Editing Introduction to 1 Timothy (section)

=== AUTHOR AND DATE ===
Many modernist critics delight in attacking the plain statements of Scripture and,
for no good reason, deny that Paul wrote the Pastoral Epistles (1, 2 Tim., Titus).
Ignoring the testimony of the letters themselves (1:1; 2 Tim. 1:1; Titus 1:1) and that
of the early church (which is as strong for the Pastoral Epistles as for any of Paul’s
epistles, except Romans and 1 Corinthians), these critics maintain that a devout
follower of Paul wrote the Pastoral Epistles in the second century. As proof, they
offer ﬁve lines of supposed evidence: (1) the historical references in the Pastoral
Epistles cannot be harmonized with the chronology of Paul’s life given in Acts;
(2) the false teaching described in the Pastoral Epistles is the fully developed
Gnosticism of the second century; (3) the church organizational structure in the
Pastoral Epistles is that of the second century and is too well developed for Paul’s
day; (4) the Pastoral Epistles do not contain the great themes of Paul’s theology;
and (5) the Greek vocabulary of the Pastoral Epistles contains many words not
found in Paul’s other letters, nor in the rest of the New Testament.

While it is unnecessary to dignify such unwarranted attacks by unbelievers
with an answer, occasionally such an answer does enlighten. Thus, in reply
to the critics’ arguments, the following points are given: (1) This contention
of historical incompatibility is valid only if Paul was never released from his
Roman imprisonment mentioned in Acts. But he was released, since Acts does
not record Paul’s execution, and Paul himself expected to be released (Phil.
1:19, 25—26; 2:24; Philem. 22). The historical events in the Pastoral Epistles do
not ﬁt into the chronology of Acts because they happened after the close of the
Acts narrative, which ends with Paul’s ﬁrst imprisonment in Rome. (2) While
there are similarities between the heresy of the Pastoral Epistles and second-
century Gnosticism, there are also important differences. Unlike second-century
Gnosticism, the false teachers of the Pastoral Epistles were still within the church
(see 1:3-7), and their teaching was based on Judaistic legalism (l:7; Titus 1:10, 14;
3:9). (3) The church organizational structure mentioned in the Pastoral Epistles
is, in fact, consistent with that established by Paul (Acts 14:23; Phil. 1:1). (4)
The Pastoral Epistles do mention the central themes of Paul’s theology, including
the inspiration of Scripture (2 Tim. 3:15-17); election (2 Tim. 1:9; Titus 1:l—2);
salvation (Titus 3:5—7); the deity of Christ (Titus 2:13); His mediatory work (1
Tim. 2:5); and substitutionary atonement (2:6). (5) The different subject matter
in the Pastoral Epistles required a different vocabulary from that in Paul’s other
epistles. Certainly a pastor today would use a different vocabulary in a personal
letter to a fellow pastor than he would in a work of systematic theology.

The idea that a “pious forger” wrote the Pastoral Epistles faces several
further difficulties: (1) The early church did not approve of such practices and
surely would have exposed this as a ruse, if there had actually been one (see
2 Thess. 2:1—2; 3:17). (2) Why forge three letters that include similar material
and no deviant doctrine? (3) If a counterfeit, why not invent an itinerary for
Paul that would have harmonized with Acts? (4) Would a later, devoted follower
of Paul have put the words of 1 Timothy 1:13, 15 into his master's mouth? (5)
Why would he include warnings against deceivers (2 Tim. 3:13; Titus 1:10), if he
himself were one?

The evidence seems clear that Paul wrote 1 Timothy and Titus shortly after
his release from his first Roman imprisonment (about AD 62-64), and then
wrote 2 Timothy from prison during his second Roman imprisonment (about
AD 66-67), shortly before his death.