Source: http://www.pastoralepistles.com/2009/03/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 00:48:31+00:00

Document:
resulting in the ruin of those who hear.
ὀρθοτομοῦντα τὸν λόγον τῆς ἀληθείας.
guiding the word of truth along a straight path.
17 καὶ ὁ λόγος αὐτῶν ὡς γάγγραινα νομὴν ἕξει.
17 and their word will spread like gangrene.
καὶ ἀνατρέπουσιν τήν τινων πίστιν.
and they upset the faith of some.
πᾶς ὁ ὀνομάζων τὸ ὄνομα κυρίου.
εἰς πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθὸν ἡτοιμασμένον.
having been prepared for every good work.
2Ti 2.14-26 is the larger section (cf. Van Neste, Marshall ICC); it will be examined in two smaller chunks: 2Ti 2.14-21 and 2Ti 2.22-26 (which the UBS4 text has as separate paragraphs).
Ταῦτα ὑπομίμνῃσκε] the section starts with another imperative, “Remind” or “Tell”; and a demonstrative pronoun. According to Runge, the pronoun is a “near demonstrative”. Here it is anaphoric, pointing back to the items which Paul has just discussed in previous verses (2Ti 2.1-13).
διαμαρτυρόμενος ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ] participial clause. The idiom “charging [you] before God” occurs elsewhere in the Pastorals, cf. 1Ti 5.21; 2Ti 4.1. A similar idiom with different verb (παραγγέλλω) is used in 1Ti 6.13. Here God is invoked as a witness of the charge that Paul is giving Timothy. While not strictly adhering to the syntactic criteria of the so-called “Charge Form” (cf. also Craig A. Smith, $amz(1905048297 Timothy’s Task, Paul’s Prospect: A New Reading of 2 Timothy)), it uses similar language complete with an appeal to authority. Timothy is to remind his hearers; one way to do that is to charge them before God of what it is they need to hear.
μὴ λογομαχεῖν] a negated infinitive, “not to fight about words”. As I read this currently, this is an exhortation from Paul to Timothy to not let folks disagree with them. The problem is false teaching, something that disagrees and is incompatible with Paul’s gospel. As Timothy presents this (charges them before God) he is to not let them fight about words; that is, he is to not let them disagree.
ἐπʼ οὐδὲν] The first of two subsequent prepositional phrases, both with ἐπὶ. Here it is ἐπὶ + accusative; “for nothing”; it appears to modify the word that follows, χρήσιμον. This analysis follows Marshall, ICC and differs with OpenText.org and Mounce WBC (and Lock, ICC) , which sees χρήσιμον as the object of the prepositional phrase. There isn’t much functional difference, but there is some difference in translation. This is the reason why one shouldn’t fight about words, it is useful for nothing. The next prepositional phrase gives the result.
χρήσιμον] a predicate adjective, “useful”.
ἐπὶ καταστροφῇ τῶν ἀκουόντων] The second prepositional phrase, here ἐπὶ + dative. This prepositional phrase communicates the result of the fight about words; it will result in the ruin of those hearing.
σπούδασον] aorist active imperative, “Take pains” or “make every effort” (BDAG); ESV “Do your best”. The action is completed with the following infinitive clause that functions as a complement. Paul uses σπουδαζω + infinitive three times outside of the Pastorals (Ga 2.10; Eph 4.3; 1Th 2.17); the same structure occurs 3x in Second Timothy: 2Ti 2.15; 4.9, 21. The structure also occurs in Heb 4.11; 2Pe 1.10, 15; 3.14.
σεαυτὸν δόκιμον παραστῆσαι τῷ θεῷ] Infinitive clause. Note that δόκιμον is in an appositive relation (also known as an “epexegetical” relation) with the following clause, “an unashamed worker”.
ἐργάτην ἀνεπαίσχυντον] appositional clause. Runge calls it a “Right Dislocation”, describing an appositional functionality. Here “approved” is further explained/enhanced by “an unashamed worker”. Both phrases describe a similar aspect of the same person.
