Pulpit Commentary - 1 Timothy

Online Resource Library

Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | Download

Pulpit Commentary - 1 Timothy

(Show All Books)

Verse Commentaries:



1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus

THREE main inquiries present themselves to the student of the pastoral Epistles:

(1) their authenticity;

(2) their chronology;

(3) their contents, including the matters treated of in them, and the style in which they are written.

These three inquiries necessarily touch one another, and run into one another, at many points. Still, they may well be separately treated of.


The authenticity of these Epistles, as the genuine works of the Apostle Paul, whose name is prefixed to all three, rests upon the twofold authority of external witnesses and internal evidence.

1. The external witness is as follows. Eusebius reckons them ("the fourteen Epistles of Paul") among the universally acknowledged books of Holy Scripture, and speaks of them as manifest and certain ('Eccl. Hist.,' III. 3. and 25.), with some reservation as to the Epistle to the Hebrews. The Muratorian Canon includes thirteen Epistles of St. Paul, excluding the Epistle to the Hebrews; the Peschito Canon (of about the same date) reckons fourteen Epistles of St. Paul, including the Epistle to the Hebrews ("Canon," in 'Dictionary of Bible'); and they have never been doubted by any Church writers, but have held their place in all the canons of East and West. Phrases identical with those in these Epistles, and presumably quoted from them, occur in almost contemporary writers. Clemens Romanus (1 Corinthians 2.) has ̔́Åôïéìïé åé̓ò ðá͂í å̓́ñãïí á̓ãáèḯí (comp. Titus 3:1). In Ch. 29. he says, Προσε ì λθωμεν αὐτῷ ἐν ὁσιο ì τητι ψυχῆς ἀ ì γνασ και Ì ἀμια ì ντους χεῖρας ἀ ì ροντες προ Ì ς αὐτο ì ν. Polycarp (c. 4.) uses St. Paul's very words, ̓Áñ÷ç̀ ðá́íôùí ÷áëåðù͂í öéëáñãõñé́á ; Οὐδε Ì ν εἰσηνε ì γκαμεν εἰς το Ì ν κο ì σμον ἀλλ οὐδε Ì ἐξενεγκεῖν τι ἐ ì χομεν. Theophilus of Antioch quotes 1 Timothy 2:1, 2 verbatim as being the utterance of Θεῖος Λο ì γος, "the Word of God" ('Ad Autol.,' 3:14). The same writer, in a passage in general harmony with Titus 3:3-7, uses the very words of Titus 3:5, Δια Ì λουτροῦ παλιγγενεσι ì ας ('Ad Auto.,' 1:2). The different liturgies, as quoted in the notes on 1 Timothy 2:1, are manifestly founded on that passage. Irenaeus, in his book 'Against Heresies,' repeatedly quotes by name all three Epistles (1 Timothy 1:4; 2 Timothy 4:21; Titus 3:10, etc.). Tertullian, in 'De Praescript.,' cap. 25., quotes again and again by name St. Paul's First and Second Epistles to Timothy. Clement of Alexandria again and again quotes both Epistles to Timothy, and says that the heretics reject them because their errors are refuted by them ('Strom.,' 2., 3., and 1.). He quotes also the Epistle to Titus. Many other references and quotations may be found in Lardner (vol. 1.), as well as in various 'Introductions,' as Huther, Olshausen, Alfbrd (where they are very clearly arranged); "Speaker's Commentary;" New Testament Commentary,' edited by the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol; 'Dictionary of Bible,' art. "Timothy," etc. But the above establish conclusively the acceptance of these Epistles as authentic by the unanimous consent of Church writers of the three first centuries of the Christian era — a unanimity which continued down to the present century.

2. The internal evidence is no less strong. We must remember that, if these Epistles are not St. Paul's, they are artful forgeries, written for the express purpose of deceiving. Is it possible to suppose that writings so grave, so sober, so simple and yet so powerful; breathing such a noble spirit of love and goodness, of high courage and holy resolves; replete with such great wisdom and such exalted piety; having no apparent object but the well-being of the Christian societies to which they refer; and so well calculated to promote that well-being; were written with a pen steeped in lies and falsehood? It is impossible to suppose it. The transparent truth of these Epistles is their own credential that they are the work of him whose name they hear.

