What we have in 1–2 Timothy and Titus is best described as Paul the mentor. Even though this trio of letters has, since the eighteenth century, gone under the collective title ‘The Pastoral Epistles’, which is appropriate in its way, they might more fittingly be named ‘The Mentoring Epistles’, or as Luke Timothy Johnson calls them, ‘Letters to Paul’s Delegates’. Paul frequently took it upon himself to encourage, strengthen, and rebuke believers when the occasion called for it. In these three letters we see him trying to build up his theological vision in the churches, and making his final pleas to his two trusted colleagues Timothy and Titus.
Situating the Pastoral Epistles in Paul’s career is complex for two reasons. First, it is almost impossible to fit these letters, with their details of personal movements and so on, into the narrative of Acts. Second, the Pauline authenticity of these three epistles has regularly been doubted. Many see them as pseudepigraphical (written in Paul’s name but by somebody else).
The pastoral letters round off Paul’s career, passing the baton on to Christians of the next generation, with whom readers are meant to identify. Paul’s legacy remains living and active as his apostolic faithfulness and testimony are carried forward. These letters serve, as it were, to inscribe a Pauline ‘rule of faith’ into the canonical consciousness of the developing church. They could be described as faithful instructions for faithful friends, to keep the household of faith in good order.
CONTEXTUAL AND CRITICAL MATTERS
Authorship
Who wrote the pastorals? Answers range from pseudepigraphy to authenticity.
- The Pastoral Epistles are pseudepigraphical and derive from the late first to mid-second century. Several New Testament writings, especially the Pastoral Epistles and 2 Peter, are regarded as ‘pseudepigraphical’ or ‘pseudonymous’. That means that they were falsely or fraudulently attributed to a certain author. The practice of writing under the name of a prestigious earlier figure was common in the ancient world. Examples can be found in greco-roman culture: Galen claimed that large-scale forgery happened when the kings of Alexandria and Pergamum began enlarging their respective libraries. It is well known in the Jewish world, with the so-called Epistle of Jeremiah, the Epistle to Aristeas, the visions ascribed to Enoch, and so on. In Christian literary culture there are obvious examples, such as the so-called Gospel of Thomas, Corinthians, Letters of Paul and Seneca, Letters of Jesus to Agbar, and so on. Was this what happened with the ‘pastoral epistles’?
The developing church of the second century was strongly opposed to attributing a book to the wrong person. Bishop Serapion of Antioch rejected the Gospel of Peter on the grounds that ‘the writings which falsely bear their names [Peter and the other apostles] we reject . . . knowing that such were not handed down to us’.
Several factors need to be remembered here. First, authors knew their ideas might be taken over by others; the ancient world did not have any well-developed notion of ‘copyright’ or ‘intellectual property’. Thus notions of authorial ‘ownership’, or of plagiarism, as we understand them, did not exist. Second, the idea of authorship must itself be construed flexibly, since authorship can involve more than one person and more than one text. Composing a document can involve secretaries, colleagues, editors, copyists, and collectors. Third, attributing authorship to someone other than the real author does not necessarily entail falsehood. Granted, forgery and deception may well be driving pseudepigraphy; Galen, again, knew of works falsely attributed to him, and of others passing off his work as their own. But there might be other motives; for instance, the attempt to propagate afresh the teachings of someone who had founded a school, as with the neo-Pythagoreans who went on attributing writings to Pythagoras even centuries after his death. Some genuinely believed that admiration for a figure could legitimately generate literary impersonation, as with Tertullian’s Asian presbyter who wrote the Acts of Paul, and the Syrian neo-Platonist Iamblichus who said it was honourable to publish one’s own treatise in the name of a venerable teacher. Sometimes people would try to sum up and elaborate upon a particular tradition, putting it all under the name of an appropriate author, as with 1 Enoch, the Testament of Solomon, or Dionysius the Areopagite.
