Introduction

1. Contents. The writer, professing to be Paul the Apostle and maintaining his right to be an Apostle, sends an affectionate greeting to his son in the faith, Titus (Titus 1:1-5). He reminds Titus that he left him in Crete to perfect the organisation of the Church in the island, by ordaining presbyters; and he now dwells on the moral qualifications and loyalty to the faith which these Church officers must have (Titus 1:6-9). He points out that the Cretans, a volatile folk, need sharp teaching to keep them accurate in speech and pure in life (Titus 1:10-16) The old should preserve a Christian dignity, not only for their own sake, but also as a sound example for the young, that they too may be good and true (Titus 2:1-6). Nor should Titus forget that his own example is paramount (Titus 2:7-8). Servants must find in obedience to their earthly masters a way to obey God (Titus 2:9-10). All need to be on their guard, for all alike are waiting for the quick return of Christ, the Redeemer (Titus 2:11-15). Titus must further remind the Cretan Christians that they have a duty also to the un-Christian world about them; they must be good citizens and good neighbours (Titus 3:1-2); for as, by no merit of ours, God raised us from a heathen to a Christian life, so we should try by an attractive goodness to win others (Titus 3:3-8). He urges Titus not to argue, but if a man is a 'heretic,' to give him two warnings, and then shun him (Titus 3:9-11). With a few personal words about his own plans, a final word of advice, and a reverent farewell, the letter closes.

2. Value of the Epistle. It will be seen that the chief value of the Epistle lies in its common-sense and spirituality, and is not dependent upon date or authorship. Even those critics who believe it pseudonymous explain that, in an age of different literary ethics from ours, a pupil honoured his master by writing in his name what he believed his master would write were he still alive. As the Epistle has, all through Christian history, been a store-house of good advice for Church officers, so it must continue to be, whatever the outcome of modern scholarship about it. “We catch a glimpse of the development of the ministry, and of a growing insistence on orthodoxy, which seem to some recent scholars beyond what we see in former writings of St. Paul. This contention cannot be granted without serious qualification; for even those most willing to question the early crystallisation of Christian tradition are now more and more tending to admit that, before the last decades of the 1st cent., Christianity was definitely organised; and the movement towards an intellectual basis for faith was certainly well within St. Paul's active career—even if 'faith' to him was ordinarily 'a firm hold upon spiritual realities,' it often stood squarely for 'the Christian system,' whether doctrinal or institutional (e.g. Romans 1:5; Galatians 1:23; Philippians 1:27 cp. also Acts 6:7; Acts 13:8; Acts 14:22; Acts 16:5; Acts 24:24). Moreover, even in this Epistle, soundness in doctrine means soundness in morality rather than soundness in creed (see on Titus 2:1). However, though we grant the most radical view of this advance of organisation and doctrine, the questions arising from it are no longer of first importance; because those who look to primitive authority for ministry and creed are increasingly assured that the development as well as the inception of Christianity is a divine act, so that for them the divine authority of ministry and creed is not weakened if a document be proved of somewhat later date than it was formerly thought to be. For all readers, therefore, the interest of the Epistle is not so much historical or controversial, as practical and spiritual. Once admitted to canonical Scripture, it holds its place on its own merits.

3. Authorship and Date. Till recent times, with essential unanimity, this Epistle was ascribed to St. Paul. It is true that the heretic Marcion omitted it from his list of St. Paul's Epistles, but his doctrinal reasons for this are so evident as to rob his omission of significance. In the last cent., when biblical criticism began, Titus was set down as a forgery of the 2nd cent. To-day critics are finding in it what they believe undoubted fragments of St. Paul, and are calling it 'sub-Pauline,' with a date between 90 and 120 a.d. The trend even among radical scholars is, therefore, toward the traditional view of authorship.

The authorship is wisely left more or less open. The discovery of a few pages of early Christian MS might turn the question one way or the other. A few points are becoming clear; the first of which is that if St. Paul is the author, he was released from his first Roman imprisonment, and, in the interval before his final imprisonment, visited some of his Churches. We may safely say that if the Epistle is his, he wrote it about 64 a.d. If authentic, this Epistle (with 1 and 2 Tim) practically proves that St. Paul was released after the imprisonment recorded in the Acta. There is much in known Roman procedure to commend such a theory; the argument from silence is the most formidable obstacle.

