰς ὄλεθρον καὶ ἀπώλειαν). With both, Paul draws attention to the
destructive desire that is contrary to a life of “contentment” (αὐταρκείας, v. 6)
that he advocates, and this desire is explicitly defined as ἡ φιλαργυρία in the
next clause.

▪ 10 ῥίζα γὰρ πάντων τῶν κακῶν ἐστιν ἡ φιλαργυρία, ἧς τινες ὀρεγόμενοι ἀπεπλα-
νήθησαν ἀπὸ τῆς πίστεως καὶ ἑαυτοὺς περιέπειραν ὀδύναις πολλαῖς. As Paul uses
proverbial sayings in vv. 7–8 to support (γάρ) his previous assertion (v. 6), so
also here he is using a proverbial saying to support (γάρ) the preceding asser-
tion (v. 9).
ῥίζα γὰρ πάντων τῶν κακῶν should best be understood in the sense of “the root
of all kinds of evil.” Wallace (Grammar, 523), who recognizes the unlikelihood
of an indefinite reading (“a root”) because of the rarity of indefinite pre-verbal
predicate nominatives in the nt, nonetheless opts for a qualitative reading of
ῥίζα (“evils of every kind are rooted in the love of money,” cf. Kelly, 137) because
logically it appears difficult to identify one exclusive motivation of all kinds
of evil. This fails, however, to recognize the nature of proverbial sayings when
hyperbolic language is to be expected. To support the assertion that precedes,
“the root of all kinds of evil” provides a stronger reading.
6:2b–10 367

ἡ φιλαργυρία is the antecedent of the relative pronoun ἧς, but with the par-
ticiple ὀρεγόμενοι (“by desiring”), the reference has to be “wealth” itself. This
rather clumsy construction serves to highlight again that the problem lies in the
“desire” for wealth. τινές again refers to the false teachers (cf. vv. 3, 7), and the
contrast to the ideals as embodied by the overseers is clear: those who “desire”
(ὀρέγεται) to be an overseer are to desire “good works” (καλοῦ ἔργου, 3:1), but the
false teachers “desire” (ὀρεγόμενοι) wealth, which is the root of “all kinds of evil”
(πάντων τῶν κακῶν).
The passive sense of ἀπεπλανήθησαν is limited because of the presence of
the reflexive pronoun ἑαυτούς in the parallel clause and should, therefore, be
understood as “they have gone astray” (bdag 119) rather than “they were led
astray” (Mounce, 347).

Bibliography
Bénétreau, S. “La richesse selon 1 Timothée 6, 6–10 et 6, 17–19.” etr 83 (2008): 49–60.
Dschulnigg, Peter. “Warnung vor Reichtum und Ermahnung der Reichen: 1 Tim 6,6–
10.17–19 im Rahmen des Schlußteils 6,3–21.” bz 37 (1993): 60–77.
Horsley, G.H.R. “πορισμός.” NewDocs 4 (1987): 169.
Malherbe, Abraham J. “Godliness, Self-Sufficiency, Greed, and the Enjoyment of
Wealth—1Timothy 6:3–19, Part i.” NovT 52 (2010): 376–405.
Menken, M.J.J. “Ὅτι en 1Tm 6,7.” Bib 58 (1977): 532–541.
Yarbrough, Mark M. Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy. lnts 417.
London: T & T Clark, 2009.

4 Historical Analysis
Whereas the first half (vv. 2b–5) of this section appears to be specifically crafted
in response to the false teachings, the second half (vv. 6–10) betrays a clearer
dependence on traditional literary and thought patterns. Even the content
of the vice list in vv. 4b–5 reflects the specific context and problems Paul is
addressing.
The second half contains two parts, both of which begin with a gnomic sen-
tence or a general statement introduced by δέ (vv. 6, 9), followed by the use of
what appears to be a preformed saying introduced by γάρ (vv. 7, 10a) and a brief
concluding application (vv. 8, 10b) to the contemporary context. The gnomic
sentences appeal to observations that are generally regarded to be true (Quin-
tilian, Inst. 8.5.3–34; cf. Ramsaran 2003: 431, 448), while the preformed sayings
in vv. 7 and 10a further reinforce the general observations by grounding them
“in reality” (Yarbrough 2009: 129, 132–134).
This second half also draws upon a diverse group of traditions in illustrating
the use of wealth and the danger of an obsession with it. Many have pointed to
368 1 timothy

the prominence of ot (Gen 3:7, 11, 20–24; Deut 30:11–20; 31:6–8; Job 1:21; Thurén,
1970: 241–253) and Hellenistic Jewish traditions (Wis 7:6; Sir 30:1; Philo, Spec.
1.295; Spicq, 1.561) on wealth, while others point to Hellenistic philosophers
(especially the Cynics, cf. Neumann 2009: 127–147) and Greco-Roman moral-
ists (cf. Plutarch, Mor. 523d; 524d–e; 527b–f; Zamfir, 155), especially in their
critique of those who teach for profit (cf. Dio Chrysostom, Alex. 11–13). However,
the differences between these traditions and Paul’s use of them here cannot be
ignored (see comments below). Even closer to the thought world of Paul are his
earlier works (cf. Rom 1:28–30; Roloff, 330) and the teachings of Jesus (cf. Luke
12:16–21; 16:1–4; Dschulnigg 1993: 60–77). The significance of the local context
of first-century Ephesus cannot be ruled out with the presence of the elites,
especially as they are connected to the Artemis cult (cf. Hooker 2013: 42–44).
From Paul’s note on those who “desire” to be wealthy (v. 9), some have pos-
tulated two groups behind this larger section, those who desire to be wealthy
(vv. 9–10) and those who are already wealthy (vv. 17–19; Bénétreau 2008: 49–
60). This is unnecessary since this verse focuses on combatting the “desire” to
be wealthy without assuming that those who have such desires are not already
so. To further assume that the blurring of class distinctions is the main point of
this passage lacks sufficient textual evidence (see Theological Analysis).

▪ 2b Both διδάσκω (2:12; 4:11) and παρακαλέω (1:3; 2:1; 5:1) have made appear-
ances earlier in this letter, and these appearances do not support the claim that
διδάσκω is an “authoritative act” while παρακαλέω is “gentler” (Mounce, 336).
Particularly noteworthy is the strong statement made earlier in this letter as
Paul urges (παρεκάλεσα) Timothy to “charge (παραγγείλῃς) certain people not
to spread a different teaching (ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖν)” (1:3). Reading in light of the
similar formulaic statement in 4:11 (παράγγελλε ταῦτα καὶ δίδασκε), παρακαλέω
here takes on the stronger sense of “to command” (cf. παραγγέλλομεν καὶ παρα-
καλοῦμεν, 2Thess 3:12) as Paul directly addresses urgent concerns within the
community.

▪ 3 ἑτεροδιδασκαλέω here recalls 1:3, where it is also used with the indefinite
pronoun τις in reference to the activities of the false teachers; the connection
between the two is further secured by this verb that only appears in these two
verses in ancient Greek literature. In 1:3–4, the false teachings are defined by
“myths and endless genealogies,” whereas here it is contrasted with “the sound
words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching according to godliness.”
ὑγιαίνουσιν λόγοις introduces a series of medical terms (cf. νοσέω, v. 4; δια-
φθείρω, v. 5; cf. 1:10) in the description of the false teachers and the teach-
ings propagated. This strategy is consistent with the Greco-Roman moralists
6:2b–10 369

(Seneca, Ep. 75; Epictetus, Diatr. 2.15.5; 3.21.20; Dio Chrysostom, Invid. 27;
cf. 2Tim 2:16–17; Titus 1:15; Malherbe 1980: 24–25, 33–34) and fits well within
this section that contains material familiar to these authors. This paves the way,
however, to the next section where both christological confession and exhor-
tation within a distinct eschatological framework (vv. 11–16) set Paul’s teaching
apart from his contemporaries.
This use of medical language is also adopted by Hellenistic Jewish authors
(Josephus, B.J. 2.31; C.Ap. 1.222), especially Philo, where one finds the con-
trast between “sound words” (λόγοι ὑγιαίνοντες), which are considered to be
at war with “passions” (πάθη) and “vices” (νοσήματα, Abr. 223.4; cf. νοσέω, v. 4),
and speech that leads to “corruption” (φθορά, Plant. 157.2; cf. διαφθείρω, v. 5).
Whereas Philo considers the Law encapsulated in the Ten Commandments as
the “sound words” (λόγοι ὑγιαίνοντες, Spec. 4.134), Paul here considers the “words
(λόγοι) of our Lord Jesus Christ” as being “healthy” (ὑγιαίνοντες). Perhaps it is
not an accident that Paul adopts such language in arguing against these false
teachers who might have claimed to be νομοδιδάσκαλοι (1:7).
Used with εὐσέβεια (see comments on 2:2 and 3:16), διδασκαλία here is con-
trasted with διδασκαλία δαιμονίων of 4:6, where it also occurs in a context where
teachings are contrasted with godliness (εὐσέβεια, 4:7, 8).

▪ 4 τυφόω here can mean “conceited” (Dibelius and Conzelmann, 83), “foolish”
(Spicq, 1.557–558), or “mentally diseased” (Malherbe 2010: 389). In its imme-
diate context, “foolish” or “mentally diseased” may be supported by μηδὲν ἐπι-
στάμενος that follows, and such uses are not uncommon in ancient literary
sources (Polybius 3.81.2). But “conceited” fits best with the wider context, espe-
cially when “conceited” is often the result of a “diseased” mind. First, this
same verb in 3:6 clearly means “conceited.” Second, being “proud” and “con-
ceited” is a concern when Paul presents the perils of accumulating wealth (cf.
μὴ ὑψηλοφρονεῖν, v. 17). Third, this use is also common in contemporary liter-
ary sources even when paired with descriptions of foolishness and ignorance
(Philo, Somn. 2.64; Plutarch, Mor. 330a). This is consistent with evidence from
non-literary sources (M.-M. 646) and the reading of this verse in ancient ver-
sions (cf. bdag 1021).
A nt hapax, νοσέω (“to have a diseased craving”) continues the medical
metaphor and is used in contrast to that which is “healthy” (ὑγιαίνουσιν, v. 3).
ζητήσεις should best be understood as “controversies” (bdag 429; Johnson, 292),
although “speculation” (Quinn and Wacker, 489) is often the cause and perhaps
also the result of such controversies (cf. 2Tim 2:23). While ζήτησις is a very com-
mon noun, λογομαχία is not attested in contemporary literature (cf. Chrysippus,
Frag. 448 [ad 3rd]; see the variants ζητήσεις καὶ λογομαχίας in F and G of Titus
370 1 timothy

3:9), with the verbal form appearing only in 2Tim 2:14. This λογομαχ-word group
may have been invented by Paul in reference to the disputes (μάχαι, 2 Tim 2:23;
Titus 3:9) generated by the false teachers.
φθόνος (“envy;” cf. Rom 1:29; Gal 5:21; Titus 3:3) and ἔρις (“strife;” Rom 1:29;
13:13; 2Cor 12:20; Gal 5:20; Titus 3:9) appear often in Pauline vice lists, and they
are found together in Paul (Rom 1:29; Phil 1:15) and elsewhere in ancient doc-
uments (cf. Sophocles, Oed. col. 1234; Aristotle, Rhet. 1419b; Philo, Mut. 95.2).
βλασφημία, used in the sense of “slander,” appears also in vice lists of Paul’s later
writings (Eph 4:31; Col 3:8), although a vertical sense of “blasphemy” (Matt 12:31;
26:65; Mark 14:64; Luke 5:21; John 10:33; Rev 13:1, 5–6; 17:3) cannot be ruled out
since speaking against others can be understood as an act against their creator
(James 3:9). Elsewhere in Greek literature, βλασφημία also appears with φθόνος
in a context where strife and dissensions are discussed (Demosthenes, 1 Aristog.
52.10).
In ancient documents ὑπόνοια πονηρά (“evil suspicion”) appears only in Sir
3:24, in a context where the conceit of the false teachers has led many astray
(πολλοὺς γὰρ ἐπλάνησεν ἡ ὑπόλημψις αὐτῶν). In the pe, the false teachers are
also those “evil” people (πονηροί) who are “deceiving others and are themselves
deceived” (πλανῶντες καὶ πλανώμενοι, 2Tim 3:13). The verbal form of the nt
hapax ὑπόνοια (“suspicion”) appears only in Acts for thoughts or opinions that
are not grounded in sufficient evidence (Acts 13:25; 25:18; 27:27). In ancient
texts, it can be used in reference to suspicions that are yet proven (Thucy-
dides, Hist. 7.49; Oth. 12.1071), or speculations that are without sufficient bases
(Diogenes Laertius, Mened. 132; Josephus, B.J. 1.631; Plutarch, Mor. 324d). With
πονηρά, the latter is apparently the case here.

▪ 5 διαπαρατριβή has been taken to be an emphatic form of παρατριβή, thus “con-

stant disputations” (bdf §116[4]), though compound words in Koine Greek
may not necessarily carry an added shade of meaning. Both forms are rela-
tively rare in ancient literary sources, with παρατριβή appearing primarily in
Polybius prior to the nt, while διαπαρατριβή first appears here in this context.
In Polybius, παρατριβή is also often used in reference to the constant friction or
repeated disputations between opposing parties (2.36.6; 22.10.4) that can lead
to fatal consequences (23.3.4–9; 23.7.1–4). In this context, however, with the δια-
prefix applied to both this noun and the participle (διαφθείρω) that follows, an
emphatic sense cannot be ruled out.
Both διαφθείρω (2Cor 4:16) and its simplex φθείρω (1 Cor 3:17; 15:33; 2 Cor 7:2;
11:3; Eph 4:22) are familiar Pauline vocabulary, with its closest parallel to its use
here found in Eph 4:22 where the “old self” is described as “corrupted accord-
ing to its deceitful desires.” Extending from the medical metaphor of a diseased
6:2b–10 371

individual in v. 4 (cf. νοσέω), διαφθείρω likely carries the sense of “corruption” as

it does in its classical uses (Plato, Apol. 24c; Xenophon, Mem. 1.1.1; Porter, Ver-
bal Aspect, 68). The corruption of the mind can be attributed to excessive use
of alcohol (Pseudo-Isocrates, Demon. 32.3), but closer to the thought world of
Paul is Philo’s description of the deceived who possesses “the mind that cor-
rupts the truth” (τοῦ νοῦ τοῦ διαφθείροντος τὴν ἀλήθειαν, Leg. 3.229.8; cf. Migr.
66.4). For Philo, “the truth” (ἡ ἀλήθεια) is the “divine law” (νόμος … θεῖος, Leg.
3.167), but for Paul ἡ ἀλήθεια is defined by the “faith” (πίστις, 2:7) that centers
on the work of Jesus Christ that leads to salvation (2:4).
In the nt πορισμός appears only in this and the next verse. Here, it refers to
the illegitimate means of gain, a use paralleled in the documentary (cf. IEph
18; Horsley 1987: 169) and literary (cf. T.Iss. 4.5) sources. The more neutral/pos-
itive use of the term appears in the next verse, with similar uses attested also
in literary sources in the sense of provisions (Philo, Gig. 29.4; Polybius 3.112.2),
means of livelihood (Diodorus of Sicily, Hist. 3.4.3; Wis 13:19; Philo, Mos. 2.211.5;
Opif. 128.8) or profit (cf. Wis 14:2; Philo, Fug. 33.2). For εὐσέβεια, see comments
on 2:2 and 3:16.
The precise means through which these false teachers could receive mate-
rial benefits through their teaching remains unclear, with options including
the requirement of payment for the act of teaching (Kelly, 135), the appearance
of piety that elicits sympathetic donations (Marshall, 643), and the reception
of an “actor’s salary” for spreading teachings that they don’t sincerely affirm
(Quinn and Wacker, 495). The third reading is best supported by the available
evidence (Titus 1:11).
The widespread criticism of sophists and philosophers who teach for mate-
rial benefits (Plato, Lach. 186c; Prot. 310d; 313c; 349a; Gorg. 519c–d; cf. Xenophon,
Cyn. 13.8–9; Mem. 1.6.13) often rests on the overemphasis on the body over the
mind, especially in the Platonic tradition (Tell 2009: 13–18). Isocrates, for exam-
ple, specifically states that in their teaching Sophists emphasize the worth-
lessness of the material while they themselves desire to make a “small profit”
(μικροῦ … κέρδους) out of it (Soph. 4; Tell 2009: 4). Similarly, Plutarch makes
the accusation that those who make money from of their teachings do so out
of a “false and unrelenting judgment” (κρίσιν φαύλην και ἀλόγιστον, Mor. 524d;
Malherbe 2010: 390).
The specific reference to contentment in the next verses may evoke both
the Stoic and Cynic traditions with “self-sufficiency” (αὐτάρκεια) as the prime
virtue (Diogenes Laertius, Vit. 6.104; 7.30; 10.130; Chrysippus, Frag. mor. 65.2;
276.3). Paul’s criticism of the false teachers may also have alluded to such tradi-
tions if those who claimed to be self-sufficient were actually dependent on the
satisfaction of their desires for material wealth and well-being.
372 1 timothy

▪ 6 εὐσέβεια and πορισμός connect this verse with the previous, though both
terms are now used in a positive sense, with εὐσέβεια in reference to true godli-
ness and πορισμός to true (and honorable) profit. Among Greco-Roman moral
philosophers, αὐτάρκεια often denotes “self-sufficiency” and is popular not only
among the Stoics but also the Cynics and the Epicureans (Diogenes Laertius Vit.
30.3; Epicurus, Ep. Men. 130.5; Chrysippus, Frag. 272.10; Posidonius, Frag. 105A–
B), especially as their influence spread in the early imperial period (cf. Cicero,
Billerbeck 1982: 151–173; Malherbe 2010: 393). αὐτάρκεια is often taken to carry
this meaning of “self-sufficiency” here (Dibelius and Conzelmann, 84; Collins,
156).
Nevertheless, the sense of “contentment” fits this context better. First, even
those who argue for Paul’s dependence on the Stoic use of this term concede
that the link between εὐσέβεια and αὐτάρκεια is unparalleled in this tradition
(Malherbe 2010: 392), and that “contentment” is but a positive expression of
“self-sufficiency” and cannot, therefore, be excluded as its intended nuance
here (Johnson, 294). Nevertheless, a clear distinction between “self-sufficiency”
and “contentment” cannot be maintained since even among the Greco-Roman
moral philosophers, “self-sufficiency” does not always point to the absolute
independent naked self; instead, it can be used against the reliance on money
(Xenophon, Mem. 1.2.14) or excessive dependence on material wealth (Dio-
genes Laertius, Vit. 6.104; cf. Brenk 1990: 42–43).
In light of Paul’s earlier use of πᾶσαν αὐτάρκειαν in a context where he was
interacting with Prov 22:8 (2Cor 9:8; cf. Hanson, 107), a Jewish context for the
use of this term cannot be excluded. Moreover, in Phil 4:11 Paul uses the adjec-
tival form (αὐτάρκης) as he “turned the tables” on the Stoics, insisting on suffi-
ciency in Christ rather than self-sufficiency (Fee, 143). A similar rhetorical move
here is probable, as confirmed by the following verses that focus on how one
cannot be dependent on one’s own resources (cf. Spicq, 1.560–561).

▪ 7 The sentiment of this gnomic sentence is familiar in both Greco-Roman

(Pseudo-Phocylides, Sent. 110; Seneca, Ep. 102.23–25) and Jewish (especially
Wisdom) traditions (Eccl 5:10–20; Job 1:8–10; 41:10–15; Wis 7:6; Malherbe 2010:
397), and the general truth of this statement is also explicated in early Christian
traditions (Luke 12:16–21). The use of this general saying should not, however,
be understood as a retreat from the general anti-ascetic tone expressed ear-
lier in this letter (cf. 4:1–5); instead, consistent with the wisdom tradition, it
relativizes human work (Eccl 5:14[15]) while providing a critique on an over-
dependence on one’s wealth and status (Wis 7:6; Sib. Or. 8.96–97) in the call
to a dependence on God alone as the benefactor of all (Job 1:21; cf. Pol. Phil.
4.1).
6:2b–10 373

▪ 8 διατροφή is a nt hapax referring to “sustenance,” appropriate in discussions

of that which supports one’s body (bgu 1024; M.-M. 643; cf. 1 Macc 6:49; Strabo,
Geogr. 16.1.3; Diodorus of Sicily, Hist. 3.29.4). Josephus explicitly mentions δια-
τροφή when discussing those deprived of the “[necessities] of life” (τοῖς βίου, A.J.
4.231) and similar discussions can also be found with the use of τροφή instead
(cf. C.Ap. 2.230).
σκέπασμα, another nt hapax, can refer to “clothing” (Dibelius and Conzel-
mann, 85) or “covering” (bdag 927), the latter of which is a broader category
that includes “shelter” (cf. Johnson, 294). The reference to “covering” in the
sense of “clothing” fits this context best (Wenkel 2015: 73–90) since (1) in Koine
writers, the word never refers to shelter (Philo, Det. 19; Strabo, Geogr. 11.5.1;
Plutarch, Luc. 27.6; Crass. 24.1); (2) “food” and “clothing” is a pair familiar in
both the ot (Deut 10:18–19) and the nt (Matt 6:25–33; Luke 12:22–31); and (3)
it fits this saying well since the focus is not a stationary lifestyle but one of life-
long travel.
Most consider the point of the pair διατροφή and σκέπασμα as indicating
“what is necessary for human sustenance” (Collins, 157), but reading in light of
Deut 10:18–19, others have suggested that this is a lifestyle “compatible with pil-
grimage and wandering” (Wenkel 2015: 86). That Paul is drawing directly from
Deut 10 remains unlikely, however. The pair τροφή and σκέπασμα do appear to
refer to the basic necessities of a simple life. “Food” (τροφή) and “clothing” (σκέ-
πασμα) distinguish a human being from an animal who is not dependent on
others for feeding and clothing (Sextus Empiricus, Math. 9.90.7; cf. Cleanthes,
Test. frag. 529.15).
ἀρκέω is a common verb even in the nt (Matt 25:9; Luke 3:14; John 6:7; 14:8;
2 Cor 12:9; 3John 10), with its close parallel in Heb 13:5 where a contented life
is contrasted with the love of money (ἀφιλάργυρος; cf. 1 Tim 3:3), a contrast
present also in this section (cf. ἡ φιλαργυρία, v. 10). To survive with basic neces-
sities of life such as food (τὴν ἀρκοῦσαν διατροφήν) can also be juxtaposed with
living in “abundance and luxury” (δαψιλῆ καὶ τρυφήν, Diodorus of Sicily, Hist.
5.40.3).

▪ 9 In this context, οἱ … βουλόμενοι πλουτεῖν are those who love money (cf. ἡ
φιλαργυρία, v. 10). Alongside the desire to be healthy, the desire to be rich is con-
sidered to be one shared by many (cf. Plato, Symp. 200e), though most would
not be able to fulfill this desire (cf. βουλόμεθα πλουτεῖν πάντες, ἀλλ’ οὐ δυνάμεθα,
Menander, Mon. 1.64); instead, the common advice is that one should seek to
live a just life (Menander, Mont. 1.67). Here, Paul combats the desire to be rich
with the danger associated with it, with language familiar to the early Christian
traditions.
374 1 timothy

In Paul, πειρασμός can be used for the trials and testing initiated by God (1 Cor
10:13), or physical testing (Gal 4:14), but here it is used in a distinctly negative
sense of “temptation” as is consistent with other nt uses of the phrase εἰς πει-
ρασμόν (Matt 6:13; 26:41; Mark 14:38; Luke 11:4; 22:40). παγίς (“trap”) is repeatedly
used in the pe (3:7; 2Tim 2:26; cf. Luke 21:35; Rom 11:9). Both are relatively rare in
pagan literature but are common vocabulary in the lxx. While πειρασμός and
παγίς appear together only here, πειρασμός has been used in Deut 9:22 for the
rebellious people of God in the wilderness.
ἐπιθυμία (“desire”) is a familiar term in both the lxx and the nt, and espe-
cially in Paul where it is used almost exclusively in a negative sense (Rom 1:24;
6:12; 7:7–8; 13:14; Eph 2:3; Phil 1:22; Col 3:5; 1Thess 2:17; cf. 2 Tim 2:22; 3:6; 4:3;
Titus 2:12; 3:3). Unlike πειρασμός and παγίς that are drawn primarily from the
language of the lxx, ἀνόητος (“senseless”) and βλαβερός (“harmful”) belong to
the language of pagan Greek authors. In the lxx ἀνόητος is used only in the
later Hellenistic Jewish writings (4Macc 16:7, 9; Wis 3:11), while βλαβερός only
appears in Prov 10:26; the two appear together in Philo (Fug. 14.3) for the harm-
ful consequences in associating with senseless individuals. Greek authors have
long recognized the danger of the desire to be rich without a sense of self-
control (Aristotle, Pol. 1334a; Blumenfeld 2001: 154); Paul would later point to
the remedy by reminding the reader(s) of the need to focus on God the bene-
factor of all (v. 17).
βυθίζω draws from imageries of sinking (cf. Luke 5:7; Diodorus of Sicily, Hist.
20.93) and drowning (cf. 2Macc 12:4; Diodorus of Sicily, Hist. 5.4; 11.18; Jose-
phus, C.Ap. 1.306) in the depiction of plunging people into destruction. This
metaphoric use for moral decay (βυθιζομένῃ … εἰς ἀνομίαν, Acts John 112) dra-
matizes the danger and irreversibility of one’s moral failure. ὄλεθρος is com-
mon among both Greek (Menander, Frag. 533.13; Apollonius of Rhodes, Argon.
1.488; Strabo, Geogr. 14.6.6) and Hellenistic Jewish authors (Jdt 11:15; 2 Macc 6:12;
4 Macc 10:15; Wis 1:12–14; Sir 39:30; Philo, Det. 137.1); in Paul, it is always used
in reference to spiritual or eternal destruction (1 Cor 5:5; 1 Thess 5:3; 2 Thess
1:9). ἀπώλεια is also common in both traditions (Diodorus of Sicily, Hist 4.38.2;
16.48.6; Plutarch, Dion 33.3; Epictetus, Diatr. 1.28.14; Jdt 6:4; Tob 4:13; 1 Macc 3:42;
Philo, Conf. 196.5) and is also consistently used in reference to eternal destruc-
tion in Paul (Rom 9:22; Phil 1:28; 3:19; 2Thess 2:3). ὄλεθρος and ἀπώλεια can
be used interchangeably (Philo, Praem. 133.2; Josephus, A.J. 8.302) but rarely
together as parallel terms; their appearance here together underlines the sever-
ity of the consequence of desiring to be rich.

▪ 10 The sentiment expressed in the proverbial saying, ῥίζα γὰρ πάντων τῶν
κακῶν ἐστιν ἡ φιλαργυρία, can be found throughout Greek literature, especially
6:2b–10 375

in a related saying attributed to Bion the Sophist: τὴν φιλαργυρίαν μητρόπολιν

ἔλεγε πάσης κακίας εἶναι (Bion, Frag. 35A.1; 35B.1; cf. Aelius Theon, Prog. 99.18;
Diogenes Laertius, Vit. 6.50), with its numerous variations which include ἀρχὴ
… πάντων χαλεπῶν φιλαργυρία, (Pol. Phil. 4.4). ἡ φιλαργυρία appears often in
vice lists (Lucian, Nigr. 16; Char. 15; Pisc. 42; Sextus Empiricus, Eth. 120), and
it is often listed among love of glory and love of pleasure (φιλοδοξία, φιληδο-
νία) that distinguish an evil man from a noble one (Philo, Prob. 21; cf. Philo,
Leg. 1.281; 4Macc 1:26; Sextus Empiricus, Math. 11.120; Pseudo-Longinus, Subl.
1.7). It is a sign of the lack of self-control, comparable to drunkenness (ἡ μέθη)
and recklessness (ἡ ἀκολασία, Diogenes Laertius, Vit. 7.1.111). In Jewish and early
Christian works, being “the root of all kinds of evil,” ἡ φιλαργυρία is explicitly
identified as an act of idolatry (Basil of Caesarea, Ep. 53) since it invariably leads
to idolatry (cf. ἡ φιλαργυρία πρὸς εἴδωλα ὁδηγεῖ, cf. T.Jud. 19.1).
Within this and similar proverbial sayings, ῥίζα can refer to the beginning
(in parallel with ἀρχή: Aristotle, Mete. 353b; Athenaeus, Deipn. 2.1; Philo, Congr.
120.4; Galen, Sem. 4.592) or cause (in parallel with αἴτιον: Alexander of Aphro-
disias, Probl. 1.98) of evil. The clause that follows argues for both senses in this
context.
The use of ὀρέγω for the act of “desiring” (cf. 3:1), with ἀργύριον as the implied
object, is not unexpected, especially when φιλαργυρία is an expression of desire,
in this case in the negative sense of lust and greed (cf. πλεονεξίαν καὶ φιλαργυ-
ρίαν ἄδικον, Polybius 6.8.5). ἀπεπλανήθησαν ἀπὸ τῆς πίστεως expresses the same
reality as ἀστοχήσαντες ἐξετράπησαν εἰς ματαιολογίαν in 1:6 (cf. 6:21). ἀποπλα-
νάω came to be used for apostasy in early Christian literature (Pol. Phil. 6.1; 6.3;
Clement of Alexandria, Paed. 3.11.83; Origen, Fr. Ps. 118.27).
In contrast to a godliness defined by contentment, which produces “great
gain” (πορισμὸς μέγας, v. 6), the “many … desires” (ἐπιθυμίας πολλὰς, v. 9) for
wealth can only lead to the piercing with “many pains” (ὀδύναις πολλαῖς, v. 10).
Notably, ἐπιθυμία (“deep desire,” LNd §25.12) and ὀδύνη (“intense anxiety,” LNd
§ 25.235) belong to the same semantic domain (LNd § 25) with both depicting
intense emotions. Yet the intense desire for wealth does not lead to pleasure
but to pain. Absent in the lxx, the nt hapax περιπείρω (“to pierce”) is also
rarely used in Greek literature though a metaphoric sense is already present
(Philo, Praem. 20.4; Flacc. 1.4; Somn. 2.161). ὀδύνη is very common in medical
texts (especially in Hippocrates) and is frequently used by Hellenistic Jewish
authors where the distinction between physical and spiritual suffering is not
always discernible (Tob 3:10; 2Macc 9:9; 4Macc 14:9; Sir 27:29; T.Zeb. 9.6; Philo,
Aet. 64.1).
376 1 timothy

Bibliography
Bénétreau, S. “La richesse selon 1 Timothée 6, 6–10 et 6, 17–19.” etr 83 (2008): 49–60.
Billerbeck, Margarethe. “La reception du cynisme à Rome.” L’Antiquité Classique 51
(1982): 151–173.
Blumenfeld, Bruno. The Political Paul: Justice, Democracy and Kingship in a Hellenistic
Framework. JSNTSup 210. London/New York: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001.
Brenk, Frederick E. “Old Wineskins Recycled: Autarkeia in 1 Timothy 6.5–10.” Filología
Neotestamentaria 3 (1990): 39–52.
Dschulnigg, Peter. “Warnung vor Reichtum und Ermahnung der Reichen: 1 Tim 6,6–
10.17–19 im Rahmen des Schlußteils 6,3–21.” bz 37 (1993): 60–77.
Harrison, E.L. “Was Gorgias a Sophist?” Phoenix 18 (1964): 183–192.
Hooker, Morna D. “Artemis of Ephesus.” jts 64 (2013): 37–46.
Horsley, G.H.R. “πορισμός.” NewDocs 4 (1987): 169.
Malherbe, Abraham J. “Godliness, Self-Sufficiency, Greed, and the Enjoyment of
Wealth—1Timothy 6:3–19, Part i.” NovT 52 (2010): 376–405.
Malherbe, Abraham J. “Medical Imagery in the Pastoral Epistles.” In Text and Testa-
ments. Ed. W. Eugene March, 19–35. San Antonio: Trinity University Press, 1980.
Neumann, Nils. “Kein Gewinn = Gewinn: Die kynisch geprägte Struktur der Argumen-
tation in 1Tim 6:3–12.” NovT 51 (2009): 127–147.
Ramsaran, Rollin A. “Paul and Maxims.” In Paul in the Greco–Roman World. Ed. J. Paul
Sampley, 429–456. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2003.
Tell, Håkan. “Wisdom for Sale? The Sophists and Money.” cp 104 (2009): 13–33.
Thurén, Jukka. “Die Struktur der Schlußparänese 1. Tim 6,3–21.” tz 26 (1970): 241–253.
Wenkel, David H. “Lexicography to the Aid of a Problematic Pastoral Proverb: With
What Should Christians Be Content in 1Timothy 6.8?” bt 66 (2015): 73–90.
Yarbrough, Mark M. Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy. lnts 417.
London: T & T Clark, 2009.

5 Theological Analysis
That this section focuses on wealth is widely recognized, but its rhetorical
function remains debated. Those who make a distinction between “those who
desire to be rich” (v. 9) and those who are rich argue that this section focuses
on the maintenance of societal norms and the prevention of “class climb-
ing” by those of the lower classes (Krause, 124). The absence of any call for a
“redistribution of wealth” is considered evidence for this reading, as is the final
warning against craving for money (MacDonald, 199). Nevertheless, a distinc-
tion between the two classes is not made in v. 9, whereas the mentioning of
“the desire” to be rich fits well with the focus on “desire” in the second half of
this section. Moreover, the explicit address to the “rich” in vv. 17–19 argues for
the blurring of this distinction. While an explicit call to redistribute wealth is
6:2b–10 377

indeed absent in this letter because of its nature and context, the call to be a
generous giver in v. 18 is at least a potential path through which a kind of redis-
tribution is possible.
With the section beginning with a reference to the false teachers and the
teachings they propagated, coupled with a direct characterization of these peo-
ple who consider godliness as “a means of gain,” it appears probable that the
main target of this section lies in the behavior of the false teachers who are
able to profit from their teachings (cf. Roloff, 326), likely by receiving ben-
efits from propagating teachings that they do not sincerely affirm (cf. v. 5).
With explicit references to the false teachers/teachings, this reading cannot be
denied, though the lack of sincerity appears to be a concern limited to v. 5. Oth-
ers, therefore, suggest that the wider concern of wealth is the main point of this
section, especially when similar concerns have already surfaced earlier in this
letter (cf. 1Tim 3:3, 8; Kidd, 93–100).
Recognizing both the focus on wealth and the challenges posed by the false
teachers, it is best to see the use of power as the central concern. Considering
the prevalent use of benefaction language throughout this letter (cf. 2:3–6, 9–
10), it appears that Paul is urging Timothy to curb the influence of these false
teachers who assume the role of benefactors in exerting influence among the
Ephesian believers. Accusations of stirring up controversies (v. 4) that create
“constant friction among people” (v. 5) fit well in this context, where the true
“gain” (v. 5b) for these false teachers is the control of the community. “The love
of money” is, therefore, “the love of the status that money can purchase.” These
false teachers are, therefore, contrasted with the ideal “overseers” who are to
serve as faithful benefactors in avoiding “the snare of the devil” (cf. Byrne 2001:
15).
It is this focus on the pursuit to be benefactors that points to the theolog-
ical center of this section, one that becomes explicit in the next section. The
reference to “our Lord Jesus Christ” at the beginning of this section anticipates
“our Lord Jesus Christ” in the next section (v. 14), who gave his own life in the
presence of God, “who gives life to all things” (v. 13). It is this “King of kings
and Lord of lords” (v. 15) who alone deserves “honor and eternal power” (v. 16).
The underlying problem of the false teachers who desire wealth and claim to
be benefactors is that they are competing with God and the Lord Jesus Christ.
The repeated references to “godliness” (εὐσέβεια, vv. 3, 5, 6) not only pave the
way to the call to pursue “godliness” at the beginning of the next section (v. 11),
but it also refers back to 3:16 where such “godliness” is defined by the royal
sovereignty of Jesus the King. After all, “godliness” (εὐσέβεια/pietas) is but the
proper response to acts of benefaction (cf. igr 4.1557; Beard, North, and Price,
1998: 350; Hoklotubbe 2017: 118–125).
378 1 timothy

Finally, the question of change in eschatological orientation arises again

with the reference to the death of an individual in v. 7. For some, this betrays
“a sense of legitimate accommodation in a world whose imminent end is not
in sight” (Lemcio 2001: 53). This not only fails to recognize the nature of the
proverbial saying that reflects the sentiment shared by many in the ancient
world, but it also ignores the continuation of the present discussion on wealth
and benefaction in the subsequent section that climaxes in a reference to the
expectation of the parousia (vv. 14–15). Moreover, as in the Lukan writings
where a similar accusation of the downplaying of “the imminence of the End”
has been launched in reference to the notes on the fate of individuals who had
passed away (cf. Luke 16:19–31; 23:39–43; Acts 7:54–60; Conzelmann, 1961: 95–
136), a wider reading, especially in light of the prophetic restoration program,
argues for a more nuanced evaluation (cf. Carroll 1988: 37–164; Pao 2000: 111–
146).

Bibliography
Beard, Mary, John North, and Simon Price. Religions of Rome, vol. 2. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press, 1998.
Byrne, Patrick J. “1Tim 6:6: ‘A Window on the World of the Pastorals,’” piba 24 (2001):
9–16.
Carroll, John T. Response to the End of History. sblds 92. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988.
Conzelmann, Han. The Theology of St. Luke. Trans. Geoffrey Buswell. Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1961.
Hoklotubbe, T. Christopher. The Rhetoric of Pietas in the Pastoral Epistles and the
Roman Empire. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2017.
Lemcio, E.E. “Images of the Church in 1Corinthians and 1 Timothy: An Exercise in
Canonical Hermeneutics.” AsTJ 56 (2001): 45–59.
Pao, David W. Acts and the Isaianic New Exodus. wunt 2.130. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2000.

B God and Christ as True Benefactors (6:11–16)

1 Translation
11 As for you, man of God, flee these things. Instead pursue righteousness, god-
liness, faithfulness, love, endurance, and long-suffering. 12 Fight the good fight
of the faith. Take hold of the eternal life to which you are called and for which
you make the good confession in the presence of many witnesses. 13 I charge
you in the presence of God, who gives life to all things, and of Christ Jesus,
who gave testimony to the good confession in the days of Pontius Pilate, 14
to keep this commandment in a spotless and blameless way until the mani-
festation of our Lord Jesus Christ, 15 which he will show forth at the proper
6:11–16 379

time—he who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord
of lords, 16 who alone has immortality, and who lives in unapproachable light,
whom no one has ever seen or can see. To him be honor and eternal power.
Amen.

2 Text-Critical Analysis
▪ 11 θεοῦ: Notable Western (D F G) and the majority of the Byzantine (H K L
P pm 𝔐) witnesses together with a corrector of Codex Sinaiticus (‫א‬2) include
τοῦ before θεοῦ (thus Kilpatrick, 8; Westcott-Hort, mg), but its omission is sup-
ported by notable Alexandrian witnesses (‫ *א‬A I 33 1739 1881), which makes this
a slightly preferred reading. Internal considerations would also favor its omis-
sion since the genitival modifier θεοῦ is always anarthrous in the pe when it
modifies another anarthrous noun (1:4; 3:5, 15; 4:4, 5; 2 Tim 1:8; Titus 1:1).

▪ 11 πραϋπαθίαν: This nt hapax is replaced by a more common word (πραύτητα

[‫א‬2 D], or its alternate form preferred by later Atticist scribes, πραότητα [K L Ψ
33 pm 𝔐]) in the pe (2Tim 2:25; Titus 3:2).

▪ 12 ἐκλήθης: καί is inserted before ἐκλήθης in a few witnesses (81 1505 syh**),
drawing attention to the parallel between ἐκλήθης and ὡμολόγησας.

▪ 13 [σοὶ]: This personal pronoun is included in manuscripts (‫א‬2 A D H K L P 1881

pm 𝔐) and versions (lat sy sams bo) from diverse textual traditions but is omit-
ted in witnesses that include significant Alexandrian (‫ ;*א‬cf. 1739) manuscripts
and selected Western witnesses (F G m). That the external support was “so
evenly balanced” (Metzger, 576) led to the inclusion of this pronoun in na26–
28 with square brackets, and such ambivalence is also reflected in the relatively
rare disagreement between Westcott-Hort (who include it) and Tischendorf
(who omits it). Internal evidence fails to settle the issue, with some (Elliott, 100)
suggesting that the omission is an attempt to generalize this charge, while oth-
ers (net, 549) consider the insertion as clarifying the object of the verb. With
the omission being the more difficult reading, the reading of the original hand
of Codex Sinaiticus (‫ )*א‬is the preferred reading.

▪ 13 ζῳογονοῦντος: Led by Codex Sinaiticus (‫)א‬, many later Byzantine witnesses

(K L 630 1241 𝔐) read ζῳοποιοῦντος instead, replacing the rare ζῳογονέω (Luke
17:33; Acts 7:19) with ζῳοποιέω, a more common word in Paul’s writings (Rom
8:11; 1Cor 15:22, 36, 45; Gal 3:21). Departing from his usual reliance on Codex
Sinaiticus, Tischendorf is correct in reading ζῳογονοῦντος here in light of its
stronger external support, which includes other significant Alexandrian
380 1 timothy

(A 1739) and Western (D F G) witnesses. ζῳογονοῦντος, which can carry the

meaning of “life-giving” (1Sam 2:6), fits well in this context. Elliott (101), who
prefers ζῳοποιοῦντος, considers ζῳογονοῦντος the result of a change made by
Atticist scribes; however, ζῳογονέω is widely attested in non-literary texts (M.-
M. 275).

▪ 13 Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ: The order is inverted in a few witnesses (‫ א‬F G 326 syp Tert),
but Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ is supported by a more diverse group of witnesses (A D K L
Ψ 1739 1881 pm 𝔐 lat syh) and adopted by both Westcott-Hort and Tischendorf.
The change was probably influenced by Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ of vv. 3 and 14, though
there it appears within the formulation τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.

▪ 16 φῶς: A few Western witnesses (D* 629 ar b m* vgcl Tert Ambst) insert καί
before φῶς. Internal evidence is split: its omission can be explained when the
καί is considered “superfluous” (Elliott, 209), but its insertion can be explicated
as an attempt to remedy this asyndeton (Kilpatrick, 8). The external evidence
from diverse textual traditions (‫ א‬Avid F G Ψ 33 1739 1881 pm 𝔐) tips the balance
towards its omission.

▪ 16 οὐδεὶς ἀνθρώπων: The order is inverted in several relatively late Western wit-
nesses (F G g got Nov Amst Aug), but the external support for οὐδεὶς ἀνθρώπων is
overwhelming. This is also the order in which οὐδεὶς … ἀνθρώπων always appears
in the nt (Mark 11:2; Luke 19:30; James 3:8).

Bibliography
Burer, Michael H., et al. New English Translation/Novum Testamentum Graece New Tes-
tament. Dallas: net Bible Press, 2004.

3 Grammatical Analysis
The boundary of this unit is marked by its personal address to Timothy, as
indicated by the only use of the nominative second-person singular personal
pronoun σύ and the only use of the interjection ὦ in this letter, the first use
of the vocative (ἄνθρωπε) since 1:18, and the use of six second-person singu-
lar verbs in vv. 11–12 with none in vv. 3–10 (φεῦγε, δίωκε, ἀγωνίζου, ἐπιλαβοῦ,
ἐκλήθης, ὡμολόγησας, the first four of which are imperatives). These mark this
unit with prominence and are further reinforced by the use of a solemn charge
formula (παραγγέλλω σοι ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ, v. 13), traditional confessional state-
ments (vv. 13b–15a), and a concluding doxology (vv. 15b–16).
The failure to identify the function of this unit in its context led many to
label this unit merely as a “closing commission” (Johnson, 305) or “instructions
6:11–16 381

on true teaching” (Marshall, 653). The resumption of the discussion on wealth

in 6:17–19, however, argues against the understanding of this unit as merely a
concluding collection of teachings. A more plausible reading is to consider the
chiastic structure noted earlier (see introduction to vv. 2b–10 above), where
discussions of false teachings related to wealth and benefaction (vv. 3–10, 17–
21) bracket the positive affirmation of God and Christ as the true benefactors
(vv. 11–16).
Providing a counterexample against those who desire wealth (vv. 9–10) and
are proud of their wealth (v. 17), Paul here points to the example of Christ, who
gave up his life and points to the true benefactor in the one and only God. The
“good works” (cf. πλουτεῖν ἐν ἔργοις καλοῖς, v. 18) of the human benefactors can,
therefore, no longer be defined merely in financial terms; instead, they are to
model after the “good confession” (τὴν καλὴν ὁμολογίαν, v. 13) of Christ, who gave
up his life in the recognition of God to be the true benefactor of all (vv. 15–16).
Timothy, in turn, makes this “good confession” (τὴν καλὴν ὁμολογίαν, v. 12) and is
called to fight the “good fight” (τὸν καλὸν ἀγῶνα, v. 12) for “the eternal life” (v. 12)
to which he is called. Notably, in Titus, this “eternal life” (Titus 3:7) is explicitly
described as the product of a divine act of “benevolence” (ἡ φιλανθρωπία, Titus
3:4).
In terms of structure, this unit contains two major parts. The first is domi-
nated by second-person singular verbs in the four imperatival clauses (vv. 11–
12). The second contains one long sentence that begins with the main verb
παραγγέλλω (v. 13) followed by the complementary infinitive τηρῆσαι (v. 14) and
concludes with the relative clause (ἥν, v. 15). This relative clause provides fur-
ther definition to its antecedent, τῆς ἐπιφανείας (v. 14), and ends with a lengthy
doxology (vv. 15b–16) that exalts the unique status of God the true benefactor
of all.

▪ 11 Σὺ δέ, ὦ ἄνθρωπε θεοῦ, ταῦτα φεῦγε· δίωκε δὲ δικαιοσύνην εὐσέβειαν πίστιν, ἀγά-
πην ὑπομονὴν πραϋπαθίαν. This unit begins with a short clause, but one that is
marked with prominence through the use of the second-person singular pro-
noun σύ, the interjection ὦ, the unusual appellation ἄνθρωπε θεοῦ applied to
Timothy, and the return of the imperative (φεῦγε). Elsewhere in the pe, σὺ δέ
always signals a turn from a focus on the false teachers to either Timothy (2 Tim
3:10; 3:14; 4:5) or Titus (Titus 2:1). The use of the interjection ὦ with the voca-
tive ἄνθρωπε θεοῦ expresses deep emotion (cf. bdag 1101). The anaphoric ταῦτα
likely refers to the “love of money” (v. 10) as well as various manifestations of
this desire (vv. 4, 9).
As is the case with the next two imperatives (δίωκε, ἀγωνίζου), the present
imperative φεῦγε grammaticalizes imperfective aspect and is appropriate for
382 1 timothy

general commands, and all three of them can be classified as “recipient benefit
imperatives,” as is common in paraenesis (cf. Fantin, Greek Imperative, 261–
263). As in 2Tim 2:22, φεῦγε is followed by δίωκε and an asyndetic virtue list.
Unlike the subsequent list that also contains δικαιοσύνην, πίστιν, and ἀγάπην,
this list includes εὐσέβειαν, which links this list with its immediate context
where εὐσέβεια has been repeatedly noted (vv. 3, 5, 6). The ending of this virtue
list is also important: ὑπομονήν (“endurance”) and πραϋπαθίαν (nt hapax, “long-
suffering”) both point to the importance of being patient, a theme that contin-
ues below where Paul focuses on the eternal life that is truly profitable (vv. 12,
14). Taken as a whole, all six virtues aim at distinguishing Timothy from those
who desire to be wealthy, especially since they are portrayed as selfish, discon-
tent, short-sighted, and easily succumbing to temptation (vv. 6–10).

▪ 12 ἀγωνίζου τὸν καλὸν ἀγῶνα τῆς πίστεως, ἐπιλαβοῦ τῆς αἰωνίου ζωῆς, εἰς ἣν ἐκλή-
θης καὶ ὡμολόγησας τὴν καλὴν ὁμολογίαν ἐνώπιον πολλῶν μαρτύρων. Syntactically,
these two clauses begin with the imperatives ἀγωνίζου and ἐπιλαβοῦ, but the
use of the two sets of cognate accusatives (ἀγωνίζου … ἀγῶνα, ὡμολόγησας …
ὁμολογίαν) also draws attention to the parallel between “the good fight” (τὸν
καλὸν ἀγῶνα) and “the good confession” (τὴν καλὴν ὁμολογίαν). “The good fight”
(τὸν καλὸν ἀγῶνα) is further defined by its genitival modifier, τῆς πίστεως, which
should be understood primarily as an objective genitive, especially in light of
its contrast to the false teachers who have strayed ἀπὸ τῆς πίστεως (v. 10; cf. περὶ
τὴν πίστιν, 21). This is confirmed by the parallel “the good confession” (τὴν καλὴν
ὁμολογίαν) here that likewise points to the objective reality of the gospel.
The understanding of the nature of “the good confession” is inevitably tied
to the understanding of the aorist ἐπιλαβοῦ as well as the two aorist indicatives
that follow (ἐκλήθης, ὡμολόγησας). The aorist ἐπιλαβοῦ stands out from the three
present imperatives (φεῦγε, δίωκε, and ἀγωνίζου) that precede. While the first
three present imperatives grammaticalize imperfective aspect and are appro-
priate for general commands, this aorist imperative has often been understood
as a “punctiliar aorist” depicting a “single event” (Knight, 263), with the two
aorist indicatives that follow describing a particular event that happened in
the past.
This reading of the aorist is neither necessary nor helpful in this context
since these aorists aim not at portraying the objective temporal state of an
event but at grammaticalizing perfective aspect in the portrayal of the total-
ity of an event (contra also Merkle 2016: 71, who argues that the lexical choice
of ἐπιλαβοῦ would favor an aorist because this verbal act of “taking hold” is
to be taken as a telic action, but the limited analysis of a few verbs is insuffi-
cient in establishing a link between lexis and verbal aspect; Pang 2016). The
6:11–16 383

laying hold of eternal life (ἐπιλαβοῦ) as well as the act of calling (ἐκλήθης)
and confessing (ὡμολόγησας) can no longer be considered singular acts that
lie in the past. In this reading, then, the asyndetic ἐπιλαβοῦ refers not to the
“result” of the struggling but its very content considered as a whole (Winer 1882:
392).

▪ 13 παραγγέλλω σοι ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ζῳογονοῦντος τὰ πάντα καὶ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ
τοῦ μαρτυρήσαντος ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου τὴν καλὴν ὁμολογίαν. With the beginning
of a new complex sentence, Paul continues his exhortation to Timothy with the
use of the indicative παραγγέλλω with the second-person personal pronoun σοι,
a construction that carries a similar force as an imperative. Its connection with
the previous two verses is secured by the reappearance of a second-person per-
sonal pronoun (σοι, cf. σύ, v. 11) and the use of courtroom language (ἐνώπιον, cf. v.
12; μαρτυρήσαντος, cf. μαρτύρων, v. 12) and τὴν καλὴν ὁμολογίαν (cf. v. 12). ἐνώπιον
τοῦ θεοῦ … καὶ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ recalls ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ of 5:21,
but it is the characterization of both God and Christ Jesus that serves Paul’s
argument here.
τοῦ ζῳογονοῦντος and τοῦ μαρτυρήσαντος are both attributive participles. In
contrast to the present τοῦ ζῳογονοῦντος which portrays God as the “life-giving”
creator, the aorist τοῦ μαρτυρήσαντος in this context refers to the event that took
place in the past (ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου).
τοῦ μαρτυρήσαντος ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου τὴν καλὴν ὁμολογίαν can carry two
meanings, both of which may be present in this context. The first takes ἐπί in
the sense of “in the presence of,” which is not unexpected with reference to a
governing authority (cf. Winer, Grammar, 469); with this reading, μαρτυρήσαν-
τος τὴν καλὴν ὁμολογίαν would refer to the testimony Jesus uttered in Pilate’s
presence. The second takes ἐπί as a temporal marker, thus “in the days of” (Fee,
151) or “under” (Kelly, 111); in this case, μαρτυρήσαντος … τὴν καλὴν ὁμολογίαν
refers to Jesus’s faithful obedience in his death on the cross in the fulfillment
of God’s salvific plan (cf. Couser 2004: 309). The former fits well with court-
room language in this unit, while the latter fits the context better since “the
good confession” is to be defined not merely by a verbal act but by faithful
living. Taking both together, Timothy is called to be bold in the presence of
opposition as he is to remain faithful in living a life that fulfills God’s plan in
history.

▪ 14 τηρῆσαί σε τὴν ἐντολὴν ἄσπιλον ἀνεπίλημπτον μέχρι τῆς ἐπιφανείας τοῦ κυρίου
ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. The aorist complementary infinitive τηρῆσαι grammatical-
izes perfective aspect in viewing a specific concrete command (τὴν ἐντολήν). τὴν
ἐντολήν and ἄσπιλον ἀνεπίλημπτον are examples of a double accusative (Wal-
384 1 timothy

lace, Grammar, 187), and the repeat of the second-person personal pronoun σέ
(cf. σοί, v. 13) draws attention to the urgency of this discourse.
The two-termination adjectives ἄσπιλον and ἀνεπίλημπτον can be mascu-
line (modifying σέ), feminine (modifying τὴν ἐντολήν), or neuter (modifying the
entire clause, τηρῆσαί σε τὴν ἐντολήν). Immediately following τὴν ἐντολήν, they
should best be read as modifying the noun (Mounce, 360) or the entire clause
(Knight, 268). If they modify the noun, then the infinitive τηρῆσαι carries the
sense of “to preserve” (bdag 1002); if they modify the entire clause, then the
sense is “to observe” (Fee, 151). Both senses appear to be present in 2 Tim 4:7,
where faithful observance is a means to preserve “the faith.” In this case, if τὴν
ἐντολήν is be read in reference to almsgiving (see Historical Analysis), then the
sense of the clause is: “to keep … this commandment in a spotless and blame-
less way.”

▪ 15 ἣν καιροῖς ἰδίοις δείξει. ὁ μακάριος καὶ μόνος δυνάστης, ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν βασιλευ-
όντων καὶ κύριος τῶν κυριευόντων. ἣν καιροῖς ἰδίοις δείξει takes on three functions
here: (1) as a relative clause it provides further characterization to τῆς ἐπιφανείας
in the previous verse; (2) with the use of the temporal dative καιροῖς ἰδίοις (bdf
§ 200[4]; cf. 2:6; Titus 1:3) the sovereignty of God is affirmed; and (3) it provides
a context where the various appellations can be applied to God in this doxol-
ogy. The future verb δείξει that marks the anticipation of the climax of salvation
history provides the proper introduction to the doxology, one that syntactically
forms the subject of this verb.
With superlatives applied to the sovereign God, this doxology becomes a
veiled polemic against any competing claims to greatness. The titles of δυνά-
στης, βασιλεὺς, and κύριος situate this within a discourse of power (all within the
same semantic domain of “rule,” LNd §37) and the adjectival (μακάριος … μόνος)
as well as genitival (βασιλευόντων, κυριευόντων) modifiers become superlative
modifiers in depicting the unique stations of this sovereign God. The articular
δυνάστης parallels βασιλεὺς … καὶ κύριος, and the singular article that governs
both βασιλεὺς … καὶ κύριος points to the two phrases as overlapping and mutu-
ally reinforcing (Heckert, Discourse, 85; cf. Wallace 2009: 108, who applies the
Granville Sharp’s rule to these personal, singular, non-proper substantives gov-
erned by a singular article).

▪ 16 ὁ μόνος ἔχων ἀθανασίαν, φῶς οἰκῶν ἀπρόσιτον, ὃν εἶδεν οὐδεὶς ἀνθρώπων οὐδὲ
ἰδεῖν δύναται· ᾧ τιμὴ καὶ κράτος αἰώνιον, ἀμήν. The second part of the doxology
is connected to the first in two ways: through the use of the adjective μόνος
and a similar structure with a singular article governing two descriptors (ἔχων
ἀθανασίαν, φῶς οἰκῶν ἀπρόσιτον). In terms of content and its formulaic end-
6:11–16 385

ing, this final part of the doxology resembles 1:17. Nevertheless, a more intense
anti-imperial polemic can be detected here with the use of power terminol-
ogy (δύναται, κράτος) as well as the note on God as inapproachable, as human
rulers were perceived to be. The final two relative clauses (ὅν, ᾧ) are again non-
defining relative clauses that provide additional characterization to the one
being honored.
The use of the class-distinguishing adjective (μόνος) with the α-privatives
(ἀθανασίαν, ἀπρόσιτον) plus the rhetoric of negation (οὐδεὶς … οὐδέ) that con-
cludes with a reference to the transcendence of temporal references (αἰώνιον)
not only marks the one being honored from all competing rulers, but it also
marks this divine benefactor from all human pretenders (vv. 2b–10, 17–19) and
therefore serves as the distinct exemplar for both Timothy and those in his com-
munity.

Bibliography
Burk, Denny. Articular Infinitives in the Greek of the New Testament. New Testament
Monographs 14. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2006.
Couser, Greg A. “‘The Testimony about the Lord,’ ‘Borne by the Lord,’ or Both?” TynBul
55 (2004): 295–316.
Downs, David J. Alms: Charity, Reward, and Atonement in Early Christianity. Waco, TX:
Baylor University Press, 2016.
Eubank, Nathan. “Almsgiving Is ‘the Commandment’: A Note on 1 Timothy 6.6–19.” nts
58 (2011): 144–150.
Merkle, Benjamin L. “The Abused Aspect: Neglecting the Influence of a Verb’s Lexical
Meaning on Tense-Form Choice.” bbr 26 (2016): 57–74.
Mihoc, Vasile. “The Final Admonition to Timothy (1 Tim 6,3–21).” In 1 Timothy Recon-
sidered. Ed. Karl Paul Donfried, 135–152. Colloquium Oecumenicum Paulinum 18.
Leuven: Peeters, 2008.
Pang, Francis G.H. Revisiting Aspect and Aktionsart: A Corpus Approach to Koine Greek
Event Typology. Linguistic Biblical Studies 14. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2016.
Quinn, Jerome D. “Paraenesis and the Pastoral Epistles.” Semeia 50 (1990): 189–210.
Wallace, Daniel B. Granville Sharp’s Canon and Its Kin. sbg 14. New York: Peter Lang,
2009.

4 Historical Analysis
Though the exact nature of the traditional material used in this section can-
not be determined with any certainty (with suggestions including baptismal
[Spicq, 1.569], ordination [Roloff, 341–343], and commissioning [Ellis 1987: 246–
247] liturgies), the use of confessional or liturgical traditions can be assumed
in light of the collective weight of the following: (1) the difference in vocab-
386 1 timothy

ulary and syntax of this section as compared with the surrounding material,
especially vv. 13–16 (Yarbrough 2009: 135); (2) the use of ὁμολογέω (v. 12; cf. Rom
10:9–10) and ὁμολογία (vv. 12, 13; cf. 2Cor 9:13); (3) the evocation of the name
Pontius Pilate (v. 13) that plays an important role in early Christian confession
(Acts 3:13; 4:27; 13:28); (4) the concise references to Jesus’s earthly life (v. 13) as
well as his return (v. 14; cf. 3:16); (5) the use of καιροῖς ἰδίοις for the revelation of
Jesus Christ within redemptive history (v. 15; cf. 2:6; Titus 1:3; see also τὸ πλή-
ρωμα τοῦ χρόνου, Gal 4:4); and (6) the conclusion with a doxology (vv. 15–16)
followed by ἀμήν (v. 16).
This confessional material is located within wider paraenetic concerns,
especially with the use of the imperative φεῦγε followed by a virtue list that
points to a different path (v. 11; cf. 2Tim 2:22). Though without explicit use of
the πλουτ-word group as in the sections that precede (πλουτέω, v. 9) and fol-
lows (πλούσιος, v. 17; πλοῦτος, v. 17; πλουτέωv, v. 18), this section draws attention
to God the final benefactor, whose life-giving act is manifested in Jesus Christ,
who gave his own life (v. 13). The use of the relatively rare ζῳογονέω is note-
worthy, especially since it appears only here in the Pauline corpus, and only
elsewhere in the Lukan writings (Luke 17:33; Acts 7:19). Luke 17:33 provides the
closest parallel where the losing of one’s life is considered a “life-giving” (ζῳο-
γονέω) act; here on the cross where Christ gave up his life, God reveals himself
to be the “life-giving” (ζῳογονέω) benefactor (v. 13; cf. Schmidt 2008: 329–351).
Moreover, both statements are found within sections that focus on the fleeting
nature of wealth within the wider eschatological framework (cf. Luke 17:30–35;
1 Tim 6:2b–10, 17–19). As such, besides confessional statements on the redemp-
tive work of Jesus Christ, this section may also have drawn from Jesus’s own
teachings on possessions.

▪ 11 Those who see a commissioning liturgy behind this section often consider
ἄνθρωπε θεοῦ a reference to charismatic or institutional leaders of the Christian
community since the phrase is often applied to prophets and persons claimed
to possess the power of the Spirit (Deut 33:1; Josh 14:6; 1 Sam 2:27; 2 Kgs 1:10; Mal
3:8; Jer 16:20; cf. Roloff, 345–346). The wider context may also support this iden-
tification when the ot “man of God” typically refuses to receive compensation
for his work (cf. 1Sam 9:7–8 with 12:3–4; 1Kgs 13:7–9; Quinn and Wacker, 526).
Those who argue for a baptismal background would, however, consider this
a reference to all believers (Marshall, 657). Without definite proof of the Sitz
im Leben of the traditional material used in this section, the textual evidence
argues for the latter reading. (1) The only other appearance of this designa-
tion in the nt appears in 2Tim 3:17, where it clearly applies to all believers.
There, “the man of God” (ὁ τοῦ θεοῦ ἄνθρωπος) is linked with “good work” (ἔργον
6:11–16 387

ἀγαθὸν), a connection made in this wider context as well as with Timothy’s call
to urge others “to do good work” (ἀγαθοεργεῖν, v. 18).
(2) The immediate context is not that of the compensation of Christian
leaders, but the call to avoid falling into “many senseless and harmful desires
(ἐπιθυμίας)” (v. 9) and to “flee (φεῦγε) these things” in pursuing “righteousness,
godliness, faithfulness, love …” (v. 11), a call that recalls the one directed to Timo-
thy in 2Tim 2:22, where he is also called to “flee” (φεῦγε) from youthful “desires”
(ἐπιθυμίας) in pursuing “righteousness, faithfulness, love, and peace along with
those who call upon the Lord.” This call is directed to Timothy, who is to serve
as “an example for the believers in word, in deed, in love, in faith, in purity”
(4:12).
(3) In its context, ἄνθρωπε θεοῦ can be considered as a shorthand for those
who “set their hope ... on God” (v. 17), since Paul continues to address those who
are (or desire to be) wealthy. This “man of God” is then contrasted with those
controlled by their “love of money” that leads them to wander from the faith
(v. 10). As such, ἄνθρωπε θεοῦ here does not denote a person with special access
to God and his power, but the one who is devoted to serving him (cf. Philo, Mut.
24.6; 26.2; Josephus, A.J. 2.268).
φεύγω is often used to introduce a vice list and διώκω a virtue list (cf. Pseudo-
Crates, Ep. 15; Epictetus, Diatr. 4.5.30; Malherbe 2010: 401). δικαιοσύνη appears
only here in this letter but is found in a comparable virtue list in 2 Tim 2:22,
both in an ethical sense (Rom 14:17; 2Cor 6:7, 9; 11:15; Eph 4:24; 6:14). The adjec-
tive δίκαιος does appear in 1:9, in contrast to the “the lawless and rebellious”
(1:9; cf. τίς γὰϱ μετοχή δικαιοσύνῃ καὶ ἀνομίᾳ, 2Cor 6:14). For εὐσέβεια, see 2:2
and 3:16. As a pair, δικαιοσύνη and εὐσέβεια appear often in Greek literature
as umbrella terms for a virtuous life (Isocrates, De pace 33.1; 34.5; Diodorus of
Sicily, Hist. 1.92.5; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Pomp. 6.6.6; cf. εὐσέβεια, σωφρο-
σύνη, δικαιοσύνη: Isocrates, De pace 63.2; Philo, Det. 73.3). Attributed to Plato,
the definition of εὐσέβεια as δικαιοσύνη περὶ θεούς is also shared by many (Plato,
[Def.] 412e).
πίστις, ἀγάπη, and ὑπομονή appear often together, especially in the pe (2 Tim
3:10; Titus 2:2; cf. 1Thess 1:3; Rev 2:19). πίστις (see 1:2, 4, 5) and ἀγάπη (see
1:5) have appeared earlier in this letter, while ὑπομονή and πραϋπάθεια are
included likely due to contextual concerns (Timothy is called to be patient in
endurance). Within the triad alongside πίστις and ἀγάπη, ὑπομονή is closely tied
with ἐλπίς (Rom 5:4; 15:4; 1Thess 1:3) and is here further defined by πραϋπάθεια,
a nt hapax that is also rarely used prior to the nt (cf. Philo, Abr. 213.5). πραϋπά-
θεια can mean “gentleness” (bdag 861). But if one understands πραΰς in the lxx
sense of “humiliation/oppression” (Pss 34:2; 37:11; 76:9), then “long-suffering”
fits this context better.
388 1 timothy

▪ 12 The metaphor behind ἀγωνίζου τὸν καλὸν ἀγῶνα is possibly an athletic

imagery as elsewhere in Paul (cf. 1Cor 9:25; 2Tim 4:7), but his use of the nom-
inal form ἀγών (1Thess 2:2; Phil 1:30) may indicate that this term is used in a
more general sense of toiling (4:10) or even military battling (cf. Strabo, Geogr.
13.4.9; Philo, Legat. 349.2). As in the comparable phrase στρατεύῃ … τὴν καλὴν
στρατείαν in 1:18, the gladiator fight may provide a context for the merging of
athletic and militaristic imageries (cf. 2Tim 2:3–9; Seesengood 2006: 50–52).
The focus on “the eternal life” (τῆς αἰωνίου ζωῆς, see 1:16) contrasts the short-
sightedness of the false teachers who focus on the wealth of this age (cf. vv. 7,
17). The passive ἐκλήθης (2Cor 1:9; 7:18; Gal 5:13; Eph 4:1; Col 3:15) provides bal-
ance to the two middle imperatives, ἀγωνίζου and ἐπιλαβοῦ, as it places empha-
sis on God as the subject of the redemptive act of calling.
Many have limited the occasion for the giving of “the good confession” to the
time when Timothy was baptized (Marshall, 661) or commissioned/ordained
(Johnson, 307), but as Jesus lives out his “good confession” (τὴν καλὴν ὁμολογίαν)
in his life and death (v. 13), this “good confession” that Timothy makes should
not be confined to one point in the past. The descriptor καλός (or ἀγαθός) with
ὁμολογία appears only here (and in v. 13) in contemporary literature, and this
unique phrase points to the “good work” of God the benefactor through the
death of Jesus Christ as contained in the “good confession.” Those who claim
to be (earthly) benefactors are, in turn, called to follow their final benefactor in
being rich “in good works” (ἐν ἔργοις καλοῖς, v. 18b; cf. ἀγαθοεργεῖν, v. 18a) as they
lay up treasure for that which is “truly life” (v. 19).
If the “good confession” of Timothy is to be understood in light of the “good
confession” of Jesus (v. 13; cf. Couser 2004: 307–308), then ἐνώπιον πολλῶν μαρ-
τύρων should likewise be extended to those who can testify to Timothy’s faith-
fulness and perseverance (cf. τύπος γίνου τῶν πιστῶν, 4:12). μάρτυς here is antic-
ipated by the allusion to Deut 17:6 and 19:15 in 1Tim 5:19 (ἐπὶ δύο ἢ τριῶν μαρτύ-
ρων) above.

▪ 13 ζῳογονέω can refer to “life-giving” (cf. 1 Sam 2:6; bdag 431) or “life-sustain-
ing” (cf. Luke 17:33; Acts 7:19; Quinn and Wacker, 520; see also P.Lond. 121; M.-M.
275), and in this context “life-giving” should be adopted (Rom 8:11; 1 Cor 15:22,
36, 45; Gal 3:21; see also Text-Critical Analysis) since God is earlier described
as the one who “created” (ἔκτισεν, 4:3) all things and is elsewhere in the pe
described as the one who “brought eternal life to light through the gospel”
(2Tim 1:10). This usage of the verb is also attested in both Greek (Diodorus
of Sicily, Hist. 1.10.4; Plutarch, Ag. Cleom. 60.5) and Hellenistic Jewish (Sib. Or.
8.485; Philo, Spec. 3.108; Virt. 135.1) writers. The confession that God is the cre-
ator of all things is a familiar one in the early church (cf. σὺ ἔκτισας τὰ πάντα,
6:11–16 389

Rev 4:11), and here it draws attention to his status as the benefactor of all, sur-
passing the Roman emperor who cannot be compared to him (vv. 15–16; Spicq,
1.570).
μαρτυρήσαντος here refers to Jesus’s death on the cross, and not just his verbal
acts prior to his death. This use of μαρτυρέω that moves beyond merely a verbal
act can already be found in the nt (John 5:36; 10:25; Acts 15:8; cf. 1 Tim 5:10) and
is best capsulated in the Johannine account of Jesus’s testimony before Pilate,
where his entire life and subsequent death are to be counted as a testimony (cf.
John 18:37).
Pontius Pilate plays a prominent role in early Christian confession (Acts 3:13;
4:27; 13:28), and his iconic significance as the Roman prefect under which Jesus
was crucified is noted in early Christian (Ignatius, Magn. 11.1; Trall. 9.1; Smyrn.
1.2; Justin, Dial. 30.3; 76.6; 85.2; 1 Apol. 13.3; 35.9; Irenaeus, Haer. 2.49.3) and even
non-Christian (Josephus, A.J. 18.3; Tacitus, Ann. 15.44) accounts of Jesus’s death.
The mentioning of Pontius Pilate here may remind Timothy (and the Ephesian
believers) of how they should imitate Jesus, who remained faithful when he
was persecuted by others (cf. vv. 3–5, 10). The reuse of the phrase, ἡ καλὴ ὁμολο-
γία (v. 12), here secures the connection between Paul’s call to Timothy and the
exemplary act of Jesus.

▪ 14 Those who consider the liturgical background of this unit would argue
for τὴν ἐντολήν as a baptismal (“deposit of faith,” Hanson, 112) or ordination
(Spicq, 1.571–572) charge, while those who look at the wider context argue for
the general call to faithfulness in Timothy’s own “faith and ministry” (cf. 4:16;
Fee, 151), or the teachings contained in this entire letter (Marshall, 664–665),
or even “the totality of the ethical demands of the gospel” (Mihoc 2008: 146).
None of these would explain, however, the reference of this “commandment”
in this particular context, especially since the focus is on wealth and bene-
faction. A more recent proposal considers “the commandment” as referring to
almsgiving (Eubank 2011: 144–150), basing on the widespread usage of “the com-
mandment” (‫ )ִמְצ ָוה‬for almsgiving in Rabbinic or even earlier Jewish literature
(T.Ash. 2.8; cf. Sir 29:1). This proposal provides a probable (though still tentative)
reading that fits the context, especially in light of the explicit call to charity in
v. 18.
ἄσπιλος is almost unattested in contemporary literature (cf. Dioscorides
Pedanius, Mat. med. 5.131.1), and in the nt it is often used in an ethical sense,
though usually with cultic connotations (James 1:27; 1 Pet 1:19; 2 Pet 3:14). ἀνε-
πίλημπτος, on the other hand, is a more common word, often used especially
by Philo, who blurs the ethical and cultic realms when he comments on “the
blameless life … of holy individuals” (τὸν ἀνεπίληπτον βίον … ὁσίων ἀνθρώπων,
390 1 timothy

Philo, Spec. 2.42). Taken together, ἄσπιλος and ἀνεπίλημπτος may find their clos-
est parallel in the cultic descriptors ἄσπιλος καὶ ἀμώμητος (2 Pet 3:14; cf. 1 Pet 1:19);
this usage is appropriate here, especially since almsgiving was considered a cul-
tic act in diaspora Judaism in communities without direct access to the temple
(Downs 2016: 83–101).
ἡ ἐπιφάνεια is best read in light of Hellenistic and Roman imperial ruler cults
(cf. sig 760; IEph 24; 27; Trebilco, 357), especially since in the pe this word
always appears with appellations familiar in such contexts (e.g., Χριστός, 2 Tim
4:1; κύριος, 2Tim 4:8; σωτήρ, 2Tim 1:10; Titus 2:13; see also the use of the verb ἐπι-
φαίνω with the σωτηρ-word group in Titus 2:11; 3:4). The notable Priene Inscrip-
tion testifies to the importance of this word group in a benefaction context
where Augustus is honored as the “Savior” (σωτῆρα) whose “acts of beneficence”
(εὐεργεσιάν) are to be received by all in his “manifestation” (ἐπιφανεῖς) as that of
a “god” (θεοῦ); his birth is, therefore, the content of the “good news” (ἐυαγγελίων,
ogis 458).
Those who argue for a primarily Jewish context (e.g., Lau, 14) need to con-
cede that even in the lxx, the term is often used in reference to God’s deliv-
erance of his people from foreign ruling powers (2 Sam 7:23; 2 Macc 2:21; 14:15;
15:27; 3Macc 2:9; 5:8; for the verb ἐπιφαίνω used in similar contexts, see also
Ezek 39:28; Zeph 2:11; Ep Jer 60; 2Macc 3:30; 12:22; 15:13; 3 Macc 6:4), and one
can possibly argue that Paul follows in the footsteps of his Hellenistic Jewish
predecessors in using this “elevated” language for his own purpose (Malherbe
2005: 335). In this context, Paul makes it clear that the sovereign ruler is Jesus
himself (τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ). This usage fits well with the argument
of this unit, which challenges the claim that the Roman emperor is the bene-
factor of all. As such, ἡ ἐπιφάνεια is not primarily a temporal marker (Marshall,
665), but a christological one that aims at drawing attention to the identity of
the one who is to be revealed. It is comparable to ἡ παρουσία that is more often
used in the early Pauline writings in reference to the (re)appearing of the royal
messianic figure (see, in particular, τῇ ἐπιφανείᾳ τῆς παρουσίας αὐτοῦ, 2 Thess
2:8; cf. 1Cor 15:23; 1Thess 1:19; 3:13; 4:15; 5:23; 2Thess 2:1).

▪ 15 Outside of the nt, καιροῖς ἰδίοις, in both its singular and plural forms, is often
used for a favorable moment or opportunity (Hippocrates, Epid. 17.120; Polybius
1.30.10; Diodorus of Sicily, Hist. 31.32a.1; Josephus, A.J. 11.172; Galen, Mor. Temp.
8.6). In the pe, it is consistently used to situate individual events within God’s
redemptive plan: in 2:6 for Jesus’s death, here in 6:15 for his return, and in Titus
1:3 for Paul’s own proclamation (cf. Gal 6:9; see also ἦλθεν τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρό-
νου, Gal 4:4). In this context, δείκνυμι takes on the sense of the “revealing” or
“unveiling” of that which was hidden in the past. It is a verb frequently used
6:11–16 391

in Revelation (1:1; 4:1; 17:1; 21:9, 10; 22:1, 6), whereas φανερόω is the more familiar
term elsewhere in Paul (see, especially, ἐφανέρωσεν … καιροῖς ἰδίοις, Titus 1:3; cf.
Rom 1:19; 16:16; 1Cor 4:5; 2Cor 2:14; 5:10; Col 1:26; 1 Tim 3:16; 2 Tim 1:10).
μακάριος (cf. 1:11) and μόνος (cf. 1:17) have already been applied to God ear-
lier in this letter, but δυνάστης appears only here in the pe (cf. Luke 1:52; Acts
8:27). When used with μόνος, it becomes a polemic acclamation that challenges
the validity and power of all competing rulers, an acclamation appropriate in
this context where the final authority of God the benefactor is affirmed. μόνος
is rarely used with δυνάστης in Greek literature, but in the Sibylline Oracles the
Most High God (ὕψιστος θεός) alone (μόνος) is claimed to be the Sovereign (δυνά-
στης, 3.718–719).
μόνος δυνάστης anticipates the superlative ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν βασιλευόντων that
follows, especially given that βασιλεύς and δυνάστης often appear as parallel
terms in the lxx (Dan 2:10; 9:6, 8), Greek (Plato, Gorg. 524e; Polybius 4.48.13;
18.13.4; Strabo, Geogr. 1.2.32) and Hellenistic Jewish (Josephus, A.J. 16.30) lit-
erature. The descriptor ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν βασιλευόντων καὶ κύριος τῶν κυριευόντων
is familiar especially in Jewish (1 En. 9.4) and early Christian (Rev 17:14; 19:16)
apocalyptic literature where the affirmation of the sovereignty of God takes on
added urgency in the midst of opposing forces (cf. Beale 1985: 618–620). A com-
parable context can perhaps be identified behind this reference in this context.

▪ 16 ἀθανασία has been applied to the Greek gods (cf. Lucian, Dial. d. 15.1;
Diodorus of Sicily, 4.8.2) and human beings (4Macc 14:5; 16:13; Wis 3:4; 4:1; 15:3),
and is considered to denote the possession of “eternal life” (cf. Aristotle, Cael.
286a; Top. 126b). When applied to human beings in the lxx, it points to survival
beyond death through a new birth (4Macc 16:13; cf. 4 Macc 14:5; Wis 3:4; 15:3).
ἀθανασία (“immortality”) recalls ἄφθαρτος of 1:17 (“immortal”), and both word
groups are used in the same context in 1Cor 15:54 (cf. Philo, Mut. 210.4; see also
ἄφθαρτοι, 1Cor 15:52).
φῶς οἰκῶν ἀπρόσιτον points to a God whose glory and holiness cannot be vio-
lated. The phrase φῶς … ἀπρόσιτον is rare (cf. Aristobulus, Frag. 1a.10) with ἀπρό-
σιτος being a nt/lxx hapax. That God dwells in eternal light is familiar among
Hellenistic Jewish authors (Wis 7:26; Sib. Or. 3.665; Philo, Her. 46), though in
the lxx light is often connected with God’s glory (Isa 4:5; 58:8; 60:1, 19; Jer 13:16;
Bar 5:9).
ὃν εἶδεν οὐδεὶς ἀνθρώπων οὐδὲ ἰδεῖν δύναται is a functional equivalent to ἀόρα-
τος of 1:17, and it provides further explication of the God “who lives in unap-
proachable light.” That human beings cannot approach God is rooted in the ot
(Exod 33:20) and shared among nt authors (John 1:18; 6:46; Col 1:15; 1 John 4:12);
this argues against limiting the revelation of the hidden God through “the man-
392 1 timothy

ifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ” (v. 14) to the context of Hellenistic religions
(contra Trebilco, 358).
τιμὴ καὶ κράτος αἰώνιον recalls τιμὴ καὶ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων of v. 17,
with the use of κράτος as an expression of the manifestation of God’s glory (cf.
τὸ κράτος τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ, Col 1:11). This lexical choice fits this anti-imperial
context well, given that κράτος points to “the power to rule or control” (LNd
§ 76.3).

Bibliography
Beale, G.K. “The Origin of the Title ‘King of Kings and Lord of Lords’ in Revelation 17.14.”
nts 31 (1985): 618–620.
Ellis, E. Earle. “Traditions in the Pastoral Epistles.” In Early Jewish and Christian Exege-
sis. Ed. Craig A. Evans and William F. Stinespring, 237–253. Atlanta: Scholars Press,
1987.
Malherbe, Abraham J. “‘Christ Jesus Came into the World to Save Sinners’: Soteriology
in the Pastoral Epistles.” In Salvation in the New Testament. Ed. Jan G. van der Watt,
331–358. NovTSup 121. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2005.
Malherbe, Abraham J. “Godliness, Self-Sufficiency, Greed, and the Enjoyment of
Wealth—1Timothy 6:3–19, Part i.” NovT 52 (2010): 376–405.
Schmidt, Ulrich. “Zum Paradox vom ‘Verlieren’ und ‘Finden’ des Lebens.” Bib 89 (2008):
329–351.
Seesengood, Robert Paul. Competing Identities: The Athlete and the Gladiator in Early
Christianity. lnts 346. New York/London: T & T Clark, 2006.
Yarbrough, Mark M. Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy. lnts 417.
London: T & T Clark, 2009.

5 Theological Analysis
Two rhetorical strategies are employed in the midst of two sections (vv. 2b–10,
17–19) that focus on wealth and the status of (human) benefactors, and both
strategies draw from theological visions shared with the earlier Pauline letters.
First, in relativizing the benefits of being wealthy, Paul locates this discussion
within a wider eschatological framework with references to “the eternal life”
(v. 12), the future “manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ” (v. 14), and God the
Father “who alone has immortality” (v. 16). Even the virtue list that responds
to the vices of vv. 4–5 climaxes in “endurance and long-suffering,” as attention
is redirected to that which survives one’s earthly existence (cf. v. 7). This also
anticipates the next section that focuses on the transience of wealth that lacks
eternal value (vv. 17, 19).
Consistent with the earlier Pauline writings, this eschatological framework
retains the expectation of the parousia (contra Roloff, 213) without losing its
6:11–16 393

emphasis on the behavior of believers in the present age. This is best illustrated
by the evocation of “the eternal life” which is immediately followed by the
necessity of making “the good confession in the presence of many witnesses”
(v. 12). This “eternal life” commences in the present age and culminates in its
continuation during and after Jesus’s return (cf. Towner 1989: 21–45). After all,
godliness has value for both “the present life” and “the life to come” (4:8). For
Paul, then, “eternal life” is not merely a temporal marker but a qualitative one
as well. This is consistent with the earlier Paul, where “eternal life” is a gift from
God through Jesus Christ (Rom 2:7; 5:21; 6:23; cf. Rom 6:22; Gal 6:8). To identify
this eschatological vision merely as a polemic against the false teachers drawn
from the earlier authentic Pauline traditions fails to recognize the complexity
of the eschatological vision preserved in this letter (contra Donelson, 148; cf.
Mutschler 2011: 396–400).
The second strategy focuses on the redemptive work of God through the
death of Jesus Christ. The reference to Jesus giving testimony “in the days of
Pontius Pilate” points to this moment as the critical point of God’s redemp-
tive work (v. 13). That the atoning death is not highlighted does not argue for
the replacement of the gospel of the cross with the manifestation of God’s plan
(contra Hasler 1977: 201–202); instead, the focus here is on the need for Timothy
(and those who are to listen to him) to give “the good confession in the presence
of many witnesses” (v. 12) as Jesus himself did (v. 13). The christological import
in this context is on Jesus as the faithful witness in the midst of opposition,
thus showing his sovereignty over all, including the rulers and authorities of
the present age (cf. Rev 17:14; 19:16; Hays 2012: 192–193). More importantly, this
work of Jesus on the cross reveals the identity of God as the true and final bene-
factor of all, a point already made in this letter (cf. 1:12–17; 2:3–6), and one that
anticipates Paul’s explicit warning against the proud human benefactors in v. 17.
Even if the gospel of the cross is not replaced by the manifestation of God’s
redemptive plan, many see the clear subordination of Christ to God in this
passage. Most would detect such a subordination in Paul’s earlier writings, but
some would further suggest that Jesus is a mere human whose act of witness-
ing can be imitated (Sumney 1000: 112; cf. Windisch 1935: 330). While it cannot
be denied that Jesus can be imitated, especially in this context where his sac-
rificial act becomes a call to those who claim to be benefactors (vv. 17–19), his
unique status between God and human beings as the mediator who died as a
ransom cannot be minimized (cf. 2:3–6). It is this unique role as the sole media-
tor that challenges all competing claims, including those from Roman imperial
propaganda, in which Roman emperors have been conceived as divine figures,
especially in Asia Minor (cf. Price 1984: 235–237; see also Yarbro Collins 1999:
234–257). If so, to claim that Jesus is a mere human may not give enough cre-
394 1 timothy

dence to the polemic intent of the christological statements within this letter.
Moreover, the repeated emphasis on Jesus Christ as the κύριος (1:2, 12, 14; 6:3)
who is to return in glory (6:14) should not be ignored when the full weight of
this title is recognized (cf. Trummer, 1978: 195–196).

Bibliography
Hasler, Victor. “Epiphanie und Christologie in den Pastoralbriefen.” tz 33 (1977): 193–
209.
Hays, Richard B. “Faithful Witness, Alpha and Omega: The Identity of Jesus in the
Apocalypse of John.” In Revelation and the Politics of Apocalyptic Interpretation. Ed.
Richard B. Hays and Stefan Alkier, 69–83, 190–193. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press,
2012.
Mutschler, Bernhard. “Eschatology in the Pastoral Epistles.” In Eschatology of the New
Testament and Some Related Documents. Ed. Jan G. van der Watt, 362–402.
wunt 2.315. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011.
Price, S.R.F. Rituals and Power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984.
Sumney, Jerry L. “‘God our Savior’: The Fundamental Operational Theological Asser-
tion of 1Timothy.” hbt 21 (1999): 105–123.
Towner, Philip H. The Goal of Our Instruction: The Structure of Theology and Ethics in
the Pastoral Epistles. JSNTSup 34. Sheffield: jsot Press, 1989.
Trummer, Peter. Die Paulustradition der Pastoralbriefe. bbet 8. Frankfurt am Main:
Peter Lang, 1978.
Windisch, Hans. “Zur Christologie der Pastoralbriefe.” znw 34 (1935): 213–238.
Yarbro Collins, Adela. “The Worship of Jesus and the Imperial Cult.” In The Jewish Roots
of Christological Monotheism. Ed. Carey C. Newman et al., 234–257. JSJSup 63. Lei-
den: Brill, 1999.

C General Teachings on Wealth and Benefaction (6:17–19)

1 Translation
17 Command those who are rich in the present age not to be haughty, nor to set
their hope on the uncertainty of riches, but on God who richly provides us with
all things for our enjoyment. 18 Command them to do good, to be rich in good
works, to be generous and willing to share, 19 thus storing up for themselves a
good reserve for the future, in order that they may take hold of that which is
truly life.

2 Text-Critical Analysis
▪ 17 ὑψηλοφρονεῖν: This compound verb is replaced by ὑψηλὰ φρονεῖν in a few wit-
nesses (‫ א‬I 048vid 33* Or), and with the support of Codex Sinaiticus it is adopted
by Tischendorf and appears in the margin of Westcott-Hort. Elliott argues for
6:17–19 395

this variant because of “the rarity of compounds with ὑψηλος” (105), though
making ὑψηλοφρονεῖν the more difficult reading. In light of the lack of attesta-
tion of this verb prior to the nt, the existence of the same set of variants in Rom
11:20 (the only other possible nt occurrence), and a notable Alexandrian wit-
ness (‫ )א‬supporting ὑψηλὰ φρόνει, it is also possible for a later scribe to change
to the compound verb at a time when this verb is in use (Pollux, Onom. 9.146;
Hippolytus, Comm. Dan. 3.10.4; Curtius Rufus, Hist. Alex. Magni 15.2). Neverthe-
less, the diversity of the external witnesses still favors its compound form.

▪ 17 ἐπὶ θεῷ (1): Many manuscripts read επὶ τῷ θεῷ (A I P Ψ 33 81 1739 1881 pc) or
ἐν τῷ θεῷ (D2 K L 630 1241 𝔐)28 instead, but ἐπὶ θεῷ is supported by the earliest
of the Alexandrian (‫ )א‬and Western (D* F G) witnesses. Stylistic considerations
also support ἐπὶ θεῷ, since in the pe when God is the object of one’s hope, one
always finds the ἐλπίζω … ἐπὶ θεῷ construction (1 Tim 4:10; 5:5; cf. εἰς θεόν, 1 Pet
3:5).

▪ 17 ἐπὶ θεῷ (2): After ἐπὶ θεῷ, many Western (D*.2 K L ar b m vgcl Ambst
Spec)29 and Byzantine (K L 630 1241 1505 𝔐) witnesses include τῷ (– D*)
ζῶντι. Its omission is supported by a more diverse group of witnesses (‫ א‬A F
G 1739 1881 pm vgst.ww co); its insertion is likely an assimilation to 4:10 (cf. 3:15),
though in this case there would have been two participial modifiers (τῷ ζῶντι
and τῷ παρέχοντι), a combination which is uncommon in the pe (cf. Elliott,
106).

▪ 19 θεμέλιον: Because of the apparent difficulty of reading θεμέλιον (“founda-

tion”) with the verb ἀποθησαυρίζοντας, emendations were made without manu-
script support. Moffatt, following Bos, conjectured ἀποθησαυρίζοντας θέμα λίαν
(“amassing right good treasure”), thus pointing to a possible parallel with Tob
4:9 (θέμα γὰρ ἀγαθὸν θησαυρίζεις σεαυτῷ; cf. Hanson, 114; but see Anderson 2013:
83–103); alternatively, P.Junius has κειμήλιον.30 These attempts aim at correct-
ing the perceived mixing of metaphors in ἀποθησαυρίζοντας … θεμέλιον καλόν,
though this literary practice is not unusual (Isa 33:6), and patristic authors had
no problem reading the present text (cf. Chrysostom, Hom. 1 Tim. 18). Moreover,
if θεμέλιον is understood in the sense of a “reserve” (bdag 449), the apparent
difficulty might have been exaggerated.

28 Correcting the listing of D* in na27, na28 has D2 instead for this variant.
29 Clarifying the listing of D in na27, na28 has D*.2 instead for this variant.
30 These conjectures in the textual notes of na27 are omitted in na28.
396 1 timothy

▪ 19 ὄντως: This is replaced by αἰωνίου in primarily late Byzantine witnesses

(D K L P 630 1241 1881 𝔐 boms) perhaps in assimilation to 6:12, with a few
witnesses conflating the two (ὄντως αἰωνίου, 69 1175 pc). The earliest Alexan-
drian (‫ א‬A; cf. 1739) and Western (D* F G latt) witnesses provide strong sup-
port for ὄντως, and this adjectival use of ὄντως is consistent with the style
of the author (5:3, 5, 16) and distinct among writings in the Pauline tradi-
tion.

Bibliography
Anderson, Gary A. Charity: The Place of the Poor in the Biblical Tradition. New Haven:
Yale University Press, 2013.

3 Grammatical Analysis
With the abrupt shift from eternity (cf. αἰώνιον, v. 16) back to “the present age”
(τῷ νῦν αἰῶνι, v. 17), the boundary of this unit is not disputed. More importantly,
the attention turns from Timothy to those who are wealthy, and from a positive
example provided by Christ to warnings and admonitions for the wealthy that
are introduced by μὴ … μηδέ. The focus will return to Timothy in the next unit
which begins with the marked interjection followed by a vocative, ὦ Τιμόθεε, a
construction that recalls ὦ ἄνθρωπε θεοῦ at the beginning of the previous unit
(v. 11).
Often ignored is the notable connection between “good works” (ἔργοις
καλοῖς, v. 18; cf. ἀγαθοεργεῖν, v. 18)/“good reserve” (θεμέλιον καλόν, v. 19) of this
unit and “the good confession” (ὴν καλὴν ὁμολογίαν, vv. 12, 13; cf. “the good fight,”
τὸν καλὸν ἀγῶνα) of the previous. The benefaction language of “good work” and
“good reserve” in this unit is to be defined by the “good confession” of Christ,
who gave his life on the cross. The ones who claim to be benefactors are then to
model themselves upon the one and only benefactor, who gave his Son in the
fulfillment of the one truly good work.
With the use of paronomasia in the πλουσίοις—πλούτου—πλουσίως—
πλουτεῖν sequence (cf. Caragounis 2004: 457), this unit focuses singularly on
the issue of wealth. This argues for the chiastic structure noted above, espe-
cially since this unit is clearly connected with vv. 6–10, which climaxed in the
comment on the “love of money”:

vv. 6–10 On Wealth and Benefaction

vv. 11–16 On God and Christ as Benefactors

vv. 17–19 On Wealth and Benefaction

6:17–19 397

Embedded in the two blocks of material on wealth is the climax (vv. 11–16) that
depicts the work of God through Christ as the model for all who claim to be
benefactors.
Structurally, this unit consists of one sentence with one imperative (παράγ-
γελλε, v. 17) followed by six complementary infinitival clauses (μὴ ὑψηλοφρο-
νεῖν …, v. 17; μηδὲ ἠλπικέναι …, v. 17; ἀλλ’ [ἠλπικέναι] …, v. 17; ἀγαθοεργεῖν, v. 18;
πλουτεῖν …, v. 18; εἶναι …, v. 18), and this sentence concludes with a result (ἀπο-
θησαυρίζοντας …) and a purpose (ἵνα ἐπιλάβωνται …) clause that further modify
that imperative.

▪ 17 Τοῖς πλουσίοις ἐν τῷ νῦν αἰῶνι παράγγελλε μὴ ὑψηλοφρονεῖν μηδὲ ἠλπικέναι ἐπὶ

πλούτου ἀδηλότητι ἀλλ’ ἐπὶ θεῷ τῷ παρέχοντι ἡμῖν πάντα πλουσίως εἰς ἀπόλαυσιν.
As noted above, a strict distinction between “those who desire to be rich” (οἱ
… βουλόμενοι πλουτεῖν, v. 9) of the earlier unit and “those who are rich” (τοῖς
πλουσίοις, v. 17) of this unit cannot be made. The prepositional phrase ἐν τῷ
νῦν αἰῶνι limits the reference of τοῖς πλουσίοις and stands in contrast to the
temporal markers that precede (αἰώνιον, v. 16) and follow (εἰς τὸ μέλλον, v. 19)
this reference. The contrast between τῆς νῦν and τῆς μελλούσης is explicitly
made earlier in 4:8, and here provides a critical frame for Paul’s discussion of
wealth.
This is the fifth use of the verb παραγγέλλω (1:3; 4:11; 5:7; 6:13), and the third
in the form of the imperative παράγγελλε (4:11; 5:7). This present imperative
grammaticalizes imperfective aspect as is appropriate in a general command.
With παράγγελλε, the six infinitival clauses that follow function as indirect
commands, with the two negative infinitives more specifically as prohibitions
(Huffman, Verbal Aspect, 222). Of these six clauses, the first three are connected
and are marked in various ways. The first, μὴ ὑψηλοφρονεῖν (“not to be haughty”),
is marked by its placement at the beginning of this series of infinitives and by
the possibility of it being coined by Paul, with the only other possible contem-
porary occurrence in the variant reading of Rom 11:20. The focus here is not on
greed but on the danger of assuming a position that deprives the divine bene-
factor of his right place of honor (cf. vv. 11–16).
The second and third clauses rest on the same infinitive, ἠλπικέναι (“to set
one’s hope”), the second being negated by μηδέ and the third standing in con-
trast to the second with the use of ἀλλ’ and the implied ἠλπικέναι, thus: “[not]
to set their hope on … but on …”. These two are marked with prominence
with the use of the perfect infinitive ἠλπικέναι, the only perfective infinitive
in this letter. This perfect infinitive within an indirect discourse, which has
rightly been recognized as an “intensive perfect” (Robertson, Grammar, 908),
takes on a function similar to that of a perfect indicative that grammatical-
398 1 timothy

izes stative aspect (Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 384) and marks this discourse with
prominence.
These two prepositional phrases that provide a contrast between the “uncer-
tainty of wealth” (πλούτου ἀδηλότητι, with πλούτου being a prominently placed
attributive genitive; Winer, Grammar, 295–296) and the reliability of God are
marked also by the lengthy characterization of God. Notably, God is charac-
terized as a generous benefactor “who richly provides us with all things for
our enjoyment” (τῷ παρέχοντι ἡμῖν πάντα πλουσίως εἰς ἀπόλαυσιν). The connec-
tion with the previous infinitive ὑψηλοφρονεῖν within this μὴ … μηδέ structure
becomes clear: avoid the temptation of being deceived by uncertain riches to
think that one is the exalted benefactor; instead, rely on God who is the true
benefactor of all things. The anti-ascetic polemic of this letter may again be
felt in the seemingly superfluous εἰς ἀπόλαυσιν (Barrett, 88).

▪ 18 ἀγαθοεργεῖν, πλουτεῖν ἐν ἔργοις καλοῖς, εὐμεταδότους εἶναι, κοινωνικούς. The

final three infinitival clauses are relatively brief, and with general exhortations
(in present tense) not unexpected in a discourse on benefaction. Nevertheless,
all three clauses direct attention away from material wealth to a form of bene-
faction that acknowledges the existence of the eternal God. ἀγαθοεργεῖν can
be considered an “epexegetical infinitive” that redefines what proper “enjoy-
ment” (ἀπόλαυσιν) is (cf. Malherbe 2011: 92). πλουτεῖν ἐν ἔργοις καλοῖς further
redefines wealth in terms of “good works.” With the paralleling of the two adjec-
tives εὐμεταδότους and κοινωνικούς, the final clause also challenges the existent
benefaction ideology.

▪ 19 ἀποθησαυρίζοντας ἑαυτοῖς θεμέλιον καλὸν εἰς τὸ μέλλον, ἵνα ἐπιλάβωνται τῆς

ὄντως ζωῆς. The present participle ἀποθησαυρίζοντας functions in a clause that
should best be taken as denoting a result conceived as a contemporaneous act.
“The curious idea of storing up a foundation” may point to the use of a mixed
metaphor (Marshall, 673), which is not unusual in Paul (2 Cor 5:1–3; Col 2:6–7).
Nevertheless, in this contrast, this combination of terms may aim precisely to
present the striking idea that the “good works” that are stored up are themselves
the “good foundation” for the future (cf. Dibelius and Conzelmann, 91). This lat-
ter reading is made possible since θεμέλιος can be understood as “treasure” or
“reserve” (bdag 449), thus: “making their deposits in an excellent fund for the
future” (Quinn and Wacker, 549). Beyond the compatibility of these terms, the
significance of καλόν should not be missed as it concludes a series of five uses
of this adjective that binds this unit with the previous (vv. 12 [2×], 13, 18, 19).
ἵνα introduces a purpose clause that concludes this section, with the use of
the aorist subjunctive ἐπιλάβωνται that conceives of the event as a concrete one.
6:17–19 399

ἵνα ἐπιλάβωνται τῆς ὄντως ζωῆς recalls ἐπιλαβοῦ τῆς αἰωνίου ζωῆς of v. 12, though
instead of an imperative, this purpose clause expresses the final goal of their
hope in God (v. 17). The use of τῆς ὄντως ζωῆς instead of the earlier τῆς αἰωνίου
ζωῆς may serve more explicitly as a contrast to the fleeting nature of the wealth
that “this age” can offer (cf. ἐν τῷ νῦν αἰῶνι, v. 17).

4 Historical Analysis
Though some have attempted to read this section in light of the material wealth
linked with the Ephesian Artemis cult (Immendörfer 2017: 200), this letter
reflects the diversity of the economic status of the Ephesian community of
believers (5:3, 5, 16, 17; 6:1–2; Malherbe 2011: 74), and Paul’s teaching on wealth
here is situated with his critique of the false teachers (vv. 3–5) who might have
used their social status in the spreading of their teachings.
Paul’s response to these false teachers in this brief section draws from diverse
traditions. In the ot, one already finds extensive discussion of the temptation
of wealth (Job 36:18–19) and its fleeting nature (Ps 39:6, 11; Prov 27:24; Ezek 7:11)
as well as warnings against worshipping wealth rather than God himself (Pss
49:6; 62:10; Jer 9:23; Ezek 28:5; Hos 12:8) since wealth cannot protect those who
possess them (Ps 49:12; Prov 11:28; Eccl 8:12–14). Although wealth is also often
a sign of God’s blessings (Deut 8:18; 1Chron 29:12; 2 Chron 1:12; Prov 3:16), God
often raises up the poor and humbles the rich (1 Sam 2:7). See also the recur-
ring call to store up treasures of wealth for the future in contemporary Jewish
literature (Sir 29:9–13; Tob 4:7–10; Pss. Sol. 9:5; cf. Eubank 2014: 80–84).
Following the reference to Jesus’s earthly life in the previous section, this sec-
tion may have also drawn from his teachings. The importance of the investment
for the future is paralleled by Matt 6:19–21, Luke 12:13–21, and 16:1–4, as is often
noted (Roloff, 366–367; Towner, 426), but Jesus’s warning against the arrogance
of benefactors who use their wealth to enhance their status (Luke 19:24–30)
carries particular relevance in light of the call μὴ ὑψηλοφρονεῖν in v. 17.
Warnings against the precariousness of wealth (Seneca, Ben. 7.2.4) as well
as the call to use one’s wealth for the benefit of others (Xenophon, Oec. 1.7–15;
Malherbe 2011: 80, 82) have often been noted by Greco-Roman moralists, but
the call not to be arrogant appears to be less common, especially since acts of
beneficence are often instruments through which one’s social status is secured
(Kidd, 130–131). The call μὴ ὑψηλοφρονεῖν (v. 17), therefore, becomes striking as
Paul challenges the underlying ideology of the benefaction system that assigns
power and honor to the few who have it (Kearsley 1994: 233–236; cf. Trebilco,
381). Such critique of the (mis)use of wealth, however, is also common in Jew-
ish traditions which affirm the worship of one and only God, “who gives breath
to all people” (Num 16:22; 27:16).
400 1 timothy

▪ 17 In the Greco-Roman world, οἱ πλούσιοι can be defined as those who own a

one-family housing complex (estimated to be less than 1 % of the population
in the Roman world; cf. Scobie 1982–1983: 44), and if they are to be defined by
financial resources, the patricians (Senatores and Equites) that represent the
top 5% of the population are worth at least 400,000 sestertii per household.
Those considered wealthy are the ones who are dependent on the manual labor
of the masses (Countryman 1980: 24–25) and are often the benefactor of the
city-state, whose responsibilities include the sponsoring of the local cults (cf.
Ober 2017: 1–10).
ἐν τῷ νῦν αἰῶνι points to the transient nature of material wealth, a theme that
is prominent in the ot and finds its close parallel in Jesus’s teaching, which
mentions “the worries of this age” (αἱ μέριμναι τοῦ αἰῶνος) alongside the “deceit-
fulness of wealth” (ἡ ἀπάτη τοῦ πλούτου, Mark 4:19). In light of the reference to
the “eternal life” in v. 12 and the final “manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ” in
v. 14, a reference to the worthlessness of wealth in the final judgment may also
be implied (Prov 11:4).
ὑψηλοφρονέω appears nowhere else in Greek prior to the second century ad
(cf. Pollux, Onom, 9.146), which may explain the change to the more common
ὑψηλὰ φρονεῖν in some manuscripts (see Text-Critical Analysis). Explicit warn-
ings against the pride of those who are wealthy can be found in the ot (Ezek
28:5), especially when wealth and riches distract them from worshipping the
one true God who alone bestows wealth and blessings on his people (Deut 8:17–
18; 1Sam 2:7; 2Chron 1:12; Ps 22:29). Similarly, instead of being arrogant, Paul also
calls believers not to be arrogant but to fear God (μὴ ὑψηλὰ φρόνει ἀλλὰ φοβοῦ,
Rom 11:20). His further call not to think highly of oneself (cf. μὴ τὰ ὑψηλὰ φρο-
νοῦντες, Rom 12:16) likewise appears in a context where the final authority of
God is affirmed (cf. Rom 13:1). In Hellenistic Jewish traditions, those who think
highly of themselves (ὑψηλὰ φρονεῖτε) consider themselves “immortals” (ἀθά-
νατοι, Sib. Or. 14.1).
In Greek literature, those who are wealthy are often in a position of power
(Plutarch, Mor. 547e; 1058d) since wealth can lift people up from the lower
classes (Philo, Agr. 1.31). Haughtiness, therefore, often characterizes the rich
(cf. Philostratus, Ep. 7). Though one can find isolated statements warning the
rich of their arrogance in “looking down” (ὑπερηφανεῖς) on others (P.Flor. 367;
Malherbe 2011: 77), that the wealthy have the right to consider themselves “the
better people” (οἱ βελτίους, Dio Chrysostom, In cont. 9) appears to be socially
accepted (Kidd, 131). The prominence placed on this call here underscores the
central concern of this brief section as Paul reminds the wealthy of their rela-
tive status in relation to God the benefactor.
As the real widow “has set her hope on God” (5:5), Paul now calls the rich
“not to set their hope on the uncertainty of riches.” That wealth cannot pro-
6:17–19 401

vide the security and protection one wishes is a theme known in the ot (see
above). Only here in Greek literature is ἀδηλότης used in reference to πλοῦτος,
but it is particularly relevant since it often depicts the uncertainty the future
brings (Polybius 5.2.3; 36.2.2; Philo, Legat. 51.1), thus reinforcing the point con-
cerning those who are only wealthy ἐν τῷ νῦν αἰῶνι. In contrast to the “uncer-
tainty of riches,” Philo would remind his readers that no “uncertainty of the
future” (ἡ τῶν μελλόντων ἀδηλότης) can be found in God himself (Philo, Deus
29.7).
παρέχω is often applied to deities (Homer, Od. 18.132; Xenophon, Mem. 2.2.3;
Oec. 20.11; Anab. 5.3.9; cf. Acts 17:31; Philo, Leg. 1.89; Josephus, A.J. 4.19) and
is used here to shift the attention away from the perceived exalted status of
the rich to God the benefactor. Those who take αὐτάρκεια in the sense of
“self-sufficiency” would consider ἀπόλαυσις as the enjoyment experienced by
“other-directed” acts of charity and generosity (Malherbe 2011: 92), but if αὐτάρ-
κεια is understood as “contentment” as suggested above, then this becomes an
argument against the ascetic practices promoted by the false teachers (cf. 4:1–
5; Spicq, 1.576–577). The use of ἀπόλαυσις for the enjoyment of the material
benefits of God’s gifts is well attested in Hellenistic Jewish works (3 Macc
7:16; Philo, Opif. 42.4; Somn. 2.48; Josephus, A.J. 1.46), while it is also used
for the pleasure of the rich in pagan Greek authors (Pseudo-Aristotle, Probl.
949b).

▪ 18 ἀγαθοεργεῖν is a rare verb in Greek literature (cf. Herodotus, Hist. 1.67),

although its nominal form, ἀγαθοεργός, is slightly more common (Plutarch,
Mor. 370c–d; 1015e; Herodotus, Hist. 1.67). Elsewhere in the nt it appears in
Acts 14:17 in the contracted form of ἀγαθουργῶν. ἀγαθοποιέω is the more com-
mon verb in the nt (Luke 6:9, 33, 35; 1Pet 2:15; 3:6, 17; 3 John 11) and beyond
(Aesop, Fab. 61.2; Chrysippus, Frag. 1184.8); notably, in the lxx it is most often
used in reference to God the benefactor (Num 10:32; Judg 17:13; Zeph 1:12; 2 Macc
1:2; cf. Ep. Arist. 242.5). In this context, those who consider themselves benefac-
tors are called to act in a certain way to recognize that God himself is the final
benefactor, as the women were earlier called to show their godliness “with good
works” (δι’ ἔργων ἀγαθῶν, 2:10).
πλουτεῖν ἐν ἔργοις καλοῖς provides further definition to ἀγαθοεργεῖν. πλουτεῖν
recalls God who “richly (πλουσίως) provides us with all things” (v. 17), while
ἔργοις καλοῖς (cf. 3:1; 5:10, 25) reminds the rich to follow Jesus whose “good con-
fession” (τὴν καλὴν ὁμολογίαν, v. 13) that climaxes in his humble death on the
cross becomes the model of all good works.
εὐμεταδότους is not unexpected in the discussion of the generosity of the
elite (Spicq, 1.577–579), while κοινωνικούς shifts the attention not only from the
402 1 timothy

individual to the community (Kidd, 127) but also from the elite status of the
benefactor to the mundane reality of the community (cf. κοινώνει, 5:22). The
nt hapax εὐμετάδοτος (for the use of εὐμετάδοτοι in the context of ἀγαθοποιοί,
see Vettius Valens, Anth. 1.2.50) belongs to the μεταδίδωμι word group that is
familiar in the nt (Luke 3:11; Rom 1:11; 12:8; Eph 4:28; 1 Thess 2:8), contemporary
Greek (Diodorus of Sicily, Hist. 3.70.8; Strabo, Geogr. 8.6) and Hellenistic Jew-
ish (Sib. Or. 3.41; T.Iss. 7.5; Philo, Opif. 44; Spec. 2.141) writings for acts of sharing,
but the importance of the κοινων-word group in the Pauline corpus (κοινωνία,
Rom 15:26; 1Cor 1:9; 10:16; 2Cor 6:14; 8:4; Phil 1:5; κοινωνός, 2 Cor 1:7; 8:23; Phlm 17;
κοινωνέω, Rom 12:13; 15:27; Gal 6:6; Phil 4:15) argues for an added significance in
this word choice. It does not simply denote mechanisms of “welfare support”
(Young, 31) but further points to the identification with one’s “clients” in the
recognition of God as the final benefactor (cf. Rom 15:26–27).

▪ 19 With the perceived difficulties in the mixing of metaphors in the use of

ἀποθησαυρίζοντας with θεμέλιον, a conjectured emendation of θέμα λίαν has
been proposed on the basis of Tob 4:9 (θέμα γὰρ ἀγαθὸν θησαυρίζεις σεαυτῷ;
cf. Eubank 2011: 150; see Text-Critical Analysis). Any dependence on Tob 4:9
is likely to be indirect, especially since there are similar sayings in the Jesus
traditions (Matt 6:19–21; 13:52; Mark 10:21; Luke 12:33; 18:22; Anderson 2013: 83–
103, 123–126). Moreover, understanding θεμέλιος in the sense of “treasure” or
“reserve” (bdag 449) is supported in Greek literature (Libanius, Orat. 50.3;
Pseudo-Plutarch, Mor. 8c). Even when used for a “foundation of a house” (οἰκίας
θεμέλιος), it can refer to “that thing as a result of whose presence something first
comes into being” (ἡ δὲ ὅθεν πρῶτον γίγνεται ἐνυπάρχοντος, Aristotle, Metaph.
1013a [lcl, Tredennick]), a usage that fits here where the “good works” per-
formed in the present age would lead to future benefits.
The pair ὁ (νῦν) αἰών (v. 17) and τὸ μέλλον is a familiar one in the nt (Matt
12:32; Eph 1:21; cf. 4:8). Instead of τῆς αἰωνίου ζωῆς (v. 12), τῆς ὄντως ζωῆς may
highlight the contrast to “the uncertainty of riches” (v. 17), or it may further
combat a dualistic framework that denies the resurrection as “truly life” (cf. the
depiction of the resurrected life as οὐ ζῆς ὄντως, Acts John 47.1).

Bibliography
Anderson, Gary A. Charity: The Place of the Poor in the Biblical Tradition. New Haven:
Yale University Press, 2013.
Countryman, L. William. The Rich Christian in the Church of the Early Empire: Contra-
dictions and Accommodations. New York: Edwin Mellen, 1980.
Eubank, Nathan. “Almsgiving Is ‘the Commandment’: A Note on 1 Timothy 6.6–19.” nts
58 (2011): 144–150.
6:17–19 403

Eubank, Nathan. “Storing Up Treasure with God in the Heavens: Celestial Investments
in Matthew 6:1–21.” cbq 76 (2014): 77–92.
Immendörfer, Michael. Ephesians and Artemis. wunt 2.436. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2017.
Kearsley, R.A. “A Civic Benefactor of the First Century in Asia Minor.” NewDocs 7 (1994):
233–241.
Malherbe, Abraham J. “Godliness, Self-Sufficiency, Greed, and the Enjoyment of
Wealth—1Timothy 6:3–19, Part ii.” NovT 53 (2011): 73–96.
Ober, Josiah. “Mass and Elite Revisited.” In Mass and Elite in the Greek and Roman
Worlds. Ed. Richard Evans, 1–10. New York: Routledge, 2017.
Scobie, Alex. “Rich and Poor in the Roman World (b.c. 50–a.d. 150).” Classical Outlook
60 (1982–1983): 44–46.
Theobald, Michael. “Eucharistische Anspielungen in der Weisung an die Reichen 1 Tim
6,17–19: Anfrage an ihre ‘individualethische’ Deutung.” In Lukas—Paulus—Pastoral-
briefe. Ed. Rudolf Hoppe and Michael Reichardt, 315–338. Stuttgarter Bibelstudien
230. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2014.

5 Theological Analysis
Much of the content of this brief section on the use and misuse of wealth
finds its parallels among Greco-Roman moralists, but its distinct elements set
it apart from these traditions. The teaching here on wealth reflects a contin-
uation of the Jesus tradition (cf. Tamez 2010: 162). Not only does one find
the explicit evocation of the name of Jesus in relation to his teachings (v. 3),
but his act of giving “testimony to the good confession in the days of Pon-
tius Pilate” (v. 13) also provides the strongest counterexample to human bene-
factors who are “haughty” (v. 17) in using their wealth to enhance their sta-
tus.
It is this christocentric focus that sets this section apart from other moral
discourses. The “good works” (v. 18) that they are now called to perform are no
longer mere acts of charity but an admission of their subservient status under
the one true benefactor whose acts of beneficence climaxed in Jesus’s death
on the cross. One therefore finds here more than a call to “reciprocal” acts of
kindness (Wall and Steele, 150) or an “ethos of love-patriarchalism … [where]
the social distinctions between rich and poor are maintained” (MacDonald,
200), but a radical challenge to the status quo that equates money with power.
Allusions to the eschatological vision with reference to “the future” and “that
which is truly life” (v. 19) point back to the appearance of our Lord Jesus Christ,
who provides the final revelation of God to be the “only Sovereign, the King of
kings and Lord of lords” (v. 15), to whom belongs “honor and eternal power”
(v. 16). Therefore, both ethics and eschatology serve in support of this radical
404 1 timothy

reconstruction of contemporary perceptions of social reality where God the

final benefactor relativizes all claims to power.
Within this distinct theological framework, the call to “store up … a good
reserve for the future” cannot be separated from a dependence on God’s re-
demptive work through Christ. Consistent with Jesus’s teachings on storing up
treasure for the future (Matt 6:19–21; Luke 12:13–21; 16:1–4), the focus here is on
the relative insecurity of wealth in the present age. The logic resembles that of
the Jewish (Sib. Or. 2.78–82; Tob 4:7–10; Eubank 2011: 150) traditions, although
it becomes clearer that eternal life is not to be brought about by acts of charity
but by God’s final manifestation in Jesus’s appearance (v. 15). Moreover, even in
these Jewish traditions, acts of charity are considered “thank offering” (Sir 35:4)
for God’s prior redemptive act. In this context, the believers are likewise called
to “take hold of” (v. 19) the eternal life to which they have already been called
(v. 12).

Bibliography
Eubank, Nathan. “Almsgiving Is ‘the Commandment’: A Note on 1 Timothy 6.6–19.” nts
58 (2011): 144–150.
Tamez, Elsa. “The Patriarchal Household and Power Relations between Genders.” In
Hope Abundant: Third World and Indigenous Women’s Theology. Ed. Pui-lan Kwok,
152–164. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2010.

viii Final Words to Timothy (6:20–21)

1 Translation
20 Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you by avoiding the irreverent
empty talk and contradictions that are of the so-called knowledge. 21 By pro-
fessing it, some have strayed from the faith. Grace be with you.31

2 Text-Critical Analysis
▪ 20 κενοφωνίας: A few Western witnesses (F G lat Irlat) read καινοφωνίας, likely
an unintentional error caused by itacism (also in 2 Tim 2:16). The lack of attes-
tation of this noun before the pe (with the possible exception of Dioscorides
Pedanius, Mat. med. 1.2) likely contributes to this error.

31 Adopting the variant reading σοῦ, this singular refers to Timothy himself.
6:20–21 405

▪ 21 μεθ’ ὑμῶν: The singular pronoun (σοῦ) is read in the majority of manuscripts
(D K L Ψ 048 1739 1881 pm 𝔐) and versions (lat sy boms arm eth) of diverse tradi-
tions, with the plural (ὑμῶν) supported by fewer witnesses which nonetheless
include the important Alexandrian uncials (‫ א‬A F G P 33 81 bo). Though most
modern critics accept the plural (cf. Metzger, 577), the singular reading should
not be easily dismissed. First, although a scribe could have changed the plu-
ral to the singular in light of the personal nature of this letter addressed to
Timothy, it is just as easy to imagine someone making a change in the reverse
direction “when the Epistle was treated as canonical and as affecting the whole
church” (Lock, xxxvii). Second, with all the second-person verbs and pronouns
in this epistle in the singular with Timothy as the addressee (1:3, 18; 3:14; 4:6, 7,
15; 5:3, 7; 6:2, 17, 20; Porter, Idioms, 304), this sudden change seems to be out of
place. Third, in its immediate context, the author is explicitly addressing Tim-
othy (6:20), which may argue for the use of the singular pronoun in the verse
that follows (Elliott, 110). Finally, a discourse analysis of this letter also points
to “Timothy” as the primary intended audience (Reed, 1993: 90–118).

▪ 21 ending: Many witnesses (‫א‬2 D1 K L P Ψ 104 1739c pm 𝔐 f vgcl.ww sy bo Amst)

add ἀμήν at the end of the letter, but it is omitted in the earliest Alexandrian
(‫ *א‬A 1739*) and Western (D* F G it vgst) witnesses. Its inclusion is probably
prompted by later liturgical usage and parallels in some of the earlier Pauline
letters (Rom 16:27; Gal 6:18).

Bibliography
Reed, Jeffrey T. “To Timothy or Not? A Discourse Analysis of 1 Timothy.” In Biblical
Greek Language and Linguistics, 90–118. Ed. S.E. Porter and D.A. Carson. JSNTSup
80. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993.

3 Grammatical Analysis
With ὦ Τιμόθεε (v. 20), the attention takes its final turn from the others (“those
who are rich,” τοῖς πλουσίοις, v. 17) back to Timothy himself, as Paul provides a
proper conclusion to this letter: as Timothy is called to guard the truth (1:18–20;
4:14–16; 5:21; 6:11–12), Paul again calls him to protect that which he has received
(τὴν παραθήκην φύλαξον, v. 20); as Timothy is urged to be alert and to curb the
spread of false teachings (1:3–5; 4:2–5, 7–10; 5:11–13; 6:3–6), Paul again urges him
to be alert to the danger of the so-called knowledge (τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως,
v. 20); and as Timothy is warned against those who have gone astray from the
faith (1:6–7; 4:1; 5:15), Paul again identifies those who spread false teachings as
the opponents of the faith (περὶ τὴν πίστιν ἠστόχησαν, v. 21). The finality of this
unit is reflected in the short benediction addressed to Timothy at the end.
406 1 timothy

Within its immediate context, this unit also provides a conclusion to the
wider section on false teachings, wealth, and benefaction:

vv. 3–5 On False Teachings

vv. 6–10 On Wealth and Benefaction

vv. 11–16 On God and Christ as Benefactors

vv. 17–19 On Wealth and Benefaction

vv. 20–21 On False Teachings

As vv. 3–5 provide the contrast between “sound words” (ὑγιαίνουσιν λόγοις, v. 3)
and “controversies and disputes” (ζητήσεις καὶ λογομαχίας, v. 4), vv. 20–21 like-
wise provide the contrast between “what has been entrusted” (τὴν παραθήκην,
v. 20) and “the irreverent empty talk and contradictions” (τὰς βεβήλους κενο-
φωνίας καὶ ἀντιθέσεις, v. 20). When both bracket the intervening discussion on
human and divine benefaction, the issue of wealth can no longer be separated
from the wider concerns in regard to the false teachers.
This unit begins with an imperatival clause (φύλαξον, v. 20) that issues a call
for Timothy to guard the deposit. The means through which this can be accom-
plished is outlined by a participial clause (ἐκτρεπόμενος, v. 20) that, in turn,
contains a further characterization of the false teachings (τὰς βεβήλους κενο-
φωνίας καὶ ἀντιθέσεις τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως, v. 20) and those who promote
them (ἥν τινες ἐπαγγελλόμενοι περὶ τὴν πίστιν ἠστόχησαν, v. 21). This unit closes
with a formulaic short benediction (ἡ χάρις μεθ’ ὑμῶν/μετὰ σοῦ, v. 21; cf. Col 4:18;
2 Tim 4:22).

▪ 20 Ὦ Τιμόθεε, τὴν παραθήκην φύλαξον ἐκτρεπόμενος τὰς βεβήλους κενοφωνίας καὶ

ἀντιθέσεις τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως. The interjection ὦ with the vocative Τιμόθεε
is used for “emphatic [or, emotional] address” (Wallace, Grammar, 69). As with
ὦ ἄνθρωπε θεοῦ in v. 11 (cf. 1:18), the focus is less on “affection” (contra Turner,
Syntax, 33) than on the urgency of the command (bdf § 146[1b]). The aorist
imperative φύλαξον grammaticalizes perfective aspect in reference to a specific
command.
The present participle ἐκτρεπόμενος, which denotes a contemporaneous act
here, points to the means through which the gospel can be guarded. With one
article that governs both κενοφωνίας (“empty talk”) and ἀντιθέσεις (“contradic-
tions”), the two should be considered together as a reference to the meaningless
6:20–21 407

disputes promoted by the false teachers. If so, τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως can be
taken as an epexegetical genitive.

▪ 21 ἥν τινες ἐπαγγελλόμενοι περὶ τὴν πίστιν ἠστόχησαν. As the previous partici-

ple (ἐκτρεπόμενος, v. 20) depicts the means by which Timothy can guard the
gospel, here the participle (ἐπαγγελλόμενοι) depicts the means by which some
have fallen from this gospel. As in the comparable clause in 1:6, here τινές is
used in reference to the false teachers, and ἠστόχησαν in reference to the falling
away from the faith. The use of περί with the accusative is not unusual in Koine
Greek (cf. 1:19; 6:4; Turner, Syntax, 270), and τὴν πίστιν refers to the truth of the
gospel (cf. 2Tim 2:18).

▪ Ἡ χάρις μεθ’ ὑμῶν/μετὰ σοῦ. In light of the frequent use of the optative in
Pauline peace-benedictions (Rom 15:5–6; 15:13; 1 Thess 3:11, 12–13; 5:23; 2 Thess
2:16–17; 3:5, 16), an optative εἴη is likely implied here (cf. Weima 2010: 343)
though it may carry an imperatival sense as well (see comments on 2 Tim 4:22).
The shift from the singular φύλαξον (v. 20) to the plural ὑμῶν is unexpected.
Many of the Western and Byzantine witnesses read the singular σοῦ instead,
possibly due to this sudden shift of addressee. On the other hand, this singular
reading cannot be entirely dismissed, and a change to the plural may be due
to an assimilation to the formulaic endings in Col 4:18 and 2 Tim 4:22. In any
case, it is clear that Paul is speaking through Timothy to the entire community
of believers.

Bibliography
Weima, Jeffrey A.D. “Sincerely Paul: The Significance of the Pauline Letter Closings.” In
Paul and the Ancient Letter Form. Ed. Stanley E. Porter and Sean A. Adams, 307–345.
Pauline Studies 6. Leiden: Brill, 2010.

4 Historical Analysis
While a series of imperatives (other than verbs of greetings) at the end of a let-
ter is found mostly in letters beyond the Pauline tradition (James 5:20; 1 John
5:21), 1Timothy should not be grouped among these letters that lack a proper
letter closing (contra Richards, 147). What stands out in 1 Timothy is the brevity
of its greetings/benediction that allows the final imperatives to form a criti-
cal part of this letter closing. The use of imperatives to warn against certain
behavior in the final part(s) of Paul’s earlier letters is not an uncommon prac-
tice (Rom 16:17; 1 Cor 16:22; Gal 6:17), and the brevity of greetings/benediction
here may reflect the urgency of the challenge posed by the false teachers (cf.
Gal 6:11–18).
408 1 timothy

In terms of lexical choice, the use of ἀντίθεσις and γνῶσις in v. 20 is taken as

clear signs of dependence on and/or interaction with Marcionite and gnostic
traditions in a post-Pauline era (Campbell 2014: 364–365). The fact that γνῶσις
is a common term in Jewish wisdom traditions, coupled with the lack of any
hint of the presence of gnostic myths behind this letter, argues against identi-
fying the false teachings as that of the later Gnosticism (cf. Markschies 2001:
14–15).
While a nt hapax, ἀντίθεσις is a common term in Greek literature and that
it points directly to Marcion’s Antithesis seems tenuous at best. Moreover, the
use of ἀντίθεσις in the sense of the direct opposite of a proposition (cf. Aristotle,
An. post. 72a), in this case the true gospel, is not unexpected when Paul claims
that anyone who follows the false teachings is one who “does not agree with
the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ” (6:3) and is thus a follower of Satan
(5:15).

▪ 20 τὴν παραθήκην φύλαξον resembles τὴν καλὴν παραθήκην φύλαξον of 2 Tim

1:14. In both, τὴν παραθήκην is best understood as the gospel message transmit-
ted by Paul, especially in light of the explicit reference to that which Timothy
has heard from Paul in 2Tim 1:13. Similarly, with the use of the cognate verb
(παράθου) in 2Tim 2:2 (cf. 1Tim 1:18), the same emphasis was placed on Paul’s
role in the transmission of the gospel (ἃ ἤκουσας παρ’ ἐμοῦ). Instead of παρα-
θήκη, παράδοσις is the preferred word group in the earlier Pauline letters for
the transmitted gospel traditions (e.g., 1Cor 11:2; 2 Thess 2:15; 3:6; see also παρα-
δίδωμι: 1Cor 11:2, 23; 15:3; cf. ἀποστόλων παράδοσις φυλάσσεται, Diogn. 11.6), but
παραθήκη may place heavier emphasis on the “legal binding of the delivered
tradition by the depositor” (Lau, 27).
The κενο-word group fits comfortably within Pauline polemic (cf. κενόδοξοι,
Gal 5:26; κενοῖς λόγοις, Eph 5:6; κενοδοξίαν, Phil 2:3; κενῆς ἀπάτης, Col 2:8), and
as in 2Tim 2:16, κενοφωνία is also modified by βέβηλος (cf. 1 Tim 1:9; 4:7). With
the earlier use of the ἀντι-word group in reference to those opposing the gospel
(τῇ ὑγιαινούσῃ διδασκαλίᾳ ἀντίκειται, 1:10), ἀντίθεσις should not be understood
as a specific reference to Marcion’s Antithesis. It is a common term in Greek lit-
erature (Plato, Soph. 257e; Aristotle, Cat. 11b; Eth. eud. 1222a; Rhet. 1410b; Philo,
Prov. 2.2) and should be considered as a general reference to the opposition to
the true gospel here. Moreover, even when Clement of Alexandria quoted this
verse in his polemic against Marcion and the gnostics, ἀντίθεσις of 1 Tim 6:20
was not identified with Marcion’s Antithesis (cf. Strom. 2.11.52).
γνῶσις plays an important role in Jewish wisdom traditions (Wis 1:7; 2:13; 6:22;
14:22; Sir 1:19; 21:13–14, 18; see also the use of ‫ ַדַּﬠת‬in 1QpHab 11:1; 1QS 3.15; 10.9,
12; 11:6, 15; 1QH 2.18; 11.24; 4Q416 2.3.13; 4Q418.9.9a–c, 13; Trebilco, 228–229), as it
6:20–21 409

is used also in the early Pauline letters in relation to such traditions (Rom 11:33;
1 Cor 1:5; 2Cor 8:7; Col 2:3). Instead of a reference to the later Gnosticism, the
“so-called knowledge” (ἡ ψευδώνυμος γνῶσις; cf. ἡ ψευδώνυμος φιλόσοφος/φιλο-
σοφία, Philo, qe frag. 7; Plutarch, Mor. 479e) serves as a contrast to the gospel
that is the “knowledge of truth” (ἐπίγνωσις ἀληθείας, 2:4; cf. 2 Tim 2:24; 3:7).

▪ 21 ἐπαγγέλλομαι recalls 2:10, while περὶ τὴν πίστιν ἠστόχησαν recalls ὧν τινες
ἀστοχήσαντες (1:6, with ἡ πίστις among the antecedents of ὧν) within the open-
ing sections of this letter that warn against those who stray away from “the
faith” (ἡ πίστις, cf. 1:2, 4, 5). This concern for those who are falling from “the
faith” brackets this letter and should be considered an important marker for its
primary purpose.
The grace greetings echo the letter opening in 1:2 and point to the impor-
tance of χάρις even in this letter (cf. 1:14). This is in line with Paul’s practice
in his earlier writings that replaces the more common brief formulaic ending
of ἔρρωσο (Acts 15:29; 23:30 v.l.; P.Cairo Zen. 59192; P.Petr. 13; P.Eleph. 13; P.Oxy.
292) or εὐτύχει (P.Cairo Zen. 59426; P.Par. 47). ἡ χάρις μεθ’ ὑμῶν/μετὰ σοῦ is an
abbreviated form of ἡ χάρις τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ (Χριστοῦ) μεθ’ ὑμῶν (Rom
16:20; 1Cor 16:23; 1Thess 5:28; 2Thess 3:18; cf. Weima 1994: 78–87) and appears in
Col 4:18 and 2Tim 4:22 with the plural ὑμῶν. If the singular σοῦ is to be adopted,
this would be unique in the Pauline corpus, though the use of the singular is
expected in the endings of most documentary private letters (cf. P.Ryl. 233;
P.Oxy. 1482; bgu 1676, 1680). Nevertheless, with the concluding note on those
who have “strayed from the faith,” this singular pronoun does not reduce this
to one such private letter.

Bibliography
Bassler, Jouette. “Adam, Eve, and the Pastor: The Use of Genesis 2–3 in the Pastoral
Epistles.” In Genesis 1–3 in the History of Exegesis. Ed. Gregory Allen Robbins, 43–
65. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen, 1988.
Campbell, Douglas A. Framing Paul: An Epistolary Biography. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2014.
Markschies, Christoph. Die Gnosis. München: C.H. Beck, 2001.
Weima, Jeffrey A.D. Neglected Endings: The Significance of the Pauline Letter Closings.
JSNTSup 101. Sheffield: jsot Press, 1994.

5 Theological Analysis
As the previous section locates the warnings to the benefactors within an
eschatological vision, this final section locates the call of fidelity to the past
redemptive acts of God through Christ and his apostle. This link to the past will
410 1 timothy

be further explicated in 2Timothy 1–2, where Paul, who is “appointed a herald

and apostle and teacher” (1:11), claims to be able “to guard that which has been
entrusted to [him]” (1:12). On that basis, Paul goes on to call Timothy to “guard
the good deposit entrusted to [him]” (1:14). The focus of this section is, there-
fore, not merely a call for Timothy to fulfill his isolated duties as a manager
of God’s household, but for him to be a faithful participant in the continued
unfolding of God’s redemptive plan.
In this section, that which Timothy is called to guard is “the faith” (1 Tim
6:21). Within God’s redemptive plan which extends to Christ and his apostle
Paul, this faith is not to be envisioned as a static entity but one that testifies to
the powerful work of God in his redemptive acts. This understanding of “the
faith” is consistent with Paul’s earlier description of God’s righteousness that is
revealed “from faith to faith” (Rom 1:17), for it is “the power of God for salvation
to everyone who is committed to this faith” (Rom 1:16). As such, even in the ear-
lier Pauline letters, faith is not merely an existential act of “self-surrendering
trust to the promised future Lord” (Hinlicky 2011: 124) but also an act of obedi-
ence in reference to the kerygma (Rom 1:5; 6:16; 10:16; Wagner 1984: 55–71).
Without providing further details, formulaic expressions are instead used
here for the false teachings (“irreverent empty talk,” “contradictions,” “so-called
knowledge,” v. 20). The definition of these teachings is, therefore, not pro-
vided via its contents, but rather through its opposition to “the faith” (v. 21).
This rhetorical strategy is comparable to that of Paul in Colossians, where the
strongest criticism of the false teachings there is that they are not “according to
Christ” (Col 2:8). This strategy provides a powerful affirmation of the centrality
of the gospel of Christ, but it may contribute to the lack of certainty as distant
readers attempt to reconstruct the content of such false teachings.

Bibliography
Hinlicky, Paul R. Divine Complexity: The Rise of Creedal Christianity. Minneapolis:
Fortress, 2011.
Wagner, Günther. “The Apostolic Faith according to the New Testament.” In The Roots of
Our Common Faith. Ed. Hans-Georg Link, 55–71. Geneva: World Council of Churches,
1984.
Titus

i Opening Salutation (1:1–4)

1 Translation
1 Paul, a slave of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, for the sake of the faith of
the elect of God and the knowledge of the truth for the purpose of godliness, 2
in the hope of eternal life that God, who does not lie, promised before ancient
times, 3 and at the proper time he revealed his word through the proclamation
with which I have been entrusted according to the command of God our Savior.
4 To Titus, my genuine child for the sake of the common faith. Grace and peace
from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior.

2 Text-Critical Analysis
▪ 1 Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ: Though the reverse order appears in only a few witnesses
(A 209 629 1175 ar b vgmss syh Amst), a good case can be made for this vari-
ant (thus Westcott-Hort and Kilpatrick): (1) In the absence of τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν,
Χριστοῦ often appears first when in the genitive case because of the ambigu-
ity of Ἰησοῦ (Elliott, 201); (2) when the appellation is to modify ἀπόστολος in
Paul, it is always in the order of Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ (1Cor 1:1; 2 Cor 1:1; Eph 1:1; Col 1:1;
1 Tim 1:1; 2Tim 1:1); (3) Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ best explains the omission of Ἰησοῦ in
D*.

▪ 2 ἐπ’: ἐν is read in a few late Western witnesses (F G H 365), but ἐπ’ has sub-
stantial support from across textual traditions (‫ א‬A [D ἐφ’] C K L P Ψ 1739 𝔐);
furthermore, ἐπ’ ἐλπίδι (Acts 2:26; 26:6; Rom 4:18; 5:2; 8:20; 1 Cor 9:10) rather than
ἐν ἐλπίδι is the established usage in the nt (cf. ἐν τῇ ἐλπίδι, Rom 15:13).

▪ 3 ὃ: A number of minuscules (38 209 489 927 pm) read ᾧ instead, an attrac-
tion to the antecedent (κηρύγματι). This attraction reflects the practice of later
Atticist scribes (Elliott, 173).

▪ 4 καί: Selected Alexandrian witnesses (A C2) converge with the majority of

the Byzantine witnesses (K L 81 104 pm 𝔐) in inserting ἔλεος after καί, likely
in assimilation to the openings of 1Timothy (1:2) and 2 Timothy (1:2). The ear-
liest Alexandrian (‫ א‬C* 088) and Western (D F G latt) witnesses omit this, and
the secondary nature of this insertion is reflected in the other placements of
ἔλεος before χάρις (1245 1505 pc) and before καί (188 1984 pc) in some minus-
cules.

© David W. Pao, 2024 | doi:10.1163/9789004681545_007

412 titus

▪ 4 Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ: The order is inverted (Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ) in a few significant

minuscules (1739 1881) with many Western (D2 F G) and Byzantine (K L P pm
𝔐) witnesses reading κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. The external support for Χριστοῦ
Ἰησοῦ includes the notable Alexandrian (‫ א‬A C) and Western (D* lat) witnesses,
and this order is more probable if Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ is also accepted in 1:1, although
both formulations appear with τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν in the pe (2 Tim 1:10; Titus 3:6).
The insertion of κυρίου is likely a later development, especially when this com-
bination of titles is rare in Paul (Phil 3:20); this conclusion is also reflected in
a fifth-century fragment (0240) that contains a few verses of Titus 1 (Metzger
1956: 149–150).

Bibliography
Metzger, Bruce M. “A Hitherto Neglected Early Fragment of the Epistle to Titus.” NovT 1
(1956): 149–150.

3 Grammatical Analysis
As with 1Timothy, Paul opens this letter with two independent clauses with
subjects and complement/adjunct without stated predicates. The various
names and titles (Παῦλος, Τίτος, ὁ θεός, Χριστός Ἰησοῦς) that provide cohesion
to this unit also introduce the main grammaticalized participants of this let-
ter. The imbalance in the power relationship between Paul and Titus is clearly
marked by the asymmetric weight placed on the description of Paul. More
importantly, the role of Paul is situated within his relationship to God (δοῦ-
λος θεοῦ) and Christ Jesus (ἀπόστολος … Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ) while that of Titus is
situated within his relationship to Paul (γνησίῳ τέκνῳ).
This unit begins with the identification of Paul as “a slave of God” (δοῦλος
θεοῦ) and “an apostle of Christ Jesus” (ἀπόστολος … Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ), which is fol-
lowed by two prepositional phrases providing clarification of the immediate
(κατὰ πίστιν ἐκλεκτῶν θεοῦ καὶ ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας …, v. 1) and final (ἐπ’ ἐλπίδι
ζωῆς αἰωνίου, v. 2) purpose of Paul’s servitude and apostleship. The relative
clause introduced by ἥν (v. 2) provides further description of “the eternal life”
(ζωῆς αἰωνίου) while drawing attention to “God” (ὁ … θεός), who promised and
revealed “his word through the proclamation” (τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ ἐν κηρύγματι)
with which Paul was entrusted. Though much briefer, the identification of the
recipient follows a similar pattern, with the descriptors (γνησίῳ τέκνῳ) standing
in apposition to the name (Τίτῳ), followed by a κατά-phrase (κατὰ κοινὴν πίστιν).
As in 1Tim 1:2, γνησίῳ τέκνῳ should be understood in light of the preceding ἀπό-
στολος and denotes legitimacy, subordination, and faithfulness. The greeting
that concludes this unit resembles that of 1Timothy (1:2) and 2 Timothy (1:2)
but follows the other Pauline greetings that omit ἔλεος, with the notable depar-
1:1–4 413

ture from all of them in changing the identification of Christ Jesus from τοῦ
κυρίου ἡμῶν to τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν (Titus 1:4). This change draws attention to the
identification of Jesus with God himself (cf. τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν θεοῦ, v. 3), an iden-
tification also emphasized in the body of this letter (2:10–13; 3:4–6).

▪ 1 Παῦλος δοῦλος θεοῦ, ἀπόστολος δὲ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ κατὰ πίστιν ἐκλεκτῶν θεοῦ καὶ
ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας τῆς κατ’ εὐσέβειαν. Παῦλος is the head term and is followed
by two appositional modifiers (δοῦλος θεοῦ and ἀπόστολος … Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ).
With the genitive modifier θεοῦ, δοῦλος evokes a familiar ot label that marks the
elevated status of a leader as one appointed by God (see Historical Analysis).
ἀπόστολος should likewise be understood as a marker of authority, with Χριστοῦ
Ἰησοῦ as a possessive genitive (cf. 1Tim 1:1). The use of the copulative δέ marks
continuity, “especially when something subordinate is added” (Smyth, Greek
Grammar, §2836). As such, Paul’s apostleship cannot be separated from his ser-
vanthood, and his relationship with Christ Jesus cannot be separated from his
relationship with God.
The two κατά both indicate purpose (bdag 512), in conformity with classi-
cal usage (Smyth, Greek Grammar, §1690.2c). Taking πίστιν as a reference to
both the objective creedal content and its subjective appropriation, ἐκλεκτῶν
should be read as a possessive or subjective genitive (Wallace, Greek Grammar,
116). Following ἐπίγνωσιν, ἀληθείας is clearly an objective genitive, with τῆς κατ’
εὐσέβειαν functioning as a defining relative clause that provides further infor-
mation for the identification of (a subset of) ἀληθείας.

▪ 2 ἐπ’ ἐλπίδι ζωῆς αἰωνίου, ἣν ἐπηγγείλατο ὁ ἀψευδὴς θεὸς πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων. ἐπί
with a dative often points to the basis (Marshall, 124) or circumstances (Harris
2012: 138) of an act, but in this case with reference to a future reality (ζωῆς αἰω-
νίου), it points to the purpose of Paul’s servitude and apostleship (Spicq, 2.593).
The fact that ἐπ’ ἐλπίδι ζωῆς αἰωνίου parallels κατὰ πίστιν in the previous verse
coheres well with the salutation in 2Tim 1:1, where Paul’s apostleship is “accord-
ing to the promise of life” (κατ’ ἐπαγγελίαν ζωῆς). Moreover, the use of ἐπί with
a dative to express purpose or goal is not unusual in Paul (Gal 5:13; 1 Thess 4:7;
Eph 2:10; bdag 366; cf. 1Cor 9:10). The objective genitival phrase (ζωῆς αἰωνίου),
in turn, provides the object of the act of hoping.
ἐπηγγείλατο is the first of a series of aorist indicative verbs (ἐφανέρωσεν, ἐπι-
στεύθην, v. 3) in this unit, all grammaticalizing perfective aspect. In this context,
with the temporal marker πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων, it refers to a past event con-
ceived as a distinct one. The identification of God as one “who does not lie”
(ἀψευδής) anticipates the identification of the Cretans as “liars” (ψεῦσται, v. 12),
but it also fits this context well, especially with concerns for “truth” (v. 1) and
414 titus

“knowledge” (ἐπίγνωσιν, v. 1; cf. the only appearance of ἀψευδής in the lxx:

Wis 7:17, αὐτὸς γάρ μοι ἔδωκεν τῶν ὄντων γνῶσιν ἀψευδῆ). This epithet for God
should be understood in the Jewish sense, where God is depicted as one who
is true to his promises (cf. ἐπηγγείλατο). πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων has been under-
stood as referring to the eternal past (Dibelius and Conzelmann, 131), but in
light of 2Tim 1:9 and the use of ἐπηγγείλατο here, it is best understood as
“before the time of ot promises” (thus, “before ancient times,” Marshall, 126).
This reference to the ages past also paves the way for καιροῖς ἰδίοις in the next
clause.

▪ 3 ἐφανέρωσεν δὲ καιροῖς ἰδίοις τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ ἐν κηρύγματι, ὃ ἐπιστεύθην ἐγὼ

κατ’ ἐπιταγὴν τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν θεοῦ. With this clause, a shift from the “eternal
life” embedded in the relative pronoun ἣν (v. 2) to “the word” can be detected.
This shift created a case of anacoluthon, where an additional clause is attached
to the relative clause by the conjunction δέ “to which clause the relative pro-
noun was not appropriate in its existing form” (Turner, Syntax, 325; cf. Acts 17:2;
Mark 6:11; 1Cor 7:13; Rev 17:2; Abel, Grammaire, §80h). Theologically, this shift is
unexpected since Christ is the one who is expected to be revealed καιροῖς ἰδίοις
(cf. 1Tim 2:6; 6:15), and the emphasis on τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ ἐν κηρύγματι clearly
shifts the attention to the apostolic ministry of Paul, an emphasis through-
out the opening unit of this letter. Nevertheless, the connection between Paul’s
kerygmatic mission and the reception of eternal life among God’s chosen peo-
ple is one that is familiar in the Pauline tradition (cf. Rom 16:25–26; Bockmuehl
1990: 213).
Within the relative clause that provides further characterization of κηρύ-
γματι, the focus on Paul is marked with prominence by the use of the first-
person singular pronoun ἐγώ, the use of the passive ἐπιστεύθην, which in this
context has God as its implied agent, and the evocation of God the Savior. The
epexegetical θεοῦ that stands in apposition to τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν is necessary
because in the clause that follows, Christ is also identified as the Savior (cf.
Winer, Grammar, 670).

▪ 4 Τίτῳ γνησίῳ τέκνῳ κατὰ κοινὴν πίστιν. The relative brevity of this complement
reveals both the relative superior status of Paul and the presumed knowledge
of the identity of Titus in the Cretan community. As in 1 Tim 1:2, the apposi-
tional γνησίῳ provides the sense of legitimacy and loyalty, while τέκνῳ stands
in relation to the authority of Paul the apostle (ἀπόστολος, v. 1).
κατά appears here in its final of four appearances in this small unit, and
the distinction between κατὰ … πίστιν and its parallel ἐν πίστει in 1 Tim 1:2
remains unclear. If κατά denotes purpose, as is the case in its first use in
1:1–4 415

v. 1, then κατὰ κοινὴν πίστιν should be understood as “for the sake of (the
propagation of) the common faith” (Collins, 317), a sense that is quite dif-
ferent from ἐν πίστει in 1Tim 1:2. This reading takes into consideration both
the shift from ἐν to κατά as well as the insertion of κοινήν in this formula-
tion.

▪ χάρις καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ θεοῦ πατρὸς καὶ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν. In this
greeting, one again finds the use of nominative absolutes within nominal
clauses (cf. 1Tim 1:1). χάρις καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ θεοῦ πατρὸς resembles the formula
found in most Pauline letters though without the personal pronouns (χάρις ὑμῖν
καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ θεοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν, Rom 1:7; 1Cor 1:3; 2 Cor 1:2; Gal 1:3; Eph 1:2; Phil
1:2; Col 1:2; 2Thess 1:2; Phlm 3), but Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν deviates
from the common Pauline formula that identifies Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (or Χριστοῦ
Ἰησοῦ in 1Tim 1:2; 2Tim 1:2) as κυρίου (or τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν in 1 Tim 1:2; 2 Tim
1:2). This identification of Christ Jesus as Savior here is notable since God him-
self was identified as such in the previous verse. While this title is exclusively
applied to God in 1Timothy (1:1; 2:3; 4:10), the one time it is used in 2 Timothy,
it refers to Christ Jesus (1:10). For Titus, however, it is applied to both God and
Christ in the three passages where the title is used (1:3–4; 2:10–13; 3:4–6). Instead
of “a rather muddled soteriology” (Hanson, 171), this argues for an intentional
identification of the two, at least in terms of their role as Savior (Collins 2000:
65–66; Engelmann, 131), and this identification is an important part of the argu-
ment that follows.

Bibliography
Bockmuehl, Markus. Revelation and Mystery in Ancient Judaism and Pauline Christian-
ity. wunt 2.36. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1990.
Collins, Raymond F. “The Theology of the Epistle to Titus.” etl 76 (2000): 56–72.
Harris, Murray J. Prepositions and Theology in the Greek New Testament. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 2012.
Schubert, Paul. The Form and Function of the Pauline Thanksgiving. Berlin: Alfred Töpel-
mann, 1939.

4 Historical Analysis
As in the case of 1Timothy, this letter opening betrays features of both Hel-
lenistic official and personal letters. The personal aspect, however, is now
eclipsed by the public one, as the asymmetrical emphasis on the status of the
author is even more pronounced: the mere 5 words that provide definition
to Titus stand in striking contrast to the 46 words that are contained in the
phrases and clauses that characterize Paul and his mission. This extended “self-
416 titus

introduction” not only points to the notable power imbalance between Paul
and Titus, but it also suggests that the readers are not to be limited to Titus
himself (Spicq, 2.591; cf. Richards, 71–72).
Compared with 1Timothy, the relative length of this letter opening may be
partially explained by the absence of a thanksgiving section (cf. 1 Tim 1:12–
17). Whereas the thanksgiving section of a Pauline letter often introduces its
main themes (cf. Schubert 1939: 180), this lengthy letter opening appears to
have assumed this function: πίστις, vv. 1, 4 (1:13; 2:2, 10; 3:15; cf. πιστεύω, 1:3;
3:8); ἀλήθεια, v. 1 (1:14; cf. ἀληθής, 1:13); εὐσέβεια, v. 1 (cf. εὐσεβῶς, 2:12); ἐλπίς,
v. 2 (2:13; 3:7); ζωῆς αἰωνίου, v. 2 (3:7); ἀψευδὴς (cf. ψεύστης, 1:12); ὁ λόγος, v. 3
(1:9; 2:5, 8; 3:8); ἐπιταγή, v. 3 (2:15); σωτήρ, vv. 3–4 (2:10, 13; 3:4, 6; cf. σωτήριος,
2:11). The temporal references to ages past (χρόνων αἰωνίων, v. 2), the present
moment when the gospel is proclaimed (καιροῖς ἰδίοις, v. 3), and the future eter-
nal life (ζωῆς αἰωνίου, v. 2) also pave the way for Paul’s call to live a faithful
life “in the present age” (ἐν τῷ νῦν αἰῶνι, 2:12), while anticipating the future
“glorious manifestation” (ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης, 2:13) of Jesus Christ and the
“eternal life” (ζωῆς αἰωνίου, 3:7) that is promised to those who are faithful to
him.

▪ 1 The use of δοῦλος together with ἀπόστολος in Pauline salutations is not unpar-
alleled (Rom 1:1; cf. 2Pet 1:1), but the expected genitival modifier is Χριστοῦ (Rom
1:1; 1Cor 7:22; Gal 1:10; Eph 6:6; Phil 1:1; Col 4:12) rather than θεοῦ. While the word
δοῦλος may denote the relative subservient status of an individual, when it is
used in parallel with ἀπόστολος (for ἀπόστολος, cf. 1 Tim 1:1), it denotes an ele-
vated status in light of a person’s unique relationship with God. This may, in
turn, explain the use of the genitival modifier θεοῦ since δοῦλος θεοῦ is often
used in the ot for the leaders of God’s people, especially Moses (Neh 9:14; 10:30;
Ps 104:26; Mal 3:24) and David (1Sam 23:10–11; Pss 77:70; 88:4; 143:10). The ot use
of this title is particularly relevant here since a number of possible parallels
between this opening unit and Psalm 104 lxx (Wieland, 194) can be identified:
God’s deliverance of “his elect” (τοὺς ἐκλεκτοὺς αὐτοῦ, 104:43; cf. ἐκλεκτῶν θεοῦ,
Titus 1:1) through “Moses his servant” (Μωυσῆν τὸν δοῦλον αὐτοῦ, 104:26; cf. δοῦ-
λος θεοῦ, Titus 1:1) according to “his holy word” (τοῦ λόγου τοῦ ἁγίου αὐτοῦ, 104:42;
cf. τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ, Titus 1:3) made to “Abraham his servant” (Αβρααμ τὸν δοῦλον
αὐτοῦ, 104:42; cf. δοῦλος θεοῦ, Titus 1:1). This use of an ot title may be prompted
by the need to respond to the “Jewish myths” propagated by the false teachers
(1:10–14; cf. Collins 2000: 60).
Paralleling ἐπίγνωσιν (cf. Eph 4:13; Phlm 6), πίστιν incorporates both the
objective content of faith (cf. κατὰ κοινὴν πίστιν, v. 4; see Mutschler, 115–213)
and the subjective appropriation of such content (Spicq, 2.592). That it is
1:1–4 417

anarthrous does not provide a sufficient basis for limiting it to a subjective

sense (contra Mounce, 379), since an article is not often expected after a prepo-
sition, especially when followed by genitival modifiers (cf. 1 Tim 1:2).
ἐκλεκτοὶ θεοῦ (or ἐκλεκτοὶ αὐτοῦ/μοῦ) is a familiar designation in both the lxx
(1 Chron 16:13; Pss 88:4; 104:6; Isa 65:9; Wis 3:9; Sir 46:1) and Second Temple Jew-
ish traditions (T. Benj. 11.4) for God’s own people. Pauline (Rom 8:33; Col 3:12)
and other nt (Matt 24:31; Mark 13:27; Luke 18:7; Rev 17:14) uses of this phrase
are clearly influenced by this tradition, especially when we consider that the
phrase is rarely used in pagan Greek authors (cf. Pseudo-Apollonius of Tyana,
Apot. 4). Notably, those nt uses appear often in an eschatological context, as is
the case here (v. 2), where the phrase situates Paul’s own mission within such
an eschatological framework.
ἐπίγνωσις ἀληθείας appears also in 1Tim 2:4 and 2 Tim 2:25, with the geni-
tive modifier ἀληθείας aiming at the false teachers who claim to possess the
“so-called knowledge” (τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως, 1 Tim 6:20). While ἀλήθεια is a
constant concern of Paul in the pe, this emphasis on truth is particularly apt
here where God who “does not lie” (ἀψευδής, v. 2) is contrasted with the “liars”
(ψεῦσται, v. 12).
εὐσέβεια is an important term in 1Timothy (2:2; 3:16; 4:7, 8; 6:3, 5, 6, 11; cf. 2 Tim
3:5), but only here does it appear within a defining relative clause for the identi-
fication of (a subset of) ἀληθεία. This may provide a significant additional piece
of information for the understanding of Paul’s use of this term in the pe in the
sense of “respectful conduct” (Malina and Pilch, 73) that grows out of a convic-
tion of the sovereignty of God and his Messiah (cf. 1 Tim 3:16).

▪ 2 ζωὴ αἰώνιός is a familiar phrase in the pe (3:7; 1 Tim 1:16; 6:12; cf. 1 Tim 4:8;
6:19). Here, it does not merely serve as a temporal marker (cf. ζωῆς … τῆς μελ-
λούσης, 1Tim 4:8), but it also points to the life in Christ that is promised from of
old (cf. κατ’ ἐπαγγελίαν ζωῆς τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, 2 Tim 1:1) as made explicit in
the clause that follows (v. 2b).
ἐπαγγέλλομαι is appropriate in this discussion of truth and falsehood. For bib-
lical writers, to identify God as one who is truthful is to recognize him to be one
who is true to his promises (cf. Heb 10:23), since “God’s truthfulness” (ἀληθείας
θεοῦ) is expressed through “the confirmation of [his] promises to the fathers”
(τὸ βεβαιῶσαι τὰς ἐπαγγελίας τῶν πατέρων, Rom 15:8; cf. Clement of Alexandria,
Strom. 6.9). In Paul, when applied to God, ἐπαγγέλλομαι refers specifically to
the ot promises (Rom 4:21; Gal 3:19; cf. ἐπαγγελία, Rom 4:16, 20; 9:1–13; Gal 3:14–
22; Eph 2:12; 6:12), and if so πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων should be taken in the sense of
“before the time of ot promises.” Even though a more general reference to all
the promises of God that cannot fail cannot be ruled out, what is implied in the
418 titus

use of ἐπαγγέλλομαι is likely the gospel “that he promised through his prophets”
(ὃ προεπηγγείλατο διὰ τῶν προφητῶν αὐτοῦ, Rom 1:2; cf. Wieland, 189).
In pagan literature, the biblical hapax ἀψευδής has also been applied to God
in the context of the veracity of the prophecies and oracles of its messengers
(Euripides, Orest. 364; Herodotus, Hist. 2.174), but is more common among Hel-
lenistic Jewish writers who describe God alone as one who cannot lie (Philo,
Ebr. 139.2; Somn. 2.253; Abr. 268.1; cf. Rom 3:4). In contrast, Zeus has been
accused of lying precisely when he fails to deliver on what he promises (ψευστή-
σεις, οὐδ’ αὖτε τέλος μύθῳ ἐπιθήσεις, Il. 19.107), while other gods and goddesses
have also been labeled “liars” (ψεῦσται, cf. Dorotheus of Sidon, Frag. 356.4, 30).
For the Hellenistic Jewish authors, the one who is able to be true to his promises
is one who is in control of the fate of the created order (Wis 7.17), thus one who
is able to grant eternal life to his people.

▪ 3 The use of the φανερ-word group (cf. 1Tim 3:16) with λόγος recalls 2 Cor 4:2
where one not only finds the occurrence of ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ in close connection
with φανέρωσις but also the use of ἀλήθεια in parallel with λόγος. Likewise, the
concern with the revelation of the word that is the truth (cf. ὁ ἀψευδὴς θεός, v. 2)
is Paul’s focus here. ὁ λόγος here likely refers to ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ of 2:5 (cf. 1 Tim
4:5; 2Tim 2:9), which is ὁ λόγος τῆς ἀληθείας (2Tim 2:15).
The use of καιρός ἴδιος (cf. 1Tim 6:15) here is noteworthy as Paul situates his
own proclamation within this redemptive history. κήρυγμα is also a familiar
term in Paul for the proclamation of the gospel (Rom 16:25; 1 Cor 1:21; 2:4; 15:14;
cf. 2Tim 4:17), but the repeated uses of the κηρυ-word group in the pe takes on
added significance when both κῆρυξ (1Tim 2:7; cf. 2 Tim 1:11) and κηρύσσω (1 Tim
3:16; cf. 2Tim 4:22) appear in royal contexts where the proclamation of a herald
is in view. The present context is no exception; the use of ἐπιταγή, σωτήρ, the
passive form of πιστεύω, and εὐσέβεια may collectively evoke an imperial con-
text (cf. Collins 2000: 65) even if the origin of the individual terms varies. The
use of κήρυγμα in Philo (Agr. 112.6; Legat. 46.4) demonstrates the familiarity of
this imperial usage even among Hellenistic Jewish authors.
For the passive ἐπιστεύθην, see 1Tim 1:11. Elsewhere ἐπιταγή and σωτήρ appear
together only in 1 Tim 1:1. Both terms highlight the imbalance of power relation-
ship between Paul and the God he serves, but they also provide legitimation
and authority to his mission, which is transferred to Titus with the use of μετὰ
πάσης ἐπιταγῆς in 2:15. As in the Ephesian context where σωτήρ also carries spe-
cific religio-political connotations, in Crete the title is also applied to Artemis
(ic i.17.24) and Zeus (ic i.8.17; Gill 2004: 228), which may explain why Paul fre-
quently ascribes this epithet in Titus to God and his Messiah (cf. 1:4; 2:10, 13; 3:4,
6).
1:1–4 419

▪ 4 γνησίῳ τέκνῳ κατὰ κοινὴν πίστιν recalls γνησίῳ τέκνῳ ἐν πίστει of 1 Tim 1:2
where γνησίῳ τέκνῳ focuses more on legitimacy than intimacy. Though τέκνον
applies to both Timothy and Titus, in the body of this letter Titus is rarely
addressed as such (cf. Collins 2011: 333), which may point to this epithet as
being more formulaic in nature. While this filial language may establish a
“philophronetic tone” between the author and his reader as common in ancient
paraenesis (cf. 1Cor 4:17; Phil 2:22; Malherbe 2004: 298–299), the power dis-
crepancy between the two, as indicated by the asymmetrical introductions
of Paul and Titus, is maintained through this language (see Genade 2011: 19
who considers this “honorific referencing”). It remains unclear whether Titus
was a convert of Paul. Though Titus is portrayed as a younger follower of
Paul in Gal 2:1–3, the language of τέκνον here is insufficient to identify him
as Paul’s convert. The rhetorical function of fictive kinship language is illus-
trated by the fact that Titus is identified as his sibling in 2 Cor 2:13 (τὸν ἀδελφόν
μου).
κατὰ κοινὴν πίστιν transcends the mere sense of “personal intimacy” (cf. Kelly,
228) and points rather to the common confession that may have included an
emphasis on the common faith between “Paul the Jew and Titus the Gentile”
(Barrett, 127). This emphasis may also pave the way for Paul’s criticism of cer-
tain Jewish elements emphasized by the false teachers (cf. 1:14). The use of
κοινή πίστις in the sense of “mutual agreement” can be found in Greek litera-
ture (Demosthenes, Cor. 164.8), which fits well in this context, but it can also
refer to a “recognized” or “general” belief (Aristotle, Rhet. 1393a; Sextus Empir-
icus, Math. 7.27.8), consistent with the creedal use of πίστις elsewhere in this
letter (1:13; 2:2; 3:15).
Unlike 1Tim 1:2, the greeting here omits ἔλεος and thus conforms to the more
customary Pauline formula of χάρις and εἰρήνη (Rom 1:7; 1 Cor 1:3; 2 Cor 1:2; Gal
1:3; Eph 1:2; Phil 1:2; Col 1:2; 1Thess 1:1; 2Thess 1:2; Phlm 3). Departing from both
1 Timothy and Paul’s customary greetings, however, is the identification of Jesus
as ὁ σωτήρ ἡμῶν (rather than ὁ κύριος [ἡμῶν], with the absence of an explicit ref-
erence to Jesus in 1Thess 1:1 and Col 1:2). What is unusual in this context is that
this title has already been applied to God (v. 3), thus distinguishing it from both
1 Timothy where the title is reserved for God (1:1; 2:3; 4:10) and 2 Timothy where
the title is used only for Christ (2Tim 1:10).

Bibliography
Collins, Raymond F. “The Theology of the Epistle to Titus.” etl 76 (2000): 56–72.
Collins, Raymond F. “Where Have All My Siblings Gone? A Reflection on the Use of
Kinship Language in the Pastoral Epistles.” In Celebrating Paul. Ed. Peter Spitaler,
321–336. cbqms 48. Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2011.
420 titus

Genade, Aldred A. Persuading the Cretans: A Text-Generated Persuasion Analysis of the

Letter to Titus. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2011.
Gill, David W.J. “A Saviour for the Cities of Crete: The Roman Background to the Epistle
to Titus.” In The New Testament in Its First Century Setting. Ed. P.J. Williams et al.,
220–230. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004.
Malherbe, Abraham J. “Paraenesis in the Epistle to Titus.” In Early Christian Paraenesis
in Context. Ed. J. Starr and T. Engberg-Pedersen, 297–317. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004.
Schubert, Paul. The Form and Function of the Pauline Thanksgiving. Berlin: Alfred Töpel-
mann, 1939.

5 Theological Analysis
In Titus, the identification of God as σωτήρ (1:3; 2:10; 3:4) is always followed by
such an identification of Christ (1:4; 2:13; 3:6), and the first-person plural pro-
noun ἡμῶν is used in all six references. The repeated uses of σωτήρ in the letter
opening, therefore, anticipates that which follows (cf. Collins 2000: 65–66). The
identification of Jesus Christ as τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν (2:13) may
explain the reason behind these repeated uses of σωτήρ in reference to both
Jesus and God, as the identification of the two lies at the center of Paul’s argu-
ment. Moreover, as both 2:13–14 and 3:14–17 evoke the story of God’s deliverance
of Israel, the ot background of σωτήρ is to be recognized, more so than the use
of the same epithet in 1Timothy (cf. Fee 2007: 439).
Beyond the application of σωτήρ to both God and Jesus, there are other indi-
cations for the identification of Jesus as God in this letter opening. First, Paul
here identifies himself as δοῦλος θεοῦ (v. 1), whereas in his earlier writings he
identifies himself as δοῦλος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ (Rom 1:1; Phil 1:1). This formulation
may be another attempt to “equate Jesus and God” in this letter (Martin 2000:
15). Second, elsewhere in the pe, the revelation of God “at the proper time” (και-
ροῖς ἰδίοις) is through the work of Jesus Christ (1Tim 2:6; 6:15), while here in Titus
an explicit reference to Jesus Christ is missing (cf. τὸν λόγον, 1:3). This may again
suggest the blurring of the distinction between the work of God and Jesus him-
self.
Situating his ministry of proclamation within God’s promise of eternal life
(vv. 2–3), Paul also identifies his own mission as part of God’s redemptive plan
that is revealed at this eschatological age. Linguistic and structural parallels
with Rom 16:25–26 (for textual authenticity of Rom 16:25–26, see Hurtado 1981:
185–199) would at least suggest a consistency in Paul’s thought if not the pres-
ence of the authentic voice of Paul (Bockmuehl 1990: 213). The continuity of
Paul’s work with that of Jesus (and God) is important for Paul in these later
works, especially since he is attempting to further extend such continuity to
the work of Titus (2:11–15) and Timothy (2Tim 1:9–14).
1:5–9 421

Bibliography
Bockmuehl, Markus. Revelation and Mystery in Ancient Judaism and Pauline Christian-
ity. wunt 2.36. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1990.
Collins, Raymond F. “The Theology of the Epistle to Titus.” etl 76 (2000): 56–72.
Fee, Gordon D. Pauline Christology: An Exegetical-Theological Study. Peabody, MA: Hen-
drickson, 2007.
Hurtado, Larry W. “The Doxology at the End of Romans.” In New Testament Textual Crit-
icism. Ed. E.J. Epp and G.D. Fee, 185–199. Oxford: Clarendon, 1981.
Martin, Troy W. “Entextualized and Implied Rhetorical Situations: The Case of 1 Timo-
thy and Titus.” br 45 (2000): 5–24.

ii In Response to the False Teachers (1:5–16)

A Appointment of Elders (1:5–9)

1 Translation
5 The reason I left you in Crete was that you might put the remaining mat-
ters in order and appoint elders in every town as I directed you, 6 if anyone is
blameless, the husband of one wife, whose children are obedient,1 and who are
not open to the charge of debauchery or rebellion. 7 For the overseer must be
blameless as God’s steward, not arrogant, not quick-tempered, not a drunkard,
not violent, not greedy, 8 but hospitable, loving what is good, self-controlled,
upright, holy, disciplined. 9 He must hold fast to the word of the faith in accor-
dance with the teaching so that he may be able to give exhortation in the sound
teaching and to rebuke those who speak against it.

