Preface to the Second Epistle of Paul the Apostle to Timothy.
CLA_2TI.PDF, source PDF p. 3
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PAUL
THE APOSTLE TO TIMOTHY.
IN the preface to the first of these epistles, particular mention has been made of the parentage, country, and education of Timothy; his call to the evangelic office; and of his appointment to the presidency of the Church at Ephesus. And for every particular of this kind the reader is referred to that preface. What remains to be done in reference to the present epistle is to inquire into the time in which it was most probably written. The disagreement on this question among learned men is very great; some arguing that it was written about the year 61, others referring it to the year
66. Some asserting that it is the first, in order of time, of these two epistles; and that it was written on Paul’s first imprisonment at Rome. Several of the most eminent critics are of this opinion; and they have supported their sentiments with arguments of no small weight. Hammond, Lightfoot, and Lardner, as well as several critics on the continent, contend for this earlier date. Macknight and Paley take the opposite side. Were I convinced that the weight of the argument lay with the former, I should have fixed its chronology accordingly; but the latter appearing to me to have the more direct and the most weighty evidence in their favour, I am led, from the reasons which they give, to adopt their opinion.
Dr. Paley observes, that it was the uniform tradition of the primitive Church that St. Paul visited Rome twice, and twice there suffered imprisonment; and that at the conclusion of his second imprisonment he was put to death; and he thinks that the opinion concerning these two journeys of St. Paul is confirmed by many hints and allusions in this epistle, compared with what St. Paul has said in other epistles, which are allowed to have been written from Rome. I shall give his principal reasons:— “That this epistle was written while Paul was a prisoner is distinctly marked by the 8th verse of the first chapter: {2 Timothy 1:8} ‘Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me his prisoner.’ And that it was written whilst he was prisoner at Rome is proved by the 16th and 17th verses of the same chapter: {2 Timothy 1:16, 17} ‘The Lord give mercy to the house of Onesiphorus, for he often refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain; but when he was in Rome, he sought me out very diligently, and found me.’ Since it appears from the former quotation that St. Paul wrote this epistle in confinement, it will hardly admit of doubt that the word chain in the latter quotation refers to that confinement-the chain by which he was then bound, the custody in which he was then kept. And if the word chain designate the author’s confinement at the time of writing this epistle, the next words determine it to have been written from Rome: ‘He was not ashamed of my chain, but when he was in Rome, he sought me out very diligently.’”
Dr. Macknight thinks that Paul was now a close prisoner, very different in his circumstances from his first imprisonment, in which he was permitted to dwell alone in his own hired house, and receive all that came to him, and publicly to preach the Gospel, being guarded only by a single soldier. That he was in close confinement he argues from the circumstance that when Onesiphorus came to Rome he found that Paul was no longer that well-known public character which he had been while in his first imprisonment, but being closely confined he had some difficulty to find him out; and this appears to be fully implied in the apostle’s words: σπουδαιοτερον εζητησε με, και ευρε. “He very diligently sought me out, and found me;” 2 Timothy 1:17. And, that crimes were now laid to his charge widely different from those formerly alleged against him, appears from 2 Timothy 2:9: κακοπαθω μεχρι δεσμων, ως κακουργος. “I suffer evil even to bonds as a malefactor;” plainly implying that he was not only abridged of all liberty, but was bound hands and feet in a close dungeon. And this was probably on the pretence that he was one of those Christians whom Nero. accused with having set Rome on fire. Hence the word malefactor, κακουργος, which may mean here that the apostle was treated as the worst of criminals.
That this epistle was not written during St. Paul’s first imprisonment at Rome, or during the time in which the Epistles to the Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians, and Philemon were written, may be gathered, says Dr. Paley, with considerable evidence from a comparison of these several epistles with the present.
I. “In the former epistles the author confidently looked forward to his liberation from confinement, and his speedy departure from Rome. He tells the Philippians, Philippians 2:24: ‘I trust in the Lord that I also myself shall come shortly.’ Philemon he bids to prepare for him a lodging; ‘for I trust (says he) that through your prayers I shall be given unto you;’ Philemon 1:22. In the epistle before us he holds a language extremely different. ‘I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand. I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith; henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, shall give me at that day;’ 2 Timothy 4:6-8.”
Those who espouse the contrary opinion suppose that these words only express the strong apprehensions and despair of life which the apostle had when he was first imprisoned; but that afterwards, finding he was treated with kindness, he altered his language, and so strongly anticipated that he predicted his enlargement. This reflects little honour upon the apostle’s character; it shows him to be a person subject to alarms, and presaging the worst from every gloomy appearance. The whole of St. Paul’s conduct shows him to have been the reverse of what this opinion represents him. II. “When the former epistles were written from Rome, Timothy was with St. Paul, and is joined with him in writing to the Colossians, the Philippians, and Philemon; the present epistle implies that he was absent. III. “In the former epistles Demas was with St. Paul at Rome: ‘Luke the beloved physician, and Demas, greet you.’ In the epistle now before us: ‘Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world, and is gone to Thessalonica.’
IV. “So the former epistles Mark was with St. Paul, and joins in saluting the Colossians. In the present epistle Timothy is ordered to bring him with him, ‘for he is profitable to me for the ministry;’ 2 Timothy 4:11.” The circumstance of Demas being with St. Paul while he wrote the former epistles, which was certainly during his first imprisonment, and of his having forsaken him when he wrote this, is a strong proof of the posterior date of this epistle; nor can the feelings of the apostle, so contradictorily expressed in this and the preceding epistles, be ever cleared (on the supposition of their relating to the same time and circumstances) from weakness and contradiction.
Lewis Capellus has suggested the following considerations, which are still more conclusive:-
1. “In 2 Timothy 4:20, St. Paul informs Timothy that Erastus abode at Corinth, εραστος εμεινεν εν κορινθω. the form of expression (the verb being in the first aorist) implies that Erastus had stayed behind at Corinth when St. Paul left it: but this could not be meant of any journey from Corinth which St. Paul took prior to his first imprisonment at Rome; for when Paul departed from Corinth, as related in the 20th chapter of the Acts, Timothy was with him; and this was the last time the apostle left Corinth before his coming to Rome, because he left it on his way to proceed to Jerusalem soon after his arrival, at which place he was taken into custody, and continued in that custody till he was brought to Cæsar’s tribunal.
