“God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much better than the angels, as He has inherited a more excellent name than they” (Hebrews 1:1–4, NASB95).
Words denoting oral communication occur seventy-three times in Hebrews, proportionately more frequent than any of the other non-narrative books in the New Testament. In almost every case, God speaks something from the Old Testament or, as the author prefers to call it, the “first covenant” (e.g., 8:7). God’s previous revelation provides the author of Hebrews with material for all three components of his message—theological argumentation (e.g., 1:5–14), positive encouragement (e.g., 13:6), and warning (e.g., 12:25). Thus, the inspiration and continuing authority of God’s previous revelation gives the book persuasive power, yet part of what he proves from God’s previous revelation is that it testifies that the first covenant is not intended to be His only covenant and that the coming covenant will be superior (e.g., 8:8–13). The prologue, quoted above, introduces this topic, and the author returns to it in various ways throughout the book. Notice that, in contrast to many later, the author of Hebrews insists on both the continuity between the parts of God’s revelation and the superiority of the recent one.
The book of Hebrews insists that God’s message to humanity is coherent. According to the prologue, God “spoke” both “long ago to the fathers” (1:1) and “in these last days…to us” (Hebrews 1:2). The author shows that the Old Testament itself points to another covenant beyond itself (e.g., 8:8–13). Indeed, the author points out that the ceremonies of the Mosaic covenant had no meaning without their fulfillment in God’s recent message, in Jesus (e.g., 10:4). Moreover, the Old Testament teems with promises that are not fulfilled within its pages. If God is faithful, as His previous revelation insists (e.g., Deuteronomy 7:9), then the first covenant cannot be the end of the story (cf., e.g., 11:40). Not ononlyly were the Jews still waiting for God to fulfil his messianic promises, but the author’s exposition of Psalm 95 in Hebrews 3 and 4 shows that the land promise that God had made to Abraham, (one of the three basic promises on which the covenant with him and his descendants depended), had only been fulfilled in a preliminary way: “for if Joshua had given them rest,” David would not have warned of the possibility of not entering God’s rest (4:7–8). The unfulfilled promises of God made it clear that He was not finished talking.
Thus a further word from the Lord, in itself implies, the superiority of the more recent message. God does not speak for no reason. Another message implies that He had something important to say that He had not already covered. Moreover, the loose threads from the Old Testament, upon which the author relies to show God’s foreshadowing of the new covenant, testify to the superiority of the new covenant which ties them all together.
To remove all doubt, the prologue explicitly contrasts the stages of God’s revelation in several respects. God’s previous revelation was “long ago to the fathers in the prophets”. The subsequent message arrived “in these last days…to us in His Son.” Mentioning the “last days” raises the spectre of those promises awaiting fulfillment by those familiar with what God had said “to the fathers in the prophets” (cf., e.g., Isaiah 2:2). A message directed “to us” is worthy of at least as much attention as one directed “to the fathers.” A message that came from God’s Son is worthy of more attention than one that came through the prophets, who were His servants (cf., e.g., 1 Kings 14:18).
The kicker, is the element in the first clause that has no equivalent in the second: the author specifies that God’s previous message came “in many portions and in many ways.” God did not give the entire message of the Old Testament to any one person at one time: Abraham got a piece, Moses, a bigger piece, and each of the prophets received their own portions. It took about a thousand years for what we know as the Old Testament to come together. Likewise, God’s message in the Old Testament came “in many ways,” i.e., through many means. Sometimes God spoke directly to the prophets and at other times through dreams or visions. By contrast, God’s message through His Son came all at one time and in one way. God sent Jesus into the world to reveal Him. As the apostle John puts it, “Nobody has seen God at any time; the unique God who was in the bosom of the Father has explained Him” (John 1:18). The author of Hebrews does not provide an equivalent for “at many times and in many ways” because there is none: for when God revealed Himself through His Son, it took place all at one time and through one means.
The rest of the prologue consists of a series of four relative clauses modifying the “Son.” These clauses further explain how God’s message in Jesus goes beyond the previous revelation.
The first and fourth clauses speak of Jesus as Heir: Jesus inherited everything, and is as superior to the angles as is the name that He inherited. Maybe someone can enlighten me, but I have not read anywhere in Scripture that an angel inherited anything. Putting the first and fourth relative clauses together then, Jesus is as much superior to an angel as everything is to nothing. He is infinitely superior. The Jews in the first century believed that God used angels as intermediaries when He gave the Law to Moses. (See Acts 7:38 and Hebrews 2:2) Since Jesus is God and superior to angels, his message must also be superior to theirs. The most important messenger implies the most important message.
