Second Timothy takes a different form than 1 Timothy. Rather than a simple continuation of instructions for church leadership, 2 Timothy is structured as a final testament from Paul to one of his most trusted emissaries. As such, the writing presupposes Paul’s imprisonment in Rome rather than his Aegean travels and ministry as envisioned in 1 Timothy and Titus. In this light, scholars of the corpus have proposed that the canonical order may not have been the original design of the corpus, but rather that Titus and 1 Timothy would have preceded the poignant last testament of Paul to Timothy in 2 Timothy.
2 Timothy 1:1–18: The Good Treasure Entrusted to You
THE TEXT IN ITS ANCIENT CONTEXT
Overall, the opening verses of 2 Timothy build a sense of poignancy by referring to Paul as one who “suffers” for his calling as preacher, apostle, and teacher, with the implication that those who lead in his stead should and will do the same.
The writing opens with words of affirmation for Timothy in his faith and with a reminder of the deep bond between Timothy and Paul in light of Paul’s authorization of Timothy through the laying on of hands (v. 6).
THE TEXT IN THE INTERPRETIVE TRADITION
Luke presents the story of Paul’s meeting of Timothy in Lystra and adds a detail of his lineage, namely, that he is the son of a Jewish mother and a Greek father (Acts 16:1). For Luke, this tradition of Timothy’s Jewish and Greek ethnic heritage makes him an ideal companion of Paul as he carries the gospel of Jesus Christ into Macedonia, literally embodying the reconciliation of Jew and Greek. For the PE writer, the mixed ethnic heritage is not as important as the enduring (multigenerational) faithfulness of Timothy’s family, encompassing both his mother and his grandmother. As such, he is a model of steadfast faithfulness for which the PE writer is calling throughout the PE corpus. In both interpretive contexts (Luke and the PE), Timothy lives as a model of faithfulness, and his heritage is claimed in support. How that heritage is characterized offers insight into what in particular is being valued about Timothy’s faith in each interpretive context.
Later interpreters of the Pauline tradition, such as John Chrysostom, continued to make theological meaning out of Timothy’s foreign biological heritage and the PE writer’s representation that he is Paul’s “beloved son.” In his Homily 19 on Romans 11.7 Chrysostom notes that if Paul could call Timothy (of Lystra) his “son” (which Paul also claims in 1 Tim. 1:2), then all people of faith have the capacity to be God’s children. As such, claims to ethnic heritage as either a point of privilege or dishonor have no place in the life of faith.
THE TEXT IN CONTEMPORARY DISCUSSION
The PE writer presents Paul encouraging Timothy in his faith with these words: “for God did not give us a spirit of timidity but a spirit of power and love and self-control.” In their ancient context, these words served as a challenge to church leaders to stand firm on the foundation of the faith and to claim the authority of their ordination and leadership to guide the church. Not surprisingly, however, the call to courage has been found useful by rhetoricians in many different contexts. Far from the confines of challenging church leaders, President Barack Obama used this text as a rallying cry to console and encourage the citizens of Boston and the United States at a memorial service after the Boston Marathon Bombing on April 18, 2013. Toward the end of his address, speaking directly to the yet unknown perpetrators of the violence, the president noted that their goal may have been to spread terror, but “our fidelity to our way of life, to our free and open society, will only grow stronger. ‘For God did not give us a spirit of timidity but a spirit of power and love and self-control.’ ” As these words from the Pauline tradition were reanimated for the encouragement and hope of a city and a nation, the hundreds of attendees of the memorial service rose to a standing ovation.
2 Timothy 2:1–26: Dedication to Service and Sound Teaching
THE TEXT IN ITS ANCIENT CONTEXT
In chapter 2, the PE writer presents Paul directly charging Timothy and other leaders with him to be strong and to share in suffering (presumably with Paul, and foremost with Jesus Christ). In addition to using Paul’s own biography and circumstances to compel and to inspire to greater dedication, the PE writer draws on three models of Greco-Roman masculinity in the persons of the soldier, the athlete, and the farmer. The purpose of these brief and somewhat enigmatic portraits is to challenge church leaders to be trustworthy in their tasks. The lessons seem to call listeners to focus wholly on the work of ministry. They are to avoid outside entanglements (like a good soldier), follow the rules (like a victorious athlete), and work hard (like a successful farmer). On the one hand, this call to focus and discipline seems to challenge leaders to function as “professional” ministers (in contrast to the tent-making historical Paul). On the other hand, the work of the clergy is cast in comparison to secular pursuits, and the expectations of church leaders can be identified in the Greco-Roman cultural mainstream values of hard work, discipline, and integrity.
