Salutation

After the long elaboration in the salutation to Titus (see disc. on Titus 1:1–4), Paul reverts to a more standard, brief form in this final letter to Timothy. Indeed, except for some slight modifications, these two verses are nearly identical to 1 Timothy 1:1–2. However, as in all his letters, these “slight” modifications reflect nuances of his changed circumstances and of his concerns in this letter.

1:1 It may seem somewhat surprising to us that Paul in such a personal letter should style himself an apostle of Christ Jesus. His reason for doing so probably differs slightly from 1 Timothy 1:1 (which see). There, it was to lend authority both to the letter and to Timothy. Here it may simply be habit; more likely, however, it reflects the urgent appeal found throughout the letter for loyalty to Paul and his gospel. Because the concern is not now to establish Timothy’s own authority, Paul also reverts to his more common by the will of God (cf. 1 and 2 Corinthians, Colossians, Ephesians), in lieu of “by order of God” in 1 Timothy. Apostleship, even for one who must suffer for it, is only and always by the will of God.

The next modifier, according to the promise of life that is in Christ Jesus, is the one major difference from the salutation in 1 Timothy. In part this reflects the language of the “faithful saying” in 1 Timothy 4:8. It is not at all surprising, given the nature of this letter with its more intensified eschatological outlook, that Paul should reflect on his apostleship in such eschatological terms at the outset. The promise of life is that which is “for the future” in 1 Timothy 4:8; but it is also ours in the present as we participate in the life that is in Christ Jesus. As with the resurrection and the Holy Spirit, present participation in life … in Christ is the “first fruit” (1 Cor. 15:20) or “down payment” (Eph. 1:14) of the promised fullness of life that is yet to be.

1:2 This verse exactly parallels 1 Timothy 1:2, except that dear son replaces “my true son in the faith.” Again, this reflects the altered circumstances. This letter is not for the church in Ephesus; hence no need exists to legitimatize Timothy before them. Timothy is now my dear (or “beloved”) son, as he has always been for Paul (see 1 Cor. 4:17). The appeal to these close ties will become a large part of this letter.

For the other matters in this verse, see the discussion on 1 Timothy 1:2.

Additional Note

1:1 The force of the words “that is in Christ Jesus,” has been blunted by the NEB to say, “whose promise of life is fulfilled in Christ Jesus,” and by Easton, et al., to say, “given by Christ Jesus.” See Barrett for a proper critique of the NEB and Kelly for a critique of Easton.

Thanksgiving

The common practice in the Hellenistic world was to begin letters with a formalized prayer-wish for the recipient’s general welfare, including good health (cf. 3 John 2). As with the salutation (see disc. on 1 Tim. 1:1–2), however, such forms in Paul’s hands become thoroughly Christianized. Although a formal prayer still can be found (e.g., Col. 1:9–14; Phil. 1:9–11), more often Paul has turned it into a thanksgiving or benediction (in nine of his previous letters, excepting Galatians, 1 Timothy, and Titus; see disc. on 1 Tim. 1:3–11, Titus 1:5–9).

This present thanksgiving is quite in keeping with the more personal nature of 2 Timothy; it also resembles the earlier thanksgivings, whose contents anticipate so much of their respective letters (see esp. 1 Cor. 1:4–9; Phil. 1:3–8). Paul is about to urge Timothy to loyalty (to himself) and perseverance (in the gospel), especially in the face of hardship. In so doing he will appeal to his (Paul’s) own example (e.g., 1:11–12; 2:9–10; 3:10–11), to their long association (e.g., 3:10–11), and to Timothy’s own spiritual history (e.g., 1:6–7, 13–14; 3:10–15). These are precisely the items that dominate the thanksgiving.

Thus, by way of thanksgiving, he reminds Timothy of his past loyalty (v. 4) and faith (v. 5) and of their common “roots” in the faith (vv. 3 and 5). From these reminders he will launch his initial appeal for steadfastness (vv. 6–14).

1:3 As a former Law-keeping Pharisee (Phil. 3:5), Paul would long ago have made it his habit to pray regularly. Such a practice was easily carried over to his Christian life so that he prayed night and day (cf. the requirement for widows in 1 Tim. 5:5). These prayers normally consisted of giving thanks to God for his recipients (as I constantly remember you in my prayers), because of something God had done in their lives (v. 5; cf. Rom. 1:8; 1 Cor. 1:4–7; Phil. 1:3–6; Col. 1:3–7; 1 Thess. 1:2–3; 2 Thess. 2:13; Philem. 4–5). The word constantly, which occurs in most of the thanksgivings, does not refer to unceasing prayer and thanksgiving (as implied in the KJV) but indicates that he always remembered Timothy in his regular times of prayer.

In mentioning God in this case, Paul adds a remarkable qualifier: whom I serve, as my forefathers did, with a clear conscience (for this last phrase, see disc. on 1 Tim. 1:5). The clause itself is not so unusual (cf. Rom. 1:9, “whom I serve with my whole heart in preaching the gospel of his Son,” NIV); but the final phrase is (lit., “from my forefathers,” which can mean as my forefathers did [NIV], or “[the God] of my forefathers” [NAB]). Because of Paul’s word order, the NIV is probably correct. But what could he possibly be trying to say? Most likely this prepares the way for the reminder to Timothy in verse 5, by suggesting that Paul’s service unto God stands in the true succession of the religion of the OT, that genuine continuity exists between the OT (cf. esp. 3:14–17) and his preaching of the gospel (cf. Acts 24:14; 26:6; Rom. 2:28–29; 4:9–17; 9:1–9; Gal. 3:6–9). The reason for such an emphasis here is perhaps related to the false teachers, who are also using the OT, but “falsely” so (cf. 1 Tim. 1:7; Titus 3:9). In any case, this theme will be repeated throughout the Epistle (1:9–10; 2:8, 19; 3:8, 14–17).

1:4 Verses 3–5 form a single sentence in the Greek, whose structural relationships are somewhat blurred by the NIV. The basic sentence reads: “I give thanks to God, … as I remember you always in my prayers” (v. 3), … because (or when) “I remember your sincere faith” (v. 5). Verse 4, therefore, reads as something of an aside. The mention of remembering Timothy “in his prayers” (v. 3) prompts in Paul a memory of another kind—their last parting (probably that referred to in 1 Tim. 1:3). One can hardly escape the sense of pathos. “When I remember you in my prayers,” Paul says, “I am filled with longing to see you, because I also am continually reminded of your tears when we last parted.”

Although this deviates slightly from the main thrust of the sentence, it nonetheless strikes a note that belongs to the ultimate reason for the letter—Paul’s loneliness in his final vigil and his desire for Timothy to join him, despite the unfinished work in Ephesus (hence 2:2; see 4:6–8, 9, 16, 21). Thus he longs to see him, so that he may be filled with joy.

1:5 With this clause Paul returns to the thanksgiving proper, now expressing the basis for it—God’s work in Timothy’s life. This work is expressed in terms of Timothy’s sincere (or perhaps better in these letters, “genuine”; see disc. on 1 Tim. 1:5) faith, which in this case means at least his genuine trust in God but also perhaps moves toward the idea of “faithfulness,” that is, his continuing steadfast in his faith. Paul regularly considers this quality in God’s people to be thankworthy (cf. 1 Thess. 1:3; 3:6–7; 2 Thess. 1:3; Rom. 1:8; Col. 1:4; Philem. 5).

Because this letter will basically be an appeal to Timothy to maintain his loyalty and steadfastness (to Christ, Paul, and the ministry of the gospel) in the face of suffering, he is therefore prompted to remind Timothy that the same faith he has—and is to be loyal to—was what first lived in your grandmother Lois and in your mother Eunice. That is, “Don’t lose heart, because just as my ministry has continuity with my forebears (v. 3), so does yours. Don’t forget your roots; they go way back, and your own faith is like that of your mother and grandmother.”

The mention of his maternal parentage is in keeping with the evidence of Acts 16:1, where we learn that Eunice was a Jewish Christian, whose husband was a Gentile. Paul’s appeal to her faith, therefore, although almost certainly referring to her faith as a believer in Christ, also reflects his view that such faith is the genuine expression of the Jewish heritage, that is, that faith in Christ is the true continuity with the religion of the OT (cf. v. 3). It should also be noted in passing that, the more personal the letter, the more often Paul mentions personal names (twenty-two in this letter; cf. Philemon, nine).

