Comentarios bíblicos

After the inscription (1Ti 1:1,2) we have, I. The charge given to Timothy, 1Ti 1:3,4. II. The true end of the law (1Ti 1:5-11), where he shows that it is entirely agreeable to the gospel. III. He mentions his own call to be an apostle, for which he expresses his thankfulness, 1Ti 1:12-16. IV. His doxology, 1Ti 1:17. V. A renewal of the charge to Timothy, 1Ti 1:18. And of Hymenæus and Alexander, 1Ti 1:19,20.

INTRODUCTION

GENUINENESS.--The ancient Church never doubted of their being canonical and written by Paul. They are in the Peschito Syriac version of the second century. MURATORI'S Fragment on the Canon of Scripture, at the close of the second century, acknowledges them as such. IRENÆUS [Against Heresies, 1; 3.3.3; 4.16.3; 2.14.8; 3.11.1; 1.16.3], quotes

1Ti 1:4, 9; 6:20; 2Ti 4:9-11; Tit 3:10.

CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA [Miscellanies, 2, p. 457; 3, pp. 534, 536; 1, p. 350], quotes

1Ti 6:1, 20;

Second Timothy, as to deaconesses;

Tit 1:12.

TERTULLIAN [The Prescription against Heretics, 25; 6], quotes

1Ti 6:20; 2Ti 1:14; 1Ti 1:18; 6:13, &c.; 2Ti 2:2; Tit 3:10, 11.

EUSEBIUS includes the three in the "universally acknowledged" Scriptures. Also THEOPHILUS OF ANTIOCH [To Autolychus, 3.14], quotes

1Ti 2:1, 2; Tit 3:1,

and CAIUS (in EUSEBIUS [Ecclesiastical History, 6.20]) recognizes their authenticity. CLEMENT OF ROME, in the end of the first century, in his first Epistle to the Corinthians [29], quotes

1Ti 2:8.

IGNATIUS, in the beginning of the second century, in Epistle to Polycarp, [6], alludes to

2Ti 2:4.

POLYCARP, in the beginning of the second century [Epistle to the Philippians, 4], alludes to

2Ti 2:4;

and in the ninth chapter to

2Ti 4:10.

Hegisippus, in the end of the second century, in EUSEBIUS [Ecclesiastical History, 3.32], alludes to

1Ti 6:3, 20.

ATHENAGORAS, in the end of the second century, alludes to

1Ti 6:16.

JUSTIN MARTYR, in the middle of the second century [Dialogue with Trypho, 47], alludes to

Tit 3:4.

The Gnostic MARCION alone rejected these Epistles.

The HERESIES OPPOSED in them form the transition stage from Judaism, in its ascetic form, to Gnosticism, as subsequently developed. The references to Judaism and legalism are clear

(1Ti 1:7; 4:3; Tit 1:10, 14; 3:9).

Traces of beginning Gnosticism are also unequivocal

(1Ti 1:4).

The Gnostic theory of a twofold principle from the beginning, evil as well as good, appears in germ in

1Ti 4:3,

&c. In

1Ti 6:20

the term Gnosis ("science") itself occurs. Another Gnostic error, namely, that "the resurrection is past," is alluded to in

2Ti 2:17, 18.

The Judaism herein opposed is not that of the earlier Epistles, which upheld the law and tried to join it with faith in Christ for justification. It first passed into that phase of it which appears in the Epistle to the Colossians, whereby will-worship and angel-worship were superadded to Judaizing opinions. Then a further stage of the same evil appears in the Epistle to the Philippians

(Php 3:2, 18, 19),

whereby immoral practice accompanied false doctrine as to the resurrection (compare

2Ti 2:18, with 1Co 15:12, 32, 33).

This descent from legality to superstition, and from superstition to godlessness, appears more matured in the references to it in these Pastoral Epistles. The false teachers now know not the true use of the law

(1Ti 1:7, 8),

and further, have put away good conscience as well as the faith

(1Ti 1:19; 4:2);

speak lies in hypocrisy, are corrupt in mind, and regard godliness as a means of earthly gain

(1Ti 6:5

Tit 1:11);

overthrow the faith by heresies eating as a canker, saying the resurrection is past

(2Ti 2:17, 18),

leading captive silly women, ever learning yet never knowing the truth, reprobate as Jannes and Jambres

(2Ti 3:6, 8),

defiled, unbelieving, professing to know God, but in works denying Him, abominable, disobedient, reprobate

(Tit 1:15, 16).

This description accords with that in the Catholic Epistles of St. John and St. Peter, and, in the Epistle to the Hebrews. This fact proves the later date of these Pastoral Epistles as compared with Paul's earlier Epistles. The Judaism reprobated herein is not that of an earlier date, so scrupulous as to the law; it was now tending to immortality of practice. On the other hand, the Gnosticism opposed in these Epistles is not the anti-Judaic Gnosticism of a later date, which arose as a consequence of the overthrow of Judaism by the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, but it was the intermediate phase between Judaism and Gnosticism, in which the Oriental and Greek elements of the latter were in a kind of amalgam with Judaism, just prior to the overthrow of Jerusalem.

The DIRECTIONS AS TO CHURCH GOVERNORS and ministers, "bishop-elders, and deacons," are such as were natural for the apostle, in prospect of his own approaching removal, to give to Timothy, the president of the Church at Ephesus, and to Titus, holding the same office in Crete, for securing the due administration of the Church when he should be no more, and at a time when heresies were rapidly springing up. Compare his similar anxiety in his address to the Ephesian elders

(Ac 20:21-30).

The Presbyterate (elders; priest is a contraction from presbyter) and Diaconate had existed from the earliest times in the Church

(Ac 6:3; 11:30; 14:23).

Timothy and Titus, as superintendents or overseers (so bishop subsequently meant), were to exercise the same power in ordaining elders at Ephesus which the apostle had exercised in his general supervision of all the Gentile churches.

The PECULIARITIES OF MODES OF THOUGHT AND EXPRESSION, are such as the difference of subject and circumstances of those addressed and those spoken of in these Epistles, as compared with the other Epistles, would lead us to expect. Some of these peculiar phrases occur also in Galatians, in which, as in the Pastoral Epistles, he, with his characteristic fervor, attacks the false teachers. Compare

1Ti 2:6; Tit 2:14,

"gave Himself for us," with

Ga 1:4;

1Ti 1:17; 2Ti 4:18,

"for ever and ever," with

Ga 1:5:

"before God,"

1Ti 5:21; 6:13; 2Ti 2:14; 4:1, with Ga 1:20:

"a pillar,"

1Ti 3:15, with Ga 2:9:

"mediator,"

1Ti 2:5, with Ga 3:20:

"in due season,"

1Ti 2:6; 6:15; Tit 1:3 with Ga 6:9.

TIME AND PLACE OF WRITING.--The First Epistle to Timothy was written not long after Paul had left Ephesus for Macedon

(1Ti 1:3).

Now, as Timothy was in Macedon with Paul

(2Co 1:1)

on the occasion of Paul's having passed from Ephesus into that country, as recorded,

Ac 19:22; 20:1,

whereas the First Epistle to Timothy contemplates a longer stay of Timothy in Ephesus, MOSHEIM supposes that Paul was nine months of the "three years" stay mostly at Ephesus

(Ac 20:31)

in Macedonia, and elsewhere (perhaps Crete), (the mention of only "three months" and "two years,"

Ac 19:8, 10,

favors this, the remaining nine months being spent elsewhere); and that during these nine months Timothy, in Paul's absence, superintended the Church of Ephesus. It is not likely that Ephesus and the neighboring churches should have been left long without church officers and church organization, rules respecting which are giver in this Epistle. Moreover, Timothy was still "a youth"

(1Ti 4:12),

which he could hardly be called after Paul's first imprisonment, when he must have been at least thirty-four years of age. Lastly, in

Ac 20:25,

Paul asserts his knowledge that the Ephesians should not all see his face again, so that

1Ti 1:3

will thus refer to his sojourn at Ephesus, recorded in

Ac 19:10,

whence he passed into Macedonia. But the difficulty is to account for the false teachers having sprung up almost immediately (according to this theory) after the foundation of the Church. However, his visit recorded in

Ac 19:1-41

was not his first visit. The beginning of the Church at Ephesus was probably made at his visit a year before

(Ac 18:19-21).

Apollos, Aquila and Priscilla, carried on the work

(Ac 18:24-26).

Thus, as to the sudden growth of false teachers, there was time enough for their springing up, especially considering that the first converts at Ephesus were under Apollos' imperfect Christian teachings at first, imbued as he was likely to be with the tenets of PHILO of Alexandria, Apollos' native town, combined with John the Baptist's Old Testament teachings

(Ac 18:24-26).

Besides Ephesus, from its position in Asia, its notorious voluptuousness and sorcery

(Ac 19:18, 19),

and its lewd worship of Diana (answering to the Phœnician Ashtoreth), was likely from the first to tinge Christianity in some of its converts with Oriental speculations and Asiatic licentiousness of practices. Thus the phenomenon of the phase of error presented in this Epistle, being intermediate between Judaism and later Gnosticism (see above), would be such as might occur at an early period in the Ephesian Church, as well as later, when we know it had open "apostles" of error

(Re 2:2, 6),

and Nicolaitans infamous in practice. As to the close connection between this First Epistle and the Second Epistle (which must have been written at the close of Paul's life), on which ALFORD relies for his theory of making the First Epistle also written at the close of Paul's life, the similarity of circumstances, the person addressed being one and the same, and either in Ephesus at the time, or at least connected with Ephesus as its church overseer, and having heretics to contend with of the same stamp as in the First Epistle, would account for the connection. There is not so great identity of tone as to compel us to adopt the theory that some years could not have elapsed between the two Epistles.

However, all these arguments against the later date may be answered. This First Epistle may refer not to the first organization of the Church under its bishops, or elders and deacons, but to the moral qualifications laid down at a later period for those officers when scandals rendered such directions needful. Indeed, the object for which he left Timothy at Ephesus he states

(1Ti 1:3)

to be, not to organize the Church for the first time, but to restrain the false teachers. The directions as to the choice of fit elders and deacons refer to the filling up of vacancies, not to their first appointment. The fact of there existing an institution for Church widows implies an established organization. As to Timothy's "youth," it may be spoken of comparatively young compared with Paul, now "the aged"

(Phm 9),

and with some of the Ephesian elders, senior to Timothy their overseer. As to

Ac 20:25,

we know not but that "all" of the elders of Ephesus called to Miletus "never saw Paul's face" afterwards, as he "knew" (doubtless by inspiration) would be the case, which obviates the need of ALFORD'S lax view, that Paul was wrong in this his positive inspired anticipation (for such it was, not a mere boding surmise as to the future). Thus he probably visited Ephesus again

(1Ti 1:3; 2Ti 1:18; 4:20,

he would hardly have been at Miletum, so near Ephesus, without visiting Ephesus) after his first imprisonment in Rome, though all the Ephesian elders whom he had addressed formerly at Miletus did not again see him. The general similarity of subject and style, and of the state of the Church between the two Epistles, favors the view that they were near one another in date. Also, against the theory of the early date is the difficulty of defining, when, during Paul's two or three years' stay at Ephesus, we can insert an absence of Paul from Ephesus long enough for the requirements of the case, which imply a lengthened stay and superintendence of Timothy at Ephesus (see, however,

1Ti 3:14,

on the other side) after having been "left" by Paul there. Timothy did not stay there when Paul left Ephesus

(Ac 19:22; 20:1; 2Co 1:1).

In

1Ti 3:14,

Paul says, "I write, hoping to come unto thee shortly," but on the earlier occasion of his passing from Ephesus to Macedon he had no such expectation, but had planned to spend the summer in Macedon, and the winter in Corinth,

(1Co 16:6).

The expression "Till I come"

(1Ti 4:13),

implies that Timothy was not to leave his post till Paul should arrive; this and the former objection, however, do not hold good against MOSHEIM'S theory. Moreover, Paul in his farewell address to the Ephesian elders prophetically anticipates the rise of false teachers hereafter of their own selves; therefore this First Epistle, which speaks of their actual presence at Ephesus, would naturally seem to be not prior, but subsequent, to the address, that is, will belong to the later date assigned. In the Epistle to the Ephesians no notice is taken of the Judaeo-Gnostic errors, which would have been noticed had they been really in existence; however, they are alluded to in the contemporaneous sister Epistle to Colossians

(Col 2:1-23).

