_THE NEED OF A SOLEMN CHARGE AGAINST A CONTROVERSIAL SPIRIT, OF
DILIGENCE FREE FROM SHAME, AND OF A HATRED OF THE PROFANITY WHICH WRAPS
UP ERROR IN THE LANGUAGE OF TRUTH._
"Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them in the sight
of the Lord, that they strive not about words, to no profit, to the
subverting of them that hear. Give diligence to present thyself
approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed,
handling aright the word of truth. But shun profane babblings: for
they will proceed further in ungodliness, and their word will eat as
doth a gangrene; of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; men who
concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is
passed already, and overthrow the faith of some."--2 TIM. ii. 14-18.
We here enter upon a new section of the Epistle, which continues down to
the end of the chapter. It consists in the main of directions as to
Timothy's own behaviour in the responsible post in which he has been
placed. And these are both positive and negative; he is told what to aim
at, and what to avoid.
As to the meaning of "these things," of which he is to put his flock in
remembrance, it seems most natural to refer the expression to the
"faithful saying" with which the previous section closes. He is to
remind others (and thereby strengthen his own courage and faith), that
to die for Christ is to live with Him, and to suffer for Christ is to
reign with Him, while to deny Him is to involve His denying us; for,
however faithless we may be, He must abide by what He has promised both
of rewards and punishments. The fact that the Apostle uses the
expression "put them in remembrance," implying that they already know
it, is some confirmation of the view that the "faithful saying" is a
formula that was often recited in the congregation; a view which the
rhythmical character of the passage renders somewhat probable.
Having reminded them of what they already know well, Timothy is to
"charge them in the sight of the Lord, that they strive not about
words." This phrase "charge them in the sight of the Lord" is worthy of
notice. The Apostle twice uses it in addressing Timothy himself. "I
charge thee in the sight of God, and Christ Jesus, and the elect angels,
that thou observe these things without prejudice" (1 Tim. v. 21); and "I
charge thee in the sight of God, and of Christ Jesus, Who shall judge
the quick and dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom; preach the
word" (2 Tim. iv. 1). The word for "charge" (=diamartythesthai=)
indicates the interposition (=dia=) of two parties, and hence comes to
mean to "call heaven and earth to witness;" in other words, to "testify
solemnly" or "adjure;" and from this latter meaning it easily becomes
employed for a solemn charge or exhortation. In translating, it would be
quite legitimate to insert an adverb to express this: "_solemnly_
charging them in the sight of God." In dealing with these pestilent
disputes and perilous opinions Timothy, both for his own sake and for
that of his hearers, is to remember, and to remind them, in Whose
presence he is speaking. God's eye is upon both preacher and
congregation; and in pleading the cause of truth and sobriety the
preacher is in fact pleading before the Divine tribunal. This will make
the teacher wary in his words, and will lead his hearers to listen to
them in a spirit of sobriety.
It has been debated whether St. Paul has in his mind those "faithful
men" to whom Timothy is to commit the substance of the Apostle's
teaching (ver. 2), or whether he is not now taking a wider view and
including the whole of the disciple's flock. It is impossible to
determine this with certainty; and it is not a question of much moment.
One thing is clear; viz., that the whole section is applicable to
ministers throughout the Church in all ages; and the words under
consideration seem to be well worthy of attention at the present time,
when so many unworthy topics and so much unworthy language may be heard
from the pulpit. One is inclined to think that if ministers always
remembered that they were speaking "in the sight of God," they would
sometimes find other things to say, and other ways of saying them. We
talk glibly enough of another man's words and opinions, when he is not
present. We may be entirely free from the smallest wish to misrepresent
or exaggerate; but at the same time we speak with great freedom and
almost without restraint. What a change comes over us, if, in the midst
of our glib recital of his views and sayings, the man himself enters the
room! At once we begin to measure our words and to speak with more
caution. Our tone becomes less positive, and we have less confidence
that we are justified in making sweeping statements on the subject.
