The Pastoral Epistles, 1-2 Timothy, Titus: An Exegetical and Contextual Commentary

By Graham Simpson

The India Commentary on the New Testament (ICNT) series aims to give a well-informed exposition of the meaning of the text and relevant reflections in everyday language from a contemporary Indian context. The intended audience is the theological seminary or bible college, both students and faculty. The commentaries are also ideal for pastors and lay people with an interest in theology or responsibilities for preaching in the local congregation.
The commentaries are culturally rooted, and the various applications relating to culture, society, and religious life will help those involved with cross-cultural evangelism and mission work. There is no direct equivalent to the ICNT, and hence, this is the first Indian commentary serving India, the entire subcontinent--India, Nepal, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka--and the world.
The ICNT is an affordable evangelical commentary series written by respected academics in everyday language, providing a well-informed meaning of the New Testament and practical reflections for modern India.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Fortress Press
• Release date: Oct 1, 2017
• ISBN: 9781506438399

Graham Simpson

Board certified in internal medicine and emrgency medicine, Dr. Simpson is founding member of the Ameican Holistic Medical Association, coauthor of Spa Medicine, and medical director of the Ageless Zone Medical Spa in Reno.

Book preview

4:9-22

Foreword

Commentaries are useful, often necessary, when one wants to engage with the biblical text at a deeper level and understand the richness of its message. The New Testament, for example, was originally written in the Greek language, about 2000 years ago, in cultures very different to our own. A commentary aims to bridge these gaps and explain the fullness of God’s original message for today’s world. Unfortunately there is no Indian commentary series available in India—most commentary series come from the West. Although many Western commentaries are undoubtedly invaluable, they are written for a Western audience and often expensive. This realization gave birth to the idea of a distinct commentary series for India.

We thus gladly introduce the unique India Commentary on the New Testament (ICNT). The ICNT series aims to give a well-informed exposition of the meaning of the text and relevant reflections in everyday language for today’s Indian context. The intended audience is the theological seminary or bible college, both students and faculty. However, the commentaries are also suitable for pastors and lay people with an interest in theology. The commentaries are culturally-rooted and the various applications relating to culture, society and religious life will help those involved in cross-cultural evangelism and mission work. There is no direct equivalent of the ICNT and hence this will be the first Indian commentary series serving India, and hopefully the entire subcontinent—India, Nepal, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka.

The ICNT series has seven distinctive features:

Indian: the commentaries are written by Indians or those who live in India, and reflect Indian thought and practice;

Exegetical: they explain the text section-by-section (rather than verse-by-verse) in its original first-century socio-historical context (‘meaning then’), and interact with Indian sources;

Contextual: they will contextualize and apply the text for today’s Indian context (‘meaning now’);

Scholarly: they are written by excellent Ph.D. New Testament scholars;

Accessible: they are written in everyday language;

Evangelical: the theological perspective is evangelical with scope for various persuasions;

Affordable: they are published in India to keep them affordable.

The ICNT aims at a high level of ‘Indianness’ in two ways. First, in the exegetical part, the author will attempt to identify the Indian sources available, so that the commentaries as a whole will provide a comprehensive bibliography of Indian (biblical) sources. Second, in the contextual part (called ‘Reflections’), the author must address exclusively today’s Indian context. The end result is an evangelical, affordable commentary series written by academics in everyday language, providing a well-informed meaning of the text and practical reflections for modern India.

The Series Editors,

Babu Immanuel Venkataraman (Associate Professor of New Testament, TCA College, Singapore)

Brian Wintle (ATA Regional Secretary, India)

Cornelis Bennema (Associate Professor of New Testament, SAIACS, Bangalore)

Preface

The two letters to Timothy and the letter to Titus are together known as the Pastoral Epistles (hereafter PE). This description was first attributed to D.N. Berdot (1703) and made popular by P. Anton (1726), and has been commonly used for the last 300 years, even if its usefulness has been questioned.[1] The description relates to the fact that all three letters are addressed to people (Timothy and Titus) who exercise pastoral ministry, with instructions about their duties.

My first experience of New Testament teaching in a theological seminary was a brief introduction to the PE which I taught at Moore Theological College in Sydney in 1977. I have at various other times taught the PE, most recently for students doing the Serampore Master of Theology course, and in church ministry have had the privilege of preaching on these letters many times. So the PE have become reasonably familiar friends over a long period of time. Against this background I have been delighted to be asked to contribute this commentary to the present series.

