2 Timothy 2

CHAPTER II

Join in Suffering What Is Bad

The Child

2 Timothy 2:1

1 In v. 1–7 we have what Paul asks his child to be and to do; in v. 8–13 Paul tells what he as this child’s father does.

We let the key words συγκακοπάθησον (v. 3) and κακοπαθῶὡςκακοῦργος (v. 9) guide us when we consider v. 1–13, the second part of the letter, just as in chapter one “being not ashamed” in v. 3, 12, and 16 forms the uniting key word. Yet Paul links this second part into the first, for συγκακοπάθησον occurs already in 1:8; it is now restated in 2:3 and elaborated and expanded in v. 9. On these two verbs used in v. 3 and 9 the whole is pivoted. Transitional οὖν introduces the new admonition.

Thou, then, my child, be thou (ever) made strong in the grace that (is) in Christ Jesus! The translation “therefore” has this admonition rest on something that precedes, yet nothing precedes on which to base this admonition. Since the admonitions given in 1:8–14 have been concluded, Paul proceeds to the next admonitions. All that we have said in 1:2 regarding “child” applies also here; the endearing address helps to mark a new section of the letter. The main chord is struck at once: “Be made strong!” durative: Let the Lord ever fill thee with δύναμις, power! It seems best to keep the passive “be made strong” instead of reducing it to an intransitive “be strong.” The source of strength lies in God’s grace.

This is “grace” in its full sense: God’s unmerited favor which is extended to the guilty in order to cancel all their guilt and to those who have been freed of guilt in order to keep them so and to shower upon them all the gifts and the blessings they may need. Here Paul is thinking of the gift of power. This source is ever open to us in Christ. The two ἐν become clear when we translate “be made strong in connection with the grace that (is) in connection with Christ Jesus,” the connection referred to being apparent from the imperative verb and from the objects of the preposition.

2 Timothy 2:2

2 Paul is not thinking of Timothy as a mere believer but also as the representative of himself whom he had stationed in the province of Asia to supervise all the churches. Already in 1 Tim. 3:1–13 Paul had directed Timothy regarding the kind of persons to be put into office. Now Paul thinks of his own end and thus adds: And what things thou didst hear from me, supported by many witnesses, these deposit with faithful persons, such as will be competent also to teach others. Timothy, himself made strong for the great gospel work, is to insure a succession of competent teachers for the churches.

“What things thou didst hear from me” repeats this expression from 1:13, where Timothy is told to have these things as a model of healthy logoi; here he is told to deposit these things which he has heard with persons (ἄνθρωποι) competent (ἰκανοί) effectively to teach (aorist infinitive) others and thus to transmit this true teaching on and on. The second aorist middle imperative παράθου, “do thou deposit,” continues the idea of παραθήκη, “deposit,” mentioned in 1:12, 14: guarding the true gospel himself (1:14), Timothy is at the same time to place it as a deposit with true and faithful (πιστοί) and at the same time competent people.

This is the true apostolic succession of the ministry: not an uninterrupted line of hands laid on which extends back to the apostles themselves so that all ordinations which are not in that line are null and void; but a succession of true apostolic doctrine, the deposit of what we still hear from Paul in his writings, this held by us in faithful hearts with competency to teach others these same things. The apostle did not evidently expect the future teachers of the church to produce new or different teaching. The gospel is changeless in all ages.

In 1:13 the position of παρʼ ἐμοῦ lends it an emphasis which is not needed in 2:2, where the thought differs: “heard from me (who received these things by revelation, Gal. 1:12) διά many witnesses.” Plutarch has this use of the preposition; it is apparently used as a legal term (R., W. P.; B.-P. 281), “with the support of many witnesses,” re-enforced by their testimony. We decline to think of a formal catechism or of a kind of dogmatics which was used in preparing Timothy for baptism and for ordination, at which many witnesses were present to testify that “the things” had been properly transmitted to Timothy by Paul. Nor are the “many witnesses” the Old Testament writers, the corroborative witnesses of Paul’s gospel teachings. The aorist “which things thou hast heard” is constative: “heard many, many times from Paul throughout Timothy’s connection with him.” These “many witnesses” do not attest that Timothy so heard, but all testify together with Paul that his was, indeed, the gospel truth.

2 Timothy 2:3

3 After this preamble (v. 1, 2) Paul comes to the main admonition: Join in suffering what is bad as a noble soldier of Christ Jesus! This carries forward the imperative used in 1:8; but, as the reference to the soldier shows, with a new turn. In 1:8 the context “be not ashamed” makes κακόν in the verb mean “something bad,” of which one might be ashamed, i.e., something in the way of disgrace: “the testimony of our Lord” as constituting an unlawful religion, “me, his prisoner,” a criminal guilty of a capital crime for advocating this unlawful religion in the empire. In the present connection, κακόν, the bad thing to be suffered, is all that a soldier has to undergo while serving in the army in which he has enlisted. Christ Jesus is the general; Timothy is to be one of his “noble” or excellent soldiers who is to endure jointly, namely with the whole army, notably with Paul and with all these witnesses. There is a strong incentive in σύν: Timothy is not alone, he is surrounded by many others, all being noble soldiers of Christ Jesus.

Will Timothy be a coward among them, shrink from what in the very nature of their profession all must endure? Paul uses the figure of a campaign already in 1 Tim. 1:18. Only one side of soldiering is here emphasized, that of suffering what is bad; the other side, the vicious enemies who are to be fought by Christ’s army, is not stressed.

2 Timothy 2:4

4 Paul develops: Nobody soldiering entangles (involves) himself in the affairs of the (common course of) life in order that he may please him who enlisted him as soldier. The truth of this statement is obvious. The man who enlists steps out of the common βίος or course of life. All its ordinary “affairs” no longer concern him. His enlistment assures him of support; it also takes him out of all other occupations. His one aim and object is to be a soldier καλός—this word is a quiet oxymoron with κακόν in the verb of v. 3—which means to please and to earn the commendation of his enlister.

In the case of Timothy this was Christ. The thought that Timothy is not to think of enriching himself in his office is not in the text but is inserted by some who seem to have the opinion that Timothy was avaricious.

2 Timothy 2:5

5 Brave soldiers, who distinguish themselves, receive decoration and preferment. Paul does not use this extension of the figure, for only some are thus honored and advanced. For the added thought he has a better figure, one that is often used by him. Moreover also, if one contends (in an athletic event) he is not crowned unless he finish the contest lawfully, according to the rules of the game. Δέ marks the new thought of distinction, and καί adds it to v. 4: “moreover also”—δὲκαί go together. Our versions place the “also” so that it reads: if a soldier also goes in as an athlete, as in our army and navy football games. R., W.

P., calls attention to the distinction between the present subjunctive ἀθλῇ and the aorist subjunctive ἀθλήσῃ; but we cannot agree with him when he has the latter mean “engage in a particular contest.” Both verbs refer to a particular contest. The present subjunctive = “if one engages in an athletic event”; this does not assure him the wreath or garland “unless (now effective aorist subjunctive) he lawfully (as the law of that event prescribes) completes the event.” From start to finish no infringement of the rules dare occur. To this day this rule is observed in all real athletic events.

This added illustration is finely drawn. But we should not spoil it by thinking of athletic events between contenders, in which one is necessarily defeated, loses the crown, although he observed the rules as carefully as the victor. Paul’s tertium applies to athletic events in which a lone athlete tries for a record, and not only tries but achieves or exceeds the record. Even then, and that is the point, he loses the crown if in all things he does not finish in exact compliance with the rules; an infringement would be fatal. Here Paul has no opponent in mind just as in v. 4 he has no enemy of the soldier in mind; for this reason he also speaks only of one soldier and not of an army. The application to Timothy is most exact, especially in the light of 1:13.

Strong with power from the Lord, Timothy is not only to use all this strength but also to use it lawfully as the Lord prescribes, not infringing upon a single logos, not deviating from faith and love (1:13). Ah yes, how many run in record time and think they secure the crown, but here and there they run off the course of the logoi, run off the track of faith and love, and thus after all lose the crown. When we interpret the crown (wreath) we may perhaps use 1 Cor. 3:13–16.