There could be no need, therefore, to inform Timothy that Erastus stayed behind at Corinth, upon this occasion; because, if the fact were so, it must have been known to Timothy, who was present as well as St. Paul.
2. “In the same verse our epistle also states the following article: ‘Trophimus have I left at Miletus sick.’ When St. Paul passed through Miletus, on his way to Jerusalem, as related Acts 20, Trophimus was not left behind, but accompanied him to that city. He was indeed the occasion of the uproar at Jerusalem, in consequence of which St. Paul was apprehended: ‘For they had seen,’ says the historian, ‘before with him in the city, Trophimus an Ephesian, whom they supposed that Paul had brought into the temple.’ This was evidently the last time of Paul’s being at Miletus before his first imprisonment; for, as has been said, after his apprehension at Jerusalem he remained in custody till he was sent to Rome. “In these two articles we have a journey referred to, which must have taken place subsequent to the conclusion of St. Luke’s history; and, of course, after St. Paul’s liberation from his first imprisonment. The epistle, therefore, which contains this reference, since it appears from other parts of it to have been written while St. Paul was a prisoner at Rome, proves that he had returned to that city again, and undergone there a second imprisonment.
“These particulars,” adds Dr. Paley, “I have produced, not merely for the support they lend to the testimony of the fathers concerning St. Paul’s second imprisonment, but to remark their consistency and agreement with one another. They are all resolvable into one supposition, viz., that this epistle was not written during St. Paul’s first residence at Rome, but in some future imprisonment in that city. The epistle touches upon names and circumstances connected with the date and with the history of the first imprisonment, and mentioned in letters during that imprisonment; and so touches upon them as to leave what is said of one consistent with what is said of others, and consistent also with what is said of them in different epistles.”
From the whole, there seems the fullest evidence, 1. That this epistle was not written during St. Paul’s first imprisonment at Rome. 2. That he was at Rome when he wrote this epistle. 3. That he was there a prisoner, and in such confinement as we know, from the Acts of the Apostles, he was not in during the time of his first imprisonment there. 4. That this must have been some subsequent imprisonment. 5. That as the general consent of all Christian antiquity states that St. Paul was twice imprisoned at Rome, and that from his second imprisonment he was never liberated, but was at its conclusion martyred; therefore this epistle must have been written while St. Paul was in his second imprisonment at Rome, and but a short time before his martyrdom. And as the Christian Church has generally agreed that this apostle’s martyrdom took place on the 29th of June, A. D. 66, the Second Epistle to Timothy might have been written sometime towards the end of the spring or beginning of summer of that year. It is supposed that St. Paul went from Crete to Rome, about the end of the year 65, on hearing of the persecution which Nero. was then carrying on against the Christians, on pretence that they had set Rome on fire: for, as he knew that the Church must be then in great tribulation, he judged that his presence would be necessary to comfort, support, and build it up. Like a true soldier of Jesus Christ, he was ever at the post of danger; and in this case he led on the forlorn hope.
Other matters relative to the state and circumstances of the apostle, and those of Timothy; and the Church at Ephesus, will be carefully brought before the reader in the course of the notes on this epistle. THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO
TIMOTHY.
Chronological Notes relative to this Epistle.
-Year of the Constantinopolitan era of the world, or that used by the Byzantine historians, 5573.
-Year of the Alexandrian era of the world, 5567.
-Year of the Antiochian era of the world, 5557.
-Year of the Julian period, 4775.
-Year of the world, according to Archbishop Usher, 4069
-Year of the world, according to Eusebius, in his Chronicon, 4293. -Year of the minor Jewish era of the world, or that in common use, 3825. -Year of the Greater Rabbinical era of the world, 4424.
-Year from the Flood, according to Archbishop Usher, and the English Bible, 2413.
-Year of the Cali yuga, or Indian era of the Deluge, 3167. -Year of the era of Iphitus, or since the first commencement of the Olympic games, 1005.
-Year of the era of Nabonassar, king of Babylon, 812.
-Year of the CCXIth Olympiad, 1.
-Year from the building of Rome, according to Fabius Pictor, 812. -Year from the building of Rome, according to Frontinus, 816. -Year from the building of Rome, according to the Fasti Capitolini, 817. -Year from the building of Rome, according to Varro, which was that most generally used, 818.
-Year of the era of the Seleucidæ, 377.
-Year of the Cæsarean era of Antioch, 113.
-Year of the Julian era, 110.
-Year of the Spanish era, 103.
-Year from the birth of Jesus Christ according to Archbishop Usher, 69 -Year of the vulgar era of Christ’s nativity, 65 or 66.
-Year of Gessius Florus, governor of the Jews, 1.
-Year of Vologesus, king of the Parthians, 16.
-Year of L. C. Gallus, governor of Syria, 1.
-Year of Matthias, high priest of the Jews, 3.
-Year of the Dionysian period, or Easter Cycle, 66.
-Year of the Grecian Cycle of nineteen years, or Common Golden Number, 9; or the first after the third embolismic.
-Year of the Jewish Cycle of nineteen years, 6, or the second embolismic. -Year of the Solar Cycle, 18.
-Dominical Letter, it being the first after the Bissextile, or Leap Year, F. -Day of the Jewish Passover, according to the Roman computation of time, the VIIth of the ides of April, or, in our common mode of reckoning, the seventh of April, which happened on this year on the day after the Jewish Sabbath.
-Easter Sunday, the day after the ides of April, or the XVIIIth of the Calends of May, named by the Jews the 22d of Nisan or Abib, and by Europeans in general, the 14th of April.
-Epact, or age of the moon on the 22d of March, (the day of the earliest Easter Sunday possible,) 28.
-Epact, according to the present mode of computation, or the moon’s age on New Year’s day, or the Calends of January, 5.
-Monthly Epacts, or age of the moon on the Calends of each month respectively, (beginning with January,) 5, 7, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 12, 14, 14.
-Number of Direction, or the number of days from the twenty-first of March to the Jewish Passover, 17.
-Year of the reign of Caius Tiberius Claudius Nero. Cæsar, the fifth Roman emperor computing from Augustus Cæsar, 12.
