1Ti 1:1, 2Ti 1:1 | Barnes | STEP | THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL TO TIMOTHY. INTRODUCTION. I. NOTICES OF THE LIFE OF TIMOTHY. NEARLY all that can now be known of Timothy is to be learned from the New Testament. He was a native of either Derbe or Lystra, but it is not certainly known which, . Paul found him there on his visit to those places, and does not appear to have been acquainted with him before. His mother, whose name was Eunice, was a Jewess, and was pious, as was also his grandmother, Lois, . His father was a Greek, but was evidently not unfriendly to the Jewish religion, for Timothy had been carefully trained in the Scriptures, . Paul came to Derbe and Lystra, and became acquainted with him about A.D. 51 or 52; but there is no method now of ascertaining the exact age of Timothy at that time, though there is reason to think that he was then a youth, . It would seem, also, that he was a youth of uncommon hope and promise, and that there had been some special indications that he would rise to distinction as a religious man, and would exert an extended influence in favour of religion, . At the time when Paul first met with him, he was a "disciple," or a Christian convert; but the means which had been used for his conversion are unknown. His mother had been before converted to the Christian faith, ( ) and Timothy was well known to the Christians in the neighbouring towns of Lystra and Iconium. The gospel had been preached by Paul and Barnabas, in Iconium, Derbe, and Lystra, some six or seven years before it is said that Paul met with Timothy, ( ,) and it is not improbable that this youth had been converted in the interval. Several things appear to have combined to induce the apostle to introduce him into the ministry, and to make him a travelling companion. His youth; his acquaintance with the Holy Scriptures; the "prophecies which went before on him;" his talents; his general reputation in the church; and, it would seem also, his amiableness of manners, fitting him to be an agreeable companion, attracted the attention of the apostle, and led him to desire that he might be a fellow-labourer with him. To satisfy the prejudices of the Jews, and to prevent any possible objection which might be made against his qualifications for the ministerial office, Paul circumcised him, ( ) and he was ordained to the office of the ministry by "the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery," . When this ordination occurred is not known; but it is most probable that it was before he went on his travels with Paul, as it is known that Paul was present on the occasion, and took a leading part in the transaction, . Timothy having joined Paul and Silas, accompanied them on a visit to the churches of Phrygia and Galatia, in which they delivered them the decrees to keep which had been ordained at Jerusalem, , seq. Having done this, they endeavoured to go together into Bithynia, a province of Asia Minor, on the north-west, but were prevented; and they then went into Mysia, and to the town of Troas, . Here Luke appears to have joined them; and from this place, in obedience to a vision which appeared to Paul, they went into Macedonia, and preached the gospel first at Philippi, where they established a church. In this city Paul and Silas were imprisoned; but it is remarkable that nothing is said of Timothy and Luke, and it is not known whether they shared in the sufferings of the persecution there or not. Everything, however, renders it probable that Timothy was with them at Philippi; as he is mentioned as having started with them to go on the journey, ( , seq.;) and as we find him at Berea, after the apostle had been released from prison, and had preached at Thessalonica and Berea, . From this place Paul was conducted to Athens, but left an injunction for Silas and Timothy to join him there as soon as possible. This was done; but when Timothy had come to Athens, Paul felt it to be important that the church at Thessalonica should be visited and comforted in its afflictions, and being prevented from doing it himself, he sent Timothy, at great personal inconvenience, back to that church. Having discharged the duty there, he rejoined the apostle at Corinth, ( ,) from which place the First Epistle to the Thessalonians was written. See Intro. to 1 Thess., and ; . These transactions occurred about A.D. 52. Paul remained at Corinth a year and a half, ( ,) and it is probable that Timothy and Silas continued with him. See . From Corinth he sailed for Syria, accompanied by Priscilla and Aquila, whom he appears to have left on his way at Ephesus, . Whether Timothy and Silas accompanied him is not mentioned, but we find Timothy again with him at Ephesus, after he had been to Caesarea and Antioch, and had returned to Ephesus, . From Ephesus, he sent Timothy and Erastus to Macedonia, ; but for what purpose, or how long they remained, is unknown. From , it appears that Paul expected that on this journey Timothy would stop at Corinth, and would give the church there instructions adapted to its situation. Paul continued in Ephesus until he was compelled to depart by the tumult caused by Demetrius, when he left and went to Macedonia, . Whether Timothy, during the interval, had returned to Ephesus from Macedonia, is not expressly mentioned in the history; but such a supposition is not improbable. Paul, during the early part of his residence in Ephesus, appears to have laboured quietly, ( ;) and Timothy was sent away before the disturbances caused by Demetrius, . Paul designed to follow him soon, and then to go to Jerusalem, and then to Rome, . Paul ( ) was in Ephesus in all about three years; and it is not unreasonable to suppose that he remained there after Timothy was sent to Macedonia long enough for him to go and to return to him again. If so, it is possible that when he himself went away, he left Timothy there in his place. Comp. . It has been the general opinion that the First Epistle to Timothy was written at this time: either when the apostle was on his way to Macedonia, or while in Macedonia. But this opinion has not been unquestioned. The departure of Paul for Macedonia occurred about A.D. 58, or 59. In , Timothy is again mentioned as accompanying Paul after he had remained in Greece three months, on the route to Syria through Macedonia. He went with him, in company with many others, into "Asia." Going before Paul, they waited for him at Troas, , and thence doubtless accompanied him on his way to Jerusalem. It was on this occasion that Paul delivered his farewell charge to the elders of the church of Ephesus, at Miletus, , seq. When in Macedonia, Paul wrote the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, and Timothy was then with him, for he unites in the salutations, . Timothy was also with the apostle on this journey at Corinth, when from that city he wrote his epistle to the Romans, . The subsequent events of the life of Timothy are less known. It does not appear from the Acts of the Apostles, that he was with Paul during his two years' imprisonment at Caesarea, nor during his voyage to Rome. It is certain, however, that he was at Rome with the apostle when he wrote the epistles to the Philippians, to the Colossians, and to Philemon, . From , it appears, also, that Timothy had been with the apostle there, but that when the epistle was written, he was absent on some important embassy, and that Paul was expecting his speedy return. . Between the first and second imprisonment of Paul at Rome, no mention is made of Timothy, nor is it known where he was, or whether he accompanied him in his travels or not. When he was imprisoned there the second time, he wrote the Second Epistle to Timothy, in which he desires him to come to Rome, and bring with him several things which he had left at Troas, . If Timothy went to Rome, agreeably to the request of the apostle, it is probable that he was a witness there of his martyrdom. In regard to the latter part of the life of Timothy, there is nothing which can be depended on. It has been the current opinion, derived from tradition, that he was "bishop" of Ephesus; that he died and was buried there; and that his bones were subsequently removed to Constantinople. The belief that he was "bishop" of Ephesus rests mainly on the "subscription" to the Second Epistle to Timothy, which is no authority whatever. See Notes on that subscription. On the question whether he was an episcopal prelate at Ephesus, the reader may consult my "Inquiry into the Organization and Government of the Apostolic Church," [pp. 91--114, London edition.] The supposition that he died at Ephesus, and was subsequently removed to Constantinople, rests on no certain historical basis. Timothy was long the companion and the friend of the apostle Paul, and is often mentioned by him with affectionate interest. Indeed, there seems to have been no one of his fellow-labourers, to whom he was so warmly attached. See , where he calls him "his own son," and "his beloved son;" , where he expresses his earnest desire to see him, and makes a reference to the tears which Timothy shed at parting from him; , where he bespeaks for him a kind reception among the Corinthians; ; and especially , where he speaks of his fidelity, of his usefulness to him in his labours, and of the interest which he took in the churches which the apostle had established. II. WHEN AND WHERE THE EPISTLE WAS WRITTEN. THE subscription at the close of the epistle states that it was written from Laodicea. But these subscriptions are of no authority, and many of them are false. See Notes at the end of 1 Corinthians. There has been much diversity of opinion in regard to the time when this epistle was written, and of course in regard to the place where it was composed. All that is certain from the epistle itself is, that it was addressed to Timothy at Ephesus, and that it was soon after Paul had left that city to go into Macedonia, . Paul is mentioned in the Acts as having been at Ephesus twice, . After his first visit there, he went directly to Jerusalem, and of course it could not have been written at that time. The only question then is, whether it was written when Paul left the city, having been driven away by the excitement caused by Demetrius, ( ;) or whether he visited Ephesus again on some occasion after his first imprisonment at Rome, and of course after the narrative of Luke in the Acts of the Apostles closes. If on the former occasion, it was written about the year 58 or 59; if the latter, about the year 64 or 65. Critics have been divided in reference to this point, and the question is still unsettled, and it may be impossible to determine it with entire certainty. Those who have maintained the former opinion, among others, are Theodoret, Benson, Zaehariae, Michaelis, Schmidt, Koppe, Planck, Grotius, Lightfoot, Witsius, Lardner, Hug, and Prof. Stuart. The latter opinion, that it was written subsequently to the period of Paul's first imprisonment at Rome, is maintained by Paley, Pearson, L'Enfant, Le Clere, Cave, Mill, Whitby, Macknight, and others. An examination of the reasons in favour of each of these opinions as to the date of the epistle, may be found in Paley's Hor. Paul.; Macknight; Hug's Intro., and Koppe, Proleg . The theory of Eienhorn, which is peculiar, and which is supported by some ingenious and plausible, but not conclusive reasoning, may be seen in his Einleitung in das neue Test. 3 B. 314--352. In the diversity of opinion which prevails about the time when the epistle was written, it is impossible to determine the question in such a manner as to leave no room for doubt. After the most careful examination which I have been able to give to the subject, however, it seems to me that the former opinion is correct, that it was written soon after Paul was driven from Ephesus by the tumult caused by Demetrius, as recorded in . The reasons for this opinion are briefly these:-- 1. This is the only record that occurs in the New Testament of the apostle's having gone from Ephesus to Macedonia. See above. It is natural, therefore, to suppose that this is referred to in , unless there is some insuperable difficulty in the way. 2. There is no certain evidence that Paul visited the church at Ephesus after his first imprisonment at Rome. It is certainly possible that he did, but there is no record of any such visit in the New Testament, nor any historical record of it elsewhere. If there had been such a visit after his release, and if this epistle were written then, it is remarkable that the apostle does not make any allusion to his imprisonment in this epistle, and that he does not refer at all to his own escape from this danger of death at Rome. Comp. . 