Within these three NT letters the OT text is not explicitly cited in the degree that we find in Paul’s letters to churches. According to the techniques of NA27, in which OT quotations are set out in italics along with their corresponding marginal references, there are just two such explicit engagements with the OT text: 1 Tim. 5:18–19; 2 Tim. 2:19. The first of these is accompanied by an introductory formula, while the second is preceded by a signal word that serves the same purpose. Just outside of the category of the quotation, no one doubts that Titus 2:14, with its more integrated use of the OT, represents “explicit” use of the OT. And 1 Tim. 2:13–14 is also a rather clear intensive adaptation of OT material, though its function remains problematic. But OT usage in the letters extends beyond this handful of texts.
At least in theory no part of a NT text is off limits for an OT allusion, echo, or resonance to occur. Within these letters to Timothy and Titus one repository of OT and other traditional language and formulations is the theological or liturgical constructions that occur at various points in each letter. On the one hand, these syntactically and lexically marked pieces are designed to attract attention. They culminate theological, didactic, and paraenetic discussions (e.g., 1 Tim. 1:15–16; 2:5–6; 3:16; 2 Tim. 1:9–10; 2:8, 11–13; Titus 2:11–14; 3:4–7), or they invite and lead the way in a liturgical response (e.g., 1 Tim. 1:17; 6:15–16), and they do so by compacting theological and liturgical elements into tradition-like statements that evoke ready affirmation. But the very familiarity of these pieces, which makes them effective repositories of traditional freight, may make them ineffective devices for drawing the audience’s attention beyond their function as slogans to a more significant engagement with the OT (or other texts). On the other hand, there is good reason to think that Paul fashioned these set pieces himself—that is, they are more than oft-recited hymns or confessions—and that they serve significant purposes within the arguments of their respective contexts. If so, then the OT materials may have been set into them in anticipation that readers/hearers would explore connections with OT discourses.
The role of the OT in its Greek translation (LXX) within these letters is greater than often is perceived. Setting aside explicit quotations and citations for the moment (often set off by introductory formula), we note that intertextual echoes of OT texts were accomplished by means of lexical choice and the repetition of thematic patterns in a degree sufficient to catch the hearers’ attention. But there is no reason to think that NT authors always succeeded at this, however saturated in the OT their audiences may have been. It is therefore possible that in nineteen or so centuries of reflection the modern church has succeeded in hearing intentional OT echoes that the first churches missed. Perhaps, too, some of an author’s intertextual play was aimed simply at “amusing” himself—more of a way or habit of expressing his theological/eschatological outlook than an item in the discourse that he urgently wanted his audience to apprehend. The task of detecting intentional echoes (as opposed to either simply subliminal employment of OT diction or mere coincidence) is a cumulative one that includes setting out, assessing, and weighing the degree of contact with the OT and exploring the immediate (and more remote) NT context for clues that intentional engagement with the OT has indeed occurred. Engagement, in this sense, whether initiated overtly by quotation or more subtly by echo, will have as its general purpose the framing of a discourse within another literary setting and inviting readers/hearers to locate a particular discourse and perhaps themselves within that other setting. What the author hoped to achieve by this particular engagement with the OT is the specific purpose. The scope of this study is thus determined by two interrelated questions: Where has the author intentionally engaged the OT, and why?
2:5
The first potentially significant use of the OT in 1 Timothy comes in the christological statement offered in 2:5–6a. (We should note that 1:1 employs “savior” language with an OT precedent [Ps. 25:5]; 1:17, with “king of the ages,” likewise employs a Jewish epithet for God [Tob. 13:7, 11]; and the practice of offering prayers for rulers, as in 2:1–2, has roots in the Jewish Diaspora [Ezra 6:10; Bar. 1:11–12; Jer. 29:7; 2 Macc. 3:11].) In this piece, designed to back the preceding statement about the universal salvific will of God (2:4), which is the unifying theme of 2:1–7, the opening affirmation of God’s singularity (= universal access to salvation [cf. Rom. 3:29–30]) opens out into a parallel affirmation of the “mediator’s” corresponding singularity. This mediator is then identified with the unusual phrase “[the] man Christ Jesus” (anthrōpos Christos Iēsous). This phrase establishes the central thrust of the christological formulation: the association of salvation with the humanity of Christ, which the subsequent appeal to the Jesus tradition (2:6a) complements by stressing the substitutionary and representative nature of Jesus’ human death and the universal extent of the results (“for all”). But in describing the mediator with this phrase, Paul also accesses the theme within developing messianism of “a man to rule the nations” (Num. 24:7, 17 LXX) and “a man who will save” (Isa. 19:20) (see Horbury 1998: 44–45).
Several themes and ideas link the two OT discourses together and make the combination an attractive and clever interpretive framework for reflecting on the extent of Christ’s work. First, each text reports the contents of a “vision” (horasis [Num. 24:4; Isa. 19:1]). Second, whether incidental or not, Egypt and Exodus imagery figure in each discourse (Num. 24:8; Isa. 19 throughout), and so do the Assyrians (Num. 24:22; Isa. 19:23–25), though of course the reflections on events, people, and places are from different historical and theological vantage points. Third, and of obvious interest to Paul, each OT vision explores Israel’s role in relation to “the nations.” In Numbers, Balaam’s third oracle casts Israel in the role, under the leadership of “the man,” of subjugator or conqueror of the nations. Isaiah’s oracle concerning Egypt resumes this theme but adds the dimension of Egyptian worship of God: God’s smiting of Egypt is followed by its healing and coming to know God (Isa. 19:19–22). Finally, the central actor in each drama is “the man” (anthrōpos). In Num. 24:7 the man will come out of the seed of Israel to rule the nations; 24:17 employs the apocalyptic-like image of a “star rising out of Jacob” and then returns to the more mundane description of “a man” to describe the ascent of this figure to power and victory over the nations. Isaiah 19:20 records God’s promise to the Jews in Egypt: “He will send them a man who will save them; he will judge and save them.” The MT at Num. 24:7 lacks completely the first reference to “a man”; at 24:17, where the prophecy of “the star rising out of Jacob” does appear, it is subsequently described with the imagery of a “rod” or “scepter,” likewise omitting any reference to “a man.” There is closer agreement between the Greek and the Hebrew of Isa. 19. However, where the LXX has “a man who will save,” the Hebrew has “a savior” (môšîaʿ). If the OT background suggested here does lie behind Paul’s reference to anthrōpos, most likely it is the LXX that he accesses.
But what is gained by describing the mediator in a way that recalls this background? First, Paul strengthens the argument for the universal gospel, based on the statement of God’s will (2:4) and the heis theos (“God is one”) formula (2:5), by depicting Christ, the mediator, as fulfiller of this OT promise of “a man.” Second, Paul in effect completes the development of the messianic “man” theme by depicting the death of Christ as the means by which “the man” takes up his rule and by transforming early OT images of subjugation and judgment into the picture of salvation for the nations, via the gospel, in terms already emerging in Isaiah. As we will see shortly, in 2:8, it is precisely this sense of the church standing in the midst of salvation’s spread to the world that defines not only Paul’s mission, but also that of the church. “The man Christ Jesus” resumes and completes the messianic theme initiated in the Greek translation of Numbers and Isaiah. Paul invites the church of Ephesus to view its own location within God’s redemptive story and its responsibilities in relation to the appearance of this “man.”
2:8
At this point Paul enlarges on the instruction about community prayer in 2:1. First, he addresses men, instructing them to pray and to pay attention to the manner in which they do it (2:8). Second, he addresses women, with the same concerns in mind (2:9–10). It is in the instructions to men that the phrase “in every place” (en panti topō), which indicates something about the scope of prayer, occurs. Although this phrase is often understood as a local reference (= “in all the house churches [in Ephesus]”), this fails to notice its role in continuing the theme of the universal gospel initiated in 2:1 and carefully developed with various forms of the term “all” (2:1, 2, 4, 6) and other devices to this point (Brox 1969: 131; Bartsch 1966: 48; Roloff 1988: 130–31; Towner 1989: 205–7; Marshall 1999: 444–45). Paul’s hearers would not have failed to note the choice of the thematic term.
In the NT the phrase is Pauline, restricted elsewhere to three occurrences (1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 2:14; 1 Thess. 1:8). Notably, in each of these instances either Paul’s prayer (1 Cor. 1:2) or preaching mission (2 Cor. 2:14; 1 Thess. 1:8) is in view. Both of these features and the sense of universality suggest that the phrase originated in and consciously echoes Mal. 1:11: “For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is great among the nations, and in every place [LXX: en panti topō] incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering; for my name is great among the nations, says the LORD of hosts.”
Within Judaism, Mal. 1:11 was associated in the targumic tradition with prayer (cf. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan; Justin, Dial. 117.2; see Gordon 1974). Didache 14:3, perhaps influenced by the interests in 1 Tim. 2:8 and certainly by those of Judaism, later conflated Mal. 1:11 and 1:14 to construct a citation, attributed to the Lord, that instructed those quarreling to reconcile before praying. But in the OT context “prayer”—the offering of incense and declaring of God’s name—is not the sole topic; rather, it is symbolic of the gracious outward turn of God to the nations and pronouncement of judgment on the corrupt temple-centered worship. The function of the echo in the Pauline texts intends to explore the implications of this prophetic promise in the new eschatological reality of the church. Viewed within this line of OT promise, the churches’ prayer (1 Cor. 1:2; 1 Tim. 2:8) and Paul’s apostolic ministry (2 Cor. 2:14; 1 Thess. 1:8; 1 Tim. 2:7) become signs of the fulfillment of God’s promise to offer salvation to “the nations.” Equally, the church in its proclamation and prayer becomes the vehicle by which promise is fulfilled. This is exactly the eschatological perspective that Paul had of his ministry (cf. Rom. 9–11; 15:9–13; Gal. 1:15–16; see Hengel 1983: 49–54), so it is hardly surprising to find it extended here to a discussion of the church’s prayer responsibility within the Pauline mission (Towner 1989: 205–7). Within the broader context of 1 Tim. 2:8, this echo of Mal. 1:11 resonates with the theme of universality and prayer in support of Paul’s mission (2:1–6) and Paul’s self-understanding of his calling to the Gentiles (“herald, apostle . . . teacher of the Gentiles” [2:7]) to underline the intrinsic place of prayer within the gospel ministry and the ministry of this church.
The presence of a complex OT allusion in 2:13–14 is recognized by all. There is less agreement whether the allusion continues into 2:15a with the statement “but she shall be saved through childbearing.” Grounds for this will be given below. Still more disputed is the intention of drawing on the story of creation and the fall: does it “ground” the prohibition of women from teaching or, rather, “illustrate” by forming a link between the OT story and the church’s present dilemma? A pressing question facing any interpreter is whether Paul drew upon the Genesis story in response to a competing interpretation of it by false teachers in the community (who perhaps used it to support their views of women, marriage, childbearing, etc. [cf. 4:3]). Without attempting to solve this riddle, I will proceed on the assumption that the allusion to (1) the creation of Adam and Eve, (2) Eve’s temptation, and (3) salvation through childbearing in some way explains or supports the prohibition of women from “teaching and having authority over a man” (2:11–12) (cf. the views in Küchler 1986: 13; Holmes 2000). First we seek to establish the nature and extent of the allusion.
The supporting material alludes to and draws together two parts of the Genesis story, three if 2:15a is allusive: (1) the story of creation of Adam and Eve (2:7–8, 15); (2) the story of Eve’s temptation (3:6–13); (3) the pronouncement of judgment on the woman as a result of her role in the event (3:16).
Part one consists of the allusion to the creation account of Gen. 2. In addition to the clear general reference to this familiar account, specific links are established by means of the names “Adam” and “Eve” and by the choice of verb “form” (plassō). The name “Adam” occurs first in Gen. 2 at 2:16, and then nine times thereafter in the chapter (cf. Luke 3:23; Rom. 5:14 [2x]; 1 Cor. 15:22, 45 [2x]; Jude 14). In the LXX the name “Eve” (heua) does not actually occur until 4:1 (cf. 3:20 MT: ḥawwâ [= “life”; LXX: Zōē]); thereafter it appears rarely in the OT and the NT (Gen. 4:25; Tob. 8:6; 2 Cor. 11:3; cf. Philo, Alleg. Interp. 2.81; Josephus, Ant. 1.36, 49; Sib. Or. 1:29). But clearly the name was well known, and so, not surprisingly, it is back-read naturally into the creation story here. Apart from the characters and the general content of the story, it is the verb plassō (in the NT only here and Rom. 9:20) that links the reflection to the account in Gen. 2:7–8, 15:
1 Tim. 2:13: For Adam was formed [eplasthē] first, then Eve.
Gen. 2:7: God formed [eplasen] the man from the dust of the ground.
Gen. 2:8: And there [in Eden] he put the man whom he had formed [eplasen].
Gen. 2:15: The LORD God took the man whom he had formed [eplasen] and put him in the garden.
The verb plassō is not used in the Genesis account of the process by which Eve came into being, but in later retellings of this story it is typically applied to the creation of both man and woman (2 Macc. 7:23; Josephus, Ant. 1.32; 1 Clem. 33:4). Notably, even though the sequence of creation clearly is important to Paul (prōtos . . . eita = “first . . . then” [cf. 1 Cor. 15:46; Mark 4:28]), the notion of woman’s creation being derivative (taken up in 1 Cor. 11) is absent.
The second part of the allusion is to the episode of the woman’s temptation given in Gen. 3. Sequence of action is again an important feature of the presentation in 1 Tim. 2:14. In the case of the temptation and transgression, however, the sequence is reversed to emphasize the priority of the woman’s deception and action in relation to the man’s; this is done not by reversing the order of occurrence of the names, but (by means of the negative) by locating the initial deception and transgression with the woman. Again the OT account is accessed generally by simple reference to the well-known episode. Specific access is made by means of a thematic verb, apataō, which occurs, as in the LXX account (Gen. 3:13), first in the simplex form and second in reference to the woman (a departure from the OT account, for reasons of stylistic emphasis) in the compound form exapataō. The switch to the compound form of the verb is probably stylistic, serving to set the woman and the man apart in the fall and to stress the priority of the woman’s deception. Intensification is not the likely force of the change; the compound had already found its way into the traditional account of this scene (2 Cor. 11:3) without any specific added nuance to the deception (i.e., in the sense of sexual deceit). A second intentional verbal connection with the divine interrogation of Gen. 3:12–13 may also be present in the decision to refer for a second time to the personal name “Adam” (as in Gen. 3:12) but in the case of Eve to the impersonal “woman” (gynē [as in Gen. 3:13]).
