PASTORAL EPISTLES, THE. The three epistles—1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus—traditionally ascribed to the Apostle Paul.
I. Background
First and 2 Timothy and Titus have been known as the pastoral epistles since the early 18th cent. It is not a particularly accurate description of the epistles because they are not manuals of pastoral care. Nevertheless, they have a pastoral character, and the title is not altogether inappropriate.
These epistles are valuable as examples of all early epistles of a semi-personal character. They are specifically addressed to individuals, but they do not belong to the category of purely private correspondence. They draw attention to a class of lit. esp. adapted to the needs of the primitive church. Early comment on them is found in the Muratorian Canon, an early list that represented the church of Rome. It states they were written “from personal feeling and affection” and are “still hallowed in the respect of the Catholic Church, for the arrangement of ecclesiastical discipline.” Because of their value for a wider purpose than for the personal use of the addressees, they were preserved among the Pauline epistles.
The background of the personalities to whom these pastoral epistles were addressed is important. Timothy was in all probability a convert of the apostle’s first missionary journey, for he was a native of Lystra. While in Lystra, Paul suffered persecution that Timothy evidently witnessed (2 Tim 3:11). On the second journey, the apostle passed through the same region and added Timothy to his party as an associate, which began Paul’s interest in him that was to deepen. This choice of Timothy was supported by some kind of prophetic utterance through the elders when they laid their hands on him (1 Tim 1:18; 4:14). At the time of Timothy’s call to the work, he was circumcised. His mother was a Jewess although his father was a Gr., and Paul wished to avoid any possible difficulty from offending the Jews.
On the second and third journeys, Timothy was closely associated with the apostle, sometimes entrusted with subsidiary missions, as when he and Erastus were sent from Ephesus to Macedonia (Acts 19:22). The warm regard the apostle held for him is reflected in no fewer than five of Paul’s letters, which link Timothy with Paul in the opening salutation (2 Cor; Phil; Col; 1 and 2 Thess). Moreover, in the epistle to the Philippians, Paul specifically states he knew of no one else so genuinely anxious for the welfare of the readers as Timothy was (Phil 2:20). Timothy was, however, timid, and it would appear that Paul was not sufficiently confident that Timothy would be able to cope with the difficult situation at Corinth, for he sent Titus to follow him up (cf. 2 Cor). The two pastoral epistles addressed to him bear witness to the apostle’s awareness of Timothy’s timid nature.
Titus is nowhere mentioned in the Acts, although he was a close associate of the apostle. The reason for this silence is not apparent. Little is known about him except for his part in some of Paul’s mission work. He was with Paul on his visit to Jerusalem at the time of the Jewish-Gentile controversy; because he was a Gr., however, he was not compelled to be circumcised (Gal 2:1, 3). It is mainly for his work at Corinth as the apostle’s representative there that Titus is best known. He had much to do with that church during the interval between 1 and 2 Corinthians. It was the result of the anxiously awaited report that Paul received from Titus that he wrote 2 Corinthians with some relief. Titus had evidently handled a very delicate situation well. Paul describes him as his “partner and fellow worker” (2 Cor 8:23). There was no question of his taking advantage of any situation (2 Cor 12:18). Such was the man to whom the apostle addressed this “pastoral” letter.
II. Unity
In the Early Church, the unity of these epistles was never questioned. Not until the early 19th cent. did any suggestion arise that the three epistles did not form a unity. Schleiermacher attacked the authenticity of 1 Timothy, although he maintained the genuineness of the other two epistles. His principles of criticism soon involved the others, and it has been almost universally assumed that they stand or fall together. Nevertheless different ideas have arisen regarding the unity of each epistle individually.
When the epistles were first subjected to adverse criticism, it was thought that only two alternatives faced the NT critics. Either each epistle was wholly genuine, or else it was wholly fictitious. The internal unity, esp. of 2 Timothy and Titus, was questioned by some scholars who did not accept the Pauline authorship of the whole (for reasons to be given in the next section), but who could not escape from the genuine Pauline flavor of some of the material. This gave rise to theories of genuine notes or fragments that came to be incorporated into fictitious productions. Among many such theories, the most notable is that of P. N. Harrison, who found such genuine material in 2 Timothy and Titus. At first he enumerated five portions:
(1) Titus 3:12-15
(2) 2 Timothy 4:13ff., 20, 21a
(3) 4:16-18a
(5) 1:16ff., 3:10f., 4:1, 2a, 5b, 6ff., 18b, 19, 21b, 22a.
