Bible Commentaries
2 Timothy 1

Verse 1

The Second Epistle to Timothy

This is admitted, by all who hold the authenticity of the Pastoral epistles, to be the last writing we have from the pen of the apostle. He had himself evidently despaired, at the time he wrote, of getting deliverance from the hand of his persecutors, or even of having his martyrdom long delayed. An early termination of his course by an unjust and violent death appeared now to be inevitable; and the brief epistle in which he gave expression to his last utterances of faith and hope, is altogether worthy of the occasion. The probable date has been already discussed in the Introduction. A measure of uncertainty must always hang around it; but a variety of convergent circumstances seems to point to the year A.D. 68 as the most likely period.

Chapter I

Ver. 1. Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, according to the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus. The descriptive designation which Paul here employs respecting himself is so far peculiar, that it does not precisely accord with any other found at the commencement of his epistles, while still there is nothing in it which is not also found in some of them. That he was an apostle by, or through, God’s will, is very frequently expressed 1 Corinthians 1:1; 2 Corinthians 1:1; Ephesians 1:1; Colossians 1:1: in the thirst to Timothy it was by God’s appointment, which occurs only there. In connecting his apostleship here, and so frequently, with God’s will, he sought to place it above, not merely any choice or desert of his own, but also every kind of elective agency that was simply human, and to bring it into immediate connection with the mind and purposes of the Supreme. To show this more distinctly, he adds: according to the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus. This promise of life, or, as it is expressed in Titus 1:2, “hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before eternal times,” is presented as the primary ground out of which the specific acts and arrangements of God proceeded in reference to the work of salvation in the world, and among others, Paul’s own calling to the apostleship, which formed an important link of connection between the promise and its actual realization among men. The life meant, of course, is life in the higher sense, comprehensive of all the blessing and glory, both in this world and the next, which flow from an interest in the redemption of Christ. It is therefore not life simply, but that life which is in Christ Jesus (see at 1 Timothy 6:19). Timothy is thus again reminded, at the outset, that the character in which Paul now wrote to him, and consequently the counsels and admonitions which in that character he might express, bore on them a divine impress: they stood in near proximity to the eternal purpose and will of the Father.

Verse 2

Ver. 2. To Timothy, [ my ] beloved child. I cannot but regard it as a very frivolous question, to ask here, with some commentators, why the apostle should have addressed Timothy as his beloved ( ἀγαπητῷ ), and not, as in the first epistle, his true ( γνησίῳ ) child? and whether his doing so did not bespeak a somewhat diminished confidence now in respect to Timothy? (Mack, Alford.) Why should an apostle, any more than another person, be expected, if he has once employed a particular epithet on an endeared friend, to confine himself ever afterwards to the same? For anything we know, it might be the very reason why Paul did not use true here, that he was conscious of having used it in the former epistle; for love itself, when fervent, instinctively shrinks from formal repetitions. And did not Timothy now need to be greeted with an endearing rather than a confidential epithet, separated as he was unwillingly, and at such a crisis, from his spiritual father? The tears shed by the youthful disciple at that separation, which were still fresh in the remembrance of the apostle’s heart (2 Timothy 1:4), would alone prompt the latter to select a term that would be expressive of tenderness and affection. If there are certain things in the epistle (as Alford alleges) which seem to indicate a “somewhat saddened reminding, rather than one of rising hope and confidence,” toward Timothy, the designation of beloved child, so appropriate in the circumstances, is assuredly not one of them; and the attempt to turn it to such account belongs to fancy, not to exposition. Grace, mercy, peace from God the Father, and Christ Jesus our Lord. The same form of salutation as at 1 Timothy 1:2, which see, with reference especially to the inclusion of mercy, a peculiarity of these two epistles.

Verses 3-5

Vers. 3-5. I give thanks to God, whom I serve from my forefathers in a pure conscience. The form of expression at the commencement, χάριν ἔχω occurs only once again in St. Paul’s acknowledged epistles 1 Timothy 1:12; elsewhere it is ἐχαριστῶ (see there). In mentioning God as entitled, on a certain account, to receive and actually receiving thanks from him, the apostle couples a statement as to his own present and past relation to Him: the God he now served was also the God of his forefathers, and the service was done in a pure conscience toward Him, as theirs also had been. By forefathers ( προγόνων ) maybe understood either the nearer or more remote ancestry, but most naturally the former; as also at 1 Timothy 5:4, where the same word is used of grand-parents, the parentage just a step further off than the immediately preceding Scottice, forbears. The apostle’s service or worship ( λατρεύω ) formally, indeed, differed from that of his forefathers, inasmuch as it was all offered in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ; but then, holding this Jesus to be the Messiah promised to the fathers, and ever looked for by them, there was both the same God, and essentially the same worship, with him and with them. The one faith which he and they alike professed was only more developed now, and the worship adapted to the fresh stage that had been reached; and he would have Timothy to bear this perpetually in mind, not only because he also stood in the same relation to a pious Jewish ancestry (presently to be noticed, 2 Timothy 1:5-6), but also because the apostle’s approaching condemnation and death as the abettor of a new religion was sure to expose Timothy to opposition and danger on the same ground. It was meet, therefore, that he should know well here the foundations of his faith, and hold firmly by them. Substantially, the same assertions respecting his worship, and the manner in which he discharged it, were made by St. Paul in Acts 23:1, Acts 24:14-16. And that what he says here is no way inconsistent with the admissions he makes respecting his native depravity, see at Titus 3:4.

