Sunday Morning Greek Blog

September 12, 2011

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

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

 

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

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

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

Word Studies on γλῶσσα, γένος, and φωνή

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

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

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

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

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

1 Corinthians 12–13

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

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

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

1 Corinthians 14

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

Peace!

Scott Stocking

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

September 5, 2011

Guide to Selecting a Bible

Filed under: Biblical Studies,New Testament,Old Testament — Scott Stocking @ 11:42 pm
Tags: , , ,

Learning Outcomes

After taking this class, the participant will be able to:

  • Explain the differences, benefits, and disadvantages of the three major translation theories;
  • Describe the source and purpose of the tools included in a study Bible;
  • Use different versions in personal Bible study based on personal needs and preferences.

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.

Translation Theories

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.

Study Bibles

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.

Comparing Translations

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.

Note on the New International Version (NIV)

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

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

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

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

1 Corinthians 3:16–17

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1 Corinthians 6:19–20

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

1 Corinthians 10–12

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

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

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

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

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

Application

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

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

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

Peace!

Scott Stocking

September 2, 2011

HUB: How to Understand Your Bible: Week 1

Filed under: Biblical Studies,New Testament,Old Testament,Psalms — Scott Stocking @ 6:15 pm

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:

  • Discuss with others what the Bible says about itself by citing key passages;
  • Recall the main reason for reading the Bible;
  • Describe the dual roles of love as they relate to the main reason for reading the Bible; and
  • List the five “big-picture” themes of the overall biblical story.

The following is adapted from Jake Christian’s curriculum

Read the following Scripture passages to prepare for class:

  • Psalm 119
  • 2 Timothy 3, especially verses 14–17
  • Matthew 22:37–40
  • 1 John 2:3–6
  • 1 John 3:16–18
  • Ephesians 4:11–16

The Big Picture:

  • Created for Oneness
  • Otherness Introduced
  • Otherness Expanded
  • Otherness Abated (I modified this from the handout)
  • Redeemed into Oneness

Some questions to consider (no right or wrong answers; just reflection):

  • What words or concepts come to mind when you think about the Bible?
  • What have been your successes in reading and studying the Bible?
  • Where do you want to experience some growth in reading and studying the Bible?
  • What does the Bible say about itself?
  • Who has had the most influence on your understanding of the Bible?

Next Week’s Topic: Introducing the Bible Study Method:

  • Get a Bible
  • Read it.
  • Think about how it applies to your life.

August 29, 2011

Filed under: Greek — Scott Stocking @ 6:44 am

free counters

August 28, 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A

B

C

A′

C′

B′

A′′

A′′′

B′′

C′′

B′′′

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peace!

Scott Stocking

August 27, 2011

πιστίς (pistis, ‘Faith’/‘Faithfulness’) in Romans 1–5

Filed under: Biblical Studies,Faith, Faithfulness,Greek,New Testament,Romans,Theology, Biblical — Scott Stocking @ 6:37 pm
Tags: , , ,

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.

Introduction

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

1:18–3:20: Justification and Righteousness not Obtainable through the Law

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’).

3:21–31: The Faithfulness of Christ and God toward Mankind

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.

Romans 4: Abraham’s Faithfulness Demonstrated

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.

δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ and the Subjective Genitive

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).

Application & Conclusion

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.

August 21, 2011

Doing What I Don’t Desire to Do (Romans 7:13–25)

Filed under: Biblical Studies,Evil,Faith, Faithfulness,New Testament,Repentance,Romans,Spiritual Warfare,Theology, Biblical — Scott Stocking @ 9:57 pm
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

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 Word Studies

κατεργάζομαι

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.

πράσσω

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).

ποιέω

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”.

ἀγαθός and καλός

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.”

My Translation

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

August 14, 2011

Redemption and Faithfulness (Romans 3:23–24)

Filed under: Biblical Studies,Ephesians,Faith, Faithfulness,Greek,New Testament,Romans,Theology, Biblical — Scott Stocking @ 5:09 pm
Tags: , , ,

(Media Note: We tackled 1 Timothy 2:9–12 in Sunday School this morning, which reminded of the YouTube video “All Things Are Better in Koine.“ I hope you enjoy it as much as I do!)

