Heinrich Meyer Commentary - 2 Timothy

Online Resource Library

Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | Download

Heinrich Meyer Commentary - 2 Timothy


(Show All Books)

Chapter Commentaries:

Verse Commentaries:


CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL

COMMENTARY

ON

THE NEW TESTAMENT

HANDBOOK

TO THE

EPISTLES OF ST. PAUL

TO

TIMOTHY AND TITUS

BY

JOH. ED. HUTHER, TH.D.,

PASTOR AT WITTENFÖRDEN BEI SCHWERIN.

TRANSLATED FROM THE FOURTH IMPROVED AND ENLARGED EDITION OF THE GERMAN BY

DAVID HUNTER, B.D.,

LATE SCHOLAR IN HEBREW AND BIBLICAL CRITICISM IN THE UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW.

EDINBURGH:

T. & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET.

MDCCCLXXXI.

AUTHOR’S PREFACE

I N publishing the fourth edition of my Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, I recall with painful feeling the man who began and conducted the work in which I count it a special honour to take part. When the third edition of my Commentary on the Epistle of James appeared in the year 1870, he was still busy with undiminished mental vigour in conducting his work nearer to that goal of completion, which he had kept before him from the first. At that time I did not anticipate that in a few years he would be called away from his work. Through his death Science has sustained a heavy loss, but she has this comfort, that if he himself has departed from her, the work to which he devoted the labour of a lifetime still remains, a brilliant example of the most thorough and unbiassed exegesis, of an exegesis which, holding itself free from all subjective caprice, “devotes itself soberly, faithfully, submissively, to the service of the Divine Word.” The works of Meyer testify that he himself adhered to the law which he set down for the expositors of the holy Word, viz. that “they must interpret its pure contents as historical facts in a manner simple, true, and clear, without bias and independent of dogmatic prejudice, neither adding nor taking away anything, and abstaining from all conjectures of their own” (Preface to the fifth edition of the Commentary on 1 Cor.).

Since he invited me to take part in the work, it has been my constant endeavour to imitate his example; and it shall always be so with me, so long as I am spared to go on with it. Of what use is it, either to theological science or to the Church, if the expounder of the holy Scriptures uses his acuteness in endeavouring to confirm from them his own preconceived opinions, instead of faithfully interpreting and presenting the thoughts actually contained in them?

The same endeavour has guided me in this new revision, as will be shown, I hope, by the revision itself. In addition to the scrutiny to which I have subjected my earlier work, I have also carefully considered and examined the writings on the Pastoral Epistles, published since 1866, when the third edition of this Commentary appeared. Above all, I have examined the third edition of van Oosterzee’s Commentary, the practical exposition by Plitt, and Hofmann’s Commentary. While fully acknowledging the acuteness displayed in Hofmann’s exposition, I have but seldom been able to agree with it; for the most part, I have felt myself bound to refute it. However convincing it may frequently appear at the first glance, as frequently it will not bear an unbiassed, scrutinizing consideration. While it certainly does not yield itself to exuberant fancies, it still follows a mode of exegesis, in which the chief purpose is to put forth new and striking explanations, and then to support them with all kinds of ingenious arguments.

Nevertheless I feel myself bound to express my thanks to it, because it has incited me to examine the thought of the holy text all the more carefully and thoroughly.

The disfavour with which the Pastoral Epistles used often to be regarded has gradually disappeared, and rightly; for the more deeply we enter into the spirit of their contents, the more they appear worthy of the apostle whose name they bear. Excellent service in presenting their fulness of thought has been done by Stirm, a deacon in Reutlingen, in his treatise published in the Jahrbuch für deutsche Theologie (vol. xviii. No. 1, 1872), and called “Hints for Pastoral Theology contained in the Pastoral Epistles.” The more they who are entrusted with the clerical office make use of the contents of these epistles as their guiding star, the richer in blessing will their labours be.

To that same end may the Lord of the Church bless this my new work!

JOH. ED. HUTHER.

WITTENFÖRDEN, November 1875.

