2 Timothy 2:2

First, there is precedent in the pastorals for Paul’s use of plural anthropos in a gender-specific way. In 2 Timothy 3:8, for instance, Paul writes, “Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so also these men oppose the truth–men [anthrōpoi] of depraved minds, who, as far as the faith is concerned, are rejected.” The anthrōpoi here must be men since they are “worming their way into women’s homes” (Mounce,Pastoral Eptistles, p. 550). If this is correct, then the anthrōpoi of both 3:2 and 3:13 should be understood as males as well. Consider also the anthrōpoi of 1 Timothy 5:24: “The sins of some men are quite evident, going before them to judgment; for others, their sins follow after.” In context, Paul is telling Timothy to be careful about whom he appoints as elders (v. 5:22: “Do not lay hands on a man too quickly”). Since Paul held to an all male eldership (1 Timothy 2:12; 3:2), the anthrōpoi of 5:24 must also be males. Given Paul’s use of anthrōpoi in a gender-specific way both in the pastorals and elsewhere (e.g., 1 Corinthians 7:7), we have to allow for the possibility that context can determine anthrōpoi with a masculine referent.

People who read this article also liked:

[AuthorRecommendedPosts]

23 thoughts on “2 Timothy 2:2

  1. Troy Day Troy Day says:

    Terry Wiles just to respond to your question

    “In 2 Timothy 2:2 does “anthropoi” mean “men” or “mankind” (which is gender neutral)? I note that the subject is plural.
    Would an acceptable reading be “to faithful people?””

    The phrase pistois anthrÅ�pois could be translated as ‘faithful people,’ since anthrÅ�pos is inclusive for all humans, in contrast to anÄ“r, which can mean only males. I translate ‘faithful men,’ however, because that is clearly what the text means. In the case of the Pastorals, an attempt to create a gender-inclusive translation only camoflouges the pervasive androcentrism of the composition. For better or for worse, the assumptions of the author’s culture (or place within his culture) should be accepted by the translation. It is the task of hermeneutics to decide what to do about those assumptions

    1. Link Hudson Link Hudson says:

      Troy Day Man versus husband is how it is translated. It is just one word in Greek. The Greek speakers in the first century would not have sat around wondering how to translate it into English.

    2. Troy Day Troy Day says:

      It’s not that simple Link The plural of anthropos is often used generically (e.g., 1 Tim 2:1, 4; 4:10; 6:5; 2 Tim 3:2; Tit 2:11; 3:2)

      Just for starters our limited translation will have MANY Problems with antrops in 1 Timothy 2:4

      Does JESUS want all men to be saved or all men and women? Terry Wiles

    3. Troy Day Troy Day says:

      2 Tim 2 2 is Paul speaking not Jesus Paul may have been exclusive on this one – father to son generational teaching / training. This by no means reflect men only in ministry It is too specific to be generalized broadly

  2. Troy Day Troy Day says:

    Terry Wiles as pointed to Link Hudson above – the plural of anthropos when used generically includes women with men

    When they said a man/husband back then it was implied he had a wife and the wife is included in his very being – his way of being. This is also true when someone states the BIBLE is not gender neutral. Truth is the BIBLE is not neutral but it is inclusive in the sense that it includes all women too when it says Jesus wants all men to be saved

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.