2 Timothy 2:14–26

Original Meaning

How to Deal With Destructive Teaching (2:14–19)

THE NIV “KEEP reminding” (v. 14) brings out the present tense of the verb. “Warn” is a participle, also in the present tense. This tense indicates that the task is not complete but requires constant attention. The relationship between indicative and participle suggests that the two are concurrent, with a positive action, reminding, and a negative one, warning. What Timothy has taught them is a point of reference for the warning.

The contemporary reader of the completed New Testament is well aware that words are important and that precise wording is necessary for precise theology. But here Paul is warning “against quarreling about words [logomacheo].”1 Paul does not enlarge here on what the controversy is about, but rather offers two clear reasons against allowing it: It is without value and does no good, and it ruins the listeners and therefore does evil.

This is the setting against which Paul writes the well-known words of verse 15. The words “do your best” represents the Greek verb spoudazo in the Pastorals (cf. the related adverb in 1:17 [trans. “hard” in NIV] and Titus 3:13 [trans. “do everything you can”]. The idea is doing something with diligence and perhaps with haste and urgency. It communicates the idea of zeal. Timothy is to be concerned with God’s approval and so must deliberately present himself to that end. “Approved” (dokimos) appears only here in the Pastoral Letters, though its antonym adokimos (“disapproved”) occurs in 3:8 (NIV “rejected”) and in Titus 1:16 (NIV “unfit”). Timothy is not simply to court God’s approval but to be the kind of worker who is approved so that he can present himself to God. The word for “workman” was often used for agricultural workers.

The instructions to remind and warn begin, in the Greek sentence order, with the word tauta, “these things.” Although an ordinary and seemingly unimportant expression, it is repeated several times in the Pastoral Letters and has considerable significance (see also esp. 1 Tim. 4:6, 11; 6:2; 2 Tim. 2:2; Titus 2:15; 3:8) to refer to the range of doctrines Paul has instructed Timothy and Titus to pass on. The two uses in this present chapter either refer to specific teachings (v. 2) or follow a saying that is obviously at least one element in the teachings (v. 14). This is another way in which the present passage picks up a pattern of careful provision for the promulgation of apostolic teachings.

It may be asked why anyone would think that a workman might be ashamed (cf. Rom. 1:16). Although the idea of shame is significant in 1:8–16, this is a different context, for there is no suggestion that this workman might be ashamed of his product, that is, the gospel. Rather, the following clause indicates that it is the way the work is performed that might or might not give reason for shame. This work is described in the word “correctly handles” (orthotomeo; lit., “cut straight”). Recent reference works and commentaries tend to agree that the cutting imagery is less important than the idea of correctness.2 The only other biblical use of this verb is in the lxx (Prov. 3:6; 11:5), where it refers to making a straight path.

Verse 16 deals once again with the activities of the false teachers. Verse 14 had warned against useless, destructive quarreling, verse 15 urged a correct handling of the truth, and verse 16 counsels against “godless chatter” (see comments on 1 Tim. 6:20). This empty talk is devoid of religious value and consequently leads “into more and more impiety” (nrsv). Such talk is to be avoided, and there will be a progression downward toward ungodliness (a sarcastic statement). In contrast, 1 Timothy 4:15 describes true progress in godliness (using a similar word).

The sentence continues in verse 17 with a second reason for avoiding the godless chatter. “Their” refers to the false teachers. “Teaching” is logos, with the use of that word standing in strong contrast to “the word [logos] of truth” in verse 15. “Will spread like gangrene” is a mixed metaphor. “Spread” denotes the opportunity to expand; the word “gangrene,” while accurate, expresses the idea not of the growth of foreign cells (such as with “cancer,” NLT) but the progress of tissue decay.

Of the two false teachers named in verse 17, Hymenaeus was mentioned in 1 Timothy 1:20 (see comments), while Philetus is mentioned only here. The word translated “wandered away” (astocheo) occurs in 1 Timothy 1:6; 6:21, but a different word is so translated in 6:10. The imagery of the word used here is not that of a person inadvertently wandering off a path, but of deviating from what is good or true. Their error is in saying “that the resurrection has already taken place.”3 This refers to the future resurrection, which is like that of Jesus and not just a spiritual transformation (1 Cor. 15:35–49).

