Lectionary Calendar
Sunday, July 20th, 2025
the Week of Proper 11 / Ordinary 16
the Week of Proper 11 / Ordinary 16
video advertismenet
advertisement
advertisement
advertisement
Attention!
For 10¢ a day you can enjoy StudyLight.org ads
free while helping to build churches and support pastors in Uganda.
Click here to learn more!
free while helping to build churches and support pastors in Uganda.
Click here to learn more!
Bible Commentaries
Meyer's Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Meyer's Commentary
Copyright Statement
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com. Used by Permission.
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com. Used by Permission.
Bibliographical Information
Meyer, Heinrich. "Commentary on 2 Timothy 4". Meyer's Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. https://studylight.org/commentaries/eng/hmc/2-timothy-4.html. 1832.
Meyer, Heinrich. "Commentary on 2 Timothy 4". Meyer's Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. https://studylight.org/
Whole Bible (51)New Testament (18)Individual Books (11)
Introduction
CHAPTER 4
2 Timothy 4:1 . διαμαÏÏÏÏομαι ] The words οá½Î½ á¼Î³Ï following this in the Rec. were omitted from the text by Griesb., on the authority of A C D* E F G L × 17, al., Syr. Erp. Copt. etc.
The same is the case with the words Ïοῦ ÎºÏ ÏÎ¯Î¿Ï , against which there is the testimony of A C D* F G × 31, 37, al.
For κÏίνειν the aorist κÏá¿Î½Î±Î¹ is found in F G, several cursives, Theodoret, and Theoph.; this construction does occur sometimes in the N. T. (also in classic Greek), but there is not sufficient authority for it here.
καÏá½° Ïὴν á¼ÏιÏάνειαν ] For καÏά (Rec. after D*** E K L, etc.), καί is the reading of A C D* F G × 17, al., Copt. Vulg. ms. It. Harl. etc. This reading, as it implies a change of construction in the verb, and even then makes the connection difficult, is of a kind which would easily give occasion for correction; the easiest correction was into καÏά . Chrysostom in his commentary reads: á¼Î½ Ïá¿ á¼ÏιÏανείᾳ . Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. rightly adopted καί , which is approved also by Matthies, de Wette, Wiesinger, and van Oosterzee. Reiche, on the other hand, because of the difficulty of the reading καί , regards the Rec. as the original reading, while he connects καÏά with μÎλλονÏÎ±Ï ÎºÏίνειν as a preposition of time. 2 Timothy 4:2 . Tisch. 7 reads á¼ÏιÏίμηÏον , ÏαÏακάλεÏον , with the majority of the authorities; whereas Tisch. 8 reads ÏαÏακάλεÏον , á¼ÏιÏίμηÏον . The placing of á¼ÏιÏίμηÏον first may be a correction, because this word is related in meaning to the previous á¼Î»ÎµÎ³Î¾Î¿Î½ . 2 Timothy 4:3 . Ïá½°Ï á¼°Î´Î¯Î±Ï á¼ÏÎ¹Î¸Ï Î¼Î¯Î±Ï ] adopted by Griesb. in place of Ïá½°Ï á¼ÏÎ¹Î¸Ï Î¼Î¯Î±Ï Ïá½°Ï á¼°Î´Î¯Î±Ï , on the authority of A C D E F G × 3, 37, al., Arm. Vulg. etc. 2 Timothy 4:6 . Instead of Ïá¿Ï á¼Î¼á¿Ï á¼Î½Î±Î»ÏÏεÏÏ , which is the Rec. supported by D E K L, al. (Tisch. 7), it is more correct, with Lachm. Buttm. and Tisch. 8, to read Ïá¿Ï á¼Î½Î±Î»ÏÏεÏÏ Î¼Î¿Ï , on the authority of A C F G × , al. 2 Timothy 4:7 . For Ïὸν á¼Î³á¿¶Î½Î± Ïὸν καλÏν (Tisch. 7), Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. 8, on the authority of A C F G × , al., adopted Ïὸν καλὸν á¼Î³á¿¶Î½Î± , which is certainly in harmony with the usage of the Pastoral Epistles, but for that very reason may be a correction. 2 Timothy 4:10 . For the Rec. á¼Î³ÎºÎ±ÏÎλιÏεν (D* K × , etc.), Tisch. 7 adopted the imperfect á¼Î³ÎºÎ±ÏÎλειÏεν , on the authority of A C D** and *** E F G L, etc.; Tisch. 8 retained the Rec., which is supported by D* K × , etc.
In C × , several cursives, and Fathers, Îαλίαν is found instead of the Rec. ÎαλαÏίαν ; Epiph. Haer. 57, dis. says: Î¿á½ Î³á½°Ï á¼Î½ ÎαλαÏίᾳ , á½¡Ï ÏÎ¯Î½ÎµÏ ÏλανηθÎνÏÎµÏ Î½Î¿Î¼Î¯Î¶Î¿Ï Ïιν , á¼Î»Î»á½° á¼Î½ Ïá¿ Îαλίᾳ ; of this reading Reiche says: est utique notatu digna; ⦠me cum Bengelio in hanc lectionem inclinare sentio. But the MSS. almost all support the Rec.; and it cannot be inferred from the name ÎÏÎ®Î±ÎºÎ·Ï (Crescens) that this man was sent more probably to Gaul, where Latin was in use, than to Galatia, where Greek was spoken (Reiche); it is too rash, therefore, to regard this as the original reading. Tisch. 8, however, adopted it, whereas Tisch. 7 does not even mention it; Hofmann thinks it the correct reading. 2 Timothy 4:11 . For á¼Î³Îµ , Lachm. Buttm. and Tisch. 7 read the form á¼Î³Î±Î³Îµ , which, however, does not seem to have sufficient testimony in A 31, 58, etc.; Tisch. 8 retained the Rec., with the support of almost all authorities. 2 Timothy 4:13 . For ÏελÏνην are found also the forms ÏαιλÏνην , ÏαιλÏνην , ÏελÏνην ; but ÏελÏνην is best supported. While Tisch. 7 adopted the imperfect á¼ÏÎλειÏον , on the authority of A C F G, etc., Tisch. 8 read the aorist á¼ÏÎλεÏον (Rec.), on the authority of D E K × , al.; so, too, Lachm. and Buttm. 2 Timothy 4:14 . á¼ÏοδÏÏει ] This is rightly read by Scholz, Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. 8, on the authority of A C D* gr. E F G × 6, 17, al., Copt. Arm. etc., Chrys. Theodoret, instead of á¼ÏοδÏá¿ , which has the support of D*** E** K L, etc., Tisch. 7, Reiche. 2 Timothy 4:15 . á¼Î½Î¸ÎÏÏηÏε ] Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. 8 rightly read á¼Î½ÏÎÏÏη , on the authority of A C D* F G × , al.; Tisch. 7 read á¼Î½Î¸ÎÏÏηÏεν , on the authority of D*** E K L, etc. 2 Timothy 4:16 . ÏÏ Î¼ÏαÏεγÎνεÏο ] Following A C F G × 17, al., Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. 8 adopted the simple ÏαÏεγÎνεÏο ; no doubt the compound ÏÏ Î¼ÏαÏαγ . (Tisch. 7) occurs seldom in the N. T., being found elsewhere only in Luke 23:48 ; but it seems nevertheless to be a correction made on account of μοι . Here, too, the readings vary between the imperfect á¼Î³ÎºÎ±ÏÎλεÏον (Rec.) and the aorist á¼Î³ÎºÎ±ÏÎλιÏον ; Tisch. 7 has the former, Tisch. 8 the latter; comp. 2Ti 4:10 ; 2 Timothy 4:13 . 2 Timothy 4:17 . Instead of the singular á¼ÎºÎ¿ÏÏá¿ , Lachm. Buttm. and Tisch. rightly read the plural á¼ÏοÏÏÏÏι , supported by A C D E F G × 17, 39, al. 2 Timothy 4:18 . Îαί at the beginning of the verse was rightly omitted by Lachm. Buttm. and Tisch., on the authority of A C D* × 31, al., versions, Fathers; it was inserted to connect this verse with the preceding one. 2 Timothy 4:20 . ÎιλήÏῳ ] For this A has ÎηλÏÏá¿· , and Arab. ÎελίÏá¿ . 2 Timothy 4:22 . For the Rec. ὠκÏÏÎ¹Î¿Ï á¼¸Î·ÏÎ¿á¿¦Ï Î§ÏιÏÏÏÏ (C D E K L), Lachm. and Buttm. have ὠκÏÏÎ¹Î¿Ï á¼¸Î·ÏÎ¿á¿¦Ï (A 31), Tisch. only ὠκÏÏÎ¹Î¿Ï (F G 17, etc.). Lachmann’s reading should perhaps have the preference, as it is the one most open to correction.
á¼Î¼Î®Î½ was omitted by Griesb. as a later addition.
