4

Hermeneutical and ExegeticalChallenges in Interpreting the

Pastoral EpistlesAndreas J. Köstenberger

Andreas J. Köstenberger is Pro-

fessor of New Testament and Greek and

Director of Ph.D. and Th.M. Studies at

Southeastern Baptist Theological Semi-

nary in Wake Forest, North Carolina. He

is the editor of the Journal of the Evan-

gelical Theological Society and the

author of the for thcoming commentary

on the Pastoral Epistles in the New

Expositor ’s Bible Commentary series.

In the last few years, several major com-mentaries and monographs on the Pasto-ral Epistles have been published.1 It seemsappropriate to ask what light these recentworks have shed on the study of this groupof writings. Owing to space limitationswe will limit our discussion to several ofthe major hermeneutical and exegeticalchallenges with which the modern inter-preter is confronted in his or her study ofthe Pastoral Epistles.2

Hermeneutical ChallengesAuthorship

The authorship of the Pastoral Epistlescontinues to be a major topic of scholarlydebate. The authenticity of Paul’s corre-spondence with Timothy and Titus wentlargely unchallenged until the nineteenthcentury.3 Since then, an increasing numberof scholars have claimed that the Pastoralsare an instance of pseudonymous writingin which a later follower attributes his ownwork to his revered teacher in order to per-petrate that person’s teachings and influ-ence.4 The issue is primarily a historicalone. The following interrelated questionsrequire adjudication:

1. Is pseudonymous letter-writingattested in the first century?2. If so, was such a practice ethicallyunobjectionable and devoid ofdeceptive intent or not?5

3. Could pseudonymous letters havebeen acceptable to the early church?4. If so, is pseudonymity more plau-sible than authenticity in the case of

the Pastorals?6

I. H. Marshall has recently addressedthese issues and come to the conclusionthat “the way in which the thought [in thePastorals] is expressed, both linguisticallyand theologically, poses great problems. . . which seems to make it unlikely thathe [Paul] himself wrote in these terms totrusted colleagues.”7 For this reason Mar-shall rejects the Pauline authorship of thePastorals. At the same time, however,Marshall finds the theory of pseudonym-ity wanting owing to the deceptive intentinevitably involved in such a practice.8 Inan effort to find a middle way between the(for him) Scylla of Pauline authorship andCharybdis of pseudonymity, Marshall hascoined a view he labels “allonymity” or“allepigraphy,” according to which “some-body close to a dead person continued towrite as (they thought that) he would havedone.”9 According to Marshall, Timothyand Titus are only the purported, but notthe real, recipients of the Pastoral epistles,which were rather addressed to leaders ofcongregations in Ephesus/Asia Minor andCrete respectively.10 Moreover, Marshallthinks that 2 Timothy is substantially thework of Paul and formed the basis for the“allonymous” writing of 1 Timothy andTitus.11 This turns the traditional—andcanonical—sequence on its head, since itwould make 2 Timothy—not 1 Timothy orTitus—the first of the Pastoral Epistles tobe written.12

5

However, if one applies Marshall’s lineof reasoning to his own commentary(which Marshall acknowledges to havebeen written “in collaboration with” PhilipTowner), perhaps several hundred yearsfrom now some might claim that thecommentary was actually not written byMarshall himself but compiled subsequentto his death by Towner based on Mar-shall’s notes and perhaps also on some ofhis previous publications (not to mentionoral interchanges and conversations orinformal notes, such as e-mail messages,etc., during Marshall’s lifetime). With thepassing of time, doubtless a plausible casecould be construed along those lines.While plausible, however, such a theorywould obviously not square with the facts,since Howard Marshall is demonstrablystill alive and did publish his commentaryduring his lifetime and as the personresponsible for his work (the degree of col-laboration by Towner is another issue).Marshall therefore rightfully would protestany such attribution of his own work to aposthumous student collaborator. Onewonders whether Marshall’s crediting ofthe authorship of the Pastorals to an“allonymous” writer similarly gives shortshrift to the apostle and his role in writingthese epistles.

What, then, is the evidence set forth forthe pseudonymity of the Pastorals, andhow are we to assess it?13 Attention hasfrequently been drawn to the differences in

style and vocabulary between the Pastoralsand the undisputed Pauline Epistles.14 ThePastorals feature words not used else-where in Paul, such as “godliness”(eusebeia), “self-controlled” (sophron), andepiphaneia rather than parousia to refer toChrist’s return (but see 2 Thess 2:8). At thesame time, characteristic Pauline terminol-ogy is omitted: “freedom” (eleutheria),

“flesh” (vs. Spirit; sarx), “cross” (stauros),and “righteousness of God” (dikaiosyne

theou). As scholars have increasingly rec-ognized, however, conclusions regardingauthorship based on stylistic differencesare highly precarious, not the least becausethe sample size of the writings in questionis too small for definitive conclusions onthe basis of word statistics alone.15 More-over, the difference between public letterssent to congregations (the ten letters com-monly attributed to Paul by conservativeevangelical scholars) and personal corre-spondence such as the Pastoral Epistlesmust be taken into account.16 The fact thatPaul, in the case of the Pastorals, sensedthat he was nearing the end of his life andthat there was an urgent need to ensurethe preservation of sound doctrine for thepost-apostolic period would appear toaccount adequately for the Pastorals’emphasis on qualifications for leadership,church organization, and the faithful pass-ing on of apostolic tradition.

