19. Pastoral Letters: 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus - Augsburg Fortress

Copyrighted Material 

Augsburg Fortress Publishers 

19. Pastoral Letters: 

1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus 

paul’s letters to Timothy and Titus have been designated the “Pastoral Letters” 

since the eighteenth century. They were accepted and cited as genuinely Pauline by 

early Christian writers, but for two hundred years scholars have debated their authenticity. 

Lately the debate has ebbed, with the great majority of scholars thinking the 

issue has been decided: all three are considered inauthentic, at best a later and derivative 

testimony to genuine Pauline theology. Some scholars persist in thinking that 

conclusion to be somewhat hasty. Even those who are not absolutely convinced that 

the letters come directly from Paul find unconvincing many of the reasons given for 

assigning their composition to a later Pauline forger. 

Since these are letters and not narratives, a decision concerning their authenticity 

affects our picture of Paul’s ministry, our understanding of the development of Paulinism, 

and, most importantly, our reading of the letters themselves. Even though this 

debate already dominates scholarship on these writings and threatens to obscure their 

distinctive and individual witness to early Christian experience and interpretation, a 

consideration of the issues can nevertheless lead to an appreciation of the special character 

of these canonical writings. 

There are strong tendencies in the debate, and it is helpful to note them at the outset. 

The first tendency derives from the primary and positive place most scholars 

accord Paul among NT writers. He is, after all,“the apostle.” Scholars often want to find 

in him that which confirms their perceptions of “genuine” Christianity, and consider 

inauthentic those elements that contradict these perceptions. Those who regard the 

heart of Paul, if not of the whole NT, to be the teaching of righteousness through faith 

tend to reject the Pastorals as moralizing. On the other hand, those committed to traditions 

within which doctrine, church structure, and the inspiration of Scripture are 

important, tend to find these elements in the undisputed as well as the Pastoral letters. 

They are, consequently, inclined to regard the latter as genuine also. Thus, the issue of 

authenticity is directly correlated with the reconstruction of the “authentic” Paul: 

scholarship is not fully determined by bias, but we do tend to read Paul in our own 

image and out of our own particular theological context. 

A second tendency also derives from Paul’s place as the earliest and most prominent 

Christian writer. A judgment against authenticity of any letter means for some a 

423

424 



judgment on its value as well. They implicitly measure the worth of a writing by its 

authorship, rather than by its content or its place within the community’s canon. The 

tendency is found on both sides of the debate. Some fight the authenticity of the Pastorals, 

thinking such a recognition would inevitably mean as well an acceptance of 

their teaching. Others defend their authenticity for the same reason. These tendencies 

complicate the making of good literary and historical judgments. 

A third tendency in the debate does not come from bias but is an inevitable result 

of categorization: the three letters are invariably treated together as a group. Characterizations 

of “the Pastorals” are typically drawn from all three letters coalesced into a 

whole, while the individual characteristics of the respective letters are overlooked. The 

Pastorals are often said, for example, to contain an elaborate ecclesial structure. But 

2 Timothy lacks any reference to order at all, and Titus contains only a trace. Reference 

is also made to “the opponents in the Pastorals,” even though there is a distinct profile 

in each of the letters. Such generalizing dulls the perception of the individual letters, 

heightening a sense of their isolation from the rest of the Pauline corpus. A similar 

effect would result from treating the Thessalonian correspondence as a separate group 

without ever referring them to other Pauline writings. But if Titus is read with other 

travel letters, or 2 Timothy with other captivity letters, their otherness is greatly 

diminished. 

Even when such tendencies are taken into account, the Letters to Timothy and 

Titus raise unique and difficult questions for every reader. No one denies that they represent 

a strain of Paulinism. They are written in his name, and seek to communicate 

teaching which is recognizably Pauline. But in each letter there is also just enough 

divergence from any reader’s instinctive perception of what is Pauline, that even those 

most sympathetic to their authenticity must wonder at this blend of the familiar and 

the strange so erratically distributed over three documents. 

Factors To Be Considered 

The Writings of the New Testament 

Since the issues are so complex, a full discussion is impossible, but each criterion for 

determining genuineness is touched upon in what follows. The first issue is their placement 

in the scheme of early Christian history and the Pauline mission. Although the 

letters lack obvious anachronisms, some find it difficult to fit them into Paul’s career 

such as it can be reconstructed from Acts and the other letters. First Timothy and Titus 

presuppose Paul’s active ministry among his churches. In 1 Timothy, Paul has left his 

delegate in Ephesus for a time while he goes to Macedonia (1 Tim. 1:3); Timothy is to 

attend to affairs until Paul’s return within a short period (3:14). In principle, such a 

letter could have been written any time during Paul’s lengthy Aegean ministry. Titus is 

written to Paul’s delegate in Crete (Titus 1:5). Paul’s whereabouts are not revealed. He 

plans to winter in Nicopolis (3:12), which could be any of several cities of that name.



1 timothy, 2 timothy, titus 425 

That there should be a church in Crete is not surprising. The account in Acts, however, 

places Paul there only tangentially, and then as a prisoner (Acts 27:7-15). Could he 

have had the opportunity to found churches or to commission a delegate to found 

them? The phrase “I left you in Crete” is also ambiguous. Did Paul take his leave of 

Titus there? Or did Paul leave Titus in an assignment? 

Second Timothy is written from (probably a Roman) captivity (1:16-17). But does 

Paul’s reference to a first defense (4:16) indicate that this is a second imprisonment, 

since he was released from the first (4:17)? In contrast to l Timothy and Titus, 2 Timothy 

contains information about fifteen of Paul’s helpers (4:9-21). Nothing in their 

movements directly contradicts the little we know of them elsewhere, although some 

scholars have great difficulty with the apparent discrepancy between Acts 21:29 and 

2 Tim. 4:20 in the matter of Trophimus. Other information is startlingly confirming, 

such as the short remark “Erastus remained in Corinth” (4:20; cf. Rom. 16:23). 

The problem is rendered more difficult by the attempt to place all the letters in the 

same time frame. The following options are possible. Some think the letters are pseudonymous 

and written at the same time after Paul’s death. The biographical information 

in this case only serves the interest of pseudonymity and is thus irrelevant. A 

second option invokes the ancient tradition (cf. 1 Clem. 5.7) that Paul was released 

from a first Roman imprisonment and preached in Spain before again becoming a 

captive and finally being put to death. Supporters argue for a period of active work 

between the two imprisonments, such as is reflected in these letters. A third option is 

to regard the letters as genuinely Pauline and to try to fit them into Paul’s ministry as 

we know it from Acts and the other letters. This is not impossible, although it requires 

considerable ingenuity. 

A fourth option is the best, though rarely chosen. It admits that neither Acts nor 

the letters give us a full chronology of Paul: Acts gives us only a selective and highly 

stylized rendering of Paul’s travels, while the letters provide only fragmentary bits and 

pieces of information. Thus, while the Pastorals do not by themselves account for 

their placement in his life, they may give us important information about incidents in 

Paul’s career and captivity that the other sources do not. Just as 2 Corinthians tells us 

of imprisonments we would otherwise not suspect, so do these letters tell us of Pauline 

missionary endeavors—in Crete and Dalmatia—that, aside from the tantalizing reference 

to Illyricum in Rom. 15:19, would otherwise be unknown to us. 

The criterion of style is difficult to apply to the Pastorals. They obviously contain a 

large number of words not found in other Pauline letters and share other terms not 

otherwise attested in the NT. But there are also real differences among the three letters. 

On the whole, 2 Timothy has a vocabulary remarkably close to that of other Pauline 

epistles, whereas the terminology in 1 Timothy and Titus varies more significantly. 

How much of this special vocabulary is due to the nature of the letters, the character 

of the addressees, and the subject matter is difficult to determine. Unlike the genuine 

Pauline letters, there is no indication that the letters were dictated to a scribe, although

426 




the use of an amanuensis cannot be ruled out. Since a large amount of the vocabulary 

of 1 Timothy and Titus is found in the NT elsewhere only in Luke-Acts, Luke has been 

proposed as the amanuensis (2 Tim. 4:11) or even the author of the letters. 

More than vocabulary is involved in stylistic analysis. The syntax of the Pastorals is 

generally smoother than in letters like Galatians and Romans. Sentences are longer and 

more regular; the use of particles is less varied and rich. Yet, one must ask how much 

the style of Romans and Galatians is itself affected by the adoption of the diatribal 

mode in those letters. If the Pastorals are compared to 1 Thessalonians or Philippians, 

the differences are less extreme. The issue of style is further complicated by the fact 

that the Pastorals do not reveal a consistent “hand,” as do Colossians and Ephesians. 

Rather, the mixture of vocabulary and sentence structure is complex and varied. Some 

have even suggested that the Pastorals may contain fragments of authentic Pauline 

notes, worked up later into new pseudonymous compositions. But the close correlation 

of “non-Pauline” passages with the subject matters unique to the Pastorals has 

largely gone unnoticed. This is a significant oversight since it is precisely the difference 

in subject matter that most clearly separates these three letters from the rest of the 

Pauline corpus. Finally, on the issue of style, one should also recall the significance of 

“writing in character” (see chap. 10): the style of a letter is adapted to the persona a 

writer adopts for the sake of creating persuasive letters. This rhetorical phenomenon 

further complicates the reading of the evidence. 

One of the early reasons for questioning the genuineness of the Pastorals was the 

nature of the opponents or heresy they attack. It was thought to be a form of “gnosis” 

(see 1 Tim. 6:20)—unknown until the second century—that believed the resurrection 

life had already been accomplished (2 Tim. 2:17-18), scorned marriage, advocated 

physical asceticism (1 Tim. 4:3, 8), and was interested in the practice of Jewish law 

(1 Tim. 1:7; Titus 3:9). This picture is of course a composite of the three letters. Even 

as such it does not preclude Pauline authorship, for there is nothing in this mix not 

already encountered in the undisputed letters (cf., e.g., 1 Cor. 8:1-3; 15:17-19; Gal. 4:8- 

10; 1 Cor 7:1; cf. Col. 2:20-22). The composite sketch, however, ignores the real differences 

between the letters themselves, each of which is internally consistent and need 

not be read in light of the others. Some object further that the manner of responding 

to the opponents is typically un-Pauline, since it relies on polemic rather than on refutation. 