The Pastoral Epistles have, then, frequently been identified as pseudepigraphy, either as deliberate forgeries or else as pious fictions in which ‘Paul’ writes to his ‘beloved sons’ Timothy and Titus. The reasons for this theory are as follows:
i. Greek language and style. The Pastoral Epistles contain a distinctive vocabulary, with 176 words not found anywhere else in the New Testament and 130 words not used in any of the other Pauline letters. Some allege that the Greek vocabulary of the pastorals reflects Christian language of the second century, adopting pagan terminology from the Roman imperial period with the ‘epiphany’ of Jesus as ‘saviour’ (sōtēr), and ‘piety’ (eusebeia) as a way of referring to proper Christian conduct.
ii. Paul’s movements. We cannot easily square Paul’s movements as described in the Pastoral Epistles with what we know from elsewhere. Second Timothy describes Paul experiencing a first (Roman?) imprisonment, a ‘first defence’ from which he was purportedly released. But thereafter he seems to be travelling back to Macedonia, Achaia, western Asia, and Crete before finally returning to Rome. Campbell regards this as a ‘completely unworkable itinerary’ for ‘any travelled heading west to Rome by way of Corinth back to Miletus—having just left Ephesus—before turning again and heading westward to Rome’. What is more, Paul himself believed that his work in the northeast quadrant of the Mediterranean was finished, so that his intention had been to head further west to Spain via Rome, not to zigzag across the Adriatic and Aegean seas. Luke’s narration of Paul’s farewell speech to the Ephesian elders in Miletus is dramatic and poignant because, as far as Luke was aware, this really was the last time the Asian believers would see Paul. Luke may have been writing a decade or more after Paul’s death; if so, he would presumably have known of another trip to Ephesus had Paul made one.
iii. Paul’s opponents. The Pastoral Epistles name and oppose various deviant doctrines. These have the character of a Jewish teaching being developed in a gnostic direction, something which fits well into the second century rather than Paul’s lifetime. Some even suggest that a family of second-century gnostic beliefs are targeted, in particular the Marcionite heresy. This is all the more plausible since Marcion’s Apostolikon contained only ten letters of Paul minus the Pastoral Epistles. Hans von Campenhausen goes so far as to attribute the pastorals to Polycarp of Smyrna who composed them in direct opposition to Marcion (d. c. AD 155–60). The author might, however, have had no particular deviant teaching in mind, but rather may be generalizing about various teachings that one might find in the post-apostolic period.
iv. Early Catholicism. Scholars from the liberal protestant tradition have often suggested that the churches of the late first and early second centuries gradually became less spiritually animated and socially egalitarian, and morphed into hierarchical institutional forms which have come to be labelled as ‘early Catholicism’. This is typified by the established offices of overseer/bishop and deacon, and also by the authoritative control of spiritual expression. The pastorals refer to a distinct office of ‘elder’ (presbyteros), equivalent to ‘overseer’ or ‘bishop’ (episkopos), and the subordinate office of ‘deacon’ (dia konos). Office-holders are appointed in a top-down fashion by the apostles’ successors, who have ordained elders/overseers/bishops through the laying on of hands. It is alleged that this has more in common with the letters of Ignatius, centralizing authority in a single bishop, than with the undisputed Pauline letters which see authority residing in the whole congregation, whose grace-given gifts contribute to a strongly egalitarian whole. In particular, the Pauline encouragement for women to prophesy and teach has been eclipsed by a patriarchal vision of leadership.
v. Orthodox eulogizing of Paul the martyr. Another feature of the pastorals is that they appear to portray Paul as the ideal convert, as the teacher of true doctrine, and as a martyr. These letters assume an established set of doctrines known as the ‘faith’ and ‘sound teaching’, much like later formulations of the ‘rule of faith’. Thus the ‘Paul’ of the pastorals has become not just an itinerant teacher of a messianic sect but a venerated ‘true and faithful teacher of the Gentiles’. In addition, 2 Timothy presents Paul approaching his own death with confidence, ready to pass the torch of true teaching to the next generation. This reminds us of the ‘testament’ genre, and of later martyrological traditions that venerate victims of persecution. It could be argued that the Paul of the pastorals stands somewhere between the Paul of the Acts of the Apostles (especially Ac. 20.17–38) and the Paul of the Acts of Paul and Thecla (especially Acts of Paul 17). The pastorals then reflect the ongoing reception of Paul’s memory as missionary and martyr in the developing church; a memory which will eventually bloom into cultic devotion to Paul the Christian saint.