But all the details of the Epistles point to the same conclusion. While there is a marked and striking difference in the vocabulary of these Epistles, which a forger would have avoided (to which we shall revert by-and-by), there is an identity of tone and sentiment, and also of words and phrases, which bespeaks them to be the birth of the same brain as the other universally acknowledged Epistles of St. Paul. Compare, for instance, the opening and the closing salutations of the three Epistles with those of St. Paul's other Epistles: they are the same. Compare the sentiment in 1 Timothy 1:5 with Romans 13:10; Galatians 5:6, and the general attitude of the writer's mind towards the Jewish opponents and the Law of Moses, as seen in 1 Timothy 1:4-11; Titus 1:10-16; 2 Timothy 3:5-8, with St. Paul's language and conduct towards the unbelievers and Judaizers among the Jews, as seen generally in the Acts of the Apostles, and in such passages in the Epistles as Romans 2:17-29; 7:12; Galatians 1., 2., 3., 4., 5., 6.; Philippians 3.; Colossians 2:16-23; 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16; and you see the very same mind. Notice, again, how the writer of the pastoral Epistles, in such passages as 1 Timothy 1:11-16; 2:5-7; 6:13-16; 2 Timothy 1:8-11; 4:7, 8; Titus 2:11-13; 3:4-7, breaks out into rapturous exhibitions of the grace of the gospel, and refers to his own office as a preacher of it; and the similar sentiments in such passages as Romans 1:5, 14-17; 15:15, 16; 1 Corinthians 1:17; 15:1-11; 2 Corinthians 4:4-7; Galatians 1:1-5 (and throughout the Epistle); Ephesians 3:7-12; Colossians 1:23, and in many others. Compare, again, the allusions to his own conversion, in 1 Corinthians 15:9 and Ephesians 3:8, with that in 1 Timothy 1:12, 13; the allusion to his special office as the apostle of the Gentiles, in Romans 11:13, with that in 1 Timothy 2:7; and the references to his own sufferings for the gospel, e.g. in 2 Corinthians 1:4-10; 4:7-12; 6:4-10; 11:23-28; 1 Thessalonians 2:2, with those in 2 Timothy 1:8, 12; 2:9, 10; 3:10, 11. Comp. 1 Corinthians 14:34, 35 with 1 Timothy 2:11, 12. Then the doctrinal teaching is exactly the same; precepts of holy living, in all its details of character, temper, and conduct, flow from dogmatic statements just as they do in the other Epistles (see 1 Timothy 3:15, 16; 6:12-16; 2 Timothy 1:8-12; 2:19; Titus 2:11-14; 3:4-8; and Ephesians 4:20-32; 5:1-4; Colossians 3:1-5, 8-17, etc.). The interposition of the doxology in 1 Timothy 1:17 is exactly in the manner of Romans 1:25; 9:5; 11:36; 16:27; Ephesians 3:20, 21, etc. Compare, again, the two sentences of excommunication — the one mentioned in 1 Corinthians 5:3-5, the other in 1 Timothy 1:20. Compare the two notices of the temptation of Eve by the serpent, in 2 Corinthians 11:3 and 1 Timothy 2:13, 14; and the reference to Deuteronomy 25:4 in 1 Corinthians 9:9 and 1 Timothy 5:18. Compare the directions to Christian slaves, in 1 Timothy 6:1, 2, with those in Ephesians 6:5-8 and Colossians 3:22-25; the metaphor from the games, in 1 Timothy 6:12; 2 Timothy 2:5; 4:7, 8, with that in 1 Corinthians 9:24 27; that of the different vessels of gold, silver, and wood and earth, in 2 Timothy 2:20, with that of the gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble, of 1 Corinthians 3:12; and compare also Romans 9:22, 23 and 2 Corinthians 4:7. Compare the prophetic announcement of the apostasy, in 2 Thessalonians 2:3, with that in 1 Timothy 4:1. We see exactly the same tone of thought in Acts 23:1 as in 2 Timothy 1:3; in Romans 14:14, 20, and 1 Corinthians 12., and Colossians 2:16-23, as in 1 Timothy 4:3-5 and Titus 1:14, 15; in Philippians 4:11 as in 1 Timothy 6:8; and in Romans 14:6 as in 1 Timothy 4:3. Many precepts are common to the pastoral and the other Epistles, as e.g. 1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:8, and Romans 12:13; 1 Timothy 5:10 and Romans 12:13; 1 Timothy 6:5 (A.V.) and 2 Thessalonians 3:14; 2 Timothy 2:24, 25, and 2 Corinthians 2:6, 7, and 2 Thessalonians 3:15; to which it would be easy to add more examples. The directions for public worship in 1 Corinthians 14:34 and 1 Timothy 2:8-13 are also very similar. The repeated reference to the second coming of our Lord is another feature common to the pastoral and the other Epistles of St. Paul (see 1 Timothy 6:14; 2 Timothy 4:1, 8; Titus 2:13, compared with 1 Corinthians 1:7; 15:23; 1 Thessalonians 2:19; 3:13; 5:23; 2 Thessalonians 2:1, 8; Philippians 3:20, etc.). There is a marked resemblance in thought between Titus 3:3-7 and Ephesians 2:2-8; between Titus 3:5 and Ephesians 5:26. Note, again, St. Paul's manner of communicating information, to those to whom he wrote, concerning his affairs and surroundings, as seen in 1 Corinthians 16:5-8, in Colossians 4:7-13, and in 2 Timothy 4:9-17; and the affectionate remembrance of past, Demas, Mark, Priscilla and Aquila; and at the same time, as was to be expected after an interval of several years, the disappearance of some old names, as Sopater, Aristarchus, Gains, Secundus, Tertius, Quartus, Onesimus, Justus, Epaphras, Epaphroditus, Sosthenes, Lucius, Jesus called Justus, etc.; and the introduction of some new ones, as Phygellus and Hermogenes, Onesiphorus, Crescens, Carpus, Eubulus, Linus, Pudens, Claudia, Artemas, Zenas, and others. The same thing may be said of places. While we have the old familiar scenes of St. Paul's apostolic labors — Miletus, Ephesus, Troas, Macedonia, Corinth — still before us, some new ones are introduced, as Crete, Nicopolis, and Dalmatia.