I have finally caught up with my reading schedule and find myself in Romans this week. I think there’s a good reason why Romans was placed at the head of Paul’s letters in the New Testament (NT): he lays out a detailed description of the connection between faith, justification, and redemption that is foundational for understanding not only his letters (Romans through Philemon), but for the entire Bible, as he brings into the discussion the relationship of Jews and Judaism to God’s plan of salvation.

I am working on simplifying and updating an assignment I did 15 years ago for a class I had with Dr. Walt Zorn at Lincoln Christian Seminary where I summarized Paul’s argument in the first five chapters of Romans. It is rather detailed and heady (it was a seminary class, after all), but I want to simplify it for my blog readers, because I think understanding the flow of the argument will help us understand just what Paul meant when he wrote it. The basic question of the assignment (and I’ll leave you to explore this on your own for a time if you wish) is, “Who is the righteous who will live by faith (Romans 1:17) if Paul in Romans 3:10–12 quotes the Psalms (14:1–3, 53:1–3) and Ecclesiastes 7:20 saying, ‘There is no one righteous, not even one’?” If you figure out the answer to this, then consider why that is significant for your own Christian walk.

Translations of Romans 3:23–24

I will give you a little hint of it here this morning, as I want to focus on what is arguably the most familiar salvation passage in Romans, 3:23–24, the first step on the “Romans Road.” Before I go into the Greek text, I want to give you a few different English translations of the passage: depending on your background, you may have a slightly nuanced understanding of the passage, so I want to make sure I respect whatever differences there may be. After these English translations, I’ll give the Greek text and transliteration. Later in the post, I will do a phrase-for-phrase comparison with another key salvation passage, Ephesians 2:8. (All passages are from the Logos electronic versions of the respective editions.)

‎‎NIV (1984): For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

‎‎NIV (2011): For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

‎‎TNIV: For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

‎‎NLT: For everyone has sinned; we all fall short of God’s glorious standard. Yet God, with undeserved kindness, declares that we are righteous. He did this through Christ Jesus when he freed us from the penalty for our sins.

‎‎AV (KJV 1769): For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

‎‎ESV: For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,

‎‎NASB95: For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;

‎‎The Message: Since we’ve compiled this long and sorry record as sinners (both us and them) and proved that we are utterly incapable of living the glorious lives God wills for us, God did it for us. Out of sheer generosity he put us in right standing with himself. A pure gift. He got us out of the mess we’re in and restored us to where he always wanted us to be. And he did it by means of Jesus Christ.

NA27: πάντες γὰρ ἥμαρτον καὶ ὑστεροῦνται τῆς δόξης τοῦ θεοῦ δικαιούμενοι δωρεὰν τῇ αὐτοῦ χάριτι διὰ τῆς ἀπολυτρώσεως τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ (pantes gar hēmarton kai hysterountai tēs doxēs tou theou dikaioumenoi dōrean tē autou chariti dia tēs apolytrōseōs tēs en Christō Iēsou; see my English translation below).

Figure 1: Sentence Diagram for Romans 3:23–24


The sentence diagram in Figure 1 makes the following clear: the participle δικαιούμενοι (present passive, from δικαιόω, “who are being justified”) is directly connected to the subject of the main clause, πάντες (“all”). I’ll come back to this in a moment. The main verbs of the passage are those in verse 23, so this is the primary point being made: we “sinned” (aorist, or simple past tense) and “are falling short of” or “are lacking” (present tense) the glory of God. It is important to note that the verb for “sinned” (from ἁμαρτάνω) is in the aorist tense, which is the basic, workhorse past tense in the Greek language. English translations are not wrong to render this in the perfect tense (“have sinned”), but it may be that Paul is just making a general statement (based on the quotations from the Psalms in 3:10–20) that we “sinned.” The second verb, ὑστεροῦνται, is present tense, so it denotes a current, ongoing state, but as we will see, it is one that is being reversed by the justification taking place at the same time.

