Sunday Morning Greek Blog

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!

July 5, 2011

“I Am the Resurrection and the Life” (John 11:25)

Filed under: "I Am" Statements,Biblical Studies,Christology,Greek,John Gospel of,Matthew Gospel of,New Testament,Theology, Biblical — Scott Stocking @ 10:18 am

The next two weeks will be busier than usual for me, as I have my three kids for their opportunity to live with me. I am glad they are here, and I look forward to our time together. It took a 19-hour round trip to get them here, and we all slept in Sunday (they more than I), but it was worth it to be able to attend the evening service at StoneBridge Christian Church with them, then head out to my aunt and uncle’s cabin near Fremont to watch some professional and not-so-amateur fireworks displays. As my daughter said in her Facebook post, “‎1 good thing about driving at night on 4th of july weekend is never ending fireworks!:)\n”

I have made my way through Stephen’s “fatal” testimony in Acts 7 in my reading schedule, and his summary of Israel’s history has many mnemonic elements to it, almost as if Stephen had developed a primitive version of the popular “Walk Thru the Bible” events, where you learn motions to go along with the biblical story. Key words are repeated two or three times in each section, and a few inclusios stick out as well.

However, before I am too far removed from John’s Gospel, I want to tackle one of the two remaining “I am” statements I have not yet covered. “I am the resurrection and the life” (Ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ἀνάστασις καὶ ἡ ζωή egō eimi hē anastasis kai hē zōē, John 11:25) is almost certainly the heart of John’s Gospel. It is the middle chapter of the book for starters. It is also the “I am” statement that is most closely associated with the historical event that prompted the statement, at least in terms of proximity in the biblical text. Finally, it is the one that reveals the power Jesus has over death and that looks forward to his own victory over death.

Once again, we should not be surprised that John has brought us to the point where this statement becomes significant. To keep it simple, a search of the phrase “eternal life” (ζωὴ αἰώνιός zōē aiōnios, usually used in accusative ζωὴν αἰώνιόν zōēn aiōnion) in the TNIV reveals 43 occurrences. John uses the phrase 17 times in his Gospel, more than twice that of the Synoptic authors combined. If 1 John is figured into the picture, John has over half the occurrences of the phrase in his writings. John had used the phrase 13 times up through chapter 10, but not at all in chapter 11 where we find our text.

In the Synoptic Gospels, the primary use of the phrase is in the three parallel passages where Jesus is asked what must be done to inherit eternal life. But John doesn’t record anyone asking that question. John (or Jesus’ words in John) is always forthright about declaring eternal life. In fact, three of the passages that have figured prominently in this discussion of the “I am” statements contain teaching about eternal life (John 4—woman at the well; John 6—”I am the bread of life”; John 10—”I am the door of the sheep”/”I am the good shepherd”; John 14:6, “I am the way and the truth and the life,” should also be included, because the last part is a restatement of 11:25).

Eternal life does not mean life forever on this earth in our current bodies. Eventually, the earth would run out of room to hold everyone. Death is in the offing for all of us; but if we are Christ followers, we also know death is not the end. The NT writers use several words for “resurrection” (noun) or “raise up (to life),” but the main ones are the noun ἀνάστασις (anastasis, the word found in Jesus’ “I am” statement) and the verbs ἐγείρω (egeirō) and ἀνίστημι (anistēmi). The verb ἐγείρω is by far the most popular of the two; John uses it 13 times as opposed to 8 times for ἀνίστημι. (Note: Because both the nouns and the verbs can refer to “standing up from being seated” or “rising up from a reclined position” as well as “rising from the dead,” I used Logos Bible Software to search for the Louw & Nida semantic domain numbers for each word when they specifically refer to “rising from the dead”; if you use a regular concordance to look these up, make sure you note the distinctions in usage.)

In the immediate context of the passage at hand (John 11:23–25), we find five occurrences of words that mean “come back to life.” Martha believes in the resurrection in the last day, but she also seems to hold out some hope that Jesus could restore Lazarus to them even at that time, even after he has been dead four days. Broadening the context, these resurrection words appear three times in John 6:39–40. But the occurrences that should make us sit up and take notice is that in John 2:20–22, where right from the start, Jesus predicts his own resurrection. John even points out in vs. 22 that the disciples remembered Jesus had said that after he rose from the dead (see John 20:9). Putting it all together, the resurrection and eternal life permeate John’s Gospel, while in the Synoptic Gospels, such discussion is limited to a few pericopes, the most significant being the Sadducees discussion with Jesus about marriage and the resurrection and Jesus’ own repeated predictions of his resurrection.