THE PASTORAL EPISTLES

INTRODUCTION

SECTION 1.—TIMOTHY AND TITUS

1. T IMOTHY.

He was the son of a Christian Jewess ( γυναικὸς Ἰουδαίας πιστῆς , Act_16:1) named Eunice (2Ti_1:5), and of a Greek. We cannot determine for certain his place of birth. The passage in Act_20:4 does not prove that he was born in Derbe, since the position of καί forbids the connection of Τιμόθεος with Δερβαῖος .[1] From Act_16:1, we might possibly take Lystra to be his birthplace. If this be right, we may from it explain why in Act_20:4, ΤΙΜΌΘΕΟς , without more precise description, is named along with Caius of Derbe, since Lystra lies in the neighbourhood of Derbe.[2] From his mother and his grandmother, called Lois, he had enjoyed a pious education; and he had early been made acquainted with the holy scriptures of the Jews (2Ti_1:5; 2Ti_3:14-15). When Paul on his second missionary journey came into closer connection with him, he was already a Christian ( μαθητής ), and possessed a good reputation among the believers in Lystra and Iconium. Paul calls him his τέκνον (1Ti_1:2; 1Ti_1:18; 2Ti_1:2; 1Co_4:17), from which it would appear that he had been converted by the preaching of the apostle, probably during the apostle’s first stay in Lystra (Act_14:6-7); and, according to the reading: παρὰ τίνων , in the passage 2Ti_3:14, by means of his mother and grandmother. Paul, after circumcising him, because his father was known in the district to be a Gentile,[3] adopted him as his assistant in the apostleship. From that time forward, Timothy was one of those who served the apostle ( ΕἿς ΤῶΝ ΔΙΑΚΟΝΟΎΝΤΩΝ ΑὐΤῷ , Act_19:22), his ΣΥΝΕΡΓΌς . The service ( ΔΙΑΚΟΝΊΑ ) consisted in helping the apostle in the duties of his office, and was therefore not identical with the office of those called evangelists (this against Wiesinger). See on 2Ti_4:5.

Timothy accompanied the apostle through Asia Minor to Philippi; but when Paul and Silas left that city (Act_16:40), he seems to have remained behind there for some time, along with some other companions of the apostle. At Berea they were again together. When Paul afterwards travelled to Athens, Timothy remained behind (with Silas) at Berea; but Paul sent a message for him to come soon (Act_17:14-15).[4] From Athens, Paul sent him to Thessalonica, to inquire into the condition of the church there and to strengthen it (1Th_3:1-5). After completing this task, Timothy joined Paul again in Corinth (Act_18:5; 1Th_3:6). The two epistles which Paul wrote from that place to the Thessalonians were written in Timothy’s name also (1Th_1:1; 2Th_1:1).[5] “When Paul on his third missionary journey remained for some considerable time in Ephesus, Timothy was with him; where he was in the interval is unknown. Before the tumult occasioned by Demetrius, Paul sent him from Ephesus to Macedonia (Act_19:22). Immediately afterwards the apostle wrote what is called the First Epistle to the Corinthians, from which it would appear that Timothy had been commissioned to go to Corinth, but that the apostle expected him to arrive there after the epistle (1Co_4:17; 1Co_16:10-11). Matthies asserts without proof that Timothy did not carry out this journey.

When Paul wrote from Macedonia the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, Timothy was again with him;[6] for Paul composed that epistle also in Timothy’s name, a very natural act if Timothy had shortly before been in Corinth.

He next travelled with the apostle to Corinth; his presence there is proved by the greeting which Paul sent from him to the church in Rome (Rom_16:21).

When Paul after three months left Greece, Timothy, besides others of the apostle’s assistants, was in his company. He travelled with him ἄχρι τῆς Ἀσίας , i.e. as far as Philippi, from which the passage across to Asia Minor was usually made. From there Timothy and some others went before the apostle to Troas, where they remained till the apostle also arrived (Act_20:3-6). At this point there is a considerable blank in Timothy’s history, since he is not mentioned again until the apostle’s imprisonment in Rome.[7] He was with the apostle at that time, because Paul put his name also to the Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Philippians. This fact is at the same time a proof that no other of his assistants in the apostleship stood in such close relations with him as Timothy.

When Paul wrote the last epistle, he intended to send him as soon as possible to Philippi, in order to obtain by him exact intelligence regarding the circumstances of the churches there (Php_2:19 ff.).

[1] Wieseler (Chronol. des apost. Zeitalters, p. 25) argues that Δερβαῖος should go with Τιμόθεος . He points out that in Act_19:29, Γάϊος is called a Macedonian along with Aristarchus, and that Act_20:4 would agree with this if καὶ Γάϊος were joined to θεσσαλονικέων . But in this construction καί before Σεκοῦνδος is superfluous. The Gaius here named is not to be held identical with the one mentioned in Act_19:29; see Meyer on Act_20:4.

[2] According to Otto, the ἦν does not denote Timothy’s abode, but only his temporary sojourn occasioned by the presence of Paul—an assertion, which the context flatly contradicts.

[3] From the expression: ὅτι Ἕλλην ὑπῆρχεν (Act_16:3), Otto wishes to infer that the father was “properly a Hellene, but that not much of a Gentile nature was to be seen in him,” because ὑπάρχειν , in contrast to φαίνεσθαι , is = “to be fundamentally” (!).

[4] There is no tenable ground for Otto’s assertion that Silas remained at Berea, and that Timothy, after completing the apostle’s commission in Thessalonica, joined Silas again at Berea on the return journey, from which place the two travelled together to Corinth.

