This is the substance of what we dealt with in HUB for Week 5. We will finish our discussion of the passage in Hebrews 13:17-18 this Wednesday.
If you want another example of a word study, although rather in depth, please see this week’s post on tongues.
Scott Stocking
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
8We do not want you to be uninformed, brothers and sisters, about the troubles we experienced in the province of Asia. We were under great pressure, far beyond our ability to endure, so that we despaired of life itself. 9Indeed, we felt we had received the sentence of death. But this happened that we might not rely on ourselves but on God, who raises the dead. 10He has delivered us from such a deadly peril, and he will deliver us again. On him we have set our hope that he will continue to deliver us, 11as you help us by your prayers. Then many will give thanks on our behalf for the gracious favor granted us in answer to the prayers of many.
My oldest brother, Neal, and his oldest son, Jeff, have been deployed in Afghanistan for the past year with their respective Guard units. Neal, who has been leading a couple construction units in two different parts of Afghanistan, is due to come home next month. Jeff has been serving as an MP at one of our bases in Afghanistan and will probably be home sometime between Thanksgiving and Christmas. I am proud of both of them and applaud them for their service to and sacrifice for our country. Both of Neal’s kids are grown. Jeff’s residence is in Omaha, and his son Chris lives in Kansas City. Neal’s wife Anne has been an absolute trooper as well, holding down the homestead in Omaha, and we’ve done what we can to support her and keep her engaged with the family in this time. It hasn’t been easy for her, but I hope she knows we have her back. Jeff is “unattached” (so far as we know, anyway!), but he still has his circle of friends whom I’m sure he misses and can’t wait to be reunited with.
My own life in the past year has been a microcosm of Jeff’s and Neal’s experience in the past year. One year ago this week, God “deployed” me back to my hometown of Omaha, Nebraska, to experience some victory over the long battle I fought in Illinois with underemployment. I do not regret that during my underemployment in Illinois, I had the freedom to be there for my kids on a daily basis. I was the “soccer dad”, getting them to school every day (and sometimes subbing for their teachers!) and to their appointments, practices, games, and other events with friends. I was involved in every aspect of their lives.
Divorce wrenched me away from all that. Without full-time work in Illinois, and with zero hits on the countless positions (over two years of daily searching job opportunities; I lost count of how many) I applied for in Chicago and other places close to home, and with no other family nearby, it was impossible for me to support myself there and provide the kind of support for my kids that they deserved. I had distinctly heard God calling me back to Nebraska (“There Is No Place Like Nebraska” kept ringing in my ears), and I knew that’s where God wanted me to go. Upon reflection, I think the homesickness I had been feeling for Nebraska since about 2005 may have been God telling me that I should have gone back then, but uprooting the kids seemed out of the question, and it certainly would have been a battle with my current ex I probably would not have won, or it may have forced her hand to file for divorce then. That’s all speculation and water under the bridge now, and when I had no other choice after the divorce, I went forward with my plans to come back to Nebraska and be a “boomerang child.”
God honored my faithfulness to follow his lead in several ways. I got hired my first full day back in Nebraska for the first FT job I’d had in years. It was a temp job, but I was back on my feet. That led to my current job, the best-paying job I’ve ever held in my life. It’s a great job, and I’m using all my skills, from math to English to writing and editing. I also got reconnected to my former church. Fort Street Christian Church sent me off to seminary 24 years ago, and when I came back last year, Fort Street had become StoneBridge. Attendance had quintupled, and the congregation was as vibrant as any I had ever experienced. I made connections and new friends almost immediately, and I have experienced a great deal of spiritual and personal growth through my involvement there. The church has become my family here; I wasn’t going to sit around and bemoan the lost daily interaction with my kids, and I’ve used my relocation as an opportunity for God get some work done in me that I had neglected as a busy dad and resident home-improvement servant. My brother and nephew get hazard pay for being on foreign soil. My hazard pay has been the spiritual growth I’ve experienced.
But amidst that, I’ve still been struggling with the separation from my kids. It’s been difficult to meet my financial obligations, and as such, I haven’t been able to see my kids as often as I like. My ex refuses to meet me half-way to transfer the kids, so I have to make the 8-hour, one-way trip whenever I want to see them and spring for a hotel room. And if I want to bring them back to Omaha with me, that’s another 8–10 hours in the car. My ex constantly reminds me how that’s a “punishment” for the kids and that pretty much everything else I do is “punishment” for them, taking them away from their friends and activities to come to Omaha to spend time with me, and that it was my choice to move 500 miles from the kids (never mind I’m providing a lot more child support from here than I could have from Illinois; more “hazard pay” for the family). I know it’s not punishment, but sacrifice, but some days the stress of my separation makes me feel like Paul in the 2 Corinthians passage I quoted above.
