The Believer’s Judgment In 2 Timothy, Part 1

By Greg A. Couser

[Greg A. Couser is senior professor of New Testament and Greek, Cedarville University, Cedarville, Ohio.]

Abstract

Paul’s second letter to Timothy makes multiple references to the eschatological assize. This judgment plays a central role in motivating and shaping Timothy’s response to the Ephesian situation. In 2 Timothy, this judgment does more than confirm a person’s status as a believer. Paul expects to be recompensed by the Lord in a manner corresponding to his service. He looks forward to standing before God unashamed, having kept his charge (4:17). However, the exhortations to maximize faithfulness to Christ also leave space for standing before the judge with shame over not doing so.

* * *

Paul’s second letter to Timothy[1] makes multiple references to the eschatological assize (1:12, 15–18; 2:11–13, 15; 4:1–5, 8, 14, 18). Its importance is accentuated by the frequency of Paul’s references to the event and by its central role in motivating and shaping Timothy’s response to the Ephesian situation. This emphasis suggests that the letter has the potential to offer insights into Paul’s understanding of the believer’s future judgment and thus the nature of Christian life in the present.

Under the rubric of Paul and perseverance, past treatments have touched on 2 Timothy,[2] but none, as far as I am aware, have fully treated this topic in 2 Timothy. Primarily, though not in all cases, this is in deference to the critical consensus that puts 2 Timothy outside the Pauline corpus or at least in a separate category.[3] The present articles set out prominent contemporary options for the significance of the believer’s judgment for Paul and then work through 2 Timothy to compare and contrast Paul’s extensive treatment of the topic here with those options. Part 1 introduces the debate and covers the first two passages; the second article will treat the rest and offer concluding thoughts.

The work of Schreiner and Canaday provides helpful access to the significance of the believer’s judgment in Paul. They survey options for the function of the warnings in the New Testament and their relationship to the believer’s judgment. Their treatment is not specific to Paul but accounts for the breadth of the New Testament witness. All agree that Paul is clear that believers’ “works” are assessed to determine their eschatological fortunes. This involves evaluating an individual’s manner of life (consisting of internal dispositions and external manifestations), which bears witness to the nature of the person’s relationship with Christ (cf. Rom 2:6–11; 14:10–12; 1 Cor 3:13–15; 4:5; 2 Cor 5:10; 11:15; Eph 6:8). Including their own proposal, Schreiner and Canaday see five different construals of the relationship between the New Testament warnings to the believer and the believer’s judgment “according to works” in the end:

1. The warnings make it clear that believers can lose their salvation if they fail to heed the warnings and persevere. Justification represents a real anticipation of a positive final verdict, but that positive verdict is not irreversible.
2. The warnings threaten a loss of rewards in the eschatological future if the believer fails to heed them. This leads to different capacities and experiences for believers in the eschaton (variously construed). However, though a real eschatological loss is possible, a positive final verdict is assured.
3. The warnings serve to test the genuineness of those who profess Christ. Those who fail to heed the warnings prove that their commitment to Christ was disingenuous all along. Those who are genuinely saved will heed the warnings and persevere so that they will receive a positive verdict at the final assize. There is nothing negative to anticipate at the final assize for genuine believers.
4. The warnings present a hypothetical possibility of what would happen if someone were to ignore them. Loss of salvation is threatened, though it is not something that could occur.
5. Finally, Schreiner and Canaday argue that warnings stand alongside promises as the means by which God leads believers on to their assured salvation. The promises and warnings function rhetorically to motivate the believer to persevere. As such, any enquiry into the warnings should be limited to “why” they are given as opposed to “what” they may imply about a possible negative outcome.

In an attempt to locate 2 Timothy with respect to these proposed options, these articles will examine the relevant passages in 2 Timothy with attention to the broader literary context of the letter. There are two aims: first, to determine just what Paul expects the believer to be held accountable for, and, second, to delineate the possible outcomes Paul envisions for the believer.

2 Timothy 1:12

In this text, Paul gives two reasons that he is unashamed of the sufferings brought on by his proclamation of the gospel. In the near context Paul defines that gospel as the account of God’s saving work (past, present, and future), centered in the work of Christ (vv. 9–10), and actualized and sustained in the life of the believer by the Spirit (vv. 6–7, 13). One reason for his lack of shame is that he knows the one in whom he has placed his trust. However, the identity of the one Paul trusts is not clear. The relative ᾧ has no immediate antecedent. Since the one he trusts is also the one who will secure a positive outcome on “that (eschatological) day,” a “day” that includes his final judgment (cf. 4:8), the identity of the figure falls within the purview of this study.