Whatever doubt must always remain as to the date of the First Epistle, there can be hardly any as to that of the Second Epistle. In

2Ti 4:13,

Paul directs Timothy to bring the books and cloak which the apostle had left at Troas. Assuming that the visit to Troas referred to is the one mentioned in

Ac 20:5-7,

it will follow that the cloak and parchments lay for about seven years at Troas, that being the time that elapsed between the visit and Paul's first imprisonment at Rome: a very unlikely supposition, that he should have left either unused for so long. Again, when, during his first Roman imprisonment, he wrote to the Colossians

(Col 4:14)

and Philemon

(Phm 24),

Demas was with him; but when he was writing

2Ti 4:10,

Demas had forsaken him from love of this world, and gone to Thessalonica. Again, when he wrote to the Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians, and Philemon, he had good hopes of a speedy liberation; but here in

2Ti 4:6-8,

he anticipates immediate death, having been at least once already tried

(2Ti 4:16).

Again, he is in this Epistle represented as in closer confinement than he was when writing those former Epistles in his first imprisonment (even in the Philippians, which represent him in greater uncertainty as to his life, he cherished the hope of soon being delivered,

Php 2:24; 2Ti 1:16-18; 2:9; 4:6-8, 16).

Again

(2Ti 4:20),

he speaks of having left Trophimus sick at Miletum. This could not have been on the occasion,

Ac 20:15.

For Trophimus was with Paul at Jerusalem shortly afterwards

(Ac 21:29).

Besides, he would thus be made to speak of an event six or seven years after its occurrence, as a recent event: moreover, Timothy was, on that occasion of the apostle being at Miletum, with Paul, and therefore needed not to be informed of Trophimus' sickness there

(Ac 20:4-17).

Also, the statement

(2Ti 4:20),

"Erastus abode at Corinth," implies that Paul had shortly before been at Corinth, and left Erastus there; but Paul had not been at Corinth for several years before his first imprisonment, and in the interval Timothy had been with him, so that he did not need to write subsequently about that visit. He must therefore have been liberated after his first imprisonment (indeed,

Heb 13:23, 24,

expressly proves that the writer was in Italy and at liberty), and resumed his apostolic journeyings, and been imprisoned at Rome again, whence shortly before his death he wrote Second Timothy.

EUSEBIUS [Chronicles, Anno 2083] (beginning October, A.D. 67), says, "Nero, to his other crimes, added the persecution of Christians: under him the apostles Peter and Paul consummated their martyrdom at Rome." So JEROME [On Illustrious Men], "In the fourteenth year of Nero, Paul was beheaded at Rome for Christ's sake, on the same day as Peter, and was buried on the Ostian Road, in the thirty-seventh year after the death of our Lord." ALFORD reasonably conjectures the Pastoral Epistles were written near this date. The interval was possibly filled up (so CLEMENT OF ROME states that Paul preached as far as "to the extremity of the west") by a journey to Spain

(Ro 15:24, 28),

according to his own original intention. MURATORI'S Fragment on the Canon of Scripture (about A.D. 170) also alleges Paul's journey into Spain. So EUSEBIUS, CHRYSOSTOM, and JEROME. Be that as it may, he seems shortly before his second imprisonment to have visited Ephesus, where a new body of elders governed the Church

(Ac 20:25),

say in the latter end of A.D. 66, or beginning of 67. Supposing him thirty at his conversion, he would now be upwards of sixty, and older in constitution than in years, through continual hardship. Even four years before he called himself "Paul the aged"

(Phm 9).

From Ephesus he went into Macedonia

(1Ti 1:3).

He may have written the First Epistle to Timothy from that country. But his use of "went," not "came," in

1Ti 1:3,

"When I went into Macedonia," implies he was not there when writing. Wherever he was, he writes uncertain how long he may be detained from coming to Timothy

(1Ti 3:14, 15).

BIRKS shows the probability that he wrote from Corinth, between which city and Ephesus the communication was rapid and easy. His course, as on both former occasions, was from Macedon to Corinth. He finds a coincidence between

1Ti 2:11-14, and 1Co 14:34,

as to women being silent in Church; and

1Ti 5:17, 18, and 1Co 9:8-10,

as to the maintenance of ministers, on the same principle as the Mosaic law, that the ox should not be muzzled that treadeth out the corn; and

1Ti 5:19, 20, and 2Co 13:1-4,

as to charges against elders. It would be natural for the apostle in the very place where these directions had been enforced, to reproduce them in his letter.

The date of the Epistle to Titus must depend on that assigned to First Timothy, with which it is connected in subject, phraseology, and tone. There is no difficulty in the Epistle to Titus, viewed by itself, in assigning it to the earlier date, namely, before Paul's first imprisonment. In

Ac 18:18, 19,

Paul, in journeying from Corinth to Palestine, for some cause or other landed at Ephesus. Now we find

(Tit 3:13)

that Apollos in going from Ephesus to Corinth was to touch at Crete (which seems to coincide with Apollos' journey from Ephesus to Corinth, recorded in

Ac 18:24, 27; 19:1);

therefore it is not unlikely that Paul may have taken Crete similarly on his way between Corinth and Ephesus; or, perhaps been driven out of his course to it in one of his three shipwrecks spoken of in

2Co 11:25, 26;

this will account for his taking Ephesus on his way from Corinth to Palestine, though out of his regular course. At Ephesus Paul may have written the Epistle to Titus [HUG]; there he probably met Apollos and gave the Epistle to Titus to his charge, before his departure for Corinth by way of Crete, and before the apostle's departure for Jerusalem

(Ac 18:19-21, 24).

Moreover, on Paul's way back from Jerusalem and Antioch, he travelled some time in Upper Asia

(Ac 19:1);

and it was then, probably, that his intention to "winter at Nicopolis" was realized, there being a town of that name between Antioch and Tarsus, lying on Paul's route to Galatia

(Tit 3:12).

Thus, First Timothy will, in this theory, be placed two and a half years later

(Ac 20:1;

compare

1Ti 1:3).

ALFORD'S argument for classing the Epistle to Titus with First Timothy, as written after Paul's first Roman imprisonment, stands or falls with his argument for assigning First Timothy to that date. Indeed, HUG'S unobjectionable argument for the earlier date of the Epistle to Titus, favors the early date assigned to First Timothy, which is so much akin to it, if other arguments be not thought to counterbalance this. The Church of Crete had been just founded

(Tit 1:5),

and yet the same heresies are censured in it as in Ephesus, which shows that no argument, such as ALFORD alleges against the earlier date of First Timothy, can be drawn from them

(Tit 1:10, 11, 15, 16; 3:9, 11).

But vice versa, if, as seems likely from the arguments adduced, the First Epistle to Timothy be assigned to the later date, the Epistle to Titus must, from similarity of style, belong to the same period.

ALFORD traces Paul's last journey before his second imprisonment thus: To Crete

(Tit 1:5),

Miletus

(2Ti 4:20),

Colosse (fulfilling his intention,

Phm 22),

Ephesus

(1Ti 1:3; 2Ti 1:18),

from which neighborhood he wrote the Epistle to Titus; Troas, Macedonia, Corinth

(2Ti 4:20),

Nicopolis

(Tit 3:12)

in Epirus, where he had intended to winter; a place in which, as being a Roman colony, he would be free from tumultuary violence, and yet would be more open to a direct attack from foes in the metropolis, Rome. Being known in Rome as the leader of the Christians, he was probably [ALFORD] arrested as implicated in causing the fire in A.D. 64, attributed by Nero to the Christians, and was sent to Rome by the Duumvirs of Nicopolis. There he was imprisoned as a common malefactor

(2Ti 2:9);

his Asiatic friends deserted him, except Onesiphorus

(2Ti 1:16).

Demas, Crescens, and Titus, left him. Tychicus he had sent to Ephesus. Luke alone remained with him

(2Ti 4:10-12).

Under the circumstances he writes the Second Epistle to Timothy, most likely while Timothy was at Ephesus

(2Ti 2:17;

compare

1Ti 1:20; 2Ti 4:13),

begging him to come to him before winter

(2Ti 4:21),

and anticipating his own execution soon

(2Ti 4:6).

Tychicus was perhaps the bearer of the Second Epistle

(2Ti 4:12).

His defense was not made before the emperor, for the latter was then in Greece

(2Ti 4:16, 17).

Tradition represents that he died by the sword, which accords with the fact that his Roman citizenship would exempt him from torture; probably late in A.D. 67 or A.D. 68, the last year of Nero.

Timothy is first mentioned,

Ac 16:1,

as dwelling in Lystra (not Derbe, compare

Ac 20:4).

His mother was a Jewess named Eunice

(2Ti 1:5);

his father, "a Greek" (that is, a Gentile). As Timothy is mentioned as "a disciple" in

Ac 16:1,

he must have been converted before, and this by Paul

(1Ti 1:2),

probably at his former visit to Lystra

(Ac 14:6);

at the same time, probably, that his Scripture-loving mother, Eunice, and grandmother, Lois, were converted to Christ from Judaism

(2Ti 3:14, 15).

Not only the good report given as to him by the brethren of Lystra, but also his origin, partly Jewish, partly Gentile, adapted him specially for being Paul's assistant in missionary work, laboring as the apostle did in each place, firstly among the Jews, and then among the Gentiles. In order to obviate Jewish prejudices, he first circumcised him. He seems to have accompanied Paul in his tour through Macedonia; but when the apostle went forward to Athens, Timothy and Silas remained in Berea. Having been sent back by Paul to visit the Thessalonian Church

(1Th 3:2),

he brought his report of it to the apostle at Corinth

(1Th 3:6).

Hence we find his name joined with Paul's in the addresses of both the Epistles to Thessalonians, which were written at Corinth. We again find him "ministering to" Paul during the lengthened stay at Ephesus

(Ac 19:22).

Thence he was sent before Paul into Macedonia and to Corinth

(1Co 4:17; 16:10).

He was with Paul when he wrote the Second Epistle to Corinthians

(2Co 1:1);

and the following winter in Corinth, when Paul sent from thence his Epistle to the Romans

(Ro 16:21).

On Paul's return to Asia through Macedonia, he went forward and waited for the apostle at Troas

(Ac 20:3-5).

Next we find him with Paul during his imprisonment at Rome, when the apostle wrote the Epistles to Colossians

(Col 1:1),

Philemon

(Phm 1),

and Philippians

(Php 1:1).

He was imprisoned and set at liberty about the same time as the writer of the Hebrews

(Heb 13:23).

In the Pastoral Epistles, we find him mentioned as left by the apostle at Ephesus to superintend the Church there

(1Ti 1:3).

The last notice of him is in the request which Paul makes to him

(2Ti 4:21)

to "come before winter," that is about A.D. 67 [ALFORD]. EUSEBIUS [Ecclesiastical History, 3.42], reports that he was first bishop of Ephesus; and [NICOPHORUS, Ecclesiastical History, 3.11], represents that he died by martyrdom. If then, St. John, as tradition represents, resided and died in that city, it must have been at a later period. Paul himself ordained or consecrated him with laying on of his own hands, and those of the presbytery, in accordance with prophetic intimations given respecting him by those possessing the prophetic gift

(1Ti 1:18; 4:14

2Ti 1:6).

His self-denying character is shown by his leaving home at once to accompany the apostle, and submitting to circumcision for the Gospel's sake; and also by his abstemiousness (noted in

1Ti 5:23)

notwithstanding his bodily infirmities, which would have warranted a more generous diet. Timidity and a want of self-confidence and boldness in dealing with the difficulties of his position, seem to have been a defect in his otherwise beautiful character as a Christian minister

(1Co 16:10; 1Ti 4:12; 2Ti 1:7).

