Author: Jimmy Akin

A reader writes:

I know my basic theology behind why the Roman Catholic Church does not profess Sola Scriptura. My favorite defense is "the pillar and foundation of truth" of 1 Timothy 3:15.

Today, in talking with some reformed friends, they told me my translation was wrong.

They are referring from the ESV which is reputably very strong on its greek translation – just what I hear, I dunno one way or the other, I’m not a language scholar.

Anyways, according to the ESV, the verse is "A pillar and foundation of truth".

Well the non-definitiveness there certainly ruins the claim that the Church is the sole interpretive authority on earth. Now, one of the fellows I’m talking to attends Westminster, and he’ll be asking his greek prof about the discrepany between the Greek, the ESV, and all other translations we’ve been looking at.

The concept of definiteness can be tricky across languages–or even within a language. For purposes of comparison, Latin has no definite articles, meaning that you have to determine definiteness by context or simply guess whether it’s there or not.

Greek (the language we are here concerned with) has a definite article ("the") but not indefinite article ("a, an"). The presence of a definite article in Greek makes it somewhat easier to determine definiteness, but it’s not always easy because New Testament Greek doesn’t use the presence (or absence) of the definite article precisely the way we do in English. Sometimes they use it when we wouldn’t (e.g., saying "And the Jesus answered and said . . . "), and sometimes they omit it even though English would require it.

In this case there is no definite article before the phrase "pillar and foundation." The default translation of this phrse would thus either omit any article or supply the indefinite article ("a pillar and founation").

That’s only what one would think looking at the phrase itself, though. Phrases do not exist in isolation but need to be looked at in the overall context of the sentence and the passage in which they occur. The context of the phrase may contain clues about whether the phrase is really definite or indefinite.

Here is how the Englis Standard Version (ESV) translates 1 Timothy 3:15:

I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these things to you so that, if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of truth.

Let’s break this up into clauses:

a) I hope to come to you soon,

b) but I am writing these things to you

c) so that, if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God,

d) which is the church of the living God,

e) [which is] a pillar and buttress of truth.

The sentence has two independent clauses, (a) and (b). The first states what Paul hopes to do in the future and the second states what he is doing now.

Clause (b) is then progressively explained by a series of subordinate clauses, (c), (d), and (e).

The purposes of why Paul is doing (b) is explained by (c), which ends with the phrase "household of God." This phrase is then clarified further by (d) and (e).

Now here’s the thing: While it’s true that the phrase "pillar and buttress of truth" in clause (e) does not have a definite article, neither do the phrases "church of the living God" in clause (d) or the prhase "household of God" in clause (c).

This is important because, as we noted, context may indicate definiteness or indefiniteness. One cannot rely exclusively on the presence or absence of the definite article.

A common-sense take on the relationship of these clauses suggests that they all share the same definiteness or indefiniteness. Clauses (d) and (e) seem to just clarify the expression "household of God" at the end of (c). If the noun phrases in (c) and (d) are definite then one would naturally take the noun phrase in (e) as definite as well.

Thus it is inconsistent for the ESV to suddenly go indefinite in clause (e). To translate with consistency on this point, one would either render the verse:

if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in A household of God, which is A church of the living God, A pillar and buttress of truth.

or

if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in THE household of God, which is THE church of the living God, THE pillar and buttress of truth.

The latter rendering seems more likely to me–among other reasons because the phrase "household of God" is non-standard. It’s not the kind of thing descriptor of the Church that early Christians normally used. They used it sometimes, to be sure, but not in the rote manner that they used the term "church." As a result, it seems less likely to me that Paul would lead off by using a non-standard term in an indefinite manner ("a household of God") than that he would use it in a definite manner.

Most translations, including the ESV, seem to agree with me, at least as far as taking the phrase as definite. Consistency would then urge one to render the parallel noun phrases in clauses (d) and (e) as definite as well. Most translations also seem to do that, though the ESV (for some reason) does not.

There can be reasons not to translate consistently, but you need a reason not to do so. I don’t see any reason in the grammar to suddenly shift from being definite to indefinite in how one is rendering this string of noun phrases. It could be a theological reason why the ESV translators do it (e.g., because they don’t want to make such a strong claim about the Church), but that’s simply speculation on my point. They don’t say (to my knowledge) why they switched to indefinite, so we can only guess.

In the absence of a clear-cut reason for the shift, though, it still seems to me that the most natural to take the phrase as definite.

Even if that were not the case, though, it wouldn’t "ruin the claim that the Church is the sole interpretive authority on earth." The Church’s claim to having the unique authority to make final determinations regarding the meaning of Scripture is not dependent on this verse. The Church has that authority, but it does not need this verse to prove it. One may argue back and forth about the degree to which this truth is reflected in this or any other verse, but it is not dependent on this verse.

Further, whether one takes the final phrase definitely or indefinitely, the verse certainly makes a very strong statement about the Church’s role in relationship to the truth. You don’t need the article to tell you that.

