Education and the Household in the Pastoral Epistles

Educating Paul’s Children: The Delegates, Timothy and Titus

Christopher Hutson begins his recent commentary on the Pastoral Epistles with a bold statement that identifies an overarching educational purpose for these works: “This is a book about ministerial formation. Specifically, it is a commentary on a collection of letters for young ministers about how to be effective ministers of Jesus Christ.” ⁷ Hutson understands the roles ascribed to Timothy and Titus in the Pastorals as fundamentally tied to this overarching purpose. Timothy and Titus, the addressees of these letters, are more than the conduits for addressing communities, they are rather types of youthful role-models for ministers in formation. According to Hutson, the Pastorals may aptly be characterized as “communications from an aging apostle to his protégés, who are ‘youthful’ (1 Tim 4:12, 2 Tim 2:22) and whose peers are younger men (1 Tim 5:1–2; Titus 2:6–8).” ⁸

Utilizing Hutson’s insights, the educational focus becomes even clearer if we push the youthful profiles of Timothy and Titus back to their characterization as children. Using symbolic familial language, both Timothy and Titus are presented as Paul’s children, with warmth and admiration (1 Tim 1:2; 2 Tim 1:2; Titus 1:4), building upon the presentation of these Pauline collaborators in the undisputed letters. For example, in Phil 2:19–23, Timothy’s worth to Paul is like a father to a son. Where Timothy’s youth might be held against him, Paul offers encouragement in 1 Cor 16:10–11. A similar picture of age-related sensitivities emerges in the Pastorals with respect to Timothy (1 Tim 4:12; 2 Tim 1:7; 2:22) and also —though somewhat less forcefully—with respect to Titus, who is to let no one look down upon him (Titus 2:15). The fatherly presentation of Paul (in fact, Paul is the fictive father of both; cf. 1 Tim 1:2; 2 Tim 1:2; Titus 1:4) needs to be recognized as closely aligned with the image of Paul as the teacher of his delegate apprentices. Not only was fatherhood associated with teaching in the Greco-Roman world (see further below), the notion of a teacher as a type of parental figure was widespread. To offer one of numerous examples that could be cited of the teacher presented as a surrogate father, the teacher known as the grammarian (responsible for the second stage of education) could be fittingly called a child’s “father in letters.” ⁹ Similar ideas are found in the presentation of Timothy as Paul’s beloved child in the opening of 2 Timothy. Paul is both father and teacher, as he instructs Timothy to hold on to the sound teaching (2 Tim 1:13 [or healthy words; distinct terminology found in the Pastorals]) which he has heard from Paul. Clearly a type of precious, life-giving curriculum to be passed down is being envisioned as framing this father-child relationship (2 Tim 1:13–14). With a starting point of Paul being entrusted with the revelation of the word and having his own authority anchored in divine commission in the strongest possible terms (Titus 1:1–4), the instruction to Titus, Paul’s loyal child, is to convey Paul’s memory and example in teaching sound doctrine (Titus 2:1).

From the perspective of an ancient audience, a further aspect of the public perception of the relationship between father and son calls for careful consideration in examining the depiction of Paul’s apprentices/children, Timothy and Titus. A son was typically identified as the living image (imago, effigies) of his father. Such linkages were based on the centrality and protection of the male hereditary line but were really not tied to physical appearance so much as socialization and ascription of the father’s attributes to the son by others. The drawing of such resemblances was central to the public face of the family. We might consider, for example, the remarks of the first-century CE Stoic philosopher, Epictetus, who pointed to the cultural ideal of family continuity and identity by encouraging sons to treat everything of their own as belonging to their fathers. On the one hand, recognition of these priorities and dynamics sheds further light on the presentation of continuity between Paul and his charges. In obeying their true father, Paul, Timothy and Titus were offering fundamental indicators of their Pauline character and reliability as springing from—as Epictetus’ comments reflect—the very essence of their father. ¹⁰ But on the other hand, recognition of these dynamics allows the consequences of the absence of the actual fathers to stand out more vividly. One of the father’s duties in molding a son in his image involved the passing down of religious rites associated with ancestry, and this duty had now been usurped in the eyes of a critical culture by Paul. ¹¹