John develops this concept more completely than the other Gospel writers, especially by providing a living, breathing example, Lazarus, of someone raised from the dead other than Jesus. Matthew does mention the “sleeping saints” who came out of their tombs that resurrection weekend (27:51–53), but we’re never really told if that was an enduring earthly resurrection as we are with Lazarus (John 12:1, 9, 17). This is not to say John’s Gospel is better than the Synoptic Gospels. But it does reveal that John was not so much into telling a chronological story like the Synoptic authors; his focus is theology, or more specifically, Christology and eschatology. (I suppose technically I could use the words “anastasiology” [ἀνάστασις] and “zoology” [ζωή], but the first one’s not in the dictionary [which has never stopped me before!], and the second one is used primarily of nonhuman living beings.)

In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul develops even further the theology and centrality of the resurrection. I think it is safe to assume he had been influenced by John on this point. On the one hand, Paul says that it is futile to be a Christ follower if Jesus has not been raised from the dead. On the other hand, he talks about the spiritual realities of the resurrection: it’s not the earthly resurrection that Lazarus experienced. It is a transformation of our mortal bodies into an immortal substance that can never die. That is the substance of our “eternal life.”

Peace!

Scott Stocking

June 26, 2011

The Nature of “the Fellowship” (κοινωνία koinōnia) in Acts 2:42

Filed under: Acts,Biblical Studies,Ecclesiology,Greek,New Testament,Theology, Biblical — Scott Stocking @ 8:29 am

My Logos-generated Bible reading schedule does some odd things at times. Yesterday, I was scheduled to read Acts 2:1–42 (42 verses) followed by verses 43–47 today (5 verses). What’s up with that? So since yesterday was Saturday and I had some extra time, I decided to read all of chapter 2 and get ahead a little bit in my reading schedule. But this is a good thing, because Acts 2 really should be taken as a whole unit. Peter preaches to the crowd, recounting David’s Messianic prophecies in the Psalms, with the entire message coming to a climax in 2:37–38: “Those who heard this were pierced [κατανύσσομαι katanyssomai /kah-tah-NOOSE-ȯ-my/] to the heart and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, ‘What shall we do, Men of the Brothers?’ And Peter to them, ‘Repent!’ [saying] ‘And let each one of you who does [italics my gloss] be immersed upon the name of Jesus Messiah into the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.'”

Now I have already dealt with Acts 2:38, specifically the phrase “into the forgiveness of your sins” (click link in verse above), but I want to deal with the results of that call to repentance. In Acts 2:41, we learn that over 3000 were added to the number of Christ-followers on that day. Verse 42 is my focus today: ἦσαν δὲ προσκαρτεροῦντες τῇ διδαχῇ τῶν ἀποστόλων καὶ τῇ κοινωνίᾳ, τῇ κλάσει τοῦ ἄρτου καὶ ταῖς προσευχαῖς (ēsan de proskarterountes tē didachē tōn apostolōn kai tē koinōvia, tē klasei tou artou kai tais proseuchais, ‘And they devoted themselves to the apostles’s teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to the prayers’). This is how the verse appears in most modern Greek texts of the New Testament and subsequently translated into most English versions.

Much Ado about a Comma

You may have noticed that in the verse, I highlighted the comma after the word κοινωνίᾳ. I can hear you now: “Come on, Scott! A comma? Really? Give me some filet mignon I can savor, not a dinky little baby-carrot comma!” But fasten your seatbelts, because the presence or absence of this comma has a huge impact on how this verse is understood. A few years ago, I presented a paper in a professional conference on this verse, and my personal joke is that it was my 25-page paper about a comma. Read on and see why this comma is so important (and no, I’m not reproducing the entire 25-page paper here!).

First of all, I must say that the original manuscripts of Scripture did not have punctuation as we know it today. Not only did they not have punctuation, they did not have spaces between words, either. Just look at an image of the Rosetta Stone to see what I mean. So how does a comma (or any punctuation, for that matter) end up in today’s versions of the Greek New Testament (GNT)? Because the modern-day editors of the GNT put it there in an effort to help translators see the presumed syntax of the text.

But a good translator knows that the placement of a punctuation mark in the Greek text can be just as interpretive as how one translates a particular Greek word into English (or into whatever receptor language). As such, there are a couple reasons to question this comma here. The first reason is that in the history of the transmission of the text, someone decided that καί (kai ‘and’) needed to be inserted in that spot at some point. The variant is not well attested, but it did make it into the textus receptus, the Greek manuscript that has been the foundation for all versions of the King James Bible. Thus, the KJV renders the middle part of the passage: “and fellowship, and in breaking of bread.” Modern eclectic texts do not have the καί, but replace it with the comma. The 3rd edition of the UBS GNT does not even reference the variant reading.