[5] Otto asserts that in Corinth Timothy made “his first attempts at the κήρυγμα τοῦ λόγου (2Co_1:19),” which is in manifest contradiction with 1Th_3:1-5. Στηρίζειν and παρακαλεῖν περὶ τῆς πίστεως necessarily include the κηρύσσειν τὸν λόγον , and are not to be regarded merely as the fulfilment of a “messenger’s duty, demanding no particular experience nor ability.”

[6] Wieseler assumes that Timothy joined Paul again while still in Ephesus (l.c. pp. 57 f.), but his proofs are not decisive.

[7] In this it is presupposed that the two Epistles to the Colossians and to the Ephesians, and the Epistle to Philemon, were written in Rome, and not, as Meyer assumes, in Cæsarea.

From our two Epistles to Timothy we learn also the following facts regarding the circumstances of his life:—

According to 1Ti_1:3, Paul on a journey to Macedonia left him behind in Ephesus, that he might counteract the false doctrine which was spreading there more and more. Perhaps on this occasion—if not even earlier

Timothy was solemnly ordained to his office by the laying on of hands on the part of the apostle and the presbytery. At this ordination the fairest hopes of him were expressed in prophetic language (comp. 1Ti_1:18; 1Ti_4:14; 2Ti_1:6), and he made a good confession (1Ti_6:12).

Paul at that time, however, hoped soon to come to him again.

As to the period of Paul’s apostolic labours into which this falls, see § 3.

Later on, Paul was a prisoner in Rome. When he was expecting his death as near at hand, he wrote to Timothy to come to him soon, before the approach of winter, and to bring him Mark, together with certain belongings left behind in Troas (2Ti_4:9; 2Ti_4:11; 2Ti_4:13; 2Ti_4:21).

Regarding this imprisonment of Paul, see § 3.

Timothy is only once mentioned elsewhere in the N. T., and that is in Heb_13:23. It is very improbable that the Timothy there mentioned is another person; and from the passage we learn that when the epistle was written, he was again freed from an imprisonment, and that its author, as soon as he came, wished, along with him, to visit those to whom the epistle was directed.

According to the tradition of the church, Timothy was the first bishop of Ephesus. Chrysostom, indeed, merely says: δῆλον , ὅτι ἐκκλησίαν λοιπὸν ἦν πεπιστεύμενος Τιμόθεος , καὶ ἔθνος ὁλόκληρον τὸ τῆς Ἀσίας (Homil. 15, on 1 Tim.); but Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. iii. 4), says directly: Τιμόθεος τῆς ἐν Ἐφέσῳ παροικίας ἱστορεῖται πρῶτος τὴν ἐπισκοπὴν εἰληφέναι . Comp. also Const. Apost. i. 7, ch. 46; Photii Bibl. 254.

From the First Epistle only this much is clear, that the apostle gave to him a right of superintending the church at Ephesus, similar to that which the apostles exercised over the churches. It was a position from which afterwards the specially episcopal office might spring, but it cannot be considered as identical with the latter.

2. Titus.

Regarding the circumstances of his life, we possess still less information than regarding those of Timothy. He was also one of Paul’s assistants, and is first mentioned as such in Gal_2:1, where Paul tells us that he took Titus with him to Jerusalem on the journey undertaken fourteen years after his conversion or after his first stay in Jerusalem. Though Titus was of Gentile origin, Paul did not circumcise him, that there might be no yielding to his opponents.

When Paul wrote the First Epistle to the Corinthians, he sent Titus to Corinth, that a report might be brought to him of the state of matters there. Paul was disappointed in his hope of finding him again at Troas (2Co_2:13), but afterwards joined him in Macedonia (2Co_7:6). The news brought by Titus led him to compose the Second Epistle. With this he sent Titus a second time to Corinth, where he was at the same time to complete the collection for the poor of the church in Jerusalem, which he had already on a previous occasion begun (2Co_8:6; 2Co_8:16; 2Co_8:23).

When Paul, from his imprisonment in Rome, wrote the Second Epistle to Timothy, Titus was not with him, but had gone to Dalmatia (2Ti_4:10). On this point we do not possess more exact information.

From the Epistle to Titus itself, we learn that he had assisted the apostle in his missionary labours in Crete, and had been left behind there in order to make the further arrangements necessary for forming a church (Tit_1:5). By the epistle he is summoned to come to Nicopolis, where Paul wished to spend the winter (Tit_3:12).

Paul calls him his γνήσιον τέκνον κατὰ κοινὴν πίστιν , from which it appears that he had been converted to Christianity by Paul.

According to the tradition of the church, Titus was installed by Paul as the first bishop of Crete. Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. iii. 4): Τιμόθεός γε μὴν τῆς ἐν Ἐφέσῳ παροικίας ἱστορεῖται πρῶτος τὴν ἐπισκοπὴν εἰληχέναι · ὡς καὶ Τίτος τῶν ἐπὶ Κρήτης ἐκκλησιῶν ; comp. Jerome, Catal. Script. Eccles.; Theodoret on 1 Timothy 3; Theophylact, Proem. ad Tit.; Const. Apost. vii. 46. He is said to have died and been buried in Crete in his ninety-fourth year.