2 Text-Critical Analysis
▪ 5 ἀπέλιπον: This aorist, supported by the early Alexandrian (‫ ;*א‬see also 1739
pc) and Western (D*) witnesses (Tischendorf), is replaced by the imperfect ἀπέ-
λειπον in slightly later but more diverse witnesses of these two textual traditions
(A C F G 088 0240 pc; Westcott-Hort). Those who argue for ἀπέλιπον suggest
that “the aorist seems to give better sense than the imperfect” (Bernard, 154),
though this is based on a temporal reading of the aorist tense (cf. Porter 2013:
68). Either way, the change may be another example of itacism. Other witnesses
have καταλείπω with the same variants of the aorist κατέλιπον (‫א‬2 D2 K 104 630
1241 𝔐) and imperfect κατέλειπον (L P 104 326), which is likely an attempt to
replace the rare ἀπολείπω (absent from the earlier Pauline writings) with the

1 Taking πιστά in the sense of “faithful/obedient;” see Grammatical Analysis.

422 titus

more common καταλείπω (Rom 11:4; Eph 5:31; 1 Thess 3:1); however, ἀπολείπω
does belong to the vocabulary of the pe (2Tim 4:13, 20).

▪ 5 ἐν Κρήτῃ: The twelfth-century minuscule 1724 reads ἐν Κοϱίνθῳ ἢ ἐν Κρήτῃ

instead, reflecting the memory of Paul in those places (2 Cor 7:13–16; 8:16–24;
12:18).

▪ 5 ἐπιδιορθώσῃ: In a number of witnesses, this middle verb is replaced by the

active ἐπιδιορθώσῃς (A Ψ), ἐπανορθώσῃς (D*), and διορθώσῃς (F G).2 The major-
ity of early Alexandrian witnesses (‫ א‬C 0240, cf. 1739) converge with most of
the later Byzantine witnesses (K L P 33 81 pm 𝔐) in support of ἐπιδιορθώσῃ. The
difference between the active and middle here may be insignificant (cf. Winer,
322–323), and the change to the middle may be an assimilation to καταστήσῃς
that follows (Bernard, 154).

▪ 9 ἐν τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ τῇ ὑγιαινούσῃ: This phrase is replaced by τοὺς ἐν πάσῃ θλίψει

in A, likely influenced by 2Cor 1:4. Though absent in the earlier writings of Paul,
τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ τῇ ὑγιαινούσῃ belongs to the vocabulary of the pe (1 Tim 1:10; 6:3;
2 Tim 4:3; Titus 2:1).

▪ 9 ἐλέγχειν: After ἐλέγχειν, the thirteenth-century trilingual manuscript 460

inserts additional qualifications for the deacons, likely influenced by 1 Tim 3:8–
13. This minuscule is known for distinct expanded additions (cf. 2 Tim 4:19; Titus
1:11; Heb 7:1) and therefore does add to the text of 1:9 here. Nevertheless, it does
provide an early commentary on the phrase μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρες (3:12; cf. Titus
1:6) as a note against remarriage, and it does reflect a later social setting when
church leaders were supposed to interact with τοὺς ἄρχοντας in a certain way.

Bibliography
Porter, Stanley E. “Pauline Chronology and the Question of Pseudonymity of the Pas-
toral Epistles.” In Paul and Pseudepigraphy. Ed. Stanley E. Porter and Gregory P. Few-
ster, 65–88. Pauline Studies 8. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2013.

3 Grammatical Analysis
With the opening salutation taking on some of the functions of the typical
Pauline thanksgiving section, this unit directly addresses several main con-

2 Departing from na27, na28 provides further detail with the listing of the different active verbs
within this word group. The presence of the different forms of this verb may be due to the
extreme rarity of this verb in pre-nt Greek.
1:5–9 423

cerns Paul has for Titus and the Cretan community. That 1:5–9 is a distinct unit
is recognized by most, but its connection with the unit that follows (1:10–16)
also needs to be noted. If the two parts of the purpose clause in v. 5 (τὰ λείποντα
ἐπιδιορθώσῃ and καταστήσῃς κατὰ πόλιν πρεσβυτέρους) represent two individ-
ual but related concerns, then vv. 5–9 naturally deal with the appointment of
elders, while vv. 10–16 may be concerned with “the remaining matters” that Paul
mentions here as he deals with the false teachers. The connection between the
two units is reinforced by the emphasis on “sound teaching” (τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ τῇ
ὑγιαινούσῃ) at the end of this unit (v. 9) that provides a natural transition to the
next, and the conjunction γάρ at the beginning of the next unit (v. 10), in turn,
provides the reason for the care needed in the appointment of elders noted in
vv. 5–9.
Cohesion in this unit is maintained by the sustained focus on the elders and
overseer that are to be considered as one group, despite the shift from the plural
πρεσβυτέρους (v. 5) to the singular τὸν ἐπίσκοπον (v. 7; see below). The suggestion
that vv. 7–9 is not original to this letter (Richards, 81–82) not only lacks manu-
script support, but it also fails to appreciate the significance of v. 9 in paving
the way for vv. 10–16 with the shift from the qualifications of the church lead-
ers (vv. 5–9) to the challenge of the false teachers (vv. 10–16).
This unit begins with a main clause stating how Paul left Titus in Crete for
a reason, followed by two purpose clauses introduced by ἵνα (v. 5). While this
opening statement is dominated by aorist verbs (ἀπέλιπόν, ἐπιδιορθώσῃ, κατα-
στήσῃς, διεταξάμην; with the exception of the present participle λείποντα) as is
expected in a summary narrative account, the discussion of the qualifications
that follow in vv. 6–9 contain all present verbs (ἐστίν, ἔχων, δεῖ, εἶναι, ἀντεχόμενον,
ᾖ, παρακαλεῖν, ὑγιαινούσῃ, ἀντιλέγοντας, ἐλέγχειν) with the presentation of gen-
eral applicable virtues and vices. The protasis in v. 6 (εἴ τίς ….) is left without an
explicit apodosis; drawing upon καταστήσῃς … πρεσβυτέρους in v. 5, the readers
are likely to have expected to supply καταστήσεις πρεσβύτερον as the apodosis
unless the incomplete conditional sentence in v. 6 is considered a direct quota-
tion from that which Paul had communicated to Titus (cf. ὡς ἐγώ σοι διεταξάμην,
v. 5; Van Neste, 236).
After presenting the general requirements of an elder in v. 6, Paul provides
the basis for such qualifications in a long sentence introduced by δεῖ γάρ (v. 7)
followed by vice (v. 7) and virtue (v. 8) lists that elaborate on how the overseer
is to be blameless (ἀνέγκλητον, v. 7). The participial clause (ἀντεχόμενον …, v. 9)
draws attention to the importance of holding firm to the true teaching, while
the purpose clause that follows (ἵνα …, v. 9) points to the need to transmit such
a teaching and correct those who deviate from it. These final clauses in v. 9 devi-
ate from the preceding pattern of vice and virtue lists and are saturated with
424 titus

vocabulary from the same semantic domain related to teaching activities (τὴν
διδαχήν, λόγου, τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ, ἀντιλέγοντας, ἐλέγχειν; LNd § 33). These clauses
point to the ad hoc nature of the qualifications listed above, as they also pave
the way for an explicit discussion of the false teachers and their teachings in
the next unit (vv. 10–16).

▪ 5 Τούτου χάριν ἀπέλιπόν σε ἐν Κρήτῃ, ἵνα τὰ λείποντα ἐπιδιορθώσῃ καὶ καταστή-

σῃς κατὰ πόλιν πρεσβυτέρους, ὡς ἐγώ σοι διεταξάμην. The telic use of the improper
preposition χάριν with the kataphoric τούτου points to the reason for Paul’s leav-
ing Titus in Crete. The use of the first-person singular verb (ἀπέλιπον) with a
second-person singular pronoun (σέ) not only defines the relationship between
Paul the apostle and Titus his child (cf. 3:8), but it also lends Titus the derivative
authority he needs to carry out the tasks demanded of him.
Being one of the few historical comments in this letter, this statement fails to
provide definitive information for the reconstruction of the context of this let-
ter. The aorist ἀπέλιπον does not confirm the exact sequence of events, nor does
it shed light on the exact relationship between Paul and the church(es) in Crete.
The lexeme ἀπολείπω may refer to an act of having someone “remain in a place
upon going away” (bdag, 115), although it may simply denote an act of “leaving
one in charge of a task” (Porter 2013: 68). Nevertheless, in light of the use of ἀπο-
λείπω in 2Tim 4:13, 20, it seems probable that Paul was with Titus at a prior point
in time, but whether Paul founded the church(es) in Crete remains unclear.
The exact content of τὰ λείποντα is not specified, but if the conjunction καί is
to be taken as a coordinating conjunction (Fiore, 197) rather than an epexeget-
ical one (Spicq, 2:601), then that which is contained in the next unit (vv. 10–16)
or even the rest of this letter may be the intended referent. The aorist sub-
junctives ἐπιδιορθώσῃ and καταστήσῃς grammaticalize perfect aspect with the
projection of specific outcomes. The middle ἐπιδιορθώσῃ has been considered a
“dynamic middle” (cf. Winer, Grammar, 318–319) with the emphasis placed on
the role of the agent. The nt hapax ἐπιδιορθώσῃ likely simply denotes “to cor-
rect” (bdag 370), and the more specific definition of completing “unfinished
reforms” (lsj, 631) is not supported by its few appearances in ancient Greek lit-
erature. The earliest reference to this word is also of Cretan provenance, where
the word is used in the context of political administration (cig 2555; Wieland
2009: 351), a usage not unrelated to the context here where Paul discusses the
ordering of the affairs of the local community.

▪ 6 εἴ τίς ἐστιν ἀνέγκλητος, μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἀνήρ, τέκνα ἔχων πιστά, μὴ ἐν κατηγο-
ρίᾳ ἀσωτίας ἢ ἀνυπότακτα. Paul begins with a protasis (εἴ τίς ἐστιν …) without
an accompanying apodosis. As noted above, it is best to consider καταστήσεις
1:5–9 425

πρεσβύτερον as the implied apodosis. From the plural πρεσβυτέρους (v. 1), Paul
shifts to the singular τις in the discussion of the qualifications of the elders. The
interrogative τίς introduces a question (“Is anyone blameless?” cf. Fee, 172) but
is often considered to be the equivalent of the indefinite τις in this context (“if
anyone is blameless,” cf. Marshall, 154; see also εἴ τις in 1 Tim 1:10; 3:1, 5; 5:4, 8, 16;
6:3), comparable to the case of 1Tim 1:7 where the τίνων functions as a relative
pronoun (cf. Robertson, Grammar, 737).
ἀνέγκλητος is to be considered an umbrella term (cf. 1 Tim 3:10) whose mean-
ing is further elaborated in the terms that follow (cf. v. 7). μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἀνήρ
should be understood as a prohibition against adultery and infidelity, whereas
the description of children as πιστά refers primarily to their “faithfulness” and
“obedience.” ἀσωτία and ἀνυπότακτος may recall the pair ἄνομος and ἀνυπότα-
κτος in 1Tim 1:9, but its appearance in this list of qualification paves the way for
the further description of the false teachers as ἀνυπότακτοι in v. 10.

▪ 7 δεῖ γὰρ τὸν ἐπίσκοπον ἀνέγκλητον εἶναι ὡς θεοῦ οἰκονόμον, μὴ αὐθάδη, μὴ ὀργί-
λον, μὴ πάροινον, μὴ πλήκτην, μὴ αἰσχροκερδῆ. Though with a deficient stem and
an incomplete paradigm (in Koine Greek), the present tense δεῖ is not aspectu-
ally vague and here grammaticalizes imperfective aspect in the introduction of
a series of general vices and virtues. The conjunction γάρ that strengthens the
assertion that precedes clearly links this discussion of the overseer (τὸν ἐπίσκο-
πον) with the previous one of the elders (πρεσβυτέρους). The shift to the singular
τὸν ἐπίσκοπον is already anticipated by the singular τις of v. 6, and here it marks
the shift from domestic responsibilities to those within God’s household (see
Historical Analysis).
The asyndetic vice list introduced by δεῖ [εἶναι] contains five adjectives mod-
ified by the negative particle μή (cf. 1Tim 3:3, 6; Robertson, Grammar, 1172).
These vices anticipate the depiction of the false teachers in vv. 10–11, especially
αἰσχροκερδῆ (“greedy”), where these teachers are portrayed as those who teach
αἰσχροῦ κέρδους χάριν (“for shameful gain,” v. 11). The Pauline hapax αὐθάδης
(“arrogant”) and ὀργίλος (“quick-tempered”) may also anticipate the criticism
of these false teachers as those involved in “dissensions” (ἔρεις) and “quarrels
about the law” (μάχας νομικάς) in 3:9.

▪ 8 ἀλλὰ φιλόξενον φιλάγαθον σώφρονα δίκαιον ὅσιον ἐγκρατῆ. As is common in the

pe, the preceding list of vices modified by μή is followed by another asyndetic
list of virtues introduced by ἀλλά (cf. 1Tim 2:9–10, 11–15; 3:3). φιλόξενος, σώφρων,
δίκαιος, and ὅσιος are familiar terms in the pe, while the antonym of ἐγκρατής
appears in 2Tim 3:3 (ἀκρατής). The nt hapax φιλάγαθος stands out from this list,
and it may again anticipate the characterization of the false teachers as those
426 titus

who are not equipped for πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθόν (1:16), a phrase frequently used in
the pe (1Tim 5:10; 2Tim 2:21; 3:17; Titus 3:1).

▪ 9 ἀντεχόμενον τοῦ κατὰ τὴν διδαχὴν πιστοῦ λόγου, ἵνα δυνατὸς ᾖ καὶ παρακαλεῖν ἐν
τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ τῇ ὑγιαινούσῃ καὶ τοὺς ἀντιλέγοντας ἐλέγχειν. Departing from the
listing of adjectives, the final requirement of the overseer is presented in the
form of the participle ἀντεχόμενον functioning as the predicate of δεῖ … τὸν ἐπί-
σκοπον … εἶναι, thus: the overseer “must hold fast to ….” The departure from the
list of virtues above and the length of this final requirement not only highlight
the importance of the gospel, but they also anticipate the direct criticism of the
false teachers in the next unit (vv. 10–16).
With πιστοῦ λόγου being the object of the middle participle ἀντεχόμενον,
κατὰ τὴν διδαχήν appears unnecessary since πιστοῦ λόγου already denotes the
gospel that has been passed down through the faithful teachers. Its appearance
together with the phrase ἐν τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ τῇ ὑγιαινούσῃ may serve to empha-
size the importance of the apostolic teaching, especially in contrast to the false
teachers who are “teaching” (διδάσκοντες) with a wrong motive (v. 11).
The purpose clauses introduced by ἵνα δυνατὸς ᾖ should be considered to-
gether, as they point forward to the unit that follows (vv. 10–16; contra Van Neste
2002: 127). The interrelatedness of the two clauses is marked by the καὶ … καί
structure, with the first καί functioning as an “intensifying” adverb and the sec-
ond functioning as a connective (Titrud 1991: 7). The first clause that focuses
on “the sound teaching” (τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ τῇ ὑγιαινούσῃ) anticipates the purpose
clause in v. 13: ἵνα ὑγιαίνωσιν ἐν τῇ πίστει (“so that they may be sound in the
faith”); the second, which focuses on the call for Titus to “rebuke those who
speak against [the sound teaching]” (τοὺς ἀντιλέγοντας ἐλέγχειν), anticipates a
similar call in v. 13: ἔλεγχε αὐτοὺς ἀποτόμως (“rebuke them sharply”). Both con-
cerns resurface throughout this letter (2:1, 15). As in 1 Timothy 3:1–7, therefore,
the discussion of the qualifications of the overseer is conditioned by the par-
ticular contexts in which the recipients of this letter are located.

Bibliography
Grubbs, Norris C. “The Truth about Elders and Their Children: Believing or Behaving in
Titus 1:6?” Faith and Mission 22 (2005): 3–15.
Morgan, Teresa. Roman Faith and Christian Faith: Pistis and Fides in the Early Roman
Empire and Early Churches. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015.
Porter, Stanley E. “Pauline Chronology and the Question of Pseudonymity of the Pas-
toral Epistles.” In Paul and Pseudepigraphy. Ed. Stanley E. Porter and Gregory P. Few-
ster, 65–88. Pauline Studies 8. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2013.
Van Neste, Ray. “Structure and Cohesion in Titus.” bt 53 (2002): 118–133.
1:5–9 427

4 Historical Analysis
Unlike 1Timothy, this letter begins its address with the particular concerns for
the community of believers (in this case in Crete) through a list of qualifications
for overseers and elders. For the identification of “overseer” (ἐπίσκοπος) with
“elder” (πρεσβύτερος), see 1Tim 3:1–7. Those who argue against this identifica-
tion draw attention to an awkward shift from the plural elders (πρεσβυτέρους)
in v. 5 to the singular overseer (τὸν ἐπίσκοπον) in v. 7 (Kelly, 232), but this shift
has already taken place in v. 6 with the use of the singular τις in reference to an
elder, and the plural form in v. 5 is necessitated by the phrase κατὰ πόλιν. More-
over, the qualifications in reference to the overseer listed in vv. 7–8 may come
from the tradition where the generic singular is used, and the shift between
the plural and the generic singular is not unusual in the pe (1 Tim 2:8, 9, 11; 2:15;
1 Tim 5:1, 3–4, 11; 5:17; Merkle 2010: 183–186; cf. Stewart 2014: 42).
The traditional nature of the list of qualifications in this section is not only
reflected in the parallel virtues and vices it shares with 1 Tim 3:2–6, but the items
that are unique in Titus also have parallels in Paul’s earlier writings (e.g., θεοῦ
οἰκονόμος, Titus 1:7 [1Cor 4:1]; δίκαιος, Titus 1:8 [Rom 5:19; Phil 4:8; 2 Thess 1:6];
ὅσιος, Titus 1:8 [cf. ὁσιότης, Eph 4:24]). The identification of the possible origins
of these lists is more difficult, though there are similarities with contemporary
lists in both content and emphases (cf. 1Tim 3:1–7). As in the case of 1 Tim 3:2–
6, the distinct hand of Paul can be felt here as he addresses issues particular to
the developing community of believers in Crete.

▪ 5 Neither the tense nor the lexical choice of the verb ἀπέλιπον allows for the
reconstruction of the relationship between Paul and the community of believ-
ers in Crete prior to his writing of this letter, but the similar use of ἀπολείπω in
2 Tim 4:13, 20 suggests a similar situation here where Paul may have been with
Titus before requesting that he remain in Crete. Chronologically, this can be
located during his travels back to the East after the possible mission to Spain
(see Introduction).
With the absence of references to Paul’s evangelistic work in Crete and
extensive references to other believers there, the churches might not have
been founded by Paul. The presence of those from Crete in the Pentecost
event decades earlier (Acts 2:11) may explain the origin of these communi-
ties of believers. This may argue against seeing these communities as being
younger than those in Ephesus. Moreover, while this shorter letter may give
the impression of a more disorganized community, the more detailed instruc-
tions in 1Timothy may simply reflect a more urgent or complicated situation in
the midst of the threats posed by the false teachers. Nevertheless, a description
elsewhere (cf. v. 7) may point in a different direction.
428 titus

If πόλις is used in reference to an established independent city-state, then it

will be a reference to one of the about 20 city-states in Crete during the early
imperial period, most prominent among which are Gortyn (the capital of the
province of Crete and Cyrene), Kydonia (a harbor city in NW Crete which Paul
might have visited in his return from the West), Eleutherna, Knossos, and Hier-
apytna (cf. Gill 2004: 223–224). The presence of Jews in some of these cities has
been repeatedly noted (1Macc 15:23; Philo, Legat. 282; Josephus, Vita 76; Taci-
tus, Hist. 5.11; Schnabel 2004: 1284–1286), which is not itself surprising in light
of the strategic importance of Crete within the trade route from the East to the
West (cf. Acts 27:7–21).
καθίημι and διατάσσω often appear together in military and political con-
texts where a chain of command is clearly delineated (2 Macc 12:20; 3 Macc
5:43; Diodorus of Sicily, Hist. 13.78.6; 16.70.5). This is in line with the use of ἐπι-
ταγή in v. 3, where Paul links his authority to that of Christ, and now extends
it to Titus and the elders he is to appoint. πρεσβύτερος is used interchangeably
with ἐπίσκοπος (see 1Tim 3:1–7 and 5:17); the plural here is appropriate given
the plurality of sites (κατὰ πόλιν). This call to appoint elders not only reflects
the historical necessity of the presence of leaders in local Christian communi-
ties, but it also provides a way for these communities to relate to one another
with a network that is to submit to the final authority of God himself (v. 3; cf.
Acts 14:23; 15:2–29; 16:4; 20:17).

▪ 6 ἀνέγκλητος is also a requirement for deacons in 1 Tim 3:10, whereas a term

with significant overlap in semantic range (ἀνεπίλημπτος) is used for the over-
seer (1Tim 3:2). That it is used as an umbrella term is made clear with its reap-
pearance in v. 7.
μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἀνήρ is also a requirement for overseers (see comments on 1 Tim
3:2) and deacons (1Tim 3:12) and should be taken to refer to marital fidelity.
The description of children as πιστά refers primarily to “faithfulness/obe-
dience” (Collins, 320) rather than “believing” (Dibelius and Conzelmann, 132),
because (1) the phrase μὴ ἐν κατηγορίᾳ ἀσωτίας ἢ ἀνυπότακτα with the implied
ὄντα (which takes μή as a negative particle; Abel, Grammaire, § 75c), which pro-
vides further characterization of these children, emphasizes obedient behav-
ior; (2) the parallel in 1Tim 3:4 focuses on the obedience of the children rather
than their own faith (Grubbs 2005: 11–13); (3) the lack of a similar concern
for the wives of these elders argues against a “faith” requirement for the chil-
dren; and (4) the concern here is primarily on the orderliness within the
household, though such obedience to the head of the household is also to be
understood as the manifestation of one’s faithfulness to God (Morgan 2015:
316).
1:5–9 429

Both ἀσωτία and ἀνυπότακτος denote unruly behavior that lacks self-control.
Elsewhere in the nt, ἀσωτία is applied to those who are drunk (Eph 5:18),
whereas ἀνυπότακτος is used in contrast to things under one’s control (Heb
2:8). As a pair it appears only here in ancient Greek literature, with ἀνυπότα-
κτος being applied further as a label for the false teacher in v. 10. Elsewhere,
ἀσωτία often forms a pair with ἀνελευθερία instead for vulgar and offensive
behavior (Aristotle, Eth. eud. 1231b; Eth. nic. 1107b; 1119b; Aspasius, Eth. nic.
comm. 96.5), and it is used in contrast to σώφρων for behavior that lacks self-
control (Aristotle, Rhet. 1930b; Chrysippus, Frag. 244.23; Philo, Sobr. 40.2). ἀνυ-
πότακτος is relatively rare and can be used in a neutral sense of free and
unrestrained (Polybius 5.21.4; Philo, Her. 4.5), but with ἀσωτία here it carries
the negative sense of reckless and rebellious behavior (cf. 1 Sam 2:12; 10:27
[Symm.]).

▪ 7 The use of πρεσβύτερος and ἐπίσκοπος for the same group of leaders can
already be seen in 1Tim 5:17, where πρεσβύτεροι likely refers back to the τὸν ἐπί-
σκοπον noted in 1Tim 3:2. The interchangeable use of the two terms appears
also in Acts 20:17–18, and the use of πρεσβύτερος may be a status label, while
ἐπίσκοπος a functional one (Malina and Pilch, 75). With the switch to a different
label within the same unit, it is also possible that the functional label ἐπίσκο-
πος points to a new set of responsibilities these πρεσβύτεροι are to assume (cf.
Stewart 2014: 40).
Textual clues within this unit may provide further help in distinguishing
these two titles. πρεσβύτερος, being an age-sensitive label, is more appropri-
ate in a natural household (1Tim 5:17), while ἐπίσκοπος is more appropriate
in the household of God (1Tim 3:2). This will shed light on the relationship
between vv. 6 and 7, with both emphasizing the need to be blameless (ἀνέγκλη-
τος/ἀνέγκλητον). As v. 6 introduces the qualifications of the elders in reference
to their responsibilities within the web of household relationships (γυναικός,
ἀνήρ, τέκνα), v. 7 focuses on their responsibilities within the household of God
as “God’s steward” (θεοῦ οἰκονόμον). The genitival modifier θεοῦ is, therefore, a
significant marker that highlights the shift of the focus in this verse.
οἰκονόμος fits this context well when the church is conceived as the house-
hold of God (within which πρεσβύτερος and ἐπίσκοπος are to be understood)
and when domestic concerns in the individual households intersect with those
of the wider community (cf. 2:1–10). οἰκονόμος is the common designation of the
head slave of the pater familias in a Greco-Roman household (cf. White 2003:
473); it is used as such especially in Luke (12:42; 16:1, 3, 8) and has the extended
meaning of God’s steward in Paul (1Cor 4:1, 2). The common use of this desig-
nation within royal households for the stewards of the king (1 Chron 29:6; Esth
430 titus

8:9; 1Esd 8:64; Diodorus of Sicily, Hist. 1.62.6; Strabo, Geogr. 17.1.12; Josephus, A.J.
11.138; Plutarch, Cat. Min. 39.4) may have paved the way for this extended mean-
ing.
The Pauline hapax αὐθάδης (“arrogant”) and ὀργίλος (“quick-tempered”) may
be expressions of ἀσωτίας ἢ ἀνυπότακτα in v. 6, as illustrated in 2 Pet 2:10, where
αὐθάδης is paired with τολμητής (“reckless”). αὐθάδης and ὀργίλος appear as a
pair only here, but see the phrase τὰς ὀργὰς αὐθάδεας in reference to stubborn-
ness in Hippocrates (De aëre aquis et locis 24.45). ὀργίλος (“quick-tempered”) is
a common vice and is, in turn, linked with greediness (Plutarch, Mor. 457b).
πάροινος (“drunkard”) and πλήκτης (“violent”) both appear in the list of 1 Tim
3:3, where ἀφιλάργυρος there parallels μὴ αἰσχροκερδής (not greedy) here. The
lexical choice of αἰσχροκερδής anticipates αἰσχροῦ κέρδους in v. 11, and αἰσχροκερ-
δής is considered as an expression of impiety and thus can be paralleled with
ἀσεβής (Dinarchus, Demosth. 21.1).
The lack of a reference to the requirement of not being a new convert (cf.
μὴ νεόφυτον, 1Tim 3:6) may point to the relatively young age of the churches in
Crete (with the corresponding lack of the call to remove corrupt elders as in
1 Tim 5:17–25; cf. Merkle 2010: 185).

▪ 8 Four of the six virtues here appear in some form in the pe (φιλόξενος, 1 Tim
3:2; σώφρων, 1Tim 3:2; Titus 2:2, 5; δίκαιος, 1Tim 1:9; 2 Tim 4:8; ὅσιος, 1 Tim 2:8).
Though φιλόξενος has not been linked with φιλάγαθος elsewhere in Greek liter-
ature, it has with φιλόκαλος (Pseudo-Aristotle, Virt. vit. 1250b; Pseudo-Androni-
cus, Pass. 7.4.10), with both φιλάγαθος and φιλόκαλος related to σώφρων (cf.
Plutarch, Mor. 140c). The conceptual link between φιλόξενος and the nt hapax
φιλάγαθος is a natural one since “loving what is good” is often equated with “lov-
ing others” (φιλάνθρωπος, Wis 7:22–23; Philo, Mos. 2.9; Dio Chrysostom, Diod. 3)
rather than “loving oneself” (φίλαθτος, Pseudo-Aristotle, Mag. mor. 1212a).
The antonym of the nt hapax ἐγκρατής appears in 2 Tim 3:3 (ἀκρατής). There
is a significant overlap in the semantic ranges of ἐγκρατής (LNd § 88.84) and
σώφρων (LNd §88.94), which appear often together (Xenophon, Ages. 10.2.5;
Aristotle, Eth. nic. 1148a; Philo, Virt. 182.2).

▪ 9 The middle participle ἀντεχόμενον denotes to “hold fast to” (cf. Luke 16:13),
though it is not clear if the prefix ἀντί adds the sense of “despite opposition” to
the stem as it often does in the lxx (Deut 32:41; Prov 3:18; Isa 48:2; 56:2–6; 57:13;
Jer 51:10; cf. Marshall, 165). πιστοῦ λόγου refers to the gospel (or “the word of the
faith,” τοῖς λόγοις τῆς πίστεως, 1Tim 4:6) that is worthy of trust, while the preposi-
tional phrase κατὰ τὴν διδαχήν reiterates the importance of the act and content
of teaching (v. 11). The use of διδαχή for the authoritative teachings passed down
1:5–9 431

from the previous generation can already be found in Romans (6:17; 16:17), and
it belongs to the διδασκ-word group that also plays an important role in this let-
ter (διδασκαλία, 1:9; 2:1, 7, 10; διδάσκω, 1:11). For the use of διδαχή with λόγος, see
also 2Tim 4:2.
παρακαλέω is a familiar verb for exhortation and instruction in 1 Timothy (1:3;
cf. 2:1; 5:1; 6:2) and is one that is often tied with acts of teaching (δίδασκε καὶ
παρακάλει, 6:2) even in Greek literature (Polybius 4.22.9; Dionysius of Halicar-
nassus, Thuc. 54.78; Plutarch, Art. 18.4). ἡ διδασκαλία ἡ ὑγιαινούσα is a familiar
expression in the pe (see 1Tim 1:10; cf. 2Tim 4:3; Titus 2:1). As in 1 Timothy,
“sound teaching” would also lead to the right behavior (1 Tim 1:10) so that believ-
ers “may be sound in the faith” (Titus 1:13).
For ἐλέγχω, see 1Tim 5:20; it is often used with παρακαλέω in the pe in the
context of warning and exhortation (2:15; 2Tim 4:2). ἀντιλέγω is very common
in Greek literature but appears only twice in the pe, both in this letter and both
in the context of challenging those in authority (cf. 2:9). In the nt, most of its
occurrences are in the Lukan writings (Luke 2:34; 20:28; 21:15; Acts 4:14), with
close parallels in contexts depicting those who speak against Paul (Acts 13:45;
28:19, 22).

Bibliography
Fuchs, Rüdiger. “Bisher unbeachtet—zum unterschiedlichen Gebrauch von ἀγαθός,
καλός und καλῶς in den Schreiben an Timotheus und Titus.”EuroJTh 15 (2006): 15–33.
Gill, David W.J. “A Saviour for the Cities of Crete: The Roman Background to the Epistle
to Titus.” In The New Testament in Its First Century Setting. Ed. P.J. Williams et al.,
220–230. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004.
Merkle, Benjamin L. “Ecclesiology in the Pastoral Epistles.” In Entrusted with the Gospel:
Paul’s Theology in the Pastoral Epistles. Ed. Andreas J. Köstenberger and Terry L. Wil-
der, 173–198. Nashville: B&H Academic, 2010.
Stewart, Alistair C. The Original Bishops: Office and Order in the First Christian Commu-
nities. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2014.
White, L. Michael. “Paul and Pater Familias.” In Paul in the Greco-Roman World. Ed.
J. Paul Sampley, 457–487. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2003.

5 Theological Analysis
While the church is not explicitly identified as οἶκος θεοῦ as in 1 Timothy (3:16),
the significance of household language within this section cannot be missed.
First, the parallel between the domestic responsibilities of an elder in v. 6 and
the responsibilities of an overseer within the household of God in vv. 7–9 argues
for a close connection between the two. This may reflect the historical reality of
communities of believers meeting within households of their individual mem-
432 titus

bers (cf. κατ’ οἶκον, Acts 2:46), but it may also point to the organization of a
church modeling after domestic households. The relationship (and distinction)
between the two may further explain the use of two epithets here, πρεσβύτερος
and ἐπίσκοπος.
Second, in terms of the individual virtues and vices listed in vv. 6–7, some
have argued for a dependence on the Lukan parables of household stewards
(Luke 12:42–48; 16:1–9; Quinn, 88–89). If so, the additional virtues that are
unparalleled in that tradition (cf. vv. 8–9) may, in turn, point to the unique cir-
cumstances that dictate Paul’s instructions here (Goodrich 2013: 77–97). These
circumstances likely provide the context in which teaching becomes the dom-
inant activity emphasized in v. 9.
Equally important is the delineation of the structure of power within the
framework of a household. The absolute power of the pater familias in a Roman
household (Rawson 1986: 15–18) provides a way for Paul to encourage Titus
to establish a structure of power whereby the authority of the gospel can be
recognized. The identification of himself as “a slave of God and an apostle of
Jesus Christ” (v. 1) who has been “entrusted according to the command of God
our Savior” (v. 3) allows him to call Titus to “appoint elders” (v. 5) who are to
“give exhortation” to and “rebuke” those who are disobedient (v. 9). This care-
ful delineation of lines via the language of power provides a strong basis for
Paul to directly challenge the authority of the false teachers in the next section
(vv. 10–16)

Bibliography
Goodrich, John K. “Overseers as Stewards and the Qualifications for Leadership in the
Pastoral Epistles.” znw 104 (2013): 77–97.
MacDonald, Margaret Y. The Power of Children: The Construction of Christian Families
in the Greco-Roman World. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2014.
Rawson, Beryl. “The Roman Family.” In The Family in Ancient Rome. Ed. Beryl Rawson,
1–57. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1986.

B Rebuke of the False Teachers (1:10–16)

1 Translation
10 For there are many rebellious people, empty talkers and deceivers, namely,
those of the circumcision, 11 who must be silenced since they are disrupting
whole households by teaching for shameful gain what they ought not to teach.
12 One of them,3 a prophet of their own, said, “Cretans are always liars, evil

3 The reference is likely to the “Cretans” (v. 12b) rather than one of “those of the circumcision”
(v. 10) even though the two cannot be clearly distinguished in Paul’s rhetoric here.
1:10–16 433

beasts, lazy gluttons.” 13 This testimony is true. For this reason, rebuke them
sharply, so that they may be sound in the faith 14 by not paying attention to
the Jewish myths and human commandments of those who are turning away
from the truth. 15 To the pure all things are pure, to the defiled and unbelieving,
nothing is pure; but both their minds and consciences are defiled. 16 They pro-
fess to know God, but they deny him with their deeds, since they are detestable,
disobedient, unfit for any good work.

2 Text-Critical Analysis
▪ 10 πολλοὶ [καί]: The καί is included in many Western (D F G lat Lcf Spec) and
Byzantine (K L pm 𝔐) witnesses but omitted in the early Alexandrian uncials
(‫ א‬A C 088 pm)4 and a number of versions (ar vgmss sy co). Internal considera-
tions are indecisive, with the insertion conforming to the rhetorical hendiadys
(cf. Metzger, 584) and the omission caused by early scribes who misunderstood
this classical pleonastic structure (bdf §442[11]) or by later Atticist scribes who
attempted to correct the perceived Semitism (cf. Gen 47:9; Elliott, 211). In this
case, its omission is preferred based on slightly stronger external support (Tis-
chendorf; Westcott-Hort).

▪ 10 τῆς περιτομῆς: The article is omitted in many witnesses across textual tradi-
tions (A D1 F G K L P Ψ 630 1241 1505 𝔐)5 but included in selected Alexandrian
(‫ א‬C I 088 1739) and Western (D*.c) witnesses. Its omission was likely intended
to conform to ἐκ περιτομῆς elsewhere in the nt (Acts 10:45; 11:2; Rom 4:12; Gal
2:12; Col 4:11; Kilpatrick, 16).

▪ 11 χάριν: As in 1:9, manuscript 460 again provides a lengthy insertion: τὰ τέκνα

οἱ τοὺς ἰδίους γονεῖς ὑβρίζοντες ἢ τύπτοντες ἐπιστόμιζε καὶ ἔλεγχε καὶ νουθετεῖ ὡς
πατὴρ τέκνα. This advice concerning the discipline of children may have been
inserted in light of a similar requirement in 1Tim 3:4, though it should have
been appended to 2:8 instead. Those who see this as a part of Paul’s advice to
different members of the household (cf. Eph 6:1–3; Col 3:20) would consider 2:8
as the expected place for its insertion (Bernard, 154).

▪ 12 εἶπεν: δέ is inserted after εἶπεν in ‫ *א‬F G 81, likely to remove the asyndeton,
which would also explain the insertion of γάρ by 103 (no longer noted in na28).

4 na27/28 listed Codex i (016) as including καί, but recent examination of this codex has proven
otherwise (Wayment 2004: 737).
5 Correcting the listing of D2 in na27, na28 has D1 instead for this variant.
434 titus

The inclusion of either δέ or γάρ would also clarify the relationship between this
clause and the preceding one (see comments).

▪ 13 ἐστὶν ἀληθής: The order is inverted in a few witnesses (D 1245 1505 2374) and
is adopted by Elliott because “it appears to be the normal N.T. order” (178; cf.
Matt 22:16; John 3:33; 21:24; Acts 12:3; 3John 12), but the only other example in
Paul reads ἐστὶν ἀληθῆ (Phil 4:8) instead. Stylistic considerations and external
evidence both support ἐστὶν ἀληθής here.

▪ 13 ἐν: This is omitted in ‫*א‬, likely another example of a peculiar omission in

the Codex Sinaiticus (see comments on 1Tim 3:8). Elliott (178) includes 𝔓32 as
a witness for this variant without noting the lacuna in this part of the papyrus
which lacks the entire phrase ἐν τῇ πίστει.

▪ 14 ἐντολαῖς: A few late Western uncials (F G) read εντάλμασιν, likely a confu-

sion with the related ἐντολαῖς, which belongs to the vocabulary of the pe (1 Tim
6:14). An equally poorly attested γενεαλογίαις (075 1908) is likely an assimilation
to μύθοις καὶ γενεαλογίαις in 1Tim 1:4.

▪ 15 πάντα: μέν is inserted after πάντα in primarily late Byzantine witnesses (‫א‬2
D2 K L Ψ 104 365 1505 pm 𝔐) to anticipate the δέ-clause that follows (Bernard,
154; bdf §447[2]), while a few versions (syp bopt) attempt to erase the asyn-
deton by inserting γάρ instead. The omission of either is supported by strong
Alexandrian (‫ *א‬A C 1739) and Western (D* F G latt) witnesses and can best
explain the presence of both.

▪ 16 καὶ πρός: καί is omitted in a few witnesses (‫ *א‬Amst), likely to reduce the
number of conjunctions in this sentence, but the author does not refrain from
including multiple conjunctions within a list elsewhere (cf. 3:9).

▪ 16 ἀγαθόν: This is omitted in ‫ *א‬and 81, likely a case of homoeoteleuton (Elliott,

143). The inclusion is consistent with the author’s usage where ἔργον often
appears with forms of καλόν (2:7, 14; 3:8, 14) or ἀγαθόν (3:1).

▪ 16 ἀδόκιμοι: Itacism is likely the cause of the variants ἀδόκειμοι (A F G) and ἀδό-
κημοι (1735). ἀδόκιμοι, the only attested form in extant Greek literature, belongs
to the vocabulary of Paul (Rom 1:28; 1Cor 9:27; 2 Cor 13:5, 6, 7; 2 Tim 3:8) and is
supported by the best witnesses of diverse textual traditions (‫ א‬C D F G Ψ 33
1739 1881 pm 𝔐).
1:10–16 435

Bibliography
Wayment, Thomas A. “Two New Textual Variants from the Freer Pauline Codex (i).” jbl
123 (2004): 737–740.

3 Grammatical Analysis
The boundary of this unit is marked by the shift from the singular elder/over-
seer in vv. 6–9 to the plural false teachers, a shift marked not only by the con-
sistent use of the plural verbs (εἰσὶν, v. 10; ἀνατρέπουσιν, v. 11; ὑγιαίνωσιν, v. 13;
ὁμολογοῦσιν, ἀρνοῦνται, v. 16; cf. Van Neste, 239) in this unit, but also by the plu-
ral πολλοί that corresponds to the non-specific singular determiner τις in v. 6
(though πολλοί is primarily enumerative in function, cf. Halliday, Functional
Grammar, 374–375).
The shift from the use of the second-person singular personal pronoun in
the previous unit (σύ, v. 5) to the third-person plural personal pronoun in the
present unit draws attention to the false teachers (αὐτῶν, v. 12 [twice], v. 15;
αὐτούς, v. 13). The return to the second-person singular σύ in 2:1 marks the begin-
ning of the next unit (2:1–10), where Paul returns to the direct admonition to
Titus to carry out his responsibilities among the community of believers.
The unit is bracketed by criticisms of insubordination (cf. “rebellious,” ἀνυ-
πότακτοι, v. 10; “disobedient,” ἀπειθεῖς, v. 16) as Paul portrays these false teach-
ers as failing to submit to the apostolic faith. Within the content of this unit,
two themes emerge: (1) a significant conglomeration of terms within the same
semantic domain of speech and communication (LNd § 33: ματαιολόγοι, v. 10;
ἐπιστομίζειν, v. 11; διδάσκοντες, v. 11; εἶπέν, v. 12; ψεῦσται, v. 12; μαρτυρία, v. 13; ἔλεγχε,
v. 13; μύθοις, v. 14; ἐντολαῖς, v. 14; ὁμολογοῦσιν, v. 16) forms the center of Paul’s
critique of these false teachers as they are portrayed as deceivers (φρεναπάται,
v. 10) and liars (ψεῦσται, v. 12) who have no concern for the truth (τὴν ἀλήθειαν);
(2) ethnic labels also play a prominent role in this unit in Paul’s characterization
of these false teachers (cf. οἱ ἐκ τῆς περιτομῆς, v. 10; Κρῆτες, v. 12; Ἰουδαϊκοῖς, v. 14).
These two rhetorical moves have often been considered as Paul’s way of dis-
crediting his opponents without engaging with the substance of their teachings
(cf. Genade 2011: 38), though this would fail to take vv. 15–16 into consideration
(see Historical Analysis).
This unit begins with γάρ, which provides the basis for the care that is
required in the appointment of elders (vv. 5–9). The first cluster of clauses
provides characterization of the “many” (πολλοί) false teachers: through the
complement of the predicate (εἰσὶν) that applies three labels to them (ἀνυπότα-
κτοι, ματαιολόγοι καὶ φρεναπάται, v. 10a), through the epexegetical use of μάλιστα
that introduces their ethnic origin (οἱ ἐκ τῆς περιτομῆς, v. 10b), through the rel-
ative clause introduced by the relative pronoun οὕς that highlights the urgency
436 titus

of the situation (δεῖ ἐπιστομίζειν, v. 11a), and through another relative clause
introduced by the indefinite pronoun οἵτινες that provides the basis for such
urgency (ὅλους οἴκους ἀνατρέπουσιν …, v. 11b). Following this cluster is a series of
asyndetic clauses that enhances the polemic tone of this unit (cf. Levinsohn,
Discourse, 62–63), the first of which is a local proverb (v. 12) and the affirma-
tion of its truthfulness (v. 13a).
The anaphoric δι’ ἣν αἰτίαν introduces the second half of this unit (cf. Clark
2002: 106–107), where Paul calls Titus to provide a proper response to these
false teachers and their teachings (vv. 14–15). The clauses that follow in v. 15 are
carefully constructed with the use of two perfect forms of the same verb (μεμι-
αμμένοις, μεμίανται) and three appearances of the same word (καθαρά, καθαροῖς,
καθαρόν), all within clauses that are in adversative relationships linked by the
conjunctions δέ and ἀλλά—this paratactic sequence of clauses serves to high-
light one of the foci in the dispute between Paul and the false teachers. The unit
concludes with two asyndetic clauses, the second of which is modified by an
adverbial participle (ὄντες) that provides the reasons why these false teachers
behave the way they do.

▪ 10 Εἰσὶν γὰρ πολλοὶ [καὶ] ἀνυπότακτοι, ματαιολόγοι καὶ φρεναπάται, μάλιστα οἱ ἐκ

τῆς περιτομῆς. The conjunction γάρ provides support for the careful selection of
church leaders; with the relative clause that follows (v. 11) being a “hypotactic
non-defining relative clause” (Halliday, Functional Grammar, 464), this clause
also provides the grounds for the statement that follows. As with most of the
verbs in this unit, the present tense εἰσίν draws attention to the relative prox-
imity of the issues (and people) addressed in this unit. The adverbial καί that
follows πολλοί should best be considered a later insertion (see Text-Critical
Analysis).
ἀνυπότακτοι is an umbrella term that introduces ματαιολόγοι and φρεναπάται,
both pointing to those involved in illicit verbal acts. As in its other occurrences
in the pe (1Tim 4:10; 5:8, 17; 2Tim 4:13), μάλιστα is best understood in the sense
of “namely, that is” (see 1Tim 4:10) and therefore does not provide evidence that
some of the false teachers may be of a pagan origin (contra Zamfir, 176). οἱ ἐκ τῆς
περιτομῆς is yet another ethnic label not unlike Ἰουδαϊκός of v. 14, but in light of
its use elsewhere in Paul, a more specific reference to the Jewish believers may
have been intended.

▪ 11 οὓς δεῖ ἐπιστομίζειν, οἵτινες ὅλους οἴκους ἀνατρέπουσιν διδάσκοντες ἃ μὴ δεῖ

αἰσχροῦ κέρδους χάριν. This relative clause introduced by οὕς provides further
characterization of the “many” (πολλοί, v. 10) false teachers. Though formulaic,
δεῖ followed by the present infinitive ἐπιστομίζειν is part of a pattern of present
1:10–16 437

tense verbs in vv. 10–11 that grammaticalize imperfective aspect, and in this con-
text draws attention to the urgency of Paul’s teaching here.
The indefinite relative pronoun οἵτινες often takes on the function of a rel-
ative pronoun in Koine Greek (Spottorno 1982: 132–141); in this case it further
modifies πολλοί, but in its context it also provides the grounds for the urgency
expressed in the preceding clause (οὓς δεῖ ἐπιστομίζειν). This urgency is under-
lined by the only use of the plural ὅλους in the nt, one that emphasizes the
“distributive wholes” of the households affected by these false teachings (cf.
Johnston 2004: 116).
The instrumental participle διδάσκοντες modifies ἀνατρέπουσιν, with the ob-
ject ἃ μὴ δεῖ (“what they ought not to”). The use of μή with the indicative δεῖ is
unusual, and it may be an equivalent of τὰ μὴ δέοντα (1 Tim 5:13; Abel, Gram-
maire, §75e), or even a mixture of τὰ μὴ δέοντα and ἃ οὐ δεῖ (bdf § 428[4]). On
the other hand, this μή may modify an implied infinitive, διδάσϰειν, within an
indirect discourse introduced by δεῖ (cf. Smyth, Greek Grammar, § 1985b). The
reason why they should not teach what they are teaching may be because they
have abandoned their faith for the “myths” (μύθοις, v. 14) or that their motive is
incorrect since they teach “for shameful gain” (αἰσχροῦ κέρδους χάριν).

▪ 12 εἶπέν τις ἐξ αὐτῶν ἴδιος αὐτῶν προφήτης· Κρῆτες ἀεὶ ψεῦσται, κακὰ θηρία, γαστέ-
ρες ἀργαί. Without either γάρ or δέ (see Text-Critical Analysis), the function of
this asyndetic clause (with the quoted saying) remains unclear. This is partic-
ularly relevant if the object of rebuke (“them,” αὐτούς) in v. 13 is different from
those false teachers being criticized in v. 11 since this asyndetic clause can either
lend support for Paul’s call to silence these false teachers or possibly pave the
way for his call to rebuke the Cretan believers for often failing to stand for the
truth (cf. Levinsohn, “Some Constraints,” 317). But if the object of rebuke in v. 13
is the false teachers targeted in v. 11, this becomes a moot point since this say-
ing can take on both strengthening and developmental roles (see comments
on v. 13).
Departing from the preceding series of present tense verbs, εἶπεν, the only
aorist verb in this unit, grammaticalizes perfective aspect, as is appropriate
in the introduction of a saying conceived as a distinct event. Syntactically τις
could refer back to the Jewish false teachers of v. 10 (cf. οἱ ἐκ τῆς περιτομῆς), but
within this formula that introduces the saying concerning the Cretans (Κρῆτες),
τὶς ἐξ αὐτῶν ἴδιος should best be taken as a reference to “one of the Cretans.” In
its wider context, this use of a Cretan saying may point to Jewish false teach-
ers who would identify themselves as Cretans. The use of ἴδιος in the phrase
ἴδιος αὐτῶν προφήτης provides an implicit “antithesis” (i.e., “not a foreigner,” cf.
Winer, Grammar, 192) in strengthening the force of the saying within Paul’s
438 titus

argument since it comes from one of their own kind. Within this phrase, both
ἴδιος and the personal pronoun αὐτῶν that appears twice serve to qualify προ-
φήτης, a term that should, therefore, not be equated with the “prophets” of the
God of Israel.
The proverb quoted does not contain a verb, and the nominatives used
throughout this saying can be considered “nominative[s] in proverbial expres-
sions” (Wallace, Grammar, 54), though it could have been part of a sentence
within a context that can no longer be recovered. The function of this prover-
bial expression seems clear, as the Cretan false teachers are labeled as “liars”
(ψεῦσται), “evil beasts” (κακὰ θηρία), and “lazy gluttons” (γαστέρες ἀργαί), labels
that contradict the virtues listed in v. 8 (“hospitable,” φιλόξενον; “loving what is
good,” φιλάγαθον; “self-controlled,” σώφρονα; “upright,” δίκαιον; “holy,” ὅσιον; and
“disciplined,” ἐγκρατῆ), though some consider these three vices a direct reversal
of the three virtues listed in 2:12 (“soberly,” σωφρόνως; “justly,” δικαίως; “piously,”
εὐσεβῶς; Kidd 1999: 186). For additional possible applications of this saying in
this context, see Historical Analysis.

▪ 13 ἡ μαρτυρία αὕτη ἐστὶν ἀληθής. δι’ ἣν αἰτίαν ἔλεγχε αὐτοὺς ἀποτόμως, ἵνα ὑγι-
αίνωσιν ἐν τῇ πίστει. The note on the truthfulness of this saying (ἡ μαρτυρία
αὕτη ἐστὶν ἀληθής) has been considered “superfluous” unless Paul is building
his case on the “liar’s paradox” (thus Gray 2007: 308), but the use of ἀληθής
may simply serve to pave the way for Paul’s accusation of the false teachers
as those “who are turning away from the truth” (ἀποστρεφομένων τὴν ἀλήθειαν,
v. 14).
Following the anaphoric δι’ ἣν αἰτίαν, the antecedent of αὐτούς is most natu-
rally the false teachers noted above (i.e., πολλοί, v. 10; Quinn, 109); this fits Paul’s
strong language here (ἔλεγχε αὐτοὺς ἀποτόμως), especially since in v. 9 the verb
ἐλέγχω is applied to those who speak against (τοὺς ἀντιλέγοντας ἐλέγχειν) the
sound teaching. A change of reference is therefore unnecessary (contra Knight,
299–300), though a sharp line cannot be drawn between the false teachers and
those who follow them (Marshall, 204).
If so, the purpose clause that follows (ἵνα ὑγιαίνωσιν ἐν τῇ πίστει) may again
point to the possibility that these false teachers would repent. The articular
τῇ πίστει (cf. 2:2) refers to the common faith, but in this context the emphasis
appears to be on the personal appropriation of this faith (Morgan 2015: 317).

▪ 14 μὴ προσέχοντες Ἰουδαϊκοῖς μύθοις καὶ ἐντολαῖς ἀνθρώπων ἀποστρεφομένων τὴν

ἀλήθειαν. The participle [μὴ] προσέχοντες (“by not paying attention”) modifies
ὑγιαίνωσιν (v. 13), indicating the means through which these false teachers (and
those who follow them) may remain healthy in the faith. This negated partici-
1:10–16 439

ple also adds to the preceding positive command with a “prohibitory circum-
stance attendant to that positive purpose” (Huffman, Verbal Aspect, 234).
ἐντολαῖς ἀνθρώπων carries a similar force as Ἰουδαϊκοῖς μύθοις, and the καί that
connects the two should best be taken as epexegetical in function. ἀποστρε-
φομένων is an adjectival participle that modifies ἀνθρώπων, and ἀποστρεφομέ-
νων τὴν ἀλήθειαν is, in turn, the definition of “myths” (μύθοις). The use of the
accusative (τὴν ἀλήθειαν) with ἀποστρεφομένων is consistent with Attic usage
(cf. Heb 12:25; Robertson, Grammar, 472).

▪ 15 πάντα καθαρὰ τοῖς καθαροῖς· The succinct verbless saying πάντα καθαρὰ τοῖς
καθαροῖς has been considered part of a motto of the false teachers (Clark 2002:
107), but this saying resembles those shared by the Jesus tradition (cf. Matt 15:11;
Mark 7:15) and the Greco-Roman authors (see Historical Analysis). Moreover,
this saying fits well within the Pauline polemic elsewhere in the pe against cer-
tain forms of ascetic practices (1Tim 4:3–5; cf. Rom 14:20). That this succinct
(common) saying is followed by a longer complex sentence that contains the
first two perfect verbs of this letter (μεμιαμμένοις, μεμίανται) points to its pri-
mary function in paving the way for Paul’s polemic that follows.

▪ τοῖς δὲ μεμιαμμένοις καὶ ἀπίστοις οὐδὲν καθαρόν, ἀλλὰ μεμίανται αὐτῶν καὶ ὁ
νοῦς καὶ ἡ συνείδησις. The developmental δέ draws out the negative implication
from the positive saying that precedes, with ἀλλά introducing a contrast to the
entire preceding block of material, especially the saying at the beginning of the
clause. With the intervening material introduced by δέ that already provides a
contrastive thought, it is justifiable to consider this ἀλλά a marker of “intensi-
fication” (Heckert, Discourse, 57), or even to introduce material “for additional
consideration” (bdag 45).
The two perfect verbs μεμιαμμένοις and μεμίανται here grammaticalize sta-
tive aspect and mark this polemic note with prominence as Paul argues that
those who are insistent on ritual purity are indeed defiled. The lack of expressed
agency points to their responsibility for their own defilement, as they are the
ones further identified as “self-condemned” (αὐτοκατάκριτος, 3:11).
With an article (τοῖς) governing both μεμιαμμένοις and ἀπίστοις, those who
are “defiled” are also identified as those who are “unbelieving.” In further de-
scribing their state of defilement, the καὶ … καί construction marks νοῦς and
συνείδησις for paratactic parallel processing with both modified by the personal
pronoun αὐτῶν.

▪ 16 θεὸν ὁμολογοῦσιν εἰδέναι, τοῖς δὲ ἔργοις ἀρνοῦνται, βδελυκτοὶ ὄντες καὶ ἀπειθεῖς
καὶ πρὸς πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθὸν ἀδόκιμοι. These final asyndetic clauses perform three
440 titus

functions. First, following the identification of the false teachers as “liars” (ψεῦ-
σται), these clauses provide an explanation of this identification: they were liars
because they confess what they (actually) deny. Second, as this unit begins with
three labels applied to the false teachers (ἀνυπότακτοι, ματαιολόγοι, φρεναπάταἰ,
v. 10), the final clause likewise ends with three labels (βδελυκτοί, ἀπειθεῖς, πρὸς
πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθὸν ἀδόκιμοι); in both, the false teachers are described as being dis-
obedient (ἀνυπότακτοι, v. 10, LNd §36.26; ἀπειθεῖς, v. 12, LNd § 36.24). Third, as a
transition to the next unit, the note that they are “unfit for any good work” (πρὸς
πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθὸν ἀδόκιμοι) points forward to the emphasis on the commitment
to “every good work” (πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθόν, 3:1).
ὁμολογοῦσιν and ἀρνοῦνται belong to the same semantic domain (LNd
§ 33.275, 277: “Admit, Confess, Deny”) and are often used in the same context
in the depiction of two diametrically opposed acts (John 1:20; 1 John 2:23). If
ὁμολογέω is taken in the context of the confession of the one true God, ἀρνέομαι
becomes an act of apostasy or idolatry, in which context the final clause (βδελυ-
κτοὶ ὄντες καὶ ἀπειθεῖς καὶ πρὸς πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθὸν ἀδόκιμοι) should be understood.
Nevertheless, for Paul, this “confession” is disingenuous at best. The ironic twist
in v. 15, therefore, continues here.

Bibliography
Clark, David J. “Discourse Structure in Titus.” bt 53 (2002): 101–117.
Cohen, Shaye J.D. The Beginnings of Jewishness. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of
California Press, 1999.
Collins, Raymond F. “The Theology of the Epistle to Titus.” etl 76 (2000): 56–72.
Genade, Aldred A. Persuading the Cretans: A Text-Generated Persuasion Analysis of the
Letter to Titus. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2011.
Gray, Patrick. “The Liar Paradox and the Letter to Titus.” cbq 69 (2007): 302–314.
Johnston, J. William. The Use of Πᾶς in the New Testament. sbg 11. New York: Peter Lang,
2004.
Martin, Troy W. “Entextualized and Implied Rhetorical Situations: The Case of 1 Timo-
thy and Titus.” br 45 (2000): 5–24.
Morgan, Teresa. Roman Faith and Christian Faith: Pistis and Fides in the Early Roman
Empire and Early Churches. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015.
Spottorno, Victoria. “The Relative Pronoun in the New Testament: Some Critical Re-
marks.” nts 28 (1982): 132–141.
Stegemann, Wolfgang. “Anti-Semitic and Racist Prejudices in Titus 1:10–16.” In Ethnicity
and the Bible. Ed. Mark G. Brett, 271–294. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 1996.
Thiselton, Anthony C. “The Logical Role of the Liar Paradox in Titus 1:12, 13: A Dissent
from the Commentaries in the Light of Philosophical and Logical Analysis.” BibInt 2
(1994): 207–223.
1:10–16 441

4 Historical Analysis
This section provides a glimpse of the false teachers and the teachings they
promote: (1) the false teachers deceive by their verbal acts, and (2) their false
teachings are characterized as Jewish while their propagators now take on the
reputation of the Cretan prophets for being deceptive and unreliable. Not only
has this strategy been understood as one of “negative labeling,” where the posi-
tion of the opposing party is discredited through a polemic of “deviance accusa-
tions” (Stegemann 1996: 284), but it has also been considered to employ “ethnic
reasoning in which a geographical location and its people are targeted by a
racial stereotype” (Kartzow 2012: 106).
These accusations often assume (1) a pseudepigraphic nature of this letter
where ethnographic concretization and ethnic labeling are but rhetoric tactics
of the author (cf. Vogel 2010: 252–266), and that the name “Crete” is selected
to be the “fictive destination” merely because of the proverbial saying in v. 12
(Martin 2000: 13); and (2) the author provides unqualified endorsement of this
proverb as a weapon against the Jews. Both of these assumptions are question-
able. Beyond the general question of authorship, that Crete is named primarily
because of this proverb is unlikely, especially since Paul’s (or Titus’) mission
to Crete in the final stages of his ministry cannot be comfortably located with
the known itinerary of the apostle from the canonical writings. Moreover, an
explicit use of this proverb is not critical in the argument against these false
teachers.
More importantly, the use of this proverbial saying (or gnomic maxim, cf.
Quintilian, Inst. 8.5.3–34; Ramsaran 2003: 448) in v. 12 may be more compli-
cated than it appears, especially if the author is aware of the “liar’s paradox”
where the truth of the statement is itself cast in doubt, even with the cryptic
and redundant note on the testimony being “true” (v. 13; cf. Gray 2007: 308).
With the intermixing of ethnic labels (οἱ ἐκ τῆς περιτομῆς, v. 10; Κρής, v. 12; Ἰου-
δαϊκός, v. 14), the proverb may also function as a critique of the typical Jewish
polemic against the Gentiles; Jewish ethnocentric myths might have hindered
the power of the gospel for both Jews and Gentiles (Wittkowsky 2009: 107–
126).
To reduce this section to the rhetoric of the polemic of “deviance accusa-
tions” and “racial stereotype” fails to note the significance of v. 15, a verse that
contains an explicit comment neither on speech and communication nor on
ethnic labels as elsewhere in this unit. Instead, one finds the use of the marked
perfect verbs (μεμιαμμένοις, μεμίανται, v. 15) that may provide a glimpse of the
substance of the teachings promoted by these teachers who are concerned
with ritual purity (καθαρά, καθαροῖς, καθαρόν, v. 15), a concern that reflects a dis-
tinct ethnic context for the false teachings. Moreover, the concluding note in
442 titus

v. 16 that points to the inconsistency between words/knowledge and deeds also

paves the way for similar criticisms throughout this letter (2:7, 14; 3:1, 5, 8, 11, 14).

▪ 10 ἀνυπότακτοι recalls ἀνυπότακτα in v. 6 (cf. 1Tim 1:9) and is best considered

an umbrella term further explicated by the two nt hapax that follow, especially
considering that these two are connected by the conjunctive καί and often
involve misleading speech: ματαιολόγοι (“empty-talkers,” LNd § 33.378) and φρε-
ναπάται (“one who says wrong is right,” LNd §31.13). ματαιολόγος is very rare in
Greek literature (cf. Telestes, Frag. 1B1), but ματαιολογία is also applied to false
teachers in 1Tim 1:6 (cf. μάταιος, Titus 3:9). φρεναπάτης is also rare in Greek lit-
erary sources but is used for a “deceiver” in documentary papyri (P.Grenf. 1;
P.Lond. 1677; M.-M. 675) rather than “one who deceives his own mind” (bdf
§ 119[2]) as is the case of Paul’s use of the verbal form (φρεναπατάω) in Gal 6:3.
In light of the other nt variations on this phrase (Acts 10:45; 11:2; Gal 2:12;
Col 4:11), οἱ ἐκ τῆς περιτομῆς refers primarily to Jewish believers, though one
should not assume that this is a homogeneous group (cf. Ellis 1968: 390–399)
or that circumcision itself is a disputed issue here. οἱ ἐκ τῆς περιτομῆς may recall
τοὺς ἐκ περιτομῆς in Gal 2:12 where the insistence of particular Jewish identity
markers points to a set of underlying issues in a belief system that carries both
soteriological and ecclesiological implications. As in Acts 10:45 and 11:2, where
issues of purity (rather than circumcision) are at stake, this phrase is also used
here in a context involving issues of purity (v. 15).

▪ 11 The nt hapax ἐπιστομίζειν (“to silence”) fits well in this context saturated
with vocabulary related to speech. The means by which the false teachers are
to be silenced are not specified, but the wide application of the verb ἐπιστομίζω,
even within Philo’s writings where the word appears most often in contempo-
rary literature, may illustrate the range of possibilities, which includes acts of
subduing and constraining (Leg. 2.104.2; Spec. 1.343; cf. Josephus, A.J. 17.252), the
instillation of reason to those controlled by passion (Leg. 3.118.2; 3.128.5; Agr.
88.4), the limitation of their freedom by a set of commandments (Spec. 4.97),
and the simple act of not allowing them to speak (Agr. 59.1; Conf. 40.2). The
material contained in this letter illustrates the various ways these false teach-
ers are to be “silenced,” including the appointment of elders for instruction and
correction (vv. 6–10), the proper management of one’s household (2:1–10), the
reminder of the heart of the gospel (2:11–15) that leads to good work (3:1–7), and
the rejection and subduing of those who are disobedient (3:8–11).
αἰσχροῦ κέρδους echoes αἰσχροκερδῆ in v. 7, where Paul warns the overseer
not to be greedy (cf. 1Tim 3:8). The application of the label of shamefulness on
their motive and behavior not only discredits them but also categorizes them
1:10–16 443

as evil (cf. Eph 5:12; Kee 1974: 142). Moreover, in Greco-Roman (Strabo, Geogr.
14.3.2) and Hellenistic Jewish (Sib. Or. 7.132) moral discourse, this vice points
to behavioral traits that belong to those who have no interest in the truth, and
it is closely related to ἀσέβεια (Pseudo-Andronicus, Pass. 9.6.1). As such, these
false teachers are portrayed as the opposite of Paul, who aims at propagating
“the knowledge of the truth for the purpose of godliness (κατ’ εὐσέβειαν)” (v. 1).

▪ 12 The identification of a pagan author as προφήτης is unprecedented in

Pauline writings, and it has been taken as yet another sign of accommodation
to the cultural milieu (De Villiers 2000: 75, 88). However, it is more likely that
Paul is here granting the author of the saying a status that is accepted among
his readers when he evokes the author’s authority to argue against them. If so,
the rhetorical force of τὶς ἐξ αὐτῶν ἴδιος αὐτῶν προφήτης is comparable to τινὲς
τῶν καθ’ ὑμᾶς ποιητῶν (Acts 17:28), especially given that prophets and poets are
titles that can be used interchangeably in a pagan context (Plato, Resp. 366e; cf.
Pollux, Onom. 1.19). Moreover, in the lxx, the phrase οἱ προφῆται αὐτῶν (“their
prophets”) is often used in reference to the false prophets (Jer 2:16; 14:13; 39:32;
cf. 2Chron 18:12).
If the saying can indeed be traced back to Epimenides, the epithet προφήτης
may point to the recognition of this 7th century bc Cretan from Cnossos (Dio-
genes Laertius, Vit. 10.109) as an authoritative figure: a “well-known prophet”
(inclitum fatiloquum; Apuleius, Flor. 15.20; cf. Cicero, Div. 1.18) who “divined
(ἐμαντεύετο) not the future, but only things that were past” (Aristotle, Rhet.
1418a), a priest whose sacrifice to the deities saved the Athenians (Diogenes
Laertius, Vit. 10.110) so that he was most respected by the Athenians (Plutarch,
Sol. 12), a teacher and miracle worker (Menander, Kon. 2), a “divine man” (ἀνὴρ
θεῖος, Plato, Leg. 642e), and one most loved by the deities (θεοφιλέστατος, Dio-
genes Laertius, Vit. 10.110). He is remembered for having lived 154 years (Xeno-
phanes, Test. D65) and for having slept through fifty of those years as a young
boy who then woke up as an old man (Plutarch, Mor. 784a).
Both the source of the saying as well as its application and relevance in
this context are disputed. Clement of Alexandria (Strom. 1.59.2), followed by
Jerome (Comm. Tit. 7), identifies its source in Epimenides, possibly from either
On the Birth of the Curetes and Corybantes or Theogony (cf. Diogenes Laertius,
Vit. 10.111). Others, however, suggest that this saying originated in a response
of the Delphic priestess to Epimenides as is later included in a sayings collec-
tion of Epimenides. This is a plausible position since a Cretan might not depict
all Cretans as “always” (ἀεί) liars (Huxley 1969: 81–82; Lee 1980: 96). While the
exact source cannot be settled, it appears that (1) it is a well-known saying that
is (2) linked with the Epimenides tradition and (3) later included in a collection
444 titus

of sayings. This may explain its appearance in Callimachus’s Hymn to Zeus 1.8
(Κρῆτες ἀεὶ ψεῦσται), which is plausibly a quote taken from Epimenides (Har-
ris 1906: 306) in spite of some who would consider Callimachus himself as the
author (Theodore of Mopsuestia, Interp. 2.243). The source of this saying is not
as urgent an issue if Paul is quoting from an anthology of sayings (Quinn, 108).
More important than its source are its application and relevance in this con-
text. Three possible functions have been identified: epistemological, ethical,
and mythical. Those who focus on the first part of the saying (Κρῆτες ἀεὶ ψεῦ-
σται) would argue that this saying primarily casts doubt on the trustworthiness
of the Cretans, thus discrediting the false teachers and reinforcing the earlier
labels (ματαιολόγοι καὶ φρεναπάται, v. 10) applied to them (Collins, 334–335). The
issue of the truth continues in v. 13 (ἡ μαρτυρία αὕτη ἐστὶν ἀληθής), but it may
not exhaust the significance of this saying.
A wider ethical application of this saying recognizes the additional elements
in this saying (κακὰ θηρία, γαστέρες ἀργαί) and argues for their relevance for
Paul’s critique of the behavior of the false teachers (cf. v. 8; 2:12). That Paul
might have drawn from an anthology of sayings that focuses on moral issues
may argue for this reading (cf. De Villiers 2000: 80–81).
A mythical reading considers the importance of this saying in its original
context, which refers to the Cretan myth/lie about Zeus being a chthonic deity
whose tomb can be found in Crete. This builds on Harris’s (1912: 350, 352) recon-
struction of this text based on the ninth-century Syriac commentary on Acts by
Ishodad:

τύμβον ἐτεκτῄναντο σέθεν, κύδιστε μέγιστε,

Κρῆτες, ἀεὶ ψεῦσται, κακὰ θηρία, γαστέρες ἀργαί.
Ἀλλὰ σὺ γ’ οὐ θνῄσκεις, ἕστηκας γὰρ ζοὸς αἰεί,
ἐν γὰρ σοὶ ζῶμεν καὶ κινύμεθ’ ἠδὲ καὶ ἐσμέν.

The Cretans have fashioned a tomb for thee, O Holy and High!
Liars, evil beasts, idle bellies;
For thou diest not, for ever thou livest and standest;
For in thee we live and move and have our being.

Even if parts of this reconstructed text are questionable, it appears that this
myth is widely known (Callimachus, Hymn to Zeus 8; Lucian, Sacr. 10; Philops.
3; Tim. 6). If the original ideological context is indeed alluded to, it is more plau-
sible that Paul is using this saying that criticizes the deviation from “the canons
of traditional orthodoxy” to criticize those who are doing likewise (cf. Collins
2000: 58).
1:10–16 445

In the pe, ψεύστης appears also in the vice list of 1 Tim 1:10, which paves the
way for the portrayal of the false teachers as ψευδολόγων (1 Tim 4:2). With the
affirmation of the truthfulness of this saying in the next clause (v. 13), and with
the widespread discussion of the “liar paradox” in Greco-Roman literature (cf.
Gray 2007: 304–307), it is possible that Paul’s use of this saying aims to “demon-
strate the self-defeating ineffectiveness of making truth-claims which are given
the lie by conduct which fails to match them” (Thiselton 1994: 214). Neverthe-
less, Paul does not rest his case on this paradox, even though one cannot deny
how this saying may have identified the discrepancy between confession and
the lack of corresponding behavior as acts of lying, intellectual violence, and
moral laziness (Faber 2005: 145).
κακὰ θηρία refers to evil or untamed animals. Since Crete was known for
the lack of wild animals (Plutarch, Mor. 86c; Pliny the Elder, Nat. 8.83), Quinn
(108) is correct in seeing an ironic twist here that the Cretans are now tak-
ing on the role of these unruly creatures. Cretans were known for being mean
and selfish (Leucon, Frag. 5 [lcl]), argumentative and quarrelsome (Seneca,
Phaed. 32; Plutarch, Mor. 490b), though such characterizations are often no
more than ethnic stereotyping. For Paul, the Jewish false teachers in Crete
are now taking on the reputation of the Gentiles whom they might have
despised when they insist on their Jewishness (οἱ ἐκ τῆς περιτομῆς, v. 10; Ἰου-
δαϊκός, v. 14).
Conceptual parallels to γαστέρες ἀργαί can be found in the saying of Hesiod,
who references “evil things of shame” (κάκ’ ἐλέγχεα) and “mere bellies” (γαστέ-
ρες οἶον) within a discussion of the telling of lies (ἴδμεν ψεύδεα πολλὰ λέγειν
ἐτύμοισιν ὁμοῖα, Hesiod, Theog. 26–27; cf. Timon, Frag. 783.4). The mishandling
of food implied here may anticipate the note on purity in v. 15.

▪ 13 Both ἡ μαρτυρία (“testimony”) and αἰτίαν (“[a technical, legal term] the basis
of or grounds for an accusation in court,” LNd §56.4) belong to courtroom lan-
guage (cf. Plutarch, Mor. 383d). Elsewhere in the nt, the affirmation of the truth
of one’s testimony (ἡ μαρτυρία αὕτη ἐστὶν ἀληθής) is a constant theme in John
(John 3:33; 5:31–32; 8:13–17; 19:35; 21:24; cf. 2John 12), which can also be under-
stood in light of the trial setting (Lincoln 2000: 57–138).
ὑγιαίνω with ἡ πίστις appears only in Titus (cf. ὑγιαίνοντας τῇ πίστει, 2:2), but
the articular τῇ πίστει (cf. 2:2) can be considered an equivalent to τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ
τῇ ὑγιαινούσῃ in v. 9 (cf. τῇ ὑγιαινούσῃ διδασκαλίᾳ, 2:1), though this sense can be
expressed without the article (cf. 3:15). Elsewhere in the pe, this medical lan-
guage can also be applied to both “teaching” (διδασκαλία, cf. 1 Tim 1:10; 2 Tim
4:3) and “words” (λόγοι, cf. 1Tim 6:3; 2Tim 1:13).
446 titus

▪ 14 For προσέχειν, see 1Tim 1:4. Ἰουδαϊκοῖς should be read in light of other ethnic
labels within this unit (οἱ ἐκ τῆς περιτομῆς, v. 10; Κρῆτες, v. 12), as they serve to
demonstrate the limitation of these teachings that fail to draw attention to God,
who brings “salvation for all people” (σωτήριος πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις, 2:11). Linking
these Jewish teachings with the lies of the Cretans (v. 12) identifies the failure
of their attempts to retain a separate social and cultural identity and a superior
status (on the multivalent connotation of Jewishness in the first century ad, see
Cohen 1999: 69–106). In interacting with the likely self-identity of these false
teachers, it is simplistic and anachronistic to dismiss this negotiation of over-
lapping webs of ethnic, religious, and cultural identities as an anti-Semitic act
(Vogel 2010: 252–266; contra Stegemann 1996: 285).
Similarly, “myths” (μύθοις) should not be defined primarily by their content
(cf. “stories … created around minor ot characters,” Mounce, 400) but by their
lack of truth-value (cf. the use of derogatory modifiers βεβήλους and γραώδεις
with μύθους in 1Tim 4:7; see also 1Tim 1:4).
The phrase ἐντολαῖς ἀνθρώπων reinforces this reading as it draws on an anti-
idol polemic in the prophetic traditions (cf. ἐντάλματα ἀνθρώπων, Isa 29:13
[lxx]; see also Col 2:22). In Hellenistic Jewish traditions, ἐντολαὶ ἀνθρώπων are
contrasted with ὁ νόμος τοῦ θεοῦ (cf. T.Ash. 7.5). In the gospel tradition, these
“human commandments” (ἐντάλματα ἀνθρώπων, Mark 7:7) are identified as
“human traditions” (τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν ἀνθρώπων, Mark 7:8) that are also con-
trasted with the “command of God” (τὴν ἐντολὴν τοῦ θεοῦ, Mark 7:8).
ἡ ἀλήθεια is used instead of ἡ πίστις (v. 13; cf. ἐν πίστει καὶ ἀληθείᾳ, 1 Tim 2:7) to
underline its contrast to the lies of the false teachers (cf. v. 12), and ἀποστρεφο-
μένων τὴν ἀλήθειαν resembles the formulation of 1 Tim 6:5 (ἀπεστερημένων τῆς
ἀληθείας; cf. 2Tim 4:4), which carries the sense of apostasy (cf. ἀπεπλανήθησαν
ἀπὸ τῆς πίστεως, 1Tim 6:10).

▪ 15 πάντα καθαρὰ τοῖς καθαροῖς finds its closest verbal parallel in Luke 11:41
(πάντα καθαρὰ ὑμῖν ἐστιν; cf. Horst 1914: 449), with a close resemblance to the
Pauline saying in Rom 14:20 (πάντα μὲν καθαρά). While it is clear that καθαρός
is used in different senses in this clause, it remains unclear how best to label
these two uses. Those who see the distinction as one of “ritual” versus “spiritual”
(Marshall, 208) may inadvertently adopt a metaphysical dualistic framework
that Paul criticizes in 1Tim 4:3–5, a passage that appears to target a similar set
of teachings.
Many who argue for “ritual” versus “moral” (Dibelius and Conzelmann, 138;
Mounce, 401) sense root such a distinction in the Pentateuch (Lev 11–15 vs. Lev
18–20; cf. Klawans 2000: 21–42), but the line between ritual and moral purities
is often blurred in both Greco-Roman (Parker 1983: 281–307) and Jewish (Regev
1:10–16 447

2004: 383–411) traditions, especially in relation to the requirements for partic-

ipation in cultic practices. Even the passage from Philo (ἀκάθαρτα καὶ τὰ ἄλλα
ὅσων ἂν ὁ ἀκάθαρτος προσάψηται, μετουσίᾳ τοῦ μὴ καθαροῦ μιαινόμενα, Leg. 3.208;
cf. Spicq, 2.612) that is often cited as a conceptual parallel to the clause that
follows here (τοῖς δὲ μεμιαμμένοις καὶ ἀπίστοις οὐδὲν καθαρόν) does not make a
simplistic distinction between ritual and moral, since Philo goes on to argue
for purity in matters of the soul (ἤθη καὶ τρόπους … ψυχῆς, Leg. 3.208). More-
over, in this context where ethnic labels are repeatedly used (οἱ ἐκ τῆς περιτομῆς,
v. 10; Κρής, v. 12; Ἰουδαϊκός, v. 14), the issue of “ethnic” purity (or “genealogical
purity,” cf. Hayes 2002: 164–192) may also play a part in this polemic against
Jewish teachers who may insist on a set of practices that aim at excluding Gen-
tile believers.
Another possible way of distinguishing the two is in terms of “perspective”
(cf. Quinn 113), as in Peter’s declaration in Acts: ἃ ὁ θεὸς ἐκαθάρισεν, σὺ μὴ κοίνου
(Acts 10:15; cf. 11:8–9). This distinction may come close to one of “inside” versus
“outside” (Matt 23:26), where God is the one who can judge the “inside” purity of
a person, who, in Paul’s view, is “pure” only because of the redemptive work of
God. This reading avoids transporting the earlier Pauline discussion in a differ-
ent context (cf. Rom 14:1–12) in toto to the present polemic, while maintaining
the Pauline insistence on one’s “pure” status as the work of God himself (cf.
Rom 14:20). If so, then πάντα καθαρὰ τοῖς καθαροῖς should be taken in the sense
of “all things are cultically pure from the perspective of a covenantal commu-
nity that is pure in the eyes of God.” τοῖς καθαροῖς would then refer to those who
are “holding fast to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience (ἐν καθαρᾷ
συνειδήσει)” (1Tim 3:9) and “those who call upon the Lord from a pure heart (ἐκ
καθαρᾶς καρδίας)” (2Tim 2:22).
μιαίνω is often used in the lxx as a contrast to καθαρός (Lev 11:41–47; 13:1–59;
22:5–8; 24:1–7; Num 5:28–29), and both of its uses here denote defilement in the
perspective of God while οὐδὲν καθαρόν refer to cultic purity. ἀπίστου may play
on the clause τὴν πίστιν ἤρνηται in 1Tim 5:8, and τοῖς … ἀπίστοις are the ones
who “deny” (ἀρνοῦνται, v. 16) God. ἄπιστοι is, therefore, used as a reference to
the apostates whose status are now identical to that of unbelievers.
The emphasis on their corrupted “minds” (νοῦς) underscores their identity
as “those who are turning away from the truth” (ἀποστρεφομένων τὴν ἀλήθειαν,
v. 14), just as the false teachers in 1Tim 6:5 are “corrupted in respect to the
mind and deprived of the truth” (διεφθαρμένων … τὸν νοῦν καὶ ἀπεστερημένων
τῆς ἀληθείας). The note on their defiled “conscience” (συνείδησις) draws atten-
tion to their identity as “liars” (ψεῦσται, v. 12), as the false teachers in 1 Tim 4:2 are
likewise “liars whose consciences are seared” (ψευδολόγων, κεκαυστηριασμένων
τὴν ἰδίασυνείδησι; for συνείδησις, see comments on 1 Tim 1:5). In Pauline moral
448 titus

anthropology, the mind steers one to behave within the moral order, while the
conscience alerts one to the infringement of such an order (cf. Pierce 1955: 94).

▪ 16 The claim “to know God” (θεὸν … εἰδέναι), with references to the Jew-
ish nature of the false teachings (1:10, 14), becomes a criticism against idol-
worshipping pagans who do not know the one true God (Isa 26:13; cf. Deut 32:17;
Jer 7:9; 19:4; cf. Wis 12:27; 13:1; Philo, Mut. 205), although even among God’s peo-
ple, “if anyone does not believe these things [the miracles], he does not know
God” (εἰ δέ τις τούτοις ἀπιστεῖ, θεὸν οὔτ’ οἶδεν, Philo, Mos. 1.212).
The adjective βδελυκτοί may also find its background among these authors,
especially since the nominal form is often found in anti-idol polemic (βδέλυ-
γμα, Deut 7:25–26; 27:15; 2Kgs 17:32; Isa 2:8; 17:8; 66:3; Mal 2:11; Wis 14:11). In this
context, however, it may also aim at providing an ironic note on these false
teachers who identify themselves as καθαροί (v. 15) since βδελυκτός is by defini-
tion ἀκάθαρτος (Prov 17:15).
ἀπειθής (3:3; 2Tim 3:2; cf. Rom 1:30) is often used in the lxx for the rebel-
lious people of God (Num 20:10; Jer 5:23; Zech 7:12; Sir 16:6; 47:21). Isaiah 30:9
provides a particularly close conceptual parallel when the prophet identifies
the idolatrous people of God as “disobedient” (ἀπειθής) and “lying sons” (υἱοὶ
ψευδεῖς) for placing their trust in another power.
πρὸς πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθὸν ἀδόκιμοι provides a connection to the next section,
which emphasizes the importance of appropriate behavior. πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθόν
(cf. 1Tim 1:20) introduces an important thread throughout this letter (3:1; cf.
ἔργα καλά, 2:7, 14; 3:8, 14). As Timothy was told to “make the good confession”
(ὡμολόγησας τὴν καλὴν ὁμολογίαν, 1Tim 6:12) and command others to be rich in
“good works” (ἔργοις καλοῖς, 1Tim 6:18), Paul now accuses the false teachers of
being “unfit for any good work (ἔργον ἀγαθόν)” though “they profess (ὁμολογοῦ-
σιν) to know God.”

Bibliography
Cohen, Shaye J.D. The Beginnings of Jewishness. Berkeley: University of California Press,
1999.
De Villiers, Pieter G.R. “A Pauline Letter and a Pagan Prophet.” Acta Patristica et Byzanti-
na 11 (2000): 74–92.
Ellis, E. Earle. “‘Those of the Circumcision’ and the Early Christian Mission.” se 4 (1968):
390–399.
Faber, Riemer. “‘Evil Beasts, Lazy Gluttons’: A Neglected Theme in the Epistle to Titus.”
wtj 67 (2005): 135–145.
Gray, Patrick. “The Liar Paradox and the Letter to Titus.” cbq 69 (2007): 302–314.
Harris, J. Rendel. “St. Paul and Epimenides.” Expositor 8th series, 4 (1912): 348–353.
1:10–16 449

Harris, J. Rendel. “The Cretans are Always Liars.” Expositor 7th series, 2 (1906): 305–317.
Hayes, Christine E. Gentile Impurities and Jewish Identities. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2002.
Horst, Johannes. “Die Worte Jesu über die kultische Reinheit und ihre Verarbeitung in
den evangelischen Berichten.” tsk 87 (1914): 429–454.
Huxley, G.L. Greek Epic Poetry from Eumelos to Panyassis. London: Faber and Faber, 1969.
Kartzow, Marianne Bjelland. Destabilizing the Margins: An Intersectional Approach to
Early Christian Memory. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2012.
Kee, Howard C. “The Linguistic Background of ‘Shame’ in the New Testament.” In On
Language, Culture, and Religion. Ed. Matthew Black and William A. Smalley, 133–147.
The Hague and Paris: Mouton, 1974.
Klawans, Jonathan. Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2000.
Lee, G.M. “Epimenides in the Epistle to Titus (i 12).” NovT 22 (1980): 96.
Lincoln, Andrew T. Truth on Trial: The Lawsuit Motif in the Fourth Gospel. Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson, 2000.
Martin, Troy W. “Entextualized and Implied Rhetorical Situations: The Case of 1 Timo-
thy and Titus.” br 45 (2000): 5–24.
Parker, Robert. Miasma: Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion. Oxford:
Clarendon, 1983.
Pierce, C.A. Conscience in the New Testament. sbt. London: scm, 1955.
Ramsaran, Rollin A. “Paul and Maxims.” In Paul in the Greco-Roman World. Ed. J. Paul
Sampley, 429–456. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2003.
Regev, Eyal. “Moral Impurity and the Temple in Early Christianity in Light of Ancient
Greek Practice and Qumranic Ideology.” htr 97 (2004): 383–411.
Stegemann, Wolfgang. “Anti-Semitic and Racist Prejudices in Titus 1:10–16.” In Ethnicity
and the Bible. Ed. Mark G. Brett, 271–294. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 1996.
Thiselton, Anthony C. “The Logical Role of the Liar Paradox in Titus 1:12, 13: A Dissent
from the Commentaries in the Light of Philosophical and Logical Analysis.” BibInt 2
(1994): 207–223.
Vogel, Manuel. “Die Kreterpolemik des Titusbriefes und die antike Ethnographie.”znw
101 (2010): 252–266.
Wittkowsky, Vadim. “‘Pagane’ Zitate im Neuen Testament.” NovT 51 (2009): 107–126.

5 Theological Analysis
This section is often compared to Romans 14, where Paul appears to be dealing
with “the strong” and “the weak” in regard to purity laws (cf. Barrett, 132–133).
The discussion on dietary concerns in relation to the “pure” (καθαρός, Rom
14:20) and the “unclean” (κοινός, Rom 14:14) may suggest parallel contexts. Nev-
ertheless, the differences between the two are pronounced. First, Paul does not
450 titus

consider this as a conflict between two parties within the church as those who
claim to be “pure” are not only identified as “unbelieving” (Titus 1:15) but also
“detestable” and “disobedient” (v. 15). Paul identifies some in the community as
not having received the true gospel; therefore, the issue does not revolve around
Jewish dietary concerns between two groups of believers with different cultural
backgrounds, but a “mixed church” (cf. Matt 13:24–30, 36–43; 47–50; Gundry
Volf 1990: 220). The problem does not appear to be introduced by the influx of
Gentile believers into a predominantly Jewish community of believers as in the
early stages of the development of the church.
More importantly, asceticism is not the only focus of this section. A pre-
sumed dualistic framework appears to have allowed for the divorce between
confession and behavior. Though the false teachers claim “to know God” (v. 15),
what they affirm are merely “Jewish myths and human commandments” (v. 14).
Moreover, their confession fails to produce “good work” (v. 16), a concern
extended to the rest of this letter. Instead of the Jewish legalists found behind
the texts of the earlier Pauline letters, these false teachers appear to have
developed a more elaborate belief system (perhaps influenced by certain Hel-
lenistic traditions) with its corresponding set of behaviors that are now con-
sidered to be contrary to the “sound teaching” (v. 9). In light of the distance
between the context behind this letter and that of Romans, the author can
no longer be accused of betraying the earlier Paul because he “attacked” the
weak here (Barrett, 133), nor should this be taken as a defense of “a uni-
versalistic perspective” that is foreign to Paul’s thought world (Zamfir, 176–
177).
Perhaps a closer parallel can be found in Paul’s response to his opponents
in 1Cor 8:1–3, where Paul criticizes those who claim to know God within a dis-
cussion of another set of dietary concerns. Apparently, some in Corinth also
claim “to know” (εἴ τις δοκεῖ ἐγνωκέναι τι, cf. 1Cor 8:2), thus prompting Paul to
respond by urging them not to merely seek “to know (God),” but to be “known
by him” (ἔγνωσται ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ, 8:3). In that context, “knowing” appears to be an act
of idolatry, to which Paul responds by citing the Shema in 8:4 (Deut 6:4; cf. De
Wet 2009: 317). In the present context in Titus, the use of anti-idol polemic (cf.
ἐντολαὶ ἀνθρώπων, v. 14; βδέλυγμα, v. 15) fits well with Paul’s rhetorical strategy
elsewhere.
Equally important is Paul’s address of the relationship between knowledge
and behavior; the Corinthians are not to simply seek to “know” God, but also to
“love” him (cf. εἰ δέ τις ἀγαπᾷ τὸν θεὸν …, 1Cor 8:3) by building up the commu-
nity. These two competing “economies” (Benson 2008: 28–41) provide a strong
criticism of the false teachers whose knowledge becomes instruments for their
own power, which make them “unfit for any good work” (v. 16).
2:1–10 451

Bibliography
Benson, Bruce Ellis. “The Economies of Knowledge and Love in Paul.” In Transforming
Philosophy and Religion. Ed. Norman Wirzba and Bruce Ellis Benson, 28–41. Bloom-
ington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2008.
De Wet, B. Wynand. “Knowledge and Love in 1Corinthians 8.” Neot 43 (2009): 311–333.
Gundry Volf, Judith M. Paul and Perseverance. wunt 2.37. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
1990.

iii Responsibilities of Household Members (2:1–15)

A Directives to Various Household Members (2:1–10)

1 Translation
1 As for you, teach what accords with sound teaching. 2 Older men are to be
temperate, dignified, self-controlled, sound in faith, in love, and in endurance.
3 Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not to be slanderers or
slaves to too much wine. They are to teach what is good, 4 so that they may train
the young women to behave appropriately6—to love their husbands, to love
their children, 5 to be self-controlled, pure, fulfilling their household duties,
faithful,7 being subject to their own husbands, so that the word of God may
not be blasphemed. 6 Likewise, urge the younger men to be self-controlled 7 in
all respects, by showing8 yourself to be an example of good works, by demon-
strating integrity and dignity in your teaching, 8 and by providing a sound
word that cannot be condemned, so that the opponents will be put to shame
because they have nothing evil to say about us. 9 Urge slaves to be subject to
their own masters in everything, to be pleasing and not to talk back, 10 not
pilfering, but showing all faithfulness to be good, so that in everything they
may show the attractiveness of the teaching that proceeds from God our Sav-
ior.

2 Text-Critical Analysis
▪ 3 ἱεροπρεπεῖς: A number of witnesses (C 33 81 104 latt syp sa Cl) read the dative
singular ἱεροπρεπεῖ instead, mistaking it to modify καταστήματι. The major-
ity of the other early uncials and later Byzantine minuscules read the plural

6 Or “to behave in a way that exhibits self-control.”

7 “Faithful,” i.e., “faithful in good works.”
8 The instrumental participle παρεχόμενος finds its objects in σεαυτόν (v. 7a), ἀφθορίαν and σεμνό-
τητα (v. 7b), and λόγον (v. 8a), but is to be translated into three English verbs (“by showing,”
“by demonstrating,” and “by providing”) as is appropriate in contemporary English.
452 titus

accusative ἱεροπρεπεῖς (or ἱεροπρεπίς, ἱεροπριπεῖς, ἱεροπρεπής, due to itacism) as

the predicate of the implied εἶναι. Both the external evidence and the parallel
structure (with v. 2) would argue for ἱεροπρεπεῖς.

▪ 3 μὴ οἴνῳ: The vast majority of Western (D F G latt Cl) and Byzantine (K L P

Ψ 33 1241 1505 pm 𝔐) witnesses agree with ‫א‬2 in support of the na27/28 read-
ing (μὴ οἴνῳ), but a significant group of primarily Alexandrian witnesses (‫*א‬
A C 81 1739 1881) read μηδὲ οἴνῳ instead. The change to μὴ οἴνῳ was perhaps an
assimilation to 1Tim 3:8 (μὴ οἴνῳ πολλῷ), and the construction μὴ … μηδέ con-
forms to the usages in the pe (1Tim 1:4; 6:17; 2Tim 1:8; cf. Elliott, 137). μηδὲ οἴνῳ
should be adopted because of both internal and external support (Westcott-
Hort; sblgnt; contra Tischendorf).

▪ 4 σωφρονίζωσιν: This subjunctive is supported by witnesses from diverse tex-

tual traditions (‫א‬2 C D K L Ψ 630 1739 1881 𝔐), but the indicative σωφρονίζουσιν
is read by a number of notable witnesses, including several important Alexan-
drian uncials (‫ *א‬A F G H P 81 104 326 365 1241 1505). Unless σωφρονίζουσιν is an
orthographical variant of σωφρονίζωσιν (Elliott, 181), it is the more difficult read-
ing since a subjunctive is expected after ἵνα, although exceptions exist even in
Paul (1Cor 4:6; 2Cor 11:12; Gal 4:17). With the ambivalence in external witnesses,
σωφρονίζουσιν should be adopted (Tischendorf; Lock, xxxv).

▪ 5 οἰκουργούς: This rare word does not occur in extant ancient Greek literature
and is found only as a variant to οἰκουρός (of which it could be an alternate
form) in Soranus (bdag 700). The difference in meaning between the two can-
not be recovered, though etymologically οἰκουργούς would refer to a household
worker while οἰκουρός to a household guardian. οἰκουργούς is supported by the
best of the Alexandrian (‫ *א‬A C I) and Western (D* F G) witnesses, and likely
also by 1 Clement 1.3 where one finds the only occurrence of the verbal form
in ancient Greek (οἰκουργεῖν; Bernard, 163). The change to οἰκουρός is likely an
attempt to use a more common word (Lock, xxxv) and one that appears in Hel-
lenistic literature in conjunction with the discussion of σώφρων (Philo, Exsecr.
139.9; Cassius Dio, Hist. 56.3.3).

▪ 5 βλασφημῆται: A few witnesses (C vgms syh) insert καὶ ἡ διδασκαλία before

βλασφημῆται, likely an assimilation to 1Tim 6:1.

▪ 7 πάντα σεαυτόν: The majority of witnesses from diverse textual traditions

(‫ א‬A C D2 F G K L 1505 1739 1881 pm 𝔐 lat) support this reading. Faulty word
division likely caused the change to πάντας ἑαυτόν (Ψ 33 104 326 pc), with πάν-
2:1–10 453

τας σεαυτόν (pc) and πάντα ἑαυτόν (D*) being a further development with the
removal or addition of σ, and one uncial (P) testifies to the genitive plural πάν-
των σεαυτόν instead. The neuter πάντα with the second-person reflexive σεαυτόν
fits best in this context, and it is also the reading that receives overwhelming
external support.

▪ 7 παρεχόμενος τύπον: The order is inverted in a few witnesses (‫ *א‬241 Lcf Aug)
that might have been influenced by a similar construction in 1 Tim 4:12, where
τύπον and its genitive modifiers are separated by a verb.

▪ 7 ἀφθορίαν: This rare word, supported by a number of significant Alexandrian

(‫ *א‬A C 1739) and Western (D*) witnesses, is replaced by (1) ἀφθονίαν in the rare
agreement between the early 𝔓32 and a few late Western witnesses (F G pc); (2)
ἀδιαφθορίαν in the majority of the later witnesses (‫א‬2 D1 L Ψ pm 𝔐); and (3) ἀδια-
φορίαν in only a few minuscules (35c 205 1905), likely a scribal error derived from
ἀδιαφθορίαν. ἀφθορίαν receives the strongest external support (closely followed
by ἀφθονίαν), fits the context better, and was likely to be replaced by ἀφθονίαν,
which is common in classical (esp. Isocrates, Xenophon, Plato) and Hellenistic
Jewish (esp. Philo, Josephus) literature.

▪ 7 σεμνότητα: ἀφθαρσίαν is inserted after σεμνότητα in most Byzantine witnesses

(D2 K L Ψ 33 104 1241 pm 𝔐) but is omitted in most of the early Alexandrian
(𝔓32vid ‫ א‬A C; cf. Gathergood 2013: 589) and Western (D* F G latt) witnesses.
Elliott (183) considers its omission a result of its close similarity with ἀφθορία,
but its insertion can be explained by an assimilation to 2 Tim 1:10. Both internal
and external considerations argue against the inclusion of ἀφθαρσίαν.

▪ 8 ἡμῶν: A few isolated witnesses (A ar vgmss) read ὑμῶν instead, either an

unintentional error caused by itacism or an intentional one due to the failure
to understand Paul’s identification with those whom he addresses (2:13, 14; cf.
Rom 15:2 v.l.). The support for the first-person plural pronoun includes the best
witnesses from diverse textual traditions (‫ א‬C D F G K L P 1739 1881 pm 𝔐).

▪ 9 ἰδίοις δεσπόταις: Read by selected witnesses (A D P 81 326 1739 1881 pc), δεσπό-
ταις ἰδίοις is accepted by some because it is considered to be “the more Semitic
order” in an anarthrous construction with ἴδιος following the noun (Elliott, 184;
Marshall, 259). Nevertheless, this is not always the case even in the pe (e.g.,
2 Tim 1:9), and all the examples that appear to conform to this “Semitic order”
are in the phrase καιροῖς ἰδίοις (1Tim 2:6; 6:15; Titus 1:3), which appears to be
formulaic. Moreover, the anarthrous construction here may be an assimilation
454 titus

to the anarthrous δούλους that precedes and should not be considered as con-
forming to the typical pattern reflected in other anarthrous constructions (cf.
Titus 1:12; bdf §286[2]). Therefore, ἰδίοις δεσπόταις, which has strong support
across diverse textual traditions (‫ א‬C F G K L Ψ 33 1241 1505 pm 𝔐), is the pre-
ferred reading.

▪ 10 μή: A few mostly Western witnesses (C2 D*.c F G 33 syp) read μηδέ instead,
which was accepted by some because μὴ … μηδέ (vv. 9–10) appears to conform
to the pattern in the pe as in the case of 2:3 above. Nevertheless, an exception
can be found in 1Tim 3:8, and assimilation is less apparent in this case. It is
preferable to follow the best (‫ א‬A 1739 1881) and vast majority of witnesses (𝔐)
in reading μή here.

▪ 10 πᾶσαν πίστιν ἐνδεικνυμένους ἀγαθήν: This reading is supported by the con-

vergence of most of the Alexandrian witnesses (‫א‬2 A C 1739 1881) with the best
Western uncial (D), and the awkward positioning of ἀγαθήν can best explain the
numerous variants (Lock, xxxviii): (1) πᾶσαν ἐνδεικνυμένους πίστιν ἀγαθήν (F G);
(2) πίστιν πᾶσαν ἐνδεικνυμένους ἀγαθήν (K L Ψ 630 1241 𝔐); (3) πᾶσαν ἐνδεικνυ-
μένους ἀγαθήν (‫ ;)*א‬and (4) πᾶσαν ἐνδεικνυμένους ἀγάπην (33). The fact that πᾶς
almost always precedes an abstract and anarthrous noun (Bernard, 164) would
also argue against the Byzantine reading, and the possible rare “profane use of
the term πίστις” in the nt (cf. Josephus, A.J. 2.61; Lindsay, 1993: 92) here might
also have contributed to the omission of this word in ‫ *א‬and 33.

Bibliography
Gathergood, Emily. “Papyrus 32 (Titus) as a Multi-text Codex: A New Reconstruction.”
nts 59 (2013): 588–606.
Lindsay, Dennis R. Josephus and Faith: Πίστις and Πιστεύειν as Faith Terminology in
the Writings of Flavius Josephus and in the New Testament. agju 19. Leiden: Brill,
1993.

3 Grammatical Analysis
With the developmental δέ, this unit moves beyond the preceding negative por-
trayal of the false teachers (1:10–16) by providing a series of positive directives to
the various groups within the household of God. In continuation with the pre-
vious unit, the accusation against the false teachers for being “liars” (ψεῦσται,
1:12; cf. φρεναπάται, 1:10) because of the discrepancy between their confession
and their behavior (v. 16) is being corrected here in this unit with the opening
call to observe behavior that “accords with sound teaching” (πρέπει τῇ ὑγιαι-
νούσῃ διδασκαλίᾳ, v. 1). As the false teachings affect “whole households” (ὅλους
2:1–10 455

οἴκους, 1:11), Paul now deals directly with the responsibilities of various mem-
bers of the household (cf. οἰκουργούς, v. 5).
The boundary of this unit is clearly marked by the emphatic σὺ δέ. With the
shift from the negative portrayal of the false teachers to the positive directives
Titus is to carry out is the shift from the predominantly indicative verbs of the
previous unit (εἰσίν, v. 10; δεῖ, v. 11 [2×]; ἀνατρέπουσιν, v. 11; εἶπεν, v. 12; ἐστίν, v. 13;
μεμίανται, v. 15; ὁμολογοῦσιν, v. 16; ἀρνοῦνται, v. 16) to the two controlling imper-
atives, λάλει (v. 1) and παρακάλει (v. 6), followed by a series of infinitives, in this
unit. The continuation of the series of infinitives in v. 9 (ὑποτάσσεσθαι) argues
for the inclusion of vv. 9–10 within this unit (contra Barrett, 135). The end of the
unit is marked by the shift of attention from the responsibilities of household
members (vv. 1–10) to the theological basis of such responsibilities (vv. 11–15;
cf. γάρ, v. 11). This again is reflected in the shift in verbal patterns when verbs
in the imperfective aspect that dominate this unit are replaced by a series of
aorist (perfective) verbs (especially in vv. 11–14).
Cohesion in this unit is maintained by both form and content. In terms of
form, many consider this a modification of the Hellenistic Haustafel, though
with an emphasis on age and gender distinction and less on hierarchical rela-
tionships. In terms of content, the application of the σωφρ-word group to
various groups (σώφρονας, v. 2; σωφρονίζωσιν, v. 4; σώφρονας, v. 5; σωφρονεῖν,
v. 6) with varied nuances for both genders (cf. Weidemann 2014: 281–285) ties
various clauses together. The repeated use of other word groups (διδασκαλία-
καλοδιδάσκαλος, vv. 1, 3, 7, 10; δουλόω-δοῦλος, vv. 3, 9; καλοδιδάσκαλος-καλός, vv. 3,
7; σεμνός-σεμνότης, vv, 2, 7; ὑγιαίνω-ὑγιής, vv. 1, 2, 8; φίλανδρος-φιλότεκνος, v. 4) also
reinforces this cohesion.
This unit begins with an imperatival clause (λάλει, v. 1) as Paul calls Titus to
command others to conduct themselves according to the sound teaching, fol-
lowed by two infinitival (as infinitives of indirect discourse) clauses with lists
of adjectival modifiers directed to older men (εἶναι, v. 2) and women (implied
εἶναι, v. 3). The lengthier discussion on the younger women is contained in the
purpose clause (ἵνα, v. 4) that outlines the responsibility of these older women
in training up their younger counterparts (vv. 4–5). A new imperatival clause
(παρακάλει, v. 6) with the infinitive (σωφρονεῖν) is directed to the younger men,
with a participial clause (παρεχόμενος, v. 7) calling Titus to be an example to
these younger men, and a purpose clause (ἵνα, v. 8) that emphasizes how the
proper conduct is to be a proper response to the challenge of the false teachers.
A new set of infinitival (ὑποτάσσεσθαι, v. 9; εἶναι, v. 9; with the implied imperative
παρακάλει) and participial (μὴ ἀντιλέγοντας, v. 9; μὴ νοσφιζομένους, v. 10; ἐνδεικνυ-
μένους, v. 10) clauses turn the attention to the responsibility of the slaves, with
the purpose clause (ἵνα) providing the theological rationale of such behavior.
456 titus

Though both the old and the young are addressed, the focus is clearly on
the younger women and men, likely because of the focus on the next gener-
ation who may be most affected by the false teachers (cf. Collins, 227). Since
the instructions for the younger women is embedded in the instruction for the
older women, a chiastic structure can be detected (Quinn, 129; Van Neste, 17):

A On older men (v. 2)

B On older women (v. 3)
B′ On younger women (vv. 4–5)
A′ On younger men (v. 6)

The transition between genders is marked by the adverb ὡσαύτως (vv. 3, 6). The
transition to the discussion of slaves (vv. 9–10) is more abrupt, and the relative
length of this final subsection may serve a wider purpose in illustrating how
believers in general should model the behavior of these slaves in submitting to
God themselves.

▪ 1 Σὺ δὲ λάλει ἃ πρέπει τῇ ὑγιαινούσῃ διδασκαλίᾳ. With the first use of the second-
person singular pronoun (cf. 2:15; 3:8, 12, 15) in this letter and the only use of its
nominative form, the attention shifts from the false teachers to the responsi-
bilities of Titus. Embedded in the neutral plural relative pronoun ἅ that serves
as the object of the verb λάλει is the content of the remaining sections of this
letter.
“What accords with sound teaching” (ἃ πρέπει τῇ ὑγιαινούσῃ διδασκαλίᾳ)
again identifies the root problem of the false teachers as one of inconsistency
between teaching and behavior (cf. v. 16). Though it may be an overstatement
to label this “a purely transitional sentence” (Kelly, 179), no new information is
provided in this statement. It does, however, frame the discussion that follows
within Paul’s wider concerns with the false teachers.

▪ 2 Πρεσβύτας νηφαλίους εἶναι, σεμνούς, σώφρονας, ὑγιαίνοντας τῇ πίστει, τῇ ἀγάπῃ,

τῇ ὑπομονῇ. Paul begins with the older men (πρεσβύτας) in his discussion of the
role every sector is to play within the household of God. This noncomparative
form also carries a comparative sense, especially when it is used as the opposite
of the comparative οἱ νεώτεροι (2:6), and within this polarity it is the relative sta-
tus (rather than the absolute delineation by age) that is emphasized (cf. Barclay
2007: 226).
The infinitive εἶναι is best taken as an infinitive of indirect discourse after
λάλει (bdf §389), though some have taken it as an example of the impera-
tival use of “independent infinitives” (Porter, Verbal Aspect, 377) or even an
2:1–10 457

“appositional infinitive” (Young, Intermediate New Testament Greek, 175). This

is paralleled by παρακάλει in v. 6 with the infinitive (σωφρονεῖν) that follows.
The predicate accusatives νηφαλίους, σεμνούς, σώφρονας, and ὑγιαίνοντας carry
significant weight in the pe. νηφάλιος (cf. 1Tim 3:2, 11), σεμνός (cf. 1 Tim 3:8, 11),
and σώφρων (cf. 1Tim 3:2) can also be found in the list of qualifications for
overseers and deacons in 1Timothy 3, but the ὑγιαίνω word group that does
not appear in that list plays a particularly important role in this section, as
stated in the opening statement (τῇ ὑγιαινούσῃ, v. 1) as well as the material that
follows (ὑγιῆ, v. 8). Within this clause, the emphasis placed on ὑγιαίνοντας is
further underlined by the threefold modifiers, τῇ πίστει, τῇ ἀγάπῃ, and τῇ ὑπο-
μονῇ.

▪ 3 πρεσβύτιδας ὡσαύτως ἐν καταστήματι ἱεροπρεπεῖς, μὴ διαβόλους μηδὲ οἴνῳ

πολλῷ δεδουλωμένας, καλοδιδασκάλους. The asyndetic clause introduced by ὡσ-
αύτως not only signals a development within the same general discussion on a
larger topic (cf. 1Tim 2:9; 3:8, 11; Titus 2:6), but it also signals the presence of a
parallel structure, elements of which are often supplied from the correspond-
ing clause(s). In this case, λάλει … εἶναι from vv. 1–2 is implied as Paul continues
to instruct another sector of the community. πρεσβῦτις is a nt hapax, with the
plural form used here in correspondence with πρεσβύτας in v. 2.
With the prepositional phrase ἐν καταστήματι, ἱεροπρεπεῖς again merges the
distinction between the cultic and the moral. Instead of μὴ οἴνῳ (na27/28),
μηδὲ οἴνῳ should be adopted here, and this μὴ … μηδέ construction is consis-
tent with the usage in the pe (1Tim 1:4; 6:17; 2Tim 1:8; see Text-Critical Analysis).
μὴ διαβόλους and μηδὲ οἴνῳ πολλῷ δεδουλωμένας may correspond to σεμνούς and
σώφρονας in v. 2 since μὴ διαβόλους defines σεμνάς in 1 Tim 3:11, while excessive
drinking is often an illustration of the lack of self-control (cf. Huizenga, 267).
If so, καλοδιδασκάλους, a word likely coined by Paul himself, may correspond
to ὑγιαίνοντας τῇ πίστει, τῇ ἀγάπῃ, τῇ ὑπομονῇ in v. 2, which should, in turn, be
read in light of τῇ ὑγιαινούσῃ διδασκαλίᾳ in v. 1. The responsibility of the older
women to teach paves the way for the specific things that should be taught to
the younger women (vv. 4–5).

▪ 4a ἵνα σωφρονίζουσιν τὰς νέας. While the transition of the instructions from
older men to older women is marked by ὡσαύτως, the instructions to the
younger women are contained in a ἵνα purpose clause that modifies καλοδι-
δασκάλους in v. 3. Instead of the subjunctive σωφρονίζωσιν, the more difficult
indicative form σωφρονίζουσιν should be adopted, a construction that is not
unusual in Paul (see Text-Critical Analysis). The location of this paraenetic
thought within the purpose clause (rather than in parallel asyndetic clauses)
458 titus

already marks this instruction to the younger women with prominence, and
the use of a verb within the σωφρ-word group may point further to existing
problems within this sector of the community.

▪ 4b–5 φιλάνδρους εἶναι, φιλοτέκνους σώφρονας ἁγνὰς οἰκουργοὺς ἀγαθάς, ὑπο-

τασσομένας τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν. In this list of virtues (and responsibilities), two
groups can be identified: those that portray general positive sentiments and
behavioral patterns (σώφρονας, ἁγνάς, ἀγαθάς), and those that are concerned
with the well-being of the household (φιλάνδρους, φιλοτέκνους, οἰκουργούς, ὑπο-
τασσομένας τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν). Reading these two groups together, σώφρονας,
ἁγνάς, and ἀγαθάς are likely meant to find their expression within the house-
hold as well (with the possibility of ἀγαθάς as modifying οἰκουργούς; cf. Dibelius
and Conzelmann, 141). Also worth noting is the responsibility toward one’s hus-
band that frames the list (φιλάνδρους, ὑποτασσομένας τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν), which
may shed light on the use of ὑποτάσσεσθαι here (see Historical Analysis). In
terms of gender relationship, ἰδίοις may further limit the discussion of the rela-
tive status between men and women to a household setting (Collins, 342).

▪ ἵνα μὴ ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ βλασφημῆται. This ἵνα μή clause modifies the previous
purpose clause and depicts the purpose of the prior virtue list, and this negated
purpose clause is similar in force to ἵνα μὴ τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ἡ διδασκαλία
βλασφημῆται in 1Tim 6:1. The implied agent of the verb βλασφημῆται may be
the general population outside of the church, but in light of the reference to
the opponents (ὁ ἐξ ἐναντίας, v. 8) in a similar negated purpose clause in v. 8,
Paul may have a specific group in mind.

▪ 6–7a Τοὺς νεωτέρους ὡσαύτως παρακάλει σωφρονεῖν περὶ πάντα. The asynde-
tic clause introduced by ὡσαύτως that highlights both parallel processing and
development recalls the instructions for the older women in v. 3, and the use
of the intransitive σωφρονέω recalls the transitive σωφρονίζω in reference to the
younger women in v. 4. Nevertheless, a distinct break can still be detected with
the use of an imperative (παρακάλει) with an infinitive (σωφρονεῖν) that par-
allels the λάλει … εἶναι construction of vv. 2–5. This marks off this relatively
lengthy section on younger men, a section that is important because of the
direct address to Titus, who belongs to this group and especially in combatting
the opponents (ὁ ἐξ ἐναντίας, v. 8) who are explicitly identified only here within
this unit.
περὶ πάντα likely modifies the preceding σωφρονεῖν (Kelly, 242) rather than
παρεχόμενος that follows (Collins, 344), as is consistent with a similar construc-
tion in v. 8 with the prepositional phrase περὶ ἡμῶν following the infinitive
2:1–10 459

λέγειν that it modifies. Moreover, περὶ πάντα is appropriate for the umbrella
σωφρ-word group. The use of the accusative with περί is not unusual in Koine
Greek, especially in the pe (1Tim 1:19; 6:4, 21; 2Tim 2:18; 3:8; cf. Turner, Syntax,
270).

▪ 7b–8a σεαυτὸν παρεχόμενος τύπον καλῶν ἔργων. The marked reflexive pronoun
σεαυτόν shifts the attention from the young men to Titus himself. The use of
the middle παρεχόμενος with a reflexive pronoun is considered superfluous in
Classical Greek (cf. John 19:24; Abel, Grammaire, § 53 f.; bdf § 316[3]), but this
may reflect the loss of the force of a true middle in Koine Greek (Caragounis
2004: 109) even though such uses can be found in isolated writers since Home-
ric times (cf. Winer, Grammar, 322). This participle should best be taken in an
instrumental sense expressing how the example Titus is to set will become the
way he is to encourage the younger men to be self-controlled.

▪ ἐν τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ ἀφθορίαν, σεμνότητα, λόγον ὑγιῆ ἀκατάγνωστον. The rare ἀφθο-

ρίαν and the relatively more familiar σεμνότητα (cf. 1 Tim 2:2; 3:4) should best be
considered objects of the participle παρεχόμενος, as they illustrate the example
(τύπον) Timothy is to set for the young believers. Syntactically, the accusative
λόγον ὑγιῆ ἀκατάγνωστον parallels ἀφθορίαν and σεμνότητα, though their rhetor-
ical function may vary.
The structure of this list and its relationship with the preceding is unclear,
and numerous suggestions have been proposed (see Marshall, 254). Syntactical
questions in this case cannot be discussed apart from contextual considera-
tions. In this context where Paul is shifting to address the concerns posted by
the teachings of the opponents (v. 8b), attention is drawn to the core concern
of this letter: the promotion of “the knowledge of the truth” (ἐπίγνωσιν ἀλη-
θείας, 1:1). In this discourse unit, this “truth” is defined as both “sound teaching”
(τῇ ὑγιαινούσῃ διδασκαλίᾳ, v. 1) and “the word of God” (ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ, v. 5),
and these descriptors reappear in these instructions for the young men. To this
virtue list of ἀφθορίαν and σεμνότητα, therefore, one finds both (1) the insertion
of the phrase ἐν τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ that limits the operative field of these virtues
and (2) the final awkward phrase λόγον ὑγιῆ ἀκατάγνωστον that serves as the
basis for the response to the “opponent” (ὁ ἐξ ἐναντίας, v. 8b). While the awk-
ward placement of these insertions may have created syntactical difficulties,
they do provide a clear explanation of the kind of example Titus is to serve for
the young men.

▪ 8b ἵνα ὁ ἐξ ἐναντίας ἐντραπῇ μηδὲν ἔχων λέγειν περὶ ἡμῶν φαῦλον. This ἵνα clause
provides the purpose for Paul’s call to Titus to encourage younger men to be
460 titus

self-controlled (v. 6). The use of the article with the preposition ἐξ is formulaic,
denoting those who belong to a certain faction (cf. Winer, Grammar, 527); in
this case, with the adjective ἐναντίας (“opposed, contrary,” bdag 331), it depicts
“the opponents” who opposes those who teach the healthy teaching (cf. τοὺς
ἀντιλέγοντας, 1:9). In the midst of predominantly present verbs that depict gen-
eral commands, the aorist ἐντραπῇ, which grammaticalizes perfective aspect in
the projection of a concrete and specific event, stands out.
The adverbial participle ἔχων could function to indicate a weaker “condi-
tional” (Dibelius and Conzelmann, 139) or a stronger “causal” (Towner, 734)
sense. Also possible is a “temporal” sense that lies between the two options,
but in light of the rhetoric of these clauses, a stronger “causal” sense fits best.
φαῦλον (“evil/worthless”) could be a word taken from the opponents (Marshall,
256), but the contrast between φαῦλον and ἀγαθόν (cf. vv. 5, 10) is not unusual
for Paul (Rom 9:11; 2Cor 5:10; cf. John 5:29). These young men who are to follow
Titus’s example in performing “good works” (καλῶν ἔργων, v. 7) provide no basis
for the opponents to accuse them of being “evil” (φαῦλον).

▪ 9–10a Δούλους ἰδίοις δεσπόταις ὑποτάσσεσθαι ἐν πᾶσιν, εὐαρέστους εἶναι, μὴ ἀντι-

λέγοντας, μὴ νοσφιζομένους. Though this clause is dependent on the imperative
in v. 6, the shift in attention to the slaves is still unexpected, especially since
previous sectors are defined by age and gender. It is best to consider this sub-
section a direct response to the false teachers, and therefore its relevance moves
beyond those who are physically “slaves.”
As in v. 5 above, ἰδίοις may function merely as a personal pronoun (Abel,
Grammaire, §33u), and in this case it is anarthrous in assimilation to the
anarthrous δούλους (bdf §286[2]). Dependent on παρακάλει of v. 6, the infini-
tive ὑποτάσσεσθαι parallels σωφρονεῖν (v. 6) in being an infinitive of indirect
discourse (cf. Young, Intermediate New Testament Greek, 176; contra Robertson,
Grammar, 944), and being in middle voice it may denote a voluntary act of sub-
mission. The prepositional phrase ἐν πᾶσιν should best be taken in reference to
the preceding verb (ὑποτάσσεσθαι), as in the case of ἐν πᾶσιν in v. 10. Moreover,
the call to submit in all things is not unusual in Paul (Eph 5:24; Col 3:22; cf. Phil
3:21).
The infinitive clause εὐαρέστους εἶναι parallels ὑποτάσσεσθαι, with a defini-
tion of ways to be pleasing one’s master further provided by the three participial
clauses (μὴ ἀντιλέγοντας, μὴ νοσφιζομένους, ἐνδεικνυμένους). The lexical choice
made in these clauses provides additional support for reading this as a wider
application to all believers.

▪ ἀλλὰ πᾶσαν πίστιν ἐνδεικνυμένους ἀγαθήν. With the adversative ἀλλά, the focus
now turns to the positive behavior that is to be encouraged. The relationship
2:1–10 461

between πᾶσαν πίστιν and ἀγαθήν is unclear. While most take ἀγαθήν to be an
attributive adjective (“good faithfulness,” Mounce, 405; or “true fidelity,” Han-
son, 182), a predicative reading (“showing all faith to be good,” Wallace, Gram-
mar, 188–189) is also possible, especially in light of the distance between the
two adjectives. A predicative reading would explain the “odd” (Marshall, 26)
use of ἀγαθός here since it takes on a similar nuance as εὐαρέστους in v. 9, thus:
“showing all faithfulness to be good (i.e., pleasing [to God]).”

▪ 10b ἵνα τὴν διδασκαλίαν τὴν τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν θεοῦ κοσμῶσιν ἐν πᾶσιν. In this
final ἵνα clause of the section (cf. vv. 4, 5, 8), the purpose of the instructions to
the slaves is noted. The articular phrase τὴν τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν θεοῦ provides fur-
ther information in identifying (and limiting the reference of) the head term
τὴν διδασκαλίαν. τὴν διδασκαλίαν forms an inclusio with τῇ ὑγιαινούσῃ διδασκαλίᾳ
from the beginning of this unit (v. 1), while τὴν τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν θεοῦ paves the
way for the next unit (cf. τοῦ θεοῦ σωτήριος, v. 11; τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος
ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, v. 13). The genitive τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν θεοῦ can be an objec-
tive genitive (“the teaching about God our Savior,” cf. Collins, 346,) though it
is more likely a genitive of source (“teaching which proceeds from God our
Savior,” cf. Barrett, 136) since the point is the authenticity and power of this
teaching (cf. 1:9).

Bibliography
Barclay, John M.G. “There Is Neither Old nor Young? Early Christianity and Ancient Ide-
ologies of Age.” nts 53 (2007): 225–241.
Caragounis, Chrys C. The Development of Greek and the New Testament. wunt 167. Tüb-
ingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004.
Delbridge, Mary Lynnette. “‘Family’ as a Problem for New Religious Movements: The
Pastoral Epistles’ Collaboration with the Greco-Roman Household.” Ph.D. diss.,
Union Theological Seminary, 2001.
Van Neste, Ray. “Structure and Cohesion in Titus.” bt 53 (2002): 118–133.
Weidemann, Hans-Ulrich. “Selbstbeherrschte Hausherren: Beobachtungen zur rhetori-
schen Funktion des Maskulinitätsideals in den Pastoralbriefen.” In Lukas—Pau-
lus—Pastoralbriefe. Ed. Rudolfe Hoppe and Michael Reichardt, 271–230. Stuttgarter
Bibelstudien 230. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2014.
Winter, Bruce. Roman Wives, Roman Widows. The Appearance of New Women and the
Pauline Communities. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003.

4 Historical Analysis
The organization of the teachings in this section by age groups has been traced
back to the historical context of Crete, where one finds “the practices of male
462 titus

communal dining in ἀνδρεία (men’s halls) and the separation of children into
age groups for education and eventual initiation into adult society” (Wieland
2009: 342). This age stratification can also be explained by the disruption within
the households caused by the false teachers (cf. 1:11) that might have created
tensions between different age (and gender) groups, as it perhaps could to a
lesser degree also in the Ephesian community (cf. 1 Tim 5:1–24). Moreover, the
inclusion of the “slaves” in this discussion (vv. 9–10) should argue against seeing
the segregation of men in first-century Crete as dictating Paul’s rhetorical move.
On a rhetorical and literary level, with the inclusion of the slaves, this section
can be read in light of Hellenistic Haustafel, especially since the form is famil-
iar in Paul’s earlier writings (Eph 5:22–6:9; Col 3:18–4:1) as well as in 1 Timothy
(2:1–7). However, it should be noted that significant modifications made to
this established literary form argue against this being yet another example
of accommodation to the cultural milieu. First, hierarchy is not the operat-
ing principle of this household code (cf. Aristotle, Pol. 1253b), and the stated
responsibilities are directed to the entire community, rather than to each other
(Richards, 85). Even when submission is noted for the younger women (v. 5)
and the slaves (v. 9), this note is not directed to other listed members of this
code.
Second, the emphasis is not on the various duties that are to differentiate
members among these various groups; instead, the focus is on self-control (cf.
σώφρων, vv. 2, 5; σωφρονίζω, v. 4; σωφρονέω, v. 4; cf. σωφρόνως, v. 12), notwith-
standing such self-control may have different constraints and manifestations
for these various groups (cf. Weidemann 2014: 281–285).
Third, the purpose of these instructions is missional so that the gospel
(vv. 5, 10) and the community (v. 8) will not be discredited; rather than “cul-
tural accommodation,” perhaps a form of “missionary accommodation” (Pad-
get 1987: 49–50) can be detected here.
Finally, the concluding note concerning slaves (δοῦλοι, vv. 9–10) may pro-
vide a fitting conclusion to these instructions if this note is taken to address
the behavior of believers in general (see comments below). The absence of
the corresponding instructions for the masters (cf. Eph 6:9; Col 4:1) should not,
therefore, be understood as indicating that “Christians in the Titus-community
do not themselves own slaves” (Richards, 86), but as providing yet another clue
that Paul is not addressing human masters and slaves, but believers who are
to serve God as their master. The theocentric focus of this concluding note is,
therefore, appropriate.

▪ 1 λαλέω takes on the sense of διδάσκω here (cf. διδασκαλίᾳ). Unlike in 1 Timothy
(4:11; 6:2), the verb διδάσκω is only used in a negative sense in this letter in refer-
2:1–10 463

ence to the false teachers (1:11), which may explain Paul’s avoidance of this verb
and his preference for other verbs for instruction (λαλέω, 2:1, 15; παρακαλέω, 1:9;
2:6, 15; ὑπομιμνῄσκω, 3:1; διαβεβαιόομαι, 3:8).
πρέπει points to that which “accords with” the right teaching, and the set of
behavior promoted in the material that follows, in turn, provides the definition
of that which is “appropriate” for various members in the household of God
(cf. ὃ πρέπει γυναιξὶν ἐπαγγελλομέναις θεοσέβειαν, 1 Tim 2:10). “Sound teaching”
(τῇ ὑγιαινούσῃ διδασκαλίᾳ; cf. τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ τῇ ὑγιαινούσῃ, 1:9) is that which is
consistent with the faith (cf. ὑγιαίνωσιν ἐν τῇ πίστει, v. 13).

▪ 2 Unlike πρεσβύτερος, which is often used by itself in reference to respected

elders in both the Jewish (Matt 21:23; Mark 7:3, 5; Luke 20:1; Acts 6:12) and Chris-
tian (Acts 15:4; 20:17–18; 1Tim 5:1, 17, 19; Titus 1:5) communities, πρεσβύτης is
used primarily in reference to one’s life stage (Luke 1:18; Phlm 9). For Philo, who
cites Hippocrates, πρεσβύτης includes those who are fifty to fifty-six years of age
and belong to the sixth of seven stages of human life, just short of the final stage
of being an “old man” (γέρων, Philo, Opif. 105). Assuming a median life span of
sixty-six years, a man in his early fifties would be approaching the final stages
of his life (or at least his public life; cf. Montagu 1994: 25–26). Used within the
polarity with ὁ νεώτερος (v. 6) or ὁ παῖς (cf. Plato, Meno 73b), πρεσβύτης is one
who has gone beyond the stage of childhood (ἐκ παιδαρίου, Plato, Symp. 270d).
An ideal elderly person is one who is dignified in both word and deed, thus
bringing honor to himself and to his family (cf. Plutarch, Mor. 788b).
νηφάλιος is often found in contexts describing the use of alcohol (cf. 1 Tim
3:2), and, as such, may correspond to a similar instruction on the use of wine
(μὴ οἴνῳ πολλῷ δεδουλωμένας, v. 3) for the older women. For σεμνός, see com-
ments on 1Tim 3:8, 11, where it starts off the list of qualifications for deacons
and deaconesses.
For the significance of the σώφρων word group in the pe, see 1 Tim 2:9. What
is worth noting is that half of its usages appear in Titus 2 (cf. σώφρων, vv. 2, 5;
σωφρονίζω, v. 4; σωφρονέω, v. 4; cf. σωφρόνως, v. 12), the reasons of which may
be related to the false teachings particular to the community of believers in
first-century Crete (Christensen 2016: 166–167), with suggestions that include
the proto-Montanist tendencies (Ford 1971: 338–346; Trevett 1989: 313–314), the
influence of the “New Women” in the early imperial period (Winter 2003: 141–
168), and certain ascetic practices (Streete 1999: 309–310). However, the lack
of references to charismatic activities elsewhere in this letter casts doubt on
a proto-Montanist reading, while the call for self-control across gender lines
also argues against the “New Women” hypothesis. Ascetic practices certainly
play a role in both 1Timothy (cf. 4:1–3) and this letter (cf. 1:15), but being self-
464 titus

controlled does not appear to be the antidote to ascetic tendencies elsewhere in

Paul. Without considering this word group as the key to unlocking the nature of
the false teachings in this letter, it seems best to read this word group as a gen-
eral response to the lack of correspondence between teachings and practice
here (cf. 1:16; 2:1).
For ὑγιαίνω, see comments on 1Tim 1:10. τῇ πίστει, τῇ ἀγάπῃ, and τῇ ὑπο-
μονῇ is likely a modification of the more common Pauline triad of “faith, love,
and hope” (Rom 5:1–5; 1Cor 13:13; Gal 5:5–6; 1Thess 1:3; 5:8; Col 1:4–5; cf. 1 Tim
6:11; 2Tim 3:10). Hunter (1961: 35) claims to be able to trace this Pauline triad
of “faith, love, and hope” to the remarkable agraphon contained in Macarius,
Hom. 37, while Reitzenstein (1978: 487–489) suggests that this triad originated
from a modification of the proto-gnostic quartet of “faith, knowledge, love, and
hope” (cf. Porphyry, Marc. 24), along with its related form “faith, knowledge, and
love” (Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 7.57.4).
If Reitzenstein is correct, then the earlier Pauline form of “faith, love, and
hope” and what appears here, “faith, love, and endurance,” may both be mod-
ifications of a common formula with an implicit critique of the proto-gnostic
emphasis on knowledge. This fits the context in Titus (and the pe) well since
Paul emphasizes that true knowledge has to be expressed in godliness (ἐπίγνω-
σιν ἀληθείας τῆς κατ’ εὐσέβειαν, 1:1), in contrast to the false teachers who “profess
to know (εἰδέναι) God, but they deny him with their deeds” (1:16). For ὑπομονή,
see also 1Tim 6:11, where it appears with the closely related πραϋπάθεια.

▪ 3 Both πρεσβύτιδας and πρεσβύτας (v. 2) are polar opposites of τὰς νέας (v. 4)
and τοὺς νεωτέρους (v. 6), and, as such, it should be understood as “older women”
rather than “women presbyters” (Schüssler Fiorenza 1989: 290), and these
“older women” (πρεσβύτιδες) are to be distinguished from “grown women”
(γυναῖκες αἱ ἐν ἡλικίᾳ) and “young (unmarried) girls” (παρθένοι, Philo, Legat.
228). Though women were often depicted as undisciplined and being con-
trolled by their own passion (Musso 1968: 29–31), positive models of dignified
older women do exist, especially in Hellenistic Jewish writings (cf. Josephus,
B.J. 7.399) where the younger are to honor the older men and women as their
own parents (Philo, Spec. 2.237).
ἱεροπρεπεῖς, another nt hapax, denotes that which is appropriate for a holy
place, and, as such, it can be paired with ἡ ἁγία (Philo, Somn, 1.82). Concerns for
cultic purity frame this wider section (cf. καθαρά, 1:15; καθαρίσῃ, 2:14) with the
call to appropriate (cf. πρέπει, 2:10) behavior (κατάστημα) embedded within this
section. ἱεροπρεπεῖς should, therefore, be understood within such cultic con-
cerns, although its manifestations are to be made within the community at
large (cf. ἀνέγκλητος, 1:6, 7; ἁγνάς, 2:5; see also 4Macc 11:20 and Philo, Deus 102,
2:1–10 465

where it is used with εὐσέβεια). This diffusion of the cultic realms can also be
found in 1Tim 2:10 with reference to both “reverence for God” and “good works.”
As a whole, this section may then be answering a question familiar to the Hel-
lenistic Jews: “What kind of behavior manifests godliness?” (τί τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας
ἐστὶ κατάστημα; Ep. Arist. 210.2; cf. εὐσέβεια, 1:1; ἀσέβεια, 2:12; εὐσεβῶς, 2:12).
μὴ διαβόλους recalls the qualification of the deaconess in 1 Tim 3:11 (cf. 1 Tim
3:6, 7), while μηδὲ οἴνῳ πολλῷ δεδουλωμένας is a concern frequently noted in
the pe (1Tim 3:3, 8; Titus 1:7). Stereotypical depictions of women as drunkards
flourish in Greek writings (cf. “an older woman, lover of wine, drunk, lustful of
wine, consumed [by passion],” πρεσβῦτις, φίλοινος, μεθύση, οἰνομάχλη, κοχώνη,
Pollux, Onom. 2.18 [cf. Theopompus, Test. 80]), but the use of δουλόω with οἶνος
is unusual. This enslavement language may anticipate the address to the slaves
in vv. 9–10 (especially when such an address is applicable to the wider commu-
nity of believers, see comments below), and it can also be read in light of the
ransom/slavery language in the section that follows (cf. λυτρόω, v. 14; Brown
2014: 157).
The nt hapax καλοδιδάσκαλος is possibly a word coined by Paul himself,
and it subverts the cultural expectations placed on these older women who
are now called to teach “young women” what is good (v. 4), just as Titus is also
called to be “an example of good works (καλῶν ἔργων)” for the “younger men”
by “demonstrating integrity and dignity in [his] teaching (τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ)” (v. 7).
This identification of these women as “teachers” is particularly important given
that Paul also identifies himself likewise (διδάσκαλος, 1 Tim 2:7; 2 Tim 1:11). Fur-
thermore, that which is to be taught (καλός) would distinguish these women
from the false teachers (cf. 2Tim 4:3).

▪ 4a σωφρονίζουσιν should be understood in light of the importance of the

σωφρ-word group in this section (cf. σώφρονας, vv. 2, 5; σωφρονεῖν, v. 6; contra
Spicq, 2.620; Mounce, 411) instead of merely as a verb for training or exhorta-
tion (though it often appears with νουθετέω in Greek literature for the general
sense of education and admonishment; cf. Philo, Det. 3.3; Deus 134.3; Fug. 73.3;
Plutarch, Mor. 71e; Cassius Dio, Hist. 41.27.2). Within the semantic range of
“self-control,” this verbal form takes on the meaning of “to instruct someone to
behave in a wise and becoming manner” (LNd §33.229), which points to behav-
ior that exhibits self-control. Implicit in the use of this verb are the existing
transgression of certain boundaries and the need to return to an established
realm of acceptable behavior (cf. “bringing their charges back to their senses,”
Winter 2003: 159). αἳ νέαι in this context would refer to younger adult (married)
women who have passed the stage of being “young (unmarried) girls” (παρθένοι,
Philo, Legat. 228).
466 titus

With older women called to train younger women, some see the gender dif-
ferentiation here as an attempt to avoid the more egalitarian vision as exempli-
fied in the Apocryphal Acts (cf. Huizenga, 274–275). Nevertheless, the content
of the teachings to be conveyed does fit well with the expectation of the duties
of younger women, and limiting Titus’s influence to the young men may merely
be an encouragement for him to be an example of self-control to them (vv. 6–7;
cf. 1Tim 5:2).

▪ 4b–5 φίλανδρος and φιλότεκνος point to the duty of these younger women
within the household, and both may refer primarily to sexual fidelity, which is a
form of self-control that affects both their husbands and children (for the use of
this pair with σώφρων, see Marcus Cornelius Fronto, Ad Marc. 12.2). Neverthe-
less, this pair has also been used in reference to the demonstration of friendship
within a household (Plutarch, Mor. 769c), and φιλότεκνος is also compared with
φιλοίκειος (“love of one’s kin,” Philo, Abr. 179.2).
When applied to women, σώφρων (see comments on v. 2) often carries
heavier emphasis on sexual purity when their duties within the household
remain a prominent concern (Weidemann 2014: 281–285), a concern that is
repeated with the use of ἁγνός, which also appears to have a wider applica-
tion when applied to men (cf. 1Tim 5:22). The use of both in the context of
marital fidelity is attested in both pagan (Diogenianus, Paroemiae 2.45.3) and
early Christian (Eusebius, Coet. sanct. 25.3) writings, and sexual purity is, in
turn, a manifestation of cultic purity (cf. ἱεροπρεπεῖς, v. 3) that provides def-
inition to the community of believers (cf. ἵνα μὴ ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ βλασφημῆ-
ται).
οἰκουργός is a rare word that is best taken in reference to responsibilities
within the household, which includes both moral (cf. 1 Tim 5:11) and physical
(cf. 1Tim 5:13) duties. Deviating from the more common classical form οἰκου-
ρός, its verbal parallel οἰκουργέω appears also in 1 Clem 1.3 (Oberlinner 3.111). If
οἰκουργός is a word coined by Paul, he may have the responsibilities of the older
widows in mind here as well: “known for her good works (ἔργοις καλοῖς): as one
who has raised children, shown hospitality, washed the feet of the saints, cared
for the oppressed, and devoted herself to every good work (παντὶ ἔργῳ ἀγαθῷ)”
(1 Tim 5:10). If so, ἀγαθάς may then refer to these women who are faithful in
“every good work” (παντὶ ἔργῳ ἀγαθῷ).
ὑποτάσσεσθαι τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν echoes the language of Hellenistic Hausta-
feln (cf. Col 3:18) as well as the general teachings of moral philosophers (cf.
ὑποτάτουσαι … ἑαυτὰς τοῖς ἀνδράσιν, Plutarch, Mor. 142e), but in the midst
of concerns for self-control (σώφρονας) and sexual purity (ἁγνάς), this lan-
guage of obedience may also reflect the concern for exclusive marital fidelity
2:1–10 467

(thus forming a bracket with φιλάνδρους, v. 4b), as contemporary uses of the

language of submission within the marital relationship reveal (cf. seg 1717;
Horsley 1984: 36). The use of ἰδίοις in reference to their husbands (τοῖς …
ἀνδράσιν) may further highlight this concern for exclusive fidelity to one’s hus-
band.
ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ is the gospel that Paul preaches (cf. 1:3). As in 1 Tim 6:1
(cf. 1Tim 1:20), βλασφημέω takes on religious significance when God (and his
Word) is the party offended, and, as such, should be taken as “blasphemed”
(Marshall, 250) rather than “brought into disrepute” (Barrett, 135; cf. “defamed,”
Quinn, 136).

▪ 6–7a Despite the length of this section, only this clause is directly concerned
with the younger men. This has been taken to mean that the younger women
were creating more problems in the Cretan community (Delbridge 2001: 219),
although the verb σωφρονέω may be considered a short-hand for the virtues
listed above, especially those tied with this σωφρ-word group (vv. 2, 4, 5; cf.
Huizenga, 334). More importantly, the direct address to Titus in vv. 7–8 is to
be considered as instructions to these young men since Titus is to serve as their
“example” (τύπον, v. 7).
οἱ νεώτεροι corresponds to αἳ νέαι in v. 4, with the comparative form used
as a rough equivalent to the positive form (cf. 1 Tim 5:1). The pairing of the
comparative νεώτεροι with the positive νέαι is not without parallel (cf. Liban-
ius, Decl. 39.1.19). As the polar opposite to ὁ πρεσβύτης (v. 2), ὁ νεώτερος would
apply to adult males who are under fifty (cf. v. 2). παρακαλέω is a general
term of exhortation and can be paired with διδάσκω (1 Tim 6:2), λαλέω (Titus
2:15), and ἐλέγχω (Titus 2:15), but when used with σωφρονεῖν as it is here,
it can be considered a functional equivalent of σωφρονίζω (v. 4), since both
younger women and younger men are to be trained to lead a life of self-
control.

▪ 7b Titus is called to be an “example” (τύπος) to others just as Timothy is (see

1 Tim 4:12; cf. 1Cor 10:6; Phil 3:17; 1Thess 1:7; 2Thess 3:9). Unlike 1 Tim 4:12, how-
ever, the (relative) age of Titus is not the focus here, though he does take on
the role of the older men in setting an example “of good works” (καλῶν ἔργων),
as the older women are for their younger counterparts (καλοδιδασκάλους, v. 3).
Here, good works (καλῶν ἔργων) are to be the products of σωφρονεῖν (1 Tim 3:1, 2;
Titus 1:8, 16; cf. σωφρονίζωσιν, Titus 2:4), and this general term is further defined
by the phrases that follow.
The nt hapax ἀφθορία is rare in Greek literature (cf. Themistius, Arist. 5.2),
but the adjective ἄφθορος is used in the papyri for “self-control” (cf. P.Lond. 46;
468 titus

M.-M. 97). ἀφθορίαν and σεμνότητα here may, therefore, correspond to σώφρονας
and σεμνούς within the instructions for older men in v. 2. Being a part of honor
and shame language (Polybius 9.10.12; 11.9.7; Philo, Spec. 2.149, 153; cf. 1 Tim 2:2),
σεμνότης also anticipates the language of shame (ἐντραπῇ) in reference to the
false teachers in v. 8.

▪ 8 The singular λόγος ὑγιής can refer to “sound reasoning” (Pseudo-Diogenes,

Epist. 28; Philo, Somn. 1.79); but in this context that echoes τῇ ὑγιαινούσῃ διδα-
σκαλίᾳ in v. 1 and ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ in v. 5, it should be taken as “a sound word.”
This is consistent with the use of medical terminology for the right teachings
in the pe (for the use of ὑγιαίνω with λόγος, see 1 Tim 6:3 and 2 Tim 1:13). The
nt hapax ἀκατάγνωστος is rarely used in Greek literature, but it does appear in
4 Macc 4:47 in a legal context for “not to be condemned.”
The verb ἐντρέπω, used in the sense of “to shame” or “to embarrass” (for
another aorist passive use, see 2Thess 3:14; cf. 1Cor 4:14), fits well with the other
honor-shame vocabulary in this section (cf. σεμνούς, v. 2; σώφρονας, vv. 2, 5; δια-
βόλους, v. 3; καλοδιδασκάλους, v. 3; σωφρονίζωσιν, v. 4; ἀγαθάς, v. 5; βλασφημῆται,
v. 5; σωφρονεῖν, v. 6; καλῶν, v. 7; Lendon 1997: 276–278). The identity of “the oppo-
nent” (ὁ ἐξ ἐναντίας) remains unclear, but the use of this verb assumes that
the subject at a certain point in time belonged to the same community with a
shared set of values; without such a shared “moral” or “symbolic” universe, acts
of shaming and embarrassment would fail to bring about the desired change
(cf. Moxnes, 1991: 25–27). While a reference to those outside of the commu-
nity cannot be ruled out elsewhere in this letter (Spicq, 2.623), “the opponent”
seems to point to a narrower group within the community (cf. 1:9–16; Kelly,
243).
Though not often used in the nt (John 3:20; 5:29; Rom 9:11; 2 Cor 5:10; James
3:16), φαῦλος is a very common adjective in contemporary Greek writings. It is
used in contexts that discuss those who indulge in shameful passions (Aristotle,
Eth. nic. 1151b) and are not worthy of honor (Aristotle, Eth. nic. 1123b). Within an
honor-shame context, λέγειν περὶ ἡμῶν φαῦλον carries the meaning of “to speak
ill of us” or “to shame us.” It is clear that Paul is concerned with the relative
honor (and shame) of the believers vis-à-vis the false teachers.

▪ 9–10 This focus on the slaves, with the opening address closely paralleling
1 Tim 6:1 (δοῦλοι, τοὺς ἰδίους δεσπότας; for slavery, see comments on 1 Tim 6:1–2),
may point to the possibility that “Christian slaves constituted a special danger
to the good repute of the Church” (Barrett, 136). Nevertheless, the behavior that
is encouraged (μὴ ἀντιλέγοντας, μὴ νοσφιζομένους, ἀλλὰ πᾶσαν πίστιν ἐνδεικνυμέ-
νους ἀγαθήν, vv. 9b–10a) seems more appropriate as a direct response to the
2:1–10 469

false teachers than as a general discussion of the responsibilities of the slaves.

Rather than merely borrowing from traditional material, this discussion of the
slaves appears to be tailored to the particular concerns of the Cretan commu-
nity of believers (contra Miller, 131).
It can further be argued that the instructions to the slaves are meant for
believers in general as they submit to God himself. First, “to be pleasing” (εὐα-
ρέστους εἶναι) is often directed to God and not human beings in the Pauline
letters (Rom 12:1, 2; 14:8; 2Cor 5:9; Eph 5:10; Phil 4:18; Col 3:20; cf. Quinn,
147). Moreover, it belongs to honor-shame language that is applied by Hel-
lenistic Jewish authors to those honorable in the eyes of God (Philo, Mut.
48.2).
Second, the two negative participles, μὴ ἀντιλέγοντας and μὴ νοσφιζομένους,
may again reflect the behavior of the opponents, especially since the substan-
tival form ὁ ἀντιλέγων is often used in reference to one’s “opponent” (lsj, 158),
a usage found in 1:9, where τοὺς ἀντιλέγοντας is used for those who oppose the
healthy teaching. ἀντιλέγοντας refers, therefore, not only to having self-control
in speech but also to having proper respect for those in authority (cf. Kartzow
2012: 105, who takes this phrase as “not having the last word”) as slaves would
to their masters (Aristotle, Metaph. 996b). Similarly, though acts of stealing are
often ascribed to slaves (cf. Phlm 18; even a slave who ran away is considered
having committed an act of theft; Watson 1987: 117), μὴ νοσφιζομένους may also
allude to those who teach for shameful gain (αἰσχροῦ κέρδους χάριν, 1:11). Believ-
ers are to avoid this behavior of the false teachers.
Third, a predicative reading of ἀγαθήν provides a parallel to εὐαρέστους εἶναι
(thus “showing all faithfulness to be good [to God]”), which echoes the senti-
ment of Col 3:23, where faithful acts towards one’s master are a service rendered
to God. It is also consistent with the use of πίστις elsewhere in this letter, which
always carries a theological overtone (1:1, 4, 13; 2:2; 3:15; see Morgan 2015: 316).
These uses of both ἀγαθός and πίστις address the general concerns of the believ-
ers.
Finally, the positive motivation that follows (ἵνα τὴν διδασκαλίαν τὴν τοῦ σωτῆ-
ρος ἡμῶν θεοῦ κοσμῶσιν ἐν πᾶσιν) is also relevant for the entire Christian commu-
nity (Spicq, 2:626; Brown 2014: 156–157). κοσμῶσιν not only carries the notion of
living out the teaching, but it also points to the attractiveness of such teachings.
This is especially evident when noting that the verb κοσμέω does not merely
mean “to clothe” but “to adorn” (cf. 1Tim 2:9; Spicq, 2:626) in the sense of bring-
ing honor to oneself (cf. Diogenes Laertius, Vit. 11.114; Plutarch, Dem. 21.2; Mor.
280e). It is striking to have “slaves” taking on the task of bringing honor to “the
teaching that proceeds from God our Savior” (compare the subtler charge to
the slaves that “the teaching might not be blasphemed” in 1 Tim 6:1), but this
470 titus

task does belong to the duties of all believers (cf. vv. 1, 7). Therefore, these final
verses of the unit appear to aim at a wider audience as they are to submit to
“God [their] Savior.”

Bibliography
Brown, Peter Dunstan. “The Use of Ransom Language in 1 Timothy 2:1–7 and Titus 2:11–
14.” Ph.D. diss., Catholic University of America, 2014.
Ford, J. Massyngberde. “A Note on Proto-Montanism in the Pastoral Epistles.” nts 17
(1971): 338–346.
Horsley, G.H.R. “A Love Charm and ‘the Keys of Hades.’ ” NewDocs 1 (1984): 33–36.
Hunter, Archibald M. Paul and His Predecessors. London: scm, 1961.
Kartzow, Marianne Bjelland. Destabilizing the Margins: An Intersectional Approach to
Early Christian Memory. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2012.
Lendon, Jon E. Empire of Honour: The Art of Government in the Roman World. Oxford:
Clarendon, 1997.
Montagu, J.D. “Length of Life in the Ancient World: A Controlled Study.” Journal of the
Royal Society of Medicine 87 (1994): 25–26.
Morgan, Teresa. Roman Faith and Christian Faith: Pistis and Fides in the Early Roman
Empire and Early Churches. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015.
Moxnes, Halvor. “Honor and Shame.” In The Social Sciences and New Testament Inter-
pretation. Ed. R.L. Rohrbaugh, 20–40. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991.
Musso, O. “Anus Ebria.” Atene e Roma 13 (1968): 29–31.
Padgett, Alan G. “The Pauline Rationale for Submission: Biblical Feminism and the hina
Clauses of Titus 2:1–10.” EvQ 59 (1987): 39–52.
Reitzenstein, Richard. Hellenistic Mystery-Religions. Trans. John E. Steely. Pittsburgh:
Pickwick, 1978.
Schüssler Fiorenza, Elisabeth. In Memory of Her. New York: Crossroad, 1989.
Streete, Gail Corrington. “Askesis and Resistance in the Pastoral Letters.” In Asceticism
and the New Testament. Ed. Leif E. Vaage and Vincent L. Wimbush, 299–315. New
York: Routledge, 1999.
Trevett, Christine. “Apocalypse, Ignatius, Montanism: Seeking the Seeds.” vc 43 (1989):
313–338.
Watson, Alan. Roman Slave Law. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1987.
Weidemann, Hans-Ulrich. “Selbstbeherrschte Hausherren: Beobachtungen zur rhetori-
schen Funktion des Maskulinitätsideals in den Pastoralbriefen.” In Lukas—Pau-
lus—Pastoralbriefe. Ed. Rudolfe Hoppe and Michael Reichardt, 271–301. Stuttgarter
Bibelstudien 230. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2014.
Wieland, George M. “Roman Crete and the Letter to Titus.” nts 55 (2009): 338–354.
Winter, Bruce W. Roman Wives, Roman Widows: The Appearance of New Women and the
Pauline Communities. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003.
2:1–10 471

5 Theological Analysis
Despite the use of a literary form (Haustafel) and vocabulary familiar to the
pagan audience, the theological emphases embedded in this section set it
apart from Hellenistic moral discourse. The theocentric focus of this section
should not be missed; believers are not merely to cultivate an acceptable “pub-
lic image,” but they are also to act in a way pleasing to God (cf. vv. 5, 6, 9; Genade
2011: 53). Coupled with a form of “missional accommodation” (see above), this
outward focus (in reference to outsiders and to God) lays emphasis on the iden-
tity of the community more so than its inner political structure (cf. Brown 2014:
30–31).
The christological basis of Paul’s instruction should also be noted. The ethic
of self-control is grounded in God’s redemptive act through Christ as explicated
in the section that follows (vv. 11–14; cf. Christensen, 176). Consistent references
to “sound teaching” (v. 1), “the word of God” (v. 5), “teaching” (vv. 7, 10), and a
“sound word” (v. 8) throughout this section underline the importance of the
gospel upon which one can lead a moral life.
This address to the slaves should be understood as intended for all believers.
Written by one who identifies himself as δοῦλος θεοῦ, the preceding note that
calls older women not to be “slaves to too much wine” (μὴ οἴνῳ πολλῷ δεδουλω-
μένας, v. 3) paves the way for this conclusion that calls all believers to act like
slaves “pleasing (to God),” “not talking back (like the false teachers)” (v. 9), and
therefore showing “all faithfulness to be good” and making known the “attrac-
tiveness” of the teaching of God (v. 10).
This use of the instructions to the slaves to address the wider Christian com-
munity can already be found in the relatively lengthy treatment of the slaves
in the Colossian Haustafel (Col 3:22–25). Within that code, Paul’s call for the
slaves (“whatever you do, do it wholeheartedly, as to the Lord and not to people,”
Col 3:23) repeats the earlier call in Col 3:17 to believers in general (“whatever you
do in word or in deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus”). Shifting
from the behavior of the slaves to those of the believers, Paul urges the lat-
ter to submit to the Lord Jesus as slaves would submit to their own masters
(cf. Pao 2012: 283–285). Here in Titus, the identification of believers as slaves
would further anticipate the depiction of Jesus as the one who came “to set us
free” (λυτρώσηται ἡμᾶς) from all bondage (v. 14; cf. Exod 6:6) as believers are no
longer enslaved to evil powers but become those who are to serve the true Lord
of all.

Bibliography
Brown, Peter Dunstan. “The Use of Ransom Language in 1 Timothy 2:1–7 and Titus 2:11–
14.” Ph.D. diss., Catholic University of America, 2014.
472 titus

Christensen, Sean. “The Pursuit of Self-Control: Titus 2:1–14 and Accommodation to

Christ.” jspl 6 (2016): 161–180.
Genade, Aldred A. Persuading the Cretans: A Text-Generated Persuasion Analysis of the
Letter to Titus. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2011.
Harrill, J. Albert. “Paul and Slavery.” In Paul in the Greco-Roman World. Ed. J. Paul Sam-
pley, 575–607. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2003.
Pao, David W. Colossians and Philemon. zecnt. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012.

B Basis of These Directives (2:11–15)

1 Translation
11 For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people. 12 It
trains us to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age, as
we have renounced ungodliness and worldly passions, 13 while we wait for the
blessed hope, that is, the glorious manifestation of our great God and Savior,
Jesus Christ, 14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and
to purify for himself a people of his very own, who are zealous for good works.
15 Teach these things, exhort and rebuke with all authority. Let no one despise
you.

2 Text-Critical Analysis
▪ 11 σωτήριος: Instead of σωτήριος, several primarily later Western witnesses have
σωτῆρος (‫ *א‬t vgmss) or τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν (F G ar b vgcl.ww co Lcf), likely influ-
enced by τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν θεοῦ in the previous verse. Most of the Byzantine
witnesses ([C3] D1 K L P Ψ 33 81 1505 1881 pm 𝔐)9 have ἡ σωτήριος instead, mak-
ing it clear that this two-termination adjective σωτήριος is to be taken as attribu-
tive. With the support of notable Alexandrian (‫א‬2 A C* 1739) and Western (D*
vgst Cl) witnesses, the na reading without the article remains the stronger read-
ing and is to be taken as a predicate (bdf §269[3]). The unclear sense of this
predicate might have contributed to the insertion of the article.

▪ 12 τὰς κοσμικὰς ἐπιθυμίας: Against most manuscript evidence, the article is

missing in D* and 1739. ἐπιθυμίας is always arthrous in the pe when preceded
by an adjective (cf. 2Tim 2:22; 4:3), and the presence of the article is expected
after τὴν ἀσέβειαν. Therefore, this variant is to be rejected. Also worth noting is
the list of contrasting virtues that follows: σωφρόνως καὶ δικαίως καὶ εὐσεβῶς. The
textual support is stable for this virtue list, but the Palestinian Syriac lectionary
provides an interesting modification here: “That in fear and righteousness and

9 Correcting the listing of D2 in na27, na28 has D1 instead for this variant.
2:11–15 473

the love of God we may live in this world” (Metzger 1977: 81). The use of “fear”
and “love of God” instead of σωφρόνως and εὐσεβῶς may be an attempt to substi-
tute these Greco-Roman (or imperial) virtues with ones that are more familiar
in Palestinian soil.

▪ 13 Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ: The order is inverted (Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ) in the original reading
of Codex Sinaiticus (‫ )*א‬and a few Western witnesses (F G b) and is adopted by
Tischendorf and Westcott-Hort (as well as Kilpatrick, 17, and Elliott, 201), but
the external witnesses for Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ are more diverse (‫א‬2 A C DK L P Ψ 104
365 630 1241 1505 1881 𝔐 lat sy) with a lone witness (1739) omitting Χριστοῦ. With
the modifier σωτῆρος ἡμῶν the preferred order is Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ (1 Tim 1:1; 2 Tim
1:10; Titus 1:4; cf. Titus 3:6), which might have influenced the scribes to conform
to this expected order, but in terms of intrinsic probability other usages in the
pe may not be entirely relevant because of the unique formulation of τοῦ μεγά-
λου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ here (see comments). Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ,
which receives slightly stronger external support, remains the preferred read-
ing.

▪ 15 λάλει: The uncial A reads δίδασκε, probably an assimilation to 1 Tim 6:2

(cf. 1Tim 4:11).

▪ 15 περιφρονείτω: This nt hapax is replaced by the more common καταφρονείτω

(cf. Matt 6:24; 18:10; Luke 16:13; Rom 2:4; 1Cor 11:22; 1 Tim 6:2; Heb 12:2; 2 Pet 2:10)
in the uncial P (pc), probably an assimilation to the similar charge to Timothy
in 1Tim 4:12.

Bibliography
Metzger, Bruce M. The Early Versions of the New Testament: Their Origin, Transmission,
and Limitations. Oxford: Clarendon, 1977.

3 Grammatical Analysis
With γάρ, attention shifts from the behavior various sectors in the commu-
nity of believers are to exhibit to the basis upon which such behavior is to be
grounded. It is here that one finds a concise précis of Paul’s theology (Spicq,
2.636). The connection between the two units is secured by τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν
θεοῦ in v. 10 and the σωτηρ-word group in this unit (σωτήριος, v. 11; σωτῆρος, v. 13).
Moreover, σωφρόνως that heads the virtue list in v. 12 points back to the σωφρ-
word group in the previous unit (σώφρονας, v. 2; σωφρονίζωσιν, v. 4; σώφρονας,
v. 5), while καλῶν ἔργων that concludes the long sentence in v. 14 points back to
καλῶν ἔργων in v. 7.
474 titus

The boundary of this unit is clearly marked by both linguistic features and
content. From a section dominated by the present imperatives λάλει (v. 1) and
παρακάλει (v. 6) followed by predominantly present verbs to this unit that
begins with a long sentence (vv. 11–14) dominated by the aorist indicative ἐπε-
φάνη (v. 11) followed by predominantly aorist verbs, one finds the corresponding
shift from “communication” (λαλέω, παρακαλέω, LNd § 33) to “physical events”
(ἐπιφαίνω, LNd §14; cf. ἔδωκεν).
While the beginning of this unit is clearly marked, its ending is disputed.
The shift from the predominately aorist verbs of vv. 11–14 to the four present
imperatives (λάλει, παρακάλει, ἔλεγχε, περιφρονείτω) in v. 15 has led some to
consider v. 14 “the final boundary of this unit” (Van Neste, 243), with v. 15
as a transitional unit (cf. Hanson, 183; Towner, 740). Others, however, con-
sider v. 15 a part of the next unit (2:15–3:2, Quinn, 177; 2:11–3:2, Barrett, 136).
Without denying the transitional nature of v. 15, it should be considered a
part of this unit (Spicq, 2.635). First, every clause within the long sentence
of vv. 11–14 links theology with its personal and ethical ramifications, and,
as such, they pave the way for the imperatives in v. 15. Second, while the
universal significance of divine salvific acts is marked by the use of πᾶς in
vv. 11–14 (πᾶσιν, v. 11; πάσης, v. 14), the specific applications are also marked
by the repeated uses of the first-person plural pronoun (ἡμᾶς, v. 12; ἡμῶν,
v. 13; ἡμῶν, v. 14; ἡμᾶς, v. 14). These specific applications naturally lead into
the imperatives in v. 15. Moreover, with the conjunction γάρ linking this unit
with the former, it should not be surprising to find the final statement provid-
ing the conclusion for both units, as reflected in the use of the second-person
singular pronoun in both v. 1 (σύ) and v. 15 (σοῦ) in reference to Titus him-
self.
The cohesion of this unit is maintained primarily by its syntactical structure.
Verses 11–14 form one long sentence, with the main verb (ἐπεφάνη) modified
by the participial clause (παιδεύουσα ἡμᾶς, v. 12a), which is, in turn, modified
by a ἵνα clause that introduces the main content of the first part of this unit
(vv. 12–13). Within this ἵνα clause, the focus lies on the predicate that depicts the
expected behavior in the present age (ἐν τῷ νῦν αἰῶνι), with participial clauses
that precede and follow the predicate depicting the acts of rejecting past behav-
ior and the anticipated return of Jesus Christ, respectively. The depiction of
the anticipated return of Jesus Christ leads to a relative clause that introduces
a confession of his atoning work (v. 14). Picking up on the concerns for the
present age, the final statement (v. 15) is marked with prominence by the use of
multiple second-person imperatives that conclude with a third-person imper-
ative, thus drawing attention to the responsibilities of the direct addressee of
this statement.
2:11–15 475

▪ 11 Ἐπεφάνη γὰρ ἡ χάρις τοῦ θεοῦ σωτήριος πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις. The shift from
the present tense verbs that dominate the previous unit to the aorist ἐπεφάνη
is expected here in the summary portrayal of an event as a whole. ἐπιφαίνω
appears here for the first time in the pe (cf. Titus 3:4), though its nominal form
often appears in reference to the past (2Tim 1:10) and future (1 Tim 6:14; 2 Tim
4:1, 8; Titus 2:13) appearances of Jesus Christ.
For those who equate the nominal and verbal forms of ἐπιφάνεια/ἐπιφαίνω, ἡ
χάρις τοῦ θεοῦ refers to the embodiment of a divine quality in “Christ’s appear-
ance” (Malherbe 2005: 336), while some would even consider this a “hyposta-
tization” of this divine quality (affirmed by Dibelius, but disputed by Conzel-
mann; Dibelius and Conzelmann, 142 n. 7). It is best, however, to take the verb
ἐπιφαίνω in the sense of φανερόω, and ἡ χάρις τοῦ θεοῦ as the message of God’s
grace (cf. τῷ λόγῳ τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ, Acts 20:32); therefore, ἐπεφάνη … ἡ χάρις
τοῦ θεοῦ is to be understood in the sense of ἐφανέρωσεν … τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ ἐν
κηρύγματι (1:3; cf. Wieland, 200). The manifestation of this grace is, therefore,
comparable to the manifestation of other divine qualities (cf. ἡ χρηστότης καὶ ἡ
φιλανθρωπία ἐπεφάνη, 3:4; Smith and Song 2006: 286).
The unclear use of the adjective σωτήριος has prompted later scribes to
insert an article for an attributive reading (see Text-Critical Analysis), while
others have taken it as in apposition to ἡ χάρις τοῦ θεοῦ (Radermacher, Neutes-
tamentliche Grammatik, 117) or even adverbially (“with saving power,” Moule,
Idiom, 114). The predicate reading fits well here (Turner, Syntax, 186–187) with
the nt hapax σωτήριος in the sense of “bringing salvation,” and as in Classical
usages, σωτήριος can take the dative of advantage (lsj, 1751). πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις,
therefore, modifies this adjective rather than the verb ἐπεφάνη (contra Fiore,
210–211), as is consistent with the emphasis on the universal scope of the offer
of salvation in the pe (cf. πάντας ἀνθρώπους θέλει σωθῆναι, 1 Tim 2:4; ἀντίλυτρον
ὑπὲρ πάντων, 1Tim 2:6; σωτὴρ πάντων ἀνθρώπων, 1 Tim 4:10).