The remaining relative clauses relate to the person and work of Jesus. They show Him as a representative of God to humanity and of humanity to God, a theme to which I will return (e.g., 3:1). Jesus is clearly divine because He is involved in creating (1:2) and sustaining (1:3) the world. These are things that only God does. Furthermore, He is “the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of His nature” (1:3). The terms “radiance” and “exact representation” have specific connotations. We see the stars through the radiance of their visible light. Stamped upon each coin is the exact shape of the die which made it. Likewise, Jesus has displayed both the glory and the nature of God on earth so that we can know Him (cf. John 1:18). He has shown us what it is that makes God, Himself. In terms of representing man to God, the prologue also portrays Jesus as “making purification for sins,” i.e., serving as a priest, a theme the author covers extensively later in the book.
To summarize, the prologue of Hebrews asserts both the continuity between the stages of God’s revelation and the superiority of the revelation in Jesus. After God spoke, He spoke again in Jesus. This latter message completed a revelation begun long ago and fully revealed who God is. At the heart of who God is, is His desire to have a relationship with us. This motivated Jesus to offer Himself so that we could have an opportunity to be right with God.
God has spoken. Are we listening by “hold[ing] fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end” (3:14)?
The first three chapters of Ezekiel record God’s interactions with Ezekiel at the outset of his prophetic ministry. God does not pull any punches when he informs Ezekiel of the road ahead. Instead, He tells Ezekiel exactly how difficult his ministry is going to be: “I send you to the people of Israel, to nations of rebels, who have rebelled against me. They and their fathers have transgressed against me to this very day. The descendants are also impudent and stubborn” (Ezekiel 2:3–4, ESV).
God’s people did not want to hear what He had to say about their situation because they had already made up their minds. Their failure to listen did not absolve Ezekiel of his responsibility to speak. God continues:
“I send you to them, and you shall say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD.’ And whether they hear or refuse to hear (for they are a rebellious house) they will know that a prophet has been among them” (2:4–5).
God tells Ezekiel that he is to speak up, regardless of whether people listen. God knows that Ezekiel’s audience is going to ignore the opportunity He is giving them to repent, but He sends Ezekiel anyway so that there is no doubt about his audience’s culpability. They are not helpless pawns, powerless to do anything about the fate a capricious God has waiting for them; rather, they are choosing to reject the grace offered by a loving God who takes no pleasure in what His righteousness requires Him to do when His people act as the Israelites have (cf. 18:25–32).
Having received this commission, Ezekiel has two choices: (1) obey God by speaking up, or (2) disobey God by staying quiet. There is no third option. The commands God issues to Ezekiel in 2:6–7 illustrate the cost of obeying God. If God bothers to tell Ezekiel not to fear the people and their threats, even when “briers and thorns are with you and you sit on scorpions,” i.e., when the threats proceed to physical violence, and not to be “dismayed at their looks” (2:6), it seems likely that threats, intimidation, and ridicule awaited Ezekiel. Indeed, these things transpire in the rest of the book. God insists that His people have forewarning of the fate that awaits them, and He insists that His prophet have forewarning of what proclaiming that fate will cost him. God has already classified Israel as rebels who will not listen, but what about the prophet?
Next, God calls for an action that symbolizes Ezekiel accepting his mission. He says: “But you, son of man, hear what I say to you. Be not rebellious like that rebellious house; open your mouth and eat what I give you” (3:8). This command places Ezekiel in parallel with the people as a whole: they do not listen and are rebellious; he is to listen and not be rebellious. Ezekiel does not record what he was expecting God to feed him, but one might suspect that he was not expecting to eat a book. Nevertheless, what God puts in front of him is “a scroll of a book” (2:9). When opened, the scroll has writing on both sides that Ezekiel describes as “words of lamentation and mourning and woe” (2:10).
God repeats his command to eat (3:1), and Ezekiel obeys (3:2–3). The words of “lamentation and mourning and woe” (2:10) taste “as sweet as honey” (3:3), symbolizing that Ezekiel understands the necessity of the coming judgment and God’s righteousness in decreeing it. God then repeats Ezekiel’s mission, adding an explicit promise of assistance (3:4–11). By eating the book, Ezekiel has symbolically accepted his mission and, thus, demonstrated his willing obedience; for this reason, God informs Ezekiel that He has already equipped Ezekiel for this task by hardening his face and forehead to match those of his audience (3:8). After reiterating Ezekiel’s mission, God once again shows him His glory, just like he saw it in chapter 1, and this experience overwhelmed him for a week (3:12–15).
