Did Paul Write the Pastoral Epistles?

INTRODUCTION

The New Testament books of First and Second Timothy, along with their counterpart Titus, have been distinguished as a “pastoral” unit since the eighteenth century¹. Moo and Carson note that the title “Pastoral Epistles” was “…a title that was apparently given to them by D. N. Berdot in 1703 and followed by Paul Anton in 1726.”² The question of the authorship of the pastoral epistles seems to be an even more recent development than the grouping of them together as a unit and, as we shall see, may have a small part to play in the criticism that has arisen. Ellis points out that due to their “similarity…the consensus of opinion has been that in the question of genuineness the three epistles stand or fall together.”³ It is generally accepted that the question of Authorship is a fairly recent development. John McRay writes, “Since the Pastorals are in the Canon, contain the name of Paul as their author and were accepted as genuine by the early church for centuries, the burden of proof is upon those who challenge their status.⁴” In Robert Wall’s response to S.E. Porter, he suggests that Pauline authorship is not attested until the third century.⁵ Kenneth Berding, however, suggests an explicit pattern of citation from Polycarp that would indicate that as early as 120 C.E. the Pauline authorship of the Pastorals was generally understood.⁶ Hincks and Ellis⁷ both both agree that the authenticity of Pauline authorship of the Pastoral Epistles went relatively unchallenged until the early 1800s. E. E. Ellis, in one of his contributions to the IVP Dictionary of Paul and his letters writes, concerning the Pastoral Epistles:

In the patristic church the reception of the letters into the NT canon was tied to their Pauline authorship for, as Serapion bishop of Antioch put it, “we receive both Peter and the other apostles as Christ…This judgment was virtually unanimous, explicitly witnessed by the Muratorian Canon and Irenaeus (c. A.D. 180…) and probably to be inferred from earlier quotations and allusions. The Pastorals are lacking only in one incomplete manuscript of Paul’s letters… and were rejected only by certain heretical teachers: 1-2 Timothy by Tatian and Basilides… and all three by Marcion.⁸

In spite of the external evidence which supports the Pauline authorship of the Pastoral Epistles, early nineteenth century internal textual criticism has since raised some serious challenges to the assumption that Paul is the author of the works in question. The magnitude of the affect of the challenges which have been raised in the last two hundred years has been significant. “Contemporary critical orthodoxy insists that the Pastorals were all written by someone other than Paul and at a time considerably later than that of the apostle.”⁹ Porter observes, “It is one of the received traditions in new Testament scholarship that Paul is not the author of the Pastoral Epistles, a view held by the vast majority of scholars…”¹⁰. Professor Hincks seemed to rightly predict the current state of things when he wrote, “If one were resolutely to put out of his mind his estimate of the merits of the question, and try to estimate the outcome simply from the controversy itself, as an outsider might do, he would be likely, I think, to predict the triumph of those who maintain that Paul did not write the letters.”¹¹

Ellis contends, regarding modern criticism, “If evidence external to the letters were the only criterion, no serious question ever would have been lodged against [the pastorals].”¹² This is an important point to keep in mind as the examination of the internal evidence progresses. Oftentimes in this particular discussion the external evidence is trumped, or forgotten, amidst the tedious examination of the internal evidence against Pauline authorship. As we turn to look at some of the major objections, it must be noted that we will focus primarily on what this author perceives to be the most difficult challenge to Pauline authorship: style and linguistics compared internally, and style and linguistics compared to second century literature. We will also give a brief synopsis of the challenge that the hypothesis of pseudepigraphy raises regarding the canonicity of the texts themselves.

I. Style and Linguistics

a. Internal Issues Between the Pastorals and Received Pauline Corpus

The issue of style and linguistics is, arguably, the most challenging and comprehensive of the difficulties related to Pauline authorship. The most notable linguistic challenge came from P. N. Harrison’s work the Problem of the Pastoral Epistles.¹³ It is difficult to deal with the linguistic challenges without dealing with the implications of Harrison’s analysis. “P.N. Harrison’s book, which has virtually produced a ‘pre-Harrison… post-Harrison’ approach to the linguistic study of the Pastorals, set the stage in 1921 upon which most of the subsequent investigation of the question seems to have been based.”¹⁴ While describing the history of the challenges that were being raised regarding authorship Ellis notes, “Not until Harrison’s critique (1921) of the language and style did the pendulum swing the other way.” The “pendulum” Ellis refers to is the swing from a general acceptance of Pauline authorship to an overwhelming doubt about its genuineness.

