2 Timothy (Part 4)

2 Timothy — Steve Gregg

Next in this series

2 Timothy (Part 5)

00:00

2 Timothy (Part 4)

2 TimothySteve Gregg

Steve Gregg provides an insightful exploration of biblical teachings and the need to accurately interpret God's word. The speaker emphasizes the dangers of false doctrines and urges listeners to discern and challenge misleading teachings. Drawing from passages in Hebrews, Acts, and John, Gregg highlights the importance of listening attentively and correcting misconceptions to uphold the truth. He also addresses the concept of apostasy and warns against the allure of materialistic pursuits, emphasizing the root of all kinds of evil. Throughout the discussion, the need for a strong foundation in scripture and unity among Christians is emphasized.

Transcript

He's diligent to present yourself available to your commander. Report for duty. As a qualified soldier, don't come unqualified.

If you're going to present yourself to God, present yourself as one who doesn't have to be ashamed of his condition. If I knew that I was going to have to enlist in the army and I didn't have any qualms about it, I knew I was going to have to be subject to physical rigors and so forth, but I made no effort to get myself in physical condition or whatever, or mentally in condition or whatever. It would be stupid for me to present myself in an unqualified state.

Of course, they weren't going to qualify me, get me into shape or whatever, but the point is, if I love the task, I'll be making sure that by the time I present myself, I'll be presenting the best possible specimen and the best possible agent available that I can make myself available. Be diligent to present yourself. Report for duty to God as one who is a worker who doesn't have to be ashamed, but who is adept in handling the Word of God.

Some say rightly handling the Word of God. The actual great word there is to cut straight, and thus the King James and New King James say rightly dividing the Word of God. Whatever that means is not all that clear, but it certainly has something to do with properly using, properly understanding the Word of God.

Therefore, although we lose the word study in a modern transition, we still retain the idea that studying the Word and understanding the Word and rightly handling the Word is what it takes to be one who doesn't have to be ashamed before God, one who is made diligent to present himself serviceable to God. Later on in this book, in chapter 3, he's going to say the Word of God is given to us that the man of God might be complete and thoroughly equipped for every good work. So if you are presenting yourself for duty to God, to do the good works He has for you, then the way to be thoroughly equipped is to be able to handle the Word of God, which is the weapon in this warfare.

So he advocates being able to rightly divide or to rightly handle the Word of Truth. And he says in contrast to that, what some have done is resorting to vain babblings and propane talk. He says, shove those things, for they will increase some more ungodliness.

Vain talk may seem harmless enough, you know, sticks and stones may break my bones, but words are harmless enough. Words are harmless and it may seem like it. You know, we may, sometimes the first part of our Christian holiness to begin to slip is our talk.

We start making way for a little bit of an off-color joke, or we just want a little bit of caustic humor against the person we come into the way we talk. We begin to become a little compromised in the holiness of our speech, and before long that multiplies into more ungodliness. I mean, once you've said things that are not exactly appropriate to the Christian, your conscience is going to be somewhat defiled anyway.

I can remember graphically times, I mean, sitting around and involved in a humorous discourse with some brothers or something that was somewhat inappropriate, just because the way it began to degenerate, it went into areas where after all of us kind of felt a little guilty about the way the conversation had gone. Not because it was atrocious, but just because it ceased to be sanctified after a little while. And then, you know, someone came in and said, oh, there's been a crisis, we need to pray, you know.

And, you know, suddenly you feel so unqualified to pray. I mean, you feel like such a hypocrite now in solemn prayer, when you know you've just been involved in foolish jesting and so forth. I've lived another experience, I've had more than once, where we've kind of allowed ourselves to get a little compromised in the things we've been talking about.

And then suddenly, something calls for us to be, you know, spiritual. And you can't just throw a switch and shift gears instantly, you know. It's like spirituality has to be cultivated as a regular practice.

And people who get into vain and foolish babblings and wrong kind of talk, they find that it eventually degenerates into other forms, all kinds of forms of ungodliness. Now, he gives an example of some who have fallen into this trap, where it says, their message will spread like a cancer. Hymenaeus and Philetus are of this sort, who have strayed from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already passed, and they overthrow the faith of some.

