2 Timothy 2:13 - Promise or Threat?

[Alfredsparks]

"If we are faithless, He remains faithful; He cannot deny Himself." 2 Timothy 2:13 (NKJV)

This is commonly used today as a comforting verse for those who may be suffering from weak faith, loss of assurance or low assurance. I remember around a decade ago being surprised that John Calvin didn't agree with what I was about to teach in a bible study on this verse and the surrounding passages. Since it has recently come up again in my life I thought I would reach out and ask what you believe is the proper interpretation and application of this verse. Does it contain a threat to unbelief or a promise to weak faith?

Ellicot's Commentary: Those who have understood these words as containing soothing, comforting voices for the sinner, for the faithless Christian who has left his first love, are gravely mistaken.

Matthew Poole: Whether we believe or believe not, or whether we be faithful to our trust or be not, yet God will show himself faithful, either to his promises made to them that believe, or to his threatenings denounced against those that believe not.

Matthew Henry: If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful; he cannot deny himself. He is faithful to his threatenings, faithful to his promises; neither one nor the other shall fall to the ground, no, not the least, jot nor tittle of them.

John Calvin: If we are unbelieving, he remaineth faithful The meaning is, that our base desertion takes nothing from the Son of God or from his glory; because, having everything in himself, he stands in no need of our confession. As if he had said, "Let them desert Christ who will, yet they take nothing from him; for when they perish, he remaineth unchanged." He cannot deny himself This is a still stronger expression. "Christ is not like us, to swerve from his truth." Hence it is evident, that all who deny Christ are disowned by him. And thus he drives away from wicked apostates the flatteries with which they soothe themselves; because, being in the habit of changing their hue, according to circumstances, they would willingly imagine that Christ, in like manner, assumes various forms, and is liable to change; which Paul affirms to be impossible.

John Gill (seems to be on the fence): If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful,.... The Syriac and Ethiopic versions read, "if we believe not him". This may be understood, either of such who are altogether destitute of faith, who do not believe in Christ at all; and particularly do not believe what was just now said concerning his denying such that deny him, but mock and scoff at his coming, and at a future judgment: this unbelief of theirs will not make void his faith or faithfulness; see Romans 3:3, he will abide faithful to his word of threatening; and what he says in Mark 16:16 will be found to be an everlasting truth: or it may be understood of true believers, whose faith sometimes is very low, as to its exercise on Christ, and with reference to their future glory and happiness; but Christ is faithful to all his, covenant engagements for them, to bring them to glory, and to every word of promise concerning their happiness, and to every branch of the faithful saying above mentioned; and he is ever the same in his love to them, and in the efficacy of his blood, righteousness, and sacrifice; and his salvation is an everlasting and unchangeable one; nor do the saints' interest in it, and security by it, depend upon their acts of believing, or their frames, but upon the firmness and unchangeableness of Christ, the object of faith.

 

[TexasPuritan]

"If we are faithless, He remains faithful; He cannot deny Himself." 2 Timothy 2:13 (NKJV)

This is commonly used today as a comforting verse for those who may be suffering from weak faith, loss of assurance or low assurance. I remember around a decade ago being surprised that John Calvin didn't agree with what I was about to teach in a bible study on this verse and the surrounding passages. Since it has recently come up again in my life I thought I would reach out and ask what you believe is the proper interpretation and application of this verse. Does it contain a threat to unbelief or a promise to weak faith?

Ellicot's Commentary: Those who have understood these words as containing soothing, comforting voices for the sinner, for the faithless Christian who has left his first love, are gravely mistaken.

Matthew Poole: Whether we believe or believe not, or whether we be faithful to our trust or be not, yet God will show himself faithful, either to his promises made to them that believe, or to his threatenings denounced against those that believe not.

Matthew Henry: If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful; he cannot deny himself. He is faithful to his threatenings, faithful to his promises; neither one nor the other shall fall to the ground, no, not the least, jot nor tittle of them.