What are the major questions that Harrison raised? Harrison analyzed the linguistics of the pastorals as a unit and compared them to other Pauline literature to demonstrate that the difference between these three works and the other epistles is too great to be ignored.¹⁵ To get a flavor of the type of analysis that Harrison employed Roberts quotes Harrison,

But we must now refer to another series of omissions, which is if possible still more striking and significant—the long string of Pauline particles, eclitics, prepositions, pronouns etc., for which we look in vain in these epistles. Not only are the stones used by the builder of a different shape and substance from those of the Paulines, the very clamps and mortar that hold them together are different too…¹⁶

In this particular quote, Harrison is referring to 112 particles that are non-existent in the Pastorals but, in his view, serve as the “clay and mortar” for Pauline literature. So not only, in Harrison’s view, do we have an issue of general use of vocabulary but it seems to Harrison that the syntax of the author is quite different.¹⁷ “The arguments sound impressive, but they are not as convincing as they seem at first sight.”¹⁸ Roberts deals specifically with the issue of the particles and notes that Harrison makes “Much ado about this evidence.”¹⁹ However, Roberts is convinced that the methodology, itself, which Harrison employs ought to be the target of scrutiny. First, Roberts wonders what qualifies a particle, in the ten epistles, as a particle that should be considered “habitual” by the apostle Paul. Roberts points out that “…of the 112 words, thirty-five occur in only one of Paul’s epistles, fifty-eight in only two epistles, 70 in only three epistles, and eight-four in only four of the ten works which Harrison allows as Pauline.”²⁰ Moo and Carson, citing Guthrie, think it somewhat important to present the other side of this case.

There are another 93 particles, prepositions, and pronouns, all but one appearing in the Pastorals, and all but seven in Paul. [Guthrie] adds these to Harrison’s list and points out that of the 205 there are 92 occurrences in the Pastorals, which compares favorably with the 131 occurrences in Romans, 113 in 2 Corinthians, 86 in Philippians, and so forth. He concludes that “Dr. Harrison’s deductions from the connective tissue would seem to be invalid.”²¹

While the data presented by Harrison is somewhat offset when compared to that which aligns with the Pastorals, there are other challenges to the methodology itself. Roberts, and Moo and Carson both point out that the categorical separation of the Pastorals from other Pauline literature may itself create the problem that Harrison is identifying.²² For example, if the method Harrison employs is true, it should show more favorable results when employed on other categories within the Pauline corpus. Roberts groups the Thessalonian letters apart from the rest of the Pauline letters and runs the same test. He concludes that this study, performed on the Thessalonian books, “…yields precisely the same results in the case of the Thessalonian Epistles.”²³ Roberts charges that the results actually make, according Harrison’s measurements, Thessalonians less genuine than the Pastorals. He demonstrates that there are 114 words²⁴ that would stand against their authorship. Roberts also contends that the situation is much worse in the case of the Thessalonian epistles because they are of the same nature and content as the other Pauline epistles. He notes “These figures do not take into account the fact that the Thessalonian epistles are more similar to the main body of Paul’s epistle in subject matter and tone than Timothy-Titus. Even particles are affected by the subject matter where there is more argumentation, resulting in more hypotactic style…. The facts, then, demonstrate that the method proves nothing.” ²⁵

Roberts’ conclusion raises another important question. What, exactly, can the method of Harrison actually prove? Stanley Porter is skeptical of the many methodologies that are employed in textual criticism and sees these statistical approaches as doing little more than providing “…the appearance of scientific accuracy.” ²⁶ Porter writes, “…it is extremely difficult to use statistics to determine Pauline authorship of the Pastoral Epistles. Certain impressions can be formulated and examples can be cited, but the results are not certain enough for anything concrete to be established.”²⁷ Following the same line of thinking John Mcray notes, “What a statistical method can never account for is the why of the differences. It cannot take into account changes within an author of a radical nature—whether intentional or unintentional—as well as changes demanded by the nature of the audience of the letter.”²⁸ Carson and Moo echo the very same sentiment when they conclude “…even where there are observable differences, the statistics themselves cannot tell us why the differences exist.”²⁹ There are a number of explanations as to why these linguistic anomalies may exist that will be dealt with at the conclusion of this paper under the discussion of pseudepigraphy. It is sufficient, here, to note that the number of objections to internal linguistic comparisons of the Pastorals are quite significant. While the statistics seem to demonstrate a significant amount of scientific flare the interpretations leave one more skeptical of the methods themselves, than the works subjected to the scrutiny of their analysis.