I mentioned in our introduction, this may suggest a Gnostic rejection of the doctrine of physical resurrection. We don't know exactly the nature of their teaching, but it seems most likely that these men were teaching that there is a resurrection, but we've already experienced it, it's a spiritual one, and there's no physical resurrection, which the Gnostics, of course, would be not favorable for a physical resurrection. So this may suggest sort of a Gnostic tendency, and Hymenaeus has been mentioned earlier in Christendom.

Yes, Scott? I think profane and vain babblings aren't like joking around and stuff, but they're both false doctrines. False doctrines are also profane and vain babblings, you're right. But Paul does talk about profane speech in Ephesians, in terms of being a foolish talk.

I would say profane and vain babblings could be a term that refers to anything that's not really sanctified speech. Certainly the content could be error and heresy, and that would make it profane and vain, or it could simply be unclean stuff, like some of the humor that we make with some of the colleges. But you're right, I think in this context, it's mainly a concern of heresy, as you mentioned, simply by giving an example.

I think you know sometimes we're drawn to lying, because we hear people around the school saying things, and not only that, but when the teacher that came across it, because of that witnessing, he would resort to swearing in a certain area of town, if he didn't meet it with certain type of people, a baseball company, or swearing, he didn't think anything wrong swearing in particular. But to meet that group, he would, you know, he would have to. I'm surprised to hear that from the teacher we brought here.

I know a teacher down at a study center in Eugene, and I used to debate with him, he's a star Calvinist, and I used to be on the radio debating with him for 26 weeks, a weekly program, on the subject of black Calvinism or Minnianism. And we'd go out to eat something after the show together, a fellowship, and I was amazed that he would actually swear in talking to the waitresses and stuff, if he thought that that was something that would make them see him as a down to earth kind of real person. And I did not feel comfortable with that at all, frankly.

I mean, you know, as far as profane talk, the Bible no longer tells us exactly what profane talk is, but the standard that is set for us is that we should only allow such speech as is edifying to the hearers. First, you know, Paul says in Ephesians 4, in fact, that might be the passage that was under consideration, I don't know, but the point is that in Ephesians 4 he says, let no profane talk come out of your mouth, but only such as good for the edifying of the hearers, administering grace to the hearers. And while I don't know that the formulation of certain syllables in itself has any magical or superstitious negative powers, certainly the value or the impact of words has to do with their cultural use and the way people understand and react to words.

And almost all people recognize certain words as being inappropriate for people who are pure. Now, I heard a teacher once say, and I'm not sure I get this, but he was talking about Philippians, where Paul said, you know, all things that were gain to me I count them as dumb. He was trying to emphasize how strong a statement that was.

And he says, if Paul said anything, he'd say, I count them as shit. And he used the word shit, and everyone, including me, you know, eyebrows went up. How dare he say that word from God's holy book? And yet, you know, basically he's trying to stress how strongly Paul is trying to speak of the negative value of those things and say that that word in our culture would have the same kind of impact as the word dominicum.

And I'm not sure he was right about that. But I came to think it wasn't necessarily an evil for him to use that word in that more or less clinical sense, in the case of trying to illustrate the impact. If he used that word in common speech, I wonder why.

You know, if he's trying to make a spiritual point from it, you know, it's like Paul says elsewhere, it's a shame even to mention the things that unbelievers do sometimes. Paul mentions them sometimes to make a spiritual point. Same thing with words like that.

You know, it would be a shame for that to be in your regular speech, it seems to me. To make a spiritual point, there may be some place for it. I wouldn't do it just to be able to relate with the people in the heart of town.

I do remember that I once worked in an office for a short time with a bunch of people who all smoked and swore, and one of them asked the first day, I was there, he said, you're a Christian, aren't you? I said, how do you know? And they said, well, I mean, it had not occurred to me that I'd done anything that stood out as unusual, but they said, you don't smoke or swear. And I had noticed the difference. Where, you know, I wouldn't swear even to try to relate with people who did that.

