For most evangelicals, the debate about whether or not Paul wrote the Pastorals is a non-issue. The Bible says so, and that is good enough.

But anyone who has read the commentaries will know there is a real debate on this topic, with many scholars opting to reject Pauline authorship. Much of the debate rests on issues outside of my area of expertise, such as the Greek vocabulary and grammar, but I would nevertheless like to present a few brief thoughts of my own on the topic, after spending the last few months studying the Pastorals.

First, it is not hard to be convinced that the same author wrote all three Pastorals. There are so many points of contact between them that to imagine a different author wrote them feels weird to me. You’d have to imagine that “fake Paul” wrote 1 Timothy, and then someone else, fooled into thinking it was real Paul, wrote 2 Timothy in the style of 1 Timothy.

Having said that, it is also possible to discern some variations from Paul’s more “normal” way of speaking that we are familiar with from his earlier writings (e.g. “trustworthy sayings”, or non-characteristic words like epiphany). Of course, there are some quite plausible natural explanations for this, including a development in his own writing style and vocabulary over time, and the possible use of an amanuensis. The trustworthy sayings are in fact evidence that Paul was happy to borrow from other Christian’s creedal statements and hymns, thus broadening his own way of speaking.

But let us contemplate for a moment that someone else did write these letters. “Fake Paul” is writing a letter, but we need a motive. Is he trying to trick the real Timothy and the real Titus into thinking they are receiving instructions from the real Paul? This seems very unlikely indeed. They would be the hardest people to fool, and would soon enough find out that the letters were a fraud. So “fake Paul” is also writing to “fake Timothy”, a fabricated recipient, when in fact the real target audience of the letter is someone else entirely.

Various motives for writing as “fake Paul” have been suggested. Some argue for a well-meaning person telling us “what Paul would have said to Timothy”, but never intended to deceive anyone  or teach anything Paul wouldn’t have agreed with. Another possibility is that someone uses this technique to lend authority to some theological ideas of their own that otherwise would be hard to persuade people of.

To choose between these options, we must reconstruct what we can about “fake Paul”. First, he knows quite a lot about Paul. He must have read other Pauline letters, and be familiar with the accounts from Acts. He comes up with some brilliant pithy summaries of the gospel (1 Tim 2:5-6; Titus 1:1-3; Titus 2:11-14) which makes him a pretty astute theologian in his own right. He has got all kinds of Pauline mannerisms down to a tee, from the way he does the introductions, to the occasional spontaneous doxologies (e.g. 1 Tim 1:17), to the Christian adaption of household codes, to the greetings to assorted colleagues at the end of letters (e.g. 2 Tim 4:19-21).

What’s more, he uses his knowledge of Paul’s missionary movements to add authenticity (e.g. 2 Tim 3:11), as well as his knowledge of Paul’s companions and their locations (e.g. 2 Tim 4:10,19), and yet at the same time chooses to locate Titus on an island never mentioned in Acts, and introduce a random assortment of additional companions not known elsewhere. He either has a very fertile imagination or insider information not contained within Acts.

Even more curious is the personal details “fake Paul” knows about Timothy. He recalls incidents that include prophecies made Timothy’s ordination (1 Tim 4:14) and baptism, who Timothy’s mother and grandmother are (2 Tim 1:5), and knows that Timothy has stomach problems (1 Tim 5:23).

When we search for fake Paul’s hidden agenda, it is hard to find. The letters are greatly concerned with opposing false teaching, but we don’t really get told much about what that teaching entailed. If this is real Paul writing to real Timothy that makes perfect sense. But surely “fake Paul” would want his audience to know what teachings in particular were in need of rejecting. Instead he names and shames the (presumably fake) false teachers.

We have already established that fake Paul isn’t addressing the real Timothy or Titus, so why address so much of his letter directly and personally to them? The genuine Pauline letters are more broadly directed to a whole church, so why not utilise that style as the model which would give fake Paul much more freedom to make his point without having to resort to ridiculous fictions such as “please go to Troas and get my cloak and scrolls” (2 Tim 4:13).

One of the most readily identifiable features of Paul’s letters is his trademark greeting, “grace to you and peace” which is found in all his other letters: Rom 1:7, 1 Cor 1:3, 2 Cor 1:2, Gal 1:3, Eph 1:2, Phil 1:2, Col 1:2, 1 Thess 1:1, 2 Thess 1:2, Phil 1:3. Even the other fake Paul, you know, the one who wrote Ephesians, remembered to include it. This fake Paul clearly has read other letters by the real Paul, so why on earth would he diverge from Paul’s standard greeting and use “grace, mercy, peace” (1 Tim 1:2; 2 Tim 1:2) instead? Even Tit 1:4 doesn’t get it quite right. We have to either put this down to a remarkable blunder on the part of fake Paul, or, more plausibly in my view, it is real Paul writing it in which case he has complete freedom to give an alternative special greeting to his close friend Timothy.

