Appendix A: The Mission of Titus to the Corinthians
Appendix A
The Mission of Titus to the Corinthians
The mission of Titus, which occupies so prominent a place in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, has been the subject of much discussion with regard to its object and relation to other communications of St. Paul with the same Church, especially the similar and almost contemporaneous mission of Timothy. The explanation here offered has not, as far as I have seen, been anticipated; it is certainly not the view maintained by the most recent critics, English or German. At the same time it seems so far to recommend itself by its simplicity, and to offer so adequate a solution of all the difficulties which the problem presents, that it can scarcely have failed to suggest itself to the minds of others besides myself. But perhaps it may not be superfluous to say a few words on the previous communications of St. Paul with the Church of Corinth, not only by way of introduction to my immediate subject, but also because they offer considerable difficulties in themselves.
It must have been some time during St. Paul’s three years’ residence at Ephesus (from A.D. 54 to 57), that he received information of the critical state of the Corinthian Church, which he had himself founded a few years earlier. His presence seemed to be required, and he accordingly crossed the Aegean, and paid a short visit to the capital of Achaia, returning to Ephesus to complete his missionary work there. This seems to be the most probable account of St. Paul’s second visit to Corinth, of which little more than the fact is recorded. For though the circumstance is not noticed by St. Luke, yet his silence is easily accounted for, supposing it intentional, when we reflect that his object was not to write a complete biography of St. Paul, but a history of the Christian Church, and that he has accordingly selected out of his materials such facts only as to throw light upon Christianity in all ages—representative facts, as we might call them; while on the other hand, if it be supposed that he was unacquainted with the circumstance, this supposition again is easily explained from the short duration of St. Paul’s stay at Corinth, and the facility of intercourse between the two coasts of the Aegean.
At all events, there are passages in the epistles (e.g. 2 Cor 12:14; 13:1, 2) which seem inexplicable under any other hypothesis, except that of a second visit—the difficulty consisting not so much in the words themselves, as in their relation to their context. It appears necessary therefore to abandon the opposite view, chiefly known to the English student through the advocacy of Paley, who seeks to explain these passages on the ground of a visit designed, but never actually paid. The Apostle’s visit seems not to have been effectual in checking the evils that called for his interference. It would appear that the shameless profligacy, for which the city was proverbial, had already found its way into the Christian community. He therefore wrote to the Corinthians, warning them to shun the company of offenders in this kind. This letter, which was probably brief and of no permanent interest to the Christian Church, has not been preserved, and we only know that it was written, from a passing allusion to it in a subsequent epistle—the First to the Corinthians. It was probably in this lost letter that he informed them of the design, which he at this time entertained but was afterwards obliged to abandon, of paying them a double visit, on his way to and return from Macedonia (1 Cor 16:5; 2 Cor 1:15). How long an interval elapsed before St. Paul again communicated with the Corinthian Christians, we cannot ascertain; but it was towards the close of his stay at Ephesus, that he despatched Timothy through Macedonia on his way to Corinth, though apparently with some apprehensions that he might not reach that city, and not long after addressed a second letter to them—the First Epistle of our Canon. This he placed in the hands of certain brethren, whom he expected to arrive at Corinth a little before or at any rate not later than Timothy (1 Cor 16:10-12), so that they might return together, and rejoin the Apostle in company. Have we any means of discovering who these brethren were?
It seems more than probable in the first place, that Timotheus never reached Corinth, but was detained in Macedonia so long, that he had not advanced beyond this point, when he was overtaken by St. Paul on his way from Ephesus to Achaia. At all events he must have been in St. Paul’s company when the Second Epistle was written, as his name appears in the salutation, and there are sufficient grounds for concluding that this Epistle was sent from Macedonia. But there are numerous reasons for supposing that this was the limit of Timothy’s journey. In the first place, St. Paul himself in announcing this projected visit of Timothy to Corinth, has evidently some misgivings as to its fulfilment, and consequently speaks of it as uncertain, Ἐὰν δὲ ἔλθῃ Τιμόθεος (1 Cor 16:10). Probably he foresaw circumstances that would detain his missionary on the way.