But for what precisely does the apostle give thanks to God? That it is mainly for what he believed to be in Timothy, the unfeigned faith which he had, in some sense, as a heritage from his ancestors, but which he personally and stedfastly continued to hold, there can be no reasonable doubt. But this is not formally introduced till 2 Timothy 1:5, and there is an involved construction of two or three clauses going before, commencing with the particle ὡς , which presents some difficulty, and has been variously explicated by commentators. Some, as Chrysostom, Luther, Authorized Version, take ὡς in the sense of that (which it never properly means), and so make the apostle’s remembrance of Timothy in his prayers the direct object of his thanksgivings, this being only supplemented afterwards by a reference to Timothy’s sincere faith. That, however, appears unnatural; and so also are the renderings of ὡς by when, as often as (Calvin, Conybeare, “whenever I remember thee”), because, quod, quoniam (Common Vulg., Chrys., Leo), or even by as, which is adopted by Winer, De Wette, Huther, Ellicott. For though, by this latter method, as indeed also by the others, we get the substantial import of the passage, yet not in the precise form in which it seems to have been presented by the apostle: he would be made to tell Timothy, that since he did constantly in fact remember him in his prayers, he could, while he did so, bring into consideration his unfeigned faith. It seems best, most in accordance with the order and connection of the several clauses, to take ὡς in the ordinary sense of how, quam (which is the rendering also of the Vulg. in the Codex Amiat.: quam sine intermissione habeam tui memoriam), and thereby bring the prayerful remembrance of Timothy into a somewhat closer relation to the thanksgivings than if it were merely parenthetical. Thus: I give thanks to God . . . how unceasing remembrance I have of thee in my prayers night and day, longing to see thee, mindful of thy tears, that I may be filled with joy, recollecting the unfeigned faith [ that is ] in thee, which dwelt first, etc. Reading the passage thus, in what seems the most natural and simple manner, the apostle must be regarded as including the perpetual mention of Timothy in prayer as a ground of thanksgiving; but then it is not so properly the mention or remembrance itself, as the way in which he found himself able to do it, that he is thankful for: it was that he had, and still continued to have, such an image upon his mind of Timothy’s affection to himself and his faith in God, that he could unceasingly bring him into remembrance before God for an interest in the divine favour and blessing, being assured that in so doing he might look for acceptance with Heaven. There is nothing strange in such a line of thought; but it obviously proceeds upon the conviction of Timothy’s spiritual state and character being such as to awaken only grateful feelings and recollections; and it does seem strange that any one should think of discovering, in so friendly and glowing a representation, indications of spiritual declension on the part of the much-loved evangelist. This is what Alford does, but on the slenderest possible grounds.

The epithet of unceasing, which the apostle couples with his mention of Timothy in his prayers, must, as its prominent position indicates ( ὡς ἀδιάλειπτον ἔχω τὴν μνείαν ), be emphasized: it was an unceasing reminiscence in ever recurring acts of devotion, because the tender and agreeable impressions on his mind respecting Timothy pressed him continually into the foreground of his thoughts and desires, when drawing near to God. Something of this the apostle ascribes to the working of natural affection longing to see thee, ἐπιποθῶν , “participle dependent on ἔχω μνείαν , expressing the feeling that existed previously to, or contemporaneous with, that action, and connected with the final cause, ἵνα πληρωθῶ ” (Ellicott) the full experience of joy. The apostle’s longing, he goes on to state, was much increased by the remembrance of Timothy’s tears the tears, doubtless, which he shed at parting with his beloved father in Christ, and shed afresh, we can well suppose, as the perils deepened around the apostle’s condition. He could not, therefore, but wish to have this dear companion again at his side, in order that their common sadness might be turned into joy; nor can we doubt that the ordering of events, so as to accomplish this natural desire, was one of the things which he sought from God, when making such frequent mention of the object of his affectionate regard. But such considerations and desires, however proper in themselves, and suitable for expression in prayer to God, would have failed in their end, nor would they have found any record here, unless they had been associated with another from the first the more essential element in the apostle’s estimate of Timothy’s condition as a subject of thanksgiving and prayer namely, the recognition he could make of his unfeigned faith. The expression is a little peculiar, ὑπόμνησιν λαβὼν , literally, taking reminiscence, or simply recollecting; as λήθην λαβὼν , in 2 Peter 1:9, is unquestionably forgetting, and α ̓ ρχη ̀ ν λαβ . Λαλεῖσθαι , took beginning = began to be spoken. This recollecting of Timothy’s faith is not to be connected with the apostle’s longing to see him, but is to be referred back to his thanksgivings and constant remembrance of Timothy in prayer; such recollection gave him confidence in naming Timothy to God, and filled him with gratitude. And in designating the faith unfeigned, he clearly ascribes to it the most essential attribute of goodness; it was a genuine principle, the opposite of a hypocritical or wavering profession. That the possession of this faith was also an abiding characteristic of Timothy a thing of the present as well as of the past is plainly implied in the unceasing mention made of him by the apostle to God as a man of faith.

