Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - 2 Timothy
(Show All Books)
Verse Commentaries:
TWO EPISTLES OF PAUL
to
TIMOTHY
by
J. J. VAN OOSTERZEE, D. D.
professor in ordinary of theology in the university of utrecht
TRANSLATED FROM THE GERMAN, WITH ADDITIONS
by
E. A. WASHBURN, D.D.
Rector Of Calvary Church, New York
and
E. HARWOOD, D.D.
Rector Of Trinity Church, New Haven
This last conviction I must have wholly given up, had I been able to agree with the main arguments of a work which I met with shortly before finishing my own. I refer to the striking book of Dr. C. W. Otto, in which the theory of one only imprisonment of Paul at Rome is again keenly defended, and the opinion which forms the basis of the present commentary opposed at almost every point. This thorough monograph on one of the most confused points of introductory criticism has led me to a new study of the position, which I had reached not without much conflict and toil; and had the learned author convinced me of my mistake in this point, I would not have hesitated to erase my almost completed work. This, however, is not the case; nay, I do not believe that Dr. Otto’s work, deserving as it is in many respects, will lead many writers of introductions and exegetes to his conclusion. We must admire, doubtless, in many points the striking power of combination shewn by the author; and especially acknowledge the masterly way in which he has arranged and summed up the external proofs for the genuineness of the pastoral epistles. Yet, on the other side, his whole argument confirms anew my opinion, that the genuineness of these epistles cannot be maintained, if we consider the second imprisonment of the Apostle a mere legend. The method in which Dr. Otto seeks to prove that the first epistle to Timothy was written on occasion of the Corinthian discords, as little satisfies us as his exposition of 2Ti_4:6-8; according to which the Apostle expresses only his deep sorrow, with not a word of premonition concerning his death; and we are thus to infer that he speaks of the end of his missionary labor, not of his coming martyrdom. We may fully grant, that there is a unity in principle among all the erroneous teachers opposed in the Pauline epistles, without drawing thence the consequences, which the author admits in regard to questions of introduction and of chronology. We at least are still of the opinion, that between the prediction of the errorists, whom Paul looked for in the future (Act_20:29), and their open appearance and activity at Ephesus, there must be a greater period than that claimed by Dr. Otto. The whole direction and management of the community is more systematized and developed after the first letter to Timothy, than at the time of the first imprisonment of the Apostle at Rome; and, besides, we do not know how to explain the various personalia in the second epistle to Timothy, unless we admit a second imprisonment. The position of the case is not, that to save the genuineness of the epistles, we accept in a quite arbitrary way the hypothesis of a second imprisonment, and thus bring in our proof a tutiori; but on the contrary, that in these epistles, of whose genuineness the external evidence is enough, we meet with the record of facts, for which no conceivable place can be found in Paul’s life, so far as it is given in the Acts of the Apostles; and which therefore in and by themselves compel us to the decision, that the Apostle was released from his prison (Act_28:30-31). For this reason the second epistle to Timothy is a sufficient proof of the second imprisonment; and it is yet further strongly confirmed through the church tradition, although not beyond all doubt. We fear that the Author has not done sufficient justice to this last point, although we readily acknowledge that he has avoided with greater foresight many of the rocks on which we have seen Wieseler stranded.
Yet this is not the place to speak of all the particulars of a still unsettled inquiry. We heartily hope that others will give to the book of Dr. Otto the thorough judgment which it claims in every view. Perhaps in the present case we have been so much the harder to convince, because we formerly held more or less the same position, and have since renounced it. In addition, we must be content to point to the remarks of Dr. Lange on this question in his article Paulus in Herzog’s Real encyclopädie [vol. xi. p. 239 ff.]; and above all to the small, but weighty essay of L. Ruffet, St. Paul, sa double captivité à Rome. Paris, 1860. Without apparently equalling Dr. Otto in learning, the author of this last-named brochure satisfies us far more with the result of his inquiry, and we gladly subscribe his own words; “In a question of this kind we cannot ask a mathematical certainty; it only concerns us to know on the side of which hypothesis are the more probabilities: and after a serious study, undertaken with strong prepossessions against the idea of a double imprisonment of St. Paul, we must range ourselves in the last result with Gieseler, Lange, Guericke and Neander, notwithstanding the learned pages of Reuss, Wieseler, and Edmond de Pressense”—we will add—of Otto.
