The Pulpit Commentaries 1 Timothy (Joseph S. Exell)

《The Pulpit Commentaries–1 Timothy》(Joseph S. Exell)

Contents and the Editors

One of the largest and best-selling homiletical commentary sets of its kind. Directed by editors Joseph Exell and Henry Donald Maurice Spence-Jones, The Pulpit Commentary drew from over 100 authors over a 30 year span to assemble this conservative and trustworthy homiletical commentary set. A favorite of pastors for nearly 100 years, The Pulpit Commentary offers you ideas and insight on "How to Preach It" throughout the entire Bible.

This in-depth commentary brings together three key elements for better preaching:

Exposition-with thorough verse-by-verse commentary of every verse in the Bible.
Homiletics-with the "framework" or the "big picture" of the text.
Homilies-with four to six sermons sample sermons from various authors.

In addition, this set also adds detailed information on biblical customs as well as historical and geographical information, and translations of key Hebrew and Greek words to help you add spice to your sermon.

All in all, The Pulpit Commentary has over 22,000 pages and 95,000 entries from a total of 23 volumes. The go-to commentary for any preacher or teacher of God's Word.
About the Editors

Rev. Joseph S. Exell, M.A., served as the Editor of Clerical World, The Homiletical Quarterly and the Monthly Interpreter. Exell was also the editor for several large commentary sets like The Men of the Bible, The Pulpit Commentary, Preacher's Homiletic Library and The Biblical Illustrator.

Henry Donald Maurice Spence-Jones was born in London on January 14, 1836. He was educated at Corpus Christi, Cambridge where he received his B.A. in 1864. He was ordered deacon in 1865 and ordained as a priest is the following year. He was professor of English literature and lecturer in Hebrew at St. David's College, Lampeter, Wales from 1865-1870. He was rector of St. Mary-de-Crypt with All Saints and St. Owen, Gloucester from 1870-1877 and principal of Gloucester Theological College 1875-1877. He became vicar and rural dean of St. Pancras, London 1877-1886, and honorary canon since 1875. He was select preacher at Cambridge in 1883,1887,1901, and 1905, and at Oxford in 1892 and 1903. In 1906 he was elected professor of ancient history in the Royal Academy. In theology he is a moderate evangelical. He also edited The Pulpit Commentary (48 vols., London, 1880-97) in collaboration with Rev. J. S. Exell, to which he himself contributed the section on Luke, 2 vols., 1889, and edited and translated the Didache 1885. He passed away in 1917 after authoring numerous individual titles.

00 Introduction

INTRODUCTION.

THE PASTORAL EPISTLES

1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus

THREE main inquiries present themselves to the student of the pastoral Epistles:

(1) their authenticity;
(2) their chronology;
(3) their contents, including the matters treated of in them, and the style in which they are written.

These three inquiries necessarily touch one another, and run into one another, at many points. Still, they may well be separately treated of.

§ 1. THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE PASTORAL EPISTLES.

The authenticity of these Epistles, as the genuine works of the Apostle Paul, whose name is prefixed to all three, rests upon the twofold authority of external witnesses and internal evidence.

