Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ. 1 Timothy 1:1 The apostle's claim to authority A. Rowland, LL. B. #NAME? I. His OFFICE as being that of "an apostle of Jesus Christ." He often laid stress upon his apostleship, and not with out good reason, for if it had not been recognized he would have been powerless to mould the Churches, which by God's blessing he had been enabled to form. Apostles are still wanted by the world, and Christians ought not to speak either with faltering voice or with apologetic tone. The confidence of the Church must be strengthened before the world will submit to its teaching. II. St. Paul refers here not only to his office as "an apostle of Jesus Christ," but also to THE BASIS ON WHICH HIS APPOINTMENT RESTED — namely, "the commandment of God our Saviour." Nothing could give a man more courage than belief in such a Divine call. It sustained that noble hero, General Gordon, amidst difficulties and perils which made his life an epic poem; indeed, in all ages the men who have had that belief have dared and done the mightiest deeds. Turn over the pages of history, and you will see that the invincible Ironsides — the dauntless pilgrim founders of the new world — the noblest evangelists and fathers of the early Churches, were all victorious because each said to himself, "I am here by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope." And going back farther still in a Church history, we see Jeremiah standing amidst his persecutors like a brazen wall and a defenced city; Daniel defying the wrath of the king, without a sign of brag gadocio, or of any seeming consciousness of his nobility; and Elijah opposing the court, the hierarchy, and the fanatical people — without a tremor, because he looked beyond them all, and spoke of "the Lord God of Israel, before whom I stand." III. Here we may encourage ourselves, as Paul did, by remembering THE GIVER OF THIS OFFICE AND WORK. The expression "God, our Saviour" is frequent in the pastoral epistles, but is only met with elsewhere in Jude's doxology, and in Mary's Magnificat. Probably Paul used it here with a special view to certain false teaching which was springing up in the Christian Church at this period. ( A. Rowland, LL. B. )

Benson Commentary 1 Timothy 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope; 1 Timothy 1:1-2 . Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ — The apostle begins his epistle with asserting his apostolical dignity, not because Timothy was in any doubt concerning it, but to make the Ephesians sensible of the danger they incurred, if they rejected the charges and admonitions which the apostle ordered Timothy to deliver to them. Familiarity is to be set aside where the things of God are concerned. By — Or according to; the commandment — The authoritative appointment; of God our Saviour — So styled in many other places likewise, as being the grand orderer of the whole scheme of our salvation; and Christ our hope — That is, the author, object, and ground of all our hope. To Timothy, my own son — If Timothy was not at first converted by the apostle, (which it is not certain he was from any historical account that has reached us,) yet he might term him his own, or genuine son, because of the parental affection he had for him, the complacency which he found in that assistance which he had received from him in the work of the ministry, in which he had faithfully served him, like a son with his father, ( Php 2:22 ,) and in the filial reverence and affection which this excellent young evangelist expressed to him; not to mention that Timothy had received much establishment in the faith through the apostle. Grace, mercy, and peace — St. Paul wishes grace and peace in his epistles to the churches. To Timothy he adds mercy, the most tender grace toward those who stand in need of it, as indeed all do. The experience of this prepares a man to be a minister of the gospel. 1 Timothy 1:2 Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord. 1 Timothy 1:3 As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine, 1 Timothy 1:3-4 . As I besought thee — ?????????? ?? , I entreated thee. It is observed by Beza, that by using this soft expression the apostle hath left a singular example of modesty, to be imitated by superiors in their behaviour toward their inferiors in the church. When I went into Macedonia, ( Acts 20:1 ,) that thou mightest charge some — Who appeared to be inclined to introduce their own corrupt notions into the church; that they teach no other doctrine — Than I have taught. Let them put nothing in the place of it, add nothing to it. These teachers were probably Judaizers, and members of the church at Ephesus; for with other teachers Timothy could have little influence. In not mentioning the names of these corrupt teachers, the apostle showed great delicacy, hoping that they might still be reclaimed. The same delicacy he had observed in his treatment of the false teacher or teachers at Corinth, and of the incestuous person there. Neither give heed to fables — To fabulous Jewish traditions, so as either to teach or regard them; and endless genealogies — Questions about their genealogies. The apostle does not speak of those recorded in the Scriptures, but of the long intricate pedigrees whereby many of the Jews strove to prove their descent from certain persons: which minister questions — Which lead only to useless and endless controversies; rather than godly edifying — The promotion of holiness, which leads men to God; which is in faith — Which edification is by faith in the great truths of the Scriptures, and in Christ, of whom the Scriptures testify as the Redeemer and Saviour of lost sinners. 1 Timothy 1:4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do . 1 Timothy 1:5 Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned: 1 Timothy 1:5-7 . Now the end — The scope, design, or substance; of the commandment — Or charge, rather, as ?????????? properly signifies, being a noun derived from the verb, translated, that thou mightest charge, 1 Timothy 1:3 . The apostle had desired Timothy to continue at Ephesus, that he might charge some to teach no other doctrine than what had been taught: here he informs him what the scope of his charge to these teachers was to be, namely, that instead of inculcating fables, &c., they should inculcate charity, or love to God and man, proceeding from a pure heart — That is, from a heart purified by the Word and Spirit of God, from the love of sin, the love of the world, and all inordinate self-love, and from all corrupt affections and dispositions; a good conscience — A conscience properly informed concerning sin and duty, thoroughly awakened and sprinkled from evil, or the guilt of sin, by the blood of Jesus, Hebrews 9:14 ; Hebrews 10:22 ; and faith unfeigned — Namely, in the truths and promises of the gospel, and in Christ, in whom those truths and promises are yea and amen. Observe, reader, this faith unfeigned is the root of the other particulars here named. By