II Timothy 2:18 · Bible study
2 Timothy 2:18 Commentary: Error About the Resurrection
Greek · 11 what the commentators say
Meaning in one sentence
Paul warns of false teachers who claimed the resurrection had already occurred, and the deadly effect of that error on faith.
Research Summary
- Meaning: Paul condemns false teachers who denied a future bodily resurrection, warning that such error destroys faith.
- Key words: ἠστόχησαν (erred: missed the mark), ἀνάστασις (resurrection), γεγονέναι (to have taken place, perfect infinitive, completed action), ἀνατρέπουσιν (overthrowing: subverting, destroying).
- Main debate: Whether the false teachers saw resurrection as purely spiritual (regeneration, new life) or taught that it had already occurred in some other sense, both views deny a future bodily hope.
- Theological theme: The bodily resurrection is foundational to Christian faith and hope; to remove it is to undermine the gospel itself.
- Best use: A warning to hold firmly to the historic doctrine of the resurrection and to reject teaching that reduces it to a present experience only.
Translation Comparison
BSB Berean Standard Bible 2020
who have deviated from the truth. They say that the resurrection has already occurred, and they undermine the faith of some.
WEB World English Bible 2000
men who have erred concerning the truth, saying that the resurrection is already past, and overthrowing the faith of some.
KJV King James Version 1769
Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.
ASV American Standard Version 1901
men who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already, and overthrow the faith of some.
YLT Young's Literal Translation 1898
who concerning the truth did swerve, saying the rising again to have already been, and do overthrow the faith of some;
Darby Darby Bible 1890
[men] who as to the truth have gone astray, saying that the resurrection has taken place already; and overthrow the faith of some.
Douay-Rheims Douay-Rheims Bible 1899
Who have erred from the truth, saying that the resurrection is past already, and have subverted the faith of some.
Translations in other languages (10 available)
Que se han descaminado de la verdad, diciendo que la resurrección es ya hecha, y trastornan la fe de algunos.
Esses se desviaram da verdade, dizendo que a ressurreição já aconteceu; e perverteram a fé de alguns.
qui se sont détournés de la vérité, disant que la résurrection est déjà arrivée, et qui renversent la foi de quelques uns.
welche von der Wahrheit irregegangen sind und sagen, die Auferstehung sei schon geschehen, und haben etlicher Glauben verkehrt.
Die van de waarheid zijn afgeweken, zeggende, dat de opstanding alrede geschied is, en verkeren sommiger geloof.
uomini che si sono sviati dalla verità, dicendo che la resurrezione è già avvenuta, e sovvertono la fede di alcuni.
Którzy względem prawdy celu uchybili, gdy powiadają, iż się już stało zmartwychwstanie i podwracają wiarę niektórych.
которые отступили от истины, говоря, что воскресение уже было, и разрушают в некоторых веру.
他們 偏離了 真道，說 復活 的事已 過，就 敗壞 好些人 的信心。
Men whose ideas are all false, who say that the coming back from the dead has even now taken place, overturning the faith of some.
Verse in Context
Original Language (Koine Greek)
New Testament · Koine Greek · II Timothy 2:18
Source: STEPBible TAGNT/TEHB (CC-BY 4.0). Click or tap a morphology code to see the full parsing.
Scholars' Consensus
Commentators agree that Hymenaeus and Philetus taught the resurrection was already past, likely an early spiritualizing error. Barnes notes Augustine’s suggestion that they equated resurrection with the soul’s recovery from sin. Jamieson-Fausset-Brown see the beginnings of Gnosticism, twisting Paul’s language about dying and rising with Christ (Romans 6:4; Ephesians 2:6; Colossians 2:12).
Gill catalogues several possible interpretations, regeneration, deliverance from Babylon, or a Pythagorean cycle of souls, but favors the view that they denied any future bodily resurrection. The Cambridge Bible observes that Irenaeus and Tertullian already addressed this error: making resurrection only spiritual.