b. External Issues Related to the Comparison of the Pastorals to Second Century Writing

Utilizing these same methodologies, Harrison proceeds to compare the Pastorals with literature from the second century in order to support his theory that the majority of the Pastoral epistles were not written until well after Paul’s death in the second century.³⁰ Obviously our skepticism of the methodology itself applies here. Still, the theory is that because Paul’s verbiage lines up more with second century literature rather than first century literature that it was probably not written until the second century. If the methodology is sound, then it seems this may be a convincing argument, though, it too suffers from much the same difficulties as the examination of the internal comparisons with the Pauline corpus. Hincks is so overwhelmingly convinced of these arguments that he asserts, “Historical criticism confirms the impression of difference by showing that the letters in question could not have been written by the Apostle during the period of work which produced the earlier ones.”³¹ Robert Wall, in a response to S. E. Porter’s work previously cited, argues that

During this century, scholars have raised various reasons against Pauline authorship… including their chronology…literary form… and style… advice… and theology. For these internal reasons, when coupled with the lack of clear textual witness to them prior to the third century, most scholars think that Paul did not write them…”.³²

It’s important to note here that three out of the five reasons Wall lists are likely a result of literary critiques similar to, or developed from, Harrison’s methodology. The other two, advice and theology, will be dealt with later. Of note, though, is that Wall here is asserting not only that the Pastorals were likely not written by Paul, but seems to suggest that the “internal reasons” affect the books “chronology.” Should we be concerned that the Pastorals seem to know too many words from a future generation that existed long after the apostle Paul died?

Moo and Carson note that “…most of the words shared by the Pastorals and the second-century writers are also found in other writings prior to A.D. 50.”³³ Earle Ellis notes that “…Montgomery Hitchcock made the rather embarrassing discovery that the vocabulary of second century writings shows a closer relationship to 1 Corinthians… than to the Pastorals.”³⁴ Further, John McRay notes that Hitchcock in another work “… pointed out that many of the ‘late’ words in the Pastorals occur in the LXX and that Harrison cannot know how much or how little Paul knew of the LXX.”³⁵ McRay also notes that in a 1955 article Harrison admitted that he was “…strongly inclined to think that he (author of Pastorals, J.M.) had read Philo, for he shares with that writer and exceptionally large number of both words and phrases.”³⁶ This, of course, shows that the Pastorals share much in common more with the first century than they do the second century.

There is one final note that needs to be addressed regarding the type of analysis Harrison is employing upon the Pastorals and upon the Pauline corpus. Not a few scholars have noted that the sample size of Pauline literature is not large enough to do a proper comparison. For example, McRay notes, “In the judgment of Yule the pastorals will not qualify in length for… Harrison’s method.”³⁷ Moo and Carson confirm that “Statisticians object to the brevity of the Epistles and to the lack of statistical controls.”³⁸ Earle Ellis also cites Yule’s study when he says, “The Cambridge professor, after careful investigation into the use of vocabulary-style comparisons to determine authorship, concludes that to obtain reliable data the treatise under study must be at least 10,000 words long. The pastorals fall far short of this minimum.”

Although many scholars accept these statistical analyses, it seems that the weight of the evidence against the methodologies themselves, whether applied to internal evidence as compared to the rest of the Pauline corpus or to second century literature, is far too heavy to ignore. It is right and good to challenge the authorship of the Pauline epistles, but it is also right and good to challenge those methods by which the authorship is challenged. If the methods do not hold up to scrutiny, which it appears for many reasons they do not, then the conclusions they purport are also in question. McRay’s conclusion regarding this analysis is a good one, “We conclude then, that at this stage in the study of the linguistic character of the Pastorals efforts have not been successful in producing any concrete evidence for changing the status… of the Pastoral Epistles.”³⁹

c. Accounting for the differences.