THE TEXT IN THE INTERPRETIVE TRADITION
The conclusion of the chapter raises the question of how we should characterize an apparent heretical teaching about the resurrection within the church. In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul himself battled with what he considered a misunderstanding of the resurrection: the denial of the efficacy of a general resurrection of the dead following, and separate from, Christ’s resurrection. It is clear that a similar denial may have been present decades later, in the PE writer’s context in the late first or early second century CE. Quinn and Wacker comment on the tenacity of this heretical teaching over this period, and in the following decades of early patristic interpretation and leadership as well: for example, Origen was compelled to argue for a “double resurrection,” that is, of Jesus and of the faithful in general, in his commentary on Rom. 5:9. As Quinn and Wacker note, such a double understanding of the resurrection—apparently a very early development in Christian belief, though never receiving wide acceptance in Judaism—was an offense against the intellect of the Greco-Roman world. Moreover, the expectation of a judgment of all humankind on the “day of the Lord” offered a sin-focused eschatology that was difficult to square with the proclamation of a gospel in which the death and resurrection of Christ were proclaimed as the good news that sin had been forgiven (Quinn and Wacker, 683). Seen in this light, the challenges of understanding the resurrection in the PE are merely a way station between Paul’s original challenge in Corinth and Origen’s enduring challenge to maintain the general resurrection. What these three moments have in common is the purpose of reinforcing how God’s work in the death and resurrection of Jesus relates to God’s sovereign plan to save the world.
THE TEXT IN CONTEMPORARY DISCUSSION
At the end of chapter 2, the PE writer returns to the overarching theme of challenging church leaders to carry out their ministries with discipline and care. The disposition of peacemaking is attributed to leaders. In verses 23–25, the writer declares that a servant of the Lord must not be quarrelsome, must be kindly to everyone, an apt teacher, patient, correcting opponents with gentleness. This list of expectations places the work of church leadership in the realm of navigating difficult (conflicted) social relationships. While much of the PE corpus has the ring today of antiquated structures and outdated paradigms, this call for ministers to lead with charity and openness to others is rhetoric straight out of many contemporary “boundary training” and conflict resolution seminars for clergy. When it comes to ministry, the PE writer seems to embrace that sound teaching and doctrine can only go so far. Often what is most important in the formation of faithful Christian communities is the capacity for leaders to show and be shown compassion, and to embrace ways of serving that make for peace.
2 Timothy 3:1–17: Avoid the Unholy and Adhere to Paul’s Example
THE TEXT IN ITS ANCIENT CONTEXT
Commentators have long struggled to identify the particular beliefs and practices of the opponents who are in view in the PE. Whether they should be characterized as “Gnostic,” antinomian, libertine, and so on is difficult to determine from the PE writer’s rhetoric. This opacity of theological and social problems is hard to understand in the PE. If the writer were targeting particular opponents, why would not their errant beliefs and practices be enumerated clearly for church leadership to see and understand? Several options are possible. It may be that the PE writer and his audience are completely aware of the theological and ethical specifics of the opponents’ beliefs and practices and therefore do not need to rehearse them. On the other hand, it may be that the PE writer has crafted the PE to characterize ecclesial and social ills more generally, so that the corpus will have more of an enduring role in guiding the ministry of the church in a variety of contexts and situations.
The vice list that opens 2 Tim. 3:1–9 seems to support the thesis that the PE writer has intentionally framed the opponents in generic terms. Here the eschatological framework of the “last days” sets up the expectation that people will fall into numerous social ills. The list of vices is extensive (superseded in the New Testament only by Rom. 1:28–32, which may serve as a base of tradition for the present list). Together they offer an overwhelming rhetorical demonstration that in the “last days” one can expect the world “to go to hell.” Importantly, the vices listed provide the opposite extreme of the idealized virtues of the soldier, athlete, and farmer of 2 Tim. 2:4–6. As such, the PE writer offers broad cartoons of good and bad men among whom his churches’ leaders can easily locate themselves and their opponents.
THE TEXT IN THE INTERPRETIVE TRADITION
In contrast to the generic portrait of bad leaders in 2 Tim. 3:1–9, the PE writer presents a portrait of Paul’s suffering and persecution in 2 Tim. 3:10–17. The legend of Paul’s suffering is one that finds broad appeal in the interpretive tradition. Luke, in the Acts of the Apostles, narrates the obstacles, angry crowds, trials, torture, and shipwrecks that Paul encounters. Likewise, the early Christian noncanonical writing the Acts of Paul presents Paul (and companions like Thecla) facing imprisonment, mob violence, wild beasts, and persecution (Taussig, 337–44). Luke’s characterization serves to draw Paul into a line of “witnesses” (including Jesus) who suffer on behalf of the way of the gospel. The Acts of Paul characterizes Paul as a model of chaste devotion who eschews the trappings of culture and devotes himself wholly to the preaching and teaching of the Word. The PE writer’s characterization of Paul’s suffering offers a model of leadership with which to challenge and encourage the leaders of the church. Overall, the original call of Paul to “imitate me as I imitate Christ” (1 Cor. 11:1) is well heard in the interpretive tradition, and Paul’s various commitments are reflected in its multifaceted expressions.
