Hermeneutical and Exegetical Challenges in Interpreting the Pastoral Epistles Andreas J. Köstenberger

6 Andreas J. Köstenberger is Pro- In the last few years, several major com- the Pastorals? fessor of and Greek and mentaries and monographs on the Pasto- Director of Ph.D. and Th.M. Studies at ral Epistles have been published.1 It seems I. H. Marshall has recently addressed Southeastern Baptist Theological Semi- appropriate to ask what light these recent these issues and come to the conclusion nary in Wake Forest, North Carolina. He works have shed on the study of this group that “the way in which the thought [in the is the editor of the Journal of the Evan- of writings. Owing to space limitations Pastorals] is expressed, both linguistically gelical Theological Society and the we will limit our discussion to several of and theologically, poses great problems author of the forthcoming commentary the major hermeneutical and exegetical . . . which seems to make it unlikely that on the Pastoral Epistles in the New challenges with which the modern inter- he [Paul] himself wrote in these terms to 7 Expositor’s Commentary series. preter is confronted in his or her study of trusted colleagues.” For this reason Mar- the Pastoral Epistles.2 shall rejects the Pauline authorship of the Pastorals. At the same time, however, Hermeneutical Challenges Marshall finds the theory of pseudonym- Authorship ity wanting owing to the deceptive intent 8 The authorship of the Pastoral Epistles inevitably involved in such a practice. In continues to be a major topic of scholarly an effort to find a middle way between the debate. The authenticity of Paul’s corre- (for him) Scylla of Pauline authorship and spondence with Timothy and Titus went Charybdis of pseudonymity, Marshall has largely unchallenged until the nineteenth coined a view he labels “allonymity” or century.3 Since then, an increasing number “allepigraphy,” according to which “some- of scholars have claimed that the Pastorals body close to a dead person continued to are an instance of pseudonymous writing write as (they thought that) he would have 9 in which a later follower attributes his own done.” According to Marshall, Timothy work to his revered teacher in order to per- and Titus are only the purported, but not petrate that person’s teachings and influ- the real, recipients of the Pastoral epistles, ence.4 The issue is primarily a historical which were rather addressed to leaders of one. The following interrelated questions congregations in /Asia Minor and 10 require adjudication: Crete respectively. Moreover, Marshall thinks that 2 Timothy is substantially the 1. Is pseudonymous letter-writing work of Paul and formed the basis for the attested in the first century? “allonymous” writing of 1 Timothy and 2. If so, was such a practice ethically 11 unobjectionable and devoid of Titus. This turns the traditional—and deceptive intent or not?5 canonical—sequence on its head, since it 3. Could pseudonymous letters have would make 2 Timothy—not 1 Timothy or been acceptable to the early church? 4. If so, is pseudonymity more plau- Titus—the first of the Pastoral Epistles to sible than authenticity in the case of be written.12 4 However, if one applies Marshall’s line “flesh” (vs. Spirit; sarx), “cross” (stauros), of reasoning to his own commentary and “righteousness of God” (dikaiosyne (which Marshall acknowledges to have theou). As scholars have increasingly rec- been written “in collaboration with” Philip ognized, however, conclusions regarding Towner), perhaps several hundred years authorship based on stylistic differences from now some might claim that the are highly precarious, not the least because commentary was actually not written by the sample size of the writings in question Marshall himself but compiled subsequent is too small for definitive conclusions on to his death by Towner based on Mar- the basis of word statistics alone.15 More- shall’s notes and perhaps also on some of over, the difference between public letters his previous publications (not to mention sent to congregations (the ten letters com- oral interchanges and conversations or monly attributed to Paul by conservative informal notes, such as e-mail messages, evangelical scholars) and personal corre- etc., during Marshall’s lifetime). With the spondence such as the Pastoral Epistles passing of time, doubtless a plausible case must be taken into account.16 The fact that could be construed along those lines. Paul, in the case of the Pastorals, sensed While plausible, however, such a theory that he was nearing the end of his life and would obviously not square with the facts, that there was an urgent need to ensure since Howard Marshall is demonstrably the preservation of sound doctrine for the still alive and did publish his commentary post-apostolic period would appear to during his lifetime and as the person account adequately for the Pastorals’ responsible for his work (the degree of col- emphasis on qualifications for leadership, laboration by Towner is another issue). church organization, and the faithful pass- Marshall therefore rightfully would protest ing on of apostolic tradition. any such attribution of his own work to a But what about the claim that pseud- posthumous student collaborator. One onymous writing was a common and com- wonders whether Marshall’s crediting of monly accepted ancient literary device? A the authorship of the Pastorals to an careful screening of the relevant evidence “allonymous” writer similarly gives short yields the conclusion that while pseud- shrift to the apostle and his role in writing onymity was not uncommon for apocalyp- these epistles. tic writings, gospels, or even acts, pseud- What, then, is the evidence set forth for onymous letters were exceedingly rare:17 the pseudonymity of the Pastorals, and how are we to assess it?13 Attention has 1. Of the two extant Jewish sources, the “Epistle” of Jeremy and the “Let- frequently been drawn to the differences in ter” of Aristeas are really misnomers, style and