Talking Out Of Turn

Let’s take a look at the following verses:

2 Timothy 2:11-13 Listen

11 The saying is trustworthy, for:

If we have died with him, we will also live with him;
12 if we endure, we will also reign with him;
if we deny him, he also will deny us;
13 if we are faithless, he remains faithful—

for he cannot deny himself. (ESV)

In my view, I think we can divide these verses up into three parts in order to better grasp what they’re saying. Perhaps one way to look at these verses is to consider that Part 1 might be referring to the true Christian, Part 2 the false Christian, and Part 3 the (for a season) faithless but true Christian.

Part 1: from “died” to “reign.” If we are truly Christians who have died to our old lives, and who are risen again in Christ, that is, new creations; and if we continue to endure and persevere by faith in Christ according to his grace, then, yes, God’s promise is that we will reign with him in Christ! Cf. Rom. 6:8.

Part 2: from “deny” to “deny.” I don’t think this is strictly limited to talking about denying Christ verbally, because otherwise the apostle Peter who denied Christ three times would also have been denied by Christ. Rather, what I think this is talking about is if we come to deny him in our walk and in how we live, which may or may not express itself in a verbal denial. That is, if we demonstrate that our faith is vain, that our faith is “faith without works,” faith that isn’t of the fruits of the Spirit, faith that is not accompanied by repentance and which results in a life of holiness — not because we are doing so in order to be saved but because we are doing so out of sheer gratitude that Christ first loved us and died for our sins — then this is not true, saving faith. It is dead faith. We were never born of God.

Maybe one way to get a better idea of this is to contrast this verse (”if we deny him, he also will deny us”) with another verse which Jesus spoke in Matt 7:21: “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.” So, for example, although it’s true Peter technically “denied” Christ verbally, he was not lost. By the grace of God, he repented. However, there are people who technically never, ever in their entire lives deny Christ verbally and who have always called him “Lord, Lord.” But these people do not “do the will of my Father who is in heaven.” They may call themselves Christians, for example, but they do not live like how Christians ought or are biblically expected to live. They do not have a personal investment in Christ or his Word. Or even in his church, insofar as truly loving the brethren in Christ, serving them, desiring their good, and so on. They do not know and love Christ as genuine Christians intimately know and love Christ.

In fact, they might even be fooling themselves or deceiving themselves that they are true Christians when they are not. So, sadly, in the end, Christ will deny he ever knew them. As Jesus asked them in Luke 6:46, “Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and not do what I tell you?” That’s why Paul warned and exhorted those who professed to believe in Christ to “Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Or do you not realize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you? — unless indeed you fail to meet the test!” (2 Cor. 13:5).

Part 3: from “faithless” to “faithful.” Again, as I understand it, Part 1 is talking about the true Christian. Part 2 is talking about the false Christian. And Part 3 here is talking about the true Christian who for whatever reason and for however long a period of time becomes a faithless Christian. Part 3 is talking about the faithless but true Christian. The backslidden Christian. However, he or she is a true Christian but temporarily (whether for weeks, or, perhaps, for years) suffers a crisis of faith for whatever reason. At least that’s my understanding.

In short, God “cannot deny himself.” He cannot say one thing and do another. He cannot go against his very nature — on the one hand promising that he will save us to the uttermost while on the other hand losing us. Again, he cannot and will not break promises he has made. He is entirely trustworthy.

All this said, again, this is just how I understand these verses. Maybe it’s not an entirely faithful or fair interpretation though? Maybe it’s mistaken to impose this threefold framework onto the text? Maybe it’s not so much meant to be categorized in this manner as it’s meant to be something more akin to, say, a psalm, a Christian’s prayerful song for grace and mercy from the Lord to continue to persevere in the faith (since, after all, as I believe I’ve read before, these verses are possibly excerpted from a 1st century Christian hymn) — in which case the warning of denial and being denied by Christ is cast as more of a cautionary exhortation to keep the true Christian from falling away?

Well, I guess it’s the best I can do. It’s just how I understand the passage. But where it’s misleading, or flat out incorrect and wrong, or whatever else, I’d definitely welcome and appreciate corrections. Thanks.

Update (Oct. 4, 2007): I’ve struck out Part 3 because of Charlie’s very helpful comment in the combox. Please do read what he wrote if you’re interested.

Originally, I was (wrongly) thinking along the lines that “faithless” here might be referring to someone who is a true Christian (”has faith”) but subsequently entertains serious doubts which cause him to stumble for a season. However, because of God’s faithfulness to this faithless one, he will be made faithful again. Or something along those lines.

But Charlie here points out, among other things, that if such a one is faithless, then it means he does not have faith, and from a biblical (Reformed) perspective, if one does not have faith, then one is not a genuine believer or Christian. In other words, one cannot go from having faith, then not having faith, and then having faith again. No, we are either unregenerate or regenerate. That’s the biblical position.

Anyway, I can’t believe I made such a terrible (and obvious, given that I’m Reformed) error in trying to interpret this verse! But thanks, Charlie, for the correction.