James Dunn is pessimistic about the possibility of authentic Pauline authorship: ‘In the light of all this data it is very difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Pastorals were not written by Paul and reflect situations which are most probably to be dated to a post-70 context.’
To see the Pastoral Epistles as non-Pauline does not, we should note, necessarily mean dismissing them as fraudulent. Brevard Childs contends that the Pastoral Epistles are unique and cannot be identified with later pseudepigraphical writings attributed to Paul such as 3 Corinthians or the Letters of Paul and Seneca, which are obviously far removed from Paul’s words and world.
2. The Pastoral Epistles were based on Pauline fragments that were redacted and added to a Pauline letter-collection by a follower such as Luke. While the Pastoral Epistles might appear to be post-Pauline in style and language, there are also segments that sound authentically Pauline. The description of Paul’s approaching death (‘For I am already being poured out like a drink offering, and the time for my departure is near. I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. Now there is in store for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day—and not only to me, but also to all who have longed for his appearing’) does sound like something Paul might well have said. Consequently one may wonder whether the Pastoral Epistles might be made up of fragments of Paul’s personal notes, or shorter letters that, expanded into three distinct epistles, have been added to a Pauline letter-collection as a kind of posthumous capstone.
- 1 Timothy and Titus are pseudepigraphical, while 2 Timothy is authentic. One of us (NTW) has proposed elsewhere that ‘2 Timothy is . . . much more like the “Paul” of the other letters in style, mood and flavour than 1 Timothy’. There are, in fact, stylistic differences among the pastorals themselves, just as there are among the undisputed letters. Thus treating the three Pastoral Epistles as a distinct group, rather than individually, skews the evidence, failing to account for the style and vocabulary of 2 Timothy being closer to the undisputed letters, while 1 Timothy and Titus, closer to each other in style, are significantly different from both 2 Timothy and the undisputed letters of Paul. Moreover, 2 Timothy is more of a personal encouragement to Timothy, whereas 1 Timothy and Titus appear to be offering somewhat wooden responses to the perceived problems of church order in Ephesus and Crete. This would make 2 Timothy the more personable, and perhaps the more credible, among the pastorals. Whoever first put ‘1 Timothy’ and ‘2 Timothy’ together may have lured us into imagining that they are close companions.
- Paul wrote the Pastoral Epistles. The case for Pauline authorship of the pastorals involves accepting their self-witness as credible and refuting the counter-arguments.
The problem of the Greek style and language is real. However, there may be mitigating factors. First, non-Pauline words occur most frequently here when dealing with false teachings, and with qualifications for church leaders, neither of which is addressed in the same way in the undisputed Pauline letters. Second, most letters attributed to Paul involve a co-sender or secretary. Yet no-one seems to refer to ‘the epistle of Paul and Sosthenes to the Corinthians’; the ‘epistles of Paul and Timothy to the Corinthians, Philippians, Colossians and to Philemon’; the ‘epistles of Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy to the Thessalonians’; or the ‘epistle of Paul—with Tertius’s assistance!—to the Romans’. Ephesians, as we saw earlier, is probably a circular letter picking up themes from Colossians. Only Galatians lacks a co-sender or scribe. If the co-senders or scribes shaped in any way the language, contents, structure, and style of these letters, then they cannot be used as a pure or pristine control-sample of Pauline style, able to be contrasted with the pastoral letters. Third, it is notable that whereas the other Pauline letters are addressed to churches—even the epistle to Philemon includes the entire church as co-addressee—the Pastoral Epistles are the only instance of private correspondence written by Paul to individuals. This might provide further reasons for seeing them as different from the letters addressed to whole churches.
