Deconstructing Paul – The Pastoral Epistles – An Introduction

The Apostle Paul wrote 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus, right? Right?

That is the popular Evangelical stance, that Paul is the author, or at least someone helped him write these somewhat personal messages to his disciples Timothy and Titus.

Yet, many with a critical eye or an open mind concede that something else is going on. It is as if your favorite band plays a certain way, with a certain tune, a recognizable familiarity. Then you go to a local pub or concert and a cover band plays a song from your favorite band. Its nice, but not as good as the original. Oh, wait, they changed the song there. No, that isn’t the original lyric! Wait, what?

That is what many New Testament readers experience when reading these epistles after reading Paul’s other letters. And as a musician notices intricate differences between one player and another, New Testament teachers, pastors, and scholars trip over these same differences. How one explains the difference is the key here. There are simple answers, easy answers, obligatory answers and then there are questions…lots of them! My goal in this study is to point out the differences, highlight them, expose them, and then come to a conclusion that I believe is more reasonable than the simple, easy, or obligatory answers.

Shall we get started?

Robert Mounce, a contemporary conservative New Testament Greek scholar, in contradiction with many current scholars, believe The Pastoral Epistles (hereafter referred to as PE) were written by Paul just before his death. To outline his position, we can turn to an excellent online source:

“Many contemporary scholars consider the Pastoral Epistles to be pseudonymous – written not by Paul but by someone else after Paul’s death, writing in Paul’s name to uphold and maintain the Pauline tradition among the churches. In view of ‘the nearly universal witness of 1800 years of church interpretation … that the self-witness of the PE [Pastoral Epistles] is credible and true’, Mounce seeks ‘to recreate a historical setting in Paul’s lifetime in which these events may have occurred and to ask if the PE may reasonably be placed in this setting.’ He writes, ‘Is it more credible to see Paul writing the PE at the end of his life in a unique historical situation or to see an admirer of Paul, either shortly after his death or toward the end of the first century, perhaps with scraps of authentic material, writing the three letters in an attempt to make Paul’s message relevant to the specific issues that arose in that generation?’” (1, underline mine)

I’ll ignore the false dilemma of “either this or that” for the moment to focus my response on credibility, even though credibility is a very subjective word inherently open to what may be believed or believable.

May I suggest the question be rewritten? What is more credible…to force a historical document into something it is not to satisfy a theology or to set the document free to reveal itself to its readers? Either way, the readers will interpret the document and be informed by it. The question ultimately becomes not what is it, but what was it? And that pulls us back to authorial intent. What was the document supposed to do in its original context? Once we understand that, then we can decide what it is in the present.

A case has been made for some time that these are personal letters written by Paul, likely through an amanuensis (scribe), to Timothy and Titus in order to give them specific direction in their ministry. Today, they have become a favored resource for those in ministry. It is, in fact, how I came to read, know, love, and ultimately challenge these letters.

What I am about to propose is yet another possibility, a perhaps, a plausible case for these letters being prepared for a specific purpose. Here is where I can address the false dilemma of the either/or Mounce presented above. Are there only two options: Paul wrote these letters or an admirer wrote them? I have seen several possibilities, mine being just one of many. So, I won’t argue that my position is the correct position, but I will suggest that it is yet another possibly better solution because it lets the documents speak for themselves with all their flaws, breaks, incoherencies, and incompatibilities.

Essentially, I have come to the conclusion that Paul did not write these letters as we see them, and as such they found their final and current form much later than Paul’s lifetime. With that as a point of reference, I can explain how and why I came to this conclusion. Readers open to this possibility will find freedom from several hurtful and divisive arguments currently burning throughout many churches. These hurtful arguments are the fruit of the interpretative stance Mounce holds – that Paul wrote these letters. You can be certain that I will highlight each one of these hurtful arguments and misinterpretations in my analysis. As such, this will not be a verse by verse commentary, but more of a section by section analysis. While I have examined each sentence, clause, and even punctuation in both the original language and the available manuscripts, my scope is to make my analysis available to a general audience. Therefore, my position is not simply academic, but one born out of a truly pastoral heart…a desire to see all people included, loved, and free to seek and know their God.

(1) 11/17/2020

Photo by Kelly Lacy from Pexels


What did Paul mean by not being ashamed of the gospel in Romans?

Ashamed – “embarrassed or guilty because of one’s actions, characteristics, or associations” or perhaps “reluctant to do something through fear of embarrassment or humiliation.”

