Introduction

MOST OF THE OTHER COMMENTARIES in this series have a separate unit in the Introduction on contemporary significance. The present introduction will depart somewhat from that usual form by blending data with significance. After making observations on the nature of these letters, we will deal with such traditional issues as background, doctrine, and authorship from the dual perspective of both the original recipients and the modern reader. It will, therefore, be useful to read this introduction in its entirety rather than merely consulting individual topics, such as authorship, separately. The section on the recipients, for example, is intended to provide a useful approach to that vexing problem of authorship, which, in turn, relates to the strong emphasis in these letters on integrity.

The Nature of the Pastoral Letters

AS FAR AS we know, D. N. Berdot, writing in 1703, was the first to use the term pastoral to describe the letters as a group. Half a century later, P. Anton used the term for his commentary on these letters.1 The reason for the description is clear: They were addressed to individuals commissioned to care for churches with specific needs. This is especially true for 1 Timothy and Titus, with 2 Timothy being more personal than ecclesiastical.

But is the term pastoral appropriate for these letters? The task assigned to Timothy and Titus, who may be described as “envoys” or “apostolic delegates,” was to address problems that required an apostolic authority. The nature of the care to be given had more to do with combating false teaching than with the day-to-day shepherding of the flock. Their aim was to establish stable leadership within the churches rather than to serve as pastors themselves among the flock on a long-term basis. Yet pastoral concern, gifts, and personal qualities were needed during this period of stress, both in the two apostolic delegates and in the elders they sought to establish firmly in the churches. Paul had previously exhorted the Ephesian elders to be “shepherds of the church of God” (Acts 20:28). Such pastoral qualities are needed today, and the term pastoral, though not completely appropriate, has value. What then was the relationship of Timothy and Titus to Paul? What was their commission?

The Relationship of Timothy and Titus to the Author

THE AUTHOR CALLS Timothy his “true son in the faith” (1 Tim. 1:2) and “my dear son” (2 Tim. 1:2), and he calls Titus “my true son in our common faith” (Titus 1:4). In spite of the indications of mutual experiences between these men and Paul, many scholars claim that these expressions of endearing relationship are constructions in a pseudonymous letter to fictitious recipients. However, taken together with the other references to them in the letters, the reader naturally assumes a real and intimate relationship. Moreover, the references to the relationship of these two men with Paul in his earlier letters and (in the case of Timothy) in the book of Acts are important to make any sense of the literature.

Timothy may have heard Paul during the latter’s first missionary journey, and perhaps he was converted at that time. The first specific mention of Timothy is in Acts 16:1—5, where he joins Paul in his second missionary journey. The young man had Paul’s confidence, and while at times Timothy was sent on individual missions (1 Thess. 3:1–6), the two often worked closely together (see Acts 18:5; 19:22; cf. also the references to Timothy as a coauthor in 2 Cor. 1:1; Phil. 1:1; Col. 1:1; 1 Thess. 1:1; 2 Thess. 1:1). Within Paul’s letters there is further evidence of Timothy’s service with Paul (1 Cor. 4:17; 16:10–11; cf. also Rom. 16:21, where Paul calls him “my fellow worker”). Of course within the Pastoral Letters Paul speaks warmly of Timothy, and we will observe these instances in the course of the commentary.

Titus seems to have been a troubleshooter for Paul. The correspondence and sequence of visits between Paul and the Corinthians, including the probability of additional letters not recorded in the New Testament, is difficult to trace. It is clear, however, that Titus played an important role in representing Paul at Corinth. His name occurs in 2 Corinthians 2:12–13 and 7:5–7, 13–15, as well as in several verses concerning the sensitive matter of the collection (8:5–6, 16–19). Paul commended Titus for his difficult work in 12:14–18. Also, Titus went with Paul to Jerusalem on the significant visit described in Galatians 2:1–5. It is clear from the letter to Titus that he had been given yet another difficult assignment when Paul left him in Crete. During the period described in the Pastoral Letters Paul asked Titus to visit him at Nicopolis (Titus 3:12). Finally, at the end of what is most likely the last of the Pastoral Letters to be written, Titus was on his way to Dalmatia, probably on another assignment for Paul (2 Tim. 4:10).

The preceding summary shows us two things in particular. (1) It is difficult to isolate the personal references to Timothy and Titus from the rest of the Pastoral correspondence and to separate that correspondence from what we might call an ongoing “real time” relationship between the two men and Paul. This observation does not in itself constitute a proof that the letters were written by the apostle Paul himself or that they were actually sent to the named recipients. What it does indicate is that if the historical Paul and the historical Timothy and Titus are not the author and recipients, we move away not only from history towards fiction, but also away from a natural, legitimate understanding of the text.

(2) Assuming historical reality here, we learn that to deal with intricate problems and hostile people in Ephesus and Crete Paul chose two men who were experienced, close companions, although with perhaps less maturity, social standing, and honor than the leaders of the churches. This indicates something of Paul’s principles in choosing people for leadership.

The situations Timothy and Titus faced were more serious than may at first appear. False teaching was already progressing aggressively in Ephesus. The use of the present tense in the compound verb “to teach false doctrines” (1 Tim. 1:3) indicates that this activity was already underway and not merely a cloud on the horizon. The mention of “myths and endless genealogies” in 1:4 suggests a complex and esoteric heresy.

