Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadEzekiel, Jonah, and Pastoral Epistles by Patrick Fairbairn - 2 Timothy 2:19 - 2:19
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Ver. 19. Nevertheless ( ìÝíôïé , here only in Paul’s writings, but frequently in John’s, certe quidem, expressive of opposition to the preceding, and preparing for an announcement of a contrary nature) the firm foundation of God stands, having this seal, “The Lord knoweth them that are His.” There can be no doubt that this is the proper mode of rendering—not, as in the Authorized Version, “The foundation of God standeth sure,” which is grammatically untenable. The apostle’s assertion is, that, notwithstanding the existence of such cases as he had just mentioned of defection from the truth and the consequent loss of salvation, there is a firm or strong foundation of God which remains stedfast. What, then, is the foundation? To this a great variety of answers have been given: with some it is the doctrine of the resurrection, denied by the heretics of the preceding verse; with others, the word of promise, or the plighted faith of God; with others, Christ or the Christian religion; with others, including Calvin, Calov, Wolf, and various besides, the election of God. It is quite possible to explain the apostle’s assertion in connection with each of these views, and to say only what is in perfect accordance with the truth of things, and has also a certain bearing on the matter immediately in hand. Yet, unless it be the last, they fail in presenting such a contrast to the evil, which the thought here suggested was intended to meet with an adequate corrective, as exactly suits the requirements of the case. The evil was an actual falling away in some from the belief of the truth, and their consequent loss, with all who came under their influence, to the church of Christ. Now, to meet this, and reassure the hearts of believers under it, something more was plainly needed than to point attention to the certainty of the fact itself of a coming resurrection, or of the word generally and promises of God, or of Christ as the manifested Saviour, and the religion introduced by Him. For all these might have been conceded to be as they are represented in Scripture, and yet the defection in question gone on unchecked, nay, possibly spreading and growing till everything was involved in ruin. There was needed to set over against it an objective good, which should practically circumscribe the evil, set bounds to its operation, by securing that there should be a succession of living witnesses to the truth, whom no temptation could mislead, nor false teaching beguile, into a betrayal of its interests. Such a security might be said to be furnished by the election of God, yet in this only as actually realized in a company of faithful men, who abide in the truth, and resist the errors that tend to undermine it. It is also only such a living embodiment of the election of God, not the abstract idea or doctrine itself, which could fitly be designated a foundation; for this necessarily has respect to an objective reality, a structure of some sort (material or spiritual), whereof it forms a part. So that, not precisely the divine act of election, but “the faithful elect,” as put even by the Catholic Estius, or, “which is the same thing, the church in the elect”—those chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world, and who are prepared and kept by omnipotent grace for the glory to which from the first they were destined—in a word, the members of the true or invisible as contrasted with the simply outward or professing church: these are what we may here most naturally understand by the foundation of God. They constitute His firm foundation, which stands amid both the assaults of adversaries and the defection of unstable souls, because held fast by His own eternal purpose and efficacious grace.
This, accordingly, is the view now generally adopted by commentators—for example, by De Wette, Huther, Wiesinger, Ellicott, Alford; and it is the only one that fitly accords with what follows about the sealing, which has immediate respect to Christ’s true people, not to Christ Himself. Of course they are what they are only from their relation to Him; so that by this view He is not excluded from the foundation, but, as it were, subsumed; and they who would find Christ more directly in the passage are still obliged, when they come to the sealing, to couple His people with Him, and even to have special regard to them.