The faith in question is further characterized as that which also ( ἥτις , quae et, Vulg., that sort of faith which) dwelt first in thy grandmother Lois; meaning, not first absolutely in this ancestral line, but first in that portion of it with which the apostle and Timothy had personal acquaintance the first so far as they could take cognizance of it; and thy mother Eunice; and not only so, but I am persuaded ( πέπεισμαι , have been and still am persuaded) that in thee also (viz. ἐνοικεῖ , dwells). That there is a want of entire confidence expressed here, as Alford, after some earlier commentators, thinks, has no proper foundation. Paul simply expresses his persuasion that Timothy had the same unfeigned faith which belonged to his godly parentage on the female side; and we have no more reason to imagine that this connection with the past implies suspicion in regard to Timothy’s stedfastness, than the apostle’s declaration a little before respecting himself, that he served God from, or after the example and spirit of, his forefathers, bespoke some failing in his own piety.

Verse 6

Ver. 6. For which cause namely, because I have full confidence that such is your spiritual condition (Theophylact, διότι οἶδα σε ἀνυπόκριτον ἔχοντα πίστιν ; Theod., ταῦτα περὶ σου πεπεισμένος παρακαλῶ ). Cocceius justly compares 1 John 2:21, “I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it,” and adds: “Each apostle guards against the supposition that his writing or excitation should seem to insinuate either ignorance or unbelief of the truth; and, on the contrary, shows that the knowledge and faith of the truth dwelling in them was the cause of writing them and stirring them up. Such incitement would certainly have been in vain with persons ignorant of the truth, or not exercising faith in it.” In accordance with this is the mild form of the exhortation that follows: I remind thee ( ἀναμιμνῄσκω , admonish is too strong) to stir up ( ἀναζωπυρεῖν , lit. to kindle up, the subject being viewed under the image of a fire) the gift of God which is in thee through the laying on of my hands. That the verb here used ( ἀναζωπ .) does not necessarily imply any previous decay or slumbering that it means to kindle up, as well as re -kindle, the force of ἀνα being up, or upwards (Ellicott) is put beyond doubt by the examples given in Wetstein. (The synonyms given by Hesych. are ᾶνεγεῖραι , α ̓ ναζη ͂ ν ποιει ͂ ν ; by Suidas, ἀνανεῶσαι , ἀνεγεῖραι .) Very similar is the language of St. Peter when he speaks of stirring up the disciples by way of remembrance, or putting them in mind ( διεγείρειν ὑμᾶς ἐν ὑπομνήσει , 2 Peter 1:13). The circumstances of the time, especially as connected with the apostle’s fresh imprisonment, and now all too probable destination to capital punishment, rendered such an exhortation every way fitting. On such a mind as Timothy’s, disposed to lean rather than to lead accustomed to take a subordinate, not a principal part those circumstances could not but have a depressing effect. The danger for him, the apostle would readily foresee, was that he would lose heart in the conflict, and perhaps withdraw into some more retired and humble position than his calling and acquirements qualified him to occupy. He is therefore urged to brace himself for the occasion, and stir into vigorous action the gift he had received for the service of God. The gift itself ( χάρισμα ) is undoubtedly the special endowment or gift of grace qualifying him for the evangelistic work to which he was appointed. It was referred to in the former epistle (1 Timothy 4:14), and is there connected instrumentally with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery, as here with the laying on of St. Paul’s own hands. There is no contrariety between the two statements, as both parties no doubt took part in the ordination service (see at the former passage); but here it was natural and proper that the apostle should have reminded Timothy of his own act of imposition, as now more than ever Timothy was likely to be called to stand, to a certain extent, in the apostle’s room, and enter into his labours. It was of great importance, therefore, that he should now feel his increased responsibility, and apply himself to the cultivation of the grace which had been conferred upon him, undeterred by any discouragements or dangers which might stand in the way.