Verses 1-2
2 Timothy 4:1-2 . Exhortation to faithful performance of official duty, enforced by the introductory formula: διαμαÏÏÏÏομαι á¼Î½ÏÏιον Ïοῦ Îεοῦ κ . Ï . λ .] comp. 2 Timothy 2:14 ; 1 Timothy 5:21 .
Ïοῦ μÎλλονÏÎ¿Ï ÎºÏίνειν ζ . κ . Î½ÎµÎºÏ .] Theophylact rightly expounds it: ζῶνÏÎ±Ï ÎºÎ±á½¶ νεκÏÎ¿á½ºÏ Î»Îγει ÏÎ¿á½ºÏ á¼¤Î´Î· á¼ÏελθÏνÏÎ±Ï , καὶ ÏÎ¿á½ºÏ ÏÏÏε καÏαλειÏθηÏομÎÎ½Î¿Ï Ï Î¶á¿¶Î½ÏÎ±Ï ; comp. 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 ; 1 Corinthians 15:51-52 . Christ is called judge of the dead and the living, also in Acts 10:42 ; 1 Peter 4:5 ; it is quite wrong to suppose that the spiritually dead and living are meant. The allusion to the last judgment gives special strength to the exhortation.
καὶ Ïὴν á¼ÏιÏάνειαν αá½Ïοῦ ] Most expositors adopt καÏά , the usual reading, as the correct one, and then take it as a preposition of time (Matthew 27:15 ; Acts 13:27 ; Hebrews 3:8 ), belonging to κÏίνειν . With the correct reading, Ïὴν á¼ÏÎ¹Ï Îº . Ï . λ . depends on διαμαÏÏÏÏομαι as the accusative of the oath (so, too, van Oosterzee and Plitt). It is, however, to be noted that in the N. T. διαμαÏÏÏÏεÏθαι does not mean “swear” by itself, but only in connection with á¼Î½ÏÏιον Ïοῦ Îεοῦ (only in the Pastoral Epistles), and therefore only in this connection does it, like other verbs of swearing, govern the accusative, as Hofmann rightly remarks. Hence it follows that καί does not connect á¼ÏιÏάνειαν with the previous á¼Î½ÏÏιον , but belongs to the following καί : “both ⦠and” (Hofmann). De Wette, appealing to Deuteronomy 4:26 , incorrectly expounds it: “I call his appearance, etc., to witness;” present things may be summoned as witnesses, but not future events like the á¼ÏιÏάνεια of Christ.
The Vulg. has: per adventum, without καί : probably a translation of καÏά , which is taken as καÏά with the genitive, Matthew 26:63 .
á¼ÏιÏάνεια , see 1 Timothy 6:14 .
καὶ Ïὴν βαÏιλείαν αá½Ïοῦ ] Several expositors join the two expressions as an hendiadys (Bengel: á¼ÏιÏάνεια est revelatio et exhortus regni) = Ïὴν á¼ÏÎ¹Ï . Ïá¿Ï βαÏÎ¹Î»ÎµÎ¯Î±Ï Î±á½Ïοῦ ; but the αá½Ïοῦ with á¼ÏÎ¹Ï . is against this. The two things are considered separately (Wiesinger: “the repetition of αá½Ïοῦ is rhetorical; each element is intended to be taken independently, and considered in its full significance”); the βαÏιλεία αá½Ïοῦ is the regnum gloriae which begins with the return of Christ.
The reason for adding these words lies in the κÏίνειν ζ . κ . ν .; Paul says he has Christ’s second coming and kingdom in his thoughts, that he may give greater importance to his exhortation. 2 Timothy 4:2 . κήÏÏ Î¾Î¿Î½ Ïὸν λÏγον ] In 1 Timothy 5:21 , διαμ . is followed by ἵνα with the conjunctive; but here we have the simple imperative, which makes the appeal all the more urgent (Wiesinger).
Ïὸν λÏγον , sc. Ïοῦ Îεοῦ ] This more precise definition is wanting here, because the emphasis lies chiefly on the verb, Paul indicating to Timothy the work to be done.
á¼ÏίÏÏηθι εá½ÎºÎ±Î¯ÏÏÏ á¼ÎºÎ±Î¯ÏÏÏ ] Most expositors join these words closely with κήÏÏ Î¾Î¿Î½ in sense. Heydenreich: á¼ÏίÏÏηθι , sc. Ïá¿· κηÏÏÏÏειν . Theodoret: οá½Ï á¼ÏÎ»á¿¶Ï ÎºÎ±á½¶ á½¡Ï á¼ÏÏ Ïεν αá½Ïὸν κηÏÏÏÏειν ÏαÏÎµÎ³Î³Ï á¾· , á¼Î»Î»á½° ÏάνÏα καιÏὸν á¼ÏιÏήδειον ÏÏá½¸Ï ÏοῦÏο νομίζειν . Vulg.: “insta;” Luther: “persist;” so also van Oosterzee; similarly Wiesinger, who, in harmony with á¼Ïίμενε αá½Ïοá¿Ï , 1 Timothy 4:16 , expounds it: “keep one’s attention or activity directed to a thing.” But this is not the usual meaning of the verb; it means rather “ step towards or draw near ” (Hofmann is less precise: “approach, appear”), comp. Luke 2:8 ; Luke 2:38 , and other passages. The word is defined more precisely by κήÏÏ Î¾Î¿Î½ Ïὸν λÏγον : draw near with the preaching of the word. Who are the persons to whom Timothy is to draw near, may easily be supplied from the context, viz. to those to whom he has to preach the word. It is incorrect to think only of the whole church (Bretschneider: accede ad coetus christianos, so also de Wette), or only of the individual members (so before in this commentary). Plitt is correct: “draw near (to men), viz. with the word.”
εá½ÎºÎ±Î¯ÏÏÏ á¼ÎºÎ±Î¯ÏÏÏ [56] ] Chrysostom: Îá¿ ÎÎÎΡῸΠá¼Î§Î ὩΡÎΣÎÎÎÎÎ , á¼ÎῠΣÎá¿ ÎÎÎÎ¡á¿¸Ï á¼Î£Î¤Î© . The further definition given by Chrysostom: Îá¼Î á¼Î ΤÎá¿Ï ÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÏ , Îá¼Î á¼Î ÎÎΣÎΩΤÎΡÎῼ á¾Ï Î . Τ . Î . , or by Theodoret: ÎÎá¿ á¼Î ÎÎΣÎΩΤÎΡÎῼ , ÎÎÎ Î ÎÎÎῼ ÎÎá¿ Î ÎΡÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÏ Î¤Î¡ÎÎ ÎÎÎÏ , and others similar by other expositors, are wrong, since we ought to think here not so much of the circumstances in which Timothy (or more generally the preacher of the word) may be, but of the circumstances of the hearers: “whether the time seems to thee seasonable or unseasonable for it” (de Wette, Wiesinger, van Oosterzee). Hofmann is wrong: “whether he comes seasonably or not to those whom he approaches with the word;” for there was no need to tell Timothy that the preacher was not bound to inquire into his hearers’ opinion and act accordingly. For the truth, the occasion is always seasonable. He who desires to wait until the occasion seem completely favourable for his work, will never find it. This is particularly true of the exercise of the evangelic office.
Note, finally, Beza’s remark: nempe quod ad carnis prudentiam pertinet; nam alioqui requiritur sanctae prudentiae spiritus, captans occasiones ad aedificationem opportunas.
á¼ÎÎÎÎÎÎ ] should be restricted neither to heresies nor to moral transgressions; it includes blame of everything blameworthy.
á¼Î ÎΤÎÎÎΣÎÎ ] stronger than á¼ÎÎÎÎÎÎ : “blame with decided manifestation of dislike;” often in the Gospels, also in Jude 1:9 .
Î ÎΡÎÎÎÎÎΣÎÎ ] Blame and exhortation should be joined in order to cause edification; blame by itself embitters, exhortation by itself is ineffectual.
á¼Î Î ÎΣῠÎÎÎΡÎÎÎ¥ÎÎá¾¼ ÎÎá¿ ÎÎÎÎΧῠ] An appendix to Î ÎΡÎÎÎÎÎΣÎÎ , or, according to the reading of Tisch. 8, á¼Î ÎΤÎÎÎΣÎÎ , with which, however, it seems less appropriate. On ÎÎÎΡÎÎÎ¥ÎÎÎ , comp. 2 Timothy 3:10 .
ÎÎÎÎΧῠ] The exhortation is to be of a kind that will instruct; the purpose, as Heydenreich aptly remarks, is not to produce momentary emotion and violent tumult of feeling. ÎÎÎÎΧΠis instruction, and is not equivalent to studium alios vera docendi. It is wrong, too, to make it an hendiadys, as if it were á¼Î Î ÎΣῠÎÎÎÎΧá¿Ï ÎÎÎΡÎÎÎ¥ÎÎá¾¼ .
Note the connection of this verse with 2 Timothy 3:16 . The preacher of the divine word has not to perform the work of teaching, of reproving, etc., without placing himself under the teaching, the reproof, etc., of the divine word.