First, however, a word should be said about the eschatological location and the character of “that day” (1:18; 4:8), which are assumed by Paul. “That day” refers to the Jewish concept of the Day of the Lord, which Paul has taken over. It involves the moment when salvation is fully realized and judgment is meted out as God holds every person—believers and unbelievers—accountable for their lives. According to Kreitzer, Paul builds on this concept in that “he creatively integrates OT hope with his own developing Christology, effectively transforming the ‘Day of the Lord (Yahweh)’ into the ‘Day of the Lord Jesus Christ.’”[4] Throughout his writings, Paul associates “that day” with Christ’s future coming and locates the “final judgment” therein.[5] This judgment occurs before the βῆμα, the judicial bench, which Paul alternately speaks of as belonging to God (Rom 14:10) and Christ (2 Cor 5:10).[6]

To return to the identity of ᾧ, is the referent God the Father or Christ, or is Paul purposely vague in order to incorporate the work of the triune God? Paul uses πιστεύω with an object only three other times in the Pastoral Epistles. In 1 Timothy 1:16, eternal life is experienced through “faith in him,” that is, Christ (πιστεύειν ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ). In 1 Timothy 3:16, God’s saving work in Christ by the Spirit, the revealed truth constituting the mystery at the core of the godly life, includes the response of belief in Christ by people all over the world (ἐπιστεύθη ἐν κόσμῳ). Finally, in Titus 3:8, Christians are those who have placed their faith in God (οἱ πεπιστευκότες θεῷ). Otherwise, the verb is used to speak of something being “entrusted,” whether the gospel or the means (preaching) by which it is entered into and enjoyed (1 Tim 1:11; Titus 1:3).[7]

Alongside these uses of πιστεύω, both 2 Timothy 1:13 and 3:15 connect “faith” with Christ. However, unlike 2 Timothy 1:12 and the other occurrences of πιστεύω, both involve the noun πίστις modified by an article that substantivizes the prepositional phrase “in Christ Jesus” (ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ). In 3:15 this structure could suggest that Christ is the object of faith (cf. NIV). However, the close parallel in 1:13, where “love” is added to “faith,” makes it more likely that “in Christ Jesus” refers to the relational sphere in which faith (and love) is made operable and given shape. This would see 1:13 as Paul’s encouragement to Timothy to hold onto the gospel in a believing or loving manner that is his by virtue of and/or that is consistent with his relationship with Christ.[8] With respect to 3:15, an “in Christ Jesus” faith forms the context in which Scripture functions to make Timothy “wise unto salvation,” that is, give him the wisdom to further God’s saving work in and through him.

Before concluding the inquiry into the referent of ᾧ in verse 12c, there is one additional contextual factor worth exploring. Though the phrase τὸ μαρτύριον τοῦ κυρίου in 2 Timothy 1:8 has been interpreted in various ways, the genitive is most likely subjective (“the testimony borne by the Lord”) and falls within a chiastic structure that spans verses 6–14:

A Draw on the God-given Enabling of the Spirit, vv. 6–7

B Not Ashamed, v. 8a

C Suffer for the Gospel, v. 8b

D The Gospel, vv. 9–10b

C′ Suffer for the Gospel, vv. 10c–11

B′ Not Ashamed, v. 12

A′ Draw on the God-given Enabling of the Spirit, vv. 13–14[9]

The relation of B and B′ gives a clue to the referent of ᾧ in verse 12c. Both sections urge the need to not be ashamed. However, only B provides what one is not to be ashamed of: the testimony borne by the Lord and Paul, his prisoner. Given the chiastic structure, should the same object be understood for the shame in B′? In other words, Paul could be affirming in verse 12b that he is not ashamed of his imprisonment or of the testimony borne by the Lord and thus presenting himself “as an example of the attitude which he commended to Timothy” in verse 8.[10] If this is the case, it would suggest that Christ is the antecedent of the ᾧ[11] of verse 12c so that the thrust of the repetition in B′ is on why the testimony borne by the Lord is trustworthy. Paul is confident because he knows the one he trusts. He is convinced that Christ will keep what he “has entrusted to him [Christ],”[12] his very life, until the realization of his final salvation. This also parallels the structure and thought of 4:18, where Christ’s ability to effect Paul’s final salvation is in view.