Before offering my translation, however, I need to deal with the participle δικαιούμενοι. This is a present passive participle, which generally means the action is going on at the same time as the main verb(s). But with one main verb past tense and the other present, which is it? My decision is admittedly theological, but because I believe that salvation is not just a “one-and-done” event, but a lifelong process that includes sanctification and justification, I would argue that we are currently being justified because we currently lack the full glory of God. Our salvation, although effective at whatever stage of spiritual growth we are at, is not “full and complete” until we stand before our Maker. The phrase that follows this participle modifies (or is an extended adjective of) the word for “all”. If I rearrange the word order slightly, the passage has a very different nuance to it in English: “For all who are being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came through Messiah Jesus sinned and are lacking the glory of God.” (I should note in Romans 5:1, δικαιόω is an aorist participle, but that does not mean the process is done, necessarily, only that the process of justification precedes the peace that we have with God as a result.)

Comparison to Ephesians 2:8

So what does all this heady grammatical talk have to do with living the Christian life? In order to help make a little more sense of things, I want to bring Ephesians 2:8 into the mix. As you will see in Table 1 below, Ephesians 2:8 is actually a parallel passage to Romans 3:24, with one revealing comparison. Ephesians 2:8 says: τῇ γὰρ χάριτί ἐστε σεσῳσμένοι διὰ πίστεως καὶ τοῦτο οὐκ ἐξ ὑμῶν, θεοῦ τὸ δῶρον·tē gar chariti este sesōsmenoi dia pisteōs kai touto ouk ex humōn, theou to dōron, “For it is by this grace you are being saved through faithfulness, and this not from yourselves; it is the gift of God.”

Table 1: Comparing Ephesians 2:8 with Romans 3:24

Romans 3:24

Ephesians 2:8
Δικαιουμενοι

are being justified

 ἐστε σεσῳσμένοι

are being saved
δωρεὰν τῇ αὐτοῦ χάριτι

freely by his grace

 τῇ γὰρ χάριτί… θεοῦ τὸ δῶρον

by this grace… it is the gift of God
διὰ τῆς ἀπολυτρώσεως τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ

through the redemption which [is] in Messiah Jesus

 διὰ πίστεως καὶ τοῦτο οὐκ ἐξ ὑμῶν

through faithfulness, and this not from yourselves

I am guessing that most of you were able to follow the first two comparisons between the verses. Being justified and being saved, while not strictly synonymous legally or technically, essentially represent the restoration of our relationship with God. The second pair about grace is straightforward enough. It is the third pair that tends to raise people’s hackles, because most of us have been taught that it is through our “faith” that we are saved. But the word for faith in Greek, πίστις, can also mean “faithfulness.” But whose faithfulness is it, really? If there is anything to the comparison, then the faithfulness is not ours (“this salvation by grace through faith is not from yourselves”), but it is the faithfulness of Jesus to go to the cross and purchase our redemption. Not convinced? Look at Romans 3:25, where Paul uses the identical phrase from Ephesians 2:8: ὃν προέθετο ὁ θεὸς ἱλαστήριον διὰ [τῆς] πίστεως ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι hon proetheto ho theos hilastērion dia [tēs] pisteōs en tō autou haimati, “whom [Jesus] God presented as an atoning sacrifice through the faithfulness in his blood” (emphasis mine).

Suppose for a moment that this faith is ours: How much faith do I need to be saved? We know faith is quantifiable, because Jesus talked about having faith the size of a mustard seed, while in Hebrews 11, the faith of the saints who have gone before us is exemplified in numerous ways. If it is our faith, then salvation by “our” faith becomes a relative statement, not an absolute. If it is relative, then we can get caught up in asking ourselves if we have enough faith, but simply asking that question denies the grace aspect of salvation. It’s a gift: we can’t earn it; it’s not dependent on the quantity of our faith. But if this faithfulness refers to the sacrifice of a perfect savior, then the statement becomes absolute, and we never have any reason to question the amount of faith we have relative to the state of our salvation.