This is slightly inaccurate, since 1 Timothy does clarify theological points several 

times (1:8; 4:3-5, 7-8; 6:5-10), and the genuine Paul is not immune from the use 

of slander against rival teachers (cf. 2 Cor. 11:13-15; Gal. 5:12; 6:13; Phil. 3:2). What is 

distinctive in the Pastorals is the amount of polemic, its largely stereotypical character, 

and the literary function it performs in 1 and 2 Timothy. 

A major challenge to the authenticity of the letters is made on the basis of church 

organization. Here, it is claimed, there is not merely a shift in emphasis, such as making 

Christ the head of the body (as in Colossians) but an entirely different outlook. 

The organic sense of the church is lost, replaced by an organization—the “household



1 timothy, 2 timothy, titus 427 

of God”—that has a hierarchical ministry of bishops, presbyters, and deacons, 

together with orders of deaconesses and widows. Such attention to structure, it is 

thought, results from a “routinization of charism” when eschatological expectations 

diminish and the church grows accustomed to being in the world and adapts to its 

ways. Others see here a defensive reaction against a popular Paulinism that was more 

radically egalitarian, such as one finds in the Acts of Paul and Thecla. The Pastorals, on 

this reading, arise from a situation like that found in the letters of Ignatius of Antioch 

(ca. 115) in which a monarchical episcopate and hierarchical order are understood to 

be essential for the well-being of the church (see Ign. Eph. 2.2; Magn. 3.1; Trall. 

2.2; 3.1). 

Such conclusions move well beyond the evidence of the letters themselves. First, it 

is inaccurate to speak of the church order of the Pastorals, since there is none in 2 Timothy, 

and the little found in Titus does not match precisely the fuller account in 1 Timothy. 

Second, what organization is spoken of is not elaborate. It corresponds rather 

well, in fact, to what we know of the synagogal structure of Diaspora Judaism in the 

first century, as well as to the structure of the religious and social associations prevalent 

in the ancient Greco-Roman world. Early Christianity did not develop in a 

vacuum; it naturally adopted and adapted pre-existing institutions. Third, the organizational 

structure is not legitimated in these letters, that is, it is neither theologically 

defended nor interpreted, unlike the case in the Ignatian letters. Fourth, the letters do 

not prescribe a particular order but presuppose it; they contain not job descriptions 

for new positions but moral and mental qualifications for those who are to fill established 

places in the church. Fifth, sociological studies of intentional communities in 

every era suggest that they do not survive for decades without strong structures for 

decision making and social control: a great time lapse between the birth of a community 

and the establishment of structure is thus counterintuitive: structure and charism 

frequently coexist. Sixth, the undisputed letters of Paul not only refer by title to the 

offices found in the Pastorals (bishops and deacons, Phil. 1:1; woman deacon, Rom. 

16:1), but explicitly recognize the role of authority figures in specific communities (cf. 

1 Cor. 16:15-17; Gal. 6:6; Col. 4:17; 1 Thess. 5:12). Seventh, the attention that is given 

to organizational matters in two of these letters owes a great deal to the nature of the 

writings and the identity of the addressees. 

The most telling objection to the authenticity of the Pastorals is the criterion of theology 

and ethics. Even when full credit is given to Paul’s wide range in these areas, 

some elements in the Pastorals appear to be marginal. Common Pauline terms such as 

“faith,”“law,” and “righteousness” occur, but all with slightly different nuances. “Law” 

appears as something that can be used “lawfully” (1 Tim. 1:8), “faith” seems less an 

obedient response to God than the common body of conviction and commitment 

(Titus 1:1; 1 Tim. 5:8) or, simply, a virtue (2 Tim. 2:22). “Righteousness” (dikaiosynē) 

does not signify a state of right relation with God but denotes a virtue in the Greek 

sense of “justice” (1 Tim. 6:11; 2 Tim. 2:22). Tradition is a deposit of truth that is to be

428 




protected (1 Tim. 6:20; 2 Tim. 1:12-14) rather than a process of transmission (1 Cor. 

11:2, 23; 15:3). Christology emphasizes the role of Jesus as Savior (2 Tim. 1:10; Titus 

1:4; 3:6) and his coming “appearance” (1 Tim. 6:14; 2 Tim. 1:10). It must be said that 

each one of these elements can be found somewhere in the undisputed letters, but 

never in this concentrated combination. Therein lies the difference and the problem. 

A similar point can be made about ethical teaching. There is certainly nothing 

explicitly like Paul’s command in 1 Corinthians 7 to live in the world “as though not.” 

Here, the attitudes and aptitudes of household members are appropriate as well to the 

life of the community as a whole. The Pauline note of conscience (syneidēsis) appears, 

not in terms of weak and strong (cf. 1 Cor. 8:7-12) but of “good” (1 Tim. 1:5, 19) and 

“pure” (1 Tim. 3:9; 2 Tim. 1:3) in contrast to “soiled” (Titus 1:15) and “cauterized” (1 

Tim. 4:2). Here, too, is the contrast between “healthy teaching” (1 Tim. 1:10; 6:3; 2 

Tim. 1:13; 4:3; Titus 1:9; 2:1) and “sickness” (2 Tim. 2:17; 1 Tim. 4:2), expressing itself 

in a life of virtue (1 Tim. 1:10; 3:2-4, 11; 4:13; 2 Tim. 2:22, 24; 3:10; Titus 1:7-9; 2:7) 

and vice (1 Tim. 1:8-10; 2 Tim. 3:2-5; Titus 3:3). 

Listing these elements is easy; evaluating them is more difficult. Appeal to the outlook 

of an aging apostle is of little help, and an assumed shift to a second generation 

of Paulinist Christians seems inadequate. The issue is complicated by the supposition 

of uniformity in Pauline Christianity: one must be careful about assuming that every 

Pauline church looked the same; clearly each community would have had a unique 

context that shaped its experience and expression. Take the question of subject matter. 

The “household” theme, for example, is prevalent in Paul, but takes on a variety of 

forms and nuances depending on the community Paul addresses. Even appeals to the 

character of the language itself provide ambiguous evidence. These letters do have a 

more Greek and less “biblical” mode of presentation. Yet, before drawing conclusions, 

it is good to remember that the “biblical” style of Paul in Galatians and Romans is no 

more natural than his “Greek” style in 1 Thessalonians or Philippians. His style is 

affected by his subject matter, his audience, and the traditions upon which he was 

reliant. 

In fact, one of the solutions to the problem may rest precisely in these differences. 

Titus and Timothy, we recall, both have at least a partial Greek background, and both 

are portrayed in the role of teachers. These factors may help us locate the kind of language 

used in the letters addressed to them, particularly if we ask how Paul might have 

spoken and written to his more educated Hellenistic associates. The polished Greek, 

the moralizing tone, the specific subject matter treated, and the general tone and function 

of the letter may be determined less by the passage of time and more by the specific 

character and role of the delegates to whom Paul wrote.


1 Augsburg timothy, Fortress 2 timothy, Publishers titus 429 

Accounting for the Correspondence 

Most scholars see the Pastorals as the production of a “Pauline school” long after Paul’s 

death, perhaps as late as the mid-second century. Rather than real letters, the Pastorals 

are considered a single literary composition in the form of fictitious correspondence 

in which biographical elements serve only to provide an air of plausibility. In this view 

the three letters together represent the beginning of church orders, a genre of documents 

that regulated church worship and ministry (e.g., the Didache, the Didascalia 

Apostolorum, and the Apostolic Constitutions). They were written as part of a conservative 

reaction within Paulinism, possibly reacting against the use of Paul by heretics 

who radically extended Paul’s ascetic tendencies. It has even been suggested that 

Polycarp of Smyrna wrote them as a weapon in his fight against Marcionism. Another 

suggested stimulus was the growing egalitarianism, especially among women, that 

threatened the stability of communities. 

The author of the Pastorals therefore sought to adapt the Pauline message for a new 

generation, emphasizing structure and order, while resisting ascetic and egalitarian 

excess. In the process, certain elements seem presupposed: a diminished eschatological 

expectation, a growth in church structure, and an increased accommodation to the 

world. In this view, the Paulinism of the Pastorals is refracted through the prism of second 

and third-generation concerns. Paul is a legendary hero whose authentic genius is 

diminished, reduced to being part of the “deposit” of faith for future generations. 

The obvious appeal of this reconstruction is attested by its many adherents. It provides 

for development and conflict within Paulinism. It suggests that the Pastorals, 

with Acts and Ephesians, were part of the movement of “early Catholicism” that 

resisted Gnosticism while domesticating the more radical Paul of the authentic letters. 

This reconstruction has serious deficiencies. Even if the writing of epistolary 

pseudepigrapha soon after Paul’s death can be granted, the Pastorals were accepted as 

genuine by the ancient church, in contrast to clearly Pauline counterfeits (3 Corinthians, 

Letter to Laodiceans, Letters of Paul and Seneca, Acts of Paul and Thecla) that were 

almost as universally rejected. A mid-second century dating must dismiss the allusion 

in Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians (4.1) to 1 Tim. 6:7, 10, and reject the express 

statement of Tertullian (Against Marcion V. 21) that Marcion excluded the Pastorals 

from his canon—both of which would seem to necessitate an earlier origin of the 

material. 

The common reconstruction falters most by failing to provide a convincing life setting 

for the production of three such similar yet quite different letters, and by paying 

too little attention to their self-presentation and literary form. It has been suggested, 

for example, that the letters were intended to rehabilitate a Paul fallen into disrepute 

because of his popularity among heretics. But Paul’s authority is never at issue in the 

letters; it is always assumed. Nor is specific attention given to his “image.” The suggestion 

also presupposes a consciousness of fine distinctions in doctrine such as exists

430 




only among scholars. For anyone seriously doubting or misplacing Paul’s worth, furthermore, 

it is unlikely that the rather banal material in the Pastorals would prove an 

effective antidote. Even in other scenarios, such as an orthodox leader like Polycarp 

creating and then distributing the letters as a Pauline discovery, there are problems. 

Besides being inconsistent with Polycarp’s situation such as we know it, this hypothesis 

makes us wonder why more use was not made of this creation by Polycarp himself. 

Moreover, would such a ploy be successful at a time when Paul was apparently a figure 

of controversy and rival communities were compiling their lists of acceptable and 

unacceptable writings on the basis of apostolic origin? 

