Sunday Morning Greek Blog

December 4, 2011

Immersion (Baptism) that Saves: 1 Peter 3:18–22

Filed under: 1 Peter,Biblical Studies,Diagrams,Greek,Immersion/Baptism,New Testament,Old Testament,Romans,Soteriology — Scott Stocking @ 8:15 am

I have a couple notes for blog readers before I get into the main post today.

  1. For all readers: Instead of customizing the hyperlinks or providing transliterations and pronunciations, I am going to start hyperlinking the first occurrence of each Greek and Hebrew word in my blog to the entry in http://www.blueletterbible.org. That Bible study site has numerous resources available, including a link to hear the Greek or Hebrew word pronounced and the option to get a complete concordance listing of all occurrences of the Greek or Hebrew word. If you’re not already familiar with the site, I trust you will find it useful and engaging. (I am not being compensated for promoting BlueLetterBible at this time.)
  2. For those readers who use the sentence diagrams: At least once a week, it seems like the search engine feature in WordPress lets me know that someone hit on my site by looking for a diagram of a particular verse. I am pleasantly surprised to find I’m not the only one who has an interest in diagramming, in spite of how much I griped about it in junior high. For those of you who use the diagrams, I would appreciate knowing what your interest is in them so that I can get a sense if I need to do anything different with them or provide a different kind of diagram. Are you just curious? Are you a student looking for help on an assignment? (If the latter, I trust you aren’t passing off my work as yours!) Are you a preacher looking to better explain the passage? Whatever your interest, please drop me a short note in the comments. There’s obviously some interest in them, and I’m happy to share the fruit of my labor with you.

Introduction

Growing up as a sprinkled Presbyterian, I was understandably intrigued when I came to understand my need for a personal relationship with Christ and discovered the concept of “believer’s baptism.” It was a completely new concept to me, as I had never been exposed to it before my high school years. In college, when I got involved with the restoration movement, I still had many questions about the practice when I went to that first meeting at 1633 Q Street (now a parking lot) just off the University of Nebraska-Lincoln campus. That night, just a little over 30 years ago, I got shuffled off to the pastor’s office, where I met Terry & Kris Christlieb. I had several questions about baptism, and they answered them to my satisfaction that night, so much so that we invaded Capitol City Christian Church at 9 p.m., where I got immersed. I was sold from that point on.

I’ve had my ups and downs on immersion theology through the years. Is it an absolute necessity? Is it just a “work of the flesh”? When is the right time? Just what is the “effectiveness” of immersion when it comes to salvation? But when I ran across such passages as Romans 6 and 1 Peter 3:18–22, it was hard for me to diminish the importance of immersion in the life of a Christ-follower. And when I discovered the connection between Acts 2:38 and Matthew’s Last Supper account, I was convinced of the efficacy of immersion as part of the salvation and maturing experience of the Christ-follower.

1 Peter 3:18–22

Of all the passages on immersion, or baptism as many call it (βάπτισμα, βαπτίζω), 1 Peter 3:21 is the only one that comes out and says directly that immersion saves. Yet this gets overlooked so much, because those who are not convinced of the efficacy of immersion seem to think it means something other than what is plainly written on the page. But what is the author trying to communicate by connecting it to the Noahic flood? Is the flood what saves us, or the ark? The verse diagram in Figure 1 below places 1 Peter 3:21 in its larger context so that you can see what the connections are.

I want to jump down to 20b, where Peter says (my translation): “In the ark, a few, that is, eight people, were saved through water.” In this case, the water was destructive (see 2 Peter 2:5), but it had the power to save Noah by supporting the ark on its year-and-a-half voyage. The flood destroyed all living creatures except those on the ark and those that could already live in water, but the ark was the vessel that protected Noah, his family, and the other living creatures “through the water.”

Now for verse 21: The word for ark (κιβωτός) is feminine, but the relative pronoun that begins verse 21 is neuter, so it can’t refer to the ark. The most immediate antecedent to the relative pronoun is “water” (ὕδωρ; genitive is ὕδατος), which is neuter, so Peter is referring to the waters of the flood with this pronoun. So in verse 21, Peter says, “This water corresponds to immersion.” The word “corresponds to” (ἀντίτυπος) is actually an adjective in Greek that modifies βάπτισμα, so the phrase might be more accurately rendered, “This water is functional baptism” or more literally, “This water is typical baptism.”

Peter goes on to say that this baptismal water “now also saves you.” The “now also” is relative to the previous verse. Not only does the ark, then, typify salvation, but water does as well. Water is what destroyed sinful humanity, which is exactly what happens when someone is immersed into Christ. Romans 6:3–4 says, “Or don’t you know that all of us who were immersed into Christ Jesus were immersed into his death? We were therefore buried with him through immersion into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.”

What I found interesting is that the part that follows “now also saves you” has two nominative case nouns. “Removal” (ἀπόθεσις) and “appeal” (ἐπερώτημα) are both nominative case, agreeing with the nominative case of βάπτισμα, so they are essentially appositives to βάπτισμα. Here’s how a literal translation might look: “This immersion now saves you, not the body-dirt removal immersion, but the clear-conscience-pledge to God immersion.” But this rendition is missing the most important part of the verse, the final phrase.

The last phrase of verse 21 parallels the “through water” at the end of verse 20. “Through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” is the qualifier that gives the water its power to save. Just as the ark saved Noah and his family through the flood waters, the resurrection is what carries us through the act of immersion. Again, I refer you back to Romans 6:3–4, where this is made abundantly clear. So if I complete my literal translation with that phrase, it would look something like this: “This immersion now saves you through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, not the body-dirt removal immersion, but the clear-conscience-pledge to God immersion” (emphasis mine).

So immersion is really a two-way street to God. If we just get immersed for show (the “body-dirt removal immersion”), immersion is ineffective. God is not into rituals without substance. But if we come to the waters of immersion pledging ourselves to live for him with a clear conscience, he effects the power of the resurrection in immersion and destroys the old self. He renews us and rescues us from the wages of sin.

A quick note on βαπτίζω

Some have tried to argue that βαπτίζω does not mean “completely immerse,” because that is what the related word βάπτω means. But the –ίζω ending on βαπτίζω is an intensifier. It is quite similar, in sound and function, to the difference between the musical directions forte (loud) and fortissimo (very loud). So βαπτίζω is an intense form of dipping, or immersion. I don’t have to time to list the many verbs in Greek that indicate a similar pattern, but I assure you, they are quite common in the NT.

Conclusion

So immersion is certainly not just a work of the flesh. Just as the ark supported and sustained Noah and his family through the flood, so too the resurrection sustains us through the act of immersion. But beware of the “dunk ’em and ditch ’em” philosophy. Noah and his family certainly did not sit idly by on the ark for a year and a half. They worked hard daily to keep the animals and themselves fed and healthy. Immersion is not a terminal point in the life of a Christ-follower. On the contrary, it is a watershed moment (pun intended) where we tell God, “I’m sold out for you.”

Peace,

Scott Stocking

Figure 1: Diagram for 1 Peter 3:18–22 (Greek and English)

November 27, 2011

Adulteresses (μοιχαλίδες) in James 4:4; Excursus on Authorship of Hebrews and James

Filed under: Authorship,Biblical Studies,Greek,Hebrews,Hosea,James,New Testament — Scott Stocking @ 9:15 pm

James is my next-favorite NT book/epistle, second only to Ephesians. James is often dubbed “The Proverbs of the New Testament,” and after having read through the first four chapters this week, it is easy to see why. Although it lacks the strict parallelism of most of the text of Proverbs in the OT, I have noticed a substantial number of word pairings in James. Some of them happen in the same verse or within one or two verses (e.g. 2:2–3), while others serve as inclusios for certain sections (e.g., 2:14–16). James is probably best known for its practical wisdom on controlling the tongue.