▪ 12 παιδεύουσα ἡμᾶς, ἵνα ἀρνησάμενοι τὴν ἀσέβειαν καὶ τὰς κοσμικὰς ἐπιθυμίας
σωφρόνως καὶ δικαίως καὶ εὐσεβῶς ζήσωμεν ἐν τῷ νῦν αἰῶνι. The present participle
παιδεύουσα, which grammaticalizes imperfective aspect, stands in the midst of
a series of aorist verbs and portrays an open-ended process. In this context, it
draws attention to the implications of the manifestation of the grace of God
among believers.
ἵνα here appears to introduce an object clause rather than a purpose clause.
This distinction affirmed by classical grammarians (Smyth, Greek Grammar,
§ 2193; cf. bdf §388) is, however, rooted in diachronic analysis, and such a dis-
tinction may not apply to Koine texts where ἵνα often aims at alerting “the
reader to expect a thought, desire or intention of the speaker” (Sim 2006: 4).
476 titus

Within this object clause, the focus is on the predicate encoded in the aorist
subjunctive ζήσωμεν, which is modified by the adjuncts in the form of partici-
ples that precede (ἀρνησάμενοι) and follow (προσδεχόμενοι, v. 13) it. The temporal
sequence of these acts is marked by the temporal marker ἐν τῷ νῦν αἰῶνι that
modifies ζήσωμεν, which encourages ἀρνησάμενοι to be considered as a prior act,
especially since an aorist participle is expected to depict an antecedent act. It
may refer to a distinct point in time (i.e., the time of baptism: Kelly, 245; Han-
son, 184) since acts of denying (ἀρνέομαι) one’s past often accompany acts of
confessing the mighty works of God (ὁμολογέω, 1:16); nevertheless, believers are
expected to continue denouncing practices from their former lives throughout
their earthly existence, as evidenced by the encouragement of Christian lead-
ers to continue to live a faithful life (cf. 1:7–9). The general temporal progression
is confirmed since the second participial clause (in v. 13) refers distinctly to the
expectation of events that are yet to take place.
The use of ἀρνησάμενοι may allude to the description of the false teachers
who, instead of denying their own unfaithful works, “deny” (ἀρνοῦνται) God
with their evil deeds (1:16). The καί that connects τὴν ἀσέβειαν and τὰς κοσμικὰς
ἐπιθυμίας carries an epexegetical sense, with the plural τὰς … ἐπιθυμίας limiting
the reference of τὴν ἀσέβειαν. ἀσέβεια is an antonym of εὐσέβεια, a general ref-
erence to godliness (1:1; cf. εὐσεβῶς, 2:12), and the plural τὰς … ἐπιθυμίας always
denotes evil desires (cf. 3:3), an idea reinforced by the adjective κοσμικάς.
In contrast to the life and behavior that are to be denied, three equally gen-
eral adverbs are used to describe the behavior encouraged for the believers in
“the present age” (τῷ νῦν αἰῶνι): σωφρόνως καὶ δικαίως καὶ εὐσεβῶς. In light of the
repeated uses of three-fold descriptors in reference to both virtues (cf. 3:2b)
and vices (1:16) in this letter, it is best to see these as general descriptions of a
desired pattern of behavior. The use of all three word groups (σωφρ-, 1:8; 2:2, 4,
5, 6; δικαι-, 1:8; 3:5, 7; εὐσεβ-, 1:1) elsewhere in this letter would further argue for
this reading.

▪ 13 προσδεχόμενοι τὴν μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ
καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. Corresponding to ἀρνησάμενοι in v. 12, προσδε-
χόμενοι also modifies the aorist subjunctive ζήσωμεν, but the shift to the present
tense προσδεχόμενοι draws attention to the act of anticipation as a contempo-
raneous act with godly living. With one article governing μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα and
ἐπιφάνειαν, καί likely carries an epexegetical sense. τῆς δόξης has been taken as
an objective genitive (see, in particular, Harris 1992: 288; Fee 2007: 443), but in
its context it is best taken as an attributive genitive (Rom 8:21; 9:23; 2 Cor 4:6;
Hanson, 184) primarily because of the parallel between the adjectival μακαρίαν
and τῆς δόξης:
2:11–15 477

τὴν μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα

καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης

More important is the exact meaning of τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆ-
ρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ: (1) taking τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ and σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ
Χριστοῦ as referring to two persons, thus: “the glory of our great God and of
our Savior Jesus Christ;” (2) taking Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ in apposition to τοῦ μεγάλου
θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν, thus referring to one person: “the glory of our great God
and Savior, Jesus Christ;” and (3) taking τῆς δόξης as a christological title, with
Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ standing in apposition to τῆς δόξης, thus: “the glory of our great
God, namely our Savior Jesus Christ,” or “the glory of our great God and Savior,
namely Jesus Christ.”
Those who argue for (1) often base their arguments on “the dogmatic con-
viction derived from Paul’s writings that this apostle cannot have called Christ
‘the great God’” (Winer, Treatise, 162). Such dogmatic conviction is based on (i)
“the subordination of Christ” elsewhere in the “epiphany passages” in the pe
(1 Tim 6:13–14; 2Tim 1:9–10; 2Tim 4:1; Titus 3:4), (ii) the fact that Paul nowhere
else directly identifies Jesus Christ as God, and this distinction continues in
the pe (1Tim 1:1; 5:21; 6:13; 2Tim 1:1; 4:1; Titus 1:4; 3:4–6; Kelly, 247), and (iii) the
alleged parallels between 1Tim 2:1–7 and 2:11–14 that may suggest taking “θεός
and Ἰησούς Χριστός as two different persons” (Edwards 2011: 147).
In response to these observations: (i) in the epiphany passages, the distinct
roles of God the Father and Jesus Christ in the history of salvation are often
noted when epiphany language is used in reference to Jesus’s earthly ministry
(cf. 2Tim 1:9–10; Titus 2:11; 3:4–5), but when such language is used in reference
to the parousia, as in the present verse, any notion of subordination disappears
(cf. 2Tim 4:1, 8). (ii) The identification of Christ with God is not entirely absent
elsewhere in Paul (see Theological Analysis). (iii) While the parallels between
Titus 2:11–14 and 1Tim 2:1–7 cannot be denied, the emphases of the two are not
identical, with 1Tim 2:5 on the role of Jesus as the mediator and Titus 2:13 on
the unity of God the Father and Christ in the fulfillment of the blessed hope
of believers (cf. Harris 2011: 149). The strongest argument against this reading
lies, however, in the proper understanding of the article-noun-καί-noun con-
struction, one that, in turn, provides the strongest argument for the following
reading.
Reading (2) that takes Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ in apposition to τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ
σωτῆρος ἡμῶν rests primarily on the Granville Sharp’s rule. In his original appli-
cation of this rule to our present verse, Sharp concludes that “Christ is not
only entitled God, but even the ‘great God,’ according to the plainest gram-
matical construction of the text” (Sharp, 1803: 24), a conclusion accepted by
478 titus

many subsequent grammarians (Moulton, Prolegomena, 84; Robertson, Gram-

mar, 785–786; cf. bdf §276[3] and §442[16]).
Noting several qualifications and exceptions, Wallace provides a revised def-
inition that he claims provides an “absolute principle of nt grammar” (Wallace
2009: 233), one that accounts for all such constructions in ancient Greek litera-
ture: “In native Greek constructions (i.e., not translation Greek), when a single
article modifies two substantives connected by καί (thus, article-substantive-
καί-substantive), when both substances are (1) singular (both grammatically
and semantically), (2) personal, (3) and common nouns (not proper names
or ordinals), they have the same referent” (Wallace 2009: 281). This definition
reaffirms what Sharp affirms, but it seeks to argue for absolute certainty in the
identification of Jesus with God here in Titus 2:13. Its application in this case
can be accepted since θεός is not to be considered a proper name, even in the
Pauline Epistles (since unlike a proper name, θεός often appears in the plural
and is often arthrous; Wallace 2009: 252). Without arguing for the absolute cer-
tainty that Wallace claims (cf. Porter 2013: 93), many continue to affirm the
validity of applying Sharp’s rule to this verse (Harris 1992: 173–185; Lau, 243–
250).
Reading (3) that considers Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ as standing in apposition to τῆς
δόξης is proposed by Hort (1909: 103–104) and defended most rigorously by Fee
(2007: 444–446; cf. Towner, 751–754) primarily in light of (i) the identification of
Christ as the manifestation of God’s glory in 2Cor 3:7–4:6; (ii) the lack of explicit
reference of Christ as θεός; (iii) the parallel with Col 2:2 (ἐπίγνωσιν τοῦ μυστηρίου
τοῦ θεοῦ, Χριστοῦ); and (iv) the parallel with the manifestation of the grace of
God (ἐπεφάνη γὰρ ἡ χάρις τοῦ θεοῦ) in v. 11. These, however, remain unconvincing
(see Bowman 2008: 733–752; Wallace 2009: 257–264): (i) the distance between
τῆς δόξης and Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ remains an obstacle to this reading; (ii) nowhere
else is Jesus Christ identified as God’s glory in the pe; (iii) τῆς δόξης should best
be taken as an attributive genitive (see above); (iv) identifying Jesus Christ as
God is consistent with the high Christology of the pe (see above); (v) Col 2:2 is
not a true parallel because τοῦ μυστηρίου cannot possibly be understood as an
attributive genitive, as τῆς δόξης can; and (vi) neither is ἡ χάρις τοῦ θεοῦ in v. 11 a
true parallel because this phrase is nowhere considered a christological title.
Situating the disputed phrase ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆ-
ρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ within its immediate context, the parallel between τὴν
μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα and ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης should again be noted. As Jesus Christ
is identified as “our hope” (τῆς ἐλπίδος ἡμῶν) in 1 Tim 1:1, the “blessed hope”
then parallels the “glorious manifestation,” with both pointing to Christ him-
self: the manifestation of God/Christ provides the definition of the “blessed
hope.” Reading (2), therefore, remains the most viable option.
2:11–15 479

▪ 14 ὃς ἔδωκεν ἑαυτὸν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, ἵνα λυτρώσηται ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ πάσης ἀνομίας καὶ
καθαρίσῃ ἑαυτῷ λαὸν περιούσιον, ζηλωτὴν καλῶν ἔργων. The relative pronoun ὅς
introduces a relative clause that provides further characterization of Ἰησοῦ Χρι-
στοῦ in the previous clause, and this clause is, in turn, modified by two purpose
clauses introduced by ἵνα followed by two aorist subjunctives (λυτρώσηται and
καθαρίσῃ). The first purpose clause points to the negative condition from which
believers are delivered, and the second points to the positive pattern of behav-
ior that the believers are empowered to follow. Reading these two together,
Paul and his audience (ἡμᾶς) are now identified as Christ’s own special people
(ἑαυτῷ λαὸν περιούσιον). This ecclesiological note builds on the early christolog-
ical one that explicitly identifies Christ with God (v. 13) since God’s people are
now identified as Christ’s own people.
The use of ὑπέρ instead of ἀντί (as in Mark 10:45) is insignificant since the
two are often used interchangeably in Koine Greek (Robertson, Grammar, 632;
Turner, Syntax, 271), as illustrated by the use of both ὑπέρ and ἀντίλυτρον in 1 Tim
2:6. Along the same lines, the use of λυτρόω instead of the nominal ἀντίλυτρον
should not be considered as less emphatic. The distinction between ἀπό and ἐκ
is likewise blurred, with ἀπὸ πάσης ἀνομίας echoing ἐκ πασῶν τῶν ἀνομιῶν αὐτοῦ
of Ps 129:8 (cf. ἐλυτρώθητε ἐκ τῆς ματαίας ὑμῶν ἀναστροφῆς, 1 Pet 1:18).
The move from the negative λυτρώσηται ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ πάσης ἀνομίας to the pos-
itive καθαρίσῃ ἑαυτῷ λαὸν περιούσιον recalls the pattern in v. 12. In this specific
context, following the call to proper behavior in vv. 1–10, the emphasis is on
present living as the asymmetrical structure with the additional phrase ζηλω-
τὴν καλῶν ἔργων testifies.

▪ 15 Ταῦτα λάλει καὶ παρακάλει καὶ ἔλεγχε μετὰ πάσης ἐπιταγῆς· μηδείς σου περι-
φρονείτω. This asyndetic clause provides the proper conclusion to the unit with
the anaphoric ταῦτα referring back to vv. 11–14, perhaps even including mate-
rial that extends all the way back to v. 1 (cf. λάλει, v. 1; Ellis 1987: 244). Shifting
from a sentence introduced by the aorist indicative ἐπεφάνη, the present imper-
atives in this sentence redirect the attention back to Titus and his responsibility
among the community of believers. This is also marked by the shift from a com-
plex hypotactic sentence to a paratactic one where the first three imperatives
(λάλει, παρακάλει, ἔλεγχε) are connected by the repeated καί. The specific con-
text in which these clauses are located explains the presence of an adjunct
(μετὰ πάσης ἐπιταγῆς) only in the third imperatival clause when the false teach-
ers are in view, although this adjunct may refer to all three predicates.
The final clause with the third-person imperative (περιφρονείτω) that is not
connected to the previous with a καί should best be considered as providing
the general support for the carrying out of the previous three second-person
480 titus

imperatives (cf. 1Tim 4:12). As in the general use of third-person imperatives,

περιφρονείτω again has a second-person focus (Fantin, Greek Imperative, 169–
170) as it draws attention to the responsibility of Titus himself. This provides
a fitting conclusion to the wider section that begins and ends with a second-
person singular personal pronoun (σύ, v. 1; σου, v. 15).
The shift from the predominately aorist verbs of vv. 11–14 to the four present
imperatives in v. 15 (λάλει, παρακάλει, ἔλεγχε, περιφρονείτω) provides a fitting
conclusion to this section as the link between beliefs and behavior is made.

Bibliography
Bowman, Robert M., Jr. “Jesus Christ, God Manifest: Titus 2:13 Revisited.” jets 5 (2008):
733–752.
Edwards, J. Christopher. “The Christology of Titus 2:13 and 1 Timothy 2:5.” TynBul 62
(2011): 141–147.
Ellis, E. Earle. “Traditions in the Pastoral Epistles.” In Early Jewish and Christian Exege-
sis. Ed. Craig A. Evans and William F. Stinespring, 237–253. Atlanta: Scholars Press,
1987.
Fee, Gordon D. Pauline Christology: An Exegetical-Theological Study. Peabody, MA: Hen-
drickson, 2007.
Harris, Murray J. “A Brief Response to ‘The Christology of Titus 2:13 and 1 Tim. 2:5’ by
J. Christopher Edwards.” TynBul 62 (2011): 149–150.
Harris, Murray J. Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus.
Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992.
Hort, F.J.A. The Epistle of St. James. London: Macmillan, 1909.
Malherbe, Abraham J. “‘Christ Jesus Came into the World to Save Sinners’: Soteriology
in the Pastoral Epistles.” In Salvation in the New Testament. Ed. Jan G. van der Watt,
331–358. NovTSup 121. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2005.
Mott, Stephen Charles. “Greek Ethics and Christian Conversion: The Philonic Back-
ground of Titus 2:10–14 and 3:3–7.” NovT 20 (1978): 22–48.
Porter, Stanley E. “Granville Sharp’s Rule: A Response to Dan Wallace, or Why a Critical
Book Review Should Be Left Alone.” jets 56 (2013): 93–100.
Sharp, Granville. Remarks on the Uses of the Definitive Article in the Greek Text of the
New Testament. Third Edition. London: Vernor and Hood, 1803.
Sim, Margaret Gavin. “A Relevance Theoretic Approach to the Particle Ἵνα in Koine
Greek.” Ph.D. diss., University of Edinburgh, 2006.
Smith, Kevin, and Arthur Song. “Some Christological Implications in Titus 2:13.”Neot 40
(2006): 284–294.
Titrud, Kermit. “The Overlooked Καί in the Greek New Testament.” Notes 5 (1991): 1–28.
Wallace, Daniel B. Granville Sharp’s Canon and Its Kin. sbg 14. New York: Peter Lang,
2009.
2:11–15 481

4 Historical Analysis
Embedded in this section are elements that can be classified as confessional
and/or hymnic, with sentiments that can be found in other early Christian litur-
gical material (cf. Odes Sol. 41; Richards, 89). In its present form, however, it
appears to be a well-constructed section that responds directly to the concerns
of the Cretan community.
First, in emphasizing the provision of God’s salvation “for all people” (v. 11),
both distinctly Gentile and Jewish traditions are evoked. παιδεύω language
would be familiar to a Greco-Roman audience (v. 12a), while σωφρόνως, and
δικαίως, and εὐσεβῶς (v. 12b) recall the cardinal virtues of their moral tradi-
tions. The eschatological framework within which “the present age” (v. 12) as
well as “the blessed hope” (v. 13) is to be understood is distinctly Jewish, how-
ever. Moreover, with v. 14, where ot traditions and Septuagintal language are
used in the presentation of Jesus’s redemptive acts (cf. lxx Exod 19:5; 2 Sam
7:23; Ps 129:8; Isa 42:6–7; 49:6–8; Ezek 37:23), “the weight has shifted” as Paul
now draws primarily from the Jewish and early Christian traditions (cf. Mal-
herbe 2005: 348). Drawing from both traditions, the universal scope of Jesus’s
salvation is emphatically noted.
Second, while this section does provide the theological basis for the exhorta-
tion that precedes, the intersection between belief and behavior is also evident
even here. Between the appearance of the grace of God (v. 11) and the future
glorious manifestation of Jesus Christ (v. 13), believers are called to live a godly
life while renouncing ungodliness (v. 12). In the midst of a statement saturated
with ot language and tradition, the reference to God’s people “who are zeal-
ous for good works” is unparalleled (cf. Lappenga 2013: 707), pointing to Paul’s
emphasis on the behavioral implications of divine redemptive acts.

▪ 11 For the ἐπιφάνεια/ἐπιφαίνω word group, see comments on 1 Tim 6:14. For
those who equate the two forms, the use of this word group with the σωτήρ-
word group (cf. 1Tim 1:1) may evoke an imperial cult context (cf. ogis 458;
IEph 251) as is likely the case in 1Tim 2:1–7 (Gill 2008: 94–99). Others, however,
have pointed to the philosophical background being prominent when these
two word groups are read with παιδεύω, where benefits are experienced when
an individual is cured of his ignorance through the process of moral education
(cf. Dio Chrysostom, Exil. 10, 17–18; Malherbe 2005: 341).
Without denying the influence of either context while maintaining the dis-
tinction between the noun ἐπιφάνεια and the verb ἐπιφαίνω, it is best to read
this verse within the larger benefaction context, especially since both χάρις
and the σωτήρ-word group belong to this context (Harrison 2003: 245). The
Roman emperor, for example, is honored as “the savior and benefactor of the
482 titus

world” (τῷ σωτῆρι καὶ εὐεργέτῃ τῆς οἰκουμένης, ogis 668; cf. Aristotle, Pol. 1310b),
who bestows “grace” freely among his subjects (cf. χάριτι … ἐχαρίσατο, IEph 459).
Likewise, philosophers who bestow knowledge on their followers are also con-
sidered benefactors (Plato, Gorg. 506c). Moreover, one also finds terms such as
φιλανθρωπία and χρηστότης used with the σωτήρ-word group (3:4) in this wider
context; therefore, a benefaction context cannot be denied (cf. Philo, Leg. 3.73;
Migr. 122; Praem. 166–167; Mott 1978: 44). Paul will make it clear, however, that
neither the military might of the Roman emperors nor the education provided
by the philosophers is sufficient; instead, the self-sacrificial act of Jesus is that
which redeems his people (v. 14), and, as such, he is the benefactor of all.

▪ 12 The choice of the verb παιδεύω to introduce a series of vices and virtues is
familiar to the Hellenistic audience; in view is the moral education that aims at
the development of a virtuous life (Plato, Gorg. 519e; Plutarch, Aem 31.7; Mor.
576e). As such, this clause has been read primarily in light of a Greco-Roman
background (for παιδεία as the cultivation of virtues and as the most promi-
nent of all ideal virtues, see Jaeger 1944: 222–230), and as yet another piece that
argues for the pseudonymous authorship of this letter (Barrett, 137).
Even here, however, the influence of Hellenistic Jewish traditions cannot be
denied. First, already in the canonical books of the lxx, παιδεύω is used in the
sense of discipline and chastisement (Lev 26:18, 28; Deut 8:5; 1 Kgs 12:11), and this
usage survives in the later Hellenistic Jewish works (Tob 4:14; 2 Macc 6:16; 10:4;
Wis 3:5; 6:11; Sir 18:13) as well as the earlier Pauline writings (1 Cor 11:32). Similar
uses can be found in the pe (1Tim 1:20; 2Tim 2:25), and the sense of moral edu-
cation for the attainment of a perfectly virtuous life is absent in these contexts.
Second, the eschatological framework within which such vices and virtues
are situated in the clauses that follow points to a distinct Jewish thought world.
The closest parallel with this Hellenistic use of the term in the sense of “educa-
tion” within a wider Jewish framework of reference can be found in Acts (7:22;
22:3).
Third, this section begins with “the grace of God,” pointing to the primacy of
divine redemptive work and drawing the attention away from the virtuous life
of the individual to the work of God, which culminates in the “glorious man-
ifestation of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ” (v. 13; cf. Malherbe 2005:
347).
For ἀσέβεια (cf. 2Tim 2:16), see comments on the εὐσέβεια word group in 1 Tim
2:2 and 3:16. In this context, ἀσέβεια is contrasted with εὐσεβῶς ζήσωμεν that fol-
lows. For ἐπιθυμία, see comments on 1Tim 6:9, where ἐπιθυμίας … ἀνοήτους can
be considered a rough equivalent to τὰς κοσμικὰς ἐπιθυμίας here. Elsewhere,
ἀσέβεια is rarely used with ἐπιθυμία, with an exception in Jude 18 (ἐπιθυμίας
2:11–15 483

… τῶν ἀσεβειῶν). κοσμικός can be used in the neutral/spatial sense of “earthly”

(Heb 9:1; cf. Sib. Or. 8.444; Philo, Aet. 53.5; Josephus, B.J. 4.324) but carries a dis-
tinctly negative sense here. This is consistent with the Pauline conception of
κόσμος as a place dominated by sin and evil powers (Rom 5:12; 1 Cor 11:32; Gal
4:3; Col 2:8, 20) and as a realm that opposes God and his gospel (1 Cor 1:20–21,
27–28; 2:12; 3:19, 22; Phil 2:15).
The σωφρόνως, δικαίως, and εὐσεβῶς word groups are familiar in the pe (see
1 Tim 1:9; 2:2, 9). σώφρων and δίκαιος often appear together (Diogenes Laertius,
Vit. 7.126; Xenophon, Apol. 14.8; Plato, Leg. 660e; Aristotle, Eth. nic. 1105a; 4 Macc
2:23), with εὐσέβεια added to traditional Stoic virtues in selected Greek authors
(Lucian, Somn. 10; Malherbe 2005: 343) and especially in Philo (Sobr. 42; Mos.
2.216; Praem. 160; Mott 1978: 25). As such, these three have been considered a
short-hand for the four cardinal virtues of the Hellenistic moral philosophers
(Mott 1978: 23–28), while others see these as direct responses to the three-fold
descriptions of the Cretans in 1:12 (ψεῦσται, κακὰ θηρία, γαστέρες ἀργαί, Kidd
1999: 186–188). With the repeated uses of these three word groups in the pe,
however, these may merely be general descriptions of behavior that is to be
contrasted with τὴν ἀσέβειαν καὶ τὰς κοσμικὰς ἐπιθυμίας.

▪ 13 For the use of μακάριος within Hellenistic Jewish traditions, see comments
on 1Tim 1:11, where one also finds the genitival τῆς δόξης. For the parallel use of
μακάριος and δόξα (in an adjectival or substantival sense), see Apoc. El. frag. B
1.4. For ἐλπίς, see 1Tim 1:1, where it centers on Christ Jesus, which supports the
identification of Christ as God here.
For ἐπιφάνεια, see 1Tim 6:14, where it is also used in an eschatological con-
text in reference to “the manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ” (cf. 2 Tim 4:1,
8). The frequent pairing of ἐπιφάνεια and δόξα in Greek literature (Diodorus of
Sicily, Hist. 37.29.2; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 6.52.2; Strabo, Geogr.
1.3.4; Plutarch, Marc. 20.7; Epictetus, Diatr. 3.22.29) may argue against seeing
the latter as a reference to God and thus, in turn, supports the reading of τῆς
δόξης as an attributive genitive.
In addition to the application of the Granville Sharp’s rule for the reading of
τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (see Grammatical Analysis),
contextual considerations further argue for the identification of Jesus Christ
with God: (i) ἐπιφάνεια is always applied to one person (i.e., Jesus Christ) in
the pe (1Tim 6:14; 2Tim 1:10; 4:1, 8) and elsewhere in Paul (2 Thess 2:8; Mal-
herbe 2005: 348); (ii) the focus of 2:11–14 is on the unity of the redemptive act
of God and Jesus Christ, rather than on the assumption of the divine nature
by a human being as the Cretans would have suggested (cf. Kidd 1999: 202);
(iii) ὁ θεὸς καὶ σωτήρ appears to be a set phrase in Hellenistic works (bgu 366,
484 titus

367, 368; Moulton, Prolegomena, 84; Spicq, 2:640); and (iv) μέγας, an appella-
tion that is often applied to pagan deities (Homer, Il. 5.434; 8.200; Od. 2.377;
Euripides, Herc. fur. 342) and also to God in the lxx (Deut 7:21; 10:17; 2 Chron
2:4; Ps 94:3; Isa 26:4; Jer 39:18; Dan 2:45; 2Esd 5:8; 3 Macc 7:2, 22; cf. Sib. Or. 1.322;
3.55; Philo, Somn. 1.94; Abr. 235.1), though never to God the Father in the nt, is
best understood as a reference to the atoning work of Jesus Christ in v. 14 (1 Tim
3:16).

▪ 14 One finds a distinct turn when Paul evokes the language of God’s past
redemptive events in depicting Christ’s work on the cross and its ecclesiological
ramifications. ἔδωκεν ἑαυτὸν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, ἵνα λυτρώσηται ἡμᾶς recalls the confes-
sional statement of 1Tim 2:6 (ὁ δοὺς ἑαυτὸν ἀντίλυτρον ὑπὲρ πάντων). Following
the striking christological note in the previous clause, the use of the reflexive
pronoun ἑαυτόν in this statement may be of added significance, especially when
followed by the additional phrase ἀπὸ πάσης ἀνομίας alluding to Psalm 129:8
(lxx): the God of Israel who redeems his own people is now identified with
Christ our Savior (cf. Spicq, 2.642).
In this context, λυτρόω, followed by λαὸν περιούσιον in the next clause, may
further point to God’s redemptive act in the exodus event (Deut 7:6–8; see also
Luke 24:21; cf. Brown 2014: 146). Dependence on Mark 10:45 is also possible,
especially through its appropriation in the earlier Pauline tradition where the
Markan ἀντὶ πολλῶν is applied more directly to the community addressed, ὑπὲρ
τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν (Gal 1:4; see Towner 1989: 109, who suggests that ἀντίλυτρον
ὑπὲρ πάντων in 1Tim 2:6 preserves an earlier form of the saying).
Allusions to the ot can be found even within these elaborated clauses. ἀπὸ
πάσης ἀνομίας καὶ καθαρίσῃ ἑαυτῷ λαὸν περιούσιον recalls Ezek 37:23 in particu-
lar (cf. Ezek 36:25–27; Fee 2007: 447). Taking both the λυτρώσηται and καθαρίσῃ
clauses together, one may also detect an influence from the Isaianic Servant
Songs (Isa 42:6–7; 49:6–7), which fits this context well with the concern for the
salvation of both Jews and Gentiles (cf. Barn. 14:6–7; Edwards 2009: 264).
The purity language provides a response to the concerns of 1:15 (καθαρὰ τοῖς
καθαροῖς … καθαρόν), as Paul now points to God’s active redemptive work that
allows a people to be truly cleansed by the price paid by Christ’s own self. λαὸς
περιούσιος belongs to the language of the lxx for the redeemed people of God
(Exod 19:5; 23:22; Deut 7:6; 14:2; 26:18).
Paul’s call for believers to be “zealous for good works” recalls his critique of
the false teachers for being “unfit for any good work” (1:16). This context may
further explain the choice of the lexeme ζηλωτής, as the verbal form (ζηλόω) is
often used in reference to ὁ νόμος (1Macc 2:26, 27, 50, 58; in contrast, see ζηλω-
ταὶ … τῶν κακίας ἔργων, Philo, Spec. 2.170). If so, Paul’s emphasis on the good
2:11–15 485

works that build on Christ’s redemptive works may serve as a response to the
false teachers who are preoccupied with Jewish traditions (1:10–11, 14–15). If,
however, ζηλωτής takes on the meaning of “imitator” (Alciphron, Epist. 3.64; ig
7.2712; seg 834; Lappenga 2013: 712), then ζηλωτὴν καλῶν ἔργων may be a rough
equivalent to τύπον καλῶν ἔργων in v. 7.

▪ 15 λαλέω may refer to the general act of communication (cf. 2:1), while παρακα-
λέω is used primarily in reference to healthy teaching and ἐλέγχω in reference
to those who oppose it (1:9). The (re)use of these three verbs provides a proper
conclusion to this section, the force of which is reinforced by μετὰ πάσης ἐπι-
ταγῆς. Significantly, in the other two appearances of ἐπιταγή in the pe, it is
grounded in the authority of God the Savior (cf. 1:3; 1 Tim 1:1). The full force
of such divine authority should also be read into this context, and, as such, is
comparable to the use of κατ’ ἐπιταγήν to invoke divine authority in the docu-
mentary papyri (cf. seg 824; Horsley 1982: 86) and Hellenistic Jewish traditions
(cf. κατὰ ἐπιταγὴν τὰ πάντα, 1 En. 5.3).
μηδείς σου περιφρονείτω recalls a similar call to Timothy in 1 Tim 4:12, though
age is not explicitly noted here, which may point to Titus’s relative maturity
in years. As in the case of καταφρονέω, περιφρονέω should also be taken as
honor-shame language (cf. 1Tim 4:12), and both can be used as a pair (Pseudo-
Herodianus, Part. 106.7). Titus is not to be looked down upon on the basis that
divine authority rests on him (μετὰ πάσης ἐπιταγῆς).

Bibliography
Edwards, J. Christopher. “Reading the Ransom Logion in 1 Tim 2,6 and Titus 2,14 with
Isa 42,6–7; 49,6–8.” Bib 90 (2009): 264–266.
Gill, Malcolm. Jesus as Mediator: Politics and Polemic in 1 Timothy 2:1–7. Bern: Peter Lang,
2008.
Harrison, James R. Paul’s Language of Grace in its Graeco-Roman Context. wunt 2.172.
Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003.
Horsley, G.H.R. “κατ’ ἐπιταγήν.” NewDocs 2 (1982): 86.
Jaeger, W. Paideia: The Ideals of Greek Culture, Vol. 3. Trans. Gilbert Highet. New York:
Oxford University Press, 1944.
Kidd, Reggie M. “Titus as Apologia: Grace for Liars, Beasts, and Bellies.” hbt 21 (1999):
185–209.
Lappenga, Benjamin J. “‘Zealots for Good Works’: The Polemical Repercussions of the
Word ζηλωτής in Titus 2:14.” cbq 75 (2013): 704–718.
Malherbe, Abraham J. “‘Christ Jesus Came into the World to Save Sinners’: Soteriology
in the Pastoral Epistles.” In Salvation in the New Testament. Ed. Jan G. van der Watt,
331–358. NovTSup 121. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2005.
486 titus

Mott, Stephen Charles. “Greek Ethics and Christian Conversion: The Philonic Back-
ground of Titus 2:10–14 and 3:3–7.” NovT 20 (1978): 22–48.
Towner, Philip H. The Goal of Our Instruction: The Structure of Theology and Ethics in
the Pastoral Epistles. JSNTSup 34. Sheffield: jsot Press, 1989.
Wendland, Paul. “Σωτήρ: Eine religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung.” znw 5 (1904):
335–353.

5 Theological Analysis
Taking Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ in apposition to τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν, this
section provides a strong christological statement with Christ identified as God.
Though not as explicit as here, there are a few other instances where an identi-
fication of God and Christ can be detected in Paul’s earlier writings (e.g., Rom
9:5 where ὁ Χριστός is identified as ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεός). More importantly, the
overlapping roles and descriptors applied to both God and Jesus Christ in the
pe argue for a high Christology that paves the way for an explicit identification
of the two in this verse. These include: glory (Jesus: 2 Tim 2:10; 4:18; Father: 1 Tim
1:17), to commission (both: 1Tim 1:1; 2Tim 1:1), to judge (both: 2 Tim 4:1), witness
of solemn charge (both: 1Tim 6:13; 2Tim 4:1), to save (Jesus: 1 Tim 1:15; Father:
2 Tim 1:9), savior (Jesus: 2Tim 1:10; Titus 1:4; 3:6; Father: 1 Tim 1:1; 2:3; 4:10; Titus
1:3; 2:10; 3:4). The suggestions that an explicit identification of Christ as God is
absent elsewhere in Paul would make the departure from the pattern here all
the more important (Harris 1992: 177); nonetheless this departure is but a nat-
ural extension of the implicit claims made in his earlier writings. Perhaps, one
can detect yet another step for the development of a form of Trinitarianism in
this later work of Paul (Couser 2010: 136).
This robust Christology is also reflected in the soteriology, ecclesiology, es-
chatology, and ethics embedded in this section. In terms of soteriology, the will
and determination of Jesus are fully reflected in the active statement that he
“gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness” (v. 14). This is consistent
with 1Tim 2:6 (“who gave himself as a ransom for all”), though in that con-
text the subordinating role of Jesus is clearly marked by the identification of
him as the “mediator between God and human beings” (1 Tim 2:5). The direct
application of the title “Savior” to Jesus himself (cf. 1:4; 3:6) is, therefore, dis-
tinct from 1Timothy. Instead of taking this as yet another sign of pseudonymity,
these variegated uses of the same title in the different works even within the
pe caution against the flattening of their christological programs (cf. Wieland,
244–245).
The strong connection between Christology and ecclesiology is reflected in
the attribution to Jesus as one “who gave himself for us … to purify for himself
a people of his very own” (v. 14). The use of Septuagintal language (λαὸς περι-
3:1–8 487

ούσιος, Exod 19:5; 23:22; Deut 7:6; 14:2; 26:18) is striking, especially now that this
redeemed people is Christ’s own people. In this new exodus, Christ becomes
the central actor in the creation of a people that are his own through his
redemptive work. This close connection between soteriology and ecclesiology
sets this affirmation apart from Paul’s earlier writings as it almost blurs the dis-
tinction between God the Father and Christ himself (cf. Spicq, 2.257–264).
Finally, eschatological statements are also grounded in this christological
program as Christ is the content of “the blessed hope” (v. 13). This is consis-
tent with earlier Pauline writings (1Cor 15:19; 1Thess 1:3; Col 1:5) and is explicitly
noted at the beginning of 1Timothy (1:1). Here, this “hope” does not lead to a
form of apocalyptic escapism; instead, those awaiting this hope are to be “zeal-
ous for good works” (v. 14). That this “hope” is divorced from christological and
ethical concerns (Hasler 1977: 193–209) is thoroughly debunked in this section
with the focus on both (Kidd, 190–193).

Bibliography
Couser, Greg A. “The Sovereign Savior of 1 and 2Timothy and Titus.” In Entrusted with
the Gospel: Paul’s Theology in the Pastoral Epistles. Ed. Andreas J. Köstenberger and
Terry L. Wilder, 105–136. Nashville: B&H Academic, 2010.
Harris, Murray J. Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus.
Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992.
Hasler, Victor. “Epiphanie und Christologie in den Pastoralbriefen.” tz 33 (1977): 193–
209.

iv Responsibilities of Believers to the Wider Society (3:1–11)

A Be Ready for Good Work (3:1–8)

1 Translation
1 Remind them to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be
ready for every good work, 2 to slander no one, to be peaceable and gentle,
showing complete kindness to all people. 3 For we too were once foolish, dis-
obedient, led astray, enslaved by various desires and pleasures living in evil
and envy, being hateful and hating one another. 4 But when the benevolence
and philanthropy of God our Savior appeared, 5 he saved us, not because of
works of righteousness that we have done, but according to his own mercy,
through the washing that produces new birth, that is, the renewal by the Holy
Spirit, 6 whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7
so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs in accor-
dance with the hope of eternal life. 8 This saying is trustworthy. And I want
488 titus

you to insist on these things so that those who trust in God may be careful to
devote themselves to good works. These things are good and profitable for peo-
ple.

2 Text-Critical Analysis
▪ 1 ἐξουσίαις: Many Byzantine witnesses (D1 K L P 0278 1505 pm 𝔐 lat sy)10 insert
καί before ἐξουσίαις, but its omission is supported by the earlier Alexandrian
(‫ א‬A C 0205)11 and Western (D F G) witnesses. The insertion may have been
an attempt to avoid asyndeton (Lock, xxxviii) or an influence by the phrase
ἀρχή καὶ ἐξουσία that appears elsewhere in Paul (Eph 1:21; Col 2:10, 15). Though
Elliott (212) considers καί necessary (cf. Kilpatrick, 17), Metzger (Textual Com-
mentary, 586) is correct in noting the intentional concise writing style in this
verse as reflected by the absence of καί among the infinitival clauses that fol-
low.

▪ 1 πειθαρχεῖν: Isolated witnesses insert καί before (F G) or after (A) this infinitive
to remove the asyndeton, ignoring the intentional concise style of this sentence
(see above). Cf. 1Tim 4:3; 5:14; 6:18; Titus 2:9.

▪ 2 ἐνδεικνυμένους πραΰτητα: Instead of ἐνδεικνυμένους πραΰτητα, ‫ *א‬reads ἐνδεί-

κνυσθαι σπουδὴν τά, making a change to the infinitive following the two preced-
ing infinitives (βλασφημεῖν, εἶναι) and likely assimilating to ἐνδείκνυσθαι σπουδήν
in Heb 6:11. A visual examination of the digital facsimile of Codex Sinaiticus
[folio 297b column 2] shows that the scribe corrected the original by inserting
only part of the word πραυτη- above the first line and starting the second line
with -τα; therefore, ‫ *א‬should read ἐνδείκνυσθαι σπουδήν rather than ἐνδείκνυ-
σθαι σπουδὴν τά.

▪ 3 ἀπειθεῖς: A number of Western witnesses (D ar b t vgmss syp Lcf) insert καί

before ἀπειθεῖς, but its omission is supported by the earliest Alexandrian manu-
scripts (𝔓61vid ‫ א‬A C) together with the later Western (F G) and Byzantine (𝔐)
witnesses.

▪ 5 ἅ: This accusative relative pronoun is replaced by the genitive ὧν in many late

Byzantine witnesses (C2 D2 K L P Ψ 1505 1881 pm 𝔐), an attraction to the pre-
ceding ἔργων. Elliott (63) rejects this variant as an Atticistic correction, which

10 Correcting the listing of D2 in na27, na28 has D1 instead for this variant.
11 For the identification of 0205 as an Alexandrian witness, see Elliott 1994: 183–195.
3:1–8 489

is supported by the convergence of the notable Alexandrian (‫ א‬A C* 0205 1739)

and Western (D* F G Cl) witnesses that read ἅ.

▪ 5 αὐτοῦ ἔλεος: The inverted order (ἔλεος αὐτοῦ) attested in a few Western
uncials (D* F G) is accepted by Elliott (191) because it is “the more Semitic order”
as reflected in Luke 1:50 and 58. The external support for ἔλεος αὐτοῦ is limited,
however, and scribes that follow this “Semitic order” might have been influ-
enced by the Septuagintal uses that overwhelmingly prefer this order (Ruth
2:20; 1Chron 16:34; 2Chron 7:3; Ps 30:22).

▪ 5 πνεύματος: διά is inserted before πνεύματος in a number of Western witnesses

(D* F G b vgmss Lcf), possibly an assimilation to 2 Tim 1:14. Its absence is sup-
ported by the earliest Alexandrian uncials (‫ א‬A C; cf. 1739 1881) followed by the
later Byzantine witnesses (33 69 1505 pm 𝔐). The insertion of διά would be con-
fusing since the previous διά should be understood as controlling both λουτροῦ
παλιγγενεσίας and ἀνακαινώσεως πνεύματος ἁγίου.

▪ 6 τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν: Instead of referring to Jesus as τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν, the
minuscule 33 and a few lectionaries read τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν. Ehrman (2011: 102)
sees this as yet another example of “anti-adoptionistic corruptions of Scrip-
ture.” Nevertheless, this change can also be explained by the immediate context
where God himself is explicitly identified as σωτήρ ἡμῶν (v. 4; cf. 1:3; 2:10, 13).

▪ 7 γενηθῶμεν: Many late witnesses (‫א‬2 D2 K L Ψ 365 1241 1505 𝔐) replace this
aorist verb with the middle γενώμεθα, but the passive γενηθῶμεν is supported
by the best Alexandrian (‫ *א‬A C 0205 1739) and Western (D* F G) witnesses.
The presence of this rare aorist passive subjunctive (nt hapax) might have
prompted some scribes to replace it with the more common middle subjunc-
tive (2Cor 5:21; cf. Rom 3:19; 15:16; 1Cor 3:18; Col 1:18).

▪ 8 καλά: τά is inserted before καλά in the majority of late Byzantine witnesses

(D2 K L P Ψ 630 1241 𝔐), but τά is missing in the best Alexandrian (𝔓61 ‫א‬
A C 1739) and Western (D* F G) witnesses. καλά and ὠφέλιμα are to be taken
as predicate adjectives where an article is missing.

Bibliography
Ehrman, Bart. The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2011.
Elliott, J.K. “A Greek-Coptic (Sahidic) Fragment of Titus-Philemon (0205).” NovT 36
(1994): 183–195.
490 titus

3 Grammatical Analysis
As 2:1–10 is dominated by present imperatives (λάλει, v. 1; παρακάλει, v. 6) and
followed by a creedal statement (2:11–14) introduced by the conjunction γάρ,
this section likewise begins with a long sentence dominated by a present imper-
ative (ὑπομίμνῃσκε, v. 1) followed by a creedal statement (vv. 3–7) introduced by
the conjunction γάρ. In both creedal statements, one finds the shift to aorist
verbs and a focus on salvation-related themes (σωτήριος, 2:11; σωτῆρος, 2:13;
λυτρώσηται, 2:14; καθαρίσῃ, 2:15; σωτῆρος, 3:4; ἔσωσεν, 3:5; λουτροῦ; 3:5; δικαιω-
θέντες, 3:7). Despite these similarities, the transition from the previous section
to the present one is clear since Paul turns his attention from various sectors
within the community of believers to the wider community of believers who
are to interact peacefully and gently with the ruling authorities (3:1) and others
beyond their community (3:2). This paves the way for the next section, which
criticizes the false teachers for being divisive and belligerent (3:9–11) and is
marked by the developmental δέ (v. 9).
The ending of this unit is disputed. Many consider 3:1–11 a distinct unit that
is paraenetic in intent (Kelly, 248; Spicq, 2.645), though the distinct shift from
the witness of the believers in vv. 1–8 to the focus on the response to the false
teachers in vv. 9–11 is often noted. More difficult is whether v. 8 should be con-
sidered with vv. 1–7 or as a transitional sentence. The anaphoric πιστὸς ὁ λόγος
of v. 8a convinces some to consider this phrase the concluding remark of the
unit (Quinn, 187), but it is quite unusual to find the conjunction καί (v. 8b) at
the beginning of a new unit (cf. Levinsohn, “Some Constraints,” 328). Moreover,
both περὶ τούτων and ταῦτα in v. 8b are likewise anaphoric, a fact which argues
against seeing the unit break within this verse.
Those who argue for v. 8 as a distinct transitional unit (Hanson, 193; Van
Neste, 246–249) note the shift from the aorist verbs that depict the redemp-
tive act of God in vv. 4–7 to the predominantly present verbs that are used in
the call to good works in v. 8. This shift does not, however, justify the separation
of v. 8 from the previous clauses. The present tense verbs that direct the reader’s
attention to their responsibility in current existence recall the series of present
tense verbs in vv. 1–2, and the connection between the two is further secured
by the references to good works (πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθὸν, v. 1; καλῶν ἔργων, v. 8). Vv. 1–
2 and v. 8 therefore provide the bracket for the creedal statement contained in
vv. 3–7.
The relationship between vv. 1–2 and 3–7 requires further comment. The
focus on submission to rulers and authorities as well as peaceful existence
among all people (vv. 1–2) does not seem to lead naturally to the creedal state-
ment (vv. 3–7). While the call to submission may indeed be rooted in a gen-
eral concern for the witness to the outsiders, such a call can be misconstrued
3:1–8 491

as yielding to the competing power claims of the wider society. Already in

v. 2, the specific call to submit to the “rulers and authorities” (ἀρχαῖς ἐξουσίαις,
v. 1) is relativized by the call to slander “no one” (μηδένα) and to show proper
respect for “all people” (πάντας ἀνθρώπους), implying that “rulers and author-
ities” are not to claim absolute power for themselves. If so, the introduction
of “God our Savior” (τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν θεοῦ) in v. 4 is not unexpected, espe-
cially since benefaction language often used in reference to secular rulers and
authorities (cf. χρηστότης, v. 4; φιλανθρωπία, v. 4; χάρις, v. 7) is now applied to
this God who alone is to be honored (cf. Mott 1978: 46; Historical Analysis).
Similar rhetorical strategies can be found in 1Tim 2:1–7 (cf. Herzer 2014: 115–
116).
3:1–2 constitutes one sentence, with the imperative ὑπομίμνῃσκε followed by
five complementary infinitives. Though it begins with a call to submit (ὑποτάσ-
σεσθαι) to rulers and authorities and to be obedient (πειθαρχεῖν), the remaining
three infinitives (εἶναι, βλασφημεῖν, εἶναι) introduce clauses marked with promi-
nence by the repeated uses of the emphatic “all” (πᾶν, πᾶσαν, πάντας) and “no
one” (μηδένα). These three marked clauses shift the emphasis from the “rulers
and authorities” to “all” people.
Following γάρ (v. 3), which strengthens the commands of vv. 1–2, the tem-
poral marker ποτέ and the imperfect ἦμεν, modified by four participles, depict
the condition of believers in their past. In contrast to this, the temporal marker
ὅτε followed by a series of aorist verbs depicts the accomplishment of God’s
redemptive act in one long sentence (vv. 4–7). The main verb is ἔσωσεν (v. 5b),
which depicts the saving act of God. The two preceding clauses in v. 5a intro-
duced by οὐκ ἐξ … ἀλλὰ κατά set up a contrast between the impotence of human
work and the effective work of God that forms the basis of his redemptive work,
and the two clauses that follow, introduced by διά, provide the means through
which such salvific work is accomplished. The creedal statement ends with
the ἵνα-clause that states the purpose of God’s redemptive act. The concluding
statement in v. 8 echoes v. 1, as the present implications of God’s redemptive
act are again presented in terms of the “good work” (cf. v. 1).

▪ 1 Ὑπομίμνῃσκε αὐτοὺς ἀρχαῖς ἐξουσίαις ὑποτάσσεσθαι, πειθαρχεῖν, πρὸς πᾶν ἔργον

ἀγαθὸν ἑτοίμους εἶναι. The imperative ὑπομίμνῃσκε with five infinitival clauses
form this long sentence in vv. 1–2. Consistent with the four present imperatives
of 2:15, this present tense verb grammaticalizes imperfective aspect as is appro-
priate in a general command. The three complementary infinitives that follow
(ὑποτάσσεσθαι, πειθαρχεῖν, εἶναι) widen the scope of the object of one’s obedi-
ence, and they pave the way for the emphasis on God as the final benefactor of
all (vv. 4–7).
492 titus

The absence of a conjunction between ἀρχαῖς and ἐξουσίαις is unusual and

has prompted some to understand the phrase in the sense of “legitimate rulers”
(Collins, 357); but this absence can be better explained by the listing of various
items in these two verses that are not connected by any conjunction (cf. bdf
§ 460[1]). Though some have insisted on a distinction between ὑποτάσσομαι and
πειθαρχέω (with πειθαρχέω emphasizing the aspect of voluntary consent; cf.
Spicq, tlnt 3:63–65), there is significant overlap in their semantic ranges. In
this context, the difference should not be located within the meaning of these
lexemes but with the lack of an explicit object after πειθαρχεῖν, thus widening
the scope of its reference.

▪ 2 μηδένα βλασφημεῖν, ἀμάχους εἶναι, ἐπιεικεῖς, πᾶσαν ἐνδεικνυμένους πραΰτητα

πρὸς πάντας ἀνθρώπους. The shift from the focus on rulers and authorities is
clear with the all-encompassing μηδένα and πάντας ἀνθρώπους, leading to the
introduction of the true benefactor in the creedal statement that follows (vv. 3–
7). Allusions to the false teachers are likely behind this virtue list. βλασφημέω
has been used elsewhere in the pe in reference to the false teachers (1 Tim 1:20);
the α-privative ἄμαχος anticipates the use of μάχη in reference to the false teach-
ers in v. 9 below (cf. 2Tim 2:23, 24), and ἐπιεικής may also anticipate ἔρις in v. 9.
Finally, πραΰτης is also used in reference to the dealing with the false teachers
in 2Tim 2:25.
The participle ἐνδεικνυμένους has been taken to perform “the same function
as the preceding infinitives” (Mounce, 444), but syntactically it modifies the
preceding εἶναι and should, therefore, best be understood as providing the con-
text for the call to be “peaceable” (ἀμάχους) and “gentle” (ἐπιεικεῖς).

▪ 3 Ἦμεν γάρ ποτε καὶ ἡμεῖς ἀνόητοι, ἀπειθεῖς, πλανώμενοι, δουλεύοντες ἐπιθυμίαις
καὶ ἡδοναῖς ποικίλαις, ἐν κακίᾳ καὶ φθόνῳ διάγοντες, στυγητοί, μισοῦντες ἀλλήλους.
γάρ strengthens the content of vv. 1–2, as the creedal statement that follows
forms the basis of the Pauline imperative. The adverbial καί marks the material
that follows with prominence, as does the emphatic first-person plural pro-
noun ἡμεῖς. Together, they refer not simply to Paul’s “characteristic humility”
in identifying with the pagans (Kelly, 250) but to the general experience of all
those who benefited from God’s benevolent acts. This is reinforced by the use
of the temporal marker ποτέ (cf. καὶ ἡμεῖς … ποτε, Eph 2:3). The imperfect ἦμεν
grammaticalizes imperfective aspect with remote reference as it serves as the
foil for that which is to follow.
Most of the vices in the list that follows reappear elsewhere in the pe, with
the notable exceptions of στυγητοί and μισοῦντες ἀλλήλους, which may reflect
the local context in the community of believers in Crete.
3:1–8 493

▪ 4 ὅτε δὲ ἡ χρηστότης καὶ ἡ φιλανθρωπία ἐπεφάνη τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν θεοῦ. Else-
where in Paul, the contrast to the past (ποτέ) can be marked by the use of the
conjunction δέ (Rom 7:9), the adverb νῦν (Gal 1:23), or both δέ and νῦν/νυνί (Rom
11:30; Eph 2:11–13; 5:8; Col 1:21–22), but the pair used here (ποτὲ … ὅτε δέ) is also
used occasionally by Paul elsewhere (Gal 1:13–15). Within this contrast between
the past and the present, it is natural to understand this ὅτε δέ clause as the
present experience of the new life experienced by the believers, even when
the events had already happened (Marshall, 312). Noting the content of the
events mentioned in vv. 5–7, however, some have insisted on the distinction
between the (past) Christ event and the (current) appropriation of this event
in the experience of the believers (cf. Mounce, 438). This distinction is, how-
ever, foreign to Paul since the present experience of the believers is always in
view within this past-present creedal framework (Rom 11:30; Eph 5:8; Col 3:8;
Gal 1:13–15), even when the past events are the focus of the discussion (Eph
2:2–5, 13; Col 1:21–22).
The aorist indicative ἐπεφάνη that grammaticalizes perfective aspect in the
outlining of God’s redemptive acts introduces a series of aorist verbs that
extends through v. 7. This use of aorist verbs also likely maps out the traditional
material within this creedal statement.

▪ 5 οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων τῶν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ ἃ ἐποιήσαμεν ἡμεῖς ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὸ αὐτοῦ ἔλεος ἔσω-
σεν ἡμᾶς. This verse contains the climax of this creedal statement, and the main
verb is flanked by prepositional phrases that provide the basis of and interme-
diate means through which the redemptive act is accomplished:

οὐκ ἐξ …
ἀλλὰ κατὰ …
ἔσωσεν …
διὰ …

The first set of prepositional phrases with the contrast marked by οὐκ … ἀλλά
highlights the impotence of human works and the effective outworking of
God’s mercy, and with ἀλλά prominence is placed on God’s merciful act. This
is clearly marked by the use of the superfluous ἡμεῖς as well as αὐτοῦ in the
attributive position (cf. bdf §284[3]): we are saved not by what we (ἡμεῖς) did,
but by his (αὐτοῦ) grace God saved us (ἡμᾶς).
A clear distinction between ἐκ and κατά cannot be made here, and in Paul
one often finds οὐκ ἐκ … ἀλλ’ ἐκ instead (Rom 2:29; 4:12; 9:12, 32). Within the con-
struction ἐξ ἔργων τῶν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ, the prepositional phrase ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ con-
strains the head noun by the provision of further characterization (cf. Peters,
494 titus

Greek Article, 83), though the use of the article after an anarthrous noun has
often been considered as denoting a noun “first conceived indefinitely, and is
the more closely defined by the attributive” (Winer, Grammar, 174).

▪ διὰ λουτροῦ παλιγγενεσίας καὶ ἀνακαινώσεως πνεύματος ἁγίου. The conjunction

διά introduces the intermediate means through which God’s redemptive act is
accomplished. In terms of syntactic structure, two general readings are pos-
sible, depending on the way the third genitive (ἀνακαινώσεως) is understood.
(1) The third genitive may parallel λουτροῦ; if so, Paul is referring to two enti-
ties: through the washing that produces new birth (διὰ λουτροῦ παλιγγενεσίας)
and through the renewal brought about by the Holy Spirit ([διὰ] ἀνακαινώσεως
πνεύματος ἁγίου). This can refer to (1a) two separate acts: conversion and confir-
mation (Dibelius and Conzelmann, 148–149), or (1b) two parts of the same act,
thus: the washing that is the renewal brought about by the Holy Spirit. With,
however, the absence of the second διά and the significant semantic overlap
between παλιγγενεσία and ἀνακαίνωσις (cf. Dunn 1970: 165), the second reading
is preferable: (2) through the washing that brought about rebirth and renewal
by the Holy Spirit. This can also refer to (2a) two separate acts as in (1a) above,
or (2b) two identical acts as in (1b). In this reading where the second and third
genitives are both governing the first genitive, (2b) is preferable, thus: through
the washing that produces new birth, that is, the renewal brought about by
the Holy Spirit (cf. Fee, 204–205). The second phrase (ἀνακαινώσεως πνεύματος
ἁγίου) then paves the way for Paul’s further comment in the clause to follow (οὗ
ἐξέχεεν ἐφ’ ἡμᾶς πλουσίως, v. 6).

▪ 6 οὗ ἐξέχεεν ἐφ’ ἡμᾶς πλουσίως διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν. The geni-
tive οὗ is the result of an attraction to its antecedent πνεύματος ἁγίου (v. 6; cf.
Robertson, Grammar, 416). This statement links God (τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν θεοῦ)
with Jesus (Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν) in the midst of references to the
Holy Spirit. This may reflect baptismal language (Fiore, 219), but an incipient
form of Trinitarian theology cannot be ruled out here (Spicq, 2.655).

▪ 7 ἵνα δικαιωθέντες τῇ ἐκείνου χάριτι κληρονόμοι γενηθῶμεν κατ’ ἐλπίδα ζωῆς αἰω-
νίου. This final clause of the creedal statement introduced by ἵνα could provide
the purpose of ἐξέχεεν above (Kelly, 253), but in this well-structured creedal
statement that centers on ἔσωσεν in the main clause, it is best to consider
this purpose clause linked with the main clause as well (Barrett, 143; Spicq,
2.655).
As in v. 5a, where the true basis of God’s redemptive acts is first presented,
the participle δικαιωθέντες should be understood as the basis for how believ-
3:1–8 495

ers can become heirs. The connection between ἔλεος and χάρις again becomes
even clearer within this parallelism (see comments on v. 5a above).
With the placement of γενηθῶμεν after κληρονόμοι, the prepositional phrase
that follows (κατ’ ἐλπίδα ζωῆς αἰωνίου) should best be taken to modify the sub-
junctive. This phrase provides the framework for understanding the kind of
heirs (κληρονόμοι) being discussed: “we might become heirs in accordance with
hope of eternal life” (Fiore, 221); the genitival ζωῆς αἰωνίου should then be under-
stood as an objective genitive (after the act of hope).

▪ 8 Πιστὸς ὁ λόγος· καὶ περὶ τούτων βούλομαί σε διαβεβαιοῦσθαι, ἵνα φροντίζωσιν

καλῶν ἔργων προΐστασθαι οἱ πεπιστευκότες θεῷ· ταῦτά ἐστιν καλὰ καὶ ὠφέλιμα
τοῖς ἀνθρώποις. ὁ λόγος refers to that which precedes (cf. 1 Tim 4:9) because
of the creedal nature of the preceding verses and the presence of καί that
separates this clause from that which follows. The precise scope of this say-
ing remains unclear (vv. 3–7: Knight 1969: 80–81; vv. 4–7: Fee, 207; vv. 5–7:
Mounce, 451; vv. 5b–6: Kelly, 254). Since vv. 4–7 forms one long sentence, one
that is clearly delineated from its surrounding context with its use of a series
of aorist verbs, it is best to consider vv. 4–7 as the primary reference behind ὁ
λόγος.
As with πιστὸς ὁ λόγος, περὶ τούτων is likely anaphoric, covering at least vv. 3–
7. βούλομαι signals a return to the present tense verbs. Consistent with its tense,
βούλομαι itself often grammaticalizes imperfect aspect, as is expected in gen-
eral commands (see 1Tim 2:8; Porter, Verbal Aspect, 489). In a number of ways,
this clause is marked with prominence: (1) the use of the verb βούλομαι in the
sense of a command (cf. 1Tim 2:8; 5:14); (2) the choice of the relatively rare verb
διαβεβαιόομαι (which appears only here and in 1Tim 1:7 in both lxx and nt) that
denotes “to maintain strongly” (ljs 390); and (3) the use of this middle voice
(διαβεβαιοῦσθαι) to emphasize the intensity of this mental act (cf. “dynamic
middle,” Robertson, Grammar, 812). This marked statement provides the fit-
ting conclusion to this unit, as does the use of the purpose (ἵνα) clause that
echoes the beginning of this unit with the reference to “good works” (καλῶν
ἔργων; cf. ἔργον ἀγαθόν, v. 1). Moreover, the use of the perfect participle πεπι-
στευκότες is also fitting for this climactic note. This perfect verb frontgrounds
the act of believing.
This unit closes with a short independent clause. The reference behind ταῦτα
remains unclear, although it is certainly also anaphoric. Noting its location, it
may refer to all that precedes in this unit, and the ambiguity is not unexpected
in this concluding note. The adjectives καλά and ὠφέλιμα make the transition
to the next unit (vv. 9–11) since they provide the contrast to that which is evil
and destructive.
496 titus

Bibliography
Dunn, James D.G. Baptism in the Holy Spirit. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1970.
Fee, Gordon D. God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul. Pea-
body, MA: Hendrickson, 1994.
Herzer, Jens. “»Das ist gut und nützlich für die Menschen« (Tit 3,8). Die Menschenfre-
undlichkeit Gottes als Paradigma christlicher Ethik.” In Eschatologie und Ethik im
frühen Christentum. Ed. C. Böttrich, 101–120. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2006.
Knight, George W. The Faithful Sayings in the Pastoral Letters. Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1969.
Mott, Stephen Charles. “Greek Ethics and Christian Conversion: The Philonic Back-
ground of Titus 2:10–14 and 3:3–7.” NovT 20 (1978): 22–48.
Wainwright, Geoffrey. “Praying for Kings: The Place of Human Rulers in the Divine Plan
of Salvation.” ExAud 2 (1986): 117–127.

4 Historical Analysis
This section is saturated with language and forms drawn from a variety of
sources and contexts. First, within a section that begins with references to gov-
erning powers (ἀρχαῖς ἐξουσίαις, v. 1), the use of σωτήρ (vv. 4, 6) with benefaction
language (φιλανθρωπία, v. 5) recalls the Roman imperial cult, in which emperors
are portrayed as saviors and benefactors of all (cf. ogis 458; IEph 251). Nev-
ertheless, it seems unlikely that Paul is merely reinforcing the socio-political
norms, since he quickly directs the reader’s attention away from the “rulers and
authorities” (v. 1) to “God” (v. 4) and “Jesus Christ” (v. 6), who are both iden-
tified as σωτήρ. If so, one may detect an intentional redirection to “God” and
“Jesus Christ” as the proper “rulers and authorities” with whom the believer’s
allegiance lies.
Second, the use of virtue and vice lists in vv. 1–3 allows for the transition from
the call to be obedient and “ready for every good work” in v. 1 to the depiction
of God’s redemptive works in v. 4. Although the vices listed in v. 3 (cf. ποτέ) are
meant to serve as a contrast to the presence of God’s salvation in v. 4 (cf. ὅτε),
the parallelism between the seven “vices” in v. 3 and the seven “virtues” in v. 1 is
not to be missed (cf. Spicq, 2.649). The general posture of obedience and sub-
mission becomes the sign of those who have experienced the “new birth” (v. 5);
the object of submission is, nonetheless, to be carefully defined.
Third, most would identify the presence of a creedal statement behind vv. 4–
7, which is already separated as a distinct section in early uncial manuscripts
(cf. Codex Sinaiticus, which includes πιστὸς ὁ λόγος [v. 8a] within this section).
This is variably labeled as a “hymn” because of the “parallelism of members”
(Karris, 129; a “traditional baptismal hymn,” Collins, 360), a “creed” because of
the use of first-person plural pronouns (vv. 5, 6) and the inclusion of a purpose
clause in v. 7 (Mounce, 440), and a “creedal fragment” because of the uncer-
3:1–8 497

tainty concerning the extent of the original “creed” (Witherington, 158). The
use of traditional material is suggested by the anaphoric πιστὸς ὁ λόγος formula
(v. 8) and the presence of Pauline hapax (cf. φιλανθρωπία, v. 4; παλιγγενεσία, v. 5).
At the same time, φιλανθρωπία fits well within the larger context of the bene-
faction language here (cf. Acts 28:2), while παλιγγενεσία is not foreign to early
Christian discourse on eschatological renewal and restoration (cf. Matt 19:28).
The presence of the Lukan hand may also be felt here with the use of φιλανθρω-
πία (cf. Acts 28:2) as well as ἐκχέω (Acts 2:17–18 [lxx Joel 3:1–2]; cf. Rom 3:15; for
the reading of this section as a midrash on Joel 3:1–2, see Ellis 1987: 242). More-
over, the use of a word group familiar to the pe (ἐπιφαίνω, v. 2; cf. 3:4; ἐπιφάνεια,
1 Tim 6:14; 2Tim 1:10; 2Tim 4:1, 8; Titus 2:13) points to the significant presence
of the author’s hand in adapting the traditional material for the present con-
text.

▪ 1 ὑπομιμνῄσκω may suggest that the audience is already aware of the teachings
conveyed here (cf. 2Tim 2:14), but the stem (μιμνῄσκομαι) may also evoke a com-
mitment made earlier by the audience, in which case they are now reminded to
remain within the covenantal community (Num 15:40; Deut 7:18; 8:18; 24:18, 22;
32:7; cf. 1Cor 11:2). Here, Paul is not asking Titus’s audience to recall a particular
set of facts, but to be faithful to the traditions that they had received.
The first infinitive ὑποτάσσεσθαι widens the scope of the previous commands
to the wives (ὑποτασσομένας, 2:5) and the slaves (ὑποτάσσεσθαι, 2:9), as believ-
ers in general are now called to adopt an intentional posture of submission.
This general ethos of submission may explain the lack of an explicit object
to the second infinitive, πειθαρχεῖν, and the reference to ἔργον ἀγαθόν in the
third infinitival clause. This widening of the scope will eventually point to
the final object of submission, God (v. 4) and Jesus Christ (v. 6), since only
those who have believed in God (οἱ πεπιστευκότες θεῷ, v. 8) can carry out “good
works” (καλῶν ἔργων, v. 8). Within this rhetorical move, therefore, ἀρχαῖς ἐξου-
σίαις should no longer be understood as independent, or even absolute, objects
of submission.
ἀρχή and ἐξουσία in Paul often refer to spiritual powers (1 Cor 15:24; Eph 1:21;
3:10; 6:12; Col 1:16; 2:10, 15), but in light of the previous uses of the verb ὑποτάσσω
in this letter where the objects are all human beings (2:5, 9), it is best to see
ἀρχαῖς ἐξουσίαις as a reference to human authorities (Luke 12:11; 20:20; Pseudo-
Plato, Alc. maj. 135a; Polybius 30.6.6; Philo, Legat. 71.3). As noted above, a strict
distinction between ὑποτάσσομαι and πειθαρχέω should not be made. Both are
used in parallel constructions in Greek literature (Polybius 6.12.2), and espe-
cially in Dan 7:27, where all authorities are to submit and be obedient to God
himself.
498 titus

▪ 2 When applied to an interpersonal relationship, βλασφημεῖν carries the sense

of “to slander,” rather than “to blaspheme,” as elsewhere in the pe (1 Tim 1:20; 6:1;
Titus 2:5) where God or the gospel is in view. A vertical sense, however, may not
be entirely absent here (cf. βλασφημία, 1Tim 6:4).
For ἄμαχος, see 1Tim 3:3, where it also appears with ἐπιεικής. Its correspon-
dence with the vice in v. 9 argues for a specific application in the context of
first-century Crete.
πραΰτης is a common Pauline term (1Cor 4:21; 2 Cor 10:1; Gal 5:23; Eph 4:2;
Col 3:12; 2Tim 2:25) that expresses not merely a gentle demeanor but a life
manifested by self-control (Gal 5:23, where it is followed by ἐγκράτεια) as one
who has been educated/trained (Ps 89:10: ἐπῆλθεν πραΰτης ἐφ’ ἡμᾶς, καὶ παι-
δευθησόμεθα). As such, it is also often associated with δικαιοσύνη in both Greek
(Chrysippus, Frag. 255.9; Plutarch, Lyc. 28.6; Per. 2.5; Cic. 6.1; Mor. 441b) and
Hellenistic Jewish authors (T.Jud. 24.1; T.Abr. 4.3; cf. Ps 4:5).
πρὸς πάντας ἀνθρώπους echoes μηδένα earlier in the verse in stressing the uni-
versal application of these virtues. In this context, it draws attention away from
the narrow focus at the beginning of this section (cf. ἀρχαῖς ἐξουσίαις) and redi-
rects the reader’s attention to “God our Savior” (v. 4), who is the benefactor of
all.

▪ 3 Consistent with Hellenistic Jewish authors, Paul here employs a vice list in
depicting the former lives of the believers before they were converted (cf. Philo,
Virt. 180–182; Agr. 83; Mott 1978: 35). The vice list contains a number of terms
found in other similar lists or descriptions of those who oppose the true gospel
in the pe (cf. ἀνόητος, 1Tim 6:9; ἀπειθής, 2Tim 3:2; Titus 1:16; πλανάω, 2 Tim 3:13;
ἐπιθυμία, 1Tim 6:9; 2Tim 2:22; 3:6; 4:3; Titus 2:12; κακία/κακός, 1 Tim 6:10; 2 Tim
3:13; Titus 1:12; φθόνος, 1Tim 6:4).
πλανάω, which does not appear in 1Timothy, deserves additional comments:
the term fits the wider context well as it draws attention to the deception of the
false teachers. A familiar Pauline term (1Cor 6:9; 15:33; Gal 6:7; cf. πλάνη, Rom
1:27; Eph 4:14), it is explicitly applied to the false teachers in 2 Tim 3:13 (πλα-
νῶντες καὶ πλανώμενοι). Although rarely used in Greco-Roman vice lists, this
verb is often used in the lxx to describe how Israel is led astray from the com-
mandments of the Lord in the worship of idols (Deut 13:5; 30:17; 2 Chron 33:9;
Ps 118[119]:10; Prov 21:16; Isa 3:12; Jer 23:13; Wis 2:21; 12:24; 14:22), and, as such, in
subsequent traditions it can introduce a vice list (cf. Gal 6:7) for the depiction
of the life of the unconverted (cf. Philo, Virt. 117.1).
Notably absent elsewhere in the pe is ἡδονή, which appears together with
ἐπιθυμία only here in the nt. Being two of the passions that are contrasted with
the Stoic cardinal virtues (cf. λύπη, φόβος, ἐπιθυμία, ἡδονή, Chrysippus, Frag.
3:1–8 499

391.2), these may reflect interaction with Hellenistic moral philosophers (cf.
Mott 1978: 36). A similar interaction with such traditions can be found in Philo,
where ἡδονὴ καὶ ἐπιθυμία appear with the verb πλανάω in depicting the ability of
“God … the Savior” (ὁ θεὸς … ὁ σωτήρ) to seek those who are lost (Philo, Praem.
117.4–5). The influence of Hellenistic Jewish traditions can also be felt in the
pair κακία and φθόνος, which appear together only within such traditions (cf.
T.Benj. 8.1; Philo, Mut. 269.2).
Also worth noting are the final two vices, στυγητοί and μισοῦντες ἀλλήλους,
which appear nowhere else in the pe and may point to the perceived situation
created by the false teachers in Crete. While μισέω is a common verb (Rom 7:15;
9:13; Eph 5:29), the nt hapax στυγητός is relatively rare (cf. Philo, Decal. 131.2;
Xenophon, Mem. 2.6.20; Apollonius of Tyana, Epist. 68.3). The mercy of God
(τὸ αὐτοῦ ἔλεος) noted in v. 5 provides a stark contrast to the former lives of
these believers.

▪ 4 ἡ χρηστότης καὶ ἡ φιλανθρωπία is an appropriate description of the beneficent

act of rulers (Josephus, A.J. 10.164; cf. Pseudo-Aeschines, Epist. 12.16; Posidonius,
Frag. 138; Philo, Spec. 2.141), and when used in conjunction with the verb ἐπι-
φαίνω (cf. 2:11) and the title ὁ σωτήρ (cf. 1Tim 1:1), an imperial context is likely
evoked. This will, in turn, provide the link with the reference to ἀρχαῖς ἐξου-
σίαις in v. 1. What is important, however, is how Paul transcends this political
framework in describing the redemptive acts of God through his Son.
Beyond the imperial cult, the general benefaction context should also be
noted, especially since the use of ἐπιφαίνω/ἐπιφάνεια with σωτήρ/σωτηρία can
also evoke such a context (see 2:11). Both χρηστότης (Pss 20:4[21:3]; 64:12[65:11];
1 Esd 5:58; Josephus, A.J. 11.131; Philo, Migr. 122.5; cf. Rom 2:4; 11:22; Eph 2:7) and
φιλανθρωπία (IEph 8; 17; 1352; Trebilco, 358; cf. Philo, Virt. 188.1) can be applied
to deities, although benevolent acts are also described as those that please such
deities (Epictetus, Diatr. 3.24.64; Malherbe 2005: 352–353). In this context, it is
God’s own benevolent acts that brought about the “new birth” (v. 4). This con-
nection between the divine act of mercy and human transformation is already
noted in 2:11–14, where the appearance of “the grace of God” (v. 11) led to the
purification of a people “who are zealous for good works” (v. 14).

▪ 5 ἐξ ἔργων τῶν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ is not a typical Pauline formulation, especially

given that δικαιοσύνη is likely not a reference to the works of the law (cf. ἐξ
ἔργων νόμου, Rom 3:20; Gal 2:16 [3×]; 3:2, 5, 10) but to general moral acts (Isa
32:17; Pss. Sol. 18.8; Xenophon, Mem. 4.2; Pseudo-Plato, Clit. 409d). Neverthe-
less, the contrast between the impotence of human beings and the mercy of
God is thoroughly Pauline, especially in view of the close relationship between
500 titus

ἔλεος and χάρις in the pe (cf. 1Tim 1:2; 2Tim 1:2). As such, this formulation
echoes the creedal statement of 2Tim 1:9. The ethical sense of δικαιοσύνη is
not uncommon in Paul (Rom 14:17; 2Cor 6:7–9; 11:15; Eph 4:24; 6:14); it appears
also in the virtue lists in the pe (1Tim 6:11; 2Tim 2:22; 3:16; cf. δίκαιος, Titus
1:8). ἔλεος (cf. 1Tim 1:2) fits this context well as illustrated by the use of ἐλεέω
in Paul’s autobiographical accounts of his Damascus experience (1 Tim 1:13,
16). The use of the verb σῴζω with ἔλεος in reference to God’s deliverance
belongs to the language of the psalmist (cf. Pss 6:5; 16:7; 30:8; 32:17–18; 35:7; 56:4;
108:26).
λουτρόν is often taken to refer to water baptism (Barrett, 143; Fiore, 209).
Some, however, argue strongly for the metaphorical reading of this washing
(Mounce, 439–440), especially since similar language and flow of thought
appear in contexts where conversion is the focus (1 Cor 6:11; 12:13; 2 Cor 1:21).
Moreover, καθαρίζω, rather than λούω, is more common for ritual purifications
in Hellenistic Jewish traditions (cf. T.Levi 3.14; see Philo, Leg. 2.63; Josephus, A.J.
10.70; 12.286; Brown 2014: 164) and the nt (Matt 8:2–3; 11:5; 23:26; Mark 1:40–
42; Luke 5:12–13; Acts 10:15; 11:9; 15:9; Titus 2:13). The only other Pauline use of
λουτρόν in Eph 5:26 may provide a solution to this debate; there, Paul alludes
to water baptism (τοῦ ὕδατος), but the focus is ultimately on spiritual renewal
(ἁγιάσῃ καθαρίσας … ἐν ῥήματι). If so, λουτρόν here may also evoke the baptismal
imagery even if Paul is primarily referring to the washing of the Holy Spirit (cf.
Spicq, 2.653).
παλιγγενεσία can take on an individualistic sense of “rebirth,” especially if
this clause is read within the context of baptismal liturgy (Solevåg 2019: 93)
and, as such, is comparable to similar concepts of “rebirth” in early Chris-
tianity (ἀναγεννάω, 1Pet 1:3, 23; ἄνωθεν γεννάω, John 3:3; Wieland, 225–226).
Related to this “rebirth” are ideas of physical or spiritual survival after death,
which are found in both Josephus (cf. γενέσθαι … πάλιν, C.Ap. 2.218) and Philo,
although for Philo such a “rebirth” can begin in the present life with the pur-
suit of virtues (Cher. 114.9; Post. 124.2; Mos. 2.65.5; Legat. 325.2; Burnett 1984:
448).
The only other nt use in Matt 19:28 points, however, to cosmic regeneration,
which may find its background in the Stoic traditions of a periodic conflagra-
tion and a regeneration of the cosmos (Chrysippus, Frag. 619.16; 620.10; 627.3;
cf. Zimmermann 2009: 272–295). However, the Hellenistic Jewish conception
of the post-exilic restoration of the land in Josephus may be closer to the con-
ceptual framework of the pe, especially since παλιγγενεσία is also used with
ἀνακαίνωσις (A.J. 11.67).
To choose between the individualistic and cosmic readings is difficult, and
perhaps also unnecessary. Since this “new birth” or “regeneration” is further
3:1–8 501

defined by “the renewal by the Holy Spirit,” both aspects are to be acknowl-
edged. With the use of ἐκχέω (v. 6) in reference to the Spirit, the cosmic is
necessarily frontgrounded with the evocation of Joel 3:1–2 (Eng. 2:28–29; cf.
Ellis 1987: 242). With the use of the imagery of water purification to refer to the
role of the Spirit in the process of rebirth, however, the individualistic aspect
is also accentuated through the evocation of Ezek 36:25–27 (Fee 1994: 781–
782).
ἀνακαίνωσις may have been coined by Paul for the moral renewal of believ-
ers (Rom 12:2; cf. ἀνακαινόω, 2Cor 4:16; Col 3:10). As ἀναγεννάω appears almost
exclusively in Christian literature (1Pet 1:3, 23) in denoting the new birth, ἀνα-
καίνωσις might have been formed for the eschatological renewal that has begun
to be realized (cf. καίνωσις, Philo, Ios. 27.5; Josephus, A.J. 18.230).

▪ 6 In providing further characterization to the Holy Spirit, this clause provides

two additional functions. First, in using the language of Joel 3:1–2 lxx (ἐκχεῶ
ἀπὸ τοῦ πνεύματός μου), it points back to the Pentecost event (Acts 2:17, 18, 33;
Dunn 1970: 166), which is understood as a sign of the presence of the escha-
tological blessings of God (Acts 2:17–18; cf. ἐν ταῖς ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις [Isa 2:2]).
Beyond the quotation from Joel, an allusion to Isa 32:15 is likely with the use
of the phrase ἐφ’ ἡμᾶς via Acts 1:8 (ἐπελθόντος τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος ἐφ’ ὑμᾶς; cf.
Luke 24:49; Pao 2000: 91–93), especially since Acts 1:8 anticipates the Pentecost
event; notably, this quotation from Isaiah also points to the descent of the Spirit
as a sign of the dawn of the eschatological era.
Second, the adverb πλουσίως, which belongs to the benefaction language
(cf. 1Tim 6:17) that saturates this creedal statement, situates this reference to
the Spirit comfortably within this wider context. It again points to God as the
true benefactor of all. Even if Paul is using traditional language here, this state-
ment is carefully crafted for Paul’s rhetorical purpose in this unit. Moreover, the
use of this adverb may suggest the primacy of the “logic of a gratuitous economic
outpouring” associated with God’s act of deliverance, rather than a “lustral one
associated with baptism of converts” (Brown, 2014: 166).

▪ 7 δικαιωθέντες τῇ ἐκείνου χάριτι recalls δικαιούμενοι δωρεὰν τῇ αὐτοῦ χάριτι of

Rom 3:24, but the absence of the mentioning of “faith” here (cf. Rom 3:25–28)
and the possible understanding of δικαιόω in a moral rather than a forensic
sense has prompted some to accuse the author of failure to reproduce the
exact Pauline thought-world (Hanson, 191). In this context, however, this clause
should be read in light of v. 5a (Wendland 1999: 348), and the relationship
between the two may explain the language used:
502 titus

v. 5a v. 7

οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων τῶν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ ἃ ἐποιήσαμεν ἡμεῖς δικαιωθέντες

ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὸ αὐτοῦ ἔλεος τῇ ἐκείνου χάριτι
ἔσωσεν ἡμᾶς κληρονόμοι γενηθῶμεν

In highlighting the absence of any human works (ἃ ἐποιήσαμεν ἡμεῖς, v. 5), the
absence of a note of “faith” here is not surprising (but see v. 8). Moreover, δικαιω-
θέντες is not to be understood primarily in a moral sense, but in reference to the
righteous acts that God did for us rather than those (οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων τῶν ἐν δικαιο-
σύνῃ, v. 5) that we accomplish ourselves.
The noun κληρονόμος, with the related concept of adoption (cf. Rom 8:17),
also belongs to the wider framework of benefaction (Long 2013: 278–279),
which fits nicely within Paul’s presentation of God as the final benefactor in
this unit. The hope of eternal life is noted often in the pe (1 Tim 1:16; 6:12; Titus
1:2), and here it points to the transcending benefits for those who honor the one
and true benefactor (cf. Rom 2:7).

▪ 8 The use of διαβεβαιόομαι (cf. 1Tim 1:7) with περὶ τούτων for the insistence on
a particular matter is common in Greek literature outside of the nt (cf. Poly-
bius 12.11.6). A familiar verb in the pe, προΐστημι carries the sense of “caring”
(cf. 3:14; see also P.Par. 63; Josephus A.J. 14.196; M.-M. 541; bdag 870) rather than
“leading” as in 1Timothy (3:4–5, 12; 5:17; cf. Rom 12:8; 1 Thess 5:12; Aristotle, Pol.
1285a; Polybius 1.70.2). Here it is used with φροντίζω, a nt hapax that is nonethe-
less very common in Greek literature, which denotes intentionality and a sense
of carefulness (Xenophon, Apol. 15; Epictetus, Diatr. 3.114). The temporal (and
logical) priority of God’s saving acts over good works (καλὰ ἔργα) repeats the
pattern found in 2:14.
Unlike other uses of the verb πιστεύω in the pe, this participle is used as a
label for the believers, reflecting its traditional use (Acts 2:44; Rom 3:22; 1 Cor
14:22; 1Thess 1:7) that is possibly encouraged by the preceding creedal state-
ment.
Appearing only here in the nt, καλὰ καὶ ὠφέλιμα is often used in Greek liter-
ature for that which is deemed noble and respectable (Xenophon, Mem. 4.3.11;
Aristotle, Rhet. 1417b; Polybius 1.4.4) and has been applied specifically to “good
work” (καλὸν ἔργον, Plato, Prot. 358b). The sense of such work being honorable
is appropriate here with the seemingly redundant τοῖς ἀνθρώποις. As God the
benefactor has made salvation available “for all people” (πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις, 2:11),
3:1–8 503

those who trust in him are also called to perform honorable acts of beneficence
“for people” (τοῖς ἀνθρώποις).

Bibliography
Brown, Peter Dunstan. “The Use of Ransom Language in 1 Timothy 2:1–7 and Titus 2:11–
14.” Ph.D. diss., Catholic University of America, 2014.
Burnett, Fred W. “Philo on Immortality: A Thematic Study of Philo’s Concept of παλιγ-
γενεσία.” cbq 46 (1984): 447–470.
Dunn, James D.G. Baptism in the Holy Spirit. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1970.
Ellis, E. Earle. “Traditions in the Pastoral Epistles.” In Early Jewish and Christian Exegesis.
Ed. Craig A. Evans and William F. Stinespring, 237–253. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987.
Fee, Gordon D. God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul. Pea-
body, MA: Hendrickson, 1994.
Karris, Robert J. A Symphony of New Testament Hymns. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical
Press, 1996.
Long, Fredrick J. “Ephesians: Paul’s Political Theology in Greco-Roman Political Con-
text.” In Christian Origins and Greco-Roman Culture. Ed. Stanley E. Porter and
Andrew W. Pitts, 255–309. Text and Editions for New Testament Study 9. Leiden/
Boston: Brill, 2013.
Malherbe, Abraham J. “‘Christ Jesus Came into the World to Save Sinners’: Soteriology
in the Pastoral Epistles.” In Salvation in the New Testament. Ed. Jan G. van der Watt,
331–358. NovTSup 121. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2005.
Mott, Stephen Charles. “Greek Ethics and Christian Conversion: The Philonic Back-
ground of Titus 2:10–14 and 3:3–7.” NovT 20 (1978): 22–48.
Mounce, William D. “The Origin of the New Testament Metaphor of Rebirth.”
Ph.D. diss., University of Aberdeen, 1981.
Pao, David W. Acts and the Isaianic New Exodus. wunt 2.130. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2000.
Schoeps, H.J. Paul: The Theology of the Apostle in the Light of Jewish Religious History.
Trans. Harold Knight. Cambridge: James Clarke, 1961.
Wendland, Ernst R. “‘Let No One Disregard You!’ (Titus 2.15): Church Discipline and the
Construction of Discourse in a Personal ‘Pastoral’ Epistle.” In Discourse Analysis and
the New Testament. Ed. Stanley E. Porter and Jeffrey T. Reed, 334–351. JSNTSup 170.
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999.
Zimmermann, Christiane. “Wiederentstehung und Erneuerung (Tit 3:5): Zu einem
erhaltenswerten Aspekt der Soteriologie des Titusbriefs.” NovT 51 (2009): 272–295.

5 Theological Analysis
This section contains the only explicit reference to the Holy Spirit in this letter.
Though brief, it echoes aspects of pneumatology found in the earlier Pauline
504 titus

letters. First, the evocation of Joel 3:1–2 (lxx) through the use of ἐκχέω in v. 6
points to the cosmic framework within which the arrival of the eschatologi-
cal Spirit is to be conceived. The closest parallel can be found in the Lukan
account of Pentecost (Acts 2:17–18, 33), but the more common Hellenistic form
of ἐκχύνω is used in Rom 5:5 also in reference to the work of the eschatological
Spirit (Acts 10:45). Related to this cosmic framework is the work of this escha-
tological Spirit in the restoration program of God’s people when the Spirit is
poured out on “all flesh” (πᾶσαν σάρκα). This ecclesiological aspect is present
in this section in the reference to “all people” (πάντας ἀνθρώπους, v. 2), which is
consistent with the use of Joel 3:5 (lxx) in Rom 10:13 (πᾶς … ὃς ἂν ἐπικαλέση-
ται τὸ ὄνομα κυρίου σωθήσεται), where the universal scope of God’s salvation is
emphasized. Not to be missed is the individualistic appropriation of the work
of this eschatological Spirit, an aspect emphasized by the evocation of Ezek
36:25–27, where one finds the metaphor of water cleansing used in reference
to the work of this Spirit. This prophetic tradition is also evoked by Paul in ref-
erence to the Spirit (2Cor 3:3; 1Thess 4:8), and the metaphor of a new birth by
the Spirit is also familiar in the Pauline tradition (Gal 4:29).
The christocentric focus of the work of the Holy Spirit is underlined by the
phrase “through Jesus Christ our Savior” (v. 6). In Paul, the Spirit is considered
to be Christ’s own Spirit (Rom 8:2, 9; 2Cor 3:17–18; Phil 1:19), which is akin to
this christocentric focus here. Moreover, with the mentioning of the redemp-
tive act of God (vv. 4–5a) through (διά) the work of both the Spirit (v. 5b) and
Jesus Christ (v. 6), many detect the presence of a “trinitarian framework” as
it is present in the earlier Paul where it appears also in discussion of God’s
redemptive historical work (1Cor 6:9–11; Rom 5:1–11; cf. Eph 3:14–19; Rosner
2016: 121–124). Although one can perhaps only speak of a developing “economic
Trinitarianism,” since the roles of the different “persons” in God’s redemptive
plan cannot be clearly separated (Bird 2013: 109), what is nonetheless consis-
tently found in Paul is not only the definition of the identity of the Holy Spirit
in light of the identity of God and Jesus Christ but also the reverse as the Holy
Spirit contributes to the perceived identity of God and Jesus Christ (Rom 1:3–4;
8:11; Hill 2015: 154–163).
Even with this explicit reference to the Holy Spirit, many have accused the
author of departing from (the earlier) Paul, who considers the church primar-
ily as a charismatic community (cf. Rom 12:6–8; 1 Cor 12:4–31). The focus on the
past work of the Holy Spirit enshrined in a creedal statement coupled with the
absence of any reference to the continued work of the Spirit among the com-
munity is taken as a significant deviation from the earlier Paul (Dunn 1990:
197). First, the retention of the first-person plural ἡμᾶς argues for the contin-
ued work of the Holy Spirit among God’s people, while πλουσίως underlines the
3:1–8 505

continued significance of the full experience of the Spirit (cf. Haykin 1985: 300).
Moreover, χάρισμα in Paul’s earlier letters is now expressed through καλὰ ἔργα
(v. 8), which is the outward manifestation of the “renewal by the Holy Spirit”
(v. 5; cf. Schwarz 1983: 142–147). This is evident especially since good works are
signs of being fruitful in the Spirit (cf. v. 14).
Moving beyond pneumatology, the emphasis on the impotence of human
beings also betrays the continuity with the earlier Pauline soteriology. In this
soteriological context, acts of beneficence are limited to God the benefactor
(v. 4); for human beings, no “works of righteousness” (v. 5a) are considered to
be the basis of “his own mercy” (v. 5b). Though ἐξ ἔργων τῶν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ is not
a typical Pauline formulation, it fits this context well when divine benefaction
is contrasted with human impotence. Against the Greco-Roman context where
philanthropic acts are often considered the basis of divine favor (cf. Malherbe
2005: 253), Paul here emphasizes the priority of divine acts that bring about
moral changes in human beings. Together with 2:11–14, the priority of God’s gra-
cious acts over human response points to the decisive role of God’s redemptive
acts through Christ’s ransom death.
With the affirmation of God as the benefactor of all (v. 4), one may again
detect an attempt to relativize the power of the rulers. Even though the section
apparently begins with a call “to be subject to rulers and authorities” (v. 1), the
use of language such as “benevolence,” “philanthropy,” “Savior,” and “appeared”
in reference to God in v. 4 argues for the relativization of the imperial system
(cf. Harrison 2003: 224). If so, the call to submission in v. 1 can be understood as
a general call to decency and societal norms (cf. Herzer 2006: 110–117). At the
same time, v. 1a should be read in light of the wider rhetorical strategy of this
section, where the narrower object of submission is already relativized with
the general call “to be obedient, to be ready for every good work” (v. 1b), thus
shifting the attention away from the “rulers and authorities” to “God our Sav-
ior” (v. 4), who is the ultimate object of worship and submission (see comments
above). This rhetorical move is similar, then, to the one adopted by the earlier
Paul in Rom 13:1–7, where a similar call to be “subject to rulers and authorities”
(v. 1) is qualified by the affirmation that even the earthly authority is but “God’s
servant” (θεοῦ … διάκονος; cf. Pao 2012: 193–214).

Bibliography
Bird, Michael F. Evangelical Theology: A Biblical and Systematic Introduction. Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 2013.
Dunn, James D.G. Unity and Diversity in the New Testament. 2nd ed. London: scm, 1990.
Harrison, James R. Paul’s Language of Grace in its Graeco-Roman Context. wunt 2.172.
Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003.
506 titus

Haykin, Michael A.G. “The Fading Vision? The Spirit and Freedom in the Pastoral Epis-
tles.” EvQ 57 (1985): 291–305.
Herzer, Jens. “»Das ist gut und nützlich für die Menschen« (Tit 3,8). Die Menschen-
freundlichkeit Gottes als Paradigma christlicher Ethik.” In Eschatologie und Ethik
im frühen Christentum: Festschrift G. Haufe, 101–120. Greifswalker theologische For-
schungen 11. Ed. C. Böttrich. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2006.
Hill, Wesley. Paul and the Trinity: Persons, Relations, and the Pauline Letters. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015.
Malherbe, Abraham J. “‘Christ Jesus Came into the World to Save Sinners’: Soteriology
in the Pastoral Epistles.” In Salvation in the New Testament: Perspectives on Soteriol-
ogy. Ed. Jan G. van der Watt, 331–358. NovTSup 121. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2005.
Pao, David W. “Ethical Relevance of New Testament Commentaries: On the Reading of
Rom 13:1–7.” In On the Writing of New Testament Commentaries. Ed. Stanley E. Porter
and Eckhard J. Schnabel, 193–214. Text and Editions for New Testament Study 8. Lei-
den/Boston: Brill, 2012.
Rosner, Brian S. “Paul and the Trinity.” In The Essential Trinity: New Testament Foun-
dations and Practical Relevance. Ed. Brandon D. Crowe and Carl Trueman, 118–134.
London: Apollos, 2016.
Schwarz, Roland. Bürgerliches Christentum im Neuen Testament? Eine Studie zu Ethik,
Amt und Recht in den Pastoralbriefen. Klosterneuburg: Österreichisches Katholis-
ches Bibelwerk, 1983.

B Avoid Divisiveness (3:9–11)

1 Translation
9 But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about
the law, for they are unprofitable and useless. 10 Reject a divisive person after a
first and second warning, 11 since you know that such a person is warped and
sinful, being self-condemned.

2 Text-Critical Analysis
▪ 9 γενεαλογίας: Two late Western uncials (F G) read λογομαχίας instead, likely
an assimilation to 1Tim 6:4 (ζητήσεις καὶ λογομαχίας).

▪ 9 ἔρεις: The original reading of Codex Sinaiticus (‫ )*א‬and a few Western wit-
nesses (D F G Amst) read the singular ἔριν/ἔρειν, which Elliott (92; cf. Kilpatrick)
considers to best explain the other readings: in assimilation with the surround-
ing plurals, a change to the Hellenistic plural ἔριδας (241 462) was made, which
was later further changed to ἔρεις/ἔρις (‫א‬2 A C I K L P 1505 1739 1881 pm 𝔐 latt
sy co), the plural form preferred by Atticistic scribes. Nevertheless, the late dat-
ing of the two minuscules (11–13th century) does not support this hypothesis,
3:9–11 507

and the plural ἔρεις is attested as early as 1 bc (cf. Dorotheus of Sidon, Frag.
395).12 The context demands a plural, and the Alexandrian witnesses and most
of the early versions argue for ἔρεις.

▪ 10 καὶ δευτέραν νουθεσίαν: Variations of this are found in primarily Western

witnesses: νουθεσίαν καὶ δύο (D*), νουθεσίαν καὶ δευτέραν (D2 Ψ 1505 1881 syh),
νουθεσίαν ἤ δευτέραν (F G), and νουθεσίαν (1739 b vgmss Irlat Tert Cyp Ambst).
Neither καὶ δευτέραν νουθεσίαν (Mark 14:72; John 4:54) nor νουθεσίαν καὶ δευ-
τέραν (Acts 12:10) is unusual in the nt ordering of nouns and their numeral
modifiers, but Alexandrian (𝔓61vid ‫ א‬A C) and Byzantine (K L P 0278 81 104
1241 pm 𝔐) witnesses, together with early Western versions and fathers (lat Ir
Or), strongly argue for καὶ δευτέραν νουθεσίαν. Other readings are clearly sec-
ondary: νουθεσίαν καὶ δύο is improbable because one would expect the num-
ber to be placed before the noun, and νουθεσίαν ἤ δευτέραν is also less likely
since καί rather than ἤ is expected even as the marker of an alternative (cf.
Luke 12:38). The omission of καί δευτέραν is probably a case of homoeoteleu-
ton, or the change might have been introduced “to enforce discipline” (Lock,
xxxv).

▪ 11 ἐν Ἀντιοχείᾳ. ἃ διὰ τὴν Θέκλαν ἔπαθεν is inserted after ἐν Ἀντιοχείᾳ in 181, point-
ing to the influence of the Acts of Paul in the reception history of this letter (cf.
Elliott 1997: 266).

Bibliography
Elliott, J.K. “The Influence of the Apocrypha on Manuscripts of the New Testament.”
Apocrypha 8 (1997): 265–271.

3 Grammatical Analysis
As noted above, 3:1–11 can be considered a coherent unit that is paraenetic in
intent, though the distinct shift from the witness of the believers in vv. 1–8 to
the focus on the response to the false teachers in vv. 9–11 is marked by the devel-
opmental δέ that often signals the beginning of a new unit (1 Tim 1:8; 4:1; 6:11;
2 Tim 3:1, 10; Titus 2:1). Moreover, the anaphoric πιστὸς ὁ λόγος, περὶ τούτων and
ταῦτα provide the proper conclusion to the previous unit as Paul now turns
to another direct exhortation to Titus in his dealings with the false teachers,
which, in turn, provides cohesion to this unit.

12 The variant ἔριν instead of ἔριδα may already testify to the beginning of the drop of δ from
the stem of the word (cf. Robertson, Grammar, 265).
508 titus

The boundary of the end of this unit is clearer since Paul moves from his
exhortation concerning the false teachers to the concluding remarks marked
by personal and geographical references (vv. 12–15). This is also evident with
the shift from the present unit that is dominated by present and perfect verbs
to the next that contains a list of six aorist verbs, four of which are at the begin-
ning of the unit (πέμψω, σπούδασον, ἐλθεῖν, παραχειμάσαι, v. 12; cf. πρόπεμψον,
v. 13; ἄσπασαι, v. 15).
The unit is built around two imperatives, each followed by a clause that pro-
vides the grounds for the imperative. The first imperative, περιΐστασο, with a
polysyndetic series as its complement, calls Titus to avoid a series of vices, the
grounds of which are provided by a clause introduced by γάρ (v. 8). The sec-
ond imperative, παραιτοῦ, with the divisive person as its object, calls Titus to
reject such a person, the grounds of which are further provided by a participial
clause introduced by εἰδώς. In both, the imperatives are placed at the end of
their respective clauses, and synonymous doublets connected by a καί (ἀνωφε-
λεῖς καὶ μάταιοι, v. 9; ἐξέστραπται ὁ τοιοῦτος καὶ ἁμαρτάνει ὢν αὐτοκατάκριτος, v. 11)
are provided as the grounds of the imperatives.

▪ 9 μωρὰς δὲ ζητήσεις καὶ γενεαλογίας καὶ ἔρεις καὶ μάχας νομικὰς περιΐστασο· εἰσὶν
γὰρ ἀνωφελεῖς καὶ μάταιοι. The developmental δέ in this context introduces the
contrast to that which is good and profitable noted in v. 8. Within this gen-
eral contrast, the feminine plural adjective μωράς should best be understood
as modifying all four feminine nouns that follow (ζητήσεις, γενεαλογίας, ἔρεις,
μάχας). On the other hand, μωρὰς … ζητήσεις may also be an umbrella term that
includes γενεαλογίας, ἔρεις, and μάχας νομικάς (cf. 2 Tim 2:23). This polysynde-
tic series (with the repeated καί) provides a marked rhetorical effect (cf. bdf
§ 430[3]). The use of the plural ἔρεις instead of ἔριδας, which is more common
in Koine Greek (cf. ἔριδες, 1Cor 1:11; Robertson, Grammar, 265), has led to a num-
ber of changes by later scribes (see Text-Critical Analysis). Nevertheless, the
use of the plural itself for abstract nouns is consistent with classical practice, a
practice that the author appears to have adopted here, as is evident in the use
of the plural μάχας in this list (Turner, Syntax, 27–28).
The present tense of the imperative περιΐστασο here (and παραιτοῦ in v. 10) is
appropriate in general commands (cf. ὑπομίμνῃσκε v. 1), while the marked mid-
dle voice stresses personal involvement in the act of combatting false teachings
(note that two of the three present middle imperatives in this letter are found
in this unit; cf. παραιτοῦ, v. 10).
ἀνωφελεῖς καὶ μάταιοι should be considered a hendiadys (cf. Hanson, 194).
Modifying a series of feminine nouns, μάταιοι, which is taken as a masculine
adjective, is considered a case of constructio ad sensum (bdf § 134). Never-
3:9–11 509

theless, three-termination adjectives ending with ιος often function as two-

termination adjectives (Winer, Grammar, 80); in this case, especially following
the feminine ἀνωφελεῖς, μάταιοι should also be considered a feminine adjective.

▪ 10 αἱρετικὸν ἄνθρωπον μετὰ μίαν καὶ δευτέραν νουθεσίαν παραιτοῦ. The imper-
ative παραιτοῦ with an accusative object (with no indirect discourse) denotes
“refuse” or “reject” (Burk 2006: 72). Whether it takes on a more specific meaning
of “excommunication” (i.e., “discharge, dismiss, drive out,” bdag 764) remains
unestablished. Since the object of this verb is often false teachings rather than
those spreading such teachings (cf. 1Tim 4:7; 2Tim 2:23), the narrower meaning
of “excommunications” should not be read into this verb (Barrett, 146).

▪ 11 εἰδὼς ὅτι ἐξέστραπται ὁ τοιοῦτος καὶ ἁμαρτάνει ὢν αὐτοκατάκριτος. εἰδώς is

a causal participle providing grounds for the act called for in v. 10. The rela-
tionship between the perfect ἐξέστραπται and the present ἁμαρτάνει demands
an explanation. An Aktionsart reading would suggest that “the perfect tense
of ἐξέστραπται shows the finality of this person’s spiritual condition while the
linear aspect of ἁμαρτάνει spells out the day-to-day consequences of that per-
version” (Mounce, 455). Noting that the perfect grammaticalizes stative aspect
with marked prominence, it is best to consider ἐξέστραπται as denoting the per-
son in the state of perversion, while the present ἁμαρτάνει provides an ongoing
expression of such perversion.

Bibliography
Burk, Denny. Articular Infinitives in the Greek of the New Testament. New Testament
Monographs 14. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2006.
Genade, Aldred A. Persuading the Cretans: A Text-Generated Persuasion Analysis of the
Letter to Titus. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2011.

4 Historical Analysis
As in 1:10–11, the general nature of the description provided, as well as its
brevity, does not allow for a detailed reconstruction of the nature of these
false teachings. Reading μάχας νομικάς (v. 9) in light of the previous notes on
οἱ ἐκ τῆς περιτομῆς (1:10) and Ἰουδαϊκοῖς μύθοις (1:14) argues for the general Jew-
ish nature of such teachings (cf. Herzer 2008: 165–166). Beyond this general
conceptual framework, some have suggested that the use of γενεαλογία may
further argue for a (proto-)gnostic background (cf. Schenk 1987: 3427–3430),
although its appearance with μῦθος in 1Tim 1:4 suggests that it is a stock phrase
in Greek literature for that which is unreliable. The general nature of the other
descriptors in v. 9 is well illustrated by their appearance also in both 1 Tim 6:4
510 titus

(ζήτησις; μάχας; ἔρις; cf. λογομαχία [cf. μάχας, Titus 1:9]) and 2 Tim 2:23 (μωρός,
ζήτησις, μάχας), which are addressed to the Ephesian community of believers.
The use of these stock charges does not argue against the presence of a defi-
nite set of false teachings in first-century Crete (cf. Karris 1973: 16), but it does
suggest that Paul is less interested in describing them rather than in silencing
them.
The brevity of this section may suggest that the situation in Crete is not as
urgent as that in Ephesus (Fee, 10–12), but it may also be a rhetorical move to
avoid the in-fighting that characterizes these false teachers. That this list is sat-
urated with terms of quarrels and dissensions (ζήτησις, ἔρις, μάχη), all of which
are depicted as ἀνωφελεῖς καὶ μάταιοι, supports this reading. This is consistent
with the description of these false teachers as ματαιολόγοι in 1:10. Instead of
focusing on these false teachers, Paul would prefer to focus on God’s redemp-
tive work in the two sections that form the center of this letter (2:11–15; 3:1–
8).

▪ 9 The individual elements of this list point back to similar lists elsewhere in
the pe (1Tim 1:4, 7; 4:7; 6:4; 2Tim 2:23), though the additional νομικός may fur-
ther point to the Jewish context of such false teachings. μωράς … ζητήσεις recalls
μωρὰς καὶ ἀπαιδεύτους ζητήσεις of 2Tim 2:23, while ζήτησις is used with λογομα-
χίας in 1Tim 6:4, which resembles μάχας later in this list. ζητήσεις itself refers to
“controversies,” but with μωράς (“foolish”) it also takes on the sense of “specu-
lation” (cf. 1Tim 6:4).
Some read γενεαλογίαι in light of the list of emanations found in gnostic
teachings (Barrett, 40–41), but there are no traces of the content of such myths
elsewhere in this letter (and in the pe). With νομικός, a Jewish origin is more
likely, though it is unclear whether such genealogies refer more specifically
to Jewish cosmological speculations related to the early chapters of Genesis
(Philo, Mos. 2.45–47; cf. Schlarb 1990: 88–90). The use of γενεαλογίαι with μῦθοι
in 1Tim 1:4 suggests, however, that this is a stock phrase used to discredit gen-
eral baseless speculations (Polybius 9.2.1; cf. Strabo, Geogr. 8.6.2).
ἔρις and μάχη are often found together for “dissensions” and “quarrels” (Soph-
ocles, Oed. col. 1234; Xenophon, Hier. 1.36; Plato, Hipp. maj. 294d; Philo, Ebr.
99.2), and they reinforce the call to avoid verbal disputes and dissensions here
(cf. ζήτησις). νομικός appears primarily in secular Greek traditions (Plato, Leg.
625a; Aristotle, Eth. eud. 1243a; Chrysippus, Frag. 614.5; Strabo, Geogr. 12.2.9;
cf. 4Macc 5:4; Philo, Spec. 4.64), but in this context a reference to the Jewish
law is likely (cf. οἱ ἐκ τῆς περιτομῆς, 1:10; Ἰουδαϊκοῖς μύθοις 1:14).
περιΐστημι is often used in the physical sense of “standing around/surround-
ing” (Josh 8:3; 1Sam 4:15; 2Sam 13:31; John 11:42; Acts 25:7; Jdt 5:22; 2 Macc 3:26;
3:9–11 511

Josephus A.J. 3.299; B.J. 1.122), but here it refers to an act of “avoiding” (2 Tim
2:16; Philo, Ebr. 205.5; Josephus, A.J. 5.108).
ἀνωφελεῖς (cf. Heb 7:18) corresponds to ὠφέλιμα of v. 9, while μάταιοι also
resembles descriptors used elsewhere for false teachers (cf. ματαιολόγοι, 1:10)
and their “empty talk” (ματαιολογίαν, 1Tim 1:6). The identification of these
teachings as “useless” here may also suggest that the false teachers do not prac-
tice what they teach (cf. 1:16; see also Did. 2.5: οὐκ ἔσται ὁ λόγος σου ψευδής, οὐ
κενός, ἀλλὰ μεμεστωμένος πράξει). That these are “unprofitable” and “useless”
discussions justifies the author’s lack of direct engagement with them.

▪ 10 The adjective αἱρετικός is a nt hapax, but its nominal form appears often
in Acts in the neutral sense of “sect” or “school” (Acts 5:17; 15:5; 24:5, 14; 26:5;
28:22). In Paul, however, it carries the sense of strife and dissension (1 Cor 11:19;
Gal 5:20). Though most would argue against identifying this as a technical term
for “heretic” as it is used later in the second century, some would still consider
such a translation appropriate here in light of both Pauline usages elsewhere
and the polemic in this context (Hanson, 194; Quinn, 248). To use this transla-
tion is, however, to mask the connection between this adjective and the nouns
in v. 9: αἱρετικός here and ἔρις and μάχη of the previous list all belong to the
same semantic domain denoting “Hostility, Strife” (LNd § 39). It is likely that
the choice of the word αἱρετικός in describing the person to be avoided is deter-
mined less by its abstract sense of deviation from certain cardinal doctrines
and more by its divisive nature.
In Paul, νουθεσία and its verbal cognate (νουθετέω) can be used in a general
sense of (mutual) instruction (Rom 15:14; 1Cor 10:11; Eph 6:4; Col 1:28), or in a
stronger sense of admonishment (1Thess 5:12, 14) and warning against those
in need of correction (1Cor 4:14). The stronger sense is demanded here in refer-
ence to the false teachers. Mention of “a first and second warning” may point to
the concerns for both personal restoration and the holiness of the community.
The clause that follows suggests, however, that the emphasis is to be placed
on the verb παραιτοῦ. Nevertheless, the avoidance of such an individual after
repeated warnings may have redemptive value for both the community and
the individual (1Tim 1:20; cf. 1Cor 5:5).

▪ 11 ἐκστρέφω is a nt hapax, but in the lxx the passive form is used for the
“perverse generation” (γενεὰ ἐξεστραμμένη) of God’s rebellious people (Deut
32:20; cf. Odes Sol. 2:20). In similar contexts in the lxx, the verb ἁμαρτάνω is
also applied to such a generation where a relative verb διαστρέφω is used (Deut
32:5; cf. Odes Sol. 2:5). If so, ἐξέστραπται … καὶ ἁμαρτάνει here may be compara-
ble to a similar Pauline descriptor applied to those who were unfaithful to God:
512 titus

γενεᾶς σκολιᾶς καὶ διεστραμμένης (Phil 2:15; cf. Matt 17:17; Luke 9:41). As with the
wilderness generation of old, Paul is now again applying similar descriptors to
the apostates who did not remain faithful to the God who had delivered them.
αὐτοκατάκριτος, also a nt hapax and rare in contemporary literary Greek
(absent in tlg, but an occurrence was identified in a fragment of the third-
century bc Philo Mechanicus 2.652; lsj 280), is possibly a word coined by Paul
himself, and it reflects his thoughts elsewhere (e.g., σεαυτὸν κατακρίνεις, Rom
2:1). Self-condemnation comes from repeated offenses and the refusal to heed
the warnings of the apostle (cf. v. 10).

Bibliography
Herzer, Jens. “Juden—Christen—Gnostiker: Zur Gegnerproblematik der Pastoral-
briefe.” btz 25 (2008): 143–168.
Karris, Robert J. “The Background and Significance of the Polemic of the Pastoral Epis-
tles.” jbl 92 (1973): 549–564.
Schenk, Wolfgang. “Die Briefe an Timotheus i und ii und an Titus (Pastoralbriefe) in
der neueren Forschung (1945–1985).” anrw ii.25.4 (1987): 3404–3438.
Schlarb, Egbert. Die gesunde Lehre: Häresie und Wahrheit im Spiegel der Pastoralbriefe.
Marburg: N.G. Elwert, 1990.

5 Theological Analysis
In this final note on the false teachers, they are characterized as “divisive” (v. 10),
while their teachings would lead to “dissensions” and “quarrels” (v. 9). Though
concerns for dissensions and quarrels are shared among all three of the pe
(1 Tim 6:4; 2Tim 2:23), this explicit characterization of the opponents as “divi-
sive” stands out. The call for unity is based on the affirmation of the singular
“word of the faith” and “the teaching” and the need to correct those “who speak
against it” (1:9; cf. 1:13; 2:15); the dissenters are then those who are “disobedient”
to the truth (1:16). In ecclesiological terms, the one truth is affirmed by the one
people, as the salvation of God is offered to “all people” (2:11; cf. 3:4). For those
outside of the community, this unity, manifested in the consistency between
words and deeds, would bring credit to “the word of God” (2:5; cf. 2:8, 10). Simi-
lar concerns have already appeared in the earlier Paul, where dissensions are to
be avoided on the basis of the affirmation of the one truth (1 Cor 1:10–24; Phil
2:1–11), which created one people (Rom 15:7–13; 16:17–18; Gal 2:15–21) and one
body (1Cor 12:12–31; Col 1:18; 3:10–11), in bearing testimony to God’s glory and
grace (Eph 4:1–16). For Paul, therefore, unity is not merely a matter of rhetoric
(Pogoloff 1992: 109) nor of ecclesiastic cultures (Tupamahu 2018: 234–240); dis-
sension challenges the central confession of the church and its corresponding
mission.
3:12–15 513

The multiple warnings against those who have deviated from the truth may
remind the readers of Jesus’s teachings on community discipline (2 Thess 3:6,
14; Matt 18:15–17; cf. 1Thess 5:20). The “first and second warning” emphasizes
the persistent effort in saving those who are lost. Warning to lost members is
the responsibility of leaders in the Qumran community (cf. 11Q20 15.1; 4Q390
frag. 1.4), though in this case the difference between the “first” and “second”
warning may involve a distinction between a private and public admonition.
Rebuke among friends is encouraged in Jewish traditions for the good of the
one at fault (see Sir 19:13–17), whereas public admonition may aim at maintain-
ing the integrity or “holiness” of the community (cf. 4Q174 1.15; see also Hanson
2006: 211–225). Both concerns may be present here when Paul repeatedly notes
that the God who saves is also the one who purifies his people (cf. 2:14; 3:4–5;
see also 2Tim 2:22–26).

Bibliography
Hanson, Kenneth L. “The Law of Reproof: A Qumranic Exemplar of Pre-Rabbinic
Halakah.” hs 47 (2006): 211–225.
Pogoloff, Stephen M. Logos and Sophia: The Rhetorical Situation of 1 Corinthians.
sblds 134. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992.
Tupamahu, Ekaputra. “Language Politics and the Constitution of Racialized Subjects
in the Corinthian Church.” jsnt 41 (2018): 223–245.

v Final Words to Titus (3:12–15)

1 Translation
12 When I send Artemis or Tychicus to you, do your best to come to me at
Nicopolis, for I have decided to spend the winter there. 13 Do your best to
send Zenas the lawyer and Apollos on their way, and see that they lack noth-
ing. 14 Let our own people learn how to devote themselves to good works to
alleviate the pressing needs, so that they may not be unfruitful. 15 All who are
with me greet you. Greet those who love us in the faith. Grace be with you
all.

2 Text-Critical Analysis
▪ 13 λείπῃ: A few notable witnesses (‫ א‬D* Ψ 1505) read the aorist subjunctive
λίπῃ, which is adopted by Tischendorf, while the present λείπῃ is supported
by an equally diverse group of manuscripts (A C F G 33 1739 1881 pm 𝔐) and
is read by Westcott-Hort. Internal considerations also fail to provide a deci-
sive verdict, with some considering the aorist “required by sense” (Elliott, 162)
514 titus

and others considering the present subjunctive as Paul’s preference (Raderma-

cher, Neutestamentliche Grammatik, 178) when a present subjunctive follows
the aorist imperative + ἵνα construction (cf. Phil 2:2; Col 4:17). In this case, λείπῃ
is slightly preferable.

▪ 15 ἄσπασαι: This single imperative is replaced by the plural ἀσπάσασθε in the

uncial A and the Old Latin b, probably an assimilation to the plural πάντων ὑμῶν
that follows. The singular imperatives in their immediate context (vv. 12, 13)
demand a singular here, and the plural “grace wish” that follows is formulaic at
the end of Paul’s letters even when a singular referent is intended (cf. 1 Tim 6:21;
2 Tim 4:22; Phlm 25).

▪ 15 χάρις: A number of Western witnesses insert τοῦ θεοῦ (F G 629 lat) or τοῦ
κυρίου (D b vgmss) after χάρις, probably an assimilation to the endings of some
of Paul’s earlier letters (Rom 16:20; 1Cor 16:23; Gal 6:18; 1 Thess 5:28; 2 Thess
3:18) though such genitive modifiers are absent in the grace wishes of 1 Tim
6:21 and 2Tim 4:22. The shorter reading in the Alexandrian witnesses (𝔓61 ‫א‬
A C 1739) that is followed by the majority of the minuscules (33 1505 pm 𝔐) is
preferred.

▪ 15 μετὰ πάντων ὑμῶν: The ninth-century minuscule 33 replaces this phrase

with μετὰ τοῦ πνεύματός σου, an assimilation to the ending of 2 Tim (4:22), while
the reading in the eleventh-century minuscule 81 is a conflation of the two read-
ings: μετὰ πάντων ὑμῶν καὶ μετὰ τοῦ πνεύματός σου.

▪ 15 ending: Many witnesses (‫א‬2 D1 F G H K L P Ψ 0278 104 365 630 1241 1505 𝔐
lat sy bo) insert ἀμήν at the end of the letter (as in 1 Timothy), but it is omitted in
the earliest Alexandrian (‫ *א‬A C; cf. 1739) and Western (D* b vgmss) witnesses.
Its inclusion was probably prompted by later liturgical usage and parallels in
some of the earlier Pauline letters (Rom 16:27; Gal 6:18).

Bibliography
Moulton, James H. “Notes from the Papyri ii,” Expositor 6th Series 7 (1903): 104–121.

3 Grammatical Analysis
The boundary of this unit is clearly marked by the shift from the previous unit
that is dominated by present and perfect verbs to the present one that contains
a list of six aorist verbs, four of which are at the beginning of the unit (πέμψω,
σπούδασον, ἐλθεῖν, παραχειμάσαι, v. 12; cf. πρόπεμψον, v. 13, ἄσπασαι, v. 15). In terms
of content, the focus also shifts from the false teachers to those Paul trusts (Van
3:12–15 515

Neste, 251). Moreover, the travelogue and the presence of names that appear
nowhere else in this letter also mark this unit off as a proper closing to this
letter.
Not only does the contrast between false teachers and trusted messengers
provide a link with the previous unit, but the note on “good works” (καλῶν
ἔργων, v. 14) in reference to acts of hospitality shown to these messengers (v. 13)
also provides a concrete example of how believers can engage in good works, a
call found in the previous units (cf. 3:1, 8).
Cohesion is provided primarily by elements that are often expected in let-
ter closings. In the first part of the travelogue, Paul urges Titus to come to him
(σπούδασον ἐλθεῖν πρός με). This independent clause is modified by a temporal
clause introduced by the temporal marker ὅταν, and it is followed by a γάρ-
clause that provides the grounds for this call. The second part of the travelogue
is connected to the first by the use of the cognate adverb σπουδαίως as Paul
urges Titus to help send two messengers on their way (πρόπεμψον), and this
independent clause is modified by a ἵνα-clause that provides the content of the
imperative πρόπεμψον.
The exhortation that follows is connected with the previous travelogue by
the developmental δέ, and the general nature of this exhortation is grammati-
calized by the shift from the previous second-person singular aorist imperatives
(σπούδασον, v. 12; πρόπεμψον, v. 13) to the third-person plural present imperative
(μανθανέτωσαν, v. 14). This general exhortation is, in turn, followed by a negated
ἵνα-clause that depicts the outcome that is to be avoided.
The final greetings contain a report of greetings from others (with the
present indicative άσπάζονται) as well as a call for Titus to greet those in the
faith (with the aorist imperative ἄσπασαι, v. 15). The final benediction is similar
to those of 1Timothy (6:21) and 2Timothy (4:22) with the added πάντων to mark
its general applicability.

▪ 12 Ὅταν πέμψω Ἀρτεμᾶν πρὸς σὲ ἢ Τύχικον, σπούδασον ἐλθεῖν πρός με εἰς Νικόπο-
λιν, ἐκεῖ γὰρ κέκρικα παραχειμάσαι. This final unit begins with a marked focus on
the personal relationship between Paul and Titus, as reflected in the return of
the first-person singular verb (πέμψω), the use of the first (μέ) and second (σέ)
person singular pronouns, as well as the marked perfect verb (κέκρικα). πέμψω
can be future indicative (Luke 20:13; John 15:26; 16:7; 1 Cor 16:3) or aorist sub-
junctive (John 13:20), but following ὅταν it is best taken as an aorist subjunctive
(cf. ὅταν … καταστρηνιάσωσιν, 1Tim 5:11).
σπουδάζω may draw attention to speed (“to proceed quickly, hurry, hasten,”
bdag 939) or effort and determination (“to apply oneself diligently to,” Spicq,
tlnt 3:278). The latter meaning dominates in Paul (Gal 2:10; Eph 4:3; 1 Thess
2:17; 2Tim 2:15; 4:9, 21), and should be taken as so in this context.
516 titus

The conjunction γάρ introduces the grounds for the preceding imperative.
The use of the perfect κέκρικα with the complementary aorist infinitive παρα-
χειμάσαι provides a notable example of the inadequacy of the temporal reading
of the Greek tenses. The perfect κέκρικα here can refer to a present (cf. Porter,
Verbal Aspect, 254) or past (cf. Perkins, 285) act, while the aorist infinitive points
to a future act (cf. Wallace, Grammar, 604). Rather than focusing on tempo-
ral references, it seems best to consider the perfect κέκρικα as grammaticaliz-
ing stative aspect while the aorist παραχειμάσαι as grammaticalizing perfective
aspect in depicting the event as a concrete whole.

▪ 13 Ζηνᾶν τὸν νομικὸν καὶ Ἀπολλῶν σπουδαίως πρόπεμψον, ἵνα μηδὲν αὐτοῖς λείπῃ.
After mentioning those sent to Crete, Paul now focuses on those leaving Crete.
This corresponding travel plan is reflected in the structural parallel between
this sentence and the previous as the adverb σπουδαίως recalls the previous
imperative σπούδασον while the imperative πρόπεμψον recalls the previous sub-
junctive πέμψω.
As in the case of σπούδασον of the previous verse, σπουδαίως should also be
understood in the sense of “diligently.” The imperative πρόπεμψον includes the
help to be offered in the sending off of these individuals (Acts 15:3; Rom 15:24;
1 Cor 16:6, 11; 2Cor 1:16), as is confirmed by the general exhortation that follows
in v. 14.
ἵνα introduces a clause that provides the content of the imperative πρό-
πεμψον (rather than expressing purpose), though it could also be taken as an
imperative subordinate to the main imperative πρόπεμψον (Zerwick, Biblical
Greek §415). Unlike the use of the aorist subjunctive in the previous verse, here
one finds the present subjunctive λείπῃ, which follows the Pauline preference
where a present subjunctive often follows the aorist imperative + ἵνα construc-
tion (cf. Phil 2:2; Col 4:17; Radermacher, Neutestamentliche Grammatik, 178).

▪ 14 μανθανέτωσαν δὲ καὶ οἱ ἡμέτεροι καλῶν ἔργων προΐστασθαι εἰς τὰς ἀναγκαίας

χρείας, ἵνα μὴ ὦσιν ἄκαρποι. The move from specific instructions to a general
exhortation is marked by the change in both tense and number, from second-
person aorist imperatives (σπούδασον, v. 12; πρόπεμψον, v. 13) in the previous
verses to the third-person present imperative here (μανθανέτωσαν). The use of
δὲ καί is not uncommon in Paul and the pe (1Tim 1:9; 3:7; 5:13, 24; 2 Tim 2:5),
though it only appears here in this letter. The conjunction δέ is not merely
“explanatory” (Quinn, 262) but “developmental” as it moves beyond the par-
ticular circumstances to the general behavior of believers. The καί that follows
is an adverbial “marker of addition” that marks the word/phrase that follows
(οἱ ἡμέτεροι) with prominence (Heckert, Discourse, 64); this use is particularly
3:12–15 517

appropriate here as Paul provides the proper closing to this letter. οἱ ἡμέτεροι
makes it explicit that Paul is referring to the wider community of believers, and
this plural possessive adjective paves the way for the use of the second-person
plural pronoun in the final greetings that follow.
The present imperative μανθανέτωσαν with its present complementary infin-
itive προΐστασθαι grammaticalizes imperfective aspect as is appropriate for
general commands. With the complementary infinitive, μανθάνω carries the
meaning of “learning how to” rather than “learning that” (Robertson, Grammar,
1040–1041).
The preposition εἰς in this context has been understood in a causal sense (cf.
Turner, Syntax, 266–267), though this is unnecessary since the sense of “for the
purpose of” fits well here (cf. “to relieve [εἰς] the pressing needs,” Harris 2012:
91). The description of the object of this call (οἱ ἡμέτεροι) argues for this being
an intra-community discussion, and the use of the clause μὴ ὦσιν ἄκαρποι may
also point to the fruitful ministry, especially within the community of believers
(cf. καρπός, Rom 1:13; see also Gal 5:22; Eph 5:9). As in the case of ἵνα μηδὲν αὐτοῖς
λείπῃ of v. 13, this ἵνα clause can also be understood as introducing an imperati-
val clause subordinated to the main imperative μανθανέτωσαν, thus: “do not let
them be unfruitful” (Huffman, Verbal Aspect, 270).

▪ 15 Ἀσπάζονταί σε οἱ μετ’ ἐμοῦ πάντες. ἄσπασαι τοὺς φιλοῦντας ἡμᾶς ἐν πίστει. The
use of both a present indicative (ἀσπάζονται) and an aorist imperative (ἄσπασαι)
in the closing greetings belongs to the pattern found also in other letter clos-
ings (1Cor 16:19–20; 2Cor 13:11–12; Phil 4:21–22; Heb 13:24; 1 Pet 5:13–14; Porter,
Verbal Aspect, 358). οἱ μετ’ ἐμοῦ deviates from the usual Pauline expression of οἱ
σὺν ἐμοί (Gal 1:2; 2:3; Phil 4:21) but is found in Acts (20:34; cf. 2 Tim 4:11; Quinn,
259).
ἐν πίστει that modifies the substantival participle τοὺς φιλοῦντας may aim at
characterizing the kind of love believers are to exhibit, a love that comes “from
a pure heart, a good conscience, and a genuine faith” (ἐκ καθαρᾶς καρδίας καὶ
συνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς καὶ πίστεως ἀνυποκρίτου, 1Tim 1:5; cf. Titus 2:2).

▪ Ἡ χάρις μετὰ πάντων ὑμῶν. This grace benediction resembles that of Col 4:18;
1 Tim 6:21, and 2Tim 4:22, with the addition of πάντων. An optative εἴη is likely
implied here carrying an imperatival sense (cf. 1 Tim 6:21; 2 Tim 4:22). The use
of the plural ὑμῶν, the only second-person plural in this letter, is anticipated
by the reference to the wider community of believers in v. 14. Unlike 1 Tim 6:21,
this plural is not significantly disputed, especially with the presence of πάντων.
As in 1Timothy, however, the significance of this personal letter for the church
cannot be dismissed, especially in this letter closing.
518 titus

Bibliography
Harris, Murray J. Prepositions and Theology in the Greek New Testament. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 2012.

4 Historical Analysis
Compared to 1Timothy, this letter closing finds closer resemblance to other
Pauline letters: travelogue (vv. 12–13), general exhortation (v. 14), final greetings
(v. 15a), and the grace benediction (v. 15b). Both the travelogue and the final
greetings secure the relationship between the author and the readers. The gen-
eral exhortation summarizes the concern of the main body of the letter while
providing a way for a narrow application in a particular context. The closing
benediction redirects the attention to the relationship between God and the
readers.
This letter closing does not merely borrow from Paul’s earlier letters, how-
ever: (1) the travelogue is not always placed at the end of Paul’s letters (Rom
15:14–33; 1Cor 4:14–21; Gal 4:12–20; 1Thess 2:17–3:11); (2) various types of greet-
ings can be found in Paul’s letter closings, but the third-person greeting here
(ἀσπάζονταί σε οἱ μετ’ ἐμοῦ πάντες) resembles that of Phil 4:21 (ἀσπάζονται ὑμᾶς
οἱ σὺν ἐμοὶ ἀδελφοί), while the second-person greeting (ἄσπασαι τοὺς φιλοῦντας
ἡμᾶς ἐν πίστει) is unique in Paul but resembles that of 3 John 15 (ἀσπάζου τοὺς
φίλους κατ’ ὄνομα) instead; and (3) the grace benediction (ἡ χάρις μετὰ πάντων
ὑμῶν) finds its exact parallel in Heb 13:25, though it closely resembles that of
Colossians (ἡ χάρις μεθ’ ὑμῶν; cf. 1Tim 6:21; 2Tim 4:22).
The flexibility in the content of Paul’s letter closings points to the varia-
tions in addressees as well as in the particular contexts of Paul’s individual
letters, which may explain the difference between this letter closing and that of
1 Timothy. This lengthier closing may suggest that the situation in Crete is less
urgent than that of Ephesians, and its more formal content may suggest that
Paul’s relationship with Titus is not as close as that with Timothy.

▪ 12 This verse provides a glimpse of the historical context in which Paul wrote.
Ἀρτεμᾶς appears only here in the nt and is a shortened form of the Greek
name Ἀρτεμίδωρος, “Gift of Artemis” (bdf §125.1). Ἀρτεμᾶς has appeared in doc-
umentary papyri (bgu 1205; P.Oxy. 745.2; bdag 135) but Ἀρτεμίδωρος is more
common in literary sources (cf. Strabo, Geogr. 3.1.4; 3.2.11; 5.4.6; Plutarch, Luc.
15.3; Caes. 65.4). Later traditions consider this Artemas the bishop of Lystra
(Pseudo-Dorotheus, Vit. proph. 58; cf. Schermann, 1907: 141).
Τύχικος was a companion of Paul on his third missionary journey from
Corinth to Macedonia (Acts 20:4). He might also have been with Paul on his
journey back to Jerusalem (cf. Acts 21:29). He served as the courier for Paul’s
3:12–15 519

letters to the Ephesians (6:21) and to the Colossians (4:7). He was later sent to
Ephesus (2Tim 4:12), which may suggest that Paul had later decided to send
Artemas instead to Crete (Spicq, 2.689–690). That Artemas is mentioned first
here may indicate Paul’s initial preference to send him to Crete anyway. The fact
that Tychicus is mentioned a number of times in relation to Ephesus may sug-
gest he was from Ephesus and a convert during Paul’s ministry there (Schnabel
2.1228). For σπουδάζω, see 2Tim 2:15.
Of the nine cities of the same name, this Nicopolis likely refers to the city in
the promontory of Epirus on the western coast of Macedonia (though Tacitus,
Ann. 2.53, considers this Nicopolis part of Achaia), a Roman colony founded in
31 bc by Augustus to commemorate his victory over Marc Anthony at Actium
across the Ambracian Gulf from Nicopolis (Josephus, A.J. 16.147, also mentions
the benefaction of Herod the Great in the construction of many structures in
Nicopolis). It is a city with more than one harbor at its coastline, and, as a
result of the merging of the surrounding cities, it has a substantial population
that also contains a stadium for the quinquennial games (Strabo, Geogr. 7.7.6).
Located at the western end of a prominent network of Roman roads, Nicopolis
lies south of Dalmatia, where Paul later sent for Titus presumably to meet with
him (2Tim 4:10). Paul may have been in western Greece, planning to travel to
Nicopolis (thus ἐκεῖ), when he was writing this letter (some manuscripts [A Pvid
81] include subscriptions noting Nicopolis as the place where Paul wrote this
letter). The mention of Corinth in 2Tim 4:20 may support Paul’s presence in
Greece during this last period of his ministry in the East.
παραχειμάσαι appears in both Acts (27:12; 28:11; cf. παραχειμασία, 27:12) and
the earlier Paul (1Cor 16:6) in reference to a journey or seafaring (see also
Demosthenes, C. Phorm. 8; Dionys. 30; Quinn, 256). The winter months (Nov 11–
March 10; see Vegetius, De re militari 4.39, though he considers the safest travel
period to be May 27–Sept 14) are considered to be impossible for sea journeys
because of the Mediterranean storms (Josephus, B.J. 2.230). Paul likely decided
to spend the winter in Nicopolis in preparation for further travels in the spring.
It is possible that after the winter, he was rearrested to stand trial again in Rome.

▪ 13 The role of Zenas and Apollos remains unclear (though they may have
been the couriers for this letter), but apparently they were on their way away
from Crete (and Titus) as Artemis or Tychicus were being sent to Crete (and
Titus). Ζηνᾶς is likely a shortened form of the well-attested Ζηνόδωρος (Horsley
1982: 89). The exact reference behind τὸν νομικόν is disputed. A notable minor-
ity takes this to refer to “one well-versed in the Torah” because of the lack of
“more intimate identification” (cf. Λουκᾶς ὁ ἰατρὸς ὁ ἀγαπητός, Col 4:14; Quinn,
265). Nevertheless, Paul’s polemic against the false teachings that bear distinct
520 titus

Jewish elements (cf. 1:10, 14) and against disputes concerning the law (cf. 3:9)
makes this reading unlikely. Moreover, whether Jewish experts of the law are
identified as such in Crete (or elsewhere in diaspora communities) remains
unclear, especially since within the nt the term is used with this distinct refer-
ence only in the Synoptics (Matt 22:35; Luke 7:30; 10:25; 11:45–46, 52; 14:3). The
pagan name Zenas also discourages the limitation of this term to a Jewish con-
text (cf. Spicq, 2.691). Finally, the rarity of Paul mentioning the profession of
an individual argues against drawing any conclusions based on the presence or
lack of “intimate” references. Therefore, τὸν νομικόν should best be understood
as a general reference to a Roman lawyer.
The mention of a lawyer in relation to Crete is not surprising in light of the
prominence of the legal traditions in Crete (Plato, Leg. 624a), capsulated in the
famous Law Code of Gortyn, which makes Crete “not only a colony but a centre
of pilgrimage for legal inspiration” (Willets 1982: 237). Someone by the name of
Zenon is identified as a son of Onesiphorus (cf. 2 Tim 1:16; 4:19) in the Acts of
Paul 3.2, but it is unclear if the two refer to the same individual. This Zenas was
later remembered as the bishop of Diospolis in Palestine (Pseudo-Dorotheus,
Disc. Dom. 61; cf. Schermann 1907: 125).
Ἀπολλῶς, a shortened form of Ἀπολλώνιος, is an Alexandrian Jew who is
claimed to have been instructed in τὸν λόγον τοῦ κυρίου in his native land, in the
Western text (D) of Acts 18:25. He received extensive treatment in Acts 18:24–
19:1, which depicts his ministry in Ephesus and his training under Priscilla and
Aquila. Afterward, he had a fruitful ministry in Corinth (1 Cor 3:5–11), where
a group of believers considered themselves his followers (1 Cor 1:12; 3:1–4). He
was with Paul in Ephesus when 1Corinthians was written (1 Cor 16:12) and
appears to continue to be Paul’s companion in the final stages of his min-
istry.
In the nt, προπέμπω is always used for the provision of Christian workers
in their missionary journeys (Acts 15:3; 20:38; 21:5; Rom 15:24; 16:6, 11; 2 Cor 1:16;
3 John 6; cf. 1Esd 4:47; 1Macc 12:4; Josephus, A.J. 5.99). That they are to “lack
nothing” (μηδὲν … λείπῃ; cf. ἐν μηδενὶ λειπόμενοι, James 1:4) makes it clear that
the act of sending them forth includes material provisions. This is consistent
with the Jewish practice: when a person is sent forth, he is furnished with plenty
of supplies (πολλὰ παρεσχημένον … προπέμψαντα; Josephus, A.J. 7.272). For Paul,
to do so is to be partners in the gospel ministry, and thus to be involved in “good
works” (καλῶν ἔργων) that will not be “unfruitful” (ἄκαρποι, v. 14).

▪ 14 οἱ ἡμέτεροι refers to those “in the faith” (ἐν πίστει, v. 15) and thus is con-
trasted with those who opposed “our words” (τοῖς ἡμετέροις λόγοις, 2 Tim 4:15).
προΐστασθαι with καλῶν ἔργων recalls καλῶν ἔργων προΐστασθαι of v. 8 and evokes
3:12–15 521

a familiar theme in this letter (καλῶν ἔργων, 2:7, 14; 3:8; cf. ἔργον ἀγαθόν, 1:16;
3:1). As noted earlier, Christ gave himself to redeem us and “to purify for him-
self a people of his very own (ἑαυτῷ λαὸν περιούσιον) who are zealous for good
works (καλῶν ἔργων)” (2:14), thus the call here for “our own people (οἱ ἡμέτε-
ροι)” to devote themselves “to good works (καλῶν ἔργων)” is but to live as those
who are redeemed and purified. τὰς ἀναγκαίας χρείας can be understood as a
shortened form of τὰς ἀναγκαίας τοῦ βίου χρείας (Polybius 4.38.4; cf. πρὸς τὸ ζῆν
ἀναγκαίας χρείας, Philo, Spec. 2.65) and thus can refer to the basic necessities of
life (Spicq, 2.693). In this context (cf. v. 13), however, it likely refers to the help
to be granted to itinerant missionaries who are in financial need (Quinn, 168;
Collins, 373) and is, therefore, comparable to the use of χρεία in reference to
acts of hospitality (τὴν φιλοξενίαν) in Rom 12:13. To support these missionaries
is the expected behavior of the people of God.
Within the present context, which discusses the lives of those who are
redeemed and purified, ἄκαρποι takes on added significance. The call for believ-
ers not to be “unfruitful” (ἄκαρποι) here is to live a life that has experienced “the
renewal by the Holy Spirit” as noted in the previous section (v. 5).

▪ 15 Notably, while words of greetings are absent in 1 Timothy, and a more

personal one is found in 2Timothy, Titus provides general second- and third-
person greetings, which follow closely the form (second- and third-person) and
function (that of expressing philophronesis) of greetings in contemporaneous
Hellenistic letters (P.Tebt. 412, 413; P.Oxy. 1677, 2275, 2981; Weima 1994: 39–45).
In Paul, personal names are often found in the final second- (Rom 16:3–15;
Col 4:15) and third- (Rom 16:21, 23; 1Cor 16:19; Phil 4:22; Col 4:10, 12, 14; 2 Cor
4:19, 21; Phlm 23) person greetings (first-person greetings only appear in Rom
16:22, from the pen of Tertius, Paul’s amanuensis), but the general greetings here
(ἀσπάζονταί σε οἱ μετ’ ἐμοῦ πάντες. ἄσπασαι τοὺς φιλοῦντας ἡμᾶς ἐν πίστει) come
close to the ones in Phil 4:21. Instead of focusing on individuals who are greeted
or are sending their greetings, the use of the emphatic πάντες (and in the grace
benediction that follows) may contain a veiled criticism against the divisive
nature of the false teachers (cf. 3:9–10).
In light of the importance of the phrase ἐν πίστει in the pe in the sense of
“in the (Christian) faith” (1Tim 1:2; 2:7, 15; 3:13; 2 Tim 1:13), τοὺς φιλοῦντας ἡμᾶς
ἐν πίστει primarily denotes those within the community of faith, with per-
haps a polemic edge against the false teachers (Kelly, 259). The double sense
of “friends who are Christians” and “friends who can be trusted” (Barrett, 148)
cannot be ruled out, especially in a letter closing that betrays personal senti-
ments.
522 titus

Bibliography
Horsley, G.H.R. “κτήτωρ.” NewDocs 2 (1982): 89.
Schermann, Theodor. Prophetarum vitae fabulosae, indices apostolorum discipulorum-
que Domini, Dorotheo Epiphanio Hippolyto aliisque vindicata, inter quae nonnulla
primum edidit recensuit schedis vir. cl. Henr. Gelzer usus, prolegomenis indicibus tes-
timoniis apparatu critico instruxit. bsgrt. Leipzig: B.G. Teubner, 1907.
Schnabel, Eckhard. Early Christian Mission, vol. 2. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity,
2004.
Weima, Jeffrey A.D. Neglected Endings: The Significance of the Pauline Letter Closings.
JSNTSup 101. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994.
Willetts, R.F. “Cretan Laws and Society.” In The Cambridge Ancient History Vol. 3.3. Ed.
John Boardman and N.G.L. Hammond, 234–248. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1982.

5 Theological Analysis
In this section, the calls to receive Artemas or Tychicus (v. 12) and to send Zenas
and Apollos on their way (v. 13) are understood as participating in the “good
works” (v. 14) and thus being “fruitful” as they experience “the renewal by the
Holy Spirit” (v. 5). This is consistent with Paul’s emphasis on the importance
of hospitality elsewhere in his letter. First, for Paul, the support of Christian
workers does not make them the church’s clients, thus placing them in a lower
social status (Seneca, Ben. 2.13.2), nor will they be indebted to them within
the social convention of reciprocity (Seneca, Ben. 5.11.5); instead, in support-
ing these Christian workers, the benefactors are participating in the missionary
activities as equal partners (cf. Phil 1:3–6; Peterman 1997: 93–105, 201–204).
Second, in showing hospitality to these workers, they are continuing the
work of Christ and of Paul in extending the mission beyond their narrow con-
fines. As Paul urges the churches to receive them and/or send them on their
way (Rom 12:13; 2Cor 1:16; Phil 2:30), they are completing “what was lacking
in [their] service” to Paul and his ministry (Phil 2:30). This is in line with the
emphasis on hospitality in the Johannine literature, where to receive Christ is
to receive the Father who sent him (John 1:11–12; 3:16–20; 5:30; 6:28–29; 7:28–
29), and where to receive the disciples is to receive Christ himself (John 13:20;
3 John 5–6). To refuse to do so, therefore, is to reject God and his redemptive
plans (cf. Malherbe 1977: 222–232).
Finally, beyond sociological and missiological significances, the theme of
hospitality also touches on the heart of the inclusive gospel of Paul that tran-
scends gender, social, and ethnic boundaries (Gal 3:28). In dealing with the divi-
siveness of the community of believers in Corinth, for example, Paul reminds
them of Christ’s hospitality that is to be celebrated in the “sharing in the blood
3:12–15 523

of Christ” and “sharing in the body of Christ” (1Cor 10:17). In participating in this
act of sharing, the church can no longer be “broken by … inhospitality toward
each other” (Jipp 2017: 59). In this letter, where the final section follows the
direct call to “reject a divisive person” (Titus 3:10), these notes on hospitality
take on added significance, which is further underscored by the repeated uses
of πᾶς in v. 15. In response to the divisiveness promoted by the false teachers,
Paul places emphasis on the unity of the mission of all believers, who become
instruments of the continued mission of Paul, “for the sake of the faith of the
elect of God” (1:1).

Bibliography
Jipp, Joshua W. Saved by Faith and Hospitality. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017.
Malherbe, Abraham J. “The Inhospitality of Diotrephes.” In God’s Christ and His People.
Ed. Jacob Jervell and Wayne A. Meeks, 222–232. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1977.
Peterman, G.W. Paul’s Gift from Philippi. sntsms 92. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1997.
2 Timothy

i Opening Salutation (1:1–2)

1 Translation
1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God according to the promise
of life in Christ Jesus, 2 to Timothy, my beloved child. Grace, mercy, and peace
from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.

2 Text-Critical Analysis
▪ 1 Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ: A few notable witnesses (629 1739 1881 vgmss) read Ἰησοῦ Χρι-
στοῦ, while Codex Sinaiticus (‫ )*א‬and a few others (33 [syp]) have κυρίου Ἰησοῦ
Χριστοῦ. Most witnesses from diverse traditions (‫א‬2 A D F G I K L Ψ 81 104 pm
𝔐 lat syh sa bopt) have Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ (cf. 1Tim 1:2). The addition of κυρίου likely
reflects liturgical usage.

3 Grammatical Analysis
As with 1Timothy, this letter opens with two independent clauses with subjects
and complement/adjunct but without stated predicates. This brief opening
marks this unit off from the thanksgiving period that follows, which contains
one carefully crafted sentence with several layers of dependent clauses. Cohe-
sion is provided primarily by generic features that are expected in a letter open-
ing: the identification of the sender and the recipient, and words of greetings.
Cohesion is also secured by repeated references to Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς (vv. 1 [2×],
2) and θεός (vv. 1, 2), as well as the use of titles that situate various characters
within the structure of power (ἀπόστολος, v. 1; ἀγαπητῷ τέκνῳ, v. 2; πατρός, v. 2;
τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν, v. 2).
This opening differs from the closely paralleled opening of 1 Timothy in two
notable ways. First, instead of κατ’ ἐπιταγὴν θεοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν καὶ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ
τῆς ἐλπίδος ἡμῶν (1Tim 1:1), this opening reads διὰ θελήματος θεοῦ κατ’ ἐπαγγε-
λίαν ζωῆς τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ (2Tim 1:1). This is not a mere substitution of κατ’
ἐπιταγὴν θεοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν with διὰ θελήματος θεοῦ (cf. Marshall, 685) because
a κατά-clause is indeed present here in 2Timothy; the difference is the presence
of an additional διά-clause before the κατά-clause (both modifying the verbal
noun ἀπόστολος), perhaps to contrast θέλημα θεοῦ with that of the devil (τοῦ
διαβόλου 2:26).
Second, in place of γνησίῳ τέκνῳ (1Tim 1:2), here Timothy is identified as ἀγα-
πητῷ τέκνῳ (2Tim 1:2). This is often attributed to the “personal” nature of this
letter (Mounce, 463), with the sentimental Paul surfacing in this final letter to

© David W. Pao, 2024 | doi:10.1163/9789004681545_008

1:1–2 525

Timothy (Hanson, 119), though the difference between ἀγαπητῷ τέκνῳ and γνη-
σίῳ τέκνῳ should not be overdrawn (see Historical Analysis).

▪ 1 Παῦλος ἀπόστολος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ διὰ θελήματος θεοῦ κατ’ ἐπαγγελίαν ζωῆς
τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ. As with 1Timothy, Paul begins this letter by identify-
ing himself as ἀπόστολος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ. ἀπόστολος should again be under-
stood in the sense of “messenger,” with Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ as a possessive geni-
tive.
Paralleling Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ are two prepositional phrases that provide fur-
ther definition to Paul’s identity as an apostle. διὰ θελήματος θεοῦ fits well with
other Pauline letter openings (1Cor 1:1; 2Cor 1:1; Eph 1:1; Col 1:1). The κατά-clause
that follows has been understood as expressing the purpose of Paul’s apos-
tleship when being an apostle is understood as “one means by which the life
which is in Christ is to be disseminated” (Barrett, 91), but it is best to take it in
the sense of a “marker of norm” (bdag 512), thus, “according to the promise
of life that is in Christ Jesus” (cf. Spicq, 2.698). This is consistent with the
use of κατά with the accusative in this letter (1:8, 9; 4:3, 14) and the use of
the phrase κατ’ ἐπαγγελίαν elsewhere in the nt (Acts 13:23; Gal 3:29) and in
Koine Greek (igsk: Iznik 702; Şahin 1981: 99a; Horsley 1987: 147). ἐπαγγελίαν
ζωῆς τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ is comparable to ἐπαγγελίαν ἔχουσα ζωῆς … τῆς μελ-
λούσης in 1Tim 4:8, and this christocentric focus is well illustrated by Paul’s
own reception of a new life as he encountered the risen Jesus (cf. 2 Tim 2:9–
10).

▪ 2 Τιμοθέῳ ἀγαπητῷ τέκνῳ, χάρις ἔλεος εἰρήνη ἀπὸ θεοῦ πατρὸς καὶ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ
τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν. The briefer complement for Timothy reflects his relative status
as compared to Paul. Unlike 1Tim 1:2 that identifies Timothy as γνησίῳ τέκνῳ,
here Timothy is called ἀγαπητῷ τέκνῳ. The two should not be strictly separated,
however, since both are authority claims, γνησίῳ τέκνῳ in terms of the authen-
ticity of the claim and ἀγαπητῷ τέκνῳ in terms of the uniqueness of the one
who carries this label.
As in 1Tim 1:2, the asyndetic sequence of nominative absolutes with the
inclusion of ἔλεος conveys the power of the Pauline gospel. ἔλεος resurfaces
in 1:16–18 in a wish statement in reference to one who is faithful to Paul and
his ministry. The first-person plural pronoun ἡμῶν could apply to both θεοῦ
πατρός and Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ κυρίου, and its reference extends beyond Paul
and Timothy to include the confessing community of believers. As such, this
greeting points to the public nature of this letter, despite its personal con-
tent.
526 2 timothy

Bibliography
Horsley, G.H.R. “κατ’ ἐπαγγελίαν.” NewDocs 4 (1987): 147.
Şahin, Sencer. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien Band 10.1, Museum Iznik
(Nikaia) Teil ii.1. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt, 1981.

4 Historical Analysis
This letter opening closely resembles that of 1Tim 1:1–2 as both blur the dis-
tinction between official and personal letters. Unlike 1 Timothy 1, the absence
of a reference to the “command of God” (ἐπιταγὴν θεοῦ) and the presence of
the phrase “the promise of life” (ἐπαγγελίαν ζωῆς) here shifts the focus from a
polemic against false teachers to the charge to Timothy as the legitimate heir.
The insertion of the διά-clause then breaks up the “chain of command” empha-
sis that is found in 1Timothy, and it parallels the κατά-clause that follows (cf.
Gal 1:4: κατὰ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ πατρὸς ἡμῶν) in maintaining the references
to both God and Christ Jesus.
Corresponding to ἀπόστολος, τέκνον should primarily be understood as a sta-
tus marker (cf. 1Tim 1:1). Similarly, ἀγαπητός does not merely convey a particular
kind of emotion; within kinship language, it also points to a particular kind of
relationship within the household (cf. Spicq 2:698). Therefore, the difference
between ἀγαπητῷ τέκνῳ and γνησίῳ τέκνῳ (1Tim 1:2) should not be overdrawn.
Moreover, within this epistolary context where elements of Paul’s final testa-
ment can be detected, the reference to “promise” (ἐπαγγελία) does not point
merely to the general hope for the future; its use elsewhere in contexts speak-
ing of adoption (Rom 9:4, 8; Gal 3:14–16; 4:21–31) and inheritance (Gal 3:18; Eph
1:13–14) provides a rich background for this entire letter.

▪ 1 For ἀπόστολος, see 1Tim 1:1. The use of this appellation is not unusual even
in this personal (though not “private,” cf. ἡμῶν, v. 2) letter, especially since this
authoritative figure is to provide the final instructions for one whom he con-
siders not only a spiritual son, but also an exemplar of the heir of the gospel
that he preaches.
Though often found in Pauline letter openings, διὰ θελήματος θεοῦ should
not be considered devoid of any theological significance as it anticipates the
contrast to the “will” (τὸ … θέλημα) of the devil (2:26). More noteworthy is the
second prepositional phrase, which provides a unique glimpse of the episto-
lary context of this letter: κατ’ ἐπαγγελίαν ζωῆς τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ. Read in
light of Paul’s identification of Timothy as his “beloved child,” this reference to
the “promise” carries the additional nuances of adoption and inheritance (see
above); this is all the more likely since it is qualified by the genitive ζωῆς. In Paul,
ἐπαγγελία often points to the eschatological fulfillment of God’s promise(s) to
1:1–2 527

his people (cf. Rom 4:16; 2Cor 1:20; 7:1; Gal 3:14–18; 4:28), and in Rom 9:4 it is
explicitly linked with the adoption of God’s elect (ὧν ἡ υἱοθεσία καὶ … αἱ ἐπαγ-
γελίαι). Within the Pauline corpus, the use of ἐπαγγελία with ζωή appears only
in 1Tim 4:8, where the reality of this adoption extends from “the present life”
to “the life to come.” Qualified by the prepositional phrase ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, ζωή
also extends the reference beyond the mortal life of Paul (and Timothy) and
paves the way for the reference to the immortal life that the gospel has to offer
(1:10).

▪ 2 As noted above, the difference between ἀγαπητῷ τέκνῳ and γνησίῳ τέκνῳ
(1 Tim 1:2; Titus 1:4) should not be overdrawn, especially given that ἀγαπητός is
used as a status marker in adoption contexts (cf. Rom 1:7; 11:28). This appel-
lation can be used to highlight the unique status of an offspring (even in a
metaphoric sense, cf. Philo, Leg. 3.209) or the treatment of a child as one’s own
son (Diodorus of Sicily, Hist. 1.72.3); in the plural form, this also appears in testa-
ment literature for the admonition of a father to his legitimate heirs (cf. T.Sim.
4.7). If ἐπαγγελία in v. 1 alludes to the more specific Abrahamic promise, as is
often the case in Paul (cf. Rom 4:13, 16; Gal 3:14, 16, 18, 29), then an allusion to
Isaac as Abraham’s beloved son (cf. τοῦ υἱοῦ σου τοῦ ἀγαπητοῦ, Gen 22:2, 12, 16)
cannot be ruled out, especially considering the importance of the Aqedah in
ancient Jewish literature (cf. Kalimi 2010: 1–29) and the portrayal of Jesus him-
self as the beloved Son (Matt 3:17; 17:5; Mark 1:11; 9:7; Luke 3:22). Admittedly,
a line of dependence from the Aqedah to the nt use of this phrase remains
unclear (cf. Davies and Chilton 1978: 531), but the rich history of this phrase
in Jewish and Christian literature argues for the significance of its use here in
securing the connection between Paul and Timothy in this succession narra-
tive.
The opening greeting is identical to that of 1 Tim 1:2, but this should not be
understood as merely formulaic since its content plays a significant role in the
letter body (χάρις, 1:3, 9; 2:1; ἔλεος, 1:16, 18; εἰρήνη, 2:22). This carefully constructed
letter opening again provides an important introduction to Paul’s admonition
to Timothy.

Bibliography
Davies, Philip R., and Bruce D. Chilton, “The Aqedah: A Revised Tradition History.” cbq
40 (1978): 514–546.
Kalimi, Isaac. “‘Go, I Beg You, Take Your Beloved Son and Slay Him!’ The Binding of Isaac
in Rabbinic Literature and Thought.” Review of Rabbinic Judaism 13 (2010): 1–29.
528 2 timothy

5 Theological Analysis
If this section is to be read as an introduction to a succession narrative, the
unique theological emphases should also be noted. Instead of merely focusing
on himself or his successor, with the three-fold references to Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς,
Paul already hints at the thoroughgoing christocentricity that will be found
throughout the letter. In this brief introduction, the apostolic life and ministry,
which are to be remembered and continued, are now closely tied with that of
Jesus himself. The focus is to be placed on the “life [that is] in Christ Jesus,” since
Christ Jesus himself is the agent through which “life and immortality” becomes
a reality for all those who seek to approach God (v. 10; cf. Fee 2007: 472). In shift-
ing the focus away from Paul (and Timothy) to Christ Jesus himself, the unique
status of Christ is also affirmed as the one who alone can accomplish God’s
salvific purpose (cf. 1:9). Paul’s call to Timothy to continue participating in this
salvific plan is thus a call to imitate Christ as he himself is faithful to his own
mission in this divine plan.
With this shift comes an expansion of the temporal horizon; Paul’s mortal
life is now situated within the wider “life in Christ Jesus” that is contained in
God’s “promise” (v. 1). “The power of death” (v. 10) is no longer able to limit
the significance of Paul’s ministry, and his earthly life will find continuity as
he enters into “his heavenly kingdom” (4:18). It is only within this eschatolog-
ical framework that the ministries of Paul and his successor can be appreci-
ated.

Bibliography
Fee, Gordon D. Pauline Christology: An Exegetical-Theological Study. Peabody, MA: Hen-
drickson, 2007.

ii Thanksgiving (1:3–5)

1 Translation
3 I thank God whom I serve, as my ancestors did, with a clear conscience, when
I remember you constantly in my prayers night and day. 4 I long to see you,
as I remember your tears, so that I may be filled with joy. 5 I am reminded of
your sincere faith that first lived in your grandmother Lois and in your mother
Eunice, and now, I am sure, in you as well.

2 Text-Critical Analysis
▪ 3 μνείαν: The two variants (μνίαν [‫ א‬D F G], μνήαν [1735]) are likely caused by
itacism.
1:3–5 529

▪ 5 λαβών: This aorist is replaced by the present λαμβάνων in mostly late Byzan-
tine witnesses (‫א‬2 D K L 81 [365] 630 1241 1501 𝔐 syh), and this variant is con-
sidered to be appropriate because “a continuing feeling is what the author is
emphasizing” (Elliott, 114). This understanding of the present tense as encod-
ing a continuous act is, however, problematic (see comments). λαβών is sup-
ported primarily by the Alexandrian witnesses (‫ *א‬A C F G Ψ 33 1739 [1881]) and
remains the best reading; the change to the present tense is likely an attempt
to conform to the preceding present participle (ἐπιποθῶν, v. 4).

3 Grammatical Analysis
Χάριν ἔχω τῷ θεῷ clearly marks the beginning of this thanksgiving unit, which
consists of one complex sentence. The ending of the unit is disputed, primarily
because of the phrase δι’ ἣν αἰτίαν in v. 6 that provides a secure link between the
two units (cf. Hanson, 119, who considers 1:3–8 as a unit). Nevertheless, the shift
between vv. 5 and 6 can still be detected. First, the hypotactic structure of the
one long sentence in vv. 3–5 is contrasted with the predominantly paratactic
structure in vv. 6–14 that consists of a series of independent clauses. In terms of
verbal pattern, the present unit is dominated by indicative verbs, while the next
contains several imperatives (συγκακοπάθησον, v. 8; ἔχε, v. 13; φύλαξον, v. 14). In
terms of content, the present unit highlights Timothy’s sincere faith (v. 5) while
the next focuses on his gifts and responsibility.
Cohesion in this unit is maintained by its tightly organized syntactic struc-
ture as well as the repeated use of words within the same semantic domain
(LNd §29 Memory and Recall: μνείαν, v. 3; μιμνῄσκομαι, v. 4; ὑπόμνησις, v. 5). The
repeated use of the first-person singular (vv. 3 [4×], 4, 5) and second-person
singular (vv. 3, 4 [2×], 5 [4×]) references also draws attention to the personal
relationship between Paul and Timothy (Van Neste, 147). The emphasis on the
transmission of tradition should also be noted as Paul begins with his faithful-
ness to the tradition of the forefathers (v. 3) and ends with a subtle reminder
for Timothy to be faithful to the tradition of faith that he has inherited from his
mother and his grandmother (v. 5).
This thanksgiving period begins with the formulaic χάριν ἔχω τῷ θεῷ (v. 3;
cf. 1Tim 1:12), followed by a relative clause (ᾧ) that provides further characteri-
zation of God. The clause introduced by the adverbial ὡς provides the context
in which Paul offers his thanksgiving prayer to God as he remembers Timothy,
while the participial clause introduced by ἐπιποθῶν (v. 4) modifies ἔχω within
the ὡς clause as it provides the circumstances accompanying Paul’s remem-
brance of Timothy, which is modified by another participial clause (μεμνημένος)
and a ἵνα-clause depicting the context and purpose of his longing to see Timo-
thy. The final participial clause (ὑπόμνησιν λαβών, v. 5) modifies the main clause
530 2 timothy

(χάριν ἔχω τῷ θεῷ) as it provides the content of Paul’s thanksgiving prayer, and
this, in turn, is followed by the two relative clauses introduced by ἥτις that
depict the heritage of Timothy’s faith.

▪ 3 Χάριν ἔχω τῷ θεῷ, ᾧ λατρεύω ἀπὸ προγόνων ἐν καθαρᾷ συνειδήσει. As in the

thanksgiving period of 1Timothy, Paul uses χάρις here instead of the εὐχαριστία
word group of the other Pauline introductory thanksgivings (see 1 Tim 1:12). The
relative pronoun ᾧ introduces an embedded non-defining relative clause that
aims not at providing definition to its antecedent (τῷ θεῷ), which is fully spec-
ified, but to introduce into the discourse “some aspect of the dominant clause”
(Halliday, Functional Grammar, 464). This prepositional phrase recalls λατρεύω
τῷ πατρῴῳ θεῷ of Acts 24:14 (Barrett, 92), and notably in both the emphasis lies
in the root of Paul’s call and mission (thus ἀπὸ προγόνων). Note also the refer-
ence to Paul’s conscience here (ἐν καθαρᾷ συνειδήσει) that recalls ἀπρόσκοπον
συνείδησιν of Acts 24:16.

▪ ὡς ἀδιάλειπτον ἔχω τὴν περὶ σοῦ μνείαν ἐν ταῖς δεήσεσίν μου νυκτὸς καὶ ἡμέρας.
Instead of taking ὡς as a “causal particle” (Robertson, Grammar, 963), the clause
introduced by ὡς should be understood as providing the context in which Paul
offers his thanksgiving prayer to God (cf. also Rom 1:9). The phrase νυκτὸς καὶ
ἡμέρας has been used in relation to prayer in both the pe (1 Tim 5:5) and else-
where in Paul (1Thess 3:10) and should best be understood as modifying ταῖς
δεήσεσίν μου here (Kelly, 156) rather than ἐπιποθῶν … ἰδεῖν that follows in v. 4
(Hanson, 120).

▪ 4 ἐπιποθῶν σε ἰδεῖν, μεμνημένος σου τῶν δακρύων. The present participle ἐπιπο-
θῶν modifies ἔχω within the preceding ὡς clause as it depicts a contempora-
neous act, while the complementary infinitive ἰδεῖν is in the aorist tense, as is
appropriate for a concrete event. The participial clause that follows (μεμνημέ-
νος σου τῶν δακρύων) modifies the participle ἐπιποθῶν while marking this act of
longing with prominence through (1) the use of the perfect participle μεμνημέ-
νος, (2) the repeated use of the second-person singular personal pronoun σοῦ,
and (3) the mentioning of tears (τῶν δακρύων) that draws attention to the emo-
tional overtone of this context. The context to which the tears refer remains
unclear, but here it serves as the foil for Paul’s anticipation of the joy (χαρᾶς)
that is to come. Within this thanksgiving period, this participial clause also
serves as the bridge to the notes on remembrance that precede (μνείαν, v. 3)
and follow (ὑπόμνησις, v. 5). To say, therefore, that this clause is merely a product
of a pseudepigrapher who “did not want to present his hero as someone who
was concerned only with his own personal well-being” (Collins, 192) misses its
rhetorical significance.
1:3–5 531

▪ ἵνα χαρᾶς πληρωθῶ. The ἵνα-clause that follows points to the purpose of his
longing to see Timothy. χαρᾶς here does not simply refer to a sense of personal
fulfillment but primarily to a realization of the purpose of God being fulfilled
among his people (see, for example, the parallel in Phil 2:2 where χαρά appears
with πληρόω in reference to the maturity of the community of believers).

▪ 5 ὑπόμνησιν λαβὼν τῆς ἐν σοὶ ἀνυποκρίτου πίστεως. This final participial clause
of the thanksgiving period modifies the main clause (χάριν ἔχω τῷ θεῷ) as it
provides the content of Paul’s thanksgiving prayer. As in a number of Pauline
thanksgiving periods, the ground for Paul’s thanksgiving is provided by a causal
participle (λαβών, v. 5; cf. μνημονεύοντες and εἰδότες in 1 Thess 1:3–4; ἀκούων in
Phlm 5; cf. Schubert 1939: 21), which provides the content of the thanksgiving
report. The aorist λαβών grammaticalizes perfective aspect and conceives of
the event as a whole, but it does not necessarily refer to a particular historical
event that prompted Paul’s act of recalling Timothy’s sincere faith (contra Kelly,
157). The bracketing of the prepositional phrase ἐν σοί with the article (τῆς)
and the head terms (ἀνυποκρίτου πίστεως) signals the function of the preposi-
tional phrase not as an identifier but as a prominent item within the discourse
(cf. Peters, Greek Article, 265). As Paul draws this thanksgiving to a close, the
attention is focused squarely on Timothy and the way he is to live out this
faith.

▪ ἥτις ἐνῴκησεν πρῶτον ἐν τῇ μάμμῃ σου Λωΐδι καὶ τῇ μητρί σου Εὐνίκῃ, πέπεισμαι
δὲ ὅτι καὶ ἐν σοί. As the main clause at the beginning of this unit is followed by
a relative clause, the participial clause that concludes this unit is also followed
by relative clauses, both of which provide further characterization of Timothy’s
faith. The tense of the aorist ἐνῴκησεν has been taken to depict the moment of
Lois and Eunice’s conversion (Barrett, 92), but elsewhere in Paul the verb ἐνοι-
κέω is used in reference to the (continuous) indwelling of the Spirit (Rom 8:11)
and the word of God (Col 3:16). The reference to Timothy sharing this experi-
ence (καὶ ἐν σοί) likely refers to the continuous life of faith as well. πρῶτον does
not necessarily refer to Lois as the first in her household to become a believer
(contra Hanson, 120); it can be used in a comparative sense (cf. bdf § 244),
describing how Lois and Eunice experienced a life of faith before Timothy did.
The postpositive δέ is clearly copulative rather than contrastive, especially
since it is followed by the adverbial καί (Heckert, Discourse, 37, 43). It marks
the development of thought as Paul concludes with a note on Timothy that
takes on the primary role within these two relative clauses. This final clause is
marked with prominence by (1) the use of the adverbial καί that highlights the
significance of the clause that follows (Titrud 1991: 4), (2) the second appear-
532 2 timothy

ance of the prepositional phrase ἐν σοί (cf. v. 5a), and (3) the use of the per-
fect indicative πέπεισμαι. The use of πείθομαι with ὅτι conforms to Koine usage
(P.Oxy.Hels. 47b; cf. Rom 8:38; 2Tim 1:12; Heb 13:18; Horsley 1987: 56); in the per-
fect middle/passive it carries the sense of certitude (bdag 792[4]) rather than
an outcome that requires further persuasion or verification (Johnson, 341). Paul
rests his teachings that follow on this firm foundation of Timothy’s experience
of faith.

Bibliography
Gräbe, P.J. “Die Verhouding tussen Indikatief en Imperatief in die Pauliniese Etiek.”
Scriptura 32 (1990): 54–66.
Horsley, G.H.R. “Letter Requesting Help for a Brother.” NewDocs 4 (1987): 56.
Schubert, Paul. The Form and Function of the Pauline Thanksgiving. Berlin: Alfred Töpel-
mann, 1939.
Titrud, Kermit. “The Overlooked Καί in the Greek New Testament.” Notes 5 (1991): 1–28.

4 Historical Analysis
Only here in the pe does Paul provide a thanksgiving period immediately after
the opening greetings. The grounds for Paul’s thanksgiving are provided by a
participle (λαβών, v. 5), with the two clauses being the core of this thanksgiving:
χάριν ἔχω τῷ θεῷ (v. 3) … ὑπόμνησιν λαβὼν τῆς ἐν σοὶ ἀνυποκρίτου πίστεως (v. 5).
Each of these two clauses is followed by a relative clause that points beyond
Paul and Timothy in depicting the transmission of the tradition of faith. In this
final letter, which has a testamentary flavor, the focus on Paul and Timothy
is not unexpected. With references to the “ancestors” (v. 3) and to Timothy’s
“grandmother” and “mother” (v. 5), however, Paul is pointing to the wider sig-
nificance of this transmission of tradition. It is no longer simply about Paul and
his child in the faith; it is also concerned with the wider community of believ-
ers.
This epistolary context that contains the final word of Paul is also empha-
sized by the words of remembrance noted above. Consistent with the thanks-
giving sections of his earlier letters (Rom 1:9; Eph 1:16; Phil 1:3; 1 Thess 1:2; Phlm
4; cf. 2Tim 1:3), Paul uses the noun μνείαν here. But the inclusion of other words
in this word group (μιμνῄσκομαι, v. 4; ὑπόμνησις, v. 5) reflects the distinct con-
text of this letter. The emphasis on both tradition and remembrance must be
recognized in order to properly read this letter.

