CHAPTER I

Timothy is still in the Asian churches and supervising them as Paul’s representative. But Paul is in a Roman prison awaiting trial, certain that the verdict will be death. We take it that he writes immediately after his arrest and begs Timothy to hurry to his side. As far as we know, Timothy did so and remained with Paul and witnessed his execution.

The first letter to Timothy is full of directions and instructions which tell him how to proceed in the management of the churches. This second letter contains no such directions. It is Paul’s last will and testament for Timothy, his great legacy for the rest of Timothy’s life. In the shadow of death Paul lays the work into Timothy’s hands so that he might carry it forward as his worthy successor in the field where God shall place this beloved assistant of his.

This letter is personal throughout. Tender, yet with the tenderness of a strong, heroic heart. It is far from being sentimental. Timothy may have read and reread it with tears blurring his eyes, but every line braced him with power to make him valiant to contend in the noble contest, to receive at his own death the crown laid up also for him.

After Paul’s death Timothy labored on in the churches in Asia Minor, which had received him under Paul’s direction (1 Tim. 1:3). The Apostle John made his headquarters in Ephesus some time during or shortly after the war in Palestine which brought an end to the Jews as a nation. We do not know what finally happened to Timothy.

This is like and yet unlike the greeting in First Timothy. Here, too, we three times have the name “Christ Jesus” and twice “God.” Here, too, occur “apostle of Christ Jesus” and as a designation for Timothy: τέκνον, “child.” Here, too, the triple greeting: “grace, mercy, peace (asyndeton) from,” etc. Yet nothing is merely stereotyped, a formula of words that is merely to be read and dismissed.

Personal, indeed, is this letter, yet not personal in the sense that one friend is merely writing to another friend, an older to a younger. Paul writes to Timothy as “Christ Jesus’ apostle,” and he writes in the interest of his great apostleship, in which Timothy had for years labored as this apostle’s assistant. He urges Timothy to labor on even after the apostle’s death, to the end of his own life. On “apostle,” on the genitive, and on the phrase “through God’s will” see the other epistles where these expressions are used. In First Timothy the special “order of God” is in place since Paul is transmitting to Timothy a part of this order which consists in specific directions about the management of the churches under his care. In this letter Paul refers to the θέλημα of God as he does in four other letters, to what God willed when he made him an apostle of Christ Jesus. God’s will was now bringing his apostleship to its fitting end.

In First Timothy Paul calls God “our Savior” because in that letter he dwells on the saving of all men. He also calls Christ “our hope” because of the hope of salvation embodied in him. Both expressions refer to the blessed work of bringing this hope of salvation to men and letting nothing spoil or darken it. Now Paul writes: through God’s will “in accord with the promise of life in connection with Christ Jesus.” The whole will of God, all that he willed when he made Paul an apostle, accorded with the great gospel promise in which he promised “life in connection with Christ Jesus.”

We do not place a comma after God and do not refer the κατά phrase across the intervening words and connect it with ἀπόστολος; we do not agree that the phrase expresses aim and not norm or standard; nor that, if it belonged to “God’s will,” the article would be required. Hundreds of phrases follow their nouns without an article. The phrase belongs where Paul placed it. The κατά phrase occurring in Tit. 1:1 is of a different nature, both as to its object (subjective faith and knowledge and not objective promise of God) and as to its dependence. Those who construe the phrase with “apostle” insert what Paul did not insert: “an apostle with the view of proclaiming the promise,” or, as R., W. P., phrases it, “with a view to the fulfillment of the promise.” What Paul says is, however, that God’s will which made him an apostle accords with God’s promise of life. It certainly did. It harmonized perfectly. If it were not for this promise of life God would need no apostles at all, would not have willed to make Paul one.

This is not “a promise of a life,” for τῆς and the phrase make ζωῆς definite. The genitive is objective: God promised life, the one in connection with (ἐν) Christ Jesus who purchased and won it for us; and thus it becomes for us “The LIFE” (John 14:6), the one source and fount of spiritual, eternal life. He who is by faith connected with him has this life (John 3:15, 16). This “promise” = the gospel. We see that “our Savior” and “our hope” which occur in 1 Tim. 1:1 are the same in substance. Paul might have used these terms a second time, especially “our hope.” Yet how appropriate it is under the shadow of a martyr’s death to cling to the life in connection with Christ, the life which no temporal death is able to harm.

2) In 1 Tim. 1:2 “genuine child” is significant since the whole letter expects Timothy to show his genuineness as a dear child of God in the varied tasks allotted to him. Here “child beloved” strikes a different note: so beloved of the apostle, his spiritual father, so long in true love associated with him in this father’s work. The verbal of ἀγαπᾶν indicates intelligent and purposeful love for Timothy; this binds the two together. Paul does not need to add “my” to “child beloved.” The whole letter throbs with the love of a father for a beloved child. “Child” is far more tender than “son,” a thought which the A. V. does not express. “Child” is so very fitting for this letter (v. 5; 3:14–17) and finds repetition in 2:1, “my child,” as in 1 Tim. 1:18, “child Timothy.”

3) Read 4:9–12, 14–17. Paul’s first hearing has been held. Only Luke is at his side. The prospect is altogether dark. How the apostle, locked in his cell or dungeon (the writer was in what is shown in Rome as Paul’s underground dungeon, a hole in the domed ceiling affording the only light and air), longed for his faithful Timothy (v. 4)! He hurries to write to him and begs him to hasten and to bring Mark with him. He does not complain, does not recite his woes. His letter does not begin: “I am in a sad plight.” It is filled with thoughts for his child Timothy. It is parental, inspiring. Paul is approaching his end, and as he starts to write, sweet, blessed memories flood his heart; with these he begins.

Why should anyone coldly say that he follows his old habit of beginning with thanks to God? He does not so begin either First Timothy or Titus. In fact, he here begins with gratitude, not with “I give thanks” but with memories that make him feel grateful to God. The whole blessed past crowds in upon his soul, gratefulness lifts him above all sadness. No; this is not a stereotyped beginning; it is exceptional, individual, full of a surge of emotion that is moved by memories. When Timothy read these lines he, too, was moved in the same way. Here speaks a great heart and spirit; use your own heart and spirit to apprehend what is written.

Grateful am I to God, whom I serve from (my) forebears in clean conscience, as ceaselessly I have remembrance concerning thee in my petitions by night and by day, longing to see thee while remembering thy tears, in order that I may be filled with joy, having received a reminder of the unhypocritical faith in thee, of a kind that dwelt first in thy grandmother Lois and thy mother Eunice and I am persuaded that also in thee.

We do not agree with those who say that the structure of this extended sentence is not clear. Of course, if χάριν ἐχω is understood to mean: “I give thanks to God,” then there is no epexegetical object clause which would state for what Paul gives thanks. But Paul writes: “Grateful am I” (see 1 Tim. 1:12) and needs no object. What makes Paul feel grateful is implied in all that follows, namely in all his memories of Timothy, in every reminder that recalls him. No formal statement is needed.