2 Timothy 2:6

6 This illustration is added without a connective because it belongs to the one mentioned in v. 5, which it completes. The crown is bestowed only at the conclusion of the athletic event (4:7, 8); note the aorist subjunctive in v. 5. But what about the time before the conclusion is reached? Here is the answer with a present, durative infinitive. Like the two previous illustrations (soldier, athlete), this third, too, is axiomatic. Some think that Paul’s thought is stationary and merely sets forth what lies in “join in suffering what is bad” (v. 3, compare 1:8); hence they interpret the illustrations accordingly. But already v. 3 has mentioned the “noble soldier.” Paul’s thought moves on, each figure bringing great additions.

As v. 4 has no connective and is thus to be connected with v. 3, so v. 6 is to be considered with v. 5. The connective is found in v. 5. It joins two smaller sections, namely v. 3, 4 and v. 5, 6. 1) A good soldier joins his fellow soldiers in enduring what is bad, his one aim is to please the commander with whom he has enlisted. 2) But while there is bad which is to be suffered nobly, there is a crown at the end as the athlete proves when he contends lawfully, and as the farmer also proves. There are fruits to be enjoyed for the toil expended. As always, Paul completes the subject: certainly much to endure, but all of it to be rewarded with highest, surest compensation, “having promise for the life that now is and for that which is to come” (1 Tim. 4:8).

Here is the promise for the life that now is. The toiling farmer, it is necessary that he as first one take his share of the fruits. A statement of fact is enough in v. 4, 5; in the case of the farmer there is a necessity. He could not possibly toil on if he did not first take his share of his produce. It is immaterial whether we regard πρῶτον as an adverb or as a predicate apposition; it has the emphasis. The fact that the farmer (generic article) toils lies in the nature of his profession. Those who emphasize “toiling” get the false contrast with a lazy farmer whom Paul does not have in mind.

Also the fact that he toils so that other people may have produce lies in the nature of the case. The whole world lives on the farmer’s produce. The point that Paul wishes to make is the fact that the farmer himself must ever be the first “to take his share,” durative present, i.e., of every crop, year in and year out, whether he does this by eating or by selling his share. A peasant or a renter may have to turn over a share to the owner, an independent owner of a farm must pay his taxes; but every farmer must first have his share, otherwise his farming ceases quite promptly.

The application lies on the surface. This is not the truth that Timothy and Paul and preachers generally must have physical sustenance to do their spiritual work, the farmer takes his share of the very produce he raises for others. So Timothy and Paul, who toil for spiritual fruit for others, must ever and ever, as the very first ones, take of this spiritual fruit for themselves. They toil by preaching and teaching the gospel (1:11), and this toil produces faith, love, godlines, etc., precious “fruits” indeed. But unless they are the first to appropriate their share of these fruits they soon cease to be the Lord’s farmers to produce anything for anybody. Yet the point which Paul would here make is the value, the blessedness of the fruits, and the joy of having one’s share in them.

Also this truth: there must be farmers to sustain the life of the world; there must be preachers to sustain the life of the church. Since this is a necessity in fact, the preachers sit at the very fountain, their very profession compels them to be the first to partake.

2 Timothy 2:7

7 Paul uses figures in v. 3–6, for these are briefer and more incisive than literal statements would be. But they must be correctly understood. Be understanding what I am saying! The present imperative is in place: “be applying your mind”; “consider” (our versions) would be a different verb. The idea is not that Paul’s figures are dark and difficult; they are quite lucid. But so much is concentrated into them that one must pause and think to apprehend it all.

The words are so brief, one might read them too hastily and not comprehend all that they contain. The texts vary between ὅ and ἅ, the meaning being quite the same. The Scriptures are intended for our νοῦς or mind, which God has given us so that we may use it. Preachers may often forget that fact when they are reading the inspired words. To be sure, these words are to be spiritually apprehended (1 Cor. 2:14), but no man will so apprehend them if he is too lazy to use his mind.

Paul adds the promise: For the Lord will give thee understanding in all respects. Σύνεσις = bringing things together and thus understanding them. For all spiritual things our thinking abilities, however keen and sharp, are not sufficient. The Lord must control, guide, enlighten our “understanding.” He is ever willing to give us “understanding” if we only let him give it, recognize his gift, and prize it. The Lord so gives by means of the very Word itself and never apart from that Word which is a lamp and a light, the source of all true enlightenment. “Search the Scriptures,” and the Lord will give thee understanding; it does not come to one through the air. Ora et labora.

The Lord, however, uses also his gracious providence in manifold ways. Experience helps to make many a passage clear. Teachers and fellow workers are placed into our path to help us. The Lord lets us find the book we need for this or for that purpose. He quickens our faculties, our memory. Sometimes we must wait, but δώσει stands: “he will give.” Even the adverbial accusative τὰπάντα, and still more the phrase ἐνπᾶσι, mean only “in all respects” or “in every respect,” and not “in all things” (B.-P. 1012, translates in jeder Hinsicht). Paul does not say that Timothy is to understand “all things.” “All respects” is the meaning wherever this phrase occurs; see, for instance, Eph. 1:23.

The Father

2 Timothy 2:8

8 The expression, “my child,” in verse 1 was written by a father’s pen. That father now also speaks about himself (v. 9) and does this with the significant verb κακοπαθῶ, which resumes the verb used in v. 3 (also in 1:8): Paul is suffering what is bad, suffering as one who had done what is bad, and thus he is asking Timothy, his child, to join him (v. 3; 1:8). This is not all. In v. 11–13 we have an expressive climax in all the “we” verbs. Paul and Timothy are united, and both are joined to Christ Jesus, both are joined to him in suffering and in glory. See how well all this (v. 1–13) is written; νόει, let your mind dwell on it, for it is precious indeed.

Verse 7 concludes the first paragraph (v. 1–7); v. 8 opens the new one and does so without a connective. Remember Jesus Christ as raised up from the dead, from David’s seed, in accord with my gospel, in connection with which I am suffering what is bad to the extent of imprisonment as one suffering what is bad, but the Word of God is not imprisoned!

Luther renders the durative present imperative well: Halt’ im Gedaechtnis, “ever keep in memory Jesus Christ.” Now Paul places “Jesus” first and “Christ” second in order to indicate that the Jesus who lived on earth was the Christ. The perfect participle is predicative: remember him “as having been raised up from the dead,” as ever being the one so raised up. Because it is predicative the article is absent. Recall 1:10: “having abolished the death and having brought to light life and incorruption.” What is here said about Christ’s condition is said in anticipation of v. 12.

Some think that Paul is using an established formula, but this is Paul’s own, terse formulation which indicates the central gospel facts on which all preaching and all faith rest. When Paul names Jesus as one “raised up from the dead,” this involves his suffering and his death, and this as being vicarious, expiatory, sacrificial (see 1 Tim. 2:6); for the resurrection of Jesus is God’s everlasting seal upon his expiation and attests its sufficiency and its acceptance by God. That is why the participle is passive: God raised him up. The phrase ἐκνεκρῶν is discussed at length in Matt. 17:10; Mark 9:9; Luke 9:7; John 2:22; Acts 3:16.

ἘκσπέρματοςΔαβίδ is a second predication (hence it has no article); it makes no difference whether we supply γενόμενον or not: “as come from David’s seed,” the Greek does not need the copula when it intends to be terse. This phrase is not to be construed with “having been raised up.” Nor is the predication “from David’s seed” purposely placed out of the natural order. To be sure, Jesus’ being from David’s seed according to his human nature antedates his resurrection from the dead, but chronology is not the deciding factor here; it is qualification as prophecy already states (2 Sam. 7:12; Ps. 132:11). He whom God raised from the dead had to be “from David’s seed” otherwise he could not have been the Messiah.

In order to understand this predication and its immense importance we should note Matt. 22:41–46; Acts 13:29–37, and the golden cord that runs through the Gospels: “Son of David—Son of David,” in passages like Matt. 9:27; 12:23; 15:22; 20:30, 31; 21:9, 15 to mention only Matthew. This is the Messianic qualification. Those who find only the human nature of Jesus in this predicate are answered by Matt. 22:41–46. Moreover, who but a human being could have been raised up from the dead?

“According to my gospel,” with its mild enclitic μου, in no way differentiates Paul’s gospel from others as though this alone contained these facts. Paul repeatedly writes “my” gospel (Rom. 2:16; 16:25) when he thinks of himself as one of the immediately called apostles who received the gospel by means of revelation (Gal. 1:12), from whom Timothy and all those in Asia had received it. Κατά does not here indicate the norm in accord with which these things were expressed, or in accord with which Timothy is to remember them as B.-P. 635 states it; it indicates the place where certain facts are declared. We still say: “according to Matthew’s Gospel or Mark’s”; “according to the Scriptures,” and often, as Paul does here, place the phrase at the end.