SECTION 2.—CONTENTS OF THE PASTORAL EPISTLES

First Epistle to Timothy.

The epistle begins with a reminder that the apostle had left Timothy behind in Ephesus in order to counteract the heresies of certain teachers. These heresies are described in detail, and the evangelic principle of life is placed in opposition to them (1Ti_1:3-10) by directing attention to the gospel as it had been entrusted to the apostle. This furnishes an opportunity for expressing his thanks for the grace shown to him in it (11–17), to which is added an exhortation to Timothy to act rightly in regard to it (18–20). Then follow particular directions, first as to public intercessions and the behaviour of the men and women in the meetings of the church (1Ti_2:1-15), and then as to the qualities necessary in a bishop and a deacon (1Ti_3:1-13). After briefly pointing out the essential truth of the gospel (14–16), the apostle goes on to speak further regarding the heretics, and confutes their arbitrary rules (1Ti_4:1-6). After this we have further exhortations to Timothy,—first as to his behaviour towards the heresy (7–11), then as to his official labours (12–16), and lastly in reference to his attitude towards the individual members of the church. Under this last head are given more detailed instructions about widows and presbyters (1Ti_5:1-25), to which are added some special remarks regarding slaves (1Ti_6:1-2).

After another attack on the heretics (3–10), there follow again exhortations to Timothy to be true to his calling, which are interrupted by an allusion to the rich (11–21).

Second Epistle to Timothy.

The epistle begins with the apostle’s assurance to Timothy that, full of desire to see him again, he remembered him always in prayer, and was convinced of his unfeigned faith (1Ti_1:3-5). This is followed by an exhortation to stir up the gift of the Spirit imparted to him, and not be ashamed of the gospel, but to be ready to suffer for it (6–8); his attention also is directed to the grace of God revealed in the gospel, and to the apostle’s example (9–12). Then follow further exhortations to Timothy to hold fast the doctrine he had received, and to preserve the good thing entrusted to him, the apostle also reminding him of the conduct of the Asiatics who had turned away from him, and of the fidelity of Onesiphorus (13–18).

The doctrine received from the apostle he is to deliver to other tried men, but he himself is to suffer as a good soldier of Jesus Christ, and to remember the Risen One; just as he, the apostle, suffers for Christ’s sake, that the elect may become partakers of blessedness (1Ti_2:1-13). Then follow warnings against the heresy, which may exercise on many a corrupting influence, but cannot destroy the building founded by God (14–19). Instructions are also given how Timothy is to conduct himself towards this heresy, and towards those who give themselves up to it (20–26). With prophetic spirit the apostle points next to the moral ruin which threatens to appear in the future in the most varied forms. He pictures the conduct of the heretics, and exhorts Timothy on the contrary—in faithful imitation of his exemplar as before—to hold fast by that which he knows to be the truth (1Ti_3:1-16). In reference to the threatening general apostasy from the pure doctrine of the gospel, the apostle exhorts Timothy to perform faithfully the evangelic duties of his office, especially as he himself was already at the end of his apostolic career (1Ti_4:1-8). Then follow various special commissions, items of news, greetings, the repeated summons to come to him soon before the approach of winter, and finally the Christian benediction with which the epistle closes.

The Epistle to Titus.

After a somewhat elaborate preface, Paul reminds Titus that he had left him behind in Crete for the purpose of ordaining presbyters in the churches there. The qualities are named which the presbyter ought to possess, and Paul points out the upholding of the pure gospel as the most important requisite of all, that the presbyter may be able to withstand the continually growing influence of the heretics. The mention of the heretics in Crete gives the apostle an opportunity of quoting a saying of Epimenides, which describes the character of the Cretans, while at the same time he sketches the heretics, with their arbitrary commands and their hypocritical life, and vindicates against them the principle of life in the gospel (Tit_1:5-16). Then follow rules of conduct for the various members of the church, for old and young, men and women, together with an exhortation to Titus to show a good example in work and doctrine, and especially to call upon the slaves to be faithful to their masters. These exhortations are supported by pointing to the moral character of God’s grace (Tit_2:1-15).

Then follows the injunction that Titus is to urge the Christians to obedience towards the higher powers, and to a peaceful behaviour towards all men. The latter point is enforced by pointing to the undeserved grace of God which has been bestowed on Christians (Tit_3:1-7). To this are added warnings against heresy, and directions how Titus is to deal with a heretic (Tit_3:8-11). The epistle closes with an injunction to come to the apostle at Nicopolis, some commissions, greetings, and the benediction.