This extreme fragmentation was its main undoing, and Harrison himself modified the number of fragments to three to make it more tenable—by joining (2) with (4) and (3) with (5). This hardly makes the theory more credible. It is exceedingly difficult to imagine how such scrappy fragments could ever have been preserved. If the possibility be conceded, there is the added difficulty of conceiving how any editor worked out the plan by which the fragments could be incorporated into the mass of his own material. Why, for instance, did he choose not to include any in 1 Timothy? Why did he tack one on the end of Titus but intersperse them in three different places in 2 Timothy? In view of the absence of any adequate explanation of the processes in compilation, it seems reasonable to challenge the validity of this theory. In any case, it is wholly unnecessary if the apostolic authorship of the epistles be maintained.
III. Authorship
A. The claims of the epistles themselves. All three epistles claim authorship by the Apostle Paul; in each epistle, appeal is made to his apostleship. These claims must be seriously considered and cannot at once be rejected as no more than a pseudonymous device. Those who maintain that Paul was not the author must bear the burden of proof, and they must furnish some adequate explanation of the use of Paul’s name in the salutation.
B. The opinion of the Ancient Church. It may be confidently asserted that whatever positive evidence there is on the question of authorship, it is wholly in favor of Pauline authorship. There is no evidence that any churches ever considered these epistles as by any other writer than Paul (see [http://biblegateway/wiki/Canon of the New Testament, The CANON OF THE NT]). If the issue of authorship was to be decided on external attestation alone, there would be no room for questioning the Pauline authorship. Those, however, who dispute it, resort to various ways of getting around the external evidence. If the epistles were originally pseudepigraphic, it would be possible to assume that they were handed down as Paul’s, although they were on this theory not strictly so. As an explanation, this would need the corroborating support of evidence to show that this was the probable procedure. It is far more difficult to account for the external evidence on any theory of fictitious origin than on acceptance of apostolic authorship, and this factor must be fairly faced.
C. The objections raised against Pauline authorship. These objections may be considered under four main divisions. Care must be taken to survey the objections as a whole, although the force of each will be considered separately.
1. Historical objections. Many attempts have been made to fit the various historical data mentioned in these epistles into the historical framework of Acts. (The data are detailed under section V. Place of origin, below.) The difficulty is not to fit the individual allusions into individual situations in Acts, but to fit them all in as a sequence, since these epistles clearly form a closely connected group. Three proposals have been put forward to account for these allusions. First, those who maintain the Pauline authorship fit them into a sequence subsequent to Acts, i.e., after the two years of house arrest to which Acts 28:30 refers. This involves the supposition that Paul was released and then pursued further mission work in the E. It also involves a subsequent rearrest, of which there are no details, that led to his martyrdom in Rome. In support, it may be said that the charges laid against Paul in the various trials recorded in Acts were not of such a character as to warrant certain condemnation in a Rom. court of law, and it is not an unreasonable assumption that he was released. Moreover, had no witnesses arrived to support the charges, the case may have been won by default.
Second, objectors to Pauline authorship make much of the fact no other evidence outside the pastorals themselves support the release theory. This prompted the suggestion that genuine fragments were incorporated in the epistles (see section II). In favor of this theory is the attempt to fit the pieces into the Acts story individually, which dispenses with the necessity for the release theory. The problems this theory raises regarding composition, however, are greater than those it presumes to supplant.
The third possibility assumes that all the historical allusions were fictitious inventions to add an air of veracity to the pseudepigraphical productions. Although literary inventions of this kind are not unknown from the ancient world, there are no parallels of pseudonymous epistles with such genuine-looking historical data. Indeed, the paucity of pseudonymous epistles in the ancient Christian world militates against the probability of this theory. The only two extant examples are 3 Corinthians (incorporated into the Acts of Paul) and the Epistle to the Laodiceans (which goes back to the work of a 4th-cent. forger, although an earlier forgery prob. is referred to in the Muratorian Canon). Neither of these offers any parallel to what is required by the fiction theory for the pastorals.