-Roman Consuls, A. Licinius Nerva Silanus, and M. Vestinius Atticus; the latter of whom was succeeded by Anicius Cerealis, on July 1st. Dr. Lardner and others suppose this epistle to have been written in A. D. 56, i.e. nine years earlier than is stated above. See the preface to the First Epistle to Timothy, where this point is largely considered, and also the general observations prefixed to the Acts of the Apostles.
Joseph Benson
Preface
BEN_VOL8.PDF, source PDF p. 438
SECOND EPISTLE OF PAUL THE
APOSTLE TO TIMOTHY.
PREFACE
Concenring the parentage, country, and education of Timothy, as also his conversion and appointment to the office of an evangelist, with some particulars of his life and labours, see the preface to the former epistle. That this second epistle was written while Paul was a prisoner at Rome is universally acknowledged; but whether during his first or second imprisonment, has been matter of debate. Hammond, Lightfoot, Cave, and Lardner, with several others, have maintained the former opinion; while Bishop Pearson, Whitby, Doddridge, Paley, and Macknight, with many more critics, contend for the latter: and the arguments they offer seem to be quite conclusive. The principal are the following: — 1st. It appears from chap. 1:8, and 2:9, that when the apostle wrote this epistle he was a prisoner in bonds: but these could not be his first bonds; for then he was, in libera custodia, dwelling in his own hired house, receiving all that came to him, no one forbidding him, (Acts 28:30, 31,) and his bonds being known in Cesar’s palace, and “to all others.” But when he wrote this second epistle, he was in arcta custodia, in such close confinement, that Onesiphorus was obliged to “seek him out diligently,” few knowing where he was to be found, chap. 1:17. Secondly, In his first bonds, many of the brethren, being encouraged by his bonds, “were bold to speak the word without fear,” (Philippians 1:14,) but when he wrote this second epistle all men had forsaken him, 2 Timothy 4:16. Thirdly, When he wrote his former epistle he had an expectation of being soon released, and of seeing his Christian friends again, 2 Timothy 3:14; but in this epistle he not only gives no hint of any such expectation, but evidently signifies the contrary, observing, 2 Timothy 4:6, “I am now ready to be offered,” or “I am now offered,” as ηδη σπενδομαι means, “and the time” της εμης αναλυσεως εφεστηκε, “of my dissolution is instant,” or “is come.” “I have finished my course,” &c., “henceforth,” λοιπον, “what remains, there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness,” &c. From which words it is justly inferred, that when he wrote this he was in immediate expectation of death, either in consequence of Nero’s menaces, or of some express revelation from Christ, such as Peter also probably had a little before his martyrdom. See 2 Peter 1:14. And from hence the ancients generally concluded that this was the last epistle that St. Paul wrote. There appears to be no certainty where Timothy was when the apostle wrote this epistle to him; but his principal design in writing it seems evidently to have been, to prepare Timothy for those sufferings to which he foresaw he would be exposed; to forewarn him of the apostacy and corruption which were beginning to appear in the church, and at the same time to animate him by his own example, and from the powerful motives which the gospel furnishes, to the most vigorous and resolute discharge of every part of the sacred office to which he had been called. The epistle has three parts: I. The inscription, 2 Timothy 1:1, 2. II. An invitation, “Come to me,” variously expressed; 1. Having declared his love to Timothy, verses 3-5, he exhorts him, “Be not ashamed of me,” verses 6-14, and subjoins various examples, verses 15-18. 2. He adds the two-fold proposition, (1.) “Be strong;” (2.) “Commit the ministry” to faithful men, 2 Timothy 2:1, 2. The former is treated of verses 3-13; the latter, verse 14; with further directions concerning his own behaviour, verse 15; 2 Timothy 4:8. 3. “Come quickly,” verse 9. Here St. Paul mentions his being left alone, verses 10-12. Directs to bring his books, verse 13. Gives a caution concerning Alexander, verses 14, 15. Observes the inconstancy of men, and the faithfulness of God, verses 16-18. 4. “Come before winter,” salutations, verses 19-21. III. The concluding blessing, verse 22. From this epistle, as well as from the first to the Thessalonians, we may draw a convincing argument in favour of the certain truth and unspeakable importance of Christianity. “The apostle had been for some time under close confinement at Rome, at the mercy of a cruel and capricious tyrant. He had seen himself deserted by his friends in his greatest extremity, and had nothing before him but the certain prospect of being called to suffer death in the same cause to which he had devoted his life. In this situation how does he behave? Does he seem to look back with concern on his past conduct, or to reset the sacrifice he had made of all his worldly interest? Can we discover any thing that betrays a secret consciousness of guilt, or even a suspicion of the weakness of his cause? Nay, does he drop a single expression that can be interpreted as a mark of fear, or discomposure of mind, in the apprehension of those gloomy scenes that lay before him? Surely if he had been an impostor, or had entertained the least doubt of the doctrines he had taught, something of this kind must have escaped him when writing to so intimate a friend, with whom he could intrust all the secrets of his breast. On the contrary, upon the most calm and deliberate survey, he expresses an entire satisfaction in reflecting on the part he had acted, and earnestly recommends it to his beloved pupil to follow his example in maintaining the glorious cause, even at the hazard of his life. He appears, throughout his epistle, to have felt a strong inward conviction of the truth of those principles he had embraced, and glories in the sufferings he endured in support of them, triumphing in the full assurance of being approved by his great Master, and of receiving at his hands a crown of distinguished lustre. A behaviour like this, in one who had so considerable a share in establishing the Christian religion, and expected in a short time to seal his testimony to it with his blood, must be allowed a strong confirmation of the truth of those facts on which our faith depends. It is at least a convincing proof that the apostle was himself sincere in what he professed to believe; and when the several circumstances of his history are considered, and impartially weighed, it will appear as evident that he could not possibly be deceived, and, consequently, that his testimony is to be admitted in full force.” — Doddridge.
Joseph Sutcliffe
St. Paul’s Second Epistle to Timothy.
SUT_VOL5.PDF, source PDF p. 216
ST. PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE
TO TIMOTHY.
WE now come to the last moments of Paul’s illustrious life, and find him in close confinement, bound with a chain, and preparing for the martyr’s crown: 2 Timothy 4:6. He suffered, according to Eusebius’s Chronicum, in the thirty seventh year after the ascension, and in the fourteenth year of Nero.