1 Tim. 2:14: And Adam was not deceived [ēpatēthē], but the woman was deceived [exapatētheisa] and became a transgressor.
Gen. 3:12: Adam said, “The woman you gave to be with me, she gave to me from the tree and I ate.”
Gen. 3:13: And the LORD God said to the woman, “What have you done?” The woman answered, “The serpent deceived [ēpatēsen] me, and I ate.”
A third part exists if the allusion extends as far as 2:15a: “But she will be saved through childbearing.” The main reason for suggesting this possibility is the term teknogonia (“childbearing”), which may well be a refashioning of the idea expressed in the verb-object combination texē tekna (“you shall give birth to children”) in Gen. 3:16. Also, by extending the allusion to this clause, which retains the singular as in the Gen. 3 account, we may be helped to explain why the shift to the plural (from “she” to “they”) is delayed until after the initial clause (see further below).
1 Tim. 2:15a: But she will be saved (preserved) through childbearing [teknogonia].
Gen. 3:16: And to the woman he said, “I will greatly multiply your pains and your groaning; in pain you shall bring forth children [texē tekna], and your submission shall be to your husband, and he shall rule over you.”
Far more complicated than establishing the nature and extent of the OT allusion is deciding the way in which it functions in this text. Before looking at the best options for this, we will briefly consider developments in the speculation on these related Genesis episodes in Judaism. The question behind this excursion is whether or not the author of 1 Timothy is indebted to such developments.
A possible Jewish basis for Paul’s argumentation in 2:13–15a may be considered in two parts.
First, the basic argument for the superiority of the first created—that is, from the priority of creation—offered in 2:13 (in support of 2:11–12) is found widely in Greek and Jewish and rabbinic sources (for the argument in Greek writers, see Plato, Resp. 412c; Leg. 11, 917a; for the argument in Judaism particularly linked to creation, see Exod. Rab. 21:6; Midr. Ps. 114 §9; Sipre Deut. 11, 10 §37 [76a]; see Str-B 3:256–57, 626, 645; Jervell 1960: 71–121; and esp. Nauck 1950: 95–97; Küchler 1986: 17–32; Dibelius and Conzelmann 1972: 47; Roloff 1988: 136–38; Oberlinner 1994: 97–99). The rabbinic reasoning “first is best” (cf. 1 Cor. 11:8–9) can be seen in Exod. Rab. 21:6: “Moses . . . went to divide the sea, but the sea refused to comply, exclaiming, ‘What, before you shall I divide? Am I not greater than you? For I was created on the third day and you on the sixth’” (cf. Sipre Deut. 37: “This is also true concerning God’s actions—whatever is most precious comes first”).
In applying the argument “first is best,” Paul does not appear to cite a rabbinic formula that made use of Gen. 2. His literary indebtedness to rabbinic thought is limited to the method of argumentation, and for all we know, his application of it to men and women by way of allusion to Gen. 2 is novel (cf. 1 Cor. 11). It is often pointed out that in Judaism and Greco-Roman cultures the subordinate status of the woman was assumed. Josephus states emphatically, “[The law] says, ‘A woman is inferior to her husband in all things.’ Let her, therefore, be obedient to him; not so that he should abuse her, but that she may acknowledge her duty to her husband; for God hath given the authority to the husband” (Ag. Ap. 2.201 [cf. Philo, Hypothetica 7.3]). This being the assumption, the question of why Paul strove to make such a point via Gen. 2 becomes all the more acute.
The tendency among those holding to a biblical feminist perspective has been to play down this element of the argument and focus more on 2:14 (see Towner 1997). This is not particularly helpful and only avoids the question. The point from creation seems too central to bypass; however, the wild card that the heresy and the likelihood of women’s involvement in it recommends proceeding with due caution. Here I will simply enumerate the possible explanations for taking up this argument, with its adaptation of Gen. 2, insisting only that 2:13 cannot be sidestepped.
(1) Many understand Paul or a Paulinist to be applying a creation principle with which he was in full agreement. If it is Paul writing, then here he insists on the view that he uniformly held (cf., e.g., 1 Cor. 11:3–16; 14:33–35; see Knight 1992; Hurley 1981; Moo 1980) that, based on the creative will of God, proscribed women from teaching and holding positions of authority over men in the church. If the letter is regarded as the work of a Paulinist, then application of the Jewish argument is held to reflect the return to a patriarchalism that the Pauline gospel had challenged (cf. Gal. 3:28), a return perhaps designed as an answer to women who (under the influence of an overrealized eschatology or an overly enthusiastic implementation of an equality principle [Gal. 3:28]) had asserted themselves in ways that caused a disturbance in the community (Roloff 1988: 128–30; Schüssler Fiorenza 1983). Although neither variation on this view requires all of the rabbinic chauvinistic assumptions to be in the author’s mind, the view suggests that the author drew quite naturally on the assumptions of the day, including the principle that first created is best.
(2) The creation account may have been employed not for its universal applicability to any and all man/woman situations, but rather in order to combat a specific view or correct an interpretation of the creation account somehow linked with the heresy (see Wire 1990: 116–34, esp. 122). This approach takes various shapes that tend to agree that 2:13 must be taken seriously. In one of the more plausible arguments, Schlarb (1990 [for another approach, see Kroeger and Kroeger 1992]) suggests that Spirit-enthusiasm linked with speculation on creation accounts (myths, genealogies, etc. [1:4; 4:1, 7]) contrived a pre-fall paradigm for present Christian living (celibacy, vegetarianism [4:3]) that also supported a revolutionary interpretation of women’s roles in the community. In response (2:13–14), the author refers to a correct reading of the Genesis material to reorient the church’s thinking around a view of the present that accounts properly for both creation and the realities of sin and redemption. Of course, any attempt to interpret the use of the OT material as a response to a specific misreading of it faces the daunting challenge of plausibility. However, from what can be gleaned about the heretics’ speculative approach to the OT and the heresy’s influence on women, the challenge would seem to be unavoidable, even if some questions must remain open in the end.
Once it is recognized that the argumentation and use of Genesis here resemble to some degree rabbinic logic, and that the prevailing Jewish view included the subordinate status of women, something of a sidebar argument is often smuggled into the discussion: the Jewish chauvinistic belief in the inherent gullibility of women (e.g., Philo, QG 1.33, 46). However, in view of the roles in which women participated in the early church (teaching [Acts 18:26]; prophesying [1 Cor. 14:26]; some level of leadership/ministry status [e.g., Rom. 16:1, 3, 7]; see Keener 1992: 237–57), it is not at all evident that Paul endorsed such a view, which, in any case, would sit rather awkwardly with the positive statement in 2:11 about women’s learning. This particular view, however widespread it might have been, is irrelevant to a discussion of the argument in 1 Tim. 2.
Second, the sentiment expressed in 2:14 (“And Adam was not deceived [ēpatēthē], but the woman was deceived [exapatētheisa] and became a transgressor”) bears at least a superficial resemblance to some of the Jewish speculative comments on the fall into sin, and especially the deception of Eve, based on the same Genesis material. These developments led in several directions, not all of which are useful. These developments must be included in order to decide how Paul understood the texts that he cited (cf. 2 Cor. 11:3), but the dating of some of these is far from certain, and a pattern of development is difficult to fix.
(1) Sir. 25:24 (“From a woman sin had its beginning, and because of her we all die”) bears no material relation to the form or language of 2:14. However, it offers an interpretive reflection on the origins of sin and death, for which the woman takes full blame, based on the Genesis account, which could be thought to lie behind the second statement of rationale for women not teaching or holding authority over men (Nauck 1950: 96–98; but see Holmes 2000: 268–72).
(2) Philo may not have developed the idea, but he gave a certain elegance to the traditional link between the soft and weak feminine nature and gullibility and susceptibility to deception (QG 1.33; cf. Pirqe R. El. 13 [see Str-B 1:137–38]). Philo’s further reflections on Gen. 3:16–19 in Alleg. Interp. 3.59–61 are too allegorical to fit precisely within the “deception of Eve” motif, but the way he interprets the character of feminine human nature as intrinsic to the process leading from the serpent’s deception to the man’s eating of the forbidden fruit fits in well with his statement on her inborn susceptibility to falsehood. His thinking is more or less reiterated by certain modern scholars who distinguish between the rationality of men and the relational, nurturing bent of women and draw conclusions about their relative strengths and weaknesses with regard to “preserving the apostolic tradition” (e.g., Schreiner 1995: 145–46).
(3) Far more provocative and exotic is the development in the speculation on the fall by which Eve’s temptation and sin came to be regarded as sexual in nature. Such views are widespread, though the dating of these texts is not always certain. Almost certainly, 2 En. 31:6 and 4 Macc. 18:6–8 reflect the deception of Eve as an event of sexual seduction, and rabbinic and later Christian sources do so as well (cf. b. Yebam. 103b; Gen. Rab. 18:6; Prot. Jas. 13:1; Barn. 12:5; Diogn. 12:8; see Küchler 1986: 44–50; Hanson 1968: 65–77).
(4) Texts preserved in later gnostic writings demonstrate an interest in Eve as prototype of the superior woman (Rudolph 1983: 211–12, 215–16, 270–72; for the possible relevance, see Kroeger and Kroeger 1992: 105–25).
Those who detect this sort of background, especially the first three of the four given above, behind 2:14, often depend upon the capacity of the verbs apataō and especially exapataō to refer to sexual deceit (esp. Hanson 1968; Küchler 1986). Although this need not be disputed, the compound verb in question already has a nearer corollary in 2 Cor. 11:3, where in another Pauline use of the deception of Eve motif it served (similarly) to raise the question of the Corinthian church’s susceptibility to false teaching. Neither Pauline case reflects the sort of rabbinic elaboration that goes beyond the basic thought of “deception” to something as specific as sexual deception.
Determining the use to which the Genesis material is put in this passage begins with the question of why Paul prohibited women from teaching and holding authority. If the reason was simply Paul’s general principle, based on Genesis (the creation order), then one has to correlate this assumption with the evidence that women took vital roles in ministry elsewhere, and one also has to accept the inescapable implication of 2:14 that Paul believed women to be more susceptible to deception than men or less capable by nature to deal with false teachers. If, however, the instructions and backing were given in response to a particular interpretation of the Genesis account in Ephesus that somehow fueled inappropriate activities of women (teaching in a way that shamed men/husbands, somehow furthering the heresy, eschewing marriage because of the false teaching, etc.), then 2:13–15a supports the measures to be taken (2:11–12) by reproducing a better reading of the Genesis story. There are strong indications that women were involved in the heresy and so were teaching false doctrine; there are strong indications that certain elements of the traditional role of women (marriage and childbearing) were being set aside on the basis of the false teaching or secular cultural developments (Marshall 1999: 466; Towner 2006). If the overrealized views alluded to in 2 Tim. 2:18 were at all within the purview of 1 Timothy (Towner 1989; Schlarb 1990), then all the chemistry necessary to unloose traditional values would have been present. In such an atmosphere of enthusiasm, where the operative concept was “reversal of roles,” if women were guilty of teaching in a way that abused authority and disrespected their male counterparts, 2:13 is a reminder that the creation order is still in effect and men are to be respected (omission of the mitigating factor included in 1 Cor. 11 is understandable where women have already stepped over the line). If heretical speculation on the early chapters of Genesis (fueled by mistaken notions of eschatology) somehow influenced women to think that they were free from the constraints and limitations brought on by the fall into sin (or more specifically if they appealed to the Adam-sinner model of Rom. 5 to make their better claim to the right to teach [Marshall 1999: 467]), 2:14 reminds women of their role in the fall and of the present unfinished nature of Christian existence, and it does so in a way that aptly illustrates the deception of women in Ephesus by false teachers (cf. 2 Cor. 11:3).
Finally, 2:15a, with its allusion to Gen. 3:16, serves two related purposes. First, in response to confusion about the times and women’s roles, it prolongs the allusion to Gen. 3 in a way that establishes the eschatological “location” of the Ephesian Christian women as still being in that paradoxical place of pain (struggle, tension, sin, etc.) and divine promise. Second, it reinforces the continuing relevance, importance, and value of the traditional role model being subverted by the heresy (cf. 4:3). There is no reason why the reference to “salvation” in the promise—“But she will be saved through childbearing”—cannot strike two (or more) chords at once. In fact, with the tape of Gen. 3 already playing, it is hard to imagine that the attentive hearer or reader would escape reflecting on the Protoevangelion (the promised defeat of the serpent in Gen. 3) or indeed on the pronouncement that the woman was to be under the lordship of the man. But Paul did not bring these things out. Instead, the final fleeting allusion to the Genesis account develops into the instruction to women (plural) generally to “work out their salvation” in the domestic sphere by ensuring that they manifest the marks of authentic Christian existence.
In 4:1–3a comes a prophetic word of the Spirit designed to place the heresy troubling the church into an eschatological framework. In this statement, apostasy is a sign of the last times, and the presence of the heresy in this church is an indication that the last times are underway as the letter is read. (Here Paul draws on the well-known motif of end-time apostasy [see Gaston 1970: 433–68]. His language for accessing this motif includes the tendency to “hold to deceiving spirits” [prosechontes pneumasin planois]. In Isa. 19:14 we read of a “spirit of error” [singular: pneuma planēseōs], which is said to have been poured into the Egyptians by God. Given the link quite probably already made with Isa. 19:20 in 2:5 [“a man who will save”], and thereby with that broader Isaiah text, a return to that source here is not out of the question. Quite possibly, the motif of end-time apostasy includes the theme of God’s intentional [or permissive if not active] “letting go and confusing” of those who have chosen the way of disobedience.) The statement goes on further to describe certain features of the heretics and their views. This is one of the letter’s rare glimpses of the actual practices and views of the false teachers. And it is in the course of describing their abstention from (certain) foods that Paul engages the Genesis account again.
