Preface to the First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to Timothy.
CLA_1TI.PDF, source PDF p. 3
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL THE
APOSTLE TO TIMOTHY.
IN order to find out who this person was, it will be necessary to consult the Acts of the Apostles, where the first mention is made of him; and by collating what is there said with certain passages in the epistle, we shall find who he was, and the probable time in which the epistle was addressed to him.
Paul and Barnabas, in the course of their first apostolic journey among the Gentiles, came to Lystra, a city of Lycaonia, where they preached the Gospel for some time, and, though persecuted, with considerable success. See Acts 14:5,6. It is very likely that here they converted to the Christian faith a Jewess named Lois, with her daughter Eunice, who had married a Gentile, by whom she had Timothy, and whose father was probably at this time dead; the grandmother, daughter, and son living together. Compare Acts 16:1-3 with 2 Timothy 1:5. It is likely that Timothy was the only child; and it appears that he had been brought up in the fear of God, and carefully instructed in the Jewish religion by means of the Holy Scriptures. Compare 2 Timothy 1:5 with 2 Timothy 3:15. It appears, also, that this young man drank into the apostle’s spirit, became a thorough convert to the Christian faith, and that a very tender intimacy subsisted between St. Paul and him. When the apostle came from Antioch, in Syria, the second time to Lystra, he found Timothy a member of the Church, and so highly reputed and warmly recommended by the Church in that place, that St. Paul took him to be his companion in his travels. Acts 16:1-3. From this place we learn that, although Timothy had been educated in the Jewish faith, he had not been circumcised, because his father, who was a Gentile, would not permit it. When the apostle had determined to take him with him, he found it necessary to have him circumcised, not from any supposition that circumcision was necessary to salvation, but because of the Jews, who would neither have heard him nor the apostle had not this been done: the Gospel testimony they would not have received from Timothy, because a heathen; and they would have considered the apostle in the same light, because he associated with such. See the notes on Acts 16:3. It is pretty evident that Timothy had a special call of God to the work of an evangelist, which the elders of the Church at Lystra knowing, set him solemnly apart to the work by the imposition of hands; 1 Timothy 4:14. And they were particularly led to this by several prophetic declarations relative to him, by which his Divine call was most clearly ascertained. See 1 Timothy 1:18, and 1 Timothy 3:14. Some think that, after this appointment by the elders, the apostle himself laid his hands on him, not for the purpose of his evangelical designation, but that he might receive those extraordinary gifts of the Holy Spirit so necessary in those primitive times to demonstrate the truth of the Gospel. See 2 Timothy 1:6,7. Yet, it is likely that Timothy had not two ordinations; one by the elders of Lystra, and another by the apostle; as it is most probable that St. Paul acted with that πρεσβυτεριον or eldership mentioned 1 Timothy 4:14, among whom, in the imposition of hands, he would undoubtedly act as chief.
Timothy, thus prepared to be the apostle’s fellow labourer in the Gospel, accompanied him and Silas when they visited the Churches of Phrygia, and delivered to them the decrees of the apostles and elders at Jerusalem, freeing the Gentiles from the law of Moses, as a term of salvation. Having gone through these countries, they at length came to Troas, where Luke joined them; as appears from the phraseology of his history, Acts 16:10,11, &c. In Troas a vision appeared to Paul, directing therm to go into Macedonia. Loosing therefore from Troas, they all passed over to Neapolis; and from thence went to Philippi, where they converted many, and planted a Christian Church. From Philippi they went to Thessalonica, leaving Luke at Philippi; as appears from his changing the phraseology of his history at Acts 16:40. We may therefore suppose, that at their departing they committed the converted at Philippi to Luke’s care. In Thessalonica they were opposed by the unbelieving Jews, and obliged to flee to Beræa, whither the Jews from Thessalonica followed them. To elude their rage, Paul, who was most obnoxious to them, departed from Beræa by night to go to Athens, leaving Silas and Timothy at Beræa. At Athens, Timothy came to the apostle and gave him such an account of the afflicted state of the Thessalonian brethren, as induced him to send Timothy back to comfort them. After that Paul preached at Athens, but with so little success that he judged it proper to leave Athens and go forward to Corinth, where Silas and Timothy came to him, and assisted in converting the Corinthians. And when he left Corinth they accompanied him, first to Ephesus, then to Jerusalem, and after that to Antioch, in Syria. Having spent some time in Antioch, Paul set out with Timothy on his third apostolical journey; in which, after visiting all the Churches of Galatia and Phrygia, in the order in which they had been planted, they came to Ephesus the second time, and there abode for a considerable time. In short, from the time Timothy first joined the apostle, as his assistant, he never left him except when sent by him on some special errand. And by his affection, fidelity, and zeal, he so recommended himself to all the disciples, and acquired such authority over them, that Paul inserted his name in the inscription of several of the letters which he wrote to the Churches, to show that their doctrine was one and the same. His esteem and affection for Timothy the apostle expressed still more conspicuously, by writing to him those excellent letters in the canon which bear his name; and which have been of the greatest use to the ministers of the Gospel ever since their publication, by directing them to discharge all the duties of their function in a proper manner.
The date of this epistle has been a subject of much controversy, some assigning it to the year 56, which is the common opinion; and others to 64 or 65. A great balance of probability appears to be in favour of this later date; and it appears to me that the arguments of Drs. Macknight and Paley are decisive in favour of the later date. The former, in his preface, gives a very clear view of the question.
In the third verse of the first chapter of this epistle the apostle says: “As I entreated thee to abide in Ephesus, when going into Macedonia, so do; that thou mayest charge some not to teach differently.” From this it is plain, 1. That Timothy was in Ephesus when the apostle wrote his first letter to him;
2. That he had been left there by the apostle, who at parting with him entreated him to abide at Ephesus; 3. That this happened when Paul was going from Ephesus to Macedonia; and, 4. That he had entreated Timothy to abide in Ephesus, for the purpose of charging some teachers in that Church not to teach differently from the apostles. In the history of the Acts of the Apostles there is no mention of Paul’s going from Ephesus to Macedonia but once; viz. after the riot of Demetrius, Acts 20:1, for which reason Theodoret, among the ancients, and among the moderns, Estius, Baronius, Capellus, Grotius, Lightfoot, Salmasius, Hammond, Witsius, Lardner, Pearson, and others, have given it as their opinion, that the apostle speaks of that journey in his First Epistle to Timothy. Yet, if I am not mistaken, the following circumstance will show their opinion to be ill founded:—
1. When the apostle went from Ephesus to Macedonia, as related Acts 20:1, Timothy was not in Ephesus, having gone from that city into Macedonia with Erastus by the apostle’s direction; Acts 19:22. And in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, which was written after Timothy’s departure from Ephesus, we are informed that he was to go from Macedonia to Corinth. 1 Corinthians 4:17: “I have sent to you Timothy.” 1 Corinthians 16:10,11: “If Timothy be come, take care that he be among you without fear. Send him forward in peace, that he may come to me, for I expect him with the brethren.” But before Timothy returned from Corinth, the apostle left Ephesus and went into Macedonia, where the brethren above mentioned met him, 2 Corinthians 2:12,13, having Timothy in their company; as is plain from his joining the apostle in his Second Epistle to the Corinthians, which all agree was written from Macedonia, immediately after the brethren from Corinth gave the apostle an account of the success of his first letter. Wherefore, since Timothy was not in Ephesus when the apostle left the city after the riot, it could not be the occasion on which the apostle said to him: “As I entreated thee to abide in Ephesus, when going into Macedonia, so do.” But the journey into Macedonia, of which he speaks, must have been some other journey not mentioned in the Acts. To remove this difficulty we are told that Timothy returned from Corinth to the apostle be lore his departure from Ephesus, and that he was left there after the riot; but that something happened, which occasioned him to follow the apostle into Macedonia; that there he joined him in writing his Second Epistle to the Corinthians; and, having finished his business in Macedonia, he returned to Ephesus and abode there, agreeably to the apostle’s request. But as these suppositions are not warranted by the history of the Acts, Timothy’s joining the apostle in his Second Epistle to the Corinthians may still be urged as a proof that he came with the brethren directly from Corinth to Macedonia. Farther, that Timothy did not go from Macedonia to Ephesus after joining the apostle in his Second Epistle to the Corinthians, but returned with him to Corinth to receive the collections, is, I think, plain from Acts 20:4, where he is mentioned as one of those who accompanied Paul from Corinth to Jerusalem with the collections.
2. When the apostle wrote his First Epistle to Timothy, “he hoped to come to him soon,” 1 Timothy 3:14; but from the history of the Acts it is certain that in no letter written to Timothy after the riot, till his first confinement in Rome, could the apostle say that he hoped to come to him soon. He could not say so in any letter written from Troas, the first place he stopped at after leaving Ephesus; for at that time he was going into Macedonia and Achaia to receive the collections for the poor from the Churches in these provinces. Neither could he say so after writing his Second Epistle to the Corinthians from Macedonia; for in that epistle he told the Corinthians he was coming to them with the Macedonian brethren, who were commissioned to attend him in his voyage to Jerusalem, with the collections, 2 Corinthians 9:4, and that he meant to sail directly from Corinth to Judea, 2 Corinthians 1:16. As little could he write to Timothy that he hoped to come to him soon, when he altered his resolution on the occasion of the lying in wait of the Jews, and returned into Macedonia, Acts 20:3. For he was then in such haste to be in Jerusalem on the day of pentecost, that when he came to Miletus, instead of going to Ephesus, he sent for the elders of that Church to come to him, Acts 20:16,17. When he arrived in Judea, he could not write that he hoped to come to Ephesus soon, for he was imprisoned a few days after he went up to Jerusalem; and having continued two years in prison at Cæsarea, he was sent bound to Rome, where likewise being confined, he could not, till towards the conclusion of that confinement, write to Timothy that he hoped to come to him soon. And even then he did not write his First Epistle to Timothy, for Timothy was with him at the conclusion of his confinement, Philippians 2:19,23.