it, and by it only, we obtain deliverance from the guilt and power of sin, essential to a good conscience; by it our hearts are purified, Acts 15:9 ; 1 Peter 1:22 : and as it always worketh by love, ( Galatians 5:6 ,) by it we obtain the love of God and of all mankind, the source, yea, and essence, of all piety and virtue. Here therefore the apostle asserts that the love which he speaks of, proceeding from the principles here named, is the scope and design of the gospel doctrine, or of the whole Christian institution, as it is indeed also of the moral law, and the writings of the prophets. From which — Love, accompanied with these other particulars; some having swerved — The verb ???????????? , thus rendered, signifies to err from the mark at which a person shoots or aims; and is elegantly used in this place, as ????? , the scope aimed at, was introduced in the preceding verse: have turned aside into vain jangling — Unprofitable disputes and discourses. An affectation of high and extensive knowledge sets a man at the greatest distance from faith, and all proper sense of true experimental religion: and of all vanities none are more vain than dry, empty disputes on the things of God. Desiring to be teachers of the law — Greek, ?????????????? , a word which, in the evangelists, is rendered doctors of the law, of the same import with the Hebrew word rabbis. And though it is not used exactly in that sense here, yet there seems to be some reference to it: understanding neither what they say — The very things they utter; nor whereof they affirm — The subject they speak of, or concerning which they express themselves strongly and confidently, as the words ???? ????? ?????????????? properly signify. 1 Timothy 1:6 From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling; 1 Timothy 1:7 Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm. 1 Timothy 1:8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; 1 Timothy 1:8-11 . We know that the law is good — Answers excellent purposes; if a man use it lawfully — In a proper manner. Even the ceremonial law is good as it points to Christ, and is emblematical of the various branches of salvation that are in and through him; and the moral law is holy, just, and good, resulting from the nature of God and man, and the relations of mankind to him and each other, and of admirable use both to convince men of sin, and to bring them to Christ for justification, as well as to direct such as are justified in the way of holiness. The apostle’s expression, If a man use it lawfully, plainly intimates, as Doddridge observes, “that there were some who abused the law, borrowing a pretence from it to condemn some of the best of men, and to subvert the gospel. And whereas some had represented Paul as an enemy to the law, he here denies and disproves the charge. The design of the Mosaic law was to direct the conduct of those to whom it was given, and to humble them under a sense of their sin. But it could not be intended to save them by a perfect conformity to it, which was ?? ???????? ??? ????? , what the law could not do, Romans 8:3 .” Knowing this — As first necessary in order to the making a right use of the law; that the law is not made for — Greek, ?? ?????? , does not lie against, a righteous man — Who makes it the rule of his conduct, and has it written on his heart, sincerely loving it, and carefully guarding against every violation of it. Not that the righteous so fulfil the law as to answer its high demands in every respect; in that sense, by the deeds of the law shall no flesh living be justified, Romans 3:20 ; Galatians 2:16 ; where see the notes. But Christ having redeemed true believers from that curse and condemnation of the law to which they would otherwise be exposed, through him their love to God and man is graciously accepted as the fulfilling of the law, Romans 13:10 ; Galatians 5:14 ; James 2:8 . But for the lawless — That is, it lies against the lawless; and disobedient — Who, despising or disregarding the authority of the lawgiver, knowingly transgress his commands. Perhaps, as some observe, the expression, ?????? , lies, refers to the custom of having laws written on tables, and hung up or laid in public places, to be read by all, and evidently showing against whom the law lay: see on Colossians 2:14 . Against the ungodly and sinners — Persons destitute of the knowledge and fear, as well as love of God, and notorious transgressors; the unholy — In heart and life; and profane — Violating the name and day of God, and all sacred things, and so treating with contempt or neglect all the commands of the first table: murderers of fathers and of mothers — The apostle proceeds to speak of those who violate the commands of the second table; and first, of those who, instead of honouring their parents, even imbrue their hands in their blood, and so by one act transgress and trample under foot both the fifth and sixth commands: whoremongers — Adulterers, fornicators, and lewd persons of all kinds, who violate the seventh; men-stealers — Who in the grossest sense possible break the eighth; for of all thieves, those who steal human beings are the worst. In comparison of them, highwaymen and house-breakers are innocent! “They who make war for the inhuman purpose of selling the vanquished for slaves, as is the practice of African princes; and they who, like African traders, encourage their unchristian traffic by purchasing that which they know to be thus unjustly acquired, are really men-stealers.” — Macknight. And such are all the nations who legalize or connive at such proceedings. And what shall we say of those who steal children to beg with them, or that they may rob them of their clothes, or for other purposes: or of those who enlist soldiers by lies, tricks, or enticements? Liars, perjured persons — Who violate the ninth commandment; and if there be any other thing — As there are very many; contrary to sound doctrine — ?????????? ?????????? , salutary, or healing doctrine. According to the apostle, therefore, the doctrine which condemns and restrains wicked practices, though ridiculed by some as legal and Pharisaic, is, as far as it goes, salutary doctrine. On the other hand, the doctrine which encourages men to sin, or which makes them easy under it, though represented by some as evangelical, and the sweet doctrine of grace, is unwholesome and pernicious. According to the glorious gospel — Which, far from making void, does indeed establish the law, and that in the most effectual manner. 