Some connect Timothy’s remembering with the previous section, with the figures of the soldier, etc., or with the admonitions to suffer what is bad. Barnes is one of these: “Think of the Savior, now raised up from the dead after all the sorrows of this life, and let this encourage you to bear your trials. There is nothing better fitted to enable us to endure the labors and trials of this life than to think of the Savior.” But this verse faces forward and not backward; nor does it mention Jesus’ sufferings. The verbs that are compounded with σύν are yet to follow (v. 11). Paul is summing up the heart of his whole gospel in connection with which he is now suffering what is bad.

In 1:8 he asks Timothy to join in suffering what is bad “for the gospel.” The thought is far higher than a comparing of our little suffering with that of Jesus, for our comfort. In 1:12 Paul says, “For this cause I am suffering.” So Timothy is now to remember the great cause, the great object, this Jesus according to Paul’s gospel, as set forth in his gospel. In v. 9 he is to remember “the Word of God” and then all the elect who are brought to glory by it. All this Timothy is to keep in mind as he looks at Paul, at Paul in his dungeon, a Schandmensch, κακοῦργος, “scoundrel,” and facing execution as such. After thus remembering and looking at Paul, v. 11–13 will take care of Timothy and will complete the joining begun in 1:8 and continued in 2:3 in the grandest way.

Into the expression “raised up from the dead” von Hofmann inserts: “from the Totenreich,” his fictitious “realm of the dead.” This fiction has spread. We are told that at the time of his death the soul of Jesus did not pass into his Father’s hands, into heaven, but into an intermediate place between heaven and hell, whither all the souls of the dead go until judgment day (or until the millennium). There the soul of Jesus remained until it was brought back to his body. This fiction has been elaborated. Jesus preached the gospel when he was in this Roman Catholic sort of place; in fact, we are told by some that gospel preaching still goes on in this Totenreich; it is a sort of infernal mission work. We have discussed this subject elsewhere. Here we merely note the dying cry of Jesus (Luke 23:46), the place where Stephen’s soul went (Acts 7:56–59), and the place where Paul’s soul wished to go (Phil. 1:23).

2 Timothy 2:9

9 In 1:8 Paul asks Timothy not to be ashamed of the Lord’s testimony and of me, his prisoner; here in 2:8, 9 we again have the two connected, Timothy is to remember Jesus, the sum and substance of Paul’s gospel, to remember that in connection with both Jesus and the gospel Paul is suffering what is bad. In 1:8 Paul says only: “me, his prisoner,” and in 1:12, “I am suffering these things,” and adds “my chain” in 1:16. Now we get the full statement as to what Paul’s condition really is: “I am suffering what is bad to the extent (μέχρι) of imprisonment as one working what is bad.”

In order properly to understand both κακοπαθῶ and κακοῦργος we should get the full force of κακόν, the badness. Ramsay says: “exactly the tone of the Neronian period … refers to the flagitia, for which the Christians were condemned under Nero, and for which they were no longer condemned in A. D. 112.” Flagitia = Schandtaten, Niedertraechtigkeiten; Cicero used the word by metonomy for Schandmenschen, Sallust for Boesewichter. Thus Paul says that he suffers the utmost shame and disgrace as a criminal of the most shameful and disgraceful kind. See how this casts light on 1:8, 12, 16, not being ashamed, and on 1:8 and 2:3, suffering disgrace. Δέσμα and also the masculine plural are regularly used to designate “imprisonment” and themselves do not mean “chains” as the “bonds” of our versions might lead us to assume. The fact that Paul was chained 1:16 states. Like one who had committed the foulest crimes Paul was confined in a foul dungeon.

See the interlocking chiastic terms: “in connection with which gospel I am suffering foul disgrace to the extent of imprisonment as a foul criminal—but the Word of God has not been imprisoned.” One chiasm is: in connection with which (my gospel)—I suffer disgrace as a disgraceful actor—but the Word of God. Tied into this are: “to the extent of imprisonment—has not been imprisoned.” This wording is masterly. We are first led down to the lowest depth: my gospel has brought me down, down to this deepest shame and disgrace of foul imprisonment. Then with a triumphant bound we rise upward: but the Word of God, which my gospel is, has not been imprisoned. For my gospel men could do this to me but with God and God’s Word they can do nothing. Me men can silence, but that is far, far from silencing God.

The perfect δέδεται has a strong present force (like the perfect participle regarding Jesus in v. 8): “has not been and thus is not now imprisoned” (bound as I am). Who can stop the glorious, triumphant Word of God? “The testimony of our Lord” (1:8) no man can silence. The apostle’s living voice may be smothered in his own blood, what his Lord speaks through him still resounds in the wide world.

Ah, yes, let Timothy ever remember this Lord, raised up and glorious, from David’s seed as David’s Lord—his Word triumphs.

2 Timothy 2:10

10 For this reason I am enduring everything for the sake of the elect in order that also they may obtain salvation, that (which is) in connection with Christ Jesus in company with eternal glory.

We do not construe: “but the Word of God is not bound on this account (διὰτοῦτο),” i.e., because I am suffering as a bound criminal in prison. The phrase διὰτοῦτο regularly begins a new sentence, and it is natural to think that it does so here. Because the Word of God is not bound, “I bravely endure, remain and hold out under everything.” Read Trench on ὑπομονή: brave perseverance under suffering; the verb is used in the same sense here and in v. 12. If the Word were also fettered and silenced, it would be useless for Paul to hold out as he does.

The Word is free and goes on winning souls for salvation. It is unusual that two διά phrases should be found so close together in one sentence, and yet this expresses Paul’s thought clearly. The first phrase looks back to the Word which is not bound, the second looks forward to the elect who are saved by this Word. The thought thus advances even as the Word is never without the elect.

“The elect” are not such in the Calvinistic sense, a fixed number chosen by a mysterious, absolute decree, for whom Christ made his limited atonement, who alone receive the serious call, whom an irresistible grace then saves. In the Biblical sense they are the saints and believers chosen as such in Christ, all of whom must make their calling and election sure (2 Pet. 1:10). When we consider election, the idea of eternity should not be stressed over against that of time, in which the elect live; or the reverse, time over against eternity. Eternity is timelessness and is wholly inconceivable to our finite minds. C. Tr. 1085, 66: “The entire Holy Trinity, God Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, directs all men to Christ, as the Book of Life, in whom they should seek the eternal election of the Father.” “They should hear Christ, who is the Book of Life and God’s eternal election of all God’s children to eternal life: He testifies to all men without distinction that it is God’s will ‘that all men should come to him,’ who labor and are heavy laden with sin, in order that he may give them rest and save them, Matt. 11:28” (70). The election of the elect must ever be viewed thus, in the connection in which 2 Thess. 2:13 places it.

Just because Paul’s supreme interest for his own soul and for his office (1:11) is the conquering Word of God (v. 9), he “holds out valiantly under everything for God’s elect that also they (like himself) may obtain (or attain to) salvation, this blessed salvation (note the article defining it) in connection with Christ Jesus (how connected with him we know) accompanied by (μετά) eternal glory.” The purpose of God, Christ, their Word and gospel has become Paul’s life’s purpose. No suffering is too great for him if it in any way and to any degree supports this purpose, which includes his own salvation, but oh, also that of so many others.

It is one of those useless questions to ask whether Paul thought only of the elect who lived in his own time or of the elect of all times. Although he is dead, he still speaketh. The office of the apostles, although as active bearers of it they have long ago died, still operates through their Word which is God’s own. Even the severest endurance is brief, but salvation with its accompanying glory is eternal.

2 Timothy 2:11

11 Thou, “my child” (v. 1–7), I, thy father (v. 8–10), and now “we” jointly with Christ (σύν in the verbs). This is perfect in connection and reaches its conclusion in the great summation. Even this we should note: a strong “thou” with reference to Timothy in v. 1, a strong ἐκεῖνος with reference to Christ in v. 13, but no ἐγώ in v. 9, 10. Faithful the statement: If, indeed, we died with him we shall also live with him; if we are enduring we shall also reign with him; if we shall deny him, also he on his part will deny us; if we are faithless, he on his part remains faithful, for to deny himself he is not able.