This long sentence should not be read with an English mind. We should make two or three sentences of it. The Greek loves extensive connection; his flexible participles that have gender, case, number, and tense help him to construct such passages. Paul is thinking in Greek and not in Hebrew or in English. If that still seems strange to us, all that can be said is that we must learn to enter more fully into the language as well as into Paul’s mode of thought. To make the ὡς clause a parenthesis, or to speak of parenthetical thoughts will then not occur to us.

Paul writes as one who from his forebears (the same word is found in 1 Tim. 5:4) worships God with a clean conscience. In this respect he is like Timothy who also had his faith from his mother and his grandmother, thus at least two generations back on the mother’s side. Paul names none of his own forebears but does name two of Timothy’s, Lois and Eunice, surely because he himself had learned to know them so well in the days long ago when he won grandmother, mother, and son, three generations, for the gospel in faraway Lystra. We see how memory takes him back even to his first missionary journey through Galatia. All the old scenes live up once more during these days and nights when he sits in his lone, dim prison cell. Λατρεύω denotes the service and the worship of God that is obligatory upon all men while λειτουργῶ denotes the public service of an official such as a priest.

It is asked how, in view of 1 Tim. 1:13, Paul can say that from his forebears he serves God in clean conscience. The proposal to take “in clean conscience” out of the relative clause and to construe: “grateful am I in clean conscience,” is grammatically unwarranted. And a distinction between a “clean conscience” and a “good” one is playing with words. Acts 23:1 is not pertinent because it deals only with that period in Paul’s life which is an answer to the charges on which he is held.

Some interpreters hold that Paul’s conscience was “clean” when he persecuted the church, “clean” because he thought he was serving God by these persecutions (John 16:2), and because he did what he did “ignorantly” (1 Tim. 1:13). But Paul himself would be horrified to hear that he covers his crimes with the mantle of “a clean conscience.” In Acts 6:13 false witnesses are suborned; in Acts 7:58 Paul guards their clothes while these perjurers start the stoning; in Acts 9:1 we are expressly told that Saul consented to Stephen’s death. This is one clear case, for who will say that Saul knew nothing about the criminality to which he consented? In the entire trial and killing of Jesus, in all the persecutions of Saul, there was ignorance, indeed, but never “a clean conscience.” Paul’s “clean conscience” is often also said to be his having acted without hypocrisy. But that explanation is unsatisfactory.

Acts 24:14–16 is the parallel to our passage. There Paul uses the same verb and the same tense: λατρεύω τῷ πατρόῳ Θεῷ, and with the adjective refers to his ancestry (2 Cor. 11:22); he likewise speaks of his conscience: “to have a conscience void of offense,” i.e., clean. Neither in Acts 24 nor in our passage does Paul say that from childhood onward he has served God “in clean conscience.” In order to express this idea the Greek perfect tense should have been used in both passages. Ἀπὸ προγόνων is not temporal so as to cover the whole of Paul’s lifetime since his birth. The preposition denotes derivation. The true God whom Paul is now serving (present tense) in clean conscience he learned to know from his forebears. Note that Paul is able to say more regarding Timothy. “In clean conscience” modifies the verb. “I am serving” is not: “I have ever been serving” from childhood onward. Ἔχω—λατρεύω—and the following ἔχω refer to the present time.

Those who translate: “I give thanks,” ask: “For what?” Some thus think that ὡς = ὅτι and states for what Paul gives thanks. Yet ὡς is not = ὅτι even as it would be strange to give thanks for having Timothy in remembrance in petitions by night and by day. The connective means: “as (denoting correspondence) I ceaselessly have remembrance concerning thee in my petitions by night and by day.” “Concerning thee” does not refer merely to Timothy’s person but to the circumstances surrounding Timothy, which induce Paul to petition God to help Timothy in this and in that matter.

Δέησις = the act of begging something and may refer either to a begging from man or from God; here it is the latter. The genitive denotes time within which: “by night and by day”; the accusative would mean “all night and all day long.” Some of Paul’s prayers were offered at night, some in the daytime. Paul always arranges these two genitives in this order. We may think of the long, lonely nights and days spent in the dungeon, especially since only Luke could visit him now and then. God was his refuge and help, the God whom he had known from his forebears, whom he now served in clean conscience.

We now see why Paul speaks of his “clean conscience.” It is scarcely true to the facts to say that the purity of his thanks had recently been questioned, that Timothy himself had questioned it. Paul had been arrested on a criminal, yea on a capital, charge and was confined in a dungeon. His first hearing had gone against him. The charge preferred against him must have been that of spreading a religio illicita, the penalty for which was death. Such a charge was not preferred against Paul when Festus sent him to Rome; at that time Paul was sent to Rome only because he himself had appealed to Caesar. He had a long wait, but Caesar’s court set him free. Then, however, Rome was burned, for which act Nero finally cast the blame onto the Christians, hoping thereby to allay the suspicion that he himself was the real incendiary. Numbers of Christians were killed in horrible ways. In the eyes of the imperial court Christianity suddenly became an illegal religion of the worst type. Peter had been crucified. This was the situation when a year and more later hands were laid also on Paul, the great protagonist of this nefarious religion.

We see why “clean conscience” and “forebears” are mentioned together, and that in the very first sentence of the letter. This God, to whom Paul is so grateful, the worship of whom is now charged as a mortal crime against Paul, is not a new, strange, illegal god in the empire, who could thus be worshipped only with a bad conscience, but the true God, who was served already in Tarsus, one of the great Roman cities, by Paul’s forebears and in the entire empire by the Jews, in a religion that was legally allowed by the emperors and the imperial authorities, served thus in all good conscience for generations. The charge against Paul and this new imprisonment were thus the height of illegality. Why had Paul’s forebears and also Timothy’s mother and grandmother not been arrested and condemned? Yea verily, Paul’s conscience as a servant of this true God is “clean” and remains so despite what Rome is doing to him. The thought that Paul is defending himself in the eyes of Timothy is untenable. Paul touches this defense of his, the one he is now offering the authorities, because it includes also Timothy and Timothy’s Jewish forebears, and because Paul now urges Timothy not to be ashamed of this true God, of the testimony that the Lord Jesus has made regarding him, and of Paul, the Lord’s prisoner who is suffering disgrace for this testimony.

This little relative clause at once strikes the heart of the whole situation, a situation in which Timothy is also vitally involved. What Paul had feared when, during his first imprisonment, his case came to trial, what then, however, had by God’s grace been wondrously warded off, that was now coming to pass: the cause of the gospel was under the dark cloud of imperial hostility. The blood of many martyrs had already flowed, and Paul’s blood was next to be shed.

4) The present participle states what accompanies Paul’s prayerful gratitude to the God thus described: “longing to see thee while remembering thy tears, in order that I may be filled with joy.” Some, like the R. V., construe: “by night and by day longing.” If this were the sense, the genitive of time could not precede the participles because that position would lend them an altogether disproportionate emphasis. If it be stated that the ὡς clause already has a modifier of time in “ceaselessly” and therefore cannot have another, the answer is that “ceaselessly” is defined by “by night and by day”; “ceaselessly” does not mean uninterruptedly but iteratively, every time Paul turns to God in his petitions. “Longing” needs no temporal modifier; the aorist infinitive = “get to see you.”

