Professional Documents
Culture Documents
XX Wenkel HORBT
XX Wenkel HORBT
brill.com/hbth
David H. Wenkel
Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Chicago, IL, USA
dwenkel@gmail.com
Abstract
The first pastoral epistle to Timothy follows a relatively traditional Jewish doctrine in
the context of second temple Judaism: God is one “whom no one has ever seen or can
see” (1 Timothy 6:16). This parallels a statement in chapter one in which God is described
as “invisible” (1 Timothy 1:17). In both statements, the invisibility of God is contrasted
with the visible quality of Jesus’ spiritual power or his second appearing. This paper
argues that the Jewish monotheistic doctrine of God has been developed in a proto-
Trinitarian manner by utilizing the qualities of invisibility and visibility.
Keywords
Introduction
1 The literature on the debate over the Pauline authorship of 1 Timothy is voluminous.
According to Raymond F. Collins, the Pastoral Epistles should be considered “double pseudo-
nymous” because the recipient and the author are “literary fictions” in 1 & 2 Timothy and
Titus: A Commentary (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2002), 10. For a study on the
implications of one’s position see Stanley E. Porter, “Pauline Authorship and the Pastoral
Epistles: Implications for Canon,” BBR 5 (1995): 105-123. For a rejoinder to Porter see
Robert W. Wall, “Pauline Authorship and the Pastoral Epistles: A Response to S. E. Porter,”
BBR 5 (1995): 125-128.
2 This charge focuses on an encouragement to “keep the commandment” in v.14. What this
“commandment” entails is rather difficult to ascertain. William D. Mounce suggests it is iden-
tified as: (1) something specific such as Timothy’s ordination charge or (2) something general,
encompassing a wide range of items such as the list of virtues in verses 11-12 of the same
chapter in Pastoral Epistles (Vol. 46; WBC; Dallas: Word, 2000), 359.
3 “For example, there seems to have been a form of the full doxology, attested only in early
Christian literature (Rom 16:27; 1 Tim 1:17; 6:15-16; Jude 25; 1 Clem 43:6; 2 Clem 20:5) but surely
of Jewish origin in which glory is ascribed to the only God. This turns the doxology into an
explicit assertion of exclusive monotheistic worship.” Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the God
of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament’s Christology of Divine Identity
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 143-144.
4 For a chart comparing 1 Tim 1:17 and 1 Tim 6:15-16 see Mark M. Yarbrough, Paul’s Utilization
of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy: An Evaluation of the Apostle’s Literary, Rhetorical, and
Theological Tactics (LNTS 417; London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2009), 139.
5 N. T. Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God (Vol. 4. Christian Origins and the Question of
God; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013), 626.
6 “Jewish-style monotheism, rethought from top to bottom around the events concerning
Jesus, is the necessary anchor for the radically revised worldview in which the united com-
munity, in its faith, worship and holiness, is the sole visible symbol.” Ibid., 641-642.
7 “For many scholars the non-Pauline authorship of the Pastorals became virtually axiomatic.”
James W. Aageson, Paul, the Pastoral Epistles, and the Early Church (Library of Pauline Studies;
Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), 5.
8 Frances Margaret Young, The Theology of the Pastoral Epistles (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1989), 63.
9 For example, there is only one reference to 1 Timothy in a footnote in Wesley Hill, Paul and
the Trinity: Persons, Relations, and the Pauline Letters (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015), 11 n.35
and only one reference to 1 Timothy in Chris Tilling, Paul’s Divine Christology (2012 reprint;
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015), 143. For comparison, there are over seventy references to
1 Timothy in Gordon D. Fee, Pauline Christology: An Exegetical-Theological Study (Peabody,
MA: Hendrickson, 2007), passim.
has ever seen God” while also acknowledging that the scriptures indicate that
some have approached a physical entity who is identified as God or received
worship as God. As we will observe, there is some indication that this tension
was problematic in the minds of some. Some emphasized God’s invisibility
against his visibility. According to Gordon Fee, “God’s ‘invisibility’ becomes
more common during Second Temple Judaism.”10 Jesus referred to the God
the Father as the one who “sees in secret” (Matt 6:6, 18). In this section we
see elements of such tension in several sources related to the background of
1 Timothy. Here we briefly consider: (1) the Septuagint text of Exodus, (2) the
writings of Philo of Alexandria, (3) the Johannine writings, (4) the Sibylline
Oracles, books 3-5, and (5) 2 Enoch.
