Paul an apostle of Christ Jesus through the will of God according to the promise of life in Christ Jesus.
διὰ is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG offers two primary senses, but each sense may occur in different contexts and nuances. The first sense is ‘what is willed’. The second sense is that of ‘will’, or desiring.
LSJ: The entry in LSJ is short, it simply is glossed ‘will’.
BDAG's second sense is the sense intended here. The context is that of the will of God. Note the agreement in case, number, and gender between these two words.
κατʼ is not discussed.
τῆς is not discussed.
ἐν is not discussed.
To my beloved son Timothy: Grace, mercy, peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.
ἀπὸ is not discussed.
καὶ is not discussed.
τοῦ is not discussed.
ἡμῶν is not discussed.
I thank God, whom I serve (as did my forbears) in pure conscience, as I have unceasingly remembered you in my petitions night and day,
τῷ is not discussed.
ᾧ is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG only lists one sense for this word, glossed as ‘serve’. This can take many different nuances based on the context, however. BDAG also notes, " ... in our literature, only of the carrying out of religious duties, especially of a cultic nature, by human beings." Thus it may be translated as ‘serve’, ‘worship’, or similar.
LSJ: LSJ provides us with glimpses of the non-religious context of λατρεύω (latreuō). Consider the primary gloss of "‘work for hire’ or ‘pay’" as well as ‘be in servitude’.
In this context, λατρεύω (latreuō) is a simple present. Paul speaks of whom he serves. In the context of the epistolary greeting, where Paul has just reminded us of his calling, it makes sense to translate this as I serve.
ἀπὸ is not discussed.
ἐν is not discussed.
ὡς is not discussed.
BDAG: This word occurs twice in the NT, here and in Rom 9.2. BDAG glosses as ‘unceasing’, ‘constant’.
LSJ: LSJ concurs, adding a note of a citation in 1Ma 12.11. Glosses are ‘unremitting’, ‘incessant’.
I've translated as unceasingly.
τὴν is not discussed.
περὶ is not discussed.
σοῦ is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG provides two senses. The first, ‘remembrance’, ‘memory’. The second is that of ‘mention’. Louw-Nida glosses this second sense as ‘rememberance and mention’.
LSJ: LSJ concurs.
I've taken some liberties with the phrase "I have unceasingly remembered you". Literally, I suppose this would be something like, "I have had unceasing remembrances (mentions?) concerning you." That is, μνεία (mneia) here is a noun, not a verb, though I've translated it into English as a verb, remembered.
ἐν is not discussed.
ταῖς is not discussed.
μου is not discussed.
καὶ is not discussed.
desiring to see you, remembering your tears, so that I might be filled with joy,
BDAG: BDAG has one primary sense for ἐπιποθέω (epipotheō), ‘long for’, ‘desire’.
LSJ: LSJ glosses as ‘desire besides’ or ‘yearn after’. Plato (Lg.855e) uses it to mean ‘feel the want of’.
As this is a present participle, I've translated as desiring.
σε is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG has three senses, each sense has different nuances based on case or context. The first sense is that of ‘remember’, ‘recollect’, ‘remind oneself’. The second sense is ‘make mention of someone’. The third sense is ‘remember’, ‘think of’, ‘care for’, ‘be concerned about’, ‘keep in mind’.
LSJ: LSJ concurs.
This instance is a perfect participle. I've translated as remembering.
σου is not discussed.
τῶν is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG glosses as ‘tear’, that is, the "fluid that drops from the eye".
LSJ: LSJ agrees, however in classical usage the word is more versatile. Consider LSJ's gloss of ‘that which drops like tears, gum, sap’.
In this context δάκρυον (dakruon) must refer to human tears. Note this is a plural, hence tears.
ἵνα is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG provides two basic senses. The first is that of simple ‘joy’. This is the most popular usage. The second sense is that of what causes ‘joy’.
LSJ: LSJ concurs.
I've translated simply as joy.
BDAG: The primary sense of πληρόω (plēroō) is that of ‘fill’ or ‘fill to fullness’. The word is used in several different contexts, however. BDAG provides six senses. Alternate glosses are ‘complete’ or ‘perfect’.
LSJ: LSJ provides interesting glosses in the realm of eating/food: "‘fill full’ of food, ‘gorge’, ‘satiate’ ... ‘glut’ one's rage". Passively, ‘to be filled full of’, ‘satisfied’.
I've translated as filled. Note that πληρόω (plēroō) is in the passive, and the object is "joy". Thus, filled with joy.
I also remember your sincere faith, which dwelt first in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice, and now I have been convinced that it is also in you.
BDAG: The word ὑπόμνησις (hypomnēsis) occurs three times in the NT: here, and twice in 1 Peter. BDAG splits into two senses. The first is that of ‘reminding’, the second is that of ‘remembrance’.
LSJ: LSJ concurs.
BDAG's second sense is in play here. The Greek would literally be something like "having taken remembrance". That is, remember is not a verb in the Greek, but a noun; the verb follows.
τῆς is not discussed.
ἐν is not discussed.
σοὶ is not discussed.
ἥτις is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG glosses as ‘live, dwell (in)’. It is simply the word for "live, dwell" with the preposition meaning "in" prefixed to it.
LSJ: LSJ concurs.
Paul is speaking of the "sincere faith" that dwells in Timothy, which also dwelt in his mother and grandmother.
πρῶτον is not discussed.
ἐν is not discussed.
τῇ is not discussed.
BDAG: This is an NT hapax. The gloss is ‘grandmother’.
LSJ: LSJ concurs, though it points out that in earlier times, μάμμη (mammē) was a "child's word for ‘mother’".
The translation of grandmother is best.
σου is not discussed.
BDAG: This is an NT hapax, it is also a proper name: ‘Lois’.
LSJ: LSJ has no article.
The transliteration Lois is best as this is a proper name.
καὶ is not discussed.
τῇ is not discussed.
σου is not discussed.
BDAG: This is an NT hapax. It is a proper noun, ‘Eunice’, the name of Timothy's mother.
LSJ: LSJ has no article.
The name Eunice is the best translation here.
BDAG: This word occurs frequently, and BDAG lists many senses and glosses. It is best to consult BDAG directly. The general gloss, however, is ‘persuade’.
LSJ: LSJ is similarly lengthy and should be consulted.
I've translated this as I have been convinced. Paul, though his time spent with Timothy, has been persuaded through Timothy's words and actions that the sincere faith that Paul witnessed in both Timothy's mother and grandmother now also dwells in Timothy.
δὲ is not discussed.
ὅτι is not discussed.
καὶ is not discussed.
ἐν is not discussed.
σοί is not discussed.
For this reason I remind you to rekindle the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands.
διʼ is not discussed.
ἣν is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG discusses αἰτία (aitia) in three senses. First, that of ‘cause’ or ‘reason’. Second, that of ‘case’, ‘circumstance’, or ‘relationship’. Thirdly, as a legal technical term meaning ‘charge’ or ‘ground for complaint’.
LSJ: LSJ concurs.
According to BDAG's first sense, the phrase that begins this verse is a common phrase. Common translations of the phrase include "for this reason" and "therefore". Thus I've gone with reason as the translation of αἰτία (aitia) at this point.
BDAG: BDAG has only one sense, that of ‘remind someone of something’.
LSJ: LSJ concurs.
The translation of I remind, given the first person singular, seems best.
σε is not discussed.
BDAG: This is an NT hapax, though ἀναζωπυρέω (anazōpyreō) does occur in the LXX. BDAG glosses the NT occurrance as ‘rekindle’.
LSJ: LSJ glosses as ‘rekindle’, ‘light up again’. LSJ also notes that ἀναζωπυρέω (anazōpyreō), when "intransitive in Active, ‘recover one's spirits’," and gives a citation of Plutarchus (Pomp.41).
As this is in the infinitive, I've translated to rekindle.
τὸ is not discussed.
τοῦ is not discussed.
ὅ is not discussed.
ἐν is not discussed.
σοὶ is not discussed.
διὰ is not discussed.
τῆς is not discussed.
τῶν is not discussed.
μου is not discussed.
For God did not give us a spirit of cowardice but a spirit of power and love and self-discipline.
οὐ is not discussed.
γὰρ is not discussed.
ἡμῖν is not discussed.
ὁ is not discussed.
BDAG: This is an NT hapax. BDAG glosses as ‘cowardice’, though it may apparently be used as ‘timidity’ in some patristic literature.
LSJ: LSJ concurs.
The translation cowardice seems to be the best option.
ἀλλὰ is not discussed.
BDAG: This word is commonly used; the BDAG defintion is extensive. BDAG notes that δύναμις (dynamis) is "generally 'capability', with emphasis on function." The common gloss is ‘power’, dependent on context, of course.
LSJ: LSJ is similarly extensive.
I've translated as power here.
καὶ is not discussed.
καὶ is not discussed.
BDAG: This is an NT hapax, though BDAG splits into two senses. The first sense is that of ‘advice’, ‘improvement’. The second sense is ‘moderation’, ‘self-discipline’, ‘prudence’.
LSJ: LSJ offers the gloss of ‘self-control’ specifically for this instance.
BDAG's second sense is the one that apparently applies here. The interesting note concerning BDAG's first sense is that the Syriac version apparently understands 2Ti 1.7 in such a manner. That said, self-discipline is what I chose to use here.
And so do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord or of me his prisoner, but suffer together with me for the gospel according to the power of God,
μὴ is not discussed.
οὖν is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG's primary gloss is ‘be ashamed’, though three seperate senses of this are listed further in the actual definition.
LSJ: LSJ concurs.
Most sources concur that be ashamed of is the proper translation here.
τὸ is not discussed.
What I've translated "testimony of our Lord" is literal, but the genitive could perhaps be better rendered by "testimony about our Lord". That is, Paul is exhorting Timothy to not be ashamed at the testimony (or witness) that Christians make concerning the Lord. This isn't speaking of any specific testimony or speaking of Jesus.
τοῦ is not discussed.
ἡμῶν is not discussed.
μηδὲ is not discussed.
ἐμὲ is not discussed.
τὸν is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG's gloss is ‘prisoner’.
LSJ: LSJ provides more light on the background of this word. It notes that, metaphorically, it can mean ‘binding as with a spell’, ‘enchaining’. (Aeschylus, Eu.332). The word has to do with ‘binding’ something, thus other glosses aer ‘bound’, ‘captive’, and even ‘on a leash’.
NT usage seems rather consistent, thus prisoner seems the best translation.
αὐτοῦ is not discussed.
ἀλλὰ is not discussed.
BDAG: This word only occurs in 2 Timothy (twice). BDAG glosses as ‘suffer together with someone’.
LSJ: LSJ glosses as ‘partake in sufferings’.
The basic idea is to share in suffering with someone. Thus, I've translated suffer together with me where 'me' is Paul, the author of the letter.
τῷ is not discussed.
κατὰ is not discussed.
who saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works but according to his own purpose and grace, which had been granted to us in Christ Jesus from times eternal,
τοῦ is not discussed.
ἡμᾶς is not discussed.
καὶ is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG lists two senses. First ‘call’, ‘calling’, ‘invitation’. Second (and less common) is ‘position’, ‘condition’ in the sense of "position that one holds".
LSJ: LSJ records numerous secular senses of κλῆσις (klēsis).
The translation of calling seems to make the most sense.
οὐ is not discussed.
κατὰ is not discussed.
τὰ is not discussed.
ἡμῶν is not discussed.
ἀλλὰ is not discussed.
κατὰ is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG lists two primary senses. First, that of ‘setting forth’, ‘putting out’, or ‘presentation’. The second sense is that of ‘plan’, ‘purpose’, ‘resolve’, ‘will’. This sense has two aspects, that pertaining to humans, and that pertaining to God.
LSJ: LSJ's primary gloss is that of ‘placing in public’. It notes after this, " ... of a corpse, ‘laying’ it ‘out’", citing Plato (Lg.947b) and Demosthenes (43.64). LSJ's second sense seems to line up with BDAG's definition.
I've translated as purpose in accordance with BDAG's second sense.
καὶ is not discussed.
τὴν is not discussed.
ἡμῖν is not discussed.
ἐν is not discussed.
πρὸ is not discussed.
Note that this word and the following word form a unit, according to Louw-Nida, and the LN domain/subdomain applies to the phrase, not to each word individually.
Note that this word and the previous word form a unit, according to Louw-Nida, and the LN domain/subdomain applies to the phrase, not to each word individually.
and now has been revealed through the appearance of our Saviour Christ Jesus, who indeed abolished death and brought to light life and immortality through the gospel
δὲ is not discussed.
νῦν is not discussed.
διὰ is not discussed.
τῆς is not discussed.
τοῦ is not discussed.
ἡμῶν is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG lists four senses of this frequently-occuring NT word. First, ‘use up’, ‘exhaust’, ‘waste’. Second, ‘invalidate’, ‘make powerless’. Third, ‘abolish’, ‘wipe out’, ‘set aside’. Fourth, ‘be discharged’, ‘be released’. Note that senses two and three cover the vast majority of useage.
LSJ: LSJ glosses as ‘leave unemployed’ or ‘leave idle’; ‘cause to be idle’, ‘hinder’ (in one's work). LSJ's second sense lists glosses like ‘make no effect’ and ‘to be abolished’; ‘to be parted’.
The translation here is abolish.
μὲν is not discussed.
τὸν is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG provides three senses. the first is the literal sense, simply, ‘to shine’. The second is the transitive version of the literal sense, ‘give light to’, ‘light (up)’, ‘illuminate’. The third is the figurative sense, ‘enlighten’, ‘give light to’, ‘shed light upon’.
LSJ: LSJ concurs.
I've translated this as brought to light.
δὲ is not discussed.
