1 Timothy

In Paul’s two letters to Timothy, we have an invaluable resource: We have the privilege of seeing how Paul builds up a younger leader who is going through an overwhelming time in his ministry. Timothy was leading an enormous church in Ephesus, and it was filled with false teachers. Paul writes to Timothy in order to encourage him, coach him, and remind him of God’s faithfulness. As you read these letters, try to put yourself in Timothy’s shoes. Imagine what he was going through, and consider what he would’ve been thinking as he read these words from his friend and mentor, Paul.

Authorship: Internal Evidence

Critical scholars deny that Paul wrote the Pastoral Epistles (1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus), even though these letters claim to be written by him, and the early Christians univocally held that these were written by Paul until the 19^th century in the wake of Enlightenment thinking and Higher Criticism. Critics usually marshal three central arguments in favor of this denial:

ARGUMENT #1: Paul mentions events in the Pastoral Epistles that are not recorded anywhere in the book of Acts

Critics point to several examples of historical events in the Pastoral Epistles that the book of Acts doesn’t contain:

• Paul left Timothy in Ephesus and went to Macedonia (1 Tim. 1:3). In Acts, Paul called Timothy from Macedonia to Ephesus—not the other way around (Acts 19:22).

• Paul spoke of false teaching in the future tense to the elders in Ephesus (Acts 20:28-30), but he spoke of false teaching in the present tense to Timothy (1 Tim. 1:3-4).

• Paul left Titus in charge of leading the church in Crete (Titus 1:5). Yet, Acts never mentions Titus, nor does it mention a church plant in Crete.

• An otherwise unknown man named Onesiphorus found Paul in Rome, and he was apparently a mighty servant of God in Ephesus (2 Tim. 1:16-18). Yet, for being such a bigshot, Onesiphorus is nowhere mentioned in Acts.

Since Acts doesn’t mention any of these people, places, or events, critics argue that this is a sign of a forgery in Paul’s name—whereby the forger tried to lace his letter with historical allusions to make it look authentic. In response to this argument, we can make several responses:

First, this is an argument from silence. While Acts tells the story of the expansion of the early Church truly, it does not tell it fully. No historical account can be absolutely exhaustive. If it was, then all of the books on Earth would not be able to contain the information (Jn. 21:25). It is an unjustifiable expectation to suppose Luke would mention every single historical detail of the early church in a 28-chapter book.

Second, false historical allusions wouldn’t boost the credibility of a pseudepigraphical author. If a person was trying to impersonate Paul, why would he invent people and events that never occurred? Surely it would be better to appeal to well-known historical events instead.

Third, Paul mentions Titus in letters that critics hold to be authentic (e.g. Galatians and 2 Corinthians). Even the most strident critical scholars hold that Galatians and 2 Corinthians are authentic letters. Yet, in these undisputed letters, Paul mentions Titus (Gal. 2:1; 2 Cor. 2:13). Therefore, critical scholars are using a double standard: If the Pastorals cannot be authentic because they mention Titus, then neither can Galatians and 2 Corinthians. Yet, virtually all scholars hold these letters to be authentic.

Fourth, Acts never states that Paul dies at the end of his Roman custody. In fact, Paul himself believed that he would beat his charge and get out of Roman imprisonment (Phil. 1:19; 25). Therefore, Paul was probably released from house arrest, and then, continued to preach. Clement of Rome (AD 95) said that Paul went “to the extreme limit of the west” (1 Clement 5). Since Clement wrote from Rome, he is most likely referring to Spain. The Muratorian Canon (AD 180) speaks of “Paul’s departure from the city as he was proceeding to Spain.” Moreover, Paul himself stated that he intended to preach in Spain, if he had the opportunity (Rom. 15:24). Furthermore, the great church historian Eusebius writes (AD 340):

Paul is said, after having defended himself, to have set forth again upon the ministry of preaching, and to have entered the city [Rome] a second time, and to have ended his life by martyrdom. Whilst then a prisoner, he wrote the Second Epistle to Timothy, in which he both mentions his first defence, and his impending death.