The other quite different class of resemblances is that of words anti phrases, and literary style. St. Paul had a way of stringing together a number of words, substantives or adjectives, or short sentences. Examples of this may be seen in Romans 1:29-31; 8:35, 39; 16:14; 1 Corinthians 3:12, 5:11; 6:9, 10; 12:8-10, 28; 2 Corinthians 6:4-10; 11:23-27; Galatians 5:19-23; Ephesians 4:31; Colossians 3:5, 8, 12, and elsewhere. An exactly similar mode is seen in 1 Timothy 1:9,10; 6:4,5; 2 Timothy 3:2-4, 10,11; Titus 1:7, 8; 2:3-8; 3:3. St. Paul's ardent and impulsive mind led to frequent digressions and long parentheses in his writing, and occasional grammatical anomalies. Take the familiar examples of Romans 2:13-15; 5:13-17; Galatians 2:6-9; Ephesians 3:2-21, etc. With these compare the long parenthesis in 1 Timothy 1:5-17; that in 1 Timothy 3:5 and in 2 Timothy 1:3; and the grammatical difficulties of such passages as 1 Timothy 3:16 (R.T.); 4:16. Again, St. Paul was fond of the preposition ὑπε ì ρ, of which examples are given in the note to 1 Timothy 1:14; and the ὑ ì παξ λεγο ì μενον in that passage, ὑπερεπλε ì ονασε is in marked agreement with this use. The verb φανερο ì ω, in 1 Timothy 3:16; 2 Timothy 1:10; Titus 1:3, is of very frequent use by St. Paul in Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, and Colossians. The use of νο ì μος in 1 Timothy 1:9 is the same as that in Romans 2:12-14; of ἐνδυναμο ì ω in 1 Timothy 1:12; 2 Timothy 2:1; 4:17 as that in Romans 4:20; Ephesians 6:10; Philippians 4:13; Hebrews 11:34; and of καλε ì ω in 1 Timothy 6:12 and 2 Timothy 1:9 as that in Romans 8:30; 9:24; 1 Corinthians 1:9; 7:15, etc.; Galatians 1:6, etc.; Ephesians 4:1; Colossians 3:15; 1 Thessalonians 2:12; 2 Thessalonians 2:14, etc. We find ἀ ì φθαρτος in Romans, Corinthians, and 1 Timothy 1:17 (elsewhere only in 1 Peter); ἀπω ì θομαι in Romans 11:1, 2 and in 1 Timothy 1:19 (elsewhere only in the Acts); ἀνο ì ητος in Romans 1:14 and Galatians 3:1, 3, and in 1 Timothy 6:9 and Titus 3:3 (elsewhere only in Luke 24:25); ἀνυπο ì κριτος in Romans, Corinthians, and in 1 Timothy 1:5 and 2 Timothy 1:5 (elsewhere only in 1 Peter. 1:22 and James 3:17). Compare πνεῦμα δειλι ì ας in 2 Timothy 1:7 with πνεῦμα δουλει ì ας εἰς φο ì βον in Romans 8:15; χρο ì νων αἰωνι ì ων in 2 Timothy 1:9 and Titus 1:2 with Romans 16:25 and 1 Corinthians 2:7. St. Paul applies the noun πλα ì σμα to the man, and the verb πλα ì σσω to God his Maker, in Romans 9:20; and the writer of i Timothy 2:13 also uses πλα ì σσομαι of the formation of man by God. The term ἁγιασμο ì ς, which is used by St. Paul seven or eight times (and only once by St. Peter besides), is also found in 1 Timothy 2:15. St. Paul speaks of the gospel as the "mystery of Christ," "the hidden mystery," etc., in Romans 16:25; Ephesians 3:3, 4; Colossians 1:26, and frequently elsewhere; and so we have the phrases, "the mystery of the faith," "the mystery of godliness," in 1 Timothy 3:9, 16. The following thirty words are also peculiar to St. Paul and to the pastoral Epistles: ἀνε ì γκλητος αὐταρκει ì α ἀο ì ρατος ὑπεροχη ì , σεμνο ì ς μεσι ì της ὑποταγη ì ὑβριστη ì ς προϊ·στημαι ἐνδει ì κνυμι πρᾳοτης χρηστο ì της, ἀνακαι ì νωσις προκο ì πτειν (except Luke 2:52), προκοπη ì ὀ ì λεθρος καταργε ì ω (except Luke 13:7), ὀστρα ì κινος ἐκκαθαι ì ρω ἠ ì πιος ἀλαζω ì ν ἀ ì στοργος ἀ ì σπονδος (T.R.), μο ì ρφωσις αἰχμαλωτευ ì ω σωρευ ì ω ἀδο ì κιμος μακροθυμι ì α (except James and 1 and 2 Peter), πα ì θημα (except 1 Peter), πλα ì σσω.

But when we pass from these resemblances in mere diction to consider the intellectual power, the verve, and Divine glow of the pastoral Epistles, the evidence is overwhelming. Place by their side the epistle of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians, or the epistles of Ignatius and Polycarp, or the (so-called) 'Epistle of Barnabas,' and you feel the immeasurable difference between them. The combination of mental vigor and sober, practical good sense, and sagacious intuition with regard to men and things, and extensive knowledge, with fervent zeal, and enthusiasm of temperament, and ardent piety, and entire self-sacrifice, and heavenly mindedness, and the upward, onward movement of the whole inner man under the guidance of God's Holy Spirit, producing an inartistic eloquence of immense force and persuasiveness, is found in these pastoral Epistles, as in all the other Epistles of this great apostle; but it is found nowhere else. St. Paul, we know, could have written them; we know of no one else who could. To attribute them to some unknown fraudulent impostor instead of to him, the stamp of whose personality they bear in every line as distinctly as they bear his name in their superscriptions, is a caricature of criticism, and a burlesque of unbelief.

Applying, further, the usual tests of authenticity, we may observe that all the historical and chronological marks which we can discover in these Epistles agree with the theory of their being written in the reign of the Emperor Nero. The earnestness with which the apostle directs prayers for rulers to be used in all churches — "that we may lead a quiet life" (1 Timothy 2:1, 2; Titus 3:1) — tallies well with the idea that the attitude of Nero towards the Christians was beginning to excite considerable anxiety. Such thoughts as those in 1 Timothy 1:1 and 6:15 derive fresh significance from such an idea; while the later utterance of 2 Timothy 4:16-18 shows that what was only feared before had become a fact, and that the writer of 2 Timothy was in the midst of the Neronian persecution.

Again, the restless state of the Jewish mind, and the unhealthy crop of heresies, containing the germ of later Gnosticism, springing up amongst the semi-Christian Jews, which is reflected in the pastoral Epistles, is in accordance with all that we know of Jewish sectarianism at this time, as depicted by Philo, Josephus, and other later writers quoted by Bishop Lightfoot. Gnosticism, as it appears in the Epistle to the Colossians and as it was taught by Cerinthus — Gnosticism, evidenced by a few Gnostic allusions, as ἀντιθε ì σεις τῆς ψευδωνυ ì μου γνω ì σεως (1 Timothy 6:20); by a mystical instead of the real resurrection (2 Timothy 2:18); by abstinence from meats and from marriage; by old wives' fables and ascetic practices (1 Timothy 1:8, 9); — does indeed appear in the pastoral Epistles, as was inevitable, considering their scope; but it is a Gnosticism distinctly of Jewish origin (Titus 1:10, 14), and as different from the later Gnosticism of Marcion and Valentinian and Tatian as the acorn is from the oak tree, or the infant from the grown-up man. These passages, which the great ingenuity and learning of Baur have labored to wrest into evidences against the authenticity of these Epistles, are really very weighty evidences in their favor.

