“How Firm A Foundation”: The Ecclesiology Of 2 Timothy 2:19-21

By Gregory A. Couser

[Gregory A. Couser is Senior Professor of New Testament and Greek, Cedarville University, Cedarville, Ohio.]

Abstract

Ecclesiology is front and center in 2 Timothy 2:19-21, but the complex imagery has led to varying conclusions about the kind of church being presented. A thorough examination of the context, the referent of “God’s solid foundation,” the Old Testament allusions in verse 19, and the house/vessel metaphor in verses 20-21 reveals a picture of the church as a family constituted, maintained, protected, ordered, and directed by God. God’s saving work is manifested in the church’s tenacious loyalty to the “Master of the house,” whether through positive pursuit of his saving purposes or sustained resistance to everything and anyone who detracts from or opposes those purposes.

Commentators have long discussed 2 Timothy 2:19-21 in terms of its ecclesiology. In particular, the complex imagery and the precise nature of the relationship between verses 20 and 21 have led to varying conceptions of Paul’s vision of the church in this passage.

For example, Norbert Brox detects an ecclesiological vision that sees the church as a mixed congregation necessarily made up of believers and unbelievers.[1] Both the NIV (“from the latter”) and ESV (“from what is dishonorable”; also HCSB) could be read in support of this vision as they both take the ambiguous “from these” in verse 21 (ἀπὸ τούτων) to refer to the dishonorable vessels that share the same house as the honorable vessels in verse 20.

In contrast, I. Howard Marshall sees a picture where heretical incursions are unfortunately normal but not the essence of the church.[2] Along this line, like the NASB “from these things,” the NET simply translates ἀπὸ τούτων as “from these” with a footnote explaining this as a reference to “the errors and deeds of the false teachers described in vv. 14-19.”[3] This leaves the possibility of envisioning the “dishonorable” as being “useful” but not fully “prepared” (v. 21) or “equipped’ (3:17) to further God’s saving purposes in and through the church. Along this line, both types of vessels are useful, but the degree of their usefulness is affected by how they engage with the antagonists and their teaching. This interpretation shares various points of contact with Paul’s use of similar imagery in Romans 9:21 (NET): “Has the potter no right to make from the same lump of clay one vessel for special use [εἰς τιμήν] and another for ordinary use [εἰς ἀτίμιαν]?”

At the same time, it would be wrong to reduce the ecclesiology in this passage to this one interpretive issue and related affirmations concerning the church. The complexity and density of the imagery suggest the potential for additional insights into Paul’s ecclesiology.[4] To lay out the ecclesiological shape of Paul’s thought here in its fullness, this study will (1) situate this passage in its literary and historical context; (2) determine the referent of “God’s solid foundation” (v. 19); (3) locate the textual backdrop and meaning of the two phrases that stand as the seal inscribed on the foundation; and (4) explain the interconnections and force of the house/vessel metaphor in verses 20 and 21.

Literary And Historical Context

The immediate literary context consists of the paragraph running from 2:14 through 26. As in 2:1-13, the structure of Paul’s direction to Timothy in 2:14-26 includes sets of imperatives (vv. 14-16a, 22-23) followed by supporting matter (vv. 16b–21, 24-26). A prohibition is followed by a positive command, which in turn is followed by a negative command that takes the initial thought further (vv. 14-16a and 22-23).[5] While this section continues in the vein of a close conversation between Paul and Timothy against the backdrop of an aggressive and growing opposition to the gospel that characterizes the letter as a whole (cf. 1:15),[6] a noticeable shift occurs here. The conversation turns from positive countermeasures regarding the church’s leadership (2:1-7) and truths that should drive Timothy in taking those measures (2:8-13) to focus on Timothy’s direct engagement with church leaders, given the nature of the opposition. Thus, the focus here moves away from the positive steps Timothy must take to re-establish healthy leadership in the church to helping him live and speak so that those “faithful men” will not be sidetracked by or despair at the opposition’s theologically toxic—and largely successful—war of words (λογομαχεῖν, 2:14). Paul is concerned that Timothy might become caught up in the destructive methods of his opponents as he attempts to stop their influence in the church and raise up new leadership for the protection and furthering of God’s saving work in and through the church (cf. 1:8-14).[7]

Some object to the contention that the “faithful men” are most directly in view.[8] At issue is the identity of those Timothy is to solemnly warn (διαμαρτυρόμενος).[9] Though it could be argued that 2:8-13 marks a shift away from instruction pertinent to “faithful men” back toward spiritual practices necessary to bolster Timothy’s mission resolve, strong indicators point to “faithful men” as the audience in 2:14-26.[10] First, those warned are admonished due to the destructive effects of toxic theological battles on those listening. While “the listeners” (v. 14) could be any person listening to any interaction of this sort, it more likely refers to the impact on the church when the leaders teach in this way. Each time that ἀκούω (1 Tim. 4:16; 2 Tim. 1:13; 2:2; 4:17) and its cognate ἀκοή (2 Tim. 4:3-4) appear in 1 and 2 Timothy they picture a setting where the hearers are under the instruction of a spiritual leader.