In my earlier years the scholarly consensus was strongly against the opinion that Paul was the author of these letters, though this non-Pauline approach was never a unanimous view. The earlier consensus has been challenged by less sceptical views presented in many of the more recent substantial works on the PE. These matters are dealt with more fully (though not in detail) in the introductory chapter of this book, but suffice it to say here that this commentary proceeds on the basis of Pauline authorship against a background of a period of ministry following his release from the imprisonment recorded in Acts 28.

The PE occupy a corner of the NT which seems to have largely disappeared from sight in the Indian church. In the introduction it is noted how few Indian contributions have been made to the scholarly study and explanation of these letters. They also do not normally have a major place in the curricula of our theological courses. And furthermore passages from the PE only occasionally appear in the liturgical calendars of the mainline churches as readings for Sundays or major festivals. Under these circumstances it is likely that few theological graduates finish their studies with a passion to study and use these letters in their ministry, and that even fewer church members know much more than one or two familiar texts from the PE. Perhaps they are seen as having little or nothing to offer theologically (and certainly they can hardly compete at this level with the Gospel of John or the major letters of Paul). Perhaps too from the viewpoint of ecclesiastical practice they are regarded as relics of a distant age and of little relevance to the life of the church in India today.

It will be seen that I have a radically different assessment of the value of the PE and my hope is that this modest commentary will (if I may be permitted to reapply the metaphor of 2 Timothy 1:6) help to rekindle the flame of interest in these letters and lead to their more effective use in the churches of India.

This series is based on the text of the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV). Thus, where words of the text are quoted (in italics) it can be assumed they are from the NRSV unless otherwise indicated. Significant use has also been made of other versions, especially the New International Version (NIV). Considerable effort has been made to explain and comment on differences among the translations. A teacher or pastor is often asked which is the ’best’ translation, but all translations involve interpretation of the text, which makes it foolish to choose one version and claim it as the best, let alone insist that it is always correct.

Biblical references are given according to standard patterns: e.g., 2 Timothy 3:16, or, where appropriately abbreviated, 2 Tim. 3:16. If only 3:16 is given, it is to be assumed that the passage is from the book being commented on. Thus, within the commentary on 2 Timothy, 3:16 means 2 Timothy 3:16, whereas in the commentary on 1 Timothy, 3:16 would mean 1 Timothy 3:16.

In the footnotes commentaries on the PE are cited by the author’s name and abbreviated title, other books with full bibliographical detail. Where an author has two published commentaries (as with Guthrie and Towner), the publication date is added to avoid confusion.

My thanks are due to Dr Cornelis Bennema and Dr Brian Wintle in their role as series editors, and to Indian friends who have offered constructive comment on the reflection sections of the book, Dr J Jeyaseelan Kanagaraj (Danishpet, Tamil Nadu), Reverend Benjamin Christian (Bengaluru), and especially Dr Ivan Satyavrata (Kolkata). Naturally, the author is solely responsible for the book in its final form.

Finally I take the opportunity to express my gratitude to my mother, to whose memory this book is dedicated, whose own commitment to Christ and the cause of the gospel has encouraged me to pursue opportunities of ministry even in distant places, without ever hinting that I have neglected my duty to the family at home. Her sacrifices in this regard are here gratefully acknowledged. It is a matter of regret that by a matter of only a few months she did not live long enough to see the book published.

Graham Simpson

Abbreviations

Introduction

Authenticity

One issue which may have contributed to the minor role of the PE in India is the question of authenticity. Are these letters really written by Paul, as each one of them claims in the opening statement? In some scholarly circles it is assumed without need for further debate that the PE are not the writings of Paul. Where this assumption has been accepted, it is almost inevitable that the PE will be seen as having only a minor place in the NT canon and in the life of the contemporary church.