Even with the previous considerations, it is still difficult to definitely determine the specific referent of ᾧ in verse 12c. The referent certainly could be God the Father, the one who has the “power” to bring the promises of the gospel to fruition in verse 8. It is God the Father who in Christ (vv. 9–10) by the Spirit (vv. 6–7, 14) has acted to save. However, the letter also shows a close association of faith with Christ as its object and an emphasis on a believer’s union with Christ as the sphere in which faith is operative. Additionally, structural considerations in the immediate context seem to suggest Christ as the antecedent. Christ is the one whom Paul trusts to secure a positive outcome on “that day.”[13] Yet given the Trinitarian landscape of the passage, it does not seem too far afield of Paul’s language to say this referent may be vague because he wishes to portray his trust as in the triune God and what he has done, is doing, and will do. It involves an initial belief in Christ’s obedient, willing, saving work (cf. 1 Tim 1:12–16) and an initial and ongoing enabling by the Spirit (1 Tim 1:18; 4:1, 14; 2 Tim 1:7, 14; Titus 3:5–6), both of which are expressions of God the Father’s saving plan that originated before time and will eventually reach its fruition in the eschaton (1 Tim 2:3–7; 4:10; 2 Tim 1:8–10; Titus 2:11–15). For this study, it is clear that Paul sees one’s posture toward Christ (and/or God’s work in Christ by the Spirit) now as determining a positive outcome at the final judgment.

Paul’s second reason for suffering unashamedly also warrants close attention. He affirms that God is able to protect[14] either what Paul has entrusted to God or what God has entrusted to Paul—the promises of life in the gospel (cf. 1:1, 10; 2:9b–10, 11b–12a). Both divine actions look toward “that day.” Is the former entailed in the latter? In other words, if the promises of the gospel are kept, so will Paul be. If not, what could the different interpretive options suggest for what is at stake at the final judgment?

Interpreters, like translations, are lined up behind both genitive options: the subjective reading, in which God protects what Paul has entrusted to him (NIV, NASB, NRSV), and the objective, in which God protects what he has entrusted to Paul (ESV, NET). To look at the objective rendering first, there is no doubt that 2 Timothy emphasizes the firmness of God’s saving purposes as articulated in the gospel. This is a “word” that cannot be “bound” (2:10; 4:17). This “word” is the “gospel” entrusted to Paul (1:9–11). He seems confident that he will realize the full promise of God’s saving work proclaimed in the gospel (1:12; 4:18). He encourages Timothy that God’s gift of the Spirit (1:8) will enable Timothy to maintain that precious trust (1:14). God is committed to work in and through his servants to fulfill his saving promises for them and the elect through them (2:10–13). Moreover, in the other two occasions when παραθήκη occurs in the New Testament, it refers to the pattern of truth found in the gospel (1 Tim 6:20; 2 Tim 1:14). At the same time, if God’s promises and not Paul himself are primarily in view, this option could still leave room for some act on Paul’s part, like a denial (cf. 2:12b), that could result in the promises being fulfilled but not for Paul (or any believer like him). In his treatment of Paul and eschatology, this is indeed what Travis proposes. According to Travis, “at the final judgment the evidence of their deeds will confirm the reality of this relationship, which will then find its eternal fulfillment in God’s presence.”[15] This means that the believer’s justification by faith “represents a real . . . anticipation of the verdict of the final judgment,” but that verdict is not “irreversible.”[16] Believers can opt out and miss out on eternal salvation, in short, apostatize, without threatening the reliability of God’s saving promises. In the end, while the objective option could include the subjective option, it is by no means demanded.

On the other hand, the subjective sense suggests that Paul is confident not merely in God keeping his promises, but in God keeping him so that he realizes God’s promises. In light of the contextual emphasis on God’s work in Christ by the Spirit, Paul can count on God to sustain him in his faith and life so that Paul will not deny Christ in this life and so not be denied by Christ at the judgment (cf. 2:13). This line of thought also appears in 2:19.[17] There, Paul assures Timothy that the opposition will not ultimately undermine God’s household because it stands firm. God has put his seal of ownership on his household, an action that speaks not only of his deliberate acquisition of his people but also of his intent to protect them from harm.[18] The “inscriptions” that constitute the seal point to the character of those who make up the “foundation” so that it rightly can be called “firm.” These people share a common, chosen status (“known” by God) and a common commitment commensurate with the intimate relationship signified in God’s knowing them (“everyone who names the name of the Lord must turn from iniquity”).[19] This suggests that God will be at work in “the ones who are his” to reject destructive voices (2:19). This line of thought also emerges in 4:17–18. Paul speaks of the Lord as the one who accompanies, strengthens, delivers, and ultimately saves his servants into his “heavenly kingdom.” He “will deliver” them from evil in the here and now so that they will assuredly enter into the future, fully realized kingdom of Christ (cf. 4:1). This does not remove the need for the believer to understand, follow, obey, and serve God (cf. 2:1, esp. in light of 4:17, where Timothy is called to “take strength in the grace which is in Christ Jesus”). It simply puts confidence in God’s ability to keep the believer rather than in the believer’s ability to keep hold of God’s promises.