Beyond this, I have little to say as to the editorship of this part of the Bible-work. It will, I hope, be found an advantage, that I have sought to make not a very scientific book of exegesis, but a practical commentary, designed non coquis, sed convivis. Discussions are for this reason avoided as far as possible, and only results given. The self-denial, which here and there was necessary in the treatment of a difficult subject within a few words, where I often had more to say and should perhaps have said it, I have willingly borne on account of the aim of this edition. In points of difference regarding doctrine and confessions, it was not hard for me to express myself with moderation, although, as I hope, with sufficient decision. Moreover, I have designed to give not only multa, but multum. As to the epistle to Philemon in conclusion, it is also a kind of pastoral letter, a great, unique example of the apostle’s pastoral labor and cure of souls. Regarded from another side, it would perhaps be best treated together with the epistle to the Colossians. But here the isagogic point of view should not be decisive. In a practical Bible-work the epistle will be sought in its accustomed place; and as an evidence of apostolic practice it stands justly there. Thus I must decide, as Paul did before, to receive Onesimus, as otherwise a homeless wanderer. The wish of the Editor to add the pages on Philemon as a sort of appendix to the rest, has been therefore readily complied with. A request from so esteemed a source cannot easily be denied. My honored friend Dr. Lange has now, therefore, the personal responsibility, should any think that he has perhaps laid on me more of the Bible-work than my shoulders can well bear.
I ought not indeed to hope that my commentary on these epistles will bring such unlooked for and happy results as my Luke, a new edition of which is in the press. May it only please the Lord to crown with his blessing these weak efforts for the spread of his kingdom; and that He may grant me as well as my brethren in the ministry, to become through this study of the pastoral letters, what Paul proposed to Timothy: óðüõäáóïí óåáõôὸí äüêéìïí ðáñáóôῆóáé ôῷ èåῷ , ἐñãÜôçí ἀíåðáßó÷õíôïí , ὀñèïôïìïῦíôá ôὸí ëüãïí ôῆò ἀëçèåßáò .
J. J. VAN OOSTERZEE.
Rotterdam, November, 1860.AUTHOR’S PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION
The intimation of the respected publishers, that a new edition of my “Pastoral Epistles” has become necessary; and the added request, that it might be prepared for the press as soon as possible, came to me at an inconvenient time, when I was called to an important charge in my official position, which claimed almost exclusively my time and strength. I have, however, done what I could; and a comparison of both editions will readily show, that this last may rightly be called “a newly corrected and improved” one. All at least, which seemed to me worthy and needful to add after the completion of the first, I have fairly incorporated; slight errors in form or matter have been corrected in various places; and although the main idea, from which I believed I must start, remains unchanged, yet here and there a position has been more closely defined, modified or completed. Had more decisions of any importance suggested themselves to me, they might indeed have led to a larger revision. It appears to me a just duty to express my thanks for a treasure, as unexpected as it is invaluable, which I have found in the Codex Sinaiticus for the settlement of the text of this edition in doubtful passages. It would not have been difficult for me, to have given a marked enlargement to the homiletic annotations by the help of the earlier or later literature of the pulpit: but I thought it the main purpose of this work, that the ne quid nimis should be kept in mind. I wished as little a fons as a pons, but simply a useful guide for personal study in homiletics. With this view, I now give the work anew into the hands of our present and future practical divines, with the prayer, that the study of the Pastoral Epistles may increase and hallow their capacity and love for the service of the Word, which preaches redemption.
