From instruction on a large scale so impressive and opportune from that time and ever after, the apostle returns to exhortations of a more personal kind which none the less abide in all their value.
“But foolish and ignorant questionings avoid, knowing that they beget contentions. And a bondman of [the] Lord must not contend, but be gentle towards all, apt to teach, forbearing, in meekness instructing those that oppose, if haply God may give them repentance unto acknowledgment of truth, and they may wake up out of the snare of the devil, taken as they are by him, for His will” (ver. 23-26).
Earlier disputes, as in Romans, were very different and far more respectable morally. For they arose chiefly from respect for O. T. revelation in souls long familiar with the habits formed by it, and more or less jealous of that liberty which the Gentiles had entered with joy from their debasing servitude to idols. But the Greek mind used to the frivolous discussions of philosophy, when not fully emancipated from mere intellectual activity, or not really kept in subjection to God's word, proved a fertile source of danger and evil, even if not beguiled by such heterodoxy as had been exposed in vers. 14-18. The grace and truth which came by Jesus Christ feeds the soul, lets in the bright light of God, draws out worship, and issues in fruitful ways of goodness and righteousness. Not so “the foolish and ignorant (or uninstructed) questionings,” which Timothy is here enjoined to eschew. Nor could any words characterize these debaters more truly in themselves, or more cuttingly for such as indulged in or admired this mischievous trifling in the things of God; just as infidels wince under the proofs of their irrationalism, and skeptics smart when their credulity is made manifest. The article is here apparent, though it cannot well stand in an idiomatic English version; it supposes the well-known custom of those alluded to, fruit of their will and self-confidence.
But the apostle appends a consequence greatly to be reprobated by one who loves the peace of the saints, and seeks their edification. Such questionings “beget contentions,” or fights. This is natural enough among men: human will breaks out in this way, yea takes pleasure in strife for the mastery. Whence come wars, and whence fightings among you, says James (iv.)? Is it not thence—from your pleasures which war in your members? At bottom, it is the spirit of the world at enmity with God. Among those that bear the Lord's name it is deplorable, a witness really against Him instead of to Him and of Him. Yet the very earnestness of conviction may expose to the danger, where Christ is not before the eye, and we hang not on His grace. Let us never forget that grace and truth came by Him, not one or other only, but both. If grace is a snare divorced from truth, truth fails to win apart from grace; it may even repel and harden: how much more the foolish and ignorant questionings which beget contention! They promote Satan's aims, not the interests of Christ.
“But,” further, “a bondman of the Lord must not contend [or fight], but be gentle towards all.” So the Lord had taught and practiced; and the disciple is not above his teacher, but every one that is perfected shall be as his teacher, and must expect, not return, similar ways in word and deed. But are not some so trying as to deserve snubbing, at the least? He ought to be “gentle towards all;” for it is not a question of human disagreeables, but of presenting Christ duly. It is easy enough to wound or overthrow a man; but what if it grieves the Holy Spirit of God and dishonors Christ? Are we resolved to bear and to win in the irresistible might of, meekness?
Again, he is to be “apt to teach.” Many saints are dull of heart to receive fresh truth, and to distinguish things that differ. It is natural to censure, and for some even to ridicule. Aptness to teach supposes not ability in the word only, but love to the saints, and faith in the Lord Jesus who is served. This one has to cultivate; for the trials and the difficulties are enough to make one weary. The Lord before us encourages the heart. How much He has had to bear with in the most faithful!
“Forbearing” therefore most appropriately follows. For it is sad to think of the uppishness of some, of the ingratitude of others, not to speak of positive evil returned for good in the service of the saints. But is not the service of the Master well worth all trouble even now? And what unexpected blessing He gives by the way? And what joy and glory at His coming?
Accordingly it is well to seek grace that one be found “in meekness instructing those that oppose.” For none other was the path of Christ, and in this way only can one hope to correct those that set themselves as antagonists. This alone may disarm them; grace is pleased so to work. And the apostle puts this as a possible and desired contingency, “if haply God may give them repentance unto acknowledgment of truth.”
This last phrase occurs in the First Epistle (2:4) as in the Second more than once (3:7), and always in this anarthrous form. The reason is not that the preposition (εἰς or any other) gives license to omit the article where otherwise it would be required, which is a most unreasonable and even a barbarous notion, though we all know laid down by Bp. Middleton in his able “Doctrine of the Greek article,” and endorsed by commentators so respectable as the late Dean Alford and Bp. Ellicott, to say nothing of one so loose on this as Winer. It is an error, notwithstanding, which every portion of the New Testament and Septuagint, and all Greek literature refute, as any scholar may discover by bringing a single chapter closely to the test. The omission of the article depends on a principle wholly independent of the preposition: only the absence of the Greek article in such a construction is more frequent than elsewhere, because prepositions are used very often where character is intended, rather than a definite object is set before the mind. Where the latter is meant with or without a preposition, the article must appear; where the aim is characteristic, it disappears; and such is the case in the phrase before us.
But it may be profitable to speak briefly of “repentance;” for it goes far more deeply than many think It is rather a moral question than a mental one, though no doubt there is a change of mind of the utmost gravity. But in repentance the soul is subject to God. His word judges, instead of being judged. There is therefore a moral revolution in the heart which takes God's side against itself, and condemns not only the acts of evil which rise before the conscience, but the entire ground, and state of being, which gave rise to them. Repentance, therefore, is as distinctly towards God, as faith is towards our Lord Jesus Christ, who is in fact exalted by God's right hand to give repentance as well as remission of sins. Acknowledgment of truth follows as the fruit of repentance, without which neither truth is divinely received, nor has its acknowledgment any value in God's sight. Life, eternal life, is from God, and in His Son.
This, then, the Lord's servant was to seek “in Meekness,” not setting down, which quick wit and stubborn will would naturally effect, but setting right, as grace loves to do, if it may be with those who oppose themselves; to get rid of persons, even though troublesome, does not occur to his patient mind Nevertheless such opposition is most serious; and the apostle lets us see this by that which he subjoins immediately, “and they may awake up out of the snare of the devil, taken captive as they are by him, for His will.”
This is a remarkably complicated sentence, and saints eminent in godliness and scholarship have understood it very differently. Thus the Authorized Version stands by no means alone in treating the words as referring only to the enemy; so the Syrr. and Vulgate, followed by Wiclif, Tyndale, Cranmer, and the Rhemish. The Revised Version on the other hand, with Wetstein, Bengel, Wakefield, and Mack, though slightly differing otherwise, supposes not one agent to be in question, but three, the devil, the Lord's servant, and God. Their version accordingly of ver. 26 is, “And they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him (the Lord's servant) unto the will of God.” In their margin they give that which appears to be the truer sense, “by the devil” (not the Lord's servant) unto the will of God; and so the Geneva V., Ellicott, Alford, Hammond, Wells, &c. The two pronouns in the Greek, being different, naturally, though not necessarily, point to two parties: but to bring in “the Lord's servant” here seems as forced as the reference to the enemy is simple and consistent, though Dr. Bloomfield, I see, thinks “so violent a construction is utterly inadmissible” So Beza prefers (in his note to the fourth edition, 1588), though he translated as others, lest he might seem somewhat bold in a matter so sacred, “ne videri possem in re tam sacra audaculus.” In his fifth edition, 1598, he corrects his translation thus, “et sanitate mentis recepta ex diaboli lupus:), ab eo captivi facti, convertantar ad Mins voluntatem.” All doubt henceforward disappears from his note.