It is certainly unfair to deny the evidence as it stands. While the conclusions that Paul could not have written the Pastorals because of the differences of linguistics, or that Paul could not have written the Pastorals because of the similarity to second-century writing, are both unfounded, the fact that there are differences between the Pastorals and the rest of the Pauline Corpus is undeniable. If the conclusions set forth do not explain the evidence, what does? All that the evidence seems to indicate is that the author who wrote the Pastorals had occasion to write in a different manner, using different words and phrases, than he used in the rest of the Pauline corpus. What might have caused Paul to write differently? A number of plausible solutions exist. Even if we assume that Paul used no amanuenses we are left with very good explanations. For example, it’s entirely possible that Paul, in his hold age, had acquired a much more robust vocabulary (though Carson and Moo see no need for this suggestion⁴⁰) or that his attitude and approach, as a person, had changed as he had gotten older. Most who contend for Pauline authorship of the Pastorals believe Paul wrote them after his imprisonment at the conclusion of the book of Acts. At this later age he may have matured as an individual and began writing differently. Hincks accepts the linguistic arguments that we have brought into question here⁴¹, and goes on to argue that Paul does not seem to have the “tone” that we would expect.⁴² He spends a significant amount of his article contending that Paul doesn’t seem quite like himself in these letters. Again, Paul’s age may account for that.

Also, it is possible that not only his age, but the occasion and recipients of the letter had something to do with Paul’s linguistic style and apparent change of demeanor. Citing Lutoslawski, McRay writes, “He finds in Plato’s later writings, among other things, an increasing tendency to technical language with stereotyped terminology and a strange preference for unusual words, that hapax legomena increase to an astonishing extent, that gusts of eloquence disappear, and that attention is given to mechanical details of style.”⁴³ It is perfectly within the realm of possibility that this particular situation, writing to these particular individuals, in these particular locations, at this particular time warranted a particular approach of linguistic style. The most obvious difference between the Pastorals and the other ten Pauline letters is that they are written to individuals and not to churches. Further, they are written at a later date, with altogether different circumstances. With all of these changes occurring, one wonders if the Pastoral Epistles were more closely related to the rest of the corpus would detractors  find evidence of pseudepigraphy in the similarities in light of all the changes that would have occurred! What credible author writes precisely the same way for all occasions, times, audiences, and situations? One might rightly suspect if the pastorals were linguistically indistinguishable with, say, the Thessalonian letters, that something was odd about a student of Paul’s stature using the same words, particles, structures, and so forth, to make a different point to a different people at a different time. Certainly this would be more suspect than a person writing a unique letter for a unique situation at a time, and to an audience, distinct from all the other epistles.

II. Authentic Authorship, Amanuenses, and Pseudepigraphy

We cannot conclude this analysis without at least briefly looking at the range of possibilities for the authorship of the Pastoral Epistles and discussing what, within that range, is in keeping with a view of canonicity of these epistles. To state it another way, how far from Pauline authorship can we go, before we not only lose Paul as the author, but the epistles themselves as a part of the canon of Scripture? There are four basic positions on the authorship of the Pastoral Epistles: 1) the Epistles were composed in the second century with no original Pauline content “except that which has filtered through the mind of an unknown disciple imitating his master.”⁴⁴ 2) The Epistles were composed from a few original Pauline fragments but “…that the major content is from the hand of an early second century Paulinist.”⁴⁵ 3) The epistles were written by an amanuenses employed by Paul, but the content is authentically Pauline and the differences in linguistic style suggest a change in amanuenses rather than Paul himself.⁴⁶ 4) The epistles were directly dictated by the apostle Paul himself and “…that any changes in style and content may be adequately accounted for within the framework of a direct dictation by the Apostle.”⁴⁷

The scope of this paper does not allow for an in depth analysis of each view, however, it is within our purview to analyze which views, within this range of views, adequately accounts for the evidence while not jeopardizing the authority and canonicity of the Pastoral epistles. Those who contend for a second century author, whether a disciple of Paul’s writing with or without some Pauline fragment, contend that this view does not take away from their authority or canonicity. Hincks writes, “Why should learning the truth about any book of Scripture take from it any of its power to edify?…supposing that the Pastoral Letters were written fifty years after Paul’s death, if we can put ourselves into the author’s situation, and appreciate the wants of the church which he sought to supply by them, we shall find them speaking to us with fresher meaning and deeper power.”⁴⁸ Notice that Hincks not only argues for the authority of the literature but a fresher and deeper authority. Wall writes, “Are we to believe… that a composition, first read and read again, then preserved and treasured as scripture, would be excluded from the biblical canon if the author was ‘exposed’ as a pseudepigrapher? I do not think so.”⁴⁹ Arthur Patzia seems comfortable with a certain level of first century pseudepigraphy, or dutero-Paulinity, when he writes, “Could there not have been a period of some three to four decades (c. A.D. 65-95) when apostolic authorship and authority were more fluid than in the second century, when apostolicity became a criterion for sifting out emerging apocryphal books as a test for canonicity?⁵⁰”

