INTRODUCTION to The Pastoral Epistles

NEW

TESTAMENT

COMMENTARY

Exposition of The Pastoral Epistles

William Hendriksen

and

Simon J. Kistemaker

BAKERBOOKS

A DIVISION OF BAKER BOOK HOUSE CO GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN 49516

Originally published in separate volumes:

Published by Baker Books

a division of Baker Book House Company

P.O Box 6287, Grand Rapids, MI 49516–6287

12 volume set, first available 2002

ISBN 0–8010-2606–7

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means—for example, electronic, photocopy, recording—without the prior written permission of the publisher. The only exception is brief quotations in printed reviews.

ISBN 0–8010–2079–4

Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture references in

Hebrews

are taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version®.

NIV

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

The letters in book-abbreviations are followed by periods. Those in periodical-abbreviations omit the periods and are written in italics. Thus one can see at a glance whether the abbreviation refers to a book or to a periodical.

A. Book Abbreviations

A.R.V. American Standard Revised Version

A.V. Authorized Version (King James)

Gram.N.T. A. T. Robertson, Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research

I.S.B.E. International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

L.N.T. Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament

M.M. The Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament Illustrated from the Papyri and Other Non-Literary Sources, by James Hope Moulton and George Milligan (edition, Grand Rapids, 1952)

N.N. Novum Testamentum Graece, edited by D. Eberhard Nestle and D. Erwin Nestle (most recent edition)

N.T.C. W. Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary

R.S.V. Revised Standard Version

W.D.B. Westminster Dictionary of the Bible

W.H.A.B. Westminster Historical Atlas to the Bible

B. Periodical Abbreviations

EQ Evangelical Quarterly

JBL Journal of Biblical Literature

JThS Journal of Theological Studies

GThT Gereformeerd Theologisch Tijdschrift

WThJ Westminster Theological Journal

ZNTW Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft

Please Note

In order to differentiate between the second person singular and the second person plural (without reverting to the archaic “thou” and “ye” except where it is proper to do so), we have indicated the former as follows: “you”; and the latter, as follows: “you.”

INTRODUCTION

to

The Pastoral Epistles

I. WHY SHOULD WE STUDY THEM?

A thorough study of the Pastoral Epistles is necessary for the following reasons:

(1) Because they shed much needed light on the important problem of church-administration. Do these letters contain any directions regarding Public Worship which we do well to heed? What qualities must a man possess in order to be a good pastor? A worthy elder? A conscientious deacon? To what extent should women be employed in the work of the church? Upon whom does the primary responsibility rest of providing for the needy? How should a minister deal with aged men who are in need of pastoral counseling? With aged women? With young men? With young women?

(2) Because they stress sound doctrine. Is it true that it makes no difference what a person believes as long as he is sincere in what he believes? Is the Bible “the Word of God” as it lies there, or does it merely become the Word of God when it “touches” you? How must one deal with heretics? Is it possible to pay too much attention to their errors?

(3) Because they demand consecrated living. Is it possible for a person to be “doctrinally sound” but “corrupt in practice”? Must evil men be disciplined? How soon? With what purpose in mind?

(4) Because they answer the question, “Are creeds of any value?” Did the church in the transition-period believe in creedal formulations, pithy sayings, and other means of transmitting the truth of the gospel to enquirers and to the youth? Were there any hymns? Is the slogan, “No Creed But Christ” in harmony with the teaching of The Pastorals?

(5) Because they tell us about the closing activities in the life of the great apostle Paul. Does the book of Acts give a full account of all his journeys? Were there really two Roman imprisonments?

(6) Because they are a valuable source for the understanding of the history of the church in the third quarter of the first century a.d. (See M. C. Tenney, The New Testament, A Survey, p. 354).

(7) Because

in these epistles

as well as in the others

God speaks to us

II. WHO WROTE THE PASTORALS?

The term “pastoral epistles,” as a common title for I Timothy, II Timothy, and Titus, dates from the early part of the eighteenth century.¹ Now these letters do indeed furnish worth-while directions for pastors. Yet, the title is not exact. Timothy and Titus were not “pastors” in the usual, present-day sense of the term. They were not ministers of local congregations, but rather vicars apostolic, Paul’s special envoys or deputies sent by him on specific missions. They were entrusted with concrete assignments according to the need of the hour. Their task was to perform their spiritual ministry here or there, carrying forward the work which had been started, and then reporting to the apostle their findings and accomplishments.

Marcion, in the middle of the second century, rejected these three letters. Tertullian states, “I am surprised, however, that when he (Marcion) accepted this letter (Philemon) which was written but to one man, he rejected the two epistles to Timothy and the one to Titus, which all treat of ecclesiastical discipline” (Against Marcion V. xxi). Now in a man like Marcion, who preached the strictest asceticism, denied the lawfulness of marriage, and issued rigid rules for fasting, such a rejection of the Pastorals, in which asceticism is condemned (I Tim. 4:3, 4; Tit. 1:14, 15), is altogether natural. A heretic does not like a writing which directly or indirectly condemns his or a somewhat similar heresy.

In the nineteenth century (1807 to be exact) F. Schleiermacher rejected the Pauline authorship of I Timothy. F. C. Baur in his work on the Pastoral Epistles (Stuttgart and Tübingen, 1835) defended the position that it is inconsistent to accept II Timothy and Titus but to reject I Timothy. All three must be considered in the class of pseudepigraphic literature. Many enthusiastic disciples — the Tübingen School — endorsed his view. Today this position is accepted by many, though some have adopted a somewhat more conservative view (see p. 17).

Can it be truthfully maintained that in this negative attitude the critics are as thoroughly objective as they claim to be? Is it just possible that the manner in which these three little gems deal with “some of the fondest shibboleths of the modern mind”² has something to do with the decisive way in which their Pauline authorship is denied? The Pastorals place particular emphasis on such matters as the reality and importance of ecclesiastical offices (I Tim. 3; Tit. 1), the inspiration of the written word (II Tim. 3:16), the necessity of maintaining doctrinal soundness (I Tim. 4:1–6; II Tim. 3:14; 4:3; Tit. 2:1), the reality of the resurrection (II Tim. 2:18), and the divine requirement that faith shall make itself militantly manifest (II Tim. 4:2, 7, 8).

Now, whether or not subjective bias has asserted itself, one conclusion becomes inescapably clear when the facts are examined: the critics have failed to prove their thesis that Paul cannot have written the Pastorals.

The arguments of the critics may be summarized as follows:³

(1) In vocabulary the three epistles are very similar to each other, but entirely different from the other ten epistles which are traditionally assigned to Paul, namely, Romans, I Corinthians, II Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, I Thessalonians, II Thessalonians, and Philemon.⁴

The following points are emphasized under this general heading, some critics stressing one point, others another:

a. The great similarity in the vocabulary of the three Pastorals.

b. The contrast between the vocabulary of the Pastorals and that of the ten.

At times it would almost seem that a single glance at Harrison’s well-known diagrams (in his book, The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles, Oxford, 1921) was enough to convince some that Paul could not have written I Timothy, II Timothy, and Titus. Is not the number of new words, per page (!) of Greek text, introduced by the author of these three letters, completely out of proportion to the much smaller number of new words per page used by Paul in his ten epistles? If the apostle wrote the latter, is it at all possible that he also wrote the former?

Besides, do not such expressions as the following clearly point away from Paul: “guard the deposit” (τὴν παραθήκην φύλαξον I Tim. 6:20; II Tim. 1:12, 14); “follow doctrine” (a form of παρακολουθέω with τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ, I Tim. 4:6; II Tim. 3:10); “profane chatter” (βέβηλοι κενοφωνίας, I Tim. 6:20; II Tim. 2:16); “man of God” (ἄνθρωπος θεοῦ, I Tim. 6:11; II Tim. 3:17)?

And, on the other hand, is it not true that many words that are used again and again in the ten are absent from the three: “to do wrong” (ἀδικέω), “blood” (αἷμα), “uncircumcision” (ἀκροβυστία), “works of the law” (ἔργα νόμου), etc.? Burton Scott Easton points out that the real Paul uses “Spirit” about 80 times; the author of the Pastorals only 3 times!

c. The presence of entirely new or greatly expanded word-families in the Pastorals.

Is it not true that the Pastorals present, either for the first time or with unparalleled ramification, not only many single words but even whole families of words? To give just one example: the family of compounds which center about the common idea of teaching or didactics:

Occurring nowhere in the ten are the following:

διδακτικός	apt at teaching, I Tim. 3:2; II Tim. 2:24
νομοδιδάσκαλος	a teacher of the law, I Tim. 1:7
καλοδιδάσκαλος	a teacher of that which is good, Tit. 2:3
ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖν	to teach differently, to teach a different doctrine, I Tim. 1:3; 6:3

Occurring also in two or three of the ten are:

διδάσκαλος	a teacher, I Tim. 2:7; II Tim. 1:11; 4:3
διδασκαλία	teaching, in the Pastorals occurring with great frequency, in both the active and the passive sense (doctrine)
διδαχή	teaching, II Tim. 4:2; doctrine, Titus 1:9

Occurring also in six of the ten are:

διδάσκω

to teach, I Tim. 2:12; 4:11; 6:2; II Tim. 2:2; Tit. 1:11.

d. The absence of Pauline word-families.

This is the obverse of the preceding.

e. The fact that several words found in I Timothy, II Timothy, and Titus, but not in the ten, occur in the vocabulary of the Apostolic Fathers, and the complementary fact that a large percentage of genuinely Pauline words which do not occur in the three have also dropped out of the vocabulary of the Apostolic Fathers. It is argued that for the Pastorals this points to a date early in the second century.

In this connection it is also usually pointed out that during the second century there was a revival of classical diction. It is maintained that this explains the presence of a considerable number of classical words in these letters.

f. The frequent use of Latin words and idioms.

It is said that this indicates that the author of the Pastorals cannot have been Paul but must have been someone living in or near Rome. Or, if this conclusion is not stated in so many words, the argument from Latinisms occurring in the Pastorals is at least enlisted in the cause of skepticism.

g. The totally different meaning which in the Pastorals is carried by words that are common to them and to the ten.

Examples:	faith, in the Pastorals used objectively = what is believed, the true religion; but by Paul in the sense of subjective trust.
	to take up, used in I Tim. 3:16 of Christ’s ascension, but in Eph. 6:13, 16 of “taking up” spiritual weapons.
	letter, used in an unfavorable sense by Paul, but letters used in favorable sense in II Tim. 3:15 = the sacred writings.

h. Finally, the fact that not only “the stones” differ from those used by Paul but also “the clamps and the mortar” (particles of transition and inference, which abound in the ten but are largely lacking in the Pastorals).

It is not difficult to show that the value of this argument and of its ramifications has been greatly over-estimated.

As to a., to a certain extent the very opposite is the truth. Of new words (new in the sense that they do not occur in the ten) only a very few are found in all three letters; only 9 out of a total of 306! Hence, if dissimilarity in new vocabulary proves different authorship, something can be said for the proposition that a different author would have to be posited for each of the Pastorals! Of new words I Timothy has 127, II Timothy has 81 others, and Titus has 45 others. Together I Timothy and II Timothy have only 17; I Timothy and Titus have only 20; II Timothy and Titus have only 7; all three together only 9. (Yet both vocabulary and style, taken as a whole, point rather to unity of authorship.)

As to b., fact is that slightly over one-fourth of the total vocabulary of Paul’s epistle to the Romans is “new” in the sense that these words do not occur in the other nine epistles. The percentage of new words, in proportion to total vocabulary, in II Timothy (words not occurring in the ten) is hardly any higher than in Romans. The same holds for Titus. In I Timothy about one-third of the words are new. Surely, on the basis of these facts the thesis of the critics, namely, that Paul cannot have written the Pastorals, does not follow!⁵

In each epistle Paul uses the (Spirit-inspired) words which he needs in order to express his (Spirit-inspired) thoughts regarding the specific subject with which he deals. For this reason it is not surprising that certain words, found in the ten, are lacking in the three. As an example, let us take the first three words mentioned in Harrison’s list on p. 31, taking them just as they come. The first is ἀδικέω: to do wrong, to commit unrighteousness. The second is αἷμα: blood. The third is ἀκροβυστία: uncircumcision. Now this entire subject of righteousness, obtained for the sinner by the blood of Christ and not by means of rites such as circumcision, belongs to such epistles as Romans, Galatians, and to some extent I Corinthians. Hence, it is in these epistles that we must look for such or similar words. But surely the apostle did not need to expound in detail to Timothy and Titus, his intimate friends and fellow-workers, the doctrine of justification by faith! Hence, it is altogether natural that these three words do not occur here, though the doctrine itself is not completely absent; see Titus 3:5–7. The same holds for the other words given by Harrison on pp. 31 and 32 of his book. The absence of not a single one of them from the Pastoral epistles is strange, though in one case it is more immediately apparent why a word should not be found than in another. Moreover, if the Pauline authorship of the Pastorals must be rejected because the word “Spirit” occurs only 3 times, must we not also reject the Pauline authorship of Colossians, II Thessalonians, and Philemon?