Anyway, I would say that the difference between using the word dung or the other word in modern America, even if you're trying to convey the same concept, we know what dung is, and that it is something that we can use other words for, including dung, that does not convey the same connotations as when we use the S word. And why is it that the S word, the S and H word, or whatever you want to call it, why is it that we call that a swear word? But it only means exactly the same thing. Dung means we don't call dung a swear word.

Why, what is it? I've often wondered about that. Certain words about biological processes can be clinical, and in other words, they have the exact same meaning as the term swear words. Why? I don't know why, but for one reason or another, our culture has come to associate certain words with simply foul mouth.

You know, it's just inappropriate for people to use those words. And therefore, because words in any culture only have an impact as their culture perceives and relates to those words, swear words, or we might argue, well, you know, what's the difference if I say that word or if I say dung? There is a difference. There's a difference because by using the word dung, you're using a word that you know is culturally acceptable.

By using the other one, you are deliberately using a word that you know is not culturally acceptable and is having an impact on your hearing, which is you know is going to be a negative one and is not going to be viewed as a holy thing for a godly person to say. So I personally would not do that. Others may reach for their own reasons different conclusions.

John? Concerning our own existence, believe it or not, a big objection stood out in that day with narcissism. It seems like whenever something, somewhere it's narcissism, by the way, you know, John or whatever, you know, it was so quick to tag it as narcissism. What do you think about the possibility or the likelihood that someone just on their own coming up with heresies to gain to be confronted with all of these possibilities that they didn't necessarily claim them from narcissism? Yeah, okay.

Okay, yeah. The question, I'll take the video and others may not have heard this, is how do we know that these heresies really were narcissism and were not simply somebody's own individual ideas that happened to have some impact, that were like narcissism? And that is a possibility. I know scholars are always trying to categorize everything and say, okay, this heresy obviously is, we know what that is, that's not narcissism.

But it's entirely possible for a Christian who's not a Gnostic to come up with some kind of harebrained thing that he thinks is a divine revelation and says, oh, the resurrection's past, you know, I mean, maybe that's true. But the tendency is to try to find a common thread of all the false teachers and see if there's one thing that takes them all together. And narcissism would seem to do that.

But you're right, it's possible these guys were not Gnostics, but they just had some weird doctrine. Yeah. I just wanted to say, when I said that there's a teacher, you know, I believe he was teaching that, but he said he's trying to come into this where people did that and it worked for them.

Oh, I see. Okay, yeah. Okay, I won't assume that he does this, but he's basically opening up the possibility of that being a, you know, I don't judge him, but it's something I wouldn't feel comfortable doing at all.

We need to move along. Speaking of these false teachers, it says, They have strained and constrained the truth, verse 18, saying that the resurrection's past already, and they overthrow the faith of some. Once again, we have this reference to people who had faith, having their faith overthrown, shipwrecked, drifting, departing from the faith.

A very common theme in the pastoral is obviously to have the faith now does not guarantee that you'll have it tomorrow. It's largely up to your own decisions. The decisions you make will determine whether you shipwreck your faith or overthrow your faith or whatever.

And some have had their faith overthrown. Nevertheless, the solid foundation of God stands having this feel. The Lord knows who are His, and let everyone who names the name of Christ depart from iniquity.

It's not altogether clear what he means by the foundation of God. The reason is that this word foundation in the Greek is used a variety of ways by Paul. Sometimes Paul speaks of Christ as the foundation.

Sometimes he speaks of the foundation of the apostles and prophets. When he says he does not build on another man's foundation, he's using the word to metaphorically mean another man's work. A church planted by another individual, then himself.

He doesn't build on another man's foundation. In Hebrew, the term is used to mean the elementary doctrines of Christianity are the foundation. So, obviously, the word foundation has a variety of usages.

And I'm not sure we can identify which one he means here, because he doesn't say what the foundation is. He just says whatever the foundation of God is, it stands sure. We could possibly say the foundation of his kingdom, in view of what's said there.

And foundations of buildings often have some saying inscribed on them. And he says there's two sayings inscribed on the foundation of God's kingdom, just to be general. I may have more specific meaning than that.

