Customer Reviews

The Letters to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon (Daily Study Bible (Westminster Hardcover))

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

I have found Barclay's Daily Bible Study Guides of the New Testament the best in-depth commentary of the bible books. He presents scholarly analysis in very easy to read passages. Reading this book in particular greatly increased my understanding of Paul's extraordinary letters to Timothy and Titus on Christian leadership principles.

This installment of The Daily Study Bible Series covers the Pastoral Epistles and the letter to Philemon. William Barclay has given us a good devotional study firmly rooted in biblical scholarship.

Scholars have disputed Pauline authorship of the Pastoral Epistles (I and II Timothy, Titus). Barclay's introduction covers the issues involved well. He takes a middle position where a later teacher expanded genuine Pauline fragments. Unfortunately, he does not expound this view in the commentary itself; he is silent about which sections are genuine and which are later. Since "we are still hearing the voice of Paul" (13), it probably did not occur to him to make the distinctions. Barclay's introduction to Philemon includes an interesting if speculative account of how this short letter became included in the New Testament.

The commentary itself is best described as expository. Barclay does not only analyze the Greek text. Using exhortation, anecdotal stories, and other sources, he also suggests what these texts might mean today. From a strictly academic viewpoint, this commentary will seem superficial. For the popular audience for whom Barclay has intended this work, it should serve as a springboard for further study. Barclay provides a list for further reading for this purpose.

Though this book is a good introductory work overall, the reader should be aware of a couple points. The first relates to these epistles' stances on women and slavery. Any casual reading of the letters will strike the reader as bordering on misogyny and condoning slavery. Barclay places these tests in the situation of the Roman/Greek world in which Paul wrote them. He makes a valid point that doing almost anything else would be scandalous (with women) or even dangerous (with slaves). To his credit, he says those circumstances no longer apply. However,considering the history in which these texts were and are used, I have to think he soft-pedaled these issues. After all Christianity is supposed to be "light for the world" (Matt. 5:14, NJB).

The other issue concerns Barclay's treatment of other religions. When Barclay mentions them, he almost invariably creates straw men of them. He makes at least one anti-Semitic accusation without evidence. Against these straw men, Barclay over idealizes Christianity. Even granting this work is now more than twenty-five years old, Barclay should have been above that.

In his series of New Testament Commentaries, William Barclay gives us a commentary on the "Pastoral Epistles" and Philemon. 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus are called the Pastoral Epistles because Paul had written them to encourage and advise two pastors in Early Christianity. They give advice concerning the character and conduct that Christians should have, specifically the character and conduct of a church's pastor.

Where Barclay's strength lies is in the meticulous analysis of the text. Paul tends to pack a lot in his sentences; Barclay picks the sentence apart and brings things into clearer view. While he does an admirable job discussing Paul's world in the light of the times (when slaves outnumbered free men, when women were neither to be seen nor heard, etc.); how Paul's words can be applied to a modern, slave-free, woman-respecting society; and spends a great deal of time analyzing Christian conduct.

While the commentary is generally good, it wasn't much that I hadn't heard or read before. It can be argued that this was Barclay's intention. Since he translated the entire text from the original Greek, quoted many other Bible verses and Paul's pagan contemporaries (to illustrate the thinking of the day), etc., he could have written a pretty good commentary series intended for Biblical scholars. Instead, he wrote one for the regular chruch-goers.

I do have to throw in one comment concerning the inerrancy of the Bible. Barclay speculates that Paul may not have written the entire epistle, but rather that someone found one of Paul's old letters and re-wrote it to address the Gnostic heresy in the Church. This speculation is dangerous as it encourages one to pick apart the Bible and throw away the parts that he/she doens't like. It makes the Bible subjective ("I don't like that part about no murder. I don't believe the Holy Spirit wrote that, so I'll ignore it."). The Holy Spirit doesn't need an editor; It will have what it wants in the Bible and make sure that any "false teachings" are not included.

In all, this is a pretty good commentary. It gives a thorough, Biblical analysis of the conduct of Christian pastors and lay-people. It also gives a healthy view of the historical period in which these letters were written.

I wonder why I bought this book. In 1962 I read a book by William Barclay, something like the Mind of Jesus. At the time it seemed arrogant that someone would attempt to explain the workings of Christ's mind. It is as if God shared omniscience with this chosen person. This book was published in 1975 and it seems the connection between the mind of God and the mind of Wm. Barclay still operated.

This volume is one of a series of works under the heading "The New Daily Study Bible." This describes the depth of the work. Alas, not all of us read the cover closely enough and we waste our money. I have given up Bible study as a theologian for Bible study as a historian. The reason for getting this book is to see how a modern religious teacher would interpret a book of considerable importance to American history, the Epistle to Philemon. Because this is so important to me most of this review will cover Barclay's exposition of this tiny letter because I think the reader can get an appreciation of the whole work by examining how this epistle is handled.

The story is very simple. Paul is a prisoner in Rome and an escaped slave finds him there. The slave is the servant of a wealthy churchman in Colosse. Philemon, the master, has housed Paul in his home and is well known by him. While the slave, Onesimus, is with Paul, he becomes converted to Christianity. According to Barclay Roman law was very harsh with runaway slaves and masters were supposed to treat the returned slave as badly as possible to keep others in line. Our author extols the courage of Paul in sending the slave, though he is a Christian, back to his Christian master. He implies both Paul and Philemon are in danger of prosecution. Onesimus as a slave is not worthy of too much concern.

Barclay's explanation of why Paul would return a fugitive to his rightful master is proof apparently of that open information highway between the Scottish author and the Almighty. It is acknowledged that slavery is un-Christian. But the apostle and even Jesus could not say it was wrong because of the political and social conditions of the Roman world. Any such [slave] revolt would have been savagely crushed; slaves who took their freedom would have been mercilessly punished, and Christianity itself would have been branded as revolutionary and subversive. Given the Christian faith liberation was bound to come--but the time was not ripe; and to encourage slaves to revolt or leave their masters, would have done infinitely more harm than good. There are some things which cannot be achieved suddenly, and the world must wait until the leaven works." The sentiments "the time was not ripe," "things which cannot be achieved suddenly," and "wait until the leaven works" hardly describe a religion which, despite what Barclay thinks, was very revolutionary and subversive. Such sentiments belong more to politicians than to apostles of a God of love. I can much more forgive Lincoln for hesitating because the time is not ripe than I can excuse Paul or Jesus for not speaking against slavery for this reason. Rome was notorious for its assassinations and murders but the church did not refuse to condemn murder. I have to agree many later [19th century] preachers nit-picked the letter to death trying to prove their positions on slavery and emancipation, but if anyone bothers to read this little letter I am sure Barclay's exegesis.

The rest of the book has the same simplistic scriptural elucidation. Simple is not a problem, simplistic is not the way to examine anything that is important to you. Be warned about this book.

I do not say that the author should paraphrase "Comrade Jesus Hath His Red Card," although early Christianity was a radical movement. What I object to is the position Barclay takes that certain sins are so politically and socially ingrained in society, it would be disruptive for the truth to be pushed. To quote some religionists, "The SAFE truth shall make you free."