This participle “longing” is itself modified by the perfect participle: “while remembering thy tears.” This perfect is always used in the present sense (B.-D. 341; B.-P. 823); the verb governs the genitive. These are not tears that were mentioned in a letter that Timothy wrote to Paul but tears that Paul saw Timothy shed when he parted from Timothy. This is not, however, the parting mentioned in 1 Tim. 1:3. Paul planned to return to Ephesus after writing First Timothy (see 1 Tim. 3:14; 4:13). We have good reason to think that he returned and that, when Paul left to spend the winter in Nicopolis and from there to go on to Spain—a long separation—Timothy shed many tears at parting.

This does not imply that Timothy was unmanly, womanish, soft; or that he was fearful because of the prospect of being left alone with his management of the Asian churches. What shall we then say about Paul’s “many tears” shed in Ephesus (Acts 20:19, 31), the sore weeping of the Ephesian elders (Acts 20:37), Paul’s other tears (2 Cor. 2:4)? Were these, too, unmanly, cowardly, and fearful? Noble tears, flowing from deep affection, most loyal devotion to this spiritual father, who inspired profoundest attachment in all his assistants! As for courage and ability, Paul was not so foolish as to leave a man in a post which he could not fill.

The ἵνα clause depends on ἰδεῖν: “get to see thee … in order that I may get to be filled with joy.” Supply the implication: Paul’s memories afford him great joy as he sits in his dismal dungeon, but once more to get to see Timothy, his beloved Timothy, will fill Paul’s cup of joy to the very brim. Gratitude is coupled with anticipated joy. On these heights moves the soul of Paul while he is in prison with the prospect of death!

5) An aorist participle follows: “having received a reminder of the unhypocritical faith in thee.” The construction is the same as that which we predicated in the case of “longing,” save that the tense indicates some one special reminder that had come to Paul. Ὑπόμνησις = a reminding Paul received through somebody or through something while ἀνάμνσις is a remembrance which a person himself recalls. “Call to remembrance” in the A. V. is incorrect. There is no reference to a letter received from Timothy. Nor did Paul receive his information from an accidental visitor from Ephesus who praised Timothy or reported a notable instance which displayed Timothy’s sincere faith. Something had occurred in Rome and under Paul’s eyes which vividly reminded him of Timothy and of Timothy’s unhypocritical faith, and had done that to such a degree that it left a deep impression on Paul. The apostle must have exclaimed: “Just like my beloved Timothy’s faith!” What a gracious thing to write to Timothy! We see how Paul esteems Timothy’s faith, considers it a model with which sincere acts of other men’s faith are compared in Paul’s mind.

“Unhypocritical” = in no way wearing a mask as did the ancient stage actors when they represented some character, compare the positive word “genuine” in 1 Tim. 1:2. A hypocritical faith is one that will sooner or later be unmasked as a mere faith of the lips. The real importance of Paul’s meaning lies in the relative clause: “of a kind (ἥτις, qualitative) that dwelt first in thy grandmother Lois and thy mother Eunice, and I am persuaded that (it dwelt) also in thee.” Timothy is a parallel to Paul. The parallel is even in favor of Timothy. Paul’s forebears were Pharisees (Acts 26:5; 2 Cor. 11:22); from them Paul inherited the knowledge of the true God—in v. 3 he says no more. Timothy’s grandmother and his mother were true Israelites; from them Timothy inherited the true faith of Israel, which 3:14–17 corroborates. What faith in the true God means Paul did not learn until the time of his conversion; Timothy had learned it in the true Old Testament way: from a child, which then became Christian New Testament faith when the gospel arrived in Lystra. Paul is not recording a contrast between himself and Timothy because the latter was only Jewish on the mother’s side. Most plainly Paul writes only “God” in v. 3 but “faith” in v. 5.

The fact that Paul names “Lois,” the grandmother, and “Eunice,” the mother of Timothy, leads us to think that Paul knew both women well. In Acts 16:1 only the mother is mentioned together with Timothy; at that time both were already Christian believers. We are not told who had converted them to Christianity. We think that this was Paul himself from the way in which he speaks of Timothy as “my child.” This conversion was probably brought about on Paul’s first missionary journey (Acts 14:6, etc.). It is the general conviction that Timothy’s Greek father was dead when Paul first came to Lystra. We deem it equally fair to assume that Timothy’s grandmother lived with her daughter. These two truly believing Israelites reared Timothy in the true faith of Israel, and Paul and Barnabas advanced this faith to Christian faith. No one can say whether Lois was still living when the incident recorded in Acts 16:1 occurred; it seems likely. Πρῶτον refers to the Old Testament Israelitish faith of Lois and of Eunice; they had it “first,” Timothy had it from them, Paul made it Christian faith. To think that Paul never met the grandmother would disagree with the way in which he names her together with the mother.

The main thing is, however, that Paul here combines himself with Timothy by way of their ancestors because now this true God of Paul’s ancestors and this old true Israelitish faith of Timothy’s mother and his grandmother, to which Paul and Timothy both held with the New Testament gospel faith, were being condemned in Rome as a religio illicita. Paul was facing death on this charge. What would happen to Timothy, to others, to the Christian churches everywhere if the imperial authorities proceeded consistently along this line? This explains the admonitions that follow in this letter. Paul, the expectant martyr (3:6), is in advance fortifying his child and through him the churches under him.

Πέπεισμαι, perfect tense, “I have been persuaded,” = I am now so persuaded. The Greek reader needs no verb after ὅτι. Paul rightly says no more than that he is persuaded that before he met Timothy and his mother and his grandmother these two had made of Timothy a true Israelitish believer in the coming Messiah. The clause does not speak of Timothy’s present faith.

Here and in v. 12 Paul writes διʼ ἣν αἰτίαν, which means more than διὰ τοῦτο, for it presents the whole “cause” or “case” pictured in the preceding verses as the basis of what follows, and this introductory relative phrase, which is purposely the same and exceptional in both verses, connects most closely. For this relative really continues the previous long sentence as far as grammar is concerned although the thought itself plainly advances to admonition. The new thought begins here. We divide here and not at v. 8; again we make a division at v. 8 and do not combine v. 8–14. The αἰτία or “cause” (case) on account of which Paul admonishes Timothy is found in all of v. 3–5 and not merely in what Paul says about Timothy’s faith in v. 5. Paul’s ancestral God and Timothy’s ancestral faith which are now being condemned as a religio illicita call forth Paul’s admonitory appeal.

What v. 3–5 contain is sometimes inadequately understood; hence the connection is likewise misunderstood and is thought to be “because Timothy has had such advantages from his mother and his grandmother,” “because Paul is persuaded Timothy has the true faith.” No; because Paul’s God and Timothy’s faith, which for so long a time were permitted by the imperial court as a legal religion over all the Roman Empire but were now about to be branded as illegal and criminal by adding Paul’s execution to all the killings that have already occurred in Rome since Rome was burned, therefore Paul calls on Timothy not to be ashamed of this religion, etc. The reason is a mighty one, indeed, the more mighty for Timothy since his spiritual father Paul, his apostolic chief and leader in the work of the gospel and in the great cause of Christ, must soon lay his head on the executioner’s block.

