The Pastoral Letters

Since about the 18th century, the letters to 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus have been collectively called the “Pastoral Letters.” They had already, in the early centuries of the church, been grouped together as letters to individuals (rather than to churches) that addressed matters of discipline and order in the church. While this grouping may have been natural, it has sometimes led to a diminished appreciation not only of the individuality of each letter, but also of their respective contributions to Pauline theology. Today, more people recognize that the Pastoral Letters must be read in light of the elements that make them each unique as well as those uniting them.

Authorship

The Pastoral Letters belong to the group of nt documents with unidentified origination and authorship. While their authenticity has never been seriously doubted, scholarly opinion holds that the Pastorals are pseudonymous, or attributed to someone besides the actual author. For some time, it was typical to divide the Pauline Letters into the “undisputed” Pauline writings and the “disputed” letters, which acquired a secondary status. In the 21st century, though, the possibility that some of the 13 letters traditionally attributed to Paul were actually written in Paul’s name is less problematic in the church and academy. Letters written in the name of an apostle are deemed useful and authoritative for the contemporary church, just as they were by the church fathers in the early centuries—even though it’s impossible to be certain of their authorship.

Many scholars believe that the letters were written by someone other than Paul who wished to secure the place of Pauline tradition in the later church. This perspective draws on several factors for support. The vocabulary and writing style differ between the Pastorals and the undisputed Pauline letters. Some significant second-century collections of biblical writings, including the earliest collection of Paul’s letters, omit them, and Evidence doesn’t prove that the early fathers knew them. The way the Pastorals engage opponents also differs from the main Pauline Letters. Finally, the church situations and the leadership structures depicted in 1 Timothy and Titus differ from earlier Pauline letters and Acts; and the Christian existence depicted by the author(s) of the disputed letters seems to portray a church that has settled comfortably into the world—lacking the vitality of eschatological expectation that characterizes Paul’s earlier letters. If Pauline theology was under fire like this argument says, one can imagine a Pauline aficionado or student reshaping Paul’s writings so that he might serve as the authority on the gospel. Paul’s letters contain ample evidence to suggest that his missionary activity and teaching were viewed as controversial. The Pastoral Letters, concerned as they are with refuting and correcting false teachers and stabilizing churches in Ephesus and Crete, might be read as defending Paul’s authority even after his direct influence had ended.

This view of the letters’ authorship may be challenged: Arguments about word usage and style depend on unproven assertions about “Paul’s style” and letter-writing process, such as whether he always employed a secretary, wrote on his own, cowrote with mission colleagues, or varied his style to suit theme, audience, and intended recipient. External evidence does, however, affirm that the letters to Timothy and Titus were accepted as Pauline in the early centuries, while others who claimed apostolic authorship were rejected as fakes. When Paul’s letters to churches are compared with the Pastoral Letters, differences in the way opponents were engaged might be explained by these latter letters being written primarily to individuals to validate their roles as Paul’s representatives within the churches of Ephesus and Crete. The so-called “official” structure of the churches was already emerging (Phil 1:1), and Acts’ account of Paul might be read as validating a more developed church organization (Acts 14:23; 20:17, 28). A careful investigation of the concept of Christian existence in the Pastorals reveals a vibrant theology of the life of faith, even if it is expressed differently from Paul’s letters to the churches.

Gaps in our knowledge still exist—for instance, on the mechanics and method of letter writing and the thought processes, debates, and politics leading to “canonization.” These letters are best appreciated as confronting churches linked with the Pauline mission—such as those in Ephesus and on Crete—with a fresh and compelling expression of Paul’s gospel and theology, either at the close of Paul’s historical mission or shortly after.

Context and Background

The dates and settings of the letters depend on their authorship. The letters assume certain situations within the Pauline mission and corpus. Although 1 Timothy and Titus might have been written to aid the coworkers on missions to Ephesus and Crete (and were perhaps located within the scope of Paul’s activity in Asia and Macedonia mentioned in Acts 20:1–4), they are more traditionally placed at the end of Paul’s ministry during the period between Paul’s release from a Roman prison (Acts 28) and his rearrest. Today, it is best to treat the three letters as each addressing a unique time and set of circumstances.

In the case of 1 Timothy, written to assist Timothy in Ephesus at some time after Paul’s last recorded visit to this church (Acts 20:17–38, which predicts upheaval and apostasy), two community leaders (Hymenaeus and Alexander; 1 Tim 1:19–20) had led the church into heresy. The false doctrine is not well defined, but the reference to “myths and endless genealogies” and the descriptor “teachers of the law” (1 Tim 1:4, 7) suggest a Jewish component. Combined with this was possibly a misunderstanding about the times and the resurrection of believers (more clearly seen in 2 Tim 2:18), akin to the confusion associated with 1 Corinthians, which was affecting Christian life and behavior. A strain of spirit-enthusiasm took the shape of ascetic denial—rejection of marriage and of certain foods (1 Tim 4:3). The letter’s focus on the character of leadership and the need to select bishops/elders and deacons with care suggests the apostasy was a product of the false teaching of some elders (1 Tim 3:1–13; 5:17–25).

The Letter to Titus addresses, in a general way, problems associated with the immature churches on the island of Crete. The impression given is of churches not yet well grounded in the apostolic faith, still in need of leadership (Titus 1:5), with the tendency both to absorb unusual elements of Jewish or Judaizing doctrine (Titus 1:14) and to cling to aspects of “Cretan” behavior that were incompatible with the ethical demands of the Christian faith (Titus 1:10–13).