John Calvin: If we are unbelieving, he remaineth faithful The meaning is, that our base desertion takes nothing from the Son of God or from his glory; because, having everything in himself, he stands in no need of our confession. As if he had said, "Let them desert Christ who will, yet they take nothing from him; for when they perish, he remaineth unchanged." He cannot deny himself This is a still stronger expression. "Christ is not like us, to swerve from his truth." Hence it is evident, that all who deny Christ are disowned by him. And thus he drives away from wicked apostates the flatteries with which they soothe themselves; because, being in the habit of changing their hue, according to circumstances, they would willingly imagine that Christ, in like manner, assumes various forms, and is liable to change; which Paul affirms to be impossible.

John Gill (seems to be on the fence): If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful,.... The Syriac and Ethiopic versions read, "if we believe not him". This may be understood, either of such who are altogether destitute of faith, who do not believe in Christ at all; and particularly do not believe what was just now said concerning his denying such that deny him, but mock and scoff at his coming, and at a future judgment: this unbelief of theirs will not make void his faith or faithfulness; see Romans 3:3, he will abide faithful to his word of threatening; and what he says in Mark 16:16 will be found to be an everlasting truth: or it may be understood of true believers, whose faith sometimes is very low, as to its exercise on Christ, and with reference to their future glory and happiness; but Christ is faithful to all his, covenant engagements for them, to bring them to glory, and to every word of promise concerning their happiness, and to every branch of the faithful saying above mentioned; and he is ever the same in his love to them, and in the efficacy of his blood, righteousness, and sacrifice; and his salvation is an everlasting and unchangeable one; nor do the saints' interest in it, and security by it, depend upon their acts of believing, or their frames, but upon the firmness and unchangeableness of Christ, the object of faith.

though i highly respect those men i will disagree with them. When i start in verse 10, i see this great salvation which is waiting for the elect. Verses 11-13 are the end of that preceding paragraph in the greek. Following Paul's train of thought through 11-12, it seems very clear to me that these are gospel promises. When i read your verse, it seems odd to read it as a curse bc i recall Peter was faithless when he denied Christ but, being elect Christ did not lose him bc everyone the father gives to the son, the Son will not lose him (John 6). So, i would interpret it as a promise that whenever we lack faith, Christ is faithful to keep us.

 

[davejonescue]

What does 2 Tim. 2:12 say though?

Within that context, with 12 and 13, isnt it saying that, hey, you may think you are safe denying him, but Jesus is telling you if you deny him, he will deny you, and while you may flip-flop; he wont. Yet I do not think this is in the context of temporary denial; (even though there is risk) but apostasy, and people who deny Christ with their lives to live in sin being deluded that Jesus will respect that type of (or lack of) faith. Peter is not a good example, because being elect, he was kept, and brought to genuine repentance. But Judas on the other hand died in his disbelief, having walked with Jesus for 3 years, yet still not believing he was a merciful God. God could have just as easily kept Judas, as he kept Peter, but he will have mercy on whom he has mercy, and harden whom he hardens. This is why it is ALWAYS a risk to drift. Because we are never safe in the sea of denial, never knowing how far God will allow the tide to take us. There may be a buoy, and there may not; and if not, we will float so far we will no longer realize we are at risk.

There is a difference between trying to work our way to heaven, and ignoring God to live in unrepentant sin. We can never merit heaven or salvation; but we can disrespect grace. This isnt in regards to having a expectation of perfection (though that is our standard,) but it is attitudinal, in that in the latter we no longer fear God, which is the beginning of knowledge.