As to c. and d., this is a sword that cuts both ways, for one might also say that the very presence of entire word-families here in the Pastorals just as in the ten, points in the direction of identical authorship. That the basic word around which the word-family has developed is not the same in the different epistles is easily explained: in the letters to Timothy and to Titus, who were definitely in need of good counsel with respect to their own specific task of imparting instruction, the word-family which centers about the idea of teaching is certainly not at all surprising.

Besides, it can be shown that if the presence or absence of certain words and word-families is decisive in determining authorship, it will not be easy for the critics to defend the Pauline authorship of all the ten, for in Harrison’s list of 41 words which occur in five Pauline epistles but not in the Pastorals (op. cit. p. 31), only one word out of the first 22 occurs in II Thessalonians! Some, of course, would be perfectly willing to drop II Thessalonians also!

As to e., our knowledge of actual vocabulary in use during the second half of the first century a.d., in comparison with the first half of the second century a.d., is far too scanty to be able to serve as a trustworthy criterion. How often has it not happened that words which were formerly considered “late” suddenly turned up in newly discovered writings of a much earlier date? The idea that the use of “classical” words indicates a second century a.d. author looks like begging the question. Why should it be accounted unreasonable to assume that Paul himself wrote the Pastorals, and that he derived his knowledge of “classical” vocabulary from his own reading or listening? Had he not been a student in his youth? Did Gamaliel’s curriculum provide nothing in the line of ancient and contemporary literature? Is it not true that the Paul whom we have learned to know from the ten recognized epistles must have had a rather extensive knowledge (direct or indirect) of Greek authors, so that he was able to quote Menander (I Cor. 15:33) and Aratus (Acts 17:28)? Is it absurd to posit the possibility that during his lengthy first imprisonment (and according to some perhaps even during his second imprisonment, cf. II Tim. 4:13) the apostle added to this knowledge by now and then making excursions into extra-canonical literature? We know, at any rate, that some of the words not found elsewhere in the New Testament but used both by the author of the Pastorals and by writers of the second century a.d. were also used by the apostle’s contemporaries. Who will dare to maintain that many other words may not also have been in common use as early as the first century a.d. or even earlier?⁶

The similarity in vocabulary which appears when the Pastorals are compared with Christian writings of the second century a.d. does not necessarily mean that whoever wrote I Timothy, II Timothy, and Titus flourished in the days of the Apostolic Fathers and Apologists. It could also mean that these second century Christian authors had read, studied, and to a certain extent copied or paraphrased Paul!

As to f., the frequent use of words and idioms derived from the Latin, this argument hangs by a slender thread! The critics are able to point to a total of no more than two Latin words in the three Pastorals, namely,

μεμβράνα (Latin membrana), parchment, II Tim. 4:13; and (same passage)

φελόνης (Latin paenula), which has been variously interpreted as cloak, book-cover, brief-case. But Latin words also occur in those epistles which even by the critics are ascribed to Paul: θριαμβεύω, to lead in triumph (cf. Latin triumphus), II Cor. 2:14; Col. 2:15; μάκελλον, meat-market (Latin macellum), I Cor. 10:25; and πραιτώριον, Praetorian Guard (Latin praetorium), Phil. 1:13. Besides, in his Gospel and Acts, Luke, who had been Paul’s companion, and who, according to II Tim. 4:11, was again with him during the apostle’s second imprisonment, uses almost half of a total of about thirty different Latin words that occur in the New Testament. If Paul’s frequent companion can use Latin words, why cannot Paul do the same?

It is true that echoes of the Latin have also been heard in such expressions as:

δεσπότης;	(dominus), I Tim. 6:1, 2; 2:21; Tit. 2:9, master, lord
δίλογος	(bilinguis in one of its meanings), I Tim. 3:8, double-tongued
ἑδραίωμα	(firmamentum), I Tim. 3:15, support, bulwark, foundation
εὐσέβεια	(pietas), I Tim. 2:2; 4:7, 8, piety, reverence, devotion, godly living, godliness, religion
ματαιολογία	(vaniloquium), I Tim. 1:6, futile talk
οἱ ἡμέτεροι	(nostri), Tit. 3:14, “our folk,” our people
πρόσκλισις	(inclinatio), I Tim. 5:21, inclination, partiality
πρόκριμα	(praeiudicium), I Tim. 5:21, pre-judging, prejudice
σεμνότης	(gravitas), I Tim. 2:2; 3:4; Tit. 2:7, dignity, respectability, gravity, seriousness
χάριν ἔχειν	(gratiam habere), I Tim. 1:12, to acknowledge gratitude

But in connection with this, observe the following:

1. Words and phrases which remind one of parallels that are very common in Latin are also found in other New Testament writings.⁷

2. Even during the first century a.d. Greek and Latin had reached the stage of mutual loaning and back-and-forth translation.

3. What may look like a copied idiom may be simply the result of parallel development in cognate languages.

Besides, even though one should admit a considerable measure of influence from the Latin upon the Greek of the Pastorals, would this in any way prove that Paul could not have written them? Is it not entirely natural that a man who had at last reached the world’s metropolis, where very recently he had spent not less than two years, a man, moreover, who was highly susceptible to environmental influences and eagerly desirous of becoming all things to all men, would now begin to make even fuller use of “Roman” diction and phraseology than he had done heretofore? On this point the argument of the critics would seem to break down completely!

With respect to g., these illustrations readily vanish upon closer examination. Thus, it is claimed that Paul uses the term faith in the subjective sense (reliance on God and on his promises), but that the author of the Pastorals uses it in the objective sense (creed, body of truth). But, to begin with the Pastorals, the expression “faith and love that are in Christ Jesus” (I Tim. 1:14) indicates the exercise of these virtues. “To continue in faith and love and holiness” (see I Tim. 2:15) also illustrates the subjective use. And when the author teaches that one obtains “salvation through faith in Christ Jesus,” everyone immediately understands that he is speaking about the attitude and exercise of trust in the Redeemer (hence, again subjective sense). See also I Tim. 3:13; 6:11, 12 and II Tim. 1:13; 3:10; 4:7. — And as to the ten epistles, their author does not always use the term in the subjective sense. Thus, in Gal. 1:23 he speaks about “preaching the faith.” In Gal. 6:10 he uses the expression, “those who are of the household of the faith.” And Phil. 1:27: “striving for the faith of the gospel,” furnishes another excellent example of the objective use. Moreover, it is not at all surprising that in the Pastorals Paul, being a man who is about to depart from this life, should be concerned about the preservation of “the truth,” and should, accordingly, frequently employ the term “faith” in this objective sense (I Tim. 1:19; 3:9; 4:1; 5:8; 6:10; II Tim. 3:8; Titus 1:13).

As to the other examples that are supposed to prove that when the author of the three uses a Pauline word it frequently attains an altogether different meaning, thus proving that the apostle cannot have written the three, it is not at all clear why one and the same author would not be able to use the verb “to take up” both with respect to the “taking up” of spiritual weapons and the “being taken up” of Jesus into heaven. Similarly, the fact that the expression “the letter,” singular, is used in one sense, but the term “letters,” plural, in a different sense, is not so strange. Many languages contain idioms of this character: for example, to take in fresh air, singular, is very necessary, but to give oneself airs, plural, is not advisable. And is it not true that in those epistles which even by the critics are assigned to Paul the terms “flesh” and “law” are used in more than one sense, just as the author of the Fourth Gospel uses the term “world” in several senses?

Finally, anent h., in expository or argumentative discourses — think especially of Romans, I and II Corinthians, Galatians — we can naturally expect a much wider use of particles of transition and inference than in a manual of warnings and directives for “pastors.” In the latter we look for and find the imperative mood.

In brief, here is Paul, “the aged” (thus self-styled already in Philemon 9), writing a letter. Does a man of advancing years use the vocabulary of a younger person? In spite of vigorous denials, is it not possible that age and the experience of imprisonment, whether in the recent past or at the very moment of writing, might have something to do with vocabulary and/or grammar?

The author of the Pastorals is writing to intimate fellow-workers, his own deputies. Today when a minister of a large congregation gives advice to his “assistant” with whom he is on good terms, does he employ the Sunday pulpit-oratory style?

In writing to his assistants the author advises them how the church should be organized, what kind of elders should be appointed, what should be done about heretics, etc. Do subjects of this nature require the vocabulary which one would use in expounding to the congregation the doctrine of “justification by faith” (Romans) or of “the unity of all believers in Christ” (Ephesians)? N. J. D. White, op. cit., pp. 63, 65, 66, accounts for some of the new words that occur in the Pastorals by showing that their presence is quite natural in letters which condemn heresies. He places such terms under the heading “Polemical phraseology in reference to false teaching.” An example is “profane chatter:”

In conclusion, we would like to ask the critics, At the beginning of his writing-career was the apostle handed a list of words with the requirement that, no matter what the circumstances might be, either of himself or of the readers, and no matter what might be the purpose of any epistle or the subject on which he would write, he must invariably use these words, and only these words, and, in addition, must distribute them in equal proportion ever all his letters, like the spots on a polka-dot dress? In actual, physical compass the literary heritage which Paul has left us is not at all imposing: a mere 138 small pages of print in N.N. (for the ten epistles). Do we have any right to assume that what is written on these 138 pages (reduced to 67 larger pages in the English Bible that lies on my desk) comprises Paul’s total vocabulary and syntax, so that any deviation (either in words or in grammar) which one encounters in the Pastorals proves that the latter must be ascribed to another author? Has any person the right to apply to Paul’s writings a criterion which would do away with much of Milton, Shelley, and Carlyle, if it were applied to their writings?

The argument based on vocabulary and grammar leads nowhere. Even the staunchest defender of the authenticity of the Pastorals will readily grant that there is a remarkable difference in vocabulary, when these three are compared to the ten, just as there is considerable variation when each of the three is compared with either or both of the others. It is entirely possible that the explanations which have been given — such as, Paul’s age and imprisonment (past or present), the character of the readers, the subjects covered, the purpose — do not fully account for these differences. Other factors may also have been operative, for example, the rapid advance and development of the church as a new entity, growing, changing, vigorous, and of necessity developing a new phraseology. Such expressions as “guard the deposit,” “follow doctrine,” and “man of God” are by White considered to belong to this category. Here, we may assume, Paul is using phraseology which he hears round about him. It has also been suggested that Paul’s “secretary” or “secretaries” may have influenced the final product to some extent. On this point see footnote 193.

The point to note, however, is this: the burden of proof rests entirely on the negative critic! It is not the conservative believer who claims that vocabulary and grammar prove Paul to have been the author, but it is the critic who now loudly proclaims that vocabulary and grammar indicate that Paul could not have been the author. The literary critics of the early centuries, who were well aware of grammar and style peculiarities, and therefore called in question the Pauline authorship of Hebrews, never had any such difficulty with the Pastorals! The modern critic has failed completely to prove with respect to even a single word of the total Pastoral vocabulary, that Paul could not have written it! I have worked this out in detail in connection with the vocabulary of the second chapter of Titus. See footnote 193.

(2) The style of the Pastorals betrays their forged origin.

Some, in speaking about “style,” use this term in a sense which approaches “vocabulary,” “diction.” This has already been discussed. Others, however, give a broader connotation to the term, and under this heading discuss what the author of the Pastorals says and especially how he says it, the general character of his thoughts and particularly the manner in which he expresses them. We shall here take the term in this broader sense.

On one matter the critics are agreed, namely, on the proposition that the style of the Pastorals points away from Paul. But as soon as the question is raised, “Why is this true?” the answers divide and become contradictory, some asserting that the style itself is altogether un-Pauline, others that it reminds one at so many points of Paul that a forger, a conscious imitator, must have been at work. He must have had a copy of Paul’s genuine epistles in front of him. From these he copied phrase upon phrase, acting as if he were Paul!

From this confusion in the camp of the critics there is only one safe retreat, namely, a candid examination of the actual facts. These point to Paul as the author. Observe the following:

We find in these short letters the same kind of a person as is revealed in the ten. It is the character of Paul which is here reflected, just as, for example, in I Thessalonians and II Thessalonians. See N.T.C. on I and II Thessalonians, p. 22. The author of the Pastorals is deeply interested in those whom he addresses, namely, in Timothy and Titus, displaying warm affection for them (I Tim. 1:2; 5:23; 6:11, 12; II Tim. 1:2, 5, 6, 7; 2:1, 2, 15, 16; 4:1, 2, 15; Tit. 1:4). He shares their experiences and is fond of commending whatever is good in them (II Tim. 1:8; 3:10–15; 4:5–8; Tit. 1:4). He ascribes to the sovereign grace of God whatever good there is in himself or in those addressed (I Tim. 1:12–17; 4:14; II Tim. 1:6, 7, 13, 14; 2:1). He shows wonderful tact in counseling (I Tim. 1:18; 4:6, 11–16; 5:1; 6:11–16; II Tim. 1:2–7; Tit. 1:4; 2:7). He takes up, one by one, matters of special concern to Timothy and Titus (evident to anyone who reads these three short letters from beginning to end). He is anxious to see them (II Tim. 1:4; 4:9, 11; Tit. 3:12).