The arguments for pseudepigraphy typically contend that while pseudepigraphy may seem deceptive to us looking back, it was a perfectly acceptable form of writing in the first and second centuries. Wall writes, “I found Porter’s accusation of ‘deception’ against the pseudepigrapher confusing…[w]hat if the pseudepigrapher did not intend to deceive the readers… but was only following the literary practices of his religious community?”⁵¹ Hincks also finds justification in the innocence of the pseudepigrapher when he says, “Can we not believe that the author might naively write out of a conviction that what he said was in harmony with the ideas and aims of the hero whose name he used, and was a continuation of his work?”⁵² Ellis writes concerning the Bauer School, “Bauer was ambivalent… but most of his followers though that it should have no effect, asserting against the evidence that in antiquity pseudonymity was an innocent device.”⁵³

Hincks asks a very important question, “Is there a protestant minister who would say to his congregation about any book of the Old or New Testament, ‘The power this book has to benefit you would be lessened if you knew its author and his motive in composing it?’” As a protestant minister myself, I must respond that if I believed for a moment that the weight of evidence demonstrated that a book was clearly pseudepigraphic I might just answer “yes” to this question. It appears as though the early church would concur. Moo and Carson, citing L. R. Donelson, note, “’No one ever seems to have accepted a document as religiously and philosophically prescriptive which was known to be forged. I do not know of a single example.’”⁵⁴ McRay, similarly writes ,“Evidence for a favorable attitude of the church toward such literary activity is still do our knowledge lacking.”⁵⁵ Porter writes, “The general if not invariable pattern was that if a work was known to be pseudonymous it was excluded from the canon of authoritative writings.”⁵⁶ McRay also notes a very important question, “One wonders if pseudonymous writing were accepted in the early church as a normal literary medium, why Mark and Luke did not avail themselves of the added prestige that would have attended their writings by using the names of Peter and Paul respectively.” ⁵⁷ Porter, in his response to R.W. Wall uses the example of discovering that some of Rembrandt paintings were forgeries. He writes

What if the forgers of Rembrandt’s work did not intend to deceive the public, but were only following the artistic practices of their artistic community? Even though another collector of art who is an outsider to these practices might feel deceived, does this constitute the sort of moral deception that one should object to? Apparently so, and the art community seems to concur.⁵⁸

The practice of pseudepigraphy appears to be rejected by the early church and even if a few original fragments were the catalyst for a well-meaning Paulinist it still seems unlikely that the early church would have accepted it as canonical. While pseudepigraphy seems to undermine the authority and canonicity of a work, there is no reason to suggest that the use of an amanuensis should undermine the authority or canonicity of the book. We know that Paul often employed the use of an amanuenses and it seems safe to suggest that Paul used a different amanuenses later in life. Moo and Carson write, “Noting that many of the non-Pauline terms in the Pastorals are found in Luke… Luke might well have been Paul’s amanuensis.”⁵⁹ Ellis confirms this possibility when he writes, “If Paul employed a trusted amanuensis in writing the pastorals (the affinity with the language of Luke has long been noted), this ‘secretary hypothesis’ may be the answer to the stylistic peculiarities found there.”⁶⁰ Another minute possibility exists that may explain the differences in style.

“Michael Prior stands the amanuensis theory on its head; he recognizes that the Pastoral Epistles are somewhat different from the ten Paulines, but suggests that the reason is not because they are pseudonymous but because they ‘are private letters in a double sense’—not only where they written to individuals, but they were written by Paul himself without and amanuensis.”⁶¹

While this view is certainly not in wide use, it demonstrates the wide range of possibilities that exist to explain the linguistic and stylistic differences we find when we encounter the Pastoral epistles and consider the possibility that an amanuenses was employed, or in this case, was not employed.