Verse 7

Ver. 7. For God gave us not the spirit of cowardice, but of power, and love, and correction. By spirit here may be understood either God’s Spirit working in a certain manner in us, or our own spirit as wrought upon and formed by God; practically, it comes much to the same thing, since either way the gift is of God, obtained by direct fellowship with His Spirit. But spoken of as a thing that, hypothetically at least, might take a wrong as well as a right direction, it most naturally presents itself to our view in the subjective, concrete aspect as the inwrought spiritual disposition or temperament which, by the Spirit of God conferred on us as ministers of the word, we were at once called and empowered to exercise. Now, as such it was not, the apostle says, the spirit of cowardice ( δειλίας , more than φόβου , fear, which is capable of a good as well as a bad sense) such as would dispose us to shrink from the discharge of duty when it becomes irksome, or to compromise our principles when it is perilous to hold them. Not this is the spirit with which we were endowed by God (as at Romans 8:15 it was denied to be the spirit δουλείας , of bondage), but of power, manfully to bear up against trials and difficulties, to hold our ground when others are ready to yield and give way; and love, which seeks not its own, but the good of others and the glory of God, even at the expense of what is personally dear and amiable to it; and correction. In regard to this last expression, σωφρονισμός , it is impossible, perhaps, to get an English word that exactly corresponds with the original. Our translators have rendered it sound mind, substantially following Beza, sanitatis animi; the Vulg. and Erasmus have sobrietatis, not much different, but giving the import of σωφροσύνη rather than σωφρονισμός : for the latter, as Suicer remarks, Thes. ii. p. 1224, “expresses the authority which admonishes and restrains those who walk in a disorderly manner, and is opposed to cowardice;” so that this spirit shows itself in a capacity to check what, either by corrupt motions from within, or by threats and allurements from without, would lead us into foolish and perverse ways: it is the power of authoritative control and wise restraint, which if we but have in sufficient measure, we shall not weakly bend to adverse circumstances, but make these bend to us. This coincides, in part at least, with one of Chrysostom’s explanations; and Theodoret gives the sense of the whole thus: “God has given us the grace of His most Holy Spirit, not that we should dread the perils that beset godliness, but that, being replenished with divine power, we might both ardently love Him and repress the disorder of the affections that agitate us;” as also, it should have been added, might reprove the false compliances and disorderly behaviour prevalent around us. Hence the word, in later times, came to be applied to ecclesiastical censures; see in Suicer.

Verse 8

Ver. 8. Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me His prisoner. Having received from God such a spirit, show it now by repressing all emotions of shame, and boldly avowing your adherence to the faith of Christ, and your connection with me as His apostle. The exhortation does not imply that any indication had yet been given by Timothy of an improper sense of shame; rather the reverse, indeed, it is a fatherly admonition, lest he should give way to the feeling ( μὴ ἐπαισχυνθῇς , coupled here, as elsewhere, with the accusative, 2 Timothy 1:16, Romans 1:16). But amid the painful experiences of the apostle at the time of his writing, seeing how one after another of his old friends had been dropping away from him, and now only one faithful companion remained to stand by him (2 Timothy 4:10-11), we cannot wonder that he should have manifested solicitude about his beloved Timothy, and called him to exhibit another spirit. The testimony of Christ, or, as it is put somewhat unusually, of our Lord (see, however, 1 Timothy 1:14, Hebrews 7:14), is certainly not Christ’s personal martyrion. His martyr death, or the witnessing that had to be borne respecting it, but all that the faithful servant and minister of Christ was bound to testify concerning His person and work, His life and death. The genitive, therefore, is the genitive of the object ( μαρ . τοῦ Κυρίου ): the primary aim of apostolic and evangelistic work was to bear witness about Him (Acts 1:8, Acts 2:32). And with this primary testimony St. Paul couples himself as the Lord’s prisoner, a prisoner, that is, for the Lord’s sake, and in a sense also (though this only by implication) by the Lord’s appointment. It was the duty of Timothy to be no more ashamed of the apostle in such a crisis than of the gospel itself: for Christ was, in a manner, suffering in His servant; and to turn the back on the one (considering the closeness of Timothy’s relation to him), would have been virtually to turn it on the other.

From what Timothy should not do, the apostle proceeds to say what he should: But suffer hardship with me for the gospel, according to the power of God. The preposition ( σὺν ) in the verb ( συγκακοπάθησον seems to be most naturally referred to the apostle; as the question which now presented itself for solution was, whether Timothy would join himself with the apostle in suffering for the gospel, or to avoid the suffering would stand aloof. Not, therefore, as in the A.V., “be partaker of the afflictions of the gospel” (which also somewhat harshly represents the gospel as susceptible of suffering), but be partaker of affliction, or suffer hardship with me, for the gospel εὐαγγελίῳ the Dat. of interest, for its sake, or on its behalf We have a similar mode of expression in Philippians 1:27, “Striving together for the faith of the gospel” ( συναθλοῦντες τῇ πίστει τοῦ εὐαγ .). When the apostle exhorts Timothy to share with him in this readiness to suffer for the gospel according to the power of God, he points to the great things done by God in the matter of salvation as a ground and motive for something corresponding being done by us: Consider what power He has displayed in meeting with and overcoming the evils of our condition, and in that power show that you have become a partaker. Chrys.: “Because it was a hard saying, Suffer hardship, he again comforts him, saying, not according to our works; that is, Do not think to bear these things by thine own power, but by the power of God; for it is thine to choose and be ready to undertake, but it is God’s to relieve and to give rest. Then also he brings forth proofs of His [God’s] power: Consider how thou wert saved; how thou wert called. As he says elsewhere, According to His mighty power that works in us. Thus there is greater power required to persuade the world than to make the heavens. How wert thou called?” he asks: “ By a holy calling. That is. He made those holy who were sinners and enemies; and these things are not of us they are the gift of God.”