1 Timothy 1:9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 1 Timothy 1:10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; 1 Timothy 1:11 According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust. 1 Timothy 1:12 And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry; 1 Timothy 1:12-14 . And I thank Christ Jesus — Here thanksgiving, an important branch of divine worship, is addressed to the Lord Jesus; who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful — The meaning is, I thank him for putting me into the ministry, and enabling me to be faithful therein; who was before a blasphemer — Of Christ; a persecutor — Of his church; and injurious — In my behaviour toward it; or rather a reviler, as ???????? may be properly rendered, namely, of his doctrine and people. But I obtained mercy — He does not say, because I was unconditionally elected, but, because I did it ignorantly — Because, though I acted in a very rash, savage, and criminal manner, yet I did not therein contradict the sentiments of my own conscience; in unbelief — Not knowing nor believing that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, or that those whom I persecuted were his servants. Not that his ignorance took away his sin, but it left him capable of mercy, which he would hardly have been, had he acted as he did in contradiction to the conviction of his own mind: for had he knowingly opposed what he apprehended to be truth, (especially truth of such unspeakable importance to the glory of God and the salvation of mankind,) out of regard to his secular interest, he would doubtless have been left to perish under a judicial blindness and hardness of heart. It is probable, as Paul was “then a scholar at Gamaliel’s feet, he might not have been present when any of Christ’s miracles were performed, as Christ spent but little time at Jerusalem. The popular cry was strong against him, and the Pharisees and rulers treated him with so much contempt, and were so full of malignity toward him, and so ready to advance the most slanderous reports to the prejudice of his character, that it is the less to be wondered at that this rash, hot youth was borne down by the torrent. Yet we see how far Paul was from thinking all this, and whatever could be added to it, a sufficient excuse. Instead of insinuating, with some, that the miracle wrought for his conversion to Christianity was a reward for his extraordinary integrity and virtue while a Jewish zealot, he speaks of himself as one of the greatest sinners upon earth, and thereby shows, by the way, how much guilt a man may contract without acting directly contrary to the convictions of his mind, if he has neglected an impartial care in forming his principles of action.” — Doddridge. And the grace of our Lord — Whereby I obtain mercy; was exceeding abundant — ????????????? , super-abounded; with faith — Opposite to my preceding unbelief; and love — Opposite to my blasphemy, persecution, and reviling; which is in Christ Jesus — Which, through his mediation and the influence of his Spirit, was implanted in my heart, thereby giving life and comfort to my profession. 1 Timothy 1:13 Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief. 1 Timothy 1:14 And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. 1 Timothy 1:15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief. 1 Timothy 1:15-16 . This is a faithful saying — A saying not only certainly true, but infinitely momentous, as the same expression evidently signifies 1 Timothy 4:9 ; 2 Timothy 2:11 ; Titus 3:8 ; and worthy of all acceptation — As infallibly true, it is worthy of all credit, and as infinitely important, worthy of being considered, received, and embraced, with all the powers of our souls; that Christ — The Messiah promised; Jesus — The Saviour exhibited; came into the world to save sinners — All sinners without exception, who are willing to be saved in the way of repentance toward God, and faith in him and his gospel. Of whom I am chief — “The apostle did not mean that he was absolutely the greatest of all sinners, but the greatest of those who sinned through ignorance, as is plain from 1 Timothy 1:13 . And he spake in this manner concerning himself, to show the deep sense he had of his sin in reviling Christ, and persecuting his disciples, and that he judged charitably of the sins of other men, and of their extenuations.” Howbeit, for this cause — Among others which were also important; I obtained mercy, that in me first — Or, in me the chief of sinners, as the clause may be rendered; Jesus Christ might show forth all longsuffering — Might exhibit an example thereof to the view of the whole world; for a pattern to them — For the direction and encouragement of those who should afterward believe on him — Even to the remotest ages of time; that is, to teach and encourage them to expect the like mercy upon their believing in him, to the obtaining of eternal life. And it must be acknowledged, that no example could be more proper to encourage the greatest sinners in every age to repent, than the pardon which Christ granted to one who had so furiously persecuted his church. 1 Timothy 1:16 Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting. 1 Timothy 1:17 Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen. 1 Timothy 1:17 . Now unto the King, &c. — A consideration of the great mercy which God had shown him, in not only pardoning him when he was involved in such great guilt, but in making him an example for the comfort of future penitents, causes him to break forth in a rapture of praise and thanksgiving; eternal — Whose existence had no beginning, and shall have no end; immortal — Or incorruptible, as ??????? also signifies; it is however rightly translated immortal, because what is incorruptible is likewise immortal; invisible — To mortal eyes. By this epithet the true God is distinguished from all those heathen deities who were the workmanship of men’s hands, or the creatures of God, such as the luminaries of heaven, and from all those deified heroes and other human beings who had once been visible on earth, and were made the objects of worship after their decease. To the only wise God — Or, to God only wise; that is, originally, independently, essentially, and infinitely; or, to the wise God alone, (for the reason of which rendering see note on Romans 16:27 ,) be honour and glory — That is, let these excellences be more sensibly manifested, more seriously and frequently acknowledged, and sincerely venerated. 