3. From the first epistle we learn that the following were the errors Timothy was left in Ephesus to oppose: 1. Fables invented by the Jewish doctors to recommend the observance of the law of Moses as necessary to salvation. 2. Uncertain genealogies, by which individuals endeavoured to trace their descent from Abraham, in the persuasion that they would be saved, merely because they had Abraham for their father. 3. Intricate questions and strifes about some words in the law; perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, who reckoned that which produced most gain to be the best kind of godliness. 4. Oppositions of knowledge, falsely so named. But these errors had not taken place in the Ephesian Church before the apostle’s departure; for in his charge to the Ephesian elders at Miletus, he foretold that the false teachers were to enter in among them after his departing. Acts 20:29,30: “I know that after my departing, shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things to draw away disciples after them.” The same thing appears from the two epistles which the apostle wrote to the Corinthians; the one from Ephesus before the riot of Demetrius, the other from Macedonia after that event; and from the epistle which he wrote to the Ephesians themselves from Rome, during his confinement there. For in none of these letters is there any notice taken of the above mentioned errors, as subsisting among the Ephesians at the time they were written; which cannot be accounted for on supposition that they were prevalent in Ephesus when the apostle went into Macedonia after the riot. I am therefore of opinion that the first to Timothy, in which the apostle desired him to abide in Ephesus for the purpose of opposing the Judaizers and their errors, could not be written either from Troas or from Macedonia after the riot, as those who contend for the early date of the epistle suppose; but it must have been written some time after the apostle’s release from confinement in Rome, when no doubt he visited the Church at Ephesus, and found the Judaizing teachers there busily employed in spreading their pernicious errors.
4. In the first Epistle to Timothy the same sort of persons, doctrines, and practices, are reprobated, which are condemned in the second. Compare 1 Timothy 4:1-6 with 2 Timothy 3:1-5; and 1 Timothy 6:20 with 2 Timothy 2:14; and 1 Timothy 6:4 with 2 Timothy 2:16. The same commands, instructions, and encouragements are given to Timothy in the first epistle as in the second. Compare 1 Timothy 6:13,14, with 2 Timothy 4:1-5. The same remedies for the corruptions which had taken place among the Ephesians are prescribed in the first epistle as in the second. Compare 1 Timothy 4:14 with 2 Timothy 1:6,7; and as in the second epistle, so in the first, every thing is addressed to Timothy as superintendent both of the teachers and of the laity in the Church at Ephesus; all which, I think, imply that the state of things among the Ephesians was the same when the two epistles were written; consequently that the first epistle was written only a few months before the second, and not long before the apostle’s death.
These arguments appeared so convincing to Pearson, Le Clere, L’Enfant, Cave, Fabricius, Mill, Whitby, and others, that they were unanimously of opinion Timothy was left by the apostle in Ephesus as he went into Macedonia, not after the riot of Demetrius, but after he was released from his first confinement at Rome. And from that circumstance they infer that he did not write his first epistle till some time in the end of the year 64, or in the beginning of 65. I think it was written from Nicopolis. To the late date of this first epistle, there are three plausible objections which must not be overlooked:—
1. It is thought that, if the First Epistle to Timothy was written after the apostle’s release, he could not with any propriety have said to Timothy, 1 Timothy 4:12: “Let no man despise thy youth;” but it is replied: That Servius Tullius, in classing the Roman people, as Aulus Gellius relates, lib. x. c. 28, divided their age into three periods: Childhood he limited to the age of seventeen; youth, from that to forty-six; and old age, from that to the end of life. Now, supposing Timothy to have been eighteen years old, A. D. 50, when he became Paul’s assistant, he would be no more than 32, A. D. 64, two years after the apostle’s release, when it is supposed this epistle was written. Wherefore, being then in the period of life which, by the Greeks as well as the Roman, was considered as youth, the apostle with propriety might say to him, Let no man despise thy youth.
2. When the apostle touched at Miletus, in his voyage to Jerusalem with the collections, the Church at Ephesus had a number of elders, that is, of bishops and deacons, who came to him at Miletus, Acts 20:17. It is therefore asked: What occasion was there in an epistle written after the apostle’s release, to give Timothy directions concerning the ordination of bishops and deacons, in a Church where there were so many elders already? The answer is: The elders who came to the apostle at Miletus in the year 58 may have been too few for the Church at Ephesus, in her increased state, in the year 65. Besides, false teachers had then entered, to oppose whom more bishops and deacons might be needed than were necessary in the year 58; not to mention that some of the first elders having died, others were wanted to supply their places.
3. Because the apostle wrote to Timothy that “he hoped to come to him soon,” 1 Timothy 3:14, it is argued that the letter in which this is said must have been written before the apostle said to the Ephesian elders, Acts 20:25: “I know that ye all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more.” But if, by this, the First Epistle to Timothy is proved to have been written before the apostle’s interview with the elders at Miletus, his Epistles to the Philippians, to the Hebrews, and to Philemon, in which he promised to visit them, must likewise have been written before the interview; in regard, his declaration respected the Philippians, the Hebrews, and Philemon, as well as the Ephesians; for they certainly were persons among whom the apostle had gone preaching the kingdom of God. Yet no commentator ever thought the epistles above mentioned were written to them before the apostle’s interview with the Ephesian elders; on the contrary, it is universally acknowledged that these epistles were written four years after the interview; namely, during the apostle’s first imprisonment at Rome. Wherefore, when he told the Ephesian elders that they, and his other converts, among whom he had gone preaching the kingdom of God, should see his face no more, as it was no point either of faith or practice which he spake, he may well be supposed to have declared nothing but his own opinion, resulting from his fears. He had lately escaped the rage of the Jews, who laid wait for him in Cenchrea to kill him, Acts 20:3. This, with their fury on former occasions, filled him with such anxiety that, in writing to the Romans from Corinth; he requested them “to strive together with him in their prayers that he might be delivered from the unbelieving in Judea;” Romans 15:30,31. Farther, that in his own speech to the Ephesian elders the apostle only declared his own persuasion, dictated by his fears, and not any suggestion of the Spirit, I think plain from what he had said immediately before, Acts 20:22,23: “Behold, I go bound in the spirit to Jerusalem, not knowing the things that shall befall me there: save that the Holy Ghost witnesseth in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions abide me.” Wherefore, although his fears were happily disappointed, and he actually visited the Ephesians after his release; his character as an inspired apostle is not hurt in the least, if, in saying he knew they should see his face no more, he declared, as I have said, his own persuasion only, and no dictate of the Holy Ghost.
Dr. Paley’s arguments are the same in substance; but he does not mention Dr. Macknight, who wrote before him, and whose work he must have seen.
The principal difficulty in this opinion is, that it necessarily implies that St. Paul visited Ephesus after his liberation at Rome; which appears so contrary to what he said to the Ephesian Church, that they should see his face no more. Dr. Paley, however, finds some farther presumptive evidences that the apostle must have visited Ephesus. The Epistles to the Philippians and to Philemon were written while the apostle was a prisoner at Rome; to the former he says: “I trust in the Lord, that I also myself shall come shortly;” and to the latter, who was a Colossian, he gives this direction: “But withal, prepare me also a lodging, for I trust that through your prayers I shall be given unto you.” An inspection of the map will show us that Colosse was a city of Asia Minor, lying eastward, and at no great distance from Ephesus; Philippi was on the other, i.e. the western, side of the Ægean Sea. Now if the apostle executed his purpose, and came to Philemon at Colosse soon after his liberation, it cannot be supposed that he would omit to visit Ephesus, which lay so near it, and where he had spent three years of his ministry. As he was also under a promise to visit the Church at Philippi shortly, if he passed from Colosse to Philippi he could hardly avoid taking Ephesus in his way. See Paley’s Horæ Paulinæ, page 293. This, taken in connection with the preceding arguments, can leave little doubt that the date of this epistle must be referred to a time subsequent to St. Paul’s liberation from Rome, and consequently to the end of the year 64, or the beginning of the year 65.
THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO TIMOTHY.
Chronological Notes relative to this Epistle.
-Year of the Constantinopolitan era of the world, or that used by the Byzantine historians, 5573.
-Year of the Alexandrian era of the world, 5567.
-Year of the Antiochian era of the world, 5557.
-Year of the Julian period, 4775.
-Year of the world, according to Archbishop Usher, 4069.
-Year of the world, according to Eusebius, in his Chronicon, 4293. -Year of the minor Jewish era of the world, or that in common use, 3825. -Year of the Greater Rabbinical era of the world, 4424.
-Year from the Flood, according to Archbishop Usher, and the English Bible, 2413.
-Year of the Cali yuga, or Indian era of the Deluge, 3167. -Year of the era of Iphitus, or since the first commencement of the Olympic games, 1005.
-Year of the era of Nabonassar, king of Babylon, 812.
-Year of the CCXIth Olympiad, 1.
-Year from the building of Rome, according to Fabius Pictor, 812. -Year from the building of Rome, according to Frontinus, 816. -Year from the building of Rome, according to the Fasti Capitolini, 817. -Year from the building of Rome, according to Varro, which was that most generally used, 818.
-Year of the era of the Seleucidæ, 377.
-Year of the Cæsarean era of Antioch, 113.
-Year of the Julian era, 110.
-Year of the Spanish era, 103.
-Year from the birth of Jesus Christ according to Archbishop Usher, 69. -Year of the vulgar era of Christ’s nativity, 65.
-Year of Gessius Florus, governor of the Jews, 1.
-Year of Vologesus, king of the Parthians, 16.
-Year of L. C. Gallus, governor of Syria, 1.
-Year of Matthias, high priest of the Jews, 3.
-Year of the Dionysian period, or Easter Cycle, 66.
-Year of the Grecian Cycle of nineteen years, or Common Golden Number, 9; or the first year after the third embolismic.
-Year of the Jewish Cycle of nineteen years, 6, or the second embolismic. -Year of the Solar Cycle, 18.