In 4:3 Paul denounces the opponents for their “abstinence from certain foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving” (apechesthai brōmatōn, ha ho theos ektisen eis metalēmpsin meta eucharistias). The corrective assertion draws upon and in two ways alludes to the story of creation and its elaboration in the early chapters in Genesis. First, the argument adapts Gen. 9:3 specifically, since it negates the erroneous limitations (i.e., apechesthai brōmatōn) on the basis that God gave everything for food: “Every living reptile shall be meat for you, as the green vegetables, I have given everything to you [for food]” (kai pan herepton ho estin zōn hymin estai eis brōsin hōs lachana chortou dedōka hymin ta panta). It also recalls the stress on divine initiative in the earlier affirmation in Genesis of God’s provision (“God gave”) of vegetables “for food” (eis brōsin [1:29; 2:9]; brōsei [2:16]; cf. 3:2; cf. Deut. 26:11). Thus a simple allusion taps into a broader stream of tradition about the source of foods. Second, in the counterassertion about foods, “which God created,” the subject/verb combination that asserts God’s role as Creator recalls the account of creation. Selection of the verb ktizō reflects the preference for this verb (or its cognate noun) in Hellenistic-Jewish (Wis. 9:2; 13:5; 14:11; Sir. 39:25–27; 3 Macc. 5:11) and NT discussions of creation (Rom. 1:25; 1 Cor. 11:9; Eph. 2:10, 15; 3:9; 4:24; Col. 1:16 [2x]; 3:10; Rev. 4:11 [2x]; 10:6; Matt. 19:4; Mark 13:19). In the LXX of Genesis the verb “make” (poieō) predominates in the early chapters (in the NT see Matt. 19:4; Mark 10:6; Acts 17:24, 26), with ktizō entering only in 14:9. The use of ktizō as a replacement to access the early accounts of God’s creative activity is not problematic; it prepares the way for the polemical coup de grâce in 4:4a.
In 4:4a we see the foundation for the previous counterassertions: “for the whole creation of God is good” (hoti pan ktisma theou kalon). In this statement, which itself quite obviously echoes the divine assessment that closes Gen. 1, the specific connections are made by the adjective “all” (pan), by reference to the Creator “God” (theou) and by the predicate adjective “good” (kalon): “And God saw all the things that he had made, and behold, they were very good” (kai eiden ho theos ta panta hosa epoiēsen, kai idou kala lian) (Gen. 1:31).
Again the shift from the poieō word group to ktisma reflects preferences shaped by the tradition. The logic of Paul’s polemical response to the heretical food asceticism is completed in this statement: “And nothing is to be rejected, if it is received with thanksgiving.” The same argument—permitting the consumption of all foods with the proviso of thanksgiving—was made in 1 Cor. 10:26, 30. And the logic here is not hard to follow.
In 4:3–4 Paul undoubtedly has drawn on Gen. 9:3 as a historical-theological precedent for the specific eating of meat, subsequently backing this by allusion to the more fundamental statement in Gen. 1:31 of the goodness of God’s creation. The tougher question is, Why has he done so?
To answer that question we need to think creatively about the heretical teaching alluded to in 4:2 (see commentary on 1 Tim. 2:13–15a above). On the assumption that we should link the ascetic tendencies alluded to here to the reference to the heretics’ speculative exegesis (“myths and genealogies” [1:4]), in the sense that the former were somehow grounded in the latter, it is likely that Paul is turning an apostolic interpretation of OT Scripture against some novel exegesis of Genesis by the opponents. Other patterns of the heretical outlook, such as an overly enthusiastic (overrealized) eschatology, which led them to anticipate the end time by living according to a pre-fall pattern, could provide the theology that was fueling the asceticism (Schlarb 1990: 123–24). The effect of Paul’s counterargument would be: (1) to affirm the ongoing relevance of the pattern of life reflected in Gen. 9:7, (2) to discourage (or deny implicitly) attempts to live beyond the present realities (including the ongoing presence of sin), and yet (3) to affirm the freedom in Christ (note the emphasis on thanksgiving and prayer [4:4b–5]) to partake of all foods because of their created basis. Although it remains conjectural that Paul specifically corrected aberrant exegesis of Genesis texts, it is nonetheless certain that the argument from Genesis intends to counter the practice of abstention from certain foods (= meat).
This section of the letter gives instructions concerning the two administrative matters of remuneration and discipline of elders. In each case Paul cites OT texts (and in the first case also the Jesus tradition) that had already been incorporated into the early church’s halakic framework. The citations function separately and we will take them in order. (We should briefly note that 5:5 employs OT language or images. The image of the devout widow who hopes in God taps into the rich tradition of God’s special care for widows and orphans [Jer. 49:11; cf. Deut. 14:29; 26:12–13; Ps. 68:5].)
In 5:17 Paul instructs concerning the compensation (“double honor”) of elders, “namely those who are engaged in preaching and teaching” (Marshall 1999: 612). The potential ambiguity of the instruction, which refers literally to “honor” (timē) and therefore possibly to something other than payment (i.e., community esteem [cf. 6:1]), is resolved in the subsequent supporting citation of Scripture. The OT prooftext is initiated in 5:18a, connecting it with the preceding instructions, with the formal introductory formula “for the Scripture says” (see Rom. 9:17; 10:11; cf., e.g., 4:3; 11:2; Gal. 4:30).
The content of the quotation, “Do not muzzle the threshing ox,” is a slightly reorganized rendering of Deut. 25:4 LXX:
Deut. 25:4 LXX: ou phimōseis boun aloōnta.
1 Tim. 5:18a: boun aloōnta ou phimoseis.
The shift of the object to the head of the sentence (so also Philo, Virtues 145) may simply be in accord with better Greek style, but it probably also corresponds to the different emphasis created in the NT adaptation of the OT command. Whereas the word order of the Greek in Deut. 25:4 rather slavishly copies the Hebrew, which in the legal setting stresses obedience (and therefore the “you”), the rearrangement in 1 Tim. 5:18a allows for stress to be placed on the “threshing ox,” which by analogy stands for the laboring elders who are the main topic.
The Mosaic command envisioned one of the processes by which threshing was accomplished. The ox was driven over a threshing floor, the animal’s hooves separating the grain from the stalk and chaff.
By the time Paul employs the OT principle in this letter, he can assume that its application (which is nonetheless reinforced by a Jesus logion) is clearly understood. This perhaps was not the case in 1 Cor. 9:9–10, where Paul takes the time to disabuse the Corinthian congregation of any simplistic material notions concerning the true import of the Deuteronomy text by drawing on another development of the agricultural logic that promised the plowman and the thresher a share in the harvest (cf. Sir. 6:19; James 5:7). But in any case, between the original command set down in Deuteronomy, which presumably was in fact given originally out of concern for the proper care of oxen, and the application of the OT text in 1 Tim. 5 and 1 Cor. 9, the text had passed through the grid of Jewish exegesis to yield finally the analogy that Paul employs here. The argument works a fortiori by applying the reasoning of the law concerning provision for working oxen to the situation of those laboring in the gospel ministry.
This commandment had been a well of deeper meaning for the rabbinic scholars (see Str-B 3:382–99). It was used as a particular illustration of the “lesser to greater” logic that urged that God’s concern for animals implied far greater concern for people (b. B. Meṣiʿa 88b; b. Giṭ. 62a; 1 Cor. 9:9; Philo, Virtues 145 [for additional references, see Knoch 1988: 40]). Pharisaic interpretation apparently deduced from this text a broader principle: oxen stand for all species of labor, including humans (Brewer 1992), and Paul may have drawn on this halakic rule instead of engaging in creative midrash himself. In any case, on the assumption that 1 Timothy is linked to Paul, this commandment had already been drawn out in the tradition, the NT precedent being 1 Cor. 9:9, and therefore the force of the argument and its Mosaic-to-apostolic authority required no elaboration. In both Pauline texts Paul followed or adapted the Jewish interpretation of the text and applied it to material support of those engaged in ministry. Notably, the same conclusion had been pursued and reached along other related tangents, as the succeeding quotation of the Jesus logion shows (Matt. 10:10; Luke 10:7).
In 5:19 the attention shifts to another administrative concern. Probably as a result of the heresy and its influence on some of the church’s leadership, Paul addresses the issue of due process in the examination and (if necessary) discipline of elders. The next quotation occurs in connection with the evidence-gathering step of the procedure. In order to control or avoid the kind of damage that might be caused by rash and unsubstantiated allegations in a situation where leaders were under suspicion and where others may have been vying to move into leadership ranks, Paul again draws on Mosaic legislation with a long history of acceptance in Judaism and in the church to ensure that due process is followed.
The relevant command accessed here is a combination of two texts in Deuteronomy LXX. In reference to sentences of death, Deut. 17:6 stipulates,
He shall die on the testimony of two or three witnesses [epi dysin martysin ē epi trisin martysin]; a man who is put to death shall not be put to death for one witness.
In a more general context, Deut. 19:15 stipulates,
One witness shall not stand to testify against a man for any iniquity, or for any fault, or for any sin which he may commit; by the mouth of two witnesses, or by the mouth of three witnesses [epi stomatos dyo martyrōn kai epi stomatos triōn martyrōn], shall every word be established.
In 5:19 Paul sets out the adversarial setting freely according to the specific situation and “accused” at hand: “Do not accept any accusation against an elder.” The adverbial exceptive phrase that introduces the correct procedure to follow (“except” [ektos ei mē]) shows the meaning of the proscribed procedure to be precisely that which both Deuteronomic texts disallow: establishment of guilt on the basis of a single witness. In turning then to correct procedure, the phrase “on the basis of two or three witnesses” (epi dyo ē triōn martyrōn) reflects certain features of both Deuteronomy texts. The conjunction “or” (ē) and the omission of the word “mouth” (stomatos) reflect the wording of Deut. 17:6, but the genitive object of the preposition (dyo ē triōn martyrōn) corresponds to Deut. 19:15. On the assumption that it is the presence of the word “mouth” in the Greek of Deut. 19:15 that determines the genitives that complete the object (also present in the Hebrew of 17:6 but absent in the Greek translation at that point), Paul’s genitive construction in 5:19 may correspond more closely to the more general application of the multiple witness principle in Deut. 19:15, with “mouth” having been omitted to give a smoother expression. Since the death penalty is not under discussion (cf. Heb. 10:28), it is not surprising that the broader application of the witness principle in Deut. 19:15 would be most applicable.
However, the form of the citation/maxim as it occurs here may also have been shaped by the early church’s paradosis. Paul clearly cites Deut. 19:15 most closely in 2 Cor. 13:1, dropping only the repeated phrase, epi stomatos, but including the subject/verb combination “every matter shall be established” (stathēsetai pan rhēma). Though lacking the introductory formula, it is a formal quote, as the syntax shows. The principle was also known within the Jesus tradition, where Matt 18:16 preserves a slightly more attenuated citation of Deut. 19:15, with a change of conjunctions (from kai to ē) and the change from the future passive to the aorist passive form of the verb (stathē). In reference to the death penalty, Heb. 10:28 naturally utilizes the multiple-witness principle (with slight modification) as it occurs in Deut. 17:6 in connection with the death penalty.
In invoking this OT principle by means of quotation, Paul did not teach in a particularly innovative way. Both the Jesus tradition and numerous other allusions to the law of multiple witnesses (e.g., John 8:17) and apparent applications of it in various practical and eschatological situations (Matt. 18:19–20; 27:38; Mark 6:7; Luke 9:30, 32; 10:1; 24:13; John 20:12; Acts 1:10; Heb. 6:18; Rev. 11:3–4) show how deeply rooted the principle had become in the teaching of the early church. This principle governing due process in the giving and weighing of evidence was mediated to the early church from Judaism. Josephus (Life 256) and the Qumran writings (CD-A IX, 17–X, 2 [cf. m. Sanh. 5:4]) demonstrate how the principle was present and applicable in Jewish life in general and in fact did not need to be quoted to be understood.
Thus Paul gives directions in the two administrative matters in 5:18–19 by drawing explicitly upon OT texts whose principles had already been appropriated in the early church (especially in Pauline churches) and in Judaism. The first principle, concerning the support of laborers, was accessed at some point in the tradition (not necessarily originally by Paul or freshly at this point [cf. 1 Cor. 9:9–10]) by means of allegorical or midrashic techniques. The second principle, concerning requisite witnesses, involved no such exegetical procedures. Direct quotation of the OT was intended to ensure that the authority of the instructions and the gravity of the situation were properly understood.
In 6:1–2 Paul takes up matters related to the behavior of slaves in relation to their masters. Two situations are envisioned, with 6:1 addressing slaves who belong to unbelieving masters. Although the circumstances occasioning these instructions are not spelled out, they parallel other NT texts that in some cases, at least, probably aimed to restore equilibrium threatened by hasty assumptions made about the gospel and freedom. In Ephesus some expression of that problem (perhaps aggravated in some way by the heresy) probably also lay behind the instructions (Marshall 1999: 626–27).
The instructions in 6:1, where believing slaves are called to respect their unbelieving masters, set out the good testimony as the ultimate objective: “so that the name of God and the teaching may not be blasphemed.” Here Paul echoes Isa. 52:5 LXX:
1 Tim. 6:1b: that the name of God . . . might not be blasphemed [hina mē to onoma tou theou . . . blasphēmētai]
Isa. 52:5 LXX: Thus says the LORD, “On account of you, my name is continually blasphemed among the Gentiles” [tade legei kyrios, di’ hymas dia pantos to onoma mou blasphēmeitai en tois ethnesin].
The thought was thematic. Ezekiel says much the same thing in different words (36:20 [cf. CD-A XII, 7–8]). And Paul himself, in Rom. 2:24, had already cited the Isaiah text more fully (including the causal di’ hymas [“on account of you”] and reference to the Gentiles), making the same change from the original first person to the third person required by his discourse. The only other alteration required here in 6:1b is the shift to the subjunctive form of the verb to suit the preceding conjunction, “in order that” (hina).