And that is, one saying is God knows who are His. The second is that those who name the name of Christ depart from iniquity. What this seems to mean is, God, of course, knows who His people are, and He doesn't need to be told, and He doesn't need any proofs or evidences.

But the only way we'll know who God's people are, is not just that they name the name of Christ. Many people profess to be Christians. But that they prove that they're God's by departing from iniquity.

As far as God's awareness is concerned, He knows who are His, but we don't. Unless they depart from iniquity. In fact, we don't even know if we're His, unless there's some evidence.

In fact, that we have changed the direction of our lives, and that we have departed from iniquity. And so, the evidence that we belong to Jesus is that our lives have changed. We've changed our lives from iniquity to lawlessness.

But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver, but also wood and clay, some for honor and some for dishonor. Therefore, if anyone cleanses himself from the latter, or from these, the convicts, he will be a vessel for honor, sanctified and useful for the master, prepared for every good work. Now, here's the interesting thing, because the expression, vessels for honor and vessels for dishonor, is used also by Paul in a passage in Romans 9, which many have understood to have exactly the opposite meaning of this passage.

In Romans chapter 9, when talking about the sovereignty and foreknowledge and the election of God, and how that He shows mercy on whom He will show mercy, and He'll harden him whom He will harden, He gives no station of a potter and his pots. And He says in verse 21, Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? Now, that's interesting, because Paul is basically saying, God has the right to take one lump of clay and make from that one lump two different kinds of vessels, some for honorable uses, some for dishonorable uses. And it would seem like he's saying in this context that God kind of makes that choice like a potter does.

The clay doesn't have anything to do with saying what it's going to be made into, it's just the potter's sovereign choice to damn some and to save others, is how some people understand it. The interesting thing, though, is that the same expression, vessels for honor and vessels for dishonor, is used by Paul in 2 Timothy, where he says it all rests on you. If you purify yourself or cleanse yourself from those vessels of dishonor, you will make yourself into a vessel of honor.

Interesting how the responsibility is placed on us in 2 Timothy to make ourselves into vessels of honor instead of dishonor, because in Romans it sounds like he's saying it's all God's doing, even like it's a potter's doing with his pot. I mean, the clay has absolutely no choice, the potter makes all the decisions as to what that pot's going to be, and yet Timothy is using the same language, the same figure, says something different. Now, what I think he's saying in Romans 9 is this, not all have seen it this way, but when he says from the same lump, I think the lump is Israel, that is, ethnic Israel.

The context of Romans 9 is that not all the Israelites have been saved. Some have, an elect number have, but many have not. I believe what he's saying is, there is in Israel the whole lump.

Some have been made into vessels of honor, then if they become Christians, they're the elect remnant of faith. Others from the same lump are vessels of dishonor, for dishonor of a person, which he later calls them vessels of wrath, as opposed to vessels of glory in the next couple verses. What he's basically explaining there is, among God's people, there are some that he has chosen to include in his household, as vessels of honor of others, he has fitted for destruction.

But it does not really talk about the basis for this decision. We know, or at least can conclude, that the basis for that decision is that some didn't have faith and some did. Later in Romans 11, he says they were cut off for their unbelief.

So those ones that he calls vessels of dishonor, vessels fitted for destruction, are the branches that did not believe. And their believing was their responsibility. They chose not to, and therefore God made them into vessels for destruction.

But those who did believe, he has chosen to use them for honorable purposes. Now, what Paul says in 2 Timothy, again, is taking an image that he used about Israel in Romans, that he uses about the church here. In a great house.

And we presume that he means God's house, which he has said earlier in 1 Timothy 3, in verse 15, that the house of God is the church, the building ground of the church of truth. So in the church, in the body of Christ, there are a variety of vessels. God's house has many vessels.

Some are used for honorable purposes, some for not. It's like you bring out the good china when you've got guests you want to impress. Or other things like the earthenware dog food bowl that is not used for honorable purposes, but it's both in the same master's house.

He says, you want to be the dog food bowl or the fine china? That's up to you. You can make yourself into a vessel of honor if you purify yourself or cleanse yourself or remove yourself, separate yourself from what the New King James says, the ladder, which I think is the right idea. It's confusing when he says that many men cleanse themselves from these, because these is not very clear.