Finally, to register his concern one more time, he adds, I am persuaded it now lives in you also. This confidence in Timothy’s genuine faith becomes the springboard for the appeal that follows (1:6–2:13). Thus, as in other letters (esp. 1 Thessalonians, Romans, and Colossians), the thanksgiving not only sets out some of the themes of the letter but actually moves directly into the letter itself.

Additional Notes

For a collection of examples of the prayer-wish in the Hellenistic letters, see F. X. J. Exler (The Form of the Ancient Greek Letter of the Epistolary Papyri), pp. 102–11. For a collection of the letters themselves, see A. S. Hunt and C. C. Edgar, Select Papyri I, Loeb (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1932), pp. 268–395.

The best recent discussion of the Pauline thanksgivings is by P. T. O’Brien, Introductory Thanksgivings in the Letters of Paul, NovT Suppl. 49 (Leiden: Brill, 1977), who, unfortunately, chooses not to include this one (p. 2). Although there are some linguistic features about the thanksgiving that are not Paul’s ordinary usage (these are conveniently set out by Kelly, p. 155), the whole is so Pauline that one should wonder how a pseudepigrapher could have so thoroughly grasped the spirit of the man, yet fail to use his precise language. Changes in Paul’s own linguistic patterns could be more easily accounted for.

Appeal to Loyalty Despite Hardship

This section forms the first part of an appeal—extending through 2:13—that urges Timothy to be steadfast and loyal in the face of increasing gains by the false teachers, on the one hand (2:16–18; 3:13; 4:3–4), and increasing defections of various kinds (1:15; 4:10–16) due to Paul’s (apparently political) imprisonment (1:8, 12; 2:9; 4:16–17), on the other. In light of these circumstances, he appeals for Timothy’s continued loyalty to his own Spirit-given ministry (vv. 6–7, 13–14; cf. 1 Tim. 1:18; 4:14), which means in turn to be loyal to Christ and his gospel (vv. 8a, 9–10) and to Paul in his imprisonment (vv. 8b, 11–12).

The argument begins and ends with an emphasis on the empowering of the Holy Spirit for Timothy’s ministry (vv. 6–7 and 13–14). Verse 8 sets the stage for the rest by its two-sided appeal: not to be ashamed of Christ or of Paul his prisoner but, on the contrary, to be ready to join with Paul in the present suffering. The basis for such an appeal is grounded in the gospel of Christ, who has given us hope by his abolition of death and revelation of life and immortality (vv. 9–10). Thus, do not be ashamed of Christ (v. 8a). Then he reminds Timothy of his (Paul’s) own ministry, as one who is not ashamed to suffer for Christ, because God can be fully trusted to keep safe what has been entrusted to him. Thus, do not be ashamed of me.

Examples of those who have deserted Paul (v. 15) and of one who was not ashamed of him (vv. 16–18) follow this first appeal. The second part of the appeal (2:1–13) takes up especially the theme of Timothy’s need for steadfastness as he takes his own part in the suffering.

1:6 As noted in the discussion on v. 5, Paul moves directly from the thanksgiving to the main concern of the letter. The for this reason refers to the genuine faith that Paul is persuaded really does reside in Timothy. Believing that he has such faith, Paul now reminds him (a verb chosen almost certainly because of the threefold “remember” in vv. 3–5) to fan into flame the gift. This verb is a metaphor for rekindling a waning fire. It does not necessarily imply an actual wavering or dying faith on Timothy’s part, but it does urge with very strong language that he fan into flame the gift that God gave him long ago at the time of his call, through the laying on of Paul’s hands.

The picture of Timothy that emerges from these two verses (6 and 7), and throughout the Epistle, coincides with what surfaces elsewhere (cf. 1 Tim. 4:12; 5:23; 1 Cor. 16:10–11)—that Timothy is both a younger and less forceful colleague. As in 1 Timothy (1:18 and 4:14), a part of Paul’s appeal, therefore, is to remind him of the spiritual gift (for ministry; Gk. charisma; see disc. on 1 Tim. 4:14) of God that was given to him at the time of his call (“through words of prophecy”; 1 Tim. 1:18; 4:14) and that was recognized by the laying on of hands. In 1 Timothy 4:14 (which see), where a part of the concern was to authenticate Timothy before the church, Paul mentions the laying on of hands by the elders. Here, where the interest is almost totally personal, the focus is on Paul’s own part in that call, thus appealing to their close personal ties. Note a similar appeal to Timothy’s beginnings in 1 Timothy 6:12–14.

1:7 Although the NIV’s translation of “spirit” in this verse with a lower case s is possible (since the definite article is absent in Greek) and follows the traditional English versions (KJV, RSV), it is most highly improbable and quite misses both the relationship of this sentence to verse 6 as well as Paul’s own usage and theology elsewhere. That Paul is referring not to some “spirit” (or attitude) that God has given us (him and Timothy, but ultimately all other believers who must equally persevere in the face of hardship), but to the Holy Spirit of God is made certain by several items: (a) the explanatory for that begins this sentence gives it the closest possible tie to verse 6; (b) the close relationship between charisma (“gift,” v. 6) and the Spirit (v. 7) is thoroughly Pauline (see on 1 Tim. 4:14); (c) the words power and love are especially attributed to the Spirit in Paul; and (d) there are close ties between this verse and 1 Timothy 4:14, where the “gifting” of Timothy is specifically singled out as the work of the Spirit.

Furthermore, the typical Pauline “not … but” contrast, especially the parallels in Romans 8:15 and 1 Corinthians 2:12, is determinative. In each case the difficulty arises from Paul’s first mentioning the negative contrast, which does not in fact fit the Holy Spirit very well (“of slavery,” “of the world,” and “of timidity”). But it is equally clear in each case that when Paul gets to the “but” clause, he intends the Holy Spirit. Thus Paul’s intent goes something like this: “For when God gave us his Spirit, it was not timidity that we received, but power, love, and self-discipline.”

Paul’s concern, of course, ties into what he has just said in verse 6. In light of the appeal to persevere in the face of hardship, he urges Timothy to “fan into flame the charisma from God,” namely, his giftedness for ministry. The basis for this appeal goes back to his original gift of the Spirit, given at conversion. In giving his Spirit to Timothy, God did not give him timidity—a translation that is probably too weak. The word, often appearing in battle contexts, suggests “cowardice” or the terror that overtakes the fearful in extreme difficulty (cf. Lev. 26:36; 2 Macc. 3:24). It is a particularly appropriate choice of words for this letter, given Timothy’s apparent natural proclivities and the suffering and hardship now facing him.

To the contrary, and in the face of present hardships, Paul reminds Timothy that the Spirit has endowed him with power (a thoroughgoing NT and Pauline understanding; cf. e.g., Acts 1:8; Rom. 15:13, 19; 1 Cor. 2:4), love (cf. Gal. 5:22; Rom. 5:5), and self-discipline (sōphronismos; a different word for “self-discipline” from that of Gal. 5:23). This is a cognate, and here probably a synonym, for the “soundmindedness” of Titus 2:2, 5, and elsewhere. In all likelihood Paul intended to call for a “wise head” in the face of the deceptive and unhealthy teaching of the errorists.

Thus Paul begins his appeal by reminding Timothy of his own “gift of the Spirit” for ministry, who in turn has given him the necessary power, love, and soundmindedness to carry out that ministry.

1:8 With the two imperatives of this verse (do not be ashamed, and join with me in suffering) we come to the heart of this first appeal. These imperatives are closely tied to what has preceded by the so (better, “therefore”). That is, for the very reason that “the Spirit God has given us” leads not to cowardice but “fills us with power” (not to mention also because of the close personal ties between them, vv. 3–6), Paul exhorts Timothy to further loyalty, both to the gospel and to Paul himself.

This appeal has its clear life-setting in Paul’s present imprisonment for the sake of the gospel (cf. 2:9). As will be articulated in 3:12, such suffering for the gospel has for Paul always been a part of the ongoing proclamation of the gospel (cf., e.g., 1 Thess. 1:6; 2:14; 3:4; 2 Cor. 4:7–15; Rom. 8:17; Col. 1:24; Phil. 1:12, 29). In Paul’s understanding this suffering is closely tied to Christ’s own suffering, both the physical pain of torture and the humiliation of the shamefulness of crucifixion. Only in this context can one accurately hear the two imperatives, which are actually the two sides of a single reality.