It is debatable whether Paul accesses the OT directly or rather echoes it indirectly and unconsciously in citing what had become a commonplace in the early church (cf. James 2:7; 2 Pet. 2:2; Rev. 13:6; 16:9, 11, 21; 2 Clem. 13:2; Pol. Phil. 10:3; see Marshall 1999: 630). Either way, the function of the usage is to equate believing slaves with the Jews depicted in the Isaiah text, and the unbelieving masters with the (implied) Gentiles of the OT text/tradition: disobedience on the part of the Christian slaves would complete the equation, making them responsible for provoking unbelievers to slander God’s name, while in fact the behavior of God’s people should rather adorn God’s name and make it attractive to unbelievers.
In the remainder of 1 Timothy several texts employ OT diction or concepts that had become a part of the early church’s liturgical lexicon, including 6:11 (the designation “man of God” [anthrōpos theou] has OT roots [Judg. 13:6; 1 Sam. 2:27; 1 Kings 13:1]), 6:15 (the lofty language recalls certain Hellenistic-Jewish reflections: for “sovereign” [dynastēs], see Sir. 10:24; 16:11; 46:5; 2 Macc. 12:15; for “King of kings,” see 2 Macc. 13:4; 3 Macc. 5:35), and 6:16 (“whom no person has seen or can see” [hon eiden oudeis anthrōpōn oude idein dynatai] is based on Exod. 33:20 and may be a loose reworking of it: “And he said, ‘You shall not be able to see my face; for no one shall see my face and live’” [kai eipen ou dynēsē idein mou to prosōpon ou gar mē idē anthrōpos to prosōpon mou kai zēsetai]). Texts in this category apparently have no overt intention of drawing the audience back into the OT narrative world or of appealing to the authority of the OT.
The language of 6:7 (“For we brought nothing into the world, so that we can take nothing out of it”) shows some affinity with the wisdom sayings of Job 1:21; Ps. 49:16–17; Eccles. 5:14–16. However, the thought is so well documented in the ancient world (cf. Philo, Spec. Laws 1.294–295; Ps.-Phoc. 110–111; Anthologia Palatina 10:58; Seneca, Ep. 102.25; m. ʾAbot 6:9; b. Yoma 86b; Luke 12:16–21; Herm. Sim. 50:6; see Dibelius and Conzelmann 1972: 84–85; Menken 1977: 535–36) that it is impossible to limit the source of the proverbial saying, as it appears here, to the OT, although OT wisdom may indeed have played a seminal role in bringing the opinion into the ethical thought of the early church.
The same is true of the warning in 6:17 against boasting and trusting in one’s wealth. The prohibition against hoping in wealth resembles slightly the language and more negatively framed themes of Ps. 61:11 LXX (62:10 ET): “Do not hope in unrighteousness . . . ; if wealth should flow in, do not set your heart on it”; however, the parallels in Prov. 23:4–5; Jer. 9:23 (cf. Ps.-Phoc. 62) suggest instead the echoing of a theme, and the alternative wisdom of placing hope in God and his provisions in contrast to the illusory benefits of material wealth also has a wider base (cf. Ps. 52:7).
Second Timothy differs in two distinct ways from 1 Timothy and Titus. First, it exhibits a different genre, more closely resembling the paraenetic letter and more limited in scope to instructing its addressee (Johnson 2001: 320–24). Second, within the Pauline story 2 Timothy serves as the closing chapter. At the center of this conclusion are Paul’s suffering and death. These themes are intertwined throughout the letter, finally reaching a climax in 4:16–18. In this closing section a web of OT allusions allows Paul’s death to be viewed in a deeply theological way.
2:7
Coming as the conclusion to a well-defined section of paraenesis (2:1–6), 2:7 urges Timothy to “grasp” what has been said. This didactic formula is well known (e.g., Plato, Ep. 352c). The preceding paraenesis amounts to an exhortation to faithfulness and perseverance in ministry that begins with the command to be empowered by grace and to transmit Paul’s teaching to other capable teachers (2:1–2). Then, a succession of three metaphors (the soldier, the athlete, and the farmer) enjoins single-mindedness, perseverance, and patience (2:3–6). Presumably, 2:7 addresses the challenge of discerning the meaning of the metaphors and their relation both to the initial commands and to Timothy himself. Thus Paul backs up the imperative “Grasp what I am saying” with a statement of promise. And in the promise we may detect an allusion to Prov. 2:6 LXX.
2 Tim. 2:7: For the Lord will give you understanding in all things [dōsei gar soi ho kyrios synesin en pasin].
Prov. 2:6 LXX: Because the Lord gives wisdom, and from his presence come knowledge and understanding [hoti kyrios didōsin sophian kai apo prosōpou autou gnōsis kai synesis].
The LXX follows the Hebrew closely, substituting “presence” (lit., “face”) for “mouth” as the source of knowledge and understanding.
Second Timothy 2:7 parallels Prov. 2:6 in the verb “give” (didōmi), in the designation “Lord” (kyrios), and in the reference to “understanding” (synesis). Differences between the texts are also noticeable: (1) the verb is third-person future in 2 Tim. 2:7, third-person present in Prov. 2:6; (2) 2 Tim. 2:7 personalizes the promise by adding the pronoun “you” as indirect object, while Prov. 2:6 is general; (3) “Lord” has the article in 2 Tim. 2:7 but lacks it in Prov. 2:6; (4) the threefold reference to wisdom, knowledge, and understanding in Prov. 2:6 is reduced to “understanding in all things” in 2 Tim. 2:7.
In view of the reduction, modifications, and proverbial ring, it is possible that 2:7 represents a commonplace distantly linked to a saying like Prov. 2:6 (the idea that “understanding” is a divine gift is widely expressed [Exod. 31:6; 1 Kings 3:11–12; Dan. 1:17; 2:21; T. Reub. 6:4; T. Levi 18:7; Col. 1:9; 2:2; James 1:5]), but the possibility of intentional interaction with Prov. 2:6 is strengthened by the wider discussion in Prov. 2. There we notice the contrast between the one (singular: “you”; “[my] son” [e.g., 2:1, 2, 3]) who diligently pursues wisdom and “those who have forsaken the upright way” (plural: hoi enkataleipontes [2:13]). In the wider discussion of 2 Timothy this latter group could correspond to the opponents and also to those who have forsaken the apostle, whose desertion is described with the language of Prov. 2:13 (4:16: “all have forsaken me” [pantes me enkatelipon]; 4:10: “Demas deserted me” [Dēmas . . . me enkatelipen]; cf. 1:15). If this broader comparison is intended, then in these instructions Paul reconfigures the wisdom tradition’s ideal way of wisdom and uprightness (i.e., according to Prov. 2, “the fear of the LORD”) as the way of suffering for the gospel that the apostle has exemplified and Timothy is to walk in. In the new context, the promise of the Lord’s assistance applies first to understanding the immediate teaching; however, in view of the wide scope implied by “in all things,” and if the Proverbs background is considered, the gift of insight extends beyond the immediate passage to the dangerous path of suffering that still lies ahead for Timothy. As the citation is applied to Timothy, “the Lord” is to be understood as Jesus (Marshall 1999: 731, 720).
The wisdom tradition’s way of wisdom thus supplies a template for the way of apostolic suffering. In either articulation, the starting point is “the fear of the Lord” (Prov. 1:7; 2:5–6), which in 2 Timothy is reshaped in terms of the vital concept of a life that is “godly” (eusebōs [3:12]). “Godliness” (eusebeia) was closely associated with “the fear of the Lord” in Prov. 1:7 LXX (cf. Isa. 11:2; 33:6; see Towner 1996; Marshall 1999: 135–44). Its use in 2 Timothy to define the authentic life of faith incorporates the goal of the pursuit of God from Proverbs and sets in contrast the opponent who forsakes that way. The OT allusion in 2:7 (cf. 3:12) invites Timothy to equate the way of suffering in godliness with the gift of God according to Prov. 2.
2:19
At 2:14 Paul readdresses the matter of the opponents who are troubling the churches. Employing the technique of contrast, he sets the apostolic faith and its ministers into a different category from the opponents. He specifically names two opponents in 2:17 and links the spread of the false view that the resurrection of believers had (in some sense) already occurred to their teaching activities (2:18). The very presence of heresy and heretics in the church apparently had planted in the minds of believers the question about the stability and permanence of the church. In the two images that follow (the church as foundation [2:19a]; the church as a great household [2:20]) Paul addresses the implied question by challenging the present turbulent reality with affirmations of God’s control and giving directions for the appropriate Christian response.
In 2:19 Paul presents a potent image of the church’s strength and God’s control. For convenience, the verse may be broken into two parts, each of which utilizes OT texts. First comes a strong affirmation: “God’s firm foundation [themelios] stands” (2:19a). Although some scholars detect other backgrounds behind the imagery, the “household” orientation of Paul’s earlier uses of this architectural image (cf. 1 Cor. 3:10–13; Rom. 15:20; Eph. 2:20; see Johnson 2001: 386–87; 1996: 77–78; Towner 1989: 132) best explains its application here (2:20). Consequently, this is a depiction of the church, the people of God, which sets the stage for the household image to come. But in making the affirmation, Paul adds potency to it by way of an OT echo.
In the themelios imagery an echo of Isa. 28:16 LXX is probable.
2 Tim. 2:19a: Nevertheless, the firm foundation [themelios] of God stands.
Isa. 28:16 LXX: Therefore thus says the Lord, “Behold, I lay for the foundations [themelia] of Zion a costly stone, a choice, a cornerstone, a precious stone, for its foundations [themelia]; and he that believes on him shall by no means be ashamed.”
In the early church this OT text became an important OT christological testimony. Its application here as an ecclesiological testimony is thus somewhat of a departure from the trend, but it is not for that reason a less probable adaptation. Paul initiates his reply to the situation facing Timothy by drawing on the part of the well-known OT statement that emphasizes the certainty of God’s accomplishments, applying it here to the establishment and stability of the church. The reference to Isa. 26:13 in the next part of the verse strengthens the likelihood that this echo of the Isaiah themelios text is intentional, however light.
Paul extends the architectural imagery by inviting the audience to imagine a “seal” that authenticates the “foundation.” Seals (sphragis) were used commonly to identify legal ownership of property and, like signatures in modern practice, to guarantee authenticity, genuineness, and integrity, or to preserve the secrecy of the contents of a letter or of some product. In this case, “seal” is used in a figurative sense to denote God’s ownership of “the foundation” (= the church) just mentioned.
Paul describes the twofold content of the seal by means of two statements of biblical materials. These two statements in effect bring together theology in what is affirmed and ethics in the response that people are called to make in the crisis situation. The first statement is this:
2 Tim. 2:19c: The Lord knows those who are his [egnō kyrios tous ontas autou].
This repeats the LXX wording of one part of Num. 16:5, making only one change from “God” (ho theos) to “Lord” (kyrios):
Num. 16:5 LXX: And he spoke to Korah and all his assembly, saying, “God has visited and known those that are his [egnō ho theos tous ontas autou] and who are holy, and has brought them to himself; and whom he has chosen for himself, he has brought to himself.”
The Hebrew has the tetragrammaton (“YHWH”), which normally is translated in the LXX with kyrios. This tendency may have influenced the shift from theos to kyrios in the NT adaptation of the OT material. In any case, the reference is probably to God (the anarthrous use is typical for Numbers and throughout the LXX).
The OT context and the present context must be compared in order for us to appreciate the full weight of the citation’s claim that God knows his own people. In both cases authority is disputed, and loyalty to God and his appointed servants is in question. The setting in Num. 16 is one of dispute and confrontation: Moses and Aaron, leaders chosen by God, had been challenged by Korah and his companions (Levites to whom the privilege of the priesthood had not been given), who demanded the right to serve God as priests in the community. In response, Moses declared that God knows those who truly belong to him, meaning the people whom God had chosen, and that he would make it known. Korah presented a challenge to Moses’ and Aaron’s authority, and in so doing, he rebelled against God; God confirmed his choice of Moses and Aaron by the destruction of Korah and all who sided with him.
The reader who is familiar with the OT background is compelled to view the present situation in a similar light: characters such as Hymenaeus and Philetus, with their false teaching, present the apostolic ministry with a leadership challenge. So, the points of contact are apparent. But how much of the paradigm is to be brought across to the situation in Ephesus? The result of the OT story was the dramatic destruction of the unrecognized rebels; it is not hard to see how the story accessed by the citation might function as a warning in the way that the wilderness allusions in 1 Cor. 10 did for the Corinthian community. The statement of Moses quoted here was a statement of vindication, and it pointed forward to judgment. Because God distinguishes, one must ensure one’s proper alignment with him. The OT story serves as a paradigm that acknowledges the rebellion of some within the church and God’s continued presence within it; however, the statement is both a consolation and a warning that God will distinguish between those who are his and those who are not. God is present as protector and redeemer, but also as judge who will vindicate his truth and his people.
The second segment of OT materials (2:19d) serves a function similar to 1 Cor. 10:14, which follows the OT story there with the admonition to “flee from idolatry.” Here the next OT citation completes the content of the “seal”:
2 Tim. 2:19d: And “Let everyone who names the name of the Lord turn away from wickedness” [kai apostētō apo adikias pas ho onomazōn to onoma kyriou].
Echoes of several OT texts are possible in this statement, and they must be traced as we decide its thrust.
First, “name the name of the Lord” is an idiom occurring in the LXX on several occasions. In our text we have the phrase in participial form (ho onomazōn to onoma kyriou). It takes various forms elsewhere (see Lev. 24:11, 16 [2x]; Josh. 23:7; Isa. 26:13; Amos 6:10; Odes Sol. 5:13 [echoing Isa. 26:13]; Sir. 23:9–10). The more normal phraseology comes to be “to call upon the name of the Lord” (using kaleō or epikaleō [see, e.g., Acts 2:21; Rom. 10:13; 1 Cor. 1:2; cf. 2 Tim. 2:22; see TDNT 5:263]). Although presumably the basic sense was to make entreaty to the Lord (more typically expressed with “call upon [the name of] the Lord”), it denotes acknowledging the name of YHWH (Isa. 26:13 LXX: “O Lord our God, take possession of us: O Lord, we know no other beside you: we name your name [to onoma sou onomazomen]”), or mentioning the name as if to summon him (Amos 6:10 LXX: “Be silent, that you do not name the name of the Lord” [siga, heneka tou mē onomasai to onoma kyriou]). And in one case the phrase is used to describe blasphemy of the Lord (Lev. 24:16 LXX: “And he that names the name of the Lord, let him die the death” [onomazōn de to onoma kyriou thanatō thanatousthō]); however, here the phrase acquires this negative meaning from 24:11, where the naming of the Name is accompanied by “cursing” (“And the son of the Israelite woman named the Name and cursed” [kai eponomasas ho huios tēs gynaikos tēs Israēlitidos to onoma katērasato]).