The nature of the false teaching will be addressed in the commentary itself, but here we observe that it involved an inappropriate application of Judaistic elements (see the mention of “the law” in 1:7–11). The teachings of two named heretics (the term heretic does not seem to be too strong, given the evidence), Hymenaeus and Alexander, either contained blasphemy or were spoken in a blasphemous way (1:20); this required handing them over to Satan. The words “in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons” show that the false teachings were not simply human speculations, but demonic lies (4:1). The teachers themselves were not merely misled but were “hypocritical liars” (4:2). There was also an ascetic dimension to the false teaching: “They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods” (4:3). After reading about demonic teachings and lies, we may think that “godless myths and old wives’ tales” (4:7) are not as serious in comparison. However, the fact that they stand in contrast to being “godly” shows that they were insidious. A further reference to the false teachings in 6:3–10 shows that financial greed was also a factor (6:6–10).

By the time of 2 Timothy the activities of the false teachers may seem to have fallen into the background. However, 2 Timothy 2:17–18 provides us with a significant clue about at least one important facet of the false teaching. Hymenaeus and Philetus had “wandered away from the truth” and said “that the resurrection has already taken place.” This may not at first seem serious, but Paul says that by teaching this “they destroy the faith of some.” This teaching has sometimes been termed over-realized eschatology. As people with some interest in the law and Jewish teachings, these false teachers probably were familiar with the idea of the two ages, the present age and the age to come. They also knew of Jesus’ teaching about the inauguration of the coming kingdom. Apparently they disregarded or disputed the eschatological teachings of Jesus and of Paul about events yet future.

Many scholars have concluded that some people in the Corinthian church had taught a similar though not identical teaching: Christians were already experiencing so much of the reality of the future age that they could disregard some of the claims of life around them, thereby becoming proud of a superior spirituality. This over-realized eschatology of the Corinthians expressed itself in asceticism and spiritual pride. But the error of the heretics at Ephesus seems to have been somewhat different. While those at Corinth were apparently saying that there is no resurrection (1 Cor. 15:12), Hymenaeus and Philetus were saying that the resurrection was past. This means that they had to deny a good deal of orthodox teaching, and they denied it strongly enough to destroy some people’s faith.

Another indication of the false teaching and the serious circumstances that faced Timothy at Ephesus is found in 2 Timothy 3:6–9. The false teachers victimized women who lacked sober self-discipline and who were swayed by sinful desires. A curious comment on these women is that they were “always learning but never able to acknowledge the truth” (3:7). Therefore these women were open to exploitation on more than one level. Along with other clues in the Pastoral Letters, this passage has suggested to some scholars that there was something about these women (if not women in general, as some have claimed) that made them especially vulnerable to false teaching. Given this situation, the prominence of the goddess cult at Ephesus, and significant social changes in the role and perception of women (especially in the incipient ideas that would later merge together in Gnosticism), the interpreter of the Pastoral Letters must consider these elements as reasons for the limitations Paul puts on women especially in 1 Timothy 2:9–15.

But one must not rush to unwise conclusions in this matter. The issues here are complex, and their resolution is important.2 The approach used in this commentary is to draw primarily on the material within the Pastoral Letters for an understanding of the situation in the Ephesian church, allowing such external background data as we have to inform but not determine the interpretation. It would be inappropriate to ignore the social and religious background, especially with regard to women, but conditions for women were not uniform throughout the Roman empire and their circumstances in Ephesus may have been overstated by some scholars. Nevertheless, we must be realistic and acknowledge that the circumstances of and perceptions about women in contemporary North America are considerably different from what one would find anywhere in the first-century world. Our application of the text must be done carefully.

In the face of the false teachings, Timothy and Titus were given authority by Paul as apostolic delegates. The unique authority of the apostle was thereby extended through the ministry of these two men to the churches at Ephesus and Crete. As noted above, their ministry cannot be equated with that of the modern pastor. They were sent to deal with specific circumstances in the name of the apostle. That is, they went under the command of Paul and were commissioned to apply his commands to the circumstances in these churches (see esp. comments on 1 Timothy 1:3–5; 4:1).

The fact that Paul’s words in 1 Timothy 4:13, “Devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to preaching and to teaching,” are prefaced by “until I come” implies that this commission was not a long-term one but rather for a limited period in order to accomplish the necessary goals. Put another way, as apostolic delegates, Timothy and Titus had more personal authority than those in church ministry today can claim, for we stand under the authority of the Bible. At the same time their ministry was more focused than that of the typical pastor today, though that focus did not exclude other ministries, such as evangelism (2 Tim. 4:5).

It is important to understand the implications of this unique role of Timothy and Titus as apostolic delegates. (1) Their ministry constituted an extension of Paul’s strong authority, and that fact is an integral part of the instructions in all three letters.

(2) To recognize the limited focus of their task keeps us from an indiscriminate, inappropriate application of the texts relevant to their ministry to ministries of a different nature in the church today.

(3) Since the content of these three pastoral letters was so closely linked to the mission of these apostolic delegates “in real time,” unless we lightly dismiss these circumstances and the actual extension of apostolic authority through them, we cannot exclude the role of Paul in the composition of the letters. If we assume that the names Timothy and Titus merely stand for ideal figures or for “Rev. Everypastor,” attempts to restore the actual situation and authorship of the letters are doomed at the start.