vocabulary between the Pastorals for neither can properly be classified and the undisputed Pauline Epistles.14 The as epistle: the former is a homily, the latter an account of the circum- Pastorals feature words not used else- stances of the translation of the where in Paul, such as “godliness” Hebrew Scriptures into Greek;18 (eusebeia), “self-controlled” (sophron), and 2. In the apostolic era, far from an acceptance of pseudonymous epiphaneia rather than parousia to refer to epistles, there was actually consid- Christ’s return (but see 2 Thess 2:8). At the erable concern that letters be forged; thus Paul referred to the “distin- same time, characteristic Pauline terminol- guishing mark” in all his letters (Gal ogy is omitted: “freedom” (eleutheria), 6:11; 2 Thess 3:17; 1 Cor 16:21; Col 4:18; Phlm 19) and makes perturbed 5 reference to the circulation of “a let- seers and deacons” at Philippi (Phil 1:1), ter as if from us” (2 Thess 2:2); 3. In the second century, (a) which coheres with the two-tiered struc- Tertullian reports that an Asian pres- ture presupposed in the Pastorals (e.g., byter was removed from office for ). The emphasis on qualifica- forging a letter in Paul’s name (On Baptism 17); (b) both 3 Corinthians tions for overseers and deacons in the and the Epistle to the Laodiceans are Pastorals also supports a first-century date, transparent attempts, in customary because a second-century writer would apocryphal fashion, to fill in a per- ceived gap in canonical revelation have expected his readers already to know (cf. 1 Cor 5:9; 2 Cor 2:4; 7:8; Col this information.23 4:16);19 and (c) the end-of-second- An important issue that is often not century of Antioch, Serapion (d. AD 211), sharply distinguished given adequate weight in the discussion is between apostolic writings and the significant number of historical particu- those that “falsely bear their names” (; cited in Eusebius, larities featured in the Pastorals. While it is H. E. 6.12.3). just possible that a later imitator of Paul fabricated these pieces of information to On the basis of this evidence it seems lend greater verisimilitude to his epistle, doubtful that the early church would have it seems much more credible to see these been prepared to knowingly accept pseud- references as authentic instances in Paul’s onymous letters into the Christian canon.20 life and ministry.24 Why would a later Another common argument presented pseudonymous writer go through the in favor of the pseudonymity of the trouble of inventing numerous details such Pastorals is that the church structure found as the following for no other reason than in these letters reflects, not the first-, but to add verisimilitude to his writing? the second-century church. This pattern can most clearly be seen in Ignatius of Do your best to come to me quickly, for Demas, because he loved this Antioch (c. AD 35–107), who advocated a world, has deserted me and has monarchical episcopate and a three-tiered gone to Thessalonica. Crescens has ecclesiastical hierarchy (e.g., Eph. 2.2; gone to Galatia, and Titus to 21 Dalmatia. Only Luke is with me. Get Magn. 3.1; Trall. 2.2; 3.1). However, it can Mark and bring him with you, be shown that in the Pastorals the terms because he is helpful to me in my “overseer” (episkopos) and “” (presby- ministry. I sent Tychicus to Ephesus. When you come, bring the cloak that teros) refer to one and the same office (Titus I left with Carpus at Troas, and my 1:5, 7; cf. Acts 20:17, 28), so that they attest scrolls, especially the parchments. to a two- rather than three-tiered struc- the metalworker did me a great deal of harm. The Lord will ture.22 repay him for what he has done. You As far as an interest in proper congre- too should be on your guard against him, because he strongly opposed gational leadership is concerned, Paul and our message. At my first defense, no Barnabas appointed elders in the churches one came to my support, but every- they established already prior to AD 50 one deserted me. May it not be held against them. But the Lord stood at (Acts 14:23; cf. Acts 11:30; 15:2; 20:28–31; my side and gave me strength, so 21:18), so that there is nothing novel about that through me the message might Paul’s instruction to Titus to “appoint be fully proclaimed and all the Gentiles might hear it. And I was elders in every town” (Titus 1:5). Another delivered from the lion’s mouth. . . . of Paul’s letters is addressed to the “over- Greet Priscilla and Aquila and the 6 household of Onesiphorus. Erastus 2. There is no evidence for pseud- stayed in Corinth, and I left onymity as a convention among Trophimus sick in Miletus. Do your orthodox Christians; and best to get here before winter. 3. The early church did not regard Eubulus greets you, and so do with indifference the fictive use of Pudens, Linus, Claudia and all the an apostle’s name.26 brothers and sisters (2 Tim 4:9–21). As Wilder notes, both the external and Within the framework of a theory of the internal evidence clearly favor the pseudonymity, all of the above details Pauline authorship of the Pastorals. Many would of necessity need to be fictional. of the Fathers—Ignatius, Polycarp, Clem- I am not aware of any extant instance of ent of Alexandria, Tertullian, Irenaeus, this kind of “fictive epistolary” genre in the Eusebius, and the Muratorian Canon— first or second century A.D. Moreover, an accepted Pauline authorship, and argu- entirely different kind of hermeneutic ments against the Pauline authorship from would be required to decode this epistle. the internal evidence consistently fail to All incidental details would need to be dis- convince.27 We conclude, therefore, that all carded, and only the didactic portions, the above-mentioned factors from a con- once separated from the non-didactic ones, sideration of the internal evidence, would be exegetically significant. In light together with the problems created by of the virtual impossibility of separating postulating pseudonymity (such as the between the incidental and the didactic