This variety of usage leads to two suggested sources of the phrase cited here. Most interpreters regard the reference as an echo of Isa. 26:13 LXX, where a positive acknowledgment of God is implied:
Isa. 26:13 LXX: O Lord our God, take possession of us: O Lord, we know no other beside you: we name your name [to onoma sou onomazomen].
In this case the statement, extending the thought of the previous line, calls on the faithful to separate themselves from evil and so show their allegiance to God. If, however, “naming the name” intends an echo of Lev. 24:16 (in the context of 24:11), where the phrase is descriptive of blasphemy, then the reference would be to the false teachers in the community, who are then to heed Paul’s warning in 2:19d and repent before judgment is executed:
Lev. 24:16 LXX: And he that names the name of the Lord, let him die the death [onomazōn de to onoma kyriou thanatō thanatousthō].
The context of opposition and false teaching makes this latter view possible (cf. 1 Tim. 1:20), but the former view seems more likely, primarily because of the renewed contact made with the story in Num. 16 at its point of climax (see below). It occurs where the people are instructed to choose sides. The command added to the “naming” text in 2:19d is “turn away from wrongdoing” (apostētō apo adikias).
This command in itself recalls several similar LXX texts (see Pss. 6:9 [6:8 ET]; 33:15 [34:14 ET]; Prov. 3:7; Isa. 52:11; Sir. 17:26) but, due to the choice of adikia over anomia, might seem at first glance closest in form to the citation of Ps. 6:9 preserved in Luke 13:27. Three differences from our text should be noted: (1) Ps. 6:9 LXX (Luke 13:27) addresses the command to evildoers; (2) the speaker (David [in Luke it is Jesus describing eschatological judgment]) is concerned to be separated from them; (3) both Luke and 2 Timothy have chosen adikia instead of anomia:
Ps. 6:9 LXX: Depart from me all you who do lawlessness [apostēte ap’ emou pantes hoi ergazomenoi tēn anomian].
Luke 13:27: Depart from me all you workers of injustice [apostēte ap’ emou pantes ergatai adikias].
2 Tim. 2:19d: Turn away from wickedness [apostētō apo adikias].
However that lexical choice is to be explained, the main difference is one of perspective. The personal perspective adopted in Ps. 6:9 LXX (“Depart from me all you who do lawlessness” [also Luke 13:27]) equates separation with judgment. The perspective adopted in 2 Timothy, however, compares more closely with that of Ps. 33:15; Prov. 3:7; Sir. 17:26, which equate separation with purity and a return to the Lord, so that separation from wickedness preserves God’s people from judgment:
Sir. 17:26: Return to the Most High and turn away from wickedness [apostrephe apo adikias].
The sharp focus on God’s people, and indeed on their identity as God’s people, as well as on their preservation is produced by the allusion to Isa. 26:13 and the image of “naming the Name.” The command of separation, although paralleled in various OT texts, is without a precise textual match. But bearing in mind the essential matter of perspective, we see that the climactic command at the end of the story in Numbers (which would have been well known), which orders the people to separate from the rebels, does provide both the thematic (perspective) and verbal contact point (in the verb “turn away” [apostētō]). Numbers 16:26–27 reports the visit of Moses and the elders of Israel, at the Lord’s command, to Dathan and Abiram, companions of Korah, to urge the people to get away from the rebels before judgment:
He said to the congregation, “Separate yourselves [aposchisthēte] from the tents of these wicked men, and touch nothing of theirs, or you will be swept away for all their sins.” So they got away [apestēsan] from the dwellings of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram; and Dathan and Abiram came out and stood at the entrance of their tents, together with their wives, their children, and their little ones.
This concern—the people of God must demonstrate their purity—exactly parallels Paul’s concern in the “seal”-response portion of 2:19c–d. The initial allusion to Num. 16:5 draws the audience into that dramatic OT story of identity where the specter of impending judgment has been raised. The two situations are sufficiently close, and the Korah story was well enough known in Judaism (applied to enforce proper recognition of authority [e.g., 4Q423 5; Sir. 45:18–19]) and the early church (as here, as a template for rebellious heretics [Jude 11]). The parallels are obvious: challengers to God’s representatives (Moses/Paul) have been named, and the people must choose sides, thereby establishing their identity. Consequently, the verbal contact in “turn away”/“depart from” should be taken seriously as an echo of the climax of the Korah story: the OT story provides a narrative illustration of the concept of “wickedness” (adikia) and the narrative source that gives meaning to the command in 2:19d.
Thus following on from the warning that supplies the first part of the “seal,” the second citation calls the faithful of the congregation (“all who name the name of the Lord”) to dissociate themselves completely from the opponents and their teachings (adikia). What the rest of the passage confirms, however, is that the fate of the false teachers is not yet fixed, for they too may turn from evil. The general call to separate from evil that occurs throughout the OT is given specific shape in this instance by the intertextual play between the apostasy faced by Timothy and the story of Korah’s rebellion in the wilderness. As in the use of wilderness motifs in 1 Cor. 10, the present passage issues a dire warning by way of Israel’s experience of God’s wrath; the equal need for his grace and kindness is not passed over, but is left to a later point (2:25).
In a section of the letter designed to place the heretics into the traditional framework of the evil of “the last days,” Paul taps into the story of Moses and the magicians of Egypt (Exod. 7–9) to draw an analogy between those who resisted Moses and those who resist Paul and his gospel (“the truth”). In doing so, he does not access Scripture directly, but rather draws on the story somewhere downstream of Exodus in the oral and literary tradition of Judaism.
2 Tim. 3:8: As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so also these people . . . oppose the truth.
The derivation of the names “Jannes” (Iannēs) and “Jambres” (Iambrēs) is debated (Pietersma 1994: 36–42; 1995–1997; Dibelius and Conzelmann 1972: 117; Schürer 1973–1987: 3.2:781–83; Thackeray 1900: 220–21). “Jannes” may be the Greek transliteration of “Johana,” which is possibly derived from the Hebrew verb ḥānâ, meaning “oppose, contradict.” “Jambres” may be a misspelling of an original “Mambres” (as some Latin and Greek versions have it), which in turn may be derived (via the spelling “Mamrey”) from the Hebrew verb mārâ, meaning “rebel.” Whatever the derivation of the names, they emerge first in the tradition in CD-A V, 17–19: “For formerly Moses and Aaron arose by the hand of the Prince of Lights; but Belial raised up Jannes and his brother, in his cunning, when Israel was saved for the first time.” Subsequent references are numerous and spread among Jewish (e.g., Tg. Ps.-J. on Exod. 1:15; 7:11; Num. 22:22; Exod. Rab. 9; b. Menaḥ. 85a [see further Str-B 3:660–64]), Christian (e.g., Acts Pil. 5:1; Origen, Comm. Matt. 23:37; 29:9; Cels. 4.51), and secular Latin and Greek writers (e.g., Pliny the Elder, Nat. 30.1.11; Apuleius, Apol. 90). What is noticeable, apart from variances in spelling and in single versus double mention of the two characters, is the way the tradition elevated their roles to archetypal status. They came to represent Moses’ archnemeses who would counter his displays of divine power with various tricks of their own; and by their association with various stories (as Balaam’s servants or sons, trailing Israel through the wilderness and instigating the rebellion embodied in the golden calf [see TDNT 3:192–92]), they acquired symbolic status as opponents of the truth.
The source for this tradition remains uncertain (Spicq [1969: 779] suggests that Paul learned it from the Targum). The NT attests to the fact that other expansions of OT stories were common currency in the early church’s tradition (Acts 7:22–23, 53; 1 Cor. 10:2, 4; Gal. 3:19; Heb. 2:2; Jude 9). Paul alludes to these figures generally in the way that the rabbinic writers did. His readers presumably know the developments surrounding these two characters in tradition. The function of the reference is to link the present (eschatological) adversaries—the false teachers—with the age-old spirit of deception and opposition embodied in these two figures. In this appropriation of the traditional symbol the unity of God’s story is understood: what has gone around is now (again, in “the last days”) coming around. The pattern established in the early stage of God’s story of redemption finds new yet continuous expression in the opposition of “the last days.” Equally present in the adoption of the analogy, though more implicit, is a comparison of Moses’ authority with Paul’s. As in the seminal story, so in the latter days God’s representatives and people will triumph over all opposition.
3:11
Paul next takes up again the renewal of Timothy’s calling. The apostle’s faithfulness and obedience (3:10), well known by Timothy, form the paradigm for the co-worker’s life. But also paradigmatic are the apostolic persecutions and sufferings as well as God’s rescue from them (3:11). In the recollection of God’s intervention, Paul echoes the OT:
2 Tim. 3:11: . . . what persecutions [diōgmous] I endured, yet the Lord rescued me from them all [kai ek pantōn me errysato ho kyrios].
The wording of this statement corresponds closely to the second half of Ps. 33:18 LXX (34:16–18 MT; 34:17 ET):
The righteous ones cried out and the Lord heard them and delivered them from all their afflictions [ekekraxan hoi dikaioi kai ho kyrios eisēkousen autōn kai ek pasōn tōn thlipseōn autōn errysato autous].
Psalm 33:20 LXX (34:20 MT; 34:19 ET) resumes the language, stating the principle (in the future tense) underlying the act of deliverance celebrated two verses earlier:
Many are the afflictions [thlipseis] of the righteous, and yet he will rescue them from them all [kai ek pasōn autōn rhysetai autous]. (Cf. 33:5 LXX [34:5 MT; 34:4 ET]; 141:7 [142:7 MT; 142:6 ET].)
The theme of “deliverance” begins in Ps. 33:5 LXX, but Paul seems to have made his entrance at the point where it is applied specifically to God’s intervention on behalf of “the righteous” in 33:18–20 LXX. Thus he makes explicit his interest in a theology of suffering built on the OT theme of the righteous sufferer. This theme—the suffering of the righteous and God’s promise to vindicate them—was already present in some Jewish circles (Pss. 22; 38; 69; Wis. 2:12–20; 5:1–7), and it was taken by the early church in reference to Christ (see Ruppert 1972). Paul had already extended the pattern to include Christians (Rom. 8:36; cf. Acts 14:22), and here he interprets his experience according to that pattern. In place of the term “righteous” is the statement in 3:12 that associates “godly living” with “persecution,” which is essentially a contextualized form of Ps. 33:20a LXX (the association of eusebeia [“godliness”] with dikaios [“the righteous”] was also taking place in the later OT literature [Prov. 13:11; cf. Isa. 33:6; 4 Macc. 9:24; see Towner 1996]). Given the importance of the “godliness” language in these letters to co-workers, this transposition is almost predictable. Other changes are minor: replacement of the psalmist’s term “afflictions” (thlipseis) with “persecutions” (diōgmoi) and “sufferings” (pathēmata) is incidental and occasioned by Paul’s discourse; instead of the feminine form of “from all” (ek pasōn), required by the object “afflictions” (tōn thlipseōn), Paul uses the masculine form (ek pantōn) in connection with the masculine term “persecutions” (diōgmous).
Consequently, by means of the echo, Paul assumes the role of the OT righteous sufferer and links his sufferings closely to the suffering of Jesus. He allows the theme to interpret his apostolic ministry and extends it to explain the missiological dimension of the church’s existence. The appearance of the theme foreshadows Paul’s conclusion in 4:16–18, where there is, however, a significant difference in accent. Here, looking backward and toward Timothy’s ongoing ministry, Paul’s experience of “deliverance” (rhyomai [4:17–18]) relates to temporal, physical rescue (“from all of them” [i.e., the aforementioned sufferings]). These rescues stand as evidence not only of the Lord’s (here Christ; in the psalms Yahweh) love, but also of the apostle’s status as one who stands in the line of righteous sufferers, along with OT prophets, the Suffering Servant, and Messiah. Seen in this light, suffering is neither meaningless nor hopeless. Consequently, Paul’s suffering (in prison at present or in the past) confirms rather than denies (as some might have been alleging; cf. 1:16) his divine calling. Sufferings come, but the Lord rescues. Why? The answer comes in the OT background: the suffering ones are God’s righteous; his pledge is to rescue them completely (“from all of them”).
3:15a
Paul’s comment in 3:15a about how Timothy, from his youth, has had knowledge of the Scriptures taps into the rich and widely developed value and practice in Judaism of instruction in Torah from childhood (see the references and discussion in Str-B 3:664–66). The following description of the Scriptures as being “able to make you wise for salvation” (ta dynamena se sophisai eis sōtērian [3:15b]) possibly owes a debt to the language of Ps. 118:98 LXX (119:98 MT/ET), “You have made me wiser [esophisas] than my enemies in your commandment, for it is mine forever”; however, beyond the sharing of the verb and the interest in God’s word, the resemblance is slight.
Here Paul employs the figure of “the crown of righteousness” (ho tēs dikaiosynēs stephanos). This bears a resemblance to the reward promised to the righteous ones in Wis. 5:15–16: “But the righteous [dikaioi] live forever, and their reward is with the Lord. . . . Therefore they will receive a glorious crown [to basileion tēs euprepeias] and a beautiful diadem [to diadēma tou kallous] from the hand of the Lord.” A closer verbal correspondence is seen in Let. Aris. 280: “God having granted you a crown of righteousness” (theou soi stephanon dikaiosynēs dedōkotos). But although these texts indicate the currency of the imagery (reward expressed in terms of a crown, and specifically the phrase “crown of righteousness”), it is doubtful that Paul consciously echoed either text.