This reconstruction, in turn, is related to the narrative in Acts 20:17–38. In this address to the Ephesian elders, Paul predicted that “savage wolves” would invade the flock and that other dissidents would arise “even from your own number.” The letters to Timothy allude to circumstances that are in accordance with this prediction. If the naming of Timothy and Titus and of Paul is a complete fiction, this connection is lost.

Assuming the historical Timothy and Titus as the actual recipients of letters from Paul as thus described still leaves problems to be addressed—specifically the difficulty of tracing the itineraries of Paul and of Timothy and Titus. The postulation of missionary travels on the part of Paul and these two associates after the conclusion of Acts does not provide us with a full picture. In a possible reconstruction of Paul’s further missionary travels, perhaps eastward and then westward towards Spain (experiencing another arrest in the process), he apparently revisited Ephesus with Timothy. How long this visit was cannot be estimated, but it was long enough for Paul to realize that the predictions he made to the Ephesian elders in Acts 20 about invading wolves and insidious false teachers within the church were unfortunately being fulfilled. They were serious enough to require a visit by someone working under and with Paul’s authority to counter and correct.

For some reason Paul then decided to proceed north and east from Ephesus back to Macedonia (cf. 1 Tim. 1:3). Paul must have recognized that even though Timothy was still relatively young, he had the wisdom and maturity to deal with the problems in the Ephesian church. Thus, when he “went into Macedonia” he “urged” Timothy to remain in Ephesus in order to “command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer” (1:3).

It is impossible to determine whether Paul and Titus visited Crete before the visit with Timothy to Ephesus or after the visit to Macedonia. The wording of Titus 1:5, “I left you in Crete,” is most naturally understood as indicating that Paul was with Titus in Crete, leaving him there as Paul moved on. Reconstruction of an itinerary after that would most likely have Titus leaving Crete and joining Paul at Nicopolis (Titus 3:12). Perhaps Paul then went to Spain and, while in the western part of the Roman empire, was arrested and imprisoned again. At some point Paul sent Titus to Dalmatia (2 Tim. 4:10).3

Authorship and the Ethical Teaching of the Pastoral Letters

HAVING CONSIDERED THE identity of the recipients, with some implications for authorship, we now must probe the matter of authorship further. Since this introduction includes concerns regarding practical implications of these matters, it is necessary to inquire about the relationship between authorship and the ethical nature of these letters. Is it possible to avoid the shadow of deception if Timothy and Titus are only part of a literary fiction, figures in a book by an unknown, pseudonymous author?

The term literary fiction might seem strong, but it is not intended to be prejudicial. Pseudonymity was accepted in the first century, but apparently not, as will be noted, in Christian literature. In the case of the Pastoral Letters it would be what Bassler calls (approvingly) a “double pseudonymity,” referring to both author and the named recipients.4 There are, however, several other options that include the retention of some measure of integrity in the relationship of author and recipients.5

(1) One option is that the sections containing personal comments about Paul and his two associates are genuine fragments of earlier correspondence. This has the advantage of taking those sections at face value and perhaps justifying the use of Paul’s name as the author of the letters. It has the disadvantage of failing to explain all of the stylistic, linguistic, and theological differences between the letters as a whole and Paul’s accepted writings. It changes the nature of the correspondence as literary units. Further, it still requires a late date for the finished product, with other consequent problems. It also requires fitting the fragments into actual periods in Paul’s life and travels.

(2) Perhaps Paul used an amanuensis, a secretary, to whom he gave unusual liberty that amounted to the secretary’s recasting Paul’s thoughts in his own style and vocabulary. It is less likely, however, that even given that freedom, such a person would also develop the distinctive theology we find in the letters. This matter will be discussed further below. The most likely candidate for the role of amanuensis is Luke. It is easy to look at the distinctive vocabulary and find terms that an urbane physician (assuming that tradition about Luke) would have used, such as “healthy” or “sound” as a description of orthodox teachings.

(3) Another option, a mirror image of the preceding one, is that Paul wrote the Pastoral Letters with his own hand without secretarial help, though he dictated the other letters commonly ascribed to him. This seems highly unlikely, but most now acknowledge that Paul had coauthors and probably secretaries as he wrote those letters. His comment about writing large letters with his own hand (Gal. 6:11) probably refers to just those concluding lines. It is certainly possible that in his final travels Paul did not have ready access to a secretary or that he wrote with haste and urgency, especially since he was writing to personal friends rather than to churches. Nevertheless, the stylistic evidence of all the letters attributed to Paul does not fit this theory.

(4) Possibly the letters were actually written by someone other than Paul, probably after his death, but there are reasons why Paul may legitimately be considered the true author. They are not pseudonymous in the usual sense, for they were not ascribed to Paul in order that the actual writer might claim Paul’s authority falsely for his own purposes or might honor Paul’s name by using a literary fiction. Rather, they contained Paul’s real instructions to Timothy and Titus, and they conveyed the actual theological truths Paul was teaching at the end of his life. They were intended simply to preserve all this in a form (and with edited content) that communicated well to the churches and applied to their needs as they emerged from their loss of Paul’s continuing presence. On this construction the letters are not a literary fiction. Timothy and Titus were the true objects of Paul’s concerns, but the historical setting of the actual setting was later and the style and language were inevitably different from Paul’s own writing.