Adulteresses

What caught my attention while reading this morning was James’s use of the feminine plural noun for “adulteresses,” μοιχαλίδες, in James 4:4. Throughout the letter, James addresses his readers as “my brothers,” which is intended to be a generic reference to all believers regardless of gender, as was customary in those days. So when he addresses his readers with a feminine noun, he is undoubtedly trying to get their attention. What may escape some here, though, is the implied Old Testament connection. (See Table 1 for the way this is translated in different versions.)

Table 1: Translations of μοιχαλίδες in Several Logos Versions, with Footnotes and Cross References

Version

Translation of μοιχαλίδες

Footnotes and X-refs

KJV 1769

Ye adulterers and adulteresses (!)

Note that the translators didn’t exclude males in 1769!

ASV 1901

Ye adulteresses

  

RSV 1971

Unfaithful creatures!

  

NIV 1984

You adulterous people

  

NRSV 1989

Adulterers!

  

NASB 1995

You adulteresses

Jer 2:2; Ezek 16:32

ESV 2001

You adulterous people!

Isa. 54:5; Jer. 2:2; Greek: “You adulteresses!”

TNIV 2005

You adulterous people

Isa 54:5; Jer 3:20; Hos 2:2–5; 3:1; 9:1

NLT 2007

You adulterers!

Greek: “You adulteresses!”

NIV 2011

You adulterous people

Isa 54:5; Jer 3:20; Hos 2:2–5; 3:1; 9:1; An allusion to covenant unfaithfulness; see Hosea 3:1.

Of course, if you have a good study Bible at hand, you may have seen some of these verses in the cross-reference apparatus (whatever study Bibles I have are still buried in my boxes). The imagery of Israel as an unfaithful wife or adulterous woman in the OT is certainly prominent. Ezekiel 23 has a graphic (dare I say X-rated) description of Oholah and Oholibah, the two adulterous sisters, who respectively were symbols for Samaria’s (northern kingdom) and Jerusalem’s (southern kingdom) religious promiscuity with other gods. Hosea lived the parable, so to speak, by marrying a woman whom he knew was a prostitute, and God told him to do it! (See specifically Hosea 3:1, which is the only time this word is used in the LXX text of Hosea.) By calling his readers “adulteresses,” James minces no words and makes no friends. He cuts to the chase and puts the fear of God into his hearers by comparing them to their faithless ancestors who were exiled.

Did James Write Hebrews?

Several years ago, I heard Larry Pechawer (at least, I recollect it was Pechawer) do a somewhat tongue-in-cheek paper on the authorship of Hebrews. Pechawer postulated that Hebrews had been written by Paul, because three of the first four words in Hebrews begin with a Paul-like sound (Πολυμερῶς καὶ πολυτρόπως πάλαι). That’s not exactly an exegetically sound method of determining authorship, but to his credit, he did offer some other substantive evidence for Paul’s authorship, although it was admittedly weak.

The reason I mention this is that James, in 1:2, has three successive π-words: πειρασμοῖς περιπέσητε ποικίλοις. Now as with Pechawer’s theory on Hebrews, such alliteration may be just that: alliteration. In my college days, I had argued that Hebrews had been written by Luke, because the Greek is high quality, and the author claims to have written a short (βραχύς) letter, which is true when Hebrews is compared to Luke and Acts.

But perhaps there is something to the theory of James’s authorship of Hebrews. James, after all, was the half-brother of Jesus, so he certainly has the knowledge of the Jewish sacrificial system inherent in Hebrews in his favor. James also held a leadership position in the Jerusalem church, so he certainly would have known the individuals mentioned in the final greetings in Hebrews, including Timothy. “Those who come from Italy” could refer to visitors from Italy to Jerusalem, as opposed to the letter originating from Italy, as one might expect if it had been written by Luke or Paul. As the church father Origen said, only God knows who really wrote Hebrews, so my musings here won’t solve that eternal question, but it is an interesting conjecture to me nonetheless.

Hebrews 13:17–18: A Less-Authoritarian Translation

If you followed the posts when I was teaching the How to Understand the Bible class at the beginning of the fall, you may have seen the link to the word study on πείθω. Most translations render the word “obey” with respect to the leaders, but that is not a common translation for the word in the NT. More often than not, the word has the idea of “confidence.” That’s why I like the TNIV and NIV (2011) translation of the verse: “Have confidence in your leaders.” I believe this translation puts more responsibility on the leaders to be men and women of high character. This doesn’t mean that Christ-followers shouldn’t be obedient to leaders, but that obedience should come from a relationship based on trust, not just obligation. You want to follow leaders who have impeccable, reliable character.

The same word is used in vs. 18 and is usually translated “we are sure”, so translating it as “confidence” in vs. 17 is completely consistent with the context. For other occurrences of the word, click the link at the beginning of this section to open the PowerPoint presentation on the word study.

Peace to all this Christmas (with a capital C) season.

Scott Stocking

By the way, the new NIV (2011) Study Bibles are available now. If you are shopping for a study Bible and prefer the updated translation of the NIV (essentially the TNIV repackaged), make sure you look for the cover you see here. There are many study Bibles based on the NIV, but not all have adapted to the updated translation. If you’re in doubt, check the “front matter” and look for the copyright date of the Bible text (as opposed to the copyright date of the study Bible itself). If the study Bible uses the new NIV, it will show a copyright date of 2011 for the Bible text, and no earlier than 2011 for copyright date of the study Bible itself. The older NIV was copyrighted in 1984, so that would be the latest copyright date for the biblical text found on that page.

November 23, 2011

Hebrews 6:4–6 Sentence Diagram

Filed under: Biblical Studies,Greek,Hebrews,New Testament,Repentance,Soteriology — Scott Stocking @ 5:31 pm
Tags: ,

Did I mention how much I like doing sentence diagrams?

November 22, 2011

Hebrews 6:4–6: Wrapping It Up

Filed under: Biblical Studies,Greek,Hebrews,New Testament,Soteriology — Scott Stocking @ 9:40 pm

For those of you who didn’t follow the comment thread on the latest SMGB post, I wanted to sum things up. My friend Eric Weiss and I tossed around a few ideas on the passage, and my cousin-in-law Micheal added some comments about context and audience.

I had always looked at that passage as primarily having to do with the threat of losing your salvation. I have never held to a “once-saved-always-saved” theology, and I still don’t. But after diving into this passage and some fruitful discussion, I see that the passage isn’t about the danger of losing your salvation, but about the futility of trying to be a mature Christian when all you ever dine on is milk and baby food. The author (the “I” of 13:22–23; I think it is Luke, but no one knows for sure) has a steady argument building from the opening chapter of the epistle, but it takes on a full head of steam beginning in 5:11. It is the flow of that argument that is key to understanding the author’s intention in the broader context of Hebrews 5–10.

The immediate passage of 5:11 through 6:12 is bracketed by the author’s warning about laziness. In vs. 11, he says (my translations) “You have become lazy listeners”, but in 6:11–12, he exhorts them to diligence, “in order that you do not become lazy.” He says in 5:12 that instead of the Hebrews being teachers, “you are needing someone to teach you continually the word of God all over again” (note verb tense is present continuous). Then he switches to the perfect tense: “You have become needful of milk.”

In 6:1, the author says that “repentance from acts that lead to death” (TNIV), among other things, is milk. He wants them to move on. But here is where the present tense infinitive of 6:4 becomes significant: “If you want to move onto maturity, don’t repeatedly go back to repentance thinking that that is all you need. You moved past that, because you were enlightened and you tasted the heavenly gift, the Word of God, and the Holy Spirit. But then you fell away. So repentance won’t cut it now. It’s time for you to get back to a meat-and-potatoes diet by diligently persevering in the faith” (see 5:14 “constant use” and 6:11 “show this same diligence”).

