2 Timothy 4

CHAPTER IV

Hear the Last Solemn Testifying of Him Whose End Is Near!

I Am Earnestly Testifying

2 Timothy 4:1

1 We cancel οὖνἐγώ, which was found in the text used by the A. V. We have no connective. The climax of chapted 3 is reached, yet the climax stands out by itself and is not made a part of what precedes. While “continue to remain” in 3:14 looks to the future, the things in which Timothy is to remain lie in the past, they are what he learned at his mother’s knee, the divinely inspired Word. In this climax the entire future is presented; there is only an incidental reference to the period of defection (v. 3; compare 3:1, etc.). Besides, Paul presents the impressiveness and the solemnity of the epiphany of Christ, his judgment of the living and the dead, and his kingdom. From Timothy’s past at his mother’s knee Paul turns to the crown that he himself has almost attained.

This is the end of the body of the letter, the last word. It is surcharged with the profoundest emotion. Paul’s course is almost completed, the crown is almost won, and he calls upon Timothy to strive also to receive such a crown from the Judge’s hand. Paul is not passing into the shadow but into the glory. His “beloved child” (1:1) is beckoned to follow him. He beckons all of us. Paul’s life is closing as it should close.

I am earnestly testifying in the sight of God and of Christ Jesus, the one about to judge living and dead both by his epiphany and by his kingdom: Herald the Word; stand at hand in good season, in no season; convict, chide, admonish in all longsuffering and doctrine!

The verb does not mean “I am charging” (our versions), nor “I am adjuring,” but “I am earnestly testifying”; and because Paul is doing this “in the sight of God,” etc., and to make the statement more solemn he adds the accusative which is regularly used with verbs of adjuration: “both by his epiphany and his kingdom.” Paul has used the participle of this verb in 2:14, where it is construed with the infinitive; in 1 Tim. 5:21 it is construed with ἵνα. Here the verb appears with a series of terse imperatives: “I am earnestly testifying: Herald the Word,” etc. For that reason, too, the accusatives of adjuration are in place; the imperative object clauses lend their adjuring touch to the verb.

The reading κατά has about as good authority as the καί before “the epiphany”; some prefer it and then construe: “he who will judge in accord with his epiphany,” etc. To construe, “I am testifying … in accord with his epiphany,” etc., sounds rather strange. Still less acceptable is the construction that Paul is testifying in the sight of God and Christ, the Judge, to the epiphany and kingdom of this Judge; then the imperatives are disconnected from v. 1. Nor can we accept the thought that the epiphany and kingdom are being cited as Paul’s witnesses to his act of commanding Timothy to herald the Word, etc.

This is Paul’s last, most earnest, and solemn testimony to Timothy. He makes it “in the sight of God and of Christ Jesus”; this is an expression that he has used before. He now wants it to be stronger, as strong as he is able to make it; it is his last, it is to impress Timothy more deeply than ever. So Paul adds the apposition: “of the One about to judge living and dead.” Μέλλω with the present infinitive is a periphrastic future. In the sight of this Judge who will soon judge living and dead, whom Paul expects to meet after a martyr’s death that is near at hand, whom Timothy, too, must meet, Paul here lays his solemn testimony upon the heart of Timothy. “Living and dead” are without articles and express quality. The former are those who will be alive at the last day (1 Thess. 4:17), the latter those that will be raised from the dead at that day. There is no room for nor thought of a millennium.

With this vision of the Judge of the universe before his eyes Paul intensifies his testimony to the utmost and testifies “both by his epiphany and by his kingdom,” i.e., by reminding Timothy of both. This is the epiphany or glorious appearing of Christ for the purpose of judgment at the last day (1 Tim. 6:14; Titus 2:13); this word is also used to designate Christ’s first appearance (1:10) and the appearance of the Antichrist (2 Thess. 2:8). What glory it will be for Timothy and for Paul to be acknowledged by Christ at his epiphany!

“His kingdom” is added, Christ’s reign in eternal glory. We do not think of a king and of his subjects, for we shall all reign with Christ (2:12; Rev. 3:21; 22:5). Where this King reigns, there is his kingdom; in that glory kingdom he is crowned with eternal divine glory according to his human nature, we are crowned with him and share his reign as heirs of the kingdom (Matt. 25:34). The article and the possessive pronoun are used with each noun in order to make each stand out by itself. The epiphany is for all men alike, the kingdom is for the blessed alone. What glory it will be for Timothy and for Paul to reign with Christ as kings in that kingdom! See the author’s Kings and Priests for a fuller elaboration of the kingdom.

2 Timothy 4:2

2 This solemn and exalted preamble ushers in the peremptory aorist imperatives. They are not ingressive (contra R., W. P.) but constative. Being five in number, the half of greatest rhetorical completeness, they imply that others could be added, but that these five are enough. “Herald the Word!” is properly put first, for this is Timothy’s greatest work and function. This connects directly with 3:14–17, especially with “all Scripture God-inspired.” This word is regularly translated “preach” and regards the preacher as a κῆρυξ or “herald,” whose function is κηρύσσειν, to make a loud, public proclamation, one that has been given him by a superior. He must announce it in its completeness (Acts 20:27) and not alter it in any way, not add anything of his own or anything that is borrowed from another source, not subtract a particle. “Herald!” and not offer religious opinions, not philosophize, not argue. In view of the connotations of this imperative many a preacher, who should be a “herald” and is not what he should be or not all that he should be, must stammer and blush when he faces Christ’s appearance and his kingdom.

“Stand at hand in good season, in no season!” This is the correct translation of ἐφίστημι, intransitive: to stand by, be at hand, “be instant” (our versions, the Vulgate insta); not halte an (Luther). The verb is often used with reference to the sudden appearance of a person, of an angel, etc. “Be right on the spot!” conveys the meaning and not R., W. P.’s, “carry on, stick to it.” Timothy is to be right there, namely with the Word, to herald it “in good season,” when things seem favorable, “in no season,” when it does not seem seasonable at all. We have no connective; the paradoxical oxymoron is therefore all the sharper. The Word knows no difference as to καιροί or seasons; it is proper for all seasons, everlastingly in season; there is never a time in which it is not needed. With it we are “to buy out” any season, Eph. 5:16. By adding the two adverbs Paul indicates that the first two imperatives belong together.

Thus the next three form a group, the more so since none has a modifying addition, and since these are specific or specifications of the first two: “convict, chide, admonish.” “Convict!” There is no need to say with what (the Word) or whom (sinners, who are always in season). “Chide!” or censure, blame. Again there is no need to say with what (the Word) or whom (Christians who get into sin or error). “Admonish!” or urge, encourage (here the meaning can scarcely be: comfort), once more with the Word, to stimulate slow and lagging Christians. Recall 3:16. We feel that Paul could have added a number of other imperatives and completed what Timothy is to do with the Word, the entire inspired Scripture. These five suggest the rest; five is used for this reason.