So, too, are all the marks of the then ecclesiastical polity which stand out in these Epistles. The ease may be thus stated. Towards the end of the second century, when it is argued by Baur and his followers that these Epistles were forged, diocesan episcopacy was universal in the whole Church, and the word ἐπι ì σκοπος meant exclusively what we now mean by a bishop as distinguished from presbyters. And not only so, but it was the universal belief that such episcopacy had existed in regular succession from the apostles themselves, and lists of bishops were preserved in several Churches, of whom the first was said to have been appointed by an apostle. Under these circumstances, it seems to be absolutely impossible that a forger, writing in the latter part of the second century, and personating St. Paul, should represent the clergy in Crete and at Ephesus under the name of ἐπι ì σκοποι (1 Timothy 3.; Titus 1:7), and should not make mention of any bishop presiding over those Churches. So, again, the use of the word "presbyter" in these Epistles distinctly shows the term not yet hardened down into an exclusively technical term. The same thing is also true of the words δια ì κονος διακονι ì α, and διακονεῖν (see 1 Timothy 5:1; 4:6; 1:12; 2 Timothy 4:5, 11; 1:18), so that the use of these ecclesiastical terms in the pastoral Epistles is, when properly weighed, an evidence of very great weight in favor of their belonging to the first, not the second, century.

In like manner, the missionary and movable episcopates of Timothy and Titus, and, apparently, of Tychicus and Artemas likewise, is strongly indicative of the third quarter of the first century, and was not at all likely to occur to a writer of the latter part of the second century. As far as appears from the pastoral Epistles, bishops with settled dioceses did not exist at the time when they were written. The apostles exercised full episcopal powers themselves; and appear to have had in their train a certain number of missionary bishops, whom they sent for a time to take the oversight of particular Churches, as they were needed, and then passed on to superintend other Churches. Bishops with a fixed diocese arose from these, but did not become the rule till the apostles who appointed them had passed away.

A further indication of the time when these Epistles were written may also be found in. their style, which does belong to the latter part of the first century, and does not belong to the latter part of the second. Frequent resemblances in style and matter to the Epistle to the Hebrews, to the First Epistle of Peter, to the Epistle of James, as well as to the diction of Philo, Josephus, the later Books of the Maccabees, Plutarch, and to the sentiments of Seneca, indicate a writer of the Neronian age, and not one at the time of the Antonines.

But, as hinted above, there are features in the literary style of the pastoral Epistles which are very peculiar, and which, if taken alone, would be suggestive of a different authorship from that of St. Paul's other Epistles. In the Appendix to this Introduction will be found a list of a hundred and eighty-seven words, of which one hundred and sixty-five are found only in the pastoral Epistles, eleven only in the pastoral Epistles and the Epistle to the Hebrews, and eleven only in the pastoral Epistles, Hebrews, St. James, St. Peter, St. Luke, and the Acts of the Apostles. Of these, about forty-four are found in the LXX., but in some instances very rarely, so that the LXX. cannot be the quarry from which St. Paul dug these new additions to his vocabulary. But they are almost all good classical words; and it is further remarkable, with regard to other words which are found in other parts of Holy Scripture, that in the pastoral Epistles they follow the classical rather than the Hellenistic usage.

The natural inferences from the above facts are

(1) that these pastoral Epistles were written later than the other Epistles;

(2) that in the interval the writer had enlarged his acquaintance with Greek classics;

(3) that, as his two correspondents were Greeks, he wrote to them in the purest Greek he could command.

It is remarkable that the theory which assigns the pastoral Epistles to the time after St. Paul's return from Spain fully agrees with the first two of the above inferences. It places an interval of two or three years between the latest of St. Paul's other Epistles and these Epistles to Timothy and Titus, and it also indicates a space of two years (Acts 28:31), during which he may well have had leisure to increase largely his acquaintance with Greek classical literature. If among those that "came in unto him" at his own hired house (Acts 28:30) were any men like Seneca, or the elder Pithy, or Sergius Paulus, St. Paul may well have thought it useful to read Greek classical writers — Aristotle, Polybius, Plutarch, Demosthenes, and others — with the view of increasing his influence with men of culture and learning in the great capital of the world. And the fruit of such studies would be seen in the enlarged vocabulary of the pastoral Epistles. It is curious that this conjecture is somewhat strengthened by the circumstance that St. Paul appears to have made his residence in Crete the occasion of reading the poems of the great Cretan prophet and poet Epimenides (Titus 1:12). It may also be added that the effect of fresh reading upon a person's style would be much greater in the case of an acquired language, as Greek probably was to St. Paul, than in the case of a person's mother-tongue. The variation in the vocabulary of the pastoral Epistles may, of course, also partly be accounted for by the difference in the matters treated of in them; and by the books of the heretics, which St. Paul may have read with a view to refuting them. Such phrases as the ἀντιθε ì σεις τῆς ψευδωνυ ì μου γνω ì σεως (1 Timothy 6:20), and the allusion to the βεβη ì λοι κενοφωνι ì αι of the heretics, indicate some acquaintance with their writings.

The conclusion, then, with regard to the internal marks of style, diction, sentiment, doctrine, incidental allusions to men, and things, and places, and institutions, is that they are in full accordance with the external testimony which assigns these Epistles undoubtingly to the apostle whose name they bear; and that the pastoral Epistles are the authentic works of St. Paul.


Our next task is to ascertain the chronology of these Epistles; their chronology

(1) relatively to each other;

(2) to the incidents in St. Paul's life;

(3) the absolute time of their composition.

1. To begin with their chronology relatively to each other. Drawing our conclusions solely from the Epistles themselves, the order which naturally presents itself is the following:

(1) the Epistle to Titus;

(2) the First Epistle to Timothy;

(3) the Second Epistle to Timothy.