So the “falling away” is not an irrevocable apostasy. It suggests in this context that the readers have backslidden and need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and get down to the business of being sold out for Christ. The author goes on in the rest of Hebrews 6 to assure the believers of God’s promise, “this hope as an anchor for the soul” (6:19).

Peace,

Scott Stocking

November 18, 2011

“Falling Away” (παραπίπτω parapiptō) in Hebrews 6:6

Filed under: Biblical Studies,Faith, Faithfulness,Hebrews,New Testament,Repentance,Theology, Biblical — Scott Stocking @ 11:46 pm
Tags: ,

Hebrews 6 is a scary passage to me. I don’t think those who believe in the doctrine of eternal security (i.e., “once saved, always saved”) have ever taken the warnings in this passage seriously. I will address the full context shortly, but the heart of the passage is found in vv. 4–6: “It is impossible… for those who have fallen away (παραπίπτω parapiptō \pah-rah-PEE-ptoh\) to be renewed to repentance.” The question that has always occupied my mind about this passage is, “How far do you have to fall before you can’t be restored to repentance?”

Context and Contrast

The broader context, Hebrews 5:11–6:12, informs in part the understanding of the warning in verse 6. Verse six also has four words that are only found in that verse in the New Testament, I will break those down later. But first, let me address the context. The author of Hebrews begins this section by chiding the readers for not having obtained a level of maturity they ought to have obtained. In fact, “maturity” is a prominent theme in Hebrews 5–7, which has nine words from the τελειόω (teleioō, \teh-lay-AW-oh\ “I make perfect,” “I complete,” “I become maturity”) family scattered throughout. Hebrews 5:11–6:12 is also bracketed by an inclusio of νωθροὶ γεγόνατε/νωθροὶ γένησθε (nōthroi gegonate/nōthroi genēsthe, \noh-THROI geh-GAW-nah-teh/ noh-THROI GEH-nay-stheh\ “have become lazy”) making the contrast between maturity and laziness even starker.

If that contrast isn’t enough, the author goes on to speak of the need for the Hebrews to go back to baby food (γάλα gala, \GAH-lah\; gen. γάλακτος galaktos, \GAH-lah-ktawss\ “milk”) instead of eating solid food. What I find interesting is what the author of Hebrews considers “elementary” teaching: repentance from dead works, faith in God, teachings about baptism (TNIV: “cleansing rites”), laying on of hands, resurrection from the dead, and eternal judgment. These strike me as pretty important doctrines, but do you notice what is missing? Think 1 Corinthians 13 here, especially where Paul makes the connection between maturity (τελείος) and love. Faithfulness (i.e., acting consistently on faith) and hope are included in the closing verse of 1 Corinthians 13 as well.

The (Neglected) Meat of the Passage

The imagery of “eating” is carried through into the stern warning of 6:4–6. Here is the meat, I believe, the author of Hebrews is talking about: being enlightened, tasting the heavenly gift, sharing in the Holy Spirit, and tasting the goodness of God’s word and the powers/miracles of the coming age. I’m not sure if the structure and syntax here is significant: two different words are used for “and” here, one indicating a strong connection (καὶ kai) and the other (τε te) a weak connection. I present a modified diagram below:

4 It is impossible

    for those who were once enlightened, also (τε) having tasted of the heavenly gift

    and (καὶ) who have been sharers in the Holy Spirit

5    and (καὶ) who have tasted the goodness of the word of God along with (τε) the miracles/power of the coming age

6    and (καὶ) yet have fallen away (παραπίπτω)

for [these people] to renew continually (ἀνακαινίζω anakainizō, \ah-nah-keye-NEE-zoh\) in repentance

because they recrucify (ἀνασταυρόω anastauroō, \ah-nah-stow-RAW-oh\ [\ow\ as in “how”]) the son of God to themselves

and (καὶ) hold him up to public shame (παραδειγματίζω paradeigmatizō \pah-rah-dayg-mah-TEE-zō\).

Allow me to give a brief treatment of each of the four hapax legomena (literally, “once spoken,” referring to words only used once in a text) to better understand what is meant by “falling away” and the other terms.

παραπίπτω

The word παραπίπτω is found six times in the OT, five of which are found in Ezekiel 14–22, referring exclusively to Israel’s unfaithfulness and defilement, from worshipping other gods to just simply living like God couldn’t do anything for them. The other occurrence is in Esther 6:10, where Haman is instructed not to be unfaithful to the words and actions of praise he unwittingly bestowed upon Mordecai. Given that the word is primarily used of the exiled Jews in the OT, I would hazard a guess that the NT usage of the word has a parallel meaning. In other words, this passage isn’t talking about the normal ups and downs of the life of a Christian, but a steady pattern of unfruitfulness, a lack of faith in God, and even idolatry. (We still have idolatry today, lest we think we’re off the hook.) Judah had to fall pretty far to be removed from the Promised Land and exiled to Babylon. I hope that none of you reading this have fallen that far yet, but if you have, hang on, because all hope is not yet lost.

ἀνακαινίζω

The ἀνα- prefix of this word and the next word below means “again,” and often times will simply be translated as “re-” plus the base word meaning. The NT doesn’t have a verb for “newing” something, but the -καινίζω part comes from the adjective καινός (kainos, \keye-NAWSS\ “new”). The word is found three times in the LXX, twice in the Psalms (103:5, 104:30) and once at the end of Lamentations (5:21). In the Lamentations passage, Jeremiah says something that is particularly relevant to the Hebrews passage:

21 Restore us to yourself, Lord, that we may return;

renew our days as of old

22 unless you have utterly rejected us

and are angry with us beyond measure.

We know that Israel was eventually restored to the Promised Land, so even the Exile was not enough for God to utterly forsake his people for all time. We are, after all, in a covenant relationship with God. Paul tells Timothy in 2 Timothy 2:13, “If we are faithless, God remains faithful, for he cannot deny himself.” Just as we can’t enter heaven by good works alone, so too we cannot lose our salvation simply on the basis of evil works alone. We would pretty much have to tell God ourselves that we want nothing to do with him any more for him to grant that desire and remove the blessing of salvation.

A question from my friend Eric Weiss in the comments after I originally posted this prompted me to expand on this particular word. I had originally translated the word in the passive voice, “to be renewed,” admittedly because I wasn’t paying attention to the parsing of the verb. It is a present tense active infinitive. As an infinitive, the subject is “those who have fallen away.” As an active voice, it should be translated “to renew” (many translations have “brought back,” but I think “renew” is a better translation). As present tense, the focus of the action is not on the time of action so much as it is on the aspect of the action, that is, it is continuous action. The implication of this goes back to the author’s statement in 6:1 about not returning to repentance. In other words, if you want to advance in the Christian life, repenting over and over again is not the way to go. At some point, you have to decide to grow up and move on to maturity.

Since I’m on the subject of tense, the other two verbs I deal with below are also in the present tense, so the focus there is also on continuous action. If you’re continually repenting, it’s like you’re continually crucifying Christ and continually holding him up to public shame.

ἀνασταυρόω

Protestants often give Catholics a bad rap about their view of the Eucharist, that the elements actually turn into the body and blood of Christ (the fancy word for that is transubstantiationism). Christ is recrucified in the Mass each week, so the Protestants complain. I don’t want to debate that point, because I don’t think it is profitable, and I don’t know that it is a completely accurate characterization. My point is, the only time “recrucify” is mentioned in Scripture is here in this passage, and it has nothing to do with Eucharistic theology. Those who have fallen so far so as to warrant exile (if we borrow the OT meaning of the word) after having known the enlightenment and blessings of God, must recrucify Christ to restore their salvation. But Christ, let alone anyone else, can only be crucified once. It’s impossible for him to be crucified again. But is that the author’s point here? I’ll come back to that in a moment.