First, the Septuagint text of Exodus suggests that the doctrine of God’s in-
visibility was slightly privileged over and against the idea that he could be
approached in some manner. Specifically, there is some evidence that the
Septuagint tones down Hebrew texts that suggest that God may be seen.11
An example may be found in Exodus 24, when Moses, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu
and the seventy elders ascended the mountain. The Hebrew text readers: “they
saw the God of Israel” (Exodus 24:10) and in contrast, the Septuagint says,
“they saw the place, there where the God of Israel stood.”12 In another example
from Exo 17:6, the Hebrew text reads: “Behold, I will stand before you there”
()הנני עמד לפניך שם. In contrast, the Septuagint seems to tone down the an-
thropomorphism so as to shy away from presenting God on earth as though he
were human: “I here have taken my stand, before you came” (ὅδε ἐγὼ ἕστηκα
πρὸ τοῦ σὲ ἐκεῖ).13
Elsewhere, Moses’ relationship with Yahweh in the context of the taberna-
cle is described: “Thus the Lord used to speak to Moses face to face, as a man
speaks to his friend” (Exo 33:11).14 Despite this descriptor of their relationship,
Yahweh explicitly says of Moses’ request to see his glory: “you shall see my
back, but my face shall not be seen” (Exo 33:23). The tension is quite clear as
Yahweh and Moses have a relationship that is “face to face” but not really “face
to face.” One might say that this is a “face to face” relationship that is auditory
in nature rather than visual. Like many of the non-canonical texts, this sug-
gests that there is a sense in which God (Yahweh) is invisible and unapproach-
able because his face may not be seen. But there is another sense in which
God’s approachability is best described in terms of a diminutive form, e.g. “you
shall see my back, but my face shall not be seen.” Thus, whatever element of
the relationship between Yahweh and Moses was “face to face,” God’s glory was
not visible.
Second, the doctrine of God’s invisibility and visibility is an important part
of Philo’s large body of writings. Perhaps drawing from the tensions in the
Septuagint mentioned above, Philo denies that any icon or picture is appro-
priate for the worship of the true invisible Yahweh who has redeemed Israel.
On the other hand, the name of “Israel” means “the one who sees God.”15 And
Jewish philosopher Philo “refers to the Jewish community as the ‘nation which
sees’” (τὸ ὁρατικὸν γένος) which is particularly evident in The Migration of
Abraham.16 In keeping with the pattern of Second Temple Judaism, Philo em-
phasizes the invisibility of God.17
Third, the doctrine of God’s invisibility is particularly clear in the Johannine
writings. The prominence of the Jewish doctrine that “no one has ever seen
God” is evident from its two appearances in the Gospel of John (1:18; 6:45-46)
and 1 John (4:12).18 The similarity of these statements may be due to some
intertextual relationship between John and 1 Timothy or to a common phrase-
ology found in Judaism at this time; but it is best to assume that Paul had access
15 For a discussion about Philo’s description of Israel see John M. G. Barclay, Jews in the
Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE-117 CE) (University of
California Press, 1999), 174 n111.
16 “And what is especially worthy of being mentioned is this, that he believed that God
would visit the race which was capable of Seeing.” Philo, Mig Abr §18.
17 Philo Opif. 69; Conf. 138; Somn. 1.72, x.
18 (1) “No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is
perfected in us” (1 John 4:12). (2) “No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at
the Father’s side, he has made him known” (John 1:18). (3) “Everyone who has heard and
learned from the Father comes to me—not that anyone has seen the Father except he
who is from God; he has seen the Father” (John 6:45-46).
to the Gospel of John.19 What these texts demonstrate is that this concept (“no
one has ever seen God”) was found in non-Pauline New Testament texts.
Fourth, the doctrine of God’s invisibility is prominent in the Sibylline
Oracles; books 3-5 likely being the oldest and dated between 180-116 BCE.20 In
this Jewish text, we observe that God is both invisible and unapproachable.
The similarities between the doctrine of God’s attributes in second Temple
Judaism and the Hebrew scriptures should not surprise us, because most
of the debates were not about the “inner nature of the one God.”21 Again, while
there may not have been debates, there was some concern in the Sibylline
Oracles. This concern is evidenced by the fact that “while the writer speaks
of the face and the mouth of God, there is an avoidance of every sort of an-
thropopathism throughout the whole section 1-36.”22 The writer specifically
identifies the “one God” as “ineffable, who lives in the sky, self-begotten, invis-
ible, who himself sees all things” and then asks the rhetorical question “For
who, being mortal, is able to see God with eyes?”23 But when referring to the
wrath of God against those who sacrifice to the dead and to idols, the writer
refers to this as an abandonment of “the face of the great God.”24 Similarly,
the judgment against these things is described thus: “But when the wrath
of the great God comes upon you, then indeed you will recognize the face of
the great God.25 The salient point here is that in book 3 of Sibylline Oracles,
there is a certain tension between God being invisible but when he comes in
his great wrath, then people will recognize his “face” or special presence.
