by John Dummelow

Introduction

1. Authorship. There can be no doubt that the author of 1 Timothy is the author of 2 Timothy. The evidence, external and internal, is almost the same for each, and the similarity of style and subject is unmistakable. If, therefore, St. Paul is the author of 1 Timothy, he is the author of 2 Timothy.

2. Reader. Undoubtedly the same as in the case of 1 Timothy.

3. Date and place of composition. It was written shortly before the Apostle's martyrdom from his prison in Rome, probably in the early part of 67 or 68 a.d.

4. Contents and purpose. The Apostle's primary object in the Epistle is to beg Timothy to come to him, as he was in prison and forlorn, most of his ordinary companions being gone elsewhere, and he needed the human comfort of a friend. The secondary purpose of the Epistle is to urge Timothy, once again, to maintain the faith entrusted to him for safe custody. It may be argued that the teaching of the two Epistles is compatible with a theory of legitimate development, but it certainly is not with any theory which would justify external additions to the once for all delivered faith, or subtractions from it, or any rearrangement of it which should throw the truths insisted upon by the Apostles into the background, and open the way for new dogmas.

A third object of the Epistle is to give further instructions as to Church organisation, similar in kind to those already given in the earlier letter. The position of Timothy and Titus was such as peculiarly to demand these apostolic instructions. They are the link between the Apostles and the local Church officers, and their appointment may be regarded as indicating a transition stage between government by Apostles and government by diocesan bishops. Episcopacy seems to have arisen in two ways: (1) From within the body of presbyters, by the appointment of a permanent president, to whom the title of 'bishop' or 'overseer,' originally shared by all the presbyters (Acts 20:28; Philippians 1:1), was gradually restricted. Whether this development took place within the apostolic age, or a little later, is a disputed question. It was, at any rate, well advanced by the beginning of the second century. (2) By the gradual settlement in local Churches of apostles, prophets, evangelists, and other apostolic men, naturally more highly regarded than presbyters. Thus St. John is said to have settled in Asia, St. Mark at Alexandria, Titus in Crete. The 'Didache,' which belongs to the first, or early part of the second, century, contemplates the possibility of the settlement of a 'prophet' in a local Church, where he was honoured as a 'chief priest,' and received the first-fruits of all produce (ch. xiii). If this dual origin of the episcopate be admitted, it furnishes an explanation of the fact that there was some hesitation in the early Church as to whether bishops were an order completely distinct from presbyters. In those Churches in which the episcopate had its origin within the presbyterate, there would be a tendency to regard the bishop as of one order with the presbyters, and of comparatively limited authority; but in those Churches in which the episcopate had originated in the settlement of an apostle or apostolic man such as Timothy or Titus, there would be a tendency to regard the bishop as of a higher order than the presbyters, and to assign to him a distinctive position and authority.

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.