The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown (153 page)

²⁶
R. N. Longenecker,
The Ministry and Message of Paul
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1971), 24.

²⁷
See A. J. Malherbe, “Paulus Senex,”
ResQ 36
(1994): 197-207.

²⁸
See C. E. Arnold, “Ephesus,” in
Dictionary of Paul and His Letters
, 249—53.

²⁹
2 Cor 2:12-13; 7:5-6,13-14; 8:6,16,23; 12:18; Gal 2:1-5; 2 Tim. 4:10; Tims 1:4.

³⁰
For a tentative reconstruction of the chronology of Paul's ministry, see Ellis, “Pastoral Letters,” 661—62; cf Köstenberger, “1—2 Timothy, Titus,” 596—98.

³¹
So Johnson (
Letters to Paul's Delegates
, 106—7, 168), who called this the
mandata principis
(“commandments of the ruler”) letter and cited several ancient parallels.

³²
See Mounce (
Pastoral Epistles
, lxxxvi—lxxxviii, 186—92), who cited Polycarp, Clement, Clement of Alexandria, and Irenaeus as referring to a two-tiered structure, using
episkopos
and
presbuteros
interchangeably.

³³
F. M. Young (“On
Episkopos
and
Presbyteros,” JTS
45 [1994]: 142—48) ventured the “admittedly tentative” hypothesis that the origins of the
episkopos and the presbuteros are
distinct. But Young's interpretation of the Pastorals in light of Ignatius (died c. 110) rather than vice versa seems precarious if not methodologically fallacious.

³⁴
See A. J. Köstenberger, “Church Government,” in
Encyclopedia of Christian Civilization
, ed. G. T. Kurian (Oxford: Blackwell, forthcoming).

³⁵
Two important articles on the subject are O. Skarsaune, “Heresy and the Pastoral Epistles,”
Them
20/1 (1994): 9—14; and R. J. Karris, “The Background and Significance of the Polemic of the Pastoral Epistles,”
JBL
92 (1973): 549—64.

³⁶
Towner,
1—2 Timothy and Titus
, 22; Mounce,
Pastoral Epistles
, lxi.

³⁷
Fee,
1 and 2 Timothy, Titus
, 7—9.

³⁸
Ignatius (died c. 110), in his epistle to the Magnesians, likewise warned his readers not to be “led astray by strange doctrines or by old fables which are profitless” (see
To Poly carp
3.1;
To the Smyrnaeans
6.2), linking these teachings with Judaism (
To the Magnesians
8.1; see 9.1; 10.3;
To the Philadelphians
6.1) involving the proper interpretation of the OT Scriptures (
To the Philadelphians
8.2). See S. Westerholm, “The Law and the ‘Just Man’ (1 Tim 1,3-11),”
ST 36
(1982): 82.

³⁹
See P. H. Towner, “Gnosis and Realized Eschatology in Ephesus (of the Pastoral Epistles) and the Corinthian Enthusiasm,”
JSNT 31
(1987): 95-124.

⁴⁰
Towner,
1—2 Timothy and Titus
, 25.

⁴¹
Fee,
1 and 2 Timothy, Titus
, 8—9.

⁴²
Knight,
Pastoral Epistles
, 27-28; Mounce,
Pastoral Epistles
, lxix-lxxvi; Collins,
Letters That Paul Did Not Write
, 100, referring to A. Hanson as well as M. Dibelius and H. Conzelmann; and Ellis, “Pastoral Letters,” 663, with reference to Lightfoot (see Ignatius [died c. 110],
To the Magnesians
8—11;
To the Trallians
9).

⁴³
Towner,
1—2 Timothy and Titus
, 25.

⁴⁴
So Westerholm, “The Law and the ‘Just Man,’” 82.

⁴⁵
On the polemic employed by Paul, see esp. Karris, “Polemic of the Pastoral Epistles,” 548—64.

⁴⁶
T. D. Lea and H. P. Griffin, Jr.,
1, 2 Timothy, Titus
, NAC 34 (Nashville: B&H, 1992), 28-29, quoting Guthrie.

⁴⁷
See Fee, “Reflections on Church Order,” 141—51; id.,
1 and 2 Timothy, Titus
, 5—14 and throughout. Fee (“Reflections,” 142—43) claimed that “the whole of 1 Timothy...is dominated by this singular concern” of refuting the false teachers and that “the whole of chs. 2—3 is best understood as instruction vis-à-vis the behavior and attitudes of the FT [false teachers].” But see the critique of Fee in Köstenberger (“1—2 Timothy, Titus,” 514), who noted that Fee unduly diminished the structural markers in 2:1 and 3:15—16 that set off chaps. 2 and 3 from chaps. 1 and 4—6, respectively. Cf. the further interaction under the heading “Reflections” (ibid., 520).