Faith, Works, and Salvation

This is not to deny the importance of our own faith and trust in Jesus, however. Our own faith or trust in Jesus is not so much for the purpose of being saved but the result of being saved. Because we know God is with us, because we know God has our back, because we know we have the empowerment of the Holy Spirit, we can “walk in the good works that God prepared in advance for us to do” (Ephesians 2:10). We show our faith by the fruit we bear (Matthew 7:15–20; John 15:1–16; Romans 7:4). We demonstrate our faith by what we do (Romans 4; James 2:14–26).

We hear much about faith and salvation, but I think there is an equal, if not greater emphasis on “confession” or “profession” in many salvation passages. Now I do not here mean only confession of sins (see, for example, 1 John 1:9). In Matthew 16:16, Peter declares his belief that Jesus is the Messiah, a confession that is made by many new Christians before joining a congregation or getting immersed (at least in our own Restoration Movement congregations). In Acts 2:38, the would-be converts had to repent, which essentially meant renouncing their old lifestyles, and make the public statement of being immersed. Romans 10:9–10 speaks of confessing (or “professing”) that Jesus is Lord. Toward the end of Ephesians 6, Paul asks for prayers that he might boldly profess Christ, and in the opening chapter of Romans, he says, “I am not ashamed of the Gospel, for it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes.”

Romans 3:23–24 is a beautiful passage that says God doesn’t give up on us just because we sinned. God continues his work of justification in us in spite of our shortcomings (see also Romans 4:5, 17; 5:6–10). We don’t have to perfect ourselves first; we just need to let God do the perfecting.

Peace!

Scott Stocking

August 7, 2011

“I Am the True Vine” (John 15:1)

Filed under: "I Am" Statements,Biblical Studies,Christology,Greek,John Gospel of,New Testament,Theology, Biblical — Scott Stocking @ 8:40 am

See my new post, From Wine to the Vine, a recent sermon on this topic, published 2/19/22.

Wow! What an incredible, tiring July I had. My kids were with me for the first two weeks, and we had a great time together. Alec got to drive in the big city and learned what hills can do to the speed of a car. I took three days off from work, and we went to Sempeck’s and Papio Fun Center for laser tag, go carts, bowling, mini golf, and other frivolities. I’m glad they were here, and I miss them sorely now.

There was a price to pay, however (besides the cost of making two round trips to Illinois): I spent the last three weeks playing catch up on my secondary work, and for several consecutive days, I was going on minimal sleep. My Greek Bible reading had to be put on hold, but I certainly got my fill of Bible! I did a cold proofread on a Jewish commentary on the Torah and got to proofread Ezra–Psalms in a King James Version. I guess God wanted to remind there’s still an Old Testament to be reckoned with. The Jewish commentaries are always engaging, because they’re not afraid to tackle anyone who comments on the Torah; from Maimonides (Rambam) to Freud, the authors covered the gamut! I finished off my three-week marathon by editing a devotional guidebook for Christians. It was quite the adventure, to say the least.

Through the sleepless nights and drowsy days, however, I needed an extraordinary strength and endurance that could only come from a connection to the one who said, “I am the True Vine” (Ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ἄμπελος ἡ ἀληθινή egō eimi hē ampelos hē alēthinē), Jesus Christ (how’s that for a segue!). And thus I come to the final chapter, belatedly so, of my discussion of the seven “I Am” statements of Jesus. To recap, here is the table showing the comparisons I have made along the way: (2/13/2012: You can click the “I Am” statement to open the blog post for that statement.)

Table 1: Linking the “I Am” Statements with Jesus’ Miracles

“I Am” Statement

Sign/Miracle
John 6:35: I Am the Bread of Life John 6:1–15: Jesus Feeds the 5000+
John 8:12: I Am the Light of the World John 9:1–12: Jesus Heals a Man Born Blind
John 10:7: I Am the Door of the Sheep John 5:1–15: Healing of the Invalid at Bethesda [Sheep Gate]
John 10:11: I Am the Good Shepherd John 6:16–24: Jesus Walks on Water
John 11:25: I Am the Resurrection and the Life John 11:38–44: Jesus Raises Lazarus from the Dead
John 14:6: I Am the Way, the Truth, and the Life John 4:43–54: Healing of the Official’s Son
John 15:1: I Am the True Vine John 2:1–11: Water into Wine

