The Pastoral Epistles

Rating:
Summary: Highly Recommended Commentary on Pastorals
Review: J.N.D. Kelly (D.D., F.B.A.) is best known for his works on the early church, especially the highly acclaimed Early Christian Creeds and Early Christian Docrines. Henry Chadwick, himself an early church specialist, and renowned for his appropriately titled book, The Early Church, chose Kelly to contribute this volume in the Black's New Testament Commentary series, as well as the volume on First and Second Peter and Jude. Dr. Chadwick is the General Editor of the series.

Kelly is a conservative scholar and a former principal of St. Edmund Hall, Oxford. His conservative stance can be noted from his approach to the authorship issue of the Pastorals, the way he deals with the issue of women in ministry, and his overall approach to the Pastorals in general. John Stott mentions Kelly as one of the most notable vigorous defences of the 'older view' that the Pastorals are authentically Pauline.

I have gained much from Kelly's commentary, and after comparing it with commentaries by John Stott, William Hendriksen, William Barclay, E P Groenewald and John MacArthur, I would recommend it without hesitation as a valuable tool for exegesis. It's strength is to be found in Kelly's ability to approach an issue seemingly unbiased, sometimes (although not nearly as often as one would like) presenting other commentators' arguments to the reader, and to then draw a conclusion based on a logical analysis of the passage in question. He works with the text in a way that often leaves the reader convinced that nothing else remains to be said from a hermenuetical point of view.

Another reason why I find Kelly particularly useful is his method of boldfacing all Scriptural references, portions of sentences, and even words from the Biblical text under discussion. This makes it easy to find his comments on a particular passage or word, as you merely need to scan the pages to do so, and I find in it a great advantage over Stott, Barclay, Hendriksen and Groenewald. Jonn MacArthur was the only one other author I found who also employs this method.

Kelly's use of the Greek also outstrips that of the authors I compared him with. Once again, I find this particularly useful, especially because it is easy to spot the (boldfaced) words one is seeking to interpret. Yet he does so in a way that is not overbearing, and that would not irritate someone who has no interest in the Greek.

This does not mean that the book is without faults. Kelly's main weakness is the lack of application throughout his commentary. He explains the meaning of the text in an extraordinary way, but leaves his readers not knowing what to do with the explanation. One might argue that a commentary is intended to comment, and not to sermonise. However, authors like Stott and MacArthur have shown us that it is possible to produce scholarly works that are not only explanatory and expository, but also instruct and challenge its readers. While MacArthur and Stott's commentaries remind us of great sermon outlines, Kelly's don't. The reason for this might very well be found in the fact that both MacArthur and Stott are well known preachers, whilst Kelly is not. We should also not forget that different commentaries have different functions, and that a commentator need not defend his intentions to write a theological or linguistic commentary instead of a homiletical or devotional commentary. My problem, however, lies with the fact that Kelly has produced an explanatory or expository commentary, as did Stott and MacArthur, yet not as readable nor as applicable.

One such example is to be found in the way that Kelly deals with the issue of women in ministry. Although he provides a satisfactory explanation on what Paul means in 1 Tim. 2:9 - 15, he does not tell us how we are to understand this passage today, nor about the challenge presented by it. The same may be said about a number of other passages, and this is unfortunate.

Another weakness I found is Kelly's unwillingness to use quotes by other authors to shed light on the passages under discussion. Although I am hesitant to compare Kelly with Barclay, as Barclay's commentaries are devotional and regarded as pseudo-scholarly by some, I find Barclay's strength in exactly this. For instance, in Barclay's discussion of just two verses, 1 Tim. 6: 9 and 10, he provides us with illuminating quotes from no less than 5 people (Democritus, Seneca, Phocylides, Philo and Athenaeus), an ancient Roman proverbial saying, an old fable about a peasant, and a poem by John Bunyan. Needless to say, the continuing use of these parables and sayings is no accident, but a clear strategy by Barclay to communicate effectively to his audience. In comparison with this, Kelly's discussion on the entire passage from verse 1 to 10 offers us nothing, save a fleeting quote of five words by one scholar with whom he disagrees. John Stott fares better than Kelly, but not much. Next to Barclay, I would recommend MacArthur as a source for quotes and illustrations.

I would not recommend Kelly to someone who wishes to buy only a single commentary, but would not hesitate in adding his book to my existing commentaries on the Pastorals. For any serious student this commentary would be an asset, and this is evident from its inclusion in most other significant commentaries' bibliographies.