The difficulties attending the ascription of the Epistle to St. Paul are important in the aggregate rather than separately. A fairly good answer can be made to each objection. (1) Writing personally to an intimate friend, the author asserts his apostleship too strenuously; but St. Paul was old and worn, and one who, younger, wrote Galatians, would, even to an intimate, be apt to say what we find in the opening words of Titus: old men much in the public eye are always quite aware that private correspondence, not strictly confidential, is wont to reach many persons, (2) If the author was St. Paul, he put an emphasis upon organisation and orthodoxy quite unlike himself in his other Epistles. But St. Paul was older, new experiences drive to new moods, the exigencies of the Church created new needs, therefore there would be reason for conservatism. Men now, with sense of responsibility, tend to become conservative in age, however radical in youth. Besides, organisation and orthodoxy in this Epistle are stressed only for moral and spiritual ends: they seem to have little value in themselves. There is only slight advance upon St. Paul's other Epistles here. (3) The facts of Church organisation implied in both Titus, 1 and 2 Timothy seem too far beyond the facts revealed in St. Paul's earlier Epistles; but the most ardent believer in organisation can find in these Epistles only a still indefinite organisation, the functions of the officers are not clear, and the bishop seems at most only emerging from among the presbyters; certainly he is very far from the official described by Ignatius. Knowing the development that came later, we should expect the ministry in the year 64 to be much like this fluid picture in the Pastoral Epistles. (4) The most serious difficulty is the change in language and style from St. Paul's former modes of expression. In 46 verses are 26 words not used in any other known Epistles of St. Paul. Favourite words and particles are quite absent, and other expressions and turns (common to Titus, 1 and 2 Timothy) take their place. Even the lapse of several years seems inadequate to explain the change of style; but the spirit of St. Paul, more subtle than language, is evident; so that the best explanation if we ascribe the Epistle to St. Paul, is to say that he left unusual liberty to his amanuensis. For a fuller discussion see 'General Intro to the Pastoral Epistles.'

The Pastoral Epistles

General Introduction

The two Epistles to Timothy and the Epistle to Titus constitute a group by themselves, and are usually called 'The Pastoral Epistles,' because they deal to a large extent with matters of Church organisation and government. That they were all written by one author is generally agreed, not only by those who accept the tradition that St. Paul was the writer, but also by those who reject it. It will be convenient, therefore, to discuss the points common to all three, before dealing with each in detail.

1. Authorship. The authorship of these Epistles is one of the questions of NT. criticism upon which scholars are sharply divided. The objections urged against the Pauline authorship are of different kinds and varying degrees of weight, and may be briefly enumerated as follows: (a) Historical difficulties; (b) References to heresies; (c) Church organisation; (d) The description of St. Paul in the salutations; (e) Language and style.

(a) Historical Difficulties. It is impossible to find a place for these Epistles in the scheme of St. Paul's life, which is derived from the narrative in Acts and the references in the acknowledged Epistles. The journeys to which the Apostle makes reference are inconsistent with his movements as recorded in Acts. According to 1 Timothy 1:3, Timothy had been left at Ephesus while Paul proceeded to Macedonia; but in Acts 19:22; Acts 20:1; Timothy was sent from Ephesus to Macedonia in advance of St. Paul. In 1 Timothy 3:14 the Apostle intended to return to Timothy at Ephesus; but in Acts 20:4; Timothy was with him in Greece, and in Acts 20:14, Acts 20:17; St. Paul did not go to Ephesus, but sent for the Ephesian elders to meet him at Miletus. So in 2 Timothy 4:20 the reference to Trophimus cannot relate to the journey recorded in Acts 20:17 to Acts 21:8, for Trophimus accompanied the Apostle to Jerusalem (Acts 21:29). Again, the references in Titus 1:5; Titus 3:12, where St. Paul speaks of leaving Titus in Crete and asks him to meet him at Nicopolis, cannot be connected with the only occasion on which the Apostle visited Crete according to Acts (Acts 27:8), viz. when he was a prisoner en route for Rome, where Acts leaves him still under arrest.

These difficulties, however, are obviated when the tradition is accepted that St. Paul after his first imprisonment (Acts 28:30; Philippians 1:13) was set free in 62 or 63 a.d., and arrested again in 66 or 67. In the First Epistle of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians (about 97 a.d.) the writer speaks of St. Paul having 'gone to the extreme limit of the west.' This expression in a letter written at Rome seems to point to Spain. St. Paul had once hoped to visit that country (Romans 15:24); and in the 'Muratorian Fragment,' a document of date about 200 a.d., it is indicated that he had done so: a tradition which is mentioned later by Eusebius in the 4th cent., and Chrysostom in the 5th cent. If the genuineness of the Pastoral Epistles is established on other grounds, they give powerful testimony to St. Paul's activity during the period after Acts.