παραδειγματίζω

The final hapax legomenon refers to holding Christ up to public shame. If you think about it, though, this is exactly what the original crucifixion was. Hebrews 12:2b (NIV) says, “For the joy set before him he endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.” The word for “shame” in Hebrews 12:2 is the more common word (a noun) for “shame” (αἰσχύνη aischynē \eye-SCHOO-nay\), but the idea is the same. In the LXX, παραδειγματίζω is found in Numbers 25:4 in reference to the capital punishment delivered to the men seduced by Moabite women, in Jeremiah 13:22 in reference to those destined for exile, and in Ezekiel 28:17 in the prophecy against the king of Tyre (which some mistakenly take to imply Satan). A related word (δειγματίζω) is found in Matthew 1:19, where Joseph decides he wants to hide Mary so as not to expose her to public shame.

The Author’s Intent

I think the author of Hebrews here uses the hapax legomena because he is using a literary device known as hyperbole. We all know that in spite of the Jews’ idolatry and apostasy (falling away) that got them exiled, God led them back into the Promised Land to rebuild their nation, their religious traditions, and their faith. They never had a problem with idolatry again after the exile, so they learned their lesson. The author is saying it’s a pretty serious thing to trash Christ or trash your faith. In fact, he repeats this warning in even sterner language at the end of chapter 10, which forms an inclusio with this Hebrews 6 passage. The author realizes it is an impossibility to recrucify Christ. His purpose here is to say that Christ’s crucifixion the first time around should have been enough, and they need to get back to living out the implications of that. They could lose their salvation, but it would seem that they had not reached that point yet.

But the author doesn’t think the Hebrews have fallen that far yet. He (they?) says, “We are convinced (πείθω peithō \PAY-thoh\) of better things in your case.” This same confidence is repeated in Hebrews 10 (note the connection to that chapter again) when he reminds them how they endured persecution and exposure to shame and insult, and in Hebrews 13:17–18 with respect to the leaders (NIV: “Have confidence in your leaders” is a better translation in my opinion than “Obey your leaders”).

Faith

The author’s remedy for the danger of falling away is to continue meeting together (Hebrews 10:25). The word ἐγκαταλείπω (enkataleipō \en-kah-tah-LAY-poh\; if you’ve been picking up on the Greek, the gamma-kappa γκ is pronounced \nk\) is translated “giving up” (NIV), “forsaking” (NASB), or “neglect” (NLT). This is the same word Jesus quotes from Psalm 22:1 on the cross when he cries out, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” That is how important the author views “meeting together” (ἐπισυναγωγή episynagōgē \eh-pee-soo-nah-goh-GAY\; see a familiar word?) as the body of Christ on a regular basis. Don’t give up. Don’t make excuses. Make it a priority, because it’s for your own strengthening and encouragement as well as for those who attend with you.

Hebrews 11 provides the encouragement for Christ-followers to remain faithful and endure hardships. This is what the author is building to in Hebrews 6–10, especially since he praises them twice for their character, in 6:9–12 and 10:32–39. The patriarchs endured similar struggles, and although they were not perfect, they persevered faithfully even though they never saw the ultimate promise of the Savior.

Conclusion

The bottom line here is the author of Hebrews is puts it in the strongest words he can muster to emphasize it is possible to “lose” your salvation. But he also seems to use language that suggests his readers have not progressed to that point yet. Indeed, it seems to take a pretty serious act of apostasy to lose your salvation (e.g., Matthew 10:32–33; 1 John 2:23). But I think the real message in Hebrews 6–10 is not the author’s warning, but the author’s call to perseverance and faithfulness in the face hardship and persecution. The Jews, after all, spent 70 years in exile, but they eventually returned to their Promised Land. In the last part of Hebrews 9, the author lifts up the blood of Christ, which purifies us from all uncleanness and prepared the way for us to live with our Savior eternally.

Peace,

Scott Stocking

This post was revised from the original on 11/19/11, adding additional material to the ἀνακαινίζω section and additional material on Hebrews 11.

November 3, 2011

Qualifications of Male and Female Leaders in the Church (1 Timothy)

Filed under: 1 Timothy,Biblical Studies,Ecclesiology,Ephesians,Titus,Women in Leadership — Scott Stocking @ 11:32 pm
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

NOTE: If you like this article, you may also like The Temple of Artemis of the Ephesians as Background for Understanding 1 Timothy 2.

I would have to venture a guess that 1 Timothy 3 is a close second to Ephesians as a section of Scripture to which I have devoted a significant amount of scholarly research through the years. In 1995, I presented my first professional paper at the Fellowship of Professors (now the Stone-Campbell Journal Conference) at St. Louis Christian College on 1 Timothy 3 and 5 and the leadership roles and qualifications Paul assigns to women in those passages. After reading through 1 Timothy 2 and 3 this weekend, I can see that, although my original paper was respectable, I have learned a great deal more about Greek structure, syntax, and semantics in the last 16 years that would greatly enhance my initial offering.

The appendix table at the end of this post catalogs significant word usage in 1 Timothy primarily, but also in the pastoral epistles generally, especially where gender and leadership roles not only are discussed but intersect. A quick glance at the table demonstrates first and foremost the overlapping language applied to men and women, whether the regular saint or the recognized leader. At the very least, being a faithful Christian undoubtedly made one notable as leadership material.

Women in Leadership?

I’ve spent considerable time putting that table together, so let me cut to the chase here, since my main purpose is talking about women in leadership in the body of Christ. In 1 Timothy 3, Paul is addressing the leadership core Timothy was responsible for training. The passage mentions the “elder” (ἐπίσκοπος episkopos \eh PEE skaw pawss\, lit. “overseer” [one who holds the title]; note that the word is singular in this passage) and “deacons” or “ministers” (διάκονος diakonos \dee AH kaw nawss\ also “servant”), but it also mentions “women.” If you look at any Bible with footnotes, you will see there is some significant difference in how the translations understand the reference to “women” in 3:11. I have arranged the following verses (all from Logos versions of the respective Bibles) in the order I consider to be the most literal translation to the freest translation, highlighting the English word translated from γυνή (gynē \goo NAY\, “woman, wife”) and the respective versions’ footnotes under each verse:

‎‎‎‎AV    Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.

‎‎ESV    Their wives likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things.

Wives likewise must or Women likewise must [i.e. no “Their”]

‎‎NASB95    Women must likewise be dignified, not malicious gossips, but temperate, faithful in all things.

i.e. either deacons’ wives or deaconesses

NIV84    In the same way, their wives are to be women worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything.

deaconesses

‎‎NIV    In the same way, the women are to be worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything.

possibly deacons’ wives or women who are deacons

‎‎‎‎NLT    In the same way, their wives must be respected and must not slander others. They must exercise self-control and be faithful in everything they do.

or the women deacons; the Greek word can be translated women or wives

Message    No exceptions are to be made for women—same qualifications: serious, dependable, not sharp-tongued, not overfond of wine.

You can see right away where the issue lies with this passage: Are the “women” the wives of the leaders mentioned (if “wives” is intended, then “deacons’ wives” is more likely, given that “overseer” is singular in this passage) or any women in the church? In 1 Timothy 2:9–12, Paul seems to address “women” generally, not “wives” specifically. Is there any reason to think he would switch up in this passage? The difference in translations is obvious, but none of the translations are wrong per se in translating the word either “women” or “wives.” What concerns me as a scholar about the translation is the “gloss” (a word added presumably for clarification) of the plural possessive pronoun “their” in some of the versions. (You will notice that I italicized it in the verses, a common practice in more literal translations to indicate the word is not directly translated from a Greek word in the text.) Granted, this is a plausible translation, but not a necessary one. It is also highly interpretive. I’m not saying the Bible translation committees necessarily had agendas or were wrong to add the gloss, but it is something that the savvy Bible student should consider when studying this passage.