Determining a precise meaning for the expression do not be ashamed poses some difficulties. The word frequently refers to “deserved” humiliation or disgrace, but more often it is “undeserved” humiliation and, especially for the biblical writers, humiliation from which one hopes for divine vindication (e.g., Ps. 25:1–3). At other times it relates to the stigma or embarrassment of association with that which has shame. In this passage these latter two meanings seem to coalesce. There is a stigma to being associated with a crucified Messiah (thus a state criminal) and his (political) prisoner. Yet it is “undeserved humiliation” from which there will be vindication “on that Day” (see v. 12). Thus, Paul does not want Timothy to avoid the humiliation generated by his association with Christ (to testify about our Lord, or perhaps to be understood more objectively, “of the witness [gospel] about our Lord”) or by his association with me, his prisoner (when imprisoned for Christ, Paul was not in his own thinking a prisoner of the empire, but of Christ himself).

On the contrary (but), Paul exhorts Timothy, paradoxically, to join in the “humiliation”: Join with me in suffering (or perhaps, “take your part in suffering,” as GNB), but not just any suffering. It is suffering for the gospel, suffering that will be his both by his association with the gospel and by his own activities in its behalf (hence, v. 6: “fan into flame your gift of the Spirit for ministry”). Thus the two imperatives of this verse entreat Timothy to the three basic loyalties: to Christ (and his gospel), to Paul, and to his own ministry.

But again, aware of Timothy’s character and of the difficulties ahead, Paul adds the dimension of divine help: by the power of God (the same word as in v. 7). This mention of God launches Paul into a creedlike expression of the gospel itself (vv. 9–10; the first loyalty), which is followed in turn by Paul’s own example (vv. 11–12; the second loyalty), and a final exhortation to “guard the deposit” (vv. 13–14; cf. 1 Tim. 6:20; the third loyalty).

1:9–10 In a fashion typical of these letters, Paul supports his point with a semicreedal formulation, which gives a brief, and not necessarily complete, expression of the gospel, which is at the same time particularly adapted to the concerns of the present argument (see disc. on Titus 2:11–14 and 3:4–7). In this case the emphases are particularly fitting for one whose gift needs “fanning into flame” and who is being urged “not to be ashamed of the gospel but to take his part in the suffering.” (All of vv. 8–11 in fact are a single sentence in Gk.)

Having noted that Timothy’s taking his part in suffering can only be accomplished “by the power of God,” Paul emphasizes that this is the same God who saved us and called us, and that this saving act resided in God’s own gracious purpose … before the beginning of time, but was revealed historically as an expression of grace … through the appearing of … Christ, whose work in this instance is defined as destroying death and revealing immortality. Thus he braces Timothy’s resolve by emphasizing God’s sovereign grace and purpose to render death inoperative, and by insisting that this revelation resides in the very gospel for which Timothy is to “take his part in suffering”!

The formulation begins with a common theme in the PE: It is “God” who has saved us (see disc. on 1 Tim. 1:1; 2:3–4; 4:10; Titus 1:3; 2:10; 3:4–5). In a typically Pauline fashion, such salvation also constitutes our calling (see disc. on 1 Tim. 6:12; cf., e.g., 2 Thess. 2:13–14; 1 Cor. 1:9, 24, 26; Rom. 8:28–30). God both initiated and effected salvation. In this case the call is qualified as (literally) “a holy calling.” This is a Semitic construction whose meaning is not altogether certain. It could be a dative of means, “with a holy calling” (RSV, NASB), because it comes from a holy God. More likely it is a dative of interest, to a holy life (cf. esp. 1 Thess. 4:7) or “to be a holy people” (cf. NEB; cf. “called to be saints” or “God’s holy people,” 1 Cor. 1:2, etc.).

As in Titus 3:5 and elsewhere in Paul (e.g., Eph. 2:8–9), God’s saving act is based not on what we have done, but on his own purpose and grace. This is a thoroughly Pauline way of saying it (cf. Rom. 8:28–30), as are the descriptions of that purpose and grace that follow—although the stating of them is a bit convoluted. God’s saving us, Paul says to Timothy, is predicated on his purpose and grace, both of which, not just his grace, find expression (were given us) in Christ Jesus. Because he is a God of grace, he purposed our salvation in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time (cf. Titus 1:2), but only now has it been revealed through the appearing (epiphaneia; see disc. on Titus 2:11, 13; 3:4; cf. 1 Tim. 6:14) of our Savior, Christ Jesus (cf. Titus 1:4; 3:6). For this very Pauline view of things, see the discussion on Titus 1:2–3 (cf. 1 Cor. 2:7–10; Eph. 1:4).

Finally, and especially significantly for this context of bolstering Timothy’s resolve to take his share of the suffering, Paul describes the effect of this “manifestation”: He has destroyed death (“rendered death ineffectual,” Berkeley) and has brought life and immortality (lit., “life and incorruptibility,” cf. Rom. 2:7) to light. As usual in Paul, salvation has an eschatological outlook. But the immortality that is yet to be is in a sense already ours, because in his appearing (incarnation), and especially through the cross and resurrection, our last enemy, death, has already received its mortal wound. So his word to Timothy is plain: “Be steadfast; rekindle your gift; take your part in the suffering; for we are already among those who have overcome death through Christ.”

All of this has been brought to light, Paul notes, through the gospel; and just as the mention of “the power of God” at the end of verse 8 launched Paul into this creedlike statement of God’s saving activity, so now this mention of the gospel will, as often before, prompt him to restate his own role in proclaiming that gospel.

1:11–12 With this clause the sentence that began in verse 8 is brought to a close. Paul began with a twofold appeal for Timothy not to be ashamed either of the gospel of Christ or of Paul, Christ’s prisoner. Verses 9–10 then function both as a reminder of the content of that gospel—why he should not be ashamed of it—and as a bolster in the face of hardship. Having concluded by noting that God’s saving event, his Good News, was brought to light “through the gospel,” he now affirms his own role in this gospel, and he does so in order to make his next point (v. 12), that it is for the sake of the gospel, and his own role in proclaiming it, that he is now in prison—which is why Timothy should not be ashamed of him as well (v. 8).

Verse 11 almost repeats 1 Timothy 2:7 but lacks the insertion “I am not lying; I am telling the truth” and the phrase “of the Gentiles” (although this latter is added to the majority of later MSS). Thus his concern here is not with the solemn affirmation of his ministry to the Gentiles but simply with his appointment as a herald (see disc. on 1 Tim. 2:7) and an apostle and a teacher … of (lit., “for the sake of”) this gospel. The ordering of the three words makes it clear that the emphasis is not on his authority as an apostle, but on the gospel itself and his own relationship to it.

With verse 12 Paul ties his role as a messenger of the gospel (That is why; i.e., what is said in v. 11) to his present circumstances (I am suffering as I am, i.e., his imprisonment; cf. v. 9; 2:9). It is probably not his appointment or his apostleship that he has in mind as the reason; rather, it is the fulfilling of his commission as herald-apostle-teacher of the gospel that has resulted in his present trouble.

Since he is writing to Timothy so that, not only will he not retreat (“be ashamed”) under these circumstances, but he will also be prepared to take his own share of suffering (v. 8), Paul encourages him by noting his own response. I myself am not ashamed (cf. Rom. 1:16). But what does it mean for Paul to be not ashamed? It could mean “not ashamed of the gospel,” despite what has happened. More likely it means, “my imprisonment causes me no personal shame,” precisely because it is for Christ and his gospel. Furthermore, similar to the psalmists who hope for vindication from God in the time of their humiliation (e.g., Pss. 31:1–5; 69:9), Paul knows no shame in his imprisonment, because he knows the One (probably “God,” perhaps “Christ”) whom he has believed (in the context of this sentence “trusted” is to be preferred).

Considerable disagreement exists over the meaning of the rest of the sentence, which expresses Paul’s confidence in his ultimate vindication. Literally, the text reads: “And I am convinced that he is able to guard my deposit unto that day.” The problems are, first, whether “my deposit” is something God has entrusted to Paul or something Paul has entrusted to God and, second, to what the metaphor “deposit” refers.

