Sunday Morning Greek Blog

January 2, 2022

2021 Reflection and Summary

Filed under: 1 Corinthians,Biblical Studies,Courage,Diagrams,Greek,Hebrew,Hebrews,Mark Gospel of,Matthew Gospel of,New Testament,Prophet,Soteriology,Textual Criticism,Tongues — Scott Stocking @ 6:37 am
Tags:

I wanted to take a moment and thank the readers of Sunday Morning Greek Blog (SMGB) for tripling the number of views from 2019 to 2021! I went from 2,856 views in 2019 to 9,130 views (across 130 countries) in 2021. The theme of my blog has always been “Dig deeper, read smarter, draw closer.” I hope that whichever one of those goals brought you to my site will continue to be something I am able to meet for you. And, if you ever have a request or a question about a biblical topic, I would be happy to research it for you. I’m always excited to dig deeper into God’s Word to help others understand it better.

Having said that, the blog was also a blessing to me as well this year. As 2021 kicked off and more churches started to resume in-person services, I was called to preach at a couple smaller churches that lost pastors during the pandemic through attrition (thankfully not to COVID). One is the (now) inner-city church I grew up in and which some of my family still attend, and the other is a rural country church in Iowa. For me, the blog turned out to be (way-in-advance) sermon prep! This blog was helpful in that I still have been working my full-time day job, so it was nice not to have to a lot of new research for sermons. What sermons I did write this past year wound up as new blog posts.

Top 5 Posts

My top post for 2021 surprised me, because it was a little more academically technical than my typical posts, but it must have struck a chord with some. I had written “Indignant Jesus: The Variant Reading of Mark 1:41” in January 2019 in part because I wanted to know for myself why the NIV translators had changed the translation from “compassion” to “indignant” The other reason is that I wanted to provide an example of how translators use internal and external clues to determine the quality or genuineness of a textual variant. I figured with all the NIV readers out there, many of them would be curious about an “indignant Jesus,” so I wanted to provide what I hope was an explanation of the thought process in layman’s terms.

“Indignant Jesus” had 86 views that year. In 2020, it saw a 360% increase to 310 views. In 2021, it nearly had another 360% increase to 1,106 views! That was over 12% of total blog post views for 2021. Judging from the access peaks, I’d say it wound up on a few recommended reading lists for college syllabi. If you happen to know who used it on a syllabus, I’d love to thank them. I don’t want any royalties; I’d just like to know what they found redeeming about it, or even if they thought it needed some work.

The second most popular post was “Seer” in the Old Testament. This has been a perennial favorite, having been the number one article for at least 6 years through 2018, again, most likely because it appeared on someone’s college syllabus. Obviously, it’s not a Greek word study, but a Hebrew word study, and it was one I had sent out in an e-mail thread long before blogs were a thing. I never expected much from it on the blog, primarily because I had been looking for something different to post and pulled that one out of the archives. I’m both surprised and pleased that it continues to generate great interest.

My third most popular post (just 23 views behind #2) was 2020’s top post: “Take Heart!” That had slowly been growing in popularity, but it really caught hold in 2020, most likely due to the pandemic. I got one comment from a reader who said they had shared it with several health care workers at the time. They of all people had and continue to have a need for encouragement and endurance in the face of COVID and (if I may) the current lack of gratitude and sympathy from those at the highest levels of government for those hardworking heroes.

Number 4 is one that has steadily grown in popularity, but really began to take off in 2019, having three times the views in 2017. “Falling Away” tackles the difficult section of Hebrews 6 that at first glance seems to address the concept of losing your salvation. But a closer look at the text, grammar, and sentence structure (yes, there’s a classic sentence diagram attached; also an epilog post) shows the passage has quite a different meaning that isn’t so harsh theologically. Monthly views jumped dramatically in beginning in mid 2020, which makes me think the article also wound up on someone’s syllabus. I recently had a lively exchange with one reader who was asking for some clarification on a couple points, which also helped me sharpen my thinking and conclusions on the passage.

The fifth one was a total shocker to me. “Speaking in Tongues” averaged 49 views per year in the first 10 years it was online. In 2021, the post had 691 views, averaging over 57 views per month! Again, I’m not sure what sparked the sudden interest, but as with the other posts, the only thing I can think of is someone put it on their syllabus or perhaps cited it in a widely read paper.

Looking Forward

For 2022, I anticipate preaching about once every month, so I’ll continue to post sermon texts to the blog. I’d also like to break into the podcast sphere and start posting some videos or audios that can generate some ad revenue for me. I’m not really set up for that yet, and I’ll have to seek out some technical help most likely, but I’m pretty sure that won’t be a difficult learning curve.

I also have a blog called “Sustainable America,” which is my outlet for the intersection of politics, ethics, and faith in my life. That has never really taken off, although it has seen some modest growth. I’ve had just over 100 views the last two years, and 2020’s views (106) were a little more than double 2019’s views. Although it hasn’t really had many views, I do find it personally therapeutic as an outlet for what I’m thinking and feeling on such subjects. The founding fathers didn’t put “separation of Church and State” in the Constitution because they understood instinctively people’s politics derive from their religious and moral convictions (or lack thereof). The purpose of Sustainable America, however, is to analyze cultural and political issues and apply Scripture to them, while SMGB is all about analyzing the biblical text and discerning how it should affect and inform our lives all around, not just in the political or cultural spheres.

My most-viewed post on Sustainable America was “Why I’d Rather Not Work from Home Full Time.” After having spent much of my early career either working from home or working in a ministry setting where I was the only staff member, I found it quite enjoyable to transition to working in an office setting with lots of interesting people around. When the pandemic hit, all of that was defenestrated. I do miss working around other people. Somewhere along the way, I lost my introversion.

As such, one final goal for me for 2022 is to get back into the adjunct professor space, or full-time college instruction nearby, if someone wants to take a chance on my M.Div. degree with OT & NT concentrations. I found it ironic that, in 2020, the third-party supplier through whom I had been teaching Biblical Studies courses at St. Louis Christian College was bought out, and the acquiring company dropped the online adjunct service at a time when everything was moving online. Teaching Biblical Studies is really my first love, but it’s been tough landing positions without a Ph.D.

I wish you, my readers and blog followers, a happy and prosperous new year. Thank you for continuing to read, interact with, and spread the word about Sunday Morning Greek Blog!

Pastor Scott Stocking, M.Div.

My opinions are my own.

July 2, 2021

μαλακός (malakos) “soft”; “weak”; “effeminate”: A Look at Classical and Biblical Greek Usage

Filed under: 1 Corinthians,1 Timothy,2 Chronicles,Exodus,Greek,Isaiah,LGBTQ,Luke Gospel of,Matthew Gospel of,Proverbs,Repentance — Scott Stocking @ 12:31 am
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

[If you like this post, you may also like “Rachel Weeping”: The Objectification of Gender and Children.]

One of the main goals of a word study in an ancient language is to understand how the writer used the word in the original context and, where possible, to discern contextual clues that provide the historical and cultural background of the recorded events, descriptions, and deliberations. We cannot change what the historico-cultural background of the time was, nor should we presume to impose modern concepts and ideas on an ancient text or its author, although further study may reveal a more thorough understanding of the historico-cultural background and cause us to look anew at certain texts.

With this in mind, I set out to understand more fully the implications and ideations surrounding the use of μαλακός (malakos) in the ancient Greek texts, and more specifically how that understanding would have carried over into biblical texts of the day in its few uses in Matthew 11:8 (par. Luke 7:25) and 1 Corinthians 6:9–10. The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT) does not have a separate entry for μαλακός, so the average student of the Bible whose Greek knowledge is limited to Koine is left wanting if they want more information about the broader historico-cultural use of the word.

