I AND II TIMOTHY: INTRODUCTION TO THE LITERARY STRUCTURE

An unedited version of the analysis below will be sent to anyone requesting it. Just contact me at elmerphd21@hotmail.com.

Unity and Authorship

The initial impression left upon reading these epistles has been expressed as follows:

“There is a lack of studied order, some subjects being treated more than once in the same letter without apparent premeditation.” (Guthrie)

            “The Pastorals are made up of a miscellaneous collection of material. They have no unifying                 theme; there is no development of thought.” (Hanson)

The overall appearance of chaos in approaching the Pastorals is reinforced when one considers how to divide them into smaller literary segments. A survey of ten commentaries on I Timothy revealed no two of them to be in complete agreement on the boundaries of its subsections. The difficulty in precisely dividing the texts into component parts may lie with the style of writing, described by Hendricksen, for II Timothy, as follows:

“There are no sharp divisions. Rather, the emphasis gradually shifts from one point to another. When a new point is made, the old one is not entirely relinquished. The thoughts overlap like shingles on a roof.”

I Timothy

Overall Structure

Despite the above-mentioned problems, not all commentators have despaired of making order out of the diverse material present in these epistles. For example, Wallis takes as his starting point the three doxologies or hymns that punctuate the charges to Timothy in order to reconstruct “a literary pattern that is probably not accidental.” He understates his point again when he says, “The epistle summarized according to this pattern offers a greater unity than is generally recognized.” The present proposal, outlined in Fig. 1, is a variation on Wallis’ structure expanded to highlight the so-called “Household Codes.” Since the formal elements of this letter – a brief introduction (1:1-2) and even briefer conclusion (6:21b) – are practically nonexistent, they are merged with the body.

Figure 1: The Structure of I Timothy

I. Charges to Timothy (1:1-20)

A. “Charge” to Timothy (1:1-5)

B. “Certain persons” (1:6-11)

C. Thanksgiving (1:12-17) – ending “AMEN”

A'. “Charge” to Timothy (1:18-19a)

B'. “Certain persons” (1:19b-20)

II. Household Codes (2:1-3:13)

A. Men—All (2:1-8)

B. Women (2:9-15)

A'. Men–Bishops and Deacons (3:1-13)

III. Instructions to Timothy (3:14-4:16)

A. Instructions (3:14-15)

B. Hymn (3:16)

A'. Instructions (4:1-16)

II'. Household Codes (5:1-22)

A. Older Men (5:1-2)

B. Widows (5:3-16)

A'. Older Men (5:17-22)

I'. Charges to Timothy (5:23-6:21)

A. Advice to Timothy–true wisdom (5:23-25)

B. Servants (6:1-10)

C. False and true teachers (6:11-16) – ending “AMEN”

B'. The Rich (6:17-19)

A'. Advice to Timothy–false wisdom (6:20-21)

Sections I (1:1-20) and I' (5:23-6:21)

The beginning unit in Section I' poses a problem since its admonition in 5:23 to “take a little wine” seems to be a non sequitur. The key to understanding this verse, however, appears to be in its coupling with 5:24-25 as typical wisdom sayings in opposition to the false knowledge mentioned in the parallel section I'A' at 6:20. This so-called knowledge no doubt included aestheticism such as condemned by Paul in I Timothy 4:1-5.

The most prominent similarities between the paired sections I and I' are the doxologies that mark the conclusions of their respective center units, which also contain identical references to God's uniquely innate immortality and the rare designation of “king” for God.

“To the King of ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen.” (I Timothy 1:17)

            “...the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone has immortality and dwells in                                     unapproachable light, whom no man has ever seen or can see. To him be honor and eternal                     dominion. Amen.” (I Timothy 6:15-16)

In addition to the above examples, a number of other thematic and verbal parallels can be cited which appear within 1 Timothy exclusively in these two sections.

The bounds of the remaining sections and their parallel relationships can be similarly defined and defended. The comment of Wallis regarding his proposed organization for I Timothy holds equally for that shown in Fig. 1:

“[T]he whole structure of the epistle is designed to throw into prominence the great hymn of praise [3:16] at the center, which presents succinctly and beautifully the person and work of Christ.” (Wallis)

The centrality of this verse to the whole epistle has been recognized by others. 

II Timothy

There appear to have been few thoroughgoing attempts to find an overall organization for this second epistle to Timothy. The structure proposed in Fig. 2 is an attempt to correct this omission.