Verse 9

Ver. 9. The apostle now proceeds to give a brief but graphic description of this manifested power of God in the matter of salvation: Who saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose, and the grace which was given us [grace that which was given = the grace which was given] in Christ Jesus before eternal times. The passage as a whole, including what follows in 2 Timothy 1:10, has a close resemblance to Titus 3:4-6, only with the introduction here of certain phases of the work of God, which bear directly on the mighty power and energy displayed in its execution. The purpose of the apostle in so distinctly referring to God’s more peculiar work naturally led to this; since it was designed to brace and fortify the mind of Timothy to that life of vigorous action and hardy endurance which was in accordance with the gospel scheme, and would be a fitting reflection of it. In saying that God saved us and called us, it is plainly God the Father that he more specifically refers to, as with Him, in Scripture, salvation as a whole, and in particular the calling of believers, is commonly associated. The calling, in this aspect of it, is all one with being brought into a state of salvation. And the work itself, with this individual application of it, is ascribed, as to its origin, simply and exclusively to the sovereign goodness and electing love of God, projecting themselves into the future before it could properly be said there was either a past or a future: the fountainhead of all was His own ( ἰδίαν ) purpose and grace, and that not waiting to be evoked by the events and circumstances of human life, but given in Christ Jesus before eternal times. How carefully is the doctrine of God’s saving grace here guarded from dependence on anything external or creaturely! It is traced up to the infinite depths of the Father’s loving-kindness, not merely as regards the general idea and principal lineaments of the plan, but also in respect to the glorious gift it secures for the individual believer. The grace was given us by Him given before eternal times; for, as even De Wette puts it, “what God determines in eternity, is as good as done in time.” And given in Christ, who, as sponsor for His own in the everlasting covenant, could then also receive for them what the Father in His good pleasure gave: so that, as regards those who shall ultimately share in the blessings of the covenant, all from the first is well ordered and sure. Much the same thought as to the primal and thoroughly independent character of God’s purpose of grace is presented in Titus 1:2, only connected with a promise instead of a purpose.

Verse 10

Ver. 10. But passing from the secret purpose of grace in eternity to its unfolding in time manifested now by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who abolished death, indeed, but brought life and immortality (or incorruption) to light. Christ’s appearing must certainly be understood in the larger sense not of the incarnation simply, but of the incarnate Son in His entire mission and work on earth. By means of that He gave full manifestation of the Father’s eternal purpose of grace; and did so, the apostle tells us, by a twofold act a sort of double agency, on the one side destructive, on the other salutary and glorifying. The two necessarily stand in contrast, yet not without a close and inward connection; for the one is but the reverse side of the other. Hence the particles μὲν δὲ , indicative at once of connection and contrast (which should not be overlooked in the rendering): who abolished death, indeed, but brought life and immortality to light. In the one respect He acted as a destroyer, but only that He might place as in the light of day the destiny of His people to an everlasting heritage of life and blessing: salvation in its highest issues necessarily carrying along with it a work of destruction. (See, on this principle, Typology of Scripture, B. ii. c. 16, s. 2.) In so speaking of the manifestation of God’s grace, and identifying the whole with the appearing of Christ among men, there is a close resemblance, in point of form, to the representation previously given of the eternal purpose of grace. This was contemplated by the apostle, not only as taking shape in the divine counsels before the world began, but as finding there an ideal realization in the (predestined) gift of salvation-blessings in Christ. So now, here, with respect to the manifestation of the grace, he sees its accomplishment in the personal triumph and glorification of the Redeemer, as potentially carrying along with it and imaging the common experience and destiny of His people. For in His triumph over death theirs also was involved; and in that immortal life to which He rose, they have their life hid (1 Corinthians 15:20-22; Colossians 3:3). Or, as St. Peter puts it, “they are begotten again to a living hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance incorruptible, undefiled, and that fadeth not away” (1 Peter 1:3-4).

Viewing the passage thus as an exhibition in the personal Saviour of what is distributively, in due time, to be realized in the experience of all genuine believers, we are saved from the necessity of inquiring in what precise sense death is here to be understood whether as a personal adversary, or as a state in respect alike to body and soul, or as a power pervading and overshadowing the world (Ellicott). There seems no need for going into such an inquiry, and breaking up what is here presented as a unity into a variety of parts. Death as triumphed over and abolished in Christ comprehends all that can justly be included in the name; primarily, no doubt, the extinction of animal life, but that only as the natural issue and result of the mortal elements or powers of evil, which are at work in the temporal condition of mankind. In Christ’s resurrection from the dead, and entrance on the power of an endless life, a complete and final end is made of them all; as shall be done also in the case of the redeemed, when the purpose of God respecting them is finished. But what appeared like one great act in Him, who knew no sin, and had the Eternal Spirit dwelling in Him above measure, can in them be only gradually developed. And while the work is proceeding in their experience proceeding amid many trials, and with the sure prospect of a temporary sojourn in the grave, they should strive to keep the eye of faith fixed on the glorious pattern of the risen Redeemer, as that to which they are destined to be conformed. For thus they will feel, that it is not for them to quail before the difficulties and trials of time, but in the face of all such to remain stedfast to their calling in Christ, and endure hopefully to the end.