But what about the claim that pseud-onymous writing was a common and com-monly accepted ancient literary device? Acareful screening of the relevant evidenceyields the conclusion that while pseud-onymity was not uncommon for apocalyp-tic writings, gospels, or even acts, pseud-onymous letters were exceedingly rare:17

1. Of the two extant Jewish sources,the “Epistle” of Jeremy and the “Let-ter” of Aristeas are really misnomers,for neither can properly be classifiedas epistle: the former is a homily, thelatter an account of the circum-stances of the translation of theHebrew Scriptures into Greek;18

2. In the apostolic era, far froman acceptance of pseudonymousepistles, there was actually consid-erable concern that letters be forged;thus Paul referred to the “distin-guishing mark” in all his letters (Gal6:11; 2 Thess 3:17; 1 Cor 16:21; Col4:18; Phlm 19) and makes perturbed

6

reference to the circulation of “a let-ter as if from us” (2 Thess 2:2);3. In the second century, (a)Tertullian reports that an Asian pres-byter was removed from office forforging a letter in Paul’s name (OnBaptism 17); (b) both 3 Corinthiansand the Epistle to the Laodiceans aretransparent attempts, in customaryapocryphal fashion, to fill in a per-ceived gap in canonical revelation(cf. 1 Cor 5:9; 2 Cor 2:4; 7:8; Col4:16);19 and (c) the end-of-second-century bishop of Antioch, Serapion(d. AD 211), sharply distinguishedbetween apostolic writings andthose that “falsely bear their names”(pseudepigrapha; cited in Eusebius,H. E. 6.12.3).

On the basis of this evidence it seemsdoubtful that the early church would havebeen prepared to knowingly accept pseud-onymous letters into the Christian canon.20

Another common argument presentedin favor of the pseudonymity of thePastorals is that the church structure foundin these letters reflects, not the first-, butthe second-century church. This patterncan most clearly be seen in Ignatius ofAntioch (c. AD 35–107), who advocated amonarchical episcopate and a three-tieredecclesiastical hierarchy (e.g., Eph. 2.2;Magn. 3.1; Trall. 2.2; 3.1).21 However, it canbe shown that in the Pastorals the terms“overseer” (episkopos) and “elder” (presby-

teros) refer to one and the same office (Titus1:5, 7; cf. Acts 20:17, 28), so that they attestto a two- rather than three-tiered struc-ture.22

As far as an interest in proper congre-gational leadership is concerned, Paul andBarnabas appointed elders in the churchesthey established already prior to AD 50(Acts 14:23; cf. Acts 11:30; 15:2; 20:28–31;21:18), so that there is nothing novel aboutPaul’s instruction to Titus to “appointelders in every town” (Titus 1:5). Anotherof Paul’s letters is addressed to the “over-

seers and deacons” at Philippi (Phil 1:1),which coheres with the two-tiered struc-ture presupposed in the Pastorals (e.g.,1 Timothy 3). The emphasis on qualifica-tions for overseers and deacons in thePastorals also supports a first-century date,because a second-century writer wouldhave expected his readers already to knowthis information.23

An important issue that is often notgiven adequate weight in the discussion isthe significant number of historical particu-

larities featured in the Pastorals. While it isjust possible that a later imitator of Paulfabricated these pieces of information tolend greater verisimilitude to his epistle,it seems much more credible to see thesereferences as authentic instances in Paul’slife and ministry.24 Why would a laterpseudonymous writer go through thetrouble of inventing numerous details suchas the following for no other reason thanto add verisimilitude to his writing?

Do your best to come to me quickly,for Demas, because he loved thisworld, has deserted me and hasgone to Thessalonica. Crescens hasgone to Galatia, and Titus toDalmatia. Only Luke is with me. GetMark and bring him with you,because he is helpful to me in myministry. I sent Tychicus to Ephesus.When you come, bring the cloak thatI left with Carpus at Troas, and myscrolls, especially the parchments.Alexander the metalworker did mea great deal of harm. The Lord willrepay him for what he has done. Youtoo should be on your guard againsthim, because he strongly opposedour message. At my first defense, noone came to my support, but every-one deserted me. May it not be heldagainst them. But the Lord stood atmy side and gave me strength, sothat through me the message mightbe fully proclaimed and all theGentiles might hear it. And I wasdelivered from the lion’s mouth. . . .Greet Priscilla and Aquila and the

7

household of Onesiphorus. Erastusstayed in Corinth, and I leftTrophimus sick in Miletus. Do yourbest to get here before winter.Eubulus greets you, and so doPudens, Linus, Claudia and all thebrothers and sisters (2 Tim 4:9–21).

Within the framework of a theory ofpseudonymity, all of the above detailswould of necessity need to be fictional.I am not aware of any extant instance ofthis kind of “fictive epistolary” genre in thefirst or second century A.D. Moreover, anentirely different kind of hermeneuticwould be required to decode this epistle.All incidental details would need to be dis-carded, and only the didactic portions,once separated from the non-didactic ones,would be exegetically significant. In lightof the virtual impossibility of separatingbetween the incidental and the didacticand of the negative ethical implications ofa procedure that involves the invention oflarge sections of an epistolary writing, onemay be forgiven for concluding that thetheory of the Pauline authorship of thePastorals is considerably more plausiblethan pseudonymous (or allonymous) alter-natives. For this reason Carson, Moo, andMorris are surely right in their judgmentthat “[t]he Pastorals are much more akinto the accepted letters of Paul than they areto the known pseudonymous documentsthat circulated in the early church.”25

In fact, the above-mentioned factorsreceive additional weight through therecent survey of the relevant ancient evi-dence conducted by Terry Wilder, whoarrives at the following three conclusions:

1. The early church used both theauthorship and the content of agiven writing as criteria for authen-ticity, hence it would not knowinglyhave allowed pseudoapostolicworks to be read publicly in thechurches alongside apostolic ones;

2. There is no evidence for pseud-onymity as a convention amongorthodox Christians; and3. The early church did not regardwith indifference the fictive use ofan apostle’s name.26

