MSB Book notes:
First of two inspired letters to Paul's "son in the faith".  Timothy was from Lystra, in Galatia.  Timothy was probably late teens or early 20's when Paul asked him to accompany him on his second missionary journey.  Paul often sent Timothy to various churches/places as his representative.  MSB says that some "modernist critics" delight in attacking the plain statements of scripture, and for no real reason insist that Paul did not write the pastoral epistles of 1, 2 Timothy, Titus).  They ignore what the letters themselves say, and the testimony of the early church fathers - who's endorsement of Paul as writer of these is as strong as of any book in the NT except for 1 Cor and Romans.  These say the book was written by a devout follower of Paul in the second century.  They offer 5 "proofs":
1)  The historical references in these epistles cannot be harmonized with the chronology of Paul's life given in Acts
2)  The false teaching described in the Pastoral Epistles is the fully-developed Gnosticism of the second century
3)  The church organizational structure in the Pastoral Epistles is that of the second century, and is too well developed for Paul's day
4)  The Pastoral Epistles do not contain the great themes of Paul's theology
5)  The Greek vocabulary of the Pastoral Epistles contains many words not found in Paul's other letters, nor in the rest of the NT.

MSB says it is not necessary to dignify such unwarranted attacks by unbelievers.  Pretty strong language there.  Yet he does answer them:
1)  The historical events of the PE's are only incompatible with Acts if Paul was never released from that first imprisonment.  Acts does not record Paul's execution, and in Philippians, Paul clearly expected to be released.  Therefore, Acts as a book was completed before the events of the PE's occurred.  We wouldn't therefore expect to find them in Acts.  2)  The Gnosticism in the PE's was by people still within the church and was based on Judaistic legalism.  This was not the case in the second century.  3)  Church organization is consistent - in MSB evaluation - with Paul's recommendations.  Many verses cited. 4)  The PE's do in fact mention some of Paul's theology, including the inspiration of Scripture, election, salvation, the deity of Christ, His mediatorial work, and substitutionary atonement.  Verses are given for each of these.  I did not read them all.  5)  The different subject matter of the PE's required a different vocabulary than the other epistles.  Surely anyone at all would use different vocabulary in a personal letter to another pastor than in a work of systematic theology.  A number of additional reasons are given as to why this work was not done by an imposter/forger, based on the claims made and so on.  Again, a lot of references are given.

MSB concludes that Paul wrote 1 Tim and Titus shortly after his release from Roman imprisonment (around 62-64 AD) and 2 Tim from prison during his second imprisonment in Rome (66-67 AD), shortly before his death.

The list of "Interpretive Challenges" for this book is quite long.  I won't list them, but will try and note them as I come to them in the reading.  On the list though, are the qualifications for deacons, and the role of women in church leadership.

Chapter 1
Paul opens with a customary greeting, but skips past the usual recounting of his prayers for the addressee(s) and gets right to the business of the letter.  

Paul reiterates his desire for Timothy to remain at Ephesus in order to counteract false teaching in several areas.  Some apparently had gotten OCD about "myths" and "endless genealogies".  Makes me think of the Nephilim, the giants in the earth, and then of Ancestry.com, and people trying to connect themselves to famous, important, or "really cool" ancestors.  MSB attributes it to "allegorical or fictitious interpretations of OT genealogical lists.  MSB also makes it clear that the doctrines being taught by these false teachers differed from apostolic doctrine.  Paul is very explicit and uses "uncharitable language" about these false teachers:
6 Certain persons, by swerving from these, have wandered away into vain discussion, 7 desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions. [1Ti 1:6-7 ESV]
(MSB implies that Paul had confronted these teachers himself in Ephesus, and started the process of confrontation and expulsion of Hymanaeus and Alexander, before leaving Timothy to complete the process).   This is the second time he has mentioned "myths and endless genealogies".  This morning, I am thinking people were filling in what they considered to be gaps, and then creating whole new ancestors for themselves in the gaps, thereby elevating themselves to importance because of where they came from rather than who they were.

Paul goes on to explain what the Law (Mosaic Law) is actually for, in contrast to what these who don't understand it are saying.  MSB includes that these false teachers were trying to impose keeping of the law as a requirement for salvation.  The early church was "plagued" with those who taught this way.  Paul shows at some length that the law it to show that all sin, all are under condemnation, none is good, and so all need salvation.  The Law does not bring salvation in and of itself, but illuminates the fallen state of sinful man and so the great need for salvation by faith.

Paul gives a whole list of sins condemned by the law.  He says the law is not for the just, but for the lawless - and then he lists the lawless, beginning with those who strike their fathers and mothers (violation of the first commandment with promise).  In fact, all the sins listed have to do with the last half of the 10 Commandments.  NASB says "those who kill their fathers", ESV says those who strike their fathers and mothers.  Hmm...ESV is alone in not translating this as the murder of one's father or mother.  ALL the others translate it the same.  Note also that in this list of sins, we find homosexuality - not at the head of the list, but definitely in there.  There in all the translations.  Those who are "slave traders" are also in this list.  The old KJV used the term "menstealers". NKJV changed it to kidnappers.  NASB also says kidnappers.  But most translate it either slave traders or enslavers.  At any rate, it is quite a list of those that the Law is there to condemn.
2021 - I don't think I realized that this list of sins was here.  I know there is a long list in Romans that includes homosexuality, and a long list in one of the Corinthians that includes it.  But it is here too, along with a clear and distinct prohibition of forcing people into slavery.  Historically, in the Bible, slaves either sold themselves into slavery, sold their children into slavery, or we made slaves when they lost a battle/war.  But by this time, apparently the rounding up of free people - stealing them from the lives they had minding their own business - in order to profit by selling them was in full swing and the Bible here condemns that without equivocation.

So the Law is not written for people who are doing the right things already.  The law is not to save, but to condemn.  The Law was given to people who'd been slaves for 400 years, and who were immersed in a pagan culture as their way of life.  They didn't know what was ok with God, they new what was ok with Isis and Osiris.  The 10 Commandments were to show them how the people of a Holy God behaved.

Paul next says that he was one of those sinners, but that through Christ, he received mercy.  This fine verse, explaining why some pretty horrible people are saved:
16 But I received mercy for this reason, that in me, as the foremost, Jesus Christ might display his perfect patience as an example to those who were to believe in him for eternal life. [1Ti 1:16 ESV]

Lying, thieving drug addicted fornicators are sometimes saved, so that we all see just how truly merciful and loving to his enemies Jesus can be.

In vs 13 Paul says he "acted ignorantly in unbelief" before he was saved and knew better.  Paul a Pharisee among the Pharisees.  He was learned, trained, zealous for the law.  He was a brilliant man in the application of the law to those who were violating it, a great teacher, and a respected man.  And he was lost, completely.  Make no mistake, it can be quite difficult to tell the lost and the saved apart - except by their actions.  There was no love in the way Paul enforced the Law.  That was the tattle tale.

Vs 17 ends with an amen.