A Structure Word

Another word that reveals the structure of the passage is ὡσαύτως (hōsautōs \hoh SOW tohss\ “likewise”). The word is found 17 times in the NT, including four times in 1 Timothy, and implies not only a similarity of action, but a similarity of the subjects of those actions being compared. What is interesting is this word is found three verses earlier, in 1 Timothy 3:8: “Deacons likewise…” The question is, “Like what?” or “Like whom?” The obvious answer is like the elder in vs. 2. This point is even more obvious when one considers that there is no main verb in vv. 8 or 11: the verb is actually borrowed from vs. 2: “It is necessary for the elder [and deacons and women] to be….” The passage has a parallel structure signifying three leadership roles: elder, deacon, and women.

So what does that mean for the role of women specifically? I think it is important at this point to bring in a couple more passages of Scripture so we can have a broader view of the role of women in early church leadership. Titus 1–2 gives further instructions on elders (both the ἐπίσκοπος and the πρεσβῦτ- kind). The role of the “older women” (πρεσβῦτις presbytis \press BOO tihss\) was to teach the younger women to be more Christ-like. I think that is a perfect example of an appropriate role for female leaders in the church: teaching younger women. In 1 Timothy 5, Paul uses similar language to 1 Timothy 3 in describing the widows, especially those who are older, will probably not remarry, and have significant time to devote to serving the Lord and his people (see also 1 Corinthians 7:8, 34b). It would not surprise me to find that Paul’s reference to women leaders in 1 Timothy 3:11 included widows, especially since the larger context of the epistle supports that idea.

Backtracking

Now that I’ve put out there what is sure to be controversial among my more conservative readers, I want to backtrack a bit and talk about the first part of 1 Timothy 3. I mentioned above that the word for “elder” in v. 2 is singular. The passage actually uses a feminine form of the word for elder, which implies the office or the abstract concept of eldership, not necessarily the gender of the person holding the office. The question to ask is, “Why is this term singular when ‘deacons’ (v. 8) and ‘women’ (v. 11) are plural? Don’t most churches have more than one elder?”

A more literal rendering of ἐπίσκοπος may shed some light on the subject. The word is a compound of ἐπί (“over”) and σκοπός (“see, watch” e.g. “scope”), so some literally translate the word “overseer” (see for example 1 Peter 2:25, where Peter describes Jesus as “the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls”), and it eventually made its way into English as “bishop” (Gk episkopos > Latin episcopus > Old English bisceop [Merriam-Webster]), which is how some older English versions render the word. I have run in some circles where the concept of a lead pastor is frowned upon by leadership. One man should not have such authority over a congregation, so they say. But I think we find support for that concept in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1–2. Certainly any pastor should have the qualifications of an elder, and I would argue that the pastor should be considered a member of the eldership in whatever church he (or she!) serves. The job of an “overseer” (for I equate “overseer” with “senior” or “lead pastor”) is not to run the whole show alone, but to equip others for works of service to build up the body of Christ (Ephesians 4:11–13). I am quite comfortable with the concept of a senior pastor when the duties and responsibilities of such are rightly understood and when such a person lives up to those responsibilities.

As a side note, when the words for elder are used in the plural (Acts 20:28, Philippians 1:1 for ἐπίσκοπος), I believe they refer to the group of those who lead individual house churches. Titus was instructed to appoint πρεσβυτέρους (plural form, 1:5), but then Paul immediately writes about the ἐπίσκοπος (singular, 1:7).

Conclusion

I think it is important that we have a proper understanding of Scripture, otherwise I wouldn’t write this blog. But it is equally important that we not force one view upon another. As I discussed in the 1 Corinthians post on tongues, love must come first in any doctrinal discussion. Teaching without love and compassion is little more than indoctrination. As a pastor, I wouldn’t impose the concept of women in leadership on a congregation that wasn’t ready for it, but I wouldn’t hesitate to teach the concept whenever the opportunity arose. And I would always make sure the leadership in any church I served understood what I believe about the subject without insisting that they all jump on board. I am presenting the evidence here: it’s up to others whether they choose to be convinced by my reasoning and studies.

If you have stories about how your congregation has handled the role of women in leadership, I would love for you to share them in the comments. Thank you for reading!

Peace,

Scott Stocking

Appendix: Word Usage by Gender and Office in the Pastoral Epistles

Word

Transliteration/ Pronunciation

Meaning

Mena

Womenb

Eldersc

Deaconsd

Others
ἡσύχιος hēsychios \hay SOO khee awss\ adjective: quiet 1 Ti 2:2 1 Ti 2:2;
1 Pe 3:4*
ἡσυχία, hēsychia
\–KHEE ah\		 quietness 1 Ti 2:12(?);
2 Th 3:12e
 1 Ti 2:11–12;
2 Th 3:12
εὐσέβειαf eusebeia \you SEH bay ah\ godliness 1 Ti 2:2, 3:16,
4:7–8g; 6:11c Ti 2:12 (εὐσεβῶς) 		1 Ti 2:2, 3:16; Ti 2:12 (εὐσεβῶς)
 4:7–8; 6:11c 1 Ti 5:4 (εὐσεβέω to widows);
θεοσέβεια theosebeia \theh aw–\ godliness 1 Ti 2:10*
σεμνότης semnotēs \sem NAW tayss\ dignity 1Ti 2:2, 3:4; Ti 2:7 1 Ti 3:4; Ti 2:2
σεμνός semnos
\–NAWSS\		 dignified 1 Ti 3:8;
Ti 2:2		 1 Ti 3:11 1 Ti 3:8
κόσμιος* kosmios \KAWSS mee awss\ respectable; appropriate 1 Ti 3:2 1 Ti 2:9 1 Ti 3:2
κοσμέω kosmeō \–MEH oh\ I adorn 1 Ti 2:9,
1 Pe 3:5		 Ti 2:10 (slaves)
πρέπει prepei \PREH pay\ verb: it is proper for 1 Ti 2:10 Ti 2:1 (sound doctrine)
ὑποταγή hypotagē \hoo paw tah GAY\ submission 1 Ti 2:11 1 Ti 3:4 (children)
ὑποτάσσω hypotassō
\–TAHSS soh\		 I submit to 1 Co 14:34
ἐπιτρέπω epitrepō \eh pee TREH poh\ I permit 1 Co 14:34
αὐθεντέω* authenteō \ow then TEH oh\ I usurp authority 1 Ti 2:12
σωφροσύνη* sōphrosynē \soh fraw SOO nay\ sound judgment; moderation 1 Ti 2:9, 15
σωφρόνως* sōphronōs
\–FRAW nohss\		 moderately Ti 2:12 Ti 2:12
σωφρονισμός* sōphronismos
\–nee SMOSS\		 sound judgment; moderation 2 Ti 1:7h 2 Ti 1:7h
σώφρων* sōphrōn \–frohn\ adjective: moderate Ti 2:2 Ti 2:5 (younger) 1 Ti 3:2; Ti 1:8, 2:2
μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα mias gynaikos andra “one-woman man” 1 Ti 3:2, 12 (plural); Ti 1:6
ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή henos andros gynē “one-man woman” 1 Ti 5:9 1 Ti 5:9 (widows)
νηφάλιος* nēphalios \nay FAH lee awss\ temperate 1 Ti 3:2; Ti 2:2 1 Ti 3:11 1 Ti 3:2; Ti 2:2
προί̈στημι proistēmi \praw EESS tay mee\ I manage 1 Th 5:12;
1 Ti 3:4–5, 12;
Ti 3:8, 14		 1 Th 5:12; Ti 3:8, 14 1 Ti 3:4–5; 5:17 1 Ti 3:12 1 Ti 5:14 (οἰκοδεσποτέω young widows manage home)
πάροινος* paroinos \PAH roy nawss\ addicted to wine 1 Ti 3:3;
Ti 1:7
μὴ οἴνῳ πολλῷ προσέχοντας mē oinō pollō prosechontas not given to much wine 1 Ti 3:8 1 Ti 3:8
διάβολος diabolos \dee AH baw lawss\ devil; slanderer 1 Ti 3:6–7 1 Ti 3:11;
Ti 2:3		 1 Ti 3:6–7
ὡσαύτως hōsautōs \hoh SOW tohss\ adverb: likewise 1 Ti 2:9, 3:11 1 Ti 3:8 1 Ti 5:24 (bad & good deeds)
ἀνεπίλημπτος anepilēmptos \ah neh PEE laym ptawss\ blameless 1 Ti 3:2 1 Ti 5:7 1 Ti 3:2 1 Ti 5:7 (widows)