The First Epistle to Timothy and the Epistle to Titus are letters on business, both occasioned by the apostle’s desire to impart to his colleagues definite instructions for their work in Ephesus and in Crete respectively. The Epistle to Titus has at the same time the purpose of enjoining him, after the arrival of Artemas or Tychicus, to come to Paul at Nicopolis.

The Second Epistle to Timothy is a letter “purely personal” (Wiesinger), occasioned by the wish of the apostle to see him as soon as possible in Rome. It was written, too, for the purpose of encouraging him to faithfulness in his calling as a Christian, and particularly in his official labours. The apostle felt all the greater need for writing, that he perceived in his colleague a certain shrinking from suffering.

The instructions in the First Epistle to Timothy refer to the meetings of the church, to prayer and the behaviour of the women in the meetings, to the qualifications of bishops and deacons, to widows, to the relation of slaves to their masters, but at the same time also to Timothy’s conduct in general as well as in special cases.

In the Epistle to Titus the apostle instructs him regarding the ordination of bishops, the conduct of individual members of the church, both in particular according to their age, sex, and position, and also in their general relation to the higher powers and to non-Christians. In all three epistles, besides the more general exhortations to faithfulness in word and act, there is a conspicuous reference to heretics who threaten to disturb the church. The apostle exhorts his fellow-workers not only to hold themselves free from the influence of such men, but also to counteract the heresy by preaching the pure doctrine of the gospel, and to warn the church against the temptations of such heresy. He imparts also rules for proper conduct towards the heretics.

The three epistles are closely related in contents, and also in the expression and the form in which the thoughts are developed. They have thus received a definite impress, which distinguishes them from the apostle’s other epistles. All Paul’s epistles contain expressions peculiar to him alone, and this is certainly the case with every one of these three. But there is also in them a not inconsiderable number of expressions peculiar to them all, or even to two of them, and often repeated in them, but occurring only seldom or not at all in the other epistles of the N. T. The nature of the Christian life is denoted specially by εὐσέβεια , 1Ti_2:2; 1Ti_3:16, etc.; 2Ti_3:5; Tit_1:1 ( εὐσεβέω , 1Ti_5:4; εὐσεβῶς , 2Ti_3:12; Tit_2:12). The following virtues are specially extolled as Christian:

σεμνότης , 1Ti_2:2; 1Ti_3:4; Tit_2:7 ( σεμνός , 1Ti_3:8; 1Ti_3:11; Tit_2:2); σωφροσύνη , 1Ti_2:9; 1Ti_2:15 ( σώφρων , 1Ti_3:2; Tit_1:8; Tit_2:2; Tit_2:5; σωφρόνως , Tit_2:12; σωφρονέω , Tit_2:6; σωφρονίζειν , Tit_2:4; σωφρονισμός , 2Ti_1:7). The same or very similar words, which occur seldom or nowhere else, are used to denote the doctrine of the gospel; e.g. the word διδασκαλία , especially in connection with ὑγιαινοῦσα , 1Ti_1:10; 2Ti_4:3; Tit_1:9; Tit_2:1. The use of ὑγιαίνω and ὑγιής in general is peculiar to the Pastoral Epistles: λόγοι ὑγιαίνοντες , 1Ti_6:3; 2Ti_1:13; λόγος ὑγιής , Tit_2:8. We may also note: κατʼ εὐσέβειαν διδασκαλία , 1Ti_6:3, and ἀλήθεια κατʼ εὐσέβειαν , Tit_1:1; καλὴ διδασκαλία , 1Ti_4:6 ( καλός is also a word which occurs very often in all three epistles). Even in describing the heresy there is a great agreement in all three. Its substance is denoted in a more general way by μῦθοι , 1Ti_1:4; 2Ti_4:4; Tit_1:14; more specially by γενεαλογίαι , 1Ti_1:4; Tit_3:9. Frequently it is reproached with occasioning foolish investigations ( μωραί ζητήσεις ), as in 1Ti_6:4; 2Ti_2:23; Tit_3:9. In 1Ti_1:6 it is on this account called ματαιολογία , and in accordance with this the heretics are called in Tit_1:10 ματαιολόγοι . In 1Ti_6:4 the blame of λογομαχίαι is given to it, and in 2Ti_2:14 there is a warning against λογομαχεῖν . The same reproach is contained in αἱ βέβηλοι κενοφωνίαι , which is found in 1Ti_6:20, and 2Ti_2:16.