(5) The option held by most evangelicals and some others is that Paul wrote the letters himself, with the occasional aid of a secretary (hence the stylistic differences). Much of the change in theological emphasis was due to the nature of the circumstances, especially the content of the false teaching in Ephesians and at Crete. The absence of typical Pauline themes may be attributed (a) to his having adequately dealt with these themes previously and (b) to different topics in the false teachings he was now confronting. This option also makes allowance for theological development in Paul’s mind, along with the privilege of selectivity of choosing topics and vocabulary he had not used before. He may also have drawn on some of the ideas and vocabulary of Luke (such as the word “sound,” i.e., healthy) whether or not Luke was involved in the writing. This view values the Pastoral Letters as not only containing what Paul was likely to teach or was reported to have taught, z.

Several factors are important in deciding the authorship of these letters. The external evidence has often been discussed. The facts themselves are clear, and their significance tends to be tilted by the position of the interpreter. Polycarp, who died around A.D. 135 (and who wrote on this subject some twenty years earlier) and Clement of Rome (who wrote to the Corinthians around A.D. 96) made apparent allusions to the Pastoral Letters, as did Justin Martyr, writing around A.D. 140. The heretic Marcion (mid-second century), who judged the acceptability of Christian writings on the basis of their usefulness for his teachings, rejected their authenticity.6

The first mention of the Pastorals as written by Paul is around A.D. 180 (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 2.14.7; 3.3.3). They were mentioned in the Muratorian Canon (a list of accepted biblical writings compiled around A.D. 170–180). The most serious problem regarding authorship is their omission from the Chester Beatty Papyrus (p 46), probably written around A.D. 200 (though this was not a complete collection). One further testimony from the early church, often overlooked, is the statement by the bishop of Antioch, writing some undetermined time before his death around A.D. 211, that pseudepigraphic writings in the name of an apostle are to be rejected. Against modern theories of authorship that consider the Pastorals to be pseudepigraphic, claiming that ancient people easily accepted such writings, such a testimony is significant.

Among other factors that would need prolonged attention in a more detailed survey are recent studies in literary style and the appearance in the Pastoral Letters of Hellenistic moral conventions. Regarding style, the reader of one or another statistical survey cannot help but be impressed with the amount and apparent weight of convincing arguments. This approach includes vocabulary and grammatical factors in the attempt to quantify style and target authorship. Yet studies over the years have often failed to answer each other’s alleged facts and arguments. Also the statistical methodology used (such as the selection of data to examine) has sometimes been inadequate or simply wrong. Earlier studies did not have the advantage of more sophisticated computer programming, though even the most advanced techniques are only as good as the information fed to them.

One of the most recent studies on the subject is D. L. Mealand’s compilation of surveys and charts, which indicate that a methodology that accurately isolates such materials as the Johannine letters, Hebrews, and 1 and 2 Peter from the major Pauline letters also puts the Pastorals in a separate group.7 Evaluation of this study must take note that Ephesians and Colossians are also markedly different from Paul’s major letters and that “minor” Pauline works (such as Philippians) also show some differences as well.8

Only certain portions of the major Pauline letters were used in this study in contrast to the proportionately large units of all the Pastorals in the attempt to collect representative samples that were of approximately equal size for meaningful analysis. The greatest weakness in this approach is that sections within the Pastorals were not divided so that possible “fragments” (such as the personal comments to Timothy and Titus and sections exhibiting Hellenistic moral conventions) could be compared with each other. In spite of challenges to the methodology and samples used, the fact that a variety of studies have revealed differences that seem to have relevance to the issue of authorship cannot be ignored. Painstaking analysis must continue.9

The appearance of moral conventions familiar from Hellenistic writing is also relevant to the issue of authorship, but it has significance beyond that. In the course of her commentary, Bassler cites “the exhortation to ‘fight the good fight’ [which] echoes the philosophical moral discourse of the period,” the terminology and ideas of “godliness” (eusebeia) and “dignity” (semnotes), the provision for parents as a religious duty, the calling to be free from distractions (applied in the writings of Epictetus to Cynic philosophers and in 2 Tim. 2 to the good soldier), and the importance (in 2 Tim. 2) of struggling for virtue as a moral “athlete” and the “rhetorical device of presenting the opponents as a negative foil.”10

Such examples, of course, do not prove a late date for the Pastorals. Epictetus, for example, was born around the time Paul was preaching and writing, close enough for both to have shared in the same world of ideas. Nor are such allusions unknown in the accepted Pauline letters. The relevance is rather that the Pastoral Letters seem to have more concern than do the early Pauline writings for surpassing the expectations of Hellenistic moralists. But such concerns and reminders of conventional morality are not inconsistent with the Paul we already know.

The strong emphasis on ethics in the Pastoral Letters is also relevant to the issue of authorship. It would be strange indeed if an author who intended to teach such standards would himself go beyond honesty and truth by attempting to deceive the readership into thinking that not he but Paul was the author. If these letters convey only what Paul was likely to teach, but not what he, in fact, did teach, however noble that author’s motives may have been, it seems impossible to put any confidence in such a person as an ethical or moral teacher.