THE TEXT IN CONTEMPORARY DISCUSSION
One element of the PE writer’s characterization of his opponents that does not bear a generic tone is his description of those, among the perpetrators of various vices, who “make their way into households and captivate silly women, overwhelmed by their sins and swayed by all kinds of desires, who are always being instructed and can never arrive at any knowledge of the truth” (2 Tim. 3:6–7). No doubt this rhetoric is filled with hyperbole; however, the subject of women and their particular vulnerability to doctrinal error is present at several points in the PE corpus (e.g., 1 Tim. 2:12–14; 5:13). While scholars debate the historical circumstances that gave rise to this rhetoric, contemporary feminist biblical critics have challenged that the writer’s characterizations of women bear a misogynistic tone—in particular, demeaning women’s activities and ways of knowing as frivolous, weak, and untrustworthy. Critics have countered to the PE writer, if these women are of such little account, why do their words and activities preoccupy so much of your concern?
2 Timothy 4:1–22: Presenting Paul’s Final Requests
THE TEXT IN ITS ANCIENT CONTEXT
In many ways, the source of much of the rhetorical power of the overall PE corpus is lodged in the closing words of this chapter. While this trove of writings, presented to church leaders as lost letters of Paul, would no doubt have had profound impact within the late first- and early second-century church, that impact could only be compounded by the framing of the letters as personal correspondence between Paul and two of his most trusted emissaries in ministry, and furthermore as the last words of Paul written from prison prior to his death in Rome. The conclusion of 2 Timothy provides the forum for this presentation of Paul. He knows his death is imminent (4:6), and in this position he is able to dispassionately model the kind of leadership he is calling for from others. Needless to say, this is a compelling setting from which to impart wisdom to the church’s leadership: “proclaim the message; be persistent whether the time is favorable or unfavorable; convince, rebuke, and encourage, with the utmost patience in teaching” (2 Tim. 4:2); “be sober, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, carry out your ministry fully” (2 Tim. 4:5).
THE TEXT IN THE INTERPRETIVE TRADITION
The particulars of Paul’s death are a shadowy mystery in Christian origins. The canon of the Christian New Testament does not record the event of his death. Luke chooses to conclude the Acts of the Apostles with Paul under arrest in Rome and yet preaching openly to the close of the story. The only other canonical reference to Paul’s Roman imprisonment and impending death come in these verses of 2 Timothy. In the mid- to late second century, Ignatius of Antioch in his Letter to the Ephesians refers to Paul’s death as a martyrdom in chapter 12, where he lionizes Paul as “the holy, the martyred, the most deservedly happy” (The Ante-Nicean Fathers, vol. 1, 55). Beyond these few specifics, other sources hold that Paul was beheaded (in contrast to Peter’s more brutal upside-down crucifixion).
THE TEXT IN CONTEMPORARY DISCUSSION
In the midst of the heroic portrait of Paul and the gentle admonishing of Timothy in his leadership, the PE writer manages to get in one last parting shot at those within the community who are susceptible to false teaching. It is in this sense that the PE likely originated as the parts of an intramural manual on leadership in ministry and have endured as such throughout much of church history. Only among teachers does such lampooning of bad teaching make sense. It emerges from the camaraderie of shared struggle. Acknowledging the “last days,” the PE writer speaks to the condition of “itching ears” among the members of the church who seek teachers who will tell them what they want to hear. In the contemporary interpretation of this passage within twenty-first-century North American Christianity, this concept of itching ears has been used to characterize a progressive attitude toward tradition. In the midst of a culture and church polarized around issues of human sexuality, women’s rights, environmental degradation, and the relationship of church and state, some church leaders appeal to the rhetoric of the PE writer as a demonstration that the “last days” are upon us and that “fundamentals” of the Christian faith, such as the authority of Scripture, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection, and other tenets are “under negotiation” by those who have “itching ears” and who seek teachers who will tell them what they want to hear instead of the truth. In such contexts of rhetoric, it is important to recall that the PE themselves were forged in the midst of the early church’s struggles over leadership, theology, and social structure. As such, their deployment to characterize one expression of ecclesial structure, belief, or practice as in error as opposed to another tends more to mirror their rhetorical origins than accomplish a definitive statement of orthodoxy.