The DESIGN of the First Epistle was: (1) to direct Timothy to charge the false teachers against continuing to teach other doctrine than that of the Gospel

(1Ti 1:3-20;

compare

Re 2:1-6);

(2) to give him instructions as to the orderly conducting of worship, the qualifications of bishops and deacons, and the selection of widows who should, in return for Church charity, do appointed service

(1Ti 2:1-6:2);

(3) to warn against covetousness, a sin prevalent at Ephesus, and to urge to good works

(1Ti 6:3-19).

Introduction to 1Timothy

Section 1. Notices of the Life of Timothy

Nearly all that can now be known of Timothy is to be learned from the New Testament. He was a native of either Derbe or Lystra, but it is not certainly known which Acts 16:1. Paul found him there on his visit to those places, and does not appear to have been acquainted with him before. His mother, whose name was Eunice, was a Jewess, and was pious, as was also his grandmother, Lois 2 Timothy 1:3. His father was a Greek, but was evidently not unfriendly to the Jewish religion, because Timothy had been carefully trained in the Scriptures 2 Timothy 3:15. Paul came to Derbe and Lystra. and became acquainted with Timothy, about 51 or 52 a.d., but there is no method now of ascertaining the exact age of Timothy at that time, though there is reason to think that he was then a youth 1 Timothy 4:12. It would seem, also, that he was a youth of uncommon hope and promise, and that there had been some special indications that he would rise to distinction as a religious man, and would exert an extended influence in favor of religion 1 Timothy 1:18. At the time when Paul first met with Timothy, he was a "disciple," or a Christian convert; but the means which had been used for his conversion are unknown. Timothy's mother had been before converted to the Christian faith Acts 16:1, and Timothy was well known to the Christians in the neighboring towns of Lystra and Iconium. The gospel had been preached by Paul and Barnabas, in Iconium, Derbe, and Lystra, some six or seven years before it is said that Paul met with Timothy Acts 16:1, and it is not improbable that this youth had been converted in the interval.

Several things appear to have combined to induce the apostle to introduce him into the ministry, and to make him a traveling companion. His youth; his acquaintance with the Holy Scriptures; the "prophecies which went before on him;" his talents; his general reputation in the church, and, it would seem also, his amiableness of manners, adapting himself to be an agreeable companion. attracted the attention of the apostle, and led Paul to desire that he might be a fellow-laborer with him. To satisfy the prejudices of the Jews, and to prevent any possible objection which might be made against his qualifications for the ministerial office, Paul circumcised him Acts 16:3, and Timothy was ordained to the office of the ministry by "the laying on of the hands of the presbytery" 1 Timothy 4:14. When this ordination occurred is not known, but it is most probable that it was before Timothy went on his travels with Paul, since it is known that Paul was present on the occasion, and took a leading part in the transaction 2 Timothy 1:6.

Having joined Paul and Silas, Timothy accompanied them on a visit to the congregations of Phrygia and Galatia, in which they delivered them the decrees to keep which had been ordained at Jerusalem; Acts 16:4 following. Having done this, they endeavored to go together into Bythinia, a province of Asia Minor, on the northwest, but were prevented; and they then went into Mysia, and to the towns of Troas; Acts 16:8. Here Luke appears to have joined them, and from this place, in obedience to a vision which appeared to Paul, they went into Macedonia, and preached the gospel first at Philippi, where they established a church. In this city Paul and Silas were imprisoned; but it is remarkable that nothing is said of Timothy and Luke, and it is not known whether they shared in the sufferings of the persecution there or not. Everything, however, renders it probable that Timothy was with them at Philippi, as he is mentioned as having started with them to go on the journey Acts 16:3; and, since we find Timothy at Berea, after the apostle had been released from prison, and had preached at Thessalonica and Berea Acts 17:14. From this place Paul was conducted to Athens, but left an injunction for Silas and Timothy to join him there as soon as possible. This was done; - but when Timothy had come to Athens, Paul felt it to be important that the church at Thessalonica should be visited and comforted in its afflictions, and being prevented from doing it himself, he sent Timothy, at great personal inconvenience, back to that church. Having discharged the duty there, he rejoined the apostle at Corinth Act 18:5, from which place the First Epistle to the Thessalonians was written; see the introduction to 1 Thessalonians nd the notes on 1 Thessalonians 1:1, and 1 Thessalonians 3:2. These transactions occurred about 52 ad.

Paul remained at Corinth for a year and a half Acts 18:11, and it is probable that Timothy and Silas continued with him; see 2 Thessalonians 1:1. From Corinth he sailed for Syria, accompanied by Priscilla and Aquila, whom he appears to have left on his way at Ephesus; Acts 18:18-19, Acts 18:26. Whether Timothy and Silas accompanied him is not mentioned, but we find Timothy again with him at Ephesus, after he had been to Caesarea and Antioch, and had returned to Ephesus; Acts 18:22; Acts 19:1, Acts 19:22. From Ephesus, he sent Timothy and Erastus to Macedonia Acts 19:22, but for what purpose, or how long they remained, is unknown. From 1 Corinthians 4:17, it appears that Paul expected that on this journey Timothy would stop at Corinth, and would give the church there instructions adapted to its situation. Paul continued in Ephesus until he was compelled to depart by the tumult caused by Demetrius, when he left and went to Macedonia; Acts 20.

Whether Timothy, during the interval, had returned to Ephesus from Macedonia, is not expressly mentioned in the history; but such a supposition is not improbable. Paul, during the early part of his residence in Ephesus, appears to have labored quietly Acts 19:9-10; and Timothy was sent away before the disturbances caused by Demetrius; Acts 19:22. Paul designed to follow him soon, and then to go to Jerusalem, and then to Rome; Acts 19:21. Paul Acts 20:31 was in Ephesus in all for about three years; and it is not unreasonable to suppose that he remained there after Timothy was sent to Macedonia long enough for him to go and to return to him again. If so, it is possible that when Paul himself went away, he left Timothy there in his place; compare 1 Timothy 1:3. It has been the general opinion that the First Epistle to Timothy was written at this time, either when the apostle was on his way to Macedonia, or while in Macedonia. But this opinion has not been unquestioned.

The departure of Paul for Macedonia occurred about 58 or 59 a.d. In Acts 20:4, Timothy is again mentioned as accompanying Paul, after he had remained in Greece three months, on the route to Syria through Macedonia. He went with him, in company with many others, into "Asia." Going before Paul, they waited for him at Troas Acts 20:5, and thence doubtless accompanied him on his way to Jerusalem. It was on this occasion that Paul delivered his farewell charge to the elders of the church of Ephesus at Miletus Acts 20:17. When in Macedonia, Paul wrote the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, and Timothy was then with him, for Paul unites in the salutations; 2 Corinthians 1:1. Timothy was also with the apostle on this journey at Corinth, when from that city he wrote his Epistle to the Romans; Romans 16:21.

The subsequent events of the life of Timothy are less known. It does not appear from the Acts of the Apostles, that Timothy was with Paul during his two years' imprisonment at Caesarea, nor during his voyage to Rome. It is certain, however, that he was at Rome with the apostle when he wrote the epistles to the Philippians, to the Colossians, and to Philemon; Philippians 1:1; Colossians 1:1; Plm 1:1; From Hebrews 13:23 it appears also, that Timothy had been with the apostle there, but that when the Epistle was written he was absent on some important embassy, and that Paul was expecting his speedy return; see notes on that verse. Between the first and second imprisonment of Paul at Rome, no mention is made of Timothy, nor is it known where he was, or whether he accompanied him in his travels or not. When he was imprisoned there the second time, he wrote the Second Epistle to Timothy, in which he desires him to come to Rome, and bring with him several things which he had left at Troas; 2 Timothy 4:9-13, 2 Timothy 4:21. If Timothy went to Rome, agreeably to the request of the apostle, it is probable that he was a witness there of his martyrdom.

In regard to the latter part of the life of Timothy, there is nothing which can be depended upon. It has been the current opinion, derived from tradition, that he was "Bishop" of Ephesus; that he died and was buried there; and that his bones were subsequently removed to Constantinople. The belief that he was "Bishop" of Ephesus rests mainly on the "subscription" to the Second Epistle to Timothy - which is no authority whatever (see notes on that subscription). On the question whether he was an episcopal prelate at Ephesus, the reader may consult my "Enquiry into the Organization and Government of the Apostolic Church," pp. 88-107. The supposition that he died at Ephesus, and was subsequently removed to Constantinople, rests on no certain historical basis.

Timothy was long the companion and the friend of the apostle Paul, and is often mentioned by him with affectionate interest. Indeed there seems to have been not one of his fellow-laborers to whom he was so warmly attached; see 1 Timothy 1:2, 1 Timothy 1:18; 2 Timothy 1:2; 2 Timothy 2:1; 1 Corinthians 4:17, where he calls him "his own son," and "his beloved son" 2 Timothy 1:4, where he expresses his earnest desire to see him, and makes a reference to the tears which Timothy shed at parting from him; - 1 Corinthians 16:10-11, where he bespeaks for him a kind reception among the Corinthians; - 1 Corinthians 16:10; Romans 16:21; 1 Thessalonians 3:2, where he speaks of his fidelity, of his usefulness to him in his labors, and of the interest which he took in the churches which the apostle had established.

Section 2. When and Where the Epistle Was Written

The subscription at the close of the epistle states that it was written from Laodicea. But these subscriptions are of no authority, and many of them are false; see notes at the end of 1 Corinthians. here has been much diversity of opinion in regard to the time when this epistle was written, and of course in regard to the place where it was composed. All that is certain from the epistle itself is, that it was addressed to Timothy at Ephesus, and that it was soon after Paul had left that city to go to Macedonia; 1 Timothy 1:3. Paul is mentioned in the Acts as having been at Ephesus twice: Acts 18:19-23; Acts 19:1-41. After his first visit there, he went directly to Jerusalem, and of course it could not have been written at that time. The only question then is, whether it was written when Paul left the city, having been driven away by the excitement caused by Demetrius Acts 20:1, or whether he visited Ephesus again on some occasion after his first imprisonment at Rome, and of course after the narrative of Luke in the Acts of the Apostles closes. If on the former occasion, it was written about the year 58 or 59; if the latter, about the year 64 or 65 a.d. Critics have been divided in reference to this point, and the question is still unsettled, and it may be impossible to determine it with entire certainty.

Those who have maintained the former opinion, among others, are Theodoret, Benson, Zachariae, Michaelis, Schmidt. Koppe, Planck, Grotius Lightfoot, Witsius, Lardner, Hug, and Prof. Stuart. The latter opinion, that it was written subsequently to the period of Paul's first imprisonment at Rome, is maintained by Paley, Pearson, L'Enfant, LeClerc, Cave, Mill, Whitby, Macknight, and others.

An examination of the reasons in favor of each of these opinions in regard to the date of the epistle, may be found in Paley's Horae Paul.; Macknight; Hug's Intro., and Koppe, Prolegomena.

The theory of Eichhorn, which is unique, and which is supported by some ingenious and plausible, but not conclusive reasoning, may be seen in his Einleitung in das neue Test. 3 B. 314-352.

In the diversity of opinion which prevails about the time when the epistle was written, it is impossible to determine the question in such a manner as to leave no room for doubt. After the most careful examination which I have been able to give to the subject, however, it seems to me that the former opinion is correct, that it was written soon after Paul was driven from Ephesus by the tumult caused by Demetrius, as recorded in Acts 19; Acts 20:1. The reasons for this opinion are briefly these:

1. This is the only record that occurs in the New Testament of the apostle's having gone from Ephesus to Macedonia; see above. It is natural, therefore, to suppose that this is referred to in 1 Timothy 1:3, unless there is some insuperable difficulty in the way.

2. There is no certain evidence that Paul visited the church at Ephesus after his first imprisonment at Rome. It is certainly possible that he did, but there is no record of any such visit in the New Testament, nor any historical record of it elsewhere. If there had been such a visit after his release, and if this epistle was written then, it is remarkable that the apostle does not make any allusion to his imprisonment in this epistle, and that he does not refer at all to his own escape from this danger of death at Rome; compare 2 Timothy 4:16-17.