I know the God of all comfort knew what he was doing when he deployed me to Nebraska. I have already seen some of the fruit he is bearing in my life, as my half-sister and dad have started coming to StoneBridge as well. I have a renewed spiritual vigor and great opportunities for service. But that has been kept in check by the incredible sense of loss I feel at being separated from my kids. Yes, I still have regular contact with them on the phone and through Skype (when the video connection works), but as you might imagine, it’s not the same for me or for my kids. I feel the despair of death some days, the pain is that deep, but I know God and my brothers and sisters in Christ and my family are upholding me.
For those of you looking for the Greek (and I debated whether I should include any at all in this post), here it is. Paul uses the Greek word for “despair” ἐξαπορέομαι (exaporeomai, \eks ah paw REH aw my\) or ἐξαπορέω (exaporeō, \eks ah paw REH oh\) only twice in all his writings (and the only two times in the New Testament). Strong’s Enhanced Lexicon says the word derives from ἐκ (ek, ‘from’ or ‘out of’) + ἀ (a, negative prefix) + πορεύομαι (poreuomai, ‘go’), or in other words, “not go out of” or figuratively “internalize,” thus Paul’s comment about feeling the weight of the pressure he’s under. I can see that, but I also discern another possible etymology: ἐκ (ek, ‘from’ or ‘out of’) + ἀπό (apo, ‘away from’) + ῥέω (rheō, ‘flow’), or “go out of and away from” or figuratively “abandon”. Either etymology is fitting of my own situation. The only other time Paul uses the word is a couple chapters later in 2 Corinthians 4:7–10:
7But we have this treasure in jars of clay to show that this all-surpassing power is from God and not from us. 8We are hard pressed on every side, but not crushed; perplexed, but not in despair; 9persecuted, but not abandoned; struck down, but not destroyed.
10We always carry around in our body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be revealed in our body.
The word for “perplexed” (contrasted with “despair”) in this passage is the same word in Greek without the ἐκ- prefix. As with the passage from chapter 1, this passage also brings me comfort: I’m at my wits’ end, but I haven’t yet given up all hope, although I feel the pressure to give up more and more. And maybe that’s the point of all this. Like 2 Corinthians 1:9 says, all this is happening so that I might not rely on myself (I’m certainly finding out that’s not working), but that I should rely totally and completely on God. After all, he raised the dead; he can certainly see me through my current struggles.
A side note: I know I may have come across a little harsh on my ex-wife here, but that is the reality of my situation. I know she is doing the best she can for the kids, and I’m sure she feels a different kind of pressure dealing with the kids daily without me being in the area to provide regular relief. In spite of our continued arguments about things, I know she’s doing a great job, and I trust that all things will work out for the best for all of us. My kids are strong and doing well, but I know they miss my presence as much as I miss theirs. I would appreciate your prayers for all of us.
Peace to all!
Scott Stocking
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
After taking this class, the participant will be able to:
Step 1 of the Bible study method we’ll be discussing is “Get a Bible.” Sounds simple enough, right? Go to Parable or Divine Truth, grab one off the shelf, pay for it, and be on your way. But what do you find when you get there?
So how do you decide? It depends on what you want.
Literal translations try to stay as close to the word order and standard meaning of the words as possible. These sometimes seem very choppy to read and they tend translate idiom literally rather than translating the meaning of the idiom. If you want technical accuracy, try a literal or word-for-word translation like the New American Standard Bible (NASB), English Standard Version (ESV), or the King James Version (KJV).Note the translation of Psalm 1:1–2 from the English Standard Version:
Blessed is the man
who walks not in the counsel of the wicked,
nor stands in the way of sinners,
nor sits in the seat of scoffers;
2 but his delight is in the law of the Lord,
and on his law he meditates day and night.
Paraphrase or free translations are on the opposite end of the spectrum. Examples of paraphrases would be The Message (Eugene Peterson) and The Living Bible (Kenneth Taylor). These tend to take great liberty with the original text (when the original text is consulted!) or work from another English version and attempt to rewrite the text in contemporary, colloquial language. Here is Psalm 1:1–2 from The Message, translated and paraphrased by Eugene Peterson (note: Eugene Peterson has consulted the original texts in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek):
(The Message)
How well God must like you—
you don’t hang out at Sin Saloon,
you don’t slink along Dead-End Road,
you don’t go to Smart-Mouth College.