The Pastorals leave any trace of the hereditary male ancestry of Timothy and Titus behind. Their family circumstances are little known to us, with the exception of one important clue in the case of Timothy. Acts 16:1 states that Timothy had a Greek father and Jewish mother who was a believer (in contrast, Titus is not mentioned in Acts and simply presented as a Greek in Gal 2:3). There is a connection between this brief reference in Acts, which suggests a mixed marriage where the wife only was a believer, and 2 Tim 1:5, where Timothy’s mother and grandmother are presented as being his anchors in faith. We have here a window into what other evidence supports—the influence of believing women married to non-believers and expanding early Christianity within their families. ¹² Paul’s ministerial education of Timothy is being portrayed as building upon a foundation built by women. This text reflects the important educational role of women in the family, which will be discussed in the next section.

But it also carries with it an aura of illegitimacy in terms of the society at large in not explicitly deferring to the male patriarchal line in overseeing the education of sons within the family. Ultimately, the depiction of the education of Timothy may offer a window into the activities of ministers which would have been considered suspect under the guise of “schooling.” The hereditary male line which should be overseeing the education of Timothy disappears in favor of a teacher/role model who is also an imprisoned, and frequently abandoned and humiliated, apostle (2 Tim 4:9–18).

Education of Children and Young People: Setting Examples and Molding Behaviors

In the nature vs. nurture debate as it pertains to education, the ancients would come firmly down on the side of nurture. The closest we might find in terms of educational theory presents children as empty buckets waiting to be filled with instructional nuggets, even though many questions remain about how children were perceived more broadly. One ancient historian points to the tendency to view children as passive beings to be molded in all areas of life. They were like baby birds to be coached out of the nest, spreading their wings most suitably in imitation of their parents. ¹³ The textual records pay great attention to educational influences that extend far beyond the selection of tutors, teachers and schools; from the selection of a wet nurse who might influence language acquisition, to the avoidance of witnessing bawdy banquets when students were “home schooled” in an effort to keeping moral development on course, discussions were framed in terms of the promise and pitfalls of influences. This state of affairs means that we must pay careful attention to very frequent allusions to the setting of examples in the Pastoral Epistles. These allusions emerge especially clearly in descriptions of cross-generational interaction taking many forms, including relations between the senior apostle and more youthful delegates (cf. 1 Tim 4:12) and, more generally, between older and younger men and women. The setting of examples is also closely tied to the reality of leaders (especially teachers) representing others in terms of both continuity of presence and of reputation. This type of representation is a major social construct in the Pastorals, obviously linking Paul to communities via his delegates Timothy and Titus, but also shaping the behavior of community leaders. Timothy is to emulate Paul’s example (2 Tim 1:13), but he is also to remind Christ-followers of Paul’s teaching and to ensure that they will have the capacity to teach others (2 Tim 2:2). This identification of Timothy as an authentic Pauline “teacher of teachers” also applies to Titus. Based on shared faith between Titus and Paul, Titus appoints elders/overseers in Crete who are in turn to teach the true message in response to false teaching, which is of prime concern in the letter to Titus (Titus 1:5–9). In texts where Timothy and Titus are presented as “living examples” of Paul, it is important to note the wide scope of the attributes which they are to model: speech, conduct, love, faith, and purity in the case of Timothy (1 Tim 4:12) and, similarly, good deeds, integrity in teaching, gravity, and sound speech in the case of Titus (Titus 2:7). ¹⁴