καὶ is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG has only one sense, that of ‘incorruptibility’ or ‘immortality’.
LSJ: LSJ concurs.
I've translated as immortality. The contrast with death earlier in the verse indicates this is proper.
διὰ is not discussed.
τοῦ is not discussed.
into which I was appointed herald and apostle and teacher,
εἰς is not discussed.
ὃ is not discussed.
ἐγὼ is not discussed.
καὶ is not discussed.
καὶ is not discussed.
for this reason I also suffer these things. But I am not ashamed, for I know whom I have believed and am convinced that he is quite capable to guard my deposit until that day.
διʼ is not discussed.
ἣν is not discussed.
καὶ is not discussed.
ταῦτα is not discussed.
ἀλλʼ is not discussed.
οὐκ is not discussed.
γὰρ is not discussed.
ᾧ is not discussed.
καὶ is not discussed.
ὅτι is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG splits into two senses. First is that of ‘able’, ‘capable’, ‘powerful’. This is split into several sub-senses, which must be examined further. The second sense simply speaks to something being possible as opposed to the able or capable of the first sense.
LSJ: LSJ glosses many senses of δυνατός (dynatos).
I've translated δυνατός (dynatos) as quite capable. The sense of the word in this context (BDAG 1.b.a) seems to indicate more than a simple competence or ability, that the one trusted with a task will carry it out, not that he might carry it out.
τὴν is not discussed.
μου is not discussed.
εἰς is not discussed.
ἐκείνην is not discussed.
τὴν is not discussed.
Hold to the standard of sound words which you have heard from me in faith and love that are in Christ Jesus.
BDAG glosses this instance specifically as standard.
ὧν is not discussed.
παρʼ is not discussed.
ἐμοῦ is not discussed.
ἐν is not discussed.
καὶ is not discussed.
τῇ is not discussed.
ἐν is not discussed.
Guard the good deposit through the Holy Spirit who dwells in us.
τὴν is not discussed.
διὰ is not discussed.
τοῦ is not discussed.
ἐν is not discussed.
ἡμῖν is not discussed.
You are aware of this, that all of those who are in Asia turned away from me, among whom are Phygelus and Hermogenes.
τοῦτο is not discussed.
ὅτι is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG provides five senses. First is ‘turn away’ (literally, in general), second is ‘turn away’ as in turn away or towards an idea. The second sense could also be ‘mislead’. Third, ‘reject’, ‘repudiate’. Fourth, ‘return’, ‘put back’. Fifth is ‘turn back’.
LSJ: The LSJ article is extensive and should be consulted.
Note that Swanson's lemma (and the Louw-Nida form) is in the form of the middle/passive, while other lexicons use a traditional form.
με is not discussed.
οἱ is not discussed.
ἐν is not discussed.
τῇ is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG glosses as ‘Asia’, with further clarification "a Roman provice (Asia proprie dicta) in western Asia Minor, formed in 133-130 BC, from the time of Augustus ruled by proconsuls.
LSJ: LSJ notes that ‘Asia’ was "perhaps originally a name for Lydia and then extended to all the hinterlnad of Ionia and eventually over the continent."
It is best to translate Ἀσία (Asia) simply as Asia.
ὧν is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG glosses ‘Phygelus’. This is an NT hapax.
LSJ: LSJ has no article.
This is a name, thus Phygelus.
καὶ is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG glosses as ‘Hermogenes’. This is an NT hapax.
LSJ: LSJ has no article.
As this is a name, Hermogenes is best.
The Lord grant mercy to the house of Onesiphorus, because many times he refreshed me and he was not afraid of my chains,
ὁ is not discussed.
τῷ is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG glosses ‘Onesiphorus’. This is a name.
LSJ: LSJ has a form of Ὀνησίφορος (Onēsiphoros) that is not a proper name. The word is glossed as ‘bringing advantage’, ‘beneficial’.
The best translation is simply Onesiphorus.
ὅτι is not discussed.
πολλάκις is not discussed.
με is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG provides transitive and intransive senses for this word. Transitively, it means to ‘give a breathing space’, ‘revive’, ‘refresh’. Intransitively, it means to ‘be refreshed’ (or, to experience the relief granted in sense one).
LSJ: LSJ concurs.
I've translated this as he refreshed.
καὶ is not discussed.
τὴν is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG provides two senses, a literal sense and also a general sense. The literal sense is ‘chain’. The general sense is that of ‘imprisonment’; basically, to be in chains.
LSJ: LSJ concurs.
Note that while I use the Louw-Nida domain indicating imprisonment, I've translated the word literally as chains. I suppose that's the KJV English rearing its head. There's something about using the word chain to indicate one's imprisonment that seems to fit the literature.
μου is not discussed.
οὐκ is not discussed.
but having arrived in Rome he diligently sought and found me.
ἀλλὰ is not discussed.
ἐν is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG glosses as ‘Rome’ with the further clarification that this is the capital city of the Roman empire.
LSJ: LSJ notes that some inscriptions actually deified Rome as a goddess.
The translation Rome, as specified in BDAG, is best.
σπουδαίως is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG's definition for ζητέω (zēteō) is extensive, with four primary senses. First is that of ‘seek’, ‘look for’ with the goal of finding the object. Second is ‘investigate’, ‘examine’, ‘consider’, ‘deliberate’. Third is to ‘strive for’, ‘aim (at)’, ‘try to obtain’, ‘desire’, or ‘wish (for)’. Fourth is ‘ask for’, ‘request’, ‘demand’.
LSJ: LSJ concurs.
I've translated as diligently sought.
με is not discussed.
καὶ is not discussed.
BDAG: The word is frequently used and the definition is rather lengthy, thus it will not be summarized here. The primary meaning of εὑρίσκω (heuriskō), however, is ‘find’ or ‘discover’.
LSJ: LSJ is similarly extensive.
I've translated this as found, which makes the most sense. Onesiphorus, upon arriving in Rome, set about locating Paul, and after much diligent searching, he found Paul. Paul offers Onesiphorus as an example to Timothy, and offers his thanks to Onesiphorus through a blessing on his house.
The Lord grant him to find mercy from the Lord on that day. You well know all the service he provided in Ephesus.
αὐτῷ is not discussed.
ὁ is not discussed.
παρὰ is not discussed.
ἐν is not discussed.
ἐκείνῃ is not discussed.
τῇ is not discussed.
καὶ is not discussed.
ἐν is not discussed.
βέλτιον is not discussed.
σὺ is not discussed.
BDAG: The word γινώσκω (ginōskō) is used frequently and has many senses. The primary sense is that of ‘know’.
LSJ: LSJ has a similarly lengthy definition.
This, plus the previous adverb, combine to form what I've translated you know well.
And so you, my child, be empowered in the grace that is in Christ Jesus,
Σὺ is not discussed.
οὖν is not discussed.
μου is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG provides two senses. First, ‘strengthen’. Secondly, ‘become strong’.
LSJ: LSJ glosses as ‘strengthen’, ‘confirm’. It notes a gloss of the passive as ‘endow with vitality’.
Note that Swanson's lemma ἐνδυναμόομαι (endynamoomai) assumes deponency, while other morphologies and lexicons associate this with the traditional lemma and provide multiple senses in definition. This usage of ἐνδυναμόομαι (endynamoomai) aligns with BDAG 2b, which is to become strong. I'be tranlated as become empowered.
ἐν is not discussed.
τῇ is not discussed.
τῇ is not discussed.
ἐν is not discussed.
And what you heard concerning me through many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men, who will be competent to teach others also.
καὶ is not discussed.
ἃ is not discussed.
παρʼ is not discussed.
ἐμοῦ is not discussed.
διὰ is not discussed.
ταῦτα is not discussed.
I've translated παρατίθεμαι (paratithemai) here as entrust. This follows BDAG. Note, however, the gloss within LSJ for this domain/subdomain: give food to. Interestingly, Swanson treats this instance παράθου (parathou) as deponent, thus leading to a domain of 35.47, which makes more sense here. BDAG rolls all of this into one entry, thus section 3.a of the BDAG entry applies. Paul is exhorting Timothy to preach to the Ephesians that which Paul preached. Again, παράθου (parathou) is an aorist imperative (second person), thus we know Paul is giving Timothy a specific direction (as opposed to an present imperative, which indicates a general or repeatable instruction, cf. Chapman's Insert). And we also know that aorists aren't always translated as a simple past. This is a good example of that.
οἵτινες is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG provides four senses. The article should be read in full to understand these fully. First is ‘sufficient’, ‘adequate’, ‘large enough’. Second is ‘fit’, ‘appropriate’, ‘qualified’, ‘able’. The third sense is ‘considerable’ (e.g., a ‘considerably’ sized crowd). Fourthly is ‘many’, or ‘quite a few’.
LSJ: LSJ confirms, in general.
I've translated ἱκανός (hikanos) as competent. Paul is convinced that if Timothy is able to impart the teaching that Paul has provided him with, that these students of Timothy's will be able to competently teach others. I believe this is a conditional sentence (if ... then ... ).
καὶ is not discussed.
Suffer hardship with me as a good soldier of Christ Jesus.
ὡς is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG glosses as ‘soldier’. This word can be used either literally or figuratively.
LSJ: LSJ concurs with the gloss of ‘soldier’, though the LSJ definition lists no citations of a figurative use of στρατιώτης (stratiōtēs).
I've translated as soldier. This instance aligns with BDAG's figurative usage, of which is noted, " ... the major component of allegiance to a commander in the central meaning of 'soldier' as defining aspect."
No soldier on active duty involves himself in civilian pursuits, so that he might please the one who enlisted him.
The context has already introduced the idea of soldiers (cf. previous verse). I've translated this as soldier on active duty in an effort to let the figurative language of the passage carry through in the translation.
BDAG: Again, BDAG lists the traditional lexeme while Swanson/LN list the deponent form and treat it specially. This word occurs twice in the NT, here and in 2Pe 2.20. The primary gloss is ‘be involved in’.
LSJ: LSJ provides many interesting glosses. Perhaps the most relevant is from Asclepiodotus (Tact.6.1), "of troops, ‘to be incorporated with’ hoplites".
I've translated ἐμπλέκομαι (emplekomai) as invovles. The gloss from LSJ is helpful, though the situation here is the reverse. Paul's point is that one who is enlisted under the service of a master/commander does not then involve himself way of life of one outside of his service. This is not a complete lack of interaction, but does show that one's allegiance must be to the one who "enlisted" him.
ταῖς is not discussed.
τοῦ is not discussed.
BDAG: This is an NT hapax. BDAG glosses as ‘activity’, ‘occupation’.
LSJ: LSJ concurs.
I've translated this as civilian pursuits in an effort to extend the military metaphor in this verse. A specific translation of this word/phrase in BDAG indicates the idea of "civilian", which encouraged me in this particular approach.
ἵνα is not discussed.
τῷ is not discussed.
BDAG: This is an NT hapax. BDAG glosses as ‘enlist soldiers’.
LSJ: LSJ concurs.
I've translated as enlist.
BDAG: BDAG has two primary senses. The first is seemingly less common, that of ‘win favor’, ‘please’, ‘flatter’. The second more commonly used sense is that of ‘please’, ‘accomodate’. Note that the treatment in BDAG must be read in full as the broad social context of the use of ἀρέσκω (areskō) is discussed and is quite enlightening.
LSJ: LSJ concurs.
I've translated as he might please. Perhaps the "might" is a bit much, but this is the subjunctive.
Likewise, if anyone competes as an athlete, he is not crowned unless he competes lawfully.
ἐὰν is not discussed.
δὲ is not discussed.
καὶ is not discussed.
BDAG: This word occurs in the NT twice, both instances are in 2Ti 2.5. The general sense is to ‘compete’.
LSJ: LSJ concurs.
I've translated as competes as an athlete. It seemed important to bring the sense of an athletic competition into the context as that is what the use of the word implies. It is also interesting that both of the occurrences of ἀθλέω (athleō) in this verse are in the subjunctive.
τις is not discussed.
οὐ is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG provides two senses. The first sense is that of ‘wreathe’ or ‘crown’ (as a verb, i.e., "to crown"). This sense seems to specifically denote honoring the victor in an athletic competition. The second sense is the same idea, only a bit more general. Thus, ‘honor’, ‘reward’, ‘crown’.
LSJ: LSJ, of course, traces the development of στεφανόω (stephanoō) a bit more thoroughly. But the general sense is the same.
I've translated στεφανοῦται (stephanoutai) as crowned. I could perhaps be a bit more specific and translate as crowned as the victor. That is, only the winner of the competition receives the crown. The above translation could be misread and thus misinterpreted that each who competes receives a crown.
ἐὰν is not discussed.
μὴ is not discussed.
νομίμως is not discussed.
It is necessary for the hard-working farmer to receive the first share of his crops.
τὸν is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG lists two senses. First, that of a ‘farmer’, meaning the actual owner of the farm. The second sense is that of ‘vine-dresser’, ‘tenant farmer’; thus one who does work on a farm on a contract-like basis.
LSJ: LSJ concurs.
In the current illustration, the translation that makes the most sense is that of farmer, according to BDAG's first sense.
πρῶτον is not discussed.
τῶν is not discussed.
BDAG: The BDAG entry is extensive and will not be discussed in full. The general sense is that of ‘fruit’ or ‘crops’.
LSJ: LSJ concurs.
The context, which involves a farmer and his work, requires a translation of crops.
BDAG: BDAG provides two senses. First, that of ‘have a share in’. The second has to do with recieving possession, thus ‘receive’.
LSJ: LSJ concurs.
I've translated this as recieve the first share, though the "first" in the phrase comes from a different word in the verse.
Actively consider what I say, for the Lord will give to you understanding in all of this.
ὃ is not discussed.
γάρ is not discussed.