2 Instead you thrill to God’s Word,
you chew on Scripture day and night.
Dynamic equivalent translations take a middle-of-the-road approach between literal and paraphrase. They arrange the word order so it sounds more natural to the reader, like reading a newspaper or popular novel. Here is Psalm 1:1–2 from both the new edition of the NIV (©2011) and the New Living Translation, which we usually place on the screen for Mark’s sermons:
(NIV: tends to be a little closer to the literal)
1 Blessed is the one
who does not walk in step with the wicked
or stand in the way that sinners take
or sit in the company of mockers,
2 but whose delight is in the law of the Lord,
and who meditates on his law day and night.
(NLT, second edition, a little closer to the paraphrase)
1 Oh, the joys of those who do not
follow the advice of the wicked,
or stand around with sinners,
or join in with mockers.
2 But they delight in the law of the Lord,
meditating on it day and night.
A study Bible is not a translation theory like the three described above, but a tool that combines the insights of a number of different resources in order to give you a broader picture of the context, meaning, and application of Scripture. Keep in mind that the notes in a study Bible represent someone else’s interpretation of the passage or verse. These notes should not be considered “Scripture,” but scriptural helps. Study Bibles come in every shape and size, for any number of demographic categories you can conjure up, and for most major versions of the Bible.
Some good study Bibles are The Life Application Bible (available with different Bible versions), The Archaeological Study Bible (with 1984 NIV), and the 1984 NIV Study Bible. Study Bibles may also have cross-references to parallel passages or to similar wording in other verses. Following these cross-references in your study time may serve to enrich your understanding of Scripture and help you see its interconnectedness.
Most online and app-based Bible Web sites will give you the opportunity to compare translations of a verse or passage. This is often helpful in Bible study when you have a passage who’s meaning may not be quite clear or that speaks to a difficult concept.
The New International Version underwent an update for 2011. The previous version of the NIV was published in 1984, over a quarter century ago. In 2001, Today’s New International Version (TNIV) was published, which included gender-neutral language where the original author was addressing both men and women. The 2011 edition of the NIV is essentially the TNIV with some minor adjustments. The TNIV is no longer being published. The new NIV Study Bibles have now gone through a couple versions since the 2011 update. Personally, I’m using the Zondervan NIV Study Bible edited by Kenneth Barker, the first one to come out after the update.
Since I first published this guide, I have also had the opportunity to contribute study notes to the Jeremiah Study Bible, available with the NIV, NKJV, and ESV.
Here is a comparison of Hebrews 13:17–18 in the NIV 1984, TNIV, and NIV 2011 editions.
|
NIV 1984 |
TNIV |
NIV 2011 |
| 17 Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you. 18 Pray for us. We are sure that we have a clear conscience and desire to live honorably in every way. |
17Have confidence in your leaders and submit to their authority, because they keep watch over you as those who must give an account. Do this so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no benefit to you. 18Pray for us. We are sure that we have a clear conscience and desire to live honorably in every way. |
17 Have confidence in your leaders and submit to their authority, because they keep watch over you as those who must give an account. Do this so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no benefit to you. 18Pray for us. We are sure that we have a clear conscience and desire to live honorably in every way. |
Peace!
Scott Stocking
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.
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.
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].”
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.
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
Here is a synopsis of what we covered Wednesday night. We had nine people in class. What a great start! I hope you all come back next week.
Week 1 Learning Outcomes: After this week’s lesson, the class member should be able to:
The following is adapted from Jake Christian’s curriculum
Read the following Scripture passages to prepare for class:
The Big Picture:
Some questions to consider (no right or wrong answers; just reflection):
Next Week’s Topic: Introducing the Bible Study Method:
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
The following is an updated version of an assignment I did way back in the late 90s as I was finishing up my Master’s degree at (then) Lincoln Christian Seminary. It is rather lengthy and was written for Dr. Walt Zorn, who is a phenomenal biblical languages scholar, so it might be a tad more heady than my usual blog posts, but I hope I’ve clarified and summarized Paul’s argument in Romans 1–5 so you can get a handle on it. Some of this was in my blog post from two weeks ago, but this is a fuller treatment of the subject. I hope you are challenged to think more deeply about the Scriptures and your own faith through this post.