In addition to the structural considerations in the immediate context and the pattern of thought in 2:19 and 4:17–18, Mounce summarizes well the standard reasons for preferring the subjective rendering. First, in the other occurrences of παραθήκη (1 Tim 6:20; 2 Tim 1:14) Timothy is to guard the trust, not God, and it is not described as something belonging to the one entrusted with it, as it is here with μου. Second, 1:12a speaks of Paul placing his faith in Christ such that he can look forward to the eschatological day with confidence in a positive outcome. Third, the security Paul knows fits well in a context where Timothy is being encouraged to suffer for the gospel. His security marginalizes the significance of the suffering—even if it means death, as it does for Paul—and motivates service; it sets the suffering over against the certainty of the positive eschatological outcome.[20]

If the subjective genitive stands up, whatever is in jeopardy “on that day,” it is not Paul’s ultimate destiny. To say that Christ (or the triune God) “is able to keep” what Paul has entrusted means that God will not fail to keep his promise of eschatological life for those who believe on him. In the end, this passage looks toward “that (eschatological) day,” a day of judgment for all with varying outcomes. Paul expresses confidence in God’s ability to secure a favorable hearing for him at the final judgment because he has entrusted himself to Christ (in accordance with God’s saving plan through the enabling of the Spirit). Paul is encouraging Timothy and expressing his confidence in Christ’s ability to keep him and Timothy so that they reach the judgment without fear of a negative assessment.[21] Paul is encouraged, and so he encourages Timothy, that God’s promises will not fail “for” that day.

In light of these findings and with an eye toward the next passage, it is time to reflect on the way in which the day of judgment functions in Paul’s exhortation to Timothy. Paul and Timothy are certainly concerned that the “elect” (2:10; cf. 19) be prepared for it—especially in the face of the present aggressive heresy and its deleterious and widespread impact (1:15; 2:16–18; 3:1–9). In other words, the urgency is motivated by the consequences of the judgment for others. The judgment motivates, it seems, because it is a certainty and it holds benefits for those who are on the right side of it and negative consequences for those on the wrong side. Paul and Timothy’s ministry, at the least, is the necessary means for securing the faith of some of God’s elect. However, if 1:12 speaks of Paul entrusting himself to Christ, it does not seem that the judgment day motivates Paul because of its possible negative consequences for him or Timothy. The motivation is primarily positive. He anticipates the fulfillment of God’s promises of life for them both. At the same time, looking toward the next passage, his expression of appreciation for Onesiphorus suggests that a potential for a negative outcome, in some sense, may not be far from his mind. Paul envisions that day as a day of reckoning, in some sense, for the believer with respect to the service rendered in the promotion of God’s saving work in the here and now. Could this allow for positive expectations concerning final salvation to coexist with possible negative outcomes related to gospel service? Or, to use the language of 2:12–13, what happens if Paul, or any believer, does not “deny” Christ but is “unfaithful”? Are there any eschatological consequences?

2 Timothy 1:15–18

Paul expects Onesiphorus to be shown mercy on the judgment day from the Lord God through the Lord Christ’s representation of his faithfulness to the gospel—faithfulness expressed in his identification with and service to Paul. Paul looks to a positive outcome “on that day” for Onesiphorus in light of his gospel service.

The use of ἀποστρέφω in verse 15 (used also in 4:4; cf. Titus 1:14)[22] suggests that Paul’s comments about Onesiphorus arise not from some mere abandonment by others of Paul in prison but from a desertion of him and his gospel—the very thing he urges Timothy against in 1:6–14. The outlook is bleak (“all” is hyperbolic), though some, including Timothy, are still faithful (cf. 4:19). Singling out Hermogenes and Phygelus may suggest they were ringleaders; they were at least figures whom Timothy is assumed to know. Paul provides Timothy with a clear, positive example and equally clear counter-examples to promote gospel fidelity.

In 1:16 Paul prays for mercy to be granted to the household of Onesiphorus from “the Lord,” Jesus (cf. v. 18). How and when this favor will be shown is not clear. Given the use of mercy in verse 18, Paul could have “that [eschatological] day” in view. At the same time, he could be thinking of the present, and that God would act now to benefit the household (such as spiritual blessing or material provision in light of sacrifices made to help Paul). Paul speaks of mercy in the present at the start of letters (1 Tim 1:2; 2 Tim 1:2) and in speaking of his appointment to ministry at conversion (1 Cor 7:25; 2 Cor 4:1; 1 Tim 1:13, 16) and God’s preservation of Epaphroditus’s life (Phil 2:27). With Marshall, it seems that the “wish here is a natural expression for care and protection by God for the household which has been bereft of its master,”[23] so this verse lies for the most part outside the current enquiry. The teaching of Jesus may lie close at hand: “Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy” (Matt 5:7). Mercy shown to Paul in his imprisonment moves Paul to ask God to extend his mercy in return.