But also in other respects there is a striking agreement in these epistles. Among the points of agreement are the formula, πιστὸς λόγος , 1Ti_1:15; 1Ti_3:1; 1Ti_4:9; 2Ti_2:11; Tit_3:8; the word ἀρνέομαι , 1Ti_5:8; 2Ti_2:12-13; 2Ti_3:5; Tit_1:16; Tit_2:12; the formula of assurance, διαμαρτύρεσθαι ἐνώπιον ( τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ κυρίου . Χρ .), 1Ti_5:21; 2Ti_2:14; 2Ti_4:1; the figurative expression, παγὶς τοῦ διαβόλου , 1Ti_3:7; 2Ti_2:26; the phrase, φυλάσσειν τὴν παραθήκην , 1Ti_6:20; 2Ti_1:12; 2Ti_1:14; further, the words, κατʼ ἐπιταγήν , 1Ti_1:1; Tit_1:3; ὑπομιμνήσκειν , 2Ti_2:14; Tit_3:1; διʼ ἣν αἰτίαν , 2Ti_1:6; 2Ti_1:12; Tit_1:13; ἐπιφάνεια ( τοῦ κυρίου ), used of the future return of Christ, 1Ti_6:14; 2Ti_4:1; 2Ti_4:8; Tit_2:13; δεσπότης (instead of κύριος , Eph_6:5; Col_3:22), 1Ti_6:1; 2Ti_2:21; Tit_2:9; παραιτεῖσθαι , 1Ti_4:7; 1Ti_5:11; 2Ti_2:23; Tit_3:10; διαβεβαιοῦσθαι περί τινος , 1Ti_1:7; Tit_3:8, etc.

Wherever in the three epistles the same subject is spoken of, substantially the same expressions and turns of expression are used, though with some modifications. Thus the benedictions in the inscription agree: χάρις , ἔλεος , εἰρήνη (Tit_1:4 should, however, perhaps have the reading: χάρις καὶ εἰρήνη ). In reference to the redemption by Christ we have in 1Ti_2:6 : δοὺς ἑαυτὸν ἀντίλυτρον ὑπὲρ πάντων ; and Tit_2:14 : ὃς ἔδωκεν ἑαυτὸν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν , ἵνα λυτρώσηται ἡμᾶς ; in reference to his office Paul says in 1Ti_2:7 : εἰς ( τὸ μαρτύριον ) ἐτέθην ἐγὼ κήρυξ καὶ ἀπόστολος διδάσκαλος ἐθνῶν ; and so also in 2Ti_1:11. The necessary qualities of the bishop are mentioned in the same way in 1Ti_3:2 ff. and Tit_1:6 : μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἀνήρ , σώφρων , φιλόξενος , μὴ πάροινος , μὴ πλήκτης . The general exhortations to Timothy in 1Ti_6:11 and 2Ti_2:22 agree with each other almost to the very letter.

In the other Pauline epistles the fulness of the apostle’s thought struggles with the expression, and causes peculiar difficulties in exposition. The thoughts slide into one another, and are so intertwined in many forms that not seldom the new thought begins before a correct expression has been given to the thought that preceded. Of this confusion there is no example in the Pastoral Epistles. Even in such passages as come nearest to this confused style, such as the beginning of the First and Second Epistles to Timothy (Tit_2:11 ff; Tit_3:4 ff.), the connection of ideas is still, on the whole, simple. It is peculiar that, as De Wette has shown, the transition from the special to a general truth is often made suddenly—thus 1Ti_1:15; 1Ti_2:4-6; 1Ti_4:8-10; 2Ti_1:9 ff; 2Ti_2:11-13; 2Ti_3:12; Tit_2:11-14; Tit_3:4-7; and that after such general thoughts a resting-point is often sought in an exhortation or instruction addressed to the receivers of the epistle, as in 1Ti_4:6; 1Ti_4:11; 1Ti_6:2; 2Ti_2:14; 2Ti_3:5; Tit_2:15; Tit_3:8.

SECTION 3.—TIME AND PLACE OF THE COMPOSITION OF THE PASTORAL EPISTLES

1. First Epistle to Timothy.

Regarding the time of the composition of this epistle, different views from an early period have been put forward, since the indications contained in the epistle itself leave a difficulty in assigning to it its proper place in the events of the apostle’s life. According to these indications, Paul had been for some time with Timothy in Ephesus, and had travelled from there to Macedonia, leaving Timothy behind in Ephesus to take his place. Probably the epistle was written by Paul from Macedonia, to remind Timothy of his charge, and to give him suitable instructions; for, although Paul hoped to return to Ephesus soon, still a delay was regarded as possible (chap. 1Ti_3:14-15).

According to Acts, Paul was twice in Ephesus. The first occasion was on his second missionary journey from Antioch, when he was returning from Corinth to Antioch (Act_18:19). On this first occasion he stayed there only a short time, as he wished to be in Jerusalem in time for the near-approaching festival. The composition cannot be assigned to that occasion, since there was at that time no Christian church in Ephesus, and Paul was not travelling to Macedonia.