Theology and Ethics

THERE ARE A number of specific elements of doctrine that are either absent from or uniquely characteristic of these letters in comparison with earlier Pauline works. Elements absent from the other letters include justification and the “in Christ” formula in its unique Pauline sense. Uniquely prominent elements characteristic of the Pastorals include the references to God as Savior and the epiphany theme. Themes such as “the faith” and “truth” as the essence of the Christian message occur in 1 Timothy 1:19; 2:4; 3:9; 4:1, 3, 6; 5:8; 6:10, 12; 2 Timothy 2:25; 3:7—8; 4:7; Titus 1:1, 13. Another theme is “sound” doctrine (teaching, instruction, or faith) in 1 Timothy 1:10; 6:3; 2 Timothy 1:13; 4:3; Titus 1:9, 13; 2:1–2. These receive attention at appropriate places in the commentary, as does the repeated appearance of the phrase “trustworthy saying” (or “faithful/true saying,” KJV) in 1 Timothy 1:15; 3:1; 4:9; 2 Timothy 2:11; Titus 3:8 and the idea of a “deposit” committed or entrusted to Paul and his delegates (1 Tim. 6:20; 2 Tim. 1:14).

God as Savior. One of the most obvious theological distinctives in the Pastoral Letters is their repeated designation of God as Savior. Whereas the earlier Pauline letters and Paul’s messages in Acts attribute characteristics of deity, divine prerogatives (such as the role of Savior), and even the title kyrios (“Lord”) to Christ, the Pastorals attribute salvation directly to God, with Christ as Mediator.

This is not, however, to the detriment of Christ. The new emphasis on the epiphany (i.e., the appearance) of Christ counters such an idea. In this trio of letters, which appeals to Christians to live morally impeccable lives in the pagan world around them, Paul, a “teacher of the true faith to the Gentiles” (1 Tim. 2:7), exalts the one true God, “who wants all [people] to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:3–4, italics added). His reference in 2 Timothy 4:1 to both “God and…Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead,” recalls Paul’s words to the council in pagan Athens. But this God not only brings judgment; he also brings grace and the opportunity of salvation to all (Titus 2:11). This verse also contains the idea of epiphany, to which we shall return. Thus, “the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared” (Titus 3:4, another epiphany saying). God did not do this because of our works, but because of his mercy, through the agency of the Holy Spirit and “through Jesus Christ our Savior” (vv. 5–6).

The saving work of Christ is thus not separated from or subordinated to the saving work of God, but is proclaimed in the context of the love of God for the entire world (see comments on 1 Tim. 2:1–7 for the place of prayer in this grand scheme of God’s universal concern). There is nothing in all this that is incompatible with Pauline theology as we know it from Acts or the apostle’s earlier letters. This theme is understandable in the context of the Pastorals as they address the household of God, scattered in their various house church settings, seeking to be a testimony to the world around them.

The epiphany passages and the deity of Christ. The great “mystery of godliness” (or “mystery of [our] religion”) is basically an epiphany, a manifestation of Christ that includes vindication and acceptance (1 Tim. 3:16; see comments). While the Pastoral Letters are not triumphalistic—that is, they do not emphatically proclaim the success of God’s kingdom—there is nevertheless a strong sense of vindication: In the midst of unbelief, God has made his salvation known. Isaiah had longed to see God “rend the heavens and come down…to make your name known to your enemies” (Isa. 64:1–2). He reported God’s proclamation, “Arise, shine, for your light has come” (60:1), predicted that nations would come to God’s light (v. 3), and recorded God’s own words, “I revealed myself to those who did not ask for me” (65:1). Whether or not the Pastoral Letters specifically allude to such verses, we can see the common theme that God has now manifested his salvation to all people (Titus 2:11).

These letters, while directed to problems in the churches, are also (can we say mainly?) concerned with the missionary task of the church. In this respect they have a dual focus: (1) the revelation of Christ and the salvation he accomplished by God through Christ, and (2) the obligation of the church and its leaders to reflect this revelation not only in their message but in their manner of life, in order to “make the teaching about God our Savior attractive” (Titus 2:10).

The idea of appearing (represented not only by epiphaino, but also by epiphaneia and phaneroo) occurs at several places in the letters with different points of reference. (1) It signifies the first coming of Christ. First Timothy 3:16 does not specify Christ by name or title, but uses the pronoun “he” (or, in some manuscripts, “God”), clearly referring to Christ. In two other verses Christ is referred to by metonymy, using the word “grace.” Second Timothy 1:10 says, for example, that God’s grace “has now been revealed through the appearing of our Savior, Christ Jesus, who has destroyed death and has brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.” According to Titus 2:11, “the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all [people].”

(2) God’s word was revealed through Paul’s preaching. “At his appointed season he brought his word to light [phaneroo] through the preaching entrusted to me by the command of God our Savior” (Titus 1:3).

(3) The second coming of Christ, the parousia, is called an epiphany in the Pastoral Letters. We are to “keep this command without spot or blame until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Tim. 6:14). Paul gives a charge “in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom” (2 Tim. 4:1). That apostle has fought the good fight and says: “Now there is in store for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day—and not only to me, but also to all who have longed for his appearing” (2 Tim. 4:8). Also we wait for “the blessed hope—the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ” (Titus 2:13). Other passages in the Pastorals certainly uphold the deity of Christ, but the passage just cited is especially important in its wording.11

Ecclesiology. Although not much is said in the Pastorals regarding church organization, great emphasis is placed on church leadership. The most perplexing aspect of this, often debated, is the relation between “the overseer” and “elders.” The former word, episkopos, occurs only in the singular and only with the definite article (1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:7). Other considerations aside, this appears to indicate an individual rather than a group. The word presbyteroi, “elders,” occurs (apart from 1 Tim. 5:1; Titus 2:2, where the word means “older men”) in 1 Timothy 5:17 (“the elders who direct the affairs of the church well”), in 5:19 (“do not entertain an accusation against an elder”), and in Titus 1:5 (“appoint elders in every town”). Except for 1 Timothy 5:19, this word is in the plural in the Pastorals.