1. The external witness is as follows. Eusebius reckons them ("the fourteen Epistles of Paul") among the universally acknowledged books of Holy Scripture, and speaks of them as manifest and certain ('Eccl. Hist.,' III. 3. and 25.), with some reservation as to the Epistle to the Hebrews. The Muratorian Canon includes thirteen Epistles of St. Paul, excluding the Epistle to the Hebrews; the Peschito Canon (of about the same date) reckons fourteen Epistles of St. Paul, including the Epistle to the Hebrews ("Canon," in 'Dictionary of Bible'); and they have never been doubted by any Church writers, but have held their place in all the canons of East and West. Phrases identical with those in these Epistles, and presumably quoted from them, occur in almost contemporary writers. Clemens Romanus (1 Corinthians 2.) has ̔́Ετοιμοι εἰς πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθόν (comp. Titus 3:1). In Ch. 29. he says, προσεìλθωμεν αὐτῷ ἐν ὁσιοìτητι ψυχῆς ἀìγνασ καιÌἀμιαìντους χεῖρας ἀìροντες προÌς αὐτοìν. Polycarp (c. 4.) uses St. Paul's very words, ̓Αρχὴ πάντων χαλεπῶν φιλαργυρία; οὐδεÌν εἰσηνεìγκαμεν εἰς τοÌν κοìσμον ἀλλ οὐδεÌ ἐξενεγκεῖν τι ἐìχομεν. Theophilus of Antioch quotes 1 Timothy 2:1, 2 verbatim as being the utterance of θεῖος λοìγος, "the Word of God" ('Ad Autol.,' 3:14). The same writer, in a passage in general harmony with Titus 3:3-7, uses the very words of Titus 3:5, διαÌ λουτροῦ παλιγγενεσιìας ('Ad Auto.,' 1:2). The different liturgies, as quoted in the notes on 1 Timothy 2:1, are manifestly founded on that passage. Irenaeus, in his book 'Against Heresies,' repeatedly quotes by name all three Epistles (1 Timothy 1:4; 2 Timothy 4:21; Titus 3:10, etc.). Tertullian, in 'De Praescript.,' cap. 25., quotes again and again by name St. Paul's First and Second Epistles to Timothy. Clement of Alexandria again and again quotes both Epistles to Timothy, and says that the heretics reject them because their errors are refuted by them ('Strom.,' 2., 3., and 1.). He quotes also the Epistle to Titus. Many other references and quotations may be found in Lardner (vol. 1.), as well as in various 'Introductions,' as Huther, Olshausen, Alfbrd (where they are very clearly arranged); "Speaker's Commentary;" New Testament Commentary,' edited by the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol; 'Dictionary of Bible,' art. "Timothy," etc. But the above establish conclusively the acceptance of these Epistles as authentic by the unanimous consent of Church writers of the three first centuries of the Christian era — a unanimity which continued down to the present century.

2. The internal evidence is no less strong. We must remember that, if these Epistles are not St. Paul's, they are artful forgeries, written for the express purpose of deceiving. Is it possible to suppose that writings so grave, so sober, so simple and yet so powerful; breathing such a noble spirit of love and goodness, of high courage and holy resolves; replete with such great wisdom and such exalted piety; having no apparent object but the well-being of the Christian societies to which they refer; and so well calculated to promote that well-being; were written with a pen steeped in lies and falsehood? It is impossible to suppose it. The transparent truth of these Epistles is their own credential that they are the work of him whose name they hear.