3. The supposition that the epistle was written at the time supposed, agrees better with the character of the epistle, and with the design for which Timothy was left at Ephesus, than the others. It is manifest from the epistle that the church was, in some respects, in an unsettled condition; and it would seem, also, that one part of the duty of Timothy there was to see that it was placed under a proper organization. This Paul had evidently proposed to accomplish himself; but it is clear, from , that he left his work unfinished, and that he gave what he had proposed to do into the hands of Timothy to be perfected. After the first imprisonment of Paul at Rome, however, there is every reason to suppose that the church was completely organized. Even when Paul went from Macedonia to Jerusalem, , there were "elders" placed over the church at Ephesus, whom Paul assembled at Miletus, and to whom he gave his parting charge, and his final instructions in regard to the church. 4. At the time when Paul wrote this epistle, Timothy was a young man--a youth, . It is true, that if he were somewhere about twenty years of age when he was introduced into the ministry, as has been commonly supposed, this language would not be entirely inappropriate, even after the imprisonment of Paul; but still the language would more properly denote one somewhat younger than Timothy would be at that time. 5. To this may be added the declaration of Paul in , that he "hoped to come to him shortly." This is an expression which agrees well with the supposition that he had himself been driven away before he had intended to leave; that he had left something unfinished there which he desired to complete, and that he hoped that affairs would soon be in such a state that he would be permitted to return. It may be also suggested, as a circumstance of some importance, though not conclusive, that when Paul met the elders of the church of Ephesus at Miletus, he said that he had no expectation of ever seeing them again: "And now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more," . I do not think that this is to be understood as an inspired prediction, aiming with absolute certainty that he never would see them again, but that he rather expressed his apprehensions that it would be so from the circumstances which then existed, . Still, this passage shows that when he uttered it he did not expect to visit Ephesus again, as he manifestly did when he wrote the epistle to Timothy. These considerations seem so clear that they would leave no doubt on the mind, were it not for certain things which it seems to many impossible to reconcile with this supposition. The difficulties are the following:-- 1. That before Paul went to Macedonia, he had sent Timothy with Erastus before him, ( ,) purposing to follow them at no distant period, and to pass through Macedonia and Achaia, and then to go to Jerusalem, and afterwards to visit Rome, . As he had sent Timothy before him but so short a time before he left Ephesus, it is asked how Timothy could be left at Ephesus when Paul went himself to Macedonia? To this objection we may reply, that it is not improbable by any means that Timothy may have accomplished the object of his journey to Macedonia, and may have returned to the apostle at Ephesus before he was driven away. It does not appear, from the narrative, that Timothy was intrusted with any commission which would require a long time to fulfil it, nor that Paul expected that he would remain in Macedonia until he himself came. The purpose for which he sent Timothy and Erastus is not indeed mentioned, but it seems probable that it was with reference to the collection which he proposed to take up for the poor saints at Jerusalem. , . Comp. . If it were the purpose to prepare the churches for such a collection, it could not have required any considerable time, nor was it necessary that Timothy should remain long in a place; and it was natural, also, that he should return to the apostle at Ephesus, and apprize him of what he had done, and what was the prospect in regard to the collection. It has been clearly shown by Hug, (Intro. to the New Test., % 104. 109,) that such a journey could easily have been made during the time which the apostle remained at Ephesus after he had sent Timothy and Erastus to Macedonia. 2. The next objection--and one which is regarded by Paley as decisive against the supposition that the epistle was written on this occasion--is, that from the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, , it is evident that at the time in which this epistle is supposed to have been written, Timothy was with the apostle in Macedonia. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians was undoubtedly written during this visit of Paul to Macedonia, and at that time Timothy was with him. See the Introduction to . How then can it be supposed that he was at Ephesus? Or how can this fact be reconciled with the supposition that Timothy was left there, and especially with the declaration of Paul to him, , that he "hoped to come to him shortly?" That Paul expected that Timothy would remain at Ephesus, at least for some time, is evident from , "But if I tarry long , that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God;" and from , " Till I come , give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine." The only solution of this difficulty is, that Timothy had left Ephesus, and had followed the apostle into Macedonia; and the only question here is, whether, since the apostle designed that he should remain at Ephesus, and expected himself to return and meet him there, Timothy would be likely to leave that place and go to Macedonia. It is certain that the history in the Acts does not make this record, but that is no material objection---since it cannot be supposed that every occurrence in the travels of the apostles was recorded. But there are two or three circumstances which may render the supposition that Timothy, either by the concurrence, or by the direction of Paul, privately communicated to him, may have left Ephesus sooner than was at first contemplated, and may have rejoined him in Macedonia. (1.) One is, that the main business which Timothy was appointed to perform at Ephesus--to give a solemn charge to certain persons there to teach no other doctrine but that which Paul taught, --might have been speedily accomplished. Paul was driven away in haste, and, as he had not the opportunity of doing this himself as he wished, he left Timothy in charge of it. But this did not require, of necessity, any considerable time. (2.) Another is, that the business of appointing suitable officers over the church there, might also have been soon accomplished. In fact, the church there is known to have been supplied with proper officers not long after this, for Paul sent from Miletus for the elders to meet him there on his way to Jerusalem. This remark is made in accordance with the opinion that a part of the work which Timothy was expected to perform there, was to constitute proper officers over the church But there is no proof that that was a part of his business. It is not specified in what Paul mentions, in , as the design for which he was left there, and it is hardly probable that the apostle would have spent so long a time as he did in Ephesus--nearly three years, --without having organized the church with proper officers. Besides, the address of Paul to the elders at Miletus, implies that they had received their appointment before he left them. See , particularly . The instructions to Timothy in this epistle about the proper qualifications of the officers of the church, do not prove that he was then to appoint officers at Ephesus, for they are general instructions, having no particular reference to the church there, and designed to guide him in his work through life. There is, therefore, nothing in the duties which Timothy was to perform at Ephesus which would forbid the supposition that he may have soon followed the apostle into Macedonia. (3.) It appears, that though Paul may have intended, if possible, to visit Ephesus on his way to Jerusalem, in accordance with , yet, if that had been his intention, he subsequently changed his mind, and found it necessary to make other arrangements. Thus it is said, , that "Paul had determined to sail by Ephesus, because he would not spend the time in Asia;" that is, he had resolved to sail past Ephesus without visiting it. It would seem probable, also, that this resolution had been formed before he left Macedonia, for it is said that he ` had determined ' it, (εκρινε;) and if so, there is no improbability in supposing that he had, in some way, caused it to be intimated to Timothy that he wished him to leave Ephesus, and join him before he left Macedonia. (4.) In fact, and in accordance with this supposition, we find Timothy with Paul when he went on that occasion into "Asia," . These considerations render it probable that the epistle was written to Timothy soon after Paul left Ephesus to go into Macedonia after the tumult excited by Demetrius. As Paul was driven away unexpectedly, and when he had not completed what he designed to do there, nothing is more natural than the supposition that he would embrace the earliest opportunity to give suitable instructions to Timothy, that he might know how to complete the work. III. THE OCCASION AND DESIGN OF THE EPISTLE This is specified in . Paul had gone in Macedonia, having been suddenly driven away from Ephesus, before he had entirely done what he had designed to do there. He left Timothy there to "charge some that they teach no other doctrine:" that is, no other doctrine than that which he had himself taught there. It is clear, from this, that there were certain errors prevailing there which Paul thought it of the highest importance to have corrected. In regard to those errors, see the Introduction to the Epistle to the Ephesians, and the Epistle to the Colossians. some of the circumstances which gave occasion to this epistle, can be gathered from the history in the Acts of the Apostles; others can be derived from the epistle itself. From these sources of information we learn the following things in reference to the state of the church in Ephesus, which made it proper that Timothy should be left there, and that these instructions should be given him to regulate his conduct. (1.) There was much opposition to the apostle Paul from the Jews who resided there, . (2.) There were in the church teachers who endeavoured to enforce the maxims of the Jewish law, and to represent that law as binding on Christians, . (3.) Some of the Hews residing there were addicted to exorcism, and endeavoured to make use of Christianity and the name of Jesus to promote their selfish ends, . Comp. . (4.) The Jewish teachers laid great stress on geneologies and traditions, and were much given to debates about various questions connected with the law, . (5.) There were erroneous views prevailing respecting the rights of women, and the place they ought to occupy in the church, . (6.) The organization of the officers of the church had not been effected as Paul wished it to be. It is probable that some of the officers had been appointed, and that some instructions had been given to them in regard to their duties, but the whole arrangement had not been completed, . (7.) There were certain questions in regard to the proper treatment of widows, which had not yet been determined, . (8.) The apostle, in his preaching, had inculcated benevolent principles, and had asserted the natural equality of all men; and it would seem that certain persons had taken occasion form this to excite a spirit of discontent and insubordination among those who were servants. The doctrine seems to have been advanced, that, as all men were equal, and all had been redeemed by the same blood, therefore those who had been held in bondage were free from all obligation to serve their masters. There were those evidently who sought to excite them to insurrection; to break down the distinctions in society, and to produce a state of insubordination and disorder, 1Ti 6 ; comp. . The remainder of this note is continued in note on