Another suggestion places the letters’ production within a school setting in which 

the imitation of literary models took place. This is a sensible solution, since such 

schools were known to exist after the life of a founder. It would be a stronger suggestion 

if we could be as confident about the existence of such a school after Paul’s 

death as we are of its existence during his lifetime. However sensible, the suggestion 

is not altogether satisfying. If Pauline models were being imitated, why were letters 

not produced that imitated Paul’s correspondence to churches—as was most typical 

for Paul—rather than letters to individual delegates (only Philemon was addressed 

to an individual, and he was not a delegate)? Why were the style and form of the 

undisputed letters not followed more accurately? The fragment hypothesis is of little 

help here. It is hard to see why tiny autobiographical notes would be preserved in 

the first place, and then lifted into new compositions so clumsily. Further, if a 

pseudepigrapher had authentic fragments before him, why could he not imitate 

their style more convincingly? To complicate matters even more, the differences in 

style between the three letters themselves do not allow for simplistic theories of 

compositional imitation. 

An enduring difficulty for the conventional reconstruction is the presence of variety 

in the Pastorals. Why would three such letters be produced, each of which was 

directed to a situation that was internally consistent yet very difficult to match with the 

situations of the other two? Here we would have a forger subtly able to create the 

verisimilitude of an established community in Ephesus and a new church in Crete, 

together with the appropriate sort of directions to each, and yet not able to imitate 

more convincingly the available Pauline samples. 

No real progress will be made in the understanding of the Pastorals until they are 

restored to separate but equal status within the Pauline collection. It may well be, for 

example, that 2 Timothy can lay a far better claim to authenticity on every count than 

1 Timothy. The first sustained questioning of their authenticity applied initially only 

to 1 Timothy, and then only on the point of diction. The declaration of inauthenticity 

for all three has been a more recent development, largely resulting from the association 

of 2 Timothy and Titus with 1 Timothy. But it is theoretically possible, for example, 

that 1 Timothy is pseudonymous, based on an authentic 2 Timothy. Such possibilities 

must be entertained, although any particular configuration is difficult to prove.



In the final analysis, it is difficult to make any assured claims about either the 

authenticity or the inauthenticity of the Pastorals as a whole or as individual letters. 

Yet, what we lose for our reconstruction of the “historical” Paul, we gain for the understanding 

of early Christianity: in the Pastorals we catch a glimpse of early Christian 

leadership, structure, and social world that might otherwise be unknown to us. Consequently, 

attention is appropriately directed to the literary self-presentation of each of 

the letters in turn and to their respective shaping of the Christian message within the 

Pauline tradition. 

Paul’s Delegates 

The letters are written to Paul’s most important delegates. We have repeatedly seen 

Timothy’s prominence within the Pauline mission: co-sponsor of five letters (see 2 

Cor. 1:1; Phil. 1:1; Col. 1:1; 1 Thess. 1:1; 2 Thess. 1:1), he was Paul’s go-between with 

the Macedonian churches (see Acts 18:5; 19:22) of Thessalonica (1 Thess. 3:2) and 

Philippi (Phil. 2:19), as well as with the Corinthians (Rom. 16:21). According to 1 Tim. 

1:3, he played the same role for the Ephesian church. In Acts 16:1, he is said to have a 

Greek father, which would make it likely that he had some Greek education as well. 

From what Paul says of him in the undisputed letters, his special role and his place in 

Paul’s affections is obvious. When Paul wants the restive Corinthians to “imitate” him 

(1 Cor. 4:16), he adds (4:17): 

Therefore, I sent to you Timothy, my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, to 

remind you of my ways in Christ, as I teach them everywhere in the church. 

We notice here the role of memory and imitation, and the portrayal of Timothy as the 

“reminder” of Paul’s teaching and an example to a local community. 

Paul clearly anticipated that Timothy would be received in the same manner Paul 

himself would be (1 Cor. 16:10-11): 

When Timothy comes, see that you put him at ease among you, for he is doing 

the work of the Lord, as I am. Let no one despise him. 

When writing to the Philippians, Paul says of Timothy (2:19-23): 

I hope in the Lord Jesus to send Timothy to you soon, so that I may be cheered 

by news of you. I have no one like him, who will be genuinely anxious for your 

welfare. They all look after their own interests, not those of Jesus Christ. But 

Timothy’s worth you know, how as a son with a father, he has served with me 

in the gospel. I hope therefore to send him just as soon as I see how it will go 

with me.

432 




Finally, in 1 Thess. 3:2, Paul reports of Timothy: 

And we have sent Timothy, our brother and God’s servant in the gospel of 

Christ, to establish you in your faith and to exhort you, that no one be moved 

by these afflictions. 

There is a remarkable agreement between these random characterizations and the 

portrayal of Timothy in the Pastorals. He is a “beloved” (2 Tim. 1:2) or “genuine” 

child (1 Tim. 1:2). He is a “servant of God” (doulos; 2 Tim. 2:24; cf. same in Phil. 1:1, 

and diakonos in 1 Thess. 3:2). He is to “exhort” others (1 Tim. 6:2; 2 Tim. 4:2), and to 

“remind” churches of Paul’s teaching (2 Tim. 2:14), providing them an example of it 

(1 Tim. 4:12) even as he himself has an example to follow in Paul (2 Tim. 1:13). 

Two different but reasonable explanations can account for this evident agreement 

between the Pastorals and the genuine letters. First, the letters accurately report 

Paul’s habitual perceptions of his delegate. Second, a pseudepigrapher had available 

to him the full range of such epithets when he drew up his imitation. The more 

important point, though, is that 1 and 2 Timothy present Timothy in a role that corresponds 

exactly to that explicitly given him in the undisputed letters: he is Paul’s 

troubleshooter. 

The undisputed letters tell us much less about Titus. He was of Greek origin (Gal. 

2:3), and Paul makes much of his not having to be circumcised when he accompanied 

Paul to Jerusalem (Gal. 2:1-3). Although this is speculative, he may be the Titus (or 

Titius) Justus whom Acts 18:7 refers to as a “God-fearer” and whose house Paul uses 

after leaving the synagogue. He is, in any case, a notable associate of Paul’s Corinthian 

ministry (2 Cor. 2:13; 7:6, 13, 14), especially Paul’s collection efforts (2 Cor. 8:6, 16, 23; 

12:18). He is not the representative of a local church but is Paul’s “fellow-worker” 

(koinōnos; 2 Cor. 8:23). He is not, however, pictured as being on intimate terms with 

Paul. 

The same sense is given by the Letter to Titus, in which he is called “genuine child” 

(Titus 1:4) but is not shown the sort of affection found in 1 and 2 Timothy. His duty 

in Crete may well also have included fund raising (see Titus 3:14). According to 2 Tim. 

4:10, Titus also worked in Dalmatia, which would fit within the broad range of the 

Pauline mission (cf. Rom. 15:19). 

In writing letters to delegates with such responsibilities, we would anticipate discussion 

of matters less appropriate for epistles written for community consumption. 

These could include: personal encouragement for the delegate’s difficult task of dealing 

with lively Pauline communities; reminders of the ideal one should follow; hostile 

dismissals of rival teachers; ad hoc directions concerning local leadership positions and 

structural conflicts. Rather than lengthy doctrinal treatises, we would expect only formulaic 

allusions. As a means of encouragement, we might envision a shaping of the 

gospel that emphasized its godliness (eusebeia), a Christology in which the coming



“appearance of the savior” figured dominantly, and ethical teaching that stressed 

virtue and the avoidance of vice. No doubt many of these same aspects would have had 

further appeal to the reader immersed in the educative culture of the Greco-Roman 

world. Moreover, such letters would likely combine attention to the delegate’s personal 

disposition as well as to the attitudes appropriate to the office of teaching. 

As so often in the Hellenistic world, there were precedents for letters like these. Second 

Timothy can be read as a personal parenetic epistle, and 1 Timothy and Titus can 

be understood as mandata principis letters. The following analysis will therefore proceed 

on the basis of genre rather than canonical order. 

2 Timothy: A Personal Parenetic Letter 

Paul writes to Timothy from prison (1:16; 2:9; 4:16). Although he still has workers 

around him, he is sensitive to the apostasy of others (1:15; 4:10, 16). He struggles to 

proclaim the gospel (4:17) and to direct the mission through delegates (4:10-12) and 

correspondence (4:13). He faces active opposition himself (4:14). Thus, despite feeling 

close to death (4:6-8), Paul writes to encourage and admonish Timothy in his own 

struggles. The letter is dominated by its unswerving attention to Timothy. Whatever is 

said about others is sooner or later turned back to Timothy: “but you . . .” The most 

frequent verb form in the letter is the second-person singular imperative. Nothing new 

is being communicated to Timothy, only reminders of what he already knows, 

together with the exhortation to hold fast to it. 

Because we find here an aging, even dying, religious figure instructing his follower 

on the struggles to come and the need for perseverance, many who regard these letters 

as pseudonymous find the most appropriate literary category for 2 Timothy to be the 

farewell discourse, such as we find it in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs or even 

Acts 20:17-35. A more likely parallel, and one closer in content and function, is the 

personal parenetic letter. 

Rhetorical handbooks describe an epistolē parainetikē as a letter written to “exhort 

someone advising them to pursue something and to abstain from something.” The 

sample letter given by Pseudo-Libanius reads: 

Always be an emulator, dear friend, of the virtuous. For it is better to be well 

spoken of when imitating good individuals, than to be reproached by all for 

following evil ones. 

This short sample contains the elements of imitation and the antithetical expression 

of options: do this, avoid that. In actual parenetic discourses such as Pseudo-Isocrates’ 

treatise To Demonicus, the form is followed exactly: the presentation of a model and 

appeal to memory (Dem 3–11) is followed by a series of moral maxims often expressed

434 




antithetically (12–49), and at the conclusion there is a re-presentation of models for 

imitation (50–51). So also in 2 Timothy we find the elements of memory, model, and 

maxims. 