σοι is not discussed.
ὁ is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG provides two major senses. The first sense is that of ‘intelligence’, ‘acuteness’, ‘shrewdness’. This sense has a few different nuances that must be examined in detail by consulting the article. The second sense is that of ‘insight’ or ‘understanding’.
LSJ: LSJ provides some interesting glosses. The second major sense seems most applicable: ‘faculty of quick comprehension’, ‘mother-wit’, ‘sagacity’.
I've translated this as understanding.
ἐν is not discussed.
Note that I've translated all of this. The "of this" is supplied, though the context really dictates it should be there to limit the scope of the word. The understanding provided isn't comprehensive across the scope of all things in existence, it is in understanding all concerning the information and application of Paul's three examples. See "An Exegetical Summary of 2 Timothy", p. 52.
Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, from the seed of David, according to my gospel,
BDAG: BDAG provides two primary senses. First, ‘remember’, ‘keep in mind’, ‘think of’. This sense is split into thre parts, based on what case of noun the verb occurs with. The second sense is that of ‘retain one's memory’.
LSJ: LSJ concurs.
I've simply translated this as Remember. The call is to keep in mind what it is that Jesus has done. Consider an interesting citation from the Martyrdom of Polycarp, 19.1: "he is especially remembered by everyone". This citation is in the passive voice. Paul, however, uses the active voice (the verb is a present active imperative).
BDAG: BDAG lists thirteen senses for ἐγείρω (egeirō). They will not all be discussed here. The word ἐγείρω (egeirō) carries the sense of ‘to rise’, either to rise in power, or rise from the dead, or rise in opposition.
LSJ: LSJ concurs, for the most part.
In this instance, ἐγείρω (egeirō) carries the meaning of rise or be risen or perhaps even be resurrected. Thus my translation of risen.
ἐκ is not discussed.
BDAG: The BDAG article is extensive and will not be discussed here in full. The primary meaning is ‘dead’.
LSJ: LSJ concurs.
This citation is discussed specifically in νεκρός (nekros) B.1. The sense given there is that of dead person or corpse. So this is not speaking generally of a place from whence Jesus was risen, but rather of his human state of being -- that of being dead, a corpse.
ἐκ is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG provides three primary senses. First, that of a literal ‘seed’ (of plants, or of semen). Second, that of ‘posterity’ or ‘descendants’, that is, the product of the seed. Thirdly is that of ‘nature’, ‘disposition’, ‘character’.
LSJ: LSJ concurs.
Though I've translated this as seed, it is in the sense of BDAG σπέρμα (sperma) 2.
BDAG: This is, of course, the Greek version of the name ‘David’.
LSJ: LSJ has no entry.
So, this whole phrase is "from the seed of David". This idea (seed of David) points back to Jesus' place in the davidic lineage.
κατὰ is not discussed.
τὸ is not discussed.
μου is not discussed.
in whom I suffer misfortune even to chains as a criminal, but the word of God has not been bound with chains.
ἐν is not discussed.
ᾧ is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG provides two primary senses: ‘suffer misfortune’ and ‘bear hardship patiently’.
LSJ: LSJ has a few glosses: ‘to be in ill plight’, ‘be in distress’; as well as "‘suffer in’ body".
I've translated this as suffer misfortune. Paul is speaking of what he has suffered, to the point of being imprisoned (in chains) for Jesus, the one risen from the dead, who is of the seed of David.
μέχρι is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG provides two primary senses. The first sense, however, may be taken either literally or figuratively. Literally, it could be ‘bond’, ‘fetter’, ‘chain’, thus essentially conveying the idea of ‘imprison’. A figurative example would be God releasing the world from the bonds of sin. The second primary gloss is ‘bond’ in the sense of common interest.
LSJ: LSJ concurs.
I've translated as to chains. This seems a little weird. Perhaps imprisonment would be better.
ὡς is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG glosses as ‘criminal’ or ‘evil-doer’. This word occurs four times in the NT -- here, and three times in Luke 23.
LSJ: LSJ has a few interesting glosses: ‘doing ill’, ‘mischievous’, and ‘knavish’.
I've translated as criminal, given the imagery of being imprisoned occuring previous in the phrase.
ἀλλὰ is not discussed.
ὁ is not discussed.
τοῦ is not discussed.
οὐ is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG provides four senses for δέω (deō). First is to ‘bind’ or ‘tie’, as in constrain. The second sense involves ‘tie to’ something. The third sense is that of ‘bind’, only with non-physical ties (e.g., ‘bind’ a wife to her husband). The fourth sense is a bit compound, dealing specifically with the phrase ‘bind’ and loose.
LSJ: LSJ concurs.
I've translated this as bound and the followed up with a supplied "with chains". I'm not sure about that. Paul isn't dwelling on the method of his binding (chains) but rather the fact that he is imprisoned, but the word of God is not and cannot be so bound.
Through all this I endure because of the elect, so that they themselves might obtain deliverance in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.
διὰ is not discussed.
τοῦτο is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG provides three senses. First, that of ‘remain’/‘stay (behind)’. Second, that of ‘stand one's ground’, ‘hold out’, ‘endure’. The third sense is that of simply ‘wait for’.
LSJ: LSJ concurs.
I've translated this as I endure.
διὰ is not discussed.
τοὺς is not discussed.
ἵνα is not discussed.
καὶ is not discussed.
αὐτοὶ is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG provides two senses. First, that of ‘deliverance’ or ‘preservation’. Second, that of ‘salvation’. Note that this word bears more study, and should be examined in TDNT, which provides a great deal of useful information on the development of the term.
LSJ: LSJ concurs.
I've translated as deliverance. This perhaps should instead be salvation.
BDAG: BDAG splits into two primary senses. First, ‘meet’, ‘attain’, ‘gain’, ‘find’, ‘experience’. Second, (intransitively) ‘happen’, ‘turn out’, or, basically, the result of an experience.
LSJ: LSJ is, as typical for major words, extensive.
I've translated this as might obtain as it is in the subjunctive.
τῆς is not discussed.
ἐν is not discussed.
μετὰ is not discussed.
This saying is trustworthy: For if we died together, we will live together;
ὁ is not discussed.
εἰ is not discussed.
γὰρ is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG glosses as ‘die with’.
LSJ: LSJ glosses as ‘die together with’.
I've translated as we died together. This is an aorist active indicative first person plural, hence the "we died". The prefix connotes "with" hence my "together". Also, BDAG contains a short little parenthetical note for this instance stating this is "(dying and living with Christ)"
καὶ is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG glosses this as ‘live with’.
LSJ: LSJ glosses as ‘live with’ or ‘live together’.
I've translated this as we will live together. This instance of συζάω (syzaō) is grammatically similar to the previous verb, only instead of being aorist like the previous verb, this instance is in the future tense. The pattern is thus something like: "if we (aorist), we (future)". Also note that this phrase and the three phrases following through verse 13 are conditional statements. This almost reads like an early creed.
If we endure, we will rule together as kings; If we deny Him, He will also deny us;
εἰ is not discussed.
Note the tense, mood, person, and number of this verb compared with the same features for the next verb in the clause.
καὶ is not discussed.
BDAG: The word συμβασιλεύω (symbasileuō) occurs twice in the NT, here and in 1Co 4.8. BDAG glosses as ‘rule (as king) with someone’. Note further the specific information, "... in imagery of the eschatological situation when Christians are to share kingship with their royal Lord".
LSJ: LSJ glosses as ‘rule’, ‘reign together with’.
The meaning seems fairly certain. The question is, what does it mean to rule together with Christ? Also, note that the suffering/endurance (previous verb) is in the indicative, whereas συμβασιλεύσομεν (symbasileusomen) is in the future. Thus, we endure now, we wait, we are patient, but the time will come when we will not endure under harsh rule, but will reign together.
εἰ is not discussed.
Again, compare the verb in the protasis with the verb in the apodosis. They are identical apart from person and number -- thus, if we deny (there is a sense of possibility in the protasis of this first-class conditional) we are then assured that he will deny.
κἀκεῖνος is not discussed.
ἡμᾶς is not discussed.
If we are unfaithful, he remains faithful, for he is not able to deny Himself.
εἰ is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG provides three senses for this word. First, that of ‘disbelieve’ or ‘refuse to believe’ (intransitively). The second is ‘not believe in someone’ (transitively). Third is ‘be unfaithful’.
LSJ: LSJ glosses this particular instance as ‘to be faithless’.
Interestingly, BDAG notes a citation from Xenophon (An.2.6.19) that uses the word to describe disloyal soldiers. The real question here, in my mind, has to do with the difference between denying in v. 12 and being unfaithful in v. 13, and why one act (denying) results in our being denied, but the other act (being unfaithful) does not result in similar denial. Does denial have to do with rejection of salvation, but unfaithfulness has to do with the saved one in a state of temporary crisis (a la Peter during the crucifixion?)
ἐκεῖνος is not discussed.
γὰρ is not discussed.
ἑαυτὸν is not discussed.
οὐ is not discussed.
Remind them of these things, warning them before God not to fight about words, which is nothing useful and serves to ruin the ones hearing.
Ταῦτα is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG provides two senses. The first sense, however, is twofold: that of ‘remind’ and also that of ‘call to mind’ or ‘bring up’. The second sense is to ‘remember’ or ‘think of’.
LSJ: LSJ concurs.
The sense here is that of remind or call to mind as described in BDAG's first sense.
Compare this with similar phrases in 1Ti 5.21 and 2Ti 4.1.
ἐνώπιον is not discussed.
τοῦ is not discussed.
μὴ is not discussed.
BDAG: This is an NT hapax, though the noun form also occurs in the PE. BDAG glosses as ‘to dispute about words’, ‘split hairs’.
LSJ: LSJ glosses as ‘fight about words’.
There is no hidden meaning or nuance, at least not in the sense of defining the word. The defintion fight about words ("dispute" seems a bit weak to me) seems to be the best way to go.
ἐπʼ is not discussed.
BDAG: This is an NT hapax, though Codex Bezae uses χρήσιμος (chrēsimos) in Mt 20.28. BDAG glosses as ‘useful’, ‘beneficial’, or ‘advantageous’.
LSJ: LSJ offers glosses such as ‘useful’ or ‘serviceable’. A quote from Euripides (Or.910) has the gloss ‘a good and useful citizen’.
Note that χρήσιμον (chrēsimon) is negated, thus the translation nothing useful.
ἐπὶ is not discussed.
BDAG: The word καταστροφή (katastrophē) occurs twice in the NT, both times in the exact same form. The occurrences are here and in 2Pe 2.6. The basic translation is ‘ruin’, though BDAG derives two senses, one dealing with ‘destruction’, the other having to do with a sort of intellectual ‘ruin’.
LSJ: LSJ's definition is much more comprehensive and should be examined in greater detail. Basic glosses are those such as ‘subjugation’, ‘reduction’ as well as ‘ruin’ or ‘undoing’.
I've translated serves to ruin. I'll have to think about that a bit more.
τῶν is not discussed.
Note that I've translated this as the ones hearing. I think perhaps those who hear or something along those lines may be better.
Take pains to render yourself approved of God, an unashamed worker, guiding the word of truth along a straight path.
BDAG: BDAG provides three senses. First, ‘hurry’, ‘hasten’. Second is the sense of ‘expedite’. Third, the concept of ‘be zealous/eager’, ‘take pains’, ‘make every effort’, ‘be conscientious’ -- that is, to be diligent and conscientious in carrying out ones responsibilities.
LSJ: LSJ concurs.
This instance of σπουδάζω (spoudazō) takes the meaning of BDAG's third sense (LSJ II as this instance is transitive). Thus I've translated take pains.
σεαυτὸν is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG provides three senses. First, that of ‘approved (by test)’, ‘tried and true’, ‘genuine’. Second, that of ‘respected’ or ‘esteemed’. Thirdly, the sense of ‘precious’. An interesting citation from the Martyrdom of Polycarp (18.2) is used for this sense, where the word is used to explain that Polycarp's bones were "more precious than gold".
LSJ: LSJ concurs.
I've translated this instance as approved.
BDAG: The definition in BDAG is rather long and deserves to be examined in full. The basic meaning has to do with ‘being present’ or ‘to present’ (an object).
LSJ: LSJ concurs.
I've translated this as render (based on BDAG's gloss for this particular sense) but I'm not happy with it. This should be reviewed.
τῷ is not discussed.
BDAG: This is an NT hapax. BDAG glosses as ‘unashamed’.
LSJ: LSJ glosses as ‘having no cause for shame’.
I've translated unashamed. As this is an adjective that agrees in case, number, and gender with the preceding word, the words go together.
BDAG: This is an NT hapax, though the word occurs twice in LXX Proverbs (3.6, 11.5). BDAG is helpful explaining the meaning of ὀρθοτομέω (orthotomeō) when used in the LXX instances; but the NT meaning isn't necessarily equivalent. Rather than gloss just the word ὀρθοτομέω (orthotomeō), BDAG glosses the phrase, thus providing an idiomatic translation of the phrase, ‘guide the word of truth along a striaght path’.
LSJ: LSJ glosses as ‘cut in a straight line’.
When looking at this the first time, I simply went with BDAG's suggested idiomatic translation for the whole phrase, thus guiding the word of truth along a straight path. However, in hindsight, I'm not sure this is the best. Because the word ὀρθοτομέω (orthotomeō) was used a particular way in the LXX does not mean that it is translated in the same exact manner in the NT. Certainly the basic meaning of the term (that of teaching correctly) is conveyed, but many think ὀρθοτομέω (orthotomeō) devolved to a more generic meaning, and that teach correctly or even rightly administer. The literal translation of cut straight doesn't make much sense, and the idiom seems weird, so thinking about the general meaning of the term seems to make more sense to me.