A reader writes:

I know my basic theology behind why the Roman Catholic Church does not profess Sola Scriptura. My favorite defense is "the pillar and foundation of truth" of 1 Timothy 3:15.

Today, in talking with some reformed friends, they told me my translation was wrong.

They are referring from the ESV which is reputably very strong on its greek translation – just what I hear, I dunno one way or the other, I’m not a language scholar.

Anyways, according to the ESV, the verse is "A pillar and foundation of truth".

Well the non-definitiveness there certainly ruins the claim that the Church is the sole interpretive authority on earth. Now, one of the fellows I’m talking to attends Westminster, and he’ll be asking his greek prof about the discrepany between the Greek, the ESV, and all other translations we’ve been looking at.

The concept of definiteness can be tricky across languages–or even within a language. For purposes of comparison, Latin has no definite articles, meaning that you have to determine definiteness by context or simply guess whether it’s there or not.

Greek (the language we are here concerned with) has a definite article ("the") but not indefinite article ("a, an"). The presence of a definite article in Greek makes it somewhat easier to determine definiteness, but it’s not always easy because New Testament Greek doesn’t use the presence (or absence) of the definite article precisely the way we do in English. Sometimes they use it when we wouldn’t (e.g., saying "And the Jesus answered and said . . . "), and sometimes they omit it even though English would require it.

In this case there is no definite article before the phrase "pillar and foundation." The default translation of this phrse would thus either omit any article or supply the indefinite article ("a pillar and founation").

That’s only what one would think looking at the phrase itself, though. Phrases do not exist in isolation but need to be looked at in the overall context of the sentence and the passage in which they occur. The context of the phrase may contain clues about whether the phrase is really definite or indefinite.

Here is how the Englis Standard Version (ESV) translates 1 Timothy 3:15:

I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these things to you so that, if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of truth.

Let’s break this up into clauses:

a) I hope to come to you soon,

b) but I am writing these things to you

c) so that, if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God,

d) which is the church of the living God,

e) [which is] a pillar and buttress of truth.

The sentence has two independent clauses, (a) and (b). The first states what Paul hopes to do in the future and the second states what he is doing now.

Clause (b) is then progressively explained by a series of subordinate clauses, (c), (d), and (e).

The purposes of why Paul is doing (b) is explained by (c), which ends with the phrase "household of God." This phrase is then clarified further by (d) and (e).

Now here’s the thing: While it’s true that the phrase "pillar and buttress of truth" in clause (e) does not have a definite article, neither do the phrases "church of the living God" in clause (d) or the prhase "household of God" in clause (c).

This is important because, as we noted, context may indicate definiteness or indefiniteness. One cannot rely exclusively on the presence or absence of the definite article.

A common-sense take on the relationship of these clauses suggests that they all share the same definiteness or indefiniteness. Clauses (d) and (e) seem to just clarify the expression "household of God" at the end of (c). If the noun phrases in (c) and (d) are definite then one would naturally take the noun phrase in (e) as definite as well.

Thus it is inconsistent for the ESV to suddenly go indefinite in clause (e). To translate with consistency on this point, one would either render the verse:

if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in A household of God, which is A church of the living God, A pillar and buttress of truth.

or

if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in THE household of God, which is THE church of the living God, THE pillar and buttress of truth.

The latter rendering seems more likely to me–among other reasons because the phrase "household of God" is non-standard. It’s not the kind of thing descriptor of the Church that early Christians normally used. They used it sometimes, to be sure, but not in the rote manner that they used the term "church." As a result, it seems less likely to me that Paul would lead off by using a non-standard term in an indefinite manner ("a household of God") than that he would use it in a definite manner.

Most translations, including the ESV, seem to agree with me, at least as far as taking the phrase as definite. Consistency would then urge one to render the parallel noun phrases in clauses (d) and (e) as definite as well. Most translations also seem to do that, though the ESV (for some reason) does not.

There can be reasons not to translate consistently, but you need a reason not to do so. I don’t see any reason in the grammar to suddenly shift from being definite to indefinite in how one is rendering this string of noun phrases. It could be a theological reason why the ESV translators do it (e.g., because they don’t want to make such a strong claim about the Church), but that’s simply speculation on my point. They don’t say (to my knowledge) why they switched to indefinite, so we can only guess.

In the absence of a clear-cut reason for the shift, though, it still seems to me that the most natural to take the phrase as definite.

Even if that were not the case, though, it wouldn’t "ruin the claim that the Church is the sole interpretive authority on earth." The Church’s claim to having the unique authority to make final determinations regarding the meaning of Scripture is not dependent on this verse. The Church has that authority, but it does not need this verse to prove it. One may argue back and forth about the degree to which this truth is reflected in this or any other verse, but it is not dependent on this verse.

Further, whether one takes the final phrase definitely or indefinitely, the verse certainly makes a very strong statement about the Church’s role in relationship to the truth. You don’t need the article to tell you that.