-Dominical Letter, it being the first after Bissextile, or Leap Year, F. -Day of the Jewish Passover, according to the Roman computation of time, the VIIth of the ides of April, or in our common mode of reckoning, the seventh of April, which happened in this year on the day after the Jewish Sabbath.
-Easter Sunday, the day after the ides of April, or the XVIIIth of the Calends of May, named by the Jews the 22d of Nisan or Abib; and by Europeans in general, the 14th of April.
-Epact, or the age of the moon on the 22d of March, (the day of the earliest Easter Sunday possible,) 28.
-Epact, according to the present mode of computation, or the moon’s age on New Year’s day, or the Calends of January, 5.
-Monthly Epacts, or the moon’s age on the Calends of each month respectively, (beginning with January,) 5,7,6,7,8,9,10,11,12, 12,14,14. -Number of Direction, or the number of days from the twenty-first of March to the Jewish Passover, 17.
-Year of the reign of Caius Tiberius Claudius Nero. Cæsar, the fifth Roman emperor computing from Augustus Cæsar, 12.
-Roman Consuls, A. Licinius Nerva Silanus, and M. Vestinius Atticus; the latter of whom was succeeded by Anicius Cerealis, on July 1st. Dr. Lardner and others suppose this epistle to have been written in A. D. 56, i.e. nine years earlier than is stated above. See the preceding preface, where this point is largely considered, and also the general observations prefixed to the Acts of the Apostles.
Joseph Benson
Preface
BEN_VOL8.PDF, source PDF p. 383
FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL THE
APOSTLE TO TIMOTHY.
PREFACE
Timothy, or Timotheus, was a native of Lystra, in the Lesser Asia. His father was a Greek, but his grandmother Lois, and his mother Eunice, were pious Jewish women, and trained him up from a child in the knowledge of the Scriptures. When young, and probably by hearing the gospel preached by Paul or Barnabas, he was converted to the Christian faith: and from the time of his conversion made such proficiency in the knowledge of the gospel, and was so remarkable for his piety and zeal in the cause of Christ, that he attracted the esteem of all the brethren in those parts, and was so well spoken of by them, that Paul would have him to accompany him in his journeys through the Gentile countries, and to assist him in his labours of preaching the gospel. And as Timothy, though a Jew, had not been circumcised, by reason that his father was a Gentile, the apostle thought it proper that he should bear that mark of his descent from a Jewess, because without it the Jews would have looked on him as a heathen, and would have despised his instructions. This, and not any opinion that circumcision was necessary to salvation, caused the apostle to propose and Timothy to receive that rite, by which the Jews, from the earliest times, had been distinguished from the rest of mankind. Afterward the presbyters at Lystra, the more strongly to impress Timothy with a sense of the importance of the work he had undertaken, solemnly set him apart to the office of an evangelist, by the laying on of their hands and by prayer. This was followed by the laying on of the apostle’s hands, for the purpose of communicating to Timothy the gifts of the Holy Ghost, 2 Timothy 1:6. Timothy being thus prepared to be the apostle’s fellow-labourer in the gospel, accompanied him and Silas when they visited the churches of Phrygia, and delivered to them the decrees of the apostles and elders at Jerusalem, declaring it unnecessary for the believing Gentiles to be circumcised, and to observe the ceremonial law of Moses. Having gone through these countries, and at length come to Troas, where Luke joined them, they were directed by a vision to go into Macedonia. Loosing, therefore, from Troas, they all passed over to Neapolis, and from thence went to Philippi, where they were instrumental in converting many, and in planting a Christian church. Leaving Luke at Philippi, they proceeded from thence to Thessalonica, where also they made many converts; but, being opposed with great violence by the unbelieving Jews, they were obliged to flee to Berea, whither the Jews from Thessalonica followed them. To elude their rage, Paul, who was most obnoxious to them, departed from Berea by night to go to Athens, leaving Silas and Timothy in Berea. While the apostle remained at Athens, Timothy came to him, and gave him such an account of the afflicted state of the Thessalonian brethren, as induced him to send that evangelist back to comfort them. The apostle, meeting with little success at Athens, did not think it proper to continue there many days, but leaving that city, went forward to Corinth, where Silas and Timothy came to him, and assisted him in the work of preaching the gospel to the Corinthians. And when he left Corinth, they accompanied him first to Ephesus, then to Jerusalem, and after that to Antioch in Syria. Having spent some time in Antioch, Paul set out with Timothy on his third apostolical journey; in which, after visiting all the churches of Galatia and Phrygia, in the order in which they had been planted, they came to Ephesus the second time, and there abode long. In short, from the time Timothy first joined the apostle as his assistant, he never left him, except when sent by him on some special errand. And by his affection, fidelity, and zeal, he so recommended himself to all the disciples, and acquired such authority among them, that Paul inserted his name in the inscription of several of the letters which he wrote to the churches, to show that their doctrine was one and the same.
Timothy, it must be observed, was properly, as was Titus also, an itinerant evangelist; a kind of secondary apostle, whose office was to regulate all things in the churches to which he was sent, and to inspect and reform whatsoever was amiss either in the bishops, deacons, or people. St. Paul had, doubtless, largely instructed him in private conversation for the due execution of so weighty an office. Yet, to fix things more upon his mind, and to give him an opportunity of having recourse to them afterward, as there might be occasion, and of communicating them to others, as also to leave divine directions in writing, for the use of the church and its ministers, in all ages, he sent him this excellent pastoral letter, which contains a great variety of important instructions and advices. With respect to the date of this epistle, learned men have been greatly divided in their opinions. The hypothesis which has prevailed most generally is, that it was written about A.D. 60, when Paul had lately quitted Ephesus, on account of the tumult raised there by Demetrius, and was gone into Macedonia, Acts 20:1. And this has been the opinion of many learned critics, ancient and modern; particularly of Athanasius, Theodoret, Baronius, Ludovic, Capellus, Blondel, Hammond, Grotius, Salmasius, Lightfoot, and Benson. On the other hand, Bishop Pearson endeavours to prove, that it could not be written till between the time of the first and second imprisonment of Paul at Rome, about A.D. 68; which opinion has been embraced by Le Clerc, L’Enfant, Cave, Fabricius, Mill, Whitby, Paley, Macknight, and others. The following arguments, however, in favour of the former hypothesis, do not appear to the author of this work to have yet received a satisfactory answer, and therefore he prefers the ancient opinion.
1. When Paul wrote his first epistle to him, Timothy was a young man, as appears from 1 Timothy 4:12, where the apostle says, “Let no man despise thy youth;” which is also referred to 1 Corinthians 16:10, 11. Now supposing he were only sixteen years of age when converted to Christianity, which is thought to have been in St. Paul’s journey through the Lesser Asia, recorded Acts 14., (see note on Acts 16:1,) he would, in the year 60, be about thirty years of age; but in 68, when the latter hypothesis supposes the epistle was written, he would be thirty-eight, and certainly past the time of youth; thirty being the age at which the Levites were, according to the law, to enter upon their office. 2. The state of things in the church at Ephesus, in A.D. 60, better suits the contents of the first epistle than it does in A.D. 68. For it appears from chap. 1:3-7, and other passages, that those corruptions which the apostle speaks of as greatly increased and risen to a considerable height, when he met the elders of Ephesus at Miletus, and when he wrote his second epistle, were but just beginning to creep into the church at the time of his writing the first. To which it may be added that, from the particular instructions which the apostle gives Timothy about ordination, it seems as if the church at Ephesus, and those in the neighbourhood, had few or no bishops at the time it was written; from whence it appears extremely probable that the meeting between Paul and the elders of Ephesus at Miletus, must have been after the writing of this epistle. But, 3. The argument on which the principal stress hath been laid, in favour of the first hypothesis, is taken from the solemn prophetic declaration which Paul made when he took his leave of the elders of Ephesus at Miletus, in the following words, “I know that ye all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more,” Acts 20:25. From whence it is inferred, that he must have written this epistle to Timothy before that interview, since in it he not only expresses a full expectation of returning, but speaks of his having just left Ephesus when he set out on his journey for Macedonia. The epistle contains three parts: I. The inscription, 1 Timothy 1:1, 2. II. The instruction of Timothy how to behave at Ephesus; wherein, 1. In general, he gives an injunction to deliver to them that taught the law in a wrong manner, and confirms, at the same time, the sum of the gospel, as exemplified in himself, verses 3-20. 2. In particular, he prescribes to men a method of prayer, 1 Timothy 2:1-8; to women, good works and modesty, verses 9-15. He recounts the requisites of a bishop, 1 Timothy 3:1-7; the duties of deacons, verses 8-10; of women, verses 11-13. 3. He shows what Timothy should teach, verse 14; 1 Timothy 4:1- 6; what he should avoid, verses 7-11; what he should follow after, verses 12-16. How he should treat men and women, 1 Timothy 5:1, 2; widows, verses 3-16; elders, 17-19; offenders, 20, 21; himself, 22, 23; those he doubts of, 24, 25; servants, 1 Timothy 6:1, 2. 4. False teachers are reproved, verses 3-10; Timothy is admonished and quickened, 11, 12; precepts are prescribed to be enforced on the rich, 17-19. III. The conclusion, verses 20, 21.
Joseph Sutcliffe
St. Paul’s First Epistle to Timothy.
SUT_VOL5.PDF, source PDF p. 187
ST. PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO
TIMOTHY.
OF the conversion of Timothy, and his call to the work of the ministry, Luke has given an account in Acts 16:1-3. His praise is often repeated in St. Paul’s epistles. He was a native, it would seem, of Lystra. His father was a Greek, and his mother Eunice a jewess, and also his grandmother Lois. Paul however was obliged to circumcise him, because of the strong predilection of the christian jews to the rites of the ancient law. The book of the Acts teaches that Timothy became the companion of Paul in his three great ministerial courses in Asia minor, and among the Greek nations; and that he was left at Ephesus in the last journey St. Paul made into Macedonia. Acts 17:13, 14. 18:5. 19:22. 20:4. Other parts of his life, and his martyrdom, are not regularly reported by any father of the church.