above-noted lack of relevant evidence and and of the negative ethical implications of the ethical difficulties involved in affirm- a procedure that involves the invention of ing pseudonymity for a New Testament large sections of an epistolary writing, one writing) continue to constitute a powerful may be forgiven for concluding that the firewall against any theories denying the theory of the Pauline authorship of the apostolic, Pauline authorship of the Pas- Pastorals is considerably more plausible toral epistles, including Marshall’s novel than pseudonymous (or allonymous) alter- view of “allonymity” or “allepigraphy.”28 natives. For this reason Carson, Moo, and Morris are surely right in their judgment Genre and the Role of Background that “[t]he Pastorals are much more akin If Paul wrote the Pastorals, what kinds to the accepted letters of Paul than they are of letters did he write, and what is their to the known pseudonymous documents relevance today? The Pastorals’ genre and 25 that circulated in the early church.” the role of background in interpreting spe- In fact, the above-mentioned factors cific passages are two other critical broader receive additional weight through the issues. At the outset it is worth noting that recent survey of the relevant ancient evi- while the common label for these letters dence conducted by Terry Wilder, who is “Pastoral Epistle,” the role of Timothy arrives at the following three conclusions: and Titus was not actually that of perma- nent, resident pastor of a church. Rather, 1. The early church used both the authorship and the content of a these two men served as Paul’s apostolic given writing as criteria for authen- delegates who were temporarily assigned ticity, hence it would not knowingly to their present location in order to deal have allowed pseudoapostolic works to be read publicly in the with particular problems. For this reason churches alongside apostolic ones; the Pastorals are not so much advice to 7 younger ministers or generic manuals of but stipulate “how people ought to con- church order as they are Paul’s instruction duct themselves in God’s household” in to his special delegates, set toward the general. closing of the apostolic era at a time when What is more, the solemn descriptive the aging apostle would have felt a keen terms for the church in 3:15, “the church responsibility to ensure the orderly transi- of the living God, the pillar and the foun- tion from the apostolic to the post-apostolic dation of the truth,” militate against the period. suggestion that these instructions are of To what extent, then, does the Pastorals’ value merely for first-century Ephesus. In occasionality require an ad hoc hermeneu- a fairly extensive interaction with a propo- tic that methodically limits their scope of nent of a culturally relative approach to the reference to the original situation at hand? interpretation of the Pastoral Epistles I The just-mentioned approach is that taken have dealt with several specific passages by Gordon Fee, who views all of 1 Timo- in Paul’s first letter to Timothy that are thy, for example, as narrowly constrained claimed to have been limited to their origi- by the injunction in 1:3, claiming that “[t]he nal context.31 This proponent had adduced whole of 1 Timothy . . . is dominated by several examples in order to show that this singular concern” and that “the whole 1 Timothy ought to be interpreted in cul- of chs. 2–3 is best understood as instruc- turally relative terms: tion vis-à-vis the behavior and attitudes of the FT [false teachers].”29 William Mounce, 1. Paul’s injunctions on the care of widows in :3–16: since too, consistently interprets virtually every in our culture widows are “not nec- detail in the Pastorals narrowly in light of essarily destitute, or in need of male Paul’s original context. Thus 1 Timothy 3 protection,” this passage does not apply today; is viewed in light of a “leadership crisis” 2. Men today do not pray “with in the Ephesian church, in the conviction lifted hands” (1 Tim 2:8), and that “[a]lmost every quality Paul specifies women do not “literally obey” Paul’s instructions in :9– here has its negative counterpart in the 10; hence 1 Timothy 2:12 should like- Ephesian opponents.”30 wise not be considered normative; 3. In 1 Timothy 3 Paul “insists” that However, Fee’s contention that the overseers and deacons be married, entire epistle constitutes an ad hoc argu- while today unmarried men are ment narrowly constrained by the situa- ordained; hence, again, 1 Timothy 3 does not apply; tion at Ephesus arguably represents an 4. While Paul in 1 Timothy 5:17 urges unduly sharp reaction against the tradi- that church leaders be treated with tional “church manual” approach that “double honor,” “church teachers are not necessarily paid double to views the letter as containing timeless other ministers” today; this passage, instructions for church leadership. Two too, no longer applies; main lines of critique may be raised. First, 5. Slavery, “endorsed” in :1–2, has clearly been found unac- Fee unduly diminishes the structural ceptable by subsequent history; markers in 1 Timothy 2:1 and 3:15–16 that hence this passage is outdated as well. set off chapters 2–3 from chapters 4ff. respectively. As especially 3:15 makes clear As I have sought to demonstrate, how- (cf. 2:8), Paul’s injunctions in chapters 2–3 ever, apart from faulty or doubtful exege- are not confined to the Ephesian situation sis, the difficulty with such proposals is 8 their failure to distinguish between general but all of the above? Were the false teach- norms and specific applications. In the case ers really not able to teach but overseers of widows, for example, the general norm in Paul’s churches should be so able? Is is that the church care for widows who Paul’s point really the false teachers’ lack have no other means of support. This of hospitality, which he seeks to offset with applies in Paul’s day as well as in ours. In his injunction that overseers in his Paul’s day, the specific