This classification helps explain the polemic against false teachers. We are given little 

specific information about them, despite the naming of Phygelus, Hermogenes 

(1:15), Hymenaeus, and Philetus (2:17). They claim that the resurrection is already 

past (2:18), but apart from that, they are characterized mainly by their methods, which 

involve harsh disputation (2:16, 23) and the intellectual seduction of uneducated 

women (3:6), as well as their morals, which are obviously poor. Much of this takes the 

form of stereotypical slander, like that used by Hellenistic philosophers when attacking 

each other. Yet Paul never attacks them directly. His concern is for his delegate, and 

he thus alternates characterizations of them with direct commands to Timothy. The 

false teachers thereby become the negative model Timothy is to avoid. The same use of 

polemic can be found in protreptic (i.e., exhortatory) discourse addressed to wouldbe 

philosophers: slander establishes a counter-type to the ideal teacher (cf. Dio Oration 

77/78; Lucian Demonax; Epictetus Discourses III.22). 

Second Timothy has the overall form of a personal parenetic letter, with the elements 

of polemic being utilized to develop more fully what Timothy is to avoid. The 

structure of 2 Timothy therefore is: the presentation of Paul as a model (1:3—2:13); 

maxims for Timothy as a teacher, presented in contrast to the false teachers (2:14— 

4:5); and the re-presentation of Paul as a model (4:6-18). 

Paul, the Model for Teaching and Suffering (2 Timothy 1:3—2:13) 

The motifs of memory and model open the letter. In the face of the opposition and 

success of rival teachers, Timothy is encouraged to “endure,” particularly since his 

“father” Paul has little hope for release from prison. The thanksgiving typically anticipates 

Paul’s main point: he “remembers” Timothy (1:3), “remembers” his tears (1:4), 

and “remembers” the sincere faith he had learned from his mother and grandmother 

(1:5). When Paul adds, “...a faith, which I am sure, dwells in you” (1:5), he reveals his 

true emphasis: he clearly wants to “remind” Timothy of the qualities and dispositions 

to which he was called. He was not given a spirit of timidity (or, cowardice: deilia) but 

one of “power and love and self-control” (1:7). Paul wants to “stir up” in him (1:6) this 

gift of power and confidence, so he will persevere in his ministry. The prevalent early 

Christian motif of “endurance” and “steadfastness” in the midst of trials takes on a 

practical edge here in 2 Timothy (cf. James 1:12). 

Paul presents himself as a model for Timothy, who can find in him the “pattern of 

healthy teaching” (1:13). Timothy can preserve it, since it has been entrusted to him by 

“the Holy Spirit dwelling in us” (1:14). Paul is more than a source of proper teaching. 

He is the example of how to suffer for the gospel amidst adversity. Timothy is told, 

“Don’t be ashamed” of testifying to the Lord; he is to “take a share of suffering for the



gospel” (1:8). Paul too had been appointed a “preacher and apostle and teacher” of this 

“good news” (1:11), and “therefore I suffer as I do, but I am not ashamed” (1:12). Timothy 

should not therefore draw back because of suffering he may encounter for the 

“good news.” He is able to keep going because of God’s power (1:8), the indwelling 

Spirit (1:14), and the certainty of God’s promise (1:12). 

The mention of Onesiphorus in 1:15-18 is not beside the point. Because he provided 

help (“often refreshed me”) and did so despite Paul’s captivity, he provides Timothy 

with another example: “He was not ashamed of my chains” (1:16). As Paul can 

look forward to a reward from God for his suffering (1:12), so he can pray, “May the 

Lord grant to him to find mercy from the Lord on that day” (1:18). Timothy, in other 

words, is not alone in “sharing the suffering” for the good news, and should take 

encouragement in that fact. 

The second aspect of Timothy’s role is suggested in 2:2. He is to entrust the “sound 

teaching” to others who in turn will be able to teach. Timothy is not only a Christian 

who lives the gospel and suffers for it. His suffering occurs precisely because he is a 

teacher of the “good news.” The focus therefore turns to his ministry of teaching, particularly 

regarding the attitudes he himself should have and should inculcate in others. 

Before turning to that role (2:14—4:5), however, Paul offers a series of models to 

which Timothy can look for encouragement. The advice,“Take your share of suffering 

as a good soldier of Jesus Christ” (2:3), suggests the first. The soldier, athlete, and 

farmer are all stock examples for exhortation in Hellenistic moral teaching (cf. 1 Cor. 

9:7-27). Paul here emphasizes their attention to duty. The soldier does not get distracted 

by extraneous affairs; the athlete competes by the rules; and the farmer works 

hard. Reward only follows upon this devotion: the soldier pleases his recruiter; the athlete 

receives the crown; and the farmer enjoys the first fruits of the crop (2:3-6). 

Paul saves his most important example till last: “Remember Jesus Christ, risen from 

the dead, descended from David, as preached in my gospel” (2:8). Once again, we see 

here the note of memory. Further, Paul specifies his gospel as “. . . the gospel for which 

I am suffering” (2:9). In fact, Paul endures suffering so that others might attain salvation 

(2:10). The implication is that Jesus likewise suffered and died, “so that life and 

immortality might be brought to light through the gospel” (1:10). Here, then, as in 

chapter 2 of Philippians, Jesus becomes the model par excellence for imitation. So Paul 

reminds Timothy of the “faithful word” (2 Tim. 2:11-13): 

If we have died with him we shall also live with him. If we endure, we shall 

reign with him. If we deny him, he will also deny us. If we are faithless, he 

remains faithful, for he cannot deny himself. 

The first three lines of this apparently traditional saying have perfect internal symmetry: 

as we are toward God, so God will be toward us. Suffering now with Jesus will 

bring glory later with Jesus; endurance will bring rule; denial, denial. But the final line

436 




is a surprise, and in it we find a typical Pauline emphasis: God is faithful despite 

human infidelity. 

As Paul offered the Philippians a series of examples of “life for others” that included 

Jesus and himself (Phil. 2:1—4:3), so here we find the same rhetorical technique. He 

provides Timothy with a series of concrete examples of suffering in the hope of reward: 

Onesiphorus, the soldier, athlete, and farmer; himself; and Jesus who suffered and died. 

The Ideal Teacher (2 Timothy 2:14—4:5) 

Paul fills out the model with maxims, set in a series of antitheses. The attitudes and 

actions of Timothy stand in contrast to those of the false teachers. They are given to 

disputatiousness (2:14) and godless chatter (2:16), which spreads like a gangrenous 

sickness (2:17). They have revolutionary impulses (2:22) and engage in senseless and 

useless quarrels (2:23). They are filled with all manner of vice (3:2-5). The opponents 

are charlatans (3:13) who prey on the uneducated and curious (3:6-7). They are like 

the magicians of Pharaoh’s court who opposed Moses, “men of corrupt mind and 

counterfeit faith” (3:8). Timothy and those he instructs (2:14) are to avoid such practices 

and people (2:14, 16, 22, 23; 3:5). 

In an intriguing rhetorical strategy, Paul uses a spatial imagery throughout this section. 

The opponents are always on the move: they “go from house to house” (3:6); they 

fall away and turn away (2:18); they “stand against” (3:8); and they “advance” (2:16; 

3:13). In contrast, Timothy is to “remain” (3:14) and “stand fast” (3:14; 4:2). Paul is 

using the opponents as a foil to develop the endurance theme for the faithful believer: 

the steadfastness of Timothy is viewed as a response to the “unsteady” behavior of the 

unrighteous. 

The end results will, according to Paul, justify his exhortation: although the opponents 

“make progress,” Paul assures Timothy,“they will not advance” (3:9). Such comfort 

is all the more welcome since the opponents are obviously enjoying considerable 

success. Paul characterizes these as the “last days,” when people will be “lovers of pleasure 

rather than lovers of God” (3:4). And it will only get worse. People will not even 

be willing to listen to sound teaching but will seek charlatans willing to shape their 

teaching to expectations (4:3). The fact that this behavior is indeed taking place in the 

present both confirms Paul’s claim that the “last days” are upon them and encourages 

Timothy to remain firm in the faith: because the end is near, steadfastness and 

endurance in the face of this opposition are all the more urgent. 

Against the tide of indifference and apostasy, Paul can only tell Timothy to remain 

steady, to endure suffering, and to fulfill his ministry (4:5). Timothy cannot cut truth 

to fit the season, but must remain constant (4:2): 

Preach the word; be urgent in season and out of season; convince, rebuke, 

exhort, be unfailing in patience and in teaching.



Timothy can once more look to Paul as a model of such endurance in the face of 

adversity. Paul reminds Timothy (3:10-11): 

You have observed my teaching, my conduct, my aim in life, my patience, my 

love, my steadfastness, my persecutions, my sufferings, what befell me at Antioch, 

at Iconium, and at Lystra, what persecutions I endured; yet from them all 

the Lord rescued me. 

Paul too faced resistance to the truth, and as he held on, so should Timothy. The 

gospel ministry bears with it the necessity of suffering. For a sick world, health is a 

threat: “All who would desire to lead a godly life in Christ will be persecuted” (3:12). 

But as Paul was delivered—“From them all the Lord rescued me” (3:11)—so will Timothy 

be delivered. 

In light of the apparent harshness and success of the opponents’ attack, the advice 

given to Timothy is remarkable. The use of medical imagery was common in the contemporary 

moral literature, so it is not unusual for Paul to contrast “healthy” and 

“sick” teaching. Indeed, this is what gives the polemic against the moral behavior of the 

opponents its force, for the ancients had the correct perception that action does follow 

on perceptions, and bad ideas can lead to bad actions. Philosophers who used such 

language, however, disagreed about the proper medical approach to “sick thought.” 

Some advocated harshness and scorn. They operated like surgeons. Others considered 

gentleness and care to be more useful for healing moral illness. That is the approach 

Paul advocates for Timothy. As Paul had characterized himself as being “as gentle as a 

nurse” (1 Thess. 2:7), so he wants Timothy to be gentle. Even when reproving, he is not 

to engage in harsh quarrels. Indeed, Paul sees such an attitude as opening the possibility 

for the adversaries’ return to the truth (2:24-26): 

The Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kindly to everyone, an apt 

teacher, forbearing, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps 

grant that they will repent and come to know the truth, and may escape 

the snare of the devil. 

In this process there are resources available to the Christian teacher. Timothy can 

look to the education he has received in the faith from his maternal ancestors (1:5; 

3:14). He has in Paul the source of sound teaching (1:13), the example of steadfastness 

in the ministry (3:10), and the model of suffering for the “good news” (3:11; 4:6). And, 

like Paul, he has the guidance of Torah, which he has known from his youth. It 

instructs him “for salvation through faith in Jesus Christ” (3:15). And because it is 

inspired by God, it is (3:16-17) 

profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 

that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

438 




Paul, Model of Suffering in Hope (2 Timothy 4:6-18) 

Paul concludes by again presenting himself as a model for Timothy. Even in prison, 

Paul continues to be opposed (4:14). Despite that, he does not turn from his ministry 

(4:17): 

The Lord stood by me and strengthened me to proclaim the word fully that all 

the Gentiles might hear it. So I was rescued from the lion’s mouth. 