From his own memories and the reminder he has recently received about Timothy, Paul passes to a reminding of Timothy as to what he is now called to do more than ever before. See how beautifully the expressions advance: “I have in remembrance—having received a reminder—I am reminding.” See also the gentleness: Timothy needs only reminding.

How pertinent is Paul’s reminding him “to keep fanning into live flame the charisma of God” which God gave him, “which is in thee through the laying on of my hands”! Let us note the expressive present infinitive which says that Timothy has been making his charisma flame up, not that he has been letting it get cold. Hitherto, however, Timothy has had only a task with such difficulties as gospel work had always had since Paul and Timothy had entered upon it; now Rome was frowning upon this work, was bringing Paul to martyrdom. Instead of being only an assistant, Timothy would soon himself be the lone chief in his great Asian field. Instead of being distressed and allowing the flame to burn lower, he must ever keep it burning brightly as Paul is passing from the scene. There is no touch of censure. Paul does not say, “Make the flame burn hotter than ever.” Timothy is as ardent as Paul can wish him to be, and all that Paul asks is that he continue in the same ardor.

Timothy is to keep the live fire bright, namely “the charisma of God which is in him through the laying on of Paul’s hands.” This has been explained in connection with 1 Tim. 4:14, where even more is said; please read it. All we need to say here is that, while in 1 Tim. 4 Paul mentions the laying on of hands by the elders because this gave Timothy the right to function officially in the churches, here Paul refers only to his own hands because Timothy was to be Paul’s apostolic representative, and because Timothy would soon have to carry on his great office without Paul. The idea that Timothy’s charisma was not his office is evidently not correct. Timothy’s charisma was the ability to preach, to teach, to admonish, and to supervise such work in the churches, for which God gave him both the office and the field for the full exercise of this gift when, as we may put it, he was ordained or formally installed into his Asian work by the laying on of the hands of Paul and of the elders. This act of laying on the hands is symbolic as explained in 1 Tim. 4; it conveyed nothing supernatural or miraculous.

7) Why this reminder regarding Timothy’s charisma? Ah, “not did God (this true God mentioned in v. 3) give us (Timothy and Paul) a spirit of cowardice but of power and love and of being sensibly minded.” Πνεῦμα is not the Holy Spirit nor the immaterial part of man; the descriptive genitives show that the inner quality is referred to which was given us by God by being wrought and developed in us. Dangerous clouds are gathering, there are dangers that are far greater than ever before, not mere local hostility to the planting and the growth of the church but imperial hostility.

The provinces of the empire will imitate what Caesar’s court is doing. But God has put nothing of the nature of δειλία, “fearfulness,” “afraidness,” “cowardice” into our hearts so that we should now cower, let the flame of ardor burn low, lest we be made to suffer. Remember where Paul is while he is writing this: the sword is hanging over his head. He who preaches on this text during ordinary times can do so only by letting the greater illumine the lesser. What is any little ill that we suffer for Christ’s sake compared with having the whole Christian religion outlawed in the whole state?

No, ours is a spirit “of power.” This is not mere “courage” or “bravery” in danger; it far exceeds that as it would in Paul’s mind: power, the great word δύναμις, power to work on, to hold out, to endure all things, to suffer, to die—victorious, triumphant power, an unquenched flame of living fire.

At the same time ours is a spirit “of love.” Let us get the significance of the combination. Ἀγάπη is the love of full understanding coupled with mighty corresponding purpose, the supreme fruit of faith which is called “the greatest thing in the world.” God is love and because of this love sent his only-begotten Son to save the world. Here the thought is not that this love works a thousand good works but that it faces and conquers the world’s hostility with its power. It burns on and on. It sees all the sin and woe, and its one purpose is that of Jesus, to seek and to save.

The trio is completed by σωφρονισμός (the suffix denoting action, R. 151) and by σωφροσύνη which is only a quality. This is the German Besonnenheit, the exercise of a sane, balanced mind. This guides our power, applies the intelligence and the purpose of our love, and, while it is needed at all times, is most needed in dangerous times. For then any foolish, ill-considered, hasty, fanatical action precipitates dire results, especially if the leadership is not “sensibly-minded.” Because this word is found only here in the New Testament, the dictionaries vary in defining it. They offer the meaning Besserung and admonitions along that general line; “self-control” and “self-discipline” in M. M. 622 (note R. V.); “sobering” in the R. V. margin. “Of a sound mind” in the A. V. is more correct.

8) Luther strangely finds the main thought of this chapter in v. 6, and some interpreters agree with him. But Paul himself indicates the pivot: “be not ashamed—I am not ashamed.—Onesiphorus was not ashamed.” This repetition is self-explanatory. The deep basis lies in v. 3–5; on this rest v. 6, 7, the broad reminder about Timothy’s charisma and the spirit which he and Paul have received; and on this is placed the specific call not to be ashamed, no matter what the suffering, even as Paul in his dungeon is not ashamed, as Onesiphorus was not ashamed. All is most lucid, it is built like a pyramid.

Be not, then, ashamed of the testimony for our Lord nor of me, his prisoner, but join in suffering disgrace for the gospel in accord with God’s power, his who saved us and called (us) to a holy calling, not in accord with our works, but in accord with his own purpose and grace, that given to us in Christ Jesus before eon-long times but published now through the epiphany of our Savior Christ Jesus by (his act of) abolishing the death and bringing to light life and incorruption by means of the gospel, for which I on my part was appointed herald and apostle and teacher.

In negative aoristic prohibitions the Greek uses the subjunctive and not the imperative. Some commentators misunderstand this command. We shall let one speak: “This passage, too, furnishes proof for the assumption that Timothy had grown slack in the execution of his office because he had become timid on account of the persecutions which descended upon the Christians, in particular on the preachers of the gospel like Paul, as though the Lord did not concern himself about them but abandoned them to their fate.” Read Moulton, Einleitung 201, etc., as an answer to this. The answer to this aoristic injunction: “Be not ashamed!” is not: “I will quit it,” but: “I will never once be!” White, Expositor’s Greek Testament, is right when he points to two grammars and says that this aorist subjunctive “forbids the supposition that Timothy had actually done what Paul warns him against doing.” We must say more: if Timothy is to stop being ashamed, the present imperative should have been used (R. 855, etc.). Can the aorist subjunctive used in Matt. 6:13 (Lord’s Prayer) mean that God has hitherto been leading us into temptation?

The implications are these: “Be not ashamed!”—Timothy: “I will never be!”—Paul: “I know thou wilt not.” Do you ask why, then, this call to Timothy? Thousands of such calls are uttered by one brave man to another, each having the same brave response implied and accepted. Every such call cheers, makes the task easier, the victory surer. The severer the ordeal, the more we appreciate such aoristic calls. In the positive clause the aorist imperative has the same valiant effect and response.