The broad range of associations between elements that we might consider as “doctrinal” and elements we might consider as “ethical” needs to be born in mind as we contemplate other educational pursuits and references to teaching and learning in the Pastoral Epistles. One of the most striking texts which envisions intergenerational teaching and learning is Titus 2:3–5, the text that refers to the instruction of younger women by older women. 1 Timothy 2:8–15 (to be discussed further below) clearly and notoriously restricts the teaching authority of women. Therefore, it is remarkable that the compound word for teacher (or, more literally, the teaching of what is good: kalodidaskalous) is used to describe the teaching of women by other women. Furthermore, the detail provided about the content of teaching in this text is noteworthy. While teaching (and teachers) is an unmistakable priority in the Pastoral Epistles, this text offers the most detailed reference to the content of what should actually be taught in these letters. ¹⁵ The documents often seem to presuppose confidence in the existence of a type of “curriculum,” while revealing very few details about its specific content. What seems to be in view in Titus 2:3–5, however, is some sort of domestic curriculum, even though we must be cautious with respect to how we apply the category of “domestic” in this instance. As will be explained further below, the language used to exhort older women to encourage/train (sōphronizōsin) younger women in various domestic duties and virtues (with love of husbands and children as paramount) is rooted in an ancient philosophical context. The training should not be understood as narrowly domestic, being infused with gravitas by the way that the teaching is cast to prevent “the word of God” from being discredited seemingly by improper behavior. This adds even greater weight to the introduction of the intergenerational teaching with the reference to the typical Pastoral formula for core teaching: “sound doctrine” (Titus 2:1). Despite highly patriarchal restrictions of the activities of women and appeals to ancient gender stereotypes, it is important to recognize that not only do the Pastoral Epistles make room for women engaging in some forms of teaching, but they also link that teaching to the sacred texts and traditions, and, in the case of children, present strong evidence of women teaching these core elements.

Both the description of Timothy’s formation by his grandmother Lois and his mother Eunice (2 Tim 1:5) and the reference to Timothy’s exposure to the “sacred writings” from infancy (2 Tim 3:15) presuppose domestic activities and childcare being combined with the teaching of early Christian content. In these texts socialization of the child is at the forefront, but it is important to remember that in the case of Titus 2:3–5, the young women to be educated would likely be what we would term adolescent girls, as first marriages typically occurred when women were in their teens, and mothers and grandmothers were mentors in often abrupt transitions from childhood to wife and motherhood. Taken together, 2 Tim 1:5 and 2 Tim 3:15 point to the role of women teaching others in a variety of domestic settings, and this is viewed as foundational to spiritual formation. The instrumental role of Lois and Eunice in relation to Timothy points to a grounding within the family, but Titus 2:3–5 offers evidence of something broader than grandmothers and mothers teaching their own daughters (a similar argument could be made about the teaching of younger men by older men in Titus 2:1–8). While we are not told what type of assembly (ekklēsia) space is involved, there is no doubt that women teaching other women in the community is being envisioned, and we must remain open to the possibility that such teaching happened at times and in spaces other than when and where the community gathered for worship.

Based on Paul’s instruction to Titus, the intergenerational instructions in Titus 2:1–8 offer a curriculum to shape a holy life (chastity and self-control receive consistent attention). These instructions, and especially the detailed attention to the teaching of young women by older women, point to a type of “schooling of women” not unlike that envisioned in the Pythagorean treatises which present women as philosophical teachers and models for others. The Pythagorean treatises have a complex textual history, raise numerous questions about how they relate to the lives of real women/authors, and are difficult to date precisely. But taking the form of letters and discourses written sometime between the late second century BCE and early second century CE under the names of five women (Melissa, Myia, Periktione, Phyntis, and Theano), they are fascinating in their communication of social expectations for women and in their proclivity to provide woman-to-woman counsel. Moreover, the infusion of philosophical and moral content amid practical recommendations for success in household management has invited recent scholarly analysis of parallels with the Pastoral Epistles. ¹⁶ We are limited here to offering a few examples which can illustrate the convergence of thought worlds and which can help elucidate the constructions of gender in the Pastoral Epistles, especially as they relate to education.