The assumption is based on a number of significant observations about the PE. There are four main areas of argumentation: the ecclesiastical structures (which are thought by many to reflect a more developed and institutionalized pattern than was possible in the lifetime of Paul, especially the strong emphasis on authority and tradition which is likewise claimed to be contrary to Paul’s normal approach), matters of theology (not only the false teaching which is opposed by the author, which is often regarded as characteristic of a later period, but also the positive teaching of the PE which emphasizes supposedly non-Pauline themes, such as godliness, and fails to reflect other genuine Pauline themes, such as a living expectation of the near arrival of the end), the historical situation (it is difficult to fit the circumstances assumed by the PE into the framework of the Acts narrative), and the language problem. It can immediately be said that the first two are extremely subjective, for on matters of church life and organization, Paul’s theological expression, and the nature of the false teaching, what some may think inappropriate for Paul or reflecting a later period may seem to others to be not at all inappropriate for Paul or out of place in his lifetime. The other two items (the historical situation and the problem of the language of the PE) will be dealt with later. Details of all these arguments must be sought in larger works than the present one.

Whatever weight these arguments may be thought to have (by some much but by others not so much), it has come to be accepted in some circles as an assured result of modern scholarship that the PE were not written by Paul. However, if one lives long enough one learns that the ’assured result’ of one generation of scholars is often subsequently questioned, and this is certainly the case here. Though one can name works of fairly recent times where a negative conclusion about Pauline authorship is accepted, such as the commentaries of Dibelius and Conzelmann (1972) and Hanson (1982), and the studies of Young (1994) and Davies (1996), there is an equally impressive list of scholars who accept the Pauline origin of the PE. Here one may mention the commentaries of Fee (1988), Guthrie (1990), Knight (1992), Mounce (2000), Johnson (2001), Towner (2006) and Witherington (2006), and from earlier decades Hendriksen (1957) and Kelly (1963). Marshall (1999), more cautiously, may be added to this list. Witherington makes a fascinating observation when he asks: "Why is it that the majority of Pauline scholars who have not done a detailed study of these documents or written a scholarly commentary on the Pastoral Epistles in the last fifty years think that these letters are post-Pauline, while the majority of scholars who have written such commentaries are either open to the possibility or are convinced that these letters do indeed go back to Paul in some form or fashion?"[2] Whatever conclusion one might wish to draw from this observation, it is clearly not possible to regard the issue as finally settled in favour of non-Pauline authorship and post-Pauline date.

Historical Circumstances

This has already been mentioned as a major problem area. Where do the PE fit historically? This question is equally urgent whatever position one takes on the date and authorship of the PE. As Dibelius and Conzelmann say,[3] it is not enough to assert that the PE were not written by Paul nor from the early period of the church’s existence. One must also offer a plausible description of the situation in which they do fit.

The essence of the problem is that it is quite difficult to fit the circumstances of the PE into the Acts framework.[4] To take a clear example, 2 Timothy has Paul under arrest in Rome, anticipating death as the outcome, a situation rather different from the positive picture of the circumstances of Paul’s imprisonment at the end of Acts. Even if one can be persuaded that it is the same imprisonment in both documents, the circumstances presupposed by the rest of the PE do not fit with the Acts account (namely the details of Paul’s apparently recent activity in Ephesus, Crete and elsewhere). To some the entire picture is a fabrication (even if they allow the possibility of some ’Pauline fragments’ embedded in the PE), though even if so it is still necessary (following Dibelius and Conzelmann) to offer an explanation of the situation and circumstances of the later age in which the PE were allegedly produced. This however is precisely what is absent from works typical of those who accept pseudonymity. Young says, The provenance of the Pastorals is unknown … they emerge into the life of the church during the second century.[5] Hanson is only slightly less vague when he says, They must be written to a group of Pauline churches. We know that it was in Asia Minor that monepiscopacy first evolved, and large parts of Asia Minor were Paul’s mission field. Most scholars therefore conclude that the Pastorals were written in Asia Minor, perhaps specifically in Ephesus.[6]

In contrast, it is reasonably suggested that the PE can be explained as the product of Paul’s later ministry, following his release from the imprisonment which Acts 28 records. Such a period of ministry is supported by the positive picture of Acts 28 (with no hint of impending disaster for Paul), by the possibility that Paul exercised a ministry in Spain (in line with Paul’s own hope expressed in Rom. 15:23-24, 28 and possibly supported by the reference to Paul’s ministry to the limit of the west in a late first century document [1 Clement 5:7]), and by the evidence of the PE themselves (if one is able on other grounds to accept them as Pauline). There can be no absolute proof that this reconstruction is correct. The point is simply that it is possible and in the eyes of many plausible that Paul was released after his first Roman imprisonment, travelled to Spain (perhaps only briefly and possibly without much lasting fruit to show for his labours there),[7] then back to the Aegean region with travel and ministry in the Ephesus area and the island of Crete, before being arrested in the course of this activity and taken back to Rome for another trial and his probable execution. Without a narrative framework such as Acts provides for part of Paul’s earlier ministry, it is hardly surprising that one cannot give a confident account of the details, or reconstruct a detailed itinerary, or know in which order (on this reconstruction) the PE were written. Some scholars (Marshall and Witherington, for example) arrange their commentary with Titus first, followed by 1 Timothy. The only point that is clear is that 2 Timothy, in which Paul expects his trial to result in his death, is the last of the three, if we take the PE at face value and attribute them to Paul. In the present commentary 1 Timothy is treated first, before Titus, without implying an opinion which one may have actually been written first, with 2 Timothy in its appropriate position as last of the three.[8]