The point for Timothy is clear. He should not be cowardly but imitate the perseverance 

of Paul and take “his share of suffering for the gospel.” He can count on the Lord’s supporting 

him, as well, and must rely on that support, since Paul himself is about to die. 

Paul closes with his own hope, that “Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of 

righteousness which the Lord, the just judge, will award to me on that day,” and 

extends that hope to Timothy as well, “and not only to me, but also to all who have 

loved his appearing” (4:8). 

If this letter is written by Paul, it is evident that he believes his death is near. Moreover, 

the hardship of a lifetime has been brought to bear on his reflection of the ministry. Paul 

is concerned about securing a faithful transmission of his message and ministry to the 

next generation of leadership. Growing division in the church and hostility from without 

are reminders that such a transition will be difficult, achieved only at great personal 

cost to Paul and his delegates. Steadfastness, endurance, and faithfulness therefore take 

on an even more practical urgency. It is these values 2 Timothy seeks to inculcate. It is not 

that Timothy has been unfaithful. Rather, as Paul passes on the torch, he wants to 

“remind” Timothy of the importance of enduring despite suffering and opposition. The 

teacher earnestly desires that his disciples and delegates face suffering the same way he— 

in imitation of Jesus—did. In this way the gospel itself will endure. 

1 Timothy: Life in God’s Household 

First Timothy comes closest to the stereotypical picture of the Pastorals. Elements of a 

personal parenetic letter are present in it: Paul is an example (now of God’s mercy to 

sinners, 1:16), and Timothy is to be a model for the church (4:12). Timothy’s attitudes 

are also contrasted with those of the false teachers (1:3-20; 4:1-16; 6:2b-16, 20-21). The 

letter, however, has less overall literary coherence than 2 Timothy. It gives only the 

merest hint of personal circumstance: Paul left Timothy in Ephesus on his way to 

Macedonia (1:3). He hopes to return soon (3:14) and in the meantime writes instructions 

to his delegate (3:15), 

so that you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, 

which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.



These instructions give 1 Timothy its special character. They deal with prayer (2:1- 

5); the role of women in the liturgical assembly (2:8-15); the qualifications for bishops 

(3:1-7), deacons (3:8-13), and deaconesses (3:11); the care of widows (5:3-16); the 

payment of elders (5:17-19); the resolution of charges against elders (5:19-22); the 

attitudes of slaves (6:1-2); and the rich (6:17-19). The most disconcerting feature of 

1 Timothy is the haphazard way these elements are put together. If one isolated the passages 

concerned with Timothy and the opponents, a letter much like 2 Timothy would 

be the result. If one kept only the prescriptions, the writing would provide the nucleus 

of later “church orders,” albeit with a random and provisional air. And yet, a pattern not 

unlike that found in 2 Timothy emerges: the warnings against false teachers—occurring 

predominantly at the beginning, midpoint, and conclusion of the letter—provide 

a counter-example for the positive instructions on church order. Indeed, the framework 

for Paul’s “rules” on proper ecclesial structure is provided by the false teachers, 

supplying strong notes of urgency and seriousness to the unfolding subject matter. 

The model for this type of letter can be found in the Hellenistic royal correspondence 

known as the mandata principis letters, which are directives issued by rulers to 

their delegates who are governing territories. They were written to officials of a city or 

to specific individual representatives, carrying instructions for the delegate to execute. 

Although technically private correspondence, the directives most often were intended 

for larger audiences (the subject matter naturally dealt with aspects of civic life), and 

in this spirit the letters were sometimes inscribed on monuments for public reading. 

One interesting example—a letter to a newly appointed Egyptian official (PTeub. 

703)—not only lists duties that are to be carried out, but also goes into details of 

expected conduct of the official, including being an exemplary model. This clearly corresponds 

to what we find in 1 Timothy. Overall, the mandata principis letters indicate 

the widespread practice of leaders establishing contact with their delegates and taking 

responsibility for activities occurring in other locales through their designated representatives. 

Paul’s concern for the well-being of the community is thus expressed not to 

the community as a whole or to a local leader but to a delegate who is expected to 

attend to the problematic aspects of a local church’s life. 

A precise reconstruction of the situation in the Ephesian community is difficult. 

On the whole, the letter gives the impression of a relatively mature community, with 

its basic structures firmly in place. As so frequently, however, there is also the problem 

of deviance within the community. The names Hymenaeus and Alexander occur 

here again (1:20), now together (cf. 2 Tim. 2:17; 4:14). We are told little about them, 

except that “by rejecting conscience they have made shipwreck of their faith,” so that 

Paul was forced to hand them over to Satan so that they might turn again to the truth 

(1:19-20; cf. 1 Cor. 5:5; 2 Tim. 2:25). They are, therefore, members of the church who 

appear to have been excommunicated. Otherwise, only “certain people” (tines) are 

mentioned (1:3, 6; 6:21). Timothy is to charge these not to teach other doctrines 

(heterodidaskein; 1:3).

440 




The reference to other doctrines is not clear. Some people want to be considered 

“teachers of the law” (1:7) and are preoccupied with “myths and endless genealogies” 

(1:4). Some “liars whose consciences are seared with a hot iron” are against marriage 

for Christians and advocate dietary restrictions (4:2-3) and possibly other forms of 

asceticism (4:7-8). Some seek money for their teaching (6:5). Paul’s final characterization 

is that they are involved with “godless chatter and contradictions which they have 

falsely called knowledge [gnosis]” (6:20). The traits can be combined and aligned with 

those of opponents in other Pauline writings. When the elements of Pauline slander 

(e.g., the accusation of cupidity) are removed, however, they resemble the sort of elitist 

esoteric groups we so often encounter in the religiosity of the Hellenistic world. 

Several features distinguish 1 Timothy from 2 Timothy on the issue of the false 

teachers. (1) No mention is made in 1 Timothy of their aggressive missionary tactics 

or what effect these might be having. (2) In 1 Timothy they do not appear as teachers 

from the outside, but rather as ambitious and elitist members who were once part— 

or perhaps are still part—of the community itself. (3) In contrast to 2 Timothy, this 

letter does not stress rebuke or correction; rather, these negative characters supply the 

motive and context for Paul’s message for Timothy and the community. (4) On the 

other hand, Paul responds to them with more than polemic: he clarifies the proper 

understanding of those things the opponents are distorting. 

In response to their wishing to be teachers of the law (1:7), Paul specifies the nature 

and function of the law (1:8-10). In response to the forbidding of marriage and food, 

he stresses the essential goodness of creation and its capacity to be sanctified by prayer 

(4:3-5). He counters the claims for physical asceticism with those of “training in godliness” 

(4:7-8). He clarifies exactly what sort of “gain” one can expect from godliness, 

in response to those who sought monetary rewards for their teaching (6:5-10). It is 

very difficult, however, to draw a direct or explicit connection between what is said of, 

or in response to, the troublemakers, and the concrete directives concerning community 

life. Certainly, one can extrapolate from certain emphases to commotions caused 

by divergent teachings: from Paul’s insistence that prayer should be free of disputation, 

his refusal to give women a teaching role (2:8-15), his concern for widows becoming 

gadabouts and gossips (5:13), his warning against the hasty appointment of elders 

(5:22), and his injunctions to slaves to obey believing owners (6:2). But the explicit 

connections are more difficult to establish. 

Regarding its content, 1 Timothy contains allusions to familiar Pauline teaching, 

particularly in the emphasis on God’s salvific will for all humanity (see 1:15-16; 2:3-6; 

4:9-10; 6:13-16). There is a fascinating reference to Paul’s conversion—seen as an 

example of God’s mercy (1:12-16)—plus allusions to the trial and testimony of Jesus 

(2:6; 6:13). There is also this hymnic expression of the “mystery” in 3:16: 

He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated in the Spirit, seen by angels, 

preached among nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.



These elements are dominated, however, by the practical instructions and the context 

of moral exhortation, with its “sound teaching” (1:10; 6:3), “training in godliness” 

(1:4; 4:7), and “good conscience” (1:5, 19; 3:9). 

The Household of God 

First Timothy does not provide a full and satisfying picture of the community structure 

of the Ephesian church. The instructions deal with matters of immediate pertinence 

to the author and his delegate, rather than to the historian’s curiosity. 

The author calls the church the household of God (oikos tou theou; 3:15). In other 

letters, Paul uses the expression “the church in the household of . . .” (cf. Rom. 16:5; 1 

Cor. 16:19; Col. 4:15), although he can also speak metaphorically of community 

members as “household servants” (Rom. 14:4) or “members of a household” (Gal. 

6:10; Eph. 2:19). It is important to note here that the church as intentional community 

is not completely assimilated to the household structure. A distinction is made several 

times between “one’s own household” and the community (1 Tim. 3:4-5, 12; 5:4). In 

fact, the most important function of the household in this letter is to provide an analogy 

for leadership: administrative abilities and leadership skills demonstrated in one 

structure carry implications for another. There is also a distinction—however unclear 

to present-day readers—drawn between the life and responsibilities of individual 

households and the life and responsibility of the church (see 5:4, 8, 16). The church 

imitates the household in many respects, but is not subsumed by it. Since early Christians 

met in houses—within the sphere of the household—such associations were 

inevitable. 

Paul’s directions to Timothy apply to several different spheres of the community’s 

life. Some are directed to the life of individual households and the community members 

living within them. Such are the remarks about slaves belonging to Christian 

masters (6:1-2) and those about rich members of the community who are not to rely 

on their wealth but use it for helping others (6:17-19). Similar is the demand that individual 

children within households provide for widows (5:4, 8, 16) and the banal yet 

pertinent advice on the attitudes that Timothy should display toward diverse age and 

gender groups (5:1-2). There is little dramatic in this advice and nothing implausible. 

The author wants order, propriety, and graciousness in the domestic lives of believers. 