[56] Similar collocations without any particle of union or separation are not found in the N. T., but occur in Greek and Latin classics; see Bengel on this passage. Nicetas Choniates: ÏαιδαγÏγῷ á¼Î¼Î²Ïιθεῠá¼Î¿Î¹Îºá½¼Ï , εá½ÎºÎ±Î¯ÏÏÏ á¼ÎºÎ±Î¯ÏÏÏ á¼ÏÎÏληÏÏεν . Julian: á¼ÏοÏεÏεÏο á¼Ïá½¶ Ïá½°Ï Ïῶν ÏίλÏν Î¿á¼°ÎºÎ¯ÎºÏ á¼ÎºÎ»Î·ÏÎ¿Ï ÎºÎµÎºÎ»Î·Î¼ÎÎ½Î¿Ï . Virgil: digna indigna pati.
Verses 3-4
2 Timothy 4:3-4 . Ground of the previous exhortation, á¼ÏÏαι Î³á½°Ï ÎºÎ±Î¹Ïá½¸Ï , á½ Ïε ] see 2 Timothy 2:16-17 , 2 Timothy 3:1 ff.
The á¼ÏÏαι shows that he is speaking not of the present (Heinrichs), but of the future; comp. 2 Timothy 3:1 ; 1 Timothy 4:1 .
Ïá¿Ï á½Î³Î¹Î±Î¹Î½Î¿ÏÏÎ·Ï Î´Î¹Î´Î±ÏÎºÎ±Î»Î¯Î±Ï ] see 1 Timothy 1:10 .
οá½Îº á¼Î½ÎξονÏαι ] comp. Act 18:14 ; 2 Corinthians 11:4 . De Wette: “find intolerable, because not consistent with their desires.”
á¼Î»Î»á½° καÏá½° Ïá½°Ï á¼°Î´Î¯Î±Ï á¼ÏÎ¹Î¸Ï Î¼Î¯Î±Ï ] “according to wilful, selfish lusts;” the accent is on á¼°Î´Î¯Î±Ï a contrast to obedience under the divine will.
á¼Î±Ï Ïοá¿Ï á¼ÏιÏÏÏεÏÏÎ¿Ï Ïι διδαÏÎºÎ¬Î»Î¿Ï Ï ] á¼ÏιÏÏÏεÏειν ( á¼ Ï . λεγ ., the simple form in 2 Timothy 3:6 ), “heap up, procure in abundance.” Heydenreich’s conjecture is groundless, that the word here has the suggestion of: they will set him up for a burden to themselves (Luther: “burden themselves”) for their own hurt; on the other hand, Chrysostom is right: Ïὸ á¼Î´Î¹Î¬ÎºÏιÏον Ïλá¿Î¸Î¿Ï διὰ Ïοῦ · á¼ÏιÏÏÏεÏÏÎ¿Ï Ïι , á¼Î´Î®Î»ÏÏε . We cannot but see that the word here is meant to indicate the contemptible part of their conduct. The á¼Ïι does not compel us to follow Hofmann in his exposition: “in addition to those who represent sound doctrine;” what follows rather shows that they turn away from all such.
The reason is given in the words: κνηθÏμενοι Ïὴν á¼ÎºÎ¿Î®Î½ . ÎÎ½Î®Î¸Ï ( á¼ Ï . λεγ .), tickle, cause to itch; κνηθÏμενοι Ïὴν á¼ÎºÎ¿Î®Î½ , “be tickled in the ear,” i.e. feel a tickling in the ear ( Ïὴν á¼ÎºÎ¿Î®Î½ being the accusative of more precise definition). This tickling is usually taken to mean a pleasant sensation; [57] so Hesychius: ζηÏοῦνÏÎµÏ Ïá½¶ á¼ÎºÎ¿á¿¦Ïαι καθʼ ἡδονήν , and almost all expositors. But this view, before adopted in this commentary, is opposed by the fact that ζηÏοῦνÏÎµÏ is purely imported. The present participle cannot mean: “that they wish to feel a tickling in the ear, but only that they do feel it.” Hofmann is therefore right in explaining this tickling of the ear to mean the desire of hearing something different from what they had heard before; “because they feel a tickling in the ear, they procure for themselves teachers after their own lusts.” 2 Timothy 4:4 . καὶ á¼Ïὸ μὲν Ïá¿Ï á¼Î» κ . Ï . λ .] Ïá¿Ï á¼Î»Î·Î¸ÎµÎ¯Î±Ï = Ïá¿Ï á½Î³ . διδαÏÎºÎ±Î»Î¯Î±Ï .
á¼Ïá½¶ δὲ ÏÎ¿á½ºÏ Î¼ÏÎ¸Î¿Ï Ï ] see 1 Timothy 1:4 .
á¼ÎºÏÏαÏήÏονÏαι ] see 1 Timothy 1:6 .
[57] Plutarch ( De Superst. p. 167): μονÏικὴν á¼Î½Î¸ÏÏÏÎ¿Î¹Ï Î¿á½ ÏÏÏ Ïá¿Ï á¼Î½ÎµÎºÎ± καὶ κνήÏεÏÏ á½ Ïῶν δοθá¿Î½Î±Î¹ .
Verse 5
2 Timothy 4:5 . A general exhortation summing up the particulars already mentioned.
Ïὺ δΠ] see 2 Timothy 3:10 .
νá¿Ïε á¼Î½ Ïá¾¶Ïι ] νήÏειν , synonymous with γÏηγοÏεá¿Î½ , 1 Thessalonians 5:6 , and ÏÏÏÏονεá¿Î½ , 1 Peter 4:7 , opposite of “be intoxicated;” it denotes the clear prudence in thought and action which it is all the more necessary for Timothy to show, because there is impending what the apostle in 2 Timothy 4:3-4 has described.
á¼Î½ Ïá¾¶Ïι ] “in all parts.”
κακοÏάθηÏον ] see 2 Timothy 1:8 , 2 Timothy 2:3 .
á¼Ïγον ÏοίηÏον εá½Î±Î³Î³ÎµÎ»Î¹ÏÏοῦ ] According to Ephesians 4:11 , there were special evangelists, who were distinct both from the apostles and from the pastors and teachers. Theodoret characterizes them in the well-known words: ÏÏιÎονÏÎµÏ á¼ÎºÎ®ÏÏ ÏÏον . They did not belong to a particular church like the ÏοιμÎÎ½ÎµÏ , but travelled about like the apostles, preaching the Gospel to the Jews or heathen. They could lay no claim to authority in their office, since, as Otto rightly remarks (comp. too, Hofmann, Schriftbew . II. 2, pp. 272 f.), they laboured not in consequence of an office committed to them, but by means of a ÏάÏιÏμα imparted to them, as did also the ÏÏοÏá¿Ïαι . It is incorrect to identify them with the assistant apostles. Philip was an evangelist (Acts 21:8 ), but not an assistant apostle. Timothy, Titus, and others were assistant apostles, and as such , evangelists only in the same sense in which the apostles themselves were evangelists; standing in closer relation to the apostles, they were their ÏÏ Î½ÎÏγοι in all official duties, and all they did belonged to their διακονία (so, too, Plitt). [58] As the εá½Î±Î³Î³ÎµÎ»Î¯Î¶ÎµÏθαι was Timothy’s chief vocation (as with the Apostle Paul, 1 Corinthians 1:17 ), the apostle exhorts him: á¼Î¡ÎÎÎ Î ÎÎÎΣÎÎ Îá½ÎÎÎÎÎÎΣΤÎῦ , adding the further exhortation: Τá¿Î ÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎΠΣÎÎ¥ Î ÎÎΡÎΦÎΡÎΣÎÎ . This latter is not to be taken as a mere repetition of the preceding one, or as “only laying emphasis on the same thought by the use of Î ÎÎΡÎΦÎΡÎΣÎÎ ” (Wiesinger), since, as the whole of the first epistle testifies, his ÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎ included more than the Îá½ÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎΣÎÎÎ (which Hofmann wrongly denies [59] ).
Î ÎÎΡÎΦÎΡÎá¿Î ] synonymous here with Î ÎÎΡÎῦΠ, which is even the reading of some MSS. Luther rightly: “execute;” see Colossians 4:17 ; Acts 12:25 . Though Î ÎÎΡÎΦÎΡÎá¿Î in this sense is á¼Î . ÎÎÎ ., still it is well employed “to indicate the full measure of activity, in which not the least point may fail” (van Oosterzee). Beza’s exposition is too ingenious: ministerii tui plenam fidem facito, i.e. veris argumentis comproba te germanum esse dei ministrum.
[58] Wiesinger is wrong in thinking that Timothy’s office was only that of an evangelist, and therefore quite the same as Philip had, and that his labours beyond that in Ephesus did not belong to his διακονία . It is certain that his labours were done on the special commission of Paul; but it is incorrect to suppose that Paul commissioned him to do anything beyond his office. Otto’s remark on the relation of the evangelists to the assistant apostles agrees in substance with what has been said above, only it might be more than doubtful that their preaching, as he thinks, was confined to an account of Christ’s words and works , that they were therefore only “heralds of the gospel history .” Otto rightly says that the assistant apostles “represented the apostle in the entire range of his work.”
