2:11 This saying is trustworthy:
If we died with him, we will also live with him.
2:12 If we endure, we will also reign with him.
If we deny him, he will also deny us.
2:13 If we are unfaithful, he remains faithful, since he cannot deny himself.

Is this meant to console, or to warn?  Does Paul mean that God will remain faithful to his gracous promises, or to his threat of judgement?

Following are the main interpretative options.

(a) God is faithful in his mercy, and will leave an opportunity of repentance for those who have stumbled in their faith.

The thought would be that God will remain merciful towards us, even through the struggles and failures of our lives.

Guthrie:

‘Christ’s constancy to his own promises provides the believer with his greatest security.’

Padilla:

‘Probably in view are episodes of denial of the gospel or failures in following the Lord. With the denial of Peter reported in all four Gospels, the early Christians were keenly aware of the potential for apostasy, however brief. But the good news is that his faithfulness is not dependent on that of the believer! Rather, it is in God’s inmost character to be faithful and loyal to those he takes as his own.’

Yarbrough thinks that it is possible (but not likely) that Paul’s can be taken as consoling:

‘as if he were saying, “Even if you are faithless, Timothy, God (or Christ) remains faithful and will forgive you” (see 1 John 1:9).’

Lea:

‘In keeping with Paul’s statements in Rom 3:3–4 and 8:35–39, he seems to have suggested that “however wayward and faithless men may be, God’s love continues unalterable and he remains true to his promises.”’ (Quoting Kelly)

For Fee, there is an intentional break in the symmetry of this passage:

‘In a rather typical way (cf., e.g., 1 Cor. 8:3), Paul could not bring himself to finish a sentence as it began. It is possible for us to prove faithless; but Paul could not possibly say that God would then be faithless toward us. Indeed, quite the opposite. If we are faithless…, this does not in any way affect God’s own faithfulness to his people. This can mean either that God will override our infidelity with his grace (as most commentators) or that his overall faithfulness to his gracious gift of eschatological salvation for his people is not negated by the faithlessness of some. This latter seems more in keeping with Paul and the immediate context. Some have proved faithless, but God’s saving faithfulness has not been diminished thereby.’

Wright:

‘I don’t think ‘faithless’ here means ‘if we lose our faith’, in the sense of ceasing to believe that Jesus is Lord and that God raised him from the dead. I think this is meant to take account of the fact that our faithfulness—our reliability, our stickability, our resolve, our determination to remain ‘faithful’ in the sense of ‘loyal’—will waver and wobble from time to time. Those under intense pressure, whether political, spiritual, moral or whatever, will sometimes find themselves weak, faint and helpless. It is at those times that they need to learn a kind of second-order faith, a faith in the utter faithfulness and reliability of God himself, the God we know in and through Jesus, who was himself faithful to death. There is a world of difference between being blown off the ship’s deck by a hurricane and voluntarily diving into the sea to avoid having to stay at the helm.’

Marshall thinks that it is likely that this statement:

‘is intended to be an encouragement to believers suffering hardship by assuring them that the Lord whom they serve is faithful to the gospel (2 Tim 1:12) and to them; the thought is close to 1 Cor 10:13.’

Spencer:

‘Paul described himself as unfaithful [1 Tim 1:13], a blasphemer, persecutor, and violent person who received mercy. But even though humans may not remain consistent, God the Trinity always will keep God’s promises.’

Knight (Evangelical Commentary on the Bible):

‘The fourth and last statement goes with the third statement, as the second did with the first, but in this case as a balancing truth. The fourth “if” speaks of one being “faithless,” like Peter who denied the Lord. Does every “denial,” even when repented of, or every time when one is faithless, result in Christ disowning us? No. Christ “will remain [lit. remains] faithful” to forgive and keep us as he has promised. This result is different from the others. They have come about as necessary consequences and result from our status or actions. This result is not a necessary consequence of our faithlessness but rather of the fact that “he cannot disown [better, “deny”] himself” (v. 13). When the New Testament speaks of God as faithful, in almost every case it is in terms of fidelity to the believer and the promises God has made to him, because God is inherently faithful (1 Cor. 10:13; 2 Cor. 1:18–20; 1 Thess. 5:23, 24; 2 Thess. 3:3; Heb. 10:23; 1 Pet. 4:19; and esp. Heb. 6:17ff.).’