1 Timothy 1:18 This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy, according to the prophecies which went before on thee, that thou by them mightest war a good warfare; 1 Timothy 1:18-20 . This charge — To the Judaizers not to teach differently, or this office of the ministry; I commit unto thee — That thou mayest deliver it to the church; according to — Or, being encouraged by; the prophecies which went before on thee — He refers to some special revelations concerning Timothy, that he should be taken into the ministry, and be eminently useful therein; probably these were uttered when he was first received as an evangelist, (see 1 Timothy 4:14 ,) and that by many persons, 1 Timothy 6:12 . That being assured by them that thy calling is from God, and that his grace and blessing will accompany thee, thou mightest war a good warfare — Mightest execute thy office with courage, resolution, and persevering diligence, notwithstanding all opposition and discouragements whatever. Holding fast a true and lively faith — In the gospel and its divine Author; and a good conscience — That is, walking uprightly before God and man, according to the directions of an enlightened and renewed mind; which — Namely, a good conscience; some — ?????????? , having thrust away, or rejected. “It departs unwillingly,” says Bengelius, “it always says; ‘Do not hurt me;’ and they who retain this, do not easily make shipwreck of their faith.” Indeed, none can make shipwreck of faith who never had faith. The persons here spoken of, therefore, were once true believers; yet they fell, not only foully, but finally. For ships once wrecked cannot be afterward saved. “In this metaphorical passage the apostle insinuates that a good conscience is the pilot, who must guide us in our voyage through the stormy sea of this life into the harbour of heaven.” Of whom is Hymeneus and Alexander — Two of the corrupt teachers at Ephesus, whom Timothy was left to oppose; whom I have delivered unto Satan — See on 1 Corinthians 5:5 ; that they may learn not to blaspheme — That by what they suffer they may be, in some measure, restrained from speaking evil of the truths of God. The apostles delivered obstinate offenders to Satan, not only for their own reformation, but to strike terror on others. If the offender, in consequence of this punishment, was afflicted with some bodily disease, it probably was removed on his repentance, or after a time. And even though it continued, some of the offenders may have been so obstinate in their wicked courses, that they did not amend. This seems to have been the case with the two persons here named; “for notwithstanding the apostle, after his departure, punished them by delivering them to Satan, they persevered in spreading their erroneous doctrines, 2 Timothy 2:17 ; 2 Timothy 4:14 . At what time the apostle delivered these persons to Satan does not appear; but from his informing Timothy of it as a thing he did not know, it may be conjectured that the apostle did it after he left Ephesus, and was come into Macedonia, probably immediately before he wrote this epistle. And as it was done without the knowledge or concurrence of the church at Ephesus, it was not the censure called excommunication, but an exercise of miraculous power, which was peculiar to him as an apostle.” — Macknight. 1 Timothy 1:19 Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck: 1 Timothy 1:20 Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme. Benson Commentary on the Old and New Testaments Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com . Used by Permission.

Expositor's Bible Commentary 1 Timothy 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope; , 2 Timothy 1:1 , Titus 1:1 Chapter 1 Introductory THE CHARACTER AND GENUINENESS OF THE PASTORAL EPISTLES.- 1 Timothy 1:1 ; 2 Timothy 1:1 ; Titus 1:1 THE first question which confronts us on entering upon the study of the Pastoral Epistles is that of their authenticity, which of late has been confidently denied. In reading them are we reading the farewell words of the great Apostle to the ministers of Christ? Or are we reading only the well-meant but far less weighty counsels of one who in a later age assumed the name and imitated the style of St. Paul? It seems necessary to devote the first of these expositions to a discussion of this question. The title "Pastoral Epistles" could hardly be improved, but it might easily be misunderstood as implying more than is actually the case. It calls attention to what is the most conspicuous, but by no means the only characteristic in these Epistles. Although the words which most directly signify the pastor’s office, such as "shepherd," "feed," "tend," and "flock," do not occur in these letters and do occur elsewhere in Scripture, yet in no other books in the Bible do we find so many directions respecting the pastoral care of Churches. The title is much less appropriate to 2 Timothy than to the other two Epistles. All three are both pastoral and personal; but while 1 Timothy and Titus are mainly the former, 2 Timothy is mainly the latter. The three taken together stand between the other Epistles of St. Paul and the one to Philemon. Like the latter, they are personal; like the rest, they treat of large questions of Church doctrine, practice, and government, rather than of private and personal matters. Like that to Philemon, they are addressed, not to Churches, but to individuals; yet they are written to them, not as private friends, but as delegates, though not mere delegates, of the Apostle, and as officers of the Church. Moreover, the important Church matters of which they treat are regarded not as in the other Epistles, from the point of view of the congregation or of the Church at large, but rather from that of the overseer or minister. And, as being official rather than private letters, they are evidently intended to be read by other persons besides Timothy and Titus. Among the Epistles which bear the name of St. Paul none have excited so much controversy as these, especially as regards their genuineness. But the controversy is entirely a modern one. It is little or no exaggeration to say that from the first century to the nineteenth no one ever denied or doubted that they were written by St. Paul. It is true that certain heretics of the second century rejected some or all of them. Marcion, and perhaps Basilides, rejected all three. Tatian, while maintaining the Apostolicity of the Epistle to Titus, repudiated those to Timothy. And Origen tills us that some people doubted about 2 Timothy because it contained the name of Jannes and Jambres, which do not occur in the Old Testament. But it is well known that Marcion, in framing his mutilated and meager canon of the Scriptures, did not profess to do so on critical grounds. He rejected everything except an expurgated edition of St. Luke and certain Epistles of St. Paul, -not because he doubted their authenticity, but because he disliked their contents. They did not fit into his system. And the few others who rejected one or more of these Epistles did so in a similar spirit. They did not profess to find that these documents were not properly authenticated, but they were displeased with passages in them. The evidence, therefore, justifies us in asserting that, with some very slight exception in the second century, these three Epistles were, until quite recent times, universally accepted as written by St. Paul. This large fact is greatly emphasized by two considerations. (1) The repudiation of them by Marcion and others directed attention to them. They were evidently not accepted by an oversight, because no one thought anything about them. (2) The evidence respecting the general acceptance of them as St. Paul’s is full and positive, and reaches back to the earliest times. It does not consist merely or mainly in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Tertullian wonders what can have induced Marcion, while accepting the Epistle to Philemon, to reject those to Timothy and Titus: and of course those who repudiated