Be not ashamed “of the testimony of our Lord” does not speak of the testimony that the Lord made (subjective genitive); this genitive is objective: the testimony “for our Lord,” made by us “about him” in all our preaching and teaching. “Be not ashamed of valiantly uttering this testimony even when doing so is called promulgating an unlawful religion!” “Our Lord” is the correct term, he to whom we belong body and soul. Significantly, touchingly Paul adds: “nor of me, his prisoner,” who is now being treated as a criminal. The accusative is the regular case with passives. Disgrace had come upon Paul which automatically involved all his converts, his churches, and especially his assistants. “His” prisoner is more than one who is imprisoned for the Lord’s sake, or one who only belongs to the Lord; in his providence the Lord had brought Paul into prison and was soon to glorify him by martyrdom.

The direct opposite is to be proud, to glory in the testimony and in the apostle’s imprisonment. Paul says more, “But join me in suffering disgrace for the gospel in accord with God’s power.” The dative is not due to σύν in the verb: “suffer with the gospel” (R. V.), the gospel never suffers actively. This is the dativus commodi: “for, in the interest of, the gospel,” σύν associating Timothy with Paul in joint suffering. Κακός lies in the verb and does not mean “hardship” (R. V.) nor “afflictions” (A. V.) but something bad or base so that we translate “jointly suffering disgrace.” Compare the terms used in 2:9. The thought is not that future suffering and disgrace may come upon Timothy, but that without a touch of shame he shall accept the disgrace that has now come upon Paul, which also involves Timothy. See the motive in the dative: who would not share in disgrace suffered “for the gospel”? No man has ever suffered disgrace in a nobler, more honorable cause.

9) Read in one breath and disregard the verse division: “in accord with God’s power, his who saved us and called (us) to a holy calling,” etc. Timothy is to use “the spirit of power” (v. 7) which God has given him for suffering disgrace conjointly with Paul. By doing this he will be “in accord with” (κατά) the very power of God himself, of the God who saved us and besides that called us to a holy calling or profession, the calling in which we are now asked to suffer disgrace in this unholy world. The thought is not that Timothy is to vie with this power of God or to make it a pattern but that Timothy is so to use the spirit of power which God has given him, use it in this suffering, that it harmonizes with the source of Timothy’s power, the blessed power of the God who saved him and by his call placed him into the holy Christian calling.

Κατά is gemaess. The source of power in our spirit is God and his power. The test of our power comes when we must suffer for the gospel. Then we must not disgrace the power of God’s love and grace which has done so much for us by having saved us and called us to our holy calling. Κατά does not say that God’s power will help Timothy to suffer and to bear the disgrace, that Timothy is to rely on God’s power. Paul has already said that God has given him a spirit of power, and we now see that this occurred when Timothy was called to his calling as a Christian. That calling Timothy is now to exercise in suffering just as Paul himself is doing.

One article unites the two participles and makes them an apposition to Θεοῦ. The debate regarding “us” is unnecessary. Paul refers to Timothy and to himself. What is true of these two is naturally true of all true Christians. God had, indeed, saved Paul and Timothy and called them. In the epistles this always refers to the effective and successful call. There are not two calls (Calvinism), but many reject the one great call of grace (Matt. 23:37). The power in it is not omnipotence but saving love, mercy, and grace. Our versions regard the dative as cognate: “called with a holy calling,” which would mean a calling by a Holy One or uttered in holy words. Κλῆσις is used here as it is in 1 Cor. 7:20; Eph. 3:20, and elsewhere: a holy profession, one which separates us from the world, one which we must keep unspotted, one of which we are never to be ashamed, one that is never to be disgraced. Think of the blessed power that has done so much for us and even made us spiritually powerful. Shall we then not stand the test of suffering for God’s saving gospel?

In a magnificent panorama that reaches back even to eternity Paul now unrolls all that God’s power has done in saving and calling us and touches even the immortality that carries us into eternal blessedness. All of it is written in one flow of thought, in flexible Greek, no pause is made until at the end of v. 11; and this means that we must take all of it in with one view just as it is one comprehensive thought that starts even with the κατά in v. 8. When we now view the details we should not disjoin them. This is not a corpse that is to be slashed and cut up but a living body that is to be left as it is while we look at its symmetrical members.

No, the whole work of saving and calling us could not be “in accord with our works”; not one of them, nor the least part of one, has even a trace of holiness that would fit us sinners for a holy calling. On the contrary (ἀλλά), God had to proceed “in accord with his own purpose and grace, that (grace) given to us in Christ Jesus before eon-long times,” “before the world began” (A. V. interpretative rendering), less well rendered in the R. V.: “before eternal times.” Sasse in G. K., 209, regards χρόνοι αἰώνιοι as periphrastic for αἰῶνες in the Greek formulas for eternity; but he forgets πρό. These are the world’s “eon-long times,” and prior to these God made his gift, prior to them lies nothing but eternity.

There was nothing but God’s own πρόθεσις to serve as God’s norm and directive, and that means nothing but God’s χάρις. The former is the act of setting something before himself or the thing that is thus set before, to express which idea we use the word “purpose.” Controversy has developed regarding this word, and it is still regarded as being equal to predestination or election. See the fuller discussion of Rom. 8:28; compare 9:11; Eph. 1:9, 11. The purpose is always gracious and universal. Since it is here combined with “grace,” this is most clear, for grace is the undeserved favor Dei which extended to the guilty to cancel and remove their sin and guilt; it is always universal, unlimited.

But as this statement begins with saved and called “us” (Timothy and Paul), so it also ends: “the (grace) given to us in connection with Christ Jesus before ages-long times,” i.e., given to us already in eternity. We take it that τὴν δοθεῖσαν refers to χάριν since Paul so often connects these two, “grace” and “given.” The only reason that we do not include πρόθεσιν is because we cannot well see how it can be “given” to a sinner. The fact that this gift of grace to Paul and to Timothy refers to their predestination and election in eternity is beyond question although neither word is used here. In fact, we may call this clause a brief Biblical definition of our predestination or election.

Already before the world began Paul and Timothy stood before the eyes of God, not only because they were included in God’s blessed, saving purpose and universal grace, in the love which gave the only-begotten Son to the lost world; but as recipients of this grace “in connection with (ἐν) Christ Jesus,” recipients not by means of a mysterious decree pertaining only to them, but recipients by the gospel call, the one named in this verse, which is wickedly rejected by so many others who thereby exclude themselves when God would have included also them (Matt. 23:37: “How oft would I!”). Only imperfectly, haltingly are we able to state these things because our finite minds are unable to think in terms of infinite eternity. Let us never forget that and then act and speak as if the timelessness of eternity were only a long, long time, and thereby mislead ourselves.

10) Paul returns to time: this grace was given to us in eternity in connection with Christ “but published now through the epiphany of our Savior Christ Jesus by (his act of) abolishing the death and by (his act of) bringing to light life and incorruption by means of the gospel.” All of this actually occurred in the fullness of time but existed in eternity as though it had already occurred (Rev. 13:8: “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world”). We thus again helplessly speak in human words of timeless eternity. The idea of φανερόω is that of manifestation or of publishing and thereby making openly known to men. This was effected “through the epiphany of our Savior Christ Jesus,” ἐπιφάνεια, his “appearing,” shining forth so that men could see him as the one that he was, namely “our Savior,” which harks back to the τοῦ σώσαντος used in v. 9. “Epiphany” refers to the saving appearance of Jesus (so also does the verb in Titus 2:11; 3:4). In 1 Tim. 6:14; 2 Tim. 4:1, 8 “epiphany” refers to the appearance for judgment. Some would restrict the word in our passage to the incarnation, but this alone did not produce the publication; we must take in everything, including Jesus’ exaltation, as also the participles show.