[59] Hofmann, without reason, supposes that at the time when Paul wrote this epistle, and even before, Timothy was no longer an assistant to Paul in the apostleship. There is no hint of this anywhere; on the contrary, the contents of the second epistle are decidedly against the supposition.
Verse 6
2 Timothy 4:6 . Paul points to his approaching death in order to strengthen his exhortation to Timothy to fulfil his duties faithfully. As he himself cannot any longer contend against the increasing disorder, Timothy must be all the more careful to prove himself faithful.
á¼Î³á½¼ Î³á½°Ï á¼¤Î´Î· ÏÏÎνδομαι ] á¼Î³Ï is emphatic by position, being in contrast with ÏÏ , 2 Timothy 4:5 .
ἤδη ] not “soon,” but “already;” it denotes present time; his sufferings form already the beginning of the ÏÏÎνδεÏθαι .
ÏÏÎνδομαι Wahl wrongly takes the verb here in the middle voice: sanguinem meum libo, i. e. vires et vitam impendo. But it is impossible thus to supply the object; the verb is passive. It does not, however, stand for καÏαÏÏÎνδομαι : “I am besprinkled,” i.e. I am consecrated for the sacrificial death (Heydenreich and others); the proper meaning is to be retained: “ I am made a libation, poured out as drink-offering ” (de Wette, Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, Hofmann). The meaning is, dropping the figure, already is my blood shed; comp. Philippians 2:17 . De Wette maintains that the form of expression is incorrect without á¼Ïá½¶ Ïá¿ Î¸Ï Ïίᾳ κ . Ï . λ .; but why, it is difficult to see. Heinrichs wrongly lets the idea of sacrifice drop out of the word, and explains it quite generally as effundere, i.e. viribus defici, “my end is already near, it is all over with me.” Luther translates it inexactly, but rightly enough in meaning: “I am already offered.”
Paul does not use θÏομαι , but ÏÏÎνδομαι , not because he means to declare that he is fully and completely offered for God’s cause (Oecumenius: Ïá¿Ï μὲν Î¸Ï ÏÎ¯Î±Ï Î¼ÎÏÎ¿Ï Ïá½¶ μÏνον Îεῷ Îµá¼°Ï Î¸Ï Î¼Î¯Î±Î¼Î± á¼ÏιεÏοῦÏο · ἡ δὲ ÏÏονδὴ á¼ ÏαÏα αá½Ïá¿· á¼ÏιÎÏÏÏαι ), but because the shedding of blood is analogous to the pouring out of the drink-offering; and as the libation formed the conclusion of the sacrifice, the apostle’s martyrdom closed his apostolic service, which to him was the same as a service of sacrifice (Romans 10:16 ; Philippians 2:17 ).
The idea contained in the figurative expression that his death was near, is again expressed by Paul in the next words: καὶ ὠκαιÏá½¸Ï Ïá¿Ï á¼Î½Î±Î»ÏÏεÏÏ Î¼Î¿Ï á¼ÏÎÏÏηκε ] The verb á¼Î½Î±Î»Ïειν means “unloose what was tied,” so that á¼Î½Î¬Î»Ï ÏÎ¹Ï might be equivalent to “unloosing,” dissolutio (Vulgate, Matthies); but it is more correct to return to the usage by which in nautical language á¼Î½Î±Î»Ïειν with or without á¼Î³ÎºÏ Ïαν means “weigh anchor, depart,” or even of an army, “strike tents, set out on the march.” Hence á¼Î½Î¬Î»Ï ÏÎ¹Ï is equivalent to “departure, setting out,” and ought to be explained as the departure from this life; see Philippians 1:23 . [60] Elsner and Wolf think that there is here a special reference to rising from table, and that the word is used in very close connection with ÏÏÎνδομαι : moris olim erat, ut, qui de conviviis discederent, diis libarent; discedentes autem dicebantur á¼Î½Î±Î»ÏονÏÎµÏ et libantes (Wolf), and that Paul means to say: se ex hac vita molestiisque exsatiatum abiturum, libato non vino, sed sanguine suo (Eisner). But, on the one hand, the allusion to ÏÏÎνδομαι is not to heathen, but to Jewish ritual; and, on the other hand, there is no hint of the figure of a feast. Not less arbitrary is Beza’s explanation, that á¼Î½Î¬Î»Ï ÏÎ¹Ï refers specially to the departure from battle.
á¼ÏÎÏÏηκε ] “is near at hand;” Luther incorrectly: “is ready.”
[60] Otto objects, that in Philippians 1:23 á¼Î½Î±Î»á¿¦Ïαι does not of itself mean the departure from the flesh, but only when connected with the co-ordinate Ïὺν ΧÏιÏÏá¿· εἶναι . But his objection is made still less forcible by the fact that this meaning of the word is clearly indicated, not only by the preceding ÏÏÎνδομαι , but also by vv. 7, 8.
REMARK.
According to the exposition which has been given here, and which, in substance, is generally accepted, this passage decidedly contradicts the hypothesis that Paul wrote this epistle at the beginning of the imprisonment mentioned by Luke. Otto, therefore, to favour this hypothesis, finds himself compelled to give ÏÏÎνδομαι another signification. This he tries to obtain from a searching consideration of the passage in Philippians 2:17 . He tries to prove that the apostle in that passage could only have used ÏÏÎνδομαι in the sense of “devotion to his missionary labours.” His proof is based on the assertion apparently to the point, but in reality erroneous that when the particles εἰ καί are joined together, “the καί resumes the statement made under εἰ the conditional particle, at the same time marking it as an actual fact .” This assertion is apparently to the point, since εἰ καί is used often where an actual fact is under discussion; and in this way, e.g. , the passage at 2 Corinthians 4:16 may be explained: “if our outward man is destroyed, and it is actually being destroyed , then,” etc. But the assertion is erroneous, because εἰ καί is also used in passages where no actual fact is under discussion. This, e.g. , is the case in the passage 1 Corinthians 7:21 , where, clearly, the explanation cannot be given: “if thou canst become free and thou canst indeed become free .” Otto has quite overlooked the fact that εἰ καί with the indicative cannot be different from the simple εἰ with the indicative, and this does not declare the fact to be actual, but only supposes it to be actual, whether actual or not; the fact may be actual, but it may quite as well not be actual, comp. 1 Corinthians 15:12-13 , where both cases stand close to one another. Hence it is not the case that ÏÏÎνδεÏθαι must denote something which, as the apostle said it of himself, did actually take place; it cannot therefore be understood to mean the apostle’s martyrdom, because, according to Philippians 1:25 , he was expecting to be freed from imprisonment, but must mean simply the cessation of his missionary labours.
As for the evidence by which Otto seeks to obtain this meaning for ÏÏÎνδεÏθαι , it must be held erroneous, since there is no justification whatever for the assertions on which it rests viz. (1) that by the á¼Î³Ï contained in ÏÏÎνδομαι (standing here in opposition to ÏÏ ) the apostle meant his “apostolic labours;” and (2) that in Acts 23:11 , by the word of the Lord “Rome was appointed to the apostle as the goal of his apostolic calling, beyond which he was not to preach the gospel.” Though it may be said that “the apostle’s ego lived and wrought only in one thing, and that, to preach the gospel to the heathen,” it by no means follows that when he is speaking of himself , he does not mean himself , his person, but his apostolic calling. And though, according to Philippians 1:25-26 , the apostle expects to continue his labours after the Roman imprisonment, it is a pure fiction to suppose that these labours were to be episcopal rather than apostolic. [61]
As a result of this interpretation of ÏÏÎνδομαι , Otto cannot understand á¼Î½Î¬Î»Ï ÏÎ¹Ï to mean the departure from this life; it is quite consistent for him, therefore, to say: “ á¼Î½Î¬Î»Ï ÏÎ¹Ï can only be the discessus, abitus from the place in which Paul then was, this place being the ÏÎÏμα of his apostolic career.” This exposition presupposes an erroneous view of Acts 23:11 , and its unsuitability becomes all the clearer when Otto continues: “when the messenger has come to his destination, and executed his commission, he must return to him by whom he was sent; Paul was sent by Christ, to Christ he must return; this is what the apostle says: the time of my return home is near, for I am at the goal, and have discharged my commission.” And then Otto still thinks that the apostle might with this cherish the expectation of being able to labour among the Philippians for a longer period , since á¼ÏÎÏÏηκεν does not mean “is near,” but simply “is impending” (!). Finally, there is nowhere the slightest trace that the apostle thought at any time before his death of ceasing to be the apostle of the Lord.
[61] Weiss ( Stud. u. Krit. 1861, p. 588) rightly says: “If it be said to the apostle that he is to testify also in Rome, there is not the slightest hint that he is to advance with his preaching only so far as Rome .”