them would have pointed out weak places in their claim to be canonical if such had existed. And even if we do not insist upon the passages in which these Epistles are almost certainly quoted by Clement of Rome (cir. A.D. 95), Ignatius of Antioch (cir. A.D. 112), Polycarp of Smyrna (cir. A.D. 112), and Theophilus of Antioch (cir. A.D. 180), we have direct evidence of a very convincing kind. They are found in the Peshitto, or early Syriac Version, which was made in the second century. They are contained in the Muratorian canon, the date of which may still be placed as not later than A.D. 170. Irenaeus, the disciple of Polycarp, states that "Paul mentions Linus in the Epistle to Timothy," and he quotes Titus 3:10 with the introduction "as Paul also says." Eusebius renders it probable that both Justin Martyr and Hegesippus quoted from 1 Timothy; and he himself places all three Epistles among the universally accepted books, and not among the disputable writings: i.e., he places them with the Gospels, Acts, 1 Peter, 1 John, and the other Epistles of St. Paul, and not with James, 2 Peter 2:1-22 and 3 John, and Jude. In this arrangement he is preceded by Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian, both of whom quote frequently from all three Epistles, sometimes as the words of Scripture, sometimes as of "the Apostle," sometimes as of Paul, sometimes as of the Spirit. Occasionally it is expressly stated that the words quoted are addressed to Timothy or to Titus. It would take us too far a field to examine in detail the various considerations which have induced some eminent critics to set aside this strong array of external evidence and reject one or more of these Epistles. They fall in the main under four heads. (1) The difficulty of finding a place for these letters in the life of St. Paul as given us in the Acts and in his own writings. (2) The large amount of peculiar phraseology not found in any other Pauline Epistles. (3) The Church organization indicated in these letters, which is alleged to be of a later date than St. Paul’s time. (4) The erroneous doctrines and practices attacked, which are also said to be those of a later age. To most of these points we shall have to return on some future occasion: but for the present this much may be asserted with confidence. (1) In the Acts and in the other Epistles of St. Paul the Apostle’s life is left incomplete. There is nothing to forbid us from supposing that the remaining portion amounted to several years, during which these three letters were written. The second Epistle to Timothy in any case has the unique interest of being the last extant utterance of the Apostle St. Paul. (2) The phraseology which is peculiar to each of these Epistles is not greater in amount than the phraseology which is peculiar to the Epistle to the Galatians, which even Baur admits to be of unquestionable genuineness. The peculiar diction which is common to all three Epistles is well accounted for by the peculiarity of the common subject, and by the fact that these letters are separated by several years from even the latest among the other writings of St. Paul. (3, 4) There is good reason for believing that during the lifetime of St. Paul the organization of the Church corresponded to that which is sketched in these letters, and that errors were already in existence such as these letters denounce. Although the controversy is by no means over, two results of it are very generally accepted as practically certain. I. The three Epistles must stand or fall together. It is impossible to accept two, or one, or any portion of one of them, and reject the rest. They must stand or fall with the hypothesis of St. Paul’s second imprisonment. If the Apostle was imprisoned at Rome only once, and was put to death at the end of that imprisonment, then these three letters were not written by him. (1) The Epistles stand or fall together: they are all three genuine, or all three spurious. We must either with the scholars of the Early Church, of the Middle Ages, and of the Renaissance, whether Roman or Protestant, and with a clear majority of modern critics, accept all three letters; or else with Marcion, Basilides, Eichhorn, Bauer, and their followers, reject all three. As Credner himself had to acknowledge, after having at first advocated the theory, it is impossible to follow Tatian in retaining Titus as apostolic, while repudiating the other two as forgeries. Nor have the two scholars who originated the modern controversy found more than one critic of eminence to accept their conclusion that both Titus and 2 Timothy, are genuine, but 1 Timothy not. Yet another suggestion is made by Reuss, that 2 Timothy is unquestionably genuine, while the other two are doubtful. And lastly we have Pfleiderer admitting that 2 Timothy contains at least two sections which have with good reason been recognized as genuine, { 2 Timothy 1:15-18 ; 2 Timothy 4:9-21 } and Renan asking whether the forger of these three Epistles did not possess some authentic letters of St. Paul which he has enshrined in his composition. It will be seen, therefore, that those who impugn the authenticity of the Pastoral Epistles are by no means agreed among themselves. The evidence in some places is so strong, that many of the objectors are compelled to admit that the Epistles are at least in part the work of St. Paul. That is, certain portions, which admit of being severely tested, are found to stand the test, and are passed as genuine, in spite of surrounding difficulties. The rest, which does not admit of such testing, is repudiated on account of the difficulties. No one can reasonably object to the application of whatever tests are available, nor to the demand for explanations of difficulties. But we must not treat what cannot be satisfactorily tested as if it had been tested and found wanting; nor must we refuse to take account of the support which those parts which can be thoroughly sifted lend to those for which no decisive criterion can be found. Still less must we proceed on the assumption that to reject these Epistles or any portion of them is a proceeding which gets rid of difficulties. It is merely an exchange of one set of difficulties for another. To unbiased minds it will perhaps appear that the difficulties involved in the assumption that the Pastoral Epistles are wholly or partly a forgery, are not less serious than those which have been urged against the well-established tradition of their genuineness. The very strong external evidence in their favor has to be accounted for. It is already full, clear, and decided, as soon as we could at all expect to find it, viz., in Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian. And it must be noticed that these witnesses give us the traditional beliefs of several chief centers in Christendom. Irenaeus speaks with full knowledge of what was accepted in Asia Minor, Rome, and Gaul; Clement witnesses for Egypt, and Tertullian for North America. And although the absence of such support would not