Secondly, Timothy is represented in the Acts (Acts 19:22) as being sent with Erastus into Macedonia, as if the sacred historian were not aware of his journey being continued to Corinth. Thirdly, if Timothy had actually visited Corinth, he must have brought back some information as to the state of the Church there; and, if he arrived, as was expected, subsequently to the receipt of the First Epistle, he must also have been able to report on a subject that lay nearest to the Apostle’s heart—the manner in which his letter was received by the Corinthian Christians. But we do not find this to have been the case. For while in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians St. Paul dwells at great length on information derived from another source—the epistle in fact arising entirely out of this—there is not the slightest inkling of any knowledge obtained through Timothy on any subject whatever. And fourthly, in one passage where St. Paul is enumerating visits recently paid to the Corinthians by the Apostle himself or by his accredited messengers, the name of Timothy does not occur, though it could scarcely have been passed over in such a connexion (2 Cor 12:17, 18).
For these reasons we may infer with extreme probability, that Timothy, finding it advisable to prolong his stay in Macedonia, was prevented from carrying out his original intention of visiting Achaia, before he joined St. Paul. For, though each of these arguments separately is far from conclusive, they seem when combined to form such a body of circumstantial evidence, as fully to justify this verdict. Again, if this conclusion be admitted, it simplifies the problem, and the subsequent communications of the Apostle with the Church of Corinth become easily explicable. This consideration is of course not without weight. On the other hand attempts have been made to impugn some of these arguments. It will be as well to dispose of these before proceeding.
In answer to the second argument, it has been maintained that the journey of Timothy to Macedonia (Acts 19:22) was different from, and subsequent to, his mission to Corinth. If such a method of reconciling the accounts can in any way be avoided, it should not be resorted to. The philosopher’s rule with entities should be the historian’s with facts. They should not be unnecessarily multiplied. Here so far is there from being any necessity, that it is not easy to account for these repeated journeys, which moreover in some degree perplex the chronology, there being a difficulty in compressing all the events within the given time.
In the statement on which my third argument is based, I am at issue with Wieseler (Chron. p. 58) in a matter of fact. I can therefore only state the case and leave it for the judgment of others. He argues thus. The language with which the Epistle opens (2 Cor 1:12–2:11) was evidently prompted by St. Paul’s distress at the opposition that his former letter had occasioned. Now this language describes his state of mind before the arrival of Titus. Therefore some other messenger must have reached him meanwhile from Corinth. Who can this messenger have been but Timothy? With Wieseler’s hypothesis as to the composition of the Second Epistle, built upon the argument here given, I have no concern. The argument itself too is unexceptionable, if the premise be once allowed. But does not his statement arise from an entire misconception? I believe ordinary readers will discern no such traces of tidings received before the arrival of Titus. They will read in the opening of the Second Epistle nothing more than the vague apprehensions and misgivings, which would naturally arise in the Apostle’s mind as to the manner in which a condemnatory letter, expressed in such fearless and uncompromising language—written moreover in much affliction and anguish of spirit (2 Cor 2:4)—would be received in a community where the most flagrant irregularities prevailed, and where his own apostolic authority was denied by a considerable number, and perverted to factious purposes by others. Surely the language would have been far different; his fears would have been far more clearly defined, if he had actually received tidings; especially if these tidings had been brought by a messenger as trustworthy as Timothy.
The fourth argument has been answered on the supposition that St. Paul in 2 Cor 12:17, 18 is only speaking of those who took part in the collection of alms, and that, as the mission of Timothy was quite independent of any such object, his name is properly omitted. But where does it appear that the list of names is so restricted? The word ἐπλεονέκτησα, judging from the context, seems to refer rather to the abuse of the Corinthians’ hospitality, than to the gathering of the contributions. Meyer again accounts for the omission of Timothy’s name on the ground that only the most recent visits to Corinth are here alluded to. Yet granting that his view is true, as probably it is, still the visit of Timothy must have preceded that of Titus by a few weeks at most, and could not have been omitted on this account. The same able critic even considers that any mention at all of Timothy in the third person would be quite out of place, when his name is found in the superscription of the letter (on 2 Cor 12:18, cf Einl. § 1); and Mr. Alford urges the same argument, though less strongly (Vol. II. Prol. p. 56). It is a sufficient reply to Meyer to observe that, whether out of place or not, it is what St. Paul has done elsewhere (e.g. 1 Thess 3:3, 6), and what therefore he might be supposed to do here.