He is, moreover, fond of the figure of speech called litotes, that is, affirmation by negation of the opposite. This may be viewed as a kind of understatement or miosis. Thus, instead of saying that he is “proud” of preaching Christ, he states that he is “not ashamed” of the One whom he has believed (II Tim. 1:12; cf. 1:8, 16). Similarly he affirms that the Word of God is “not chained” (II Tim. 2:9) and that God is the One who does “not lie” (Tit. 1:2). This reminds strongly of Paul, the man who declared that he was a citizen “of no mean city” (Acts 21:39); that he had “not been disobedient” to the heavenly vision (Acts 26:19); that he was “not ashamed of the gospel” (Rom. 1:16); that his entering in among the Thessalonians was “not emptyhanded” (I Thess. 2:1); that his appeal did “not spring from delusion” (I Thess. 2:3); that he does not want the readers to be in ignorance (I Thess. 4:13); and that they “must not become weary in well-doing” (II Thess. 3:13).

He is fond of enumerations. Thus, he groups virtues or vices, listing them in series (I Tim. 3:1–12; 6:4, 5; II Tim. 3:2–5; 3:10, 11; Tit. 3:3). This is exactly what Paul does in the other epistles (see Rom. 1:29–32; II Cor. 12:20; Gal. 5:19–23).

He is not averse to introducing here and there a “play upon words.” Thus he admonishes the rich to fix their hope on him who gives richly (I Tim. 6:17). He contrasts “lovers of pleasure” with “lovers of God” (II Tim. 3:4). He informs us that one of the purposes of the inspired writings is “that the man of God may be complete (or equipped), furnished completely (or thoroughly equipped) for every good work” (II Tim. 3:17, a passage where the R.S.V., by its translation, misses the evidently intentional play upon words). And he admonishes Timothy that in preaching the Word he must “be on hand in season, out of season.”

Here again one thinks inevitably of Paul and his fondness for the same stylistic characteristic. It is Paul who, cognizant of the fact that the name Jew (cf. Judah) indicates “let him (that is, God) be praised,” writes, “But he is a Jew … whose praise is not of men but of God” (Rom. 2:29). It is also Paul who makes use of the fact that the name of a fugitive slave, namely, Onesimus, means useful, beneficial, profitable: “I appeal to you in the interest of my child … Onesimus, who once was unprofitable (or useless) to you, but now is profitable (or useful) to you and to me:”

Again, Paul likes “compendious compounds” (E. K. Simpson). He often chooses terms that are composed of several words (often one or more prepositions plus a verb). Thus, it is he who says that the Holy Spirit helps us in our weakness. Now this word help originally meant “he lays hold of (λαμβάνεται) along with (σύν) a person, either facing that person or else taking his turn, so that he carries the burden instead of (ἀντί) that person. The entire verb is συναντιλαμβάνεται.⁸

Here also the Pastorals resemble the ten, witness such compounds as καταστρηνιάσωσιν they grow wanton, I Tim. 5:11), διαπαρατριβαί (mutual altercations or incessant friction, I Tim. 6:5), εὐμετάδοτοι (ready to share with others, generous, I Tim. 6:18), θεόπνευστος (God-breathed, II Tim. 3:16), and αὐτοκατάκριτος (self-condemned, Tit. 3:11).

Paul’s love for phrases “in apposition” — see, for example, Rom. 12:1, “to present yourselves as a living sacrifice … (which is) your service according to reason (or reasonable worship)” — is well-known and can be illustrated by several passages from the ten epistles. Similar instances of apposition occur throughout the Pastorals. See, for example, I Tim. 1:17; 3:15, 16; 4:10, 14; 6:14, 15; II Tim. 1:2; 2:1; Tit. 1:1, 10; 2:14.

The sudden breaking in of doxologies, which feature one has met in studying the ten (see Rom. 9:5; 11:36; 16:27; Eph. 1:3 ff.; 3:20) appears once more in the Pastorals (I Tim. 1:17; 6:15, 16; II Tim. 4:18; and cf. other instances of elevated style — “near-doxologies” — in I Tim. 3:16; Tit. 2:13, 14).

The expression of personal unworthiness (Eph. 3:8; I Cor. 15:9) recurs in I Tim. 1:13; the “if not … then how” phraseology (I Cor. 14:6, 7, 9) is found also in I Tim. 3:5; moreover, who but the Paul whom we have learned to know from the ten could have penned that intensely personal and exuberant line, “I have fought the noble fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith,” etc. (II Tim. 4:7, 8)?

A glance at those phrases in the Pastorals which Harrison has underscored (to indicate that they are also found in the ten) adds to the accumulation of evidence in favor of Pauline authorship, though it was not Harrison’s intention to bolster that conclusion.

The argument according to which Paul cannot have written the Pastorals because the style of certain passages in the ten is not characteristic of I Timothy, II Timothy, and Titus proves either nothing or too much. Is there any author of note who always, under all circumstances, at every period of his life, and no matter to whom or on what subject he writes, employs the same unvaried style?

We admit, of course, that there is a striking contrast between the lengthy and involved, sentence-structure of such passages as Eph. 1:3–14; Phil. 2:5–8, on the one hand, and many short and pithy admonitions of the Pastorals, on the other. But is this comparison fair? Lengthy sentences are not entirely wanting in the Pastorals (see I Tim. 1:5–7; 1:8–11; 1:18–20; 2:5–7; etc.). Brief statements abound in the ten.

Neither is it fair to contrast the exuberant tone of certain paragraphs in the ten with the much calmer and more matter-of-fact manner of expression which characterizes much of the material of the Pastorals. One should not compare I Tim. 2:8–15 with the vigorous climax of Romans 8 but with the somewhat similar paragraph: I Cor. 11:1–16. Neither should one place Tit. 3:9–14 next to I Cor. 13 but next to I Thess. 5:12–22. If variation in style proves different authorship, then the author of I Cor. 13 cannot have written the letter to Philemon, and the author of Romans 8 cannot even have written Romans 13!

Moreover, is it not entirely natural that the man who was well along in years when he wrote the Pastorals should now, as the race was drawing to a close, employ a more reserved style? Are we surprised that rather often in the Pastorals we notice that the rugged fervor and fiery vigor of earlier years has disappeared?

When the Pastorals are compared with those sections in the ten which form the basis for legitimate comparison, it becomes evident — as has been indicated by numerous examples — that their style is characteristically Pauline. In fact, so signally Pauline is the style of these three short letters that several critics are willing to make a concession. They grant that here and there one encounters genuinely Pauline material; for example, the personal notes found in II Tim. 4:6–22. In that paragraph Timothy is urged to come before winter and to take along the prisoner’s “cloak” and books, especially the parchments. Demas is represented as a renegade, Luke as true-blue. There is a brief sketch of the “first defence.” And personal greetings are extended to several individuals. — A somewhat similar passage is Tit. 3:12.

Now though some critics (especially some of the earlier ones) have been bold enough to consider also these personal notes to be the work of a clever falsifier, who tried to lend color and verisimilitude to his crafty literary product, and who invented unreal — but seemingly real — situations in order to attain this end, meanwhile breathing the air of profoundest regard for the truth, this solution has not found general acceptance.

It is objectionable from many an angle. It is hardly probable that a forger would have used so many personal names. Moreover, he would have been hard-pressed to make his personal notes sound so real and lifelike. He surely would not have spoken in such an uncomplimentary tone about Demas (II Tim. 4:10), who by Paul elsewhere is never pictured as a deserter, a man who had fallen in love with the world (contrast Col. 4:14; Philemon 24).

But is the alternative which other negative critics propose any better? That alternative would make of the author of the Pastorals a second century dove-tailer who took certain genuine Pauline passages, fitted them into his own composition, and thus created the impression that Paul was the author of the whole.

But this theory does not explain how it is that the transitions from genuine to forged material are so unobtrusive. As has been remarked, one would expect the seams to show! And besides, is it not strange that of the earlier correspondence between the great apostle and his associates only a few genuine personal notes have remained? In brief, the theory is vulnerable from several aspects, and today is rejected by many of the negative critics themselves. Albert Schweitzer who, as one could have expected, denies the Pauline authorship of the Pastorals, remarks that the repeated attempts to discover in them “short notes written by Paul” is “in vain.”⁹

Now, the true alternative to the “scissors and paste” or “jigsaw-puzzle” theory of the critics is not total denial of Pauline authorship but, in conformity with the data which have been presented, acceptance of Pauline authorship for the entire contents. The argument from style, when all the facts are examined, points in only one direction, namely, to Paul as the author of the Pastorals.

3. The theology is not that of Paul. The cross is no longer in the center. There is undue stress on good works.

One stands amazed that this argument is still being repeated. Any reader of the English Bible who carefully studies the Pastorals from beginning to end, and who is acquainted with Paul’s doctrine as unfolded in the other ten epistles can easily answer the critics on this point.

It is true, of course, that here in the Pastorals there is no detailed exposition of the doctrine of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ apart from the works of the law. Nevertheless, that doctrine is clearly stated in more than one passage, and is assumed throughout.

The truth is that the doctrine which is taught and presupposed in the Pastorals is clearly the same as that which is held before us in the ten:

The redeemed have been chosen from eternity. They are called the elect (II Tim. 2:10; cf. Eph. 1:4; I Thess. 1:4).

Their salvation is due to the grace of God in Christ, and not to human works (I Tim. 1:14; II Tim. 1:9; Tit. 3:5; cf. Gal. 2:16; Rom. 3:21–24).

Christ is God (Tit. 2:13; cf. Rom. 9:5; Phil. 2:6; Col. 2:9).

He is the Mediator between God and man, himself man, our Lord Jesus Christ (I Tim. 2:5; cf. Rom. 9:5; I Cor. 8:4, 6).

His purpose in coming into the world and assuming the human nature was to save sinners, of whom Paul considers himself chief (I Tim. 1:15; cf. II Cor. 8:9; I Cor. 15:9; Eph. 3:8).

Men are saved through faith in this divine and human Mediator Jesus Christ (II Tim. 1:12; cf. Rom. 1:17; Eph. 2:8).

This faith implies mystic union with Christ: dying with him, living with him; enduring with him, reigning with him (II Tim. 2:11, 12; cf. Rom. 6:8; 8:17).

Good works are necessary (I Tim. 2:10; 6:11, 18; II Tim. 2:22; 3:17), and are to be viewed as the fruit of God’s grace (hence, also the fruit of faith) operating in the believer (Tit. 2:11–14; 3:4–8; cf. Gal. 5:22–24; Eph. 2:10).

The glory of God is the chief purpose of man (I Tim. 6:16; II Tim. 4:18; cf. Rom. 11:36; 16:27).

Where, in all this, is there contrast in doctrine, a contrast supposedly so marked and definite that the author of the ten cannot have been the author of the three? When, even in recent literature, such a thoroughly unwarranted position is still being defended, and no evidence of any kind is furnished, one is led to ask, “Is the higher criticism scholarly?”

Most appropriately God, in his providence, has seen to it that in Paul’s final three epistles the fruit (good works) of faith is emphasized, the nature of faith and its necessity over against law-works having been fully set forth in the letters which preceded. The tree is first; then comes the fruit.

4. The Pastorals controvert second century gnosticism, especially Marcionism. Now Marcion was expelled from the Roman church in the year 144 a.d. Hence, the Pastorals must have been written about this time, that is, not earlier than the second quarter of the second century. This shows that Paul cannot have been the author.

To lend support to the view that whoever wrote the Pastorals is here combating the views of second century gnostics the following points are usually emphasized:

(a) The “genealogies” (I Tim. 1:4; Tit. 3:9) are the second century gnostic “aeons” which emanate from the bosom of God.

(b) The “fables” or “myths” (Tit. 1:14) represent second century gnostic speculations.

(c) The ascetic practices against which the author issues a warning when he condemns the views of those who forbid marriage and who enjoin abstinence from foods (I Tim. 4:3) point to Marcion who practiced the strictest asceticism, revolting from marriage, meat, and wine.

(d) The denial of a physical resurrection (II Tim. 2:18) was a feature of second century gnostic dualism.

(e) The affirmation that all Scripture is inspired and useful (II Tim. 3:16), and that there is only one God (I Tim. 2:5) cannot fail to remind one of Marcion, who rejected all the books of the Old Testament and drew a sharp antithesis between the merely just Jehovah of the Old Testament and the gracious God of the (i.e., of Marcion’s mutilated edition of the) New Testament.

(f) The “very title of Marcion’s book” (“Antitheses”) in I Tim. 6:20, clinches the argument! Surely one who mentions the title of the work of an author who flourished in the second century cannot have been Paul, who died in the first century!

It is, indeed, very strange that by some this six-point argument, which has been so often and so ably refuted, is still being repeated, either as a whole or in part, as if it contained at least a considerable element of value. The answer is clear and simple:

With respect to (a): The “genealogies,” in the light of the entire context, are clearly Jewish in character. One is immediately reminded of those which are found in the book of Genesis (cf. also Chronicles). Embellishing speculations with reference to Old Testament names and stories abound in the Book of Jubilees. The Jews were past masters in the art of eisegesis (introducing one’s own thoughts and sentiments into a passage; opposed to exegesis: bringing out the author’s own meaning). Now Marcion himself fails to discuss aeons. One must not confuse his teaching with that of Valentinus. But nowhere in gnostic literature is the term “genealogy” used as a synonym for “aeon.”