All five Timothy is to do “in all (all manner of) longsuffering and doctrine” (διδαχή, not διδασκαλία, “teaching,” 3:10, 16). The former is subjective: brave, steady remaining under all that this work with the Word will entail; the latter is objective: the sum of the entire doctrinal content of the Word which is to be conveyed by “teaching.” “Doctrine” has been decried in our day as though this word meant dry, sterile dogmas which are simply handed out so that people may bow to them in unquestioning assent. This view is used to justify the opposition of “doctrine and life” and the supposition that “people in our day do not want doctrine.” But “doctrine” is any adequate statement of a divine fact; the statement may be long or short, may have one or another form, but it must adequately present the divine fact or facts. No sensible man will say that he does not want to have these facts presented to him, that he wants something else instead. Doctrine is the foundation and the fountain of all religious life, false doctrine of a false religious life, true doctrine of genuine religious and truly Christian life. All Scripture, which is full of religious facts, is doctrine; and this applies in the four ways indicated in 3:16, and in the five indicated in 4:2. To be without this doctrine is to be left in darkness, Eph. 5:8, to be tossed to and fro by every wind of false teaching like a helpless vessel that is at the mercy of the waves, Eph. 4:14, a pitiful condition.

2 Timothy 4:3

3 Paul speaks of these people right here. For there will be a season when they will not stand the healthy teaching but, having an itch to get their hearing tickled, will heap up for themselves teachers in accord with their own lusts and will turn their hearing away from the truth but will wrench it out upon the myths.

This is a prophecy that is on a level with 2 Thess. 2:3; 1 Tim. 4:1, etc.; 2 Tim. 3:1, etc.; but with the singular καιρός Paul foretells “a season” that is near at hand. “For” thus offers this warning to Timothy to fortify himself and the churches in advance by powerfully inculcating the Word (v. 2). The subject is left indefinite: “they will not stand the healthy teaching.” “Healthy” is used repeatedly in these letters; it is the opposite of diseased and is here combined with “teaching” (not “doctrine,” v. 2), which means both the act and the product of teaching. The verb means “will not have up for themselves,” i.e., will not stand.

Paul is not speaking of a change in the temper of the world in general but of a condition that will appear in the churches. Some churches will do what he here foretells; we have them today. Good, healthy Scripture teaching that is able to do what 3:16 says and profitable for what 3:16, 17 unfolds, namely good health and strength “for every good work,” is distasteful to them; they cannot stand this sweet, wholesome manna. So they heap up for themselves teachers who will furnish them “teaching in accord with the (perverted) desires that are their own,” who will satisfy their tastes. Paul is not referring to esthetic taste but to hankering after what is unhealthy for the soul and the life. “Heap up for themselves” like haycocks refers to the number of elders which each congregation had: these congregations will be set on filling their presbytery with only such men and at every election will turn down sound men.

The Greek is able to place the participle “having an itch as to their hearing” at the end, for its case, number, and gender show that it modifies the subject; the A. V. scarcely avoids ambiguity by placing a comma after teachers; the R. V. properly transposes. The present middle is descriptive: “having an itch for scratching or tickling their hearing or for getting it scratched or tickled” (our versions use “ears” in place of hearing). There is no contrast with healthiness but rather a concordance with their own peculiar “desires” or “lusts” which, like an itch, want tickling gratification. Paul’s diagnosis is perfect.

Good law and gospel crush and heal and do not scratch a little in order to tickle. Law and gospel eradicate the flesh, the old Adam, and build up the new man “for every good work” (3:17); tickling itchy ears does not do this. The law severely boxes those ears until the itch is gone, and the terrores conscientiae make them burn; the gospel pours in the power that pardons, regenerates, renews. There will be those, Paul says, who want tickling instead.

2 Timothy 4:4

4 So they turn their hearing (ears) “away from the truth,” from all the divine, spiritual reality, from that which is fact; and will wrench (or twist) it out (ἐκ) upon (ἐπί) the myths, fictions or fables, that are not true, that are foolish human inventions (compare 1 Tim. 1:4; 4:7; Titus 1:14; 2 Pet. 1:16). The definite article is generic; the whole class of teaching that deals in human religious inventions and is empty and useless; the term “myths” is full of Paul’s disdain. The second verb is stronger than the first; these people will wrench or twist themselves out of their normal position in order to get their ears upon tickling fables.

2 Timothy 4:5

5 Thou, however, continue thou to be sober in every respect; suffer what is bad, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill thy ministry!

Compare “thou, however,” in 3:10, 14. Here we have opposition to the preceding and also emphatic coordination with ἐγώ, “I on my part,” in v. 6. The contrast in the first imperative is not that of drunkenness; when it is used in ethical connections, “be sober” denotes the clarity of mind and of sound judgment that is not blinded and carried away by follies, fables, and morbid opinions. It denotes a clear eye, a balanced judgment. The difference of tense is often disregarded or inadequately understood. This present imperative = “continue thou to be sober.” It acknowledges that Timothy has been sober, has not lacked in that respect, and asks that he continue thus “in all respects.” Once more we have this common adverbial phrase in this sense (B.-P. 1012) and not with the meaning “in all things.”

The three aorist imperatives belong together. They are constatives (like those used in v. 2) and include the whole future to which they refer; thus they are not parallels to continuance in being sober (which would require present tenses) but illustrative of the directions in which Timothy’s soberness is to manifest itself during the entire future, which helps us to understand the difference between these three injunctions and the aorists used in v. 2. In this coming period there will be much bad to suffer and to endure. The aorist thinks only of this and disregards anything of this nature that may have occurred in the past. See this verb in 2:9 and the κακόν in the verb itself in 1:8 and 2:3. Such coming suffering is not to becloud Timothy’s soberness.

He is to do the work of an evangelist whatever the bad that he must suffer may be, do it effectively, completely (aorist). This soberness is to attest itself in that respect. “Evangelist” is not used in the technical sense of “revivalist”; some think it denotes “missionary”; but, like εὐαγγελίζεσθαι, it is entirely general: a man who operates with the gospel of salvation be his capacity what it will. We have already described Timothy’s position in Asia, yet the word is not restricted to that position. The object and the verb are transposed and both are stressed in the Greek.

So again: “thy ministry (service for others) fulfill,” carry out to fulness; at any time in the future let nothing be lacking in thy service. The measure is always to be full. Paul is not referring merely to the end, for this imperative is again constative and asks this further evidence of Timothy’s ever continuing in soberness. Ranged under the soberness which Timothy has always shown and is always to show, the three added injunctions are exemplifications somewhat as the last three in v. 2 exemplify the first two. But in v. 5 the device for this is the change in tense; in v. 2 the device is the use of paradoxical adverbs after the first two imperatives; “in all respects” serves similarly in v. 5.

My Whole Life Testifies

2 Timothy 4:6

6 Γάρ is explanatory of this strong coordination: thou—I on my part. All that is urged upon Timothy is done in view of what is happening to Paul. For I on my part am already being poured out as a drink offering, and the period of my own departure is present. The contest, the noble one, have I been contending in, the race have I been finishing, the faith have I been guarding. As for the rest, there has been laid up for me the victory wreath of the righteousness, which the Lord will duly give to me in that day, the righteous Judge; moreover, not alone to me but to all those who have been loving his epiphany.