Learned men have spent much time about the date of this epistle; they have weighed every expression, but can arrive at no certainty as to the exact year, there being no authentic chronology concerning the infancy of the church.
Cardinal Baronius fixes the date of this epistle in the year of Christ fifty seven; those who fix it in the year sixty four or sixty five are not aware that Paul travelled five years, says St. Clement to the Corinthians, to the utmost boundaries of the west, and on coming a second time to Rome, received the crown of martyrdom under Nero in the year sixty six. By consequence, archbishop Usher could not fix it later than the year sixty. In Biblia Magna a succession of fathers is quoted, who affirm out of the numerous books of St. Dionysius, that Timothy presided in all about fifty years in Ephesus, and survived St. John by the space of ten years; and that he was martyred by the worshippers of Diana for having opposed their superstition, about the year of Christ one hundred and nine. The parts of this epistle are,
1.An injunction to oppose erroneous doctrine: 1 Timothy 1:3-6. 2.The nature and design of the law, contrasted with the gospel: 1 Timothy 1:7-17.
THE so-called Pastoral Epistles (from their being pastoral instructions from a pastor to a pastor) of Timothy and Titus were received as authentic and canonical by the primitive Church with perfect unanimity. Eusebius, in his catalogue, classifies them among the entirely unquestioned books. They are contained in the Peshito, the Syriac translation, made in the second century; and in the Muratorian catalogue of New Testament books, made about the same time. They are also quoted by name by Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian. They are apparently alluded to by Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and Polycarp.
The only dispute in ancient times came from the semi-christian Gnostics outside the Church, who found their own heresies therein predicted and portrayed with an unwelcome clearness and accuracy. In modern times, also, the question comes from a semi-christian class of scholars, occupying a position in relation to the Church quite analogous to the old Gnostic, such as Baur and Renan. The criticisms of such men have had the beneficial effect to call forth very thorough investigations by Christian scholars, and very conclusive answers. It is essentially a past discussion. There is nothing in the formidable array of hostile criticism that need disturb our calmest faith. Our limits do not admit a review of the grounds, which may be amply found in the pages of Alford, Dr. Gloag, and Fairbairn on the Pastoral Epistles.
TIME OF WRITING.
The entire authority of the ancient writers affirms that St. Paul was twice imprisoned at Rome, and that his second imprisonment was closed by martyrdom. If this be true, we have no difficulty in fixing the approximate time of the writing of Second Timothy; for 4:6-8 shows that it was but a brief period previous to his martyrdom, which, according to the best authors, took place about A.D. 68. And the similar character of the three Pastoral Epistles indicates that First Timothy and Titus could not have been written much earlier than Second Timothy. The fact of this second imprisonment is mentioned or implied by Clement of Rome, by the Muratorian document, and by Eusebius. St. Paul himself, writing during his first imprisonment, Philippians 1:26, and Philemon 1:22, implies an expectation of an early release; whereas the second epistle to Timothy anticipates an early execution.
A number of able Christian scholars have endeavoured to show that this second imprisonment is superfluous, and that all the demands of the Pastoral Epistles may be brought within the period of the first. Their learning and ingenuity are hardly crowned with success. Very few English or American writers have endorsed the theory. Our limits permit only general statements of the reasons. 1. The unanimous voice of antiquity, affirming the second imprisonment, lays upon their theory a heavy burden of disproof. The obvious meaning of the testimony of Clement of Rome, (some years a contemporary of Paul,) though subjected to very ingenious criticism, proves a second imprisonment. So also the Muratorian fragment. The testimony of Eusebius is, that such was the uncontradicted account, logos, of the Church in his day. 2. The state of the Church and spirit of the times implied in these epistles indicates a later age, and places them obviously in the later group of epistles, with First and Second Peter, and John and Jude. Heresies seem to have attained an advancing development, and the polity of the Church has crystallized into its fixed forms. 3. There are many passages expressing facts, or a state of things for which no room can be found in the life of Paul previous to or during his first imprisonment. See notes on 1 Timothy 1:3; 2 Timothy 4:13, 20. The apostle’s history, after his first imprisonment, as conjecturally gathered from his epistles, Dr. Gloag thus summarizes from Howson: “Immediately on his liberation, Paul left Rome by the usual route, crossing the Adriatic from Brundusium to Dyrrachium, and then by the Egnatian road to Philippi, (Philippians 2:24;) he then journeyed to Proconsular Asia, and visited Colosse, (Philemon 1:22,) Laodicea, and Ephesus. From Ephesus he undertook his long-premeditated journey to Spain, where he remained two years, returning in A.D. 66. Departing again from Ephesus, he went to Macedonia, (1 Timothy 1:3,) where he wrote the first Epistle to Timothy. From that he went to Crete, (Titus 1:5,) returned to Ephesus, and wrote the Epistle to Titus. Leaving Ephesus for the last time, he journeyed by Miletum, where Trophimus was left sick, (2 Timothy 4:20,) by Troas, where he left his parchments, (2 Timothy 4:13,) and by Corinth, where Erastus remained behind, (2 Timothy 4:20,) to Nicopolis in Epirus, where he remained to winter. (Titus 3:12.) Here it is supposed that he was arrested and sent for trial to Rome, where he wrote the Second Epistle to Timothy.” In regard to his martyrdom see note, Acts 28:30.
TIMOTHY.
Early in his second missionary tour St. Paul found at Lystra a young man, converted probably on his former visit, who was “well reported of by the brethren.” His father was a Greek; but his mother, Eunice, and his grandmother, Lois, had been pious Jewesses, and were now faithful Christians. This youth, Timothy, he adopted as his young attendant, in place of John Mark; as he had Silas as coequal minister in the place of Barnabas. Timothy attended him, thence, into Europe. His youth and subordinate position exempted him apparently from the sufferings of Paul and Silas at Philippi, as well as from being even mentioned by Luke in the narrative. Yet when Paul departed from Berea to Athens, Timothy was by him sent back to Thessalonica. When Paul passed on from Athens to Corinth he was rejoined by Timothy there. So rapidly had Timothy matured in the holy ministry that St. Paul joins his name with that of himself and Sylvanus in both his epistles to the Thessalonians. This may be considered as the close of the first period of his life, which we may call his novitiate. In his second, which we may perhaps call his presbyterial, period, we find him at Ephesus, (whither Paul passed from Corinth,) where he was doubtless Paul’s coadjutor during his long ministry in founding the Ephesian Church. When at its close the apostle projected another tour into Greece, he sent Timothy and Erastus, as his harbingers, into Macedonia and Corinth. When Paul himself had arrived at Macedonia, we find Timothy with him, his name being associated in the greeting in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians. He was Paul’s co-labourer at the next brief stay at Corinth; and we trace him as Paul’s co-traveller from Corinth back through Macedonia into Asia, as far as Troas.
For a period of two years, during which Paul’s arrest at Jerusalem and confinement at Cesarea take place, we find no mention of Timothy. But his loyalty to Christianity and to St. Paul is amply attested. In three of those voices from the Roman prison, namely, the epistles to Philippi, Colosse, and Philemon, Timothy’s name is found added to Paul’s in the opening address. From his prison Paul writes to Philippi that he hopes soon to send
Plan of the Epistle.
WHD_CO13.PDF, source PDF p. 573
Timothy to them, “for,” says he, “I have no man likeminded.” Titus we are authorized by Paul to place Timothy highest in his estimation among all by whom he was attended.
The third may conveniently be called his episcopal period, in which he is placed by the apostle as presbyter-president over the Church at Ephesus. Somewhere about this time it was that he suffered imprisonment and was set at liberty. To him was addressed by Paul a first epistle, containing a most solemn charge, enjoining faithfulness and various directions as to method in the discharge of his responsible office. Finally, a second epistle contains the apostle’s dying charge, with an earnest request that Timothy would hasten to visit him in the loneliness of his prison. No record informs us whether he accomplished that visit. Eusebius tells us that “Timothy is historically narrated to have first received the episcopate in the Church at Ephesus.” But whether he has any other authority for that statement than these two epistles is more than we know.
We know Timothy only during his youth and earlier manhood, and while he was under the direction of the most eminent of the apostles. The high demands of that apostle he met and satisfied with unparalleled success. The apostle’s love and confidence in him seemed to increase to the last moment. Aged Luke and youthful Timothy were his final reliance. Our young evangelist seemed to unite the most perfect obedience to his superior with a marked executive ability in managing the interests placed under his charge. In youth he manifested the discreetness of maturity; in spite of nervous diffidence he possessed administrative firmness. Unselfishness, purity, abstinence, were the traits of his piety. Yet such, through the whole period of our acquaintance with him, is his subordinate position, that we are left in doubt whether he did not succeed best under a director; and whether he was not, (in words applied by Wendell Phillips to a very different character,) “a first-rate second-rate man.” PLAN OF THE EPISTLE.
Adam Clarke
Preface to the First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to Timothy.
CLA_1TI.PDF, source PDF p. 3
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL THE
APOSTLE TO TIMOTHY.
IN order to find out who this person was, it will be necessary to consult the Acts of the Apostles, where the first mention is made of him; and by collating what is there said with certain passages in the epistle, we shall find who he was, and the probable time in which the epistle was addressed to him.