Figure 2: The Structure of II Timothy

I. Suffering (1:1-2:13)

Introductory Words (1:1-7)

A. Suffering (1:8-14)

B. Paul and acquaintances (1:15-18)

A'. Suffering (2:1-10)

Concluding Hymn (a faithful saying) (2:11-13)

II. Charges to Timothy (2:14-26)

A. Avoid Disputes (2:14-17a)

B. Paul and acquaintances (2:17b-19)

A'. Avoid Disputes (2:20-26)

II'. Charges to Timothy (3:1-4:8)

A. Last Days (3:1-9)

B. Paul and acquaintances (3:10-17)

A'. Last Days (4:1-8)

I'. Suffering (4:9-22)

B. Paul and acquaintances (4:9-16)

A. Suffering (4:17-18) – hymn ending in “Amen”

B'. Paul and acquaintances (4:19-21)

Final Blessing (4:22)

Note that this pattern results in part from a peculiarity of this letter that sets it apart from its companion epistle: the utilization of concrete examples of individual behaviors, both good and bad, to illustrate some of the general truths being set forth. II Timothy totally lacks those references to particular groups of people within the church that marked I Timothy and helped define its literary structure.

Implications of these Structures

The use of structural analysis as an aid to exegesis is demonstrated in I and II Timothy regarding several controversies surrounding these letters.

Faithful Sayings

Among the many questions involving the Pastorals, a few can be profitably addressed by consideration of structural parallels. One of the most interesting, and longstanding, controversies is the significance of the five denoted “faithful sayings” in the Pastoral Letters since that form of citation is not found in any other Pauline writings. Gundry says that the phrase “introduces early Christian confessions, slogans, and hymns.”  Attempts to encompass all of them around a common theme, such as salvation, have so far failed to be convincing.  A more promising approach is to investigate the structural importance of these marker phrases. By doing so, some direction can be given regarding the exact passages designated in this way in each occurrence.

Alexander

As a second issue to consider, is the Alexander of I Tim. 1:20 the same as Alexander the coppersmith of II Tim. 4:14? Some would answer with a probable “yes”; others are very doubtfu; and yet others feel that there is insufficient evidence to decide. As mentioned earlier, one of the differences in these two letters highlighted by their respective structures is that II Timothy contains more references to specific people. In fact, I Timothy contains, other than the title recipient, only the names of Hymenaeus and Alexander (at 1:20), both cast in a very negative light as having turned away from the faith. These two names occur also in II Timothy along with others concentrated within the five “B” sections of Fig. 2.

Figure 4: Individuals in II Timothy

             Section         Name(s)                                 Description 

            IB                Phygelus, Hermogenes         deserted Paul

            IB                Onesiphorus                         supported Paul

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IIB              Hymaneus, Philetus              heretical teachers

II'B             Paul, Timothy                         teachers of the truth

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

            I'B               Demas                                      deserted Paul

            I'B               Crescens, Titus                                   news of location

            I'B                Luke, Mark                                              supported Paul

            I'B                Tychicus, Carpus                               news of location

I'B               Alexander the coppersmith    opposed Paul

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

            I'B'              Prisca, Aquila, Onesiphorus              Timothy should greet

            I'B'              Erastus, Trophimus                                      news of location

            I'B'              Eubulus, Pudens, Linus, Claudia       send greetings to Timothy

Note that within each division of Fig. 3 the names are arranged with a certain symmetry in mind, considering their individual contexts. If we take this symmetry seriously within the chiastic arrangement of names in I'B above, then Alexander the coppersmith becomes not merely a Jew or Greek who happened to disagree with Paul’s teachings, he is instead paired with Demas, an apparent believer who has deserted the faith. If so, then Alexander the coppersmith of II Timothy closely fits the description of the Alexander mentioned in I Timothy.

“Later Times”

A third controversial subject within the Pastorals involves the phrase “in later times” found in I Timothy 4:1. Several scholars understand this designation differently from “in the last days” of II Timothy 3:1. The former phrase perhaps denotes all events transpiring after Paul leaves while the latter designation has definite eschatological tones. Knight, however, calls these two phrases “virtually synonymous.” In this case, a comparison of the two epistles’ structures (see figs. 1 and 2) is quite enlightening. If one draws a midline to separate the mirror-image halves of each letter, the two particular verses given above fall exactly at the start of the second half of their respective epistles. This parallel placement is strongly indicative of a parallel meaning to the two phrases and reinforces the structural unity of the two letters.