J. J. VAN OOSTERZEE.
Utrecht, June, 1863.THE PASTORAL LETTERS
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
______
§ 1. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PASTORAL LETTERS
While all the other letters, except the private one to Philemon, are addressed to whole communities, these three are sent to individuals, co-workers with St. Paul in the Gospel. As a whole they treat chiefly of the same objects, the preaching of the Word and the organization of the Body; and thus far are rightly called by their usual name of Pastoral Epistles. They contain rules for the pastoral office of Timothy and Titus; rules flowing from the heart of a true shepherd, and thus entirely fitted to form these disciples after the likeness of the Chief Shepherd of the flock (1Pe_5:4). They bear, therefore, less an official than a confidential character, and have many expressions, many turns of language, which are not found, or at least in the same manner, throughout the other writings of this Apostle. While their style is less fresh and life-like than that of the earlier letters, they have a deeper tone of fatherly friendship and tenderness, and betray the most heartfelt anxiety not only for the communities, at whose head Timothy and Titus were placed, but also for their own spiritual and temporal welfare. Although, again, nothing is wanting in them in regard to the weightiest relations of Christian doctrine, yet these three Epistles bear a practical rather than a doctrinal coloring, and are directed, no less than the other letters of the Apostle, toward the demands of the time. Many momentous hints, warnings, precepts and forebodings are addressed to both these young overseers of the community, and through them to the whole Body, although these letters were not designed, like most of the others (Col_4:16), for public reading. They furnish us in their complete form a deep insight into the heart of the Apostle, whom we meet here in the closing period of his life bowed down more than ever before by many persecutions and toils; yet filled on the one hand with glowing zeal against the foes of the Divine kingdom, on the other with the inmost fatherly love toward both his spiritual sons in the faith. They clearly exhibit, at the same time, the feeling with which he looked forward to the impending dismemberment of the Church, as well as to his own near end. More than the other Epistles, they remind us of the Apostle’s word, that he has “the treasure of the Gospel in earthen vessels;” but they show, also, the truth of what follows, “that the excellency of the power may be of God and not of us” (2Co_4:7). Among the three, there are, again, two which have a strong likeness to each other; the first to Timothy and that to Titus, although the relation of the Apostle was much closer to the former than to the latter. The second to Timothy so far differs from both, that it may be called, so to speak, the apostolic-prophetic testament of the great Apostle of the Gentiles; his legacy to his friend and in him at the same time to the whole Church. After this view of the characteristics, we need no longer postpone the inquiry, whether the genuineness of these Pastoral Epistles, and, indeed, that of the whole three, can be defended on satisfactory grounds.
§
The Second Epistle to Timothy is quoted by Barnabas, Epist. c. 7. Comp. 2Ti_4:1. By Ignatius, Ad Ephes. c. 2; and Ad Smyrn. c. 9, 10. Compare 2Ti_1:16; 2Ti_1:18. By Polycarp, Ad Philipp. c. 5. Compare 2Ti_2:11-12. By Irenæus, Adv. Hæres, V. c. 20. Comp. 2Ti_3:7. By Clemens Alex. Strom. lib. 1. p. 270. Comp. 2Ti_2:1-2; 2Ti_2:15. Admonit. ad Gent. p. 56. Comp. 2Ti_3:15. Tertullian, Scorpiac. c. 13. Comp. 2Ti_4:6; 2Ti_4:8. By Eusebius, H. E. ii. 22. Comp. 2Ti_4:17.
The Epistle to Titus, finally, by Clemens Rom. Epist. prim. ad Corinth, c. 2. Comp. Tit_3:1. By Ignatius, Ad Trall. c. 3. Comp. Tit_2:3. By Irenæus, Adv. Hæres. iii. c. 3, § 4. Comp. Tit_3:10-11. Ibid. 1Ti_1:16; 1Ti_1:3. Comp. Tit_3:10. By Theophylus, Ad Autol. i. 2, p. 95. Comp. Tit_3:5-6. By Clemens Alex. Strom. lib. 1. p. 299. Comp. Tit_1:12. Adm. ad Gent. p. 6. Comp. Tit_2:11-13. By Tertullian, De præscript. Hæret. c. 6. Comp. Tit_3:10-11.