The influence of older women on younger women is presented as conventional in Theano’s Letter to Kallisto, because “…[older women] are forever giving advice about household management,” and to be fostered because “…it is good first to learn the things you do not know and to consider the counsel of older women the most suitable; for a young soul must be brought up in these teachings from girlhood.” The specific context of the advice is the question of how to maintain good relations with the slaves of the household, but there are implications that extend beyond practical matters to the formation of character, for younger women need to be coached in their responses by wise guides in order to engender loyalty. The holding up of older widows as community models and the encouragement of young widows to remarry in 1 Tim 5:3–16 reveal a similar agenda and values. Patriarchy and hierarchy are clearly reflected in this advice. In its own day the traditional guidance was shaped by a philosophical approach where the possession of authority to rule alone (in both the Pastorals and the Pythagorean texts) does not qualify one for sound household management.

A more direct focus on marriage is found in Melissa’s Letter to Kleareta. In this text we find a strong statement of the traditional theme, “the good woman,” where women are to acquire sōphrosynē (“self-control”), reflected in modesty, marital fidelity, and deference to a husband’s authority. ¹⁷ The reference to silence and to simple, unadorned attire calls to mind 1 Tim 2:8–15: “…the sōphrōn and married woman must belong to her lawful husband, adorned with silence….”; “You should have a blush as a sign of modesty on your face instead of rouge, and goodness and the height of decorum and sōphrosynē instead of gold and emeralds; for the woman who strives for sōphrosynē should not be enthusiastic for the extravagance of clothing but for the management of her household.” In both the Pythagorean treatises and the Pastoral Epistles, there is a commitment to a higher good involving congruence in manner of living and thinking/believing.

While its interests in education have not always been recognized, conventional concepts concerning the education of women and responsibilities within the household are introduced in perhaps the most controversial text in the New Testament (1 Tim 2:9–15), which can only be discussed briefly here. On the one hand, women are acknowledged as learners, even though this learning is to take place in silence. On the other hand, communal and public teaching responsibility associated with gathering for worship is reserved for men only in documents that share institutional preoccupations and point to increasing concern for the public face of the assembly. Nevertheless, it is valuable to take account of the totality of texts where women are presented as educators and learners in the Pastoral Epistles: 1 Tim 2:9–15; 2 Tim 1:5, 3:15; Titus 2:3–5. A focus on the relationship between constructions of gender and education can help us to understand the fuller purposes of these documents. In short, women are to be educated subject to the authority of husbands and male leaders and teachers when the community gathers for worship. But they are also educators—in their own right—of children and of women younger than themselves. Among the Pauline letters, the Pastorals are unique in their sustained interest in the education of the next generation, and women are recognized in playing a role in that wider project. Yet, women’s roles as educators are being circumscribed in the manner reflected in the Pythagorean letters. They can be teachers/leaders in certain domains but not in others, even though there are indications that some women in their educational ambitions may have been overstepping the boundaries sanctioned by the letters, especially in 1 Tim 5:13, which seems intent on shutting down teaching/evangelical opportunities among women (1 Tim 5:3–16; cf. 1 Tim 2:9–15).