3. The supposition that the epistle was written at the time supposed, agrees better with the character of the epistle, and with the design for which Timothy was left at Ephesus, than the others. It is manifest from the epistle that the church was in some respects in an unsettled condition, and it would seem also that one part of the duty of Timothy there was to see that it was placed under a proper organization. This Paul had evidently proposed to accomplish himself, but it is clear from 1 Timothy 1:3, that he left his work unfinished, and that he gave what he had proposed to do into the hands of Timothy to be perfected. After the first imprisonment of Paul at Rome, however, there is every reason to suppose that the church was completely organized. Even when Paul went from Macedonia to Jerusalem Acts 20, there were "elders" placed over the church at Ephesus, whom Paul assembled at Miletus, and to whom he gave his parting charge, and his final instructions in regard to the church.

4. At the time when Paul wrote this epistle, Timothy was a young man - a youth; 1 Timothy 4:12. It is true, that if he was somewhere about twenty years of age when he was introduced into the ministry, as has been commonly supposed, this language would not he entirely inappropriate, even after the imprisonment of Paul, but still the language would more properly denote one somewhat younger than Timothy would be at that time.

5. To this may be added the declaration of Paul in 1 Timothy 3:14, that he "hoped to come to him shortly." This is an expression which agrees well with the supposition that he had himself been driven away before he had intended to leave; that he had left something unfinished there which he desired to complete, and that he hoped that affairs would soon be in such a state that he would be permitted to return. It may he also suggested, as a circumstance of some importance, though not conclusive, that when Paul met the elders of the church of Ephesus at Miletus, he said that he had no expectation of ever seeing them again. "And now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more;" Acts 20:25. I do not think that this is to be understood as an inspired prediction, affirming with absolute certainty that he never would see them again, but that he rather expressed his apprehensions that it would be so from the circumstances which then existed; Acts 20:22-23. Still, this passage shows that when he uttered it he did not expect to visit Ephesus again, as he manifestly did when he wrote the epistle to Timothy.

These considerations seem so clear that they would leave no doubt on the mind, were it not for certain things which it seems to many impossible to reconcile with this supposition. The difficulties are the following:

1. That before Paul went to Macedonia, he had sent Timothy with Erastus before him Acts 19:22, purposing to follow them at no distant period, and to pass through Macedonia and Achaia, and then to go to Jerusalem, and afterward to visit Rome; Acts 19:21. As he had sent Timothy before him but so short a time before he left Ephesus, it is asked how Timothy could be left at Ephesus when Paul went himself to Macedonia? To this objection we may reply, that it is not improbable by any means that Timothy may have accomplished the object of his journey to Macedonia, and may have returned to the apostle at Ephesus before he was driven away. It does not appear, from the narrative, that Timothy was entrusted with any commission which would require a long time to fulfil it, nor that Paul expected that he would remain in Macedonia until he himself came. The purpose for which he sent Timothy and Erastus is not indeed mentioned, but it seems probable that it was with reference to the collection which he proposed to take up for the poor saints at Jerusalem; see notes on Acts 19:21-22; compare 1 Corinthians 16:1-6. If it was the purpose to prepare the churches for such a collection, it could not have required any considerable time, nor was it necessary that Timothy should remain long in a place; and it was natural also that he should return to the apostle at Ephesus and apprize him of what he had done, and what was the prospect in regard to the collection. It has been clearly shown by Hug (Introduction to the New Testament, sections 104, 109), that such a journey could easily have been made during the time which the apostle remained at Ephesus after he had sent Timothy and Erastus to Macedonia.

2. The next objection - and one which is regarded by Paley as decisive against the supposition that the epistle was written on this occasion - is, that from the Second Epistle to the 1 Corinthians 2 1 Corinthians 1:1, it is evident that at the time in which this epistle is supposed to have been written, Timothy was with the apostle in Macedonia. The second epistle to the Corinthians was undoubtedly written during this visit of Paul to Macedonia, and at that time Timothy was with him; see the Introduction to 2 Corinthians, section 3. How then can it be supposed that he was at Ephesus? Or how can this fact be reconciled with the supposition that Timothy was left there, and especially with the declaration of Paul to him 1 Timothy 3:14, that he "hoped to come to him shortly?" That Paul expected that Timothy would remain at Ephesus, at least for some time, is evident from 1 Timothy 3:15, "But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God;" and from 1 Timothy 4:13, "Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine." The only solution of this difficulty is, that Timothy had left Ephesus, and had followed the apostle into Macedonia; and the only question here is, whether, since the apostle designed that he should remain at Ephesus, and expected himself to return and meet him there, Timothy would be likely to leave that place and go to Macedonia. It is certain that the history in the Acts does not make this record, but that is no material objection - since it cannot be supposed that every occurrence in the travels of the apostles was recorded. But there are two or three circumstances which may render the supposition that Timothy, either by the concurrence, or by the direction of Paul, privately communicated to him, may have left Ephesus sooner than was at first contemplated, and may have rejoined him in Macedonia.

(1) one is, that the main business which Timothy was appointed to perform at Ephesus - to give a solemn charge to certain persons there to teach no other doctrine but that which Paul taught 1 Timothy 1:3 - might have been speedily accomplished. Paul was driven away in haste, and as he had not the opportunity of doing this himself as he wished, he left Timothy in charge of it. But this did not require, of necessity, any considerable time.

(2) another is, that the business of appointing suitable officers over the church there, might also have been soon accomplished. In fact, the church there is known to have been supplied with proper officers not long after this, for Paul sent from Miletus for the elders to meet him there on his way to Jerusalem. This remark is made in accordance with the opinion that a part of the work which Timothy was expected to perform there was to constitute proper officers over the church. But there is no proof that that was a part of his business. It is not specified in what Paul mentions, in 1 Timothy 1:3, as the design for which he was left there, and it is hardly probable that the apostle would have spent so long a time as he did in Ephesus nearly three years Acts 20:31 - without having organized the church with proper officers. Besides, the address of Paul to the elders at Miletus implies that they had received their appointment before he left them; see Acts 20:18-35, particularly Acts 20:35. The instructions to Timothy in this Epistle about the proper qualifications of the officers of the church, do not prove that he was then to appoint officers at Ephesus, for they are general instructions, having no particular reference to the church there, and designed to guide him in his work through life. There is, therefore, nothing in the duties which Timothy was to perform at Ephesus which would forbid the supposition that he may have soon followed the apostle into Macedonia.

(3) It appears that though Paul may have intended, if possible, to visit Ephesus on his way to Jerusalem, in accordance with 1 Timothy 3:14-15; 1 Timothy 4:13, yet, if that had been his intention, he subsequently changed his mind, and found it necessary to make other arrangements. Thus it is said Acts 20:16, that "Paul had determined to sail by Ephesus, because he would not spend the time in Asia:" that is, he had resolved to sail past Ephesus without visiting it. It would seem probable also, that this resolution had been formed before he left Macedonia, for it is said that he "had determined" it (ἔκρινεν ekrinen), and if so, there is no improbability in supposing that he had in some way caused it to be intimated to Timothy that he wished him to leave Ephesus and join him before he left Macedonia.

(4) in fact, and in accordance with this supposition, we find Timothy with Paul when he went on that occasion into "Asia;" Acts 20:4-5. These considerations render it probable that the epistle was written to Timothy soon after Paul left Ephesus to go into Macedonia after the tumult excited by Demetrius. As Paul was driven away unexpectedly, and when he had not completed what he designed to do there, nothing is more natural than the supposition that he would embrace the earliest opportunity to give suitable instructions to Timothy, that he might know how to complete the work.

Section 3. The Occasion and Design of the Epistle

This is specified in 1 Timothy 1:3. Paul had gone into Macedonia, having been suddenly driven away from Ephesus, before he had entirely done what he had designed to do there. He left Timothy there to "charge some that they teach no other doctrine;" that is, no other doctrine than that which he had himself taught when there. It is clear, from this, that there were certain errors prevailing there which Paul thought it of the highest importance to have corrected. In regard to those errors, see the introduction to the Epistle to the Ephesians, and the Epistle to the Colossians. Some of the circumstances which gave occasion to this epistle can be gathered from the history in the Acts of the Apostles; others can be derived from the epistle itself. From these sources of information we learn the following things in reference to the state of the church in Ephesus, which made it proper that Timothy should be left there, and that these instructions should be given him to regulate his conduct.

(1) there was much opposition to the apostle Paul from the Jews who resided there; Acts 19:8-9.

(2) there were in the church teachers who endeavored to enforce the maxims of the Jewish law, and to represent that law as binding on Christians; 1 Timothy 1:6-7.

(3) some of the Jews residing there were addicted to exorcism, and endeavored to make use of Christianity and the name of Jesus to promote their selfish ends; Acts 19:14; compare 1 Timothy 1:4.

(4) the Jewish teachers laid great stress on genealogies and traditions. and were much given to debates about various questions connected with the law; 1 Timothy 1:4-6,

(5) There were erroneous views prevailing respecting the rights of women, and the place which they ought to occupy in the church: 1 Timothy 2:8-15.

(6) the organization of the officers of the church had not been effected as Paul wished it to be. It is probable that some of the officers had been appointed, and that some instructions had been given to them in regard to their duties, but the whole arrangement had not been completed; 1 Timothy 3:4;

(7) There were certain questions in regard to the proper treatment of widows which had not yet been determined; 1 Timothy 5.

(8) the apostle in his preaching had inculcated benevolent principles, and had asserted the natural equality of all men, and it would seem that certain persons had taken occasion from this to excite a spirit of discontent and insubordination among those who were servants.

The doctrine seems to have been advanced, that, as all men were equal, and all had been redeemed by the same blood, therefore those who had been held in bondage were free from all obligation to serve their masters. There were those evidently who sought to excite them to insurrection; to break down the distinctions in society, and to produce a state of insubordination and disorder; 1 Timothy 6; compare Ephesians 6:5-10; Colossians 3:22; Colossians 4:2.

Such appears to have been the state of things when the apostle was compelled suddenly to leave Ephesus. He had hitherto directed the affairs of the church there mainly himself, and had endeavored to correct the errors then prevailing, and to establish the church on a right foundation. Matters appear to have been tending to the desired result; religion was acquiring a strong hold on the members of the church Acts 19:18-20; error was giving way; the community was becoming more and more impressed with the value of Christianity; the influence of idolatry was becoming less and less Acts 19:23, and the arrangements for the complete organization of the church were in progress. Such was the promising state of things in these respects that the apostle hoped to be able to leave Ephesus at no very distant period, and had actually made arrangements to do it; Acts 19:21. But his arrangements were not quite finished, and before they were completed, he was compelled to leave by the tumult excited by Demetrius. He left Timothy, therefore, to complete the arrangements, and, in this first epistle, gave him all the instructions which were necessary to guide him in that work.

This view of the state of things in Ephesus at the time when the apostle was constrained to leave it, will enable us to understand the drift of the epistle, and the reasons why the various topics found in it were introduced. At the same time, the instructions are of so general a character that they would be an invaluable guide to Timothy not only at Ephesus, but through his life; and not only to him, but to all the ministers of the gospel in every age and land. A more detailed view of these topics will be furnished in the analysis prefixed to the several chapters of the epistle.

The Epistles to Timothy and Titus occupy a very important place in the New Testament, and without them there would be a manifest and most material defect in the volume of inspiration. Their canonical authority has never been questioned by the great body of the church, and there is no doubt that they are the productions of the apostle Paul. If the various epistles which he wrote, and the various other books of the New Testament; be attentively examined, it will be found that each one is designed to accomplish an important object, and that if anyone were removed a material chasm would be made. Though the removal of anyone of them would not so impair the volume of the New Testament as to obscure any essential doctrine, or prevent our obtaining the knowledge of the way of salvation from the remainder, yet it would mar the beauty and symmetry of the truth, and would render the system of instruction defective and incomplete.

This is true in regard to the epistles to Timothy and Titus, as it is of the other epistles. They fill a department which nothing else in the New Testament would enable us to supply, and without which instructions to man respecting redemption would be incomplete. They relate mainly "to the office of the ministry;" and though there are important instructions, of the Saviour himself respecting the office (Matthew 10; Mark 16, add elsewhere), and though in the address of Paul to the elders of Ephesus Acts 20, and in the Epistles to the Corinthians, there are invaluable suggestions respecting it, yet such is its importance in the organization of the church, that more full and complete instructions seem to be imperiously demanded. Those instructions are furnished in these epistles. They are as full and complete as we could desire in regard to the nature of the office, the qualifications for it, and the duties which grow out of it.