The second reason to question the comma is that it is possible to make a sensible translation of the verse without it, if the translator does his or her homework. I have done that homework, and I present to you here my understanding of Acts 2:42. To be fair, I will offer four possibilities of translation, but my study leads me to believe that one of the last two possibilities is more probable, with Option 4 being my personal preference.

Four Possible Translations

1. Four individual manifestations, reflecting an implied or variant medial καί, with each dative case noun functioning as a direct object of the main verb:

“They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching, and to the fellowship, and to the breaking of the bread, and to the prayers;” or
“They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship [i.e., apostles’ modifies both teaching and fellowship, which seems to be the gist of the KJV translation], and to the breaking of the bread, and to the prayers.”

2. Two complementary pairs of manifestations, rejecting the implied or extant medial καί and acknowledging Luke intended a comma break between the two pairs:

“They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of the bread and to the prayers.”

3. Two manifestations, with the second (“fellowship”) qualified by the following couplet (double appositive, explains lack of καί, no comma necessary in Greek text):

“They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship, [which includes] the breaking of the bread and the prayers” (see 1 Corinthians 10:16).

4. Three individual manifestations (lack of καί before “breaking of bread”):

“They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching, [and] to the fellowship of/participation in the breaking of the bread, and to the prayers” (again, see 1 Corinthians 10:16; because we have the serial comma in English, we wouldn’t need to translate the first καί).

Four Sentence Diagrams

Anybody remember sentence diagramming from junior high English? How fun was that, right? Well, for my part, I’m glad I half-way paid attention to that, because it comes in quite handy in this analysis. I hope my English teachers approve. Note Figures 1 through 4 below. [NOTE TO READERS: If for whatever reason you don’t see the diagrams, please let me know. They show up in my browser (IE9), but I’m not sure how they’d work in other browsers.]

Figure 1: Sentence Diagram for Options 1 and 2: Acts 2:42.

Two pairs separated by a comma (Option One; as in the USB 4th Edition), or, if the variant reading with καί is accepted (textus receptus), four individual manifestations of their devotion (Option Two).


Figure 2: Sentence diagram for Option 3: Acts 2:42

The first or both of the latter two dative nouns are in an appositive relationship to κοινωνίᾳ. No comma is necessary.


Figure 3: Sentence diagram for Option 4: Acts 2:42

Three manifestations of the believers’ devotion, with τῇ κλάσει in a genitive relationship to τῇ κοινωνίᾳ; or alternately, with τῇ κλάσει as the direct object of the verbal action of τῇ κοινωνίᾳ, that is, “the sharing/participation in the breaking of bread.” See 1 Corinthians 10:16 for support for this latter option. Accepting either reading would mean neither the Greek nor English texts should have a comma after τῇ κοινωνίᾳ/”fellowship.”


Figure 4: Partial sentence diagram for the translation “participation in the breaking of the bread”: Acts 2:42

The alternate reading would look like this (akin to 1 Corinthians 10:16), with κλάσει as the dative case direct object of the verbal action of κοινωνίᾳ:


Option 4 actually follows the Vulgate (Latin) translation, which has “the breaking of the bread” in genitive case (case of possession) rather than in dative case (object case), as in Greek. But if the two nouns are essentially the same thing, they can take the same case in Greek even if they have a genitive relationship. This actually seems quite common in the opening chapters of Acts, especially in the phrase ἄνδρες Ἰουδαῖοι/Ἰσραηλῖται/ἀδελφοί (andres Ioudaioi/Israēlitai/adelphoi, ‘men of Judah/Israel/brothers’): ἄνδρες is nominative/vocative plural, as is the relational noun. Alternately, the phrase could be translated “fellow Judeans, Israelites, brothers [and sisters].”

And All This to Say What?

The point of this whole study was really to find out just what κοινωνίᾳ (koinōnia ‘fellowship’) embraced in the early church. I believe the reference to “the breaking of the bread,” because both nouns have the definite article in Greek, is more specific than just a general meal. I believe the reference is to the Last Supper (the Lord’s Table, my preferred term for “communion”), where Jesus commanded his disciples to “do this in remembrance of me.” So fellowship is not just a potluck or a gathering of believers for whatever purpose, but as 1 Corinthians 10:16 says, a “participation [κοινωνίᾳ] in the body and blood of Christ.”

Those of us in the Restoration Movement (Christian Churches/Churches of Christ) as well as the Catholic Christ-followers instinctively understand the centrality of participating in communion/the Lord’s Table/Eucharist on a weekly basis, even if we have differing theologies about the elements. If there are other denominations or congregations out there that practice a weekly as opposed to an erstwhile communion, they are to be commended for showing the same devotion to this “fellowship” as the early Christ-followers.