Verse 7
2 Timothy 4:7 . In the prospect of his approaching end, Paul expresses the consciousness of having been faithful in the career appointed to him, and the hope of the heavenly reward.
There is no ground whatever for de Wette’s assertion, that this expression is opposed to Christian humility.
Ïὸν καλὸν á¼Î³á¿¶Î½Î± ἠγÏνιÏμαι ] Luther inaccurately: “I have fought a good fight.” The definite article must not be overlooked; see 1 Timothy 6:12 . The perfect ἠγÏνιÏμαι shows that the apostle now stood at the end of the fight to which he was called as the apostle of the Lord, [62] and that he had fought through it faithfully.
Baur, quite arbitrarily, is of opinion that Philippians 1:30 was here made use of; as little was the passage at Philippians 3:12 ff. used (de Wette).
Ïὸν δÏÏμον ÏεÏÎληκα ] The same thought is expressed by the more definite figure of a race . The point chiefly brought out is that the apostle, after continuing it without stopping, now stands at the goal. Compare with this passage Acts 20:24 ; the same figure is used also in 1 Corinthians 9:24 , and is indicated in Philippians 3:12 ff.
Ïὴν ÏίÏÏιν ÏεÏήÏηκα ] “ I have kept the faith ,” viz. against all inducements to deny it. Heydenreich wrongly takes this expression also as a figurative one, and expounds ÏίÏÏÎ¹Ï to mean fidelity in observing the laws of battle and rules of the race; comp. against this, 1 Timothy 6:12 .
Ïὸν καλὸν á¼Î³á¿¶Î½Î± Ïá¿Ï ÏίÏÏεÏÏ ] Bengel: res bis per metaphoram expressa nunc tertio loco exprimitur proprie.
[62] Hofmann wrongly maintains that the apostle is not speaking here of his labours in the calling of an apostle, but generally of his Christian calling. The context clearly points to the former.
Verse 8
2 Timothy 4:8 . ÎοιÏÏν ] Wahl interprets it by ἤδη (jam, already), but this meaning is very doubtful. Other expositors take it to be equivalent to Ïὸ λοιÏÏν : “for the future;” Heydenreich: “one day, after course and fight are finished.” But the present á¼ÏÏκειÏαι is against this; it cannot be “future in sense” (Hofmann), for the signification of the word forbids it. Beza’s interpretation suits the context best: “in reliquum;” and with this de Wette and Wiesinger agree. At the end of his life-course, when he has faithfully played out his part, there remains nothing more for the apostle than to receive the reward which is already prepared for him.
á¼ÏÏκειÏαί μοι ] comp. Colossians 1:5 (see my Commentary, p. 57).
á½ Ïá¿Ï δικαιοÏÏÎ½Î·Ï ÏÏÎÏÎ±Î½Î¿Ï ] Continuation of the figure from 2 Timothy 4:7 .
á½ ÏÏÎÏÎ±Î½Î¿Ï is used for the prize of victory in 1 Corinthians 9:25 . The genitive Ïá¿Ï δικαιοÏÏÎ½Î·Ï , like Ïá¿Ï ζÏá¿Ï in James 1:12 , Revelation 2:10 , and Ïá¿Ï δÏÎ¾Î·Ï in 1 Peter 5:4 , may be taken most naturally as the genitivus appositionis, and δικαιοÏÏνη as the perfect state, granted at the judgment to the believer by the sentence that justifies him (so, too, van Oosterzee). ÎικαιοÏÏνη does not denote the act of justifying so much as the state of justification.
Two other interpretations are found in Heinrichs: ÏÏÎµÏ . Î´Î¹ÎºÎ±Î¹Î¿Ï ., i.e. corona, vel quae δικαίÏÏ dabitur ei, qui ea dignus est, a δικαίῳ κÏιÏá¿ (“the crown of just recompense,” Heydenreich, Matthies, and others; but δικαιοÏÏνη never means recompense), vel quae mihi ob δικαιοÏÏνην debetur. This last interpretation is found in Chrysostom: δικαιοÏÏνην á¼Î½Ïαῦθα Ïὴν καθÏÎ»Î¿Ï ÏηÏὶν á¼ÏεÏήν ; also in de Wette, Wiesinger, Plitt. It is indeed possible, but improbable, because in that case we would not be told of what the crown of victory consists. Besides, the analogy of the passages quoted is against this interpretation. [63]
It is manifestly quite out of place to understand ÎÎÎÎÎÎΣÎÎÎ here, as Calovius and Mosheim do, of the imputed righteousness of Christ.
á½Î á¼Î ÎÎÎΣÎÎ (often used to denote the divine recompense on the day of judgment, Matthew 16:27 ; Romans 2:6 ) ÎÎÎ á½ ÎÎΡÎÎÏ ( i.e. Christ) á¼Î½ á¼ÎºÎµÎ¯Î½á¿ ÏῠἡμÎÏá¾³ , á½ Î´Î¯ÎºÎ±Î¹Î¿Ï ÎºÏιÏÎ®Ï (see 2 Timothy 4:1 ), in apposition to á½ ÎÎΡÎÎÏ . There is nothing strange in laying stress on the righteousness of the judge, since that forms the main element in the divine judgment. God’s ÏάÏÎ¹Ï does not take away His ÎÎÎÎÎÎΣÎÎÎ , and the gospel does not deny, but confirms, the truth that for the believer the judgment will take place ÎÎΤᾺ ΤᾺ á¼Î¡ÎÎ Îá½Î¤Îῦ , or ÎÎΤᾺ Τá¿Î ΠΡᾶÎÎÎ Îá½Î¤Îῦ . To this truth Paul often directs attention, not only for exhortation, but also for comfort; see 2 Thessalonians 1:5 . [64]
While Paul expresses for himself the hope of the reward of victory, he knows that he is not claiming something special for himself alone. Hence he adds: Îá½ ÎÎÎÎÎ Îá¿ á¼ÎÎÎ ( sc . á¼ÏοδÏÏει κ . Ï . λ .), á¼ÎÎᾺ ÎÎῠΠᾶΣΠΤÎá¿Ï ἨÎÎÎ ÎÎÎΣΠ] the perfect in the sense of the present: “who have fixed their love on,” i.e. “who love” (comp. Winer, p. 256 [E. T. p. 341]). But if we proceed from the standpoint of á¼ÏοδÏÏει , the perfect may also be understood to mean: “to those who in this mortal life have longed for the appearing of the Lord” (Hofmann).
Τá¿Î á¼Î ÎΦÎÎÎÎÎÎ Îá½Î¤Îῦ ] is not to be understood of the first appearance of the Lord in the flesh, 2 Timothy 1:10 , but, according to the context, and in harmony with 2 Timothy 4:1 , of the second coming. The verb ἨÎÎÎ ÎÎÎΣΠis not opposed to this, for it is used elsewhere to denote the desire for something future; see 1 Peter 3:10 . Matthies: “to all who in love for Him wait longingly for His second coming.”
[63] Hofmann disputes the interpretation given above, because “Life, glory is a blessing, whereas righteousness is a condition which is rewarded;” but righteousness, taken as it is taken here, is a blessing. On the other hand, Hofmann disputes Wiesinger’s interpretation, at the same time giving one of his own which is far from clear: “he who obtains the ÏÏÎÏÎ±Î½Î¿Ï adjudged to him, is thereby acknowledged to be a righteous man.”
[64] De Wette is wrong in his assertion, that this passage is incompatible with Paul’s view of grace, and that from a subjective standpoint God’s righteousness can only be feared if we are rightly humble and have knowledge of self. If it is not denied that in the Pauline passages, Rom 2:5 ff., 2 Thessalonians 1:5 , a reward is expected from God’s righteousness, we cannot see why Paul could not possibly have claimed it for himself. Was the consciousness of his fidelity in the service of the Lord, which, moreover, he expresses elsewhere, altogether incompatible with his utterance of humility in Philippians 3:12 ? The contrast of objective and subjective point of view to which contrast de Wette makes appeal does not exist for the Christian consciousness.
Verse 9
2 Timothy 4:9 . From this verse to the end we have detached commissions and items of news. “This forms the second chief section of the epistle. The apostle, with his usual habit of keeping the more personal matter for the end, places it after the exhortations given to Timothy about his office” (Wiesinger).
ÏÏοÏδαÏον á¼Î»Î¸Îµá¿Î½ ÏÏá½¸Ï Î¼Îµ ÏαÏÎÏÏ ] Here the apostle’s wish that Timothy should come to him, hinted already in 2Ti 1:3 ; 2 Timothy 1:8 , is distinctly expressed. Even if it were the proximate cause of his writing, it is arbitrary to regard this as the chief purpose of the epistle, as de Wette does. [65]
The apostle wished him to come, because those who had assisted him hitherto had left him.
[65] Hofmann’s remark is purely hypothetical, that ÏÏοÏδαÏον κ . Ï . λ . is not an invitation, but refers to Timothy’s willingness to come, which he had expressed to Paul in a letter.
