Titus 2:13 and Imminence
Introduction
------------
Consider,
“... looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus, [Titus 2:13 NASB].
Pre-tribbers routinely cite this verse as evidence for pre-trib. Why? First, without any evidence, they interpret “blessed hope†as the rapture. Then they note we are looking for the blessed hope. In pre-trib theology, “looking for†is evidence for imminence. Imminence is evidence for the pre-trib rapture. Hence they think this versus is teaching pre-trib.
They are missing something important. If the NASB translation is correct, and that is not a given, then we are looking for two different things. We are looking for the “blessed hope,†AND we are looking for “the appearing of the glory†which New King James translates as “glorious appearing.â€
What is the “glorious appearing?†Chapter 7 in LaHaye's book, Rapture [Under Attack], is titled The Glorious Appearing. In it he repeatedly says the glorious appearing is the Second Coming, i.e. the Second Advent. In his article, Rapture, in The Popular Encyclopedia of Bible Prophecy, p. 311, he said, “In the second phase of Jesus' second coming (the glorious appearing), He will return to earth in great power and glory to set up His millennial kingdom.†In another book i he says, “Both phases of Christ's return are mentioned in Titus 2:13, which refers in a single verse to the Rapture as the “blessed hope,†and the coming to earth as the “glorious appearing.†I agree that the glorious appearing is the Second Advent.
Note carefully. This is important. If NASB's translation is correct, we are looking for the glorious appearing. If LaHaye's interpretation is correct, the glorious appearing is the Second Advent. Therefore, we are looking for the Second Advent. However, in pre-trib theology, “looking for†is an indicator of imminence so the Second Advent would be imminent and imminence would be useless for pre-trib.
The meaning of “and†in Titus 2:13
----------------------------------
This is not the end of the story. There is another very different way to translate Titus 2:13. The difference centers on how you translate the word “and†which in Greek is “kai.†The small dictionary in the back of my Greek New Testament defines kai as: and, also, but, even; that is, namely. Therefore it is legal to translate Titus 2:13 as “while we wait for the blessed hope, namely the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Christ Jesus.†If this is the correct translation, then the “blessed hope†is the “glorious appearing.†I think this is correct.
This alternate translation would make the interpretation much easier. “The blessed hope†is very cryptic. It could mean the rapture, but it could also mean the glory of Jesus – “the glorious appearing.†It would be nice if the verse explained itself instead of leaving us to figure out what blessed hope is.
Translations of Titus 2:13
--------------------------
Several translations agree that the blessed hope is the glorious appearing:
NIV, Amplified Bible, English Standard Version, Mounce Reverse-Interlinear New Testament, The Complete Jewish Bible, God's Word Translation, Good News Translation, New Living Translation, Easy To Read Version, The Message.
I could not quote them because my post was too long.
Granville Sharp's rule
----------------------
A large commentary iv on 1, 2 Timothy and Titus has this footnote about “the blessed hope:â€
[Granville] Sharp's rule reads, “when two nouns in the same case are connected by the Greek word 'and' and the first noun is preceded by the article 'the,' and the second noun is not preceded by the article, the second noun refers to the same person or thing to which the first noun refers, and is a further description of it.†(K. S. Wuest, Treasures from the Greek New Testament, p. 31.) That is exactly the kind of construction we have in the phrase being commented upon."
In other words, “the blessed hope†has the word “the†in front of it in Greek, but “glorious appearing†does not, so by Granville Sharp's rule, they are the same thing. LaHaye thinks the blessed hope is the rapture and the glorious appearing is the second advent. Granville Sharp's rule says they are the same thing so post-trib would be true. Titus 2:13 would be powerful evidence for post-trib.