We regard γάρ as confirmatory: If, “indeed,” we died = if this actually be the fact. This frees us from the vain search which looks for “the faithful or trust worthy logos” in the preceding verses and then finds nothing that is satisfactory. The great reliable statement follows: “If, indeed, we died,” etc. We see that Paul is not quoting some ancient Christian hymn as some think. They say that this explains the γάρ which he retained when quoting. Although we have symmetry in the sentences, this is not poetry but Paul’s, own prose.

Condition—conclusion: as sure as is the one, so sure is the other. All these are conditions of reality; in each the fact stated is considered as being true. Γάρ emphasizes the assumed reality, and while it is found only in the first condition likewise affects all the other conditions: if, indeed, we died—if, indeed, we endure, etc. Two conditions are positive; two are negative. Rhetorically one doubles in order to make a thought emphatic; one also places positive and negative together for complete clearness of thought. The last conclusion: “he on his part remains faithful,” forms a sharp contrast and thus enables Paul to add the final statement which brings all the balanced clauses down to the final unit point, where in that unit: “deny himself he cannot” the whole elaboration ends.

“If, indeed, we died,” aorist, past—“if we are enduring,” present—“if we shall deny,” future. Past occurrence—present state—future happening. These tenses are decisive in answer to those who think that “if, indeed, we died with him” refers to physical death, a martyr’s death. Both γάρ and the aorist tense exclude this thought. Paul and Timothy had not as yet died physically either by martyrdom or otherwise. Why should Paul put such a death first and the continuous enduring second when the order of the two is always the reverse? The statement that the aorist “died” is used because such a death precedes “shall live” breaks down when we look at the other clauses in all of which the same precedence appears and no aorist is needed for its indication.

This is the death which occurs in baptism by contrition and repentance. It is expressed in mystical language: “we died together with him.” see Rom. 6:4, etc., where this language is fully explained. It has nothing to do with mysticism or mysteriousness. In the mystical terms we have great concentration, but a concentration of facts: the one fact happened to Christ: he died on the cross; the other happened to us: “we died” to sin. The interval of time between the two deaths is omitted. Because the one death caused the other, because the latter rests on the former, σύν combines them: “we died together with him.” If we truly did so die, of which there is no doubt in the case of Paul and of Timothy, it is equally certain: “we shall live together with him.” As he, risen from the dead (v. 8), lives to die no more, so by virtue of his life we “shall live together with him” in heaven forever.

Here the distant extremes: joint death in the past—joint living in the heavenly future are connected. The two form a paradox: having died—future living.

“We” in the verbs = Paul and Timothy. The fact that what is true of them is true also of all other Christians is self-evident.

2 Timothy 2:12

12 Between the two extremes, the death in the past and the life in the future, lies our present endurance: “if we are enduring we shall also reign together with him.” We think that Paul might have used the mystical “are enduring together with him” just as he uses it in the conclusion: “we shall reign together with him.” This is really his thought although Christ’s enduring has been completed long since. His death and his enduring were expiatory, for us, ours are only confessional, together with him. The Greek does not need the pronoun with these verbs, the Greek understands without the use of “him.” Some are called upon to resist even unto blood (Heb. 12:4), to endure a great fight of afflictions (Heb. 10:32), like Paul, not counting life dear in defense of the gospel (Acts 20:24). Here is where death by martyrdom is touched.

“Shall reign” exceeds “shall live.” This second paradox is just as tremendous as the first. Here we “endure,” literally, “remain under,” others trample all over us; there we shall reign as royalties with no one above us save Christ, and we are actually associated with him: sitting with him in his throne as he sits in his Father’s (Rev. 3:21; 20:4, 6). Here belong all those passages that speak of the crown such as 4:8; James 1:12; 1 Pet. 5:4; Rev. 2:10. Human imagination fails to visualize this exaltation. Say “reign” or “crown” like this, and the chiliast has no trouble in conjuring up his millennium despite all Scripture to the contrary notwithstanding.

These mighty promises have a reverse: “if we shall deny him” (the English needs the pronoun), disown, as Peter once denied: “I do not know the man.” The condition still visualizes reality and is not changed to potentiality: “if we should deny,” even though Paul refers to Timothy and to himself. The future tense is in place because both are now nobly confessing. Paul is almost quoting Jesus (Matt. 10:33). Permanent denial is referred to; Peter repented of his denial. The days soon came when the pagan authorities demanded of the Christians the denial of Christ by sacrifice to a pagan god or by sprinkling incense on an altar and naming the emperor as god. Paul has no more restriction in the verb than Jesus has in Matt. 10:33: denial is fatal whatever its form.

The two ἐκεῖνος are very emphatic: “also he on his part will deny us” before his Father in heaven. In Mark 8:38; Luke 9:26 Jesus used also the word “to be ashamed of” (see it in 1:8, 12, 16). No retribution could be more just. Only one who has confessed can turn about and deny. He who by denial now cuts himself off from Christ and so faces him on the last day must not expect that Christ will be equally false and will then confess where he ought to deny.

2 Timothy 2:13

13 This already trenches on the fourth statement: “if we are faithless” (R. V.), which is better than: “if we believe not” (A. V.) because of the context: “he on his part remains faithful.” Yet to be faithless is to give up believing, to be “faithless” in this fatal way. The present tense is used at the end because in general propositions the present is the rule, and this last statement is intended to be general. Though we are false, no matter when or where or how, “he on his part” remains ever absolutely faithful and true. This means more than that he keeps his word in promise and in threat; this speaks of his very character and nature.

The final clause is not a mere attached reason for the last two “if” propositions. It applies to all the statements and makes all of them a faithful logos. It thus forms the keystone which closes the arch: “for to deny himself he is not able.” Christ cannot contradict himself, prove false to himself, in the end disown what he was before. We must ever deny our evil nature; and some may do the reverse, deny their new spiritual nature. Men expect Christ to act in the same way on judgment day: deny all his warning threats, give them and thus himself the lie, and let these his deniers enter heaven as do his faithful believers. Οὐδύναται, “he is not able.” Count on the changeless Christ to all eternity.

Present Thyself as a Workman That Needs Not to Be Ashamed

2 Timothy 2:14

14 This half of the chapter is a unit. The connecting link is ἀνεπαίσχυντον (v. 15), “needing not to be ashamed,” which continues the “not to be ashamed” occurring in 1:8, 12, 16, and the thought of shame and disgrace that lies in the κακόν found in the verbs “suffer disgrace” in 1:8; 2:3, 9. After being thus joined to what precedes, the admonition advances to Timothy’s work, which he is to do so that he needs not to be ashamed.

Cutting the Word of Truth Straight

Of these things put them in remembrance, earnestly testifying in the sight of the Lord, not to be battling about words for no useful result, (only) for upsetting those hearing.

Timothy is at the head of all the Asian churches. After himself taking to heart “these things” which Paul is writing to him, he is ever to keep reminding all the churches of them. By “these things” Paul refers to all that he has thus far said. Here the “we” of v. 11–13 broadens out so as to include believers generally. The imperative needs no personal object; its tense, however, implies that Timothy has been doing what Paul urges him to continue to do, and that the churches have been hearing these things from Timothy.

“Earnestly testifying in the sight of the Lord” (see 1 Tim. 5:21) is modal, and Paul adds the negative side: “not to be battling about mere words,” not to engage in logomachies (the noun that is used in 1 Tim. 6:4), quibbling about words. The two ἐπί phrases speak about the result: “for no useful result,” “for nothing that is useful” as the outcome; to which is added what the only result would be: “(only) for upsetting those hearing” by such foolish discussions.

We see that Timothy still had to contend against people like those mentioned in 1 Tim. 6:3, etc.; this kind often still bothers the church. Abiding by the ipsissima verba of Scripture, letting no one tamper with them, is not engaging in battles about words but is guarding the Lord’s logoi as he commands (John 14:23, 24), both the vessels of the sacred word and the divine truth they contain. B.-D. 389 changes the infinitive to the present imperative on inferior textual authority; μή is the proper negative with the infinitive while οὐδέν is proper in the phrase (R. 947).

2 Timothy 2:15

15 The second admonition is still more comprehensive: Be diligent to present thyself to God as one tested, a workman not needing to be ashamed, (ever) cutting straight the Word of the truth.