Some—not much—attention is paid to the liturgical life of the community, but 

with a focus different from the instructions concerning the Lord’s Supper and charismatic 

gifts in 1 Corinthians 11–14. Three very specific directives are given. First, 

prayers are to be said for all people, especially rulers (2:1-4). This is certainly unexceptional, 

as is the second instruction, which is that the male members, who pray with 

uplifted arms, should not have anger or quarreling among them (2:8). 

The instructions about women are somewhat more problematic. The contrast 

between luxurious external adornment and the life of internal virtue (2:9-10) is

442 




commonplace in Jewish and Greco-Roman Hellenistic moral teaching. But the prohibition 

against women teaching in the assembly or having authority over men (2:11-12) 

is more difficult to contextualize. The command here lacks something of the tension 

found in 1 Cor. 11:2-16 and 14:34-36. There, the context was one of charismatic worship 

in which women were certainly prophesying and praying. Here, the instruction 

focuses narrowly on the cultural unacceptability of women teaching in public. They 

are to give instruction only in private for their children (2:15, taking “they” as referring 

to “her children”; cf. 2 Tim. 1:5; Titus 2:3). The justification for the prohibition is 

harsh, and the account of the sin of Eve (2:13-14) is sharper than in Paul’s other reference 

to this part of the Genesis story (2 Cor. 11:2-3). 

What we learn overall from these few remarks about worship is that it involves public 

prayer and teaching, and that both of these activities are male prerogatives. As 

much as one may seek a context for this in Diaspora Jewish synagogues, the participation 

of women appears more multifaceted there than what we see here in 1 Timothy, 

and more in line in with what we see in Paul’s other letters. Of course, details are missing 

that might point to specific church problems (cf. 5:3-16) or perhaps even outside 

influences, such as the cult of Artemis, which was popular among women in Ephesus. 

Overall, however, Paul’s message is consistent: order in the household and the church 

is essential for witness to the world. He clearly perceives the issue of female leadership 

as fitting into this in some way. 

The most extended attention is given to the officers of the Ephesian church. The 

office of bishop (episkopos; 3:1-7) and deacon (diakonos; 3:8-10, 12-13) have been 

encountered before, albeit briefly (Phil. 1:1), as have deaconesses (3:11; cf. Rom. 16:1). 

The reference to women deacons is debated, but the repetition of “likewise” with the 

similarity of required behaviors in 3:11 (cf. 3:8) seems to demand that the women of 

3:11 be viewed as parallel to, rather than the wives of, the deacons in 3:8. The existence 

of deaconesses in Ephesus indicates that although teaching was not an allowable activity 

for women, some ministerial roles were open to them. The office of elder (presbyteros; 

5:17-22) is not found in other Pauline letters, although Acts associates elders 

with Pauline churches (14:23) and specifically with Ephesus in 20:17. 

The instructions do not describe job responsibilities but personal qualifications. 

The bishop (or overseer) is obviously an administrator above all, and his position 

demands appropriate capabilities, although the bishop is also expected to be an “apt 

teacher” (3:2). Sound moral qualities and leadership ability are paramount (3:1-7). 

The work of deacons is also such that administrative abilities (proved by the management 

of a household) are desirable (3:12). Because specific cases are raised, we learn a 

little more about elders. Those who “rule well” are to be paid double, “especially those 

who labor in the word and teaching” (5:17). This suggests a board of elders (presbyterion, 

4:14) who perform administrative functions, among whose number some may 

also teach or preach. The other directives concerning elders are a reminder of human 

frailty in every position of authority. Charges can be brought against them and must



be carefully considered (5:19). Timothy may be forced to rebuke an elder publicly— 

seemingly the role of an outside delegate, not of someone in the same community 

(5:20). In the light of these possibilities, Paul gives the sound advice that appointment 

to such positions should not be made with haste (5:22). His concluding injunction is 

classically Pauline: “Keep these rules without favor; do nothing from partiality” (5:21). 

The discussion of widows (5:3-16) is the most problematic for our understanding 

of the Ephesian community structure. The question clearly seems to be who should be 

supported by community funds, for a distinction is made on the basis of support 

available from private families (5:4, 8). The resources of the community as a whole are 

not to be burdened unnecessarily (5:16): the community’s obligation is to help those 

who are “real widows” (5:16). But the discussion becomes more complicated at the 

point of who constitutes a “real” widow. Paul distinguishes between those whose husbands 

have died and those who are truly “left alone and have hoped in God” (5:5). 

Some women whose husbands have died are self-indulgent (5:6)—which means they 

have resources—or are not wholeheartedly committed to the community’s life. If they 

got the chance, they would like to remarry. Some of them are idlers on the community 

dole, meddling and gossiping (5:13) instead of serving the community. Paul’s solution 

would have widows of a marrying age remarry if possible. Only older widows and 

those without other resources (“left alone”) should be enrolled (5:9, 11). But does the 

term “enroll” indicate a special order of widows? Paul complicates the question by 

appearing to provide a list of qualifications as he does for other offices (5:9-10). 

The simplest and best explanation is that the Ephesian church followed the model 

of Diaspora Judaism in providing assistance on a regular and organized basis for the 

needy of the community (cf. Acts 6:1-7). One of the most important tasks of every 

Jewish community was the carrying out of this obligation. It was never easy. The obvious 

categories of those who required aid were the strangers, orphans, and widows. 

Orphans and strangers were easy to identify and relatively easy to provide for. The case 

of widows was always far more ambiguous and difficult. Paul wants Timothy in this 

case to be sure that only the truly needy are cared for by the community as a whole— 

and then only those with no other resources available to them (i.e., their Christian 

families should care for them first). They should be enrolled on a list that would certify 

their qualification for help. In return, they were to give themselves not to their own 

interests but to the service of the community as a whole. 

The community structure at Ephesus according to 1 Timothy is not complicated. It 

resembles what little we know of the structure of Diaspora Jewish synagogues (see 

chap. 3, pp. 74–79). In them, a leader (archisynagogos) and a board of elders (gerousia) 

did administrative work and settled disputes. Their obligations included running the 

community charity efforts, both the raising of funds and their disbursement. They 

were helped in these functions by assistants (chazzan/diakonos) who performed more 

menial tasks in the liturgy and community charity functions. There is nothing in this 

that is not fully compatible with the church in Paul’s lifetime. Moreover, there is

444 




nothing in this letter that approaches a hierarchical, much less a monarchical, order. 

No office is theologized or otherwise legitimated. The community structure is taskoriented 

and practical: it is established to meet the very real needs of the Ephesian 

Christian community. 

The fact, however, that attention is given to these matters implies that there is more 

here than Paul simply detailing the obvious. Rather, as the instructions themselves 

make partially clear, there were problems with elders and with widows. But the need 

may also have come from the disruptions caused by those who, “with ideas in their 

heads,” unsettled others. Certainly, a concern for order and for the good reputation of 

the community with outsiders runs through these instructions, a concern not alien to 

Paul elsewhere. The bishop should not be a recent convert who is easily led astray, thus 

falling into Satan’s trap and giving outsiders a negative view of the church (3:7). The 

bad behavior of would-be widows can make outsiders revile the community (5:14). 

Slaves who refuse to serve their Christian masters will cause the gospel to be defamed 

(6:1). The overall goal is internal stability and external peace—here approached 

through the instructions given to a delegate. This is not much different from what is 

expressed in the most charismatic of Paul’s letters (1 Cor. 14:37-40): 

If anyone thinks that he is a prophet or spiritual, he should acknowledge that 

what I am writing to you is a command of the Lord. If anyone does not recognize 

this, he is not recognized. So, my brethren, earnestly desire to prophesy, 

and do not forbid speaking in tongues. But all things should be done 

decently and in order. 

In 2 Timothy, Paul was concerned with the preservation of his gospel through the 

person of Timothy—Paul’s delegate. In 1 Timothy, the community as a whole is in 

view and Timothy’s function is more critical here: he is the delegate who mediates 

instruction for the well-being of the church. As in Ephesians, the Christian household 

and community are witnesses to the world of “faith and truth” (2:7). But only a community 

that is orderly and harmonious—displaying the best of the values and virtues 

of the larger Greco-Roman culture—can truly be the “household of God.” Indeed, 

only as an orderly “household” can the community stand as a witness among the Gentiles 

to the great mystery in Christ (3:16), with a leadership that will be “pillars and 

supports for the truth.” 

Titus: An Infant Church in the Outpost 

In Titus, the segments that make up the puzzle of the Pastorals are pieced together in 

still another fashion. Unlike 1 Timothy, this letter gives a bit more autobiographical 

information. Paul is apparently in mid-career. His whereabouts are not indicated, but



he expects to winter in Nicopolis (3:12) and anticipates that Titus will return to him 

from his temporary duty in Crete upon Paul’s sending Artemas and Tychichus to 

relieve him (3:12). To fill out this picture, two reasons are given for Paul’s having “left” 

Titus on Crete: Titus is to take care of unfinished business left by Paul, and he is to 

appoint elders in each city (1:5). Much of the letter is taken up with instructions on 

these matters. 

There is nothing in this information that is itself implausible, except that we do not 

know of any Pauline mission in Crete; Acts only mentions Paul’s being there as a prisoner 

on his way to Rome by ship (Acts 27:7-15). And if the Apollos of 3:13 is the same 

as the one in 1 Cor. 3:1-6, it is perhaps a little strange to see him as a helper of Titus 

(though cf. Acts 18:27; 1 Cor. 16:12). Tychichus, of course, we have met before (Acts 

20:4; Col. 4:7; Eph. 6:21; 2 Tim. 4:12). 

While the Letter to Titus bears a close correspondence to 1 Timothy by virtue of its 

being a mandata principis, stylistically it stands between 1 Timothy and 2 Timothy. It 

appears neither distinctively Pauline throughout (as is the case with 2 Timothy) nor 

only remotely Pauline (as is the case with 1 Timothy). Rather, it alternates short sections 

whose Pauline rhythms none would deny (see, e.g., 1:15; 2:11-14; 3:4-7) with 

longer stretches of a seemingly quite different style. In contrast to 2 Timothy, the parenetic 

elements are minimal. Titus is only told (2:7-8): 

Show yourself a model of good deeds and in your teaching show integrity, 

gravity, and sound speech that cannot be censured, so that an opponent may 

be put to shame, having nothing evil to say of us. 

Moreover, much more than in 1 or 2 Timothy, there seems to be a direct relationship 

between the opponents and the instructions concerning “what is defective.” In sum, 

Titus is best understood when considered on its own terms as a genuine piece of correspondence, 

addressing a specific and real situation. 

