faith, and the crown of righteousness from his Lord and Master (2 Tim. 4:7, 8). Those who deny
the second imprisonment, and yet accept Second Timothy as Pauline, make it the last of the first
imprisonment.
As to First Timothy and Titus, it is evident from their contents that they were written while
Paul was free, and after he had made some journeys, which are not recorded in the Acts. Here lies
the difficulty. Two ways are open:- The two Epistles were written in 56 and 57. Paul may, during his three years’ sojourn in
Ephesus, a.d. 54–57 (see Acts 19:8–10; 20:31), easily have made a second journey to Macedonia,
leaving Ephesus in charge of Timothy (1 Tim. 1:3); and also crossed over to the island of Crete,
where he left Titus behind to take care of the churches (Tit. 1:5). Considering the incompleteness
of the record of Acts, and the probable allusions in 2 Cor. 2:1; 12:13, 14, 21; 13:1, to a second visit
to Corinth, not mentioned in the Acts, these two journeys are within the reach of possibility.^1197 But
such an early date leaves the other difficulties unexplained. - The tradition of the second Roman captivity, which can be raised at least to a high degree
of probability, removes the difficulty by giving us room for new journeys and labors of Paid between
his release in the spring of 63 and the Neronian persecution in July, 64 (according to Tacitus), or
three or four years later (according to Eusebius and Jerome), as well as for the development of the
Gnostic heresy and the ecclesiastical organization of the church which is implied in these Epistles.
Hence, most writers who hold to the genuineness place First Timothy and Titus between the first
and second Roman captivities.^1198
Paul certainly intended to make a journey from Rome to Spain (Rom. 15:24), and also one
to the East (Philem. 22; Phil. 1:25, 26; 2:24), and he had ample time to carry out his intention even
before the Neronian persecution, if we insist upon confining this to the date of Tacitus.^1199
Those who press the chronological difficulty should not forget that a forger could have very
easily fitted the Epistles into the narrative of the Acts, and was not likely to invent a series of
journeys, circumstances, and incidents, such as the bringing of the cloak, the books, and the
parchments which Paul, in the hurry of travel, had left at Troas (2 Tim. 4:13).
The Gnostic Heresy.
The Pastoral Epistles, like Colossians, oppose the Gnostic heresy (γνῶσις ψευδώνυμος, 1
Tim. 6:20) which arose in Asia Minor during his first Roman captivity, and appears more fully
developed in Cerinthus, the contemporary of John. This was acknowledged by the early Fathers,
Irenaeus and Tertullian, who used these very Epistles as Pauline testimonies against the Gnosticism
of their day.
The question arises, which of the many types of this many-sided error is opposed? Evidently
the Judaizing type, which resembled that at Colossae, but was more advanced and malignant, and
hence is more sternly denounced. The heretics were of "the circumcision" (Tit. 1:10); they are
called "teachers of the law" (νομοδιδάσκαλοι,1 Tim. 1:7, the very reverse of antinomians), "given
to Jewish fables" (Ἰουδαϊκοι μῦθοι, Tit. 1:14), and "disputes connected with the law" (μάχαι νομικαί,
Tit. 3:9), and fond of foolish and ignorant questionings (2 Tim. 2:23). They were, moreover,
(^1197) So Schrader, Wieseler, Reythmayr, formerly also Reuss (in his Gesch., etc., 5th ed., 1875, but withdrawn in his French
Com. on the Pauline Epp., 1878).
(^1198) So Theophylact, Oecumenius, Ussher, Pearson, Tillemont, Neander, Bleek, Ruffet, Lange, Farrar, Plumptre, Lightfoot, etc.
(^1199) A release of Paul from the first Roman captivity and a visit to Spain is also asserted by such critics as Ewald and Renan.
A.D. 1-100.