▪ 3 λατρεύω is often used in the lxx in the cultic sense of “service” and “worship”
(cf. Exod 3:12; Deut 6:13; 7:4; Josh 24:13; cf. Philo, Migr. 132.2; qe 2.105.4). τῷ θεῷ
ᾧ λατρεύω finds its close parallel in the letter opening of Romans in the identi-
1:3–5 533

fication of the object of Paul’s service (ὁ θεός, ᾧ λατρεύω, Rom 1:9), and in both
contexts, it is used in the wider sense of Paul’s gospel ministry (ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ
τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, Rom 1:9).
In this letter where Paul deals with the succession of his ministry, the expan-
sion of the temporal horizon to a period that predates the apostle becomes
particularly important. προγόνων has been taken as a reference to “relatives” as
in 1Tim 5:4 (Smith, 26), but in this context where Paul’s own relatives are not
in view, and in light of the parallel to Acts 24:14 (see above), it is best to take
this as a reference to Paul’s “ancestors” (bdag, 867). καθαρὰ συνείδησις refers to
a conscientious commitment to living out one’s confession (see 1 Tim 1:5; 3:9)
and, as such, is equivalent to the Hebrew ‫“( ֵלב ָטהוֹר‬pure heart,” Bosman 2003:
116).
ἀδιάλειπτος takes on the function of the related adverb ἀδιαλείπτως that is
always used by Paul in the context of prayer (Rom 1:9; 1 Thess 1:2; 2:13; 5:17),
in tandem with a persistent act of remembrance (the use of μνεία here with
δέησις is a rough equivalent with its use with προσευχή; cf. Eph 1:16; 1 Thess 1:2;
Phlm 4). νυκτὸς καὶ ἡμέρας has often been taken as reflecting “the usual Jewish
order” (Kelly, 156; cf. Mounce, 469), but this order is also often found in Greek
literature since Homeric times (Homer, Od. 14.93; Xenophon, Anab. 7.6.9; cf.
νὺξ ἢ ἡμέρα, Thales, Test. 1.132; Herodotus, Hist. 1.103), and the reverse ἡμέρα
καὶ νύξ is the preferred order in the lxx (Gen 8:22; Lev 8:35; Deut 28:66; 1 Kgs
8:29; 1Chron 9:33; Ps 31:4; Isa 60:11; Jer 8:23; 2Macc 13:10; cf. Esth 4:16; Isa 34:10;
Jdt 11:17; 3Macc 5:11). In the present context, Paul may be referring to evening
and morning prayers (Lock, 83), although the formulaic use of νὺξ καὶ ἡμέρα in
Greek literature, especially with ἀδιάλειπτος here, emphasizes consistency and
persistency.

▪ 4 The occasion behind the reference to Timothy’s tears remains unclear, with
suggestions ranging from tears shed when Paul departed from Miletus (Acts
20:37; Spicq, 2.704), to Paul’s more recent arrest perhaps in Rome (Spencer,
82), thus the sadness over his imprisonment (1:8; Collins, 192). Less likely is the
speculation that the “tears” refer to the regrettable occasion when Timothy was
replaced by Tychicus (cf. 4:12) due to his failure in Ephesus (Murphy-O’Connor
2008: 76) since the contrast here is not one of failure and fruitfulness in min-
istry but separation and personal reunion.
The note on the desire of the sender to see the recipient of this letter is
not unexpected, especially since the formula valetudinis in Hellenistic letters
is meant to secure the relationship between the sender and the recipient (cf.
White 1984: 1734–1735). Nevertheless, Paul does not merely follow literary con-
ventions. In Rom 1:11, the longing to see his recipients (ἐπιποθῶ γὰρ ἰδεῖν ὑμᾶς) is
534 2 timothy

quickly qualified by a ἵνα-clause where one finds an emphasis on the spiritual

gifts believers have for the good of the community. Similarly, in this context,
a ἵνα-clause redirects attention away from the personal relationship between
Paul and Timothy to the joy Paul has in light of the growth in Timothy’s faith
(cf. v. 5).
The use of πληρόω with χαρά can be found almost exclusively in Hellenis-
tic Jewish traditions (Ep. Arist. 178.3; 261.6; 2Macc 3:30; 3 Macc 4:16; Philo, Mos.
1.177; Josephus, A.J. 15.421). In the nt, it is common in the Johannine litera-
ture (John 3:29; 15:11; 16:24; 17:13; 1John 1:4; 2John 12). In Acts, the Holy Spirit
is the instrument of this filling (Acts 13:52), but in Paul, God is identified as the
final agent (Rom 15:13), though human agency is not excluded (2 Cor 7:4; Phil
2:2).

▪ 5 ὑπόμνησις is used only here in Paul (cf. ὑπομιμνῄσκω, 2 Tim 2:14; Titus 3:1),
and can carry the meaning of “being reminded of” (2 Pet 1:13; 3:1), though the
intransitive sense of “remembering” is also possible (LNd § 29.10). The use of
this noun with the verb λαμβάνω does not necessarily carry the sense of “to
remind someone of something” (Philo, Spec. 2.203), and in this context it is best
understood in the sense of “remembering,” especially in light of similar uses of
the remembrance word group in this short section (cf. μνεία, v. 3; μιμνῄσκομαι,
v. 4).
Following the earlier reference to Paul’s lineage (ἀπὸ προγόνων, v. 3), Tim-
othy’s heritage is now traced through his grandmother (μάμμη can refer to
“mother” or “grandmother,” but with μήτηρ that follows, it is best taken to refer
to “grandmother,” cf. Philo, Spec. 3.14; Plutarch, Ag. Cleom. 4.1) Lois and mother
(μήτηρ) Eunice. The lack of any mention of Timothy’s father may be due to the
fact that he is deceased (cf. χήρας, Acts 16:1 [i 104 gig p vgmss]), which may, in
turn, explain the inclusion of Timothy’s (presumably maternal) grandmother
Lois, on whom his widowed mother might have depended after her husband’s
death (LaFosse 2011: 143). His absence here may also be explained by him being
a Gentile, or possibly even a nonbeliever (cf. Acts 16:1; see Malina and Pilch, 145,
who consider Ἕλλην a cultural marker) who was not able to provide Timothy
with the knowledge of the Jewish Scripture (cf. 2 Tim 3:15). Whether Timothy’s
matrilineal heritage would qualify him to be Jewish as in later Rabbinic stip-
ulations (m. Qidd. 3.12) remains unclear (cf. Cohen 1986: 251–268), and such
ambiguities may lie behind his not being circumcised when he was younger
(cf. Barreto 2010: 70–71). Furthermore, the absence of any mention of Timo-
thy’s father may also provide space for Paul’s own assertion that he is Timothy’s
spiritual father (cf. ἀγαπητῷ τέκνῳ, 1:2; γνησίῳ τέκνῳ, 1 Tim 1:1; Titus 1:4; Collins,
193).
1:3–5 535

Bibliography
Barreto, Eric D. Ethnic Negotations: The Function of Race and Ethnicity. wunt 2.294.
Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010.
Bosman, Philip. Conscience in Philo and Paul. wunt 2.166. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2003.
Cohen, Shaye J.D. “Was Timothy Jewish (Acts 16:1–3)? Patristic Exegesis, Rabbinic Law,
and Matrilineal Descent.” jbl 105 (1986): 251–268.
LaFosse, Mona Tokarek. “Age Matters: Age, Aging and Intergenerational Relationships
in Early Christian Communities, with a Focus on 1Timothy 5.” Ph.D. diss., University
of Toronto, 2011.
Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome. St. Paul’s Ephesus. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2008.
White, John L. “New Testament Epistolary Literature in the Framework of Ancient Epis-
tolography.” anrw 2.25.2 (1984): 1730–1756.

5 Theological Analysis
Departing from conventions of Hellenistic letters, this letter opening does not
merely secure the relationship between the author and his audience, but it
also draws attention to the relationship between the audience and God him-
self (even when deities are evoked in Hellenistic letter openings, they are never
the subject of verbs or center of attention; cf. P.Cairo Zen. 59426). After evok-
ing God as the object of thanksgiving (v. 1), Paul does mention his emotional
departure from Timothy (v. 4), but immediately shifts the attention to Timo-
thy’s “faith” (v. 5), a concern that will dominate this letter (1:13; 2:18, 22; 3:8, 10,
15; 4:7). The sincerity of this “faith” points to the subjective appropriation of the
objective “faith” that is to be equated with “the truth” (3:8; cf. 4:7).
As in vv. 1–2, Paul here also draws attention away from himself as one who is
to pass on the faith to Timothy. The naming of Paul’s “ancestors” (v. 3) as well as
Timothy’s “grandmother” and “mother” (v. 5) diffuses Paul’s role as the “patri-
arch” upon whom Timothy, the successor, depends. Therefore, though betray-
ing elements of a “testament” (Martin, 43–52), this letter’s significant departure
from the narrower focus on succession draws attention to a unique theological
emphasis of this letter, one that will be further elaborated in the subsequent
sections.

Bibliography
Von Nordheim, Eckhard. Die Lehre der Alten. i. Das Testament als Literaturgattung im
Judentum der hellenistisch-römischen Zeit. alghj 13. Leiden: Brill, 1980.
536 2 timothy

iii Call to Timothy to Be Faithful (1:6–18)

A To Remember, Hold Fast, and Guard What He Had Received (1:6–14)

1 Translation
6 For this reason I remind you to rekindle the gift of God that is in you through
the laying on of my hands. 7 For God did not give us a Spirit of cowardice, but
of power and love and self-control. 8 Therefore, do not be ashamed of the tes-
timony about our Lord, or of me his prisoner, but share in the suffering for the
gospel by the power of God, 9 who saved us and called us with a holy calling,
not according to our works but according to his own purpose and grace that is
given to us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of ages, 10 but is now revealed
through the manifestation of our Savior Christ Jesus, who has abolished death
and brought eternal life to light through the gospel. 11 For this gospel I was
appointed a herald and apostle and teacher. 12 For this reason I indeed suffer
these things. But I am not ashamed, for I know the one whom I have believed,
and I am convinced that he is able to guard that which has been entrusted
to me1 until that day. 13 Hold fast to the model of sound words that you have
heard from me, with faith and love in Christ Jesus. 14 Guard the good deposit
entrusted to you through the Holy Spirit who lives in us.

2 Text-Critical Analysis
▪ 6 ἀναμιμνῄσκω: This verb is replaced by ὑπομιμνῄσκω in a few witnesses (D Ψ
365 1505 pc), likely to conform to the vocabulary of the pe (3:1; cf. 2 Tim 2:14).
ἀναμιμνῄσκω receives support from diverse textual traditions (‫ א‬A C [F G] 33
[69] 1880 pm 𝔐) and is used by Paul elsewhere (1 Cor 4:17; 2 Cor 7:15).

▪ 6 θεοῦ: Codex Alexandrinus (A) reads Χριστοῦ instead, probably reflecting the
belief that Christ himself is God (Elliott, 117), though a confusion of ΘC with ΧC
cannot be ruled out. Τὸ χάρισμα τοῦ θεοῦ is a typical Pauline phrase (Rom 6:23;
11:29; cf. 1Cor 7:7), though Christ is considered the critical instrument through
whom such gifts are bestowed (Rom 5:15).

▪ 7 δειλίας: Selected minuscules (431 1518) and a few fathers (Cl Did) read δου-
λείας instead, likely yet another example of “semi-conscious reminiscences of
cognate passages,” in this case of Rom 8:15 (Lock, xxxv). Unlike Rom 8:12–25,
however, the contrast between slavery and freedom is absent in this context.

1 Textual evidence argues for taking μοῦ as an objective rather than subjective genitive, thus
“entrusted to me” (see Grammatical Analysis).
1:6–14 537

▪ 9 κατὰ ἰδίαν πρόθεσιν: Many Western and Byzantine witnesses have the elided
κατ’ (D 35 69 1505 pm 𝔐) or καθ’ (F G) instead, but κατά is supported by a num-
ber of witnesses that include the earliest Alexandrian uncials (‫ א‬A C Ψ 33 1739
1880 pc). The change to the elided form is likely influenced by its frequent uses
before a vowel in the pe (1Tim 1:1; 6:3; 2Tim 1:1; Titus 1:3; 3:7), though there
are notable exceptions (cf. Rom 4:4; 8:33). A few late minuscules (1315 1735 1881
2400) inserted the article (κατὰ τὴν ἰδίαν πρόθεσιν), which is considered original
by Elliott (120) because an article is usually expected before ἴδιος; however, this
stylistic argument cannot overturn the overwhelming external evidence that
supports its omission.

▪ 10 Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ: The inverted order (Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ) is read in many wit-
nesses across textual traditions (‫א‬2 C D2 F G K L P Ψ 33 81 1505 1739 1881 pm
𝔐 lat sy Or) and is adopted by sblgnt, but Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ is supported by the
earliest Alexandrian (‫ *א‬A) and Western (D*) uncials and is likely to be origi-
nal (Tischendorf; Westcott-Hort), especially since this is the natural order for
this genitival construction where the case of Χριστοῦ is shown unambiguously
(cf. 1Tim 5:21). The fifth-century uncial I reads θεοῦ instead, likely an assimila-
tion to the frequent identification of God as τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν in the pe (cf. 1 Tim
1:1; 2:3; Titus 1:3; 2:10; 3:4) instead of an example of “anti-adoptionistic corrup-
tions of Scripture” as Ehrman (2011: 102) argues.

▪ 11 καὶ διδάσκαλος: ἐθνῶν is inserted after καὶ διδάσκαλος in many witnesses

across textual traditions (‫א‬2 [C] D F G K L [P] Ψ 81 1505 1739 1881 pm 𝔐 lat sy
Or), but the shorter reading is supported by the earliest Alexandrian witnesses
(‫ *א‬A; cf. Tischendorf; Westcott-Hort) whereas the longer reading is probably
an assimilation to 1Tim 2:7. The notable ninth-century minuscule 33 reads καὶ
διάκονος instead, likely influenced by Paul’s self-identification in his earlier writ-
ings (Eph 3:7; Phil 1:1; Col 1:23, 25).

▪ 12 καί: This is omitted in a number of witnesses (‫ *א‬Ψ 1175 vgmss syp) probably
because of a perceived redundancy, but this adverbial καί takes on an impor-
tant role in marking the following constituent with prominence (Titrud 1991: 4;
cf. Winer, Grammar, 546).

▪ 13 ὧν: Because of the difficulties surrounding the syntax of this verse and the
conceived “unreal semblance of attraction” in the case of ὧν, Hort conjectures
ὅν, which refers back to the implied λόγον, since the singular “is justified by the
comprehensive use of ὁ λόγος in the pe” (Selected Readings, 135). There is, how-
ever, no manuscript basis for this reading, and the verse can be understood in
a number of ways without this conjecture (see Grammatical Analysis).
538 2 timothy

Bibliography
Ehrman, Bart. The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2011.
Titrud, Kermit. “The Overlooked Καί in the Greek New Testament.” Notes 5 (1991): 1–28.

3 Grammatical Analysis
The opening phrase of this unit, δι’ ἣν αἰτίαν, connects it closely with the pre-
vious one, and the verb ἀναμιμνῄσκω (v. 6) also belongs to the same semantic
domain of a dominant word group in the previous unit (LNd § 29 Memory and
Recall: μνείαν, v. 3; μιμνῄσκομαι, v. 4; ὑπόμνησις, v. 5). Nevertheless, the shift to the
hortatory nature of the present unit with its distinct syntactic structure (which
is dominated by a series of independent clauses except for the creedal state-
ment in vv. 9–10) marks this unit off from the previous. Moreover, the phrase
δι’ ἣν αἰτίαν introduces paratactic structures that “are not always regarded as
formally causal” (Robertson, Grammar, 962) and, therefore, is not unexpected
at the beginning of a unit. In Paul, διά + accusative often introduces a new seg-
ment (cf. Rom 5:12; 2Cor 4:1; Eph 1:15; Col 1:9; 1Thess 2:13), and this should be
considered as yet another example (Burggarff 2011: 285).
The end of the unit is marked by a detectable shift in both verbal pattern and
syntactic structure with vv. 15–18. Instead of the recurring imperatives of vv. 6–
14 (συγκακοπάθησον, v. 8; ἔχε, v. 13; φύλαξον, v. 14; cf. ἀναμιμνῄσκω σε ἀναζωπυρεῖν,
v. 6), one finds the introduction of optatives in vv. 15–18 (δῴη, vv. 16, 18). In terms
of syntax, the series of independent clauses in vv. 6–14 are replaced by a more
complex structure in vv. 15–18.
The presence of various types of material within this unit (vv. 6–7 [or vv. 3–
8, exhortation], 9–10 [liturgical], 11–14 [commission]; Hanson, 119–125) has led
some to conclude that “[t]his section is loosely held together by its emphasis on
the need to persevere and hold fast to the traditions” (Miller, 100). In response,
the presence of four exhortations in this unit has been highlighted (Mounce,
475; Van Neste, 156):

1:6 rekindle the gift from God

1:8 do not be ashamed, but suffer with Paul
1:13 keep the pattern of sound teaching
1:14 guard the deposit

But the listing of these isolated exhortations may, in turn, reinforce the reading
that this is a unit “loosely held together.” Cohesion needs, instead, to be estab-
lished by noting the overall structure of this unit, its inner narrative logic, as
well as thematic undercurrents that control its content.
1:6–14 539

In terms of the overall structure of this unit, a chiastic structure has been
proposed (Lau, 129; Collins, 194):

a. Spirit (1:6–7)
b. Suffering (1:8)
c. Christological Statement (1:9–10)
b′. Suffering (1:11–12)
a′. Spirit (1:13–14)

While this thematic structure does not strictly reflect the syntactical structure
of this unit, it does rightly highlight the central significance of the christologi-
cal statement in vv. 9–10, which betrays a very different style and syntax than
its surrounding statements. This structure also draws attention to the role of
the Holy Spirit that frames this unit.
In terms of narrative logic, the move from the responsibility of Timothy
(vv. 6–8) to the example of Christ (vv. 9–10) and Paul himself (vv. 11–12) and
back to Timothy (vv. 13–14) may give the impression of a disjointed collection
of material. The logic of this section, however, becomes clearer as one notices
the wider pattern of Paul’s use of himself as “inductive paradigm” (Donelson,
104) or “example stories” (Fiore 1986: 202–203) throughout this letter (1:11–12,
15–18; 2:8–10; 3:10–11; 4:6–8). One can see how this material is then immedi-
ately followed by clusters of imperatives directed to the recipient of the letter.
Christ is the foundation of the proposed pattern of behavior, but Paul himself is
the concrete demonstration of the work of Christ. Therefore, Timothy is called
not to be ashamed of both the testimony of Christ and of Paul himself (v. 8),
and Timothy is then called to imitate Paul as Paul imitates Christ (vv. 12, 13).
In terms of controlling themes, one finds a consistent attempt in this unit to
encourage Timothy to carry out a particular course of action through the redef-
inition of reality where, against convention, that which is to be desired is not
the values of the wider society. These include the evocation of honor and shame
language, the redefinition of life and death, an implicit anti-imperial polemic,
and the situating of foundation values within an eschatological framework (see
Historical Analysis).
This unit begins with a paratactic causal marker, δι’ ἣν αἰτίαν (v. 6), that pro-
vides the grounds for Paul’s exhortation, and the main verb (ἀναμιμνῄσκω) with
the complementary infinitive (ἀναζωπυρεῖν) expresses Paul’s first exhortation
directed to Timothy concerning τὸ χάρισμα, which is further characterized by
a relative clause. After this opening statement with verbs in the present tense
that foregrounds the discussion, a series of clauses within two sentences follow,
all dominated by aorist verbs (vv. 7–11). The first sentence is introduced by the
540 2 timothy

conjunction γάρ (v. 7), and the second by οὖν (v. 8), and both of them contain
a main assertion followed by a contrastive one introduced by ἀλλά (vv. 7b, 8b).
A γάρ-clause followed by an οὖν-clause is not unusual in the pe (cf. 1 Tim 2:8;
5:14), with the first providing the grounds of the main exhortation by pointing
to the power of God (v. 7), and the second drawing an inference from the main
exhortation (cf. Heckert, Discourse, 101–102) as Paul issues the call for Timothy
not to be ashamed of the Lord and of Paul himself but to rely on the power of
God (v. 8).
The characterization of this God and his salvific plan is provided by three
pairs of attributive participles within this creedal statement: the first pair
(σώσαντος, καλέσαντος, v. 9a) depicts the salvific act of God, and it is followed by
two statements that contrast (οὐ … ἀλλά) the impotence of human beings with
the effective grace of God in this salvific act; the second pair (δοθεῖσαν, v. 9b;
φανερωθεῖσαν, v. 10a) provides further specification concerning the grace that
was given from eternity past (πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων) and is now (δὲ νῦν) revealed
through the manifestation of Christ Jesus; and the third pair (καταργήσαντος,
φωτίσαντος, v. 10b) within the μέν … δέ structure characterizes Christ Jesus as the
one who destroyed death and brought life through the gospel, which is linked
(εἰς ὃ ἐτέθην ἐγὼ) to the mission of Paul, who describes himself as a herald, an
apostle, and a teacher of this gospel.
The second half of this unit begins as the first half does, with the phrase
δι’ ἣν αἰτίαν (v. 12a) that points to the reason for Paul’s suffering, but the main
emphasis lies in the contrastive clause (ἀλλ’ οὐκ, v. 12b) where Paul states that
he is not ashamed of this suffering. The grounds for Paul not being ashamed
are introduced by the conjunction γάρ with a series of perfect verbs (οἶδα, πεπί-
στευκα, πέπεισμαι) that frontground this explanation. The unit concludes with
two final imperatival clauses (ἔχε, v. 13; φύλαξον, v. 14) that call Timothy to keep
the pattern of sound teaching and guard the gospel that was entrusted to him.

▪ 6 Δι’ ἣν αἰτίαν ἀναμιμνῄσκω σε ἀναζωπυρεῖν τὸ χάρισμα τοῦ θεοῦ, ὅ ἐστιν ἐν σοὶ

διὰ τῆς ἐπιθέσεως τῶν χειρῶν μου. The formulaic δι’ ἣν αἰτίαν that introduces a
paratactic structure incorporates the antecedent into the relative clause (cf.
Robertson, Grammar, 718). In this case, the reason for Paul’s reminder may
point to Timothy’s spiritual heritage (ἥτις ἐνῴκησεν πρῶτον ἐν τῇ μάμμῃ σου Λωΐδι
καὶ τῇ μητρί σου Εὐνίκῃ, v. 5) or to Paul’s certainty of the vibrancy of Timothy’s
own faith (πέπεισμαι δὲ ὅτι καὶ ἐν σοί, v. 5).
The series of present tense verbs (ἀναμιμνῄσκω, ἀναζωπυρεῖν, ἐστίν) in these
open clauses grammaticalizes imperfective aspect (even with ἐστίν, despite its
deficient stem), as is expected in general exhortation; these stand in contrast
to a list of aorist verbs in the clauses that follow (vv. 7–11). ἀναμιμνῄσκω with its
1:6–14 541

complementary infinitive ἀναζωπυρεῖν can take on the force of an imperative (I

remind [you] to rekindle = rekindle), but ἀναμιμνῄσκω here is not unexpected
in Paul’s final letter. As in 2:1–13, where a verb of remembrance (μνημονεύω, v. 8)
is accompanied by παρατίθημι (2:2), here a verb of remembrance (ἀναμιμνῄσκω)
is likewise followed by the nominal cognate παραθήκη (vv. 12, 14).
The prefix ἀνα- in the infinitive ἀναζωπυρεῖν has been taken to suggest that
Timothy suffers a lack of passion in his ministry (Perkins 162–163), though such
a conclusion may not be necessary considering this prefix can merely point to
an intensification of the kindling of the flame (Moule, Idiom, 87), and the use
of this prefix may be prompted primarily by the use of the same prefix in its
governing verb ἀναμιμνῄσκω (cf. Mounce, 476, who considers this an example
of alliteration). Nevertheless, the translation “rekindle” is appropriate in light
of contemporary uses (see Historical Analysis), even when it remains unclear
whether an implied criticism of Timothy’s present ministry exists. Within the
phrase τὸ χάρισμα τοῦ θεοῦ, the genitive τοῦ θεοῦ is best taken as a subjective
genitive (Johnson, 345: “that God gave you”).
ὅ ἐστιν ἐν σοί is an embedded relative clause that draws attention to the gift
that Timothy already possesses. On the relationship between this verse and
1 Tim 4:14, a few observations will suffice here. Both verses contain references to
(1) “the gift” (χάρισμα) that Timothy possesses, a gift for the purpose of ministry
rather than the baptism of the Spirit (thus χάρισμα instead of δωρεά; cf. Dunn
1970: 167); (2) the placing of hands (ἐπιθέσεως τῶν χειρῶν); and (3) the work of
the Spirit in their contexts (προφητείας, 1Tim 4:14; πνεῦμα, 2 Tim 1:7). These sim-
ilarities would argue for considering the two references to one singular event.
In light of these similarities, the differences become particularly noteworthy.
First, the use of διά here rather than μετά as in 1 Tim 4:14 can be explained by
the possible use of διά in the sense of accompaniment (as in μετά), and the
avoidance of διά in 1Tim 4:14 because of the presence of another διά-phrase (διὰ
προφητείας) immediately before the μετά-phrase (Harris 2012: 77). More signifi-
cant is the laying on of hands by Paul alone here (μοῦ) instead of the elders (τοῦ
πρεσβυτερίου) in 1Tim 4:14, which can be explained by the unique focus on Paul
in this letter (see Historical Analysis).

▪ 7 οὐ γὰρ ἔδωκεν ἡμῖν ὁ θεὸς πνεῦμα δειλίας ἀλλὰ δυνάμεως καὶ ἀγάπης καὶ σωφρο-
νισμοῦ. This clause, introduced by the postpositive γάρ, strengthens the call
that precedes through the use of a contrastive οὐ … ἀλλά construct, a con-
struct that appears more often in this letter among the pe (1:7, 9; 2:24; 4:3; 1 Tim
2:12; Titus 3:5; cf. οὐ μόνον … ἀλλὰ καί, 2:20; 4:8; 1 Tim 5:13). The aorist ἔδωκεν
views the event as a whole, and it paves the way for the confessional state-
ment in vv. 9–11. In light of this confessional statement, the plural first-person
542 2 timothy

personal pronoun ἡμῖν here should be read with ἡμᾶς in v. 9, with both refer-
ring to believers in general (contra Kelly, 159, who limits ἡμῖν to Timothy and
Paul).
πνεῦμα has often been understood as a human disposition (Dibelius and
Conzelmann, 97), but in this context it is best taken as a reference to the Holy
Spirit (bdag 835; Marshall, 699; Smith, 32–33): (1) as noted above, the work of
the Spirit is closely tied with the laying on of hands as in 1 Tim 4:14; (2) the close
parallel with the οὐ … ἀλλά structure of Rom 8:15 argues for the equation of this
πνεῦμα … δυνάμεως καὶ ἀγάπης καὶ σωφρονισμοῦ with πνεῦμα υἱοθεσίας, which is
identified as the work of the Holy Spirit (cf. Rom 8:16); (3) the frequent use of
the verb δίδωμι in reference to the Holy Spirit (Rom 5:5; 1 Cor 12:7; 2 Cor 1:22;
5:5; 1Thess 4:8) argues for a similar identification here; and (4) the reference to
πνεύματος ἁγίου in v. 14 provides the final confirmation that the Holy Spirit is
a focus of this unit. Reading πνεῦμα as the Holy Spirit, the series of genitives
(δειλίας, δυνάμεως, ἀγάπης, σωφρονισμοῦ) could be taken as genitives of product
(Rom 15:13, 33; Wallace, Greek Grammar, 106–107).

▪ 8 μὴ οὖν ἐπαισχυνθῇς τὸ μαρτύριον τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν μηδὲ ἐμὲ τὸν δέσμιον αὐτοῦ,
ἀλλὰ συγκακοπάθησον τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ κατὰ δύναμιν θεοῦ. μή + aorist subjunctive
(ἐπαισχυνθῇς) is often understood as a call “to forbid a future [act]” (Zerwick,
Biblical Greek, §246), though by itself it should be understood as merely a call to
avoid performing a certain act (thus, Moulton, Prolegomena, 124–125). Instead
of adding “an urgency to the prohibition” (Fanning 1990: 337), the use of an
aorist in this context should be understood as the avoidance of an event con-
ceived as a concrete event.
Within the phrase τὸ μαρτύριον τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν, the genitive τοῦ κυρίου has
been understood as both an objective (Collins, 198) and a subjective (Couser
2004: 316) genitive. Arguments in favor of an objective reading include (1) 1 Cor
1:6 (τὸ μαρτύριον τοῦ Χριστοῦ) where τοῦ Χριστοῦ is clearly to be understood in an
objective sense, and (2) Rom 1:16 if τὸ μαρτύριον τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν is to be under-
stood as τὸ εὐαγγέλιον. Arguments in favor of a subjective reading include: (1)
elsewhere in the pe, ὸ μαρτύριον is used in reference to Christ’s own testimony
(1 Tim 2:6), and (2) the use of the verbal τοῦ μαρτυρήσαντος in 1 Tim 6:13 also
points to Jesus’s testimony in the days of Pontius Pilate. Nevertheless, in this
context, the focus is on the gospel as a whole and not the specific instances of
the testimony of Christ. An objective reading is therefore preferred.
Despite being in a Roman prison, Paul insists that he is the prisoner of Christ,
with τὸν δέσμιον αὐτοῦ understood in the sense of “Christ’s prisoner” instead of
“a prisoner for Christ” (cf. Winer, Grammar, 236). The adversative ἀλλά intro-
duces the call for Timothy to share in Paul’s suffering (συγκακοπάθησον) as Paul
1:6–14 543

himself had shared in Christ’s. The reference to “power” (δύναμιν) links this call
with the previous one (cf. δυνάμεως, v. 7).

▪ 9 τοῦ σώσαντος ἡμᾶς καὶ καλέσαντος κλήσει ἁγίᾳ, οὐ κατὰ τὰ ἔργα ἡμῶν ἀλλὰ κατὰ
ἰδίαν πρόθεσιν καὶ χάριν, τὴν δοθεῖσαν ἡμῖν ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων. The
confessional statement in vv. 9–10 is built around three pairs of participles:

τοῦ σώσαντος, v. 9a
(τοῦ) καλέσαντος, v. 9a

τὴν δοθεῖσαν, v. 9b
(τὴν) φανερωθεῖσαν, v. 10a

καταργήσαντος, v. 10b
φωτίσαντος, v. 10b

Two foci become clear in the use of these three pairs of participles: (1) On salva-
tion: the first pair contains two attributive participles that introduce God as the
one who saves; the second also contains two attributive participles that further
characterize the saving grace of God (v. 9a), but these two participial clauses
draw attention to the role of Christ in God’s saving act (ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, v. 9b,
τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ, v. 10a); and the third pair contains two adver-
bial participles that depict the nature of this act of salvation (v. 10b).
(2) On divine sovereignty and human impotence: the first pair contains an οὐ
… ἀλλά construct that sets up the contrast between divine initiative and human
impotence (v. 9a); the second highlights the accomplishment of divine grace
according to the plan of God “before the beginning of ages” (πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων,
v. 9b), now fulfilled in the work of Christ (v. 10a), thus again out of the realm of
human control; the third pair depicts the nature of the divine act of salvation
that transcends human limitations because it breaks the power of death while
bringing out life and immortality (v. 10b). It is this focus on the powerful act of
God that strengthens Paul’s statement on “the power of God” (δύναμιν θεοῦ) in
v. 8.
The aorist participles σώσαντος and καλέσαντος grammaticalize perfective
aspect as they depict the events as a whole. The dative κλήσει ἁγίᾳ should be
taken as a dative of means since the call of the holy God demands an appropri-
ate response (cf. Eph 4:1).
Following v. 7 above, a contrast is contained in the οὐ … ἀλλά construction
(cf. μή … ἀλλά in v. 8). οὐ κατὰ τὰ ἔργα ἡμῶν is a short form of οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων τῶν
ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ ἃ ἐποιήσαμεν ἡμεῖς (Titus 3:5), while κατὰ ἰδίαν πρόθεσιν καὶ χάριν,
544 2 timothy

τὴν δοθεῖσαν ἡμῖν ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ finds its closest parallel in κατὰ πρόθεσιν τῶν
αἰώνων ἣν ἐποίησεν ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ τῷ κυρίῳ ἡμῶν of Eph 3:11 (cf. Eph 1:11).
That πρόθεσις and χάρις are considered as one is reflected in the use of the sin-
gular feminine adjectival participle τὴν δοθεῖσαν, though this participle likely
modifies χάρις primarily as is often the case in Paul (Rom 12:3; 15:15; 1 Cor 3:10;
2 Cor 8:1, 16; Gal 2:9; Eph 3:7–8; 4:29), especially in reference to the work of Jesus
Christ (1Cor 1:4; Eph 4:7).
For πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων, see Titus 1:2, where it also anticipates the subsequent
manifestation of the climax of God’s redemptive work (ἐφανέρωσεν δὲ καιροῖς
ἰδίοις τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ ἐν κηρύγματι, Titus 1:3).

▪ 10 φανερωθεῖσαν δὲ νῦν διὰ τῆς ἐπιφανείας τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ,
καταργήσαντος μὲν τὸν θάνατον φωτίσαντος δὲ ζωὴν καὶ ἀφθαρσίαν διὰ τοῦ εὐαγ-
γελίου. νῦν does not primarily aim at marking a point in history (cf. Fiore, 139);
instead, it marks the climactic fulfillment of God’s promises through the life of
Christ and the experience of such fulfillment in the lives of the believers (Rom
3:26; 5:9; 2Cor 6:2; Eph 3:5). δία introduces the intermediate means through
which the act of the final agent behind the passive φανερωθεῖσαν can be accom-
plished.
Following the contrast framed by πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων and δὲ νῦν, the μὲν … δέ
construction in the second half of the verse further illuminates the way Christ
accomplishes the divine act of salvation. Not only is a contrast present (i.e.,
from death to life), but δέ also retains a developmental sense since Christ’s
resurrection does not merely erase the harmful effect of his death, but it also
brings new life to those who accept this gospel (cf. Heckert, Discourse, 53). It
is this life-giving power that forms the basis of Paul’s call for Timothy to suffer
with him (v. 8).
The use of καταργέω with θάνατος identifies this death as physical death. The
transformation (rather than mere restoration) of this physical life is marked by
both the participle φωτίσαντος and the phrase ζωὴν καὶ ἀφθαρσίαν (καί carries
an epexegetical sense here, thus “eternal life,” Young, Intermediate New Testa-
ment Grammar, 243). This “eternal life” is not merely an infinite extension of
the physical life, but a new creation that consists of a new immortal existence
(1 Cor 15:42–55) brought about by the immortal God (Rom 1:23; 1 Tim 1:17).
The final prepositional phrase διὰ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου paves the way for the dis-
cussion of Paul’s role within God’s redemptive history (cf. εἰς ὃ ἐτέθην ἐγὼ, v. 11),
especially when this gospel is identified by Paul as τὸ εὐαγγέλιόν μου in 2:8.

▪ 11 εἰς ὃ ἐτέθην ἐγὼ κῆρυξ καὶ ἀπόστολος καὶ διδάσκαλος. With this “predica-
tive amplification” (Winer, Grammar, 550), Paul moves from the christological
1:6–14 545

statement that precedes to his own apostolic mission, thus paving the way for
the call to Timothy to follow his example as he himself has followed Christ’s.
This statement finds its close parallel in 1Tim 2:7, with three notable differ-
ences: (1) in 1Tim 2:7, the antecedent of ὅ is τὸ μαρτύριον (1 Tim 2:6), but here it
is τοῦ εὐαγγελίου (v. 10); (2) this verse omits the oath formula ἀλήθειαν λέγω οὐ
ψεύδομαι and (3) the modifiers that follow διδάσκαλος (ἐθνῶν ἐν πίστει καὶ ἀλη-
θείᾳ).
The first difference is not a substantial one since this gospel (τοῦ εὐαγγελίου,
v. 10) is closely related to τὸ μαρτύριον τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν in v. 8 (taking τοῦ κυρίου as
an objective genitive). The omission of ἀλήθειαν λέγω οὐ ψεύδομαι and ἐθνῶν ἐν
πίστει καὶ ἀληθείᾳ reflects a change in context. The emphasis on truthfulness in
both points to Paul’s need to respond to the false teachers in 1 Timothy, a con-
cern that is less urgent in this letter. The reference to Gentiles (ἐθνῶν) also fits
the context well in 1Timothy 2 with the emphasis on the universal lordship of
Christ (cf. πάντων ἀνθρώπων 1Tim 2:1, 4); here, the focus is on Paul’s apostolic
mission and Timothy’s responsibility to continue Paul’s mission.

▪ 12 δι’ ἣν αἰτίαν καὶ ταῦτα πάσχω. Echoing δι’ ἣν αἰτίαν at the beginning of this
unit (v. 6), the same phrase here introduces the second half of this unit. This half
of the unit is marked with prominence both by the first appearance of present
imperatives (ἔχε, v. 13) in this letter and by a series of three perfect verbs (οἶδα,
πεπίστευκα, πέπεισμαι) within one clause in v. 12.
ἣν αἰτίαν points back immediately to Paul’s identity as an apostle, herald,
and teacher (v. 11), which is rested on the gospel of Jesus Christ (v. 10). καί is
best taken in an adverbial sense (Winer, Grammar, 546) as it marks that which
follows with prominence (Titrud 1991: 4). ταῦτα can refer to his present suffer-
ing (versus his past sufferings, Heckert, Discourse, 65: “also suffer these things”),
but an adverbial καί would allow the understanding of ταῦτα as the totality of
his suffering, thus: “I indeed suffer these things.”

▪ ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἐπαισχύνομαι, οἶδα γὰρ ᾧ πεπίστευκα καὶ πέπεισμαι ὅτι δυνατός ἐστιν τὴν
παραθήκην μου φυλάξαι εἰς ἐκείνην τὴν ἡμέραν. ἀλλ’ οὐκ does not merely qualify
the preceding positive with a negative but sets up a strong contrast and thereby
draws attention to that which follows (cf. Denniston, 1954: 1–2). οὐκ ἐπαισχύνο-
μαι recalls the imperative μὴ … ἐπαισχυνθῇς of v. 8 as Paul uses his own example
as the basis for the call to Timothy to act likewise.
γάρ introduces material that strengthens Paul’s claim not to be ashamed
of his own suffering. οἶδα begins a series of perfect verbs (πεπίστευκα, πέπει-
σμαι) that grammaticalize stative aspect. The already marked perfect verbs
are further underlined by the use of two cognates, πεπίστευκα and πέπεισμαι.
546 2 timothy

Moreover, all three perfect verbs depict mental perception that challenges the
common view of reality as Paul redefines what honor is.
Within the phrase τὴν παραθήκην μου, the genitive μοῦ can be a subjective
genitive (i.e., that which Paul has entrusted to God [Kelly, 165] or to his suc-
cessors [Marshall, 711]) or objective genitive (that which God has entrusted to
Paul, which can mean the gospel [Blecker 2002: 229–267] or the ministry of
the gospel [Smith, 43]). The strongest argument against an objective genitive
reading is that in extra-canonical material, the attributive genitive used with
the Attic form παρακαταθήκη is often used in a subjective sense (2 Macc 3:10;
Philo, Spec. 4.32; Josephus, B.J. 1.276; Plutarch, Ant. 21.3; Wolter 1988: 117). It is
doubtful, however, whether the data collected can provide a sufficient basis for
this conclusion, and the limited samples identified do not include one with
the personal pronoun. Arguments for the objective reading are: (1) elsewhere
in the pe, παραθήκη always points to that which is entrusted by God, including
two verses later in v. 14 (cf. 1Tim 6:20). (2) The context focuses intently on the
sovereignty of God and his powerful gospel (vv. 7–10); even the passive ἐτέθην
in v. 11 emphasizes God as the ultimate agent in Paul’s ministry. (3) In the wider
context, the focus is on the passing on of what Paul has received from God to
Timothy himself (vv. 6, 14), who, in turn, is to “entrust” (παράθου) this gospel to
other faithful ones (2:2), and the confessional statement in vv. 9–10 provides a
natural antecedent for this reference to the deposit. (4) Finally, the eschatolog-
ical note in the phrase εἰς ἐκείνην τὴν ἡμέραν is best understood as God guarding
his own gospel till the end of times, rather than what an individual is entrusting
to God (cf. Smith 2015: 45–46).
The aorist φυλάξαι has been understood as “an aorist used in a consumma-
tive sense” (Fanning 2009: 395), but this conclusion is based more on pragmatic
considerations. Instead, the aorist should be understood as depicting a con-
crete event as a whole. Within the eschatological note εἰς ἐκείνην τὴν ἡμέραν,
the preposition εἰς takes on either a “durative” (Robertson, Grammar, 594) or
“directional” function (Porter, Idioms, 152; cf. Abel, Grammaire, § 48d). Despite
the focus on God’s continuous protection, ἐκείνην here marks the discontinuity
within the progression of ordinary time (cf. Levinsohn 2009: 207), highlight-
ing the distinct otherness of the eschaton. It is this otherness that provides a
different evaluation of honor and shame in this age.

▪ 13 Ὑποτύπωσιν ἔχε ὑγιαινόντων λόγων ὧν παρ’ ἐμοῦ ἤκουσας ἐν πίστει καὶ ἀγάπῃ
τῇ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ. This is the first of two imperatival clauses that provide a con-
clusion to this unit. Due to the lack of an article, many have taken ὑποτύπωσιν as
a “complement in a double accusative object-complement construction,” with
the implied antecedent of the relative pronoun ὧν as the direct object of ἔχε,
1:6–14 547

thus: “hold on to the gospel (i.e., τὴν παραθήκην) that you have heard from me, as
a model of sound words” (cf. Spicq, 2.721; Perkins, 170–171). The awkward word-
order (with the placement of ἔχε) as well as the case of the relative pronoun ὧν
(with an unlikely case of attraction even when it is taken as the genitive object
of ἤκουσας) argues against this reading, whereas the presence of the genitival
modifier ὑγιαινόντων λόγων would have prevented ὑποτύπωσιν from being taken
in an indefinite sense. Therefore, ὑποτύπωσιν is best taken as the direct object
of ἔχε (Marshall 713–714; Johnson, 351).
The adjunct ἐν πίστει καὶ ἀγάπῃ τῇ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ modifies the impera-
tive ἔχε. τῇ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ functions as a “defining relative clause” that iden-
tifies the source or agency of the antecedents (cf. Peters, Greek Article, 83),
but the antecedents should not be considered as “first conceived indefinitely”
(Winer, Grammar, 174), nor should the prepositional phrase be considered “an
afterthought” (bdf §270[3]), especially when both “faith” and “love” are clearly
situated in Christ (cf. 1Tim 1:14). Later in 3:10, both “faith” and “love” are also
mentioned when Paul calls Timothy to follow his example.

▪ 14 τὴν καλὴν παραθήκην φύλαξον διὰ πνεύματος ἁγίου τοῦ ἐνοικοῦντος ἐν ἡμῖν. τὴν
καλὴν παραθήκην φύλαξον recalls the language of τὴν παραθήκην μου φυλάξαι in
v. 12. The shift from the present imperative ἔχε in v. 13 to the aorist imperative
φύλαξον here is noteworthy. This aorist is traditionally conceived as a “durative
… [but] treated as punctiliar” (Robertson, Grammar, 856), which in itself shows
the breakdown of an Aktionsart reading of the Greek aorist. This aorist that
grammaticalizes perfective aspect depicts the event with concrete specificity,
which frontgrounds the preceding present imperative.
The parallelism between this and the previous imperative clause cannot be
missed. Both contain an imperative, followed by a note on agency and means,
followed by a note on location:

ἔχε ἐν πίστει καὶ ἀγάπῃ τῇ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ

φύλαξον διὰ πνεύματος ἁγίου τοῦ ἐνοικοῦντος ἐν ἡμῖν.

Despite its parallelism, the difference is also striking. The first begins with
(seemingly) human virtues (πίστει καὶ ἀγάπῃ) but is immediately qualified by a
christological note (τῇ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ). The second begins with divine agency
(πνεύματος ἁγίου) but is immediately qualified by its human location. Taken
together, two significant points are made: First, the model that Timothy is
called to follow (ὑποτύπωσιν … ὑγιαινόντων λόγων) is the embodiment of the
gospel itself (τὴν καλὴν παραθήκην). Second, and more importantly, Timothy’s
ability to follow this call is rooted in the work of the Holy Spirit since human
548 2 timothy

virtues can only be effective when they are rooted in Christ (ἐν πίστει καὶ ἀγάπῃ
τῇ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ), while divine act becomes effective when it dwells in human
beings (διὰ πνεύματος ἁγίου τοῦ ἐνοικοῦντος ἐν ἡμῖν).

Bibliography
Barth, Markus. Foi et salut selon S. Paul (Épître aux Romains 1, 16). Colloque oecuménique
à l’Abbaye de S. Paul hors les Murs. AnBib 42. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1970.
Blecker, Iris Maria. “Die παραθήκη rettenden Wissens nach den Pastoralbriefen.” In Ret-
tendes Wissen. Studien Zur Forgang weisheitlichen Denkens in Frühjudentum und im
frühen Christentum. Ed. K. Löning, 229–267. aoat 300. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2002.
Couser, Greg A. “‘The Testimony about the Lord,’ ‘Borne by the Lord,’ or Both?” TynBul
55 (2004): 295–316.
Denniston, J.D. The Greek Particles. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1954.
Dunn, James D.G. Baptism in the Holy Spirit. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1970.
Fee, Gordon D. God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul. Pea-
body, MA: Hendrickson, 1994.
Fiore, Benjamin. The Function of Personal Example in the Socratic and Pastoral Epistles.
AnBib 105. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1986.
Harris, Murray J. Prepositions and Theology in the Greek New Testament. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 2012.
Smith, Geoffrey S. Guilty by Association: Heresy Catalogues in Early Christianity. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2015.
Titrud, Kermit. “The Overlooked Καί in the Greek New Testament.” Notes 5 (1991): 1–28.
Towner, Philip H. The Goal of Our Instruction: The Structure of Theology and Ethics in
the Pastoral Epistles. JSNTSup 34. Sheffield: jsot Press, 1989.
Wolter, Michael. Die Pastoralbriefe als Paulustradition. frlant 146. Göttingen: Vanden-
hoeck & Ruprecht, 1988.

4 Historical Analysis
The unique christological and theological assertions contained in vv. 9–10 that
are not found in the rest of the pe may argue for its traditional character:
the use of ἐπιφάνεια for Jesus’s incarnation and his entire earthly existence
instead of his return (v. 10; cf. 1Tim 6:14; 2Tim 4:1, 8; Titus 2:13), the appella-
tion σωτήρ for the earthly Jesus instead of God (v. 10; cf. 1 Tim 1:1; 2:3; 4:10; Titus
1:3; 2:10; 3:4) or the risen Lord (cf. Titus 1:4; 2:13; 3:6), and the description of
the redemptive work of Jesus as one “who has abolished death and brought
eternal life to light through the gospel” (v. 10; see Bockmuehl 1990: 213). Some
would further identify the context of this confessional statement within the
baptismal liturgy (Oberlinner, 2.42–44), especially in reference to death and
new life.
1:6–14 549

Though the use of pre-Pauline material cannot be excluded, that Paul is

merely evoking a preformed statement seems unlikely. The unique christologi-
cal and theological assertions noted above argue for tailoring this statement in
light of its epistolary context. This is reinforced by the observation that “most
of the language of vv. 9f. belongs to contemporary Hellenistic religious vocab-
ulary” (Barrett, 96), even though “the ideas are thoroughly Pauline” (Kelly, 164).
Moreover, with the absence of the language of “washing” (Titus 3:5), which
would provide a stronger connection with the baptismal rite, limiting this con-
fessional statement to one liturgical context remains questionable.
Several distinct motifs in this section contribute to Paul’s rhetorical strategy
in challenging the shared values of the audience. First, the call for Timothy to
“not be ashamed (μὴ … ἐπαισχυνθῇς) of the testimony about our Lord or of me
[Paul]” (v. 8) because Paul himself was “not ashamed” (οὐκ ἐπαισχύνομαι, v. 12) of
the gospel even as a prisoner subverts the conventional paradigm of honor and
shame (cf. Kee 1974: 141). This subversion is possible only with the recognition
that our Lord is “our Savior Christ Jesus” (v. 10).
Second, related to the subversion of the honor and shame code, one finds
the redefinition of life and death. Though Christ has died a bodily death, he
has “abolished death and brought eternal life to light” (v. 10). It is this eternal
life that Timothy is to yearn for.
Third, because of this redefinition of life and death, “suffering [with Paul] for
the sake of the gospel” (v. 8) is no longer a sign of weakness; instead, through
suffering the “power of God” (δύναμιν θεοῦ, v. 8; cf. δυνάμεως, v. 7) is manifested.2
This challenges the imperial conception of power as the control of others and
the violent imposition of one’s will on them (cf. ogis 458; Maier 2013: 153).
Finally, temporal deictic markers are also present to provide a framework
from which values and meanings are to be constructed. References to “the
beginning of ages” (v. 9) and the eschatological future (v. 12) allow the present
suffering to be properly evaluated. This framing of reality not only situates the
Pauline mission within the salvation plan of God (Towner 1999: 154) but also
relativizes the significance of the present period of time in light of the wider
horizon of God’s sovereignty over history.

▪ 6 The nt hapax ἀναζωπυρέω appears twice in the lxx (Gen 45:27; 1 Macc 13:7),
both in reference to τὸ πνεῦμα (though not the “Holy Spirit”), and both con-
taining the idea of “rekindling” (Josephus, B.J. 1.444; cf. ἀναζωπύρησις, Josephus,

2 For the relationship between suffering and authority in the early writings of Paul, see, for
example, Plank 1987: 33–90 and Kelhoffer 2009: 127–143.
550 2 timothy

A.J. 12.327). While an implied criticism of Timothy’s present (or past) behavior
cannot be assumed, that Timothy had been Paul’s reliable “right-hand man”
(Mounce, 476) does not eliminate the need for him to have his gift “rekin-
dled.” This rekindling may then be an emphatic and positive way of saying,
“do not extinguish [the flame of] the Spirit (τὸ πνεῦμα μὴ σβέννυτε)” (cf. Smith,
30).
τὸ χάρισμα τοῦ θεοῦ should be taken as a subjective genitive as in contem-
porary Jewish literature (Sib. Or. 2.54; Philo, Leg. 3.78; Ebr. 11.3) and elsewhere
in Paul (Rom 6:23), and, as such, is comparable to χάρισμα ἐκ θεοῦ in 1 Cor 7:7.
For χάρισμα, see 1Tim 4:14. Although the reception of this χάρισμα is closely
tied with the reception of the Holy Spirit, the context argues for a particular
manifestation of the Spirit (vv. 7–8) rather than the initial reception of the
Spirit.
For the relationship between the event that lies behind the phrase διὰ τῆς
ἐπιθέσεως τῶν χειρῶν μου and the one in 1Tim 4:14 (μετὰ ἐπιθέσεως τῶν χειρῶν
τοῦ πρεσβυτερίου), see Grammatical Analysis. The two should be considered as
depicting one singular event, and the focus on Paul here (τῶν χειρῶν μου) antic-
ipates Paul’s presentation of himself as an example of a faithful servant in the
midst of suffering (vv. 11–13). Moreover, while 1Timothy addresses institutional
issues especially in reference to the presence of false teachers, this letter draws
attention to the unique relationship between Paul and his successor, Timothy.
The frequent use of ἐγώ in this letter as compared to 1 Timothy may further
support this point: 42 times in 2Timothy as compared to 15 times in the much
longer 1Timothy.

▪ 7 The nt hapax δειλία has been taken to mean “timid,” with the implied criti-
cism of Timothy being so (Kelly, 158–159). Nevertheless, the word should not be
understood primarily in the sense of one’s personal demeanor (thus “timid”)
but the inner conviction and strength of a person (thus “cowardice,” Spicq,
2.708). It can, therefore, be contrasted with ἰσχύς (“strength,” 1 Macc 4:32) and
δύναμις (“power,” 2Macc 3:24) as it is here with δυνάμεως καὶ ἀγάπης καὶ σωφρο-
νισμοῦ. In its wider context, the call against cowardice is a call to live out the
gospel of the cross since it is only in suffering that the power of God (v. 8) can
be experienced. In Greco-Roman moral discourse, the call not to be a coward
is often used as a rhetorical device to encourage the audience to act in a certain
way (Aristotle, Rhet. 1389a; Plutarch, Mor. 74b; Hutson 1997: 73). It is doubtful,
therefore, whether one can reconstruct the psychological profile of Timothy
from this reference.
Taking πνεῦμα as a reference to the Holy Spirit (see above) can further
explain the reference to δύναμις, ἀγάπη, and σωφρονισμός. δύναμις and ἀγάπη
1:6–14 551

are often associated with the Holy Spirit (δύναμις: Rom 1:4; 15:13; 1 Cor 2:4; Gal
3:5; Eph 3:16; 1Thess 1:5; ἀγάπη: Rom 5:5; 15:30; 2Cor 6:6; Gal 5:22; Col 1:8); partic-
ularly relevant is 2Cor 6:6–7, where both δύναμις and ἀγάπη appear with πνεῦμα
ἅγιον within the wider context of persecution and suffering (cf. 1 Tim 1:12). The
inclusion of σωφρονισμός can be explained by Paul’s interest in this word group
in the pe (see 1Tim 2:9), though it may also be related to another Pauline term
for self-control in his earlier writings, one that describes the work of the Holy
Spirit (ἐγκράτεια: Gal 5:23).

▪ 8 The language of shame (ἐπαισχυνθῇς) evokes the honor and shame dynamic
while drawing on a set of vocabulary that is familiar already in the lxx (Ps 118:6;
Job 34:19; Kee 1974: 133–147; for usage in Paul, cf. Rom 1:16; 5:5; 6:21; 10:11; 1 Cor
1:27; 11:4, 5, 22; 2Cor 4:2; 7:14; 9:4; Phil 3:19; Col 3:5). In this context, however, it
refers to an experience that is incongruent with the core values accepted by the
society-at-large. These core values are best represented by the imperial values
of the empire, against which Paul was appointed as a “herald” (κῆρυξ) who is to
preach the advancement of a different kingdom (see v. 11 below).
Shame is often identified as the common experience of those imprisoned,
exemplified by the chains worn by the prisoners (Ulpian, Dig. 49.7) as well as by
the undesirable company they keep within such an environment (Livy, 38.59.10;
MaGee 2008: 343). When understood as an experience of those at the margin of
society, especially considering they were forced out from the social networks of
friends and family (cf. vv. 15–16) that led to substantial financial struggles, this
shame is no longer merely an emotional response to the dire circumstances
prisoners face, but an objective reality from which there is no escape, except
perhaps by taking one’s own life (Josephus, A.J. 15.12–13; Seneca, Ep. 70.20–23;
Wansink 1996: 58–61). Without seriously contemplating that solution (cf. Phil
1:22–24), Paul here places his trust in God, who is able to guard him and that
“which has been entrusted to [him] until that day” (v. 12). After all, Christ Jesus,
who is the manifestation of God’s own purpose, is the one “who has abolished
death” (v. 10).
Appearing for the first time in extant Greek literature, συγκακοπαθέω might
have been coined by Paul from σύν + κακοπαθέω (2:9; 4:5; cf. James 5:13), in
anticipation of the elaborate call for Timothy and other believers to share in
his suffering (cf. συγκακοπαθέω, 2:3). It is comparable to the equally rare συγ-
κακουχέομαι (Heb 11:25) with a similar semantic range, though the related form
συνκακουργοῦτες does appear in documentary papyri (bgu 15; M.-M. 608).
A call not to be ashamed followed by a reference to “the gospel by the power
of God” (τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ κατὰ δύναμιν θεοῦ) evokes Paul’s declaration in Rom 1:16.
Romans 1:16 may itself point back to the saying of Jesus in Mark 8:38 (ὃς γὰρ ἐὰν
552 2 timothy

ἐπαισχυνθῇ με καὶ τοὺς ἐμοὺς λόγους ….); if so, this call carries more weight since
it is to be equated with the call not to deny Christ and his gospel (cf. Barrett
1970: 19–41).

▪ 9 σώσαντος introduces the salvation word group in this letter (cf. σῴζω, 4:18;
σωτήρ, 1:10; σωτηρία, 2:10; 3:15), which is closely related to the καλέω/κλῆσις word
group in Paul (Rom 8:24, 30; 11:25–29; 1Thess 2:11–16; 2 Thess 2:13–14), a connec-
tion that can be traced back to the prophetic traditions of Israel (Isa 41:8–10;
43:1–7; cf. Wieland, 117). The addition of the cognate noun κλῆσις to the verb
καλέω provides the context where “the qualification ‘holy’ can be added by
means of an adjective” (Marshall, 704), but the significance of the note on holi-
ness remains unclear. It could point primarily to the elected status of God’s holy
people, especially in light of the close connection between calling, predestina-
tion (Rom 8:30), and election (Rom 9:25–26), a connection encouraged by the
phrase πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων in the next verse. On the other hand, the frequent
Pauline call to holiness (1Thess 4:7; cf. 1Thess 2:12) draws attention to the eth-
ical import of this connection, one that resurfaces in the use of ἡγιασμένον in
2:21 below.
οὐ κατὰ τὰ ἔργα ἡμῶν is similar to other Pauline formulations (οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων,
Rom 9:12; Eph 2:9; cf. διά … τῶν ἔργων … οὐχ, Rom 3:27; οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων νόμου, Gal
2:16). This use of ἔργον in the sense of human effort and accomplishment is not
found elsewhere in the pe, except for the preformed confessional statement in
Titus 3:5 (οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων τῶν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ).
κατὰ ἰδίαν … χάριν recalls similar constructions in Rom 12:6 (κατὰ τὴν χάριν τὴν
δοθεῖσαν ἡμῖν) and 1Cor 3:10 (κατὰ τὴν χάριν τοῦ θεοῦ τὴν δοθεῖσάν μοι), whereas
ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὸ αὐτοῦ ἔλεος in the confessional statement of Titus 3:5 betrays the
same emphasis on God’s sovereignty and initiative in his redemptive acts. Only
here in Paul do πρόθεσις and χάρις appear together, and they both point to the
sovereign redemptive work of God through Christ. For χάρις, see 1 Tim 1:14. The
use of πρόθεσις in the sense of “purpose” and “plan” is common in Greek (Poly-
bius 1.26.1; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Dem. 33.1; Plotinus, Enn. 3.8.40) and Hel-
lenistic Jewish traditions (2Macc 3:8; 3Macc 1:22; 2:26; Josephus, A.J. 18.272; Ep.
Arist. 199.3), though the lxx equivalent to πρόθεσις in the sense of the plan/pur-
pose of God appears to be ἡ βουλή (Pss 32:10–11; 65:5; Job 42:3; Isa 14:26; 46:10;
Mic 4:12; Wis 6:4), which is used with πρόθεσις in Eph 1:11. Only this confessional
statement within the pe adopts this vocabulary (cf. 3:10), but it belongs to the
language of Paul in the depiction of God’s redemptive plan (Rom 9:11; Eph 1:11).
Two passages provide conceptual parallels to this use here: Rom 8:28, which
uses the καλέω/κλῆσις word group with πρόθεσις, and Eph 3:11, which points to
the eternal nature of God’s purpose (κατὰ πρόθεσιν τῶν αἰώνων).
1:6–14 553

πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων carries three functions within this confessional state-
ment: (1) to emphasize the certainty of God’s redemptive will (cf. κατὰ ἰδίαν
πρόθεσιν, v. 9); (2) to emphasize the sovereign grace of God apart from any
human contribution (cf. οὐ κατὰ τὰ ἔργα ἡμῶν, v. 9); and (3) to set up a con-
trast between eternity past and a particular point in history, thus paving the
way for the introduction of God’s redemptive work within human history (cf.
φανερωθεῖσαν δὲ νῦν, v. 10).

▪ 10 The use of φανερόω with δὲ νῦν recalls Rom 16:26 (φανερωθέντος δὲ νῦν),
which assumes the hiddenness of the mystery for ages (Rom 16:25). This
hiddenness-revelation of the mystery is also found in the pe, where the mys-
tery is said to be revealed in the flesh; in the confessional statement of 1 Tim
3:16 (μυστήριον ὃς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί), φανερόω is also used for the introduction
of Jesus into his earthly existence (John 1:31; 2:11; Heb 9:26; 1 Pet 1:20; 1 John 1:2;
3:5–8; 4:9).
ἐπιφάνεια is often used to refer to the parousia (4:1, 8; cf. 1 Tim 6:14; Titus 2:13),
although the verbal form (ἐπιφαίνω) can be used in a more general sense in ref-
erence to the Christ-event (Titus 2:11; 3:4). In this context, it is often taken in
the sense of incarnation (Kelly, 163; Barrett, 95), but not to the exclusion of the
entire earthly existence of Christ (Marshall, 707; Johnson, 349), since the death
and resurrection noted in the μὲν … δέ construction that follows are to be under-
stood as part of Christ’s manifestation. The use of the ἐπιφάνεια word group in
an explicitly soteriological context ties this with other confessional statements
in Titus (Titus 2:11, 13; 3:4), which may, in turn, reflect the particular Hellenistic
Jewish conception of ἐπιφάνεια as an expression of God’s merciful acts (3 Macc
2:19; 5:8; 6:4–39; Lau, 121). The focus on God’s salvific acts provides the bridge
between the use of this word group in the incarnation and in parousia con-
texts.
In light of the frequent identification of God as “Savior” (σωτήρ) elsewhere
in the pe (1Tim 1:1 [see comments there]; 2:3; 4:10; Titus 1:3; 2:10; 3:4), using this
label for Christ (cf. Titus 1:4; 2:13; 3:6) is significant. Rather than being merely a
functional label that illustrates a divine quality (Hasler 1977: 201), it points to
Christ’s exalted status and the embodiment of the divine act of salvation. It is
the gospel of this Christ that the apostle Paul preaches (v. 11).
καταργέω appears only here in the pe, and it can carry the meaning of “to
destroy/abolish” (1Cor 2:6; 15:26; 2Thess 2:8; cf. Ezra 4:23; 5:5) or “to nullify (the
effect of)” (Rom 3:31; 1Cor 1:28; 13:8–11; 15:24; 2Cor 3:7–14; Gal 3:17; P.Flor. 218;
M.-M. 331). Both ideas are present here. Jesus has nullified the effect of death
because sin (that leads to death) no longer dominates a believer (Rom 5:12–20;
6:1–7), but Jesus also defeated death (1Cor 15:26) itself when he defeated the
554 2 timothy

power that lies behind death (1Cor 15:24; cf. καταργήσῃ τὸν τὸ κράτος ἔχοντα τοῦ
θανάτου, Heb 2:14).
φωτίζω points to the unmasking of the power of darkness by the power of
Christ (1Cor 4:5; Eph 1:18; cf. Heb 6:4; 10:32). Elsewhere in the pe, light is linked
with an immortal life that is beyond human experience (1 Tim 6:16). It signifies
the beginning of a new creation when the people of God can be transferred
from the realm of darkness into light (Eph 5:8; Col 1:12; 1 Thess 5:5). In Acts, light
is often associated with Paul’s encounter with the risen Lord (Acts 9:3; 22:6, 9,
11; 26:13, 18; see also the depiction of Jesus as the proclaimer of light [φῶς …
καταγγέλλειν] in Acts 26:23; Wieland, 128).
For ἀφθαρσία, see ἄφθαρτος in 1Tim 1:17. In the discussion of the resurrection
in 1Corinthians 15, ἀφθαρσία is used in parallel with ἀθανασία (15:53–54), which
is further supported by a quotation from Isa 25:8 in reference to the victory
over death (κατεπόθη ὁ θάνατος εἰς νῖκος, 1Cor 15:54b). A similar logic appears
to be working here when ζωὴν καὶ ἀφθαρσίαν is understood as the attainment
of eternal life through the resurrection event. ζωὴν καὶ ἀφθαρσίαν is compara-
ble to ἀφθαρσία ἐν ζωῇ πολυχρονίῳ (4Macc 17:12), especially when καί is taken
in an epexegetical sense, thus conveying the sense of “eternal life” (cf. ἀφθαρ-
σία καὶ ζωὴ αἰώνιος, Ignatius, Pol. 2.3). In Paul, “eternal life” (ζωὴν αἰώνιον) is also
said to be granted to those who are seeking “immortality” (ἀφθαρσίαν). With
the clear assertion of bodily resurrection (2Tim 2:18), this focus on immortal-
ity differs from Hellenistic Jewish authors. Philo, for example, also affirms that
death is the enemy (ἀφθαρσία, ἐχθρὸν δὲ θάντατος, Philo, Abr. 55), but for him
this immortality is limited to the soul (ἀφθαρσία ψυχῆς, Philo, Somn. 1.181; qg
3.8).

▪ 11 Despite having its close parallel in 1Tim 2:7 as noted above, the signifi-
cance of the labels Paul applies to himself here should not be downplayed. For
ἀπόστολος, see 1Tim 1:2. This is the first use of the διδασκ-word group in this
letter (διδάσκαλος, 1:11; 4:3; διδάσκω: 2:2; διδασκαλία: 3:10, 16; 4:3), but it occurs
frequently in 1Timothy (διδασκαλία: 1:10; 4:1, 6, 16; 5:17; 6:13; διδάσκω: 2:12; 4:11;
6:2; διδάσκαλος: 2:7; νομοδιδάσκαλος: 1:7; ἑτεροδιδασκαλέω: 1:3; 6:3).
Particularly important is the term κῆρυξ that appears only here and in 1 Tim
2:7 in the Pauline writings, a term that functions within royal contexts in the
sense of a “herald” (see 1Tim 2:7). This sense is accentuated in the later ver-
bal form κηρύσσω in 2Tim 4:2, which immediately follows the use of kingdom
language in reference to Christ (τὴν βασιλείαν αὐτοῦ, 4:1). Being the only place
where the verb is used in reference to Paul or Timothy, this call to Timothy to
preach the word explicitly links Timothy to Paul the herald, whose ministry
focuses on Christ’s kingdom.
1:6–14 555

▪ 12 In v. 8, Timothy is called to “share in the suffering” (συγκακοπάθησον) and

not “be ashamed” (ἐπαισχυνθῇς); here, Paul himself claims not to be “ashamed”
(ἐπαισχύνομαι) in his suffering (πάσχω). As in v. 8, the use of shame language
here challenges the accepted values of the time, but the reference to the last
days (ἐκείνην τὴν ἡμέραν) further situates this challenge within a new frame-
work of reality. This call not to be “ashamed” within an eschatological context
may recall Isa 28:16, which is a familiar passage already in the Pauline corpus
(Rom 9:33; 10:11; see Kee 1974: 143), and the use of πιστεύω (the only use of this
verb in this letter) in this call may further secure this connection (cf. ὁ πιστεύων
ἐπ’ αὐτῷ οὐ μὴ καταισχυνθῇ, Isa 28:16).
The parallel use of πιστεύω and πείθω is occasionally found in Hellenis-
tic Jewish traditions (cf. Sir 32:24; Philo, Somn. 2.24), and a strict distinction
between the two is unnecessary in this context. παραθήκη appears only in the
pe, and is always used with φυλάσσω (1Tim 6:20; 2 Tim 1:14). Taking μοῦ as an
objective genitive, παραθήκη should be understood as a reference to the gospel
(see 1Tim 6:20). As such, τὴν παραθήκην μου is the equivalent of τὸ εὐαγγέλιόν
μου in 2:8.
Though ἐκείνη ἡ ἡμέρα can be used as a general temporal marker (Exod 32:28;
Num 6:11; cf. Res Gestae 25), in this context it clearly refers to the eschaton as
it is commonly used in the prophetic traditions (Jer 4:9; Ezek 20:6; 24:26–27;
Dan 12:1; Hos 2:21; Amos 8:9) and elsewhere in Paul (2 Thess 1:10). In the pe, the
phrase is only used in this letter, and always in the context of the final judgment
(1:18; 4:8; cf. ἡ ἡμέρα, 1Cor 3:13).

▪ 13 ὑποτύπωσιν refers to the “outline” of Paul’s teaching (Lee 1961: 172), but not
in the abstract sense of a “rough sketch” or an “outline of faith” (Hanson, 125);
it refers rather to the “model” (Barrett, 97) that can be imitated (cf. ὑποτύπω-
σιν ἀρετῆς, Philodemus of Gadara, Mus. 126.14). In 1 Timothy, Paul describes
Christ as the “example” (ὑποτύπωσις) of faith (see 1 Tim 1:16) and Timothy as
an “example” (τύπος) that continues the life of that model (1 Tim 4:12). Here, in
imitating Christ, Paul becomes the “model” (ὑποτύπωσις) that Timothy needs
to follow and pass on to those who are faithful (2:2). It is in light of this connec-
tion between Paul and Christ that the apparent discrepancy between 1 Tim 6:3,
where the sound words are of the Lord Jesus Christ, and this verse, where the
sound teaching is that which Timothy had heard from Paul, can be understood.
For ὑγιαίνω with διδασκαλία or λόγος, see 1Tim 1:10.
For πίστις and ἀγάπη, see 1Tim 1:14. Both have appeared earlier in this sec-
tion (vv. 5, 7), and both should be considered not merely as human virtues but
a product of God’s redemptive act through Christ (1:6; 3:15; 4:7; Downs 2012:
154). The absence of ἐλπίς, expected in the familiar Pauline triad (Rom 5:1–5;
556 2 timothy

1 Cor 13:13; Gal 5:5–6; 1Thess 1:3; 5:8; Col 1:4–5), demands an explanation espe-
cially given its presence in 1Timothy (1:1; cf. ἐλπίζω, 3:14; 4:10; 5:5; 6:17) and
Titus (1:2; 2:13; 3:7). Some would argue that the Pauline triad is itself a trans-
formation of the triad of πίστις, ἀγάπη, and γνῶσις present in proto-gnostic
circles (cf. Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 7.57.4; Reitzenstein 1978: 487–489;
cf. τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως in 1Tim 6:20 that parallels the call in v. 14 below).
If so, with ἐν πίστει καὶ ἀγάπῃ following ὑγιαινόντων λόγων, one may find a
response to this proto-gnostic triad in Paul’s christocentric focus (ἐν Χριστῷ
Ἰησοῦ).

▪ 14 τὴν καλὴν παραθήκην φύλαξον recalls τὴν παραθήκην φύλαξον in 1 Tim 6:20,
and the additional adjective καλός here underlines that this παραθήκη belongs
to God’s creative or redemptive act (1Tim 1:8; 4:4, 6). If τὴν καλὴν παραθήκην
is the rough equivalent of τὴν πίστιν in 1Tim 6:21, then it is a reference to the
gospel noted earlier in v. 8, the content of which is explicated in vv. 9–10.
In v. 12, the ability to guard that which has been entrusted to Paul is attributed
to God himself; here, the agency of the Holy Spirit is noted. πνεύματος ἁγίου
echoes πνεῦμα of v. 7, which is attributed to ὁ θεός. The use of ἐνοικέω with
πνεῦμα is uncommon except for one clear parallel in Rom 8:11 (cf. ἐνῳκηκότος
τοῦ θείου πνεύματος, Philo, Spec. 4.49). ἐνοικέω likely evokes the temple imagery
as God himself dwells among his people (2Cor 6:16; cf. οὗ τοῖς οἴκοις ἦν εὐχὴ τὸν
θεὸν ἐνοικῆσαι, Philo, Sobr. 66.4). It is again important to note that in a succes-
sion narrative that focuses on Paul and Timothy, Paul again draws attention to
God himself who alone is able to enable Timothy to carry on with a task that
lies beyond the life and ministry of Paul.

Bibliography
Bockmuehl, Markus. Revelation and Mystery in Ancient Judaism and Pauline Christian-
ity. wunt 2.36. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1990.
Downs, David J. “Faith(fulness) in Christ Jesus in 2Timothy 3:15.” jbl 131 (2012): 143–160.
Hasler, Victor. “Epiphanie und Christologie in den Pastoralbriefen.” tz 33 (1977): 193–
209.
Hutson, Christopher R. “Was Timothy Timid? On the Rhetoric of Fearlessness (1 Corin-
thians 16:10–11) and Cowardice (2Timothy 1:7).” br 42 (1997): 58–73.
Kee, Howard C. “The Linguistic Background of ‘Shame’ in the New Testament.” In On
Language, Culture, and Religion. Ed. Matthew Black and William A. Smalley, 133–147.
The Hague and Paris: Mouton, 1974.
Kelhoffer, James A. “Suffering as Defense of Paul’s Apostolic Authority in Galatians and
2Corinthians 11.” seå 74 (2009): 127–143.
Lee, E.K. “Words Denoting ‘Pattern’ in the New Testament.” nts 8 (1961): 171–172.
1:6–14 557

MaGee, Gregory S. “Paul’s Response to the Shame and Pain of Imprisonment in 2 Tim-
othy.” BSac 165 (2008): 338–353.
Maier, Harry O. Picturing Paul in Empire: Imperial Image, Text and Persuasion in Colos-
sians, Ephesians and the Pastoral Epistles. London/New York: Bloomsbury, 2013.
Plank, Karl A. Paul and the Irony of Affliction. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987.
Reitzenstein, Richard. Hellenistic Mystery-Religions: Their Basic Ideas and Significance.
Trans. John E. Steely. Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1978.
Towner, Philip H. “The Portrait of Paul and the Theology of 2 Timothy: The Closing
Chapter of the Pauline Story.” hbt 21 (1999): 151–170.
Wansink, Craig S. Chained in Christ: The Experience and Rhetoric of Paul’s Imprison-
ments. JSNTSup 130. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996.

5 Theological Analysis
Within the pe, this section is among the few with explicit references to the
(Holy) Spirit (cf. 1Tim 3:16; 4:1; Titus 3:5). The reference to the Spirit in v. 8
should be understood as referring to an occasion after the initial reception of
the gospel (and the Spirit), especially in light of the mention of τὸ χάρισμα (v. 7),
the laying on of hands (v. 7), as well as a singular focus on Timothy himself.
Nevertheless, the wider application to the general experience of all believers
cannot be ruled out. The comment of the Holy Spirit living in “us” (v. 14; Dunn
1970: 167) and the relationship between the initial reception of the Spirit and
the subsequent narrower experience of the spirit within ministry is to be noted
(v. 14). The continuity with the earlier Paul is again felt with the use of Rom 8:5–
17 in this section. “The Holy Spirit who lives in us” (v. 14; cf. Rom 8:11) is the Spirit
who empowers us (in contrast to another “spirit,” v. 7; cf. Rom 8:15). In the con-
text of Romans, this initial reception will also be manifested in the “different
gifts according to the grace given to us” (Rom 12:6).
That the bestowal of the Spirit is to be limited to the ordination rite (Kelly,
159–160) with the cessation of “the period of religious ecstasy” (Bultmann 1955:
185) would fail to explain the presence of the first-personal plural pronouns in
vv. 7 and 14, which is consistent with the use of the same pronoun in the con-
fessional statement in 3:6 (οὗ ἐξέχεεν ἐφ’ ἡμᾶς πλουσίως; Haykin 1985: 298). Con-
cerning the laying on of hands, the Lukan hand may again be present. In Acts,
this symbolic act may be tied with commissioning accounts (Acts 6:6; 13:3), but
it can also signify the general presence of God (and his Spirit; cf. Acts 4:30; 5:12),
especially in the initial reception of the Spirit (Acts 8:17–19; 9:12, 17). Therefore,
διὰ τῆς ἐπιθέσεως τῶν χειρῶν μου (v. 6) should not be understood as limiting the
work of the Spirit to one particular office, and a dichotomy between the work
of the Spirit in particular offices and in the individual lives of believers should
not be made (Gal 5:16–26; 1Cor 12:4–31; Towner 1989: 57).
558 2 timothy

Beyond the explicit references to the Spirit in vv. 7 and 14, a trinitarian under-
current can perhaps be detected in this section; the power of the Spirit in v. 7 is
identified with that of God in v. 8 (δύναμιν θεοῦ), and it is this power that allows
Timothy not to be ashamed of the testimony concerning Christ. Taken with the
identification of Christ as “God” in Titus 2:13, an incipient form of trinitarian-
ism within the pe cannot be ruled out, even if it is still far removed from later
explicit trinitarian formulations.
As expected in a confessional statement, the work of Christ lies at the cen-
ter of God’s redemptive acts in vv. 9–10 (contra Hassler 1977: 202–202, who sees
“the gospel” in v. 10 as a theocentric rather than a christocentric one, thus ignor-
ing the repeated ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ formula in its immediate context [cf. vv. 9, 13;
see also 2:1, 10; 3:12, 15]). What is unique is the location of these redemptive acts
in the past, even the abolishment of death and the achievement of “eternal life”
(v. 10), whereas in the earlier Paul (Rom 6:22–23; 8:24–25) the reception of the
final blessings is reserved for the eschatological future (Kidd, 184). To consider
this “realized eschatology” yet another sign of post-Pauline Christianity (cf.
Harding 2004: 160) is questionable since similar hope for the future “eternal life”
can be found elsewhere in the pe (cf. 1Tim 6:12; Titus 1:2; 3:7; see also Mutschler
2011: 396–400). The emphasis on the present reality may be prompted by the
focus on suffering in this section, which brackets the confessional statement
(cf. vv. 8, 12). This focus on suffering may, in turn, explain the curious absence of
the title κύριος: even though this confessional statement focuses on the present
reality (cf. Rom 1:4; Phil 2:11), the focus is on Christ’s suffering rather than his
sovereign rule.
The preexistence of Christ can be assumed behind vv. 9–10 (Mounce, 484),
but the focus is on the act of God the Father before time rather than on Christ’s
identity and ontological status. Preexistence language, especially in reference
to God’s own “purpose” (v. 9), is not unexpected when the sovereignty of God
apart from human works is emphasized (cf. Rom 8:28–30; 9:11; Eph 1:3–14).

Bibliography
Bultmann, Rudolf. Theology of the New Testament, vol. 2. Trans. Kendrick Grobel. New
York: Scribner, 1955.
Dunn, James D.G. Baptism in the Holy Spirit. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1970.
Harding, Mark. “Disputed and Undisputed Letters of Paul.” In The Pauline Canon. Ed.
Stanley E. Porter, 129–168. Pauline Studies 1. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2004.
Hasler, Victor. “Epiphanie und Christologie in den Pastoralbriefen.” tz 33 (1977): 193–
209.
Haykin, Michael A.G. “The Fading Vision? The Spirit and Freedom in the Pastoral Epis-
tles.” EvQ 57 (1985): 291–305.
1:15–18 559

Mutschler, Bernhard. “Eschatology in the Pastoral Epistles.” In Eschatology of the New

Testament and Some Related Documents. Ed. Jan G. van der Watt, 362–402. wunt
2.315. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011.
Towner, Philip H. The Goal of Our Instruction: The Structure of Theology and Ethics in
the Pastoral Epistles. JSNTSup 34. Sheffield: jsot Press, 1989.

B Negative and Positive Examples (1:15–18)

1 Translation
15 You are aware that all who are in Asia have deserted me, among whom
Phygelus and Hermogenes. 16 May the Lord grant mercy to the household of
Onesiphorus, because he often refreshed me and was not ashamed of my chain.
17 When he was in Rome, he even earnestly searched for me and found me. 18
May the Lord grant him to find mercy from the Lord on that day! You know well
the service he rendered3 in Ephesus.

2 Text-Critical Analysis
▪ 16 οὐκ ἐπαισχύνθη: The two ninth-century Western witnesses (F G) read οὐ
καταισχύνθη instead, likely due to faulty word division when ουκ επαισχυνθη
was read as ου κεπαισχυνθη, with further changes to ου καταισχυνθη
(Elliott, 125). A more significant number of witnesses read οὐκ ἐπησχύνθη (‫*א‬
489 927 1244 1249 1876 pm) or οὐκ ἐπῃσχύνθη (424 945 1879), probably since
ἐπαισχύνθη deviates from the expected lengthening of the temporal augment
(cf. Radermacher, Neutestamentliche Grammatik, 87). Despite its unusual form,
ἐπαισχύνθη is supported by notable Alexandrian (‫א‬c A C; cf. 1739) uncials fol-
lowed by the majority of the later Byzantine witnesses (33 69 1505 1881 pm 𝔐),
and it can best explain the other readings.

▪ 17 σπουδαίως: Many late Byzantine witnesses (D1 K L Ψ 365 630 1241 1505 𝔐
syh) replace this adverb with the comparative adjective σπουδαιότερον, which
can be taken in an adverbial sense especially in Attic Greek and is therefore
likely a secondary reading (Elliott, 126). The adverbial form of this compara-
tive, σπουδαιοτέρως, does appear as a variant and is a nt form (Phil 2:28) but is
supported only by the uncial A and a few late minuscules (365 2495 pc). With
the strong support of early Alexandrian (‫ א‬C; cf. 1739) and Western (D F G latt)
witnesses, the simple adverb σπουδαίως is the preferred reading (cf. Titus 3:13).

3 This translation acknowledges the absence of μοι and thus a possible wider reference to the
recipients of Onesiphorus’s service (see Text-Critical Analysis).
560 2 timothy

▪ 18 διηκόνησεν: A few minuscules (104 365 [629]) and versions (it vgcl sy pc)
include μοι after διηκόνησεν (order inverted in 629) to specify Paul as the (exclu-
sive) object of Onesimus’s service, but its omission is supported by all of the
earliest uncials (‫ א‬A C D F G Ψ) followed by the majority of the minuscules (33
1505 1739 1880 pm 𝔐). Without this pronoun, the object of the verb can refer to
the wider community (Kilpatrick, 11).

3 Grammatical Analysis
Following the call to follow Paul’s faithfulness, two examples are provided, one
negative (v. 15) and one positive (vv. 16–18). The boundary of this unit is marked
by a shift in verbal pattern (from imperatives [συγκακοπάθησον, v. 8; ἔχε, v. 13;
φύλαξον, v. 14; cf. ἀναμιμνῄσκω σε ἀναζωπυρεῖν, v. 6] to the first two of three opta-
tives in this letter [δῴη, vv. 16, 18; cf. λογισθείη, 4:16]) and syntactical structure
(from a series of shorter independent clauses in vv. 6–14 to a more complex
paratactic structure in this unit).
Cohesion is maintained primarily by the contrast between those who had
deserted Paul and Onesiphorus, who remained faithful to him. Paul begins with
the disclosure formula (οἶδας τοῦτο), noting the deserting of many within an
object (ὅτι) clause and drawing attention to Phygelus and Hermogenes in par-
ticular within a relative clause (with the partitive genitive ὧν, v. 15).
The emphasis is, however, placed on the example of Onesiphorus (vv. 16–
18), with the δῴη … ὁ κύριος wish formula appearing twice, the first introducing
his service in Rome (vv. 16–17) and the second in Ephesus (v. 18). The first wish
formula is followed by a clause that introduces the grounds (ὅτι) for this wish,
which includes a general statement of Oneisphorus’s faithfulness (πολλάκις με
ἀνέψυξεν) followed by a pair of contrastive statements (connected by ἀλλά)
that state that he is not ashamed of Paul’s imprisonment but sought out Paul
in Rome. The second wish formula is followed by another disclosure formula
(βέλτιον σὺ γινώσκεις), with the ὅσα-clause providing further clarification of the
(implied) object (i.e., the faithful service of Onesiphorus in Ephesus) of the verb
γινώσκεις.
The asymmetrical emphasis placed on Onesiphorus is also marked by the
presence of the optatives (δῴη, vv. 16, 18) and by the use of the contrastive state-
ments (connected by ἀλλά, vv. 16–17) in the second part of this unit. Unlike
1 Timothy (and Titus) where the focus is on combatting the false teachers,
here Paul focuses on the positive behavior Timothy should follow. With σὺ οὖν
(2:1), this emphasis is extended to the next unit, one that returns to the (pos-
itive) examples provided by the faithful lives of Jesus Christ and his apostle
Paul.
1:15–18 561

▪ 15 Οἶδας τοῦτο, ὅτι ἀπεστράφησάν με πάντες οἱ ἐν τῇ Ἀσίᾳ, ὧν ἐστιν Φύγελος

καὶ Ἑρμογένης. The perfect οἶδας (despite its deficient stem) and the kataphoric
τοῦτο mark what follows with prominence. Though not a semantic deponent,
the passive ἀπεστράφησάν with an accusative με functions here as a “passive
deponent” (Robertson, Grammar, 484).
πάντες οἱ ἐν τῇ Ἀσίᾳ has been understood as a Hebraism for πάντες οἱ ἐκ τῇ
Ἀσίᾳ (“all those from Asia,” Spicq, 2.732) though without sufficient textual sup-
port, while others consider this an “exaggeration natural in depression” (Kelly,
169). In this letter, however, it is not unusual to find this categorical use of πᾶς
since it can be attached to the depiction of various groups of people, including
those who had deserted Paul as in this verse (see also 4:16), those who will be
persecuted (3:12), and those Gentiles who will hear the gospel through Paul’s
ministry (4:17). In all these cases, exceptions are plenty though they would dis-
tract from Paul’s rhetoric. This is consistent with the use of the article οἱ with
the prepositional phrase ἐν τῇ Ἀσίᾳ where members are described as a concrete
whole in the character of the embedded narrative.
From this concrete whole Paul moves to identify its selected members. This
move is marked by the use of the partitive genitive ὧν in introducing this non-
defining relative clause and by the shift from the aorist ἀπεστράφησάν in the
previous clause to the present ἐστιν that foregrounds this naming of the two
individuals. The genitive relative pronoun ὧν functions as predicative genitive
(Robertson, Grammar, 497).

▪ 16 δῴη ἔλεος ὁ κύριος τῷ Ὀνησιφόρου οἴκῳ, ὅτι πολλάκις με ἀνέψυξεν καὶ τὴν ἅλυ-
σίν μου οὐκ ἐπαισχύνθη. With δῴη, one finds the first use of the optative in the pe
(cf. δῴη, 1:18; λογισθείη, 4:16), here an example of a volitive optative (Robertson,
Grammar, 939). The use of this optative may reflect Paul’s conviction that the
bestowal of blessings comes only from God (Smith, 50), but taking ὁ κύριος as
a reference to Jesus himself (see ὁ κύριος in v. 18 below), this clause may again
point to the close relationship between Jesus and Paul: as Paul lives out the
gospel of Jesus Christ (vv. 11, 13), blessings from Jesus are to come to those who
receive Paul and the gospel he preaches.
The use of the adverb πολλάκις with the aorist ἀνέψυξεν argues against the
reading of the aorist as denoting a punctiliar act (nor is the label “iterative”
aorist helpful in this case, Siebenthal, Greek Grammar, 326). The lengthening of
the temporal augment in the aorist passive ἐπαισχύνθη (instead of ἐπῃσχύνθη)
has often been noted (Radermacher, Neutestamentliche Grammatik, 87; Abel,
Grammaire, §16d).

▪ 17 ἀλλὰ γενόμενος ἐν Ῥώμῃ σπουδαίως ἐζήτησέν με καὶ εὗρεν. The adversative con-
junction ἀλλά marks this clause with (relative) prominence when Onesipho-
562 2 timothy

rus’s care for Paul is noted. This clause sets up a contrast to the already negated
verb in v. 16 (οὐκ ἐπαισχύνθη); however, it does not negate the previous asser-
tion but intensifies it, thus: “[he] was not ashamed of my chain. When he was
in Rome, he even ….” Others have, however, taken this clause as a contrast to
those who had deserted Paul (“in contrast to them …,” Kelly, 170).
γενόμενος can be understood in a number of ways due to (1) the ambigu-
ity with the use of this adverbial participle that can be taken as a temporal or
concessive participle, and (2) the meaning of the verb γίνομαι which can mean
“to be in or at a place” (bdag 199) or “to make a change of location in space”
(bdag 198). Three interpretive possibilities have been proposed: (1) “although
he [Onesiphorous] was in Rome, he eagerly sought me out and found me”
(Mullins 1993: 202). This reading would place Paul away from Rome, thereby
erasing the historical significance of this verse in reference to the location of
Paul when this letter was written. Although a possible reading, the absence of
contextual and linguistic (e.g., καίπερ, καίτοιγε, or ὃπως) clues argues against
this concessive reading of the participle; therefore, most commentators are
likely correct in taking this as a temporal participle instead. (2) “When he
arrives in Rome …” (Spicq, 2.734) takes the participle γενόμενος in the sense of
“arriving at,” but this use is often marked by the presence of the preposition εἰς
(cf. bdag, 198). Therefore, (3) “when he was in Rome …,” which takes the par-
ticiple as a temporal participle and the verb in the sense of “to be or at a place,”
remains the best reading.
In this context, σπουδαίως denotes eagerness, commitment, and intent (“dili-
gently,” Dibelius and Conzelmann, 106; “zealously,” Smith, 49; cf. Titus 3:13),
although temporal swiftness cannot be denied (cf. “quickly and busily,” Liefeld,
237). There is significant overlap in the semantic domains of ζητέω (LNd § 27.41)
and εὑρίσκω (LNd §27.27), with the latter paving the way for the use of the same
verb in the next clause: Onesiphorous who found Paul in Rome will find mercy
from the Lord on that day (cf. Spicq, 2:734).

▪ 18 δῴη αὐτῷ ὁ κύριος εὑρεῖν ἔλεος παρὰ κυρίου ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ. With the next
clause extending the preceding listing of Oneisphorous’s service, this clause has
been considered “a parenthesis that interrupts the account of Onesiphorus’s
activities” (Marshall, 716). Its function within this context cannot be down-
played, however. First, with this and the previous clauses connected by the
verb εὑρίσκω, the connection between serving Paul and serving Christ is made
since finding (and serving) Paul becomes the means through which the mercy
of the Lord can be found. Second, not only is the connection between Jesus/the
Lord and Paul made, but the consequence of the act done in the present time
extends also to the eschaton with the phrase ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ (cf. 4:8; 2 Thess
1:15–18 563

1:10). Third, with the notes on Onesiphorus’s ministries in Rome and Ephesus
paralleled by the reappearances of the δῴη wish statement, Timothy, who is
serving in Ephesus, is likewise called to serve Paul in Rome. Despite the difficul-
ties of this move, the promise of eschatological reward in this clause provides
a sufficient basis for Timothy to follow his call.
ὁ κύριος has been taken to refer to God because Pauline epistolary wish
prayers often have God as the subject of the optative (1 Thess 3:11–13; 5:23–24;
Rom 15:5–6, 13; Wiles 1974: 29) and as the source of mercy (Rom 9:15–18; 11:30–
32; 2Cor 4:1; Phil 2:27; Collins 2002: 42). Nevertheless, in Paul the articular ὁ
κύριος is often used for Christ (Rom 12:11; 14:8; 1Cor 6:13–14; 7:10–12; 2 Cor 5:6–8;
Gal 1:19; Col 1:10; 1Thess 4:15; 2Thess 3:1; bdag 578), and in this context this title
is applied to Christ (1:8). Moreover, at the beginning of this letter, Paul makes
it clear that mercy is not only coming from God but also from “Christ Jesus our
Lord” (Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν, 1:2). It is best, therefore, to take ὁ κύριος
as referring to Christ.
As for the anarthrous use of the title within the phrase παρὰ κυρίου, most
take it to refer to God, especially since the Tetragrammaton is often translated
by an anarthrous κύριος in the lxx (Gen 15:18; 16:2; 18:13; Exod 8:12; 9:3; Lev 5:19).
A few would argue that this anarthrous title also refers to Christ and that Paul
“created his own tautology in an attempt to reinforce the source of the mercy
that he desires for his friend” (Fee 2007: 465). This argument fails since such
a tautology is absent elsewhere in Paul and since the anarthrous use of the
title appears in 2:19 within the quotation from Num 16:5. If it does refer to God,
then εὑρεῖν ἔλεος παρὰ κυρίου would be comparable to εὗρες … χάριν παρὰ τῷ
θεῷ (Luke 1:30); in both cases, εὑρίσκω with the genitive should be understood
in the sense of “obtaining” (Winer, Grammar, 458). The use of the active εὑρεῖν
works well in this context, although some consider the avoidance of the mid-
dle form as an attempt to avoid the overusing of the middle verbs by Atticistic
writers (Caragounis 2004: 108).
ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ provides a clear example of the temporal use of ἐν. Though
consistent with Koine usage, its frequent appearances in the lxx may suggest
Semitic influences (George 2014: 277–279). Within this formulaic phrase, ἐκείνῃ
points to the discontinuity of the eschaton with the present age (Levinsohn
2009: 207).

▪ καὶ ὅσα ἐν Ἐφέσῳ διηκόνησεν, βέλτιον σὺ γινώσκεις. In these two clauses intro-
duced by the conjunctive καί, Paul moves from his knowledge of Onesiphorus’s
service in Rome (vv. 16–17) to Timothy’s knowledge of his service in Ephesus.
In this context, ὅσα does not convey a sense of uncertainty (contra Perkins, 176)
but points to the corresponding knowledge that Timothy himself possesses,
564 2 timothy

as the marked personal pronoun σύ and the foregrounded present tense verb
γινώσκεις (as opposed to the preceding aorist διηκόνησεν) indicate. The compar-
ative adverb βέλτιον may reinforce the relative uncertainty of Paul’s assertion
(cf. Abel, Grammaire, §37h), but it should best be taken as an elative, thus:
“as you well know” (cf. Moulton-Howard, Accidence, 164; Turner, Grammatical
Insights, 90). This final act of knowing recalls the beginning of this unit, which
alludes to Timothy’s knowledge of those who had deserted Paul (οἶδας τοῦτο,
v. 15).

Bibliography
Caragounis, Chrys C. The Development of Greek and the New Testament. wunt 167. Tüb-
ingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004.
Collins, Raymond F. “What Happened to Jesus’ Resurrection from the Dead? A Reflec-
tion on Paul and the Pastoral Epistles.” In Resurrection in the New Testament. Ed.
R. Bieringer, V. Koperski and B. Lataire, 423–440. betl 165. Peeters: Leuven Univer-
sity Press, 2002.
Fee, Gordon D. Pauline Christology: An Exegetical-Theological Study. Peabody, MA: Hen-
drickson, 2007.
George, Coulter H. Expressions of Time in Ancient Greek. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, 2014.
Mullins, Terence Y. “A Comparison Between 2Timothy and the Book of Acts.” auss 31
(1993): 199–203.
Wiles, Gordon P. Paul’s Intercessory Prayers. sntsms 24. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, 1974.

4 Historical Analysis
As it stands, this unit provides “illustrative paradigms” for the imperatives that
precede (cf. Donelson, 106–108), but questions remain in regard to the literary
connection between these two units as well as the integrity of the entire letter.
Noting the similarities between 1:16–18 and 4:8–18, Harrison argues (1956: 250–
261) that these are remnants of two letter fragments and that their presence in
their respective contexts is intrusive. The use of the following two words in this
unit (but absent from 4:8–18) would argue against this reading, however. First,
the use of ἐπαισχύνομαι in v. 16 ties this unit with the previous one where Paul
calls Timothy not to be ashamed of him and his gospel (v. 8) as he himself had
not been ashamed of this gospel (v. 12). The appearance of this verb in these
units and nowhere else in the pe argues for the strong connection between
them.
Second, the application of the verb ἀποστρέφω to himself in this unit (v. 15)
is striking, especially since elsewhere in the pe the word is applied only in the
1:15–18 565

sense of apostasy in reference to the gospel truth (see below). This stronger verb
fits well here since Paul understands his own life and ministry as the embod-
iment of the gospel (vv. 11–13). The use of the weaker ἐγκαταλείπω within the
second “fragment” (4:10–16) suits that context because the same emphasis is
missing there. In light of the full integration of these units in their respective
contexts, identifying them merely as remnants of earlier letter fragments fails
to recognize their rhetorical significance.

▪ 15 Apart from within the quote from the lxx (Isa 59:20 [Rom 11:26]), elsewhere
in Paul ἀποστρέφω appears only in the pe where it is used in the sense of apos-
tasy (2Tim 4:4; Titus 1:14; cf. ἀπεπλανήθησαν ἀπὸ τῆς πίστεως, 1 Tim 6:10), as is the
case here. Although Paul (με) is the object of the verb, in its context this does
not merely describe “a personal abandonment that stopped short of apostasy”
(Mounce, 493), since Paul, as “an apostle of Christ Jesus” (v. 1), is himself the
embodiment of the gospel. To be “ashamed of the testimony about our Lord”
can, therefore, be equated with the act of being ashamed of Paul “his prisoner”
(v. 8). In 4:10 below, Demas who deserted Paul is further explained by his love
of “this present world” (τὸν νῦν αἰῶνα) rather than of God whose glory is to last
through the ages (cf. εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων, 4:18).
This is the only reference to Asia (Ἀσία) in the pe, which is invariably used in
the nt in reference to the Roman province of Asia (Acts 2:9; 6:9; 16:6; 19:22, 26–
27; 20:16–18; 21:27; Rom 16:5; 1Cor 16:19; 2Cor 1:8; 1Pet 1:1; Rev 1:4) that was deeded
to the Romans by Attalus ii of Pergamum in 133bc. Notably, Paul’s ministry in
Ephesus recorded in Acts 19 is described to have influenced “all who lived in
Asia” (Acts 19:10). With Ephesus being the provincial capital of Asia since the
time of Augustus, the many who had deserted Paul in this polis may be taken
to represent the believers elsewhere in this province as well.
“Phygelus” and “Hermogenes” introduce a series of names, many of them
appearing only here and in 4:8–18 (cf. Onesiphorus, Crescens, Carpus), testi-
fying to the personal (though not private) nature of this letter. The notes on
desertion here and in 4:10 provide the framework for the call to Timothy to be
strong and faithful in the midst of difficulties (2:1–13; 3:10–17; 4:1–8). Moreover,
these specific examples of desertion may also provide the context in which the
opponents of Moses in the memories of Israel (i.e., Jannes and Jambres, 3:8)
can be understood.
Φύγελος is a name attested in the areas of Ephesus and Miletus (bdf § 42.3),
whereas Ἑρμογένης is a relatively more common Greek name (Xenophon, Mem.
1.2.48; Plato, Phaed. 25b; Josephus, C.Ap. 1.216; Plutarch, Mor. 613d). In the Acts
of Paul, Hermogenes appears with Demas, both described as flatterers and
insincere followers of Paul (Acts Paul 1.2; 4.4; 12.1) and later counted among
566 2 timothy

those who persecuted him (Acts Paul 12.1; 14.1; 16.4). Though it cannot be con-
sidered a reliable historical source, this apocryphal Acts at least testifies to the
memory of Hermogenes not only as a deserter of Paul but also as an apostate
who turns away from the gospel Paul preaches.

▪ 16 ἔλεος with δίδωμι belongs to the language of the lxx, mostly with God as the
implied subject (Gen 39:21; Deut 13:17; Josh 11:20; Ezra 9:9; Ps 56:4; Isa 47:6; Jer
16:13; Dan 9:3; Mic 7:20; Sir 27:22). These uses assume an imbalance of power
relationship when the recipients of such mercy are often identified as slaves
(δοῦλος, 1Kgs 3:6; Ezra 9:9; cf. δοῦλον δὲ κυρίου, 2:24) and as recipients of that
which are undeserved (cf. χάρις, Gen 39:21; Ps 83:12; see χάρις ἔλεος … ἀπὸ θεοῦ,
1:2). If deserting Paul (v. 15) is to be understood as apostasy, then God’s granting
mercy to Onesiphorus and his household (cf. v. 18) may also carry an eschato-
logical sense.
In the nt, Ὀνησίφορος appears only in this letter (cf. 4:19) but is a commonly
attested name in the first century, including that of slaves (Connolly 1987: 181–
182). In the Acts of Paul, this Onesiphorus is depicted as one from Iconium (2.1;
26.1) and the leader of a house church (5.1; 7.2; 15.2; 42.2) who stands with Paul in
opposing the ways of Demas and Hermogenes (4.1–6). The ways he “refreshed”
(ἀνέψυξεν) Paul are not stated (cf. Thomas 1985: 116–117) but may include pro-
viding (material) support (cf. Phil 4:15–16) as well as giving encouraging reports
of God’s work among believers (cf. Col 1:4–8; see v. 17 below).
The reference to the household of Onesiphorus (τῷ Ὀνησιφόρου οἴκῳ) rather
than Onesiphorus alone has often been taken to mean that Onesiphorus had
died (Kelly, 169–170); however, references to one’s household do not always
carry such a connotation (1Cor 1:16; 16:15–18; Marshall, 719), and this conclusion
is unattested in early commentators. This reference could merely mean that
Onesiphorus was absent from Ephesus because he was serving Paul in Rome
(cf. ἀλλὰ γενόμενος ἐν Ῥώμῃ, v. 17; Knight, 384), and this would also explain his
absence in the final greetings in 4:19. That final greeting may also reflect the
support of the entire community of believers if they have been meeting in
the “house” of Onesiphorous (cf. 1Tim 3:4–5), especially since the sending of
a messenger from Ephesus to Rome would require the support of the entire
community (cf. Phil 4:18–19).
The use of the verb ἐπαισχύνομαι here recalls Paul’s call to Timothy not to be
ashamed of the testimony about Jesus (v. 8) as Paul himself is not ashamed of
this gospel (v. 12); the connection among these uses is confirmed by the verb’s
only appearances in these two units in the pe (cf. Rom 1:16; 6:21). In Acts, ἅλυσις
is often used in the depiction of the actual chains that a prisoner wears (Acts
12:6–7; 12:33; 28:20), but in Paul it stands for the experience of imprisonment
1:15–18 567

(Eph 6:20). Shame is often expressed in relation to imprisonment (Plutarch,

Dem. 26.1) and even to those who are related to the prisoner (Ignatius, Smyrn.
10.2; Wansink 1996: 135–137). Thus “chain” in particular becomes a symbol of
humiliation, as is evident in the public displays in which prisoners are led in
chains (Josephus, A.J. 18.189–193; B.J. 2.229; Plutarch, Mar. 12.2–3, Tacitus, Ann.
1.58; Wansink 1996: 48).

▪ 17 This sole reference to Ῥώμη in the pe provides the location of Paul’s impris-
onment, which is consistent with the early Christian tradition that places the
final period of Paul’s life in Rome (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 2.22.1–8; see Introduc-
tion). The reason for Onesiphorus’s visit to Rome remains unclear, “possibly
on business, possibly as a Christian missionary” (Barrett, 99). He might also
have been sent by the church of Ephesus to serve Paul in prison, as Onesimus
might have done in Paul’s earlier imprisonment (Schenk 1987: 3439–3495). As in
the case of Ὀνήσιμος, Ὀνησίφορος also carries the meaning of “beneficial/prof-
itable,” and both are common slave names. The reference to Onesiphorus’s
“household” (v. 16) may mean that he is a freedman. Regardless of his social
status, that he was sent by the Ephesus church remains a possibility.
σπουδαίως ἐζήτησέν may refer to the difficulties in locating Paul, which sug-
gests a different scenario from Paul’s first Roman imprisonment where he was
under loose house arrest (cf. Acts 28:30–31; Kelly 170). On the other hand, σπου-
δαίως may serve to emphasize Onesiphorus’s commitment to locate and serve
Paul, in contrast to Phygelus and Hermogenes who deserted him (v. 15; see
comments above, and the use of σπουδαίως in Titus 3:13 for the emphasis on
dedication and commitment).

▪ 18 Some consider this clause a “clear scriptural support for prayer for the dead”
(Hanson, 127); however, it is by no means clear that Onesiphorus is dead, and
this wish statement should not be considered a formal wish prayer (especially
since it is not addressed to God as other Pauline examples are). Moreover, the
use of an optative here is consistent with the one in v. 16, where the function
of the stated wish is not primarily intercessory in nature but one that acknowl-
edges “the Lord” as the one to whom all acts are to be held accountable (cf. 4:16).
As such, these “wishes” also become patterns of behavior that Timothy and
those around him should imitate.
The reference to Ephesus corresponds to the note in 4:12, which points to
Timothy’s (continued) ministry in the city (cf. 1Tim 1:3). This note on Ephesus
recalls the reference to “Asia” in v. 15 as well as Onesiphorus’s ministry in this
fast-growing city (Strabo, Geogr. 14.1.24). That it is understood to be the most
important city of the province (ἡ πρώτη καὶ μεγίστη μητρόπολις τῆς Ἀσίας, IEph
568 2 timothy

647; 1541; 1543; Trebilco 1994: 306), in turn, provides a contrast between One-
siphorus’s faithful service in Ephesus and those who had deserted Paul in the
province of Asia.

Bibliography
Collins, Raymond F. “What Happened to Jesus’ Resurrection from the Dead? A Reflec-
tion on Paul and the Pastoral Epistles.” In Resurrection in the New Testament. Ed.
R. Bieringer, V. Koperski and B. Lataire, 423–440. betl 165. Peeters: Leuven Univer-
sity Press, 2002.
Connolly, A.L. “Onesiphoros.” NewDocs 4 (1987): 181–182.
Harrison, P.N. “The Pastoral Epistles and Duncan’s Ephesian Theory.”nts 2 (1956): 250–
261.
Schenk, Wolfgang. “Der Brief des Paulus an Philemon in der neueren Forschung.” anrw
ii.25.4 (1987): 3439–3495.
Thomas, W.D. “New Testament Characters xii. Onesiphorus.”ExpTim 96 (1985): 116–117.
Trebilco, Paul. “Asia.” In The Book of Acts in Its Graeco-Roman Setting. Ed. David W.J. Gill
and Conrad Gempf, 291–362. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994.

5 Theological Analysis
With the uncertainty as to whether Onesiphorus is dead and whether an
expression of wish should be taken as an intercessory prayer (see above), the
issue of prayer for the dead, as some have detected behind v. 18, demands only
a brief discussion. First, even those who argue that the dead should not be
excluded from the prayers of the believers in light of the general eschatolog-
ical hope expressed elsewhere in this letter (cf. 2 Tim 1:10) admit that this is not
what Paul promotes in v. 18 (Weiser, 142).
Second, that believers should pray for the dead is usually affirmed within
a theological system with certain corollaries that are absent in this letter and
elsewhere in Paul. These include the possibility of “the atonement for the dead”
as is the case in selected Second Temple traditions (cf. 2 Macc 12:45) and an
explicit affirmation of the existence of purgatory as in later ecclesiastical tradi-
tions (Mart. Perp. Fel. 2.3–4).
Third, both salvation by grace through faith alone (Rom 3:24; Eph 2:8–9) and
the finality of death (Rom 5:2; 6:8–11; 8:10; Col 2:11–13; Wright 2003: 28–36) are
what Paul affirms, and both appear to contradict the underlying assumptions
behind the practice of praying for the dead. Even the difficult reference to οἱ
βαπτιζόμενοι ὑπὲρ τῶν νεκρῶν in 1Cor 15:24 cannot be taken as an encourage-
ment for the intercession for the dead (cf. Hull 2005: 10–47).
Finally, when Paul addressed issues “concerning those who are asleep” (1
Thess 4:13), one would have expected him to bring up prayers for the dead as
2:1–13 569

a comfort to the community that struggled with their fate. The absence of any
such teachings in that context would argue against Paul’s general support for
this practice (contra Gould 2011: 184).
More important than the issue of the prayer for the dead is the consistent
location of this succession narrative within wider redemptive historical con-
cerns. As in Jewish succession narratives and testamentary literature that pro-
vide the context for eschatological discourse (though not necessarily in direct
prophetic pronouncements, cf. Collins 1984: 330), this section with its refer-
ence to “that day” (v. 18) recalls “that day” in the previous section (v. 12), and
it extends the discussion to the following sections that speak of the “eternal
glory” that is in Christ Jesus (2:10). These concerns culminate in 4:1–8 with ref-
erences to Christ’s “kingdom” (4:1) that is to appear “on that day” (4:8). Within
this eschatological framework, however, one can also detect the influence of
Hellenistic moral philosophers where Paul’s experience of rejection and accep-
tance become the paradigm that encourages moral progress (cf. Seneca, Ep.
11.8–10; 52.7; Talbert 2011: 65–66) within this period before the parousia.

Bibliography
Collins, John J. “Testaments.” In The Literature of the Jewish People in the Period of the
Second Temple and the Talmud, Vol. 2. Ed. Michael E. Stone, 325–355. crint 2.2. Lei-
den: Brill, 1984.
Gould, James B. “God’s Saving Purpose and Prayer for All the Departed.” Journal of Angli-
can Studies 10 (2011): 183–211.
Hull, Michael F. Baptism on Account of the Dead (1Cor 15:29): An Act of Faith in the Res-
urrection. AcBib 22. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005.
Talbert, Charles H. “Between Two Epiphanies: Clarifying One Aspect of Soteriology in
the Pastoral Epistles.” In Getting “Saved.” Ed. Charles H. Talbert and Jason A. Whit-
lark, 58–71. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011.
Wright, N.T. For All the Saints? Remembering the Christian Departed. Harrisburg, PA:
Morehouse, 2003.

iv Call to Timothy to Be Committed (2:1–26)

A To Share in Suffering (2:1–13)

1 Translation
1 You then, my child, be strengthened by the grace that is in Christ Jesus. 2 And
the things you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful peo-
ple who will be able to teach others as well. 3 Share in suffering as a good soldier
of Christ Jesus. 4 No one who is serving as a soldier gets entangled in matters
570 2 timothy

of daily existence, so that he may please the one who enlisted him. 5 And if
anyone competes as an athlete, he will not be crowned unless he competes
according to the rules. 6 The farmer as he works ought to have the crop first.
7 Consider what I say, for the Lord will give you understanding in all things. 8
Keep in mind Jesus Christ, raised from the dead, raised as the seed of David, in
accordance with my gospel, 9 because of which I suffer to the point of being
chained like a criminal. But the word of God is not chained. 10 On account of
this I endure all things for the sake of the elect, so that they may also obtain the
salvation that is in Christ Jesus, with eternal glory. 11 This saying is trustworthy:
For if we died with him, we will also live with him; 12 if we endure, we will also
reign with him. If we deny him, he will also deny us; 13 if we are unfaithful, he
will remain faithful, for4 he cannot deny himself.

2 Text-Critical Analysis
▪ 3 συγκακοπάθησον: This rare word that appears only in 2 Timothy (cf. 1:8) in
extant Greek literature prior to the third century ad is replaced by the clause
σὺ οὖν κακοπάθησον in many late manuscripts (C3 D1 Hc K L Ψ 630 1241 1505
1881c 𝔐 syh) and by the simple verb κακοπάθησον in a few witnesses (1175 it).
συγκακοπάθησον (or the alternate form συνκακοπάθησον) receives the strongest
external support from the earliest Alexandrian (‫ א‬A C*; cf. 1739) and Western
(D* F G) witnesses and can best explain σὺ οὖν κακοπάθησον, which avoids the
ambiguity of the συν-prefix in this context. σὺ οὖν may have been influenced
by the same phrase in v. 1 (Metzger, 579), though the entire phrase could have
originated from a scribal error in the reading (or hearing) of the rarer συγκα-
κοπάθησον. The simple reading of κακοπάθησον is clearly a further development
when σὺ οὖν dropped off, possibly to avoid repetition of the same phrase in v. 1.

▪ 4 στρατευόμενος: A number of Western witnesses (F G it vgcl.ww; Cyp Ambst)

insert τῷ θεῷ after στρατευόμενος to clarify the spiritual nature of this warfare
(2Cor 10:3), but it is redundant in light of the earlier reference to καλὸς στρα-
τιώτης Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ in 2:3. The absence of this genitive qualifier in the ear-
liest Alexandrian (‫ א‬A C; cf. 1739) and Western (D) witnesses followed by the
majority of the later Byzantine minuscules (33 1505 1881 pm 𝔐) argues for its
omission, especially when it is unlikely that later scribes would delete any high
christological reference that explicitly identifies the Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ of v. 3 as τῷ
θεῷ here.

4 Even with the omission of γάρ (see comments below), “for” is included in this translation for
the sake of clarity.
2:1–13 571

▪ 4 πραγματείαις: Most uncials (‫ א‬A C D F G) have the alternate spelling πρα-

γματίαις instead, a reading adopted by both Tischendorf and Westcott-Hort
(cf. Kilpatrick, 10). The ninth-century uncial Ψ followed by the majority of
the minuscules (1505 1739 1881 pm 𝔐) read πραγματείαις, which is adopted by
recent critical editions (sblgnt, na27/28). This may be a case of itacism, and
both forms can be found in the lxx. Elliott (130) suggests that πραγματείαις is
the classical form and is therefore secondary because of Atticistic tendencies
in the later scribes. A search in the database fails to confirm this distinction,
but πραγματεία is clearly the more common form in different periods of Greek
literature and may therefore have led later scribes to correct the rarer form.
πραγματίαις should therefore be accepted as original.

▪ 6 πρῶτον: The original reading of Codex Sinaiticus (‫ )*א‬alone reads πρότερον,

which in Koine Greek most often means “former” (cf. 1 Tim 1:13), a reading that
does not fit this context. This is likely a scribal error, as confirmed by a visual
examination of the digital facsimile of Codex Sinaiticus [folio 296 column 1]
where the scribe apparently started with πρῶτον (likely following the source
text) and made a change midway, thus: πρωότερον.

▪ 7 ὅ: This singular relative pronoun is replaced by the plural ἅ in selected

uncials (‫א‬2 D H K L Ψ), followed by the majority of late Byzantine minuscules
(81 104 365 630 1175 1241 1505 1881 𝔐), likely to extend the content of the call
to that which is beyond its immediately preceding verse. The singular receives
support from the earliest Alexandrian witnesses (‫ *א‬A C; cf. 1739), and it is the
more difficult reading since it limits the content of its reference. The change to
the plural might have been prompted by ἃ in v. 2.

▪ 7 δώσει: Instead of this future indicative that is supported by early Alexan-

drian (‫ *א‬A C; cf. 1739) and Western (D F G latt) witnesses, the majority of the
Byzantine minuscules (81 104 365 630 1241 1505 1881 𝔐) follow a number of late
uncials (C3 H K L P Ψ) in reading δώη instead. Elliott (1968: 622) argues, however,
that δώη should be read as the Hellenistic form of the second aorist subjunc-
tive δώῃ instead (bdf §95.2), and he considers this the original reading and
the change to the future indicative an attempt to avoid this unusual subjunc-
tive form. While one can accept Elliott’s contention that δώη should be read
as a subjunctive since an Atticist scribe would have preferred δοίη for an aorist
optative, external evidence clearly supports δώσει.

▪ 10 μετὰ δόξης αἰωνίου: Instead of δόξης αἰωνίου, the Palestinian Syriac lectionary
has “heavenly glory” or “glory which is from heaven” (cf. Metzger 1977: 81).
572 2 timothy

Though the Syriac version testifies to δόξης αἰωνίου in its source text, this variant
reading also survives in a number of other versions (vg aeth arm).

▪ 12 ἀρνησόμεθα: Instead of this future verb supported by, among others, early
Alexandrian witnesses (‫ *א‬A C Ψ 048 33 81 104 365 1175 lat),5 the majority of
the Byzantine witnesses (630 1241 1505 1739 1881 𝔐) followed selected uncials
(‫א‬2 D K L P) in reading the present ἀρνούμεθα (accepted by “thoroughgoing
eclectic” critics, Kilpatrick, 11; Elliott, 134). The external evidence slightly favors
ἀρνησόμεθα, and the change to the present is likely an assimilation to the sur-
rounding εἰ + present indicatives (ὑπομένομεν, v. 12; ἀπιστοῦμεν, v. 13). The odd εἰ
+ future indicative here represents a marked expectation of an alternative state
of affairs (see comments).

▪ 13 γάρ: The manuscript evidence is divided in the omission or inclusion of

this conjunction. Most Alexandrian witnesses (‫ *א‬Avid C) include it, but a
scribal corrector of Codex Sinaiticus (‫א‬2) omits it; early Western uncials (D F
G) include it, but the Vulgate and a significant part of the Old Latin witnesses
omit it; selected Byzantine uncials (L P) include it, but the majority of the late
Byzantine minuscules (𝔐) following a number of earlier Byzantine uncials (K
Ψ) omit it; the Syriac Karlensis omits it, but the Peshitta includes it; the major-
ity of the Coptic Bohairic tradition includes it, but some Bοhairic manuscripts
agree with the Sahidic witnesses in omitting it. In this case, internal consider-
ations tip the scale: its omission is the more difficult reading, and its insertion
by the later scribes was likely an attempt to remove the asyndeton (Elliott, 135;
cf. sblgnt).

Bibliography
Elliott, J.K. “διδωμι in 2Timothy.” jts 19 (1968): 621–623.
Metzger, Bruce M. The Early Versions of the New Testament. Oxford: Clarendon, 1977.

3 Grammatical Analysis
After the two illustrative examples with the use of third-person optatives (δῴη,
1:16, 18) in the previous unit, Paul now returns to a direct call to Timothy with
the use of the marked second-person personal pronoun σύ followed by a series
of second-person imperatives (ἐνδυναμοῦ, v. 1; παράθου, v. 2; συγκακοπάθησον,
v. 3; νόει, v. 7; μνημόνευε, v. 8). Despite this shift in focus, the connection with the

5 na27 considers the omission of this verb in F G to be due to homoeoteleuton, a note (rightly)
omitted in na28.
2:1–13 573

previous unit is maintained by the inferential marker οὖν and by the eschato-
logical note in 1:18 that paves the way for Paul’s emphasis on the eschaton here
(vv. 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13).
Whether this unit should end at 2:7 (Hanson, 127; Johnson, 364) or 2:13 (Kelly,
171; Spicq, 2.737) is disputed, but the cohesion of 2:1–13 argues for taking these
verses as a whole. The emphasis on suffering (vv. 3, 9), faithfulness (vv. 2, 11, 13),
endurance (vv. 1, 6, 10, 12), and mental acts of thinking and remembering (vv. 7,
8) throughout this unit attests to its cohesion. Moreover, as Paul’s earlier call to
Timothy to suffer (1:8) is built on his own example (vv. 11–12), here Paul’s call
for Timothy to suffer (v. 3) is further grounded in the example of Christ (vv. 8–
10; cf. Donelson, 104), thus explaining the intense focus on Christ Jesus in this
entire unit. The example of Paul does not, however, fade into the background
since the christological example in vv. 8–13 also provides the primary grounds
for Paul’s own suffering (cf. Oberlinner, 2.75). The parallels in the two parts of
the unit provide its cohesion as they both begin with imperative(s) (vv. 1–7:
ἐνδυναμοῦ, v. 1; παράθου, v. 2; συγκακοπάθησον, v. 3; vv. 8–13: μνημόνευε, v. 8) fol-
lowed by statements that support such general calls to action (vv. 4–6, 9–13),
with the imperative (νόει) in v. 7 serving as the bridge between the two units.
This unit contains primarily a series of independent clauses with a few
dependent protases and relative and purposes clauses. Following the inferen-
tial conjunction οὖν are three imperatival clauses. The first calls Timothy to “be
strengthened” (ἐνδυναμοῦ, v. 1) in Christ; the second to “entrust” (παράθου, v. 2) to
faithful people, with relative clauses providing characterization to that which
is to be entrusted (ἃ) and to the faithful people (οἵτινες) to whom such things
are to be entrusted; the third to “share in suffering” (συγκακοπάθησον, v. 3) like
a soldier of Christ Jesus. The three illustrations that follow do not follow the
same syntactic pattern, though all three are governed by a present indicative.
The first illustration of a soldier contains an independent clause (ἐμπλέκεται …,
v. 4) modified by a purpose clause; the second of an athlete contains an inde-
pendent clause (οὐ στεφανοῦται, v. 5) modified by two protases (ἐὰν …); the third
of a farmer contains the impersonal verb (δεῖ, v. 6) followed by a complemen-
tary infinitival clause introduced by μεταλαμβάνειν. This first half of the unit
concludes with yet another imperatival clause (νόει …) that calls Timothy to
reflect on what he was taught, with the grounds for this imperative provided
by the γάρ-clause.
The second half of the unit begins with a call for Timothy to “keep in mind”
(μνημόνευε, v. 8) Jesus Christ, who is further characterized by two participial
clauses, the first depicting him being raised from the dead (ἐγηγερμένον ἐκ
νεκρῶν) and the second describing him as being from the seed of David ([γενό-
μενον] ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυίδ); both of these affirmations are made in accordance
574 2 timothy

with (κατά) the gospel. With a prepositional phrase (ἐν ᾧ, v. 9) that refers back
to this gospel, Paul discusses his suffering to the point of being imprisoned,
which is contrasted with (ἀλλά) the freedom of the word of God that cannot
be bound. Paul concludes this digression on his mission with a statement that
he endures all things (ὑπομένω) for the sake of the elect, with the purpose (ἵνα)
that they receive the salvation that is in Christ Jesus (ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ).
With the focus returning to Christ Jesus, the “saying” (ὁ λόγος) that follows
contains four conditional clauses (vv. 11–13), the final of which is followed by an
additional clause that provides grounds for the surprising statement that pre-
cedes. These four clauses are clearly organized with two positive protases fol-
lowed by two negative ones. The final conditional clause (v. 13), which appears
out of place, clearly forms the climax of this series, as is made clear by the shift
from the three future apodoses to the present in the fourth, the unexpected
coupling of a negative protasis and a positive apodosis, and the additional
clause that provides the grounds (γάρ) for this positive apodosis.

▪ 1 Σὺ οὖν, τέκνον μου, ἐνδυναμοῦ ἐν τῇ χάριτι τῇ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ. The use of the
second-person personal pronoun σύ at the beginning of the unit is not unusual
in the pe, though it often occurs within the comparable formulaic σὺ δέ (1 Tim
6:11; 2Tim 3:10; Titus 2:1; cf. 2Tim 3:14; 4:5). The nominative σύ provides an
explicit link with the previous unit that concludes likewise with a nominative
(σύ, 1:18), and it shifts the attention from the examples of Phygelus, Hermo-
genes (1:15), and Onesiphorus (1:16–18) to Timothy himself. With the absence
of imperatives in 1:15–18, οὖν is best understood in a resumptive sense as Paul
continues his directives to Timothy in 1:6–14 (Heckert, Discourse, 100), although
an inferential sense cannot be excluded, especially since Paul builds on the pos-
itive paradigm of Onesiphorus.
ἐνδυναμοῦ can be taken either as a middle (Dibelius and Conzelmann, 172)
or passive (Mounce, 503) imperative. It should best be taken as a passive verb
since (1) elsewhere in the pe the verb ἐνδυναμόω is always used with Christ being
the one who strengthens (1Tim 1:12; 2Tim 4:17), (2) in this case the agency of
Christ is affirmed by the phrase ἐν τῇ χάριτι τῇ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ even though God
is presumably the final agent of such an act, and (3) the close parallel in Eph
6:10 (ἐνδυναμοῦσθε ἐν κυρίῳ καὶ ἐν τῷ κράτει τῆς ἰσχύος αὐτοῦ) likewise points to
God’s work in Christ that strengthens those who rely on him. The continuative
sense of ἐνδυναμοῦ (Perkins, 177) can be justified by its context, though it is not
semantically encoded in the present tense.
τῇ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ provides further information on the location (and source)
of τῇ χάριτι, and it marks the christological reference with prominence. With ἐν
τῇ χάριτι τῇ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, therefore, Paul distances himself from Timothy’s
2:1–13 575

mission by shifting the attention away from himself to Christ as the basis of
Timothy’s strength and mission.

▪ 2 καὶ ἃ ἤκουσας παρ’ ἐμοῦ διὰ πολλῶν μαρτύρων, ταῦτα παράθου πιστοῖς ἀνθρώποις.
This second imperatival clause (ταῦτα παράθου πιστοῖς ἀνθρώποις) is preceded
by a relative clause (ἃ ἤκουσας παρ’ ἐμοῦ διὰ πολλῶν μαρτύρων) that provides
further characterization of ταῦτα, and it is followed by a relative clause (οἵτι-
νες ἱκανοὶ ἔσονται καὶ ἑτέρους διδάξαι) that likewise provides further information
concerning πιστοῖς ἀνθρώποις.
The adverbial καί at the beginning of this verse marks the material that fol-
lows with prominence, especially with the location of a relative clause (ἃ …)
that finds its antecedent only in that which follows. The prepositional phrase
διὰ πολλῶν μαρτύρων has been taken as depicting the accompanying circum-
stances of Paul’s commissioning of Timothy (Spicq, 2.738–739) with διά under-
stood in the sense of “in the presence of” (cf. Moule, Idiom, 57), but this phrase
is best taken as an intermediate means through which what Paul (παρ’ ἐμοῦ)
has passed onto Timothy receives further support and confirmation (Marshall,
725; Smith, 57). This is reinforced by the use of the phrase πολλῶν μαρτύρων,
which denotes authenticity and reliability (cf. 1Tim 5:19), and by the imperative
that follows (παράθου), which emphasizes the passing on of significant body of
traditions, though it is unnecessary to see a specific polemic “against gnostic’s
emphasis on secret doctrines” (Barrett, 101) here.
The anaphoric ταῦτα refers to the content of the relative clause that pre-
cedes. The aorist imperative παράθου has been understood as a “constative
aorist” (Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 370), though such a label may not be necessary
since this is consistent with the general use of the aorist where the process is
perceived as a whole.

▪ οἵτινες ἱκανοὶ ἔσονται καὶ ἑτέρους διδάξαι. With the blurring of the distinction
between ὅς and ὅστις in Koine Greek (see 1Tim 1:4), οἵτινες carries the function
of a relative pronoun that introduces a relative clause modifying its antecedent
πιστοῖς ἀνθρώποις. Though syntactically it serves to provide further characteri-
zation of those who are reliable in the transmission of the traditional gospel (cf.
Spicq, 2.739), its rhetorical force is to further extend the circle of responsibility
from Paul to Timothy to the faithful ones, and now to those (ἑτέρους) who are
to receive this tradition.
Within this phrase, the conjunction καί carries an “ascensive” sense (“even/as
well,” Perkins, 178) that links ἑτέρους with the preceding πιστοῖς ἀνθρώποις. The
future ἔσονται not only expresses the wish of the author, but it also marks this
expectation with prominence, which, in turn, reinforces the rhetorical force
576 2 timothy

of this clause that extends the scope of the Pauline gospel. This rhetorical
point is further accentuated by the lexical choice of διδάσκω, a word group that
Paul uses earlier where he identifies himself as a “herald, apostle, and teacher”
(κῆρυξ καὶ ἀπόστολος καὶ διδάσκαλος, 1:11; cf. διδάσκαλος ἐθνῶν ἐν πίστει καὶ ἀλη-
θείᾳ, 1Tim 2:7).

▪ 3 Συγκακοπάθησον ὡς καλὸς στρατιώτης Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ. Following the previous

two imperatives (ἐνδυναμοῦ, παράθου), this third imperative (συγκακοπάθησον)
extends Paul’s exhortation to Timothy. The significance of the third imperati-
val clause in this unit is marked by a few linguistic features. First, the use of the
στρατ-word group in this clause introduces a series of related terms in the same
word group in the verse that follows, where Paul begins with the first of a series
of illustrations related to suffering (στρατευόμενος, v. 4; στρατολογήσαντι, v. 4).
Second, the placement of the imperative συγκακοπάθησον at the beginning
of this clause highlights its importance in this part of the unit (vv. 3–7), one
that finds its parallel in the imperative that signals the start of the second part
of this unit (vv. 8–13).
Third, the συν-compound verb (συγκακοπάθησον) used here initiates a series
of similar verbs in the second half of the unit (συναπεθάνομεν, v. 11; συζήσομεν,
v. 11; συμβασιλεύσομεν, v. 12). Similarly, the theme of suffering (συγ-κακοπάθησον)
reappears in the second half of the unit (κακοπαθῶ, v. 9). To suffer with Paul
(v. 3) is thereby linked with the participation in the suffering (and glory) of
Christ in vv. 8–13.
If so, the relationship between συγκακοπάθησον and the two preceding im-
peratives needs to be reconsidered: instead of merely the third in a series, this
imperative provides the content of the previous two—it illustrates how Timo-
thy should remain strong (ἐνδυναμοῦ) in the grace that is in Christ Jesus (v. 1)—
and it lies at the center of the gospel that Timothy is to entrust (παράθου) to
other faithful ones (v. 2).

▪ 4 οὐδεὶς στρατευόμενος ἐμπλέκεται ταῖς τοῦ βίου πραγματίαις, ἵνα τῷ στρατολο-

γήσαντι ἀρέσῃ. Comparable to the use of the indefinite pronoun τις within the
protasis of the conditional clause in v. 5, the use of οὐδείς introduces a general
proverbial saying (or “gnomic maxim,” Ramsaran 2003: 448 [Quintilian, Inst.
8.5.3–34]) upon which Paul’s specific argument is built. στρατευόμενος can be
taken as an adverbial participle that carries a conditional sense (Perkins, 179;
cf. μηδεὶς πειραζόμενος, James 1:13), and if so, it parallels the force of the protasis
in v. 5 (ἐὰν δὲ καὶ ἀθλῇ τις). On the other hand, the attributive use (“who is serv-
ing as a solider”) works equally well in this context, and it parallels the force
of τὸν κοπιῶντα γεωργόν in v. 6 with an attributive participle modifying a noun.
2:1–13 577

The present participle στρατευόμενος depicts an act contemporaneous with the

present indicative ἐμπλέκεται, which draws attention to the process rather than
the event as a whole (as depicted in the aorist verbs [στρατολογήσαντι, ἀρέσῃ]
that follow).
Embedded in the ταῖς … πραγματίαις construction, τοῦ βίου should be taken
as an attributive genitive. Following most uncials, the rarer form πραγματίαις
should be adopted (see Text-Critical Analysis); it is a nt hapax and appears
often in the plural in Koine literature (bdag 858; cf. M.-M. 532).
Syntactically, ἵνα introduces the purpose of a soldier not getting entangled
by matters of everyday existence, but in this context this clause also serves as
the contrast to that which precedes: instead of being concerned with one’s own
existence, the soldier should be concerned with the one whom he serves. This
is underlined by the verb ἀρέσκω that always carries a comparative sense in
Paul when the priority of one’s devotion is at stake (1 Cor 7:32–34; 10:33; Gal
1:10; 1Thess 2:4, 15; 4:1).

▪ 5 ἐὰν δὲ καὶ ἀθλῇ τις, οὐ στεφανοῦται ἐὰν μὴ νομίμως ἀθλήσῃ. δὲ καί signals the
beginning of the second illustration, with δέ pointing to the development of
Paul’s argument and the adverbial καί marking ἀθλῇ τις with prominence as
it reinforces the previous illustration that is paralleled by οὐδεὶς στρατευόμενος
ἐμπλέκεται (v. 4).
The apodosis, οὐ στεφανοῦται, is flanked by two protases both introduced by
ἐάν and followed by a subjunctive of the verb ἀθλέω. In the first protasis, ἐάν
+ subjunctive (ἀθλῇ) introduces a third-class conditional sentence whose pro-
tasis does not make a statement concerning the probability of this statement
being true; the use of the present subjunctive ἀθλῇ with the indefinite pronoun
τις is consistent with the general nature of this conditional clause (cf. Zerwick,
Biblical Greek, §325).
In the second protasis, ἐάν + subjunctive (ἀθλήσῃ) likewise points to a third-
class conditional sentence, though in this case with the negative particle μή it
functions as an exceptive clause. The present ἀθλῇ shifts to the aorist ἀθλήσῃ,
and these tenses shouldn’t be understood primarily in a temporal sense (Rader-
macher, Neustestamentlich Grammatik, 178); while the present tense provides
a general condition, the aorist in the second protasis portrays a specific (possi-
ble) event that signifies an exception to the general statement.

▪ 6 τὸν κοπιῶντα γεωργὸν δεῖ πρῶτον τῶν καρπῶν μεταλαμβάνειν. This third illus-
tration continues with the theme of intentionality, especially with the marked
placement of the participle κοπιῶντα. It also provides a proper conclusion to
this list of illustrations by intensifying the focus on reward that is already
578 2 timothy

present in v. 5 (στεφανοῦται) with the impersonal verb δεῖ. Its climactic nature
may also explain this asyndetic clause, which departs from the second illustra-
tion that begins with δὲ καί (cf. Levinsohn, Discourse, 118).
The attributive participle κοπιῶντα does not merely carry the function of an
adjective; in this context it also accentuates its verbal force, thereby conveying
the idea of “the farmer as he worked (or works)” (Moule, Idiom, 95). This verbal
force is reinforced by the lexical choice of κοπιάω that denotes labor and toil in
ministry.
Though often followed by a complementary infinitive in the aorist tense,
here δεῖ is followed by the present infinitive μεταλαμβάνειν in conformity with
the use of the present tense verbs within this cluster of illustrations (στρατευό-
μενος, v. 4; ἐμπλέκεται, v. 4; στεφανοῦται, v. 5); this is also consistent with the uses
of δεῖ + present infinitive in the pe (1Tim 3:7, 15; 2 Tim 2:24; Titus 1:11; Porter, Ver-
bal Aspect, 488).
πρῶτον has been taken as the direct object of μεταλαμβάνειν, with τῶν καρ-
πῶν being a partitive genitive, thus “the first share of the crops” (Hanson, 130),
but this reading is unlikely since μεταλαμβάνω usually takes a genitive object,
and in the nt an articular partitive genitive almost always follows an articular
πρῶτος (Mark 6:21; Acts 25:2; 28:7, 17; Perkins, 181). Others have detected behind
this use of πρῶτον a case of hyperbaton, where this adverb is taken to modify the
verb of the previous clause (κοπιῶντα), thus: “the husbandman must first labour
before he enjoys the fruits” (Winer, Treatise, 696). This reading would be consis-
tent with the conditional force of the previous illustration, thus emphasizing
the need for the farmer to work hard before receiving his reward. Neverthe-
less, with the rarity of such a construction in the nt, this adverb is best read as
modifying a verb (μεταλαμβάνειν) within this same clause, thus: “to receive the
fruits/crop first.”

▪ 7 νόει ὃ λέγω· δώσει γάρ σοι ὁ κύριος σύνεσιν ἐν πᾶσιν. This clause provides the
conclusion to the first half of this unit (vv. 1–7) as well as the transition to its
second half (vv. 8–13). First, the reappearance of an imperative (νόει) recalls the
imperatives at the beginning of this half (ἐνδυναμοῦ, v. 1; παράθου, v. 2; συγκακο-
πάθησον, v. 3) and provides its fitting conclusion. Second, the relative clause ὃ
λέγω explicitly points back to what Paul had just written, as is fitting in the con-
clusion of this section of the unit. Third, the imperative νόει here anticipates
μνημόνευε at the beginning of the next section (v. 8).
As γάρ often strengthens that which precedes (Levinsohn, Discourse, 91),
here it points to ὁ κύριος as the one who provides Timothy with the ability to
work out the meaning and implications of what Paul has asked of him. The
future tense δώσει grammaticalizes the certainty of a perceived state of real-
2:1–13 579

ity with an emphasis on the expectation towards its progress (cf. Porter, Verbal
Aspect, 414). Here, with the use of the title ὁ κύριος, this future verb lays empha-
sis on the expected course of action for Timothy.

▪ 8 Μνημόνευε Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐγηγερμένον ἐκ νεκρῶν, ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυίδ, κατὰ

τὸ εὐαγγέλιόν μου. With this verse, Paul moves to the second part of this unit,
which he begins with the reiteration of the gospel to which he is committed.
A number of problems affect the way this verse is to be read: (1) whether ἐγη-
γερμένον should be taken as an attributive or adverbial participle, (2) what the
phrase ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυίδ modifies, and (3) the reason why Jesus’s resurrection
is mentioned before the note ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυίδ (especially in view of Rom 1:3–
4). The decision on (1) and (2), in turn, affects how (3) is to be explained. Three
readings need to be considered.
The first takes μνημόνευε as introducing indirect discourse, with ἐγηγερμένον
as a predicate and ἐκ νεκρῶν as modifying an implied verb such as γενόμενον
(Marshall, 734–735), thus:

μνημόνευε Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐγηγερμένον

ἐκ νεκρῶν
(γενόμενον)
ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυίδ

Problems with this reading include the unclear relationship between ἐκ νεκρῶν
and ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυίδ as well as the difficulty in explaining the order of these
two clauses except to attribute it to a set of teachings that Paul is combatting
here with the rearrangement of the natural chronological order of these events
(Towner 1989:102).
The second takes ἐγηγερμένον in an attributive sense modifying Ἰησοῦν Χρι-
στόν, with the focus on the identity of Christ (Mounce, 512):

μνημόνευε Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν

ἐγηγερμένον
ἐκ νεκρῶν
ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυίδ

This reading fails, however, to consider the parallelism between the two ἐκ-
clauses and imposes an attributive sense on the prepositional phrase ἐκ σπέρ-
ματος Δαυίδ, which should naturally be taken as carrying an adverbial force.
Moreover, it is the gospel (i.e., what Jesus did) that is the focus in this context,
rather than the identity of Jesus himself.
580 2 timothy

The third takes ἐγηγερμένον as a predicate within the indirect discourse, but
with both ἐκ νεκρῶν and ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυίδ modifying ἐγηγερμένον (Wieland,
140–141):

μνημόνευε Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐγηγερμένον

ἐκ νεκρῶν
ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυίδ

This reading preserves the parallelism between the two ἐκ-clauses, and it draws
attention not simply to the identity of Jesus, but also to what God did through
him: he raised him from the dead and raised him up as the Messianic King.
This is, after all, Paul’s gospel (τὸ εὐαγγέλιόν μου). ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυίδ does not,
therefore, refer to Jesus’s incarnation but his enthronement. This ordering is
paralleled by Paul’s speech in Acts 13:16–41, where Jesus’s resurrection (vv. 30–
31) precedes the note on the fulfillment of God’s promises to David (vv. 32–39;
cf. Spicq, 2.745–746).
The use of the perfect tense ἐγηγερμένον marks this with prominence as Paul
highlights the center of his gospel with the note on the state of Christ’s exalta-
tion as both the risen Lord and the Messianic King. The perfect tense does not
semantically encode a past act with abiding significance (Mounce, 512), espe-
cially since different tenses of this verb are used in different contexts by Paul
with reference to the same event (cf. ἐγείραντος, Rom 8:11; ἐγείροντι, 2 Cor 1:9;
Porter, Idioms, 24).

▪ 9 ἐν ᾧ κακοπαθῶ μέχρι δεσμῶν ὡς κακοῦργος, ἀλλὰ ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ οὐ δέδεται·

The relative pronoun within the ἐν ᾧ formula often refers to Christ, especially
in the later Pauline Epistles (Eph 1:7, 11; 2:21, 22; Col 1:14; 2:3); but such usage
is absent in the pe, and a reference to Christ is not immediately evident here
(contra Holtz, 166). It is best, therefore, to take τὸ εὐαγγέλιόν with the clause that
precedes as its antecedent. The preposition ἐν can carry the meaning of “in the
sphere of” with the phrase referring to “the gospel as the sphere of his suffer-
ings” (Kelly, 177), though in this context a causal use of this preposition (cf. ἐν
ᾧ, Rom 8:3; bdag 329) provides a more natural reading, especially in light of
the use of the compound form of the verb κακοπαθέω (συγκακοπαθέω) at the
beginning of this epistle (1:8; cf. 2Thess 1:5, τῆς βασιλείας τοῦ θεοῦ, ὑπὲρ ἧς καὶ
πάσχετε).
With the strong κακοῦργος, which denotes a “criminal” (Luke 23:32–33, 39),
the comparative particle ὡς is used here to mark that which is blatantly false
(thus, “as if,” Fiore, 149). The ἀλλὰ … οὐ clause that follows provides a strong
exclusion to a possible generalization derived from the clause that precedes. ὁ
2:1–13 581

λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ is to be identified as τὸ εὐαγγέλιόν in v. 8, and both are person-

ified here as in Col 1:5–6 (ἐν τῷ λόγῳ τῆς ἀληθείας τοῦ εὐαγγελίου τοῦ παρόντος
εἰς ὑμᾶς). This again recalls the earlier call to suffer for the sake of the powerful
gospel in 1:8–10.

▪ 10 διὰ τοῦτο πάντα ὑπομένω διὰ τοὺς ἐκλεκτούς, ἵνα καὶ αὐτοὶ σωτηρίας τύχωσιν
τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ μετὰ δόξης αἰωνίου. Syntactically, the role of Paul the apostle
who endures all things is marked with prominence by the first-person verb ὑπο-
μένω qualified by two διά + accusative phrases (διὰ τοῦτο, διὰ τοὺς ἐκλεκτούς).
Nevertheless, the content of these two prepositional phrases serves to divert
attention away from Paul himself. The first, διὰ τοῦτο, points to the gospel as
the basis of his commitment to endurance; the second, διὰ τοὺς ἐκλεκτούς, to
the wider people of God that benefits from the Pauline mission.
διὰ τοῦτο could be prospective or retrospective, as the ambiguity in the only
other occurrence of this phrase in the pe in 1Tim 1:16 demonstrates. In this con-
text, however, a prospective reading that equates this with διὰ τοὺς ἐκλεκτούς
would be redundant (contra Kelly, 178). The most natural antecedent remains
ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ οὐ δέδεται (v. 9) that precedes. This prepositional phrase paral-
lels the second, διὰ τοὺς ἐκλεκτούς, and the difference in the nuances of the two
uses of διά is not apparent (contra Marshall, 737).
The adverbial καί takes on an ascensive function that marks that which fol-
lows with prominence (Perkins, 186). In contrast to the present ὑπομένω in the
main clause, the aorist subjunctive τύχωσιν within the ἵνα clause grammati-
calizes perfective aspect in view of the particularity of the salvation of the
believers. The prepositional phrase ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ may denote instrumen-
tality (Collins, 225) or may evoke the Pauline mystic union with Christ motif
(Kelly, 178), but the uses of the articular prepositional phrase τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ
Ἰησοῦ elsewhere in this letter (1:1, 13; 2:1; 3:15) argues for a locative sense (cf.
Harris 2012: 124).

▪ 11 πιστὸς ὁ λόγος εἰ γὰρ συναπεθάνομεν, καὶ συζήσομεν. The fact that this πιστὸς
ὁ λόγος formula has to be read in context with the link between this word (ὁ
λόγος) and the previous note on the word of God (ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ, v. 9) does
not diminish the formulaic nature of this phrase here and elsewhere in the pe
(contra Johnson, 375–376). The postpositive γάρ, unique among the trustworthy
sayings of the pe and likely inserted by Paul here, further secures the connec-
tion between this statement and the previous call for Timothy to suffer and
remain faithful to God.
Within this confessional statement are four conditional clauses followed by
yet another clause that provides the grounds for the final surprising statement
582 2 timothy

in v. 13a. The progression of tenses in the protases of these four conditional

sentences cannot be missed. The first protasis contains the least marked aorist
indicative (συναπεθάνομεν), followed by the second with the present indica-
tive (ὑπομένομεν, v. 12a) that views the ongoing process within which Timothy
is called to provide an appropriate response. The third contains the marked
future indicative (ἀρνησόμεθα, v. 12b) that depicts an alternate state of affairs
with dire consequences to be avoided, and the final with the return to a present
indicative (ἀπιστοῦμεν, v. 13) that again draws attention to the process within
which an appropriate response is called for. Moreover, while the first three
contain a future indicative in the apodoses (συζήσομεν; συμβασιλεύσομεν, v. 12a;
ἀρνήσεται, v. 12b), the final uses a present indicative (μένει, v. 13a) that draws
attention to the surprising statement on the process of God’s unfailing faithful-
ness.
With εἰ + indicative in the protasis, this first-class conditional sentence
presents a portrayal of reality for the sake of argument, with no assumption
as to the veracity of the statement. Paronomasia is again evident (cf. 1 Tim 1:8;
6:17–19) with συναπεθάνομεν initiating a series of συν-compound verbs (συζήσο-
μεν; συμβασιλεύσομεν, v. 12).
The adverbial καί that introduces the apodosis draws attention to the par-
allelism of the two acts (συναπεθάνομεν, συζήσομεν) while placing emphasis on
the second, and behind both συν-verbs the pronoun αὐτῷ is implied (see Rom
6:8: συζήσομεν αὐτῷ; cf. Winer, Grammar, 179).

▪ 12 εἰ ὑπομένομεν, καὶ συμβασιλεύσομεν. As in the previous clause, this condi-

tional is also a first-class conditional clause; but the tense of the verb in the
protasis switches from the aorist to the present indicative (ὑπομένομεν) as Paul
invites Timothy into the process of endurance (cf. ὑπομένω, v. 10). The lack of
an assumption of the veracity of the protasis is particularly evident here in
light of the protasis of the conditional clause that follows, where the oppo-
site state of affairs is affirmed (cf. Wallace, Greek Grammar, 796). As in the
previous clause, the future indicative (συμβασιλεύσομεν) appears in the apo-
dosis.

▪ εἰ ἀρνησόμεθα, κἀκεῖνος ἀρνήσεται ἡμᾶς. The third and fourth conditional

clauses depart from the previous two with the use of a negative statement
in the protasis. The use of the future ἀρνησόμεθα here is unexpected, and it
likely prompted a change back to the present indicative ἀρνούμεθα by some
later scribes. In this context, however, εἰ + future indicative introduces a third-
class future (the most vivid) conditional sentence, one that marks an alter-
native state of affairs that is strongly discouraged in this unit both by the
2:1–13 583

call to endure that precedes (ὑπομένομεν, v. 12a) and by the threat of divine
rejection in the apodosis. The use of εἰ + future indicative instead of the
more common ἐάν + subjunctive may reflect classical usage while marking
the concrete possibility of this undesirable state of affairs (cf. Zerwick, Bibli-
cal Greek, §331). The repeated uses of the verb ἀρνέομαι in this statement (cf.
ἀρνησόμεθα, ἀρνήσεται, v. 12; ἀρνήσασθαι, v. 13) is consistent with similar warn-
ings against unfaithfulness elsewhere in the pe (cf. 3:5; 1 Tim 5:8; Titus 1:16;
2:12).
As in the previous clauses, the apodosis here is likewise introduced by the
καί embedded in κἀκεῖνος, though in this case it represents a non-conjunctive
use of καί (cf. Levinsohn, Discourse, 101) where the subject shifts from the first-
personal plural to ἐκεῖνος.

▪ 13 εἰ ἀπιστοῦμεν, ἐκεῖνος πιστὸς μένει. Like the first two conditional clauses, this
is also a first-class conditional clause. It does, however, depart from each of the
previous three in a number of ways: (1) the lack of the adverbial καί in the apo-
dosis highlights its disjunctive nature (i.e., a “conditional-concessive” period;
Porter, Verbal Aspect, 320), and it draws attention to the surprising ending of
this statement; (2) the use of the present indicative in the apodosis redirects
attention from the eschatological moment to the present process; and (3) the
inclusion of an additional clause (ἀρνήσασθαι γὰρ ἑαυτὸν οὐ δύναται) marks the
final apodosis with prominence and provides the christological basis for Tim-
othy to follow a particular course of action.
ἀπιστοῦμεν should best be understood as being “unfaithful” (see Histori-
cal Analysis), and Christ’s faithfulness (πιστός) most naturally applies to the
implied subjects of ἀπιστοῦμεν (Mounce, 518), rather than to the few who
remain faithful to him (cf. Rom 3:3; Fee, 251). This does not contradict the previ-
ous conditional clauses if a distinction between ἀρνησόμεθα (in the [stronger]
sense of apostasy) and ἀπιστοῦμεν (in the [weaker] sense of not able to remain
faithful) is maintained.

▪ ἀρνήσασθαι ἑαυτὸν οὐ δύναται. This final clause has been considered as one
appended by Paul to an existing confessional statement, though without it
the ending of the statement would have been abrupt. On the other hand, if
this entire statement has been reworked by Paul for this particular context,
this statement should not merely be considered a redactional addition. Either
way, the use of the “redundant middle” (ἀρνήσασθαι; cf. Wallace, Greek Gram-
mar, 419) with the reflexive pronoun (ἑαυτόν) provides a strong conclusion as
it evokes God’s own nature.
584 2 timothy

Bibliography
Harris, Murray J. Prepositions and Theology in the Greek New Testament. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 2012.
Ramsaran, Rollin A. “Paul and Maxims.” In Paul in the Greco-Roman World. Ed. J. Paul
Sampley, 429–456. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2003.
Roloff, Jürgen. “Der Weg Jesu als Lebensnorm (2Tim 2, 8–13): Ein Beitrag zur Chris-
tologie der Pastoralbriefe.” In Anfänge der Christologie. Ed. Cilliers Breytenbach and
Henning Paulsen, 155–167. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991.
Towner, Philip H. The Goal of Our Instruction: The Structure of Theology and Ethics in
the Pastoral Epistles. JSNTSup 34. Sheffield: jsot Press, 1989.

4 Historical Analysis
The apparently unrelated calls to Timothy to be strong (v. 1), to entrust to oth-
ers what he had heard (v. 2), and to participate in the suffering with Paul (v. 3)
may suggest that this section is filled with “abrupt changes in subject matter”
(Miller, 106), but the presence of these imperatives can be explained in light
of the understanding of this letter as the farewell letter of Paul where he pro-
vides final instructions for his successor. Without identifying this section or this
entire letter as a testament or a farewell speech (see Introduction), certain topoi
and elements in such literature may explain the convergence of themes here
where the language of strength (v. 1), entrusting with reference to “witnesses”
(v. 2), reception of the appropriate tasks (v. 3), even language of remembrance
(vv. 7, 8), and the call to faithfulness (v. 13; cf. Martin, 34–42; Collins 2002: 439)
allow Paul to provide final instructions for Timothy. If resemblances to tradi-
tional succession narratives can be identified, the differences are also to be
noted as Paul draws attention away from himself (to Christ, vv. 3, 8, 10, 11, 12,
13) and from his successor Timothy (to a wider circle of believers, v. 2).
The choice of the three illustrations involving soldiers, athletes, and farm-
ers (vv. 4–6) is surprising since those are not necessarily the first examples
that an author might use to discuss pain and suffering. This is especially the
case when the particular aspects of the work of soldiers, athletes, and farmers
are noted. Instead of focusing on the risks of injury and death a soldier faces,
Paul focuses on pleasing his commander; instead of focusing on the grueling
training and injury an athlete faces, Paul focuses on his competing according
to rules; instead of focusing on the threat to the crops posed by various types
of forces, Paul notes how the hardworking farmer is to expect to be the first to
receive a share of the harvest.
Proposals to explain the unifying theme among these examples include the
demonstration of masculine strength (Solevåg 2013: 108–110), remuneration of
Christian workers (Hanson, 130), importance of the eschatological reward (Bar-
2:1–13 585

rett, 102; Fee, 244), and steadfast perseverance (Smith, 53). Recognizing both
the importance of the eschatological perspective and the call to persevere, it
will be argued below that the use of these examples in ancient literature would
highlight the intentionality of these acts of labor, which would, in turn, explain
the absence of any reference to accidental loss and unexpected pain. To will
oneself into a life of suffering is, after all, that which is shocking in Paul’s call in
v. 3.
In the final verses of this section, traditional language is often acknowledged.
Echoes of Rom 1:3–4 behind v. 8 are insufficient to identify it as “a fragment of
semi-stereotyped credal material” (Kelly, 177). Similar uses of traditional lan-
guage can be felt behind vv. 11–13, especially as it is introduced by the formulaic
πιστὸς ὁ λόγος (v. 11; cf. 1Tim 1:15; 3:1; 4:9; Titus 3:8). It is even more difficult to
identify this specifically as a baptismal formula (cf. Beasley-Murray 1963: 207–
209) since the language of denial and faithfulness directs attention away from
the point of initiation into the faith community.

▪ 1 τέκνον μου recalls ἀγαπητῷ τέκνῳ of 1:2, but this phrase should not be under-
stood merely as a term of endearment (see γνησίῳ τέκνῳ, 1 Tim 1:2). In this
context, it introduces a commission or succession narrative as Paul calls Timo-
thy to participate in a significant part of his mission. This will also explain the
importance of the verb ἐνδυναμοῦ as well as the phrase ἐν τῇ χάριτι, which points
to the endowment of power for such a mission.
With ἐνδυναμοῦ, it is possible that Paul is using the common formula found
in succession narratives (cf. Deut 31:6, 7, 23) while emphasizing the divine
act of empowerment. This is all the more likely if it is taken as a passive
verb (for ἐνδυναμόω, see 1Tim 1:12). In its fullest (Pauline) sense, τῇ χάριτι does
not merely convey the idea of graciousness, but it also draws attention to
the power manifested in divine redemptive acts (for χάρις as power, see 1 Tim
1:14).

▪ 2 πολλῶν μαρτύρων points to the presence of a wider circle that possesses this
tradition (cf. 1Tim 6:12) and consequently the reliability of the tradition trans-
mitted (cf. 1Tim 5:19). The appearance of μάρτυς and παρατίθημι in the same
context further argues for the concern for the veracity of the claims made (Jose-
phus, C.Ap. 1.93; 1.112). The plurality of witnesses corresponds to the wider circle
of “faithful people” (πιστοῖς ἀνθρώποις) that forms the object of Timothy’s min-
istry. There is no evidence of any reference to a “Pauline school” (Quinn and
Wacker, 634) here, nor is this to be taken as a formal “ordination” (Barrett, 101)
account, especially since these witnesses are not explicitly identified as “elders”
(1 Tim 4:14; Lock, 93) or other officeholders.
586 2 timothy

The evocation of witnesses itself does not argue for the formal occasion of
succession, but μάρτυς language is not foreign to Second Temple Jewish testa-
mentary literature (T.Levi 19.3; cf. T.Abr. 13.24–25). The use of such language in
this context does not argue, however, for the establishment of a formal line of
succession from Paul to Timothy, as is often assumed by the early fathers (Ire-
naeus, Haer. 3.3.3; Twomey, 130–133). The absence of the listing of the proper
titles of both the apostle (ἀπόστολος) and the bishop (ἐπίσκοπος) with “the con-
sent of the whole church” (συνευδοκησάσης τῆς ἐκκλησίας πάσης), as is present
even in the late first-century succession narratives (cf. 1 Clem. 44.3), sets this
account apart as a document where the primitive μάρτυς language should not
be equated with formal institutionalized procedures.
παράθου recalls the nominal παραθήκη in 1:12 and 14 (cf. 1 Tim 6:20). As Tim-
othy is called to protect “the good deposit” (τὴν καλὴν παραθήκην, 1:14), he is
now called to “entrust” (παράθου) the same deposit to those who are faithful.
Moving beyond the focus on the predecessor (Paul) and the successor (Timo-
thy), Paul directs attention away from himself (to the Lord) and from Timothy
(to “faithful people,” πιστοῖς ἀνθρώποις, and “others,” ἑτέρους) in articulating the
wider concerns of the gospel ministry. This concern does not center on the
office that Timothy is to occupy or the status that he is to inherit, but on the
gospel that is to be taught (cf. διδάξαι), thus Paul’s earlier self-identification
as a “teacher” (διδάσκαλος, 1:11). Contextual factors for the use of the διδασκ-
word group resurfaces in 4:3 where Paul describes those “teachers” (διδασκά-
λους) who are fighting against the “sound teaching” (τῆς ὑγιαινούσης διδασκα-
λίας, 4:3).

▪ 3 στρατιώτης appears often in nt narratives for a literal soldier (Matt 8:9; Mark
15:16; Luke 23:36; John 19:32; Acts 12:4, 6) and is used only here in the Pauline cor-
pus within an illustration (cf. συστρατιώτης, Phil 2:25; Phlm 2), although other
war-related metaphors can be found in the pe (στρατεία, 1 Tim 1:18 [cf. 2 Cor
10:4]; στρατεύω, 1Tim 1:18).
As noted above, the use of the three illustrations demands an explana-
tion since (1) soldiers, athletes, and farmers may not be the most common
metaphors for suffering; (2) even if they are to be used for suffering, the details
contained in this unit do not readily evoke images of suffering (not entangled
in civic affairs, v. 4; competing according to rules, v. 5; working hard, v. 6); and (3)
the use of similar metaphors elsewhere in Paul (1 Cor 9:7–27) focuses more on
remuneration rather than suffering, though references to the final reward can
still be detected in the second and third illustrations here. From the way these
illustrations are used, it is clear that Paul does not merely aim at encourag-
ing Timothy to passively endure the suffering he may encounter; instead, Paul
2:1–13 587

urges Timothy to be intentional in experiencing suffering, because in doing so

he is suffering with him, and with Christ.
Individually, all three metaphors had been used in Greco-Roman moral dis-
course (see below), but the use of all three in one context is uncommon. One
text that stands out is Xenophon’s Cyropaedia, where examples of a “farmer”
(γεωργός), “soldier” (στρατιώτης), and “athlete” (ἆθλον) are used with refer-
ences also to their training and their expected rewards (Cyr. 1.6.18). Notably, for
Xenophon, the point of evoking these images is to combat “idleness” (ἀργός)
with an intentionality to commit to the tasks at hand. This fits well within the
present context of 2Timothy, in which Paul urges Timothy and those who are to
listen to him to commit to intentionally “share in suffering” (συγκακοπάθησον,
v. 3; see 1Tim 1:8) so that they can remain faithful and thus share in the “eternal
glory” that comes with “the salvation that is in Christ Jesus” (v. 10). This focus on
intentionality in participating in Paul’s (and Christ’s) suffering would explain
the choice of these three metaphors, the focus on their commitment as well
as the expected cost of such a commitment (rather than on accidental loss),
and the note on expected return. Moving beyond the call to merely “endure in
affliction” (τῇ θλίψει ὑπομένοντες, Rom 12:12; cf. 2Tim 2:12), Timothy is now also
called to intentional participation for the sake of the gospel.
καλὸς στρατιώτης here likely refers not primarily to the skill of a solider (“a
mighty soldier”) but to his commitment to his duties and loyalty to his com-
manding officer (i.e., “a faithful soldier,” cf. v. 4). In Greek literature, καλὸς στρα-
τιώτης can be used in contrast to a “traitor” (ὁ προδότης, Aeschines, Fals. leg.
166), which fits well the context here. στρατιώτης appears often in Greek litera-
ture for youthful strength (Demosthenes, 3 Olynth. 34), physical fitness (Lucian,
Par. 50), and a disciplined and courageous life (Plato, Leg. 667a), the last of
which appears to be the emphasis here.

▪ 4 The Pauline hapax ἐμπλέκω often carries a negative sense in both the lxx
(Prov 28:18) and elsewhere in the nt (2Pet 2:20). In Philo, it can be used for the
physical act of clinging (Flacc. 87.3; 189.1), but it is also used for the entangle-
ment of the bodily desires in an otherwise virtuous person (Her. 243.5) or the
undesirable effects of passions upon the rational soul (Somn. 1.122), as is com-
parable to its use by Paul here. βίος should be taken in the sense of “everyday
life” (bdag 176), and therefore a shortened form for μεριμνῶν καὶ πλούτου καὶ
ἡδονῶν τοῦ βίου (Luke 8:14). Philo, likewise, provides an appropriate parallel in
his discussion of the need to be freed from “matters of daily existence” (τῶν περὶ
βίον πραγματειῶν, Spec. 2.65) on the Sabbath (cf. Mos. 2.211).
Instead of στρατηγός (“commanding officer”), the use of the hapax τῷ στρα-
τολογήσαντι (“the one who enlisted soldiers”) draws attention to the chain of
588 2 timothy

command as is appropriate in this succession narrative; as Paul himself was

called by Christ (2:3, 9–10; cf. Smith, 62), he himself is now extending this call
to Timothy. τῷ στρατολογήσαντι likely refers to “Christ Jesus” (cf. καλὸς στρατιώ-
της Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ, v. 3).

▪ 5 Following the note on intentionality is a general statement that supports and

extends the use of the metaphor of a solider. The hapax ἀθλέω (twice) is com-
parable with the more common Pauline term of ἀγωνίζομαι (1 Cor 9:25; Col 1:29;
4:12) even in the pe (1Tim 4:10; 6:12), but a heavier emphasis on “competition”
can be detected in the use of ἀθλέω (LNd §50.2). στεφανόω is appropriate in
this context of competition as the bestowal of glory and honor (cf. Heb 2:7, 9).
This verb is a Pauline hapax, but the nominal στέφανος is consistently used in
an eschatological sense (1Cor 9:25; Phil 4:1; 1Thess 2:19).
νομίμως can refer to the rules of training or those of the competition, though
the two may not be unrelated as testified by the rules for the athletes (οἱ ἀθλη-
ταί) of the Olympic games, which stated that they were to take an oath not to
violate the rules of the Olympic games and that they were to follow the regula-
tions in training for ten successive months (Pausanias, Descr. 5.24.9; cf. Barrett,
102). That the training itself is a religious act is assumed in the ancient world (cf.
Siewert 1992: 113–117), which may explain Paul’s statement concerning training
for godliness in 1Tim 4:8. Moreover, the rigid requirements for the qualification
to participate in these games should also be noted, especially since the victors
bring glory not only to themselves but to their city-states as well (Crowther
1996: 34–43).
The religious nature of the training may also shed light on the idea of “com-
petition” in such a context. In athletic events, athletes do not simply compete
against others, they also compete against their own selves since rigorous train-
ing of the body can be understood as a means through which the desires of
the flesh are suppressed or overcome (Plato, Leg. 839e–840c; Aelian, Nat. an.
6.1; Scanlon 2002: 227–236). The significance of the Pauline use of the athletic
metaphor should therefore be understood accordingly.
ἀθλητής can symbolize strength and dedication (Plutarch, Comp. Cim. Luc.
3.4), and, by extension, the strength in controlling one’s passion (Philo, Leg.
3.201.1–2). In 1Cor 9:24–27, Paul makes it explicit that subduing one’s body is the
goal of athletic exercises (cf. ὑπωπιάζω μου τὸ σῶμα καὶ δουλαγωγῶ, v. 27), while
in Phil 3:14 the “heavenly call” (τῆς ἄνω κλήσεως) is the “prize” (τὸ βραβεῖον) to be
rewarded (cf. McNeill 1948: 106–107). In this context, therefore, training or com-
peting “according to the rules” (νομίμως) becomes the goal of such exercises as
it shows the intentionality of the athlete.
2:1–13 589

▪ 6 κοπιάω is often used by Paul in reference to labor in ministry (see 1 Tim 4:10),
which includes labor in “speech and teaching” (ἐν λόγῳ καὶ διδασκαλίᾳ, 1 Tim
5:17). The use of this verb within an agricultural metaphor is familiar in Jew-
ish wisdom traditions, though the intentionality on labor and suffering moves
beyond these traditions (see, in particular, Sir 6:19 where the one who plows
awaits “the good fruits,” [τοὺς ἀγαθοὺς καρπούς], but those who approach wis-
dom will “toil little” [ὀλίγον κοπιάσεις]).
γεωργός is considered a skilled profession (Philo, Det. 104–105) that involves
lengthy training and preparation (Plutarch, Mor. 216g). Notably, farming is con-
sidered among the most “laborious” (ἐπίπονον, Dio Chrysostom 3 Regn. 56)
professions (cf. Philo, Migr. 222). Here, this fits well as the third metaphor to
illustrate the importance of an intentional commitment to hardship. To con-
clude this series of metaphors with the promise of “fruits” (καρπός) is most
appropriate with the move from the conditionality of the previous illustration
to the offer of assurance in this one for those who persevere and participate in
the act of toil and suffering. Moreover, καρπός has already been used on several
occasions in Paul in a metaphoric sense for the fruit of one’s labor and com-
mitment (Rom 1:13; 6:21; 15:28; 1Cor 9:7; Phil 1:11; 4:17), and here it bridges the
gap between the metaphors and their application as Paul urges Timothy in the
next verse to consider his call to participate in suffering (cf. v. 3) by learning
from these three illustrations.