The aorist imperative and its aorist infinitive are constative; the action, which is in reality durative, is viewed as a unit, the present participle at the end spreading it out in its progress. Thus the aorist imperative also comes with more force. When we present ourselves to men (“those hearing us,” v. 14) as preachers of the Word we must ever be conscious of the fact that we are also presenting ourselves to God in everything that we say or do (doctrine and practice) in regard to his Word. How this thought ought to drive out even loose carelessness, to say nothing about arrogant opinions, following human authorities, popular errors and practices! One concern should possess us completely: to be diligent to present ourselves (aorists) to God “as tested” (predicative accusative), a favorite term of Paul’s. We should be as coins that are tested for purity of metal and for adequate weight and are accepted only after such a test (“approved,” our versions).

“As one tested” has an apposition: “as a workman not needing to be ashamed” in the eyes of God. We see at once how this repeats the note struck in 1:8, 12, 16 although it is now advanced to Timothy’s work. Like δόκιμος, also ἀνεπαίσχυντος is passive; it does not merely mean “unashamed” but “not forced to be ashamed,” namely by the fatal disapproval of God. Many are now proud, unashamed, challenging their faithful fellow workers to try to put them to shame, feeling very secure and laughing at their judgment; alas, when the eye of God at last examines them regarding their work, utter, eternal shame will overwhelm them.

A second apposition to the predicative “attested” carries the thought to completion: “(ever) cutting straight the Word of the truth.” The participle means just this. Paul is not referring to the main things in the Word in contrast to the minor things. “The truth” is not cut into main and minor pieces with the idea that one may disregard the latter just so he properly cuts out the former. Some interpreters introduce the idea of “roads” that are laid out straight, and some debate as to whether the idea of “straight” or of “cutting” is the main idea. So we have the R. V. margin: “holding a straight course in the Word of the truth,” which some modify and translate: “going straight to the main thing in the truth” and not bothering with minor things.

The A. V. follows Luther: “rightly dividing the Word of truth,” which is often taken to mean properly dividing between law and gospel; the R. V. translates: “handling aright.” One has thought of running a straight furrow, another of a mason cutting stones straight; to which R., W. P., replies, why not let the tentmaker Paul think of cutting straight the camel-hair cloth for tents? and adds: “Certainly plenty of exegesis is crooked enough (crazy-quilt patterns) to call for careful cutting to set it straight.” Robertson is close to the point.

Cut the Word of the truth (and the whole of it is “the truth,” appositional genitive or genitive of substance) straight when you present it to others by preaching and teaching. That is what preachers and teachers are to do. When they do not cut the Word of the truth straight and true, the result is “nothing useful, only something that upsets those hearing” (v. 14). Such preachers abuse the Word, and their hearers suffer the terrible effect.

Oh, what maltreatment of the heavenly Word, and thus of immortal souls! And to think that such men call themselves experts, master-workmen in the Word! God’s Word they cut and slash as if it were the word of men. The eternal truth they cut up as being so many “outworn categories of thought” to be made over into something that is thought to be modern, up-to-date, as if the sin and woe in the world today were not the same old sin and woe of all the ages. Cain’s murder is as modern as any murder on today’s front page.

2 Timothy 2:16

16 Verse 15 states what Timothy’s life business is to be. But profane babblings (see 1 Tim. 6:20) turn thy back on! The middle of περιΐστημι = to turn around, which means to turn the back on something in contempt. “To shun,” “to avoid,” in our versions, “to give a wide berth to,” are inexact and also lose the contempt that lies in this act. In 1 Tim. 6:20 the verb “turn away from” is slightly less expressive. Such stuff is unworthy of any consideration, certainly not of refutation. Contempt is the correct answer to it.

One reason for turning the back on these babblings is offered. For they progress farther forward in ungodliness, and their word as gangrene will have pasture—to whom belong Hymeneus and Philetus, of a kind who missed the mark as regards the faith, declaring the resurrection already to have occurred and are overturning the faith of some.

“They progress” has an indefinite subject; Paul scorns to name these babblers and mentions only two names in v. 17 and singles these out because they are notorious by having progressed entirely out of the faith. The fact that the indefinite “they” is, indeed, the subject the following αὐτῶν, “their,” ὧν, “of whom,” οἵτινες, “of what kind,” show. “The babblings” (a nominative drawn from the accusative) cannot be regarded as the subject because “babblings” never “beat or hammer forward” (προκόπτω). True, ἐπὶπλεῖον is usually used without a genitive (see the verb with the ἐπί phrases in 3:9, 13) whereas here the genitive follows: literally, “beat forward for more of ungodliness”; yet in later Greek this verb is always intransitive (M.-M. 542), and accordingly the proposal to make ἀσεβείας an accusative plural object lacks support.

2 Timothy 2:17

17 These babblers will progress in ungodliness inwardly, and epexegetical καί states how: “their logos,” with which they occupy themselves, “like (eating) gangrene will have pasture,” to eat more and more ravenously. The figure is striking but only too true. The term is medical and denotes cancer, gangrene, “canker” (A. V. = spreading ulceration). These people, Paul intends to say, are incurable; their disease “will eat” on and on, and the more one argues with them with the idea of curing them, the more their disease is caused to spread in their system.

“Of whom are” is the Greek idiom for “to whom belong,” see 1 Tim. 1:20 where Hymeneus is mentioned. This was apparently the same man; he was one of the two whom Paul had to expel from the church. We have no further knowledge concerning Philetus. These two were notorious examples and are named as such in order to illustrate Paul’s point.

2 Timothy 2:18

18 The indefinite relative is qualitative and thus refers also to others besides the two that are named: “of a kind who missed (we say: have missed) the mark (this verb occurs in 1 Tim. 1:6; 6:21) as regards the faith” (objective, quae creditur, the Christian truth and doctrine which is believed by us, it is so used in 1 Tim. 4:1; 6:10, 12, 21); they made shipwreck (1 Tim. 1:19). The participle states how this happened: “by declaring the resurrection already to have occured,” namely in baptism and conversion. Some think of the later Gnostic teaching to this effect; but this does not extend back to Paul’s time. The Apostles’ Creed opposes it with its σαρκὸςἀνάστασιν, “the resurrection of the flesh” (German Auferstehung des Fleisches), which is modified in our English form of the Creed: “the resurrection of the body.” Zahn, Introduction II, 129.

To spiritualize the resurrection in this way subverts the faith. Any denial of the physical resurrection, as Paul has shown so fully in 1 Cor. 15:12–20, involves denial of Christ’s physical resurrection and thus destroys the very basis of the faith. Rationalism and modernism do this today and thus place themselves beyond the pale of Christianity. It may be that from this we can gather what some of these babblings and logomachies were, namely quibblings about utterances of Paul’s regarding our actual spiritual resurrection (Rom. 6:3, 4; Eph. 2:6; Col. 2:12), attempts to play off these words against what Paul taught about the physical resurrection (compare 1 Cor. 15; 1 Thess. 4:13–18; see Jesus’ words in John 5:28, etc.).

The last clause has a finite verb, for it adds the fact that, besides missing the mark, as indicated, to their own damage these babblers “are overthrowing the faith of some” (objective, B.-P. 1063), upsetting the doctrine which some have hitherto held with all the churches, substituting their κενοφωνίαι (“empty talk,” v. 16) in place of this doctrine. Here Paul refers to the outward spread of this heresy. The present tense may be conative: “trying to overturn” some. But in either case “some” does not read as if the success of these babblers was very great.

2 Timothy 2:19

19 Nevertheless, although some miss the mark and turn away as did the two that are named, the solid foundation of God stands, having this seal: The Lord did know those who are his; and: Stand off from unrighteousness, everyone naming the Lord’s name!

The masculine ὁθεμέλιος is the only nominative singular of this word that occurs in the New Testament; Rev. 21:14 has the masculine plural accusative; the neuter plural appears in Acts 16:26, in the LXX, in Attic Greek. R. 262 and others are evidently mistaken when they regard ὁθεμέλιος as an adjective, λίθος being understood, so that this = “the foundation stone.” We have the noun: “the foundation,” the one laid down by God. This foundation is variously understood: the promises of God—fides Dei immota—the Christian religion—the doctrine of the resurrection of the flesh—predestination (Calvin)—the doctrines of the Old and the New Testament—divine grace and truth—Christ crucified and risen—or leaving the term undetermined altogether.

