Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 2 Timothy 2:16
But shun profane [and] vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.
16. shun ] The word is the same as in Tit 3:9 where reasons are given for rendering it avoid. The present tense here and in 2Ti 2:14 are all the more forcible for the aorists which come in between. ‘Be ever putting in remembrance’ ‘ever avoiding.’ The article before ‘profane babblings’ points to a well-known theme, ‘these false teachers and their talk.’ ‘Let your teachers and yourself handle truth aright; but the false teachers and their profane babblings avoid.’ Hence there is no real ambiguity about the subject to the next clause; though R.V. leaves us in doubt. ‘For these false teachers will only proceed further in ungodliness.’ The pronoun in the next verse refers back to them.
profane and vain babblings ] Profane babblings; ‘babblings’ is sufficient rendering of the word without the addition of ‘vain’: the word only occurs here and 1Ti 6:20; see note there.
they will increase unto more ungodliness ] Lit. they will proceed further on. The verb corresponds to the word for ‘progress’ in 1Ti 4:15 where its usage is noted. As Bp Ellicott points out, the future shews that the error of the false teachers had not yet ‘appeared in its most developed state.’
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
But shun profane and vain babblings, – see the notes at 1Ti 6:20.
For they will increase unto more ungodliness – Their tendency is to alienate the soul from God, and to lead to impiety. Such kinds of disputation are not merely a waste of time, they are productive of positive mischief. A man fond of contention in religious things is seldom one who has much love for the practical duties of piety, or any very deep sense of the distinction between right and wrong. You will not usually look for him in the place of prayer, nor can you expect his aid in the conversion of sinners, nor will you find that he has any very strict views of religious obligation.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
2Ti 2:16
Shun profane and vain babblings.
Shun
The word rendered shun is a strong one, and signifies, literally, to make a circuit so as to avoid; or as Alford paraphrases it, the meaning seems to come from a number of persons falling back from an object of fear or loathing, and standing at a distance round it. The word is used in Tit 3:9. (H. D. M. Spence, M. A.)
They will increase unto more ungodliness.
Will increase
. The metaphor is from pioneers clearing the way before an army, by cutting down all obstacles: hence to make progress, to advance. (James Bryce, LL. D.)
A lax life connected with erroneous doctrine
The close connection between grave fundamental errors in doctrine and a lax and purely selfish life is constantly alluded to by St. Paul. (H. D. M. Spence, M. A.)
Error is of an encroaching nature
Let the serpent but wind in his head, and he will quickly bring in his whole body. He that saith Yea to the devil in a little, shall not say Nay when he pleases. (J. Trapp.)
The odium theologicum, the worst of social devils
On approaching my subject I shall premise four things:
1. I have no disposition to underrate the importance of right beliefs in religion.
2. I hold it to be the right of every man to endeavour to propagate his beliefs.
3. I recognise the value of a rightly-conducted theological controversy.
4. The controversy of which I have to speak is that of a conventional theology. By a conventional theology I mean a theology which a man has received from others, rather than reached by his own research; a theology which has been put into his memory as a class of propositions, rather than wrought out of his soul as spiritual convictions; a theology which is rather the manufacture of other men than the growth of individual reflection and experience; a theology which is more concerned about grammar than grace–symbol than sense–sign than substance. Now, such controversies, in the nature of the case, must always be marked by two features.
(1) Technicality.
(2) Personality.
I. Such controversies develop the most impious arrogancy. All the arrogancy of mere worldly men pales into dimness in the glare of the arrogancy which that man displays who dares pronounce a brother heretic because he subscribes not to his own views.
II. Such controversies develop the most lamentable dishonesty. The polemic of a mere scribe theology has ever been a cheat.
1. He cheats by the representation he makes of himself. He would have his readers or hearers believe that he has reached the conclusions in debate by a thorough study for himself of the holy Book. It is false. It is a law that self-reached convictions expel dogmatism. But the polemic of a mere scribe-theology cheats also by representing himself as being inspired only in the controversy by love for truth. It is not lore for truth; it is love for his own opinions.
2. He is dishonest in his representation of his opponents, he imputes motives not felt–ideas and conclusions not held.
III. Such controversies develop a most disastrous perversity. The conventional controversialist perverts the Bible, the powers of the intellect and the zeal of the heart.
IV. Such controversies develop the most heartless inhumanity. They blind the polemic to the excellences of others. The technical theologue who looks at a brother through the medium of his own orthodoxy, will fraternise with a modern scoundrel if he is orthodox; but, like Caiaphas of old, will rend his robes with pious horror at incarnate virtue if it conform not to his own views. What inhumanities have not been perpetrated in the name of orthodoxy! What built the inquisition? What kindled the flames of martyrdom? What animated Bonner? What prompted Calvin to murder Servetus? What roused the Jewish rabbis to put the Son of God to death? The remarks made will suffice to justify the proposition that the controversies of a mere conventional theology are the most effective means of developing depravity. (D. Thomas, D. D.)
Profane babbling to be avoided
I. Profane vain babblings are to be avoided. How often does our apostle condemn them? Why are they to be avoided?
1. Because the branches which bear them are evil; as weakness of judgment, frowardness of will, and disorder in tile affections.
2. And do they not blemish our reputation? obscure the gloss of grace? hinder the acts of it? kindle corruption? and turn from the faith?
II. The causes which increase sin are to be removed. (J. Barlow, D. D.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 16. Shun profane and vain babblings] This is the character he gives of the preaching of the false teachers. Whatever was not agreeable to the doctrine of truth was, in the sight of God, empty and profane babbling; engendering nothing but ungodliness, and daily increasing in that.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
But shun profane and vain babblings; by these dishonourable terms the apostle defameth all impertinent discourses in discharge of the ministerial office, such as he had called fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, 1Ti 1:4; profane and old wives fables, 1Ti 4:7; here he calls them , empty, vain, and unprofitable discourses, which though possibly not profane in themselves, yet were profane as used in the discharge of the ministerial office, where nothing ought to be discoursed but the solid, useful truths of the gospel.
For they will increase unto more ungodliness; these, he saith, will issue at last in errors and ungodliness of life.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
16. shunliterally, “standabove,” separate from, and superior to.
vainopposed to “thetruth” (2Ti 2:15).
babblingswith loudvoice: opposed to the temperate “word” (Tit3:9).
increaseGreek,advance”; literally, “strike forward”: an image frompioneers cutting away all obstacles before an advancingarmy. They pretend progress; the only kind of progressthey make is to a greater pitch of impiety.
more ungodlinessGreek,“a greater degree of impiety.”