These lack the article and are thus not appositions but descriptions of “our Savior Christ Jesus” and bring out his great saving act. It is well to note that σώζειν and Σωτήρ mean not only to rescue out of mortal danger but in addition to place into safety and thus to keep safe. Hence we have the negative plus the positive, which are even balanced by μέν—δέ; our Savior, indeed: abolishing the death on the one hand, bringing to light life and incorruption on the other hand, two aorist, definite historical past acts of our Savior. May we say that this twofold act constitutes his saving epiphany?

Paul uses καταργέω often and the context always indicates what “putting out of commission” or “abolishing” means. When Jesus died and rose again he abolished the death. He went into death with all our sin, but death could not hold him, for his death expiated all our sin, and thus he rose again, his expiation having destroyed, put out of commission the death itself. “The death” is not a personification but “the well-known death” that had full power over men. Since it has been shattered and pierced, this death’s grip is released; all its victims are free to escape, it cannot hold them. Only those who will not have life, who deliberately throw themselves into the arms of this death, are its victims.

When he adds the positive side of the saving act of Jesus, Paul, as he does so often, does not stop with the exact counterpart of the negative: “purchased and won life,” he goes far beyond, for he is telling of the φανέρωσιν or publication of grace, and this through the epiphany of the Savior. So he rises to the high level of these two terms: “bringing (having brought, in one act, aorist) to light life and incorruption by means of the gospel.” The gospel shines with the light that reveals this life and this incorruption. It is the gospel for which Paul so gladly suffers disgrace and bids Timothy to join him in the suffering (v. 8). There could not, of course, be such a gospel with such a light if our Savior had not, when he abolished the death, brought forth for us life, etc., and then made the gospel the means for dispensing it to us. The winning of life for us who were dead in sin underlies this bringing of it to light through the gospel. Since that act (aorist) the gospel shines in the Egyptian darkness of the world and draws men from their death to life, from their death’s corruption to life’s incorruption. The very heart of this gospel is Christ, the Life and the Light (John 1:4; 14:6; other passages), and he ever calls and draws: “Come unto me!” And yet see John 3:19; 5:40.

The fact that Paul does not stop with “life” but adds “incorruption” undoubtedly brings out the thought that this life applies also to our bodies. Corruption, decay, rotting pertains to the body and not to the soul or the spirit. Here we have the resurrection of the body (1 Cor. 15:53–57; Phil. 3:21). The delay until the day of resurrection does not alter the fact. The “life” itself, although we already have it, assures also our blessed bodily resurrection. “The death” was here, hence the article is used just as it was in Rom. 5:12; “life and incorruption” came as something new and hence need no articles. The dispute about what “the death” means, whether it is physical, spiritual, or eternal, is pointless, for the whole power of death is abolished. Although we Christians die physically we shall yet live (John 11:25); “I will raise him up at the last day” (John 6:44, 54).

11) This verse is still a part of the grand whole, and the relative clause brings out the fact that Paul is not a mere ordinary Christian and as such a beneficiary of this precious gospel and of all for which it is the means; Paul is far more: “for which (gospel) I on my part was set or appointed herald and apostle and teacher.” So high a place was given to Paul in connection with God’s saving work (v. 8) and Jesus’ Saviorhood (v. 10); he (emphatic ἐγώ) was placed into the very greatest office, that of bringing this whole saving gospel to other men. This high distinction Timothy shares, has long shared, for Timothy was Paul’s great assistant. We at once see and still more as we read on, how necessary this clause is as a word from Paul to Timothy who is never to be ashamed of the testimony for the Lord and of Paul, the Lord’s prisoner, who is to join Paul in suffering for the gospel any disgrace that may come from Paul’s martyrdom.

The three predicative nouns expand the thought of Paul’s high office. So great an honor was bestowed upon him, not only that his own soul might believe and receive the gospel salvation, but also that he might bring it to many, many others. How could he possibly be ashamed or Timothy, his associate, who shared in this distinction?

It is well to note that “apostle” is placed between “herald” and “teacher.” We take this to mean that Paul is not stressing his office as one that is distinct and higher than Timothy’s. Timothy is not to say: “Yes, thou art the great apostle, I am not!” In other words, “apostle” is here used as it is in 1 Thess. 2:6, where the plural places Paul, Timothy, and Silvanus on the same level as “apostles.” So Timothy is also all three: “herald” publicly to proclaim the gospel, “apostle,” commissioned to do so, “teacher,” fully to inculcate every part of it. Ashamed—never! Willing to suffer—indeed!

12) Διʼ ἥν αἰτίαν repeats v. 6. The relative connects with the preceding just as it does in v. 6, nor may we separate the two sections. We divide at this point only in order to indicate that v. 12, 13 rest on the preceding great facts. First, what Paul is doing; secondly, what Timothy is to do.

The great “case or cause” presented to us in the preceding verses is more than ample reason that Paul gladly suffers also these things that have now come upon him. Ταῦτα needs no further specification, for Timothy knows what is happening to Paul. Καί touches the fact that Paul has before this suffered many things during his career, and that “these things” which he is now suffering are the worst. The negative statement that, nevertheless, he is not ashamed reveals how the positive is to be understood, namely that he suffers gladly. To be confined on a capital criminal charge with the prospect of being executed as being guilty under that charge, is certainly the height of disgrace. So Jesus had been given the worst criminal’s death and was even crucified between two malefactors. Yet, although all the world cries shame, Paul is not ashamed. We recall Rom. 1:16 which was written when Paul was first planning to visit Rome; before all of Rome’s grandeur he declared that he was not ashamed to be the herald of the gospel, for all that grandeur could not save one beggar’s soul while Paul’s gospel saved every believer among Jews as well as Greeks. With a γάρ, like that found in Rom. 1:16, Paul adds why he is now, indeed, not ashamed.

“For I know him whom I have been trusting,” trusting all along, trusting still. Οἶδα indicates the relation of the object (Christ) to the subject (Paul) and thus appears to signify less than γινώσκω which expresses the relation of the subject (Paul) to the object (Christ), see John 10:14; C. K. 388. It does say less, but by that very fact says more. Merely to know Christ is all that Paul needs in order to trust him; Peter denied that he even knew the man (Matt. 26:72, 74). Many an understatement is stronger than a full statement. This is not τίνι with an indirect question: “whom I have been trusting” (our versions); but the relative: “him whom,” which leaves no doubt as to this person’s identity: “the Savior Christ Jesus who put the death out of commission and brought to light life and incorruption” (v. 10).