After that week, however, God spoke with Ezekiel again, using a very poignant image to explain Ezekiel’s role as a prophet: “I have made you a watchman” (3:17a). Being a watchman is another way to describe Ezekiel’s responsibility to speak whatever God gave him to speak (3:17b). A watchman’s job was to sound the warning when attackers appeared outside a city’s wall; Ezekiel’s job is to announce the judgment that is coming on God’s people.
God further spells out what being a watchman looks like with a series of hypothetical cases (3:18–21). This series of four hypothetical situations demonstrates that the watchman is responsible for raising the alarm but not for whether anyone heeds it. Regardless of Ezekiel’s action or inaction, those on whom God’s judgment is coming will suffer that judgment: each case, except one, contains the statement that the category of person discussed “shall die for his iniquity/sin” (3:18, 19, 20). The sole exception, where Ezekiel’s preaching affects the outcome, is when he warns a righteous person who heeds his warning (3:21). Although Ezekiel’s preaching alters his audience’s fate in only one of four hypothetical situations, his decision either to preach that message faithfully or to disobey by remaining silent affects his fate in each situation: in each case where he hypothetically remains silent, God says He will hold Ezekiel accountable for that person’s blood (3:18, 20); in each case where he hypothetically speaks up, God says that he “will have delivered” his “soul” (3:19). Ezekiel’s eternal destiny hinges on whether he speaks up or remains silent—not on the results.
That is all well and good for Ezekiel, living in Babylonia during the sixth century B.C., but where does it leave Christians in Canada during the twenty-first century A.D.? The most obvious application to draw would be to our responsibility to fulfill the Great Commission, even though the culture around us may seem, at best, indifferent and, at worst, hostile to the Gospel. Without a doubt, there is something to this: the Bible does teach that our eternal destinies hinge on our willingness to step out in faith and stand up for God even when it is not popular (e.g., Matthew 10:32).
Nevertheless, a more specific application seems in order here, given that God sent Ezekiel not “to a people of foreign speech and a hard language, but to the house of Israel” (3:5). This suggests that, just as Ezekiel’s ministry was focused on God’s people of his day, the proper application of the principles in it involves relationships between Christians at least as much as relationships with those outside the church. Granted, speaking God’s truth to our brothers and sisters who have gone astray is not easy, and it must be done with the correct attitude (Galatians 6:1–2; John 13:34–35) and procedure (Matthew 18:15–20). The erring members of God’s people today may not want to hear God’s message any more than those in Ezekiel’s day did, but that does not absolve Christians of the duty to speak (cf. 2 Tim 4:3–5). God has placed each Christian as a watchman to help others get to heaven. Dare we fail Him—and each other—by failing to discharge this duty?
Waterloo ON
(Part 2)
The previous article discussed Paul’s situation as he wrote 2 Timothy, suggesting that he was in prison at Rome—most likely not the imprisonment at Rome that Luke records at the end of the book of Acts—as he awaited the final disposition of his case. He is expecting that his death is nearby (4:6), and God has him pass along some final reminders to his “beloved child, Timothy” (1:2, ESV).1 The article concluded by observing that only 2 Peter uses words related to knowledge, learning, and memory more densely than does 2 Timothy.
Picking up where the former article left off, this article discusses the reminders God sent Timothy through Paul in terms of Timothy’s task. I can only touch the tip of the iceberg here. Lord willing, I will write a subsequent article that returns to these points in more detail and discusses the reminders related to Timothy’s preparation.
Paul defines the task facing Timothy as “the work of an evangelist” (4:5), Perhaps surprisingly in light of how often we use its English equivalent in modern times, “evangelist” (εὐαγγελιστής, euangelistēs) occurs only three times in the New Testament. Luke’s only use of the term (Acts 21:8) does not indicate the precise nature of an evangelist’s work, though the previous mentions of Phillip in Acts could certainly explain how this nickname came about. The other instance in Paul’s writings, however, sheds clear light:
“And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes” (Ephesians 4:11–14).
Several aspects of this passage are significant in relation to 2 Timothy.