As a theological outlier, I quote Robert N. Wilkin, who represents the characteristic stance of The Grace New Testament Commentary, with its extreme and unbalanced (in my view) doctrine of eternal security:

‘Even if we stop believing, we remain eternally secure, for He cannot deny Himself. Jesus promised that all who believe in Him will never hunger, will never thirst, will never die, will not perish, but have everlasting life (John 3:16; 6:35; 11:26). He cannot deny what He Himself has promised. His promise is independent of our continued faith or of anything we may do or fail to do.’

In favour of this reading:

(i) Paul habitually cites God’s faithfulness as a reason for assurance (Rom 3:3; also 1 Cor 1:9; 10:13; 2 Cor 1:18; 1 Thess 5:24; 2 Thess 3:3).

(b) God is faithful in his holy character, and will judge the faithless

According to this interpretation, if we are faithless, God will punish us, because he must remain true to his own character.

Barnes:

‘The meaning must be, that if we are unbelieving and unfaithful, Christ will remain true to his word, and we cannot hope to be saved.’

Lange:

‘It is a gross misunderstanding to interpret this last reminder as a word of consolation in any such sense as this:—if we, from weakness, are unfaithful, we may calm ourselves with the thought that He will not break His word; and that, notwithstanding it, His faithfulness to us will be forever confirmed. In a certain sound sense this thought is certainly true; but the connection of the discourse here plainly shows that the Apostle will warn with emphasis, and, in other words, will say: Fancy not, if thou art unfaithful, that the Lord’s punishment will fail. He is just as faithful in His threatenings as in His promises.’

Hendriksen:

‘Divine faithfulness is a wonderful comfort for those who are loyal (1 Thess. 5:24; 2 Thess. 3:3; cf. 1 Cor. 1:9; 10:13; 2 Cor. 1:18; Phil. 1:6; Heb. 10:23). It is a very earnest warning for those who might be inclined to become disloyal.’

Stott:

‘”If we deny him” and “if we are faithless” are parallels, which requires that “he will deny us” and “he remains faithful” be parallels also. In this case his “faithfulness” when we are faithless will be faithfulness to his warnings.’

Yarbrough:

‘It is…likely that Paul is plainly stating the danger Timothy faces if he does not heed Paul’s words (though Paul is confident he will) and apply himself to his ministry responsibilities with fresh vigor. God’s character is unchanging (Mal 3:6; Heb 13:8). He warns the person who hears God’s promises and invokes “a blessing on themselves, thinking, ‘I will be safe, even though I persist in going my own way,’ for they will bring disaster on” themselves (Deut 29:19). He calls his people to the faithfulness and holiness that mark their God, who is both lenient and severe: “Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off” (Rom 11:22). For God “cannot disown himself.”

‘These passages echo Jesus’s warning regarding those who do not “remain” in him and “bear much fruit” (John 15:5): “If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned” (John 15:6). It also helps account for the intensity with which Paul pursued the prize for faithful service (1 Cor 9:27).’

Nick Nowalk marshalls a number of arguments in favour of this interpretation:

(i) The parallelism of the four stanzas in 2:11-13.  Since the first two are certainly positive statements of reassurance, and the third is just as certainly a warning to professing Christians, it makes good sence if the fourth stanza completes the pattern by repeating the warning.

(ii) The use of “unfaithful” (apistos/apisteo) language in Paul.  Such language is never applied to believers who are struggling with their faith.  It is always used with reference to outright unbelievers or apostates.  In the present passage, it is tanatmount to ‘denying God’.