On his third missionary journey Paul was in Ephesus a second time. This time he stayed for two or three years, and then, after the riot caused by Demetrius, travelled to Macedonia and Greece (Act_20:1-2). Theodoret, and after him many other expositors, assume that Paul wrote the epistle on this journey to Macedonia, or in Macedonia. But to this the following circumstances are opposed:—(1) According to Act_19:22, Paul, before his own departure from Ephesus, had already sent Timothy to Macedonia; we are not told that Timothy, after being commissioned to go to Corinth (1Co_4:17), returned to Ephesus again before the apostle’s departure, as the apostle certainly had expected (according to 1Co_16:11). (2) When Paul undertook that journey, he did not intend to return soon to Ephesus (1Co_16:6-7), which decidedly was his intention at the time of the composition of the epistle (1Ti_3:14); and on his return journey from Greece he sailed from Troas past Ephesus for the express purpose of avoiding any stay there (Act_20:16). (3) According to 2Co_1:1, Timothy was in Macedonia with Paul when he wrote the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, and, according to Act_20:4, he accompanied the apostle on his journey from Corinth to Philippi. Timothy therefore must also have left Ephesus after the apostle’s departure, although the apostle had charged him to remain there till his own return (1Ti_4:13), and this we can hardly suppose to have been the case. All these reasons prove that the apostle’s journey from Ephesus to Macedonia, mentioned in Act_20:1, cannot be the same with that of which he speaks in 1Ti_1:3.

Some expositors (Bertholdt, Matthies), alluding to Act_20:3-5, suppose that Timothy set out from Corinth before the apostle, and then went to Ephesus, where he received the epistle. The supposition is, however, contradicted by πορευόμενος εἰς Μακεδονίαν . This objection Bertholdt can get rid of only by the most arbitrary combinations, Matthies only by most unwarrantably explaining πορευόμενος to be equivalent to πορευόμενον . Besides, Luke’s historical narrative is against the whole hypothesis, unless, as Bertholdt actually does, we charge it with an inaccuracy which distorts the facts of the case.

If the composition of the epistle is to be inserted among the incidents in the apostle’s life known to us, the only hypothesis left is, that the apostle’s journey from Ephesus to Macedonia, which is mentioned in 1Ti_1:3, and during which Timothy was left behind by him in Ephesus, falls into the period of his sojourn for two or three years in Ephesus, but is not mentioned by Luke. This is the supposition of Wieseler (Chronologie des apostol. Zeitalters), who follows Mosheim and Schrader. It is not only admitted, on the whole, that the apostle may possibly have made a journey which Luke leaves unnoticed, but there are also several passages in the Epistles to the Corinthians (1Co_16:17; 2Co_2:1; 2Co_12:14; 2Co_12:21; 2Co_13:1-2) which put it beyond doubt that Paul had been in Corinth not once but twice before their composition, but that the second time he had stayed there only a short time. For this journey, of which Luke tells us nothing, we can find no place in the apostle’s history, unless during his stay at Ephesus; see Wieseler, l.c. pp. 232 ff. It is natural, therefore, to identify this journey with the one to Macedonia mentioned in 1Ti_1:3, and to suppose that the epistle was written on this journey from Macedonia. There are still, however, several considerations against this view. One is that both the church organization presupposed in the epistle, and the requirement that the ἐπίσκοπος should not be νεόφυτος , indicate that the church had already been some time in existence. To this Wieseler, indeed, replies that the journey was undertaken shortly before the end of the apostle’s stay in Corinth, so that the church had then been long enough in existence to justify the presupposition and the requirement. But still there is against this hypothesis the consideration that it supposes the apostle to have been in Corinth himself, shortly before the composition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians, so that he could not therefore have any sufficient occasion for writing to the church there. Besides, the passage in Act_20:29-30 is against Wieseler’s view. According to the epistle, the heresy had already made its way into the church at Ephesus, but, according to that passage, Paul mentions the heresy as something to be expected in the future. Supposing even that the words ἐξ ὑμῶν αὐτῶν do not refer to the church, but only to the presbyters assembled at Miletus, still εἰς ὑμᾶς in Act_20:29 must be taken to refer generally to the Christians in Ephesus. Surely Paul, in his address to the presbyters, would not have passed over the presence of heretics in Ephesus, if he knew the church to be so much threatened by the danger that he thought it necessary, even before this, to give Timothy solemn instructions regarding it, as he does in his epistle.

Further, the view implies that Paul had only for a short time been separated from Timothy, and that he must have sent him away immediately after his own return. But how does the whole character of the epistle agree with this? The instructions which Paul gives to Timothy indicate that the latter was to labour in the church for some time; and the greater the danger threatened it by the heresy, the more inconsistent it seems that Paul, after giving these instructions, should have taken Timothy away so soon from his labours in the church.