The Situation of Titus 

Everything in the letter supports the picture (suggested by 1:5) of a new, developing 

community. In 1 Timothy, the church at Ephesus already had bishops, elders, and deacons 

in place. Indeed, the provision could be made that the bishop not be a “recent 

convert” (1 Tim. 3:6), suggesting that the community has been in existence for some 

time. By contrast, in Titus it is stated that the elder or bishop (the transition in 1:5-7 

is not altogether clear) ought to have children who are believers and that these should 

not be “open to the charge of being profligate or insubordinate” (1:6). Presumably 

there were Christian households in the community that could still have children who 

were unconverted, indicating the relatively new growth of Christianity in the region. 

A further clue to the context of this community is offered in the catalog of this bishop’s

446 



qualities, especially those given in addition to the list in 1 Tim. 3:1-7: the bishop is not 

to be “arrogant or quick tempered or violent” (1:7; in the Greek these terms are quite 

strong). 

We are led to wonder about the population among which Christianity is trying to 

strike roots. In the eyes of the author, the populace is unattractive: “Cretans are always 

liars, vicious brutes, lazy gluttons” (1:12). In fact, such a view of the Cretan population 

seems to have enjoyed almost proverbial status in antiquity. The sharpness with which 

the contrast between the Cretans and Christians is developed suggests the social formation 

rhetoric of a newly developing community, which must draw unmistakable 

borders of demarcation between the old life and the new. There may even be some 

hints in this language that the demarcation process is not meeting with full success, 

although the language of incivility ultimately functions as a foil to develop positive 

Christian traits. 

The climate for evangelization is made stormier by opponents who are competing 

for the religious allegiance of the populace. In Titus, these opponents are outsiders, 

evidently Jewish rivals. They are “from the circumcision” (1:10), have “Jewish myths” 

(1:14), are stressing legal observance in some form (1:14), and claim to “know God” 

(1:16). The opponents are seemingly successful, and the degree of their success provides 

an important insight into the emphasis of Titus: “They are upsetting whole 

households by teaching for base gain what they have no right to teach” (1:11). A fragile 

Christian community, therefore, is being threatened not only by the problems 

accompanying recent converts in an apparently unsupportive environment but also by 

the ability of rival Jewish missionaries to persuade the newly converted that they have 

a more attractive vision for being God’s people. 

Here there is no possibility for dialogue. The survival of an infant church is at 

stake. Titus is therefore told by Paul, “They must be silenced” (1:11); and those being 

seduced by the Jewish opponents are to be “rebuked sharply” so that “they may be 

sound in the faith” (1:13). Titus himself is to avoid “stupid controversies, genealogical 

discussions, and quarrels over the law” (3:9). If anyone in the community remains factious, 

that person is to be warned repeatedly, then cut off (3:10). These are serious 

remedies for a tough situation. The bishop, likewise, is not simply to be an apt teacher 

(didaktikos) as in 1 Tim. 3:2. He has a more vigorous task (1:9): 

He must hold firm to the sure word as taught, so that he might be able to give 

instruction in sound doctrine, and also to confute those who contradict it. 

The Teaching of Titus 


It is important to observe that the only specific element of “church order” in Titus is 

the remarks about the bishop. Otherwise, the focus of practical instruction is on the 

household and civic responsibilities of Christians. In 2:1-10, Paul provides a list of atti-



tudes that are appropriate, if somewhat bland, for older men (2:2) and women (2:3), 

younger women (2:4-5) and men (2:6), followed by an exhortation to slaves (2:9-10). 

In 3:1-2, general civic attitudes of submission to authority and basic rules of civility are 

recommended. All of these can be summed up as the doing of good works (kala erga; 

2:14; 3:8, 14) that express the new Christian identity, in contrast to the wicked deeds 

of the opponents (1:16). 

A closer look at the specific instructions raises some interesting questions. Why 

should older women need to be told not to be winebibbers (2:3)? Do their daughters 

really require teaching to “love their husbands and children” (2:4)? Are Christian slaves 

in need of instruction not to pilfer their masters’ goods and not to be stubborn and 

untrustworthy (2:9-10)? Do Christians generally need to be told to seek “honest work” 

and that they should not be revolutionary (3:1-2)? The problem is this: behavior this 

ordinary should fall into the category of “what goes without saying,” but here we find 

basic instructions being given in civility, the rudiments of civilized behavior. Since, as 

we have seen, “households” are being overturned by the success of the Jewish missionaries, 

these instructions are intended—in response—to strengthen the basic familial 

unit of the community by implicitly contrasting Christian behavior with that of the 

opponents: the opponents represent the opposite of the civility that ought to be found 

among members of the Christian household. Through this type of insider-outsider 

distinction, the gospel teaching is given a framework in which it might be able to grow 

securely, closing off the opportunity for further damage by the opponents. In Titus, 

therefore, the gospel itself takes on a civilizing function: it teaches people how to be 

members of society, a nuance often disguised by the English translation of the Greek. 

In this light, we can better understand the two remarkable kerygmatic statements 

in Titus in which the Pauline language is most pronounced. These statements, we 

should note, frame and interpret the concrete directives. In 3:3-7, the author quotes a 

“faithful saying” that takes the form of a before-and-after statement, with the pivotal 

point being people’s baptism as a response to the “good news.” Before, they had shared 

in all the hostile attitudes of their neighbors, passing their days in malice and envy, 

“hated by people and hating one another” (3:3). But they had been given a new identity 

(3:4-7): 

But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he 

saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his 

own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, 

which he poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that 

we might be justified by his grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life. 

Here we see that the qualities of God’s gift—the goodness and kindness and 

mercy—should themselves shape Christian identity, both renewing and regenerating 

it. This statement is followed by the final command, “Insist on these things, that those

448 




who have believed in God might apply themselves to good deeds” (3:8). In short, specific 

forms of Christian behavior ought to follow upon the adoption of this new identity 

given by God. 

The other statement (2:11-14) is found in the middle of the elementary civic 

instruction and is even more illuminating: 

For the grace of God has appeared for the salvation of all, training us to 

renounce irreligion and worldly passions, and to live sober, upright, and godly 

lives in this world, awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our 

great God and savior Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from 

all iniquity and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for 

good deeds. 

The most important word in this passage may well be the first—“For”—which connects 

the specific instructions to their basis: the grace of God itself. But the next most 

important word is surely “training” (paideuousa). For Paul, the grace of God itself has 

an educative function: it trains people toward the goal of becoming human social 

creatures. Here, as elsewhere in Paul, the Christian life involves a transformation from 

the old life to the new. Just as Christians had become “slaves to righteousness” (Rom. 

6:18), so here they are to be “zealous for good works.” In the context of Titus, this takes 

on an even more pragmatic meaning because the community seems still to be in the 

process of formation and stabilization. God’s grace actually becomes a pedagogue for 

the new believers, training them in civic and social duties. 

In a fascinating shift, Christianity here establishes its own distinctive “training,” 

rivaling yet adapting the Greco-Roman pedagogical emphases. The point of all this is 

simple: the Christian household now represents the societal and cultural ideal. This 

serves to reinforce the boundaries that separate the insiders from those “vicious 

brutes” on the outside, which in turn solidifies and cements this community firmly in 

the tradition of the Pauline church. 

In the end, we see why the general populace is portrayed the way it is in Titus. 

Throughout, Paul wants to contrast the life of the believer with the people of the 

world, and he does this by sharpening the distinctions between the two, subtly transposing 

their respective positions vis-à-vis cultural ideals. For Paul, the Christian solution 

is obvious: the gospel itself can provide a rooting in the world and the possibility 

of growth. The grace that comes to people in baptism can change their hearts from 

hostility to civility, and can begin to shape their behavior in ways compatible with their 

new identity. Life together in the social structures of “this world” demands of Christians 

that they leave behind irreligion, worldly passions, and hostility, adopting instead 

sober, godly, and upright patterns of behavior. 

Scholars have often labeled this type of ethic as a “domesticated virtue,” reflecting 

Christian cultural and social adaptation over time. Yet, in Titus, this ethic is much



more that of eschatological witness, as 2:13 makes evident. Here we see the sharpness 

of Paul’s thought elsewhere: the Christian lives on the cusp of the new age and the old 

(2:12-13). Indeed, the admonition for Christian faithfulness rests in these two fundamental 

and widely attested Pauline axioms: Jesus has redeemed his people (2:14) and 

he is coming in glory to establish them eternally (2:13). 

Study Questions 

1. What difference would it make in our understanding of Paul if he did not write these 

letters? In our understanding of the history of the church? 

2. Considering all the New Testament references, what was Paul’s relationship with 

Timothy? 

3. What difference does it make that these letters are addressed to individuals rather 

than congregations? 

4. How does attention to “letter types” help in the interpretation of these compositions? 

5. What role do metaphors of the family and household play in these letters? What 

would account for this? 

Bibliographical Note 

Good summaries of the issues pertaining to authenticity are found in W. G. Kümmel, 

Introduction to the New Testament, trans. H. C. Kee (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1975), 

366–87; and E. E. Ellis,“The Authorship of the Pastorals: A Resume and Assessment of 

Recent Trends,” in his Paul and His Recent Interpreters (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 

1961), 49–57. For the discussion of specific points, see the classic study by P. N. Harrison, 

The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles (London: Oxford Univ. Press, 1921), as well as 

the more recent ones by R. F. Collins, Letters That Paul Did Not Write: The Epistle to the 

Hebrews and the Pauline Pseudepigrapha (Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1988), 88–131; 

L. R. Donelson, Pseudepigraphy and Ethical Argument in the Pastoral Epistles (Tübingen: 

J.C.B. Mohr [Siebeck], 1986); K. Graystone and G. Herdan, “The Authorship of 

the Pastorals in the Light of Statistical Linguistics,” NTS 6 (1959–60): 1–15; and J. D. 

Miller, The Pastoral Letters as Composite Documents (SNTSMS, 93; Cambridge: Cambridge 

Univ. Press, 1997). See also the vocabulary studies by D. Cook, “2 Timothy 

IV.6–8 and the Epistle to the Philippians,” JTS 33 (1982): 168–71; and “The Pastoral

450 




Fragments Reconsidered,” JTS 35 (1984): 120–31. For well-balanced discussions, see C. 