But all the details of the Epistles point to the same conclusion. While there is a marked and striking difference in the vocabulary of these Epistles, which a forger would have avoided (to which we shall revert by-and-by), there is an identity of tone and sentiment, and also of words and phrases, which bespeaks them to be the birth of the same brain as the other universally acknowledged Epistles of St. Paul. Compare, for instance, the opening and the closing salutations of the three Epistles with those of St. Paul's other Epistles: they are the same. Compare the sentiment in 1 Timothy 1:5 with Romans 13:10; Galatians 5:6, and the general attitude of the writer's mind towards the Jewish opponents and the Law of Moses, as seen in 1 Timothy 1:4-11; Titus 1:10-16; 2 Timothy 3:5-8, with St. Paul's language and conduct towards the unbelievers and Judaizers among the Jews, as seen generally in the Acts of the Apostles, and in such passages in the Epistles as Romans 2:17-29; 7:12; Galatians 1., 2., 3., 4., 5., 6.; Philippians 3.; Colossians 2:16-23; 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16; and you see the very same mind. Notice, again, how the writer of the pastoral Epistles, in such passages as 1 Timothy 1:11-16; 2:5-7; 6:13-16; 2 Timothy 1:8-11; 4:7, 8; Titus 2:11-13; 3:4-7, breaks out into rapturous exhibitions of the grace of the gospel, and refers to his own office as a preacher of it; and the similar sentiments in such passages as Romans 1:5, 14-17; 15:15, 16; 1 Corinthians 1:17; 15:1-11; 2 Corinthians 4:4-7; Galatians 1:1-5 (and throughout the Epistle); Ephesians 3:7-12; Colossians 1:23, and in many others. Compare, again, the allusions to his own conversion, in 1 Corinthians 15:9 and Ephesians 3:8, with that in 1 Timothy 1:12, 13; the allusion to his special office as the apostle of the Gentiles, in Romans 11:13, with that in 1 Timothy 2:7; and the references to his own sufferings for the gospel, e.g. in 2 Corinthians 1:4-10; 4:7-12; 6:4-10; 11:23-28; 1 Thessalonians 2:2, with those in 2 Timothy 1:8, 12; 2:9, 10; 3:10, 11. Comp. 1 Corinthians 14:34, 35 with 1 Timothy 2:11, 12. Then the doctrinal teaching is exactly the same; precepts of holy living, in all its details of character, temper, and conduct, flow from dogmatic statements just as they do in the other Epistles (see 1 Timothy 3:15, 16; 6:12-16; 2 Timothy 1:8-12; 2:19; Titus 2:11-14; 3:4-8; and Ephesians 4:20-32; 5:1-4; Colossians 3:1-5, 8-17, etc.). The interposition of the doxology in 1 Timothy 1:17 is exactly in the manner of Romans 1:25; 9:5; 11:36; 16:27; Ephesians 3:20, 21, etc. Compare, again, the two sentences of excommunication — the one mentioned in 1 Corinthians 5:3-5, the other in 1 Timothy 1:20. Compare the two notices of the temptation of Eve by the serpent, in 2 Corinthians 11:3 and 1 Timothy 2:13, 14; and the reference to Deuteronomy 25:4 in 1 Corinthians 9:9 and 1 Timothy 5:18. Compare the directions to Christian slaves, in 1 Timothy 6:1, 2, with those in Ephesians 6:5-8 and Colossians 3:22-25; the metaphor from the games, in 1 Timothy 6:12; 2 Timothy 2:5; 4:7, 8, with that in 1 Corinthians 9:24 27; that of the different vessels of gold, silver, and wood and earth, in 2 Timothy 2:20, with that of the gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble, of 1 Corinthians 3:12; and compare also Romans 9:22, 23 and 2 Corinthians 4:7. Compare the prophetic announcement of the apostasy, in 2 Thessalonians 2:3, with that in 1 Timothy 4:1. We see exactly the same tone of thought in Acts 23:1 as in 2 Timothy 1:3; in Romans 14:14, 20, and 1 Corinthians 12., and Colossians 2:16-23, as in 1 Timothy 4:3-5 and Titus 1:14, 15; in Philippians 4:11 as in 1 Timothy 6:8; and in Romans 14:6 as in 1 Timothy 4:3. Many precepts are common to the pastoral and the other Epistles, as e.g. 1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:8, and Romans 12:13; 1 Timothy 5:10 and Romans 12:13; 1 Timothy 6:5 (A.V.) and 2 Thessalonians 3:14; 2 Timothy 2:24, 25, and 2 Corinthians 2:6, 7, and 2 Thessalonians 3:15; to which it would be easy to add more examples. The directions for public worship in 1 Corinthians 14:34 and 1 Timothy 2:8-13 are also very similar. The repeated reference to the second coming of our Lord is another feature common to the pastoral and the other Epistles of St. Paul (see 1 Timothy 6:14; 2 Timothy 4:1, 8; Titus 2:13, compared with 1 Corinthians 1:7; 15:23; 1 Thessalonians 2:19; 3:13; 5:23; 2 Thessalonians 2:1, 8; Philippians 3:20, etc.). There is a marked resemblance in thought between Titus 3:3-7 and Ephesians 2:2-8; between Titus 3:5 and Ephesians 5:26. Note, again, St. Paul's manner of communicating information, to those to whom he wrote, concerning his affairs and surroundings, as seen in 1 Corinthians 16:5-8, in Colossians 4:7-13, and in 2 Timothy 4:9-17; and the affectionate remembrance of past, Demas, Mark, Priscilla and Aquila; and at the same time, as was to be expected after an interval of several years, the disappearance of some old names, as Sopater, Aristarchus, Gains, Secundus, Tertius, Quartus, Onesimus, Justus, Epaphras, Epaphroditus, Sosthenes, Lucius, Jesus called Justus, etc.; and the introduction of some new ones, as Phygellus and Hermogenes, Onesiphorus, Crescens, Carpus, Eubulus, Linus, Pudens, Claudia, Artemas, Zenas, and others. The same thing may be said of places. While we have the old familiar scenes of St. Paul's apostolic labors — Miletus, Ephesus, Troas, Macedonia, Corinth — still before us, some new ones are introduced, as Crete, Nicopolis, and Dalmatia.