One aspect of the historical context which has been brought out in some of the recent literature is the social setting of the PE and the indications of rhetorical structure and rhetorical devices which are used in the PE. To discuss all of this adequately would require a much larger book than this present commentary, which seeks to take such matters into account in explaining the text without often referring to them specifically. Discussion of these elements is one of the highlights of Witherington’s commentary.

The Language of the Pastorals

The last of the main obstacles to accepting the letters’ own claim to be written by Paul is the language question. Four main aspects of the problem can be identified. (a) The hapax legomena of the PE (that is, words used in the PE but nowhere else in the NT). (b) Other words in the PE which are found in other NT writings though not in the letters generally accepted as Pauline. (c) Pauline words or groups of words missing from the PE. (d) Grammatical and stylistic differences between the PE and the other Pauline letters. Naturally we are referring here to Greek language, and so it is not possible to discuss the technicalities of this subject in this commentary.

Several responses can be made to these observations. One is that the same writer does not always use the same range of vocabulary each time he or she takes up the pen. Among Paul’s undisputed letters there are significant differences between, say, 1 Thessalonians and Galatians (one could choose almost any pair of Paul’s letters). Different vocabulary is appropriate for different topics and different circumstances, and in any case a writer or speaker’s preferred manner of expression often changes over the years. It is certainly possible that many of the distinctive linguistic features of the PE can be explained in these terms.[9]

However, this is not an entirely satisfactory or convincing explanation. In spite of every allowance which may be made on the basis of such considerations, when one reads the Pauline letters in Greek one is still left with the feeling that the person who wrote the PE is not the same person who wrote Romans, 1 Corinthians and other letters. Some further explanation is needed.

The Role of Luke

A frequent suggestion is that Paul used the services of an amanuensis, not merely a secretary recording Paul’s dictated words but someone with a more creative role in the composition of the PE. One version of this approach which has appeared from time to time is that Luke had a major role in their production. Wilson’s monograph[10] promotes this thesis though he was not the first to make the suggestion; his view is that the PE were the work of Luke from a later period after Paul’s death.

More recently Witherington has revived the suggestion of Luke’s involvement, though in a different form to Wilson’s. For Witherington Luke is the writer but within Paul’s lifetime and with Paul as the authority behind the writing. He agrees with Moule’s assessment: Luke wrote all three Pastoral Epistles. But he wrote them in Paul’s lifetime, at Paul’s behest, and in part (but only part) at Paul’s dictation.[11] Witherington’s own summary is that the voice is the voice of Paul, but the hand is the hand of Luke. In some places these letters sound almost like Pauline dictation, especially in spots 2 Timothy, but in various places they sound much more like Luke.[12] At many points throughout his commentary Witherington convincingly draws attention to details which support this proposal, and the reader who is interested in this matter is encouraged to work through Witherington’s commentary carefully.

If accepted, this proposal retains Pauline authorship in a meaningful sense while satisfactorily accounting for the differences in language in comparison with the other letters of Paul.

The Problem of Pseudonymity

If the PE were not in fact written by Paul, they must be regarded as pseudonymous, that is, falsely claiming a well-known author in order to gain acceptance or added authority. It is often claimed that pseudonymity was a common device in the ancient world, among Christians and non-Christians alike, that it was readily recognized and accepted by the intended audience, and that therefore there was no attempt to deceive. With these assumptions the PE are regarded by many as productions by a later ’Paulinist’ (perhaps using some genuine fragments from Paul’s own writings) who wrote with a view to commend Paul and to apply his teaching to a later generation. However, all of these claims can be challenged, and are helpfully discussed in some of the recent commentaries.[13]