The last thing he's mentioning is some for dishonor. He's talking about how in the church there are some who are doing the right thing and becoming vessels for honorable purposes. There are others who are doing the wrong thing, like Hymenaeus and Philetus, teaching wrong doctrines, overthrowing the faith of some.

They're in the church that is the visible church, but they are not vessels of honor, they are vessels to dishonor. And you need to separate yourself from such people as that. Those vessels of dishonor are overthrowing the faith of some, so you cleanse yourself from them.

You remain far from them, and you will make yourself into a vessel of honor, a different type than them. And you'll be sanctified or set apart and useful for the master, prepared for every good work. It's interesting that he uses that expression, prepared for every good work here, because as we know over in 2 Timothy 3.17, he says, a man of God who has the word of God is equipped, complete, and equipped for every good work.

So to be complete and equipped for every good work requires the scriptures, and the master of the scriptures. To be prepared for every good work also requires separating yourself from those who keep contrary, and those who are the vessels of dishonor. Verse 22, flee you fool left, but pursue righteousness, faith, love, and peace with those who call on the Lord out of a pure heart.

This is an important thing. We saw in verse 3 of chapter 1, a pure conscience. In chapter 1 verse 5, genuine faith, and here, a pure heart.

Remember those are the three things that Paul said in 1 Timothy 1.5. The goal of our instruction is love out of a pure heart, a good conscience, and genuine faith. Those three things reappear here. Paul has a pure conscience, Timothy has genuine faith, and now those who are companions with us are those who call on God out of a pure heart.

By the way, that stresses the fact that God is more concerned about people's hearts than some other issues. A lot of Christians separate themselves from other Christians on the basis of doctrinal difference or something. And I do believe we should hold on to doctrinal purity, and at least we should advocate it and hold tight to it ourselves.

But we need to acknowledge that some people who have different doctrines may have a pure heart too. And they may be honest before God, they may be believing and teaching what they believe God says. They may be wrong, or you may be wrong, but the point is, if you have a pure heart before God, and they do too, you are associated with them.

And you pursue peace and love and faith with those people who have a pure heart. There may be people who agree with you more adoptively and don't have a pure heart. Your affiliation, your association, is to be with those that you perceive to have a pure heart toward God.

But avoid foolish and ignorant disputes, knowing that they generate strife. And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel, but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth, and that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will. There's more to say about these verses than I can really allow myself the time to say.

These are good preaching verses, you could spend a lot of time on these, just these three verses. The thought is, very clearly, is that the demeanor of the man of God who hopes to rescue people from the devil's snare has got to be gentle and meek, patient in dealing with people. You can't just be impatient and quarrelsome and intolerant of people.

By the way, the word patient there in the New King James, the last word of verse 24, in the Greek actually means forbearing. Forbearing is a word that means putting up with. And in a couple of places in the New Testament, this very Greek word is used in the sense of being willing to listen to.

For example, in 2 Corinthians 11.1, 2 Corinthians 11.1 Paul says, bear with a little foolishness, meaning himself, his own words. And he means basically, put up with me and listen to what I have to say. And also in Hebrews chapter 13 and verse 22 it says, forbear or bear or endure the word of exhortation, which means the epistle itself.

Hebrews 13.22, which means be willing to listen to it, to put up with it, to bear with the exhortation. Now, in saying that the man of God must have this attitude in his approach to unbelievers, it means he should be prepared to listen to them, not just do all the talking. He should be able to put up with their arguments.

He shouldn't be just exasperated when they're not immediately agreeing with him, or when they propose an idea that he totally disagrees with. He should be gentle, he should be able to teach, and he should be able to listen to the unbelievers. In humility, he will correct them, it says in verse 25, he's not going to just act like they're telling the truth when they're not.

He will listen, but then he'll correct them. But you can't really correct them until you've heard what they said. So many times in a theological dispute, for instance with Joel of Winchester or someone like that, you'll be making good points and they'll be making good points, and neither one is hearing what the other is saying, because while the other is answering your argument, you're not listening to his answer, you're thinking of what your next argument is going to be.