Then Paul charges Timothy to hold faith, and a good conscience, unlike Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom Paul has handed over to Satan.  The implication here is that these two false teachers, by their heresy, have lost their salvation, have wrecked it on the rocks, run it aground, sunk it beyond recovery.  Paul has seemingly given up on bringing them back into the fold.  What does MSB say?
MSB makes an analogy of good doctrine as the rudder that steers the ship, and loss of the rudder leads to shipwreck.  MSB maintains that having been in the church, having heard sound teaching concerning true doctrine, Hymenaeus and Alexander chose instead to embrace false doctrine.  They are apostate - defined as having turned away from the gospel, having once known it.  (If they go out from among us, they were never "of us").  So Paul's "giving up" is not about leaving the sheep lost, but about them not being sheep of this fold in the first place.  He's leaving them to the wolves.

Here are the verses:
19 holding faith and a good conscience. By rejecting this, some have made shipwreck of their faith, 20 among whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme. [1Ti 1:19-20 ESV]
"handing over to Satan" in this sense is putting them out of the church, out of the protection of other believers, and into the whole wide world dominated by Satan outside the church.  There are many reasons this might be done, very often to illuminate error, motivate repentance, and bring the rebellious - but saved - back into harmony with sound doctrine.  But sometimes, un-persuadable, un-convertible unbelievers are turned over to Satan for judgement.  That is what is in view with Hymenaeus and Alexander.

Chapter 2
The subject seems to change drastically here.  First two verses:
1 First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, 2 for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. [1Ti 2:1-2 ESV]
From turning church members over to Satan to praying for ALL people.

2021-2, Duties of a pastor maybe.  A daily schedule for Timothy to hold to.

These verses, which I believe are profound:
5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time. [1Ti 2:5-6 ESV]
(It seems that all I am doing lately is copying over the MSB notes.  It's like I'm not "figuring it out for myself" but I am "soaking it up" from John MacArthur.  This seems like the wrong thing, it seems shallower.  But then again, Paul never says not to listen to good teachers, just not to false teachers...)))
As Jesus is the ONLY mediator between God and man, there is NO way of salvation besides him.  I cringe for those who follow Islam where Jesus is "only a prophet", for those who look to their priests or the Pope for absolution, to those who think they themselves can just be good enough for God to accept.  This says Jesus only.  There is my old argument - still valid I believe - that if I must be baptized to get to heaven, then I need a man BESIDES Jesus to mediate for me.  MSB says the definite article is missing before Jesus Christ, so the interpretation is more like "Christ Jesus, himself a man" than the above "the man Jesus Christ".  

Much much MSB discussion of these verses.  Can't really afford not to include most of it.  So...
"a ransom"  Here, a ransom for all, but in Jesus' own words in Mt. 20:28, a ransom for many.  Not all will be ransomed, though Christ's death was sufficient to ransom all.  Only those for whom atonement was made are ransomed.  Christ on the cross was not just about paying a ransom, but about becoming a substitute for the just wrath of God toward sinful men.  Jesus substituted only for those who wold be saved.  This is Calvin's Limited Atonement.  MSB says to take "for all" in two ways.  1, there are temporal benefits of the atonement that accrue to all people universally, and 2) Christ's death was sufficient to cover the sins of all people.  Christ's death is therefore unlimited in its sufficiency, but limited in its application.  Since it is sufficient for all, God can offer salvation to all based on that sufficiency.  But only the elect will respond, and only the elect receive the offered salvation.

An interesting, and uncompromising use of pronoun:
8 I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling; [1Ti 2:8 ESV]  MSB says the word here is men, exclusively.  He is not including women in this.  This verse is also about men, not women, being the leaders in the church.  We don't see references to this one, likely because there is just no arguing with this one.  vs 9 makes it even more clear that Paul meant MEN in vs 8 by switching to instruction for women in vs 9.  It goes on.  Vs 8 was on purpose, and Paul goes into some detail about how women are to behave in church.  I am sure that some would say this was because of the culture, but if so, we would NOT have vs 13, referring to God's "type" for the roles of men and women.

2021 - It says "the men".  The definite article makes this an address to men only.  Even ESV lacks the footnote implying it might mean both men and women.  But do note that vs 9 starts with "likewise the women".  Definite article here also.  So to what does likewise refer?  To raising hands and praying, as the men do (which seems just fine) but then the restrictions begin in vs with "also".  As in "women can pray like the men do, but also the women need to do these things - dress modestly, don't get crazy with your hairdo, or wear overmuch jewelry in church.  She is to be submissive in church - even if nowhere else!  She is not to teach.  "didasko" is used 97 times in 91 verses.  Should be pretty conclusive as to what it means.  She's not to exercise authority over men, and for the second time, she's to be quiet in church.  Vs 18 gives the reason.  The woman was deceived by Satan.   A contrast with Adam is implied.  She was deceived, not realizing that she'd been duped.  Adam knew, and chose to sin anyway.  The responsibility for sin entering the world falls squarely on Adam, as the head, not on the woman as his helpmate.  She sinned when she usurped Adam's role as head, and decided on her own to eat that fruit at the urging of, and believing the lies, of Satan.  Adam knew.  His is the fault.  They both violated the roles that God intended for them at the creation.  MSB notes mention more than once that we are talking here about inside the church.  Women's role and deportment in the assembly, and so on.

Chapter 3
Qualifications for overseers.
MSB notes says the Greek is "one woman man", and therefore says nothing AT ALL about marriage or divorce.  Really????  John MacArthur says this???  Goes on to say this is not about marital status but about moral and sexual purity.  MSB goes on to eliminate many of my favorite interpretations of this verse.  He says the Bible does not even prohibit all remarriage after divorce.  The Bible encourages remarriage after death of a spouse.  If you couldn't be single, then Paul wasn't qualified as an apostle.  It doesn't say it, but MSB seems to imply that past "impurity" is not an immediate disqualification.  Who you are now is what is important.  This one is a difficult one for me.  MSB maintains that this is only about moral and sexual purity - marital status, now or previous, is irrelevant.

MSB mentions that among the qualifications "able to teach" is the only one that is different for elders and deacons.  The preaching and teaching of God's word is the primary responsibility of the overseer/elder/pastor.

Hmm...MSB talks about divorced elders in vs 4, under "who manages his own household well".  Quoting, "A divorced man gives no evidence of a well-managed home, but rather that divorce shows weakness in his spiritual leadership.  If there has been a Biblically permitted divorce it must have been so far in the past as to have been overcome by a long pattern of solid family leadership and the rearing of godly children. (v. 4, Titus 1:6)  It goes on to say this, very specifically - An elders children must be believers, well-behaved, and respectful.

2021 - It seems beyond clear in this chapter that there are both deacons and elders.  They are separate offices, with similar, but not precisely the same, qualification.  

2022, Later - See notes on 1Tim 5:9,14.  Divorce does not disqualify you from being a deacon or an elder.  I had this wrong.

This verse:
11 Their wives likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things. [1Ti 3:11 ESV], but in NASB:
11 Women [must] likewise [be] dignified, not malicious gossips, but temperate, faithful in all things. [1Ti 3:11 NASB]
Wow...MSB says of vs. 11, that this may be about women who serve as deacons, rather than deacon's wives!  This is based on use of the word "likewise" indicating a third group besides elders and deacons - women.  Also, no qualifications were given for elders wives, why would there be qualifications for deacon's wives.  
I am having my eyes opened this morning...Women cannot be in leadership positions in the church, but can most certainly be in service positions.  That's what this is saying.  So long as their character and behavior meets the required high standard, they can serve as deacons.  The line is at teaching - which is reserved for elders/overseers/apostles.  