1 Timothy 1:1

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL TO TIMOTHY.

INTRODUCTION.

I. NOTICES OF THE LIFE OF TIMOTHY.

NEARLY all that can now be known of Timothy is to be learned from the New Testament. He was a native of either Derbe or Lystra, but it is not certainly known which, Acts 16:1. Paul found him there on his visit to those places, and does not appear to have been acquainted with him before. His mother, whose name was Eunice, was a Jewess, and was pious, as was also his grandmother, Lois, 2Ti 1:5. His father was a Greek, but was evidently not unfriendly to the Jewish religion, for Timothy had been carefully trained in the Scriptures, 2Ti 3:15. Paul came to Derbe and Lystra, and became acquainted with him about A.D. 51 or 52; but there is no method now of ascertaining the exact age of Timothy at that time, though there is reason to think that he was then a youth, 1Timm 4:12. It would seem, also, that he was a youth of uncommon hope and promise, and that there had been some special indications that he would rise to distinction as a religious man, and would exert an extended influence in favour of religion, 1Timm 1:18. At the time when Paul first met with him, he was a "disciple," or a Christian convert; but the means which had been used for his conversion are unknown. His mother had been before converted to the Christian faith, (Acts 16:1) and Timothy was well known to the Christians in the neighbouring towns of Lystra and Iconium. The gospel had been preached by Paul and Barnabas, in Iconium, Derbe, and Lystra, some six or seven years before it is said that Paul met with Timothy, (Acts 16:1,) and it is not improbable that this youth had been converted in the interval.