Second, the combination of διαμαρτύρομαι and ἐνώπιον regularly occurs in contexts where Paul is admonishing Timothy about his duties as Paul’s apostolic delegate at Ephesus (1 Tim. 5:21 [cf. 6:13];[11] 2 Tim. 4:1). This adjuration formula suggests the setting of a spiritual leader admonishing those functioning in leadership positions. It is a solemn appeal by which Paul imposes on Timothy an obligation to speak and act in a manner that will meet with God’s approval.[12] It emphasizes (1) God’s current oversight; (2) the congruence of the admonition with God’s saving will and with Timothy’s commission at Ephesus toward the outworking of that will; and, (3) from its regular association with the eschaton (1 Tim. 5:21 [cf. 6:13-14]; 2 Tim. 4:1), the future eschatological assize.

Third, the metaphor that Paul employs in 2:20-21 could be construed as urging the “faithful men” to separate themselves from the error of the opposition as appropriate for those who occupy the position of “honor” within the community (cf. 1 Tim. 5:21). Finally, as this section concludes, the reference to Timothy as “a servant of God” occurs in relationship to admonitions that either directly pick up or indirectly echo many of the qualities and practices expected of an elder in 1 Timothy 3.[13] In sum, the discussion of the nature of the church is embedded within a section dealing most directly with Timothy as the one whose teaching and life are to provide guidance to the new church leadership about how to deal with the present crisis. As Paul urges him, if Timothy is to be a workman who has God’s approval, his life and words need to cut a straight path for the truth through the labyrinth of theological falsehoods threatening the life of the Ephesian churches (2:15).[14]

In its immediate context, 2:19 provides encouragement that God’s purposes in and through his people are secure—even though there is a spreading infection (2:17; cf. 3:13), even though “all of Asia” has bought in (1:15), and even though key leaders have fallen (1:15; 2:17; 4:10). In 2:20-21 Paul follows this assurance with a word picture intended to depict (and commend) the response Timothy and those under his tutelage should take as those known by and naming the name of the Lord. But why does Paul respond the way he does to the false teaching? Does the assurance of God’s work in and through the church relate to the nature of the heresy? Furthermore, what leads Paul to use the household/vessel imagery in verses 20-21 to depict the appropriate response to the antagonists and their teaching? Paul apparently responds the way he does because the false teachers are rewriting God’s saving work. They are re-ordering salvation history such that they largely now have—on the spiritual, moral plain—what God promises in Christ.[15] This over-realized eschatological stance has shifted their gaze away from the future. Hence, the “promise of life” motivating Paul (1:1; cf. 1:12; 2:11-12; 4:1, 9; 1 Tim. 4:10; 6:14) is a promise largely realized in the minds of the antagonists. A posture of humble yearning for Christ’s return has been replaced by a “love of the present age” (cf. 4:10). The wide impact of the false teaching, the contentious demeanor of its proponents, and their negative response to Paul’s censure (“left me,” 1:15; 2:16; 4:10; cf. 1 Tim. 1:18) all suggest a settled, though ultimately misplaced, confidence in “their account” (ὁ λόγος αὐτῶν; 2 Tim. 2:17) of God’s saving work. Theirs is a posture of prideful satisfaction and bold proclamation of “profane empty words” (2:16).

Given that 1 Timothy also envisions the backdrop of this false teaching,[16] the occasion of 1 Timothy and its contours provide insight into the communal effects of this “already resurrected” eschatological stance, the thought that all that belongs to the resurrection era is largely available now. This rewriting of God’s saving work dissolves Paul’s already/not yet tension on the side of the already. As a consequence, this teaching had prompted the church to step away from the household order called for by God’s saving work in Christ in the present time (the οἰκονομία θεοῦ; 1 Tim. 1:4).[17] This household metaphor drives Paul’s instruction to Timothy in 1 Timothy (cf. 3:5 and esp. v. 15) and may well explain his return to it here with the images of “foundation” (2 Tim. 2:19) and “great house” (v. 20). In 1 Timothy the old order was under attack. Seemingly “in every place” where the church gathered (2:8) the antagonists were urging believers to turn aside from an eschatology that looked backward, that reaffirmed the created order. The antagonists repudiated (or their teaching led to a repudiation of) the way the old order (1) structured the social spaces of men and women in the gathered community (2:11-15); (2) set out a positive place for sexuality/marriage (4:3; 5:11-14); (3) invited believers to fittingly enjoy all that God had provided for their nourishment (4:3); (4) ordered family relationships and responsibilities (5:1, 4, 8); and, consequently, (5) set the theological requirements for church leadership (compare 1:4; 3:15 with 1:6, 19). In sum, the antagonists re-ordered the nature of the life consistent with God’s saving work in the present. For them men and women can occupy the social space of teaching elder (2:11).[18] Marriage (and so sexuality) and spirituality don’t go together (4:3). An unrestricted diet is forbidden (4:3). Some of the internal dynamics of familial deference and responsibility are passé (5:1-2, 3, 8, 16). Adherence to the truth has been replaced by leaders who are set free from the constraints of the salvation-historical pattern of Paul’s gospel proclamation (τὴν παραθήκην, 6:20; 2 Tim. 1:11, 14; cf. ὑποτύπωσιν, 2 Tim. 1:13). They have freed themselves to “creatively” engage the Scriptures with a sensitivity to the “spirit’s” voice for the church now (1 Tim. 1:7). In Paul’s mind this means the Spirit’s express voice is being replaced by the voice of Satan and his cohorts (1 Tim. 4:1; 2 Tim. 2:26).[19] In this context the creative, “scratch where they want you to itch” man of the people (cf. 2 Tim. 4:3-4) replaces the faithful steward of the Lord’s house (1 Tim. 1:4; 3:5, 15; 6:14, 20; 2 Tim. 1:13-14; 2:1-7, 14-15, 21, 24; 3:14-17; 4:2, 5), even though the former uses the biblical language of a steward as he tries to supplant the Lord of the house (professing a “form” without the “power,” 2 Tim. 3:5).