The A. V. translates: “the foundation of God standeth sure,” margin “steady”; but the adjective is attributive: “the solid foundation,” not predicative. This foundation is named as a solid one and as one not to be overthrown because of the double seal which it bears: “those who are the Lord’s”—then individualizing: “everyone naming the Lord’s name. The solid foundation of God is the church. This observation is to the point: Paul uses the figure of “the foundation” because this contains the idea of solidity, immovableness. There is no contrast with a superstructure that is placed on this foundation.

See these two figures in 1 Tim. 3:15: the church is a pillar and in the next breath the ἑδραίωμα, Grundfeste, each idea being complete in itself and not conflicting with the other. We still call something that is founded, permanently laid down: “such and such a person’s foundation.” This is “God’s foundation,” it is certainly “solid”; hell cannot overthrow it, nor can these babblers. It “stands,” ἕστηκεν, perfect tense but always used as a present.

“As having this seal” does not mean having “this inscription” as though this were an allusion to the practice of painting inscriptions over a door or carving legends on foundations or on cornerstones. A seal is more than an inscription. The seal is used for various purposes, such as indicating ownership, inviolability, guarantee, certification, etc.; here the two legends constituting the seal lead us to think especially of guarantee. It should not be said that a foundation, in the sense here intended, can have no seal, that such an idea is incongruous. All the great foundations founded by wealthy men in our time and bearing their name stand under a legal documentary state seal, and this makes the foundation so permanent. So also God’s foundation, the church, in its solidity stands under the special seal which fixes and guarantees this foundation beyond any alteration or possible dissolution.

Yet in the case of a human foundation even the strongest legal seal and documentation are bound to fail sooner or later, and the foundation suffers dissolution. Not so God’s foundation under God’s seal.

This seal reads for one thing: “The Lord knew those who are his.” Review the difference between οἶδα and γινώσκω (v. 12 and 18) and then mark the aorist tense. As is the case in Matt. 7:23 and John 10:14 and elsewhere, the verb is here to be understood in its most pregnant sense, which involves to the full the relation of the subject to the object (the Lord to his own): cognoscere cum affectu et effectu, “to know with appropriating affection and effect,” the definition of the Lutheran fathers, none better has as yet been produced. R., W. P., calls the aorist “timeless”: “the Lord knoweth” (irrespective of time). In a manner “timeless” is correct, for this aorist is dated in eternity: “the Lord knew those who are his” before time was, in all eternity. Moulton, Einleitung 183, calls this aorist constative, as “gathering into one perspective all the successive moments of γινώσκωσισέ in John 17:3”; but this present subjunctive in John sheds no light on this or on any other aorist, whether it be ingressive, constative, historical, or something else.

This is a seal which, once affixed to God’s foundation, guarantees permanency, makes dissolution impossible. It was affixed in eternity and reads: ἜγνωΚύριοςτοὺςὄνταςαὐτοῦ, i.e., in all eternity the Lord knew with appropriating and effective love all that are his in all the ages of time, from the first one who is his to the last one at the last day. A tremendous seal! God knew them, knew them in eternity, these who are his. That settles the matter forever. “They that are his” are the foundation of God, and God’s knowing them eternally is their seal. The fathers are right when they quote 2 Tim. 2:19 together with John 10:28 (C.

Tr. 1093, 89). Here is comfort, indeed, for all “who are his,” not the comfort of Calvin’s absolute, mysterious decree by which some were reprobated in all eternity, but the comfort of God’s effective knowledge which saw us from birth to death and from the first instant of faith to its triumph in the hour of death, embracing us as his own. This seal stands with the foundation; the ages of the world never change a single letter of it.

The whole power of this seal lies in the historical aorist. To make this aorist constative or “timeless” dissipates the very point that is essential for the seal. This seal was affixed once, not progressively. Ἔγνω is this seal. “The Lord knew”; that sealed “those who are his,” sealed them as God’s foundation from eternity to eternity. This comfort is so great when we now see some giving up the faith and falling away (v. 18). There are unfaithful members; but the Lord “never knew” them (Matt. 7:23); they never disturbed his eternal foundation. “Those who are his” are otherwise called the elect, thus in v. 10 and in 1 Pet. 1:2, “elect according to foreknowledge of God the Father in connection with sanctification of spirit for obedience and sprinkling of Jesus Christ’s blood”; 2 Thess. 2:13: “God hath chosen you from the beginning for salvation in connection with sanctification of spirit and faith in truth.”

As these two passages show, the words: “Stand off from unrighteousness, everyone naming the Lord’s name!” are an integral part of the seal and not a mere appendix. This dictum is often regarded as an admonition such as might appear anywhere in this letter. “God’s foundation”—“those who are his” bear as their great seal the fact that “the Lord knew” them as such. This is the invisible part and is even dated in eternity, in the mind of God. They equally bear as their great seal the effective command that everyone of them “stand away from unrighteousness.” This is the visible part which is dated in time and this life. Look at them; this injunction marks and stamps them, has ever been their unchanged and unchangeable seal. One sees on “everyone” of them this seal, not as an injunction yet to be obeyed, but as one that is ever effectively and once for all actually being obeyed. Their inward heart and character, together with their visible life, ever cry: “I do, I do stand away!” By “naming the Lord’s name,” by confessing the revelation which the Lord has made of himself, the revelation by which he “knows (γινώσκω, John 17:3) the only true God and Jesus Christ whom he has sent,” by which knowing he savingly embraces God, everyone thereby stands off and away from unrighteousness, repudiates, has already repudiated it.

The Lord’s ὄνομα is not merely some name for God but the revelation by which he makes himself known; by which in faith we embrace him; naming that onoma is confessing that revelation as held by faith. Isa. 26:13. To stand off from unrighteousness is unduly narrowed by Bengel who thinks the abstract “unrighteousness” = the concrete unrighteous men, like the profane babblers mentioned in v. 16, 17. All unrighteousness is referred to. Nobody can be “his,” God’s, who does not bear the mark of separation from unrighteousness.

How the two parts of this seal, the one part occurring in eternity, that he knew his own, and the other part in time, that in us is exhibited the command to stand off from unrighteousness—how these fit together and form one seal our finite minds cannot understand. We cannot even comprehend eternity and the workings of God’s eternal mind, to say nothing more. See the remarks on v. 10, “the elect.” On judgment day, as Matt. 25:34–40 show, all the world shall see the elect, whom God knew, stood off from unrighteousness, and how the rest did not.

Κύριος seems to signify God. Paul’s two statements, which he calls “the seal” of God’s foundation, are not quotations. The first is generally referred to Num. 16:5, LXX, which does not agree with the Hebrew; some think of John 10:14, which does not agree in tense. For Paul’s second sentence an allusion to Num. 16:26 or to Isa. 52:11 is assumed. It is best to assume that both of Paul’s statements are his own formulation which voice the two pertinent Scripture thoughts.

Distinguishing the Different Utensils in the Great House

2 Timothy 2:20

20 Δέ is not adversative, for it does not introduce a contrary thought; it is parenthetical and introduces a preliminary thought that is preparatory to what follows. What follows still speaks about the master-workman who is to present himself as one who needs not be ashamed. In v. 14–19 he will cut the Word straight and will deal accordingly with men like Hymeneus and Philetus. In v. 20–26 he will also distinguish between the different utensils in the house and will deal gently with church members who are in danger of being misled. In v. 14–19 the consideration is the Una Sancta, the church invisible, God’s solid foundation with its seal, those who are his, etc. In v. 20–26 the consideration is the church visible which has two general classes of members and differences also among those in each class. Δέ introduces this as a preliminary consideration.

Now in a large house there are not only utensils of gold and silver but also of wood and earthenware, and some for honor, and some for dishonor.

This is how the external, visible church appears, namely the members who are regarded as belonging to it. We see at once that we are to hear about these varying utensils of a large house, large because it contains so many, and not about the house itself, its stones, its walls, etc. The house is mentioned only because it houses all these varied utensils. To connect this with v. 19 by thinking that this indefinite “large house” has been erected or is in process of erection on the very definite foundation of God is not practicable. Paul is not concerned with the house as a house; in fact, οἶκος is used in its first meaning, “a dwelling,” any large-sized human habitation. In this verse we have only the illustration. In the application nothing more is said about the house; the application limits itself to the utensils, σκεύη, which are not only dishes, pans, pots but anything that is used in a great, rich house, from things made of gold and of silver down to the cheapest and those that are of no particular value.