The verb φωτίζειν , though sometimes used intransitively, is here and elsewhere (1 Corinthians 4:5; John 1:9; Revelation 21:23) taken actively. It means, not for the first time to disclose, but to bring into the clearest light what had hitherto lain in comparative obscurity. The thing so shone upon, objectively illuminated, is Life life, as elsewhere spoken of in these Pastoral epistles (here, 2Ti 1:1 ; 1 Timothy 4:8; Titus 1:2), in the higher sense such as it exists, pure and blessed, in the presence and kingdom of God. It is here conjoined with, and explained by, ἀφθαρσίαν , immortality or incorruption indicating, not anything properly distinct from the life, but the imperishable and incorruptible nature of this life (as is done also in 1 Peter 1:4). Finally, while the manifestation of God’s grace, as destroying death and exhibiting life and immortality, took place in Christ, it is also associated with the gospel is spoken of as in a manner done through this, because by the gospel the certain knowledge of it is communicated to men; and instrumentally, everything depends on the sincere belief and faithful proclamation of this gospel by the ministers of Christ.

Verse 11

Ver. 11. The reference to the gospel, introduced so casually at the close of the preceding verse, is taken by the apostle as a link to introduce what follows respecting his office, and what it called him to suffer, as well as to do, for the sake of Christ: for which I was appointed a herald and apostle, and teacher of the Gentiles. The same description exactly that was given of his office in the first epistle, 1 Timothy 2:7. What follows, however, is different, having respect to the sufferings associated with the calling, as formerly it stood connected with his authority to prescribe and rule in church affairs.

Verse 12

Ver. 12. For which cause also I suffer these things: the things, namely, alluded to in 2 Timothy 1:8 his persecutions, imprisonment, and sufferings. But I am not ashamed; for I know whom I have trusted, and am persuaded that He is able to keep my deposit against that day. The chief question here is, What is to be understood by my deposit τὴν παραθήκην μου ? Is it what the apostle had committed to God, or what God had committed to him? Having just expressed his trust, and his assurance that this, whatever it might be, God was able to guard or keep ( φυλάξαι ), one most naturally thinks of it as something which he had committed to God. And this is the view expressed in the Authorized Version “that which I have committed to Him;” that also which many able expositors, in former and present times, have adopted, with only minor shades of difference as to the thing committed (his soul Grotius, Bengel; soul, body, and spirit Conybeare, Alford; his salvation Calvin, Huther; his final reward, crown of righteousness Theophylact, Beza, Calov, Wolf). But the view undoubtedly lies open to two somewhat serious objections. First, the personal pronoun connected with the word my deposit seems rather to connect its possession with Paul than with God; it was his as contradistinguished from another’s, and his in connection with the cause for which he was suffering. Then, the word as used presently after, 2 Timothy 1:14, and in 1 Timothy 6:20 (the only other passages where it occurs), expresses what is committed by God to a person, and for which he is answerable to God. And there is force, it must be allowed, in the question of De Wette: “How could a writer use the same word so shortly afterwards [or before], in a different sense, without giving some indication of the difference?” Considering, also, that the matter has respect to a peculiar Greek mode of expression, there is some weight to be attached to the circumstance that this is the sense which all the Greek expositors seemed to regard as the natural and patent one, though they differed as to what precisely should be understood by it. According to Theodoret, the deposit was “the spirit of grace which God had given to the apostle.” What was the deposit? asks Chrysostom; and answers it by saying, “Faith, preaching.” But he hesitates, and gives, as another possible answer, the faithful: and these, either as committed by God to the apostle, or by the apostle to God. Theophylact, as usual, adopts all Chrysostom’s, and adds another also from himself, namely, the future recompense: for “whosoever has done anything that is good lays it up with God, that he may in due season be crowned for it.”

There is obviously a good deal of guess work in several of these explanations; in themselves fanciful, they are also little suited to the connection. On the whole, however, the weight of probability, in a linguistic point of view, seems plainly to favour the opinion which regards the deposit as something entrusted to the apostle. Then, looking at the connection, the same impression forces itself upon us. For it will be observed that the apostle is here accounting for the fact, that though now in the extremity of peril and suffering for his apostolic calling and his missionary labours, he was not ashamed. Had he yielded to the sense of shame, what would have happened? He would have renounced his connection with the gospel of Christ as a thing unworthy of him too weak to stand in the hour of trial. But when he thought of Him who had sent him on such a warfare, and had put him in trust with so precious a treasure, he felt there was no room for shame, and scorned the temporizing policy which shame would dictate. The all-powerful Guardian and Protector in whom he confided, and who had borne him through so many troubles in the past, would assuredly uphold him still, and enable him to preserve his calling, with all its sacred prerogatives and gifts, unimpaired to the end. So that in the great day of account, nothing properly belonging to it should be found wanting nothing forfeited or lost. (It might be added, in proof of the naturalness of the interpretation which identifies the deposit with the apostolic calling of Paul, that he often elsewhere speaks of being put in trust with the gospel: 1 Timothy 1:11; Titus 1:3; Galatians 2:7, etc.)