Paul and Barnabas, in the course of their first apostolic journey among the Gentiles, came to Lystra, a city of Lycaonia, where they preached the Gospel for some time, and, though persecuted, with considerable success. See Acts 14:5,6. It is very likely that here they converted to the Christian faith a Jewess named Lois, with her daughter Eunice, who had married a Gentile, by whom she had Timothy, and whose father was probably at this time dead; the grandmother, daughter, and son living together. Compare Acts 16:1-3 with 2 Timothy 1:5. It is likely that Timothy was the only child; and it appears that he had been brought up in the fear of God, and carefully instructed in the Jewish religion by means of the Holy Scriptures. Compare 2 Timothy 1:5 with 2 Timothy 3:15. It appears, also, that this young man drank into the apostle’s spirit, became a thorough convert to the Christian faith, and that a very tender intimacy subsisted between St. Paul and him. When the apostle came from Antioch, in Syria, the second time to Lystra, he found Timothy a member of the Church, and so highly reputed and warmly recommended by the Church in that place, that St. Paul took him to be his companion in his travels. Acts 16:1-3. From this place we learn that, although Timothy had been educated in the Jewish faith, he had not been circumcised, because his father, who was a Gentile, would not permit it. When the apostle had determined to take him with him, he found it necessary to have him circumcised, not from any supposition that circumcision was necessary to salvation, but because of the Jews, who would neither have heard him nor the apostle had not this been done: the Gospel testimony they would not have received from Timothy, because a heathen; and they would have considered the apostle in the same light, because he associated with such. See the notes on Acts 16:3. It is pretty evident that Timothy had a special call of God to the work of an evangelist, which the elders of the Church at Lystra knowing, set him solemnly apart to the work by the imposition of hands; 1 Timothy 4:14. And they were particularly led to this by several prophetic declarations relative to him, by which his Divine call was most clearly ascertained. See 1 Timothy 1:18, and 1 Timothy 3:14. Some think that, after this appointment by the elders, the apostle himself laid his hands on him, not for the purpose of his evangelical designation, but that he might receive those extraordinary gifts of the Holy Spirit so necessary in those primitive times to demonstrate the truth of the Gospel. See 2 Timothy 1:6,7. Yet, it is likely that Timothy had not two ordinations; one by the elders of Lystra, and another by the apostle; as it is most probable that St. Paul acted with that πρεσβυτεριον or eldership mentioned 1 Timothy 4:14, among whom, in the imposition of hands, he would undoubtedly act as chief.
Timothy, thus prepared to be the apostle’s fellow labourer in the Gospel, accompanied him and Silas when they visited the Churches of Phrygia, and delivered to them the decrees of the apostles and elders at Jerusalem, freeing the Gentiles from the law of Moses, as a term of salvation. Having gone through these countries, they at length came to Troas, where Luke joined them; as appears from the phraseology of his history, Acts 16:10,11, &c. In Troas a vision appeared to Paul, directing therm to go into Macedonia. Loosing therefore from Troas, they all passed over to Neapolis; and from thence went to Philippi, where they converted many, and planted a Christian Church. From Philippi they went to Thessalonica, leaving Luke at Philippi; as appears from his changing the phraseology of his history at Acts 16:40. We may therefore suppose, that at their departing they committed the converted at Philippi to Luke’s care. In Thessalonica they were opposed by the unbelieving Jews, and obliged to flee to Beræa, whither the Jews from Thessalonica followed them. To elude their rage, Paul, who was most obnoxious to them, departed from Beræa by night to go to Athens, leaving Silas and Timothy at Beræa. At Athens, Timothy came to the apostle and gave him such an account of the afflicted state of the Thessalonian brethren, as induced him to send Timothy back to comfort them. After that Paul preached at Athens, but with so little success that he judged it proper to leave Athens and go forward to Corinth, where Silas and Timothy came to him, and assisted in converting the Corinthians. And when he left Corinth they accompanied him, first to Ephesus, then to Jerusalem, and after that to Antioch, in Syria. Having spent some time in Antioch, Paul set out with Timothy on his third apostolical journey; in which, after visiting all the Churches of Galatia and Phrygia, in the order in which they had been planted, they came to Ephesus the second time, and there abode for a considerable time. In short, from the time Timothy first joined the apostle, as his assistant, he never left him except when sent by him on some special errand. And by his affection, fidelity, and zeal, he so recommended himself to all the disciples, and acquired such authority over them, that Paul inserted his name in the inscription of several of the letters which he wrote to the Churches, to show that their doctrine was one and the same. His esteem and affection for Timothy the apostle expressed still more conspicuously, by writing to him those excellent letters in the canon which bear his name; and which have been of the greatest use to the ministers of the Gospel ever since their publication, by directing them to discharge all the duties of their function in a proper manner.
The date of this epistle has been a subject of much controversy, some assigning it to the year 56, which is the common opinion; and others to 64 or 65. A great balance of probability appears to be in favour of this later date; and it appears to me that the arguments of Drs. Macknight and Paley are decisive in favour of the later date. The former, in his preface, gives a very clear view of the question.
In the third verse of the first chapter of this epistle the apostle says: “As I entreated thee to abide in Ephesus, when going into Macedonia, so do; that thou mayest charge some not to teach differently.” From this it is plain, 1. That Timothy was in Ephesus when the apostle wrote his first letter to him;
2. That he had been left there by the apostle, who at parting with him entreated him to abide at Ephesus; 3. That this happened when Paul was going from Ephesus to Macedonia; and, 4. That he had entreated Timothy to abide in Ephesus, for the purpose of charging some teachers in that Church not to teach differently from the apostles. In the history of the Acts of the Apostles there is no mention of Paul’s going from Ephesus to Macedonia but once; viz. after the riot of Demetrius, Acts 20:1, for which reason Theodoret, among the ancients, and among the moderns, Estius, Baronius, Capellus, Grotius, Lightfoot, Salmasius, Hammond, Witsius, Lardner, Pearson, and others, have given it as their opinion, that the apostle speaks of that journey in his First Epistle to Timothy. Yet, if I am not mistaken, the following circumstance will show their opinion to be ill founded:—
1. When the apostle went from Ephesus to Macedonia, as related Acts 20:1, Timothy was not in Ephesus, having gone from that city into Macedonia with Erastus by the apostle’s direction; Acts 19:22. And in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, which was written after Timothy’s departure from Ephesus, we are informed that he was to go from Macedonia to Corinth. 1 Corinthians 4:17: “I have sent to you Timothy.” 1 Corinthians 16:10,11: “If Timothy be come, take care that he be among you without fear. Send him forward in peace, that he may come to me, for I expect him with the brethren.” But before Timothy returned from Corinth, the apostle left Ephesus and went into Macedonia, where the brethren above mentioned met him, 2 Corinthians 2:12,13, having Timothy in their company; as is plain from his joining the apostle in his Second Epistle to the Corinthians, which all agree was written from Macedonia, immediately after the brethren from Corinth gave the apostle an account of the success of his first letter. Wherefore, since Timothy was not in Ephesus when the apostle left the city after the riot, it could not be the occasion on which the apostle said to him: “As I entreated thee to abide in Ephesus, when going into Macedonia, so do.” But the journey into Macedonia, of which he speaks, must have been some other journey not mentioned in the Acts. To remove this difficulty we are told that Timothy returned from Corinth to the apostle be lore his departure from Ephesus, and that he was left there after the riot; but that something happened, which occasioned him to follow the apostle into Macedonia; that there he joined him in writing his Second Epistle to the Corinthians; and, having finished his business in Macedonia, he returned to Ephesus and abode there, agreeably to the apostle’s request. But as these suppositions are not warranted by the history of the Acts, Timothy’s joining the apostle in his Second Epistle to the Corinthians may still be urged as a proof that he came with the brethren directly from Corinth to Macedonia. Farther, that Timothy did not go from Macedonia to Ephesus after joining the apostle in his Second Epistle to the Corinthians, but returned with him to Corinth to receive the collections, is, I think, plain from Acts 20:4, where he is mentioned as one of those who accompanied Paul from Corinth to Jerusalem with the collections.
2. When the apostle wrote his First Epistle to Timothy, “he hoped to come to him soon,” 1 Timothy 3:14; but from the history of the Acts it is certain that in no letter written to Timothy after the riot, till his first confinement in Rome, could the apostle say that he hoped to come to him soon. He could not say so in any letter written from Troas, the first place he stopped at after leaving Ephesus; for at that time he was going into Macedonia and Achaia to receive the collections for the poor from the Churches in these provinces. Neither could he say so after writing his Second Epistle to the Corinthians from Macedonia; for in that epistle he told the Corinthians he was coming to them with the Macedonian brethren, who were commissioned to attend him in his voyage to Jerusalem, with the collections, 2 Corinthians 9:4, and that he meant to sail directly from Corinth to Judea, 2 Corinthians 1:16. As little could he write to Timothy that he hoped to come to him soon, when he altered his resolution on the occasion of the lying in wait of the Jews, and returned into Macedonia, Acts 20:3. For he was then in such haste to be in Jerusalem on the day of pentecost, that when he came to Miletus, instead of going to Ephesus, he sent for the elders of that Church to come to him, Acts 20:16,17. When he arrived in Judea, he could not write that he hoped to come to Ephesus soon, for he was imprisoned a few days after he went up to Jerusalem; and having continued two years in prison at Cæsarea, he was sent bound to Rome, where likewise being confined, he could not, till towards the conclusion of that confinement, write to Timothy that he hoped to come to him soon. And even then he did not write his First Epistle to Timothy, for Timothy was with him at the conclusion of his confinement, Philippians 2:19,23.
3. From the first epistle we learn that the following were the errors Timothy was left in Ephesus to oppose: 1. Fables invented by the Jewish doctors to recommend the observance of the law of Moses as necessary to salvation. 2. Uncertain genealogies, by which individuals endeavoured to trace their descent from Abraham, in the persuasion that they would be saved, merely because they had Abraham for their father. 3. Intricate questions and strifes about some words in the law; perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, who reckoned that which produced most gain to be the best kind of godliness. 4. Oppositions of knowledge, falsely so named. But these errors had not taken place in the Ephesian Church before the apostle’s departure; for in his charge to the Ephesian elders at Miletus, he foretold that the false teachers were to enter in among them after his departing. Acts 20:29,30: “I know that after my departing, shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things to draw away disciples after them.” The same thing appears from the two epistles which the apostle wrote to the Corinthians; the one from Ephesus before the riot of Demetrius, the other from Macedonia after that event; and from the epistle which he wrote to the Ephesians themselves from Rome, during his confinement there. For in none of these letters is there any notice taken of the above mentioned errors, as subsisting among the Ephesians at the time they were written; which cannot be accounted for on supposition that they were prevalent in Ephesus when the apostle went into Macedonia after the riot. I am therefore of opinion that the first to Timothy, in which the apostle desired him to abide in Ephesus for the purpose of opposing the Judaizers and their errors, could not be written either from Troas or from Macedonia after the riot, as those who contend for the early date of the epistle suppose; but it must have been written some time after the apostle’s release from confinement in Rome, when no doubt he visited the Church at Ephesus, and found the Judaizing teachers there busily employed in spreading their pernicious errors.