Rating:
Summary: Highly Recommended Commentary on Pastorals
Review: J.N.D. Kelly (D.D., F.B.A.) is best known for his works on the early church, especially the highly acclaimed Early Christian Creeds and Early Christian Docrines. Henry Chadwick, himself an early church specialist, and renowned for his appropriately titled book, The Early Church, chose Kelly to contribute this volume in the Black's New Testament Commentary series, as well as the volume on First and Second Peter and Jude. Dr. Chadwick is the General Editor of the series.

Kelly is a conservative scholar and a former principal of St. Edmund Hall, Oxford. His conservative stance can be noted from his approach to the authorship issue of the Pastorals, the way he deals with the issue of women in ministry, and his overall approach to the Pastorals in general. John Stott mentions Kelly as one of the most notable vigorous defences of the 'older view' that the Pastorals are authentically Pauline.

I have gained much from Kelly's commentary, and after comparing it with commentaries by John Stott, William Hendriksen, William Barclay, E P Groenewald and John MacArthur, I would recommend it without hesitation as a valuable tool for exegesis. It's strength is to be found in Kelly's ability to approach an issue seemingly unbiased, sometimes (although not nearly as often as one would like) presenting other commentators' arguments to the reader, and to then draw a conclusion based on a logical analysis of the passage in question. He works with the text in a way that often leaves the reader convinced that nothing else remains to be said from a hermenuetical point of view.

Another reason why I find Kelly particularly useful is his method of boldfacing all Scriptural references, portions of sentences, and even words from the Biblical text under discussion. This makes it easy to find his comments on a particular passage or word, as you merely need to scan the pages to do so, and I find in it a great advantage over Stott, Barclay, Hendriksen and Groenewald. Jonn MacArthur was the only one other author I found who also employs this method.

Kelly's use of the Greek also outstrips that of the authors I compared him with. Once again, I find this particularly useful, especially because it is easy to spot the (boldfaced) words one is seeking to interpret. Yet he does so in a way that is not overbearing, and that would not irritate someone who has no interest in the Greek.

This does not mean that the book is without faults. Kelly's main weakness is the lack of application throughout his commentary. He explains the meaning of the text in an extraordinary way, but leaves his readers not knowing what to do with the explanation. One might argue that a commentary is intended to comment, and not to sermonise. However, authors like Stott and MacArthur have shown us that it is possible to produce scholarly works that are not only explanatory and expository, but also instruct and challenge its readers. While MacArthur and Stott's commentaries remind us of great sermon outlines, Kelly's don't. The reason for this might very well be found in the fact that both MacArthur and Stott are well known preachers, whilst Kelly is not. We should also not forget that different commentaries have different functions, and that a commentator need not defend his intentions to write a theological or linguistic commentary instead of a homiletical or devotional commentary. My problem, however, lies with the fact that Kelly has produced an explanatory or expository commentary, as did Stott and MacArthur, yet not as readable nor as applicable.

One such example is to be found in the way that Kelly deals with the issue of women in ministry. Although he provides a satisfactory explanation on what Paul means in 1 Tim. 2:9 - 15, he does not tell us how we are to understand this passage today, nor about the challenge presented by it. The same may be said about a number of other passages, and this is unfortunate.

Another weakness I found is Kelly's unwillingness to use quotes by other authors to shed light on the passages under discussion. Although I am hesitant to compare Kelly with Barclay, as Barclay's commentaries are devotional and regarded as pseudo-scholarly by some, I find Barclay's strength in exactly this. For instance, in Barclay's discussion of just two verses, 1 Tim. 6: 9 and 10, he provides us with illuminating quotes from no less than 5 people (Democritus, Seneca, Phocylides, Philo and Athenaeus), an ancient Roman proverbial saying, an old fable about a peasant, and a poem by John Bunyan. Needless to say, the continuing use of these parables and sayings is no accident, but a clear strategy by Barclay to communicate effectively to his audience. In comparison with this, Kelly's discussion on the entire passage from verse 1 to 10 offers us nothing, save a fleeting quote of five words by one scholar with whom he disagrees. John Stott fares better than Kelly, but not much. Next to Barclay, I would recommend MacArthur as a source for quotes and illustrations.

I would not recommend Kelly to someone who wishes to buy only a single commentary, but would not hesitate in adding his book to my existing commentaries on the Pastorals. For any serious student this commentary would be an asset, and this is evident from its inclusion in most other significant commentaries' bibliographies.