Noble words! The sun is setting blood-red but is shot through with golden glory. Indeed, so should this great life close! These words have left an indelible impression upon all future ages. Socrates’ attitude toward the cup of hemlock has been admired; it is the best that paganism can offer. But how pitifully empty it is when it is placed beside these few words of Christian triumph, Christian assurance, which are looking up to the Lord, the righteous Judge, with all those who are loving his epiphany and awaiting their crowning! Lord, give me a death like this!

This ἐγώ is as devoid of all egotism as it is of all false humility. It is written in the face of death. The facts it states are facts, and Paul writes them for Timothy’s sake in order to inspire him by the grace of God to duplicate them in his life with the same courage, assurance, and joy. They so inspire every Christian soul that reads them today. Paul is asking Timothy to do no more than he himself has already done and is now completing. The valiant runner who is close to the goal is beckoning the other on to win the laurel crown. The apostle, almost through with his work, about to obtain the reward, is placing the glorious task on his faithful assistant’s shoulders to carry it forward to the same reward.

The English does not have a word that corresponds with σπένδομαι; we must paraphrase “to pour out a libation, a drink offering of wine.” Paul does not say θύομαι, “I am already being sacrificed,” as though he likened his anticipated martyrdom to a burnt offering that is going up in smoke. The figure he employs is much finer. His bloody death he compares only to the pouring out of a drink offering (Num. 15:1–10), the libation of wine which was added to the sacrifice proper and formed the last act of the sacrificial ceremony. We have the same figure and the same word in Phil. 2:17.

In connection with the Jewish sacrifices the wine was poured out beside the altar, in the case of pagan sacrifices upon the sacrifice itself. Since he is writing to Timothy, it is probable that Paul thought of the former. Rom. 15:16 shows that he regarded his entire ministry as an offering to God. This offering his bloody death is now completing. The present tense and the “already” imply that Paul’s imprisonment and his first hearing are beginning his libation. Whether, in connection with libation, we think of the pouring out of Paul’s blood or of his life makes no difference, for the life is in the blood.

The parallel statement is literal: “and the season of my own departure is present.” Καιρός is correct, for the imprisonment which shall end with death covers some months, yet from the beginning it is marked by ἀνάλυσις, “departure” or “departing,” which, like the German Aufbruch, has just about lost the figurative idea of loosening the tent cords when breaking camp or of loosening a ship’s moorings when weighing anchor.

“My own,” the possessive adjective, matches the emphasis of ἐγώ, “I on my part.” The perfect ἐφέστηκε is always used in the present sense: “is present”; this period is not merely at hand, close by, but right here. That is why Paul writes to Timothy as he does. He is engaged in the preliminaries of departing. If you wish to retain the old figure: Paul is busy taking down his tent; he is casting off his ship’s moorings. Or to employ another figure: he is writing his last will and testament for Timothy who, when he reads these words, may well do so through a film of tears.

2 Timothy 4:7

7 Paul’s thought at once grows greater. From the last short chapter of his life, this “season” of his departing, he turns to the whole book of Christian life and apostleship. Once more we have a balance of phrasing: first the figure, then literal reality. There is no regret, no sadness but only uplift, holy satisfaction, triumphant hope on the eve of final realization. The objects are placed forward for the sake of emphasis.

Our versions convey a wrong idea when they translate “fighting a good fight,” they also overlook the durative feature of the perfect tenses. Paul is not thinking of a battle, not even of a gladiatorial combat; he has in mind “the noble ἀγών,” an athletic contest, the energetic striving for a prize which can be secured only by straining every muscle in a masterly effort to the very last. There is no reference in the figure to competing with others, to defeated contestants. There is a reference only to an athlete making the record set for him, reaching a set standard. We do not speak of the devil, the world, and the flesh as the defeated enemies. Paul has used the figure of a soldier elsewhere but does not do so here; he has even used the figure of a great general to illustrate his apostleship and of a mighty campaign along a vast front (see the exposition of 2 Cor. 10:4–6), and of a grand Roman triumph (see the notes on 2 Cor. 2:14); but we have no such imagery here. We recall 1 Tim. 6:12: “Keep on contending in the noble contest for the faith!” where the prize is also mentioned.

The article should not be overlooked, for it points to “the noble contest” in which every Christian is engaged. Paul is in the foremost rank, but Timothy and all of us are with him. No contest is as καλός, noble, as this one. It is “the high calling of God in Christ Jesus” (Phil. 3:14), where, too, the goal and the prize are indicated; “the holy calling” (2 Tim. 1:9), “a heavenly calling,” in which we are “partakers” (Heb. 3:1). The perfect tense of the cognate verb does not mean that the contending is now ended, but that Paul has been engaged in it all along and is still engaged in it. The graph of this tense which R. 895 offers is not applicable here; it is not:——— (the goal reached), but:———(the goal not quite reached). The context states how near the goal is in this case.

This is equally true regarding the next two perfect tenses. The ἀγών might be any athletic contest; but here Paul thinks especially of the δρόμος, the running and speed contests; yet he does not have in mind the out-running of others as he does in 1 Cor. 9:24–26 but only the making of the prescribed speed record. This running of his, like the contest in general, might refer only to his career as an apostle (Acts 20:24; Gal. 2:2), but v. 8 leads us to think of Paul’s whole Christian life in which “all who have been loving the Lord’s appearing” are joined with him. Every Christian, wherever God places him, has his race to run; Paul has reached the stage where he can say: “I have been finishing”—he is now at the finishing.

Now there follows the literal statement (compare v. 6): “The faith have I been guarding” and am even now guarding. It is generally agreed that this does not mean that Paul has kept “his faithfulness,” πίστις in the sense of Treue. Quite general is the interpretation that Paul has been preserving the personal faith of his own heart against temptation and doubt. Yet it is strangely claimed that the three statements are practically one so that we are pointed to 1 Tim. 6:12. They are indeed one, and the latter passage corrects the idea that Paul’s personal faith is referred to, for it bids Timothy: “Contend the noble contest for the faith!” i.e., for the substance of the faith. See the exposition of 1 Tim. 6:12.

All three nouns are alike objective, and only thus are these three statements one. “The noble contest” is one that has been set for Paul; “the race” is one that has been appointed for him; “the faith” is one that has been deposited with him so that he may ever guard it. It is objective, the fides quae creditur. The fact that no one can guard the substance, the contents, the doctrine without personally believing it is self-evident. Paul’s subjective faith lies in the verb “I have been guarding.” We have frequently found articulated pistis = the objective faith; note a few samples: 1 Tim. 4:1; 6:10, 12, 21 (these in succession).

Yet we should not think that guarding the objective faith refers only to an office such as that of Paul, of Timothy, and of preachers. The gospel is entrusted to all of us; we are all to guard “the faith,” i.e., its blessed substance, for if that faith-substance is lost, none of us has anything to believe subjectively; if that is damaged and destroyed in part, we are all placed in danger. We have no hierarchy that keeps the faith-treasure; we all are its guards, and the Lord will call all of us to account. Correct the traditional exegesis which the writer followed in the Eisenach Epistle Selections. “Have been guarding” includes the idea that Paul is still guarding, but he has almost reached the end.