Whether or not pseudonymity was generally seen as an acceptable practice, there are in any case major problems in considering the PE as such. The inclusion of the personal notes and comments (often seen as genuinely Pauline even by those who reject Pauline authorship in general) can hardly have any purpose other than to deceive, an implication which many or most Christians today will find unacceptable in canonical NT books. There are many other points which fit much better within the period of Paul’s lifetime than at a later time.[14] Topics sometimes regarded as evidence of a later date, such as patterns of ministry and other aspects of ecclesiastical organization, are in fact often better explained as evidence of an early stage of development and appropriate to the later years of Paul’s lifetime. As noted above, supporters of pseudonymity and a later date can provide only the vaguest of suggestions about the origin and setting of the PE. They seldom attempt to explain why the alleged author bothered to write three letters (not one), nor to suggest who ‘Timothy’ and ‘Titus’ could possibly represent in the life of the churches of a later period.

Granting the possibility of Paul’s release from his first Roman imprisonment and a further period of ministry, and granting also the possibility of Luke’s involvement (as explained above), the PE are much more satisfactorily interpreted as coming from late in Paul’s lifetime and addressed to Timothy at Ephesus and Titus in Crete with the authority of Paul himself. Though there remain many uncertainties, there seems little to be gained from any alternative approach. The theory of later date and pseudonymous authorship creates as many problems as it solves.

Literature on the Pastoral Epistles

One of the aims of this commentary series is to interact with all the relevant works of Indian scholarship. In the case of the PE very little has been written. In a search of the volumes of New Testament Abstracts, a comprehensive record of books and articles on every aspect of NT studies, the author has discovered only two scholarly articles on the PE written by an Indian or published in India in the 33 years between 1978 and 2010.[15] M. Gnanavaram’s published thesis on wealth and poverty in the NT contains comments on parts of 1 Timothy 6, and there may be material hidden in other similar works which are not specifically focused on the PE. I apologize to the author of any such book whose work I have not been able to locate.

Only four commentaries of Indian origin are known to the present author. M.R. Robinson (1962), of the North India United Theological College, Saharanpur, U.P., wrote in the Christian Students’ Library series, with careful exegesis and an occasional example taken from Indian church or society. Naturally it is now somewhat out of date. Another is by A.P. Carleton (1964), written during his service with the Oxford Mission to Calcutta, but not published in India and without any obvious India focus. The other two were published in 2008, one in the Dalit Bible Commentary series, where the focus is on issues relevant to the Dalit communities. Though these issues arise from the text, the text itself is not dealt with in any detail (the commentary material on the PE occupies only 40 pages and about one-third of this space is occupied by the full text of the PE). The other is by John Mathew, a pastor of the Indian Pentecostal Church of God. This is a useful popular-level commentary with brief verse by verse comment, though not surprisingly critical issues are not dealt with and alternative interpretations of difficult passages are usually ignored.

Two volumes of the Asia Bible Commentary Series are devoted to the PE, on 1 Timothy by P. Trebilco and S. Rae (2006) and on 2 Timothy and Titus by the same authors and C. Caradus (2009). These are high quality commentaries. In keeping with the series in general, they make occasional reference to issues of Asian interest but the authors are all from New Zealand and only one of them, Simon Rae, appears to have had direct experience of life in an Asian country (in his case Indonesia). There is no direct reference to Indian contexts.

There are several other books of south Asian origin, popular-level studies rather than serious works of scholarship. The books by P. Chandapilla (on Titus) and A. Fernando, a Sri Lankan (on 1 Timothy), take the text seriously but are limited by their chosen focus on leadership (which is certainly not the only theme of the PE). In another book on Christian leadership, P.M. Malkhani includes brief comments on passages from the PE. The book by P. Haagen, a foreign missionary based in Gujarat, is the published version of addresses on 2 Timothy given at the Nilgiri Hills Convention in 1963; despite its size (only 67 pages) it contains many helpful exegetical insights. No doubt there is other material of a mostly devotional nature in the magazines and news letters of different churches and organizations in India, but no attempt has been made to survey this in a systematic way.

The pages of New Testament Abstracts reveal that scholarly interest in the PE is very much alive and well in other parts of the world. Admittedly there is a disproportionate amount on 1 Timothy 2:8-15 (on the status and roles of women), but much has also been written on other passages in the PE. This healthy interest in the PE is well illustrated by the introductory bibliographies provided by Mounce, with 21 pages of closely printed lists of commentaries and general items, in addition to separate bibliographies on each passage at appropriate points throughout the commentary.