The connections between the last “I am” statement of Jesus and his first “sign” in John’s Gospel are striking. The most obvious connection that can be made is the thematic parallel of wine/vine. Although the respective words (οἶνος oinos ‘wine’; ἄμπελος ‘vine’) are not found in the opposite passage, there is no mistaking that the vine produces the fruit that would eventually become wine. Ἄμπελος is found nine times in the NT: three times in John 15:1–9; once each in the other three Gospels, all in the same statement of Jesus at the Last Supper, “I will not drink of the fruit of the vine…”; once in James 3:12; and twice in Revelation 14:18–19, where the earth is compared to a vine about to be harvested in God’s wrath.

One verbal parallel is of note in the passages: the word for “clean” and its related word “cleansing” appear in both passages. What makes this significant, in my mind anyway, is that Jesus, seemingly out of the blue in the midst of talking about vines and pruning, makes the statement in John 15:3, “You are
already clean because of the word I have spoken to you” (ἤδη ὑμεῖς καθαροί ἐστε ēdē hymeis katharoi este). The statement does not seem to fit the context very well, unless you make the connection to the water-into-wine pericope. In John 2:6, we learn that the vessels that contained the water turned to wine were those used for “ceremonial purification” (καθαρισμός katharismos) by the Jews. So, as early as John 2, wine is connected with cleansing. Is this a mere coincidence of circumstances? In Matthew 26:28 at the Last Supper, Jesus says that the cup is his blood-covenant for forgiving their sins. The very next verse is where Jesus says he will not drink of the fruit of the vine until he’s in the Father’s kingdom. The vine, then, represents the blood of Jesus and its cleansing power, and I believe that Jesus suggested the same thing with his first miracle, although, as he told his mother, it wasn’t his time yet for him to reveal his purpose.

Skeptical? I could understand, but look at the parallel language in the last part of the vine pericope, especially verse 10. (Note: the pericope comprises John 15:1–17). The NIV series has the paragraph break after verse 8, but the Greek text and several other English versions break the paragraph after verse 10, so I consider verse 10 to close out the first half of the pericope.) The word for “remain” (μένω menō) appears 10 times in the entire pericope, with 9 of those occurrences concentrated in verses 4–10. Jesus speaks of remaining connected to the vine all the way up to verse 10, where he switches things up and says, “If you keep my commands, you will remain in my love” (μενεῖτε ἐν τῇ ἀγάπῃ μου meneite en tē agapē
mou). How does Jesus define that love in verse 13? “Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friend.” In the very next breath, Jesus calls his disciples his friends. But do they (or we!) understand the implication there? In a very sneaky (if Jesus can be sneaky) sort of way, Jesus again here predicts his death. Remaining in the vine is remaining in the love of God exemplified in the shed blood of Jesus the Messiah.

I want to make one more point here, although there is much more that could be said about the two passages. The water-into-wine and vine pericopes also reflect a theme of God’s miraculous provision in our lives. In John 2, Jesus’ mother, Mary, has faith in her son (as any good Jewish mother would) that he can fix the problem of the wine shortage. Jesus reluctantly obliges, and provides not only an abundance of wine, but an abundance of quality wine such that the steward is incredulous. John closes out the vine pericope with Jesus’ promise of provision for his disciples (vs. 16): “You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you so that you might go and bear fruit—fruit that will last (= μένω)—and so that whatever you ask in my name the Father will give you.” This not to undermine the first part of the verse about bearing fruit that will remain; the emphasis here is, I think, that our asking should focus on those things that help us remain in the vine.

What are those things? I think they are very basic: How can I love God more and remain in his love, and how can I love my neighbors more so that they can discover and remain in God’s love. I could elaborate, but I think it’s best to keep it simple, just like Jesus did when he summed up the law and the prophets with the two greatest commandments.

Peace!

Scott Stocking

PS It’s great to back in the blogosphere again!

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Website Powered by WordPress.com.