2. Ecclesiastical objections. The pastoral epistles include many references to officials such as bishops, elders, and deacons, and because these are not in any other of Paul’s epistles, it is ruled out that the apostle would have had such particular interest in the organization of the churches. If, as maintained by many who reject Pauline authorship, the ecclesiastical setup belongs to a time much later than the apostle’s life a strong case could be made. The situation reflected in these epistles, however, must be shown to be impossible during the apostolic period for this case to be valid. This is precisely the weakness of the objection. That Paul does not in any of his other epistles mention the qualities needed for bishops or deacons is no evidence that he was not interested in such matters. A man of such forethought as Paul can reasonably be expected to give some guidance to his immediate followers relating to ecclesiastical matters. It should not be forgotten that Paul and Barnabas appointed elders on the first missionary journey (Acts 14:23), which proves Paul’s recognition of good church government. At the close of his third missionary journey, Paul sent for the Ephesian elders and gave them special instruction and encouragement (Acts 20:17-38). Furthermore, Paul greeted the bishops and deacons at Philippi, a church founded by the apostle (Phil 1:1).
Some maintain that the position of Timothy and Titus reflects a 2nd-century situation because they were authorized to appoint elders. There is, however, a vital difference between the temporary function of these two associates of Paul in the role of apostolic representatives and the developing monarchical episcopacy of the 2nd century.
3. Doctrinal objections. The main problem is to what extent the doctrines are typical, or otherwise, of the apostle. Some great Pauline doctrines are missing—such as righteousness, the Fatherhood of God, and the indwelling work of the Holy Spirit. In addition a tendency toward set forms is evident in the frequent references to “the faith,” “the truth,” “the deposit,” the “faithful sayings.” Some have considered this too stereotyped for the dynamic personality of Paul.
Objections based on omissions of characteristic doctrines can never bear too much weight, because it cannot be proved that Paul had to expound his great theological themes in every epistle. Moreover, it is expected that he would include different theological content when writing to his close associates who already were well acquainted with his doctrine, as compared with church epistles where many would be in need of instruction. As to stereotyped forms of teaching, the apostle was surely concerned that the precious heritage of Christian teaching be preserved after his own departure, for he himself received some of his own teaching in the form of set traditions (cf. 1 Cor 15:3ff.). It is not impossible that some of the apostle’s own teaching had been put into easily remembered form and named as faithful sayings. It is certain that there is nothing in the doctrinal content of these epistles to which Paul could not have put his name.
4. Linguistic objections. More attention is paid to the linguistic problems of the pastorals than of any other NT books. The problem has two main foci—vocabulary and style. As to the vocabulary, there is a higher proportion of words not used elsewhere by Paul (more than a third of the total number used) or elsewhere in the NT (175 words). Some scholars, such as P. N. Harrison, claimed that these were in common use in the 2nd cent. and therefore must come from that period. The existence of almost all these words is known from a.d. 50 and could therefore have been known by Paul. Changed subject matter and changed circumstances account for many of these words. The major difficulty in attaching much importance to this kind of objection is the small range of data available for assessing the extent of Paul’s vocabulary. The total number of words in the extant epistles is not much more than two thousand and it is incredible to deny a man of the cultural background of the apostle a far greater range of vocabulary.
More emphasis is now placed on objections from style. Harrison based his arguments on the absence of a number of pronouns, prepositions, and particles from the pastorals that he claimed were characteristic generally of the Pauline epistles. Since he regarded this type of word to be an unconscious indication of a man’s style, he considered that this proved non-Pauline authorship. More recently, attempts have been made to use statistical computations of style based on the frequency of occurrence of such incidental words as the definite article or the distribution of sentence lengths (cf. A. Q. Morton and J. McLeman, Paul, the Man and the Myth [1966]). If it can be shown that no author ever varies the frequency of the use of the definite article in prose, this might be claimed to provide an objective test of style. Far too little investigation along these lines has been done to base a rejection of the pastorals as non-Pauline (particularly as all but four of the other Pauline epistles similarly suffer, and as many as five different authors are postulated).