The verb erred (ἠστόχησαν, Vincent) means to miss the target. The consequence, Paul says, is that such teaching overthrows faith, “like gangrene” (2 Timothy 2:17). The bodily resurrection is not optional, it is the foundation of Christian hope (1 Corinthians 15:12-19).
How settled is the interpretation?
Interpretive difficulty: Medium
Main views:
- Spiritual resurrection only: Augustine, Irenaeus, and Tertullian connect this error to a belief that resurrection is only the soul's renewal; supported by a possible reading of Romans 6:4 and Ephesians 2:6 as purely spiritual.
- Resurrection at death/ already completed: Barnes suggests the false teachers may have taught that at death believers receive a spiritual body, so no future bodily resurrection remains.
- Allegorical or cyclical interpretation: Gill notes suggestions about the rebirth of children (parents live on through children) or the Pythagoreans' cycle of reincarnation.
What is clear: Paul condemns any teaching that denies the future bodily resurrection of believers, because it destroys the foundation of Christian hope and faith.
What Scholars Agree and Debate
| Topic | Agreed | Debated |
|---|---|---|
| The nature of the false teaching | Hymenaeus and Philetus denied a future, bodily resurrection. They claimed the resurrection was already past. | Some (Augustine, as cited by Barnes; Irenaeus) understood it as spiritual renewal only, the soul rising from sin. Others (Gill) suggest it could also be a belief in a cycle of rebirth or a misinterpretation of the resurrection of Christ and saints at His death. The exact formulation is not known, but all traditions agree Paul condemned it. |
| The effect on faith | The false teaching overthrew the faith of some. It had a destructive effect on individuals’ trust in God. | Gill says this refers to nominal professors, not true believers, because truly saving faith cannot be overthrown. Others (Barnes, Calvin) do not make that distinction, simply noting that the error had a real, damaging impact on people’s Christian faith. |
| The use of Paul’s own writings | The false teachers likely twisted Paul’s language about dying and rising with Christ (Romans 6; Ephesians 2; Colossians 2). | Some (Jamieson-Fausset-Brown) see this as a direct reference: they took Paul’s spiritual metaphors literally. Others view it as a general spiritualizing tendency not specifically linked to Paul’s earlier letters. |
Historical & Cultural Context
Paul writes to Timothy in Ephesus, where false teachers were already active. Hymenaeus and Philetus are singled out in verse 17 for spreading what Paul calls “gangrene.” The letter is likely Paul’s last, written from a Roman prison shortly before his death. A core threat to the church was the denial of a future bodily resurrection.
In Greco-Roman culture, many believed the soul was immortal but the body was inferior, they would reject a bodily resurrection as crude or impossible. Some believers, influenced by early forms of Gnosticism, began to spiritualize physical doctrines. Jamieson-Fausset-Brown note that these false teachers “wrested” Paul’s own words (Romans 6:4; Ephesians 2:6) to mean that resurrection was only the soul’s new life in Christ, completed at conversion.
Paul’s warning in 1 Corinthians 15:12 is directly relevant: if Christ is preached as raised, how can some say there is no resurrection of the dead? The error cut at the heart of the gospel. If resurrection is only spiritual now, the future hope of new creation vanishes, along with personal accountability and the vindication of Christ’s victory over death.
The danger was not abstract, it overthrew the faith of some believers. Paul’s metaphor of a spreading gangrene (v. 17) shows that a small error, left unchecked, destroys the whole body. This was a pastoral crisis, not a mere doctrinal disagreement.
Textual Notes
The consulted sources note no significant textual variants for this verse. The Cambridge Bible mentions a manuscript variation regarding the article before “resurrection” (ἀνάστασιν), but the textual evidence is not strong enough to omit it. Winer does not comment on either passage in his grammar. Overall, the text is well established.