This issue may seem unimportant, on which, like some other eschatological issues, room can be left open for debate. Yet this is an error that has negative implications regarding the bodily resurrection of Christ. It seems to value Hellenistic ideas opposed to the biblical celebration of body and soul together, and it may draw on negative pre-Gnostic ideas about the material world, including the human body. The seriousness of this error was, therefore, probably not only in the surface teaching but in the underlying assumptions and their view of what we would call biblical theology. Because of the implications of their teachings, they not only led some people astray, but actually destroyed their faith (v. 18).

Verse 19 responds to this upsetting situation with the affirmation that “God’s solid foundation stands firm.” This verse could lose some of its force if we attempt to analyze the metaphors too closely. For example: Does themelios mean specifically a foundation or, more generally, the beginning stages of construction? Does the fact that solidity is important mean that Paul had the biblical stone imagery in mind (Isa. 28:16; Matt. 21:42; 1 Peter 2:6–8)? Did his occupation with household codes cause him to move from thoughts about members of the household to the “house” itself? Is he thinking of the foundation of the apostles and prophets as in Ephesians 2:20 and the structure that “grows into a holy temple in the Lord” (2:21–22, NRSV)? Or is 1 Corinthians 3:10–17 his point of reference, where Christ himself is the foundation?

And what are we to do with the word “seal,” a strange word to use in connection with a foundation, since it usually refers to the soft wax that was applied to scrolls and other documents and impressed with a signet ring? Apparently Paul is referring to an inscription and using the term seal as an overlapping metaphor because it conveys the idea of ownership. The next verse refers to “a large house,” another building metaphor probably connected with, and therefore perhaps affecting the interpretation of, the foundation in verse 19.

Scripture verses and extrabiblical citations can be introduced in support of each of the foregoing options. Once we have collected the evidence, however, it is probably best to see that Paul is not singling out one description to the exclusion of others, but rather merging several images to convey the idea of that which (1) is absolutely firm, (2) is owned by God, and (3) stands in spite of the presence of destructive persons like Hymenaeus and Philetus. God does, after all, own the building. The concepts of God’s household, the church, the pillar, and the foundation have already been blended together in 1 Timothy 3:15.

The seal or inscription on God’s solid foundation expresses two complementary truths. The confusion introduced by the heretical teachers and defections among the people are countered by the fact that “the Lord knows those who are his.” Yet although God knows, we do not. Therefore, “everyone who confesses the name of the Lord must turn away from wickedness.” Each of these affirmations has roots in other Scriptures. The first quotation is from Numbers 16:5, about Korah and others who were rebelling against Moses. It was necessary that God indicate who truly belonged to him and, as it turned out, that process judged the pretenders. The second quotation contains elements of Leviticus 24:16; Joshua 23:7; Job 36:10; Isaiah 26:13; 52:11 (cf. Luke 13:27; Acts 2:21; Rom. 10:13). It may be that Numbers 16:26–27, which described separation from the tents of Korah and his associates, whose judgment was imminent, is also in mind.

Bridging Contexts

A CHANGE IN THE SYMPHONY. The powerful exhortations to Timothy about diligence and faithfulness (2:1–13) take an unexpected turn in this passage. Like a movement in a symphony that suddenly leads the hearer from a pleasing, coherent theme to a related yet new aural sensation, perhaps in the jarring notes of the brass section, Paul grammatically joins two different, yet related, themes in verse 14. He combines a reference to what has preceded (“keep reminding them of these things”) with the surprising command, “Warn them before God against quarreling about words.”

What seems even more surprising is that the command appears at first to be less important than the previous instructions. What, after all, is so important about quarrels concerning mere words compared with the powerful images of soldier, athlete, and farmer (2:1–7), the ringing doctrinal affirmation about Christ in 2:8, and the trustworthy saying about faithfulness to the Lord (2:10–13)? Moreover, the following verse (v. 15) contains the frequently quoted saying about proper handling of the word of truth. What, then, is the significance of and justification for the intrusion of this trumpet blast of what seems to be a minor theme in the symphony of chapter 2?

This question relates to the fact that Paul is obviously more concerned in these letters with how to handle doctrinal controversy than in explaining the intricacies of the doctrinal deviations themselves. Not that the content of heresy is unimportant; if that had been the case, these letters need not have been written. It is rather that Timothy, aware of the doctrinal issues, needs a reminder of their seriousness and how to deal with them and with their advocates rather than detailed treatment of their content.