This verse:
14 I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these things to you so that, [1Ti 3:14 ESV]  Before, when he has hoped to come, he has mentioned his imprisonment.  He even talks in one book about expecting to be released (it was noted above in the MSB intro to the book).  No chains are mentioned here, no hindrances.  We might safely assume that Paul has been released, and is making his own decisions about what he does and where he goes during this time.  

Chapter 4
MSB says the first three chapters are positive instruction, the last three are warnings.
1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, [1Ti 4:1 ESV]
1 But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, [1Ti 4:1 NASB]
1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, [1Ti 4:1 NKJV]
I am sure this verse is teeming with controversy. I suspect that no particular interpretation is "provable" or there wouldn't be controversy.  The guidance of the Holy Spirit must prevail.  Nevertheless, here is MacArthur's take:
"Those who fall prey to the false teachers will abandon the Christian faith.  The Gr. word for "fall away" is the source of the Eng. word "apostatize," and refers to someone moving away from an original position.  These are professing or nominal Christians who associate with those who truly believe the gospel, but defect after believing lies and deception, thus revealing their true nature as unconverted.  See notes on 1Jn2:19, Jude 24.
(I will deal with the notes when I get to these passages, but for now, here are those verses:
19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us. [1Jo 2:19 ESV]
24 Now to him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you blameless before the presence of his glory with great joy, [Jde 1:24 ESV])

The people who lead these away are truly bad people.  Liars with seared consciences is how Paul describes them.  He expands on their teaching that certain foods should not be eaten, saying that ANYTHING is made holy by the word of God and prayer.

2021 - So two groups.  First, the false teachers, who are truly false.  There is no doubt at all that these teachers are unsaved, motivated by their own greed and ambition and not at all by a desire to serve God.  These purposely and knowingly teach false doctrine, and in my book they do it to part people from their money.  The second group is those who are deceived by these teachers.  I would divide them into saved and unsaved, because I think some saved people, ungrounded, untaught, or immature in the gospel, can be deceived and led away by these.  I think these people are saved, but do not recognize the teaching as false, or prefer the false to the good.  Dogs returning to their vomit.  Then there are those who were never saved to start with, and find a "comfortable place" with what seems like truth but with no real demand for sanctification in its members.   

2022 - These unsaved may well be "outwardly religious", and inwardly in search of salvation by works.  Note that these false teachings always come down to that.  You need special knowledge from another person - something that you are "brilliant enough on your own" to understand, or you need to be circumcised, or need/must be able to speak in tongues, or you must prove yourself by being immune to snake bite.  False teaching ALWAYS includes personal accomplishment as a component of salvation.  Works based salvation is a flashing neon sign advertising false teaching.
Possible FB post with vs. 1.

This verse:
8 for while bodily training is of some value, godliness is of value in every way, as it holds promise for the present life and also for the life to come. [1Ti 4:8 ESV]
It has "some" value...though it is limited to our time on this earth in this life.  Godliness has eternal value...
Possible FB post...something to remember while making NY's resolutions.

In 11 Paul tells Timothy to "command" these things, and not to let people "minimize" him because of his youth.  

Here is an interesting verse I don't remember noting before:
14 Do not neglect the gift you have, which was given you by prophecy when the council of elders laid their hands on you. [1Ti 4:14 ESV]
This comes right after Paul tells Timothy to focus on public Scripture reading, exhortation, and teaching.  Apparently Paul recognized these as Timothy's spiritual gifts, conveyed(?) to him when elders laid hands on him.  Am I understanding this?  2021 - Yes, I think that's what this means.  It was referenced earlier also, chapter 1 I think.  Paul is bringing it up a second time to remind Timothy of where he came from and that he is gifted - prophesied to do this and then gifted with the skills required to do it.  This is pep talk, confidence building, encouragement.

Chapter 5

2023 - Spent a TON of time on Jeremiah 6-8 this morning.  Reading straight through Chapter 5.
2021-Still got slowed down by all the information in those first four chapters.  I have less than half an hour for the last two chapters.

Don't rebuke but encourage - as you would a family member, according to their age.  As in, an older male like your father, a younger  like your own brother.  Only mature widows were to be considered for church service.  Younger than that they were to remarry and be good examples.

2021 - Vss 3-8 are about widows who have no means to support themselves.  This is what "true widows" (over 60) is about.  If they have family - children, grandchildren and so on - then the family has first responsibility to take care of them rather than the church using its resources to do so.  Even widows indeed though, who are not devout, are not to receive church support.  You can't go to Vegas and gamble away what the church gives you.  Such are "dead already".  The church can let them starve?  Surely that isn't what it means????  It goes on to say that those who don't provide for family members in need are worse than non-believers.  
This goes on, separating widows by age.  Young widows are not to receive church support.  It seems that some devotion to the church over and above just going is required of widows who receive support from the church.  They become like nuns, maybe, chaste, serving, helping, and praying.  Perhaps this service to the church is sort of like "earning" the support that they receive.  But a young widow who goes into this but then decides to get married brings skepticism on the whole group.  So...young widows are not brought into this group.  They are to get married, have children with their second husbands, and raise the children well.

2022 - Uh oh....This verse:
9 Let a widow be enrolled if she is not less than sixty years of age, having been the wife of one husband, 10 and having a reputation for good works: if she has brought up children, has shown hospitality, has washed the feet of the saints, has cared for the afflicted, and has devoted herself to every good work. [1Ti 5:9-10 ESV].  So here is the thing.  This "wife of one husband" phrase is equivalent to "husband of one wife" in the case of elders.  Would we ever thing the phrase here means that any woman who had been married twice was ineligible for the support of the church as a widow over 60?  No.  No one would understand it that way.  Note the additional requirements of an exemplary life spent serving God, family, and others.  This is also very similar to the requirements for deacon and overseer.  Above reproach is the phrase that comes to mind.  And if you DO think only women married once are eligible, you run right smack into this verse just a little later:
14 So I would have younger widows marry, bear children, manage their households, and give the adversary no occasion for slander. [1Ti 5:14 ESV].  Would we ever believe that Paul would tell "young" widows to remarry and have children with their new husband if doing so was going to condemn them to abject poverty later due to their ineligibility for church support?  No.  These two verses make it very perfectly clear that "wife of one husband" DOES NOT mean only one husband ever.  And if that is so, it is ridiculous to try and maintain that husband of one wife means only one wife ever.  Wow.  That hits me hard.  First, the phrasing is just entirely too similar.  And second, would Paul insist that if you can't be abstinent you should remarry, knowing that would forever disqualify you from serving as a deacon or elder?  At this point, today, I don't think that's what it meant.  The case isn't quite as strong for men, but if you add this thing about widows, it is pretty clear how Paul means it.  Even so, I would still insist on a VERY extensive background investigation of any divorced man up for elder or deacon.  I'd want to know the reasons for the divorce, I'd want to know who filed for the divorce, I'd want to talk to the ex-wife.  I think a lot of work would be needed.  I suspect that a LOT of men would bow out voluntarily if they knew such an investigation would be required.  But I no longer hold the position that only men currently married to the only woman they've ever married should even be considered for deacon or elder and all others disqualified out of hand.  I had that wrong.