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
But shun profane and vain babblings,…. The ministry of false teachers is mere babbling; a voice, and nothing else, as the man said of his nightingale; a sound of words, but no solid matter in them; great swelling words of vanity, like large bubbles of water, look big, and make a great noise, but have nothing in them; contain nothing but vain, empty, idle, and trifling stuff; what is unprofitable and unedifying, yea, what is profane, contrary to the nature and perfections of God, and not agreeable to the doctrine which is according to godliness; and being palmed upon the Holy Scriptures, is a profanation of them. And all such wicked and empty prate, and babbling, is to be shunned, avoided, and discouraged, refused, and rejected; and, as much as can be, a stop should be put to it, both by ministers and hearers of the word.
For they will increase unto more ungodliness meaning either that such babblings, if used and encouraged, will grow more and more profane and wicked; or the persons that use them, the unruly and vain talkers, will grow more daring, bold; and impudent, will wax worse and worse, and from one error will proceed to another, for such seldom stop; and having abused one passage of Scripture, will go on to attack another, and will not cease, till they have wrested the whole Scripture to their own destruction, and that of others.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Shun (). See Tit 3:9.
Babblings (). See 1Ti 6:20.
Will proceed (). Future active of , “will cut forward.” See Gal 1:14; Rom 13:12.
Further in ungodliness ( ). “To more of ungodliness.” See Rom 1:18; 1Tim 2:2.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Shun [] . P o. In Pastorals, here and Tit 3:9. Originally, to place round; to stand round. In the middle voice, to turn one’s self about, as for the purpose of avoiding something : hence, avoid, shun. Often in Class., but in this sense only in later Greek.
Profane and vain babblings [ ] . For profane, see on 1Ti 1:9. Vain is superfluous, being implied in babblings. For babblings, see on 1Ti 6:20. Babble is a word of early origin, an imitative word, formed on the efforts of a young child to speak, and having its counterparts in many languages. It appears very early in English, as in Piers Plowman :
“And so I bablede on my bedes.” Vis. 2487.
Bacon : “Who will open himself to a blab or a babbler ?” Ess. vi
Shakespeare : “Leave thy vain bibble babble.” Twelfth 10 4 2.
They will increase [] . See on Rom 13:12, and Gal 1:14.
Ungodiness [] . The opposite of eujsebeia godliness, for which see on 1Ti 2:2. In Pastorals, Tit 2:12. In Paul, Rom 1:18; Rom 11:26, cit.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “But shun profane and vain babblings” (tas de bebelous kenophonias peristaso) “But the profane and empty utterances, babblings avoid or shun;” account must be given even to idle words, Mat 12:36.
2) “For they will increase unto more ungodliness.” (epi pleion gar prokopsousin asebeias) “For they will advance or lead on to or toward impiety or ungodliness,” to lend an ear to or tolerate babbling faultfinders and pious critics of the Word and doctrines and work of God leads to trouble, 1Ti 6:20; 2Pe 2:12; Jud 1:16-19.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
16 But avoid profane and unmeaning noises My opinion as to the import of these words has been stated in my commentary on the last chapter of the First Epistle to Timothy; and my readers will find it there. (176)
For they will grow to greater ungodliness. That he may more effectually deter Timothy from that profane and noisy talkativeness, he states that it is a sort of labyrinth, or rather a deep whirlpool, from which they cannot go out, but into which men plunge themselves more and more.
(176) See p. 173.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
SCIENTIFIC SPIRIT IN SCRIPTURE STUDY
2Ti 2:15-19.
THE most ardent opponent of the so-called New Theology is not a conservative Modern but a progressive Ancient. In Germany Bettext was looked upon by Liberals as a most ardent opponent of their opinions; in France the scholarly Gaussen was feared, and with good reason, by the professed Progressives; in Scotland James Orr stood like a granite shore-line to resist the rising tide of skepticism; in England such men as Spurgeon, Parker, Meyer and Young have made the endeavors of so-called progressive pulpits appear almost pitiful; while in America, the names of the truly noble who have not become enamored of Athenian theology, but who have answered every critic so eloquently as to exasperate him, are too numerous to mention.
And yet, towering above any one of them, and all of them, as an opponent of so-called New Theology, is a man who was put to death two thousand years ago for the faith that was in him, but who though dead, yet speaketh, and from whose pen we take our texteven Paul. It is little wonder that the Athenian theologians have asserted that he was not inspired and have sought to discredit him, since his writing anticipated them with an eloquence that is commanding, and a logic that is relentless. If one deny the inspiration of the Apostle he is yet compelled to attend upon what he says. So colossal a figure cannot be counted out when subjects to which he addressed himself are under discussion; and, certainly he wrote concerning the scientific spirit in Scripture study.
What are the suggestions of this text? Four at least, with their subdivisions: The Scientific Spirit, The Inspired Scriptures, The Skeptical Professor, and The Philosophy of the Steadfast.
THE SCIENTIFIC SPIRIT
Paul was no poor student! Never once did he set his approval upon ignorance, lack of study or research. The language of this text is a revelation of the Apostles character and customs. Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of Truth. That is the scientific spirit.
The scientific spirit manifests itself in diligent research. Modernists say, The time has come when the scientific spirit must be adopted in Bible study. Who objects? Who ever did object, and when? The point of controversy between Progressives and Conservatives is not a question as between the scientific and the unscientific spirit. Every intelligent Conservative believes in the research that is scientific. And, well equipped Conservatives are quite as capable of determining what is scientific as are Liberals. It is a singular circumstance when a man like R. J. Campbell, better known because he was the successor to the conservative Joseph Parker than for all other reasons combined, prated about the conclusions of science and talked as if he were an expert in the whole realm, when the truth was, that he needed only time to cure his conceit. So long as he was a Liberal, there was a wide-spread opinion that he was learned. Alas for the conceit that skepticism and smartness are synonymous! It was of that very thing the Apostle wrote when he said concerning some, who when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and * * changed the Truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator (Rom 1:21-22; Rom 1:25).