The articulation of a gendered framework where a woman may become essentially “a philosopher of the household” needs to be understood within the broader interests of the Pastoral Epistles in moral teachings as providing a foundation for the life course. ¹⁸ Scholars have drawn attention to the fact that moral teachings concerning both men and women in the Pastorals reflect the values found in ancient philosophical texts and to points of contact with the techniques and strategies employed in schools to equip young people for domestic and public life. ¹⁹ The Pastoral Epistles and the Pythagorean texts, for example, share interest in a key value which is associated with the education of both men and women: sōphrosynē (temperance, moderation, self-control; 1 Tim 2:9, 15; 3:2; Titus 1:8; 2:2, 5, 6). In Titus, the usage of the term is particularly fascinating as it figures not only in intergenerational instructions involving the setting of examples as highlighted above but is also linked with the leadership of the elders/overseers. The merging of the titles “elder” and “overseer” (presbyteros and episcopos) in Titus illustrates the close connection between family seniority and evolving leadership roles (Titus 1:5–9). ²⁰ It is explicitly stated that elders/overseers should have believing children (Titus 1:6). This guideline is rooted in the traditional expectation that fathers should have oversight over the education of their children and are responsible for preserving family memory and tradition, including the passing down of expertise in religious rites. ²¹ The elder/overseer is to display temperance among his various virtues (Titus 1:8) and to be the guardian and disseminator of sound doctrine (Titus 1:9). There is clear overlap of ideals and virtues with the presentation of intergenerational responsibilities in Titus 2:1–8, which also includes a threefold reference to temperance or self-control (Titus 2:2, 5, 6).

A focus on education can help us to understand the close association of the evolution of leadership criteria with the ethos and organization of familial life. We should read the call for overseers to keep children submissive and respectful in 1 Tim 3:4 as including the responsibility to educate their children (cf. Eph 6:4), especially sons. The education of sons by their fathers was a traditional expectation in the Roman world and was strongly tied to notions of reverence that sons owed their fathers. Sons were expected to imitate their fathers and be loyal and obedient in all matters in an effort to perpetuate family traditions, as the comments of Epictetus discussed above in conjunction with the surrogate identities of Timothy and Titus illustrate. It is not surprising that in the criteria for the role of overseer in 1 Tim 3:1–7 we find a merger of traits more usually associated with church leadership such as “an apt teacher” (3:2), with traditional expectations of household management such as “keeping children submissive and respectful in everyway” (3:4). The teaching authority of one who manages his household well (1 Tim 3:4) should be viewed as rooted in the teaching authority of fathers (cf. Titus 1:6). In 1 Timothy managing the household is a determinative criterion for the capacity to manage the ekklēsia of God (1 Tim 3:5), and the teaching role of fathers is implicitly linked (and would have been recognized immediately by an ancient audience) to teaching in the ekklēsia of God.

Ekklēsia Space as School Space?

While highly conventional in their application to a father as head of the household, the virtues of the overseer take on new dimensions when we consider that they are also virtues for a model group leader. A direct focus on space illustrates the point. The virtue of hospitality (1 Tim 3:2) expands the role of father as teacher of his own children in spatial terms. As a leader in the community and one whose example and reputation is beyond dispute, one can easily imagine the overseer opening up his house for the teaching of believing children (and perhaps also adults), slave and free, along with the members of his own household. Like the older women who teach younger women discussed above, we need to bear in mind the use of household space in flexible ways for educational purposes. So much remains uncertain about what happened when the communities gathered for worship even though there were certainly attempts to regulate worship within Pauline circles as 1 Tim 2:8–15 reveals so boldly (cf. 1 Corinthians 11–14). But much like would happen in Christian circles today, there were probably smaller, more informal gatherings for instructional purposes that are more in keeping with the textual evidence and fit with existing cultural patterns, sometimes even tied to modes of schooling.