Acts does not end with Paul’s martyrdom. In fact, just the opposite: Acts ends with Paul still alive and well under Roman house arrest, and Luke states that he remained there for two years (Acts 28:30). This explains how Paul could leave Trophimus ill in Miletus (2 Tim. 4:19-20), even though Acts states that Trophimus came with Paul to Jerusalem (Acts 21:29-30). This demonstrates that Paul must be referring to another period of time after his first imprisonment in Rome—one in which Paul returned to Miletus after being imprisoned.

Moreover, a fourth missionary journey explains mentions of other people and travels. In his undisputed letters, Paul mentions a couple church-plants that weren’t recorded in Acts. For instance, Paul mentions a forthcoming trip to Spain (Rom. 15:24), and he mentions Epaphras who helped establish a church in Colossae (Col. 1:7; 4:12; Philemon 23). It shouldn’t surprise us to see other church-plants that are not recorded in Acts such as Crete (Titus 1:5), Miletus (2 Tim. 4:20), and Nicopolis (Titus 3:12)? All of these references are best explained by a fourth (unrecorded) missionary journey.

ARGUMENT #2: The Pastoral Epistles mention church leadership, which wasn’t developed until the second century

Critics argue that official church leadership (or at least elaborate church polity) didn’t evolve until the second century AD. Specifically, Paul mentions “overseers” (or “bishops”), and this office became particularly prominent in the second century. Since the Pastoral Epistles mention bishops (episkopoi, 1 Tim. 3:1; Titus 1:7), this suggests a second century date. However, these arguments are highly problematic for several reasons:

First, other NT documents reference “elders.” Luke mentions “elders” (presbuteros) throughout the early church (Acts 11:30; 14:23; 15:2; 20:17). Likewise, James is one of our earliest NT letters, and he mentions “elders” (Jas. 5:14). This demonstrates that leadership existed in the primitive church, and wasn’t a second century invention.

Second, other NT documents refer to “overseers.” Paul mentions “overseers (episkopoi) and deacons” in the church of Philippi (Phil. 1:1). Of course, even critics accept Philippians as an undisputed letter of Paul.

Third, NT scholars are now generally agreed that the terms “overseer” and “elder” are interchange terms. Paul writes that he left Titus behind to “appoint elders in every city” (Titus 1:5), and he quickly goes on to write that “the overseer must be above reproach…” (Titus 1:7). We see the same practice in the book of Acts: Paul “sent to Ephesus and called to him the elders of the church” (Acts 20:17), but then he tells this same group of people that “the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God” (Acts 20:28). Put simply, an overseer is an elder, and an elder is an overseer. Donald Guthrie stated that “this fact is now generally accepted among New Testament scholars.”

Fourth, the material regarding leaders is short and simple. Indeed, the material regarding church leadership is only about 10% of the Pastoral Epistles (1 Tim. 3:1-13; 5:3-22; Titus 1:5-9). Moreover, Paul’s writing on leadership is short, simple, and to the point—mostly focusing on character. If these letters reflect a full borne leadership structure (like that found in the second century), then why is so little written in these letters? After all, we are never even told what duties deacons have, and nothing in these letters reflect the idea of a single bishop overseeing a province of churches (i.e. a monarchical episcopate).

Fifth, we should expect Paul to write about leadership in these letters. Why? Paul wrote the Pastoral Epistles to Christian leaders! The fact that Paul wrote about leadership to leaders is about as surprising that he wrote about sex to the Corinthians.

