At the moment I’m interested in the Pastoral Epistles. Here is the way I currently hear the flow of 1 Timothy:
First Emphasis: 1:1-2:15
- God is Saviour
- Christ as saviour/mediator
- False teaching: Speech about law/blasphemy
- Charge: Regulate teaching concerning salvation: Encourage prayer & good works as opposed to fighting & elaborate adornment & the usurping of authority
- Faithful saying: Christ came to save sinners
- Examples: Positive: Paul was a violent blasphemer but was shown grace; Negative: Hymenaeus & Alexander have rejected a good conscience and must learn not to blaspheme
Second Emphasis: 3:1-6:2
- Church is Household of God
- Christ as manifest embodiment of piety
- False teaching: Going against conscience & creation
- Charge: Regulate (and exemplify) the piety of the household of God: Overseers, Servers, older widows, younger widows, elders, slaves, masters
- Faithful sayings: Desiring to be an overseer; Training in piety (?)
Third Emphasis: 6:2-21
- Timothy is a man of God
- Christ as faithful confessor before Pilate
- False teaching: Desire for teaching as a means to wealth/gain
- Charge: Fight the good fight, make the good confession – until manifestation of Christ; regulate the wealthy
RSS - Posts
Matt, what about 2:1-15? It seems to be leftout. What am I missing?
Yeah I think this is a difficult bit to place – but at the moment I see it as the application of the corrective about “blasphemous”/law-driven conceptions of salvation in chapter 1 – the section begins with “Parakalo oun proton…” – which I take to be introducing such an application; and in between talking about prayer (2:1-4,8 ) and good works in accordance with salvation (2:9-15), the role of Christ as mediator is emphasised.
But how does the prohibition of these women fit in? Applications of law-driven conceptions of salvation?
I think so yes: A life of quiet “good works” (such as child-bearing) is contrasted with the previous depictions of presumptuous/blasphemous religiosity. Of course, that doesn’t tell us how it should apply to the church today – but I think that’s what it meant as part of the letter.
The person who sits next to me at uni is doing a phd on this very question, so I’ll be interested to see where her research goes – potentially a very controversial issue!
“the author often appears to prescribe patterns of conduct to counter directly perversions of behavior introduced by the false teachers.” Philip H. Towner, The Goal of Our Instruction: The Structure of Theology and Ethics in the Pastoral Epistles (Sheffield, JSOT Press, 1989) 169.