And this order is founded upon the following reasons. All the internal marks of the Epistles indicate, according to the almost unanimous opinion of commentators, that they were written at no long interval from one another. This is indicated, as regards Titus and 1 Timothy, by the dose resemblance of matter and words, analogous to the resemblances of the Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians; and, as regards 2 Timothy and the two other Epistles, partly by the same kind of resemblances (though less frequent), by the evidences of the same enemies and the same difficulties having to be encountered by Timothy at the time of the writing of the Second Epistle that existed at the time of writing the first; and further, by the route indicated in 2 Timothy as taken by St. Paul shortly before that Epistle was written, agreeing exactly with that which may be inferred from the Epistle to Titus and the First Epistle to Timothy. Assuming that the three Epistles were written in the same year, and that "the winter" spoken of in Titus 3:12 and 2 Timothy 4:20 is the same winter, we get the following itinerary for St. Paul: Crete (Titus 1:3), Miletus (2 Timothy 3:20), possibly Ephesus (1 Timothy 1:3), Troas (2 Timothy 3:13), Macedonia (1 Timothy 1:3), Corinth (2 Timothy 3:20), Nicopolis (Titus 3:12), Rome (2 Timothy 1:17; 4:15-17). As, then, it is clear that when St. Paul left Crete he intended to go to Nicopolis, and as the places above enumerated lie exactly on the route which he probably would have taken, we conclude that the journey which we thus gather from 1 and 2 Timothy is that of which Titus furnishes us with the terminals a epic and the terminus ad quem. Again, as the leaving Titus in Crete is the first incident disclosed in this journey from south to north, it is natural to suppose that this Epistle was written first, probably immediately after St. Paul left Crete, as the instructions in it would be needed immediately. Timothy would not be sent to Ephesus rill a little later, probably from Miletus, and 1 Timothy would not be written till after he had been a short time there (1 Timothy 1:3) — written, perhaps, from Troas, with the intention of soon joining Timothy at Ephesus (1 Timothy 3:14; 4:13). St. Paul's intention probably was to go no further than Macedonia in the first instance (1 Timothy 1:3), and return from thence to Ephesus before going on to Nicopolis. But circumstances of which we know nothing led him on to Corinth, and he abandoned his intention of returning to Ephesus. Did he send for Timothy to Macedonia when he found he could not go to Ephesus, and there part from him with many tears (2 Timothy 1:4)? This would well agree with the mention of the subsequent events relating to Demas, Crescens, Titus, Tychicus, and Erastus. But then there is the clause (2 Timothy 4:20), "But Trophinms I left at Miletus sick." But that may have been added, as it were, out of its proper place, to account for the absence of the only other member of the missionary band not yet noticed. Demas, Crescens, Titus, Luke, Mark, Tychicus, Erastus, were all accounted for, and so he adds, "Trophimus can't be with me, because I left him at Miletus sick, when I was on my way to Macedonia."

The above theory also will explain the clause in 2 Timothy 4:12 which has a good deal puzzled commentators. St. Paul, of course, would not bring Timothy away from Ephesus for any length of time without sending someone to take his place. We learn from Titus 3:12 that Tychieus was one of those whom St. Paul contemplated sending to Crete to take Titus's place when he came to Nicopolis. He probably did send Artemas. Tyehicus was therefore free; and so St. Paul, having summoned Timothy to Rome, tells him that Tychicus will take his place at Ephesus during his absence.

But to follow St. Paul. From Corinth he appears to have gone to Nicopolis, because the mention of Titus as gone to Dalmatia seems to imply that he had met St. Paul at Nicopolis according to appointment, and from thence had been sent by him to the neighboring province of Dalmatia when Crescens also went to Galatia. At Nicopolis, apparently, the first signs of danger began to show themselves; and Demas made some excuse for going to his native city of Thessalonica, leaving St. Paul to confront the danger without his aid. Whether he was arrested while at Nicopolis, which was in the province of Achaia, and taken to Rome as a prisoner, which seems most probable, or whether he voluntarily, for reasons we know not of, sailed from Apollonia to Brundusium, and thence proceeded to Rome, and was seized and imprisoned there, we have no certain means of deciding. All that the existing documents enable us to conclude with anything like certainty is that he did go on to Rome, and was a prisoner there when he wrote the Second Epistle to Timothy.

The reasons for concluding that 2 Timothy was written from Rome are

(1) the tradition that it was at Rome that he was tried and condemned to death and suffered martyrdom. This tradition, though surprisingly vague, is constant and unanimous. The earliest witness, that of Clement of Rome, who could have told us all about it, is most provokingly indefinite. He tells us that Paul, after many sufferings, "having come to the boundary of the West, and having testified ( μαρτυρη ì σας) before the rulers ( τῶν ἡγουμε ì νων), so departed from this world" ('1 Epist. to the Corinth.,' c. 5). Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, says that Peter and Paul both taught in Italy, and suffered martyrdom there at the same time ('Ap. Euseb.,' 2:25). Caius the presbyter says that the "trophies of those who founded the Church of Rome (i.e. Peter and Paul) may be seen both at the Vatican and on the Via Ostia" — meaning the churches or monuments dedicated to them (ibid.). Eusebius also quotes Tertullian as saying expressly that Nero was the first emperor who persecuted the Christians; that he was led on to the slaughter of the apostles, and that Paul's head was cut off at Rome itself, and Peter in like manner was crucified, in Nero's reign. Eusebius adds that this narrative is confirmed by the inscription ( προ ì σρησις) still extant on their respective tombs at Rome. Eusebius also states in the following book (3:1, 2) that St. Paul, having preached the Gospel from Jerusalem to Illyricum, at last suffered martyrdom at Rome under Nero, and quotes Origen as his authority. He adds that St. Paul wrote the Epistle to Timothy, in which he mentions Linus, from Rome.

(2) The internal evidence of that Epistle also points to Rome as the place where it was written. If 1 Timothy 1:17 relates to a recent visit of Onesiphorus, that would, of course, be in itself decisive evidence. But, omitting that as doubtful, we may take 1 Timothy 4:17 as at least probably indicating Rome as the place where he was at the time. The seat of judgment, the presence of the emperor, the concourse of the Gentiles, the names of the persons sending salutations, including Linus, the first Bishop of Rome, and the expressions of the near approach of his death in 1 Timothy 4:7, 8, leave little doubt that he was now at Rome; and, if so, 2 Timothy must have been the last of the three pastoral Epistles.

2. But at what period of St. Paul's life were these Epistles written? The question has already been partially answered in the preceding section, but it is important enough to demand a separate consideration.