ARGUMENT #3: The Pastoral Epistles contain words and theology not used by Paul in the rest of his letters

Critics charge that the vocabulary and theology of the Pastoral Epistles is far different than Paul’s other writings. This, they argue, demonstrates that another author must have written the Pastorals. Friedrich Schleiermacher (1807) was the first person to make this argument, but P.N. Harrison gave a robust statistical analysis that strengthened this argument (1921):

• The Pastorals use 902 words. Since 54 are proper names, this leaves us with 848 remaining words in the Pastoral Epistles.

• Of these 848 words, 306 (over one-third) do not occur in any of Paul’s other letters.

• Of these 306, 175 do not occur anywhere else in the NT.

• Of these 306, 211 of them occur in second century writings by the early church fathers. Furthermore, Harrison argued that the original words (i.e. hapax legomena) occur in the second century Church Fathers.

Many found Harrison’s case to be convincing—a century ago. Today, this statistical analysis has fallen under considerable criticism. Indeed, a number of counterpoints can account for this literary argument against Pauline authorship:

First, Paul was OLDER when he wrote these letters. Do you think that you’ll write differently a decade from now? If you do, then you should acknowledge that Paul probably did as well. As a young missionary, Paul probably wrote differently than he did as an old, imprisoned man, writing around AD 64-65.

Second, Paul’s other epistles were written for a PUBLIC audience, but these were written to a PRIVATE audience. With the exception of Philemon (an incredibly short letter), Paul wrote all of his epistles to groups of Christians. However, the Pastoral Epistles were written to individuals—either to Timothy or to Titus. Do you think that you would write differently to a group than you would to an individual? Surely Paul did as well.

Third, the SUBJECT MATTER in Paul’s letters was different. When Paul was writing his other epistles, he was addressing specific needs of the church. However, when he wrote the Pastoral Epistles, he was addressing the specific needs of these pastors (e.g. discipleship, leadership development, proto-Gnosticism, etc.). Since there were unique needs, it shouldn’t surprise us to see Paul using unique language.

Fourth, the amount of words in the Pastorals is TOO SMALL OF A SAMPLE for a significant statistical analysis. An 848-word sample is simply far too small of a sample size to generate any strong conclusions. Carson and Moo write, “Statisticians object to the brevity of the Epistles and to the lack of statistical controls.” Indeed, the statistician G.U. Yule stated that statistical analysis of this sort needs at least 10,000 words, and thus, the sample size for the Pastorals is simply too small.

Fifth, Paul might have written these letters by HAND, rather than collaborating or using a SCRIBE. Paul normally used an amanuensis (pronounced uh-man-you-EN-sis) to write his letters for him (Rom. 16:22; 1 Cor. 16:21; Gal. 6:11; Col. 4:18; 2 Thess. 3:17). Moreover, Paul wrote six of his letters with Timothy, as a coauthor (2 Corinthians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, Philemon). Since Paul usually wrote his letters with others, the difference in the Pastoral Epistles might be accounted for by observing that Paul wrote these letters alone—or perhaps with a unique amanuensis. Carson and Moo write,

Michael Prior stands the amanuensis theory on its head: he recognizes that the Pastoral Epistles are somewhat different from the ten Paulines, but suggests that the reason is not because they are pseudonymous but because they ‘are private letters in a double sense’—not only were they written to individuals, but they were written by Paul himself without an amanuensis. For most of the ten, and perhaps for all of them, Paul used an amanuensis; for six of the ten, Timothy is listed as the coauthor. But in the case of the Pastorals, Prior suggests, Paul wrote everything himself—and this accounts for the differences.

Others like Mounce argue that “Luke [was] most likely was Paul’s amanuensis for the Pastoral Epistles.”

Sixth, the original words (hapax legomena) occur in Greek writing prior to AD 50. J.N.D. Kelly noted that “almost all of the hapax legomena in the Pastorals appear in use by Greek writers prior to AD 50.” Specifically, 278 of the 306 words were used prior to AD 50! Moreover, a large proportion of these words occur in 1 Corinthians, which is an undisputed letter of Paul.