My purpose here is not so much to comment on the 21st century state of affairs surrounding the concepts behind the word, although I freely admit that is the reason why I undertook this study in the first place. Rather, in the spirit of TDNT, I want to give a more dispassionate, unbiased look at the use of the word in the historical context so the student of the Bible has a fuller understanding of the word and can therewith draw their own conclusions. As with all of my writings on biblical texts, my goal is that we have a fuller understanding of the Word of God and God’s love for us so we can better and more fully love our neighbor as God loves us.

My methodology for this study is simple: I looked at standard Greek annotated Lexicons such as Liddell & Scott (LS) and the online Perseus resource (the Greek texts and any corresponding English translations of the text where available) in addition to standard biblical reference works (UBS 3rd & 4th editions) that indexed the use of the word to its various contexts, then examined the surrounding context to understand the writer’s tone and intention surrounding the use of the word. Where the word was used in contrast, comparison, or in parallel (synthetic or antithetic) with other words or ideas, I examined those as well to better understand the contrast or comparison.

I want to keep this brief so the busy pastor or researcher can get a broad overview of the word’s use in the ancient world. As such, I have chosen representative examples from the entries in LS and other resources to illustrate usage rather than an exhaustive treatment of lexical entries. Most of these resources are publicly available online or in your local college library, so nothing should stand in the way of those who want to dig even deeper. I have organized the article on the basis of the word’s semantic domains rather than by source so the reader can more readily access the section relevant to their interests.

Soft (in the sense of physical touch)

One of the more benign meanings of the word is “soft,” especially when referring to animals or nature. Xenophon (Hiero the Despot 1.5) speaks generally about experiencing the extremes of sensation: cold vs. hot; light vs. heavy; pleasure vs. pain. In the list, he contrasts “soft” with “hard” (σκληρὰ sklēra). In his writing about Horsemanship (1.9a), he makes the same word contrast regarding the condition of a horse’s jaw. Xenophon also uses the word to describe the soft coats of the hunting hounds and the hare, the need for a soft collar for the hunting hound to prevent chafing (Hunting 4.6, 5.10, 6.1), and the softer “double back” on dappled horses (Horsemanship 1.11c).

Xenophon also uses μαλακός to describe the turf on which a horse should be trained (Horsemanship 8.6) and soft turf that makes it easier to track the quarry (Hunting 10.5). Homer (Iliad 9:615–619) uses the word to describe a soft couch on which to lie and in the Odyssey to describe soft fleece (3:38). Herodotus (Histories 9.122.3) also uses the term twice in a zeugma with respect to land somewhat metaphorically in his phrase “Soft lands breed soft men”; the second use of the word in that zeugma is covered in the next domain of meaning below.

The word is used three times in the NT in parallel passages (Mt 11:8 [2x]; Lk 7:25) to describe the “fine clothes” worn by those in palaces. There is one use of the word in this domain in Proverbs 26:22, although used metaphorically: “The words of a whisperer are like delicious morsels, they go down to the inner parts of the body.” This seems akin to Xenophon’s usage (although perhaps a bit more abstract) in Hiero the Despot 1.23: “Don’t you look on these condiments, then, as mere fads of a jaded and pampered appetite?” Note that the phrase in the Greek here for “jaded and pampered” is μαλακῆς καὶ ἀσθενούσης, the latter word often translated “sick” or “weak.” This is an important pairing for two reasons. In Xenophon’s Horsemanship 1.3, the superlative of the adjective is contrasted with ἰσχυροτάτῳ (“strongest”) in describing two parts of the horse’s foot (hoof and flesh). Second, the substantive cognate of μαλακός, μαλακία, also means “sickness,” “weakness,” or “pain,” especially in several OT passages (e.g., Ex 23:25; Dt 7:15, 28:61; 2 Chr 16:12; Is 53:3) and three times in Matthew’s gospel (4:23; 9:35; 10:1), all of which have some overlap with the next domain discussed.

Soft (as a character attribute or abstraction), often translated “weak”

The most extreme example of “soft” as a character attribute in my mind is Homer’s description of defeated (and deceased) Hektor in Iliad 22.373 as the victors continue to defile his body with spear jabs: “It is easier to handle [lit. “softer to touch”] Hektor now than when he was flinging fire on to our ships.” In Laws 666b-c, Plato describes the “convivial gatherings [that] invoke Dionysus” where the men over 40 may drink wine without moderation such that “through forgetfulness of care, the temper of our souls may lose its hardness [σκληρὰ sklēra] and become softer and more ductile” (my literal translation). R.G. Bury’s English translation (much less literal and perhaps more poetic than my own) of the same passage describes the wine “as a medicine potent against the crabbedness of old age, that thereby we men may renew our youth.”

Archidamus “had gained credit for weakness” (or as Jowett’s translation has it, “was also thought not to have been energetic enough”) when attacking the Athenians at Oenoe, seemingly procrastinating the attack and perhaps thinking he could spare any damage to the surrounding land that full-on aggression might bring (Thucydides, Histories [The Peloponnesian War] 2.18).

In Herodotus Histories 3.51.2, Periander desires “to show no weakness,” and later in the same book (3.105.2) Herodotus says “the mares never tire, for they remember the young that have left.” (It is interesting to note that the latter reference could be an unintended word or semantic play, as the word for “mares” [θῆλυς] could also be translated “weak” in some contexts.) In 6.11.2, Herodotus recounts that Dionysius addressed his slave army, contrasting the potential for hardship in a battle that could win them their freedom or a “weak and disorderly” response which would lead to continued slavery and perhaps even humiliating death. Recall also the zeugma mentioned above found in 9.122.3: “Soft lands breed soft men.”

One final reference to Herodotus Histories (7.153.4) will tie us into the other NT usage of the word. Herodotus describes a man named Telines, who “is reported by the dwellers in Sicily to have had a soft and effeminate [θηλυδρίης τε καὶ μαλακώτερος] disposition.” This is Godley’s translation. The words are used in parallel with a double conjunction, so it’s not clear at first glance if the Greek word order is switched in the English translation. Regardless, the words are used in parallel, so (as shown in the previous paragraph), it makes little difference in the translation, and Telines’s character is certainly not portrayed in a positive light by Herodotus. [NOTE: See excursus below on Telines’ story in Herodotus.] The use of μαλακός in this domain is primarily a negative trait when ascribed to a human person. It is important to keep this in mind as we look at NT usage of the word (and its parallel) when applied to people in lists of, to put it softly, unflattering persons.

I believe it is, in part at least, this use here in classical Greek that informs Paul’s use of the word in 1 Corinthians 6:9–10 (NIV), and the context in Paul’s letters bear this out: “Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men [οὔτε μαλακοὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται] nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” The King James Version (KJV) is a little more literal with the translation of the target phrase: “nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind.” Lowe & Nida, in their Greek-English Lexicon Based on Semantic Domains, distinguish the two words by saying the former is “the passive male partner in homosexual intercourse,” and the latter is “the male partner in homosexual intercourse” or in this context, the “active” partner. (Could Herodotus have implied a similar distinction with his dual description of Telines?)

The latter word in the Corinthian text (ἀρσενοκοίτης) is a masculine compound meaning “lying with men” in Liddell & Scott’s abridged lexicon. This word is also used in 1 Timothy 1:10 in a similar list: “for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine.”