First, notice that evangelists appear amongst a list of works of fundamental importance: earlier in Ephesians, Paul describes the apostles and prophets as the very “foundation” of the church (2:20), and his previous letter to Timothy, as well as Titus, testify to the importance of elders or shepherds. The importance and responsibility borne by the other works listed suggests that the work of an evangelist is equally fundamental and also bears significant responsibility.
Second, Paul says that God gave each gift for the purpose of building up the church and equipping it for its mission pf bringing as many as possible to know and obey Him. Third, Paul portrays each gift as an anchor holding the rest of the church in place against whatever forces might be trying to exert influence on it. Paul’s reminders in 2 Timothy exemplify the picture of an evangelist derived from Ephesians 4, even though the term itself is only used at 4:5.
Paul repeatedly underscores the importance of Timothy’s task and the responsibility he bears for carrying it out in accordance with God’s instructions. For example, Paul instructs to Timothy to “charge them before God not to quarrel about words” (2:14). The word that the ESV translates “charge” (διαμαρτύρομαι, diamarturomai), which also appears at 4:1 in connection with Timothy’s responsibility to proclaim God’s word, connotes a “solemn and emphatic utterance.”2 Likewise, in the very next verse, Paul impresses the seriousness of Timothy’s responsibility upon him: Timothy is going to be judged according to how well he carries out his responsibility of transmitting God’s word, so he needs to make every effort to ensure that he meets God’s standards in that regard (2:15). Furthermore, Paul’s metaphor of vessels in a house, some for honourable use and some for dishonourable use, further reinforces this theme (2:20–21).
Paul’s final reminders to Timothy also emphasize the role Timothy is to play in equipping and building up the church. The same passages used above to illustrate the seriousness Paul ascribed to Timothy’s responsibility also show that said responsibility involved equipping the church to do God’s will. God’s word is effective for preparing His people for everything He wants them to do (3:17), hence the seriousness Paul attaches to the task of preaching the word (4:1–2). Other examples include Paul’s exhortation to pass on his teaching to others who could keep passing it on (2:2). This latter passage also illustrates Timothy’s role as an anchor against the church drifting away from God’s plan: if Timothy successfully transmits Paul’s inspired teaching to those coming along after him, and those people do the same (one of the instructions involved being the command to pass the teaching on), and this process continues uninterrupted until the Lord returns, the church will never drift away from God’s plan for it.
In summary, then, Paul stresses several aspects of the task with which God is entrusting Timothy. First, it is a serious responsibility. Second, He entrusts this responsibility for the building up and equipping of the church. Third, Timothy’s steadfast adherence to the standard of teaching Paul has laid down will ensure that the church is anchored against all the forces assailing it. May we do the same for the Lord’s church today!
Waterloo ON
1 Scriptures cited by chapter and verse only are from 2 Timothy.
2 James Hope Moulton and George Milligan, Vocabulary of the Greek Testament (1930; repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004), 152.
If you knew you had one last chance to leave some advice and encouragement for someone because you were likely to be executed soon, whom would you encourage and what would you say to them? This is the situation in which the apostle Paul found himself as he was writing the letter we know as 2 Timothy. As with all letters, the situation in which it was written and to which it was addressed significantly impacts the letter and its message.
This raises two questions. First, what do we know about Paul’s situation as he wrote this letter? Second, what can we infer about Timothy’s situation from the instructions that Paul passes along? For reasons of space, this article answers the first question and lays the groundwork for a thorough answer to the second. Lord willing, I will write another article (or possibly two) finishing the answer to the second question and highlighting the application of Paul’s advice for Timothy to the Lord’s church today.
What Was Paul’s Situation as He Wrote?
The book itself reveals much about Paul’s situation as he is writing it. Clearly, Paul is writing this letter from prison, for he refers to his “chains” (1:16, 2:9) and to himself as the Lord’s “prisoner” (1:8).1 He has made his first defense before the authorities (4:16), using a word (ἀπολογία, apologia) that commonly, though not universally, refers to formal proceedings in court.2 Nobody but the Lord supported him in this proceeding (4:16), although at the time of writing, Luke is with him (4:11). All of Paul’s other supporters have left: some, like Demas, for bad reasons (4:9), others, e.g. Tychicus, at Paul’s behest (4:12), presumably to continue the evangelistic activity that Paul could no longer engage in himself.
