2nd Timothy

1:1 Not sure what to make, if anything, of the shift from "loyal child" in 1st Timothy to "beloved child" here.

1:3 And even more so now that I perceive real emotion coming through here.  I am especially touched by the relation of Timothy's matriarchal lineage, and find myself constructing a narrative of his life based on this one simple sentence.  I recall that in reading 1st Timothy I was confused by Paul's instructions that Timothy remain chaste, even in the same breath as he said that such a thing was not generally necessary for those serving in positions of responsibility in the congregation.  What was it about Timothy's case that called for heigthened restrictions?  Specifically, of all the sins that Timothy might have been in danger of, why did Paul single this one out for him, seemingly in front of the entire congregation?

The easy answer is, of course, that Timothy's responsibilities were of such monumental import that he could afford the distraction of an Earthly family even less than the bishops or elders of the congregation could.  That argument would indeed close the book on the question, but I am not in the habit of settling for the easy answer.  I am reminded of the persistent hints, both textual and historical, that Paul may have been fighting against his own homosexuality.  The evidence for such a supposition is embarassingly circumstantial, but let us wonder what it would mean were it true.  It certainly does not seem much of a stretch to suppose that Timothy was in a similar struggle, and the their mutual war against the flesh is responsible, not only for their close bond, but also for Paul's rather pointed and public admonition.

1:7 And this reading would dovetail nicely with Paul's emphasis on self-discipline here.

1:12 Referent malfunction.  What is "that day"? there is no day mentioned here.  I am going to make an educated guess and suppose that Paul is referring to the imminent day of his own death.

1:18 Well, so much for that interpretation.  this usage of "that day" is clearly not with any reference to Paul's death.  I guess we will have to assume that Paul is referring to the so-called Judgement day in a way for which Timothy would need no explanation.

2:4-7 Paul seems to be talking in code here.  What would be the "first share" to which he refers here, seemingly indicating that Timothy's reward will be greater than that given to others.  And why does Paul then cryptically tell Timothy to let the Lord tell him what this means?

2:11-13 I am always interested to know from where Paul is quoting whenever he says something like this.  It's not from the gospels anywhere that I recognize.  I am especially curious in this case, because of the interesting turn at the end.  Following the parallel structure that Paul so often enjoys, we might expect the last stanza to read "If we are faithless, he will be faithless toward us", but it does not.  In which case, Paul seems to be using "faith" in the rather narrow sense of "belief in a god".  If that interpretation holds, then this verse is merely a cute aphorism.  But if faithfulness is being used in the more broad sense of "acting with good intent", then this becomes a piece of interesting theology--although it would then contradict the preceding verse, so I don't know that I can really support such a view. Never mind. This is a liveblog, so my ramblings don't always lead anywhere . . .

2:14 Paul, you seem to be reading my mind!  I was just now "wrangling over words" as you say. 

2:17 Okay, so here is a quandary.  This resurrection has not been a central part of Paul's teaching, at least in the portions of it that have been preserved by history.  So the fact that Hymenaeus and Philetus are censured for contradicting what is treated as an established doctrine makes one wonder what exactly the doctrine was.  Even today, most religions have very different ideas about what resurrection means.  What was Paul's exact take?  Whatever it was, it was evidently established enough that he could disown specific individuals for contradicting it.

2:25 I don't know that Paul has followed his own admonition to correct opponents with gentleness here . . .

3:5 This has always been an interesting verse to me.  What exactly does it mean to deny the power of godliness, or, in the translation I grew up with, to have a form of godly devotion, but to prove false to its power. I suppose one interpretation could be offered to the effect that such people don't allow the power of the gospel to transform them from the inside out, and I suppose that's as good as any.

3:6 "captivating silly women" is certainly a nice turn of phrase here, if emblematic of Paul's underlying misogyny

3:16 One of my favorite circular arguments.  All scripture is inspired of God, and benefical for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight," in the translation I grew up with, not much different from the NISV here.  But is this book included in the appelation "scripture"?  If so, it's hardly a credible witness. . .

4:6 again, I find this verse unaccountably touching and poetic. 

4:13 What could possibly be important about this cloak such that it needs to be brought to Rome from Ephesus.  Even with the conveniences of modern travel, such a trip wouldn't be worth it . . .

In all, I enjoyed this book far more than its prequel.  Thematically consistent, by turns poetic and strident, and genuinely touching.  Timothy and Paul were lucky to have each other, whatever their relationship.