Paul’s letter to the Romans has been a seminal letter for Paul’s development of the themes of faith or faithfulness and righteousness in his theology. The themes are connected by Paul in this letter in several places and with several nuances. I would hazard a guess that the prominence of these two themes was an important consideration in placing this letter at the beginning of the Pauline epistles in the New Testament.
When studying Paul’s use of πιστίς in Romans, one finds a richer, fuller expression of faith than appears on the surface. Much has been said about the thematic nature of 1:17: δικαιοσύνη γὰρ θεοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ ἀποκαλύπτεται ἐκ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν, καθὼς γέγραπται, Ὁ δὲ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως ζήσεται. (dikaiosynē gar theou en autō apokalyptetai ek pisteōs eis pistin, kathōs gegraptai, Ho de dikaios ek pisteōs zēsetai, “God’s righteousness in [the Gospel] is being revealed from the faithfulness [of Christ] to faith(fulness), just as it is written, ‘The Righteous One will live from faithfulness'”).
It would seem that the traditional translation of “faith” falls short of the sense of πιστίς in Romans. In the following analysis, I will defend my contention that “faithfulness,” rather than “faith,” is a more appropriate translation in many instances. A presupposition (which I also intend to demonstrate) is that the subjective genitive dominates Paul’s discussion of [the] faith[fulness of Christ] and [the] righteousness [of God].
Some structural considerations are worthy of note when it comes to Paul’s use of πιστίς in Romans. The most pronounced structural consideration is the inclusio of the phrase εἰς ὑπακοὴν πίστεως (eis hypakoēn pisteōs, “into obedience of faithfulness”), found in both 1:5 (the first occurrence of πιστίς) and 16:26 (the last occurrence of πιστίς). This phrase helps both to define and to qualify the relationship between faith and righteousness. By far, the heaviest concentration (20 of 40 times in Romans) of the word is in 3:21–5:21, especially 3:22 through the end of chapter 4. It occurs 6 times in his introductory section (1:1–17).
What one finds when examining the usage is that, in the first five chapters, Paul essentially builds three arguments explaining justification by “the obedience of faithfulness:” one from a negative perspective (the wrath of God revealed in the Law, 1:18–3:20); and two from a positive perspective (Jesus, 3:21–31, and Abraham, ch. 4). He then concludes this section with application (5:1–11) and a historical illustration, an inclusio of Adam and Christ (5:12–21).
Since 1:5 seems to be the thesis statement for the whole book, I would argue that 1:16–17 is a secondary thesis statement for the section that follows, namely 1:18–5:21. I suggest the following structure:
|
A 1:16 |
Paul’s declaration of the Gospel’s ability as the power of God for salvation |
|
B 1:17 |
Paul’s declaration of the righteousness of God for faithfulness |
|
–A 1:18–3:20 |
Paul’s declaration of the Law’s inability to save or justify |
|
B 3:21–5:21 |
Paul’s demonstration of “the obedience of faithfulness” of Jesus and Abraham and its power to justify |
An interesting feature of 1:18–3:20 is that πιστίς occurs only once, in 3:3, in reference to God’s faithfulness (interestingly enough, not “the faith that comes from God,” which would parallel other similar constructions in the NIV [1984 version] translation!). The verb πιστεύω (pisteuō, \pee-STOO-oh\) is found in 3:2, with the sense of “entrusted,” while in 3:3, the negative form of the verb (ἀπιστέω apisteō, \ah-pee-STEH-oh\) and the negative form of the noun (ἀπιστία apistia, \ah-pee-STEE-ah\) are found. These four occurrences form a chiasmus:
A First, on the one hand, they were entrusted (v) with the words (τὰ λόγια ta logia, \tah LAW-ghee-ah\) of God
B What is it then? If some did not have faith (v),
B′ would their faithlessness (n)
A′ nullify the faithfulness (n) of God? (The question expects a “no” answer.”)
Verse 4 completes the thought: “May it never be! On the other hand [note the contrast with vs. 3], let God be true and ‘everyone else liars’ [Psalm 116:11], just as it is written, ‘In order that you be justified in your words and be victorious when you judge’ [Psalm 51:4].”
This section (Romans 1:18–3:20) begins with the continual revealing of the wrath of God. I believe what Paul is referring to here is the Law (cf. 4:15) and the punishments contained therein that are being applied even in his own time against the wicked. In 1:18–32, Paul says that these people have no excuse, because they know of his “righteous decrees” both through “natural law” and from God himself through the Law of Moses.