The other quite different class of resemblances is that of words anti phrases, and literary style. St. Paul had a way of stringing together a number of words, substantives or adjectives, or short sentences. Examples of this may be seen in Romans 1:29-31; 8:35, 39; 16:14; 1 Corinthians 3:12, 5:11; 6:9, 10; 12:8-10, 28; 2 Corinthians 6:4-10; 11:23-27; Galatians 5:19-23; Ephesians 4:31; Colossians 3:5, 8, 12, and elsewhere. An exactly similar mode is seen in 1 Timothy 1:9,10; 6:4,5; 2 Timothy 3:2-4, 10,11; Titus 1:7, 8; 2:3-8; 3:3. St. Paul's ardent and impulsive mind led to frequent digressions and long parentheses in his writing, and occasional grammatical anomalies. Take the familiar examples of Romans 2:13-15; 5:13-17; Galatians 2:6-9; Ephesians 3:2-21, etc. With these compare the long parenthesis in 1 Timothy 1:5-17; that in 1 Timothy 3:5 and in 2 Timothy 1:3; and the grammatical difficulties of such passages as 1 Timothy 3:16 (R.T.); 4:16. Again, St. Paul was fond of the preposition ὑπεìρ, of which examples are given in the note to 1 Timothy 1:14; and the ὑìπαξ λεγοìμενον in that passage, ὑπερεπλεìονασε is in marked agreement with this use. The verb φανεροìω, in 1 Timothy 3:16; 2 Timothy 1:10; Titus 1:3, is of very frequent use by St. Paul in Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, and Colossians. The use of νοìμος in 1 Timothy 1:9 is the same as that in Romans 2:12-14; of ἐνδυναμοìω in 1 Timothy 1:12; 2 Timothy 2:1; 4:17 as that in Romans 4:20; Ephesians 6:10; Philippians 4:13; Hebrews 11:34; and of καλεìω in 1 Timothy 6:12 and 2 Timothy 1:9 as that in Romans 8:30; 9:24; 1 Corinthians 1:9; 7:15, etc.; Galatians 1:6, etc.; Ephesians 4:1; Colossians 3:15; 1 Thessalonians 2:12; 2 Thessalonians 2:14, etc. We find ἀìφθαρτος in Romans, Corinthians, and 1 Timothy 1:17 (elsewhere only in 1 Peter); ἀπωìθομαι in Romans 11:1, 2 and in 1 Timothy 1:19 (elsewhere only in the Acts); ἀνοìητος in Romans 1:14 and Galatians 3:1, 3, and in 1 Timothy 6:9 and Titus 3:3 (elsewhere only in Luke 24:25); ἀνυποìκριτος in Romans, Corinthians, and in 1 Timothy 1:5 and 2 Timothy 1:5 (elsewhere only in 1 Peter. 1:22 and James 3:17). Compare πνεῦμα δειλιìας in 2 Timothy 1:7 with πνεῦμα δουλειìας εἰς φοìβον in Romans 8:15; χροìνων αἰωνιìων in 2 Timothy 1:9 and Titus 1:2 with Romans 16:25 and 1 Corinthians 2:7. St. Paul applies the noun πλαìσμα to the man, and the verb πλαìσσω to God his Maker, in Romans 9:20; and the writer of i Timothy 2:13 also uses πλαìσσομαι of the formation of man by God. The term ἁγιασμοìς, which is used by St. Paul seven or eight times (and only once by St. Peter besides), is also found in 1 Timothy 2:15. St. Paul speaks of the gospel as the "mystery of Christ," "the hidden mystery," etc., in Romans 16:25; Ephesians 3:3, 4; Colossians 1:26, and frequently elsewhere; and so we have the phrases, "the mystery of the faith," "the mystery of godliness," in 1 Timothy 3:9, 16. The following thirty words are also peculiar to St. Paul and to the pastoral Epistles: ἀνεìγκλητος αὐταρκειìα ἀοìρατος ὑπεροχηì, σεμνοìς μεσιìτης ὑποταγηì ὑβριστηìς προϊ·στημαι ἐνδειìκνυμι πρᾳοτης χρηστοìτης, ἀνακαιìνωσις προκοìπτειν (except Luke 2:52), προκοπηì ὀìλεθρος καταργεìω (except Luke 13:7), ὀστραìκινος ἐκκαθαιìρω ἠìπιος ἀλαζωìν ἀìστοργος ἀìσπονδος (T.R.), μοìρφωσις αἰχμαλωτευìω σωρευìω ἀδοìκιμος μακροθυμιìα (except James and 1 and 2 Peter), παìθημα (except 1 Peter), πλαìσσω.