As verse 16 continues, Paul commends Onesiphorus for the frequency of his help, the provision of material support, and his open identification with Paul in his imprisonment.[24] But is Onesiphorus alive or dead? Moreover, how should Paul’s request be understood? Both questions have implications for the relationship between the lives of believers in the present and the final judgment as Paul brings “that [eschatological] day” into view.

Whether Onesiphorus is alive or dead is difficult to determine. Fee argues that the request for his family (v. 16a), coupled with Paul’s request for mercy for Onesiphorus on “that (eschatological) day,” makes it likely that he is dead.[25] Some point to 2 Maccabees 2:44–45 as a Jewish precedent of prayers for the dead. However, others see the mention of the household indicating nothing more than a recognition of their role in allowing Onesiphorus to come and help Paul. If he had died, Lenski expects Paul to have asked for their comfort, not mercy (cf. 1 Thess 4:18).[26] Note also that the “household of Stephanus” is mentioned in 1 Corinthians 16:15 and Stephanus is very much alive (v. 17). Lea and Griffin feel the issue is difficult but note that there is no clear reference to death.[27]

Whether Onesiphorus is dead or, more likely, alive, what occasioned Paul’s prayer wish was the refreshment he brought.[28] He likely brought material provision for Paul, but his presence, demonstrating his unashamed identification with Paul and his ministry, was also a benefit to Paul in his imprisonment. He represents the faithful commitment to the gospel and its messengers that Paul commends to Timothy and that stands over against Hermogenes, Phygelus, and a majority of believers (leaders) in Asia.

The question remains: What is Paul hoping will happen as the effect of his expressed desire?[29] Fee argues that Paul’s request for Onesiphorus “is not, in fact, intercessory prayer. . . . Rather, it is an acknowledgement that even one like Onesiphorus has only God’s mercy as his appeal.”[30] But why does he appeal to God’s mercy and what would that mean for Onesiphorus? Why would he need “mercy” and why on “that [eschatological] day”? And why does Paul depict the granting of mercy in terms of an interaction, apparently, between two members of the Godhead?

Paul’s prayer wish seems to be most basically an expression of appreciation put in terms of what Paul wants for Onesiphorus at the final judgment. This does not reflect Paul’s intercession for Onesiphorus as if he were praying to God to bring about that mercy. As Paul makes clear elsewhere (cf. 1 Cor 4:4–5), his assessment of his or any believer’s service to Christ is not ultimate. God is the sole determiner of the quality of any believer’s service. Marshall suggests an additional shaping factor may lie in the teaching of Jesus in Matthew 25:34–40 (cf. 5:7).[31] There, Jesus states that his followers “blessed by my Father” to take their inheritance in the eschaton are marked in the present by their care for his imprisoned followers. Paul hopes that the promise of that passage will be Onesiphorus’s in due course.

However, even if Paul’s prayer is mainly an expression of appreciation, it does not necessarily follow that the expression itself carries no real theology of the last judgment. The complexity of the interaction between members of the Godhead argues against seeing this as a simple “God bless him.” Paul seems to be saying that the judgment involves an interaction between Christ the Lord and God the Lord[32] with the former acting in some way on behalf of the believer to secure mercy from the latter. This intercessory role of Christ is not foreign to Paul. In Romans 8:33–34 Paul assures his readers that their condemnation is impossible (now or ever), for the one who condemns not only died and rose again for them, but he sits at the Father’s right hand continually pleading their cause.[33] Here Christ is the believer’s advocate in the heavenly throne room making his appeal to God the Father. This appeal finds a fully sympathetic ear in the Father. He is the one who set in motion the ministry of Christ whereby his chosen ones could be acquitted from the charges necessitating their condemnation. In addition, the mediatorial role of Christ appears in 1 Timothy 2:7 and his advocate role at the final judgment surfaces later in 2 Timothy. In a passage echoing the verbiage and thought of Matthew 10:33 and Mark 8:38, Paul affirms in 2 Timothy 2:12b that Christ will bear witness at the final judgment against those who deny him in the present.[34] Seeing the fit of our passage within established streams of Paul’s thought alongside the complexity of the expression itself, there is no reason to diminish Paul’s conception of the inner workings of the eschatological assize simply because it is not an intercessory request. Furthermore, Paul reveals something of what he conceives to be the standards determining God’s judgment of the believer. Paul assumes that Christ will factor in the mercy he has received as a servant of Christ Jesus (cf. 1 Tim 1:12; 4:6; 2 Tim 4:5) from Onesiphorus such that Christ will represent Onesiphorus positively to the Father (cf. Matt 7:7).