In chapter 2, then, Paul demonstrates that those “stubborn and unrepentant” (vs. 5) Jews who still insist on living by the Law, or at least resting on their laurels as God’s chosen people (vs. 13), are in danger of experiencing God’s wrath as well. In the latter part of verse 13, he declares that the only way to be justified is to obey the Law. It is safe to assume that he means a complete obedience here (2:23, 25, cf. Gal 5:3, James 2:10). The reality is that no one is capable of such complete obedience, therefore he can quote the Psalmist in his conclusion (3:9–20); “There is no ‘righteous one'” (3:10, par. Psalm 14:1–3; 53:1–3; Eccl. 7:20), at least according to the Law, and thus no one can be justified by the works of the Law (3:20).
Romans 3:2–3 serves as a crucial turning point for 1:18–3:20. In addition to the chiasmus in those two verses, it is interesting to note that τὰ λόγια (‘word’) and πιστίς (‘faithfulness’) are parallel with respect to God. God has been and is faithful in carrying out his wrath against lawbreakers, regardless of the degree of violation (1:18, 3:5). Thus God’s faithfulness in carrying out his wrath against lawbreakers would imply in this case a subjective genitive construction. The phrase τὴν πίστιν τοῦ θεοῦ (tēn pistin tou theou, ‘the faithfulness of God’) in 3:3 is parallel to (and has profound implications for) the next section, especially in 3:22, where we find the phrase πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (pisteōs Iēsou Christou, ‘the faithfulness of Christ’).
Because Paul here resumes a concentrated discussion on faith/faithfulness, I understand the key phrase in 3:22 (πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ) to inform most occurrences of πιστίς in 3:21–5:21, and most likely in the whole book of Romans. I believe this phrase and “the faithfulness of God” in 3:3 are both what grammarians call “subjective genitive.” Subjective genitive means that the noun in the genitive case (in these verses, “God” and “Jesus Christ”) serve as the “subjects” of the verbal action of the accompanying noun (“faithfulness”). So we could turn these around and say “God is faithful” and “Jesus Christ is faithful.” The opposite category here (which is the way 3:22 is usually treated in contrast to 3:3) is objective genitive. This means the nouns in genitive case would be objects of the verbal action implied by the accompanying noun. If these phrases were treated as objective genitive, then they would be rendered “trust/have faith in God” and “trust/have faith in Jesus.” The implication of the subjective genitive is that the faithfulness of Christ is an activity Christ performs, primarily his death on the cross.
But there is another implication here that may escape the casual reader. Remember that Paul wrote in 1:17 that “the Righteous One (δίκαιος dikaios) will live by faithfulness,” but in 3:10 he says, Οὐκ ἔστιν δίκαιος (ouk estin dikaios, “there is no righteous one”). In both places, he uses the adjective substantively. The context here suggests that it was not only Jesus’ faithfulness to his suffering and death on the cross, but his faithfulness to the Law as well. Jesus is the exception to 1:18–3:20. This is a key conclusion: Jesus is “the Righteous One” of 1:17.
Several Scriptures help to make this point. In Matt 5:17, Jesus says: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them” (emphasis mine). In Romans 10:4, Paul says that Jesus is the τέλος…νόμου (telos…nomou), that is, the ‘perfection,’ ‘completion,’ or ‘fulfillment’ of the Law. Hebrews 5:8–9 (NIV 2011) says: “Son though he was, he learned obedience from what he suffered and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him.” Although Hebrews was most likely not written by Paul, the connection here of learning obedience (Romans 1:5) through his faithful enduring of suffering drives home the fact that Romans 3 should be read in the light of the subjective genitive.
My own translation of Romans 3:21–31 reads differently from the traditional reading in many translations, for every reference to “faith/faithfulness” is a reference to the “faithfulness of Christ” in v. 22. Here is how the passage might be rendered:
But now God’s righteousness, apart from the Law, has been revealed, being testified to in the Law and the Prophets, God’s righteousness through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ to all who are believing. For there is no difference. For all who are being justified freely by his grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus sinned and are falling short of the glory of God. whom God presented the Messiah as an atoning sacrifice through [his] faithfulness in his blood into a demonstration of his righteousness because God overlooked of the sins committed beforehand in his forbearance, towards a demonstration of his righteousness in the present time, in order that [Christ] himself would be the “Righteous One” and the one justifying those of the faithfulness of Jesus.