If now we add, that Eusebius without any question reckons the three Pastoral Epistles together among the homologoumena; that they appear in the Peschito as well as in the canon of Muratori; and that their rejection by the earlier Gnostic heretics can be explained from their partly polemic character, we must fully grant that the external evidences are entirely sufficient, and that Jerome was right, when in his preface to the Epist. to Tit., he declares in regard to the heretics who rejected these Epistles among others: “Et si quidem redderent causas, cur eas Apostoli non putarent, tentaremus aliquid respondere et forsitan satisfacere lectori. Nunc vero cum hæretica auctoritate pronuncient et dicant: ‘illa epistola Pauli est, hæc non est,’ ea auctoritate refelli se pro veritate intelligant, quâ ipsi non erubescunt falsa simulare.” Since the time of Tatian, the genuineness of these writings has remained undisputed to the beginning of the present century. It is now, however, chiefly on internal grounds that objections are brought forward against these Epistles, especially against the first to Timothy. J. E. C. Schmidt, and particularly Schleiermacher, in 1807 opened the series, and were answered by Planck, Wegscheider and Beckhaus. Soon after, Eichhorn directed his weapons against the three Epistles, and was sustained by De Wette, Schott and Schrader, whilst even Neander and Usteri expressed themselves in doubtful tone as to the genuineness of the First Epistle. Credner in his introduction to the New Testament, p. 478, gave to the context a peculiar turn, since he ascribed the three Epistles, at first only in part but later as a whole, to a fictitious source. Next, on the other side, Hug, Bertholdt, Feilmoser, Guericke, Böhl, Curtius, Kling, Heydenreich, Mack and others appeared as defenders. But the Pastoral Letters received their worst attack from the side of the newer Tübingen school. F. C. Baur in 1835 assaulted them with a strong hand, but soon found in Baumgarten and Böttger well-armed opponents, while Matthies, Wiesinger, Dietlein, Thiersch and Huther wrote in favor of their genuineness. J. P. Lange, in his History of the Apostolic Age, i. p. 34, and Schaff Hist. of the Apost. Church, § 87, also defended them. Among the most recent critics, who in spite of such strong apologetic works have given a judgment partly unfavorable, partly uncertain, are Rudow, Mangold and Reuss. The latest contribution to the history and literature of this question may be found among others in Huther in his Commentary, second edition, p. 40 et seq. The external evidences for the authenticity of the Pastoral Epistles are very thoroughly given by C. W. Otto in his later work, p. 375 et seq.; where it is shown conclusively that the external evidences not only prove nothing against the genuineness of the Pastoral Epistles, but rather confirm them in a striking manner, so far as is possible from the character of church literature in the first century after the apostolic time.
It will hardly need any apology, if we here speak at the same time of the genuinenss of the three Pastoral Epistles. According to Baur’s own admission (Paulus, p. 499), there is such a homogeneity in the three Epistles, that neither can be separated from the other two, and hence we may justly infer the identity of authorship.
As to all the internal objections, of which we must speak, they are partly of a philological, partly of a chronological, partly of a historical nature. A brief word on each of these three chief points of criticism.
The first objection concerns the peculiarities in the language of these Epistles, which are seen by comparison with other unquestionably genuine letters of St. Paul. There are reckoned in the first Epistle to Timothy eighty-one ἅðáî ëåãüìåíá , in the second sixty-three; in the Epistle to Titus forty-four, of which some are found only in the later Church writers. Yet it is to be noted in regard to these (1) that even in other epistles of Paul there occur phrases, which are not found in him elsewhere; e.g. in Epistle to Philippians fifty-four, and in Epistles to Ephesians and Colossians together, more than one hundred and forty. (2) That the peculiar character of the objects, here named, makes the use of new words and forms of speech partly necessary, and partly very explainable. (3) That these Epistles, as will be later shown, belong to the last period in the life of the Apostle, when his style had reached its fullest capacity. (4) That in a pastoral letter to his special friends and scholars, quite another style would be admissible, than in an official, apostolic writing to the whole Church. (5) That every author has the liberty to say the same things in a very different manner; and that he will make use of this freedom so much the more, as his style becomes subjective and his personality more fully developed. (6) That the Holy Spirit wrought in regard to the speech of the apostles, in the truest sense with a progressive power of creation and life. (7) That the Apostle often reverts to the glowing and sharp language of his opponents, which he combats in these Epistles, so that many expressions, now seemingly foreign, are borrowed, perhaps, from the ipsissima verba of those errorists. (8) That not a few words and conceptions, held to be un-Pauline, are found in other unquestionably genuine Epistles of Paul; and that a forger, writing in the name of an apostle, would certainly have taken double care to exclude anomalies of such a sort from his fictitious work.