Conclusion

Short of an Orwellian feat of doublethink, then, it is nearly impossible to give any positive twist on the use of the words for persons practicing homosexuality in the NT. Some try to argue μαλακός means “morally soft” apart from any sexual connotations in the 1 Corinthians passage, but the context in Paul’s letters does not really allow for a generic description like that. I’m not trying to be cruel or bigoted here; I’m just stating the obvious facts as revealed in the historical usage of the words. However, I would remind my Christian siblings that Jesus’s attitude toward those on whom Jewish society generally looked down on (e.g., tax collectors) was not one of hatred, judgment, or spite, but of love and acceptance with a view toward repentance. My encouragement to my readers is to have the same attitude of Jesus toward those practicing homosexuality.

My opinions are my own.

Pastor Scott Stocking, M.Div.

Excursus on Herodotus Histories 153: the Story of Telines

Added February 17, 2026.

Telines descended from a family from the Isle of Telos (thus the name?) and apparently worshipped the goddesses of the underworld, Demeter and Persphone (aka Kore). Telines had “won” the priesthood of these goddesses for himself and his descendants by rescuing some exiles from Mactorium and returned them to Gela “with no force of men but only the holy instruments of the goddesses worship to aid him.”* Herodotus does not relate how this happened; one might speculate he convinced the Mactorians to worship the goddesses, or perhaps he used the artifacts to indicate some terrible fate awaiting the Mactorians if they continued to hold the exiles. Regardless, the full context of Herodotus’s assessment of Telines not only confirms the meanings of the Greek words attributed to him that I cite (they are the translator’s words, actually) but also may lend some insight into the use of the words in 1 Corinthians 6:9–10.

“Now it makes me marvel that Telines should have achieved such a feat, for I have always supposed that such feats cannot be performed by any man but only by such as have a stout heart and manly strength. Telines, however, is reported by the dwellers in Sicily to have had a soft and effeminate disposition.”*

The contrast between Herodotus’s expectation of Telines’s character and the Sicilian report of such further emphasizes the negative attribution of the two words. But was the Sicilian “report” an accurate reflection of Telines’s character, or had they been perpetuating a false narrative about Telines because they just didn’t like him and wanted to ostracize him? Again, that’s all we have of the history in the four “verses” of the story. The connection with 1 Corinthians 6:9–10 might be obvious to the reader at this point. Herodotus seems to suggest that Telines has “redeemed” himself from the Sicilian reputation (whether he deserved it or not) by performing an act of religious heroism in rescuing the exiles. Paul says the μαλακοὶ and ἀρσενοκοῖται have also been redeemed by converting to Christianity and becoming Christ-followers. In the biblical context, those who were redeemed were also cleansed of their sin and recipients of new life and a new lifestyle.

This is consistent, then, with the transition that Paul makes from the last half of Romans 1, where he describes the sexual debauchery of the Gentiles, but then begins chapter 2 suggesting that even those Gentiles can be redeemed, because God’s kindness could lead them to repentance.

I was touched by the full story once I understood it, and I do have to give some credit to Copilot AI for helping me understand that I didn’t have to look too far to get the complete extant story. I hope this encourages you as well. I read some of the context before and after this story in Herodotus, and I found myself drawn into it, as he had some other moral lessons as well that I may write about at some point.

*Herodotus. 1920. Herodotus, with an English Translation by A. D. Godley. Edited by A. D. Godley. Medford, MA: Harvard University Press.

July 14, 2015

Rejoicing with the Truth

Filed under: 1 Corinthians,Biblical Studies,Creation,Government,Grace,Greek,Leviticus,LGBTQ,New Testament,Righteousness — Scott Stocking @ 6:13 pm
Tags: , , , , , , ,

Introduction

June 26, 2015, was a sad day for American jurisprudence. On the political side, the “Supreme” Court of the United States (SCOTUS) failed to recognize the plain language of the Affordable Cafe Act, inartfully and carelessly crafted as it was, and upheld the economically unsound premium subsidies for those who work 29 hours or less per week. Paying people not to work or to work less: that’s the government’s way (2 Thessalonians 3:10).

On the moral side, SCOTUS declared gay marriage to be the law of the land, which is beyond the scope of their constitutional powers. Now I admit to being somewhat torn on the issue. On the one hand, I tend to be Libertarian when it comes to the issue of marriage. I don’t think the Federal or State governments have any business declaring anything about marriage. That is between two people and whatever supreme being they worship (whether it’s the Supreme Court or the only one true God).

The Dilemma

I realize I can’t force people to accept God’s teaching about marriage, that it’s the God-ordained union between a man and a woman who aren’t confused about their gender. But if two same-sex people want to live in a union, that’s their choice, and they have to come to terms with God about it in the end. (Note that I believe an ultimate encounter with God is both necessary and inescapable, so that underlies my whole worldview.) I can be happy that they’ve found happiness here on earth, but always in the back of my mind I wonder about their eternal destination. I have friends, family, and coworkers I respect who live that lifestyle, so I have to have some peace about the issue to get along in my own world.

On the other hand, I cannot abide SCOTUS’s decision, because it is, in reality, a moral statement about marriage that undermines the freedom of association the First Amendment should guarantee us. It puts churches in a position of obeying God or government, and I pray they will obey God. Even worse, it strengthens the argument of the thought police that speaking against a homosexual union borders on a hate crime, which further diminishes our freedom of speech. King George must be laughing in his grave that the American Constitution is failing.

Political Coercion, not Divine Truth

Why any gay or lesbian couple would want to compel a church that doesn’t share their beliefs to perform their wedding or a baker who doesn’t share their beliefs to bake them a cake is beyond me. The only motivation I see is political coercion, and that has nothing to do with freedom at all. Most homosexuals, like most of the rest of us, just want to live their lives peaceably, and I’m not complaining about them. The radical 1% of the 1-2% in this country who are homosexual are imposing their beliefs on the rest of society. Good luck with that in the long run. It’s as if the radical homosexuals have become the elite ruling class imposing their agenda on the rest of society through fear and intimidation. There’s bound to be a reaction against that sooner or later, just as there was against King George 250 years ago.

The Biblical Perspective

So forgive me if I don’t celebrate SCOTUS’s imposition of a moral imperative contrary to God’s law. Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 13:6: “Love does not delight in evil, but rejoices with the truth.” Evil is what God opposes, proscribes, or finds detestable. It’s pretty plain in Leviticus 18:22 what God thinks of homosexuality. But lest anyone argue “That was the Old Testament!” look back at 1 Corinthians. In chapter 5 verse 1, Paul chides the Corinthians for tolerating a man who is violating Old Testament sexual ethics. The specific reference is to Leviticus 8:8, same chapter as the prohibition of homosexuality.

The problem for the Church, that is, the believers that are members of the body of Christ, is that most don’t understand this connection. Old Testament sexual ethics are still relevant in 2015. I’m not asking the church to go Westwood Baptist on homosexuals. Far from it. Love should still rule the day, but love for the people, not for the sin. Acceptance of the individual, not tolerance of the behavior.

Fallout

As for the fallout of this decision, again, it’s a blow to First Amendment rights. It compels people and businesses to spend their money on things they don’t believe in. The ability to make a decision on based on conscience has been taken away from the individual. The ability to speak one’s mind now becomes a criminal offense. Sorry, but I’m inclined to exercise some peaceful, civil disobedience if it comes to that. And don’t expect me to keep quiet, especially when the militant radicals and their political sympathizers try to terrorize me into compliance with their beliefs.

Pastor Scott Stocking, M.Div.