Most contemporary scholars, convinced that the metaphor itself must have the same meaning here as in verse 14, understand it to refer to the “sound teaching” of verse 13—the gospel itself—that God has entrusted to Paul (v. 12), that Paul in turn has entrusted to Timothy (v. 14; cf. 1 Tim. 6:20) and that Timothy is likewise to entrust to others (2:2). As attractive as that alternative is, it is unfortunately based on a prior commitment to the meaning of the metaphor and does not take seriously enough the plain sense of the idiom guard what has been entrusted (“guard the deposit”). Since it is God who is here envisioned as guarding “my deposit,” the idiom demands that it is therefore something entrusted to God (as to Timothy in v. 14), not something God has entrusted to another that he yet continues to guard. The clearly eschatological force of for that day also supports this understanding.

What precisely the metaphor itself means is not certain. Very likely it refers either to Paul’s life or to his commitment to Christ and his gospel. But in either case the emphasis parallels that of verses 9–10. Just as the gospel announces a salvation that God in grace initiated and effected, and through which he rendered death ineffective, so also the same God can be trusted to guard … for the End the life that has been entrusted to his care.

1:13–14 In these final two verses Paul returns to the direct appeal to Timothy, but now with some slightly different nuances. The entreaty from verses 6–12 has been very personal and directly related to Paul’s present circumstances and his and Timothy’s personal relationship. But Paul has not forgotten the ongoing threat of the false teachers and the havoc they have been generating. The language of the two parallel imperatives of these verses indicates that they must be understood in this light (as v. 15 also seems to suggest).

The first imperative repeats the concern throughout the PE that Timothy keep as the pattern of sound teaching (see disc. on 1 Tim. 1:10). As always, the sound teaching is that which you heard from me (cf. 2:2, where the same wording appears; cf. also 3:10; 1 Tim. 4:6). Such a concern elsewhere always is expressed against the backdrop of the false teachers.

Although Paul’s intent in this sentence is clear enough, the actual wording is not (lit., “hold an example of sound words”). Probably this means that what Paul taught is to serve as a model for Timothy’s teaching (as most interpreters; but see the NEB and Moffatt for alternatives).

The final prepositional phrase, faith and love in Christ Jesus, is likewise not altogether clear. It seems certain that Timothy’s faith (not the faith) and love are products of his being in Christ Jesus (see disc. on 1 Tim. 1:14; cf. Gal. 5:22). But how this phrase relates to the verb presents a more difficult problem. The sense seems to go something like this: “Let what you have learned from me serve as your model for sound teaching, but let it do so as you yourself also model faith [or faithfulness] and love.”

The final imperative, guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you, parallels verse 13, but now in the language of 1 Timothy 6:20 (which see). “Timothy,” Paul urges, “keep safe what I have deposited with you; it is a sacred trust.” Since what was entrusted is described as good, it almost certainly refers to the “sound teaching” of the gospel. He must not allow it to be purloined or eroded by the false teachings. But for such a charge, Timothy is not to think of himself as on his own. He is to fulfill his responsibilities with the help of the Holy Spirit (see v. 7) who lives in us.

Thus the appeal has come full circle. It began by urging that Timothy fan into flame his gift of ministry, which was his through the power of the Spirit (vv. 6–7). Then Paul urged loyalty to the gospel and to himself, even though now a prisoner. After detailing the gospel and Paul’s own loyalty to it, with emphasis on God’s sovereignty, he returns to urge once more loyalty to his (Timothy’s) own ministry and to the gospel; and again he is to do so with the help of the Spirit. From here Paul will turn to some examples of disloyalty and of one who was especially loyal (to Paul in his imprisonment).

Additional Notes

1:6–7 Because of the close relationship between this appeal and the thanksgiving, modern editors have not all agreed on the best scheme of paragraphing. The paragraphing followed by this commentary (3–5, 6–12, 13–14), which differs from the NIV (vv. 3–7, 8–12, 13–14), adheres closely to Paul’s own sentencing. It is also followed by Kelly and NA26.

Although Paul clearly says “through the laying on of my hands” in v. 6, the evidence from 1 Tim. 1:18 and 4:14 suggests that it was by the Spirit (“through prophetic utterances”) that Timothy received his gift, and that it was accompanied by the laying on of hands. Therefore, the dia (“through”) is either attendant circumstance (so Barrett) or simply a “telescoped” expression (like “by faith” for “by grace through faith”).

Given the fully Pauline character of v. 7, it seems biased on Hanson’s part to say, “but the word the author uses here, sōphronismos, has a slight element of prudential ethic in it that is foreign to Paul’s way of thinking” (pp. 121–22). A similar thing could be said of the use of enkrateia (“self-discipline”) in Gal. 5:23, if one believed Paul did not write that letter.

1:8 For the concept of “ashamed/shame” in Paul (and the rest of the NT) see esp. H. C. Kee, “The Linguistic Background of ‘Shame’ in the New Testament,” in On Language, Culture, and Religion: In Honor of Eugene A. Nida, ed. M. Black and W. A. Smalley (The Hague: Mouton, 1974), pp. 133–47.

1:9–10 On the matter of these creedlike formulations in the PE, see disc. on Titus 2:11–14 and esp. 3:4–7. As with the Titus passages, there is nothing of the nature of a hymn here (despite Easton). The use of the word “liturgical” for these formulations (as Hanson) is likewise arguing for more than the data themselves suggest.

1:11–12 Given the context, the order of the three titles, and the fact that when Paul wants to assert his authority he emphasizes his apostleship, it seems to miss the point of vv. 11–12 rather widely to argue (as Hanson, p. 124): “The three titles given to Paul here are intended to enhance his sole authority in the churches which he founded.”

For arguments on both sides of the question of who has been entrusted with the deposit in v. 12, see Kelly or Bernard for “entrusted to God,” and W. Barclay “Paul’s Certainties VII. Our Security in God—2 Timothy i. 12” for “entrusted to Paul.”

1:13–14 See Bernard (p. 112) for a full presentation and good discussion of the alternative possibilities for understanding this sentence.

Examples of Disloyalty and Loyalty

At first sight this section may seem irrelevant to the appeal that surrounds it. It lacks any words of exhortation to Timothy (none of the second person singular imperatives that otherwise predominate in the letter); its content seems to have little in common with its context. Nonetheless, as with other such “digressions” in these letters (cf., e.g., 1 Tim. 1:12–17), this section is not without purpose. In this case the key to its significance lies in Onesiphorus’ not being ashamed of Paul’s imprisonment (cf. vv. 8 and 12). Apparently the mentioning of his imprisonment in verse 12, plus his appeal to Timothy to “guard” what has been “entrusted to” him (v. 14), reminded Paul, first, of many who had not kept that trust (v. 15), and, second, of one who in particular had not only not deserted but had gone out of his way to the share the “shame” of Paul’s imprisonment.

In this paragraph we sense the pain of Paul’s present situation and his loneliness, brought about both by what has happened in Ephesus (v. 15; cf. 2:14–3:9) and by his unfavorable circumstances in Rome (vv. 16–18; cf. 4:6–18). The paragraph, however, is not without its difficulties, especially in trying to reconstruct some of the historical matters to which it alludes.

1:15 Paul begins by reminding Timothy of something of which he was all too painfully aware. You know all about what’s going on in the province of Asia (lit., “in Asia,” which may in fact refer to the whole province, but includes at least Ephesus). But precisely because Timothy did know, we are left a bit in the dark as to what has happened—and when and where.

Paul says that everyone in … Asia has deserted him. Almost all are agreed that these deserters are in Asia at the time of writing. But everyone? Either this means that some Asians, including Onesiphorus, had come to Rome, and all but Onesiphorus had deserted him and returned home (so Bernard), or else (more likely) it means that the defections in Asia have been so staggering (Kelly, “the exaggeration [of] depression”) that even friends (presumably) from whom he would have expected more—including [perhaps led by] Phygelus and Hermogenes—have deserted him.

If this is how we are to understand “who” and “where,” then “when” probably has to do with events since the writing of 1 Timothy, perhaps a general “abandoning ship” at the news of Paul’s arrest (cf. Kelly). Paul himself would have been informed of it by Onesiphorus.