ὀρθοτομοῦντα τὸν λόγον τῆς ἀληθείας] participial clause, further modifying the adjective ἀνεπαίσχυντον. The interesting word here is the participle ὀρθοτομοῦντα, which only occurs here in the NT. While the traditional translation, which apparently hearkens back to Tyndale, is “rightly divide”, the basic idea of the word is “to cut a straight path” (BDAG). This is supported by LXX usage (Pr 3.6; 11.5). Spicq’s article in TLNT is worth consulting on ὀρθοτομέω, it tracks classical references to show how making a straight path “takes on a metaphorical sense” (Spicq, 2:595). See also the seven-part article on the Better Bibles Blog on this word. Many commentaries seem to focus on this word in isolation instead of noting its larger context; first in the immediately-following contrast with “frivolous, empty talk” and second with v. 17’s “their word will spread like gangrene”. Here, the word of truth is guided along a straight path, in v. 17 “their word” spreads like gangrene. That’s quite a contrast.
τὰς δὲ βεβήλους κενοφωνίας περιΐστασο] The δὲ is developmental; it shows a loose coupling between the previous section and this section, but implies a moving on from the previous section. The verb περιΐστασο is a middle imperative, but it is at the end of the clause—the position of the verb in the clause brings prominence to it. Also, as noted above, the contrast between this and the word of truth guided along a straight path.
ἐπὶ πλεῖον γὰρ προκόψουσιν ἀσεβείας] γὰρ indicates that the clause offers support as to why the babbling chatter is to be ignored: because it leads to greater (even more) ungodliness. Here the prepositional phrase is emphasized (prominent) as it is fronted in the clause.
καὶ ὁ λόγος αὐτῶν] “their word” is that of the opponents. Note the last mention of λόγος was above in v. 15, with v. 16 also operating in the domain of communication (“frivolous, empty talk”, also in reference to the opponents.
ὡς γάγγραινα νομὴν ἕξει] “will spread like gangrene”. BDAG uses “cancer” in its gloss (BDAG, νομή 2). Contrast this with the order of the spread of the word of truth in v. 15, “guiding the word of truth along a straight path”.
ὧν ἐστιν Ὑμέναιος καὶ Φίλητος] Here Paul singles out two of the opponents, bringing new participants into the discourse. The relative pronoun refers to the whole group.
οἵτινες περὶ τὴν ἀλήθειαν ἠστόχησαν] The relative pronoun has Hymenaeus and Philetus as its referent. The prepositional phrase περὶ τὴν ἀλήθειαν “concerning the truth” brings the subject matter into focus so the rest of clause has the information it needs to make sense. First, Paul had to activate Hymenaeus and Philetus; next he has to bring the topic of discussion into focus: regarding the truth (recall the subject matter of this letter and First Timothy before it: right doctrine), these men have strayed from it.
λέγοντες [τὴν] ἀνάστασιν ἤδη γεγονέναι] participle clause. This details how “straying from the truth” has taken place: the opponents say that the resurrection has already taken place.
καὶ ἀνατρέπουσιν τήν τινων πίστιν] In addition to “straying from the truth”, the opponents, personified in Hymenaeus and Philetus, have “upset the faith of some”. The καὶ logically connects ἠστόχησαν (aorist active indicative 3d plural) and ἀνατρέπουσιν (present active indicative 3d plural); they “went astray” and now they “upset”.
ὁ μέντοι στερεὸς θεμέλιος τοῦ θεοῦ ἕστηκεν] BDAG labels μέντοι as “mostly adversative”; Runge sees this as a point, the previous phrase being the counterpoint. I think it’s probably larger; that is, μέντοι is a hinge between the previous complex and this one: While the opponents continue schlepping ungodliness [μέντοι] the solid foundation of God stands.
ἔχων τὴν σφραγῖδα ταύτην] participle clause, providing support for the assertion that the solid foundation of God stands. It not only stands, it is inscribed with what follows. Note ταύτην, which points forward to what is inscribed on the foundation.