τὸν is not discussed.
τῆς is not discussed.
But shun frivolous chatter and empty talk. These will lead to further irreverence
τὰς is not discussed.
δὲ is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG has two senses. First, the literal sense of ‘stand around’ or perhaps even ‘encircle’. The second sense is that of ‘avoid’ or ‘shun’, apparently derived from the idea of "going around" in an effort to avoid something.
LSJ: LSJ glosses this sense as ‘go round so as to avoid’ or ‘shun’.
I've translated this instance of περιί̈σταμαι (periistamai) as shun. This is an imperative, so there is force behind it. Timothy isn't supposed to just sort of stay away from frivolous chatter and empty talk, he is supposed to actively avoid it.
ἐπὶ is not discussed.
BDAG: This word is typically translated ‘many’ or ‘much’. The BDAG article is extensive and should be consulted.
LSJ: The LSJ article is huge.
An interesting note on Swanson's morphology. He sees πλεῖον (pleion) as a distict word and treats it thusly. That is, in Swanson's morph, this word occurs 21 times in lemma/lexeme form (Swanson has the adverb under the traditional lemma; it occurs 200 times in his morphology). Suffice it to say, the lemma used by GRAMCORD here occurs many, many more times (416 times, actually). Swanson has broken the word out and tagged it as a substantive/adjective, while GRAMCORD keeps it as an adverb/adjective. Note that I've translated this as further, though perhaps more or much would be better.
γὰρ is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG lists two senses. First, that of ‘be advanced’ or ‘be far gone’, in the sense of progressing toward some sort of final state. The second is more generic, that of simply ‘progress’ or ‘advance’.
LSJ: LSJ's definition is extensive. Interesting is the literal translation first given, "‘cut’ one's way ‘forward’", though LSJ notes that the word only occurs metaphorically.
LSJ's gloss ("cut one's way forward") is very interesting in light of the preceeding NT hapax that meant to "cut straight". Could some sort of word-play be going on here? It's a thought, though I don't know how serious of a thought it is. The general sense of progress is best here, thus my translation of lead to.
BDAG: BDAG glosses as ‘impiety’.
LSJ: LSJ glosses as ‘ungodliness’ or ‘impiety’.
The opposite of ἀσέβεια (asebeia) is translated as "godliness", thus ἀσέβεια (asebeia) may also be translated ungodliness or godlessness. I've translated irreverence here, though in hindsight this doesn't seem proper.
and their word will spread like gangrene. Of whom are Hymenaeus and Philetus,
καὶ is not discussed.
ὁ is not discussed.
This instance refers to the improper teaching of Hymenaeus and Philetus.
αὐτῶν is not discussed.
ὡς is not discussed.
BDAG: This is an NT hapax. BDAG glosses as ‘gangrene’, ‘cancer’.
LSJ: LSJ concurs.
Though I suppose γάγγραινα (gangraina) could refer to various maladies of the day that were lumped under this classification, it remains best to translate simply as gangrene.
BDAG: BDAG provides two senses. First, the literal sense, that of ‘pasturage’. Secondly is a more metaphorical sense, that of ‘spreading’ in the sense of destruction. BDAG notes this sense is " ... after the spreading out of a flock at pasturage; e.g. fire."
LSJ: LSJ concurs.
I've translated this as spread. The picture described in BDAG's definition is interesting; that of gangrene speading throughout the body (as a result of heresy) likened to, say, a fire spreading throughout a pasture. As the fire is deadly destructive to the animals that graze in the pasture, so the heresy is deadly destructive to the body, much like gangrene. Better to lop off the heresy and save the body than let it spread.
ὧν is not discussed.
καὶ is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG glosses as ‘Philetus’, which it translates literally as "worthy-of-love".
LSJ: LSJ does not treat Φίλητος (Philētos) as a proper noun.
This person is Philetus, one aligned with Hymenaeus, who apparently preached (along with Hymenaeus) that the resurrection had already occurred.
who concerning the truth have strayed, saying the resurrection has already taken place, and they upset the faith of some.
οἵτινες is not discussed.
περὶ is not discussed.
τὴν is not discussed.
τὴν is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG lists three senses. The first is a simple ‘rising up’ as in a change in status, for the better. Second is ‘resurrection’. This sense gets the most attention in BDAG. The third sense is local to Acts 17.18; apparently Chrysostom interpreted ‘Resurrection’ in that verse as a deity within a polytheistic system.
LSJ: LSJ concurs.
The idea of resurrection is central to the NT. Here, heretic teachers were teaching that the resurrection of the body had already taken place. They were teaching a spiritual resurrection, not a bodily resurrection at the end.
ἤδη is not discussed.
καὶ is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG provides two senses. First, to ‘cause to fall’, ‘overturn’, ‘destroy’. Second, to ‘upset’, or ‘ruin’.
LSJ: LSJ concurs.
The basic idea here is that the heretical teaching of Hymenaeus and Philetus has had a negative effect on the faith of those who have heard the heretical teaching. Their faith has been damaged and needs to be restored.
τήν is not discussed.
τινων is not discussed.
However, the solid foundation of God stands, bearing the following inscription: “The Lord knows those who are His,” and “Depart from wickedness all who name the name of the Lord.”
ὁ is not discussed.
μέντοι is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG provides two senses. First, that of ‘firm’, ‘hard’, ‘solid’, or ‘strong’, apparently in opposition of being "soft or viscous". The second is a figurative extension of the first sense, applied to human character; thus ‘steadfast’, ‘firm’.
LSJ: The full range of the word is discussed in LSJ.
I've translated this as solid. This seems appropriate.
BDAG: BDAG provides two similar senses for θεμέλιος (themelios). The first is that of ‘foundation’, as in that of a building; the supporting structure of a construction. The second sense is an extension of this applied to non-physical entities or things, so, the ‘foundation’ of an idea or thing. It is used in Romans to describe the ‘foundation’ of the church.
LSJ: LSJ concurs.
The translation foundation seems proper.
τοῦ is not discussed.
BDAG: The definition in BDAG is extensive. The primary meaning is ‘stand’.
LSJ: LSJ concurs.
Note that this instance of ἵστημι (histēmi) is in the perfect tense.
τὴν is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG provides four primary senses. First, that of ‘signet’. Second, that of ‘seal’ (or, that which bears the imprint of a signet). Third is that of ‘mark’, or the actual impression from a signet. Fourth is that of ‘attestation’, ‘confirmation’, ‘certification’. That is, the document sealed with the mark provided by a signet typically indicated authority, thus the signet/seal/mark as a word came to simply denote the authority/confirmation/etc. that the sealed document brought.
LSJ: LSJ has no entry.
I've translated as inscription, though it could also be translated as seal. Because the context is that of a foundation, it seems that a foundation would be more likely to be inscribed than to have a seal upon it.
ταύτην is not discussed.
Note that this is an aorist, though I have translated it knows.
τοὺς is not discussed.
αὐτοῦ is not discussed.
καί is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG provides two primary senses. The first is that of ‘cause to revolt’ or ‘mislead’. The second sense is split into two sub-senses. First, that of ‘go away’ or ‘withdraw’; second that of ‘keep away’ or ‘abstain’.
LSJ: LSJ is extensive and deserves to be considered.
I've translated this as Depart. This is an aorist active imperative, so something stronger than simply withdraw is being demanded of Timothy.
ἀπὸ is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG provides two senses. The first is that of ‘wrongdoing’, or an act that is in opposition of what is considered to be right. The second is a bit more generic; that of ‘unrighteousness’, ‘wickedness’, or ‘injustice’.
LSJ: LSJ glosses as ‘wrongdoing’, ‘injustice’; Herodotus (6.136) has used ἀδικία (adikia) in the sense of ‘wrongful act’ or ‘offense’.
I've translated this as wickedness though others have translated as unrighteousness. The thrust of the phrase is to contrast evil/wickedness/unrighteousness with that of what is expected of those who claim to be in Christ.
ὁ is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG provides three senses. First, that of ‘call’ or ‘name’ in the sense of "give a name to". Second has to do with ‘name a name’ or ‘use a name’. The third sense is that of ‘be known’, is when the verb occurs in a passive voice.
LSJ: LSJ concurs.
Note that this specific instance is glossed in BDAG, with the parenthetical note that it is "almost='call on'". Is 26.13 and Jer 20.9 are listed as LXX cross references. Also note that the LN domain/subdomain is for when the word occurs in the context of the phrase "name the name of the Lord". I've translated this accordingly, as name (verb).
τὸ is not discussed.
see previous word for explanation of LN domain/subdomain.
Now in a large house there are not only pots of gold and silver but also pots of wood and clay, some for honor and some for dishonor.
Ἐν is not discussed.
δὲ is not discussed.
οὐκ is not discussed.
μόνον is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG provides three senses. The first is that of simply a ‘thing’ or an ‘object’. Second is that of ‘vessel’, ‘jar’, or ‘dish’; essentially a container of any kind. Third is that of ‘instument’ or ‘vessel’ when applied to a human that is doing something specific.
LSJ: LSJ concurs.
I've translated as pots. I suppose vessels may be more technically correct as it can be any sort of container; but for some reason I like pots better -- so I went with it.
BDAG: BDAG glosses as ‘golden’, or as in made of gold or adorned in gold.
LSJ: LSJ's article is extensive.
I've translated simply as gold. To add made of seems to confuse the issue because the pots spoken of aren't made of gold and silver (i.e., mixed) but some are made of gold, and some are made of silver.
καὶ is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG glosses simply as ‘silver’.
LSJ: LSJ concurs.
I've translated as silver.
ἀλλὰ is not discussed.
καὶ is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG glosses as ‘wooden’.
LSJ: LSJ concurs.
The translation wooden or of wood is appropriate.
καὶ is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG glosses as ‘made of earth’ or ‘made of clay’.
LSJ: LSJ concurs.
I've translated as clay, though something like pottery or earthenware would also be appropriate. Note that our word "ostraca", typically used to describe shards of pottery/earthenware found during archaeological digs, comes directly from the root of ὀστράκινος (ostrakinos).
καὶ is not discussed.
ἃ is not discussed.
μὲν is not discussed.
εἰς is not discussed.
ἃ is not discussed.
δὲ is not discussed.
εἰς is not discussed.
BDAG: LSJ glosses as ‘dishonor’. Note the alpha prefix that implies the opposite of honor, hence ‘dishonor’.
LSJ: LSJ glosses as ‘dishonour’, ‘disgrace’, ‘indignities’.
The interesting thing is to note the phrases "some for honor" and "some for dishonor". Note that honor and dishonor match in case, number, and gender; and the use of the men/de construction.
If then anyone might cleanse himself from these, he will be a pot for honor, having been made holy, useful to the master, having been prepared for every good work.
ἐὰν is not discussed.
οὖν is not discussed.
τις is not discussed.
BDAG: This word occurs only twice in the NT; here and in 1Co 5.7. BDAG provides two senses. First, that of ‘clean out’ (1Co 5.7). Second, that of simply ‘cleanse’ (this instance).
LSJ: LSJ states that the case of the object and the context reveals the meaning. That is, when the object of ἐκκαθαίρω (ekkathairō) may be either something that is cleansed (BDAG sense 2) or something that is removed (BDAG sense 1). Both are in the accusative.
I've translated cleanse. This makes sense for the context, which speaks of a person cleansing himself.
ἑαυτὸν is not discussed.
ἀπὸ is not discussed.
τούτων is not discussed.
εἰς is not discussed.
BDAG: This word occurs three times in the NT; two of these are in the PE (the other is in Phm 11). BDAG glosses as ‘useful’, ‘serviceable’.
LSJ: LSJ concurs while providing the interesting second sense of ‘easy to execute’.
I've translated useful; the context is that "if anyone is ... εὔχρηστον (euchrēston) to the master". Thus useful seems to be more appropriate than the alternate serviceable.
τῷ is not discussed.
εἰς is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG glosses as ‘put in readiness’, ‘keep in readiness’, or ‘prepare’. Note that ἑτοιμάζω (hetoimazō) can be used of eithter things or of people.
LSJ: LSJ concurs and expands. Most notably (for the immediate context) is the mention of sense II.2; dealing specifically with ἑτοιμάζω (hetoimazō) in the perfect passive. This is glossed as ‘prepare for oneself’; ‘made his {other} arrangements’. The authors cited range from 300 BC through the sixth or seventh century BC -- whether such usage persisted to NT times is not stated.
I've translated having been prepared. This may need to be reviewed based on the information provided by LSJ above.
But you flee the youthful desires, and pursue righteousness, faith, love, peace; with those who call upon the Lord out of a pure heart.
τὰς is not discussed.
δὲ is not discussed.
BDAG: This is an NT hapax. BDAG glosses as ‘youthful’.
LSJ: LSJ glosses as ‘natural to a youth’, ‘youthful’.
I've translated as youthful.
Note that this agrees in case, number, and gender with the previous word, thus the phrase youthful desires.
δὲ is not discussed.
μετὰ is not discussed.
τῶν is not discussed.
BDAG: Note that BDAG uses the typical lexical form while Swanson assumes deponency. The definition is extensive. There are four primary senses.The first is ‘to call upon’ or ‘call out’ to a deity. Second is to ‘call’ or ‘give a surname’. The third sense is to ‘appeal’ to a court. The fourth sense is to ‘call on someone as a witness’.
LSJ: LSJ concurs.
I've translated as call upon. This is categorized in BDAG's first sense; the one that describes one calling out to a deity. Is this, then, some implicit assumption of the deity of Christ? Or is the "Lord" here simply to be seen as "God"?
τὸν is not discussed.
Referring to the previous note, this instance of κύριος (kyrios) does not appear to refer to God, but rather simply Lord -- thus, Jesus Christ.