19 Robert W. Wall, 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus (Two Horizons New Testament Commentary;
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 146 n101.
20 Rieuwerd Buitenwerf, Book Three of the Sibylline Oracles and Its Social Setting (Leiden:
Brill, 2003), 126. Conclusions about the dating of Sibylline Oracles book three remain ap-
proximately the same as studies done over one hundred years ago: “The first and oldest
is undoubtedly the prologue of Book i. and parts of Book iii. (97-828). This portion was
the work of an Alexandrian Jew, who wrote under Ptolemy VII. Physcon, about BC 140.
It is by far the most important of all the poems, and worthy of the fullest investigation,
as it is the longest pre-Christian production in the whole series” (William John Deane,
Pseudepigrapha: An Account of Certain Apocryphal Sacred Writings of the Jews and Early
Christians [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1891], 286).
21 “The key thing about second-temple monotheism was not, therefore, a particular pro-
posal about the inner nature of the one God.” Wright, 626.
22 Henry J. Wicks, The Doctrine of God in the Jewish Apocryphal and Apocalyptic Literature
(London: Hunter & Longhurst, 1915), 38.
23 Sibylline Oracles 3:10-17 in James H. Charlesworth, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha
(vol. 1; New York: Yale University Press, 1983), 1:362.
24 Sibylline Oracles 3.545 in Charlesworth, OTP, 374.
25 Sibylline Oracles 3.555 in Charlesworth, OTP, 374.
The doxological praise in 1 Tim 1:12-17 and the pastoral charge in 1 Tim 6:11-16
are both broadly related to the main purpose of this letter, which is likely
summarized in 1 Tim 3:14-16, “that you may know how you ought to conduct
yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar
26 “For you will be glorified in front of the face of the Lord for eternity, because you are the
one whom the Lord chose in preference to all the people upon the earth.” 2 Enoch 64:5 in
Charlesworth, OTP, 1:190.
27 2 Enoch 53:1 in Charlesworth, OTP, 1:180.
28 2 Enoch 67:3 in Charlesworth, OTP, 1:194.
29 Charlesworth, OTP, 1:152 note “d.”
30 The Hebrew word for face ( )פניםis transliterated as panim or paneh and can communi-
cate either face or presence.
and ground of the truth.”31 And both texts have similar language about God’s
invisibility and the visibility of Christ. I have argued that the Jewish doctrine
of God was characterized by a certain tension between God’s status as invis-
ible and unapproachable and the ability to see his face and know his presence.
Now I intend to argue that Paul draws from this Jewish doctrine of God and
transforms it in light of a proto-Trinitarian doctrine of God.
The fact that Paul references this commonly held Jewish doctrine of God’s
invisibility is easily demonstrated by his description of God as one “who dwells
in unapproachable light, whom no one has ever seen or can see” (1 Tim 6:16).
Rather than strictly differentiate between unapproachability and invisibility,
Paul relates these qualities together. The question of why Paul would reference
this doctrine of God within his pastoral charge cannot be completely explored
here. But the key to answering why this appears here is found in the very first
phrase of the pastoral charge: “I charge you in the presence of God” (1 Tim 6:13).
It is God’s quality of being invisible that is likely being related to his omnipres-
ence. Once again, Paul is quite happy to conflate attributes in a way that a
modern theologian might find abhorrent. Paul’s logic is not explained but it
may be that he is asserting that his pastoral charge is given to Timothy before
God’s presence that is now with Timothy wherever he is and might be in the
future. For Paul, this omnipresence of God is so radically personal that it can
sustain the gravity of such a charge. We will now observe how Paul transforms
this doctrine in four ways.