Reception History
Irenaeus and Tertullian, writing in the second century, addressed the same error that spiritualized the resurrection, likely what Hymenaeus and Philetus taught. Augustine mentions that the Seleucians and Hermians held that the resurrection was past (Epistles 119). During the Reformation, interpreters like Calvin focused on the danger of allowing any error to spread. Wesley saw it as claiming that resurrection is only the passage from death to life. The verse has been used consistently across traditions to defend the bodily resurrection as a necessary article of faith, and to warn against the subtle drift toward a merely spiritual gospel.
Preaching This Verse
Three-point outline
- The error: resurrection already past. Hymenaeus and Philetus taught that the resurrection had already taken place. Likely they spiritualized it, making it only a present experience of new life. Paul says they missed the mark concerning the truth.
- The spread: like gangrene. The false teaching consumed faith. A small distortion of a central doctrine can ruin everything it touches. Paul names the men to warn Timothy.
- The safeguard: holding to the truth. Paul has already told Timothy to “rightly divide the word of truth” (2:15). The resurrection of the body at the last day is not optional. It anchors hope, judgment, and the work of Christ.
Five-point outline
- Who they were: Hymenaeus and Philetus, named by Paul as specific examples of those whose teaching spreads like gangrene (2:17).
- What they said: “The resurrection is already past.” They denied a future, bodily resurrection, likely reducing it to a spiritual event.
- Why it was wrong: They deviated from the truth (ἠστόχησαν, missed the aim). The biblical hope includes a real, bodily resurrection at Christ’s return (1 Corinthians 15:20-23).
- What it did: It overthrew the faith of some. Not true believers, perhaps, but those whose faith was built on this error. The foundation of God stands sure (2:19).
- What Timothy must do: Avoid empty chatter, handle the word rightly, and flee youthful lusts. The cure for gangrene is the whole truth, humbly and firmly taught.
Illustration hooks
- A house on a cracked foundation: If the foundation stone (the resurrection) is removed, the entire building eventually collapses. Paul saw this error as pulling out the cornerstone of Christian hope.
- A spreading infection: A small wound that becomes gangrene will kill the whole body if not cut out. The false teaching about resurrection seemed minor but had the same effect on spiritual health.
- Missing the target in archery: The Greek verb for “erred” means to miss the mark. Hymenaeus and Philetus aimed at the truth but hit something else, their error was not trivial.
Questions your congregation is asking
- “Is the resurrection just a spiritual thing that happens when I get saved, or is it a real, future event?”
- “How can I tell if a teaching I hear is ‘spiritualizing’ something the Bible says is literal?”
- “Can wrong beliefs really destroy a person’s faith? How do I protect myself and my family?”
Leading a Discussion
This verse warns that even a single doctrinal error can have consequences like gangrene. The resurrection of the dead is not a secondary matter, it is central to the gospel. Take time to read 2 Timothy 2:14-19 together and discuss what Paul teaches about truth, error, and the hope we hold.
Discussion questions
- What exactly were Hymenaeus and Philetus saying about the resurrection? (See verse 18.)
- Why does Paul call their teaching “erring” (missing the mark)? What does that imply about the nature of truth?
- How does this error contradict the teaching of 1 Corinthians 15:12-19? What would be lost if there were no future bodily resurrection?
- Paul says their teaching “overthrew the faith of some.” How can a wrong belief destroy faith? Does that mean their faith was not genuine?
- Look at the context: verse 15 says to “rightly divide the word of truth.” How does careful Bible study protect us from this kind of error?
- In what ways might Christians today be tempted to “spiritualize” physical promises of Scripture (like resurrection, new creation, judgment)?
- How does the hope of a bodily resurrection affect the way you live now, your choices, your grief, your witness?
Word Study
The key original-language words in this verse. Select any word for its full lexicon entry — meaning, every occurrence in Scripture, and related words.