LaHaye does know about Granville Sharp's rule. He and Thomas Ice co-edited a book called The End Times Controversy. Ice commented, “I believe that there are two basic questions [in Mt. 24:3] because of the grammar of the passage as explained by Craig Blomberg: 'The sign of your coming and of the end of the age' in Greek reads, more literally, the sign of your coming and end of the age. By not repeating the definite article ('the') before 'end of the age,' Matthew's rendering of Jesus' words is most likely linking the coming of Christ and the end of the age together as one event (Granville Sharp's rule).†v
I suspect, but I do not know it, that those few times when the Greek word kai should be translated “namely†and not “and†are examples of Granville Sharp's rule. His rule says that two nouns are really the same thing – “A namely B†and not “A and B.â€
Wikipedia has an interesting article about Granville Sharp. He was apparently a devoted Christian because, “Granville Sharp (10 November 1735 – 6 July 1813) was one of the first English campaigners for the abolition of the slave trade. He also involved himself in trying to correct other social injustices.†“He was regarded as the grand old man of the abolition struggle.†“Sharp ardently sympathized with the revolt of the American colonists. He believed in peace in America, but he also believed they were entitled to 'Equitable Representation', an idea repeated in the famous phrase 'No taxation without representation.'" He was also an excellent scholar of the Greek language and a talented musician. vi
Aside: There is a second example of Granville Sharp's rule in Titus 2:13 - “our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.†In Greek it says literally, “of the great God and savior of us, Jesus Christ.†By Sharp's rule, “God†and “Savior†are the same thing so Jesus is called God. However some commentators and translators think that God is a reference to God the father. I suspect they do this for dogmatic and not linguistic reasons. They do not want to call Jesus God. I do not believe it because I do not believe God the Father will have a glorious appearing.
Granville Sharp said there was not a single exception to his rule in the New Testament. However, LaHaye will probably disagree and those who think Jesus is not God will disagree. Also, the Wikipedia article indicates there are a few counterexamples in classical Greek and in the early church fathers. Therefore I think it is safe to say that Granville Sharp's rule is almost always true but may not always be true. LaHaye will probably seize on this and say that the rule does not apply to the first part of Titus 2:13. However, I bet he will not have a good reason linguistically. I also doubt that he will have a good rebuttal to the next section.
Dr. Charles Ryrie and Titus 2:13
--------------------------------
In Dispensationalism Today Dr. Charles Ryrie said,
"The dispensationalist sees a broader purpose in God's program for the world than salvation, and that purpose is his own glory. For the dispensationalist the glory of God is the governing principle and overall purpose, and the soteriological [salvation] program is one of the principal means employed in bringing to pass the greatest demonstration of his own glory. …."
"How do we know that the glory of God is the purpose of God above and beyond His saving purpose? First, the plain statement of Scripture declares that salvation is to the praise of God's glory which simply means that redemption is one of the means to the end of glorifying God (Eph. 1:6, 12, 14)." vii
I agree. Even though I am not a dispensationalist, I agree with many dispensationalist teachings.
Suppose a Christian is contemplating the phrase “the blessed hope.†He may think about it self centeredly – what is best for him – and decide it means the rapture. This is LaHaye's interpretation. However, if Ryrie and the dispensationalists are correct and if the Christian takes God's point of view on what is important, he may decide “the blessed hope†is the glory of Jesus - the glorious appearing. This agrees with Granville Sharp's rule.
You can translate it either as “the appearing of the glory†or as “the glorious appearing.†This first is more literal. In Greek it is a noun “glory†and not an adjective “glorious.†“The appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus,†NASB, can be shortened to “the appearing of the glory of Jesus.†The glory of Jesus is what Ryrie was so concerned about. It is not the appearing that it glorious, it is Jesus who is glorious.
Ryrie was a professor at LaHaye's seminary. I bet he is one of LaHaye's heroes.
Walvoord's interpretation
-------------------------
John Walvoord disagrees with LaHaye. He believes the “glorious appearing†is the pre-trib rapture.
"However, the church will see the glory of Christ at the coming of the Lord for his church before the Tribulation, and there is no valid reason the term glorious appearing should not be a reference to the Rapture." viii
I looked at 14 commentaries that included a section on Titus. One ix probably agrees with Walvoord although he does not explicitly say it. He said, “Blessed hope. A general reference to the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.†That sounds like Second Advent. However his discussion includes references to 1 Cor. 15 and 1 Thessalonians 4 which are rapture passages and his discussion of 1 Thessalonians 4 shows that he is pre-trib. The rest, x xi xii xiii xiv xv xvi xvii xviii xix xx xxi, disagreed with Walvoord that the glorious appearing is a pre-trib Rapture. His interpretation is not likely, so why did he adopt it? I believe it is because he thinks “looking for†means imminence and he does not want the Second Advent to be imminent so he is willing to accept a much less likely interpretation of glorious appearing.
We know the Second Advent is glorious. “At that time men will see the Son of Man coming in the clouds with power and glory†Mk. 13:26. So Walvoord believes in two glorious appearings, one at the beginning and one at the end of the Tribulation. Since he is a pre-tribber he also believes in two comings of Jesus, two resurrections, and two divine trumpets – one at the beginning and one at the end of the Tribulation. Pre-trib makes things much more complicated than they need to be. This violates Occam's razor.