Second Timothy does not name a specific location, but the difficulties linked with Ephesus in 1 Timothy seem to linger (see 2 Tim 2:14–20; 3:1–10), suggesting Timothy’s mission there either was not yet complete or had ended in failure. In any case, Paul, imprisoned and anticipating a death sentence (2 Tim 4:6–18), now instructs Timothy to hand this activity over to others (2 Tim 2:1–2) and make his way to Rome (2 Tim 4:11). The letter as a whole may be framed as a testament, designed to depict Timothy as Paul’s successor, charged with carrying on Paul’s mission.

Purpose and Significance

To some degree, each of the three letters seeks to reinforce a traditional understanding of salvation and the manner of living that is appropriate to life in Christ (1 Tim 1:15; 2:4–6; 2 Tim 1:9–10; 2:8–13; Titus 2:11–14; 3:4–7). Authentic Christian existence (faith and its corresponding outward demonstration in life), in contrast to the lifestyle associated with false teaching, is depicted with the term and concept of “godliness” (1 Tim 2:2; 3:16; 4:7, 8; 6:3, 5, 6, 11; 2 Tim 3:5; Titus 1:1; see the adverb in 2 Tim 3:12; Titus 2:12).

Beyond the term “godliness,” the letters share a distinct vocabulary and key themes, but the author modulated these to address the specific needs of each letter. For example, the letters emphasize the role of both God and Christ as “Savior” (Titus 1:3–4; 3:4, 6; on Christ, see 2 Tim 1:10; on God, see 1 Tim 1:1; 2:3; 4:10; Titus 2:10, 13). In this way, the authorized gospel and traditional understanding of salvation are linked specifically to God/Christ, and a counter-claim is made against false notions both within the world of the Roman Empire (where Caesar was regarded as a god, with salvation as the mode of life under his reign) and the stories that Crete added to this Roman worldview.

Salvation in the present world is then given specific contours through the theme of “epiphany” (“appearance”), a term also used in connection with the emperor, which is applied to describe the second coming of Christ (1 Tim 6:14; 2 Tim 4:1, 8) as well as His past “appearance” on earth (2 Tim 1:10; Titus 2:11; 3:4). By framing the present age with a single word, the claim is made that the historical past “epiphany” introduced salvation, and the future “epiphany” will complete it. Thus the life of salvation between these poles is fully under the influence of “epiphany.” Moreover, salvation and other matters of theology and eschatology are, from the standpoint of human experience, as yet incomplete; exploration into this mystery is linked to the apostolic gospel as opposed to other avenues of speculation.

But while the letters share this feature of theology, their Christologies—or how each depicts Jesus Christ—are different. First Timothy concentrates on the human experience and nature of Jesus (1 Tim 1:15; 2:5–6; 3:16; 6:13–14). Titus, on the other hand, elevates Jesus Christ by making Him cosharer in the title savior (Titus 1:3–4; 3:4, 6) and by expounding a very high Christology in Titus 2:11–14, where Christ’s future “appearance” is defined as the embodiment of divine glory (or where He is possibly described as God). Christology in 2 Timothy assumes another focus altogether, presenting Jesus as the paradigm of suffering and vindication. This is done by a pronounced use of the title “Lord” as compared with the other two letters (16 times; compare 5 times in 1 Tim, none in Titus). It is associated with Jesus in His resurrection: He is the object of the Church’s faith (2 Tim 2:22) and the believer’s source of wisdom (2 Tim 2:7) and Christian identity (2 Tim 2:19, 24; 4:22). It is the Lord who delivers (2 Tim 3:11; 4:17–18), who vindicates His servants (2 Tim 4:8, 14; compare 2 Tim 1:16, 18), and who, as judge, will rule in His eschatological kingdom (2 Tim 4:1, 8, 14). All of this supports the instructions to Timothy to continue on in faithfulness—following both Paul, who is suffering, and Christ, who has suffered and been vindicated.

In addition to reestablishing theological balance in this way, 1 Timothy and Titus are both concerned with orderly oversight in the churches: restoring an older church to its former good order (1 Tim) and forming orderly churches out of newly planted and struggling Christian communities (Titus). First Timothy 3:1–7 and Titus 1:5–9 contain similar instructions about leaders and language. Varying the language between bishop (overseer) and elder (see also 1 Tim 5:17–25), these passages instruct Timothy and Titus in the character and lifestyle that should be evident in church leaders. While gifts such as teaching are mentioned, these instructions’ emphasis on ethics and reputation is noteworthy.

The purpose of 2 Timothy, which shares key concepts and convictions, differs markedly from the other two Pastoral Letters. Often held to be most like an authentic Pauline letter, it is clearly more personal in tone and instruction. This letter envisions Timothy as the successor of the apostle, whose execution is near, and instructs him to overcome fear and struggle and remain true to the apostolic faith.

The Pastoral Letters and the Biblical Narrative as a Whole

Perhaps the best way to understand the Pastoral Letters within the entire biblical narrative of redemption is to regard them as chapters in the Pauline story. Each Pauline letter is a record of the apostle’s engagement with a particular church, and as such, each is unique. Paul presents God’s redemptive interest in His creation and his gospel according to the issues that emerge in each church. First Timothy and Titus are similar in that they contribute two Pauline responses to church situations that are delivered through the mediation of a coworker. In this, they fill in what otherwise might be a gap in the biblical narrative—how Paul’s mission continued through coworkers. These letters also show the Pauline response to two situations that would become typical in the church: that of a church transitioning from its first to its second generation (e.g., Ephesus), and that of a fledgling church needing to decisively break away from negative cultural influences (e.g., Crete). Second Timothy, with its marked differences, is the final chapter of the Pauline story, hinting at how Paul’s mission would continue through his followers and endorsing the unique Pauline mission in the world.

Philip H. Towner

Further Reading:

The Formation of the New Testament

How to Study the Bible

Biblical Theology