The study of early Christian families and house churches has greatly advanced our understanding of Christian origins in recent years, but scholars continue to point to others kinds of spaces that Christ-followers probably used for their gatherings such as workshops where artisans such as Paul may have made many initial contacts, or banquet houses that provided meeting places for ancient associations such as occupational guilds or cultic associations of various kinds. ²² There is an unmistakable forging of Christian identity in familial terms in 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus, and a pivotal reference to the leadership of the overseer as headship of the household of God (1 Tim 3:5). Despite other possible meeting arrangements, it remains highly likely that the community was gathering in domestic abodes of some type. Yet, nowhere do the Pastoral Epistles refer to an ekklēsia meeting in the house of a particular individual, following the usual Pauline formula (e.g., Rom 16:5; Col 4:15). The household setting of the Pastorals invites further explorations of conceptions of ekklēsia space beyond the fact that houses may have offered accommodation for community gathering. Emphasis on the education of children, which ties together the presentation of the roles of Timothy and Titus, the emphasis on intergenerational instruction and the criteria for leadership, calls for more in-depth analysis than can be offered here of a merging of the household and the school, building upon models for education that already existed in antiquity. This adds new layers of complexity to discussions already calling for a more nuanced understanding of early Christian meeting patterns. Nevertheless, it is possible to conclude this essay with a few observations.

Although gaps between the educated and uneducated were often presented as unbridgeable gulfs with all-encompassing social consequences that would be foreign to our world, ancient authors attached great value to education in the construction of identity and definitions of status and authority in a manner resembling modern society. ²³ Beyond this shared recognition of the value of education, however, it is important to set aside our modern conceptions of schooling in order to understand education in the Roman world. We must largely put aside much of what we take for granted as stable educational practices. In fact, ancient evidence suggests that school spaces were set up flexibly depending on the arrangements that a teacher could make and might include such wide-ranging venues as auditoriums, gymnasiums, wrestling grounds, and homes. ²⁴ There are large gaps in knowledge about practical matters for organization of a “school day,” but we know that education took place on the basis of more formal arrangements when teachers were “hired,” as well as during various informal household scenarios, including banquets, where children may have absorbed material from “learned” guests or from interactions with slaves who could be assigned teaching responsibilities. ²⁵ If we consider the role of the overseer as an “apt teacher,” for example, it is important to remember that in a community which included believing slaves (1 Tim 6:2), the overseer might well have delegated his teaching authority to a literate slave who could serve a teacher, acting as an extension of the master’s ministerial responsibilities. In short, when considering references to educational pursuits in the Pastoral Epistles, it is important to recognize flexible and changing “schooling” arrangements consistent with an ancient context.

Of particular importance for the theme of education in the Pastorals, and concomitant implications for activities which took place within ekklēsia space, is the extent to which among various options for educational spaces, household space was a frequent choice. Essentially, some parents chose to “home school” their children, where a teacher would be hired to teach the children of the household, perhaps with some other neighbourhood children. As one might do today, however, people debated what was actually in the best interests of children. The first-century Roman rhetorician Quintilian emphasized the benefits of sending children out to school with an intriguing argument that can shed light upon why the “home schooling” activities of the early Christians might have proven to be controversial. Quintilian pointed to the benefits that we would call “socialization,” but also warned of the risks of being taught at home under the corrupting influence of debauched parents, who exhibit vice during dinner parties. ²⁶ The banquets of early Christianity presented extensive opportunities for learning, as they not only offered socialization but were places for “performing” teaching content like sacred writings, hymns, and exhortations. But unavoidably entering the foray of public debate on the formation of children, by the second century CE, early Christian groups were criticized for corrupting children in the manner that Quintilian feared. Fueled by rumor and suspicion about an illicit group, the Roman orator Marcus Cornelius Fronto accused Christians of corrupting children during incestuous banquets. ²⁷ Inappropriate educational gatherings were also the subject of the critique of early Christians by the second-century critic, Celsus. Given the comments above about the educational oversight of fathers over sons, Celsus’s polemical remarks about early Christians targeting adolescent boys in contexts which are the antithesis of an assembly of honorable and intelligent men are particularly poignant. ²⁸

