Bill Mounce

For an Informed Love of God

You are here

Monday, March 23, 2020

Does God “Knew”or “Knows” his own? (2 Tim 2:19 and Covid-19)

The relationship between time and aspect can sometimes be a tad elusive. Is Paul talking about God’s prior knowledge (“knew”) or his ongoing knowledge (”knows”) of the true believer? ἔγνω is an aorist, and how does an aorist relate to Covid-19?

The context of the verse is Paul’s encouragement to Timothy that despite the success of Hymenaeus, Philetus, and the other opponents in leading some of the Ephesians astray (v 18), Timothy and Paul can be encouraged because the foundation of the elect will not be moved.

The foundational work of God in the lives of his children is secure, as seen by the metaphorical seal that makes two affirmations (v 19):

  • “The Lord knew (ἔγνω) those who were his.”
  • “Let everyone naming the name of the Lord depart from unrighteousness.”

”The second statement on the seal is one of the most strongly worded demands in Scripture, that obedience to the ethical demands of the gospel are mandatory, not optional” (see my commentary). But I want to focus on the aorist ἔγνω in the first affirmation.

Here is my discussion in my commentary. ” ‘The Lord knew those who were his’ (ἔγνω κύριος τοὺς ὄντας αὐτοῦ) is a citation from Num 16:5 LXX. When Korah, Dothan, and the 250 leaders rebelled against Moses' leadership, he replied, ‘God has visited and known those who were his [ἔγνω ὁ θεὸς τοὺς ὄντας αὐτοῦ] and who were holy, and he brought [them] to himself, and whom he chose for himself he brought to himself.’ Paul has already introduced the topic of election in 1:9 and 2:10, and Arndt makes a good case that this is the meaning of ἔγνω, “knew,” here (CTM 21 [1950] 299-302), citing R. Bultmann (TDNT 1:689-719; cf. 1 Cor 8:3; 13:12; and Gal 4:9). It is God's prior knowledge in election that assures Timothy that despite the success of the opponents the elect are safe.”

It is somewhat surprising to me that no English translation takes this approach or even supplies a footnote. Grammatically and contextually, translating the aorist as a past time is the most natural decision. However, they all translate the aorist ἔγνω as a present: “The Lord knows those who are his” (NIV). It is not wise to dismiss a universal translation, and to be sure a present, all-encompassing knowledge of those who truly belong to God fits the context of Numbers 16:5 and our verse. And yet, the statement in Numbers that “whom he chose for himself he brought to himself” sounds to me like the writer is thinking of God’s prior choice of certian people.

I say in the commentary, “To read ἔγνω as a present tense is to treat it as a gnomic aorist, a rare use of the aorist that in fact some say does not occur in the NT (cf. Wallace, Greek Grammar, 562). It also seems doubtful that a single event (election) could be represented as gnomic.” It is also possible that the aorist could be viewed as a constative, viewing an action as a whole without regard to process. This would make the verse parallel to verses such as John 10:29: “My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand.”

Because the doctrine of election is in the context of Numbers 16 and 2 Tim 2, I still think this is the best interpretation,.

In these days of fear and uncertainty due to Covid-19, we need to hear these words again. No matter what happens, God knows who are his children and will ensure that his foundational work of justification stands firm. In the meantime, his children need to depart from unrighteousness. The question each of us needs to ask of themself is, “Where is the dividing point between taking common sense precautions and living in fear?” We are not to be like the rest of the people who live in fear (Rom 8:15).