There is no evidence that the alleged pre-trib rapture is glorious, but Mk. 13:26 says the Second Advent is glorious. Thus I think the simple literal interpretation of “glorious appearing†in Titus 2:13 is that it is the Second Advent. Dispensationalists and pre-tribbers always say they are consistent literalists. Therefore I think they should say the “glorious appearing†is the Second Advent, as LaHaye says, and admit that we are looking for the Second Advent, even though this means the Second Advent is imminent which is very damaging to pre-trib.
Titus 2:13 and pre-trib
-----------------------
No matter what, Titus 2:13 is a problem for pre-trib. The question is whether it is a big problem or a more modest problem.
If LaHaye is correct and the glorious appearing is the Second Advent then this is a big problem for pre-trib. It does not matter whether you translate kai as “and,†like NASB, or whether you translate kai as “namely.†In either case we are looking for the Second Advent and this means the Second Advent is imminent.
If Walvoord is correct then the problem would be more modest. Still it is a problem because “glorious appearing†sure sounds like the Second Advent and I cannot find any commentator who agrees with Walvoord that it is a pre-trib rapture. Also, Mk. 13:26 suggests that LaHaye and I are correct in interpreting “the glorious appearing†as the Second Advent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i Tim LaHaye, The Rapture. Who will face the tribulation?, Harvest House Publishers, Eugene Oregon, © 2002, p. 81
ii http://grammar.about.com/od/ab/g/apposterm.htm
iii Ibid
iv Gareth L. Reese, New Testament Epistles A critical and exegetical commentary, 1 Timothy Titus 2 Timothy, Scripture Exposition Books, Moberly, Missouri, © 1999, p. 378
v Tim LaHaye and Thomas Ice, The End Times Controversy, Harvest House Publishers, Eugene Oregon, © 2003, p. 154.
vi en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Granville_Sharp
vii Charles Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today, Moody Press, Chicago, © 1975, p. 102-103
viii John Walvoord, The Rapture Question, Zondervan Publishing House, © 1957, p. 157
ix John MacArthur, The MacArthur Bible Commentary, Thomas Nelson Publishers, © 2005, p. ??
x Malcolm O. Tolbert, Layman's Bible Book Commentary, volume 22, Philippians, Colossians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Broadman Press, Nashville, Tennessee, © 1980, p. ??
xi Carol A. Newsom and Sharon H Ringe The Women's Bible Commentary, Westminster/ John Knox Press, Louisville Kentucky, © 1992, p. ??
xii Gail R. O'Day and David L. Peterson, Theological Bible Commentary, Westminster/ John Knox Press, Louisville Kentucky, © 2009, p. 444
xiii Armin W. Schuetze, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Northwestern Publishing House, Concordia University, © 1991, p. 201
xiv James Burton Coffman, Commentary on 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus & Philemon, Revised Edition, A.C.U Press, Abilene Texas, © 1986, p. 321
xv Thomas C. Oden, First and Second Timothy and Titus, John Knox Press, Louisville Kentucky, © 1989, p. ??
xvi Stuart Briscoe, Purifying the Church, What God Expects of You and Your Church, Regal Books a division of GL Publications, Ventura California, © 1987, p. 140
xvii David Lipscomb, A Commentary on the New Testament Epistles, volume 5, I, II Thessalonians, I, II Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Gospel Advocate Co., Nashville Tennessee, © 1979, p. 278
xviii Gary W. Demarest, The Communicators Commentary, 1,2 Thessalonians, 1,2 Timothy, Titus, Word Books, Waco Texas, p. 322
xix FIRST TIMOTHY, SECOND TIMOTHY, TITUS, JAMES, FIRST PETER, SECOND PETER, JUDE, Jerome H. Neyrey, S. J., THE LITURGICAL PRESS Collegeville, Minnesota, by the order of St. Benedict Inc., © 1983 p. 46
xx H. Armin Moellering, Victor A. Bartling, Concordia Commentary 1 Timothy 2 Timothy Titus Philemon, CONCORDIA PUBLISHING HOUSE, SAINT LOUIS, © 1970, p 204-205
xxi M. Eugene Boring and Fred B. Craddock, The People's New Testament Commentary, John Knox Press, Louisville Kentucky, © 2004, p. ??