Referent Of “Foundation”

The previous discussion suggests that the referent of “foundation” (θεμέλιος, 2 Tim. 2:19) is God’s people, the church. Through a twofold figure of speech Paul uses “foundation” by way of metonymy for “God’s house” with the understanding that the latter stands for God’s household, the family constituted by God’s saving acts in Christ (cf. 1:9-10; 2:10). It has in view the same group that lies behind the imagery of the “great house” in verse 20. At the same time, since there is disagreement among commentators on this point and since this has direct implications for the ecclesiology of this passage, a defense of this position is warranted. Lea sets out the main lines of interpretation with respect to “foundation” when he states, “The ‘foundation’ may refer to the church as a whole, the genuine work of God in Ephesus, the deposit of faith, or it may be a general statement of truth without a definite reference.”[20]

The term likely refers to the church in some sense or to the gospel truths that constitute and drive the life of the church by faith. Concerning the latter there is no doubt that Paul in this letter emphasizes the firmness of God’s saving purposes as articulated in the gospel. This is a “word” that cannot be “bound” (2:10; 4:17). This is the gospel that has been entrusted to Paul (1:9-11). And Paul has no doubt that he will realize the full promise of God’s saving work as proclaimed in the gospel (1:12; 4:18). He encourages Timothy that God’s gift of the Spirit (1:8) is God’s enablement for Timothy to maintain that precious trust (1:14). God is committed to work in and through his servants to fulfill his saving promises for them and the elect (2:10-13). The NLT represents this sense: “but God’s truth stands firm like a foundation.”

Nevertheless, the gospel does not seem to be directly in view in 2:19. Rather, the building imagery in “foundation” seems to point to those who benefit from God’s saving promises in the gospel as opposed to those promises themselves. The “inscriptions” point to the character of those who constitute the “foundation” so that it can be rightly called “firm.”[21] These are people who share a common, chosen status (known by God) and a common commitment (“everyone who names the name of the Lord must turn from iniquity”) commensurate with the intimate relationship signified in God’s knowing them.[22] The inscriptions give the reason for the solidity of the church God has founded so that Timothy and those Timothy is to train are reassured, encouraged, and challenged to engage the infectious, deadly falsehoods promulgated by men like Hymenaeus and Philetus (v. 17). Moreover, as with verses 20-21, household/temple imagery throughout 1 and 2 Timothy consistently refers to God’s people, those who have responded to his saving work in Christ by faith.[23] In fact, the “household of God” in 1 Timothy 3:15 is even overlaid with temple imagery in that it is defined as “the assembly of the living God,”[24] the people among whom God manifests himself to bless them. In sum, this seems to be another use of structural imagery to refer to the church that connects to and maintains the household/temple imagery Paul constantly uses to depict the nature of God’s people in 1 and 2 Timothy.[25]

The Seal: Backdrop And Meaning

The foundation stone has two statements that constitute a “seal.” More specifically, Paul puts “seal” for the mark impressed in the seal, in this case two inscriptions.[26] The seal is to “guarantee authenticity, genuineness, and integrity, or to preserve the secrecy of the contents of the letter or of some product.”[27] It is used most basically to denote God’s ownership. At the same time, in conjunction with the sense of the two inscriptions that constitute the seal, the seal speaks of God’s action to acquire and protectively maintain that which he seals (the verb σφραγίζω has this sense elsewhere in Paul; see 2 Cor. 1:22-23; Eph. 1:13; 4:30).