Eusebius quotes and abbreviates the words of Tertullian on those tragic events: lib. 2. c. 24. 3. c. 1. “Consult your records, and there you will find that Nero was the first who unsheathed the imperial sword ferociously against this sect, then flourishing in Rome. But we glory indeed in such a commencer of our persecution; for he who knows must know, that nothing but what was good was condemned by Nero.”
Eusebius also quotes the words of Cajus, an ecclesiastic, who, when writing against Proclus, a defender of the Cataphrygians, says, “If you would go to the Vatican, [where Peter was buried] or to the via ostia, [where Paul was interred] you would find the trophies of those who founded this church, and who both suffered martyrdom at the same time,” that is, during the same persecution. Origen confirms this statement in his third volume of commentaries on the book of Genesis.
St. Paul, in the first epistle, having given Timothy hopes of coming soon to Ephesus, now writes as one who knew by the spirit of prophecy, that the time of his departure was near. He cautions Timothy of the evil times, when men would place religion in words, and subvert its foundation, and guards him against their instability.
Dr. Macknight thinks that the case of Paul and others was involved in the popular fury of the Romans against the Christians, who were most wickedly and cruelly charged by Nero with having set fire to the city. Father Coeffeteau has collected in his Roman history the substance of what is said of that unexampled case of atrocious wickedness; and according to this writer, Nero was often heard to say, that Priam was the happiest prince in the world, because he had lived to see his city in flames after his kingdom was lost. In order therefore, as is believed, to gratify his cruel rage, Nero sent his servants secretly, feigning themselves to be drunk, to set fire to all parts of the city; and this was done so notoriously that persons of quality found in their chambers Nero’s servants with wisps of straw to set fire to their mansions. This was the greatest conflagration that had ever happened to Rome.
The burning commenced in shops where oil and linens were sold, and the flames, impelled by a strong wind, raged with incredible fury, and devastated all things in its progress. The fire having commenced in the lower houses, presently reached those that were lofty. The flames were so impetuous, and the smoke so dense and voluminous, that no man could approach. The city continued to burn with great fury for six days, and on the ninth day the fire was not wholly extinguished.
The case of the people, in a state of complete destitution, was still more deplorable; to see them, while endeavouring to save their wives and their children, perishing themselves in the fire. While cautious on the one hand, they were surprised on the other; and even those who could have saved themselves, seemed deprived of all power to escape, except to the tombs. In fact they were so astounded, that they knew neither what they ought to advise, nor what they ought to do. They fell down in the streets, and in the fields; some having lost their all, and had no means to support the remains of life. Others died of grief, to see what had happened to their relatives, who had perished in the fire. Some, when they saw people extinguishing the fire, hindered them, using menaces, and saying that they well knew who had commanded the city to be burned.
We are told that Nero, on seeing the fire from the tower of Mecænas, was ravished with delight; that he took the robe he usually wore at the theatre, and sung the destruction of Troy; or rather, as others turned the song, to see the ruin of Rome.
After the conflagration, which had nearly consumed ten wards of the city out of fourteen, Nero affected to be the most humane of princes. He opened the camp of Mars, and his own gardens for the destitute. But all those good graces were unavailing, as all the world believed him to be the author of the conflagration, that he might acquire the vain glory of being called the builder of the city. They quoted against him the verses of the Sibylline oracles, that the Roman empire should be desolated, when the last prince of the house of Æneas should reign. To this they added another line: “This was he who had killed his mother.” Suetonius admits that Nero was the last prince of the Trojan race.
But to complete the tragedy, and wipe away the stain, Nero charged on those, the innocent christians, who were at that time numerous in the city, the very crime which he had himself committed. They were in consequence dragged by popular fury to Nero’s gardens, and put to various tortures. The executioners exhausted their ingenuity to extort confessions. Some they clothed in the skins of wild beasts, and set the hungry dogs to worry them. Others they nailed to crosses, and surrounded them with faggots, that the flames during the night might illuminate the city. But the heroic manner in which they died softened the fury of the populace, who declared them innocent, and said that the christians were massacred to gratify the malice of individuals.
The end of this impious tyrant was truly awful. Several conspiracies were formed against him by his own subjects, who were no longer able to endure his unparalleled vice and profligacy, till at length the Roman senate condemned him to be dragged naked through the streets of the city, to be whipped to death, and afterwards thrown down from the top of a rock like the meanest malefactor. Nero escaped the execution of the sentence by committing suicide in the thirty second year of his age, after a horrid reign of thirteen years and eight months, and in the year of our Lord sixty eight. Pliny calls him the common enemy and the fury of mankind, and in this he has been followed by all writers, who exhibit Nero as a pattern of the most execrable profligacy and barbarity.
Daniel Whedon
Plan of the Epistle.
WHD_CO13.PDF, source PDF p. 617
2 TIMOTHY
INTRODUCTION.
THE last of the thirteen Pauline epistles. It contains the death-notes of the apostle in expectancy of a martyrdom soon to be accomplished. It was clearly written a brief period before his last trial, and contains references to his first.
Greatly resembling the first epistle in style, indicating that both were written at the same general period, it is less an official charge and more a personal communication.
Adam Clarke
Preface to the Second Epistle of Paul the Apostle to Timothy.
CLA_2TI.PDF, source PDF p. 3
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PAUL
THE APOSTLE TO TIMOTHY.
IN the preface to the first of these epistles, particular mention has been made of the parentage, country, and education of Timothy; his call to the evangelic office; and of his appointment to the presidency of the Church at Ephesus. And for every particular of this kind the reader is referred to that preface. What remains to be done in reference to the present epistle is to inquire into the time in which it was most probably written. The disagreement on this question among learned men is very great; some arguing that it was written about the year 61, others referring it to the year
66. Some asserting that it is the first, in order of time, of these two epistles; and that it was written on Paul’s first imprisonment at Rome. Several of the most eminent critics are of this opinion; and they have supported their sentiments with arguments of no small weight. Hammond, Lightfoot, and Lardner, as well as several critics on the continent, contend for this earlier date. Macknight and Paley take the opposite side. Were I convinced that the weight of the argument lay with the former, I should have fixed its chronology accordingly; but the latter appearing to me to have the more direct and the most weighty evidence in their favour, I am led, from the reasons which they give, to adopt their opinion.
