I have been sharing information about First Timothy which is attributed, albeit inappropriately, to St. Paul. Hopefully my readers have found time to pick up their New Testaments and read this short letter.

In its final chapter, this letter deals with the question of wealth. This indicates that in at least some Christian communities by the time it was written, there were some who were “rich” – perhaps not superrich, but rich by the standards of the time. The author cautions against wanting to be rich:

We brought nothing into the world, so that we can take nothing out of it, but if we have food and clothing, we will be content with these. But those who want to be rich fall into temptation and are trapped by many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, and in their eagerness to be rich some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pains.

Having food and clothing – having what we need – is the basis for any real contentment. It is enough. Though wealth itself is not condemned, the   desire for it is: “The love of money is a root of all kinds of evil.” That is very strong language and it invites the   question: Is that true?

In almost the last verses of the letter, the author suggests what to say to those who are already rich and yet Christian:

As for those who in the present age are rich, command them not to be haughty, or to set their hopes on the uncertainty of riches, but rather on God who richly provides us with everything for our  enjoyment. They are to do good, to be rich in good works, generous and ready to share.

The list includes both negatives and positives: the rich are not to be haughty or to trust in riches; they are to trust in God, do good, and be rich in good works, generous, and sharing.

Thus, even as 1 Timothy reflects the settling down of Christianity and early stages of accommodation to the dominant culture, it also in   its cautions about wealth preserves some of the radical impulse of Jesus and Paul and the earliest form of Christianity. It is a document that is characterized as accommodationist. This doesn’t mean, however, that it is without value and merit.

The arguments advanced against Pauline authorship can be summarized as follows: (1) The errors described in the Pastorals are Gnostic errors of the 2nd century; (2) the stage of organized Christian communities is that of the early end century; (3) the style and vocabulary are so different from the genuine Pauline letters; (4) the tone of the Pastorals, emphasizing the fixity of the traditional truths is opposed to the spirit of the genuine Pauline letters.