The second objection regards the fact, that in these Epistles, many points are referred to and discussed, which point to a later than the apostolic time. Of this sort, especially, is the description of the heretics here named; the constitution of the Church here anticipated as if present; that which the Apostle says in the first Epistle to Timothy in regard to widows, etc. It must be remembered in respect to this: (1) that the identity of these heretics with the Gnostics of the second century is not at all made out as yet; and even the opposite is provable from other apostolic letters, that at least the seeds of their errors were already scattered in the time of Paul, and had partly sprung up. The grounds on which Baur, for instance, has supposed that ne could find a reference here to the Marcionites, are arbitrary and weak in the extreme. The heresy here opposed is no other than that which the Apostle examines, among others, in the Epistle to the Colossians; and it is a priori probable that the errorists, who appear with so much strength in the second century, did not suddenly shoot up as if out of the ground, hut rather had their ðñüäñïìïé already in the earlier period. Warnings against such earlier errors as we meet in the first Epistle to Timothy, would no longer be necessary in the second century, when the Churchly and the Gnostic ideas had already reached a period of absolute division. (2) It must, undoubtedly, be granted, that in these Epistles there is fuller mention of churchly institutions and organization than in the other writings of the Apostle. But it is clear, mean-while, from the Book of the Acts (Act_6:1), that the diaconate was already very early established; and that Paul had been wont to appoint bishops almost everywhere, is clear also from the Acts (Act_14:23; Act_20:17). Now it lies in the nature of things, that definite rules were necessary for the fulfilment of these offices, and, therefore, that such rules could have no better place than in these Epistles to Timothy and Titus. The hierarchical tendencies which have been here discovered, lie solely in the imagination of critics, as will appear plain at once, if we even superficially compare the Pastoral Letters with the letters of Ignatius. Of the later episcopal order no trace is here discoverable; the ðñåóâýôåñïé and ἐðßóêïðïé are in no way as yet separated from each other; they are rather identical; the diaconate is not once mentioned in the Epistle to Titus, and the rules for the office of a bishop are given with the utmost simplicity and brevity. If Paul knew and weighed the significance of Church organization for the welfare of the Christian body, which can hardly indeed be doubted, then it is altogether consistent that at the close of his life, before he left the scene of his earthly action, he should express himself more fully on the subject; and with his knowledge of the many dangers threatening the community, this care for its overseers would lie more earnestly on his heart. It has been said, indeed, that Paul did not in general give the slightest weight to Church institutions; but the proofs of this remain, in our view, quite wanting. And (3) last of all, as to the regulation in regard to widows (1Ti_5:3-14). It might, perhaps, appear that the Epistle belongs to a period, when the name ÷Þñá was given to all in the community who continued unmarried for the Lord’s sake; yet no proof whatever has been offered us by Baur that the word widow must here be understood in this wider sense. No ðáñèÝíïé are here meant, but real widows; and the rule given them can in no case be called a law for a distinct, ascetic mode of life. On the question whether we are to understand by these widows actual deaconesses, we shall speak further in this Commentary. That Christian widows had received a place of honor in the community, and already in the day of Paul had consecrated themselves wholly to such a life-service, cannot, in itself, be held at all improbable. Of still less weight are other internal doubts, which have been offered against the Pauline origin of the Pastoral Epistles. The apparent agreement seen in all the three is sufficiently explained from the fact, that in the same period of the Apostle’s life they are directed to two men, whose position and wants were in many points alike. That Timothy is treated as an inferior, and addressed in the tone of a schoolmaster, has only a show of truth, when we linger on the sound of the words, without looking at the heart of the writer, and taking into account his consciousness of high apostolic authority. Not only here, but also in other letters of the Apostle, a peculiar prominence is given to pure doctrine against rising errors; and thus, too, the Christology of these Epistles is the same as, e.g., in the Epistles to the Romans and Corinthians, as will appear from the exposition of some striking passages. The want of logical connection in the conceptions and ideas, so peculiar to our Apostle elsewhere, but here far less apparent, is not really so striking as has been represented; it is partly the result of the practical and pastoral tenor of the Epistle, and partly, again, due to the relative advance in the age of the author. The predominant ethical view of life, the constantly repeated call to good works, etc., is nowise in irreconcilable strife with the Pauline doctrine of grace; but finds many echoes in other writings with which the Pastoral Epistles here and there agree so strikingly, that a new proof of forgery has been seen in this very circumstance. Why should not Paul, however, in handling the same subjects, find a necessity now and then for the same phrases? That beside these special instances, there are abundant traces of likeness in spirit, tone and drift to the other, genuine Epistles, becomes more palpably clear with each new comparison.
The chronological objection remains, then, the chief one. In the history of Paul as known to us, no point can be named, which we can exactly receive as the date of the authorship; in which view, therefore, we cannot conceive how these Epistles could have been written in very near succession. We acknowledge in so far these difficulties, that we hold the composition of these letters before or during the first imprisonment of Paul at Rome to be in the highest degree improbable, not to say impossible; and we must regard as useless the various attempts to bring one of these Epistles into the life of the Apostle, as known to us in the Book of the Acts. But the question is, whether we should not admit a second imprisonment of Paul at Rome; and in that case we should place these letters in the time of his life just preceding his martyrdom. We believe, for our part, that we must give an affirmative answer to this question; nay, we find in the Pastoral Epistles themselves the strongest proof, that the church tradition of a second imprisonment of the Apostle at Rome is in the main well-grounded.
