First Epistle to Timothy

← Encyclopedia

The First Epistle to Timothy belongs to a small set of letters in the New Testament addressed not to a city or a congregation but to a single man with a job to do. It is one of the three Pastoral Epistles — grouped with the Second Epistle to Timothy and the Epistle to Titus — letters written, in the frame they present, by the apostle Paul to associates he had left in charge of churches and counseled on how those churches should be run. Timothy, the named recipient, is the younger of the two, posted at Ephesus and instructed to hold the line there while his teacher is elsewhere. The name “Pastoral” is a modern label, fixed in the eighteenth century, that catches the common subject: the care and ordering of a flock by appointed shepherds.

A letter for an institution

The undisputed letters of Paul — the Epistle to the Romans, the First Epistle to the Corinthians, the Epistle to the Philippians, and the rest — argue doctrine under pressure, written into live quarrels with congregations that talk back, or into the affection and anxiety of a man writing from prison. This one has a different temperature. It reads as a handbook for a community settling in for the long term, a movement that has stopped expecting the end within the year and begun building the offices it will need to last. The urgency that drives the Corinthian correspondence has cooled into administration. Where the early Paul writes to put out fires, the author of First Timothy writes to install the fire code.

The letter’s center is the ordering of a community and the qualifying of the men who will lead it. It sets out, in two compact lists, the character expected of an overseer — the Greek episkopos, the word that hardens over the next generations into “bishop” — and of the deacons who serve under him. The overseer must be above reproach, temperate, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard or a lover of money, one who manages his own household well, and not a recent convert. The deacons are held to a parallel standard. These are not mystical qualifications; they are the criteria of a trustworthy manager, and the letter is candid that the office is also a burden of reputation, exposed to the judgment of outsiders. The vocabulary itself is telling. Episkopos — literally “overseer,” “one who watches over” — is a workaday Greek term for a supervisor or guardian, drawn from civic and household administration before it became the honorific of a clerical rank; the letter uses it in the singular, as a function rather than a throne, and the same passage moves between episkopos and presbyteros (“elder”) without sharply distinguishing them, a fluidity the later church would resolve into a fixed three-tiered ministry the letter itself does not yet describe. The deacon (diakonos, “servant,” “minister”) is the junior office, and the letter notes a category of women in the diaconal passage whose status — wives of deacons, or female deacons in their own right — the Greek leaves open and commentators have argued ever since. Alongside the offices it regulates a roll of supported widows — a list of women, genuinely without family, enrolled for the church’s maintenance and expected in return to a life of prayer and service — with an age threshold and a set of conditions that read like the bylaws of a charitable foundation. It gives rules for prayer and conduct in the assembly, presses sound teaching against speculation, and treats the household as the training ground and the model for the church: a man who cannot order his own house cannot be trusted with the house of God.

Two of its instructions have been among the most argued-over lines in the whole Christian corpus. The letter directs that a woman should learn in quietness and full submission, and withholds from women the role of teaching or holding authority over a man in the assembly, grounding the rule in a reading of the order and the fall in Genesis. And it requires that the overseer be the husband of one wife — a phrase whose Greek (mias gynaikos andra, “a one-woman man”) has been read variously as a bar on polygamy, on remarriage after widowhood, on divorce-and-remarriage, or simply as a demand for marital fidelity. Neither clause settles its own meaning. Both have been cited and contested across nineteen centuries of church order, and both are still pressed into service in contemporary debates over ordination, marriage, and the place of women in ministry. The history of their interpretation is a large part of the history of the letter itself.

Two phrases that left the church

For all its administrative cast, First Timothy gave ordinary speech two of its most durable proverbs. The warning that the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil — often clipped, in popular use, to “money is the root of all evil,” which inverts a careful original that condemns the craving rather than the coin — comes from its sixth chapter, embedded in a passage on contentment and the snares of wealth. And the homely counsel to take a little wine for the stomach’s sake, addressed to Timothy’s own health, became a stock citation in later arguments over abstinence and moderation, quoted by those defending a cup of wine against the teetotaler and by moralists insisting on the word little. Both phrases have traveled far from the church-order document that produced them, which is itself a small lesson in how scripture seeds a language.

The warning against “knowledge falsely so called”

For an account of esoteric history the letter matters most at its very end. In its closing lines it charges Timothy to guard the deposit committed to him — the parathēkē, the entrusted treasure of teaching he is to keep intact and hand on — and to turn away from profane and empty chatter and from the “oppositions” (antitheseis) of what the King James Version famously rendered “science falsely so called.” The Greek phrase is pseudōnymos gnōsis: falsely named knowledge. The word standing under “science” is gnōsis, the ordinary Greek term for knowing — the same word that, raised to a technical sense, would name a whole family of second-century movements.

This is among the earliest Christian texts to set an authorized teaching against a rival knowledge that claims the same name and to brand the rival a counterfeit. The move is rhetorically decisive: it does not argue the rival down so much as deny it the title, conceding that what the opponents offer looks like gnōsis while insisting the name is stolen. Later readers found in the verse a forecast of the long clash between the emerging church and the teachers gathered, by their opponents, under the heading of Gnosticism — and the reception runs in a straight line. When Irenaeus, bishop of Lyon, composed his great refutation around 180, he gave it a Greek title that quotes this verse directly: the work later known as Against Heresies was titled, in full, a detection and overthrow of the knowledge falsely so called. The phrase from the letter’s last paragraph became the banner under which the whole heresiological enterprise marched. Among the figures Irenaeus set out to refute was the Valentinian teacher Ptolemy, whose system he reports at length and whose Letter to Flora survives as a rare first-person specimen of the knowledge the letter’s author would have called false.