With respect to (b): The “fables” or “myths” are definitely called Jewish (Tit. 1:14). Hence, it simply is not fair to equate them with the vagaries of second century gnosticism.

With respect to (c): The critics seem to forget that the apostle Paul warned against similar ascetic tendencies in Col. 2:16–23. Must we conclude, then, that Colossians also belongs to the second century?

Besides, we may readily grant that I Tim. 4:3 warns against ascetic gnosticism, such as that of Marcion. But that does not prove that the author was Marcion’s contemporary. There is nothing here that disproves the fact that a first century author, namely, Paul, was able, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to predict a second century development of an error which, in its incipient form, was present already in his own day.

With respect to (d): Denial of a physical resurrection is “as old as the hills.” It manifested itself in different forms. Sometimes the idea that the body will rise again was frankly and directly rejected. At other times the rejection was by implication, just as in our own day: a spiritual meaning was assigned to the term resurrection. This was done, for example, by the heretics described in II Tim. 2:18. In any event, in view of Paul’s lengthy argument in I Cor. 15 against those who said, “There is no resurrection of the dead,” it is evident that the statement, “The resurrection is past already” (II Tim. 2:18) does not prove what the critics are trying to prove. It does not prove that Paul cannot have written the Pastorals!

With respect to (e): The passages to which reference is made should be read in the light of their own specific contexts. Then it becomes clear that when the author is speaking of one God, he is not contrasting a New Testament God with an Old Testament “demiurge.” Neither is he placing the Old Testament in antithetical relationship to the New when he uses the expression “all Scripture.” He is contrasting the wrong with the right use of Scripture. If proper use is made of Scripture so that one abides in its clear teaching, the conclusion will prove inescapable that “all Scripture is inspired of God and profitable.”

Finally, with respect to (f): If this has any value, it would amount to the syllogism:

Major Premise: The author of the Pastorals makes use of the term “antitheses.”

Minor Premise: Marcion, a second century heretic, also makes use of the term “antitheses,” using it as the title of a book which he wrote.

Conclusion: Therefore, the author of the Pastorals must have been acquainted with Marcion’s book.

Similarly, one might say:

Major Premise: The author of the book of Genesis writes about Paradise, the river, the tree of life, the serpent.

Minor Premise: The apostle John, a late first century a.d. author, employs these same terms in his book of Revelation.

Conclusion: Hence, the author of the book of Genesis must have read the book of Revelation!

Now anyone who reads I Tim. 6:20 with an unbiased mind and in the light of the entire epistle will easily reach the conclusion that in speaking of “antitheses” what the author has in mind is not Marcion’s contrast between Christianity and Judaism but the conflicting opinions of those who speculated in Jewish genealogies! Surely, a merely verbal coincidence between a word used by one author and a title used by another cannot do duty as a convincing argument with respect to authorship.

In addition to what has been said in answer to the argument of the critics, note the following:

It is being increasingly recognized today that gnosticism did not arise full-blown in the second century but had its origin much farther back in history. Besides, it is not an organically unified system but a speculative religious syncretism or accretion, to which not only Platonic philosophy but also Oriental mysticism, Cabbalistic Judaism, and Christianity contributed. Hence, though it is certainly true that the heresy condemned in the Pastorals had certain traits in common with second century gnosticism, this by no means identifies the two.

The error against which the Pastorals warn is both present (I Tim. 1:3–7, 19; 4:7; 6:4, 5, 9, 10, 17; II Tim. 2:16–18; Tit. 1:10–16; 3:9) and future (I Tim. 4:1–3; II Tim. 3:1–9) — taken together it spans the entire new dispensation until Christ’s return —; both chiefly doctrinal (I Tim. 4) and chiefly moral (II Tim. 3); both within and without the gate.

One fact, however, is very evident, namely, that in the main, the error which is here condemned has reference to the Old Testament law and its interpretation (see I Tim. 1:7; cf. 6:4, 5; II Tim. 4:4; Tit. 1:14; 3:9). Here lies the emphasis. And it was exactly this law with which second century gnosticism would have nothing to do! Hence, there is nothing here which compels one to hunt for a second century author. On the contrary, everything points to the first century and to Paul’s day and age.

For the reasons indicated it is not surprising that even among the critics the more careful authors no longer mention “the argument based upon the heresy that is here condemned.” It seems that they would like to forget that it was ever seriously used against the Pauline authorship of the Pastorals.

(5) The Pastorals reveal a marked advance in ecclesiastical organization, far beyond the time of Paul. In his day there was as yet no official ministry. When the Pastorals were written, on the other hand, there was a rather complex organization, with salaried officials whose qualifications had become standardized.

One critic calls this “the chief argument” proving that Paul cannot have written the Pastorals. Some try to “strengthen” it by affirming that the beginning of pyramidal organization is evident from the fact that while the Pastorals recognize only one “bishop” (I Tim. 3:1, 2; Tit. 1:7), they speak of many “presbyters” or “elders” (Tit. 1:5) who are evidently serving under him.

Other critics, however, scrupulously avoid making reference to the argument in any form. Apparently also in this case they would like to forget that anyone ever brought it up. And, indeed, among the many poor arguments that have been presented in defence of the thesis that Paul cannot have written the Pastorals this is one of the poorest. The facts are as follows:

(a) The entire conception according to which ecclesiastical office (divine commission with implied authority over life and doctrine) was a late development is erroneous. It simply is incorrect to say that at first there was nothing else than spontaneous leadership based only on spiritual endowment, and that at a later time this made way for elective office. See N.T.C. on the Gospel of John, Vol. II, pp. 461, 462. It is true, of course, that the extraordinary offices were gradually replaced by the ordinary. The Pastorals are Paul’s last writings. It is not surprising, therefore, that the “ordinary” office of “overseer” or “elder” comes into prominence here.

(b) The notion that in Paul’s day there was as yet no official ministry is in conflict with the facts mentioned by Scripture. Jerusalem had its deacons (men who “served tables”) long before Paul went on his missionary journeys (Acts 6:1–6). From very early times the church also had its elders (Acts 11:30), an office which in a way was a natural outgrowth of the institution of elders in ancient Israel. Already on his first missionary journey Paul “appointed for them elders in every church” (Acts. 14:23). It has been indicated that in one of the earliest letters written by Paul there is definite mention of “those who labor among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you” (see N.T.C. on I Thess. 5:12, 13). On the return from his third missionary journey Paul “calls to him the elders of the church” (of Ephesus or of Ephesus and surroundings). He characterizes them as “overseers” over God’s flock, even the church “which the Lord purchased with his own blood” (Acts 20:17, 28). In a prison-epistle both “overseers and deacons” are mentioned (Phil. 1:1).

Now on the basis of all this it surely should cause no surprise that in the epistles which the apostle wrote just before his death the office of “overseers” or “elders” is recognized as well-known. It is also very natural that Paul, about to depart from this earthly realm, should specify certain qualifications and regulations for office, so that the church might be guarded against the ravages of error, both doctrinal and moral.

(c) In the Pastorals the term “elder” (or “presbyter”) and “overseer” (or “bishop”) are clearly synonymous, as is proved by Tit. 1:5–7 (cf. I Tim. 3:1–7; Phil. 1:1; I Peter 5:1, 2). See on that passage.

(d) The episcopate, a system of ecclesiastical government in which the bishop rules over the presbyters, seems to have arisen during the obscure transition period: the end of the first and the beginning of the second century. It emerges step by step and becomes evident first of all in the epistles of Ignatius of Antioch (who was sent to his martyrdom about the year 110 a.d.), where it appears as congregational (not diocesan) episcopacy.¹⁰ Now this very fact indicates that the Pastorals, in which the “overseer” or “bishop” is simply another name for the “elder” or “presbyter,” point back to the first century and away from the second.

(6) Since Paul was not released from his one and only Roman imprisonment but was put to death at the end of it, and since the book of Acts, which tells the story of his life from the time when he persecuted the church until the end of his imprisonment, leaves no room for the journeys that are implied in the Pastorals, therefore Paul cannot have written these letters.

J. Moffatt boldly declares that as a matter of fact Paul was not released from his imprisonment.¹¹ This view has been advocated both before and especially after him by many others.

Now if that be correct, then the critics have won the argument, for it is indeed true that the Pastoral Epistles imply a number of journeys which cannot be fitted into the itineraries of Paul that are recorded in the book of Acts, and, in fact, for which no room can be found in the life-span of the apostle as covered in Acts. The following will make this clear:

As to I Timothy, the author reminds Timothy of the fact that the latter had been instructed to stay behind in Ephesus while the author was headed north-westward from Ephesus toward Macedonia (I Tim. 1:3). He also informs him (Timothy) that he (the author) hopes to come to him shortly (I Tim. 3:14).

Now according to Acts, on his first missionary journey Paul never crossed over into Europe (toward Macedonia) at all. On his second journey: on the outward-bound trip the Holy Spirit prevented him from speaking the word in Asia (Acts 16:6); hence, he was not in Ephesus; and on the homeward-bound trip he went from Corinth in an easterly direction to Ephesus, then toward the south-east, by way of Cesarea to Antioch (Acts 18:18–23). On the third journey, outward-bound, Paul did, indeed, perform a mighty task in Ephesus (Acts 19). He continued there for a long time (three years, Acts 20:31) and he also afterward crossed over into Macedonia (Acts 20:1). But this time Timothy was not left behind in Ephesus, but was sent to Macedonia and Corinth (Acts 19:21, 22; I Cor. 4:17; 16:10), and soon is back with Paul in Macedonia (II Cor. 1:1). With Paul he then goes to Corinth, returns with him to Macedonia, awaits him at Troas, and is probably with him in Jerusalem (Rom. 16:21; Acts 20:3–5; I Cor. 16:3). Finally, on the trip to Rome, Ephesus was left far to the north. Arrived in Rome, the two-year imprisonment followed. And with the recording of that event the book of Acts closes. It is clear that nowhere in this account in Acts is there any room for the journey presupposed in I Timothy.

With respect to Titus the situation is similar. According to this Pastoral Epistle the writer has left Titus in Crete to complete the organization of churches on that island (Tit. 1:5). He now instructs his fellow-worker to meet him at Nicopolis (in Epirus on the east coast of the Ionian Sea), where he expects to spend the winter (Tit. 3:12).

But according to Acts, on none of his three missionary journeys did Paul get anywhere near Crete. And on the journey to Rome, though he and Luke did sail “under the lee of Crete,” and did reach Fair Havens, the apostle is pictured as a prisoner, who is not carrying on any evangelistic work on the island and who has nothing whatever to say about the place where he expects to spend the winter or where he desires to meet Titus (see Acts 27:7–15).

And finally, II Timothy pictures a prisoner (in Rome, cf. II Tim. 1:17), considered “a malefactor” (II Tim. 2:9), on the eve of his execution. The prospect, humanly speaking (but see II Tim. 4:7, 8!), is very gloomy. Only after diligent search does Onesiphorus succeed in finding Paul (II Tim. 1:16, 17). Release is nowhere in sight. Nearly everyone has left him. Luke alone is with him (II Tim. 1:15; 4:10, 11). The time of departure from the earthly scene has (or has just about) arrived (II Tim. 4:6, 18).

In sharp contrast with this, the description of the Roman imprisonment which is recorded in Acts and in Paul’s prison-epistles (previous imprisonments certainly do not enter into the picture in this connection) closes hopefully (see also p. 26). The apostle is living in his own hired dwelling, and expects to be released shortly (Acts 28:30; Phil. 1:25, 26; 2:24; Philemon 22).

The conclusion is inescapable: if Paul wrote the Pastorals, he must have been released from that Roman imprisonment which is recorded in the book of Acts. He must have made further journeys, and he must have been imprisoned once more.