So whenever you partake of the Lord’s Table, remember that the elements are not just bread and juice, but an intimate connection to the sacrifice of Jesus and a sharing with one another, regardless of denominational background, in the historical events that should be foundational to all Christ-followers, the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus.

Peace!

June 19, 2011

“I Am the Door of the Sheep”; “I Am the Good Shepherd” (John 10:7, 11)

Filed under: "I Am" Statements,Biblical Studies,Christology,Greek,John Gospel of,New Testament,Old Testament,Psalms,Theology, Biblical — Scott Stocking @ 8:47 am

Well, the summer solstice is just around the corner, and so is the end of my time reading through the Gospels. I read the first part of the crucifixion story this morning in John 19, and that has some interesting tidbits I may come back to:

  • Barabbas’s name is Aramaic for “Son of the Father,” or more colloquially, “Daddy’s Boy” (בַּר bar ‘son’ + אַבָּא abba ‘father, daddy’, perhaps with definite article); Jesus is the “Son of God [the Father]”: irony at its finest!
  • Three times, Pilate said he could find no charge against Jesus, and he seems to work tirelessly (and with concern for his own integrity) to try to release Jesus, even justifying his innocense to the Jewish leaders and the crowd, to no avail;
  • Jesus tries to ease Pilate’s worries about handing him over to be crucified by telling him, “The one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin.” Note that Jesus cannot be accusing the God the Father here, but either Judas or the high priest.

But I digress from my intentions this morning. I want to tackle two more of the “I am” statements of Jesus found within a few verses of each other in chapter 10: “I am the Door of the Sheep” (v. 7) and “I am the good shepherd” (v. 11). The two statements are obviously closely related, but I will deal with each one separately, even though there will be some overlap.

“I Am the Door of the Sheep” (John 10:7)

I’m going to reproduce here my table (Table 1) from an earlier post that shows the connections between the seven “I am” statements of Jesus and the seven signs he performed, with today’s two statements highlighted: (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

One of the first connections to note out of the gate (pun intended) is that Jesus’ third sign is healing a man at the pool by the Sheep Gate (προβατικῇ probatikē, literally “of the sheep”; the feminine form is elliptical or shorthand because the word for “gate”, which is feminine, is not in the text there) in the walls of Jerusalem (John 5:1–15). This is the city gate through which the sheep entered when being brought to town for the market or the Temple. I will grant that Jesus’ statement, “I am the door of the sheep” (ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ θὑρα τῶν προβάτων egō eimi hē thura tōn probatōn) is more agrarian and rural than it is commercial and political, but the connection is significant nonetheless, because chapter 5 is the only time the Sheep Gate is mentioned in the Gospels. The Sheep Gate is mentioned three times in Nehemiah in connection with rebuilding the wall. It is probably not coincidence, then, that the high priest and his fellow priests had the responsibility to rebuild that section of the wall and rehang the gates (Nehemiah 3:1; cf. Hebrews 4:14, where Jesus is called our “great high priest”).

This “I am” statement has a connection to John 14:6 as well. In John 10:9, Jesus repeats the “I am” statement, this time without the sheep (“I am the door”), and the salvific connection is obvious (TNIV modified to reflect Greek word order): “Through me, whoever enters will be saved.” The phrase “through me” (διʼ ἐμοῦ di’ emou; the emphatic form of the pronoun is used) comes first in 10:9, even before the conjunction, which is a grammatical tool for emphasizing a phrase. The same phrase is found in John 14:6 (“no one comes to the Father except through me“) at the end. (Don’t ask me why, but Greek scholars say that an element of a Greek sentence can be emphasized at the beginning or the ending of a sentence; just one of those quirky things about Greek.) Here’s the beautiful part: normally you might think a prepositional phrase like “through me” should be common enough, right? Want to guess how many times it occurs in John? If you said “twice,” you are exactly right! Because it appears at the beginning of the phrase in 10:9 and at the end of the phrase in 14:6, I would say we have an inclusio here. Was it intentional by John? Perhaps not. Did God have a hand in ordering the text that way? I certainly think so.

Now if we have an inclusio, we need to look at the text in between and see what’s going on. Jesus does make his other statement about being a good shepherd two verses later in 10:11, but two other significant events are bracketed by the “through me” statements. The first is the resurrection of Lazarus from the dead and Jesus’ accompanying “I am the resurrection and the life” statement. More on that in a future post. The other significant event is the Last Supper, in which Jesus washes his disciples’ feet. In 13:8, Jesus makes another statement about his exclusivity as the Savior: after Peter objects to Jesus washing his feet, Jesus replies (my translation, emphasizing the present continuous aspect of the verbs), “Unless I am washing your feet, you are not having any part with me [μετʼ ἐμοῦ met’ emou].” This act of washing the feet is the act of a good shepherd who cares for his sheep, so we now turn to that “I am” statement.