As Wilder notes, both the external andthe internal evidence clearly favor thePauline authorship of the Pastorals. Manyof the Fathers—Ignatius, Polycarp, Clem-ent of Alexandria, Tertullian, Irenaeus,Eusebius, and the Muratorian Canon—accepted Pauline authorship, and argu-ments against the Pauline authorship fromthe internal evidence consistently fail toconvince.27 We conclude, therefore, that allthe above-mentioned factors from a con-sideration of the internal evidence,together with the problems created bypostulating pseudonymity (such as theabove-noted lack of relevant evidence andthe ethical difficulties involved in affirm-ing pseudonymity for a New Testamentwriting) continue to constitute a powerfulfirewall against any theories denying theapostolic, Pauline authorship of the Pas-toral epistles, including Marshall’s novelview of “allonymity” or “allepigraphy.”28

Genre and the Role of BackgroundIf Paul wrote the Pastorals, what kinds

of letters did he write, and what is theirrelevance today? The Pastorals’ genre andthe role of background in interpreting spe-cific passages are two other critical broaderissues. At the outset it is worth noting thatwhile the common label for these lettersis “Pastoral Epistle,” the role of Timothyand Titus was not actually that of perma-nent, resident pastor of a church. Rather,these two men served as Paul’s apostolicdelegates who were temporarily assignedto their present location in order to dealwith particular problems. For this reasonthe Pastorals are not so much advice to

8

younger ministers or generic manuals ofchurch order as they are Paul’s instructionto his special delegates, set toward theclosing of the apostolic era at a time whenthe aging apostle would have felt a keenresponsibility to ensure the orderly transi-tion from the apostolic to the post-apostolicperiod.

To what extent, then, does the Pastorals’occasionality require an ad hoc hermeneu-tic that methodically limits their scope ofreference to the original situation at hand?The just-mentioned approach is that takenby Gordon Fee, who views all of 1 Timo-thy, for example, as narrowly constrainedby the injunction in 1:3, claiming that “[t]hewhole of 1 Timothy . . . is dominated bythis singular concern” and that “the wholeof chs. 2–3 is best understood as instruc-tion vis-à-vis the behavior and attitudes ofthe FT [false teachers].”29 William Mounce,too, consistently interprets virtually everydetail in the Pastorals narrowly in light ofPaul’s original context. Thus 1 Timothy 3is viewed in light of a “leadership crisis”in the Ephesian church, in the convictionthat “[a]lmost every quality Paul specifieshere has its negative counterpart in theEphesian opponents.”30

However, Fee’s contention that theentire epistle constitutes an ad hoc argu-ment narrowly constrained by the situa-tion at Ephesus arguably represents anunduly sharp reaction against the tradi-tional “church manual” approach thatviews the letter as containing timelessinstructions for church leadership. Twomain lines of critique may be raised. First,Fee unduly diminishes the structuralmarkers in 1 Timothy 2:1 and 3:15–16 thatset off chapters 2–3 from chapters 4ff.respectively. As especially 3:15 makes clear(cf. 2:8), Paul’s injunctions in chapters 2–3are not confined to the Ephesian situation

but stipulate “how people ought to con-duct themselves in God’s household” ingeneral.

What is more, the solemn descriptiveterms for the church in 3:15, “the churchof the living God, the pillar and the foun-dation of the truth,” militate against thesuggestion that these instructions are ofvalue merely for first-century Ephesus. Ina fairly extensive interaction with a propo-nent of a culturally relative approach to theinterpretation of the Pastoral Epistles Ihave dealt with several specific passagesin Paul’s first letter to Timothy that areclaimed to have been limited to their origi-nal context.31 This proponent had adducedseveral examples in order to show that1 Timothy ought to be interpreted in cul-turally relative terms:

1. Paul’s injunctions on the care ofwidows in 1 Timothy 5:3–16: sincein our culture widows are “not nec-essarily destitute, or in need of maleprotection,” this passage does notapply today;2. Men today do not pray “withlifted hands” (1 Tim 2:8), andwomen do not “literally obey”Paul’s instructions in 1 Timothy 2:9–10; hence 1 Timothy 2:12 should like-wise not be considered normative;3. In 1 Timothy 3 Paul “insists” thatoverseers and deacons be married,while today unmarried men areordained; hence, again, 1 Timothy 3does not apply;4. While Paul in 1 Timothy 5:17 urgesthat church leaders be treated with“double honor,” “church teachersare not necessarily paid double toother ministers” today; this passage,too, no longer applies;5. Slavery, “endorsed” in 1 Timothy6:1–2, has clearly been found unac-ceptable by subsequent history;hence this passage is outdated aswell.

As I have sought to demonstrate, how-ever, apart from faulty or doubtful exege-sis, the difficulty with such proposals is

9

their failure to distinguish between generalnorms and specific applications. In the caseof widows, for example, the general normis that the church care for widows whohave no other means of support. Thisapplies in Paul’s day as well as in ours. InPaul’s day, the specific application was forwidows over sixty years of age to beput on a list. While the church’s outwork-ing of the general scriptural norm maybe different today, the norm still applies.The other points listed above likewisecan be answered by a consistent applica-tion of this general norm/specific applica-tion distinction.32

A second problem with an ad hoc

approach to the interpretation of thePastoral Epistles is the manifest implausi-bility of an extreme application of thismirror-reading hermeneutic to everysingle injunction contained in thePastorals. To be consistent, the proponentsof such an approach would seem to haveto argue that the false teachers taught allof the following (and were in everyinstance corrected by Paul):

1. The church ought not to pray forthose in authority;2. God wants only some people tobe saved;3. Church leaders ought not to beabove reproach, or at least the falseteachers were not;4. They ought not to be faithful totheir wives, or at least the false teach-ers were not;5. They ought not to be hospitableor be able to teach, or at least thefalse teachers were not;6. They ought to be given to drunk-enness, or at least the false teacherswere;7. They ought to be violent and quar-relsome, or at least the false teach-ers were;8. They ought to be lovers of money,or at least the false teachers were; etc.