Several things appear to have combined to induce the apostle to introduce him into the ministry, and to make him a travelling companion. His youth; his acquaintance with the Holy Scriptures; the "prophecies which went before on him;" his talents; his general reputation in the church; and, it would seem also, his amiableness of manners, fitting him to be an agreeable companion, attracted the attention of the apostle, and led him to desire that he might be a fellow-labourer with him. To satisfy the prejudices of the Jews, and to prevent any possible objection which might be made against his qualifications for the ministerial office, Paul circumcised him, (Acts 16:3) and he was ordained to the office of the ministry by "the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery," 1Timm 4:14. When this ordination occurred is not known; but it is most probable that it was before he went on his travels with Paul, as it is known that Paul was present on the occasion, and took a leading part in the transaction, 2Ti 1:6.

Timothy having joined Paul and Silas, accompanied them on a visit to the churches of Phrygia and Galatia, in which they delivered them the decrees to keep which had been ordained at Jerusalem, Acts 16:4, seq. Having done this, they endeavoured to go together into Bithynia, a province of Asia Minor, on the north-west, but were prevented; and they then went into Mysia, and to the town of Troas, Acts 16:8. Here Luke appears to have joined them; and from this place, in obedience to a vision which appeared to Paul, they went into Macedonia, and preached the gospel first at Philippi, where they established a church. In this city Paul and Silas were imprisoned; but it is remarkable that nothing is said of Timothy and Luke, and it is not known whether they shared in the sufferings of the persecution there or not. Everything, however, renders it probable that Timothy was with them at Philippi; as he is mentioned as having started with them to go on the journey, (Acts 16:3, seq.;) and as we find him at Berea, after the apostle had been released from prison, and had preached at Thessalonica and Berea, Acts 17:14. From this place Paul was conducted to Athens, but left an injunction for Silas and Timothy to join him there as soon as possible. This was done; but when Timothy had come to Athens, Paul felt it to be important that the church at Thessalonica should be visited and comforted in its afflictions, and being prevented from doing it himself, he sent Timothy, at great personal inconvenience, back to that church. Having discharged the duty there, he rejoined the apostle at Corinth, (Acts 18:5,) from which place the First Epistle to the Thessalonians was written. See Intro. to 1 Thess., and 1Thes 1:1; 1Thes 3:2. These transactions occurred about A.D. 52.

Paul remained at Corinth a year and a half, (Acts 18:11,) and it is probable that Timothy and Silas continued with him. See 2Thes 1:1. From Corinth he sailed for Syria, accompanied by Priscilla and Aquila, whom he appears to have left on his way at Ephesus, Acts 18:18,19,26. Whether Timothy and Silas accompanied him is not mentioned, but we find Timothy again with him at Ephesus, after he had been to Caesarea and Antioch, and had returned to Ephesus, Acts 18:22, 19:1,22. From Ephesus, he sent Timothy and Erastus to Macedonia, Acts 19:22; but for what purpose, or how long they remained, is unknown. From 1Cor 4:17, it appears that Paul expected that on this journey Timothy would stop at Corinth, and would give the church there instructions adapted to its situation. Paul continued in Ephesus until he was compelled to depart by the tumult caused by Demetrius, when he left and went to Macedonia, Acts 20. Whether Timothy, during the interval, had returned to Ephesus from Macedonia, is not expressly mentioned in the history; but such a supposition is not improbable. Paul, during the early part of his residence in Ephesus, appears to have laboured quietly, (Acts 19:9,10;) and Timothy was sent away before the disturbances caused by Demetrius, Acts 19:22. Paul designed to follow him soon, and then to go to Jerusalem, and then to Rome, Acts 19:21. Paul (Acts 20:31) was in Ephesus in all about three years; and it is not unreasonable to suppose that he remained there after Timothy was sent to Macedonia long enough for him to go and to return to him again. If so, it is possible that when he himself went away, he left Timothy there in his place. Comp. 1Timm 1:3. It has been the general opinion that the First Epistle to Timothy was written at this time: either when the apostle was on his way to Macedonia, or while in Macedonia. But this opinion has not been unquestioned. The departure of Paul for Macedonia occurred about A.D. 58, or 59. In Acts 20:4, Timothy is again mentioned as accompanying Paul after he had remained in Greece three months, on the route to Syria through Macedonia. He went with him, in company with many others, into "Asia." Going before Paul, they waited for him at Troas, Acts 20:5, and thence doubtless accompanied him on his way to Jerusalem. It was on this occasion that Paul delivered his farewell charge to the elders of the church of Ephesus, at Miletus, Acts 20:17, seq. When in Macedonia, Paul wrote the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, and Timothy was then with him, for he unites in the salutations, 2Cor 1:1. Timothy was also with the apostle on this journey at Corinth, when from that city he wrote his epistle to the Romans, Rom 16:21.

The subsequent events of the life of Timothy are less known. It does not appear from the Acts of the Apostles, that he was with Paul during his two years' imprisonment at Caesarea, nor during his voyage to Rome. It is certain, however, that he was at Rome with the apostle when he wrote the epistles to the Philippians, to the Colossians, and to Philemon, Php 1:1, Col 1:1, Phm 1:1. From Heb 13:23, it appears, also, that Timothy had been with the apostle there, but that when the epistle was written, he was absent on some important embassy, and that Paul was expecting his speedy return. Heb 13:23. Between the first and second imprisonment of Paul at Rome, no mention is made of Timothy, nor is it known where he was, or whether he accompanied him in his travels or not. When he was imprisoned there the second time, he wrote the Second Epistle to Timothy, in which he desires him to come to Rome, and bring with him several things which he had left at Troas, 2Ti 4:9-13,21. If Timothy went to Rome, agreeably to the request of the apostle, it is probable that he was a witness there of his martyrdom.

In regard to the latter part of the life of Timothy, there is nothing which can be depended on. It has been the current opinion, derived from tradition, that he was "bishop" of Ephesus; that he died and was buried there; and that his bones were subsequently removed to Constantinople. The belief that he was "bishop" of Ephesus rests mainly on the "subscription" to the Second Epistle to Timothy, which is no authority whatever. See Notes on that subscription. On the question whether he was an episcopal prelate at Ephesus, the reader may consult my "Inquiry into the Organization and Government of the Apostolic Church," [pp. 91--114, London edition.] The supposition that he died at Ephesus, and was subsequently removed to Constantinople, rests on no certain historical basis.

Timothy was long the companion and the friend of the apostle Paul, and is often mentioned by him with affectionate interest. Indeed, there seems to have been no one of his fellow-labourers, to whom he was so warmly attached. See 1Timm 1:2,18, 2Ti 1:2, 2:1, 1Cor 4:17, where he calls him "his own son," and "his beloved son;" 2Ti 1:4, where he expresses his earnest desire to see him, and makes a reference to the tears which Timothy shed at parting from him; 1Cor 16:10,11, where he bespeaks for him a kind reception among the Corinthians; Rom 16:21, 1Thes 3:2; and especially Php 2:19,20, where he speaks of his fidelity, of his usefulness to him in his labours, and of the interest which he took in the churches which the apostle had established.