But what does it mean, have deserted me? If our reconstruction thus far is correct, then at least it means that they have abandoned their loyalty to Paul. If so, then for him that would mean they have also abandoned his gospel, since that is about the only way one could desert the apostle; and that is precisely how the same verb is used elsewhere in the PE (4:4; Titus 1:14; a different verb is used of the personal “desertions” in 4:10).

1:16–17 The mention of those from Asia who had deserted him prompts Paul to pray for mercy for the household of one who did not. This sudden bursting out in a wish-prayer (hardly intercession, as Kelly, but an expression of Paul’s desires for them; cf. 2 Thess. 3:16; Rom. 15:5) for the household of Onesiphorus (cf: 4:19) means that he is not now with them (otherwise Paul would have said “to Onesiphorus and his household”). The fact that Paul should begin his reminder about Onesiphorus in this way, by asking for present mercy for his household, and that at the end (v. 18a) he should ask for future mercy (on that Day) for Onesiphorus himself, suggests very strongly that Onesiphorus had died in the meantime. If so, it could only have increased Paul’s present pain and loneliness.

But the memory of Onesiphorus lingers on. His actions in Rome are a model of loyalty (for Timothy’s sake surely). He often refreshed me. In a culture in which imprisonment often involved self-sustenance, such “refreshment” probably included food as well as “cheering up.” Moreover, and the more significant reason for mentioning him at all, he was not ashamed of my chains. The “shame” in this case was hardly that of embarrassment. Here was a man who was willing to take the risk of regularly visiting one who was a state criminal and who would soon be condemned to die. Under such circumstances, desertions had been plentiful (see disc. on 4:16–17), but not so with Onesiphorus. Indeed, when he was in Rome, he searched hard [Gk., “he looked diligently”] for me until he found me. The implication is that Paul was not in a “public” prison and that finding him required a considerable effort on the part of Onesiphorus.

Paul’s point to Timothy is clear enough. “Don’t you be ashamed of the gospel or of me, Christ’s prisoner (v. 8). Some have (v. 15), but not Onesiphorus (vv. 16–17); so be like him.”

1:18 Having already entreated mercy for his household (v. 16a), presumably because of their loss, Paul now desires (again in the form of a wish-prayer) for Onesiphorus himself: may the Lord grant that he will find mercy from the Lord on that day! On that day, as in verse 12, can only refer to the Second Advent. Thus it is hard to escape the implication that Onesiphorus is now dead. Why else, one wonders, especially in light of verse 16, should Paul only wish him to find (a word play on Onesiphorus’ having “found” him; v. 17) mercy at the End?

Does this, then, countenance prayers for the departed? Many think so. However, before one builds Christian doctrine on such a text, one needs to be cautioned that such an idea is quite singular to this one, not totally certain, text and that it merely expresses Paul’s sentiment toward, or desire for, Onesiphorus. It is not, in fact, intercessory prayer (cf. the difference with Eph. 1:17, e.g.); rather, it is an acknowledgment that even one like Onesiphorus has only God’s mercy as his appeal.

Almost as an afterthought, Paul remembers that Timothy will easily recognize that Onesiphorus’ actions in Rome should come as no surprise. As Timothy would know very well, it was quite in keeping with the man. Timothy will recall in how many ways he helped Paul in Ephesus. One cannot be sure whether such “service” (Gk. word for “serving,” or “ministering”) was rendered much earlier when Paul and Timothy were together in Ephesus (cf. 1 Cor. 4:17 with 16:8), or whether it was during Timothy’s recent tenure (per 1 Timothy). In either case, it happened when Timothy was on hand to observe, and now Onesiphorus’ devoted service is being recalled—as a gentle prod to Timothy.

Additional Notes

Personal notes of the kind found in this paragraph create, as Kelly notes, “a particularly vivid impression of authenticity, and also special difficulties for any theory of pseudonymity” (p. 168). So much is this so that most scholars allow that the material here is probably authentic, even if they believe the letter is not (e. g., Barrett).

1:15 Spicq suggests that the phrase “all who are in Asia” may be a Semitism for “all who are from Asia,” thus implying that all other Asians in Rome abandoned Paul except Onesiphorus. However, that is a forced reading of the text, and one can make sense of it as it stands.

There are still other hypotheses about the historical circumstances behind this sentence. Barrett, e.g., tentatively suggests that it might reflect a time alluded to in 2 Cor. 1:8; Hendriksen submits that these people had been summoned to testify but did not come. Most of these suggestions see the desertion only as related to Paul’s imprisonment and, therefore, strictly in contrast to Onesiphorus. In fact, D-C make the surprising comment that the verb “cannot be understood to imply apostasy from the gospel, because of the comparatively mild terminology” (p. 106). But that seems to neglect too much evidence to the contrary. The overall context of 1:6–2:13, followed closely by 2:14–3:9, would seem to favor the reconstruction offered here.

1:16 For a formal consideration of the “wish-prayer” in Paul, see G. P. Wiles, Paul’s Intercessory Prayers, SNTSMS 24 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974), pp. 45–155.

Hendriksen (and others) properly cautions that one cannot be certain that Onesiphorus is dead, but his argument that Paul would have explicitly said so if “this hero” had died, is special pleading. He simply does not take seriously enough the abrupt nature of introducing Onesiphorus by wishing mercy for his household or that the prayer-wish of v. 18a interrupts the text (note how smoothly it reads without it) and can only be explained as a sudden wordplay on “find,” which then is expressed eschatologically precisely because he is now dead.

1:18 The prayer-wish literally reads: “May the Lord grant him to find mercy from the Lord on that day.” Several explanations for this awkward construction have been offered (see Kelly or Hanson). The most likely (adopted by Spicq, Kelly, Hanson, et al.) is that the first Lord refers to Christ (as in vv. 2 and 8 above, and ordinarily in Paul and the PE), and that the second refers to God and reflects the LXX.

The Appeal Renewed

After a brief “digression” in 1:15–18 that reminded Timothy of the disloyalty of “everyone in Asia,” with the noteworthy exception of Onesiphorus, Paul resumes the appeal to Timothy. With an emphatic, you then, in contrast to those in verse 15, Paul repeats the urgencies of 1:6–14: that he fulfill his trust and ministry (reflecting 1:6–7 and 13–14), in this instance by entrusting it to others (v. 2), and that he be ready to endure hardship (v. 3, reflecting the main concern of 1:8–12).

A series of three analogies (military, athletics, farming) reinforce the appeal to suffering and emphasize the need for wholehearted devotion to service (vv. 4–5) and the expectation of reward beyond the hardship (vv. 5–6). These emphases will be repeated in a different way in 2:8–13.

2:1 This opening imperative, which in a general way gathers up the concerns of 1:6–14 and anticipates those that follow (2:2–13), is tied to what has preceded with an emphatic su oun (you then). You then stands in contrast to the general defection of the Asians (1:15) but in keeping with the likes of an Onesiphorus. The oun is at least resumptive (“then”), perhaps consequential (“therefore”), and goes back to the imperatives of 1:13–14.

You, therefore (having already been urged to suffer and keep the trust, and now in the light of the Asians and Onesiphorus), be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. The imperative be strong (cf. 4:17; 1 Tim. 1:12; Rom. 4:20; Eph. 6:10; Phil. 4:13) is present tense (i.e., “keep on being”), passive voice, whose proper force is that one is being strengthened by God. The phrase in the grace can be either instrumental (“by means of the grace”) or locative (“in the grace,” so NIV). Though it is true that grace is the means by which we are saved and by which we are enabled to walk in God’s will, it is also true that that same grace is the sphere in which all of Christian life is lived (cf. Rom. 5:2). In light of the usage of this phrase in Ephesians 6:10 and elsewhere in the PE, Paul probably intends the latter. He wants Timothy to be strengthened by God himself as he stands in the grace that he has received. The source of such grace is to be found in Christ Jesus (cf. 1:13).

Thus Paul places the specific imperatives of this appeal (“Don’t be ashamed,” 1:8; “Take your share of suffering,” 1:8, 2:3; “Guard the deposit,” 1:14) within the context of this more general imperative of allowing God to strengthen him for his task of ministry. One should note the similarities with 1:6–7, 8c, and 14.