The great scientists of the past have, with wonderful unanimity, believed the Bible, and neither Faraday, Kepler, nor Newton ever felt that they had to surrender the scientific spirit in order to accept Scripture conclusions, while Lord Kelvin, who, from the early age of twenty-two, at which time he became Professor of Natural Philosophy in Glasgow University, down to the ripened period of eighty-threeor sixty-one yearsbrought his scientific mind to bear upon the inspired Book and never found occasion to cast any part of it away, or call into question its utter authority. Not many in America but know something of the scientific accomplishments and professional skill of Dr. Howard A. Kelly of Baltimore. He once contributed an article to Appletons Magazine entitled, Out of Uncertainty and Doubt into Faith, the purpose of which was to show that when he brought his well-trained mind and an open heart to the study of the Bible, he was not only convinced that it was inspired, but compelled to accept every one of its great doctrines, approve its plan of salvation, and to yield his intellect and will to the authority of its commands. He says, I found that the Bible claimed to be the authoritative Word of God, and by taking it as my text-book of religion, testing it by submitting to its conditions, I came to believe the Book the inspired Word of God; inspired in a sense utterly different from that of any merely human book. I believe Jesus Christ to be the Son of God, without human father, conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary; that all men, without exception, are by nature sinners, alienated from God, and when thus utterly lost in sin, the Son of God Himself came down to earth, and by shedding His Blood upon the Cross, paid the infinite penalty of the guilt of the whole world. I believe he who thus receives Jesus Christ as his Saviour, is born again spiritually as definitely as in his first birth, and, so born spiritually, has new privileges, appetites and affections; that he is one body with Christ the Head and will live with Him forever. I believe no man can be saved by what is known as a moral life such works being but the necessary fruits and evidence of the faith within.
And Kelly concludes, If faith so reveals God to me, I go without question wherever He may lead me. I can put His assertions and commands above every seeming probability in life, dismissing cherished convictions and looking upon the wisdom and ratiocinations of men as folly if opposed to Him. I place no limits to faith when once vested in God, the sum of all wisdom and knowledge, and can trust Him though I should have to stand alone before the world declaring Him to be true.
Who are these that are boasting their scientific ability, and insinuating that the Scriptures are to go down before it? Had they lighted their little candles from Kelvins torch they might live their lives in greater light, and certainly would have less to say concerning the conflict of science and the Scriptures. Had they given one-half as much time to the earnest study of science as has Howard A. Kelley, and like him, turned from the study of Gods revelation in the physical world to a careful and prayerful perusal of the Sacred Scriptures, they might have come to the same conclusions. Let us have a scientific spirit; but let it be the spirit of science and not the spirit of shallowness.
The scientific spirit will concern itself with the Divine approval. As some one has put it, So far as a man is at all scientific he is thinking Gods thoughts after Him. And the true Christian will be vastly concerned to so think as to meet the Divine approval. We are told that Da Vincis first great endeavor to produce a work of art resulted solely from the desire to please his studio master, and that when the great teacher came and looked upon it, it was so surpassingly beautiful that he looked upon the lad and said, I shall never paint again. The truth is that our God has deliberately decided to paint no more pictures of revelation, and to write no more His revealed will; but He lays it upon us to incarnate His conceptions and translate His revelations, that the world shall see His work in us. A true student, therefore, can but desire to secure the Divine approval upon his research.
The scientific spirit will be careful in the use of the Divine Word. The discoveries of today always demand the preservation and propagation of yesterdays knowledge. The man who proposes, therefore, to begin the study of the Bible by despising the conclusions of his fathers, may be regarded as an iconoclast, but can hardly be considered a scientist. This is not the morning of scientific research! The day of scientific discovery is well advanced! We are not emerging out of darkness that makes every vision new, and every treatise original. We have to give consideration to what our fathers thought, and attend upon what our teachers have said. The Bible has been too long in use for people to talk as if none of its tenets were true. The youth of this country, listening to the talk of present-day Critics, have been brought to think that the Koran, the Eddas of the Scandinavians, the Tribitaka of the Buddhist, the Five Kings of China, the three Vedas of the Hindoos and the Zend Avesta, are all as ancient as the Scriptures, if not more so. Well-instructed men know this is false. The Scandinavian Eddas are 1400 years younger than the latest Scripture; the Koran 700; the Buddist revelation, while it antedates Christ, could easily have borrowed its best parts from the Sacred Books of the Old Testament. Practically every one of them was written before it came into existence; while much of that Old Testament antedates the so-called revelations of China, of India, and of Persia. Its very age, therefore, demands a reverential use; while its accomplishments command and compel its sacred study.
He who professes to study light, scientifically, will be compelled to take the sun into account; and the man who proposes to introduce the scientific spirit into the study of religion will be equally compelled to consider the moral luminary of the universe, the Book of books, known throughout the world as the Bible. By all means let us be scientific!
THE INSPIRED SCRIPTURES
What does the Apostle mean by his phrase, The Word of Truth? Jesus had already spoken to this theme, praying to His Father to sanctify His disciples through Thy Truth, and adding, Thy Word is Truth. Paul, writing to the Ephesians of the hope we have in Christ in whom ye believed says, Having heard the Word of Truth, the Gospel of your salvation.
Unquestionably James was speaking of that part of the Bible with which he was familiar, when he declared that God of His own will begat ** us with the Word of Truth. The very language employed involves the doctrine of inspiration, the necessity of illumination and the truth of Spirit-instruction.
Inspiration alone can insure the Truth. The reason the writings of the most scientific men the world has known go out of date and pass away, is because their successors discover error in their conclusions. The most scientific spirit does not insure unchangeable conclusions; inspiration alone can do that. If you are going to have a Gospel that will forever remain profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, it must be inspired. No fault must be found in it. The reason Harveys discovery of the circulatory system will remain forever a fact, is not because Harvey said it, but because when Moses wrote, The life of the flesh is in the blood, he voiced what was intrinsically true. The reason why the law of gravity will have to be regarded by all great scientists, is not because Newton affirmed it to be a factNewton sometimes made mistakesbut because God Himself bethought and spoke it, as Job long since wrote, He * * hangeth the earth upon nothing. The reason why our modern scientists are eschewing certain animals as unfit to eat and favoring others, is not because of physicians only (they are too often in error), but because when Moses wrote the Book of Leviticus he was so perfectly inspired as to make no mistake as to what was under the ban and what in favor from the standpoint of human health. Science reaches accuracy only after a thousand experiments, and climbs into the light only after a long journey out of enveloping darkness; but inspiration speaks once and it standeth fast. It turns its face to the rising sun and wears light as a garment! Of no other book written in the world can it be said, as Christ has already affirmed concerning the Bible, Thy Word is Truth.
And yet, illumination is essential to the understanding of the Scriptures. The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Beecher was right when he said, The Bible will not give up its secrets to those who approach it with their bellowing passions and perverted intentions.
Darwin was supposed to be a great scientist, but confessed that that part of his nature which might have enjoyed painting or music was atrophied. Does any man mean to suggest that the carnal man may not be so thoroughly lacking in all religious intuitions as to make the meaning of revelation to him impossible?