2 Timothy 4:8

8 Since Paul considers how nearly through he is he speaks of what awaits him. Λοιπόν is practically an adverb although it still retains its accusative ending; its meaning is not “henceforth” (our versions), for the verb which Paul employs is one of several present tenses which are used as perfects in meaning, it means “as for the rest,” as far as anything else is concerned regarding me, “there has been laid up for me the crown of righteousness,” etc. It is not being laid up now, nor about to be laid up, but “has been laid up” long ago, ever since Paul stepped into the noble contest and race, ever since he guarded the faith. The thought of that crown has ever kept his courage high, his hope triumphant. Now he is so very near that crown.

We regard the genitive as the possessive genitive: “the victory wreath of the righteousness,” i.e., which goes with and belongs to the righteousness, namely to the imputed righteousness which is ours by faith and also to the acquired righteousness which is manifested in our lives by good works (3:17). In view of Matt. 25:34–40 we decline to separate them.

Δικαιοσύνη is always forensic; it denotes that quality which is ours by virtue of a decree of the divine Judge which declares us to be δίκαιος or righteous according to his δίκη or norm of right. The genitive is not qualitative: “the wreath which has the quality of being righteous.” This meaning would require the omission of the article and thus secure the qualitative force of the noun. Moreover, the quality of this wreath is not righteousness (righteous bestowal); its quality is glory. As far as its being justly bestowed is concerned, this thought is stated in the following relative clause in no uncertain terms.

R. 498 and others regard this as an appositional genitive: the crown consists of righteousness, namely of the Judge’s decree at the last day which declares the victor righteous. This confuses the reward (the wreath) with what wins the reward (the righteousness). Stellhorn adds that it is not Biblical linguistic usage to say that either the imputed righteousness or our acquired righteousness are a reward of faith, but that our state of righteousness shall receive a reward. The Judge’s decree at the last day is not the reward; it is only the public statement of what this Judge has long before that decreed regarding the believer. Yet the crown is not given until that final statement of the decree is made. The body must lie in the grave until the resurrection day.

This genitive is like that found in Gal. 5:5, ἐλπὶςδικαιοσύνης: hope which belongs to righteousness, which righteousness has the right to have; not hope that is righteousness, for hope is not righteousness. Pointing to “the crown of life” in James 1:12; Rev. 2:10, and to “the crown of glory” in 1 Pet. 5:4, as parallels is not convincing. These are appositional genitives, “life” and “glory” are the crown and the reward. But “righteousness” cannot be the same although the expressions read alike. The righteousness receives the a crown; it is the righteousness described in v. 7. Στέφανοςἄφθαρτος, “an incorruptible crown” (1 Cor. 9:25); ἀμαράντινος, “unwithering” (1 Pet. 5:4).

Trench calls our attention to the fact that στέφανος = a victor’s wreath, Siegeskranz, and that it is to be distinguished from διάδημα, the crown of royalty. The former is woven of oak, of ivy, of parsley, of myrtle, of olive leaves; and when it is not intended for a victor but for festal joy, it is made of flowers: violets or roses. The “diadem” was a linen band or fillet encircling the brow. The conclusion which Trench draws is that στέφανος never means royal crown and has nothing to do with kingship. He explains Matt. 27:29, where Jesus is certainly crowned as a king in mockery, by saying that Stephanos is used because his crown was made of twigs of thorns and thus “diadem” would not really fit. M.-M. 589 doubts Trench’s statement on this point.

Trench carries his conclusion as to the difference between the two words too far. “Diadem” is purely royal and brings out the exaltation, the glory, the majesty of a king before whom all must bow as being far beneath him. “Wreath,” Stephanos, connotes victory after a contest or, in the case of a general, (who may himself be the king) after a battle or a war. Trench fails to note, especially in the passages in Revelation, that the victors who receive the Stephanos do not sit as those do who receive a wreath of flowers; these victors reign, sit on thrones to judge and to reign, even sit together with Christ in his throne (Rev. 3:21); “we shall reign jointly with him” (2:12). The diadem belongs to Christ who is King by nature and not to us who are only made kings. We come to reign by being victors, the diademed King makes the wreathed victors reign as kings with him. This is the distinction.

This victory wreath is the one “which the Lord will duly give (this is the sense of ἀπό in the verb) to me in or at that day (resurrection day: the body included), the righteous Judge,” he who ever righteously rewards righteousness by his just and righteous judicial verdict. Throughout the Scriptures there runs this double idea: 1) that the righteous are pronounced righteous by a judicial verdict; 2) that the Judge himself must and will be declared righteous for his absolutely righteous verdicts upon both the righteous and the unrighteous, must and will be so declared by the whole universe of angels and of men and even by the damned themselves. On that day, when all things are absolutely revealed, his righteousness which is evidenced in all his judgments will appear convincingly as well as the righteousness of all true believers. Note that Paul knows nothing about a preferred class, one that is crowned in a so-called “first resurrection.” He knows of only one day, of only one crowning, when all who have loved the Lord’s epiphany will be judged and duly given the victor’s wreath.

“Moreover (δέ), not alone to me, but to all who have been loving his epiphany,” includes us and all other true believers. Paul has, therefore, not been speaking of his apostolic office but of his Christian faith and life, wherein we are with him in the great “contest and race” of guarding the gospel faith. He is not thinking of degrees of glory in heaven. Paul sees himself amid the throng of all the righteous at the last day. It is a master-stroke to designate them as “all those who have been loving his epiphany.” Who does not feel the questions: “Are we thus loving his epiphany now? Do we contend, run, guard the faith as if we love his epiphany?” The perfect tense is like those found in v. 7.

Even if it is reckoned from “that day,” this tense reaches far back to the time when this loving began in all these believers; it includes that day when they shall see that epiphany, and who will say that this their having loved it will then end? They will carry that love into all eternity.

This is the proper verb and it has the correct object. It is the love of understanding and comprehension, the eyes are open to see and not blind; and with the understanding it realizes the corresponding purpose concerning the epiphany. In love they knew what the promises of the Lord’s epiphany meant; in love they held to the purpose of having all the blessedness of that epiphany conferred upon them. They, of course, believed in that epiphany, and therefore they also ever loved it.

Paul does not write: “All those who have been loving him,” the righteous Judge; he says far more even as his epiphany includes all the glory of his second coming, all his righteous judgment at that day, all that this shall duly give to us. Few will confuse this final epiphany with that mentioned in 1:10, Christ’s first redemptive epiphany. In that epiphany Christ did not come to judge the world (John 3:17); in this he will come as “the righteous Judge.” This word undoubtedly repeats “his epiphany” from v. 1 and with this statement about loving it sheds a flood of light on what v. 1 says about “Christ Jesus, the one about to judge living and dead,” and Paul’s testifying to Timothy “by his epiphany and by his kingdom.” The mention of the final epiphany at the beginning and at the end binds this paragraph together (compare 1 Tim. 6:14; Titus 2:13).