Perhaps some of the above may be true,

but all of the above? Were the false teach-ers really not able to teach but overseersin Paul’s churches should be so able? IsPaul’s point really the false teachers’ lackof hospitality, which he seeks to offset withhis injunction that overseers in hischurches must open their homes to others?Hermeneutical consistency on the part ofthose advocating an ad hoc hermeneuticwould seem to require this (or else requirean inevitably arbitrary adjudication ofwhich of Paul’s statements are or are notconstrained by the false teachers), but, asshown, this approach leads to ratherextreme results. In the end, it seems, thiskind of hermeneutic denies Paul, theauthor, his right (or claims the apostle isunable) to make any pronouncements in aPastoral or any other epistle that transcendhis own immediate circumstances. Clearly,however, this approach is not logicallycompelling. The presence of an injunctionto hospitality does not require the absenceof this trait in the current leadership orfalse teaching regarding the need for hos-pitality on the part of church leaders.Hence a warrant for this type of an ad hoc,mirror-reading hermeneutic is ultimatelylacking. At the very least, one ought not tomake one’s conjectured reconstruction ofthe Ephesian context the paradigm orabsolute premise on the basis of whichabiding implications for the church todayare precluded (or rendered presumptivelyunlikely from the very outset).

Especially in conjunction with theabove-mentioned structural markers of1 Timothy 2:1 and 3:15–16, it seems to beat least equally plausible that the referenceto the false teachers in 1:3 informs Paul’scomments in the remainder of chapter 1and then again in chapters 4-6 but that 2:1–3:16 are more positive in orientation.Perhaps Johnson’s recent proposal of a set-

10

ting is helpful here where Timothy, at thattime stationed in Ephesus, needed supportand counsel on how to deal with the falseteachers in the Ephesian church, which ledPaul to interweave personal instructionswith those on community life. Johnsoncalls this the mandata principis (“command-ments of the ruler”) letter and cites severalpossible ancient parallels.33

Exegetical ChallengesIf Paul is the author of the Pastoral

Epistles, and if his letters transcend meread hoc argumentation and deal with impor-tant issues of perennial importance for thechurch in a way that has continuing rel-evance and authority, what are some of themajor apostolic teachings pertaining to thechurch in this corpus of the New Testa-ment? Quite clearly, Paul’s pronounce-ments regarding church government andqualifications for church leaders must beat the top of the list. An adjudication ofPaul’s teaching on these issues in thePastorals is needed all the more as therelevant passages present several majorexegetical challenges, which is part of thereason why issues related to church gov-ernment continue to be hotly debated anddisputed today.

Elders/OverseersThe area of church leadership is one

area where the Pastorals quite clearly setforth paradigms for the church that reachbeyond their original Ephesian or Cretancontext. As mentioned, it has been claimedby some that the church structure foundin the Pastorals reflects the second-centurypattern of a three-tiered ecclesiasticalhierarchy involving a monarchical episco-pate (e.g., Ignatius of Antioch). Yet closerscrutiny reveals that the Pastorals do notin fact conform to this model but rather

display a synonymous usage of the terms“overseer” (episkopos) and “elder” (pres-

byteros) as referring to one and the sameoffice (Titus 1:5, 7; cf. Acts 20:17, 28; 1 Clem.44:1, 5; cf. Jerome, Letter 59).34

With regard to specific terminology,1 Timothy 3:1 uses the word episkope (cf.Acts 1:20), denoting the “office of overseer”(cf. Luke 19:44; Acts 1:20; 1 Pet 2:12), whilein 3:2 episkopos is found, referring to theperson holding such an office.35 In theLXX the term designates one in charge ofan operation (Num 4:16); in Josephus itdenotes an “overseer” (Antiq. 10.53;12.254). The Qumran equivalent was themebaqqer (1QS 6:12, 20; CD 9:18–19, 22;13:6–7). Generally, presbyteros is Jewish inorigin, signifying seniority, while episkopos

is Greek, indicating a person’s superin-tending role. Presumably overseers consti-tuted the “board of elders” (presbyterion)mentioned in 1 Timothy 4:14.36

The overseer (equivalent to pastor/elder) bears ultimate responsibility for thechurch before God (see 1 Tim 3:15; 5:17).According to the instructions on the roleof women in the previous chapter (esp.2:12), only men are eligible for this office.This is confirmed by the qualification mias

gynaikos andra in 1 Timothy 3:2. Therequirement of being, literally, an “of-one-wife-husband” may be patterned after theRoman concept of a univira (i.e., a “onehusband”-type of wife).37 This term denot-ing marital fidelity was initially applied toliving women in relation to their husbandsand later became an epithet given byhusbands to their deceased wives (as isattested by numerous extant tombstoneinscriptions).38

The NIV rendering “husband of but onewife” (but note the commendable changein the TNIV to “faithful to his wife”) sug-gests that this requirement is aimed at

11

excluding polygamists.39 However,polygamy was not widely practiced in theGraeco-Roman world of the time.40 S. M.Baugh has recently made a convincing casefor interpreting the phrase as barring menwho have one or several concubines.41 Thiswidespread practice conflicted with bibli-cal morals, since sexual union with aconcubine constituted adultery andamounted to polygamy. Moreover, theword “but” is not in the original, and “hus-band of one wife” most likely representsan idiom that is best rendered “faithfulhusband.”42