Verse 10
2 Timothy 4:10 . ÎÎ·Î¼á¾¶Ï Î³Î¬Ï Î¼Îµ á¼Î³ÎºÎ±ÏÎλιÏεν ] á¼Î³ÎºÎ±ÏαλείÏειν is equivalent to “leave in the lurch.” It is wrong to interpret this either of a departure from the place merely, or of an entire apostasy from the gospel. Demas is mentioned also in Colossians 4:14 and Philemon 1:24 as a ÏÏνεÏÎ³Î¿Ï of the apostle.
á¼Î³Î±ÏήÏÎ±Ï Ïὸν νῦν αἰῶνα ] The reason why Demas had left him; á¼Î³Î±ÏήÏÎ±Ï , not “having fixed his love on” (Matthies), but “because he loved.”
Ïὸν νῦν αἰῶνα ] the present world, as opposed to the future, i.e. the earthly, visible blessings of life. In the desire for these things, Demas had left the apostle and gone to Thessalonica, καὶ á¼ÏοÏεÏθη Îµá¼°Ï ÎεÏÏαλονίκην , perhaps “for the sake of trade,” as some conjecture, or because it was his native place. Chrysostom: Ïá¿Ï á¼Î½ÎÏεÏÏ á¼ÏαÏÎ¸Îµá½¶Ï , Ïοῦ á¼ÎºÎ¹Î½Î´ÏÎ½Î¿Ï ÎºÎ±á½¶ Ïοῦ á¼ÏÏÎ±Î»Î¿á¿¦Ï , μᾶλλον εἵλεÏο οἴκοι ÏÏÏ Ïᾷν , á¼¢ μεÏʼ á¼Î¼Î¿á¿¦ ÏαλαιÏÏÏεá¿Ïθαι καὶ ÏÏ Î½Î´Î¹Î±ÏÎÏειν μοι ÏÎ¿á½ºÏ ÏαÏÏνÏÎ±Ï ÎºÎ¹Î½Î´ÏÎ½Î¿Ï Ï .
ÎÏήÏÎºÎ·Ï Îµá¼°Ï ÎαλαÏίαν , sc. á¼ÏοÏεÏθη ; but without á¼Î³Î±ÏήÏÎ±Ï Ïὸν νῦν αἰῶνα . Crescens is mentioned only here. Nothing further is known of him, nor do we know why he had set out for Galatia, and Titus for Dalmatia. The verb á¼ÏοÏεÏθη is against the suggestion of Matthies, that they had been sent thither by Paul. [66]
[66] Hofmann, taking Îαλίαν to be the original reading, supposes that Crescens and Titus had left the apostle in order to work for the gospel in places to which Paul himself had not come.
Verse 11
2 Timothy 4:11 . ÎÎ¿Ï Îºá¾¶Ï á¼ÏÏá½¶ μÏÎ½Î¿Ï Î¼ÎµÏʼ á¼Î¼Î¿á¿¦ ] There is no reason for doubting that this Luke was the apostle’s well-known assistant. He accompanied Paul on his second missionary journey from Troas, Acts 16:10 , then on his third journey, Acts 20:5 to Acts 21:18 . He was with Paul both in his imprisonment at Caesarea and in the first imprisonment at Rome, Acts 27:0 ; Colossians 4:14 ; Philemon 1:24 .
ÎάÏκον á¼Î½Î±Î»Î±Î²á½¼Î½ á¼Î³Î±Î³Îµ (or common reading: á¼Î³Îµ ) μεÏá½° ÏÎµÎ±Ï Ïοῦ ] Mark, too, is the young apostle with whom we are acquainted from the Book of Acts. According to Colossians 4:10 , Philemon 1:13 , he was likewise with Paul in his first Roman imprisonment; á¼Î½Î±Î»Î±Î²Ïν , see Acts 20:14 . It is not known where Mark was at this time. The reason why Paul wished to have him is given in the words: á¼ÏÏι Î³Î¬Ï Î¼Î¿Î¹ εá½ÏÏηÏÏÎ¿Ï Îµá¼°Ï Î´Î¹Î±ÎºÎ¿Î½Î¯Î±Î½ ] εá½ÏÏηÏÏÎ¿Ï , 2 Timothy 2:21 . Îιακονία here is to be understood of the apostolic office [67] (according to Wiesinger: “of Mark’s personal services, but certainly in the apostle’s vocation”).
[67] What Otto (pp. 257 ff.) on this passage adduces regarding the relation of Mark to Paul are groundless suppositions. It is a purely arbitrary assumption that Mark, after abstaining for some time from work among the heathen, had again offered his services to Paul through Timothy. And it is equally an assumption to say, that from the words εá½ÏÏηÏÏÎ¿Ï Îº . Ï . λ . it would appear that Mark could not have hitherto given Paul his services, because in that case Paul would not have “censured him regarding his usefulness for the ministry” (!).
Verse 12
2 Timothy 4:12 . ΤÏÏικον δὲ á¼ÏÎÏÏειλα Îµá¼°Ï á¼ÏεÏον ] Tychicus was in Greece with Paul on the third missionary journey, and preceded him to Troas, Acts 20:4-5 . According to Colossians 4:7 and Ephesians 6:21 , Paul sent him from Rome to Asia Minor. Otto thinks that this was the occasion mentioned here, and tries to prove it particularly by an interpretation of the passages quoted from the Epistles to the Colossians and the Ephesians. There are, however, well-founded objections to his theory. The facts are such, the two occasions on which he was sent can obviously not be identical.
Îµá¼°Ï á¼ÏεÏον ] Paul here mentions Ephesus as the place to which he had sent Tychicus; but we cannot infer from this, as Theodoret and de Wette infer, that Timothy had not at that time lived in Ephesus.
The reason why he was sent is not given. Possibly it was to convey this epistle (Wieseler); but not probably, for in such a case Paul would have certainly written ÏÏá½¸Ï ÏÎ (Titus 3:12 ; Wiesinger).
Verse 13
2 Timothy 4:13 . Timothy is commissioned to bring with him certain belongings. The first named is Ïὸν ÏελÏνην . On the various spellings of this word, see the Greek lexicons. Regarding the meaning, Chrysostom said: ÏελÏνην á¼Î½Ïαῦθα Ïὸ ἱμάÏιον λÎγει · ÏÎ¹Î½á½²Ï Î´Î ÏαÏι Ïὸ γλÏÏÏÏκομον , á¼Î½Î¸Î± Ïá½° βιβλία á¼ÎºÎµÎ¹Ïο ; and the most recent expositors are still at variance. Matthies takes it in the second meaning: “ cloakbag , covering for books,” because it is improbable that Paul should have left his travelling cloak behind him. De Wette adopts the first meaning, for the reason given by Bengel: theca non seorsum a libris appellaretur. This is the more probable view; there is little force in the objection, that we cannot see what use Paul would have for the mantle when he was expecting death so soon.
á½Î½ á¼ÏÎλιÏον á¼Î½ ΤÏÏάδι ÏαÏá½° ÎάÏÏῳ ] From this it is clear that Paul had been in Troas before he came to Rome, but the time is not stated. In any case, it is very improbable (see Introd. p. 25) that this sojourn was the one mentioned in Acts 20:6 . He did not, however, touch at Troas on his voyage from Caesarea to Rome.
Carpus is mentioned only here.
καὶ Ïá½° βιβλία , μάλιÏÏα Ïá½°Ï Î¼ÎµÎ¼Î²ÏÎ¬Î½Î±Ï ] Since Paul says nothing further about them, it is idle conjecture to define more precisely the contents of the books written on papyrus, and of the more valuable rolls of parchment.
Verses 14-15
2 Timothy 4:14-15 . Warning against a certain Alexander. á¼Î»ÎξανδÏÎ¿Ï á½ ÏαλκεÏÏ ] see on 1 Timothy 1:20 .
Ïολλά μοι κακὰ á¼Î½ÎµÎ´ÎµÎ¯Î¾Î±Ïο ] The words point to a personal injury which he had inflicted on the apostle. This must, however, be added to an attitude of opposition to his words, as is shown in the words: λίαν Î³á½°Ï á¼Î½ÏÎÏÏη Ïοá¿Ï ἡμεÏÎÏÎ¿Î¹Ï Î»ÏÎ³Î¿Î¹Ï ] It is doubtful where this was done, and where Alexander was at the time of the composition of this epistle. Further, the warning: á½Î½ καὶ Ïὺ ÏÏ Î»Î¬ÏÏÎ¿Ï , may refer both “to Timothy’s presence in Ephesus and to his future stay in Rome” (de Wette). Wiesinger conjectures that this Alexander, a native of Ephesus, had come from there to Rome to give testimony against the apostle (at his ÏÏÏÏη á¼Ïολογία , 2 Timothy 4:16 ), and had afterwards returned to Ephesus. [68] This conjecture obtains some probability from the fact that in the very next verse Paul speaks of the á¼Ïολογία ; but this fact cannot be regarded as making the matter certain. The words preceding this warning, if we read á¼ÏοδÏÏει αá½Ïá¿· ὠκÏÏÎ¹Î¿Ï ÎºÎ±Ïá½° Ïá½° á¼Ïγα αá½Ïοῦ , present no difficulty. Even with the reading á¼ÏοδÏá¿ they cannot form a reason for reproaching the apostle with a desire for vengeance; Christian love does not extinguish the feeling of justice; besides, the apostle does not speak the words because of the personal injury, but because of Alexander’s hostility to the truth. Justin ( quaest. 125, ad Orthod. ) says of these words: ÏÏÎÏÎ¿Ï Ïα á¼Î½Î´Ïá½¶ á¼ÏοÏÏÏλῳ μὴ á¼ÎºÎ´Î¹ÎºÎ¿á¿¦Î½Ïι á¼Î±Ï Ïὸν , á¼Î»Î»á½° διδÏνÏι ÏÏÏον Ïá¿ á½Ïγῠ; comp. Romans 12:19 ; 1 Peter 2:23 .