They are fitted not only to direct Timothy and Titus in the work to which they were specifically appointed, but to counsel the ministry in every age and in every land. It is obvious that the character and welfare of the church depend greatly, if not entirely, on the character of the ministry. The office of the ministry is God's great appointment for the preservation of pure religion, and for spreading it abroad through the world. The church adheres to the truth; is built up in faith; is distinguished for love, and purity, and zeal, in proportion as the ministry is honored, and shows itself qualified for its work. In every age corruption in the church has commenced in the ministry; and where the gospel has been spread abroad with zeal, and the church has arisen in her strength and beauty, it has been pre-eminently where God has sent down his Spirit in copious measures on those who have filled the sacred office. So important, then, is this office to the welfare of the church and the world, that it was desirable that full instructions should be furnished in the volume of revelation in regard to its nature and design. Such instructions we have in these epistles, and there is scarcely any portion of the New Testament which the church could not better afford to part with than the Epistles to Timothy and Titus. Had the ministry always been such as these epistles contemplate; had they who have filled the sacred office always had the character and qualifications here described, we may believe that the church would have been saved from the strifes that have torn it, and that the pure gospel would long before this have been spread through the world.

But it is not to the ministry only that these Epistles are of so much value. They are of scarcely less importance to the church at large. Its vitality; its purity; its freedom from strife; its zeal and love and triumph in spreading the gospel, depend on the character of the ministry. If the church will prosper from age to age, the pulpit must be filled with a pious, learned, laborious, and devoted ministry, and one of the first cares of the church should be that such a ministry should be secured. This great object cannot better be attained than by keeping the instructions in these Epistles steadily before the minds of the members of the church; and though a large part of them is particularly adapted to the ministers of the gospel, yet the church itself can in no better way promote its own purity and prosperity than by a prayerful and attentive study of the Epistles to Timothy and Titus.

Analysis Of The Chapter

This chapter 1 Timothy 1 comprises the following subjects:

(1) The salutation to Timothy, in the usual manner in which Paul introduces his epistles; 1 Timothy 1:1-2.

(2) the purpose for which he had left him at Ephesus; 1 Timothy 1:3-4. It was that he might correct the false instructions of some of the teachers there, and especially, as it would seem, in regard to the true use of the law. They gave undue importance to somethings in the laws of Moses; they did not understand the true nature and design of his laws; and they mingled in their instructions much that was mere fable.

(3) the true use and design of the law; 1 Timothy 1:5-11. It was to produce love not vain jangling. It was not made to fetter the conscience by vain and troublesome austerities and ceremonies; it was to restrain and bind the wicked. The use of the law, according to these teachers, and according to the prevailing Jewish notions, was to prescribe a great number of formalities, and to secure outward conformity in a great variety of cumbrous rites and ceremonies. Paul instructs Timothy to teach them that love, out of a pure heart and a good conscience, was the elementary principle of religion, and that the "law" was primarily designed to restrain and control the wicked, and that the gospel brought to light and enforced this important truth.

(4) the mention of the gospel in this connection, leads Paul to express his thanks to God that he had been entrusted with this message of salvation; 1 Timothy 1:12-17. Once he had the same views as others. But he had obtained mercy, and he was permitted to publish that glorious gospel which had shed such light on the law of God, and which had revealed a plan of salvation that was worthy of universal acceleration.

(5) this solemn duty of preaching the gospel he commits now to Timothy, 1 Timothy 1:18-20. He says that he had been called to the work in accordance with the prophecies which had been uttered of him in anticipation of his future usefulness in the church, and in the expectation that he would not, like some others, make shipwreck of his faith.

Preface to the First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to Timothy

In order to find out who this person was, it will be necessary to consult the Acts of the Apostles, where the first mention is made of him; and by collating what is there said with certain passages in the epistle, we shall find who he was, and the probable time in which the epistle was addressed to him.

Paul and Barnabas, in the course of their first apostolic journey among the Gentiles, came to Lystra, a city of Lycaonia, where they preached the Gospel for some time, and, though persecuted, with considerable success. See Acts 14:5, Acts 14:6. It is very likely that here they converted to the Christian faith a Jewess named Lois, with her daughter Eunice, who had married a Gentile, by whom she had Timothy, and whose father was probably at this time dead; the grandmother, daughter, and son living together.

Compare Acts 16:1-3 with 2 Timothy 1:5. It is likely that Timothy was the only child; and it appears that he had been brought up in the fear of God, and carefully instructed in the Jewish religion by means of the Holy Scriptures. Compare 2 Timothy 1:5 with 2 Timothy 3:15. It appears, also, that this young man drank into the apostle's spirit, became a thorough convert to the Christian faith, and that a very tender intimacy subsisted between St. Paul and him.

When the apostle came from Antioch, in Syria, the second time to Lystra, he found Timothy a member of the Church, and so highly reputed and warmly recommended by the Church in that place, that St. Paul took him to be his companion in his travels. Acts 16:1-3. From this place we learn that, although Timothy had been educated in the Jewish faith, he had not been circumcised, because his father, who was a Gentile, would not permit it. When the apostle had determined to take him with him, he found it necessary to have him circumcised, not from any supposition that circumcision was necessary to salvation, but because of the Jews, who would neither have heard him nor the apostle had not this been done: the Gospel testimony they would not have received from Timothy, because a heathen; and they would have considered the apostle in the same light, because he associated with such. See the notes on Acts 16:3.

It is pretty evident that Timothy had a special call of God to the work of an evangelist, which the elders of the Church at Lystra knowing, set him solemnly apart to the work by the imposition of hands; 1 Timothy 4:14. And they were particularly led to this by several prophetic declarations relative to him, by which his Divine call was most clearly ascertained. See 1 Timothy 1:18, and 1 Timothy 3:14. Some think that, after this appointment by the elders, the apostle himself laid his hands on him, not for the purpose of his evangelical designation, but that he might receive those extraordinary gifts of the Holy Spirit so necessary in those primitive times to demonstrate the truth of the Gospel. See 2 Timothy 1:6, 2 Timothy 1:7. Yet, it is likely that Timothy had not two ordinations; one by the elders of Lystra, and another by the apostle; as it is most probable that St. Paul acted with that πρεσβυτεριον or eldership mentioned 1 Timothy 4:14, among whom, in the imposition of hands, he would undoubtedly act as chief.

Timothy, thus prepared to be the apostle's fellow laborer in the Gospel, accompanied him and Silas when they visited the Churches of Phrygia, and delivered to them the decrees of the apostles and elders at Jerusalem, freeing the Gentiles from the law of Moses, as a term of salvation. Having gone through these countries, they at length came to Troas, where Luke joined them; as appears from the phraseology of his history, Acts 16:10, Acts 16:11, etc. In Troas a vision appeared to Paul, directing them to go into Macedonia. Loosing therefore from Troas, they all passed over to Neapolis; and from thence went to Philippi, where they converted many, and planted a Christian Church. From Philippi they went to Thessalonica, leaving Luke at Philippi; as appears from his changing the phraseology of his history at Acts 16:40. We may therefore suppose, that at their departing they committed the converted at Philippi to Luke's care. In Thessalonica they were opposed by the unbelieving Jews, and obliged to flee to Berea, whither the Jews from Thessalonica followed them. To elude their rage, Paul, who was most obnoxious to them, departed from Berea by night to go to Athens, leaving Silas and Timothy at Berea. At Athens, Timothy came to the apostle and gave him such an account of the afflicted state of the Thessalonian brethren, as induced him to send Timothy back to comfort them. After that Paul preached at Athens, hut with so little success that he judged it proper to leave Athens and go forward to Corinth, where Silas and Timothy came to him, and assisted in converting the Corinthians. And when he left Corinth they accompanied him, first to Ephesus, then to Jerusalem, and after that to Antioch, in Syria. Having spent some time in Antioch, Paul set out with Timothy on his third apostolical journey; in which, after visiting all the Churches of Galatia and Phrygia, in the order in which they had been planted, they came to Ephesus the second time, and there abode for a considerable time. In short, from the time Timothy first joined the apostle, as his assistant, he never left him except when sent by him on some special errand. And by his affection, fidelity, and zeal, he so recommended himself to all the disciples, and acquired such authority over them, that Paul inserted his name in the inscription of several of the letters which he wrote to the Churches, to show that their doctrine was one and the same. His esteem and affection for Timothy the apostle expressed still more conspicuously, by writing to him those excellent letters in the canon which bear his name; and which have been of the greatest use to the ministers of the Gospel ever since their publication, by directing them to discharge all the duties of their function in a proper manner.

The date of this epistle has been a subject of much controversy, some assigning it to the year 56, which is the common opinion; and others to 64 or 65. A great balance of probability appears to be in favor of this later date; and it appears to me that the arguments of Drs. Macknight and Paley are decisive in favor of the later date. The former, in his preface, gives a very clear view of the question.

In the third verse of the first chapter of this epistle the apostle says: "As I entreated thee to abide in Ephesus, when going into Macedonia, so do; that thou mayest charge some not to teach differently." From this it is plain,

1. That Timothy was in Ephesus when the apostle wrote his first letter to him;

2. That he had been left there by the apostle, who at parting with him entreated him to abide at Ephesus;

3. That this happened when Paul was going from Ephesus to Macedonia; and,

4. That he had entreated Timothy to abide in Ephesus, for the purpose of charging some teachers in that Church not to teach differently from the apostles.

In the history of the Acts of the Apostles there is no mention of Paul's going from Ephesus to Macedonia but once; viz. after the riot of Demetrius, Acts 20:1, for which reason Theodoret, among the ancients, and among the moderns, Estius, Baronius, Capellus, Grotius, Lightfoot, Salmasius, Hammond, Witsius, Lardner, Pearson, and others, have given it as their opinion, that the apostle speaks of that journey in his First Epistle to Timothy. Yet, if I am not mistaken, the following circumstance will show their opinion to be ill founded: -

1. When the apostle went from Ephesus to Macedonia, as related Acts 20:1, Timothy was not in Ephesus, having gone from that city into Macedonia with Erastus by the apostle's direction; Acts 19:22. And in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, which was written after Timothy's departure from Ephesus, we are informed that he was to go from Macedonia to 1 Corinthians 1 1 Corinthians 4:17 : "I have sent to you Timothy." 1 Corinthians 16:10, 1 Corinthians 16:11 : "If Timothy be come, take care that he be among you without fear. Send him forward in peace, that he may come to me, for I expect him with the brethren." But before Timothy returned from Corinth, the apostle left Ephesus and went into Macedonia, where the brethren above mentioned met him, 2 Corinthians 2:12, 2 Corinthians 2:13, having Timothy in their company; as is plain from his joining the apostle in his Second Epistle to the Corinthians, which all agree was written from Macedonia, immediately after the brethren from Corinth gave the apostle an account of the success of his first letter. Wherefore, since Timothy was not in Ephesus when the apostle left the city after the riot, it could not be the occasion on which the apostle said to him: "As I entreated thee to abide in Ephesus, when going into Macedonia, so do." But the journey into Macedonia, of which he speaks, must have been some other journey not mentioned in the Acts. To remove this difficulty we are told that Timothy returned from Corinth to the apostle be lore his departure from Ephesus, and that he was left there after the riot; but that something happened, which occasioned him to follow the apostle into Macedonia; that there he joined him in writing his Second Epistle to the Corinthians; and, having finished his business in Macedonia, he returned to Ephesus and abode there, agreeably to the apostle's request. But as these suppositions are not warranted by the history of the Acts, Timothy's joining the apostle in his Second Epistle to the Corinthians may still be urged as a proof that he came with the brethren directly from Corinth to Macedonia. Farther, that Timothy did not go from Macedonia to Ephesus after joining the apostle in his Second Epistle to the Corinthians, but returned with him to Corinth to receive the collections, is, I think, plain from Acts 20:4, where he is mentioned as one of those who accompanied Paul from Corinth to Jerusalem with the collections.