have caused serious perplexity, their direct evidence is very materially supported by passages closely parallel to the words of the Pastoral Epistles found in writers still earlier than Irenaeus. Renan admits the relationship between 2 Timothy and the Epistle of Clement of Rome, and suggests that each writer has borrowed from a common source. Pfleiderer admits that the Epistle of Ignatius to Polycarp "displays striking points of contact with 2 Timothy." Bauer’s theory, that all three letters are as late as A.D. 150, and are an attack on Marcion, finds little support now. But we are still asked to believe that 2 Timothy was forged in the reign of Trajan (98-117) and the other two Epistles in the reign of Hadrian (117-138). Is it credible that a forgery perpetrated A.D. 120-135 would in less than fifty years be accepted in Asia Minor, Rome, Gaul, Egypt, and North Africa, as a genuine letter of the Apostle St. Paul? And yet this is what must have happened in the case of 1 Timothy, if the hypothesis just stated is correct. Nor is this all: Marcion, as we know, rejected all three of the Pastoral Epistles; and Tertullian cannot think why Marcion should do so. But, when Marcion was framing his canon, about the reign of Hadrian, 2 Timothy, according to these dates, would be scarcely twenty years old, and 1 Timothy would be brand-new. If this had been so, would Marceon, with his intimate knowledge of St. Paul’s writings, have been in ignorance of the fact; and if he had known it, would he have failed to denounce the forgery? Or again, if we assume that he merely treated this group of Epistles with silent contempt, would not his rejection of them, which was well known, have directed attention to them, and caused their recent origin to be quickly discovered? From all which it is manifest that the theory of forgery by no means frees us from grave obstacles. It will be observed that the external evidence is large in amount and overwhelmingly in favor of the Apostolic authorship. The objections are based on internal evidence. But some of the leading opponents admit that even the internal evidence is in favor of certain portions of the Epistles. Let us, then, with Renan, Pfleiderer, and others admit that parts of 2 Timothy were written by St. Paul; then there is strong presumption that the whole letter is by him; for even the suspected portions have the external evidence in their favor, together with the support lent to them by those parts for which the internal evidence is also satisfactory. Add to which the improbability that any one would store up genuine letters of St. Paul for fifty years and then use parts of them to give substance to a fabrication. Or let us with Reuss contend that in 2 Timothy "the whole Epistle is so completely the natural expression of the actual situation of the author, and contains, unsought and for the most part in the form of mere allusions, such a mass of minute and unessential particulars, that, even did the name of the writer not chance to be mentioned at the beginning, it would be easy to discover it." Then there is strong presumption that the other two letters are genuine also; for they have the external evidence on their side, together with the good character reflected upon them by their brother Epistle. This result is of course greatly strengthened, if, quite independently of 2 Timothy, the claims of Titus to be Apostolic are considered to be adequate. With two of the three letters admitted to be genuine, the case for the remaining letter becomes a strong one. It has the powerful external evidence on its side, backed up by the support lent to it by its two more manifestly authentic companions. Thus far, therefore, we may agree with Baur: "The three Epistles are so much alike that none of them can be separated from the others; and from this circumstance the identity of their authorship may be confidently inferred." But when he asserts that whichever of this family of letters be examined will appear as the betrayer of his brethren, he just reverses the truth. Each letter, upon examination, lends support to the other two; "and a threefold cord is not easily broken." The strongest member of the family is 2 Timothy: the external evidence in its favor is ample, and no Epistle in the New Testament is more characteristic of St. Paul. It would be scarcely less reasonable to dispute 2 Corinthians. And if 2 Timothy be admitted, there is no tenable ground for excluding the other two. II. But not only do the three Epistles stand or fall together, they stand or fall with the hypothesis of the release and second imprisonment of the Apostle. The contention that no place can be found for the Pastoral Epistles in the narrative of the Acts is valid; but it is no objection to the authenticity of the Epistles. The conclusion of the Acts implies that the end of St. Paul’s life is not reached in the narrative. "He abode two whole years in his own hired dwelling," implies that after that time a change took place. If that change was his death, how unnatural not to mention it! The conclusion is closely parallel to that of St. Luke’s Gospel; and we might almost as reasonably contend that "they were continually in the temple," proves that they were never "clothed with power from on high," because they were told to "tarry in the city" until they were so clothed, as contend that "abode two whole years in his own hired dwelling," proves that at the end of the two years came the end of St. Paul’s life. Let us grant that the conclusion of the Acts is unexpectedly abrupt, and that this abruptness constitutes a difficulty. Then we have our choice of two alternatives. Either the two years of imprisonment were followed by a period of renewed labor, or they were cut short by the Apostle’s martyrdom. Is it not more easy to believe that the writer did not consider that this new period of work, which would have filled many chapters, fell within the scope of his narrative, than that he omitted so obvious a conclusion as St. Paul’s death, for which a single verse would have sufficed? But let us admit that to assert that St. Paul was released at the end of two years is to maintain a mere hypothesis: yet to assert that he was not released is equally to maintain a mere hypothesis. If we exclude the Pastoral Epistles, Scripture gives no means of deciding the question, and whichever alternative we adopt we are making a conjecture. But which hypothesis has most evidence on its side? Certainly the hypothesis of the release. (1) The Pastoral Epistles, even if not by St. Paul, are by some one who believed that the Apostle did a good deal after the close of the Acts. (2) The famous passage in Clement of Rome (Corinthians 5.) tells that St. Paul "won the noble renown which was the reward of his faith, having taught righteousness unto the whole world, and having reached the furthest bound of the West ( ?? ????? ??? ?????? )." This probably means Spain; and if St. Paul ever went to Spain as he hoped to do, { Romans 15:24 ; Romans 15:28 } it was after the