[68] Hofmann supposes that this Alexander was the same as the one mentioned in Acts 19., and that he had given testimony against the apostle in Ephesus. The opinion is manifestly too far-fetched, that Luke would not have mentioned him in the Acts, if the Roman Theophilus, for whom in the first place he wrote the Acts, “had not known Alexander from some other source, in the manner in which we make acquaintance with him in the passage before us.”
Verses 16-17
2 Timothy 4:16-17 . Information regarding the apostle’s present condition, á¼Î½ Ïá¿ ÏÏÏÏá¿ Î¼Î¿Ï á¼Ïολογίᾳ ] á¼Ïολογία : the public appearance before the court; comp. Philippians 1:7 . á¼Î½ Ïá¿ ÏÏÏÏá¿ shows that there was a second appearance in order to bring the case to an end. On the time when the first trial took place, see the Introduction, where, too, there is a discussion of Otto’s hypothesis, that it means the proceedings before Festus, as recounted in Acts 25:6-12 .
οá½Î´ÎµÎ¯Ï μοι ÏαÏεγá¼Î½ÎµÏο ] “no one stood on my side, was present with me,” viz. as patronus [69] (defender). It is the negative expression of the thought which in the next words is given positively: á¼Î»Î»á½° ÏάνÏÎµÏ Î¼Îµ á¼Î³ÎºÎ±ÏÎλιÏον . As to the reason why they had left the apostle, Theodoret says rightly: Î¿á½ ÎºÎ±ÎºÎ¿Î·Î¸ÎµÎ¯Î±Ï á¼§Î½ , á¼Î»Î»á½° Î´ÎµÎ¹Î»Î¯Î±Ï á¼¡ á½ÏοÏÏÏηÏÎ¹Ï .
However much this want of evangelic spirit may have pained the apostle, he says no word in anger: μὴ αá½Ïοá¿Ï λογιÏθείη : “may it not be reckoned to them, but pardoned.” 2 Timothy 4:17 . ὠδὲ κÏÏιÏÏ Î¼Î¿Î¹ ÏαÏÎÏÏη ] said in sharp antithesis to the previous thought. The presence of the Lord manifested itself to the apostle in the courage which he had to testify freely and openly regarding Him; hence καὶ á¼Î½ÎµÎ´Ï νάμÏÏΠμε ] Chrysostom: ÏαῤῥηÏίαν á¼ÏαÏίÏαÏο ; comp. 1 Timothy 1:12 ; Philippians 4:13 . According to Otto, this expression means simply that the Lord “maintained the apostle’s cause against his accusers,” which is clearly an unjustifiable paraphrase of the word, as the apostle is speaking not of his cause , but of himself . Even if á¼Î½ÎµÎ´Ï νάμÏÏε be used in a forensic sense, its signification cannot be altered; it applies to the strengthening which enabled the apostle so to speak as to ward off sentence against him. The purpose of this strengthening was: ἵνα διʼ á¼Î¼Î¿á¿¦ Ïὸ κήÏÏ Î³Î¼Î± ÏληÏοÏοÏηθῠ] According to the meaning suitable to the word ÏληÏοÏοÏεá¿Î½ in Romans 4:21 ; Romans 14:5 , Beza translates: “ut per me praeconio evangelii fides fieret.” Heydenreich, too, thinks that ÏληÏÎ¿Ï . refers to the confirmation of the gospel or testimony to it, either through the proofs delivered by Paul or through the joy he exhibited. But it is safer to take ÏληÏÎ¿Ï . in the same sense here as in 2 Timothy 4:5 , some of the MSS. even reading ÏληÏÏθῠfor ÏληÏοÏοÏηθῠ. It is, however, inaccurate to take the expression in the sense of: “that I might be enabled to preach the gospel” (de Wette). In this interpretation full force is not given to ÏληÏοÏοÏεá¿Î½ . These words must be taken in very close connection with καὶ á¼ÎºÎ¿ÏÏá¿ ÏάνÏα Ïá½° á¼Î¸Î½Î· , and referred to the apostle’s being called to preach the gospel to the heathen. The κήÏÏ Î³Î¼Î± , sc. Ïοῦ εá½Î±Î³Î³ÎµÎ»Î¯Î¿Ï , was fulfilled by Paul, inasmuch as it was done openly before all people (Wieseler, Wiesinger) in the metropolis of the world (was delivered before the corona populi, before the court). Hofmann, regarding this interpretation of the apostle’s words as forced, understands ἵνα κ . Ï . λ . in this way: “If courage and strength had failed the apostle before the heathen tribunal of the metropolis of the world ⦠his confident belief that the heathen world was called to become the church of Christ would have been shattered.” But the words διʼ á¼Î¼Î¿á¿¦ ⦠ÏληÏοÏοÏηθῠdistinctly say that the preaching had been carried out by the apostle himself, and not simply that the preaching to be done by others would not be hindered by him, i.e. by his conduct.
The ἵνα was fulfilled by the apostle’s speech in the ÏÏÏÏη á¼Ïολογία . Otto, on the contrary, asserts that the first á¼Ïολογία and the preaching in Rome took place at different times, and that ἵνα refers to what was to be done afterwards in Rome by the apostle. This is wrong, since in that case ἵνα ought not to stand before , hut after á¼á¿¤á¿¥ÏÏθην .
καὶ á¼á¿¤á¿¥ÏÏθην á¼Îº ÏÏÏμαÏÎ¿Ï Î»ÎονÏÎ¿Ï ] second proof of the help and presence of the Lord.
ÏÏÏμα λÎονÏÎ¿Ï has been very variously explained. The expression is not to be taken literally (Mosheim), but figuratively, and is to be referred to the punishment of being thrown to the lions.
Chrysostom and many after him take Nero to be the λÎÏν ; Pearson again takes Helius Ceasareanus, since Nero at the time had departed for Greece. Wahl thinks λÎÏν a metaphor for tyrannus crudelis, while Wolf explains it to be omnis illa hostium caterva, quorum conatus in prima apologia tunc facta eluserit. [70] All these interpretations are inappropriate. In the first place, the metaphor is not in ÎÎΩΠalone, but in ΣΤÎÎÎ ÎÎÎÎΤÎÏ (so, too, van Oosterzee, Hofmann); and, secondly, this expression can hardly be referred simply to the danger that threatened the apostle from men, but also to the danger prepared for him by the might of Satan, which was opposed to Christ. Hence the interpretation “ deadly danger ” (so de Wette, Wiesinger, van Oosterzee) is not sufficient. [71] Paul escaped from the danger impending over him, unhurt in body and soul (see on 2 Timothy 3:11 ), escaped as a conqueror in the eyes of the Lord, and hence he says: á¼á¿¤á¿¬ÎΣÎÎÎ á¼Î ΣΤÎÎÎΤÎÏ ÎÎÎÎΤÎÏ .
[69] Wolf: verb. ÏÏ Î¼ÏαÏαγίνεÏθαι indicat patronos et amicos, qui alios, ad causam dicendam vocatos, nunc praesentia sua, nunc etiam oratione adjuvare solebant. Graeci dicunt nunc ÏαÏαγίνεÏθαι , nunc ÏαÏεá¿Î½Î±Î¹ , nunc ÏÏ Î¼ÏαÏεá¿Î½Î±Î¹ . See further, in Rein, Röm . Privatrecht , p. 425; Schömann, Attisch. Recht , p. 708.
[70] Otto adopts an explanation to suit his opinion that this á¼Ïολογία took place in Caesarea before Festus: “Judaism was the lion that panted for the apostle’s blood,” and from it the apostle was delivered when he appealed to the emperor, and Festus received the appeal.
[71] Hofmann: “His danger was a greater one, to lose ⦠before the tribunal his courage in confessing Christ. That he had escaped it, he owes thanks to God’s help.”