On handling controversy. Paul does provide enough comment on the specific errors for Timothy to explain them to the Ephesians (and Titus to the Cretans), who are, as it were, looking over his shoulder at the correspondence. What Timothy, Titus, the elders, and the household churches need to know is how to keep these doctrinal controversies and their promulgators from tearing apart the churches. This concern over how to handle damaging controversies fits in with Paul’s insistence on the Lord’s servants maintaining a purity of life consistent with their purity of doctrine. In turn all this combines to hallow God’s name and uphold his reputation.

This situation may be compared with the problem of how to dispose of napalm left over after the Vietnam war. There was no question about the content and danger of this substance. The question was how and where it could be safely transported and safely disposed of without exploding and the consequent spreading of this extremely hazardous material. That in itself resulted in a heated and “explosive” controversy.

If Timothy allows himself to be drawn into heated debates over minutia, he will be distracted from major concerns, be at risk of taking the low road of merely human argumentation, and be exposed to possible loss of respect from others. Such discussions are fruitless anyway and, worse, will “ruin those who listen” (v. 14). Paul also speaks of the “godless chatter” of the false teachers, and although their teaching will spread, the implication is that Timothy is unable to contain it by engaging in controversy on their level and, in fact, may actually contribute to its dispersion. The advice Paul gives recalls some of the wisdom in the book of Proverbs:

Whoever corrects a mocker invites insult…. Instruct a wise man and he will be wiser still. (Prov. 9:7, 9)

A man of knowledge uses words with restraint, a man of understanding is even-tempered. (17:27)

Do not speak to a fool, for he will scorn the wisdom of your words. (23:9)

Do not answer a fool according to his folly. (26:4)

There is an alternation in verses 14–19 that helps the reader get the full force of Paul’s positive instructions:

(1) Some get into quarrels about words. Avoid that.

It ruins others.

(2) On your part be a good workman,

    with no cause for shame,

    handling the word of truth correctly.

(3) Some become involved in godless chatter. Avoid that also.

The false teaching destroys others.

(4) On God’s part his foundation stands firm.

    He knows who are his.

    His people should turn away from wickedness.

This structure enables us to see divisive argumentation and false teaching from God’s point of view. We can see its effect and how to counter it. Wrong doctrine wrongly taught needs to be countered by true doctrine correctly taught—and lived. God’s foundation is firm and in no danger of toppling. God’s knowledge is certain; we cannot deceive him. We should make sure that our outward behavior corresponds to our true relationship with God.

Living in God’s household. The passage goes on in verses 20–21 to use the illustration of a household—an appropriate one considering that the Pastoral Letters address God’s people as a household. In this case the household is not identified as the church, but Paul simply builds on the available image. Nevertheless, those from whom Christians should “cleanse [themselves]” are probably in the professing church. This is a crucial issue, for various groups and cults have used these verses to justify their separation from other believers to form independent churches, organizations, or movements. There is no call here for Christians to separate from each other, but rather it is a call for those who hold to the truth and live it to dissociate themselves from those who are evil in teaching and living. The result should be greater usefulness to the Lord.

The vocabulary describing the persons who do this is significant. They are useful for “noble purposes,” in contrast to the articles in the illustration that are for filth and excrement. The word “noble” has to do with doing what is honorable. The person who cleanses himself or herself is “made holy.” Christians are saints, God’s holy ones. Such a person also becomes “useful to the Master,” which recalls the right God has, like a potter, to mold us as he chooses in order for us to serve him in the most appropriate way. We are thus prepared to do “good works” (see also 3:17; 2 Cor. 9:8; Eph. 2:10; Phil. 1:6; Col. 1:10). The separation from the dishonorable articles is thus not the conclusive act; it must be followed by the changes in being and function.

Verses 22–26 begin with a restatement of the kind of person God wants us to be, but now without the imagery of the household articles and their functions. In verse 22 Paul speaks forthrightly in unmistakable terms about the moral characteristics God expects in Timothy and all believers. Significantly, this leads directly into an amplification of the instructions in verses 14 and 16 and deals with “foolish and stupid arguments” and “quarrels.” Here it becomes clear that in addition to the previously given reasons for appropriate attitudes in the face of arguments, there is a practical goal. The servant of the Lord who does not quarrel but instead is kind will be able to teach others and perhaps see them repent, come to a “knowledge of the truth,” “come to their senses,” and “escape from the trap of the devil.” It is sobering to realize that if the attitude of the Lord’s servant makes these results possible, the opposite is also true: A wrong attitude on our part may, in spite of correct teaching, hinder others from coming to Christ.