These stylistic arguments must be strong enough to bear the burden of proof, but this cannot be maintained for their present form. It seems likely that Paul was too many-sided to be reduced to statistical calculations. The major criticism of the method used is the brevity of most of the Pauline epistles, which renders an adequate sample impossible.
In view of the character of the objections raised, it is more reasonable to suppose that the authorship claims of the epistles are correct.
IV. Date
The chronology of the closing period of Paul’s life is obscure. From tradition, he met his martyrdom in Rome, and the date usually assigned is the period of the Neronic persecutions, which began in a.d. 64. Most prefer a date early in this period, but some place it at the end. There is also some uncertainty, although less, about the date of Paul’s arrival at Rome on the occasion recorded in Acts 28. Most scholars favor c. a.d. 59, although some would date it up to two years later. If, on the basis of the activity implied in the pastoral epistles, the release of Paul from his first Rom. imprisonment is maintained, the longer the interval before his rearrest, the more time would be available to fit in additional visits to the eastern districts. If, in addition to these, Paul also paid a visit to Spain as he had earlier intended (Rom 15:24, 28), the latest dating of his martyrdom would certainly be preferable. What was expressed as an intention may never have been fulfilled, and in view of the fact that in the prison epistles Paul seems to have decided to return eastward, it is almost certain that he abandoned his original intention to go to Spain.
Assuming that the apostle was martyred c. a.d. 64, the pastoral epistles would all be placed during the period shortly before this, 1 Timothy and Titus prob. a short time before his rearrest and 2 Timothy during his final imprisonment. This dating assumes Pauline authorship, but if the epistles were edited by someone else after Paul’s death, it is impossible to be specific. If the editing was done by one or more of Paul’s close associates, it is most reasonable to suppose that the editing was done soon after Paul’s death. The difficulties of this view have already been mentioned.
If these epistles are pseudepigraphical productions, the dating of them is purely arbitrary. Those who see a connection with 2nd-cent. Gnosticism have most grounds for being specific, and generally date the epistles during the first part of that cent. The lack of close connection, however, between the heresies alluded to in these letters and the developed systems of Gnosticism makes this view impossible. Moreover, the difficulty of accounting for the extraordinarily rapid reception of these epistles as genuine Pauline productions is pushed beyond the possibility of any adequate explanation. Advocates of non-Pauline authorship are seldom willing to be very specific, and suggestions range from a.d. 90-150. Nor is there any basic certainty among such advocates as to the order in which these epistles were produced, some supposing 2 Timothy, on the basis of the greatest number of genuine fragments, to be first, Titus next, and 1 Timothy last, whereas others prefer the reverse order. The high degree of conjecture in these theories renders any certainty impossible.
V. Place of origin
As already pointed out, the pastoral epistles cannot be placed within the framework of the Acts of the Apostles. If they were written by the Apostle Paul, they must belong to the period of Paul’s life subsequent to the Acts history. Without independent sources with which to compare the historical data of these epistles it is possible only to list those data, and to reconstruct, as far as the data will allow, the probable movements of the apostle during the period when these epistles must have been written.
(1) Paul appears to have visited Ephesus and Macedonia (1 Tim 1:3).
(2) He also visited Crete, presumably on a short visit (Titus 1:5).
(3) He intended to spend the next winter, after writing to Titus, at Nicopolis, a city on the western coast of Epirus (Titus 3:12).
(4) When he wrote his second letter to Timothy, Paul was a prisoner, presumably in Rome. He had been to Rome because Paul mentions that Onesiphorus had sought him out when he was there. Since from tradition Paul was martyred in Rome, 2 Timothy was sent from there.
Less obvious is the place of origin of the other two epistles. It is reasonable that Paul was in Macedonia when he wrote 1 Timothy, since he refers to that province in the epistle. Titus may well have been in Epirus, or at least on his way there. If these conjectures are correct, the most probable order of the epistles is 1 Timothy, Titus, 2 Timothy, the first two written in close proximity to each other.