Simply knowing that Paul was imprisoned as he wrote the letter does not narrow down the historical context very much because Paul was imprisoned on many occasions, potentially including some not recorded in Acts. Given that Onesiphorus was able to find him at Rome and minister to his needs (1:17), however, it stands to reason that he is being imprisoned there. At first glance, this points towards the imprisonment Luke records at the end of the book of Acts, but the circumstances of this Roman imprisonment appear to be different than those recorded in Acts.3 The hypothesis of a second, unrecorded Roman imprisonment for Paul dates to the early fourth century, if not earlier (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 2.22). Three main arguments support the hypothesis of a second imprisonment for Paul, one of which is particularly strong in my view.
Two of the arguments are somewhat circumstantial. Colossians, traditionally written from Rome during the imprisonment recorded in Acts, indicates that Mark and Timothy were with him at that point (Colossians 1:1, 4:10), whereas the closing of 2 Timothy instructs Timothy to come and bring Mark with him (4:9, 11). Granted, this argument is only definitive if Mark and Timothy were present throughout the imprisonment of which we know from Acts, which is a hard claim to sustain. Secondly, Acts ends on an optimistic note with Paul under house arrest but “proclaiming the kingdom of God and teaching the things concerning the Lord Jesus with all boldness, unhindered” (Acts 28:31), while the Paul of 2 Timothy is expecting “imminent” martyrdom (4:6). Strictly speaking, this piece of data only proves that Paul’s circumstances changed after the two years of which Luke speaks in Acts 28:30; it says nothing about a release and a second imprisonment.
The strongest argument is that the text of 2 Timothy seems to indicate a recent trip to Asia Minor: he left a cloak at Troas (4:13), and he left Trophimus behind at Miletus (4:20). If these events occurred during the period covered by Acts, they would be old news by the time Paul reached Rome, for he spent at least two years in Palestine (Acts 24:27). Moreover, we know that Paul did not leave Trophimus at Miletus when he headed towards Jerusalem because Trophimus was with him in Jerusalem, causing the crowd to jump to the conclusion that Paul had brought Gentiles into the Temple (Acts 21:28–29). A trip to Troas and Miletus on the way to Rome is unlikely because Luke records that Paul travelled from Caesarea to Rome via Crete and Malta (Acts 27:5–7, 28:1), leaving Troas and Miletus north of his likely route. Thus, these events must have occurred after the period recorded in Acts.
Putting all this together, what do we know about Paul’s situation as he is writing? He is in prison at Rome, awaiting a final disposition of his case. The imprisonment in question does not seem to be the same one as recorded at the end of Acts. Most importantly for the content of the letter itself, he is expecting to die soon, he is sitting on “death row,” as the article title suggests. He expects this to be the last chance he will have to advise his “beloved child Timothy” (1:2). In light of this understanding, what does he think is important enough to say here?
What Is Paul Addressing?
Whereas the book sheds quite a bit of light on Paul’s present situation, the information about Timothy’s circumstances primarily relates to his past and future. In terms of the past, Paul focuses on Timothy’s heritage of faith and the mentoring he had received from Paul himself. As a result of this preparation, Timothy knows what he needs to know in order to keep the Lord’s church on track after Paul’s death, in the face of both internal threats like false teachers and external threats like persecution by the state. What he lacks, and thus that with which God has Paul provide him, is the self-confidence—or, rather, the confidence that God is working through him—to meet these threats head-on. In other words, Paul’s primary purpose in writing is not to impart new information but, instead, to remind Timothy of the gravity of his task and the resources he has for accomplishing it.
Paul’s word choice bears out the importance of what Timothy already knows. After controlling for the differing lengths of books, a search in Logos Bible Software reveals that only 2 Peter uses words related to knowledge, learning, and memory more frequently than does 2 Timothy. Granted, these statistical results are less than perfect: Timothy is not the subject of some hits (e.g. Onesiphorus sought Paul in 1:17), and the search failed to turn up some relevant passages because the word Paul uses is categorized differently in the lexicon on whose tagging Logos relies (e.g. Paul tells Timothy to pass along “the things which you heard from me,” meaning what Timothy had learned from Paul and thus already knew, but ἀκούω, akouō, the word translated “hear,” is categorized under the domain for senses). Nevertheless, these statistics show the importance of Timothy’s prior experience and preparation for his current task. I reserve the discussion of the experiences, preparation, and task for a future article.
Waterloo Ontario
1 Scriptures cited by chapter and verse only are from 2 Timothy.
2 D.A. Carson, Douglas J. Moo, and Leon Morris, An Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992), 377.
3 Cf. ibid., 378.