II. WHEN AND WHERE THE EPISTLE WAS WRITTEN.

THE subscription at the close of the epistle states that it was written from Laodicea. But these subscriptions are of no authority, and many of them are false. See Notes at the end of 1 Corinthians. There has been much diversity of opinion in regard to the time when this epistle was written, and of course in regard to the place where it was composed. All that is certain from the epistle itself is, that it was addressed to Timothy at Ephesus, and that it was soon after Paul had left that city to go into Macedonia, 1Timm 1:3. Paul is mentioned in the Acts as having been at Ephesus twice, Acts 18:19-23, 19:1-41. After his first visit there, he went directly to Jerusalem, and of course it could not have been written at that time. The only question then is, whether it was written when Paul left the city, having been driven away by the excitement caused by Demetrius, (Acts 20:1;) or whether he visited Ephesus again on some occasion after his first imprisonment at Rome, and of course after the narrative of Luke in the Acts of the Apostles closes. If on the former occasion, it was written about the year 58 or 59; if the latter, about the year 64 or 65. Critics have been divided in reference to this point, and the question is still unsettled, and it may be impossible to determine it with entire certainty.

Those who have maintained the former opinion, among others, are Theodoret, Benson, Zaehariae, Michaelis, Schmidt, Koppe, Planck, Grotius, Lightfoot, Witsius, Lardner, Hug, and Prof. Stuart. The latter opinion, that it was written subsequently to the period of Paul's first imprisonment at Rome, is maintained by Paley, Pearson, L'Enfant, Le Clere, Cave, Mill, Whitby, Macknight, and others.

An examination of the reasons in favour of each of these opinions as to the date of the epistle, may be found in Paley's Hor. Paul.; Macknight; Hug's Intro., and Koppe, Proleg.

The theory of Eienhorn, which is peculiar, and which is supported by some ingenious and plausible, but not conclusive reasoning, may be seen in his Einleitung in das neue Test. 3 B. 314--352.

In the diversity of opinion which prevails about the time when the epistle was written, it is impossible to determine the question in such a manner as to leave no room for doubt. After the most careful examination which I have been able to give to the subject, however, it seems to me that the former opinion is correct, that it was written soon after Paul was driven from Ephesus by the tumult caused by Demetrius, as recorded in Acts 19:1-20:1. The reasons for this opinion are briefly these:--

1. This is the only record that occurs in the New Testament of the apostle's having gone from Ephesus to Macedonia. See above. It is natural, therefore, to suppose that this is referred to in 1Timm 1:3, unless there is some insuperable difficulty in the way.

2. There is no certain evidence that Paul visited the church at Ephesus after his first imprisonment at Rome. It is certainly possible that he did, but there is no record of any such visit in the New Testament, nor any historical record of it elsewhere. If there had been such a visit after his release, and if this epistle were written then, it is remarkable that the apostle does not make any allusion to his imprisonment in this epistle, and that he does not refer at all to his own escape from this danger of death at Rome. Comp. 2Ti 4:16,17.

3. The supposition that the epistle was written at the time supposed, agrees better with the character of the epistle, and with the design for which Timothy was left at Ephesus, than the others. It is manifest from the epistle that the church was, in some respects, in an unsettled condition; and it would seem, also, that one part of the duty of Timothy there was to see that it was placed under a proper organization. This Paul had evidently proposed to accomplish himself; but it is clear, from 1Timm 1:3, that he left his work unfinished, and that he gave what he had proposed to do into the hands of Timothy to be perfected. After the first imprisonment of Paul at Rome, however, there is every reason to suppose that the church was completely organized. Even when Paul went from Macedonia to Jerusalem, Acts 20, there were "elders" placed over the church at Ephesus, whom Paul assembled at Miletus, and to whom he gave his parting charge, and his final instructions in regard to the church.

4. At the time when Paul wrote this epistle, Timothy was a young man--a youth, 1Timm 4:12. It is true, that if he were somewhere about twenty years of age when he was introduced into the ministry, as has been commonly supposed, this language would not be entirely inappropriate, even after the imprisonment of Paul; but still the language would more properly denote one somewhat younger than Timothy would be at that time.

5. To this may be added the declaration of Paul in 1Timm 3:14, that he "hoped to come to him shortly." This is an expression which agrees well with the supposition that he had himself been driven away before he had intended to leave; that he had left something unfinished there which he desired to complete, and that he hoped that affairs would soon be in such a state that he would be permitted to return. It may be also suggested, as a circumstance of some importance, though not conclusive, that when Paul met the elders of the church of Ephesus at Miletus, he said that he had no expectation of ever seeing them again: "And now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more," Acts 20:25. I do not think that this is to be understood as an inspired prediction, aiming with absolute certainty that he never would see them again, but that he rather expressed his apprehensions that it would be so from the circumstances which then existed, Acts 20:22,23. Still, this passage shows that when he uttered it he did not expect to visit Ephesus again, as he manifestly did when he wrote the epistle to Timothy.

These considerations seem so clear that they would leave no doubt on the mind, were it not for certain things which it seems to many impossible to reconcile with this supposition. The difficulties are the following:--

1. That before Paul went to Macedonia, he had sent Timothy with Erastus before him, (Acts 19:22,) purposing to follow them at no distant period, and to pass through Macedonia and Achaia, and then to go to Jerusalem, and afterwards to visit Rome, Acts 19:21. As he had sent Timothy before him but so short a time before he left Ephesus, it is asked how Timothy could be left at Ephesus when Paul went himself to Macedonia? To this objection we may reply, that it is not improbable by any means that Timothy may have accomplished the object of his journey to Macedonia, and may have returned to the apostle at Ephesus before he was driven away. It does not appear, from the narrative, that Timothy was intrusted with any commission which would require a long time to fulfil it, nor that Paul expected that he would remain in Macedonia until he himself came. The purpose for which he sent Timothy and Erastus is not indeed mentioned, but it seems probable that it was with reference to the collection which he proposed to take up for the poor saints at Jerusalem. Acts 19:21, Acts 19:22. Comp. 1Cor 16:1-6. If it were the purpose to prepare the churches for such a collection, it could not have required any considerable time, nor was it necessary that Timothy should remain long in a place; and it was natural, also, that he should return to the apostle at Ephesus, and apprize him of what he had done, and what was the prospect in regard to the collection. It has been clearly shown by Hug, (Intro. to the New Test., % 104. 109,) that such a journey could easily have been made during the time which the apostle remained at Ephesus after he had sent Timothy and Erastus to Macedonia.