application was for churches must open their homes to others? widows over sixty years of age to be Hermeneutical consistency on the part of put on a list. While the church’s outwork- those advocating an ad hoc hermeneutic ing of the general scriptural norm may would seem to require this (or else require be different today, the norm still applies. an inevitably arbitrary adjudication of The other points listed above likewise which of Paul’s statements are or are not can be answered by a consistent applica- constrained by the false teachers), but, as tion of this general norm/specific applica- shown, this approach leads to rather tion distinction.32 extreme results. In the end, it seems, this A second problem with an ad hoc kind of hermeneutic denies Paul, the approach to the interpretation of the author, his right (or claims the apostle is Pastoral Epistles is the manifest implausi- unable) to make any pronouncements in a bility of an extreme application of this Pastoral or any other epistle that transcend mirror-reading hermeneutic to every his own immediate circumstances. Clearly, single injunction contained in the however, this approach is not logically Pastorals. To be consistent, the proponents compelling. The presence of an injunction of such an approach would seem to have to hospitality does not require the absence to argue that the false teachers taught all of this trait in the current leadership or of the following (and were in every false teaching regarding the need for hos- instance corrected by Paul): pitality on the part of church leaders. Hence a warrant for this type of an ad hoc, 1. The church ought not to pray for mirror-reading hermeneutic is ultimately those in authority; 2. God wants only some people to lacking. At the very least, one ought not to be saved; make one’s conjectured reconstruction of 3. Church leaders ought not to be the Ephesian context the paradigm or above reproach, or at least the false teachers were not; absolute premise on the basis of which 4. They ought not to be faithful to abiding implications for the church today their wives, or at least the false teach- are precluded (or rendered presumptively ers were not; 5. They ought not to be hospitable unlikely from the very outset). or be able to teach, or at least the Especially in conjunction with the false teachers were not; above-mentioned structural markers of 6. They ought to be given to drunk- enness, or at least the false teachers 1 Timothy 2:1 and 3:15–16, it seems to be were; at least equally plausible that the reference 7. They ought to be violent and quar- relsome, or at least the false teach- to the false teachers in 1:3 informs Paul’s ers were; comments in the remainder of chapter 1 8. They ought to be lovers of money, and then again in chapters 4-6 but that or at least the false teachers were; etc. 2:1–3:16 are more positive in orientation. Perhaps Johnson’s recent proposal of a set- Perhaps some of the above may be true, 9 ting is helpful here where Timothy, at that display a synonymous usage of the terms time stationed in Ephesus, needed support “overseer” (episkopos) and “elder” (pres- and counsel on how to deal with the false byteros) as referring to one and the same teachers in the Ephesian church, which led office (Titus 1:5, 7; cf. Acts 20:17, 28; 1 Clem. Paul to interweave personal instructions 44:1, 5; cf. Jerome, Letter 59).34 with those on community life. Johnson With regard to specific terminology, calls this the mandata principis (“command- 1 Timothy 3:1 uses the word episkope (cf. ments of the ruler”) letter and cites several Acts 1:20), denoting the “office of overseer” possible ancient parallels.33 (cf. Luke 19:44; Acts 1:20; 1 Pet 2:12), while in 3:2 episkopos is found, referring to the Exegetical Challenges person holding such an office.35 In the If Paul is the author of the Pastoral LXX the term designates one in charge of Epistles, and if his letters transcend mere an operation (Num 4:16); in Josephus it ad hoc argumentation and deal with impor- denotes an “overseer” (Antiq. 10.53; tant issues of perennial importance for the 12.254). The Qumran equivalent was the church in a way that has continuing rel- mebaqqer (1QS 6:12, 20; CD 9:18–19, 22; evance and authority, what are some of the 13:6–7). Generally, presbyteros is Jewish in major apostolic teachings pertaining to the origin, signifying seniority, while episkopos church in this corpus of the New Testa- is Greek, indicating a person’s superin- ment? Quite clearly, Paul’s pronounce- tending role. Presumably overseers consti- ments regarding church government and tuted the “board of elders” (presbyterion) qualifications for church leaders must be mentioned in :14.36 at the top of the list. An adjudication of The overseer (equivalent to pastor/ Paul’s teaching on these issues in the elder) bears ultimate responsibility for the Pastorals is needed all the more as the church before God (see 1 Tim 3:15; 5:17). relevant passages present several major According to the instructions on the role exegetical challenges, which is part of the of women in the previous chapter (esp. reason why issues related to church gov- 2:12), only men are eligible for this office. ernment continue to be hotly debated and This is confirmed by the qualification mias disputed today. gynaikos andra in 1 Timothy 3:2. The requirement of being, literally, an “of-one- Elders/Overseers wife-husband” may be patterned after the The area of church leadership is one Roman concept of a univira (i.e., a “one area where the Pastorals quite clearly set husband”-type of wife).37 This term denot- forth paradigms for the church that reach ing marital fidelity was initially applied to beyond their original Ephesian or Cretan living women in relation to their husbands context. As mentioned, it has been claimed and later became an epithet given by by some that the church structure found husbands to their deceased wives (as is in the Pastorals reflects the second-century attested by numerous extant tombstone pattern of a three-tiered ecclesiastical