2022 - This verse:
12 and so incur condemnation for having abandoned their former faith. [1Ti 5:12 ESV].  This implies to me that "enrolled widows" are an office of the church.  Almost akin to nuns.  They devote themselves to the service of the church and its members.  The "stigma" for a young widow would be to commit to a life of service to the church, meet a guy while she's still able to bear children, and subsequently "leave the order" and go back to being a rank and file member of the church.  A woman who did this "incurred condemnation."  

2021-2, This verse:
16 If any believing woman has relatives who are widows, let her care for them. Let the church not be burdened, so that it may care for those who are truly widows. [1Ti 5:16 ESV].  If a relative is available to take in a widow, then they are to do so in the church.  It is the church's business to insist that relatives step up and do as they should, and take in needy family members.  The church is there to support those who have NO ONE at all to care for them.  So are we doing the right thing when we hand out school supplies to people who drive up in Cadillacs?  Are we doing right when we supply breakfast to people indiscriminately?  Is the excuse that we just don't know who is truly needy?  I think Paul is saying we better know.  If we don't know, why don't we?  Doesn't that mean that we are not going "far enough afield" in our ministering to find those who are truly needy?  And I think there is also a clear implication that the church helps those who are part of the church.  Bring them in first and then help them.  Strings should be attached.  The church is not the source of general public assistance.  I don't think it is.  The church should help the needy within the church.  How much medical assistance could we provide if we were not providing breakfast to people who could get their own breakfast?  Are we freeing up money for the parents to buy drugs when we relieve them of the cost of feeding their own children?  This all feels very "harsh", but I think that's what it says.  I mean, even widows over 60 with no supporting family are supposed to "contribute" to the working of the church!  Even they don't just get a handout because of their situation.  They have to have a good reputation and be serving the church.

Vss 17, 18 seem to imply that teaching elders should be paid.  This would seem reasonable for those who do so full time.  

2021-2, This verse:
20 As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear. [1Ti 5:20 ESV]
This seems to be the way errant elders are to be dealt with, but it might be a more general admonition.  It says "As for those...", it does not say "As for elders..."  I think the context though is about elders, and I would restrict this to them.  But note that it says elders can get way out of line, though the selection process is quite specific about choosing only the best men for the job.  But those so selected are subject to the attack of the adversary.  They make themselves targets.

There is much here on the selection of elders.  Patience is highly recommended.  In the words of the MSB note, "time and truth go hand in hand".  Both the sins of those aspiring to be elders, and the hidden good works of others, will come out in time.  This surely seems to mean that we shouldn't do the whole elder selection process in a month.  It ought to be years that they are under examination.  Of course, this would only apply if elders and deacons are separate.  If there is only one office, then what? 

Chapter 6
2021 - I got a lot more done on 5.  Next year 6.
About "bondservants", who should continue to be "good bondservants" as required by law.

2021-2,  Apparently the idea that all were equal under Christ - which they are - was making slaves think they were no longer required to serve their masters, especially if that master was a Christian.  There is an interesting concept.  Those who were saved were not at all obligated to free their slaves because of their salvation.  In that culture, slavery was ubiquitous.  It wasn't the "bad people" who had slaves.  There was no nationwide understanding that slavery was an evil institution.  And on top of all that, the idea of bondservant is not the same as the idea of slave anyway - or it was not at that time in that place.  So Paul, in telling Timothy how to guide that church, says that if you are a bondservant, you need to be a good one!  And if your master is a believer, then you need to be a better bondservant still.  This is how you honor God - not by causing trouble but by serving out your bondage, paying in full and then some.  As for true slaves at that time, they were prisoners of war, essentially, and that too was part of that culture.  It was all Rome at that time, Rome's rules were superimposed on pretty much every place that Paul or Timothy ever went.

Those who promote controversial ideas are in fact in the "religion business", according to vs. 5, which says they are "imagining that godliness is a means of gain."  Doesn't that ring true!  We've all seen people like that, mostly on TV.  Osteen comes to mind as most prominent of late, but he is by no means the only one.  Timothy, as a trainee of Paul's, is expected to discern a "different doctrine" when confronted with one.  Paul is not teaching Timothy in this letter about what the doctrine really is  He assumes, because he taught Timothy, that this is given.  He is telling Timothy how to deal with it when it comes up.  Again, this is Paul's instruction to a young preacher in a large church where inexperience might lead to timidity rather than godly assertiveness.

6 But godliness with contentment is great gain, 7 for we brought nothing into the world, and we cannot take anything out of the world. 8 But if we have food and clothing, with these we will be content. [1Ti 6:6-8 ESV]  The point is not that we should be poor.  The point is not to purposely keep ourselves poor.  But we ought to realize that not only are food and clothing all that we really need, and blessings in themselves, but if we have more, that is just extra that God has given us.  Learning to appreciate what we have, and to be satisfied with what we have, is the basis of a contented life.  So don't set your mind on wealth, don't be greedy.  Greed will make you do things for which you will be sorry.

Paul gives Timothy some final instructions, kind of a pep talk.  But then again he begins to talk about the rich.  He tells Timothy again how to deal with the wealthy.  Were they trying to run the church?  Or were they behaving in a worldly way in order to get still richer, and yet claiming to be model Christians.  Perhaps claiming that their very success is proof of God's blessing of their methods.  Which it is not.  Here are some verses about it:
17 As for the rich in this present age, charge them not to be haughty, nor to set their hopes on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who richly provides us with everything to enjoy. 18 They are to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous and ready to share, 19 thus storing up treasure for themselves as a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of that which is truly life. [1Ti 6:17-19 ESV]
I would call these "Words to Live by for those who have plenty".  

The last verse looks almost like Paul ran out of time, though he had more to say.  Like he had to wrap it up before he wanted to do so.  It doesn't look like the usual closing of his letters.

MSB Notes on 2 Timothy:
A personal letter from Paul to Timothy, the second such.  Titled as all his personal letters with the name of the recipient.  This is the last letter Paul wrote to anyone, shortly before his martyrdom in about 67 AD.

Paul got released from his first imprisonment (though I don't think we have any information about why, nor any specifics about what he did afterward.)  He is apparently arrested again, as part of Nero's persecution of all Christians.  We only know of this because of this little book.  The first time Paul was imprisoned, he was confident he would be released.  That is not the case as he writes 2 Timothy.  At his first imprisonment, Paul was only under house arrest, and was able to teach and preach freely.  This time he is in chains in a cold cell.  Persecution is so intense at this time that most - if not all - of his friends have abandoned him.  They aren't trying to see him in the prison so would not be bringing him a decent meal now and then either.  He is truly abandoned by all but God.  He urges Timothy to come and see him one last time.  We don't know if Timothy made it...or indeed even attempted to make it.

In this last letter, knowing he wasn't going to be there to assist Timothy further, he sends him a last collection of exhortations, perhaps calling attention to the things Paul had found most important, most foundational, most needed for advancement of the cause of Christ.  