Surveys of international scholarship are provided in the full-scale commentaries and need not be repeated here. In addition mention may be made of Marshall’s useful 1997 and 2006 survey articles. Against this wider background it must be admitted that India has failed to participate in the lively study of these letters by the international scholarly community and this may be considered a challenge to a younger generation of Indian scholars.

Bibliographical details about all the items mentioned above are given in the bibliography which follows.

Bibliography

This is by no means a complete bibliography but includes the commentaries used in the preparation of this book and several monographs of a mainly general nature (as distinct from studies with a narrower focus), as well as items for which an Indian origin or at least some Indian or south Asian connection can be claimed. The latter are marked with an asterisk.

Barrett, C.K., The Pastoral Epistles (New Clarendon Bible; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963)

* Caleb, S.M., et al., Dalit Bible Commentary, New Testament, Volume 9: The First & Second Letters of Paul to Timothy, The Letter of Paul to Titus, The Letter of Paul to Philemon, The First & Second Letters of Peter, The Letter of James, The Letter of Jude, The First, Second & Third Letters of John (New Delhi: Centre for Dalit/Subaltern Studies, 2008); S. Caleb & M. Daniel have written the commentary on 1 Timothy, and M. Daniel 2 Timothy and Titus as well as an introductory essay on the PE

* Carleton, A.P., Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary (World Christian Books No. 51; London: Lutterworth, 1964)

* Chandapilla, P., Christian Leaders and Leadership (Bombay: GLS, 1978)

Davies, M., The Pastoral Epistles (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996)

Dibelius, M. and H. Conzelmann, The Pastoral Epistles (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972); translated by P. Buttolph and A. Yarbro from the fourth German edition of 1966

Fee, G.D., 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus (New International Biblical Commentary; Peabody: Hendrickson, 1984; revised edition 1988; 13th printing 2010)

* Fernando, A., Leadership Lifestyle: A Study of 1 Timothy (Wheaton: Tyndale House Publishers, 1985)

* Gnanavaram, M., Treasure in Heaven and Treasure on Earth: Attitudes towards Poverty and Wealth in the New Testament Communities and in the Early Church (Delhi: ISPCK, 2008)

Guthrie, D., The Pastoral Epistles: An Introduction and Commentary (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries; London: Tyndale Press, 1957; 2nd edition 1990)

* Haagen, P.C., Second Timothy: A Father’s Final Counsel (Madras: ELS, 1964)

Hanson, A.T., The Pastoral Epistles (New Century Bible; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans & London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1982)

Harrison, P.N., The Problem of the Pastorals (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1921)

Hendriksen, W., I-II Timothy and Titus (New Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1957)

Johnson, L.T., The First and Second Letters to Timothy (Anchor Bible No. 35A; New York: Doubleday, 2001)

Kelly, J.N.D., A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles: I Timothy, II Timothy, Titus (Black’s New Testament Commentaries; London: A & C Black, 1963)

Knight III, G.W., The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Greek Text (New International Greek Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans & Carlisle: Paternoster, 1992)

* Leadership in the Church, based on the Pastoral Epistles (Bangalore: TAFTEE, no date)

Lock, W., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (I & II Timothy and Titus) (International Critical Commentary; Edinburgh, T & T Clark, 1924)

* Luke, K., The Impact of Egyptian Ideas on the Formulation of NT Soteriology, Biblebhashyam 14 (1988), 185-194

* Malkhani, P.M., A Leader in the Making (Secunderabad: OM Books, 1999)

Marshall, I.H., Recent Study of the Pastoral Epistles, Themelios 23 (1997), 3-29

Marshall, I.H., Some Recent Commentaries on the Pastoral Epistles, Expository Times 117 (2006), 140-143

Marshall, I.H., in collaboration with P.H. Towner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (International Critical Commentary; London & New York: T & T Clark, 1999)

* Mathew, J., Pastoral Epistles: I & II Timothy, Titus (Bangalore: Hospital Ministries India, 2008)

Moule, C.F.D., The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles: A Reappraisal, Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 47 (1965), 430-452

Mounce, W.D., Pastoral Epistles (Word Biblical Commentary Volume 46; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2000)

* Robinson, M.R., A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (Christian Students’ Library No. 27;