“I Am the Good Shepherd” (John 10:11, 14)

In Table 1 above, I make a tentative link between “I am the good shepherd” (Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ποιμὴν ὁ καλός egō eimi ho poimēn ho kalos) and Jesus walking on the water in John 6. Here’s the connection, but again, it is tentative: Only Matthew records that Jesus called Peter to walk on the water (14:28–31); perhaps John doesn’t record this because he doesn’t want to call attention to Peter’s lack of faith in that instance. The connection has its “degrees of separation,” but it’s more than just about feet and water.

Jesus had stayed behind when his disciples set out in the boat in John 6. But when he saw the disciples were having trouble managing the boat in the strong winds, Jesus left whatever shelter he had sought out and walked out onto the raging sea to get to those he loved. He was looking out for his sheep. This reminds of the parable of the wandering sheep in Matthew 18:10–14, only in the walking on the water pericope, the wilderness is the sea itself. I can imagine that even for the son of God, walking on the water was not the safest thing to do, let alone doing it in a storm, yet Jesus says in the latter part of John 10:11: “The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep” (repeated in vv. 15, 17, 18).

The concept of the good shepherd has its roots in the Old Testament. King David, of course, was a shepherd himself, and Psalm 23 is a popular treatise on how the Lord shepherds us on a daily basis. Ezekiel 34 is an extended treatise on the bad shepherds of Israel, who had led the nation on the path of exile. A few relevant passages from Ezekiel make the connection between Jesus’ “I am the good shepherd” statement and Jesus’ walking on water even more pronounced (all excerpts from the TNIV):

For this is what the Sovereign Lord says: I myself will search for my sheep and look after them. As shepherds look after their scattered flocks when they are with them, so will I look after my sheep. I will rescue them from all the places where they were scattered on a day of clouds and darkness (34:11–12).

As for you, my flock, this is what the Sovereign Lord says: I will judge between one sheep and another, and between rams and goats (34:17; note parallel to Matthew 25:32–33).

I will place over them one shepherd, my servant David, and he will tend them; he will tend them and be their shepherd. I the Lord will be their God, and my servant David will be prince among them. I the Lord have spoken (34:23–24).

They will live in safety, and no one will make them afraid…. Then they will know that I, the Lord their God, am with them and that they, the house of Israel, are my people, declares the Sovereign Lord. You are my sheep, the sheep of my pasture, and I am your God, declares the Sovereign Lord (34:28b, 30–31)

Live It Out

I find no shortage of irony that the one John called “The Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” (1:29b) is also the door (or gate) for the sheep and the good shepherd. Both of these statements emphasize Jesus’ compassion for his flock. He protects us from thieves and bandits who would rob us of our joy. He is a refuge for us in times of storm and disaster. And he is the only one through whom we can be saved and have the promise of eternal life.

In John 21:15, Jesus has an emotional exchange with Peter to restore him to service after his denial. Three times, Jesus asks Peter, “Do you love me?” Twice Jesus uses ἀγαπάω (agapaō) and once φιλέω (phileō), but Peter always responds with φιλέω. I don’t think much can made of the difference in the different words used for “love” as some have, but that’s not my point here. Jesus responds, “Feed my lambs” or “Feed my sheep.” Can we model the shepherding of the Savior? Some days it’s easier than others, but if Peter was forgiven for his triple-denial and went on to be instrumental in commencing the church, what great things can we do for God?

I had a stormy period this past month. Last month would have been my 19th anniversary with my (now ex-)wife, and I found myself craving the intimacy I once had with her. It was a struggle to get through that, but God, who is never unfaithful, continued to be faithful to me as I worked through my issues. I’ve come out on the other side now, but as much as I know I’m forgiven for the past, I still find that it haunts me at times. I need to trust that my shepherd is watching out for me in those times when I wander into the wilderness and know that as I “bleat” for his presence, protection, and love, he will hear me and come running to me to give me the only comfort that matters.

Peace!

Scott Stocking

June 12, 2011

“I Am the Way and the Truth and the Life” (John 14:6)

Filed under: "I Am" Statements,Biblical Studies,Christology,Greek,John Gospel of,New Testament,Theology, Biblical — Scott Stocking @ 8:17 am

My reading schedule landed me in John 14 today, so I will go ahead and expound on Jesus’ sixth “I am” statement. I realize this is out of order, but I want to cover this while it is fresh in my mind.