In Greek, the word is epaischunomai ( ἐπαισχύνομαι ) “to be ashamed – of a thing” in this case, the gospel, the good news of the kingdom of God.

Fair enough, right? Just a straightforward meaning. Or is there more? An undercurrent of meaning that most of us have missed that the first hearers of the letter would have caught?

Let’s look at the cultural context. Paul…writing to Romans…people he had not yet met. Rome was the heart of the Roman Empire. And that empire flourished because they had dominated the hearts and minds of its people – whether they liked it or not.

So, Caesar was the one who brought peace. Romans knew that the good news was that Caesar had conquered the barbarians and that peace in the world was possible because of him.

In fact, he was the savior of the world. That was the good news.

The bad news was to the conquered. Their lot was one of shame because they had lost. They were the problem and their culture and systems were simply inferior as proven by being overthrown. They were shamed into submission and were assimilated into the Empire.

Their shame was cause for celebration in Rome. Their shame meant peace. Their shame meant Romans had been saved from these people.  Their shame became boasting in Rome.

So, when Paul writes that he is not ashamed of the gospel, he is throwing down a clear challenge to Rome, Caesar, and all that the Empire represents. He is in effect saying that he is not ashamed – he has not been conquered, his God has not been defeated, the kingdom of God is greater than the Roman Empire.

This is a huge difference from the surface reading that most preachers and teachers propose.

Let’s first look at how John Piper approaches the subject. (Click here to go there…)

His logic goes like this:

  • The reason Paul was “eager to preach the gospel in Rome is that he is not ashamed of the gospel.”
  • The gospel was first the basis of Paul being shamed.
  • The gospel was secondarily the basis of freedom from shame.
  • Therefore, we should not be ashamed of sharing the gospel with others.

Like most Christian teaching today the emphasis is on two things:

  1. The individual
  2. The application

The focus is on you, today, here and now and on how you should live this out. Here is a link to another page that does this. Note this quote:

To be “ashamed of the gospel” is to allow willful sin to take over our lives and not look back because who cares what God says…To be “unashamed” of the gospel means that we not only speak this truth, but we also live it out in our lives.

Now, I am not against making a personal connection and I am definitely not against putting into practice what we know and love. What I am concerned about is that we may have missed the point…we may have shape-shifted the message into something it was not.

Indeed, the whole purpose of the book of Romans since the time of the Reformation has been largely accepted to be theological in nature…Paul’s “theological manifesto.” It’s where we got “The Romans Road.” (Interestingly enough, a “road” that the original hearers of Romans would not have grasped.)

But in missing the point right up front in the introduction to the letter, by veering off course just a little, I believe the destination we have arrived at all these years later is not the one the Romans arrived at when they first heard the letter. And that is something to be ashamed about.

Click Here! More on my take on Romans can be found in this post!

Professor April DeConick On Studying The Transgressors

OK, I freely admit that football season here in the states has slowed down my progress on 1 Timothy.

In one sense, this is good. It takes time to think through the project and come up with more questions to ask and more options to consider.

As an aside, I happened to listen to a video today and just had to post up the quote because it seems to apply to the 1 Timothy study quite well!

Starting at about 8:29  in the video, Professor DeConick states that she likes to study “the transgressors”…those “on the edges” and states that one of her professors told her,
“If you want to understand the really early traditions look at the people on the edges about a hundred years later because as the tradition norms, as it becomes more normal and less radical, those radical people in the beginning are pushed toward the outside and so are their ideas.”
Further, she asks, “Why did they become outsiders? Because at some point they were insiders.”
Very good questions to ask in an examination of a letter that appears to have been a power play to create just such an insider/outsider division.
A little something to tease the mind and consider as we look at the early church, who was in, who was out, etc…
You can peruse her most excellent site direct at:

1 Timothy 1:1-2

1.1 Paul, apostle of Christ Jesus according to the authority of God our Savior and Christ Jesus our hope. 2 To Timothy, a true child in faith; grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord. (translation mine)

  • Παῦλος ἀπόστολος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ κατʼ ἐπιταγὴν θεοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν καὶ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ τῆς ἐλπίδος ἡμῶν2 Τιμοθέῳ γνησίῳ τέκνῳ ἐν πίστει· χάρις, ἔλεος, εἰρήνη ἀπὸ θεοῦ πατρὸς καὶ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν.

     1:1 Χριστο ησο WH Treg NA28  ] Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ RP     •      Χριστο ησο WH Treg NA28 ]  κυριόυ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ RP     2 πατρς WH Treg NA28  ] +  ἡμῶν RP

As usual, the first few verses of a New Testament writing set the scene so to speak and the same goes for these opening two verses. I will keep it brief, as much more can be found in standard commentaries on these verses.