4. In the first Epistle to Timothy the same sort of persons, doctrines, and practices, are reprobated, which are condemned in the second. Compare 1 Timothy 4:1-6 with 2 Timothy 3:1-5; and 1 Timothy 6:20 with 2 Timothy 2:14; and 1 Timothy 6:4 with 2 Timothy 2:16. The same commands, instructions, and encouragements are given to Timothy in the first epistle as in the second. Compare 1 Timothy 6:13,14, with 2 Timothy 4:1-5. The same remedies for the corruptions which had taken place among the Ephesians are prescribed in the first epistle as in the second. Compare 1 Timothy 4:14 with 2 Timothy 1:6,7; and as in the second epistle, so in the first, every thing is addressed to Timothy as superintendent both of the teachers and of the laity in the Church at Ephesus; all which, I think, imply that the state of things among the Ephesians was the same when the two epistles were written; consequently that the first epistle was written only a few months before the second, and not long before the apostle’s death.
These arguments appeared so convincing to Pearson, Le Clere, L’Enfant, Cave, Fabricius, Mill, Whitby, and others, that they were unanimously of opinion Timothy was left by the apostle in Ephesus as he went into Macedonia, not after the riot of Demetrius, but after he was released from his first confinement at Rome. And from that circumstance they infer that he did not write his first epistle till some time in the end of the year 64, or in the beginning of 65. I think it was written from Nicopolis. To the late date of this first epistle, there are three plausible objections which must not be overlooked:—
1. It is thought that, if the First Epistle to Timothy was written after the apostle’s release, he could not with any propriety have said to Timothy, 1 Timothy 4:12: “Let no man despise thy youth;” but it is replied: That Servius Tullius, in classing the Roman people, as Aulus Gellius relates, lib. x. c. 28, divided their age into three periods: Childhood he limited to the age of seventeen; youth, from that to forty-six; and old age, from that to the end of life. Now, supposing Timothy to have been eighteen years old, A. D. 50, when he became Paul’s assistant, he would be no more than 32, A. D. 64, two years after the apostle’s release, when it is supposed this epistle was written. Wherefore, being then in the period of life which, by the Greeks as well as the Roman, was considered as youth, the apostle with propriety might say to him, Let no man despise thy youth.
2. When the apostle touched at Miletus, in his voyage to Jerusalem with the collections, the Church at Ephesus had a number of elders, that is, of bishops and deacons, who came to him at Miletus, Acts 20:17. It is therefore asked: What occasion was there in an epistle written after the apostle’s release, to give Timothy directions concerning the ordination of bishops and deacons, in a Church where there were so many elders already? The answer is: The elders who came to the apostle at Miletus in the year 58 may have been too few for the Church at Ephesus, in her increased state, in the year 65. Besides, false teachers had then entered, to oppose whom more bishops and deacons might be needed than were necessary in the year 58; not to mention that some of the first elders having died, others were wanted to supply their places.
3. Because the apostle wrote to Timothy that “he hoped to come to him soon,” 1 Timothy 3:14, it is argued that the letter in which this is said must have been written before the apostle said to the Ephesian elders, Acts 20:25: “I know that ye all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more.” But if, by this, the First Epistle to Timothy is proved to have been written before the apostle’s interview with the elders at Miletus, his Epistles to the Philippians, to the Hebrews, and to Philemon, in which he promised to visit them, must likewise have been written before the interview; in regard, his declaration respected the Philippians, the Hebrews, and Philemon, as well as the Ephesians; for they certainly were persons among whom the apostle had gone preaching the kingdom of God. Yet no commentator ever thought the epistles above mentioned were written to them before the apostle’s interview with the Ephesian elders; on the contrary, it is universally acknowledged that these epistles were written four years after the interview; namely, during the apostle’s first imprisonment at Rome. Wherefore, when he told the Ephesian elders that they, and his other converts, among whom he had gone preaching the kingdom of God, should see his face no more, as it was no point either of faith or practice which he spake, he may well be supposed to have declared nothing but his own opinion, resulting from his fears. He had lately escaped the rage of the Jews, who laid wait for him in Cenchrea to kill him, Acts 20:3. This, with their fury on former occasions, filled him with such anxiety that, in writing to the Romans from Corinth; he requested them “to strive together with him in their prayers that he might be delivered from the unbelieving in Judea;” Romans 15:30,31. Farther, that in his own speech to the Ephesian elders the apostle only declared his own persuasion, dictated by his fears, and not any suggestion of the Spirit, I think plain from what he had said immediately before, Acts 20:22,23: “Behold, I go bound in the spirit to Jerusalem, not knowing the things that shall befall me there: save that the Holy Ghost witnesseth in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions abide me.” Wherefore, although his fears were happily disappointed, and he actually visited the Ephesians after his release; his character as an inspired apostle is not hurt in the least, if, in saying he knew they should see his face no more, he declared, as I have said, his own persuasion only, and no dictate of the Holy Ghost.
Dr. Paley’s arguments are the same in substance; but he does not mention Dr. Macknight, who wrote before him, and whose work he must have seen.
The principal difficulty in this opinion is, that it necessarily implies that St. Paul visited Ephesus after his liberation at Rome; which appears so contrary to what he said to the Ephesian Church, that they should see his face no more. Dr. Paley, however, finds some farther presumptive evidences that the apostle must have visited Ephesus. The Epistles to the Philippians and to Philemon were written while the apostle was a prisoner at Rome; to the former he says: “I trust in the Lord, that I also myself shall come shortly;” and to the latter, who was a Colossian, he gives this direction: “But withal, prepare me also a lodging, for I trust that through your prayers I shall be given unto you.” An inspection of the map will show us that Colosse was a city of Asia Minor, lying eastward, and at no great distance from Ephesus; Philippi was on the other, i.e. the western, side of the Ægean Sea. Now if the apostle executed his purpose, and came to Philemon at Colosse soon after his liberation, it cannot be supposed that he would omit to visit Ephesus, which lay so near it, and where he had spent three years of his ministry. As he was also under a promise to visit the Church at Philippi shortly, if he passed from Colosse to Philippi he could hardly avoid taking Ephesus in his way. See Paley’s Horæ Paulinæ, page 293. This, taken in connection with the preceding arguments, can leave little doubt that the date of this epistle must be referred to a time subsequent to St. Paul’s liberation from Rome, and consequently to the end of the year 64, or the beginning of the year 65.
THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO TIMOTHY.
Chronological Notes relative to this Epistle.
-Year of the Constantinopolitan era of the world, or that used by the Byzantine historians, 5573.
-Year of the Alexandrian era of the world, 5567.
-Year of the Antiochian era of the world, 5557.
-Year of the Julian period, 4775.
-Year of the world, according to Archbishop Usher, 4069.
-Year of the world, according to Eusebius, in his Chronicon, 4293. -Year of the minor Jewish era of the world, or that in common use, 3825. -Year of the Greater Rabbinical era of the world, 4424.
-Year from the Flood, according to Archbishop Usher, and the English Bible, 2413.
-Year of the Cali yuga, or Indian era of the Deluge, 3167. -Year of the era of Iphitus, or since the first commencement of the Olympic games, 1005.
-Year of the era of Nabonassar, king of Babylon, 812.
-Year of the CCXIth Olympiad, 1.
-Year from the building of Rome, according to Fabius Pictor, 812. -Year from the building of Rome, according to Frontinus, 816. -Year from the building of Rome, according to the Fasti Capitolini, 817. -Year from the building of Rome, according to Varro, which was that most generally used, 818.
-Year of the era of the Seleucidæ, 377.
-Year of the Cæsarean era of Antioch, 113.
-Year of the Julian era, 110.
-Year of the Spanish era, 103.
-Year from the birth of Jesus Christ according to Archbishop Usher, 69. -Year of the vulgar era of Christ’s nativity, 65.
-Year of Gessius Florus, governor of the Jews, 1.
-Year of Vologesus, king of the Parthians, 16.
-Year of L. C. Gallus, governor of Syria, 1.
-Year of Matthias, high priest of the Jews, 3.
-Year of the Dionysian period, or Easter Cycle, 66.
-Year of the Grecian Cycle of nineteen years, or Common Golden Number, 9; or the first year after the third embolismic.
-Year of the Jewish Cycle of nineteen years, 6, or the second embolismic. -Year of the Solar Cycle, 18.
-Dominical Letter, it being the first after Bissextile, or Leap Year, F. -Day of the Jewish Passover, according to the Roman computation of time, the VIIth of the ides of April, or in our common mode of reckoning, the seventh of April, which happened in this year on the day after the Jewish Sabbath.
-Easter Sunday, the day after the ides of April, or the XVIIIth of the Calends of May, named by the Jews the 22d of Nisan or Abib; and by Europeans in general, the 14th of April.
-Epact, or the age of the moon on the 22d of March, (the day of the earliest Easter Sunday possible,) 28.
-Epact, according to the present mode of computation, or the moon’s age on New Year’s day, or the Calends of January, 5.
-Monthly Epacts, or the moon’s age on the Calends of each month respectively, (beginning with January,) 5,7,6,7,8,9,10,11,12, 12,14,14. -Number of Direction, or the number of days from the twenty-first of March to the Jewish Passover, 17.
-Year of the reign of Caius Tiberius Claudius Nero. Cæsar, the fifth Roman emperor computing from Augustus Cæsar, 12.