⁴⁸
See Köstenberger (“1—2 Timothy, Titus,” 510), who noted that the verb
parakaleō
(“I urge”), which is found in 1 Tim 2:1, is used regularly by Paul in transitioning to the “business portion” of a letter (1 Cor 1:19; 2 Cor 2:8; 6:1; Eph 4:1; 1 Thess 4:1; Phlm 10).

⁴⁹
See the discussion of genre below.

⁵⁰
See A. J. Köstenberger, “Women in the Church: A Response to Kevin Giles,”
EvQ 73
(2001): 205—24; in response to K. Giles, “A Critique of the ‘Novel’ Contemporary Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:9—15 Given in the Book,
Women in the Church.
Parts I and II,”
EvQ 72
(2000): 151-67, 195-215.

⁵¹
This raises the issue of hermeneutical consistency. If an interpreter were to relativize Paul's instructions regarding women in church leadership in 1 Tim 2:11—15, he or she, to be consistent, would need to view Paul's instructions on qualifications for church leaders in 1 Tim 3:1—12 as relative and nonbinding for the church as well. See Mounce,
Pastoral Epistles
, 185.

⁵²
E.g., the affirmation in 2 Tim 1:9—10; the “trustworthy saying” in 2:11—13; and the “inscription” in 2 Tim 2:19. On the “trustworthy sayings” in the Pastorals, see the discussion under Theological Themes below.

⁵³
See the discussion in Marshall,
Pastoral Epistles
, 12—13.

⁵⁴
T. D. Gordon, “A Certain Kind of Letter: The Genre of 1 Timothy,” in
Women in the Church: A Fresh Analysis of 1 Timothy 2:9—15
, ed. A. J. Köstenberger, T. R. Schreiner, and H. S. Baldwin (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995), 59.

⁵⁵
Ibid. Gordon provided a specific list of such instructions on pp. 59—60.

⁵⁶
Ibid., 60.

⁵⁷
Ibid.

⁵⁸
R. van Neste,
Cohesion and Structure in the Pastoral Epistles
, JSNTSup 280 (New York: T&T Clark, 2004), 1.

⁵⁹
Guthrie,
Pastoral Epistles
, 18.

⁶⁰
A. T. Hanson,
The Pastoral Epistles
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 42.

⁶¹
Van Neste,
Cohesion and Structure
, 285; against J. D. Miller,
The Pastoral Letters as Composite Documents
, SNTSMS 93 (Cambridge: University Press, 1997).

⁶²
I. H. Marshall, “The Christology of Luke-Acts and the Pastoral Epistles,” in
Crossing Boundaries: Essays in Biblical Interpretation in Honor of Michael D. Goulder
, ed. S. E. Porter, P. Joyce, and D. E. Orton (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 171.

⁶³
Mounce,
Pastoral Epistles
, cxxxv (note that the numbering is off in that Mounce has two II.s and two IV.s). Similarly, Guthrie (
Pastoral Epistles
, 63-64) has these major divisions: I. 1:1-20; II. 2:1-4:16; III. 5:1-6:2; and IV. 6:3-21. Even less structure is discerned by Lea and Griffin
(1, 2 Timothy, Titus
, 17), who divide the letter into I. 1:1—2; II. 1:3—20; and III. 2:1-6:21.

⁶⁴
Against Towner (
Letters to Timothy and Titus
, ix), who kept 1:3—3:16 as a single unit and gave insufficient attention to the markers “first of all” and “then” at 2:1. But Towner (unlike Mounce) rightly discerned a break between 3:16 and 4:1 (ibid., x).

⁶⁵
See the the interaction with G. D. Fee, “Reflections on Church Order in the Pastoral Epistles,”JETS 28 (1985): 145, in Köstenberger, “1 Timothy,” 504, 509-10.

⁶⁶
This critique pertains to Mounce as well as Guthrie and Lea/Griffin.

⁶⁷
See Kostenberger, “1 Timothy,” 497. Cf. the proposed structure by Marshall (
Pastoral Epistles
, 30), who divided the letter between 1:3—3:16 and 4:1—6:21a.

⁶⁸
Towner,
Letters to Timothy and Titus
, xi. Marshall's (
Pastoral Epistles
, 38) proposal is identical.

⁶⁹
Mounce,
Pastoral Epistles
, cxxxvi.

⁷⁰
See Köstenberger (“2 Timothy,” 566) and the following commentary for justification of this outline. The only difference between Towner and Köstenberger is that the latter keeps 2:1—26 together as a major unit (similarly, Guthrie,
Pastoral Epistles
, 132) and breaks it up into the subunits of vv. 1—7, vv. 8—13, and vv. 14—26, while Towner divides 2:1—26 into two major subunits, vv. 1—13 and vv. 14—26.

⁷¹
Towner,
Letters to Timothy and Titus
, xii.

⁷²
Mounce,
Pastoral Epistles
, cxxxvi.

⁷³
Köstenberger, “Titus,” 603. See Marshall (
Pastoral Epistles
, 24), whose proposed outline is virtually identical with that of Kostenberger.

⁷⁴
See the discussion of qualifications for church leaders under major theological themes below.