VI. Destination
Taken at face value, it is a simple matter to determine the destination of 1 Timothy and Titus. In 1 Timothy 1:3, Paul says, “As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus”; and it is a fair inference that Timothy was at Ephesus when the epistle was addressed to him. Similarly in Titus 1:5, Paul states, “This is why I left you in Crete”; it is certain that Titus was still there. Second Timothy includes no specific reference to destination, but there are indications. It is possible that Timothy’s circumstances had not changed from what they were at the time of the sending of the first epistle. Slight indications that favor this are found in 2 Timothy 4, where Paul says, “When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas” (v. 13). Troas was along the route from Ephesus to Europe, unless the direct sea route was taken. In addition, special mention is made of the sending of Tychicus to Ephesus (v. 12).
If the authenticity of the pastoral epistles is denied, no importance can be attached to these geographical allusions in fixing the destination. Indeed, the epistles must then be considered to have had a general destination to 2nd-cent. churches.
VII. Occasion
As already shown, these epistles were sent to Ephesus and Crete; but it is possible to go still further in reconstructing the historical situation that prompted the writing of these epistles. Where Paul was when he urged Timothy to remain at Ephesus is not given, but it is reasonable that he himself had been at Ephesus. He may have been passing through, or he may have worked and witnessed there for some time prior to this. It would not greatly affect the understanding of the occasion of 1 Timothy if scholars knew. Most significant is that Timothy was exhorted to remain at Ephesus to deal with some teachers of false doctrine. Obviously Timothy had no easy commission. It would appear that he was inclined to be timid and would find dealing with opposing elements difficult. Moreover, he had the responsibility in the appointment of the right people to ecclesiastical office, judging from the matters the apostle discusses in the epistle. In Titus, a similar responsibility is more clearly mentioned, for Titus was left at Crete to correct defects and to appoint elders (Titus 1:5). In the case of Titus, no doubt Paul had accompanied him to the island, but there is no further data about the movements of either Titus or Paul. At the time of writing this epistle, Paul was either at Nicopolis or was contemplating going there, where he intended to spend the winter (Titus 3:12). Moreover, Titus was urged to join him at Nicopolis, which suggests that his task at Crete was a short-term commission.
The occasion for writing 2 Timothy was Paul’s expectation that he was near his end, and the need he felt for a final communication to his successor. He recently had been to Troas where he left his cloak and parchments. He also left Trophimus at Ephesus because he was ill. Now a prisoner on trial, Paul did not expect the decision to go in his favor; he had finished his course. Paul gives no details of his arrest or how he came to be in his present circumstances, nor is there any information from other sources on this matter. In spite of his serious situation, he still hoped Timothy could come to him soon (2 Tim 4:9, 21). The epistle is the last that Paul wrote.
VIII. Purpose
In view of the fact that Paul only shortly before had personal contact with both Timothy and Titus, it is not easy to construe the purpose of these epistles esp. 1 Timothy and Titus. In 1 Timothy 3:14 Paul states “I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these instructions to you so that, if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.” At first this seems strange, since in view of Timothy’s personal experience with Paul it would be expected that he would have known how Christians ought to behave. Moreover, it must be assumed that there was little in this letter that Timothy had not heard from Paul personally. Why then was the letter necessary? The most reasonable answer is that Timothy needed to back up his own leadership with the authority of the apostle. There is sufficient evidence from the epistle that some were inclined to despise Timothy as inexperienced, and if so, he would have found the written support of the apostle invaluable. The letter was primarily intended for this purpose. It accordingly consists of moral instruction and church arrangements that would have had practical value in a developing community.
The purpose of Titus is similar. Having dealt with qualities required in church officers and given instructions for the behavior of various groups within the church, the apostle says to Titus, “Declare these things; exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you” (Titus 2:15). Shortly after, he repeats a similar thought, “I desire you to insist on these things, so that those who have believed in God may be careful to apply themselves to good deeds” (3:8). It is certain that Titus must have been orally instructed about these matters, and it is reasonable to suppose that the epistle was written to strengthen the hand of Titus in dealing with the Cretans, whose reputation for general behavior was not high (cf. 1:12).