What is not clear here is just what the reception of mercy would mean. As shown in Onesiphorus’s ministry to Paul, mercy here means more than just clemency; it is not enough to describe it as the withholding of some deserved punishment. It also entails positive good will, benevolence toward the recipient by the giver.[35] Is this mercy equivalent to “eternal salvation,” with all that entails, something experienced uniformly by every believer? Or does it look to some system of reward tied to Christian service in the present that leads to a differentiated experience for believers following the judgment? Given Paul’s confidence in 1:12, it is unlikely that he is thinking here of eternal salvation unless he is just expressing his reticence to make ultimate assessments. Paul has no doubt about arriving safely in the consummated kingdom (4:18). In addition, Paul teaches in 2 Corinthians 5:1–10 that the believer’s absence from the body leads to immediate welcome into the Lord’s presence. This does not mean that the final judgment is somehow circumvented (v. 10). Rather, the “welcomed” will face it as “welcomed” people, that is, with their status as believers determining the nature of the judgment and its potential results. They do not come to judgment to find out their status. The judgment instead becomes an assessment of faithfulness.[36]

What might such a judgment look like? What would be the reward? Paul does not make it clear here, though he has more to say on this score as 2 Timothy unfolds. At this time, in light of the many connections to Jesus’s teaching throughout this section,[37] maybe it is not too far afield to bring Bock’s treatment of Jesus’s teaching in Luke 19:11–27 (cf. Matt 25:14–30) alongside this discussion to illuminate the type of judgment scenario that Paul may be suggesting. Bock argues that Luke’s passage “has eschatological force, since it is designed to parallel the Lord’s return.”[38] This is not about the church’s authority in the present age but the exercise of authority in the age to come. Jesus teaches that the servants who are faithful now will be rewarded with service in the age to come and service of a much greater scope than any responsibility they bear in the present.[39] According to Bock (interestingly, drawing on a Pauline parallel):

Closer to the point is Jeremias’ citation . . . of a parallel from Judaism: “The reward of duty done is a duty to be done” (m. ’Abot 4.2). Luke pictures additional responsibility in the future kingdom era. It is not limited to mere kingdom presence or additional church responsibility, but refers to full participation in the exercise of the kingdom’s authority in the consummation (cf. 1 Cor 6:2–3). Faithfulness now will result in kingdom responsibility later (the kingdom is not equated with the eternal state or the church; Acts 3:18–21).[40]

Thus far, in the first chapter of 2 Timothy, Paul intimates that the believers’ judgment involves more than merely confirming their status as a believer and clearing their way for a full enjoyment of their salvation. While believers seem to be assured of a positive overall verdict, faithfulness to God’s saving purposes or a lack thereof may lead to a differentiated experience in the consummated kingdom. So far in our study, in the case of Onesiphorus Paul only intimates what the positive outcome would be for faithful service. Drawing on a relevant passage from the teaching of Jesus, we posited that faithful service in the present life may afford the believer extra rewards, possibly in the form of a higher level of responsibility in the consummated kingdom. The next article in this series will see whether this understanding of the judgment holds true for the remainder of 2 Timothy and will explore further details of this final assize.