ἐκ is not discussed.
Note that καρδίας (kardias) agrees in case, number, and gender with the preceding adjective, thus the phrase pure heart.
But you reject foolish and ignorant speculations, knowing that they breed quarrels.
τὰς is not discussed.
δὲ is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG glosses as ‘foolish’ or ‘stupid’. Note that the word apparently has slightly different nuance depending on whether it is describing a person or describing a thing.
LSJ: LSJ agrees. Note also an interesting sense when μωρός (mōros) is used of taste: ‘insipid’ or ‘flat’.
I've translated as foolish.
καὶ is not discussed.
BDAG: This is an NT hapax, though the non-negated form does appear in the NT. BDAG glosses as ‘uninstructed’ or ‘uneducated’.
LSJ: LSJ has no entry for this particular word.
I've translated as ignorant; this seems to pick up the context. These "speculations" are not being presented in a flattering light.
Note that "An Exegetical Summary of 2 Timothy" classifies this instance of παραιτέομαι (paraiteomai) as LN 27.60.
ὅτι is not discussed.
BDAG: This word has an extensive definition. It means, primarily, to ‘beget’, ‘give birth’, or ‘bear’. Thus it takes on the logical meaning of ‘cause to happen’ when used of a non-human object.
LSJ: LSJ concurs.
I've translated as breed. This seems to take into account the causative effect that "foolish and ignorant speculations" have on quarrels, and it also keeps the idea of beget or give birth.
BDAG: The word μάχη (machē) occurs four times in the NT, twice in the PE. BDAG glosses as ‘fighting’, ‘quarrels’, ‘strife’, or ‘disputes’. Interestingly, a classical usage meaning "marital discord" is also cited.
LSJ: LSJ's entry is extensive.
I've translated as quarrels.
And it is not necessary for a slave of the Lord to quarrel but to be gentle toward all, teaching, being patient,
δὲ is not discussed.
οὐ is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG provides two senses. First is that of ‘fight’ (in a physical combat). The second is that of a heated dispute, thus ‘fight’, ‘quarrel’, ‘dispute’.
LSJ: The Greeks did a lot of fighting, and wrote frequently about fighting. Thus, LSJ's citation lists for μάχομαι (machomai) are extensive.
The word in the previous verse translated as quarrels is the noun form of this verb, μάχομαι (machomai). This is in the infinitive mood, so I've translated as to quarrel.
ἀλλὰ is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG glosses as ‘gentle’ or ‘kind’.
LSJ: LSJ concurs. An additional sense of the word when used in the context of temperature is listed; ἤπιος (ēpios) may mean ‘mild’ or ‘less intense’ in such contexts.
I've translated this as gentle. Note that the "to be" comes from the following verb.
πρὸς is not discussed.
BDAG: This is an NT hapax. BDAG glosses as ‘patient’, ‘tolerant’.
LSJ: LSJ has a gloss from Herodotus meaning ‘enduring pain’ (hence tolerance of pain). This instance is specifically glossed as ‘forbearing’ or ‘long-suffering’.
It is important to note that this word ἀνεξίκακος (anexikakos), while glossed as tolerance, does not implicitly carry the same definition that we ascribe to tolerance in the 20th/21st century. I've translated as being patient. The idea isn't that Christians are to simply give up any disputes over creed and accept any or all thoughts of religion proposed by anyone; rather, we are to be patient with them while not compromising our principles.
instructing with gentleness the ones who oppose you, perhaps God may give them repentance leading to knowledge of the truth
ἐν is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG glosses as ‘gentleness’, ‘humility’, ‘courtesy’, ‘considerateness’, or ‘meekness’.
LSJ: LSJ concurs.
I've translated gentleness. This is the type of teaching we are supposed to do, note, to "the ones who oppose you". So the tolerance/being patient of the previous verse is in the context of instruction of those who disagree -- not a general empty-minded tolerance of anything contrary to sound doctrine.
τοὺς is not discussed.
BDAG: This is an NT hapax. It is an interesting word. BDAG glosses as ‘oppose oneself’, ‘be opposed’.
LSJ: LSJ glosses as ‘retaliate upon’ (a person), ‘offer resistance’.
I've translated this as the ones who oppose you. Again, it is interesting to note that Timothy is not to write off those who do not agree with him, but he is instead to continue gently instructing them in sound doctrine.
μήποτε is not discussed.
αὐτοῖς is not discussed.
ὁ is not discussed.
BDAG: This is an important NT concept that BDAG discusses extensively. It is glossed as ‘repentence’, ‘turning about’, or ‘conversion’.
LSJ: LSJ glosses as ‘change of mind’, ‘change of heart’, ‘repentence’, or even ‘regret’.
I've translated as repentence.
εἰς is not discussed.
and they may come to their senses, out of the devil’s snare, having been captured alive by him to do his will.
καὶ is not discussed.
BDAG: This is an NT hapax. BDAG glosses as ‘come to one's senses again’.
LSJ: LSJ glosses as ‘become sober again’, ‘come to one's senses’, ‘recover from a swoon’. LSJ glosses this particular instance as ‘return to sobriety of mind’.
I've translated as they may come to their senses (aorist subjunctive third-person plural) but LSJ's gloss of return to sobriety of mind is interesting.
ἐκ is not discussed.
τῆς is not discussed.
τοῦ is not discussed.
BDAG: This word occurs in the NT twice; here and in Lu 5.10; though it occurs with some frequency in the LXX. BDAG glosses as ‘capture alive’.
LSJ: LSJ has a citation from Thucydides where ζωγρέω (zōgreō) is contrasted with kill, as in, "we could kill them, or we could take them captive".
I've translated as captured alive.
ὑπʼ is not discussed.
αὐτοῦ is not discussed.
εἰς is not discussed.
τὸ is not discussed.
ἐκείνου is not discussed.
But know this, that in the last days difficult times will present themselves.
Τοῦτο is not discussed.
δὲ is not discussed.
Note again the second person singular imperative.
ὅτι is not discussed.
ἐν is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG lists three major senses. First, that of ‘farthest’ or ‘last’, typically dealing with distance or property. Second is ‘least’, ‘last’ in a series. This has various sub-senses, though; one of which is "with reference to a situation in which there is nothing to follow". Third is that of ‘last’, or (positively) ‘utmost’, or ‘finest’.
LSJ: LSJ is extensive, but agrees with BDAG in the major aspects.
I've translated this as last, note the context is with the word for "day" or "period"; the context being set is the time of the end.
BDAG: BDAG provides three senses. First is ‘be here’, ‘be at hand’, ‘arrive’, ‘come’. The second is ‘be now’ or ‘happen now’. The third is ‘be imminent’, ‘be impending’.
LSJ: LSJ is extensive with numerous citations.
I've translated this as will present themselves due to GRAMCORD's classification of this verb as a future middle indicative (plural, matching "last days"). However, Swanson classifies this as a deponent (with middle as an alternate form). If that's the case, then I'd opt for the more simple, will come.
BDAG: This word occurs twice in the NT; here and in Mt. 8.28. BDAG glosses as ‘hard’ or ‘difficult’.
LSJ: The LSJ article is huge. The basic idea of ‘hard’ is presented in all sorts of different contexts.
I've translated as difficult. This seems appropriate.
For the men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy,
γὰρ is not discussed.
οἱ is not discussed.
BDAG: This is an NT hapax. BDAG glosses as ‘loving oneself’, ‘selfish’; which makes sense when you stop to examine the two parts of the word.
LSJ: LSJ notes a difference between a "good sense" of ‘loving oneself’ and a "bad sense" of ‘selfish’. The bad sense is apparently more frequent.
I've glossed as lovers of self. Note that this is in the plural; agreeing with the previous noun in case, number, and gender -- as a matter of fact, all of the words in this list of vices are nominative masculine plural nouns. So all of these words go together, and they're all qualifying the type of "men" that Timothy will run into in the "last days".
BDAG: This word occurs twice in the NT, here and in Luke 16.14. BDAG glosses as ‘fond of money’ or ‘avaricious’. In the Luke reference, the word is used to describe the Pharisees.
LSJ: LSJ concurs.
I've translated as lovers of money; which goes along with with the previous "lovers of self". The "lover" part comes from the same root in each word, hence it makes sense to have similar translations. It just sounds better as well, I think.
BDAG: BDAG glosses as ‘boaster’, ‘braggart’. This word occurs twice in the NT, here and in Ro 1.30.
LSJ: LSJ has some interesting glosses. First, "properly" it is glosses as ‘wanderer about country’, ‘vagrant’. The second sense is that of ‘charlatan’, ‘quack’ (used particularly of Sophists, apparently). Xenophon (Cyr.2.2.12) used it in the ‘braggart’ or ‘boaster’ sense. As an adjective, it can mean ‘boastful’, ‘pretentious’, or ‘most shameless’.
I've translated as boastful. In hindsight, that doesn't make much sense. Perhaps I should instead use boasters.
BDAG: BDAG glosses as ‘arrogant’, ‘haughty’, ‘proud’.
LSJ: LSJ has some other interesting glosses, noting the word is almost never used in a complimentary sense: ‘overweening’, ‘arrogant’, living ‘sumptuously’, ‘prodigally’. When used in a positive sense, it typically means ‘magnificent’, ‘splendid’, or ‘sublime’.
Interestingly, Swanson lists this lemma as occuring twice (here and in Ro 1.30). GRAMCORD, on the other hand, lists five occurrences for this lemma (Lu 1.51; Ro 1.30; 2Ti 3.2; Js 4.6; 1Pe 5.5). GRAMCORD and BDAG agree on occurrences (though Danker may have used GRAMCORD to find citations ... ). The more interesting part, though, is that both the previous word and this word occur together in Ro 1.30. So if one accepts Pauline authorship of Romans, this co-occurrence could influence one to accept Pauline authorship for this book. Note, however, that Harrison simply includes this list as one of his genuine Pauline fragments. The word ὑπερήφανος (hyperēphanos) here has been translated as arrogant.
BDAG: BDAG glosses as ‘parents’.
LSJ: LSJ concurs, noting that in the singular it is translated ‘begetter’ or ‘father’. LSJ also notes it has been used generally to mean ‘ancestor’ even through the fifth generation.
I've translated as parents, though perhaps it could mean forbears (cf. 1Ti 5.3-16 where obedience and reverence to elders is highlighted).
BDAG: BDAG glosses as ‘disobedient’.
LSJ: LSJ concurs. When used of a thing (instead of a person) LSJ notes glosses like ‘rigid’, ‘inflexible’, ‘unyeilding’.
The translation of disobedient to describe how these men act towards their parents (and grandparents, etc.) seems proper.
BDAG: This word occurs twice in the NT, here and in Luke 6.35. BDAG glosses as ‘ungrateful’.
LSJ: The LSJ article is extensive but appears to agree in the main.
I've translated as ungrateful, though unthankful also appears to be appropriate.
This word occurs only twice in the NT, both times in the PE.
hard-hearted, unwilling to negotiate, slanderers, without self control, brutal, not lovers of good,
BDAG: This word occurs twice in the NT, here and in Ro 1.31. BDAG glosses as ‘hardhearted’, ‘unfeeling’, ‘without regard for others’.
LSJ: LSJ glosses as ‘without natural affection’ or ‘without attraction’.
I've translated as hard-hearted. This is a bit of an idiom; the gist of the word is summed up best in LSJ's gloss of without natural affection.
BDAG: This word is an NT hapax, though it occurs as a variant in Ro 1.31. BDAG glosses as ‘irreconcilable’.
LSJ: The development of this word is interesting. Originally, it meant ‘without drink offering’, thus it was used of a god of whom no drink offering was poured. In other words, a god that was not appealed to or propitiated. Thus the word came to mean ‘without a regular truce’, then to ‘admitting to no truce’, or ‘implacable’. The article lists ‘implacable’ as a gloss for 2Ti 3.3.
I've translated this as unwilling to negotiate.
BDAG: This is an NT hapax. BDAG glosses as ‘without self-control’, ‘dissolute’.
LSJ: This is another interesting word. A medical writer of the 2nd century AD (Aretaeus Medicus, SD.1.7) uses it to describe paralyzed limbs. Other glosses include ‘impotent’ and ‘powerless’. The general definition seems to indicate lack of control or command over a thing, thus ‘not having power’, ‘uncontrolled’, etc.
I've translated this as without self-control. This seems appropriate based both on BDAG and on the descriptions of usage in LSJ.
BDAG: This is an NT hapax. BDAG glosses as ‘savage’ or ‘brutal’ with a note that ἀνήμερος (anēmeros) literally means "untamed".
LSJ: LSJ glosses as ‘not tame’, ‘wild’, ‘savage’.
I've translated as brutal. I'm unsure, really, how to handle it.
BDAG: This is an NT hapax. BDAG glosses as ‘without interest in the (public) good’.
LSJ: LSJ glosses this instance as ‘not loving the good’.
I've translated rather literally, as not lovers of good.
traitors, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God,
BDAG: BDAG glosses as ‘traitor’, ‘betrayer’. This word occurs three times in the NT. In Lu 6.16 it us used of Judas; in Acts 7.52 it is used of the chief priests.
LSJ: LSJ concurs.
I've translated as traitors.
BDAG: This word occurs twice in the NT; here and in Acts 19.36. BDAG glosses as ‘rash’, ‘reckless’, ‘thoughless’ after noting that these glosses are figurative. Literally, προπετής (propetēs) means "falling down or forward."
LSJ: LSJ cites Hippocrates (Prog.3) who uses προπετής (propetēs) to mean "‘falling’ or ‘slipping down’ in bed." Aristoteles is cited as using it to mean ‘out of control’. These would be literal examples of this word that is used figuratively in the NT.
I've translated this as reckless.