Several times in 2 Timothy Paul gives solemn charges, or exhortations, to Timothy. In view of the fact that he was convinced that his end was near, the purpose of the epistle is clear. Paul could not have been certain that Timothy had time to reach him, and Paul’s desire was that Timothy should receive a communication from him before his departure (cf. 2 Tim 4:6). The epistle has been called “Paul’s swan song,” and the description is not inapt. Of the pastoral epistles this one is the most revealing of the inner thoughts of the apostle.
Those who reject the Pauline authorship of these epistles propose that someone intimately acquainted with Paul composed the letters in his name soon after his death to obtain Pauline support for current problems, whereas others take these epistles as being designed to answer 2nd-cent. heretical ideas in the name of Paul. In the latter case, the letters are not too closely tied to the historical situation, for the developed heresies of the early 2nd cent. are far removed from the “irrelevances” with which Timothy and Titus were confronted, and which they were earnestly exhorted to “avoid.” Easton’s description of the false teaching as a “coherent and powerful heresy” is not supported by facts. Paul mentions myths and endless genealogies, wranglings, chatter, and “antitheses.” In Titus 1:10 the myths are specified as Jewish, and the genealogies were in all probability Jewish speculations. There were ascetic tendencies (1 Tim 4:3), and what Paul calls “doctrines of demons” (4:1). There is no reference to doctrinal error except the denial of the Resurrection (2 Tim 2:17f.). This type of false teaching would not appear to be “coherent.”
IX. Canonicity
There is as strong external attestation for the pastoral epistles as for the majority of Paul’s epistles. The earliest evidence for any of the NT books consists of allusions in patristic writers rather than specific citations. It is sometimes difficult to know what importance to attach to parallels. Those that exist between the pastoral epistles and 1 Clement (an epistle written c. a.d. 95) well illustrate the difficulty. Some scholars (Holtzmann, Harrison, Streeter) see in the evidence some suggestion that the author of the pastorals lived in the same era as Clement. This opinion is clearly influenced by their prior dating of the pastorals in the post-Pauline period. The parallels could equally well be support for the view that Clement echoes the language of the pastorals. It would be unwise, nevertheless, to rest much weight on probable literary dependence. The same is true for the coincidences in phraseology between these epistles and the letters of Ignatius.
The parallels in the Epistle of Polycarp are closer, and it may reasonably be claimed as certain that Polycarp knew of 1 Timothy and Titus at least. After his time there are increasing allusions to the epistles in the patristic authors (e.g. Justin, Hegesippus, Athenagoras). Theophilus considered them to be inspired, whereas from Irenaeus’ time the attestation is widespread. It has been alleged, however, that there are two lines of evidence that cast doubt on the early canonicity of these epistles. First is the fact that Marcion’s canon did not contain them. Although Marcion’s canon is not itself extant, there is sufficient evidence of the content of his canon from the Church Fathers who opposed him. Indeed, Tertullian not only goes through the errors that Marcion perpetrated regarding the ten Pauline epistles and the gospel of Luke, which Marcion included with his Apostolikon, but specificially stated that Marcion rejected the two epistles to Timothy and the epistle to Titus. Most advocates of non-Pauline authorship for these epistles consider Tertullian to be biased on this point, and consequently maintain that Marcion did not include these epistles in his Pauline corpus, for no other reason than the fact that he did not possess them. But Tertullian’s evidence cannot be so summarily dismissed. As Marcion was capable of rejecting all the gospels except Luke and of retaining only a mutilated text of that gospel, he certainly was not incapable of rejecting any of Paul’s epistles that did not further his peculiar doctrine.
Tertullian’s evidence has in its favor that it is fully in character with what is known of the man Marcion.