Cross-References
Source: Treasury of Scripture Knowledge (TSK, public domain)
| Matthew 15:13 | But he answered, “Every plant which my heavenly Father didn’t plant will be uprooted. |
| Matthew 22:29 | But Jesus answered them, “You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God. |
| Luke 8:13 | Those on the rock are they who, when they hear, receive the word with joy; but these have no root. They believe for a while, then fall away in time of temptation. |
| Luke 22:31 | The Lord said, “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan asked to have all of you, that he might sift you as wheat, |
| Luke 22:32 | but I prayed for you, that your faith wouldn’t fail. You, when once you have turned again, establish your brothers.” |
| Acts 5:39 | But if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow it, and you would be found even to be fighting against God!” |
| I Corinthians 11:19 | For there also must be factions among you, that those who are approved may be revealed among you. |
| I Corinthians 15:12 | Now if Christ is preached, that he has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? |
Interlinear and lexical data from STEPBible (CC BY 4.0). Cross-reference data from OpenBible.info (CC BY 4.0). Commentaries are public domain.
For personal reflection
Read the devotional page — prayer, application, and "for families"
What the Commentators Say
10 public-domain commentaries, condensed into plain language.
Adam Clarke's Commentary Methodist/Wesleyan 1826
Clarke observes that these false teachers had once held the truth but wandered from it by claiming the resurrection had already occurred. This denial of future bodily resurrection and judgment destroyed the foundation of all religion, and the error spread like unchecked gangrene among their followers.
Barnes' Notes on the Bible Protestant 1832
Barnes stresses that a wrong view of the resurrection acts like a gangrene, eventually destroying all other Christian doctrines. Whether the error is that resurrection happens only spiritually at conversion or at the moment of death, it undermines the foundation of the faith.
Calvin's Commentaries Reformed 1564
Calvin reads this command as a needed wake-up call against spiritual laziness. Even the most gifted believers tend to slacken mid-course unless repeatedly roused. God's word demands strength, but his Spirit supplies it, so the exhortation is itself a means of grace.
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges Anglican 1880
The commentator links pure doctrine and pure life as the twin marks of faithful teachers, grounding this in the charge to Timothy from the earlier passage. On the specific error, he notes that some claimed the resurrection was already past, identifying it either with the soul's spiritual renewal at conversion or with the soul's departure from the body at death—a view opposed by Irenaeus and Tertullian.
Geneva Bible Notes Reformed 1599
The Geneva Notes identify the specific error as claiming the resurrection has already happened. This teaching is not merely wrong but actively destructive, because it undermines the faith of believers who rely on the future resurrection as a central hope.
Gill's Exposition of the Bible Baptist 1748
Gill weighs several ancient explanations of the false teachers' claim that the resurrection is past already. He concludes the most likely meaning is that they taught only a spiritual resurrection, equating it with regeneration, and denied any future bodily resurrection. He adds this error could unsettle nominal believers, not true ones.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary Protestant 1871
JFB warns that claiming the resurrection is already past in a spiritual sense destroys the very foundation of faith. That error misses the aim of Scripture, which grounds all future hope on the literal reality of the resurrection. Such a view denies the resurrection in its true meaning.
Matthew Henry's Commentary Reformed/Presbyterian 1710
Matthew Henry notes that a minister's chief work is not to teach new truths but to remind people of what they already know. He warns that arguments over mere words are pointless and harmful, dragging hearers away from the great matters of God into destructive controversies.
Vincent's Word Studies Evangelical 1887
Vincent notes that the Greek word for "have erred" in this verse is the same one Paul used in 1 Timothy 1:6. He also observes that the word for "resurrection" appears only here in the Pastoral Epistles, making it a rare and noteworthy term in these letters.
Wesley's Explanatory Notes Methodist/Wesleyan 1754
Wesley suggests that those claiming the resurrection is already past are likely reducing it to a merely spiritual transition from death to life. They deny any future bodily resurrection, treating it as an inward experience that happens at conversion.