The problem of Paul’s movements can be resolved fairly easily. It might be the case that, after release from his first Roman captivity, Paul either abandoned or postponed his plans to visit Spain, and instead returned to deal with pressing needs in Greece and western Asia. In due time, Paul would then have dispatched Titus to Crete, leaving Timothy in Ephesus, writing to them both from perhaps Miletus or Macedonia. After two years or so, he somehow returned to Rome, either voluntarily or under arrest, where he was again imprisoned (having either gone to Spain at last, or not), at which point he will have written 2 Timothy from Rome, before finally being executed by Nero.
One should not too quickly assume, in fact, that the pastorals describe a post-Pauline or even post-apostolic period of church life. To begin with, while many like to situate the Pastoral Epistles under the slippery phrase ‘early Catholicism’, this entity is a chimera. In scholarship ‘early Catholicism’ is used to designate the ecclesiastical settlement reached between the warring Paulinist and Petrine factions in the early church, describing a hypothetical wing of the church characterized by a waning expectation for the return of Jesus, the eclipse of charismatic energy by emerging hierarchical structures, the influx of hellenistic metaphysics and Stoic ethics, and the solidifying of beliefs into wooden doctrinal forms. As we hinted before, the phrase ‘early Catholicism’ was invented by liberal Protestants from the nineteenth-century German traditions to describe how Christianity drifted from its supposed original moorings and ended up with the ancient Catholic Church (which was assumed, following Luther, to have largely forgotten the Pauline gospel). We may legitimately doubt whether Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna, or even Luke himself would have recognized themselves and their churches in this caricature.
Paul is often seen as an itinerant leader establishing charismatic communities with only loose, ad hoc leadership arrangements, whereas the Pastoral Epistles assume a structured and hierarchical model of community with the muting of charismatic displays and authority. The evidence suggests otherwise. First, the organizational scaffolding erected by Paul in his communities relied on household structures for leadership, or else utilized a scheme of ‘elders’ and ‘deacons’ close to that of the pastorals. The pastorals are still a far cry from the mono-episcopacy of Ignatius, or the detailed church order in the Didascalia or Apostolic Constitutions. Second, religious movements rarely evolve in a neat linear fashion, from charismatic to institutional. Organizational development tends to be constantly in flux, diverse, contingent upon local circumstances, and often adopting fluid models of leadership. Third, 2 Timothy does not deal with church structure at all. The question comes up in 1 Timothy, and to a lesser degree Titus. Even these letters mainly address the character and conduct of leaders, not their institutional power, their transmission of authority, or any form of episcopal legitimacy.
Also, while the pastorals stress guarding the deposit of sound doctrine (‘the faith’), even in the undisputed Paulines we find similar emphases on the word/faith/teaching/ instruction that believers have received and are meant to preserve and pass on. The pastorals do not, in fact, envisage the kind of transfer of authority and doctrine that we find in later centuries. They merely emphasize the preservation of the gospel and the apostolic interpretation of Jesus’ death and resurrection, which would be natural enough as Paul approached the end of his life.
DATE
The Pastoral Epistles were certainly known and circulating by the end of the second century. The question is, how much earlier before that time are they attested?
Sadly for historians, the manuscript evidence is not much help here. The earliest textual witness to a Pauline letter-collection is P46, a codex ordinarily dated to around AD 200. The papyrus lacks several folios, but includes all or part of Romans, Hebrews(!), 1–2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Galatians, Philippians, Colossians, and 1 Thessalonians. The missing folios towards the end would account for the absence of 2 Thessalonians and Philemon.