inscriptions).38 hierarchy involving a monarchical episco- The NIV rendering “husband of but one pate (e.g., Ignatius of Antioch). Yet closer wife” (but note the commendable change scrutiny reveals that the Pastorals do not in the TNIV to “faithful to his wife”) sug- in fact conform to this model but rather gests that this requirement is aimed at 10 excluding polygamists.39 However, less, when coupled with the requirement polygamy was not widely practiced in the that an overseer be “above reproach” Graeco-Roman world of the time.40 S. M. (which includes community reputation), it Baugh has recently made a convincing case may be best not to appoint divorcees to for interpreting the phrase as barring men the role of overseer, especially when quali- who have one or several concubines.41 This fied candidates are available that did not widespread practice conflicted with bibli- undergo a divorce. cal morals, since sexual union with a Likewise, the injunction does not concubine constituted adultery and directly apply to unmarried aspirants (of amounted to polygamy. Moreover, the whom a celibate life-style is required). In word “but” is not in the original, and “hus- light of Paul’s positive treatment of celi- band of one wife” most likely represents bacy elsewhere it may be surmised that a an idiom that is best rendered “faithful man’s unmarried state did not disqualify husband.”42 him from serving as overseer.47 The This is further suggested by the paral- assumption underlying the present verse lel in 1 Timothy 5:9, where a widow eli- that an overseer will in the norm be mar- gible for church support is required to have ried flies in the face of the teaching propa- been “faithful to her husband” (so even the gated by the heretics who “forbid people NIV = TNIV) and where the equivalent to marry” (1 Tim 4:3). The present state- phrase “wife of one husband” is used (cf. ment “does not mean that had to 1 Cor 7:2–5). In the latter instance, the be married; it just commends marriage as phrase cannot indicate a prohibition of something that is not at all inconsistent polyandry (being married to more than with the episcopal office.”48 one husband at a time) since it is made of a woman bereft of her husband. Moreover, Deacons it is excluded that Paul first encourages The second church office addressed in younger widows to get remarried and then 1 Timothy 3 besides that of overseer/elder disqualifies them later on the grounds that is that of deacon. Structurally, the presence they have (literally) been wives of more of hosautos in 1 Timothy 3:8 and 11 (“like- than one husband.43 The requirement of wise”/“in the same way”) suggests that marital faithfulness for church leaders qualifications are given for two other types (including deacons, 1 Tim 3:12) is consis- of officeholders besides that of overseer tent with the prohibition of adultery in the (3:1–7). To put it differently, the framing Decalogue (Exod 20:14 = Deut 5:18).44 device by which 3:11 is sandwiched If this interpretation is correct, divorced between 3:8–10 and 3:12–13 indicates that (and remarried) men would not necessar- one large category is in mind, that of ily be excluded from serving as overseers deacon, with Paul first addressing qualifi- or deacons, especially if the divorce was cations for male and then female office- biblically legitimate.45 This would be true holders, after which he briefly returns to also if the divorce has taken place in the male deacons and closes with a general distant past (especially if the person was statement pertaining to both. As men- not a believer at the time) and if the man’s tioned, the two-tiered structure (elder/ present pattern (and proven track record) deacon) characteristic of 1 Timothy 3 is also is that of marital faithfulness.46 Neverthe- evident from Philippians 1:1. 11 When comparing the qualifications for 2. The phrase “in the same way” in 1 Timothy 3:11 indicating an office deacons with those for overseers, one notes similar to the one previously men- the absence of terms related to teaching or tioned (cf. 1 Tim 3:8); ruling (most notably–“able to teach,” 3:2; 3. The parallel sentence structure and similar characteristics in 3:8 and see also 3:5b). This suggests that, in keep- 11 (including the lack of an article ing with the designation “deacon” (from before “women”); the Greek diakonos, “servant”) as over 4. The absence of qualifiers such as the possessive pronoun “their” in against “overseer,” deacons are not part of relation to gynaikas in the Greek. that group that bears ultimate responsibil- ity for the church.49 At the same time, they, The reason that Paul did not call these too, occupy a formal church office, for women “deaconesses” is that in his day the which they must meet certain require- word diakonos was still used for males and ments. While not part of the teaching/ females alike (plus the respective article to ruling body of the church, deacons none- indicate gender); only later the term theless hold important leadership roles. diakonissa was coined (Apost. Const. 8.19, 20, This is most notably indicated by the 28).54 Phoebe is identified as a diakonos of similarity between the qualifications for the church at Cenchrea in Romans 16:1. overseers and deacons.50 Although Paul Paul’s mention of deaconesses coheres does not spell out the precise realm of well with his earlier prohibition of women service for the office of deacon, one may serving in teaching or ruling functions over surmise that this includes various kinds men (2:12) and his lack of mention of of practical help and administration, such women elders in 3:1–7. Since being a as benevolence, finances, and physical deacon does not involve teaching or rul- maintenance.51 ing, women as well as men are eligible to According to 1 Timothy 3:8, deacons (cf. serve in this capacity. The requirements for Phil 1:1; not mentioned in Titus), “like- deaconesses are thus similar to those for wise” (cf. 2:9; 3:11; Titus 2:3, 6), are to meet male deacons. certain qualifications, whereby 3:8–10 and