Ought not something of this circumspection and diffidence to be felt by
those who take the responsibility of telling others about the mind of
God? And if they remembered constantly that they speak "in the sight of
the Lord," this attitude of solemn circumspection would become habitual.
"That they strive not about words." The spirit of controversy is a bad
thing in itself; but the evil is intensified when the subject of
controversy is a question of words. Controversy is necessary; but it is
a necessary evil: and that man has need of searchings of heart who finds
that he enjoys it, and sometimes even provokes it, when it might easily
have been avoided. But a fondness for strife about words is one of the
lowest forms which the malady can take. Principles are things worth
striving about, when opposition to what we know to be right and true is
unavoidable. But disputatiousness about words is something like proof
that love of self has taken the place of love of truth. The
word-splitter wrangles, not for the sake of arriving at the truth, but
for the sake of a dialectical victory. He cares little as to what is
right or wrong, so long as he comes off triumphant in the argument.
Hence the Apostle said in the first Epistle, that the natural fruit of
these disputes about words is "envy, strife, and railings" (vi. 4). They
are an exhibition of dexterity in which the object of the disputants is
not to investigate, but to baffle; not to enlighten, but to perplex. And
here he says that they are worse than worthless. They tend "to no
profit:" on the contrary they tend "to the subverting of those who
listen to them." This subversion or overthrow (=katastrophê=) is the
exact opposite of what ought to be the result of Christian discussion,
viz., edification or building up (=oikodomê=). The audience, instead of
being built up in faith and principle, find themselves bewildered and
lowered. They have a less firm grasp of truth and a less loyal affection
for it. It is as if some beautiful object, which they were learning to
understand and admire, had been scored all over with marks by those who
had been disputing as to the meaning and relation of the details. It has
been a favourite device of the heretics and sceptics of all ages to
endeavour to provoke a discussion on points about which they hope to
place an opponent in a difficulty. Their object is not to settle, but to
unsettle; not to clear up doubts but to create them: and hence we find
Bishop Butler in his Durham Charge recommending his clergy to avoid
religious discussions in general conversation, because the clever
propounder of difficulties will find ready hearers, while the patient
answerer of them will not do so. To dispute is to place truth at an
unnecessary disadvantage.
"Give diligence to present thyself approved unto God, a workman that
needeth not to be ashamed." In the previous section St. Paul exhorted
Timothy to be ready to suffer for Christ: here he charges him to work
for Him; and in the language which he uses he indicates that such work
is a serious matter;--"Give diligence." The word which he uses
(=spoudazein=) is one which scarcely occurs in the New Testament except
in the writings of St. Paul. And the corresponding substantive
(=spoudê=) is also much more common in his Epistles than it is
elsewhere. It indicates that ceaseless, serious, earnest zeal, which was
one of his chief characteristics. And certainly if the proposed standard
is to be reached, or even seriously aimed at abundance of this zeal will
be required. For the end proposed is not the admiration or affection of
the congregation, or of one's superiors, nor yet success in influencing
and winning souls; but that of presenting oneself to God in such a way
as to secure His approval, without fear of incurring the reproach of
being a workman who has shirked or scamped his work. The Apostle's
charge is a most wholesome one: and if it is acted upon, it secures
diligence without fussiness, and enthusiasm without fanaticism. The
being "approved" (=dokimos=) implies being tried and proved as precious
metals are proved before they are _accepted_ (=dechomai=) as genuine. It
is the word used of the "_pure_ gold" with which Solomon overlaid his
ivory throne (2 Chron. ix. 17). In the New Testament it is always used
of persons, and with one exception (James i. 12) it is used by no one
but St. Paul. He uses it of being approved both of men (Rom. xiv. 18)
and of God (2 Cor. x. 18).