There is some indication that Timothy was weakening in the faith.  Perhaps the load was too heavy.  I would bet those he served were increasingly ungrateful and unfaithful as Nero's persecution grew in intensity and consequences.  Perhaps Timothy himself feared for his life.  We know from the end of Hebrews that Timothy was imprisoned at least once and later released.  Perhaps this was such an awful time for Timothy that his vigor as Paul's only real successor in teaching had been diminished.  MSB says Paul has some praise for Timothy in this letter, but many more admonitions,   as if Paul was more worried than proud at this time. 

MSB says no major "Interpretive Challenges" in this book, just a number of names that we have little or no information about.  Jannes and Jambres are among them.

Chapter 1
An introduction - more of a salutation - opens the book.  I note that Paul very often mentions both Father and Son in his openings, but can't remember him ever referring to the Holy Spirit.  Why would this be?  Perhaps because the Holy Spirit doesn't need to "send" greetings, since it resides in us already?

2021-2, Paul is in a cell, somewhere in Rome, at least that's how I read the MSB intro to the letter.  How then did he get writing materials and how was he able to "mail" the letter?  Did he befriend one or more of the guards?  Is this letter all in his own hand, which was apparently large and clunky, perhaps owing to severe nearsightedness?  We hear that Paul was in a sort of dungeon like hole in the ground with only an opening at the top, and that food and maybe a little water was dribbled down.  So sewage removal, probably no bedding, no blankets.  Cold wet, and putrid.  How could he have written and posted ANY kind of letter from such a place?  No.  We have to assume he was at least in a better place than that.  Perhaps he was in such a place for a time, and that's why his friends abandoned him - because they couldn't reach him anyway?  Or maybe he was in that place AFTER this letter was written.  Maybe his sentence - his torture - was to remove him from the kind of cell from which he wrote this last letter, sent by means of the last person who would ever be allowed to visit him, and drop him down into that awful hole in the ground.  Did he die in that hole, that last place, starved, cold, sick and abandoned?  I looked online and there is no real tradition about how Paul died.  There is no information.  At that time, beheading was a common enough execution in Rome, but we aren't told anywhere that he died that way.  After all the ignominious ways those he once persecuted died at his hands, perhaps it is fitting that his death passed with no regard at all.  Not even a big public beheading.  He might well have died down in that dungeon, and his body just wasted away down there, eaten by rats...or his fellow prisoners.  What a horror.

This is an interesting verse:
3 I thank God whom I serve, as did my ancestors, with a clear conscience, as I remember you constantly in my prayers night and day. [2Ti 1:3 ESV]
"as did my ancestors".  Paul sees no distinction between the God he serves as a Christian and the God served by the Jews historically.  This reinforces the idea that Christianity is a progression - a continuation - of God's original plan for mankind from the beginning of time.  Islam sees itself as a continuation - I think - of pre-Law worship by Abraham, Adam, and so on, though they do consider Moses a prophet.  Why don't they follow Mosaic Law?  What is their reason for dropping that?  Islam considers Christianity a fake religion.  While the scriptures to the Jews were honored, Christians are considered polytheistic.

2021-2,  3 I thank God whom I serve, as did my ancestors, with a clear conscience, as I remember you constantly in my prayers night and day. [2Ti 1:3 ESV].  Look at that phrase "with a clear conscience".  Paul doesn't say this, doesn't put it in writing, because he has kept score of all the bad things he did and all the good things, and he's worked it out that he's on the top side of things.  He doesn't think he's preached to enough people to offset the ones he persecuted when he was young.  He doesn't mean that because he knows what the gospel, as we now have in the New Testament, clearly teaches that it is about grace, not about anything we've done - good or bad.  I think his conscience was clear because he believed in his heart, all the way down in the secret locked vaults of his own conscience, in the place where the sins only he even knew about were hidden, that God had forgiven everything because Jesus had paid for everything.  Many of us say we believe this, but we still carry around guilt about things that we don't really think can be - or should be - forgiven.  When we do this, we are mistaking regret for guilt, and we handicap ourselves because after all, how can we guide someone else to Christ when we are still so guilty ourselves?  Want to know how we can take a load off our shoulders this Christmas?  We can let go of the guilt about sins we no longer have anyway!  Then we can hold our head up while we tell others what Christ has done for us!
Possible FB post for 12/23/21.

These verses:
6 For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands, 7 for God gave us a spirit not of fear but of power and love and self-control. [2Ti 1:6-7 ESV]
The phrase "fan into flame" implies that the flame is lower than it once was.  An indication that Timothy was having problems.  I have always liked vs 7.  We shouldn't live in fear, but realize our own power.  Is that right?  Or is this about the Holy Spirit that gives us power?  MSB has a note but I don't find it very helpful in this regard.

2021 - Laying on of hands.  This went beyond the gifts of the Spirit that we all receive when we are saved, to something more - something that equipped the recipient of this touch for a specific purpose.  It reminds me of Elisha's request to receive a double portion of Elijah's spirit.  It reminds me of Moses appointing others to help with judging Israel.  Was there a laying on of Moses' hands?  I don't remember precisely.  There was no hand laying between Elijah and Elisha.  I do remember that Moses was somewhat diminished as a result of the event, so some kind of something went out of him and into the new judges.  (No.  It did not diminish...see notes there.)  Is that what is supposed to happen when we ordain elders/deacons, and when a new minister is ordained?  They receive some portion of power from those who lay their hands on?  That would mean, that when a person is ordained, those willing to lay their hands on them are conveying some part of their "closeness" with God to the recipient.  Wouldn't that tend to make you a lot more particular about who's head you were willing to lay hands on?  Might even make you a little bit stingy about it...I don't think I have ever heard an in-depth discussion of this.  Also, when someone is sick, we are to call for the elders of the church and they are to lay their hands on the afflicted person.  Is something transferred in that situation also?  This would be a good study!

Paul tells Timothy not to be ashamed.  
2021 - Here is the verse:
8 Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony about our Lord, nor of me his prisoner, but share in suffering for the gospel by the power of God, [2Ti 1:8 ESV]
The implication is that Timothy is at least a little ashamed of Paul at this time.  Would it have something to do with Paul's activities while he was free from house arrest?  We know absolutely nothing of that time.  We know that Paul had some real "set to's" with the leaders in Corinth at one time, maybe something more happened there.  Or maybe Paul avoided the previous trouble spots?  Or maybe, in what I would consider typical Pauline fashion, he went right to most controversial spot there was - where persecution and corruption were most rampant - and preached the gospel loud and long, leading to his second arrest?  My point is that this change of disposition toward Paul by "all those in Asia" and by clear implication in this verse, even by Timothy, was probably precipitated by an event that was known far and wide.  And we are the only ones in the dark about it.  Couple this with my opinion that in 2Cor, I think Paul admits to losing his temper and possibly attacking physically some of the false teachers in Corinth.  It really could have been this very "failure" that had become widely known while Paul was in Rome, that made many embarrassed to have supported him.  Hmm...I think that is a real possibility.

2020 - Perhaps Timothy is in fear of Roman persecution - or maybe he is afraid of being reported to the Roman authorities - if he shares the gospel with strangers!  In modern times, in our culture, we are afraid of being ridiculed for sharing the gospel.  But Timothy was less worried about that and more worried about a prison cell.