Real communication needs to take place. If we're going to rescue people, we need to make sure that we hear what they're saying, so that when we correct them, we're not answering something that we've misperceived where they're coming from. We need to be in touch with people, in communicating with them, so that we can humbly correct them.

And then perhaps God will grant them repentance. And one of the few places where the Bible speaks of repentance is something God himself must grant. The expression that God grants repentance is also found in Acts.

In chapter 11, it says when Peter convinced the saints in Jerusalem that what happened at the household of Cornelius was okay. It says they rejoiced and said, well, then God has granted even the Gentiles repentance, or something like that. I don't know the verse number.

What? Repentance on the line. Right. It's Acts chapter 11, and it's after Peter finally convinces skeptical Jewish Christians that it's okay.

Verse 18. Verse 18. Thank you.

Okay. Now, notice the people that we're helping need to come to their senses, verse 26, and escape the snare of the devil. Why? Because the snare of the devil is deception.

You know, it seems to me there's a lot of popular teaching about spiritual warfare today from many, many sources. But almost all of the teaching in the Bible about spiritual warfare, and then when it talks about the devil and his activities, and getting free from the devil and overcoming the devil, it almost always focuses on truth and errors. There's not a whole lot about blasting the demons out of the atmosphere.

It's mostly the conflict between the truth of the gospel and the errors that the devil promotes to obscure the truth. And here's a characteristic instance. These people are trapped by the devil.

How can they get free? By coming to know the truth. Coming to their senses and realizing what's true. The trap is in deception.

And God has to grant them repentance so that they may know the truth, and come to their senses, and escape the snare of the devil. They've been trapped, they're his captives. They can't just walk away without being set free by the truth.

Jesus says, you'll know the truth, and the truth will make you free. In John 8, 32 I think it is. Okay, now, this word, taken captive by him, is a Greek word that's found only one other place in the New Testament.

In an interesting sense. It says these people have been taken captive, or have literally been captured by the devil, or caught alive is really what it means. And it's the same word that's found only elsewhere in Luke 5, in verse 10, where Jesus, when called in the fishermen, said, henceforth you shall catch, or capture men.

The other gospels have him saying, at least Matthew has him saying, I'll make you fishers of men. In Luke 5, 10, it says, henceforth you will catch men. You might recall, if you've ever heard Daniel Inman, or read his book, Bringing Them Back Alive, he says that he got the title from that book, from reading in a lexicon that this word for being fishers of men, to catch men, actually means catching alive, or taking them alive.

So he's inspired to write a book about advancing stuff, bringing them back alive. But that's the same word here. The devil has captured men, and when Jesus called his apostles, he said that they might capture them back.

It's interesting that people are just in a sense pawns, you know, they're either in captivity to God, or in captivity to the devil. And the best thing you can do for them if they're not God's captors is take them into captivity for God, because if they're not, they're in captivity to the devil. He's captured them, and the task of the nation is capturing them back.

Now, chapter 3. But notice that in the last days perilous times will come, for men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderers without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God, having a form of godliness, but denying its power. For of this sort are those who creep into households and make captives of gullible women, loaded down with sins, led away by various lusts, always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. Now as Janice and Janabree resisted Moses, so do these, also resist the truth, men of corrupt minds, disapproved concerning the faith, actually reprobate is the word that King James uses, but it means disapproved concerning the faith, but they will progress no further, for their folly will be manifest to all as theirs also was.

Now, first point, I mean I could spend a lot of time on all these traits if I wanted to preach a sermon, but we don't have time for sermons, we have to cover the material. What is the last days? In the last days perilous times will come. Last days here is not the same expression he used in 1 Timothy 4.1, where it says in latter times.

In latter times men will depart from the faith, he said in 1 Timothy 4.1, and I said that that probably has something to do with 2 Thessalonians 2, that I think it is the same apostasy that he referred to there in 2 Thessalonians. Here however he uses the term last days, the same term that Peter used on the day of Pentecost. He said this is that which is prophesied by the prophet Joel in the last days of the prophet of my spirit.