The other evidence that has suggested doubt is the Chester Beatty papyrus, P46, which evidently contained only the Pauline epistles, but shows no trace of having contained the pastorals. Since the concluding part of the MS is not extant, it is a matter of calculation from the size of script what epistles it might have contained, as the total number of leaves in the codex is known. It is confidently maintained that there would have been no room for the pastorals, but this assertion is clearly an element of conjecture. It is a possibility that the scribe might have attached additional leaves to his codex at the end, as sometimes happened. This can neither be proved nor can it be dismissed as improbable. In any case, the exclusion of the pastorals from P46 cannot prove that these epistles were unknown, uncanonical, or un-Pauline. They may have been included in another codex that has not been preserved, but speculation is fruitless. It is certain that there is no positive evidence of any sort to demonstrate that the Pauline authorship of the pastoral epistles was ever challenged in orthodox circles.
X. Content and outline
1 Timothy
A. Paul and Timothy (1 Tim. 1:1-20). Timothy’s task is to refute the false teachers who were propagating irrelevant speculations (vv. 1-11). Paul next cites his own experience of God’s mercy as an encouragement to Timothy (vv. 12-17). He then reminds Timothy of the special commission entrusted to him and urges him to hold fast the faith (vv. 18-20).
B. Suggestions for church organization (2:1-4:16). Various topics are mentioned. 1). Public prayer is to be made for all (2:1-8). 2). Christian women are to be known for modesty and submissiveness. This is supported by an appeal to the story of Adam and Eve (2:9-15). 3). Church officials must have certain qualities. This section deals with bishops and deacons (3:1-13). 4). The Church is to be a pillar and bulwark. Paul describes the Church as a custodian of truth, and a Christian hymn is introduced by way of illustration (3:14-16). 5). The future of the Church will be threatened by apostasy. Paul specially mentions wrong doctrine and wrong behavior. Evil spirits and ascetic practices are to be resisted (4:1-5). 6). Timothy has the responsibility to command and teach what Paul has advised. His personal example is more important than silly controversies (4:6-16).
C. Church discipline (5:1-25). Paul has in mind various groups, but concentrates on widows and elders. The need for discerning any widows who are in real financial need is stressed, and suggestions are made for a system of enrollment. Suitable respect is to be accorded to elders and indiscriminate charges are to be avoided.
D. Advice about various matters (6:1-19). Paul now turns to the relationship between servants and masters (6:1, 2), in which the guiding factor is to honor God. He refers again to the false teaching, esp. the moral depravity that results from it (6:3-5). The next section concerns wealth, and the contrast between contentment and covetousness is brought out (vv. 6-10). Paul then addresses Timothy as a man of God and points out what his aims should be (vv. 11-16). He then returns to the theme of wealth, this time to show how wealthy Christians should act (vv. 17-19).
E. Closing exhortations to Timothy (6:20, 21). Timothy is told what to guard and what to avoid.
2 Timothy
A. Encouragements and exhortations (1:1-14). Paul appeals to helpful reminiscences and urges Timothy to stir up his gift (vv. 1-7). He needs boldness (vv. 8-10), and Paul next appeals to his own experience of suffering as a preacher of the Gospel (vv. 11, 12). Timothy’s own responsibilities are then pointed out (vv. 13, 14).
B. Paul and his associates (1:15-18). Some of these have been helpful, as was Onesiphorus; others have turned away as did the Asiatics.
C. Special advice to Timothy (2:1-26). Paul makes clear his major task (vv. 1, 2), shows the need for endurance (vv. 3-7), appeals to his own experience of suffering (vv. 8-13). Then he gives advice on the matter of false teachers, both positively (aim to be an unashamed workman) and negatively (avoid godless chatter) (vv. 14-19). Much is said about Timothy’s own personal behavior and attitudes (vv. 20-26).
D. The last days (3:1-9). As in 1 Timothy, Paul foreshadows the moral decline that will come.
E. Final advice to Timothy (3:10-4:18). Paul appeals again to his own experience (3:10-13) and exhorts Timothy to continue the work (3:14-4:5). This leads to his own confession of faith (4:6-8). The section closes with personal requests and Paul’s reference to his first defense (4:9-18).