Addenda to the Body of the Letter

Paul Begs Timothy to Come

2 Timothy 4:9

9 The body of the letter is complete. The last clause speaks fittingly about “all who have been loving his epiphany,” and the last word is “his (the Lord’s) epiphany.” So near is Paul’s martyrdom that the light of that epiphany is already reflected in his eyes. The rest of the letter consists of personal addenda, the last of these being the greetings.

Be diligent to come to me quickly!

The fact that Timothy had news of Paul’s arrest and danger the letter itself shows. The supposition that Timothy had already sent word to Paul that he was coming to him, and that Paul is now only asking Timothy to hurry, is rather doubtful. The letter reads as though on the heels of the bad news that reached or was at about this time reaching Timothy this letter is to get into Timothy’s hands. Paul wants, needs Timothy. The aorist imperative is urgent, and the adverb “quickly” asks for speed. Timothy is to conclude his work with dispatch and is to hurry to Paul’s side, to get to him “before winter” (v. 21).

2 Timothy 4:10

10 There is ample reason for this request. For Demas abandoned me, having come to love the present eon, and went to Thessalonica; Crescens to Galatia, Titus to Dalmatia. Luke alone is with me. Save for Luke, Paul is alone. These are the men who were with Paul in Rome. It is nowhere stated where he had been arrested. If this occurred outside of Rome, we are left with the problem as to how he was brought to Rome. Because of the nature of the charge against him another appeal to Caesar could not have brought him there. He was arrested in Rome, and the men here named were with him at that time. Onesiphorus came later and had left when Paul wrote this (see 2:16, etc.).

Demas, the onetime faithful assistant (Col. 4:14), had quickly abandoned Paul, the doomed man. “Abandoned me” is poignant; the aorist is content to state the fact and nothing more. It is a closed tense, final. Some suppose that the ingressive aorist: “having come to love the present eon or world” (see 1 Tim. 6:17) means only that he went into business and thus left for Thessalonica, his former home. While we are ready to think as well of Demas as we possibly can, this falling in love with the world admits of no such mitigation. For the participle is here evidently the opposite of loving the Lord’s epiphany which is mentioned in v. 8. We are compelled to believe that Demas gave up the love of that coming epiphany for the love of this present world’s course. This is what cut into Paul’s heart most deeply.

All that we know about Crescens is what is here said. We take him to be another assistant of Paul’s, one who had joined Paul during this latter period. He had left on a mission to Galatia just as Titus had left on one to Dalmatia (a part of Illyria on the east coast of the Adriatic), in the neighborhood of which Paul had preached (Rom. 15:19). The variant “Gallia” for “Galatia” does not mean “Gaul” but is only the later Greek name for “Galatia” and was substituted in later manuscripts for this reason. On what pressing errands Paul had to send these two faithful assistants we do not, of course, know.

11, 12) This, however, left Paul with no one but Luke. Him alone he had been able to retain; he was the only one through whom Paul could communicate with the outside world. Luke must have dispatched this letter for Paul. At this time Luke was Paul’s only loyal, faithful stay in Rome. “Luke only”—so brief the words, yet so full of meaning. Where were all the Roman Christians, some of them even in Caesar’s household? To avert suspicion from himself Nero had blamed the Christians for the burning of Rome in July, 64, and many had perished awful deaths the following October (see the introduction). The few greetings, only four names, in v. 21 tell their own tragic tale.

Pick up Mark and bring him along with thyself, for he is useful to me for ministry. The aorist participle with ἄγε is the Greek idiom. Here we have a most interesting glimpse of Mark. The participle, “having taken up Mark,” implies that Mark is assisting Timothy in supervising the churches in the great Asian field. Mark will be away when Timothy receives the letter, so Timothy is to pick up Mark wherever he may be and bring him along. Now Col. 4:10, written in the year 62 toward the end of Paul’s first imprisonment, plus Philemon 24, show that Mark was at that time associated with Paul.

We know that after that Mark was with Peter in Rome, and that Mark wrote his Gospel at the request of the Romans. That Gospel is composed of what Mark had heard Peter present to his hearers again and again so that Mark’s writing earned him the designation Peter’s “interpreter.” In the year 64 Peter was crucified in Rome. Now we discover that Mark is again the assistant to Timothy, surely by direction of Paul; and Paul wants him as well as Timothy to hurry to Rome.

We see why Paul says that Mark is useful to him “for ministry.” We should properly understand this diakonia. Mark is not to be a famulus of Paul. Mark had been in Rome with Paul (Col. 4:10; Philemon 24) and after that with Peter and knew Rome and the Roman Christians, as many as were still left, so well that he was certainly a most useful man for Paul to have about him in Rome under present conditions. Would that we had the pertinent details! Yet those that are indicated seem assured.

2 Timothy 4:13

13 This explains the next remark: Now Tychicus I am commissioning for Ephesus. This is an epistolary aorist. Some have made the comparison: Demas abandoned me—Crescens and Titus went away—Tychicus I sent away. Yet the second verb is true of Demas as well as of Crescens and Titus. Not for one moment should we think that Crescens and Titus had abandoned Paul; the apostle sent them away on important missions to Galatia and to Dalmatia. If he had sent Tychicus in the same way, i.e., if ἀπέστειλα were indeed a historical aorist, Tychicus would be named directly after Titus and, like Crescens and Titus, without the insertion of another verb.

Tychicus is mentioned after Paul asks that Timothy bring Mark along. These two, on leaving their field at Paul’s request, are having a substitute sent by Paul, namely Tychicus. Hence the parenthetical δέ which inserts what provision Paul is making for Ephesus; hence also the phrase: “I am commissioning for Ephesus,” and not, “I am sending or I sent (ἔπεμψα) to thee.” Tychicus will, of course, carry this letter to Timothy, but Paul is “commissioning him for Ephesus,” to fill the position there during Timothy’s absence. This will be a long absence, for if Timothy gets to Rome by winter (v. 21), no matter what happens to Paul, Timothy and Mark will not be able to return to Asia until spring. Shipping stopped during the winter, and some transshipping was necessary even if most of the trip was to be made by land.

The cloak which I left back in Troas with Carpus on coming be bringing (along), and the books, especially the parchments. The main point is that Paul had been in Troas. When? Not three or four years ago (see the introduction) but on his very recent journey to Rome. In tracing Paul’s movements between his two imprisonments this halt at Troas, like the stop at Miletus (v. 20), must be properly placed.

On the spelling and the derivation of the word meaning cloak see the dictionaries and the grammars. Some have thought that this was a receptacle for the book rolls and the parchments, Milligan defending the meaning “book wrap” until he changed his mind We are safe in translating this word “cloak” (the papyri have this meaning): a long cape made of the heaviest material, which one would not want to carry along during the summertime in those warm latitudes. Paul needed it for the approaching winter (v. 21). The supposition that Paul had been forced to flee from Troas because he was suddenly threatened with arrest, and that he had, after all, been captured and then conveyed to Rome, contains so many improbabilities that we dismiss this hypothesis. The βιβλία, it seems, were papyrus rolls; more valuable were “the parchments” which were also rolls, but made of skin.