imprisonment narrated in the Acts. Clement gives us the tradition in Rome (cir. A.D. 95). (3) The Muratorian fragment (cir. A.D. 170) mentions the "departure of Paul from the city to Spain." (4) Eusebius ("H.E.," II 22:2) says that at the end of the two years of imprisonment, according to tradition, the Apostle went forth again upon the ministry of preaching, and on a second visit to the city ended his career by martyrdom under Nero; and that during this imprisonment he composed the Second Epistle to Timothy. All this does not amount to proof; but it raises the hypothesis of the release to a high degree of probability. Nothing of this kind can be urged in favor of the counter-hypothesis. To urge the improbability that the labors of these last few years of St. Paul’s life would be left unrecorded is no argument. (1) They are partly recorded in the Pastoral Epistles. (2) The entire labors of most of the Twelve are left unrecorded. Even of St. Paul’s life, whole years are left a blank. How fragmentary the narrative in the Acts must be is proved by the autobiography in 2 Corinthians. That we have very scanty notice of St. Paul’s doings between the two imprisonments does not render the existence of such an interval at all doubtful. The result of this preliminary discussion seems to show that the objections which have been urged against these Epistles are not such as to compel us to doubt that in studying them we are studying the last writings of the Apostle of the Gentiles. If any doubts still survive, a closer examination of the details will, it is hoped, tend to remove rather than to strengthen them. When we have completed our survey, we may be able to add our testimony to those who through many centuries have found these writings a source of Divine guidance, warning, and encouragement, especially in ministerial work. The experience of countless numbers of pastors attests the wisdom of the Church, or in other words the good Providence of God, in causing these Epistles to be included among the sacred Scriptures. "It is an established fact," as Bernhard Weiss rightly points out ("Introduction to the New Testament," vol. 1. p. 410), "that the essential, fundamental features of the Pauline doctrine of salvation are even in their specific expression reproduced in our Epistles with a clearness such as we do not find in any Pauline disciple, excepting perhaps Luke or the Roman Clement." Whoever composed them had at his command, not only St. Paul’s forms of doctrine and expression, but large funds of Apostolic zeal and discretion, such as have proved capable of warming the hearts and guiding the judgments of a long line of successors. Those who are conscious of these effects upon themselves will probably find it easier to believe that they have derived these benefits from the great Apostle himself, rather than from one who, with however good intentions, assumed his name and disguised himself in his mantle. Henceforward, until we find serious reason for doubt, it will be assumed that in these Epistles we have the farewell counsels of none other than St. Paul. 1 Timothy 1:2 Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord. Chapter 2 1 Timothy TIMOTHY THE BELOVED DISCIPLE OF ST. PAUL-HIS LIFE AND CHARACTER.- 1 Timothy 1:2 ; 2 Timothy 1:2 IN the relation of St. Paul to Timothy we have one of those beautiful friendships between an older and a younger man which are commonly so helpful to both. It is in such cases, rather than where the friends are equals in age, that each can be the real complement of the other. Each by his abundance can supply the other’s wants, whereas men of equal age would have common wants and common supplies. In this respect the friendship between St. Paul and Timothy reminds us of that between St. Peter and St. John. In each ease the friend who took the lead was much older than the other; and (what is less in harmony with ordinary experience) in each ease it was the older friend who had the impulse and the enthusiasm, the younger who had the reflectiveness and the reserve. These latter qualities are perhaps less marked in St. Timothy than in St. John, but nevertheless they are there, and they are among the leading traits of his character. St. Paul leans on him while he guides him, and relies upon his thoughtfulness and circumspection in cases requiring firmness, delicacy, and tact. Of the affection with which he regarded Timothy we have evidence in the whole tone of the two letters to him. In the sphere of faith Timothy is his "own true child" (not merely adopted, still less supposititions), and his "beloved child." St. Paul tells the Corinthians that as the best means of making them imitators of himself he has sent unto them "Timothy, who is my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, who shall put you in remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, even as I teach everywhere in every Church." { 1 Corinthians 4:17 } And a few years later he tells the Philippians that he hopes to send Timothy shortly unto them, that he may know how they fare. For he has no one like him, who will have a genuine anxiety about their welfare. The rest care only for their own interests. "But the proof of him ye know, that, as a child a father, so he slaved with me for the Gospel." { 2 Timothy 2:22 } Of all whom he ever converted to the faith Timothy seems to have been to St. Paul the disciple who was most beloved and most trusted. Following the example of the fourth Evangelist, Timothy might have called himself "The disciple whom Paul loved." He shared his spiritual father’s outward labors and most intimate thoughts. He was with him when the Apostle could not or would not have the companionship of others. He was sent on the most delicate and confidential missions. He had charge of the most important congregations. When the Apostle was in his last and almost lonely imprisonment it was Timothy whom he summoned to console him and receive his last injunctions. There is another point in which the beloved disciple of the Pastoral Epistles resembles the beloved disciple of the Fourth Gospel. We are apt to think of both of them as always young. Christian art nearly invariably represents St. John as a man of youthful and almost feminine appearance. And, although in Timothy’s case, painters and sculptors have not done much to influence our imagination, yet the picture which we form for ourselves of him is very similar to that which we commonly receive of St. John. With strange logic this has actually been made an argument against the authenticity of the Pastoral Epistles. Myth, we are told, has given to this Christian Achilles the attributes of eternal youth. Timothy was a lad of about fifteen when St. Paul converted him at Lystra, in or near A.D. 45; and he was probably not yet thirty-five when St. Paul wrote the first Epistle to him. Even if he had been much older there would be nothing surprising in the tone of St. Paul’s letters to him. It is one of the commonest experiences to find elderly parents speaking of their