It should be noted that in recent years 12 relate to male and 3:11 to female dea- the tide of opinion has significantly shifted cons. “Their wives” (NIV) translates the toward the presence of women deacons in Greek gynaikas (note that “their” is not in the early church. Until recently, most major the original; but see the change in the NIVI translations took the reference in 1 Timo- to “wives” and in the TNIV to “women thy 3:11 to be to the wives of deacons, as who are deacons ”), which can also mean the following list illustrates: “women deacons” or “deaconesses” (NIV footnote; NASB and HCSB: “women”). KJV = NKJV: “their wives” NASB: “women” Both meanings, “woman” (2:9, 10, 11, 12, NIV: “their wives” (footnote: or 14) and “wife” (3:2, 12; 5:9; cf. Titus 1:6), “deaconesses”) are found in the present epistle; context NRSV: “women” (footnote: or “their 52 wives” or “women deacons”) must decide. On the whole, “women dea- NLT: “their wives” (footnote: or “the cons” is to be preferred, for the following women deacons”) reasons:53 Thus until recently no major translation 1. The absence of qualifications for unequivocally affirmed in the main text overseers’ wives in 1 Timothy 3:1–7; 12 that 1 Timothy 3:11 may refer to women disqualify those candidates for pastor or deacons. With the recent release of the elder who are divorced but whose divorce TNIV this has now changed: as mentioned, is biblically legitimate and covered by one its text says “women who are deacons .” of the exceptions stipulated in New Testa- Notably, too, the HCSB, by opting for the ment teaching. wording “women,” marks a cautious I do not claim that these conclusions are departure from the KJV traditional render- the only ones possible from the New Tes- ing of “their wives.” tament data. Nor do I claim that I am nec- To this turning of the tide with regard essarily right in all of my hermeneutical to women deacons should be added the and exegetical judgments. There can be fact that several major recent commentar- little disagreement, however, that the ies—written by complementarian scholars, Pastorals are one of the most important no less—unanimously affirm that the ref- New Testament writings for the practice of erence to Phoebe as a diakonos in Romans the contemporary church. The church 16:1 should probably be interpreted as her must continue to wrestle with what Scrip- serving as a deaconess.55 The implication ture teaches regarding church government, for the church’s contemporary practice church leadership, and qualifications for seems to be that it may be only a matter of leadership and commit itself to abide by time until more churches will allow what it understands the Scriptures to teach women to serve in the role of deaconess rather than personal preference or church (assuming a biblical definition of “deacon” tradition.56 I would also urge an awareness as a non-teaching, non-ruling office). of one’s own presuppositions and a will- ingness to revisit (or visit for the first time) Conclusion the biblical data rather than following in It remains to summarize briefly our con- the paths of one’s denominational fore- clusions. With regard to authorship, we bears. It is with the commitment to sola have concluded that Pauline authorship Scriptura, with the scholarly spirit of ad continues to be preferred over pseud- fontes, and with the dictum, “In essentials, onymity or allonymity. With regard to unity, in non-essentials liberty, and in all genre and the role of background, it has things, charity” that I offer this modest con- been argued that an ad hoc hermeneutic is tribution to our study and practice of the too constraining and that an approach con- Pastoral Epistles. sistently distinguishing between general principle and specific application is to be ENDNOTES favored. Exegetically, the Pastorals were 1See esp. the commentaries by I. Howard shown to reflect a two-tiered structure of Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles (Interna- church government, with a plurality of tional Critical Commentary; Edinburgh: pastors/elders/overseers in charge and T. & T. Clark, 1999); William D. Mounce, with deacons (both male and female) ful- The Pastoral Epistles (Word Biblical Com- filling serving roles in the church. The mentary; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, “husband of one wife” requirement was 2000); and Jerome D. Quinn and William shown to refer most likely to the stipula- C. Wacker (Eerdmans Critical Commen- tion that church leaders be faithful to their tary; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000). I wives; if so, there would be no reason to have reviewed these three commen- 13 taries in Journal of the Evangelical 6For a thorough discussion of these Certain Arguments against the Theological Society 44 no. 3 (2001) issues, see esp. Donald Guthrie, New Pauline Authorship of the Pastoral 550–553; 45 no. 2 (2002) 365–366; Testament Introduction, 4th ed. Epistles,”Expository Times 70 (1958– and 44 no. 3 (2001) 549–550, which (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 59) 91–94 (see esp. the four ques- are now posted on my website, 1990) 607–649, 1011–1028. tions listed on p. 93). www.ajkostenberger.com. 7Marshall, 79. See Marshall’s entire 16See esp. Michael P. Prior, Paul the 2For a more detailed exegetical treat- discussion on pp. 57–92. Letter-Writer and the Second Letter to ment see my forthcoming commen- 8Ibid., 80–83. Timothy (Journal for the Study of the tary on the Pastoral epistles in the 9Ibid., 84. New Testament: Supplement Series New Expositor’s Bible Commen- 10Ibid., 85. 23; Sheffield: JSOT, 1989), and Philip tary (ed. David Garland; Grand 11Ibid., 86. H. Towner, 1–2 Timothy & Titus (IVP Rapids: Zondervan). 