The notion of sealing with reference to a foundation is peculiar to this passage. For a literal foundation it were somewhat out of place, but not so when understood spiritually of those appointed to a particular calling or destination. It is in this way that the action of sealing is commonly employed in New Testament Scripture; it represents persons as somehow certified of God, or having a special pledge of security granted them (Joh_6:27; 2Co_1:22; Eph_1:13, Eph_4:30). Such, at least, is the prominent, if not in every case the exclusive, idea conveyed by the expression. It is plainly in that sense used here; the persons spoken of as sealed are those who derive from their peculiar relation to the divine foreknowledge what ensures their permanent stability and progress in the divine life. Genuine believers are God’s firm foundation, because they have their place and calling under this certification: “The Lord knoweth them that are His;” that is, knoweth them as such; and knowledge being necessarily for Him the ground of correspondent action. He regulates His procedure toward them accordingly. The passage itself, thus identified with the seal of God, is taken, with the substitution merely of Êõ ́ ñéïò for Èå ́ ïò , from the Sept. of Num_16:5, ἔãíù ὁ èåὸò ôïὺò ὄíôáò áὐôïῦ —literally, God knew them that are His (all the verbs in the passage being in the past): He knew from the first who stood in that peculiar relation, and (it is implied) would take steps for making this manifest to all, as the Hebrew, indeed, quite distinctly states: He will show, or give to be known. It was spoken of those whom He had chosen to the priesthood, as contradistinguished from Korah and his company, who were seeking to thrust themselves into the office. When quoted, however, as a general statement, nothing depends upon the particular tense; and we may as well render knoweth as knew who are His. For the knowledge of God is not affected by the evolutions of time: what He knows now. He knew with equal certainty in the past; and it is not the time when the knowledge was possessed by Him, but the manner how it bears on the state and destiny of those who are the objects of it, that is the point of special moment.
The apostle adds another sentence, which cannot, like the former one, be regarded as a quotation, though in substance it occurs in other parts of Scripture: And let every one that names the name of the Lord ( There can be no doubt that Êõ ́ ñéïõ is here the correct reading, being that of à , A, C, D, F, K, L.) depart from iniquity. To name the name of the Lord is to do more than call upon Him, or profess some knowledge of His mind and will; it is to assume that name as the one by which we would be called, or to identify ourselves with the cause and interests it represents. The expression points back to Old Testament usage, where we find not only “naming the name of,” but having “the name named upon,” sometimes “called,” or “put upon” one—that is, the name of Jehovah upon the people of His covenant. To have it so named or put upon them, implied the existence or expressed the acknowledgment of such a relationship (Gen_48:16; Num_6:27; Isa_26:13, Isa_43:7; Amo_9:12, etc.). And for any one to name the name of the Lord, in the sense meant by the apostle, is, in other words, to give himself out for a true believer in Christ, and formally to take up his position among those who look to Him for salvation. Let every one who does this, says the apostle, depart from iniquity, or unrighteousness, because everything of this description is at variance with the position assumed; it would be a practical lie upon it. This call, therefore, to depart from iniquity, expressed in the second apophthegm, we can readily see, forms a fitting sequel and counterpart to that contained in the first: the naming of the Lord’s name, and, in consequence, departing from iniquity, is, on man’s part, the reflex and practical outcome, as well as evidence, of the blessed distinction of being known by God as emphatically His. But it seems rather fanciful to consider the second word, couched in the form of an exhortation, as equally with the first included in the designation of seal, and forming, so to speak, the inscription on its reverse side. For seals had not, like coins, a reverse side, from which another impression different from the primary one could be made. Nor could an exhortation to a particular course of life, like a divine, perpetually influential act, have properly attributed to it anything of sealing virtue. The relation of the two sayings to each other may rather be regarded as corresponding to a similar pair in Eph_4:30, “Grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption”—where the sealing is made to stand simply in the indwelling grace and action of God’s Spirit; and the call not to grieve Him is an exhortation to the line of duty which such a near and blessed relation to the Spirit involves as a natural sequence or imperative obligation. There is no need, or even propriety, in pressing the connection further here. It is God who seals the firm foundation, or secures a living and abiding membership in His church, by choosing and recognising those who belong to it as His; and the proof that this seal really exists in any particular case, because the sure, unvarying result in which it expresses itself, is the departure of him who has it from iniquity—his treading in the paths of righteousness. This bespeaks his living connection with the Holy One, while the want of it would as clearly indicate his alienation from Him.