-Roman Consuls, A. Licinius Nerva Silanus, and M. Vestinius Atticus; the latter of whom was succeeded by Anicius Cerealis, on July 1st. Dr. Lardner and others suppose this epistle to have been written in A. D. 56, i.e. nine years earlier than is stated above. See the preceding preface, where this point is largely considered, and also the general observations prefixed to the Acts of the Apostles.
Joseph Benson
Preface
BEN_VOL8.PDF, source PDF p. 383
FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL THE
APOSTLE TO TIMOTHY.
PREFACE
Timothy, or Timotheus, was a native of Lystra, in the Lesser Asia. His father was a Greek, but his grandmother Lois, and his mother Eunice, were pious Jewish women, and trained him up from a child in the knowledge of the Scriptures. When young, and probably by hearing the gospel preached by Paul or Barnabas, he was converted to the Christian faith: and from the time of his conversion made such proficiency in the knowledge of the gospel, and was so remarkable for his piety and zeal in the cause of Christ, that he attracted the esteem of all the brethren in those parts, and was so well spoken of by them, that Paul would have him to accompany him in his journeys through the Gentile countries, and to assist him in his labours of preaching the gospel. And as Timothy, though a Jew, had not been circumcised, by reason that his father was a Gentile, the apostle thought it proper that he should bear that mark of his descent from a Jewess, because without it the Jews would have looked on him as a heathen, and would have despised his instructions. This, and not any opinion that circumcision was necessary to salvation, caused the apostle to propose and Timothy to receive that rite, by which the Jews, from the earliest times, had been distinguished from the rest of mankind. Afterward the presbyters at Lystra, the more strongly to impress Timothy with a sense of the importance of the work he had undertaken, solemnly set him apart to the office of an evangelist, by the laying on of their hands and by prayer. This was followed by the laying on of the apostle’s hands, for the purpose of communicating to Timothy the gifts of the Holy Ghost, 2 Timothy 1:6. Timothy being thus prepared to be the apostle’s fellow-labourer in the gospel, accompanied him and Silas when they visited the churches of Phrygia, and delivered to them the decrees of the apostles and elders at Jerusalem, declaring it unnecessary for the believing Gentiles to be circumcised, and to observe the ceremonial law of Moses. Having gone through these countries, and at length come to Troas, where Luke joined them, they were directed by a vision to go into Macedonia. Loosing, therefore, from Troas, they all passed over to Neapolis, and from thence went to Philippi, where they were instrumental in converting many, and in planting a Christian church. Leaving Luke at Philippi, they proceeded from thence to Thessalonica, where also they made many converts; but, being opposed with great violence by the unbelieving Jews, they were obliged to flee to Berea, whither the Jews from Thessalonica followed them. To elude their rage, Paul, who was most obnoxious to them, departed from Berea by night to go to Athens, leaving Silas and Timothy in Berea. While the apostle remained at Athens, Timothy came to him, and gave him such an account of the afflicted state of the Thessalonian brethren, as induced him to send that evangelist back to comfort them. The apostle, meeting with little success at Athens, did not think it proper to continue there many days, but leaving that city, went forward to Corinth, where Silas and Timothy came to him, and assisted him in the work of preaching the gospel to the Corinthians. And when he left Corinth, they accompanied him first to Ephesus, then to Jerusalem, and after that to Antioch in Syria. Having spent some time in Antioch, Paul set out with Timothy on his third apostolical journey; in which, after visiting all the churches of Galatia and Phrygia, in the order in which they had been planted, they came to Ephesus the second time, and there abode long. In short, from the time Timothy first joined the apostle as his assistant, he never left him, except when sent by him on some special errand. And by his affection, fidelity, and zeal, he so recommended himself to all the disciples, and acquired such authority among them, that Paul inserted his name in the inscription of several of the letters which he wrote to the churches, to show that their doctrine was one and the same.
Timothy, it must be observed, was properly, as was Titus also, an itinerant evangelist; a kind of secondary apostle, whose office was to regulate all things in the churches to which he was sent, and to inspect and reform whatsoever was amiss either in the bishops, deacons, or people. St. Paul had, doubtless, largely instructed him in private conversation for the due execution of so weighty an office. Yet, to fix things more upon his mind, and to give him an opportunity of having recourse to them afterward, as there might be occasion, and of communicating them to others, as also to leave divine directions in writing, for the use of the church and its ministers, in all ages, he sent him this excellent pastoral letter, which contains a great variety of important instructions and advices. With respect to the date of this epistle, learned men have been greatly divided in their opinions. The hypothesis which has prevailed most generally is, that it was written about A.D. 60, when Paul had lately quitted Ephesus, on account of the tumult raised there by Demetrius, and was gone into Macedonia, Acts 20:1. And this has been the opinion of many learned critics, ancient and modern; particularly of Athanasius, Theodoret, Baronius, Ludovic, Capellus, Blondel, Hammond, Grotius, Salmasius, Lightfoot, and Benson. On the other hand, Bishop Pearson endeavours to prove, that it could not be written till between the time of the first and second imprisonment of Paul at Rome, about A.D. 68; which opinion has been embraced by Le Clerc, L’Enfant, Cave, Fabricius, Mill, Whitby, Paley, Macknight, and others. The following arguments, however, in favour of the former hypothesis, do not appear to the author of this work to have yet received a satisfactory answer, and therefore he prefers the ancient opinion.
1. When Paul wrote his first epistle to him, Timothy was a young man, as appears from 1 Timothy 4:12, where the apostle says, “Let no man despise thy youth;” which is also referred to 1 Corinthians 16:10, 11. Now supposing he were only sixteen years of age when converted to Christianity, which is thought to have been in St. Paul’s journey through the Lesser Asia, recorded Acts 14., (see note on Acts 16:1,) he would, in the year 60, be about thirty years of age; but in 68, when the latter hypothesis supposes the epistle was written, he would be thirty-eight, and certainly past the time of youth; thirty being the age at which the Levites were, according to the law, to enter upon their office. 2. The state of things in the church at Ephesus, in A.D. 60, better suits the contents of the first epistle than it does in A.D. 68. For it appears from chap. 1:3-7, and other passages, that those corruptions which the apostle speaks of as greatly increased and risen to a considerable height, when he met the elders of Ephesus at Miletus, and when he wrote his second epistle, were but just beginning to creep into the church at the time of his writing the first. To which it may be added that, from the particular instructions which the apostle gives Timothy about ordination, it seems as if the church at Ephesus, and those in the neighbourhood, had few or no bishops at the time it was written; from whence it appears extremely probable that the meeting between Paul and the elders of Ephesus at Miletus, must have been after the writing of this epistle. But, 3. The argument on which the principal stress hath been laid, in favour of the first hypothesis, is taken from the solemn prophetic declaration which Paul made when he took his leave of the elders of Ephesus at Miletus, in the following words, “I know that ye all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more,” Acts 20:25. From whence it is inferred, that he must have written this epistle to Timothy before that interview, since in it he not only expresses a full expectation of returning, but speaks of his having just left Ephesus when he set out on his journey for Macedonia. The epistle contains three parts: I. The inscription, 1 Timothy 1:1, 2. II. The instruction of Timothy how to behave at Ephesus; wherein, 1. In general, he gives an injunction to deliver to them that taught the law in a wrong manner, and confirms, at the same time, the sum of the gospel, as exemplified in himself, verses 3-20. 2. In particular, he prescribes to men a method of prayer, 1 Timothy 2:1-8; to women, good works and modesty, verses 9-15. He recounts the requisites of a bishop, 1 Timothy 3:1-7; the duties of deacons, verses 8-10; of women, verses 11-13. 3. He shows what Timothy should teach, verse 14; 1 Timothy 4:1- 6; what he should avoid, verses 7-11; what he should follow after, verses 12-16. How he should treat men and women, 1 Timothy 5:1, 2; widows, verses 3-16; elders, 17-19; offenders, 20, 21; himself, 22, 23; those he doubts of, 24, 25; servants, 1 Timothy 6:1, 2. 4. False teachers are reproved, verses 3-10; Timothy is admonished and quickened, 11, 12; precepts are prescribed to be enforced on the rich, 17-19. III. The conclusion, verses 20, 21.
Joseph Sutcliffe
St. Paul’s First Epistle to Timothy.
SUT_VOL5.PDF, source PDF p. 187
ST. PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO
TIMOTHY.
OF the conversion of Timothy, and his call to the work of the ministry, Luke has given an account in Acts 16:1-3. His praise is often repeated in St. Paul’s epistles. He was a native, it would seem, of Lystra. His father was a Greek, and his mother Eunice a jewess, and also his grandmother Lois. Paul however was obliged to circumcise him, because of the strong predilection of the christian jews to the rites of the ancient law. The book of the Acts teaches that Timothy became the companion of Paul in his three great ministerial courses in Asia minor, and among the Greek nations; and that he was left at Ephesus in the last journey St. Paul made into Macedonia. Acts 17:13, 14. 18:5. 19:22. 20:4. Other parts of his life, and his martyrdom, are not regularly reported by any father of the church.
Learned men have spent much time about the date of this epistle; they have weighed every expression, but can arrive at no certainty as to the exact year, there being no authentic chronology concerning the infancy of the church.
Cardinal Baronius fixes the date of this epistle in the year of Christ fifty seven; those who fix it in the year sixty four or sixty five are not aware that Paul travelled five years, says St. Clement to the Corinthians, to the utmost boundaries of the west, and on coming a second time to Rome, received the crown of martyrdom under Nero in the year sixty six. By consequence, archbishop Usher could not fix it later than the year sixty. In Biblia Magna a succession of fathers is quoted, who affirm out of the numerous books of St. Dionysius, that Timothy presided in all about fifty years in Ephesus, and survived St. John by the space of ten years; and that he was martyred by the worshippers of Diana for having opposed their superstition, about the year of Christ one hundred and nine. The parts of this epistle are,
1.An injunction to oppose erroneous doctrine: 1 Timothy 1:3-6. 2.The nature and design of the law, contrasted with the gospel: 1 Timothy 1:7-17.