Dr. Paley observes, that it was the uniform tradition of the primitive Church that St. Paul visited Rome twice, and twice there suffered imprisonment; and that at the conclusion of his second imprisonment he was put to death; and he thinks that the opinion concerning these two journeys of St. Paul is confirmed by many hints and allusions in this epistle, compared with what St. Paul has said in other epistles, which are allowed to have been written from Rome. I shall give his principal reasons:— “That this epistle was written while Paul was a prisoner is distinctly marked by the 8th verse of the first chapter: {2 Timothy 1:8} ‘Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me his prisoner.’ And that it was written whilst he was prisoner at Rome is proved by the 16th and 17th verses of the same chapter: {2 Timothy 1:16, 17} ‘The Lord give mercy to the house of Onesiphorus, for he often refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain; but when he was in Rome, he sought me out very diligently, and found me.’ Since it appears from the former quotation that St. Paul wrote this epistle in confinement, it will hardly admit of doubt that the word chain in the latter quotation refers to that confinement-the chain by which he was then bound, the custody in which he was then kept. And if the word chain designate the author’s confinement at the time of writing this epistle, the next words determine it to have been written from Rome: ‘He was not ashamed of my chain, but when he was in Rome, he sought me out very diligently.’”
Dr. Macknight thinks that Paul was now a close prisoner, very different in his circumstances from his first imprisonment, in which he was permitted to dwell alone in his own hired house, and receive all that came to him, and publicly to preach the Gospel, being guarded only by a single soldier. That he was in close confinement he argues from the circumstance that when Onesiphorus came to Rome he found that Paul was no longer that well-known public character which he had been while in his first imprisonment, but being closely confined he had some difficulty to find him out; and this appears to be fully implied in the apostle’s words: σπουδαιοτερον εζητησε με, και ευρε. “He very diligently sought me out, and found me;” 2 Timothy 1:17. And, that crimes were now laid to his charge widely different from those formerly alleged against him, appears from 2 Timothy 2:9: κακοπαθω μεχρι δεσμων, ως κακουργος. “I suffer evil even to bonds as a malefactor;” plainly implying that he was not only abridged of all liberty, but was bound hands and feet in a close dungeon. And this was probably on the pretence that he was one of those Christians whom Nero. accused with having set Rome on fire. Hence the word malefactor, κακουργος, which may mean here that the apostle was treated as the worst of criminals.
That this epistle was not written during St. Paul’s first imprisonment at Rome, or during the time in which the Epistles to the Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians, and Philemon were written, may be gathered, says Dr. Paley, with considerable evidence from a comparison of these several epistles with the present.
I. “In the former epistles the author confidently looked forward to his liberation from confinement, and his speedy departure from Rome. He tells the Philippians, Philippians 2:24: ‘I trust in the Lord that I also myself shall come shortly.’ Philemon he bids to prepare for him a lodging; ‘for I trust (says he) that through your prayers I shall be given unto you;’ Philemon 1:22. In the epistle before us he holds a language extremely different. ‘I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand. I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith; henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, shall give me at that day;’ 2 Timothy 4:6-8.”
Those who espouse the contrary opinion suppose that these words only express the strong apprehensions and despair of life which the apostle had when he was first imprisoned; but that afterwards, finding he was treated with kindness, he altered his language, and so strongly anticipated that he predicted his enlargement. This reflects little honour upon the apostle’s character; it shows him to be a person subject to alarms, and presaging the worst from every gloomy appearance. The whole of St. Paul’s conduct shows him to have been the reverse of what this opinion represents him. II. “When the former epistles were written from Rome, Timothy was with St. Paul, and is joined with him in writing to the Colossians, the Philippians, and Philemon; the present epistle implies that he was absent. III. “In the former epistles Demas was with St. Paul at Rome: ‘Luke the beloved physician, and Demas, greet you.’ In the epistle now before us: ‘Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world, and is gone to Thessalonica.’
IV. “So the former epistles Mark was with St. Paul, and joins in saluting the Colossians. In the present epistle Timothy is ordered to bring him with him, ‘for he is profitable to me for the ministry;’ 2 Timothy 4:11.” The circumstance of Demas being with St. Paul while he wrote the former epistles, which was certainly during his first imprisonment, and of his having forsaken him when he wrote this, is a strong proof of the posterior date of this epistle; nor can the feelings of the apostle, so contradictorily expressed in this and the preceding epistles, be ever cleared (on the supposition of their relating to the same time and circumstances) from weakness and contradiction.
Lewis Capellus has suggested the following considerations, which are still more conclusive:-
1. “In 2 Timothy 4:20, St. Paul informs Timothy that Erastus abode at Corinth, εραστος εμεινεν εν κορινθω. the form of expression (the verb being in the first aorist) implies that Erastus had stayed behind at Corinth when St. Paul left it: but this could not be meant of any journey from Corinth which St. Paul took prior to his first imprisonment at Rome; for when Paul departed from Corinth, as related in the 20th chapter of the Acts, Timothy was with him; and this was the last time the apostle left Corinth before his coming to Rome, because he left it on his way to proceed to Jerusalem soon after his arrival, at which place he was taken into custody, and continued in that custody till he was brought to Cæsar’s tribunal.
There could be no need, therefore, to inform Timothy that Erastus stayed behind at Corinth, upon this occasion; because, if the fact were so, it must have been known to Timothy, who was present as well as St. Paul.
2. “In the same verse our epistle also states the following article: ‘Trophimus have I left at Miletus sick.’ When St. Paul passed through Miletus, on his way to Jerusalem, as related Acts 20, Trophimus was not left behind, but accompanied him to that city. He was indeed the occasion of the uproar at Jerusalem, in consequence of which St. Paul was apprehended: ‘For they had seen,’ says the historian, ‘before with him in the city, Trophimus an Ephesian, whom they supposed that Paul had brought into the temple.’ This was evidently the last time of Paul’s being at Miletus before his first imprisonment; for, as has been said, after his apprehension at Jerusalem he remained in custody till he was sent to Rome. “In these two articles we have a journey referred to, which must have taken place subsequent to the conclusion of St. Luke’s history; and, of course, after St. Paul’s liberation from his first imprisonment. The epistle, therefore, which contains this reference, since it appears from other parts of it to have been written while St. Paul was a prisoner at Rome, proves that he had returned to that city again, and undergone there a second imprisonment.