More Connections with John 4

When Jesus says, “I am the way and the truth and the life” (John 14:6; ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ὁδὸς καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια καὶ ἡ ζωή egō eimi hē hodos kai hē alētheia kai hē zōē), his disciples should not have been surprised by this. This is another statement where the life, ministry, and words of Jesus should have prepared the disciples to understand this claim. In my chart in the Bread of Life post, I made a tentative connection between this “I am” statement and the healing of the royal official’s son in Cana of Galilee (John 4:43–54). Jesus does tell the official that his son will live (ζάω zaō), but that is the only significant verbal connection that I could discern. However, if the whole context of chapter 4 is taken into consideration, then the connection becomes less tenuous. In his discussion about living water with the woman at the well, Jesus makes the statement “God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth” (4:24; TNIV, as for all Scripture quotations herein, unless I indicate otherwise). This thought certainly parallels Jesus’ follow-up statement in 14:6b: “No one comes to the Father except through me.” In 14:16–17, Jesus promises to give “the Spirit of truth.”

But the parallels between these two chapters don’t end there. After the Samaritan woman in chapter 4 brings her friends back to see Jesus and talk to him for two days, her Samaritan friends make this remarkable statement: “We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Savior of the world” (4:42; emphasis mine). The Samaritans, the people most hated by the Jews, know that Jesus is the Messiah! But look at the context in John 14 surrounding Jesus’ “I am” statement:

  • In verse 5, Thomas says, “We don’t know where you are going, so how can we know the way?”
  • In verse 7, Jesus says, “If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.”
  • In verse 9, Jesus responds to Philip’s request, “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time?”
  • In verse 10, Jesus continues: “Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in me?”

His disciples still don’t get it! I think they had warmed up to the idea that Jesus is the Messiah by this time, but they still don’t seem to understand the implications of it all. Some of the disciples did come to this realization before the Last Supper (see Peter’s response to Jesus in Matthew 16:16, for example), but most Gospel accounts reveal that the disciples don’t come to a full realization of Jesus’ power and authority until after his death and resurrection.

“Where I Am Going…”

In chapter 6, after the discussion surrounding Jesus’ “I am the bread of life” statement, and especially after he has spoken about eating his flesh and drinking his blood, several of his early disciples desert him, because they don’t understand what he is saying. Jesus makes a statement in verse 62 that is the precursor to his “I am the way and the truth and the life” statement, especially the part about being “the way.” Jesus says, “What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before?” (Recall that in 1:51, Jesus alluded to Jacob’s dream in Genesis 28:12 when he said, “Very truly I tell you, you will see ‘heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending on’ the Son of Man.”) In 7:34, then, we have the first of several statements of Jesus recorded by John, where Jesus says (my translation), “Where I am, you are not able to come” (ὅπου εἰμὶ ἐγὼ ὑμεῖς οὐ δύνασθε ἐλθεῖν hopou eimi egō hymeis ou dunasthe elthein; 30 of the 82 occurrences of ὅπου hopou, ‘where’ in the NT are found in John’s Gospel). In 8:21, Jesus changes verbs: “Where I am going, you are not able to come.” But in 12:26, Jesus turns this to the positive with a condition: “If anyone would serve me, he must follow me, and where I am there also my servant will be.”

In chapter 13, Jesus returns to the negative, but not without some hope: in vs. 33 he repeats his words of 8:21, but then in 13:36, Jesus opens the door a bit (my translation): “Where I am going, you are not now able to follow me, but you will follow me later.” In 14:3–4, Jesus returns to a positive statement: “If I go and prepare a place for you, I am coming back again (note present tense) and I will receive you (note future tense) to myself, in order that where I am you may also be. And where I [myself] am going, you know the way.” In Jesus’ prayer in John 17, we find the last of these types of statements (my translation): “Father, I desire the ones you have given to me, in order that where I am they also may be with me.” In his final earthly prayer, Jesus expresses his longing that his disciples, the twelve men closest to him on earth (and yes, I think he included Judas Iscariot in that group), be with him both in his final struggle on earth and in his glorious eternal kingdom with the Father.

That desire extends to all who come after the disciples as well. Jesus longs for each of us to be with him in eternity, because he shed his own blood for our salvation. That’s how much he loved us. That’s how much he desires us, because he knew there could be no other way by which men and women could come to him.

“The One Who Sent Me”

Related to the discussion of where Jesus is going is the recurring theme of “the one who sent me.” Of the 27 times John uses the participle for πέμπω (pempō ‘I send’; the participle form used as a noun is translated as “the one who sends” [present tense] or “the one who sent” [aorist/past tense]), 24 of them in are attributed to Jesus, referring to the Father who sent him; one of the key passages where this connection is made is 8:14–18: In verse 14, Jesus says (TNIV): “Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid, for I know where I came from and where I am going. But you have no idea where I come from or where I am going.” Then in verse 18, Jesus closes his argument with, “I am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the Father, who sent me.”