On the other hand, the direct arguments that have been employed by those who consider it improbable that Timothy should have abandoned his design, do not seem to have much force. Mr. Alford for instance considers the purpose of his mission as stated in 1 Cor 4:17, to be ‘too plain and precise to be lightly given up.’ That the mission should have been entirely abandoned is certainly unlikely. That it should have been transferred to other hands, when it was found incompatible with the discharge of Timothy’s duties in Macedonia, so far from being an improbable supposition, seems to commend itself by its very probability. Again, it is suggested by Meyer, and here too Mr. Alford endorses the suggestion, that the abandonment of the intended journey of Timothy would have furnished another handle for the charge of fickleness against St. Paul, and that we should have found the charge rebutted in the Second Epistle. This reason will probably not be considered of sufficient weight to counterbalance the amount of evidence on the other side. For if we take into account that the charge would lie primarily at the door of Timothy, and not of the Apostle himself—that St. Paul in announcing the design had expressed some doubts as to the possibility of its fulfilment—that the objects of the mission were not abandoned when it was found impossible for Timothy to carry them out—and lastly, that the messengers sent by St. Paul in his stead had a satisfactory explanation to offer to the Corinthians of this change of purpose—we can hardly suppose that the most captious of St. Paul’s enemies would have thought it worth their while to employ such a lame expedient to injure his credit. In short, this case is no parallel at all to the circumstance of which his opponents did avail themselves to bring him into disrepute (2 Cor 1:17).
On the whole then, so far from finding anything conflicting in the evidence with regard to this mission of Timothy, it seems that, combining the hint of the possible abandonment of the design in the First Epistle, the account of the journey to Macedonia in the Acts, and the silence maintained with regard to any visit to Corinth or any definite information received thence through Timothy in the Second Epistle, we discover an ‘undesigned coincidence’ of a striking kind; and that it is therefore a fair and reasonable conclusion that the visit was never paid.
By whom then was this mission fulfilled? At the close of the First Epistle (1 Cor 16:11, 12) certain ‘brethren’ are mentioned, who appear to have been the bearers of the letter, and whom St. Paul expected to rejoin him in company with Timothy. The Apostle had urged Apollos to accompany this mission to Corinth (1 Cor 16:12), but he for reasons easily intelligible had declined, considering that his visit would be unseasonable. Now there is no mention of the names of these brethren in the First Epistle, but we find St. Paul subsequently after his departure from Ephesus at Troas awaiting the return of Titus from Corinth with tidings of the reception of his letter there (2 Cor 2:12), and falling in with him at length in Macedonia (2 Cor 7:6). From this we might have supposed that Titus was alone. But from another allusion to this mission in the Second Epistle we find he was accompanied by a ‘brother,’ whose name is not given (2 Cor 8:18). What more probable than that Titus and ‘the brother’ accompanying him of the Second Epistle, are ‘the brethren’ of the First?
But why is Titus not mentioned by name? Might we not rather ask, why he should be so mentioned? His name never occurs in the Acts. His influence on the interests of the Church at large was probably not so great as that of Tychicus or Trophimus, certainly not as that of Apollos or Timothy. He is brought into prominent notice in reference to the Churches of Corinth and Crete in particular; but we should doubtless be wrong in judging of his position in the Christian Church by the special importance with which he is invested in regard to individual communities. The fact that an Epistle of St. Paul bears his name leads us almost unconsciously to assign a rank to him that he probably did not hold in the estimation of his contemporaries. Titus then does not appear to have had a church-wide reputation at this time, and there is no reason to suppose that he was known specially to the Christians at Corinth. If so, the omission of his name presents no difficulty, and it is in accordance with St. Paul’s manner to speak thus of his fellow-labourers (2 Cor 8:18, 22).