For a long time critics (intimidated by the prestige of Moffatt?) either denied the historicity of such a release or at least remained agnostic with respect to the subject. Of late, however, there seems to be the beginning of a return to the conservative position. In a recent issue of the Journal of Biblical Literature L. P. Pherigo argues strongly in favor of the position that Paul was actually released from the imprisonment recorded in Acts and that he labored a few years longer.¹²

Now, it should be evident to anyone who is willing to examine the evidence, that the arguments against the position that Paul was released are very weak. For example, the contention that had he been released, the author of Acts would have said so — as if Acts were Paul’s biography! —, is met by the counter-argument, “Had he not been released, Luke certainly would have thus indicated, for the favorable note on which his account ends has caused the readers to expect Paul’s release” (Acts 28:30, 31). — And the conclusion that Paul never returned to Ephesus, hence, cannot have written I Tim. 1:3, an inference which is drawn from the apostle’s statement to the Ephesian elders, namely, “I know that you all, among whom I went about preaching the kingdom, will see my face no more” (Acts 20:25, cf. verse 38), is not warranted. In that passage from Acts the apostle did not say, “I know that I will never return to Ephesus,” but predicted that making the rounds of Asia Minor, confirming all the churches, going from place to place preaching the gospel of the kingdom and thus seeing believers everywhere he went, would never be resumed by him personally. Paul did not even say, “I know that none of you, elders here at Ephesus, will ever see my face again,” but he said, “I know that you all among whom I went about preaching the kingdom will see my face no more.” The apostle was addressing the elders as representatives of the churches of Asia Minor. An occasional brief visit to Ephesus is not excluded. What is excluded is anything comparable to three years of day-by-day Kingdom-activity in the Ephesus-region (see the context, Acts 20:31).¹³

The arguments in favor of the traditional (and, as we see it, correct) position that Paul was, indeed, released from his first Roman imprisonment, made some more journeys, on one of which he wrote I Timothy and Titus, was imprisoned for the second time, during which final imprisonment he wrote II Timothy, and was then executed, are as follows:

a. The book of Acts leads the reader to expect Paul’s release, and may even imply this release.

Luke constantly emphasizes the relative fairness, at times even the friendliness and helpfulness, of the Roman authorities. Rescued by the military tribune out of the hands of the murderous mob at Jerusalem, Paul is permitted to make his defence, first before the people, then before the Jewish council (Acts 21:31–23:9). By the tribune he is rescued once more, this time out of the hands of quarreling Pharisees and Sadducees (Acts 23:10); and even a third time, now from a band of more than forty oath-bound Jews. He is brought to Cesarea. Claudius Lysias writes a letter in his favor (Acts 23:12–35), addressing it to the governor Felix. The latter also permits Paul to make his defence, but desiring to do the Jews a favor, leaves him in prison. When Festus succeeds Felix, the apostle appeals to Cesar. Festus tells King Agrippa that Paul had done nothing worthy of death, and permits him to make his defence before the king. On board a ship on his way to Rome, the apostle is treated kindly by the Roman centurion, Julius (Acts 27:3), who also subsequently saves his life (Acts 27:43). After the storm and the shipwreck, having first been hospitably entertained by the chief of the island of Malta (Acts 28:7), and having afterward covered the final leg of the journey, he arrives at Rome, where he is permitted to stay by himself with a soldier to guard him (Acts 28:16). Though he is a prisoner awaiting trial, he is allowed considerable personal liberty as well as opportunity to preach the gospel (Acts 28:30, 31). — Surely, the notion that he was then condemned and executed is completely out of harmony with the entire preceding account. In fact, it has even been suggested (see the article by Pherigo above referred to) that the expression, “And he lived two whole years” in his own hired dwelling (or “at his own expense”) may have a legal meaning, namely, he waited the full two years (the limit established by law?) during which the accusers had the opportunity to press their charge. No one appearing (does Acts 28:21 hint in this direction?), the trial ended by default, and Paul was released, the legal requirement of two years having come to an end. — Whether or not this interpretation is correct has not been established. The main point is: the closing chapters of Acts point toward release, not toward execution.

b. Paul’s prison-epistles show that he expected to be released (Phil. 1:25–27; 2:24; Philemon 22).

c. The very fact that the Pastoral Epistles, which presuppose journeys that require such a release and re-imprisonment, survived and were accepted by the early church as authentic and inspired, would seem to point in the direction of a strong and early tradition to this effect.

d. Even long before the Roman imprisonment recorded in Acts, the apostle had cherished the desire to go to Spain (Rom. 15:24, 28).

e. That he actually was released, went to Spain, was afterward reimprisoned, and having borne witness before the authorities, was executed, is certainly the most natural interpretation of the much-disputed passage of Clement of Rome, who, writing about the last decade of the first century a.d., from Rome, the hub of the empire, to the Corinthians, admonishing them to put an end to their striving engendered by jealousy, says:

“Paul … having taught righteousness to the whole world, and having gone to the limits of the West, and having given testimony before the rulers, thus passed from the world and was taken up into the Holy Place, having become the outstanding model of endurance” (First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians V. vii).

The expression “the limits of the West,” especially when used by someone who is writing from Rome, the heart and center of the empire, most naturally refers to the extreme western part of Europe.¹⁴

Similarly, the Muratorian fragment mentions Paul’s journey to Spain.¹⁵ And the great church-historian Eusebius states significantly:

“Luke also, who handed down the Acts of the apostles in writing, brought his narrative to a close by the statement that Paul spent two whole years in Rome in freedom, and preached the word of God without hindrance. Tradition has it that the apostle, having defended himself, was again sent upon the ministry of preaching, and coming a second time to the same city, suffered martyrdom under Nero. While he was being held in prison, he composed the second epistle to Timothy, at the same time signifying that his first defence had taken place and that his martyrdom was at hand” (Ecclesiastical History II. xxii. 1, 2). Later tradition also accepts a second Roman imprisonment (Chrysostom, Jerome, Theodore of Mopsuestia, etc.).

It has become clear, accordingly, that the so-called “historical” argument against the possibility that Paul could have written the Pastorals has no more substance than have any of the others. Better reasons will have to be found if the weight of tradition is to be counterbalanced.

Enough has been said to indicate the inadequacy of the arguments of the critics. On the supposition that the Pastorals were the last of Paul’s epistles, written after his first Roman imprisonment, with a purpose quite different from that of the other ten letters, the main problem has been solved, at least to a considerable extent.

According to the information furnished by the Epistles themselves the author was:

(1) A man by the name of “Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus” (I Tim. 1:1; II Tim. 1:1), or “Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ” (Tit. 1:1). Thus we see that these three letters are self-attested, in contrast with Hebrews which does not mention the name of its author. In this respect the three are like the ten.

(2) Not only does the writer name himself; he also describes himself. This description agrees with that which is found in Acts and in the ten with respect to Paul:

a. The “Paul” of both used to be a blasphemer and persecutor (I Tim. 1:12–17; cf. Acts 8:3; 9:1, 2; 22:4, 5; 26:9–11; I Cor. 15:9).

b. Converted, he was divinely appointed to be a preacher and apostle (I Tim. 1:1, 11; 2:7; II Tim. 1:1, 11; Tit. 1:1; cf. Acts 9:15; 22:14, 15; 26:16–18; II Cor. 12:12; Gal. 1:1; 2:7).

c. In the defence of the truth he suffered much, for example, on his journey through Antioch, Iconium, and Lystra (II Tim. 1:12, 13; 3:10, 11; cf. Acts 14; II Cor. 11; I Thess. 1:6; 2:2).

(3) This man writes three letters which, with minor variations, are similar in structure to the ten Pauline epistles. For the nature of Paul’s letter-plan, see N.T.C. on I and II Thess., p. 20. As an example let us take II Timothy. Here we find:

a. The mention of the writer’s name and office (1:1)

b. The designation of the one to whom the letter is addressed (1:2a), with brief description of that person

c. The opening salutation (1:2b)

d. The thanksgiving, blending into the body of the letter (1:3 ff)

e. The concluding salutation, in the present instance rather detailed (4:19–21)

f. The benediction.

Even in such a minor detail as e: the presence or absence of words of greeting at the end of the letter, these three letters exactly resemble the variation which is found among the ten. Thus I Timothy has a closing benediction (6:21b: “Grace be with you”) but no greetings. This reminds one of Galatians (6:18). In II Timothy those who wish to be remembered are mentioned one by one, and there are several names (4:19–21). This resembles what is found at the close of Romans (chapter 16) and of I Corinthians (16:19–21). In Titus, the closing salutation is very general (3:15: “All who are with me send greetings to you”). With this, one should compare II Corinthians (13:13).

(4) These three letters point to the same relation between the writer and the addressed (Timothy and Titus) that we know from letters commonly ascribed to Paul and (in the case of Timothy) from Acts.

It was a relationship of one who is in authority writing to one who recognizes this authority, of spiritual “father” to spiritual “son,” of friend to friend (implying both affection and confidence).

In this connection, for Paul’s relation to Timothy one should compare I Tim. 1:2; II Tim. 1:2 with I Cor. 4:17; 16:10; Phil. 2:19–23; Col. 1:1; I Thess. 3:2; and Philemon 1; and for his relation to Titus one should compare Tit. 1:4 with II Cor. 2:13; 7:6, 13; and 8:17, 23.

(5) These three letters mention by name certain individuals whom, from other sources, we have learned to recognize as companions and co-laborers of Paul. See on II Tim. 4 and on Tit. 3.

(6) They reveal an author whose warm interest in the churches which he had established, whose style, and whose theology point clearly to Paul, as has been shown (see pp. 14–19).

The testimony of the early church is in harmony with the conclusion which has been derived from the three epistles themselves.

Thus Eusebius, having made a thorough investigation of the literature at his command, states: “But clearly evident and plain are the fourteen (letters) of Paul; yet it is not right to ignore that some dispute the (letter) to the Hebrews” (Ecclesiastical History III. iii. 4, 5). Obviously Eusebius, writing at the beginning of the fourth century, knew that the entire orthodox church accepted the Pastorals as having been written by Paul. We have already observed that he makes specific mention of II Timothy as having been composed by the great apostle “while he was being held in prison,” having come for the second time to the same city (Ecclesiastical History II. xxii. 1, 2; and cf. III. ii). The negative attitude of a few heretics (Basilides and Marcion) with respect to all three, and of Tatian and some like-minded persons with respect to I Timothy and II Timothy, was probably due to the fact that the teaching of these men was out of harmony with the contents of the Pastorals. That, at least, is the explanation given by Tertullian, Clement, and Jerome. Surely the opinion of a few heretics must not be placed above the considered judgment of the entire church!

From Eusebius we can go back to Origen (fl. 210–250), who quotes ever so many passages from the Pastorals (for example, in his work Against Celsus: I Tim. 2:1, 2; 3:15, 16; 4:1–5, 10, 17, 18; 6:20; II Tim. 1:3, 10; 2:5; 3:6–8; 4:7, 11, 15, 20, 21; Tit. 1:9, 10, 12; 3:6, 10, 11), and ascribes them to Paul: “Moreover, Paul, who himself also subsequently became an apostle of Jesus, says in his epistle to Timothy: This is a faithful saying, that Jesus Christ came into the world sinners to save, of whom I am chief” (quoting I Tim. 3:15, Against Celsus I. lxiii).

From Origen we can go back still farther, to his teacher, Clement of Alexandria (fl. 190–200). The latter quotes the passage with reference to the “knowledge falsely so called” (I Tim. 6:20, 21), ascribing this passage to “the apostle” (Stromata II. xi). He also quotes the prediction that “in later times some will fall away from the faith” (I Tim. 4:1, 3), referring it to “the blessed Paul” (Stromata III. vi). A look at the Textual Index of Clement’s works (for example, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, reprint 1951, Grand Rapids, Mich., Vol. II) and an actual reading of these passages in the original or even in a good translation suffices to prove that in the works of this early Father there are numerous references to — and actual quotations from — the Pastorals, regarded as having been written by the apostle Paul.

About the same time Tertullian (fl. 193–216), in the short compass of a few lines, quotes several passages from I and II Timothy (I Tim. 6:20; II Tim. 1:14; I Tim. 1:18; 6:13; II Tim. 2:2, in Prescription Against Heretics XXV), definitely declaring that “Paul addressed this expression to Timothy.” We have already seen that he frowns upon Marcion’s rejection of the Pastorals (Against Marcion V. xxi).

Earlier by a few years, but still for a long time a contemporary of Clement of Alexandria and of Tertullian, was Ireneus. He opens his work Against Heresies (about 182–188) with a quotation from I Tim. 1:4 (the passage about the “endless genealogies” which fail to edify), which he definitely ascribes to the apostle (see the Preface to the aforementioned work by Ireneus). In the same work he quotes or alludes to several other passages, for example, I Tim. 1:9 (IV. xvi. 3); 2:5 (V. xvii. 1); 3:15 (III. i. 1); 4:2 (II. xxi. 2), and not only from the first but also from the second epistle to Timothy (II Tim. 2:23; cf. Against Heresies, IV. Preface, 3), and from Titus (Tit. 3:10; cf. Ag. Her., I. xvi. 3). Note especially that in the last passage Ireneus states that it is Paul who commands us to avoid men who give heed to fables.

Now when Ireneus ascribes the Pastorals to “the apostle” namely to “Paul,” his word should carry considerable weight. He had traveled widely, was intimately acquainted with almost the entire church of his day, and had been a pupil of a pupil (Polycarp) of one of the apostles (John).

The Muratorian Fragment (about 180–200), a survey of New Testament books, states that “the blessed Paul … writes … out of affection and love one to Philemon, and one to Titus, and two to Timothy … held sacred in the honorable esteem of the church universal in the regulation of ecclesiastical discipline.”

Among the orthodox writers who flourished at one time or another during the period 90–180 we find that toward the close of that era Theophilus of Antioch refers to “the water and laver of regeneration” (To Autolycus II. xvi), which may be regarded as a collation of Eph. 5:26 and Tit. 3:5. He definitely quotes I Tim. 2:2: “that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life” (Same work, III. xiv).

