THE
PULPIT COMMENT ARY EDITED BY THE
VERY REV. H. D. M. SPENCE, D.D. DEAN OF GLOUCESTER
AND BY THE
REV. JOSEPH S. EXELL, M.A.
I. TIMOTHY ~rpo~mton enb ~omilttic~ BY THE RIGHT HON. AND RIGHT REV. LORD A. C. HERVEY, D.D. LORD DISllOP OF BATH AND WELLS
~omiltt!l bJ? @eriou~ autbor~ REV. PROF. T. CROSKERY, D.D. REV. R. FINLAYSON, B,-.\.. REV. W. M. STATHAM
NEW EDITION
FUNK & WAG NALLS COMP Al'IT LONDON AND NEW YORK 1913 THE I'ASTORAL EPISTLES.
INTRODUCTION.
Tnn main inquiries ·present themselves to the student of tbe pastoral Epistles: (I) their authenticity; (2) their chronology; (3) their contents, including the matters treated of in them, and the style in which they are written. 1.'hese 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 p ASTORAL EPISTLM. 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.,' ID. iii. and xxv.), with some reservation as to the Epistle to the Hebrews. The Muratorian Canon (about .A.D. 170) includes thirteen Epistles of St. Paul, excluding the Epistle to the Hebrews; the Peschito Canon (of about the same date) reckons foUI"teen EpistleR 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 (' I Cor.,' ii.) has •ETotµ.ot Eis 1rciv •pyov dya0ov ( comp. Titu,i iii. 1). In c. xxix. he says, IJ.pocrl>..0wp.EV ain-.;; lv ocr,onrr, i/rv}dis, ayvas Kal dµ.,a.vTOVS XELpas arpoVTES 1rpos avTOV ( comp. 1 Tim. ii. 8). Polycarp ( o. iv.) uses St. Paul's very words, 'Apxq 1ra.VTwv xo.AE1rwv cf,r.>..apyup{a (comp. I Tim. vi. 10); Ov0£V d<rrJvlyKaµ.EV Eis TOIi K6crµ.ov, d,\.\' oM£ UEVEYKELV n lxoµ.EV (comp. 1 Tim. vi. 7). Theophilus of Antioch (A.D. 181) quotes 1 Tim. ii 1, 2 verbatim as being the utterance of ®E'i:os Aoyos, "the ·word of God" (' &Ii Autoi.,' iii. 14). The same writer, in a. p888&ge in general ha.rmouy 9 11'1'1'HODUC'l'ION TO
with Titus iii. 8-7, uses tbe very words of Titus iii. 5, 6.1.l Xourpov 1raX1yy£- ncr«'.a~ (' Ad Autol.,' i. 2). The different liturgies, as quoted in the notes on 1 Tim. ii. l, are manifestly founded on that passage. Irenams (A.D. 178), in his book • Against Heresies,' repeatedly quotes by name all three Epistles (1 Tim. i. 4; 2 Tim. iv. 21; Titus iii. 10, eto.). Tertullian (A.D. 200 ), in • De l'nesoript.,' cap. xxv., quotes again and again by name St. Paul's First and Second Epistles to Timothy. Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 194) again and again quotes both Epistles to Timothy, and says that the heretie1 reject them because their errors are refuted by them(' Strom.,' ii., iii., and i.). He quotes also the Epistle to Titus. Many other references and quotations may be found in Lardner (vol. i.), as well as in various 'Introductions,' as Ruther, Olshausen, Alford (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," eto. But the above establish conclusively the acceptance of these Epistles as authentic by the unanimous consent of Church writers of the three first <:enturies of the Christian era-a unanimity which oontinued 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- expre1:11 purpose of deceiving. Is it possible to suppose that writings so grave, 110 sober, so simple and yet so powerful; breathing such a noble i;pirit 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 bear. But all the details of the Epistles point to the same conclusion. While tl ,e.re 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 e.lso 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 othe1 Epistles: they are the same. Compare the sentiment in 1 Tim. i. 5 with Rom. xiii. 10; Gal. v. 6, and the general attitude of the writer's mind towards the Jewish opponents and the Law of Moses, as seen in 1 Tim. i. 4-11 ; Titus i. 10-16; 2 Tim. iii. 5-8, with St. Paul's language and conduct towards the unbelievers and J udaizers among the Jews, as seen generally in the Aots of the Apostles, and in such passages in the Epistles as Rom. ii. 17-29 ; vii. 12; Gal i., ii., iii., iv., v., vi.; Phil. iii.; Col. ii. 16-23; 1 Thess. ii. 14-16; and yon see the very same mind. Notice, again, how the writer of the pastoral Epistles, iD suoh pasaages as 1 Tim. i. 11-16; ii. 6-7; vi. 13-16; 2 Tim. i. THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. iH