“These particulars,” adds Dr. Paley, “I have produced, not merely for the support they lend to the testimony of the fathers concerning St. Paul’s second imprisonment, but to remark their consistency and agreement with one another. They are all resolvable into one supposition, viz., that this epistle was not written during St. Paul’s first residence at Rome, but in some future imprisonment in that city. The epistle touches upon names and circumstances connected with the date and with the history of the first imprisonment, and mentioned in letters during that imprisonment; and so touches upon them as to leave what is said of one consistent with what is said of others, and consistent also with what is said of them in different epistles.”
From the whole, there seems the fullest evidence, 1. That this epistle was not written during St. Paul’s first imprisonment at Rome. 2. That he was at Rome when he wrote this epistle. 3. That he was there a prisoner, and in such confinement as we know, from the Acts of the Apostles, he was not in during the time of his first imprisonment there. 4. That this must have been some subsequent imprisonment. 5. That as the general consent of all Christian antiquity states that St. Paul was twice imprisoned at Rome, and that from his second imprisonment he was never liberated, but was at its conclusion martyred; therefore this epistle must have been written while St. Paul was in his second imprisonment at Rome, and but a short time before his martyrdom. And as the Christian Church has generally agreed that this apostle’s martyrdom took place on the 29th of June, A. D. 66, the Second Epistle to Timothy might have been written sometime towards the end of the spring or beginning of summer of that year. It is supposed that St. Paul went from Crete to Rome, about the end of the year 65, on hearing of the persecution which Nero. was then carrying on against the Christians, on pretence that they had set Rome on fire: for, as he knew that the Church must be then in great tribulation, he judged that his presence would be necessary to comfort, support, and build it up. Like a true soldier of Jesus Christ, he was ever at the post of danger; and in this case he led on the forlorn hope.
Other matters relative to the state and circumstances of the apostle, and those of Timothy; and the Church at Ephesus, will be carefully brought before the reader in the course of the notes on this epistle. THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO
TIMOTHY.
Chronological Notes relative to this Epistle.
-Year of the Constantinopolitan era of the world, or that used by the Byzantine historians, 5573.
-Year of the Alexandrian era of the world, 5567.
-Year of the Antiochian era of the world, 5557.
-Year of the Julian period, 4775.
-Year of the world, according to Archbishop Usher, 4069
-Year of the world, according to Eusebius, in his Chronicon, 4293. -Year of the minor Jewish era of the world, or that in common use, 3825. -Year of the Greater Rabbinical era of the world, 4424.
-Year from the Flood, according to Archbishop Usher, and the English Bible, 2413.
-Year of the Cali yuga, or Indian era of the Deluge, 3167. -Year of the era of Iphitus, or since the first commencement of the Olympic games, 1005.
-Year of the era of Nabonassar, king of Babylon, 812.
-Year of the CCXIth Olympiad, 1.
-Year from the building of Rome, according to Fabius Pictor, 812. -Year from the building of Rome, according to Frontinus, 816. -Year from the building of Rome, according to the Fasti Capitolini, 817. -Year from the building of Rome, according to Varro, which was that most generally used, 818.
-Year of the era of the Seleucidæ, 377.
-Year of the Cæsarean era of Antioch, 113.
-Year of the Julian era, 110.
-Year of the Spanish era, 103.
-Year from the birth of Jesus Christ according to Archbishop Usher, 69 -Year of the vulgar era of Christ’s nativity, 65 or 66.
-Year of Gessius Florus, governor of the Jews, 1.
-Year of Vologesus, king of the Parthians, 16.
-Year of L. C. Gallus, governor of Syria, 1.
-Year of Matthias, high priest of the Jews, 3.
-Year of the Dionysian period, or Easter Cycle, 66.
-Year of the Grecian Cycle of nineteen years, or Common Golden Number, 9; or the first after the third embolismic.
-Year of the Jewish Cycle of nineteen years, 6, or the second embolismic. -Year of the Solar Cycle, 18.
-Dominical Letter, it being the first after the Bissextile, or Leap Year, F. -Day of the Jewish Passover, according to the Roman computation of time, the VIIth of the ides of April, or, in our common mode of reckoning, the seventh of April, which happened on this year on the day after the Jewish Sabbath.
-Easter Sunday, the day after the ides of April, or the XVIIIth of the Calends of May, named by the Jews the 22d of Nisan or Abib, and by Europeans in general, the 14th of April.
-Epact, or age of the moon on the 22d of March, (the day of the earliest Easter Sunday possible,) 28.
-Epact, according to the present mode of computation, or the moon’s age on New Year’s day, or the Calends of January, 5.
-Monthly Epacts, or age of the moon on the Calends of each month respectively, (beginning with January,) 5, 7, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 12, 14, 14.
-Number of Direction, or the number of days from the twenty-first of March to the Jewish Passover, 17.
-Year of the reign of Caius Tiberius Claudius Nero. Cæsar, the fifth Roman emperor computing from Augustus Cæsar, 12.
-Roman Consuls, A. Licinius Nerva Silanus, and M. Vestinius Atticus; the latter of whom was succeeded by Anicius Cerealis, on July 1st. Dr. Lardner and others suppose this epistle to have been written in A. D. 56, i.e. nine years earlier than is stated above. See the preface to the First Epistle to Timothy, where this point is largely considered, and also the general observations prefixed to the Acts of the Apostles.
Joseph Benson
Preface
BEN_VOL8.PDF, source PDF p. 438
SECOND EPISTLE OF PAUL THE
APOSTLE TO TIMOTHY.