Concerning the textual backdrop there is no doubt that the first quote comes from Numbers 16:5 in the Septuagint. The only thing changed is the substitution of “Lord” (κύριος) for “God” (ὁ θεός) in the Septuagint, but it does not seem that the referent is changed.[28] In addition to the clear Old Testament backdrop, the anarthrous κύριος (cf. 2 Tim. 1:18)[29] coupled with Paul’s usual association of this sense of γινώσκω with God points away from Christ as the referent.

However, the second quote’s provenance is less clear. The only verbal connection to the Septuagint of Numbers 16 is the use of ἀφίστημι. In Numbers 16:27 it is used to describe the response of the people to Moses’s warning, while in the present passage it is used in the warning itself (the Septuagint uses ἀποσχίζω, v. 26). Nevertheless, the Septuagint of Numbers 16 seems to account best for this phrase and its pairing with the preceding quotation. Towner sees the second statement as a summary of the point of the Numbers narrative. “The OT story provides a narrative illustration of the concept of ‘wickedness’ (άδικία) and the narrative source that gives meaning to the command.”[30] Similarly, Knight sees the “second part of the inscription” as a “generalized summary of the exhortation of Num 16:26 that uses language found elsewhere in the OT, which in this summary form serves as a broad principle.”[31] The “language found elsewhere” particularly refers to the phrase πᾶς ὁ ὀνομάζων τὸ ὄνομα κυρίου (cf. LXX Isa. 26:13; Jer. 20:9). This exact phrase does not appear in the Septuagint, though its meaning here is best paralleled by Septuagint usage (esp. Isa. 26:13). At the same time, its meaning is essentially synonymous with τῶν ἐπικαλοθμένων of 2 Timothy 2:22.[32] With the generic sense created by πᾶς it further reminds one of Paul’s use of ἐπικαλέω in Romans 10:12-13 (cf. LXX Joel 3:5; Acts 2:21) and 1 Corinthians 1:2.[33] These contextual and semantic factors come together to suggest that the Old Testament phrase now serves to characterize the confession of the “Lord” Jesus Christ. In so doing, the confessor expresses belief in, worship of, submission to, and dependence on the one named.[34] The one who is “known” by God is also the one who “names the name of the Lord” Jesus Christ.

The textual backdrop, especially the limited verbal connections with the second “inscription,” points to the importance of the Numbers 16 narrative as a whole for a full grasp of what Paul says here. It is not hard to see why Paul was drawn to this Old Testament passage. There and in 2 Timothy conflicting parties claim to represent God. Paul appeals to this Old Testament narrative as paradigmatic for understanding and engaging this type of situation (cf. 1 Cor. 10:11). As with God’s people of old the rebellion of some within the church should be faced with the truths of God’s commitment to his own and of what this will mean for their consequent posture toward such a rebellion. God’s election and ongoing presence securing his appointed leaders and his people provides consolation. At the same time, the narrative backdrop and the characterization of the antagonists by ἀδικία strongly warns of God’s rejection and judgment of those who falsely claim his authority—and of those who are willingly taken captive by their falsehoods (cf. 2 Tim. 3:6; 4:3).[35]

The Nature Of The House And The Vessels

Following his appeal to the Numbers narrative, Paul extends the building imagery by comparing the church to a “great house.” There is little disagreement about the ecclesial nature of the metaphor; the prevalence of the house as a metaphor for “the church of the living God” throughout 1 and 2 Timothy leaves little room for doubt. But what is the nature of this house? What do the “vessels” represent? Does “honorable” mean believer and “dishonorable” unbeliever? Does “these” in verse 21 refer to “dishonorable vessels,” which in turn correspond to the false teachers and their skewed account of God’s saving acts in Christ (v. 17)? Or does “these” in verse 21 refer to the opposition and their teaching but not to the “dishonorable vessels”?

To begin, the nature of the church just delineated in verse 19 must be kept in view. There, the church is “solid” because it is made up of God’s elect who will be loyal to him. This does not suggest a “mixed” church of believers and unbelievers. While the soteriological status of the antagonists is unclear, Paul portrays them as willing victims of the evil one (2 Tim. 2:25-26; 1 Tim. 4:1) and, in the case of at least two of them, has disciplined them (1 Tim. 1:20; cf. 5:20). For Paul, this means that they are treated as if they belong to another kingdom on the grounds that their teaching and accompanying religious expression misrepresent and so oppose God and his saving work (1 Tim. 1:20), his οἰκονομία (1:4). Discipline intends to protect the church from their influence (cf. “in order warn the rest,” 1 Tim. 5:20) as well as to reclaim and restore those disciplined (cf. “in order that they might learn not to blaspheme,” 1 Tim 1:20; cf. 2 Tim. 2:25b–26; 1 Cor. 5:5). Discipline is enjoined only for those who profess a Christian identity (cf. 1 Cor. 5:10); yet when discipline reaches the point of separation from the community, it serves as a statement by the church that their professed identity is an open question to some degree. Remediation is the intent and reclamation is the goal, but they are not guaranteed.[36] In any event, while Paul leaves open the degree to which the evil one can influence and impact the people of God, there seem to be no grounds for an ecclesiology that would gather believers and unbelievers under the umbrella of “church.” Verse 19 suggests the current struggle is an incursion by the evil one through influencing genuine believers or through pseudo-believers whose identity has been ignored or disguised. The latter are most likely those Paul has in mind when he attempts to lighten Timothy’s weighty task of honoring, investigating, disciplining, and appointing elders (1 Tim. 5:17-22).[37] Paul seems to be assuring him that God only holds him accountable for what he can discern. In particular, there are some whose “sins” will “follow after” them such that their true character will not be known until the (eschatological) judgment (v. 24).[38]