The single word which represents "that needeth not to be ashamed"
(=anepaischyntos=) is a rare formation, which occurs nowhere else in the
New Testament. Its precise meaning is not quite certain. The more simple
and frequent form (=anaischyntos=) means "shameless," _i.e._, one who
does not feel shame when he ought to do so. Such a meaning, if taken
literally, would be utterly unsuitable here. And we then have choice of
two interpretations, either (1) that which is adopted in both A. V. and
R. V., who _need_ not feel shame, because his work will bear
examination, or (2) who _does_ not feel shame, although his work is of a
kind which the world holds in contempt. The latter is the interpretation
which Chrysostom adopts, and there is much to be said in its favour.
Three times already in this letter has the Apostle spoken of not being
ashamed of the Gospel. He says "Be not ashamed of the testimony of our
Lord, nor of me His prisoner." Again, "I suffer these things; yet I am
not ashamed." And again of Onesiphorus, "He oft refreshed me, and was
not ashamed of my chain" (i. 8, 12, 16). Does he not, therefore, mean
here also, "Present thyself to God as a workman who is not ashamed of
being in His service and of doing whatever work may be assigned to him"?
This brings us very close to what would be the natural meaning of the
word, according to the analogy of the simpler form. "If you are to work
for God," says Paul, "you must be in a certain sense _shameless_. There
are some men who set public opinion at defiance, in order that they may
follow their own depraved desires. The Christian minister must be
prepared sometimes to set public opinion at defiance, in order that he
may follow the commands of God." The _vox populi_, even when taken in
its most comprehensive sense, is anything but an infallible guide.
Public opinion is nearly always against the worst forms of selfishness,
dishonesty, and sensuality; and to set it at defiance in such matters is
to be "shameless" in the worst sense. But sometimes public opinion is
very decidedly against some of the noblest types of holiness; and to be
"shameless" under such circumstances is a necessary qualification for
doing one's duty. It is by no means certain that this is not St. Paul's
meaning. If we translate, "A workman that feeleth no shame," we shall
have a phrase that would cover either interpretation.
"Handling aright the word of truth," or "Rightly dividing the word of
truth." There is some doubt here also as to the explanation of the word
rendered "handling aright" or "rightly dividing" (=orthotomein=). Once
more we have a word which occurs nowhere else in New Testament. Its
radical meaning is to "cut aright" or "cut straight," especially of
driving a straight road through a district, or a straight furrow across
a field. In the LXX. it is twice used of making straight or directing a
person's path. "In all thy ways acknowledge Him, and He shall direct thy
paths;" and "The righteousness of the perfect shall direct his way"
(Prov. iii. 6; xi. 5). The idea of rightness seems to be the dominant
one; that of cutting quite secondary; so that the Revisers are quite
justified in following the example of the Vulgate (_recte tractantem_),
and translating simply "rightly handling." But this right handling may
be understood as consisting in seeing that the word of truth moves in
the right direction and progresses in the congregation by a legitimate
development. The word, therefore, excludes all fanciful and perilous
deviations and evasions, such as those in which the false teachers
indulged, and all those "strivings about words," which distract men's
minds and divert them from the substance of the Gospel. It may be
doubted whether the word contains any idea of _distribution_, as that
the word of truth is to be preached according to the capacity of the
hearers,--strong meat to the strong, and milk to those who are still but
babes in the faith. We may feel sure that the expression has nothing to
do with the cutting up of victims in sacrifices, or with cutting
straight to the heart of a thing, as if the word of truth had a kernel
which must be reached by cleaving it down the middle. Yet both these
explanations have been suggested. Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius use
the substantive derived from St. Paul's verb (=orthotomia=) in the sense
of orthodoxy; which seems to imply that they understood the verb in the
sense of handling aright (_Strom._, VII. xvi.; _H. E._, IV. iii.).
Once more (1 Tim. vi. 20) the Apostle warns his disciple against
"profane babblings." He is (according to St. Paul's graphic word) to
make a circuit in order to avoid such things, to "give them a wide
berth" (=periistaso=; comp. Tit. iii. 9). These empty profanities, with
their philosophic pretentiousness, had done much harm already, and would
do still more; for the men who propagate them would certainly go still
greater lengths in impiety; and they must receive no encouragement.