12As I note in my review (p. 551), this New Testament Commentary; 3For brief surveys, see Raymond F. involves an internal contradiction in Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, Collins, Letters That Paul Did Not Marshall’s argument, since he else- 1994) 34–35. Write (Wilmington, DE: Michael where seems to contend that Titus 17Richard Bauckham, “Pseudo-Apos- Glazier, 1988) 89–90, who names as was written prior to the epistles to tolic Letters,” Journal of Biblical Lit- the earliest challengers of the Timothy owing to the less-devel- erature 107 (1988) 487, observes the Pastorals’ authenticity Schmidt oped and complex ecclesiastical rarity of apocryphal or pseudepi- (1804), Schleiermacher (1807), situation reflected in Titus. In keep- graphal apostolic letters in relation Eichhorn (1812), Baur (1835), and ing with this view, Marshall treats to other genres and conjectures that later Holtzmann (1885); and E. Earle the Pastorals in the order Titus— the reason for this “may well have Ellis, “Pastoral Letters,” in Diction- 1 Timothy—2 Timothy (not 2 Timo- been the sheer difficulty of using a ary of Paul and His Letters, ed. Gerald thy—1 Timothy, another apparent pseudepigraphal letter to perform F. Hawthorne and Ralph P. Martin self-contradiction). The following the same functions as an authentic (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, scenario and critique are likewise letter.” He concludes that “among 1993) 659. taken from my review. the letters surveyed there is no 4See the thorough survey and adju- 13The discussion below anticipates really good example of a pseudepi- dication in Terry L. Wilder, “Pseud- the treatment of this issue in my graphal letter that achieves didac- onymity and the New Testament,” forthcoming New Expositor’s Bible tic relevance by the generality of its in Interpreting the New Testament: Commentary contribution. contents.” Essays on Methods and Issues, ed. 14See Mounce, xcix–cxviii. Other 18Bauckham considers it “misclassi- David Alan Black and D. S. Dockery common objections to the Pauline fied” and a “dedicated treatise” (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, authorship of the Pastorals are the (478). Bauckham also discusses sev- 2001). difficulty to harmonize Paul’s eral didactic letters (1 Enoch 92–105; 5For a forceful argument against movements mentioned in the Epistle of Jeremiah; 1 Baruch; 2 Bar. this contention, see E. Earle Ellis, Pastorals with those recorded in 78–87). “Pseudonymity and Canonicity of Acts and the alleged late church 19Bauckham calls Laodiceans “a New Testament Documents,” in structures reflected in the Pastorals remarkably incompetent attempt to Worship, Theology and Ministry in the (see discussion below). The follow- fill the gap . . . nothing but a patch- Early Church, ed. Michael J. Wilkins ing material anticipates the discus- work of Pauline sentences and and Terence Page (Journal for the sion in my forthcoming NEBC con- phrases from other letters, mainly Study of the New Testament: Sup- tribution. Philippians” (485). 3 Corinthians is plement Series 87; Sheffield: JSOT, 15For an incisive treatment, see Bruce part of the late second-century Acts 1992) 212–224. M. Metzger, “A Reconsideration of of Paul. 14 20This is true despite Bruce Metzger’s the author of the Pastorals “has ment 2/42; Tübingen: Mohr- conclusion that “since the use of the thought himself into situations in Siebeck, 1991); and Ellis, “Pastoral literary form of pseudepigraphy Paul’s ministry and . . . has filled out Letters,” 663–664. need not be regarded as necessarily whatever historical information 26Wilder, 307. Wilder provides a very involving fraudulent intent, it can- was available to him with histori- thorough review of biblical scholar- not be argued that the character of cal fiction” (492; echoing Holtz- ship on the issue of pseudonymity, inspiration excludes the possibility mann). Bauckham even ventures including the above-mentioned of pseudepigraphy among the the conjecture that Timothy might contribution of Marshall. Wilder’s canonical writings” (“Literary Forg- have written the Pastorals himself primary problem with Marshall’s eries and Canonical Pseudepi- (494)! Also contra the “mediating theory is the difficulty of determin- grapha,” Journal of Biblical Literature position” of James D. G. Dunn, The ing which parts of the Pastorals rely 91 [1972] 22). See now esp. Jeremy Living Word (London: SCM, 1987) on authentic Pauline material and Duff, “A Reconsideration of Pseude- 82, who believes that Paul is “the which ones do not on the basis of pigraphy in Early ” fountainhead of the Pastorals tradi- the existing form of these epistles (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Oxford tion” and that the Pastorals re- (319). University, 1998), who concludes express for a later situation “the 27See ibid., 324–327. that the value of a text was closely voice of the Pauline tradition for a 28The viability of the apostolic author- linked to its true authorship; that new day”; and Norbert Brox, “Zu ship of the Pastorals is underscored pseudonymity was generally den persönlichen Notizen der by William Mounce’s advocacy of viewed as a deceitful practice; and Pastoralbriefe,” Biblische Zeitschrift this view in his Word Biblical Com- that texts thought to be pseudony- 13 (1969) 76–94, who considers the mentary contribution. But see mous were marginalized. personal references to represent Quinn and Wacker, who contend in 21See Mounce, lxxxvi–lxxxviii, 186– “typical situations in the ecclesias- the introduction to their work that 192, who cites Polycarp, Clement, tical office, which are historicized the Pastorals were written, not by Clement of Alexandria, and Irena- and attributed to Paul.” Paul, but in the post-Pauline period eus as referring to a two-tiered 25Carson, Moo, and Morris, 363. (AD 70–100) in order to counter the structure, using episkopos and Similarly, Donald Guthrie, “The tendency of disparaging the apostle presbyteros interchangeably. Development of the Idea of Canoni- owing to his shameful end as a pur- 22Frances M. Young, “On Episkopos cal Pseudepigrapha in New Testa- ported criminal (p. 20). Regarding and Presbyteros,” Journal of Theologi- ment Criticism,” Vox Evangelica 1 the recipients of the Pastorals, cal Studies 45 (1994) 142–148 ven- (1962) 43–59. This, of course, in