This I take to be the most natural explanation of the passage, and the train of thought which it embodies. The attempt of Alford to vindicate the other view has too artificial an appearance, and overlooks, as it seems to me, the more important points, on which the determination of the question must turn. The day referred to in so emphatic a manner, is undoubtedly the day of the Lord’s appearing for judgment. But εἰς ἐκείνην τὴν ἡμέραν is not until, up to that day, but for, or, as in the Authorized Version, against it, in view of its proceedings.

Verse 13

Ver. 13. Have (or possess) the pattern of sound words, which thou heardest of me in faith and love which are in Christ Jesus. The term ὑποτύπωσις occurs only here and in 1 Timothy 1:16; nor does it mean more than pattern or exemplar, only this in the more active or vital sense: “a living expression of things (as Calvin puts it), as if they were visibly presented to the eye.” The verb with which it is connected, ἔχε , has been taken by many commentators, also in the Authorized Version, as substantially equivalent to κάτεχε , hold fast. But this is untenable. The examples appealed to do not bear out the interpretation: in several of them the meaning may fairly enough be expressed by hold, but this only in the sense of having as a possession; so, for instance, at 1 Timothy 1:19, we can indifferently render “ having ” or “ holding faith and a good conscience,” and at 1 Timothy 3:9, “having” or “ holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.” The verb in each case denotes nothing more than an actual personal possessing. Abiding, then, by this only allowable sense, what is to be understood by the exhortation to Timothy, that he should possess the fresh pattern of sound words, which he had heard from the apostle? Many would take it, with Calvin and Beza, of “that form and method of teaching “which he had learned from Paul; and others, somewhat more definitely, of an outline or written sketch, which the apostle had furnished him withal (Herder, Schrader, De Wette). Alford objects to this as in one respect too specific (reading ὑποτύπωσιν as if it were τὴν ὑποτύπ .), and in another too general away from any immediate connection with the present discourse. He would therefore render, “Have (take) an example of (the) healthy words which thou heardest of me; “and he would regard it as pointing to the declaration just uttered by the apostle in the immediately preceding verse: q.d.., Take these as a specimen or example of the sound words which thou hast so often heard from me. But this also is an explanation which has an artificial aspect, and requires too much to be supplied. Had the apostle meant precisely what it ascribes to him, we should have expected him to employ language that pointed more explicitly to the preceding declaration; nor is ἔχε , with such a rendering, exactly in its place, as is clear from the virtual displacing of have in the translation by the bracketed take. There is certainly no need for excluding the declaration in question from the sound or healthy words spoken of by the apostle; and it is quite probable that the exhortation of this verse was suggested by the healthful utterance of faith and practice therein contained. But the general form of the exhortation, and the reference at the close of it to things formerly heard by Timothy from the lips of the apostle, forbid our giving it so limited an application.

Perhaps the main scope and spirit of the exhortation could not be more happily expressed than has been done in the following comment of Chrysostom’s: “What is it that he says? I have, as it were, after the manner of painters, impressed an image of virtue on thee, and of all the things which are pleasing to God, as a certain rule and archetype and declaration which I have let down into thy soul. These things, therefore, possess; and if thou shouldst have to give counsel respecting faith, or love, or self-control, take thence your exemplars: you shall have no need to seek a pattern from others, having all these provided to your hand.” The apostle thus expresses the wish that Timothy should retain, for his own safety against error and backsliding, the many things he had heard from the apostle as the kind of living type and embodiment of whatever was healthful in the life of faith should remember it, and keep it beside him, like a faithful monitor and guide. Not, however, that he should do this in a mechanical and formal manner out of regard merely to the authority from which he had derived it but in the spirit of a true disciple, as one dwelling in faith and love that are in Christ Jesus: in these, that is, as the spiritual element, or frame of mind, in which the pattern of things exhibited to him should be remembered and applied. He must with a kindred spirit appropriate them, and endeavour to carry out the high moral ends for which they were given.

Verse 14

Ver. 14. Very naturally and fitly coming after this exhortation, rightly understood, is the charge in this verse: the goodly deposit keep through the Holy Spirit that dwelleth in us. The goodly deposit, or good thing entrusted to him, is just the scheme of divine doctrine and obligation, which he had received in trust as a believer and an evangelist, and the living type of which had formed itself in his heart from the apostolic words he had so often listened to. He is called to keep or guard this ( φύλαξον ); yet not as in his own strength and wisdom, but through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. So that there is no inconsistence between what is thus charged on Timothy respecting his deposit, and what the apostle represented himself as doing in regard to his own trusting in the faithfulness and power of God to keep it. In both cases alike the effective guardianship was of God the assurance of a safe and triumphant issue stood in their personal relation to Him; but God’s keeping, in their case as in all others, had man’s for its necessary counterpart through this alone could it be justly expected to realize itself