February 12, 2012

Fruit (καρπός)

Filed under: 1 Corinthians,Biblical Studies,Matthew Gospel of,New Testament — Scott Stocking @ 6:38 pm

From the “Word of the Week” Files

Fruit is a common metaphor (word picture) in the NT. Occasionally biblical authors use the word in its literal sense, but more often than not it has spiritual significance. One of John the Baptizer’s warnings to the religious leaders was, “Produce fruit (καρπός) worthy of repentance” (Matt 3:8, my translation). Jesus uses this concept in the sermon on the mount (Matt 7:15–20) to refer to the deeds of the false prophets. In Gal 5:22–23, Paul describes the “fruit of the Spirit,” which is “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.” (Note here that “fruit” is singular in the Greek.)

In many occurrences of the word, there is a direct or implied contrast with the old way of life. In other words, fruit has to do with how you allow Christ to live in you. In the three passages cited above, fruit describes the result of a life changed by Christ. Fruit is about integrity more than anything else. Do people see Christ when they look at you? Do they understand that your life is a reflection of the workmanship of God, or are you working in your own strength to appease God?

The Scriptures say “God made it grow” (1 Cor 3:6). You can’t take credit for spiritual fruit; if you could, it wouldn’t be spiritual. This is not to deny the value of self-control and discipline, however. The point I am making is that it is one thing for an alcoholic to say he has not touched a bottle for five years, but quite another thing to say that Christ-in-you has crucified that old desire and replaced it with a new desire for a relationship with him. Good deeds reflect a life transformed by Christ. They should not be an attempt to prove you are better than another. That’s Pharisaic legalism. Nor should they be some sort of status symbol. Each one of us has unique gifts: some are used visibly and some are used behind the scenes. All gifts in the body of Christ work toward the greater good. When we are faithful to our individual callings, God is able to work them all together to cause growth.

This brings me to my final point. Fruit is something very personal. It has to do primarily with the results of your own relationship with God. This shatters one common myth about “fruit” in the NT, that it refers to evangelistic conquests (i.e., leading someone to Christ). Matthew 3:8 and other passages never imply that a successul Christian life means you’ve got converts notched in your belt. God is the only one who can take credit for converts, because he does all the work. We are only agents of his grace. To judge yourself or someone else based on the number of converts you or the other have been “responsible” for is to put yourself in the place of God.

For those who may have trouble with this last concept, I offer this quote from the opening paragraph of the “Fruit” article in the Expositor’s Dictionary of Bible Words, published by Zondervan Press: “For Christians who are convinced that ‘being fruitful’ means winning others to Christ, the description of fruit in Scripture may come as a surprise.” Fruit is not about winning others to Christ, but about totally and completely surrendering yourself to Christ and his grace so that he can prune you and cause phenomenal growth.

Peace!

Scott Stocking

October 2, 2011

1 Corinthians 13:8–13: When Will Tongues Be Stilled?

Filed under: 1 Corinthians,Biblical Studies,Ecclesiology,Evangelism,New Testament,Pneumatology,Tongues,Tongues — Scott Stocking @ 4:15 pm
Tags: , , , , ,

My previous post on Tongues prompted a discussion between me and a colleague of mine from Illinois in the comments on that post. I have a great deal of respect for Mark; he has served faithfully as a pastor in his current congregation for well over 10 years, and he is actively involved in promoting our church camp out there as well. We’ve had our disagreements from time to time, but he is a diligent student of Scripture, so like E. F. Hutton, when he talks, I listen.

If you’ve read the comments, you know that he and I are not on the same page when it comes to the operation of the gifts of the Spirit in the modern world. He makes mention more than once of tongues “ceasing.” Paul actually uses two different words for “cease” in this passage, and the one that refers to tongues is different from the other four occurrences of “ceasing.” I will address two more issues in this post: what is meant by what most translations render “the perfect” (τέλειος teleios, \TELL ay awss\); and how should we understand “in part” (ἐκ μέρους ek merous, \ek MEHR ooss\, from μέρος meros, ‘part’). Of course, the immediate context of chapters 12–14 will figure into this discussion, but also the bigger picture of the entire first epistle to the Corinthians. The overarching theme of 1 Corinthians is unity, and that will factor significantly into the conclusions I make in this post.

καταργέω

It is important to note, first of all, that in describing the diminished operation of prophecy, tongues, and knowledge, Paul uses the word καταργέω (katargeō, \kaht ar GEH oh\ ‘to cease’, ‘to put an end to’, ‘to invalidate’) four times: twice in verse 8 of “prophecies” and “knowledge,” once in verse 10 of “the partial” (more on that below), and once in verse 11 about “childish ways.” The first three uses in this passage are future passive (“will be ceased”), while the occurrence in verse 11 is perfect active (“I have ceased”; for now, I’ll use the word “ceased” to translate καταργέω, for ease of reference). However, Paul does not use this word to speak of tongues “ceasing.” Instead, the word Paul chooses is παύω (pauō, \POW oh\ ‘cease’). Given the frequency of καταργέω versus παύω, I would suggest that if Paul wanted to say the same thing about all three phenomena (tongues, knowledge, prophecies), he would have used the same word. Consequently, I think Paul is saying something different about the operation of tongues in the kingdom of God.

The word καταργέω derives from the preposition κατά (kata, ‘down from’, ‘against’, ‘according to’) and ἀργέω (argeō, ‘useless’, ‘lazy’), which itself is made up of the negative particle in Greek plus the word for “work” (α + ἔργον a + ergon). Oftentimes, a preposition prefixed to a verb has the purpose of specifying the direction of the action of the verb, but other times, the prefixed preposition functions more as an intensifier to the action of the root verb, as it does here. The word has some fluid usage in its 27 uses in the NT, being translated on a continuum from “destroy” to “fade” (at least in the TNIV). In 1 and 2 Corinthians, where we find nearly half the occurrences of the word, the word is used several times: “destroy” three times (1 Cor 6:13; 15:24, 26); “nullify” (1 Cor 1:28); “fading” three times, of the glory on Moses’s face, and to the veil that is “taken away” in Christ in the same pericope (2 Cor 3:7, 11, 13, 14; the latter is probably a play on words); “coming to nothing” (1 Cor 2:6); and the four occurrences in 1 Corinthians 13:8 (2x), 10, 11, which I will address momentarily.

The word καταργέω, then, would seem to support a translation that indicates knowledge and prophecies both face some ultimate demise in Paul’s future, but is it a vanishing act of those concepts altogether? At the very least, even if such things do not disappear completely (it is hard for me to imagine how knowledge can disappear at all, unless this refers to the products of knowledge), they become ineffective in obtaining God’s purposes, especially compared to faith, hope, and love. Notice the structure of vv. 8–10 (deliberately leaving some terms untranslated at this point):

8 Love never fails.

    If there are prophecies, καταργηθήσονται;

        If there are tongues, παύσονται

    If there is knowledge, καταργηθήσεται.

9    For we know ἐκ μέρους

    And we prophesy ἐκ μέρους

10 Whenever the τέλειος comes (the verb is subjunctive, reflecting possibility, not finite, reflecting certainty)

    The ἐκ μέρους
(καταργηθήσεται) will become ineffective/be ceased.

The first thing that sticks out in this structure is that tongues is never mentioned again in the rest of the chapter, nor is it said to be ἐκ μέρους. Because Paul deals with tongues and prophecy as two different issues in 1 Corinthians 14, I don’t think it’s possible to lump tongues into prophecy in this section. “Knowledge” and “prophecy” are identified as ἐκ μέρους in vs. 9, and in vs. 10, those are the things that become ineffective or cease, just as it says in vs. 8.