4:14
The treacherous actions of Alexander in the events that Paul describes (possibly some part in Paul’s arrest by Roman authorities [Quinn and Wacker 2000: 819–20; Fee 1988: 295–96]) elicited a severe pronouncement of judgment. Although there may be no conscious attempt on Paul’s part to quote or allude to an OT text or texts directly, he does have in mind a well-known Jewish principle enunciated variously in a series of OT and Jewish texts. The language of this pronouncement may actually echo Rom. 2:6, as other links to that letter in 2 Timothy may suggest (1:7; 2:11). In Romans the principle is invoked to illustrate the preceding statement about God’s fairness of judgment. Here in 2 Timothy it is invoked because that very “fairness” of God determined that Alexander would get his just deserts. In both texts it is probably the formulation of the principle in Psalms and Proverbs that would be most in mind (LXX: Pss. 27:4 [28:4 ET]; 61:13 [62:11 ET]; Prov. 24:12; see also Job 34:11; Jer. 17:10; Hos. 12:2; Sir. 16:12–14; 35:24; 1 En. 100:7; L.A.B. 3:10; Matt. 16:27).
Ps. 61:13 LXX: Strength is God’s, and mercy is yours, Lord, because you repay each one according to his deeds [sy apodōseis hekastō kata ta erga autou].
Ps. 27:4 LXX: Give them according to their deeds [dos . . . kata ta erga autōn], and according to the evil of their ways, give them according to the deeds of their hands [kata ta erga . . . dos], repay them the recompense due them [apodos to antapodoma].
Prov. 24:12 LXX: But if you should say, “I do not know this person,” know that the Lord knows the hearts of all, and he that formed the breath for all, he knows all things, who pays back each one according to his deeds [hos apodidōsin hekastō kata ta erga autou].
Rom. 2:6: He will repay each one according to his deeds [hos apodōsei hekastō kata ta erga autou].
2 Tim. 4:14: The Lord will pay him back according to his deeds [apodōsei autō ho kyrios kata ta erga autou].
Matt. 16:27: For the Son of Man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels, and then he will pay back to each one according to his deeds [apodōsei hekastō kata tēn praxin autou]. (Cf. Sir. 35:22 LXX [35:24 ET]: “until he repays a person according to his deeds” [heōs antapodō anthrōpō kata tas praxeis autou]. The textual tradition of Matt. 16:27 [א* et al.] corrects tēn praxin to the more dominant ta erga.)
Contact with the tradition in 4:14 is clear from the characteristic verb (apodidōmi) and the standard or criterion of recompense (“according to his/her deeds” [kata ta erga autou]). This application is somewhat unusual among the various expressions of the principle because it takes the form of a specific pronouncement (apodōsei is future indicative) of judgment on an individual. In this it inclines to the application of the principle in Ps. 27:4 LXX, and we hear in Paul’s pronouncement the sentiments of the oppressed there (almost an imprecation, and it would be if the verb were subjunctive or optative, as a few manuscripts weakly attest; but it is hardly a “curse” [pace Dibelius and Conzelmann 1972: 123]): appeal is made to God to mete out to the oppressors what their evil deeds deserve.
The rabbis discussed the principle of judgment or payback on the basis of deeds at length (see the numerous references in Str-B 3:78–79; cf. Yinger 1999). And the acceptable “deeds” would have been those acts that expressed faithfulness to the covenant. Paul does not develop the positive side of this principle here, but he has created a contrast by means of the same verb and same tone of certainty, with the statement of his reward in 4:8: “the Lord will recompense me” (apodōsei moi ho kyrios) versus “the Lord will recompense him” (apodōsei autō ho kyrios). We may assume that in Paul’s adaptation of the principle, authentic faithfulness to God (= faith in Christ and the life that this engenders) receives the reward. Although the pronouncement of judgment may hint at Paul’s authority (cf. 1 Cor. 16:22; Gal. 1:8–9), it is hedged about with the appropriate recognition of divine prerogative. And the standard of judgment paid out that ensures impartial justice consists precisely of the deeds of the one judged (cf. 2 Cor. 11:15; 1 Pet. 1:17; Rev. 2:23; 18:6; 20:12–13).
4:16–18
In the self-reflection of 4:6–8 Paul has placed the matter of his impending death openly on the table. In 4:16–18, however, his death receives its clearest interpretation. In this closing statement Paul is operating on two levels. The first is the historical level that describes what is ostensibly the apostle’s present situation and historical framework. To interpret these circumstances Paul seeks a second theological level by connecting consciously to a dominant OT template. The reflections on suffering already viewed (3:11; cf. 1:8–12; 2:8–10) prepare the reader for the connections to be made in this climactic interpretation; however, this interpretive reflection could not have been fully anticipated. Attention must be paid to each level for the impact of Paul’s conclusion to be felt. We will see that the theological interpretation that Paul achieves depends upon a cumulative web of allusions to Ps. 21 LXX, a psalm that figures prominently in the evangelists’ depiction of Jesus’ passion. Subtler echoes that might be passed over (and indeed have been ignored by most commentators) fall into alignment around the overt reference to rescue “from the lion’s mouth.” And the likelihood that Paul adopted the psalm as an interpretive compass is further strengthened by the close associations already made in the letter between his experiences of suffering and those of Jesus (1:8; 2:8–10) and the righteous sufferer (3:11).
At the historical level, Paul reflects on his court case, which has progressed through an initial hearing and has gone badly for the accused (see Sherwin-White 1963: 49–52, 112–17; Marshall 1999: 822–24). This assessment emerges in his only explicit comment about it: “At my first defense no one came to my support, but everyone deserted me.” That is, apparently those whom he expected to come forward to speak in his behalf decided rather to abandon the apostle. The adversative phrase “but everyone abandoned me” serves two purposes. On the historical level it creates a double contrast—with the statement just made and in the juxtaposing of “everyone” with “me” (alla pantes me)—that serves to escalate the theme from the sense of isolation and negligence just expressed to the more shocking sense of culpable abandonment. Also on the historical level the verb egkateleipō (“desert”), the same verb used to describe Demas’s desertion in 4:10, invites the readers to draw a connection between the two events of abandonment and to place this reference to abandonment within the framework of the statement made about the desertion of the Asian co-workers in 1:15.
This historical reflection on abandonment does not exhaust the contrast statement’s function; rather, it initiates the sequence of allusions to the psalms, and especially Ps. 21 LXX (22 MT), that will form an interpretive grid for a theological reading of Paul’s final sufferings.
The verb used to tell of the abandonment is the same one that occurs in Ps. 21:2 LXX (“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”), a text that occurs on the lips of Jesus at the climax of the passion, by which the suffering of Jesus came to be understood (Mark 15:34 par.):
2 Tim. 4:16: But everyone deserted me [me egkatelipon].
Ps. 21:2 LXX: My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? [ho theos ho theos mou, prosches moi; hina ti egkatelipes me?]
Mark 15:34: elōi elōi lema sabachthani . . . ho theos mou ho theos mou, eis ti egkatelipes me?
With but a single term serving as the initial cue to an intertextual connection, the question of a Greek or Hebrew source text is, in principle, open, although Paul’s preference for the LXX will be demonstrated again as he extends the OT web. With this allusion Paul (however obliquely) taps into the psalmist’s puzzled question and the theme of the messianic sufferings. His intention is to link up the somber statements of abandonment in the letter, identifying this experience as being symbolic of the cruciform path walked by the Messiah. But the interpretive grid is broader than this, and Paul will incorporate several other items from the psalm before he is finished.
Following a brief prayer for the deserters (4:16b), Paul uses the strong statement of his experience of betrayal and abandonment as a contrastive backdrop for his presentation of the climax of his ministry (4:17–18). The conclusion of the sequence initiated at 4:16 brings together four important elements, each of which is rooted in some way in Ps. 21 LXX, before the doxology is reached.
First, Paul stresses that abandonment by people was more than compensated for by the Lord’s presence and empowerment. The first phrase, “the Lord stood by me” (ho de kyrios moi parestē), describes an experience of divine presence. The tradition surrounding Paul’s ministry made note of similar divine interventions in the apostle’s life (Acts 18:9–10; 27:23; cf. 13:2; 16:7; 20:22–23; 21:11), accompanied in one case by the Lord’s personal promise of support for his ministry in Rome (23:11); so in itself this is not an unusual feature.
In making this claim, however, Paul introduces a strong image that evokes a cluster of dominant ideas fundamental to the OT expression of Israel’s belief in God. Here again historical reflection opens a door to a deeper theological level of the text. The language of Paul’s claim first transports the reader back to the beginnings of Israel’s existence. The verb parestē first describes the dramatic descent of the Lord in a cloud to “stand by” Moses (Exod. 34:5), and Moses’ experience becomes one to be enjoyed by any of God’s people (Ps. 108:31 [109:31 ET]; Wis. 10:11), reenacted within the community in the tabernacle and then the temple (TDNT 5:838–39). Moreover, God’s “presence” with his people becomes symbolic of Israel’s uniqueness among the nations—a relationship with the Creator God that is characterized by divine “help” and “deliverance” (Exod. 15:2; 18:4; Deut. 32:38; 33:7, 29; with the key word groups being boētheō, sōzō, and later rhyomai). These elements become the trademarks of God’s presence with his people in the very early going, and their absence, the sign of his displeasure (Deut. 28:29, 31).
These concepts of divine help and deliverance permeated the Psalter as the liturgists of Israel’s middle and later periods shaped the nation’s worship on the basis of remembrance of past help and present need (e.g., LXX: Pss. 7:11 [7:10 ET]; 20:2 [21:1 ET]; 21:12, 20 [22:11, 19 ET]; 53:6 [54:4 ET]; 69:2 [70:1 ET]; 70:12 [71:12 ET]). It becomes typical to find the prayer for God’s help and deliverance linked closely to the question of his proximity. This brings us again to Ps. 21 LXX, where this cry for help and God’s presence is raised twice (21:12, 20) and where the Lord’s past deliverance of the nation (21:5) becomes the basis for the prayer for his deliverance from present dangers (21:9, 21). And all of this is occasioned by the psalmist’s perplexed opening question to God: “Why have you abandoned me?” (21:2).
The likelihood that Paul arranged the themes of his closing reflection around Ps. 21 LXX might be questioned if he were limited to explicit quotation to lure his readers to a deeper level. However, the theme of the “nearness and help of the Lord” is central in the psalm, and, as we saw, it is fundamental to the broader OT story; and the evidence will accumulate as we continue. At this point, by saying “the Lord stood by me,” Paul says in effect that in his experience the psalmist’s prayers were answered. Paul, like Jesus, entered the psalm of messianic travail (indeed, several times, though with the advantage of a postresurrection perspective) and came out on the other side of it (or would do so) in the strength of the Lord’s presence. His experiences follow the pattern established by Jesus (1:8; 2:8–10; cf. Col. 1:24), and his vindication, made certain by Jesus’ resurrection (2:8), cannot be far off.
In Paul’s situation, divine presence/help was experienced as “empowerment” (2:1 [cf. Phil. 4:13]) that resulted in an event of proclamation that symbolized the completion of his mission (4:17b). Historically, this probably is a reference to his day in court (the first apologia), which, as in the past (Acts 22; 25; 26), he was able to exploit for the gospel (Towner 1999: 166–67; Marshall 1999: 824).
But how can Paul interpret this court appearance with such boldness? In what sense have all the Gentiles heard? The phrase “all the Gentiles/nations” (panta ta ethnē), which certainly need not exclude the Jews (Prior 1989: 115–24; Towner 1999: 167), is a loaded term in Pauline thought (Rom. 15:11; 16:26; Gal. 3:8). It sums up the universal scope of the salvation plan of God, from the Abrahamic promise and institution of the covenant (Gen. 18:18; 22:18; 26:4; Deut. 7:6; 28:10) to its full unveiling in the psalms and the prophets (Pss. 46:2 LXX [47:1 ET]; 71:11, 17 LXX [72:11, 17 ET]; 85:9 LXX [86:9 ET]; Isa. 2:2; 66:18; Ezek. 38:16; Hag. 2:7; Dan. 7:14), from which Paul clearly took his cue (Rom. 9–11; 15:9–13; Gal. 1:15–16). It is this deeply theological meaning that suggests the symbolic nature of this statement about his Roman proclamation. Thus what Paul says figuratively in 4:7, “I have competed well, finished the race, kept the faith,” now on the historical (and missiological) plane translates into “I have fully accomplished my mission to the Gentiles.”
Is the messianic psalm still in mind? Again historical reflection finds theological resonance in the background text. As Ps. 21 LXX turns from the desperate prayer for help (21:21–22 [see also below]) to the beleaguered one’s promise to proclaim the Lord’s faithfulness (21:23–27), the psalmist announces the same promise to the nations that Paul claims here to be fulfilled: “All the ends of the earth [panta ta perata tēs gēs] shall remember and turn to the Lord; and all the families of the nations [pasai hai patriai tōn ethnōn] shall worship before him, for dominion belongs to the Lord, and he rules over the nations” (21:28–29). The universal scope of salvation (“all . . . all” [panta . . . pasai]) and the language (“all . . . the nations” [pasai . . . tōn ethnōn]) suggest that this is more than a chance allusion.
In rapid succession come three final links to Psalm 21 LXX: a distinctive metaphor, verbs of rescue, and kingdom language. The second element of the story’s conclusion (4:17c) completes the sentence with a metaphorical description of deliverance: “And I was delivered from the lion’s mouth.” The phrase “lion’s mouth” was a strong metaphor for death (Ps. 21:22 LXX [22:21 ET]; Judg. 14:8–9; Amos 3:12; Dan. 6:21 Θ [6:20 ET]; 1 Macc. 2:60), and it functions in this way here. It is a close match with Ps. 21:22 LXX, and it is the definitive echo of the psalm in this section and the literary magnet that attracts and orientates the other allusions:
Ps. 21:22 LXX: Save me from the mouth of the lion [sōson me ek stomatos leontos].
2 Tim. 4:17c: And I was delivered from the mouth of the lion [kai errysthēn ek stomatos leontos].
The psalmist’s verb (sōzō) is different (but note sōsei [“he will save”] in 4:18b), but the one occurring here (rhyomai) and repeated in 4:18a is a dominant feature of the vocabulary of the psalm (21:5, 9, 21 LXX), fortifying the connection. In fact, the verb pair in the first two clauses of 4:18 (rhyomai/sōzō) replicates the alternating pattern of the psalm: 21:5–6, 9, 21–22 LXX (this particular pattern, which corresponds to the parallelism of Hebrew poetry, is restricted mostly to the psalms [LXX: Ps. 6:5; 7:2; 30:2–3, 16–17; 58:3; 59:7; 68:15; 70:2; 107:7; Job 33:28, 30; cf. Ps. 50:16; 85:2; 108:26]):
4:17c: And I was delivered [errysthēn] from the mouth of the lion.