Authorship: External Evidence

Polycarp (AD 110) cites 1 Timothy 6:10 (Philippians, 4.1).

Irenaeus (AD 180) cites 1 Timothy 6:20, “Paul well says [of them, that they make use of] ‘novelties of words of false knowledge’” (Against Heresies 2.14.7; 3.3.3).

The Muratorian Canon (AD 170, Rome) places the Pastoral Epistles “after the church epistles of Paul, together with Philemon.” It mentions “the journey of Paul as he journeyed from Rome to Spain.” As we have already seen, Paul himself expressed a desire to travel beyond Rome to Spain (Rom. 15:24, 28).

The second-century Church Fathers refer to the Pastoral Epistles approximately 450 times. Moreover, by the second century, these letters had already been translated into Latin and Syriac. Consider a few early citations and affirmations of the Pastorals:

• 2 Clement (AD 140). This contains “three specific allusions to the Pastoral Epistles (1 Tim 1:17 [2 Clem. 20]; 4:10 [2 Clem. 7]; 6:14, 19 [2 Clem. 8]).”

• Polycarp (AD 117). He “cites 1 Tim 6:10 and 6:7 as authoritative without identifying their source (Letter to the Philippians1).”

• Other allusions or verbal similarities include Ignatius (AD 116), the Epistle of Barnabas (AD 120), and Clement of Rome (AD 95).

Conclusion. The external evidence for Paul’s authorship is quite extensive. Hence, Gordon Fee writes, “By the end of the second century they are firmly fixed in every Christian canon in every part of the empire and are never doubted by anyone until the nineteenth century.”

Counterarguments considered

Why are the Pastoral Epistles are missing from Marcion’s canon (AD 150)? Tertullian writes that Marcion rejected the Pastorals (Against Marcion 5.21). However, Marcion’s views “may be judged of little or no value.” For one, his rejection of these books is backhanded evidence that Marcion was indeed aware of them, implying an early date. Second, because Marcion was a Gnostic heretic, he likely expunged the Pastorals from his canon because of the fact that the Pastorals were antithetical to Marcion’s Gnostic and anti-Semitic teachings (e.g. 1 Tim. 1:8; 1 Tim. 4:3; 2 Tim. 3:16; 1 Tim. 2:4; 1 Tim. 6:20). Third, Clement of Alexandria stated that Gnostics rejected the Pastorals because 1 Timothy concludes with the statement, “Avoid worldly and empty chatter and the opposing arguments of what is falsely called ‘knowledge’” (gnōsis, 1 Tim. 6:20). Paul takes such a strong stance against heretical proto-Gnostics in these letters that we can hardly wonder why Marcion removed them from his canon.

Why are the Pastoral Epistles missing from the Chester Beatty Papyri (P⁴⁶, AD 250)? For one, the P⁴⁶ document also doesn’t contain Philemon, which is regarded as authentic by critical scholars. Second, the Chester Beatty Papyri may have excluded letters written to individuals (and only included letters written to churches). Mounce hypothesizes, “The absence of Philemon may suggest that the codex included only Paul’s public letters, omitting letters to individuals such as Timothy, Titus, and Philemon.” Finally, the copyist may have run out of space. Mounce and Guthrie both argue that that the copyist simply may have run out of room on the papyrus parchment. Indeed, the writing of P⁴⁶ grows smaller and smaller toward the end of the manuscript.

Conclusion

The arguments against Paul’s authorship do not weaken our conviction that Paul was indeed the author. In fact, based on the internal and external evidence, we have a strong case for Paul’s authorship of the Pastoral Epistles.

Location

Paul most likely wrote 1 Timothy in Macedonia. 1 Timothy 1:3 suggests that Paul left Timothy behind in Ephesus, and he travelled to Macedonia from which he wrote this letter. However, Paul wrote his second letter to Timothy from prison in Rome (2 Tim. 1:8; 2:9; 4:13). Of course, Paul wrote to Timothy in Ephesus (1 Tim. 1:3) and to Titus in Crete (Titus 1:5).