Notes

1. Space prohibits a defense of Pauline authorship as the most historically plausible and convincing explanation for the production, content, and canonical status of these letters. Even so, the following assumes that the apostle Paul is the author of 2 Timothy. For a robust defense, see William Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, Word Biblical Commentary 46 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2000), lxxxiii–cxxix. For an important recent treatment of pseudonymity and these letters, see Terry L. Wilder, “Pseudonymity, the New Testament and the Pastoral Epistles,” in Entrusted with the Gospel: Paul’s Theology in the Pastoral Epistles, ed. Andreas J. Kӧstenberger and Terry L. Wilder (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2010), 28–51.
2. Thomas R. Schreiner and Ardel B. Canaday, The Race Set before Us (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2001); Judith M. Gundry Volf, Paul and Perseverance: Staying In and Falling Away, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2/37 (Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1990); Don Garlington, Faith, Obedience, and Perseverance: Aspects of Paul’s Letter to the Romans, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 79 (Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1994).
3. See, for example, the paucity of interaction with 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus in Matthew W. Bates, Salvation by Allegiance Alone (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2017).
4. L. Kreitzer, “Eschatology,” in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, ed. Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, and Daniel G. Reid (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 1993), 259.
5. Ibid., 261; cf. 1 Cor 3:12–17; 15:13–14; 1 Thess 4:13–5:11; 2 Thess 1:5–10; 2:1–8; 2 Tim 4:1–8.
6. On this “fluctuation” Kreitzer notes: “There is some precedent for this fluctuation between God and messianic agent within Jewish pseudepigraphical texts (such as 1 Enoch 37–71; T. Abr. 12:1–2); the same is carried on in Christian writing after Paul, probably under the apostle’s influence (e.g. Polycarp Phil 6.2). By extension, the right of judgment is extended to the Christian church acting as Christ’s agents. Thus Paul himself feels able to pass judgment on unethical behavior (1 Cor 5:3–5) and exhorts the church to do the same (1 Cor 5:11–13). He even hints that the saints will execute eschatological judgment over the world and the angels” (ibid., 261). See also S. H. Travis, “Judgment,” in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, 516.
7. Both 2 Timothy 2:19 and 22 include an Old Testament near synonym for “believing in Christ”—to “name the name of the Lord” or “call upon the name of the Lord.” See Gregory A. Couser, “ ‘How Firm a Foundation’: The Ecclesiology of 2 Timothy 2:19–21, ” Bibliotheca Sacra 173 (2016): 470.
8. Campbell sees “in Christ” as the “ground or reason” of Timothy’s faith and love. Constantine R. Campbell, Paul and Union with Christ: A Exegetical and Theological Study (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012), 113.
9. Greg A. Couser, “ ‘The Testimony about the Lord,’ ‘Borne by the Lord,’ or Both? An Insight into Paul and Jesus in the Pastoral Epistles (2 Tim. 1:8),” Tyndale Bulletin 55, no. 2 (2004): 295–316.
10. I. Howard Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles, International Critical Commentary (London: T&T Clark, 2004), 709.
11. Marshall suggests that the referent could be either God or Christ (ibid., 710). However, the structure would argue strongly for the latter (contra Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 487, and George W. Knight III, The Pastoral Epistles, New International Greek Testament Commentary [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013], 379).
12. For the subjective rendering of μου in verse 12, see below as well as Gordon D. Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, New International Biblical Commentary (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1988), 232; Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 488; Knight, Pastoral Epistles, 380; Andrew Y. Lau, Manifest in Flesh: The Epiphany Christology of the Pastoral Epistles, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2/86 (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1996), 31–35.
13. This would resonate with how Paul conceives of the interplay of Christ the Lord with God the Lord on “that day” (v. 18). Christ is the one Paul depends on to secure mercy from the Father. See below.
14. This word, φυλάσσω, has the sense of “guard” so as not to lose, to keep safe (cf. Walter Bauer, W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed., ed. Frederick William Danker [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000], 1068)—to ensure, in this case, that the promise is fulfilled (cf. 2 Tim 1:1).
15. Travis, “Judgment,” 517.
16. Ibid.
17. Couser, “ ‘How Firm a Foundation’ ” 467–68.
18. Ibid, 469.
19. Ibid., 467. The sense of “know” here is “recognize someone as belonging to him [the knower], choose” (Bauer et al., Greek-English Lexicon, 161). It is one of the Old Testament terms that conveys the general concept of election. E. D. Schmitz, “ginōskō,” in New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed. Colin Brown (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986), 2:395. With only one possible exception (Matt 7:23), it is Paul who utilizes this Old Testament-dependent sense of γινώσκω with reference to God’s election of believers (1 Cor 8:3; 13:12; Gal 4:9).
20. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 488; cf. Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, 232; Knight, Pastoral Epistles, 380; and Lau, Manifest in Flesh, 31.
21. This leaves open what would constitute the negative. It is difficult to determine the nature and parameters of such an assessment at this point.
22. Marshall, Pastoral Epistles, 717.
23. Ibid., 718.