Verse 15

Ver. 15. A few sad notices are now introduced of persons who had failed to do toward the suffering cause of Christ in the apostle what he had been earnestly pressing upon Timothy. Thou hnowest that all who are in Asia turned away from me. Who these might be we cannot tell, except as regards the two individuals specially mentioned, of whom is Phygellus and Hermogenes; nor of these do we know anything more than the names, for no other notice exists regarding them. But the “all in Asia” can only refer to some definite number in that region the Roman province which bore the name of Asia with whom the apostle had, in his hour of trial, some sort of recognised connection. As Timothy knew, at least, the general circumstances referred to, the apostle naturally left a good deal to be supplied. He does not even say where the conduct he felt so painfully was exhibited; but the natural supposition is, it was at Rome, and in connection with the accusation brought against him, or the trial and imprisonment to which it led. In this emergency those Asiatics (with one noble exception presently mentioned) turned away from him, ἀπεστράφησάν not “ are turned away,” as if they had gone into settled alienation and apostasy for it refers to a specific act of unkindness toward the apostle; yet not, perhaps, so marked as that implied in the translation of Alford they repudiated him; for the verb does not strictly import more than to stand aloof: when they should have showed friendship, they ignored him. Even this was bad enough, and betrayed a culpable lack of sympathy with one who had done so much for them, and a kind of half-heartedness to the cause of which he was the peculiar representative.

Verses 16-17

Vers. 16, 17. There was, however, a noble exception to this faint-hearted procedure: The Lord give mercy to the house of Onesiphorus, because he ofttimes refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain that, namely, which bound him as a felon to the soldier who guarded him. It implies that others were ashamed, and, shrinking from the ignominious treatment which his unflinching zeal had brought on him, turned away. The more gratifying must have been the conduct of Onesiphorus, whose Christian principle and fellow-feeling carried him above the discouragements and perils of the time, and, regardless of consequences, enabled him to do the part of a genuine comforter. He ofttimes did it, says the apostle even after the chain had turned to imprisonment in the capital; for it is added, when he had arrived in Rome ( γενόμενος ἐν Ῥώμῃ , not merely was there, but had come to the city, or arrived in it), he sought me out with greater diligence, and found me. The expression is striking, as showing that what led others to turn away from the apostle was the very thing which prompted the friendly search and beneficent ministrations of Onesiphorus. “The comparative [in σπουδαιο ́ τερπν ] does not imply any contrast between Onesiphorus and others, nor with the diligence that might have been expected, but refers to the increased diligence with which Onesiphorus sought out the apostle when he knew that he was in captivity. He would have sought him out σπουδαίως in any case; now he sought for him σπουδαιότερπν ” (Ellicott).

Verse 18

Ver. 18. May the Lord grant to him that lie may find mercy from the Lord in that day. The repetition of Lord is peculiar the Lord grant that he may find from the Lord! but is certainly not to be explained, with some, both in earlier and later times, as having respect in the first case to the Father, and in the second to the Son as the Judge. If such a distinction had been intended to be made, we may be sure it would have been more broadly marked. We may explain it (with Huther, Alford), by regarding the first expression, “May the Lord grant “( δῴη ὁ Κύριος ), as so common a formula in such brief requests to Heaven, that the repetition in the second part was not noticed. But Calvin’s seems preferable: “It might be that the vehemence of affection moved Paul to an unnecessary repetition, as is wont to happen.” And he properly adds: “This prayer teaches us how much greater a reward shall await those who, without the hope of any earthly recompense, have done offices of kindness to the saints, than if they had received a present reward from the hand of men.” It is noticeable, also, as he still further remarks, that mercy is the thing prayed for, doubtless because the apostle had respect to the Lord’s own exposition of the law of recompense: “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy;” and again, “Blessed . . . because I was sick and in prison, and ye visited me.” The circumstance that St. Paul asks simply a future blessing for Onesiphorus mercy of the Lord in that day, the day when all things shall come into judgment coupled with the other circumstance, that when speaking of the present he twice over names merely the household of Onesiphorus (2 Timothy 1:16, 2 Timothy 4:19), has given rise to the inference that Onesiphorus must have already ceased to live. The inference may certainly be regarded as probable, though we can scarcely deem it altogether conclusive. For, possibly, such special mention was made of the household, because Timothy was at the time in their neighbourhood, and the father of the household may have been known to be still absent from them. But the matter is of little moment. More important is the circumstance which the apostle adds respecting this good man, to show that what he did at Rome was no isolated thing, but a following out of the course he was wont to pursue at home: And how many things he ministered at Ephesus, thou knowest very well βέλτιον literally, better namely, than I can tell you, or than needs to be told. In these Ephesian ministrations the apostle doubtless shared; but as they are mentioned quite generally, they may justly be regarded as embracing the Christian community there, and its common interests. The A.V. has “ministered unto me ” and in the later copies of the Vulgate mihi is inserted, but the earlier and better copies want it; and there is nothing corresponding to it in the Greek.