ἔγνω κύριος τοὺς ὄντας αὐτοῦ] treated as a quotative frame. This is a statement, “The Lord knows those who are his”.
καί] connective, joining the two quotative frames.
ἀποστήτω ἀπὸ ἀδικίας] first portion of the quotative frame. The prepositional phrase ἀπὸ ἀδικίας functions adverbially to provide circumstance to the verb; “depart from wickedness”.
πᾶς ὁ ὀνομάζων τὸ ὄνομα κυρίου] The participial clause functions as the subject of the whole clause. “The ones naming” is the substantival participle (in the nominative) while “the name of the Lord”, in the accusative, is the object of the participial clause; the whole thing functioning as a unit “all who are naming the name of the Lord”. These are the ones who are to “depart from wickedness”.
Ἐν μεγάλῃ δὲ οἰκίᾳ] Fronted prepositional phrase, here functioning as a “spatial frame” (Runge). In order for the balance of the clause to make sense, the changed scene needs to be made known. Here the switch is to a metaphor, or a wisdom statement.
ἀλλὰ καὶ ξύλινα καὶ ὀστράκινα] … there are also wood and clay pots. This is the second portion of the counterpoint/point set. Here Paul has effectively outlined two different sets of things (gold and silver; wood and clay) that occur in a larger context (the house).
ἃ δὲ εἰς ἀτιμίαν] … and some for dishonor. This is the second portion, again. The relationships are well specified. Paul’s larger point is that in the set of things, some things are formed for honorable duty, others for dishonorable duty.
ἐὰν οὖν τις ἐκκαθάρῃ ἑαυτὸν ἀπὸ τούτων] Fronted subordinate clause (“Conditional-Exceptive Frame”, according to Runge), with prepositional phrase modifying the verb. We’re moving from the metaphor/wisdom statement into the real situation the metaphor is intended to describe. So here “from these” likely refers to what needs to be cleansed from dishonor (it makes no sense to cleanse the honorable ones, they’re already clean) in order to become honorable. The distinction between pots (gold/silver; wood/clay) has transformed to a distinction between honorable and dishonorable. Unlike pots in a house, those who are dishonorable can be cleansed and become honorable.
ἔσται σκεῦος] If cleansed, “he will be a pot”; this has four components (each in the accusative case; the whole thing a series of word groups functioning as the complement of the clause [OpenText.org]) that follow it up and describe the “cleansed pot” (thus, the one who has repented from the false doctrine [dishonor] and been cleansed and now is read to live the true doctrine [honor]).
εἰς τιμήν] a prepositional phrase, “for honor”. Once cleansed, the pot is no longer used for dishonorable purposes.
ἡγιασμένον] passive participle, “having been made holy”. This describes that the pot is now cleansed, and that the pot didn’t do it to itself.
εὔχρηστον τῷ δεσπότῃ] noun phrase, in the accusative, with a dative noun phrase qualifying the usefulness. “useful to the master”. The now-clean vessel is once again useful to the master of the house.
εἰς πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθὸν ἡτοιμασμένον] participle clause, with fronted prepositional phrase. According to Runge, this provides emphasis to the object of the prepositional phrase.
Note: The second portion of this chunk, 2Ti 2.22-26, will be discussed in a subsequent post.
First, on the Koinonia blog (Zondervan), Bill Mounce wrote on 1Ti 3.2 noting that there were four possibilities on how to translate μιας γυναικας ανδρα (the “one-woman man” or “husband of one wife”). Read the post, I won’t duplicate his four options here.
Today, Matthew Burgess on the Confessions of a Bible Junkie blog followed up with some nice tidbits on Mounce’s option 2, which sees the phrase as focused against polygamy. Check it out as well.
Congratulations, you’ve installed dasBlog with Web Deploy!
ὧν ἐστιν Φύγελος καὶ Ἑρμογένης.
among whom are Phygelus and Hermogenes.
because many times he refreshed me.