Introduction
------------
Consider,
“... looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus, [Titus 2:13 NASB].
Pre-tribbers routinely cite this verse as evidence for pre-trib. Why? First, without any evidence, they interpret “blessed hope†as the rapture. Then they note we are looking for the blessed hope. In pre-trib theology, “looking for†is evidence for imminence. Imminence is evidence for the pre-trib rapture. Hence they think this versus is teaching pre-trib.
They are missing something important. If the NASB translation is correct, and that is not a given, then we are looking for two different things. We are looking for the “blessed hope,†AND we are looking for “the appearing of the glory†which New King James translates as “glorious appearing.â€
What is the “glorious appearing?†Chapter 7 in LaHaye's book, Rapture [Under Attack], is titled The Glorious Appearing. In it he repeatedly says the glorious appearing is the Second Coming, i.e. the Second Advent. In his article, Rapture, in The Popular Encyclopedia of Bible Prophecy, p. 311, he said, “In the second phase of Jesus' second coming (the glorious appearing), He will return to earth in great power and glory to set up His millennial kingdom.†In another book i he says, “Both phases of Christ's return are mentioned in Titus 2:13, which refers in a single verse to the Rapture as the “blessed hope,†and the coming to earth as the “glorious appearing.†I agree that the glorious appearing is the Second Advent.
Note carefully. This is important. If NASB's translation is correct, we are looking for the glorious appearing. If LaHaye's interpretation is correct, the glorious appearing is the Second Advent. Therefore, we are looking for the Second Advent. However, in pre-trib theology, “looking for†is an indicator of imminence so the Second Advent would be imminent and imminence would be useless for pre-trib.
The meaning of “and†in Titus 2:13
----------------------------------
This is not the end of the story. There is another very different way to translate Titus 2:13. The difference centers on how you translate the word “and†which in Greek is “kai.†The small dictionary in the back of my Greek New Testament defines kai as: and, also, but, even; that is, namely. Therefore it is legal to translate Titus 2:13 as “while we wait for the blessed hope, namely the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Christ Jesus.†If this is the correct translation, then the “blessed hope†is the “glorious appearing.†I think this is correct.
This alternate translation would make the interpretation much easier. “The blessed hope†is very cryptic. It could mean the rapture, but it could also mean the glory of Jesus – “the glorious appearing.†It would be nice if the verse explained itself instead of leaving us to figure out what blessed hope is.
Translations of Titus 2:13
--------------------------
Several translations agree that the blessed hope is the glorious appearing:
NIV, Amplified Bible, English Standard Version, Mounce Reverse-Interlinear New Testament, The Complete Jewish Bible, God's Word Translation, Good News Translation, New Living Translation, Easy To Read Version, The Message.
I could not quote them because my post was too long.
Granville Sharp's rule
----------------------
A large commentary iv on 1, 2 Timothy and Titus has this footnote about “the blessed hope:â€
[Granville] Sharp's rule reads, “when two nouns in the same case are connected by the Greek word 'and' and the first noun is preceded by the article 'the,' and the second noun is not preceded by the article, the second noun refers to the same person or thing to which the first noun refers, and is a further description of it.†(K. S. Wuest, Treasures from the Greek New Testament, p. 31.) That is exactly the kind of construction we have in the phrase being commented upon."
In other words, “the blessed hope†has the word “the†in front of it in Greek, but “glorious appearing†does not, so by Granville Sharp's rule, they are the same thing. LaHaye thinks the blessed hope is the rapture and the glorious appearing is the second advent. Granville Sharp's rule says they are the same thing so post-trib would be true. Titus 2:13 would be powerful evidence for post-trib.