When Abraham Lincoln, the great President, was visiting in the Soldiers Home, Joshua F. Speed, his intimate friend, came to the Home to spend the night with him. Rising just after sunrise he ran up to the Presidents room. He found him reading a book. Looking over his shoulder he found it was the Bible. Jocularly, Mr. Speed said, I am glad to see you so profitably employed!
Yes, answered the great Lincoln; I am profitably employed!
Well, said Speed, I wonder if you have recovered from that skepticism that once characterized you. I confess frankly that I have not.
Lincoln looked into his face for a moment, and then rising, put his hand on his shoulder and tenderly said, You are wrong, Speed! Take all of this Book upon reason that you can and the rest on faith, and you will, I am sure, live and die a better and a happier man. But whether one receives it on reason or on faith, if he is to understand it, the Spirit must instruct him and he must bring to that holy instruction a teachable spirit. Of the office of the Holy Ghost, Christ Himself said, When He * * is come, He will guide you into all Truth. He cannot guide a man who rejects Him; nor yet the man who refuses Jesus as Teacher, for of Him again it is said, He shall not speak of Himself; but whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak: and He will shew you things to come.
THE SKEPTICAL PROFESSOR
Here is Pauls description of him: Shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness. And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; who concerning the Truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some. What about the skeptical Professor? Three things!
First, he has erred concerning the Truth. Paul says, in illustration of his charge, that he has denied the resurrection. That is definite and marvelously up to date. George Burman Foster denied the resurrection; R. J. Campbell once denied the resurrection. Modernism now commonly denies the resurrection! John is as much inspired as Paul, and John says, Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? (1Jn 2:22). Concerning the Virgin Birth it is written, That which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. To deny that is to face another indictment from the pen of the Apostle John, He that believeth not God hath made Him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of His Son (1Jn 5:10). In talking some time since with a conservative minister concerning certain utterances by a Modernist, of which excerpts had appeared in the papers, he said, I am glad to see that he does not deny the resurrection of Jesus. But is not the denial of the Virgin Birth equally infidel with the denial of the resurrection? Either of them puts a man outside the pale of evangelical fellowship.
Again, the skeptical professor has overthrown the faith of his fellows. The word is, men who concerning the Truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.
How often that thing has occurred, who can tell? Not a few times in recent years have we had young men confess to us that in the course of their studies they had lost their faith in Christ as God, and the Bible as the Word of God. One of these, said, I would give the world to believe in the Bible as you seem to do. It is a terrific arraignment Jesus Christ brings against those who destroy the faith of their fellows, Whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in Me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh! Walter Scott writes regarding the Bible:
Within this simple volume lies The mystery of mysteries!Happiest they of human race To whom God has given grace To read, to fear, to hope, to pray,To lift the latch, to force the way.And better had they neer been born Who read to doubt, or read to scorn.
It is the boast of Higher Critics that they are building men up in the faith, increasing their confidence in the Word, and so on. Where? When? Who?
It is said there was a lawyer in the early days of the Indian Territory, named Mullins, who practiced in the minor courts and who made a great reputation for his ornate language. He was engaged in defending a man charged with hog-stealing one day, and, when it came time to sum up, he arose and assumed a portentous attitude before the jury: If your Honor please, he said, and gentlemen of the jury: I would not, for a moment, mutilate the majesty of the law nor contravene the avoirdupois of the testimony. But, and I speak advisedly, I want you homogeneous men on the jury to focalize your five senses on the proposition I am about to present to you. In all criminal cases there are three essential elements: the locus in quo, the modus operandi and the corpus delicti. In this case I think I am safe in saying the corpus delicti and the modus operandi are all right, but, gentlemen, there is an entire absence of the locus in quo.
That is the difficulty with Higher Criticism. Where and when did they ever do less than destroy the faith of their fellows? Even Godless Goethe was wiser than the followers of his own philosophy, for he said, If you have convictions, give them to me; if you have doubts, keep them to yourself; I have doubts enough of my own.
He has cleared the path for moral perversion.
Shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness. And their word mil eat as doth a canker.
One of the most definite reasons for the prevalence of present-day gilded vice is in the loss of faith on the part of the people. Our infidel teachers have brought them to doubt whether there be a personal God in the heavens, whether sin is regarded of Him, whether judgment is certain and whether hell is a reality, and the result is not only impenitence but moral pandemonium. In the old day when our fathers stood in the pulpits and in burning words declared, It is appointed unto men once to die, and after this the judgment, their auditors believed them and believed God. Penitence resulted; pentecosts came to pass; regeneration was produced and reform was witnessed. But where now do you find a man weeping over his sins? And when did any new theologian bring his auditors to alarm like that which smote the hearers of President Edwards, lest they had walked so long in the evil way that their feet were on the brink of hell? When Jonah preached Judgment in the streets of sin-besotted Nineveh, prince and peasant alike repented and reformed! But a more unalarming proclamation has never reached the ears of men than that which is phrased in the so-called New Theology. When its sermons are finished sinners applaud the! opinions expressed and increase unto more ungodliness.
THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE STEADFAST
Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are His. And, Let every one that nameth the Name of Christ depart from iniquity.
That philosophy has three features:
The first is an inspired Book. The foundation of God is found in that all Scripture is God-breathed. The Law of Moses is a living Law. The Song of David is an inspired song. The Gospels of the four writers are a revelation of grace. The Word of the Lord is an end of controversy. The sentences of the Bible are both ancient and modem. Like the sun, it is a long time since they found expression, but their shining is dimmed in nothing. A Hindoo convert, who had carried one Bible until it was worn out, spoke of it as ancient, and then corrected himself, I beg pardon, the cover and paper are ancient, but its Truths are ever new.
The steadfast have an assured acceptance. The Lord knoweth them that are His. The names are written in the Lambs Book of Life. His promise is, I shall lose not a one. And of the Father He declared, No man is able to pluck them out of My Fathers hand. No wonder Isaac Watts wrote:
Firm as the earth Thy Gospel stands, My Lord, my hope, my trust;If I am found in Jesus hands,My soul can neer be lost.His honor is engaged to save The meanest of His sheep;All whom His Heavenly Father gave,His hands securely keep.Nor death nor hell shall eer remove His favorites from His breast;Within the bosom of His love They must forever rest.
But the third feature of this steadfast philosophy is an irreproachable conduct. Let every one that nameth the Name of Christ depart from iniquity. When all is said that ought to be said in defense of the Old Book against every critic, it remains a fact that the world will never be won by argument. Contend for the faith we should; but its incarnation in our lives is our best contention. Whatever men may do with the written Epistles of Paul, John, Peter, or James, when they come into contact with those living epistles of Jesus Christ consistent Christian men and women, who live unselfishly, who devote time to intelligent Scripture research, and who keep themselves unspotted from the world, then they will be most profoundly impressed. No argument can stand against the Wordincarnate!