Contemporary Significance

ON DEALING WITH those who are not Christians. Fred Heeren, author of Show Me God, has engaged in stimulating dialogues with scientists with a secular viewpoint. He recently said, “If I’ve found any one thing to be key in getting through to skeptics today, this is it…Have an attitude of gentleness and respect toward unbelievers and their views. Put negatively, the greatest single turn-off for skeptics is the Christian who sets up an us-versus-them argument between Christianity and science.”8 While the setting is different from that of the early church with its conflicts, this is good advice that accords with what Paul has been telling Timothy about his attitudes to those with whom he disagrees.

Another writer observes:

When people on the streets are asked, What is a Christian? What do they stand for?, on nearly every occasion words come back such as anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-feminist, anti-welfare, anti-this, anti-that. And words like harsh, self-righteous, intolerant, or mean-spirited. Yet another poll of people, asked what they think Jesus was like, almost universally returns with words like compassionate, nonviolent peacemaker, and reconciler. How do we explain the contradictions here? Either the popular conception of Jesus is mistaken, or we in the church have been following the wrong agenda.9

Second Timothy 2:14–26, like the rest of the Pastoral Letters, leaves no doubt that Paul was anti-heresy and anti-godlessness, but the point of this passage is that Timothy should not be argumentative and quarrelsome in his attitude, as the false teachers were. In this life we will always need to take some stands that are “anti,” but the issue is whether we can do this in a way that will not involve us in sub-Christian quarreling, producing a sub-Christian reputation.

Some years ago a church attempted to apply this passage from 2 Timothy to their own situation. A small group had been started in an area that could benefit from a warm, gospel-preaching, Bible-teaching church. The pieces, so to speak, were all in place. The participants were well-taught Christians. They loved the Lord, devoted themselves to worship in a spirit and to a depth not usually seen in evangelical churches in those days, and had a desire to reach others for Christ. There was a good diversity in ages, and they fit well socially into the neighborhood.

Unfortunately, they were so intense in trying to follow what they thought was the teaching of this passage that they lacked the positive attitude toward others that it also taught, which could have produced the effects envisioned in verses 25–26. They were unable to achieve such goals because of a preoccupation with being separate from all those who did not agree with their doctrine at every point, including spiritually minded, Bible-believing Christians. Other nearby churches held most of their doctrines and had similar views of church polity, ministry, and worship. But for this group, cleansing themselves from the unclean articles in the household meant separation even from those sister churches. Only God knows what might have been accomplished and what people might have been won to the Lord by a winsome, open, and kindly attitude toward others.

Two personal illustrations. For another application, I might offer a personal illustration. Years ago I had the opportunity to take some doctoral courses in a major liberal seminary. This took place at a crucial time in American fundamentalism. Some of the more strident voices in fundamentalism were making it difficult for others, equally fundamental in their beliefs, to hold meaningful conversations with those of a different persuasion. Some of their attitudes and argumentation were close to what this passage warns against. In this climate I, for one, found it hard to explain my beliefs to others at the seminary. I had no disagreement with the essential doctrines of fundamentalism, but the personal attacks by others of my theological position on some of the very people I was then meeting and appreciating at the seminary made it difficult to represent conservative theology to them.

However, at one point I had the privilege of facilitating an invitation to New Testament scholar F. F. Bruce, who was visiting in the area, to speak in the seminary chapel. He began with words close to these: “It does not matter what we think the apostle Paul might have said, or what we wish he had said. What matters is what, in fact, he did say.” Bruce then proceeded in a clear, gentle way to present a biblical message on the heart of Pauline theology.

Perhaps a second illustration will be useful. From time to time openings present themselves to have public debate, personal dialogue, or correspondence with prominent opponents of the Christian faith. (I still keep a letter from atheist Madeline Murray O’Hare in response to something I once wrote her.) One Christian apologist had opportunities to debate her and others of similar persuasions. After one such appearance, some were troubled by his combative, demeaning attitude to the antagonist. His response was, “I did not go there to save souls but to destroy a heretic.” I believe the apostle Paul would have hoped rather to destroy heresy and save a soul.