This also demonstrates God’s faithfulness. God required a blood sacrifice for the atonement of sin. Under the Law, that happened in the sacrificial system. But now, “apart from the Law,” a new method of atonement is achieved through Christ. God’s faithfulness is vindicated in Christ, for now God can “set aside” the sacrificial system of the Old Covenant because of what he accomplished through Jesus on the cross.
If the last half of chapter 3 was not enough to convince the Jews that it is possible to be justified “apart from the Law,” then Paul hopes the example of Abraham in chapter 4 will irrefutably drive home the point. Actually, Abraham lived “apart from the Law” that did not yet exist (i.e. “prior to” the Law). But the quote from the LXX is revealing (Romans 4:9, see also vs. 3 for a variation): Ἐλογίσθη τῷ Ἀβραὰμ ἡ πίστις εἰς δικαιοσύνην (elogisthē tō Abraam hē pistis eis dikaiosynēn, “Faithfulness into righteousness was reckoned to Abraham.”)
Although the context of this quote (Genesis 15:6) suggests at first glance Abraham’s simple belief in the promise from God that he would have many descendants, Abraham later demonstrated his faithfulness to the promise (because he knew God would be faithful to the promise) by taking Isaac up on Mt. Moriah and raising the knife to sacrifice his only son through whom that promise (presumably) would come.
James would want to speak up at this point. Of course James is famous for arguing that “faith without works is dead.” It would seem, then, that James and Paul converge here. James’s concept of faith-based works seems similar to Paul’s concept of faithfulness (cf. Eph 2:10): faithfulness involves obedience not to the Law, but to Christ who fulfilled the Law.
Just as 3:22 informs us that Paul is talking about Christ’s faithfulness throughout the last part of chapter 3, and not our faith in Christ; and God’s faithfulness to his promise to Abraham in chapter 4; so also δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in 1:17 (a subjective genitive) helps to inform us of God’s righteousness (even though “God’s” does not always modify “righteousness”) in most places in Romans.
No one save Christ could have obtained the justification or righteousness from total obedience to the Law, so that now we who believe can be justified not through the Law, but through Christ “apart from the Law.” Not only can we be justified, but God is just in doing so through Christ, because Christ fulfilled the Law (3:26).
Often I have struggled with whether or not my own “faith” was a work, and if I did not have enough “faith,” what would God do to me? Often I hear horror stories of pastors or ill-informed Christians telling people going through a bad time that they are suffering because they do not have enough faith. With the above interpretation, the amount or quality of our faith is not necessarily a factor. God’s faithfulness stands firm even if we are faithless. Does this imply universalism? No. Eternal security? No. But it does call us to trust all the more in his promises, because he has demonstrated beyond a shadow of doubt his ability and willingness to faithfully follow through on his promises. This is an assurance that all of us could use.
As for the translation of πιστίς, I would suggest that many occurrence of the word in Romans (and perhaps everywhere in the Pauline corpus) be filtered through the important phrase in his inclusio of 1:5/16:26, phrase εἰς ὑπακοὴν πίστεως (eis hypakoēn pisteōs, “into obedience of faithfulness”). When Paul speaks of “faith,” even when he personalizes it in the first or second person, he has in mind a faithful obedience to Christ, and the good works that “God prepared in advance for us to do” (Eph 2:10).
All Greek Scripture quotations taken from Kurt Aland, Matthew Black, Carlo M. Martini et al., The Greek New Testament, Fourth Revised Edition (With Morphology) (Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1993; 2006), Logos electronic edition, unless otherwise indicated.
The NIV (1984 edition) translated this identical phrase two different ways. In 1:5, the translators chose “to obedience that comes from faith,” and in 16:26, they chose “so that [all nations] might believe and obey him.” In both places, also, ἔθνη (ethnē ‘Gentiles’) is translated differently: “Gentiles” in 1:5 and “nations” in 16:26. It would seem in 16:26 that Paul puts his Q.E.D. on at least one of his purposes (1:5) for writing this letter to the Romans. The 2011 edition of the NIV fixes this inconsistency, having “the Gentiles might come to the obedience that comes from faith” in both places. Many other modern translations, such as the NRSV and ESV got the consistency right in the interim, translating the phrase “obedience of faith” in both verses. I would still maintain, however, that “faithfulness” is the better translation.