Fuente: The Bible of the Expositor and the Evangelist by Riley
(16) But shun profane and vain babblings.But, in strong contrast to the conduct just urged, on the workman of God, do thou avoid (or, withdraw thyself from) vain babblings. The word rendered shun is a strong one, and signifies literally, to make a circuit so as to avoid; or, as Alford paraphrases it, the meaning seems to come from a number of persons falling back from an object of fear or loathing, and standing at a distance round it. The word is used in Tit. 3:9. On the words profane, vain-babblings, see 1Ti. 6:20.
For they will increase unto more ungodliness.Better translated, for they will advance unto . . . The tendency of these useless discussions and idle disputes is to lead men into vain and profitless speculations, which end too oftenas in the case, cited below, of Hymenus and Philetusin the most fatal doctrinal error. The close connection between grave fundamental errors in doctrine and a lax and purely selfish life is constantly alluded to by St. Paul.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
16. Babblings Greek, empty-vocalities; like logomachy, words to which there was no correspondent thing. Both designate those truthless systems set by Timothy’s opposers over against St. Paul’s type of saving doctrine (see note, 2Ti 1:13) given in 8-13, especially as appears by 2Ti 2:18 against the doctrine of the resurrection.
Unto more ungodliness From their unmeanings they will advance to bad meanings, and from bad meanings to bad purposes and actions. This is indicated by St. Paul’s prophetic description of their future in 2Ti 3:1-9. It is the impiety resulting from errorism that awakens St. Paul’s deep concern and calls forth his warnings to Timothy.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘But shun profane babblings, for they will proceed further in ungodliness,’
All ‘profane babblings’, which includes anything that does not come from the Scriptures or the teaching of Jesus and the Apostles, are to be thrust aside. The world offers many ‘words’ and many ‘truths’, but if they do not conform to the teaching of Scripture they are to be shunned, for it is the Scriptures alone, rightly interpreted, that are able to make us ‘wise unto salvation’ (2Ti 3:15-16).
This is important because such profane babblings will only result in ‘more ungodliness’, in a wrong attitude and behaviour towards God and men, on behalf both of those who teach and those who listen. For ‘profane babblings’ compare 1Ti 6:20. It includes any religious teaching not genuinely based on Scripture and the teaching of the Apostles, the kinds of teaching which in those days poured out with great verbosity from the mouths of false teachers everywhere, and for which they were often well paid. Today we find them more in people’s writings, or on popular television, where anything is satisfactory except the truth, although now it is presented more subtly by misusing the Scriptures to suit their purpose.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
2Ti 2:16 . (comp. 1Ti 6:20 ) ] “ avoid ” (comp. Tit 3:9 , synonymous with , 1Ti 6:20 ); properly: “ go out of the way .” Beza is wrong: cohibe, i. e. observa et velut obside, nempe ne in ecclesiam irrepant.
The reason for the exhortation follows in the next words: ] here is intransitive (comp. 1Ti 3:9 ; 1Ti 3:13 ), and is the genitive depending on , [36] not the accusative, as if . had here the transitive meaning “to further.” The subject is formed by the heretics whom the apostle has in mind, not the , as shows. Hence Luther’s translation is incorrect: “it (evil talking) helps much to ungodly character;” besides, it puts the present for the future. Bengel: Futurum, proprie; est enim praedictio, ut , 2Ti 2:17 ; comp. 1Ti 3:3 ff., 1Ti 3:6 . Hofmann wishes a distinction to be made between those who deal in . and those to whose number Hymenaeus and Philetus belong; and according to him, the subject should be taken from the . . ., so as to mean the followers of these two heretics. We cannot, however, understand why Paul should not have included among the . the heresy that the resurrection had already taken place, unless this expression be greatly weakened, as Hofmann indeed does, to favour his view of the heresy at Ephesus (see Introduction, 4). In any case, it is a mistake to take the subject for only from what follows, since such subject does not present itself naturally; and there is least ground of all for supposing that it must be .
The , which refers only to the sentence immediately preceding, makes the increasing godlessness of the heretics the reason why Timothy should not meddle further with the , but simply oppose to them the word of truth.
[36] In Diod. Sicul. there occurs: ; see Bengel on the passage.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.
Ver. 16. But shun ] Gr. , go round about them, viz. to suppress them on every side. St Peter calls them bubbles of words, full of wind, 2Pe 2:18 .
For they will increase ] The Greek word signifies, to “cut a thing before,” to make a passage for other things: as in some countries they cut a passage for their sheep because of the ice. Sure it is that error is of an encroaching nature. Let the serpent but wind in his head, and he will quickly bring in his whole body. He that saith yea to the devil in a little, shall not say nay when he pleases; he that tumbleth down the hill of error, will never leave tumbling till he comes to the bottom. The popish superstition at first grew secretly, the tares were hid under the grain; but now they overtop and choke it. How many (today) first turn Separatists, then Antinomians, then Anabaptists, then Arminians, then Socinians, Anti-scripturists, Anti-trinitarians, Stark-atheists. The London ministers in their late vindication complain of this wretched defection of many of their formerly forward hearers, and not without cause. It were far easier to write a book of apostates in this age than a book of martyrs.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
16 .] But (contrast not to the merely, but to the whole course of conduct recommended in the last verse) profane babblings (see ref. 1 Tim.) avoid (= , 1Ti 6:20 ; so Origen has (in Hammond): Joseph. B. J. ii. 8. 6, of the Essenes, : Lucian, Hermotim. c. 86, , : Marc. Antonin. iii. 4, : see other examples in Wetst. The meaning seems to come from a number of persons falling back from an object of fear or loathing, and standing at a distance round it. Beza’s sense, ‘cohibe, i.e. observa et velut obside, nempe ne in ecclesiam irrepant,’ has no countenance from usage): for they (the false teachers: not the : cf. below) will advance (intransitive, see reff., not transitive, governing in the accus.: see below) to a worse pitch of impiety (cf. ref. Jos., and Diodor. Sic. xiv. 98, ), and their word will eat ( ( pasture , ref. John. Aristot. Hist. An. 10), from ( , Herod. iii. 133), is the medical term for the consuming progress of mortifying disease: cf. , Plut. Mor. p. 165 e: , Polyb. i. 81. 6, and Hippocrates and Galen in Wetst. It is also used of the devastating progress of fire, as in Polyb. i. 48. 5, , and xi. 5. 5, ) as a gangrene ( , from , , to eat into, is defined by Hippocrates (in Wetst.) to be the state of a tumour between inflammation and entire mortification , , , , , . Sometimes it is identical with , a cancer): of whom is (ref.) Hymenus (see note, 1Ti 1:20 ) and Philetus (of him nothing further is known), men who concerning the truth went astray (cf. 1Ti 6:21 ), saying that the resurrection has already taken place (cf. Tert. de resurr. carnis, c. 19, vol. ii. p. 820, “resurrectionem quoque mortuorum manifeste adnuntiatam in imaginariam significationem distorquent, adseverantes ipsam etiam mortem spiritaliter intelligendam. Non enim hanc esse in vero qu sit in medio dissidium carnis atque anim, sed ignorantiam Dei, per quam homo mortuus Deo non minus in errore jacuerit quam in sepulcro. Itaque et resurrectionem eam vindicandam, qua quis adita veritate sed animatus et revivificatus Deo, ignoranti morte discussa, velut de sepulcro veteris hominis eruperit: exinde ergo resurrectionem fide consecutos cum domino esse, cum eum in baptismate induerint.”