There are two classes of utensils but a variation also in each of these. We recall 1 Cor. 3:12, where we have the same variation in regard to durable and indurable building material. The gold and the silver utensils are the true members of the church visible, and their being “for honor” means that they will always be prized and kept and never thrown away. Yet some are of gold and most precious, the faith, love, work of such members are of the highest value; some are of silver, members that are less precious. Two words are enough to illustrate this minor point of difference.

The utensils of wood and of earthenware are persons who are only outwardly members of the visible church; they are “for dishonor,” which does not mean for dirty use but unprized, eventually discarded and thrown on the junk heap. Nobody throws utensils that are made of gold and of silver out with the junk. We now see why the division is made between “gold and silver” on the one hand, “wood and earthenware” on the other, and why no other materials are mentioned, for that would spoil the illustration, i.e., its tertium comparationis. Paul’s tertium is disregarded when we introduce all the household utensils and convert his simple illustration with its one point into an allegory with many points. Even among the utensils that are destined sooner or later to be junked there are differences, but these make no difference as to the fate of these utensils.

“For honor” and “for dishonor” do not refer to the use that is made of these utensils, some being intended for noble, some for ignoble use. Nothing is said about their use, for this is not the point; the one and only point is preciousness, some utensils being so precious as never to be thrown away, some so cheap as to be readily thrown away.

2 Timothy 2:21

21 If, then, one keeps himself clean of these he will be a utensil for honor, sanctified, well serviceable for the Master, prepared for every good work.

The condition is one of expectancy, for who would expect any person to turn himself from gold or silver into wood or earthenware? The application is left general: “if, then, anyone,” for it applies to all true members of the church and not merely to Timothy. The illustration and the reality are interwoven so as to bring out the point. But this, of necessity, strains the illustration. In the case of lifeless household utensils it is the rule: once a thing of gold or of silver always a thing of gold or of silver, and this is, of course, also true with regard to things of wood or of earthenware. But that is not the case with regard to the living persons here illustrated.

They may change from gold and silver to wood and earthenware, from genuine to mere outward church members. Illustrations must frequently be strained in this way: they only touch the reality, indicate it only in a weak way; they are on a poor, low plane, the reality on a far higher plane. We should, therefore, accept the strain and not force the reality down to the illustration or the illustration up to the reality.

So here: if a person keeps himself clean (reality), aorist, effectively clean from these (figure: these valueless utensils) he will be (reality) a utensil for honor (figure). We see without difficulty what “keep clean from these” means, the more so since “stand off from unrighteousness” precedes in v. 19. While no such action can be predicated of lifeless household utensils, this action can be and is here predicated of us who belong to the church. In our contact with merely outward members we may contaminate ourselves with their spirit and may thus become like them, change from gold or silver to wood or earthenware. “Keep yourself clean of these!” is the call we need. “Remain pure gold or at least silver!”

The construction is perfectly regular: ἐάν with the subjunctive (protasis), indicative future (apodosis). There is no need to philosophize about this future tense. It simply states that this person will be a utensil for honor, never to be thrown away, permanently to be prized and kept as being of the highest value. Three elucidating predications follow, two perfect participles to indicate lasting conditions and between them a descriptive adjective. “Having been and thus remaining sanctified” = set apart by the Lord for himself and thus emphasizing and explaining the keeping clean. One keeps himself clean in doctrine and in life and yet is kept clean, is sanctified by the Lord.

The adjective advances the thought since the picture is that of a utensil: “well serviceable for the Master,” one that he can use well and will not throw away. One may think of the figure and thus translate δεσπότης “master”; the proposal to let this word mean “owner” alters the sense of the word. We think not of the figure but of the reality, for “sanctified” has passed on to the reality, and so we translate “Master,” our Lord Jesus Christ. Yet δεσπότης is used because he is the one who determines regarding all the utensils.

Still another predicative participle enriches Paul’s meaning: “having been (and thus remaining) prepared and ready for every good work.” The figure used in v. 20 could not include the use; it remained with the idea of value. In the application Paul beautifully advances also to the use. The moment we look at this advance we see why it had to be omitted in the figure: our Master uses only sanctified utensils (those of gold or of silver) and not the unsanctified (those of wood, etc.), not those that contaminate. The works of the merely outward members are not good in his eyes; although they do many great and wonderful works, he rejects all of them (Matt. 7:22, 23).

2 Timothy 2:22

22 Paul has stated his thought objectively so that it applies to “anyone” and to “every good work” in the broadest way (v. 20, 21). Now he makes a few particular and detailed applications for the sake of Timothy in his great office of superintending the churches when Paul himself will be gone. The three δέ indicate the specifications; they are alike, not adversative although the R. V. translates the first two “but.”

Now the (well-known) youthful lusts keep on fleeing, but keep on pursuing righteousness, faith, love, peace, in company with those calling upon the Lord from a clean heart!

This is the first specification. Timothy is ever to be a golden vessel, for quality is all that is here brought out. The first two specifications (v. 22, 23) have the second person “thou,” the third (v. 24) has the third person: “the Lord’s slave.” This means that, while the first two are addressed to Timothy, as the third indicates, the two are not intended exclusively for Timothy. At times Paul specifies by referring to himself as he here refers to Timothy, and yet in such, instances Paul makes himself only an example.

We also see that the entire emphasis is put on the positive side, for this has four great items: “righteousness, faith,” etc. This means that the brief negative is only the foil even as it contains only the summary, general term “youthful lusts.” The arrangement of the verbs and the objects is chiastic and thus brings together the verbs which are strong opposites: “keep on fleeing, keep on pursuing.” On “youthful” read the remarks regarding 1 Tim. 4:12. These are not the sinful desires of an immature youth but of one who is not yet old and a greybeard. Here again some think that Timothy was inclined to go wrong, and that, if we deny this implication, we are only trying to shield Timothy. The very tense of these two imperatives answers such an interpretation. “Keep on fleeing youthful lusts” means that Timothy has ever been doing this very thing; “keep on pursuing righteousness,” etc., points to the same continuance. The two also ever go together and signify: “Ever keep on in the true and blessed course you have followed all these years!”

Why should suspicion be cast on a man when he is urged to keep on in a course which flees evil and pursues good? Why may we not encourage a good man to keep on doing so without the reflection that he after all has a secret bent to go wrong? Paul is writing his last letter to Timothy. He is like an old father who is soon leaving his son forever. Shall he not be permitted to say: “Child, ever keep on as thou hast been doing until thou, too, art called away”? We also repeat that Paul would have been foolish to place and to leave a man in so responsible a position if he had fears about this man’s going wrong.

These admonitions the very best men among us ever need. In v. 21 the two participles are passives: we have been and are being sanctified, prepared for every good work. The Lord ever does this, does it in good part through admonitions just like these given by Paul. An exegete must also observe the Eighth Commandment. To skim over the text and to note, neither tense nor voice nor the inner situation is not fair exegesis. Here this fault is especially prominent so that we ask permission to contribute what we can toward correcting it.

As their objects indicate, both imperatives refer to the heart. One does not run from lusts or run after virtues with his legs. This is stated in order to correct some remarks that are made regarding “flee.” Because Paul uses “youthful,” some stress or at least introduce sexual lusts and expand on these by telling us how young preachers must be careful in their contacts with the fair sex. But this reflection cast on Timothy is not fair to him. Read the exposition in 5:2. Ἐπιθυμίαι, so often used in an evil sense, points to no one wrong desire more than to another. Each age of life has its own desires.

The emphasis rests on the whole object and not on the adjective, for this is in the attributive position. Moreover, the article speaks of these desires as “the” common, well-known ones, and thus in no way singles out Timothy by referring only to his age of life. All the good objects are without articles, which stresses the quality: whatever there is of righteousness, etc. Here, too, we have the full rhetorical four, an expansion that is in strong contrast to the one negative term.

In 1 Tim. 6:11 we have: “keep on pursuing righteousness … faith, love” and two more. See the interpretation of these three. Here the fourth is “peace,” undisturbed harmony, without strife, contention, battles about words (v. 14; 1 Tim. 6:4). How Timothy, for one, is to pursue peace in his office v. 24 explains.