Anyone who has ever read Romans has come across the interesting, seemingly repetitive passage in 7:13–25 (specifically vv. 15–21) where Paul says “I do not do what I want to do.” The TNIV has the word “do” (or a form of it) 24 times in those seven verses, and 6 of those come in verse 15! I would hazard a guess that the verb “do” in English is used almost as much as the “to be” verb. Perhaps a better comparison would be to the use of the verb “have” when forming the perfect tense in English. Just as in those cases “have” does not mean “to possess,” so the modal function of “do” doesn’t necessarily mean “to act”. So we shouldn’t be surprised to find the word used numerous times in any English text. But such a high concentration in the current text suggests that something is up.
When I read through this passage this week, I was surprised to find that Paul used not one, but three words that have been translated as “do” (modal uses aside) in many English Bible versions. In order to set this up, I think it will be beneficial to review those words and see how they impact the meaning of the passage. If we can “undo” the multiple uses of “do” to some extent, we might see a slightly different view of the passage emerge.
The first word for “do” Paul uses is κατεργάζομαι (katergazomai, \kat air GAH zaw my\). This word is found 22 times in the New Testament: eleven of those occurrences are in Romans; six are in chapter 7, and five are in the immediate context of this passage. In this context, the word carries the implication of the results of what is “done.” In 7:8, for example, Paul says that “sin…produced in me every kind of covetousness” (TNIV). Later, in verse 13 (which is the beginning of the paragraph in the Greek text), Paul says that sin’s purpose was “to produce death in me” (my translation). If it weren’t for these two uses, I was almost ready to translate the other 4 occurrences in this passage as “motivate” or even “influence,” because that seems to be what the context implies. By “produce”, I mean “accomplish” or “result in” (see, for example, Louw & Nida 13.9).1 However, I will defer to the primacy factor here and go with the translation “produce” when I give my version of the passage below.
I do want to lay out for you how this word is used in its other four occurrences in this passage so you can compare them for yourselves.
A 15: I know not what I am producing. (Perhaps another way to render this is, “I don’t know what the end result is,” or “I don’t know what I’m accomplishing.”)
B 17: For I myself am no longer producing it, but the sin living in me is. (This is where I get the idea of “motivation” in the word.)
C 18: For my desire is present, but my production is not honorable. (This may be the crux verse. Paul uses a different word for “good” here: καλός instead of ἀγαθός; more on that later.)
B′ 20: (same as 17): For I myself am no longer producing it, but the sin living in me is.
The second word for “do” we come across is πράσσω (prassō, \PRAHSS soh\). Those of you who know something of Greek roots may recognize this as the root from which “practice,” “praxis,” and “pragmatic” are all derived. This word is found 39 times in the NT, with 10 of those occurrences in Romans, and even more in Acts. By a factor of about 7 to 1, the word is used in a negative or neutral context rather than referring to anything good, that is, practicing sin, evil, or wickedness. For example, Paul uses the word twice in Romans 1:32 to describe the practice of those who have given themselves over to their base desires. Christian Maurer, in his article on the word in the TDNT (summarized in the TDNTA, “Little Kittel”), says that the word “denotes the activity rather than the outcome,”2 which I contrast with κατεργάζομαι above. The word is used twice in near parallel construction in vv. 15 and 19, but there is one significant difference, and here, the Greek word order is important:
15: οὐ γὰρ ὃ θέλω τοῦτο πράσσω (E), ἀλλʼ ὃ μισῶ τοῦτο ποιῶ (F). (“For I practice not the thing that I desire, but I do the thing that I hate.”
19: οὐ γὰρ ὃ θέλω ποιῶ (F′) ἀγαθόν, ἀλλὰ ὃ οὐ θέλω κακὸν τοῦτο πράσσω (E′). (“For I do not the good thing that I desire, but I practice the evil thing I desire not.” Notice he adds the moral qualifiers in vs. 19 as well.)
(I realize my translations sound like Yoda’s “Do or do not, there is no try,” but I’m trying to be literal and not use “do” more than necessary.) These two phrases serve as a chiastic inclusio for the passage. If you don’t remember what a chiasm is, that’s when a series of items is repeated in reverse order, a common structural feature of the biblical text in both testaments. “I don’t practice the thing I desire…I practice the evil thing I don’t desire”; “I do the thing that I hate…I don’t do the good thing that I desire.” I find it interesting that in vs. 15, he breaks from using the word for “desire” (θέλω thelō, \THEH loh\; used 7 times in this passage) and uses the word for “hate” (μισέω miseō, \miss EH oh\), telegraphing how he feels about doing the thing he doesn’t desire to do (compare with the first phrase of vs. 16).