‘Is he [Paul] saying that men are natural leaders? It is difficult to prove that men have some special God-given talent for leadership. It is also undeniable that some women have more leadership qualities than some men. Thus it seems likely that Paul is not talking about the ability to lead or about one sex being superior to the other. If this was what he meant, he is contradicting his own words about our equality in Christ (Gal 3:28).’ -Samuel Ngewa, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus, 54
In brief, if the pastorals are authentic, they were composed across the mid-60s, with 1 Timothy and Titus probably written from Miletus or Macedonia after Paul’s release from a first Roman imprisonment (and perhaps after a trip to Spain), and 2 Timothy composed in Rome during a second and final Roman imprisonment. Otherwise, if the pastorals are based on the later collection and redaction of Pauline fragments, then a date in the late first or early second century is plausible. Alternatively, if the pastorals are pseudonymous, then a date as late as the 160s is possible (if the ‘allusions’ in Polycarp, Ignatius, and Clement are more apparent than real), with the letters written in response to a pool of growing gnostic heresies from Cerinthus to Marcion.
OPPONENTS
On Paul’s opponents in the pastorals, one cannot assume that the ‘teachers’ whom Paul excoriated in Crete (Titus) and Ephesus (1–2 Timothy) were one and the same. Nonetheless there seem to be several homogeneous traits ascribed to the false teachers across all three letters, including deception, promoting controversy, rejecting sound teaching, and engaging in unconscionable behaviour.
If we put all this together, we might surmise that we are dealing with variant forms of Jewish teaching, heading in the direction of what would later become Gnosticism.
PURPOSE
The letter to Titus urges Titus to remain in Crete, to continue to instruct the young church, and to assist Zenas and Apollos on their travels. First Timothy is an encouragement to Timothy to remain in Ephesus and to establish the orderliness and orthodoxy of the assembly. Second Timothy, very much Paul’s ‘testament’, asks Timothy to keep the faith, to join him in Rome, and to bring John Mark with him.
THE ARGUMENT OF 1 TIMOTHY
- Warning of false teachers (1.3–20)
Paul reminds Timothy again not to let unhealthy doctrines or esoteric speculations get a foothold in the assembly. Strange teachings can lead people astray, not least when the teachers flout Torah itself (1.3–11).
Paul adds a thanksgiving for his own commission: God has taken the wildest, most violent of blaspheming persecutors, and has transformed him into not only a believer but also a trusted apostle and evangelist (1.12–17).
- Persistent prayer and propriety in worship (2.1–15)
In the interest of peaceful relations with the authorities, Paul tells Timothy that the church should pray for them and for consequent social stability. The church has adopted the stance of the Jews under Rome: to pray, not to the authorities, but for them. There is, after all, only one saviour and mediator (God and the Messiah) (2.1–7).
Paul next urges men and women to avoid the normal stereotypes in their self-presentation: men must refrain from macho, angry behaviour, and women from endless fixations on jewellery and beauty treatments. Women should be given the leisure to study—a deeply counter-cultural idea; but (perhaps reflecting the all-female cult of Artemis in Ephesus), women should not usurp male leadership in the church.
- Qualifications for overseers and deacons (3.1–16)
Paul moves on to the subject of church leaders, specifically the qualifications for the roles of overseer and deacon. Individuals holding these posts must be honest, respectable, self-controlled, holding to the faith, and well regarded. In verse 11, the ‘women’ (possibly women in a deacon’s home, a deacon’s wife, or perhaps a female deacon like Phoebe in Rom. 16.1) must demonstrate their overall trustworthiness.
- Refutation of the Ephesian heresy and Timothy’s charge (4.1–16)
Paul then singles out false teaching which has emerged in Ephesus. Deceitful teachers have been urging forms of asceticism, and this must be opposed. Timothy himself, despite his youthfulness, must set an example (4.11–16). - Managing the household of God (5.1—6.2a)
Paul then focuses on widows. As in the Thessalonian correspondence, the church clearly faced problems arising out of its determination to live as a single mutually supportive family. So many widows have taken advantage of this that an age restriction is now needed, coupled with other reasonably stringent criteria to decide who really ought to receive the church’s financial support. - Flee falsehood and fight for the faith (6.2b–21a)
Timothy, transmitting these teachings, must himself flee the love of money and fight the good fight of the faith, keeping these commands until the glorious return of King Jesus (6.11–16). Paul has a word for the wealthy: they should use their wealth to make themselves rich in good deeds, and lay up treasure in the coming age (6.17–18).