2. The next objection--and one which is regarded by Paley as decisive against the supposition that the epistle was written on this occasion--is, that from the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 2Cor 1:1, it is evident that at the time in which this epistle is supposed to have been written, Timothy was with the apostle in Macedonia. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians was undoubtedly written during this visit of Paul to Macedonia, and at that time Timothy was with him. See the Introduction to 2Cor 3. How then can it be supposed that he was at Ephesus? Or how can this fact be reconciled with the supposition that Timothy was left there, and especially with the declaration of Paul to him, 1Timm 3:14, that he "hoped to come to him shortly?" That Paul expected that Timothy would remain at Ephesus, at least for some time, is evident from 1Timm 3:15, "But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God;" and from 1Timm 4:13, "Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine." The only solution of this difficulty is, that Timothy had left Ephesus, and had followed the apostle into Macedonia; and the only question here is, whether, since the apostle designed that he should remain at Ephesus, and expected himself to return and meet him there, Timothy would be likely to leave that place and go to Macedonia. It is certain that the history in the Acts does not make this record, but that is no material objection---since it cannot be supposed that every occurrence in the travels of the apostles was recorded. But there are two or three circumstances which may render the supposition that Timothy, either by the concurrence, or by the direction of Paul, privately communicated to him, may have left Ephesus sooner than was at first contemplated, and may have rejoined him in Macedonia.

(1.) One is, that the main business which Timothy was appointed to perform at Ephesus--to give a solemn charge to certain persons there to teach no other doctrine but that which Paul taught, 1Timm 1:3 --might have been speedily accomplished. Paul was driven away in haste, and, as he had not the opportunity of doing this himself as he wished, he left Timothy in charge of it. But this did not require, of necessity, any considerable time.

(2.) Another is, that the business of appointing suitable officers over the church there, might also have been soon accomplished. In fact, the church there is known to have been supplied with proper officers not long after this, for Paul sent from Miletus for the elders to meet him there on his way to Jerusalem. This remark is made in accordance with the opinion that a part of the work which Timothy was expected to perform there, was to constitute proper officers over the church But there is no proof that that was a part of his business. It is not specified in what Paul mentions, in 1Timm 1:3, as the design for which he was left there, and it is hardly probable that the apostle would have spent so long a time as he did in Ephesus--nearly three years, Acts 20:31--without having organized the church with proper officers. Besides, the address of Paul to the elders at Miletus, implies that they had received their appointment before he left them. See Acts 20:18-35, particularly Acts 20:35. The instructions to Timothy in this epistle about the proper qualifications of the officers of the church, do not prove that he was then to appoint officers at Ephesus, for they are general instructions, having no particular reference to the church there, and designed to guide him in his work through life. There is, therefore, nothing in the duties which Timothy was to perform at Ephesus which would forbid the supposition that he may have soon followed the apostle into Macedonia.

(3.) It appears, that though Paul may have intended, if possible, to visit Ephesus on his way to Jerusalem, in accordance with 1Timm 3:14,15, 4:13, yet, if that had been his intention, he subsequently changed his mind, and found it necessary to make other arrangements. Thus it is said, Acts 20:16, that "Paul had determined to sail by Ephesus, because he would not spend the time in Asia;" that is, he had resolved to sail past Ephesus without visiting it. It would seem probable, also, that this resolution had been formed before he left Macedonia, for it is said that he `had determined' it, (εκρινε;) and if so, there is no improbability in supposing that he had, in some way, caused it to be intimated to Timothy that he wished him to leave Ephesus, and join him before he left Macedonia.

(4.) In fact, and in accordance with this supposition, we find Timothy with Paul when he went on that occasion into "Asia," Acts 20:4,5. These considerations render it probable that the epistle was written to Timothy soon after Paul left Ephesus to go into Macedonia after the tumult excited by Demetrius. As Paul was driven away unexpectedly, and when he had not completed what he designed to do there, nothing is more natural than the supposition that he would embrace the earliest opportunity to give suitable instructions to Timothy, that he might know how to complete the work.

III. THE OCCASION AND DESIGN OF THE EPISTLE

This is specified in 1Timm 1:3. Paul had gone in Macedonia, having been suddenly driven away from Ephesus, before he had entirely done what he had designed to do there. He left Timothy there to "charge some that they teach no other doctrine:" that is, no other doctrine than that which he had himself taught there. It is clear, from this, that there were certain errors prevailing there which Paul thought it of the highest importance to have corrected. In regard to those errors, see the Introduction to the Epistle to the Ephesians, and the Epistle to the Colossians. some of the circumstances which gave occasion to this epistle, can be gathered from the history in the Acts of the Apostles; others can be derived from the epistle itself. From these sources of information we learn the following things in reference to the state of the church in Ephesus, which made it proper that Timothy should be left there, and that these instructions should be given him to regulate his conduct.

(1.) There was much opposition to the apostle Paul from the Jews who resided there, Acts 14:8,19.

(2.) There were in the church teachers who endeavoured to enforce the maxims of the Jewish law, and to represent that law as binding on Christians, 1Timm 1:6,7.

(3.) Some of the Hews residing there were addicted to exorcism, and endeavoured to make use of Christianity and the name of Jesus to promote their selfish ends, Acts 19:14. Comp. 1Timm 1:4.

(4.) The Jewish teachers laid great stress on geneologies and traditions, and were much given to debates about various questions connected with the law, 1Timm 1:4-6.

(5.) There were erroneous views prevailing respecting the rights of women, and the place they ought to occupy in the church, 1Timm 2:8-15.

(6.) The organization of the officers of the church had not been effected as Paul wished it to be. It is probable that some of the officers had been appointed, and that some instructions had been given to them in regard to their duties, but the whole arrangement had not been completed, 1Timm 3,5.

(7.) There were certain questions in regard to the proper treatment of widows, which had not yet been determined, 1Timm 5.

(8.) The apostle, in his preaching, had inculcated benevolent principles, and had asserted the natural equality of all men; and it would seem that certain persons had taken occasion form this to excite a spirit of discontent and insubordination among those who were servants. The doctrine seems to have been advanced, that, as all men were equal, and all had been redeemed by the same blood, therefore those who had been held in bondage were free from all obligation to serve their masters. There were those evidently who sought to excite them to insurrection; to break down the distinctions in society, and to produce a state of insubordination and disorder, 1Ti 6; comp. Eph 6:5-10, Col 3:22, 4:2.

The remainder of this note is continued in note on 1Timm 1:2

2 Timothy 1:1

THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PAUL TO TIMOTHY

INTRODUCTION

I. TIME AND PLACE OF WRITING THE EPISTLE.

There has been much diversity of sentiment on the question when this epistle was written. That it was written at Rome, and when the apostle was imprisoned there, is the unanimous opinion of all who have written on the epistle, and indeed is apparent on the face of it. See 2Ti 1:8,16, 4:6. But whether it was written during his first imprisonment there, or during a second imprisonment, is a question on which critics even now are by no means agreed. The most respectable names may be found on each side of this question, though the common opinion has been that it was during a second imprisonment. Of this opinion are Mosheim, Michaelis, Benson, Mill, Macknight, Le Clerc, Paley, Stuart, Clarke, and Doddridge. The reasons for this may be seen at length in Hug's Introduction, pp. 761-763, Macknight, and in Paley's Horae Paulinae. Dr. Lardner, Baronius, Witsius, Lightfoot, Hammond, Hug, Hemsen, and others, maintain that it was written during the first imprisonment, and that it was sent about the same time as the epistles to the Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians, and Philemon. The reasons for this opinion may be found in Hug's Introduction, pp. 556-559, and in Lardner, vol. vi. pp. 38--72. It is not consistent with the design of these Notes to go at length into an examination of this question, and it is not material in order to an exposition of the epistle.