In the Epistles which Paul writes in his first imprisonment, there is seen throughout the expectation, that notwithstanding his desire to depart and to be with Christ, he shall be freed and restored to the community (Php_1:25-26; Php_2:24; Phm_1:22). In his second letter to Timothy, on the contrary, he speaks of the sure prospect of his soon approaching martyrdom; and we learn that at his first answer all men forsook him (2Ti_4:16). It is alike improbable, either that the first named hope of the Apostle remained unfulfilled, or that the last named statement refers to his first imprisonment. His release from the first captivity is by no means incredible; but rather it may be easily explained by the favorable feeling which was personally excited in many toward him (Php_1:12-13; conf. Act_24:23-27; Act_26:28-32). No wonder, therefore, that the church tradition quite early favored the view of a second imprisonment, during which the second Epistle to Timothy might have been written. Eusebius, H. E. ii. 22, speaks of it in the phrase: ëüãïò ἔ÷åé , by which he did not at all mean a wavering or doubtful legend, merely of sporadic growth, but a general, prevalent conviction, a tradition, which he repeats as such. The view, which thus generally obtained in his time, that the Apostle was really freed from his first imprisonment, rested on the witness of older writers, whom Eusebius does not indeed cite by name, but whom he probably had known. The classic passage in this connection from Clem. Rom. Epist. prim. ad Corinth, c. 5, has at least in our view a decisive weight here. It reads thus: “ Ðáῦëïò — êÞñõî ãåíüìåíïò ἔí ôå ôῇ ἀíáôïëῆ ̣ êáὶ ἐí ôῆ ̣ äýóåé , ôὸí ãåííáῖïí ôῆò ðßóôåùò áὐôïῦ êëÝïò ἔëáâåí äéêáéïýíçí äéäÜîáò ὅëïí ôὸí êüóìïí , êáὶ ἐðὶ ôὸ ôÝñìá ôῆò äýóåùò ἐëèῶí êáὶ ìáñôõñÞóáò ἐðὶ ôῶí ἡãïõìÝíùí , ïὕôùò ἀðçëëÜãç ôï ͂ õ êüóìïõ êáὶ åἶò ôὸí ôüðïí ἅãéïí ἐðïñåýèç .” If now this sentence, e.g. in the words ὅëïí ôὸí êüóìïí , may bear a rhetorical stamp, still it is by no means to be thence inferred, that the plain declaration contained in it may be wrong. Although Paul was not in the literal sense of the word a herald of Christ through the whole world, yet the distinct assurance of Clement that he preached in the west as well as the east, has its fall weight. The limit in the west which Paul reached, according to his own account, cannot be Rome, but rather Spain (conf. Rom_15:28). The supposition that a Roman, who wrote this, should have represented Italy as his utmost limit, is as arbitrary as the notion that we are to think of a purely subjective limit here, which the Apostle had sketched for himself, in which case the pronoun ἑáõôïῦ could not possibly have been omitted. That Paul in fact had fulfilled his plan of journeying to Spain, which could only have happened after his release from the first imprisonment, is inferred not merely from the tradition descending from the fourth century, but also from the well-known fragment from the canon in Muratori, written in the second half of the second century, in which the journey of the Apostle is given as a historic fact, in the words: profectionem Pauli ab urbe ad Spaniam proficiscentis. The early conjunction of the martyrdom of Peter and Paul in the church tradition has here also a certain significance, since it cannot be admitted, that Peter came to Rome during the first imprisonment of Paul (Act_28:30-31): and either he could not have suffered death with him, or it must have been at a later time. The rise of this tradition of a second imprisonment cannot be satisfactorily explained, if this lacks historic ground. We have, for the rest, as little occasion here to inquire whether the actual presence of Paul in Spain can be affirmed, as to give a connected picture of the life and doings of the Apostle in this last period of his career. Enough, that even apart from the Second Epistle to Timothy, the tradition of a second imprisonment deserves credit on external and internal grounds, as it has been in every time defended by powerful and eloquent voices: e.g. by Paley, Horæ Paulinæ, ad h. l., an author, who even now may claim to be consulted in our contest with the latest destructive criticism. If his treatment of the evidence be just, then there is a whole period in the life of Paul, in which we can place the authorship of the Pastoral Epistles; so that the chronological objection to their genuineness is as little beyond confutation, as the philological and historical. Comp. G. Astro, Spec. Exeg. Histor. de alt. Pauli Captivitate, Tr. ad Rh. 1859. M. Ruffet, la double Captivité St. Paul à Rome, Paris, 1860. We may further compare the Special Introductions and Exegetical comments which follow, and the article “Paulus” in Herzog’s Real-Encyclopädie.