THE ARGUMENT OF 2 TIMOTHY
Paul’s exhortation to Timothy to follow his calling (1.6–18)
We are not told what gift Timothy had, but it is likely that it had to do with leading the young church, giving it wise teaching and direction. Paul can tell him to stir up this gift, knowing that God’s spirit does not create timidity, but ‘power, love, and self-discipline’, precisely what Timothy needs. Timothy must therefore not be ashamed. He must, rather, do what Phygelus and Hermogenes failed to do, staying faithful to God, guarding the deposit, and not forsaking Paul when he faces difficulties.
Paul’s exhortation to Timothy to remain faithful (2.1–13)
Paul exhorts Timothy to be strong and transmit Paul’s teachings to further reliable people. He uses three quick metaphors; in Gorman’s words, ‘The minister of the gospel must suffer hardships single-mindedly like a soldier, unflinchingly like an athlete, and unceasingly like a farmer.’
Paul’s instructions for addressing false teaching (2.14–26)
Timothy himself must not be quarrelsome, or be drawn in to pointless controversies like those with Hymenaeus and Philetus, who are destroying the faith of some by claiming that the resurrection has already happened (2.14–18). The firm foundation of believers is this: we are known by God. Timothy must flee the evil desires of youth; pursue virtue with like-minded people who are pure-hearted; avoid specious arguments; be a teacher, not an agitator; and instruct opponents with gentleness (2.22–26).
Prophecy, persecutions, and God’s presence (3.1—4.8)
Warning about the likelihood of apostasy, Paul lists the types of behaviours to expect in the last days (3.1–5a), insisting that individuals showing these traits are already present and should be avoided. As the Egyptian magicians ‘Jannes and Jambres’ opposed Moses (see Ex. 7.11–12), such people will fail; perhaps this alludes to the prevalence of magic in Ephesus (3.5b–9)
Paul, by contrast, urges Timothy to recall ‘my teaching, my way of life, my purpose, faith, patience, love, endurance, persecutions, sufferings’, and the persecutions he endured in ‘Antioch, Iconium and Lystra’. Timothy must hold fast by the God-breathed scripture:
Every part of Scripture is God-breathed and useful one way or another—showing us truth, exposing our rebellion, correcting our mistakes, training us to live God’s way. Through the Word we are put together and shaped up for the tasks God has for us.
Timothy must preach and teach with care and courage (4.1–5). Paul becomes quite emotional as he contemplates his own demise: ‘I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith’, but trusts firmly in the lord for what lies beyond (4.6–8).
THE ARGUMENT OF TITUS
We know rather little about Titus. His Greek ancestry had caused trouble when he accompanied Paul to Jerusalem (Gal. 2.1–3). He went on Paul’s behalf to Corinth and then met Paul in northern Greece with good news of the Corinthians’ new attitude (2 Cor. 2.13; 7.5–16). He was then with Paul on his final journey to Corinth. At some later stage, while in prison, Paul sent him to Dalmatia (2 Tim. 4.10). Paul adds a warm blessing of grace and peace from God the father and the lord Jesus (Tit. 1.4).