No doubt Titus’ strength of character was well known to the Apostle when he despatched him upon this difficult mission, but it only approved itself to the Corinthians during his stay among them; and his earnestness and devotion, while there, raised him so far above his colleague, that St. Paul in writing to the Corinthians subsequently speaks in such a manner as to show that ‘the brother’ who accompanied him had sunk by his side into comparative insignificance.
Titus then, we may suppose, had been selected by St. Paul as one of the bearers of the letter, that in the event of Timothy being unable to prosecute his mission to Corinth, it might be fulfilled by one who would act in the same loving and devoted spirit. But there is one link yet to be supplied. How did Titus communicate with Timothy? How was it known that Timothy would be detained in Macedonia? Here we are left to mere conjecture; but it seems not improbable that Titus and his companion took the less direct route to Achaia by way of Macedonia. They certainly returned that way, and there was, as far as we can see, no more reason for haste in the one case than in the other. And if it was the apprehension of danger which deterred them from crossing the open sea at that early season of the year, they would have much more cause to entertain such fears on their journey thither than on their return, when the season was farther advanced. Probably the greater security of the indirect route was thought to compensate for the advantage, in point of time, gained by sailing straight across the Aegean; while the opportunity of communicating with Timothy would be an additional motive in influencing their choice.
If the view here taken be correct, it will overthrow all Wieseler’s chronological results with regard to the interval between the writing of the First and Second Epistles. The facts are few and lead to no satisfactory conclusion; but as far as they go, they do not conflict with anything I have advanced. The data for determining the relative chronology of this period are these: (1) St. Paul stayed at Ephesus ‘for a season’ after sending Timothy into Macedonia (ἐπέσχεν χρόνον, Acts 19:22). (2) Timothy had left before the First Epistle was written (1 Cor 4:17; 16:10). (3) There is an allusion which makes it not improbable that the First Epistle was written shortly before Easter (1 Cor 5:7, 8). (4) St. Paul here declares his intention of setting out to visit Corinth quickly (1 Cor 4:19). (5) We also learn from the same source that he expected to stay at Ephesus till Pentecost (1 Cor 16:8); and lastly (6) there is reason to suppose that he was subsequently led to hasten his departure. It is not evident indeed that his life was endangered by the tumult at Ephesus but such an outbreak must have interfered with his preaching, and rendered his further stay there useless. At all events the language of St. Luke places his departure in immediate connexion with this disturbance, in such a manner as scarcely to leave a doubt that it was determined by this circumstance (Acts 19:41; 20:1). It is probable, therefore, that he left before he had intended; and this explains another incident. We find St. Paul, after his hurried departure from Ephesus, expecting to meet Titus at Troas, and when he was disappointed of this hope, advancing into Macedonia, where he was ultimately joined by him.
Wieseler (Chron. p. 59) uses this as an argument, that St. Paul’s departure cannot have taken place much earlier than he had originally intended; for otherwise he could not have expected to find Titus so soon at the place of meeting determined upon. This seems to be a mistake. There is no reason for supposing that they had agreed to meet at Troas. The true state of the case appears to be this. St. Paul had intended to await the return of Titus and his colleague at Ephesus. Subsequently being obliged to hasten his departure, he calculated they would have advanced as far as Troas before they met. In this calculation he proved to be wrong. If this view be correct, the hurried departure from Ephesus will obviously not affect the chronological question, which thus assumes a very simple form.
We have the period from the writing of the First Epistle, shortly before Easter (if we may lay so much stress on a doubtful allusion), till after the feast of Pentecost, when St. Paul expected to leave Ephesus, for the double journey of Titus, to Corinth and back. I have supposed that he went and returned by way of Macedonia. Even assuming that he travelled from Macedonia to Achaia by land, the interval is sufficiently great. Hug (Introd. ii. p. 381) calculates the single journey from Corinth to Ephesus at thirty-one days, but then he allows a wide margin that is quite superfluous. But, if it be thought that in this case more time would be required, we may suppose that Titus took ship at some port of Macedonia (Thessalonica for instance), as St. Paul seems to have done on one occasion on leaving Beroea (Acts 17:14; Wieseler’s Chron. pp. 42, 43), and returned the same way. This would be a considerable saving of time, and the perils of the open sea would in great measure be avoided. [1855.]