▪ 7 Used with λέγω, νοέω can be understood as internalizing that which has
been expressed through explicit speech, as the reverse would be to express that
which is internal (Plato, Gorg. 521a). As noted above, νοέω anticipates μνημονεύω
of v. 8. In this context, νοέω does not merely mean “to think” but “to consider
well” (LNd §30.3), while μνημονεύω (v. 8) likewise does not merely refer to the
act “to remember” but “to keep thinking about, to think about again and again”
(LNd §29.8). As such, a strict distinction between these two mental acts cannot
be made. In the wider context of the pe, νόει ὃ λέγω may serve as a contrast to
μὴ νοοῦντες μήτε ἃ λέγουσιν of 1Tim 1:7 where the false teachers are accused of
not having thought through what they are saying.
δώσει γάρ σοι ὁ κύριος σύνεσιν echoes Prov 2:6 (κύριος δίδωσιν σοφίαν, καὶ ἀπὸ
προσώπου αὐτοῦ γνῶσις καὶ σύνεσις), with ὁ κύριος here referring to Christ (1:2, 8;
Fee 2007: 455; contra Knight, 396). That σύνεσις is drawn from Jewish wisdom
traditions is made likely considering that it is used with σοφία in Paul’s earlier
(1 Cor 1:19) and later (Col 1:9; with ἐπίγνωσις in Col 2:2) writings (cf. Prov 2:2–
3; 9:10; 24:3; Job 12:13; 28:20; Sir 14:20; 50:27). In 3:15, Paul would further point
to the holy Scripture as that which can “make you wise (σοφίσαι) for salvation.”
The use of the emphatic ἐν πᾶσιν may point to the proverbial nature of this say-
590 2 timothy

ing (i.e., “since the Lord gives you understanding in all things, you will be able
to understand what I am telling you”).

▪ 8 As noted above, the imperative μνημόνευε needs to be read with νόει of the
previous verse. In Paul, μνημονεύω is not used in reference to the Jesus tradition
except in this context, but the usage finds its parallel in the Lukan Writings
(cf. Acts 20:35), a fact that may be important considering the content of this
confession here. The order of Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν is unusual in the pe and may
reflect traditional language (Marshall, 734) or an emphasis on the suffering of
the earthly Jesus (Fee 2007: 453).
The affinity of this creedal statement with that of Rom 1:3–4 has often been
noted (Kelly, 177; Oberlinner, 2.75–76), with the references to Jesus’s resurrec-
tion (ἐγηγερμένον ἐκ νεκρῶν; cf. ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν, Rom 1:4) and the seed of
David (ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυίδ; cf. ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυὶδ κατὰ σάρκα, Rom 1:3) both
understood as the content of the gospel (τὸ εὐαγγέλιόν μου; cf. εὐαγγέλιον θεοῦ,
Rom 1:1). The differences between the two are also noteworthy, however, which
include the reverse order of references to Jesus’s resurrection and his connec-
tion with David, the lack of κατὰ σάρκα, and the use of the verb ἐγείρω instead of
the noun ἀνάστασις for Jesus’s resurrection. These differences led some to con-
clude that both statements drew from a common tradition with appropriate
redactions (cf. Lau, 130–131). Nevertheless, only the phrase ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυίδ
argues for a clear formal relationship, although even this phrase is understood
differently within these two passages. With ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυίδ understood as
a reference to Jesus’s enthronement (see Grammatical Analysis), the use of
ἐγείρω with the name Δαυίδ may point to the significance of ἤγειρεν τὸν Δαυὶδ
αὐτοῖς εἰς βασιλέα in Acts 13:22 instead, especially since the enthronement of the
Davidic Messiah is linked with Jesus’s resurrection (cf. Acts 13:30; Wieland, 141).
That the Messiah is to be “the seed of David” is a common expectation across
early Christian traditions (John 7:42), and it finds its roots likely in the promise
to David in 2Sam 7:8–17.
τὸ εὐαγγέλιόν μου is a phrase Paul would use in distinction from the false
gospel (cf. Rom 2:16–18; Towner 1999: 158). In terms of content, it is identical
to τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ἡμῶν (2Cor 4:3; 1Thess 1:5; 2Thess 2:14) that forms the founda-
tion of early Christian teachings.

▪ 9 While etymological concerns are usually insufficient in explaining the lex-

ical choice of an author, the use of κακοπαθῶ (κακός + πάσχω) with κακοῦργος
(κακός + ἔργον) is noteworthy, especially in light of the fact that κακός is later
used for the harm Paul is suffering because of his imprisonment (cf. 4:14). More-
over, the reappearance of the verb κακοπαθῶ with ἔργον … εὐαγγελιστοῦ (“work
2:1–13 591

of an evangelist”) in 4:5 may also serve to correct the false perception that
Paul’s suffering (κακοπαθῶ) is because he is a κακοῦργος (“evil-worker”). In any
case, even though “in technical legal parlance [κακοῦργος] was reserved for bur-
glars, murderers, traitors, and the like” (Kelly, 177), the rhetorical force of this
verse (with the lexical choices made) prevents one from identifying the pre-
cise charge launched against Paul.
μέχρι δεσμῶν may echo the suffering of Christ μέχρι θανάτου (Phil 2:8, 30),
which may draw from Jewish martyrdom traditions (4 Macc 6:21; 13:27; 15:10;
17:7; Wieland, 143). ἀλλὰ ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ οὐ δέδεται does not merely point to the
failure of the physical chains to impede the progression of the gospel, but it
may also suggest that the physical chains actually provide occasions for such
progression (cf. Col 4:3 δι’ ὃ καὶ δέδεμαι). Even in this letter, Paul understands his
imprisonment as providing an opportunity for “all the nations” (πάντα τὰ ἔθνη)
to hear the gospel (4:17). For ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ, see Titus 2:5; in this context, it is
to be identified with τὸ εὐαγγέλιόν μου of v. 8 (cf. τὸ κήρυγμα, 4:17).

▪ 10 ὑπομένω makes its first appearance here in the pe, but the nominal form
ὑπομονή is used throughout the corpus, always with πίστις and ἀγάπη (1 Tim 6:11;
2 Tim 3:10; Titus 2:2). As such, it can be understood as a variation of the Pauline
triad of πίστις, ἐλπίς, and ἀγάπη (see Titus 2:2). Notably, ἐλπίς is missing in this
last letter of Paul when he faces death, but ὑπομονή is a fitting substitute as Paul
focuses on a way of living in view of the eschatological reality. Those who con-
sider a martyrdom context prominent in this section would further understand
ὑπομένω as a Hellenistic virtue closely tied with courage (4 Macc 1:11; 5:23; 9:6,
17:10; Wieland, 143–144), but in this context it anticipates v. 12 where ὑπομένω is
taken to be the unswerving loyalty to the confession, and thus a contrast to the
act of denying (ἀρνέομαι) him (for the contrast between ἀρνέομαι and ὁμολογέω,
see Philo, Ebr. 188.2; 192.3; Josephus, A.J. 6.151). τοὺς ἐκλεκτούς in reference to
the Pauline mission recalls Titus 1:1 and should be understood to include future
believers who are indebted to this mission (cf. Rom 8:33).
For the σωτηρ-word group, see 1Tim 1:1. The use of τυγχάνω with σωτηρία
belongs to the language of Greek authors for the securing of health and security
(Xenophon, Anab. 3.1.26; Plato, Leg. 779a; Aristotle, Pol. 1254b; Polybius 3.84.14;
Diodorus of Sicily, Hist. 11.9.1). In this context, however, eschatological salvation
is clearly in view in light of μετὰ δόξης αἰωνίου that highlights the eschatological
framework of this discussion (αἰώνιος with δόξα is limited primarily to Hel-
lenistic Jewish authors, cf. Wis 10:14; Bar 5:2; Josephus, A.J. 15.276). As such,
σωτηρίας … τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ μετὰ δόξης αἰωνίου can be understood as the
equivalent of the abbreviated τῆς αἰωνίου ζωῆς in 1 Tim 6:12 (cf. Mutschler 2011:
374).
592 2 timothy

▪ 11 Paul’s final use of the formulaic πιστὸς ὁ λόγος (1 Tim 1:15; 3:1; 4:9; Titus 3:8)
here introduces a confessional statement that is linked to its context by the
verb ὑπομένω (vv. 10, 12). This verb appears only in these two clauses in the pe,
though the call to endure continues in the rest of this letter with the use of the
nominal ὑπομονή (3:10).
συναπεθάνομεν has been taken as a reference to (future) Christian martyr-
dom (Roloff 1991: 164); this reading would, however, disrupt the chronological
development of this statement. In its context, the relatively rare συναπεθάνομεν
(2Cor 7:3; for the rare use of the pair συναποθνῄσκω and συζάω in pagan liter-
ature, see Nicolaus of Damascus, Frag. 89.9) should best be understood as a
reference to dying with Christ in baptism (cf. συνταφέντες αὐτῷ ἐν τῷ βαπτισμῷ,
Col 2:12), although this reading should not be based on the temporal reading of
the aorist tense (contra Barrett, 104).
In the context of this confessional statement, συζήσομεν does not simply
denote the state of being alive, it points to living to/for God, as Rom 6:8–10
makes clear when συζήσομεν (v. 8) is further defined by the clause ζῇ τῷ θεῷ
(v. 10). Within the confessional statement of 2Tim 2:11–13, to live with Christ is,
therefore, to endure with him (ὑπομένομεν, v. 12).

▪ 12 For ὑπομένω, see vv. 9, 10 above. The verb συμβασιλεύω is used only here in
Paul in reference to the coreigning of Christ and the believers (cf. 1 Cor 4:8), but
it is entirely appropriate here where participation in the eternal glory (δόξης
αἰωνίου, v. 10) of Christ’s salvation is in view. The use of royal language is per-
haps surprising unless the phrase ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυίδ in v. 8 is taken in a royal
messianic sense (see above).
The exact manner in which faithful believers are to reign with Christ is
not made clear. In Greek literature, συμβασιλεύω is often used for the sharing
of thrones between siblings (Polybius 29.23.4; Strabo, Geogr. 17.1.11), husbands
and wives (Strabo, Geogr. 12.3.29), and parties outside of one’s immediate fam-
ily (Polybius 23.11.5; Plutarch, Lyc. 5.5; Num. 3.6). This sharing of thrones may
include “sharing in every honor” (πάσης μετέχειν τιμῆς, Dionysius of Halicar-
nassus, Ant. rom. 4.32.1), participating in “joint endeavor” (κοινὴν πρᾶξιν, Diony-
sius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 2.50.4), and even “having equal and the same
authority” (ἴσην καὶ τὴν αὐτὴν ἔχων ἐξουσίαν, Polybius 30.2.4). In this context, the
sharing of Christ’s ministry of suffering (v. 3) and his “eternal glory” (v. 10) are
explicitly mentioned, but having equal authority with him does not appear to
be the focus.
In light of the eschatological overtones in this entire unit, ἀρνήσεται likely
refers primarily to eschatological judgment (Mounce, 517), and, as such, echoes
the gospel saying that correlates the rejection of believers in the present exis-
2:1–13 593

tence with the rejection by God in the final judgment (Matt 10:33; Luke 12:9;
cf. 1Tim 5:8). Nevertheless, the implications for present living cannot be ruled
out, especially since συζήσομεν in v. 11 certainly includes the present exis-
tence.

▪ 13 The exact meaning of this clause depends on the way ἀπιστοῦμεν and
πιστός are to be understood. Those who take ἀπιστοῦμεν in the sense of “dis-
believe” understand this clause as dealing with issues of apostasy or the failure
to believe in God (Smith, 83). This, however, is problematic: (1) though often
used in Koine Greek in reference to faithlessness (cf. Lindsay 1993: 154), the only
other use of ἀπιστέω, which is also in Paul, likely takes on the meaning of “being
unfaithful” (Rom 3:3); (2) in contrast to the faithfulness of God (ἐκεῖνος πιστὸς
μένει), ἀπιστοῦμεν should best be taken in the sense of unfaithfulness; (3) a refer-
ence to apostasy will not only be redundant in light of the previous conditional
clause, but the apodosis within this clause would also contradict the apodosis
of the previous clause; and (4) as the climax of this confessional statement that
concludes this unit, a note on faithfulness/unfaithfulness is appropriate since
the theme of endurance (vv. 1, 2, 10, 12) in the midst of suffering (vv. 3–6, 10)
dominates it. ἀπιστοῦμεν should therefore be understood in the sense of being
unfaithful to live out one’s confession as encapsulated in the first half of this
confessional statement (cf. Spicq, 2.750).
The application of the label πιστός in the apodosis has been taken in the
sense of a “threat” (Horton, 153; Guthrie, 146), but the progression of thought
from the previous clause to this one is best understood as that of judgment to
promise (cf. “God’s love continues unalterable,” Kelly, 180); it is the faithful act
of God that saves (v. 10). Moreover, in the nt God’s faithfulness is always taken
in a positive sense, which is here reinforced by the use of the verb μένει, one
that emphasizes a positive “abiding relationship” (Fiore, 151).
With ἀρνήσασθαι ἑαυτὸν οὐ δύναται, one finds the blurring of the identities of
God the Father and Christ his Son as God’s nature is implicitly considered to be
Christ’s as well. The irony cannot be missed when οὐ δύναται is used with ἀρνή-
σασθαι: the one human ability that God lacks is that while human beings can
deny Christ/God (εἰ ἀρνησόμεθα, v. 12b), God is not able to deny himself. That
God cannot deny himself refers to him not being able to lie (Titus 1:2) and to
betray his own promises (Rom 3:4), since even human unfaithfulness cannot
“nullify God’s faithfulness” (τὴν πίστιν τοῦ θεοῦ καταργήσει, Rom 3:3). The same
blurring of distinction can be found in Paul’s assertion that nothing (and no
one) can separate God’s elect from “the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our
Lord” (Rom 8:39).
594 2 timothy

Bibliography
Beasley-Murray, George R. Baptism in the New Testament. London: Macmillan, 1963.
Collins, Raymond F. “What Happened to Jesus’ Resurrection from the Dead? A Reflec-
tion on Paul and the Pastoral Epistles.” In Resurrection in the New Testament. Ed.
R. Bieringer, V. Koperski and B. Lataire, 423–440. betl 165. Peeters: Leuven Univer-
sity Press, 2002.
Crowther, Nigel B. “Athlete and the State: Qualifying for the Olympic Games in Ancient
Greece.” Journal of Sport History 23 (1996): 34–43.
Fee, Gordon D. Pauline Christology: An Exegetical-Theological Study. Peabody, MA: Hen-
drickson, 2007.
Lindsay, Dennis R. Josephus and Faith: Πίστις and Πιστεύειν as Faith Terminology in the
Writings of Flavius Josephus and in the New Testament. agju 19. Leiden: Brill, 1993.
McNeill, John Thomas. “The Christian Athlete in Philippians 3:7–14.” Christianity and
Crisis 8 (1948): 106–107.
Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome. Paul: A Critical Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996.
Mutschler, Bernhard. “Eschatology in the Pastoral Epistles.” In Eschatology of the New
Testament and Some Related Documents. Ed. Jan G. van der Watt, 362–402. wunt
2.315. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011.
Ramsaran, Rollin A. “Paul and Maxims.” In Paul in the Greco-Roman World. Ed. J. Paul
Sampley, 429–456. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2003.
Scanlon, Thomas F. Eros and Greek Athletics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.
Siewert, P. “The Olympic Rules.” In Proceedings of an International Symposium on the
Olympic Games. Ed. W. Coulson and H. Kyrieleis, 113–117. Athens: Deutsches Archäol-
ogisches Institut Athen, 1992.
Solevåg, Anna Rebecca. Birthing Salvation: Gender Class in Early Christian Childbearing
Discourse. BibInt 121. Leiden: Brill, 2013.
Towner, Philip H. “The Portrait of Paul and the Theology of 2 Timothy: The Closing
Chapter of the Pauline Story.” hbt 21 (1999): 151–170.
Twomey, Jay. The Pastoral Epistles Through the Centuries. West Sussex, UK: Wiley-
Blackwell, 2009.

5 Theological Analysis
The logic behind the emphasis on suffering in the first half of this section,
framed by concerns about succession, demands further explanation. While the
father-son language (v. 1), the call to be strong (v. 1), the notes on entrusting (v. 2)
and remembrance (v. 8) may all point to the possibility of reading this as a suc-
cession narrative (see above), the connection between “grace” (χάρις, v. 1) and
the lengthy call to “share in suffering” (συγκακοπάθησον, v. 3; cf. vv. 4–7) remains
unclear. Here, the significant linguistic parallels with 1 Tim 1:12–18 argue for the
reading of this passage in light of Paul’s discussion of the call he received earlier
2:1–13 595

from the risen Christ: ἐνδυναμόω (1Tim 1:12; 2Tim 2:1); πιστός (1 Tim 1:12; 2 Tim
2:2); χάρις (1Tim 1:14; 2Tim 2:1; the only occurrence in 1 Timothy outside of the
letter opening and closing); Χριστός Ἰησοῦς (1Tim 1:12, 14, 15, 16; 2 Tim 2:1); τέκνον
(1 Tim 1:18; 2Tim 2:1); παρατίθημι (1Tim 1:18; 2Tim 2:2; the only two occurrences
in pe); and στρατεύω (1Tim 1:18; 2Tim 2:4; the only two occurrences in pe).
In the “succession” narrative of 1Tim 1:12–18 that depicts his reception of the
call from the risen Lord, Paul provided an account of the reception of the inher-
itance of “grace” (1Tim 1:14) through the merciful act of Christ Jesus (1 Tim 1:16)
when he was forced to recognize his own impotence, being “the worst” of sin-
ners (1Tim 1:15). In the present section, Paul is now in the position to pass on
this call to Timothy. As in succession narratives that often include the promise
of an inheritance or a gift after the call to be “strong” (cf. Deut 31:1–8, 23; Josh 1:6;
1 Kgs 1:32–37; 2:2), this narrative also highlights a treasured gift he had received
from the risen Lord—grace. For Paul, “grace” is not an inheritance that can be
passed on mechanically, but one that has to be received in a state of impotence.
It is here that the call to Timothy to “share in suffering” becomes understand-
able (for the relationship between Paul’s own suffering and the suffering of
believers, see Plummer 2013: 6–19). In using three illustrations to demonstrate
the importance of the intentionality to suffer, Paul urges Timothy to reduce
himself to a state where the gift of grace can be experienced (for such correla-
tions elsewhere in Paul, see Foster 2007: 186–193). As in 1 Timothy 1 where the
reception of grace in the midst of human impotence is depicted as believing in
him for eternal life (cf. 1Tim 1:16), here this experience of grace is also grounded
in Paul’s mission for all to “obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus, with eter-
nal glory” (v. 10).
As the Damascus event in which Paul’s experience of the call centers on the
risen Lord, this call to Timothy to share in suffering also climaxes in the refer-
ence to Jesus. Though it is often claimed that one finds here a striking focus on
Jesus’s “earthly life” (see above), the focus is only on one event of his earthly life:
his death on the cross (v. 11) that leads to his exaltation (vv. 8, 10). This is consis-
tent with both the creedal statements found in the earlier Paul and the present
context that focuses on Christ’s own suffering. The emphasis on Jesus’s death as
the climax/focus of his earthly life is most clearly reflected in the creedal state-
ment in Phil 2:6–11 where the expected elements of an account of a hero are
omitted (parentage, teachings, mighty deeds, followers, villains), thus drawing
attention to the shameful death suffered by the earthly Jesus (cf. Phil 2:7–8; Fisk
2006: 45–73). In this context, the focus on his shameful death naturally forms
the basis for Paul’s call for Timothy to suffer as Jesus himself did.
Moving from his death to his exaltation, the portrayal of Christ as the king
is unmistakable. Not only does the phrase “the seed of David” draw atten-
596 2 timothy

tion to his royal messianic identity, but so too does the use of the verb συμ-
βασιλεύω (v. 12). Coreigning with Christ may imply that Christ’s faithfulness
in v. 13 is to God’s own people (cf. Morgan 2015: 318). His close identity with
God himself would also suggest that his faithfulness is also theocentric. This
ambiguity may be intentional as Paul draws attention to the believers’ antici-
pated sharing in the “eternal glory” (v. 10) of Christ, who himself shares in God’s
nature for Christ/God “cannot deny himself” (v. 13). After all, even in the tra-
ditions of Israel, the human king represents the people (Pss 19:6–7[20:5–6];
27:8–9[28:8–9]; 71:1–17[72:1–17]; 143:12–15[144:12–15]) while sharing in “divine
kingship” (2Sam 7:6, 11, 13; Pss 20:7–8[21:6–7]; 61:9[62:8]; Jipp 2015: 150–165).
As in the previous sections, eschatology again plays a role in subverting
the values of the day. The reference to “eternal glory” (v. 10) is particularly
noteworthy as honor is now to be ascribed on an entirely different tempo-
ral plane. Consistent with Paul’s earlier writings (1 Cor 9:25; Phil 4:1; 1 Thess
2:19), the language of crowning (v. 5) likewise can only refer to an event at
the end of times when the value of a different honor code is validated (cf. 4:8;
Harrison 2003: 339–340). In this call to suffering, Timothy and others are to
follow the example of Christ and Paul himself who suffer in shame “like a
criminal” (cf. v. 9) but attain honor at the eschaton. This subversive read-
ing of reality is only possible with the wisdom provided by the Lord himself
(v. 7).

Bibliography
Fisk, Bruce N. “The Odyssey of Christ: A Novel Context of Philippians 2:6–11.” In Explor-
ing Kenotic Christology. Ed. C. Stephen Evans, 45–73. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2006.
Foster, Robert L. “Exploring the Limits of Grace: The Theological and Rhetorical Force
of χάρις in Ephesians.” In The Impartial God. Ed. Calvin J. Roetzel and Robert L. Fos-
ter, 186–193. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2007.
Harrison, James R. Paul’s Language of Grace in its Graeco-Roman Context. wunt 2.172.
Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003.
Jipp, Joshua W. Christ is King: Paul’s Royal Ideology. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015.
Morgan, Teresa. Roman Faith and Christian Faith: Pistis and Fides in the Early Roman
Empire and Early Churches. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015.
Plummer, Robert L. “The Role of Suffering in the Mission of Paul and the Mission of the
Church.” sbjt 17 (2013): 6–19.
2:14–26 597

B To Be an Example in Response to the False Teachers (2:14–26)

1 Translation
14 Remind them of these things while warning them before God not to engage
in verbal warfare, which has no value but only ruins those who listen. 15 Do
your best to present yourself before God as one approved, an unashamed
worker, rightly conducting yourself6 according to the word of the truth. 16 But
avoid irreverent empty talk, because these people will progress7 into even more
ungodliness, 17 and their message will spread like gangrene. Among them are
Hymenaeus and Philetus, 18 who have strayed from the faith, saying that the
resurrection has already taken place; they are undermining the faith of some.
19 But God’s firm foundation stands, bearing this seal: “The Lord knows those
who are his,” and, “Let everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord turn away
from unrighteousness.” 20 In a great house there are not only vessels of gold
and silver but also of wood and clay, some for honorable use, others for dishon-
orable use. 21 So if someone cleanses himself from such things noted earlier,8
he will become a vessel for honorable use, set apart, useful to the house master,
ready for every good work. 22 Flee youthful passions, and pursue righteousness,
faithfulness, love, and peace, along with those who call upon the Lord from a
pure heart. 23 Reject foolish and ignorant controversies, because you know they
breed quarrels. 24 The slave of the Lord must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to
all, able to teach, patient, 25 when correcting opponents with gentleness. Per-
haps God may grant them repentance that leads to a knowledge of the truth,
26 and they will return to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, after
being held captive by him to do his own will.

2 Text-Critical Analysis
▪ 14 ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ: Instead of θεοῦ many witnesses read κυρίου. External wit-
nesses are almost evenly split among Alexandrian (θεοῦ: ‫ א‬C; κυρίου: A) and
Western (θεοῦ: F G; κυρίου: D) witnesses as well as among early versions (θεοῦ:
ar vgmss syhmg samss bopt; κυρίου: b vg sy sams bopt). Internal considerations
are also indecisive. Those who argue for the originality of θεοῦ would point to
the use of the phrase ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ elsewhere in the pe (1 Tim 5:4, 21; 6:13;
2 Tim 4:1; Elliott, 137), but such parallel passages can, in turn, be considered as
exerting influence on later scribes who substitute κυρίου with θεοῦ (Fee 2007:
470; sblgnt). Even the secondary variant Χριστοῦ (206 429 pc) can be under-

6 This is to take ὀρθοτομέω as a reference to proper conduct rather than merely verbal acts (see
Historical Analysis).
7 For this ironic use of “progress,” see Grammatical Analysis.
8 This is to take τούτων as a reference to the behavior noted in vv. 14–16.
598 2 timothy

stood as either deriving from κυρίου (since Ἰησοῦς Χριστός/ Χριστός Ἰησοῦς is
often identified as ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν, cf. 2Tim 1:2; Metzger, 579), or from θεοῦ (when
Ἰησοῦς Χριστός/ Χριστός Ἰησοῦς is often identified as ὁ θεός; cf. v.l. 1 Tim 1:1; Titus
3:6). With the external evidence slightly favoring θεοῦ and the possibility of
the change to κυρίου due to the repeated references to Ἰησοῦς Χριστός/Χριστός
Ἰησοῦς in the preceding verses (vv. 8, 10), θεοῦ is the preferred reading.

▪ 14 λογομαχεῖν: This infinitive is replaced by the imperative λογομάχει in a few

witnesses (A C* 048 1175 latt), likely due to the rarity of what was considered
to be an imperatival infinitive (cf. bdf §389), though a similar usage can be
found in Titus 2:9 (Robertson, Grammar, 944). λογομαχεῖν receives support from
notable witnesses of diverse textual traditions (‫ א‬C3 D F G I K L P Ψ 81 104 1505
1739 1881 pm 𝔐) and should be considered original.

▪ 14 ἐπ’ οὐδέν: ἐπί is replaced by εἰς in a number of uncials (‫א‬2 D K L Ψ) fol-

lowed by the majority of Byzantine minuscules (81 104 365 1505 pm 𝔐), but ἐπί
is supported by the best of the Alexandrian witnesses (‫ *א‬A C) together with
uncials of other textual traditions (F G I P 048). The change to εἰς was possi-
bly prompted by the accusative οὐδέν, since in Hellenist Greek one would have
expected a dative οὐδενί (adopted by F G pc) to follow ἐπί (cf. Josephus, A.J.
4.314, ἐπὶ μηδενὶ χρησίμῳ).

▪ 16 κενοφωνίας: This is replaced by καινοφωνίας in selected Western witnesses (F

G b d Lcf Spec), but the earliest Western uncial (D) agrees with the Alexandrian
witnesses (‫ א‬A C) in reading κενοφωνίας. The change to καινοφωνίας is likely an
error caused by itacism. As in 1Tim 6:20, the lack of attestation of κενοφωνίας
before the pe (with the possible exception of Dioscorides Pedanius, Mat. med.
1.2) likely contributes to this error.

▪ 18 τὴν ἀνάστασιν: The article is omitted in Codex Sinaiticus (‫ )א‬followed by

a few late uncials (F G 048) and a minuscule (33), but its inclusion receives
support from diverse textual traditions (A C D K L P Ψ 81 104 1505 1739 1881
pm 𝔐) that include the newly discovered fourth to sixth-century Sahidic Cop-
tic fragment (ⲧⲁⲛⲁⲥⲧⲁⲥⲓⲥ, frag. 1 verso, line 11; cf. Jones 2014: 392). In light
of this “nearly overwhelming textual support” (Metzger, 579), subsequent edi-
tions reverse the decision of na25 and include this article, though placing it in
brackets. In the nt, the anarthrous noun usually refers to the general idea or
possibility of resurrection (Matt 22:23; Mark 12:18; Luke 20:27; Acts 23:6; 1 Cor
15:12), while the arthrous refers to a specific event, either the resurrection of
Christ (Rom 6:5; Phil 3:10) or the final resurrection of believers (or of all) at the
2:14–26 599

end time (Matt 22:28, 30; Mark 12:23; Luke 14:14; Rev 20:5, 6), unless it is within
a prepositional phrase (cf. Acts 26:23; Rom 1:4). Here it appears to refer to a par-
ticular event that was understood by some false teachers to have already taken
place; therefore, the article is to be expected (contra sblgnt).

▪ 18 τήν τινων πίστιν: The exact placement of the genitive modifier τινων has led
to several readings. Elliott (140) considers τὴν πίστιν τινῶν (‫א‬c F G 33 g) original
since it represents the Semitic position of the possessive, but τήν τινων πίστιν
receives the support of the earliest Alexandrian witnesses (‫ *א‬A C; cf. 1739) and
is followed by the majority of the later Byzantine minuscules (33 1505 1881 pm
𝔐). It is best to see in τὴν πίστιν τινῶν a secondary development within the West-
ern tradition that resulted from a further corruption of the variant τὴν πίστιν τήν
τινων testified in D.

▪ 19 τοὺς ὄντας: The original hand of Codex Sinaiticus (‫ )*א‬inserts πάντας before
τοὺς ὄντας, perhaps influenced by the πᾶς in the second part of the verse. Its
absence is not only supported by overwhelming external evidence (‫א‬c A C D F
G Ψ 33 1505 1739 1881 pm 𝔐) but also by an early third-century fragment of a
gospel commentary (P.Eger. 3) that reads ἔγν[ω κύ(ριο)ς τοὺς ὄν]τα[ς] here (Bell
and Skeat 1935: 48).

▪ 21 εὔχρηστον: A number of uncials (‫א‬2 C* D1 K L P Ψ) followed by the majority

of minuscules (81 104 1241 1505 1739 1881 pm 𝔐) include καί before εὔχρηστον,
which is considered the original reading by some since scribes are perceived to
prefer asyndeton for stylistic effect (Elliott, 210; cf. Kilpatrick, 12). Its omission
is supported, however, by the earliest Alexandrian (‫ *א‬A) and Western (D* F
G it) witnesses, and it is equally likely for the later scribe to have included the
conjunction to avoid asyndeton (1Tim 5:20; 6:16; 2 Tim 2:13; Titus 1:12; 3:1).

▪ 22 τῶν ἐπικαλουμένων: πάντων is inserted before τῶν ἐπικαλουμένων in selected

Alexandrian/Egyptian (C I 048vid) and Western (F G [without τῶν]) uncials, fol-
lowed by a few minuscules (33 81 104 326 1505) and a number of Syriac (syh) and
Coptic (sa bopt) witnesses. Its omission is, however, testified in earlier Alexan-
drian (‫ )א‬and Western (D) uncials, together with part of the Latin (lat), Syriac
(syp), and Coptic (bopt) traditions, followed by the majority of the Byzantine
uncials (K L P Ψ) and minuscules (365 630 1175 1241 pm 𝔐). The insertion
reflects an influence from other Pauline passages (Rom 10:12, 13; 1 Cor 1:2; cf.
Bernard, 116) or an assimilation to πᾶς ὁ ὀνομάζων τὸ ὄνομα κυρίου in v. 19. The
reading πάντων τῶν ἀγαπώντων in Codex Alexandrinus (A) may have been influ-
enced by πάντων τῶν ἀγαπώντων τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν in Eph 6:24.
600 2 timothy

▪ 24 ἤπιον: Several Western witnesses (D* F G) read νήπιον, either a scribal error
or an attempt to substitute the rare ἤπιον with a word that is more common in
the Pauline writings (Rom 2:20; 1Cor 3:1; 13:11; Gal 4:1, 3; Eph 4:14; 1 Thess 2:7).
Cf. 1Thess 2:7 for a similar textual problem, but in that case the external sup-
port for νήπιοι is much stronger (𝔓65 ‫ *א‬B C* D* F G I Ψ* 104* 326c it vgcl.ww sams
bo), and the use of a life-stage metaphor there is consistent with the use of a
similar set of metaphors in its context (1Thess 2:7–8).

▪ 25 δώῃ: This verb is replaced by the subjunctive δῷ in primarily late Byzan-

tine witnesses (‫א‬2 D2 K L P 33 365 630 1175 1241 1505 1739 1881 𝔐), which may
shed light on the mood of δώη. Though δώη has been read as an optative δῴη
(Westcott-Hort), it is best to read it as a Hellenistic form of the second aorist
subjunctive δώῃ here (Elliott 1968: 622). First, this verse does not fit the classi-
cal use of the optative in indirect discourse within a secondary sequence unless
μήποτε is to be considered the beginning of an independent clause (cf. Mounce,
522). Moreover, an optative would be odd here in light of the subjunctive ἀνα-
νήψωσιν in the next clause (Moulton, Prolegomena, 194). The existence of the
subjunctive δῷ (accepted by bdf §370[3]), though improbable because of its
weak external support, would further confirm the reading of δώῃ as a subjunc-
tive.

Bibliography
Bell, H. Idris, and T.C. Skeat, ed., Fragments of an Unknown Gospel and Other Early Chris-
tian Papyri. London: British Museum, 1935.
Burer, Michael H., et al. New English Translation/Novum Testamentum Graece New Tes-
tament. Dallas: net Bible Press, 2004.
Elliott, J.K. “διδωμι in 2Timothy.” jts 19 (1968): 621–623.
Fee, Gordon D. Pauline Christology: An Exegetical-Theological Study. Peabody, MA: Hen-
drickson, 2007.
Jones, Brice C. “Three New Coptic Papyrus Fragments of 2 Timothy and Titus (P.Mich.
inv. 3535b).” jbl 133 (2014): 389–397.

3 Grammatical Analysis
This unit is linked with the previous by the anaphoric ταῦτα and the verb of
remembrance (ὑπομίμνῃσκε; cf. νόει, v. 7; μνημόνευε, v. 8; see Van Neste, 166,
199, who further considers ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ a note anticipated by the judgment
motif in vv. 11–13). More specifically, the references to being “unfaithful” (ἀπι-
στοῦμεν, 13) and “faithful” (πιστός, v. 13) at the end of the previous unit also pave
the way for the general call of faithfulness to God and the truth in this section
(cf. πίστιν, vv. 18, 22).
2:14–26 601

Despite these connections, a distinct shift in v. 14 can be detected. Mov-

ing from a sustained discussion on suffering (vv. 3, 9) that prompted calls for
faithfulness (vv. 2, 11, 13) and endurance (vv. 1, 6, 10, 12), Paul now focuses on
Timothy’s responsibility in combatting the false teachers and the teachings
they promote. This shift in focus is reflected in the shift in verbal pattern: the
third-person plural verbs that appear in the previous unit are applied to faithful
witnesses (ἔσονται, v. 2) and those chosen by God (τύχωσιν, v. 10), while third-
person plural verbs in this unit are all applied to the false teachers (προκόψουσιν,
v. 16; ἠστόχησαν, ἀνατρέπουσιν, v. 18; ἀνανήψωσιν, v. 26) and the teachings they
propagate (γεννῶσιν, v. 23).
While the boundary with the previous unit is clear, the ending of this unit is
disputed, with proposals ranging from v. 19 (Scott, 107; Fee, 253), v. 21 (Kelly, 181;
Collins, 229), v. 23 (Fiore, 156), to v. 26 (Barrett, 105). Such varied readings stem
from the nature of this unit itself, which includes the use of loosely connected
ethical exhortations, various metaphors, personal illustrative paradigms, and
vice and virtue lists (see Historical Analysis). Cohesion within this entire unit
can, however, be established with the use of certain word groups, including the
μαχ-word group denoting quarrels (λογομαχεῖν, v. 14; μάχας, v. 23; μάχεσθαι, v. 24),
and verbs calling for the avoidance of false teachers/teachings (περιΐστασο, v. 16;
ἀποστήτω, v. 19; φεῦγε, v. 22; παραιτοῦ, v. 23; Van Neste, 168). With attention paid
to both the imperatives and various grammatical markers, the following struc-
ture further argues for the unity of this unit:

2:14–16a: Three second-person imperatives (ὑπομίμνῃσκε, σπούδασον, περι-

ΐστασο)

2:16b–17a: Basis of the imperatives

2:17b–19: Contrastive examples separated by μέντοι

2:20–21: Contrastive examples separated by ἀλλά and μὲν … δέ

2:22–23: Three second-person imperatives (φεῦγε, δίωκε, παραιτοῦ)

2:24–26: Basis of the imperatives

This unit begins with three imperatival clauses. The first (ὑπομίμνῃσκε, v. 14)
links this unit with the previous (ταῦτα) while the participial clause (διαμαρ-
τυρόμενος) that modifies this imperative introduces the concern of this unit,
to avoid controversies concerning words. The second (σπούδασον, v. 15) takes
602 2 timothy

the complementary infinitive παραστῆσαι in the call to Timothy to be God’s

approved worker. The third (περιΐστασο, v. 16) calls Timothy to avoid the pro-
fane talk that characterizes the false teachers. The urgency of the first and third
imperatives that contain the calls to avoid the false teachers and their teachings
are grammaticalized by the use of present imperatives, while the positive call
with the use of the aorist imperative is less prominent. These three imperatival
clauses are followed by two clauses introduced by γάρ that provide the grounds
for the third imperative that precedes (vv. 16b–17a).
With two relative clauses (ὧν, οἵτινες), two of the false teachers and the teach-
ings they promote are introduced (vv. 17b–18), and these are, in turn, contrasted
with an example introduced by the adversative conjunction μέντοι, where the
solid foundation of God is presented with the support of two scriptural cita-
tions (v. 19). The second set of examples begin with the note on the two kinds
of vessels separated by the adversative conjunction ἀλλά and two uses of those
vessels presented within the μὲν … δέ construction; this concludes with a con-
ditional clause that calls for a cleansing that prepares one for honorable use by
the master.
The final subunit likewise begins with three imperatival clauses (vv. 22–
23). As with the first three imperatives, these three also begin and end with
a negative command, with a positive one in between. The first (φεῦγε, v. 22a)
calls Timothy to flee youthful desires, the second (δίωκε, v. 22b) complements
the first with the call to pursue a list of virtues with those who call upon the
Lord, and the third (παραιτοῦ, v. 23) concludes with the call to avoid foolish and
ignorant controversies. The note on the Lord in v. 22b allows the final clauses
(vv. 24–26) to build on the reader’s identity as a slave of the Lord, and these
clauses provide the basis for the imperatives that precede. These clauses belong
to one complex sentence governed by the impersonal verb δεῖ, followed by two
complementary infinitives (οὐ … μάχεσθαι, εἶναι, v. 24), that calls the slave of the
Lord to avoid controversy and be a kind teacher. The second infinitive (εἶναι) is
modified by a participial clause (παιδεύοντα, v. 25a) that is modified by two sub-
junctives (δώῃ, v. 25b; ἀνανήψωσιν, v. 26) that express the opponents’ prospect
of repentance with proper instruction.

▪ 14 Ταῦτα ὑπομίμνῃσκε διαμαρτυρόμενος ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ μὴ λογομαχεῖν, ἐπ’ οὐδὲν

χρήσιμον, ἐπὶ καταστροφῇ τῶν ἀκουόντων. Both ταῦτα and ὑπομίμνῃσκε mark
the beginning of this new unit while linking it to the one that precedes. The
anaphoric ταῦτα has been taken as a general reference for “the primary truths
of the gospel as taught by Paul” (Scott, 107), but its placement at the begin-
ning of this unit argues for a reference back to the immediately preceding call
for Timothy to remain faithful to God (vv. 11–13; Barrett, 105). ὑπομίμνῃσκε like-
2:14–26 603

wise serves as a transition marker as it recalls similar verbs of remembrance in

the previous unit (cf. νόει, v. 7; μνημόνευε, v. 8). This transitional function may
also explain the lack of an explicit object here. The use of this verb without an
accusative personal object has been taken to mean “to recall” or “to bring to
mind,” and is directed to Timothy himself (cf. Wis 18:22; Luke 22:61; 2 John 10;
Prior, 159, 242); but without σεαυτόν (cf. v. 15) this reading is doubtful. Here, the
object is best understood within its context with the verb retaining the mean-
ing of “to remind” (cf. Wis 12:2; 18:22; 3John 10; Smith 2006: 210), especially since
the participle (διαμαρτυρόμενος) that modifies this imperative would also take
the same implied object. If so, the object is God’s chosen people (v. 10), which
is consistent with the transitional nature of this verb here.
Instead of an imperatival infinitive (bdf §389), μὴ λογομαχεῖν should be
taken as dependent on the participle διαμαρτυρόμενος (“charging them not to
quarrel about words;” cf. Turner, Syntax, 78) or even the imperative ὑπομίμνῃ-
σκε (“remind them not to quarrel about words;” Huffman, Verbal Aspect, 222).
In either case, however, with the use of the lexemes ὑπομιμνῄσκω and διαμαρ-
τύρομαι, an imperatival sense is implied.
ἐπ’ οὐδὲν χρήσιμον and ἐπὶ καταστροφῇ τῶν ἀκουόντων stand in parallel, both
modifying λογομαχεῖν. The preposition ἐπί takes on the sense of “result” (Abel,
Grammaire, §50w). If so, χρήσιμον takes on a substantive sense modified by
the adjective οὐδέν (cf. Robertson, Grammar, 1163), while τῶν ἀκουόντων is the
objective genitive modifying καταστροφῇ.

▪ 15 σπούδασον σεαυτὸν δόκιμον παραστῆσαι τῷ θεῷ, ἐργάτην ἀνεπαίσχυντον, ὀρθο-

τομοῦντα τὸν λόγον τῆς ἀληθείας. The shift from the present imperative ὑπομί-
μνῃσκε in the preceding clause to the aorist infinitive σπούδασον in this clause
reflects the relative prominence placed on the preceding warning.
ἐργάτην ἀνεπαίσχυντον stands in apposition to δόκιμον, with the adjective ἀνε-
παίσχυντον taking a passive (“unashamed,” bdag 77) rather than an active (“not
causing shame to [the Church],” Zerwick, Biblical Greek, § 142) sense, especially
since the implied subject (τῷ θεῷ) is noted in this context but not the implied
object. Moreover, the verb ἐπαισχύνομαι with the negative particle μή or οὐ else-
where in this letter always takes on a passive sense (1:8, 12, 16).
ὀρθοτομοῦντα has been taken as an adjectival participle modifying ἐργάτην
ἀνεπαίσχυντον (cf. “who teaches the word of truth rightly,” Dibelius and Conzel-
mann, 110) or an adverbial participle modifying the verbal adjective ἀνεπαίσχυν-
τον (cf. “this unashamedness is achieved by rightly dividing the word of truth,”
Guthrie, 147), though in this context this adverbial participle is best understood
as modifying the infinitive παραστῆσαι (thus “do your best to present yourself
before God as one approved …, by/when conducting yourself …”).
604 2 timothy

Although the phrase τὸν λόγον τῆς ἀληθείας can conceivably be understood as
“the true word” (with τῆς ἀληθείας as an attributive genitive), it is best to take it
as a reference to the word that is identified (with τῆς ἀληθείας as an epexegetical
genitive; cf. Scott, 109, “genitive of content”) since this unit focuses repeatedly
on “the truth” (ἀλήθεια, vv. 18, 25).

▪ 16 τὰς δὲ βεβήλους κενοφωνίας περιΐστασο. This clause provides the climax to

this group of imperatival clauses. First, in returning to a negative command
(utilizing the lexeme περιΐστημι) with the use of the present imperative, Paul
reinforces the urgency of his warning against the false teachers. Second, unlike
the first two asyndetic imperatival clauses, this one is introduced by the devel-
opmental δέ that marks the transition to a different stage of Paul’s argument.
Third, in this third imperatival clause, the characterization of the false teach-
ings is marked with prominence with its placement at the beginning of the
clause (τὰς … βεβήλους κενοφωνίας).

▪ ἐπὶ πλεῖον γὰρ προκόψουσιν ἀσεβείας. The postpositive conjunction γάρ gov-
erns this and the next clause in v. 17a, and both serve to strengthen that which
precedes, likely including the entire subunit since περιΐστασο reiterates the con-
tent of Paul’s warning in v. 14. The use of προκόπτω may be intended to provide
an ironic note: the progress promised is merely a progress in ungodliness (cf.
Dibelius and Conzelmann, 111; for εὐσέβεια and ἀσέβεια, see 1 Tim 2:2 and Titus
2:12), and such a note can also be detected in two other uses of this verb in this
letter (3:9, 13). This is in contrast to the progress (προκοπή, 1 Tim 4:15) in godli-
ness that Timothy is supposed to make.
The subject of this third-person plural verb προκόψουσιν remains unclear,
however. The natural antecedent is profane chatter (τὰς … βεβήλους κενοφω-
νίας; cf. Scott, 110), though the third-person pronoun αὐτῶν that follows clearly
points to those who are involved in such chatters (Kelly, 184). Moreover, in the
nt, this verb often takes on a personal subject (3:9, 13; Gal 1:14; Perkins, 192; cf.
Rom 13:12) and should also be read this way in this context. This ambiguity also
allows for the transition to a more direct criticism against the false teachers in
v. 17a. For the use of ἐπὶ πλεῖον with προκόψουσιν, see 3:9 below.

▪ 17 καὶ ὁ λόγος αὐτῶν ὡς γάγγραινα νομὴν ἕξει. ὧν ἐστιν Ὑμέναιος καὶ Φίλητος.
Taking ὁ λόγος as a reference to the false teachings, the third-person plural pro-
noun αὐτῶν functions primarily to indicate the “otherness” of those who spread
these false teachings, a use that would explain the lack of a clear antecedent,
although it no doubt refers to the false teachers who are the implied subject of
προκόψουσιν in v. 16.
2:14–26 605

The secondary function of the third-person plural personal pronoun αὐτῶν

is to provide a transition from the false teachings to the ones who propagate
them, a transition marked especially by the relative pronoun ὧν that intro-
duces two specific examples of such false teachers. In this context, this relative
pronoun introduces a non-defining relative clause where the content of the
clause does not aim at identifying its antecedent (αὐτῶν), but the antecedent
is used instead to define the two named individuals, Hymenaeus and Phile-
tus.

▪ 18 οἵτινες περὶ τὴν ἀλήθειαν ἠστόχησαν, λέγοντες τὴν ἀνάστασιν ἤδη γεγονέναι,
καὶ ἀνατρέπουσιν τήν τινων πίστιν. Further characterization of Hymenaeus and
Philetus is provided by this relative clause introduced by the indefinite relative
pronoun οἵτινες, the masculine plural nominative form that is often used merely
as a relative pronoun in Koine Greek (Cadbury 1923: 150–157). The move from
classical usage is also evident in the use of περί with the accusative (cf. 1 Tim
1:19; 6:4, 21; 2Tim 3:8), a usage that appears more often in post-classical Greek
(cf. Turner, Syntax, 270). The aorist indicative ἠστόχησαν grammaticalizes per-
fective aspect with the event considered as a whole, and in context it may refer
to a past event. Unlike Timothy, who is called to live out the word of truth (ὸν
λόγον τῆς ἀληθείας, v. 15), these false teachers strayed from the truth (τὴν ἀλή-
θειαν).
The present participle λέγοντες portrays an act contemporaneous with the
verb it modifies (ἠστόχησαν). This participial clause provides a glimpse of the
content of the false teachings. Reading with an article before ἀνάστασιν, these
false teachers are denying one particular event, likely the resurrection of believ-
ers, especially with ἤδη γεγονέναι (see Historical Analysis). The perfect infinitive
γεγονέναι grammaticalizes stative aspect, as reinforced by both its context and
its lexical choice. The past reference is, however, indicated by the temporal
marker ἤδη.
With the use of the conjunction καί, the clause ἀνατρέπουσιν τήν τινων πίστιν
is placed in parallel processing with οἵτινες περὶ τὴν ἀλήθειαν ἠστόχησαν. The
shift from the aorist indicative ἠστόχησαν to the present indicative ἀνατρέπου-
σιν foregrounds this second clause in view of the process of this event.

▪ 19 ὁ μέντοι στερεὸς θεμέλιος τοῦ θεοῦ ἕστηκεν. In this second part of the first set
of contrastive examples, the firm foundation in God serves as the contrast to
the false teachers who led people to stray from their faith (cf. ἀνατρέπουσιν τήν
τινων πίστιν, v. 18). This contrast is introduced by the adversative conjunction
μέντοι (originally an intensive adversative marker formed by μέν + τοι [dative
of σύ], Denniston 1954: 397). Often used “in strong protestations” (lsj 1104) in
606 2 timothy

classical Greek, it can function as an adversative conjunction in Koine Greek

where a simple translation of “but” may be sufficient (thus Abel, Grammaire,
§ 79p).
The perfect indicative ἕστηκεν grammaticalizes stative aspect, reinforced by
its lexical choice.

▪ ἔχων τὴν σφραγῖδα ταύτην· ἔγνω κύριος τοὺς ὄντας αὐτοῦ, καί· ἀποστήτω ἀπὸ ἀδι-
κίας πᾶς ὁ ὀνομάζων τὸ ὄνομα κυρίου. The participle ἔχων that modifies ἕστηκεν
provides the grounds for the previous assertion: the stability of the foundation
rests on God’s work and the proper response to such work. In Paul τὴν σφρα-
γῖδα almost always applies to the testimony of the prior work of God and the
response that is expected from such work (Rom 4:11; 1 Cor 9:2; cf. σφραγίζω: 2 Cor
1:22; Eph 1:13; 4:30). The kataphoric ταύτην introduces two statements that cor-
respond to these related uses of the metaphor.
The aorist ἔγνω within the first quotation (from Num 16:5) is often con-
sidered a “constative” aorist (Moulton, Prolegomena, 113), though this label is
unnecessary when the aorist is not taken as a temporal marker.
The conjunction καί introduces the second saying. The only third-person
imperative in this letter, ἀποστήτω, is also indirectly a command to Timothy to
issue appropriate warnings to those who are turning to false teachings (Fantin,
Greek Imperative, 269–270). The use of the preposition ἀπό instead of a simple
genitive after ἀφίστημι is not unusual in Koine Greek (Caragounis 2004: 144).

▪ 20 Ἐν μεγάλῃ δὲ οἰκίᾳ οὐκ ἔστιν μόνον σκεύη χρυσᾶ καὶ ἀργυρᾶ ἀλλὰ καὶ ξύλινα καὶ
ὀστράκινα, καὶ ἃ μὲν εἰς τιμὴν ἃ δὲ εἰς ἀτιμίαν. Paul now moves to the second set
of contrastive illustrations (vv. 20–21). δέ again functions as a developmental
marker as Paul builds on his argument in v. 19b (Heckert, Discourse, 45; contra
Kelly, 187, who sees this as a contrast to the stability of the foundation noted in
v. 19a).
Within this verse, a pair of contrastive statements are made, the first of
which is within the μόνον … ἀλλά construction and the second within the μὲν …
δέ construction (with the implied ἔστιν from the first), with the two connected
by καί. Within both, prominence is placed on the second element within each
of the subsets. With the uses of the relative pronoun ἃ within the second subset,
the two elements (εἰς τιμὴν … εἰς ἀτιμίαν) are placed in parallel processing with
the two elements in the first (χρυσᾶ καὶ ἀργυρᾶ … ξύλινα καὶ ὀστράκινα). In this
context, ἅ does not function as a “demonstrative pronoun” (Knight, 418) since
additional information or characterization is not supplied by its antecedent but
is instead provided by the author within this clause (see Peters, Greek Article,
160–161).
2:14–26 607

▪ 21 ἐὰν οὖν τις ἐκκαθάρῃ ἑαυτὸν ἀπὸ τούτων, ἔσται σκεῦος εἰς τιμήν, ἡγιασμένον,
εὔχρηστον τῷ δεσπότῃ, εἰς πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθὸν ἡτοιμασμένον. οὖν here takes on an
inferential function (rather than the weaker continuative one; Heckert, Dis-
course, 91; contra bdag 737) as it provides the transition from the analogy to its
application. ἐάν introduces a third-class conditional sentence, while the aorist
subjunctive ἐκκαθάρῃ conceives of an event that takes place prior to the event
portrayed in the main clause by the future ἔσται (see also 2:5; and 1 Tim 2:15; cf.
Turner, Syntax, 114–115).
The change from the neuter plural σκεύη to the masculine singular τις shifts
the attention from the vessels to the individuals these vessels are meant to rep-
resent (cf. v. 18). The placement of the preposition ἀπό after ἐκκαθαίρω conforms
to Koine usage. τούτων can refer to the dishonorable vessels noted in the pre-
vious clause (Kelly, 188), but with the shift from the analogy to its application,
it is best taken to refer to false teachings and the resulting behavior noted in
vv. 14–16 (Fee, 262).
In the apodosis, Paul describes the kind of vessel (σκεῦος) a believer is to
be with the use of a preposition phrase (εἰς τιμήν) followed by three adjectival
modifiers (ἡγιασμένον, εὔχρηστον, ἡτοιμασμένον). σκεῦος εἰς τιμήν points back to
ἃ … εἰς τιμήν of v. 20, and the three adjectival modifiers provide definition to
how one prepares to be an honorable vessel. The two participles, ἡγιασμένον
and ἡτοιμασμένον, function as predicative adjectives (paralleling the adjective
εὔχρηστον) and are marked with prominence by the use of the perfect tense.
They can be either middle or passive voice, but here they should best be taken
as passive participles that draw attention to divine redemptive acts (cf. ἡγια-
σμένη ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ, Rom 15:16; Smith, 99).

▪ 22 Τὰς δὲ νεωτερικὰς ἐπιθυμίας φεῦγε, δίωκε δὲ δικαιοσύνην πίστιν ἀγάπην εἰρή-

νην μετὰ τῶν ἐπικαλουμένων τὸν κύριον ἐκ καθαρᾶς καρδίας. As in the first three
imperatives (vv. 14–16a), the three imperatives in vv. 22–23 also begin and end
with a call to avoid certain desires or patterns of behavior, with a positive call to
pursue the right course of action in between. That v. 22 resumes the concerns of
the first subunit that ends in v. 16a is reflected in the parallel structure between
the imperatival clause that ends that unit and the one that begins this subunit:

Art. Conj. Adj. Noun Verb of avoidance

τὰς δὲ βεβήλους κενοφωνίας περιΐστασο (v. 16a)

τὰς δὲ νεωτερικὰς ἐπιθυμίας φεῦγε (v. 22a)
608 2 timothy

As in v. 16a, the conjunction δέ is primarily developmental in function. As in

the other two imperatives that follow, the present imperative φεῦγε is expected
in general commands. Connected by another δέ, δίωκε introduces the positive
course of action Timothy is to take. This pair of imperatives recalls 1 Tim 6:11,
where one also finds an asyndetic list of similar virtues after the call to “flee
these” (φεῦγε ταῦτα), which includes the love of money (1 Tim 6:10) and mani-
festations of it (1Tim 6:5, 9).
The prepositional phrase μετὰ τῶν ἐπικαλουμένων τὸν κύριον modifies δίωκε
(Scott, 114) rather than εἰρήνην (Kelly, 189), with μετά + genitive to be under-
stood in the sense of “in company with” (bdf § 227[3]; Turner, Syntax, 269).
“Those who call upon the Lord” (τῶν ἐπικαλουμένων τὸν κύριον) are those who
call upon the name of the Lord (Rom 10:13; 1Cor 1:2; cf. Joel 3:5 lxx). In these
nt texts, the articular τὸν κύριον is to be understood as Christ himself.

▪ 23 τὰς δὲ μωρὰς καὶ ἀπαιδεύτους ζητήσεις παραιτοῦ, εἰδὼς ὅτι γεννῶσιν μάχας.
The structure of this imperative clause follows the clause that precedes, with
the noun modified by an adjectival modifier (in this case μωρὰς καὶ ἀπαιδεύτους)
followed by a present imperative. δέ is again developmental, and the placement
of the object phrase (τὰς … μωρὰς καὶ ἀπαιδεύτους ζητήσεις) again draws atten-
tion to the focus of this unit. In Paul, παραιτέομαι appears only in the pe, and
only in the second-person singular middle imperative form as here.
εἰδώς is a causal participle providing the grounds for the imperative that pre-
cedes (cf. Titus 3:10–11), which is itself contained within the indirect discourse
introduced by ὅτι. Though unusual, γεννάω can be used in reference to a vice
(see Historical Analysis), an example of which is μάχας that is anticipated by
λογομαχεῖν of v. 14.

▪ 24 δοῦλον δὲ κυρίου οὐ δεῖ μάχεσθαι ἀλλὰ ἤπιον εἶναι πρὸς πάντας, διδακτικόν,
ἀνεξίκακον. The final subunit (vv. 24–26) provides the basis of the three imper-
atives in the previous clauses, and the connection between the two is provided
by semantic links in the first clause of this subunit. First, the note on δοῦ-
λος (and the genitive modifier κυρίου) here is anticipated by the correlative
title κύριος in vv. 19, 22. Closer to this clause, μάχας at the end of the previ-
ous clause leads into Paul’s call οὐ … μάχεσθαι. The title κύριος likely refers to
Christ.
δέ does not simply provide a contrast to the previous imperatives (contra
Kelly, 190), but it also marks the further development of the argument as it pro-
vides the basis for the previous imperatives, especially the final one: Timothy
is to reject foolish and ignorant controversies that breed belligerent quarrels
since the slave of the Lord must not be engaged in such quarrels.
2:14–26 609

The clause is marked with prominence by the use of the impersonal verb
δεῖ, which takes the complementary infinitives οὐ … μάχεσθαι and εἶναι, with
the adversative conjunction ἀλλά separating the two with the relevance of both
affirmed (when ἀλλά connects a negative proposition with a positive one, the
relevance of the former is retained; cf. Levinsohn, Discourse, 114). The three
characteristics that follow stand as predicative adjectives to the complemen-
tary infinitive εἶναι. All three characteristics prepare for the next participial
clause, which modifies εἶναι: correcting the opponents with gentleness (ἐν πρα-
ΰτητι παιδεύοντα τοὺς ἀντιδιατιθεμένους). These characteristics are therefore nec-
essary for such a goal: kind [to all] (ἤπιος [πρὸς πάντας]), able to teach (διδακτι-
κός), and patient (ἀνεξίκακος).

▪ 25 ἐν πραΰτητι παιδεύοντα τοὺς ἀντιδιατιθεμένους. Despite how this clause

appears in most English translations, it does not parallel the previous three
characteristics that Paul promotes in the previous clause (contra Mounce, 535).
In terms of syntactic structure, while the previous three are predicate adjectives
of the infinitive εἶναι, παιδεύοντα is an adverbial participle modifying this infini-
tive. In terms of function within Paul’s argument, the three predicate adjectives
allow the slave of Christ to instruct or correct the false teachers with gentleness.
Within this context, then, παιδεύοντα should best be taken as a temporal adver-
bial participle that provides the temporal context within which the previous
characteristics are to be manifested.
The placement of ἐν πραΰτητι, a prepositional phrase that modifies παιδεύ-
οντα, at the beginning of the clause is emphatic, with πραΰτης carrying a con-
notation of self-control (cf. ἤπιος, v. 24). Most commentators rightly take τοὺς
ἀντιδιατιθεμένους as a middle (“those who oppose”) rather than a passive (“those
who are opposed,” Fee, 267) participle, referring to those who oppose Timothy,
Paul, or the gospel they preach.

▪ μήποτε δώῃ αὐτοῖς ὁ θεὸς μετάνοιαν εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας. The negative idea
embedded in the conjunction μήποτε is weakened to the point of merely cast-
ing doubt on the certainty of the statement, thus, “if possibly” or “perhaps” (bdf
§ 370[3]). δώῃ is best read as a Hellenistic form of the second aorist subjunc-
tive δώῃ (rather than an optative δῴη; thus Radermacher, Neutestamentliche
Grammatik, 165), especially since ἀνανήψωσιν in the next clause is clearly a
subjunctive (Moulton, Prolegomena, 194). Reading it as a subjunctive, this and
the next clause are dependent clauses modifying παιδεύοντα in the preceding
clause.
To have ὁ θεός as the subject of the subjunctive δώῃ is to emphasize God’s
sovereign will, but the lexeme μετάνοια clearly emphasizes human responsibil-
610 2 timothy

ity. The doubt casted by the conjunction μήποτε does not question the certainty
of God’s conviction or ability to lead all to repentance; it does, however, allow
room for the uncertainty of human participation in such an act of repentance
(see v. 26a). εἰς here can be understood in the sense of result (“to arrive at,” Kelly,
190) or purpose (“as its goal,” Fee, 265).

▪ 26 καὶ ἀνανήψωσιν ἐκ τῆς τοῦ διαβόλου παγίδος. This clause parallels the pre-
vious with both introduced by μήποτε of v. 25, and both contain an aorist sub-
junctive. The number of this aorist subjunctive, however, disagrees with the
subject of the singular δώῃ, ὁ θεὸς (v. 25b). The plural ἀνανήψωσιν here has τοὺς
ἀντιδιατιθεμένους (v. 25a) as its subject, and this shift in subject allows for a bal-
anced presentation of divine sovereignty and human responsibility. While the
previous clause depicts the positive aspect of the act of repentance (εἰς ἐπίγνω-
σιν ἀληθείας, v. 25), this clause provides the negative aspect of the realm from
which those who repent escaped (ἐκ τῆς τοῦ διαβόλου παγίδος).

▪ ἐζωγρημένοι ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸ ἐκείνου θέλημα. With this participial clause that
modifies ἀνανήψωσιν in the preceding clause, Paul provides further depiction of
the predicament of the false teachers. The perfect participle ἐζωγρημένοι here
marks the action of the devil with prominence.
The main difficulty of this clause is the reference(s) behind the pronouns
αὐτοῦ and ἐκείνου, with at least three viable readings: (1) the first takes note
of the change of pronouns and argues that αὐτοῦ refers to the servant of the
Lord (v. 24) while ἐκείνου refers to God (Horton, 157). Though it is possible to
differentiate between these two pronouns, it is unusual for αὐτοῦ to refer to a
more distant antecedent and for neither of the pronouns to refer to their closest
antecedent (i.e., devil). Moreover, the imagery of the servant of God capturing
people (in either a negative or positive sense) seems out of place.
(2) The second takes αὐτοῦ for the devil, but ἐκείνου for God (Scott, 117;
Mounce, 537–538). This reading not only maintains the distinction between the
pronouns, but it also allows αὐτοῦ to refer to a closer antecedent, and ἐκείνου a
distant antecedent, as is expected in classical Greek literature. The difficulty
lies, however, with the need to consider the prepositional phrase εἰς τὸ ἐκεί-
νου θέλημα as modifying ἀνανήψωσιν of the previous clause instead, unless a
separate clause denoting God’s saving act is assumed prior to the phrase εἰς τὸ
ἐκείνου θέλημα; either of these renditions is difficult with the intervening clause
ἐζωγρημένοι ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ.
(3) The third takes both αὐτοῦ and ἐκείνου as referring to the devil (Kelly,
192; Marshall, 767–768). As a subordinate clause modifying ἀνανήψωσιν, this
remains the most natural reading. The two pronouns can be used interchange-
2:14–26 611

ably in Koine Greek (cf. Turner, Syntax, 194), with the force of ἐκεῖνος reduced to
that of a personal pronoun (bdf §291[6]). An example can be found in Wis 1:16,
where ἐκείνου likewise follows αὐτοῦ with both referring to the same antecedent
(Hanson, 143). The use of two different pronouns can also be explained by
stylistic variation, but more likely it is because of how the demonstrative pro-
noun can lay emphasis on the second half of the clause: instead of doing God’s
will as one should (as Paul demonstrates, being an apostle “by the will of God,”
διὰ θελήματος θεοῦ, 1:1), the devil insists on having his followers do his own will
instead. This reading will then allow for the contrast between εἰς τὸ ἐκείνου
θέλημα here and εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας in v. 25, with εἰς in both clauses mark-
ing the purpose of the clause (Turner, Syntax, 266): while God aims at having
his people know the truth, the devil captures people so that they follow his own
will instead.

Bibliography
Cadbury, Henry J. “The Relative Pronouns in Acts and Elsewhere.” jbl 42 (1923): 150–157.
Caragounis, Chrys C. The Development of Greek and the New Testament. wunt 167. Tüb-
ingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004.
Denniston, J.D. The Greek Particles. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1954.
Smith, Craig A. Timothy’s Task, Paul’s Prospect. New Testament Monographs 12. Shef-
field: Sheffield Phoenix, 2006.
Wolfe, B. Paul. “The Sagacious Use of Scripture.” In Entrusted with the Gospel: Paul’s
Theology in the Pastoral Epistles. Ed. Andreas J. Köstenberger and Terry L. Wilder,
199–218. Nashville: B&H Academic, 2010.

4 Historical Analysis
The diverse material included in this section is not unexpected if it is under-
stood as deliberative rhetoric where consequences of competing courses of
action are noted (Aristotle, Rhet. 1358b) in encouraging and discouraging con-
trastive sets of behavior. Within such broader concerns, quotations from au-
thorities, comparisons, examples, and metaphors can contribute to the rhetor-
ical force of the argument (Quintilian, Inst. 5.11.8–44). As such, references to
divine authority at the beginning (vv. 14–15), middle (v. 19), and end (vv. 25–
26) of this section lay out the dire consequences of following or rejecting a
particular course. Within this framework, one finds evocation of authorities
in the form of an ot reference and gnomic sentence (v. 19), personal examples
(vv. 17–18), similes and comparisons (vv. 20–21), vice and virtue lists (vv. 22–23)
together with a string of imperatives (vv. 14, 15, 16, 19, 22, 23) that compel the
reader(s) to act in a way deemed preferable to Paul himself.
612 2 timothy

▪ 14 For the use of ὑπομιμνῄσκω within a call to faithfulness, see Titus 3:1, and
for διαμαρτύρομαι ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ as a formula for solemn declaration, see 1 Tim
5:21 (cf. 2Tim 3:17; 4:1). In this context, λογομαχέω does not denote “the kind of
serious dispute about the meaning and significance of words relating to the
Christian faith” (Knight, 410) since such a dispute would have “no value” (οὐδὲν
χρήσιμον); instead, it is “verbal warfare” (Collins, 230) that has no basis in reality.
This λογομαχ-word group (cf. λογομαχία, 1Tim 6:4) may have been invented by
Paul as it anticipates the use of μάχαι (v. 23) in reference to the false teachers.
In depicting the frivolous verbal disputes promoted by the false teachers,
the nt hapax χρήσιμος stands in contrast to εὔχρηστος of v. 21 where Paul urges
believers to be useful vessels (for this contrastive pair, see Chrysippus, Frag.
87.1; Diogenes Laertius, Vit. 7).
The Pauline hapax καταστροφή can be used for physical destruction (Hero-
dotus, Hist. 1.1.6; Cassius Dio, Hist. 51.21.7; 2Pet 2:6), but in the lxx it often
carries a particular negative moral connotation, especially when used for per-
sonal ruin and demise (Prov 1:18; Job 15:21; 21:17; Hos 8:7; Dan 7:28; Sir 13:6–7;
1 Macc 2:49; 2Macc 5:8) as in this context. The choice of the verb ἀκούω may
not be coincidental since elsewhere this verb is used in reference to the recep-
tion of Paul’s gospel (1:13; 2:2; 4:17).

▪ 15 In Paul, when σπουδάζω is used as second-person imperatives for the reader

to carry out a particular course of action, as it often does in the pe (cf. 2 Tim 4:9,
21; Titus 3:12; see also Philo, Agr. 111.4; Somn. 1.114; Josephus, A.J. 7.339), it points
to an act to be carried out with intensity and commitment. In Paul, δόκιμος can
refer to being approved by human beings (Rom 14:18), but with παραστῆσαι τῷ
θεῷ, it clearly refers to divine approval (Rom 16:10). παρίστημι, with Christ (2 Cor
11:2) or God (1Cor 8:8; cf. Deut 18:5–7; 21:5; Job 1:6; Jer 42:19) as the indirect object,
can also carry a cultic connotation (cf. Rom 12:1; Col 1:22).
ἐργάτης appears in 1Tim 5:18 within an ot quotation and may be taken as
a label for early Christian itinerary preachers (2 Cor 11:13; Holtz, 171). The nt
hapax ἀνεπαίσχυντος recalls Paul’s statement elsewhere that he is not ashamed
(οὐ/οὐδείς + αἰσχύνω) of his apostolic authority and mission (2 Cor 10:8; Phil
1:20), with perhaps the closest parallel being Rom 1:16 where Paul claims “not
[to be] ashamed [οὐ … ἐπαισχύνομαι] of the gospel.” In both Romans 1 and here,
the focus is not on a personal sense of embarrassment, but on the insistence
on the truth of the gospel that often subverts societal cultural values.
In discerning the precise meaning and significance of the rare compound
verb ὀρθοτομοῦντα, many begin by dissecting it into the two word stems, ὀρθός
(“straight” or “correct”) and τέμνειν (“to cut”), with the focus on the precise con-
text in which the metaphor of cutting should be understood, which includes
2:14–26 613

stone cutting (Spicq, 2.754–755), surgical cutting (Johnson, 385), and path cut-
ting (Kelly, 183). Some of these diachronic approaches come close to commit-
ting an etymological fallacy (Barr, Semantics, 107–110), especially since in Koine
Greek the verb often simply means “to do rightly” (Hanson, 134).
Even with the understanding of this verb as denoting “to do rightly,” it
remains unclear whether the focus is on the verbal act of correctly proclaiming
and interpreting the word of truth or the behavioral manifestation of faithful
living in accordance with this word. Although the verbal act cannot be denied
(in light of μὴ λογομαχεῖν in v. 14), the emphasis appears to be on right conduct
as is the focus of this larger unit. In the lxx, this rare verb appears twice, both in
contexts of the discussion of right behavior (Prov 3:6; 11:5). Moreover, though
the verb is absent in contemporary secular literature, ὀρθοτομοῦντα τὸν λόγον
τῆς ἀληθείας here may echo ὀρθὸν ἁλήθει’ ἀεί in Sophocles Ant. 1195, where the
focus is not on proclamation but on the way one approaches truth (cf. Skiles
1943: 204–205).
Phil 2:3–17 provides a number of parallels to Paul’s argument in these verses,
including the use of honor-shame language (Phil 2:3) and the need to hold
fast to the “word” of truth/life (Phil 2:16). If so, the call to present oneself
with blameless behavior in the midst of a “crooked and perverse generation”
(γενεᾶς σκολιᾶς καὶ διεστραμμένης) in Phil 2:15 may provide an apt parallel
when ὀρθοτομοῦντα τὸν λόγον τῆς ἀληθείας is understood as walking straightly
in the word of truth in countering a crooked and perverse generation (for the
contrast between τὸν ὀρθὸν λόγον and σκολιὸν λόγον, see Eusebius, Comm. Ps.
23.517).

▪ 16 τὰς … βεβήλους κενοφωνίας recalls τὰς βεβήλους κενοφωνίας in 1 Tim 6:20;

just as Paul there goes on to describe those who follow such teachings as stray-
ing from the faith (περὶ τὴν πίστιν ἠστόχησαν, 1Tim 6:21), here he also continues
to suggest that those who propagate such teachings are destroying the faith of
some (ἀνατρέπουσιν τήν τινων πίστιν, v. 18). The imperative περιΐστασο is used
elsewhere in the pe for the avoidance of false teachings (Titus 3:9).
The use of προκόπτω may be intended to provide an ironic note: the progress
promised is merely a progress in ungodliness (Dibelius and Conzelmann, 111);
the two other uses of this verb in this letter (3:9, 13) also attest to this. This is
in contrast to the progress (προκοπή, 1Tim 4:15) in godliness that Timothy is
supposed to make.
For εὐσέβεια and ἀσέβεια, see 1Tim 2:2 and Titus 2:12. βέβηλος is here linked
with ἀσέβεια, thus contrasted with εὐσέβεια; in the lxx, it is linked with ἀνόσιος
(3Macc 2:2) and ἀκάθαρτος (Ezek 22:26; 44:23), and contrasted with ἅγιος (Lev
10:10; Ezek 44:23; 3Macc 2:14) instead.
614 2 timothy

▪ 17 Elsewhere in the pe, ὁ λόγος is always used in a positive sense in relation to

the gospel message or reliable teachings and traditions related to it (1 Tim 1:15;
3:1; 4:5, 6, 9, 12; 5:17; 6:3; Titus 1:3, 9; 2:5, 8; 3:8), a pattern found also in this letter
(1:13; 2:9, 11, 15; 4:2, 15). The use of ὁ λόγος here in reference to false teachings
is, therefore, surprising and can be explained by its intentional contrast to τὸν
λόγον τῆς ἀληθείας in v. 15; this contrast is further secured by the note that they
had strayed away from the truth (τὴν ἀλήθειαν) in v. 18.
The presence of the medical metaphor of gangrene (γάγγραινα) is consistent
with the use of medical language in reference to both false teachings and the
true word that is portrayed as healthy words (ὑγιαίνουσιν λόγοις, 1 Tim 6:3). By
itself, νομή is a label applied to a disease that “spreads” (νέμεσθαι) throughout
the body (Galen, Meth. Med. xiv 10.326). Known to be a disease that spreads
and destroys, γάγγραινα (“gangrene”) appears often with νομή (“spreading,” cf.
Plutarch, Alex. 35.2) and other destructive diseases such as ulcers and cancers
(cf. Dioscorides Pedanius, Mat. med. 2.100.1; 4.94.1; Galen, Comp. Med. per Gen.
vii 13.473, 474, 885). In Plutarch (Mor. 65b–d), “babbling/empty-talk” (σπερμο-
λογία) is also compared with “gangrene” (γάγγραινα) and “cancerous growth”
(καρκίνωμα), as is the case here where “irreverent empty talk” (αἱ … βεβήλοι
κενοφωνίαι, v. 16) is compared to “gangrene” (γάγγραινα).
Philetus is otherwise unknown (though rare, this name does appear in doc-
umentary papyri; cf. P.Oxy. 72; M.-M. 670), but the name Hymenaeus, which
does appear earlier in 1Tim 1:20, is likely the same person who is depicted to
have strayed from the faith. The absence of these two names in the Acts of
Paul may suggest that the pe and the apocryphal acts drew from different oral
sources (MacDonald 1983: 65–66), but it is possible that the Acts of Paul has
conflated Paul’s opponents since there it is Demas and Hermogenes who claim
that the resurrection has already taken place (cf. Acts Paul 2.14; Bauckham 1993:
105–152). Such a conflation may reflect similar redactional changes made to the
earlier traditions behind the Acts of Paul (cf. Edsall 2018: 108–121).

▪ 18 In the nt, the verb ἀστοχέω is only used in the pe, and always in reference
to those who follow the false teachings (1Tim 1:6; 6:21). Many still derive the
meaning of this verb from its roots (α–στόχος), arriving at the meaning of “to
miss the mark” (Horton, 154; cf. bdag 146); however, in the first century it was
often used in the general sense of going astray (cf. LNd § 31.68).
τὴν ἀνάστασιν can refer to the resurrection of Christ or the final resurrection
of believers (or of all) at the end of time; with the ἤδη γεγονέναι, the latter is
more plausible. However, the two are connected (see Theological Analysis),
and this reference may refer to a general tendency to spiritualize the physi-
cal act and therefore deny any historical possibility of resurrection. Together
2:14–26 615

with Paul’s arguments against ascetic practices in 1 Tim 4:3, at least a dualistic
framework of the false teachings can be assumed.
The precise nature of this rejection of the resurrection is not clearly articu-
lated. (1) Reading the pe within a primarily Greco-Roman context, some point
to the influence of the traditional Greek conception of the immortality of the
soul, remnants of which may have survived in the earlier Paul (Rom 2:7) and
even in this letter (1:10; cf. Spicq, 2.757–758; see also Cullmann 1958: 7). Never-
theless, this seems foreign here when these false teachings appear to have been
more indebted to versions of early Christian teachings concerning the eschaton
that carry particular ethical implications.
(2) Closer to the thought world of the pe is the possibility of a misunder-
standing of early Pauline teaching concerning the arrival of the two ages, with
the eschatological age being taken to have been fully realized when believers
are baptized, having died and risen with Christ (Rom 6:4; 7:4; 8:11; Col 2:20–
3:4; cf. Schlarb 1990: 117–121). This interpretation might have been reinforced
by Paul’s statements on the passing of this age (1 Cor 7:29–31; Thornton 2015).
Even within this section, the evocation of sayings such as the one found in v. 11
may also have been taken as affirming an over-realized eschatology (Trebilco,
219).
(3) Not denying a general stance of over-realized eschatology, some would
point to a heavier Judaizing influence behind the false teachings, especially
when the ot appears to have played a more important role here than that rep-
resented by the Corinthian enthusiasts (cf. Towner 1989: 44). Statements found
in 1Timothy that move beyond standard polemic found elsewhere also argue
for a heavier Jewish influence (1Tim 1:3, 7; 4:3; cf. Karris 1973: 16).
(4) The development from these ascetic tendencies coupled with concern
for myths and genealogies may argue for a proto-gnostic background, especially
given that the influence of Jewish thought has always been recognized in such a
development (cf. Haufe 1973: 325–339). The three latter readings are not mutu-
ally exclusive and are consistent with the textual evidence, though identifying
these as explicit gnostic teachings (Barrett, 109; Hanson, 136) remains anachro-
nistic.
ἀνατρέπω is also used in Titus 1:11 to describe the act of the false teachers
in misleading their followers. The use of τινῶν has been taken “to suggest that
the apostasy is still a small problem” (Fiore, 158), although it is more likely that
Paul uses this indefinite pronoun to avoid naming some of those who have been
misled, with the hope that they might repent (vv. 24–26).

▪ 19 For θεμέλιος, see 1Tim 6:19, where it is used with the adjectival qualifier
καλός, which can be taken as a functional equivalent to στερεός here. This firm
616 2 timothy

foundation of God (ὁ … στερεὸς θεμέλιος τοῦ θεοῦ) has been understood as a ref-
erence either to the true message (2:25; Fiore, 158) or to Christ himself (Isa 28:16;
Rom 9:33; 1Cor 3:11; Eph 2:20–21; Hanson, 136–137). However, in this context it
is best understood as a reference to the household of God (1 Tim 3:15; Kelly, 186)
since the contrast is between those who deviate from faith in v. 18 and those
who remain faithful. A strict separation between the church and the founda-
tion upon which it is found (i.e., Christ and his message) cannot be made, but
the focus on those who belong to God (τοὺς ὄντας αὐτοῦ) and all those who call
upon the name of the Lord (πᾶς ὁ ὀνομάζων τὸ ὄνομα κυρίου) in the citations that
follow point directly to those who remain faithful to God. Nevertheless, to fur-
ther distinguish between the “institutional church” and “individual believers”
is impossible (contra Mounce, 528–529) since the concept of an “institutional
church” apart from its individual members is untenable to Paul. Moreover, Paul
is fully aware of the fact that those who claim to belong to the church may not
all be faithful to God, as he makes clear in the verses that follow (vv. 20–23).
σφραγίς can denote (1) ownership (Exod 28:36; Hag 2:23; Rev 7:3), especially
within a cultural context where slaves are often marked (Dölger 1911: 58; note
also that Σφραγίς has appeared as the name of slaves, cf. P.Cairo Zen. 58003),
and also (2) authenticity (Rom 4:11; 1Cor 9:2; P.Oxy. 494), and by extension rep-
resentation (Philo, Deus 43; Opif. 6, 134; Ebr. 133) and authority (1 Kgs 20:8; Sir
49:11; Rev 5:1, 2, 5, 9; Appian, Hist. rom. 11.287). In this context, it points to God’s
ownership of his household (as noted in the first saying that follows) as well as
the way this household is to represent and manifest God’s authority (as noted in
the second saying). Both stem from God’s prior work and the proper response
demanded by it.
The first quotation is drawn from Num 16:5 with the change from ὁ θεός to
κύριος, and its purpose is to illustrate both the sovereign redemptive will of
God and the reality of the divided response to his will. Issues of ownership and
authority both play an important role in the use of this quotation. Ownership
can be expressed by language of knowing (γινώσκω), especially in reference to
God as the one who knows since those who can respond to him are “known” by
him (1Cor 8:3; Gal 4:9; cf. Amos 3:2; Hos 5:3; John 10:4; Rosner 2008: 212–214).
Even within Num 16:5, the ones known by God are “the holy ones” (τοὺς ἁγίους)
and “those whom he had chosen for himself” (οὓς ἐξελέξατο ἑαυτῷ).
An implication of being known/owned by God is the need to submit to
his authority (cf. Gal 4:8, 9). The concerns for submission to authority also
dominate Num 16:1–7, where Korah challenges the authority of God’s servants,
Moses and Aaron (for Korah as a typos for sinners, see Jude 11; Josephus, A.J.
4.11–66; Pseudo-Philo, Bib. Ant. 16–17; Tg. Pseudo-Jonathan Num 16:1–2; Luther
2011: 60–191). In this context, in response to the failure of Hymenaeus and Phile-
2:14–26 617

tus to submit to the apostolic authority, the warning embedded in Numbers 16

becomes appropriate.
The source of the second saying remains uncertain, with suggestions rang-
ing from the same story in Numbers 16 (Lock, 100), to a conglomeration of ot
texts (Lev 24:16; Isa 26:13; Fee, 258), to Second Temple Jewish tradition (Sir 17:26;
Collins, 236). It is best to consider the second saying as an application of the
story of Numbers 16, using traditional language that reinforces the point.
ἀφίστημι belongs to the language of the pe: believers are now called not
to follow the false teachers who have “strayed from” (ἀποστήσονται) the faith;
instead, they are to “turn away” (ἀποστήτω) from unrighteousness. Elsewhere
in this letter, another verb, ἀποστρέφω, is also used for apostasy (1:15) and the
desertion of Paul (4:4). The interchangeability of ἀφίστημι and ἀποστρέφω is
reflected in the uses of ἀποστῆναι ἀπὸ ἀδικίας (Sir 35:3) and ἀπόστρεφε ἀπὸ ἀδι-
κίας (Sir 17:28) within the same book.
The descriptor πᾶς ὁ ὀνομάζων τὸ ὄνομα κυρίου points back to τοὺς ὄντας αὐτοῦ,
and an allusion to Isa 26:13c (τὸ ὄνομά σου ὀνομάζομεν) is likely, especially when
God’s people now claim to submit to him by using the language of know-
ing: ἐκτὸς σοῦ ἄλλον οὐκ οἴδαμεν (Isa 26:13b; contra Immendörfer 2017: 231, who
argues for an Artemisian background for the use of ὄνομα and ὀνομάζω; cf. IEph
4.19; 8.45; 25.12; 45A.3). Using traditional language and situating this imperative
within this rhetorical context, Paul makes his point clear: those who confess
the Lord’s name need to respond properly to his redemptive act and to behave
according to their status as his people.

▪ 20 οἶκος followed by the genitival modifier θεοῦ in 1 Tim 3:15 has been taken
to refer to the (new) temple of God, while this connotation is considered to be
absent in the more generic οἰκία language here (Herzer 2008: 562–563). Such
a distinction is, however, doubtful. The use of household language here likely
assumes the use of similar language in the foundational text of 1 Tim 3:15. More-
over, while οἶκος θεοῦ is a metaphor used as a title for the church, οἰκία is used
within an analogy. As such, a more general term is not unexpected.
Within this analogy, μεγάλῃ … οἰκίᾳ points to the distinct social status of the
householder. In a first-century Greco-Roman city, most people lived in indi-
vidual units within a multi-story apartment building (insulae, cf. Billings 2011:
549). To be able to live in a house, to say nothing of a “great house,” is a signifi-
cant social marker, thus the presence of “gold and silver” vessels within such a
residence.
In Rom 9:20–23, σκεῦος signifies God’s sovereign will that elects some while
rejecting others, and in 2Cor 4:7 it is used for the frailty of human creatures (cf.
Fitzgerald 1988: 167–169). In the present context, however, it becomes a call for
618 2 timothy

believers to provide the proper response so that they can be ready for honor-
able use (cf. 1Thess 4:4). The emphasis is, therefore, not on the current state of
believers, but on the process through which they can be transformed for the
purpose of honorable use.
The presence of “gold and silver” (χρυσᾶ καὶ ἀργυρᾶ) vessels in a house is
explicitly noted as a status symbol (see the extensive discussion in Musonius
Rufus, Diss. 20), and gold and silver vessels are often valuable spoils taken after
military conquests (2Sam 8:10; 1Chron 18:10; Dan 5:2–3; 1 Macc 6:12; Josephus,
A.J. 3.57; see also Exod 3:22; 11:2; 12:35). While “wood and clay” (ξύλινα καὶ ὀστρά-
κινα) vessels do not, by themselves, denote something shameful and dishonor-
able, they do signify something of a lesser significance when compared to “gold
and silver” since they can be found in every household (cf. Lev 15:12).
τιμή and ἀτιμία belong to honor-shame vocabulary, and thus contribute fur-
ther to the definition of an expected set of behavior according to the (new)
ascribed values defined by the gospel (cf. v. 15). Unlike Rom 9:21, where God the
potter can make from clay “a vessel for honorable use and another for dishonor-
able use,” here within this analogy it is best to consider “gold and silver” vessels
as designated for honorable use, while those of “wood and clay” for dishonor-
able use.

▪ 21 This analogy serves to make one point—that one should be involved in this
process of change. The following details are not explicated and do not con-
tribute to this main point: the identity of the house and the vessels made of
wood and clay, and how these vessels can be transformed into those of gold
and silver merely by washing. The unique application of this analogy has led
some to suggest that this “clumsy simile becomes ever more confused as it
goes on” (Scott, 114), but the main point that Paul seeks to convey remains
clear.
ἐκκαθαίρω may carry connotations of cultic purity as καθαρίζω does (Matt
8:2, 3; Luke 17:17; Acts 10:15; 11:9; 2Cor 7:1; Eph 5:26; Titus 2:14), but its other use
in the nt (1Cor 5:7; cf. καθαίρω, John 15:2) and the few uses in the lxx (Deut
32:43; Josh 17:15–18; Isa 4:4; cf. καθαίρω, 2Sam 4:6; Isa 28:27) argue against this
narrower understanding. The prepositional suffix ἐκ- has often been taken as
carrying a perfective sense (“to cleanse thoroughly,” Mounce, 532), though a
distinction with the simpler form καθαίρω may not always be clear (Homer, Il.
2.153; Herodotus, Hist. 2.86; Plutarch, Thes. 1.5); καθαρίζω, on the other hand, is
limited almost entirely to Hellenistic Jewish authors for acts of cultic purifica-
tion (the pre-nt uses are almost exclusively found in the lxx).
Anticipated by v. 20, the second half of this verse provides further informa-
tion on what it means to be “a vessel for honorable use.” ἁγιάζω does carry cultic
2:14–26 619

significance (see 1Tim 4:5), and it is appropriate here as cultic connotations are
now attached to the general act of cleansing (ἐκκαθαίρω) within the analogy.
εὔχρηστον here is contrasted with οὐδὲν χρήσιμον in v. 14 (with εὔχρηστος [LNd
§ 65.31] and χρήσιμος [LNd §65.30] belonging to the same semantic domain);
those who submit to the “house master” (τῷ δεσπότῃ) will no longer be useless
when “all who are under the yoke as slaves” are to honor “their masters” (τοὺς
ἰδίους δεσπότας; cf. 1Tim 6:1–2a). The use of εὔχρηστος is particularly appropriate
with reference to one’s master (τῷ δεσπότῃ) since the submission of the worker
to his master is in view within the broader context of this letter (cf. 4:11; see also
Phlm 11).
Unlike the false teachers who are “unfit for any good work” (πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθὸν
ἀδόκιμοι, Titus 1:16; for πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθόν, see 1Tim 1:20), those who are set aside
for “honorable use” will be “ready for every good work” (εἰς πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθὸν
ἡτοιμασμένον; cf. Titus 3:1). εἰς πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθὸν ἡτοιμασμένον also comes close to
the meaning of πρὸς πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθὸν ἐξηρτισμένος in 3:17 below (with εἰς and
πρός used interchangeably; Moule, Idiom, 68).

▪ 22 τὰς … νεωτερικὰς ἐπιθυμίας has often been taken to refer to Timothy being
a “youth” (cf. νεότης, 1Tim 4:12; Kelly, 189), but in this context the focus may
not be on Timothy’s youthful impulses (or “youthful interests,” νεωτερικῆς ῥᾳθυ-
μίας, 3Macc 4:8) but rather on the preoccupation with novel ideas by the false
teachers (2:23–25; see also 4:3–4 and Acts 17:21; Metzger 1977: 133–136). If so,
νεωτερικός should be taken in the sense of novel or even insubordinate (cf. νεω-
τερίζω, 4Macc 3:21; Plato, Resp. 424b; Philo, Mos. 1.118).
The contrastive imperatives (φεῦγε and δίωκε) as well as the first three
virtues listed (δικαιοσύνη, πίστις, and ἀγάπη) are identical to those in 1 Tim 6:11.
ἐπικαλέω with τὸν κύριον belongs to the language of the lxx (2 Sam 22:4, 7; 1 Kgs
17:21; Esth 4:8; Ps 117:5; Sir 46:16; 2Macc 8:2) and is likely shorthand for ἐπικα-
λέω τὸ ὄνομα κυρίου (Gen 4:26; 26:25; 2Sam 6:2; Joel 2:32; Wis 6:1; 15:1; cf. Acts
15:17 [Joel 2:32]). If so, this clause may serve to explicate the brief command in
v. 19b that is directed to “everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord” (πᾶς ὁ
ὀνομάζων τὸ ὄνομα κυρίου).
In this context, “from a pure heart” (ἐκ καθαρᾶς καρδίας) does not necessarily
mean “free from sin” (bdag 489) nor merely with “intentionality” or “resolve”
(Johnson, 400–401), but in accordance with “a good conscience and a genuine
faith” as testified by the parallel clauses in 1Tim 1:5 (ἐκ καθαρᾶς καρδίας καὶ συν-
ειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς καὶ πίστεως ἀνυποκρίτου).

▪ 23 ζητήσεις echoes ζητήσεις καὶ λογομαχίας of 1Tim 6:4, with λογομαχίας already
reflected in the use of the verb λογομαχεῖν earlier in v. 14. If so, this impera-
620 2 timothy

tival clause also continues the concern of the first three imperatives of this
unit. μωράς with ζητήσεις can also be found in Titus 3:9, but the use of the
nt hapax ἀπαίδευτος is noteworthy and is a word that paves the way for Paul’s
further instruction to Timothy about “correcting” (παιδεύοντα, v. 25) the oppo-
nents.
ἀπαίδευτος also appears with μωρός in Sir 20:19–20 where “the mouths of the
ignorant” (στόματι ἀπαιδεύτων) are equated with “the mouth of the fool” (στό-
ματος μωροῦ). Elsewhere in Greek literature, ἀπαίδευτος can appear with ἰδιώτης
(Plutarch, Mor. 853b), ἀμελέτητος (Lucian, Gall. 18), or even ἀνόητος (Lucian,
Ind. 21; see 1 Tim 6:9; Titus 3:3) as labels for “the ignorant.” Not only is ἀπαίδευτος
used for the lack of knowledge, but it also carries a moral overtone in describ-
ing those who do not act in an appropriate way (Plutarch, Cim. 1.2; Pseudo-Dio
Chrysostom, Cor. 42). In this context, these “foolish and ignorant controversies”
are those that fail to measure up to the “knowledge of the truth” (ἐπίγνωσιν ἀλη-
θείας, v. 25).
μάχας recalls λογομαχεῖν of v. 14, and as here, it also occurs with μωράς and
ζητήσεις in Titus 3:9 in reference to the false teachings. The metaphoric use of
γεννάω outside contexts of procreation (including spiritual birth, cf. 1 Cor 4:15;
Phlm 10) is unusual in the nt (cf. M.-M. 124), but it does appear in Greek litera-
ture for the begetting of “virtues” (cf. γεννήσαντες παντοίαν ἀρετήν, Plato, Symp.
209e) and “vices” (cf. ἀδικίαν γεννώσης, Philo, Contempl. 17.6; for ἀδικία [cf. v. 19]
as a representative vice, see Pseudo-Aristotle, Virt. vit. 1250a), and this is con-
sistent with the adoption of medical imagery in v. 17 above.

▪ 24 δοῦλον κυρίου has been taken to refer to the Isaianic Servant of the Lord
(Windsor 2014: 104), but this title is also used in various other contexts (Josh
24:30; Judg 2:8; 2 Kgs 10:23; 18:12; Ps 133[134]:1; Jonah 1:9; Martin, 30). It is best
to see this as an extension of the household metaphor (vv. 20–21) where the
δοῦλον κυρίου is to serve the master (δεσπότης) of the household. Moreover, the
reference to σφραγίς (v. 19) fits well within the metaphor of slavery, as does ἔγνω
κύριος τοὺς ὄντας αὐτοῦ (v. 19) since in view is a change of slave-ownership for
the believers who were once enslaved by another power (cf. Gal 4:9). Similarly,
the phrase εὔχρηστον τῷ δεσπότῃ in v. 21 has also anticipated this explicit iden-
tification of believers as slaves of the Lord. Therefore, an overtly theological
reading of the label δοῦλον κυρίου through a diachronic lens only distracts one
from appreciating the power of this label within this rhetorical context. Taking
κύριος as a reference to Christ, δοῦλον κυρίου is then comparable to δοῦλός …
Χριστοῦ in 1Cor 7:22.
For μάχομαι, see comments on μάχη in v. 23 (cf. Titus 3:9). In contrast are three
virtues that are rarely mentioned elsewhere in the nt, but they fit well in this
2:14–26 621

context. ἤπιος is a nt hapax (though it appears as a variant in 1 Thess 2:7) but a

common term in Greek literature that can be used with μέτριος (Plutarch, Mor.
468d) and γνήσιος (Philo, Mos. 1.73) for self-control and a sincere demeanor. It
can also appear with vocabularies familiar to the pe, such as ἐπιεικής (Themis-
tocles, Ep. 6.28; cf. 1Tim 3:3; Titus 3:2) and πραΰς (Plutarch, Mor. 276f; cf. πρα-
ΰτης, v. 25), conveying similar shades of meaning, and thus forms a natural
contrast to μάχομαι.
διδακτικός appears only once elsewhere in the nt (1 Tim 3:2) in a similar con-
text of combatting false teachers, and rarely in contemporary Greek literature
(but see the references to “teachable virtue,” ἡ διδακτική ἀρετή, in Philo, Congr.
35.1; Mut. 84.1; 88.3; Praem. 27.2). This requirement is necessary when respond-
ing to the false teachers (v. 17).
ἀνεξίκακος appears to find its first appearance here in extant Greek literature,
while the nominal form ἀνεξικακία appears a few times in Hellenistic Jewish
writings for “forbearance” and “patience” in the presence of evil (Wis 2:19; Jose-
phus, B.J. 1.501; 4.167), which fits the polemical context here well.

▪ 25 πραΰτης refers to a way of life that is defined by not quarreling (cf. οὐ δεῖ
μάχεσθαι, v. 24; see Titus 3:2 where πραΰτης follows the virtue of ἄμαχος). In this
context, it does not simply denote a lack of disagreement, but it also points to a
humble submission to the gospel (cf. πραϋπάθεια, 1 Tim 6:11; Spicq, tlnt 3:168–
169). Concordantly, in this negative context, παιδεύω does not merely mean “to
teach” or “to instruct”, but “to discipline” (LNd §36.10) or “to correct” (bdag 749;
cf. 1Tim 1:20). This call to correct the false teachers provides a response to the
description of their teachings as “ignorant controversies” (ἀπαιδεύτους ζητήσεις,
v. 23) above.
The nt hapax ἀντιδιατίθημι is a rare verb that points to a reacting force,
thus to resist or to retaliate (Diodorus of Sicily, Hist. 35.12; Philo, Spec. 4.103).
In this context, it appears to have significant semantic overlap with ἀντιλέγω
(cf. τοὺς ἀντιλέγοντας, Titus 1:9) with the connotation of insubordination (Titus
2:9; Spicq, tlnt 1:128). If so, ἐν πραΰτητι παιδεύοντα, understood in the sense of
“correcting with a call to submission,” will be the right response to these false
teachers.
μετάνοια is not often used in Paul (cf. Rom 2:4; 2 Cor 7:9, 10) and has been
taken to refer to conversion (thus Wallace 2009: 204), as it often does in Acts
(Acts 20:21; 26:20). Nevertheless, without denying its soteriological import (see,
in particular, 2Cor 7:10), it can also be applied to those believers who have devi-
ated from the right path (Rom 2:4) as is the case here. For εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας,
see 1Tim 2:4 and Titus 1:1.
622 2 timothy

▪ 26 The nt hapax ἀνανήφω is again a metaphor drawn from the physical or

medical realm which describes recovering from illness (Pseudo-Aristotle, Mir.
ausc. 847b) or from a state of drunkenness (Diodorus of Sicily, Hist. 16.19.2;
Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 4.35.2; see νηφάλιος [1 Tim 3:2, 11; Titus
2:2] and νήφω [2Tim 4:5]), thus “coming to his senses.” As such, it approaches
the sense of μετάνοια in the previous clause (cf. ἑαυτὸν … ἐλθὼν, Luke 15:17). A
close parallel can be found in Philo where ἀνανήφω is used with μετάνοια when
soberness is described as an act of repentance that is taken “as recovering from
an illness” (Leg. 2.60). τῆς τοῦ διαβόλου παγίδος recalls παγίδα τοῦ διαβόλου of
1 Tim 3:7 in Paul’s warning against those who may fail to remain faithful to the
gospel.
ζωγρέω can carry the positive sense of “life-giving” (Josh 6:25; 9:20; Luke 5:10;
Wuellner 1967: 236–238), but it often carries the negative sense of “being taken
as captive” (Num 31:15; 2Chron 25:12; Philo, Virt. 111.3; Strabo, Geogr. 12.6.5; Jose-
phus, A.J. 9.194). The latter sense is intended here since both αὐτοῦ and ἐκείνου
are taken to refer to the devil. The mission of “the slave of the Lord” (δοῦλον
δὲ κυρίου, v. 24) who is to follow his master’s “will” (cf. θελήματος θεοῦ, 1:1) is to
provide an opportunity for those who had been held captive by the devil to do
his will to submit to Jesus Christ as Lord (cf. T.Naph. 3.1).

Bibliography
Barrett, C.K. “Immortality and Resurrection.” London Quarterly and Holborn Review 190
(1965): 91–102.
Bauckham, Richard. “The Acts of Paul as a Sequel to Acts.” In The Book of Acts in Its
Ancient Literary Setting. Ed. Bruce W. Winter and Andrew D. Clarke, 105–152. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993.
Billings, Bradly S. “From House Church to Tenement Church: Domestic Space and the
Development of Early Urban Christianity—The Example of Ephesus.” jts 62 (2011):
541–569.
Cullmann, Oscar. Immortality of the Soul or Resurrection of the Dead? London: Epworth
1958.
Dölger, Franz. J. Sphragis: Eine altchristlich Taufbezeichnung ihrer Beziehungen zur pro-
fanen und religiösen Kultur des Altertums. Paderborn: Schöning, 1911.
Edsall, Benjamin A. “Hermogenes the Smith and Narrative Characterisation in The Acts
of Paul: A Note on the Reception of 2Timothy.” nts 64 (2018): 108–121.
Fitzgerald, John T. Cracks in an Earthen Vessel: An Examination of the Catalogues of
Hardships in the Corinthian Correspondence. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988.
Haufe, Günter. “Gnostische Irrlehre und ihre Abwehr in den Pastoralbriefen.” In Gnosis
und Neues Testament. Ed. Karl-Wolfgang Tröger, 325–339. Berlin: Evangelische Ver-
lagsanstalt, 1973.
2:14–26 623

Herzer, Jens. “Rearranging the ‘House of God’: A New Perspective on the Pastoral Epis-
tles.” In Empsychoi Logoi—Religious Innovations in Antiquity. Ed. Alberdina Hout-
man, 547–566. Boston/Leiden: Brill, 2008.
Immendörfer, Michael. Ephesians and Artemis. wunt 2.436. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2017.
Karris, Robert J. “The Background and Significance of the Polemic of the Pastoral Epis-
tles.” jbl 92 (1973): 549–564.
Luther, Brian P. “Creating a Creation: Ancient Interpretation of Korah’s Rebellion
(Numbers 16–17).” Ph.D. diss., Westminster Theological Seminary, 2011.
MacDonald, Dennis R. The Legend and the Apostle: The Battle for Paul in Story and
Canon. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1983.
Metzger, Wolfgang. “Die neōterikaì epithymíai in 2. Tim. 2,22.” tz 33 (1977): 129–136.
Rosner, Brian S. “‘Known by God’: The Meaning and Value of a Neglected Biblical Con-
cept.” TynBul 59 (2008): 207–230.
Schlarb, Egbert. Die gesunde Lehre: Häresie und Wahrheit im Spiegel der Pastoralbriefe.
Marburger theologische Studien 28. Marburg: N.G. Elwert, 1990.
Skiles, Jonah W.D. “ii Tim. 2:15 and Sophocles Antigone 1195.” Classical Philology 38
(1943): 204–205.
Thornton, Dillon T. “Hostility in the House of God: An ‘Interested’ Investigation of the
Opponents in 1 and 2Timothy.” Ph.D. diss., University of Otago, 2015.
Towner, Philip H. The Goal of Our Instruction: The Structure of Theology and Ethics in
the Pastoral Epistles. JSNTSup 34. Sheffield: jsot Press, 1989.
Windsor, Lionel J. Paul and the Vocation of Israel. bznw 205. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2014.
Wuellner, Wilhelm H. The Meaning of “Fishers of Men.” ntl. Philadelphia: Westminster,
1967.

5 Theological Analysis
The issue of divine sovereignty and human responsibility emerges in Paul’s
exhortation to Timothy and those who are to listen to him. Unlike Rom 9:20–
23 where the distinction between the various kinds of vessels rests on God’s
sovereign choice, here the responsibility to be qualified as vessels “for hon-
orable use” (v. 20) rests on members of God’s household who are to cleanse
themselves as they get “ready for every good work” (v. 21; cf. Zamfir, 116). Never-
theless, within the household metaphor that serves as a convenient framework
for discussions on the structure of power (cf. Martin 1996: 40–60), the empha-
sis on God’s initiative and sovereignty is also present when attention is drawn
to “God’s firm foundation” (v. 19). Moreover, the two sayings contained in v. 19
also illustrate the emphasis on both divine sovereignty and human responsibil-
ity; the first focuses on the knowledge of God (for knowledge as an expression
of power and control, see Rom 11:34; 1Cor 2:16; 3:20; 8:2–3) and is balanced by
624 2 timothy

the second that issues an imperative to “turn away from unrighteousness.” The
tension between the two is not resolved, as both are recognized as being signif-
icant. This stands in stark contrast to the false teachers who claim to know but
are “never able to arrive at the knowledge of the truth” (3:7). After all, even the
ability to know the truth is granted by God himself (v. 25).
It is within discussions of household relationships that the imagery of slav-
ery should be considered, especially when the title “slave of the Lord” (δοῦλος …
κυρίου, v. 24) is applied to believers while God is portrayed as the “house mas-
ter” (δεσπότης, v. 21) who has complete control of the “vessels” (σκεύη, v. 20)
available to him for his own purpose. For Aristotle, who has provided an exten-
sive discussion on the household structure of power, the “slave” (δοῦλος) of the
“house master” (δεσπότης) is not merely his “property” (κτῆμα) but also his
“useable instrument” (ὄργανον πρακτικὸν, Pol. 1254a). Within this framework,
σφραγίς and ἔγνω κύριος τοὺς ὄντας αὐτοῦ (v. 19) take on added significance as
God’s people are now marked and known by their master.
Moving beyond a Greco-Roman context, the reference to the “will” of “the
devil” (v. 26) also reflects a particular understanding of the ownership of God’s
people in the ot: when God delivered Israel from Egypt, their status changed
from being “slaves of Pharaoh” (Deut 6:21) to “slaves of the Lord” (Lev 25:5).
The exodus is, therefore, not a liberation movement but a ritual of the trans-
feral of ownership (cf. Levenson 1989: 30–36). This understanding of God’s act
of deliverance is adopted by the earlier Paul, who understands the redemption
from sin as leading directly to the submission of Christ’s Lordship (Rom 6:15–
23; cf. Byron 2004: 121–124). In this context, therefore, one can perhaps see the
reemergence of the new exodus paradigm where repentance is understood as
the recognition of the definitive transferal of ownership from the devil to Christ
(see Goodrich 2013: 509–530 for Hellenistic influences on Second Temple Jew-
ish authors’ uses of the metaphor of slavery).
The exact conceptual framework within which the claim that “the resur-
rection has already taken place” is made has already been noted above (see
v. 18), but the theological import of the evocation of this doctrine in early Chris-
tian proclamation demands further attention. Though it is clear that the false
teachers are denying the future resurrection of believers, such an eschatolog-
ical event rests on Jesus’s own resurrection. Instead of carrying primarily an
“apologetic” function (Crüsemann 2002: 150–162), therefore, the evocation of
the reality of the coming resurrection points back to Christ’s own resurrection
as the basis for the eschatological one; the christological claim leads naturally
to the paraenetic one.
A similar move can be found in Paul, where the affirmation of Christ’s res-
urrection calls for obedience (Rom 1:4–5; 8:1–11; 1 Cor 6:14–20) since believers
2:14–26 625

are no longer slaves of sin but of Christ (Rom 6:1–11; 7:4–7; see Wright 2003:
286–290 for the role of baptismal language in the connection between the his-
torical resurrection of Christ and moral behavior of believers). The connection
between the denial of Christ’s resurrection and that of the final resurrection is
clearly made in 1 Cor 15:12–28 (cf. 2Cor 4:14; Holleman 1996: 185–202) with the
clear implication that Christ’s resurrection affirms the believer’s freedom from
sin (1Cor 15:16–17; cf. 2Cor 5:15).
The ethical import of the evocation of this doctrine continues in Paul’s later
writings (Eph 2:1–10; Phil 3:1–11; Col 3:1–4), while this logic also lies behind the
rhetorical structure of this section that begins with the descent into “ungod-
liness” (v. 16) by those who deny the future resurrection (v. 18). Such a denial
prompted the call to “turn away from unrighteousness” (v. 19) and to “cleanse”
oneself for “honorable use” (v. 21). Moral exhortation continues in vv. 21–25 with
the final note on the expectation of some to “escape the snare of the devil”
(v. 26). The moral implications of downplaying the reality of the resurrection
have already appeared in the earlier Paul in his dialogue with those who ques-
tion this (1Cor 15:14–17, 32–58; cf. Brown 2014: 175–231), but the claim that “the
resurrection has already taken place” would further reinforce this connection
if it is made within the framework of a “realized eschatology.”

Bibliography
Brown, Paul J. Bodily Resurrection and Ethics in 1Cor 15. wunt 2.360. Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2014.
Byron, John. “Paul and the Background of Slavery: The Status Quaestionis in New Tes-
tament Scholarship.” cbr 3 (2004): 116–139.
Crüsemann, Frank. “Schrift und Auferstehung: Beobachtungen zur Wahrnehmung des
auferstandenen Jesus bei Lukas und Paulus und zum Verhältnis der Testamente.”
Kirche und Israel 17 (2002): 150–162.
Goodrich, John K. “From Slaves of Sin to Slaves of God: Reconsidering the Origin of
Paul’s Slavery Metaphor in Romans 6.” bbr 23 (2013): 509–530.
Holleman, Joost. Resurrection and Parousia: A Tradition-Historical Study of Paul’s Escha-
tology in 1Corinthians 15. NovTSup 84. Leiden: Brill, 1996.
Levenson, Jon D. “Liberation Theology and the Exodus.” Midstream 35 (1989): 30–36.
Martin, Dale B. “The Construction of the Ancient Family: Methodological Considera-
tions.” jrs 86 (1996): 40–60.
Wright, Nicholas T. The Resurrection of the Son of God. London: spck, 2003.
626 2 timothy

v Living in the Last Days (3:1–4:8)

A False Teachers as Eschatological Enemies Opposing the Truth (3:1–9)

1 Translation
1 Take note of this, that in the last days times of difficulty will come. 2 For
people will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphe-
mers, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 unloving, irreconcil-
able, slanderers, without self-control, untamed, not lovers of good, 4 treacher-
ous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5 having
the outward form of godliness, but denying its power. Indeed, avoid these peo-
ple. 6 For among them are those who creep into households and take weak
women captive, heaped with sins and led by various desires, 7 always learn-
ing but never able to arrive at the knowledge of the truth. 8 Just as Jannes and
Jambres opposed Moses, so these people also oppose the truth; they are peo-
ple of depraved mind, disqualified in regard to the faith. 9 But they will not
progress even more, for their folly will become clear to all, as was with those
two men.

2 Text-Critical Analysis
▪ 1 γίνωσκε: This singular verb is replaced by the plural γινώσκετε (A) or γινώ-
σκεται (F G 33), possibly because of the perceived general nature of vv. 1–9 as
compared to its immediate context (Lock, xxxvii) or more likely an attempt to
apply this set of teachings to a wider (and later) audience, especially with the
accompanying reference to ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις that follows. This may also explain
the further change to the third-person imperative γινωσκέτω in selected wit-
nesses (1175 Ambst Spec).

▪ 2 ἀχάριστοι: na27/28 lists ἄχρηστοι as the variant reading in selected uncials

(C* K), but Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (C) may read ἄχριστοι here instead as
noted in Tischendorf (though difficult to ascertain because of the condition of
this palimpsest). If so, this may have been an orthographical error that hap-
pened in two stages: reading ἀχάριστοι as supported by the vast majority of
manuscripts (‫ א‬A D F G Ψ 33 1505 1739 1881 pm 𝔐), the original hand of Codex
Ephraemi Rescriptus omitted the second α; a later scribe of the ninth-century
Codex Mosquensis made a further mistake due to itacism in confusing the first
ι with η, with the result of another known word ἄχρηστοι (cf. Phlm 11).

▪ 3 ἄστοργοι ἄσπονδοι: The order is reversed in a few primarily Western witnesses

(D 69 365 1175 pc [ar] g m vgmss Ambst) with no significant change in meaning,
but the external evidence (A C F G Ψ 33 1505 1739 1881 pm 𝔐) clearly supports
3:1–9 627

the na 27/28 reading. ἄστοργοι is omitted in Codex Sinaiticus (‫)א‬, likely due to
homoeoteleuton, which can also explain the omission of both words in a few
other witnesses (431 syp).9

▪ 6 αἰχμαλωτίζοντες: This is replaced by αἰχμαλωτεύοντες in several ninth-century

witnesses, including the second corrector of Codex Claromontanus (D2) and a
few uncials (K L), followed by the majority of the Byzantine witnesses (𝔐). The
na reading (αἰχμαλωτίζοντες) is supported by the earliest witnesses across tex-
tual traditions (‫ א‬A C [D*.c] F G P Ψ 33 1505 1739 1881 pc) and is the form found
in Hellenistic Greek (bdf §108[5]).

▪ 6 γυναικάρια: The article τά is inserted before γυναικάρια in late Byzantine

minuscules (2 1243 𝔐)10 but is considered original by Elliot (149) since scribes
often object to the “generic article.” The absence of the article from all of the
earlier uncials argues against its originality, and internal considerations are not
decisive in this context (cf. Kilpatrick, 13); its insertion is possibly influenced
instead by the preceding article before οἰκίας (Mounce, 542).

▪ 6 ἐπιθυμίαις: καὶ ἡδόναις is inserted after ἐπιθυμίαις in a few witnesses (A 1245

1505 pc syh), likely an assimilation to Titus 3:3.

▪ 8 Ἰάννης: Various forms of this name exist in the textual traditions, including
Ἰωάννης (C* Euthaliusms*) and Ἰάμνης (m vg Orig). Ἰωάννης is a form that exists
in Jewish traditions (‫יוָֹח ָנא‬/‫ )יוָֹח ִני‬as reflected, for example, in the fourteenth-
century work by Eleazar ben Asher that draws on the earlier work of Pseudo-
Philo of the first-century: “Among these Egyptians there were two wizards
whose names were Johanai and Mamre,” Chronicles of Jerahmeel 54.8 (Gaster,
159). Ἰάμνης, on the other hand, likely represents an orthographical error when
ν is read as μ.

▪ 8 Ἰαμβρῆς: Some late Western witnesses (F G it vgcl.ww Cyp Lcf Ambst Aug)
read Μαμβρῆς instead, reflecting on a segment of Jewish tradition that uses
that form of the name (‫ ;ַמְמ ֵרא‬see Chronicles of Jerahmeel 54.8 noted above;
cf. Pietersma, Apocryphon of Jannes and Jambres, 40–41). Origen (Comm. Matt.
25.6–12), for example, notes that Paul’s reference here draws from an apoc-
ryphal work entitled the Book of Jannes and Mambres. This form that survives

9 This variant that appears in na27 is no longer noted in na28.

10 This variant that appears in na27 is no longer noted in na28.
628 2 timothy

in the Latin Fathers may be influenced by the Rabbinic preference for this form
of the name (cf. James, Lost Apocrypha, 31–38).

▪ 9 ἄνοια: A few minuscules (330 2400) followed Codex Alexandrinus (A) in

reading διαάνοια here, likely an unintentional error. The number of mistakes
made by the scribe of Codex Alexandrinus in this section (vv. 1, 2, 9, 10, 11) may
cast doubt on the general reliability of this uncial, at least in this section within
the Pauline corpus (cf. Metzger 1991: 86).

Bibliography
Asher, Eleazar ben. The Chronicles of Jeraḥmeel. Trans. M. Gaster. New York: Ktav, 1971.
James, M.R. The Lost Apocrypha. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge,
1920.
Metzger, Bruce M. Manuscripts of the Greek Bible. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991.
Pietersma, Albert. The Apocryphon of Jannes and Jambres the Magicians: P. Chester
Beatty xvi. Leiden: Brill, 1994.

3 Grammatical Analysis
The kataphoric transitional phrase τοῦτο δὲ γίνωσκε (v. 1) signals the beginning
of a new unit, though with clear connections with the previous one. As the pre-
vious unit provides two named individuals that represent those who oppose
Paul the apostle (Hymenaeus and Philetus, 2:17), two named individuals from
the ancient past are also evoked in reference to those who had opposed Moses
the prophet (Jannes and Jambres, v. 8). The portrayal of the active work of the
devil at the end of the previous unit (2:26) also provides a natural transition to
the depiction of the difficult times “in the last days” (v. 1).
The shift in tone, emphasis, and verbal and syntactical pattern marks this
unit off from the previous. The tone of restraint embedded in the call to correct
the false teachers “with gentleness” (ἐν πραΰτητι, 2:25) is replaced by a strong
repudiation of these false teachers as those who embody the opposition to God.
The focus on Timothy’s responsibility in the previous unit is replaced by the
detailed characterization of the false teachers and those who follow them. This
shift is marked by the shift in verbal pattern: while the previous section is dom-
inated by singular imperatives (ὑπομίμνῃσκε, 2:14; σπούδασον, 2:15; περιΐστασο,
2:16; ἀποστήτω, 2:19; φεῦγε, 2:22; δίωκε, 2:22; παραιτοῦ, 2:23), this unit contains
only two imperatives (γίνωσκε, v. 1; ἀποτρέπου, v. 5) but is dominated instead
by a vice list introduced by an indicative (ἔσονται, v. 2) followed by a long list of
masculine plural adjectives that characterize the people in the last days, among
them the false teachers (vv. 2–4). A series of participles are then used for those
who are captivated by them (σεσωρευμένα, v. 6; ἀγόμενα, v. 6; μανθάνοντα, v. 7;
δυνάμενα, v. 7).
3:1–9 629

The organization of the long list of vices is not immediately clear, with some
concluding that “[t]he writer has apparently put down the names of vices as
they happened to occur to him” (Scott, 119). Nevertheless, beyond the tradi-
tional nature of such lists, two features should be noted. First, the list is framed
by the φιλ-word group (φίλαυτοι, φιλάργυροι, v. 2; φιλήδονοι, φιλόθεοι, v. 4), which
portrays these people as worshipping themselves rather than God. The open-
ing listing of φίλαυτοι and φιλάργυροι may further provide a concrete definition
of those who love themselves: that they love money.
Second, within this framework, alliteration also plays a factor, especially
with the long list of α-privates (ἀπειθεῖς, ἀχάριστοι, ἀνόσιοι, ἄστοργοι, ἄσπονδοι,
ἀκρατεῖς, ἀνήμεροι, ἀφιλάγαθοι) and perhaps also the two προ-compound words
(προδόται προπετεῖς, v. 4). Equally worth noting is the presence of διάβολοι in
the middle of the long list of α-privates. The odd placement of this word can
perhaps be explained by the appearance of the same word at the end of the
previous unit (τοῦ διαβόλου, 2:26), as Paul marked this word with prominence
in the description of those who oppose God in the last days.
Though some have considered vv. 1–17 a unified section (Barrett, 110; Fiore,
165), most consider vv. 1–9 as a distinct unit with σὺ δέ in v. 10 shifting the atten-
tion back to Timothy. The negative characterization of the opponents is thus
replaced by a virtue list (vv. 10–11) that encourages Timothy to continue follow-
ing in the footsteps of Paul.
This unit begins with the developmental marker δέ and the disclosure for-
mula (τοῦτο … γίνωσκε), followed by the content clause introduced by ὅτι that
makes note of the difficult times in the last days. The clause that follows pro-
vides the grounds (γάρ) of the previous assertion, with the use of the imper-
sonal verb ἔσονται followed by a long vice list consisting of predicate adjectives,
nouns, and participles (vv. 2–5a). After this vice list comes the short imperatival
clause καὶ τούτους ἀποτρέπου that lies at the center of this unit, as Paul calls Tim-
othy to avoid these people (v. 5b). The basis (γάρ) of this imperative is provided
in another clause that is also introduced by an impersonal verb (εἰσίν) followed
by the attributive participles οἱ ἐνδύνοντες and αἰχμαλωτίζοντες, with women
(γυναικάρια) being the object of the second participle (v. 6a). These women
are modified by four attributive participles (σεσωρευμένα, ἀγόμενα, μανθάνοντα,
δυνάμενα, vv. 6b–7) that characterize them as followers of the false teachers.
With another developmental marker δέ and the adverbial markers ὃν τρό-
πον and οὕτως (v. 8a), Paul compares the false teachers who oppose the truth
with Jannes and Jambres who opposed Moses; these false teachers (ἄνθρωποι)
are further characterized by two adjectival modifiers (κατεφθαρμένοι, ἀδόκιμοι,
v. 8b). That they oppose the truth is immediately qualified (with the adversative
ἀλλά) by a clause that questions their continued strength, with the final clause
630 2 timothy

providing the grounds (γάρ) for the brevity of their influence, as (ὡς) was the
case with Jannes and Jambres.

▪ 1 Τοῦτο δὲ γίνωσκε. The postpositive δέ again carries primarily a developmen-

tal sense (and in this context, a transitional one as well, Hanson, 145) as Paul
further locates the false teachers within those who oppose the truth in the last
days. The portrayal of the darkness of those who are (already) living in the last
days should not be construed primarily as qualifying Paul’s hope for these peo-
ple to repent (contra Mounce, 544), especially since the call to repentance is
often embedded in prophecies related to the last days (cf. Acts 2:17, 38).
This reading of δέ is consistent with the use of the kataphoric τοῦτο … γίνω-
σκε to introduce a new stage of the argument as it draws attention to that which
follows. γίνωσκε provides continuity with the series of second-person impera-
tives in the previous unit (ὑπομίμνῃσκε, 2:14; σπούδασον, 2:15; περιΐστασο, 2:16;
φεῦγε, 2:22; δίωκε, 2:22; παραιτοῦ, 2:23) as it is primarily addressed to Timothy,
though the focus is now more generally on the people in the last days.

▪ ὅτι ἐν ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις ἐνστήσονται καιροὶ χαλεποί. In apposition to τοῦτο, ὅτι

introduces an object complement clause. The plural ἐν ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις refers
to a period of time before the end of times instead of the narrower event of
the parousia. Those who see this unit as prophetic in nature would argue for a
strict future reference of ἐνστήσονται (and ἔσονται, v. 2; thus Marshall, 769), and
this “prospective” use of the future tense is further supported by the temporal
deictic marker ἐν ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις (thus Porter, Verbal Aspect, 427). The focus of
this unit is, however, clearly on the present time (cf. vv. 5, 6, 8), and the fact that
the plural ἐν ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις refers to a period of time would argue for a more
nuanced reading of these future verbs. This is also consistent with the use of
the plural καιροὶ χαλεποί that denotes a period of time (see Historical Analysis).
Instead of primarily as a temporal marker, this future tense verb should
instead be understood as a reference to a marked anticipation of a different
set of circumstances. In this case, that which is anticipated is the state of moral
and spiritual decay, which the author argues has begun to be realized with the
presence of false teachers. The tension between the future and the present
is therefore intentional, as Paul highlights the urgency of the present state of
affairs. This state of affairs is characterized by the adjective χαλεποί, which often
carries the connotation of chaos and violence (cf. Matt 8:28). The vice list that
follows in vv. 2–4 provides further explication of this characterization.

▪ 2 ἔσονται γὰρ οἱ ἄνθρωποι φίλαυτοι φιλάργυροι ἀλαζόνες ὑπερήφανοι βλάσφημοι,

γονεῦσιν ἀπειθεῖς, ἀχάριστοι ἀνόσιοι. γάρ introduces material that strengthens the
3:1–9 631

previous description of the last days as violent or chaotic times (καιροὶ χαλε-
ποί). The future tense ἔσονται parallels that of the previous ἐνστήσονται, and
both belong to the same semantic domain (εἰμί, LNd § 13.104; ἐνίστημι, LNd
§ 13.109) in describing an anticipated set of circumstances. Within the con-
text of these two clauses, οἱ ἄνθρωποι refers to the general state of humanity as
they corporately rebel against God (cf. Perkins, 205), though the further speci-
ficity provided in v. 5 argues for a narrower understanding of these as the false
teachers (Spicq, 2.776–777). The anticipated general moral and spiritual decay
of humanity is embodied in the lives and teachings of a few.
What follows is a long asyndetic vice list that provides the rhetorical effect
of emphasizing the utter depravity of these people without necessarily draw-
ing attention to the individual vices. Nevertheless, the way this particular list
is framed by the φιλ-word group does highlight the unique context of this vice
list. φίλαυτοι (“lovers of themselves”) and φιλάργυροι (“lovers of money”) are
not merely parallel terms, but the latter is the manifestation of the former. This
can be seen by the contrast between the first and last descriptors in this series:
φίλαυτοι (“lovers of themselves”) and φιλόθεοι (“lovers of God,” v. 4), a contrast
found in Hellenistic Jewish traditions (see Historical Analysis). Within this gen-
eral contrast, the second (φιλάργυροι) and second to last (φιλήδονοι, v. 4) items
of this list provide further specificity, and it is precisely these two items that are
directly connected with the context of the Ephesian community of believers.

▪ 3 ἄστοργοι ἄσπονδοι διάβολοι ἀκρατεῖς ἀνήμεροι ἀφιλάγαθοι. The (mostly) α-

privatives are specific vices that depict general patterns of behavior that may
carry more immediate effects in human relationships. διάβολοι (“slanderers”)
breaks the pattern of alliteration and marks this with prominence, perhaps to
evoke the reference to τῆς τοῦ διαβόλου παγίδος (2:26) at the end of the previous
unit.
To conclude this list of mostly α-privatives with the negation of a φιλ-
compound word is perhaps intentional as it further defines φίλαυτοι (“lovers of
themselves,” v. 2), which introduces this list. Moreover, ἀφιλάγαθοι also antic-
ipates φιλόθεοι (“lovers of God,” v. 4), which ends this list, since to oppose the
good is to fail to love God himself.

▪ 4 προδόται προπετεῖς τετυφωμένοι, φιλήδονοι μᾶλλον ἢ φιλόθεοι. Two προ-com-

pound words follow the long list of α-privatives. Departing from the pattern of
adjectives (and two nouns), the use of the participle τετυφωμένοι is notewor-
thy. This perfect tense verb marks it with prominence, and the inclusion of this
word that departs from α-privatives and προ-compound words highlights its
significance in its context.
632 2 timothy

As two φιλ-compound words (φίλαυτοι, φιλάργυροι, v. 2) began this vice list,

φιλήδονοι and φιλόθεοι provide its proper closure. μᾶλλον ἢ takes the place of
a genitive of comparison (or a comparative adjective) in the juxtaposition of
two adjectives (cf. Robertson, Grammar, 663). With the use of μᾶλλον ἢ, φιλόθεοι
(“lovers of God”) not only provides contrast to φίλαυτοι (“lovers of themselves”)
but also draws attention to the severity of such a vice (cf. Zerwick, Biblical
Greek, §664).

▪ 5 ἔχοντες μόρφωσιν εὐσεβείας τὴν δὲ δύναμιν αὐτῆς ἠρνημένοι. With this exten-
sion of the vice list, Paul identifies “the people” (οἱ ἄνθρωποι, v. 2) depicted
in the vice lists as those who profess to be believers. Both participles, ἔχοντες
and ἠρνημένοι, modify the verb ἔσονται in v. 2. The emphasis is on ἠρνημένοι,
with the shift from the present ἔχοντες to the perfect ἠρνημένοι, frontground-
ing their act of denying the power of godliness. The developmental δέ takes
on a sharp adversative force here. Within this contrast, the “form of godliness”
(μόρφωσιν εὐσεβείας) points to the mere outer appearance without the corre-
sponding substance (cf. τὴν μόρφωσιν τῆς γνώσεως καὶ τῆς ἀληθείας, Rom 2:20).
In this immediate context, it may refer to “empty talk” (κενοφωνίας) of the false
teachers that can only lead to further “ungodliness” (ἀσεβείας, 2:16), but the
parallel with Titus 1:16 may provide a more specific reference (see Historical
Analysis).

▪ καὶ τούτους ἀποτρέπου. This short clause lies at the center of the unit, sand-
wiched between a general vice list that precedes and a specific set of criticisms
against the false teachers and their followers that follows. Its central impor-
tance also explains the presence of the single imperative in this unit, apart from
the one embedded in the transitional phrase in v. 1 (γίνωσκε). καί has been taken
in a conjunctive sense (Perkins, 208) and is thus connected with the imperative
in v. 1 (Knight, 433): “take note … and avoid.” This, however, is unlikely, especially
since the two imperatives are not contiguous (Heckert, Discourse, 88), and the
prior imperative is embedded in the transitional phrase that introduces the
entire unit. In this context, καί should best be taken in an adverbial sense in
drawing attention to the urgency of this imperative: “indeed, avoid these peo-
ple.”
τούτους can refer back to οἱ ἄνθρωποι that precedes (v. 2; Fee, 271) or the
object of the direct criticisms that follows (Johnson, 406). The distinction is
blurred since it is clear that those directly criticized belong to the general
group presented above (cf. ἐκ τούτων, v. 6). The present imperative ἀποτρέ-
που continues the force of γίνωσκε of v. 1 as is appropriate in general com-
mands.
3:1–9 633

▪ 6 ἐκ τούτων γάρ εἰσιν οἱ ἐνδύνοντες εἰς τὰς οἰκίας καὶ αἰχμαλωτίζοντες γυναικάρια.
The second γάρ of this unit strengthens the imperatival clause that precedes.
The placement of the prepositional phrase ἐκ τούτων highlights its transitional
function as the focus now moves from the general people depicted in the
vice list above to the particular persons who are leading believers astray. The
substantival participles ἐνδύνοντες and αἰχμαλωτίζοντες are the subject of the
present indicative εἰσίν, as is appropriate for a general description of ongoing
processes. Within this construction, definiteness of referents is not indicated
by the article, but by ἐκ τούτων.
For οἱ ἐνδύνοντες … καὶ αἰχμαλωτίζοντες, a variation of the Granville Sharp’s
rule has been applied in this article-substantive-καί-substantive construction
since in the nt when both substantives are plural they are often identical
in meaning (Perkins, 209, citing Wallace, Greek Grammar, 283). Admittedly,
this identification cannot be considered a “rule” when plural substantives are
involved, though since participles are verbal nouns, “they are easily pliable for
the notion of identical referent when groups are in view” (Wallace 2009: 149).
The articular τὰς οἰκίας after the preposition may suggest that Paul may have
specific houses in mind, and the spreading of false teachings from houses to
houses (περιερχόμεναι τὰς οἰκίας) is already noted in 1 Tim 5:13. A nt hapax,
γυναικάριον is the diminutive of γυνή.

▪ σεσωρευμένα ἁμαρτίαις, ἀγόμενα ἐπιθυμίαις ποικίλαις. σεσωρευμένα is the first of

a series of four attributive participles (ἀγόμενα, μανθάνοντα, δυνάμενα) that pro-
vide further characterization to the γυναικάρια. The use of σεσωρευμένα in this
series that consists of three other present participles marks this perfect partici-
ple with prominence. As such, σεσωρευμένα ἁμαρτίαις (“heaped with sins”) may
serve as the heading for the other participial phrases. ἀγόμενα ἐπιθυμίαις ποικί-
λαις (“led by various desires”) should then be understood in the sense of being
controlled by sinful desires, a characterization that recalls φιλήδονοι μᾶλλον ἢ
φιλόθεοι above (v. 4).

▪ 7 πάντοτε μανθάνοντα καὶ μηδέποτε εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας ἐλθεῖν δυνάμενα. Being
the third and final participles of this series, μανθάνοντα (“learning”) and δυνά-
μενα (“[being] able to”) provide further characterization to the γυναικάρια (v. 6),
both of which are modified by an adverb (πάντοτε, μηδέποτε). However, the
emphasis is placed on the fourth (and final) participle, which is followed by
a complementary infinitive with a further characterization of the object of the
infinitive (ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας). That the emphasis lies in the final participial
clause is also reflected in the apparent sarcastic tone of the use of μανθάνω (see
Historical Analysis).
634 2 timothy

▪ 8 ὃν τρόπον δὲ Ἰάννης καὶ Ἰαμβρῆς ἀντέστησαν Μωϋσεῖ, οὕτως καὶ οὗτοι ἀνθίσταν-
ται τῇ ἀληθείᾳ. In this final subsection of this unit, Paul draws from a historical
example to illustrate how the false teachers are opposing the truth delivered by
a (true) prophet/apostle of God. This contrast is set up within the ὃν τρόπον …
οὕτως construct, conveying the idea of “just as … so/thus.” τρόπον is the gram-
matical antecedent of the relative pronoun ὅν (bdf § 160, 475[2]), and with the
implied καθώς it forms an idiomatic expression that introduces an item that is
drawn into a paralleling process with a case currently under discussion (cf. τὸν
ὅμοιον τρόπον, Jude 7). In this case, the historical opponents of Moses (Ἰάννης
καὶ Ἰαμβρῆς) are drawn into parallel processing with the false teachers (οὗτοι)
who oppose the truth.
The aorist indicative ἀντέστησαν grammaticalizes perfective aspect in view-
ing the event as a whole, which is contrasted with the present indicative ἀνθί-
στανται that follows, which views the act of opposition from within the process.
This shift of tenses also foregrounds the present opposition as Paul calls for a
specific course of action, a shift that is further reinforced by the use of both
the adverbial καί that marks the second clause with prominence and οὗτοι that
alerts the reader to the thematic center of the subunit (cf. Levinsohn 2009: 206–
207).

▪ ἄνθρωποι κατεφθαρμένοι τὸν νοῦν, ἀδόκιμοι περὶ τὴν πίστιν. ἄνθρωποι stands in
apposition, and provides further characterization, to the preceding οὗτοι. This
characterization consists of two adjectival modifiers, the attributive participle
κατεφθαρμένοι and the adjective ἀδόκιμοι. The perfect participle κατεφθαρμένοι
marks it with relative prominence, possibly enhanced by the use of a com-
pound verb with the prepositional prefix (Perkins, 211).
τὸν νοῦν should best be understood as an accusative of respect, compa-
rable in function to περὶ τὴν πίστιν that follows (Moule, Idiom, 62). In light
of the articular use of this phrase elsewhere in the pe (1 Tim 1:19; 3:9; 4:1, 6;
5:8; 6:10, 12, 21; 2Tim 4:7; Titus 1:13), τὴν πίστιν should best be understood as
a reference to the objective gospel as in the preceding τῇ ἀληθείᾳ, though
the personal appropriation of this gospel cannot be denied (Scott, 122; cf. v.
10).

▪ 9 ἀλλ’ οὐ προκόψουσιν ἐπὶ πλεῖον· ἡ γὰρ ἄνοια αὐτῶν ἔκδηλος ἔσται πᾶσιν, ὡς καὶ
ἡ ἐκείνων ἐγένετο. The conclusion of this unit reaffirms the final triumph of the
gospel. The adversative ἀλλά provides qualification to the assertion made in the
main clause above (οὗτοι ἀνθίστανται τῇ ἀληθείᾳ), and the use of this adversative
conjunction with the negative marker οὐ (cf. 1:12; 2:9) corrects the possible false
expectation that the false teachers would continue to prosper in their plans.
3:1–9 635

Heckert (Discourse, 22–23) is correct to suggest that ἀλλ’ οὐ corrects the expec-
tation of the preceding statement but not necessarily negates it.
The use of the future tense verbs προκόψουσιν and ἔσται is appropriate in
conceiving a different set of outcomes. ἐπὶ πλεῖον can be understood in a pos-
itive (“they will not progress any further,” cf. Fiore, 168) or comparative (“they
will not progress even more,” cf. Smith, 122) sense, and taking the comparative
sense of the comparative adverb πλεῖον seriously, the latter is preferable (as in
the case of ἐπὶ πλεῖον … προκόψουσιν in 2:16 above). This would also alleviate the
tension caused by Paul’s later use of the same construction with a very differ-
ent perception of the outcome, that things will get worse (προκόψουσιν ἐπὶ τὸ
χεῖρον). Reading the two together, apparently things will get worse before they
get better.
The third γάρ of this unit (cf. vv. 2, 6) strengthens the preceding optimistic
note concerning the halting of the progress of the false teachers. ὡς is com-
parable in function to ὃν τρόπον … οὕτως above (v. 8) as they both evoke the
examples of Jannes and Jambres for comparative purposes, and in both one
finds the adverbial καί. The anaphoric ἡ refers back to ἡ … ἄνοια in the previous
clause, while ἐκείνων (Jannes and Jambres) corresponds to οὗτοι in v. 8, with the
focus resting on οὗτοι instead of ἐκείνων (that conveys both spatial and thematic
distance), as is clear also with the shift to the backgrounded aorist ἐγένετο here.

Bibliography
Denniston, J.D. The Greek Particles. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1954.
Wallace, Daniel B. Granville Sharp’s Canon and Its Kin. sbg 14. New York: Peter Lang,
2009.

4 Historical Analysis
Recognizing the traditional nature of vice lists (see 1 Tim 1:8–11), some have
pointed to the earlier Pauline (Rom 1:29–31; cf. Dibelius and Conzelmann, 115)
and Hellenistic Jewish (Wis 14:25–29; cf. Fiore, 165; and Philo; cf. Spicq, 2.774)
traditions as the context within which this list should be understood. The con-
nection with Rom 1:29–31 is particularly strong considering that, elsewhere in
Greek literature, the conglomeration of terms such as ἀλαζών, ὑπερήφανος, and
γονεύς ἀπειθής (v. 2) can only be found in Rom 1:30. Equally important is the con-
ceptual parallel between ἀχάριστοι (v. 2) and ὡς θεὸν ἐδόξασαν ἢ ηὐχαρίστησαν
(Rom 1:21). Nevertheless, to consider this a borrowing of Paul by a later disciple
is unnecessary, and it is possible that both this section and Rom 1:29–31 draw
from the Ten Commandments and related traditions (cf. Esler 2004: 4–16). For
a further discussion of the Jewish framework of the vices in this section, see
Theological Analysis.
636 2 timothy

▪ 1 While the disclosure formula τοῦτο … γίνωσκε can function as an “introduc-

tory formula for a cited tradition” (cf. ἓν δὲ τοῦτο μὴ λανθανέτω ὑμᾶς, 2 Pet 3:8;
Ellis 1987: 243), it often functions to mark that which follows with prominence,
as does the frequent use of οἶδα in similar contexts in the pe (e.g., οἶδας τοῦτο,
1:15; εἰδὼς ὅτι, 2:23; cf. 1Tim 1:8, 9; Titus 3:11).
Unlike the singular ἐν τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ that is often used in reference to
the return of the Lord (John 6:40; 7:37; 11:24; 12:48), which is expressed also
by the phrase ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ (1:18; 4:8; cf. εἰς ἐκείνην τὴν ἡμέραν, 1:12) in
this letter, the plural ἐν ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις refers to a period of time before the
final consummation of this age (Acts 2:17; James 5:3; cf. ἐπ’ ἐσχάτων τῶν ἡμε-
ρῶν, 2Pet 3:3; ἐν ὑστέροις καιροῖς, 1Tim 4:1). This is consistent with the use
of this plural in the lxx (Isa 2:2; Dan 11:20; see also ἐπ’ ἐσχάτων τῶν ἡμε-
ρῶν, Gen 49:1; Jer 23:20; Ezek 38:16; Dan 2:28–29; 10:14; Hos 3:5; Mic 4:1) and
in Hellenistic Jewish authors (T.Jud. 18.1; T.Zeb. 9.5; T.Dan 5.4; T.Jos. 19.5) in
reference to series of events that will transpire during that final period of
time.
This reading is further reinforced by the plural καιροὶ χαλεποί, which con-
forms with the uses of related temporal markers for a period rather than a
narrowly defined moment in time (cf. χρόνοι: Luke 20:9; Acts 1:7; 3:21; 17:30;
1 Thess 5:1; καιροί: Acts 1:7; 3:20; 14:17; 17:26; 1Thess 5:1; 1 Tim 2:6; Titus 1:3). χαλε-
πός is not used in the canonical portions of the lxx in an eschatological sense
(cf. Isa 18:2), but in Wis 3:19 it is used for “the end of an unrighteous genera-
tion” (Wis 17:10; 19:13). More importantly, in 4Macc 16:8 it appears in the same
context with “birth pang” (ὠδίν), an imagery that appears often in eschatolog-
ical contexts (Isa 37:3; 66:7; Jer 6:24; 22:23; Ezek 7:4[7]; cf. Matt 24:8; Mark 13:8;
1 Thess 5:3).

▪ 2 φίλαυτοι (“lovers of themselves”) provides an umbrella term for the vices

listed and also serves as a contrast to φιλόθεοι at the end of the list (v. 4). In
Philo, these two are explicitly set in contrast (φίλαυτοι δὴ μᾶλλον ἢ φιλόθεοι, Fug.
81.1; cf. qg 1.60), with φίλαυτος understood as those who do not believe in God
(ἄθεος) and consider themselves “to be equal to God” (ἴσος εἶναι θεῷ, Leg. 1.49).
Taken as the primary vice, φίλαυτοι are then the ones who fought against “those
who honor virtue” (τοῖς ἀρετὴν τιμῶσιν, Det. 32).
φιλάργυροι (“loves of money”) is a concern already noted in 1 Tim 6:10, where
“the love of money” (ἡ φιλαργυρία) is the root of all kinds of evil. In its context,
it does not simply refer to the general vice of greediness but haughtiness (ὑψη-
λοφρονεῖν, 1Tim 6:17) that characterizes the benefactors who rely on the power
of their wealth rather than on God the ultimate benefactor. This may explain
the repeated warnings concerning the use and accumulation of wealth (1 Tim
3:1–9 637

3:8; Titus 1:7). It is this stance of the wealthy benefactors that defines what it
means to be “lovers of themselves” and not “lovers of God”.
The presence of wealthy benefactors among the false teachers may explain
the next three vices, which can easily apply to the haughtiness of these bene-
factors: ἀλαζόνες (“boasters”), ὑπερήφανοι (“proud”), and βλάσφημοι (“blasphe-
mers”). In Paul, ἀλαζών and ὑπερήφανος (cf. Luke 1:51; James 4:6; 1 Pet 5:5) appear
elsewhere only in the vice list of Rom 1:30. ἀλαζών and ὑπερήφανος also appear
in Joseph and Aseneth (2.1; 21.12, 16), whereas ὑπερήφανος is listed with φιλάργυ-
ροι in the Testament of Levi (17.11).
Within this conceptual framework, βλάσφημοι should be understood as
“blasphemous [against God]” (Barrett, 110) rather than “abusive [against other
human beings]” (Mounce, 545). See 1Tim 1:13, where Paul describes his former
life as a “blasphemer” (βλάσφημος) and an “arrogant man” (ὑβριστής), which
serve as an important parallel, especially when ὑβριστής appears with ἀλαζών
and ὑπερήφανος in Rom 1:30.
The dependence on Romans 1 is clearest in the phrase, γονεῦσιν ἀπειθεῖς (“dis-
obedient to their parents,” Rom 1:30), which appears only in these two works
in contemporary literature. Despite a difference in the exact wordings, depen-
dence on the fifth commandment (Exod 20:12; cf. Deut 5:16) is possible (via
Romans 1; cf. ὑπακούετε τοῖς γονεῦσιν ὑμῶν, Eph 6:1; Col 3:20). In this context,
not caring for their parents may also be related to issues of wealth and bene-
faction (cf. 1Tim 5:8).
ἀχάριστοι (“ungrateful”) captures the sense of οὐχ … ηὐχαρίστησαν of Rom
1:21, and its unique form (being another Pauline hapax) serves to introduce a
long list of α-privatives that follow. In Paul, ingratitude is understood as an act
of idolatry (1Cor 10:14–16), since the failure to give thanks to God is the refusal
to acknowledge him to be the one and only God (cf. Pao 2002: 145–164). See
also Luke 6:35 where “the ungrateful” (τοὺς ἀχαρίστους) are characterized as “the
wicked” ([τοὺς] πονηρούς; cf. ἀχαρίστοις καὶ φιλαύτοις, Philodemus, Ir. 28).
The general nature of ἀχάριστοι matches that of ἀνόσιοι (see 1 Tim 1:9). In the
lengthy vice list in Philo, Ios. 143.9, ἀνόσιος is listed with φίλαυτος and ἀσύμφο-
ρος within the discussion of the proper use of wealth. See also the contrastive
virtues of ὅσιος, φιλάγαθος and σώφρων in the virtue list of Titus 1:8, a list that
also addresses concerns of wealth (cf. μὴ αἰσχροκερδῆ, Titus 1:7).

▪ 3 ἄστοργοι (“unloving”) also appears in Rom 1:31, and together with ἄσπονδοι
(“irreconcilable”), which appears in the nt only as a variant in Rom 1:31 (‫א‬2
C D1 Ψ 𝔐, likely an assimilation to our present text of 2 Tim 3:3), they may
address general human interactions. ἄστοργος is an adjective rarely used in
Hellenistic Jewish traditions, but in other Greek traditions it often appears in
638 2 timothy

household contexts for the failure to fulfill familial duties (cf. Theocritus, Id.
17.43; Dorotheus of Sidon, Frag. 362.24), and is thus paralleled with “the ones
who plot against household members” (ἐπιβουλευτικοὺς τῶν οἰκείων, Claudius
Ptolemy, Tetra. 3.14.11).
ἄσπονδος is a more common adjective. Comparable to this context is Philo’s
contrast between those who are “irreconcilable” and those who are fighting
“against the lack of self-control and pleasure” (πρὸς ἀκρασίαν καὶ ἡδονήν, Opif.
164). Moreover, ἄσπονδος is understood as causing “discord” (στάσις) and “enmi-
ty” (πόλεμος) within a community (Legat. 292). Just as ἄστοργοι and ἄσπονδοι
follow ἀνόσιοι in v. 2, ἄσπονδοι is also listed with ἀνόσιοι in Josephus, A.J. 15.146.
διάβολοι (“slanderers”), which breaks the pattern of alliteration, links this
list with the discussion of the false teachers at the end of the previous section
(cf. 2:26). Its presence may also aim at linking these vices with the work of the
devil (see comments on 1Tim 3:6–7), though the plural form may have a more
general reference especially within a vice list (see 1 Tim 3:11).
ἀκρατεῖς (“without self-control”) and ἀνήμεροι (“untamed”) are both nt
hapax, and both point to the failure to control one’s senses with one’s rea-
son, the opposite of the Hellenistic ideal of a virtuous person. ἀκρατής appears
once in the lxx where “the uneducated” (οἱ ἀπαίδευτοι) are defined by those
“untamed in tongue” (ἀκρατεῖς γλώσσῃ), whereas Philo often uses ἀνήμερος with
ἀτίθασος for the untamable soul (Legat. 2.11; Sacr. 20; Decal. 78; Spec. 4.225; Con-
templ. 9.4).
ἀκρατής and ἀνήμεροι represent the opposite of ἐγκρατής (Xenophon, Hier.
5.2; Aristotle, Eth. eud. 1224b; Epictetus, Diatr. 3.1.8) and σώφρων (Aristotle, Eth.
eud. 1231a; Philo, Abr. 103; Plutarch, Mor. 446c), virtues of self-control advocated
by Paul in the virtue list of Titus 1:8 that also contains φιλάγαθον (“love of good”),
the opposite of ἀφιλάγαθοι (“not lovers of good”).
ἀφιλάγαθος appears to be a term coined by Paul, likely as a contrast to φιλό-
θεοι in v. 4. In Philo, the positive form φιλάγαθος (see Titus 1:8) appears with
φιλάνθρωπος and φιλοδίκαιος in a description of those who honor virtues (Mos.
2.9).

▪ 4 Elsewhere in the nt, προδότης (“treacherous”) and προπετής (“reckless”)

appear only in the Lukan writings (προδότης, Luke 6:16; Acts 7:52; προπετής, Acts
19:36) in connection with violent acts; here they both represent strong manifes-
tations of ἀκρατεῖς (“without self-control,” v. 3) and ἀνήμεροι (“untamed,” v. 3).
προδότης is often found in historical rather than philosophical discourses, with
a particularly significant appearance in 2Macc 5:15, where Menelaus is consid-
ered a “traitor of the laws” (τῶν νόμων … προδότην). προπετής, on the other hand,
is common in moral discourse, and in the lxx it is primarily used in reference
to verbal recklessness (Prov 10:14; 13:3, Sir 9:18; cf. Philo, Spec. 3.105).
3:1–9 639

The use of τυφόω (“conceited”) in connection with the Ephesian false teach-
ers in 1Tim 6:4 (cf. 1Tim 3:6) may explain its inclusion here (as the only partici-
ple in this list); this criticism against pride is consistent with the critique of the
wealthy benefactors noted with the uses of φίλαυτοι and φιλάργυροι above (v. 2).
For Philo, those who are “conceited” (τετυφωμένον) are those who are being “led
astray” (τὸν πλάνητα, Philo, Conf. 106; cf. Plutarch, Mor. 1103d).
φιλήδονοι (“lovers of pleasure”) can be compared to φίλαυτοι (“lovers of them-
selves”); “lovers of themselves rather than lovers of God” (φίλαυτοι δὴ μᾶλλον ἢ
φιλόθεοι) is a contrast found also in Hellenistic Jewish traditions (Philo, Fug.
81; see also Philo, Leg. 3.237, where “a lover of pleasure” [φιλήδονος] is sinning
against “God, the lover of virtue” [τὸν θεὸν τὸν φιλάρετον]). For Paul, to love plea-
sure is to be controlled by it, as reflected in the description of the lives of those
who had not yet been confronted by the gospel (cf. δουλεύοντες ἐπιθυμίαις καὶ
ἡδοναῖς ποικίλαις, Titus 3:3).
φιλόθεος (“lovers of God”) is a nt hapax; it is attested in literary (cf. Aristotle,
Rhet. 1391b; Diodorus of Sicily, Hist. 1.95.5) and non-literary (Aus Lydien 39.79–
83; cf. Horsley 1982: 99) sources, but it most frequently appears in Philo (Leg.
2.52; Cher. 7.2; Sacr. 3.4; Det. 103.9; Agr. 51.2). The call to love one’s God is, of
course, familiar to the Jews as it is contained in the Shema (Deut 6:5).
The emphasis on (proper) love can be found throughout the pe, though the
word used is often ἀγάπη (but this ἀγαπ-stem is not used in the construction
of compound words). In 1Tim 1:5, for example, Paul explicitly states that the
proper goal of his instruction is to foster a kind of “love that comes from a pure
heart, a good conscience, and a genuine faith” (ἀγάπη ἐκ καθαρᾶς καρδίας καὶ
συνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς καὶ πίστεως ἀνυποκρίτου; cf. 1 Tim 1:14; 4:12; 6:11; 2 Tim 1:7, 13;
2:22; Titus 2:2). It is this love that the false teachers lack.

▪ 5 μόρφωσις is a relatively rare word describing the material or external vehicle

of that which is from within (cf. Sib. Or. 4.182; 8.259; Rom 2:20). With εὐσέβεια
(see 1Tim 2:2), it likely represents a degradation of that which is real and thus
a mere instrument for self-promotion or gain (cf. νομιζόντων πορισμὸν εἶναι τὴν
εὐσέβειαν, 1Tim 6:5).
If the similar contrast in Titus 1:16 (“they profess to know God, but they deny
him with their deeds”) is of any significance, then Paul’s criticism here may
be directed against the ascetic practices that the false teachers promote. Their
denial of its power (τὴν δὲ δύναμιν αὐτῆς ἠρνημένοι) points to how ascetic prac-
tices cannot be of any use for those who love themselves but not God. The
text also makes reference to the appearance of piety and the lack of power, all
within the wider criticism of false worship and pride (Col 2:18, 23; see Pao 2012:
196–198). This reading is reinforced by the contrast between “physical training”
640 2 timothy

(ἡ … σωματικὴ γυμνασία) and “godliness” (ἡ … εὐσέβεια) in 1 Tim 4:8, with “phys-

ical training” understood as a reference to ascetic practices.
In the pe, δύναμις appears only in this letter. It is tied explicitly with the
“Spirit” in 1:7 as it is elsewhere in Paul (Rom 1:4; 15:13; 1 Cor 2:4; Gal 3:5; Eph
3:16; 1Thess 1:5), which makes it possible to see the Spirit behind δύναμις here
(thus Fee 1994: 793). Nevertheless, even in the reference to the Spirit in 1:7,
δύναμις is followed by the genitival modifier θεοῦ, with the phrase τῷ εὐαγγε-
λίῳ κατὰ δύναμιν θεοῦ alluding to the power of the gospel instead (1:8; cf. τὸ
εὐαγγέλιον, δύναμις γὰρ θεοῦ, Rom 1:16). The reference to δύναμις here in con-
nection with εὐσέβεια should also be taken within the wider redemptive work
of God that “holds promise for the present life and the life to come” (1 Tim
4:8).
ἀποτρέπω (LNd §34.41) is a nt hapax, but it belongs to the same semantic
domain as παραιτέομαι (2:23; LNd §34.41) from the end of the previous unit,
denoting acts of avoidance and shunning. It is used in the later portions of the
lxx for acts of denial (3Macc 1:23), dissuasion (4 Macc 16:12), and rejection (Sir
20:29). Here, with παραιτέομαι (2:23), it is used in the sense of social avoidance
or even active opposition (cf. Josephus, B.J. 3.418).

▪ 6 ἐνδύνω is a nt hapax, a variant form of the much more common ἐνδύω; when
used with εἰς it conveys the sense of “pressing in/into” (Plato, Menex. 235c; Aris-
totle, De an. 407b; Strabo, Geogr. 17.1.15). It carries a negative connotation here
(“worm their way [into],” bdag 333; or “creeping in,” bdf § 101). A sexual con-
notation cannot be excluded when these men creep into women’s houses (cf.
Pss. Sol. 4.4–5; Tromp 2007: 223).
αἰχμαλωτίζω is used in military contexts for “taking someone captive” (cf.
Luke 21:24) but always in a metaphoric sense in Paul (Rom 7:23; 2 Cor 10:5;
cf. τὸ κάλλος αὐτῆς ᾐχμαλώτισεν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ, Jdt 16:9). In historical documents,
“women and children” are often found to be captured during war (1 Macc 1:32;
5:13; 8:10; Cornelius Alexander, Frag. 3.26), which fits the context here where
γυναικάρια are being taken captive.
Diminutives can be used as terms of endearment (Watt 2013: 52–53), but
γυναικάριον is clearly used in a pejorative sense here (cf. bdf § 111[3]), thus
“weak women.” Whether it carries a stronger negative sense or should be con-
sidered an insulting label (cf. “frivolous women,” Huizenga, 390, or “silly
women,” Fiore, 165) remains unclear, especially since the precise form is rarely
used in Greek literature. Nonetheless, when it is used, a negative sense can
indeed be detected (cf. Epictetus, Ench. 7.1.6–8, who considers one’s “little wife
and child” [γυναικάριον καὶ παιδίον] as external non-essentials in one’s life jour-
ney).
3:1–9 641

Elsewhere in Paul, σωρεύω only appears in Rom 12:20 within a quotation

from Prov 25:21–22 (cf. Jdt 15:11). This verb, which depicts the act of accumu-
lating to the point of becoming burdensome, often carries a negative sense
among various authors, especially for the heaping up of corpses (Diodorus of
Sicily, Hist. 12.62.5; 17.34.4; Josephus, B.J. 1.338; Plutarch, Pyrrh. 22.11). The use of
ἄγω, in the sense of being “led (astray),” recalls 1 Cor 12:2 where believers were
described as once “led (ἤγεσθε) … to mute idols.” For ἁμαρτία, see 1 Tim 2:22–25.
ἐπιθυμίαις ποικίλαις recalls ἐπιθυμίας πολλὰς (1Tim 6:9) and ἐπιθυμίαις καὶ ἡδοναῖς
ποικίλαις (Titus 3:3).

▪ 7 μανθάνω is often used in a positive sense in the pe (1 Tim 2:11; 5:4; 2 Tim 3:14;
Titus 3:14), but a similar negative use (as in here) can also be found in a context
where Paul is also warning against women who might be driven from Christ
by their passion (1Tim 5:11): they learn “to be idlers, going about from house to
house” (1Tim 5:13). In both contexts, the sarcasm is apparent.
ἐπίγνωσις ἀληθείας only appears in the pe (cf. τὴν ἐπίγνωσιν τῆς ἀληθείας, Heb
10:26) in reference to the true gospel (1Tim 2:4; cf. 2 Tim 2:25; Titus 1:1). εἰς ἐπί-
γνωσιν ἀληθείας ἐλθεῖν denotes salvation, as the parallel between σωθῆναι and εἰς
ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας ἐλθεῖν in 1Tim 2:4 suggests. Its use here recalls the end of the
previous unit, where the same phrase appears in reference to the hope that God
would grant the false teachers “repentance that leads to a knowledge of truth”
(μετάνοιαν εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας, 2:25). The optimistic note in 2:25 is dampened
by the pessimistic one here, but the two have to be read together: while these
women may not be able to come to the knowledge of the truth by themselves,
the possibility that God would still grant them (and the false teachers) such
knowledge still stands.

▪ 8 Not mentioned in the ot, the names of Pharaoh’s magicians who opposed
Moses have had a long history (as reflected in the forms of the names them-
selves, see Text-Critical Analysis), though the origin and dating of this tradition
remain unclear. That Paul is alluding to Exod 7:8–13 cannot be doubted, though
Exodus is clearly not the only source at his disposal (cf. Tiňo, 2011: 17–24). One
or both names (also in their Hebrew and Aramaic forms, Yohanan and Mamre,
and variations of such forms; for the origin of these names, see Pietersma 1994:
36–41) survive in a diverse set of traditions (McNamara 1966: 84–93; Gager
1972: 137–140), which include Palestinian Jewish sources of the Second Tem-
ple period (cd 5.17–19), the Jewish pseudepigraphon (Apocryphon of Jannes
and Jambres), first- and second-century ad Greco-Roman writings (Pliny the
Elder, Nat. 30.1.11; Apuleius, Apol. 90; Numenius, quoted in Eusebius, Praep. ev.
9.8.1), and later Rabbinic sources (b. Menaḥ 85a). Most relevant are the appar-
642 2 timothy

ent Greek forms of the names that lie behind the Aramaic transliteration in
Tg. Yer. 1Exod 7:11–12, which may reflect traditions that exist already in the first
century ad (McNamara 1966: 84), though whether this Targum can be dated to
first-century Palestine remains disputed (Grabbe 1979: 393–401; cf. Flesher and
Chilton 2011: 393–394).
Beyond the question of sources is the reason why these names are evoked.
Possibilities include the false teachers’ obsessions with Jewish myths and gene-
alogies (1Tim 1:4; 4:7; 2Tim 4:4; Titus 1:14; 3:9; cf. Spicq, 2.778), the connection
with the devil who works behind the opponents of Moses noted in the Dam-
ascus documents as well as behind the Ephesian false teachers in this letter
(2:26; see the role of “Belial” in cd 5.17–19; Pietersma 1994: 12–24), the eschato-
logical framework shared by both (see Tromp 2007: 218–219), and the claim to
knowledge by these magicians who exhibit the ability to interpret dreams (v. 7;
see Tg. Yer. I Exod 1:15; Flesher and Chilton, 2011: 394). A combination of these
seems likely, especially since the early Christian view of the end of time does
include the rise of false teachers who claim to be able to offer new revelation
and mislead God’s people (Matt 24:15–28; Mark 13:14–23; Luke 21:20–24; 2 Thess
4:1–5).
The use of ἀνθίστημι, which appears twice in this verse, is consistent with its
use in the earlier Paul where it refers to one’s opposition to God (Rom 9:19; 13:2)
and his apostles (Gal 2:11; cf. 2Tim 4:15) as well as to believers who are to oppose
the evil one in the eschatological battle (Eph 6:13).
The description of those who oppose ἡ ἀλήθεια as ἄνθρωποι κατεφθαρμένοι
τὸν νοῦν recalls the similar description of the Ephesian false teachers in 1 Tim
6:5 (see also ἡ καρδία αὐτοῦ τοῦ καταφθεῖραι, 2Chron 26:16). A strict distinction
between καταφθείρω and διαφθείρω cannot be made (cf. φθείρω, 1 Cor 3:17; 15:33;
2 Cor 7:2; 11:3; Eph 4:22; see 1Tim 6:5), and both have been used in eschatological
contexts in the lxx (καταφθείρω: Isa 10:27; 13:5; 24:1; 32:7; Dan 4:14[11], 24 [27];
διαφθείρω: Isa 49:19; Jer 6:28; 15:6; Mic 2:10; Zeph 3:7; Mal 1:14; 2:8; 3:11).
ἀδόκιμοι περὶ τὴν πίστιν serves as a contrast to Timothy, who is called to σεαυ-
τὸν δόκιμον παραστῆσαι τῷ θεῷ (2:15). This phrase also recalls a similar depiction
of the false teachers as πρὸς πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθὸν ἀδόκιμοι (Titus 1:16). In light of
the linguistic and conceptual similarities with Rom 1:28–32, εἰς ἀδόκιμον νοῦν of
Rom 1:28 is also a noteworthy parallel. τὴν πίστιν recalls τῇ ἀληθείᾳ in the pre-
vious clause, as “the faith” is equated with “the truth” in the pe (cf. ἐν πίστει καὶ
ἀληθείᾳ, 1Tim 2:7).

▪ 9 This concluding note evokes previous references as Paul reassures Timothy

(and believers in general) of God’s sovereignty in the midst of challenges from
the false teachers in 2:16 (cf. προκόψουσιν ἐπὶ τὸ χεῖρον, 3:13); there Paul notes
3:1–9 643

that the false teachers would only be able to progress in “ungodliness” (ἀσε-
βεία), but here Paul is asserting that their opposition to the truth will “not” (οὐ)
make much progress.
The use of the α-privative ἄ-νοια also provides a proper conclusion to this
section: their depraved “mind” (τὸν νοῦν, v. 8) can only lead to a “lack of under-
standing” (ἄνοια, LNd §32.51), since they and their followers will never be able
to arrive at the knowledge of truth (v. 7). In the lxx, ἄνοια (Prov 14:8; 22:15; Eccl
11:10) and the related form ἀνόητος (Prov 15:21; 17:28) are used for those who lack
wisdom. Among Hellenistic Jewish writings, both have been used as labels for
those who worship idols (ἄνοια, Wis 25:18; ἀνόητος, Philo, Fug. 123). A connection
with the Jannes and Jambres tradition is possible when the Qumran documents
consider these magicians as lacking in discernment (cd 5.17, citing Deut 32:28;
Lange 1997: 416–417). ἄνοια is not used elsewhere in the pe, but ἀνόητος is used
in Titus 3:3 for the depiction of the former lives of believers.
ἔκδηλος is a nt hapax, but πρόδηλος is used elsewhere in a similar context for
the visibility of the sins of some (1Tim 5:24), though good works can be equally
conspicuous (1Tim 5:25).

Bibliography
Collins, Raymond. F. “How Not to Behave in the Household of God.” ls 35 (2011): 7–31.
Ellis, E. Earle. “Traditions in the Pastoral Epistles.” In Early Jewish and Christian Exege-
sis. Ed. Craig A. Evans and William F. Stinespring, 237–253. Atlanta: Scholars Press,
1987.
Esler, Philip F. “The Sodom Tradition in Romans 12:18–32.” btb 34 (2004): 4–16.
Fee, Gordon D. God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul. Pea-
body, MA: Hendrickson, 1994.
Flesher, Paul V.M., and Bruce Chilton. The Targums: A Critical Introduction. sais 12. Lei-
den: Brill, 2011.
Gager, John G. Moses in Greco-Roman Paganism. sblms 16. Nashville: Abingdon, 1972.
Grabbe, Lester L. “The Jannes/Jambres Tradition in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and its
Date.” jbl 98 (1979): 393–401.
Horsley, G.H.R. “φιλόθεος.” NewDocs 2 (1982): 99.
Lange, Armin. “The Essene Position on Magic and Divination.” In Legal Texts and Legal
Issues. Ed. Moshe Bernstein Kampen and Florentino García, 377–436. stdj 23. Lei-
den: Brill, 1997.
McNamara, Martin. New Testament and Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch. AnBib
27. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1966.
Pao, David W. Colossians and Philemon. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012.
Pietersma, Albert. The Apocryphon of Jannes and Jambres the Magicians: P. Chester
Beatty xvi. Leiden: Brill, 1994.
644 2 timothy

Tiňo, Jozef. “Opiera sa 2Tim 3,8–9 o tradíciu spojenú s Ex 7,8–13?” Studia Biblica Slovaca
3 (2011): 17–24.
Tromp, Johannes. “Jannes and Jambres (2Timothy 3,8–9).” In Moses in Biblical and
Extra-Biblical Traditions. Ed. Axel Graupner and Michael Wolter, 211–226. bzaw 372.
Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 2007.
Watt, Jonathan M. “Diminutive Suffixes in the Greek New Testament: A Cross-Linguistic
Study.” bagl 2 (2013): 29–74.
Wyrick, Jed. “The Vanishing Scriptural Scaffolding of The Book of the Words of Janes and
Jambres and its Kindred Legends.” In Old Testament Pseudepigrapha and the Scrip-
tures. Ed. Eibert Tigchelaar, 231–260. betl 270. Leuven: Peeters, 2014.