This verse, that bothered me the first time I took notes on this book also:
15 You are aware that all who are in Asia turned away from me, among whom are Phygelus and Hermogenes. [2Ti 1:15 ESV]
This is probably more about the church leaders in various churches who have denied that they know Paul in order to escape persecution themselves.  Maybe they've even provided testimony against him to save themselves.  People do strange things when the authorities threaten to imprison their wives and children.  Many might stand firm for themselves, but the Romans made no such distinction.  Aren't we lucky today in that regard!?
MSB also points out that Paul didn't mean the Asian continent had turned against him, but the Roman province of Asia, part of modern Turkey.  It also corroborates that the two named were likely promising leaders who folded under pressure.  
In 16, Paul mentions Onesiphorous, a good friend and loyal, who still visits him and looks after him as he can.  So not "everyone" had abandoned Paul.
2021 - Oh my....The seven churches of Revelation are all in the Roman province of Asia.  None of the seven is in any other province.  And here Paul singles them ALL out - even Philadelphia - as having turned against him during this period of intense persecution.  Is this why John sent messages to Asia and no others?  Did Rome single out Asia for the persecution of Christians, so they were under a lot more pressure than other churches, like the one in Jerusalem, like Corinth and Thessalonica, Phillippi, both Antiochs...None of these others rated a letter from John, but the churches in Asia did.  Surely there is something more to this....

Chapter 2
2021-2, This verse, not controversial at all when Paul wrote it, but the source of who knows how much dissent today:
2 and what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also. [2Ti 2:2 ESV].  Faithful men are to be entrusted.  Footnote in ESV says the word for men is "anthropoi", and that it can refer to both men and women.  I bet that's exactly right.  But in this case, does it?  Not if we are going to be consistent with what Paul said about women teachers.  Not if the analogies that follow are taken to heart.  Soldiers, athletes, farmers?  These were exclusively male roles in that day.  To say now that Paul "would have included women" but for the culture of the time again disregards the Biblical roles of men and women.  And while it is true that in many households today, the jobs of cooking and meal planning has been taken over by the man, I don't think it is common at all for the woman to be the primary bread-winner while the husband stays home with the children.  Just not so.  Both husband and wife now work outside the home, and that necessitates a modification of traditional household responsibilities.  A more equal division of the "chores" is only right in such a situation.  I won't get into whether or not it is a good idea for the woman to work outside the home except to say that the studies say they do so to the detriment of the children.  I know I've heard this more than once, I just wish I had access to the studies.  I wish there was a library where I could research such things.  But where would that be?  Certainly not at the OKC Metro Library.  That's not what they have.  Would need to be a college or university library.

2022 - Vs. 2 again:  So simple.  Paul is NOT giving Timothy instructions on how to run a church service, which is exactly what he was doing in 1 Timothy.  The Great Commission is indeed a general instruction to teach the gospel, and it is directed to all Christians.  Women ARE supposed to teach in this context - teach their friends, their neighbors and so on.  This vs two is referencing that general instruction, not the conduct of church business.

Paul gives several analogies as encouragement to Timothy to work hard for the gospel.  Soldiers, undistracted by civilian affairs unrelated to military service, athletes, who stick with the rules of competition if they expect to win the contest, diligent farmers who "ought to" get the first share of the crop.  Each of these is about some different aspect of service to God.  Stay focused, keep sound doctrine and don't cut corners, remember the reward for your efforts at the last day.  

2021-2, This verse:
7 Think over what I say, for the Lord will give you understanding in everything. [2Ti 2:7 ESV].  Does this not say that there is more here than a cursory reading will reveal?  Isn't this true of the whole Bible?  But Paul is telling Timothy that these analogies contain much instruction.  We ought to be careful with them also, and think deeply about them.

The quote in 11-13 seems to be Paul quoting himself in an earlier letter (Rom. 6:8, 1Th 5:10).  The theme of saved persons being "in Christ" is in 11, 12a.  vs 13 breaks the pattern.  It says that even if we are faithless, he is faithful?  I looked at both references, and neither contains this whole "saying".  Perhaps the saying had grown into an oft-repeated statement of faith among the churches of that time.  But still...why the change in the last section?

2021-2, Here are those verses and something that occurred to me this time through:
11 The saying is trustworthy, for: If we have died with him, we will also live with him;  - This is about the rapture.
12 if we endure, we will also reign with him; if we deny him, he also will deny us;  -If we endure t/gt we will be judged in the sheep and goat judgment.  The sheep will enter the Millennial Kingdom and rule, the goats will go into punishment.
13 if we are faithless, he remains faithful-- for he cannot deny himself. [2Ti 2:11-13 ESV]  - still this verse seems to break the pattern.  It does not fit the progression of 11,12 that I can see.  This almost sounds like Peter, denying three times, but restored by Jesus after the resurrection.  At the end, to whom would this apply?  What "group" is this?

MSB makes a point that those who deny Christ is about apostates - those who were seemingly in, but weren't really saved.  These, knowing the gospel, having great knowledge of the gospel - never really commit with a whole heart to believing it.  They maintain some reservations.  These deny Christ, and he knows they do, and will reciprocate at the end.
MSB says that last phrase - that breaks the pattern, just means that for those who are apostate - that is faithless - Jesus will be faithful to Himself, and dispense the justice of eternal fire.  As he is faithful to save those who believe, He must - and will - despise those who are not saved.

2022 - I wonder, this time, if vs 13 is about those who fail in the face of severe testing.  Like Peter did.  Peter believed, Peter was saved, and Peter denied three times because he was scared to death.  And Jesus made a point of restoring him after the resurrection.  Saved people do sometimes fail.  We ALL do.  And if we read it this way, then we can put it into the same context as 11, 12, in which it really ought to fit.  There will be those during tgt that rat out their relatives/friends/neighbors to save themselves, to feed their children, to survive the persecution.  Some will just be overcome by events, and put the cares of this world first.  We cannot condemn such because we have not been faced with such dire consequences ourselves.  But Jesus will remain faithful, even if we are desperately weak.  This is not about the lost.  To say that is to say that no real Christian ever buckles under the load, and that is NOT CORRECT.

Paul next urges Timothy to stick to the important points of doctrines and teachings, and not to get bogged down in things of little or no consequence.  This just gets people irritated at each other over things that don't really matter.  Timothy needs to steer clear of such things.  An example is given of two men who go about trying to prove the resurrection of Christians has already taken place.  Hmm...this would seem to be something worth refuting...Perhaps Paul's point is that it is obvious the resurrection of dead Christians has NOT happened, so Timothy should be dismissive about the whole thing, and not give them a platform to spread this theory that weakens the faith of some.  
2021-2, Wonder if those two guys are from Thessalonica?  Or maybe they're traveling around to churches everywhere and teaching this, likely in exchange for room and board and a bit more?  Hymenaeus is only mentioned in the two letters to Timothy, Philetus only in 2Tim.  So we don't know where they were from.  But Paul's letters to the Thessalonians sure make you think they'd at least spent some time there.

Vvs 20, 21 seem to say that in the church, there will be devoted believing Christians, and there will be pretenders.  However, if the pretenders will put away their apostasy, they too can be vessels of honor.  