First, the doctrine of God’s invisibility is transformed by locating it with-
in direct references to God’s unity (e.g. Jewish monotheism) and plural-
ity (more than one person identified as divine). Throughout the epistle there
are references to each person of the Trinity: Father, Son, and Spirit. That
these are references to their divine status has to function as a presupposition
in this paper because of the great length to which one must go in supporting
this claim.32 Again, we cannot provide a full case for the proposal that Paul is
able to use language of God’s unity (that God is one) even while referencing
31 Daniel L. Akin, “The Mystery of Godliness is Great: Christology in the Pastoral Epistles,” in
Entrusted with the Gospel: Paul’s Theology in the Pastoral Epistles (eds. A. Kostenberger and
T. Wilder; Nashville: B&H, 2010), 140.
32 The reference to the words of the “Spirit” in 1 Tim 4:1 are the words that warn of those de-
parting from the “faith” (1 Tim 4:1), they refer to truths about God’s creation (1 Tim 4:4) and
they establish the Scriptures as the “word of God” (1 Tim 4:5). What is significant is that
the Spirit is the authoritative source of knowledge about God’s truth and word. And such
authoritative knowledge can only come from God himself. Here, epistemology points to
the Spirit’s divine status.
the divine status of the individual persons of the Godhead (God, Christ Jesus,
and the Spirit). There is only space to point to one of the clearest examples of
God’s unity and diversity when he writes, “For there is one God, and there is
one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim 2:5). This is
a key reference to God being one and yet having a relationship to the mediator-
man Christ Jesus who is also divine.
Second, the doctrine of God’s invisibility is transformed by placing it on
equal footing with Jesus’ visibility. The word “I charge you” in 1 Tim 6:13 has two
grammatically parallel witnesses: God and Christ.33 The preposition ἐνώπιον
governs both genitives: τοῦ θεοῦ and Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ and the conjunction καὶ
“joins Christ to God” as the two witnesses to Timothy’s ministry.34 The pastoral
charge demands that Timothy “keep the commandment” and persevere before
the witnesses of God and Christ Jesus. When Paul refers to Christ Jesus, this is
a reference to both the historical Jesus who was faithful before Pontius Pilate
(1 Tim 6:13) and to the risen Lord Jesus Christ who will return (1 Tim 6:14). Paul
refers to the imitation of “the passion of Christ” in which Jesus himself con-
fessed before Pontius Pilate.35 The straightforward language of v.14 indicates
that Paul expects the risen Lord Jesus to appear so that he will be visible in
the same way that he was visible in his earthly life.36 This parallels an earli-
er phraseology in which an appeal or charge is also made with reference to
the “presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of the elect angels” (1 Tim 5:21).
Outside of this letter, another parallel appears in 1 Cor 8:6 where Paul refers
to “one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and
one Lord, Jesus Christ” (1 Cor 8:6).37 Timothy’s relationship to God the Father is
equated with his relationship to Jesus. Again, drawing from Chris Tilling’s ap-
proach to divine Christology, Paul stresses that for Timothy, there is a parallel
relationship between God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.38 Because God
33 “Here the appeal is to God and Christ.” Walter Lock, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary
on the Pastoral Epistles: I & II Timothy and Titus (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1924), 71.
34 George W. Knight III, The Pastoral Epistles (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 265.
35 Annette Merz, Die fiktive Selbstauslegung des Paulus: intertextuelle Studien zur Intention
und Rezeption der Pastoralbriefe (NTOA/SUNT 52; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
2004), 55.
36 An “appearance” (ἐπιφάνεια) was an important word in Hellenistic usage and “denoted
the intervention of God or a semi-divine being.” Mounce, 360.
37 “On the basis of this passage (as on the basis of 2 Tim 4:1 and 1 Cor 8:6), one can reconstruct
an ancient confessional formula in two parts.” Martin Dibelius and Hans Conzelmann,
The Pastoral Epistles (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972), 88.
38 Chris Tilling argues that the “relational data concerning Christ in Paul’s letters corre-
sponds, as a pattern, only to the language concerning YHWH in second Temple Judaism.
and Christ are parallel witnesses to Timothy’s pastoral duties, they have the
same relation toward him and he toward them. Timothy must give an account
to Christ even as he must give an account to God.
Third, the doctrine of God’s invisibility is transformed by using the title
“Lord” for both God and Christ. Despite the fact that the historical context was
one in which there were many “lords,” Paul’s Jewish monotheism is compatible
with God and Christ being identified as “lord” (κύριος). N. T. Wright comments
“They [Paul’s communities] needed to be kingdom-of-God people, Shema-
people, Jewish-style monotheists in a world of ‘many gods, many lords’.”39 In
a world of many “lords,” Paul is still willing to assert that God is the “Lord of
Lords” (1 Tim 6:15) who will reveal the “Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Tim 6:14) at the
proper time (1 Tim 6:15). The Lord will reveal the Lord. What is surprising is
that Paul is willing to assert the Lordship of God and the lordship of Jesus.