Verse 18
2 Timothy 4:18 . In the assured confidence of faith, the apostle adds to á¼á¿¤á¿¥ÏÏθην the word of hope: á¿¥ÏÏεÏαί με ὠκÏÏÎ¹Î¿Ï á¼Ïὸ ÏάνÏÎ¿Ï á¼ÏÎ³Î¿Ï ÏονηÏοῦ , for he knows that the Lord even if it be through death (2 Timothy 4:6 ) will bring him into His kingdom. á¼Ïγον ÏονηÏÏν is not equivalent to evil, as Luther translates it and Matthies explains it: “from every evil circumstance.” Taken in this sense, the thought would be quite irreconcilable with the apostle’s conviction in 2 Timothy 4:6 . Besides, in the N. T. ÏονηÏÏν never refers to merely external affliction; it denotes rather what is morally evil. Still it cannot here mean the evil work which the apostle might do (Chrysostom: Ïᾶν á¼Î¼Î¬ÏÏημα ; Grotius: liberabit me, ne quid agam Christiano, ne quid Apostolo indignum; de Wette: “from all evil work which I might do through want of stedfastness, through apostasy, and the like;” so, too, Beza, Heydenreich, and others). It must be interpreted of the wicked works of the enemies of the divine word; only with this view is the verb á¿¥ÏÏεÏαι appropriate, especially when combined with ÏÏÏει (Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, Hofmann). The apostle was still exposed to the attacks of the evil one, but he expresses the hope that the Lord would save him from them, so that they would do him no harm. Not, indeed, that he would not suffer the martyrdom he expected, but that through this he would come into the heavenly kingdom of the Lord, where there was prepared for him ÏÏÎÏÎ±Î½Î¿Ï Ïá¿Ï δικαιοÏÏÎ½Î·Ï (2 Timothy 4:8 ).
καὶ ÏÏÏει Îµá¼°Ï Ïὴν βαÏιλείαν αá½Ïοῦ Ïὴν á¼ÏÎ¿Ï Ïάνιον ] ÏÏÏει Îµá¼°Ï is a pregnant construction: he will save me and bring me into = ÏÏζÏν á¼Î¾ÎµÎ¹ μὲ Îµá¼°Ï (Heydenreich).
The expression ἡ βαÏιλεία ἡ á¼ÏÎ¿Ï ÏÎ¬Î½Î¹Î¿Ï does not occur elsewhere in the N. T.; but the idea is thoroughly apostolic and Pauline. For though Paul often calls Christ’s kingdom a future one, Christ is also present to him as βαÏÎ¹Î»Îµá½ºÏ á¼Î½ Ïοá¿Ï á¼ÏÎ¿Ï ÏÎ±Î½Î¯Î¿Î¹Ï , whose βαÏιλεία , therefore, is also a present one. [72] The context points to this meaning here. In Philippians 1:23 , Paul expresses the longing to come to Christ through death ; here he expresses the hope that the Lord would remove him into His kingdom á¼Îº ÏανÏá½¸Ï á¼ÏÎ³Î¿Ï ÏονηÏοῦ .
As a suitable and natural utterance of awakened feeling, there follows a doxology which in this place cannot surprise us, though commonly his doxologies refer to God and not to Christ specially. [73]
[72] There is nothing to indicate that the apostle is here alluding to the heavenly kingdom of the Lord, “in contrast with the earthly dominion of the present ” (Hofmann).
[73] In Romans 16:27 ; Romans 9:5 , Hebrews 13:21 , the reference is at the very least doubtful.
Verse 19
2 Timothy 4:19 . Paul sends greetings to Prisca and Aquila.
Paul had become acquainted with them in Corinth (Acts 18:2 ), from which they accompanied him to Syria (2 Timothy 4:18 ). When Paul wrote the Epistle to the Romans they were in Rome (Romans 16:13 ), but they were in Corinth at the time of his writing the First Epistle to the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 16:19 ).
καὶ Ïὸν á½Î½Î·ÏιÏÏÏÎ¿Ï Î¿á¼¶ÎºÎ¿Î½ , see on 2 Timothy 1:16 .
Verse 20
2 Timothy 4:20 . á¼ÏαÏÏÎ¿Ï á¼Î¼ÎµÎ¹Î½ÎµÎ½ á¼Î½ ÎοÏίνθῳ ] While on his third journey, the apostle sent forward a certain. Erastus from Ephesus to Macedonia along with Timothy (Acts 19:22 ). It can hardly be doubted that it is the same man who is mentioned here. It is more uncertain if the one alluded to in Romans 16:23 is also the same (as Otto thinks); still it does favour the identity that the latter dwelt in Corinth as ὠοἰκÏÎ½Î¿Î¼Î¿Ï Ïá¿Ï ÏÏλεÏÏ , and that the Erastus here mentioned remained in Corinth . Meyer, however (see on Romans 16:23 ), and Wiesinger think it improbable. Hofmann holds that the Erastus mentioned in Acts 19:22 , and the city chamberlain in Romans 16:23 , are two different men, and that the one mentioned here is identical with the latter.
á¼Î¼ÎµÎ¹Î½Îµ ] i.e. “he remained in Corinth, viz. when I left it;” the tense favours this view. Paul notices the fact because he thought that Timothy believed that Erastus had left Corinth with the apostle. Hug explains it: “Erastus, whom I expected in Rome, remained behind in Corinth;” but this would suit better with the perfect. Besides, there is nothing to indicate such an expectation.
ΤÏÏÏιμον δὲ á¼ÏÎλιÏον á¼Î½ ÎιλήÏῳ á¼ÏθενοῦνÏα ] Trophimus, an Asiatic, accompanied Paul on his third journey, and went before him from Greece to Troas (Acts 20:4 ). His presence in Jerusalem was the occasion of the tumult against Paul (Acts 21:29 ).
From this passage it would appear that Trophimus had wished to accompany the apostle on his journey, but had been left behind at Miletus sick. The apostle cannot have been in Miletus with Trophimus before the first imprisonment in Rome; hence the expositors who deny that Paul was twice imprisoned in Rome, and admit the genuineness of the epistle, are driven to great straits in interpreting this passage. Thus Hug, Hemsen, and Kling hold á¼ÏÎλιÏον to be the third person plural. Wieseler does not give the proper force to á¼ÏÎλιÏον , which as de Wette rightly remarks presupposes that they had been previously together in Miletus. Regarding the views of Wieseler and Otto, comp. Introduction, § 3, pp. 19, 20. It is altogether arbitrary to read á¼Î½ ÎελίÏá¿ , or to suppose that Miletus in Crete is meant.
The reason for speaking about Erastus and Trophimus appears in 2 Timothy 4:21 ; comp. 2 Timothy 4:9-10 . He did not mention them in 2 Timothy 4:10 , because “there he was speaking only of those who had already been with him in Rome and had left him” (Wiesinger). Hofmann thinks that Paul mentions them in reply to a question from Timothy regarding the two who might serve as witnesses for his defence; but this is mere conjecture, for which no good grounds can be given. [74]
[74] Hofmann regards them as suitable witnesses for the defence, assuming that the charge against the apostle rested on this, that his preaching of the gospel was contrary to the constitution of the state. Erastus was present in Corinth on the occasion mentioned in Acts 18:12 , and Trophimus when Paul was made a prisoner at Jerusalem. Both might therefore testify that Paul was not to blame for these tumults.
Verse 21
2 Timothy 4:21 . ΣÏοÏδαÏον ÏÏὸ ÏÎµÎ¹Î¼á¿¶Î½Î¿Ï á¼Î»Î¸Îµá¿Î½ ] see 2 Timothy 4:9 , ÏαÏÎÏÏ . Even if ÏÏὸ ÏÎµÎ¹Î¼á¿¶Î½Î¿Ï is to be connected with ÏαÏÎÏÏ , it does not follow that the epistle was written just before winter; comp. Introd. § 3. ΧειμÏν may indeed mean the “ winter-storm ” (Wieseler), but it is more natural here to understand it of the season of the year (Wiesinger). Timothy is to come to the apostle before winter, that the winter might not prevent him from coming soon.
Finally, Paul sent greetings from Eubulus, Pudens, Linus, and Claudia, who are mentioned only here, and from all the Christians in Rome. These are named specially, not as the apostle’s ÏÏνεÏγοι , but probably because they were personally acquainted with Timothy. Linus is probably the one whom the Fathers name as the first bishop of Rome.
Verse 22
2 Timothy 4:22 . Benediction. This is peculiar in its nature. Only at the end of the First Epistle to the Corinthians do we find, as here, a double benediction, and there it runs differently. For ὠκÏÏÎ¹Î¿Ï â¦ and ἡ ÏάÏÎ¹Ï â¦ the form elsewhere is always ἡ ÏάÏÎ¹Ï Ïοῦ ÎºÏ ÏÎ¯Î¿Ï .
μεÏá½° Ïοῦ ÏνεÏμαÏÏÏ ÏÎ¿Ï ] comp. Galatians 6:18 ; Philemon 1:25 .
ἡ ÏάÏÎ¹Ï Î¼ÎµÎ¸Ê¼ á½Î¼á¿¶Î½ ] comp. 1 Timothy 6:21 .