17 but having arrived in Rome he diligently sought and found me.
Οἶδας τοῦτο] Runge (Discourse Grammar) labels this a “meta-comment”; from an epistolary form-critical perspective it may also be seen as an instance of the “disclosure formula” (e.g. Marshall). The idea of both approaches is to recognize that this is an instance where the author steps back from his default voice and exhorts the reader/hearer to pay attention to what follows because it is important. In this case, τοῦτο looks ahead to the content of the subordinate clause that immediately follows. Note also that Οἶδας is in the second person singular (that is, the referent would be the addressee, Timothy). Many think that this letter was written to a larger group, but grammatical cues such as this may argue against that notion.
ὅτι ἀπεστράφησάν με] subordinate clause, this is the content referenced by “know this”.
πάντες οἱ ἐν τῇ Ἀσίᾳ] Here Paul more fully describes who was turning away from him. This is likely not a reference to everyone, everywhere in Asia, who was a Christian. It is more likely a reference to subordinates of Paul in Asia. This scope is clarified by the next comment, a relative clause that sharpens the scope of “all those in Asia”.
ὧν ἐστιν Φύγελος καὶ Ἑρμογένης] Here Paul references two specific people, Phygelus and Hermogenes, among the group of “all those who are in Asia”. Because Paul goes to this level of detail here, it is likely that the previous reference is also a smaller group of people, not the mass of Asian Christendom.
δῴη ἔλεος ὁ κύριος] Here δῴη is the aorist optative of διδωμι. Occurrence of the optative is relatively rare in the NT, notable is use of the same verb (with same parsing) in verse 18 below.
ὅτι πολλάκις με ἀνέψυξεν] A subordinate clause, here providing the reason for Paul’s wish that the Lord bestow mercy on the household of Onesiphorus: “because many times he refreshed me”.
καὶ] In the above translation, what is one sentence in the Greek I have split into two English sentences. As I read the verse at present, this καὶ marks the beginning of a new clause, where two parts are joined by αλλα and a comparison is made. In the English, this makes more sense as a separate sentence. This instance of καὶ is necessary in that it marks development of the previous clause, but it need not be “Englished” literally (“and”) as inserting a sentence break in the translation recognizes its function.
καὶ τὴν ἅλυσίν μου οὐκ ἐπαισχύνθη] As noted above, this clause (“He was not afraid of my chains”) is involved in a contrast with the clause that follows it. This portion is the “Counterpoint” (cf. Runge, Discourse Grammar), providing a platform for contrast with what follows.
ἀλλὰ γενόμενος ἐν Ῥώμῃ σπουδαίως ἐζήτησέν με καὶ εὗρεν] This is the “Point” of the contrasted pair, the item Paul desires to make prominent. Onesiphorus “sought and found” Paul instead of shying away because Paul was in prison.
γενόμενος ἐν Ῥώμῃ] Runge (Discourse Grammar) calls this a “nominative circumstantial frame”. This is when a participle is fronted before the primary verb of the clause, providing background to the current situation. Here the background is “having arrived in Rome”, which provides more background to the main action of the clause, “[Onesiphorus] sought and found me”.
δῴη αὐτῷ ὁ κύριος εὑρεῖν ἔλεος] Note the similarity with the first portion of v. 16 above. The verb is the same, the subject is the same (“May the Lord grant”). The one receiving is the same as well, in v. 16 it is “the house of Onesiphorus”, in v. 18 it is “him” (e.g., Onesiphorus). In v. 16 “mercy” is directly wished; in v. 18 it is wished for Onesiphorus to be able “to find mercy”. The wishes, however, are slightly different in that v. 18 has a more directly eschatological vibe to it. On this (optative, syntactic and lexical similarity) see Van Neste, Cohesion and Structure, 159.
παρὰ κυρίου] prepositional phrase, “from the Lord”, and according to the OpenText.org analysis is modifying (providing circumstance) to the infinitive εὑρεῖν (“to find”).
ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ] prepositional phrase, “in that day”. This as well modifies the infinitive εὑρεῖν, “to find”. Paul wishes that Onesiphorus, on that final day, will find mercy from the Lord. This prepositional phrase is doubly interesting with the use of the far demonstrative ἐκεῖνος, “that”, which creates some metaphoric distance between the present time (of the composition) and the time of “that day” (cf. Runge, Discourse Grammar). Secondly, the use of the article with ἡμέρᾳ could be seen and further stressing the nature of “that particular day”.
καὶ ὅσα ἐν Ἐφέσῳ διηκόνησεν] “and of all the service he rendered in Ephesus”. The correlative pronoun indicates a comparison of sorts; Paul is reminding the reader(s) that Onesiphorus served well, and that the reader(s) know about it.
ἐν Ἐφέσῳ] A spatial frame (Runge, Discourse Grammar), the larger structure isn’t about Onesiphorus’ service in general, it is specifically about the service he rendered in Ephesus. Also, ΕΝ ΕΦΕΣΩ is a great blog you should really have in your blog reader.
βέλτιον σὺ γινώσκεις] Note the verb here (γινώσκεις, “you know”) is also second person singular, modified by the adverb βέλτιον (only here in the NT). The pronoun σὺ is also second person. As the second person reference is grammaticalized in the verb itself, the existence of the pronoun could be seen to be emphatic, making the second person reference all the more prominent. The referent here is Timothy. Also worthy of note is how this set of verses begins with “you know this” (v. 15) and ends with “you are well aware”. A semantic chain (on semantic chains, cf. Van Neste, Cohesion and Structure) of knowing/being aware may be indicated, with vocabulary of cognition beginning and ending the section.
All in all, Onesiphorus’ example has been held up as worthy to Timothy; this in juxtaposition with the information that several in Asia have left Paul. The offshoot is to be like Onesiphorus, do not be like Phygelus and Hermogenes and those who are with them.
Ὑποτύπωσιν] See 1Ti 1.16. The above translation takes Ὑποτύπωσιν as the object, which (cf. Marshall 712) seems best. In both v. 13 and v. 14 the object is fronted in the clause, creating a topical frame (cf. Runge, Discourse Grammar). This introduces new information, new participants, or a new concept to the discourse in such a way as to draw attention to it.
ἔχε] imperative. Note also that the predicator in the following verse is an imperative. Also note the basic pattern of both verses: Object-Verb-Adjunct.
ὑγιαινόντων λόγων] “sound words” or “healthy words”, this is a concept unique to the Pastoral Epistles.
ἐν πίστει καὶ ἀγάπῃ] prepositional phrase. This functions adverbially, providing circumstance to ἔχε (“hold to”). It further describes in what way Timothy is to hold to the standard of sound words.
τῇ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ·] Here the article τῇ functions like a pronoun, the structure is like a relative clause. It tells us where the faith and love of the previous prepositional phrase come from.
τὴν καλὴν παραθήκην] fronted object, creating a topical frame (see comment on v. 13 above).
τὴν καλὴν παραθήκην φύλαξον] “guard the good deposit”. Note that “deposit” was used earlier in 2Ti 1.12 with the same verb, “guard”: “he is quite capable to guard my deposit”. Similar language is also in 1Ti 6.20, also see $af(Did 4.13) and $af(EpBarn 19.11). The “deposit” in 1&2 Timothy is Paul’s teaching, the true teaching (sound words, healthy doctrine) which is the antidote to the false teaching that Timothy finds himself combating in Ephesus.
διὰ πνεύματος ἁγίου] prepositional phrase, functioning adverbially. This provides further circumstance to the verb, “guard”. The Holy Spirit, in some unspecified manner, helps with the guarding of the deposit.
τοῦ ἐνοικοῦντος ἐν ἡμῖν] participle clause functioning as relative clause, note the embedded prepositional phrase. This gives further information about the Holy Spirit. The “Holy Spirit who dwells in us” is who assists with the guarding of the deposit.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.