We've talked about the last days already a few times, and you're familiar with some of the things I have to say about that. Just in summary, especially if anyone is watching the video who hasn't heard me other times discuss this, I say this, the last days as used in the New Testament can only mean possibly two things. One, the whole church age, because Peter on the day of Pentecost was in the last days, and if they extend to the end of the world, then all the church age from the beginning to the end is the last days.

Or they can mean the last days or the final closing period before the fall of Jerusalem, that is the last days of the Jewish empire, of the Jewish economy, the Old Testament covenant, the old covenant that has come to an end, and it ended in 70 AD with the destruction of Jerusalem. Peter's words and the use of last days in the New Testament can be understood either way. I have a preference for the latter view, but the first view is also a possibility.

If Paul means the last days, and meaning the last days of the Jewish era, as I believe it is usually the use of the term in the New Testament, then he means that even in the few years that were following the year he wrote this, he probably wrote this in 66 or 67, it was going to get worse. Now 70 AD was only three or four years off when he wrote this, but we know that the Jewish war erupted in 66 AD, and that's when things really got terrible, and all kinds of treachery, all kinds of, all these things, all these abuses were very manifest in a recorded portion of Josephus' work, that men just became, at least Jews and probably those who opposed him too, just got brutal and fierce and practically insane and treacherous and didn't obey their parents or respect the elders or whatever. A lot of things like that are said to have happened in those final years before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, therefore last days could refer to that.

If you prefer the notion that the last days refer to the whole church age, then what he's saying here is the whole church age is to be characterized by this kind of stuff. Now I know that a lot of people have quoted this as if it is supposed to be the unique condition at the end of the church age, you know, just before Jesus comes back, the last days. And some people say, brother, do you believe we're in the last days? They may, do you believe Jesus is coming back real soon? And they use this passage and they say, well look, this is just like today, certainly we must be in the last days today, Jesus must be coming soon.

But I think they're misunderstanding the usage of the term last days in the Bible and they're misunderstanding that all of these things have been characteristic of the church age in a greater or lesser degree at various times, and in a very major degree surrounding the events around the fall of Jerusalem prior to it. Anyway, we can see it either way, but none of these things necessarily should be thought to be characteristic of the end of the world, or the last days just before Jesus returns. That's not the way the terminology is used in the New Testament, and it is wrong for us, our teachers today to use it, although they do frequently use this passage that way.

Now, these people, a lot can be said of them. They don't love God very much, but they love themselves, they love money, and they love pleasure. It says in verses 2 and 4, they're lovers of self, lovers of money, lovers of pleasure.

They're very loving people. But they don't love God, it says, they love pleasure more than they love God. But they love themselves.

Now, it is very tempting to apply that to our present age, since our age is one of the first, at least since Christianity became prominent in the Western world, where love of self is actually advocated as a virtue by modern psychologists. And people are taught that they should learn how to love themselves. The Bible says something along those lines, that it's one of the marks of a corrupt age that men become lovers of themselves.

And that has always been the case throughout Church history until recently. But in pagan times, people loved themselves without apology. I mean, that was just, I mean, you know, there have been ages and cultures when that hasn't been shameful.

Lovers of money, we know that the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil. Bolsters and crowns is similar to loving yourself. Blasphemers, disobeying to parents, that's not a new phenomenon.

Unthankful and unholy, unloving and unforgiving. Okay? A lot of un's. They're not what they should be.

You should be thankful, holy, loving and forgiving, but they're none of those things. They're slanderers. They don't have self-control, which is necessary to live a Christian life, and even to live a civilized life for a non-Christian, one must have some degree of self-control.

They're brutal, they despise good. They don't even just, you know, tolerate good people, they hate it. They hate the good.

They're traitors, you can't trust them. Their head's strong, can't change their mind. Suburban.

Haughty. Lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God. Well, everybody who is in Christianism are more of a lover of pleasure than a lover of God.

So Paul must be saying that these people are in an expensive degree, so to these last days. Having a form of godliness that denies its power. Now that could speak of persons who pretend to be Christians, but are never really converted.

After all, what is its power? Its power is the power of the Holy Spirit, which we spoke of earlier. The power of God in chapter 1 verse 8 is identified with the spirit of power in chapter 1 verse 7. These people have some semblance of religion, but they really do not believe. They deny its power.