Given this backdrop, consistency seems to call for a conception of the “vessels” in the “great house” that can accommodate a status of believer for both types. This leaves the possibility of envisioning the “dishonorable” along the lines of “useful” but not fully “prepared” (v. 21) or “equipped” (3:17). Their ability to further God’s saving purposes in and through the church has been compromised. While this would be true of any believer, it would be especially applicable in this context where the “faithful men,” the church leadership, are those being solemnly warned by Timothy. The criteria for leadership in these letters (1 Tim. 3:1-14; cf. Tit. 1:6-9) could be seen as a depiction of an “honorable vessel” as they serve to guide the church in the selection of new leaders and the recognition of current leaders (cf. 1 Tim. 5:17). Along this line, both types of vessels are useful. However, the degree of their usefulness is affected by their type of engagement with the antagonists and their teaching. The one who “makes himself clean from these” (2 Tim. 2:21a; cf. 2 Cor. 7:1) is the one who purifies his life by resisting the toxic influence of the antagonists. A leader who “names the name of the Lord”/“calls upon the Lord” must have an unalloyed commitment to God’s saving work, “a pure heart” (2 Tim. 2:22; cf. 1 Tim. 1:5). This commitment is common to all those whom “God knows.” As a result, this would make the leader maximally effective for furthering God’s saving purposes in himself and the church (cf. 1 Tim. 1:4; 4:10, 16). That is to say, he would be a man “prepared for every good work” (2 Tim. 2:21; cf. 3:17).

This interpretation shares points of contact with Paul’s use of similar imagery in Romans 9:21 (NET): “Has the potter no right to make from the same lump of clay one vessel for special use [εἰς τιμήν] and another for ordinary use [εἰς ἀτιμίαν]?” Here, “special” and “ordinary” depict an understanding of vessels as having different functions with no connotation of good versus bad, or in our passage, saved/faithful versus unsaved/denying.[39] This also resonates with the use of “honor” as something due to all “members” of the body no matter what their giftedness (1 Cor. 12:23). In conclusion, this conception of Paul’s metaphor for the church in verses 20-21 is consistent with the “seal” of verse 19 and would maintain the metaphor in a manner consistent with Pauline usage elsewhere. It would also cohere with the general conception of church leadership in 1 Timothy and 2 Timothy.

Conclusion: “How Firm A Foundation”

Second Timothy 2:19-22 presents two closely intertwined metaphoric depictions of the church as the “house of God.” Temple imagery brings an emphasis on God’s presence and the ethical obligations and benefits that his presence brings, as is often the case when Paul uses household imagery in 1 and 2 Timothy, but this emphasis is not primary. The primary focus falls on the church as God’s family. It is a family constituted, maintained, protected, ordered, and directed by God. As a result, God’s saving work is manifested in their tenacious loyalty to the “Master of the house,” whether that means the positive pursuit of his saving purposes or the sustained resistance to whatever detracts from and stands in opposition to those purposes. What God desires to do in and through his people should order and direct the lives of those who make up his household. The degree to which they conform to God’s expectations determines the level to which they realize their potential.

In 2:19, drawing on the Numbers 16 narrative, Paul reminds Timothy and the “faithful men” that those who are God’s people are such because they are “known,” chosen, by God (v. 19a). God is the one who creates a people of his very own by setting his favor on them and in so doing commits himself to their ongoing, everlasting flourishing. Earlier, in 2 Timothy 1:9-10, Paul carefully delineated what God’s choosing involves: “God is the one who saved us and called us with a holy calling, not based on our works but on his own purpose and grace, granted to us in Christ Jesus before time began, but now made visible through the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus. He has broken the power of death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel!” (NET)

This choosing creates a community of those who, this side of Christ’s work, now profess allegiance to Christ such that they will separate themselves from any type of entanglement inconsistent with their identity or mission (v. 19b; cf. 2:4), just as the faithful people of God did in Numbers 16. Though not explicit, a promise of protection and a warning of judgment for opposition lies close at hand, given Paul’s appeal to Numbers 16.