Quinn and Wacker conjecture that tures the “admittedly tentative” no way precludes the possibility “not only Titus and Timothy but hypothesis that the origins of the that Paul may have employed an also the places to which the letters episkopos and the presbyteroi are amanuensis, as he frequently did in are addressed may have a typical distinct. However, Young’s interpre- other instances. See Richard N. or representative function” (22). tation of the Pastorals in light of Longenecker, “Ancient Amanuen- Like Marshall, Quinn and Wacker Ignatius (rather than vice versa) ses and the Pauline Epistles,” in New believe that Titus was the first of the seems precarious (if not method- Dimensions in New Testament Study, Pastorals to be written. ologically fallacious). ed. Richard N. Longenecker and 29Gordon Fee, “Reflections on Church 23D. A. Carson, Douglas J. Moo, and Merrill C. Tenney (Grand Rapids: Order in the Pastoral Epistles, with Leon Morris, An Introduction to the Zondervan, 1974) 281–297; E. Further Reflection on the Herme- New Testament (Grand Rapids: Randolph Richards, The Secretary in neutics of Ad Hoc Documents,” Jour- Zondervan, 1992) 364. the Letters of Paul (Wissenschaftliche nal of the Evangelical Theological 24Contra Bauckham who believes that Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testa- Society 28 (1985) 142–143. 15 30Mounce, 153. wife, “Rare are marriages, so long InterVarsity Press, forthcoming). 31See my response to Kevin Giles, “A lasting, and ended by death, not 46Cf. Page, 109–113. Critique of the ‘Novel’ Contempo- interrupted by divorce . . .” 47So Chrysostom, Homilies on 1 Timo- rary Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:9– 39Cf. John Calvin, 1 & 2 Timothy & thy 10. 15 Given in the Book, Women in the Titus ([1556, 1549]; repr., Wheaton, 48Calvin, 54. Church. Parts I and II,” Evangelical IL/Nottingham: Crossway, 1998) 49Cf. George W. Knight, The Pastoral Quarterly 72 (2000) 151–167, 195– 54. Epistles (New International Greek 215, in Evangelical Quarterly 73 40See Mounce, 171. Testament Commentary; Grand (2001) 205–224, esp. 207–212. 41S. M. Baugh, “Titus,” in Zondervan Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 167; con- 32See also T. David Gordon, “A Cer- Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Com- tra Marshall, 485. tain Kind of Letter: The Genre of 1 mentary, vol. 3, ed. Clinton E. Arnold 50Towner, 90–91. Timothy,” in Women in the Church: (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002) 51Mounce contends that “Paul does A Fresh Analysis of 1 Timothy 2:9–15, 501–502. not teach that the deacon is under ed. Andreas J. Köstenberger, Tho- 42See esp. Sidney Page, “Marital the overseer . . . both overseer and mas R. Schreiner, and H. Scott Expectations of Church Leaders in deacon serve the church in differ- Baldwin (Grand Rapids: Baker, the Pastoral Epistles,” Journal for the ent capacities” (207). Yet overseers 1995) 53–63. Study of the New Testament 50 (1993) are in charge of the entire congre- 33See Luke Timothy Johnson, Letters 105–120, esp. 108–109 and 114, n. 27. gation (e.g. 5:17), which would seem to Paul’s Delegates: 1 Timothy, 2 Timo- 43Cf. P. Trummer, “Einehe nach den to include deacons. thy, Titus (The New Testament in Pastoralbriefen,” Biblica 51 (1970): 52A third possibility is favored by Context; Valley Forge: PA: Trinity 480; apparently independently, Robert M. Lewis, “The ‘Women’ of Press International, 1996) 106–107, Page, 112; contra Fee, “Reflections 1 Timothy 3:11,” Bibliotheca sacra 136 168. on Church Order,” 150, who con- (1979): 167–175, that of unmarried 34See the discussion under Author- tends that the present passage [single or widowed] female dea- ship above. “probably prohibits remarriage of cons’ assistants. Walter L. Liefeld, 35See Acts 20:28; Phil 1:1; Titus 1:7; 1 widows/widowers.” 1 & 2 Timothy/Titus (NIV Applica- Pet 2:25. For presbyteros, see esp. 1 44The present requirement contrasts tion Commentary; Grand Rapids: Tim 5:1, 17, 19; Titus 1:5; 1 Pet 5:1, 5; with the gnostic extremes of asceti- Zondervan, 1999) 134 conjectures James 5:14; and the book of Acts. cism and sexual licentiousness. that “at first the women who served 36Johnson, 145. Marital fidelity was also held in as deacons were the wives of dea- 37Cf. Marjorie Lightman and William high regard in the Graeco-Roman cons.” Zeisel, “Univira: An Example of world, so that this quality would 53Cf. Jennifer H. Stiefel, “Women Dea- Continuity and Change in Roman commend a Christian office-holder cons in 1 Timothy: A Linguistic and Society,” Church History 46 (1977) to his pagan surroundings (cf. Page, Literary Look at ‘Women Likewise 19–32. 117–118). . . .’ [1 Tim 3.11],” New Testament 38As the poet Catullus (1st cent. BC) 45Wife’s marital unfaithfulness: Matt Studies 41 (1995) 442–457. wrote, “[T]o live content with one 19:9; desertion by an unbelieving 54See also the reference in Pliny the man is for wives an honor of hon- wife: 1 Cor 7:15–16; remarriage younger, who refers to two women ors” (111). A Roman imperial in- owing to death of a spouse: Rom “called deaconesses” (ministrae) scription reads, “She lived fifty 7:2–3. See Andreas J. Köstenber- in Bithynia under Trajan (Epist. years and was satisfied with one ger, “Marriage and Family in the 10.96.8; c. AD 115). husband” (CIL 6.5162). The late- New Testament,” in Marriage and 55See esp. Thomas R. Schreiner, first-century BC Laudatio Turiae Family in the Biblical World, ed. Romans (Baker Exegetical Commen- records a husband saying about his Ken M. Campbell (Downers Grove: tary on the New Testament; Grand 16 Rapids: Baker, 1998) 786–787 and Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (New International Com- mentary on the New Testament; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996) 913–914. 56See the unpublished paper by Randall L. Adkisson, “Women Serv- ing in the Church? A biblical and historical look at women serving in the church with particular attention given to the history and interpreta- tion of Southern Baptists.”

17