There has been much surmising regarding these documents, and many questions have been asked as to why Paul needed them. It is generally supposed that the parchments were a copy of the LXX. Whatever these book rolls may have contained, our personal guess is that Paul did not want them for personal reading or study but as aids in his trial, to lay before the court as evidence that he was teaching no religio illicita, but a religion that was as legitimate legally as that of the Jews because it used the identical sacred writings as its source. These his own book rolls which he had used for many a year were the ones he needed and not some others that were borrowed from other Christians, say from the elders of the church at Rome. Of these “the parchments” would be most valuable if they were, indeed, a copy of the LXX.

Offense has been taken at the fact that Paul should mention such articles, especially the cloak. Some also ask whether inspiration is needed for a verse like this. The answer to the latter is that, if inspiration is able to watch over what we deem as the great utterances of Scripture, why should it not guide also what some of us may deem the most minor ones? The Holy Spirit certainly does not need the advice of men to tell him what to inspire and what not. As for Christians who look askance at the “unimportance of this statement,” the best advice is to let the Holy Spirit judge regarding the importance.

Is it so unimportant for us to know how much Paul needed that warming cloak in a cold, damp dungeon during the coming winter? What would we not give if we had more of such little details about Jesus and about any of his apostles! It is not a healthy spirituality that forgets a saint’s physical needs. The thought of Paul’s faraway cloak has its bit of comfort to bestow on poor fellow sufferers of the apostle who must lie shivering in similar dungeons for the gospel’s sake. Jesus, too, had not where to lay his head. On the cross he cried, “I thirst !” Your comfortable circumstances and mine have not been those of all other believers. Paul’s missing cloak is material enough for a sermon.

Paul’s First Hearing Before the Court Leads Him to Expect the Worst

2 Timothy 4:14

14 Alexander, the coppersmith, did me much damage. The Lord will duly give to him in accord with his works; against whom do thou also guard thyself, for he greatly withstood our own statements.

The sense of this passage is much debated. The idea that at this point of his letter Paul is speaking of a person who opposed him during the trial in connection with his first imprisonment, and that this person was a Gnostic, is not tenable. That this Alexander was the man mentioned in 1 Tim. 1:20, who was expelled from some church in Asia Minor several years ago, is scarcely probable; for in this second letter he is identified as “the coppermith.” If this was the same man, then Timothy knew him; and if identification was necessary, the proper one would be a reference to the man’s expulsion as stated in 1 Tim. 1:20 and not to his trade. This supposition also entails the necessity of transferring this Alexander from Asia Minor to Rome. Neither can this be the Alexander mentioned in Acts 19:33, 34. For that Alexander was a Jew who was at one time thrust forward by the Jews in Ephesus, not against Paul, but to shield the Jews; his occupation is not known. He cannot be considered in this connection although his name was Alexander.

This name was as common as Smith or Jones is now. That is why Paul adds “the coppersmith.” In Acts 19:24 it is Demetrius who is called “a silversmith,” which is not the same as “a coppersmith” although this word means a worker in brass or metal. This smith in Rome is Alexander, the smith in Ephesus was Demetrius. Paul has nothing but his trade by which to identify him so that when Timothy gets to Rome he may be on the lookout for him. What the religion of this Alexander was nobody knows.

“He showed me much baseness” = did me much mean damage. So much that Paul adds: “The Lord will duly give him (repay him; ἀπό as in the verb in v. 8) according to his works.” These are almost the words of Ps. 62:12. The reading that has the optative (A. V.) makes this an imprecation: “May the Lord repay him!” But this reading is too poorly attested textually. It is unfair to Paul to say that, when it came to loving enemies, the apostle himself did not exactly excel. What Alexander was doing was to damage the cause of the gospel in the person of Paul which is something rather different from venting personal spite on Paul.

2 Timothy 4:15

15 When and where was this damage done? Unless it was done right here in Rome a day or two ago, at the time of Paul’s first hearing before the imperial court, this matter regarding Alexander would be out of place at this point in Paul’s letter. Thus Paul adds the statement that Timothy is to watch out and to guard himself against the man, which means when he and Mark arrive in Rome. Paul adds a little more to cast light on the way in which Alexander damaged him: “for greatly he withstood our own statements.” These are the logoi or statements made a day or two ago before the court at the time of the hearing. The emphatic personal adjective ἡμετέροις is much stronger than the mere pronoun ἡμῶν would be. This means: the statements made at the trial on our side, on the side of the defense, over against “their own” statements, those on the side of the prosecution.

To say that these logoi “were expressions of doctrine common to all Christians” and to think that logoi refers to “our preaching” (A. V. margin), is to overlook the force of the possessive adjective. “Our own” is not the majestic plural. Paul did not stand absolutely alone during that first hearing before the imperial court; he had witnesses with him, but only witnesses, no more. Against what Paul and his few witnesses stated, οἱἡμέτεροιλόγοι, this Alexander, who was either the chief and most violent witness for the prosecution or the complainant and accuser, brought the strongest contradictions, severely and meanly damaging Paul’s case in the eyes of the court. We hear still more.

2 Timothy 4:16

16 At my first defense no one was at my side; on the contrary, all abandoned me. May it not be reckoned up to them!

Paul speaks of his first hearing before the court. His case was not tried by Nero himself who, it seems, was in Greece at that time, but ἐπὶτῶνἡγουμένων (Clemens), in one of the two basilicæ named after L. Æmil. Paulus who built the one and restored the other, large halls where hundreds could be present and hear the proceedings. Of the presiding judge who was most likely Helius Cæsareanus, the freedman of Claudius who was prefect of Rome and Italy, Dio Cassius says that, as Nero aped the minstrels, this freedman aped Nero.

Ἀπολογία is the “answer” (A. V.) which the defendant is called on to make to the indictment lodged against him; compare such defenses in Acts 7:1, etc.; 24:10, etc.; 26:1, etc. When Paul says that no one was at his side but that all abandoned him he does nor refer to witnesses but to assistants such as the Roman courts allowed. These appeared in the capacity of patroni et amici of the accused, παρά (in the verb), to stand by him at the trial, to lend their prestige before the court.

These had to be men of importance and influence, whose word and whose action in favor of the defendant would have weight with the court to incline the judge either toward acquittal or toward mitigation of the severity of the sentence. Conybeare writes regarding Paul at this hearing: “No advocate would venture to plead his cause, no procurator to aid him in arranging his evidence, no patronus (such as he might have found, perhaps, in the powerful Æmelian house) to appear as his supporter and to deprecate, according to ancient usage, the severity of the sentence.” It is not necessary to think only of Christians who might be able to act in this capacity for Paul; the apostle had other friends. In Asia, for instance, the high Asiarchs acted as his friends (Acts 19:31). Alas, at this first hearing not a single man of this kind had the courage to appear at Paul’s side, all abandoned him. The reading varies between the aorist which simply states the fact of abandoning and the imperfect which describes the act. There seems to be little reason for preferring the latter.