Peace!

PS: One of my favorite Rich Mullins songs is “Where I Am, There You May Also Be,” released posthumously on his “Jesus Record.” Here is a link to the Ragamuffin Band performing the song live in Nashville in 2002. I hope you enjoy it as much as I do.

June 11, 2011

“I Am the Light of the World” (John 8:12)

Filed under: "I Am" Statements,Biblical Studies,Christology,Ephesians,John Gospel of,New Testament,Old Testament,Theology, Biblical — Scott Stocking @ 1:16 pm

 I used the last part of this for our Christmas Eve 2024 service at Mount View Presbyterian Church. The audio recording is below.

What does a primitive tent have to do with Jesus being the light of the world? Read on and find out!

Jesus at the Feast of Tabernacles (John 7)

Before diving into Jesus’ statement, “I am the light of the world,” some background information is crucial to understand both the context of the statement and the connection to other “I am” statements and some of Jesus’ seven signs that John records. In this case, John 7 provides the setting for Jesus’ statement. Seven times in chapter 7, John mentions the “Feast” (or “Festival” in some translations), referring to the Feast of Tabernacles or Feast of Booths (7:2; ἡ ἑορτὴ… ἡ σκηνοπηγία hē heortē… hē skēnopēgia /hay heh-or-TAY hay skay-nȯ-pay-GEE-ah/ [g as in girl]). This feast originated in the days of Israel’s wilderness wanderings before entering the Promised Land (Leviticus 23:33–44; חַ֥ג הַסֻּכּ֖וֹת hăg hăssǔkkōth /hag hass-sook-KOATH/, ‘Feast of Tabernacles’ or ‘Succoth’), when the Israelites had to live in temporary shelters to remember their desert sojourn. Deuteronomy 16:16 says that the Feast of Tabernacles is one of the three feasts at which all Israelite males must present themselves every year.

There is no definitive mention of the festival after Deuteronomy until the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, when the Israelites returned from exile. In Ezra 3, Joshua and Zerubbabel rebuild the altar, begin offering sacrifices, and command that the Feast of Tabernacles be restored once again, all eight days of it. In Nehemiah, the celebration of the Feast is reinforced when, as Ezra was reading the law (Nehemiah 8), the people hear the instructions for the Feast and waste no time building booths wherever they could find a spot: on their roofs, in the Temple courts, and especially by the Water Gate. The law of God was read during the eight days of the Feast in Nehemiah, and the text said the people celebrated it as none had since the days of Joshua, son of Nun, when the Israelites had entered the Promised Land some 800 years earlier.

The fact that the people dwelt near the Water Gate is significant, and provides continuity with and a connection to the first “I am” statement and its connection to Jesus’ “living water” statement in John 4. According to Craig Keener, in the section on John 7 in his IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament, one of the rituals of the Feast, at least as it had developed in Jesus’ day, was for the priest to take water from the Pool of Siloam and pour it out at the base of the altar each day of the feast. Two of the Scripture passages that had become important for the Feast were Zechariah 14 and Ezekiel 47. Consider Ezekiel 47 first, where a river of life flows out of Ezekiel’s temple (one that has never been constructed in history as far as we know, if the dimensions are to be taken literally) toward the Dead Sea, thus transforming it into a fresh-water lake teeming with life. Add to that Zechariah 14:8 (TNIV), which says: “On that day living water will flow out from Jerusalem, half of it east to the Dead Sea and half of it west to the Mediterranean Sea, in summer and in winter,” and one understands the significance of pouring out the water at the base of the altar. Finally, Zechariah 14:16–19 speaks of the Israelites once again celebrating the Feast of Tabernacles (three mentions).

It is important here to note the connection with John 4: Jesus gets into a discussion with a Samaritan woman about the appropriate place to worship. Jesus says he is the living water. In other words, Jesus is the river flowing from Ezekiel’s yet-to-be-built temple! Jesus makes the claim that it is only through him that God can be worshiped (perhaps looking forward to another “I am” statement in John 14:6), and the geographical location doesn’t matter. In the Bread of Life post, I made the connection between John 4 and 6, so we have the beginning of some insight into John’s organizational scheme (I told you I was working these things out as I go along!).