4:18a: The Lord will deliver [rhysetai] me from every evil deed,
4:18b: and he will save [sōsei] me into his heavenly kingdom.
21:5: Our fathers hoped in you; they hoped, and you delivered [errysō] them.
21:6: To you they cried and were saved [esōthēsan].
21:9: He hoped in the Lord; let him deliver [rhysasthō] him, let him save [sōsatō] him because he takes pleasure in him.
21:21: Deliver [rhysai] my life from the sword.
21:22: Save [sōson] me from the mouth of the lion.
In 4:18a–b the second statement of salvation is parallel to the first, and in supplying the positive measurement of salvation (“into”), it complements the negative measurement (“from” [cf. 4:17c]) as it also completes the verb pairing. The Hebrew-type parallelism and the orientation of thought indicated in this second part make it clear that the future acts of rescue (4:18a) and saving (4:18b) are meant in a final sense (Marshall 1999: 826); and with the thought of impending death, the accent on salvation is shifted to the future consummation (as in 1 Cor. 15:40, 48 [2x]; Eph. 1:3, 20; 2:6; 3:10; 6:12; Col. 1:13; also John 3:12; Heb. 9:23 [see TDNT 5:538–42]). This salvation is ultimately described as entry into “his heavenly kingdom.” The two-part affirmation of the Lord’s salvation is, in Paul’s historical context, a thorough rejection of the dominion of evil (rulers or opponents) in view of the reality and supremacy of the Lord’s dominion (“kingdom” [basileia]). In both the term and the tone, Paul makes his final reference to the psalm. There, in Ps. 21:29 LXX, a claim about God’s dominion establishes the certainty that all nations will turn to the Lord:
Ps. 21:29 LXX: For dominion [basileia] is the Lord’s, and he rules the nations [tōn ethnōn].
Consequently, Paul’s discourse moves from the historical level to the theological level by making various connections with Ps. 21 LXX. The purpose is to interpret his final episode of suffering for the gospel in terms of the tradition of Jesus’ passion. By incorporating the psalmist’s vision for the Gentiles, this interpretive application of the suffering figure of the psalm to his apostolic ministry actually takes Paul to a place that Jesus would go fully only through the apostolic mission—to the Gentiles. This is in keeping with the place at which the Pauline story begins and ends and the distinctive role that he plays in relation to God’s promise to save the nations. Paul’s suffering, the abandonment he experienced, and his impending death all fit the Jesus mold. Yet his experience in no way supersedes that of Jesus; rather, it is the complementary outworking of one who has taken to himself the cruciform character and behavior of the Lord.
Written with much the same purpose and tone as 1 Timothy, this letter instructs the Pauline co-worker Titus in matters related to organizing the leadership and community life of churches on Crete.
2:14
The only extensive interaction with the OT occurs in 2:14. (We should note that the use of the bdelyktos [“detestable”], a NT hapax legomenon, as a denunciation in 1:16 compares with the use of the cognate verb in Ps. 13:1 LXX [14:1 ET], a text that expresses the same sentiment of denying the existence of God by acts of abominable behavior: “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God.’ They have corrupted themselves and become abominable [ebdelychthēsan] in their devices; there is none that does goodness, there is not even so much as one” [cf. Rom. 3:10–12]. For use of the adjective, see Prov. 17:15; 2 Macc. 1:27.) This verse concludes a christological statement inserted to explain the nature of the appearance of God’s grace in the world (2:11–14). The explicit identification that closes 2:13—”our Savior, Jesus Christ”—returns Paul to the past event of salvation with which the statement began (2:11). He interprets this event in two ways: (1) by means of a relative clause that incorporates a Pauline interpretation of Jesus’ death; (2) by means of a purpose clause that reflects on the significance of that event. The whole statement is a thoughtful combination of intertextual echoes of his own use elsewhere of a Jesus saying and OT texts and imagery.
The traditional character of the opening clause (“who gave himself for us”) is indicated by the relative pronoun that attaches this statement to the name Jesus Christ (cf., e.g., Rom. 8:32; Phil. 2:6; 1 Tim. 3:16; 1 Pet. 2:22–24; 3:22). The comment often is traced to the Son of Man logion in Mark 10:45, but Paul clearly had picked up and adapted this saying for other teaching contexts (cf. Gal. 1:4; 2:20; Eph. 5:2; 1 Tim. 2:6; see Towner 2005; Johnson 2001: 191).
The purpose clause that follows (hina) identifies two effects of Christ’s death, and it is in drawing out the purpose that OT texts are woven together. First, Christ’s self-offering accomplished the removal of believers (“us”) from the sphere of sin. To express this aspect, Paul draws on the metaphor of redemption. Behind the metaphor was the practice of purchasing the freedom of a slave or captive by the payment of a ransom (lytroō [Luke 24:21; 1 Pet. 1:18]; see TDNT 4:349–51; TLNT 2:423–29; Hill 1967: 49–81). But the verb “redeem” was used widely in the biblical tradition of the action taken by God to set his people free (Ps. 106:2 [107:2 MT]; 118:134 [119:134 MT]; 1 Macc. 4:11; Sir. 50:24), and it was already closely associated with his deliverance of the people from Egypt (Exod. 6:6; Deut. 7:8; 2 Sam. 7:23). It was another way of speaking of God’s saving act, and it would have primarily called to mind the OT story of deliverance from Egypt.
But a more specific intertextual cue is given as the verse goes on to name the hostile environment from which people are redeemed—“from all iniquity/lawlessness”:
Ps. 129:8 LXX: It is he who will redeem Israel [lytrōsetai ton Israēl] from all its iniquities [ek pasōn tōn anomiōn autou].
Titus 2:14b: in order that he might redeem us [lytrōsētai hēmas] from all iniquity [apo pasēs anomias]
The contact points suggest that the primary scriptural echo is the Greek text of Ps. 129:8 (130:8 ET). The changes are basically cosmetic: from “Israel” to “us” (= followers of the Messiah, and thus the substitution of the plural for the collective singular; doctrine-like sayings are often applied to believers by means of personal pronouns [cf., e.g., Rom. 5:6; 8:32; 2 Tim. 1:9–10; Titus 3:5; see Cranfield 1982]), and from the plural formulation (“from all its iniquities”) to a generalizing singular (“from all iniquity”).
In both cases redemption is “from all lawlessness.” The term anomia was used frequently in the OT to depict opposition to God’s law, and in the singular it denotes “wickedness” or “sinfulness,” which is set in opposition to the concept of righteousness (cf. Rom. 6:19; 2 Cor. 6:14). Paul uses the term occasionally to describe the state of sinfulness (as here, in the singular: Rom. 6:19; 2 Cor. 6:14; 2 Thess. 2:3, 7) and seems to avoid the plural usage (= “acts of lawlessness” [Rom. 4:7]). Paul’s choice of the phrase was naturally determined by the OT text in mind at this point. But the term anomia rings into consciousness the next web of OT texts to be engaged. To this point, the effects of Christ’s self-offering are interpreted in terms of redemption from sin’s enslavement, which is associated in the OT with God’s powerful intervention.
Reflection on Christ’s death continues in Titus 2:14c, where the metaphor of “washing/cleansing” echoes another cluster of OT covenantal texts linked to the preceding by the term anomia: “and to cleanse for himself a people of his own.” The new metaphor, “cleansing” (katharizō; for the cognate adjective, katharos, see 1:15 [3x]; see TDNT 3:413–26), leads some to think of baptism (cf. Titus 3:5; Eph. 5:25–26; note other symbolic cleansings in Heb. 9:14, 22–23; 1 Pet. 1:2; 1 John 1:7, 9). But the sense is that of cultic purification (in relation to the preparation for making sacrifices and so on), which the OT already extended figuratively to describe God’s action of purifying his people, so that they may be his people. The “cleansing” imagery gives access to a catena of Greek texts from Ezek. 36–37, already anticipated in the anomia of the last clause:
Ezek. 37:23: They will no longer defile themselves with their idols and vile images or with any of their offenses, for I will save them from all their sinful backsliding [apo pasōn tōn anomiōn autōn], and I will cleanse them [kathariō autous]. They will be my people [esontai moi eis laon], and I will be their God.
Ezek. 36:25: I will sprinkle clean [katharon] water upon you, and you will be cleansed [katharisthēsesthe] from all your uncleannesses [tōn akatharsiōn] and from all your idols, and I will cleanse [kathariō] you.
Ezek. 36:29: I will save you from all your uncleannesses [tōn akatharsiōn].
Ezek. 36:33: Thus says the Lord God, “In the day wherein I will cleanse [kathariō] you from all your iniquities [ek pasōn tōn anomiōn hymōn] I will also cause the cities to be inhabited, and the waste places will be built upon.”
Titus 2:14c: and to cleanse for himself a people of his own [kai katharisē heautō laon periousion]
Paul’s intertextual play may have begun with Ezek. 37:23, but the spread of the term anomia and the katharos word group make a single text source impossible to establish. And in the closing reference to “a people of his own,” Paul strikes another rich thematic vein that incorporates the Ezekiel context but also reaches back to the seminal reflections on the covenant made on Mount Sinai:
Ezek. 37:23: They will be my people, and I, the Lord, will be their God [esontai moi eis laon, kai egō kyrios esomai autois eis theon].
Ezek. 36:28: You will be my people, and I will be your God [esesthe moi eis laon, kagō esomai hymin eis theon].
Exod. 19:5: You will be a people of my possession out of all the nations [esesthe moi laos periousios apo pantōn tōn ethnōn].
Deut. 7:6: The Lord your God has chosen you out of all the nations on the earth to be a people of his possession [se proeilato kyrios ho theos sou einai se autō laon periousion para panta ta ethnē]. (Cf. 14:2.)
Paul’s adaptation draws together the concepts of cleansing (from anomia) and election. The defilement in mind in Ezek. 37:23 and 36:25 is that of exilic and postexilic idolatry, and the application of this to the Cretan context is not hard to see (1:10–16 and the use of the katharos word group in 1:15). The wider textual network that Paul contacts also associates purification from idolatry with the event of “becoming” God’s people and the ongoing act of “being” God’s people by way of the Godward covenant commitments required of his people.
The event of “becoming” is God’s covenantal and creative act, and the uniqueness of this people is first seen in this light. Paul sets the identity of the church into the OT context specifically focused on the promise of the new (or renewed) covenant (cf. Ezek. 36:26–28). The textual network, beginning with Ezek. 37:23, superimposes Christ’s purifying act over God’s act in the OT. The result is a people whose messianic identity is uniquely imprinted upon them. In the OT covenantal transaction, by Yahweh’s action of cleansing (Ezek. 37:23) and electing (Deut. 7:6; 14:2), and upon the condition of the people’s faithfulness (Exod. 19:5), Israel would be known as “a people for his own possession” (for the phrase laos periousios, see also Exod. 23:22 LXX; Deut. 26:18; cf. peripoiēsis in Eph. 1:14; 1 Pet. 2:9; see TDNT 4:50–57)—that is, the unique possession of Yahweh, bearing the imprint of his holiness. The quality of uniqueness is emphasized by the selectivity with which Israel was chosen (Deut. 7:6); the Greek phrase behind “people for his possession” adds the sense of preciousness or costliness to this identity (TDNT 6:57–58; Marshall 1999: 286). The historical event that marked this development was the exodus. Now, in the messianic age, the death of the Messiah replicates the exodus event and replaces it as the new historical benchmark; and it is the Messiah, who, acting in God’s behalf, possesses this human treasure and imprints it with a renewed, unique identity.
The act of “being” belongs to the category of response. Paul closes the christological statement in 2:14d with the phrase “zealous for good deeds” (zēlōtēn kalōn ergōn). This loosely attached phrase links this christological statement to the preceding ethical teaching (2:2–10), ensuring the close relationship between theology (as anchored in the historical Christ event) and ethics (the life that this event “teaches” [2:12]). “Good deeds” (1:16; 2:7; 3:8, 14) is Pauline shorthand (particularly in these letters to co-workers [see Towner 1989: 153–54; Marshall 1999: 227–29]) for the visible, outward dimension of Christian existence (cf. Eph. 2:10).
We should recall that Paul insists that this dimension of Christian identity is something that the opponents lack (1:16), since, as we make the connections implied by Paul’s logic, they have not been “cleansed” (1:15). Thus, with this closing phrase Paul lifts the web of OT reflections into the contemporary situation, rounding off the theological rationale of Christian existence by returning to the ethical vocabulary most familiar to the readers. From the perspective of cause and effect, authentic Christian identity involves a creative act of “becoming” (redemption, purification) that makes a unique quality of “being” possible. With a distinct framework of OT covenant and new covenant already established by Paul, “zeal for good deeds” can be understood within that frame. The appropriate response to grace was to be devotion to Torah (Exod. 19:5; Deut. 26:18). From Paul’s eschatological Spirit-perspective, the faith response to covenant grace is the Spirit-generated fulfillment of Torah. His web of Ezekiel echoes (linked by the key themes and word groups of “cleansing,” “lawlessness,” “nationhood”) encompasses this new Spirit-reality, even if he delays explicit reference to the Spirit until 3:5–6:
36:25: I will sprinkle clean [katharon] water upon you, and you will be cleansed [katharisthēsesthe] from all your uncleannesses [tōn akatharsiōn] and from all your idols, and I will cleanse [kathariō] you.
36:26: I will give you a new heart, and will put a new spirit in you; and I will take away the heart of stone out of your flesh, and will give you a heart of flesh.
36:27: I will put my Spirit in you, and will cause you to walk in my ordinances, and keep my judgments, and do them.
36:28: You will dwell in the land which I gave to your ancestors; and you will be my people, and I will be your God.
36:29: I will save you from all your uncleannesses [tōn akatharsiōn].