In verses 20-21 Paul extends and redirects the household metaphor in terms of the vessels it contains. “Vessels” (v. 20) refers to people in the house of God. The materials relate to their spiritual health and effectiveness versus their spiritual sickness and ineffectiveness. The latter have been impacted by the false teaching and are thus limited in their usefulness for the gospel (“wood/clay” vessels that are for “menial” uses). To read the metaphor as implying a sort of inherent clerical/laity distinction would be to over-read it. The metaphor implies that the categories of “gold/silver” and “wood/clay” can be transcended or compromised based on the faithful or faithless response of the vessels to the requirement of the Master of the house. The next verse (v. 21) suggests that the path to effectiveness is the path of separation from the disease-bearing false teachers and/or from those infected by the disease—a move consistent with a commitment to God’s saving purposes. It suggests that a separation from the antagonists and their teaching is essential to full effectiveness for the promotion of God’s saving purposes. This conception of the metaphor would present the church as a collection of people who function variously within the household of God due the degree to which they have an unalloyed, pure commitment to Christ. Also, it is important to note that the metaphor is general in nature. It encompasses all the “vessels” in the house of God but differentiates them on the basis of their “purity” and thus effectiveness and fittingness for service. It speaks to the issue of the qualities and demands of leadership indirectly. As the seal inscriptions describe and prescribe the status and demeanor of every believer (“everyone who names the name of the Lord,” v. 19; cf. v. 21), such characteristics are presumably irreducible requirements for any in the category of “faithful men.”

As Timothy strongly warns the “faithful men” under his tutelage, they and he can take courage and stiffen their resolve knowing that God’s saving work in and through his people is secure. The nature and outworking of God’s choosing secures the loyalty of his people. Yet maximal realization of God’s saving purposes and optimal effectiveness in their promotion depends on the degree to which God’s people maintain an unalloyed commitment to God and his purposes. The family rests on a firm foundation, but those within it cannot rest on their laurels. Vigilance and resistance are demanded because the enemy is constantly on the attack. The effectiveness of the individual members—and of the family as a whole—in promoting God’s saving purposes is at stake.