A detailed discussion is not possible here, but it may be useful to offer a summary. Several options (not all mutually exclusive) are possible. (1) The Pastoral Letters were written so long after Paul’s death that there was already a trend towards the monoepiscopate. The occurrence of “the overseer” marks the early stages of that development. In this case, while the KJV word “bishop” is anachronistic, it points in that direction. The use of the term episkopos is not, on this view, a directive of Paul, but shows the influence of the changing ecclesiology of the church.

(2) The term episkopos is adapted from its common use in Hellenistic literature, where it can indicate a public official or other responsible person. Paul was well acquainted with this usage and thought it appropriate, perhaps using it to describe a particular aspect of church leadership, such as governance, though not a particular office.

(3) Elders were common in Jewish leadership and in churches that were somewhat patterned after the synagogues. Readers would assume this Jewish background and shape their ecclesiological understanding accordingly.

(4) A natural assumption on the basis of the preceding view—and one that has been common among scholars for some time—is that the genuine Paul encouraged the expression of charismatic gifts by the people rather than dominance by elders. Whether charismatic ministry was incompatible with having official leaders in the church has been heavily debated. In any case, some claim the Pastorals represent a blending of views in a more organized church, one that must have taken shape after Paul’s time. Along these lines, episkopos and presbyteros are commonly thought to be alternate terms referring to the same leaders.

We may pause to note that one major reason for thinking that the terms are applied to the same group of leaders is that both terms occur (along with “shepherds”) in the account of Paul’s address to the church leaders of Ephesus (Acts 20:17–38, esp. vv. 17, 28) Moreover, Paul’s use of the terms episkopoi and diakonoi but not presbyteroi in the salutation of Philippians suggests that he easily used the one term as a synonym for the other. This view is strengthened by the appearance of “the overseer” in a passage about elders (Titus 1:7).

(5) Another view has been proposed recently.12 Eldership in Judaism and the early church was not an official position but a status of honor, usually accorded to older men. It would have been appropriate to describe leaders of household churches this way because they were, at least for the most part, the most honored family member of the household itself. At Lystra, Paul and Barnabas pointed out (cheirotoneo) those honored leaders who should be recognized as such by the church (Acts 14:23). This was neither an election nor the appointment of officers of the church. Paul did this kat’ ekklesian, “church by church” or “in each church.” As time went on, there were several churches in many cities and, therefore, a number of elders functioning in “every town” (kata polin)—hence the instructions using that term in Titus 1:5. The use of the singular “overseer” with the article indicates an individual who, unlike the honorific elders, was an official leader of a group of churches. This was a step towards monoepiscopal polity.

Without interacting with the whole proposal, we should note that this requires taking elders in an honorific, nonofficial sense in the phrase “apostles and elders” in Acts 15:2, 4, 6, 22–23; 16:4, which is possible but debatable. To view elders as honored household church leaders who received recognition and obedience without being elected or appointed to what we would call “office” may be closer to the truth than viewing them as elected officials who were honored and obeyed only because, and during the time that, they occupied a stated office in the church.

There is a subtle but substantial difference here. The former of these two ways of viewing elders accords better with the fact that there is no Greek word for “office” in the Pastoral Letters. Such a view does not in any way detract from the presence of elders as the authoritative leaders of the church. That authority is clear in 1 Timothy 5:17: “the elders who direct the affairs of the church well.” Thus, although the Pastorals were written at a time when leadership structure was still in a state of development, the church did not lack authority. Campbell’s attempt to preserve the honorific status of elders while explaining the term episkopos as designating an elder who has special supervisory status is commendable, even if there still exist vagaries in his reconstruction. The early evidence is, after all, spotty and inconclusive.

It can be seen from the preceding that the matter of ecclesiology is related to the matter of date and authorship. One of the major reasons offered for postulating a late date, well after the death of Paul, is that the structure of elders was already in view. The use of the term episkopos fortifies this theory. But it can also be argued that (1) elders were already in place in most churches, with Crete being an exception; (2) there had been a rapid spread of false teaching in these two churches; (3) this acceleration of error is not impossible, given the parallel earlier (doctrinally worse) situation at Galatia, where Paul was “perplexed” at their desertion (Gal. 4:20); and (4) to deal with false teaching in part by strengthening the authoritative leadership, now including those called episkopoi, was an early response of the sort that resulted in the rise of the monarchical episcopate. There is no reason why all of this could not have taken place in Paul’s lifetime.

Ethical and moral teachings. Perhaps the most unique feature of the Pastoral Letters is the repeated insistence on ethical and moral integrity. There is a deep concern that the two apostolic delegates, the church leaders, and everyday Christians live morally above reproach. This is not merely one theme among many or a theme reserved for the second “practical” half of a letter, but one that is inextricably connected to sound teaching, woven into the fabric of the whole corpus. Christians are not only to live lives of inner holiness; they are to live in such a way publicly as to demonstrate the moral superiority of the Christian way.