Fruitful dialogue. Contemporary application of this emphasis in our passage should not be difficult if we share Paul’s goals. It will always be more difficult to separate from those whose life and teachings are destructive if we know them personally than if they are merely names to us. Yet it should make us more concerned for them personally, and we can hope for an eventual turnaround if we do know them. In the house church setting Timothy must have had firsthand contact, perhaps weekly for a period of time, with the very people Paul warns him about.

In what circumstances, then, can we best engage in fruitful dialogue? There are forums that provide an open hearing for differing theological and biblical viewpoints, some involving participants from non-Christian religious and various philosophical perspectives. One thinks of the American Academy of Religion and the Society of Biblical Literature, but there are major societies in other disciplines also that relate to religion. Disagreement is expected and, if it is courteous and reasoned, it is respected. Such dialogue allows for dissemination of one’s viewpoints as they may legitimately arise from the presentations and discussions, though one must not misuse the scholarly forms for confrontational evangelism.

On the local church scene, pastors and others may be involved in ministerial gatherings with ministers, priests, and perhaps rabbis, where, in a friendly setting, there can be an “appreciative inquiry” (to borrow a happy phrase) of other faiths. Without attacking others or questioning their integrity (which I have unfortunately heard done), a clear testimony is appropriate.

When, however, we are confronted with outright heresy by “wolves” seeking to destroy the flock and to tear a church away from its theological moorings, the rules change, and the Lord’s servant should not get sucked into banter or debate. When the lines are drawn and the life of the flock is at stake, truth must confront error as openly and as forcefully as necessary.

1. 1. The noun form related to this verb occurs in 1 Tim. 6:4, where the context is also about controversy, specifically that which is carried on in a malicious way.

2. See, for example, H. Köster, , TDNT, 8.111–12; R. Klöber, NIDNTT, 3.352; Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, 255; Knight, Pastoral Epistles, 411–12; Towner, 1—2 Timothy & Titus, 182. How much the emphasis is on straightforward handling of the “word of truth” and how much is on proper interpretation of it is debatable, but the neutral “correctly handles” of the NIV is to be preferred over the “rightly explaining” of NRSV and “correctly explains” of the NLT.

3. Several important textual witnesses lack the definite article before “resurrection,” and the UBS text inclusion of the article receives only a C rating. Nevertheless it is preferred.

4. BAGD, 120.

5. Regarding “good works” and the importance of ethics in the Pastorals see Young, Theology of the Pastoral Letters, 28–46.

6. BAGD, 496.

7. See Hanson, Pastoral Epistles, 142–43, for an excellent discussion of the issues here, leading to the conclusion just expressed.

8. Quoted with permission from the Summer 1998 “Partners in Outreach” update of Day Star Productions, Wheeling, Illinois.

9. Quoted with permission from a brochure distributed by Sojourners Magazine.

Original Meaning

The Imagery of Household Utensils (2:20–21)

THE IMAGERY OF verses 20–21 continues the theme of false teachers and teachings in verses 14–19, which concluded with the necessity of turning away from wickedness. Paul then introduces a new imagery, that of utensils in a house, which is encompassed in the larger imagery of the house and household. The “large house” does not imply anything about the size of the church at Ephesus, but is in reference to the narrative world of the parabolic saying.

A large house, owned by a wealthy person, would have a variety of utensils. This is not simply a matter of better versus everyday tableware (as is implied in the word “ordinary” in NRSV). It is rather that some utensils are used for purposes that have an overtone of “dishonor,” “disgrace,” or “shame.”⁴ Such a purpose might be for removing excrement. This would be better understood by readers in cultures where, for example, the left hand is reserved for the dirty functions of living. It is this strong description that gives sense to verse 21 and its requirement to “cleanse” oneself from the latter group of utensils. This accomplishes the shift from the impersonal utensils of the image to the personal world of Timothy, who is to be “an instrument for noble purposes,” “holy [and] useful to the Master.”

Although it is customary for commentators to refer to Jesus’ parable of the weeds (Matt. 13:24–30, 36–43) and to Romans 9:19–21, the imagery stands on its own. The lesson concerning personal holiness is clear, and the idea of being “prepared to do any good work” for the Master looks ahead to 3:17.5