Key words:

  • Verse 1: “according to the authority of God” ~ ἐπιταγὴν θεοῦ – No matter how one translates this it comes down to a matter of authority. The writer asserts that Paul’s authority/commission/command comes from God. Paul typically did assert his calling or service as an apostle, but this presents a whole new angle that more directly asserts authority for the words and instruction to follow. Again, this begs the question, would Paul have had to exert this much force with Timothy? It doesn’t seem necessary that he would have to do so. The strength of this thought will fore fully play out in verse 7 with those who “wish to be teachers.”
  • Verse 2: “true child” (of one born to a married couple) ~ γνησίῳ τέκνῳ – Another angle that asserts authority passed down legitimately from God to Paul to Timothy. In other words, what is to follow is pure teaching. Think in terms of contrast: true/false, real/fake, legitimate/illegitimate. These opening lines are setting up the discourse to follow in opposition to the way other Christians are interpreting, reading and living out their faith

The introduction is irregular compared to typical Pauline writings on at least several counts:

  1. Paul’s introduction is overly formal and overtly emphatic of Paul’s authority. In Paul’s letters to the churches this makes sense, but in a seeming private correspondence to a well known co-worker it would be unnecessary. Miller points out that John Calvin noticed this in his commentary when he wrote that Paul had “no need to set forth his titles and reassert his claims to apostleship, as he does here, for the name alone would have certainly have been enough for Timothy.” Further, Calvin concluded that the Pastorals must have been intended for a larger audience, but if so, then why was there no reference to them? (57, n.1)
  2. Nowhere else in Paul’s letter do we see him refer to God as Savior. Yet in the Pastorals it isused ten times. Six in reference to God (1 Tim. 1.1, 2.3, 4.10, Titus 1.3, 2.10, 3.4) and four to Jesus as Savior (2 Tim. 1.10, Titus 1.4, 2.13, 3.6). (Miller 57)
  3. The reference to Jesus as “our hope” is a phrase Paul uses five times in the PE and only five other times total in his other letters. A minor point, but still one that is unusual. Miller, citing C.K. Barrett, suggests that these items reveal liturgical additions and propose that Paul might have simply written, “Paul to Timothy, my true child in the faith. Grace and peace from God our Father and Christ Jesus our Lord. (59)
  4. The language change from Christ as Savior to God as Savior as well as from Jesus Christ to Christ Jesus suggests a later writing borrowing from popular liturgical sayings as opposed to typical Pauline phrases. Further, the phrase “in faith” is not known to be something Paul might write. (Dibelius 13-14)
  5. It is interesting that the writer references Christ Jesus three times in these two verses, yet doesn’t go on to delve into any Christological themes as Paul was known to do. One might suggest that the corrective matters at hand took precedence. However, it also seems to stack the deck with another item pressing too hard for authenticity. (Krause 29-30)

The result yields an introduction that for all intents and purposes should sound Pauline, but in reality is a bit of a “clanging cymbal.”

This introduction, as well as 2 Timothy and Titus, seem to have become formulaic in usage. Let’s not forget that in our culture and age, we can readily examine several other Pauline letters just bu flipping a few pages in any Bible, so spotting a counterfeit is in some ways easier. It is quite possible that the intended audience, not necessarily Timothy alone, would have heard or read this introduction and accepted it as genuine simply because these words resonated with them as something Paul would say…”because these are things we say.”

This is, at least, one way to look at these two introductory verses as formulaic. They provided a formula of words that were quickly recognized as valid, as opposed to invalid. In other words, the writer is using words and phrases in such a way that the hearer/reader will immediately associate them with Paul…at least among themselves. The danger with formulaic phrases is that they can become catch phrases used to manipulate people, or in this case, those who heard or read this short letter.

Perhaps we, too, have become comfortable with the formulaic nature of certain phrases. Perhaps, upon tearing this letter apart and reconstructing it afresh in our hearts and minds we might be able to distinguish it for what it is and apply it accordingly. No doubt, this letter is a part of our Christian heritage and as such deserves a hearing.


One of the possibilities I would like to examine is that this writer was not Paul. It was someone, most definitely male, with authority among a group, church, group of churches or a region that was writing under Paul’s name to influence a change in teaching and practice toward what he thought was necessary. (Krause 29) So, in these first two verses alone, we already encounter “the others.” They are still off in the shadows, but make no mistake, they are the reason for this corrective letter. They have been called out and this author would prefer them to be silenced.