- Titus’s role to appoint leaders and refute error (1.5–16)
Paul had commissioned Titus to stay in Crete and put the church in order. This leads to a comment about the requirements for those who serve as elders, not least in the light of opposition and false teaching (1.10–16). - The church as a teaching community (2.1–15)
Titus himself must teach sound doctrine, instructing older men to watch their behaviour and to remain sound in faith, love, and endurance. Similarly, older women must have a reverent and wholesome way of life, able to instruct younger women in setting a good example in loving their husbands and caring for their children. Younger men must cultivate the virtue of self-control, particularly in the light of the tawdry vices of Crete. - Seeking the social good and resisting error (3.1–11)
Titus must help the church to be subject to ruling authorities and to live at peace with outsiders (Tit. 3.1–2). The salvation given by God’s grace must issue in ‘good works’, the things which show puzzled and possibly hostile onlookers a different way to be human. Again, false teaching must not be allowed to distort all this.
THE PASTORAL EPISTLES AND THE BIG PICTURE
It is relatively easy to see what it might take to put the teaching of the Pastoral Epistles into practice. First, they demand that we guard the gospel, and the tradition which embodies it (see 2 Tim. 1.13–14). These letters are gospel-centred through and through.
As William Mounce comments:
At the heart of the P[astoral] E[pistles] is the gospel of Jesus Christ: God has acted in grace and mercy through the death of Christ with an offer of forgiveness, to which people must respond in faith, turning from evil, receiving empowerment through God’s Spirit, and looking forward to eternal life . . . In all this, the P[astoral] E[pistles] are fully Pauline.
Paul is anxious that everyone who professes Christian faith should allow the gospel to transform the whole of his or her life, so that the outward signs of the faith express a living reality that comes from the deepest parts of the personality. On top of that, he is also anxious that each Christian, and especially every teacher of the faith, should know how to build up the community in mutual love and support, rather than, by the wrong sort of teaching or behaviour, tearing it apart.
The importance of passing on the pattern of teaching and sound doctrine to the next generation reminds us both of an academic paper given at a recent conference. The celebrated contemporary New Testament scholar Richard Hays completed his book Echoes of Scripture in the Gospels while undergoing treatment for pancreatic cancer. The book was reviewed by a panel of scholars at the Society of Biblical Literature meeting at San Antonio in 2016. The respondents were positive, but one in particular quibbled at the forceful expression, towards the end of the book, of Richard’s view that all the gospel-writers used the Old Testament to identify Jesus with the God of Israel, and his further view that this was absolutely non-negotiable for the life of the church.
When pressed as to why he had expressed himself so strongly, Hays began to weep for a moment, right in front of the audience, and his words have remained with us ever since. ‘I thought’, he explained, ‘that these were going to be the last words I was ever going to write.’ Happily, prayers were answered positively; the medical profession did its best; and at the time of completing this volume in 2019 Richard Hays is alive and well. As he exemplified, the best legacy to leave at the end of one’s life or ministry is a firm grasp of the central truth of the gospel. All Christian teachers should bear in mind the long-term aim of being able to say, at the end: ‘I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith’ (2 Tim. 4.7).
Second, the pastorals are not woodenly doctrinaire or dogmatic. They abound with an emphasis on doing good deeds and living a life of faith. When I (Michael Bird) first became a Christian, I was discipled by a young pastor of a young church, who took me under his wing and instructed me in the way of Jesus Christ. When it was time for me to leave town, he and his wife gave me a theology textbook with the following words inscribed inside it: ‘Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers (1 Tim. 4.16).’ That is advice for all of us if we are to run a good race.
Third, the pastorals are a robust reminder about the importance of mentoring. Making yourself irreplaceable may be a great way of ensuring job security. But good leaders will always try to make themselves redundant by ensuring that there is someone of character and competence ready to take over. The pastoral letters remind us that we need to identify, train, mentor, and encourage our Timothys and Tituses, and indeed our Phoebes and Priscillas, to pick up the baton and carry forward the mission of the church. There should be no ministry without mentoring successors.
All notes above taken directly from “The New Testament In Its World – NT Wright and Mike Bird, SPCK
Publication Date: 28 Nov 2019
Publisher: SPCK Publishing
Page Count: 960
Author: NT Wright
ISBN-13: 9780281068708, 9780281082711
The Carpenter's Nail 