36:31: Then you will remember your evil ways and your practices that were not good, and you will be hateful in your own sight for your transgressions [tais anomiais hymōn] and for your abominations [tois bdelygmasin hymōn]. (Cf. Titus 1:16.)
36:33: Thus says the Lord God, “In the day wherein I will cleanse [kathariō] you from all your iniquities [ek pasōn tōn anomiōn hymōn] I will also cause the cities to be inhabited, and the waste places will be built upon.”
Making the conceptual shift from “keeping the law” (e.g., Ezek. 36:27) to being “zealous for good deeds,” Paul has established an OT hermeneutical line that allows Christ’s death to be viewed as Yahweh’s ultimate act of deliverance, and the results to be seen in terms of the new-covenant perspective that emerged especially in Ezekiel. The eschatological wildcard, surely latent—as the Ezekiel texts themselves and Pauline theology in general would suggest—but not yet breaking the textual surface, is the Holy Spirit, whose dynamic role in authentic Christian existence will finally be explored in the subsequent section of Titus.
Before looking at 3:4–6 as a unit, we should note that 3:4 initiates the description of the epiphany of God’s “kindness [chrēstotēs] and love for people [philanthrōpia]” with a striking pair of terms (frequently linked in extrabiblical literature) that here coalesces OT and Hellenistic concepts. God’s chrēstotēs (cf. Rom. 2:4; 11:22 [3x]; Eph. 2:7) is a quality mentioned in numerous texts in the OT and the deuterocanonical writings (e.g., LXX: Ps. 30:20 [31:19 ET]; 84:13 [85:12 ET]; 118:65 [119:65 ET]; Pss. Sol. 5:18; 9:7; 18:1; for the adjective chrēstos, see, e.g., LXX: Ps. 99:5 [100:5 ET]; 105:1 [106:1 ET]; 106:1 [107:1 ET]; Jer. 40:11 [33:11 ET]). The second term of the pair, philanthrōpia, occurs only here as a description of God’s character (cf. Wis. 1:6; 7:23, where the adjective philanthrōpos is used to describe wisdom) and is more typically a virtue to be found in rulers (cf. Philo, Embassy 67; 73; Spec. Laws 3.155; Plutarch, Luc. 18.9; see TLNT 3:512–13).
We should also note that the language in which the negation of human effort in divine salvation is framed in 3:5 has a Pauline ring (cf., e.g., Rom. 9:12; Eph. 2:8–9), and this wider Pauline reflection is the more significant background to the statement. However, the structure and theme of Deut. 9:5 may have influenced the presentation of 3:5a (as well as Paul’s theology of justification):
Deut. 9:5: Not for your righteousness [ouchi dia tēn dikaiosynēn sou] . . . do you enter to inherit the land, but [alla] . . .
Titus 3:5a: He saved us, not out of works done in righteousness [ouk ex ergōn tōn en dikaiosynē], but [alla] . . .
Turning our attention to 3:4–6 as a unit, we note that the Pauline character of this closing theological piece is widely acknowledged. In it, Paul comes closest to reaching the level of emphasis on the role of the Spirit in salvation expressed elsewhere in his letters. Within the poem he draws explicitly on traditional language (Joel 3:1 LXX [2:28 ET]; Acts 2:17–18) to describe the Spirit’s “outpouring”:
Titus 3:6a: whom [God] poured out richly upon us [hou execheen eph’ hēmas plousiōs]
Joel 3:1: It will come to pass afterwards that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh [kai ekcheō apo tou pneumatos mou epi pasan sarka].
Acts 2:17: And it will be in the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh [kai estai en tais eschatais hēmerais, legei ho theos, ekcheō apo tou pneumatos mou epi pasan sarka].
As a comparison of the three texts suggests, the theme of the Spirit and the image of “pouring out,” stated in all three with the same verb (ekcheō), determine the link to the tradition. What cannot be said is whether Paul draws directly from the OT text of Joel or rather accesses it as it has already been incorporated into the early church’s paradosis (there is no reason to think that Acts 2 is the source of the allusion). Either way, the verb (shifted from first person to third person to suit the context) and the theme invoke Joel’s promise of the Spirit’s outpouring in order to establish the redemptive historical moment of salvation in Christ in relation to the ministry of the Spirit.
However, the OT background to this teaching about the Spirit is quite possibly more expansive. In so short a space of discourse the catena of Ezekiel texts recently summoned will not have been forgotten. The epicenter of that network of texts is the promise of renewal by the “ingiving” of the Spirit (36:27).
Even before the mention of the outpouring of the Spirit, this description of the Spirit’s activity in 3:5d–e echoes the OT texts that speak of the new covenant. Given the potency of the Spirit tradition and some verbal and conceptual cues, this language (“the washing [loutron] of regeneration,” “renewal by the Holy Spirit”) would call to mind the vivid images of the promise of the Spirit in Ezek. 36:25–27 (which included the imagery of sprinkling with water, renewal of the heart, and gift of the Spirit) and other such texts (cf. Ps. 103:30 LXX [104:30 ET]). And the thought of new life implicit in this poem (see 3:1–2; 2:14d)—the Spirit-enabled “doing of the law”—cannot be far from mind.
When the OT promise of the Spirit’s “outpouring” is subsequently echoed in 3:6, what must be observed is that in the Ezekiel text’s broader context (esp. 36:18), the verb that links the prophetic past as expressed in Joel with the eschatological present as expressed here, “pour out” (ekcheō), is in Ezekiel overwhelmingly used of God’s wrath (LXX: 7:5 [7:8 ET]; 9:8; 14:19; 20:8, 13, 21; 21:36 [21:31 ET]; 22:22, 31; 30:15; 36:18; 39:29 [cf. Jer. 6:11; Lam. 2:4; 4:11]). If we allow for the continuing resonance of the Spirit texts in Ezekiel, then Paul possibly is creating a striking “reversal of fortunes” theme. In Ezek. 36 the readers are to imagine themselves first as victims of the outpouring of God’s wrath (in exile for defiling the land) and then as recipients of God’s cleansing, of new hearts, and of the indwelling Spirit. And Paul called up this scenario in 2:14 to dramatize, in Ezekiel’s prophetic terms, the changes that have taken place for the Christians in Crete. Now, with the readers already immersed in the Ezekiel background, the echo of Joel’s prophecy strikes a chord that is simultaneously harmonious and dissonant. The promise of the Spirit links firmly to Ezekiel, but the verb describing this glad event, “pour out,” clangs against the dominant use of “outpouring” for wrath in Ezekiel. The newly sounded OT text does not supplant the first; rather, it creates an atmosphere of climax: Paul paints a picture of dramatic reversal. God himself has brought his people from wrath to blessing, from immorality to godliness, by the provision of his Spirit. What was promised to God’s people in exile is “now” being enjoyed by God’s people in Christ. And in a way continuous with 2:14, the promise of the Joel text is combined creatively with the the Spirit texts in Ezekiel and new-covenant prophecy to locate the Cretan Christians within redemptive history.
Bibliography
Bartsch, H.-W. 1966. Die Anfänge urchristlicher Rechtsbildungen: Studien zu den Pastoralbriefen. TF 34. Hamburg: Reich.
Brewer, D. I. 1992. “1 Corinthians 9:9–11: A Literal Interpretation of ‘Do Not Muzzle the Ox.’” NTS 38: 554–65.
Brox, N. 1969. Die Pastoralbriefe. RNT. Regensburg: Pustet.
Cranfield, C. E. B. 1982. “Changes of Person and Number in Paul’s Epistles.” Pages 280–89 in Paul and Paulinism: Essays in Honour of C. K. Barrett. Edited by M. D. Hooker and S. G. Wilson. London: SPCK.
Dibelius, M., and H. Conzelmann. 1972. The Pastoral Epistles. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress.
Fee, G. D. 1988. 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus. NIBCNT. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.
Gaston, L. 1970. No Stone on Another: Studies in the Significance of the Fall of Jerusalem in the Synoptic Gospels. NovTSup 23. Leiden: Brill.
Gordon, R. P. 1974. “Targumic Parallels to Acts XIII and Didache XIV 3.” NovT 16: 285–89.
Hanson, A. T. 1968. Studies in the Pastoral Epistles. London: SPCK.
Hengel, M. 1983. Between Jesus and Paul: Studies in the Earliest History of Christianity. London: SCM.
Hill, D. 1967. Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings: Studies in the Semantics of Soteriological Terms. SNTSMS 5. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Holmes, J. M. 2000. Text in a Whirlwind: A Critique of Four Exegetical Devices at 1 Timothy 2.2–15. JSNTSup 196. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
Horbury, W. 1998. Jewish Messianism and the Cult of Christ. London: SCM.
Hurley, J. B. 1981. Man and Woman in Biblical Perspective. Leicester: Inter-Varsity.
Jervell, J. 1960. Imago Dei: Gen 1,26f. im Spätjudentum, in der Gnosis und in den paulinischen Briefen. FRLANT 76. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Johnson, L. T. 1996. Letters to Paul’s Delegates: 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus. NTC. Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International.
———. 2001. The First and Second Letters to Timothy. AB 35A. New York: Doubleday.
Keener, C. S. 1992. Paul, Women and Wives: Marriage and Women’s Ministry in the Letters of Paul. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.
Knight, G. W., III. 1992. A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Knoch, O. 1988. 1. und 2. Timotheusbrief, Titusbrief. NEchtB 14. Würzburg: Echter.
Kroeger, R. C., and C. C. Kroeger. 1992. I Suffer Not a Woman: Rethinking 1 Timothy 2:11–15 in Light of Ancient Evidence. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.
Küchler, M. 1986. Schweigen, Schmuck und Schleier: Drei neutestamentliche Vorschriften zur Verdrängung der Frauen auf dem Hintergrund einer frauenfeindlichen Exegese des Alten Testaments im antiken Judentum. NTOA 1. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag.
Marshall, I. H. 1999. The Pastoral Epistles. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark.
Menken, M. J. J. 1977. “hoti en 1 Tim 6, 7,” Bib 58: 532–51.
Moo, D. J. 1980. “1 Timothy 2:11–15: Meaning and Significance.” TJ 1: 62–83.
Nauck, W. 1950. “Die Herkunft des Verfassers der Pastoralbriefe: Ein Beitrag zur Frage der Auslegung der Pastoralbriefe.” Diss., University of Göttingen.
Oberlinner, L. 1994. Kommentar zum Ersten Timotheusbrief. Vol. 1 of Die Pastoralbriefe. HTKNT 11. Freiburg: Herder.
Pietersma, A. 1994. The Apocryphon of Jannes and Jambres the Magicians: P. Chester Beatty XVI, with New Editions of Papyrus Vindobonensis Greek Inv. 29456 + 29828 Verso and British Library Cotton Tiberius B. v f. 87. RGW 119. Leiden: Brill.
———. 1995–1997. “Jannes and Jambres.” ABD on CD-ROM. Version 2.1a.
Prior, M. 1989. Paul the Letter-writer and the Second Letter to Timothy. JSNTSS 23. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
Quinn, J. D., and W. C. Wacker. 2000. The First and Second Letters to Timothy. ECC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Roloff, J. 1988. Die Erste Brief an Timotheus. EKK. Zürich: Benziger; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag.
Rudolph, K. 1983. Gnosis: The Nature and History of an Ancient Religion. Edinburgh: T&T Clark.
Ruppert, L. 1972. Jesus als der leidende Gerechte? Der Weg Jesu im Lichte eines alt- und zwischentestamentlichen Motivs. SBib 59. Stuttgart: KBW Verlag.
Schlarb, E. 1990. Die Gesunde Lehre: Häresie und Wahrheit im Spiegel der Pastoralbriefe. MTS 28. Marburg: Elwert.
Schreiner, T. R. 1995. “An Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:9–15: A Dialogue with Scholarship.” Pages 105–54 in Women in the Church: A Fresh Analysis of 1 Timothy 2:9–15. Edited by A. J. Köstenberger, T. R. Schreiner, and H. S. Baldwin. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.
Schürer, E. 1973–1987. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.–A.D. 135). Revised and edited by G. Vermes, F. Millar, and M. Goodman. 3 vols. Edinburgh: T&T Clark.
Schüssler Fiorenza, E. 1983. In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins. New York: Crossroad.
Sherwin-White, A. N. 1963. Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Spicq, C. 1969. Les Épîtres Pastorales. 4th ed. Paris: Gabalda.
Thackeray, H. St. J. 1900. The Relation of St. Paul to Contemporary Jewish Thought. London: Macmillan.
Towner, P. H. 1989. The Goal of Our Instruction: The Structure of Theology and Ethics in the Pastoral Epistles. JSNTSup 34. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
———. 1996. “Piety in Chinese Thought and in the Biblical Tradition: Li and Eusebeia.” Jian Dao 5: 95–126.
———. 1997. “Feminist Approaches to the New Testament” Jian Dao 7: 91–111.
———. 1999. “The Portrait of Paul and the Theology of 2 Timothy: The Closing Chapter of the Pauline Story.” HBT 21: 151–70.
———. 2005. “Christology in the Letters to Timothy and Titus.” Pages 219–46 in Contours of Christology in the New Testament. Edited by R. N. Longenecker. MNTS 7. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
———. 2006. The Letters to Timothy and Titus. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Wire, A. C. 1990. The Corinthian Women Prophets: A Reconstruction through Paul’s Rhetoric. Minneapolis: Fortress.
Yinger, K. L. 1999. Paul, Judaism, and Judgment according to Deeds. SNTSMS 105. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
PHILEMON
There are no OT quotations or clear allusions to discuss in Philemon, though some have proposed an OT and Jewish background for Paul’s desire that the slave, Onesimus, not be punished but be accepted as a brother by Philemon (see Deut. 23:15–16 and the Jewish commentary that grew up around it in rabbinic, targumic, philonic, and Qumranic literature). On the other hand, not only was Onesimus not a Jewish slave, but a Gentile, a pagan who was converted to Christ in the midst of his fleeing, but Paul was returning him to his owner—the very thing that Deut. 23:15–16 forbids. See Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Letter to Philemon, AB 34C (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 30–31, 110; contra, Craig A. Evans, Ancient Texts for New Testament Studies: A Guide to the Background Literature (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2005), 395.