Interpreting Scripture – The Pastoral Epistles As A Test Case

A nineteenth century picture of Paul of Tarsus
A nineteenth century picture of Paul of Tarsus (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In an earlier post, I challenged Moises Silva where he was basically stating that his theology should inform his interpretation of a given text.

Building on that, I have found that interpreting the Pastoral Epistles (1 & 2 Timothy and Titus) prove to be an excellent test case.

Scholars seem strongly divided into two main groups here, and it revolves around if Paul wrote these letters or not.  Now, as I will show later, there are actually dozens if not hundreds of possibilities and suggestions when it comes to how and when these letters were written. But let’s put that aside for the moment.  The two very general interpretive camps, as I see it, come down to the inspiration and authority of scripture.

Those who hold strongly to inerrancy, infallibility, and inspiration have a very difficult time accepting that anyone other than Paul himself wrote these letters.  Some may go as far as to say that he used an amenuensis (basically, someone we might understand to be a secretary) assist with the writing, but that the words are Paul’s as he was inspired by God to write them.

Those who are not as interested in inerrancy, infallibility and inspiration are seemingly quite ready and able to see other options, writers and possiblities for the production of these letters.

So, right out the gate, Silva’s model reveals it’s product – the text says what you believe it should say.  If the interpreter is an Evangelical, they read it as coming from Paul.  If the interpreter is not theologically predisposed, they read it as quite possibly coming from sources other than Paul.

Now this is where it gets interesting.

There are all sorts of theological issues embedded in these letters.  Probably the top three in contention these days are the issue of the role of women in ministry, the qualifications for ministry and the formation of scripture.

I would like to address these issues in future posts as I work through these three short letters because, for the most part, these issues can be interpreted in very different ways depending upon how the letters are approached.

Those that know me, will recall that I came from some pretty conservative theological roots.  None of my training for ministry, formal or informal, ever attempted to teach anyone but Paul the Apostle as the author to these letters.  After all, that is what the text itself says, right?


Any thoughts on this before I dive in?

Silva On Interpreting Scripture – A Critique

Cover of "Interpreting Galatians: Explora...
Cover via Amazon

I recently re-read an old text I read years ago entitled, Explorations In Exegetical Method: Galatians As A Test Case by Moisés Silva – Grand Rapids, Baker, 1996.  It is now available as Interpreting Galatians: Explorations In Exegetical Method. (As best I can tell, the pages I am about to work from are still in the current edition.)

The one thing I really admire and enjoy about Silva’s work is his candid approach and his ability to mellow out the rough edges often produced in academia, in this case, specifically regarding exegesis.  He has an intriguing ability to “pull back the curtain and reveal the Wizard” while still valuing the process of academic study of the Bible.

However, one set of comments struck me as particularly unsatisfactory.

In the Epilogue: Reader and Relevance, Silva is outlining the relationship of exegesis and systematic theology and makes the following claim:

…my systematic theology should actually inform my exegesis…my theological system should tell me how to exegete..[this is] indeed the only real option.  (207)

Here I think he has gotten the cart before the horse.  In fact, compare what he wrote to the definition of the word eisegesis:

– an interpretation, especially of Scripture, that expresses the interpreter’s own ideas, bias, or the like, rather than the meaning of the text.

One’s theology is based upon interpretation (good or bad) of the necessary events, communication and texts.  As such, a theologian (and that covers anyone from novice to professional who intends to utilize or put into practice what they read in the scriptures) formulates and systematizes his or her ideas based upon their understanding of what they have seen, what they have been told and what they have read.  Additionally, one’s culture, experiences and proclivities  further dictate the conclusions made.  All of this allows them to form their belief system, their theology, for better or for worse.

Silva gives three reasons in defense of his statement above (pgs. 208-210):

1.  Systematic theology is the attempt to reformulate the teaching of Scripture in ways that are meaningful and understandable to us in our present context…the very process of organizing the biblical data – to say nothing of the use of a different language in a different cultural setting – brings to bear the theologian’s own context.

2. Our evangelical view of the unity of Scripture demands that we see the whole Bible as the context of any one part…the whole of Scripture as having come from one Author, therefore, to that extent a systematic understanding of the Bible contributes to the exegesis of individual passages.

3. Everyone does it anyway.  Whether we mean to or not, and whether we like it or not, all of us read the text as interpreted by our own theological presuppositions.