2. When the apostle wrote his First Epistle to Timothy, "he hoped to come to him soon," 1 Timothy 3:14; but from the history of the Acts it is certain that in no letter written to Timothy after the riot, till his first confinement in Rome, could the apostle say that he hoped to come to him soon. He could not say so in any letter written from Troas, the first place he stopped at after leaving Ephesus; for at that time he was going into Macedonia and Achaia to receive the collections for the poor from the Churches in these provinces. Neither could he say so after writing his Second Epistle to the Corinthians from Macedonia; for in that epistle he told the Corinthians he was coming to them with the Macedonian brethren, who were commissioned to attend him in his voyage to Jerusalem, with the collections, 2 Corinthians 9:4, and that he meant to sail directly from Corinth to Judea, 2 Corinthians 1:16. As little could he write to Timothy that he hoped to come to him soon, when he altered his resolution on the occasion of the lying in wait of the Jews, and returned into Macedonia, Acts 20:3. For he was then in such haste to be in Jerusalem on the day of pentecost, that when he came to Miletus, instead of going to Ephesus, he sent for the elders of that Church to come to him, Acts 20:16, Acts 20:17. When he arrived in Judea, he could not write that he hoped to come to Ephesus soon, for he was imprisoned a few days after he went up to Jerusalem; and having continued two years in prison at Caesarea, he was sent bound to Rome, where likewise being confined, he could not, till towards the conclusion of that confinement, write to Timothy that he hoped to come to him soon. And even then he did not write his First Epistle to Timothy, for Timothy was with him at the conclusion of his confinement, Philippians 2:19, Philippians 2:23.

3. From the first epistle we learn that the following were the errors Timothy was left in Ephesus to oppose:

4. Fables invented by the Jewish doctors to recommend the observance of the law of Moses as necessary to salvation.

5. Uncertain genealogies, by which individuals endeavored to trace their descent from Abraham, in the persuasion that they would be saved, merely because they had Abraham for their father.

6. Intricate questions and strifes about some words in the law; perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, who reckoned that which produced most gain to be the best kind of godliness.

7. Oppositions of knowledge, falsely so named.

But these errors had not taken place in the Ephesian Church before the apostle's departure; for in his charge to the Ephesian elders at Miletus, he foretold that the false teachers were to enter in among them after his departing. Acts 20:29, Acts 20:30 : "I know that after my departing, shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things to draw away disciples after them." The same thing appears from the two epistles which the apostle wrote to the Corinthians; the one from Ephesus before the riot of Demetrius, the other from Macedonia after that event; and from the epistle which he wrote to the Ephesians themselves from Rome, during his confinement there. For in none of these letters is there any notice taken of the above mentioned errors, as subsisting among the Ephesians at the time they were written; which cannot be accounted for on supposition that they were prevalent in Ephesus when the apostle went into Macedonia after the riot. I am therefore of opinion that the first to Timothy, in which the apostle desired him to abide in Ephesus for the purpose of opposing the Judaizers and their errors, could not be written either from Troas or from Macedonia after the riot, as those who contend for the early date of the epistle suppose; but it must have been written some time after the apostle's release from confinement in Rome, when no doubt he visited the Church at Ephesus, and found the Judaizing teachers there busily employed in spreading their pernicious errors.

4. In the first Epistle to Timothy the same sort of persons, doctrines, and practices, are reprobated, which are condemned in the second. Compare 1 Timothy 4:1-6 with 2 Timothy 3:1-5; and 1 Timothy 6:20 with 2 Timothy 2:14; and 1 Timothy 6:4 with 2 Timothy 2:16. The same commands, instructions, and encouragements are given to Timothy in the first epistle as in the second. Compare 1 Timothy 6:13, 1 Timothy 6:14, with 2 Timothy 4:1-5. The same remedies for the corruptions which had taken place among the Ephesians are prescribed in the first epistle as in the second. Compare 1 Timothy 4:14 with 2 Timothy 1:6, 2 Timothy 1:7; and as in the second epistle, so in the first, every thing is addressed to Timothy as superintendent both of the teachers and of the laity in the Church at Ephesus; all which, I think, imply that the state of things among the Ephesians was the same when the two epistles were written; consequently that the first epistle was written only a few months before the second, and not long before the apostle's death.

These arguments appeared so convincing to Pearson, Le Clerc, L'Enfant, Cave, Fabricius, Mill, Whitby, and others, that they were unanimously of opinion Timothy was left by the apostle in Ephesus as he went into Macedonia, not after the riot of Demetrius, but after he was released from his first confinement at Rome. And from that circumstance they infer that he did not write his first epistle till some time in the end of the year 64, or in the beginning of 65. I think it was written from Nicopolis.

To the late date of this first epistle, there are three plausible objections which must not be overlooked: -

1. It is thought that, if the First Epistle to Timothy was written after the apostle's release, he could not with any propriety have said to Timothy, 1 Timothy 4:12 : "Let no man despise thy youth;" but it is replied: That Servius Tullius, in classing the Roman people, as Aulus Gellius relates, lib. x. c. 28, divided their age into three periods: Childhood he limited to the age of seventeen; youth, from that to forty-six; and old age, from that to the end of life. Now, supposing Timothy to have been eighteen years old, a.d. 50, when he became Paul's assistant, he would be no more than 32, a.d. 64, two years after the apostle's release, when it is supposed this epistle was written. Wherefore, being then in the period of life which, by the Greeks as well as the Roman, was considered as youth, the apostle with propriety might say to him, Let no man despise thy youth.

2. When the apostle touched at Miletus, in his voyage to Jerusalem with the collections, the Church at Ephesus had a number of elders, that is, of bishops and deacons, who came to him at Miletus, Acts 20:17. It is therefore asked: What occasion was there in an epistle written after the apostle's release, to give Timothy directions concerning the ordination of bishops and deacons, in a Church where there were so many elders already? The answer is: The elders who came to the apostle at Miletus in the year 58 may have been too few for the Church at Ephesus, in her increased state, in the year 65. Besides, false teachers had then entered, to oppose whom more bishops and deacons might be needed than were necessary in the year 58; not to mention that some of the first elders having died, others were wanted to supply their places.

3. Because the apostle wrote to Timothy that "he hoped to come to him soon," 1 Timothy 3:14, it is argued that the letter in which this is said must have been written before the apostle said to the Ephesian elders, Acts 20:25 : "I know that ye all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more." But if, by this, the First Epistle to Timothy is proved to have been written before the apostle's interview with the elders at Miletus, his Epistles to the Philippians, to the Hebrews, and to Philemon, in which he promised to visit them, must likewise have been written before the interview; in regard, his declaration respected the Philippians, the Hebrews, and Philemon, as well as the Ephesians; for they certainly were persons among whom the apostle had gone preaching the kingdom of God. Yet no commentator ever thought the epistles above mentioned were written to them before the apostle's interview with the Ephesian elders; on the contrary, it is universally acknowledged that these epistles were written four years after the interview; namely, during the apostle's first imprisonment at Rome. Wherefore, when he told the Ephesian elders that they, and his other converts, among whom he had gone preaching the kingdom of God, should see his face no more, as it was no point either of faith or practice which he spake, he may well be supposed to have declared nothing but his own opinion, resulting from his fears. He had lately escaped the rage of the Jews, who laid wait for him in Cenchrea to kill him, Acts 20:3. This, with their fury on former occasions, filled him with such anxiety that, in writing to the Romans from Corinth; he requested them "to strive together with him in their prayers that he might be delivered from the unbelieving in Judea;" Romans 15:30, Romans 15:31. Farther, that in his own speech to the Ephesian elders the apostle only declared his own persuasion, dictated by his fears, and not any suggestion of the Spirit, I think plain from what he had said immediately before, Acts 20:22, Acts 20:23 : "Behold, I go bound in the spirit to Jerusalem, not knowing the things that shall befall me there: save that the Holy Ghost witnesseth in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions abide me." Wherefore, although his fears were happily disappointed, and he actually visited the Ephesians after his release; his character as an inspired apostle is not hurt in the least, if, in saying he knew they should see his face no more, he declared, as I have said, his own persuasion only, and no dictate of the Holy Ghost.

Dr. Paley's arguments are the same in substance; but he does not mention Dr. Macknight, who wrote before him, and whose work he must have seen.

The principal difficulty in this opinion is, that it necessarily implies that St. Paul visited Ephesus after his liberation at Rome; which appears so contrary to what he said to the Ephesian Church, that they should see his face no more. Dr. Paley, however, finds some farther presumptive evidences that the apostle must have visited Ephesus. The Epistles to the Philippians and to Philemon were written while the apostle was a prisoner at Rome; to the former he says: "I trust in the Lord, that I also myself shall come shortly;" and to the latter, who was a Colossian, he gives this direction: "But withal, prepare me also a lodging, for I trust that through your prayers I shall be given unto you." An inspection of the map will show us that Colosse was a city of Asia Minor, lying eastward, and at no great distance from Ephesus; Philippi was on the other, i.e. the western, side of the Aegean Sea. Now if the apostle executed his purpose, and came to Philemon at Colosse soon after his liberation, it cannot be supposed that he would omit to visit Ephesus, which lay so near it, and where he had spent three years of his ministry. As he was also under a promise to visit the Church at Philippi shortly, if he passed from Colosse to Philippi he could hardly avoid taking Ephesus in his way. See Paley's Horae Paulinae, page 293. This, taken in connection with the preceding arguments, can leave little doubt that the date of this epistle must be referred to a time subsequent to St. Paul's liberation from Rome, and consequently to the end of the year 64, or the beginning of the year 65.

Paul's salutation to Timothy, 1 Timothy 1:1, 1 Timothy 1:2. For what purpose he had left him at Ephesus, 1 Timothy 1:3. What the false apostles taught in opposition to the truth, 1 Timothy 1:4-7. The true use of the law, 1 Timothy 1:8-11. He thanks God for his own conversion, and describes his former state, 1 Timothy 1:12-17. Exhorts Timothy to hold fast faith and a good conscience, and speaks of Hymeneus and Alexander who had made shipwreck of their faith, 1 Timothy 1:18-20.

INTRODUCTION TO 1 TIMOTHY

Timothy, to whom this epistle is written, was eminent for his early piety and acquaintance with the sacred Scriptures; his mother was a Jewess, and his father a Greek, which was the reason why he was not circumcised in his infancy. Mention is made in the second epistle to him of his mother Eunice, and grandmother Lois, as believers, and of his knowledge of the Scriptures from a child: this excellent person the apostle meeting with at Lystra, and having a good report of him from the brethren there, he chose him to be his companion in his travels, and to assist him in the spread of the Gospel; and knowing that it would be very disagreeable to the Jews to hear the word of God from the lips of an uncircumcised person, he took him and circumcised him, becoming all things to all, that he might gain some. This being done, he went along with him into several parts, and he made great use of him, in preaching the word, planting churches, and writing epistles; he sent him to various places with messages from him, to Corinth, Philippi, and Thessalonica; and now had left him at Ephesus, where he besought him to abide for a while; for that he was the bishop, pastor, or overseer of that church is not likely, since his residence here was not constant, and was afterwards called away from hence by the apostle, who desired his stay there, under whom, and by whose directions, he acted while there; and seeing that this church had elders, bishops, or overseers, whom the Holy Ghost had set over them, whom the apostle called to him at Miletus, and gave them some advice and instructions. The design of Timothy's continuance there was to check growing errors and heresies, and to take care of, and preserve the discipline of God's house; and to charge him with these things was the design of this epistle; in which he teaches him how to behave himself in the church of God, by taking heed to his doctrine and conversation; and gives rules relating to the qualifications of bishops and deacons, and to the care of widows, and with regard to church censures, and the becoming walk and conversation of all sorts of persons of every office, age, sex, rank, and order. This epistle is thought to be written about the year 55.