So with epexegetical καί Paul adds what this trusting means for him in the present connection: “and am persuaded that he is able to guard my deposit for (or against) that day.” Three times we have παραθήκη combined with this verb: here, v. 14, 1 Tim. 6:20. The two latter are exactly alike: Timothy is to guard the deposit placed into his keeping, i.e., the gospel, his commission in reference to that gospel. Can the word now mean the deposit which Paul has placed with Christ? Is the addition of “my” sufficient for that? We do not think so (C.-K. 1072). What Paul says is that the gospel, for which he suffers and is not ashamed, is entirely safe; he knows the Christ whom he trusts and is persuaded that, despite his imprisonment and expected martyrdom, Christ is able to guard the gospel so that its work shall not be stopped, guard it against that day when this gospel’s work will be wholly done. Taken out of Paul’s hands at his death, this “my deposit” Christ will guard, place into other hands, ever keep safe. This interpretation keeps to the line of the thought. In v. 11 Paul says that he was appointed as the gospel’s herald, apostle, teacher; then he says that for this cause he is now suffering. His concern is not for himself, it is entirely for the gospel, his deposit, held by him from the Lord. In v. 13 and 14 he calls upon Timothy to hold and to guard this same deposit.

Our versions take the other view, that of a deposit which Paul has placed into the Lord’s keeping. But there is no unanimity as to what this deposit might be. We append some suggestions: Paul’s soul; Paul’s spirit; Paul’s salvation; Paul’s good works with their reward. But what about εἰς ἐκείνην τὴν ἡμέραν which fits none of these? for it does not mean “until that day.” None of these deposits fits the context in which Paul speaks of the gospel and even uses “deposit” again in v. 14. There was a reason that prompted Paul to say that Christ is able to guard the gospel. Many Christians would cry out at the news of Paul’s death: “Now all is lost!” Timothy himself would experience a devastating shock. Calmly, in advance Paul says: “Though I die, Christ will not fail to guard his gospel.”

13) Christ will use human means, and Paul counts on Timothy as being one of them. So he urges him: As a model of healthy words (ever) have what ones from me thou didst hear in faith and love in Christ Jesus. That noble deposit guard through the Holy Spirit, him who dwells in us.

Fan into living flame thy charisma—be not ashamed—suffer disgrace with me—ever have my words as a model—guard this noble deposit! These are Paul’s urgings. The first and the fourth are given in durative form (ἀναζωπυρεῖν, v. 6, and ἔχε). The two imperatives used in v. 13, 14 are a good illustration of the present and the aorist: ever “have” before your mind and thus ever use the words you have heard from me as a model—definitely, decisively guard this excellent deposit.

The anarthrous ὑποτύπωσιν is not the direct object (our versions) but the predicate object, the article being omitted on this account. The actual object is the relative clause in which the genitive relative is attracted to the case of its antecedent, for what one hears is expressed by the accusative. Some say that ὑποτύπωσις means only “outline,” sketch,” but B.-P. 1355 renders it Urbild in 1 Tim. 1:16 and Vorbild in our passage. The sense is evidently that Timothy is not only to cling to the substance of what Paul has taught him but, when he is stating that substance, is also to use the very form of expression which he learned from Paul, not indeed slavishly, in parrot fashion, but using it as a safe model.

Here is the place to pause and to ponder. Paul received what he taught “by the revelation of Jesus Christ”; he spoke not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, “combining spiritual things with spiritual words” (1 Cor. 2:13, see our rendering and its exposition). So also Jesus speaks of his ῥήματα, “utterances” (John 15:7; 17:8; 12:48) and, of course, also of his λόγοι (Matt. 7:24, 26). All these “words” we have as Timothy had them, to be used as the ὑποτύπωσις in all our preaching and theology; nothing must deviate even in the least from the lines, tracings, design thus laid down for us. Why? Because every deviation from these λόγοι or ῥήματα is like a stepping from truth into falsehood.

Here we have Paul’s verdict on modernism with its claim that all these λόγοι are “outworn categories of thought,” “old thought patterns” that we have long ago outgrown. They have only an antiquarian value; they are mental costumes that ancient Jewish and Hellenistic minds once wore and thought to be stylish. We must substitute categories and patterns of thought which the wisdom of our day produces, that are derived from our science, democracy, sociology, philosophy; although just what these new patterns are to be is as yet in process of determination. The one thing certain is that the old logoi can no longer be worn. Even before the day of modernism it was proposed to use “new ways of teaching old truths,” and new ways were offered. But always these new vessels did not contain the old truths, these new categories and patterns of thought were emptied of the old thought substance. All these new proposals were “words of human wisdom.” Think not that the same view was wanting in Paul’s and in Timothy’s time. Just because it was present even then, Paul writes this sentence about “healthy words” being the “model” and pattern that Timothy was ever to hold.

Mark the word “healthy” which means sanus, not saluber (Zahn, Introduction, II, 129), and how often this healthiness recurs: 1 Tim. 1:10; 6:3; 2 Tim. 4:3; Titus 1:9, 13; 2:1, 2, 8. All other logoi are unhealthy, diseased, every other “model” or thought pattern is full of infection. Need we say what a force of argument this participle (used as an adjective) contains? Some have thought that Paul had a sort of fixed catechism for his converts and a kind of established dogmatics for his assistants and elders. What Paul’s logoi actually were his letters show. These are our teaching, our theological model today. Blessed is he who abides by Paul’s ἔχε!

Note that “from me” is placed forward for the sake of emphasis: “which from me thou didst hear.” “In faith and love,” both of these as connected with Christ Jesus, is best construed with the imperative: “ever have (and thus use) in faith, etc., these logoi as a model.” Timothy’s faith is to be centered in them, never forsake them; Timothy’s love (intelligent and purposeful) is ever to use them in all his loving work of teaching and guiding others. True love will never offer anything unhealthy. Can it be love when it does? The Scriptures know of no blind ἀγάπη (see John 3:16).

14) On this injunction compare 1 Tim. 6:20. The Lord had deposited with Timothy the same gospel that he had deposited with Paul (v. 12). Paul is now about to return his deposit to the Lord, who will take care of it against that day. The Lord is doing that in these very Scriptures. Timothy’s end is not yet in sight, so he must guard his precious deposit as Paul has guarded his, as Timothy has likewise done hitherto. Here Paul calls it καλή, “noble, excellent.” How noble it is we see from v. 8–10. Yet he is to do this, not by his own ability and watchfulness, which would never suffice, but “through the Holy Spirit, him who dwells in us.” When διά is used with a personal object, it has the force of mediation, sometimes even of agency, and beyond that almost a representative agency: vertreten durch (B.-P. 281). Here the Spirit’s mediation and assistance are enough. His dwelling in us (unio mystica) enables him to work through us. We may ever call him to our aid. “In us” = “in thee and me.” Because he dwells in all true believers Paul can say “in us” to Timothy.

15) These verses lend much clearness to Paul’s situation as well as to Timothy’s. We thus see how pertinent every line in v. 3–14 is, in particular “be not ashamed” (v. 8) and “I am not ashamed” (v. 12). Thou dost know this that there were turned away from me all those in Asia, to whom belong Phygelus and Hermogenes. May the Lord give mercy to the house of Onesiphorus because he often refreshed me and was not ashamed of my chain but, when he was in Rome, he diligently sought and found me. May the Lord give to him that he find mercy with the Lord in that day! And in how many things he ministered in Ephesus, thou on thy part realizest better (than I).