Athenagoras — sometimes called “the Christian philosopher from the Athenian Agora” (cf. his name Athen — agoras) —, was an Athenian who has been pictured as having one day sauntered into the market-place where the Christians were being mocked, and then, moved by curiosity, having begun to read the Scriptures in order to refute them. It is claimed that in the process of this Scripture-study he was converted. He, a contemporary of Theophilus, describes God as “light inapproachable” (A Plea For the Christians XVI). This certainly reminds one of I Tim. 1:16.

Writing some time between 155 and 161, Justin Martyr also showed that he was acquainted with the Pastorals. It is true that not all the seeming resemblances between certain passages in his writings and the Pastorals have evidential value. Thus, for example, the expression “this very Christ … the Judge of all the living and the dead” (Dialogue with Trypho CXVIII), while reminding one of II Tim. 4:1 (“Christ Jesus who shall judge the living and the dead”), from which, indeed, it may have been derived, was probably a “faithful saying” which had gained currency at a very early stage of Christian belief (see also Acts 10:42; I Peter 4:5; cf. Matt. 25:31–46; John 5:25–29; II Cor. 5:10), so that no argument can be based upon it to prove that Justin knew the Pastorals. However, his reference to “the kindness of God and his love toward man” — note God’s philanthropy! — is almost certainly derived from Tit. 3:4 (“But when the kindness of God … and his love toward man appeared”).

Also when we come to Polycarp (probably writing some time between 100 and 135), we feel that we are on firm ground. The fact that he knew the Pastorals and quoted from them would seem to be indisputable. Let the reader judge for himself:

POLYCARP (To the Philippians)	THE PASTORALS
“But the beginning of all evils is the love of money” (IV).	“For a root of all the evils is the love of money” (I Tim. 6:10).
“Knowing therefore that we brought nothing into the world and that we can take nothing out of it, let us arm ourselves with the armor of righteousness” (IV).	“For nothing did we bring into the world … neither are we able to carry anything out of it” (I Tim. 6:7).
“Likewise must the deacons be … not doubletongued, not lovers of money, temperate in all things …” (V).	“Deacons similarly must be … not doubletongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy of shameful gain” (I Tim. 3:8).
“We shall also reign with him, if, indeed, we have faith” (V).	“If we endure, we shall also reign with him” (II Tim. 2:12).
“For they did not fall in love with the present world” (IX).	“For Demas has deserted me because he fell in love with the present world” (II Tim. 4:10).
“May the Lord grant them true repentance” (XI Lat.).	“… in the hope that possibly God may grant them conversion” (II Tim. 2:15).
“Pray also for the rulers and for potentates and for princes …” (XII Lat.).	“First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, thanksgivings be made in behalf of all men, in behalf of kings and all who are in high positions” (I Tim. 2:1, 2).

Here, clearly, one writer is using the words of another, varying the language somewhat as the need requires. It is surely most natural to conclude that when one writer states “Demas … fell in love with the present world,” and the other refers to persons who “did not fall in love with the present world,” it is the latter writer who is borrowing from the former, and not vice versa. Moreover, if the pupil, Ireneus, ascribed the Pastorals to Paul, as has been shown, is it not probable that the teacher, Polycarp, did the same?

Ignatius (not later than 110), in urging Polycarp to be pleasing to him for whom he is soldiering (To Polycarp VI), immediately reminds one of II Tim. 2:4. (Other assumed resemblances are less convincing.)

Because of their debatable character we pass by a few possible allusions to the Pastorals in the Epistle of Barnabas, and we come, last of all, to Clement of Rome (90–100). The clearest resemblances are the following:

CLEMENT OF ROME (To the Corinthians)	THE PASTORALS
“You were … ready for every good work” (11).	“Remind them to be ready for every good work” (Tit. 3:1).
“… those who with a pure conscience serve his excellent name” (XLV)	“I acknowledge gratitude to God whom I, like my forefathers serve with a pure conscience” (II Tim. 1:3).

Summing up the entire argument regarding authorship we may now safely state the following:

(1) The arguments of the negative critics have been examined in detail and have been found wanting; that is, these critics have failed to prove that Paul could not have written the Pastorals.

(2) According to the evidence of the epistles themselves the author was no one else than the apostle Paul.

(3) Within the orthodox church there is a uniform tradition ascribing the Pastorals to the apostle Paul. This tradition can be traced back from Eusebius at the beginning of the fourth century to Ireneus and the Muratorian Fragment at the close of the second. Moreover, the Pastorals are included not only in this list (the Muratorian) but in all the ancient lists of Pauline epistles, and also in all the manuscripts and versions that have come down to us.

(4) Even in the period a.d. 90–180 we find clear evidence that I and II Timothy and Titus were already in existence, were held in high esteem as the very word of God, and were being frequently quoted and paraphrased. It is true that these early witnesses do not mention Paul by name as the author. Not mentioning authors of New Testament books by name is rather characteristic of them. They and their readers were living so close to the time of the apostles that this was not considered necessary.

a.d.

III. TO WHOM WERE THEY ADDRESSED?

It is natural to turn from the sender to the addressees: Timothy and Titus.

A most remarkable person was Timothy or Timotheus, meaning: honoring or worshiping god, originally a heathen name of very common occurrence,¹⁶ adopted by devout Jews and by Christians, with changed reference, namely, to their God. His character was a blend of amiability and faithfulness in spite of natural timidity. Paul loved Timothy and admired his outstanding personality-traits.

As to Timothy’s amiability, it is concerning him that the apostle wrote these touching words: “Now I hope in the Lord Jesus to send Timothy to you soon, so that I also may be cheered when I get to know about your condition. Indeed, I have no one of similar disposition, who will be genuinely interested in your welfare. For they all look after their own affairs, not those of Jesus Christ. But you know his proved worth, how as a child (serves) with (his) father, so he served with me in the gospel” (Phil. 2:19–22). Indeed, Timothy was the apostle’s “beloved child” (II Tim. 1:2).

As to his unswerving faithfulness and unwavering readiness for the sake of the gospel to sacrifice whatever may have looked like his own immediate interests, this is evident not only from the passage just quoted but also from the fact that none of Paul’s companions is mentioned as often and is with him as constantly as is Timothy. In the very last chapter from prison the great apostle writes: “Do your utmost to come to me soon … do your utmost to come before winter” (II Tim. 4:9, 21). Paul knew that he could depend on Timothy, just as he knew that he could depend on Luke (II Tim. 4:11).

This dependability is also evident from the fact that in spite of his youth — he was Paul’s junior by several years (cf. I Tim. 4:12; II Tim. 2:22) —, his natural reserve and timidity (I Cor. 16:10; II Tim. 1:7), and his “frequent ailments” (I Tim. 5:23), he was willing to leave his home to accompany the apostle on dangerous missionary journeys, to be sent on difficult and even perilous errands, and to remain to the very end a worthy servant of Jesus Christ (Rom. 16:21; see also on I Thess. 3:2).

Timothy is first mentioned in Acts 16:1, from which passage it may probably be inferred that he was an inhabitant of Lystra (cf. Acts 20:4). He was the offspring of a “mixed marriage”: a Greek pagan father and a devout Jewish mother, Eunice (Acts 16:1; II Tim. 1:5). From the days of his childhood he had been instructed in the sacred writings of the Old Testament (II Tim. 3:15). In all probability Paul, on his first missionary journey (about 47 a.d.), had been the means of Timothy’s conversion, so that from that day on he could be referred to as Paul’s (spiritual) “child” (I Cor. 4:17; I Tim. 1:2; II Tim. 1:2). Hence, it is not strange to read that he was acquainted with the persecutions and sufferings which the missionaries had experienced on this first journey (II Tim. 3:11), that is, before Timothy himself had joined Paul in active work. Though Paul was Timothy’s spiritual father, it is not at all improbable that grandmother Lois and mother Eunice, whose conversion to the Christian faith preceded that of Timothy (II Tim. 1:5), co-operated very effectively to bring about this happy event.

When Paul and Silas, on the second journey, came to Derbe and Lystra, Timothy responded favorably to the request of the apostle to join the group in missionary labors. This must have occurred about the year 51. From Acts 16:2 we learn that he was “well spoken of” by the people of his own community. Because it was well-known that Timothy’s father was a Greek, so that the young man’s influence among the Jews would be reduced to almost zero unless something were done to bring out clearly his own devotion to the sacred writings of the covenant people, he was, accordingly, circumcised (Acts 16:3). In all probability another important event also took place at this time: by the elders of the local church (which had been established and organized on the first journey) Timothy was now ordained for his new task, Paul himself taking part in this solemn “laying on of hands” (Acts 14:23; and see on I Tim. 1:18; 4:14; II Tim. 1:6).

Along with the other missionaries Timothy subsequently crossed over into Europe, Luke having by this time joined the company. We have already stated our reasons for believing that though Luke stayed behind at Philippi (contrast “we” in Acts 16:11, 13 with “they” in Acts 17:1), Timothy went along with Paul and Silas to (or at least soon joined them at) Thessalonica (see N.T.C. on I and II Thessalonians, p. 5). He also helped the others in the next place to which they came, namely, Berea, where he and Silas were left behind in order to give spiritual support to the infant church, while Paul himself, escorted by some of his friends, made his way to the coast and finally reached Athens (Acts 17:10–15). Acting upon the request of Paul, Timothy left Berea and found the apostle while the latter was still in Athens (I Thess. 3:1, 2). He was sent back to Thessalonica for the purpose of strengthening and encouraging the brothers there (see N.T.C. on I Thess. 3:1, 2). After Paul had left Athens and had begun his labors in Corinth, both Silas and Timothy “came down from Macedonia” to rejoin the apostle (Acts 18:1, 5; see on I Thess. 3:6).

At Corinth Timothy carried on his missionary labors with Paul and Silas. Hence (and because he was well-known in Thessalonica) his name is associated with theirs in the addresses of the two epistles to the Thessalonians, sent from Corinth (see on I Thess. 1:1; II Thess. 1:1).

On the third missionary journey (53/54–57/58 a.d.) Timothy is with the apostle during the latter’s lengthy ministry at Ephesus. From here he is sent to Macedonia and to Corinth (Acts 19:21, 22; I Cor. 4:17; 16:10). As Timothy went by the land route — i.e., to Corinth by way of Macedonia — Paul expected that his fellow-worker would arrive in Corinth after I Corinthians had reached its destination.

When Paul arrives in Macedonia, Timothy has rejoined him, as is evident from the fact that his name is associated with that of the apostle in the letter which was now sent to Corinth (II Cor. 1:1). It is also clear that the assistant and partner accompanied the apostle to Corinth (Rom. 16:21), and that together with others he is with Paul on his return to Macedonia (Acts 20:3, 4), and is waiting for him at Troas (Acts 20:5). He was probably also with Paul in Jerusalem (I Cor. 16:3).

For a little while we lose sight of Timothy, but during Paul’s first imprisonment at Rome the two are in close contact with each other again, as is evident from Phil. 1:1; Col. 1:1; Philemon 1:1. When the apostle expects to be released in the very near future (Phil. 2:24), he tells the Philippians that he hopes to send Timothy to them soon (Phil. 2:19).

Again there is a gap in the information that has come down to us. The next time we hear of Timothy he is at Ephesus, where Paul has joined him. The apostle, on leaving, asks Timothy to remain at this place (I Tim. 1:3). While there Timothy one day receives the letter which we now call I Timothy.

Many months pass, during which nothing is heard with reference to Timothy. Then another letter arrives, in which Paul, writing from Rome as a prisoner facing death, urges his friend to do his best to come to him before winter (II Tim. 4:9, 21). Whether the two ever actually saw each other’s face again is not recorded. (The enigmatical statement regarding Timothy in Heb. 13:23 cannot be discussed here.) That Timothy tried to see the apostle may be taken for granted. It is in line with his entire character. Though he is hesitant and reserved, yet his love for Paul and even more for the Lord Jesus Christ and for his cause always win out in the end. He may shrink for a moment (cf. I Cor. 16:10), he never refuses. His is a character to be admired. In his becoming diffidence the dynamic aggressiveness of Paul finds its true counterpart. It is not surprising that Paul and Timothy are friends!

Timothy and Titus have in common unwavering loyalty to the cause of the Gospel, willingness to be sent on difficult missions, high regard for their friend and superior, Paul. Yet, in one respect the two differ. Titus is more of a leader; Timothy is a follower. Titus is the type of man who is able not only to take orders but also to go ahead of his own accord (II Cor. 8:16, 17). Timothy needs a little prodding (II Tim. 1:6), though here the emphasis must fall on “a little” and not on “prodding.” Titus is resourceful, a man of initiative in a good cause. One finds in him something of the aggressiveness of Paul. Timothy is co-operative, a man who shows this spirit even when such co-operation requires him to do things which run counter to his natural shyness. That is the way these two characters are exhibited in the Art Gallery of Holy Writ.