Now, that doesn't necessarily mean they have to verbally deny it. Over in Titus chapter 1 verse 16, Titus 1 16, Paul says, They profess to know God, but in works they deny Him. So denying the power of God may not be so much that they verbally deny the Holy Spirit, but they may simply in their behavior deny Him.

They may ignore Him, they may resist Him. Anyway, they are also immoral. They may break into households, pretend their husband is not there, and seduce the gullible and silly women who are overloaded with sins.

This is a mark of false teachers. In 2 Peter 2 verse 14, false teachers are described there in somewhat the same way. That is, in terms of their moral and sexual behavior.

2 Peter 2 verse 14 says, They have eyes full of adultery, they cannot see sin. Beguiling unstable souls. Deceiving unstable people.

Taking captive gullible women. They have eyes full of adultery, they cannot see sin. It agrees with the false teacher description in 2 Peter.

It says in verse 7, They are always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. This could possibly be a reference to Gnosticism, which puts it both in knowledge. It says they may be increasing in knowledge of a sort, but they never seem to reach the knowledge of the truth.

I know people in our own culture, especially when I was in Santa Cruz where there are two colleges. The University of California is there, and also a prestigious state college, a career college. And I knew people, I lived there for 10 years, and there were some people I knew who were students there all 10 of those years.

Some of them were students at the two-year state college all 10 of those years. They were perennial students. They lived off grants and loans, and they never really intended to get out of school.

They were ever learning. I don't know if it was love for truth and knowledge, or if it was just a desire to live off grants. But, I've never heard this verse, I've thought of it from people I knew in Santa Cruz.

They'd been college students in a two-year college for 10 years. There's someone who's ever learning. But they were no closer to the truth than when they started, because they weren't learning the truth.

You can learn, but if you don't know what the standard of authority is for truth, which is the word of God, then you're not going to get any closer to the truth, no matter how many bits of information you take in. Now, these people are compared in verse 8 with Janice and Jambres. These people are not mentioned by name anywhere else in the Bible.

But we are told here that they resisted Moses. Well, Moses was resisted on several occasions. For example, out in the wilderness he was resisted by Korah, and by some other people.

But these names are apparently Egyptian names, and most scholars feel like this is a reference to the Egyptian magicians who resisted Moses in Exodus 7, 11, and in other places when he stood before Pharaoh. The magicians also imitated him with their magic tricks. And most scholars believe that although getting their names must be from some apocryphal source, that it is nonetheless a reference to the magicians in Egypt who resisted Moses.

Now, if that is true, then he's saying that these false teachers also employ occultism, because they resisted the truth the same way these Egyptian magicians did. So he may be adding to their immorality occult practices. Then verse 9, it says, But they will progress no further, for their falling will be manifest to all, as also theirs was.

Now, they will progress no further means these false teachers will not really progress any further than Janice and Janice did. You remember that Janice and Janice were able to deceive up to a point and duplicate, but eventually they reached a point where they couldn't even counterfeit what was being done. Their powers had limits.

Now, he says these false teachers too will soon be manifest, their limitations. Their falling will be manifest to all, just as that of the Egyptian magicians was. I will say this.

Many of us have a very pessimistic view of the future, because we've been taught as Christians that things are just going to get worse all the way until Jesus comes back. And I know that this passage is often used as one of the supports for that. You know, in the last days, this is what people will be like.

And some would use this passage even to prove that society has to get worse. But again, I would argue that, A, the last days does not necessarily refer to our time, as Paul is using it. And B, even if it does refer to what some people call the last days, that is the final years of history before Jesus comes back, it says that these people will not proceed very far.

In other words, the final stage of things is not the dominance of these people, but in the end they will be ridiculed or whatever. They're falling will be manifest. So it does not necessarily lend support to give us a gloomy outlook.

I think we should move forward in our evangelistic efforts and discipling efforts with the hope that we might make a positive impact on society through making disciples of all nations, and not just kind of have a gloomy aspect, well, it's going to get worse anyway, so why bother. Verse 10.