5 Theological Analysis
Despite the formal resemblance with the Greco-Roman vice lists, Jewish (and
early Christian) influence on this section is notable in three ways that touch on
theological, ecclesiological, and eschatological concerns. First, the theocentric
focus behind the enumeration of the various vices remains clear. That this list
begins with φίλαυτοι (“lovers of themselves”) and φιλάργυροι (“lovers of money,”
v. 2) and ends with φιλήδονοι (“lovers of pleasure”) and φιλόθεοι (“lovers of God,”
v. 4) is significant given that the individual vices noted in between are man-
ifestations of loving oneself rather than God. Although the influence of the
Ten Commandments behind this list is less obvious than that of 1 Tim 1:8–
11, it is noteworthy that the Ten Commandments ends with the prohibition
against coveting (Exod 20:17; Deut 5:21), which is considered the underlying
cause of the preceding vices/prohibitions (cf. Freedman 2000: 153–158). Covet-
ing is, after all, the act that defines the “lovers of themselves” rather than “lovers
of God” (for the contrast between φίλαυτοι and φιλόθεοι, see Philo, qg 1.60).
The resemblance with (or even dependence on) Rom 1:29–31 also points to
this theocentricity, especially in the conceptual parallel between ἀχάριστοι (v. 2)
and ὡς θεὸν ἐδόξασαν ἢ ηὐχαρίστησαν (Rom 1:21). Romans 1:29–31 also betrays
an influence from the Ten Commandments (Nebe 2010: 50–87). As ἐπιθυμέω is
used in Exod 20:17 and Deut 5:21 for acts of coveting, Paul also uses this verb
(and its nominal form ἐπιθυμία) in Rom 7:7–8 to illustrate how the law argues
for human impotence. Within this section, ἐπιθυμίαις ποικίλαις (v. 6) may there-
fore also evoke this tradition, as being led by “various desires” reflects the failure
or refusal to worship God alone.
Second, considering how these virtues in this section are presented as a way
to build up the community of God’s people, rather than to cultivate virtues
within an individual (cf. Collins 2011: 7–31), the functional parallel with ot vice
lists becomes immediately apparent. These vice lists are given partly to provide
order within the community of God’s people (Deut 27–28; Ezek 18:5–17; Hos
3:1–9 645

4:2), especially when these and subsequent enumerations of vices are drawn
from the paradigmatic Ten Commandments (Wis 14:22–31; thus also Rom 1:18–
32; McEleney 1974: 217). The interpersonal nature of the vices listed in vv. 2–4
can thus be understood within such ecclesiological concerns.
Third, with ἐν ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις (v. 1), the eschatological framework of this
section demands further attention. Eschatological concerns emerge in a num-
ber of Hellenistic Jewish (1 En. 91.5–7; Sib. Or. 2.253–297) and Pauline (Rom
1:18; 1Cor 6:10; Gal 5:21) lists. Moreover, in the early Christian discussion of the
messianic woes of the end times, individual vices are correlated with the rise
of false prophets (Matt 24:15–28; Mark 13:14–23; Luke 21:20–24; 2 Thess 4:1–5).
These concerns allow Paul to locate the more specific criticisms against the
false teachers in vv. 6–9 in the general characterization of the ungodly in vv. 1–
5, since the false teachers now represent those who oppose God “in the last
days” (v. 1).
Moving beyond concerns with traditional theological categories, the por-
trayal of men and women in this section deserves further attention. Here, it is
often claimed that the readers “once again find a polemic specifically directed
against women” (Wagener 2012: 844). Without aiming at exonerating this Paul,
a few brief comments may provide a framework for evaluating the statements
made in this section. First, the historical context of the Christian communi-
ties in first-century Ephesus needs to be noted, especially with the probability
that the false teachings are affecting a significant number of women (see 1 Tim
2:8–15). The polemic implied in the use of γυναικάριον of v. 6 may be directed
not only to those misled but also to those who may, in turn, be responsible for
spreading these teachings.
With the use of αἰχμαλωτίζω (“to take captive,” v. 6), the gendered rhetoric of
military conquest also needs to be considered, and the acts of men and women
should both be evaluated within such an ideological framework. While tak-
ing women captive can be an expression of manly virtues in such a context,
especially in the early Roman imperial period (see, for example, Virgil, Aen.
6.851–853; Res gest. Divi Aug. 14.6; Stewart 2017: 43–44), to “creep into [their]
households” (v. 6) may imply violent sexual acts (see comments above) that
are considered vices even for soldiers (cf. Livy, 1.13.1–2; 25.31.8–9; 37.32.12–13;
Vikman 2005: 27–29; for the general predicament of women during military
campaigns, see Homer, Il. 1.29–31; Herodotus, Hist. 8.32–33; Virgil, Aen. 3.320–
324; Reeder 2015: 76).
While criticizing the male false teachers for acting inappropriately within
this “warfare,” the use of the term γυναικάριον becomes understandable as
women become victims of their predators. A mild negative sense of this term
(thus “weak women”) cannot be denied because Paul is accusing both the male
646 2 timothy

false teachers and their female followers of opposing “the truth” (v. 8). The
depiction of these women as “heaped with sins and led by various desires” (v. 6)
is no different from Paul’s criticism of the wealthy (male and female) benefac-
tors who may be controlled by the “many senseless and harmful desires” (1 Tim
6:9); in fact, these similarities may further suggest that Paul had in mind the
same group of (female) benefactors who are now spreading false teachings.
Finally, the further note on these women as “always learning but never able
to arrive at the knowledge of the truth” (v. 7) may merely reflect the social reality
of the first-century Roman world where opportunities were limited for women
(cf. Johnson, 412; see also Hemelrijk 2015: 305–320). Nevertheless, in this con-
text, “learning” and “knowledge” do not refer to general issues of literacy but
to the submission to the gospel that Paul preaches. That this is not primarily
a gendered label is reflected by the fact that the criticism of the lack of the
“knowledge of the truth” (ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας) is applied to the (presumably
male) false teachers in 2:25.

Bibliography
Freedman, David Noel. The Nine Commandments. abrl. New York: Doubleday, 2000.
Harrill, J. Albert. “The Vice of Slave Dealers in Greco-Roman Society: The Use of a Topos
in 1Timothy 1:10.” jbl 118 (1999): 97–122.
Hemelrijk, Emily A. “The Education of Women in Ancient Rome.” In A Companion to
Ancient Education. Ed. W. Martin Bloomer, 305–320. West Sussex, UK: Wiley, 2015.
Ivarsson, Fredrik. “Vice Lists and Deviant Masculinity: The Rhetorical Function of
1Corinthians 5:10–11 and 6:9–10.” In Mapping Gender in Ancient Religious Discourses.
Ed. Todd Penner and Caroline Vander Stichele, 163–184. BibInt 84. Leiden: Brill, 2007.
McEleney, Neil J. “The Vice Lists of the Pastoral Epistles.” cbq 36 (1974): 203–219.
Nebe, Gottfried. “The Decalogue in Paul, Especially in his Letter to the Romans.” In
The Decalogue in Jewish and Christian Tradition. Ed. Yair Hoffman and Henning
G. Reventlow, 50–87. Trans. Inge Bornemann. lots 509. London: T & T Clark, 2010.
Reeder, Caryn A. “Gender, War, and Josephus.” jsj 46 (2015): 65–85.
Stewart, Michael Edward. The Soldier’s Life: Martial Virtues and Manly Romanitas in the
Early Byzantine Empire. Leeds: Kismet, 2017.
Vikman, Elisabeth, “Ancient Origins: Sexual Violence in Warfare, Part i.” Anthropology
and Medicine 12 (2005): 21–31.
Wagener, Ulrike. “Pastoral Epistles: A Tamed Paul—Domesticated Women.” In Femi-
nist Biblical Interpretation. Ed. Luise Schottroff and Marie-Theres Wacker, 830–847.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012.
3:10–17 647

B Godly Living Grounded in the Truth (3:10–17)

1 Translation
10 Now you have followed my teaching, my way of life, my purpose, my faith, my
patience, my love, my endurance, 11 my persecutions and sufferings that hap-
pened to me in Antioch, Iconium, and Lystra. What persecutions I endured!
And the Lord delivered me from them all. 12 Indeed, all who wish to live a
godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted. 13 But evil people and sorcerers will
progress11 from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. 14 But as for you,
continue in what you have learned and gave pledge to, because you know from
whom you learned it, 15 and how from infancy you have known the sacred writ-
ings that are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
16 Every Scripture is God-breathed and is profitable for teaching, for reproof,
for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may
be competent, fully equipped for every good work.

2 Text-Critical Analysis
▪ 10 παρηκολούθησας: This aorist verb is replaced by the perfect παρηκολούθηκας
in Codex Claromontanus (D) followed by the majority of late Byzantine uncials
(K L P Ψ) and minuscules (81 104 1241 1505 1739 1881 pm 𝔐). The general lack of
perfect verbs in the pe as well as the support of the early Alexandrian uncials (‫א‬
A C) argue for the originality of παρηκολούθησας. This change is likely caused by
an orthographical error with the confusion of the letters Ϲ and Κ (Elliott, 152).

▪ 10 τῇ ἀγάπῃ: This is omitted in Codex Alexandrinus (A), followed by a few

minuscules (103 1926), likely yet another example of a number of careless mis-
takes in this uncial (see 1:9 above). Some consider this a case of homoeoteleu-
ton (Marshall, 782), though this would have been a valid example only if the
following phrase (τῇ ὑπομονῇ) were omitted instead.

▪ 11 ἐγένετο: This singular verb is replaced by the plural ἐγένοντο in Codex

Alexandrinus (A), followed by a number of Byzantine witnesses (K 81 614 629
1881 pc). Although the change to a singular verb for a neuter subject may be
an example of Atticistic correction, the external evidence that represents the
earliest witnesses of diverse textual traditions (‫ א‬C D F G Ψ 33 1739 1881 pm 𝔐)
clearly favors the singular. This may yet be another example of unintentional
errors in the Codex Alexandrinus (see 1:9 above).

11 The use of this positive term in a negative way points to its ironic use in this context, see
Grammatical Analysis.
648 2 timothy

▪ 11 ἐν Ἀντιοχείᾳ: After this phrase, a marginal gloss is inserted in a number of

late witnesses (Kmg [181mg] [syrhmg]): τοῦτ’ ἔστιν ἃ διὰ τὴν Θέκλαν πέπονθεν ἐξ
Ἰουδαίων πιστεύσασι εἰς Χριστόν. This reflects the influence of the Acts of Paul
and Thecla in the textual traditions (ch. 7, 10), as reflected also in the insertion
to eleventh-century minuscule 181 in 2Tim 4:13. Even without this gloss, some
have seen a connection between 2Tim 3:10–11 and the traditions behind Acts
of Paul and Thecla (MacDonald 1983: 61). See Introduction.

▪ 12 εὐσεβῶς ζῆν: The order is inverted (ζῆν εὐσεβῶς) in two of the best Alexan-
drian uncials (‫ א‬A; cf. 1739), followed by a number of late Byzantine witnesses
(P 33 104 365 1505), and is adopted by Tischendorf, Westcott-Hort, and more
recently Kilpatrick (13) and sblgnt. The na reading is, however, supported by
a more diverse group of witnesses that includes an early Alexandrian uncial (C)
and the majority of the Western (D F G lat[t]) and Byzantine (K L Ψ 81 1241 1881
pm 𝔐) witnesses. Moreover, in this work, the adverb almost always precedes
the noun (1:17; 2:5, 18: 3:7, 4:6, 8; cf. 4:2), and this internal consideration should
tip the scale in favor of εὐσεβῶς ζῆν (Elliott, 154).

▪ 14 τίνων: This plural is changed to the singular τίνος by the ninth-century third
corrector of Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (C3), selected Western witnesses (D
lat), and the majority of the Byzantine uncials (K L Ψ) and minuscules (104 365
630 1241 pm 𝔐). This change is likely a later attempt to draw attention to Paul
himself as the main teacher of Timothy (cf. vv. 10–11; Lock, xxxvii), but the rest
of this sentence makes it clear that Paul also had others in mind, especially Tim-
othy’s grandmother Lois and mother Eunice (cf. 1:5). The plural also receives
support from the earliest Alexandrian uncials (‫ א‬A C*) as well as a number of
Western witnesses (F G b d Ambst).

▪ 15 τὰ ἱερὰ γράμματα: The article τά is omitted in the notable Codex Sinaiti-

cus (‫)א‬, the second corrector of Codex Ephraemi Syri Rescriptus (C2vid), and
the Western uncials (D* F G), followed by the critical editions of Tischendorf,
Westcott-Hort, and sblgnt. Internal considerations also support its omission
since it is more likely for a scribe to insert the article to specify the definitive col-
lection of sacred Scriptures, especially when possibly influenced by the τά that
begins the next clause (Bernard, 128). Its absence is also attested in Hellenistic
Jewish writings (Josephus, A.J. 16.168) and should be considered the case here.

▪ 16 καὶ ὠφέλιμος: καί is omitted in a number of early versions (it vgcl syp bo) and
Fathers (Ambst Orlat), thus allowing for the possibility of taking ὠφέλιμος as
attributive rather than predicative (assuming θεόπνευστος is also an attributive;
3:10–17 649

cf. Moule, Idiom, 95). The omission may have been prompted by an attempt to
improve the style by the use of asyndeton in a list of words or phrases (cf. Titus
1:16), as in the material that follows.

▪ 16 ἐλεγμόν: Codex Claromontanus (D), followed by many Byzantine witnesses

(K L P Ψ 69 76 630 1241 1505 pm 𝔐), read ἔλεγχον instead, but the Alexandrian
uncials (‫ א‬A C; cf. I 1739) together with the rest of the Western uncials (F G)
support ἐλεγμόν. Neither noun appears elsewhere in the Pauline corpus, but
the verbal form of ἔλεγχον (ἐλέγχω) appears often in the pe (1 Tim 5:20; 2 Tim
4:2; Titus 1:9, 13; 2:15), and the change to ἔλεγχον may have been influenced by
these usages. It is not impossible, however, that the change originated from a
confusion of letters, from to M to X.

▪ 17 ἄρτιος: Codex Claromontanus (D) reads τέλειος instead (cf. Vulgate’s per-
fectus), possibly to replace the hapax ἄρτιος with a more common Pauline term
(Rom 12:2; 1Cor 13:10; 14:20; Eph 4:13; Phil 3:14; Col 1:28). Elliott’s (156) suggestion
that this is an assimilation to James 3:2 is unlikely. The minuscule 104 further
includes the marginal gloss, ὑγιὴς τέλειος.12

Bibliography
MacDonald, Dennis Ronald. The Legend and the Apostle: The Battle for Paul in Story and
Canon. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1983.

3 Grammatical Analysis
After providing direct criticisms against the false teachers and those who fol-
low them, Paul now returns to a positive call for Timothy to continue to be
faithful in his own teaching and living. This shift of attention to Timothy is
clearly marked by σὺ δέ (v. 10) followed by a series of second-person singular
verbs (παρηκολούθησάς, v. 10; μένε, v. 14; ἔμαθες, v. 14; ἐπιστώθης, v. 14; ἔμαθες,
v. 14; οἶδας, v. 15), and this focus on Timothy is accompanied by an emphasis
on Paul’s own investment in issuing this charge, as reflected in the return of
the first-personal singular verb in v. 11 (ὑπήνεγκα), used for the first time since
2:10. The first-person personal pronoun μου modifies the list of nouns that fol-
lows and describes what Paul had exemplified in words and deeds (vv. 10–11).
This note on the need for Timothy to learn from the life and teachings of Paul
provides a strong connection with 2:14–26, before Paul’s direct address of the
false teachers in 3:1–9.

12 This variant that appears in na27 is no longer noted in na28.

650 2 timothy

The end of this unit is, however, disputed. With the reappearance of σὺ δέ in
v. 14, some have divided this unit into two separate sections, vv. 10–13 and 14–17
(Scott, 123–128). While σὺ δέ does indeed signal a break in v. 10, its appearance in
v. 14 takes on a different function: with v. 13 containing a short digression on the
false teachers, σὺ δέ in v. 14 aims at redirecting the attention back to Timothy,
the subject of this entire unit (thus Van Neste, 179; contra Quinn and Wacker,
738).
Others have argued for an ending of this unit in 4:8 (Dibelius and Conzel-
mann, 118; Hanson, 148). But this unit focuses on what Timothy has learned in
his past, including from the life and ministry of Paul (vv. 10–12) and the Scrip-
ture that his mother and grandmother had taught him (vv. 14–17), while the
next unit has a decidedly eschatological emphasis with the return of the Lord
Jesus providing the framework (4:1, 8b) within which the final period of Paul’s
ministry (4:6–8a) serves as the continued encouragement for Timothy (4:2–5).
Therefore, while it is not impossible to group this unit with the next, the dis-
tinctiveness of 3:10–17 remains.
The cohesion of this unit provides a further argument for its delineation.
This is primarily achieved by the parallelism between this unit and the previ-
ous, as Paul moves from the negative warnings to the positive encouragements:

Concerning the false teachers Concerning Timothy

Vices to be Avoided (3:1–4) Virtues to be Imitated (3:10–11)

Godliness (εὐσέβεια) without Power (3:5) Godly (εὐσεβῶς) Lives Despite Perse-
cution (3:12)
Deceivers such as Jannes and Jambres (3:6–8) Evil People and Deceivers (3:13)
Women Failing to Arrive at the Truth (3:7) Women Teaching the Truth in Scrip-
ture (3:14–17)
Foolishness (3:9) Wisdom (3:15)

Taken by itself, this unit appears to string together various statements on

unrelated topics. Reading in light of Paul’s criticism against the false teachers
and their followers in the previous unit, however, the inner logic of this unit
becomes evident.
This unit begins with two personal pronouns (σύ [within the σὺ δέ construc-
tion], μου) that set the stage for Paul’s exhortation to Timothy, with the verb
παρηκολούθησάς taking on an asyndetic list of nouns (vv. 10–11a) as its objects,
followed by a clause introduced by the correlative pronoun (οἷά, v. 11b) that
3:10–17 651

connects it back to the last two items on the list that precedes (τοῖς διωγμοῖς,
τοῖς παθήμασιν, v. 11a). The next clause contains an exclamation (οἵους) which
repeats the fact of Paul’s persecution as it paves the way for the next clause
(connected by the conjunction καί) that makes note of his deliverance by the
Lord.
Introduced by an adverbial καί and the developmental δέ, the next clause
makes a general statement (with present and future verbs) concerning the per-
secution that will be experienced by those leading a godly life (v. 12). Another
developmental δέ introduces a shift from the godly to the evil men and de-
ceivers within a clause that depicts their moral and spiritual deterioration
(v. 13).
The second σὺ δέ of the unit shifts the attention back to Timothy with an
imperatival clause calling him to remain (μένε, v. 14a) in that which he had
learned. The basis of this call is provided by the participial clause (εἰδώς, v. 14b)
that introduces two facts that Timothy knew: from whom (παρὰ τίνων) he has
learned the truth, and that (ὅτι) from youth he had known the Scripture (τὰ …
γράμματα, v. 15). With an attributive participle (τὰ δυνάμενα) modifying Scrip-
ture (τὰ … γράμματα), the power of this Scripture is presented (v. 15b). A new
independent clause that follows provides further characterization to “every
Scripture” (πᾶσα γραφή, v. 16) as being inspired and useful, with the ἵνα clause
denoting the result of its usefulness (v. 17).

▪ 10 Σὺ δὲ παρηκολούθησάς μου τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ, τῇ ἀγωγῇ, τῇ προθέσει, τῇ πίστει, τῇ

μακροθυμίᾳ, τῇ ἀγάπῃ, τῇ ὑπομονῇ. With σὺ δέ (cf. 3:14; 4:5), attention is shifted
from the false teachers back to Timothy, with δέ marking a new development
in Paul’s argument and the second-person personal pronoun σύ providing the
continuation of Paul’s previous direct and emphatic address to Timothy in
2:1 (σὺ οὖν). The aorist indicative παρηκολούθησάς grammaticalizes perfective
aspect with the view of Timothy’s imitation of the whole of Paul’s life and teach-
ing, though it does not necessarily limit this act to the temporal past.
What follows is a long list of nouns, all modified by the first-person personal
pronoun μου. The presence of the two personal pronouns in close proximity
points to the importance of the relationship between Paul and Timothy as
the basis for his strategy in combatting the false teachings. The article that
appears before each of these nouns in the list has been understood as a deic-
tic article that points to objects in close proximity to the author (Perkins, 213,
with reference to Smyth, Greek Grammar, §1120c) or as a marker to empha-
size the individuality of each of these items in the sense that “Timothy has
followed Paul in each of these individual areas” (Heckert, Discourse, 84). With
the use of the first-person personal pronoun μου, however, it is clear that this
652 2 timothy

virtue list distinguishes itself from the other similar (virtue or vice) lists in that
it does not depict general acts or qualities, but specific acts performed by one
particular individual, in this case Paul himself. If so, without denying its deictic
and individualizing functions, this article performs its most common function
in marking an object that is known to the individual (cf. Smyth, Greek Gram-
mar, §1118) because it is performed by an individual in an act of imitating the
other.
The first two, διδασκαλία (“teaching”) and ἀγωγή (“way of life”), form a nat-
ural pair as general terms for the words and deeds of a person. πρόθεσις (“pur-
pose”) points to Paul’s participation in the divine plan, while the mentioning
of μακροθυμία (“patience”) and ὑπομονή (“endurance”) in the midst of πίστις
(“faith”) and ἀγάπη (“love”) can be understood as a variation of the Pauline triad
(“faith,” “love,” and “hope”) that is modified for this particular context (see His-
torical Analysis).

▪ 11 τοῖς διωγμοῖς, τοῖς παθήμασιν, οἷά μοι ἐγένετο ἐν Ἀντιοχείᾳ, ἐν Ἰκονίῳ, ἐν

Λύστροις. The final two nouns on the list (τοῖς διωγμοῖς, τοῖς παθήμασιν) are
plural and depart from the previous singular ones in providing the contexts
in which the virtues noted are to be practiced. Taken together, διωγμός and
πάθημα can be considered a “repetitive doublet” (Moore, Doublets, 56), and the
fact that only διωγμός is repeated later within the clause οἵους διωγμοὺς ὑπή-
νεγκα may confirm this reading. Moreover, in Paul, διωγμός is often followed
by another word that provides further characterization to it (cf. ἐν διωγμοῖς
καὶ στενοχωρίαις, 2Cor 12:10; πᾶσιν τοῖς διωγμοῖς ὑμῶν καὶ ταῖς θλίψεσιν, 2 Thess
1:4).
The correlative pronoun οἷά connects the final two nouns of the list (τοῖς
διωγμοῖς, τοῖς παθήμασιν) to particular incidents during the ministry of Paul. It
can function as a marker of exclamation (as it does in the clause that follows,
cf. Fiore, 169) or of an indirect question (Robertson, Grammar, 731), but here it
appears to retain its function as a correlative pronoun (cf. bdf § 304).

▪ οἵους διωγμοὺς ὑπήνεγκα καὶ ἐκ πάντων με ἐρρύσατο ὁ κύριος. The second use
of the correlative pronoun οἷος here (οἵους) is best taken as a marker of excla-
mation (Turner, Syntax, 50), as suggested by the repetition of the word διωγμός
(Marshall, 785; contra Mounce, 558–559). What follows are two clauses high-
lighting both human perseverance and divine deliverance.
The καί that connects the two clauses has been taken in an adverbial sense
(Heckert, Discourse, 88), but the conjunctive use fits the context better as it
supplements the previous note on Paul’s own work with that of God himself.
Within this general exclamatory note, this conjunction also carries an ascensive
3:10–17 653

sense. An adversative sense (“yet,” Kelly, 199) is, however, neither contained in
this conjunction nor required by its context since human endurance and divine
deliverance are not contrastive ideas.

▪ 12 καὶ πάντες δὲ οἱ θέλοντες εὐσεβῶς ζῆν ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ διωχθήσονται. This and
the next clause both contain a future indicative verb as they contrast the fate
of the godly with those of the evil people and deceivers, and both are intro-
duced by the postpositive conjunction δέ. The functions of this conjunction in
these clauses differ, however. In the first, δέ marks the development of both of
these clauses from the prior statement in v. 11, διωγμοὺς ὑπήνεγκα; in the second
clause in v. 13, δέ marks the development from this statement in v. 12 and carries
a contrastive sense due the content of these two clauses.
Within this structure, the καί takes on an adverbial sense as Paul moves from
his own experience to the general (πάντες) experience of those who remain
faithful to the gospel. In such a process of generalization, this adverbial καί
marks this clause with prominence as Paul draws a conclusion from the induc-
tive paradigm built on his own experience.
The plural πάντες with the plural substantival participle οἱ θέλοντες articu-
lates a general class and, as such, is comparable in function with the singular
πᾶς ὁ θέλων (thus Johnston 2004: 94). The use of the plural here, however, has a
distributive sense with individual persons in view, as does the plural πονηροὶ …
ἄνθρωποι καὶ γόητες that follows in the next clause. Instead of οἱ ζῶντες εὐσεβῶς,
οἱ θέλοντες εὐσεβῶς ζῆν emphasizes the conviction to lead such a godly life (cf.
Winer, Grammar, 787). The present participle, together with its present com-
plementary infinitive ζῆν, grammaticalizes imperfective aspect as appropriate
in view of the general open-ended process, in contrast to the future indicative
διωχθήσονται that depicts an anticipated state of affairs.
The prepositional phrase ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ modifies the infinitive ζῆν (Knight,
441) rather than the preceding adverb εὐσεβῶς (Mounce, 560) since (1) a prepo-
sitional phrase never modifies an adverb elsewhere in the pe; (2) the εὐσεβ-
word group is often defined in christological terms in the pe (see 1 Tim 3:16),
thus arguing for parallelism between these two adverbial modifiers here; and
(3) a similar structure in Titus 2:12 also argues for this locative reading that
defines the realm in which the godly lives: εὐσεβῶς ζήσωμεν ἐν τῷ νῦν αἰῶνι.

▪ 13 πονηροὶ δὲ ἄνθρωποι καὶ γόητες προκόψουσιν ἐπὶ τὸ χεῖρον πλανῶντες καὶ πλα-
νώμενοι. With yet another developmental δέ, Paul now provides the contrast
between the godly and the evil ones. πονηροὶ … ἄνθρωποι (“evil people”) recalls
those “people” (ἄνθρωποι) in vv. 2, 8 above, while γόητες likely also points back
to Jannes and Jambres in v. 8.
654 2 timothy

προκόψουσιν ἐπὶ τὸ χεῖρον should be read together with οὐ προκόψουσιν ἐπὶ

πλεῖον in v. 9, where προκόπτω is followed by a comparative adverb, but the
positive πλεῖον is replaced by the negative χεῖρον, thus easing the apparent
inconsistency: if there is any progress being made by these evil people, it is the
so-called progress (or regress) from bad to worse.
The use of the active and passive forms of πλανάω reveals the impotence of
the false teachers, who are not even aware of their own failure to discern the
truth in their propagation of false teachings.

▪ 14 Σὺ δὲ μένε ἐν οἷς ἔμαθες καὶ ἐπιστώθης. As in v. 10 at the beginning of this unit,

σὺ δέ again shifts the attention from the false teachers back to Timothy. Unlike
v. 10, however, this does not mark the beginning of a new unit; instead, σὺ δέ
marks the return to the exhortation of vv. 10–12 after a brief note on the false
teachers in v. 13.
Being the only imperative of this unit, μένε provides a general command for
Timothy to remain in the true gospel. Nevertheless, within the structure of this
long sentence that extends to the end of v. 15, the syntactic weight is placed
on the dependent clauses introduced by the causal participle εἰδώς where Paul
focuses on the personal and scriptural sources from which Timothy has learned
this gospel. This focus on the foundation of this gospel is reinforced by the final
sentence of this unit, one that explicates the nature and function of Scripture.
All these provide a sufficient response to the false teachers who both deceive
and are deceived (πλανῶντες καὶ πλανώμενοι, v. 13).
ἐν οἷς is a shorthand for ἐν τούτοις ἅ (Abel, Grammaire, § 35e), with οἷς
attracted to the implied antecedent τούτοις. Both ἔμαθες and ἐπιστώθης are
aorist verbs that grammaticalize perfective aspect in viewing the event in total-
ity; pragmatic considerations here dictate that they are to be understood as past
acts.

▪ εἰδὼς παρὰ τίνων ἔμαθες. The perfect participle (εἰδώς) grammaticalizes sta-
tive aspect; as it modifies a present imperative (μένε), it depicts a state that
coincides with the process depicted by the present verb (Porter, Verbal Aspect,
398–400). This participle provides the basis of the call that precedes, and it
introduces two complement clauses (παρὰ τίνων ἔμαθες, and ὅτι …, v. 15), both
depicting the sources from which Timothy had learned. In light of the reference
to Timothy’s childhood in the next clause (ἀπὸ βρέφους, v. 15), the reference
behind τίνων (and its implied antecedent) is likely his grandmother Lois and
mother Eunice (1:5).

▪ 15 καὶ ὅτι ἀπὸ βρέφους ἱερὰ γράμματα οἶδας. The conjunctive καί connects the
two contiguous clauses, and here it introduces the second of the complement
3:10–17 655

clauses. The repetitive perfect verb οἶδα as well as the tedious clause (εἰδώς …
ὅτι ἀπὸ βρέφους [τὰ] ἱερὰ γράμματα οἶδας), instead of the simpler (εἰδώς … ἀπὸ
βρέφους [τὰ] ἱερὰ γράμματα), marks this clause with prominence as Paul points
to the sure foundation of what Timothy had learned. The placement of ἱερὰ
γράμματα before the verb and its further characterization in the clauses that
follow further confirm this impression.
With the phrase ἀπὸ βρέφους, ἀπό carries the meaning of “from the time …
since” (bdag 105). When followed by a marker of life-stage, this use of ἀπό is
comparable to the one in ἀπὸ τῆς παρθενίας αὐτῆς (Luke 2:36). In this context,
ἀπὸ βρέφους should best be understood as “from infancy” rather than “from
childhood” (see Historical Analysis).
ἱερὰ γράμματα refers (primarily) to the ot Scripture, as the use of the more
common term γραφή in the next clause indicates. Only here in the nt is this
non-articular phrase used for Scripture (though γράμμα is used in reference to
the Torah in the pejorative sense in Paul; cf. Rom 2:27, 29; 7:6; 2 Cor 3:6, 7). By
themselves, ἱερόν can be considered as a weaker form of ἅγιον (cf. ogis 56), but
a clear distinction is not always clear when used separately (cf. γραφαῖς ἁγίαις,
Rom 1:2; ἱερὰ γραφαί, 1Clem. 43.1; Connolly 1987: 110).
A temporal reading of the perfect οἶδας is particularly difficult here (cf.
Moule, Idiom, 8, who takes this as a “present” verb, but a “present of past action
still in progress”). Apart from being a marked tense, its function may be com-
pared to τοῦτο … γίνωσκε ὅτι above in 3:1.

▪ τὰ δυνάμενά σε σοφίσαι εἰς σωτηρίαν διὰ πίστεως τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ. With the
attributive participle τὰ δυνάμενά, further characterization is provided for τὰ
ἱερὰ γράμματα. The power of the Scripture is again emphasized by the use of
the δυνα-word group: while the false teachers deny “the power” (τὴν … δύναμιν,
v. 5) of godliness, and while those who follow them were “never able to” (μηδέ-
ποτε … δυνάμενα, v. 7) arrive at the truth, the sacred writings are “able to” (τὰ
δυνάμενα, v. 15) make someone wise unto salvation.
σοφίζω (“to make wise”) appears only here in the Pauline literature (cf. 2 Pet
1:16) and is used here in contrast to the “foolishness” (ἡ … ἄνοια, v. 9) of the false
teachers. The granting of wisdom for the salvation of people is not foreign to
the later Pauline writings (Eph 1:8; Col 1:9, 28).
Within this διὰ πίστεως τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ clause, the use of ἐν + dative
following πίστις may be comparable to διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (Rom 3:22;
Gal 2:16; cf. Phil 3:9) if Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ is understood as an objective genitive,
though the prepositional phrase ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ may place more emphasis on
the realm in which faith operates (thus taking ἐν in a locative sense; cf. Moule,
Idiom, 81) rather than merely the object of this faith. If, however, the subject
656 2 timothy

of πίστις is taken to be Christ Jesus, then in this context this expression would
refer to “the faithfulness of the resurrected Christ on behalf of believers, pick-
ing up a theme developed in 2Tim 2:8–13” (Downs 2012: 145). This reading is,
however, unlikely in light of the close parallel in 1 Tim 3:13 (ἐν πίστει τῇ ἐν Χρι-
στῷ Ἰησοῦ) where Christ Jesus is clearly understood to be the object of one’s
faith.

▪ 16 πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος. This verse contains one of the most frequently
cited clauses concerning the nature and function of Scripture, but it should be
read within Paul’s exhortation to Timothy in response to the challenges of the
false teachings. Instead of being a comprehensive and exhaustive statement,
therefore, this clause highlights the distinct divine source of every Scripture,
and the distinct functions it alone carries. It is both the source and function
of Scripture that distinguishes the foundation of Paul’s gospel from that of the
false teachers.
For the meaning and significance of πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος, four questions
demand attention: (1) whether πᾶσα here carries a collective or distributive
sense; (2) whether θεόπνευστος takes on an active or passive sense; (3) whether
θεόπνευστος should be taken as an attributive or predicative adjective, and (4)
the reference behind γραφή. We will deal with the first three here but will
reserve the final for Historical Analysis below.
(1) On the use of πᾶσα: those who argue for a collective (“all”) reading suggest
that (a) though πᾶς with an anarthrous singular noun usually means “every,” it
can also carry the sense of the whole, thus “all” (Moule, Idiom, 94–95); (b) the
lack of an article does not rule out reading it as “all” when γραφή is understood
as a definite noun with a well-known reference (cf. 1 Pet 2:6; 2 Pet 1:20; Robert-
son, Grammar, 772); (c) understanding “πᾶσα as ‘every’ requires θεόπνευστος,
‘God-breathed,’ to be an attributive adjective” (Mounce, 566; cf. Moule, Idiom,
95); (d) the use of τὰ ἱερὰ γράμματα in v. 15 suggests that γραφή in this verse refers
to Scripture as a whole (Quinn and Wacker, 760); and (e) the rest of the clause,
which lists the functions of Scripture, should best be understood in reference
to the whole of Scripture rather than its individual components (Knight, 445).
While the first two argue for the possibility of an exception to the general
rule, the third is based on the syntax of this verse, and the fourth and fifth on
the context in which this clause is situated. (a) Without denying the possibil-
ity of an exception to the general rule where πᾶς with an anarthrous singular
noun can mean “all,” the weight of the evidence still favors a distributive read-
ing when the article is missing (Smyth, Greek Grammar, § 1174; Wallace, Greek
Grammar, 313). In this context where it follows the plural τὰ ἱερὰ γράμματα
(v. 15), it is doubtful whether this should be considered a collective or technical
3:10–17 657

term (since the anarthrous use appears only here in the pe, and elsewhere in
Paul only within a prepositional phrase [Rom 1:2; 16:26] where the article is not
always expected before the definite noun). If, however, it is to be considered
a “count noun,” then a distributive sense is required unless dictated by com-
pelling contextual reasons (cf. Johnston 2004: 182–183).
(b) Contrary to what is stated above, understanding πᾶσα as “every” does not
dictate θεόπνευστος to be taken as an attributive adjective, especially since Paul
is making an emphatic all-encompassing statement concerning the entirety of
Scripture in view of the nature of its individual components. πᾶς in its distribu-
tive sense does not deny an emphasis on the totality of members within the
named group since “πᾶς before an anarthrous noun means every in the sense
of any; not every individual, like ἕκαστος, but any of you please” (Turner, Syntax,
199).
(c) Contextual considerations also favor a distributive reading. Here, Paul
does not aim at providing a definition of the “whole” Scripture, but he is likely
responding to the selective use of Scripture by the false teachers (Meier 1999:
74). The second part of the clause, which lists the function of Scripture, also
argues for a specific context within which the nature of Scripture is noted.
(d) Most references to γραφή in the nt refer to individual ot passages (see
below); if so, πᾶς with an anarthrous γραφή should best be understood in the
distributive sense.
(2) On the meaning of θεόπνευστος: this nt hapax that is formed by the
words θεός and πνέω can take on an active (“God-breathing”) or passive (“God-
breathed”) meanings (Zerwick, Biblical Greek, § 142). Those who argue for an
active meaning would suggest that Paul himself coined this word that aims
at evoking Gen 2:7 and Ezek 37:1–14 where God is the one breathing life into
his people (Robinson and Wall 2012: 215). Nevertheless, it remains unclear
whether Paul is responsible for coining this term (see Historical Analysis).
A passive reading is to be preferred for this adjective: (a) verbal adjectives
ending in τος usually carry a passive meaning (Robertson, Grammar, 1095–
1097); (b) extra-canonical uses of this term always carry a passive meaning (cf.
sig 695; Horsley 1983: 30), (c) so does the related term ἔπμπνευστος (Winer,
Grammar, 120; see cmrdm 2.A8; Horsley 1983: 29); (d) within the Pauline cor-
pus, the conception of believers being “taught by God” (θεοδίδακτοι, 1 Thess
4:9; cf. Stauffer, 121) provides a parallel to θεόπνευστος, with both verbal adjec-
tives taken in a passive sense; (e) the context in which this verse is situated,
with references to “make wise” and providing “instruction” may evoke a Hel-
lenistic Jewish wisdom context within which the idea of the Scripture/Torah
being God-breathed fits well (see, in particular, Wis 9–10; Caulley 1982: 209–
212).
658 2 timothy

(3) On the syntactic function of θεόπνευστος: some have argued for an attrib-
utive (“every God-breathed Scripture”) instead of a predicative (“every Scrip-
ture is God-breathed”) function since “to a Greek ear the word [γραφή] con-
veyed no idea but that of a ‘writing’; and the adjective ‘inspired’ is attached
to it to guard against possible misunderstanding” (Scott, 127); the καί that fol-
lows then takes on an adverbial sense: “every Scripture that is inspired by God is
also …” (Dibelius and Conzelmann, 118; cf. Weiser, 268). The justification for this
reading fails primarily because τὰ ἱερὰ γράμματα in v. 15 already makes it clear
that the reference behind γραφή is not just any writing, and that this asynde-
tic clause aims primarily to expand on the nature and function of these sacred
writings. Moreover, if the point is to specify the collection of writings the author
is referring to, it would be difficult to explain the choice of θεόπνευστος since this
term was not previously used in reference to the Scripture of Israel (cf. Blan-
chard 2005: 497–515), nor was it used in reference to revered writings in pagan
literature (cf. Murray 1981: 87–100).
Other syntactical and contextual considerations also argue for a predica-
tive reading. Syntactically, one must begin with the foundational study of
R.M. Spence, where he argues for an attributive reading, thus “every kind of
theopneustic writing is also useful” (1897: 564), though he did not provide
any statistical analysis to support his arguments as later commentators (such
as Johnston 2004: 181) had suggested. More than half a century later, it was
J.W. Roberts (1957: 35) who pointed to “twenty-one instances in the nt in which
pas is used to modify a noun which is immediately followed by another adjec-
tive as in 2Tim. 3:16.” The critical flaw of this study, however, is that none of
this appears in an “equative clause,” which is the case in this verse; “in πᾶς +
noun + adjective constructions in equative clauses the πᾶς, being by nature as
definite as the article, implies the article, thus making the adjective(s) follow-
ing the noun outside the implied article-noun group and, therefore, predicate”
(Wallace, Greek Grammar, 314; see also Wallace 1984: 128–167). A helpful paral-
lel to our present verse is 1Tim 4:4 (πᾶν κτίσμα θεοῦ καλόν), where the adjective
is clearly predicative.
Contextual considerations also support this predicative reading. In this con-
text where both the source and the function of Scripture are the focus, the
predicative reading rightly highlights the divine source of Scripture that serves
as the basis of the gospel that Paul preaches. The list of functions therefore
follows naturally. Therefore, instead of taking the καί that follows as an ascen-
sive καί (which is awkward since it does not build on a prior assertion), it is
best to consider it in a “consecutive” sense, thus “every passage of Scripture is
inspired and therefore useful” (Meier 1999: 75, italics his). Moreover, an attribu-
tive reading (“every God-breathed Scripture”) would leave open the possibility
3:10–17 659

that some scriptural passages are not God-breathed, exactly a position that Paul
seeks to combat in this context. A predicate position would therefore establish
a “formal principle” of Scripture (Zerwick, Biblical Greek, § 189), from which its
functions can be enumerated.

▪ καὶ ὠφέλιμος πρὸς διδασκαλίαν, πρὸς ἐλεγμόν, πρὸς ἐπανόρθωσιν, πρὸς παιδείαν
τὴν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ. Introduced by a consecutive καί, this clause with the sec-
ond predicative adjective ὠφέλιμος lists four of the powers of Scripture. The
first (διδασκαλία, “teaching,” LNd §33.224) and the last (παιδεία, “training,” LNd
§ 33.226) belong to the same semantic domain for the positive act of conveying
the gospel truth, while the second (ἐλεγμός, “reproof,” likely an alternative form
of ἐλεγμός within the ἐλέγχω/ἔλεγξις word group; lsj 530–531; LNd § 33.417) and
third (ἐπανόρθωσις, “correction”) items suggest negative means to achieve the
same goal.
This identification with the use of the adjectival τὴν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ marks this
last item with prominence. This articular prepositional phrase identifies the
headterm by locating it within a subset and is deemed necessary likely due
to its presence within this polemic context: unlike the training offered by the
false teachers, the training offered by Scripture would only lead to righteous-
ness.

▪ 17 ἵνα ἄρτιος ᾖ ὁ τοῦ θεοῦ ἄνθρωπος, πρὸς πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθὸν ἐξηρτισμένος. ἵνα has
been taken to indicate the purpose of Scripture being God-breathed (Mounce,
570) or the purpose for which this Scripture is intended to be profitable (Knight,
450), but it is best to take it to express the result of this Scripture being God-
breathed (Kelly, 205) since Paul is not providing an abstract discussion of the
function of Scripture nor is the preparation of the people of God to do good
work the only or primary purpose of God’s revelation in Scripture (see v. 15
that states perhaps one of the more basic purpose of Scripture: σε σοφίσαι εἰς
σωτηρίαν διὰ πίστεως τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ). Therefore, it is not the motivation
of God’s breathing in Scripture but part of its consequences that is at stake in
providing the believers proper responses to the challenges posed by the false
teachers.
The importance of readiness is reinforced by the placement of ἄρτιος and
its cognate in the compound verb ἐξαρτίζω at the beginning and end of this
result clause, but the emphasis is placed on the participle ἐξηρτισμένος with
the use of the compound form (with the prepositional prefix ἐκ), the marked
perfect tense, and the presence of the additional prepositional phrase πρὸς πᾶν
ἔργον ἀγαθὸν. If so, ἄρτιος and ἐξηρτισμένος should not be considered merely as
coordinate statements providing two different results of Scripture being God-
660 2 timothy

breathed (Conzelmann, 118); instead, the two are in an appositional relation-

ship, with the second providing further definition to the first (Scott, 128; Fee,
280).

Bibliography
Blanchard, Yves-Marie. “‘Toute Écriture est inspirée’ (2 Tm 3,16): Les problématiques de
la canonisation et de l’inspiration, avec leurs enjeux respectifs.” rsr 93 (2005): 497–
515.
Caulley, Thomas Scott. “The Idea of ‘Inspiration’ in 2Peter 1:16–21.” Dr.Theol. diss., Uni-
versity of Tübingen, 1982.
Connolly, A.L. “Standing on Scared Ground.” NewDocs 4 (1987): 105–112.
Downs, David J. “Faith(fullness) in Christ Jesus in 2Timothy 3:15.” jbl 131 (2012): 143–160.
Horsley, G.H.R. “Expiation and the Cult of Men.” NewDocs 3 (1983): 20–31.
Johnston, J. William. The Use of Πᾶς in the New Testament. sbg 11. New York: Peter Lang,
2004.
Meier, John P. “The Inspiration of Scripture: But What Counts as Scripture?”Mid-Stream
38 (1999): 71–78.
Murray, Penelope. “Poetic Inspiration in Early Greece.” jhs 101 (1981): 87–100.
Pietersen, Lloyd K. “Magic/Thaumaturgy and the Pastorals.” In Magic in the Biblical
World: From the Rod of Aaron to the Ring of Solomon. Ed. Todd Klutz, 157–167.
JSNTSup 245. London/New York: T & T Clark, 2003.
Roberts, J.W. “Every Scripture Inspired of God.” ResQ 5 (1961): 33–37.
Robinson, Anthony B., and Robert W. Wall. Called to Lead: Paul’s Letters to Timothy for
a New Day. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012.
Spence, R.M. “2Timothy iii. 15, 16.” ExpTim 8 (1897): 563–564.
Stauffer, Ethelbert. “θεοδίδακτος.” tdnt 3 (1965): 121.
Wallace, Daniel B. “The Relation of Adjective to Noun in Anarthrous Constructions in
the New Testament.” NovT 26 (1984): 128–167.

4 Historical Analysis
Diverse literary forms can be identified in this section, which include personal
examples to be followed (for vv. 10–11 as an inductive paradigm, see Donelson,
87, 104–105), the curious historical note of Timothy’s childhood education from
his mother and grandmother (vv. 14–15), as well as an apparent excursus on the
power of the Holy Scripture (vv. 16–17). These become understandable within
this wider context where the false teachings are in view (cf. Häfner 2005: 146–
182; see also the similar context of 1Tim 4:1–16, where the reading of Scripture is
also encouraged). The contrast between the foundation of truth that Timothy
has received and the rejection of the truth by the false teachers becomes the
focus of this section.
3:10–17 661

Reading in light of succession narratives (see Introduction), the movement

from a focus on Paul himself is also noteworthy. Instead of focusing on his own
accomplishment, Paul here notes the suffering he has endured on behalf of the
gospel, thus demonstrating the power of “the Lord” in the midst of such diffi-
culties (v. 11). Moreover, in moving from his own example (in vv. 10–11) to the
influence of Timothy’s mother and grandmother (vv. 14–15) and the founda-
tional significance of the Holy Scripture (vv. 16–17), Paul is grounding Timothy’s
mission on the wider redemptive historical work of God himself. Rather than
merely Paul’s own “child” (cf. 1:2; 2:1), Timothy is now to regard himself as the
“man of God” (ὁ τοῦ θεοῦ ἄνθρωπος, v. 17, which evokes the Moses tradition [Deut
33:1], Martin, 32–34).

▪ 10 παρακολουθέω has been understood primarily as the mental act of learning

and understanding (Scott, 123), but with the long list of nouns that follow, many
of which point to Paul’s life and ministry, it is better to understand it as a refer-
ence to the imitation of Paul’s teaching and pattern of life (cf. Kelly, 198; Barrett,
112). The close connection between teaching and behavior in this letter (e.g.,
πρὸς διδασκαλίαν … πρὸς πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθὸν, 3:17; μακροθυμίᾳ καὶ διδαχῇ, 4:2) would
argue for a wider reference of even the first item on this list (τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ; cf.
τῆς καλῆς διδασκαλίας ᾗ παρηκολούθηκας, 1Tim 4:6), and if so the verb should
not be limited to a mental act (for the similar sense of personal involvement
in the use of παρακολουθέω in Luke 1:3, in reference to the life and teachings of
Jesus, see Moessner 2016: 282).
The placement of διδασκαλία (“teaching”) at the head of this list is not sur-
prising in light of the significance of the διδασκ-word group in the pe in view of
the challenges posed by the false teachers (see 1 Tim 4:13).
ἀγωγή (“way of life”) is a nt hapax and can be considered the head term for
the nouns that follow (Smith, 125). It can carry the sense of a manner of living
(cf. ἀγωγὴν τοῦ βίου, Polybius 31.25.8; cf. 23.5.9; see also ἀγωγὴν τῶν ἐθῶν, Jose-
phus, A.J. 12.10) or a training program (cf. ἀγωγή … καὶ παιδεία, Pseudo-Plutarch,
Mor. 5c). Both are implied here since Paul’s own example becomes an educa-
tion program for Timothy.
πίστις (“faith,” see 1Tim 1:2, 4), here used in reference to one’s personal con-
viction, and ἀγάπη (“love,” see 1Tim 1:5) are familiar in the Pauline traditions
as well as the pe; they characterize that which is lacking in those who are
unfaithful (ἀπιστοῦμεν, 2:13) and who love neither God nor others but them-
selves (φίλαυτοι, 3:2).
In the midst of these general virtues are μακροθυμία (“patience,” see 1 Tim
1:16) and ὑπομονή (“endurance,” see 1Tim 6:11; μακροθυμία and ὑπομονή also
appear together in Col 1:11), virtues that are particularly important during times
662 2 timothy

of persecution and suffering, as noted in the following pair (τοῖς διωγμοῖς, τοῖς
παθήμασιν, v. 11). As the formulation of faith, love, and endurance is familiar
in the pe (cf. τῇ πίστει, τῇ ἀγάπῃ, τῇ ὑπομονῇ, Titus 2:2; πίστιν, ἀγάπην, ὑπομο-
νὴν, 1Tim 6:11), it is possible that πίστις, ἀγάπη, and μακροθυμία/ὑπομονή is yet
another expression of the Pauline triad of faith, love, and hope.

▪ 11 διωγμός (“persecution”) appears only here in the pe but is used once in

Acts in reference to Paul, where it appears in the account of his first mission-
ary journey (Acts 13:50; cf. 8:1); here, it is also used in reference to those cities
that he had visited during that journey (ἐν Ἀντιοχείᾳ, ἐν Ἰκονίῳ, ἐν Λύστροις).
πάθημα (“suffering”) is also used only here in the pe (Rom 7:5; 8:18; 2 Cor 1:5,
6, 7; Gal 5:24; Phil 3:10; Col 1:24), though it is closely tied with Paul’s discus-
sion of suffering in 2:1–13, where he calls Timothy to suffer with him (συγκα-
κοπάθησον 2:3) as he had suffered (κακοπαθῶ, 2:9) to the point of imprison-
ment.
With Timothy being from Lystra (Acts 16:1), he might have had firsthand
knowledge of such persecutions (Smith, 126). If so, this can be taken as an
affirmation of Timothy for his courage to follow Paul despite his knowledge of
such persecutions (Horton, 161). Those who argue for pseudonymous author-
ship of the pe point to this verse as evidence that a copy of Acts is available
to this author (Hanson, 149), although those who would date Acts to the sec-
ond century would argue for the presence of a common tradition (Pervo 2009:
320–321).
Even with the affirmation of Pauline authorship, it is possible to argue for a
dependence on Acts based on Paul’s own awareness of the Lukan writings or
through Luke himself, who is possibly an amanuensis of Paul. First, the absence
of any references to (Pisidian) Antioch, Iconium, or Lystra in any of Paul’s ear-
lier writings may argue for a dependence on Acts (or the author Luke). Second,
Paul appears to have a different way of describing the Roman province of Gala-
tia (cf. Gal 4:13–14) than merely listing cities within it. Third, a first-person
historical recollection of the first missionary journey should include a reference
to Derbe as well (Acts 14:6, 20), but the listing of “Antioch, Iconium, and Lystra”
resembles the Lukan formulation of “Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch” (Acts 14:21),
though in reverse order in line with the historical sequence (cf. Acts Paul 1–
3, that also mentions Antioch, Iconium, and Lystra, but the Antioch noted is
apparently Syrian Antioch). The absence of Derbe may be explained by the
lack of persecution there (Hackett 1852: 199), but it is more likely because of its
relative insignificance: Derbe lies in the remote part of the region of Lycaonia
(for Strabo, Geogr. 12.6.3, Derbe lies at the edge of Cappadocia), probably with-
out a significant Jewish presence. Less likely are the suggestions that Derbe is
3:10–17 663

implied in the phrase ἐκ πάντων (v. 11; Bretenback and Zimmermann 2018: 71)
or that Timothy was only aware of missionary activities in Iconium or Lystra
(Keener 2014: 2319).
The verb for endurance, ὑποφέρω, recalls the noun ὑπομονή (“endurance”)
above in v. 10, both being from the same semantic domain (LNd § 25.175). In
the canonical portions of the lxx, ὑποφέρω is often used for the endurance of
pain that falls on the righteous sufferer (Job 2:10; 15:35; 31:23; Pss 54:13[55:12];
68:8[69:7]), while the context of persecution is more explicit in the later writ-
ings (2Macc 2:27; 3Macc 5:33; 4Macc 14:12; 17:3).
ἐκ πάντων με ἐρρύσατο ὁ κύριος may evoke Ps 33:5 lxx (τὸν κύριον … ἐκ πασῶν
… ἐρρύσατό με) or Ps 33:18 lxx (ὁ κύριος … ἐκ πασῶν τῶν θλίψεων αὐτῶν ἐρρύσατο
αὐτούς, cf. Towner, 575), with ὁ κύριος likely referring to Christ here. Neverthe-
less, the use of ὁ κύριος with ῥύομαι is familiar in the lxx (Josh 22:22; Esth 4:8;
Pss 40:2 [41:1]; 96[97]:10; 2Macc 8:14). In 4:17–18, it is also ὁ κύριος who “deliv-
ered” (ἐρρύσθην) Paul from the lion’s mouth and “will deliver” (ῥύσεταί) him
from every evil deed.

▪ 12 εὐσεβῶς ζῆν ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ is contrasted with ἔχοντες μόρφωσιν εὐσεβείας

in v. 5. That living a “godly” (εὐσέβεια) life is to live “in Christ Jesus” (ἐν Χριστῷ
Ἰησοῦ) is well illustrated by the christological understanding of τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας
μυστήριον in 1Tim 3:16. Human responsibility for this life in Christ Jesus pro-
vides a balance to the divine initiative noted in the phrase κατ’ ἐπαγγελίαν ζωῆς
τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ in 1:1.
The verb διώκω appears three times in the pe (1 Tim 6:11; 2 Tim 2:22), but only
here is it used in reference to acts of persecution (cf. Rom 12:14; 1 Cor 4:12; 15:9;
2 Cor 4:9; Gal 1:13; 4:29; 5:11; 6:12; Phil 3:6), likely to recall the two appearances
of its nominal form (διωγμός) in v. 11. The Greek text of the Ascension of Isaiah
contains a depiction of the persecution of those who lead godly lives, though
possibly a later text influenced by this present verse: ἐδιώκοντο πάντες οἱ εὐσεβῶς
ζῶντες κατὰ θεόν (Ascen. Isa. 3.3). The use of διώκω, with εὐσέβεια as its object,
may also recall 1Tim 6:11, thus reinforcing the point that those who are called to
“pursue” (δίωκε, 1Tim 6:11) godliness will, in turn, be “persecuted” (διωχθήσονται,
2 Tim 3:12).

▪ 13 πονηρός is applied to the “evil suspicions” (ὑπόνοιαι πονηραί) of the false

teachers in 1Tim 6:4. It goes naturally with γόης for those whose intentions are
questionable (cf. Demosthenes, Fals. leg. 109.7). γόητες takes on various shades
of meaning, including “imposters” (Scott, 123), “wizards” (Horton, 162), “sor-
cerers” (Dibelius and Conzelmann, 118), and “charlatans” (Barrett, 113). If the
reference aims at recalling the examples of Jannes and Jambres (v. 8), “wiz-
664 2 timothy

ard” or “sorcerers” would be appropriate even though the γοη-word group does
not usually evoke such a meaning (cf. Pietersen 2003: 157–167). γόης is some-
times mentioned with μάγος (see, especially, Aeschines. Ctes. 137, where γόης
and μάγος are listed as examples of πονηροί; cf. Pseudo-Herodianus, Part. 16).
Paul earlier uses the nominal form of the προκοπ-word group in urging Timo-
thy to show people the “progress” (ἡ προκοπή) he has made in godly living (1 Tim
4:12). In light of the preceding clause concerning the persecution of the godly
(v. 12), προκόψουσιν ἐπὶ τὸ χεῖρον takes on an ironic twist: the apparent progress
that the evil people have made is only the kind of progress for the worse. The
unmasking of that which appears to be the case will only take place with the
return of Christ “who is to judge the living and the dead” (4:1).
πλανάω is used twice for the deceivers who are themselves being deceived.
Being deceived is the state of those who had not experienced the power of the
gospel (cf. πλανώμενοι, Titus 3:3), and those who deceive others are controlled
by the deceiving spirits (πνεύμασιν πλάνοις, 1Tim 4:1).

▪ 14 A similar use of the verb μένω can be found in 1 Tim 2:15; it also appears
in the Johannine writings, which also stem from an Ephesian context, where
believers are called to remain in the word (John 8:31) and teachings (2 John 9)
of Jesus within a polemic against the false teachers (Trebilco, 598).
A verb frequently used in the pe (1Tim 2:11; 5:4, 13; Titus 3:14), μανθάνω
appears only twice in this letter, with the other occurrence in the previous unit
referring to the women who follow the false teachers and are always learning
(μανθάνοντα) but failing to arrive at the truth (v. 7). In contrast, what Timothy
had learned is the sure foundation of truth (vv. 15–17). πιστόω is a nt hapax,
with the passive form carrying the meaning of “be convinced” (bdag, 821) or
“give a pledge” (lsj 1408), the latter of which fits this context well (see Ps 77:8,
37 lxx; Philo, Leg. 3.208; Spec. 2.161; Josephus, B.J. 1.482). Taken together, these
two words convey the following sense: “you learned and gave a pledge to what
you had learned.”
The significance of this passing reference to Timothy’s grandmother Lois
and mother Eunice (1:5) behind τίνων should not be downplayed: in contrast
to the weak women who followed the false teachers as portrayed in the pre-
vious unit (v. 7), Paul now reminds Timothy of the women who had served as
faithful instruments of the knowledge of the truth.

▪ 15 ἀπὸ βρέφους has often been understood in the sense of “since you were
a child” (Dibelius and Conzelmann, 118), which has led to the question of
whether Timothy had received formal education as a Jew given that his mother
married a Greek and thus might not have been an observant Jew. This note
3:10–17 665

has, therefore, been taken not as “biographical but paradigmatic,” and “the
education in Scripture mentioned here suggests a practice to be carried over
from Judaism into the early church” (Fiore, 170). This reading is unnecessary,
however, especially since βρέφος can refer to a newborn in both literary (Dio
Chrysostom, 2 Serv. lib. 10; Euripides, Phoen. 650; Plutarch, Mor. 355b) and non-
literary Greek (bgu 1104; P.Oxy. 1069; M.-M. 117). Philo, for example, makes
distinctions between an “infant” (βρέφος), a “child” (παῖς), a “boy” (ἔφηβος), a
“youth” (μειράκιον), and a “young adult” (νεανίας, Ios. 127).
Conforming to the contemporary uses of βρέφος, all other references of this
term in the lxx (1Macc 1:61; 6:10; 3Macc 5:49; 4Macc 4:25; Sir 19:11) and nt (Luke
2:12, 16; 18:15; Acts 7:19; 1Pet 2:2) are to infants, with two exceptions in the nt
where it is used for the unborn (Luke 1:41, 44; cf. sig 1163; Horsley 1987: 40–42;
see also Plutarch, Mor. 495e). This term, therefore, may not point to the formal
household education that a Jewish child may receive. Horsley (1987:40) further
suggests that the term rarely applies to children older than the age of four; if
so, this would rule out the relevance of the Jewish tradition that stipulates the
teaching of the Torah to a child at five years old (m. ʾAbot 5.21).
Even if it does refer to Timothy’s childhood, it does not deny the possibility
that a Jewish mother can pass on her faith to her child on her own as stipulated
by the Torah, assuming that the Greek father is not himself a God-fearer famil-
iar with the Scripture as well. The teaching of the law to one’s son is, after all,
expected for both mother and father if the fifth commandment is to be under-
stood primarily as a call to sons to obey their parents when they instruct them
according to God’s commandments (reading Lev 19:2–4 and Deut 6:6–7 in light
of Exod 20:12; Deut 5:16; cf. Philo, Legat. 115; Yarbrough 1993: 39–59). Neverthe-
less, the fact that Timothy was not circumcised may argue against his mother
being the formal and primary religious teacher in the household (Meier 1999:
74). In any case, Paul’s focus is on Timothy’s heritage rather than his formal
educational background.
Though [τὰ] ἱερὰ γράμματα is often used in extra-canonical sources for sacred
writings (Herodotus, Hist. 2.106; Plato, Tim. 23e; Philo, Deus 6; Migr. 139; Jose-
phus, A.J. 1.13; C.Ap. 1.228), its use here is unique in the nt. Two reasons for the
adoption of this phrase have often been proposed (cf. Scott, 126): (1) by the use
of γράμματα Paul is comparing Timothy’s early immersion in the Scripture with
the childhood learning of the letters (Quinn and Wacker, 158); and (2) by using
γράμματα Paul emphasizes the holiness of this entire body of literature to its
very details (thus “holy characters,” cf. Josephus, A.J. 3.178).
Other possibilities include (3) a response to the Artemis cult, in which the
magical formula Ἐφέσια γράμματα appears to have been inscribed on statues of
Artemis (Eustathius, Comm. Il. Ody. 19.247; Immendörfer 2017: 112–114); (4) the
666 2 timothy

familiarity of this phrase among a Gentile audience (Collins, 261); (5) a phrase
that carries a subversive tone in the affirmation of the God of Israel as the only
sovereign Lord, since ἱερὰ γράμματα is used elsewhere for imperial ordinances
(Horsley 1983: 64); and (6) the inclusion of an earlier form of the gospel(s) in
this reference to the Scriptures of Israel (Mounce, 564).
The Pauline hapax σοφίζω appears often in the lxx (1 Sam 3:8; 1 Kgs 5:11; Pss
104:22; 118:98; Eccl 2:15; 7:16; Sir 32:4; 37:20; 38:24–25) but is possibly influenced
by two passages in particular. First, the use of this verb for the power of the word
of God within a context that refers to one’s infancy is paralleled by Ps 18:8[19:7]:
ὁ νόμος τοῦ κυρίου ἄμωμος … ἡ μαρτυρία κυρίου πιστή, σοφίζουσα νήπια. Second,
the Scripture’s power of “reproof” (v. 16) that makes a person wise also calls to
mind Prov 16:17: ὁ δὲ φυλάσσων ἐλέγχους σοφισθήσεται. The power of the Law that
makes a person wise is shared among Hellenistic Jewish authors (cf. Josephus,
B.J. 4.103: τοὺς νόμους … τοιούτοις ἐσοφίζετο …).
The connection between wisdom and salvation can be found in the wisdom
literature (cf. Eccl 9:15: διασώσει αὐτὸς τὴν πόλιν ἐν τῇ σοφίᾳ αὐτοῦ). In the later
Pauline writings, one also finds the role of “wisdom” (σοφία) in the “salvation”
(σωτηρία) of God’s people (Eph 1:7–14; cf. Col 1:9–14). For the σωτήρ/σῴζω word
group in the pe, see 1Tim 1:1.

▪ 16 Grammatical and historical concerns intersect in the discussion of the

various parts of this verse. Critical to its understanding is the referent behind
γραφή. Every use of this singular noun in the nt refers to the ot Scripture. What
remains unclear is whether γραφή refers to the entire ot, individual ot pas-
sages, or individual ot books. bdag 206, provides a list of nt passages where
the singular is used “as designation of Scripture as a whole” (Acts 8:32; Rom 4:3;
9:17; 10:11; Gal 4:30; 1Tim 5:18; James 4:5), though most of these references can be
taken to refer to individual ot passages (Johnston 2004: 179). bdag 206, does,
however, list our present verse under “individual scriptural passage,” which
is appropriate especially when πᾶσα is taken in a distributive sense: “every”
Scripture therefore means “every passage of Scripture” (Hanson, 152) or “every
portion of Scripture” (cf. Robertson, Grammar, 772). What can be easily ruled
out is that it refers to “every book in Scripture” (cf. Scott, 127) or “every copy of
Scripture” (Goodrick 1985: 482), since γραφή is never used in the nt to refer to
individual books of Scripture (Kelly, 202) nor is the reliability of biblical manu-
scripts at stake in this section.
Extracanonical uses are not able to settle this debate. The singular is rarely
used in Hellenistic Jewish authors. A reference to γραφὴ ἁγία can be found in
T.Naph. 5.8 for the content of visions rather than writings within the ot. The
singular γραφή appears a few times in Philo, mostly for a document (Legat. 177)
3:10–17 667

or his own work (Somn. 1.1), though it is used for a particular text within the
ot (qe 2.50a). The only clear use for the Scripture can be found within a cita-
tion of Exod 32:16 (Her. 167). For Josephus, the only use of the singular is for
a written work placed within the temple (Josephus, A.J. 3.38), but this is likely
not referring to the Scripture but to writings collected for cultic uses (elsewhere
described as βίβλῳ ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ A.J. 4.303 and τῶν ἀνακειμένων ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ γραμμά-
των, A.J. 5.61; see Thackery, lcl, 242: 337–338).
While most would argue for the ot as the primary referent behind γραφή
here, the gospel (see 1Tim 5:18) and apostolic traditions (1 Cor 15:3–4; 2 Pet 3:15–
16) may have begun to be considered as an extension of the Scriptural corpus.
That this Scripture is said to be able to lead one to salvation (v. 15) has prompted
some to argue for the inclusion of oral traditions (cf. Mounce, 310–311) or even
some of the nt writings (cf. Blanchard 2005: 499–502) within this γραφή. Those
who date the pe to the second century have also suggested that Paul’s own writ-
ings are included as γραφή (Nielsen 1980: 21). This, as has been argued, would
further explain the difference between πᾶσα γραφή and ἱερὰ γράμματα (v. 15),
with ἱερὰ γράμματα referring to the ot and πᾶσα γραφή being a more inclusive
term referring to both nt writings (οἷς ἔμαθες καὶ ἐπιστώθης, v. 14) and the ot
(τὰ ἱερὰ γράμματα, v. 15; Swinson 2014: 91–111). If so, this would signal the begin-
ning of the application of the term γραφή to the nt writings. Nevertheless, that
the ot can be considered the foundation of the gospel message is clear in early
Christian proclamation (e.g., Acts 13:16–41; Wieland, 163), which may make it
unnecessary to look beyond the ot for the referent behind γραφή.
Taken in a passive and a predicative sense, θεόπνευστος points to the divine
source of Scripture upon which Paul’s gospel is built. In contemporary litera-
ture, this adjective is never used for the Scriptures, but in Sib. Or. 5.406 it is used
to describe “all (human beings) who have received the breath of God” (πάν-
των θεοπνεύστων), likely a reference to God’s creative act in Gen 2:7. That the
point of emphasis is Scripture’s divine origin is reflected in the later Christian
preservation of the work of Manetho (Frag 2.45), where to argue “against the
inspired Scriptures” ([κατὰ] τῶν θεοπνεύστων γραφῶν) is to argue “against God”
(κατὰ θεοῦ).
The adjective ὠφέλιμος appears three other times in the nt: once in Titus 3:8
within a polemical context where the false teachings are considered “unprof-
itable” (ἀνωφελής, Titus 3:9), and twice in 1Tim 4:8 in a similar polemical con-
text (cf. 1Tim 4:7). Here in 2Timothy 3, the power of Scripture is also contrasted
with the useless false teachings that are void of the power of godliness (v. 5).
διδασκαλία (“teaching,” see v. 10) and παιδεία (“training,” see παιδεύω in 2:25)
represent two word groups that find frequent appearances in the pe. ἐλεγμός,
(“reproof”) and ἐπανόρθωσις (“correction”), both nt hapax, may be conceived as
668 2 timothy

negative means of achieving the same goal as “teaching” and “training.” ἐλεγμός
belongs to the language of the lxx where one finds an explicit remark on how
God uses “reproofs” (ἐλεγμοῖς) to “train” (ἐπαίδευσας) his people (Ps 38:12[39:11]).
ἐπανόρθωσις is a more common word, which is also used by Hellenistic Jewish
authors for the “corrections” provided by God the Lawgiver (Ep. Arist. 130; Philo,
Spec. 4.72). The use of ἐλεγμός and ἐπανόρθωσις as means of training is con-
firmed by 2:25 where παιδεύω is used in the sense of “reproof” and “correction”
when applied to “the opponents.” Moreover, as παιδεύω aims at compelling the
false teachers to the repentance that leads to the knowledge of truth (εἰς ἐπίγνω-
σιν ἀληθείας) in 2:25, here the training (παιδεία) is identified with righteousness
(τὴν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ), a concept often associated with truth (ἀλήθεια, 2 Cor 6:7;
Eph 4:24; 5:9; 6:14; for δικαιοσύνη, see 1Tim 6:11).
The use of δικαιοσύνη again recalls Prov 16:17 (see v. 15), and it provides an ot
context that links the two statements on Scripture (vv. 15, 16) with the constel-
lation of σοφίζω, ἔλεγχος, παιδεία, and δικαιοσύνη. It has been suggested that “it
is hard to imagine a more un-Pauline phrase than ‘training in righteousness’”
(παιδείαν τὴν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ; Hanson, 152). In response: (1) In a polemical context,
Paul may have used language familiar to the false teachers; if so, one should not
expect this expression to be one of the stock phrases in the Pauline repertoire.
(2) The choice of the lexeme παιδεία in this polemical context may evoke Deut
11:2, where the Lord trains up his people in response to his opponents (cf. Quinn
and Wacker, 760–763), a context where one also finds the significance of δικαι-
οσύνη (cf. Deut 9:5–6). If so, Paul may be evoking the language of the Torah in
response to these false teachers. (3) The expression should be read in light of
4:8, where righteousness is considered an eschatological gift granted by God.
This tension is familiar to Paul, and in light of this tension, παιδείαν τὴν ἐν δικαι-
οσύνῃ can be understood as “the training that takes place within righteousness”
(Seifrid 2004: 54).

▪ 17 ἄρτιος is a nt hapax, while its cognate ἐξαρτίζω appears also in Acts 21:5 for
“completion.” With the idea of completion and finality (cf. τελέως ἐξηρτισμένοι,
Josephus, A.J. 3.139), ἐξαρτίζω thus carries the idea of being “fully ready” or “fully
equipped.” It echoes τὸ δὲ τέλος τῆς παραγγελίας of 1 Tim 1:5 in the discussion of
the false teachers (1Tim 1:6–7). In the present context, this presentation of “the
man of God” who can be “competent” and “fully equipped for every good work”
is contrasted with the false teachers and their followers who are “always learn-
ing but never able to arrive at the knowledge of the truth” (v. 7) and who can
only “progress from bad to worse” (v. 13).
ὁ τοῦ θεοῦ ἄνθρωπος can refer to believers in general, but this singular phrase
was applied to Timothy in 1Tim 6:11 and should here be understood as refer-
3:10–17 669

ring primarily to Timothy, who nonetheless represents other Christian leaders.

It stands in contrast to those who oppose the truth in the last days (ἔσονται … οἱ
ἄνθρωποι …, v. 2). Moreover, unlike the “evil people” (πονηροὶ … ἄνθρωποι, v. 13),
those who are faithful to God are fully equipped for “every good work” (πᾶν
ἔργον ἀγαθὸν). The phrase was also used in 2:21 above where those involved in
foolish and ignorant controversies are contrasted with those who are commit-
ted to being vessels for honorable use (1Tim 5:10; Titus 1:16; 3:1).

Bibliography
Blanchard, Yves Marie. “‘Toute Écriture est inspirée’ (2 Tm 3,16): Les problématiques de
la canonization et de l’inspiration, avec leurs enjeux respectifs.” rsr 93 (2005): 497–
515.
Breytenbach, Cilliers, and Christiane Zimmermann. Early Christianity in Lycaonia and
Adjacent Areas. ajec 101. Leiden: Brill, 2018.
Goodrick, Edward W. “Let’s Put 2Timothy 3:16 Back in the Bible.” jets 25 (1982): 479–
487.
Hackett, H.B. A Commentary on the Original Text of the Acts of the Apostles. Boston:
Jewett and Company, 1852.
Häfner, Gerd. “Schriftauslegung und »gesunde Lehre« in den Pastoralbriefen: Von der
Problematik eines spannungsfreien Verhältnisses.” In Die Bedeutung der Exegese für
Theologie und Kirche. Ed. U. Busse, 171–198. qd 215. Freiburg: Herder, 2005.
Horsley, G.H.R. “ἱερὰ βίβλος.” NewDocs 3 (1983): 64.
Horsley, G.H.R. “Tasting Life.” NewDocs 4 (1987): 40–42.
Immendörfer, Michael. Ephesians and Artemis. wunt 2.436. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2017.
Johnston, J. William. The Use of Πᾶς in the New Testament. Studies in Biblical Greek 11.
New York: Peter Lang, 2004
Keener, Craig S. Acts: An Exegetical Commentary, vol. 3. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2014.
Meier, John P. “The Inspiration of Scripture: But What Counts as Scripture?”Mid-Stream
38 (1999): 71–78.
Moessner, David P. “Luke as Tradent and Hermeneut.” NovT 58 (2016): 259–300.
Nielsen, C.M. “Scripture in the Pastoral Epistles.” PRSt 7 (1980): 4–23.
Pervo, Richard I. Acts: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009.
Seifrid, Mark A. “Paul’s Use of Righteousness Language Against Its Hellenistic Back-
ground.” In Justification and Variegated Nomism, Vol. 2. Ed. D.A. Carson, 39–74. Grand
Rapids: Baker, 2004.
Swinson, L. Timothy. What is Scripture? Paul’s Use of Graphe in the Letters to Timothy.
Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2014.
Yarbrough, O. Larry. “Parents and Children in the Jewish Family of Antiquity.” in The
Jewish Family in Antiquity. Ed. Shaye J.D. Cohen, 39–59. bjs 289. Atlanta: Scholars
Press, 1993.
670 2 timothy

5 Theological Analysis
This section contains one of the few explicit statements on Scripture (vv. 15–17)
in the nt and has drawn the attention of many contemporary readers. Despite
the disagreements in the reading of almost every part of the relevant verses, a
near consensus exists that this section does not aim at providing an abstract
and detailed discussion of inspiration or the nature of Scripture. This is in
agreement with the early fathers, who for centuries did not evoke this text in
discussions and disputes on the nature of Scripture (Weiser, 286–297). More-
over, even though modern discussions of canonization necessarily involve the
question of inspiration (Blanchard 2005: 497–515), these two interrelated pro-
cesses are not conflated as reflected in Rabbinic discussions regarding the
Hebrew Bible (Leiman 1976: 127–129).
Any discussion of Paul’s view of Scripture glimpsed from this brief section
needs to begin with its function within this letter. First, this discussion situ-
ates the ministries of Paul and Timothy within the wider redemptive history
by highlighting Scripture’s various functions. Taking the καί in v. 16 as a consec-
utive καί (cf. bdf §440[3], “and so, so”), the focus is on the powers of Scripture
rather than the process from which it came about, a point reinforced by the
lengthy fourfold προ-phrases that follows. Warfield’s translation is thus jus-
tified: “Every Scripture, seeing that it is God-breathed, is as well profitable”
(Warfield, 1948: 134). In the pe, the positive functions of “teaching” (διδασκα-
λία) and “training” (παιδεία) have been applied to the ministries of Paul (1 Tim
4:6; 2Tim 3:10) and his disciples (1Tim 4:16; Titus 2:1, 7, 10; cf. 2 Tim 2:25),
whereas the negative means (ἐλεγμός, “reproof,” and ἐπανόρθωσις, “correction”)
of achieving the same goal represent the underlying purpose of Paul’s polemic
against the false teachers in these letters, as explicitly stated even within this
section (cf. v. 13; Häfner 2005: 176–182). Moreover, Timothy is later called to “do
the work of an evangelist” (4:5), thus embodying the work of Scripture “that are
able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus” (v. 15). Rather
than drawing attention to himself, Paul here situates his and his disciples’ work
within the wider redemptive plan of God as contained in the Scripture.
Second, even with the absence of the term πνεῦμα, the presence of the Spirit
cannot be denied. The use of the rare term θεόπνευστος does not simply draw
attention to the divine source of Scripture as the more common term ἔνθεος
does (see Origen, Princ. 4.1.6, who uses both interchangeably; cf. Goodrick 1982:
485). Rather, the underlying verb πνέω, especially if the term is coined by Paul,
may also link the Scripture with God’s blowing a “breath of life” (πνοὴν ζωῆς)
into human beings (Gen 2:7). The missing link between Genesis and Paul here
can be found in Philo who uses πνεῦμα instead of πνοή in his rendering of Gen
2:7 (ἐνεφύσησε γὰρ εἰς τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ πνεῦμα ζωῆς ὁ θεός, Philo, Leg. 3.161;
3:10–17 671

cf. Herzer 2004: 229). For Paul’s first reader(s), therefore, θεόπνευστος inevitably
evokes the creative act of the Holy Spirit. Within the context of this letter, θεό-
πνευστος may then also recall the references to the Holy Spirit in 1:7 and 1:14,
where the Spirit who works through the Scripture is now at work through Paul
and Timothy, who are to extend God’s salvific work.
To identify the same Spirit as at work behind Scripture and the apostles is
not, however, to elevate the role of Paul here (contra Nielsen 1980: 4). Even with
the note on the Holy Spirit working through the apostles in 1:7 and 1:14, the role
of the apostle is democratized when the second generation of teachers are to
continue the gospel mission. Their mission, however, is not the writing of Scrip-
ture but the preaching of the gospel that is grounded in it.
Third, with a possible allusion to God’s original creative act in Genesis 2, this
eschatological Spirit is also to introduce a new creation. The idea of God breath-
ing life into human beings may further evoke Ezek 37:1–14, which anticipates
the time when God will command “the Spirit” (τῷ πνεύματι) to “come from the
four winds (πνευμάτων) and breathe into these corpses, and they will live” (Ezek
37:9; Robinson and Wall, 215). This concern for the eschatological resurrection
may be relevant, especially against the false teachers who claim that “the resur-
rection has already taken place” (2:18). The wider concern of this and previous
sections also betrays this eschatological emphasis with a three-part pattern: (1)
apostasy in the end time (v. 1); (2) characterization of the apostates (vv. 2–13);
and (3) a call to be faithful to the tradition (vv. 14–17; cf. 2 Pet 1:16–21, Caulley
1982: 206).
While the teaching concerning Scripture within this section is often com-
pared to that of 2Pet 1:20–21, a number of Pauline texts should first be dis-
cussed. Noting the polemical function of this section within the broader dis-
cussion of the apostates, the relevance of 1Tim 4:1–16 is immediately clear, with
references to “the Spirit” (4:1), “the last days” (4:1), “teaching” (4:1, 6, 13), “the
word of God” (4:5), “training” (4:6, 8), “savior/to save” (4:10, 16), and “the pub-
lic reading [of Scripture]” (4:13). As 1Timothy 4 combats “deceitful spirits” and
“demonic teachings” (4:2), this section likewise argues against the false teach-
ings by pointing back to the Holy Spirit who works through the Scripture for
the purpose of right teaching.
Beyond the pe, there are two Pauline passages that provide significant con-
ceptual parallels to this section. The polemical function of vv. 15–16 recalls 1 Cor
2:12–13, a passage that focuses not on the Scripture, but on the work of the Spirit
who provides the right teachings in combatting “words taught by human wis-
dom” (διδακτοῖς ἀνθρωπίνης σοφίας λόγοις, 1Cor 2:13). This is comparable to the
present context where Scripture carries the power to “make you wise for sal-
vation” (v. 15), unlike the false teachings that will lead to nothing but “folly” (ἡ
672 2 timothy

… ἄνοια, v. 9). Similarly, in Rom 15:3–4, “that which was written in former days”
aims at instruction and reproof for the hope of one’s salvation (cf. Rom 4:23–
25).
Outside of Paul, Acts 1:16 depicts “the Scripture” (τὴν γραφὴν) as the product
of “the Holy Spirit” speaking through human beings. Also noteworthy is Heb
4:12, where an allusion to Gen 2:7 is likely in the description of the Word of God
to be “living” (ζῶν; cf. ζῶσαν, Gen 2:7; Goodrick 1982: 485). Finally, 2 Pet 1:21 nat-
urally needs to be noted where prophecies are described as originating from
“men, carried along by the Holy Spirit, spoke from God” (ὑπὸ πνεύματος ἁγίου
φερόμενοι ἐλάλησαν ἀπὸ θεοῦ ἄνθρωποι). Here, the Spirit is explicitly described
as working through human writers, while the Scripture is not directly claimed
to be “God-breathed.” While θεόπνευστος of 2Tim 3:16 might have been coined
by Paul, Peter’s language here (θεός + φέρω) might be derived from θεοφόρητος,
which belongs to the language of “inspiration” in Hellenistic Jewish traditions
(Philo, Deus 138; Her. 265; Congr. 132; Fug. 120; cf. θεοφοροῦμενος, Justin, 1 Apol.
33.9; Bingham 2016: 229). The role of the Holy Spirt is affirmed by both Peter and
Paul, but compared to 2Pet 1:21, the role of Paul, the human agent, is less appar-
ent in 2Tim 3:16; emphasis is placed on the Scripture Timothy had learned from
his grandmother and mother (v. 15; cf. 1:5) rather than on Paul himself and the
apostolic authority that is uniquely bestowed on him.

Bibliography
Bingham, D. Jeffrey. “‘We Have the Prophets’: Inspiration and the Prophets in Athenago-
ras of Athens.” zac 20 (2016): 211–242.
Blanchard, Yves-Marie. “‘Toute Écriture est inspirée’ (2 Tm 3,16): Les problématiques de
la canonisation et de l’inspiration, avec leurs enjeux respectifs.” rsr 93 (2005): 497–
515.
Caulley, Thomas Scott. “The Idea of ‘Inspiration’ in 2Peter 1:16–21.” Dr.Theol. diss., Uni-
versity of Tübingen, 1982.
Goldingay, John. Models for Scripture. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994.
Goodrick, Edward W. “Let’s Put 2Timothy 3:16 Back in the Bible.” jets 25 (1982): 479–
487.
Häfner, Gerd. “Schriftauslegung und »gesunde Lehre« in den Pastoralbriefen: von der
Problematik eines spannungsfreien Verhältnisses.” In Die Bedeutung der Exegese für
Theologie und Kirche, 171–198. Ed. U. Busse. qd 215. Freiburg: Herder, 2005.
Herzer, Jens. “‘Von Gottes Geist durchweht’: Die Inspiration der Schrift nach 2 Tim 3,16
und bei Philo von Alexandrien.” In Philo und das Neue Testament. Ed. Roland Deines
and Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr, 223–240. wunt 172. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004.
House, H. Wayne. “Biblical Inspiration in 2Timothy 3:16.” BSac 137 (1980): 54–63.
Leiman, Shnayer Z. The Canonization of Hebrew Scripture. Hamden, CT: Archon, 1976.
4:1–8 673

Murray, Penelope. “Poetic Inspiration in Early Greece.” jhs 101 (1981): 87–100.
Nielsen, C.M. “Scripture in the Pastoral Epistles.” PRSt 7 (1980): 4–23.
Robinson, Anthony B., and Robert W. Wall. Called to Lead: Paul’s Letters to Timothy for
a New Day. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012.
Warfield, Benjamin Breckinridge. The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible. Ed. Samuel
G. Craig. Phillipsburg, PA: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1948.

C Urgency of Proclamation in view of the Eschatological Judgment

(4:1–8)
1 Translation
1 I charge you before God and Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the
dead, in view of his manifestation, that is,13 his kingdom: 2 proclaim the word,
stay on task whether it is in an opportune time or not; reprove, exhort, rebuke,14
with complete patience in teaching. 3 For there will be a time when people will
not tolerate sound teaching, but, because they have itching ears, they will accu-
mulate teachers for themselves, yielding to their own desires. 4 And they on the
one hand will turn their ears from the truth and will on the other hand wander
away to the myths. 5 But you, be sober in all things, enduring suffering, do the
work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry. 6 For I am now being poured out as
a drink offering, and the time of my departure is coming. 7 I am fighting a good
fight; I am bringing the race to its proper climax; I am keeping the pledge of
faithfulness! 8 The crown that is righteousness is therefore15 reserved for me,
the crown that the Lord, the righteous judge, will award to me on that day, and
not only to me but also to all who are longing for his manifestation.

2 Text-Critical Analysis
▪ 1 διαμαρτύρομαι: Several witnesses (Ψ 1245 1505) inserted οὖν likely to avoid
asyndeton, while the insertion of ἐγώ (326*) may reflect the urgency of the
charge (cf. Deut 32:46; 1 En. 97.11). The two are conflated in the majority of later
Byzantine witnesses (D1 K L 69 131 630 1241 pm 𝔐), most of which also inserted
τοῦ κυρίου before Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (v.l.) later in the verse, likely to underline the
solemnity of this statement (Elliott, 156). The shorter reading without either
οὖν or ἐγώ can best explain the other readings and is supported by the notable
Alexandrian (‫ א‬A C 1739) and Western (D* F G latt) witnesses.

▪ 1 Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ: The order is reversed with the insertion of τοῦ κυρίου before
Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ in the majority of later Byzantine witnesses (D1 K L Ψ 69 131 630

13 This reflects the epexegetical function of καί here.

14 For the word order of “exhort” and “rebuke,” see Text-Critical Analysis.
15 This is to take λοιπόν in a logical (and inferential) sense rather than a temporal one.
674 2 timothy

1241 pm 𝔐). The order Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ is likely original not only because of the
strength of its external support (‫ א‬A C D* F G 33 1739 pc) but also because the
genitive Χριστοῦ often precedes when there is a need to reveal the case of the
phrase (here genitive following ἐνώπιον). The insertion of τοῦ κυρίου is also sec-
ondary (see above).

▪ 1 κρίνειν: This present verb is replaced by the aorist κρῖναι in late Western
uncials (F G) followed by a number of minuscules (6 33 76 424c 81 1881 pc),
perhaps an assimilation to 1Pet 4:5: κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς, which may reflect
an early christological confession (cf. Acts 10:42; 2 Clem. 1:1; Barn. 7:2; Polycarp
Phil. 2:1; cf. Cullmann 1963: 158).

▪ 1 καὶ τὴν ἐπιφάνειαν: Instead of καί, the seventh- to ninth-century correctors

of Codices Sinaiticus (‫א‬2) and Claromontanus (D1),16 followed by the major-
ity Byzantine witnesses (K L P Ψ 81 104 365 1505 1881 pm 𝔐) and selected
versions (vgcl [sy] sa), read κατά instead to clarify the function of the phrase
within the sentence (Bernard, 138; Lock, xxxv). καί is clearly the more diffi-
cult reading, and with support from both significant Alexandrian (‫ *א‬A C;
cf. 1739) and Western (D* F G it vgst.ww) witnesses, it should be considered orig-
inal.

▪ 2 ἐπιτίμησον, παρακάλεσον: The order is inverted in selected Alexandrian (‫*א‬

1739) and Western (F G latt co) witnesses and is accepted by Tischendorf. The
na text also receives strong support from both the Alexandrian (‫א‬c A C) and
Western (D) uncials, followed by the majority of the Byzantine witnesses (Ψ
35 1245 1505 pm 𝔐), and is accepted by Westcott-Hort. Internal considerations
also fail to cast the deciding vote as “thoroughgoing eclectic” critic Elliott (158)
admits, but the closer connection between παρακαλέω and διδάσκω/διδαχή in
the pe (1Tim 6:2; Titus 1:9) may have prompted scribes to make a change from
παρακάλεσον ἐπιτίμησον to ἐπιτίμησον παρακάλεσον in light of the reference to
διδαχή that follows.

▪ 3 τὰς ἰδίας ἐπιθυμίας: Late Byzantine uncials (K L) and minuscules (630 1241
𝔐) have τὰς ἐπιθυμίας τὰς ἐδίας instead. The na reading fits the style of the pe
where the articular ἴδιος always precedes the noun it modifies (1 Tim 3:4, 5, 12;
4:2; 5:4; 6:1; Titus 2:5). This reading also receives stronger external support from
both Alexandrian (‫ א‬A C; cf. 1739) and Western (D F G) witnesses. The change

16 Correcting the listing of D2 in na27, na28 has D1 instead for this variant.
4:1–8 675

to τὰς ἐπιθυμίας τὰς ἐδίας is perhaps intended to draw attention to τὰς ἐπιθυμίας
itself (cf. bdf §270), which is a recurring theme in this work (cf. 2:22; 3:6).

▪ 5 κακοπάθησον: The verb is omitted in the original reading of Codex Sinaiticus

(‫ )*א‬and in part of the Vulgate tradition (vgms), likely a careless mistake as rec-
ognized even by those who would otherwise rely heavily on Codex Sinaiticus
(cf. Tischendorf, Westcott-Hort). The insertion of ὡς καλὸς στρατιώτης Χριστοῦ
Ἰησοῦ after κακοπάθησον in Codex Alexandrinus (A) is apparently an assimila-
tion to 2:3.

▪ 6 ἀναλύσεώς μου: Several Western witnesses (D f t vgst.ww), followed by the

majority of the Byzantine uncials (K L Ψ) and minuscules (35 76 131 1241 1501
pm 𝔐), read ἐμῆς αναλύσεως instead, but the na text is supported by Alexan-
drian tradition (‫ א‬A C; cf. P 1739) as well as selected Western (F G b vgcl Ambst)
and Byzantine (33 81 104 365 630 1175 1881) witnesses. The possessive pronoun
ἐμός appears often in the earlier Pauline Epistles but not in the pe. The change
to ἐμῆς αναλύσεως may be an attempt to improve on the style by avoiding the
Semitic ἀναλύσεώς μου (Elliott, 160), though neither of these exact construc-
tions appears in extant Greek literature prior to 2 Timothy.

▪ 7 τὸν καλὸν ἀγῶνα: Many primarily late Byzantine witnesses (D K L P Ψ 365 630
1241, 1505 1739 1881 𝔐) read τὸν ἀγῶνα τὸν καλὸν instead. τὸν καλὸν ἀγῶνα is con-
sistent with the author’s style since the articular καλός almost always precedes
the noun it modifies (1Tim 1:18; 6:12 [2×], 13; 2Tim 1:14; cf. 1 Tim 5:25). This is
also the reading that receives support from the earliest Alexandrian witnesses
(‫ א‬A C) and is the one that should be preferred (contra Kilpatrick, 14; Elliott,
160).

▪ 8 πᾶσιν: This adjective is omitted in a few mainly Western witnesses (D* 6 424c
1739* 1881 lat syp Ambst), possibly through homoeoteleuton with Τ misread as
Π (καιπασιτοισ; Elliott, 161).

Bibliography
Cullmann, Oscar. The Christology of the New Testament. Trans. S.C. Guthrie and
Ch.A.M. Hall. Rev. ed. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963.

3 Grammatical Analysis
With the asyndetic oath formula διαμαρτύρομαι ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ Χριστοῦ
Ἰησοῦ (4:1), Paul begins a new unit with a direct call to Timothy to carry out
a particular course of action. The connections with the previous unit cannot
676 2 timothy

be denied: in both, Timothy is called to imitate Paul (3:10–11; 4:6–8) instead of

the false teachers (3:13; 4:3–4), and in both, the focus on suffering is prominent
(3:11–12; 4:5). Nevertheless, a break can still be felt in 4:1 with the distinct shift
from the past to the future. In the previous unit, the focus is on how Timothy
had learned from the past ministry of Paul (3:10–12) and the Scripture that his
mother and grandmother had taught him (vv. 14–17); with the note on the final
judgment in 4:1, the focus is now on that which is to come, including the final
phase of Paul’s ministry (4:6–8a).
With the shift in temporal references, one also finds a shift from general
exhortation to urgent direct calls for Timothy to carry out certain tasks. This
is reflected in the shift in verbal pattern, from only one present imperative in
the previous unit (μένε, 3:14) to a series of eight aorist imperatives in the present
unit (κήρυξον, ἐπίστηθι, ἔλεγξον, ἐπιτίμησον, παρακάλεσον, 4:2; κακοπάθησον, ποί-
ησον, πληροφόρησον, 4:5; with one present imperative, νῆφε, 4:5). This shift to
a long series of imperatives is accompanied by a shift from a unit that con-
tains only one first-person singular verb (ὑπήνεγκα, 3:11) to this present unit that
contains five such verbs (διαμαρτύρομαι, 4:1; σπένδομαι, 4:6; ἠγώνισμαι, τετέλεκα,
τετήρηκα, 4:7).
The closing boundary in 4:8 is clearly marked with yet another shift in verbal
pattern, from a series of imperatives in the present unit (vv. 1–8) to one that is
dominated by indicatives in the next (vv. 9–18), where Paul presents his travel
plans and the final stage of his ministry as anticipated by vv. 6–7.
Cohesion of this unit is not often challenged, though some have detected
a break with the return to Paul’s autobiographical comments in vv. 6–8 (and,
therefore, suggest the presence of two units instead, vv. 1–5 and 6–8; Scott, 128;
Fee, 283). First, as in a previous section where Paul’s autobiographical note
(3:10–13) is connected to an exhortation to Timothy (3:14–17), here his auto-
graphical note (vv. 6–8) is also connected to his exhortation to Timothy (vv. 1–
5). Second, the note on Jesus as the eschatological judge at the beginning (v. 1)
and end (v. 8) of this unit provides cohesion for it. Third, if vv. 1–8 is read as a
charge account, then the Pauline paradigm, especially the final note, fits well
within this genre (see Historical Analysis). If vv. 1–5 and 6–8 are considered sep-
arate units, vv. 1–5 would be an incomplete charge, and the function of vv. 6–8
would remain unclear and undefined.
This unit begins with the charge verb διαμαρτύρομαι, which introduces the
five imperatives in v. 2 (κήρυξον, ἐπίστηθι, ἔλεγξον, ἐπιτίμησον, παρακάλεσον), all
modified by the prepositional phrase ἐν πάσῃ μακροθυμίᾳ καὶ διδαχῇ. Syntac-
tically, these imperatives are contained in five independent clauses, but they
function as indirect clauses governed by the main verb διαμαρτύρομαι as they
contain the content of the charge. The basis of this charge is provided by a γάρ-
4:1–8 677

clause followed by a series of temporal clauses introduced by ὅτε, describing

an anticipated period where people will embrace the false teachings (vv. 3–4).
Returning to a direct address to Timothy (σὺ δέ), four imperatival clauses follow
(νῆφε, κακοπάθησον, ποίησον, πληροφόρησον, v. 5).
With a shift to the first-person singular personal pronoun (ἐγώ), an explana-
tory γάρ introduces five independent clauses (σπένδομαι, ἐφέστηκεν, v. 6; ἠγώνι-
σμαι, τετέλεκα, τετήρηκα, v. 7) that depict the final phase of Paul’s ministry. This
unit ends with a clause stating that the crown awaits (ἀπόκειταί, v. 8) Paul, with
a relative clause that identifies the Lord as the eschatological judge who is to
reward this crown (ὃν), followed by two clauses within the οὐ μόνον … ἀλλὰ καί
construction that extend the recipients to all those who eagerly await the final
appearance of this Lord.

▪ 1 Διαμαρτύρομαι ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ μέλλοντος κρίνειν ζῶν-
τας καὶ νεκρούς. With the asyndetic διαμαρτύρομαι that marks the beginning
of a charge with an oath (cf. Wallace, Greek Grammar, 205) followed by the
formulaic ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ (also in 1 Tim 5:21), this opening
highlights the solemnity of this charge. Though often taken as a succession for-
mula (cf. Spicq, 2.798), the appearance of this exact formula already in 1 Tim 5:21
would argue for a more general understanding of this being a charge formula.
τοῦ μέλλοντος κρίνειν ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς can be understood as modifying both
τοῦ θεοῦ and Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ if the two are identified as one. The Granville Sharp’s
rule that could have been used in arguing for such an identification does not
apply here because of the use of personal names (Wallace 2009: 233), unless
Χριστοῦ is taken as a title and separated from Ἰησοῦ. τοῦ μέλλοντος with the com-
plementary infinitive has often been taken “simply as a periphrasis for the fut.”
(bdag 627; cf. Spicq, 2.798), though it is often used in eschatological contexts
as is the case in all the occurrences in the pe (1Tim 1:16; 4:8; 6:19).

▪ καὶ τὴν ἐπιφάνειαν αὐτοῦ καὶ τὴν βασιλείαν αὐτοῦ. While the meaning of these
phrases is clear, their syntactic function within this context is not, especially
with the previous ἐνώπιον + genitive now being followed by two accusatives.
Those who take the two as parallel would consider these accusatives as
accusatives with verbs of swearing (bdf §149), though the awkwardness re-
mains (e.g., “I solemnly charge [you] before God and Christ Jesus … and by
his appearing and by his kingdom,” Mounce, 571). Others take the (implied)
verb διαμαρτύρομαι in the sense of bearing witness (bdag, 233) in this sec-
ond part of the clause, thus “while bearing witness to his revelation and his
kingdom” (Quinn and Wacker, 165). This, however, would mean that the verb
διαμαρτύρομαι takes on a different meaning in the first part of the clause, “I
678 2 timothy

adjure you ….” (Quinn and Wacker, 165), a reading that would be difficult with
one single appearance of the verb understood in two senses within the same
clause.
Another possibility is that Paul inserts an additional phrase that is loosely
attached to this oath formula to clarify the sovereignty of God in the midst
of competing imperial claims (see Historical Analysis). If so, a translation that
would reflect the loose connection with the previous clause would be sufficient
(e.g., “in light of his appearance and his reign,” Moffatt), with the first καί taken
as a marker of addition connecting these phrases with the previous one intro-
duced by ἐνώπιον (thus Heckert, Discourse, 80–81), and the second possibly an
epexegetical και with τὴν βασιλείαν αὐτοῦ further defining τὴν ἐπιφάνειαν αὐτοῦ
(cf. bdf §442 for a case of hendiadys here).

▪ 2 κήρυξον τὸν λόγον, ἐπίστηθι εὐκαίρως ἀκαίρως, ἔλεγξον, παρακάλεσον, ἐπιτί-

μησον, ἐν πάσῃ μακροθυμίᾳ καὶ διδαχῇ. Following διαμαρτύρομαι of the previous
clause, this verse contains an asyndetic series of five aorist imperatives that
provide the content of the charge, though the second imperatival clause stands
out from the rest of the series and should best be considered as related directly
with the first, which serves as the umbrella imperative for the remaining three
imperatives, thus:

κήρυξον τὸν λόγον

ἐπίστηθι εὐκαίρως ἀκαίρως
ἔλεγξον
παρακάλεσον
ἐπιτίμησον

This reading is supported by the following: (1) The fact that ἐπίστηθι stands out
from the rest of the series is reflected in the fact that the other four imperatives
belong to the same semantic domain depicting verbal acts of communication
(κηρύσσω, “to proclaim,” LNd §33.256; ἐλέγχω, “to reprove,” LNd § 33.417; παρα-
καλέω, “to exhort,” LNd §33.168; ἐπιτιμάω, “to rebuke,” LNd § 33.168), while ἐφί-
στημι (“to stand at,” LNd §17.5; or “to continue,” LNd § 68.14) notably deviates
from this pattern. ἐπίστηθι εὐκαίρως ἀκαίρως should, therefore, be understood
as modifying the imperative κήρυξον that precedes (Mounce, 573) or even the
entire groups of imperatives (Horton, 166).
(2) That ἐπίστηθι εὐκαίρως ἀκαίρως may refer to both the preceding imper-
atives and those that follow is possible if κήρυξον τὸν λόγον is understood as
the general heading for the entire charge. This is possible with this imperatival
clause being the only one that includes an explicit object τὸν λόγον, one that
4:1–8 679

refers back to the all-encompassing ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ (2:9). The individual acts of
reproving (ἐλέγχω), rebuking (ἐπιτιμάω), and exhorting (παρακαλέω) are man-
ifestations of the proclamation of the word.
(3) That the final three imperatives are separated from the first two is also
reinforced by the fact that these three are particularly appropriate in a context
where Paul urges Timothy to provide proper responses to the false teachers (see
Historical Analysis).
Pragmatic considerations may argue for the reading of these aorist imper-
atives as “constative” aorists (Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 370) in expressing the
urgency of the requests, but here these aorists take on their expected semantic
force in depicting a concrete event as a whole.
ἐπίστηθι can take on the sense of “be at your post” (Hanson, 153; cf. “stand
by,” Dibelius and Conzelmann, 118) if understood as a military metaphor; with
the absence of the use of such a metaphor in its context, however, “keep at it”
(Kelly, 205) with the emphasis on persistence and staying focused works better
here. The asyndetic phrase εὐκαίρως ἀκαίρως is not unexpected in contrasting
pairs for the sake of emphasis (Winer, Grammar, 653; bdf § 460[1]). The pre-
ceding imperatival clause that ἐπίστηθι εὐκαίρως ἀκαίρως aims at clarifying also
supports this reading: Timothy is to proclaim the word as a herald (cf. κήρυξον),
with his attention on the will of the king that he represents rather than the
audience that he is to address.
ἐν πάσῃ μακροθυμίᾳ καὶ διδαχῇ is best understood in reference to the preced-
ing three imperatives (ἔλεγξον, παρακάλεσον, ἐπιτίμησον), which includes the
opening imperatival clause (κήρυξον τὸν λόγον) if our reading above stands.
With prominence placed on the asyndetic list of imperatives, an elative πάσῃ
fits the context well: with complete patience and teaching. μακροθυμία may
refer to manner and διδαχή method (Guthrie, 166). On the other hand, it could
be taken as a hendiadys (“with all patience in teaching,” Van Neste, 184; cf. bdf
§ 442[16]).

▪ 3 Ἔσται γὰρ καιρὸς ὅτε τῆς ὑγιαινούσης διδασκαλίας οὐκ ἀνέξονται. The con-
junction γάρ here introduces material that strengthens the preceding series of
imperatives. As in the use of the future verbs ἐνστήσονται and ἔσονται in refer-
ence to the last days above (3:1–2), the future ἔσται and ἀνέξονται here are not
merely temporal markers; instead, they point to an anticipated state of affairs
which, in this case, has already begun to be realized. This is a tension familiar
to the Pauline writings: that the eschatological time is now becoming a reality.
The tension between the present and the future is perhaps reflected in the
use of ὅτε which, in literary Greek, is rarely applied to a future event, though
this future usage is not foreign to nt writers (Luke 17:22; John 4:21; 16:25; Abel,
680 2 timothy

Grammaire §68c). The implied subject of the plural ἀνέξονται is likely the same
group of (unnamed) people (οἱ ἄνθρωποι) who are depicted in 3:2–4 above.

▪ ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὰς ἰδίας ἐπιθυμίας ἑαυτοῖς ἐπισωρεύσουσιν διδασκάλους κνηθόμενοι

τὴν ἀκοὴν. The adversative ἀλλά introduces two sets of clauses that serve as
contrasts to the preceding one, the second of which (v. 4) consists of another
pair of clauses within the μὲν … δέ construction. κατὰ τὰς ἰδίας ἐπιθυμίας ἑαυτοῖς
modifies the verb ἐπισωρεύσουσιν: they accumulate those teachings according
to their own desires, rather than the sound teaching (v. 3a).
The present adverbial causal participle κνηθόμενοι grammaticalizes imper-
fective aspect in the depiction of an act contemporaneous to the main verb
(ἐπισωρεύσουσιν) it modifies. Those who are attracted to these teachers aim
only to fulfill their own fleshly desires (with ἐπιθυμία understood in the neg-
ative sense of “lust” and “worldly passion” in the pe; cf. 1 Tim 6:9; 2 Tim 2:22; 3:6;
Titus 2:12; 3:3), and are therefore not able to be receptive to the true gospel that
demands self-control and even suffering (v. 5).

▪ 4 καὶ ἀπὸ μὲν τῆς ἀληθείας τὴν ἀκοὴν ἀποστρέψουσιν, ἐπὶ δὲ τοὺς μύθους ἐκτρα-
πήσονται. The conjunctive καί connects a pair of clauses within the μὲν … δέ
construction with the previous independent clause; all three clauses contain
a future indicative verb, and they are all governed by the preceding adversa-
tive ἀλλά. The placement of a prepositional phrase at the beginning of each
of these clauses marks the polemic against those who oppose the gospel with
prominence, and in all three clauses, the preposition is followed by an articular
phrase:

κατὰ τὰς ἰδίας ἐπιθυμίας ἑαυτοῖς (v. 3)

ἀπὸ … τῆς ἀληθείας τὴν ἀκοὴν (v. 4a)

ἐπὶ … τοὺς μύθους (v. 4b)

These three phrases provide the final and climactic characterizations of the
false teachers in this letter, although several individuals who had betrayed Paul
will still be named in the following sections (vv. 10, 14).

▪ 5 Σὺ δὲ νῆφε ἐν πᾶσιν, κακοπάθησον, ἔργον ποίησον εὐαγγελιστοῦ, τὴν διακονίαν σου

πληροφόρησον. Again, σὺ δέ redirects attention back to Timothy himself (cf. 3:10,
14). While the developmental δέ signals a shift in the discourse, when it follows
a block of material introduced by the conjunction γάρ as is the case here (cf. v.
4:1–8 681

3), a more significant shift in subject matter can be detected (cf. Levinsohn, Dis-
course, 128). Here, Paul is turning his attention away from Timothy’s response
to the false teachers to his general responsibilities as a minister of the gospel.
As in v. 2, here one finds a general imperative followed by three specific
ones (if, as noted above, ἐπίστηθι εὐκαίρως ἀκαίρως is considered to be qualify-
ing the first imperatival clause κήρυξον τὸν λόγον). The separation between the
first and the remaining three imperatives is here marked by a change of tense,
with νῆφε being a present imperative, and κακοπάθησον, ποίησον, and πληροφό-
ρησον being aorist imperatives. In terms of lexical choice, νήφω is an intransitive
verb depicting a general disposition, while κακοπαθέω, ποιέω, and πληροφορέω
describe specific actions.

▪ 6 Ἐγὼ γὰρ ἤδη σπένδομαι, καὶ ὁ καιρὸς τῆς ἀναλύσεώς μου ἐφέστηκεν. With
the shift from the second-person singular personal pronoun (σύ) to the first-
person (ἐγώ; cf. Turner, Syntax, 37 who considers this use as both emphatic
and antithetic), an explanatory γάρ introduces five short independent clauses
(σπένδομαι, ἐφέστηκεν, v. 6; ἠγώνισμαι, τετέλεκα, τετήρηκα, v. 7) that depict the
final phase of Paul’s ministry. Four of these are first-person singular verbs
(σπένδομαι, v. 6; ἠγώνισμαι, τετέλεκα, τετήρηκα, v. 7), but the remaining third-
person singular verb (ἐφέστηκεν, v. 6) also centers on Paul since the subject (ὁ
καιρὸς τῆς ἀναλύσεώς) is modified by the first-person singular pronoun (μου).
Many consider this subunit (vv. 6–8) Paul’s way of bidding farewell (cf. Scott,
131), but the significance of this subunit for Paul’s climactic ministry in Rome
should not be downplayed, even though this ministry might have been rela-
tively brief.
The conjunction γάρ strengthens the preceding material by providing an
explanation or clarification (bdag 189) for the charge contained therein; with
the contrastive pair of pronouns σύ and ἐγώ, this subsection primarily strength-
ens the immediately preceding imperative in v. 5, though that charge is but the
culmination of Paul’s charge in vv. 1–5.
The meaning of the first clause rests partly on the temporal reference of
σπένδομαι. The present indicative σπένδομαι grammaticalizes imperfective as-
pect as is appropriate here with the process in view, but the temporal reference
would depend on the meaning of ἤδη. ἤδη has often been taken as marking a
past event (cf. “already been poured out,” Kelly, 207), but it can also function as a
marker of imminence and temporal proximity (“now being poured out,” Spicq,
2.803; cf. Luke 21:30). In this case, Paul may not be depicting a past event but an
imminent one. With the reference to libation in σπένδω, σπένδομαι likely refers
to his ministry that culminates in his impending death (see Historical Analy-
sis).
682 2 timothy

Contextual considerations would support reading ἀνάλυσις as a reference

to Paul’s impending death (see Historical Analysis), while the exact timing of
his death would depend on the perceived temporal reference behind the verb
ἐφέστηκεν. This perfect indicative has often been taken to refer to a complete
act as Paul “has reached” the point of his departure that he had anticipated
in Phil 1:23 (Horton, 167; cf. Marshall, 806). This, however, is to misunderstand
the use of the Greek perfect. In this context, the perfect is used for a present
event (cf. Porter, Verbal Aspect, 267), and this perfect (and the following ones
in v. 7) marks this clause with prominence by highlighting the urgency of the
anticipated event. In view of the fact that the time of his departure “is coming”
(Campbell, Verbal Aspect, 194), Paul is committed to bringing his ministry to a
climactic end.

▪ 7 τὸν καλὸν ἀγῶνα ἠγώνισμαι, τὸν δρόμον τετέλεκα, τὴν πίστιν τετήρηκα. With
three parallel clauses, each containing an articular noun followed by a per-
fect indicative, Paul introduces the continuation and climax of his ministry.
As in the previous clause, the three perfect indicatives here (ἠγώνισμαι, τετέ-
λεκα, τετήρηκα) should not be considered as depicting “the finality of Paul’s
ministry” with the acts noted here considered “completed” acts (e.g., Sieben-
thal, Greek Grammar, 330: “I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race,
I have kept the faith;” cf. Abel, Grammaire, §55s; bdf § 342[1]) nor should they
be considered to depict the endpoint of a series of verbal acts (Young, Interme-
diate New Testament Greek, 126–127; cf. Wallace, Greek Grammar, 577). Instead,
these three perfect indicatives depict present events with marked prominence,
thus: “I am fighting a good fight, I am bringing the race to its proper climax, I
am keeping the pledge of faithfulness!” With this translation, the endpoint is
still in view, though these are by no means “completed” acts, nor is the focus on
the cessation of Paul’s ministry.
The three metaphors may draw from the same athletic imagery (see Histori-
cal Analysis). The use of the lexical cognates ἀγῶνα and ἠγώνισμαι recalls 1 Tim
6:12, but the placement of the adjective καλός at the beginning of this clause
and the inclusion of an adjectival modifier only here among these three paral-
lel clauses highlight the self-understanding of Paul’s ministry. As in 1:14 above,
that which is good (τὴν καλὴν παραθήκην) describes the ministry to which Paul
and Timothy are called, and it is not a label attached to their own accomplish-
ments. In this context, it is contrasted with the work of the evil people (πονηροὶ
… ἄνθρωποι, 3:13).
Undoubtedly an athletic metaphor, τὸν δρόμον clearly refers to Paul’s life of
ministry. The suggestion that this refers instead to the first trial (Smith 2006:
136) does not fit the context of these parallel clauses; moreover, the parallel
4:1–8 683

with Acts 20:24, where the personal pronoun is made explicit (τελειῶσαι τὸν
δρόμον μου), should not be dismissed. Within this clause, τελέω can mean “to
bring to an end, finish, complete,” (bdag 997), but it can also carry the sense of
“to fulfill” or “to bring to … perfection” (lsj 1771–1772). With the perfect indica-
tive understood not primarily as a temporal marker for the completion of an
event, τὸν δρόμον τετέλεκα should then be understood in the sense of “bringing
this race to its proper climax.”
Within the clause τὴν πίστιν τετήρηκα, τὴν πίστιν can carry a subjective
(“loyalty,” Kelly, 209) or objective (“that which is believed,” bdag 820) sense.
Although πίστις often takes on a subjective sense in this letter, the articular
form without a genitival modifier should still be understood as referring to the
objective body of beliefs (cf. 3:8). For a subjective reading of πίστις, the verb
τηρέω would mean “to guard [my trust]” (Moulton, Prolegomena, 237), while
an objective reading would take it as “to keep” or “to hold on to” (bdag 1002).
One wonders whether an objective reading necessarily excludes a subjective
one here when τὴν πίστιν τετήρηκα is understood in the sense of “keeping the
pledge” (see Historical Analysis).

▪ 8 λοιπὸν ἀπόκειταί μοι ὁ τῆς δικαιοσύνης στέφανος. The adverb λοιπόν has often
been taken in a temporal sense (“from now on,” Perkins, 228), but in this context
it is best understood as a connecting particle denoting the logical development
of the argument, thus comparable to οὖν (cf. 1 Cor 7:29; Thrall 1962: 25); the
point is not the temporal but the logical connection between Paul’s ministry
and the reward he is to receive at the eschaton. The argument from the tem-
poral reading of the perfect tense leading to the distinct future reference here
(Guthrie, 170) is a misreading of the nature and function of the perfect tense,
and the argument from Paul’s theology that a reward cannot be considered a
logical outcome of faithful service (Mounce, 582) downplays Paul’s insistence
on maintaining the tension between one’s faithful response and divine grace.
This tension is well-illustrated in the parallelism established by the δικαιο-word
group between this and the next clause (cf. Quinn and Wacker, 789–790):

ἀπόκειταί μοι … δικαιοσύνης

ἀποδώσει μοι … δίκαιος

Within the phrase ὁ τῆς δικαιοσύνης στέφανος, the genitive τῆς δικαιοσύνης can
be taken as a possessive genitive (“the crown for those who are righteous,” cf.
Kelly, 209) in light of a similar understanding of δικαιοσύνη in 3:16; addition-
ally, it fits well with the athletic metaphor since a crown is reserved for those
684 2 timothy

who run well. Nevertheless, the idea of running well is already expressed by the
perfective indicatives that precede, which would make this genitival modifier
redundant. Therefore, it is best to take it as an epexegetical genitive (“the prize
is being declared righteous,” LNd §57.121; cf. Turner, Syntax, 213).

▪ ὃν ἀποδώσει μοι ὁ κύριος ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ, ὁ δίκαιος κριτής, οὐ μόνον δὲ ἐμοὶ ἀλλὰ
καὶ πᾶσι τοῖς ἠγαπηκόσι τὴν ἐπιφάνειαν αὐτοῦ. With this non-defining relative
clause that provides further characterization to the crown, Paul also identifies
the subject, timing, as well as recipients of the bestowment of the crown. The
subject is ὁ κύριος (“the Lord”), who is further characterized by the appositional
ὁ δίκαιος κριτής (“the just judge”), which recalls the depiction of Jesus Christ as
τοῦ μέλλοντος κρίνειν ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς (v. 1).
Following the developmental δέ, the οὐ μόνον … ἀλλά construction elimi-
nates a false assumption with the provision of additional information to correct
the assumption (cf. Heckert, Discourse, 24–25). The adversative ἀλλά, with the
adverbial καί, draws attention to others who will also receive the crown in the
last days. The perfect participle ἠγαπηκόσι does not semantically encode past
tense, and there is, therefore, no need to explain the use of the perfect here as
one “from a retrospective position” (Mutschler 2011: 378); instead, this perfect
participle marks the act with prominence, thus providing a call to Timothy and
all (πᾶσι) who follow him to participate with Paul as the one who eagerly awaits
the appearance of the Lord.

Bibliography
Collins, Raymond. The Power of Images in Paul. Collegeville, MN: Michael Glazier, 2008.
Malherbe, Abraham J. “‘In Season and Out of Season’: 2 Timothy 4:2.” jbl 103 (1984):
235–243.
Mutschler, Bernhard. “Eschatology in the Pastoral Epistles.” In Eschatology of the New
Testament and Some Related Documents. Ed. Jan G. van der Watt, 362–402.
wunt 2.315. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011.
Smith, Craig A. Timothy’s Task, Paul’s Prospect. New Testament Monographs 12. Shef-
field: Sheffield Phoenix, 2006.
Thrall, Margaret E. Greek Particles in the New Testament: Linguistic and Exegetical Stud-
ies. ntts 3. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962.
Wallace, Daniel B. Granville Sharp’s Canon and Its Kin. sbg 14. New York: Peter Lang,
2009.

4 Historical Analysis
Introduced by a formula found already in 1Tim 5:1 (διαμαρτύρομαι ἐνώπιον τοῦ
θεοῦ καὶ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ), this section provides direct exhortation to Timothy
4:1–8 685

with a stronger sense of urgency as he approaches the final stage of his life.
Despite the presence of a diverse array of material, the possible reading of this
as a charge account may provide further cohesion to this unit (cf. Gen 24:3; Deut
30:19–20; Acts 16:18; T.Reu. 6; Curtius Rufus, Hist. Alex. Magni 9.2.28; Smith 2006:
65):

Opening Formula I charge (v. 1)

Recipient You (i.e., Timothy, v. 1)
Authority Evoked Before God and Jesus Christ (v. 1)
Charge Proper Preach, be at your post, reprove, rebuke, exhort … (vv. 2–
5)
Anticipated Results Crown of righteousness prepared for me … and for others
who respond to his call (vv. 6–8)

Within this charge account, one finds again the use of the Pauline paradigm
(vv. 6–8) as Paul calls Timothy to follow his example (Donelson, 105). This
paradigm resembles the one found in 3:10–11 but with the additional sense of
climax and finality when the eschatological reward of Paul’s suffering is also
presented. Taking the section as a charge account will explain the rhetorical
function of this paradigm as well as its emphasis on the final reward.
Beyond generic considerations, the use of royal/imperial language and imag-
eries at the beginning and end of this section also bind the two subsections
(vv. 1–5, 6–8) together: κρίνειν ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς (v. 1), ἐπιφάνειαν αὐτοῦ (v. 1), τὴν
βασιλείαν αὐτοῦ (v. 1), κήρυξον (v. 1), ὁ δίκαιος κριτής (v. 8), and ἐπιφάνειαν αὐτοῦ
(v. 8). Framed by these royal/imperial language and imageries, the unique call
to Timothy to do the work of “an evangelist” (εὐαγγελιστοῦ) at the center of this
unit takes on added significance (see below).

▪ 1 For the formulaic use of διαμαρτύρομαι ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ,
see 1Tim 5:1. Variations of ὁ μέλλων κρίνειν ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς are not uncom-
mon in early Christian traditions (cf. ἔχοντι κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς, 1 Pet 4:5),
but a closer parallel within a charge formula may be found in Acts 10:42 where
the verb διαμαρτύρομαι is followed by a description of Jesus as the “judge of the
living and the dead” (κριτὴς ζώντων καὶ νεκρῶν). If so, the use of the verb δια-
μαρτύρομαι here may also carry the sense of warning as Paul views the present
situation in light of the final judgment (cf. bdag 233). In Paul, both God (Rom
2:16; 3:6; 14:10) and Christ (1Thess 4:6; 1Cor 4:3–5; 2 Cor 5:10) are understood as
the one carrying out the final judgment, but in this context, the evocation of
Christ as judge and the emphasis on the reality of the eschatological judgment
may also aim at responding to the false teachers who claim that “the resurrec-
tion has already taken place” (2:18; see Theological Analysis).
686 2 timothy

ἐπιφάνεια is a word often used in anti-imperial contexts within (1 Tim 6:14;

2 Tim 1:10; 4:8; Titus 2:13) and outside (2Thess 2:8) the pe; on the other hand,
βασιλεία, a word used only in 2Timothy (cf. 4:18; see 1 Tim 1:17 for the cognate
βασιλεύς) within the pe, naturally carries imperialistic connotations (see, in
particular, 1Cor 15:24 where the presence of God’s “kingdom” [βασιλεία] signi-
fies the end of all competing claims to power). As Paul is about to make his final
proclamation of the gospel at the center of the Roman Empire, he is making it
clear which sovereign ruler he is serving. The responsibility of Timothy as a her-
ald (cf. κήρυξον, v. 2; εὐαγγελιστοῦ, v. 5) of king Jesus should also be understood
within this rhetorical context.

▪ 2 For the use of the κηρύσσω–κῆρυξ–κήρυγμα word group in the pe in royal

and imperial contexts, see 1Tim 2:7. Here, the call for Timothy to “proclaim
the word” (κήρυξον τὸν λόγον) is a call for him to continue Paul’s own mis-
sion as a “herald” (κῆρυξ) of “this gospel” (τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, 1:11). Following the
evocation of Christ’s “manifestation” (ἐπιφάνεια) and “kingdom” (βασιλεία), the
significance of Timothy’s responsibility as a “herald” (κῆρυξ) becomes evident.
This royal or imperial context is clear since the only other appearance of the
verb κηρύσσω in the pe is also within the confession of Christ’s kingship (1 Tim
3:16). However, elsewhere in Paul, the verb can carry a more general reference
to the act of teaching or preaching (Rom 2:21; 10:8; 1 Cor 1:23; 15:12; 2 Cor 11:4; Gal
5:11).
εὐκαίρως ἀκαίρως (“in opportune time or not”) should best be understood in
reference to the listeners (Dibelius and Conzelmann, 120) rather than Timothy
himself (Spicq, 2.799) in light of the context (v. 3) and in light of the use of simi-
lar expressions in Greco-Roman literature (cf. Plutarch, Mor. 736c; Galen, Hipp.
Epid. vi 17b.177). For the audience, the inopportune time (ἀκαίρως) may refer
to a “time (καιρός) when people will not tolerate sound teaching” (Malherbe
1984: 243), or it may refer to the responsibility of a herald who is to “proclaim”
(κηρύσσω) a message that may not be pleasing to the audience. What matters is
that it pleases the one who sent him since the message calls the people to obe-
dience to the king (cf. πείσθητι ταῖς τοῦ βασιλέως ἐντολαῖς, 4 Macc 6:4; cf. Plato,
Leg. 941a).
ἐλέγχω (1Tim 5:20; Titus 1:9, 13; 2:15) and παρακαλέω (1 Tim 6:2; Titus 1:9;
2:6, 15) appear often in polemical contexts in the pe, while ἐπιτιμάω, a Pauline
hapax (cf. Matt 8:26; 12:16; Mark 8:30; Luke 4:41; 18:39; Jude 9), has significant
semantic overlap with ἐλέγχω (Origen, Hom. Jer. 14.14; 20.9). All three may also
recall the function of Scripture in 3:16 above (πρὸς διδασκαλίαν, πρὸς ἐλεγμόν
[cognate of ἐλέγχω], πρὸς ἐπανόρθωσιν, πρὸς παιδείαν τὴν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ, Collins,
269).
4:1–8 687

μακροθυμία and διδαχή resemble μακροθυμία and διδασκαλία of 3:10 above.

The use of διδαχή instead of διδασκαλία is unusual, though it does appear in
a similar polemical context in Titus 1:9 where other similar lexemes are used
(λόγος, παρακαλέω, ἐλέγχω). Taking διδαχή as a reference to the gospel (τὸν
λόγον, v. 2) that is built on the Scripture that is “God-breathed” (3:16) for the “sal-
vation” (3:15) of human beings, its pairing with μακροθυμία finds its conceptual
parallel in a polemical passage in T.Gad 4.7, where the work of Satan is con-
trasted with that of the good spirit: “but the Spirit of love works together with
the law of God with patience for the salvation of human beings” (τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα
τῆς ἀγάπης ἐν μακροθυμίᾳ συνεργεῖ τῷ νόμῳ τοῦ θεοῦ εἰς σωτηρίαν ἀνθρώπων).

▪ 3 In the pe, καιρός is often used in reference to the first (1 Tim 2:6) and second
(1 Tim 4:1; 6:15) coming of Christ; within this eschatological framework (cf. v. 1),
Paul appears to be locating the activities of the false teachers “in the last days”
(ἐν ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις, 3:1) as he did in 3:1–5 above. If so, καιρός may be a shorthand
for ὕστερος καιρός of 1Tim 4:1. The lexical choice of καιρός here may also partly
explain Paul’s use of words from the same stem in the unusual expression εὐκαί-
ρως ἀκαίρως above (v. 2), an expression that is largely absent in ancient Greek
literature.
ἡ ὑγιαίνουσα διδασκαλία (“sound teaching”) is a phrase familiar to the pe, used
often in polemical contexts in reference to the teachings that are consistent
with the gospel (1Tim 1:10; Titus 1:9; 2:1; cf. ὑγιαίνουσιν λόγοις, 1 Tim 6:3). This use
of medical metaphors fits well with εὐκαίρως ἀκαίρως (v. 2), which is also found
in the medical literature. Elsewhere in the nt, ἀνέχω is almost always used for
the toleration of something (1Cor 4:12; 2Thess 1:4) or someone (Matt 17:17; Mark
9:19; Luke 9:41; Acts 18:14; 2Cor 11:19–20) perceived in negative terms, which fits
the context here where “sound teaching” was considered to be intolerable to the
false teachers (cf. Heb 13:22 where the verb is used with τοῦ λόγου τῆς παρακλή-
σεως, also in response to the threats of “diverse and deviant teachings,” διδαχαῖς
ποικίλαις καὶ ξέναις, 13:9).
For ἐπιθυμία, see 1Tim 6:9. τὰς ἰδίας ἐπιθυμίας (James 1:14; 2 Pet 3:3; Philo, Spec.
2.241; 4.10) are desires that center on the self, rather than on God (cf. τὰς κοσμι-
κὰς ἐπιθυμίας, Titus 2:12).
The nt hapax compound verb ἐπισωρεύω has been taken as an intensified
form of σωρεύω (Perkins, 224), though in this letter the simple form has been
used in a context no less intense than here (3:6). The use of ἴδιος and ἑαυτοῦ
labels these false teachers (διδάσκαλοι) as sectarian and deviant, as they oppose
Paul the “teacher” (διδάσκαλος, 1:11) of the gospel. Here, the “teachers” (διδασκά-
λους) whom they accumulate “for themselves” (ἑαυτοῖς) are thus the ones who
would not tolerate “sound teaching” (τῆς ὑγιαινούσης διδασκαλίας).
688 2 timothy

In its passive form, the nt hapax κνήθω with τὴν ἀκοήν means “to have one’s
ear tickled” (bdag 550). The verb in its passive form is common in the medical
literature (Galen, Meth. Med. xiv 10.437); even though its use with τὴν ἀκοὴν is
rare in contemporary literature (Origen, Hom. Job 12.1049), its meaning is clear
in that they are not only curious, but they are also constantly attracted to that
which runs counter to established truths. As such, it is comparable to Luke’s
depiction of the Athenians as drawn to “listen to anything newer” (ἀκούειν τι
καινότερον, Acts 17:21), which is followed by the labeling of such interests as
“superstitious” (δεισιδαιμονεστέρους). For Paul here, κνηθόμενοι τὴν ἀκοὴν is fol-
lowed by a similarly negative label for their object of interest: τοὺς μύθους (v. 4).

▪ 4 This final reference to the truth (ἡ ἀλήθεια, 2:15, 18, 25; 3:7, 8) in this letter
recalls the sound teaching (τῆς ὑγιαινούσης διδασκαλίας) of v. 3 and the word
(τὸν λόγον) of v. 2 (cf. τὸν λόγον τῆς ἀληθείας, 2:15). Myths (τοὺς μύθους), on the
other hand, is often used in the pe for the false teachings (cf. 1 Tim 1:4; 4:7). The
contrast between truth and myths can also be found in Titus 1:14, where the
myth is specified as Jewish myth (Ἰουδαϊκοῖς μύθοις).
ἀποστρέφω is also used in reference to the rejection of truth in Titus 1:14, and
ἐκτρέπω is always used in reference to false teachings in the pe (1 Tim 1:6; 5:15;
6:20). The use of τὴν ἀκοὴν as the object of ἀποστρέφω may be a formulaic way
of depicting that which is unpleasant or even repulsive to one’s ears (Dionysius
of Halicarnassus, Dem. 20.47; Thuc. 42.25). If so, those who have “itching ears”
(v. 3) for the false teachings are now finding the truth unpleasant to their ears.

▪ 5 νήφω can be understood as a general term for the control of one’s emotions
(Spicq, 2.802) and can thus be compared to the more familiar σωφρ-word group
in the pe (Titus 2:6; see also 1Pet 4:7, where one finds both νήφω and σωφρονέω).
In Hellenistic Jewish tradition, such sobriety and self-control are understood
as being in submission to the sovereign God (Sib. Or. 1.154). In Paul, this verb is
often used in eschatological contexts where the primary connotation is to be
alert (1Thess 5:6, 8; cf. 1Pet 1:13; 4:7; 5:8), which fits this context well.
κακοπαθέω is used above in reference to Paul’s own suffering (see 2:9), which
Timothy is called to follow. That the call to suffering is followed by the call to “do
the work of an evangelist (εὐαγγελιστής)” reaffirms Paul’s emphasis that suffer-
ing is not merely something to be tolerated, but a commitment for those who
are to “share in the suffering for the gospel” (συγκακοπάθησον τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ, 1:8;
cf. 2:3).
Within the clause ἔργον ποίησον εὐαγγελιστοῦ, the reference to the evange-
list (εὐαγγελιστής) is unexpected. Three layers of meaning are possible: (1) In its
only other reference in Paul (Eph 4:11; cf. Acts 21:8), it is used in distinction to the
4:1–8 689

prophets and the apostles (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 5.10; Dem. ev. 2.3.78). (2) Within
the context of the operation of the local churches, a context within which this
letter was also written, the evangelist is the one providing leadership to the
local gospel ministry. As such, the work of an evangelist overlaps with that of
the elders and the deacons (Campbell 1992: 117–129). (3) In its immediate con-
text, this lexical choice may be explained by the reference to Paul’s gospel (τὸ
εὐαγγέλιόν μου) in 2:8 above. If so, the various kinds of responsibilities outlined
in this unit can be covered by the umbrella phrase, “the work of an evangelist”
(cf. Carson 2014: 1–4). Commenting on Eph 4:11, Origen further notes that an
evangelist does not simply present the life and teachings of Jesus, but “in per-
suasive speech to reassure [believers] of the things concerning Jesus,” with the
implication that even the nt epistles can be considered the work of an evan-
gelist (Origen, Comm. Jo. 1.3.18).
The final imperatival clause, τὴν διακονίαν σου πληροφόρησον, provides a fit-
ting conclusion to this list with its general reference to ministry (διακονία,
cf. 1Tim 1:12; 2Tim 4:11). In this context, the marked compound verb πληρο-
φορέω in the active voice (for the passive use in the sense of conviction and
assurance, see Rom 4:21; 14:5; Col 4:12) can convey a sense of climax and an all-
encompassing completion of the gospel ministry (cf. τὴν διακονίαν … πληροῖς,
Col 4:17), a sense that is comparable in function to the prepositional phrase ἐν
πᾶσιν at the beginning of this series of imperatives. In v. 17 below, Paul himself
becomes an example of an instrument through which the gospel can be fully
proclaimed (τὸ κήρυγμα πληροφορηθῇ) among the Gentiles.

▪ 6 This and the next verse provide important clues for the way Paul under-
stands his present predicament within the wider context of his life and min-
istry. For the lexical choice of σπένδω, four proposals have been offered: (1)
death as libation (Scott, 132, followed by many recent commentators); (2) a
libation without a reference to death (Smith 2006: 102–109); (3) a libation
that culminates in one’s death (Murphy-O’Connor 1996: 368); and (4) a non-
metaphorical reading that sees this term as depicting exhaustion in ministry
(Prior, 108–109).
The final reading (4) can be immediately ruled out since the use of σπένδω
in reference to “exhaustion” is already metaphorical, and the only other use in
Paul, which also occurs in a similar context, clearly assumes a cultic metaphoric
framework (cf. σπένδομαι ἐπὶ τῇ θυσίᾳ, Phil 2:17). The verb is always used in a cul-
tic context in the lxx (cf. Gen 35:14; Exod 25:29; 30:9; 37:16; Num 4:7; 28:7; 2 Sam
23:16; 1Chron 11:8; Hos 9:4; Jer 19:13; Ezek 20:28; 4 Macc 3:16; Sir 50:15).
Though popular, reading (1) fails to take into account the final phase (or cli-
max) of Paul’s ministry depicted here and in the rest of this chapter (v. 17); this
690 2 timothy

reading is also overly dependent on the temporal reading of the perfect tense
verbs that follow (vv. 6–7; see comments below). Even in Philo, where blood
can be involved in the use of σπένδω, sacrificial death is not in view (Leg. 2.56;
Her. 183; Mos. 2.150; Smith 2006: 109).
Reading (2) rightly questions the immediate equation between σπένδω and
death, since elsewhere the verb is never used as a euphemism for death. Never-
theless, in this context, Paul does have the final end of his ministry in view (see
vv. 8, 18), and connotations of death and suffering are also present in the use of
the same verb (and metaphor) in Phil 2:17. Even the verse that follows is con-
sistent with an introspective and retrospective reflection of one’s own life near
the point of death (cf. Lucian, Demon. 65; Cicero, Sen. 23.84; Hutson 1997: 46).
Reading (3) is the one that can account for most of the semantic and prag-
matic markers in this unit: Paul does have his death in view, though he is now
more focused on the final climax of ministry for the sake of the gospel. To sup-
port this reading, the reference behind ἀνάλυσις also needs to be considered.
The lexeme ἀνάλυσις means “departure” and is here often taken as a “euphem.,
of departure from life” (bdag, 67; cf. LNd §23.101). Arguing against this reading,
some (Prior, 98–110; Smith 2006: 124–132; Porter 2013: 68) propose that ἀνάλυσις
refers to the release from prison because (1) without a modifier such as “body,”
ἀνάλυσις itself is not used in reference to death; (2) the subsequent metaphor
of deliverance from the lion’s mouth in v. 17 comes from Ps 21:20–21 lxx, where
deliverance from the threat of death is not the focus; and (3) Paul expects a
visit with Timothy in the near future (2Tim 1:4; 4:9, 21) and therefore imminent
death is unlikely.
These challenges are, however, insufficient: (1) a modifier such as “body” is
unnecessary in this context, given the references to suffering and death, as is
the case when death is clearly in view (cf. Philo, Flacc. 188); (2) while ἀνάλυ-
σις is a nt hapax, Paul does use the verbal cognate ἀναλύω in reference to his
death (Phil 1:23; Murphy-O’Connor 1996: 368), notably also in a context where
one finds the use of σπένδω (Phil 2:17); (3) the deliverance from the lion’s mouth
can indeed refer to deliverance from death, although it could also refer to deliv-
erance during Paul’s first trial in Rome (see v. 17 below); and (4) the urgency of
Paul’s request for Timothy’s presence seems to point to a dire situation with
a certain impending finality in view. Moreover, if ἀνάλυσις is understood as
a nautical metaphor for the departure (and disappearance) of the ship from
a port, a metaphor used in reference to death (Diogenis Oenoandensis Frag-
menta; Collins 2008: 52), this may shed further light on the metaphor of liba-
tion, since libation is often a ritual performed at the beginning of a voyage
(Spicq, 2.804). Therefore, ἀνάλυσις in this context should be understood as a
reference to death, though the exact timing remains unclear.
4:1–8 691

▪ 7 The first two clauses are often taken as metaphors, the nature of which is
not clear. Some see a military context behind the first, as Paul is fighting a good
fight (Guthrie, 169; Collins, 273), and most will agree that the second refers to
an athletic contest. While the use of multiple metaphors in one context is not
uncommon in Paul (cf. 2Tim 2:3–6), it is more likely that the athletic metaphor
dominates here: (1) τὸν καλὸν ἀγῶνα ἠγώνισμαι recalls ἀγωνίζου τὸν καλὸν ἀγῶνα
of 1Tim 6:12, a context where athletic imagery fits well in view of the note on
the subsequent award/reward. ὁ καλὸς ἀγών does, however, often appear in mil-
itary contexts (Thucydides, Hist. 7.68.3; Polybius 5.84.2; Josephus, A.J. 19.233).
(2) A different word group would have been used if a military metaphor was
employed (cf. στρατεύῃ ἐν αὐταῖς τὴν καλὴν στρατείαν, 1 Tim 1:18). (3) An athletic
context best explains other Pauline (Phil 1:30; Col 2:1; 1 Thess 2:2) and non-
Pauline (Heb 12:1) uses of the agon-motif (Pfitzner 1967:183). (4) If στέφανος,
which follows these three clauses, is a reference to the victor’s wreath (cf. 2:5;
1 Cor 9:24–27), then it is best to recognize the dominance of the athletic imagery
in this context. Whether this athletic metaphor must be limited to the sports
of running or wrestling remains unclear (for the possibility of the combination
of the military and athletic imageries in the gladiatorial fights, see 1 Tim 6:12).
Following the first two, even the third clause (τὴν πίστιν τετήρηκα) can be
considered part of this athletic metaphor where the pledge (πίστις) of the con-
test is observed (cf. 2:5; Barrett, 119). In Greek literature, when ἡ πίστις is the
object of τηρέω, the sense is often “to keep the pledge” (Polybius 7.1.3; 10.16.6;
10.37.10; Josephus, A.J. 13.207). If so, though πίστις is to be taken primarily in an
objective sense, a subjective sense may also be present if the phrase carries the
sense of “keeping the pledge of faithfulness [to the body of beliefs].”

▪ 8 The use of ἀπόκειμαι in this context is paralleled by an inscription where

the verb is also used for a reward reserved for an individual after his death (cf.
μοι τόπος εύσεβίης ἀπέκειτο, igur 1240; Horsley 1987: 24). στέφανος is not unex-
pected after the repeated use of athletic imageries in the previous verse. Within
an honor-shame culture, the rhetorical power of this imagery is not to be under-
estimated as the reader’s attention on the anticipated award of this prize would
encourage them to align with Paul’s own value system (cf. Maier 2013: 151). That
a person’s earthly life would translate into a crown worthy of a notable individ-
ual is not foreign even among the Greco–Roman audience (ἐστεφανῶσθαι δὲ
αὐτὸν κατὰ ἀξίαν τῷ τῆς ἀρετῆς στεφάνω, mama 408.13–14; cf. seg 457; Horsley
1982: 48–50).
Reinforcing the reading of τῆς δικαιοσύνης as an epexegetical genitive are
similar phrases in the nt in which the definition of the crown is provided in
genitival constructions (e.g., ὁ στέφανός τῆς ζωῆς, James 1:12; Rev 2:10; στέφανός
692 2 timothy

τῆς δόξης, 1Pet 5:4). As these similar phrases find their roots in Second Temple
Jewish literature, so does this conception of the reward being righteousness
itself (see, in particular, T.Levi 2; cf. Ep. Arist. 280).
The framing of this unit with references to Christ the judge (cf. v. 1) marks
the urgency of its message; present behavior is to be evaluated in light of the
final judgment “on that day” (ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ, cf. 1:18). The allusion to the last
days not only provides the temporal framework of the anticipated act (gram-
maticalized by the future ἀποδώσει), but it also situates the reward at a future
point in time. ὁ δίκαιος κριτής as an appellation for God belongs to the language
of Hellenistic Judaism (cf. Ps 7:12[11]; 2Macc 12:6; Pss. Sol. 2.18; 9.2; Philo, Mos.
2.279) but is here applied to Christ (for Christ as judge, see Theological Analy-
sis).
The οὐ μόνον … ἀλλά construction eliminates a false assumption that Paul is
the exalted apostle who alone will receive commendation from the Lord (μόνον
… ἐμοί; cf. 1Cor 4:5 where commendation [ἔπαινος] is not just for Paul, though
his ministry is primarily in view, but also for all leaders of the church, if not
all believers), an assumption apparently shared by some modern commenta-
tors in their reading of the previous verses through the lens of pseudonymous
authorship (e.g., Hanson, 156, who claims that this author “has a noble con-
ception of Paul the martyr”). The fact that the recipient of this crown is not
limited to Paul himself reinforces the idea that this imagery does not aim at
highlighting Paul’s superiority against his competitors; after all, an athlete com-
petes primarily against himself (see 2:5). The lexeme ἀγαπάω denotes acts of
devotion and prioritization; here the love of the final appearance of the Lord
(τὴν ἐπιφάνειαν αὐτοῦ, v. 1) is contrasted with anyone who loves the present age
(ἀγαπήσας τὸν νῦν αἰῶνα, v. 10).

Bibliography
Campbell, R. Alastair. “Do the Work of an Evangelist.” EvQ 64 (1992): 117–129.
Carson, D.A. “Do the Work of an Evangelist.” Them 39 (2014): 1–4.
Harrison, James R. “The Fading Crown: Divine Honour and the Early Christians.” jts 54
(2003): 493–529.
Horsley, G.H.R. “Funerary Practice in Hellenistic and Roman Rhodes.”NewDocs 2 (1982):
49–52.
Horsley, G.H.R. “‘Physician, Heal Yourself ….’” NewDocs 4 (1987): 20–24.
Hutson, Christopher R. “My True Child: The Rhetoric of Youth in the Pastoral Epistles.”
Ph.D. diss., Yale University, 1997.
Maier, Harry O. Picturing Paul in Empire: Imperial Image, Text and Persuasion in Colos-
sians, Ephesians and the Pastoral Epistles. London/New York: Bloomsbury, 2013.
Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome. Paul: A Critical Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996.
4:1–8 693

Pfitzner, Victor C. Paul and the Agon Motif. NovTSup 16. Leiden: Brill, 1967.
Porter, Stanley E. “Pauline Chronology and the Question of Pseudonymity of the Pas-
toral Epistles.” In Paul and Pseudepigraphy. Ed. Stanley E. Porter and Gregory P. Few-
ster, 65–88. Pauline Studies 8. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2013.
Smith, Craig A. Timothy’s Task, Paul’s Prospect. New Testament Monographs 12. Shef-
field: Sheffield Phoenix, 2006.

5 Theological Analysis
Unique in this section is the emphasis placed on Christ (and God) as judge,
especially with the framing of the entire section with this theme (vv. 1, 8). The
connection between Christ as judge and his kingship is underscored by the
adoption of kingship language when his role as judge is introduced (ἐπιφάνεια,
βασιλεία, v. 1). The language of heralding (κήρυξον τὸν λόγον) naturally follows,
as is the case earlier in this letter when Paul’s self-identification as a “herald”
(κῆρυξ, 1:11) is preceded by explicit kingship language in the phrase, “the man-
ifestation of our Savior Christ Jesus” (τῆς ἐπιφανείας τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Χριστοῦ
Ἰησοῦ, 1:10). In the lxx, the proclamation of God as judge is to proclaim him the
ruler or king who can save his people (e.g., κριτὴς ἡμῶν κύριος, ἄρχων ἡμῶν κύριος,
βασιλεὺς ἡμῶν κύριος, οὗτος ἡμᾶς σώσει, Isa 33:22). Similarly, in an early Roman
imperial context, to serve as the supreme judge of all is the distinct responsibil-
ity of the emperor with rights to revise old laws and enact new ones (Suetonius,
Aug. 34; for the development of the claim of Roman “emperors” as supreme
judges within a republican framework, see Tuori 2016: 68–125), especially in
a new era of peace ushered in by Augustus (pax augusta, Velleius Paterculus
2.126). Here, for Paul to claim that Christ is the judge is to point to a different
kingdom, a point that is made explicit in v. 18 below in reference to “his heav-
enly kingdom” (τὴν βασιλείαν αὐτοῦ τὴν ἐπουράνιον).
Not only is Christ labeled a “judge,” he is also the one “to judge the living and
the dead” (τοῦ μέλλοντος κρίνειν ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς, v. 1). Its close parallel in Acts
10:42 (κριτὴς ζώντων καὶ νεκρῶν) deserves further attention, especially since this
confession immediately follows an affirmation of Jesus’s resurrection from the
dead (Acts 10:40–42). The connection between the event of Jesus’s resurrection
and his role as the eschatological judge is present elsewhere in early Christian
proclamation (Acts 17:31), as is the belief that “there will be a resurrection for
the righteous and unrighteous” (Acts 24:15) when all will face “the coming judg-
ment” (τοῦ κρίματος τοῦ μέλλοντος, Acts 24:25). For Paul here to evoke the final
judgment “of the living and the dead” is to reaffirm both the significance of the
resurrection of Jesus the judge (cf. Rom 4:24–25; 8:31–34) and also the reality of
the future resurrection when all will be judged in the presence of the eschato-
logical judge (cf. Rom 6:1–11). An affirmation of Christ (and God) as the “judge
694 2 timothy

of the living and the dead” is, therefore, likely a response to those who say that
“the resurrection has already taken place” (2:18).
The language of reward takes on several functions here. First, the promise
of reward and the distancing of its reception to “that day” (ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ,
v. 8) provides an explanation of the present suffering and need for faithful
responses. As in the earlier call to share in the suffering of Paul in view of the
“eternal glory” (2:1–13), to locate the reception of the reward at the eschaton is
consistent with the earlier Paul who considers this an act that subverts worldly
values (cf. 1Cor 9:25; Phil 4:1; 1Thess 2:19; Harrison 2003: 339–340).
Second, to identify Christ as the ultimate benefactor in his role as the escha-
tological judge is to post a “challenge to the normal bonds of social reciprocity”
(Kidd, 137); ultimate allegiance is to be pledged to Christ rather than to those
within one’s social network. To read εὐκαίρως ἀκαίρως as a reference to the con-
dition of the audience (rather than the author) points further to this restruc-
turing of social and political relationships. This paves the way for the notes on
desertion by his former allies (cf. vv. 10, 14, 16), which pales in comparison with
being accepted by the one who is worthy of eternal glory (v. 18).
Finally, in view of his impending death, the reference to the crown does not
aim at drawing attention to Paul’s earthly accomplishments. Instead, it points
to the blessings that are to be bestowed on those who are faithful to the “righ-
teous judge.” Moving beyond an athletic imagery (see above), this crown may
also be compared to a funerary wreath with a “consolatory” function, as is often
taken to be the case by the early fathers (cf. John Chrysostom, Hom. 2 Tim.
9; Basil of Caesarea, Ep. 140.1; Davis 2013: 342). Within such a rhetorical con-
text, the “crown of righteousness” is not “what he has earned” (Lock, 115), but
that which is bestowed on him “not according to [his] works but according to
[God’s] own purpose and grace” (1:9) that are to be fully revealed at the end
times (for the use of ἀποδίδωμι within a discussion on declared righteousness in
the early Paul, see Rom 2:1–16). Those receiving this crown are, therefore, those
who submit to Christ’s kingship, “keeping the pledge of faithfulness” (v. 7) and
“longing for his manifestation” (v. 8).

Bibliography
Davis, Stephen J. “Completing the Race and Receiving the Crown: 2 Timothy 4:7–8 in
Early Christian Monastic Epistles at Kellia and Pherme.” In Asceticism and Exege-
sis in Early Christianity. Ed. Hans-Ulrich Weidemann, 334–376. ntoa 101. Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013.
Harrison, James R. Paul’s Language of Grace in its Graeco-Roman Context. wunt 2.172.
Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003.
Tuori, Kaius. The Emperor of Law: The Emergence of Roman Imperial Adjudication.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016.
4:9–18 695

vi Human Desertion and Divine Presence (4:9–18)

1 Translation
9 Do your best to come to me quickly, 10 for Demas, because he loved this
present world, has deserted me and gone to Thessalonica. Crescens has gone
to Galatia, Titus to Dalmatia. 11 Luke alone is with me. Get Mark and take him
with you, because he is useful to me in ministry. 12 I sent Tychicus to Ephesus. 13
When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas, and the books,
that are the parchments. 14 Alexander the metalworker did me much harm.
The Lord will repay him according to his deeds. 15 Also guard yourself against
him, because he vehemently opposed our words. 16 At my first defense no one
came to my aid, but all deserted me. May it not be held against them. 17 But the
Lord stood by me and strengthened me, so that through me the proclamation
of the message might be fulfilled, that is, that all the nations might hear it. And
I was delivered from the lion’s mouth. 18 The Lord will deliver me from every
evil deed and save me into his heavenly kingdom. To him be the glory forever
and ever. Amen.

2 Text-Critical Analysis
▪ 9 ταχέως: Isolated witnesses read τάχιον (i 33) or ἐν τάχει (442 pc) instead,
the former considered original by Elliott (161) despite weak manuscript sup-
port, and the latter taken as another example of Atticistic influence. Because
of overwhelming external support, ταχέως remains the preferred reading and
is consistent with the style of the author of pe (cf. 1 Tim 5:22). The change to
τάχιον is possibly an assimilation to 1Tim 3:14 (where τάχιον is to be preferred).

▪ 10 ἐγκατέλιπεν: This aorist, supported by Codex Sinaiticus (‫ )א‬and followed

by primarily later Byzantine witnesses (Ivid K Ψ 104 365 1505 1739 pm 𝔐; cf.
κατελιπεν, D*), is replaced by the imperfect εγκατέλειπεν in a diverse group
of manuscripts (A C D1 F G L P 33 81 1175 1881).17 While the external evidence
slightly favors the imperfect (Westcott-Hort), the internal evidence argues for
the aorist (Tischendorf; Elliott, 163), especially since the author of pe almost
never uses the imperfect (except for ἦμεν in Titus 3:3). The change to the imper-
fect is likely a case of itacism (cf. vv. 13, 16, 20).

▪ 10 Κρήσκης: The Latin name Crescens (or Cresces) is widely attested, but the
Greek form is rare (cf. seg 1630; cij 30780; psi 9.1063.10; P.Mich. 224; Horsley

17 Correcting the listing of D2 in na27, na28 has D1 instead for this variant.
696 2 timothy

1983: 91), thus allowing for the possibility of variants such as Κρίσκης (Κ 3 35
209 489 1739 1881 pm) probably due to itacism. Krispus appears in one of the
Gothic witnesses (Metzger, 1977: 385) due to assimilation to 1 Cor 1:14.

▪ 10 Γαλατίαν: A number of witnesses that include the early Alexandrian uncials

(‫ א‬C 81 104 326 vgst.ww sa bopt; Eus Epiph) read Γαλλίαν (“Gaul”) instead, pos-
sibly an orthographical error: γαλατιαν as γαλλιαν. This change could also
be due to the frequent use of the term Γαλατία in reference to Gaul (Josephus,
A.J. 1.122), as explicitly noted in Geographiae exposition compendiaria 7: τῶν δὲ
Γαλλιῶν, ἃς πρότερον Γαλατίας ἔλεγον (see Historical Analysis). The possible ety-
mological connection between Γαλατίαν and Γαλλίαν can already be found in
the seventh-century Latin work by Isidore of Seville, who traced both terms to
the word γάλα because of their “whiteness” (Etymologies 9.2.109 [Barney 2006,
109]). A more diverse group of manuscripts (A D F G L Ψ 33 1505 1739 pm 𝔐)
support Γαλατίαν, a reading that should be considered original.

▪ 11 ἄγε: This present verb is replaced by the aorist ἄγαγε in Codex Alexandrinus
(A), followed by a number of late minuscules (104 365 1524 1874 pc; cf. ἀνάγαγε,
1881*), possibly an assimilation to the aorist ἀναλαβών.

▪ 13 ἀπέλιπον: This aorist (‫ א‬D K Ψ 81 209 365 630 1505 1739 1881* pm 𝔐) is
replaced by the imperfect ἀπέλειπον (A C F G L P 33 104 326 1175 1881c) in a
diverse group of witnesses. As in ἐγκατέλιπεν of v. 10, the internal evidence also
favors the aorist because of the general lack of imperfect in the pe (Tischendorf;
contra Westcott-Hort); this is likely also a case of itacism (cf. vv. 16, 20).

▪ 13 μάλιστα: A number of Western witnesses (D* 69 489 pc lat Ambst) insert

δέ (or καί, 1175) after μάλιστα, likely to heighten the sense of emphasis (cf. Gal
6:10; Phil 4:22). Its absence is, however, supported by overwhelming external
evidence.

▪ 14 ἀποδώσει: The ninth-century corrector of Codex Claromontanus (D2) as

well as the majority of the Byzantine witnesses (K L Ψ 1241 1505 𝔐) reads ἀπο-
δώη instead, which can be taken either as an optative (ἀποδῴη) or a subjunctive
(ἀποδώῃ; cf. 2:7, 25), both of which can express a wish. Elliott (1968: 621–622),
who argues for the originality of the subjunctive, considers the change to the
future ἀποδώσει an attempt to avoid the impression of an imprecation, with the
possibility of a further assimilation to Ps 61:13 (lxx). The future, supported by
the Alexandrian (‫ א‬A C 1739) and Western (D*.c F G) witnesses, is the preferred
reading especially in light of Paul’s statement in vv. 16–18.
4:9–18 697

▪ 15 ἀντέστη: The seventh- to ninth-century correctors of Codices Sinaiticus (‫א‬2)

and Claromontanus (D2), together with the majority of the Byzantine witnesses
(K L P Ψ 81 104 365 1739 1881 pm 𝔐), replaced this aorist verb with the perfect
ἀνθέστηκεν, perhaps due to Atticistic influence (Elliott, 168).

▪ 16 παρεγένετο: The majority of the Byzantine witnesses (‫א‬2 D K L P Ψ 81

104 1505 1739c 1881 pm 𝔐) read συμπαρεγένετο instead, which is accepted by
“thoroughgoing eclectic” critics (Kilpatrick, 14; Elliott, 168) because of the gen-
eral tendency to reduce a compound word into simpler forms (e.g., Acts 13:14:
παρεγένοντο to ἐγένοντο). Nevertheless, as Elliott (168) himself recognizes, the
reverse is more often the case in 2Timothy where compound forms are found in
secondary readings instead (e.g., 1:12 [παραθήκην to παρακαταθήκην], 14 [παρα-
θήκην to παρακαταθήκην]; 4:8 [ἀποδώσει to ανταποδώσει]). In this case, the sim-
pler παρεγένετο receives much stronger support from the early Alexandrian
uncials (‫ *א‬A C) and selected Western witnesses (F G latt). The insertion of the
συν- prefix (which takes a dative) is perhaps prompted by μοι that precedes.

▪ 16 ἐγκατέλιπον: As in ἐγκατέλιπεν of v. 10 (cf. vv. 13, 20), here there is a shift from
the aorist ἐγκατέλιπον (‫ א‬D* K Ψ 81 104 1505 1739c 1881 pm 𝔐) to the imperfect
ἐγκατέλειπον in a diverse group of manuscripts (A C D1 F G L P 33 104 326 1175).
Because of the general lack of imperfect in the pe, the internal evidence again
favors the aorist (Tischendorf; contra Westcott-Hort), and this is likely also a
case of itacism.

▪ 17 ἀκούσωσιν: This plural, supported by the Alexandrian (‫ א‬A C) and West-

ern (D F G) uncials, is replaced by the singular ἀκούση in many late Byzantine
witnesses (K L Ψ 424 630 927 1241 1501 pm 𝔐). This change likely aimed at con-
forming to the classical usage where a neuter plural is supposed to be followed
by a singular verb (cf. Turner, Syntax, 312–313).

▪ 18 ῥύσεται: καί is inserted before ῥύσεται in many ninth-century uncials (D2

[καί ἐρρθσάτο F G] K L P Ψ) followed by the majority of minuscules (365 424*
630 1241 1505 𝔐), but its omission is supported by the Alexandrian (‫ א‬A C) and
the earlier Western (D* lat) witnesses. Its insertion is likely an attempt to avoid
asyndeton (cf. 2:13, 21; 4:1).

Bibliography
Barney, S.A., et al. The Etymologies of Isidore of Seville. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press, 2006.
Elliott, J.K. “διδωμι in 2Timothy.” jts 19 (1968): 621–623.
698 2 timothy

Horsley, G.H.R. “Crescens.” NewDocs 3 (1983): 91.

Metzger, Bruce M. The Early Versions of the New Testament. Oxford: Clarendon, 1977.

3 Grammatical Analysis
The shift from a series of imperatives in vv. 1–8 to the indicatives argues for the
presence of a distinct unit before the letter closing. The connection with the
previous unit is, however, maintained by the focus on Paul and the eschaton at
the end of the previous unit (vv. 6–8), a focus that continues in the two subunits
in this section: the present predicament of Paul (vv. 9–15) and eschatological
deliverance and judgment (vv. 16–18).
Many consider this unit and the next as one continuous letter closing (4:9–
22: Horton, 168; Spicq, 2.809; Johnson, 328), while others have detected a num-
ber of smaller units within this closing (4:9–13, 14–15, 16–18, 19–22; Van Neste,
189–193; cf. Guthrie, 171). Noting a distinct break in v. 19 with the final verses
focusing on greetings and the final benediction as is common in the Pauline
letters, most prefer to see vv. 9–18 as a distinct section (Kelly, 210; Barrett, 119;
Marshall, 811), though some would insist on splitting this into two separate
units (4:9–15, 16–18; Hanson, 156; Quinn and Wacker, 792).
In affirming the cohesion of vv. 9–18, the following observations need to be
made: (1) to argue for the presence of a number of smaller units is not only
to admit that there are no logical connections among these verses but also to
assume that this section deals only with “mundane matters” (Van Neste, 208)
or “less urgent affairs” (Miller, 122). (2) This conclusion is unacceptable because
a distinct theological message is presented in this unit, one that binds the two
subsections together: first, Paul points to how others have deserted him (vv. 9–
16; cf. ἐγκαταλείπω, vv. 10, 16), and this is followed by the strong counterpoint
that points to the presence of the Lord during his ordeals (vv. 17–18; cf. παρί-
στημι, v. 17). (3) This example of Paul’s own experience is reinforced by the
saturation of the first-person singular personal pronoun throughout this sec-
tion (vv. 9, 10, 11[2×], 14, 16[3×], 17[3×], 18). In contrast to the previous (5×) and
following (0×) units, the heavy use of this pronoun in this unit (12×) stands out.
(4) Besides the affirmation of the personal presence of the Lord with Paul in
the midst of desertion by many around him, there is also a sustained emphasis
on the triumph of the gospel. This sense of triumph is not because of the hope
“for an acquittal” (Smith, 164), nor is it the product of “later Christian martyrol-
ogy” (Hanson, 161); it is rather a trust in the Lord who alone can strengthen Paul
for the preaching of the gospel to “all the nations” (πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, v. 17) when he
is to testify at the center of the Roman Empire during his final trial (see com-
ments below). As such, this unit presents the climax both to this letter and to
Paul’s apostolic ministry.
4:9–18 699

In the first subunit (vv. 9–15), a distinct pattern emerges where Paul inter-
laces direct addresses to Timothy (using imperatives) with comments on other
individuals (using indicatives):

To Timothy (σπούδασον, v. 9)
Concerning Demas, Crescens, Titus, Luke (vv. 10–11a)
To Timothy (ἄγε, v. 11b)
Concerning Tychicus (v. 12)
To Timothy (φέρε, v. 13)
Concerning Alexander (v. 14)
To Timothy (φυλάσσου, v. 15)

This unit begins with an asyndetic short imperatival clause with a possible
case of pleonasm in the use of the verb σπουδάζω with the related adverb
ταχέως (v. 9), all of which convey a sense of urgency. The basis (γάρ) of this
imperatival clause that calls Timothy to come to Paul himself is provided
by a series of clauses that depict individuals who left Paul (v. 10), the first
of which is marked with prominence with explicit notes of Demas turning
his attention away from Paul and his ministry. After a short clause on Luke
who was with Paul (v. 11a), Paul again addresses Timothy directly, request-
ing that he bring Mark with him, the basis (γάρ) of which is Mark’s use-
fulness (v. 11b). With the developmental δέ, Paul makes a note concerning
his sending Tychicus to Ephesus (v. 12), after which he returns to his direct
request to Timothy to bring him several items upon his return (v. 13). A longer
subunit centers on Alexander: he is first introduced in a short clause stat-
ing that he has wronged Paul (v. 14a), which is followed by an independent
clause that contains a saying on the Lord’s judgment according to their deeds
(v. 14b). Paul then returns to another direct address to Timothy to guard him-
self against Alexander, the basis of which is provided by yet another γάρ-clause
(v. 15).
The second unit begins with the same focus as that of the preceding clauses:
that no one was with Paul at his first defense, but (ἀλλά) that all had deserted
him (v. 16a). Here, Paul injects a wish clause for these people not to be held
accountable (v. 16b). With another developmental δέ, two clauses follow stating
the Lord’s work: that he stood by and strengthened Paul, with a particular result
noted (ἵνα, v. 17a), and that he delivered Paul from the lion’s mouth (v. 17b).
The unit ends with two independent clauses (re)stating the Lord’s delivering
and saving Paul, and it ends with a relative clause that introduces a doxology
directed to this Lord (v. 18)
700 2 timothy

▪ 9 Σπούδασον ἐλθεῖν πρός με ταχέως. In contrast to the present imperatives that

follow in this unit (ἄγε, v. 11; φέρε, v. 13; φυλάσσου, v. 15), the aorist imperative
σπούδασον grammaticalizes perfective aspect as is appropriate in this specific
command where the act is conceived as a whole. It also frames the unit, which
contains the relatively marked present tense. Nevertheless, Paul’s call for Tim-
othy to come to him should not be considered merely “an epistolary cliché”
(Collins, 277), especially since the urgency is expressed through the pleonastic
σπούδασον and ταχέως (cf. Winer, Grammar, 752).

▪ 10 Δημᾶς γάρ με ἐγκατέλιπεν ἀγαπήσας τὸν νῦν αἰῶνα καὶ ἐπορεύθη εἰς Θεσσα-
λονίκην, Κρήσκης εἰς Γαλατίαν, Τίτος εἰς Δαλματίαν. γάρ introduces a series of
clauses that strengthen the imperative that precedes by providing the basis for
the urgency of the request. Again, the urgency of the request does not rest pri-
marily on temporal considerations.
Δημᾶς is possibly an abbreviation for Δημήτριος (bdf 125[1]; cf. Acts 19:24,
38; 3John 12; 1Macc 7:1; 10:67; 2Macc 1:7) or Δημάρατος (bdag 222). The verb
ἐγκατέλιπεν is modified by the causal participial clause ἀγαπήσας τὸν νῦν αἰῶνα.
The placement of an aorist participle after an aorist indicative often depicts a
contemporaneous act, as is the case here (Porter, Verbal Aspect, 383).
The participial clause ἀγαπήσας τὸν νῦν αἰῶνα stands in contrast to ἠγαπηκόσι
τὴν ἐπιφάνειαν αὐτοῦ in v. 8, and though τὸν νῦν αἰῶνα precedes the final appear-
ance of Christ, this phrase is not to be understood simply in temporal terms (cf.
“loved the present age,” Darby) but also in qualitative terms that draw attention
to the fleeting nature of this world (cf. “in love with this present world,” Hanson,
157; see also 1Tim 6:17; Titus 2:12).

▪ 11 Λουκᾶς ἐστιν μόνος μετ’ ἐμοῦ. With the use of an asyndetic clause, Paul pro-
vides a contrast to the preceding as he now turns to one of his coworkers who
remains with him. The adjective μόνος should best be understood as referring
to a particular group that includes Luke and those noted above (cf. v. 21).