Swanson (and LN) considers this lemma to be in its deponent form, whilst traditional lexicons and such list it in the traditional form. Note that this word only occurs in the PE (3 times).
BDAG: This is an NT hapax. BDAG glosses as ‘loving pleasure’.
LSJ: LSJ glosses as ‘fond of pleasure’, ‘wont to bring delight’.
I've translated as lovers of pleasure.
μᾶλλον is not discussed.
ἢ is not discussed.
BDAG: This is an NT hapax. BDAG glosses as ‘devout’.
LSJ: LSJ glosses as ‘loving God’ or ‘pious’.
I've translated as lovers of God. It seems to me the translation of this last phrase as "lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God" brings out the sense of these two hapaxes, obviously chosen for both their meaning and their alliterative quality, in its fullest.
holding to a form of godliness but they have denied its power—you avoid these.
BDAG: This word only occurs twice in the NT; here and in Ro 2.20. BDAG glosses as ‘embodiment’, ‘formulation’, ‘form’.
LSJ: LSJ glosses as ‘shaping’, ‘bringing into shape’.
I've translated as form; this word modifies the word following.
τὴν is not discussed.
δὲ is not discussed.
αὐτῆς is not discussed.
καὶ is not discussed.
τούτους is not discussed.
BDAG: This is an NT hapax. BDAG glosses as ‘turn away from’, ‘avoid’.
LSJ: The LSJ article is extensive. Sense II seems to cover the NT usage.
I've translated this as avoid. I don't know if this is strong enough. The form ἀποτρέπου (apotrepou) is in the imperative. And the LSJ citations seem to indicate that this word indicated a more active avoidance, not a passive ignoring. Polybius uses it to mean dissuade or deter while Plutarchus -- contemporary with NT writers -- uses it to mean beat off or repulse.
For from these are the ones who sneak into the houses and capture weak women overwhelmed by their sin, led on by various desires,
ἐκ is not discussed.
τούτων is not discussed.
γάρ is not discussed.
οἱ is not discussed.
BDAG: This is an NT hapax, though the word also occurs in Ep. Barn. 4.10, where it is a figurative extension of this occurrence. BDAG glosses as ‘slip in’.
LSJ: LSJ doesn't really cover this sense of the word.
I've translated as sneak. I suppose it could be something like enter furtively, but that's just awkward.
εἰς is not discussed.
τὰς is not discussed.
καὶ is not discussed.
BDAG: The word αἰχμαλωτίζω (aichmalōtizō) occurs four times in the NT; three of these are Pauline, one is Lucan. BDAG splits into two senses. The first sense is that of ‘make captive’; the second sense is that of ‘mislead’ or ‘deceive’ in the sense of "gain control over".
LSJ: LSJ glosses as ‘take prisoner’, providing 2Ki 24.14(LXX) as an example.
As the metaphor of "sneaking" into the house is already in play, it makes sense to translate αἰχμαλωτίζω (aichmalōtizō) similarly, hence capture. Note that αἰχμαλωτίζοντες (aichmalōtizontes) exactly matches the previous participle in form.
BDAG: This is an NT hapax. BDAG glosses as ‘idle/foolish/weak woman’.
LSJ: LSJ notes that this is a diminutive of the word for ‘woman’.
I've translated this as weak women. As the larger context is essentially about women sitting in their houses with nothing better to do who are "captured" by these false teachers, perhaps the better translation is idle women.
BDAG: This word occurs twice in the NT; here and in Ro 12.20. BDAG splits into two senses. The first is glossed as ‘heap/pile up’; the second as ‘load up with’.
LSJ: LSJ concurs.
I've translated this as overwhelmed.
I've translated sin, though it should probably be sins as the word is in the plural.
BDAG: This is a common word and BDAG's article is extensive. The basic sense is to ‘lead’, ‘bring’, ‘take away’, etc.
LSJ: LSJ concurs. It is best to consult the article directly.
I've translated led on.
BDAG: BDAG's entry is extensive. The basic meaning is ‘varied’, ‘various’, ‘diversified’, ‘manifold’, etc.
LSJ: LSJ's entry is similarly extensive.
I've translated ποικίλος (poikilos) simply as various. I don't think there is a need to get fancy with the translation here, though other instances (cf. Heb 1.1) certainly imply more than simply "various".
always learning and not yet able to come into knowledge of the truth.
πάντοτε is not discussed.
καὶ is not discussed.
μηδέποτε is not discussed.
εἰς is not discussed.
In the same way Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, similarly also these oppose the truth, men depraved in mind and unqualified concerning the faith.
ὃν is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG has two senses. First, ‘manner’, ‘way’, ‘kind’, or ‘guise’. Second, ‘ways’, ‘customs’, ‘kind of life’. BDAG classifies all occurrences apart from one in Heb 13.5 as the first sense.
LSJ: LSJ concurs though it also includes more senses of the word.
I've translated as in the same way.
δὲ is not discussed.
BDAG: This is a proper name and an NT hapax. It is transliterated ‘Jannes’. See Ex 7.11 for background on Jannes and Jambres.
LSJ: No article included.
I've followed the common transliteration Jannes.
καὶ is not discussed.
BDAG: This is a proper name and an NT hapax. BDAG transliterates as ‘Jambres’.
LSJ: LSJ has no article for Ἰαμβρῆς (Iambrēs).
I followed the common transliteration Jambres.
BDAG: BDAG has two senses. First, that of ‘set oneself against’, ‘oppose’. Second, that of ‘resist’.
LSJ: LSJ concurs and notes that the senses are somewhat heightened when ἀνθίστημι (anthistēmi) is used in the context of battle.
I've translated as opposed. I don't think there is a need to get overly fancy with the translation of ἀνθίστημι (anthistēmi) in this context.
BDAG: This is a proper name, that of ‘Moses’.
LSJ: LSJ has no entry.
The transliteration Moses is best. This refers to Moses the person, not to the "law of Moses" or anything like that.
οὕτως is not discussed.
καὶ is not discussed.
οὗτοι is not discussed.
τῇ is not discussed.
BDAG: This word is an NT hapax, but it occurs frequently in the LXX. In the LXX (BDAG sense 1) it means, simply, ‘destroy’. In the NT, the sense is that of ‘ruin’ or ‘corrupt’.
LSJ: LSJ glosses variously as ‘destroy’, ‘bring to naught’, ‘in sorry plight’.
I've translated this as depraved. The idea is that the minds of these men (who oppose truth as Jannes and Jambres did) are corrupt, ruined, and thus the men are no longer trustworthy. So rather than translated as simply ruined or corrupted minds, the word depraved seems to carry this idea in a stronger sense, communicating the ruin of the mind but also how the corruption of the mind perverts the perspective.
τὸν is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG glosses as ‘unqualified’, ‘worthless’ or ‘base’.
LSJ: LSJ lists four senses; the sense used in the context "of persons" is ‘discredited’, ‘reprobate’.
I've translated as unqualified. The depravity of mind of these teachers has discredited them and disqualified them from being able to teach concerning the truth.
περὶ is not discussed.
τὴν is not discussed.
But they will not progress further—for their mindlessness will be quite obvious to all, just as that of Jannes and Jambres became.
ἀλλʼ is not discussed.
οὐ is not discussed.
ἐπὶ is not discussed.
ἡ is not discussed.
γὰρ is not discussed.
BDAG: This word only occurs twice in the NT; here and in Lu 6.11. BDAG glosses as ‘folly’.
LSJ: LSJ glosses as ‘want of understanding’, ‘folly’. Antipho uses to denote "a great ‘fool’".
I've translated as mindlessness. The word ἄνοια (anoia) is simply the word for "mind" prefixed with an alpha, which implies a negative, thus without mind, literally. As the earlier context focused on the depravity of mind that these teachers had, it seemed ok to translate this instance of ἄνοια (anoia) to bring out the word "mind", hence mindlessness.
αὐτῶν is not discussed.
BDAG: This is an NT hapax. BDAG glosses as ‘quite evident’, ‘plain’.
LSJ: LSJ lists three senses. First, that of ‘conspicuous’. Second, that of ‘quite plain’. Third, that of ‘openly’, ‘manifesly’, or ‘plainly’.
I've translated as quite obvious. The idea is that the mindlessness/folly of these false teachers will be on open display to those who are properly grounded in the sound teaching.
ὡς is not discussed.
καὶ is not discussed.
ἡ is not discussed.
ἐκείνων is not discussed.
Now you have followed my teaching, conduct, purpose, faith, patience, love, endurance,
Σὺ is not discussed.
δὲ is not discussed.
Note that this word occurs four times in the NT, and two of those are in the PE. Other occurrances are in Mk 16.17 and Lu 1.3.
μου is not discussed.
τῇ is not discussed.
τῇ is not discussed.
BDAG: This is an NT hapax. The word occurs twice in the LXX. BDAG glosses as ‘way of life’, ‘conduct’.
LSJ: This is an apparently common word in classical Greek as LSJ offers a multitude of senses.
I've translated as conduct.
τῇ is not discussed.
I've translated purpose. The gist of the word in this context has to do with the id ea of plan or purpose.
τῇ is not discussed.
τῇ is not discussed.
τῇ is not discussed.
τῇ is not discussed.
in the persecutions, the sufferings, like those I suffered at Antioch, in Iconium, in Lystra; what sufferings I endured, and out of them all the Lord rescued me!
τοῖς is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG glosses ‘persecution’. But it appears to be more than a simple act of persecution. Instead, according to the BDAG extended gloss, the idea is "a program or process designed to harass and oppress someone."
LSJ: LSJ glosses as ‘persecution’ or ‘harassing’.
I've translated persecutions. Note it is a dative plural, hence "in the persecutions".
τοῖς is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG provides two senses. The first is glossed as ‘suffering’, ‘misfortune’. The second is glossed as ‘feeling’, ‘interest’.
LSJ: LSJ concurs.
I've translated as sufferings. Note that this word typically occurs in the plural in the NT.
BDAG: This is a relative pronoun that for some reason Swanson has tagged as an adjective. The basic translation is ‘of what’, ‘such as’, ‘like’.
LSJ: LSJ is extensive.
I'm unsure why Swanson treats this as an adjective. GRAMCORD calls it a "correlative' pronoun.
μοι is not discussed.
ἐν is not discussed.
BDAG: This is a proper noun, ‘Antioch’.
LSJ: LSJ concurs.
This can only be translated as Antioch.
ἐν is not discussed.
BDAG: This is a proper noun, ‘Iconium’.
LSJ: LSJ concurs.
This can only be translated as Iconium.
ἐν is not discussed.
BDAG: This is a proper noun, ‘Lystra’.
LSJ: LSJ concurs.
This can only be translated Lystra.
Again, Swanson's seemingly inappropriate adjective (is actually a pronoun).
BDAG: This word occurs three times in the NT: 1Co 10.13, 1Pe 2.19, and here. BDAG splits into two senses, the first of which covers NT usage, the second covers usage in 1 Clement. The first sense is glossed as ‘submit to’, ‘endure’. The second is to ‘bear’, ‘bring’, ‘effect’.
LSJ: The word is popular in classical literature.
Note that the lemma for ὑπήνεγκα (hypēnegka) is actually ὑποφέρω (hypopherō). There's a very weird stem change. This is also an aorist (second aorist), though one might misclassify it as a perfect (before examining it) with the kappa-alpha ending. Anyway, the word doesn't occur frequently. Here I've translated it as I endured. This is action that took place in the past (at the locations mentioned) and that particular action is not continuing.
καὶ is not discussed.
ἐκ is not discussed.
με is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG glosses as ‘save’, ‘rescue’, ‘deliver’, ‘preserve’. Note that while this word occurs frequently in the NT (17 times) BDAG only lists one sense.
LSJ: LSJ is extensive.
I've translated rescued. I'm unsure why I used the exclamation point; there isn't an imperative, though the testimony and context (though all of this, God rescued me!) does seem remarkable.
ὁ is not discussed.
But all who desire to live in a godly manner in Christ Jesus will be persecuted.
καὶ is not discussed.
δὲ is not discussed.
οἱ is not discussed.
ζῆν is not discussed.
ἐν is not discussed.
But evil men and swindlers will progress into worse, deceiving and being deceived.
δὲ is not discussed.
καὶ is not discussed.
BDAG: This is an NT hapax. BDAG glosses as ‘swindler’, ‘cheat’.
LSJ: LSJ has some interesting glosses: ‘sorcerer’, ‘wizard’ as well as ‘juggler’ or ‘cheat’.
I've translated as swindlers. This seems appropriate.
ἐπὶ is not discussed.
τὸ is not discussed.
BDAG: The BDAG article is extensive as πλανάω (planaō) is a common word. The basic meaning has to do with ‘deceive’, ‘mislead’, etc.
LSJ: LSJ is similarly extensive.
I've translated as deceiving. This is a particple, the folks doing the action are the "evil men and swindlers" from earlier in the verse.
καὶ is not discussed.
But you remain in what you learned and became convinced of, knowing from whom you learned,
σὺ is not discussed.
δὲ is not discussed.
ἐν is not discussed.
οἷς is not discussed.
καὶ is not discussed.
BDAG: This is an NT hapax. Note that Swanson (and LN) treat this as deponent, while BDAG lists under the traditional form. Also, πιστόομαι (pistoomai) occurs at least six times in the LXX. The first sense (not used in NT) is ‘show oneself faithful’. The second sense is that of ‘feel confidence’, ‘be convinced’.
LSJ: The word is frequent in classical literature. When it occurs in the middle voice (as our instance does here, middle/deponent) glosses include ‘give mutual pledges of fidelity’, ‘confirm’, ‘prove’, ‘be convinced’, ‘feel sure’.
I've translated πιστόομαι (pistoomai) as became convinced of. This seems to jive with classical usage and the context.