2:2 The first task he is to be strengthened for is tied closely to the imperatives of 1:13–14. Just as Timothy must “keep safe what has been entrusted to him,” so also he is now to entrust (the verb form of the noun “deposit” in 1:14; cf. 1 Tim. 6:20) them to reliable men who, in turn, will also be qualified to teach others.

What strikes one about this sentence is both its uniqueness in the PE and its apparent interruption in the flow of the argument (or appeal). It seems strange, therefore, that so many should see this singular text as the main point of all three letters. Paul, however, is not so much concerned about “apostolic succession” (a true anachronism), as he is with the gospel itself, in light of the reality that Timothy is being urged by this letter to leave Ephesus and join Paul in Rome (in his suffering; cf. 4:9, 21). Because Timothy must leave, he is to entrust the things he has heard Paul say to others. Those to whom he entrusts those teachings are to be reliable or trustworthy people (cf. 1 Tim. 1:12). The same adjective in the PE often means “believing” (cf. 1 Tim. 4:3, 10, 12; 6:2; Titus 1:6); but here, as with its usage in the phrase “here is a trustworthy saying” (2:11, etc.), the emphasis is on their reliable character, not their status—although the genuine elders of 1 Timothy 3:1–7 and 5:17–18 are probably in view.

What Timothy is to entrust to them also reflects 1:13–14: the things you have heard me say (lit., “what you heard from me,” precisely as in 1:13, so therefore probably implying “the sound teaching” mentioned there). This tie of the gospel to Paul’s own preaching is thoroughgoing in Paul, beginning as it does in his earliest letter (1 Thess. 2:13).

What is not clear in this sentence is the phrase in the presence of [dia, ordinarily “through”] many witnesses. If dia here means in the presence of (so Chrysostom [d. A.D. 407] and many others), it must refer to the time of Timothy’s coming to faith (cf. 1 Tim. 6:11–13). But it is difficult to understand the reason for such an emphasis, especially in light of 3:10–11, which makes a point of Timothy’s longstanding companionship with Paul. If dia means “through,” as seems more likely, it probably means not that Timothy himself heard Paul’s teachings as they were mediated through many witnesses, but that, as Timothy should well know, what Paul taught is also attested to by many others—a needed emphasis in light of the many defections in Ephesus. (Cf. the plural “from whom” in 3:14, which also would support this interpretation.)

2:3 With this imperative Paul returns to the second—and main—reason that Timothy needs “to be strengthened in the grace that is his in Christ,” namely, that he may, as Onesiphorus, “take his part in suffering.” Since this verb is an exact repetition from 1:8, this is by far the preferable translation to the endure hardship of the NIV (which has “join with me in suffering” in 1:8; cf. KJV, NEB). The verb (syn [“with”]-kako [“evil”]-paschō [“suffer”]) has to do with sharing suffering, not simply enduring difficulties, and is repeated by Paul (without the syn) in verse 9 of his own sufferings for the gospel.

On this occasion Paul qualifies the verb with an analogy from the military—like a good soldier of Christ Jesus. Military imagery is common in Paul (cf. 2 Cor. 10:3–5; Eph. 6:10–17; Philem. 2) and usually occurs in a context of struggling against opponents of his gospel (cf. 1 Tim. 1:18). While the imagery here may indeed reflect that concern (cf. 2:14–19), it more likely is a general metaphor for Timothy as a minister of the gospel, whose ministry has some analogies to the life of the soldier. By the very nature of his occupation, the soldier will often be called on to take his part in suffering.

2:4 The imagery of soldiering in verse 3 calls forth at this point a reflection on the metaphor itself, which in turn will lead to two further metaphors. In 1 Corinthians 9:7 Paul has previously used two of these metaphors; but there all three images make a singular point (ministers of the gospel have a right to expect support from those to whom they minister). Here the military metaphor makes a considerably different point (the need for perseverance), and the subsequent metaphors add yet a further nuance (the promise of eschatological reward); all of which looks forward to verses 11–13.

The metaphor itself propounds: No one serving as a soldier gets involved in civilian affairs—he wants to please his commanding officer. One must be careful not to press images into meanings that differ from the author’s intent. Here the concern follows directly from verse 3, that Timothy is to “take his share in suffering.” Thus it is not a proscription against marriage or a call for separation from worldliness, as it has often been treated by Roman Catholics or Protestant Fundamentalists. Paul’s concern is singular: Timothy must give himself, even to the point of great suffering, to wholehearted devotion to his divine commanding officer. Indeed, it should be his desire to please him. Such a desire will mean obedience to the call to service, including suffering. The analogy does not negate “civilian affairs”; rather, it disallows “looking back” (cf. Luke 9:61–62) or hankering for an easier path (in this case defecting, as have so many others).

2:5 The analogy calling for wholehearted devotion to service in order to “please” his Lord, calls for the companion analogy of an athlete (cf. 1 Tim. 1:18 and 6:12) who does not receive the victor’s crown unless he competes according to the rules. The emphasis now is on his “obeying the rules” (lit., “compete lawfully”; Gk., nomimōs, as in 1 Tim. 1:8), which seems to reflect a similar concern to that in verse 4. But it is not totally clear what “according to the rules” means: either the rules of the contest or the rules of training (e.g., the Games required a ten-month period of strict discipline). It probably refers to the rules of the contest itself, since the concern is not with Timothy’s need for discipline as such but with his taking his share “in suffering.” The “noble contest” (cf. 1 Tim. 6:12), like the “noble war” (cf. 1 Tim. 1:18), requires wholehearted devotion to the task, as well as full compliance with the rules of the contest, which in this case includes suffering.

However, although the accent falls upon according to the rules, the metaphor also reflects the eschatological emphasis recurrent in this letter (see esp. vv. 11–13; 4:6–8; cf. 1:1, 12). The athlete who competes according to the rules, that is, “takes his part in suffering,” will in fact receive the victor’s crown (cf. 4:8). For a similar use of athletics imagery in Paul, see 1 Corinthians 9:24–27.

2:6 With yet a further image, farming, Paul reemphasizes, with the promise of eschatological reward, the point of wholehearted devotion, even if it calls for suffering. As with the analogy in verse 5, the emphasis here lies on the hardworking farmer; again the point refers back to verse 3 with its sharing in suffering.

But also as in verse 5, the imagery again accents the eschatological reward; he should be the first to receive a share of the crops. The point of his receiving the first share, therefore, is not about his making a living from the gospel (D-C, Hanson), which is totally foreign to the context, but about his final reward for being hardworking.

Thus, even though the military imagery does not precisely say so, each of the metaphors, besides calling Timothy to “take his share in suffering,” looks forward to the eschatological prize. As Barrett nicely puts it: “Beyond warfare is victory, beyond athletic effort a prize, and beyond agricultural labour a crop” (p. 102).

2:7 The compounding of metaphors in verses 4–6 has led Paul from the specific point of his imperative for Timothy to “take part in suffering” to an equal emphasis on the eschatological “prize.” These two emphases form the basic point of the rest of the appeal (vv. 8–13). But in order to get to that final paragraph, Paul calls on Timothy to reflect on what I am saying, that is, the point of the three metaphors, which Paul has given without including explanations.

Just in case Timothy might miss the point, Paul adds that the Lord will give you (not “may the Lord grant you”; cf. KJV, which is based on an inferior text) insight into all this. Thus everything is from the Lord, both the strengthening to stand in his grace (v. 1) and the ability to understand the need to share in suffering.

Additional Notes

2:2 Those who take the “church manual” approach to these letters, and especially those who would date the letters as later pseudepigraphs, see this imperative as a key to understanding all three letters. Here is “the author” betraying his post-Pauline concerns of preserving the pure gospel through properly trained and ordained ministers. But the singularity of this verse in these letters must not be overlooked. The interpretation offered in this commentary accounts both for its singularity and its place in the context of this Epistle.

2:3 On the use of the military and athletic metaphors in Paul, see J. N. Sevenster, Paul and Seneca, pp. 162–64; and V. C. Pfitzner, Paul and the Agon Motif, pp. 157–86. Here is a clear case of the “authentic” Paul reflecting imagery in common with such contemporaries as Seneca and Philo, yet using it in a uniquely Christian way. The usage here, as Pfitzner convincingly demonstrates, reflects Pauline usage, not Hellenism or Hellenistic Judaism. This fact should cause one to be more cautious in describing other such metaphors, unique to these Epistles, as un-Pauline.