▪ Μᾶρκον ἀναλαβὼν ἄγε μετὰ σεαυτοῦ, ἔστιν γάρ μοι εὔχρηστος εἰς διακονίαν. After
notes concerning others, Paul now addresses Timothy directly, with a clause
that begins a series of present imperatives. The semantic subject (and the syn-
tactic object) Μᾶρκον is placed first for emphasis. ἀναλαβών has been taken
as an adverbial participle depicting an attendant circumstance (Perkins, 231),
but when attached to an imperative as is the case here (ἄγε), it can function
as a modal participle taking on the imperative sense of the main imperative
(Robertson, Grammar, 1127; Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 386), thus: “get Mark and
take him with you.” The change in tense should, however, be noted, with the
4:9–18 701

aorist participle ἀναλαβών that precedes the imperative indicating a prior spe-
cific act, and the present imperative ἄγε marking this open process with promi-
nence.
The basis of the imperative is provided in the γάρ clause. The use of εὔχρη-
στος in the context of ministry (εἰς διακονίαν, see Historical Analysis) recalls the
phrase εὔχρηστον τῷ δεσπότῃ in 2:21; the use of the same adjective in Phlm 11
also points to a similar context (Pao 2012: 388–389).

▪ 12 Τύχικον δὲ ἀπέστειλα εἰς Ἔφεσον. δέ shifts the attention back to Paul and his
interaction with other characters. Many see the aorist ἀπέστειλα as an episto-
lary aorist (Kelly, 214; Fee, 294); this would be consistent with Tychicus being the
carrier of this letter as is the case in other contexts (Eph 6:21; Col 4:7; Knight,
466). It is unnecessary, however, to label this an epistolary aorist unless one
takes Greek tenses primarily as temporal markers. The aorist indicative con-
ceives of the action as a whole, and it could refer to a past event, especially since
it is not clear that Tychicus did serve as the letter carrier in this case (Kelly, 214;
Mounce, 591).

▪ 13 τὸν φαιλόνην ὃν ἀπέλιπον ἐν Τρῳάδι παρὰ Κάρπῳ ἐρχόμενος φέρε, καὶ τὰ

βιβλία μάλιστα τὰς μεμβράνας. The relative clause ὃν ἀπέλιπον ἐν Τρῳάδι παρὰ
Κάρπῳ, which provides further characterization to τὸν φαιλόνην, also provides
(for modern readers) historical details concerning Paul’s traveling and cowork-
ers.
Βιβλίον can refer to a papyrus roll of codex, though the precise content of
τὰ βιβλία remains unknown (see Historical Analysis). The same uncertainty
applies to τὰς μεμβράνας and their relationship with τὰ βιβλία, when μάλιστα
can be taken in the sense of “namely/that are” (see 1 Tim 4:10; Titus 1:10; Skeat
1979: 174–175) rather than “especially” (Smith, 269).

▪ 14 Ἀλέξανδρος ὁ χαλκεὺς πολλά μοι κακὰ ἐνεδείξατο· ἀποδώσει αὐτῷ ὁ κύριος κατὰ
τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ. After an address to Timothy (v. 13), Paul now returns to another
character, in this case another negative one. ὁ χαλκεὺς may be necessary with
the popularity of the name Ἀλέξανδρος (see Historical Analysis).
The aorist indicative ἐνεδείξατο points to the author’s conception of the
event as a whole, but it does not necessarily point to a specific historical inci-
dent rather than a lengthy act of opposition (contra Mounce, 592–593). Contex-
tual factors argue for taking ἐνδείκνυμι for a general sense of opposition (“has
done me much harm,” Kelly, 216) rather than a specific (legal) sense that por-
trays Alexander as the one who “has brought many false charges against me”
(Quinn and Wacker, 812).
702 2 timothy

The future indicative ἀποδώσει again evokes the eschatological context in

which Paul is operating in this discourse (cf. v. 18), whereas τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ antic-
ipates παντὸς ἔργου πονηροῦ in v. 18 with both clauses pointing to the work of ὁ
κύριος.

▪ 15 ὃν καὶ σὺ φυλάσσου, λίαν γὰρ ἀντέστη τοῖς ἡμετέροις λόγοις. While a relative
clause often aims at providing further characterization to its antecedent, in this
case it shifts the attention to another person (Timothy) and his responsibility
to oppose the antecedent (Alexander). The relative pronoun here, then, is com-
parable in function to a coordinating conjunction (cf. Acts 24:19; Heb 13:7; Abel,
Grammaire §67b) and is considered by some as a case of Latinism (bdf § 458
labels this a “relative connective”). If so, καί that follows needs to be taken in an
adverbial sense, marking the imperative that follows with prominence (Titrud
1991: 4). The present middle imperative φυλάσσου here functions as a true mid-
dle with full participatory force, and the accompanying personal pronoun σύ
should thus be rendered as a reflexive pronoun, “guard yourself” (Porter, Idioms,
68; for the different nuance embedded in the middle voice of φυλάσσου, see His-
torical Analysis).
The basis for the imperative is provided by the γάρ clause. Modifying the verb
(ἀντέστη) that follows (cf. Turner, Syntax, 227), λίαν (“vehemently”) reinforces
the urgency of the imperative that precedes.

▪ 16 Ἐν τῇ πρώτῃ μου ἀπολογίᾳ οὐδείς μοι παρεγένετο, ἀλλὰ πάντες με ἐγκατέλι-

πον. The particular cases of desertion and opposition noted above (vv. 10, 14)
culminate in this general statement whereby Paul claims that those who were
with him had all deserted him during the first defense. ἐν τῇ πρώτῃ μου ἀπο-
λογίᾳ serves as a temporal modifier for both clauses, and its placement allows
for the parallelism of the two clauses to be clearly noted, with the adversative
conjunction ἀλλά marking the contrast between the two:

ἐν τῇ πρώτῃ μου ἀπολογίᾳ

οὐδείς μοι παρεγένετο

ἀλλὰ πάντες με ἐγκατέλιπον

With the use of prepositions such as εἰς, the verb παραγίνομαι denotes acts of
“being present” or “approaching,” thus overlapping with the semantic field of
ἔρχομαι (M.-M. 481; cf. Matt 2:1; John 8:2; Acts 9:26; 15:4); with the dative, how-
ever, παραγίνομαι carries the sense of “standing by” or “coming to the aid of”
4:9–18 703

(bdag 761). ἐγκαταλείπω, on the other hand, denotes acts of desertion and
abandonment (see Historical Analysis).

▪ μὴ αὐτοῖς λογισθείη. The use of the optative of wish in a negative context is

unusual in the nt (only here, apart from the μὴ γένοιτο formula; cf. Rom 3:4, 6,
31; 6:2, 15; 11:1; Gal 2:17; 6:14; Huffman, Verbal Aspect, 210).

▪ 17 ὁ δὲ κύριός μοι παρέστη καὶ ἐνεδυνάμωσέν με, ἵνα δι’ ἐμοῦ τὸ κήρυγμα πληρο-
φορηθῇ καὶ ἀκούσωσιν πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, καὶ ἐρρύσθην ἐκ στόματος λέοντος. δέ here
carries a contrastive sense as it introduces two clauses that portray the work
of the Lord. The first contains two aorist indicatives (παρέστη, ἐνεδυνάμωσέν)
followed by a ἵνα-clause that depicts the results of the prior acts. The second
contains another aorist indicative ἐρρύσθην, and ὁ δὲ κύριος serves also as the
implied subject of this passive verb.
ὁ … κύριος here most likely refers to Christ (cf. Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν,
1:2), who is the implied subject of the passive ἐρρύσθην (contra Fiore, 186; cf. 3:11
and 4:18, where Christ the Lord is the subject of the verb ῥύομαι). ἐνεδυνάμωσέν
provides further definition to ὁ … κύριός μοι παρέστη that serves as a contrast
to οὐδείς μοι παρεγένετο in v. 16 (with a possible case of paronomasia; Collins,
286). In the pe, the subject of the verb ἐνδυναμόω is always Christ Jesus (1 Tim
1:12; 2Tim 2:1), and its inclusion here echoes Paul’s earlier call for Timothy to
“be strengthened by the grace that is in Christ Jesus” (ἐνδυναμοῦ ἐν τῇ χάριτι τῇ
ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, 2:1) as he himself has been strengthened by this Lord. As noted
earlier, the call to be strong is not unexpected in succession narratives.
Within the ἵνα result clause, the passive πληροφορηθῇ can be understood
in the sense of “to be fully proclaimed” (cf. LNd § 33.199); however, in light of
the use of the same verb in v. 5 in the sense of the fulfillment of certain tasks
of ministry, the use of the verb with τὸ κήρυγμα should rather be understood
as referring to the fulfillment of the task related to the proclamation of the
kerygma. Here, then, Paul is again providing his own example as the basis of
his call for Timothy to do likewise (v. 5). In explicating the meaning of this task
of the proclamation of the kerygma, Paul uses an epexegetical καί in making it
explicit: “that is (καί), that all the nations might hear [this kerygma].”
With the conjunctive καί, ἐρρύσθην ἐκ στόματος λέοντος is placed in parallel
processing with the main clause that precedes (ὁ … κύριός μοι παρέστη καὶ ἐνε-
δυνάμωσέν με), but in its context it also serves as the result of the main verbs of
that preceding clause.

▪ 18 ῥύσεταί με ὁ κύριος ἀπὸ παντὸς ἔργου πονηροῦ καὶ σώσει εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν αὐτοῦ
τὴν ἐπουράνιον. These final clauses of the unit shift from the series of aorist verbs
704 2 timothy

that precede to two future indicatives (ῥύσεταί, σώσει); this shift grammatical-
izes the disjunctive change in temporal planes from the present time of chaos
to the future realization of a different reality accomplished by ὁ κύριος, a title
that is repeatedly noted in the final verses of this unit (cf. vv. 14, 17). These two
future indicatives portray two parallel acts, one on the deliverance “from” (ἀπό)
a certain predicament, the second salvation “into” (εἰς) a different state of real-
ity. A case of brachylogy can be detected in this second clause since it is implied
that in saving Paul, the Lord would also “transfer” him into his kingdom (cf.
μετέστησεν εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν, Col 1:13).

▪ ᾧ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων, ἀμήν. With the antecedent of the relative
pronoun ᾧ being ὁ κύριος (v. 18), this doxology departs from the general Pauline
pattern in having God as its object (contra Kelly, 220). The close identification
of God and Christ in v. 1 and the singular focus on Christ the Lord that follows
(vv. 8, 14, 17) paves the way for this christocentric doxology.

Bibliography
Horsley, G.H.R. “Crescens.” NewDocs 3 (1983): 91.
Pao, David W. Colossians and Philemon. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012.
Riesner, Rainer. “Once More: Luke-Acts and the Pastoral Epistles.” In History and Exe-
gesis. Ed. S.-W. Son, 239–258. New York/London: T & T Clark, 2006.
Roberts, C.H., and T.C. Skeat. The Birth of the Codex. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1987.
Schnabel, Eckhard. Early Christian Mission. Vol. 2. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity,
2004.
Skeat, T.C. “‘Especially the Parchments’: A Note on 2Tim 4:13.” jts 30 (1979): 173–177.
Titrud, Kermit. “The Overlooked Καί in the Greek New Testament.” Notes 5 (1991): 1–28.

4 Historical Analysis
Considering the historical details provided in this unit that offer no apparent
theological agenda, even some who read this letter as a pseudepigraphic work
argue for the authenticity of this unit (cf. Miller, 122; see also Bligh 1998: 364,
“the uncorrected version of a note for Timothy”). Some do, however, consider
this section as serving “no purpose beyond lending an air of verisimilitude”
(Donelson, 59), but the difficulties in reconciling the itinerary assumed here
with that contained within Acts argue against such readings that often assume
the writer’s dependence on Acts (see Introduction).
In terms of literary forms, some who consider this letter a succession nar-
rative see this as an important unit where the mention of “cloak” and “books”
point to the transferal of apostolic authority and traditions (cf. Trummer 1978:
4:9–18 705

78–87), but other elements argue for seeing this as a parousia section, where
names and related personal details are included to address issues of presence
and absence as well as to reinforce an existing network (cf. Richards, 126–128).
As in the previous sections, positive and negative paradigms are used for
paraenetic purposes, which include the contrast between those who stand with
Paul (Luke [v. 11] and Mark [v. 11]) and those who had deserted him (especially
Demas [v. 10] and Alexander [v. 14; cf. Donelson, 105–107]). The climactic per-
sonal example is provided in Paul himself, who had experienced the presence
of the Lord in the midst of personal desertions and remained faithful to his
mission (v. 17). In line with Paul’s transformation of the epistolary parousia for-
mula elsewhere (see 1Tim 3:14; cf. 1Thess 2:17–18; Koester 1979: 37), one again
finds the shift of attention away from Paul’s own absence to the presence of
the Lord. The Lord is to be the primary concern as reflected in the vocabulary
of honor (ἡ δόξα) that is ascribed to “his heavenly kingdom” (τὴν βασιλείαν αὐτοῦ
τὴν ἐπουράνιον) in the midst of persecution by the earthly one (v. 18).
Finally, allusions to lxx Ps 21(22) have long been noted, and these allu-
sions provide additional cohesiveness to the material in this section (Lock, 116;
Munck 1977: 332–333; Towner 1999: 164–169; Gourgues, 346): desertion (vv. 10,
14, 16; cf. Ps 21:1–3), divine presence and protection (vv. 17–18; cf. Ps 21:12, 20),
“all the nations” (πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, v. 17; cf. πᾶσαι αἱ πατριαὶ τῶν ἐθνῶν, Ps 21:28),
“lion’s mouth” (ἐκ στόματος λέοντος, v. 17; Ps 21:22; cf. τὸ στόμα αὐτῶν ὡς λέων,
Ps 21:14), the correlative uses of ῥύομαι and σῴζω (vv. 17, 18; Ps 21:5, 6, 9, 21, 22;
cf. σωτηρία, Ps 21:2), “evil” work (ἔργου πονηροῦ; cf. πονηρευομένων, Ps 21:17), and
“kingdom” (τὴν βασιλείαν, v. 18; cf. Ps 21:29). Recognizing the importance of this
psalm in early Christianity (see Theological Analysis), the mission of Jesus is
identified with that of the suffering Messiah whose rejection becomes an occa-
sion for the proclamation of God’s sovereign rule over all nations. It is in this
wider redemptive-historical framework that Timothy is called to participate.

▪ 9 The same imperative (σπούδασον) reappears in the next unit (v. 21), but
instead of the adverb ταχέως, one finds the temporal marker πρὸ χειμῶνος
(“before winter”). Assuming that Paul is not writing immediately before the
winter season and taking into account the time needed for Timothy to travel
from Ephesus to Rome, Paul does not anticipate that his final trial (and impend-
ing death) is to take place right away. The urgency of the request is, therefore,
not prompted primarily by temporal factors even with the use of this adverb
(or ταχύ, P.Mich. 204; P.Yale 83; Spicq, 2.810).
Timothy was previously sent by Paul to Ephesus (1 Tim 1:3) and likely stayed
there continuously while awaiting Paul’s further instruction, as he is fully aware
of the situation there (cf. 1:18). Paul is now sending Tychicus to Ephesus (v. 12)
706 2 timothy

so that Timothy can come to Paul who is now in Rome (1:17) waiting for further
legal processes after the “first defense” (v. 16). That it is Paul’s desire for Tim-
othy to travel “before winter” (v. 21) is clear; however, this “winter” (χειμῶνος)
cannot be corresponded with the “winter” behind παραχειμάσαι of Titus 3:12,
even though the formulation of the request there resembles the present one
(σπούδασον ἐλθεῖν πρός με εἰς Νικόπολιν; contra Mounce, 589, who allows for the
possibility of a subsequent “winter” even though textual data do not provide
any hint for the relative length between the two “winters”). In Titus 3:12, the
request is made because of the temporary suspension of Paul’s travels due to
seasonal concerns, while the request here is made because of the urgency of
the situation.
This urgency is suggested especially by the reference to his death in the pre-
vious section (cf. v. 6), but this may not merely be a request for a final farewell;
the urgency may also be for Timothy to meet with Paul during the climax of
his ministry as he is now completing his “task of proclamation” with “all the
nations” hearing the gospel (v. 17). If this letter betrays elements of a succession
narrative, this will then point to the final passing of the baton; Timothy who is
called to be “strengthened” (2:1) is now to witness Paul who is “strengthened”
(ἐνεδυνάμωσέν) by the Lord (v. 17) in the final hour of his ministry.

▪ 10 Δημᾶς is likely the one associated with Luke in Col 4:14, with both identi-
fied as Paul’s “coworkers” (οἱ συνεργοί) in Phlm 24. If he is considered a minister
of the gospel, his work must be familiar to those in Asia Minor as he is known
to those in Ephesus and Colossae. ἐγκαταλείπω anticipates the use of the same
verb in the summary statement in v. 16, where Paul claims that “all” (πάντες) had
deserted him. ἐγκαταλείπω may, therefore, carry the weaker sense of “desertion”
rather than “apostasy.” Nevertheless, the clause ἀγαπήσας τὸν νῦν αἰῶνα that is
contrasted with ἠγαπηκόσι τὴν ἐπιφάνειαν αὐτοῦ of v. 8 may argue for infidelity
in faith rather than merely a personal betrayal of Paul because of the difficul-
ties involved in his imprisonment (Spicq, 2.811; Quinn and Wacker, 800–801).
Moreover, in Polycarp’s call for God’s people to be faithful, οὐ … τὸν νῦν ἠγάπη-
σαν αἰῶνα is used in reference to those who would not abandon their faith in the
midst of persecution (Phil. 9.2). The geographical marker “Thessalonica” here
argues for its authenticity since Demas was not otherwise associated with this
city in early Christian traditions.
The memory of Demas’s infidelity survives in the Acts of Paul, where he is
portrayed as a hypocrite who sought the favor of Paul (Acts Paul 1) all the while
being jealous of his success (Acts Paul 4), even though he was Paul’s follower
since their journey through Pisidian Antioch, Iconium and Lystra (Acts Paul 1).
This portrayal is likely dependent on 2Timothy since Demas is always associ-
4:9–18 707

ated with Hermogenes, a name that appears also in 2 Tim 1:15 (see also Ori-
gen, Philoc. 27.8 and John Chrysostom, Hom. Act. 60.15). Moreover, as in the
present section, Demas is portrayed as an apostate who claims that the res-
urrection has already taken place (Acts Paul 14; cf. 2 Tim 2:18). Beyond merely
deserting Paul, this Demas is said to have desired to have Paul executed (Acts
Paul 16), as is typical in the apocryphal acts where those no longer supporting
Paul turn into his worst enemies. These sections of the Acts of Paul are likely
conflations of the account of Paul’s ministry in the canonical Acts with the
Antioch-Iconium-Lystra sequence recalling the Lukan formulation of “Lystra,
Iconium, and Antioch” (Acts 14:21; see 3:11 above).
Κρήσκης is a Latin name whose Greek transliteration appears in a number of
non-literary documents (seg 1630; cij 30780; psi 9; P.Mich. 224; Horsley 1983:
91); he is otherwise unknown in first-century Christian documents (cf. a pos-
sible conflation of this name with Luke’s in Mart. Paul 11.1: Λουκᾶς ἀπὸ Γαλλιῶν
καὶ Τίτος ἀπὸ Δαλματίας). In Paul, Γαλατία often refers to the Roman province of
Galatia in Asia Minor (1Cor 16:1; Gal 1:2; cf. 1Pet 1:1) but can also refer to Gaul
in the Western Roman Empire, as the variant Γαλλίαν testifies. Moreover, (1)
the use of the Latin name Κρήσκης, (2) the shift of the later Pauline mission
to the West, and (3) the support of the early Christian tradition that locates
this Crescens in Gaul (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.4.8) argue in favor of this western
location. Theodoret of Cyrus further suggests that Gaul was once called Galatia
(Γαλατίας, τῆς νῦν Γαλλίας ὀνομαζομένης, Hist. eccl. 146), which he considers to be
important for the reading of this verse (Interpr. Ep. 2 ad Tim. 4).
Titus’s travel to Dalmatia (also spelled Δελματία, M.-M. 136), the southern
part of Illyricum (cf. Rom 15:19), provides a significant historical note on the
ministry of Titus that is otherwise absent in first-century historical documents.
Assuming that Titus did fulfill Paul’s wish to winter in Nicopolis (Titus 3:12),
his visit to Dalmatia may have been for personal or ministry reasons. Being
grouped with Demas (and Crescens), it remains unclear whether Titus is to be
counted among those who had deserted Paul (see v. 16 below). Early Christian
traditions remember Titus rejoining Paul in Rome (Mart. Paul 11), and these tra-
ditions do not consider Paul to be accusing these two of being unfaithful to him
(cf. τούτους οὐκέτι διαβάλλει, John Chrysostom, Hom. 2. Tim. 10). This distinction
is consistent with the textual evidence here, where ἐγκαταλείπω is only applied
to Demas despite Crescens’s and Titus’s absence from Paul.

▪ 11 Λουκᾶς is like a variation of Λούκιος, the Greek form of the Latin praenomen
Lucius, perhaps the most common name among the Romans (cf. Chase 1897:
135). Origen even identifies this Luke as the Lucius of Rom 16:21 (Origen, Comm.
Rom. 10.39), but this is unlikely. Little is known about this Luke outside of the
708 2 timothy

nt, though the Anti-Marcionite Prologue to Luke identifies him as a physician

from Syrian Antioch, a disciple of the apostles who never married, author of
Luke and Acts, and who died at the age of eighty-four in Boeotia (or Bithynia,
according to the possibly earlier Monarchian Prologue to Luke; cf. Gutwenger
1946: 403–405). Neither the dating nor the reliability of this prologue can be
determined with any certainty.
As in Col 4:14 and Phlm 24, Luke the physician is mentioned alongside
Demas, but in this case the two are distinguished since Luke alone (μόνος) stood
by Paul. Assuming that Luke the companion was to be identified behind the
“we-passages” in Acts (16:10–17; 20:5–15; 21:1–18; 27:1–28:16; see, in particular,
Thornton 1991: 83–367), the intense interest in Paul in Acts (see Hengel 1983:
55) is consistent with his involvement in Paul’s ministry, which extends to the
end of his life as this verse testifies. Luke’s presence with Paul may argue for the
possibility of his involvement in the writing of these final epistles (see Intro-
duction) and may also explain the distinct awareness of Luke’s writings in this
collection of writings (see 1Tim 5:18).
With the possibility of Luke’s involvement in Paul’s writing of this letter, the
note on Mark takes on added significance. Μᾶρκος is the Greek form of Mar-
cus, a Latin praenomen that is also among the most popular in the Roman West
(after Lucius and Gaius; cf. Chase 1897: 135). In early Christian tradition, this
Μᾶρκος likely refers to John Mark, the son of Mary (Acts 12:12), and the one
who went with his cousin Barnabas on Paul’s first missionary journey (Acts
12:25). His early separation from Paul and Barnabas (Acts 13:13) eventually led
to Barnabas separating from Paul (Acts 15:37, 39). Paul’s counting Mark among
his “coworkers” (οἱ συνεργοί) in Phlm 24 (cf. Col 4:10–11) may suggest the recon-
ciliation of the two, and Paul’s request for Mark’s presence here may confirm
this. In an early Christian tradition, Eusebius quotes from Papias, who, in turn,
points to the tradition of the “elder,” and considers this Mark an “interpreter of
Peter” (ἑρμηνευτὴς Πέτρου) in his writing of the second gospel (Hist. eccl. 3.39.15;
cf. ὁ μαθητὴς καὶ ἑρμηνευτὴς Πέτρου, Irenaeus, Haer. 1.4).
Though διακονία has been understood as personal service for Paul (Kelly,
214), it should be taken as a reference to Paul’s apostolic ministry (Hanson,
158), which is always the case with the διακον-word group in the pe (διακονία,
1 Tim 1:12; 2Tim 4:5; διάκονος, 1Tim 3:8, 12; 4:6; διακονέω, 1 Tim 3:10, 13; 2 Tim 1:18);
however, the two cannot be separated at this stage of Paul’s life and ministry.
Some have further suggested that “[t]ogether with the later mention of ‘the
books and the parchments’ [2Tim 4:13], the reference to Mark [2 Tim 4:11] can
be understood as indicating the importance of Jesus traditions” (Riesner 2006:
255). While this would provide further depth to the use of διακονία here, more
textual data is necessary to support this claim.
4:9–18 709

▪ 12 For Τυχικός and his prior associations with Paul, see Titus 3:12 where Paul
expressed his intent to send him or Artemas to Crete. Apparently, Artemas went
to Crete, while Tychicus went to Ephesus to relieve Timothy of his duties, who is
now called to come to Paul (v. 9). His frequent ministry in Asia Minor (Eph 6:21;
Col 4:7) confirms Luke’s description of him as an Asian (Acts 20:4). Whether he
is the carrier of this letter remains unclear (see Grammatical Analysis), but it is
likely that he had previously served as one in relaying the information between
Paul and the Colossians (cf. γνῶτε τὰ περὶ ἡμῶν, Col 4:8; see also the reading in
𝔓46: γνῷ τὰ περὶ ὑμῶν). If so, Tychicus is also functioning as a personal “envoy”
(as Timothy himself is one, cf. Mitchell 1992: 651–661) whose responsibilities
may include the relaying of additional oral instructions (cf. P.Oxy. 113; 3313; 3505;
Head 2009: 291–296). In later church traditions, Tychicus is remembered as the
“first bishop of Chalcedon in Bithynia” (Pseudo-Epiphanius, Index Dis. 125).

▪ 13 φαιλόνης is the transliteration of the Latin paenula, with variations such

as φελόνης, φαινόλιον, and φαιλόνιον (M.-M. 665; cf. Robertson, Grammar, 186);
it refers to a thick coat that can withstand cold and rain, the best of which is
said to be made of Apulian wool (Pliny the Elder, Nat. 8.73). Though taken to
refer to a case of parchments in the Peshitta (Donfried 1989: 249; cf. Horton,
170), this word most likely carries its usual meaning in Koine Greek for a cloak.
Various suggestions have been proposed for the symbolic significance of such
a cloak, which includes its symbolizing the simple lifestyle of a philosopher
(Pseudo-Diogenes, Ep. 46; Riesner 2006: 252–253), the transferal of prophetic
power (cf. 2Kgs 2:11; Collins, 283–284), and the solidarity of the apostle with a
previous generation (Maier 2013: 149). In light of the reference to the arrival of
the winter season in v. 21, however, the request for a cloak may be nothing more
than a simple request to fill a pragmatic physical need (cf. for an explicit refer-
ence to the use of φαιλόνης in the winter season, cf. Epictetus, Diatr. 4.8.35).
The note on Troas is important for both the (past) journeying of Paul as well
as Timothy’s expected itinerary. Whether Paul’s plan to visit Spain was material-
ized or not (cf. Rom 15:24, 28), this verse is consistent with his travel to the East
after his first Roman imprisonment. Possibly revisiting Illyricum (Rom 15:19;
Murphy-O’Connor 2008: 244), he would have traveled along the Via Egnatia
through Macedonia, crossing over to Asia and landing at the port of Troas, a
place he was familiar with (Acts 16:8, 11; 20:5, 6; 2 Cor 2:12). He might have been
arrested in Troas or in Miletus before (or after) visiting Ephesus and ended up
in Rome for another set of trials. Paul’s request for Timothy to make a stop
at Troas may assume that Timothy is to take a similar route that can eventu-
ally lead him back to Rome. That Paul is not expecting to see Timothy within
days or even weeks (cf. v. 21) argues against a closer location of his imprison-
710 2 timothy

ment, such as Philippi (contra Koester 1998: 59–63). Κάρπος appears only here
in the nt, but the name is attested in Asia Minor (on a coin from Magnesia,
M.-M. 321); it resurfaces in early Christian traditions as the name of a mar-
tyr in Pergamum dated to as early as the second century (Eusebius, Hist. eccl.
4.15.48).
Without any qualifiers, τὰ βιβλία can refer to any documents (cf. 1 Macc 1:44),
including notebooks that Paul might have used in his writings (cf. Roberts and
Skeat 1983: 30), but the use of the plural is consistent with references to biblical
books (cf. τὰ βιβλία τὰ ἅγια, 1Macc 12:9). The same ambiguity exists with refer-
ence to μεμβράνα, a Latin loan word (membrana) that is rarely used in Greek
literature (Charax, Frag. 14), likely referring to a parchment scroll or notebook.
Because of the cost of parchment, some have proposed that it must refer to
either biblical scrolls or important official documents (such as proof of citizen-
ship; Barrett, 121). Nevertheless, it remains unclear whether or by how much
parchment is costlier than papyrus (cf. Marshall, 820); therefore, the content
of these parchments cannot be determined by cost alone. If μάλιστα is to be
taken as “namely,” then μεμβράνα may be used to provide further definition of
τὰ βιβλία, and a reference to biblical books remains possible. In the end, it has
to be admitted that we know the content of neither the papyrus nor the parch-
ment scrolls.

▪ 14 Ἀλέξανδρος is a common name, and it may or may not be the one named
earlier in 1Tim 1:20 who had also opposed Paul. Possibly because it is a com-
mon name, the label ὁ χαλκεύς (originally referring to a “coppersmith,” but in
Koine Greek a general term for “metalworker,” bdag 1076; see Dio Chrysos-
tom, Invid. 13; Plutarch, Mor. 156b; cf. M.-M. 683) becomes necessary in order
to differentiate this Alexander from that of 1Tim 1:20. Also possible is the rela-
tionship between his craft and idol making (cf. Δημήτριος … ἀργυροκόπος, Acts
19:24), which may suggest that this Alexander represents opposition from the
pagan cult (cf. Quinn and Wacker, 812). If, however, this Alexander is the same
as the one in 1Timothy, he may no longer be familiar to those in the community
because of his excommunication.
Instead of a narrower legal sense, the consistent use of ἐνδείκνυμι in a gen-
eral sense in the pe (1Tim 1:16; Titus 2:10; 3:2) and elsewhere in Paul (Rom 2:15;
9:17, 22; 2Cor 8:24; Eph 2:7) would argue for a reference to general opposition.
The use of κακός in reference to the general unfaithfulness to God and the
gospel that Paul preaches in the pe (cf. 1Tim 6:10) also points to such a read-
ing. Moreover, it seems unlikely that Paul would invoke divine judgment on this
individual for the charge brought against him, as his wish for God’s forgiveness
for those who had personally deserted him reveals (μὴ αὐτοῖς λογισθείη, v. 16). A
4:9–18 711

more general reading may also allow for the possible allusion to the evil deeds
Joseph’s brothers had done against him (πάντα τὰ κακά, ἃ ἐνεδειξάμεθα αὐτῷ,
Gen 50:15; cf. Smith, 170). If this Alexander is to be identified as the one who has
been “handed over to Satan” in 1Tim 1:20, the opposition is now from someone
outside of the community of believers.
The use of ἀποδίδωμι with κατὰ τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ/αὐτῶν is a distinctly Septuag-
intal formulation (Ps 27[28]:4; 61:13[62:12]; Prov 24:12; Lam 3:64; Pss. Sol. 2.16, 34;
17.8; cf. Rom 2:6; Rev 18:6) with ὁ κύριος here clearly referring to Christ himself
(cf. v. 18). The judgment motif echoes the reference to ὁ κύριος as ὁ δίκαιος κριτής
in v. 8 above (cf. v. 1).

▪ 15 Departing from the typical use of the active form of φυλάσσω in the pe in the
positive sense of protecting or holding on to that which is valuable (1 Tim 5:21;
6:20; 2Tim 1:12, 14), here the middle form carries the negative sense of being
on guard against someone/something (Luke 12:15; Acts 21:25; 2 Pet 3:17). In this
context, φυλάσσου can be considered a milder form of a defensive act, while
resisting the temptation to take revenge against Alexander (v. 14; thus John
Chrysostom, Hom. 2Tim. 10).
As in the clause πολλά μοι κακὰ ἐνεδείξατο of v. 14, τοῖς … λόγοις here has
also been taken in the more specific sense of Paul’s own defense during his
trial (Spicq, 2.817, who considers the judicial use of the phrase τοῖς ἡμετέ-
ροις λόγοις a Latinism). This, again, is unconvincing: (1) ἀνθίστημι in 3:8, the
only other appearance of this verb in the pe, is also used to describe the gen-
eral opposition to the gospel; (2) if Paul is referring to his own defense in his
trial, he would have used the singular μου or ἐμοῦ instead of the plural ἡμε-
τέροις; and (3) elsewhere in the pe, the plural λόγοις is only used in reference
to the words of the true gospel (1Tim 6:3; 2Tim 1:13). The general reading is,
therefore, to be adopted: “because he vehemently opposed our words/mes-
sage.”

▪ 16 The first defense (τῇ πρώτῃ … ἀπολογίᾳ) can refer to Paul’s first Roman
imprisonment (Acts 28; Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 2.22.1–5; cf. Lock, 119) from which
he was subsequently released, or even his earlier defense in the presence of
Felix (Acts 24; cf. Porter 2013: 69). Nevertheless, it is best to consider this as a
reference to the preliminary divinatio before the praetor prior to the full trial or
the prima actio before the magistrate or emperor, the first formal hearing one
would face before subsequent hearing(s) where a verdict would be delivered
(Hofmann 1881: 153–154; Horton, 171; Scott, 141; cf. Cicero, Verr. 2.156) for the fol-
lowing reasons: (1) total abandonment and desertion was not the case in the
earlier trials and imprisonments; (2) total isolation and a tone of pessimism
712 2 timothy

and finality is absent from the earlier trials; and, more importantly, (3) the verb
ἐγκαταλείπω here recalls the use of the same verb in v. 10 above in reference
to Demas, and the desertion by “all” (πάντες) should not be limited to a recent
event, but one that took place within the embedded narrative of this letter.
The fact that Paul continues to be “chained like a criminal” (2:9; cf. 1:16) with
a view of his own death (4:6, 8, 18) suggests an unfavorable outcome of the first
defense, likely a decision of non liquet (“it is not clear”) that led to ampliatio
(“judgment pending”) that essentially anticipates the second step of the trial
(cf. Greenidge 1901: 498; Gildenhard 2011: 139). The second hearing could be
delayed because of the need for the preparation of evidence against the defen-
dant (Tajra 1994: 88–89; cf. Kirk 2015: 222), thus allowing for the possibility of
Timothy’s arrival in Rome. That a second hearing is expected in the Roman
imperial court may argue for the severity of the charge, which is likely “trea-
son” (crimen maiestatis, τὸ ἔγκλημα τῆς ἀσεβείας) in this case (Tajra 1989: 38;
1994: 4–7; see also the charge of στάσις in Acts 24:5, which constitutes treason
under Roman rule, cf. Sterling 2015: 76). The third-century Roman jurist pro-
vides a succinct definition of crimen maiestatis as a crime “against the Roman
people or their security” (adversus populum Romanum vel adversus securitatem
eius committitur, Dig. 48.4.1), which can include activities that range from turn-
ing someone against the authority of Rome to the active plan to assassinate
the Roman emperor (cf. Dig. 48.4.1–11, with opinion of the other jurists). In
this letter alone, Paul’s identification of Jesus Christ as “Lord” (1:2, 8), “Savior”
(1:10), the one “to judge the living and the dead” with the manifestation of his
“kingdom” (4:1), and the one who deserves “eternal glory” (2:10) to whom indi-
vidual believer should submit as “a good soldier” (2:3) and “slave” (2:24), could
certainly be considered a (potential) threat to the sovereignty of the Roman
imperial system.
In contrast to παραγίνομαι, ἐγκαταλείπω denotes acts of desertion and aban-
donment. Within this context, it may refer more specifically to the failure of
others to provide legal or material help to Paul during his trials (cf. Spicq, 2.819),
thus easing the tension with v. 11 above, where Luke’s presence is noted. Never-
theless, with the use of the same verb in v. 10, this may simply be a broad-stroke
description of Paul being deserted by many, as Jesus himself was during his tri-
als and crucifixion (cf. Mark 14:43–52, 66–72), a possibility strengthened by the
use of the same verb (ἐγκαταλείπω) in a Psalm used in the gospel passion nar-
rative (Matt 27:47//Mark 15:34; cf. Ps 21:2[22:1]) and here by Paul himself (v. 17;
cf. Ps 21:22[22:21]; see comments below).
The use of λογίζομαι in a negative context often appears in judicial settings
(Rom 4:8; 2Cor 5:19), and here with this clause Paul shifts the attention away
from the human court to the divine one where God’s judgment is to provide
4:9–18 713

the final word. The difference is, however, that while Paul stands accused, he
is asking for forgiveness for those who had done him wrong, a sentiment that
recalls the example of Jesus (Luke 23:34 [note, however, textual variants]) and
early Christian martyrs (Acts 7:60).

▪ 17 This verse contains two clauses that evoke ot passages with κύριος refer-
ring to Christ instead of God. ὁ … κύριός μοι παρέστη evokes κύριος ἐν νεφέλῃ καὶ
παρέστη αὐτῷ of Exod 34:5 lxx (cf. Fee 2007: 461). ἐρρύσθην ἐκ στόματος λέοντος
likely evokes σῶσόν με ἐκ στόματος λέοντος of Ps 21:22 (lxx). The second evo-
cation is clearer, especially with the use of Ps 21 elsewhere in this section (see
below).
The only use of κήρυγμα in this letter is important in light of earlier uses of
the same word group (κῆρυξ, 1:11; κηρύσσω, 4:2). As in Titus 1:3 κήρυγμα is used
with ἐπιταγή, σωτήρ, the passive form of πιστεύω, and εὐσέβεια, thus evoking
an imperial context (see 1Tim 2:7). Likewise, in this context, the proclamation
of this κήρυγμα at the center of the Roman Empire with πάντα τὰ ἔθνη being
the audience takes on added significance. As an edict or a command was often
only issued and enforced throughout one people group or one nation (Jonah
3:2; 1Esd 9:2; Philo, Mos. 2.167; 2.170), this proclamation now in the presence
of πάντα τὰ ἔθνη provides a strong affirmation of the universal sovereignty of
Christ, ὁ … κύριος.
πάντα τὰ ἔθνη has been variably understood as a reference to (1) “the account
of his trial … noised throughout the world” (Horton, 171); (2) “the cosmopoli-
tan audience assembled in the imperial court before whom he delivered his
message” (Kelly, 219); (3) the audience in the imperial court are “representa-
tives from all different parts and nations of the empire” (Karakolis 2015: 516);
or (4) “witness borne when on trial before the ruler of the whole pagan world”
(Barrett, 123). A combination of the third and fourth readings is preferable not
only because of the climactic nature of this note (as anticipated by notes of
deliverance) but also because of its consistency with the pervasive use of Ps 21
(lxx). Especially noteworthy is v. 28, which states that all nations (πᾶσαι αἱ
πατριαὶ τῶν ἐθνῶν) would worship the Lord (cf. Hanson, 162). If so, πάντα τὰ ἔθνη
should be rendered “all nations” (Dibelius and Conzelmann, 124) rather than
“all the Gentiles” (Mounce, 595) since universal adoration and submission are
in view.
This relates to the precise timing of the fulfillment of this “task of procla-
mation.” Those who consider Paul’s “first defense” in v. 16 a reference to the
first Roman imprisonment would argue that this refers to Paul’s subsequent
travel “west of Rome as well as east” (Lock, 119; cf. Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 2.22.4),
but many who consider the “first defense” as the prima actio of the present
714 2 timothy

imprisonment would consider Paul’s defense during that first hearing as the
fulfillment of such a task (Mounce, 596). It is also possible, however, that the
ἵνα clause that denotes the purpose of the Lord’s presence during the first trial
is to strengthen Paul so that he could have addressed an even wider audience
during the secunda actio; this is a likely reading with the climactic reference
to πάντα τὰ ἔθνη if the phrase includes an audience with the Roman emperor
(though such appeals can be delegated to other arbiters or members of the Sen-
ate, cf. Suetonius, Nero 17).
The note on deliverance can be a bit surprising here since Paul is anticipat-
ing a less than favorable final verdict; some see it as a contradiction with 4:6–8
(Miller, 122). In this letter, the verb ῥύομαι should not, however, be understood
in the sense of “freedom from physical danger and challenges,” but “deliver-
ance from obstacles that prevent one from fulfilling one’s ministry.” This is well
illustrated by its use in 3:11, where Paul’s deliverance did not lead to freedom
from persecution, but freedom to preach the Word. In this case, therefore, to
be “delivered” does not point to impending release, but to freedom to continue
to witness in the presence of Roman authorities, which would lead to ultimate
deliverance unto the heavenly kingdom (v. 18).
στόματος λέοντος evokes a familiar imagery of danger in biblical contexts
(Amos 3:12; Heb 11:33; Rev 13:2), but other allusions to Ps 21 lxx (see above) that
climaxes in the submission of πᾶσαι αἱ πατριαὶ τῶν ἐθνῶν (Ps 21:28) would argue
for Ps 21:22 (ἐκ στόματος λέοντος) as the dominant background to this imagery,
with secondary allusions possibly to the deliverance of Daniel (Dan 6:16–28;
Kelly, 219; cf. ἐρρύσθη ἐκ στόματος λεόντων, 1Macc 2:60; Wieland, 170) and “the
lions in the amphitheatre” in a Roman context (Horton, 171). In alluding to lxx
Ps 21, Paul appears to identify himself as a righteous sufferer, a use of the Psalm
that extends from Second Temple (Wis 2–5; Odes Sol. 28, 31; Jos. Asen. 12.9, 11;
1QH 10.33–35. 12.33–34; Carey 2009: 115–124) and Rabbinic (Midr. Teh. 22; Menn
2000: 317–327) traditions to early Christian writings (Matt 27:35, 39, 43, 46; Mark
15:24, 29–30, 34; Luke 23:34; John 19:24; Heb 2:12).
Though the imagery of the lion has been used in reference to the power of
the devil (1Pet 5:8; van der Toorn 1998: 639) that may symbolize the Roman
emperor (Horsley 1983: 51), to link this with “later Christian martyrology” where
“there was a tendency to associate Satan’s activity with the action of Roman
magistrates in condemning Christians” (Hanson, 161) is unnecessary. If Ps 21(22)
is taken to be the background of this imagery, then “the lion’s mouth” is best
understood as referring to the insults launched against Paul (cf. Ps 21:7–9; Kirk
2015: 233–234) rather than his own death (Kelly, 219), which he anticipates in
the next verse.
4:9–18 715

▪ 18 ῥύομαι, πονηρός, βασιλεία, and ἐπουράνιος may evoke the Lord’s prayer (Hor-
ton, 161; Johnson, 443), mediated through the early liturgical traditions (see
comments on the doxology below). Nevertheless, of these lexemes only ἐπου-
ράνιος is a hapax in the pe, and it is only indirectly linked to the Lord’s Prayer
(οὐρανός, Matt 6:9, 10).
More importantly, the first three lexemes fit the context of this letter well.
(1) One does not need to move beyond the present section to explain the
use of ῥύομαι, a verb that appears in the clause that precedes (v. 17). ῥύσεταί
με ὁ κύριος ἀπὸ παντὸς ἔργου πονηροῦ also recalls the similar statement in ἐκ
πάντων με ἐρρύσατο ὁ κύριος (3:11). (2) ἔργου πονηροῦ departs from the articu-
lar τοῦ πονηροῦ of the Matthean Lord’s Prayer (Matt 6:13) where a personal-
ized sense is preferred (“the evil one”), and παντὸς ἔργου πονηροῦ here serves
as the contrast to πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθὸν noted above (2:21; 3:17). (3) τὴν βασιλείαν
αὐτοῦ also recalls τὴν βασιλείαν αὐτοῦ of v. 1, and in both the dawn of the
eschatological era provides a proper perspective for endurance in the present
time.
Consistent with the assertion in 3:11 (ἐκ πάντων με ἐρρύσατο ὁ κύριος) above,
ῥύσεταί με ὁ κύριος ἀπὸ παντὸς ἔργου πονηροῦ does not point to the deliver-
ance from all suffering, but from evil acts that prevent the gospel from being
proclaimed. In this context, Paul’s physical well-being has not improved, but
because of the Lord’s deliverance his proclamation for “all the nations” (v. 17)
can be fulfilled.
The use of σῴζω with εἰς can be found in classical Greek traditions (Herodo-
tus, Hist. 8.92) but appears more often in the lxx (1 Sam 27:1; 2 Kgs 19:37; Isa
19:2); σώσει εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν αὐτοῦ τὴν ἐπουράνιον here finds its closest parallel
in 4Macc 15:3: τὴν σῴζουσαν εἰς αἰωνίαν ζωήν (cf. σῴζεται εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, Prov 10:25).
Just as some have understood the preceding clauses as being influenced by
the Lord’s prayer, so too this doxology has been taken as “a remnant of a later
liturgical tradition of the Lord’s prayer” (Hanson, 162). Nevertheless, the pres-
ence of a close parallel in the doxology of 1Tim 1:17 (δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν
αἰώνων, ἀμήν) as well as its departure from the formulation of the majority of
the liturgical additions to the Lord’s prayer (ὅτι σου ἐστιν ἡ βασιλεία καὶ ἡ δύναμις
καὶ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας ἀμήν [K L W Δ Θ ƒ 13 33 288c 565 579 700 892 1241 1424
ℓ 844 𝔐]) argue against such an influence.

Bibliography
Bligh, Malcolm C. “Seventeen Verses Written for Timothy (2 Tim 4:6–22).” ExpTim 109
(1998): 364–369.
Carey, Jolly J. Jesus’ Cry from the Cross. lnts 398. London: T & T Clark, 2009.
Chase, George Davis. “The Origin of Roman Praenomina.” hscp 8 (1897): 103–184.
716 2 timothy

Donfried, Karl P. “Paul as Σκηνοποιός and the Use of the Codex in Early Christianity.”
In Christus bezeugen. Ed. Karl Kertelge et al., 249–256. ets 59. Leipzig: St. Benno,
1989.
Gildenhard, Ingo. Cicero, Against Verres, 2.1.53–86. Cambridge: Open Books, 2011.
Greenidge, A.H.J. The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time. Oxford: Clarendon, 1901.
Gutwenger, Engelbert. “The Anti-Marcionite Prologues.” ts 7 (1946): 393–409.
Harris, Murray J. Prepositions and Theology in the Greek New Testament. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 2012.
Head, Peter M. “Named Letter-Carriers among the Oxyrhynchus Papyri.” jsnt 31 (2009):
279–299.
Hengel, Martin. Between Jesus and Paul. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983.
Hofmann, Johann Chr. K. von. Die heilige Schrift Neuen Testaments, vol. 9. Nördingen:
C.H. Beck, 1881.
Horsley, G.H.R. “A Ravening Lion.” NewDocs 3 (1983): 50–51.
Karakolis, Christos. “Paul’s Mission to Hispania: Some Critical Observations.” In The
Last Years of Paul. Ed. Armand Puig i Tàrrech et al., 509–519. wunt 352. Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 2015.
Kirk, Alexander N. The Departure of an Apostle. wunt 2.406. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2015.
Koester, Helmut. “1Thessalonians—Experiment in Christian Writings.” In Continuity
and Discontinuity in Church History. Ed. E.F. Church and T. George, 33–44. Leiden:
Brill, 1979.
Koester, Helmut. “Paul and Philippi: The Evidence from Early Christian Literature.” In
Philippi at the Time of Paul and After His Death. Ed. Helmut Koester and Charalam-
bos Bakirtzis, 49–65. Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1998.
Maier, Harry O. Picturing Paul in Empire: Imperial Image, Text and Persuasion in Colos-
sians, Ephesians and the Pastoral Epistles. London/New York: Bloomsbury, 2013.
Mitchell, Margaret. “New Testament Envoys in the Context of Greco-Roman Diplo-
matic and Epistolary Conventions: The Example of Timothy and Titus.” jbl 111 (1992):
641–662.
Munck, Johannes. Paul and the Salvation of Mankind. Trans. Frank Clarke. Atlanta: John
Knox, 1977.
Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome. St. Paul’s Ephesus: Texts and Archaeology. Collegeville, MN:
Liturgical Press, 2008.
Porter, Stanley E. “Pauline Chronology and the Question of Pseudonymity of the Pas-
toral Epistles.” In Paul and Pseudepigraphy. Ed. Stanley E. Porter and Gregory P. Few-
ster, 65–88. Pauline Studies 8. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2013.
Riesner, Rainer. “Once More: Luke-Acts and the Pastoral Epistles.” In History and Exe-
gesis. Ed. S.-W. Son, 239–258. New York/London: T & T Clark, 2006.
Rogers, Robert Samuel. “Treason in the Early Empire.” jrs 49 (1959): 90–94.
4:9–18 717

Sterling, Gregory E. “‘Customs that are not Lawful’: The Social Apology of Luke-Acts.” In
The New Testament in the Graeco-Roman World. Ed. Marius Nel, 65–86. Zurich: Lit,
2015.
Tajra, H.W. The Trial of St. Paul. wunt 2.35. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1989.
Tajra, H.W. The Martyrdom of St. Paul. wunt 2.67. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994.
Thornton, Claus-Jürgen. Der Zeuge des Zeugen, Lukas als Historiker der Paulusreisen.
wunt 56. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991.
Towner, Philip H. “The Portrait of Paul and the Theology of 2 Timothy: The Closing
Chapter of the Pauline Story.” hbt 21 (1999): 151–170.
Trummer, Peter. Die Paulustradition der Pastoralbriefe. bbet 8. Frankfurt: Peter Lang,
1978.
Van der Toorn, Karel. “In the Lion’s Den: The Babylonian Background of a Biblical
Motif.” cbq 60 (1998): 626–640.

5 Theological Analysis
The numerous allusions to Ps 21(22) provide a framework for the evaluation of
the distinct theological contributions of this section. First and most important
of all, that this psalm plays a significant role in the gospel passion narratives (cf.
Stolz 1980: 146–148; see references above) argues for Paul’s self-understanding
as one following in the footsteps of Jesus the righteous sufferer. That this psalm
portrays the plea of a righteous sufferer is made explicit in Wis 2–5, which
identifies the speaker as ὁ δίκαιος (Wis 2:10, 12, 18; 5:1; cf. also 1QH 10:33–35;
Carey 2009: 116, 120). The presence of the risen Lord (ὁ … κύριός) is already
explicitly noted in a verse that contains that clearest allusion to lxx Ps 21 (ἐκ
στόματος λέοντος, v. 17 [Ps 21:22]), and this is but the continuation of a sus-
tained motif throughout this letter, which includes the three references to
“Christ Jesus” in the letter opening (1:1–2) and the call to Timothy to “share
in suffering as a good soldier of Christ Jesus” (2:3) as Paul himself “suffer[s]
to the point of being chained like a criminal” for the gospel of “Jesus Christ”
(2:8–9). Consistent with the interpretive traditions of the psalmic righteous suf-
ferer, this Jesus is explicitly identified as ὁ δίκαιος κριτής in v. 8, an appellation
that appears only here in the pe. Following in the footsteps of this “righteous”
one, Paul considers his fate as a righteous sufferer an honorable journey that
leads to the “heavenly kingdom” of one that is worthy of the eternal “glory”
(v. 18).
ὁ δίκαιος κριτής (v. 8), βασιλεία (v. 18), and δόξα (v. 18) evoke kingship language
that may further point to the influence of Ps 21(22) and its reception in Jew-
ish interpretive communities. Within the psalm itself, “kingship” is ascribed to
“the Lord” (cf. τοῦ κυρίου ἡ βασιλεία, 21:29), whose “righteousness” (τὴν δικαιοσύ-
νην, 21:32) is to be proclaimed to all because “he himself rules over all nations”
718 2 timothy

(αὐτὸς δεσπόζει τῶν ἐθνῶν, Ps 21:29) and thus deserves all glory (cf. δοξάσατε
αὐτόν, Ps 21:24). The fact that this psalm is ascribed to David (Ps 21:1) and that the
fate of this individual is tied with the fate of the “offspring of Jacob” (τὸ σπέρμα
Ιακωβ, Ps 21:24) argue for the royal identity of this psalmist (May 1985: 329).
Furthermore, the acknowledgment by this Davidic figure of the sovereignty
of “the Lord” over all generations (Ps 21:29–31) anticipates Paul’s confession of
the Lord being the one who is “to judge the living and the dead” (v. 1; cf. v. 8),
especially since this risen Lord is “the seed of David” (2:8). Anticipated by the
pervasive use of Ps 21(22) in all four gospels (which, in turn, presupposes this
use being embedded in pre-gospel traditions), this royal messianic reading of
the psalm may provide further definition to the christological emphasis of this
section.
If Paul identifies himself as the righteous sufferer of Ps 21(22), then those
who opposed and deserted him may resemble the mockers of that psalm. As
those who oppose Jesus are compared to the mockers of Ps 21(22), the death
of the righteous sufferer may also incur judgment on these mockers (cf. Mark
15:33–39; Schmidt 1994: 145–152; Watts 2007: 307–322), though the precise judg-
ment is not made explicit in the psalm. In the context of 2 Timothy 4, where
divine judgment has already been invoked upon those who are unfaithful to
Paul and his gospel (v. 14), the use of this psalm may also serve as a warning
to those who assume that God would not remember the sufferings of the righ-
teous. This hortatory element is already anticipated at the end of the previous
section when Paul asserts that the gift of the crown is reserved only for those
who remain faithful to “the Lord, the righteous judge” (v. 8).
Finally, as the suffering of the righteous led to the proclamation of the Lord’s
sovereignty “over the nations” (Ps 21:29[22:28]), Paul also considers his suffer-
ing a prelude to the climax of his ministry when “all the nations” (v. 17) may
now hear the gospel. This forces one to reconsider the motive of Paul’s insis-
tence on appealing to Caesar (cf. Acts 25:11; 28:19), an extraordinary appeal filed
before the reception of the final sentence (cf. Garnsey 1966: 182–185). While the
immediate factor is to avoid being tried by a Jewish court (cf. Rapske 1994: 186),
Paul had always planned to travel to Rome (cf. Rom 15:9) not only to defend
Christianity in the Roman court (thus Kim 2008: 49) but also to fulfill his voca-
tion as a witness to the center of the Roman Empire (cf. Gaventa 2003: 335).
Paul’s own statement in this section argues for considering his desire to travel
to Rome to be the climax of his ministry, as he preaches the gospel of the “heav-
enly kingdom” at the center of the Roman Empire despite being in chains. As
in the Lukan account of the first Roman imprisonment where the proclama-
tion of the “kingdom” (Acts 28:31) takes precedence over Paul’s own defense
(cf. Marguerat 2002: 205–256), in this second Roman imprisonment the focus
4:19–22 719

is also on the “righteous judge” (v. 8) who is to “judge the living and the dead”
(v. 1), rather than on the Roman imperial power that claims to be the highest
human court.

Bibliography
Carey, Jolly J. Jesus’ Cry from the Cross: Towards a First-Century Understanding of the
Intertextual Relationship between Psalm 22 and the Narrative of Mark’s Gospel.
lnts 398. London: T & T Clark, 2009.
Garnsey, Peter. “The Lex Iulia and Appeal under the Empire.” jrs 56 (1966): 167–
189.
Gaventa, Beverly Roberts. The Acts of the Apostles. antc. Nashville: Abingdon, 2003.
Kim, Seyoon. Christ and Caesar: The Gospel and the Roman Empire in the Writings of
Paul and Luke. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008.
Marguerat, Daniel. The First Christian Historian. sntsms 121. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2002.
May, James L. “Prayer and Christology: Psalm 22 as Perspective on the Passion.” ThTo 42
(1985): 322–333.
Rapske, Brian. The Book of Acts and Paul in Roman Custody. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1994.
Schmidt, Thomas E. “Cry of Dereliction or Cry of Judgment? Mark 15:34 in Context.”
bbr 4 (1994): 145–153.
Stolz, Franz. “Psalm 22: Alttestamentliches Reden vom Menschen und neutestament-
liches Reden von Jesus.” ztk 77 (1980): 129–148.
Watts, Rikki E. “The Lord’s House and David’s Lord: The Psalms and Mark’s Perspective
on Jesus and the Temple.” BibInt 15 (2007): 307–322.

vii Final Word to Timothy (4:19–22)

1 Translation
19 Greet Prisca and Aquila and the household of Onesiphorus. 20 Erastus
remained in Corinth; Trophimus I left in Miletus because he was ill. 21 Do your
best to come before winter. Eubulus greets you, as do Pudens and Linus and
Claudia and all the brothers and sisters. 22 The Lord be with your spirit. Grace
be with you all.

2 Text-Critical Analysis
▪ 19 τὸν Ὀνησιφόρου οἶκον: Following the apocryphal Acts of Paul, two eleventh-
century (or later) minuscules (181, 460) identify the members of τὸν Ὀνησιφόρου
οἶκον as Λέκτραν τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ καὶ Σιμαίαν καὶ Ζήνωνα τοὺς υἱοὺς αὐτοῦ (Acts
720 2 timothy

Paul 3.2; cf. Westcott-Hort 1882: 135; Metzger and Ehrman 2005: 269). This is
in line with the insertions from this apocryphal work elsewhere in the textual
traditions of 2Timothy (cf. 3:11).

▪ 20 ἀπέλιπον: As in vv. 10, 13, and 16, there is again a shift from the aorist
(ἀπέλιπον: ‫ א‬Avid D F G Ψ 33 1249 1505 1739 1881 pm 𝔐) to the imperfect in
a diverse group of manuscripts (ἀπέλειπον: C L P 33 104 323 326 365 115 1241).
Because of the general lack of imperfect in the pe, the internal evidence again
favors the aorist (Tischendorf; contra Westcott-Hort). This is likely also a case
of itacism.

▪ 21 πάντες: This is omitted in the original reading of Codex Sinaiticus (‫)*א‬, fol-
lowed by a few notable minuscules (33 1739 1881), but its inclusion is supported
by a more diverse group of witnesses across textual traditions (‫ א‬Avid C D F G Ψ
69 424 1505 pm 𝔐). This conforms to a pattern of scribal tendency in omitting
πᾶς (1:15; 2:10; 4:8; Elliott, 172), and its inclusion fits well in this context when
Paul conveys the greetings from the entire local community of believers (1 Cor
16:20; 1Thess 5:26).

▪ 22 ὁ κύριος: Some witnesses insert Ἰησοῦς (A 104 614 vgst) while many more
Ἰησοῦς Χριστός (‫א‬2 C D K L P Ψ 81 265 630 1175 1241 1505 𝔐 ar b f vgcl.ww sy bo;
Ambst) after ὁ κύριος, while the shorter reading (ὁ κύριος) is supported by the
original reading of Codex Sinaiticus (‫ )*א‬followed by a number of other wit-
nesses (F G 33 1739 1881 sa). It is far more likely for a scribe to use the fuller
title than to omit the name of Jesus (Christ) from this title, and the insertion
of Ἰησοῦς or Ἰησοῦς Χριστός might aim at clarifying the reference behind this
title or might be influenced by the use of the full title elsewhere in the early
Christian tradition (Acts 11:17; 28:31; James 1:1), especially in the openings (Rom
1:7; 1Cor 1:3; 2Cor 1:2; Gal 1:3; Eph 1:2; Phil 1:2; 1Thess 1:1; 2 Thess 1:1, 2; Phlm 3)
and endings (2Cor 13:13; Eph 6:23; Phil 4:23; Phlm 25) of Paul’s earlier epistles.
The absence of either ὁ κύριος Ἰησοῦς or ὁ κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός in the pe further
argues for the shorter reading.

▪ 22 ἡ χάρις μεθ’ ὑμῶν: Instead of this phrase, several variant readings exist: (1) ἡ
χάρις μεθ’ ὑμῶν (614 vgst boms); (2) ἡ χάρις μετά σου (syp sams boms); (3) ἔρρωσ(ο)
ἐν εἰρήνη (D*.1 ar b; [Ambst]); and (4) omission of the phrase (218 samss). The
external support for ἡ χάρις μεθ’ ὑμῶν is strong with witnesses from diverse tex-
tual traditions (‫ א‬A C F G Ψ 33 69 1505 1881 pm 𝔐). Internal considerations also
support this reading. Variant (1) is likely a case of itacism; (2) is possible with
a scribe changing the singular σου to the plural ὑμῶν for the letter to address
4:19–22 721

a wider audience (Elliott, 172), but it is equally possible for a scribe to change
the plural to the singular in assimilation to σε of the previous verse; (3) is sup-
ported only by some of the Western witnesses, and is possibly influenced by
the formula found in secular letters (cf. Acts 15:29; 23:30; Eschlimann 1946: 194;
Pao 2010: 110–112); (4) is likely a scribal error preserved in a small segment of
the textual tradition.

▪ 22 ending: As in 1Timothy and Titus, many late witnesses (‫א‬2 D K L P Ψ 104

365 630 1175 1241 1505 1739c 𝔐 lat sy bopt) insert ἀμήν at the end of this letter, but
it is omitted in the earliest Alexandrian uncials (‫ *א‬A C; cf. 1739*) and some of
the Western witnesses (F G vgms; Ambst). Its inclusion was probably prompted
by later liturgical usage and parallels in some of the earlier Pauline letters (Rom
16:27; Gal 6:18).

Bibliography
Eschlimann, J.-A. “La rédaction des épîtres pauliniennes: d’après une comparaison avec
les lettres profanes de son temps.” rb 53 (1946): 185–196.
Metzger, Bruce M., and Bart D. Ehrman. The Text of the New Testament. 4th ed. New
York: Oxford University Press, 2005.
Pao, David W. “Gospel within the Constraints of an Epistolary Form.” In Paul and the
Ancient Letter Form. Ed. Stanley E. Porter and Sean A. Adams, 101–128. Boston/Lei-
den: Brill, 2010.

3 Grammatical Analysis
The boundary of this unit is clearly marked by the presence of a doxology that
concludes the previous unit (v. 18b), accompanied by a shift in both syntactic
and verbal patterns with vv. 19–22. Moving from long and complex sentences
in the preceding unit, this one contains short independent clauses that pro-
vide proper closing to the letter. The use of the aorist imperatives (ἄσπασαι,
v. 19; σπούδασον, v. 21) in this unit also signals a shift, with the previous aorist
imperative appearing only at the beginning of the previous unit (σπούδασον,
v. 9). Moreover, the use of the verb ἀσπάζομαι (vv. 19, 21) also marks the begin-
ning of the final section of this letter, especially since this verb always appears
in the final greetings in Paul’s letters (Rom 16:3–23; 1 Cor 16:19–20; 2 Cor 13:12;
Phil 4:21–22; Col 4:10–15; 1Thess 5:26; Titus 3:15; Phlm 23). Though one could
consider v. 22 as a separate unit containing the final blessings (cf. Hanson, 164),
it is best to consider both the greetings and the blessings as constituting this
letter closing.
The connection with the previous unit is maintained by the material that is
framed by the greetings formula:
722 2 timothy

Greetings (ἄσπασαι, v. 19)

Notes on Other Characters (v. 20)

Call for Timothy to Come (v. 21a)

Greetings (ἀσπάζεται, v. 21b)

Notes on characters (Erastus, Trophimus, v. 20) that appear only here in the pe
recall similar notes in the previous unit (vv. 10, 11, 12, 14), while the call for Timo-
thy to come (v. 21a) likewise recalls a similar call in v. 9 with the use of the same
verb followed by the same complementary infinitive (σπούδασον … ἐλθεῖν). It is
unnecessary, however, to consider vv. 9–21 as “a separate Pauline letter that at
some point in transmission was fused onto the other materials that make up
ii Timothy” (Miller, 122; cf. Scott, 144). Cf. the similar conglomeration of mate-
rial in the letter closing of Titus (see Historical Analysis).
The unit begins with a second-person greeting, with an imperative (ἄσπα-
σαι) followed by three accusative objects connected by the repeated uses of καί
(v. 19). This is followed by two clauses on two separate characters, Erastus and
Trophimus; the two clauses are connected by the developmental δέ, and both
contain a locative phrase introduced by ἐν (v. 20). Another imperatival clause
follows with the use of an imperative with a complementary infinitive (σπούδα-
σον … ἐλθεῖν), calling Timothy to come to Paul (v. 21a). Another word of greeting
follows, this time containing a third-person greeting, with an indicative (ἀσπά-
ζεται) followed by an accusative object and four personal subjects connected
by the repeated uses of καί (v. 21b).
The unit concludes with two verbless clauses; if both are to be taken as con-
cluding blessings, then the optative εἴη would be implied in both (v. 22). The
recipient of the first blessing is the singular σου, while the second is the plural
ὑμῶν, a shift that expands the addressees from Timothy to those around him.

▪ 19 Ἄσπασαι Πρίσκαν καὶ Ἀκύλαν καὶ τὸν Ὀνησιφόρου οἶκον. In Paul, ἀσπάζομαι
always appears at the beginning of a clause. The use of the aorist imperative
ἄσπασαι for second-person greetings and the present indicative ἀσπάζεται (v. 21)
for third-person ones is consistent with letter closings found elsewhere in Paul
(Rom 16:16; 1Cor 16:20; 2Cor 13:12; Phil 4:21; Col 4:14–15), a pattern that contin-
ues in the pe (cf. Titus 3:15). Instead of the more common second-person plural
imperative ἀσπάσασθε, only here and in Titus 3:15 does Paul use the second-
person singular imperative ἄσπασαι instead, underlining the personal nature
of these letters.
4:19–22 723

The three accusative objects are connected by the repeated uses of καί, cre-
ating a rhetorical effect that highlights the focus on every recipient of this
greeting.

▪ 20 Ἔραστος ἔμεινεν ἐν Κορίνθῳ, Τρόφιμον δὲ ἀπέλιπον ἐν Μιλήτῳ ἀσθενοῦντα. The

mentioning of Erastus and Trophimus in Greece and Asia Minor reinforces the
earlier note on his loneliness (vv. 10, 12, 16), especially with the absence of those
who had accompanied him (as implied in the verbs μένω and ἀπολείπω).
The present participle ἀσθενοῦντα depicts an act contemporaneous to that
of the verb that it modifies (ἀπέλιπον). Without the proper understanding of
its context, it is difficult to discern whether this participle should be taken in
a causal (Perkins, 240) or concessive (Johnson, 444) sense, though the causal
sense would fit the context better in light of Paul’s expressed preference to have
companions during this final period of his life (cf. vv. 9–11).

▪ 21 Σπούδασον πρὸ χειμῶνος ἐλθεῖν. This clause recalls σπούδασον ἐλθεῖν πρός με
ταχέως of v. 9, but πρὸ χειμῶνος (“before winter”) should not be understood
merely as an explication of ταχέως (“quickly”), with the questionable conclu-
sion that the urgency expressed is prompted primarily by the need of the cloak
for the winter season (thus Mounce, 600; Smith, 175). Instead, the urgency
expressed in v. 9 should be understood in light of the need for Timothy’s pres-
ence for Paul’s climactic presentation of the gospel in the presence of the
Roman imperial power (vv. 17–18), while the reference to winter provides prag-
matic advice so that Timothy would not have to wait for another travel season
to be present with Paul.

▪ Ἀσπάζεταί σε Εὔβουλος καὶ Πούδης καὶ Λίνος καὶ Κλαυδία καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ πάντες.
Consistent with the pattern of other Pauline greetings, there is a shift from the
second aorist imperative ἄσπασαι (v. 19) to the third-person present indicative
ἀσπάζεται. The use of the singular for the compound subject that consists of a
list of singular nouns is not unexpected, especially when the emphasis is placed
on the first subject (Smyth, Greek Grammar, §967–969), though the repeated
uses of καί (as in v. 19) draw attention to all the items listed here.
The widening of the circle to all believers (οἱ ἀδελφοὶ πάντες) at the end of
the list may parallel the ending of the second-person greetings above where
the believers (or family members) of the house of Onesiphorus are the objects
of Paul’s greetings (v. 19). The reference to all believers as senders of greetings
can likewise be found in 1Cor 16:20, and they have also served as recipients of
Paul’s closing greetings (1Thess 5:26–27; cf. Phil 4:21).
724 2 timothy

▪ 22 Ὁ κύριος μετὰ τοῦ πνεύματός σου. ἡ χάρις μεθ’ ὑμῶν. The use of two benedic-
tions in a letter closing is unusual in Paul, and this combination points to the
unique nature of this letter, even among the pe. Paul here focuses intently on
Timothy as the one who is going to carry on his gospel ministry, all the while
mindful of the challenges that continue to exist in the community of believers.
The clause ὁ κύριος μετὰ τοῦ πνεύματός σου occurs only here in the nt, but this
may be a case of ellipsis within a parallel construction:

ὁ κύριος μετὰ τοῦ πνεύματός σου

ἡ χάρις μεθ’ ὑμῶν

Reading the two together, ἡ χάρις (from the second benediction) is likely im-
plied in the first benediction, while τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν (from ὁ κύριος of the first
benediction) is implied in the second (see Text-Critical Analysis).
The second grace benediction, ἡ χάρις μεθ’ ὑμῶν, recalls those of 1 Tim 6:21 (ἡ
χάρις μεθ’ ὑμῶν; cf. Col 4:18) and Titus 3:15 (ἡ χάρις μετὰ πάντων ὑμῶν) where the
community of believers is in view. As in the case of 1 Tim 6:21, the presence of
the plural pronoun ὑμῶν is unexpected, as reflected in the textual traditions.
In both benedictions, the implied verb is likely the optative εἴη rather than
the indicative ἐστιν, with the optative understood as carrying a similar function
as the imperative ἔρρωσο in Hellenistic letter closings (e.g., P.Eleph. 13; P.Lond.
42; W.Chr. 10; see Weima 1994: 84).

Bibliography
Weima, Jeffrey A.D. Neglected Endings: The Significance of the Pauline Letter Closings.
JSNTSup 101. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994.

4 Historical Analysis
The closing section of this letter departs from those of 1 Timothy and Titus as an
explicit hortatory section that aims at responding directly to the false teachings
is missing (cf. 1Tim 6:20–21a; Titus 3:14). In terms of form and content, however,
it closely resembles that of Titus with notes on other characters (v. 20; cf. Titus
3:12a, 13), a call to come to Paul himself (σπούδασον … ἐλθεῖν, v. 21; cf. σπούδα-
σον ἐλθεῖν, Titus 3:12b), second-person (v. 19; cf. Titus 3:15b) and third-person
(v. 21; cf. Titus 3:15a) words of greeting, and a final grace benediction (v. 22; cf.
Titus 3:15b). The differences between the two should also be noted, however.
Besides the absence of an explicit hortatory section, only the greetings in this
letter provide names of individuals (vv. 19, 21b). This closing also differs from the
closings in 1Timothy (that omits the final greetings) and other earlier Pauline
4:19–22 725

letters (that contain additional personal notes; Rom 16:22; 1 Cor 16:21; Gal 6:11;
Col 4:18; 2Thess 3:17). All these variations would argue against seeing this let-
ter closing merely as an imitating act by a later pseudonymous writer (contra
Dibelius and Conzelmann, 128).
A unique feature here among Pauline letter closings needs to be highlighted.
At the end of this letter, Paul ends with two words of benediction, one directed
to Timothy himself (cf. 2Thess 3:16), the other to a wider circle of believers
(ἡ χάρις μεθ’ ὑμῶν, v. 22; cf. Col 4:18; 1Tim 6:21). This ending provides a proper
conclusion to this particular letter and perhaps also the pe or even the entire
Pauline corpus.

▪ 19 Πρίσκα is a form that appears only in Paul (Rom 16:3; 1 Cor 16:19), whereas
Luke prefers the diminutive Πρίσκιλλα (Acts 18:2, 18, 26). This Prisca/Priscilla
is identified as the wife of Aquila (Ἀκύλας) in Acts 18:2, and, with the lone
exception of 1Cor 16:19, her name always appears before Aquila’s. This promi-
nent placement of her name has been attributed to her higher social stand-
ing (Fiore, 187), though elsewhere Paul does not always list persons accord-
ing to their social status (cf. Rom 16:1–16, where slaves and freedmen are not
separately listed). It is more likely that Prisca had a more prominent role in
ministry since the Prisca/Priscilla-Aquila order almost always appears in min-
istry contexts (Acts 18:18, 26; Rom 16:3; cf. John Chrysostom, Hom. 2 Tim. 10,
who considers Prisca more “earnest and faithful,” σπουδαιοτέραν … καὶ πιστο-
τέραν).
Aquila was a Jew from Pontus (Acts 18:2). Apparently, Prisca and Aquila
served in the church of Rome before being expelled from the city by Claudius
in ad 49 with “the Jews” (Suetonius, Claud. 25.4; cf. Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 2.18.9;
Cassius Dio, Hist. 60.6.6–7) and arrived in Corinth where they first met Paul
(Acts 18:3). After Corinth, they traveled to Ephesus (Acts 18:24–26) and served
with Paul there (1Cor 16:19) before returning to Rome after Claudius’s death in
ad 54 (Rom 16:3). From this greeting, they have apparently returned to Ephesus,
likely serving with Timothy and helping him in light of the difficulties caused
by the Ephesian false teachers.
The mention of the household of Onesiphorus instead of Onesiphorus him-
self may likewise be attributed to the focus on ministry where Paul has the
wider group of believers in mind (cf. Rom 16:11). Nevertheless, in light of a sim-
ilar reference in 1:16 above, it seems likely that Onesiphorus was indeed absent
from Ephesus, though the reason for his absence remains unclear (see 1:16). In
the Acts of Paul, the household of Onesiphorus is identified primarily as those
within his immediate family: his wife Lectra and his two sons Simaias and Zeno
(Acts Paul 3.2; see Text-Critical Analysis).
726 2 timothy

▪ 20 If we assume that Paul wrote Romans from the region surrounding Corinth,
Erastus’s presence in Corinth may connect him with “Erastus the city officer”
(Ἔραστος ὁ οἰκονόμος τῆς πόλεως) named in Rom 16:23. This Corinthian con-
nection is strengthened by what has traditionally been understood as a mid-
first-century Latin inscription in Old Corinth that names a person by the same
name carrying the office of aedilis (cf. Cadbury 1931: 58, who questions this
identification because the title of aedilis is of higher status than ὁ οἰκονόμος
τῆς πόλεως, which can be attributed to a slave). Nevertheless, this identifica-
tion would require that this Erastus had always resided in Corinth, which can
be difficult if the verb μένω indicates the temporary occupation of a physical
space in the midst of a longer journey (Mark 6:10; Luke 9:4; Acts 27:31; 28:16),
though this verb can also mean “to remain in the same place over a period of
time” (LNd §85.55). Another Erastus is mentioned in Acts 19:22, who is more
likely the one noted here in 2Timothy; according to Luke, this Erastus is both
a coworker of Paul and one linked with Timothy (cf. Theissen 1982: 80–83, who
identifies the Erastus that holds the office of aedilis with that of both Rom 16:23
and Acts 19:22; see, however, Friesen 2010: 236–245, who dates the Latin inscrip-
tion to the mid-second century ad instead).
Although an “extremely common” name (Horsley 1983: 92) even in Ephesus
during the final years of Paul’s life (cf. IEph 20 [ad 54–49]; Horsley 1992: 128–
129), Trophimus is likely the one identified in Acts, especially since he is an
Ephesian (Acts 21:29) who is likely associated with both Paul and Timothy (Acts
20:4). From these references, Trophimus appears to have had a significant min-
istry in Achaia, Macedonia, and Asia. As in the case of μένω, ἀπολείπω also
assumes the context of a journey (cf. 4:13; Titus 1:5).
It is unclear how geographical references to Corinth and Miletus in these
two clauses contribute to the reconstruction of Paul’s itinerary during the final
period of his itinerant ministry. The reference to Corinth may indicate that Paul
had made a stop there, which would provide an otherwise unknown area of
Paul’s ministry after his first Roman imprisonment, or it could have happened
after his arrest, which would provide a critical note on his itinerary from Asia
Minor back to Rome.
Equally difficult is the reference to Miletus, which may be a stop Paul made
before or after his arrest. ἀσθενέω can refer to a range of physical challenges,
from being ill to the point of death (cf. ἠσθένησεν παραπλήσιον θανάτῳ, Phil
2:27) to the experience of certain “personal incapacity or limitation” (bdag 142;
cf. 2Cor 12:10; 13:3). If it happened after the arrest, Trophimus’s illness may not
be severe, but still it would make the long trip to Rome difficult, especially when
traveling with a criminal under guard. That he was not critically ill may also
explain Timothy’s unawareness of his condition even though Miletus was less
4:19–22 727

than 50 miles south of Ephesus. The difficulties of recreating the itinerary from
Ephesus (or Troas) to Miletus to Rome has led to the conjecture proposed first
by Theodore of Beza (followed by Dibelius and Conzelmann, 125) that Μελίτῃ
(“Malta”) should be read instead of Μιλήτῳ (“Miletus”), though without suffi-
cient external support (Tischendorf notes the presence of an Arabic version
that also supports this reference to Malta; cf. Cook 1866: xlix).

▪ 21 This verse repeats the call for Timothy to make a speedy trip to see him
in Rome (cf. v. 9) but provides an additional temporal marker: πρὸ χειμῶνος.
The function of this marker resembles that of Titus 3:12 (παραχειμάσαι) as the
winter months (Nov 11–March 10; see Vegetius, De re militari 4.39) are consid-
ered impossible for sea journeys (Josephus, B.J. 2.230), though they likely refer
to different “winters.” That the winter season often evokes a season of unset-
tled weather would explain how χειμών can refer to “storm” in some contexts
(Plutarch, Mor. 501d; Dio Chrysostom, Diffid. 24). In this particular case, the
winter can possibly be dated to the end of ad 63 or 64.
All four names appear only here in the nt. All but the first are Latin names,
which is consistent with the Roman origin of this letter (Kelly, 222), although
evidence does point to the adoption of Latin names by native Greeks in Asia
Minor (Gregory 2007: 161–168). The name Εὔβουλος is a well-attested name from
classical Greek writings to Hellenistic documentary papyri; this Eubulus may
have survived in early Christian traditions as a presbyter in Corinth (Acts Paul
8.1).
Speculations of the relationship between Πούδης (from the Latin Pudens)
and Κλαυδία (from Claudia) stem from inscriptions of married couples with
identical names (cij 15066; see, for example, Williams 1848: 1–58, who identi-
fies this Claudia as the Claudia mentioned in Martial, Epigrams 4.13, one who
is the daughter of a prominent British officer, who later was married to Pudens,
a Roman centurion, thus locating the root of British Christianity in the Pauline
mission). That Claudia is the only woman in this list has not gone unnoticed,
with John Chrysostom comparing her to Priscilla as both are “fiery for the faith”
(διάπυροι περὶ τὴν πίστιν, Hom. 2Tim. 10).
Λίνος (from Linus) is remembered to be the second bishop of Rome after
Peter (Irenaeus, Haer. 3.3.3; Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.2). In the Apostolic Constitu-
tions 46, he was remembered as the child of Claudia, and a bishop appointed
by Peter himself. Even less reliable is the medieval tradition that he died as a
martyr in the time of Nero (Liber Pontificalis 2).

▪ 22 ὁ κύριος μετὰ τοῦ πνεύματός σου and ἡ χάρις μεθ’ ὑμῶν should be read together,
thus forming a two-part grace benediction (cf. ἡ χάρις τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ
728 2 timothy

Χριστοῦ μετὰ τοῦ πνεύματος ὑμῶν, Gal 6:18; Phil 4:23; Phlm 25). In light of the
use of the pronoun ὑμῶν in the second benediction, τοῦ πνεύματός σου should
be understood as a reference to Timothy’s own spirit (Kelly, 223) rather than
the Holy Spirit (Quinn and Wacker, 840). This two-part benediction provides
a fitting conclusion to this letter as Paul addresses a wider group of believers
through his final words to Timothy his child.

Bibliography
Cadbury, Henry J. “Erastus of Corinth.” jbl 50 (1931): 42–58.
Cook, F.C. The Acts of the Apostles. London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1866.
Friesen, Steven J. “The Wrong Erastus: Ideology, Archaeology, and Exegesis.” In Corinth
in Context. Ed. Steve Friesen, 231–256. NovTSup 134. Leiden: Brill, 2010.
Goodrich, John K. “Erastus of Corinth (Rom 16.23): Responding to Recent Proposals on
His Rank, Status, and Faith.” nts 57 (2011): 583–593.
Gregory, Andrew P. “The Impact of Rome on Local Naming Practices in Asia Minor: A
Regional Perspective.” In Regionalism in Hellenistic and Roman Asia Minor. Ed. Hugh
Elton and Gary Reger, 161–168. Pessac, France: Ausonius, 2007.
Horsley, G.H.R. “The Inscriptions of Ephesos and the New Testament.” NovT 34 (1992):
105–168.
Horsley, G.H.R. “Trophimos.” NewDocs 3 (1983): 91–93.
Theissen, Gerd. The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity: Essays on Corinth. Philadel-
phia: Fortress, 1982.
Williams, John. Claudia and Pudens. London: Longman and Co., 1848.

5 Theological Analysis
Reading in light of the carefully crafted endings in other Pauline letters (cf.
Weima 1994: 156–236), this letter closing likely also carries significant theolog-
ical weight. Paul’s note on the ministries of Prisca and Aquila, as well as “the
household of Onesiphorus” (v. 19), acknowledges their (independent) contribu-
tions to the gospel ministry. Prisca and Aquila are ministers among the Pauline
circle of churches, although they were likely leaders of the churches in Rome
and Corinth before they met Paul (Keller 2010: 1–27). Onesiphorus’s household
also likely hosts the community of believers in Ephesus. In acknowledging their
“presence” through the words of greeting, Paul affirms the presence of a wider
network of communities that will survive after his own death.
The notes on the various individuals, both healthy and weak, both male and
female, and both at the center of the Roman Empire and at the margin, also
point to the presence of an alternative political reality beyond that which is
propagated by the earthly empire. This is in continuity with the vision of the
earlier Paul, whose diaspora existence is shaped by his apocalyptic vision (cf.
4:19–22 729

Charles 2014: 256–257). These final words of greeting bear witness to the same
subversive gospel by one who is to fulfill his task of proclamation to “all the
nations” (v. 17).
Most noteworthy of all is the unique juxtaposition of the two benedictions
(v. 22) that shifts the attention away from Timothy (σου) to the believers (ὑμῶν).
In this letter where Paul addresses not only Timothy his “child” (2:1), he is also
addressing a wider circle of believers as Timothy is called to entrust that which
he heard from Paul “to faithful people who will be able to teach others as well”
(2:2). Even if this is to be read as a succession narrative, the focus is not on Paul
nor on his successor Timothy, but on “Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living
and the dead” (4:1) and “all who are longing for his manifestation” (4:8). This
two-part grace benediction provides the climactic note on the powerful work
of God that is expected to continue in subsequent generations of believers.

Bibliography
Charles, Ronald. Paul and the Politics of Diaspora. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2014.
Clarke, Andrew D. “Jew and Greek, Slave and Free, Male and Female: Paul’s Theology of
Ethnic, Social and Gender Inclusiveness in Romans 16.” In Rome in the Bible and the
Early Church. Ed. Peter Oakes, 103–125. Carlisle, UK: Paternoster, 2002.
Keller, Marie Noël. Priscilla and Aquila. Paul’s Social Network. Collegeville, MN: Litur-
gical Press, 2010.
Weima, Jeffrey A.D. Neglected Endings: The Significance of the Pauline Letter Closings.
JSNTSup 101. Sheffield: jsot Press, 1994.
Index of Modern Authors
Aageson, J. 2, 6, 8, 52 Beale, G.K. 223, 240, 246, 248, 322, 325, 391,
Aasgaard, R. 357 392
Abel, F.-M. 67, 81, 91, 108, 109, 161, 251, 254, Beard, M. 377, 378
282, 308, 334, 414, 428, 437, 459, 460, Beasley-Murray, G. 585, 594
546, 561, 564, 603, 606, 654, 679, 682, Beasley-Murray, P. 290, 291
702 Becker, J. 120
Adams, S. 72, 75 Becker, M. 174, 189
Ames, F. 46, 52 Behme, T. 33, 52
Amundsen, D. 320, 325 Bell, A. 17, 19, 52
Anderson, G. 395, 396, 402 Bell, H.I. 599, 600
Anton, P. 1, 41, 52 Belleville, L. 108, 109, 153, 154, 169, 172, 184,
Arichea, D. 224, 228, 239, 240 189
Arnold, C. 46, 52 Bénétreau, S. 64, 362, 367, 368, 375
Arzt, P. 110, 117 Benson, B. 450, 451
Ascough, R. 22, 52, 205, 211, 212, 216, 224 Bentley, R. 251, 252, 254
Asher, E. 628 Berding, K. 4, 52
Aune, D. 73, 75, 125, 127 Bernard, J. 64, 130, 156, 246, 265, 279, 301,
345, 421, 422, 433, 434, 452, 454, 599,
Bailey, K. 296, 297 648, 674
Bakirtzis, C. 83, 86 Bertocchi, A. 79, 81
Baldwin, H.S. 183, 189 Biber, D. 17, 52
Balge, R. 149, 151 Billerbeck, M. 372, 376
Balla, P. 299, 300 Billings, B. 38, 250, 617, 622
Barclay, J. 19, 52, 286, 291, 456, 461 Bingham, D.J. 672
Barney, S.A. 696, 697 Bird, M. 504, 505
Barr, G. 14, 15, 29, 52 Bitner, B. 245, 248, 250
Barr, J. 67, 137, 613 Black, M. 116, 117
Barreto, E. 534, 535 Blanchard, Y. 658, 660, 667, 669, 670, 672
Barrett, C.K. 52, 237, 310, 312, 398, 419, 449, Blasi, A. 203, 213
450, 455, 461, 467, 468, 474, 482, 494, Blass, F. 10, 67, 72, 78, 79, 80, 81, 109, 123, 135,
500, 509, 510, 521, 525, 530, 531, 549, 236, 240, 252, 253, 254, 311, 320, 330,
552, 553, 555, 567, 575, 585, 588, 592, 352, 363, 364, 370, 384, 406, 433, 434,
601, 602, 615, 622, 629, 637, 661, 663, 437, 442, 454, 456, 459, 460, 472, 475,
691, 698, 710, 713 478, 492, 493, 508, 518, 531, 547, 565,
Barth, M. 548 571, 598, 600, 603, 608, 609, 611, 627,
Bartlet, J.V. 251, 252 634, 640, 652, 670, 675, 677, 678, 679,
Barton, J. 7, 52 682, 700, 702
Bassler, J. 37, 64, 171, 172, 303, 314, 317, 327, Blecker, I. 546, 548
328, 409 Bligh, M. 704, 715
Batten, A. 162, 172, 175, 189 Blomberg, C. 166, 172, 175, 189
Bauckham, R. 7, 8, 26, 33, 52, 348, 349, 614, Blumenfeld, B. 273, 276, 374, 376
622 Bockmuehl, M. 207, 219, 223, 225, 229, 246,
Baugh, S.M. 64, 98, 100, 176, 177, 178, 189, 248, 414, 415, 420, 421, 548, 556
226, 228, 257, 261, 270, 275, 276 Bortone, P. 200, 201
Baum, A. 18, 33, 52 Bosman, P. 85, 86, 229, 533, 535
Baumert, N. 282, 284 Boswell, J. 98, 100
732 index of modern authors

Bouteneff, P. 257, 261 Christensen, S. 463, 472

Bovon, F. 263 Clark, D. 436, 439, 440
Bowman, R. 478, 480 Clark, M. 25, 53, 293, 294
Bradley, K. 353, 355 Clarke, A. 215, 216, 230, 231, 272, 276, 729
Brändl, M. 271, 276 Cohen, S. 440, 446, 448, 534, 535
Brannan, R. 70, 72 Collins, J.C. 192, 193
Brenk, F. 372, 376 Collins, J.J. 569
Breytenback, C. 669 Collins, J.N. 111, 117, 220, 223, 224, 229
Bridge, E.J. 298, 299 Collins, R. 41, 42, 53, 64, 70, 78, 109, 121, 126,
Brown, P. 24, 52, 74, 75, 114, 117, 137, 138, 145, 135, 169, 195, 254, 266, 268, 272, 276,
146, 148, 151, 465, 469, 470, 471, 484, 304, 312, 341, 372, 373, 415, 416, 418, 419,
500, 501, 503, 625 420, 421, 428, 440, 444, 456, 458, 461,
Brown, R. 229, 240 492, 496, 521, 530, 533, 534, 539, 542,
Brownlee, W. 263 563, 564, 568, 581, 584, 594, 601, 612,
Brox, N. 30, 33, 52 617, 643, 644, 666, 684, 686, 690, 691,
Bruno, C. 118, 119, 120 700, 703, 709
Büchsel, F. 341 Comfort, P. 302, 341, 346
Bultmann, R. 11, 26, 53, 557, 558 Connolly, A.L. 566, 568, 655, 660
Burer, M. 380, 600 Conzelmann, H. 47, 64, 93, 106, 122, 127, 159,
Burggraff, P. 49, 53, 266, 270 163, 164, 204, 211, 235, 253, 255, 260, 271,
Burgon, J. 232, 233 275, 312, 321, 364, 369, 372, 373, 378, 398,
Burk, D. 269, 270, 385, 509 414, 428, 446, 458, 460, 475, 494, 542,
Burnet, R. 2, 53 562, 574, 603, 604, 613, 635, 650, 658,
Burnett, F. 500, 503 660, 663, 664, 679, 686, 713, 725, 727
Buth, R. 78, 81 Cook, D. 29, 53
Butticaz, S. 32, 53 Cook, F.C. 727, 728
Byrne, P. 377, 378 Coppens, J. 344, 346
Byron, J. 624, 625 Countryman, L.W. 400, 402
Coupland, S. 171, 172
Cadbury, H. 605, 611, 726, 728 Couser, G. 137, 138, 139, 141, 142, 149, 151, 383,
Callahan, A. 37, 53 385, 388, 486, 487, 542, 548
Campbell, B. 253, 256 Cramer, M. 21, 53
Campbell, C. 235, 240, 682 Cranny-Francis, A. 20, 53
Campbell, D. 31, 53, 408, 409 Crockett, W. 278
Campbell, R.A. 196, 201, 202, 213, 309, 314, Crowther, N. 588, 594
689, 692 Cruse, D.A. 90, 93
Capper, B. 174, 189, 316, 325, 339 Crüsemann, F. 624, 625
Caragounis, C. 200, 361, 396, 459, 461, 563, Cullmann, O. 75, 76, 153, 154, 615, 622, 674,
564, 606, 611 675
Carey, J. 714, 715, 717, 719
Carrell, P. 348, 349 D’Angelo, M. 143, 151, 320, 325
Carroll, J. 378 Daube, D. 279, 289, 291
Carson, D.A. 225, 229, 689, 692 Dautzenberg, G. 193
Caulley, T. 2, 29, 53, 657, 660, 671, 672 Davidson, J. 225, 229
Ceccarelli, P. 72, 75 Davies, P. 527
Charles, R. 729 Davies, S. 53, 316
Chase, G. 707, 708, 715 Davis, E. 53, 95
Chevrollier, F. 39, 53 Davis, S. 694
Chilton, B. 527, 642, 643 Day, P. 127
index of modern authors 733

De Villiers, P. 86, 443, 444, 448 Eckhardt, B. 226, 229

De Wet, B.W. 450, 451 Eder, M. 16, 54
Debrunner, A. 10, 67, 72, 78, 79, 80, 81, 109, Edsall, B. 614, 622
123, 135, 236, 240, 252, 253, 254, 311, 320, Edwards, J.C. 148, 151, 477, 480, 484, 485
330, 352, 363, 364, 370, 384, 406, 433, Ehrman, B. 69, 233, 489, 537, 538, 720, 721
434, 437, 442, 454, 456, 459, 460, 472, Eichhorn, J. 1, 54
475, 478, 492, 493, 508, 518, 531, 547, Elder, N. 187, 189
565, 571, 598, 600, 603, 608, 609, 611, Elliott, J.H. 296, 297
627, 634, 640, 652, 670, 675, 677, 678, Elliott, J.K. 64, 69, 76, 88, 89, 102, 103, 104,
679, 682, 700, 702 120, 130, 131, 155, 156, 195, 217, 251, 264,
Dehandschutter, B. 262 265, 279, 301, 302, 329, 330, 359, 360,
Delbridge, M. 47, 53, 172, 206, 211, 213, 220, 379, 380, 394, 395, 405, 411, 433, 434,
227, 229, 331, 337, 461, 467 452, 453, 473, 488, 489, 506, 507, 513,
Deming, W. 290, 291 529, 536, 537, 559, 571, 572, 597, 599,
Denniston, J.D. 92, 93, 545, 548, 605, 611, 635 600, 647, 648, 649, 673, 674, 675, 695,
Deploige, J. 30, 32, 56 696, 697, 720, 721
Devarenne, N. 20, 53 Ellis, E. Earle 19, 54, 94, 100, 213, 215, 216,
Dibelius, M. 47, 64, 93, 106, 122, 127, 159, 163, 240, 242, 248, 252, 256, 262, 385, 392,
164, 204, 211, 235, 253, 255, 260, 271, 275, 442, 448, 479, 480, 497, 501, 503, 636,
312, 321, 364, 369, 372, 373, 398, 414, 428, 643
446, 458, 460, 475, 494, 542, 562, 574, Engberg-Pedersen, T. 40, 54
603, 604, 613, 635, 650, 658, 663, 664, Engel, G. 164, 172
679, 686, 713, 725, 727 Engelmann, H. 177, 190
Diers, C. 320, 325 Engelmann, M. 1, 2, 11, 22, 24, 26, 27, 64, 415
Dion, S. 287, 291 Eschlimann, J.-A. 721
Dodd, C.H. 201, 207 Esler, P. 635, 643
Dölger, F. 616, 622 Eubank, N. 385, 389, 399, 402, 404
Donelson, L.R. 25, 33, 53, 64, 111, 115, 255, Evanson, E. 8, 54
287, 293, 393, 539, 564, 573, 660, 685, Eyben, E. 286, 291
704, 705
Donfried, K. 32, 53, 709, 716 Faber, R. 445, 448
Dormeyer, D. 49, 54 Falconer, R. 25, 64
Dornier, P. 13, 64 Fanning, B. 67, 280, 296, 336, 398, 542, 546,
Douglas, M. 95, 98, 100 575, 679, 700
Dowd, S. 289, 291 Fantin, J. 67, 165, 221, 281, 306, 333, 382, 480,
Downs, D. 26, 215, 216, 385, 390, 555, 556, 606
656, 660 Fee, G. 30, 36, 42, 54, 64, 78, 93, 102, 107, 110,
Drury, C. 64 113, 122, 125, 127, 157, 166, 169, 172, 232,
Dschulnigg, P. 361, 367, 368, 376 233, 235, 239, 240, 243, 257, 262, 269,
Duff, J. 3, 54 289, 290, 291, 323, 325, 334, 339, 353,
Dunn, J.D.G. 21, 23, 25, 54, 64, 113, 117, 118, 363, 372, 383, 384, 389, 420, 421, 425,
120, 249, 250, 290, 291, 293, 294, 494, 476, 478, 480, 484, 494, 495, 496, 501,
496, 501, 503, 504, 505, 541, 548, 557, 503, 510, 528, 548, 563, 564, 583, 585,
558 589, 590, 594, 597, 600, 601, 607, 609,
Dunn, P. 34, 54 610, 617, 632, 640, 643, 660, 676, 701, 713
Dupont, J. 247, 248, 263 Ferguson, E. 178, 189, 289, 291
Fiore, B. 31, 40, 64, 73, 84, 91, 100, 101, 115,
Eastman, D. 36, 54 117, 122, 142, 147, 163, 219, 230, 261, 268,
Ebojo, E.B. 3, 54 285, 306, 339, 363, 424, 475, 494, 495,
734 index of modern authors

Fiore, B. (cont.) 500, 539, 544, 548, 580, 593, George, C. 307, 314, 563, 564
601, 615, 616, 629, 635, 640, 652, 665, Gerber, D. 114, 117
703, 725 Gildenhard, I. 712, 716
Fisk, B. 595, 596 Gill, D. 418, 420, 428, 431
Fitzgerald, J.T. 92, 93, 99, 100, 617, 622 Gill, M. 48, 55, 131, 135, 138, 140, 141, 142, 147,
Fitzmyer, J. 270, 275, 276 151, 481, 485
Fleisher, R. 177, 189 Gladd, B. 223, 240, 246, 248
Flesher, P. 642, 643 Glancy, J. 354, 355
Flusser, D. 289, 291 Glaser, T. 39, 55
Forbes, C. 125, 127 Goldingay, J. 672
Ford, J.M. 45, 54, 463, 470 Goodrich, J. 728
Foster, R. 595, 596 Goodrick, E. 666, 669, 670, 672
Foster, T. 175, 179, 189 Gorday, P. 64
Fowl, S. 242, 248 Gould, J. 569
Fraade, S. 258, 262 Gourgues, M. 2, 47, 55, 64, 132, 174, 236, 240,
Frankfort, H. 242, 248 285, 291, 705
Frary, S. 233 Grabbe, L. 642, 643
Frayer-Griggs, D. 172 Gräbe, P.J. 532
Freedman, D. 95, 644, 646 Grant, R. 87, 88
Friesen, S. 726, 728 Graves, M. 288, 292
Frisius, M. 6, 54 Gray, P. 27, 119, 120, 438, 440, 441, 445, 448
Fuchs, R. 1, 2, 11, 30, 35, 54, 81, 85, 86, 96, Grayston, K. 14, 15, 18, 55
100, 431 Greenidge, A.H.J. 712, 716
Fuhrmann, S. 188, 189 Gregory, A. 727, 728
Fuller, J.W. 329, 331, 332, 337, 338, 343, 346 Gritz, S. 175, 189
Fung, R. 246, 248 Grogan, G. 153, 154
Funk, R.W. 10, 67, 72, 78, 79, 80, 81, 109, 123, Grubbs, N. 426, 428
135, 236, 240, 241, 248, 252, 253, 254, 311, Guignard, C. 5, 55
320, 330, 352, 363, 364, 370, 384, 406, Gülzow, H. 353, 355, 357
433, 434, 437, 442, 454, 456, 459, 460, Gundry Volf, J. 450, 451
472, 475, 478, 492, 493, 508, 518, 531, Gundry, R. 238, 241
547, 565, 571, 598, 600, 603, 608, 609, Guthrie, D. 10, 12, 17, 55, 64, 285, 593, 603,
611, 627, 634, 640, 652, 670, 675, 677, 679, 683, 691, 698
678, 679, 682, 700, 702 Gutwenger, E. 708, 716

Gager, J. 641, 643 Hackett, H.B. 662, 669

Gagnon, R. 100 Häfner, G. 7, 55, 660, 669, 670, 672
Gallimore, S. 39, 54 Hahneman, G. 5, 55
Galpaz-Feller, P. 315, 325 Halliday, M.A.K. 17, 55, 67, 93, 435, 436, 530
Gamble, H. 5, 6, 33, 54 Hanson, A. 13, 24, 31, 55, 64, 162, 235, 281,
Gammie, J. 40, 54 304, 312, 340, 343, 354, 372, 389, 395,
Garnsey, P. 718, 719 415, 461, 474, 476, 490, 501, 508, 511, 525,
Gärtner, B. 244, 248 529, 530, 531, 538, 555, 567, 573, 578,
Gasparro, G. 268, 270 584, 611, 613, 615, 616, 630, 650, 662,
Gaster, M. 627, 628 666, 668, 679, 692, 698, 700, 708, 713,
Gathergood, E. 3, 55, 453, 454 714, 715, 721
Gaventa, B. 718, 719 Hanson, K. 513
Geiger, S. 98, 100 Harding, M. 26, 40, 41, 55, 558
Genade, A. 419, 420, 435, 440, 471, 472, 509 Harland, P. 293, 294
index of modern authors 735

Harrill, J.A. 95, 98, 99, 100, 353, 472, 646 Horrell, D. 215, 216, 272, 276, 357, 358
Harris, J.R. 444, 449 Horsley, G.H.R. 38, 47, 56, 127, 140, 151, 178,
Harris, M. 72, 109, 239, 240, 241, 283, 284, 208, 213, 296, 297, 311, 321, 325, 338, 346,
413, 415, 476, 477, 478, 480, 486, 487, 364, 367, 371, 376, 467, 470, 485, 519,
517, 518, 541, 548, 581, 584, 716 522, 525, 526, 532, 639, 643, 657, 660,
Harrison, E.L. 376 665, 666, 669, 691, 692, 695, 698, 704,
Harrison, J.R. 112, 117, 177, 178, 189, 299, 314, 707, 714, 716, 726, 728
317, 318, 320, 327, 328, 339, 346, 353, Horst, J. 446, 449
355, 481, 485, 505, 596, 692, 694 Hort, F.J.A. 68, 194, 232, 252, 360, 478, 480,
Harrison, P.N. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 537
28, 29, 55, 564, 568 Horton, R.F. 22, 64, 65, 221, 593, 610, 614,
Harvey, A.E. 203, 338, 346 662, 663, 678, 682, 698, 709, 711, 713,
Hasan, R. 17, 55 714, 715
Hasler, V. 24, 26, 55, 393, 394, 487, 553, 556, Horvers, M. 20, 63
558 House, H.W. 672
Haufe, G. 615, 622 Hubbard, M. 171, 172
Hayes, C. 447, 449 Hübner, J. 168, 172, 183, 184, 189
Haykin, M. 25, 55, 505, 506, 557, 558 Huffman, D. 67, 127, 166, 200, 296, 310, 313,
Hays, R. 393, 394 314, 335, 397, 439, 517, 603, 703
Head, P. 709, 716 Hugenberger, G. 161, 163, 172
Heckert, J. 67, 92, 105, 133, 136, 165, 199, 253, Huizenga, A. 1, 46, 64, 188, 307, 317, 457,
268, 269, 281, 308, 336, 337, 384, 439, 466, 467, 640
516, 531, 540, 544, 545, 574, 606, 607, Hull, M. 568, 569
632, 635, 651, 652, 678, 684 Hultin, J. 342, 346
Heine, R. 6, 55 Hunter, A. 464, 470
Hemelrijk, E. 646 Hurtado, L. 420, 421
Hengel, M. 708, 716 Hutson, C. 1, 40, 42, 56, 282, 284, 290, 291,
Hentschel, A. 224, 229 292, 337, 550, 556, 690, 692
Herdan, G. 14, 15, 18, 55 Huttar, D. 183, 190
Herzer, J. 22, 49, 55, 245, 248, 275, 276, 491, Huttunen, N. 20, 56
496, 505, 506, 509, 512, 617, 623, 671, Huxley, G.L. 443, 449
672 Hylen, S. 8, 22, 56, 227, 229, 328
Hick, D. 32, 55
Hill, D. 67, 117, 241, 246 Immendörfer, M. 38, 47, 56, 73, 75, 140, 151,
Hill, W. 504, 506 226, 229, 245, 248, 399, 403, 617, 623,
Hillert, S. 278 665, 669
Hincks, E.Y. 28, 55 Iplikçioglu, B. 177, 190
Hinlicky, P. 410 Irwin, B. 337, 343
Hitchcock, F.R.M. 10, 55 Ivarsson, F. 646
Hoag, G. 180, 189
Hoffmann, R.J. 5, 56 Jaeger, W. 482, 485
Hofmann, J. 711, 716 James, M.R. 628
Hoklotubbe, T.C. 47, 56, 151, 377, 378 Jebb, S. 171, 172
Holleman, J. 625 Jeremias, J. 56, 148, 151, 238, 242, 316, 325
Holmberg, B. 215, 216 Jervis, L.A. 19, 56, 115, 117, 119, 120, 245,
Holtzmann, H. 1, 8, 9, 29, 56, 274 248
Hooker, M. 148, 151, 368, 376 Jewett, R. 356, 358
Hopkins, K. 353, 355 Jipp, J. 208, 213, 523, 596
Horden, P. 356, 358 Johnson, L. 241, 248
736 index of modern authors

Johnson, L.T. 1, 2, 11, 27, 36, 38, 40, 41, 56, 64, Kilpatrick, G.D. 65, 104, 155, 217, 301, 302,
72, 77, 80, 82, 84, 86, 92, 93, 95, 100, 106, 330, 360, 379, 380, 411, 433, 473, 488,
115, 122, 132, 133, 163, 165, 169, 195, 201, 506, 560, 571, 572, 599, 627, 648, 675,
210, 211, 223, 240, 246, 254, 259, 268, 697
273, 281, 298, 306, 308, 310, 311, 321, 331, Kim, Hong Bom 333, 337
333, 337, 352, 364, 369, 372, 373, 380, Kim, S. 148, 151, 718, 719
388, 532, 541, 547, 553, 573, 581, 613, 619, Kirk, A. 712, 714, 716
632, 646, 715, 723 Klauck, H.-J. 34, 41, 49, 57, 82, 87
Johnston, J.W. 255, 256, 437, 440, 653, 657, Klawans, J. 446, 449
658, 660, 666, 669 Klinker-De Klerck, M. 47, 57
Joly, R. 84, 87 Kloppenborg, J. 21, 57
Jones, B. 598, 600 Knibbe, D. 177, 190
Jongkind, D. 4, 56, 217 Knight, G. 94, 97, 108, 114, 117, 122, 133, 165,
Jouanna, J. 345, 347 169, 197, 199, 201, 219, 231, 260, 267, 268,
Judge, E.A. 48, 56, 160, 173, 179, 190 269, 271, 276, 307, 350, 364, 365, 382,
Juncker, G. 348, 349 384, 438, 495, 496, 566, 589, 606, 612,
Justeson, J. 11, 56 632, 653, 656, 659, 701
Koester, H. 44, 83, 86, 243, 248, 285, 292,
Kaestli, J.-D. 31, 56 705, 710, 716
Kalimi, I. 527 Köstenberger, A. 27, 42, 65, 131, 138, 167, 168,
Kamlah, E. 139, 151 173, 188, 190, 231
Karakolis, C. 716 Krause, D. 65, 119, 122, 134, 162, 221, 249, 331,
Karris, R. 44, 56, 496, 503, 510, 512, 615, 623 376
Kartzow, M. 98, 100, 273, 276, 441, 449, 469, Krause, J.-U. 317, 320, 325
470 Kroeger, C.C. 175, 176, 185, 190
Katz, S. 11, 56 Kroeger, R.C. 175, 176, 185, 190
Kearsley, R.A. 176, 190, 399, 403 Küchler, M. 185
Kee, H. 443, 449, 549, 551, 555, 556 Kugel, J. 335, 337
Keener, C. 36, 56, 187, 190, 663, 669 Kuhn, H.-W. 211, 213
Kelhoffer, J. 549, 556
Keller, B. 340, 347, 360, 361 Laato, T. 246, 248
Keller, M.N. 728, 729 Ladd, G. 349
Kelly, J. 22, 30, 65, 150, 219, 235, 246, 268, LaFosse, M.T. 96, 101, 298, 299, 300, 304,
273, 282, 298, 310, 316, 325, 334, 337, 310, 314, 316, 320, 322, 325, 341, 347, 534,
340, 343, 352, 354, 366, 371, 383, 419, 535
427, 456, 458, 468, 476, 477, 490, 492, Läger, K. 27, 57
494, 495, 521, 530, 531, 533, 542, 546, Lakoff, R. 20, 57
549, 550, 553, 557, 561, 562, 566, 567, Lampe, P. 16, 57, 126, 127, 353, 355, 358
573, 580, 581, 585, 590, 591, 593, 601, Lane, W. 257, 262
604, 606, 607, 608, 610, 613, 616, 619, Lange, A. 643
653, 659, 661, 666, 679, 681, 683, 698, Lappenga, B. 481, 485
701, 704, 708, 713, 714, 727, 728 Latvus, K. 224, 229
Kenny, A. 15, 56 Lau, A. 65, 147, 153, 237, 239, 247, 249, 390,
Kensky, M. 28, 56, 285, 292 408, 478, 539, 553, 562, 590
Kenyon, F. 3, 56 Lawton, R. 185, 190
Kestemont, M. 30, 32, 56 Leaney, A.R.C. 3, 57, 233
Kidd, R.M. 46, 47, 65, 339, 352, 366, 377, 399, Ledogar, R. 106, 110
400, 402, 438, 483, 485, 487, 558, 694 Lee, E.K. 555, 556
Kidson, L. 40, 56, 65 Lee, G.M. 443, 449
index of modern authors 737

Leiman, S. 670, 672 Maraldi, M. 81

Lemcio, E.E. 378 Marguerat, D. 718, 719
Lendon, J.E. 142, 144, 151, 181, 190, 210, 213, Markschies, C. 408, 409
350, 352, 468, 470 Marshall, I.H. 29, 32, 57, 65, 78, 81, 82, 92,
Lerat, L. 318, 326 103, 108, 122, 155, 203, 205, 218, 223, 225,
Lessard, R. 19, 60 247, 252, 254, 258, 259, 261, 262, 272,
Levenson, J. 263, 264, 624, 625 274, 306, 310, 323, 331, 339, 341, 350, 351,
Levinsohn, S. 67, 77, 78, 88, 89, 130, 133, 135, 352, 364, 365, 366, 371, 381, 386, 388,
162, 168, 169, 170, 198, 313, 436, 437, 490, 389, 390, 398, 413, 414, 425, 430, 438,
546, 563, 578, 583, 609, 634, 681 446, 453, 459, 460, 461, 467, 493, 524,
Levison, J. 57, 186 542, 546, 547, 552, 553, 562, 566, 575,
Libby, J. 15, 57 579, 581, 590, 610, 630, 647, 652, 682,
LiDonnici, L. 177, 190 698, 710
Liefeld, W.L. 65 Marshall, J. 27, 34, 58
Lightfoot, J.B. 83, 87, 203, 213 Martin, B. 237, 241, 249, 250
Lincoln, A. 277, 278, 445, 449 Martin, C. 353, 355
Lindsay, D. 23, 114, 117, 315, 454, 593, 594 Martin, D. 98, 101, 623, 625
Llewelyn, S.R. 114, 117 Martin, J. 20, 53
Lock, W. 4, 13, 65, 103, 131, 237, 265, 359, 405, Martin, S.-C. 41, 65, 535, 584, 620, 661
452, 454, 488, 507, 533, 536, 585, 617, Martin, T. 45, 420, 421, 440, 441, 449
626, 648, 674, 694, 705, 711, 713 Massey, P. 13, 58
Logie, J. 33, 57 May, J. 718, 719
Lohfink, G. 34, 57 McCann, J. 249, 250
Löhr, H. 36, 57 McDonald, L. 349
Long, C. 200, 201, 280, 284 McEleney, N. 645, 646
Long, F. 73, 75, 211, 213, 502, 503 McGinn, S. 7, 58
Longacre, R. 93, 167, 173 McLeman, J. 15, 58
Longenecker, B.W. 315 McNamara, M. 205, 213, 641, 642, 643
Looks, C. 4, 57 McNeill, J. 588, 594
Luther, B. 616, 623 Meade, D. 33, 58
Lutoslawski, W. 14, 57 Meggitt, J. 228, 229, 353, 355
Meier, J. 331, 334, 338, 657, 658, 660, 665,
MacDonald, D. 7, 273, 276, 614, 623, 648, 669
649 Menken, M. 365, 367
MacDonald, M. 21, 65, 200, 215, 376, 403, Merkle, B. 192, 193, 203, 213, 223, 224, 229,
432 382, 385, 427, 430, 431
MacLeod, D. 248 Merklein, H. 21, 58, 173
MaGee, G. 245, 248, 551, 557 Merz, A. 4, 33, 65, 166, 174, 256, 315, 328, 353,
Maier, H. 48, 49, 57, 175, 190, 322, 326, 549, 355, 357, 358
557, 691, 692, 709, 716 Metzger, B. 33, 58, 360, 379, 405, 412, 433,
Malherbe, A. 40, 57, 74, 75, 99, 101, 143, 151, 473, 488, 570, 571, 572, 598, 628, 696,
198, 201, 204, 210, 213, 273, 276, 298, 698, 720, 721
299, 362, 367, 369, 371, 372, 376, 387, Metzger, W. 619, 623
390, 392, 398, 399, 400, 401, 403, 419, Michaelis, W. 10, 58
420, 475, 480, 481, 482, 483, 485, 499, Michel, O. 320
503, 505, 506, 522, 523, 684, 686 Mihoc, V. 385, 389
Malina, B. 28, 38, 41, 57, 180, 207, 238, 322, Miller, J. 29, 65, 159, 172, 304, 331, 362, 469,
417, 429, 534 538, 584, 698, 704, 714, 722
Mappes, D. 42, 57 Miller, P. 348, 349
738 index of modern authors

Milne, H. 233 Nelson, P.G. 160, 173, 176, 190

Missiou, A. 228, 229 Neudorfer, H. 30, 44, 46, 65
Mitchell, M. 17, 40, 58, 84, 87, 130, 131, 146, Neumann, K. 15, 58
150, 151, 709, 716 Neumann, N. 368, 376
Moens, M. 30, 32, 56 Neyrey, J. 117, 118
Moessner, D. 267, 271, 272, 276, 661, 669 Nicholson, S. 132, 138
Montagu, J.D. 463, 470 Nickle, K. 316, 326
Montague, G.T. 65 Nielsen, C.M. 667, 669, 671, 673
Moo, D. 164, 168, 173, 187, 188, 190 North, H. 47, 58, 180, 190
Moore, B. 67, 80, 91, 155, 307, 652 North, J. 377, 378
Morgan, T. 426, 428, 438, 440, 469, 470, 596 North, J.L. 103, 104, 194, 195
Morgenthaler, R. 10, 58
Morton, A. 14, 15, 58 O’Callaghan, J. 3, 58, 233
Mosteller, F. 12, 58 O’Donnell, M. 17, 58, 78, 81
Mott, S. 48, 116, 118, 480, 482, 483, 486, 491, Ober, J. 400, 403
496, 498, 499, 503 Oberlinner, L. 21, 34, 58, 65, 78, 114, 121, 130,
Moughtin-Mumby, S. 322, 326 209, 213, 219, 221, 270, 285, 331, 334, 340,
Moule, C.F.D. 29, 31, 58, 67, 80, 103, 104, 109, 354, 466, 548, 573, 590
123, 164, 255, 283, 334, 363, 475, 541, 575, Olyan, S. 356, 358
578, 619, 634, 649, 655, 656 Opatrný, D. 302, 329, 331
Moulton, J. 67, 137, 282, 296, 336, 478, 484, Oprisko, R. 144, 151, 294
514, 542, 600, 606, 609, 683 Orlandini, A. 81
Mounce, W. 10, 20, 65, 74, 79, 80, 81, 85, 90, Oster, R. 83, 176, 190, 245, 249
96, 112, 123, 124, 126, 132, 133, 145, 160, Overstreet, R.L. 286, 292
167, 170, 179, 198, 200, 204, 216, 219, 225,
230, 235, 243, 253, 254, 260, 261, 266, Padgett, A. 165, 173, 185, 315, 325, 470
268, 269, 273, 279, 295, 303, 309, 310, Page, S, 128, 129, 207, 319, 326
311, 321, 333, 334, 336, 341, 345, 351, 352, Pagels, E. 190
365, 367, 368, 384, 417, 446, 461, 465, Pang, F. 382, 385
492, 493, 495, 496, 500, 503, 509, 524, Pao, D. 18, 110, 111, 118, 224, 229, 241, 247, 263,
533, 538, 541, 550, 558, 565, 574, 579, 264, 285, 286, 287, 291, 292, 294, 378,
580, 583, 592, 600, 609, 610, 616, 618, 471, 472, 501, 503, 505, 506, 637, 639,
627, 630, 637, 652, 653, 656, 659, 666, 643, 701, 704, 721
667, 677, 678, 683, 701, 706, 713, 714, 723 Papademetriou, K. 201
Moxnes, H. 468, 470 Parker, D. 3, 4, 59, 265
Mülke, M. 33, 58 Parker, R. 446, 449
Müller-Bardorff, J. 317, 326 Parkin, T. 318, 326
Mullins, T. 35, 58, 562, 564 Paschke, B. 204, 206, 214
Munck, J. 705, 716 Pate, C.M. 26, 59
Murphy-O’Connor, J. 36, 58, 82, 87, 242, 247, Patterson, O. 353, 356
248, 292, 533, 535, 594, 689, 690, 693, Payne, P. 165, 166, 167, 168, 173, 218
709, 716 Peng, K.-W. 49, 59
Murray, P. 658, 660, 672 Perkins, P. 80, 88, 93, 170, 207, 256, 262, 516,
Musso, O. 464, 470 541, 547, 563, 574, 575, 576, 578, 581,
Mutschler, B. 23, 65, 114, 171, 181, 270, 393, 604, 631, 632, 633, 634, 651, 683, 687,
394, 416, 558, 559, 591, 594, 684 700, 723
Perriman, A. 166, 173
Nadar, S. 174, 190 Perry, G. 286, 292
Nebe, G. 644, 646 Pervo, R. 7, 39, 59, 662, 669
index of modern authors 739

Peterman, G.W. 315, 318, 522, 523 Rapske, B. 718, 719

Peters, R. 67, 81, 269, 281, 282, 493, 531, 547, Rawson, B. 432
606 Redalié, Y. 286, 287, 290, 292, 339, 347
Pfitzner, V. 269, 271, 274, 276, 691, 693 Redekop, G. 42, 60, 179
Pierce, C.A. 448, 449 Reed, J. 18, 42, 60, 110, 118, 235, 241, 249, 250,
Pierce, J. 20, 59 405
Pierce, R. 184, 188, 190 Reeder, C. 645, 646
Pietersen, L. 304, 315, 317, 323, 326, 660, 664 Regev, E. 446, 449
Pietersma, A. 627, 628, 641, 642, 643 Reiser, M. 18, 60
Pilch, J. 57 Reitzenstein, R. 464, 470, 557
Pitts, A. 17, 19, 59, 71, 72, 123, 124 Richard, E.J. 11, 60
Plank, K. 549, 557 Richards, E.R. 32, 60
Plummer, R. 595, 596 Richards, W. 1, 41, 66, 82, 110, 241, 407, 416,
Pogoloff, S. 512, 513 423, 462, 481, 705
Polaski, S. 22, 49, 59, 285, 292 Riesner, R. 31, 60, 188, 190, 704, 708, 709, 716
Popkes, W. 40, 59 Rives, J. 354, 356
Porten, B. 74, 75 Roberts, C.H. 704
Porter, S. 6, 17, 18, 20, 33, 36, 49, 59, 67, 70, Roberts, J.W. 12, 60, 658, 660
71, 72, 78, 81, 89, 90, 92, 106, 108, 120, Robertson, A.T. 68, 80, 81, 90, 91, 107, 122,
121, 122, 123, 124, 133, 135, 160, 161, 168, 123, 148, 199, 222, 253, 255, 264, 268,
170, 173, 188, 190, 197, 198, 199, 253, 267, 269, 312, 337, 343, 359, 397, 425, 439,
268, 282, 283, 306, 310, 333, 336, 351, 460, 478, 479, 494, 495, 507, 508, 517,
363, 365, 371, 405, 421, 422, 424, 426, 530, 538, 540, 546, 547, 561, 598, 603,
456, 478, 480, 495, 516, 517, 546, 578, 632, 652, 656, 657, 666, 700, 709
579, 580, 583, 630, 654, 682, 690, 693, Robinson, A. 657, 660, 671, 673
700, 702, 711, 716 Robinson, J.A.T. 35, 60
Potterie, I. 321, 326 Robinson, J.C. 21, 60
Powell, M. 258, 262 Robinson, T. 14, 60
Poythress, V. 270, 271 Rogers, G. 47, 60, 140, 152, 226, 230
Price, S. 144, 152, 377, 378, 393, 394 Rogers, R. 716
Prior, M. 29, 59, 65, 603, 689, 690 Rohde, J. 7, 60
Punt, N. 152, 154, 277, 278 Rohrbaugh, R. 323, 326
Purchell, N. 358 Roldán, A.F. 300
Roloff, J. 66, 78, 96, 101, 107, 114, 116, 124, 126,
Quinn, J. 1, 30, 31, 40, 49, 59, 65, 73, 75, 84, 132, 134, 137, 142, 147, 148, 149, 150, 160,
92, 95, 109, 110, 122, 125, 147, 160, 163, 163, 172, 203, 210, 234, 238, 239, 249, 261,
166, 220, 227, 254, 255, 306, 325, 341, 269, 271, 274, 316, 333, 348, 368, 377,
343, 344, 365, 369, 371, 385, 386, 388, 385, 386, 392, 399, 584, 592
398, 432, 438, 444, 445, 447, 456, 467, Roose, H. 168, 173, 184, 190, 291, 292
469, 474, 490, 511, 516, 517, 519, 521, 585, Rosenzweigg, M. 193
650, 656, 665, 668, 677, 678, 683, 698, Rosner, B. 504, 506, 616, 623
701, 706, 710, 728 Rothschild, C. 5, 60

Rademaker, A. 208, 214 Saarinen, R. 66

Radermacher, L. 68, 313, 363, 475, 514, 516, Şahin, S. 127, 525, 526
559, 561, 577, 609 Saldarini, A. 215, 216
Ramelli, I. 295, 297, 298, 299, 300 Sand, A. 312, 315
Ramsaran, R. 93, 101, 271, 276, 340, 347, 367, Sanders, E.P. 289, 292
376, 441, 449, 576, 584, 594 Sankoff, D. 19, 60
740 index of modern authors

Savoy, J. 16, 60 Smith, R.R.R. 152, 154

Saxonhouse, A. 83, 87 Smyth, H. 68, 364, 413, 437, 475, 651, 652,
Scanlon, T. 588, 594 656, 723
Schenk, W. 46, 60, 509, 512, 567, 568 Söding, T. 201, 202, 207, 214
Schermann, T. 141, 152, 518, 520, 522 Solevåg, A. 44, 180, 187, 191, 352, 354, 500,
Schlarb, E. 510, 512, 615, 623 584, 594
Schleiermacher, F. 8, 60 Song, A. 475, 480
Schlier, H. 134, 138 Spence, R.M. 658, 660
Schmidt, J. 8, 60 Spencer, A. 66, 168, 173, 312, 533
Schmidt, T. 718, 719 Sperber, D. 211, 214
Schmidt, U. 386, 392 Spicq, C. 4, 47, 66, 73, 90, 96, 113, 116, 122,
Schmithals, W. 45, 60 126, 134, 135, 146, 149, 153, 161, 165, 166,
Schnabel, E. 5, 61, 428, 519, 522, 704 169, 185, 201, 202, 205, 206, 211, 223, 225,
Schneider, C. 259 234, 238, 246, 255, 257, 261, 266, 270,
Schnutenhaus, F. 119, 120 281, 285, 296, 297, 306, 308, 310, 312,
Schoeps, H.J. 503 321, 343, 349, 352, 355, 363, 368, 369,
Schott, H. 30, 61 372, 385, 389, 401, 413, 416, 424, 447,
Schottroff, L. 175, 190 465, 468, 469, 473, 474, 484, 487, 490,
Schreiner, T. 159, 173 492, 494, 496, 500, 515, 519, 520, 521,
Schröter, J. 31, 61, 115, 118, 119, 120 525, 526, 533, 547, 550, 561, 562, 573,
Schubert, P. 415, 416, 420, 531, 532 575, 580, 593, 613, 615, 621, 631, 635, 642,
Schüngel-Straumann, H. 186, 190 677, 681, 686, 688, 690, 698, 705, 706,
Schüssler Fiorenza, E. 285, 292, 316, 326, 711, 712
464, 470 Spottorno, V. 80, 81, 437, 440
Schwarz, R. 319, 326, 505, 506 Standhartinger, A. 25, 276, 277, 278
Scobie, A. 400, 403 Stauffer, E. 657, 660
Scott, E. 66, 601, 602, 604, 608, 610, 618, 629, Steele, R. 66, 236, 403
634, 650, 658, 660, 661, 663, 665, 666, Stegemann, W. 27, 440, 441, 446, 449
676, 681, 689, 711, 722 Stendahl, K. 113, 118
Scroggs, R. 98, 101 Stepp, P. 34, 61, 77, 81
Seesengood, R. 125, 128, 271, 276, 388, Sterling, G. 712, 717
392 Stettler, H. 23, 24, 61
Seifrid, M. 668, 669 Stewart, A. 202, 203, 214, 296, 297, 427, 429,
Shaner, K. 47, 61, 227, 230, 353, 356 431
Sharp, G. 477, 478, 480 Stewart, M. 645, 646
Siewert, P. 588, 594 Stiefel, J. 223, 230, 231
Sim, M. 79, 81, 122, 124, 335, 338, 475, 480 Stokes, R. 127, 128
Simpson, E.K. 36, 66 Stolz, F. 717, 719
Skeat, T.C. 233, 270, 271, 599, 600, 701, 704, Stowers, S. 49, 61, 82
710 Strathmann, H. 149
Skiles, J. 613, 623 Strazicich, J. 193
Smith, C.A. 66, 533, 542, 546, 550, 561, 562, Strecker, G. 11, 27, 44, 61
575, 585, 588, 593, 603, 607, 611, 635, Streete, G. 46, 61, 222, 223, 228, 230, 463,
661, 662, 682, 684, 685, 689, 690, 693, 470
698, 701, 711, 723 Strelan, R. 177, 191, 249, 250, 257, 262
Smith, C.S. 184, 191, 214, 267, 271 Strobel, A. 30, 61
Smith, G. 546, 548 Stuckenbruck, L. 348, 349
Smith, K. 475, 480 Stuhlmacher, P. 99, 101, 128, 129, 357
Smith, M. 98, 101 Sumney, J. 393, 394
index of modern authors 741

Sundberg, A. 5, 61 Tsiparis, A. 179, 191

Swales, J. 39, 61 Tsuji, M. 317, 326
Swinson, L.T. 37, 61, 256, 261, 340, 347, 667, Tuggy, J. 267, 271
669 Tuori, K. 693, 694
Synge, F. 302 Tupamahu, E. 512, 513
Turner, M. 282, 285, 288, 292
Tajra, H.W. 712, 717 Turner, N. 10, 13, 19, 68, 78, 90, 107, 123, 137,
Talbert, C. 569 255, 282, 283, 285, 334, 364, 406, 407,
Tamez, E. 46, 61, 160, 162, 173, 178, 191, 327, 414, 459, 475, 479, 508, 517, 564, 603,
328, 403, 404 605, 607, 608, 611, 652, 657, 681, 684,
Taniguchi, Y. 22, 61, 201, 206, 306, 315, 352, 697, 702
355 Twomey, J. 66, 586, 594
Tell, H. 209, 214, 371, 376 Tyra, J. 19, 59
Tellbe, M. 22, 61, 202, 214
Teske, R. 152, 154 Ulrichsen, J. 172, 173
Theissen, G. 204, 206, 208, 213, 432, 624,
625, 726, 728 Van Bremen, R. 177, 191
Theobald, M. 46, 61, 403 Van Bruggen, J. 35, 62
Thiessen, W. 34, 61, 203, 214 Van de Sandt, H. 342, 347
Thiselton, A. 173, 193, 440, 445, 449 Van der Toorn, K. 714, 717
Thomas, C. 140, 152 Van Nes, J. 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19, 20, 30,
Thomas, W.D. 566, 568 62
Thornton, C.-J. 708, 717 Van Neste, R. 29, 42, 49, 66, 89, 105, 218, 220,
Thornton, D. 27, 45, 61, 90, 93, 101, 102, 129, 252, 266, 284, 423, 426, 435, 456, 461,
317, 615, 623 474, 490, 515, 529, 538, 600, 601, 650,
Thrall, M. 683, 684 679, 698
Thurén, J. 368, 376 Van Tilborg, S. 48, 62, 116, 118, 176, 191
Thurston, B. 24, 61, 316, 326 Verheyden, J. 156, 159, 163, 174, 179, 185, 191
Tiňo, J. 641, 644 Verner, D. 42, 62, 207, 214
Titrud, K. 200, 201, 308, 335, 426, 480, 531, Via, D. 85, 87
532, 537, 538, 545, 548, 702, 704 Vikman, E. 645, 646
Toews, J. 166, 173 Vogel, M. 441, 446, 449
Torrance, T.F. 230, 231 Von Campenhausen, H. 21, 62, 202, 214, 216
Towner, P. 1, 25, 45, 65, 66, 70, 114, 118, 122, Von Lips, H. 119, 120, 152
134, 163, 164, 165, 175, 184, 203, 219, Von Nordheim, E. 535
220, 227, 230, 252, 272, 288, 292, 304, Von Siebenthal, H. 68, 138, 561, 682
306, 321, 347, 356, 393, 394, 399, 460,
474, 478, 484, 486, 548, 549, 557, 559, Wacker, W. 30, 65, 84, 92, 95, 109, 110, 122,
579, 584, 590, 594, 615, 623, 663, 705, 125, 160, 163, 166, 220, 227, 254, 255,
717 306, 325, 341, 343, 344, 365, 369, 371,
Trebilco, P. 19, 21, 24, 38, 45, 66, 74, 160, 175, 386, 388, 398, 585, 650, 656, 665, 668,
177, 178, 191, 204, 210, 214, 215, 239, 241, 677, 678, 683, 698, 701, 710, 728
255, 256, 260, 262, 324, 390, 392, 399, Wagener, U. 162, 174, 306, 315, 316, 319, 321,
408, 499, 568, 615, 664 322, 323, 324, 326, 645, 646
Treu, K. 77, 104 Wagner, G. 410
Trevett, C. 463, 470 Wainwright, G. 496
Trobisch, D. 6, 61 Walker, P. 19, 23, 28, 35, 62
Tromp, J. 640, 642, 644 Wall, R. 66, 146, 152, 174, 191, 216, 236, 403,
Trummer, P. 1, 6, 62, 394, 704, 717 657, 660, 671, 673
742 index of modern authors

Wallace, D. 12, 58, 68, 106, 133, 164, 220, 239, Windsor, L. 620, 623
240, 255, 307, 308, 335, 338, 364, 365, Winer, G. 68, 78, 80, 136, 137, 161, 163, 171,
366, 384, 385, 406, 413, 438, 461, 478, 199, 206, 222, 232, 235, 240, 253, 269,
480, 516, 542, 582, 583, 621, 633, 635, 282, 306, 310, 334, 336, 383, 398, 414,
656, 658, 660, 677, 682, 684 422, 424, 437, 459, 460, 477, 494, 509,
Wallace, N. 20, 62 537, 542, 544, 545, 547, 563, 578, 582,
Wallis, I. 110, 113 653, 657, 679, 700
Wansink, C. 551, 557, 567 Winger, M. 23, 62
Ware, K. 259, 262 Winger, T. 188
Warfield, B.B. 670, 673 Winter, B. 175, 191, 306, 308, 315, 356, 461,
Warren, D. 5, 62 463, 465, 470
Waters, K. 187, 191 Winter, M. 2, 43, 62
Watson, A. 469, 470 Witetchek, S. 62, 152
Watson, D. 110, 118 Witherington, B. 66, 166, 169, 174, 497
Watt, J. 640, 644 Wittkowsky, V. 441, 449
Watts, R. 718, 719 Wolfe, B.P. 334, 338, 611
Wayment, T. 433, 435 Wolter, M. 1, 31, 62, 118, 546, 548
Weber, M. 21, 62, 215, 216 Wolters, A. 183, 191
Weidemann, H.-U. 455, 461, 462, 466, 470 Woodington, J.D. 341, 347
Weima, J. 407, 409, 521, 522, 724, 728, 729 Wright, D. 98, 101, 292
Weinfeld, M. 260, 262 Wright, N.T. 136, 139, 568, 569, 625
Weiser, A. 66, 568, 658, 670 Wyrick, J. 644
Weissenrieder, A. 178, 188, 191
Wendland, E. 501, 503 Yarbro Collins, A. 83, 327, 328, 393, 394
Wendland, P. 486 Yarbrough, M. 2, 19, 20, 42, 95, 101, 194,
Wenkel, D. 373, 376 195, 252, 256, 262, 269, 271, 276, 321,
West, G. 206, 214 332, 338, 347, 365, 367, 376, 386,
Westcott, B.F. 68, 194, 232, 252, 360, 537 392
Westfall, C. 41, 62 Yarbrough, O.L. 297, 299, 665, 669
White, B. 5, 62 Yarbrough, R. 66
White, J. 533, 535 Ybema, S. 20, 63
White, L.M. 429, 431 Young, F. 66, 115, 402, 460
Wieland, G. 24, 66, 73, 112, 113, 115, 142, 143, Young, R. 68, 457, 544, 682
244, 275, 284, 416, 418, 424, 462, 470, Youtie, H. 345, 347
475, 486, 500, 552, 554, 580, 590, 591, Youtie, L. 345, 347
667, 714 Yu, G. 20, 63
Wiles, G. 72, 563, 564
Wilhelm, W. 622, 623 Zamfir, K. 47, 66, 86, 96, 139, 156, 159, 163,
Willetts, R.F. 522 170, 174, 179, 185, 188, 191, 196, 206, 210,
Williams, J. 727, 728 211, 214, 221, 244, 249, 273, 277, 278, 339,
Williams, O. 20, 59 357, 368, 436, 450, 623
Williams, T. 181, 191 Zanker, P. 349
Wilshire, L.E. 183, 191 Zerwick, M. 68, 77, 78, 109, 136, 282, 365,
Wilson, D. 211, 214 516, 542, 577, 583, 603, 632, 657, 659
Wilson, S. 30, 31, 62 Zimmermann, C. 500, 503, 663, 669
Windisch, H. 393, 394 Zuntz, G. 4, 63
Index of Ancient Sources
Old Testament

Gen 19:17 291

1–2 261 20:11 181
1–3 169 22:2 527
1:4 260 22:12 527
1:8 260 22:16 527
1:10 260 24:3 685
1:12 260 24:32 322
1:18 260 26:25 619
1:21 260 35:14 689
1:25 260 39:6 166
1:27 192 39:21 566
1:31 260 43:24 322
2–3 188 45:27 549
2:7 169, 657, 667, 670, 672 47:9 433
2:8 169 49:1 636
2:9 260 50:15 711
2:12 260 50:24–25 205
2:15 169
2:18 192 Exod
2:18–24 263 3:2–4 348
2:18–3:7 170 3:12 532
2:19 169 3:15 205
2:20 192 3:22 618
2:24 185, 254 6:6 148, 471
3:1–5 170 7:8–13 641
3:6 170 8:12 563
3:7 368 9:3 563
3:11 368 11:2 618
3:13 156, 186 12:35 618
3:15 188 13:19 205
3:16 170, 172, 185, 188, 192 14:19 348
3:20–24 368 16:13 148
4:26 619 17:7 324
8:22 533 18:4 192
12:3 145 18:18 97
15:6 246 18:20 342
15:18 563 19:5 481, 484, 487
16:2 563 20:1–17 94
16:7–13 348 20:3 94
18:4 322 20:4–6 94
18:13 563 20:7 94
18:23 97 20:8 94
18:25 97 20:12 94, 97, 298, 637, 665
19:2 322 20:13 94
744 index of ancient sources

Exod (cont.) 25:5 624

20:14 94 26:13 354
20:15 94, 98 26:18 482
20:16 94, 99 26:28 482
20:17 644 28:22 98
21:30 149
22:21–22 315, 316 Num
23:20 348 4:7 689
23:21 284 4:16 205
23:22 484, 487 4:31–32 244
24:12 283 5:28–29 447
25:22 149 6:2 299
25:29 689 6:11 555
26:15–37 244 6:21 299
27:9–19 244 7:2 205
28:36 616 10:32 401
30:9 689 14:18 115
32:16 667 15:40 497
32:28 555 16:1–7 616
33:19 112 16:5 563, 606, 616
33:20 391 16:22 399
34:5 713 20:10 448
34:6 115 20:16 348
34:12 284 20:24 324
37:16 689 27:16 399
38:9–31 244 27:18 289
27:18–23 289
Lev 28:7 689
5:19 563 31:14 205
8:35 533 31:15 622
10:10 261, 613
11–15 446 Deut
11:1–47 259 4:9 244, 284
11:41–47 447 4:10 244
11:44 261 4:26 342
13:1–59 447 4:33 236
15:12 618 5–6 87
16:13 149 5:6–21 94
18–20 446 5:16 94, 97, 298, 637, 665
19:2–4 95, 665 5:17 94
19:15 342 5:18 94
19:17 335, 342 5:19 94, 98, 99
19:32 297 5:20 94
20:13 98 5:21 644
21:7 259 5:26 236, 244, 245
22:5–8 447 6:1–7 95
24:1–7 447 6:4 118, 146, 450
24:14 343 6:4–5 84
24:16 617 6:5 639
index of ancient sources 745

Deut (cont.) 24:19–21 315

6:6–7 665 24:22 497
6:12 244 25:3 340
6:13 532 25:4 31, 329, 333, 334, 340
6:21 624 26:18 484, 487
7:4 532 27–28 644
7:6 484, 487 27:15 448
7:6–8 484 28:66 533
7:9 114 30:11–20 368
7:18 497 30:17 498
7:21 484 30:19 342
7:25–26 448 30:19–20 685
8:5 482 31:1–8 595
8:10 260 31:6 585
8:11 244 31:6–8 368
8:17–18 400 31:7 585
8:18 399, 497 31:11–12 288
9:5–6 668 31:23 585, 595
9:10 244 31:28 342
9:22 374 32:4 114
10:17 484 32:5 511
10:18 315 32:7 497
10:18–19 373 32:15 73
11:2 668 32:17 448
11:16 284 32:20 511
13:5 498 32:28 643
13:17 566 32:41 430
14:2 484, 487 32:43 618
14:28–29 315 32:46 673
15:9 284 33:1 386, 661
17:6 338, 341, 388 33:7 192
18:5–7 612 33:26 192
18:13 205 33:29 192
18:15–19 41 34:19 289
18:16 244
19:15 329, 334, 338, 341, Josh
388 1:6 595
19:15–20 329, 332, 338, 341 3:10 275
19:17 332, 342 6:25 622
19:20 342 8:3 510
21:5 612 9:20 622
23:2 210, 211 11:20 566
23:2–4 244 14:6 386
23:3 210 17:15–18 618
23:4 210 22:22 663
23:9 210 24:13 532
23:15–25:19 340 24:30 620
24:8 244 24:33 127
24:18 497
746 index of ancient sources

Judg 22:7 619

2:8 620 23:2 256
6:11–12 348 23:16 689
9:27 244
13:7 259 1Kgs
13:14 259 1:32–37 595
17:13 401 2:2 595
3:6 566
Ruth 5:11 666
2:20 489 7:40–47 244
8:29 178, 533
1Sam 8:30 178
2:6 380, 388 8:35 178
2:7 399, 400 8:38 141
2:10 212 8:42 178
2:12 429 12:11 482
2:27 386 12:19 323
3:8 666 13:7–9 386
4:15 510 14:6 73
5:5 228 17:21 619
9:7–8 386 20:8 616
10:17–22 242
10:19 73 2Kgs
10:24 242 1:1 323
10:27 429 1:10 386
12:3–4 386 2:11 709
16:1–13 242 9:1–3 242
17:26 245 9:6–10 242
17:36 236, 275 9:13 242
19:11 291 10:23 620
23:10–11 416 11:15 205
25:41 322 11:18 204, 205
27:1 715 12:11 205
12:12 204
2Sam 17:13 342
2:4–7 242 17:32 448
4:6 618 18:12 620
5:1–5 242 19:4 236, 275
6:2 619 19:16 236
7:6 596 19:28 322
7:8–17 590 19:37 715
7:11 596 20:9 228
7:13 596 20:9–11 228
7:23 390, 481 24:20 323
8:10 618
13:17 210 1Chr
13:31 510 4:40 182
14:5–7 315 9:33 533
22:4 619 10:10 244
index of ancient sources 747

1Chr (cont.) 10:32 244

11:8 689 11:9 205
16:13 417 11:14 205
16:14 212 11:22 204, 205
16:34 489 13:1 211
18:10 618 13:4 244
21:1 127, 128
22:9 143, 182 Esth
28:8 210, 244 4:8 619, 663
29:2–3 244 4:16 533
29:6 429 6:13 245
29:12 399 8:9 430
33:7 244
34:9 244 Job
36:18 244 1–2 128
1:6 348, 612
2Chr 1:6–12 127
1:12 399, 400 1:8–10 372
2:4 484 1:21 368, 372
3:15–17 244 2:1 348
6:19 141 2:1–7 127
6:29 141 2:6 127
6:36 141 2:10 663
7:3 489 9:33 147
9:8 212 10:12 205
18:12 443 12:13 589
25:12 622 14:9 211
26:16 642 15:21 612
30:19 299 15:35 663
33:9 498 20:29 204
34:12 204, 205 21:17 612
34:17 204 24:21 315
34:18–19 288 28:20 589
28:28 181
Ezra 31:23 663
1:3 244 32:14 166
1:7 244 34:9 205
4:12 244 34:19 551
4:23 553 36:18–19 399
5:5 553 40:11 112
7:16 244 41:11–15 372
8:17 244 42:3 552
9:9 566
Pss lxx [Eng]
Neh 1:1 97
8:7–8 288 2:7 249
9:14 416 4:6[5] 301
9:17 115 5:3[2] 116
10:30 416 6:5[4] 500
748 index of ancient sources

Pss lxx [Eng] (cont.) 33:5[34:4] 663

7:12[11] 692 33:18[34:17] 663
9:7[6] 117 33:20[34:19] 192
9:17[16] 212 34[35]:2 387
10[11]:5 97 35:7[36:6] 500
16[17]:1 141 37:11[38:10] 387
16[17]:7 500 38:7[39:6] 399
17:6[18:5] 212 38:12[39:11] 399, 668
17:47[18:46] 116 40:2[41:1] 663
18:8[19:7] 666 40:14[41:13] 116
19:3[20:2] 192 44:5[45:4] 498
19:6–7[20:5–6] 596 46:3[47:2] 116, 242
20:4[21:3] 499 47:3[48:2] 242
20:7–8[21:6–7] 596 48:7[49:6] 399
21[22] 705, 713, 714, 717, 718 48:13[49:12] 399
21:1[22:0] 718 49[50]:7 342
21:1–3[22:0–2] 705 50:6[51:4] 246
21:2[22:1] 705, 712 54:13[55:12] 663
21:5[22:4] 705 56:4[57:3] 500, 566
21:6[22:5] 705 57:11[58:10] 97
21:7–9[22:6–8] 714 61:9[62:8] 596
21:8[22:7] 718 61:11[62:10] 399
21:9[22:8] 705 61:13[62:12] 696, 711
21:12[22:11] 705 64:6[65:5] 74, 318
21:14[22:13] 705 64:12[65:11] 499
21:17[22:16] 705 65[66]:5 552
21:20[22:19] 705 66:8[69:7] 663
21:20–21[22:19–20] 69:6[70:5] 192
690 71:1–17[72:1–17]
21:21[22:20] 705 596
21:22[22:21] 7, 705, 712, 713, 714, 717 71[72]:19 116
21:24[22:23] 718 72[73]:3 97
21:28[22:27] 705, 713, 714 73[74]:12–17 263
21:29[22:28] 705, 717, 718 76:9[77:8] 387
21:29–31[22:28–30] 76:13–21[77:12–20]
718 263
21:30[22:29] 400 77[78]:8 664
21:32[22:31] 717 77[78]:37 664
23[24]:5 73, 75 77[78]:70 416
23[24]:8 116 80:9[81:8] 342
24[25]:1 260 82:1–8 348
27[28]:4 711 83:5[84:4] 117
27[28]:8–9 596 83:12[84:11] 566
28[29]:10 116 85[86]:10 117
30:8[31:7] 500 86[87]:1 244
30:22[31:21] 489 88:4[89:3] 416, 417
31[32]:4 533 88:6–18[89:5–17]
32[33]:10–11 552 263
32[33]:17–18 500 88:20[89:19] 192
index of ancient sources 749

Pss lxx [Eng] (cont.) 136[137]:1 244

88:30[89:29] 117 142[143]:2 246
89[90]:10 498 143[144]:10 416
92[93]:1 242 143:12–15[144:12–15]
92:5[93:5] 164 596
94[95]:2 242 144[145]:5 327
94[95]:3 242, 484 144[145]:9 327
95[96]:3 242 144[145]:12 211
95[96]:4 242 145[146]:5 192
95[96]:6 242 145[146]:9 315
95[96]:10 242 148:1–2 348
96[97]:6 242
96[97]:7 242 Prov
96[97:9 242 1:18 612
96[97]:10 663 2:2–3 589
97[98]:2 242 2:6 589
97[98]:4 242 3:4 135
99[100]:1 242 3:5 283
102[103]:8 115 3:6 613
103:20–22 348 3:9–12 318
103[104]:35 97 3:16 399
104[105]:6 417 3:18 430
104[105]:22 666 4:1–4 297
104[105]:26 416 6:20–21 297
104[105]:42 416 9:10 589
104[105]:43 416 10:7 97
108[109]:8 205 10:14 638
108[109]:26 500 10:25 715
109[110]:1 247 10:26 374
110[111]:7 150 11:4 400
113:10–24[115:2–16] 11:5 613
263 11:13 225
113:17[115:9] 192 11:28 399
113:18[115:10] 192 13:3 638
113:19[115:11] 192 14:8 643
115:2[116:2] 99 14:27 212
117[118]:5 619 15:11 290
118[119]:6 551 15:21 643
118[119]:10 498 15:25 112
118[119]:44 117 16:2 290
118[119]:98 666 16:17 666, 668
120[121]:1 192 16:19 112
120[121]:2 192 17:15 448
123[124]:8 192 17:28 643
129[130]:8 479, 481, 484 19:22 99
133[134]:1 620 20:29 297
134[135]:2 244 21:16 498
135[136]:4–17 263 22:6 297
135[136]:5–18 263 22:8 372
750 index of ancient sources

Prov (cont.) 26:13 448, 617

22:15 643 28:16 116, 555, 616
22:21 145 28:17 116
23:5 210 28:18 116
23:17 283 28:27 618
23:22 297 29:6 205
24:3 589 29:13 446
24:12 711 30:3 212
25:21–22 641 30:6 212
27:13 112 30:9 448
27:24 399 31:9 320
28:18 587 32:7 642
32:15 501
Eccl 32:17 499
2:15 666 33:6 395
5:10–20 372 33:22 693
5:14 372 34:10 533
5:15 372 35:8 261
7:16 666 37:3 636
8:12–14 399 37:4 236, 245, 275
9:15 666 37:10 127
11:10 643 37:17 236, 245
38:6 294
Isa 40:1–2 82
1:4 97 40:5 145, 247
1:17 315 40:9 99
1:23 315 40:12–31 263
1:28 97 40:17 154
1:31 97 40:18–24 263
2:1–4 247 41:4–7 263
2:2 501, 636 41:8–10 552
2:7 145 41:27 99
2:8 448 42:6 153, 247
3:12 498 42:6–7 148, 481, 484
4:4 618 43:1 148
4:5 391 43:1–7 552
10:3 205 43:1–12 148
10:27 642 43:3 148
11:2 25, 144 43:4 148
13:5 642 43:7 148
14:26 552 43:9 148
17:8 448 43:10 148
18:2 636 43:11 148
19:2 715 43:12 148, 294
24:1 642 45:9–18 263
24:16 323 46:1–4 263
25:6–7 247 46:4 294
25:8 554 46:10 552
26:4 484 47:6 566
index of ancient sources 751

Isa (cont.) 8:3 178

47:7–9 322 8:23 533
47:8–10 315 9:23 399
48:12 430 13:16 391
48:12–16 263 14:13 443
49:6 247 15:6 642
49:6–7 148, 484 15:15 115
49:6–8 481 15:16 323
49:19 642 16:13 566
50:1 322 16:20 386
51:12–16 263 19:4 448
52:5 350 19:13 689
52:7 99 22:23 636
52:10 247 23:13 498
52:13–53:12 148 23:20 636
53:12 97 24:9 178
54:1–4 315 26:28 212
54:4 212 31:37 178
56:2–6 430 39:17–18 294
56:7 141 39:18 484
57:13 430 39:28 127
57:15 115 39:32 443
58:8 391 39:36 127
59:7 179 42:19 612
59:20 565 51:10 430
60:1 391
60:11 533 Lam
60:17 205 3:64 711
60:19 391
63:9 348 Ezek
64:2 290 7:4 636
65:9 417 7:11 399
66:3 448 7:22 205
66:7 636 16:2 342
16:19–50 319
Jer 18:5–17 644
1:5 247 18:18 315
1:10 247 20:6 555
2:16 443 20:28 689
3:1–4:4 322 22:6–8 297
3:17 247 22:7 315
4:9 555 22:9 97
4:14 179 22:26 261, 613
5:11 323 24:26–27 555
5:23 448 28:5 399, 400
6:10 342 33:8 97
6:24 636 34:22 294
6:28 642 36:25–27 484, 501, 504
7:9 94, 448 37:1–14 657, 671
752 index of ancient sources

Ezek (cont.) 12:4–5 348

37:9 671 12:8 399
37:23 481, 484 13:9 192
38:11 182
38:16 636 Joel
39:28 390 1:13 244
44:23 261, 613 2:13 115
2:28–29 501
Dan 2:28–32 192, 193
2:10 391 2:32 278, 619
2:17–49 245 3:1–2 497, 501, 504
2:18 225 3:1–5 192
2:19 225 3:2 497
2:27 225 3:5 278, 504, 608
2:28 225
2:28–29 636 Amos
2:30 225 3:2 616
2:45 484 3:12 714
2:47 225 6:10 210
3:4–5 150 8:3 178
3:16 73 8:9 555
3:33 212
4:14 642 Jonah
4:24 642 1:9 620
5:2–3 618 3:2 713
6:16–28 714
7:27 497 Mic
7:28 612 2:5 210, 244
9:3 566 2:10 642
9:6 391 4:1 636
9:8 391 4:12 552
9:17 141 7:7 73
10:14 636 7:20 566
11:20 636
12:1 555 Nah
1:14 244
Hos
1:2 322 Hab
2:4 322 1:12 212
2:21 555
3:1 322 Zeph
3:5 636 1:12 401
4:1 145 2:11 390
4:2 94, 645 3:7 642
4:11–12 322
5:3 616 Hag
6:10 322 2:23 616
8:7 612
9:4 689
index of ancient sources 753

Zech Mal
3:1 127 1:11 178
3:1–2 128 1:14 642
3:2 127 2:8 642
5:3 99 2:11 448
7:10 315 2:17 135
7:12 448 3:8 386
12:8 244 3:11 642
14:9 146 3:24 416

New Testament

Matt 13:36–43 450

1:19 178 13:41 343
2:1 702 13:47–50 450
3:3 169 13:52 402
3:15 164 14:19 260
3:17 527 14:30 171
5:16 205 15:1–20 261
5:31–32 261 15:11 439
5:32 207 15:19 155
6:9 715 15:36 260
6:10 715 16:27 343
6:13 374, 715 17:3 239
6:19–21 399, 402, 404 17:5 527
6:24 473 17:17 512, 687
6:25–33 373 18:10 473
8:2 618 18:15–17 342, 513
8:2–3 500 18:16 341
8:3 618 19:1–2 261
8:9 586 19:8–9 207
8:26 686 19:20 343
8:28 630 19:28 497, 500
10:10 329, 333, 341 20:3 323
10:25 324 20:6 323
10:26 346 20:28 137, 148
10:33 593 21:9 350
11:5 500 21:23 463
11:10 247 22:15–18 258
11:19 246 22:16 434
12:5 97 22:23 598
12:16 686 22:28 599
12:31 370 22:30 599
12:32 402 22:35 520
12:36 323 22:43 257
12:43 258 23:8–12 184
13:24–30 450 23:15 339
13:27 324 23:25–28 258
754 index of ancient sources

Matt (cont.) 7:15 439

23:26 447, 500 8:6–7 260
23:28 85 8:30 686
24:8 636 8:38 551
24:10–12 258 9:4 239
24:11 258, 262 9:7 527
24:15–18 642, 645 9:19 687
24:24 258, 262 10:11–12 261
24:31 417 10:21 402
24:43 324 10:37 247
25:9 373 10:45 114, 137, 148, 153, 224, 230,
25:31 343 479, 484
26:41 374 10:50 260
26:65 370 11:2 380
27:35 714 11:9 350
27:39 714 11:17 141
27:43 714 12:18 598
27:46 714 12:23 599
27:47 337, 712 12:28 133
28:18–20 247 12:36 257
13:6 258
Mark 13:8 636
1:2 247, 334 13:14–23 642, 645
1:7 242 13:22 262
1:11 527 13:27 343, 417
1:15 242 14:14 324
1:23–27 258 14:24 137
1:31 289 14:38 374
1:40–42 500 14:43–52 712
1:41 289 14:64 370
2:17 114 14:66–72 712
3:4 171 14:72 507
4:19 400 15:3–4 341
4:22 346 15:16 586
4:28 169 15:21 126
5:8 84 15:24 714
5:41 289 15:29–30 714
6:10 726 15:30 291
6:11 414 15:33–39 718
6:12 242 15:34 712, 714
6:21 578 16:19 242, 247
6:41 260
7:1–23 261 Luke
7:3 463 1:3 272, 661
7:5 463 1:11 239
7:7 446 1:18 463
7:8 446 1:30 563
7:9–13 318 1:41 665
7:10 169, 334 1:44 665
index of ancient sources 755

Luke (cont.) 9:36 165

1:45 242 9:41 512, 687
1:47 73 10:7 30, 31, 329, 333, 340, 349,
1:50 489 363
1:51 637 10:25 520
1:52 391 10:34–35 210
1:58 489 11:4 374
1:67 257 11:37–41 261
1:68 148 11:41 446
2:12 665 11:45–46 520
2:16 665 11:52 520
2:25 130 12:1 83
2:34 96, 431 12:8 245
2:36 655 12:8–9 343
2:36–28 30 12:9 593
2:36–37 318 12:11 497
2:38 148 12:12 257
3:11 402 12:13–21 399, 404
3:14 373 12:15 711
3:22 249, 527 12:16–21 368, 372
4:13 212 12:22–31 373
4:16–21 288 12:33 364, 402
4:36 258 12:38 507
4:41 686 12:42 429
5:7 374 12:42–48 432
5:10 622 13:11 258
5:12–13 500 13:17 313
5:21 370 13:22 202
5:27–32 224 13:34 350
6:2 337 14:3 520
6:9 171, 401 14:14 599
6:16 638 15:1–2 224
6:18 258 15:17 622
6:33 401 15:28 296
6:35 341, 401, 637 16:1 429
7:27 247 16:1–4 368, 399, 404
7:30 520 16:1–9 432
7:34 224 16:3 429
7:35 246 16:8 429
7:47 365 16:13 430, 473
8:1 202 16:18 261
8:4 202 16:19–31 378
8:13 258 16:28 335, 342
8:14 587 17:3 83
8:17 346 17:9 111
8:27 30 17:17 618
9:4 726 17:22 679
9:24 137 17:30–35 386
9:25 137 17:33 379, 386, 388
756 index of ancient sources

Luke (cont.) 24:25 116

18:7 417 24:30 260
18:8 243 24:34 239, 242, 247
18:15 665 24:38 155
18:21 343 24:46–47 247
18:22 402 24:49 501
18:39 686
19:5 30 John
19:10 114 1:9 114, 118
19:24–30 399 1:11–12 522
19:30 380 1:12 242
19:44 205 1:18 391
20:1 463 1:20 242, 245, 440
20:9 636 1:31 246, 249, 553
20:13 515 2:11 246, 553
20:20 497 3:3 500
20:27 598 3:16–20 522
20:28 431 3:19 114
20:34–35 322 3:20 468
20:42 169 3:25 84
20:46 83 3:29 534
21:8 258 3:33 434, 445
21:15 313, 431 4:21 679
21:19 171 4:23 131
21:20–24 642, 645 4:24 131
21:24 640 4:42 73
21:28 149 4:54 507
21:30 681 5:29 460, 468
21:35 374 5:30 522
22:11 324 5:31–32 445
22:17 260 5:36 389
22:27 148, 224, 230 6:7 373
22:37 97 6:28–29 522
22:40 374 6:40 636
22:43 239 6:46 391
22:61 603 6:62 103
22:66 289 7:28–29 522
23:2 341 7:35 365
23:32–33 580 7:37 636
23:34 713, 714 7:42 590
23:35 343 8:2 702
23:35–39 171 8:13–17 445
23:36 586 8:31 664
23:37 291 8:44 99, 263
23:39 580 9:8 103
23:39–43 378 9:30 212
23:56 182 10:4 616
24:20 212 10:25 389
24:21 148, 484 10:33 370
index of ancient sources 757

John (cont.) 2:26 411

11:24 636 2:29 228
11:27 114 2:33 247, 501, 504
11:42 510 2:34 247
12:47 114 2:38 630
12:48 636 2:44 502
13:20 322, 515, 522 2:40 342
13:27 232 2:46 209, 432
13:29 337 2:47 111
14:8 373 3:13 386, 389
14:22 365 3:17 112
14:26 257 3:20 636
15:2 618 3:21 636
15:11 534 4:6 126, 257
15:26 515 4:13 228
16:7 515 4:14 431
16:24 534 4:25 257
16:25 679 4:27 386, 389
17:5 247 4:30 557
17:13 534 5:12 557
18:29 341 5:17 511
18:37 114, 389 5:22 243
19:24 459, 714 5:31 247
19:32 586 5:35 83
19:35 445 5:42 209
20:31 242 6:1 224
21:1 242 6:1–6 224, 316
21:14 242 6:2 224
21:22 282 6:3 321
21:24 434, 445 6:4 224
6:6 557
Acts 6:8 113
1:2 242, 247 6:9 565
1:7 636 6:12 463
1:8 501 7:1–60 224
1:11 242 7:2 239, 482
1:16 672 7:19 379, 386, 388, 665
1:20 169, 205, 334 7:26 239
1:22 242, 247 7:30 239
2:3 239 7:35 148
2:5 130 7:38 147
2:9 565 7:52 638
2:11 37, 39, 427 7:54–60 378
2:17 26, 257, 501, 630, 636 7:55 247
2:17–18 257, 497, 501, 504 7:60 713
2:17–21 192 8:1 662
2:18 501 8:1–40 224
2:21 350 8:2 130
2:23 97 8:5 242
758 index of ancient sources

Acts (cont.) 13:23 525

8:6 83 13:25 370
8:17–19 557 13:28 386, 389
8:25 342 13:30 590
8:27 391 13:30–31 580
8:32 666 13:31 239
9 31 13:32–39 580
9:1–19 111 13:33 249
9:3 554 13:36 169
9:4 112 13:45 431
9:5 112 13:50 662
9:12 557 13:52 534
9:17 242, 557 14:6 662
9:22 111 14:15 236, 245
9:26 702 14:15–17 275
9:28 350 14:17 401, 636
9:43 30 14:20 662
10:1–11:18 263 14:21 662, 707
10:14–15 259 14:23 428
10:15 447, 500, 618 15:2 84, 203
10:16 247 15:2–29 428
10:22 321 15:3 516, 520
10:31 136 15:4 203, 463, 702
10:40–42 693 15:5 511
10:42 342, 674, 685, 693 15:6 203
10:45 192, 433, 442, 504 15:7 84
11:2 433, 442 15:8 389
11:9 500, 618 15:9 500
11:17 720 15:12 165
11:18 182 15:13 165
11:18–19 447 15:16 243
11:27 242 15:17 619
12:3 434 15:20 259
12:4 586 15:21 202
12:6 586 15:22–23 203
12:6–7 566 15:29 259, 409, 721
12:10 507 15:36 202
12:12 708 15:37 708
12:25 708 15:39 708
12:33 566 16:1 534, 662
13–14 30 16:1–3 38, 74
13:1–3 124, 289, 344 16:1–4 28
13:2–3 289 16:2 321
13:3 125, 557 16:4 428
13:13 708 16:6 565
13:14 697 16:8 709
13:15 288 16:10 192
13:16–41 580, 667 16:10–17 708
13:22 590 16:11 709
index of ancient sources 759

Acts (cont.) 20:6 709

16:14–15 325 20:15 30
16:18 685 20:16–18 565
16:24 203 20:17 21, 202, 203, 338, 428
17:2 414 20:17–18 203, 429, 463
17:14 38 20:17–31 30
17:20 178 20:17–35 35
17:21 619, 688 20:18 202
17:26 636 21:18 203
17:28 443 20:21 342, 621
17:30 112, 636 20:23 202, 257, 342
17:31 401, 693 20:24 683
18:2 725 20:25 242
18:3 725 20:28 21, 125, 202, 203, 204, 205,
18:5 38, 342 210, 338
18:14 687 20:30 42
18:18 725 20:32 113, 475
18:18–26 193 20:33–35 38, 339
18:23–21:26 35 20:34 517
18:24 37 20:35 590
18:24–26 38, 725 20:37 533
18:24–19:1 520 20:38 520
18:25 520 21:1–18 708
18:26 725 21:5 520, 668
18:27 38 21:8 224, 688
19–20 30 21:11 256, 257
19:10 565 21:14 182
19:19 323 21:25 711
19:20 35 21:27 565
19:21 35 21:28 261
19:22 565, 726 21:29 518, 726
19:23–41 176 21:40 165
19:24 700, 710 22 31
19:26–27 565 22:1 298
19:27 176 22:1–21 111
19:28 176, 245 22:3 482
19:33 126 22:4 112
19:33–34 126 22:5 289
19:34 176 22:6 554
19:35 176 22:7 112
19:36 638 22:8 112
19:38 700 22:9 554
19:39 211 22:11 554
20:1 35 22:12 130
20:1–3 82 22:30 341
20:3 35 23:6 598
20:4 38, 82, 518, 709, 726 23:9 349
20:5 30, 709 23:11 342
20:5–15 708 23:30 409
760 index of ancient sources

Acts (cont.) 28:23 342

23:30 721 28:25 257
24 711 28:30–31 35, 567
24–26 35 28:31 149, 228, 718, 720
24:2 341
24:5 511, 712 Rom
24:6 97 1:1 71, 73, 416, 420, 590
24:8 341 1:2 418, 655, 657
24:14 242, 245, 511, 530, 533 1:3 239, 590
24:15 693 1:3–4 238, 239, 247, 504, 579, 585,
24:16 530 590
24:19 702 1:4 239, 257, 293, 360, 551, 558,
24:25 693 590, 599, 640
25:2 578 1:4–5 624
25:4 243 1:5 410
25:5 341 1:7 72, 415, 419, 527, 720
25:7 510 1:8 106
25:11 718 1:8–15 82, 110, 241
25:18 370 1:9 290, 293, 530, 532, 533
25:19 341 1:10 111
25:20 84 1:11 402, 533
26 31 1:13 517, 589
26:5 511 1:16 242, 410, 542, 551, 566, 612,
26:6 411 640
26:11 111, 112 1:17 410
26:12–28 111 1:18 179, 645
26:13 554 1:18–32 645
26:14 112 1:19 391
26:15 112 1:20 255
26:18 554 1:21 179, 635, 637, 644
26:20 621 1:22–26 356
26:23 247, 554, 599 1:23 544
27:1–28:16 708 1:24 374
27:7–21 428 1:25 263
27:12 519 1:25–31 94
27:20 171 1:26–27 95
27:27 370 1:27 498
27:31 30, 171, 726 1:28 434, 642
27:35 260 1:28–30 368
28 711 1:28–32 642
28:2 497 1:29 359, 370
28:7 578 1:29–31 635, 644
28:11 519 1:30 112, 448, 635, 637
28:14 35 1:31 637
28:16 726 1:32 119
28:17 578 2:1 119, 512
28:19 431, 718 2:1–3 345
28:20 566 2:1–16 694
28:22 431, 511 2:2 85, 95
index of ancient sources 761