Another interesting feature of John 7 is that Jesus initially tells his disciples to go to the feast without him, and they do. But Jesus is not far behind. He already knows the Jewish leaders are out to kill him, so he’s trying to be low key, but there is nothing low key about Jesus. He always attracts a crowd. John even makes a point of saying that the crowd was expecting him to be there. Jesus shows up in the middle of Feast week and begins teaching in the Temple. John 7:37–38 is a key passage here, and I use Keener’s suggested translation: “On the last and greatest day of the Feast, Jesus stood and said in a loud voice, ‘If anyone thirsts, let this one come to me; and let whoever believes in me drink.‘” (Because the ancient manuscripts did not have any original punctuation, this is an acceptable means of exegeting a passage.) Jesus once again calls attention to himself, this time to a huge crowd, as the living water. Those who drink of him will never thirst again.

Jesus, the Light of the World (John 8:12)

But there is one more feature of the “last and greatest day of the Feast” that relates directly to Jesus’ “I am the light of the world” (Ἐγώ εἰμι τὸ φῶς τοῦ κόσμου egō eimi to phōs tou kosmou) declaration in 8:12. On that last night, the entire city was lit up with torches. Streets, houses, temples, market places, and even the walls of the city were not exempt from being lit up brightly. What is problematic for biblical scholars at this point is the debated insertion of the story of the woman caught in adultery in John 7:53–8:11. (What is interesting about this insertion is that Zechariah 14:4 says that God will stand on the Mount of Olives and fight for Jerusalem, while the spurious passage in John 7:53 says that Jesus spent the night on the Mount of Olives before returning to the Temple the next morning. Something else to make me go “hmm”.) If 7:53–8:11 is not original to John (and what I am about to say here makes me think it is not), then Jesus’ statement “I am the light of the world” is a direct reference to this lighting ritual of the Feast of Tabernacles.

The moniker “light of the world” was not unique to Jesus. Keener says that it was applied to the law, the patriarchs, Israel, Jerusalem, famous rabbis, and, of course, the Messiah. But for Jesus himself to declare “I am the light of the world” was a bold statement indeed (see the Pharisees’ reaction in 8:13 and Jesus’ response in the following verses). But John has been setting his readers up for this from the very first chapter. Six times in John 1:1–14 and five times in 3:19–21, John describes Jesus as the light (φως phōs) that has come into the world and shattered the darkness. I wrote previously about the connection to Isaiah 9 in my Honoring Galilee post, that Jesus was the light to those walking in darkness. What is even more fascinating is that in chapter 12, the last chapter before Jesus’ passion begins in earnest with the Last Supper, the word for light appears another six times, forming an obvious inclusio with chapter 1 and leaving the reader no doubt that Jesus is in fact the light of the world sent from the Father himself.

But Jesus is not satisfied to draw on the imagery of the Feast for his own testimony. The rest of chapter 8 records a debate about who Jesus is and about whose children the unbelievers are. So if the Feast imagery and the light inclusio still isn’t enough, Jesus puts the pièce de résistance on the whole event in chapter 9: he heals a man born blind. [Added 6/19/2011: Note especially Jesus’ words in John 9:5: “While I am in the world, I am the light of the world,” just before the man receives his sight.] He proves for all eternity (at least for those smart enough and willing enough to believe it) that he is the light of the world because he gives the ability to see light to someone who’s never had a visual sensation of it. And if you thought the Pharisees were fussing in chapter 8, you should see their attempts to twist this spectacular sign into a work of the devil. But Jesus puts them in their place at the end of chapter 9: “For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind.” Jesus has the power to give and take light, both natural light and spiritual light. He truly is the light of the world.

The Practical Side of Being Children of Light

Paul and John both spent a considerable amount of time in Ephesus, and as I have alluded to before, Ephesians seems to have some traces of a Johannine influence. In no place is that more apparent than Ephesians 5:8ff. Not only does Paul tell us to “live as children of light,” but he also exhorts us to expose “the fruitless deeds of darkness.” As such, we have an active role in living as Christ-followers, and we also have an obligation to be proactive in turning the tide of evil. There is nothing passive about walking in the light of Christ! We could not navigate through the evils of this world without the light of Christ, and that is why he gives himself to us as light.

One final note: I think the light God created in Genesis 1:3–5 is something more than a concept. We know that the light of those verses can’t come from anything physical, because the sun, moon, and stars had not yet been created. Could it be that when Jesus says, “I am the light of the world,” he is also referring to himself as that first and primary “unmade creation” of God? Obviously, I don’t think Jesus was created or made in the same way everything else was created or made, and the Genesis text doesn’t say God “made” the light. He simply said, “Let there be light”; it is a recognition of what already exists (note that the existence of water is assumed; it is not created or made either, or at least, we are not told directly it is created or made). Light and water, two of the “unmades” of creation and two of the foundations of life, and Jesus calls himself the light of the world and living water. Boy, I’m really hmming now!

Peace!

Scott Stocking

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Website Powered by WordPress.com.