Backtracking for Context

At this point, I must back track to the end of chapter 12 and beginning of chapter 13 to bring more of the context into the picture. After spending the better part of chapter 12 demonstrating that unity doesn’t mean we are clones when it comes to spiritual gifts, but that each one of us is uniquely gifted by the Spirit to fulfill our respective roles in God’s economy, Paul ends the chapter saying, “And yet I will show you a way that surpasses all others” (1 Cor 12:31b, TNIV). My first questions here are, “A way to what?” “A way to do what?” “What are the other ways?” Paul is making a comparison here, and the placement of this statement reveals what the comparison is: He is comparing “unity in diversity” (chapter 12) to “unity in love” (chapter 13). Note how chapter 13 opens:

1 If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels,

    but do not have love,

        I become a noisy gong or clanging cymbal.

2 If I have prophetic utterances and

If I know all mysteries and all knowledge and

If I have all faith such that I can remove mountains,

    but do not have love,

        I am nothing.

3 If I parcel out all my possessions and

If I give my body in order that I may boast [NOTE: a widely attested variant, different by one letter, suggests this could be “burn”]

    but do not have love,

        I benefit nothing.

Perfect Love

The next three paragraphs begin with love (1 Corinthians 13:4, 8; 14:1). In 14:1, Paul says “pursue love.” Let me now answer the questions I raised regarding 12:31: Love is the way that surpasses all others; this is confirmed by Paul’s final statement in chapter 13: “The greatest of these [faith, hope, and love] is love.” His statement 14:1 prefaces and undergirds that entire chapter as well. What is love the way to? Why pursue love? Love is the way to unity! Let me say it again: Love is the best way to obtain and maintain unity in the body of Christ. The entire letter of 1 Corinthians deals with the problems of disunity among Corinthian Christ-followers. Chapter 13 is the climax of the entire letter and Paul’s solution to the Corinthian problem. Sure, Paul uses the analogy of a body to demonstrate “unity through diversity” in the spiritual gifts, but chapters 12 and 14 are minor or moot discussions if Christ-followers aren’t making love a priority.

I refer you back now to the first outline above on vv. 8–10. Notice this section begins with the statement “Love never fails.” In my outline, I parallel that with the statement “Whenever the τέλειος comes.” This is where I have a point of departure with my colleague Mark and thousands of other biblical scholars through the ages. The standard line that I was taught, and the one that Mark purports in his comments, is that the τέλειος represents the Scriptures. Now I do believe the Word of God is infallible in doctrine, but I don’t think the context of 1 Corinthians supports interpreting or understanding τέλειος as “Scriptures.” “Perfect” is the most common translation of τέλειος’s 19 uses in the NT, but a close second is “mature.” Given the context of 1 Corinthians, with Paul’s discussion about maturity (see also 1 Corinthians 2:6) and unity in using the spiritual gifts, I would argue that τέλειος would be better translated here as “maturity,” a direct reference to “love” with an implication of unity as the most excellent way, in contrast to the ἐκ μέρους of knowledge and prophecy, and as an implied conclusion from 13:1–3.

Verse 11 brings the point home: “When I was a child (νήπιος nēpios, \NAY pee awss\), I was speaking as an infant, I was thinking as an infant, I was reasoning as an infant. Since I have become a man, I have discarded as useless (κατήργηκα perfect tense of καταργέω) the things of infancy.” Both the verbs in the last part of this verse (“I have become” and “I have discarded as useless”) are in the perfect tense. In Greek, the general implication of the perfect tense is that it is an action completed in past time with results that continue into the present time of the speaker/writer. Paul already considers himself to be mature (“a man”), and has already cast off childish things. Paul says essentially the same thing in the next chapter, 14:20: “Brothers and sisters, stop thinking like children (παιδίον paidion, ‘child’). In regard to evil be infants (νηπιάζω nēpiazō), but in your thinking be adults (τέλειος)” (TNIV). In other words, what most translations render as “perfect” in vs. 10 refers to the maturity of a life grounded in love. But there are still a couple more concepts that need to be understood to shed any shadow of doubt about this translation.

ἐκ μέρους

Before bringing this all together into a translation and final explanation, one more phrase and one more word need clarification. What most translations render “in part” or “partially” is ἐκ μέρους in Greek. The phrase is found only five times, all in 1 Corinthians. The first occurrence of the phrase is in 1 Corinthians 12:27: “You are the body of Christ and members ἐκ μέρους.” In this verse, it doesn’t make sense to say that you are “members partially” or “members in part.” Some translations (e.g., ESV) render the phrase in this verse “individually.” The proximity of this phrase to the other four occurrences in chapter 13 should cause us at least to consider if the concept of individuality, as opposed to an idea of “partial” is intended in chapter 13. “We know individually” and “We prophesy individually” could imply the selfishness that Paul goes on to address in chapter 14. When a Christ-follower realizes the maturity of unifying love, individual, selfish desires are set aside. That is the message of vs. 10.

παύω

I have given much attention here to καταργέω, because that is one of the more prominent words in the passage. But it was all necessary to get to the discussion of how the word παύω applies to tongues in vs. 8. The word is found 15 times in the NT; almost half of those occurrences are in the negative: “not stopped” or “never stopped.” With the possible exception of 1 Peter 4:1, the word never refers to the absolute cessation of anything. It is used to describe someone “finishing” praying or speaking and of a storm subsiding (it is assumed that the people prayed or spoke again, and surely more storms occurred). Peter cautions about keeping one’s tongue from evil (1 Peter 3:10), which is the only time the word is used with “tongue” other than 1 Corinthians 13:8. So I don’t believe that Paul intended to say that tongues would absolutely disappear at the close of the apostolic age. Otherwise, why would he spend so much time talking about it in chapter 14? Consequently, I still believe tongues are in operation today, but should only be used (as with any gift) in love and to promote unity, not for selfish purposes. At some point in Paul’s future, they may stop; or perhaps they will come and go as the Holy Spirit determines the need for that particular gift. But I don’t believe the text supports the absolute cessation of tongues for all eternity.

Conclusion

So to bring this all together, let me provide a translation of 1 Corinthians 13:8–11:

8 Love never fails.

    If there are prophecies, they will fade [in comparison to love];

        If there are tongues, they will eventually die out [i.e., languages will die out as the people who speak them do] (παύσονται);

    If there is knowledge, it will fade [in comparison to love].

9    For we know individually (ἐκ μέρους) and

    We prophesy individually(ἐκ μέρους).

10 Whenever the unifying love (τέλειος) comes (the verb is subjunctive, reflecting possibility, not finite, reflecting certainty)

    The individuality (ἐκ μέρους) is set aside (καταργηθήσεται).

11 When I was a toddler (νήπιος), I was speaking as a toddler (νήπιος), I was thinking as a toddler (νήπιος), I was reasoning as a toddler (νήπιος). Since I have become a man, I have discarded as useless
(καταργέω) the things of infancy.

I do not believe any of the gifts of the Spirit have ceased operating in the kingdom of God. With due respect to my colleague in Illinois, I don’t see anything in Scripture that indicates only certain gifts were subject to cessation. Any attempt to purport this would seem to me to be the product of human reasoning and not biblical precedence. What would the qualifications be for cessation? They are not present in Scripture. The sacrificial system of the Old Testament was fulfilled and brought to completion in Christ. The spiritual gifts find their fullest expression in love. First Corinthians 13 suggests that if we’re loving one another as we should, we won’t worry about who has what gifts. If we’re loving one another, the gifts at best serve a secondary or supportive role to loving one another, but they still to this day serve that role. And not to neglect 1 Corinthians 13:13, the gifts also support our faith and hope in Christ, but the greatest is love.