So also Irenus, ii. 31. 2, p. 164, “esse autem resurrectionem a mortuis, agnitionem ejus qu ab eis dicitur veritatis.” (See Ellicott’s note.) This error, which belonged to the Gnostics subsequently, may well have been already sown and springing up in the apostolic age. If the form of it was that described by Tertullian, it would be one of those instances of wresting the words of St. Paul himself (cf. Col 2:12 ; Rom 6:4 , al.) of which St. Peter speaks 2Pe 3:16 . See on this Aug. Ep. iv. (cxix.) 4, vol. iii. p. 206. Thdrt. (so also Pel.) gives a curious and certainly mistaken meaning, : (so Aug. Hr. 59, de Seleucianis, vol. viii. p. 42, “Resurrectionem non putant futuram, sed quotidie fieri in generatione filiorum:”) Schttg. another, but merely as a conjecture, that the resurrection of some of the bodies of the saints with Christ ( Mat 27:52 ) may have been by them called ‘the Resurrection of the dead’), and are overturning (ref.) the faith of some .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
2Ti 2:16 . : See on 1Ti 6:20 . Here, as Bengel suggests, – is contrasted with , with .
: shun, devita , “ Give them a wide berth ” (Plummer), also in Tit 3:9 . In these places has the same meaning as , 1Ti 6:20 . In fact Ell. cites from Lucian, Hermot . 86, , where the two verbs are evidently used as indifferent alternatives. Where elsewhere occurs (N.T.), viz. , Joh 11:42 , Act 25:7 , it means “to stand around”.
, . . .: Those who utter “babblings” (subject of ) are not, as is sometimes supposed, merely negatively useless; they are positively and increasingly mischievous. In 2Ti 3:9 , , the situation is different. When a man’s has become manifest to all, he has lost his power to do mischief to others; on the other hand there is no limit to the deterioration of “evil men and impostors” in themselves, (2Ti 3:13 ).
: genitive after . The commentators compare Joseph. Bell. Jud . vi. 2, 3. . Charles thinks , Test. of Twelve Patriarchs , Judah, 21:8, the source of this phrase; but it is merely a parallel.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
shun. Greek. periistemi. See Act 25:7.
profane. See 1Ti 1:9.
vain babblings. See 1Ti 6:20.
increase = advance. Greek. prokopto. See Rom 13:12,
unto, App-104.
ungodliness. App-128.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
16.] But (contrast not to the merely, but to the whole course of conduct recommended in the last verse) profane babblings (see ref. 1 Tim.) avoid (= , 1Ti 6:20; so Origen has (in Hammond): Joseph. B. J. ii. 8. 6, of the Essenes, : Lucian, Hermotim. c. 86, , : Marc. Antonin. iii. 4, : see other examples in Wetst. The meaning seems to come from a number of persons falling back from an object of fear or loathing, and standing at a distance round it. Bezas sense, cohibe, i.e. observa et velut obside, nempe ne in ecclesiam irrepant, has no countenance from usage): for they (the false teachers: not the : cf. below) will advance (intransitive, see reff.,-not transitive, governing in the accus.: see below) to a worse pitch of impiety (cf. ref. Jos., and Diodor. Sic. xiv. 98, ), and their word will eat ( (pasture, ref. John. Aristot. Hist. An. 10), from ( , Herod. iii. 133), is the medical term for the consuming progress of mortifying disease: cf. , Plut. Mor. p. 165 e: , Polyb. i. 81. 6, and Hippocrates and Galen in Wetst. It is also used of the devastating progress of fire, as in Polyb. i. 48. 5, , and xi. 5. 5, ) as a gangrene (, from , , to eat into, is defined by Hippocrates (in Wetst.) to be the state of a tumour between inflammation and entire mortification- , , , , , . Sometimes it is identical with , a cancer): of whom is (ref.) Hymenus (see note, 1Ti 1:20) and Philetus (of him nothing further is known), men who concerning the truth went astray (cf. 1Ti 6:21), saying that the resurrection has already taken place (cf. Tert. de resurr. carnis, c. 19, vol. ii. p. 820,-resurrectionem quoque mortuorum manifeste adnuntiatam in imaginariam significationem distorquent, adseverantes ipsam etiam mortem spiritaliter intelligendam. Non enim hanc esse in vero qu sit in medio dissidium carnis atque anim, sed ignorantiam Dei, per quam homo mortuus Deo non minus in errore jacuerit quam in sepulcro. Itaque et resurrectionem eam vindicandam, qua quis adita veritate sed animatus et revivificatus Deo, ignoranti morte discussa, velut de sepulcro veteris hominis eruperit: exinde ergo resurrectionem fide consecutos cum domino esse, cum eum in baptismate induerint.