LaHaye does know about Granville Sharp's rule. He and Thomas Ice co-edited a book called The End Times Controversy. Ice commented, “I believe that there are two basic questions [in Mt. 24:3] because of the grammar of the passage as explained by Craig Blomberg: 'The sign of your coming and of the end of the age' in Greek reads, more literally, the sign of your coming and end of the age. By not repeating the definite article ('the') before 'end of the age,' Matthew's rendering of Jesus' words is most likely linking the coming of Christ and the end of the age together as one event (Granville Sharp's rule).†v
I suspect, but I do not know it, that those few times when the Greek word kai should be translated “namely†and not “and†are examples of Granville Sharp's rule. His rule says that two nouns are really the same thing – “A namely B†and not “A and B.â€
Wikipedia has an interesting article about Granville Sharp. He was apparently a devoted Christian because, “Granville Sharp (10 November 1735 – 6 July 1813) was one of the first English campaigners for the abolition of the slave trade. He also involved himself in trying to correct other social injustices.†“He was regarded as the grand old man of the abolition struggle.†“Sharp ardently sympathized with the revolt of the American colonists. He believed in peace in America, but he also believed they were entitled to 'Equitable Representation', an idea repeated in the famous phrase 'No taxation without representation.'" He was also an excellent scholar of the Greek language and a talented musician. vi
Aside: There is a second example of Granville Sharp's rule in Titus 2:13 - “our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.†In Greek it says literally, “of the great God and savior of us, Jesus Christ.†By Sharp's rule, “God†and “Savior†are the same thing so Jesus is called God. However some commentators and translators think that God is a reference to God the father. I suspect they do this for dogmatic and not linguistic reasons. They do not want to call Jesus God. I do not believe it because I do not believe God the Father will have a glorious appearing.
Granville Sharp said there was not a single exception to his rule in the New Testament. However, LaHaye will probably disagree and those who think Jesus is not God will disagree. Also, the Wikipedia article indicates there are a few counterexamples in classical Greek and in the early church fathers. Therefore I think it is safe to say that Granville Sharp's rule is almost always true but may not always be true. LaHaye will probably seize on this and say that the rule does not apply to the first part of Titus 2:13. However, I bet he will not have a good reason linguistically. I also doubt that he will have a good rebuttal to the next section.
Dr. Charles Ryrie and Titus 2:13
--------------------------------
In Dispensationalism Today Dr. Charles Ryrie said,
"The dispensationalist sees a broader purpose in God's program for the world than salvation, and that purpose is his own glory. For the dispensationalist the glory of God is the governing principle and overall purpose, and the soteriological [salvation] program is one of the principal means employed in bringing to pass the greatest demonstration of his own glory. …."
"How do we know that the glory of God is the purpose of God above and beyond His saving purpose? First, the plain statement of Scripture declares that salvation is to the praise of God's glory which simply means that redemption is one of the means to the end of glorifying God (Eph. 1:6, 12, 14)." vii
I agree. Even though I am not a dispensationalist, I agree with many dispensationalist teachings.
Suppose a Christian is contemplating the phrase “the blessed hope.†He may think about it self centeredly – what is best for him – and decide it means the rapture. This is LaHaye's interpretation. However, if Ryrie and the dispensationalists are correct and if the Christian takes God's point of view on what is important, he may decide “the blessed hope†is the glory of Jesus - the glorious appearing. This agrees with Granville Sharp's rule.
You can translate it either as “the appearing of the glory†or as “the glorious appearing.†This first is more literal. In Greek it is a noun “glory†and not an adjective “glorious.†“The appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus,†NASB, can be shortened to “the appearing of the glory of Jesus.†The glory of Jesus is what Ryrie was so concerned about. It is not the appearing that it glorious, it is Jesus who is glorious.
Ryrie was a professor at LaHaye's seminary. I bet he is one of LaHaye's heroes.
Walvoord's interpretation
-------------------------
John Walvoord disagrees with LaHaye. He believes the “glorious appearing†is the pre-trib rapture.
"However, the church will see the glory of Christ at the coming of the Lord for his church before the Tribulation, and there is no valid reason the term glorious appearing should not be a reference to the Rapture." viii
I looked at 14 commentaries that included a section on Titus. One ix probably agrees with Walvoord although he does not explicitly say it. He said, “Blessed hope. A general reference to the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.†That sounds like Second Advent. However his discussion includes references to 1 Cor. 15 and 1 Thessalonians 4 which are rapture passages and his discussion of 1 Thessalonians 4 shows that he is pre-trib. The rest, x xi xii xiii xiv xv xvi xvii xviii xix xx xxi, disagreed with Walvoord that the glorious appearing is a pre-trib Rapture. His interpretation is not likely, so why did he adopt it? I believe it is because he thinks “looking for†means imminence and he does not want the Second Advent to be imminent so he is willing to accept a much less likely interpretation of glorious appearing.
We know the Second Advent is glorious. “At that time men will see the Son of Man coming in the clouds with power and glory†Mk. 13:26. So Walvoord believes in two glorious appearings, one at the beginning and one at the end of the Tribulation. Since he is a pre-tribber he also believes in two comings of Jesus, two resurrections, and two divine trumpets – one at the beginning and one at the end of the Tribulation. Pre-trib makes things much more complicated than they need to be. This violates Occam's razor.