Notes

1. Norbert Brox, Die Pastoralbriefe, Regensburger Neues Testament (Regensburg: Freidrich Pustet, 1969), 249-50.
2. I. Howard Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles, International Critical Commentary (London: T. & T. Clark, 2004), 761.
3. See https://lumina.bible.org/bible/2+Timothy+2. Accessed April 6, 2016.
4. The following study proceeds on the basis of the document’s literary self-presentation. This is to say that the apostle Paul is assumed to be the author of 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus. However, space prohibits a full defense of Pauline authorship as the most historically plausible and convincing explanation for the production, content, and canonical status of these letters. For a thorough defense as well as a nearly complete bibliography on the issue of the authenticity of these letters, see William D. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, Word Biblical Commentary 46 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2000), lxxxiii–cxxix. For a concise overview of the issues with penetrating insights, see Stanley E. Porter, “Pauline Authorship and the Pastoral Epistles: Implications for Canon,” Bulletin for Biblical Research 5 (1995): 105-23, and Stanley E. Porter, “Pauline Authorship and the Pastoral Epistles: A Response to R. W. Wall’s Response,” Bulletin for Biblical Research 6 (1996): 133-38.
5. Marshall, Pastoral Epistles, 743.
6. Ibid., 744.
7. “But if ‘the medium is the message’ then false media must be avoided” (ibid.).
8. E.g., Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 465. There is no doubt that the church as a whole is the ultimate target of all of Timothy’s efforts. But the question here is more narrowly focused on the immediate addressees of Timothy’s adjuration.
9. Though some would argue that the same group is assumed as the object of “remind” (ὑπομίμνῃσκε), this verb does not demand a double accusative of person/thing such that a person or group should be assumed though unspecified. According to A Greek-English Lexicon of New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, this use of ὑπομίμνῃσκε with a simple accusative object takes the sense of “bring to mind, bring up” something (Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed., rev. and ed. Frederick W. Danker [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000], 846). Given that ταῦτα most likely refers to the concepts delineated in 2:8-12 (since these provide the truths that directly counter the opposition’s skewed understanding of the resurrection [cf. vv. 8 and 18]), Paul now seems to be urging Timothy to “bring up” those seminal truths, to take them public. The lack of an object puts the focus on Timothy’s responsibility rather than on the audience in view.
10. George W. Knight III, The Pastoral Epistles, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 409-10.
11. As Wolfgang Nauck observes, the two expressions can be treated together, since “sinngemӓẞ” they have “die gleiche Bedeutung” (“Die Herkunft des Verfassers der Pastoralbriefe” [unpub. diss., Göttingen, 1950], 42).
12. Cf. G. Stӓhlin, “Zum Gebrauch von Beteurungsformeln im Neuen Testament” Novum Testamentum 5 (1962): 125-26. Stӓhlin calls this a “Beschwörungsformeln” that is intended to insure the reliability of another’s acts or words.
13. Points of contact between 1 Timothy 3 and 2 Timothy 2 include a censure of immaturity (3:6/2:22), the need to be “able to teach” (3:2/2:24), a call for gentleness instead of angry disputes (3:3/2:24-25), the acknowledgement of the reality of Satanic attack (3:7/2:26), and so forth.
14. As Marshall maintains, in this context ὀρθοτομοῦντα seems to carry the sense of guiding the word of truth along a straight path without being turned aside by worldly debates and impious talk. The stress is more on directness of speech than faithfulness to the truth, “although clearly these cannot be separated” (Pastoral Epistles, 749).
15. “The error can affect how one regards Jesus’ resurrection and its significance for one’s future standing and hope for eternity, and thus also how one thinks of the Christian’s present relationship to Christ and one’s perspective on the body and conduct in this life and attitude toward material creation. Therefore, Paul regards it as striking at the heart of Christianity and thus a departure from the truth” (Knight, Pastoral Epistles, 414). Cf. P. Towner, The Goal of Our Instruction: The Structure of Theology and Ethics in the Pastoral Epistles, Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 34 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989), 21-45, and Gregory A. Couser, “The Sovereign Savior of 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus,” in Entrusted with the Gospel: Paul’s Theology in the Pastoral Epistles, ed. Andreas J. Köstenberger and Terry L. Wilder (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2010), 119-22. For helpful insights on the issue of over-realized eschatology generally, see Anthony C. Thiselton, “Luther and Barth on 1 Corinthians 15: Six Theses for Theology in Relation to Recent Interpretation,” in The Bible, the Reformation and the Church, ed. W. P. Stephens, Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 105 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1995), 258-89.
16. See especially Towner, The Goal of Our Instruction, 24-32, and Greg A. Couser, “God and Christian Existence in the Pastoral Epistles: Toward Theological Method and Meaning,” Novum Testamentum 42 (2000): 267-71.
17. Οἰκονομίαθεοῦ carries a salvation-historical emphasis on God’s arrangement for the redemption of mankind along the lines of Ephesians 1:10; 3:9. See Lewis R. Donelson, Pseudepigraphy and Ethical Argument in the Pastoral Epistles (Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1986), 133; Frances M. Young, The Theology of the Pastoral Letters (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 55; and Gordon D. Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus, New International Biblical Commentary 13 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1988), 42, 48, and 92.
18. For a discussion of “quietness” (1 Tim. 2:11) in terms of a social stance appropriate to someone who does not belong in a particular social space and in contrast to a “busybody” (i.e. someone who steps into a social space they should not be in), see Jeannine K. Brown, “Just a Busybody? A Look at the Greco-Roman Topos of Meddling for Defining ἀλλοτριεπίσκοπος in 1 Peter 4:15, ” Journal of Biblical Literature 125 (2006): 552-54; and Greg A. Couser, “ ‘Prayer’ and the Public Square: 1 Timothy 2:1-7 and Christian Political Engagement,” in New Testament Theology in Light of the Church’s Mission, ed. Jon C. Laansma, Grant R. Osborne, and Ray F. Van Neste (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2011), 291-93.