Date

Paul wrote the Pastorals sometime between AD 62 and AD 68. How do we know this? Since Paul died under the reign of Emperor Nero, this would be the latest that the letters could’ve been written. Moreover, since Paul was released from Roman house arrest in roughly AD 62, this would be the earliest these letters could’ve been written.

Since we need to allow time for Paul to have a fourth missionary journey, our best date for 1 Timothy is around AD 64-65. Moreover, since Paul tells Timothy to come before the winter (2 Tim. 4:21), our best date for 2 Timothy would be around AD 67.

What was the False Teaching in Ephesus?

Paul encouraged Timothy to promote sound doctrine and fight false teaching in Ephesus (1 Tim. 1:3). Timothy succeeded in this mission, because Jesus told the church in Ephesus that they had defeated the false teachers in their church (Rev. 2:1-3). But, what false teaching was Timothy battling in Ephesus?

To understand the false teaching in Ephesus at this time, we actually need to incorporate Paul’s letter to the Colossians, which was a neighboring city. Because of their close proximity, these two cities probably had the same false teaching. When we compare the letters, we see that Timothy must have been battling both (1) Jewish legalism and (2) proto-Gnosticism in Ephesus:

Historically, full blown Gnosticism hadn’t erupted yet. However, an early version of began to arise in Ephesus—what has been called proto-Gnosticism. Paul writes, “O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, avoiding worldly and empty chatter and the opposing arguments of what is falsely called ‘knowledge’” (1 Tim. 6:20). The word “knowledge” (gnosis) is the Greek word from which we get the term Gnosticism. The fact that these false teachers were forbidding marriage (1 Tim. 4:3) suggests Gnostic thinking (i.e. asceticism). Furthermore, when Paul wrote to the Colossians, he was fighting against angel worship and ungodly philosophy, which would also fit with Gnosticism—not Judaism (Col. 2:8; 18-19). Finally, Paul’s use of the word “fullness” (pleroma, Col. 2:9) was a term that Gnostics used to describe the “fullness” of their deity. Paul must have been turning this Gnostic language on its head.

However, proto-Gnosticism doesn’t fully explain the false teaching in Ephesus or Colossae. Legalistic Judaism was in full force as well. In Colossae, Paul argued against circumcision (Col. 2:11-15), kosher laws, Sabbath keeping, and seasonal festivals (Col. 2:16). In Ephesus, Paul spoke about the false teachers as those “wanting to be teachers of the Law” (1 Tim. 1:7; cf. Titus 1:10, 14; 3:9). Surely, there were Jewish false teachers as well.

Some commentators blend these two types of false teaching together into some kind of Jewish mysticism. Perhaps this is the case. However, we are most comfortable stating that there could have been more than one type of false teaching going on at this time. After all, in the modern church, a pastor might speak about the problems of postmodernism and modernism in the same teaching, or he might speak about the teachings of cult groups and New Age mysticism. Likewise, Timothy could have been battling various forms of false teaching. (For more on this subject, see “Introduction to Colossians”).

Who was Timothy?

Timothy came from a broken home. It’s very likely that Timothy grew up without a father. Acts records that his mother was a “believer” but “his father was a Greek” (Acts 16:1). So, at the very least, Timothy’s father never had a positive spiritual influence in his life. Indeed, perhaps Timothy was a disappointment in his father’s eyes because he became a lifelong follower of Christ. We don’t know. But we do know that it was Timothy’s mother and grandmother who raised him in his faith (2 Tim. 1:5; 3:15).

God seems to have used Paul to play an exceptional role in Timothy’s life. Paul refers to Timothy as his “true child in the faith” (1 Tim. 1:2). Stott comments, “Gnēsios (‘true’ or ‘genuine’) was used literally of children ‘born in wedlock, legitimate’ (BDAG). It is possible, therefore, that Paul is hinting at the circumstances of Timothy’s physical birth. Since his father was a Greek, Jewish law will have regarded him as illegitimate.” Paul, however, was happy to regard Timothy as his “true child” in the faith.