Now as to Titus, nowhere in the book of Acts does his name appear, but elsewhere in the New Testament it is found thirteen times: twice in Galatians (2:1; 2:3), once in II Tim. (5:10), once in Titus (1:4), and no less than nine times in II Corinthians (2:13; 7:6; 7:13; 7:14; 8:6; 8:16; 8:23; 12:18; and again 12:18). Yet the first implied reference to Titus is found in the book of Acts, though there his name is not mentioned. By comparing Acts 15:2 (“some of the others”) with Gal. 2:1, 3 (“taking Titus along with me … even Titus who was with me”) we learn that when, after the first missionary journey, Paul and Barnabas were sent to Jerusalem in order to help the church in reaching a conclusion regarding the question whether Christians from among the Gentiles should be circumcised, they were accompanied by “some of the others,” among whom was “Titus.” In all probability Titus was one of the apostle’s converts, being called his “genuine child in a common faith” (Titus 1:4). Some are of the opinion that Syrian Antioch was his home and that he had been converted during the signally blessed gospel-campaign conducted at that place by Paul and Barnabas (Acts 11:19–26; cf. Acts 14:26; 15:2; Gal. 2:1, 3), but this is no more than a plausible conjecture.

Titus, then, becomes a person of great importance for the progress of the Christian faith. He is taken along to “the apostles and elders” at Jerusalem as a test case, a definite challenge to the Judaizers. Titus is a Greek (Gal. 2:3), both of his parents being Gentiles (contrast Timothy whose mother was a Jewess). Naturally the Judaistic party at Jerusalem demands that he be circumcised. But Paul does not yield even for a moment (Gal. 2:5), and the matter in dispute is decided in favor of the free admission of Gentiles into the church, solely on the basis of faith in Christ, without being required to keep the Jewish law (Acts 15:13–29). The significance of this victory for Christian liberty and for the progress of Christianity can hardly be over-estimated.

Nothing further is heard about Titus until Paul’s third missionary journey is reached (probable date 53/54–57/58). During this journey Paul’s faithful helper is sent to Corinth on more than one occasion, though commentators differ with respect to the question whether he was sent two or three times.¹⁷ Probably the simplest reconstruction of his journeys is also the best. I shall assume that on this third missionary journey Titus made only two trips to Corinth, one from Ephesus (was he then the bearer of I Corinthians?), and one from Macedonia, when he carried II Corinthians to its destination.

Returning now to that first trip (Ephesus to Corinth), it was Titus who was charged with the difficult and delicate task of solving “the Corinthian Situation” (party-strife, fornication, etc.; see I Cor. 1:11; 5:6; 16:17). True, his arrival in Corinth seems to have been followed almost immediately by that of Timothy, but nothing at all is reported with reference to the latter’s accomplishments in that city. The Corinthians were told, however, to see to it that when Timothy arrived, he would be with them “without fear” (I Cor. 16:10). As to Titus, the apostle had expected that he would meet this returning emissary at Troas. When Paul did not find him there, his mind had no rest. So he departed from Troas and crossed over into Europe (Macedonia, II Cor. 2:13). Here his spirit was refreshed and his heart filled with joy when he not only met Titus but heard from his lips a report which, on the whole, was favorable (II Cor. 7:6, 13, 14).

The mission which Titus had been called to perform had been successful to a considerable extent. It seems that at Corinth he had acted on the principle that the best way to overcome evil is “with good.” So, while there he had made a beginning of setting in motion again the work of collecting funds for the needy saints at Jerusalem. This important work, which had been started several months earlier (II Cor. 8:10), had been lagging of late. Titus in his own dynamic manner had given fresh impetus to it.

As already indicated, the report which Titus brought was not altogether favorable. Paul’s enemies had not taken kindly to the rebuke which they had received. They assailed Paul’s apostleship, and charged that he was fickle because he had changed his traveling-plans (II Cor. 1:15–24); that he displayed a boastful courage which veiled an inner cowardice; and that even when he preached the gospel without remuneration his motives were not pure. Accordingly, from Macedonia (Philippi?) Paul now writes II Corinthians, which is delivered by (the same man who brought I Corinthians to its destination? namely) Titus. He was the proper man to deal with a difficult situation. At the same time he would be enabled to complete the work of collecting for the Jerusalem poor. This time Titus is accompanied by two others, one of whom was a noted preacher (II Cor. 8:16–24). Titus, true to his character, was eager to go on his mission (II Cor. 8:16, 17). In him one discovers no hesitancy.

There follows a long interval (perhaps from about 56 to about 63 a.d.) during which we hear nothing of Titus. The next time his name is mentioned, he is in charge of a church (or churches) in Crete. Paul, having been set at liberty from his first Roman imprisonment and being now on an eastward journey, has left him there in order to carry out the mandate described in Titus 1:5 (see on that passage). We shall meet Titus again (see points 2, 5, 6, and 10, pp. 39, 40).

A comparison between I Tim. 4:12 (“Let no one despise your youth”) and Titus 2:15 (“Exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one despise thee”) would seem to indicate that Titus was older than Timothy. He loved the Corinthians. He loved his Lord. He loved the work of the Lord, and gave ample evidence of this in the spontaneous manner in which he shouldered his task at Corinth. He breathed the spirit of Paul, and followed closely in his steps (II Cor. 12:18). He was original, tactful, courageous, loyal, a close and trusted friend of the great apostle, the latter’s true representative in the cause of Christ.

IV. WHAT IS THEIR HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE?

It has been established (see pp. 23–27) that all the historical evidence points in the direction of Paul’s release from his first Roman imprisonment. Where did he go immediately after his release? We simply do not know with any degree of certainty. The Pastorals, to be sure, imply a number of journeys, but these are merely “links” which can be joined together in ever so many different ways. Did Paul go at once to Spain? Did he go from Rome to Philippi, and from there to Ephesus, as is held by some, or vice versa (Rome — Ephesus — Philippi), as is held by others? Just when did he travel to Spain? Did Timothy ask Paul for permission to leave Ephesus, which permission was refused? If so, where was the apostle when this request came? Was he somewhere on his way back from Spain to Macedonia, as some have supposed? Or — and this to me seems preferable — should we drop the entire idea of a request coming from Timothy, and should we perhaps place Paul at Ephesus with Timothy, when the younger man was urged to remain at his post, while the apostle goes on his way to Europe? Similar questions can easily be added. Among the many possible combinations the following scheme is perhaps as good as any. It has the advantage of suggesting a natural line of travel. See a good Bible-map of the Roman world as it was in Paul’s day (I suggest W.H.A.B., Plate XV); also the excellent map in the December, 1956, issue of The National Geographic Magazine, the map which bears the title “Lands of the Bible Today.” I emphasize, however, that certainty is entirely lacking:

1. Immediately after his release Paul sends Timothy to Philippi with this good news (Phil. 2:19–23). The date 63 a.d. cannot be off very far. After July 19–24 of the year 64 a.d. (the burning of Rome) release would have been very improbable.

2. Paul himself starts on his journey toward Asia Minor, and on the way to that destination leaves Titus on the island of Crete to bring to completion the organization of the church (or churches) which had been established there (cf. Acts 2:11; Titus 1:5).

3. The apostle arrives at Ephesus, travels on until he reaches Colosse just as he had intended (Philem. 22), and returns to Ephesus.

4. Here he is joined by Timothy who brings news from the congregation at Philippi (see 1 above). On leaving, Paul asks Timothy to remain at Ephesus, which was in need of his ministry (I Tim. 1:3, 4).

5. Paul himself goes to Macedonia, just as he had planned (Phil. 2:24; I Tim. 1:3). He hopes to return to Ephesus shortly, but rather expects that his absence may be prolonged (I Tim. 3:14, 15). From Macedonia (Philippi?) he writes two epistles which resemble each other very closely: I Timothy and Titus. In his letter to Titus he requests that beloved brother to meet him at Nicopolis (Tit. 3:12).

6. Accordingly, the apostle journeys to Nicopolis (in Epirus), located on the east coast of the Ionian Sea. Here he spends the winter (Tit. 3:12) and is joined by Titus.

7. Paul journeys to Spain (Rom. 15:24); according to some “taking Titus with him,” but of this there is no hint anywhere. The mere possibility that, if Paul went to Spain at this time, Titus went along must be granted. As to Titus, there is nothing definite until we reach II Tim. 4:10 (see Number 10).

8. Having returned from Spain, Paul proceeds to Asia Minor (see 5 above), and leaves Trophimus sick at Miletus, south of Ephesus (II Tim. 4:20). Did the apostle also meet Timothy again, and did the tearful separation (II Tim. 1:4) take place at this time or very shortly afterward?

9. At Troas he visits Carpus, at whose home he leaves his cloak (II Tim. 4:13). By way of Corinth, where Erastus remained (II Tim. 4:20) he goes to Rome. He is rearrested. (Where the arrest occurred — Troas, Corinth, Rome, or elsewhere — is not known.) Cruel Nero is reigning. This is the monster who had murdered his step-brother, his own mother, his wife (Octavia), his tutor (Seneca), and many others. When Rome was burned in the year 64, the people accused Nero of having set the city on fire. He sought to turn attention away from himself and placed the blame on the Christians. Frightful was the carnival of blood which followed.

10. Accordingly, Paul, having returned from Spain, no longer enjoyed a measure of political protection. His second Roman imprisonment is severe and brief (II Tim. 1:16, 17; 2:9). Luke only is with him. Demas has forsaken him, having fallen in love with “the present world,” and has departed for Thessalonica. Crescens has gone either to Galatia or to Gallia (Gaul), Titus to Dalmatia (see on II Tim. 4:10, 11). Urging Timothy to come to him quickly, he asks him to take Mark with him. These details are found in II Timothy, the letter which was written when death was already staring the apostle in the face (II Tim. 4:6–11). He is condemned to death and beheaded on the Ostian Way, about three miles outside of the capital. Whether Timothy and Mark reached Rome before the apostle’s death we do not know.

Let us now return to 4 and 5 above. At Ephesus the Judaists were spreading their strange doctrines, placing great stress upon such things as endless genealogies, profane and old wives’ fables, and posing as teachers of the law (I Tim. 1:4, 7; 4:7). According to many interpreters — and they may be right — these errorists also assumed that matter was evil or at least the seat of evil, and therefore recognized only a spiritual resurrection (II Tim. 2:18). Soon they would also prohibit marriage and the use of certain foods (I Tim. 4:3). We have already shown that the errors condemned were partly present, partly future, partly present and future (see above, p. 21).

In addition, to advocating false doctrine and ethics, these sinister teachers (and perhaps others with them) seem to have made it necessary for Paul to lay down some very “plain rules” regarding proper conduct at public worship (see especially chapter 2). The ladies also stood in need of special instruction with respect to this point.

The situation was really serious. This becomes evident when two additional facts are borne in mind: a. from such passages as I Tim. 1:6, 20; 3:3, 6; 5:17–25 it may probably be assumed that prominent church-members — including some with a “superiority-complex” (“puffed up” persons) — were among the errorists; and b. Timothy himself, as we have seen, was by nature of the very opposite disposition. He seems to have been a man with an “inferiority-complex.” For such a man to cope with such a situation was, indeed, difficult.

Hence, about the year 63 Paul, having recently departed from Ephesus, where he had left Timothy, and being now in Macedonia (I Tim. 1:3), tells Timothy how to administer the affairs of the church. Specifically, he writes in order:

(1) To bolster the spirit of Timothy, reminding him of the “gift” which he had received (see on I Tim. 4:14), of his “good confession” (see on 6:12), and of “the deposit” which had been entrusted to him (see on 6:20).

(2) To impart guidance in the critical conflict against soul-destroying errors that were being spread in the church at Ephesus, and to exhort Timothy to continue in the “sound doctrine” (1:3–11; 1:18–20; ch. 4; ch. 6). Such guidance would be all the more necessary if the apostle’s absence should be prolonged (see on I Tim. 3:14, 15). In connection with this battle against the spread of error, stress is laid on the importance of proper organization: choosing the right kind of leaders (especially elders and deacons), and of admonishing them if they go astray (ch. 3; ch. 5).

(3) To give directions for proper conduct during public worship (see on ch. 2).

Returning once more to point 5, we note that Paul, now in Macedonia (Philippi?), also writes to Titus, whom he had left at Crete and whom he wishes to meet at Nicopolis. The reputation of the Cretans was none too good. The need of thorough-going sanctification in congregational, individual, family, and public life had to be stressed here even more than elsewhere. The elders who are to be appointed must be “blameless” (1:5, 6). The mouths of unruly individuals, vain talkers and deceivers, must be stopped (1:10). People (especially church-members!) must be taught to abstain from worldly lusts and to live moderately and righteously and godly in the present world, in the expectation of the Redeemer’s glorious appearing (2:11–14). In public life they should be obedient to the authorities and should deport themselves properly toward all (3:1, 2). Impenitent troublemakers should be disciplined (3:10). On the other hand, sincere gospel-workers (such as Zenas and Apollos), whose itinerary would include Crete, and who probably carried with them Paul’s letter addressed to Titus, must receive every assistance (3:13).

Accordingly, the letter to Titus was written with this threefold purpose in mind:

(1) To urge Titus to come to Paul at Nicopolis, as soon as a substitute has taken over the work in Crete (3:12).

