Additional Notes §4
§4 Examples of Disloyalty and Loyalty (2 Tim. 1:15–18)
At first sight this section may seem irrelevant to the appeal that surrounds it. It lacks any words of exhortation to Timothy (none of the second person singular imperatives that otherwise predominate in the letter); its content seems to have little in common with its context. Nonetheless, as with other such “digressions” in these letters (cf., e.g., 1 Tim. 1:12–17), this section is not without purpose. In this case the key to its significance lies in Onesiphorus’ not being ashamed of Paul’s imprisonment (cf. vv. 8 and 12). Apparently the mentioning of his imprisonment in verse 12, plus his appeal to Timothy to “guard” what has been “entrusted to” him (v. 14), reminded Paul, first, of many who had not kept that trust (v. 15), and, second, of one who in particular had not only not deserted but had gone out of his way to the share the “shame” of Paul’s imprisonment.
In this paragraph we sense the pain of Paul’s present situation and his loneliness, brought about both by what has happened in Ephesus (v. 15; cf. 2:14–3:9) and by his unfavorable circumstances in Rome (vv. 16–18; cf. 4:6–18). The paragraph, however, is not without its difficulties, especially in trying to reconstruct some of the historical matters to which it alludes.
1:15 / Paul begins by reminding Timothy of something of which he was all too painfully aware. You know all about what’s going on in the province of Asia (lit., “in Asia,” which may in fact refer to the whole province, but includes at least Ephesus). But precisely because Timothy did know, we are left a bit in the dark as to what has happened—and when and where.
Paul says that everyone in … Asia has deserted him. Almost all are agreed that these deserters are in Asia at the time of writing. But everyone? Either this means that some Asians, including Onesiphorus, had come to Rome, and all but Onesiphorus had deserted him and returned home (so Bernard), or else (more likely) it means that the defections in Asia have been so staggering (Kelly, “the exaggeration [of] depression”) that even friends (presumably) from whom he would have expected more—including [perhaps led by] Phygelus and Hermogenes—have deserted him.
If this is how we are to understand “who” and “where,” then “when” probably has to do with events since the writing of 1 Timothy, perhaps a general “abandoning ship” at the news of Paul’s arrest (cf. Kelly). Paul himself would have been informed of it by Onesiphorus.
But what does it mean, have deserted me? If our reconstruction thus far is correct, then at least it means that they have abandoned their loyalty to Paul. If so, then for him that would mean they have also abandoned his gospel, since that is about the only way one could desert the apostle; and that is precisely how the same verb is used elsewhere in the PE (4:4; Titus 1:14; a different verb is used of the personal “desertions” in 4:10).
1:16–17 / The mention of those from Asia who had deserted him prompts Paul to pray for mercy for the household of one who did not. This sudden bursting out in a wish-prayer (hardly intercession, as Kelly, but an expression of Paul’s desires for them; cf. 2 Thess. 3:16; Rom. 15:5) for the household of Onesiphorus (cf: 4:19) means that he is not now with them (otherwise Paul would have said “to Onesiphorus and his household”). The fact that Paul should begin his reminder about Onesiphorus in this way, by asking for present mercy for his household, and that at the end (v. 18a) he should ask for future mercy (on that Day) for Onesiphorus himself, suggests very strongly that Onesiphorus had died in the meantime. If so, it could only have increased Paul’s present pain and loneliness.
But the memory of Onesiphorus lingers on. His actions in Rome are a model of loyalty (for Timothy’s sake surely). He often refreshed me. In a culture in which imprisonment often involved self-sustenance, such “refreshment” probably included food as well as “cheering up.” Moreover, and the more significant reason for mentioning him at all, he was not ashamed of my chains. The “shame” in this case was hardly that of embarrassment. Here was a man who was willing to take the risk of regularly visiting one who was a state criminal and who would soon be condemned to die. Under such circumstances, desertions had been plentiful (see disc. on 4:16–17), but not so with Onesiphorus. Indeed, when he was in Rome, he searched hard [Gk., “he looked diligently”] for me until he found me. The implication is that Paul was not in a “public” prison and that finding him required a considerable effort on the part of Onesiphorus.