After considering the reasons of Lardner and Hug to prove that this epistle was written during Paul's first imprisonment at Rome--that is, as they suppose, during his only imprisonment there, and not long after the first epistle was written--it seems to me still that there are insuperable difficulties in such a view, and that the evidence is clear that it was during a second imprisonment. The reasons for this are briefly the following:--

(1.) In the epistles to the Philippians and to Philemon, written during his first imprisonment, Paul confidently looked forward to a release, and to a speedy departure from Rome. In this, he had no such expectation. Thus he tells the Philippians, (Php 2:24,) "I trust in the Lord, that I myself shall come shortly." See also Php 1:24. In the epistle to Philemon, Phm 1:22, he says, "But withal prepare me also a lodging: for I trust that through your prayers I shall be given unto you." In this epistle, however, the author had no such expectation. 2Ti 4:6, "For 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."

(2.) In 2Ti 4:16, the apostle uses the following language: "At my first answer, no man stood with me, but all forsook me." It is true that this may refer to a hearing which he had had before Nero during the same imprisonment at Rome in which this second epistle was written; but the most natural interpretation is to suppose that he had had one hearing, and had been discharged, and that the imprisonment of which he speaks in this epistle was a second one. This seems to me to be confirmed by what he says in the next verse: "Notwithstanding the Lord stood with me, and strengthened me; that by me the preaching might be fully known, and that all the Gentiles might hear: and I was delivered out of the mouth of the lion." Here it appears

(a) that he had been delivered, on that occasion, from death-- "I was delivered out of the mouth of the lion," which is equivalent to saying that he was discharged;

(b) that after that discharge he was permitted to preach the gospel-- "that by me the preaching might be fully known;"

(c) that he had been permitted after that to travel and preach--" and that all the Gentiles might hear," which is just such an expression as he would use on the supposition that he had been discharged, and been permitted to go abroad and preach the gospel extensively, and is not such an expression as he could have used if he had been imprisoned but once.

(3.) The expression occurring in 2Ti 4:20, "Erastus at Corinth," implies that he had made a second journey to Rome. The word rendered 'abode' εμεινεν is such as would be used where two were travelling together, and where one of them chose to remain at a certain place. It implies that, at the time referred to, the two were together, and that one chose to go on, and the other to remain. But it is capable of very clear proof that, when Paul was sent to Rome by Festus, Acts chapters 16, 17. He did not stop at Corinth; and if Erastus had been with him then, he would have passed by that place with him on his way to Rome. Further, when Paul left Corinth, as related in Acts chapter 20, on his way to Jerusalem, Timothy was with him. This is the last time that Paul is mentioned as having been at Corinth before coming to Rome, and there could have been no need of informing Timothy of the fact that Erastus remained there, if this were so, because that fact would be known to Timothy as well as Paul. Besides, that departure from Corinth took place some five years before Paul wrote this second epistle to Timothy; and what would be the use of his reminding Timothy of this after so long an interval? It is clear, moreover, that Paul refers to some recent transaction. He is urging Timothy to use all diligence to come to him before winter; that is, as soon as possible. 2Ti 4:21. But how could it be a reason for this urgency to say that, some five years before, he had been forsaken by one fellow-labourer, and had been obliged to leave another one sick on the way?

(4.) Similar remarks may be made respecting what Paul says in the close of the same verse, 2Ti 4:20, "Trophimus have I left at Miletum sick." Paul, when sent by Festus to Rome, did not stop at Miletus; for the course which the ship took on that occasion is minutely described, (Acts 27,) and there is every certainty that there can be that it did not put in at that place. The time, then, to which Paul must refer here, unless he made a second journey to Rome after he had been once discharged, must have been several years before; certainly as far back as when he took leave of the elders of the church of Ephesus, as recorded in Acts 20. But this was about five years before; and what would have been the pertinency of informing Timothy that, some five years before, he had left a fellow-labourer sick there, as a reason why he should then hasten to Rome as soon as possible? It was evidently a recent occurrence to which the apostle refers here; and the only natural supposition is, that, not long before his arrival at Rome, he had parted with both these friends, and now needed, in consequence, especially the presence of Timothy. Of course, if this be so, Paul must have made another circuit through these countries, of which the Acts of the Apostles gives us no account, and which must have been after his first imprisonment. It is true that Hug suggests that the word rendered 'I have left' απελιπον -may be in the third person plural, and may be rendered 'they have left.' But who left him there?. We are not told; and as "nothing is suggested in the context which would supply us with a subject of the verb in the third person plural, we are led naturally to construe it of the first person singular, and, consequently, to apply it to Paul." Prof. Stuart, in Hug's Intro.

(5.) With this supposition of a second and recent journey, agrees the passage in 2Ti 4:13, "The cloak which I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments." This evidently refers to some recent affair. Can it be believed that these had been there for some five years, and that Paul had not needed them before? He was two years at Caesarea. He had abundant opportunity of sending for them. An article of wearing apparel, or books to study, or his own writings, he would be likely to need long before, and it is highly improbable that he suffered them to remain during this long period without sending for them.

(6.) In the epistles which were written during Paul's first imprisonment, certain persons are referred to as being then with him, who are in this epistle mentioned as absent. It is almost beyond a doubt that the epistles to the Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and to Philemon, were written during Paul's first imprisonment at Rome. See the Introduction to those epistles. In the epistle to the Colossians, Col 1:1, Timothy is mentioned as being then with the apostle. When this was written, of course he was absent in the same epistle, Mark is mentioned as with Paul, and unites with him in the salutation to the Colossians, Col 4:10; when this epistle was written, he was absent, for Timothy is ordered to bring him with him, (2Ti 4:11.) Demas was then with him, (Col 4:4;) now he was absent for Paul says, "Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world, and is departed unto Thessalonica." 2Ti 4:10. These circumstances make it quite clear that the second epistle to Timothy was not written during the imprisonment at Rome in which the epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, etc., were written, unless a change had taken place in the circumstances of the apostle, which we have no reason to suppose occurred. The probability, then, seems to be strong, that the apostle was imprisoned there a second time, and that the things referred to in this epistle occurred then.

(7.) To these circumstances should be added the fact, that many of the Fathers say that Paul was liberated from his first imprisonment, and afterwards travelled extensively in preaching the gospel. This testimony is borne by Eusebius, Chrysostom, Theodoret, and others. See Calmet's Dictionary, and Lives of the Apostles, by D. F. Bacon, New Haven, pp. 619-621. If the supposition of a second imprisonment at Rome, during which this epistle was written, is correct, then it was written probably not far from the year 65. Lardner, however, who supposes it was written during the first imprisonment, places its date in May, A.D. 61; Hug, also, in the same year.

II. THE PLACE WHERE TIMOTHY WAS WHEN THE EPISTLE WAS ADDRESSED TO HIM.

THERE can be little doubt that Timothy was at Ephesus at the time when this epistle was addressed to him. The evidence for this opinion is thus stated by Lightfoot and others.--

(1.) Paul directs Timothy to salute the household of Onesiphorus, 2Ti 4:19. But it is evident, from 2Ti 1:18, that Onesiphorus was an Ephesian, and, as the direction is to salute his 'household,' it may be argued with the more certainty that Timothy was then at Ephesus, the ordinary residence of the family of Onesiphorus.