F. Greetings and benediction (4:19-22).
Titus
A. Greetings to Titus (Titus 1:1-4). Paul declares the truths with which he has been entrusted.
B. Advice about elders (1:5-9). Paul gives a list of qualities to be expected.
C. Character of the Cretans (1:10-16). The Cretans are vividly described, and strong advice is given to Titus to rebuke them.
D. Christian behavior (2:1-10). Three classes of people are considered—aged people (vv. 1-3), younger people (vv. 4-8), and slaves (vv. 9, 10).
E. Doctrine and life (2:11-3:7). First Paul shows what the grace of God has done (2:11-15). This is what Titus is to declare. Then he shows how Christians should behave in the community (3:1, 2). He follows with a contrast between pagan life and Christian salvation (3:3-7).
F. Closing admonitions (3:8-15). Paul exhorts Titus to urge Christians to good deeds (v. 8), and to avoid controversies (vv. 9-11). He closes with a request for Titus to join him (vv. 12-15).
XI. Theology
It is possible to point out only the most distinctive features of the theology of these epistles. The doctrine of God can be seen in the titles used of Him. In the salutations of all the epistles He is called Father, but this is not specified elsewhere. Nevertheless, the fatherliness of God is not far below the surface (cf. 1 Tim 6:17; 2 Tim 1:7). A remarkable doxology is ascribed to Him in 1 Timothy 1:17, in which His unique glory is insisted upon. His sovereign Lordship is brought out (1 Tim 6:15, 16). He is described as the righteous Judge (2 Tim 4:8). Several times He is called Savior, and this is perhaps the most significant concept of His character (cf. 1 Tim 4:10; Titus 1:3; 2:10, 13; 3:4). He it is who has initiated the whole scheme of salvation.
Paul has much to say in these epistles about Christ. His real humanity is unquestioned (1 Tim 1:15). The perfect patience of Christ is referred to in 1 Timothy 1:16. A hymn incorporated in 1 Timothy celebrates His central place at the heart of the Christian faith. Many times He is mentioned as Lord and the term must be given the fullest weight, as it is when applied to God (6:15). The title Savior also is applied to Christ (2 Tim 1:10; Titus 2:13; 3:6). The statement regarding Christ’s mediatorship (1 Tim 2:5, 6)—that He gave Himself as a ransom—was expressed by Jesus Himself (Mark 10:45). An essential element in Paul’s Gospel is the Resurrection of Jesus from the dead (2 Tim 2:8). There can be no doubt that Christ holds a central place in the theology of these epistles.
There is less reference to the work of the Holy Spirit in the pastorals than in most of the other Pauline epistles, but those that occur are worth noting. In 1 Timothy 4:1 the Spirit reveals the coming departures from the faith. He has entrusted the truth to Timothy and dwells within him (2 Tim 1:14). He is the agent in the regeneration and renewal of the believer (Titus 3:5). These few references are sufficient to show that the work of the Spirit is fully recognized.
Bibliography F. Torm, “Üeber die Sprache in den Pastoralbriefen,” ZNW (1918), 225-243; P. N. Harrison, The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles (1921); J. H. Bernard, The Pastoral Epistles (1922); W. Michaelis, Pastoralbriefe und Gefangenschaftsbriefe (1930); E. F. Scott, The Pastoral Epistles (1936); J. Jeremias, Die Briefe an Timotheus und Titus, 4th ed. (1947); C. Spicq, Saint Paul: Les Épîtres pastorales, 3rd ed. (1947); B. S. Easton, The Pastoral Epistles (1948); E. K. Simpson, The Pastoral Epistles (1954); F. D. Gealy, “I and II Timothy and Titus,” IB (1955); D. Guthrie, The Pastoral Epistles and the Mind of Paul (1956); id., The Pastoral Epistles (1957); B. M. Metzger, “A reconsideration of certain arguments against the Pauline authorship of the Pastoral Epistles,” ExpT, LXX, 3 (1958), 91-94; K. Grayston and G. Herdan, “The authorship of the Pastorals in the light of statistical Linguistics,” NTS, VI (1959), 1-15; C. K. Barrett, The Pastoral Epistles (1963); J. N. D. Kelly, The Pastoral Epistles (1963); A. T. Hanson, The Pastoral Epistles (1966).