Hug, in his 'Introduction to the Writings of the New Testament', assigns the Epistle to Titus to St. Paul's second missionary journey. He supposes that, when he left Corinth (Acts 18:18) to go to Ephesus, he, either voluntarily or by stress of weather, went round by Crete, and that he left Titus there; that he then pursued his journey to Ephesus, wrote the Epistle to Titus, recommended Apollos to him, who he knew was going on from Corinth (Acts 23:27); then proceeded to Caesarea, Jerusalem, and Antioch; and from thence, passing through Galatia and Phrygia, so returned to Ephesus (Acts 18:22, 23; 19:1), having wintered by the way at Nicopolis in Cilicia, a city lying between Antioch and Tarsus, near to Issus. But the objections to this scheme are insuperable. The narrative of his passage from Cenchrea to Ephesus with Aquila and Priscilla is quite in, compatible with a sojourn at Crete by the way. So important an incident could not have been omitted. There is every appearance, moreover, of haste in the apostle's movements from Corinth, in order to enable him to reach Jerusalem by the feast (probably of Pentecost) in connection with the fulfillment of his vow (Acts 18:18, 21), which makes the notion of a sojourn in Crete as unseasonable as possible. Then Nicopolis in Cilicia is the most unlikely place imaginable for him to winter in. It was an ebb-cure city, not connected with any missionary work of St. Paul's that we know of, and it is obvious to suppose that he would rather have wintered at Antioch, or, if so near his own home, at Tarsus. Nor is it possible to account for the omission of the mention of Nicopolis in the account given by St. Luke, in Acts 18:22, 23, of how Paul spent his time, if he passed some three months of the winter there. By Hug's own admission there is no other time in the compass of St. Luke's narrative when St. Paul could possibly have gone to Crete.

He assigns 1 Timothy to St. Paul's third missionary journey — to the time, viz., when St. Paul left Ephesus, after the tumult, to go to Macedonia (Acts 20:1). But it is surely absolutely fatal to this theory that we read, in Acts 19:22, just before the tumult, that he "sent into Macedonia two of them that ministered unto him, Timotheus and Erastus (to precede him); but he himself stayed in Asia for a season." Nor is it less in flat contradiction to St. Paul's declared purpose (Acts 19:21; 20:3) of going from Macedonia and Achaia to Jerusalem, that he tells Timothy, in 1 Timothy 3:14, 15, that it is his intention to return very shortly to Ephesus. We know, in fact, that, though he was obliged by the violence of the Jews (Acts 20:3) to return by way of Macedonia, yet he would not even so much as go to Ephesus for a day, but sent for the elders to meet him at Miletus (Acts 20:16, 17). We know also that Timothy, whom he had sent before him to Macedonia, returned with him from Macedonia into Asia (Acts 20:4), and was with him when he wrote 2 Corinthians 1:1. So that every detail is directly opposed to the idea that the journey into Macedonia of 1 Timothy 1:3 is the same as the journey of Acts 19:21 and 20:1, and, consequently, that 1 Timothy was written at this time.

Hug assigns 2 Timothy to the time of St. Paul's first imprisonment at Rome, and places it after the Epistle to the Ephesians and before those to the Colossians and Philemon. There are, no doubt, some coincidences which, taken alone, encourage such a conclusion. For example, Timothy was not with St. Paul when he wrote to the Ephesians (Ephesians 1:1), but in that same Epistle (Ephesians 6:21) he tells the Ephesians that he has sent Tychicus to them, and we find that Timothy was with St. Paul when he wrote Colossians 1:1. But in 2 Timothy we find St. Paul writing to Timothy and bidding him conic to him quickly, and telling him that he had sent Tychicus to Ephesus. Again, in Colossians 4:10-14 we find the following persons with St. Paul: Mark, Luke, Demas, besides Timothy (1:2), and Tychicus, who had just left him. But in 2 Timothy 4. we find Luke with him, Demas had just forsaken him, Tychicus had just been sent away by him, and Timothy and Mark were immediately expected. But the force of these coincidences is very much weakened by the following considerations. St. Paul's staff of missionary companions and associates consisted of about twenty-two persons, of whom mention is made either during his imprisonment at Rome or shortly before. They are the following: Apollos, Aquila, Aristarchus, Deraas, Epaphras or Epaphroditus, Erastus, Gaius, Justus, Lucius, Luke, Mark, Onesimus, Priscilla, Secundus, Silas, Sopater, Sosthenes, Sylvanus, Timothy, Titus, Trophiraus, Tychicus. Of these, eleven (those in italics) appear in the pastoral Epistles as still at work with St. Paul. The other eleven are not mentioned in the pastoral Epistles. But nine new names appear: Artemas, Carpus, Claudia, Crescens, Eubulus, Linus, Onesiphorus, Pudens, and Zenas. This is very much the proportion of change in the personnel which three or four years might be expected to produce.

Again, if we look closely into the supposed coincidences in the situation exposed by Colossians 4. and 2 Timothy 4., some of them are transformed into contradictions. Thus 2 Timothy 4:10, 11 represents Demas as having forsaken St. Paul and gone to Thessalonica, whereas Colossians 4:14 (written, according to Hug, after 2 Timothy) represents him as still with St. Paul. Again, 2 Timothy 4:11 represents Mark as probably coming from the neighborhood of Ephesus to St. Paul at. Rome to minister to him; but Colossians 4:10 represents him as likely soon to go front Rome to Colossae, and apparently as a stranger. Once more, the notice of Erastus and of Trophimus, in 2 Timothy 4:20, naturally implies that Erastus had been in Corinth with Paul, but remained there when Paul came away, and, in like manner, that he and Trophimus had both been at Miletus together, which, of course, is fatal to Hug's theory. His expedient of translating ἀπε ì λιπον, "they left," is very unnatural and forced, and his rendering of ἐ ì μεινεν does not suit the aorist, which rather gives the sense "When I came away, he stopped at Corinth."