24. Most assume that Onesiphorus is the subject of all the verbs in verses 16b–18a, though “household” could perform that function. However, the parallel in 1 Corinthians 16:15 points decisively toward Onesiphorus. There, Paul speaks of the “household of Stephanus” and uses the third-person plural when referring to their service. Paul uses the third-person singular consistently here in 2 Timothy when speaking of the help he received in Rome. This suggests that although Onesiphorus represented his household in some way, he performed the actual service for Paul.
25. Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy,Titus, 186.
26. R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians, to the Thessalonians, to Timothy, to Titus, and to Philemon (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1937), 773–74.
27. They also see Hebrews 9:27 as decisive against interceding for the dead, since it “holds out no hope for spiritual reform among the already dead.” Thomas D. Lea and Hayne P. Griffin Jr., 1, 2 Timothy, Titus, New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman, 1992), 198n31.
28. There is ample historical basis for the nature of Paul’s response to Onesiphorus’s ministrations. The tremendous mental and physical hardships of prison life at this time, especially for a prisoner on death row, would well account for the profuse appreciation expressed here. In addition, helping a prisoner was often difficult and held great risks for the helpers. Gaining access to the prisoner could be a time-consuming and costly process. More seriously, Onesiphorus ran the risk of being damned by association, both socially and legally. On prisoners and those who helped them, see Brian M. Rapske, “The Importance of Helpers to the Imprisoned Paul in the Book of Acts,” Tyndale Bulletin 42, no. 1 (1991): 3–30.
29. For general background on intercessory prayer in Paul, see Gordon P. Wiles, Paul’s Intercessory Prayers: The Significance of Intercessory Prayer in the Letters of St Paul, Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 24 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974), 22–41.
30. Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, 187. So also Lea and Griffin, 1, 2 Timothy, Titus, 199: “The courtesy and compassion of Christians often leads them to express a desire for God’s blessings on their friends. ‘God bless you, brother,’ is a frequent Christian wish. The important feature of Paul’s wish here is that he asked God’s eschatological blessings on his friend. The fact that Paul made a similar request in 1 Thess 5:23–24 for another Christian group who were then alive provides additional basis for belief that Onesiphorus was yet alive.”
31. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 721.
32. Though this is a contested construal of the twice-mentioned κύριος, once articular and once anarthrous, Spicq’s argument concerning this configuration is persuasive. Appealing to the Septuagint practice of using the anarthrous κύριος for God, Spicq argues that Paul does so here to distinguish between God and Jesus. Ceslas Spicq, Les Epȋtres Pastorales (Paris: Gabala), 731–36. See also Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, 238; J. N. D. Kelly, A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1987), 170; Norbert Brox, Die Pastoralbriefe, Regensburger Neues Testament (Regensburg: Freidrich Pustet, 1969), 239; and Joachim Jeremias, Die Briefe an Timotheus und Titus (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1963), 52–53. Pertinent also here is the use of the articular κύριος for Christ in 1 Timothy 6:14 followed closely by the anarthrous κύριος for God in verse 15.
33. Gordon D. Fee, Pauline Christology: An Exegetical-Theological Study (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2007), 255.
34. On the eschatological time frame of this statement see Brox, Die Pastoralbriefe, 244, and Anthony Tyrell Hanson, The Pastoral Epistles, New Century Bible Commentary (London: Marshall, Morgan, & Scott, 1982), 132, and the discussion below.
35. Spicq demonstrates that to speak of “mercy” as pity is too thin. Throughout Scripture, when God is merciful either directly or as reflected through the care of a believer for his neighbor or brother, it is an act of benevolence that also leads to the experience of a real spiritual and/or material good for the one shown mercy. Ceslas Spicq, “ἐλεέω, ἔλεος,” in Theological Lexicon of the New Testament, trans. James D. Ernest (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994), 1:471–79.
36. According to Paul Barnett, Paul is saying that “believers do not face condemnation at Christ’s tribunal . . . but rather evaluation with a view to the Master’s commendation given or withheld.” Paul Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 276–77. See also Simon J. Kistemaker, 2 Corinthians, New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids; Baker, 1997), 180–81; and Colin G. Kruse, 2 Corinthians, Tyndale New Testament Commentary 8 (1987; repr., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 116–18.
37. For a development of emphasis on the words and acts of Christ in 1 Timothy and the Pastorals generally, see Couser, “ ‘The Testimony about the Lord,’ ” 309–13. Marshall also notes that 1 Timothy 1:15 and 2:6 very likely go back to synoptic material (Luke 19:10 and Mark 10:45 respectively), and both relate to presentations of Christ’s self-understanding. I. Howard Marshall, “The Christology of the Pastoral Epistles,” Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt, Serie A 13 (1988): 164–65. Wolfe holds that the Pastoral Epistles “uphold the words, or teaching of Jesus as possessing inherent authority and representing a standard, that is, a canon, akin to γραφή.” B. Paul Wolfe, “Scripture in the Pastoral Epistles: Premarcion Marcionism?,” Perspectives in Religious Studies 16, no. 1 (1989): 14. See also his “The Sagacious Use of Scripture,” in Entrusted with the Gospel, 214.
38. Darrell L. Bock, Luke 9:51–24:53, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1996), 1536.
39. Ibid., 1537.
40. Ibid., 1536.