This is further suggested by the paral-lel in 1 Timothy 5:9, where a widow eli-gible for church support is required to havebeen “faithful to her husband” (so even theNIV = TNIV) and where the equivalentphrase “wife of one husband” is used (cf.1 Cor 7:2–5). In the latter instance, thephrase cannot indicate a prohibition ofpolyandry (being married to more thanone husband at a time) since it is made ofa woman bereft of her husband. Moreover,it is excluded that Paul first encouragesyounger widows to get remarried and thendisqualifies them later on the grounds thatthey have (literally) been wives of morethan one husband.43 The requirement ofmarital faithfulness for church leaders(including deacons, 1 Tim 3:12) is consis-tent with the prohibition of adultery in theDecalogue (Exod 20:14 = Deut 5:18).44

If this interpretation is correct, divorced(and remarried) men would not necessar-ily be excluded from serving as overseersor deacons, especially if the divorce wasbiblically legitimate.45 This would be truealso if the divorce has taken place in thedistant past (especially if the person wasnot a believer at the time) and if the man’spresent pattern (and proven track record)is that of marital faithfulness.46 Neverthe-

less, when coupled with the requirementthat an overseer be “above reproach”(which includes community reputation), itmay be best not to appoint divorcees tothe role of overseer, especially when quali-fied candidates are available that did notundergo a divorce.

Likewise, the injunction does notdirectly apply to unmarried aspirants (ofwhom a celibate life-style is required). Inlight of Paul’s positive treatment of celi-bacy elsewhere it may be surmised that aman’s unmarried state did not disqualifyhim from serving as overseer.47 Theassumption underlying the present versethat an overseer will in the norm be mar-ried flies in the face of the teaching propa-gated by the heretics who “forbid peopleto marry” (1 Tim 4:3). The present state-ment “does not mean that bishops had tobe married; it just commends marriage assomething that is not at all inconsistentwith the episcopal office.”48

DeaconsThe second church office addressed in

1 Timothy 3 besides that of overseer/elderis that of deacon. Structurally, the presenceof hosautos in 1 Timothy 3:8 and 11 (“like-wise”/“in the same way”) suggests thatqualifications are given for two other typesof officeholders besides that of overseer(3:1–7). To put it differently, the framingdevice by which 3:11 is sandwichedbetween 3:8–10 and 3:12–13 indicates thatone large category is in mind, that ofdeacon, with Paul first addressing qualifi-cations for male and then female office-holders, after which he briefly returns tomale deacons and closes with a generalstatement pertaining to both. As men-tioned, the two-tiered structure (elder/deacon) characteristic of 1 Timothy 3 is alsoevident from Philippians 1:1.

12

When comparing the qualifications fordeacons with those for overseers, one notesthe absence of terms related to teaching orruling (most notably–“able to teach,” 3:2;see also 3:5b). This suggests that, in keep-ing with the designation “deacon” (fromthe Greek diakonos, “servant”) as overagainst “overseer,” deacons are not part ofthat group that bears ultimate responsibil-ity for the church.49 At the same time, they,too, occupy a formal church office, forwhich they must meet certain require-ments. While not part of the teaching/ruling body of the church, deacons none-theless hold important leadership roles.This is most notably indicated by thesimilarity between the qualifications foroverseers and deacons.50 Although Pauldoes not spell out the precise realm ofservice for the office of deacon, one maysurmise that this includes various kindsof practical help and administration, suchas benevolence, finances, and physicalmaintenance.51

According to 1 Timothy 3:8, deacons (cf.Phil 1:1; not mentioned in Titus), “like-wise” (cf. 2:9; 3:11; Titus 2:3, 6), are to meetcertain qualifications, whereby 3:8–10 and12 relate to male and 3:11 to female dea-cons. “Their wives” (NIV) translates theGreek gynaikas (note that “their” is not inthe original; but see the change in the NIVIto “wives” and in the TNIV to “women

who are deacons ”), which can also mean“women deacons” or “deaconesses” (NIVfootnote; NASB and HCSB: “women”).Both meanings, “woman” (2:9, 10, 11, 12,14) and “wife” (3:2, 12; 5:9; cf. Titus 1:6),are found in the present epistle; contextmust decide.52 On the whole, “women dea-cons” is to be preferred, for the followingreasons:53

1. The absence of qualifications foroverseers’ wives in 1 Timothy 3:1–7;

2. The phrase “in the same way” in1 Timothy 3:11 indicating an officesimilar to the one previously men-tioned (cf. 1 Tim 3:8);3. The parallel sentence structureand similar characteristics in 3:8 and11 (including the lack of an articlebefore “women”);4. The absence of qualifiers such asthe possessive pronoun “their” inrelation to gynaikas in the Greek.

The reason that Paul did not call thesewomen “deaconesses” is that in his day theword diakonos was still used for males andfemales alike (plus the respective article toindicate gender); only later the termdiakonissa was coined (Apost. Const. 8.19, 20,28).54 Phoebe is identified as a diakonos ofthe church at Cenchrea in Romans 16:1.Paul’s mention of deaconesses cohereswell with his earlier prohibition of womenserving in teaching or ruling functions overmen (2:12) and his lack of mention ofwomen elders in 3:1–7. Since being adeacon does not involve teaching or rul-ing, women as well as men are eligible toserve in this capacity. The requirements fordeaconesses are thus similar to those formale deacons.