Other circumstances militate strongly against the composition of 2 Timothy at the time of St. Paul's first imprisonment. St. Luke's account of that imprisonment by no means prepares the reader for a tragic termination of it (Acts 28:30, 31). Nor does St. Paul's own language, in the Epistles to the Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon, indicate any expectation on his part that he would be condemned to death; rather, on the contrary, he expresses the hope of a speedy deliverance (Ephesians 6:21, 22; Philippians 2:24; Colossians 4:8; Philemon 1:22). But in 2 Timothy his strain is wholly different. He writes with the feeling that his work is done, and his departure is near at hand (2 Timothy 4:6-8, 18); not a word of being delivered in answer to their prayers, nor of expectation of being set free. The difference is marked, and surely most significant.

The necessary conclusion is that Hug's scheme is quite impracticable. Various other hypotheses, assigning the date of the pastoral Epistles to some part of St. Paul's life unwritten by St. Luke in the Acts, of which the principal are enumerated and explained by Huther in his 'Introduction,' are equally incompatible with one or more plain statements in the Acts of the Apostles or in the Epistles themselves, and must therefore alike be abandoned.

Moreover, they all fail to account for those peculiarities in the diction of the pastoral Epistles which are pointed out in the first part of this Introduction. If the difficulties in finding any place in the narrative of the Acts of the Apostles in which to fit in the pastoral Epistles with their allusions could be got over (which they cannot), we should be landed in the no less formidable difficulty of having to account for great changes of language as compared with St. Paul's other Epistles, and a difference in the aspect of the institutions of the Church and of the rising heresies, as reflected in these Epistles, from what we see either in the Acts or in St. Paul's other Epistles.

We are driven, therefore, to accept the hypothesis which assigns these Epistles to a time posterior to that embraced in the narrative of St. Luke. And we will now state the case for this hypothesis from its positive side.

The Acts of the Apostles close with the statement that St. Paul "abode two whole years in his own hired dwelling, and received all that went in unto him, preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching all things concerning the Lord Jesus Christ, with all boldness, none forbidding him." It is quite as natural a sequel to this statement that, at the end of the two years, the apostle resumed his active career as "the Apostle of the Gentiles," as that he was led out to execution as a criminal: most people will think it is a more natural one. However, in the absence of any further information from Holy Scripture, we must have recourse to such other sources of information as are open to us. Eusebius, who was the great collector of history from works now lost, and of traditions current in the Church, after citing the closing words of the Acts of the Apostles, tells us ('Eccl. Hist.,' 2. 22.) that the current account was that the apostle, having then made his defense, afterwards started again on his work of preaching; but that, having come to Rome a second time, he was made perfect by martyrdom. At which time, being in prison, he wrote the Second Epistle to Timothy. Eusebius adds, after commenting somewhat confusedly upon the last chapter of 2 Timothy, that he wrote thus much to show that St. Paul did not accomplish his martyrdom during that sojourn at Rome which is narrated by St. Luke. He adds that Nero was comparatively mild and element at the time of Paul's first visit, and so received his defense favorably; but that later, having fallen into monstrous crimes, he attacked the apostles along with others. From this it is evident that Eusebius, with such means of information as he could command, believed the account which was current in his time to be true.

Clement of Rome, again, in his 'Epistle to the Corinthians,' in the passage quoted above, uses language which, in the light of the above traditions, certainly points strongly to the visit to Spain: το Ì τε ì ρμα τῆς δυ ì σεως, "the utmost bound of the West," could not mean "Italy" in the mouth of a person living at Rome, but is a natural description of Spain. Following the order used by Clement, this visit to Spain immediately preceded his testimony before the rulers of the world, and his departure from this life: ̓Åðé̀ ôï̀ ôǻñìá ôç͂ò äṍóåùò å̓ëèù̀í êáé̀ ìáñôõñḉóáò å̓ðé̀ ôù͂í ἡγουμε ì νων οὑ ì τως ἀπηλλα ì γη τοῦ κο ì σμου.

The Muratorian Fragment on the Canon adds another early testimony to the belief of the Church that St. Paul went to Spain after his captivity in Rome. For, though the passage is so corrupt and mutilated as to defy translation, yet the words, "profectionem Pauli ab urbe ad Spaniam proficiscentis," tell us certainly, as Routh observes, that St. Paul, on leaving Rome, went to Spain. If to these early testimonies we add the later one of Venantius Fortunatus, in the sixth century, who expressly asserts that St. Paul went to Cadiz (which is described by the line, "Transit et oceanum, vel qua facit insula portum"), etc.; of Theodoret ('Psalm 16.'), who says of St. Paul that "he came to Spain;" of St. Jerome, who, following Eusebius' 'Chronicon', places Paul's martyrdom in the fourteenth year of Nero, three or four years after his liberation from his first confinement ('Catal. Script. Eccle-Mast.'); — we have sufficient external testimony on which to rest an attempt to assign a later date to the pastoral Epistles than that which is bounded by the close of St. Luke's narrative. Assuming, then, that Paul's first confinement at Rome terminated in the spring of A.D. 63, and that he immediately, according to his original intention (Romans 15:24), went to Spain, we may assign two years to his visit to Spain, and possibly to Britain, and place his return to Cadiz in the early spring of A.D. 65. Proceeding thence toward the former scene of his labors, he would go to Crete, and perhaps stay one month there (Titus 1:3). Leaving Titus there, he sailed to Miletus, say on the 1st of April (2 Timothy 4:20), and wrote from thence the Epistle to Titus. He may have gone to Ephesus from Miletus, but more probably (Acts 20:25) sent Timothy there, perhaps intending to follow him; but, from circumstances with which we are unacquainted, he thought it better to go straight to Macedonia (1 Timothy 1:3), and wrote 1 Timothy from Troas, where he had his writing apparatus (2 Timothy 4:13). He had intended to go back from Macedonia to Ephesus (1 Timothy 3:14; 4:13), but again his intentions were frustrated, and possibly he sent for Timothy to Macedonia (2 Timothy 1:4) before he proceeded to Corinth. Be this as it may, he certainly went to Corinth (2 Timothy 4:20), and thence to Nicopolis, situated in Epirus, but in the province of Achaia. There, Titus joined him, say in the month of July, having been relieved by Artemas (Titus 3:12), Nicopolis being the general rendezvous, and was sent by him into Dalmatia. At the same time, Crescens went to Galatia. Demas, who had also come there among others, or who may have been Paul's traveling companion, on the appearance of danger, returned precipitately to his native place of Thessalonica, and St. Paul proceeded with Luke to Rome, where he may have arrived in August. As his settled plan had been to winter in Nicopolis (Titus 3:12), it seems most probable that his journey to Rome was not a voluntary one. There is not the slightest, hint in Scripture, or in any history, as to the place or the circumstances of his arrest. But knowing that he went to Nicopolis in Epirus, intending to pass the winter there, and that very shortly after he was a prisoner at Rome, the natural inference is that he was arrested by the authorities of the province of Achaia, and by them sent to Rome for trial. His route would be from Aulon, the seaport of Illyria, to Brundusium, and thence by the Via Appia to Rome.