INTRODUCTION TO 1 Timothy 1

In this chapter, after the inscription and salutation, the apostle having entreated Timothy to abide at Ephesus, observes, that his end was, that he might check the false teachers there, whom he describes; and then he gives an account of his apostleship, and also of his conversion, to the encouragement of sinners, and to the glory of the grace of God; and closes with an exhortation to Timothy to constancy and perseverance in his Christian warfare. The inscription and salutation are in 1 Timothy 1:1 and much in the common form; and whereas, when he went into Macedonia, he desired Timothy to continue at Ephesus, his end was, to restrain the false teachers from preaching the doctrine they did, which was contrary to the Gospel, fabulous, useless, and unedifying, 1 Timothy 1:3 for though these men set up for teachers of the law, they went off, and strayed from its general end, which was love with faith, through their ignorance of it, 1 Timothy 1:5 not but that the law itself was good, as Gospel ministers full well knew; which is said to prevent an objection against them, as laying it aside as useless; but the abuse of it is what is complained of, it being made for some persons, and not for others who are mentioned, between which, and the sound doctrine of the Gospel, there is an agreement, 1 Timothy 1:8 which leads on the apostle to observe his call to the office of a preacher of it by Christ, his qualification for it, and investiture with it, for which he gives thanks, 1 Timothy 1:12 And in order to illustrate the grace of God in converting him first, and then making him a minister of the word, he takes notice of his state and condition before conversion, what a vile sinner he had been, and of the abundant grace God bestowed on him in it, 1 Timothy 1:13 And that this case of his might not seem strange and incredible, he observes, that this is the sum of the Gospel, that Christ came into the world to save the chief of sinners, such an one as he was, 1 Timothy 1:15. And besides, the end of the Lord in his conversion was, by the pattern of longsuffering he showed in him, that others might be encouraged to believe in Christ also, 1 Timothy 1:16 and then for all this grace bestowed on him, he ascribes honour and glory to God, 1 Timothy 1:17 and renews his charge to Timothy to fight manfully against the false teachers, to which he should be the more induced by the consideration of the prophecies that went before of him, 1 Timothy 1:18 and to hold faith and good conscience, which had been dropped by some professors; of which instances are given in Hymenaeus and Philetus, 1 Timothy 1:19.

THE PASTORAL EPISTLES OF ST. PAUL.

“In the ‘Acts of the Apostles’ Luke relates to Theophilus events of which he was an eye-witness,. . . . but [omits] the journey of Paul from Rome to Spain.

“An Epistle to Titus, and two to Timothy, which, though written only from personal feeling and affection, are still hallowed in the respect of the Catholic Church, and in the arrangement of ecclesiastical discipline.”

(From the Muratorian Fragment on the Canon discovered in the Ambrosian Library at Milan, and supposed to have been written not later than A.D. 170.)

THE PASTORAL EPISTLES OF ST. PAUL.

I. Their Nature.—The two Letters of St. Paul to Timothy and the one Letter to Titus, usually known as the Pastoral Epistles, differ from the other Epistles of the Apostle, being addressed to individuals, and not to churches. [There is another private Epistle of St. Paul, addressed to one Philemon, consisting only of a few lines, exclusively confined to the relations which should subsist between a Christian master and a Christian slave.]

These divinely inspired compositions were written for the guidance of two younger men, disciples and intimate friends of the elder Apostle. To these, Timothy and Titus, St. Paul had entrusted the government and supervision of two important churches—Ephesus and Crete. Of one of these churches, that of Ephesus, St. Paul was probably the founder, and from his long residence in the city, we may reasonably conclude that the Ephesian congregations had been built up mainly under his teaching and influence; the circumstances of the church of Crete will be discussed more particularly in the brief special Introduction to ‘he Epistle to Titus. Over the Ephesian community, especially dear to St. Paul from his close and intimate relation with Ephesus, the Apostle placed the disciple he knew and perhaps loved the best, the pupil whom he had personally trained from early youth. Of all St. Paul’s friends there was none so close to him as the one he had for so many years watched over and educated in the faith as his own adopted son. The two Letters to Timothy contain the master’s last charge, his dying wishes to the son of his love, who knew so well his mind, his every thought and aspiration. We may well conceive that almost every thought in these Letters, every charge, every exhortation, was a reminiscence of some bit of public teaching well known to Timothy, of some solemn conversation between the master and the pupil, of some grave council in which St. Paul and his trusted pupil and friend had shared. The two Letters were the old master’s last words, and as the master wrote, or, more probably, dictated them, he was conscious of this, and strove to compress into the necessary short compass of a brief Epistle a summary of what he had already put forth as his teaching on the question of church doctrine, church order, and church life. This is the reason why the charges concerning the life to be led are so repeated, but at the same time so brief; why the directions respecting church order are so concise; why the doctrinal statements are simply urged, and never, as was his old custom in some Epistles, argued out and discussed. “We see here,” as one has eloquently described it, “rather the succession of brilliant sparks than the steady flame; burning words indeed, and deep pathos, but not the flower of his firmness, as in his discipline of the Galatians—not the noon of his bright warm eloquence, as in the inimitable psalm of love” (1 Corinthians 13).

Many of the more doctrinal statements in these Pastoral Epistles are something more than “memories” of past conversations, past deliberations—more than reminders of former teaching—they are evidently current and well-known sayings among the Christians of the years A.D. 65-67. Now they are a well-loved line or lines of a hymn to the Father, as in the First Epistle, 1Timothy 6:15-16; now a verse from a metrical creed sung by these believers of the first days, as in 1Timothy 3:16 of the same Epistle, where the principal events of the divine and human life of Christ, so far as that life was connected with man, are set forth; or, they are evidently well-known sayings which had become watchwords of the rapidly growing Church of Christ, introduced by the striking formula “faithful is the saying.” There are no less than five of these in the Pastoral Epistles. All these are woven into the tapestry of the writings, and contain many a word, many an expression not found in any other of the known Epistles of St. Paul; and it is to the presence of these evident quotations from hymn, or creed, or sacred utterances of the faith, that these last Letters of St. Paul owe many of those peculiarities of thought and of expression which have suggested to the critical minds of so many scholars of our own thoughtful age the question—were these Epistles really the work of the great Apostle of the Gentiles?

II. Their Authenticity.—For seventeen centuries the Pastoral Epistles were believed to have been written by St. Paul, and in all the churches were received among the divinely inspired Scriptures of the New Testament In the nineteenth century, for certain reasons specified below, their authenticity was first called in question by a school of German criticism.

From the very earliest times we find constant references to these Pastoral Letters of St. Paul. Although there are no exact quotations in those few fragments we possess of the writings of men contemporary with or immediately succeeding the Apostles, still the language of Clement of Rome, Polycarp of Smyrna, and Ignatius of Antioch (all three living and writing in the first century), seems to show their familiarity with the language and thought of these Epistles.

Unquestioned references to one or other of these Letters are found in Irenæus (second century), Tertullian (second century), Clement of Alexandria (second century), Theophilus of Antioch (second century). Eusebius (A.D. 320) without question includes the three Epistles in his catalogue, among the universally confessed canonical writings. In addition to this, in the famous Fragment on the Canon of Scripture edited by Muratori, generally ascribed to the latter half of the second century, we find these “three” classed among the Epistles of St. Paul.

They are also contained in the Peschito-Syriac version of the New Testament, which was made in the second century. There never, indeed, seems to have been the slightest doubt in the early Christian Church that the Pastoral Epistles were canonical, and written by St. Paul. The only doubter, in fact, seems to have been the famous Gnostic heretic Marcion (second century), who for doctrinal reasons omitted these writings from his canon. But Marcion arbitrarily made up his own Volume of Scripture, excluding what was distinctly adverse to his peculiar system. He admitted into his “canon” only ten of St. Paul’s Epistles and a mutilated Gospel of St. Luke, omitting all the rest of the New Testament writings.

We possess a continuous chain of historical evidence for the authenticity of these writings from the earliest times. We can, then, aver that from the very days of the Apostles down to the beginning of the nineteenth century, the two Epistles to Timothy and the one to Titus were received in all the churches as undoubted writings of St. Paul, and were reverenced as Holy Scripture. The school of critics to which allusion has been made above has sought to undermine this testimony, stretching over one thousand seven hundred years, by arguments drawn from the contents of these three Epistles.

The following are the main points they have endeavoured to establish:—

(1) A number of words and phrases are found in these Letters which never occur in any other of St. Paul’s writings.

(2) An ecclesiastical organisation of a period long subsequent to St. Paul’s time apparently existed when these Pastoral Epistles were written.

(3) Heresies of a date later than the period included in the lifetime of St. Paul are combated in the three Letters.

(4) In the lifetime of the Apostle no period can be found which would suit the circumstances under which it is evident these Letters were composed.

We will reply to these arguments very briefly:—

(1) As regards the unusual words and phrases, it must be borne in mind that the Epistles or groups of Epistles of St. Paul were composed under very different circumstances, and for varied purposes, and with long intervals of time between the several writings. To a certain extent, in each Epistle or group of Epistles we should expect to find its own peculiar vocabulary: and this we find, for the number of verbal peculiarities in the group of Letters we are now considering does not appear to be greater than that existing in other undoubted Letters of the Apostle. Prof. Van Oosterzee, of Utrecht (Die Pastoralbriefe, 3rd edit. 1874), computes the number of these peculiar words in the three Epistles at one hundred and eighty-eight, while in the Epistles to the Philippians, Ephesians, and Colossians he reckons one hundred and ninety-four of these verbal peculiarities not elsewhere found.

But while verbal peculiarities in this group of Epistles do not appear more numerous than in other special groups of writings by the same hand, there are peculiar circumstances connected with these Letters to Timothy and Titus, which would of themselves fairly have explained a much greater divergence from the customary style and usual expressions than we actually find.

Here, and here only—with the exception of the little Letter to Philemon—is he writing to dear friends, not to churches. The official character of the communication is in great measure here lost sight of. The chief pastor is addressed, rather than the flock; and the chief pastor in each case is the pupil and intimate associate of the writer. Surely different expressions might be reasonably looked for in such Letters as these.

Again, we might fairly expect that in this last period of the Apostle’s long life his theological vocabulary would have become materially enlarged. This would account for his use of certain new words when he wished to express or reiterate perhaps old thoughts.

It should be remembered, too, that he was in these Epistles combating new forms of heresy which were rapidly developing themselves in the various growing Christian communities. What more likely than that the old master, the wise and divinely inspired teacher, should have appropriated some of the favourite sayings of his opponents, the false teachers of Ephesus and the Asian cities—should have “borrowed” from these unhappy men their own words, thus rescuing them from the perversions which false philosophy had begun to make of them?

We have already, in the first section of this short Introduction, suggested a probable explanation of the repeated use of the formulary “faithful is the saying,” and of other divine sayings which had apparently grown into customary use in the Church.

On the other hand, would not a forger who was desirous to introduce for a particular purpose a writing, or writings, into the Church, under the venerated name of St. Paul, have been specially careful not to introduce into his composition any word or expression foreign to the Apostle’s most common and best known terminology?

(2) The ecclesiastical organisation to which reference is made in these Pastoral Epistles is, after all, of the simplest description. The forms of the government or the Jewish synagogue, only slightly modified to suit the exigencies of the mixed Jewish and Gentile congregations of Christians, are evidently all that existed at the time when St. Paul wrote to Timothy and Titus.

The only marked innovation is that provision which was being made in all the churches for women’s work—a provision rendered necessary from the new position which women, under the teaching of our Lord and His disciples, were henceforth to occupy in the work and life of the world. (This great and important question is treated of at some length in the commentary on the Pastoral Epistles which follows.) And even of this female organisation we see the germs in such notices as in Acts 6:1; Acts 9:36-41; Acts 21:9; and in the life and work of one like Lydia (Acts 16:14), or Priscilla (Acts 18:2; Acts 18:26), &c.

The presbyterate, not merely in name, but also in the matter of the functions assigned to the office, was clearly adopted from the synagogue, of course with such changes and modifications as the new and growing society required.

The diaconate also, in some way, appears to have been derived from Jewish precedents. The very name, “Levites,” by which these inferior ministers of the Church were often called, points to the origin of the “order.” Thus Jerome (Ep. 27) distinguishes them from the presbyters, speaking of the deacons as “the countless number of Levites.” So, too, Salvian, A.D. 450, writes of the deacons, calling them “Levites.” Frequently in the Councils the term “Levite” is used as the peculiar title of the deacon.