Rom (cont.) 4:13 527

2:2–3 311 4:16 23, 109, 417, 527
2:4 115, 473, 499, 621 4:18 74, 226, 411
2:6 711 4:20 417
2:7 181, 393, 502, 615 4:21 181, 417, 689
2:8 85, 179 4:23–25 672
2:13 242 4:24–25 693
2:15 85, 710 5:1 246
2:16 99, 346, 685 5:1–5 287, 464, 555
2:16–18 590 5:1–11 504
2:17–24 356 5:2 411, 568
2:20 131, 146, 600, 632, 639 5:4 387
2:21 149, 686 5:5 504, 542, 551
2:24 169, 350 5:6 148, 149
2:26 343 5:6–11 147
2:27 655 5:8 148, 365
2:28–29 167 5:9 171, 246, 544
2:29 493, 655 5:12 483, 538
3:1 131 5:12–14 170, 186
3:3 583, 593 5:12–20 553
3:4 99, 246, 418, 593, 703 5:12–21 187
3:4–7 345 5:14 187
3:6 685, 703 5:15 112, 113, 288, 536
3:8 311 5:15–17 361
3:9 131 5:16 288, 311
3:15 497 5:17 3, 112
3:19 95, 489 5:19 427
3:20 242, 246, 499 5:20 107, 112
3:21 101, 246, 321 5:21 393
3:21–23 356 6:1 112
3:22 502, 655 6:1–7 553
3:23 99 6:1–11 625, 693
3:24 113, 246, 501, 568 6:2 703
3:24–26 149 6:4 615
3:25 149, 222 6:5 598
3:25–28 501 6:6 91
3:26 544 6:8 582
3:27 131, 552 6:8–10 592
3:28 101, 246 6:8–11 568
3:29–30 132, 136, 146 6:9 95, 183
3:30 118 6:11 319
3:31 553, 703 6:12 374
4:2 246 6:13 319
4:3 253, 666 6:14 183
4:4 537 6:15 703
4:5 242 6:15–23 624
4:8 712 6:16 410
4:11 606, 616 6:17 106, 431
4:12 433, 493 6:19 194
762 index of ancient sources

Rom (cont.) 8:26 330

6:22 393 8:28 552
6:21 551, 566, 589 8:28–30 558
6:21–22 187 8:30 552
6:22–23 558 8:31–34 693
6:23 288, 393, 536, 550 8:32 148
7:1 168, 183 8:33 417, 537, 591
7:2–3 207 8:38 247, 532
7:4 615 8:39 593
7:4–5 187 9:1 13, 130, 138, 150
7:4–7 625 9:1–13 417
7:5 662 9:1–5 27
7:6 257, 655 9:4 526, 527
7:7 196 9:5 239, 246, 486
7:7–8 374, 644 9:6 256
7:9 493 9:8 526
7:11 156, 187 9:11 460, 468, 552, 558
7:12 101 9:12 493, 552
7:15 499 9:13 499
7:16 90 9:14–18 107
7:19 135 9:15 112, 113
7:21 90 9:15–16 119
7:23 640 9:15–18 563
7:25 106 9:17 115, 253, 666, 710
8:1–11 293, 624 9:18 112, 113
8:2 504 9:19 642
8:3 239, 246, 580 9:20–23 617, 623
8:3–4 114, 153 9:21 618
8:4–5 246 9:22 115, 374, 710
8:5–17 557 9:23 476
8:7 96 9:25–26 552
8:9 289, 504 9:26 244
8:10 568 9:32 493
8:10–11 319 9:33 116, 555, 616
8:11 239, 257, 289, 379, 388, 504, 10:1–17 300
531, 556, 557, 580, 615 10:2–4 119
8:12–25 536 10:3 96
8:15 536, 542, 557 10:8 23, 686
8:16 542 10:9–10 242, 245, 386
8:17 502 10:11 116, 551, 555, 666
8:18 662 10:12 599
8:19–22 255 10:13 24, 193, 278, 350, 504, 599,
8:20 411 608
8:21 476 10:14–15 149
8:21–23 353 10:16 410
8:22 95 11:1 703
8:23 149 11:2 253
8:24 552 11:4 422
8:24–25 558 11:9 374
index of ancient sources 763

Rom (cont.) 14:10 685

11:13 150 14:14 261, 449
11:14 294 14:15 148, 259
11:20 395, 397, 400 14:17 257, 387, 500
11:22 499 14:18 612
11:25 112, 226, 245 14:20 259, 439, 446, 447, 449
11:25–29 552 14:24 9
11:26 565 15:2 453
11:28 527 15:3 265
11:29 536 15:3–4 672
11:30 493 15:4 271, 288, 387
11:30–32 112, 113, 563 15:5–6 407, 563
11:33 311, 409 15:7 208
11:34 623 15:7–13 512
11:36 116 15:8 417
12:1 82, 129, 131, 296, 469, 612 15:9 112, 718
12:2 145, 469, 501, 649 15:13 407, 411, 534, 542, 551, 563,
12:3 544 640
12:3–16 356 15:14 511
12:4–5 21 15:14–22 241
12:6 288, 552, 557 15:14–33 27, 518
12:6–8 504 15:15 544
12:8 210, 339, 402, 502 15:16 489, 607
12:9–21 300 15:19 707, 709
12:11 563 15:24 36, 516, 520, 709
12:12 587 15:26 36, 402
12:13 402, 521, 522 15:26–27 339, 402
12:14 663 15:27 344, 402
12:16 400 15:28 589, 709
12:17 320 15:30 82, 129, 131, 551
12:19 179 15:33 542
12:20 641 16:1 221
12:21 155 16:1–2 224, 325, 339
13:1 400 16:1–16 725
13:1–7 49, 146, 356, 505 16:3 193, 324, 725
13:2 642 16:3–15 521
13:3 181, 357 16:3–23 721
13:8–10 94, 95 16:4 271
13:9 92, 196 16:5 209, 324, 565
13:12 604 16:6 275, 340, 520
13:13 94, 95, 208, 370 16:10 612
13:14 374 16:11 520, 725
14:1 179 16:12 275, 340
14:1–12 447 16:16 391, 722
14:1–18 345 16:17 82, 129, 360, 407, 431
14:5 689 16:17–18 512
14:6 261, 263 16:18 156
14:8 469, 563 16:20 127, 409, 514
14:9 183 16:21 38, 521, 707
764 index of ancient sources

Rom (cont.) 3:12 155

16:22 18, 29, 521, 725 3:13 290, 555
16:23 321, 521, 726 3:15 171
16:25 99, 118, 165, 225, 418, 553 3:16 82, 244, 289
16:25–26 414, 420 3:17 370, 642
16:25–27 116 3:18 156, 489
16:26 553, 657 3:19 483
16:27 4, 104, 356, 405, 514, 721 3:20 623
3:22 483
1Cor 4:1 22, 427, 429
1:1 29, 71, 73, 296, 411, 525 4:2 429
1:2 178, 193, 210, 350, 599, 608 4:3–5 685
1:3 72, 415, 419, 720 4:5 346, 391, 554, 692
1:4 106, 544 4:6 452
1:4–9 82, 111 4:8 592
1:5 409 4:9 247, 349
1:6 542 1:4–9 110
1:9 114, 402 4:12 38, 340, 663, 687
1:10 82, 129, 131, 350 4:13 298
1:10–24 512 4:14 468, 511
1:11 325, 359, 508 4:14–21 241, 518
1:12 91, 520 4:15 620
1:13 148 4:16 27, 129, 131
1:14 106, 696 4:17 419, 536
1:16 566 4:19 243
1:19 589 4:21 279, 498
1:20–21 483 5:1 49
1:21 24, 171, 418 5:4 350
1:23 149, 242, 686 5:5 123, 126, 127, 129, 374, 511
1:27 551 5:7 618
1:27–28 483 5:9–10 94
1:28 553 5:10 98
1:30 149 5:10–11 94, 95
2:1 225 5:12 200
2:4 257, 418, 551, 640 5:13 200
2:6 553 6:7 311, 359
2:6–7 167, 225 6:8 359
2:7 225, 245 6:9 98, 498
2:12 483 6:9–11 504
2:12–13 671 6:10 645
2:13 125, 671 6:11 500
2:16 623 6:12 183
3:1 600 6:13–14 563
3:1–4 520 6:14–20 624
3:3 359 6:16 169
3:5–11 520 6:19 289
3:9–10 244 7:1 259
3:10 544, 552 7:2 207
3:11 22, 616 7:4 183
index of ancient sources 765

1Cor (cont.) 10:13 114, 374

7:5 127, 359 10:14–16 637
7:7 536, 550 10:14–22 49
7:9 207, 316, 328 10:16 402
7:10 31 10:17 523
7:10–12 563 10:26 260, 263
7:12 31 10:27 124
7:13 414 10:30 106, 260, 263
7:13–24 49 10:31 99
7:14 261 10:32 210
7:15 207, 317 10:33 577
7:22 416, 620 11:1 27
7:22–23 153 11:2 193, 408, 497
7:25 112, 113 11:4 551
7:25–40 317 11:5 551
7:29 683 11:8–9 185
7:29–31 45, 615 11:10 349
7:32–34 577 11:13 164
7:38 207 11:16 210
7:39 312, 322, 328 11:19 290, 511
8:1 95 11:22 473, 551
8:1–3 450 11:23 408
8:1–13 259 11:24 260
8:2 450 11:25 330
8:2–3 623 11:29 311
8:3 450, 616 11:31–32 345
8:4 95, 450 11:32 482, 483
8:4–6 118 11:34 212, 311
8:6 146, 147 12:1 135
8:7 85 12:2 641
8:8 612 12:4–31 288, 504, 557
8:12 85 12:7 542
9:2 606, 616 12:8 283
9:3–11 339 12:9 113
9:4 340 12:10 125, 257, 258, 283
9:7 589 12:12–31 21, 512
9:7–27 586 12:13 500
9:9 4, 333, 340 12:28 150
9:10 74, 253, 411, 413 13:8–11 553
9:11 340 13:10 649
9:17 84 13:11 600
9:19–27 43 13:13 287, 464, 556
9:22 294 14:5 334
9:23 294 14:6 125
9:24–27 274, 588, 691 14:15 135
9:25 275, 388, 588, 596, 694 14:16 141
9:27 353, 434, 588 14:20 649
10:6 196, 467 14:22 502
10:11 511 14:25 346
766 index of ancient sources

1Cor (cont.) 16:12 296, 520

14:26 131 16:13 23
14:33–35 174 16:15–18 566
14:34 165 16:16 275
14:34–36 21 16:19 209, 324, 521, 565, 725
14:36 256 16:19–20 517, 721
15:2 334 16:20 720, 722, 723
15:3 408 16:21 18, 725
15:3–4 667 16:22 407
15:3–5 11 16:23 409, 514
15:5–8 239, 242
15:5–9 115, 119 2Cor
15:6 247 1:1 29, 38, 71, 73, 210, 411, 525
15:7 247 1:2 72, 415, 419, 720
15:8 247 1:3–11 82
15:9 210, 663 1:4 422
15:10 275 1:4–6 82
15:11 242 1:5 662
15:12 242, 598, 686 1:6 322, 662
15:12–28 625 1:7 402, 662
15:14 418 1:8 565
15:14–17 625 1:9 388, 580
15:16–17 625 1:10 271
15:19 487 1:11 106, 141
15:22 187, 379, 388 1:12 243
15:23 390 1:16 516, 520, 522
15:24 497, 553, 554, 568, 686 1:17 246
15:26 553 1:18 114
15:27 360 1:20 527
15:32–58 625 1:21 500
15:33 370, 498, 642 1:22 257, 542, 606
15:35–41 11 1:24 183
15:36 379, 388 2:12 709
15:42–55 544 2:13 39, 419
15:43 240 2:14 106, 178, 391
15:45 379, 388 3–4 125
15:51 225, 245 3:3 504
15:52 391 3:6 655
15:53 554 3:7 655
15:54 391, 554 3:7–14 553
15:58 346 3:7–4:16 102, 478
16:1 707 3:12 131, 228
16:1–11 241 3:14–15 288
16:3 515 3:17 293
16:5 168 3:17–18 504
16:6 516, 519 4:1 112, 113, 538, 563
16:9 313 4:2 256, 346, 418, 551
16:10 285 4:3 99, 590
16:11 516 4:4 93
index of ancient sources 767

2Cor (cont.) 8:1 544

4:5 153, 242 8:4 402
4:6 476 8:7 409
4:7 617 8:8–9 339
4:8 322 8:16 544
4:9 663 8:16–23 241
4:11 246 8:16–24 422
4:14 95, 99, 625 8:21 135
4:15 112, 141 8:22 226
4:16 370, 501 8:23 402
4:19 521 8:24 710
4:21 521 9:4 551
5:1 95 9:1–5 241
5:1–3 398 9:8 181, 372
5:5 542 9:11 141
5:6–8 563 9:13 182, 386
5:9 469 10:1 18, 209, 498
5:10 391, 460, 468, 685 10:2–3 246
5:11 131 10:3 570
5:14 91, 148 10:4 586
5:15 148, 625 10:5 640
5:17 255 10:8 612
5:18–19 147 11:2 321, 612
5:19 712 11:3 156, 370, 642
5:21 489 11:4 83, 149, 247, 686
6:2 544 11:12 452
6:6 279, 551 11:13 612
6:6–7 551 11:15 387, 500
6:7 387, 668 11:19–20 687
6:7–9 500 11:20 353
6:9 319, 387 11:30 119
6:12–20 98 11:31 116, 150
6:13 318 12:5 119, 334
6:14 387, 402 12:9 373
6:16 236, 244, 245, 556 12:10 112, 652, 726
7:1 527, 618 12:11–12 73
7:2 370, 642 12:14–13:13 241
7:3 592 12:18 422
7:4 534 12:20 359, 370
7:5 322 13:1 341
7:6–16 39 13:3 726
7:9 621 13:5 434
7:10 621 13:6 434
7:12 167 13:7 434
7:13–16 422 13:11–12 517
7:14 551 13:12 721, 722
7:15 536 13:13 720
7:18 388
7:23 98
768 index of ancient sources

Gal 3:17 553

1:1 73 3:18 169, 526, 527
1:1–5 72 3:19 147, 181, 417
1:2 517, 707 3:19–20 147
1:3 72, 415, 419, 720 3:19–22 101
1:4 137, 148, 484, 526 3:20 118
1:5 116 3:21 379, 388
1:6 83 3:24 246
1:7 334 3:26 222
1:9 197, 363 3:28 167, 192, 353, 522
1:10 416, 577 3:29 69, 525, 527
1:11–12 167 4:1 600
1:13 23, 112, 210, 243, 663 4:3 483, 600
1:13–15 493 4:4 386, 390
1:13–17 111 4:4–5 114, 149, 153
1:14 604 4:6 293
1:18 247 4:8 616
1:19 563 4:9 616, 620
1:20 150 4:11 275, 340
1:23 23, 112, 493 4:12–20 241, 518
2:1 39 4:13 103
2:1–3 419 4:13–14 662
2:2 125, 242 4:14 374
2:3 39, 517 4:17 135, 452
2:5 182 4:21–31 185, 526
2:9 236, 544 4:28 527
2:10 515 4:29 504, 663
2:11 642 4:30 253, 666
2:12 433, 442 5:1 354
2:13 85, 258 5:5–6 287, 464, 556
2:15–21 512 5:6 84, 113, 118
2:16 95, 242, 499, 552, 655 5:10 311
2:17 703 5:11 242, 663, 686
2:20 113, 137, 148 5:16–26 557
2:21 323 5:13 388, 413
3:1 360 5:17 196
3:2 499 5:19 290
3:3 360 5:20 359, 370, 511
3:5 499, 551, 640 5:21 359, 370, 645
3:8 257 5:22 517, 551
3:10 499 5:22–25 187
3:11 242, 246 5:23 498, 551
3:12 23 5:24 662
3:13 153 5:26 408
3:14 527 6:1 246
3:14–16 526 6:3 197, 363, 442
3:14–18 527 6:6 344, 402
3:14–22 417 6:7 498
3:16 527 6:8 393
index of ancient sources 769

Gal (cont.) 2:20–21 616

6:9 390 2:21 580
6:10 309, 320, 696 2:22 580
6:11 18, 29, 725 3:1–9 226
6:11–18 407 3:2 84
6:12 663 3:4 245, 288
6:13 135, 343 3:5 257, 544
6:14 703 3:7 113, 537
6:15 255 3:7–8 544
6:16 23 3:9 84
6:17 407 3:10 497
6:18 405, 514, 721, 728 3:11 544, 552
3:14–19 504
Eph 3:16 551, 640
1:1 71, 73, 411, 525 4:1 82, 129, 131, 388, 543
1:2 415, 419, 720 4:1–16 512
1:3 116 4:2 498
1:3–14 558 4:3 515
1:6 113 4:5–6 146
1:7 149, 580 4:6 118
1:7–14 666 4:7 544
1:8 655 4:7–16 300
1:9 245 4:11 210, 688, 689
1:10 84 4:12 224
1:11 544, 552, 580 4:13 23, 416, 649
1:13 606 4:14 498, 600
1:13–14 526 4:18 112
1:14 149 4:22 243, 370, 642
1:15 538 4:24 387, 427, 500, 668
1:16 106, 111, 141, 532, 533 4:28 340, 402
1:18 554 4:29 544
1:21 402, 488, 497 4:30 149, 606
2:1–10 625 4:31 179, 370
2:2 258 5:2 137, 148
2:2–5 493 5:3 95
2:3 243, 374, 492 5:3–4 94
2:4–10 112 5:4 141
2:5 319 5:5 98
2:7 115, 499, 710 5:6 408
2:8 113, 171 5:8 493, 554
2:8–9 568 5:9 517, 668
2:9 552 5:10 469
2:10 181, 413 5:11 342
2:11–13 493 5:12 443
2:12 321, 417 5:13 342
2:13 493 5:18 208, 429
2:14 239, 246 5:20–21 210
2:19 301, 309, 320, 321 5:22 221
2:20 244, 350 5:22–6:9 139, 354, 462
770 index of ancient sources

Eph (cont.) 1:28 313, 374

5:23 24, 73 1:30 388, 691
5:24 460 2:1 131
5:25 148 2:1–11 512
5:26 261, 500, 618 2:2 514, 516, 531, 534
5:28 221 2:3 408, 613
5:29 499 2:3–17 613
5:31 422 2:6 239
5:32 245 2:6–11 247, 249, 595
6:1 637 2:6–7 239
6:1–3 433 2:7–8 595
6:1–4 210 2:8 137, 591
6:4 511 2:9 247
6:6 416 2:11 99, 558
6:6–7 353 2:14 179
6:9 354, 462 2:15 483, 512, 613
6:10 574 2:16 181, 275, 340, 613
6:12 417, 497 2:16–17 167
6:13 642 2:17 689, 690
6:14 387, 500, 668 2:19 301
6:18 141 2:21 38
6:19 228 2:22 419
6:20 567 2:23 123
6:21 519, 701, 709 2:24 243
6:23 720 2:25 272, 586
6:24 599 2:27 563, 726
2:28 559
Phil 2:30 522, 591
1:1 21, 29, 38, 203, 204, 205, 215, 2:7–8 153
223, 224, 416, 420, 537 3:1–11 625
1:2 415, 419, 720 3:4 197, 363
1:3 106, 532 3:4–6 27
1:3–6 522 3:6 663
1:3–11 82, 110 3:9 655
1:4 111, 141 3:10 598, 662
1:5 402 3:14 588, 649
1:6 91, 181 3:17 27, 467
1:9 113 3:19 374, 551
1:11 187, 589 3:20 24, 69, 277, 412
1:12–13 290 3:21 460
1:15 149, 337, 359, 370 4:1 588, 596, 694
1:18–19 36 4:2 131
1:19 293, 504 4:5 209
1:19–24 241 4:6 141
1:20 228, 271, 612 4:8 144, 427, 434
1:22 374 4:9 27
1:22–24 551 4:11 372
1:23 682, 690 4:13 4, 103, 111
1:24–26 36 4:15 318, 344, 402
index of ancient sources 771

Phil (cont.) 2:2 245, 478, 589

4:15–16 566 2:3 409, 580
4:17 589 2:6–7 398
4:18 469 2:7 23
4:18–19 566 2:8 408, 410, 483
4:21 517, 518, 521, 722, 723 2:10 488, 497
4:21–22 517, 721 2:11–13 568
4:22 521, 696 2:12 592
4:23 720, 728 2:15 488, 497
2:16 259
Col 2:16–19 43, 46
1:1 29, 38, 71, 73, 411, 525 2:18 247, 348, 639
1:2 415, 419 2:20 483
1:1–2 72 2:20–23 258
1:3 106 2:20–3:4 615
1:3–4 106 2:21–23 277
1:3–8 82 2:22 446
1:3–14 102, 110 2:23 259, 274, 639
1:4 113, 118 3:1–4 43, 277, 625
1:4–5 287, 464, 556 3:4 242, 246, 277, 288
1:4–8 566 3:5 95
1:5 74, 487 3:8 179, 370, 374, 493, 551
1:5–6 581 3:10 501
1:8 279, 551 3:10–11 512
1:9 538, 589, 655 3:12 417, 498
1:9–12 111 3:15 388
1:9–14 666 3:15–17 106, 210
1:10 181, 563 3:16 531
1:11 115, 392, 661 3:17 350, 471
1:12 106, 554 3:18 221, 466
1:13 704 3:18–4:1 139, 354, 462
1:14 149, 580 3:19 221
1:15 117, 239, 255, 391 3:20 210, 433, 469, 637
1:15–17 263 3:22 460
1:15–20 147, 247 3:22–23 353
1:15–23 102 3:22–25 471
1:16 117, 497 3:23 469, 471
1:18 489, 512 4:1 354, 462
1:21–22 493 4:3 245, 591
1:22 239, 246, 612 4:5 200
1:23 74, 100, 153, 231, 271, 537 4:7 519, 701, 709
1:24 662 4:8 709
1:24–2:5 102 4:10 521
1:25 231, 256, 537 4:10–11 708
1:26 225, 246, 391 4:10–15 721
1:26–27 226, 245 4:11 433, 442
1:28 511, 649, 655 4:12 275, 416, 521, 588, 689
1:29 265, 271, 275, 588 4:14 519, 521, 706, 708
2:1 691 4:14–15 722
772 index of ancient sources

Col (cont.) 4:1 131, 577

4:15 209, 521 4:4 618
4:17 514, 516, 689 4:6 342, 685
4:18 18, 406, 407, 409, 517, 724, 4:7 413, 552
725 4:8 323, 504, 542
4:9 657
1Thess 4:11 182
1:1 29, 38, 419, 720 4:13 135, 568
1:2 106, 111, 141, 532, 533 4:14 242
1:2–3 106 4:15 390, 563
1:2–5 82 5:1 636
1:2–10 110 5:2 95
1:3 74, 271, 287, 387, 464, 487, 5:3 374, 636
556 5:5 554
1:3–4 531 5:6 688
1:5 99, 551, 590, 640 5:8 74, 287, 464, 556, 688
1:6 27 5:10 148
1:7 467, 502 5:12 210, 275, 339, 502, 511
1:8 178 5:14 82, 511
1:9 149, 236 5:17 533
1:9–10 275 5:19–20 125
1:10 179 5:20 513
1:17–3:13 241 5:23 390, 407
1:19 390 5:23–24 563
2:2 388, 691 5:26 720, 721
2:4 577 5:26–27 723
2:7 600, 621 5:27 288
2:7–8 600 5:28 3, 409, 514
2:8 97, 402
2:9 38, 242 2Thess
2:11–12 296 1:1 29, 38, 720
2:11–16 552 1:2 415, 419, 720
2:12 298, 342, 552 1:3 106, 112
2:13 256, 533, 538 1:3–4 82
2:14 11, 210 1:4 210, 652, 687
2:15 577 1:5 345, 580
2:17 374, 515 1:6 322, 427
2:17–18 243, 705 1:7 247, 322, 343
2:17–3:11 518 1:9 374
2:19 588, 596, 694 1:10 555, 563
3:1 422 1:11 111
3:4 322 1:12 350
3:9 141 2:1 390
3:10 530 2:2 34, 243
3:11 407 2:3 156, 374
3:11–13 563 2:4 313
3:12 112 2:8 24, 390, 483, 553, 686
3:12–13 407 2:13–14 552
3:13 113, 206, 390 2:14 99, 590
index of ancient sources 773

2Thess (cont.) 452, 457, 509, 510, 575, 642,

2:15 408 661, 688
2:16–17 407 1:4–7 77
2:17 181 1:5 23, 28, 78, 80, 82, 84, 86, 87,
3:1 563 96, 107, 112, 113, 121, 122, 124,
3:1–12 110 126, 165, 171, 226, 258, 259,
3:3 114 281, 286, 287, 308, 387, 409,
3:5 407 447, 517, 533, 619, 639, 661,
3:6 408, 513 668
3:6–13 167 1:5–6 123
3:7–10 339 1:6 43, 46, 77, 80, 81, 85, 87, 121,
3:9 467 185, 253, 281, 324, 337, 375,
3:10 197, 363 407, 409, 442, 511, 614, 688
3:12 182, 368 1:6–7 42, 405, 668
3:14 197, 363, 468, 513 1:7 43, 46, 77, 81, 86, 87, 89, 96,
3:16 407, 725 101, 107, 112, 114, 121, 131, 147,
3:17 18, 34, 725 153, 184, 253, 288, 369, 425,
3:18 409, 514 495, 502, 510, 554, 589,
4:1–5 642, 645 615
1:7–9 83
1Tim 1:8 78, 89, 90, 95, 165, 228, 253,
1:1 8, 23, 34, 48, 69, 70, 77, 80, 267, 507, 556, 582, 587, 636
103, 105, 145, 149, 152, 275, 1:8–9 43, 89
277, 283, 284, 287, 293, 313, 1:8–10 86, 92
318, 327, 330, 348, 411, 413, 1:8–11 27, 105, 121, 635, 644
415, 416, 418, 419, 473, 477, 1:9 47, 78, 88, 89, 90, 92, 95, 96,
478, 481, 483, 485, 486, 487, 97, 111, 112, 143, 145, 153, 253,
499, 524, 526, 534, 537, 548, 273, 387, 408, 425, 430, 442,
553, 556, 591, 598, 666 483, 516, 636, 637
1:1–2 22, 73, 77, 121, 526 1:9–10 89, 91, 99
1:2 69, 71, 74, 77, 78, 80, 84, 103, 1:9–11 90
104, 107, 113, 121, 124, 150, 1:10 43, 89, 92, 96, 98, 131, 167,
284, 330, 387, 394, 409, 411, 236, 258, 272, 281, 288, 306,
412, 414, 415, 417, 419, 500, 310, 356, 363, 368, 408, 422,
521, 524, 525, 526, 527, 554, 425, 431, 445, 464, 554, 555,
585, 661 687
1:3 35, 37, 42, 77, 78, 80, 82, 87, 1:10–11 293, 294
89, 92, 121, 124, 184, 208, 1:11 27, 48, 90, 92, 99, 102, 105,
245, 253, 280, 281, 286, 288, 121, 123, 130, 356, 391, 418,
308, 324, 363, 368, 397, 405, 483, 686
431, 554, 567, 615, 705 1:12 4, 100, 102, 104, 105, 106, 107,
1:3–4 43, 45, 368 110, 112, 113, 114, 118, 121, 281,
1:3–5 405 394, 529, 530, 551, 574, 585,
1:3–7 70, 77, 105, 121, 124 595, 689, 703, 708
1:3–20 42, 89, 108 1:12–13 105
1:4 5, 23, 76, 77, 78, 79, 82, 83, 1:12–14 110
87, 124, 171, 185, 225, 245, 1:12–17 28, 34, 46, 70, 90, 93, 102,
257, 263, 273, 279, 336, 352, 108, 109, 121, 393, 416
359, 379, 387, 409, 434, 446, 1:12–18 594, 595
774 index of ancient sources

1Tim (cont.) 2:1–2 132, 152

1:13 13, 31, 75, 93, 100, 103, 105, 2:1–7 24, 47, 48, 99, 139, 149, 157,
106, 108, 109, 111, 113, 114, 115, 158, 174, 177, 179, 244, 462,
116, 118, 121, 124, 127, 150, 254, 477, 481, 491
500, 571, 637 2:1–8 28, 159, 348
1:13–14 188 2:1–15 158
1:14 23, 75, 88, 100, 104, 105, 106, 2:2 5, 25, 125, 130, 132, 134, 135,
107, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 121, 137, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143,
128, 171, 223, 281, 394, 409, 147, 149, 152, 153, 156, 158,
547, 552, 555, 585, 595, 639 165, 166, 181, 182, 199, 209,
1:15 24, 100, 103, 105, 107, 108, 210, 218, 224, 246, 286, 296,
109, 110, 111, 113, 114, 115, 118, 318, 348, 369, 371, 387, 417,
119, 121, 156, 171, 188, 194, 249, 459, 468, 482, 483, 604, 613,
261, 270, 273, 277, 293, 351, 639
486, 585, 592, 595, 614 2:2–4 243
1:15–16 106 2:3 23, 73, 95, 122, 130, 132, 134,
1:15–17 71, 109 138, 139, 140, 144, 147, 152,
1:16 93, 100, 103, 105, 106, 108, 158, 166, 180, 272, 301, 318,
111, 113, 114, 115, 116, 118, 119, 415, 419, 486, 537, 548, 553
121, 156, 165, 269, 284, 286, 2:3–4 135, 270, 283
287, 290, 291, 293, 388, 417, 2:3–5 236
500, 502, 555, 581, 595, 661, 2:3–6 144, 181, 357, 377, 393
677, 710 2:3–7 46, 300
1:17 4, 104, 105, 106, 107, 109, 110, 2:3–8 291
116, 117, 118, 119, 121, 132, 142, 2:4 131, 132, 134, 135, 136, 137,
144, 145, 153, 165, 286, 292, 138, 139, 140, 141, 145, 150,
333, 351, 356, 385, 391, 486, 152, 156, 158, 163, 171, 258,
544, 554, 686, 715 260, 270, 275, 277, 319, 371,
1:18 22, 25, 78, 95, 120, 121, 123, 409, 417, 475, 545, 621, 641
124, 128, 131, 165, 233, 234, 2:5 24, 103, 118, 132, 134, 136, 139,
272, 284, 286, 289, 293, 308, 140, 141, 145, 146, 188, 204,
380, 388, 405, 406, 408, 586, 209, 210, 230, 477, 486
595, 675, 691 2:5–6 24, 114, 130, 133, 134, 146, 147,
1:18–19 121 158, 159, 160, 193
1:18–20 131, 405 2:5–7 133, 160
1:19 23, 28, 44, 85, 121, 122, 123, 2:6 4, 26, 114, 130, 131, 132, 134,
126, 128, 219, 226, 253, 255, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140,
258, 259, 281, 312, 337, 364, 141, 147, 148, 149, 152, 153,
407, 459, 605, 634 156, 158, 171, 180, 182, 212,
1:19–20 121 217, 384, 386, 390, 414, 420,
1:20 26, 79, 111, 121, 122, 123, 126, 453, 475, 479, 484, 486, 542,
128, 165, 200, 212, 236, 258, 545, 636, 687
325, 448, 467, 482, 492, 498, 2:7 13, 27, 28, 44, 115, 118, 130,
511, 614, 619, 621, 710, 711 131, 132, 133, 135, 137, 138, 145,
2:1 42, 103, 129, 131, 132, 133, 134, 149, 150, 152, 153, 156, 158,
135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 141, 159, 166, 167, 171, 247, 250,
152, 156, 158, 160, 163, 201, 255, 258, 288, 371, 418, 446,
234, 261, 288, 307, 368, 431, 465, 521, 537, 545, 554, 576,
545 642, 686, 713
index of ancient sources 775

1Tim (cont.) 3:1 26, 92, 95, 103, 108, 113, 125,
2:8 130, 155, 156, 158, 160, 161, 181, 194, 196, 197, 199, 204,
163, 165, 166, 176, 178, 186, 217, 261, 269, 272, 302, 306,
196, 280, 313, 366, 427, 430, 321, 346, 363, 367, 375, 401,
495, 540 425, 467, 585, 592, 614
2:8–9 150 3:1–7 21, 139, 338, 339, 426, 427,
2:8–10 156, 157, 159 428
2:8–15 139, 156, 157, 158, 159, 177, 3:1–13 21, 203
193, 317, 645 3:2 42, 47, 179, 180, 196, 198,
2:9 44, 47, 48, 142, 155, 156, 157, 202, 204, 206, 208, 218, 220,
158, 160, 162, 163, 164, 166, 221, 222, 223, 227, 228, 230,
170, 172, 177, 178, 179, 180, 243, 286, 310, 316, 319, 321,
182, 196, 208, 217, 286, 319, 338, 340, 428, 429, 430, 457,
325, 330, 427, 457, 463, 469, 463, 467, 621, 622
483, 551 3:2–3 218
2:9–10 156, 158, 160, 162, 164, 177, 3:2–4 196, 197, 199, 204, 219, 235
184, 196, 198, 209, 219, 377, 3:2–6 427
425 3:2–7 196
2:9–15 8, 22, 45, 46, 47, 48, 156, 157, 3:3 44, 195, 196, 198, 204, 207,
159, 193, 221, 231, 280 208, 225, 227, 373, 377, 425,
2:10 9, 26, 96, 156, 157, 158, 160, 430, 465, 498, 621
161, 163, 176, 181, 187, 196, 3:3–4 200
286, 321, 401, 409, 463, 465 3:4 84, 144, 196, 197, 198, 199,
2:11 142, 156, 157, 164, 165, 172, 207, 209, 210, 218, 221, 222,
175, 182, 185, 187, 196, 198, 228, 286, 338, 339, 428, 433,
199, 210, 296, 427, 641, 664 459, 674
2:11–12 157, 164, 184 3:4–5 235, 259, 502, 566
2:11–14 170, 477 3:5 21, 84, 92, 195, 196, 197, 199,
2:11–15 156, 157, 159, 160, 162, 164, 209, 210, 217, 236, 244, 253,
196, 198, 219, 425 306, 338, 339, 363, 379, 425,
2:12 7, 46, 48, 142, 156, 157, 158, 674
159, 160, 163, 165, 167, 168, 3:6 199, 200, 201, 204, 211, 212,
169, 170, 175, 182, 183, 185, 217, 223, 226, 311, 313, 369,
187, 196, 198, 220, 288, 368, 425, 430, 465, 639
541, 554 3:6–7 26, 46, 197, 200, 258, 638
2:13 156, 157, 168, 169, 170, 184, 3:7 125, 195, 196, 200, 212, 217,
185, 187, 192, 220 219, 222, 228, 243, 286, 313,
2:13–14 157, 161, 169, 170, 184, 192 360, 465, 516, 578, 622
2:14 44, 156, 157, 159, 169, 170, 3:8 4, 44, 83, 144, 162, 196, 209,
186, 187, 192, 220, 253, 258 215, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221,
2:15 43, 47, 88, 113, 128, 142, 222, 224, 227, 233, 267, 272,
156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 164, 279, 286, 316, 359, 360, 377,
170, 176, 178, 180, 186, 187, 434, 442, 452, 454, 457, 463,
188, 192, 194, 195, 196, 199, 465, 637, 708
203, 206, 207, 221, 259, 281, 3:8–13 272
287, 321, 324, 427, 521, 607, 3:8–9 219, 220, 221, 235
664 3:8–10 218, 221
2:22–25 641 3:8–12 222
2:23 259 3:8–13 201, 224, 234, 422
776 index of ancient sources

1Tim (cont.) 4:1–3 25, 463

3:8–16 139 4:1–4 178
3:9 23, 28, 44, 85, 126, 128, 219, 4:1–5 46, 186, 188, 207, 239, 243,
223, 225, 227, 245, 255, 258, 252, 265, 266, 268, 277, 281,
259, 272, 312, 447, 533, 634 317, 372, 401
3:10 156, 169, 206, 217, 218, 219, 4:1–10 26
221, 222, 226, 230, 233, 243, 4:1–16 139, 252, 660, 671
286, 425, 428, 708 4:2 28, 44, 85, 99, 126, 138, 150,
3:11 144, 200, 207, 217, 218, 220, 245, 251, 252, 254, 258, 445,
221, 222, 224, 227, 235, 272, 447, 671, 674
279, 457, 463, 465, 622, 638 4:2–3 223
3:11–13 22 4:2–5 405
3:12 84, 209, 215, 218, 221, 222, 4:3 114, 145, 251, 252, 253, 254,
227, 233, 259, 267, 306, 339, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 261,
428, 502, 674, 708 263, 265, 273, 324, 388, 488,
3:12–13 218, 221, 227 615
3:13 125, 168, 169, 218, 222, 226, 4:3–4 252, 263
227, 228, 230, 233, 243, 319, 4:3–5 43, 260, 439, 446
360, 521, 656, 708 4:4 22, 96, 252, 255, 260, 261,
3:14 35, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 263, 272, 278, 365, 379, 556
241, 243, 405, 556, 695, 705 4:5 141, 168, 171, 252, 255, 260,
3:14–15 234, 239, 282 261, 265, 273, 283, 379, 418,
3:14–16 47, 205, 252 614, 619, 671
3:15 9, 11, 21, 22, 23, 42, 46, 48, 77, 4:6 23, 42, 93, 96, 99, 103, 111,
84, 115, 139, 141, 143, 145, 178, 125, 126, 167, 208, 215, 233,
196, 199, 204, 209, 210, 228, 235, 252, 257, 258, 264, 265,
230, 233, 234, 235, 237, 242, 266, 267, 271, 277, 281, 288,
243, 245, 249, 252, 253, 258, 290, 293, 312, 330, 340, 354,
265, 269, 275, 286, 295, 297, 369, 405, 430, 554, 556, 614,
309, 320, 324, 379, 395, 578, 634, 661, 670, 671, 708
616, 617 4:6–10 74, 265, 266, 279, 291
3:15–16 42 4:6–16 266
3:16 22, 25, 26, 28, 46, 47, 48, 114, 4:7 25, 42, 47, 97, 125, 143, 158,
125, 138, 143, 144, 149, 150, 185, 252, 257, 265, 266, 267,
152, 219, 223, 224, 226, 228, 272, 273, 274, 275, 277, 290,
231, 232, 233, 234, 236, 241, 311, 369, 405, 408, 417, 446,
242, 243, 245, 249, 250, 252, 509, 510, 642, 667, 688
257, 260, 274, 277, 283, 307, 4:7–8 144, 188
343, 349, 369, 371, 377, 386, 4:7–10 405
387, 391, 417, 418, 431, 482, 4:8 4, 13, 25, 43, 47, 125, 143, 217,
484, 553, 557, 653, 663, 686 265, 266, 268, 269, 271, 273,
3:16–4:1 3, 233 274, 275, 277, 290, 291, 369,
4:1 4, 23, 24, 26, 44, 45, 83, 99, 393, 397, 402, 417, 525, 527,
126, 131, 150, 219, 225, 251, 588, 640, 667, 671, 677
252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 4:8–9 194, 273
260, 262, 263, 265, 272, 279, 4:8–10 267
281, 288, 290, 293, 312, 323, 4:9 108, 113, 114, 261, 266, 269,
337, 405, 507, 554, 557, 634, 273, 274, 275, 351, 495, 585,
636, 664, 671, 687 592, 614
index of ancient sources 777

1Tim (cont.) 5:3–8 293, 303, 308, 309, 339

4:10 23, 46, 73, 236, 245, 255, 5:3–16 36, 46, 157, 158, 159, 160,
257, 264, 265, 266, 269, 271, 163, 168, 193, 280, 295, 303,
274, 275, 277, 278, 283, 287, 331
291, 293, 294, 307, 309, 319, 5:3–24 139
327, 333, 339, 340, 365, 388, 5:4 25, 84, 92, 135, 145, 156, 165,
395, 415, 419, 436, 475, 486, 168, 197, 301, 302, 303, 304,
548, 553, 556, 588, 589, 671, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310,
701 312, 313, 314, 317, 318, 320,
4:11 184, 233, 235, 266, 279, 280, 321, 324, 327, 331, 363, 425,
286, 288, 308, 350, 361, 362, 533, 597, 641, 664, 674
368, 397, 462, 473, 554 5:4–5 312
4:11–16 266, 327, 339 5:4–6 311
4:12 23, 28, 35, 43, 48, 88, 113, 5:4–10 259
243, 255, 266, 279, 280, 281, 5:5 287, 301, 303, 304, 305, 307,
282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 291, 308, 310, 312, 313, 315, 317,
293, 295, 296, 303, 306, 310, 318, 319, 327, 348, 395, 396,
327, 344, 354, 356, 361, 387, 399, 400, 530, 556
388, 453, 467, 473, 480, 485, 5:5–6 30
555, 614, 619, 639, 664 5:6 43, 157, 177, 305, 307, 308,
4:12–16 308 318, 319
4:13 225, 258, 266, 279, 280, 282, 5:6–7 207
288, 293, 294, 661, 671 5:7 96, 157, 235, 286, 303, 305,
4:14 25, 125, 266, 279, 280, 282, 306, 308, 319, 327, 331, 397,
283, 288, 290, 293, 295, 296, 405
344, 541, 542, 550, 585 5:8 23, 92, 126, 197, 255, 295,
4:14–16 405 298, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305,
4:15 253, 266, 279, 280, 283, 285, 306, 308, 310, 312, 313, 314,
290, 295, 405, 604, 613 315, 319, 320, 323, 324, 327,
4:16 129, 168, 171, 258, 264, 266, 333, 339, 363, 425, 436, 447,
267, 279, 280, 283, 284, 288, 583, 593, 634, 637
290, 293, 294, 295, 319, 389, 5:9 206, 303, 305, 309, 310, 311,
554, 670, 671 314, 316, 317, 320, 324, 331
5:1 19, 36, 130, 196, 288, 294, 5:9–10 177, 303, 304, 306
295, 309, 331, 333, 338, 359, 5:9–15 310
368, 427, 431, 463, 467, 684, 5:9–16 303, 310
685 5:10 26, 95, 96, 157, 160, 181, 197,
5:1–2 139, 215, 293, 298, 303, 331 208, 303, 310, 314, 316, 317,
5:1–16 339 321, 325, 346, 389, 401, 426,
5:1–24 462 466, 669
5:1–25 203 5:11 43, 303, 305, 311, 312, 313,
5:1–6:2 362 317, 319, 322, 324, 327, 328,
5:2 19, 43, 48, 281, 287, 293, 295, 331, 427, 466, 515, 641
296, 303, 331, 466 5:11–12 296
5:3 196, 286, 298, 303, 304, 305, 5:11–13 227, 405
307, 309, 314, 317, 318, 327, 5:11–15 304
331, 333, 341, 350, 354, 356, 5:11–16 303
396, 399, 405 5:12 156, 157, 255, 299, 303, 308,
5:3–4 303, 315, 427 311, 317, 323, 327
778 index of ancient sources

1Tim (cont.) 5:24 122, 281, 332, 337, 341, 345,

5:13 43, 157, 159, 175, 187, 225, 346, 347, 348, 516, 643
295, 303, 305, 312, 317, 323, 5:24–25 332, 338
359, 437, 466, 516, 541, 633, 5:25 26, 95, 155, 181, 321, 330,
641, 664 332, 337, 346, 348, 401, 643,
5:14 47, 84, 143, 157, 160, 170, 178, 675
188, 207, 299, 303, 304, 305, 6:1 108, 111, 168, 196, 258, 288,
312, 313, 321, 322, 324, 326, 333, 341, 350, 351, 353, 354,
328, 488, 495, 540 356, 362, 452, 458, 467, 468,
5:15 26, 46, 86, 127, 157, 170, 175, 469, 498, 674
258, 281, 295, 298, 302, 312, 6:1–2 139, 280, 350, 399, 468, 619
313, 324, 327, 337, 405, 408, 6:2 48, 130, 158, 159, 168, 184,
688 233, 255, 272, 281, 288, 350,
5:16 92, 165, 197, 255, 302, 303, 351, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357,
304, 305, 306, 310, 314, 315, 361, 362, 368, 405, 431, 462,
317, 322, 325, 331, 339, 363, 467, 473, 554, 674, 686
396, 399, 425 6:2–5 367
5:17 19, 42, 168, 196, 202, 210, 215, 6:2–10 159, 316, 355, 381, 385, 386,
258, 286, 288, 296, 301, 303, 392
306, 331, 332, 333, 334, 339, 6:2–19 158, 159, 160, 168, 193, 346
340, 341, 347, 350, 399, 427, 6:3 25, 44, 47, 71, 83, 92, 99, 103,
428, 429, 436, 463, 502, 554, 107, 125, 143, 158, 159, 184,
589, 614 197, 236, 258, 281, 288, 293,
5:17–18 332, 346 302, 306, 340, 350, 358, 361,
5:17–19 202, 296 362, 363, 364, 367, 369, 377,
5:17–25 295, 316, 339, 430 380, 382, 394, 403, 406, 408,
5:18 4, 31, 169, 253, 329, 332, 333, 417, 422, 425, 445, 468, 537,
338, 340, 349, 363, 366, 612, 554, 555, 614, 687, 711
666, 667, 708 6:3–5 361, 362, 365, 389, 399, 406
5:19 19, 296, 329, 331, 334, 335, 6:3–6 405
338, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 6:3–10 225, 361, 362, 380, 381
388, 463, 575, 585 6:3–19 139
5:19–20 46, 332, 335, 343, 346 6:3–21 42
5:19–21 26, 341 6:4 42, 43, 84, 92, 111, 123, 158,
5:20 329, 331, 332, 333, 334, 341, 162, 211, 306, 359, 362, 363,
342, 344, 431, 599, 649, 686 368, 369, 371, 377, 381, 406,
5:20–22 332 407, 459, 498, 506, 509, 510,
5:20–25 329, 338 512, 605, 612, 619, 639, 663
5:21 103, 104, 145, 239, 247, 330, 6:4–5 94, 95, 158, 362, 367, 392
331, 332, 335, 336, 342, 345, 6:5 25, 44, 47, 125, 143, 145, 158,
348, 383, 405, 477, 537, 597, 258, 317, 359, 362, 364, 368,
612, 677, 711 369, 370, 377, 382, 417, 446,
5:21 332, 333 447, 608, 639, 642
5:21–23 332, 336 6:5–6 196, 365
5:22 207, 331, 332, 335, 336, 337, 6:6 25, 47, 125, 143, 158, 359, 362,
341, 343, 402, 466, 695 364, 366, 367, 372, 375, 377,
5:22–25 331 382, 417
5:23 208, 330, 331, 332, 336, 344 6:6–10 95, 293, 361, 362, 365, 367,
5:23–25 331 382, 396, 406
index of ancient sources 779

1Tim (cont.) 319, 377, 380, 381, 382, 383,

6:7 4, 281, 360, 362, 365, 366, 386, 389, 392, 394, 400, 434,
367, 372, 378, 388, 392 475, 481, 483, 497, 548, 553,
6:7–8 362, 366 686
6:7–10 44 6:14–15 378
6:8 360, 365, 366, 367, 373 6:15 116, 137, 142, 183, 377, 381,
6:8–9 366 384, 386, 389, 390, 403, 404,
6:9 158, 180, 205, 212, 360, 362, 414, 418, 420, 453, 687
366, 367, 368, 373, 375, 376, 6:15–16 116, 118, 158, 317, 380, 381,
381, 386, 387, 397, 482, 498, 386
608, 620, 641, 646, 680, 687 6:15–17 26
6:9–10 197, 319, 368, 381 6:16 104, 117, 286, 292, 333, 351,
6:10 4, 23, 48, 88, 126, 145, 159, 356, 377, 380, 384, 386, 391,
185, 196, 209, 255, 281, 312, 392, 396, 397, 403, 554,
323, 337, 360, 361, 362, 366, 599
367, 373, 374, 375, 381, 382, 6:17 13, 26, 48, 79, 158, 180, 181,
387, 389, 446, 498, 565, 608, 186, 211, 286, 287, 308, 336,
634, 636, 710 357, 361, 369, 374, 381, 386,
6:10–11 363 387, 388, 392, 393, 394, 395,
6:11 23, 25, 47, 88, 113, 125, 143, 396, 397, 399, 400, 401, 402,
158, 159, 281, 363, 377, 379, 403, 405, 452, 457, 501, 556,
381, 383, 386, 387, 396, 406, 636, 700
417, 464, 500, 507, 574, 591, 6:17–19 44, 46, 95, 159, 225, 275, 280,
608, 619, 621, 639, 661, 662, 316, 347, 355, 361, 362, 368,
663, 668 376, 381, 385, 386, 392, 393,
6:11–12 271, 380, 381, 405 396, 406, 582
6:11–16 159, 361, 362, 369, 381, 396, 6:17–20 209
397, 406 6:17–21 362, 381
6:11–19 181 6:18 26, 48, 95, 158, 160, 181, 321,
6:12 23, 26, 96, 122, 125, 126, 346, 355, 362, 377, 381, 386,
135, 158, 159, 265, 269, 275, 387, 388, 389, 396, 397, 398,
312, 346, 355, 360, 362, 379, 401, 403, 448, 488
381, 382, 383, 386, 388, 389, 6:18–19 164
392, 393, 396, 398, 399, 400, 6:19 13, 96, 158, 388, 392, 395,
402, 404, 417, 448, 502, 558, 396, 397, 398, 402, 403, 404,
585, 588, 591, 634, 675, 682, 417, 615, 677
691 6:20 5, 42, 43, 45, 86, 97, 121,
6:12–13 212 124, 131, 145, 343, 404, 405,
6:13 26, 48, 96, 103, 137, 145, 158, 406, 407, 408, 410, 417, 546,
181, 267, 286, 288, 308, 330, 555, 556, 586, 598, 613, 688,
334, 342, 346, 348, 355, 362, 711
377, 379, 380, 381, 383, 384, 6:20–21 6, 361, 362, 406, 724
386, 388, 393, 396, 397, 398, 6:21 9, 23, 42, 44, 85, 123, 126, 181,
401, 403, 477, 486, 542, 554, 185, 281, 312, 323, 337, 364,
597, 675 375, 382, 405, 406, 407, 409,
6:13–14 477 410, 459, 514, 515, 517, 518,
6:13–15 26, 380 556, 605, 613, 614, 634, 724,
6:13–16 46, 386 725
6:14 24, 43, 48, 103, 107, 293,
780 index of ancient sources

2Tim 1:9–14 420

1:1 8, 23, 34, 69, 71, 73, 411, 413, 1:10 4, 24, 48, 74, 239, 242, 249,
417, 477, 486, 524, 525, 526, 283, 388, 390, 391, 412, 415,
528, 535, 537, 565, 581, 611, 419, 453, 473, 475, 483, 486,
622, 663 497, 527, 528, 537, 540, 543,
1:1–2 22, 73, 535, 717 544, 545, 548, 549, 551, 552,
1:1–13 28 553, 558, 568, 615, 686, 693,
1:2 411, 412, 415, 500, 524, 525, 712
526, 527, 563, 566, 585, 589, 1:11 28, 130, 133, 138, 149, 247,
598, 661, 703, 712 410, 418, 465, 537, 544, 545,
1:3 27, 77, 104, 106, 111, 113, 226, 546, 551, 553, 554, 561, 576,
307, 527, 528, 529, 530, 532, 586, 687, 693, 713
534, 535 1:11–12 539
1:3–5 82, 529 1:11–13 550, 565
1:3–8 529, 538 1:11–14 538
1:3–14 34 1:12 109, 121, 124, 343, 410, 532,
1:4 529, 530, 532, 533, 534, 535, 537, 539, 540, 541, 545, 547,
538, 690 549, 551, 555, 556, 558, 564,
1:5 23, 103, 193, 529, 530, 531, 566, 569, 586, 603, 634, 636,
532, 534, 535, 538, 540, 555, 697, 711
648, 654, 664, 672 1:12–14 25
1:6 25, 125, 279, 283, 289, 290, 1:13 24, 44, 99, 113, 115, 408, 445,
344, 529, 536, 538, 539, 540, 468, 521, 529, 535, 537, 538,
545, 546, 549, 555, 560 539, 540, 545, 546, 547, 555,
1:6–7 122, 289, 538, 539 558, 560, 561, 581, 612, 614,
1:6–8 539 639, 711
1:6–14 529, 538, 560, 574 1:13–14 539
1:6–13 226 1:14 96, 121, 124, 289, 343, 408,
1:7 24, 25, 47, 168, 180, 536, 540, 410, 489, 529, 538, 540, 541,
541, 543, 549, 550, 555, 556, 542, 546, 547, 555, 556, 557,
557, 558, 639, 640, 671 558, 560, 586, 671, 675, 682,
1:7–8 550 697, 711
1:7–10 546 1:15 7, 91, 560, 561, 564, 565,
1:7–11 539, 540 566, 567, 574, 617, 636, 707,
1:8 212, 313, 336, 379, 452, 457, 720
525, 529, 533, 538, 539, 540, 1:15–16 551
541, 542, 543, 544, 545, 549, 1:15–18 36, 538, 539, 574
550, 551, 555, 556, 557, 558, 1:16 84, 520, 527, 538, 559, 560,
560, 563, 564, 565, 566, 570, 561, 562, 564, 566, 567, 572,
573, 580, 589, 603, 640, 688, 712, 725
712 1:16–17 35, 560, 563
1:8–10 581 1:16–18 525, 560, 564, 574
1:9 26, 171, 250, 277, 290, 414, 1:17 76, 559, 561, 566, 567, 648,
453, 486, 500, 525, 527, 528, 706
537, 540, 541, 542, 543, 549, 1:18 13, 226, 267, 351, 527, 538,
552, 553, 558, 694 560, 561, 562, 566, 567, 568,
1:9–10 46, 133, 270, 477, 538, 539, 569, 572, 573, 574, 636, 692,
543, 546, 548, 556, 558 705, 708
1:9–11 133, 138, 541 1:26 603
index of ancient sources 781

2Tim (cont.) 576, 581, 584, 585, 592, 593,

2:1 131, 527, 558, 560, 570, 572, 595, 601, 614, 615
573, 574, 576, 578, 581, 584, 2:11–12 573
585, 593, 594, 595, 601, 651, 2:11–13 194, 574, 585, 592, 600, 602
661, 703, 706, 729 2:12 309, 572, 573, 576, 582, 583,
2:1–7 573, 578 584, 587, 591, 592, 593, 596,
2:1–13 541, 565, 573, 662, 694 601
2:1–14 41 2:13 254, 572, 573, 574, 582, 583,
2:2 42, 43, 46, 124, 360, 408, 541, 584, 593, 596, 599, 600, 601,
546, 554, 555, 571, 572, 573, 661, 697
575, 576, 578, 584, 585, 593, 2:14 42, 43, 95, 145, 335, 342, 370,
594, 595, 601, 612, 729 497, 534, 536, 597, 598, 601,
2:2 121 602, 604, 608, 611, 612, 613,
2:3 96, 551, 570, 572, 573, 576, 619, 620, 628, 630
578, 584, 585, 586, 587, 588, 2:14–15 611
589, 592, 594, 601, 662, 675, 2:14–16 601, 607
688, 712, 717 2:14–17 46
2:3–6 593, 691 2:14–26 649
2:3–7 576 2:15 145, 226, 261, 418, 515, 519,
2:3–9 388 601, 603, 605, 611, 612, 614,
2:4 570, 571, 573, 576, 577, 578, 618, 628, 630, 642, 688
586, 587, 595 2:16 43, 47, 86, 97, 143, 360, 404,
2:4–6 573, 584 408, 482, 511, 598, 601, 602,
2:4–7 594 604, 607, 608, 611, 613, 614,
2:5 90, 516, 573, 576, 577, 578, 625, 628, 630, 632, 635, 642
586, 588, 596, 607, 648, 691, 2:16–17 369, 601, 602
692 2:17 7, 123, 126, 604, 614, 620,
2:6 571, 573, 576, 577, 586, 589, 621, 628
596, 601 2:17–18 602, 611
2:7 168, 279, 571, 572, 573, 578, 2:17–19 601
584, 589, 600, 603, 696 2:18 43, 44, 46, 85, 123, 145, 257,
2:8 24, 71, 99, 544, 555, 572, 573, 407, 459, 535, 554, 598, 599,
578, 579, 581, 584, 585, 589, 600, 601, 604, 605, 607, 613,
591, 592, 594, 595, 598, 600, 614, 616, 624, 625, 648, 671,
603, 689 685, 688, 694, 707
2:8–9 717 2:19 116, 334, 350, 563, 599, 601,
2:8–10 539, 573 602, 605, 606, 608, 611, 615,
2:8–13 46, 573, 576, 578, 656 619, 620, 623, 624, 625, 628
2:9 256, 418, 551, 573, 574, 576, 2:20 13, 21, 541, 606, 607, 617, 618,
580, 581, 590, 592, 596, 623, 624
601, 614, 634, 662, 679, 688, 2:20–21 601, 606, 611, 620
712 2:20–23 616
2:9–10 525, 588 2:21 26, 96, 164, 181, 255, 426,
2:9–13 573 552, 599, 601, 607, 612, 618,
2:10 247, 277, 486, 552, 558, 569, 620, 623, 624, 625, 669, 701,
571, 573, 581, 582, 584, 587, 715
591, 592, 593, 595, 596, 598, 2:21–25 625
601, 603, 649, 712, 720 2:22 43, 84, 113, 205, 287, 288,
2:11 108, 113, 169, 261, 269, 573, 299, 374, 382, 386, 387, 447,
782 index of ancient sources

2Tim (cont.) 3:6 168, 205, 360, 374, 498, 557,

2:22 (cont.) 472, 498, 500, 527, 535, 599, 627, 628, 629, 630, 632, 633,
600, 601, 602, 607, 608, 611, 635, 640, 644, 645, 646, 675,
619, 628, 630, 639, 663, 675, 680, 687
680 3:6–7 629
2:22–23 601, 602, 607, 611 3:6–8 650
2:22–26 513 3:6–9 170, 175, 645
2:23 84, 209, 359, 369, 370, 492, 3:7 43, 45, 136, 145, 200, 257,
508, 509, 510, 512, 601, 602, 260, 409, 624, 628, 633, 641,
608, 611, 612, 619, 620, 621, 642, 643, 646, 648, 655, 664,
628, 630, 636, 640 668, 688
2:23–24 43 3:8 23, 44, 123, 145, 434, 459,
2:23–25 619 535, 565, 605, 627, 628, 629,
2:24 45, 357, 409, 492, 541, 566, 630, 634, 635, 643, 646, 653,
578, 600, 601, 602, 608, 609, 663, 683, 688, 711
610, 620, 621, 622, 624, 712 3:8–9 41
2:24–25 124 3:9 360, 604, 613, 628, 634, 642,
2:24–26 200, 601, 602, 608, 615 650, 654, 655, 672
2:25 4, 43, 128, 136, 145, 257, 379, 3:10 23, 113, 128, 264, 381, 387,
417, 482, 492, 498, 600, 602, 464, 507, 535, 547, 552, 554,
604, 609, 610, 611, 616, 620, 574, 591, 592, 628, 629, 634,
621, 624, 628, 641, 646, 667, 647, 649, 650, 651, 654, 661,
668, 670, 688, 696 663, 667, 670, 680, 687
2:25–26 611 3:10–11 539, 629, 648, 649, 650, 660,
2:26 26, 200, 212, 360, 374, 524, 661, 676, 685
526, 601, 602, 610, 622, 624, 3:10–12 27, 650, 654, 676
625, 628, 629, 631, 638, 642 3:10–13 650, 676
3:1 26, 44, 257, 507, 536, 626, 3:10–17 650
628, 630, 632, 636, 645, 655, 3:10–17 565
671, 687 3:11 4, 7, 30, 628, 647, 648, 649,
3:1–2 679 650, 651, 652, 653, 661, 662,
3:1–4 650 663, 676, 703, 707, 714, 715,
3:1–5 645, 687 720
3:1–9 626, 629, 649 3:11–12 676
3:1–17 629 3:12 25, 26, 47, 143, 144, 558,
3:2 48, 97, 111, 209, 448, 498, 561, 648, 650, 651, 653, 663,
626, 628, 629, 630, 631, 632, 664
635, 636, 637, 638, 639, 644, 3:13 258, 351, 370, 498, 604, 613,
653, 661, 669 642, 650, 651, 653, 654, 663,
3:2–4 43, 628, 630, 645, 680 668, 669, 670, 676, 682
3:2–5 629 3:14 381, 574, 641, 648, 649, 650,
3:2–13 671 651, 654, 664, 667, 676, 680
3:3 200, 425, 430, 626, 631, 637, 3:14–15 193, 660, 661
638 3:14–17 40, 650, 671, 676
3:4 352, 629, 631, 633, 636, 638, 3:15 6, 9, 23, 222, 534, 535, 552,
644 555, 558, 581, 589, 648, 649,
3:5 25, 46, 47, 143, 144, 309, 417, 650, 651, 654, 655, 656, 658,
583, 628, 629, 630, 631, 632, 659, 664, 667, 668, 670, 671,
639, 650, 655, 663, 667 672, 687
index of ancient sources 783

2Tim (cont.) 686, 690, 691, 693, 694, 697,

3:15–16 671 700, 704, 706, 711, 712, 717,
3:15–17 664, 670 718, 719, 720, 729
3:16 4, 342, 500, 554, 648, 649, 4:8–18 564, 565
651, 656, 658, 666, 668, 670, 4:9 232, 243, 515, 612, 690, 695,
672, 683, 686, 687 698, 699, 700, 705, 709, 721,
3:16–17 660, 661 722, 723, 727
3:17 26, 96, 181, 386, 426, 612, 4:9–11 5, 723
619, 649, 651, 659, 661, 668, 4:9–13 698
715 4:9–15 698, 699
4:1 4, 24, 26, 46, 48, 145, 308, 4:9–16 698
335, 342, 390, 475, 477, 483, 4:9–18 676, 698
486, 497, 548, 553, 554, 569, 4:9–21 722
597, 612, 650, 664, 673, 674, 4:9–22 698
675, 676, 677, 684, 685, 687, 4:10 4, 7, 13, 26, 37, 519, 565, 680,
692, 693, 697, 704, 711, 712, 692, 694, 695, 696, 697, 698,
715, 718, 719, 729 699, 700, 702, 705, 706, 712,
4:1–2 335 720, 722, 723
4:1–5 348, 676, 681, 685 4:10–11 699
4:1–8 565, 569, 676, 698 4:10–16 565
4:2 28, 115, 247, 261, 298, 335, 4:11 30, 111, 517, 619, 689, 696,
342, 431, 554, 614, 648, 649, 698, 699, 700, 705, 707, 708,
661, 674, 676, 678, 681, 686, 712, 722
687, 688, 713 4:12 37, 519, 533, 567, 699, 701,
4:2–5 650, 685 705, 709, 722, 723
4:3 44, 99, 150, 168, 205, 374, 4:13 37, 301, 422, 424, 427, 436,
422, 431, 445, 465, 472, 498, 648, 695, 696, 697, 699, 700,
525, 541, 554, 586, 674, 679, 701, 708, 709, 720, 726
680, 681, 686, 687, 688 4:14 13, 126, 145, 360, 525, 590,
4:3–4 619, 676, 677 680, 694, 696, 698, 699, 701,
4:4 13, 86, 145, 446, 565, 617, 702, 704, 705, 710, 711, 718,
642, 658, 680, 688 722
4:5 111, 279, 551, 574, 591, 622, 4:14–15 38, 698
651, 670, 675, 676, 677, 680, 4:15 343, 520, 614, 642, 697, 699,
681, 686, 688, 703, 708 700, 702
4:6 37, 648, 675, 676, 677, 681, 4:16 13, 560, 561, 567, 694, 695,
689, 706, 712 696, 697, 698, 699, 702, 703,
4:6–7 676, 690 705, 706, 707, 710, 711, 713,
4:6–8 271, 539, 650, 676, 681, 685, 720, 723
698, 714 4:16–17 35, 83
4:6–18 34 4:16–18 696, 698
4:6–22 28 4:17 7, 27, 41, 111, 150, 226, 247,
4:7 13, 23, 265, 275, 384, 388, 418, 561, 574, 591, 612, 689,
535, 555, 634, 675, 676, 677, 690, 697, 698, 699, 703,
681, 682, 691, 694 704, 705, 706, 712, 713, 715,
4:8 24, 26, 390, 430, 475, 477, 717, 718, 729
483, 497, 541, 548, 553, 562, 4:17–18 663, 698, 705, 723
569, 596, 636, 648, 650, 4:18 43, 116, 171, 270, 486, 528,
668, 675, 676, 677, 683, 685, 552, 565, 686, 690, 693, 694,
784 index of ancient sources

2Tim (cont.) 1:6–7 432

4:18 (cont.) 697, 698, 699, 702, 703, 704, 1:6–8 201, 202, 204
705, 711, 712, 714, 715, 717, 721 1:6–9 423, 435
4:19 4, 30, 84, 422, 520, 566, 698, 1:6–10 442
719, 721, 722, 723, 724, 725, 1:7 4, 21, 25, 44, 77, 84, 195, 204,
728 205, 208, 209, 225, 227, 338,
4:19–22 698, 721 344, 423, 425, 427, 428, 429,
4:20 36, 38, 422, 424, 427, 519, 442, 464, 465, 637
695, 696, 697, 720, 722, 723, 1:7–8 427
724, 726 1:7–9 423, 431, 476
4:21 5, 7, 272, 515, 612, 690, 697, 1:8 47, 96, 180, 204, 208, 423,
700, 705, 706, 709, 720, 721, 425, 427, 430, 438, 444, 467,
722, 723, 724, 727 476, 637, 638
4:22 24, 406, 407, 409, 418, 514, 1:8–9 432
515, 517, 518, 720, 721, 722, 1:9 40, 42, 44, 99, 167, 204, 223,
724, 725, 727, 729 298, 335, 342, 416, 422, 423,
426, 430, 431, 432, 433, 438,
Titus 445, 450, 460, 461, 463, 469,
1:1 8, 25, 43, 47, 48, 71, 73, 136, 485, 510, 512, 614, 621, 649,
143, 145, 257, 379, 411, 412, 674, 686, 687
413, 414, 415, 416, 420, 425, 1:9–16 468
432, 443, 459, 464, 465, 469, 1:10 42, 45, 86, 97, 168, 301, 360,
476, 523, 591, 621, 641 423, 425, 429, 430, 433, 435,
1:1–3 46 436, 437, 438, 440, 441, 442,
1:1–4 22, 73 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 454,
1:2 4, 34, 44, 181, 411, 412, 413, 509, 510, 511, 520, 701
414, 416, 417, 418, 502, 544, 1:10–11 425, 437, 485, 509
556, 558, 593 1:10–14 416
1:2–3 26, 420 1:10–16 259, 423, 424, 426, 432, 454
1:3 23, 48, 69, 73, 109, 130, 149, 1:11 44, 80, 84, 225, 324, 371, 422,
239, 242, 247, 277, 283, 384, 425, 426, 430, 431, 433, 435,
386, 390, 391, 411, 413, 414, 436, 437, 442, 455, 462, 463,
416, 418, 419, 420, 428, 432, 469, 578, 615
453, 467, 475, 485, 486, 489, 1:11–15 2
537, 544, 548, 553, 614, 636, 1:12 8, 44, 99, 145, 323, 413, 416,
713 417, 433, 435, 436, 437, 440,
1:3–4 270, 415, 416 441, 443, 446, 447, 454, 483,
1:4 23, 74, 225, 411, 412, 413, 414, 498, 599
416, 418, 419, 420, 469, 473, 1:12–13 34
477, 486, 527, 534, 548, 553 1:13 4, 23, 99, 212, 298, 342, 416,
1:5 9, 19, 21, 35, 37, 39, 42, 77, 419, 426, 431, 434, 435, 436,
202, 338, 421, 422, 423, 424, 437, 438, 441, 444, 445, 446,
427, 432, 435, 463, 726 469, 512, 634, 649, 686
1:5–7 203 1:14 43, 45, 83, 145, 273, 279,
1:5–9 338, 423, 435 416, 419, 434, 435, 436, 437,
1:5–12 35 438, 441, 445, 446, 447, 448,
1:6 46, 97, 206, 227, 341, 422, 450, 509, 510, 520, 565, 642,
423, 424, 425, 427, 428, 429, 688
430, 431, 435, 442, 464 1:14–15 436, 485
index of ancient sources 785

Titus (cont.) 460, 465, 467, 468, 470, 471,

1:15 28, 43, 85, 259, 264, 369, 473, 485, 521, 670
434, 435, 436, 439, 440, 441, 2:7–8 459, 467
442, 445, 446, 448, 450, 463, 2:8 99, 416, 433, 453, 455, 457,
464, 484 458, 459, 461, 462, 468, 471,
1:15–16 309, 435 512, 614
1:16 26, 46, 96, 181, 309, 426, 434, 2:9 144, 181, 431, 453, 455, 461,
435, 439, 442, 447, 448, 450, 462, 471, 488, 497, 598, 621
454, 464, 467, 476, 484, 498, 2:9–10 353, 454, 455, 456, 460, 462,
511, 512, 521, 583, 619, 632, 465, 468
639, 642, 649, 669 2:10 23, 73, 270, 416, 418, 420,
2:1 99, 164, 167, 324, 381, 422, 431, 454, 455, 460, 461, 462,
426, 431, 435, 445, 454, 455, 464, 471, 473, 486, 489, 512,
456, 457, 459, 461, 462, 463, 537, 548, 553, 670, 710
464, 468, 470, 471, 474, 479, 2:10–13 413, 415
480, 485, 507, 574, 670, 687 2:11 24, 168, 390, 416, 446, 455,
2:1–2 457 461, 472, 473, 474, 475, 477,
2:1–10 429, 435, 442, 455, 479, 490 478, 481, 490, 499, 502, 512,
2:1–14 181 553
2:2 23, 47, 99, 113, 128, 144, 180, 2:11–13 6
207, 208, 227, 387, 416, 419, 2:11–14 46, 455, 471, 474, 477, 479,
430, 438, 445, 452, 455, 456, 480, 483, 490, 499, 505
457, 462, 463, 464, 465, 466, 2:11–15 420, 442, 455, 510
467, 468, 469, 473, 476, 517, 2:12 13, 25, 26, 43, 47, 143, 180,
591, 622, 639, 662 205, 309, 374, 416, 444, 455,
2:2–5 458 462, 463, 465, 472, 473, 474,
2:2–6 296 475, 476, 479, 481, 482, 498,
2:3 43, 162, 200, 217, 225, 360, 583, 604, 613, 653, 680, 687,
451, 452, 454, 455, 456, 457, 700
458, 463, 464, 466, 467, 468, 2:12–13 474
471 2:13 23, 24, 26, 43, 48, 71, 73, 74,
2:3–8 2 102, 390, 416, 418, 420, 453,
2:4 47, 180, 452, 455, 457, 458, 455, 461, 463, 473, 474, 475,
461, 462, 463, 464, 465, 467, 476, 477, 478, 479, 481, 482,
468, 473, 476 483, 487, 489, 490, 497, 500,
2:4–5 455, 456, 457, 458, 466 548, 553, 556, 558, 686
2:5 43, 47, 84, 111, 180, 256, 261, 2:13–14 420
344, 416, 418, 430, 452, 455, 2:14 24, 26, 43, 45, 137, 148, 181,
459, 460, 461, 462, 463, 464, 434, 442, 448, 453, 464, 465,
465, 467, 468, 471, 473, 476, 471, 473, 474, 479, 481, 482,
497, 498, 512, 591, 614, 674 484, 486, 487, 490, 502, 513,
2:6 47, 162, 180, 208, 217, 455, 521, 618
456, 457, 460, 463, 464, 465, 2:15 28, 298, 324, 335, 342, 416,
468, 471, 474, 476, 686, 418, 426, 431, 455, 456, 463,
688 467, 473, 474, 479, 480, 485,
2:6–7 458, 466, 467 490, 491, 512, 649, 686
2:6–8 467 2:11–3:2 474
2:7 26, 123, 168, 181, 199, 431, 2:15–3:2 474
434, 442, 448, 452, 453, 455, 2:16 455, 456
786 index of ancient sources

Titus (cont.) 3:9 42, 43, 83, 84, 86, 209, 273,
3:1 26, 96, 181, 426, 434, 440, 370, 425, 434, 442, 490, 492,
442, 448, 488, 490, 491, 495, 498, 506, 508, 509, 510, 511,
496, 497, 499, 505, 508, 515, 512, 520, 613, 620, 642, 667
521, 534, 599, 612, 619, 669 3:9–10 521
3:1–2 490, 491, 492 3:9–11 490, 495, 507
3:1–3 496 3:10 3, 507, 508, 509, 511, 512,
3:1–5 3 523
3:1–7 442, 490 3:10–11 5, 608
3:1–8 490, 507, 510 3:11 439, 442, 507, 508, 509, 511,
3:1–11 490, 507 636
3:2 111, 209, 379, 476, 488, 490, 3:12 35, 37, 422, 456, 508, 514,
491, 492, 498, 504, 621, 710 515, 516, 518, 522, 612, 706,
3:3 3, 8, 142, 168, 205, 359, 360, 707, 709, 724, 727
370, 374, 448, 476, 488, 491, 3:12–13 518
492, 496, 498, 620, 627, 639, 3:12–14 34
641, 643, 664, 680, 695 3:12–15 28, 508
3:3–7 490, 492, 495 3:13 37, 508, 513, 514, 515, 516,
3:4 4, 23, 24, 48, 73, 381, 416, 418, 517, 519, 521, 522, 559, 562,
420, 475, 477, 482, 486, 489, 567, 724
490, 491, 493, 496, 497, 498, 3:14 26, 35, 96, 181, 210, 390, 434,
499, 505, 512, 537, 548, 553 442, 448, 499, 502, 505, 515,
3:4–5 477, 504, 513 516, 517, 518, 520, 522, 641,
3:4–6 24, 413, 415, 477 664, 724
3:4–7 24, 25, 44, 46, 490, 491, 495, 3:14–15 3
496 3:14–17 420
3:4–8 181 3:15 3, 84, 416, 419, 445, 456, 469,
3:5 24, 111, 171, 442, 476, 488, 508, 514, 515, 517, 518, 520,
489, 490, 491, 493, 494, 495, 521, 523, 721, 722, 724
496, 497, 499, 501, 502, 504, 3:16 486
505, 521, 522, 541, 543, 549,
552, 557 Phlm
3:5–7 493 1 29, 357
3:6 4, 23, 71, 74, 193, 412, 416, 1–2 18
418, 420, 473, 486, 489, 490, 2 288, 357, 586
494, 496, 497, 501, 504, 548, 3 357, 415, 419, 720
553, 598 4 106, 141, 532, 533
3:6–8 194 4–5 106
3:7 4, 43, 381, 416, 417, 476, 489, 4–6 111
490, 491, 493, 494, 496, 501, 4–7 82, 110, 357
502, 537, 556, 558 5 531
3:8 3, 26, 35, 86, 108, 113, 160, 6 416
178, 181, 197, 210, 261, 416, 7 357
424, 434, 442, 448, 456, 463, 9 463
489, 490, 491, 495, 496, 497, 10 129, 296, 620
502, 505, 508, 515, 520, 521, 11 619, 626, 701
585, 592, 614, 667 14 135
3:8–9 45 15 109
3:8–11 3, 442 16 272, 353, 357
index of ancient sources 787

Phlm (cont.) 13:4 98

17 402 13:5 209, 373
18 353, 469 13:7 702
19 18 13:9 687
20 357 13:18 532
21–22 241 13:22 288, 296, 687
22 36, 312 13:23 243
23 521, 721 13:24 517
24 706, 708 13:25 518
25 514, 720, 728
James
Heb 1:1 720
1:3 239 1:4 520
1:5 249 1:12 692
1:8–10 334 1:13 576
2:6 342, 365 1:14 687
2:7 588 1:18 255
2:8 97, 429 1:27 389
2:9 588 2:20 323
2:12 714 2:25 247
2:14 554 3:2 649
3:7 256, 257 3:8 380
3:12 258 3:9 370
4:12 672 3:16 468
6:11 488 4:5 666
6:14 554 4:6 637
7:1 422 4:14 268
7:18 122, 511 5:1–6 319
7:26 247 5:3 636
8:6 147 5:10 350
9:1 483 5:13 551
9:10 96 5:14 203, 350
9:15 147 5:20 407
9:26 239, 246, 249, 553
10:15–17 257 1Pet
10:22 84 1:1 565, 707
10:23 417 1:3 500, 501
10:26 145, 641 1:13 688
10:28 341 1:18 479
10:32 554 1:19 389, 390
10:35 260 1:20 246, 249, 553
11:23 320 1:23 500, 501
11:25 551 2:2 665
11:33 714 2:4–6 343
12:1 691 2:6 116, 656
12:2 473 2:12 205
12:16 97 2:13 134
12:24 147 2:15 401
12:25 311, 439 2:18–3:7 139
788 index of ancient sources

1Pet (cont.) 1:10 99

2:19 85 2:22 263
3:1 281 2:23 440
3:1–7 163 3:5 249
3:3 180 3:5–8 553
3:4 142, 182 3:18–24 88
3:5 395 4:9 246, 553
3:6 401 4:12 391
3:17 401 4:14 73
3:18 239, 246 5:21 407
3:19–22 242
4:3 208 2John
4:5 674, 685 9 664
4:7 688 10 360, 603
5:1–2 203 11 344
5:4 692 12 445, 534
5:5 637
5:8 688, 714 3John
5:13–14 517 5–6 522
6 520
2Pet 10 323, 373, 603
1:1 73, 416 11 401
1:8 323 12 434, 700
1:11 73 15 518
1:13 534
1:16 655 Jude
1:16–21 671 7 634
1:20 656 9 686
1:20–21 671 11 616
1:21 672 17–18 258
2:5 149 18 482
2:6 612 25 73, 104
2:8 97
2:10 430, 473 Rev
2:20 73, 587 1:1 391
3:1 534 1:3 288
3:2 73 1:4 565
3:3 636, 687 1:13–16 348
3:3–7 258 2:10 692
3:8 636 2:13 320
3:9 243 2:14 259
3:14 389, 390 2:19 387
3:15–16 667 2:20 259
3:16 6 3:12 244
3:17 711 3:14 114
3:18 73 4:1 391
4:11 389
1John 5:1 616
1:2 246, 249, 553 5:2 616
1:4 534 5:5 616
index of ancient sources 789

Rev (cont.) 18:3 322

5:9 616 18:4–20 319
5:13 255 18:6 339
7:3 616 18:7 311, 322
8:1 165 18:7–8 322
8:9 255, 364 18:9 311, 322
11:19 239 18:9–17 180
12 262 18:16 711
12:9 262 19:11 114
12:10 127 19:11–16 348
13:1 370 19:16 391, 393
13:2 714 20:5 599
13:5–6 370 20:6 599
13:11–18 258 21:5 114
14:10 343 21:8 98, 263
14:11 306 21:9 391
14:13 256, 346 21:10 391
14:14 348 21:14 244
17:1 391 21:27 263
17:2 414 22:1 391
17:3 370 22:6 114, 391
17:4–5 180 22:15 98, 263
17:14 391, 393, 417 22:17 256

Apocrypha

Add Dan 2Esd

13:34 343 5:8 484

Add Esth Jdt

16:4 141 5:22 510
6:4 374
Bar 8:4–8 318
2:14 141 8:29 346
4:6 127 11:15 374
5:2 591 11:17 318, 533
5:4 181 15:11 641
5:9 391 16:9 640
16:22 318
Ep Jer
60 390 1Macc
1:32 640
1Esd 1:44 710
1:16 73 1:61 665
4:47 520 1:62–63 259
5:58 499 2:26 484
8:64 430 2:27 484
9:2 713 2:44 97
790 index of ancient sources

1Macc (cont.) 8:14 663

2:49 612 8:15 144
2:50 484 8:17 178
2:58 484 8:23 97
2:60 714 9:9 375
2:63 179 9:28 97, 111
3:42 374 10:4 482
4:32 550 12:4 374
4:43 261 12:6 692
5:13 640 12:20 428
6:10 665 12:22 390
6:12 618 12:41 290
6:49 373 12:45 568
6:62 323 13:10 533
7:1 700 13:25 323
7:33 142 14:15 390
8:10 640 14:25 259
8:26 322 15:12 320
10:67 700 15:13 390
11:35 322 15:27 390
12:4 520
12:9 710 3Macc
12:11 164 1:22 552
13:7 549 1:23 640
14:20 203 2:2 97, 613
14:39 299 2:9 390
14:44–45 323 2:14 178, 613
15:6 166 2:19 553
15:23 428 2:26 552
3:25 164
2Macc 4:8 261, 619
1:2 401 4:16 534
1:7 700 5:8 97, 390, 553
2:18 178 5:11 260, 533
2:21 390 5:33 663
2:27 663 5:42 205
3:1 144 5:43 428
3:8 552 5:49 665
3:10 546 6:4 390
3:12 144 6:4–39 553
3:24 550 6:9 97
3:26 510 6:28 236
3:30 390, 534 6:29 73
4:8 141 7:2 484
5:8 612 7:13 164
5:15 638 7:16 401
6:12 374 7:19 164
7:34 97 7:20 73
8:2 619 7:22 484
index of ancient sources 791

4Macc Sir
1:11 591 1:19 408
1:26 375 1:25 181
1:34 259 3:3 298
2:23 483 3:5 298
3:16 689 3:8 298
3:21 619 3:11 212
4:25 665 3:24 370
4:47 468 5:9 225
5:11 323 5:14 225
5:23 591 5:15 225
5:24 25, 144, 510 6:19 589
5:26 166 6:24 271
6:3 150 6:36 228
6:4 686 7:19 86
6:18 90, 96 8:9 86
6:18–22 287 9:18 638
6:20 268 12:6 97
6:21 591 13:6–7 612
6:31 245 14:17 73
7:6 181 14:20 589
7:16 245 15:8 99
9:6 591 16:6 448
9:24 125 16:18 205
10:13 291 16:29 260
10:15 374 17:26 617
11:20 273, 464 17:28 617
13:27 591 18:13 482
14:5 391 18:15 73
14:9 375 19:6 73
14:12 663 19:11 665
15:3 715 19:12–16 342
15:10 591 19:13–17 513
15:27 268 20:19–20 620
16:1 245 20:29 640
16:3 391 21:13–14 408
16:7 374 21:15–16 319
16:8 636 21:18 408
16:9 374 25:24 186
16:12 640 27:5 179
16:13 391 27:22 566
17:3 663 27:29 375
17:7 591 28:13 225
17:10 591 29:1 389
17:12 554 29:9–13 399
18:8 186 30:1 368
18:10–19 297 32:4 666
18:24 117 32:24 555
33:29 164
792 index of ancient sources

Sir (cont.) 2:24 212

35:3 617 3:4 391
35:4 404 3:5 482
35:21 112 3:9 150, 417
37:11 323 3:11 374
37:20 666 3:19 636
38:1 306 4:1 391
38:24–25 666 4:15 205
39:16 260 5:1 717
39:30 374 6:1 619
41:5 97 6:4 552
46:1 417 6:11 482
46:16 619 6:22 145, 408
47:21 448 7:6 368, 372
49:11 616 7:8 343
50:15 689 7:17 414, 418
50:27 589 7:20 179
51:2 212 7:22–23 430
51:26 271 7:26 391
9–10 657
Tob 10:14 591
3:10 375 12:1 117
4:7–10 399, 404 12:2 603
4:9 395, 402 12:4 97
4:13 374 12:24 498
4:14 482 12:27 448
4:19 260 13:1 448
6:17 117 13:19 371
8:15 343 14:2 371
12:16–22 348 14:5 323
13:7 116 14:11 448
14:10 212 14:22 408, 498
14:22–31 645
Wis 14:25–29 635
1:6 204 15:1 619
1:7 408 15:3 391
1:12–14 374 15:15 323
1:16 611 16:7 73, 145, 278
2–5 714, 717 16:12 145
2:6 260 16:28 141
2:10 717 17:10 636
2:12 717 18:12 73
2:13 181, 408 18:4 117
2:18 717 18:22 603
2:19 621 19:2 166
2:20 205 19:13 636
2:21 498 25:18 643
index of ancient sources 793

Pseudepigrapha

Apoc. Abr. 215.3 144

23.1 186 242.5 401
261.6 534
Apoc. El. 280 692
frag B 1.4 483 310 203

Apoc. Jan. Jamb. 641 4Ezra

3.7 186
Apoc. Mos. 5.1–12 258
21.6 186 12.36–39 225

Aristobulus Jos. Asen.

Frag. 1a.10 391 2.1 637
12.9 714
Ascen. Isa. 12.11 714
3.3 663 16.14 343
21.12 637
4Bar. 21.16 637
3.12 355 25.2 211

1 En. Jub.
5.3 485 8.2 297
9.4 116, 391 19.14 297
9.6 225
10.7 225 lae
12.3 116 3.1 186
16.3 225 9.1–2 186
80.2–8 258 10.3 182
90.22–27 258 10.7 182
91.5–7 645 14.4–6 185
99.3 261
97.11 673 Odes Sol.
103.14 261 2.5 511
104.12 225 2.20 511
28 714
2 En. 31 714
30.17 186 41 481
31.6 186
Pss. Sol.
Ep. Arist. 1.4 150
5.2 343 2.16 711
130 668 2.18 692
175.4 142 2.34 711
178.3 534 4.4–5 640
199.3 552 9.2 692
210.2 144, 465 9.5 399
215.2 144 17.3 75
794 index of ancient sources

Pss. Sol. (cont.) T.Dan

17.8 711 1.3 144
17.46 116 5.4 636
18.8 499 6.2 147

Sib. Or. T.Gad

1.154 688 4.7 687
1.322 484 6.3–7 342
2.54 288, 550
2.73 98 T.Iss.
2.78–82 404 4.5 371
2.253–297 645 6 235
2.313 205 7.5 402
3.41 402
3.55 484 T.Jos.
3.718–719 391 19.5 636
3.220 205
3.567 354 T.Jud.
3.665 391 18.1 636
4.182 639 19.1 375
5.406 667 24.1 498
7.132 443
8.96–97 372 T.Levi
8.218 116 2 692
8.259 639 3.14 500
8.326 354 5.5–6 348
8.444 483 8.5 205
8.485 388 17.11 637
9.109 96 19.3 586
12.198 144
14.1 400 T.Mos.
1.14 147
T.Abr. 3.12 147
1.9 208
4.3 498 T.Naph.
4.25 208 3.1 622
13.24–25 586 5.8 666

T.Ash. T.Reu.
2.8 389 6 685
7.5 446
T.Sim.
T.Benj. 4.7 527
6.5 258
8.1 499 T.Zeb.
11.2 258 9.5 636
11.4 417 9:6 375
index of ancient sources 795

Dead Sea Scrolls

cd 8.8–9 211
5.17 643 8.11–12 288
5.17–19 641, 642 9.12–14 288
6.21–7.3 342 10.9 408
9.2–8 342 10.12 408
9.3 341 11.6 408
11.8 211
1QapGen ar 11.15 408
20.16–32 289
4Q174
1QH 1.15 513
2.18 408
10.33–35 714, 717 4Q265 211
11.24 408
12 110 4Q390
12.33–34 714 frag 1, 4 513

1QpHab 4Q416 95
2.1–10 258 2 3.13 408
11.1 408
4Q418
1QS 9.9a–c 408
3.15 408 9.13 408
5.5–6 244
5.5–8 288 4Q434
5.20–22 226 frag 2 260
5.20–23 215
5.23b–6.1b 342 7Q4 3
5.24 342
6.1 341 11Q20
6.2–3 215 15.1 513
6.4–8 260
8.5–6 211 11QBer 348
8.7–9 244

Philo

Abr. 235.1 484

19.15 287 268.1 418
55 554
71.3 115 Aet.
103 638 53.5 483
114.3 181 58.4–6 228
179.2 466 64.1 375
213.5 387
223.4 369
796 index of ancient sources

Agr. 104–105 589

1.31 400 137.1 374
51.2 639
59.1 442 Deus
83 498 6 665
88.4 442 29.7 401
111.4 612 43 616
112.6 418 102 464
117–118 187
[Bib. Ant.] 126.3 298
16–17 616 134.3 465
138 672
Cher.
7.2 639 Ebr.
86.9 117 11.3 288, 550
99 116 25.2 182
114.9 500 99.2 510
126.3 208
Conf. 133 616
10.5 182 139.2 418
40.2 442 188.2 591
106 639 192.3 591
196.5 374 205.5 511

Congr. Exsecr.
35.1 621 139.9 452
120.4 375
130.7 181 Flacc.
132 672 1.4 375
87.3 587
Contempl. 188 690
9.4 638 189.1 587
17.6 620
Fug.
Decal. 14.3 374
24 95 33.2 371
75.3 324 73.3 465
78 638 81 639
131.2 499 81.1 636
165–167 139 120 672
123 643
Det. 150.2 181
3.3 465 156.4 258
19 373 162 278
32 636 173.2 272
46 290
73.3 387 Gig.
92.5 261 5 187
103.9 639 29.4 371
65 116
index of ancient sources 797

Her. 3.161 670

4 97 3.167 371
4.5 429 3.185 185
46 391 3.201.1–2 588
167 667 3.208 447, 664
168 95 3.209 527
183 690 3.211 205
243.5 587 3.229 371
247.6 83 3.237 639
265 672
Legat.
Hypoth. 46.4 418
7.8 96 51.1 401
11.4–11 316 71.3 497
115 297, 665
Ios. 177 666
18.2 98 195.4 272
27.5 501 228 464, 465
50.4 179 276.2 261
74.3 74 282 39, 428
84.2 98, 112 292 638
127 665 325.2 500
143.9 637 349.2 388
226.4 98 371.4 126
242.3 298
Migr.
Leg. 66.4 371
1.18 257 122 482
1.49 636 122.5 499
1.89 401 132.2 532
1.100 208 139 665
1.281 375 222 589
2.11 638
2.14 185 Mos.
2.46 298 1.73 621
2.52 639 1.118 619
2.56 690 1.166 116
2.60 622 1.177 534
2.63 500 1.212 448
2.81 290 2.9 430, 638
2.104.2 442 2.36 143
3.8 211 2.45–47 510
3.36 117 2.65.5 500
3.73 482 2.116 147
3.78 550 2.150 690
3.78.4 288 2.167 713
3.78.8 288 2.170 713
3.105.5 146 2.199 97
3.118.2 442 2.211 587
3.128.5 442 2.211.5 371
798 index of ancient sources

Mos. (cont.) Prov.

2.216 483 2.2 408
2.242 261 2.56 274
2.279 692
qe
Mut. 2.50a 667
24.6 387 2.105.4 532
26.2 387
48.2 469 qe frag
84.1 621 7 45, 409
88.3 621
95.2 370 qg
115 210 1.27 185
172 274 1.33 186
205 448 1.60 636, 644
210.4 391 2.11 222
216.1 126 3.8 554
217.3 179
269.2 499 Sacr.
3.4 639
Opif. 20 638
6 616 32.22 225
22.67 185 35.3 261
42.4 401 76.7 272
44 402 95.5 117
88 116 101 100
100.10 146
105 463 Sobr.
128.8 371 40.2 429
134 616 42 483
164 638 66.4 556

Plant. Somn.
157.2 369 1.1 667
1.79 468
Post. 1.82 464
124.2 500 1.94 484
1.114 612
Praem. 1.122 587
20.4 375 1.129 274
27.2 621 1.143 147
117.4–5 499 1.181 554
133.2 374 2.24 555
160 483 2.48 401
166–167 482 2.64 369
2.127 288
Prob. 2.147 126
21 375 2.253 418
74.3 146 2.161 375
index of ancient sources 799

Spec. 4.13–14 98
1.18 116 4.17 98
1.102 179 4.32 546
1.138 180 4.48 100
1.167 141 4.49 556
1.203 289 4.53–54 341
1.295 368 4.64 510
1.343 442 4.72 668
2.23 86 4.97 442
2.42 390 4.103 621
2.60–64 143 4.134 369
2.65 521, 587 4.135 143
2.141 402, 499 4.191 208
2.149 144, 468 4.203 74
2.153 468 4.225 638
2.161 664
2.170 484 Virt.
2.203 534 28.2 211
2.229 318 42 320
2.237 464 113.1 622
2.241 687 117.1 498
2.247–248 297 135.1 388
3.14 534 145 333, 340
3.37–42 94 145.2 329
3.51 179 160 340
3.83 98 180–182 498
3.105 638 182.2 430
3.108 388 188.1 499
4.10 687

Josephus

a.j. 3.91 146

1.13 665 3.139 668
1.46 401 3.178 665
1.122 696 3.276 259
1.246 298 3.279 208
2.18 210 3.299 324, 511
2.59 180 4.11–66 616
2.61 454 4.19 401
2.259 210 4.219 341
2.268 387 4.231 373
2.295 166 4.233 340
3.5 340 4.264 340
3.38 667 4.303 667
3.49 86 4.314 598
3.57 618 5.61 667
3.78 287 5.99 520
800 index of ancient sources

a.j. (cont.) 18.143–239 286

5.108 511 18.189–193 567
5.349 224 18.230 501
6.80 287 18.272 552
6.151 591 19.233 691
7.127 167 19.331 299
7.193 147
7.259 320 b.j.
7.272 520 1.122 511
7.339 612 1.276 546
7.391 209 1.338 641
8.140 228 1.444 549
8.227 178 1.482 664
8.251 86 1.501 621
8.302 374 1.545 74
9.194 622 1.631 370
10.70 500 2.21 94
10.83 209 2.31 369
10.164 499 2.197 142
11.67 500 2.229 567
11.83 203 2.230 519, 727
11.131 499 2.367 320
11.132 144 3.341 142
11.138 430 3.418 640
11.172 390 4.103 666
11.218 97 4.167 621
11.238 96 4.171 228
12.10 661 4.324 483
12.148–153 40 4.596 142
12.204 298 5.196–197 228
12.286 500 5.459 324
12.327 550 7.399 464
12.406 203
13.207 691 C. Ap.
14.26 178 1.93 585
14.196 502 1.112 585
14.233 178 1.216 565
15.12–13 551 1.222 369
15.146 638 1.228 665
15.276 591 1.306 374
15.421 534 2.129 324
16.30 391 2.131 144
16.147 519 2.141 259
16.168 648 2.152 90
17.45 74 2.170 143
17.252 442 2.175 288
18.3 389 2.206 95
18.14 23 2.217 96
18.73 180 2.218 90, 500
index of ancient sources 801

C. Ap. (cont.) Vita

2.230 373 37 222
2.270 272 76 428
2.284 205 150 323

Rabbinic Literature and Other Jewish Literature

m. ’Abot b. Menaḥ.
5.21 665 85a 641

m. B. Qam. b. Šabb.
5.7 340 146a 186

m. Ber. b. Sanh.
6–8 260 13b 289
20b 260
35a 260 Tg. Neof.
Gen 17:1 205
m. Ketub.
13.1–2 316 Tg. Ps.-J.
Num 16:1–2 616
m. Naš.
3.1 318 Tg. Yer. i
Exod 1:15 642
m. Peʾah Exod 7:11–12 642
8.7 316
Mek. Exod.
m. Pesaḥ. 1 341
8.2–9 316
10.1 316 Midr. Teh.
22 714
m. Qidd.
3.12 534 Eleazar ben Asher
Chron. Jerahmeel
m. Šeqal. 54.8 627
5.6 316

Apostolic Fathers

Barn. 9.1–10.11 4
1.3 4 11.2 4
1.4 4 11.2–12.1 4
1.6 4 14.6–7 484
3.2–4.1 4 14.6–8 148
5.6 4 20.2 112
7.2 4
9.1 4
802 index of ancient sources

1Clem. 3.8 83
1.3 452, 466 6 215
5.7 36 6.1 224
21.6–9 139 11.1 389
21.7 343 Phld.
42 226 1 215
42.4–5 203 3 215
43.1 655 4.1 224
44.1–5 203 Pol.
44.3 586 2.3 554
4 4
2Clem. Smyrn.
1.1 674 1.2 389
8 215
Did. 8.2 226
2.4 212 9 215
2.5 511 10.2 567
4.9–11 139 12.2 289
5.2 112 13.1 304
9.2–3 260 Trall.
12.1 226 2 215
15.1 224, 226 2.1–3 22
15.3 342 2.3 224
3 215
Diogn. 7.2 289
4.6 245 9.1 389
9.2–5 148
11.6 408 Polycarp
Phil.
Herm. 2.1 86, 674
13.1 224 3.2 4
4.1 365, 372
Ignatius 4.4 375
Magn. 5.2 224, 225
2 215 6.1 375
2.1 22 6.3 375
3 215 9.2 706

New Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha

Acts Andr. Acts Paul

16.17 117 1 706
1–3 662
Acts John 1.2 565
47.1 402 2.1 566
112 374 2.14 614
3.2 520, 720, 725
4 706
index of ancient sources 803

Acts Paul (cont.) Acts Thom.

4.1–6 566 56.18 322
4.4 565
4.16 7 Apos. Con.
5.1 566 2.14 344
7 648 3.1.4–5 319
7.2 566 3.11 221
8.1 727 7.35.9 117
9 7 8.19 221
10 648 8.20 221
12.1 565, 566 8.28 221
14 707 46 727
14.1 566
15.2 566 Mart. Paul
16 707 11 707
16.4 566 11.1 707
26.1 566
42.2 566 Mart. Perp. Fel.
2.3–4 568
Acts Pet.
1 36 Prot. Jas.
29 317 2.3 344

Ancient Christian Writings

Augustine Clement of Alexandria

Civ. Paed.
15.23 33 1.9.75 298
18.38 33 3.11.66 180
Doctr. chr. 3.11.83 375
2.8 33 Protr.
1.7.2 6
Athanasius 9.87.1 6
Ep. fest. Strom.
39.2 33 1.59.2 443
Hist. Arian. 2.11.5–6 6
66.4 83 2.11.52 6, 408
5.11.74 166
Athenagoras 6.9 417
Leg. 7.57.4 464, 556
33.4–5 207
37.3 5 Didascalia
2.26.6 221
Basil of Caesarea 3.12.2–4 221
Ep.
53 375 Epiphanius
140.1 694 [Index Dis.]
125 709
804 index of ancient sources

Pan. 1.16.3 5
3.478 221 2.14.7 5
3.522 221 2.22.5 286
2.49.3 389
Eusebius 3.3.3 5, 586, 727
Coet. sanct. 3.3.4 5
25.3 466 3.14.1 5
Comm. Ps.
23.517 613 Jerome
Dem. ev. Comm. Tit.
2.3.78 689 7 443
Hist. eccl.
2.18.9 725 John Chrysostom
2.22 83 Hom. Act.
2.22.1–2 37 60.15 707
2.22.1–5 711 Hom. Matt.
2.22.1–8 567 12.46–49 183
2.22.4 713 Hom. 1 Tim.
2.25.5 37 1 83, 84
3.2 727 11 221
3.4.8 707 16 345
3.39.15 708 18 395
4.15.48 710 Hom. 2 Tim.
5.7.1 5 9 694
5.10 689 10 707, 711, 725, 727
7.2 343
Praep. ev. Justin
1.8.7 257 1 Apol.
6.10.25 98 13.3 389
9.8.1 641 33.9 672
24.1 345 35.9 389
Vit. Const. 39.5 320
2.48.1.8 183 Dial.
7.3 4
Gregory of Nyssa 30.3 389
Hom. 35.2 4
15.6 330 47.6 4
76.6 389
Hippolytus 85.2 389
Comm. Dan. 125.2 4
3.10.4 395
Haer. Liber Pontificalis
5.26.22–23 98 2 727
Phil.
4.28.5 330 Macarius
Hom.
Irenaeus 37 464
Haer.
1.4 708
index of ancient sources 805

Mur. Frag. Princ.

38–39 36 4.1.6 670
62–63 1, 6, 41
65–67 5 Tertullian
Bapt.
Origen 17.4–5 33
Comm. Jo. Marc.
1.3.18 689 5.21 1, 5, 6
Comm. Matt. Praescr.
25.6–12 627 25 6
Comm. Rom. Pud.
10.39 707 18.9 343
Fr. Ps. Ux.
118.27 375 1.7 207
Hom. Jer.
14.14 686 Theodoret
20.9 686 Hist. eccl.
Hom. Job 146 707
12.1049 688 Interpr. Ep. 1 ad Tim.
Philoc. 3 221
27.8 707 Interpr. Ep. 2 ad Tim.
4 707

Greco-Roman Literature

Achilles Tatius [Epist.]

Leuc. Clit. 12.16 499
8.8 140 Fals. leg.
166 125, 587
Aelian
Nat. an. Aeschylus
6.1 588 Eumen.
42a 183
Aelius Aristides Prom.
Or. 374 291
26 142
Rhet. Aesop
2.3.1 179 Fab.
2.4.1 144 5.1 346
2.187 224 5.8 346
81.8 339 61.2 401

Aelius Theon Agathon

Prog. Frag.
99.18 375 4.10 324

Aeschines Alciphron
Ctes. Epist.
137 664 3.64 485
806 index of ancient sources

Alexander of Aphrodisias Apuleius

Probl. Apol.
1.98 375 90 641
1.149 346 Flor.
15.20 443
Anacreon
Frag. Aristophanes
42 208 Frag. 211
Thesm.
Anaximenes of Lampsacus 815 99
Rhet. Alex.
36 353 Aristotle
De an.
Andronicus 407b 640
[Pass.] An. post.
4.4 142 72a 408
7.4.10 430 Cael.
9.6.1 443 286a 391
Cat.
Antiochus 11b 408
Fragmenta Eth. eud.
7 188 1221b 209
1222a 408
Antiphon 1224b 638
Chor. 1231a 638
6.48 99 1231b 429
1232a 225
Apollonius of Rhodes 1233b 144
Argon. 1242a 297
1.488 374 1243a 510
1.809 74 Eth. nic.
1104a 274
Apollonius of Tyana 1105a 483
[Apot.] 1107b 429
4 417 1119a 205
Epist. 1119b 429
59 323 1123b 468
65.6 95, 101 1148a 430
68.3 499 1151b 468
1161a 142, 318
Appian [Mag. mor.]
Bas. Frag. 1212a 430
1.2 324 Metaph.
Hist. rom. 1013a 402
5.13 320 996b 469
11.287 616 Mete.
12.15 320 353b 375
[Mir. ausc]
847b 622
index of ancient sources 807

Mund. Bion
398b 142 Frag.
[Plant.] 35A.1 375
815a 346 35B.1 375
Pol.
1253a 87 Callimachus
1253b 139, 206, 210, 354, 462 Hymn to Zeus
1254a 624 1.8 444
1254b 591 8 444
1262b 297
1285a 502 Callisthenes
1310b 482 Frag 142
1334a 374
[Probl.] Cassius Dio
949b 401 Ann.
Rhet. 56.9 22
1358b 611 Hist.
1361a 355 41.27.2 465
1389a 550 45.28.2 98
1391b 639 51.21.7 612
1393a 419 56.3.3 452
1410b 408 60.6.6–7 725
1417b 502 72.4 209
1418a 443
1419b 370 Cato
1930b 429 Agr.
Top. 5.3 208
126b 391
[Virt. vit.] Charax
1250a 620 Frag.
1250b 430 14 710

Arius Didymus Chrysippus

Liber do phil. sect. Frag.
76 188 87.1 612
85.2 142 244.23 429
255.9 498
Artemidorus Daldianus 264.9 180
Onir. 272.10 372
3.51 344 295.4 180
391.2 499
Aspasius 448 369
Eth. nic. comm. 614.5 510
96.5 429 619.16 500
620.10 500
Athenaeus 627.3 500
Deipn. 1184.8 401
2.1 375 Frag. mor.
65.2 371
808 index of ancient sources

Frag. mor. (cont.) 1 Aristog.

276.3 371 52.10 370
611 188 [Callip.]
632.3 142 15 320
Cor.
Cicero 164.8 419
Att. 172.3 272
2.23.11 29 [Dionys.]
11.5 32 30 519
Div. Fals. leg.
1.18 443 109.7 663
Fam. Letters
1.10 32 1.10 82
Leg. [Olymp.]
2.8.19 354 40.4 272
Off. 3 Olynth.
1.17.37 320 34 587
2.13.46 287 C. Phorm.
17.54 22 8 519
Sen.
23.84 690 Dinarchus
Verr. Demosth.
2.156 711 21.1 430

Cleanthes Dio Chrysostom

Test. frag. Alex.
529.15 373 11–13 368
91 98
Columella In cont.
Rust. 9 400
1 204 [Cor.]
42 620
Cornelius Alexander Def.
Frag. 3 113
3.26 640 Dic. exercit.
2 287
Crates Diffid.
[Ep.] 10 286
15 387 24 727
Diod.
Curtius Rufus 3 430
Hist. Alex. Magni Exil.
9.2.28 685 10 481
15.2 395 17–18 481
Invid.
Demosthenes 13 710
Aristocr. 27 369
187.2 272 De lege.
1 96
index of ancient sources 809

Lib. myth. 17.34.4 641

348–351 139, 354 19.41.2 321
1 Melanc. 20.93 374
15 343 30.20.1 321
1 Regn. 31.32a.1 390
43 97 35.12 621
3 Regn. 36.5.2 84
50 320 37.29.2 483
56 589
Rhod. Diogenes Laertius
2 323 Mened.
44 355 132 370
Sec. Vit.
11 182 2.140 287
2 Serv. lib. 30.3 372
10 665 6.50 375
1 Tars. 6.104 371, 372
33.53.9 112 7 612
Virt. 7.30 371
5 96 7.97 182
7.111 375
Diodorus of Sicily 7.126 483
Hist. 9.78 115
1.10.4 388 10.109 443
1.23.2 225 10.110 443
1.29.2–3 225 10.111 443
1.62.6 430 10.123 100
1.72.3 527 10.130 371
1.92.5 387 11.114 469
1.95.5 639
3.4.3 371 Diogenes of Oenoanda
3.29.4 373 Diogenis Oenoandensis Fragmenta
3.55.9 225 Frag 690
3.70.8 402
4.8.2 391 Diogenes of Sinope
4.38.2 374 [Epist.]
5.4 374 27 99
5.40.3 373 28 319, 468
9.11 209 46 709
11.9.1 591 49 99
11.18 374
12.20.3 143 Diogenianus
12.62.5 641 Paroemiae
13.78.6 428 2.45.3 466
16.19.2 622
16.30.2 143 Dionysius of Halicarnassus
16.48.6 374 Ant. rom.
16.70.5 428 2.24–25 180
16.87.2 298 2.25.4–26.4 139
810 index of ancient sources

Ant. rom. (cont.) 3.1.8 638

2.50.4 592 3.114 502
3.23.17 113 3.20.5–6 94
4.32.1 592 3.21.20 369
4.35.2 622 3.22.29 483
7.66.2 113 3.22.82 297
6.52.2 483 3.24.64 499
9.19.3 113 4.1.35–37 353
20.13.3 204 4.4.48 272
Dem. 4.5.30 387
20.47 688 4.8.35 709
33.1 552 Ench.
Pomp. 7.1.6–8 640
6.6.6 387
Thuc. Epicurus
42.25 688 Ep. Men.
54.78 431 130.5 372

Dioscorides Pedanius Euripides

Mat. med. Herc. fur.
1.2 404, 598 342 484
2.100.1 614 Hipp.
4.94.1 614 1455 74
5.7.1 345 Orest.
5.131.1 389 364 418
Phoen.
Dorotheus of Sidon 650 665
[Disc. Dom.] Tro.
61 520 678 354
Frag.
356.4 418 Eustathius
356.30 418 Comm. Il. Ody.
362.24 638 19.247 665
395 507
[Vit. proph.] Fronto
58 518 Ad Marc.
12.2 466
Epictetus
Diatr. Galen [Kühn’s edition]
1.4.1 290 Ant.
1.4.3 273 14.145 [K] 161
1.4.4 290 Comp. Med. per Gen. vii
1.4.18–21 290 13.473 [K] 614
1.6.42 86 13.474 [K] 614
1.10.2 142 13.885 [K] 614
1.28.14 374 Hipp. Epid. vi
1.77 271 17b.177 [K] 686
2.15.5 369 Hippocratis ii [K]
2.19 323 33
index of ancient sources 811

Meth. Med. xiv Epid.

10.326 [K] 614 7.43 345
10.437 [K] 688 17.120 390
Mor. Temp.
8.6 [K] 390 Homer
Nat. fac. Il.
2.122 [K] 114 1.29–31 645
San Tu. ii 1.242 98
6.334 [K] 345 2.97 150
Sem. 2.153 618
4.592 [K] 375 3.268 150
5.434 484
Heliodorus 6.134 98
Aeth. 8.200 484
7.19 141, 261 18.556 150
Fragmenta 19.107 418
4171.6 161 Od.
1.261 98
Herodianus 2.377 484
[Part.] 6.121 208
16 664 8.256 150
106 485 8.469 150
9.176 208
Herodotus 14.93 533
Hist. 16.335 150
1.1.6 612 18.132 401
1.21 73
1.67 401 Iamblichus
1.71 345 Pyth.
1.103 533 29 33
1.196.4 96
2.86 618 Isocrates
2.106 665 Aeginet.
2.174 418 19.40 355
3.62.17 150 Antid. 33
3.63.1 150 De pace
3.142 298 33.1 387
4.128.1 150 34.5 387
5.38 73 63.2 387
8.32–33 645 [Demon.]
8.92 715 21 273
32.3 371
Hesiod Evag.
Theog. 74 343
26–27 445 [Nic.]
11 273
Hippocrates Soph.
De aere. 4 371
24.45 430
812 index of ancient sources

Juvenal Pisc.
Sat. 42 375
14.49 287 Sacr.
10 444
Leucon Salt.
Frag. 81 204
5 445 Somn.
10 483
Libanius Tim.
Decl. 6 444
39.1.19 467 Vit. auct.
Orat. 3 182
12.51 355
50.3 402 Lysias
Against Theomnestus
Livy 1.10.8 97
Hist. 1.11.4 97
1.13.1–2 645
22.1.8–20 147 Manetho
25.31.8–9 645 Frag.
37.32.12–13 645 2.45 667
38.59.10 551
Martial
Longinus Epigrams
[Subl.] 4.13 727
1.7 375
9.12–14 19 Menander
Frag.
Lucian 533.13 374
Anach. Kon.
21 274 2 443
Char. Mon.
15 375 1.64 373
Demon. 1.67 373
3.16 206 2.18 291
65 690
Dial. d. Methodus mystica
15.1 391 7.1 183
Gall.
18 620 Musonius Rufus
ind. Diss.
21 620 20 618
Nav. Frag.
46.2 227 4 179
Nigr.
16 375 Nicolaus of Damascus
Par. Frag.
50 587 43.10 321
Philops. 89.9 592
3 444
index of ancient sources 813

Oenomaus Phocylides
Frag. [Sent.]
6.4 345 110 372

Onosander Phrynichus
Strat. Praeparatio Sophistica
1.1 204, 209 25 97
1.8 209
Plato
Orphic Hymns [Alc. maj.]
Hymn to Prothyrea i 135a 497
178 Apol.
24c 371
Pausanias Charm.
Descr. 159b 142
5.24.9 588 160b–c 142
[Clit.]
Philo Mechanicus 409d 499
2.652 512 Crito
45b 291
Philochorus [Def.]
Frag. 412e 387
12 207 414e 208
[Epin.]
Philodemus 985c 181
Ir. 990a 181
28 637 Gorg.
Mus. 506c 482
126.14 555 517–518 224
Poem. Frag. 519c–d 371
15.10 344 519e 482
Rhet. 521a 589
133.14 183 524e 391
525 94
Philostratus Hipp. maj.
Ep. 282d–e 209
7 400 294d 510
12 209 Lach.
Gymn. 186c 371
58 274 Leg.
Vit. Apoll. 624a 96, 520
1.28 287 625a 510
4.22 98 642e 443
5.4 36 660e 483
667a 587
Philoxenus 759d 321
Frag. 779a 591
631.7 318 798a 272
802e 208
814 index of ancient sources

Leg. (cont.) Pliny the Younger

805b 298 Ep.
839e–840c 588 7.17.7–8 32
941a 686
Menex. Plotinus
235c 640 Enn.
Meno. 3.8.40 552
73b 463
Phaed. Plutarch
25b 565 Aem.
105d 187 31.7 482
114a 97 Ag. Cleom.
Pol. 4.1 534
290 224 60.5 388
Prot. Ages.
310d 371 3.5 320
313c 371 Alex.
327a 298 35.2 614
349a 371 Ant.
358b 502 21.3 546
Resp. Art.
366e 443 18.4 431
370–371 224 18.6 74
376e–412b 273 Caes.
410 274 65.4 518
419a 321 Cat. Maj.
424b 619 16.1–3 204
463c 297 20.6 86
465b 297 Cat. Min.
Soph. 39.4 430
257e 408 Cic.
Symp. 2.2 323
170c–d 345 6.1 498
200e 373 Cim.
209d–e 187 1.2 620
209e 620 Comp. Ages. Pomp.
270d 463 4.3 125
Theaet. Comp. Cim. Luc.
164d 83 1.3 182
190e 83 3.4 588
Tim. Crass.
23e 665 24.1 373
Dem.
Pliny the Elder 21.2 469
Nat. 26.1 567
8.73 709 Demetr.
8.83 445 20.6 298
19.1.14 36 Dion.
23.31 345 33.3 374
30.1.11 641
index of ancient sources 815

Luc. 495e 665

15.3 518 501d 727
27.6 373 523d 368
Lyc. 524d 371
5.5 592 524d–e 368
28.6 498 526f 274
29.2 282 527b–f 368
77.2 274 547e 400
Lys. 559b 320
17.5 287 576e 482
Mar. 612c–748d 99
12.2–3 567 613d 565
Marc. 716f 208
20.7 483 736c 686
[Mor.] 769c 466
5c 661 784a 443
8c 402 788b 463
Mor. 789f 286
4b 206 853b 620
71e 465 917f 83
74b 550 1015e 401
86c 445 1033c–d 142
101b 182 1058c 96
140b 206 1058d 400
140c 430 1103d 639
142e 466 Nic.
144c 211 29.2 179
156b 710 Num.
216g 589 3.6 592
272c 203 10.1 287
276f 210, 621 Per.
280e 469 2.5 498
303a 210 Phoc.
324d 370 14.7 227
330a 369 17.6 141, 261
351e 299 Pyrrh.
355b 665 22.11 641
370c–d 401 Rom.
383d 445 4.1 207
405c 96 Sol.
408b 182 12 443
421c 114 Thes.
441b 498 1.5 618
446c 638 Ti. C. Gracch.
457b 430 2.3 323
468d 621 14.5 209
479e 45, 409
487a 287
490b 445
816 index of ancient sources

Pollux 29.23.4 592

Onom. 30.2.4 592
1.19 443 30.5.8 167
2.18 465 30.6.6 497
3.47.2 318 31.25.8 661
6.151 95 36.2.2 401
9.146 395, 400 36.17.7 319

Polybius Pompeius Trogus

1.4.4 502 Hist. Philip.
1.26.1 552 20.4 210
1.30.10 390
1.70.2 502 Porphyry
2.23.6 370 Marc.
3.81.2 369 24 464
3.84.14 591
3.112.2 371 Posidonius
4.20.2 143 Frag.
4.22.9 431 45.32 143
4.38.4 521 81.3 144
4.48.13 391 105A–B 372
4.72.3 150 138 499
5.2.3 401 194a 84
5.10.6 143 290a.442 273
5.12.1 143
5.21.4 429 Ptolemy
5.84.2 691 Tetra.
6.8.5 375 3.13 183
6.12.2 497 3.14.11 638
7.13.1 691
9.2.1 83, 510 Quintilian
9.10.12 144, 468 Inst.
10.16.6 691 5.11.8–44 611
10.37.10 691 8.4.26–27 253
11.9.7 144, 468 8.5 93
11.29.3 323 8.5.3–34 271, 367, 441, 576
12.8.2–3 99 10 33
12.11.6 502
12.12.1 323 Res gest. Divi Aug.
12.14.6 323 7.3 48, 140, 147
16.27.2 150 14.6 645
18.12.5 286 25 555
18.13.4 391 34 25, 143
22.10.4 370 35.1–2 48, 140, 244
22.20.7 142
23.3.4–9 370 Seneca
23.5.9 661 Ben.
23.7.1–4 370 2.13.2 522
23.11.5 592 3.18–20 355, 356
index of ancient sources 817

Ben. (cont.) 1.3.4 483

5.5.2 318 1.50 225
5.11.5 522 3.1.4 518
7.2.4 399 3.2.11 518
Ep. 3.10 225
11.8–10 569 5.1.9 259
32 290 5.4.6 518
52.7 569 7.7.6 519
70.20–23 551 8.6 402
75 290, 369 8.6.2 510
94.1 87, 139 10.4.11 39
102.23–25 372 11.5.1 373
Lucil. 12.2.9 510
26.8 29 12.3.29 592
Marc. 12.6.3 662
19.2 318 12.6.5 622
Phaed. 13.4.9 388
32 445 14.1.24 567
14.3.2 443
Sextus Empiricus 14.6.6 374
Eth. 15.12.67 142
120 375 16.1.3 373
Math. 17.1.11 592
7.27.8 419 17.1.12 430
9.90.7 373 17.1.15 640
11.20 375
Suetonius
Sophocles Aug.
Ant. 34 693
1195 613 Claud.
Oed. col. 25.4 725
1234 370, 510 Nero
17 714
Soranus
Gyn. Tacitus
1.20 320 Ann.
13 204 1.58 567
2.53 519
Stobaeus 15.44 389
Ecl. Hist.
2.67 198 5.11 428
Flor.
79.53 297, 298 Telestes
84.23 297 Frag.
1B1 442
Strabo
Geogr. Thales
1.2.3 273 Test.
1.2.7 323 1.132 533
1.2.32 391
818 index of ancient sources

Themistius Valerus Maximus

Arist. 2.9 204
5.2 467
Vegetius
Themistocles De re militari
Ep. 4.39 519, 727
6.28 621
Velleius Paterculus
Theocritus 126 693
id.
17.43 638 Vettius Valens
Anth.
Theodore of Mopsuestia 1.2.50 402
Interp.
2.243 444 Virgil
Aen.
Theodotus 3.320–324 645
Epist. 6.851–853 645
326.1 302
Xenophanes
Theon of Alexandria Test.
Prog. D65 443
10 16
Xenophon
Theophrastus Ages.
Piet. 10.2.5 430
Frag. 12 207 Anab.
2.1.7 150
Theopompus 2.1.9 150
Test. 2.26.2 181
80 465 3.1.26 591
5.3.9 401
Thucydides 7.6.9 533
Hist. Apol.
7.49 370 14.8 483
7.68.3 691 15 502
Oth. Cyn.
12.1071 370 13.8–9 371
Cyr.
Timon 1.6.18 587
Frag. Hier.
783.4 445 1.36 510
5.2 638
Ulpian Mem.
Dig. 1.1.1 371
48.4.1 712 1.2.14 372
48.4.1–11 712 1.2.48 565
49.7.1 551 1.6.13 371
Reg. 2.2.3 318, 401
16 320 2.6.20 499
index of ancient sources 819

Mem. (cont.) Symp.

3.12.4 106 4.17 286
4.2 499
4.3.11 502 Xenophon of Ephesus
Oec. Ephesiaca
1.7–15 399 1.2.2.4 180
14 204
20.11 401

Papyri

d.s. 1.25.4 83
P.Lond. 42 724
P.Berlin. 13977 103
P.Lond. 46 467
P.Cairo Zen. 58003
616 P.Lond. 121 388

P.Cairo Zen. 59192 P.Lond. 904 178

409
P.Lond. 1244 298
P.Cairo Zen. 59426
409, 535 P.Lond. 1677 442

P.Eger. 3 599 P.Lond. 2052 224

P.Eleph. 13 74, 409, 724 P.Mich. 204 705

P.Flor. 61 355 P.Mich. 209 298

P.Flor. 68 343 P.Mich. 224 695, 707

P.Flor. 218 553 P.Mich. 514 32

P.Flor. 367 400 P.Mich. 1469 345

pg 37. 1457–1458 114 P.Oslo 155 110

P.Giss. 17 110 P.Oxy. 50 353

P.Grenf. 1 442 P.Oxy. 72 614

P.Haun. 2 P.Oxy. 113 110, 709

13 179
P.Oxy. 237 205
P.Hels. 47 532
P.Oxy. 244 178
P.Leid. 12 323
820 index of ancient sources

P.Oxy. 281 227 P.Paris 43

1–2 110
P.Oxy. 292 409
P.Paris 47 409
P.Oxy. 416
4 320 P.Paris 63 502

P.Oxy. 494 616 P.Paris 66 245

P.Oxy. 653 246 P.Petr. 13 409

P.Oxy. 724 32 P.Princ. iii 160

1–2 110
P.Oxy. 745
2 518 P.Ryl. 96 355

P.Oxy. 1069 665 P.Ryl. 119 246

P.Oxy. 1120 323 P.Ryl. 162 271

P.Oxy. 1299 78, 224 P.Ryl. 233 409

P.Oxy. 1411 270 P.Tebt. 5 227

P.Oxy. 1482 409 P.Tebt. 27 40

P.Oxy. 1677 521 P.Tebt. 412 521

P.Oxy. 2275 521 P.Tebt. 413 521

P.Oxy. 2981 521 P.Tebt. 444 246

P.Oxy. 3253 270 P.Tebt. 703 40

P.Oxy. 3302 270 P.Treu. 36–37 103

P.Oxy. 3313 709 P.Yale. 83 705

P.Oxy. 3505 709 Sel.Pap. 96 74

P.Oxy. 3858 298 W.Chr. 10 724

Inscriptions

Aus Lydien bgu

39.79–83 639 15 551
366 484
367 484
index of ancient sources 821

bgu (cont.) 46 73
368 484 213 226, 296
1024 373 251 48, 73, 140, 481, 496
1104 665 271 73
1205 518 272 73
1206 74 274 73
1208 183 424 176
1301 271 459 140, 482
1676 409 565 116
1680 409 615 116
643 176
cig 647 568
325 211 683 178
347 177 791 73
1793 224 800 73
2059 299 810 176
2555 424 814 176
2776 286 933 176
2954 176 980 176
3037 224 987 47, 48, 177, 226, 245
3943 181 988 226, 245
989 48, 177
cij 997 177
15066 727 1008 140, 144
30780 695, 707 1026 177
1030 176
cmrdm 1060 176
1.164.14–18 311 1243 73
2.A8 657 1251 38, 179, 202, 338
1265 38, 47, 140, 178
Cos 1352 499
325.9 209 1537 116
1541 568
ic 1543 568
i.17.24 418 2018 116
I.18.17 418 3029 73
3059 178
i Eph 3501 140
4.19 617
8 499 ig
8.45 617 2.1275 96
17 499 2.1361 226
18 177, 371 3.12 142
20 353, 726 7.2712 485
24 47, 140, 390 12.329 205
25.12 617 12.5 177, 321
26 226, 245 95 181
27 47, 245, 390 237 181
45A.3 617 243 228
822 index of ancient sources

ig (cont.) ogis
655.8 321 56 655
774 224 90 226
1571 176 96 482
458 48, 99, 140, 145, 275, 390,
igl 481, 496, 549
1990 205 668 24, 48, 140, 275

igr Pfuhl/Möbius
4.1557 377 ii.1606 208

igsk psi
Iznik 9 707
87 127 1063.10 695
702 525
sb
igur 6263 298
1240 691 7033 246
9861 246
ilindos
208 205 seg
457 691
ils 824 485
3127 354 934 485
1092 48, 140
IOlympia 1180 38
449 181 1630 695, 707
1717 467
IPriene
109 179 sig
186–187 179 258 181
695 657
IvS 760 24, 390
653 47, 140, 144 1163 665

mama upz
408.13–14 691 65 298
Index of Subjects
accommodation 20, 46–49, 132, 139, 143– 424, 428, 431, 432, 443, 469, 472, 485,
144, 203, 206, 216, 273, 293, 319, 348, 505, 525, 549n, 592, 611, 612, 616–617,
378, 443, 462, 471 672, 685, 712
Adam 153, 154, 161, 168–170, 175, 184–187, authorship 8–34, 44, 45, 47, 118, 119, 140, 174,
192 353, 441, 482, 662, 692
adoption 69, 489, 502, 526–527, 537
agricultural imagery 578, 584–585, 586–587, baptism 25, 249, 385, 386, 388, 389, 476,
589 494, 496, 500, 501, 541, 548, 549, 585,
Alexander 112, 126, 128, 695, 699, 701, 702, 592, 615, 625
705, 710–711 benediction 116, 261, 405–407, 515, 517, 518,
amanuensis hypothesis 18, 29–33, 662 521, 698, 724–729
angels 26, 147, 153, 186, 232, 237, 238, 239– benefactor/benefaction 24, 26, 48, 117, 140,
240, 242, 247, 249, 329, 332, 343, 348– 144, 154, 159–161, 163–164, 177–182, 184,
349 186, 193, 196, 198, 209, 211, 224, 225, 250,
Antioch 30, 647, 662, 706–707 270, 275, 280, 286, 299, 306, 307, 316–
apocalyptic 21, 487, 728 318, 320, 327–328, 339, 346, 347, 350,
Apollos 37, 38, 513, 519–520, 522 352, 353, 355, 356–357, 358–378, 381,
apostle 1, 5, 6, 9, 22, 26, 27, 31, 69, 71, 73, 385, 386, 388–391, 392–393, 394–404,
77, 115, 119, 121, 129, 133, 149, 153, 234, 404–410, 481–482, 491, 492, 496–499,
250, 409, 410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 424, 501, 502, 519, 636–637, 639, 646, 694
432, 441, 477, 512, 524, 525, 533, 536, blameless 206, 217, 220, 227, 341, 344, 378,
540, 545, 553, 560, 565, 576, 581, 586, 384, 389, 421, 423, 425, 428, 429, 613
611, 628, 634, 642, 671, 689, 692, 708, blasphemy 48, 102, 111, 120, 124, 127, 128, 324,
709 349, 351, 356, 370, 451, 467, 469, 498,
Aquila 38, 520, 719, 722, 725, 728 626, 637
Artemas 37, 518, 519, 522, 709 boldness 217, 222, 227, 228, 230, 383
Artemis 38, 46, 47–48, 73, 140–141, 144, 176– brothers (and sisters) 264, 272, 294, 298,
178, 180, 188, 226, 245, 257, 368, 399, 299, 350, 352, 354, 357, 719
418, 513, 518, 519, 617, 665–666
asceticism 43, 44, 45, 46, 171, 178, 186, 188, canonicity 4–7, 11, 15, 33–34, 405, 670
207, 252, 256, 257, 258, 259, 262, 268, Carpus 565, 695, 701
273, 274, 277, 317, 324, 331, 372, 373, 398, charge 78, 82, 85, 120–129, 329, 335, 342,
401, 439, 449–450, 463, 464, 615, 639– 368, 379, 380, 389, 421, 424, 469, 473,
640 486, 526, 649, 673, 676–678, 681, 685
athletic metaphor 125, 265, 273–275, 388, chiastic structure 331, 361, 381, 396, 456, 539
584–585, 586–588, 682–684, 691, 694 child/children 69, 74, 120, 157, 171–172, 178,
Augustus 38, 48, 140, 147, 244, 390, 519, 565, 186, 194, 199, 210, 217, 222, 228, 284, 300,
693 301, 307, 318, 320–321, 324, 411, 421, 424,
authority 1, 2, 7, 21, 22, 25, 27, 30, 32, 33, 48, 425, 428, 433, 451, 462, 463, 466, 524,
49, 70–75, 77, 80, 82, 92, 118, 129, 134, 526, 527, 532, 569, 640, 654, 655, 660,
138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 145, 146, 147, 149, 661, 664, 665, 727, 728, 729
150, 153, 159, 160, 166, 167, 169, 175, 183, Christology 1, 24, 26, 30, 118–119, 147, 153,
185, 192, 196, 201–204, 209, 215, 221, 230, 237–240, 242, 249, 471, 478, 486, 504,
231, 234, 241, 242, 243, 250, 270, 271, 272, 544–545, 552–554, 558, 573–574
278, 281, 284, 286, 299, 308, 313, 329, church order 2, 6, 21, 42, 131, 180, 304, 424
334, 348, 357, 383, 400, 413, 414, 418, circumcision 432, 442, 534, 665
824 index of subjects

Claudia 719, 723, 727 divisiveness 490, 506–513, 521, 522–523

confession 48, 135, 181, 212, 236, 242, 245, doxology 106, 109, 110, 116, 118–119, 121,
267, 275, 346, 362, 381–383, 386, 388– 380, 381, 384–385, 386, 699, 704, 715,
389, 396, 401, 435, 439–440, 448, 455, 721
476, 591, 617
conscience 27, 28, 76, 84–85, 87, 120, 121, Early Catholicism 7, 21–22, 23
123, 126, 128, 217, 226, 251, 252, 258, 259, ecclesiology 146, 161, 210–211, 234, 236,
433, 439, 447–448, 517, 528, 530, 533, 244–245, 249, 250–251, 442, 479, 484,
619, 639 486–487, 504, 512, 644, 645
Corinth 35, 36, 38, 259, 450, 518, 519, 520, elder(s) 201–204, 215, 289, 290, 328–349,
522, 719, 723, 725–727, 728 421–432, 435
cosmic 22, 128, 326, 500, 501, 504 elect 247, 277, 329, 332, 343, 348, 411, 416,
covenant 116, 153 523, 527, 570, 574, 593
creation 96, 147, 169, 170, 184–186, 188, 192, Emperor/Imperial Cult 22, 24, 25, 38, 48, 99,
252–264, 273, 487, 544, 554, 671 109, 116, 140, 141, 142, 144, 145, 147, 152,
Crescens 565, 695–696, 699, 707 176, 209, 244, 275, 385, 389, 390, 392,
Cretan(s) 8, 46, 215, 413, 414, 423, 432, 393, 418, 481, 482, 496, 498, 499, 505,
437–438, 441, 443–446, 467, 469, 481, 539, 549, 678, 685, 686, 693, 711, 712, 713,
483 714, 719, 723
Crete 8, 19, 21, 35–39, 46, 211, 418, 421, 423, endurance 378, 382, 387, 392, 451, 457, 464,
424, 427–428, 430, 441, 444–445, 573, 581, 582, 591, 592, 593, 601, 647,
461–462, 463, 492, 498, 499, 510, 516, 652, 653, 661–662, 663, 673, 715
519–520, 709 envy 158, 358, 370, 487, 498, 499
cross 24, 114, 153, 181, 193, 247, 355, 383, 386, Ephesus 20, 21, 30, 35, 37, 38, 39, 42, 43, 46,
389, 393, 396, 401, 403, 484, 550, 595 74, 76, 78, 82, 98, 126, 138, 140, 157, 164,
crown (of righteousness) 673, 677, 683, 684, 170, 175–177, 188, 202, 211, 221, 226, 243,
685, 692, 694, 718 245, 250, 257, 286, 311, 316, 322, 325, 332,
crucifixion 389, 712 338, 368, 427, 510, 519, 520, 533, 559,
560, 563, 565, 566, 567, 568, 645, 695,
Dalmatia 37, 519, 695, 707 699, 701, 705–706, 709, 725, 726, 727,
Damascus 75, 111, 113, 115, 500, 595 728
David 242, 416, 570, 573, 580, 590, 595, 718 epiphany/manifestation 24, 48, 102, 107,
deacon/deaconess 22, 28, 47, 201, 202, 203, 115, 119, 293, 378, 390, 400, 404, 416, 472,
207, 209, 215, 217–231, 316, 422, 428, 475–477, 478, 481, 482, 483, 497, 499,
457, 463, 465, 689 536, 548, 553, 608, 673, 685, 686, 693,
Demas 565, 566, 614, 695, 699, 700, 705, 694, 700, 712, 729
706–707, 708, 712 Erastus 36, 719, 722, 723, 726
deposit 96, 389, 398, 406, 410, 536, 538, 546, eschatology 25, 26, 30, 41, 171, 192, 225, 245,
586 257–258, 271, 277, 290, 311–312, 326–
desire 126, 194, 195, 196, 197, 199, 205, 208, 327, 343, 345, 348, 378, 386, 392–393,
288, 311, 322, 324, 335, 358, 366–368, 403–404, 409–410, 420, 482, 486, 487,
370, 371, 373, 374–375, 376–377, 381, 501, 504, 528, 546, 555, 558, 568, 569,
387, 472, 475, 476, 482–483, 487, 492, 585, 592–593, 596, 615, 624, 626–646,
498–499, 587, 588, 602, 607, 619, 650, 671, 676–677, 693–694, 702
626, 633, 641, 644, 646, 673, 675, 680, eternal life 71, 102, 116, 158, 269, 270, 275,
687 290, 378, 381, 382, 383, 388, 391, 392–
devil 26, 194, 200, 212, 263, 377, 524, 526, 393, 400, 404, 411, 412, 414, 416, 417, 418,
597, 610–611, 622, 624, 625, 628, 638, 420, 487, 495, 502, 536, 544, 548, 549,
642, 714 554, 558, 595
index of subjects 825

ethics 25, 26, 31, 32, 33, 86, 115, 123, 128, 143, genre 1, 15, 17, 18, 31, 33, 39–41, 49, 82, 110,
160, 303, 387, 389, 403, 444, 471, 474, 223, 241, 297, 676
486, 487, 500, 552, 601, 615, 625 Gentiles 26, 27, 39, 85, 95, 97, 112, 115, 118,
Eubulus 719, 723, 727 129, 135, 138, 145, 146, 150, 153, 205, 226,
Eunice 528, 531, 534, 648, 654, 664, 672 244, 247, 250, 290, 419, 441, 445, 447,
evangelist 224, 591, 670, 673, 685, 688–689 450, 481, 484, 534, 545, 561, 666, 689,
Eve 154, 161, 168–170, 172, 175, 184–188, 192 713
glory 88, 93, 99, 102, 116, 144, 232, 238, 242,
faith 9, 23, 27, 43, 44, 69, 71, 76, 77, 84, 85, 247, 277, 356, 375, 391–392, 394, 477–
88, 102, 107, 112, 113, 114, 115, 118, 120, 123, 478, 486, 512, 565, 569, 570, 571, 576,
126, 128, 129, 150, 154, 157, 159, 171, 172, 587–588, 591–592, 595–596, 694, 695,
185, 187, 217, 219, 222, 223, 228, 231, 238, 704, 712, 717–718
245, 251, 253, 254, 258, 260, 264, 278, Gnosticism 44, 83, 175, 256, 257, 408, 464,
293, 295, 296, 300, 308, 301, 312, 313, 509–510, 556, 615
314, 315, 320, 322, 323, 325, 358, 371, 378, God
384, 387, 389, 404, 405, 407, 409, 410, Benefactor 24, 26, 48, 135, 140, 144, 159,
411, 415, 416, 419, 421, 426, 428, 430, 431, 160, 163, 164, 177, 180–182, 193, 196, 198,
433, 435, 437, 438, 447, 451, 461, 463, 249–250, 270, 275, 307, 317, 318, 346,
464, 501, 502, 512, 513, 515, 517, 520, 521, 357, 372, 374, 378–394, 396–398, 400–
523, 528, 529–532, 534, 535, 536, 540, 402, 404, 482, 491, 492, 498, 501–502,
547, 555, 568, 591, 597, 605, 612, 613, 505, 636, 694
614, 616, 617, 619, 626, 639, 642, 647, Creator 181, 260, 263, 278, 370, 383, 388
652, 655, 656, 661, 662, 665, 670, 682, Father 69, 75–76, 102, 107, 247, 249, 318,
706, 727 357, 379, 392, 403, 411, 477, 484, 486,
false teacher/teaching 1, 7, 10, 20, 24, 34, 42, 487, 522, 524, 558, 593
43–46, 72, 74, 76–88, 89, 92, 93, 95, 97, King 102, 109, 116, 142, 146, 153, 245, 377,
99, 105, 107, 111–115, 121, 126, 128, 131, 136, 678, 679, 693
138, 141, 142, 143, 145, 147, 150, 158–159, Savior 23–24, 28, 48, 69, 73–74, 129, 132,
165, 168, 171, 175, 179, 184, 186, 187, 188, 134, 135, 138, 139–154, 158–159, 180–181,
193, 196, 197, 200, 204, 207, 209, 211, 216, 236, 264, 270–271, 275, 277–278, 291,
223, 225, 231, 239, 243, 250, 251–264, 293, 294, 300, 318, 348, 411, 414–415,
264–277, 279, 282, 286, 288, 290, 293, 420, 432, 451, 461, 469–470, 485, 486,
295, 304, 305, 314, 317, 320, 323–324, 487, 491, 498, 499, 505, 553, 671
331, 333, 337, 340, 342, 344, 358–378, sovereign 28, 128, 146, 156, 236, 348, 379,
381, 382, 388, 393, 399, 401, 404–410, 384, 391, 403, 417, 546, 549, 552, 553,
416, 417, 419, 422–432, 432–451, 452– 558, 609, 616–617, 623–624, 641–642,
472, 476, 479, 484–485, 490, 492, 498, 666, 678, 686, 688, 705
499, 507–512, 514, 515, 519, 521, 523, 526, godliness 25–26, 86, 129, 140, 143–144, 145,
545, 550, 560, 589, 597–625, 626–673, 158, 163, 224, 228, 231, 264, 266–270,
676–681, 685, 687, 688, 724, 725 273–275, 277, 287, 300, 307, 358, 364,
fear 181, 328, 342, 400, 472–473 368–369, 372, 375, 377, 378, 387, 393,
field of discourse 19–20 401, 411, 417, 443, 464, 465, 476, 588,
flesh 145, 149, 231, 238, 246, 259, 274, 504, 604, 613, 626, 632, 640, 650, 655, 663,
553, 588, 642, 680 667
forgiveness 343, 710, 713 good work(s) 25–26, 48, 95–96, 154, 157–
fragmentary hypothesis 19, 28–29 158, 160, 163–164, 181, 194, 196–198, 205,
300, 303, 309, 310–311, 321–322, 329,
Galatia 662, 695, 696, 707 332, 337, 346, 348, 355, 362, 367, 381,
generosity 288, 377, 394, 398, 401 386–388, 394, 396, 398, 401–402, 403,
826 index of subjects

good work(s) (cont.) 433, 440, 442, 448, 450, Holy Spirit 24–25, 125, 208, 239, 246, 251,
451, 460, 465, 466, 467, 472, 481, 484– 256–258, 262, 283, 289, 293, 386, 487,
485, 487–488, 490–491, 495, 496–497, 494, 500–501, 503–505, 541–542, 521,
499, 502, 505, 513, 515, 520–521, 522, 522, 531, 534, 536, 539, 541, 542, 546–
597, 619, 623, 643, 647, 659, 668–669 548, 549–551, 555–556, 557–558, 640,
gospel 2, 11, 26, 27, 31, 41, 43, 45–46, 47, 49, 670–672, 687, 728
74, 78, 79, 85, 87, 88, 92–93, 95, 98– homosexuality 88, 94, 98
100, 102, 104–105, 114, 115, 125, 126, 128, honor (and shame) 48, 110, 116, 134, 144, 163,
133, 136, 138, 142, 149, 152–153, 154n11, 181, 182, 196, 198, 210, 212, 224, 228, 281,
165, 174–176, 182, 199, 200, 205, 212, 285, 287, 292–293, 297, 298, 303, 305–
216, 225, 230–231, 236–240, 246–247, 306, 311, 318, 327, 328, 331, 332, 339, 340,
252–253, 254–256, 258–260, 261, 266, 341, 347, 349, 350–351, 353–355, 356–
274, 277, 280, 286, 287, 288, 290, 291, 357, 377, 379, 397, 399, 403, 463, 464,
293, 294, 298, 300, 319, 320, 322, 340, 468–469, 485, 502, 539, 546, 549, 551,
341, 344, 346, 349, 351, 353, 354, 356, 588, 592, 596, 603, 613, 618, 619, 691,
357, 363, 382, 388, 389, 393, 406–410, 705
416, 418, 426, 430, 432, 441, 442, 446, hope 327, 400–401, 555–556, 591
450, 462, 467, 471, 484, 498, 520, 522, hospitality 194, 208, 223, 300, 317, 321, 421,
525, 526, 527, 533, 536, 540, 542, 544– 438, 466, 515, 521, 522–523
558, 561, 564–565, 566, 570, 574, 575, household 11, 21–22, 42, 46, 47, 48, 49, 84,
576, 579, 580, 581, 586, 587, 590, 591, 87, 88, 139–141, 143, 162, 171, 178, 180–181,
592, 599, 600, 602, 609, 612, 614, 618, 188, 193, 194–199, 201, 204–210, 211, 215,
621, 622, 634, 639, 640, 641, 646, 653, 217–218, 221, 222, 227–228, 230, 231, 235,
654, 656, 658, 659, 661, 664, 666, 667, 244–245, 250, 259, 271–272, 280, 285–
671, 680, 681, 686–690, 698, 706, 708, 286, 287, 295–297, 300–301, 303–314,
710, 711, 712, 715, 717, 718, 723, 724, 728, 318, 320–325, 327, 339, 341, 344, 346,
729 350–351, 353, 400, 410, 425, 428, 429,
gossip 217, 224–225, 227, 323–324 431–432, 433, 437, 442, 451, 452, 454–
grace 69, 90, 102, 106, 107, 108, 111–115, 119, 458, 462, 463, 466, 471, 526, 531, 559,
188, 263, 270, 282, 404, 409, 411, 472, 566, 567, 616, 617, 618, 620, 623–624,
475, 478, 481, 482, 487, 493, 499, 512, 626, 638, 645, 665, 719, 725, 728
513, 514, 517, 518, 521, 524, 536, 540, 543, husbands 139, 161, 164, 177, 194, 217, 220,
553, 557, 568, 569, 576, 594–595, 683, 300, 312, 315, 317, 318, 421, 451, 458, 466,
694, 703, 719, 724, 727, 729 467, 534, 592
grammar and style 12–14 Hymenaeus 120, 126, 128, 597, 604–605, 614,
greed 44, 209, 211, 217, 367, 375, 397, 421, 616, 628
430, 442–443 Hymn 102, 178, 237, 237–240, 241–242, 245–
247, 249, 252, 444, 481, 496–497
Haustafel 139, 161, 210, 451–472
heir 75, 526–527 Iconium 30, 566, 647, 662–663, 706–707
herald 27, 28, 129, 133, 138, 149–150, 153, 247, idolatry 146, 236, 250, 259, 263, 275, 375,
345, 410, 418, 536, 540, 545, 551, 554, 440, 446, 448, 450, 498, 637, 641, 643,
576, 678–679, 678–679, 681, 685, 686, 710
693, 713 image of God 182, 192
Hermogenes 559, 560, 565–567, 574, 614, in Christ 76, 88, 102, 107, 112, 113, 118, 217,
706–707 223, 227, 243, 281, 287, 293, 354, 372, 417,
historical setting 35–39 524, 525, 528, 536, 547, 548, 569, 570,
holiness 88, 154, 161, 163, 171, 178, 187, 206, 573, 574, 576, 587, 593, 595, 647, 663,
287, 391, 511, 513, 552, 665 670, 703
index of subjects 827

inheritance 282, 526, 529, 586, 595 Savior 75–76, 411, 414–415, 420, 472, 477,
Israel 87, 97, 112, 118, 119, 146, 149, 242, 243, 482–484, 486, 487, 504, 536, 549, 553,
315, 420, 438, 484, 498, 552, 565, 596, 693, 712
624, 658, 666 seed of David 570, 573, 579–580, 590,
595, 718
Jambres 565, 626, 627–628, 629, 630, 635, vindication 149, 231, 239, 246, 386
641–642, 643, 650, 653, 663 Jews 26–27, 38–39, 43–46, 83, 112, 118,
Jannes 565, 626, 627–628, 629, 630, 635, 119, 126, 142, 153, 209, 210, 244, 245,
641–642, 643, 650, 653, 663 289, 316, 338, 416, 419, 428, 433, 436–
Jesus Christ 437, 441–448, 450, 465, 484, 509, 510,
death 24, 48, 53, 130, 137–138, 147–149, 520, 534, 639, 642, 662, 664–665,
153, 277, 383, 386, 388–390, 393, 401, 725
403, 486, 505, 540, 544, 548, 549, 553, Judaizers 101, 615
591, 595 judgment 201, 300, 308, 311–312, 319, 323,
deity 107, 349, 393–394, 420, 477–478, 327, 329, 332, 342–343, 345, 348, 371,
486, 553–554, 558 400, 555, 592–593, 600, 673, 676,
humanity 107, 141, 153, 223, 393–394, 548 685, 692–693, 698, 699, 710–712,
incarnation 153, 237–238, 239, 246, 249, 718
548, 553, 558, 580 justification 487, 494–495, 502–503
Judge 308, 664, 673, 676, 677, 684, 685,
692, 693–694, 699, 712, 718–719, 729 kerygma 133, 242–243, 247, 410, 414, 703
King 238, 377, 580, 595–596, 686, 693, kingdom 247, 263, 528, 551, 554, 569, 673,
703–704, 717–719 677, 686, 693, 695, 704, 705, 712, 714,
Lord 6, 69, 85, 102, 113, 135, 144, 147, 717–718
153, 154, 185, 206, 210, 252, 263, 278, knowledge 43, 45, 85–86, 88, 128, 129, 131,
293, 307, 312, 322, 357, 358, 368, 369, 135, 144, 145–146, 256, 364, 404, 405,
377, 378, 379, 387, 392, 400, 403, 408, 408–409, 410, 411, 414, 416–417, 442,
447, 471, 483, 524, 536, 540, 545, 548, 443, 450, 459, 464, 482, 597, 620, 623,
549, 554, 555, 559, 562, 563, 565, 567, 624, 626, 641, 642, 643, 646, 664, 668
570, 580, 586, 590, 593, 595, 596, 597,
602, 608, 610, 616, 617, 619, 620, 622, law 26–27, 30, 31, 43, 44, 45, 76, 77–78, 83,
624, 636, 647, 650, 651, 661, 673, 677, 86, 87, 88–102, 104, 131, 147, 150, 153,
684, 692, 695, 698, 699, 703, 704, 196, 261, 263, 272, 315, 319, 346, 368, 371,
705, 706, 712, 713, 714, 715, 717, 718, 425, 449, 472, 486, 499, 506, 510, 513,
719 520, 638, 644, 658, 665, 666, 668, 687
mediator 24, 28, 48, 129, 132, 134, 136, 138, liar(s) 85, 88, 94, 99, 103, 150, 245, 251, 252,
139, 140, 143, 145, 147–150, 152, 153, 160, 258, 262–263, 413, 417, 418, 432, 435,
188, 209, 236, 348, 393, 477, 486 438, 440, 441, 443, 444, 445, 447, 454
Messiah 75, 119, 188, 208, 241, 262, 263, Linus 719, 723, 727
274, 417, 418, 590, 705 literary unity 1–2, 29, 41, 365, 601
parousia 24, 26, 234, 241, 243, 246, 250, Lois 528, 531, 534, 648, 654, 664
378, 386, 390, 392–393, 474, 477, 553, love 76, 84, 87–88, 102, 107, 112, 113, 115, 118,
569, 630, 636, 650, 664, 705 154, 159, 171, 187, 194, 196, 209, 225, 278,
ransom 24, 114, 129, 137, 140, 148–149, 322, 358, 366, 373, 375, 377, 378, 381,
152–153, 182, 393, 465, 486, 505 387, 396, 403, 443, 450, 451, 464, 465,
resurrection 45, 237–240, 246–247, 257, 466, 473, 513, 517, 536, 547, 565, 555, 591,
277, 544, 553, 554, 579–580, 590, 597, 593, 597, 608, 626, 629, 631–632, 636–
598, 605, 614–615, 624–625, 671, 685, 639, 644, 647, 652, 661–662, 687, 692,
693–694, 707 695, 700
828 index of subjects

Luke 6, 30–33, 37, 83, 148, 176, 212, 334, 340, new creation 192, 544, 554, 671
429, 662–663, 688, 695, 699, 700, 706, Nicopolis 37, 513, 519, 707
707–708, 709, 712, 725, 726
Lystra 30, 518, 647, 662–663, 706–707 obedience 164, 182, 193, 222, 383, 410, 425,
428, 466, 491, 496, 624, 686
Macedonia 37, 76, 82–83, 518, 519, 709, older men and women 36, 111, 203, 207, 215,
726 281, 285, 286, 287, 294–300, 303–304,
Malta 727 306, 317, 325, 327, 331, 339, 451, 455–
Mark 148, 695, 699, 700, 708 458, 463–468, 471
marriage 188, 206, 207, 251, 252, 254, 259, Onesiphorus 520, 559, 560, 562–563, 565–
261, 273, 315, 317, 322, 328 568, 574, 719–720, 723, 725, 728
masters 47, 153, 208, 222, 228, 272, 349–357, overseers 28, 194–216, 218, 219, 220, 221,
451, 460, 462, 469, 471, 597, 602, 619, 223–231, 272, 316, 338–340, 367, 377,
620, 622, 624 421, 423, 425–428, 431, 435, 442, 457
medical imagery 345, 368–370, 375, 445,
468, 614, 620, 622, 687, 688 paraenesis/paraenetic 1, 13, 39–41, 82, 271,
men 36, 97, 139, 154, 156–157, 160–162, 338, 382, 386, 419, 457, 490, 507, 624,
165, 167, 168, 170, 177, 178–179, 180, 705
184–187, 191–193, 199, 203, 207, 208, paronomasia 90, 396, 582, 703
210, 215, 227, 273, 286, 294, 295, 296, patience 102, 109, 115, 290, 382, 387, 597,
297–299, 317, 325, 331, 339, 451, 455– 609, 621, 647, 652, 661, 673, 679, 687
460, 462, 464–468, 626, 640, 645, 651, Paul
672 apostleship 1, 5, 6, 9, 22, 26, 27, 31, 69,
mercy 69, 75, 102, 105, 107, 109, 111–113, 115, 70–71, 72–73, 77, 115, 119, 121, 129, 133,
118–119, 153, 487, 493, 499, 505, 524, 559, 138, 149, 153, 234, 250, 409, 410, 411–
562–563, 566 414, 416, 424, 432, 441, 477, 512, 524, 525,
Miletus 36, 38, 533, 565, 709, 719, 723, 726, 526, 533, 536, 540, 544, 545, 553, 560,
727 565, 576, 581, 586, 611, 628, 634, 642,
military imagery 122, 125, 204, 209, 320, 388, 671, 689, 692, 708, 709
428, 577, 584–585, 586–588, 640, 645, calling 111–112, 113, 115, 123, 149, 226, 250,
679, 691 285, 383, 388, 455, 530, 536, 552, 588
mission 30, 37, 38, 75–76, 100, 102, 108, 120– conversion 103, 112–116, 119
129, 135, 137, 142, 176, 226, 247, 249–250, death 24, 34, 41, 43, 74, 591, 681, 682,
266, 277, 414, 415, 417, 418, 420, 427, 441, 689–690, 694, 705, 706, 712, 714, 726,
512, 522–523, 528, 530, 540, 545, 549, 728
574–575, 581, 585, 591, 595, 612, 622, 661, imprisonment 35–38, 83, 102, 290, 533,
671, 686, 705, 707, 727 536, 542, 549, 551, 560, 565–567, 574,
mode of discourse 18 590–591, 662, 706, 709, 711–714, 718, 726
money 88, 113, 194, 196, 209, 339, 340, 341, protégé 1, 18, 20, 27–28, 41
358, 362, 366–367, 371–373, 376–377, teacher 27, 129, 138, 153, 250, 536, 540,
381, 387, 396, 403, 608, 626, 629, 631, 545, 576, 586, 648
636–637, 644 trial 445, 519, 682, 690, 698, 705, 709,
mystery 25, 47, 143, 217, 219, 223, 225–228, 711–714
231, 236, 242, 245–246, 272, 447, 553, Philetus 597, 604–605, 614, 628
683 Phygelus 559, 560, 565–566, 567, 574
myth(s) 43, 76, 83, 86, 175, 257, 264, 266, polemics 6, 27, 44, 45, 46, 48, 80, 83, 97, 116,
267, 273, 368, 408, 416, 433, 437, 439, 126, 131, 136, 141, 144, 146, 207, 216, 234,
441, 444, 446, 450, 510, 615, 642, 673, 236, 243, 244–245, 250, 263, 275, 384–
688 385, 391, 393–394, 398, 408, 436, 439,
index of subjects 829

polemics (cont.) 441, 446, 447, 448, 450, 511, 171, 225, 287, 290, 293, 390, 393, 410,
519, 521, 526, 539, 575, 615, 621, 645, 659, 420, 504, 522, 552, 670
664, 667–668, 670, 671, 680, 686, 687 register analysis 9, 16–20
power 2, 11, 20, 21, 25, 26, 32, 39, 41, 46, 47, resurrection (of believers) 614–615, 624–
48, 49, 70, 72, 73, 74, 75, 79, 82, 93, 113, 625
115, 124, 128, 138, 146, 150, 153, 160, 163, revelation 24, 25, 130, 137, 149, 223, 225, 226,
164, 168, 180, 181, 184, 196, 201, 202, 209, 238, 239, 242–243, 245, 247, 277, 290,
250, 257, 262, 263, 271, 272, 286, 290, 345, 386, 391, 403, 418, 420, 553, 642,
292, 294, 296, 298, 300, 304, 316–317, 659, 677
319, 327, 347–348, 353–354, 356–357, reward 222, 563, 577–578, 584, 586, 587, 588,
377, 379, 384, 385, 386, 387, 391, 392, 677, 683, 685, 691–692, 694
399, 400, 403–404, 410, 412, 416, 418, righteousness 96, 144, 149, 378, 381, 382, 387,
419, 432, 441, 448, 450, 461, 475, 491, 410, 472, 487, 493, 498, 499–500, 502,
505, 524, 525, 528, 536, 540, 543, 544, 505, 543, 552, 597, 607, 619, 647, 659,
549, 550, 551, 554, 558, 566, 585, 620, 668, 673, 683, 685, 686, 691–692, 694,
623–624, 626, 632, 636, 639–640, 650, 717
651, 655, 660, 661, 664, 666, 667, 671, Roman Empire 134, 140–141, 142, 144–145,
686, 691, 709, 714, 719, 723 244–245, 686, 698, 707, 713, 718, 728
prayer 74, 95, 110–111, 129, 132–134, 136, 139, Rome 19, 27, 35, 36–38, 83, 519, 533, 559,
141–142, 152, 154, 160–163, 178, 251, 260– 560, 562–563, 566–567, 681, 690, 705–
261, 263, 300, 312, 318–319, 528–531, 533, 707, 709, 712, 713, 718, 725–727
563, 567, 568–569, 715
pride 194, 211, 399–401, 421, 425, 430, 637, salvation 11, 24, 26, 30, 74, 112, 132–134, 135,
639 137, 141, 145, 146, 152–153, 158, 160, 170–
Prisca 38, 520, 719, 722, 725, 728 172, 176, 187–188, 192, 195, 239, 269, 270,
progress 153, 211, 278, 290, 569, 579, 597n, 275, 283–284, 290, 291, 293–294, 318,
604, 613, 626, 635, 643, 654, 655, 664, 371, 384, 410, 415, 472, 475, 477, 481,
668 484, 486–487, 490, 496, 502, 504–
prophecies 114, 120, 122, 125, 128, 192–193, 505, 512, 543, 544, 549, 552, 553, 568,
253, 278, 283, 285, 289, 293, 418, 569, 570, 574, 581, 587, 589, 591, 592, 595,
628, 630, 634, 645, 672 641, 647, 655, 666–667, 670–672, 687,
prophet(s) 8, 13, 26, 45, 73, 257, 262, 386, 704
418, 432, 438, 441, 443, 446, 448, 689, Satan 26, 86, 120, 127, 128, 157, 170, 188, 200,
709 201, 212, 301, 312–313, 324, 325, 326–327,
pseudonymity 1, 8, 17, 23, 26, 28, 29, 32, 33– 408, 687, 711, 714
34, 44, 45, 118–119, 174, 221, 285, 290, Scripture(s) 6, 9, 30, 31, 40, 69, 243, 278n,
328, 441, 482, 486, 530, 662, 692, 704, 282, 288, 328, 334, 338, 349, 489, 534,
725 537, 589, 647, 648, 650–651, 654–661,
Pudens 719, 723, 725, 727 664–669, 670–673, 676, 686, 687
purity 43, 85, 87, 261, 263, 278, 287, 294, 297, self-control 47, 126, 154, 175, 178, 180, 194,
299, 300, 321, 331, 336, 344, 387, 439, 207–208, 209, 312, 319, 375, 421, 429,
441, 442, 445, 447, 464, 466, 484, 618 438, 451, 457, 459, 460, 462, 463, 465,
purpose (of writing) 41–49, 82, 186, 235– 466, 467, 469, 471, 472, 498, 536, 551,
236, 242, 249, 315–316, 409, 670 609, 621, 626, 638, 680, 688
self-sufficiency 371, 372, 401
realized eschatology 26, 43–45, 257, 558, shame (see honor)
615, 625 sin 98, 112, 170, 186, 328, 329, 332, 334, 335,
reconciliation 147, 708 337, 341, 342, 344, 345, 346, 347, 483,
redemptive plan 76, 84, 88, 102, 118, 125, 145, 553, 619, 624–625, 626, 633, 643, 646
830 index of subjects

slaves 47, 48, 98, 111, 139, 149, 153, 206, 228, trustworthy saying 2, 108, 113–114, 194–195,
259, 272, 280, 349–358, 411, 412, 429, 197, 261, 264, 266, 269, 274, 275, 287,
432, 451, 455, 456, 460–461, 462, 465, 290, 295–297, 490, 495, 496, 497, 507,
468–470, 471, 487, 497, 536, 566, 567, 570, 581–582, 585, 592
597, 602, 608, 609, 616, 619, 620, 622, truth 23, 27, 34, 42, 44, 45, 83, 85–86, 87–
624–625, 646, 712, 725, 726 88, 90, 95, 108, 111, 128, 129, 131, 135, 145,
sound teaching(s) 44, 88, 96, 294, 324, 368, 150, 158, 193, 194, 231, 244, 245, 251, 252–
369, 408, 421, 423, 426, 431, 433, 438, 254, 256, 259, 358, 371, 372, 405, 407,
450, 451, 454, 455, 456, 459, 463, 468, 409, 411, 413, 417, 418, 433, 435–438, 441,
471, 538, 540, 547, 555, 586, 673, 680, 443–447, 459, 512–513, 535, 545, 565,
686, 687, 688 597, 600, 602, 603–604, 605, 611–614,
Stoicism 180, 271, 290, 371, 372, 483, 498, 620, 624, 626, 629, 630, 634, 641, 642,
500 643, 646, 647, 650–651, 654, 655, 659,
stylometric analyses 14–16, 30 660, 664, 668–669, 673, 688
submission 25, 47, 129, 142, 154, 160, 164, 165, Tychicus 37, 513, 519, 522, 533, 695, 699, 701,
169, 179, 180, 182, 185, 194, 210, 215, 245, 705–706, 709
354, 460, 462, 467, 490, 496, 497, 505,
616, 619, 621, 624, 646, 688, 713, 714 vice and virtue list 92, 93–95, 96–99, 101,
subversion 9, 17, 19, 20, 25, 46–49, 73, 134, 112, 179, 181, 187, 196, 197, 206–209, 218,
139, 144, 180, 185, 192, 263, 272, 285, 286, 225, 280, 310–311, 362, 364, 367, 370–
287, 293, 299, 306, 327, 347, 353–355, 371, 375, 381–382, 386, 387, 392, 423,
356, 365, 549, 596, 612, 666, 694, 728– 425–426, 427, 429–430, 432, 445, 458,
729 459, 472, 473, 482, 492, 496, 498, 500,
succession 19, 27, 41, 77, 142, 527, 528, 533, 510, 591, 601, 607–608, 611, 619, 628,
535, 556, 569, 584–586, 588, 594–595, 629, 630–632, 633, 635, 636–640, 644–
661, 677, 703, 704–706, 729 645, 650, 651–652
suffering 24, 28, 37, 47, 48, 100, 112, 120–128, vocabulary 2, 9–12, 14, 18, 19, 20, 30, 31, 42,
315, 322, 354, 375, 536, 538–539, 540– 47, 48, 164, 196, 209, 228, 242, 244, 249,
559, 569–596, 601, 647, 661–663, 673, 271, 359, 370, 374, 422, 424, 434, 442,
676, 680, 685, 688, 690, 694, 705, 714, 468, 471, 536, 549, 551, 552, 618, 705
715, 717–719
syncretism 24, 45, 46 wealth 39, 44, 48, 139, 140, 158–160, 162–
164, 177–178, 180–181, 184, 193, 196, 209,
teachers of the law 76, 77, 86, 87, 96, 101, 211, 225, 317, 319, 325, 339, 347, 355,
131, 147, 150, 153 358–378, 381, 382, 386, 387–389, 392,
temple 144, 178, 205, 235, 244, 249, 250, 390, 394–404, 404–410, 636–637
556, 617, 667 widow(s) 4, 30, 36, 47, 48, 139, 157–159, 163,
Ten Commandments 86, 89, 91, 92, 94–96, 165, 170, 175, 177, 206, 207, 208, 227, 280,
98, 101, 369, 635, 644, 645 293, 295, 299, 300–328, 356, 400, 466,
tenor of discourse 17, 18–19 534
testamentary literature 15, 41, 526, 527, 532, wisdom 86, 112, 145, 271, 321, 372, 408, 589,
535, 569, 584, 586 596, 643, 650, 655, 657, 666, 671
textual history 2–4 wives 139, 161, 163, 164, 188, 171, 175, 186, 188,
thanksgiving 82, 104, 106, 110–111, 129, 141, 194, 217, 218, 220, 221, 227, 273, 300, 317,
251, 255, 260, 261, 263, 416, 422, 524, 421, 428, 497, 592, 640, 725
528–535 women 7, 22, 36, 46, 97, 111, 139, 154–193,
Thessalonica 695, 706 196, 203, 206–207, 208, 209, 217,
Troas 37, 695, 701, 709–710, 727 220–221, 227, 231, 272, 273, 294–296,
Trophimus 36, 719, 722, 723, 725, 726 297–299, 303, 310, 317, 320, 323, 325,
index of subjects 831

women (cont.) 327–328, 331, 401, 451, 455– 288, 307, 348, 399, 498, 505, 532, 639,
458, 462, 463–467, 471, 626, 629, 640, 643, 644, 713
641, 645–646, 650, 664, 728
word of God 7, 231, 251, 256, 261, 451, 459, youth 28, 35, 278, 280, 281, 285–288, 293,
471, 512, 531, 570, 574, 581, 666, 671, 672, 294–300, 303, 308, 327, 339, 356, 387,
673 457–459, 465–468, 587, 597, 602, 619,
world 24, 47, 48, 49, 102, 118, 119, 140, 144, 651, 665
145, 205, 232, 238, 242, 262, 293, 355,
358, 365, 378, 472, 473, 481–482, 565, Zenas 37, 513, 519–520, 522
680, 694, 695, 700, 713 Zeus 297, 418, 444
worship 27, 129, 134, 139, 142–143, 144, 150,
158–160, 163, 178, 179, 180, 209, 226, 282,