The only way Paul could state this would be to understand that such state-
ments are compatible with a system of monotheism in which each person of
the Godhead is divine. The one who is invisible is Lord and the one who will
be visible is Lord.
Fourth, the doctrine of God’s invisibility is transformed by contrasting it
with what may be seen. In the first case, what may be seen is not the risen
Lord Jesus himself, but Paul, whom Jesus is using to “display (ἐνδείκνυμι) his
perfect patience as an example” (1 Tim 1:16). Conceptually, this is the result of
Jesus’ mission to come “into the world” (1 Tim 1:15). This focus on the visibility
of Jesus’ salvation through sinners such as Paul is contrasted with the “King of
the ages” who is “immortal, invisible, the only God” (1 Tim 1:17). Key words and
concepts in the textual unit 1 Tim 1:12-17 create a contrast between Jesus as the
one who was a visible example, whose power is now visibly displayed through
Paul, the chief of sinners and the only God, who is invisible and immortal.
In the second case, the invisibility of God is set in juxtaposition to the future
visibility of the risen Lord Jesus in 1 Tim 6:14-15. It is God who is in sovereign
control of Christ’s return and of his second coming God will “display (δείκνυμι)
at the proper time” (1 Tim 6:15).40 The entire section of 1 Tim 6:13-16 has “an
element that brings Christology and eschatology together.”41 As in the first ex-
ample from chapter one, the vocabulary in chapter six references what is vis-
ible about Jesus next to the qualities predicated of God (the Father), namely
his invisibility.
In the first chapter of 1 Timothy, God (the Father) who is invisible will make
Jesus (the Son) visible through his servant Paul and in the sixth chapter, God
(the Father) who is invisible will make Jesus (the Son) visible at his second ap-
pearing. The past and future visibility of the Lord Jesus Christ is paralleled with
the Father who is the person of the Godhead whom no one has ever seen or
can see in the future. Thus, one person of the Godhead has been seen and will
be seen while another has never been seen nor will ever be seen. One might
also observe that the relationship within the Godhead (between the Father
and Son) with respect to self-revelation is hierarchical. It is the Father who
will “display” Jesus as “the proper time” so that the invisible will reveal himself
through the one who is visible.
The description of God as one “whom no one has ever seen or can see”
(1 Tim 6:16) may seem to be a rather innocuous statement. At first glance it
is merely stating a traditional Jewish doctrine of God and his invisibly. But
in both textual units from chapters one and six of 1 Timothy, this invisibility
is played against the future visibility of the risen Lord Jesus or the visibility
of his spiritual power in the disciples. So upon closer inspection, the texts in
1 Timothy transform this doctrine of God through a (proto-)Trinitarian per-
spective of the Godhead. There are four important implications that we can
draw from this study.
The first implication is that both God and Jesus have the same judicial re-
lationship of witnesses to Timothy’s pastoral ministry.42 Other NT texts point
to the uniqueness of Christian worship, where “Christ is included with God as
a recipient of devotion.”43 But in the texts we have considered in 1 Timothy,
the uniqueness of Christian eschatology and judgment is highlighted, where
Christ is included with God as the two witnesses of Timothy’s gospel ministry.
to develop and articulate a doctrine of God that reflected the triune persons
of the Godhead and their distinct roles.49 While no one has ever seen the
Father, the reality of the second appearing of Jesus should shape Timothy’s
pastoral ministry.
The fourth implication is that the references to the attributes of God’s in-
visibility suggest that Paul’s concept of divine identity include both who God
is and what God is. On the one hand, we do not see a “definition of divine
nature” but we do see attributes of the divine nature such as invisibility.50 This
attribute of invisibility is more reflective of what God is rather than who God
is. The revelation of the triune God in Paul’s theology must avoid false disjunc-
tions because it depends on what is he and who he is. Some metaphysical attri-
butes such as invisibility were important for some Jewish thinking about God
and they were not always drawn from a Greek metaphysical framework.51 For
Paul, God’s invisibility was just as much a part of his identity as the fact that
God was fully revealed in the soon-to-be appearing of the risen Lord Jesus.
Conclusion
49 Contra James D. G. Dunn who states, “Even with the second coming ‘epiphany’ language,
we should not necessarily think of God and Christ as distinct divine beings” in Christology
in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation,
2nd Edition (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 345 n87.
50 “Identity concerns who God is; nature concerns what God is or what divinity is.” Emphasis
his. Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel, 7.
51 Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel, 7.
52 Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 633.