PREFACE
Concenring the parentage, country, and education of Timothy, as also his conversion and appointment to the office of an evangelist, with some particulars of his life and labours, see the preface to the former epistle. That this second epistle was written while Paul was a prisoner at Rome is universally acknowledged; but whether during his first or second imprisonment, has been matter of debate. Hammond, Lightfoot, Cave, and Lardner, with several others, have maintained the former opinion; while Bishop Pearson, Whitby, Doddridge, Paley, and Macknight, with many more critics, contend for the latter: and the arguments they offer seem to be quite conclusive. The principal are the following: — 1st. It appears from chap. 1:8, and 2:9, that when the apostle wrote this epistle he was a prisoner in bonds: but these could not be his first bonds; for then he was, in libera custodia, dwelling in his own hired house, receiving all that came to him, no one forbidding him, (Acts 28:30, 31,) and his bonds being known in Cesar’s palace, and “to all others.” But when he wrote this second epistle, he was in arcta custodia, in such close confinement, that Onesiphorus was obliged to “seek him out diligently,” few knowing where he was to be found, chap. 1:17. Secondly, In his first bonds, many of the brethren, being encouraged by his bonds, “were bold to speak the word without fear,” (Philippians 1:14,) but when he wrote this second epistle all men had forsaken him, 2 Timothy 4:16. Thirdly, When he wrote his former epistle he had an expectation of being soon released, and of seeing his Christian friends again, 2 Timothy 3:14; but in this epistle he not only gives no hint of any such expectation, but evidently signifies the contrary, observing, 2 Timothy 4:6, “I am now ready to be offered,” or “I am now offered,” as ηδη σπενδομαι means, “and the time” της εμης αναλυσεως εφεστηκε, “of my dissolution is instant,” or “is come.” “I have finished my course,” &c., “henceforth,” λοιπον, “what remains, there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness,” &c. From which words it is justly inferred, that when he wrote this he was in immediate expectation of death, either in consequence of Nero’s menaces, or of some express revelation from Christ, such as Peter also probably had a little before his martyrdom. See 2 Peter 1:14. And from hence the ancients generally concluded that this was the last epistle that St. Paul wrote. There appears to be no certainty where Timothy was when the apostle wrote this epistle to him; but his principal design in writing it seems evidently to have been, to prepare Timothy for those sufferings to which he foresaw he would be exposed; to forewarn him of the apostacy and corruption which were beginning to appear in the church, and at the same time to animate him by his own example, and from the powerful motives which the gospel furnishes, to the most vigorous and resolute discharge of every part of the sacred office to which he had been called. The epistle has three parts: I. The inscription, 2 Timothy 1:1, 2. II. An invitation, “Come to me,” variously expressed; 1. Having declared his love to Timothy, verses 3-5, he exhorts him, “Be not ashamed of me,” verses 6-14, and subjoins various examples, verses 15-18. 2. He adds the two-fold proposition, (1.) “Be strong;” (2.) “Commit the ministry” to faithful men, 2 Timothy 2:1, 2. The former is treated of verses 3-13; the latter, verse 14; with further directions concerning his own behaviour, verse 15; 2 Timothy 4:8. 3. “Come quickly,” verse 9. Here St. Paul mentions his being left alone, verses 10-12. Directs to bring his books, verse 13. Gives a caution concerning Alexander, verses 14, 15. Observes the inconstancy of men, and the faithfulness of God, verses 16-18. 4. “Come before winter,” salutations, verses 19-21. III. The concluding blessing, verse 22. From this epistle, as well as from the first to the Thessalonians, we may draw a convincing argument in favour of the certain truth and unspeakable importance of Christianity. “The apostle had been for some time under close confinement at Rome, at the mercy of a cruel and capricious tyrant. He had seen himself deserted by his friends in his greatest extremity, and had nothing before him but the certain prospect of being called to suffer death in the same cause to which he had devoted his life. In this situation how does he behave? Does he seem to look back with concern on his past conduct, or to reset the sacrifice he had made of all his worldly interest? Can we discover any thing that betrays a secret consciousness of guilt, or even a suspicion of the weakness of his cause? Nay, does he drop a single expression that can be interpreted as a mark of fear, or discomposure of mind, in the apprehension of those gloomy scenes that lay before him? Surely if he had been an impostor, or had entertained the least doubt of the doctrines he had taught, something of this kind must have escaped him when writing to so intimate a friend, with whom he could intrust all the secrets of his breast. On the contrary, upon the most calm and deliberate survey, he expresses an entire satisfaction in reflecting on the part he had acted, and earnestly recommends it to his beloved pupil to follow his example in maintaining the glorious cause, even at the hazard of his life. He appears, throughout his epistle, to have felt a strong inward conviction of the truth of those principles he had embraced, and glories in the sufferings he endured in support of them, triumphing in the full assurance of being approved by his great Master, and of receiving at his hands a crown of distinguished lustre. A behaviour like this, in one who had so considerable a share in establishing the Christian religion, and expected in a short time to seal his testimony to it with his blood, must be allowed a strong confirmation of the truth of those facts on which our faith depends. It is at least a convincing proof that the apostle was himself sincere in what he professed to believe; and when the several circumstances of his history are considered, and impartially weighed, it will appear as evident that he could not possibly be deceived, and, consequently, that his testimony is to be admitted in full force.” — Doddridge.
Joseph Sutcliffe
St. Paul’s Second Epistle to Timothy.
SUT_VOL5.PDF, source PDF p. 216
ST. PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE
TO TIMOTHY.
WE now come to the last moments of Paul’s illustrious life, and find him in close confinement, bound with a chain, and preparing for the martyr’s crown: 2 Timothy 4:6. He suffered, according to Eusebius’s Chronicum, in the thirty seventh year after the ascension, and in the fourteenth year of Nero.
Eusebius quotes and abbreviates the words of Tertullian on those tragic events: lib. 2. c. 24. 3. c. 1. “Consult your records, and there you will find that Nero was the first who unsheathed the imperial sword ferociously against this sect, then flourishing in Rome. But we glory indeed in such a commencer of our persecution; for he who knows must know, that nothing but what was good was condemned by Nero.”
Eusebius also quotes the words of Cajus, an ecclesiastic, who, when writing against Proclus, a defender of the Cataphrygians, says, “If you would go to the Vatican, [where Peter was buried] or to the via ostia, [where Paul was interred] you would find the trophies of those who founded this church, and who both suffered martyrdom at the same time,” that is, during the same persecution. Origen confirms this statement in his third volume of commentaries on the book of Genesis.
St. Paul, in the first epistle, having given Timothy hopes of coming soon to Ephesus, now writes as one who knew by the spirit of prophecy, that the time of his departure was near. He cautions Timothy of the evil times, when men would place religion in words, and subvert its foundation, and guards him against their instability.