As I have already stated, my biggest problem with Silva’s first statement is that he has placed the cart before the horse.  If we consciously bring our theological grid to the table, we will force what we read through that grid.  A classic example of this is the debate around Romans 1:16-17:

For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.  For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “BUT THE RIGHTEOUS man SHALL LIVE BY FAITH.” (NASB)

The typical historic protestant interpretation of this takes faith as that of the individual, and consequently, the rest of the letter is interpreted with a view to “the human predicament” as Stendahl rightly observes in Paul Among Jews and Gentiles.  So, just as Silva describes it, everyone keeps following that same trail of viewing Romans as dealing with the grand theological and protestant scheme of the fall of man and God’s answer to that theological problem.  Have you heard of The Romans Road?  This is a classic example, but I digress.

In comparison, here is my translation of Romans 1:16-17:

For I am not ashamed of the good news, for it is the power of God, saving everyone who believes – “both the Jew first and the Greek.”  For in it the justice of God is revealed though faithfulness to the faithful, as it has been written, “The righteous One by faith will live.”

I offer this simply as an example of a different view, and there are many others.  Here, I am considering that Paul did not intend to write “The Romans Road” but instead, to quote Stendahl, “Paul is seeking clarification, understanding and support.”  (Final Account, pg. 13)

All this to say that I believe that while it is true that we all “bring our theological baggage to the table” to paraphrase Silva, it is important to not simply accept this and run with it, but to expand our horizons by asking quite simply what this meant to the original audience.  In doing so, we set aside our predisposed theology as much as possible in order to gain insight and understanding that we have not previously or already taken hold of or appropriated.

Silva’s second statement is a perfect illustration of his first.  He brings his “evangelical  view of the unity of Scripture” to the table quite forcefully , as he states that this theological grid “demands” the unity of Scripture, that it came from “one Author” – God.

While I understand that God inspired scripture, I don’t know that this demands that we force all of the authors experiences written over hundreds and hundreds of years and all of the different literary genres into one pre-determined mold.  Doing so simply makes more of a statement about our enlightenment heritage than it gives credence to the original setting and storyline of the texts in the Bible.  In short, Silva, and many evangelicals, have swung too far to the right on this interpretive pendulum and are seeking to grasp a comfort that is literarily and historically unattainable.

We can hold lightly to the fact that all of scripture reveals God’s desire to relate to us without having to use this theme as a rigid guide to interpreting scripture.  In doing so, we are able to see more objectively what these texts say and how they relate o us today.

Silva’s third point is classic!  The first thing I thought was that old saying we probably all heard as kids,

If Jimmy jumped off of a cliff would you?

Simply stating that everyone does it is lame – pure and simple.  So, just because everyone does it we can too? I don’t see how this lemming mentality makes for a strong case.  In fact, it basically allows for a status quo interpretation.  Well, what if the popular interpretation is lacking?  What if it is completely wrong?

Yes, we all bring our “theologies” to the table.  So what!  Learn to set them aside and think more objectively.  See what others have to say, yes, even those who you disagree with.  Then return to the table, compare it to your own system and make good adjustments based on good interpretive principles.

In short, don’t be afraid to think outside the box because that is exactly what most of the writers of scripture were in fact doing – challenging their current beliefs and ideologies.

How Do YOU Interpret The Bible? (Part 1 of 4)

KJV Bible

I have come to realize that I have been taught how to read the Bible in several different and interesting ways in my lifetime.

In Junior High, my Lutheran school taught me to interpret the Bible according to Luther’s Small Catechism.

A local Calvary Chapel seemed to want to take the Bible literally, unless of course we were speaking about the book of Daniel or Revelation and end times prophecy, which seemed to be interpretation by current events. Later I would find that this could loosely be defined as Dispensationalism.

In college, I was taught a very specific technique: the Historical-Grammatical method.  Here the focus was on the historical background, culture, literary genre, grammar, syntax, and discourse analysis.

In seminary, I continued to develop my historical-grammatical skills, though in many ways I found myself pushing its limits and venturing out into seemingly uncharted territory.  It was here that I began to see that my tried and true hermeneutic didn’t seem to be the all-in-one tool that it was billed to be.

Since then, I have come to realize that there are many ways in which people interpret scripture.  Of course, not all of them can be right.  Just look at all the varied results!  Yet, I believe we must strive to do our best to understand what the Bible meant to the original audience and only then to discover what that means for us today.

In the very near future, I will outline where I am today with regard to interpreting the Bible and expand on the methods by way of investigating some current and popular debates surrounding Christians today.