The Puritans talk a lot about "presumptuous sins," most likely stemming from a faulty understanding of assurance in those that commit them. This is also why they insisted on self-reflection, and "heart-work." That is spending time reflecting on the inner man, rooting out the deceptive sins of the heart; and combating them with the weapons of our war-fare. They were also apt to talk about "watching" so that, if we start to see anything out of the ordinary, we act. Presumptuous sins may be a result of a "care-free" or "auto-pilot" attitude about our pilgrimage, assurance, or faith. And lastly, this is also why almost every Puritan viewed Matth. 11:12 as a call to an offensive faith. We can absolutely go through life thinking God will forgive us in genuine repentance, but we cannot go through life thinking God will automatically be patiently waiting until we've had our fill of forsaking him. Sure, the prodigal came home, but because there is the reality of apostasy, this means every vacation in Egypt doesnt end in back in Zion. The only reason any of us recognize the evil within us is because of the Holy Spirit convicting us. Rebelliously grieving him may not have the results we so foolishly thought before we no longer miss him. And that is the danger.

With assurance comes responsibility; the responsibility to make our calling and election sure.

 

[Alfredsparks]

though i highly respect those men i will disagree with them. When i start in verse 10, i see this great salvation which is waiting for the elect. Verses 11-13 are the end of that preceding paragraph in the greek. Following Paul's train of thought through 11-12, it seems very clear to me that these are gospel promises. When i read your verse, it seems odd to read it as a curse bc i recall Peter was faithless when he denied Christ but, being elect Christ did not lose him bc everyone the father gives to the son, the Son will not lose him (John 6). So, i would interpret it as a promise that whenever we lack faith, Christ is faithful to keep us.

Thank you for taking the time to reply.

To your last sentence, this is really the source of the confusion and differing opinions: can the believer (Peter, in your example) be said to utterly lack faith? Or should they be described as “ye of little faith” — making them not the example here?

Is the faithlessness mentioned in verse 13 the utter absence/abandonment of faith (making it parallel verse 12’s “if we deny him”) OR weakness of faith?

Not arguing or being combative at all. Just thinking out loud and seeking clarity and thoughts from brothers

 

[TexasPuritan]

Thank you for taking the time to reply.

To your last sentence, this is really the source of the confusion and differing opinions: can the believer (Peter, in your example) be said to utterly lack faith? Or should they be described as “ye of little faith” — making them not the example here?

Is the faithlessness mentioned in verse 13 the utter absence/abandonment of faith (making it parallel verse 12’s “if we deny him”) OR weakness of faith?

Not arguing or being combative at all. Just thinking out loud and seeking clarity and thoughts from brothers

from my understanding of the text, it seems to suggest a moment of little faith. I think this because the phraseology of the preceding verses seems to be suggesting that these are promises of the covenant of grace.

 

[jfhutson]

I don't think it's specific. The point, which most of the authors you cite make, is that God's faithfulness does not depend on our faithfulness because it is unchangeable. Gill is not equivocating, but saying that it can be understood in both ways. God's promises were not changed by Peter's temporary lack of faith or Judas's permanent faithlessness and apostacy.

 

[iainduguid]

Since the immediately preceding context considers both possibilities (enduring with Christ and denying Christ), it seems that both applications are appropriate: God is faithful to save his people, even the weakest among us; he is also faithful to judge those who deny him. In the same way in Isaiah 40, the fact that the word of our Lord endures forever is both good news and terrifying news, depending who hears it.

 

[Alfredsparks]

Since the immediately preceding context considers both possibilities (enduring with Christ and denying Christ), it seems that both applications are appropriate: God is faithful to save his people, even the weakest among us; he is also faithful to judge those who deny him. In the same way in Isaiah 40, the fact that the word of our Lord endures forever is both good news and terrifying news, depending who hears it.

Thank you very much Iain!

I don't think it's specific. The point, which most of the authors you cite make, is that God's faithfulness does not depend on our faithfulness because it is unchangeable. Gill is not equivocating, but saying that it can be understood in both ways. God's promises were not changed by Peter's temporary lack of faith or Judas's permanent faithlessness and apostacy.

Thank you very much! Very helpful.