(2) To speed on their way Zenas the law-expert and Apollos the eloquent evangelist (3:13).

(3) To give directions for the promotion of the spirit of sanctification in congregational, individual, family, and social relationships.

Of these three purpose-items the last covers by far the most territory.

When we leave I Timothy and Titus and turn to II Timothy, we immediately notice that the entire atmosphere has changed. When the apostle wrote I Timothy and Titus, he was a free man, able to make traveling-plans. When he writes II Timothy, he is a prisoner, facing death. Crete (Tit. 1:5), Ephesus (I Tim. 1:3), Macedonia (I Tim. 1:3; cf. Phil. 2:24), and Nicopolis (Tit. 3:12) are the places mentioned by name in I Timothy and Titus (taken together), and they form an easily traceable route on the map. Though no one knows whether the apostle actually journeyed to these places in that order, every one will have to admit that such a line of travel is natural. Miletus (II Tim. 4:20), Troas (II Tim. 4:13), Corinth (II Tim. 4:20; cf. Rom. 16:23), are the places which Paul visited on the journey(s) presupposed in II Timothy, until he reached Rome and final imprisonment (cf. II Tim. 1:8; 4:6). Here also, if the order in which we have arranged these “stations” is correct, the route is logical. It is therefore natural to assume that the journey to Spain intervened between these two courses of travel, that is, between the route presupposed in I Timothy and Titus, on the one hand, and the route that is probably indicated in II Timothy, on the other.¹⁸

For the reason given it is probably incorrect to say that Tit. 3:12 and II Tim. 4:21 refer to the same “winter,” and then to date Titus accordingly, bringing it as close as possible to II Timothy. It must be borne in mind that the apostle had made definite plans as to the place where he, as a free man, would spend “the winter” referred to in Tit. 3:12 (namely, at Nicopolis). No such plans were possible with respect to the place where Paul, the prisoner, would spend “the winter” indicated in II Tim. 4:21. These two winters are not the same! When II Timothy is written, the entire picture has changed. See the situation as described under point 10 above (p. 40). This is the winter of a.d. 65 or 66 or 67. It is Paul’s last winter on earth. The great apostle, writing from his prison in the world’s metropolis, and being in doubt whether his assistant will be able to reach Rome before his death, admonishes Timothy that, whatever happens, he must keep clinging to the sound doctrine and must defend it unceasingly against every adversary.

Though II Timothy does not state where Timothy was when it was written, yet there are several passages which point to Ephesus. Thus Paul says that Timothy knows that “all who are in Asia” had turned away from the apostle (1:15). If the one addressed was laboring in Ephesus, which was in “Asia,” it is understandable that he would know about this situation. Similarly, Paul writes that Timothy “knows better” than the apostle, or “knows very well,” how many services Onesiphorus had rendered, and takes for granted that Timothy “at Ephesus” (1:18), is able to convey Paul’s greetings to the family of this “profit-bringer” (4:19). There is another reference to Ephesus in 4:12: “But Tychicus I am sending to Ephesus.” Moreover, if Timothy is living in Ephesus, it will not be too difficult for him to “bring with him the cloak” which Paul had “left at Troas with Carpus” (4:13). And we would not be at all surprised to find Priscilla (or Prisca) and Aquila (4:19) back again in Ephesus (though the place is not mentioned), where they had been living previously (Acts 18:18, 19, 24, 26; cf. I Cor. 16:19). It is true that subsequent to their first stay in Ephesus they had returned to Rome (Rom. 16:3), but with a persecution of Christians raging fiercely in Rome it is not strange that they had again left the capital. Once before, and for a somewhat similar reason, they had departed from Italy (Acts 18:2).

One additional item in the circumstantial evidence linking Timothy with Ephesus when this letter was written is the nature of the heresy which is here condemned (see on II Tim. 2:14–18). To a certain extent it resembles that which was exposed in I Timothy (addressed to Timothy while he was at Ephesus, I Tim. 1:3).

We may suppose, then, that Timothy has not yet left Ephesus, where error and persecution of believers are raging (1:8; 2:3, 12, 14–18, 23; 3:8, 12).

Accordingly, Paul’s purpose in writing II Timothy may be summarized as follows:

(1) To urge Timothy to come to Rome as soon as possible in view of the apostle’s impending departure from this life (4:9, 21; cf. 4:6–8).

(2) To admonish him to keep clinging to the sound doctrine, defending it against all error, and enduring hardship as a good soldier.

This second item is characteristic of the entire letter.

Chapter IV

Directions with respect to

Apostasy

A. Description of this apostasy and proof of its dangerous character.

B. How Timothy should deal with it.

Chapters V and VI

Directions with respect to

Certain Definite Groups and Individuals

Chapter V	A Old(er) men, young(er) men, old(er) women, young(er) women B Widows in distress C Widows engaged in spiritual work D Elders and prospective elders
Chapter VI	E Slaves F Novelty-teachers who aspire to fame and riches G Timothy himself (“Keep the commission”) H People who are rich in terms of this present age I Timothy himself (“Guard the deposit”)

Outline of Chapter 1

Theme: The Apostle Paul, Writing to Timothy, Gives Directions For the Administration of the Church

The Apostle Paul

1:1, 2 A. Salutes Timothy

1:3–11; 18–20 B. Repeats his order that Timothy remain at Ephesus to combat the error of those who refuse to see their sinful condition in the light of God’s holy law, and who pretend to be law-experts;

1:12–17 C. By contrast, thanks God for having made him — “chief of sinners” — a minister of the gospel.

¹ P. Anton called his work, “Exegetische Abhandlung der Pastoralbriefe.” He first suggested the term in 1726.

² Cf. Edmund K. Simpson, “The Authenticity and Authorship of the Pastoral Epistles,” EQ 12 (1940), 311.

Anyone who reads the following literature — a selection from among hundreds of books and articles on this subject — will have both the arguments of the critics and the answers of those who cling to the traditional view with reference to the authorship of the Pastorals. We acknowledge indebtedness to all of the following:

Bouma, C., I, II Timotheus en Titus (in Korte Verklaring der Heilige Schrift met Nieuwe Vertaling), second edition, Kampen 1953, especially pp. 13–35.

Bouma, C., De Brieven van den Apostel Paulus aan Timotheus en Titus (in Kommentaar op het Nieuwe Testament), Amsterdam, 1942, especially pp. 17–60.

Brooks, A. E., “The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles,” JThS 23 (1922).

Dibelius, M., Die Pastoralbriefe, second edition, Tübingen, 1931.

Easton, Burton Scott, The Pastoral Epistles, New York, 1947, especially pp. 29–35.

Goodspeed, E. J., Paul, Philadelphia, Toronto, 1947, p. 238.

Greydanus, S., Bizondere Canoniek, Kampen, 1949, Vol. II, pp. 205–226.

Harrison, P. N., The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles, Oxford, 1921.

Hawkins, R. M., The Recovery of the Historical Paul, Nashville, Tenn., 1943, p. 13.

Holtzmann, H. J., Die Pastorale Briefe, Leipzig, 1880.

Knox, John, Chapters in a Life of Paul, New York and Nashville, 1946, p. 20.

Lock, W., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (in International Critical Commentary), New York, 1924, pp. xxv–xxxi.

Michaelis, W., “Pastoralbriefe und Wortstatistik,” ZNTW 28 (1929), 69–76.

Michaelis, W., Pastoralbriefe und Gefangenschaftbriefe. Zur Echtheitsfrage der Pastoralbriefe, 1930.

Moffatt, J., Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament, New York, 3rd ed., 1918.

Nageli, Th., Der Wortschatz des Apostels Paulus, Göttingen, 1905, pp. 85–88.

Parry, John, The Pastoral Epistles, 1920.

Pherigo, Lindsey P., “Paul’s Life After the Close of Acts,” JBL 70 (December, 1951), 277–284.

Plummer, Alfred, The Pastoral Epistles (in The Expositor’s Bible), reprint Grand Rapids, Mich., 1943, vol. 6, pp. 389–392.

Riddle, W. and Hutson, H. H., New Testament Life and Literature, Chicago, 1946, pp. 203–208.

Robertson, A. T., Word Pictures in the New Testament, New York and London, 1931, Vol. IV, pp. 555–558.

Schleiermacher, F., Ueber den Sogenannten Brief von Paulus an den Timotheus, 1807.

Schweitzer, A., The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle, New York, 1931, p. 42.

Scott, E. F., The Literature of the New Testament, 6th ed., New York, 1940, pp. 191–197.

Scott, E. F., The Pastoral Epistles (in The Moffatt Commentary), New York and London, no date.

Simpson, E. K., “The Authenticity and Authorship of the Pastoral Epistles,” EQ 12 (October, 1940), 289–311.

Simpson, E. K., The Pastoral Epistles, London, 1954, pp. 1–23.

Torm, F., “Ueber die Sprache in den Pastoralbriefen,” ZNTW 18 (1918), 225–243.

Van Oosterzee, J. J., The Pastoral Epistles (in Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures), reprint, Grand Rapids, Mich., no date, pp. 2–6.

White, N. J. D., The First and Second Epistles to Timothy and the Epistle to Titus (in The Expositor’s Greek Testament), reprint, Grand Rapids, Mich., no date, Vol. 4, pp. 57–82.

Zahn, Th., Einleitung in das Neue Testament, 1897–1900, Vol. II, p. 85 ff.

⁴ See, for example, E. F. Scott, Literature of the New Testament, New York, 1932, p. 193. Also the same author, The Pastoral Epistles (in The Moffatt Commentary), p. xxi.

⁵

Proportion of new words to total vocabulary is given by Michaelis and Greydanus as follows:

Romans:

261:993 = 26.3%

II Timothy:

114:413 = 27.6%

Titus:

81:293 = 27.6%

I Timothy:

173:529 = 32.7%

See Michaelis, the article cited, p. 73; Greydanus, op. cit., p. 210.

This harmonizes with the figures given by Harrison, op. cit., p. 140. Bouma, Kommentaar op het Nieuwe Testament, p. 54, stresses the fact that of the 582 words that occur in the ten but not in the Pastorals, no less than 469 are found in only one letter; and that, accordingly, these 469 are lacking in the other nine as well as in the Pastorals!

⁶ See W. Lock, op. cit. p. xxix, and especially E. K. Simpson, the Pastoral Epistles, pp. 16–18; 103, 104.

⁷ See Gram.N.T., p. 109.

N.N. Novum Testamentum Graece, edited by D. Eberhard Nestle and D. Erwin Nestle (most recent edition)

N.T.C. W. Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary

R.S.V. Revised Standard Version

⁸ I have discussed this verb in my doctoral dissertation, “The Meaning of the Preposition ἀντί in the New Testament,” pp. 83, 84.

⁹ A. Schweitzer, The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle (translated into English by William Montgomery), New York, 1931, p. 42.

¹⁰ For a summary of the entire argument regarding the rise of the episcopate see P. Schaff, History of the Christian Church, New York, 1924, Vol. II, pp. 132–148.

¹¹ See his Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament, third edition, 1918, p. 417.

¹² L. Pherigo, “Paul’s Life After the Close of Acts,” JBL LXX (December, 1951), 277–284. See also the doctoral dissertation of N. G. Veldhoen, “Het Proces van den Apostel Paulus,” Leiden, 1924. And see GThT, Vol. 55, No. 2, 3 (1955), pp. 60, 61.

¹³ Thus also F. W. Grosheide in his comments on this passage in Korte Verklaring. For a different solution of the problem regarding Acts 20:25 see R. C. H. Lenski, Interpretation of the Acts, pp. 843, 844.

¹⁴ Thus Herodotus, in the 5th century b.c., described the Celts as the Western nation. Theodoret, in the 5th century a.d., speaks of the people of Spain, Gaul, and Britain as “those who dwell in the bounds of the West.” Strabo’s usage is similar. See the article by Pherigo, above referred to; also Lightfoot, St. Clement of Rome, London, 1869, pp. 49, 50. See also E. G. Kraeling, Rand McNally Bible Atlas, New York, Chicago, San Francisco, 1956, p. 462.

¹⁵ The Latin is corrupt: lucas obtime theofile comprindit (for: Lucas optimo Theophilo comprehendit) quia sub praesentia eius singula gerebantur sicuti et semote (semota) passione petri (Petri) evidenter declarat sed et profectione pauli (Pauli) ab urbe ad spania (Spaniam) proficiscenti (proficiscentis); that is, “Luke relates them for the most excellent Theophilus because in his presence the individual events transpired, as he clearly declares by omitting the passion of Peter as well as the departure of Paul when the latter proceeded from the city to Spain.” “The city” is Rome, of course.

¹⁶ Cf. A. Sizoo, Uit De Wereld van het Nieuwe Testament, p. 190.

¹⁷ This is not the proper place to discuss the question in detail. It involves exegesis of such passages as II Cor. 2:4; 8:6, 10.

W.H.A.B. Westminster Historical Atlas to the Bible

¹⁸ See also R. C. H. Lenski, op. cit., pp. 473–480.

↑ Back to top