The Greek word most frequently used for “do” or “make” in the NT (568 times) is the third word we encounter here: ποιέω (poieō, \poi EH oh\). This word is found five times in this passage. Verses 15, 16, and 20 are nearly parallel: “I do the thing that I hate. If I do the thing that I do not desire….” Verse 19 is slightly different, as already seen above. Verse 21 is the only place in this passage where this word is connected with doing something “honorable,” but its use throughout the NT is widely varied as you might guess. There is nothing unusual about the translation of the word in this passage, so in my translation of the passage, I will render it as “do”.
One final bit of word study should be added to this discussion as well. Paul goes back and forth between using the typical Greek word for morally good (ἀγαθός agathos \ah gah THAWSS\) and the typical Greek word for aesthetically good (καλός kalos \kah LOSS\). There is some overlap of meaning between the two words (both words are contrasted with κακός kakos “evil”, the former in vs. 19, the latter in vs. 21), but καλός tends to be slightly more abstract and doesn’t have quite the moral load that ἀγαθός does. For the purposes of my translation, where ἀγαθός is used, I will use “good,” but where καλός is used, I will use “honorable.”
To this point, I’ve given very stiff, literal translations of the Greek text, and I’m guessing some of you who don’t have a Greek background are scratching your heads. But I want to try to give a dynamic equivalence (which will probably sound more like something out of The Message) of this passage, focusing on vv. 15–21. So here it goes:
I don’t understand what this battle between good and evil is going to produce in me in the end or why I’m even going through it. For I don’t practice what I really want to do: please God. Instead, I just blindly do the thing I hate. And if I blindly do what I really don’t want to do, I agree with the law that it is honorable in pointing out the sinfulness of my thoughtless deed. But now it’s no longer I myself producing the action I didn’t want to do, but it’s the unwelcome, indwelling sin that’s doing it. For I know that good doesn’t dwell in me, that is, in my sinful, fleshly nature; my desire to do a good thing is there in my mind, but my sinful, fleshly nature produces nothing honorable. I don’t do the good thing I want to do; instead, I practice the evil thing I really don’t want to do. If I blindly do what I don’t really want to do, it’s no longer I myself producing the action I didn’t want to do, but it’s the unwelcome, indwelling sin that’s doing it. Consequently, I find the law that evil is present with me when I desire to do what is honorable.
Paul goes on to talk about how his mind and inner man (are they one and the same?) are sold-out to God, but his sinful, fleshly nature still has a strong pull on him. He, like the rest of us, understands the daily struggle with sin. But here’s the kicker: even though this passage is written in the first person, Paul really isn’t speaking of himself here. The “I” of the passage must be discerned from vs. 14, where Paul says “I am unspiritual/fleshly.” He’s really putting on a persona of “everyman” or a man who still finds himself enslaved to sin or trying to be justified by the law. Craig Keener, in his IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament, says that Paul is using a rhetorical method here known as “diatribe style,” which employs a fictitious speaker (“I”) and poses numerous rhetorical questions.3 He’s not writing about himself, at least not in the present. He could, however, be referring to his own struggle following the law prior to his conversion.
The reality is, if we have the Holy Spirit, we’ve put to death the persona that Paul has put on here. In chapter 6, Paul says we died with Christ in immersion (baptism) and were raised up with him in newness of life, so how can we live any longer in sin? The very first verse of chapter 8 can’t be ignored either, because it falls right on the heels of this section: “Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” And the rest of chapter 8 bears out how God has once and for all dealt with the sinful nature that wars against our desire to do good. The Holy Spirit, the one who empowers us to live victoriously over sin, will not leave us wanting in the battle with sin, “because through Christ Jesus, the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you free from the law of sin and death” (Romans 8:2, TNIV).
Well, I think that’s enough for now. I’ve spent all day on this, so it looks like I’m going to have to start writing Saturday night if I want to get these published on Sunday mornings. Peace to you. Have a great week!
[1] Louw, Johannes P., and Eugene Albert Nida. 1996. In Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains, electronic ed. of the 2nd edition., 1:150. New York: United Bible Societies.
[2] Kittel, Gerhard, Gerhard Friedrich, and Geoffrey William Bromiley. 1985. In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Abridged in One Volume, 927. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans.
[3] Keener, Craig S. 1993. The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
Scott Stocking
Sunday Morning Greek Blog 