Dr. Macknight thinks that the case of Paul and others was involved in the popular fury of the Romans against the Christians, who were most wickedly and cruelly charged by Nero with having set fire to the city. Father Coeffeteau has collected in his Roman history the substance of what is said of that unexampled case of atrocious wickedness; and according to this writer, Nero was often heard to say, that Priam was the happiest prince in the world, because he had lived to see his city in flames after his kingdom was lost. In order therefore, as is believed, to gratify his cruel rage, Nero sent his servants secretly, feigning themselves to be drunk, to set fire to all parts of the city; and this was done so notoriously that persons of quality found in their chambers Nero’s servants with wisps of straw to set fire to their mansions. This was the greatest conflagration that had ever happened to Rome.
The burning commenced in shops where oil and linens were sold, and the flames, impelled by a strong wind, raged with incredible fury, and devastated all things in its progress. The fire having commenced in the lower houses, presently reached those that were lofty. The flames were so impetuous, and the smoke so dense and voluminous, that no man could approach. The city continued to burn with great fury for six days, and on the ninth day the fire was not wholly extinguished.
The case of the people, in a state of complete destitution, was still more deplorable; to see them, while endeavouring to save their wives and their children, perishing themselves in the fire. While cautious on the one hand, they were surprised on the other; and even those who could have saved themselves, seemed deprived of all power to escape, except to the tombs. In fact they were so astounded, that they knew neither what they ought to advise, nor what they ought to do. They fell down in the streets, and in the fields; some having lost their all, and had no means to support the remains of life. Others died of grief, to see what had happened to their relatives, who had perished in the fire. Some, when they saw people extinguishing the fire, hindered them, using menaces, and saying that they well knew who had commanded the city to be burned.
We are told that Nero, on seeing the fire from the tower of Mecænas, was ravished with delight; that he took the robe he usually wore at the theatre, and sung the destruction of Troy; or rather, as others turned the song, to see the ruin of Rome.
After the conflagration, which had nearly consumed ten wards of the city out of fourteen, Nero affected to be the most humane of princes. He opened the camp of Mars, and his own gardens for the destitute. But all those good graces were unavailing, as all the world believed him to be the author of the conflagration, that he might acquire the vain glory of being called the builder of the city. They quoted against him the verses of the Sibylline oracles, that the Roman empire should be desolated, when the last prince of the house of Æneas should reign. To this they added another line: “This was he who had killed his mother.” Suetonius admits that Nero was the last prince of the Trojan race.
But to complete the tragedy, and wipe away the stain, Nero charged on those, the innocent christians, who were at that time numerous in the city, the very crime which he had himself committed. They were in consequence dragged by popular fury to Nero’s gardens, and put to various tortures. The executioners exhausted their ingenuity to extort confessions. Some they clothed in the skins of wild beasts, and set the hungry dogs to worry them. Others they nailed to crosses, and surrounded them with faggots, that the flames during the night might illuminate the city. But the heroic manner in which they died softened the fury of the populace, who declared them innocent, and said that the christians were massacred to gratify the malice of individuals.
The end of this impious tyrant was truly awful. Several conspiracies were formed against him by his own subjects, who were no longer able to endure his unparalleled vice and profligacy, till at length the Roman senate condemned him to be dragged naked through the streets of the city, to be whipped to death, and afterwards thrown down from the top of a rock like the meanest malefactor. Nero escaped the execution of the sentence by committing suicide in the thirty second year of his age, after a horrid reign of thirteen years and eight months, and in the year of our Lord sixty eight. Pliny calls him the common enemy and the fury of mankind, and in this he has been followed by all writers, who exhibit Nero as a pattern of the most execrable profligacy and barbarity.
Daniel Whedon
Plan of the Epistle.
WHD_CO13.PDF, source PDF p. 617
2 TIMOTHY
INTRODUCTION.
THE last of the thirteen Pauline epistles. It contains the death-notes of the apostle in expectancy of a martyrdom soon to be accomplished. It was clearly written a brief period before his last trial, and contains references to his first.
Greatly resembling the first epistle in style, indicating that both were written at the same general period, it is less an official charge and more a personal communication.
PLAN OF THE EPISTLE.
I. PAUL’S
HORTATORY
REHEARSAL OF THE
PAST
, PREPARATORY TO A
CONFIRMATION OF
TIMOTHY IN THE
FUTURE
2 Timothy 1:3-18
1. Faithfulness of Timothy’s parentage an incitement to firmness for the glorious gospel of Christ 2 Timothy 1:3-10
2. Paul’s apostleship and committed trust of the gospel doctrine 2 Timothy 1:11-14
3. Maintained amid apostasies of many, with rare exception 2 Timothy 1:15-18
II. CONFIRMATION OF TIMOTHY IN THE
COMING
FUTURE
2 Timothy 2:1-26
1. Personal appeal for boldness, hardihood, endurance of sufferings, in hope of final glory 2 Timothy 2:1-13
2. Timothy’s duty of warning the people against the noisy errors of apostates from the sure foundation 2 Timothy 2:14-19
3. Personally purged and pure, both from lusts and heresy, he may meekly instruct others 2 Timothy 2:20-26
III. PREDICTION OF THE
APOSTASY AT THE
CLOSE OF THE
APOSTOLIC
AGE
, AND
CONFIRMATION OF
TIMOTHY AGAINST IT
2 Timothy 3:1-17
1. False and demoralized character of the coming heretics 2 Timothy 3:1-9
2. But as Timothy knows the trueness and purity of Paul 2 Timothy 3:10-13
3. So he should also be true, according to the Scriptures, inspired to furnish and qualify the minister of God 2 Timothy 3:14-17 IV. ST
. PAUL’S
CLOSING
CHARGE TO
TIMOTHY
—SALUTATIONS AND
BENEDICTIONS
2 Timothy 4:1 2
Timothy 4:1-22
1. Admonition to firmness against errorists 2 Timothy 4:1-5
2. Triumphal anticipation of martyrdom 2 Timothy 4:6-8
3. St. Paul’s personal relations to his fellows 2 Timothy 4:9-13
4. Reminiscences of his former trial 2 Timothy 4:14-18
5. Salutations and benedictions 2 Timothy 4:19-22