middle-aged children as if they were still boys and girls. This trait, as being so entirely natural, ought to count as a touch beyond the reach of a forger rather than as a circumstance that ought to rouse our suspicions, in the letters of "Paul the aged" to a friend who was thirty years younger than himself. Once more, the notices of Timothy which have come down to us, like those which we have respecting the beloved disciple are very fragmentary; but they form a beautiful and consistent sketch of one whose full portrait we long to possess. Timothy was a native, possibly of Derbe, but more probably of the neighboring town of Lystra, where he was piously brought up in a knowledge of the Jewish Scriptures by his grandmother Lois and his mother Eunice. It was probably during St. Paul’s first visit to Lystra, on his first missionary journey, that he became the boy’s spiritual father, by converting him to the Christian faith. It was at Lystra that the Apostle was stoned by the mob and dragged outside the city as dead: and there is no improbability in the suggestion that, when he recovered consciousness and re-entered the town, it was in the home of Timothy that he found shelter. In any case Lystra was to the Apostle a place of strangely mixed associations; the brutality of the pagan multitude side by side with the tender friendship of the young Timothy. When St. Paul on his next missionary journey again visited Lystra he found Timothy already enjoying a good report among the Christians of that place and of Iconium for his zeal and devotion during the six or seven years which had elapsed since his first visit. Perhaps he had been engaged in missionary work in both places. The voices of the prophets had singled him out as one worthy of bearing office in the Church; and the Apostle, still grieving over the departure of Barnabas with John Mark, recognized in him one who with Silas could fill the double vacancy. The conduct of the Apostle of the Gentiles on this occasion has sometimes excited surprise. Previously to the ordination, Paul, the great proclaimer of the abrogation of the Law by the Gospel, circumcised the young evangelist. The inconsistency is more apparent than real. It was an instance of his becoming "all things to all men" for the salvation of souls, and of his sacrificing his own convictions in matters that were not essential, rather than cause others to offend. Timothy’s father had been a Gentile, and the son, though brought up in his mother’s faith, had never been circumcised. To St. Paul circumcision was a worthless rite. The question was, whether it was a harmless one. This depended upon circumstances. If, as among the Galatians, it caused people to rely upon the Law and neglect the Gospel, it was a superstitious obstacle with which no compromise could be made. But if it was a passport whereby preachers, who would otherwise be excluded, might gain access to Jewish congregations, then it was not only a harmless, but a useful ceremony. In the synagogue Timothy as an uncircumcised Jew would have been an intolerable abomination, and would never have obtained a hearing. To free him from this crippling disadvantage, St. Paul subjected him to a rite which he himself knew to be obsolete. Then followed the ordination, performed with great solemnity by the laying on of the hands of all the elders of the congregation: and the newly ordained Evangelist forthwith set out to accompany Paul and Silas in their labors for the Gospel. Wherever they went they distributed copies of the decrees of the Apostolic Council at Jerusalem, which declared circumcision to be unnecessary for Gentiles. Their true position with regard to circumcision was thus made abundantly evident. For the sake of others they had abstained from availing themselves of the very liberty which they proclaimed. In the Troad they met Luke the beloved physician (as indicated by the sudden use of the first person plural in the Acts), and took him on with them to Philippi. Here probably, as certainly afterwards at Beroea, Timothy was left behind by Paul and Silas to consolidate their work. He rejoined the Apostle at Athens, but was thence sent back on a mission to Thessalonica, and on his return found St. Paul at Corinth. The two Epistles written from Corinth to the Thessalonians are in the joint names of Paul and Timothy. At Corinth, as at Lystra, Iconium, and Philippi, Timothy became prominent for his zeal as an evangelist; and then for about five years we lose sight of him. We may think of him as generally at the side of St. Paul, and as always working with him; but of the details of the work we are ignorant. About A.D. 57 he was sent by St. Paul on a delicate mission to Corinth. This was before 1 Corinthians was written; for in that letter St. Paul states that he has sent Timothy to Corinth, but writes as if he expected that the letter would reach Corinth before him. He charges the Corinthians not to aggravate the young evangelist’s natural timidity, and not to let his youth prejudice them against him. When St. Paul wrote 2 Corinthians from Macedonia later in the year, Timothy was again with him, for his name is coupled with Paul’s: and he is still with him when the Apostle wrote to the Romans from Corinth, for he joins in sending salutations to the Roman Christians. We find him still at St. Paul’s side on his way back to Jerusalem through Philippi, the Troad, Tyre, and Caesarea. And here we once more lose trace of him for some years. We do not know what he was doing during St. Paul’s two years’ imprisonment at Caesarea; but he joined him during the first imprisonment at Rome, for the Epistles to the Philippians, the Colossians, and Philemon are written in the names of Paul and Timothy. From the passage already quoted from Philippians we may conjecture that Timothy went to Philippi and returned again before the Apostle was released. At the close of the Epistle to the Hebrews we read, "Know ye that our brother Timothy hath been set at liberty." It is possible that the imprisonment to which this notice refers was contemporaneous with the first imprisonment of St. Paul, and that it is again referred to in 1 Timothy { 1 Timothy 6:12 } as "the good confession" which he "confessed in the sight of many witnesses." The few additional facts respecting Timothy are given us in the two letters to him. Some time after St. Paul’s release the two were together in Ephesus; and when the Apostle went on into Macedonia he left his companion behind him to warn and exhort certain holders of erroneous doctrine to desist from teaching it. There were tears, on the younger friend’s side at any rate, to which St. Paul alludes at the opening of the Second Epistle; and they were natural enough. The task imposed upon Timothy was no easy one; and after the dangers and sufferings to which the Apostle had been exposed, and which his increasing infirmities continually augmented, it was only too possible that the friends would never meet again. So far as we know, these gloomy apprehensions may have be