Just as it sometimes stood as a rival to various associations and the entrepreneurial efforts of various religious and philosophical experts, in its educational mode, early Christianity was subject to the comparisons and critiques of a competitive and unregulated market, to use economic concepts. Questions of economy and financial support do come into play in the Pastorals in various ways, and the relationship with educational pursuits should also be probed. It is valuable to consider, for example, the limited evidence for public patronage leading to establishment of a school, indicating a recognition of a responsibility to educate the children of a community which extends beyond parents. ²⁹ This points to an approach to education that leaves scope for the involvement of well-to-do patrons. The extent to which benefactions shaped early Christian life has been of significant scholarly interest, but this is not usually understood in terms of the bestowal of support for Christian education or the engagement of teachers. Language such as 1 Tim 6:17–19, which encourages the rich to be rich in good works, may well include efforts to ensure that the less advantaged—children and adults, slave and free—learned sacred texts and traditions (combined perhaps with literary skills in need of development). A formula like “this saying is sure,” such as we find in the Pastorals (1 Tim 1:15; 3:1; 4:9; 2 Tim 2:11; Titus 3:8; cf. Titus 1:9) presupposes that much material is being taught and learned, even if precise circumstances and techniques remain a mystery.

While the first mention of teaching in 1 Timothy is the notorious forbidding of women to teach in 1 Tim 2:12 (cf. 2:8–15) when the community gathers for worship (cf. 1 Tim 2:1, 8), the Pastoral Epistles contain an abundance of teaching vocabulary most often framing the activity in positive ways with the use of the verb didaskō and its derivatives. ³⁰ The emphasis on teaching is so pervasive that its content is often presupposed and taken for granted (e.g., 1 Tim 4:11; 1 Tim 6:2–3; 2 Tim 2:2). Notwithstanding this generality, there are some identifiable guiding principles such as conformity to apostolic teaching (Titus 2:7–8), grounding in sacred traditions (1 Tim 4:13; 2 Tim 3:15–16), with God as the source (2 Tim 3:16; Titus 2:12 [here, the related term training, paideuō, occurs]). As the intergenerational teaching reveals most clearly, often doctrinal content of teaching is interwoven with ethics/virtues tied to the motif of the preservation of order in the family. But this traditional motif must be understood within a politically charged climate which imprisons apostles and accuses Christ-followers of destroying families and corrupting children.

Conclusion

While it is not to be confused with the Scholasticism of the medieval period, the use of educational motifs in the Pastoral Epistles has invited description of the communities underlying these letters as “scholastic” communities. ³¹ But if we are to understand the ekklēsia as a type of “school,” we must keep in mind the flexible use of space for educational purposes and the multifaceted references to family members and the household in educational content/curriculum, in descriptions of organizational structure, and in the underlying vision of the nature of teacher and pupil alike. Nevertheless, as is increasingly being recognized—with ongoing significance for our own time—the ekklēsia was not tied to a particular architectural framework, not even the house itself, in spite of the Pauline references to meetings taking place there. The ekklēsia re-created household space into something “other,” even if it remained influenced by traditional structures and cultural patterns. In the Pastoral Epistles, we find evidence of the intermittent transformation of the domestic domain from the “private” space offered by the owner to a congregation into a “semi-public,” communal space occupied and run by the assembly of Christ-followers. The locus of activity is frequently (though not exclusively) the household, but the use of space is flexible, sometimes primarily for worship activities and at other times for more practical types of apprenticeship and training, including intergenerational instruction.

A focus on education can help us to understand the overarching agenda of the Pastoral Epistles and hopefully identify some important elements of enduring value such as the emphasis placed on the education of children, including foundational instruction in sacred writings. A focus on education can also contribute to the emergence of a more nuanced understanding of these letters, including their constructions of gender. In texts dealing with church leaders, traditional values associated with fathers as teachers are reinforced even if they may have been infused with broader perspectives on who is eligible for teaching. But these documents also leave openings for household gatherings at various times and in various spaces where women were being schooled in sōphrosynē by other women and teaching their own children, male and female. The Pastoral Epistles provide evidence of women engaging in instructional leadership that was sometimes praised, sometimes identified as in need of being controlled, and sometimes condemned by male church authorities.