3.Prayer and intercession: 1 Timothy 2:1-8.
4.Decency of female dress: 1 Timothy 2:9-12.
5. Of episcopacy and deacons: 1 Timothy 3:1-13.
6. The falling away foretold: 1 Timothy 4:1-5.
7. Maxims and rules for the church: 1 Timothy 5.
8. A pastoral charge to Timothy: 1 Timothy 6:11-21.
Daniel Whedon
Introduction
WHD_CO13.PDF, source PDF p. 570
1 TIMOTHY
INTRODUCTION
THE so-called Pastoral Epistles (from their being pastoral instructions from a pastor to a pastor) of Timothy and Titus were received as authentic and canonical by the primitive Church with perfect unanimity. Eusebius, in his catalogue, classifies them among the entirely unquestioned books. They are contained in the Peshito, the Syriac translation, made in the second century; and in the Muratorian catalogue of New Testament books, made about the same time. They are also quoted by name by Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian. They are apparently alluded to by Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and Polycarp.
The only dispute in ancient times came from the semi-christian Gnostics outside the Church, who found their own heresies therein predicted and portrayed with an unwelcome clearness and accuracy. In modern times, also, the question comes from a semi-christian class of scholars, occupying a position in relation to the Church quite analogous to the old Gnostic, such as Baur and Renan. The criticisms of such men have had the beneficial effect to call forth very thorough investigations by Christian scholars, and very conclusive answers. It is essentially a past discussion. There is nothing in the formidable array of hostile criticism that need disturb our calmest faith. Our limits do not admit a review of the grounds, which may be amply found in the pages of Alford, Dr. Gloag, and Fairbairn on the Pastoral Epistles.
TIME OF WRITING.
The entire authority of the ancient writers affirms that St. Paul was twice imprisoned at Rome, and that his second imprisonment was closed by martyrdom. If this be true, we have no difficulty in fixing the approximate time of the writing of Second Timothy; for 4:6-8 shows that it was but a brief period previous to his martyrdom, which, according to the best authors, took place about A.D. 68. And the similar character of the three Pastoral Epistles indicates that First Timothy and Titus could not have been written much earlier than Second Timothy. The fact of this second imprisonment is mentioned or implied by Clement of Rome, by the Muratorian document, and by Eusebius. St. Paul himself, writing during his first imprisonment, Philippians 1:26, and Philemon 1:22, implies an expectation of an early release; whereas the second epistle to Timothy anticipates an early execution.
A number of able Christian scholars have endeavoured to show that this second imprisonment is superfluous, and that all the demands of the Pastoral Epistles may be brought within the period of the first. Their learning and ingenuity are hardly crowned with success. Very few English or American writers have endorsed the theory. Our limits permit only general statements of the reasons. 1. The unanimous voice of antiquity, affirming the second imprisonment, lays upon their theory a heavy burden of disproof. The obvious meaning of the testimony of Clement of Rome, (some years a contemporary of Paul,) though subjected to very ingenious criticism, proves a second imprisonment. So also the Muratorian fragment. The testimony of Eusebius is, that such was the uncontradicted account, logos, of the Church in his day. 2. The state of the Church and spirit of the times implied in these epistles indicates a later age, and places them obviously in the later group of epistles, with First and Second Peter, and John and Jude. Heresies seem to have attained an advancing development, and the polity of the Church has crystallized into its fixed forms. 3. There are many passages expressing facts, or a state of things for which no room can be found in the life of Paul previous to or during his first imprisonment. See notes on 1 Timothy 1:3; 2 Timothy 4:13, 20. The apostle’s history, after his first imprisonment, as conjecturally gathered from his epistles, Dr. Gloag thus summarizes from Howson: “Immediately on his liberation, Paul left Rome by the usual route, crossing the Adriatic from Brundusium to Dyrrachium, and then by the Egnatian road to Philippi, (Philippians 2:24;) he then journeyed to Proconsular Asia, and visited Colosse, (Philemon 1:22,) Laodicea, and Ephesus. From Ephesus he undertook his long-premeditated journey to Spain, where he remained two years, returning in A.D. 66. Departing again from Ephesus, he went to Macedonia, (1 Timothy 1:3,) where he wrote the first Epistle to Timothy. From that he went to Crete, (Titus 1:5,) returned to Ephesus, and wrote the Epistle to Titus. Leaving Ephesus for the last time, he journeyed by Miletum, where Trophimus was left sick, (2 Timothy 4:20,) by Troas, where he left his parchments, (2 Timothy 4:13,) and by Corinth, where Erastus remained behind, (2 Timothy 4:20,) to Nicopolis in Epirus, where he remained to winter. (Titus 3:12.) Here it is supposed that he was arrested and sent for trial to Rome, where he wrote the Second Epistle to Timothy.” In regard to his martyrdom see note, Acts 28:30.
TIMOTHY.
Early in his second missionary tour St. Paul found at Lystra a young man, converted probably on his former visit, who was “well reported of by the brethren.” His father was a Greek; but his mother, Eunice, and his grandmother, Lois, had been pious Jewesses, and were now faithful Christians. This youth, Timothy, he adopted as his young attendant, in place of John Mark; as he had Silas as coequal minister in the place of Barnabas. Timothy attended him, thence, into Europe. His youth and subordinate position exempted him apparently from the sufferings of Paul and Silas at Philippi, as well as from being even mentioned by Luke in the narrative. Yet when Paul departed from Berea to Athens, Timothy was by him sent back to Thessalonica. When Paul passed on from Athens to Corinth he was rejoined by Timothy there. So rapidly had Timothy matured in the holy ministry that St. Paul joins his name with that of himself and Sylvanus in both his epistles to the Thessalonians. This may be considered as the close of the first period of his life, which we may call his novitiate. In his second, which we may perhaps call his presbyterial, period, we find him at Ephesus, (whither Paul passed from Corinth,) where he was doubtless Paul’s coadjutor during his long ministry in founding the Ephesian Church. When at its close the apostle projected another tour into Greece, he sent Timothy and Erastus, as his harbingers, into Macedonia and Corinth. When Paul himself had arrived at Macedonia, we find Timothy with him, his name being associated in the greeting in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians. He was Paul’s co-labourer at the next brief stay at Corinth; and we trace him as Paul’s co-traveller from Corinth back through Macedonia into Asia, as far as Troas.
For a period of two years, during which Paul’s arrest at Jerusalem and confinement at Cesarea take place, we find no mention of Timothy. But his loyalty to Christianity and to St. Paul is amply attested. In three of those voices from the Roman prison, namely, the epistles to Philippi, Colosse, and Philemon, Timothy’s name is found added to Paul’s in the opening address. From his prison Paul writes to Philippi that he hopes soon to send
Plan of the Epistle.
WHD_CO13.PDF, source PDF p. 573
Timothy to them, “for,” says he, “I have no man likeminded.” Titus we are authorized by Paul to place Timothy highest in his estimation among all by whom he was attended.
The third may conveniently be called his episcopal period, in which he is placed by the apostle as presbyter-president over the Church at Ephesus. Somewhere about this time it was that he suffered imprisonment and was set at liberty. To him was addressed by Paul a first epistle, containing a most solemn charge, enjoining faithfulness and various directions as to method in the discharge of his responsible office. Finally, a second epistle contains the apostle’s dying charge, with an earnest request that Timothy would hasten to visit him in the loneliness of his prison. No record informs us whether he accomplished that visit. Eusebius tells us that “Timothy is historically narrated to have first received the episcopate in the Church at Ephesus.” But whether he has any other authority for that statement than these two epistles is more than we know.
We know Timothy only during his youth and earlier manhood, and while he was under the direction of the most eminent of the apostles. The high demands of that apostle he met and satisfied with unparalleled success. The apostle’s love and confidence in him seemed to increase to the last moment. Aged Luke and youthful Timothy were his final reliance. Our young evangelist seemed to unite the most perfect obedience to his superior with a marked executive ability in managing the interests placed under his charge. In youth he manifested the discreetness of maturity; in spite of nervous diffidence he possessed administrative firmness. Unselfishness, purity, abstinence, were the traits of his piety. Yet such, through the whole period of our acquaintance with him, is his subordinate position, that we are left in doubt whether he did not succeed best under a director; and whether he was not, (in words applied by Wendell Phillips to a very different character,) “a first-rate second-rate man.” PLAN OF THE EPISTLE.
PART FIRST.
The Apostolic Charge 1 Timothy 1:1-20
1. The sacred charge is the safe-keeping of a pure gospel doctrine 1 Timothy 1:3-11
2. God’s commitment of this charge to Paul gratefully recognised 1 Timothy 1:12-17
3. And by Paul solemnly committed to Timothy 1 Timothy 1:18-20 PART SECOND.
The Church Order as prescribed by the Gospel Doctrine 1 Timothy 2:1-4:16
1. In worship 1 Timothy 2:1-15
a. Public prayer universally to be offered by men 1 Timothy 2:1-8
b. With orderly array and deportment of women 1 Timothy 2:9-15
2. In officiary 1 Timothy 3:1-13
a. Presbyter-bishops, their qualifications 1 Timothy 3:1-7 b. Deacons and deaconesses 1 Timothy 3:8-13
3. In doctrine 1 Timothy 3:14-1 Timothy 4:16 a. The incarnation, its predicted opposers soon to appear 1 Timothy 3:14-4:10
b. Timothy’s self-preparation against them 1 Timothy 4:11-16 PART THIRD.
Apostolic Precepts 1 Timothy 5:1-6:21
1. Supervisory duties to different classes 1 Timothy 5:1-6:10 a. To different ages, 1 Timothy 5:1, 2, and to beneficiary widows, 3-16 1 Timothy 5:1-16
b. To elders, their stipend, trial, ordination, and purity 1 Timothy 5:17-25
c. To servants, 1 Timothy 6:1, 2; to mercenary
counter-teachers, 3-10 1 Timothy 6:1-10
2. Final charge 1 Timothy 6:11-21