It should be noted that in recent yearsthe tide of opinion has significantly shiftedtoward the presence of women deacons inthe early church. Until recently, most majortranslations took the reference in 1 Timo-thy 3:11 to be to the wives of deacons, asthe following list illustrates:

KJV = NKJV: “their wives”NASB: “women”NIV: “their wives” (footnote: or“deaconesses”)NRSV: “women” (footnote: or “theirwives” or “women deacons”)NLT: “their wives” (footnote: or “thewomen deacons”)

Thus until recently no major translationunequivocally affirmed in the main text

13

that 1 Timothy 3:11 may refer to womendeacons. With the recent release of theTNIV this has now changed: as mentioned,its text says “women who are deacons .”Notably, too, the HCSB, by opting for thewording “women,” marks a cautiousdeparture from the KJV traditional render-ing of “their wives.”

To this turning of the tide with regardto women deacons should be added thefact that several major recent commentar-ies—written by complementarian scholars,no less—unanimously affirm that the ref-erence to Phoebe as a diakonos in Romans16:1 should probably be interpreted as herserving as a deaconess.55 The implicationfor the church’s contemporary practiceseems to be that it may be only a matter oftime until more churches will allowwomen to serve in the role of deaconess(assuming a biblical definition of “deacon”as a non-teaching, non-ruling office).

ConclusionIt remains to summarize briefly our con-

clusions. With regard to authorship, wehave concluded that Pauline authorshipcontinues to be preferred over pseud-onymity or allonymity. With regard togenre and the role of background, it hasbeen argued that an ad hoc hermeneutic istoo constraining and that an approach con-sistently distinguishing between generalprinciple and specific application is to befavored. Exegetically, the Pastorals wereshown to reflect a two-tiered structure ofchurch government, with a plurality ofpastors/elders/overseers in charge andwith deacons (both male and female) ful-filling serving roles in the church. The“husband of one wife” requirement wasshown to refer most likely to the stipula-tion that church leaders be faithful to theirwives; if so, there would be no reason to

disqualify those candidates for pastor orelder who are divorced but whose divorceis biblically legitimate and covered by oneof the exceptions stipulated in New Testa-ment teaching.

I do not claim that these conclusions arethe only ones possible from the New Tes-tament data. Nor do I claim that I am nec-essarily right in all of my hermeneuticaland exegetical judgments. There can belittle disagreement, however, that thePastorals are one of the most importantNew Testament writings for the practice ofthe contemporary church. The churchmust continue to wrestle with what Scrip-ture teaches regarding church government,church leadership, and qualifications forleadership and commit itself to abide bywhat it understands the Scriptures to teachrather than personal preference or churchtradition.56 I would also urge an awarenessof one’s own presuppositions and a will-ingness to revisit (or visit for the first time)the biblical data rather than following inthe paths of one’s denominational fore-bears. It is with the commitment to sola

Scriptura, with the scholarly spirit of ad

fontes, and with the dictum, “In essentials,unity, in non-essentials liberty, and in allthings, charity” that I offer this modest con-tribution to our study and practice of thePastoral Epistles.

ENDNOTES1See esp. the commentaries by I. HowardMarshall, The Pastoral Epistles (Interna-tional Critical Commentary; Edinburgh:T. & T. Clark, 1999); William D. Mounce,The Pastoral Epistles (Word Biblical Com-mentary; Nashville: Thomas Nelson,2000); and Jerome D. Quinn and WilliamC. Wacker (Eerdmans Critical Commen-tary; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000). Ihave reviewed these three commen-

14

taries in Journal of the Evangelical

Theological Society 44 no. 3 (2001)550–553; 45 no. 2 (2002) 365–366;and 44 no. 3 (2001) 549–550, whichare now posted on my website,www.ajkostenberger.com.

2For a more detailed exegetical treat-ment see my forthcoming commen-tary on the Pastoral epistles in theNew Expositor’s Bible Commen-tary (ed. David Garland; GrandRapids: Zondervan).

3For brief surveys, see Raymond F.Collins, Letters That Paul Did Not

Write (Wilmington, DE: MichaelGlazier, 1988) 89–90, who names asthe earliest challengers of thePastorals’ authenticity Schmidt(1804), Schleiermacher (1807),Eichhorn (1812), Baur (1835), andlater Holtzmann (1885); and E. EarleEllis, “Pastoral Letters,” in Diction-

ary of Paul and His Letters, ed. GeraldF. Hawthorne and Ralph P. Martin(Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press,1993) 659.

4See the thorough survey and adju-dication in Terry L. Wilder, “Pseud-onymity and the New Testament,”in Interpreting the New Testament:

Essays on Methods and Issues, ed.David Alan Black and D. S. Dockery(Nashville: Broadman & Holman,2001).

5For a forceful argument againstthis contention, see E. Earle Ellis,“Pseudonymity and Canonicity ofNew Testament Documents,” inWorship, Theology and Ministry in the

Early Church, ed. Michael J. Wilkinsand Terence Page (Journal for theStudy of the New Testament: Sup-plement Series 87; Sheffield: JSOT,1992) 212–224.

Certain Arguments against thePauline Authorship of the PastoralEpistles,”Expository Times 70 (1958–59) 91–94 (see esp. the four ques-tions listed on p. 93).

16See esp. Michael P. Prior, Paul the

Letter-Writer and the Second Letter to

Timothy (Journal for the Study of theNew Testament: Supplement Series23; Sheffield: JSOT, 1989), and PhilipH. Towner, 1–2 Timothy & Titus (IVPNew Testament Commentary;Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press,1994) 34–35.

17Richard Bauckham, “Pseudo-Apos-tolic Letters,” Journal of Biblical Lit-

erature 107 (1988) 487, observes therarity of apocryphal or pseudepi-graphal apostolic letters in relationto other genres and conjectures thatthe reason for this “may well havebeen the sheer difficulty of using apseudepigraphal letter to performthe same functions as an authenticletter.” He concludes that “amongthe letters surveyed there is noreally good example of a pseudepi-graphal letter that achieves didac-tic relevance by the generality of itscontents.”