19. Second Timothy begins with a call for Timothy to draw on the power of the Spirit that indwells him to hold onto what Paul has passed on to him (1:7, 14). The false teaching depends on the wrong spirits and so is “profane”; it misrepresents God (“profane empty words,” 2:16). False teachers are captives of the “devil” and are in reality doing “his will” through their teaching (2:26). It is possible that 4:18 suggests that Paul thought this heresy was but a part of the opposition of the “evil [one]” that the Lord’s prayer anticipates (Matt. 6:13).
20. Thomas D. Lea and Hayne P. Griffin Jr., 1, 2 Timothy, Titus, New American Commentary 34 (Nashville: Broadman, 1992), 217.
21. Towner hears an “echo” of Isaiah 28:16 (LXX) in the reference to “foundation” (“1-2 Timothy and Titus,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, ed. G. Beale and D. Carson [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007], 904). The quotations of this verse in Romans 9:33 and 10:11 along with 1 Peter 2:6 point to the importance of this text in Paul and wider streams of the New Testament. However, the christological sense of the other uses, the lack of more extensive verbal parallels, and the varied associations Paul sustains with this term (cf. 1 Cor. 3:10-12; Eph. 2:20; 1 Tim. 6:19) make any sense of a clear “echo” hard to sustain.
22. The sense of “know” here is that of “recognize someone as belonging to him [the knower], choose” (Danker, et al., Greek-English Lexicon, 161). It takes its place as one of the Old Testament terms that convey the general concept of election (E. D. Schmitz, “ginōskō,” New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed. C. Brown, vol. 2 [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976], 395). This sense marks an Old Testament intrusion on the sense of γινώσκω when it is seen against the backdrop of the common usage of the time of the New Testament (R. Bultmann, “γινώσκω,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, vol. 1 [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964], 706). With only one possible exception (Matt. 7:23), it is Paul who utilizes this Old Testament-dependent sense of γινώσκω with reference to God’s election of believers (1 Cor. 8:3; 13:12; Gal. 4:9).
23. On the combination of household/temple imagery see Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 220-21; Marshall, Pastoral Epistles, 508; P. H. Towner, “Households and Household Codes,” Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, ed. Gerald F. Hawthorne and Ralph P. Martin (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1993), 417-19. Elsewhere in Paul see 1 Corinthians 3:9; 4:1; 9:17; Galatians 6:10 for household imagery; 1 Corinthians 3:16-17 and 6:19 for temple imagery; and Ephesians 2:19 for a combination of both in the same passage (cf. Bertil E. Gärtner, The Temple and the Community in Qumran and the New Testament, Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965], 60-66).
24. The indefinite relative, ἥτις, which links οἴκῳ τοῦ θεοῦ with what follows, is feminine by attraction to ἐκκλησία. Attraction “occurs when the focus of the discourse is on the predicate nom.: the dominant gender reveals the dominant idea of the passage” (Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996], 338; cf. J. Roloff, Die Erste Brief an Timotheus, Evangelisch-Katholischer Kommentar 15 [Zürich: Benziger, 1988], 199). Thus, grammatically and by the extensive elaboration on ἐκκλησία in the following phrase, “belonging to the living God, a support and pillar of the truth,” ἐκκλησία stands as the controlling metaphor for Paul’s use of the preceding οἴκῳθεοῦ, a relatively ambiguous notion (cf. C. K. Barrett, The Pastoral Epistles, New Clarendon Bible [Oxford: Clarendon, 1963], 63). Also, the designation of the ἐκκλησία as τοῦθεοῦ occurs almost exclusively in Paul (e.g. Rom. 16:16; 1 Cor. 10:32; 11:16, 22; 12:28; Gal. 1:13; 1 Thess. 2:14; 1 Tim. 3:5), with Acts 20:28 being the only exception. Even there, Luke shows a close affinity to Pauline conceptions (cf. K. Schmidt, “ἐκκλησία,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, vol. 3 [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965], 506-7).
25. So also Ben Witherington III, Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on Titus, 1-2 Timothy and 1-3 John, vol. 1 (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2006), 338; Luke Timothy Johnson, Letters to Paul’s Delegates: 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity, 1996): 397; Lea and Griffin, 1, 2 Timothy, Titus, 217; and Knight, Pastoral Epistles, 415. J. N. D. Kelly argues that it refers to the “unshakeable core of genuine Christians at Ephesus. [O]r at any rate for the Ephesian church considered as part of the great Church, since the Apostle is clearly contrasting the solid foundation with the unstable few whose faith has been undermined” (The Pastoral Epistles [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1960, repr. 1987], 186).
26. Knight, Pastoral Epistles, 415.
27. Towner, “1-2 Timothy,” 904.
28. Ibid.
29. C. Spicq, Le Epîtres Pastorales (Paris: Gabala, 1947), 732-36.
30. Towner, “1-2 Timothy,” 906.
31. Knight, Pastoral Epistles, 416.
32. Danker, et al., Greek-English Lexicon, 574.
33. Cf. Knight, Pastoral Epistles, 416
34. Cf. C. Spicq, “ἐπικαλέω,” Theological Lexicon of the New Testament, trans. and ed. James D. Ernest, vol. 2 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994), 45.
35. Towner, “1-2 Timothy,” 904.
36. With reference to 1 Corinthians 5:5, Roy E. Ciampa and Brian S. Rosner bring 6:9-11 to bear in contending that in this case of discipline, “Paul does not answer the question of whether the man is presently saved. His point is that so-called brothers who engage in blatant sexual misconduct will finally be saved ‘on the day of the Lord’ only if ‘the sinful nature is destroyed’ ” (The First Letter to the Corinthians, Pillar New Testament Commentary [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010], 209).
37. On this passage, see especially J. William Fuller, “Of Elders and Triads in 1 Timothy 5.19-25, ” New Testament Studies 29 (1983): 258-63.
38. There is debate about who does the judging and thus when the judgment is. This turns on how the passage functions in its context. Given the preceding advice concerning “wine,” the contention here is that verses 24-25 continue to help Timothy adjust under the weight of the responsibilities regarding elders. To say that some people are so adept at hiding their sins that they will not show up until the eschatological assize (what is in view in verse 21) both reinforces the need to proceed carefully in the appointment of elders and also offers resassurance that God knows Timothy’s limitations and will not hold him accountable for a “Judas” (cf. Kelly, Pastoral Epistles, 129).
39. C. E. B. Cranfield notes that εἰςἀτιμίαν implies menial use, not reprobation or destruction” (Romans, vol. 2, International Critical Commentary [Edinburgh: T.& T. Clark, 1979], 492 n. 2).