Then again, either reiterating, or bringing up again because it is such a problem, we get this:
23 Have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies; you know that they breed quarrels. [2Ti 2:23 ESV]
So the whole "already resurrected" thing is foolish and ignorant.  Anyone with any grounding would know that.  Perhaps Paul is telling Timothy to stay apart from these "foolish" controversies and devote himself instead to the more insidious ones.  Let others deal with the foolish ones.

24 And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, 25 correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, 26 and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will. [2Ti 2:24-26 ESV]
2020 - Paul says straight out that those who advance these foolish ideas are being used by Satan to undermine the church and its doctrine.  That would make them unsaved.  Those already saved need not be granted repentance anew.  They are still to be treated with gentleness and kindness in the hopes that they may see their error and come to a saving faith.  This is in contrast with the guy in Corinth who was to be put right out of the church.  What is the difference between the two cases?  (2021-2, The guy in Corinth had been "corrected" repeatedly and refused to stop teaching bad doctrine.  He'd had many chances.  This is the difference.  Correction starts mildly, and escalates until it is either effective or the "un-correctable" person is excommunicated.
2021 - I am more convinced than ever that these "opponents" are so characterized because they are squarely on the "other side".  These are not saved, yet are inside the church, perhaps teaching in the church, and advancing and promoting doctrine that is unsound.  The instructions to Timothy - who is not preaching unsound doctrine - is to contend with these, but to do so gently and kindly, hoping to open their minds and hearts so they might be saved.  I just really don't see leaving such people in positions of authority, so surely Paul is talking here about rank and file members who go down wrong paths because they are not truly saved.  They are used of Satan - because they belong to him - to introduce distracting and unsound ideas and doctrines and possibilities with the express goal of weakening the church, and of keeping souls from being taken from his domain and put into God's by their repentance.

2021-2, As the pastor at this church, Paul may be encouraging Timothy to be the "arbiter" of sound teaching.  The pastor has the responsibility of knowing what is being taught in his church, and of making sure it stays on the right track.  That might even be job 1.  

MSB not much help on this particular question.

Chapter 3
A description of the last days.  It must surely have seemed to Timothy that he was already in difficult times.  Paul is in prison, scheduled for execution, and he does not consider that evidence of the last days.  He sees Nero's intensifying persecution, and doesn't see that as end times.  End times will be much worse.  

There is a long list of characteristic behaviors that identify the last days.  Every one of them is present today.  Seems to me they were present the day Paul wrote this letter.  So in the last days, these things must be pervasive.  Ubiquitous.  (2021 - Or "the last days" is being used in the sense of the time from Jesus' resurrection until the end of the Age of the Gentiles.  So these things would and do characterize our present day as much as they did Paul's day because all of us - and all of them - are living in this version of the last days.)  It must be that in the last days, it will be difficult to find someone who does NOT have these characteristics.  But I think these verses are about people within the church.  The church will be indistinguishable from the world.  Maybe that is what Paul means about the last days?  That even in the church, people will act like the world.  MSB....well sort of talks about similar ideas, but really exposits each verse rather than looking at the overall point.  The MSB notes certainly say that there will be false teachers in the church, leading it astray.  It does NOT clearly say that the world and the church will look the same.

2021-2,  This verse, at the end of the long list:
5 having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people. [2Ti 3:5 ESV].  I am interested in that last phrase.  Avoid such people.  This does not fit well with "the whole have no need of a physician."  Is this instruction only to Timothy at that time, and by extension only to preachers today?  If we all avoid these, then to whom will we witness, since pretty much all lost people fit a good part of this description.  MSB does not even mention that last phrase, but focuses on how these people have an outward appearance of godliness - like the Pharisees did, and many of the false teachers did.  They come under false pretenses, in disguise if you will.  Wolves in sheep's clothing.  This is who Timothy is to avoid.  People who have these characteristics of unsaved people but who look for all intents and purposes like good Christian people.  These hypocrites, these who are one thing but look like another, are the ones to be avoided.  Don't confront them?  Don't debate them?  To do so only gives them credibility.  Deny their false teachings loudly, but avoid them directly.  That's how John MacArthur handles Joel Osteen and others.  He calls them out publicly but he does not go to their churches and stand up and yell at them.  This is what this means.

2021-2, This verse:  
8 Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men corrupted in mind and disqualified regarding the faith. [2Ti 3:8 ESV]  I think the implication here is that Jannes and Jambres knew, they were certain, that the signs of Moses were legitimate, supernatural, from God, and they were not magician's tricks.  Even so, rather than switch sides, or tell Pharoah that these things were real, and therefore the Hebrew God was real, their goal was to maintain their positions, and remain subject to unreal gods, because in such a system it was not the false gods that had the power, but the priests and magicians who represented those gods.  They were false teachers, and the knew they were.  Then there is the promise that those who behave this way in the church will be found out, that all will see.

This verse:
12 Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, [2Ti 3:12 ESV]
Does this mean that if we are not being thrown into prison for our faith, we don't really desire to live a godly life?  Is this a criteria for examining our own salvation?  Our own commitment?  If we are not persecuted, it is because we are not aggressive enough in our proclamation of the gospel?  So many questions arise from this verse...MSB doesn't make such a big deal of it...

These verses, with a fundamental truth:
16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. [2Ti 3:16-17 ESV]
There is much about these verses in "Scripture Alone".  If we accept the premise in 16 that all scripture is Scripture, that it is the very words OF God, directly FROM God, then we rest on verse 17, which says Scripture has every single thing necessary for a man to be complete - that is to know everything a Christian ever needs to know - and sufficient.  We do not need the pope to tells us what the word says, nor the books of Islam and Mormon to give us still more information than what is in the scriptures.  We have all that we need to have in the Bible as it stands.

Chapter 4
2021-2, This verse:
1 I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: [2Ti 4:1 ESV]
Another judgment verse.  Jesus will judge the living before the Millennial and the dead at the Great White Throne.  Will he judge the raptured?  

Paul gives Timothy a very direct "charge" to "preach the word".  As if maybe Timothy was taking too many Sundays off...
Paul says that there will be a time when "real preachers" will be run off, and those who say what the congregation wants to hear will be promoted.  Paul is saying "Preach now, while someone is still willing to listen."

2021-2, Look at the definition of "preaching":
2 preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. [2Ti 4:2 ESV].  I had wondered at first what text Timothy was preaching from.  You have to wonder about that.  Today, preachers use OT and NT, and the OT is clarified by the NT.  Back then, there was no NT.  There were in increasing but limited number of letters from Paul, that told how things were to be done.  He either extrapolated from the OT or he had direct revelation.  But these letters, in that time and context, were just letters from a guy who went all over the world teaching about Jesus.  Many did not believe his credentials.  But this doesn't say preach expositionally from the existing scriptures.  It says reprove, rebuke and exhort.  In our day, preachers are long on exhort and reproof and rebuke are almost non-existent, at least from the pulpit to the assembled.  Rummage says abortion is wrong.  Rummage does not say that if you believe in abortion you ought to be ashamed of yourself and go back and do some serious Bible study and moreover, you might want to check on the status of your salvation, because saved people, with study, will ALWAYS come down on abortion as the worst sort of shedding of innocent blood.  And if you still believe it is ok, then you need to be rebuked, it is time for you to leave this church and go out into the world where people believe like you believe.  In here, we believe the Bible, and we do not hide that because of the culture.  I don't know that I have EVER heard a sermon with real reproof and rebuke in it.  Two out of three are missing today.  It would have been difficult, preaching without scripture.