But when we pass from these resemblances in mere diction to consider the intellectual power, the verve, and Divine glow of the pastoral Epistles, the evidence is overwhelming. Place by their side the epistle of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians, or the epistles of Ignatius and Polycarp, or the (so-called) 'Epistle of Barnabas,' and you feel the immeasurable difference between them. The combination of mental vigor and sober, practical good sense, and sagacious intuition with regard to men and things, and extensive knowledge, with fervent zeal, and enthusiasm of temperament, and ardent piety, and entire self-sacrifice, and heavenly mindedness, and the upward, onward movement of the whole inner man under the guidance of God's Holy Spirit, producing an inartistic eloquence of immense force and persuasiveness, is found in these pastoral Epistles, as in all the other Epistles of this great apostle; but it is found nowhere else. St. Paul, we know, could have written them; we know of no one else who could. To attribute them to some unknown fraudulent impostor instead of to him, the stamp of whose personality they bear in every line as distinctly as they bear his name in their superscriptions, is a caricature of criticism, and a burlesque of unbelief.

Applying, further, the usual tests of authenticity, we may observe that all the historical and chronological marks which we can discover in these Epistles agree with the theory of their being written in the reign of the Emperor Nero. The earnestness with which the apostle directs prayers for rulers to be used in all churches — "that we may lead a quiet life" (1 Timothy 2:1, 2; Titus 3:1) — tallies well with the idea that the attitude of Nero towards the Christians was beginning to excite considerable anxiety. Such thoughts as those in 1 Timothy 1:1 and 6:15 derive fresh significance from such an idea; while the later utterance of 2 Timothy 4:16-18 shows that what was only feared before had become a fact, and that the writer of 2 Timothy was in the midst of the Neronian persecution.

Again, the restless state of the Jewish mind, and the unhealthy crop of heresies, containing the germ of later Gnosticism, springing up amongst the semi-Christian Jews, which is reflected in the pastoral Epistles, is in accordance with all that we know of Jewish sectarianism at this time, as depicted by Philo, Josephus, and other later writers quoted by Bishop Lightfoot. Gnosticism, as it appears in the Epistle to the Colossians and as it was taught by Cerinthus — Gnosticism, evidenced by a few Gnostic allusions, as ἀντιθεìσεις τῆς ψευδωνυìμουγνωìσεως (1 Timothy 6:20); by a mystical instead of the real resurrection (2 Timothy 2:18); by abstinence from meats and from marriage; by old wives' fables and ascetic practices (1 Timothy 1:8, 9); — does indeed appear in the pastoral Epistles, as was inevitable, considering their scope; but it is a Gnosticism distinctly of Jewish origin (Titus 1:10, 14), and as different from the later Gnosticism of Marcion and Valentinian and Tatian as the acorn is from the oak tree, or the infant from the grown-up man. These passages, which the great ingenuity and learning of Baur have labored to wrest into evidences against the authenticity of these Epistles, are really very weighty evidences in their favor.

So, too, are all the marks of the then ecclesiastical polity which stand out in these Epistles. The ease may be thus stated. Towards the end of the second century, when it is argued by Baur and his followers that these Epistles were forged, diocesan episcopacy was universal in the whole Church, and the word ἐπιìσκοπος meant exclusively what we now mean by a bishop as distinguished from presbyters. And not only so, but it was the universal belief that such episcopacy had existed in regular succession from the apostles themselves, and lists of bishops were preserved in several Churches, of whom the first was said to have been appointed by an apostle. Under these circumstances, it seems to be absolutely impossible that a forger, writing in the latter part of the second century, and personating St. Paul, should represent the clergy in Crete and at Ephesus under the name of ἐπιìσκοποι (1 Timothy 3.; Titus 1:7), and should not make mention of any bishop presiding over those Churches. So, again, the use of the word "presbyter" in these Epistles distinctly shows the term not yet hardened down into an exclusively technical term. The same thing is also true of the words διαìκονος διακονιìα, and διακονεῖν (see 1 Timothy 5:1; 4:6; 1:12; 2 Timothy 4:5, 11; 1:18), so that the use of these ecclesiastical terms in the pastoral Epistles is, when properly weighed, an evidence of very great weight in favor of their belonging to the first, not the second, century.