(b) References to Heresies. Many critics see in these Epistles, and especially in 1 Tim (1 Timothy 1:4; 1 Timothy 4:1-3; 1 Timothy 6:20), references to heresies which prevailed widely in the Church during the 2nd cent., and are classed under the name of Gnosticism. These heresies dealt with solutions of the problem of evil; they combined ideas from Jewish and heathen sources with Christian truth; they tended to represent Christ's earthly career and sufferings as only seeming, not real (Docetism); and they exalted knowledge (gnosis, whence the name) as a special privilege of the few, and superior to faith, the possession of the many.

The references to heresies in the Pastoral Epistles, however, are extremely vague and indefinite. There is no reference to Docetism, such as we find in 1 John (1 John 4:1-3), supposed to have been written at Ephesus before 100 a.d.; and the references to false doctrines in 1 Timothy 4:1-4; 1 Timothy 6:20 do not seem to require a 2nd-cent. date, or to conflict with the Pauline authorship any more than the references to heresies in Colossians 2:8, Colossians 2:18, Colossians 2:23 require that Epistle to be denied to St. Paul, and assigned to the 2nd cent. In the early Church, composed, as almost every congregation was, of elements diverse in race, education, and religion, it is not surprising to find the germs of false doctrine from the beginning, showing themselves sometimes in tendencies towards Jewish legalism (1 Timothy 1:7; Titus 1:14; Titus 3:9), as was the case among the Galatians at an earlier date; sometimes in philosophical speculations drawn from heathen sources (1 Timothy 4:7; 1 Timothy 6:20), as was previously the case among the Colossians. The heresies indicated in the Pastoral Epistles seem largely Jewish in origin. They are speculations about the Law (1 Timothy 1:7-10 cp. 2 Timothy 3:14-17), about genealogies (1 Timothy 1:14; Titus 3:9), about Jewish fables (Titus 1:14, and probably also 1 Timothy 1:4; 1 Timothy 4:7); and while the ascetic practices (1 Timothy 4:1-4) which some taught may have had some heathen elements, they are quite as likely to have been suggested by exaggerations of Jewish ceremonialism: see Romans 14:3; 1 Corinthians 8; Colossians 2:16, and cp. 1 Timothy 4:4 with Acts 10:11-15.

(c) Church Organisation. It has been objected to St. Paul's authorship of these letters that the indications of Church organisation are such as point to a time later than that of St. Paul. Titus was appointed to 'ordain elders in every city' (2 Thessalonians 1:5) in Crete; and both he and Timothy were instructed as to the qualifications of 'the bishop' (Titus 1:7-9; 1 Timothy 3:1-7). Timothy was also given instructions regarding the deacons (1 Timothy 3:8-10). The organisation, however, does not seem when examined to be more developed than was necessary in the Churches almost from the beginning. Deacons had to be appointed at a very early date in the Church at Jerusalem-although the name was not then given them, the corresponding verb is used of their work—(Acts 6:4); and elders were appointed by St. Paul in every Church in Galatia on his first missionary journey (Acts 14:23); while at Ephesus, at the end of his third journey, they were evidently a recognised body (Acts 20:17) entrusted with the duties of overseeing and teaching the flock (Acts 20:28). Nor is the term 'the bishop' (1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:7) necessarily an indication of a post-apostolic date. For (1) it is largely held that the terms 'bishop' (episcopos) and 'elder' (presbuteros) are used synonymously in these Epistles, as they undoubtedly were at an earlier period (Acts 20:28 cp. Philippians 1:1); and (2) even if, as is also influentially maintained, 'the bishop' here means the principal minister of the Church, it would still be hazardous to pronounce the Epistles non-Pauline. Many good authorities trace back the beginnings of episcopacy to the apostolic age, and so it is by no means impossible that in an apostolic Epistle, written as late as 65-67 a.d., the term 'bishop' might occur in its later sense.

(d) Paul an Apostle. Another objection has been found in the fact that, in letters written to intimate friends and disciples, the writer should emphatically assert his apostleship. This trait, it is said, indicates that they were written by some one who was using the Apostle's name at a later time, as the Apostle himself did not mention his apostleship in letters written to those with whom he was on friendly terms, whether churches or individuals (Philippians 1:1; Philemon 1:1). But these Pastoral Epistles are not, properly speaking, private letters. They were probably intended to be read to the Churches: 'the author is writing with his eye on the community'; and the fact that heresy and incipient faction were to be guarded against, sufficiently explains the assertion of apostolic dignity.