Comments

¶ You neglected to elaborate on the point that οντας in that same phrase is a present tense participle (not an aorist participle). That gives us "[the] Lord knows the [ones] being of-same [i.e. his]. I can understand how you can, for the sake of English style, change a participle into a verb, but how can you justify changing a present tense participle into a past tense verb, when you say, “The Lord knew (ἔγνω) those who were his.”? ¶ The use of κυριος also normally refers to Jesus, the Son, not the Father, or "God." Although we understand that the Son is God, references to the Lord Jesus in the New Testament are normally indicative of a dynamic, interactive relationship that we have with the person of God who was made flesh and who operates in a temporal fashion. ¶ Given these things, it makes no sense to translate, "The Lord knew those who were his." ¶ Once again, I cannot help but comment on the aorist problem. Since you likely consider me academically unqualified, due to lack of academic credentials, I will again cite the best academic article I have seen dealing with the issue, written by Charles R. Smith, who did the finest job I've seen of decomposing and debunking the collection of status quo aorist conglomerations in the article, ERRANT AORIST INTERPRETERS (Grace Theological Journal 2.2, Fall 1981). Someone uploaded that here: ¶ https://www.academia.edu/24380918/ERRANT_AORIST_INTERPRETERS ¶ So, what I am saying is not without credentialed academic precedent. But then, Jesus and the apostles had no academic credentials. Perhaps the apostle Paul was the exception. ¶ A.T. Robertson certainly recognized and characterized the problem as such for what it was (even though he then proceeded to describe and elaborate upon all the usual complicating "aorist categories" anyway). A.E. Knoch wrote of it in his pamphlet, "The English and Greek Indefinite," and I credit this for tipping me off to the problem so many years ago. Frank Stagg wrote of it in JBL 1972 (p. 222-31), "The Abused Aorist": ¶ https://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/jbl/1972_stagg.pdf ¶ And I've seen many others recognize and address the problem. ¶ I addressed predestination from a translation standpoint in an article, including the paradoxical use of προωριζω, in an online article I wrote a few years back. I quoted the very scant references that I found using Perseus, references that employed that word, a word I cannot even find an entry for in the LSJ or Brill, and I also deconstructed all the classic Calvinist proof-texts: ¶ http://www.wiebefamily.org/predestination.htm ¶ Maybe I need to add 2 Tim 2:9 to the list, although I haven't heard of that used as a Calvinist proof text, and I recognize that your intent was to comment on translation issues, not promote Calvinism or predestination. I recognize that you are not a staunch Calvinist; you just show threads of bias toward it. ¶ Here's my favorite verse to ask of any student of Greek whom I might happen to meet, who starts in on the aorist thing that they learned from their seminary professors: Col 1:23. Was the apostle Paul implying that the gospel had already been preached, at his time of writing, everywhere, including Japan, Australia, Alaska, South America, Hawaii? That's an aorist participle. As the rule you stated in a prior blog ["How much should we ask of our students? (Mark 12:28)" 11/26/2018], reapplied to this, would then have it, "Relative time means the aorist participle, κηρυχθεντος, indicates action occurring prior to the aorist ηκουσατε." So, when "was" the gospel preached the world over? The plain fact of the matter is that, because it is an aorist participle, it is not specifying time or completion but just the fact of the preaching of the gospel. The aorist participial phrase functions adjectivally, describing the gospel that they (without specifying time or completion) "hear." Therefore, it is the "preach-in-all-the-creation-the-under-the-heaven" gospel. Problem solved. Maybe untranslatable into formal English, but problem solved and easy to understand. And that's why we learn Greek. Not to translate into English yet again, but to understand what was said, so that we know the word of God. ¶ And there we have the resolution to a common Bible skeptic's question: Col 1:23 never stated that the gospel was preached everywhere the world over in the first century A.D. It never said that to begin with. Translations just made it look as though it did. ¶ For historical narratives, the original writers in this language described events in the past as though they were there observing them then in that past time. That's just frame of reference. We American English speakers actually sometimes do that informally, colloquially, in verbal speech ("So, I go down the street and meet this guy, and he looks at me funny and talks about this thing and that, so I tell him about Jesus..."), but not in formal English writing ("So, I went down the street, met this guy, and he looked at me in a funny way and talked about this thing and that, so I told him about Jesus..."). ¶ We use [implied aorist indicative] the sense of an implied aorist very commonly in American English. If I tell [implied aorist indicative] you right now, "I play [implied aorist indicative] the piano," that is the English simple present tense, yet you wouldn't assume [implied aorist subjunctive] that I am doing that right now, especially since, by necessity, my fingers are typing right now on a computer keyboard. Rather, it is the case that I claim [implied aorist indicative] to be [implied aorist infinitive] a piano player, without reference to time or completion of any of my piano-playing activity. As you see [implied aorist indicative] from the above, we use [implied aorist indicative] the English simple present tense to commonly express [implied aorist indicative] the same sense as the Greek aorist, yet few people give [implied aorist indicative] it a second thought. ¶ So, after all that, you can see that I would consider all the many existing translations correct in 2 Tim 2:9 (also LXX Num 16:5): "The Lord knows who are his." ¶ Being an engineer by profession, we engineers are used to keeping in mind the K.I.S.S. principle (Keep It Simple, Stupid). It's just aorist. Not " aorist," for the ancient Greek writers had no such categorizations in mind. Aorist does not specify time or aspect. ¶ And I cannot see what justification there is for even mentioning "Covid-19" in the context, since any Christian, no matter how Calvinist or Arminian they are, should not be worried about that passing fright of the world. ¶ By the way, you misspelled "unrighteousness" in the last paragraph.