Paul’s point to Timothy is clear enough. “Don’t you be ashamed of the gospel or of me, Christ’s prisoner (v. 8). Some have (v. 15), but not Onesiphorus (vv. 16–17); so be like him.”
1:18 / Having already entreated mercy for his household (v. 16a), presumably because of their loss, Paul now desires (again in the form of a wish-prayer) for Onesiphorus himself: may the Lord grant that he will find mercy from the Lord on that day! On that day, as in verse 12, can only refer to the Second Advent. Thus it is hard to escape the implication that Onesiphorus is now dead. Why else, one wonders, especially in light of verse 16, should Paul only wish him to find (a word play on Onesiphorus’ having “found” him; v. 17) mercy at the End?
Does this, then, countenance prayers for the departed? Many think so. However, before one builds Christian doctrine on such a text, one needs to be cautioned that such an idea is quite singular to this one, not totally certain, text and that it merely expresses Paul’s sentiment toward, or desire for, Onesiphorus. It is not, in fact, intercessory prayer (cf. the difference with Eph. 1:17, e.g.); rather, it is an acknowledgment that even one like Onesiphorus has only God’s mercy as his appeal.
Almost as an afterthought, Paul remembers that Timothy will easily recognize that Onesiphorus’ actions in Rome should come as no surprise. As Timothy would know very well, it was quite in keeping with the man. Timothy will recall in how many ways he helped Paul in Ephesus. One cannot be sure whether such “service” (Gk. word for “serving,” or “ministering”) was rendered much earlier when Paul and Timothy were together in Ephesus (cf. 1 Cor. 4:17 with 16:8), or whether it was during Timothy’s recent tenure (per 1 Timothy). In either case, it happened when Timothy was on hand to observe, and now Onesiphorus’ devoted service is being recalled—as a gentle prod to Timothy.
Personal notes of the kind found in this paragraph create, as Kelly notes, “a particularly vivid impression of authenticity, and also special difficulties for any theory of pseudonymity” (p. 168). So much is this so that most scholars allow that the material here is probably authentic, even if they believe the letter is not (e. g., Barrett).
1:15 / Spicq suggests that the phrase “all who are in Asia” may be a Semitism for “all who are from Asia,” thus implying that all other Asians in Rome abandoned Paul except Onesiphorus. However, that is a forced reading of the text, and one can make sense of it as it stands.
There are still other hypotheses about the historical circumstances behind this sentence. Barrett, e.g., tentatively suggests that it might reflect a time alluded to in 2 Cor. 1:8; Hendriksen submits that these people had been summoned to testify but did not come. Most of these suggestions see the desertion only as related to Paul’s imprisonment and, therefore, strictly in contrast to Onesiphorus. In fact, D-C make the surprising comment that the verb “cannot be understood to imply apostasy from the gospel, because of the comparatively mild terminology” (p. 106). But that seems to neglect too much evidence to the contrary. The overall context of 1:6–2:13, followed closely by 2:14–3:9, would seem to favor the reconstruction offered here.
1:16 / For a formal consideration of the “wish-prayer” in Paul, see G. P. Wiles, Paul’s Intercessory Prayers, SNTSMS 24 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974), pp. 45–155.
Hendriksen (and others) properly cautions that one cannot be certain that Onesiphorus is dead, but his argument that Paul would have explicitly said so if “this hero” had died, is special pleading. He simply does not take seriously enough the abrupt nature of introducing Onesiphorus by wishing mercy for his household or that the prayer-wish of v. 18a interrupts the text (note how smoothly it reads without it) and can only be explained as a sudden wordplay on “find,” which then is expressed eschatologically precisely because he is now dead.
1:18 / The prayer-wish literally reads: “May the Lord grant him to find mercy from the Lord on that day.” Several explanations for this awkward construction have been offered (see Kelly or Hanson). The most likely (adopted by Spicq, Kelly, Hanson, et al.) is that the first Lord refers to Christ (as in vv. 2 and 8 above, and ordinarily in Paul and the PE), and that the second refers to God and reflects the LXX.