There is no evidence that the alleged pre-trib rapture is glorious, but Mk. 13:26 says the Second Advent is glorious. Thus I think the simple literal interpretation of “glorious appearing†in Titus 2:13 is that it is the Second Advent. Dispensationalists and pre-tribbers always say they are consistent literalists. Therefore I think they should say the “glorious appearing†is the Second Advent, as LaHaye says, and admit that we are looking for the Second Advent, even though this means the Second Advent is imminent which is very damaging to pre-trib.
Titus 2:13 and pre-trib
-----------------------
No matter what, Titus 2:13 is a problem for pre-trib. The question is whether it is a big problem or a more modest problem.
If LaHaye is correct and the glorious appearing is the Second Advent then this is a big problem for pre-trib. It does not matter whether you translate kai as “and,†like NASB, or whether you translate kai as “namely.†In either case we are looking for the Second Advent and this means the Second Advent is imminent.
If Walvoord is correct then the problem would be more modest. Still it is a problem because “glorious appearing†sure sounds like the Second Advent and I cannot find any commentator who agrees with Walvoord that it is a pre-trib rapture. Also, Mk. 13:26 suggests that LaHaye and I are correct in interpreting “the glorious appearing†as the Second Advent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i Tim LaHaye, The Rapture. Who will face the tribulation?, Harvest House Publishers, Eugene Oregon, © 2002, p. 81
ii http://grammar.about.com/od/ab/g/apposterm.htm
iii Ibid
iv Gareth L. Reese, New Testament Epistles A critical and exegetical commentary, 1 Timothy Titus 2 Timothy, Scripture Exposition Books, Moberly, Missouri, © 1999, p. 378
v Tim LaHaye and Thomas Ice, The End Times Controversy, Harvest House Publishers, Eugene Oregon, © 2003, p. 154.
vi en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Granville_Sharp
vii Charles Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today, Moody Press, Chicago, © 1975, p. 102-103
viii John Walvoord, The Rapture Question, Zondervan Publishing House, © 1957, p. 157
ix John MacArthur, The MacArthur Bible Commentary, Thomas Nelson Publishers, © 2005, p. ??
x Malcolm O. Tolbert, Layman's Bible Book Commentary, volume 22, Philippians, Colossians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Broadman Press, Nashville, Tennessee, © 1980, p. ??
xi Carol A. Newsom and Sharon H Ringe The Women's Bible Commentary, Westminster/ John Knox Press, Louisville Kentucky, © 1992, p. ??
xii Gail R. O'Day and David L. Peterson, Theological Bible Commentary, Westminster/ John Knox Press, Louisville Kentucky, © 2009, p. 444
xiii Armin W. Schuetze, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Northwestern Publishing House, Concordia University, © 1991, p. 201
xiv James Burton Coffman, Commentary on 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus & Philemon, Revised Edition, A.C.U Press, Abilene Texas, © 1986, p. 321
xv Thomas C. Oden, First and Second Timothy and Titus, John Knox Press, Louisville Kentucky, © 1989, p. ??
xvi Stuart Briscoe, Purifying the Church, What God Expects of You and Your Church, Regal Books a division of GL Publications, Ventura California, © 1987, p. 140
xvii David Lipscomb, A Commentary on the New Testament Epistles, volume 5, I, II Thessalonians, I, II Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Gospel Advocate Co., Nashville Tennessee, © 1979, p. 278
xviii Gary W. Demarest, The Communicators Commentary, 1,2 Thessalonians, 1,2 Timothy, Titus, Word Books, Waco Texas, p. 322
xix FIRST TIMOTHY, SECOND TIMOTHY, TITUS, JAMES, FIRST PETER, SECOND PETER, JUDE, Jerome H. Neyrey, S. J., THE LITURGICAL PRESS Collegeville, Minnesota, by the order of St. Benedict Inc., © 1983 p. 46
xx H. Armin Moellering, Victor A. Bartling, Concordia Commentary 1 Timothy 2 Timothy Titus Philemon, CONCORDIA PUBLISHING HOUSE, SAINT LOUIS, © 1970, p 204-205
xxi M. Eugene Boring and Fred B. Craddock, The People's New Testament Commentary, John Knox Press, Louisville Kentucky, © 2004, p. ??