* Indicates that all occurrences of the word in the New Testament are listed here.

a Translated from ἀνήρ (anēr \ah NAYR\, “man, husband”; 1 Ti 2:8, 12; 3:2, 12; 5:9; Ti 1:6; 2:5); πρεσβύτης (presbytēs \press BOO tayss\, “old man, elder [holds title]”; Ti 2:2; and πρεσβύτερος (presbyteros \press BOO teh ross\, comparative adjective “older man, elder [holds title]”; 1 Ti 5:1–2, 17, 19; Ti 1:5; 1 Pet 5:1, 5). The generic word for “human” (ἄνθρωπος anthrōpos \AHN throw pawss\) is presumed to refer to both men and women unless context suggests otherwise.

b Translated from γυνή (gynē \goo NAY\, “woman, wife”; 1 Ti 2:9–12, 14; 3:2, 11–12; 5:9; Ti 1:6); πρεσβῦτις (presbytis \press BOO tihss\ “old woman, elder [holds title(??)]”; Ti 2:3).

c Translated from ἐπισκοπή (episkopē \eh pihss kaw PAY\, “office/function of elder”; 1 Ti 3:1); ἐπίσκοπος (episkopos \eh PIHSS kaw pawss\, “elder” [one who holds the title]; 1 Ti 3:2; Ti 1:7); πρεσβύτης; πρεσβῦτις; and (συμ*)πρεσβύτερος ([sym]presbyteros \[soom] press BOO teh ross\ comparative adjective “older man, [fellow] elder [holds title]”; 1 Ti 5:1–2, 17, 19; Ti 1:5; 1 Pet 5:1*, 5); πρεσβυτέριον (presbyterion press boo TEH ree awn\ noun “council of elders [holds title]”; 1 Ti 4:14).

d Transliterated from διάκονος (diakonos \dee AH kaw nawss\ “servant, deacon”; 1 Ti 3:8, 12; 4:6).

e Part of a command to the disruptive busybodies identified in 2 Th 3:11.

f Generic references or descriptions in 4:8 (1x); 6:3–6 (3x).

g Verb is second person singular, so presumably referring to Timothy only.

h A generalized statement in the midst of specific instructions to Timothy himself.


NOTE: Minor formatting issues were fixed on 11/4, along with clearing up a dangling modifier in the first paragraph. Other minor edits made 1/26/22.

November 1, 2011

“Father, Forgive Them…” (Luke 23:34)

Filed under: Biblical Studies,Christology,Greek,Luke Gospel of,New Testament,Passion,Soteriology — Scott Stocking @ 5:32 pm
Tags: ,

A friend of mine asked me the following question on Facebook and gave me permission to post the question and my response (edited a bit) here.

Here’s a question for you, Scott. Was just reading Luke 23:34 where Jesus says, “Father, forgive them for they do not know what they are doing.” Really? They didn’t know what they were doing? Then can’t we all be absolved on the same basis, that we don’t know what we are doing? Also, didn’t they know in some sense what they were doing? Didn’t they at least know they were murdering an innocent man? They knew they were having to “plot” against him . . . Just wondered.

Some observations:

  1. You are not alone in questioning this statement. It is in double brackets in the Greek text, which means it is of questionable authenticity but was retained given its prominent place in church history and liturgy. (In the UBS 3rd edition of the Greek New Testament, the statement has a C rating on a scale of A to D, with A representing the highest certainty that the original text is restored.) I could not find the statement in any of the other Gospels, so it appears to be unique to Luke.
  2. Who are the “them” he forgives? The immediate context seems to suggest they’re the soldiers, who were only following orders and didn’t have a clue about Jesus being the Son of God and Savior.
  3. John 11:49–52 seems to imply that the leaders really didn’t understand the full implication of what they were doing. Yes, they knew they were plotting, but John’s statement about Caiaphas’s unwitting prophecy seems to imply the Jewish leaders were more or less in the dark about who Jesus really was and is.
  4. We can offer forgiveness to anyone regardless of intent, motivation, etc. Jesus is not declaring that they are forgiven, but rather asking the Father to forgive them. “Ignorant” people sin all the time: ignorance is no excuse for sin (or civic lawbreaking for that matter), but it is not unforgivable. Great question!

[For those of you wondering when something from Thessalonians or Timothy is coming along, please be patient. I’m working on an update of my treatment of women in leadership from 1 Timothy 3 and surrounding contexts. It’s taken on a life of its own, it seems, and I keep learning new truths about the passage.]

Peace!

Scott Stocking

October 12, 2011

Called to Suffer? A Quick Word Study of πάσχω in Greek

Filed under: Biblical Studies,Greek,Romans — Scott Stocking @ 8:47 pm

A friend of mine asked me about the Greek words for “suffering” in Romans 8:16–17 and 1 Peter 2:21. I’ll give a brief excursus here on what I found.

Romans 8:16–17 says this in the NIV:

16 The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children. 17 Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.

The word for “share in [his] sufferings” in vs. 17 is συμπάσχω (sympaschō, \soom PAHSS khoh\), which is only used twice in the entire NT, here and in 1 Corinthians 12:26 with reference to the whole body suffering when one part suffers. This is a compound word from the preposition σύν (syn, \SOON\ “with”) and πάσχω (paschō, \PAHSS khoh\ “suffer”). The σύν- prefix is a favorite tool of Paul’s to indicate “together with,” often in the context of fellowship with other Christ-followers or sharing something with Christ. Ephesians has over 20 σύν-prefixed words that reveal that meaning. Although the gospels and some of the general (=non-Pauline) epistles frequently use the word πάσχω for the suffering and death of Christ, Paul himself only uses the word to reference the suffering of Christ-followers. Romans 8:17 is an exception with his use of the compound.

My friend was concerned that the passage was taken out of context. There is no question that Paul is saying we must share in the sufferings of Christ to share in his glory, but since he never uses either of the words (the root or the compound) elsewhere to refer to those sufferings, what does he mean by the phrase? I think little else can be meant by Christ’s sufferings than his passion and crucifixion. In the context of Romans, however, I believe there is a connection, at least in part, between this passage and the discussion of baptism/immersion in Romans 6. Romans 6 contains several σύν-prefixed words (4 in 11 verses, by my count, plus one occurrence of the preposition itself), and 6:4 has the verbal connection of the word “glory” (a σύν-prefixed form in 8:17). Other verses like Galatians 2:20 (“I have been crucified with Christ”) and Romans 6:6 (“our old self was crucified with him”) confirm in my mind that Paul’s reference in 8:17 refers to our identification with the death of Christ. Paul also speaks of the battle between the law and sinful humanity in Romans 7 and 8 (see esp. 8:3–4), so I think another part of the suffering reference is to that battle we face in the flesh, just as Christ did, even though he never sinned.