It is possible that Paul’s concern that the battle with false teachers had severe ethical overtones was heightened over the several years following his earlier Roman imprisonment. He may have broadened in his experience, he may have listened more intently to advisors such as Luke, and he may have realized more keenly that it was necessary to surpass the moral expectations of ethically minded Jews and Gentiles. The opponents at Ephesus and on Crete were vulnerable to criticism, and it was important to take the high road in controversy. Their behavior may have become much worse than anything Paul had encountered before.

All this is connected with the important social elements of honor and shame. In the ancient world shame was not simply a matter of having done wrong and becoming ashamed of that action. It was a matter of public approval or disapproval of certain customs and habits as well as actions.13 In the Pastoral Letters the elders were to be worthy of honor and respect outside as well as inside the church.14

But it is more than the use of specific words for honor and shame that signals the idea. Dignity (semnotetos) was important for elders, so their children should view them this way (1 Tim. 3:4). Deacons and their wives were to have that quality also (3:8, 11, where the adjective semnos is used, which also carries the idea of solemnity), as were older men and Titus himself (Titus 2:2, 7). Slaves were to consider their masters “worthy of full respect [time], so that God’s name and our teaching may not be slandered” (1 Tim. 6:1). Blamelessness in the community was important for overseers (3:2), and those who were responsible for enrolling a widow on the “list” had to be observant of her behavior so that they themselves might not be open to blame (5:7, see comments). These concerns, shared with Hellenistic moralists, are strongly represented in the Pastorals and also appear in other letters traditionally attributed to Paul. Forms of the household codes occur in Ephesians 5:21–6:9 and Colossians 3:18–4:1, and the avoidance of shame is significant in 1 Corinthians 11:2–16.

These examples show the importance of Christians adhering to standards of morality that will not bring blame on themselves, the church, and their Savior. The reasons for appropriate behavior in Titus 2 make this abundantly clear: (1) “so that no one will malign the word of God” (v. 5; “malign” here translates the Greek word blasphemeo, “blaspheme”), (2) “so that those who oppose you may be ashamed because they have nothing bad to say about us” (v. 8), and (3) “so that in every way they will make the teaching about God our Savior attractive” (v. 10, where the Greek word kosmeo, translated “make…attractive,” means “adorn, decorate”).

The ethical and moral concerns are interwoven with doctrine. For that reason it is impossible to cite here one or two major sections where this is done. The relevant passages will unfold and receive comment as they occur. This interweaving is itself significant. It reflects Paul’s picture of the ideal Christian leader, whose doctrinal teaching is blended with personal integrity, in contrast to teachers, whose corrupt doctrine is accompanied by corrupt morals.

Other Characteristics of the Pastoral Letters

IN ADDITION TO its theological emphases, the Pastoral Letters display several other unique characteristics. Some are linguistic, such as the use of “sound” or “healthy” to describe doctrine (see relevant places in the commentary). It also is one of the bits of language evidence often cited in discussions about authorship (see above). Two more deserve special attention.

The alternation of blocks of material. Instead of the familiar twofold division of doctrine and practice (e.g., Rom. 1–11 and 12–16), the Pastorals move frequently between exhortation, doctrine, and example. This pattern appears in each letter. For example, after the introduction, 1 Timothy 1 has a block of instruction (vv. 3–7), then the reason for this instruction (vv. 8–11), followed by a personal testimony (vv. 12–14), next a “trustworthy saying” and testimony and doxology (vv. 15–17), and then another block of instruction (vv. 18–20). Second Timothy 2 has instructions (vv. 1–7), the foundation for these (vv. 8–13), and further instructions (vv. 14–26). Titus 3 comprises instructions (vv. 1–2), foundation (including narrative and trustworthy saying, vv. 3–8), further instructions (vv. 9–11), and the conclusion (vv. 12–15).

The fact that it is different from the style we are used to seeing in the letters traditionally attributed to Paul not only has bearing on authorship and composition but on the study and teaching of the contents. The readers must make careful observation of all the transitions along with conjunctions and other vocabulary of transition and the topic and purpose of each section.15

Methods of argumentation. These letters also contain repeated maneuvers of defense (maintaining the faith) and of offense (opposing false teachers and their teachings). The word “faith,” especially when accompanied by the definite article, often means doctrine. It is not always clear when it refers to doctrine rather than personal faith, but some examples are 1 Timothy 3:9; 4:6; 5:8; 6:10, 12, 21; 2 Timothy 4:7; Titus 1:13; 2:2. One of the most noteworthy feature of the Pastorals is the repeated “trustworthy” or “faithful” saying (1 Tim. 1:15; 3:1; 4:9; 2 Tim. 2:11; Titus 3:8; see comments in the commentary).16

Paul not only defends the faith, he vigorously attacks error. That in itself is not unique. What is especially noteworthy is the attitude he recommends that Timothy and Titus have towards the false teachers and the way they are to deal with controversy. At the opening of 1 Timothy, Paul sets out the problem of false teaching and the need to stop it (1:3–4, 6–7, 19–20). Within this section he tells Timothy to “fight the good fight,” but does not enlarge on that language. Paul’s description of the false teachers and their errors continues in 4:1–2, after which he counsels Timothy to point out error and truth and to have nothing to do with “godless myths and old wives’ tales” (vv. 6–7). The heavy language about “quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk,” and so forth (6:4–5), is followed by instructions to Timothy to “turn away from godless chatter” and falsehoods (v. 20).