[Among the more recent English expositors, Alford, Ellicott, Conybeare, Howson and Wordsworth, maintain the ground of St. Paul’s release from his first imprisonment. V. Alford in loco for a thorough summary of the evidence. The argument for one imprisonment is well stated by Davidson, Introd. to the N. T.—Tr.]
§
§
[It is unnecessary, in adding the more important English works connected with these Epistles, to give more than a passing notice of older expositors, as Hammond, Whitby, Benson, Macknight, Newcome, and Bloomfield in his Greek Testament. They are learned and judicious; but at this day of less worth, as they do not fully meet the more difficult questions since raised as to the genuineness of these Epistles; and the later historic criticism has thrown new light on some special topics, e.g. the early heresies, and the order of deaconess. The Horæ Paulinæ of Paley, however, deserves to be always remembered, as one of the earliest and most ingenious essays in that comparative history of the Acts and the Epistles, which has since been so largely explored. The more recent exegetical works have added much to our knowledge of this part of the New Testament. Among them, that of Conybeare and Howson: Life and Epistles of St. Paul, 7th American ed. 1866, is the richest contribution to the history and literature of the Apostle’s age. Alford has given a thorough criticism of the Pastoral Epistles, in his Greek Test. with Notes. See especially his Prolegomena for a discussion of the evidences of their genuineness. Chr. Wordsworth: Greek Test. with Introd. and Notes, London, 1866, is of chief value for his large citations from Patristic history and theology in regard to the Pauline time. Ellicott: Comment. Epp. to Tim., is worthy of careful study. Davidson: Introd. N. T., is the ablest English writer who has defended the theory of one imprisonment. In addition to these, much valuable matter concerning the life of St. Paul may be found in Lardner: Hist. Apost. and Evang. Smith: Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul. Tate: Continuous History of St. Paul. Lewin: St. Paul.—Tr.]
FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY
___________
INTRODUCTION
______
§ 1
§
Where Paul was at the writing of this first Epistle, cannot be precisely known. The designation of Athens as the place of composition in the verss. Copt. et Erp. lacks every historic ground; and it is equally so with the old subscription found in many manuscripts, as well as the Peschito, which gives Phrygia Pacatiana. This last supposition points to a later time, since before the age of Constantine the Great, there is no mention of Phrygia Pacatiana. If we might suppose that the first Epistle to Timothy was composed shortly after that to Titus, we might perhaps have thought of Nicopolis; but the internal probabilities lead us to give to this first letter to Timothy the priority among the Pastoral Epistles. Another hypothesis, that the letter was sent from Laodicea, would hardly have been received, had not some confounded it, groundlessly, with the ἐðéóôïëὴ ἐê Ëáïäéêåßáò , to which Col_4:16 alludes (Theophylact). From the obscurity which hangs over this less important question, it is best to be content with the general suggestion, that the letter was probably composed in Macedonia, at least in its neighborhood. “The hypothesis that the letter was written in the prison at Cesarea, and contained a charge to Timothy for Macedonia, is too forced to deserve a more precise refutation.” (De Wette).