Their teaching is of a kind that will spread rapidly, and it is deadly
in its effects. It "will eat as doth a gangrene."
The substitution of "gangrene" for "cancer" is an improvement, as giving
the exact word used in the original, which expresses the meaning more
forcibly than "cancer." Cancer is sometimes very slow in its ravages,
and may go on for years without causing serious harm. Gangrene poisons
the whole frame and quickly becomes fatal. The Apostle foresees that
doctrines, which really ate out the very heart of Christianity, were
likely to become very popular in Ephesus and would do incalculable
mischief. The nature of these doctrines we gather from what follows.
They are preached by the kind of people (=hoitines=) who miss their aim
as regards the truth. They profess to be aiming at the truth, but they
go very wide of the mark. For instance, some of them say that it is
quite a mistake to look forward to a resurrection of the body, or indeed
to any resurrection at all. The only real resurrection has taken place
already and cannot be repeated. It is that intellectual and spiritual
process which is involved in rising from degrading ignorance to a
recognition and acceptance of the truth. What is commonly called death,
viz., the separation of soul and body, is not really death at all. Death
in the true sense of the word means ignorance of God and of Divine
things; to be buried is to be buried in error. Consequently the true
resurrection is to be reanimated by the truth and to escape from the
sepulchre of spiritual darkness; and this process is accomplished once
for all in every enlightened soul. We learn from the writings of
Irenaeus (_Haer._, II. xxxi. 2) and of Tertullian (_De Res. Carn._, xix.)
that this form of error was in existence in their day: and Augustine in
a letter to Januarius (lv. iii. 4) shows how such false notions might
have grown out of St. Paul's own teaching. The Apostle insisted so
frequently upon the fact of our being dead with Christ and raised
together with Him, that some persons jumped to the conclusion that this
was the whole of the Christian doctrine of the resurrection. The
resurrection of the body was a great stumbling-block to Greeks and
Orientals, with their low notions of the dignity of the human body; and
therefore any interpretation of the resurrection which got rid of the
difficulty of supposing that in the world to come also men would have
bodies, was welcome. It was calamity enough to be burdened with a body
in this life: it was appalling to think of such a condition being
continued in eternity. Hence the obnoxious doctrine was explained away
and resolved into allegory and metaphor.
Of Hymenaeus and Philetus nothing further is known. Hymenaeus is probably
the same person as is mentioned in the first Epistle with Alexander, as
having made shipwreck of the faith, and been delivered unto Satan by the
Apostle, to cure him of his blasphemies. We are told here that much
mischief had been done by such teaching: for a number of persons had
been seduced from the faith. "Some," in the English phrase "overthrow
the faith of _some_," conveys an impression, which is not contained in
the Greek (=tinôn=), that the number of those who were led astray was
small. The Greek indicates neither a large nor a small number; but what
is told us leads to the conclusion that the number was not small. It is
probably to this kind of teaching that St. John alludes, when he writes
some twenty or more years later than this, and says, "Even now there
have arisen _many_ antichrists" (1 John ii. 18). Teaching of this kind
was only too likely to be popular in Ephesus.
It is by no means unknown among ourselves. At the present time also
there is a tendency to retain the old Christian terms and to deprive
them of all Christian meaning. Not only such words as "miracle,"
"Church," "catholic," and "sacrament" are evaporated and etherealized,
until they lose all definite meaning; but even such fundamental terms as
"atonement," "redemption," and "immortality." Nay it is quite possible
to find even the word "God" used to express a Being which is neither
personal nor conscious. And thus language, which has been consecrated to
the service of religion for a long series of centuries, is degraded to
the unworthy purpose of insinuating pantheism and agnosticism. This
perversion of well established phraseology is to be condemned on purely
literary grounds: and on moral grounds it may be stigmatized as
dishonest. If Hymenaeus and Philetus wish to deny the resurrection, let
them also surrender the word which expresses it. They have abundance of
words wherewith to express mental and moral enlightenment. Let them not
so handle a word of truth as to make it suggest a lie.