The cause of the arrest of St. Paul is not far to seek. The great fire of Rome, supposed to have been the work of Nero himself, took place "on the night of July 19, A.D. 64". Nero, according to the well-known narrative of Tacitus ('Annals,' 15:44), to divert suspicion from himself, laid the blame of the fire upon the Christians, and inflicted the most atrocious punishments upon them. The persecution, which at first affected only the Christians at Rome, was afterwards extended to Christians in the provinces, and it was made criminal to profess the Christian faith (see the passages quoted by Lewin from Tacitus, Sulpitius Severus, and Orosius). The frequent allusions to persecution and suffering in the First Epistle of St. Peter (1 Peter 2:12; 3:16; 4:1, 12-16; 5:8, 9) seem to point distinctly to this general persecution. It only required the active malice of any one or more persons to bring any Christian before the Roman governors on a charge of impiety. It is very likely that the bitter enmity of the Jews of Corinth, who plotted against his life a few years before (Acts 20:3), took advantage of these persecuting edicts to accuse him before the Proconsul of Achaia.

Be this, however, as it may, what is certain is that St. Paul was once more a prisoner at Rome, and may have arrived there in August, as above suggested. It would appear, from 2 Timothy 4:16, 17, that his ease had come before Nero soon after his arrival — say in the end of August or September — and that he did not expect it to come on again before the winter vacation (2 Timothy 4:21). He accordingly wrote the Second Epistle to Timothy, in which the uppermost thought was to encourage Timothy, and exhort him not to be cast down by the calamitous state of the Church, and the apostle's imprisonment, of which the news had doubtless spread rapidly from Corinth to Ephesus, but to be ready to endure hardness as a good soldier of Jesus Christ. St. Paul expresses in touching language his own unmoved faith and constancy and trust; complains gently of the defection of false friends; makes loving mention of old kindnesses received from faithful followers now departed; gives earnest counsel to Timothy; foretells coming dangers; presses home faithful warnings and loving exhortations to fearlessness in the duties of his great office; and then ends with a brief statement of the chief events of interest which had occurred since they parted, including his own defense before Nero, together with an earnest request, twice repeated, to Timothy to come to him before the winter. He also mentions that he had sent Tychicus — he does not say when, or from whence — to Ephesus, doubtless for the purpose of taking Timothy's place when he came to Rome.

Here, however, it may be well to emphasize one or two points. One, that the news of St. Paul's being a prisoner must have been communicated to Timothy by some previous message, either from St Paul himself or, with his privity, possibly by Tychicus, or in some other way, as this Epistle clearly supposes Timothy to be already acquainted with the circumstance. The other that St. Paul did not expect to be called for his final trim for the next three months at least, since it would take so long for his letter to reach Timothy and for Timothy to travel to Rome. A third point is important to note, viz. that the details given in the last chapter are a distinct proof that the journey to which those details refer — embracing Miletus, Troas, Macedonia, Corinth, and Rome — was a very recent one, and that as the last stage in that journey was Rome, it is demonstrated that this was not the same visit to Rome as that related by St. Luke, which was by way of Malta, Syracuse, Rhegium, and Puteoli.

Still treading upon uncertain ground, we go on to observe that, taking the Epistle to the Hebrews as written at this time, it would appear that Timothy, on receipt of St. Paul's Second Epistle, immediately started to come to Rome, but was arrested on the way, the persecution of Christians being now active in the provinces. The place of his arrest is not indicated, but it may probably have been Achaia, through which he would be passing on his way from Ephesus to Rome. The welcome intelligence, however, had now reached the writer of the Hebrews that Timothy was set at liberty, and was on his way (apparently) to Rome. If St. Paul was the writer of the Epistle, it would appear, further, that at this time — some three or four months later than 2 Timothy — he had hopes of his own speedy liberation. Upon what these hopes were built we have no means of deciding. But several months had elapsed since his "first defense;" Timothy was released; perhaps there was some slackening in the persecution, and some reason to hope that it had served its turn in diverting suspicion from Nero, and was near its close. Anyhow, he hoped to be "restored unto them soon," and to come to them with Timothy (Hebrews 13:19, 23).

But this expectation was not destined to be fulfilled. Nor do we know whether Timothy arrived in time to see him alive. Perhaps he did, if the traditional date of St. Paul's martyrdom, June 29, is true, as that would allow plenty of time for Timothy to reach Rome. It would also be intensely interesting to know whether St. Peter and St. Paul met before or at the time of their respective martyrdoms. Had the writing of the Epistle to the Hebrews (supposing it to be St. Paul's) by the apostle of the Gentiles anything to do with a desire on the part of the apostle of the circumcision to show the perfect unity that existed between himself and St. Paul? Were they the same body of Hebrews in whole or in part as those to whom St. Peter wrote his First Epistle? It is certainly remarkable that both Epistles imply that those to whom they were addressed had lately been under grievous persecution, and both have a strong light thrown upon them by the circumstances of the Neronian persecution (Hebrews 10:32-34; 11:32-40; 12:1-13; 13:3; 1 Peter 2:12; 3:14-18; 4:12-19; 5:8-10). Moreover, the passage 2 Peter 3:15 distinctly asserts that St. Paul had written them an Epistle. And if 2 Peter was written to the same body of Christians as 1 Peter was (2 Peter 3:1), then we are told, in so many words, that the Epistle of St. Paul to which allusion is made was