18Bauckham considers it “misclassi-fied” and a “dedicated treatise”(478). Bauckham also discusses sev-eral didactic letters (1 Enoch 92–105;Epistle of Jeremiah; 1 Baruch; 2 Bar.78–87).

19Bauckham calls Laodiceans “aremarkably incompetent attempt tofill the gap . . . nothing but a patch-work of Pauline sentences andphrases from other letters, mainlyPhilippians” (485). 3 Corinthians ispart of the late second-century Acts

of Paul.

6For a thorough discussion of theseissues, see esp. Donald Guthrie, New

Testament Introduction, 4th ed.(Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press,1990) 607–649, 1011–1028.

7Marshall, 79. See Marshall’s entirediscussion on pp. 57–92.

8Ibid., 80–83.9Ibid., 84.

10Ibid., 85.11Ibid., 86.12As I note in my review (p. 551), this

involves an internal contradiction inMarshall’s argument, since he else-where seems to contend that Tituswas written prior to the epistles toTimothy owing to the less-devel-oped and complex ecclesiasticalsituation reflected in Titus. In keep-ing with this view, Marshall treatsthe Pastorals in the order Titus—1 Timothy—2 Timothy (not 2 Timo-thy—1 Timothy, another apparentself-contradiction). The followingscenario and critique are likewisetaken from my review.

13The discussion below anticipatesthe treatment of this issue in myforthcoming New Expositor’s BibleCommentary contribution.

14See Mounce, xcix–cxviii. Othercommon objections to the Paulineauthorship of the Pastorals are thedifficulty to harmonize Paul’smovements mentioned in thePastorals with those recorded inActs and the alleged late churchstructures reflected in the Pastorals(see discussion below). The follow-ing material anticipates the discus-sion in my forthcoming NEBC con-tribution.

15For an incisive treatment, see BruceM. Metzger, “A Reconsideration of

15

20This is true despite Bruce Metzger’sconclusion that “since the use of theliterary form of pseudepigraphyneed not be regarded as necessarilyinvolving fraudulent intent, it can-not be argued that the character ofinspiration excludes the possibilityof pseudepigraphy among thecanonical writings” (“Literary Forg-eries and Canonical Pseudepi-grapha,” Journal of Biblical Literature

91 [1972] 22). See now esp. JeremyDuff, “A Reconsideration of Pseude-pigraphy in Early Christianity”(unpublished Ph.D. thesis, OxfordUniversity, 1998), who concludesthat the value of a text was closelylinked to its true authorship; thatpseudonymity was generallyviewed as a deceitful practice; andthat texts thought to be pseudony-mous were marginalized.

21See Mounce, lxxxvi–lxxxviii, 186–192, who cites Polycarp, Clement,Clement of Alexandria, and Irena-eus as referring to a two-tieredstructure, using episkopos andpresbyteros interchangeably.

22Frances M. Young, “On Episkopos

and Presbyteros,” Journal of Theologi-

cal Studies 45 (1994) 142–148 ven-tures the “admittedly tentative”hypothesis that the origins of theepiskopos and the presbyteroi aredistinct. However, Young’s interpre-tation of the Pastorals in light ofIgnatius (rather than vice versa)seems precarious (if not method-ologically fallacious).

23D. A. Carson, Douglas J. Moo, andLeon Morris, An Introduction to the

New Testament (Grand Rapids:Zondervan, 1992) 364.

24Contra Bauckham who believes that

the author of the Pastorals “hasthought himself into situations inPaul’s ministry and . . . has filled outwhatever historical informationwas available to him with histori-cal fiction” (492; echoing Holtz-mann). Bauckham even venturesthe conjecture that Timothy mighthave written the Pastorals himself(494)! Also contra the “mediatingposition” of James D. G. Dunn, The

Living Word (London: SCM, 1987)82, who believes that Paul is “thefountainhead of the Pastorals tradi-tion” and that the Pastorals re-express for a later situation “thevoice of the Pauline tradition for anew day”; and Norbert Brox, “Zuden persönlichen Notizen derPastoralbriefe,” Biblische Zeitschrift

13 (1969) 76–94, who considers thepersonal references to represent“typical situations in the ecclesias-tical office, which are historicizedand attributed to Paul.”

25Carson, Moo, and Morris, 363.Similarly, Donald Guthrie, “TheDevelopment of the Idea of Canoni-cal Pseudepigrapha in New Testa-ment Criticism,” Vox Evangelica 1(1962) 43–59. This, of course, inno way precludes the possibilitythat Paul may have employed anamanuensis, as he frequently did inother instances. See Richard N.Longenecker, “Ancient Amanuen-ses and the Pauline Epistles,” in New

Dimensions in New Testament Study,

ed. Richard N. Longenecker andMerrill C. Tenney (Grand Rapids:Zondervan, 1974) 281–297; E.Randolph Richards, The Secretary in

the Letters of Paul (WissenschaftlicheUntersuchungen zum Neuen Testa-

ment 2/42; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1991); and Ellis, “PastoralLetters,” 663–664.

26Wilder, 307. Wilder provides a verythorough review of biblical scholar-ship on the issue of pseudonymity,including the above-mentionedcontribution of Marshall. Wilder’sprimary problem with Marshall’stheory is the difficulty of determin-ing which parts of the Pastorals relyon authentic Pauline material andwhich ones do not on the basis ofthe existing form of these epistles(319).

27See ibid., 324–327.28The viability of the apostolic author-

ship of the Pastorals is underscoredby William Mounce’s advocacy ofthis view in his Word Biblical Com-mentary contribution. But seeQuinn and Wacker, who contend inthe introduction to their work thatthe Pastorals were written, not byPaul, but in the post-Pauline period(AD 70–100) in order to counter thetendency of disparaging the apostleowing to his shameful end as a pur-ported criminal (p. 20). Regardingthe recipients of the Pastorals,Quinn and Wacker conjecture that“not only Titus and Timothy butalso the places to which the lettersare addressed may have a typicalor representative function” (22).Like Marshall, Quinn and Wackerbelieve that Titus was the first of thePastorals to be written.