παρὰ is not discussed.
τίνων is not discussed.
that from infancy you knew the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise into salvation through the faith in Christ Jesus.
καὶ is not discussed.
ὅτι is not discussed.
ἀπὸ is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG provides two senses. First is that of ‘fetus’, ‘child’, noting the child is still unborn. Second is ‘baby’, ‘infant’. Note that this differs from LN's two senses; that of ‘infant’ and ‘childhood’.
LSJ: LSJ concurs with BDAG.
The sense of infancy or very early childhood seems best.
τὰ is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG provides two senses. First that of ‘holy’ or, as BDAG has it in its extended definition, "pertaining to being of transcendent purity". Second is that of ‘holy thing’.
LSJ: The LSJ definition is extensive.
I've translated as sacret, note that it is an adjective and that it agrees in case, number, and gender with the subsequent noun.
BDAG: BDAG provides three senses. First is that of ‘letter’ as in a glyph or unit of the alphabet. Second is that of ‘a document’, ‘piece of writing’. The third sense is more generic, that of ‘learning’ or ‘knowledge’.
LSJ: LSJ article is extensive.
I've translated as writings as this is plural. The context doesn't allow for any other translations.
I've translated as you knew. Swanson notes this may be parsed as either a perfect or a present; but GRAMCORD parses it as perfect only. The context seems to indicate that the perfect is the preferred tense. It is 2nd person, hence you knew.
τὰ is not discussed.
σε is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG provides two senses. The first sense is glossed as ‘make wise’, ‘teach’, ‘instruct’. The second sense is ‘reason out’, ‘concoct ingeniously/slyly’, or ‘devise craftily’.
LSJ: LSJ concurs.
I've translated as make you wise, though perhaps the you should be denoted as being supplied.
εἰς is not discussed.
διὰ is not discussed.
τῆς is not discussed.
ἐν is not discussed.
All scripture is God-breathed and useful for teaching, for rebuke, for improvement, for the teaching in righteousness,
BDAG: This is an NT hapax. BDAG glosses as ‘inspired by God’.
LSJ: LSJ concurs.
I've translated as God-breathed (a semi-literal rendering). Perhaps inspired by God would be better.
καὶ is not discussed.
This word occurs four times in the NT -- all four are in the PE.
πρὸς is not discussed.
πρὸς is not discussed.
BDAG: This is an NT hapax, though it does occur in the LXX. BDAG glosses as ‘reproach’, ‘rebuke’, ‘reproof’.
LSJ: LSJ concurs.
I've translated as rebuke.
πρὸς is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG glosses as ‘improvement’.
LSJ: LSJ concurs.
I've translated as improvement. Note the root of the word.
πρὸς is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG provides two senses. The first is that of ‘upbringing’, ‘training’, ‘instruction’; which in NT is "chiefly attained" by discipline or correction. The second sense is that of ‘training’.
LSJ: LSJ should be examined on its own.
I've translated as teaching; though perhaps training would be better.
τὴν is not discussed.
ἐν is not discussed.
so that the man of God might be capable, having been equipped for all good work.
ἵνα is not discussed.
BDAG: This is an NT hapax. BDAG glosses as ‘complete’, ‘capable’, ‘proficient’.
LSJ: LSJ provides some interesting glosses: ‘complete’, ‘perfect of its kind’, ‘suitable’, ‘exactly fitted’.
I've translated as capable.
ὁ is not discussed.
τοῦ is not discussed.
πρὸς is not discussed.
BDAG: This word occurs twice in the NT, here and in Ac 21.5. BDAG provides two senses (one for each instance). First (Acts) is ‘finish’, ‘complete’. The second (this occurrence) is that of ‘equip’ or ‘furnish’.
LSJ: An interesting secondary sense provided by LSJ is that of ‘furnish for a voyage’ (Periplus Maris Rubri, 1st century AD).
I've translated this as equipped. I'm curious as to what relationship ἐξαρτίζω (exartizō) might have with ἄρτιος (artios), which occurs earlier in the verse.
I solemnly urge in the presence of God and Christ Jesus, the one who will judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His Kingdom.
ἐνώπιον is not discussed.
τοῦ is not discussed.
καὶ is not discussed.
τοῦ is not discussed.
BDAG: The entry in BDAG is rather extensive, with many senses. The primary meaning is ‘to judge’, and the several senses and different places where such judgment may occur are considered in the BDAG entry.
LSJ: LSJ is similarly extensive.
In NA27, this is a future infinitive, hence the translation, will judge. Note that a variant (not strongly testified) is recorded, the same word in an aorist infinitive construction.
καὶ is not discussed.
καὶ is not discussed.
τὴν is not discussed.
I've translated as by His appearing. Note that the conjunction preceding ἐπιφάνειαν (epiphaneian) is καὶ (kai). Byzantine manuscripts here use κατά (katha). Apparently the reading is "easier" with the Byzantine variant: "at His appearing" (Byz) rather than "and by His appearing" (NA/UBS).
αὐτοῦ is not discussed.
καὶ is not discussed.
τὴν is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG provides two senses. The first is extensive, and is that of ‘ruling’, or having to do with a royal administration. The second is that of ‘kingdom’, or the realm of the ruler (the scope of that which he rules).
LSJ: LSJ glosses as ‘kingdom’ or ‘dominion’.
I've translated as His Kingdom.
αὐτοῦ is not discussed.
Preach the word, be persistent in season and out of season, correct, rebuke, encourage, with complete patience and instruction.
Note that this is an aorist active imperative.
τὸν is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG provides seven senses; each should be examined. Sense five is the sense used here.
LSJ: LSJ is extensive.
I've translated be persistent.
εὐκαίρως is not discussed.
ἀκαίρως is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG provides two senses, the first is the most extensively attested. The first sense is that of ‘rebuke’, ‘reprove’, ‘censure’. The second sense is that of ‘punish’.
LSJ: Sense II in the LSJ article is the sense used here.
I've translated as correct.
ἐν is not discussed.
καὶ is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG provides two glosses. First, that of ‘teaching’ or ‘instruction’. Second, that of the content of the teaching, or ‘doctrine’.
LSJ: LSJ attests a 2nd century AD source using διδαχή (didachē) to mean "military ‘regulations’ or ‘discipline’."
I've translated instruction; though perhaps teaching would be better.
For there will be a time when they will not put up with sound doctrine but according to their own desires they themselves will accumulate a great many teachers to tickle their ears
γὰρ is not discussed.
ὅτε is not discussed.
τῆς is not discussed.
οὐκ is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG provides three senses. First is that of ‘endure’, ‘bear with’, ‘put up with’. This can be of either someone or something, or absolutely. This first sense is by far the most common. Second is ‘endure’, as in putting up with something "onerous". Third is that of ‘accept a complaint’.
LSJ: LSJ is extensive.
I've translated ἀνέχομαι (anechomai) as put up with. Note the negative particle preceding the word. Swanson classifies this as a deponent.
ἀλλὰ is not discussed.
κατὰ is not discussed.
τὰς is not discussed.
ἑαυτοῖς is not discussed.
BDAG: This is an NT hapax. BDAG glosses as ‘heap up’. This is also used in Ep.Barn. 4.6.
LSJ: LSJ glosses as ‘heap up’, ‘accumulate’.
I've translated as will accumulate, though I'm wondering if that is proper. Though it follows BDAG's suggestion, I wonder if the idea of almost piling up to absurdity.
BDAG: BDAG glosses as ‘itch’, noting that it is used figuratively of ‘curiosity’: "Fig. of curiosity, that looks for interesting and juicy bits of information. The itching is relieed by the mesages of the new teachers."
LSJ: LSJ notes the devleopment of the word, from ‘scratch’.
I've translated tickle their ears.
τὴν is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG provides four senses. The firsrt is that of ‘hearing’ (the actual faculty). Second is ‘listening’. Third is the organ itself, ‘ear’. Fourth is that which is actually heard, thus ‘report’, ‘rumor’, ‘message’, ‘account’.
LSJ: LSJ concurs.
I've translated ears. To keep the metaphor of "tickle", something (in this case, ears) needs to be the object of the tickling.
and indeed they will turn their ears away from the truth, and turn aside toward myths.
καὶ is not discussed.
ἀπὸ is not discussed.
μὲν is not discussed.
τῆς is not discussed.
τὴν is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG provides five senses. The first is a general sense of ‘turn away’, physically. The second sense is a figurative extension, that of causing a change in behavior, thus ‘turn away’ or ‘mislead’. Third is to ‘reject’ or ‘repudiate’. Fourth is to ‘return’ or ‘put back’. Fifth is a specialised occurrance that need not be discussed here.
LSJ: LSJ is extensive, but agrees in general.
I've translated as will turn away, in regard to "ears". Thus, they will turn their ears away.
ἐπὶ is not discussed.
δὲ is not discussed.
τοὺς is not discussed.
μῦθος (mythos) occurs five times in the NT, four of them are in the PE. The other is 2Pe 1.16.
I've translated as turn aside towards.
But you be self-controlled in all things, suffering misfortune, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.
σὺ is not discussed.
δὲ is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG glosses as ‘be well-balanced’, ‘self-controlled’.
LSJ: LSJ concurs, noting early readings (circa IV BC) meaning ‘to be sober’, ‘drink no wine’.
I've translated be self-controlled. Note the imperative.
ἐν is not discussed.
BDAG: This word occurs three times in the NT, and only once in the PE. BDAG glosses as ‘proclaimer of the gospel’, ‘evangelist’.
LSJ: LSJ concurs. Note gloss of ‘bringer of good tidings’.
This is the work that Paul desires Timothy to do.
τὴν is not discussed.
σου is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG provides two senses. First, ‘fill (completely)’, ‘fulfill’. Second, ‘convince fully’.
LSJ: LSJ concurs.
I've translated fulfill. Note again that this is a 2nd person singular aorist imperative.
For I am already poured out as a drink offering, and the season of my departure is imminent.
Ἐγὼ is not discussed.
γὰρ is not discussed.
ἤδη is not discussed.
BDAG: This occurs twice in the NT, here and in Php 2.17. BDAG glosses as ‘offer a libation/drink offering’.
LSJ: LSJ is extensive as σπένδω (spendō) occurs frequently in other religious and cultic literature.
I've translated as poured out as a drink offering. This is passive (first person present indicative singular), so Paul is talking about how he himself has been poured out in this manner. The language is figurative but quite descriptive.
καὶ is not discussed.
ὁ is not discussed.
τῆς is not discussed.
BDAG: This is an NT hapax. BDAG glosses as ‘departure’. BDAG notes that this is literally "loosing up".
LSJ: LSJ provides a number of senses.
I've translated as departure, following BDAG.
μου is not discussed.
I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith.
τὸν is not discussed.
τὸν is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG provides two senses. First is that of ‘course’ (e.g., the circuit run by heavenly bodies). This, when use figuratively, has the meaning of ‘race’. Second is ‘course of life’, ‘mission’.
LSJ: LSJ has a more extensive entry. The Iliad uses this of a ‘course’ or ‘race’ runby horses.
I've translated race. This seems to read better than the idea of completing the course or circuit.
BDAG: BDAG provides three senses. The first is that of ‘bring to an end’, ‘finish’, ‘complete’. Second is ‘carry out’, ‘accomplish’. The third sense is to ‘pay’ (what is due).
LSJ: LSJ is extensive.
I've translated have finished. Note that the three verbs in this verse are all perfect indicatives.
τὴν is not discussed.
Henceforth the crown of righteousness is reserved for me, which the Lord in heaven, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day, and not only me but all those who have loved His appearing.
λοιπὸν is not discussed.
BDAG: This occurs four times in the NT, and only here in the PE. BDAG provides three senses. First is a literal sense, ‘to put away’ (for safekeeping). Second is that of ‘reserve’. Third is that of ‘be necessary’.
LSJ: LSJ concurs.
I've translated as is reserved.
μοι is not discussed.
ὁ is not discussed.
τῆς is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG provides three senses. First is that of ‘wreath’ or ‘crown’. Second is that of ‘adornment’ or ‘pride’. Third is that of ‘prize’ or ‘reward’. Note that this is a homonym of the name ‘Stephen’ as well.
LSJ: LSJ concurs.
I've translated as crown, but this is not a literal crown. Cf. Jas 1.12, Re 2.10. M.Poly. 17.1 is also helpful in understanding the nature of the crown image that Paul is using here.
ὃν is not discussed.
μοι is not discussed.
ὁ is not discussed.
For some reason, I have Lord in heaven. I have no idea where I picked up the in heaven; I'm guessing I should get rid of it.
ἐν is not discussed.
ἐκείνῃ is not discussed.
τῇ is not discussed.
ὁ is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG provides two senses. First is the most common, that of ‘judge’. Second (and less common) is that of ‘ruler’, specifically of one of the rulers of Israel prior to the time of the kings.
LSJ: LSJ glosses as ‘judge’ or ‘umpire’.
I've translated judge.
οὐ is not discussed.
μόνον is not discussed.
δὲ is not discussed.
ἐμοὶ is not discussed.
ἀλλὰ is not discussed.
καὶ is not discussed.
τοῖς is not discussed.
BDAG: This is a frequently occuring word and will not be discussed here. The primary meaning is ‘love’.
LSJ: LSJ is extensive.
I've translated as have loved. The sense is, I believe, that of appreciating or taking pleasure in as it is not speaking of a person or thing, but rather an event (Christ's appearing).
τὴν is not discussed.
αὐτοῦ is not discussed.
Make every effort to quickly come to me.
πρός is not discussed.
με is not discussed.
ταχέως is not discussed.
For Demas deserted me, having loved the present age, and journeyed into Thessalonica. Crescens has gone into Galatia, and Titus into Dalmatia.