Peace

Pastor Scott Stocking, M.Div.

Edited by author 10/6/2011; substantive edits were in both occurrences of the verse 8 translation. Minor rewording in the transition to the ἐκ μέρους section.

September 12, 2011

Speaking in Tongues (γλῶσσα glōssa, 1 Corinthians 12–14)

Filed under: 1 Corinthians,Biblical Studies,Ecclesiology,New Testament,Pneumatology,Theology, Biblical,Tongues,Tongues — Scott Stocking @ 10:16 pm
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

 

Check out this exclusive Logos Affiliate Deal from SMGB! Logos 10 Package Deal

James was right when he warned believers about the deadly power of the tongue (James 3:5–12). With it we can praise God and curse men, or curse God and praise men for that matter. Of course, James was using metonymy here, with the tongue representing the words we say. But the issue of “tongues,” a special form of speech empowered by the Holy Spirit, has been just as divisive and destructive to Christian unity around the world. Some Christ-followers insist that a demonstration of tongues is absolutely essential for confirming the presence of the Holy Spirit in one’s life, while others on the opposite extreme view tongues as a gift given to the early church and only the early church—it has no place in the kingdom of God in the modern world.

Paul’s instructions in 1 Corinthians 12–14 have been the focal point of the debate. Paul seems to think speaking in tongues is a great idea (1 Cor 14:5, 18), but he issues some caveats and warnings about the use of tongues in the life of Christ-followers and the congregations with which they are associated. I will address the key issues surrounding tongues in this blog post.

Word Studies on γλῶσσα, γένος, and φωνή

First, an examination of the word for “tongues” is in order. The Greek word γλῶσσα (glōssa \GLOHSS sah\) is used 49 times in the Greek New Testament. By far, the most prominent use of the word is in these three chapters of 1 Corinthians, where it is found 21 times. The next closest competitors are Revelation (8 times) and Acts (6 times), each of which is more than the 5 times it is found in all four Gospels combined (including one use in the spurious ending of Mark).

The word can mean the physical tongue, as in Mark 7:33. It is also used as a metonym for “speech” or “mouth” (as in James or Romans 3:13). In Acts 2, the word represents known languages miraculously spoken by those in the upper room (or miraculously heard by those in the crowd). In 1 Corinthians 12–14, Paul does not explicitly state that “tongues” is a known language, but there is an undeniable implication that tongues is capable of interpretation. The debate is whether tongues is a known language (“tongues of men”) spoken in the world at the time (or the world today), or if it is the “tongues of angels” mentioned in 1 Corinthians 13:1. My premise in this post is that the gift of tongues represents a language primarily known to the hearer, but the speaker is divinely enabled to address the hearer in his or her own language and interpreted so that the tongues-speaker can edify those of his native tongue.

The word is found four times in 1 Corinthians 12: twice in vs. 10 and once each in verses 28 and 30. The first thing to notice about 12:7–10 is that the words ἄλλος (allos \AHL loss\, ‘other’, ‘another’) and ἕτερος (heteros \HEH teh ross\, ‘other’, ‘another’) are used interchangeably; classic (mistaken) distinctions like ἄλλος being another of a different kind or another of many versus ἕτερος being another of the same kind or the other one of a pair do not hold up (Friedrich Büchsel, ἄλλος, in TDNT). As such, there is no suggestion that those identified by ἄλλος have any special reason to be given one set of gifts or that those identified by ἕτερος a different set of gifts. The word choice is simply for variety.

The second thing to notice in verse 10 (and later in 28) is that γλῶσσα is modified by the noun γένος (genos \GEH nawss\ ‘family’, ‘offspring’, ‘kind’). This is the word from which Latin speakers derived the word genus and English speakers the word “gene” and related words. Of the 18 times this word is used in the New Testament, only twice does it expressly refer to something outside of the realm of humanity, and one of those outside the natural realm. In Matthew 13:47, the word is used of all “kinds” of fish, while in Mark 9:29, it describes the “kind” of demon that can only come out through prayer. Every occurrence in Acts through Revelation, along with one other occurrence in the Gospels (Mark 7:26), refers to some form of human relationship: offspring, family, born, people (usually Israel or Jews), or native of a particular country.

The other time γένος is found in 1 Corinthians 12–14, it modifies φωνή (phōnē \foe NAY\) and refers to a foreign (human) language. Of the 138 times φωνή is used in the NT, 93 occurrences are translated “voice.” In 1 Cor 14:7–11, the word is found four times, with the first two occurrences referring to the sound of musical instruments. Paul carries over the comparison to human speech using the same word (instead of switching back to γλῶσσα), so the word is a synonym for γλῶσσα, and I don’t believe Paul intended to make any distinction between a supernatural language and natural language by using the two different words.

1 Corinthians 12–13

So how do γένος and φωνή inform our understanding of γλῶσσα? It seems very clear to me that in 1 Corinthians 12 at least, along with Acts 2, the reference is to a Spirit-enabled human language that the speaker may or may not have encountered in the past and that is (or should be) understood by native speakers of that language. Through the interpretation, it should be understood by those who do not otherwise know the Spirit-enabled language. But does chapter 14 modify this understanding? Before answering that question, there are a couple more issue to address in 1 Corinthians 12:29–30 and chapter 13.

The questions in 12:29–30 have an untranslated word that readers should understand. Each question begins with μη (mē \may\), which usually means “not.” But when it begins a Greek question, it is a rhetorical device to indicate to the reader that the question has a “no” answer. So when Paul asks, “Does everyone speak in tongues?” (μὴ πάντες γλώσσαις λαλοῦσιν; Mē pantes glōssais lalousin?) the answer is an emphatic “No.” Tongues is definitely not a gift for everyone, and it’s not something to be used as a universal confirmation that a person has received the Holy Spirit.

The use of γλῶσσα in chapter 13 doesn’t have much bearing on the meaning of the word in this context. Its use in 13:1 (“tongues of men and of angels”) strikes me as more of a hyperbole rather than a statement about the type of language used. Yes, I think it is possible that angels have their own language, but if tongues is not a human language, would it be angelic, or would it be something completely different? Admittedly, if it’s not human language, I’d only be speculating about what kind of language it is. But verse 8 makes me think that tongues is indeed a human language, because Paul says tongues will cease. I can’t imagine angelic language ceasing unless angels themselves will cease to exist after God establishes his new heaven and new earth for the rest of eternity.

1 Corinthians 14

Chapter 14 is where Paul gives an extended treatise on the use of tongues in the local congregation. Γλῶσσα is used 15 times in this chapter, and Paul clearly teaches that prophecy (the speaking forth of God’s word, not necessarily predicting the future) is far more beneficial to the Christ followers than tongues. Just as the Old Testament prophets preached to Israel and Judah to call them to repentance and righteous living, so prophecy here is intended to call believers to a higher standard. That’s why Paul can say that prophecy is for believers in 14:22.

So what is the benefit of tongues to the unbeliever or seeker? I think part of that answer depends on who the local congregation leaders in Corinth were and where they met. If there were some meeting in a synagogue, it’s possible Hebrew may have still been the main language of worship, at least for some of the service. Any “foreigners” coming into the service likely would not have understood Hebrew, so God could use tongues to get the word out.