The views mentioned hitherto proceed from a presupposed interpretation of 1Ti_1:3, viz. that Paul commissioned Timothy to remain in Ephesus, and that the commission was given when Paul departed from Ephesus to Macedonia. This presupposition, however, has been declared erroneous by several expositors, who refer πορευόμενος εἰς Μακεδονίαν not to the apostle, but to Timothy. Paulus explains προσμεῖναι as = “abide by a thing,” joins πορευόμενος εἰς Μακεδ . to ἵνα παραγγείλῃς , and takes the latter imperatively, so that the sense is: “As I have exhorted thee to abide in Ephesus, and warn them against false doctrine, so do thou travel now to Macedonia, and exhort certain people there to abstain from false doctrine.” The opinion of Paulus is therefore that Paul wrote the epistle during his imprisonment at Cæsarea.

Schneckenburger and Böttger try to help the matter by conjecture, wishing both to read, instead of προσμεῖναι , the participle προσμείνας . The former then assumes that the epistle was composed at the time denoted in Act_21:26; the latter, that it was written in Patara (Act_21:1), or in Miletus (Act_20:17). These obviously are arbitrary suppositions. If the journey to Macedonia, mentioned in 1Ti_1:3, is not to be understood as one made by the apostle, but as made by Timothy, then it is much more natural to suppose with Otto that this is the journey of Timothy which is mentioned in Act_19:22, and that Paul wrote the epistle in Ephesus. This is the view which Otto has sought to establish in the first book of his work of research, Die geschichtlichen Verhältnisse der Pastoralbriefe. But this, too, is wrecked on the right explanation of 1Ti_1:3, which refers πορευόμενος εἰς Μακ . to the subject contained in παρεκάλεσα ; see on this point the exposition of the passage.

The Epistle to Titus.

The following are the historical circumstances to which this epistle itself points. After Paul had laboured in Crete, he left Titus behind there. Then he wrote to the latter this epistle, instructing him, so soon as Artemas and Tychicus had been sent to him, to come with all haste to Nicopolis, where the apostle had resolved to pass the winter.

The epistle, indeed, contains nothing definite regarding the first beginning of Christianity in Crete, nothing regarding the duration and extent of the apostle’s labours there, nothing regarding the length of time which intervened between the apostle’s departure from Crete and the composition of the epistle; but it is probable that when Paul came to Crete he found Christianity already existing there, and that he himself remained there only a short time; for on the one hand there were already Christian churches there in the chief places, at least in several towns of the island, at the time of composing the epistle, while on the other hand they were still unorganized. It is probable that the epistle was written by Paul not long after his departure, for it is not to be supposed that Paul would leave his substitute in the apostleship long without written instructions. It is probable also that Paul gave Titus these instructions some time before the beginning of winter, for it would have been meaningless to give instructions, unless Paul intended Titus to labour in Crete for some considerable time.

If we set out with the presupposition that the composition of the epistle is to be placed in that period of the Apostle Paul’s life which is described in Acts, we may thus state more definitely the question regarding the apostle’s stay in Crete, and the composition of the epistle. Did both take place before, or after, or during the two or three years’ stay in Ephesus (Acts 19)? Each of these suppositions has its supporters among expositors and critics. Those who place the two events in the period before the stay at Ephesus, assume as a fixed date either the time during which Paul was first in Corinth (Act_18:1-18) (Michaelis), or the time during which he was travelling from Corinth to Ephesus (Act_18:18-19) (Hug, Hemsen), or, lastly, the time after he had passed through Galatia and Phrygia in the beginning of his third missionary journey, and before he went from there to Ephesus (Act_18:23) (Credner, Neudecker). To all these views alike, however, there is this objection, that Apollos could not be the apostle’s assistant before the (second) arrival in Corinth (Act_18:24 to Act_19:1), whereas he is so named in this epistle. We would then have to suppose that another Apollos was meant here—which would be altogether arbitrary. There are, besides, special objections to these three views. Against the first, according to which Paul had made the journey from Corinth to Crete, and from there to Nicopolis in Epirus (1Ti_3:12), and had then returned to Corinth, it may be urged that the apostle’s second stay in Corinth, alluded to in 1Co_16:7, 2Co_2:1, etc., did not take place then, but later. Against the second, we might object not only that the journey from Corinth to Jerusalem was undertaken with some haste, so as to leave no room for labours in Crete, but also that it takes Nicopolis to be the town in Cilicia, without giving any reason why Paul should pass the winter there and not in Antioch. As to the third view, which is, that Paul for this third missionary journey had chosen Ephesus mainly as his goal (Act_18:21), and that his labours, therefore, on the journey thither consisted only in confirming those who already believed (Act_18:23 : ἐπιστηρίζων πάντας τοὺς μαθητάς ), how are we to reconcile with it the facts that Paul, instead of going at once to Ephesus from Phrygia, went to Crete and Corinth, that he there resolved to pass the winter in Nicopolis (by which Credner in his Einl. in d. N. T. understands the town in Cilicia), and that then only did he go to Ephesus?

There is st