BDAG: This is the proper name ‘Demas’.
LSJ: LSJ has no article.
The proper translation is Demas.
γάρ is not discussed.
με is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG provides two senses. The first is ‘leave’ (though I don't quite get the sense). Second is that of ‘forsake’, ‘abandon’, ‘desert’. Note Appian's usage, "desert one who is in danger".
LSJ: LSJ agrees with BDAG in the main. note the gloss ‘leave in the lurch’ from Plato.
I've translated deserted. This seems appropriate.
τὸν is not discussed.
νῦν is not discussed.
καὶ is not discussed.
εἰς is not discussed.
BDAG: This is the geographic location ‘Thessalonica’.
LSJ: LSJ has no entry.
This is best rendered as Thessalonica.
BDAG: This is the proper name ‘Crescens’.
LSJ: LSJ has no entry.
This is best rendered Crescens.
εἰς is not discussed.
BDAG: This is the geographic location ‘Galatia’.
LSJ: LSJ has no entry.
This is best rendered Galatia.
BDAG: This is the proper name ‘Titus’.
LSJ: LSJ has no entry.
This is best rendered as Titus. See notes on the Epistle to Titus for more background.
εἰς is not discussed.
BDAG: This is the geographic location ‘Dalmatia’.
LSJ: LSJ has no entry.
This is best rendered Dalmatia.
Only Luke is with me. Take along Mark and bring him with you, for he is useful to me in ministry.
BDAG: This is the proper name ‘Luke’.
LSJ: LSJ has no entry.
This is best rendered Luke. This is the same Luke who authored the books of Luke and Acts, the same "physician" mentioned in Colossians.
μετʼ is not discussed.
ἐμοῦ is not discussed.
BDAG: This is the proper name ‘Mark’.
LSJ: LSJ has no entry.
The background in the BDAG article is helpful. This is best rendered Mark, and is Barnabas' cousin, the author of the Gospel of Mark.
μετὰ is not discussed.
σεαυτοῦ is not discussed.
γάρ is not discussed.
μοι is not discussed.
The word εὔχρηστος (euchrēstos) only occurs three times in the NT, twice in the PE (the other in Philemon 1.11).
εἰς is not discussed.
But I have dispatched Tychicus to Ephesus.
BDAG: This is the proper name ‘Tychicus’.
LSJ: LSJ has no entry for the proper name, but lists a word of the same spelling meaning ‘casual’, ‘fortuitous’.
This is best rendered as the name Tychicus.
δὲ is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG provides two glosses. First is ‘send away/out’. Second is to ‘send’, ‘have something done’.
LSJ: LSJ has five major senses. It agrees, in the main, with BDAG.
I've translated dispatched.
εἰς is not discussed.
As Paul requires Timothy, Paul has sent Tychicus to Ephesus in order to serve the Ephesian congregation in Timothy's stead.
When you come, bring the cloak I left in Troas with Carpus, and the books, especially the parchments.
τὸν is not discussed.
BDAG: This is an NT hapax. BDAG glosses as ‘cloak’. Apparently it comes from the Latin.
LSJ: LSJ provides some variants and cites some examples from papyri.
This is translated cloak.
ὃν is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG provides four senses. First is that of ‘leave behind’. Second is to ‘remain’. Third is to ‘desert’. Fourth is to ‘put aside’, ‘give up’.
LSJ: The LSJ article is extensive.
I've translated left (as in "left behind", BDAG sense 1).
ἐν is not discussed.
BDAG: This is the geographic location, ‘Troas’.
LSJ: LSJ refers one to Τρωϊάς (Trōihas), which means ‘Trojan’.
This is best translated as Troas.
παρὰ is not discussed.
BDAG: This is the personal name ‘Carpus’, a Christian in ‘Troas’. Note the non-name form of this word is translated ‘fruit’.
LSJ: LSJ only has the homonym entry.
This is best translated Carpus, a personal name.
BDAG: BDAG lists 10 senses, and these will not be discussed here. The basic meaning is that of ‘carry’ or ‘bear’.
LSJ: LSJ is similarly extensive.
I've translated bring, as Paul is referring to the items he left in Troas that he would like Timothy to bring with him when he travels to Rome.
καὶ is not discussed.
τὰ is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG provides two senses. The first is ‘document’. Second is ‘scroll’ or ‘book’. The senses are based on length of work. The shorter is sense 1, the longer is sense 2.
LSJ: LSJ concurs. Note it also speaks of the development of βιβλίον (biblion), such as βιβλίον (biblion) meaning ‘library’.
I've translated as books; this makes most sense as any shorter documents would be covered in the reference to parchments later in the verse.
μάλιστα is not discussed.
τὰς is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG glosses as ‘parchment’. This is prepared animal skin (vellum) that was used as writing material.
LSJ: LSJ concurs.
I've translated as parchments. Note that these could be either parchments with writing already on them, or perhaps they were blank, and Paul was planning on writing some letters. If this is true, then we know that there may be post-Second-Timothy (commonly agreed upon as the last Pauline epistle) epistles yet to be found.
Alexander the coppersmith inflicted a great deal of harm to me. The Lord will repay him in accordance with his deeds.
ὁ is not discussed.
BDAG: This is an NT hapax. BDAG glosses as ‘(black)smith’, ‘metalworker’. BDAG notes that the reading ‘coppersmith’ cannot be proven.
LSJ: LSJ provides a gloss for ‘copper-smith’, but also several other sorts of metal workers.
I've translated coppersmith, primarily due to existing translations. I should perhaps change this to metal-worker.
μοι is not discussed.
αὐτῷ is not discussed.
ὁ is not discussed.
κατὰ is not discussed.
τὰ is not discussed.
αὐτοῦ is not discussed.
You yourself must guard against him, for he is quite opposed to our message.
ὃν is not discussed.
καὶ is not discussed.
σὺ is not discussed.
BDAG: Note that Swanson considers this instance (and four others) as deponent and provides the middle form of the word as a lemma. GRAMCORD/BDAG do not do this. The non-active form has been discussed previously. The basic meaning is ‘to guard’ or to ‘observe’.
LSJ: BDAG is extensive.
This is a middle imperative (though Swanson says it's deponent), so I've translated you yourself must guard.
λίαν is not discussed.
γὰρ is not discussed.
τοῖς is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG glosses as ‘our’.
LSJ: LSJ concurs.
I've translated as our.
At my first defense nobody came to my aid, but all abandoned me. May it not be counted against them.
Ἐν is not discussed.
τῇ is not discussed.
μου is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG provides three senses. First is that of ‘defense’, ‘reply’. This seems to be the substance of the defense (written or oral), not the act itself. Second, ‘defense’, or the actual act of defending oneself, typically in a legal context. Third is that of ‘excuse’.
LSJ: LSJ concurs.
I've translated defense. This falls in BDAG sense 2, discussed above. Note Josephus' usage in Wars 1.621.
μοι is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG provides three senses. The first is ‘draw near’, ‘come’, ‘arrive’, ‘be present’. This is by far the most common sense. Second is ‘appear’. Third is ‘stand by’, ‘come to the aid of’.
LSJ: LSJ concurs.
I've translated came to my aid. This is BDAG's third sense above, seemingly the only NT occurrence of this sense.
ἀλλὰ is not discussed.
με is not discussed.
μὴ is not discussed.
αὐτοῖς is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG provides three senses. The first is ‘reckon’, ‘calculate’. The second is ‘consider’, ‘ponder’. The third is ‘think’, ‘believe’, ‘be of the opinion’.
LSJ: LSJ is extensive but concurs (mostly).
I've translated as counted against based on comments and example glosses in BDAG.
But the Lord stood with me and strengthened me, so that through me the preaching might be fully presented and all the nations might hear; and I was rescued out of the lion’s mouth.
ὁ is not discussed.
δὲ is not discussed.
μοι is not discussed.
καὶ is not discussed.
με is not discussed.
ἵνα is not discussed.
διʼ is not discussed.
ἐμοῦ is not discussed.
τὸ is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG provides two senses. First is that of a ‘proclamation’, or the content of the message from a herald, carrying some sort of official nature. Second is that of a simple proclamation, or that read or spoken aloud to a group.
LSJ: LSJ glosses as ‘that which is cried by a herald’. Othe rglosses are provided as well.
I've translated as preaching; this is what the word seems to mean in its typical Pauline context; the message or proclamation made by the apostles.
καὶ is not discussed.
τὰ is not discussed.
καὶ is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG provides one sense for this frequently used word. The sense is that of ‘save’, ‘rescue’, ‘deliver’, ‘preserve’.
LSJ: LSJ is extensive.
I've translated I was rescued. Note that this is an aorist passive indicative.
ἐκ is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG provides four senses, by far the most common is the first sense, the literal sense, that of ‘mouth’.
LSJ: LSJ is extensive.
I've translated mouth; it makes sense with the metaphor that Paul is using here.
BDAG: There is one primary sense with several nuances. The primary literal sense is that of ‘lion’, as in the animal.
LSJ: LSJ concurs.
The best translation to fit the metaphor is lion.
The Lord will rescue me from all evil works and will deliver me into His heavenly kingdom—To Him the glory forever and ever, amen.
με is not discussed.
ὁ is not discussed.
ἀπὸ is not discussed.
καὶ is not discussed.
εἰς is not discussed.
τὴν is not discussed.
αὐτοῦ is not discussed.
τὴν is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG provides two major senses. The first is ‘celestial’, ‘heavenly’, in the sense of a celestial body or observation of phenomenon. The second sense (which has several different nuances and is worth examining) is ‘heavenly’, ‘in heaven’.
LSJ: LSJ concurs.
I've translated as heavenly; note this modifies the previous word.
ᾧ is not discussed.
ἡ is not discussed.
εἰς is not discussed.
τοὺς is not discussed.
τῶν is not discussed.
ἀμήν is not discussed.
Greet Prisca and Aquila and the household of Onesiphorus.
BDAG: BDAG provides two senses. The first is that of ‘greet’, ‘welcome’. This is the primary sense used in the NT. The second sense is only used in Hebrews and will not be discussed here.
LSJ: LSJ has five senses. the primary sense agrees with BDAG's first sense.
I've translated greet.
BDAG: BDAG glosses as ‘Prisca’, ‘Priscilla’.
LSJ: LSJ has no entry.
I've translated Prisca, which is the same as the Priscilla that Paul mentions (with Aquila, most likely her husband) throughout his epistles.
καὶ is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG glosses as ‘Aquila’. This is the husband of ‘Prisca’ (Priscilla).
LSJ: LSJ has no entry.
The best translation is the proper name Aquila.
καὶ is not discussed.
τὸν is not discussed.
The best translation is the proper name Onesiphorus.
Erastus remained in Corinth, and Trophimus I left in Miletus as he was sick.
BDAG: This is the proper name ‘Erastus’. There are two men with this name in the NT.
LSJ: LSJ has no entry.
The best translation is the proper name Erastus.
ἐν is not discussed.
BDAG: This is the geographic location ‘Cornith’.
LSJ: LSJ has no entry.
The best translation is the place name Corinth.
BDAG: This is the proper name ‘Trophimus’.
LSJ: LSJ has no entry.
The best translation is the proper name Trophimus.
δὲ is not discussed.
ἐν is not discussed.
BDAG: The best rendering is the geographic location ‘Miletus’.
LSJ: LSJ has no entry.
The place name Miletus.
BDAG: BDAG provides three senses. The first is that of ‘be sick’, or to suffer an illness of some sort (this seems to be more than the common cold). The second is ‘be weak’, or suffer some sort of incapacitation. The third sense is that of ‘be in need’.
LSJ: LSJ concurs.
I've translated he was sick. As mentiond in the BDAG section, this seems to be more than something like the trivial common cold, but rather an illness of a more serious sort.
Make every effort to come before winter. Eubulus greets you, as do Pudens and Linus and Claudia and all the brothers.
Note the parallel between this verse and 2Ti 4.9.
πρὸ is not discussed.
BDAG: BDAG provides two senses. The first is ‘bad weather’, or ‘storm’. The second is ‘winter’.
LSJ: LSJ concurs.
The translation winter seems to be the best. The question here is, assuming the epistle is genuine, can we date the time of year that the epistle was written? If we consider the distance and typical travel time from Rome to Ephesus (delivery of the letter) and Ephesus to Rome (Timothy's trip to Paul), along with time for Timothy to quickly tie up loose ends in Ephesus before he departs, can we arrive at a decent time of year in which Paul wrote the epistle?
σε is not discussed.
BDAG: This is the proper name ‘Eubulus’.
LSJ: The proper name does not occur as an entry in LSJ, but the homonym does and is glossed as ‘well-advised’, ‘prudent’.
This is the proper name Eubulus.
καὶ is not discussed.
BDAG: This is the proper name ‘Pudens’.
LSJ: LSJ has no entry.
This is best translated as the proper name Pudens.
καὶ is not discussed.
BDAG: This is the proper name ‘Linus’.
LSJ: LSJ has no article for the proper name.
This is the proper name Linus.
καὶ is not discussed.
BDAG: This is the proper name ‘Claudia’.
LSJ: LSJ has no entry.
This is best handled as a proper name, Claudia.
καὶ is not discussed.
οἱ is not discussed.
The Lord be with your spirit. Grace be with you all.
Ὁ is not discussed.
μετὰ is not discussed.
τοῦ is not discussed.
σου is not discussed.
ἡ is not discussed.
Note that this verse has a number of variants. Metzger's "Textual Commentary" is the best at presenting them sorted out; the NA27 apparatus gets a little confusing tracing the multiple variants across multiple instances.
μεθʼ is not discussed.
ὑμῶν is not discussed.
Copyright © 2003 by Rick Brannan.
All Rights Reserved.