If we understand the function of such patrons in a Roman court we see that men like Luke, Tychicus, or any of Paul’s own assistants, and men like those named in v. 21 were not competent to act in this capacity. It is not necessary, therefore, to offer excuses for them as some do. None of these men had sufficient, yea, any standing with the imperial court. We have no means of knowing to whom Paul refers when he writes: “all abandoned me.” All we know is that several men, whether they were Christians or non-Christians, could have acted as patrons for Paul but failed to do so. Their reason was, we may be sure, the nature of the indictment against Paul and the great danger of acting as a patron before the court in behalf of a man who was under such an indictment.

Only a few years before this time Rome had been burned (July, 64); to avert the suspicion of incendiarism from himself Nero and his partisans charged the crime against the Christians and caused some to be crucified, others to be dressed in wild beasts’ skins and hunted to death by dogs, and still others to be wrapped in robes of pitch and set on fire to illuminate the Vatican circus and Nero’s gardens while that monster played the charioteer. Christianity, which was now distinguished from Judaism, became a religio illicita, its promulgation a capital crime. To act as a patron for a man who was charged with this crime and one whose only defense was the claim that it was not a crime, was almost to appear as particeps criminis and was dangerous, indeed.

So Paul had no one at his side, and this vicious Alexander was able to damage Paul greatly. Whether it was also charged that Paul was one of those who had had a hand in the burning of Rome, and whether several points were charged against him, we are unable to say. Some conclude that “in my first defense” refers to one charge, and that other court sessions that followed heard the other charges; also that, despite the damage done by Alexander, this first charge (implication in the burning of Rome) was dismissed because witnesses proved that Paul was in distant Spain at that time. In our opinion “my first defense” refers to the preliminary hearing on the one capital indictment on which Paul was bound to be condemned to death at the completion of his trial.

“May it not be reckoned up to them” means by the Lord. Here we have the optative in a prayerful wish; it may be the case that because of this optative the future indicative of v. 14 was changed into a corresponding optative in some texts. Paul asks the Lord not to hold against these men their fear of standing by him. Paul makes the best of his disappointment although his life hangs in the balance. His example is worthy of emulation.

2 Timothy 4:17

17 Although he was abandoned by all who might have acted as his patrons, Paul was not left alone at that first hearing. But the Lord stood at my side and put power in me so that through me the herald proclamation got to be fully completed, and all the Gentiles got to hear it.

The Lord was Paul’s patronus and as such stood “by him” or “at his side.” He did more than to influence the judge, he put power into the prisoner according to the promises given in Matt. 10:19, 20; Mark 13:11–13; Luke 12:11, 12; 21:14, 15. In order to understand the next clause we shall let Conybeare reconstruct the memorable scene:

“At one end of the nave was the tribune, in the center of which was placed the magistrate’s curule chair of ivory on a platform called the tribunal. Here also sat the council of assessors, who advised the prefect upon the law though they had no voice in the judgment. On the sides of the tribune were seats for distinguished persons as well as for parties engaged in the proceedings. Fronting the presiding magistrate stood the prisoner with his accusers and his advocates. The public was admitted into the remainder of the nave and aisles, which was railed off from the portion devoted to the judicial proceedings, and there were also galleries along the whole length of the side aisles—one for men, the other for women. The aisles were roofed over as was the tribune.

The nave was originally left open to the sky. The basilicas were buildings of great size so that a vast multitude of spectators was always present at any trial which excited public interest. Before such an audience it was that Paul was now called to speak in his defense. His earthly friends had deserted him, but his heavenly Friend stood by him. He was strengthened by the power of Christ’s Spirit and pleaded the cause, not of himself only, but of the gospel. He spoke of Jesus, of his death and his resurrection, so that all the heathen multitude may hear.”

The ἵνα clause denotes result, here even actual and completed result: “so that through or by means of me the herald proclamation (κήρυγμα) got to be fully completed, and all the Gentiles got to hear it.” By the Lord’s empowering of Paul in that great first hearing before the emperor’s court the capstone was placed upon Paul’s whole “herald proclamation”; it was brought to full completion. “Through me” = as far as this proclamation was entrusted to me, to make it to all the Gentiles. Epexegetical καί helps us to understand in what sense the final completion of the proclamation has now been achieved “through Paul”: “all the Gentiles got to hear it.” The Gentiles were the multitudes present at the first hearing in the great court. With this, as far as Paul was concerned (“through me” in the emphatic position), his work was done.

To understand what Paul here says we should know that Paul’s first imprisonment opened up to him the great Jewish work in Rome. See the author’s exposition of Acts 28:17–31. As far as Gentiles are concerned, see the author on Phil. 1:12–14. The hearings at the close of Paul’s first imprisonment were not public, were not regarding an indictment—Festus had not been able to transmit anything of that kind to Rome—but hearings on Paul’s appeal to Caesar before the Roman court alone—only the court heard Paul. He was acquitted, went to Spain, and since that time had no other Roman province to enter. Now, with this great hearing in Rome itself, Paul considered his kērugma accomplished. “All the Gentiles” does not mean every last one of them but all the Gentile nations. Paul had planted the gospel in every one of them, taking in all the Lord had allotted to him, Rome itself now closing the list.

Those who regard this as a purpose clause must wrestle with the subjunctives, which they refer to the future: in order that at some future time the herald proclamation might get to be fully accomplished through Paul and that at some future time all the Gentiles might get to hear it. There is no question that this whole letter is written in the prospect of death (v. 6), and Paul did die. Yet he says emphatically “through me.” If the clause is a purpose clause and thus refers to the future, to what future time do these aorist subjunctives refer? One writer states that the news of Paul’s testimony here in Rome would eventually penetrate to all nations of the Gentiles. Yet much more had already penetrated, Paul himself had made it penetrate by personal presence and by work, and these nations had heard.

Another writer thinks that by means of others the news would penetrate, and that “through me” signifies only that this penetration would have ceased if Paul had been recreant in this supreme hour of his first hearing. Still another places the whole verse into the trial that was held during Paul’s first imprisonment. Still other opinions are offered; all of them seek to find something in the thought of purpose, something that refers to the future. Ἵνα expresses completed result. In fact, it states for what the Lord empowered Paul; the aorist “did empower me” says that this result or object was then and there achieved by the Lord.

This was accomplished at Paul’s first defense, and I was rescued out of lion’s mouth, an echo of Ps. 22:22: “Rescue me out of lion’s mouth!” LXX. We again have many opinions as to the meaning of this. Although Paul says “lion’s mouth,” Loewenrachen, some refer this to Nero as though Paul had written “the lion’s mouth.” Some think of being condemned to “the lions” although no Roman citizen could receive such a sentence. 1 Pet. 5:8 is introduced, but this passage is of no help. Those who regard the previous clause as a clause of purpose with a reference to the future think of a prolongation of Paul’s preaching; but Paul’s dungeon was not a pulpit. Some speak of a spiritual rescue, that Paul’s soul escaped the devil at this first hearing. The sense of the figure is simply this, that at his first hearing the Lord kept him from being sent to execution at that time.

2 Timothy 4:18

18 That explains the next statement: The Lord will rescue me from every wicked work and will save me for his kingdom, the heavenly one; he, to whom (belongs) the glory for the eons of the eons. Amen.