Conclusions

The Pastoral Epistles stand apart from the rest of the Pauline corpus for a number of reasons. Among those reasons are differences in linguistics and style, type of recipient, occasion for writing, and date of composition. While it seems the majority of scholars are convinced that the linguistic and stylistic differences constitute evidence against the Pastorals as being Pauline in authorship, we have demonstrated that so far from being evidence against, they may be evidence for Pauline authorship. Further, the methodologies used to distinguish the Pastorals from the rest of the Pauline corpus fail to pass the test of consistency when applied to other selections within the Pauline corpus. When these same methodologies are used to compare the Pastorals with second century literature they demonstrate a certain similarity. However, when the same tests are used to compare them to first century literature they yield the same result. Add to this the fact that when other books, accepted as Pauline, have more affinity with second century literature than the Pastorals do, it becomes apparent that the problem is not with the literature in question, but the methods being employed.

Finally, while there are a number of possible solutions to account for the differences that do, admittedly, exist between the Pastorals and the rest of the Pauline corpus, there is not sufficient evidence to move beyond the historical opinion which existed for some 1800 years in church tradition. Whether Paul physically sat down and wrote the Pastorals himself, or he employed a different amanuenses, it seems that the differences in age, circumstance, situation, and recipient are enough to account for any differences that appear. In fact, it has been shown that these considerations not only explain the differences, but if the differences did NOT exist in light of these differences, it would make the letters more suspect than they are with the differences as they stand. There is not enough information to come to an exact conclusion, but we can be fairly certain that by the first century the Pastorals were accepted as Pauline, canonical, and authoritative and the questions of literary style, while worth considering, do not seem sufficient to raise an adequate charge against the Pauline authorship of 1, 2 Timothy and Titus.

References

Berding, Kenneth. 1999. “Polycarp of Smyrna’s view of the authorship of 1 and 2 Timothy.” Vigiliae Christianae 53, no. 4: 349-360. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed December 11, 2013).

Carson, D.A. & Moo, Douglas. 2005. An Introduction to the New Testament – 2^nd Ed. Grand

Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Ellis, E.E. 1993. Dictionary of Paul and His Letters: Pastoral Letters. Edited by Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, & Daniel G. Reid. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity.

. 1959. “Problem of authorship : First and Second Timothy.” Review & Expositor 56, no. 4: 343-354. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed December 11, 2013).

McRay, John. 1963. “The authorship of the Pastoral Epistles: a consideration of certain adverse arguments to Pauline authorship.” Restoration Quarterly 7, no. 1-2: 2-18. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed December 11, 2013).

Hincks, Edward Young. 1897. “The authorship of the Pastoral Epistles.” Journal Of Biblical Literature 16, 94-117. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed December 11, 2013).

Patzia, Arthur, G. 2011. The Making of the New Testament – 2^nd Ed. Downers Grove, IL:

InterVarsity.

Porter, Stanley E. 1995. “Pauline authorship and the Pastoral Epistles: implications for canon.” Bulletin For Biblical Research 5, 105-123. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed December 11, 2013).

. 1996. “Pauline authorship and the Pastorial Epistles: a response to R.W. Wall’s response.” Bulletin For Biblical Research 6, 133-138. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed December 11, 2013).

Roberts, J W. 1957. “The bearing of the use of particles on the authorship of the Pastoral Epistles.” Restoration Quarterly 1, no. 3: 132-137. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed December 11, 2013).

Wall, Robert W. 1995. “Pauline authorship and the Pastoral Epistles: a response to S.E. Porter.” Bulletin For Biblical Research 5, 125-128. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed December 11, 2013).

Photo by Diana Gurley McGaw via Flickr

• Author
• Recent Posts

Jeremy Lundmark

Jeremy Lundmark is a former pastor and former host of the podcast "After The Sermon." Jeremy has earned his Masters of Ministry from Summit University in Clark's Summit, PA. He is the author of the book, The Fury of God. Jeremy is a husband of thirteen years to Alison G. Lundmark and is the proud father of three children: Alexander, Brionna, and Scarlett. To connect, leave a comment on one of his posts at TheologyMix.com.

Latest posts by Jeremy Lundmark (see all)

• Weeping for Spurgeon: A Time of Unrelenting Misery and Darkness - October 19, 2021
• Beating the Drudgery of Bible Reading Plans - May 18, 2021
• How Did God Create Man? – Part 2: Question 13 B - December 21, 2020