Paul means that Timothy knows the fact (see “I know,” v. 12). How he knows it is entirely plain, for “all those in Asia” (the Roman province “Asia” with its capital Ephesus) were men from Timothy’s own churches. Paul names two of them (ὧν ἐστι = to whom belong) who were probably the two most outspoken ones. These two names do not shine in honor. Timothy knows so that Paul needs to say only “they were turned away from me” (second aorist passive); who turned them away need not be said. We recall John 6:66 and Jesus’ question to the Twelve. The story is this: when Paul was arrested and charged with a capital crime he appealed by letter or by messenger to notable Christian men to come to Rome and to testify in his favor. “They all with one accord began to make excuse.” The journey, the risk to themselves, the hopeless outlook for Paul even if they testified caused them to turn away as Timothy knows only too well. Paul could, of course, not ask Timothy to testify, for he was an assistant who aided and abetted Paul in the alleged crime. Paul could ask only such men who would have a standing with the imperial court. We take it that even elders would not do.

We thus discard the idea that “all the Christians in Asia” had been turned away from Paul or from the gospel; also the idea that “all these in Asia” might mean Asians who were at that time in Rome. The trial of Paul was not hurried. This very letter shows that Paul hoped to have Timothy reach him before its end. Here were notable men right in Ephesus and in the province of Asia who were ashamed of Paul, the Lord’s prisoner (v. 8).

16) Onesiphorus was the very opposite. Between two prayer-wishes Paul records what this man did. It is striking that, like two arms, these wishes lay before Timothy and the Lord what this man did for Paul. “May the Lord give mercy to the house (the whole family) of Onesiphorus—may the Lord give to him that he find mercy with the Lord in that day!” Twice we have the word ἔλεος, “mercy,” evidently because Onesiphorus showed “mercy” to Paul—mercy to the whole family now, “mercy” to Onesiphorus himself at the last day. In 4:19 Paul sends a greeting to the whole family.

De Wette thought that Onesiphorus had died just recently, and many have agreed with him. I must admit that I cannot share this opinion. See, for one, Smith, Bible Dictionary. Some are convinced that Onesiphorus was dead because Paul uses the word οἶκος. But look at 1 Cor. 16:15 where the head of that “house” was not dead, and where “house” is used because its head was not the only member who ministered. How did Onesiphorus get to Rome? Not by mere chance. May we not assume that when Paul’s appeal reached Ephesus, when all to whom it was addressed turned away, the whole family of Onesiphorus gladly let him go to Rome to do what he could for Paul? Yes, Paul had to write “house” here and in 4:19.

Others rely only on v. 18a to support their opinion that Onesiphorus was dead. Strange, indeed, for then the two prayers should be reversed, the prayer for Onesiphorus himself should be first, the prayer for his bereaved family second. Moreover, if the father had died recently, “comfort” should be Paul’s prayer for the family and not just “mercy,” some word from Paul that reflects the bereavement. That word, too, should be found in the prayer for the family (this to be placed second) and not in a prayer for the dead man. We have never seen Paul fail in a tender situation; he always knows just what to say and just where and how to say it. If this man had just died, I for one cannot conceive that Paul would write as he does. The family evidently lived in Ephesus, for Paul sends greetings through Timothy. Some think that, although he had left Rome when Paul wrote, it was not to make a direct return home, but that is only a surmise. In both prayers we have the aorist optative of wish.

Paul reverses the order of Onesiphorus’ acts and does not consider them in the order in which they occurred but in the order in which he learned of them. Onesiphorus often “refreshed” Paul; all that lies in this word remains unknown. “I was in prison, and ye came unto me,” Matt. 25:36. Onesiphorus did not come empty-handed, this refreshment went beyond that. Onesiphorus was “not ashamed of Paul’s chain.” Here for the third time (v. 8 and 12) we have this key word “not ashamed.” If he had been ashamed, Onesiphorus would not have come. We have already stated how great a disgrace rested on this prisoner. “My chain” is not δεσμά, a word that is used only with reference to confinement, imprisonment; Paul was chained in his dungeon. There was no rented house now, no free and easy access as in that first imprisonment when Paul could invite all the rabbis and the leading men of the seven Roman synagogues to visit him and to stay all day (Acts 28:17, 23). Paul’s situation was now sadly different. “My chain”—all the shame and disgrace that might repel even dear friends lies in that one word.

17) Now there is mentioned the beginning of it all. When Onesiphorus got to Rome he diligently sought and then found Paul. Some texts read: “more diligently” because Onesiphorus was not ashamed whereas nearly all others were. Was it, then, so difficult to find Paul? Did the Roman Christians not know where he was confined? Remember the conflagration in Rome, because of which so many Christians were executed. Remember Peter’s crucifixion. What Roman Christian dared even to inquire about what had become of Paul? Not that they were “ashamed” of this prisoner but that they would likely precipitate his death or would make his state worse besides bringing dire results on themselves. Cautiously but persistently Onesiphorus made his search. The aorist states that it was successful. When Paul adds “and found me,” this means that at the end of his search Onesiphorus could not at once get into Paul’s dungeon, but he managed it somehow. Some say with bribes, others that Paul would not have allowed this. Yes, Onesiphorus found ways and means to visit Paul often; Luke, no doubt, helped him. Now, as Paul writes, Onesiphorus had departed. Would that we knew the details!

18) Paul breathes another prayer. The prayer voiced in v. 16 is for the family irrespective of time, for Onesiphorus and for all who are his. The prayer which is now added is for Onesiphorus “at that day.” We again recall Matt. 25:34–36; these words of Jesus justify Paul’s prayer. Κύριος is necessarily repeated because one pronoun (αὐτῷ) has already been used, and another that would refer to the Lord would be ambiguous.

The prayer is not parenthetical, for the last sentence is complete in itself. It is not “an afterthought,” for the thought of Paul keeps the order already indicated in v. 16, 17; Paul goes backward and now takes the last step, namely to the many services Onesiphorus had rendered already in Ephesus before he came to Rome and to Paul. These, Paul says, Timothy on his part (emphatic σύ) realizes better than Paul himself does, for they happened under Timothy’s own eyes. Such a man would rise to the height already described. Now the word used is not οἶδας as in v. 15 but γινώσκεις, “thou realizest.” Timothy not only has a knowledge of the facts (as in v. 15) but a knowledge that affected him personally as the superintendent of all the Asian churches. See οἶδα in v. 12.

B.-D Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte, voellig neugearbeitete Auflage, besorgt von Albert Debrunner.

B.-P Griechisch-Deutsches Woerterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments, etc., von D. Walter Bauer, zweite, voellig neugearbeitete Auflage zu Erwin Preuschens Vollstaendigem Griechisch-Deutschen Handwoerterbuch, etc.

R A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research. 4th edition..

M. M The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament Illustrated from the Papyri and other non-Literary Sources, by James Hope Moulton and George Milligan.

C. K Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von D. Dr. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.