Among the examples in 2 Timothy are the counsel to “warn [the heretics] before God against quarreling about words,” but, on Timothy’s part, to “avoid godless chatter” (2 Tim. 2:14, 16). After strong words about Hymenaeus and Philetus (vv. 17–18), the advice to Timothy is, “Don’t have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels. And the Lord’s servant must not quarrel” (vv. 23–24). Instead, Timothy is to be kind and use gentle instruction, hoping for their repentance and escape from Satan (vv. 25–26).

Titus likewise is to “avoid foolish controversies…arguments and quarrels…because these are unprofitable and useless” (Titus 3:9). Paul makes it clear that the “divisive person” is “warped and sinful” (vv. 10–11). The contrast is thus clear. The false teachers are evil; the Lord’s servants must not use their methods but must be clear, kind, and optimistic.

Vocabulary of command. The present commentary will take special note of the terminology of command. This is not “authority” such as the Lord has or as Jesus gave to his disciples over demons, disease, and “all the power of the enemy” (not over people, Luke 10:19; see Matt. 10:1; Mark 3:15; 6:7; Luke 9:1). The Gospels use the Greek word for authority (exousia) forty-four times. It occurs only once in the Pastorals, referring to secular authority. Elsewhere in these letters the English word “authority” occurs in the NIV in 1 Timothy 2:15, where it translates the rare word authenteo (see comments), and in Titus 2:15, where it translates the noun epitage (“command”). Nevertheless, the command vocabulary in the Pastoral Letters is strong and variable and refers mainly to the specific orders and instructions Paul gave Timothy and Titus, which they, in turn, are to pass on to the churches (see esp. comments on 1 Tim. 1:1, 3; Titus 1:3).

Sound teaching and sound living: The importance of integrity. Returning to the idea of “soundness,” we note that “sound teaching” occurs frequently along with other combinations with hygiaino and hygies, words for being healthy (1 Tim. 1:10; 6:3; 2 Tim. 1:13, 4:3; Titus 1:9, 13; 2:1–2, 8). For Paul, this is not simply a clever pictorial idiom. His concern is for a sound faith that expresses itself in sound living. It is as though he was increasingly disgusted with the “slurry” of falsehood in teaching and living, the filthy mixture of corrupted doctrine and morals that he found in his theological opponents. He realized that what was needed desperately was not only truth in word but truth in the lives of teachers and other church leaders. What characterizes the Pastoral Letters most is not doctrine but doctrine blended with holy living.

Perhaps 1 Timothy 4:16 expresses this theme most succinctly: “Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers.” By this startling use of “save,” Paul indicates that Christians hold the key to the salvation of others by living such morally superior lives that they demonstrate the reality of the gospel. Life and doctrine are the winning combination.

This concern for sound teaching and godly living has a missionary goal, but it is also a means of honoring God. This is especially apparent in 1 Timothy, where:

• “sound doctrine” conforms to the “glorious gospel of the blessed God” (1:10–11)
• God displayed his patience in his dealing with Paul (1:16)
• “good deeds [are] appropriate for women who profess to worship God” (2:10)
• it is “in God’s household” that people should conduct themselves well (3:15)
• we should give thanks for “everything God created” (4:4)
• to care properly for widows is a religious act “pleasing to God” (5:4)
• “in the sight of God” believers should display a holy reverence (5:21)
• slaves should respect their masters “so that God’s name…may not be slandered” (6:1)

All this accords with the doxologies that characterize the Pastoral Letters (1 Tim. 1:17; 6:15–16; 2 Tim. 4:18).

A recognition of the theocentric nature of the Pastoral Letters reveals by contrast the inadequacy of the christliche Bürgerlichkeit (“Christian citizenship”)17 theme that is commonly attributed to these letters. Even the recognition that the household concept is a major element in the Pastorals fails to give sufficient place to the theme of sound teaching plus godly living plus doxology. As seen in the reference to “the glorious gospel” quoted above from 1 Timothy 1:11, God’s salvation is basic to all this. Towner calls salvation the “centerpoint of the message.”18 The blend of faith and godly character appears early in the letters, in 1 Timothy 1:5: “The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith,” which is partially repeated in 1:19, “holding on to faith and a good conscience” (italics added). When we grasp the importance of this and apply it, we have begun to understand the Pastoral Letters. They were written not only by Paul the theologian or Paul the churchman, but by Paul the missionary.

Procedure in the Commentary

I CLOSE WITH one final note. Because the style of the Pastoral Letters is to alternate blocks of material and within these to repeat topics and the relevant vocabulary, a commentator has to make decisions as to where and how best to deal with them without excess repetition. The most natural way is to discuss a topic fully at the point of first mention. But this does not serve well the reader who may be working on a later passage pertaining to that topic and only consults the commentary at that place. The procedure followed here, therefore, is to deal with the topics or vocabulary as thoroughly as seems appropriate at first mention. This, along with the desire to establish exegetical integrity, especially with regard to crucial issues that appear only in 1 Timothy, has resulted in an overbalance of comments on that book. I have attempted to indicate in later passages where earlier comments on a given subject may be found, but the reader is encouraged to find all relevant passages on a topic and to range over all the sections (including the Bridging Contexts and Contemporary Significance sections) that may touch on any item of interest.