But the diaconate—which, although probably originally a copy of a Jewish order of ministers in the public services connected with worship and religious instruction, still may be looked on as an order especially belonging to the Christian Church—existed long before “the last days” of St. Paul. Indeed, it is traceable back to the very first years of the existence of the little Jerusalem community of believers in Jesus of Nazareth. See Acts 6:2-6, where the famous Seven are appointed by the Twelve Apostles—diaeonein trapezais, “to serve tables.”

The functions of the “deacons of Ephesus” alluded to by St. Paul were certainly not very different from the duties apparently performed by the “Seven” of Acts 6. See, especially 2Thessalonians 3:3; 2Thessalonians 3:8-10, where these solemnly ordained ones assisted the Apostle in almsgiving, in the general regulation of the Church’s charities, and also appear to have preached and taught publicly.

But there is one argument for the extreme antiquity of these Epistles derived exclusively from internal evidence supplied by the Epistles themselves.

At the very commencement of the second century it is an acknowledged fact that the episcopal office was firmly and widely established. But these Letters were written before any sign of episcopal government had appeared in Gentile Christendom. In the Pastoral Epistles the Greek words rendered “bishop” and “presbyter” or elder (episcopos, presbyteros), are applied indifferently to the same person. (See Note on 1Timothy 3:1.)

Too great stress can hardly be laid on the vast difference which existed between the ecclesiastical organisation presented in the Pastoral Epistles and that revealed to us in the Letters of Ignatius, written at the very commencement of the second century, even if we only admit as genuine the shorter form of the version of the Ignatian Epistles, or the still briefer recension of the three Syriac Letters edited by Dr. Cureton.

No candid critic would surely suggest for so vast a development in ecclesiastical organisation a less period than thirty to forty years, placing the Ignatian Epistles in the early part of the second century. This would give as the date of the so-called Pastoral Letters, the last year of St. Paul’s life.

(3) Heresies of a later date appear to be combated in these writings. But the false teachers referred to here were evidently Judaistic in their teaching (see for instance 1Timothy 1:7; 1Timothy 4:3; Titus 1:10-14; Titus 3:9), while the Gnostic teachers of the next century were strongly anti-Judaistic. This state of things was no doubt brought about by the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, and the total ruin of the Jewish national system, in the year of our Lord 70.

In these Epistles we have allusion to schools of heresies widely differing from those which opposed the Catholic Church in the second century. Here we find the seeds, but only the seeds, of the famous Gnostic teaching. Dean Alford (Prolegomena to the Pastoral Epistles) has well, though roughly, painted the development of heresy in the early days of Christianity. In the first years, the principal enemies within the church were “Judaising Christians,” these are alluded to in St. Paul’s earlier Epistles. “The false teachers against whom Timothy and Titus were warned seemed to hold a position intermediate to the Apostle’s former Judaising adversaries and the subsequent Gnostic heretics.”

The general characteristics of the heresies spoken of in the Pastoral Epistles would certainly not appear to belong to a period subsequent to the fall of Jerusalem (A.D. 70).

(4) As regards the last objection,—to the critics who seriously propose to throw doubt on the authenticity of these Epistles, alleging that it is impossible to assign during the lifetime of St. Paul, as related in the Acts, a period which would suit the peculiar circumstances under which it was evident that these writings were composed, we reply that St. Paul lived and worked after the captivity related in the last chapter of the Acts; for the unanimous testimony of the primitive Church tells us that the appeal of St. Paul to Cæsar (Acts 25:11) terminated successfully, that after the imprisonment related in the last chapter of the Acts, he was liberated A.D. 63, and that he spent some time (A.D. 63 to A.D. 65-66) in freedom before he was again arrested and condemned.

The principal evidences for this are found in the Epistle of Clement, Bishop of Rome, the disciple of St. Paul (Philippians 4:3), to the Romans, written in the last year of the first century. “He, Paul, had gone to the extremity of the west before his martyrdom.” In a Roman writer the “extremity of the west” could only signify “Spain,” and we know in that portion of his life related in the Acts he had never journeyed further west than Italy. In the fragments of the Canon called Muratori’s, written about A.D. 170, we read in the account of the Acts of the Apostles, “Luke relates to Theophilus events of which he was an eye-witness, as also in a separate place [Luke 22:31-33] he evidently declares the martyrdom of Peter, but [omits] the journey of St. Paul to Spain.” Eusebius (H.E 2:22—A.D. 320) writes, “After defending himself successfully it is currently reported that the Apostle again went forth to proclaim the gospel, and afterwards came to Rome a second time, and was martyred under Nero.”

St. Chrysostom (A.D. 398) mentions as an undoubted historical fact, “that St. Paul after his residence in Rome departed to Spain.” St. Jerome (A.D. 390) also relates, “that St. Paul was dismissed by Nero that he might preach Christ’s gospel in the West.”

Thus in the Catholic Church in the East and West during the three hundred years which succeeded the death of St. Paul, a unanimous tradition was current that the great Apostle’s labours were continued for a period extending over two or three years after his liberation from that Roman imprisonment related in Acts 28. During this renewed season of activity, probably in the last year or fifteen months, the Epistles to Timothy and Titus were written.

The last of the three Letters, the Second Epistle to Timothy, was no doubt written within a few weeks at most of the glorious end. We see, then, that internal evidence, when carefully sifted, instead of contradicting, supports, with a weighty mass of independent testimony, the unanimous tradition of the ancient Church which, with one voice, proceeding from the East as well as from the West, pronounced the Pastoral Epistles canonical, receiving them as the word of the Holy Spirit communicated through the Apostle Paul.

The Epistles to Timothy and Titus.

BY

THE VERY REV. H. D. M. SPENCE, D.D.,

Dean of Gloucester.

INTRODUCTION

TO

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO TIMOTHY.

I. Timothy.—Timothy was a native of the province of Lycaonia in Asia Minor—most probably of Lystra, a small town some thirty miles to the south of Iconium, the modern Konieh. His father was a pagan, but his mother and grandmother, Lois and Eunice, were Jewesses, evidently devout and earnest in the practice of the religion of their forefathers. They became Christians, apparently, at the time of St. Paul’s first visit to Asia Minor in company with Barnabas (A.D. 46), (Acts 14; 2Timothy 1:5; 2Timothy 3:15).

From Lois and Eunice Timothy no doubt learned the rudiments of the faith of the Lord Jesus. Some five years later, in company with Silas (A.D. 51), St. Paul paid a second visit to Asia Minor. Moved probably by the devotion and earnestness of the young son of Eunice, and seeing in him the promise of a loving and heroic life, St. Paul took Timothy in the place of Mark, whose heart had failed him in the presence of so many difficulties and dangers. From this time (A.D. 51) Timothy’s life was closely associated with that of his master.

He was with the Gentile Apostle in Macedonia and Corinth (A.D. 52-53), (Acts 17:14; Acts 18:5; 1Thessalonians 1:1); with him at Ephesus, whence he was sent on a special mission to Corinth (A.D. 55-56), (1Corinthians 4:17; 1Corinthians 16:10); with him when he wrote from Macedonia the Second Corinthian Letter (2Corinthians 1:1); with him at Corinth when he wrote to the Roman Church (A.D. 57), (Romans 16:21); with him when he was returning to Asia, where he was arrested prior to the long captivity at Cæsarea and Rome (A.D. 57-58), (Acts 20:4). We find him again specially mentioned as the Apostle’s companion during that long Roman imprisonment (A.D. 61-63). (See the Epistles written at that period—Colossians 1:1; Philemon 1:1; Philippians 1:1.)

After the Apostle’s release from his first great captivity (A.D. 63), (see General Introduction to the Pastoral Epistles), Timothy, still St. Paul’s companion (1Timothy 1:3), was left in charge of the Ephesian Church (probably about A.D. 64). While fulfilling this work he received the two Epistles of St. Paul (A.D. 64-65) which bear his name. In the Epistle to the Hebrews (Hebrews 13:23) Timothy is alluded to as having been imprisoned and again liberated. This solitary notice, however, throws but little light on the life of the Apostle’s famous disciple, except that it seems to tell us that the pupil’s life was full of hardship and danger, as was the master’s, and that the younger man had well learned the lesson of St. Paul, who bade him with his dying breath (2Timothy 2:3) “endure hardness as a good soldier of Jesus Christ.”

Nicephorus and the ancient martyrologies tell us that Timothy died by martyrdom under the Emperor Domitian some time before A.D. 96. Baronius, however, puts his martyr death a little later—A.D. 109—when the Emperor Trajan was reigning.

The accompanying table will assist the reader in following the life of Timothy:—

ROMAN

A.D.

EMPEROR

REIGNING.

46

Claudius.

First meeting between Paul and Timothy, still a child, at Lystra—probably in the house of Eunice and Lois.

51

Paul and Silas take Timothy with them from Lystra.

52

Timothy accompanies Paul in his journey through Macedonia.

53

Timothy is with Paul at Corinth.

54-56

Nero.

Timothy is with Paul at Ephesus.

57

Timothy is with Paul at Corinth. Paul writes Epistle to Romans.

58

Timothy is with Paul in the journey from Corinth to Asia.

62-63

Timothy is with Paul during the Roman imprisonment.

64

Paul leaves Timothy at Ephesus.

65-66

Timothy receives the two Epistles from Paul.

Not later than

96

Domitian.

Alleged martyrdom of Timothy.

Or, according to Baronius,

109

Trajan.

Alleged martyrdom.

II. Date of the Epistle.—The First Epistle to Timothy was written apparently in the year 65-66, while the Apostle was passing through Macedonia, after a probable journey into Spain and a return to Ephesus, at which city he had left Timothy in charge of the church.

III. General Contents of the Epistle.—No systematic arrangement is followed in this Epistle. Its contents may be roughly divided into six general divisions, coinciding with the six chapters:—

1.—St. Paul reminds Timothy of his especial commission at Ephesus—the repression of a school of false teachers which threatened to subvert the church.

This leads to a brief review of the Apostle’s own past history (1 Timothy 1).

2.—The second division is occupied with directions respecting the public worship of Christians, and the parts which each sex should take in public prayer (1 Timothy 2).

3.—Treats of the office-bearers in the church—bishops (or, elders), deacons, and deaconesses (1 Timothy 3).

4.—Again St. Paul refers to Timothy’s commission in respect to false teachers. He dwells upon’ the deceptive teaching of asceticism, showing the dangers which accompanied such doctrine. The practical godly life of Timothy and his staff would, after all, be the best antidote to the poison disseminated by these unreal, untrue men (1 Timothy 4).

5.—Treats (a) of the behaviour of the church officials to the flock of Christ; (b) of the public charities of the Church in connection with destitute and helpless women; (c) of a certain order of presbyteral or elder widows, which, in connection with these charities, might be developed in such a Christian community as Ephesus; (d) rules for Timothy, as chief presbyter, respecting ordination and selection of colleagues in the ministry, &c. (1 Timothy 5).

6.—A few plain comments on the great social question of slavery. How Christian slaves were to behave in their condition. The false teachers must be sternly combated in their teaching on this point. Timothy is warned with solemn earnestness against covetousness. This, St. Paul argues, was the root of all false teaching (1 Timothy 6).

One golden thread seems to run through this, and, it may be said, through the other two Pastoral Letters. St. Paul’s earnestness in these last days of his life seems rather to expend itself in exhortations to Christian men and women to live a good, pure, self-denying life. Doctrine, in these last words of the noble, generous toiler for the Lord, retreats a little into the background. It is true that he reiterates in several places the grounds of a Christian’s belief—that he rehearses in plain and evidently well-known phrases the great articles of the Christian faith; but his last words dwell rather on life than on theology. The errors of the false teachers whose deadly influence Timothy was to counteract belonged rather to an evil life than to a false belief. The pure and saintly conduct, the pattern home life—these things, Timothy and his colleagues must remember, were the surest antidote against the poisonous teaching and the selfish practice of the enemies of the Lord Jesus.

Title

The title given in A.V. agrees with that adopted by the Elzevir editions of 1624, 1633. But the best mss. give only First Epistle to Timothy, as also for the ‘Subscription.’