2021-2, Here is the reason preaching is as it is now...didn't have to wait too long for the answer:
3 For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, [2Ti 4:3 ESV].  You will never find a modern day "John the Baptist" preaching at the biggest church in town.  They wouldn't have him.  They wouldn't have people even a lot milder than John.  John MacArthur is maybe the closest thing there is to what Paul is urging Timothy to be.  He call out false teachers.  He calls out Catholicism.  Does he have any sermons on Islam?  I think I want to hear those if he does.  I think he still "dis-fellowships" members who get divorced for divorce without cause.  I sure would like to know more about how he does that.  But the point is, if a preacher gets to doing too much reproving, and any rebuking at all, the church is likely to decide they need a different preacher.

Paul makes it clear in 6-8 that he does not expect to preach again.  He does not expect to be released.  He believes he has done all that God had planned for him to do, and it is now time to go home.

2021-2, Look at this verse:
8 Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will award to me on that day, and not only to me but also to all who have loved his appearing. [2Ti 4:8 ESV]
Paul believed he would receive a crown.  Jesus is going to present it to him, and to many others, on "that day".  This is the "bema seat" judgment - though I still do not think it is a third judgment.  I think this happens at the GWT.  Paul does nothing to imply that his crown will be bigger, but instead that ALL who "have loved" his appearing will likewise receive the Crown of Righteousness.  Makes me think of the "Purple Heart", or the "Combat Medal", except a crown.  But the biggest thing is the time it will be awarded - "on that day".  From this, we can at least say that the saved will receive their awards at a specific time.  This STILL DOES NOT say they will be judged in any way.  The race will already be over.  There won't be a judgment so much as an awards ceremony.  But is that right in light of the verses that talk about some works being "burnt up in the fire".  Is that the fire that consumes the old heaven and earth?
Took a look at the MSB.  Bible text takes up less than a quarter of each page in 2Tim4, and study notes take up the rest.  This is one of those passages that are just rich with lessons, with ideas, with content.  MSB has a pretty lengthy note on vs 8:
There are five crowns mentioned in the NT.  The reference for each is given in this note.  In those, the description is about an intrinsic characteristic of the crown itself, rather than of the action that was the source of the crown.  So the Crown of Life means, perhaps that the crown is about eternal life.  But here, the Crown of Righteousness might well be about the life of righteousness, the belief, the justification and most of all the sanctification that takes place over the life of the believer, and this crown is because of that sanctification.  The crown is not righteous, but instead signifies righteousness in the wearer.  The MSB note says it might mean this, or might be like the other four crowns.  As for "on that day", we are referred to the note on 2Tim1:12.
There are extensive xrefs to still other places, and no real explanation of when this term applies.  The phrase is found in vs 12, but also in v 18 - which is interesting in that it certainly implies at least a qualitative judgment of believers:
18 may the Lord grant him to find mercy from the Lord on that day!--and you well know all the service he rendered at Ephesus. [2Ti 1:18 ESV].  This is Paul's prayer for Onesiphorus, who had remained loyal to Paul through his trials.  The implication is that Paul wants Onesiphorus to receive a good reward on "that day".  We must believe from Paul's further description of him that he was saved.  So why would he need mercy if he was saved already?  Perhaps in the magnitude of his reward?  These words need to be studied on out, but here too is a really good indication of a "qualitative judgment of the works of the saved".  I am dispensing with the whole bema thing, because I think it is misused to designate a third time of judgment and I cannot find where that is the case.  
Phil 1:6 should be looked at in ref to that day.  Here is the verse:
6 And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ. [Phl 1:6 ESV].  So this verse has a reference to "the day of Jesus Christ", and here is the bulk of the note:
This phrase is not to be confused with the "Day of the Lord" which describes final divine judgment and wrath.  "Day of Christ Jesus" is also called the "day of Christ" (v 10, 2:16) and the "day of our Lord Jesus Christ" (1Co 1:8), which looks to the final salvation, reward, and glorification of believers.  Cf 1Co 3:10-15; 4:5; 2Co 5:9,10.
So, lot's of "note" but nothing specific about the time of judgment.  "that day" refers to the same "day" as these other three phrases (so it has four names), it is about the reward of believers, and yet...there is no "when" that I have yet found.  That diagram of his from his book seems to imply that this day takes place in heaven right after the rapture, which would also seem to imply either that only NT saints will get these rewards or that both OT and NT saints will rise at the rapture.  
Again, the deeper I go, the less clear it is.
There are also notes on Phil 1:10.
In the note at 2Tim 1:12 it also says this:  "Also called "day of Christ" when believers will stand before the judgment seat and be rewarded (see notes on 1Co 3:13; 2Co 5:10; 1Pe 1:5)."  These would be very good to look at...though I think I've already seen them all.
Copying this whole section to the judgment study, because it is really much more about that than about notes on 2Tim4...and I need to move on through today's reading!

Paul asks Timothy to make a sincere effort to come and see him.  
Demas had left Paul, drawn back to the things of this world, and gone to Thessalonica.  Wouldn't Paul be worried about what Demas might teach them?  Demas could claim his false teaching came direct from Paul, and undermine that whole church.  THAT is why the writings of Paul are Scripture!  Because we already know those letters served to bring the early churches back to pure doctrine.  That pure doctrine must persist, and it does so through the writings of Paul!  Oh my...this is why the writings of the NT MUST be considered Scripture!

2021-2, This verse:
11 Luke alone is with me. Get Mark and bring him with you, for he is very useful to me for ministry. [2Ti 4:11 ESV]
Wherever it is that Paul is writing from, it is unlikely to be a prison cell.  Unless we are to believe that Luke is imprisoned with him.  At the very least, if Paul is imprisoned, he is allowed visitors, and it would make sense that Luke is the one furnishing Paul with writing equipment, and is the one "posting" the letters as Paul finishes them.  It is also possible that Luke was his "stenographer", or was bring someone with him who could take down what Paul dictated.  Paul is NOT at this point in that hole in the ground dungeon that I heard one preacher say he is in at some point.  I don't t think we have anything but some tradition, and perhaps not a "widely accepted as truth" tradition that Paul was ever in that dungeon.  But if he was, I don't think he ever wrote a letter from there, and I would think it likely that he died there.  This vs 11 says that while Paul's own movements might have been entirely restricted at this time, he was not unable to communicate, his conditions were hospitable enough to allow at least for dictation of his letters if not his actual writing them, and for those willing to brave the suspicion and possible persecution that might accrue from doing so, he could still have visitors and so receive some moral support.
13 When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas, also the books, and above all the parchments. [2Ti 4:13 ESV]
He would not have wanted these things delivered to a damp and foul dungeon cell where they would certainly be damaged by the conditions.  He was not free to roam about and continue his preaching, but he was not at this time in a prison cell...I do not believe.

Paul, nearing the end of his life, asks Timothy to bring him some items from which he can draw some comfort.  A cloak...a favorite cloak, or "The Robe"?  He also has some favorite books, and some precious "parchments" that he has likely been given or accumulated along the way.  Originals of OT scripture?  A complete scroll of the Septuagint?  We don't know, but we know he longed to have them by him.