2:5 For the information that participants in the Olympic Games had to swear an oath to Zeus to observe strict training for the ten months prior to the competition, see Pausanius, Descriptions of Greece 5.24.9 (Loeb, II, p. 529). Kelly sees the point as “arduous self-discipline,” but that seems to move too far afield from the thoroughgoing context of sharing in suffering.

2:6 D-C, followed by Hanson and others who see the letter as pseudepigraphic, think the point of both the athlete and the farmer metaphors is remuneration. But this misses the clear eschatological sense of the reward (see vv. 11–13 and 4:6–8) as well as the point of the metaphors in the present context. Such an interpretation is the result of their view of authorship and their subsequent fascination with the author’s “sources” (here, 1 Cor. 9:7 and 24–27) while paying little or no attention to the point of the metaphors in context. The meaning of the metaphors, they argue, is left for “the reader to find out for himself,” which is their interpretation of v. 7 (p. 108). It is arguable that an interpretation that makes good sense both of the details and the context is to be preferred to this procedure.

Basis for the Appeal

With this paragraph Paul brings to a fitting conclusion his long appeal for Timothy to remain loyal—even to the point of suffering. His loyalty is to be primarily to Christ and the gospel, but it will be evidenced by his loyalty to Paul, a prisoner because of the gospel, and by faithfulness to his own ministry (1:6–14). When this appeal resumed in 2:1, it especially picked up the theme of Timothy’s readiness to share in suffering for the gospel, reinforced by the promise of eschatological reward (vv. 4–6; cf. 1:12).

This present paragraph provides the theological basis for the appeal. Timothy is urged to remember Jesus Christ himself, whose resurrection and Davidic descent are to bring him confidence (v. 8). But this mention of Christ leads to yet another reminder of Paul’s imprisonment and the reasons for it (vv. 9–10). He then concludes with the fifth “faithful saying,” a quatrain, apparently from a hymn or poem, which both encourages endurance (line 2) and warns against its lack (line 3), but concludes on the high note of God’s faithfulness (line 4).

Thus the basic themes of the whole section are reiterated: Christ and his gospel, Paul’s present suffering, and an appeal, with a warning, for Timothy himself (and now including God’s people) to endure despite the suffering.

2:8 Although verse 7 was something of an afterthought to the three preceding analogies, the reminder that the Lord would enable him to understand prompts the next imperative: Remember (“bear in mind,” Kelly) Jesus Christ. This picks up the “memory” motif that recurs in this letter (1:4–5, 6; 3:14–15). Just as Paul had earlier reminded him of the faith of his forebears (1:5), of his own call and empowering for ministry (1:6–7), and of the “sound teaching” he had had modeled before him in Paul (1:13; cf. 1:9–10), so now he calls him to focus his attention on Christ himself.

In his “bearing in mind Jesus Christ,” Timothy is to focus on two realities: that he was raised from the dead and that he was descended from David (lit., “of David’s seed”). The reason for the first of these two qualifiers is easy enough to discern. Jesus Christ … raised [better, “risen”] from the dead is both the prime example of eschatological victory after death (hence reflecting on vv. 5–6, and thus an encouragement to one who is also suffering) and Timothy’s source of strength (i.e., he who conquered death through resurrection will “strengthen you” for your task and endurance). Furthermore, it also anticipates the exposure of the false teachers in verses 14–18, who, by arguing that the “resurrection [of believers] has already taken place,” are in effect denying the eschatological future that Paul is affirming (vv. 5–6, 10).

That the focus of Timothy’s remembering Jesus Christ is on his being the Risen One is further demonstrated from the first couplet in the hymn (vv. 11–12a): “if we died with him, we will also live with him; if we endure, we will also reign with him.” Since this is so, one wonders, then what is the point of the second qualifier, descended from David? Several options have been offered. On the basis of the similar combination in Romans 1:3–4, some have seen the whole as a piece of early creedal material and suggest that this phrase was included from the source, but without its having any necessary significance for the context. Others see it as reference to the Incarnation, with emphasis on Christ’s humanity, over against an alleged Gnosticism on the part of the opponents (but its use in Rom. 1:3 speaks against this). Most likely, as in other such references in the NT, the point is not so much Christ’s humanity as it is his being the fulfillment of God’s promise and his people’s expectations. If so, then it fits the theme of continuity with the past (see disc. on 1:3, 5; cf. 3:14–17), especially of Christ as the true fulfillment and visible expression of God’s faithfulness.

Together these two realities, Jesus Christ risen from the dead and Jesus Christ of the seed of David form a brief epitome of my gospel (cf. 1 Tim. 1:11; Rom. 2:16; 16:25, “not invented by me but entrusted to me,” Lock). It assures Timothy, and in verse 10 God’s people also, that he, and they, belong to something that God has been doing in history, culminating in Christ, and that they are the heirs of final eschatological salvation, also through Christ. Thus, “Be steadfast.”

2:9–10 Having called Timothy’s attention once again to Christ as the content of his gospel, Paul also once more reminds him that his (Paul’s) present suffering is in the service of that gospel. For which, Paul reminds him, I am suffering this present evil, even to the point (translating the preposition mechri) of being chained like a criminal, a clear indignity for one who was both a Roman citizen and innocent. The word criminal, which occurs in Luke 23:32–39 for the brigands who were crucified with Jesus, is an especially strong word, used for those “who commit gross misdeeds and serious crimes” (BAGD). It is clear from this sentence, as well as from 1:8, 16, and 4:16–18, that Paul’s imprisonment was a serious one, and that it was personally repugnant to him.

But his repugnance at his chains is immediately contrasted with God’s word that is not chained. They may stop the messenger, but they cannot stop the message. As Luther sang: “The body they may kill; God’s truth abideth still; His kingdom is forever.” And this, of course, is Paul’s concern for Timothy throughout the letter. “Take your share in suffering,” he urges him, “and above all, preach the word (4:2); for it is the word alone, the message of the gospel, that counts. They may imprison us and chain us, but they cannot chain our message” (cf. esp. Phil. 1:12–18).

Paul’s imprisonment, however, is not mentioned simply as a contrast to the unfettered word of God. As in Philippians 1:12–18, it is portrayed as being in behalf of that word and for the sake of the elect. Thus I endure everything—and by implication Timothy should too (cf. v. 12a). “God’s chosen people” would be an excellent translation of tous eklektous (the elect). Far too much ink has been spilled on the theological implications of this term, whether it refers to the “elect” who are already saved or to the “elect” but not yet saved. Such theologizing quite misses Paul’s point. Here again, as in Titus 1:1, 2:14, and many other places, Paul has appropriated OT language for God’s people and applied it to Christian believers. Furthermore, as in verse 8 above, the emphasis here falls on their continuity with the past, not their theological status.

The effect of his imprisonment for the sake of “God’s chosen people”—and the reason he is willing to endure everything—is that they too will obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus. It is not clear, just as in Colossians 1:24 and 2 Corinthians 1:6, how Paul understands the relationship between Christ’s sufferings, his own sufferings, and the people’s salvation. He certainly cannot mean that his suffering obtains salvation for them. More likely he means that his imprisonment will somehow “help on the work of the Gospel” (Barrett), by means of which God’s people obtain their salvation. But just how he understands his suffering to “help it on,” we are not told. In any event it is the gospel for which he suffers, not his suffering for the gospel, that ultimately brings their salvation; for after all it is in Christ Jesus, and through Paul only as secondary agent—as its messenger. As throughout these letters, and especially this one, salvation is primarily an eschatological reality: It comes with eternal glory. Thus he reminds Timothy—and now the people as well—that beyond present endurance awaits the eschatological prize (see disc. on vv. 4–6).

It should not go unnoticed that with these words Paul begins temporarily to look beyond Timothy to include God’s people, the chosen ones, who will, with Timothy and Paul, renounce the false teachings (2:14–21) and “endure unto eternal glory.”

2:11–13 As a way of wrapping up this segment of the argument (appeal), and thereby reinforcing the appeal itself (which now includes God’s people), Paul “cites” a fifth (and last) trustworthy (“faithful”) saying. On the formula itself, see the discussion on 1 Timothy 1:15 (cf. 1 Tim. 3:1; 4:10; Titus 3:8).