So also Irenus, ii. 31. 2, p. 164, esse autem resurrectionem a mortuis, agnitionem ejus qu ab eis dicitur veritatis. (See Ellicotts note.) This error, which belonged to the Gnostics subsequently, may well have been already sown and springing up in the apostolic age. If the form of it was that described by Tertullian, it would be one of those instances of wresting the words of St. Paul himself (cf. Col 2:12; Rom 6:4, al.) of which St. Peter speaks 2Pe 3:16. See on this Aug. Ep. iv. (cxix.) 4, vol. iii. p. 206. Thdrt. (so also Pel.) gives a curious and certainly mistaken meaning,- : (so Aug. Hr. 59, de Seleucianis, vol. viii. p. 42,-Resurrectionem non putant futuram, sed quotidie fieri in generatione filiorum:) Schttg. another, but merely as a conjecture,-that the resurrection of some of the bodies of the saints with Christ (Mat 27:52) may have been by them called the Resurrection of the dead), and are overturning (ref.) the faith of some.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
2Ti 2:16. ) So 2Ti 2:21-22, by Anaphora [The frequent repetition of words at beginnings. Append.]. Therefore profane vain babblings, which maintain great errors, differ from questions (1Ti 6:4) about things not worth a straw; the former are pernicious, the latter useless (unprofitable), Tit 3:9.-) The same word, ibid.: in which elegantly means the same thing, as in ; but [I am over and above, I overcome, I get the better of another] denotes the act of separating and overcoming; , the state. Timothy had never entangled himself; therefore Paul exhorts him to continued stedfastness: remain thou separate.- ) to a greater degree of ungodliness. So , to advance more in vice.-Diodorus Siculus quoted by Pricus.-, they shall go forward) namely, those who give utterance to such vain babblings. To this subject (those) we also are to refer the word their, 2Ti 2:17. There is in it a Mimesis,[8] as afterwards in the phrase , will have pasture, will eat. These men think they are going forward in sacred things. The future is used in its strict sense; for it is a prediction, as in will have pasture (will eat) in the next verse; comp. 2Ti 3:1.
[8] An allusion to the language which those seducers used. They no doubt flattered themselves they were going forward (), and had spiritual pasturage or eating ( ). To this Paul replies by allusion, using the words in a bad sense.-ED.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
2Ti 2:16
But shun profane babblings:-Everything not commanded by God in the Scriptures may safely be placed under this head. It refers to the questions brought in then, that diverted from the word of God, caused division and strife. This was to be shunned.
for they will proceed further in ungodliness,-[Cherishing them will lead to more and more ungodliness. The addition of one thing not required of God leads to another. Their teaching is of a kind that will spread rapidly, and it is deadly in its effects.]
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
shun: 2Ti 2:14, 1Ti 4:7, 1Ti 6:20, Tit 1:14, Tit 3:9
for: 2Ti 3:13, Ezr 10:10, Hos 12:1, 1Co 5:6, 1Co 15:33, 2Th 2:7, 2Th 2:8, Tit 1:11, Heb 12:15, 2Pe 2:2, 2Pe 2:18, Rev 13:3, Rev 13:14
Reciprocal: Lev 13:3 – deeper Lev 13:7 – General Lev 13:35 – General Ecc 9:18 – sinner Mal 2:6 – law Mat 16:6 – the leaven Act 17:21 – spent Rom 6:19 – unto iniquity Rom 16:18 – by 1Co 3:12 – wood Col 2:4 – lest 1Ti 1:4 – to 2Ti 2:23 – General 2Ti 3:5 – from
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
2Ti 2:16. Shun profane and vain babblings is the same instruction that is stated in 1Ti 6:20, and refers to empty and foolish talk that has no good use. But any kind of activities on the part of human beings is bound to produce some kind of results. Paul says these vain babblings will advance along the wrong lines, namely, more ungodliness. Thayer defines the last word, “want of reverence towards God.” That is logical, for everything pertaining to God and the speech originating with Him, is full of helpful principles. Hence if one is concerned with such foolish lines of thought as are here described, it can be only from lack of respect for God.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
2Ti 2:16. Shun. The word gives the sense, but hardly the force of the Greek: Draw back from, as a group of men draw back from something horrible and loathsome.
Will eat. Again a strictly medical term: Will take its course, as if feeding on the flesh.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
St. Paul having now finished the exhortatory part of this chapter, and acquainted Timothy what he would have him practise and do, now comes to a dehortation, advising him what he would have him avoid and shun; and here, first, he bids him shun profane and vain babblings; the vain babblings of the Heathen philosopers, and the profane notions of heretical and seducing teachers, particularly the Gnostics, the followers of Simon Magus and Menander, who were guilty of an apostasy from Christianity, by turning the resurrection into an allegory; affirming that the resurrection of the soul to piety and virtue, was the only resurrection to be expected, disowning the resurrection of the body, and asserting, that the flesh was unfit to rise.
Observe, secondly, The nature of erroneous doctrine declared; it is of a devouring, spreading and destroying nature, their words will eat asdoth a gangrene.
Quest. How doth a gangrene eat?
Ans. It eats speedily, it eats incurably, it eats mortally, as it is well known the gangrene doth.
Quest. But what is it that heresies eat?
Ans. Faith, peace and godliness; so here, they overthrow the faith of some, and increase unto more ungodliness.
Quest. How comes it to pass that they so eat?
Ans. The spreading and prevailing of heresies, may be ascribed partly to the subtility and activity of seducers, partly to the curiousity and simplicity of the seduced, and partly to the justice of God, for the manifestation of those that are sincere, and the punishment of those that receive not the truth in the love of it.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
2Ti 2:16-18. But shun profane and vain babblings See on 1Ti 1:4; for they will increase, &c. Though the evil of some of them may not immediately appear, and they may seem trifling rather than mischievous, they will advance unto more impiety; for the persons who so babble, having been prevailed on by Satan to quit the right way of experimental and practical godliness, will proceed not only to neglect, but even to deny, the most essential articles of the Christian faith. And their word Their doctrine; will eat as doth a canker Will destroy the souls of men, as a gangrene destroys the body, spreading itself further and further till the whole is infected. Of whom Of which sort of ungodly talkers; are Hymeneus and Philetus The apostle mentions these two by name as empty babblers, whom the faithful were to resist, because their errors were of the most dangerous nature, as is evident from the account which the apostle gives of them in the next verse. Of Hymeneus, see on 1Ti 1:20; Philetus is mentioned nowhere else in Scripture. Probably these teachers denied that Jesus Christ came in the flesh, (see 1Jn 4:2,) consequently they denied the reality both of his death and resurrection. Who concerning the truth have erred , have gone wide of the mark; have fallen into a most dangerous and destructive error, by their allegorical interpretations, explaining away one of the most fundamental doctrines of Christianity, and maintaining that the resurrection is past already That is, that there is no other but a spiritual resurrection, from a death in sin to a life in righteousness, which consequently is already past with regard to all true Christians; and overthrow the faith of some In a capital point, namely, concerning the resurrection of the body, and a future life of glory designed for it, as well as for the soul. By explaining the doctrine of the resurrection in a figurative sense, these false teachers probably endeavoured to recommend the gospel to the Greek philosophers, who considered the resurrection of the body not only as impossible in itself, but as a thing highly disadvantageous had it been possible.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
ARGUMENT 4
RIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD OF TRUTH
Here we have emphatic warning against logomachy; i.e., word war, tit-for- tat disputation; not an organized debate, which does good. So never argue; but, like Jesus and Paul, teach your opponents in a loving, uncontroversial manner, at the same time rightly dividing the word of truth. Lord, save us
from the ignorant quackery which will give the medicine to the wrong patient, killing instead of curing, casting the pearls of holiness to the swine of carnality. Unsanctified preachers are utterly incompetent to rightly divide the word of truth. They mix it all up into a heterogeneous mass, giving toothless babies bacon and beans, and Herculean stalwarts gruel. Good reason to tarry at Jerusalem till endued with power from on high.