More likely, I think, is that there were several house churches that had sprung up in Corinth. Since Corinth was a crossroads for numerous trade and shipping routes, peoples of many “tongues” would have frequented the city. It would certainly make proclaiming the Gospel a challenge in a multilingual culture. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to assume that tongues would have been a very useful gift in Corinth, because God wanted to reach the whole world. This was a truly metropolitan city, and the Gospel could certainly spread the Gospel quickly if the local church is on top of its evangelistic outreach.

This brings me to 1 Corinthians 14:2: “For those who speak in a tongue do not speak to other people but to God.” A couple verses later, Paul says that the tongues speaker edifies himself, but the one who prophesies edifies the congregation. Paul spends a great deal of time talking about who benefits from the exercise of spiritual gifts, especially tongues and prophecy. Now when our English versions say that the tongues speaker speaks “to God,” that sounds like a simple instance of an indirect object, which is called the dative case in Greek. But if you’re a regular reader of this blog, you know that Greek grammar is not always a matter of simple and straightforward translation. The dative case has some diversity to its usage in the New Testament.

In the case of 1 Corinthians 14:2, since Paul spends so much time speaking about who benefits from these gifts, I don’t think it is unreasonable to suggest that the dative case θεῷ·(theō, from θεός, theos ‘God’) is what grammarians call “the dative of advantage.” A clear incidence of this is found in Ephesians 5:19, “speaking to one another with psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs.” Paul uses the dative of advantage in 1 Corinthians 14:3 as well: the prophet speaks to people for their “strengthening, encouragement, and comfort.” So if 14:2 is in fact a dative of advantage, what advantage does God have? It’s just as I indicated above: God takes advantage of the presence of Christ followers in a world-class city (even if it is corrupt) to get the word out to the rest of the world. Paul could only do so much as one man, but God could use his people to get the word out to rest of the world through the natural comings and goings of humans conducting their business.

But what is the edification to the tongues speaker, as Paul indicates in this passage? I think the edification is very basic: the tongues speaker knows he or she is being used of God. If the tongues is interpreted, there is a double benefit as the rest of the church will benefit. The benefit is not that this is some mysterious prayer language: if it were, Paul would not say that uninterpreted tongues is of no benefit to the speaker. The one who speaks in a tongue needs to have it interpreted if he wants any understanding of it beyond being used of God. Add to that the command that the tongues speaker keep quiet if there is no interpreter. If you know an interpreter is present, then I don’t think this is some mysterious spiritual language. It is a human language that someone in the congregation knew well enough (or had demonstrated the gift of interpretation often enough) that a reliable translation could be voiced.

Conclusion

Tongues, then, is a human language, divinely enabled, subject to human interpretation, which may or may not be divinely enabled. God used tongues to get the word out quickly in a world-class city with plenty of foreigners going to all points of the compass. For that reason, I do believe tongues is still manifest today, especially as missionaries continue to encounter people groups whose languages still have no written form.

I also recall an anecdotal story from a trusted colleague who had spent some time as a missionary in Eastern Europe, the Ukraine if I remember correctly. He and his wife, after returning to America, awoke one night and began praying in the Ukrainian tongue, even though they were not fluent in it. As it turned out, an earthquake (again, if I remember correctly; it was some sort of natural disaster) had hit the country hard in the area where they had ministered. They had exposure to the language as missionaries, and God used that seed to call them into service as prayer warriors united with those Christ followers through their language even though thousands of miles apart.

Everything God does through us, he does for his glory, not ours. We should not think that we are something special just because we have the ability to speak in tongues. If we speak in a tongue and we’re not interpreting, or if someone isn’t interpreting for us, it’s not doing us much good, and it’s not doing the body of Christ any good. “Everything must be done so that the church may be built up” (1 Corinthians 14:26c). Whatever gifts we have, if we’re only using them for selfish reasons, we should probably reevaluate our priorities (and I speak to myself when I write that as well).

Finally, the exhortation of 1 Corinthians 13 is most appropriate. Whatever we do, let us do it in love, because without love, all else that we do is dust in the wind.

Peace!

Scott Stocking

A qr code on a white background linking to an exclusive deal from Logos Bible Software.

September 5, 2011

Body, Love, and the Temple of God: A Summary of Unity in 1 Corinthians

Filed under: 1 Corinthians,Biblical Studies,Ecclesiology,Ephesians,Greek — Scott Stocking @ 9:43 pm

One of the major themes of 1 Corinthians is unity. From the opening chapter, Paul drives home the point that there should be no divisions in the body of Christ (1 Cor 1:10ff). In chapter 3, Paul draws on the imagery of the Temple to make his point about unity. As we will see, this isn’t the only time he uses this imagery, but there are some important points to make here.

1 Corinthians 3:16–17

I want to start with 1 Corinthians 3:16–17 today, because it is a passage often misunderstood and misapplied in very damaging ways. The passage reads as follows:

UBS4 Greek text: οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι ναὸς θεοῦ ἐστε καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ θεοῦ οἰκεῖ ἐν ὑμῖν; εἴ τις τὸν ναὸν τοῦ θεοῦ φθείρει, φθερεῖ τοῦτον ὁ θεός· ὁ γὰρ ναὸς τοῦ θεοῦ ἅγιός ἐστιν, οἵτινές ἐστε ὑμεῖς.

Transliteration: Ouk oidate hoti vaos theou este kai to pneuma tou theou oikei en hymin? Ei tis ton naon tou theou phtheirei, phtherei touton ho theos; ho gar vaos tou theou hagios estin, hoitines este hymeis.

Pronunciation: \oohk OI-dah-teh HOT-tee nah-OSS theh-OOH ess-teh keye taw PNOOH-mah tooh the-OOH oil-KAY en hoo-MIN? EI tihs tawn na-AWN tooh the-OOH PHTHAY-ray, PHTHEH-ray TOOH-ton haw theh-OSS; haw gar nah-AWSS tooh theh-OOH HAH-ghee-oss ess-tin, HOI-tee-nehs ess-teh hooh-MAYSS\

My translation (I use “y’all” to distinguish “you” plural in the Greek, since the English word “you” may either be singular or plural): Don’t y’all know that y’all are the temple of God and the Spirit of God is dwelling in y’all? If someone destoys the temple of God, God will destroy that person. For the temple of God is holy, which y’all yourselves are.

This passage is very close to Ephesians 2:21–22: “In [Christ], the whole building is joined together and rises into a holy temple in the Lord, and in [Christ] y’all are being built together in the Spirit into a dwelling of God.”

The first thing to notice about the 1 Corinthians 3:16–17 passage is that it is stated in the second person plural. Many well-intentioned Christ-followers through the years have seen in this passage a condemnation of suicide, such that a doctrine has developed among some sects that suicide is an unforgivable sin that damns the victim to an eternity in hell. But a doctrine of suicide is not even remotely close to Paul’s thinking when he writes this passage. Quite frankly, anyone who tries to purport the idea that this passage has to do with suicide is bordering on abuse, especially if that person pontificates that misinterpretation to a grieving family that has experienced a suicide.

1 Corinthians 6:19–20

The context of 1 Corinthians is that of unity. When Paul says that all of us who are Christ-followers are collectively the temple of God, he is referring to the body of Christ. In 6:19–20, Paul says essentially the same thing: “Or don’t y’all know that y’all’s body [singular] is a temple [singular] of the Holy Spirit who is in y’all, whom y’all have received from God, and that y’all are not your own? Y’all were bought with a price; therefore y’all glorify God with y’all’s body [singular].”