“Did rescue—shall rescue,” a significant repetition. The rescue of a day or two ago when Paul expected to be sent to his execution, this wonderful rescue which was due wholly to the Lord, is to Paul an assurance of the next far greater rescue when the Lord will take him to his heavenly kingdom. This is not a thought of the prolongation of life for more gospel work, not a thought even of receiving another opportunity at a coming hearing to utter the great herald proclamation of the gospel in the court basilica before assembled crowds. That next appearance in court, when it is finally ordered, will most likely end with the sentence of the judge, that and nothing more. Paul hopes that Timothy may yet reach him before that day and hour. We hope that he did.

Ἀπό and εἰς are contrasted: from every wicked work (πονηρός, viciously wicked) unto, into, or for his kingdom, the heavenly one (added like an apposition, R. 776). On “kingdom” see v. 1. There is no thought of wicked work which Paul might do but only the thought of wicked work (such as Alexander’s, v. 14) which men might inflict on Paul. “Will save me” refers to both the saving act of placing into heaven and the continuing safety that follows. Christ’s kingdom here on earth is where he rules with his grace and his gospel; Christ’s heavenly kingdom is where he rules with heavenly glory.

Here we have one of the clear passages of Scripture regarding what happens when our souls leave their bodies at death: we shall at once enter the heavenly kingdom, that is, heaven, where the heavenly King is enthroned. Phil. 1:23: “to be with Christ.” There is no intermediate place for the soul, no Totenreich with two compartments: one, “paradise,” for the righteous, the other, beneath it, an antechamber of hell for the wicked. Those who invent this fiction which darkens the true Christian hope contradict all the clear passages of Scripture. The body shall, indeed, sleep in the grave, but the soul shall be where Stephen’s soul went at death, where Moses and Elijah are (the latter even with his body), in the very presence of God and Christ. The souls of the damned go to hell at once. At the time of the resurrection the body will be raised from the dust, will be glorified like the soul, will be joined to it, thereafter also to partake of all the bliss of that heavenly kingdom.

Paul’s heart is deeply moved as he pens these words. Instead of uttering a sad complaint at the thought of a cruel death, his soul is filled with the glow of golden hope and expresses its joy in the form of a doxology. The relative pronoun is emphatic (compare Rom. 2:29; 3:8; 3:30): “he, to whom (belongs) the glory,” etc. Note the article: all the glory, praise, and honor that creatures are able to bestow. And this “for the eons of the eons,” the strongest Greek way of saying “for all eternity.” The human mind, having no conception of timelessness, is compelled to use expressions of time. Thus the Greek first pluralizes “eon” and then makes this plural superlative by a duplication with the genitive plural.

So vast and unuebersehbar is just one eon; now take any number of them, and in every one of these place any number of others, making eons of eons—incomprehensible, staggering. But for all of them this glory is due to God.

A solemn, impressive “Amen” is added like a seal of verity from the fullest assurance of faith. It is the transliterated Hebrew word for “truth” which has passed into the other languages.

Thus Paul faced the end, and it is thus that he finally bowed his head before the executioner’s sword or his ax and went to his eternal reward.

Salutations

2 Timothy 4:19

19 Salute Prisca and Aquila and the house of Onesiphorus. Erastus remained in Corinth, but Trophimus I left in Miletus sick. Be diligent to come to me before winter. There salutes thee Eubulus and Pudens and Linus and Claudia and the brethren all.

On “salute” see Rom. 16:3. We last saw Prisca and Aquila in Rome (Rom. 16:3) but are not surprised to find them back in Ephesus when we think of the burning of Rome and Nero’s persecution of the Christians in consequence. As was done in Romans, the wife’s name is placed first, she being the abler of the two; see Acts 18:18–28. In the long list given in Rom. 16 these two are placed first; so they here deserve to head the list, since they are inexpressibly dear to Paul (Rom. 16:4). On the questions raised about “the house of Onesiphorus” see the remarks concerning 1:16–18.

2 Timothy 4:20

20 Paul does not account for Erastus and Trophimus because he had received a letter from Timothy which asked about them but most likely because Timothy would think of them and wonder why they were not with Paul, and why, if they were, they were not at least sending salutations. So Paul states where he had left them. It is probably best to believe that “Erastus” is the man named in Acts 19:22, but not the one mentioned in Rom. 16:23 (see the latter passage). Regarding Trophimus, who is mentioned in Acts 20:4 and 21:29 and then does not appear until now, we are unable to add anything further. The important point is Paul’s naming Corinth and Miletus as places where he has just recently been; with these we must associate Troas (v. 13). How the naming of these places helps us to trace Paul’s movements just before his arrest in Rome the introduction attempts to show.

2 Timothy 4:21

21 Paul repeats the request voiced in v. 9. Since this is a repetition it shows us how earnestly Paul pleads for Timothy’s coming. After saying “quickly” he now says at least “before winter”; why before winter, is stated in connection with our comment on v. 9.

Linus eventually became bishop of the original congregation of Rome. See Smith’s Bible Dictionary, where also the stories about Pudens and Claudia are properly discussed, vol. 1, p. 469, etc. Eubulus is not mentioned in tradition. These four are mentioned by name probably because they were personally known to Timothy. When we look for names in the list given in Rom. 16 we should remember two things: 1) Rom. 16 names the important persons and those personally connected with Paul; 2) this old, original Christian congregation was sadly wrecked in 64 when Nero martyred so many of its members.

Καὶοἱἀδελφοὶπάντες, “and the brethren all,” leaves us with various questions. Who were these brethren all? All those with whom Paul was in some kind of touch through Luke? All the survivors of Nero’s persecution in the old, original congregation? Or these plus the Jewish Christians in Rome? We accept the first of these three answers because we take it that Paul sends greetings from persons who know that he is writing and who want their greetings sent. These could not be all the Christians in Rome, not even all who still belonged to the original congregation. See the story (introduction) of the Epistle to the Hebrews and the exposition of Acts 28:17–31.

During his first imprisonment in Rome (two years) Paul had converted a multitude of Jews. Rome had seven synagogues; three or four of them were converted to Christianity, remained in their own large synagogues, escaped bloody martyrdom (Heb. 10:32–34, see the exposition) because they were still popularly considered to be Jews, suffered during the persecution only because they tried to help the victims that belonged to the original congregation, and, now that Paul faced death, were entirely unable to do anything to help him. This is a mere sketch. Some regard all these Jews that were converted by Paul’s labors during his first imprisonment as members of the original congregation and thus run into serious difficulties regarding the situation in Rome. When Paul writes “all,” we do not think that he includes all the converted Jews in these three or four Christianized synagogues.

2 Timothy 4:22

22 The Lord (be) with thy spirit! This is Paul’s own prayer-wish for Timothy. The grace, i.e., his grace (be) with you! μεθʼ ὑμῶν, plural, without further specification. “You” means Timothy and all fellow Christians who may be with him when this letter is placed into his hands. These are the great apostle’s last words.

Soli Deo Gloria

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

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

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