I want to quote the larger context of 1 Peter 2:21. Peter uses the word πάσχω 11 times in his first epistle, with 4 of those coming in 1 Peter 2:18–23 (NIV):

18 Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. 19 For it is commendable if someone bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because they are conscious of God. 20 But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. 21 To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.

22 “He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth.”

23 When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly.

There is no “call to suffer” here, but only a call to endure, especially if it comes upon us unjustly. The word πάσχω here refers both to our own “suffering” as well as Christ’s suffering, and primarily to the former in the rest of 1 Peter. It’s not something we should seek out, as if suffering is an end unto itself. Paul is just recognizing that suffering happens, and it’s to our credit if we bear up under it and don’t sin.

I hope this helps my friend, and I hope my quick study helps you as well.

Peace!

Scott Stocking

Spiritual Warfare in Ephesians

Filed under: Biblical Studies,Ecclesiology,Ephesians,Greek,New Testament,Spiritual Warfare — Scott Stocking @ 7:11 pm

Paul’s letter to the Ephesian believers is a goldmine of theological truth and practical living. Paul writes about our standing in Christ in the first three chapters, and then makes an obvious switch in tone in the final three chapters to speak about how we should live in Christ (there are 40+ imperative verbs in the last three chapters of Ephesians, as opposed to 1 imperative verb in the first three chapters). As I will show in this post, this letter has a very nice overall chiastic structure, numerous patterns of three, and definite subtheme of spiritual warfare. Ephesians is so eminently practical that I used to joke I couldn’t preach a sermon without referencing Ephesians at some point. I have had the NIV text of Ephesians memorized for almost 20 years now, but with the release of the new NIV this year, I guess I’ll have to upgrade my memory!

The Overall Structure of Ephesians

Many scholars and study Bibles have presented various outlines of Ephesians. Watchman Nee, a prominent Brethren preacher in China in the mid 20th century, wrote an excellent treatise on Ephesians called Sit, Walk, Stand. His rough outline is that we have to sit at the feet of Jesus and learn who we are in Christ before we can walk in faith and stand against the powers of darkness. The irony of walking before standing does not escape his treatise either. Several years ago, I discerned the following outline, and this has been my schema for approaching Ephesians.

I.    1:1–14        Introduction and Blessing

II.    1:15–18a    Opening Prayer for Enlightenment

A.    1:18b        The Hope to which he has called you

B.    1:18c        The Riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints

C.    1:19a        His incomparably great Power

III.    1:19b-6:24    The Enlightenment Offered

C.    1:19b–2:10    The Resurrection

B.    2:11–3:21    Coheirs with Israel (2:12, 19; 3:6)

A.    4:1–6:24    Hopeful Living

1.    4:1–16        Life empowered by God’s blessing and grace

2.    4:17–5:21    Life among the pagans

3.    5:22–6:9    Life in your own household

4.    6:10–20    “Life” in the heavenly realms

IV.    6:21–24    Conclusion

Power, Riches, and Hope.

What more could a Christ-follower ask out of one epistle? Power, riches, and hope. But the power of the resurrection actually pervades the epistle in Paul’s characterization of the Christ-follower’s life “in the heavenly realms.” Paul uses that phrase (ἐν τοῖς
ἐπουράνιοις en tois epouraniois, \en toyss eh-pooh-RAH-nee-oyss\) five times in Ephesians (1:3, 20; 2:6; 3:10; and 6:12). In the opening verses, Paul assures the believers that they, corporately, have the fullness of God’s spiritual blessing for carrying out his will “on earth as it is in heaven.” We know from the next two verses (1:20; 2:6) that the heavenly realms are where we are “seated together” with Christ. Up through chapter 2, then, it appears that “the heavenly realms” is just another expression for heaven itself; but as we will see in chapters 3 and 6, the concept is much broader.

In chapter 3, there are those in the heavenly realms, identified as rulers (ἀρχή archē, \ar KHAY\; you have to clear your throat a bit to say the KH) and authorities (ἐξουσία exousia, \eks ooh SEE ah\), to whom the “church” (ἐκκλησία ekklēsia, \ek klay SEE ah\, God’s “congregation” on earth) is responsible to reveal the mystery of the gospel. This statement makes it rather obvious that the phrase ἐν τοῖς ἐπουράνιοις does not refer to “heaven” (οὐρανός ouranos, \ooh rah NAWSS\) proper, the eternal dwelling place of God’s holy ones. We know everyone in heaven knows about the gospel, but who are those “in the heavenly realms” that need to know about it? Chapter 6 broadens the scope even more: “For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world, and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.” So the heavenly realms encompass the entire spectrum from good to evil. But again, who are the inhabitants?

Walter Wink and Language of Power in the New Testament

For the answer to that question, I turn to the man who is probably the world’s leading scholar on the language of power in the New Testament, Walter Wink. If you’re not a pacifist, you might have a little trouble swallowing some of his liberal theology, but if you read his works, keep an open mind, because I believe he has profound insight into the concept of spiritual warfare. (I’m becoming more of a pacifist myself as I get older, but I’m not necessarily opposed to all wars.) His Powers trilogy (Naming the Powers, Unmasking the Powers, Engaging the Powers) is nicely condensed into a very readable volume entitled The Powers That Be (from which I will derive most of the material I present here). To put it simply, the powers and authorities of which the Bible speaks are entities created by God as stewards of various institutions in life (material or abstract), but they are also influenced by the people who inhabit those institutions. The powers are in the same boat as we humans, but on a much larger stage. They are, according to Wink (p. 31):

  • Created good;
  • Fallen; and
  • In need of redemption.

I cannot go into the details of Wink’s description of the powers, but in a nutshell they are the spiritual entities that, in a pure state, watch over human institutions for the common good they were designed to fulfill. Families are one example of an institution. Your own immediate family may have one power (akin to a guardian angel in my own thinking, but I’m not sure Wink would agree), but your extended family has another power that “governs” (or perhaps is governed by) the individual family powers. Do you behave differently at home than you do around your grown brothers and sisters? That may be the powers at work.

Businesses and corporations are also institutions influencing and influenced by powers. If you read the mission statements or core values of most corporations, you will see that they ideally exist to further the common good. However, when corrupt individuals begin to exercise wicked influence within a corporate setting, powers begin to take on the nature of the “corporate culture” and may even be or become the culture itself. If an individual bucks or rebels against the prevailing corporate culture, for good or evil, the corporate culture will generally disenfranchise the rebel. Just look at Enron, for example. Much of what happened there perpetuated itself after a while. Whistleblowers are not well liked when calling a corporation to accountability.

On the other hand, when a corporation does something right, it becomes a win-win situation. The Tylenol scare back in the 80s is a perfect example of this. Tylenol was forced to recall millions of dollars worth of product because of some isolated tampering incidents. Even though the incidents were local, Tylenol’s maker recognized the gravity of the safety issues involved and took the loss. Tylenol is still around today, 30 years later, along with its generic competitors. In doing the right thing, they not only set an example for the employees and their families that they care about integrity, but they also sent a powerful message resounding through the corporate world: “Do the right thing no matter the cost.”

Violence and the Powers

Violence also has a powerful influence on the powers, according to Wink. Violence can include anything from yelling and screaming to bribery to the use of deception and deadly force to obtain one’s ends. Violence breeds more violence and establishes a culture of violence. Wink distinguishes between the legitimate use of force to restrain evildoers and violence, which is the “morally illegitimate or excessive use of force” (p. 159). The ultimate goal, in Wink’s view, is nonviolent conflict resolution regardless of the nature or intensity of the conflict. By extension, you can say the same things about sexuality and pornography, gambling, alcohol abuse, and drug abuse. When any of those abuses of the created order become inappropriately prominent in an institutional culture, the culture becomes corrupt and in need of redemption.