(iii) The flow of thought within this passage.  In urging Timothy to join him is suffering for the gospel, Paul appeals to both positive and negative examples to illustrate the consquences of doing (or failing to do) so.  See 2 Tim 1:15-18; 3:8-11; 4:6-10.  Immediately after the passage under consideration, Paul mentions Hymenaeus and Philetus (2 Tim 2:14-19).  It appears that these two men had apostasised (they had become ‘faithless’).  2 Tim 2:18f echoes 2 Tim 2:12f –

2:18 ‘They have strayed from the truth by saying that the resurrection has already occurred, and they are undermining some people’s faith. 2:19 However, God’s solid foundation remains standing, bearing this seal: “The Lord knows those who are his,” and “Everyone who confesses the name of the Lord must turn away from evil.”’

(iv) The word “deny” (arneomai) occurs both before and after the statement the statement under consideration, suggesting that Paul’s thought is still within the same conceptual category – that of warning.

(v) The parallel with Romans 3:3-4: “What if some were unfaithful (apisteo)? Does their faithlessness [apistia] nullify the faithfulness [pistis] of God?  By no means! Let God be true though every one were a liar.” Paul is saying there that ethnic Israel’s faithlessness does not invalidate God’s faithfulness to his people.

(c) God is faithful, and will accomplish his purposes in history and in the church despite the unfaithfulness of some

Gundry:

‘He remains faithful/trustworthy, so that others may still believe in him for eternal life, eternal glory, and co-kingship with him.’

(d) God is faithful to both his promises and his warnings

Some think that both encouragement and warning are implied.  Poole:

‘Whether we believe or believe not, or whether we be faithful to our trust or be not, yet God will show himself faithful, either to his promises made to them that believe, or to his threatenings denounced against those that believe not.’

Matthew Henry:

‘Whether we believe it or no (v. 13): If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful; he cannot deny himself. He is faithful to his threatenings, faithful to his promises; neither one nor the other shall fall to the ground, no, not the least, jot nor tittle of them. If we be faithful to Christ, he will certainly be faithful to us. If we be false to him, he will be faithful to his threatenings: he cannot deny himself, cannot recede from any word that he hath spoken, for he is yea, and amen, the faithful witness.’

The above is quoted by Oden:

‘God’s faithfulness applies both to judgment and grace: “He is faithful to his threatenings, faithful to his promises,” and “cannot recede from any word that he hath spoken” (Henry, p. 839). It is precisely God’s faithfulness that makes it unthinkable that God would withhold promises he has made, either for justice to recalcitrant unbelievers or mercy to penitent believers.’

Conclusion

Although it is clear that, in general terms, this passage teaches the faithfulness of God and our need to remain faithful to him, it is difficult to be certain about the precise meaning of the phrase under discussion.

Liefeld is one of a number who are undecided:

‘It is difficult to know with certainty what Paul has in mind when he speaks of God’s faithfulness. Is it being faithful to his people, to his own righteousness, or to his judgments? Since all three are true and supported throughout Scripture, we do not lose any truth by leaving this question open here.’

Towner:

‘The change in verb from “deny” (NIV disown; Greek arneomai) to faithless (apisteō) may signify that two different situations, the denial of unbelief (the hardened false teacher) and the unfaithfulness of a believer are in view, and verse 13 is thus understood to be a promise (see Knight 1992:405-7; Fee 1988:250-51). But another view is possible,that “deny” and faithless are parallel, and that the lines he will disown and he will remain faithful are therefore also parallel, so that verse 13 strengthens the warning of v. 12 (he will remain faithful and so punish those who deny him, those who are faithless); see Stott 1973:64-65; Hendriksen 1965:259-60. This is a difficult problem to resolve, and the theological backgrounds of interpreters undoubtedly influence decisions. The question whether one can actually lose the gift of salvation is not so much in mind as is the question of what can happen to those who profess the faith, enjoy the benefits of the believing community and then prove to be false believers: Paul has in mind primarily the sin of apostasy, which for its treachery seems almost to be a special category of sin.’