(2.) He directs Timothy to take Troas in the way as he came to him at Rome, 2Ti 4:13, which was the way that Paul had gone to Ephesus, 2Cor 2:12, Acts 20:5, thus showing that this was the usual route of travel, and was a way which Timothy would naturally take in passing from Ephesus to Rome. It is true that this does not absolutely prove that he was at Ephesus, since, if he bad been in any other part of the western portion of Asia Minor, the direction would have been the same--but it is a slight circumstance corroborating others.

(3.) He warns him to beware of Alexander, 2Ti 4:14, who we know was an Ephesian, 1Timm 1:20, Acts 19:33.

(4.) In 2Ti 4:9, he gives direction to Timothy to come to him as soon as possible, and then adds, 2Ti 4:12, "Tychicus have I sent to Ephesus." From this it would seem that one reason why he wished him then to come was, that he had appointed one to occupy his place there, so that he could leave without injury to the cause. But it would seem also probable that Paul was not in the habit of calling away a labourer from an important station without supplying his place. Thus, in Tit 3:12, he says, "When I shall send Artemas unto thee, or Tychicus, be diligent to come unto me." It may thence be inferred that Timothy was at Ephesus at the time when Paul wrote to him, and that he had taken care that his place should not be left vacant, by the appointment of Tychicus to fill it when he should leave.

(5.) It may be added, that the errors and vices Timothy is directed to oppose, are the same as referred to in the first epistle, and it may be hence inferred that he was at the same place.

How long Timothy had been in Ephesus is not certainly known, and is not material to be known in order to a proper understanding of the epistle. It does not appear, from the Acts, that he was with Paul during the two years in which he was in Caesarea, nor during his voyage to Rome; yet it is certain that he was in Rome when Paul wrote to the Philippians, to the Colossians, and to Philemon, because he is named in the titles to those epistles. In Heb 13:23, Paul says that Timothy was "set at liberty," or, more probably, "sent away," Heb 13:23, but to what place he had gone is not mentioned. Nothing would be more natural, however, than that he should visit Ephesus again, and it is not improbable that Paul would leave him there when he again visited Rome.

III. THE OCCASION ON WHICH THE EPISTLE WAS WRITTEN'

THE epistle was evidently written when the apostle was expecting soon to be put to death. 2Ti 4:6-8. The main object of writing it seems to have been to request Timothy to come to him as speedily as possible, 2Ti 4:9. But, in doing this, it was natural that Paul should accompany the request with such counsel as Timothy needed, and such as it was proper for Paul to give in probably the last letter that he would write to him. The particular reason why the apostle desired the presence of Timothy seems to have been, that nearly all the others on whom he might have supposed he could rely in a time of trial, had left him. Thus he says that Demas had forsaken him; Crescens had gone to Galatia; Titus to Dalmatia, and Tychicus he had himself sent to Ephesus. 2Ti 4:10-12. No one remained with him but Luke, 2Ti 4:11, and he was, therefore, desirous that Timothy and Mark should be with him. 2Ti 4:11. He did not ask their presence merely that they might sustain him in his trials, but that they might aid him in the work of the ministry, 2Ti 4:11, for it would seem that all hope of doing good in Rome was not closed.

If the view of the time when this epistle was written which has been taken in this Introduction, is correct, and if this is the last epistle which was written by the apostle Paul before his martyrdom, then it occupies a very important place in sacred canon, and is invested with great interest. It may be regarded as the dying counsels of the most eminent of the apostles to one who had just entered on the ministerial life. We should read it with the interest with which we do the last words of the great and the good Then we feel that every word which they utter has a weight which demands attention. We feel that, whatever a man might do at other times, he will not trifle then. We feel that, having little time to express his wishes, he will select topics that lie nearest his heart, and that he deems most important. There is no more interesting position in which we can be placed, than when we sit down at such a man's feet, and listen to his parting counsels. To a young minister of the gospel, therefore, this epistle is invaluable; to any and every Christian, it cannot fail to be a matter of interest to listen to the last words of the great apostle of the Gentiles, and to ponder his last written testimony in favour of that religion to the promulgation of which he had devoted his talents and his life.

THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PAUL TO TIMOTHY.

CHAPTER 1

ANALYSIS OF THE CHAPTER

THE principal design of this chapter is to exhort Timothy to steadfastness and fidelity as a Christian and a minister; and to entreat him to adhere to the truth, and live as became a Christian, in the midst of all the temptations by which he was surrounded, and while so many were turning away from the Christian faith. Timothy was young; he was exposed, like others, to trials; he could not be unaware that not a few had apostatized; he knew that his father in Christ was in bonds, and he was liable to become disheartened, or to be led astray. In these circumstances, the apostle seems to have resolved to place before him strong reasons to induce him to devote himself steadfastly to the cause of religion, and not to allow those things which might tend to alienate him from Christianity to have any effect on his mind. After the usual salutations, therefore, 1Timm 1:1,2, he proceeds to present these considerations to the mind of Timothy:

(1.) He commences the chapter with delicate praise of his young friend--one of the most happy methods of inducing him to persevere in the course of life on which he had entered, 2Ti 1:3-5. We naturally desire to perfect that in which we already excel; we feel encouraged for future efforts in a cause in which we have already been successful. The apostle, therefore, reminds Timothy of the manner in which he had been trained; of the piety of his mother and grandmother, and assures him of his belief that their efforts to train him up in the ways of religion had not been in vain.

(2.) He urges various considerations to induce him not to turn away from that holy purpose to which he had devoted himself. The considerations which he urges are these:

(a) he had been solemnly consecrated to the work of preaching the gospel, 2Ti 1:6;

(b) God had imparted to him, as to others, a spirit of love and power, and a sound mind, 1Timm 1:7;

(c) the grace of God had called him to his great work, and he possessed that gospel by which life and immortality are brought to light, 1Timm 1:8-11;

(d) Paul urges his own example, and says that, amidst all his own trials, he had never seen occasion to be ashamed of the gospel, 2Ti 1:12-14; and

(e) he reminds Timothy that all his other friends in Asia had turned away from him, specifying two of them, and urges him, therefore, to maintain a steadfast attachment to the principles which he had professed, 2Ti 1:15.

(3.) The chapter closes with the expression of an earnest prayer that the Lord would bless the family of Onesiphorus, and with a grateful mention of his kindness to him, 2Ti 1:16-18.

Verse 1. Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ. Rom 1:1.

By the will of God. Called to be an apostle in accordance with the Divine will and purpose. Gal 1:1.

According to the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus. In accordance with the great promise of eternal life through the Saviour; that is, he was called to be an apostle to carry out the great purpose of human salvation. Comp. Eph 3:6. God has made a promise of life to mankind through faith in the Lord Jesus, and it was with reference to this that he was called to the apostleship.

(a) "promise" Eph 3:6