Prayer, the Church, and the Powers

So what does all this have to do with you and me? I return to Ephesians 3:10 and 6:12. The body of Christ has the responsibility to work redemptively in the face of corrupt institutions and corrupt culture. Every time Christ-followers share the gospel with unbelievers, they speak not only to the unbelievers but to the powers and authorities that have influence on the unbeliever. Whenever Christ-followers speak out and act peaceably and redemptively against corporate and societal injustices, they send a powerful message to the powers and authorities behind those institutions. In some respects, it may be a numbers game: the more Christ-followers show they care about justice, peace, and redemption, the more influence that has on the powers.

But Wink takes the whole concept one step further by invoking prayer. Regardless of what you think about his general theology, I think Wink hits the nail on the head when it comes to prayer. A couple quotes from his chapter on “Prayer and the Powers” (p. 180ff) make the point: “Prayer is never a private inner act disconnected from day-to-day realities. It is, rather, the interior battlefield where the decisive victory is won before any engagement in the outer world is even possible….Unprotected by prayer, our social activism runs the danger of becoming self-justifying good works” (p. 181). A little later he writes, “The profound truth of this worldview is that everything visible has an invisible or heavenly dimension. Prayer in this worldview is a matter of reversing the flow of fated events from on high to earth, and initiating a new flow from earth to heaven that causes God’s will to be done ‘on earth as it is in heaven.’…What happens next happens because people pray” (pp. 182–3). So prayer combined with action is at the heart of spiritual warfare. Neither one is sufficient by itself, but of the two, I would argue that prayer is eminently more powerful in opening the doors of opportunity.

Some Examples, Positive and Negative

My brother (who will be back on American soil this week) spent the last year in Afghanistan with his construction unit building infrastructure for the Afghani army. That, in my mind, is a nonviolent means to support the legitimate defense of a sovereign nation. (I’m proud of him and his crew and what they accomplished, and the whole family is anxiously awaiting his return to Omaha.) I taught a course last year in Las Vegas and have a few former students who are working redemptively in the gambling industry. It’s not a concession to the gambling industry, but an opportunity to fight the good fight in the heavenly realms.

On the flip side, Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas, has the wrong attitude about spiritual warfare. Whatever one may think about their sincerity, their protests against homosexuality and the military only serve to fuel the violence of the powers. The hate that spews forth from their actions and words comes nowhere close to bringing redemption to the powers in my opinion. In fact, one of the best ways to confront evil is to promote an attitude of love. This doesn’t mean tolerance of sin, but a respect for each person as uniquely human and worthy of respect as a special creation of God. As individual behaviors change, the powers respond. But individual behaviors change not from protests and words of condemnation, but from individual acts of love and service toward one another. If God’s kindness leads us to repentance (Romans 2:4), shouldn’t we expect our own kindness to do the same for those within our sphere of influence?

I myself have had experience on both sides. At one time in my ministry, I wrote passionately against homosexuality. But I also came to realize that if I didn’t get out and actually meet and interact with homosexuals, my words would fall on deaf ears, and I’d only be preaching to the choir. When I began to develop some social relationships with homosexuals, I began to see the impact I could have in making a positive presentation of Christianity. It wasn’t that every homosexual with whom I came in contact became a heterosexual, but some did begin to have a positive attitude toward Christianity where there had only been hatred and vitriol before.

The same can be said for a Christian response to abortion. We have a more powerful impact against abortion by supporting a woman through an unplanned pregnancy, helping her to bring the baby to term, than we ever will with all of our protests and (even worse) the vandalism and bombing of abortion clinics or the murder of abortion doctors.

This is why Paul is able to speak so highly of love in 1 Corinthians 13. Love is the ultimate tool (I refuse to call it a weapon) in the fight against sin, evil, and corruption, and at a minimum, it has to happen one person at a time. Love is superior to all other actions, and when we “live a life of love” (Ephesians 5:2), we speak to the redemption of the spiritual forces at work in the heavenly realms.

Conclusion

Spiritual warfare is a topic that has a lot of craziness around it, as well as a lot of well-intentioned but sadly misguided theology. I hope this post has enlightened you on the concept, and I pray that you will recognize the power that you have to speak and act redemptively as warriors in the battle in the heavenly realms. Put on the whole armor of God, and you will be ready to fight the good fight boldly and victoriously.

Peace!

Scott Stocking

October 6, 2011

ἐκκλησία: A Word Study

Filed under: Biblical Studies,Ecclesiology,Evangelism,Matthew Gospel of,New Testament — Scott Stocking @ 7:05 am
Tags: , , ,

Choose the best answer to complete the phrase: “Upon this rock…”

  • I will build my church
  • I will edify my congregation

The word ἐκκλησία (ekklēsia ek-clay-SEE-ah) is the word commonly translated “church” in the New Testament. In the Greek Old Testament, this word translated the Hebrew word for “congregation.” The word comes from two roots, which literally mean “called out;” (close to meaning of “saint”)

The verb translated “build” in Matt 16:18 (and the related noun) is used three different ways in the New Testament.

Construction of physical structures

  • Matt 7:24, 26; 21:33, 42; 23:29; 26:61; 27:40;
  • Mark 12:1, 10; 14:58; 15:29;
  • Luke 4:29; 6:48-49; 7:5; 11:47-48; 12:18; 14:28-30; 17:28; 20:17;
  • John 2:20;
  • Acts 4:11 (par. Mark 12:10); 7:47, 49;
  • 1 Peter 2:7 (par. Mark 12:10)

Generic references to persons and ideas

  • Romans 15:20 (v)    Paul’s desire to “build” where no one has built
  • 1 Cor 3:9 (n)        You are God’s “building”
  • 1 Cor 8:1 (v)        Love “builds up”
  • 1 Cor 8:10 (v)        Weak “emboldened” to eat meat offered to idols
  • 1 Cor 14:3 (n)        self-edification
  • 2 Cor 5:1 (n)        A “building” from God, “eternal house in heaven”
  • Gal 2:18 (v)        Paul’s hypothetical “rebuilding” of justification by law, not faith
  • Eph 4:29 (n)        “what is helpful for ‘building’ others up” to benefit the hearers

Direct or implied reference to the ekklēsia

  • Matt 16:18 (v)        “I will build my church”
  • Acts 9:31 (v)        The ekklēsiai were “strengthened”
  • Acts 20:32 (v)        God’s word “builds us up”
  • 1 Cor 14:4, 5 (v, n)    prophecy “edifies” ekklēsia, ekklēsia receives “edification”
  • 1 Cor 14:12 (n)    gifts that “edify” the ekklēsia
  • 1 Cor 14:26 (n)    when you come together, all things must “strengthen” the ekklēsia
  • Eph 2:19-22 (2v, 3n)    five different words related to “build” used in this passage
  • Eph 4:12, 16 (2n)    body of Christ “built up,” “whole body. . . ‘builds’ itself up in love”

Other references:

1 Cor 14:17; 1 Thess 5:11; 1 Peter 2:5; Romans 14:19 (mutual edification); 2 Cor 10:8 & 13:10 (Paul’s authority to “edify” believers); 12:19, 1 Cor 3:10-14, Col 2:7, Jude 20

Summary

Almost all occurrences of the word for “build” in the Gospels refer to a physical construction or the person constructing the object. However, when the word is used with people as the object, a better translation might be “edify,” or “strengthen.” The question must be asked then of Matthew 16:18: is Christ’s ekklēsia a physical structure, or people? How you answer this question, then, may determine how you answer the question at the top of the reverse side of this page.

Here it is again:

Upon this rock…

  • I will build my church
  • I will edify my congregation

What do you think?

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Website Powered by WordPress.com.