Because the saying in this instance begins with a connective gar (“for,” untranslated in the NIV), some have argued that the saying is actually verse 8 or 10 or that logos does not mean saying here but refers back to God’s word in verse 9 or that the “for” was an original part of a borrowed saying that was thus incorporated by Paul, but without meaning for the present context. However, the rhythmic balance of the four lines that follow gives them the clear character of a “saying” (perhaps an early Christian poem or hymn, more likely from Paul himself or from his churches). The gar is probably explanatory—and thus intentional—but does not refer to this is a trustworthy saying. Rather it goes back to all of the appeal in verses 1–10. “Take your share of suffering,” Paul says; “keep in mind your risen Lord,” he further reminds him, “because if we have died with him, we shall also live with him,” and so on.

The poetic nature of the saying can be easily seen. It is a quatrain of conditional sentences. Each protasis (“if”-clause) deals with the believers’ actions (all in the first person plural, the language of confession); each apodosis (“then”-clause) gives the results in terms of Christ, with the final apodosis having an additional explanatory coda. It may be that couplets are intended, since the first two lines deal with positive actions and the second two with negative. However, there is also a progression of tenses (past, present, future) and ideas in the first three lines, whereas the final line exhibits some remarkable shifts (both verbs are present; no also in the apodosis; a surprising turn to the apodosis).

The most likely interpretation of the first three lines is that they progress from Christian conversion (line 1) through perseverance and its eschatological prize (line 2) to a warning about the dire consequences of apostasy (line 3). Although there are considerable differences among scholars about line 4, it probably responds to line 3 as a word of hope. Our faithfulness or disloyalty cannot alter the greater reality of Christ’s faithfulness (to us, being implied).

Before examining each line, one should note that the language and thought of the whole is thoroughly Pauline—to the detail. If he did not compose it, then it was certainly composed in his churches. In the final analysis there is no reason to think that the man who wrote 1 Corinthians 13 and Romans 8:28–39 could not also have written this marvelous piece.

Line 1: If we died with him, we will also live with him. This clearly mirrors Romans 6:8 (cf. Col. 2:20; 3:1), and there is no reason to think that it means anything different here from what it does there. Using baptismal imagery, Paul is reflecting again on Christian conversion as a dying and rising with Christ. The future, we will also live with him, has primarily to do with life in Christ in the present (as it does in Rom. 6:8–11), although such language always has latent in it the thought of the eschatological fulfillment yet to be realized. After all, the present life with him is the result of his resurrection, the primary eschatological event that has already set the future in motion.

In the present context, however, the language of dying and living in Christ is perhaps also to be heard with the broader implications of Christian martyrdom. What was true figuratively at one’s baptism would also be true of a “baptism” of another kind. One might well guess that the implication of this was not lost on Timothy.

Line 2: If we endure, we will also reign with him. This line is the basic reason, along with its warning counterpart in line 3, for citing the saying. It speaks directly to the concern throughout the whole appeal (1:6–2:13) that Timothy remain loyal, even in the face of suffering. The verb to endure, although it clearly implies persevering, is especially used by NT writers of holding one’s ground patiently in trouble or affliction (cf. Mark 13:13; Rom. 12:12). That is certainly the sense here.

The apodosis also speaks directly to the context, namely, the promise of the eschatological victory alluded to in the three analogies in verses 4–6. To reign with Christ is a Pauline way of expressing the “eternal glory” that awaits those who are faithful to the end (cf. 1 Cor. 4:8; cf. also Rev. 3:21).

Line 3: If we disown [lit., “shall disown”] him, he will also disown us. With this line there is a shift to negative actions of believers. The content stands in clear contrast to line 2 as its opposite. Therefore, it also almost certainly presupposes the context of suffering and persecution (i.e., “being ashamed” of Christ in the time of trial). Thus it is both warning—to Timothy and “the elect” (v. 10; hence the future tense) and judgment—on those such as the Asians of 1:15 who have already deserted.

The language of this line precisely reflects the saying of Jesus found in Matthew 10:33 (par. Luke 12:9). Thus the subject in the apodosis changes from “we” to an emphatic he (Gk. demonstrative pronoun, “that one”).

Lines 2 and 3 together, therefore, form the basic reason for the citation: promise and warning attached to a call for endurance in the face of suffering and hardship.

Line 4: If we are faithless, he will remain faithful (cf. Rom. 3:3). This line is full of surprises, and it is also the one for which sharp differences of opinion exist regarding its interpretation. Some see it as a negative, corresponding to line 3. If we are faithless (i.e., if we commit apostasy), God must be faithful to himself and mete out judgment. Although such an understanding is possible, it seems highly improbable that this is what Paul himself intended. After all, that could have been said plainly. The lack of a future verb with the adverb “also,” as well as the fact that God’s faithfulness in the NT is always in behalf of his people, also tend to speak out against this view.

What seems to have happened is that, in a rather typical way (cf., e.g., 1 Cor. 8:3), Paul could not bring himself to finish a sentence as it began. It is possible for us to prove faithless; but Paul could not possibly say that God would then be faithless toward us. Indeed, quite the opposite. If we are faithless (and the context demands this meaning of the verb apistoumen, not “unbelieving,” as KJV, et al.), this does not in any way affect God’s own faithfulness to his people. This can mean either that God will override our infidelity with his grace (as most commentators) or that his overall faithfulness to his gracious gift of eschatological salvation for his people is not negated by the faithlessness of some. This latter seems more in keeping with Paul and the immediate context. Some have proved faithless, but God’s saving faithfulness has not been diminished thereby. So Timothy and the people should continue to endure that they might also reign with him. Thus all four lines cohere as an exposition of “the salvation that comes through Christ Jesus and brings eternal glory” (v. 10).

The final coda simply explains why the final apodosis stands as it does: because he cannot disown himself. To do so would mean that God had ceased to be. Hence eschatological salvation is for Paul ultimately rooted in the character of God.

With this great affirmation, in the context of equally severe warning, this first appeal to loyalty comes to a conclusion. The defections in Asia, the warnings in this text, plus the raising of his sights in verse 10 to include “the elect,” all coalesce to turn Paul’s attention one final time to the false teachers (see 1 Tim. 1:3–11, 18–20; 4:1–5; 6:3–10) and Timothy’s responsibilities (2:14–3:9).

Additional Notes

2:8 The unusual word order (for the PE) of Jesus before Christ, and esp. the appearance of the phrase “from David’s seed” in Ignatius of Antioch (ca. A.D. 110), have also contributed to the conviction that this is a segment of creedal formulation that has been borrowed both here and in Rom. 1:3–4. Although the word order is probably irrelevant (see Titus 1:1), the creedal nature of what is said is certainly possible. But it is highly unlikely that we are dealing with a fixed creed. Rather, a “common body of doctrine was beginning to crystallize into more or less conventional patterns and forms, and sometimes set types of verbal expression were becoming current, [but] the language still remained fairly fluid” (J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, pp. 23–24).

2:9–10 For a typical example of “too much ink spilt” on “who are the elect” in this passage that rather misses Paul’s point, see Hendriksen.

2:11–13 For a rather full discussion of the issues involved in this passage (what is the trustworthy saying; what is its extent and structure) as well as an extensive exegesis of its details, see G. W. Knight, The Faithful Sayings in the Pastoral letters, pp. 112–37. Knight and G. R. Beasley-Murray (Baptism in the New Testament, pp. 207–9) both argue that it is a baptismal hymn (but see J. D. G. Dunn, Baptism in the Holy Spirit, pp. 169–70). Bernard probably comes closer to reality by seeing it as “a hymn on the glories of martyrdom.” But if one takes seriously the thoroughly Pauline nature of the poem, neither of these options is necessary. The hymn, in all of its parts, fits the context so well, that, whatever its origins or original setting, it now functions to inspire loyalty to Christ.

For an interpretation that sees line 1 as essentially reflecting martyrdom, see Hendriksen. But even he recognizes the difficulties that the aorist (past tense) verb, we died, presents for this view, so he spiritualizes the death as being to “worldly comfort, ease,” etc.

For examples of the “negative” understanding of line 4, see the comments by Bernard and Hendriksen. See Knight, pp. 126–31, for a more detailed refutation.