Whether the author of First Timothy already had such developed systems in view, or something looser and earlier — a mix of Jewish speculation, genealogies, ascetic enthusiasm, and law-disputes that the letter elsewhere names — is genuinely uncertain, and the wording is general enough to fit either. The letter warns in the same breath against those who forbid marriage and command abstinence from foods, an ascetic rigorism that some have linked to a proto-Gnostic contempt for the body and the created order, others to a more diffuse current of first-century renunciation. What is clear is that the verse supplied the controversy its keyword. The collision between church authority and gnōsis was named, in advance of its sharpest battles, by a sentence in a letter about who should be a deacon. The polemic ties the letter firmly to the world of Paul’s circle and the churches of Asia Minor — the same Ephesian setting that frames the Epistle to the Ephesians, and the same anxieties about deceptive teaching that surface in the Epistle to the Colossians.

The deposit and its keepers

Underneath the church order runs a single governing image: the parathēkē, the deposit. Teaching, in this letter, is property held in trust — received intact, guarded against tampering, transmitted whole to a successor who will guard it in turn. The overseer is a custodian; the false teacher is a thief or a counterfeiter; orthodoxy is the chain of faithful keepers. This is a different conception of truth from the one in the undisputed letters, where Paul reasons and contends and improvises under the Spirit. Here truth is already a settled inheritance, and the task is conservation rather than discovery. The letter even embeds what reads like a fixed liturgical fragment — a rhythmic creedal hymn on Christ “manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit,” and so on through six clauses — quoting tradition rather than composing it. The shift from argument to custodianship is precisely what makes the letter look, to many readers, like the product of a later moment than Paul’s own.

§5b The authorship question and the scholarship

The question that organizes modern study of First Timothy is whether Paul wrote it. The traditional view, held from antiquity and still defended, takes the three Pastorals as genuine letters of Paul’s last years, written after the events that close the Acts of the Apostles, during travels and a final imprisonment not otherwise recorded — Paul aging, handing the work to a younger generation. Against this, the majority of critical scholarship since the nineteenth century regards the Pastorals as pseudonymous: composed in Paul’s name after his death, by the recognized ancient practice of writing under a revered authority’s identity to bring that authority to bear on a later church’s problems.

The case for pseudonymity rests on convergent grounds. The vocabulary and style of the Pastorals diverge sharply from the undisputed letters — a large share of their words appear nowhere else in Paul, the characteristic connective particles and the dense argumentative syntax of Romans and Galatians give way to a smoother, more measured prose, and recurring catchphrases (“sound doctrine,” “the faith,” “godliness”) mark a fixed idiom rather than a living argument. The church structure the letters assume — established offices of overseer and deacon, an enrolled order of widows, an ordained ministry transmitted by the laying-on of hands — looks more developed than anything the undisputed letters describe, where the congregations run on charismatic gifts rather than settled offices. The picture of false teaching, the routinized treatment of doctrine as a guarded deposit, and the difficulty of fitting the letters into the known chronology of Paul’s career all point, on this reading, to the early second century: the moment a movement was hardening into a church with a hierarchy, a charitable roster, and an authorized teaching to defend.

The standard apparatus lays out both sides. The classic form-critical commentary by Martin Dibelius, revised by Hans Conzelmann (English translation in the Hermeneia series, 1972), reads the Pastorals as a unified later corpus expressing a settled “good Christian citizenship” remote from Paul’s eschatological urgency. I. Howard Marshall’s International Critical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (1999), exhaustive on language and theology, weighs the linguistic argument carefully and proposes a mediating “allonymity” — composition by a close associate or school preserving Pauline material — rather than either simple authenticity or simple forgery. Luke Timothy Johnson’s Anchor Bible volume on the First and Second Letters to Timothy (2001) is among the most vigorous recent defenses of authenticity, arguing that the stylistic divergence is overstated and that letters to individuals should not be expected to read like letters to congregations. Bart Ehrman’s Forgery and Counterforgery (2013) makes the fullest case that the Pastorals are deliberate pseudepigrapha and that the ancient world, contrary to a common claim, did regard writing under a false name as deception. The dispute turns less on new evidence than on how the same evidence is weighted: statistical word-studies cut both ways, and the possibility that Paul used a secretary with latitude has been invoked to absorb the stylistic gap. The arguments and the public-domain heresiological reception that the letter’s keyword set in motion can be followed in Mead’s Fragments of a Faith Forgotten, which collects the patristic testimony “according to its foes.”

The irony sits at the letter’s own seam. First Timothy’s deepest instruction is to guard the deposit — to keep a teaching intact and unmixed, to know the true name of knowledge from the counterfeit, to hand on what was received without addition or theft. And the letter that issues this charge has become, on the majority reading, exactly the kind of object it warns against: a text composed under a borrowed name, attributing to one authority words another hand wrote, its very signature the disputed thing. The document that taught the church to test a teaching by its pedigree now has its own pedigree on trial. A letter about custody has become a question of custody — and the watchword it gave the heresy-hunters, pseudōnymos, “falsely named,” is the charge a large part of scholarship now returns to the letter itself.

→ In the library: Mead — Fragments of a Faith Forgotten (1906): The Gnosis According to its Foes

→ Related: Epistle To The Romans · Epistle To The Ephesians · Epistle To The Philippians · Gnosis · Second Epistle To Timothy · Epistle To Titus · Paul The Apostle · New Testament · Gnosticism · Irenaeus · Ptolemy The Gnostic · Heresy · Asceticism · Epistle To The Colossians · First Epistle To The Corinthians