29Gordon Fee, “Reflections on ChurchOrder in the Pastoral Epistles, withFurther Reflection on the Herme-neutics of Ad Hoc Documents,” Jour-nal of the Evangelical Theological

Society 28 (1985) 142–143.

16

30Mounce, 153.31See my response to Kevin Giles, “A

Critique of the ‘Novel’ Contempo-rary Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:9–15 Given in the Book, Women in the

Church. Parts I and II,” Evangelical

Quarterly 72 (2000) 151–167, 195–215, in Evangelical Quarterly 73(2001) 205–224, esp. 207–212.

32See also T. David Gordon, “A Cer-tain Kind of Letter: The Genre of 1Timothy,” in Women in the Church:

A Fresh Analysis of 1 Timothy 2:9–15,

ed. Andreas J. Köstenberger, Tho-mas R. Schreiner, and H. ScottBaldwin (Grand Rapids: Baker,1995) 53–63.

33See Luke Timothy Johnson, Letters

to Paul’s Delegates: 1 Timothy, 2 Timo-

thy, Titus (The New Testament inContext; Valley Forge: PA: TrinityPress International, 1996) 106–107,168.

34See the discussion under Author-ship above.

35See Acts 20:28; Phil 1:1; Titus 1:7; 1Pet 2:25. For presbyteros, see esp. 1Tim 5:1, 17, 19; Titus 1:5; 1 Pet 5:1, 5;James 5:14; and the book of Acts.

36Johnson, 145.37Cf. Marjorie Lightman and William

Zeisel, “Univira: An Example ofContinuity and Change in RomanSociety,” Church History 46 (1977)19–32.

38As the poet Catullus (1st cent. BC)wrote, “[T]o live content with oneman is for wives an honor of hon-ors” (111). A Roman imperial in-scription reads, “She lived fiftyyears and was satisfied with onehusband” (CIL 6.5162). The late-first-century BC Laudatio Turiae

records a husband saying about his

InterVarsity Press, forthcoming).46Cf. Page, 109–113.47So Chrysostom, Homilies on 1 Timo-

thy 10.48Calvin, 54.49Cf. George W. Knight, The Pastoral

Epistles (New International GreekTestament Commentary; GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 167; con-tra Marshall, 485.

50Towner, 90–91.51Mounce contends that “Paul does

not teach that the deacon is underthe overseer . . . both overseer anddeacon serve the church in differ-ent capacities” (207). Yet overseersare in charge of the entire congre-gation (e.g. 5:17), which would seemto include deacons.

52A third possibility is favored byRobert M. Lewis, “The ‘Women’ of1 Timothy 3:11,” Bibliotheca sacra 136(1979): 167–175, that of unmarried[single or widowed] female dea-cons’ assistants. Walter L. Liefeld,1 & 2 Timothy/Titus (NIV Applica-tion Commentary; Grand Rapids:Zondervan, 1999) 134 conjecturesthat “at first the women who servedas deacons were the wives of dea-cons.”

53Cf. Jennifer H. Stiefel, “Women Dea-cons in 1 Timothy: A Linguistic andLiterary Look at ‘Women Likewise. . .’ [1 Tim 3.11],” New Testament

Studies 41 (1995) 442–457.54See also the reference in Pliny the

younger, who refers to two women“called deaconesses” (ministrae)in Bithynia under Trajan (Epist.10.96.8; c. AD 115).

55See esp. Thomas R. Schreiner,Romans (Baker Exegetical Commen-tary on the New Testament; Grand

wife, “Rare are marriages, so longlasting, and ended by death, notinterrupted by divorce . . .”

39Cf. John Calvin, 1 & 2 Timothy &

Titus ([1556, 1549]; repr., Wheaton,IL/Nottingham: Crossway, 1998)54.

40See Mounce, 171.41S. M. Baugh, “Titus,” in Zondervan

Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Com-

mentary, vol. 3, ed. Clinton E. Arnold(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002)501–502.

42See esp. Sidney Page, “MaritalExpectations of Church Leaders inthe Pastoral Epistles,” Journal for the

Study of the New Testament 50 (1993)105–120, esp. 108–109 and 114, n. 27.

43Cf. P. Trummer, “Einehe nach denPastoralbriefen,” Biblica 51 (1970):480; apparently independently,Page, 112; contra Fee, “Reflectionson Church Order,” 150, who con-tends that the present passage“probably prohibits remarriage ofwidows/widowers.”

44The present requirement contrastswith the gnostic extremes of asceti-cism and sexual licentiousness.Marital fidelity was also held inhigh regard in the Graeco-Romanworld, so that this quality wouldcommend a Christian office-holderto his pagan surroundings (cf. Page,117–118).

45Wife’s marital unfaithfulness: Matt19:9; desertion by an unbelievingwife: 1 Cor 7:15–16; remarriageowing to death of a spouse: Rom7:2–3. See Andreas J. Köstenber-ger, “Marriage and Family in theNew Testament,” in Marriage and

Family in the Biblical World, ed.Ken M. Campbell (Downers Grove:

17

Rapids: Baker, 1998) 786–787 andDouglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the

Romans (New International Com-mentary on the New Testament;Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996)913–914.

56See the unpublished paper byRandall L. Adkisson, “Women Serv-ing in the Church? A biblical andhistorical look at women serving inthe church with particular attentiongiven to the history and interpreta-tion of Southern Baptists.”