In all this Timothy is to join the company (μετά) “of those who call upon the Lord from a clean heart.” This links into the preceding terms. These are the true and genuine members of the church, the vere credentes who “name the Lord’s name” in true confession and so also call upon him in prayer and praise. “Out of a clean heart” = “sanctified” (v. 21) = standing off from unrighteousness (v. 19) = keep himself clean (v. 21). The advance is the thought that all this cleanness centers in the heart, which in the Greek denotes the whole inner personality. Timothy and all his true company are ever to stand and to work together. It is very easy for clean hearts to find each other.

2 Timothy 2:23

23 The second specification, again with δέ, is quite narrow: Now the (well-known) silly and uneducated questionings disdain to be bothered with (see 1 Tim. 4:7, where the same imperative is used). There they are termed “profane, old grannies’ myths” or fables. Here the characterization is equally scornful: “silly,” without sense; “uneducated,” betraying a lack of elementary Christian education (such as already a παῖς or boy ought to have). “Questionings” or “questings” means that these people busy themselves with all sorts of useless matters and then come to Timothy with their opinions with the hope of receiving some support from him. The psychology of disdaining to be bothered with them is discussed at length in connection with 1 Tim. 4:7.

Here the reason for this advice is stated: having gotten to know that they beget (present: continue to beget) battles. By means of the aorist participle Paul says that Timothy has long ago gotten to the point of knowing this; he is no longer “uneducated” even on this point. We should not say: “If Timothy knows, why still tell him?” We are told many things that we know in order to confirm us. Incidentally, such an acknowledgment on the part of a greater person is worth much to us in other ways. It is a fact that many questionings are silly and without elementary education about the things they seek to pry into. If these are taken up and discussed seriously they end in nothing but battles, empty, useless battles.

The one cure for them is not even to listen; if that fails, the last remedy is exhausted. Make people drop such stuff and let them hear the things that will give them some true religious education. We see why “peace” is introduced in v. 22: it is opposed to these “battles.”

2 Timothy 2:24

24 The third specification with δέ, now objective, in the third person, and thus applying to Paul himself and to any man who holds the position of “a slave of the Lord,” elaborates this refusal to enter battles. Now a slave of the Lord must not be battling but (must) be gentle toward all, apt to teach, putting up with what is bad, in meekness educating those placing themselves in opposition, if, perhaps, God may get to give them repentance for realization of truth, and that they get back to soberness out of the devil’s snare, having been (and remaining) captured alive by him (God) for that one’s (God’s) will.

The fact that “a slave” works is implied in the word itself; the thing to be noted is the fact that “a slave” has no will of his own when he works, he is governed by the will of his Lord (v. 19: we are “his”). When Paul says that “a slave of the Lord must not be battling,” he refers to a slave who follows this Lord, who did not wrangle or shout or make a scene in the streets (this is the sense of Matt. 12:19; Isa. 41:2). As to 4:7 and Paul, the imagery is that of athletics and not of fighting in brawls. How Jesus, the Prince of Peace, came to throw not peace but a sword upon earth is explained by the author under Matt. 10:34–36 and likewise has nothing to do with boisterous altercations. Note the present infinitive: “must not be engaging in battles.” This negative is again only introductory (as in v. 22), a foil to four positive items.

On the contrary (ἀλλά), “gentle must he be” as Paul, Timothy, Silvanus say they were gentle with the Thessalonians (1 Thess. 2:7); in fact, gentle “toward all,” thus broadening out beyond the members of the church. The Lord’s slave refers especially to the called ministers and leaders, all of whom are missionaries, their great work is that of the Lord himself, namely winning people for salvation. Fighting never won a convert or corrected a member of the church; but the very character of the Lord’s slave is marked by the pursuit of peace (v. 22). With this harmonizes “apt to teach,” to explain, instruct, make clear the Word, the same qualification that is stated in 1 Tim. 3:2.

The same is true with regard to the next term which is even stronger than patient: “putting up with what is bad” in those with whom he deals, for not a few will at first act badly enough. Finally, “in meekness (without pride or arrogant airs) educating (note ‘uneducated’ in v. 23) those placing themselves in opposition” and by this means winning them away from their hostility, whether they be foolish, misled church members or outsiders.

This is, indeed, a picture of a true slave of the Lord in all his work for the church. But one should not strain these words and make a soft jellyfish out of the Lord’s slave, a man who could not preach Matt. 23:13–39 or any of the stern texts found in the prophets. To wield the law is to strike with a hammer and no less.

2 Timothy 2:25

25 “If, perhaps, (μήποτε R. 988) God may get to give them repentance for realization of truth”—note the force of the aorist: “get to give” by the means thus employed. The thought is not that God ever withholds repentance, but that men so often refuse to accept it. On repentance see the verb in Matt. 3:2, and Acts 2:38, the noun in Luke 3:3. Although it is seldom found in Paul’s letters, this is one of the great cardinal terms of the Scriptures, the inner change of the heart when turning from sin and guilt to cleansing and forgiveness in God’s grace. “May give” is full of this grace. Here repentance is amplified by “for realization of truth,” for true heart knowledge, for such realization is ever the attainment of repentance. See further in 1 Tim. 2:4.

Texts, texts critics and editors, grammarians, and then commentators differ as to whether to read the aorist optative or the aorist subjunctive for “may get to give.” In our opinion, since the original uncials do not indicate the iota subscript, it is useless to insist on the optative despite the texts that place an iota under ω and the few examples of a similar construction. The second verb (v. 26) is an unquestioned subjunctive, and although it is used with a different subject it has the identical construction.

2 Timothy 2:26

26 “And they get back to soberness (the same aoristic force) out of the devil’s snare” adds to God’s act of giving the effect produced upon those receiving the gift. There is no mixing of figures between sobering up and getting out of a snare. There is a most telling combination: like blind drunkards these people got caught in the devil’s snare and then, of course, drunk as they were, could never get out of it. But repentance and a realization of the truth mean complete sobering up, and so this, indeed, takes them out of the devil’s snare. Comparing 1 Tim. 3:7, we take it that these are people who, after becoming Christians, got caught in the devil’s snare by being misled as v. 18 indicates. Proper treatment and careful teaching and education may rescue them.

If Paul had stopped at this point, much ink would have been saved, but he added the perfect participle and two pronouns αὐτοῦ and ἐκείνου, and this divides the commentators into three groups: 1) caught alive by the devil for the devil’s will (A. V.); 2) caught alive by God (or by the Lord’s slave) for God’s will; 3) captured alive by the devil—the last phrase: “for God’s will” is then thought to modify the whole clause: “sobered up again … for God’s will.”

For ourselves several points are decisive. First, θέλημα is used ueberwiegend von Gott (Christus), … in der Regel vom Wollen Gottes (Christi), B.-P. 553. The A. V.’s: “at his (the devil’s) will,” is wrong in regard to both pronoun and preposition. We should translate: “for that One’s (God’s) will.” Secondly, some think that “snare” and “being taken alive” naturally go together, for does a snare not capture alive? So they regard ὑπʼ αὐτοῦ = by the devil.

But this disregards the perfect tense of the participle; it should then be the aorist. Is this not one of Paul’s striking paradoxes, an oxymoron: “the devil’s snare,” and set over against it “having been and remaining captured alive by him” (God)? The devil’s snare does not catch alive, it always implies spiritual death; or, if you will, when his net closes, the devil hits his victim on the head. God catches alive so that his catch remains alive. One should not disregard this perfect participle: a recent past being caught alive and so remaining caught and alive. Is that not what the gospel does?

So we see why αὐτοῦ, which refers to God, occurs in the last phrase and is properly followed by ἐκείνου and not merely by another αὐτοῦ. This last pronoun is very emphatic because it repeats the first: “caught alive by him (who alone ever so catches and holds men) for that One’s will (who alone so catches).” Yes, “if perhaps,” such a result is achieved; out of the devil’s snare (negative) and caught alive to remain so by God and for his will, it would be a blessed result. To aid in this, by acting as Paul says, means that any Lord’s slave is no less than a golden instrument, well serving the Master’s use, prepared for every good work, an instrument for honor, to be highly valued (v. 20, 21).

B.-P Griechisch-Deutsches Woerterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments, etc., von D. Walter Bauer, zweite, voellig neugearbeitete Auflage zu Erwin Preuschens Vollstaendigem Griechisch-Deutschen Handwoerterbuch, etc.

B.-D Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte, voellig neugearbeitete Auflage, besorgt von Albert Debrunner.

R A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research. 4th edition..

M.-M The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament Illustrated from the Papyri and other non-Literary Sources, by James Hope Moulton and George Milligan.