Timothy likely came to Christ through Paul. Paul travelled through Lystra (Timothy’s hometown) on his first missionary journey (Acts 13-14). This is most likely when Timothy came to faith in Jesus, and “Paul’s paternal language (1 Cor 4:15, 17; 1 Tim 1:2) suggests that Paul led Timothy to Christian faith.” By the time Paul came around for the second time, he took Timothy as a disciple and a co-worker. Paul chose Timothy because he had such a good reputation among the believers in the area (Acts 16:2).

Timothy quickly became Paul’s most influential and faithful disciple. Regarding Timothy, Paul wrote, “I have no one else of kindred spirit who will genuinely be concerned for your welfare. ²¹ For they all seek after their own interests, not those of Christ Jesus” (Phil. 2:20-21). What high praise to be compared to Jesus himself! (see Phil. 2:4-5)

Timothy was an effective leader. Later in Jesus’ letter to the church of Ephesus, we discover that Timothy’s leadership rooted out the false teachers in Ephesus (Rev. 2:1-7). So, Paul’s trust was well-founded.

Timothy regularly confronted his fears. Many people paint Timothy as a fearful and nervous guy. Perhaps this is true. After all, Paul felt the need to tell the Corinthians, “If Timothy comes, see that he is with you without cause to be afraid” (1 Cor. 16:10). At the same time, Paul himself was himself shaking with fear as he preached to the Corinthians! (1 Cor. 2:3; Acts 18:9) So, how does this fit with the idea that Timothy was naturally nervous or fearful? If you were leading in a wild place like Corinth, would you not struggle with fear from time to time?

It’s true that Paul needed to tell Timothy, “God has not given us a spirit of timidity, but of power and love and discipline” (2 Tim. 1:7). But again, imagine what it would feel like to be Timothy. He was leading a massive church that was filled occult practitioners and other false teachers; the people were taking a condescending tone toward Timothy because he was young (1 Tim. 4:12); and finally, Timothy’s best friend and mentor was on the brink of execution (2 Tim. 4:6). How would you feel if you were in Timothy’s shoes? Maybe a little scared? A little fearful? Sure! But instead of viewing Timothy like a weakling, we should view him as a man who struggled with fear, yet refused to be conquered by it. Timothy didn’t allow his fears to stop him from following God. This is an admirable quality—not a liability that inhibited Timothy from leading.

Paul and Timothy developed a very close friendship. After all, Timothy was able to show the Corinthians how Paul operated in ministry (1 Cor. 4:17). Elsewhere, Paul sent Timothy to strengthen the Thessalonians and the Philippians (1 Thess. 3:2; Phil. 2:20). This shows us that Paul believed that Timothy was capable of being sent to lead independently of him. Paul grew so close to Timothy that he calls him his son (Phil. 2:22; 1 Tim. 1:2). This isn’t condescending, however, because Paul also speaks of him as a brother (1 Thess. 3:2). In other words, Paul eventually viewed him as his peer. This is why they coauthored six letters together (2 Corinthians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, Philemon)—three of which were in prison. Furthermore, Paul writes incredibly touching comments to Timothy in these two letters, showing the type of friendship that they shared:

“This command I entrust to you, Timothy, my son” (1 Tim. 1:18).

“I am writing these things to you, hoping to come to you before long” (1 Tim. 3:14).

“[I am] longing to see you, even as I recall your tears, so that I may be filled with joy” (2 Tim. 1:4).

This makes us wonder why God would include this book in the Bible—especially if it is such a personal letter between Paul and Timothy. And yet, upon reflection, we see that we are given tremendous insight into the nature of friendship, discipleship, leadership, and how to run the race well to the end.