In other words, we have to imagine someone who has brilliantly done his homework in pretending to be Paul, fabricates all kinds of pointless details just for good effect, and yet introduces a major faux pas by failing to precisely copy Paul’s most readily identifiable catchphrase. He goes to great lengths to include fictitious personal information, with no discernible purpose other than to lend authenticity to his hidden agenda, which he in large part forgets to include, since the overriding theological themes of the Pastorals are in full agreement with the other Pauline letters.

In short, while the Pastorals do indeed have a different feel and flavour to the other Pauline epistles, the theory that someone else wrote these requires us to believe in a “fake Paul” who I find to be frankly unbelievable.

One of the recurring words in the Pastoral epistles is ἐπιφάνεια, translated as “appearing” or “revealed”, and from which we get the word “epiphany”. It is used to describe both the return of Jesus and his incarnation. Both were an “appearing” of Jesus. 2 Tim 1:10, Tit 2:11 and Tit 3:4 refer to Jesus’ first coming. 1 Tim 6:14 and Tit 3:4 refer to Christ’s second coming. 2 Tim 4:1 and 2 Tim 4:8 are a little less clear, but I think they also refer to the Parousia.

For Paul, these two “appearings” of Jesus are the two most significant interventions of God in human history, and we are living in between. I particularly like the way he describes the two appearings in Tit 2:11,13. Jesus’ first coming is the “epiphany of the grace of God”, and his second coming is the “epiphany of the glory of God”.

The “appearing of grace” is a beautiful way of describing what happened in the incarnation. Jesus came as a servant, rather than a king, as a rescuer rather than as a judge. His glory was concealed, only perceived by those whose eyes had been opened (Jn 1:14). Jesus’ first coming is the ultimate revelation and embodiment of the grace of God.

We now await the “appearing of glory”. When Jesus returns, this time his true glory will be evident to all. This will be a day of judgment (2 Tim 4:1) and reward (2 Tim 4:8). It is not that Christ will no longer be gracious – it is only on the basis of grace that anyone can expect a favourable outcome on that day. Jesus’ second coming is the ultimate revelation and embodiment of the glory of God.

It seems a shame to me that controversy over the end times (premil, amil, postmil, rapture, mark of the beast etc) has caused many Christians to steer clear of the topic of the second coming. We have many songs and sermons on the epiphany of grace, but comparatively few on the epiphany of glory. But we are not only to be a backwards oriented people, simply thanking God for his grace in the past. We should be those who live in the light of the appearing of God’s grace, and live in the hope of the appearing of God’s glory.

I hope you don’t laugh out loud when you read this, but I am actually trying to write a commentary on the entire New Testament. I’ve been going for about eight years now, and have completed Mark, John, Ephesians, Colossians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, Philemon, James, 1 Peter, 1, 2 & 3 John, and most recently the Pastorals (1 & 2 Timothy and Titus).

I always intended to publish them here on my site as I completed each one, but the truth is I am embarrassed about my inadequacy in both understanding the Biblical text and being able to write in a way that doesn’t bore people to tears. Nevertheless, I have decided that it is about time I simply put them up here. It’s not as if more than a handful of people are likely to download, let alone read them, and any feedback on how they can be improved would be gratefully received.

I should also say that I can think of no sane reason why anyone would actually read these. The commentary market is awash with much better materials, and if you want recommendations I am always glad to oblige. These are written more for my own benefit than for anyone else, as it is a good way to help myself grapple with the meaning of the text.

My basic approach is to take blocks of around five verses at a time, and briefly explain what I think they mean before making some points of application. After commenting on each section, I then consult at least one commentary in order to answer difficult questions and discover things I have missed and ways in which I have misunderstood the text.

I’ve really enjoyed working through the Pastorals over the past few months, and I’ve been mainly using Towner’s NICNT commentary. I’ve also made extensive notes on themes I have found in the Pastorals, a few of which I have turned into blog posts, with hopefully a few more to follow. There have been several passages that I found really challenging to understand, but I have tried to adopt a position on most issues, and only remain noncommital on the most difficult.

The PDF of my first draft is available here. It is very rough and ready, and needs a proof reader, so please send me any tips for improvement if you do have a look through.

If you want to download any of the others in my series, follow this link. There are three that need a little tidying up before they go online (Mark, Thessalonians, 1-3 John), but the rest of them are up, and I’ll probably do a blog post introducing each one individually at some point in the future.