1 Corinthians 10–12

But Paul is not finished talking about the body in 1 Corinthians. Paul later speaks of the body in his discussion of the Lord’s Table, or communion. But even then, the context is unity and not causing a fellow Christ-follower to stumble: “Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf” (1 Corinthians 10:16–17).

In the very next chapter, Paul again raises the issue of the body with respect to communion: “So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves” (1 Corinthians 11:27–29).

I believe in both chapters 10 and 11 there is a twofold understanding of the “body.” In one respect, it refers to the physical body of Christ as the sacrificial lamb, thus the additional reference to his blood. But Paul also says “we…are one body,” that is, the body of Christ. What is at issue in chapters 10 and 11 is that some of the Christ-followers are causing others to stumble and perhaps even fall away from the faith because of their actions. In chapter 10, some believers are eating meat knowingly offered to idols, then turning around and participating in the Lord’s Table. Paul rightly calls them out on their duplicity: you can’t have it both ways; you have to make a choice.

In chapter 11, some of the wealthier believers are making gluttons of themselves at the agape feast at which the Lord’s Table was offered. The offenders are told to eat at home so everyone else has a chance to eat together. The “unworthy manner” (an adverb, not an adjective in Greek) is not that they’ve sinned and aren’t worthy of the bread and the cup (again, an abusive interpretation of the passage), but it is the failure to uphold Christian unity and the pride of the proud that causes the weak to stumble (see also 1 Corinthians 9:1–12).

Paul continues in 1 Corinthians 12, where he further details the function of the body, not anatomically or physiologically, but spiritually. Each of has a role to play. Some roles receive much attention, and other roles are more behind the scenes. Not everyone has the same role, and we shouldn’t judge those who don’t necessarily fit our idea of what the other’s role should be. Each person is uniquely gifted by the Holy Spirit, and together, the body of Christ produces a beautiful melody.

Application

I think this unity can happen regardless of the size of a local congregation. The body of Christ worldwide, of course, is blessed with every spiritual gift, but not everyone has every spiritual gift. Large congregations are microcosms of the body of Christ as a whole. Small congregations are gifted proportionally to the size of the congregation. Corporately, the small congregation may not manifest every spiritual gift among its members, but it does manifest what the Spirit has determined it needs to glorify God in their midst if the Christ-followers there are obedient to their respective callings.

Paul boils down all this talk of unity into what is arguably the greatest chapter in all of Scripture: 1 Corinthians 13, the Love chapter. You can have all the academic degrees that fit on a sheepskin, but if you don’t have love, they don’t mean squat. You can know all there is know about any and all subjects, but if you don’t have love, it doesn’t mean squat. I’m glad I’m part of a family of Christ-followers that knows how to love and is teaching me how to love as well. Maybe that’s the learning outcome God has for me! I hope it’s the learning outcome he has for all of you.

We are the temple. We have the Holy Spirit dwelling in and among us to unite us to the Savior. We are the body of Christ, and as Thomas Campbell put it in his primary proposition in Declaration and Address, the body of Christ is “essentially, intentionally, and constitutionally one.”

Peace!

Scott Stocking

August 28, 2011

A Structured Greeting: “Calling” in 1 Corinthians 1:1–3

Filed under: 1 Corinthians,Ecclesiology,New Testament — Scott Stocking @ 7:52 am

Just a quick entry here while it is fresh in my mind. I started on 1 Corinthians today, and the introduction, which most people may gloss over, has tightly-compacted chiastic structure that focuses on the fact that we are “called” to be God’s holy people as we “call upon the name of the Lord.” Paul develops the concept of “calling” in a little more detail in the first half of Ephesians 4, where he talks about unity. Unity turns out to be a big theme in 1 Corinthians as well, especially in the opening verses. What I take from that is unity in Christ is our main calling, and when we “call upon the Lord,” we do so as part of and for the benefit of the body, not for our own selfish gains. Selfishness and self-promotion seemed to be a big issue in Corinth, so Paul here reminds the Corinthians of their calling by using an intentional structure to make it easy to memorize.

I give the English translation and Greek text below. I have identified the elements of the chiasm in the Greek text, because that is the original word order. Below the Greek text, you will see the chiastic outline that takes shape.

Paul, called to be an apostle of Christ [Messiah] Jesus by the will of God, and our brother Sosthenes,

2 To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ [Messiah] Jesus and called to be his holy people, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ [Messiah]—their Lord and ours:

3 Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ [Messiah] (1 Corinthians 1:1–3; NIV 2011 translation; “Messiah” gloss is mine as a Hebrew term, but both “Messiah” and “Christ” mean “Anointed” in English).

Παῦλος κλητὸς (A) ἀπόστολος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ (B) διὰ θελήματος θεοῦ (C) καὶ Σωσθένης ὁ ἀδελφὸς

Paulos klētos apostolos Christou Iēsou dia thelēmatos theou kai Sōsthenēs ho adelphos

τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ (A′) τοῦ θεοῦ (C′) τῇ οὔσῃ ἐν Κορίνθῳ, ἡγιασμένοις ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ (B′), κλητοῖς (A′′) ἁγίοις,

tē ekklēsia tou theou tē ousē en korinthō, hēgiasmenois en Christō Iēsou, klētois hagiois,

σὺν πᾶσιν τοῖς ἐπικαλουμένοις (A′′′) τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (B′′) ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ, αὐτῶν καὶ ἡμῶν·

sun pasin tois epikaloumenois to onoma tou kyriou hēmōn Iēsou Christou en panti topō, autōn kai hēmōn

χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ θεοῦ (C′′) πατρὸς ἡμῶν καὶ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (B′′′).

charis hymin kai eirēnē apo theou patros hēmōn kai kyriou Iēsou Christou.

Here is the basic pattern without all the fill, so you can easily see the chiastic structure.

A

B

C

A′

C′

B′

A′′

A′′′

B′′

C′′

B′′′

A κλητὸς (klētos) All words labeled “A” in the chiasm have the Greek verb for “call” (καλέω kaleō) as their root word. κλητὸς is an adjective meaning “called.”

B Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ This title/name “Messiah Jesus” is found in the genitive case three times in this passage, dative case once (B′ “in Messiah Jesus”). The first two occurrence inform our identity.

C θεοῦ This is always in the genitive case in this short passage. Here, it is in the phrase “through the will of God.”

A′ ἐκκλησίᾳ “Traditionally “church,” but I prefer “congregation” or “assembly, because those terms focuses on the people and the activity rather than the cultural understanding of “church” as a building. The etymological roots are ἐκ (ek, ‘out of’, ‘from’) and καλέω. Literally, the church comprises those “called out” of the world.

C′ θεοῦ Here, it describes whose church: “The congregation of God.”

B′ ἡγιασμένοις ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ “Sanctified/made holy in Messiah Jesus.” Note the first word is the verb form of ἁγίος (hagios), which follows.

A′′ κλητοῖς ἁγίοις “Called to be saints/holy people.”

A′′′ τοῖς ἐπικαλουμένοις This is a participle form, so “those who call upon.” The etymological roots are ἐπί (epi, ‘upon’) and καλέω.

B′′ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ The first two times it is “Messiah Jesus”, but these last two times it is “Jesus Messiah,” with “Lord” added onto his title. These last two occurrences describe the Messiah as our source of providence.

C′′ ἀπὸ θεοῦ (C′′) πατρὸς This is simply “from God our Father,” implying the source (along with the Messiah) of grace and peace.

B′′′ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ As in the previous occurrence, this is simply “Jesus Messiah.”

Peace!

Scott Stocking

« Previous Page

Website Powered by WordPress.com.