The occasion and purport of this writing are clear enough from the contents. What the Apostle at his earlier departure from Ephesus (Act_20:29) had feared, he had only too soon realized. Heretical teachers had arisen (1Ti_1:4); and Timothy, still comparatively young, needed much this counsel and guidance for his action in such a case. We prefer to show later the proper character of these erroneous teachers, and to answer better, in our exposition of the letter itself, the question in what relation they stand to other like phenomena in the apostolic time, since we can then consider together their various features. Enough, that in their doctrine there were seen the ἀíôéèÝóåéò ôῆò øåõäùíýìïõ ãíþóåùò · (1Ti_6:20), whose seeds already showed themselves in the days of Paul; and the Apostle considered the contradiction between their doctrine and practice on the one side, and his gospel on the other, as wholly irreconcilable. With so much greater eagerness he turns his eye toward Timothy, because he recalls his youth (1Ti_4:12). He must be warned partly against deviations in conduct, partly against despondency; and as his position in the church was by no means equal to that of the Apostle, he needed a public testimony to the agreement of his teaching with that of Paul. To this end, then, the Epistle was written, although his own position and that of the church was also kept in view. Wieseler says somewhat too strongly: “The whole composition of the letter presupposes a slight practice and experience of Timothy in the rule of the affairs of a Christian community.” However, he was not as yet self-poised and spiritually ripe, and thus he was not only counselled here to hold fast to the confession and profession of the truth, but he was enlightened as to the weighty matters regarding the direction and guidance of the church. No further design for later times, undoubtedly, passed consciously through the mind of the Apostle; but he who believe
TO
TIMOTHY
____________
INTRODUCTION.
_________
§ 1. TIME, PLACE, AND PURPOSE OF COMPOSITION
At this time Timothy was at his post at Ephesus, where the First Epistle likewise had reached him, whilst the condition of the community still caused the Apostle just anxiety. His letter, which fully bean the character of a private communication, is designed to encourage Timothy, to acquaint him with the condition of the Apostle, and urge him, as soon as possible, to come and bring Mark with him (2Ti_4:9; 2Ti_4:11; 2Ti_4:21). The tone of the whole letter is, if possible, still more natural and affectionate than the first to Timothy; and, while in that the holy indignation of the Apostle against the errorists of the church is more apparent, there speaks in this rather the tender grief of a departing father. The mention of a great number of individual persons and names, which appear here, is an internal evidence of genuineness; and, among the pastoral counsels, there occur many expressions of surpassing worth for the doctrine as well as for the apologetics of Christianity (2Ti_2:8-13; 2Ti_3:15-17; 2Ti_4:7-8, and others).
§
The Apostle now passes to the fourth principal division, in which he encourages Timothy to bold fidelity in view of the approaching apostasy of the last times (2Ti_3:1-5). He describes the immoral character and the wicked strivings of those, who should soon be made manifest even to that debased generation (2Ti_3:1-9); and sets before him the example of patience, which Timothy had seen in him (2Ti_3:10-13); and at the same time the task, which he would have to follow (2Ti_3:14-17); in which light he points him specially to the inspired Scripture, as the best defence against the overwhelming falsehood. Then, in the most solemn tone, the Apostle sums up with a few words the warning in regard to what lies before him, as well as the remembrance of what he has to do (2Ti_4:1-5).
Now the Epistle hastens to its close (2Ti_4:6-21). Paul prophesies his approaching martyrdom, and records his joyful hope of eternity (2Ti_4:6-8). He adds the prayer, that Timothy will come to him as soon as possible, since otherwise he may never perhaps see him Again in the land of the living. This invitation is yet more strengthened by a brief account of the Apostle’s forsaken state (2Ti_4:10-12), which is only relieved by Luke; wherefore he earnestly wishes to see Mark also by his side. Timothy is asked on this occasion to bring with him some necessary things for the Apostle (2Ti_4:13). Paul speaks further, before he reaches the close, of a severe opposition which he had experienced (2Ti_4:14-15); but also of a mighty aid, when forsaken of all, by which he is strengthened in the hope, that the hour will soon come of his complete deliverance, if not from death, yet through death (2Ti_4:16-18). Holy greetings and benedictions, as well as some personal topics, close the letter, which especially in this last part, bears so wholly undeniable a stamp of genuineness and reality, that we cannot enough wonder at the desperate attempts to hunt up another author than Paul. (Compare the General Introduction.)
Without any extended argument, the lasting authority of this second Epistle for the martyrdom of Paul is self-evident. It is a treasure for the Christian church of all ages, a noble crown of his earlier testimonies. “Mortem habebat Paulus ante oculos, quam subire paratus erat pro Evangelii testimonio. Quæcumque igitur hic legimus de Christi regno, de spe vitæ æternæ, de christianâ militiâ, de fiduciâ confessionis, de certitudine doctrinæ, non tanquam atramento scripta, sed ipsius Pauli sanguine accipere convenit; nihil enim asserit, pro quo mortis suæ pignus non opponat. Proinde hæc Epistola quasi solemnis quædam est subscriptio Paulinæ doctrinæ, eaque ex re præsenti;” Calvin.
§