F. D. Moule, “The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles: A Reappraisal,” BJRL (1965): 

430–52; and B. Metzger,“A Reconsideration of Certain Arguments Against the Pauline 

Authorship of the Pastoral Epistles,” Exp Tim 70 (1958): 91ff. The most extensive 

recent attempt to place the Pastorals within the framework of Acts is J. A. T. Robinson, 

Redating the New Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1970), 67–85. The 

Lukan connection is pursued in different ways by S. G. Wilson, Luke and the Pastoral 

Epistles (London: SPCK, 1979); and J. Quinn, “The Last Volume of Luke: The Relation 

of Luke-Acts to the Pastoral Epistles,” in C. H. Talbert (ed.), Perspectives on Luke-Acts 

(Danville, Va.: Assn. of Baptist Professors of Religion, 1978), 62–75. 

The standard view of the pastorals as pseudonymous, second- or third-generation 

productions is found (with variations) in R. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, 

2 vols. (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1955), 2:95–118; J. M. Ford, “A Note on 

Protomontanism in the Pastoral Epistles,” NTS 17 (1976): 338–46; H. von Campenhausen, 

Ecclesiastical Authority and Spiritual Power in the Church of the First Three Centuries, 

trans. J. Baker (Stanford: Stanford Univ. Press, 1969); C. K. Barrett, “Pauline 

Controversies in the Post-Pauline Period,” NTS 20 (1973–74): 229–45; E. Käsemann, 

“Paul and Early Catholicism,” in his New Testament Questions of Today (Philadelphia: 

Fortress Press, 1969), 236–51; and M. C. de Boer,“Images of Paul in the Post-Apostolic 

Church,” CBQ 42 (1980): 359–80. For the argument that the Pastorals responded to 

the threat posed by the egalitarian demands of second-century women, see J. Bassler, 

“The Widow’s Tale: A Fresh Look at 1 Tim. 5:3-16,” JBL 103 (1984): 23–41; and R. D. 

MacDonald, The Legend and the Apostle: The Battle for Paul in Story and Canon 

(Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1983). 

For the structure of the synagogue, see chapter 3. For the effort of organized charity 

in Judaism and the larger Greco-Roman world, see G. Hamel, Poverty and Charity 

in Roman Palestine, First Three Centuries C.E. (Berkeley: Univ. of California Press, 

1990); G. E Moore, Judaism in the First Three Centuries of the Christian Era, 2 vols. 

(New York: Schocken Books, 1971 [1927]), 2:162–79; and B. A. Pearson,“Philanthropy 

in the Greco-Roman World and in Early Christianity,” in his The Emergence of the 

Christian Religion: Essays on Early Christianity (Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity Press Int’l, 

1997), 186–213. On the relationship of early church and synagogue, see especially J. T. 

Burtchaell, From Synagogue to Church: Public Services and Offices in the Earliest Christian 

Communities (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1992). On elders in early 

Christianity and Judaism, see R. A. Campbell, The Elders: Seniority within Earliest 

Christianity (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1994). 

For various aspects of offices in the early church as they relate to the argument of 

this chapter, see B. L. Blackburn, “The Identity of the ‘Women’ in 1 Tim. 3:11,” in C. D. 

Osburn (ed.), Essays on Women in Earliest Christianity: Volume 1 (Joplin, Mo.: College 

Press, 1995), 303–19; J. N. Collins, Diakonia: Reinterpreting the Ancient Sources (New 

York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1990); J. P Meier, “Presbyteros in the Pastoral Epistles,” CBQ



35 (1973): 323–45; B. Reicke, “The Constitution of the Early Church in the Light of 

Jewish Documents,” in K. Stendhal (ed.), The Scrolls and the New Testament (New 

York: Harper & Row, 1957), 143–56; J. Reumann,“Church Office in Paul, Especially in 

Philippians,” in B. H. McLean (ed.), Origins and Method: Towards a New Understanding 

of Judaism and Christianity (JSNTSup, 86; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 

1993), 82–91; J. H. Stiefel, “Women Deacons in 1 Timothy: A Linguistic and Literary 

Look at ‘Women Likewise . . .’,” NTS 41 (1995): 442–57; and B. B. Thurston, The Widows: 

A Women’s Ministry in the Early Church (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989). On 

the relevance of ancient associations and collegia, see J. S. Kloppenborg,“Edwin Hatch, 

Churches and Collegia,” in Origins and Method, 212–38; and B. H. McLean, “The 

Agrippinilla Inscription: Religious Associations and Early Christian Formation,” in 

Origins and Method, 239–70. 

For the example of the parenetic letter, see A. J. Malherbe, Ancient Epistolary Theorists 

(SBLSBS, 19; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), 69, 75. Also see the relevant studies by 

B. Fiore, The Function of Personal Example in the Socratic and Pastoral Epistles (AnB, 

105; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1986); and M. M. Mitchell,“New Testament Envoys 

in the Context of Greco-Roman Diplomatic and Epistolary Conventions: The Example 

of Timothy and Titus,” JBL 111 (1992): 641–62. 

The use of polemic in these letters is examined by R. J. Karris, “The Background 

and Significance of the Polemic of the Pastoral Epistles,” JBL 92 (1973): 549–64; F. H. 

Colson,“Myths and Genealogies—A Note on the Polemic of the Pastoral Epistles,” JTS 

19 (1917–18): 265–71; and L. T. Johnson, “II Timothy and the Polemic Against False 

Teachers: A Re-examination,” JRS 6/7 (1978–79): 1–26, which provides the basic 

framework for the analysis in this chapter. 

On the community context reflected in the Pastorals, see R. M. Kidd, Wealth and 

Beneficence in the Pastoral Epistles: A “Bourgeois” Form of Early Christianity? (SBLDS, 

122; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990); M. Y. MacDonald, The Pauline Churches: A Socio- 

Historical Study of the Institutionalization in the Pauline and Deutero-Pauline Writings 

(SNTSMS, 60; Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1988), 159–234; and D. C. Verner, 

The Household of God: The Social World of the Pastoral Epistles (SBLDS, 71; Chico, 

Calif.: Scholars Press, 1983). Also helpful is H. O. Maier, The Social Setting of the Ministry 

as Reflected in the Writings of Hermas, Clement, and Ignatius (Waterloo, Canada: 

Wilfrid Laurier Univ. Press, 1991). 

For various thematic aspects of the three letters, see J. W. Aageson, “2 Timothy and 

Its Theology,” SBLSP 36 (1997): 692–714; J. A. Allen, “The ‘In Christ’ Formula in the 

Pastoral Epistles,” NTS 10 (1963): 115–21; L. R. Donelson, “Studying Paul: 2 Timothy 

as Remembrance,” SBLSP 36 (1997): 715–31; E. E. Ellis, “Traditions in the Pastoral 

Epistles,” in C. A. Evans and W. F. Stinespring (eds.), Early Jewish and Christian Exegesis 

(Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987), 237–53; G. D. Fee, “Toward a Theology of 2 Timothy—from 

a Pauline Perspective,” SBLSP 36 (1997): 732–49; M. J. Goodwin, “The 

Pauline Background of the Living God as Interpretive Context for 1 Timothy 4.10,”

452 




JSNT 61 (1996): 65–85; R. H. Gundry, “The Form, Meaning, and Background of the 

Hymn Quoted in I Tim 3:16,” in W. Gasque and R. P. Martin (eds.), Apostolic History 

and the Gospel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970), 203–22; A. T. Hanson, Studies in the 

Pastoral Epistles (London: SPCK, 1968); M. J. Harris, “Titus 2:13 and the Deity of 

Christ,” in D. Hagner and M. J. Harris (eds.), Pauline Studies (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 

1980), 262–77; D. Horrell, “Converging Ideologies: Berger and Luckmann and 

the Pastoral Epistles,” JSNT 50 (1993): 85–103; G. W. Knight III, The Faithful Sayings 

in the Pastoral Letters (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979); A. Y. Lau, Manifest in 

Flesh: The Epiphany Christology of the Pastoral Epistles (WUNT, 2.86; J. C. B. Mohr 

[Siebeck], 1996); H. Marshall, “Salvation in the Pastoral Epistles,” in H. Cancik et al. 

(eds.), Geschichte-Tradition-Reflexion, 3 vols. (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1996), 

3:449–69; N. J. McEleny, “The Vice-Lists of the Pastoral Epistles,” CBQ 36 (1974): 

203–19; A. J. Malherbe, “‘In Season and Out of Season:’ 2 Timothy 4:2,” JBL 103 

(1984): 235–43; idem, “Medical Imagery in the Pastorals,” in W. E. March (ed.), Texts 

and Testaments (San Antonio: Trinity Univ. Press, 1980), 19–35; idem, “‘In Season and 

Out of Season’: 2 Timothy 4:2,” JBL 103(1982): 23–41; I. H. Marshall,“Salvation, Grace 

and Works in the Later Writings in the Pauline Corpus,” NTS 42 (1996): 339–58; M. 

Prior, Paul the Letter-Writer and the Second Letter to Timothy (JSNTSup, 23; Sheffield: 

Sheffield Academic Press, 1989); P. H. Towner, The Goal of Our Instruction: The Structure 

of Theology and Ethics in the Pastoral Epistles (JSNTSup, 34; Sheffield: Sheffield 

Academic Press, 1989); and F. Young,“The Pastoral Epistles and the Ethics of Reading,” 

JSNT 45 (1992): 105–20. For a more general treatment, see M. Davies, The Pastoral 

Epistles (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996); and F. Young, The Theology of the 

Pastoral Epistles (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1994). 

For critical commentary, see M. Dibelius and H. Conzelmann, The Pastoral Epistles, 

ed. H. Koester, trans. P. Buttolph and A. Yarbro (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress 

Press, 1972); G. W. Knight III, The Pastoral Epistles (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 

1992); and J. D. Quinn, The Letter to Titus (AB; New York: Doubleday, 1990). For more 

general commentary, see L. T. Johnson, Letter to Paul’s Delegates: 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, 

Titus (Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity Press Int’l, 1996); and J. N. D. Kelly, A Commentary on 

the Pastoral Epistles (HNTC, New York: Harper & Row, 1963).


Augsburg Fortress Publishers



Mosaic zodiac and votive inscriptions in the floor of the synagogue at Hammath Tiberias 

(mid-fourth cent.)

19. Pastoral Letters: 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus - Augsburg Fortress

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?