16. But common empty talks avoid. Everything without the Holy Ghost is empty. This is really a hackneyed phrase of the apostle. Hence the inestimable importance of keeping your soul stayed on God, your heart in constant prayer, so your words, whether in conversation, sermon, exhortation, prayer, testimony, or song, will be freighted with the Holy Ghost. For they shall proceed to more of ungodliness; i.e., freeze out more and more and get farther from God, till you fall into hell. Once you get rid of the Holy Ghost, and you are adrift, floating away on the dubious sea of carnality, whose ultimatum is the bottomless pit.
17. Their word shall eat as a gangrene; i.e., a cancer. Empty utterances are the ruin of the age. They will soon eat up the spiritual life of a Church. We see them all around us, eaten up by these spiritual cancers. What is the remedy? Fall down on the altar, and all cry to God till he pours on you the Holy Ghost, the only possible antidote for spiritual death.
18. Hymeneus and Philetus are examples of fallen preachers, who have lost the Holy Ghost, the only Conservator of orthodoxy, and gone off into the Swedenborgian heresy, which denies the physical resurrection and spiritualizes it. Many heresies emanate from spiritualizing the literal, and literalizing the spiritual. We must not tinker with Gods Bible; we must let it stay where he has put it, or we will have an awful account. (Revelation 22.) What about the thousands of preachers in the Protestant Churches who spiritualize the pre millennial resurrection? (Revelation 20.) They are certainly semi-Swedenborgian, and close on the track of Hymeneus and Philetus. If the first resurrection is spiritual, so is the second, because the Holy Ghost uses the same language to reveal both. All this is to evade the plainly revealed truth of the Lords millennium, and his pre millennial coming.
20,21. These long verses describe two classes of people in the same great house; i.e., the visible Church. Some vessels of gold and silver; i.e., fireproof, and others wooden and earthen; i.e., evanescent. Then, if any one will purify himself from thesei.e., wooden and earthenhe shall be a vessel unto honor, having been sanctified and acceptable unto the Lord. This is too plain for comment. The sanctified are vessels unto honor, represented by gold and silver. The unsanctified are vessels unto dishonor, represented by wood and earth.
22. Corroborates the preceding in behalf of all who call on the Lord out of a clean heart.
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament
. “But shun profane [and] vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.”
Shun, stay away, dont go for a little snoop avoid these things.
This would seem to relate to the previous admonition to keep away from those things that lead others to destruction, though this doesn’t reference others – this seems to indicate those involved in these babblings will become more ungodly.
That should give us indication of what the babblings are – if they lead to MORE ungodliness – those involved must already be in ungodliness.
What might profane and vain babblings be? Profane relates to the common or unholy – that which is unhallowed. Vain relates to discussion of vain and useless matters or empty discussion. Vain babblings is the translation of a single word kenophonia The word phone relates to sound in music as in Saxophone, while in language it relates to a sound that isnt a part of the whole any sound that does not communicate any real meaning ca doesnt relate much information nor does se, but the two case relates an idea. In short vain babblings relates to sound that really has no meaning or words that really have no meaning.
The term increase is used of a blacksmith that heats metal to pound it to flatten and move the metal forward to lengthen it. The term relates to moving forward. If you are ungodly, this discussion will move you forward into more of the same.
Ungodly relates to the lack of reverence to God thus we might assume that these discussions move the participants away from the God of their supposed service and toward a position of lacking respect or honor for Him.
This is not a good thing to be sure. This is a thing to be surely avoided. So, what is it so we can avoid it? Let me suggest what it might be in my mind in this current church climate.
A discussion about whether alcohol is okay for the believer might move those involved into thinking that it is okay and that they will continue drinking – socially of course – and might ultimately end up with a serious problem with alcohol.
It might relate to what some call grey areas. We have the truth of Scripture and we have the falsehood of the Devil but the synthesis of the world has given us grey areas (a mix of truth and false). A discussion in any of these grey areas might lead one into ungodliness.
Remember that these are probably already into ungodliness so they will have a bent toward ungodliness in any of their discussions and conclusions. Their mind will twist the facts to fit their need.
If you are walking with the Lord then there shouldn’t be much chance of you falling into this trap. You will make godly decisions and most likely won’t be part of the discussion, or at least will voice the proper attitude and the ungodly will ignore you.
When we were janitors for a large church I was cleaning up the youth room one Saturday evening and stopped to look at the writing on the blackboard before cleaning it. Written across the top were some titles for the columns. One of the columns was labeled Grey Areas. Under this list were several items such as drinking, music and the last was abortion.
Shocked to the core as a parent I approached the pastor about it. He in turn approached the youth leader that was somewhat embarrassed. He had stuck it there because he had not dealt with it as yet and never did deal with it. He agreed that someone might well have gone away from his class thinking abortion was a grey area.
Basically a lack of thought/preparation had allowed him to possibly have led someone off into areas of belief that were wrong.
Fuente: Mr. D’s Notes on Selected New Testament Books by Stanley Derickson
2:16 {f} But shun profane [and] vain babblings: {10} for they will increase unto more ungodliness.
(f) Mark and watch, and see that they do not creep on further.
(10) He reveals the subtilty of Satan, who beginning with these principles, draws us by little and little to ungodliness through the means of that wicked and profane babbling, which gradually increases. And this he proves by the horrible example of those that taught that the resurrection was already past.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Timothy should turn away from meaningless discussions that characterize the world, on the other hand (cf. 1Ti 1:3-4; 1Ti 4:7; 1Ti 6:20). These only provide an atmosphere in which ungodliness grows.
"It may be that these people regarded themselves as ’progressives’ and that Paul picks up the verb from their usage, ironically indicating that their progress is in ungodliness." [Note: Knight, p. 413.]
Those who engage in such discussions spread poison that eventually corrupts the body of Christ. Gangrene is decay of tissue in a part of the body when the blood supply is obstructed by injury, disease, or some other cause. Medical writers of Paul’s day used this term (Gr. gangraina, only here in the New Testament) to describe a sore that eats into the flesh. [Note: Earle, p. 402.]