⁷⁵
For helpful materials on the subject, see especially P. A. Newton,
Elders in Congregational Life: Rediscovering the Biblical Model for Church Leadership
(Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2005); B. L. Merkle,
The Elder and Overseer: One Office in the Early Church
, Studies in Biblical Literature 57 (New York: Peter Lang, 2003); id.,
40 Questions About Elders and Deacons
(Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2008); Köstenberger, “Church Government”; id., “1 Timothy,” 521—30. For a presentation of different views, see S. B. Cowan, gen. ed.,
Who Runs the Church? 4 Views on Church Government
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004); and C. O. Brand and R. S. Norman, eds.,
Perspectives on Church Government: Five Views of Church Polity
(Nashville: B&H, 2004).

⁷⁶
See the comparative chart in Köstenberger, “1—2 Timothy, Titus,” 523—24.

⁷⁷
See A. J. Köstenberger,
God, Marriage and Family: Rebuilding the Biblical Foundation
(Wheaton: Crossway, 2004), 259—64 (see esp. the chart listing the different views on p. 263).

⁷⁸
A separate list of qualifications is provided for deacons and women (whether women deacons or deacons' wives; 1 Tim 3:8—13; see Acts 6:1—6; Rom 16:1—2). For a discussion of these qualifications, see Köstenberger, “1—2 Timothy, Titus,” 522-30, 606-8.

⁷⁹
See the discussion and literature cited in Köstenberger, “1—2 Timothy, Titus,” 529—30. Among translations, the HCSB has “wives”; the NASB “women” (footnote “i.e. either deacons' wives or deaconesses”); the NIV “their wives” (footnote: “Or deaconesses”); and the TNIV: “the women” (footnote: “Probably women who are deacons, or possibly deacons' wives”).

⁸⁰
See A. J. Köstenberger and T. R. Schreiner, eds.,
Women in the Church: An Analysis and Application of 1 Timothy 2:9-15
, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005).

⁸¹
E.g., Mounce,
Pastoral Epistles
, cxxxii-cxxxv.

⁸²
See the discussion on the preservation of believers below.

⁸³
S. M. Baugh, “‘Savior of All People’: 1 Tim 4:10 in Context,”
WTJ 54
(1992): 335, cited in Mounce,
Pastoral Epistles
, cxxxiv.

⁸⁴
See A. J. Köstenberger, “Ascertaining Women's God-Ordained Roles: An Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:15,”
BBR
7 (1997): 107—44, especially 130—33. Cf. E. Schlarb,
Die gesunde Lehre: Häresie und Wahrheit im Spiegel der Pastoralbriefe
(Marburg: N. G. Elwert, 1990).

⁸⁵
For a book-length study, see G.
W.
Knight,
The Faithful Sayings in the Pastoral Letters
(Nutley: Presbyterian & Reformed, n.d.). On the (related) theme of “faith”
(pistis)
in the Pastoral Epistles, see Mounce
(Pastoral Epistles
, cxxx-cxxxii), who noted that the noun
pistis
(“faith”) occurs 33 times and the adjective
pistos
(“trustworthy”) 17 times in the Pastorals. Mounce found that “[t]here is no
one
single concept of
πίστις
in the PE [Pastoral Epistles],” but that “[n]o new use of is introduced in the PE. Although the creedal use is more evident here than in other Pauline writings, it is still present in the earliest of Paul's writings” (ibid., cxxxii). The fact that the opponents were attacking the body of belief that comprised “the faith” (understood as the embodiment of orthodox Christian doctrine) explains the frequency of this kind of usage in the Pastoral Epistles.

⁸⁶
Interestingly, verse 8 is favored as the “trustworthy saying” by a vast majority of commentators but not translations.

Part Four

T
HIS COMPREHENSIVE INTRODUCTION to the NT has provided treatments of the four Gospels, the book of Acts, and the 13 letters of Paul. Nine additional books remain to be discussed: eight letters conventionally grouped together under the rubric General Epistles and then the book of Revelation. While often not considered to be as central to the canon of the NT as the Pauline correspondence, these letters make an indispensable contribution to the biblical canon, and their study should in no way be neglected. With one minor change, the treatment of these books follows the canonical order. Chapter 16 considers the book of Hebrews; chapter 17, the book of James; chapter 18, 1 and 2 Peter and Jude; chapter 19, 1 and 2 and 3 John; and chapter 20, the book of Revelation.

Each of these documents raises a unique set of questions that are discussed as appropriate. In the case of Hebrews, a difficulty pertains to the unknown identity of the author. James is a unique writing representing early Jewish Christianity in the NT. The relationship between 2 Peter and Jude and the authorship of 2 Peter also raise interesting questions that are considered. Both James and 1 John are notoriously difficult to outline, so this problem also receives attention. The relationship between the Johannine Letters and John's Gospel and Revelation is treated as well. A discussion of the historical, literary, and theological issues raised by the book of Revelation concludes Part Four.