Author: Jovan Payes

Formerly a knuckle-head, now an earnest Christian, who is married to his best friend, the father of three, an evangelist of the Gospel, a Star Wars fan, and tries to be an all around nice guy.

Who is to Care for the Widows? (1 Tim 5:16)

On By Jovan PayesIn 1 Timothy, Articles, Christian Ethics, Ecclesiology, Greek Studies, New Testament, Paul's Letters, Technical Studies, Textual Criticism, Translation, Women Studies
college papers

If any believing woman has relatives who are widows, let her care for them. Let the church not be burdened, so that it may care for those who are truly widows. (ESV)

If any believing man or woman has widows, let them relieve them, and do not let the church be burdened, that it may relieve those who are really widows. (NKJV)

The opening words of 1 Timothy 5:16 is plagued with four variant readings. At the outset, this paper will follow the order of the fifth revised edition of The Greek New Testament (UBS5)[1] textual apparatus in arranging the variant readings. The first reading is in that which is in the main body of the UBS5 Greek text, “a woman that believes” (pistē), the second variant reading is “a man that believes” (pistos), the third variant reading is the longer “man or woman that believes” (pistos e pistē), and the fourth variant reading is the accusative plural “women that believe” (pistas).

The variants throw into question who are the believers to care for their widows. Is it Christian women or men (variants 1-2)? Is it either or (variant 3), or is it a general call to care (variant 4)? The following processes will be followed: (1) evaluate the external and internal evidence, then (2) observe its effect on modern translations, and then (3) apply the most probable reading to approach an understanding of the reading in 1 Timothy 5:16.

Evaluating the Evidence

External Evidence

The weight of the external evidence of the four variant readings are early, but they are not of the same strength. In particular, the second (pistos) and fourth (pistas) variant readings are void of extant Greek manuscripts. The second reading is represented by the Ethiopic tradition from the sixth century, half of Ambrose (397), Augustine (430), and a Latin translation of Theodore of Mopsuestia, Cilicia. The meager witnesses for the fourth reading are exclusively translational itg (ninth) and vgmss (fourth and fifth).

The third longer reading (pistos e piste) is represented with witnesses which begin in the fourth and fifth centuries. The reading appears early in patristic witnesses such as John Chrysostom (407), Ambrosiaster (post 384), and also Ambrose; moreover, it has witness in Old Latin translations from the third and sixth centuries (itb, d). The earliest extant Greek manuscript witness, however, is the bilingual (Greek and Latin) sixth-century uncial Codex Claromontanus (D 06).[2]

Despite the earlier witness of the longer variant reading against pistos and pistas, the uncials which support the first reading (pistē) are much earlier. These witnesses are from the fourth and fifth centuries and are traditionally more substantial in their textual value.[3] The fourth-century evidence has Aleph (Sinaiticus), along with fifth-century codexes Alexandrinus (A) and palimpsests Ephraem (C 04), and uncial 048.[4] Patristic evidence has early witnesses as Athanasius (373) and mid-fifth century Pelagius. Translational evidence for the preferred reading is in the fourth-century Sahidic Coptic text in Egypt (copsa). The early dates of the external evidence weigh in agreement with the UBS5 inclusion of the preferred reading.

Geographic Distribution

The geographical distribution is spread somewhat evenly among Eastern and Western text-type lines. The longer reading is distributed widely in the West more so than in the East. The inclusion of the longer reading is supported by Alexandrian Uncials, Western D, and Byzantium readings (K 018, L020). It is also distributed in the Greek Church (Chrysostom, and a majority of Lectionary readings) and Latin Fathers Ambrosiaster and Ambrose. Nevertheless, pistē has the widest breadth of distribution, impressively stretching from Greek Father Athanasius (373) in Alexandria, Egypt, in the East to the Latin Father Pelagius (418) in Britain in the far West at roughly the same time. The overlap of both readings in the translational evidence is also equally distributed and this is best typified by Latin Father Ambrose who is a witness to both readings; however, the longer reading is mainly supported by the Western witnesses. The geographical distribution of the second and third readings are both substantially Western.

Regarding text-type affinities and other aspects of these particular variants, the first and third variants share text types and there is some external evidence that needs to be considered. First, the first and third readings both share Alexandrian and Western text types, with the longer reading, having late witnesses from the Byzantium text type. The second and fourth readings have no text-type witnesses. Second, in the evaluation of the external evidence of the four readings, it is clear that the second and fourth readings have connections to early witnesses but are relegated to translational evidence in Old Latin and the Vulgate.

Moreover, even the patristic witnesses for the second reading are Latin such as Ambrose and Augustine, and even the witness from Greek Father Theodore of Mopsuestia, Cilicia, is only found in a Latin translation. This suggests that unless better evidence emerges, the second and fourth readings should continue to be viewed as inferior readings which are probably translational in origin.[5]

One piece of the manuscript evidence which has not been considered is that the textual apparatus also lists a considerable amount of minuscule evidence for the longer reading both from Western and Eastern text types; however, the earliest minuscule witnesses are from the tenth century (1175, 1739, 1912), eleventh century (104, 256, 424, 459, 1962), and later. This evidence is consistent with the late witnesses from the ninth century in Byzantium uncials K and L, and the Alexandrian 044 from a similar period. The abundance of these manuscripts which are geographically dispersed very well may prove to be sufficient evidence for their primacy as the text reading; however, the majority of late manuscripts are not weightier than the strong early Alexandrian texts which support the preferred text of the UBS5.

There are strong lines of evidence for dismissing the second and fourth readings because the external evidence is purely translational and patristic. The first and the third readings have competitive manuscript witnesses and have comparative geographic distribution, which slightly leans toward the third reading; nevertheless, the quality of the early uncial witnesses, translational evidence, and distribution between patristic fathers from Alexandria to Britain in the same window of time favor the preferred reading of “woman that believes” (pistē).

Internal Probabilities

Next, it is important to evaluate the internal evidence of the four variants readings and determine which reading has the best transcriptional probability of being the correct reading.[6] Currently, the editorial committee of the UBS5 places a {B} rating for the short reading piste which “indicates that the text is almost certain.”[7] Among the variants, there are three short readings (piste, pistos, pistas) and one longer reading (pistos e pistē).

The shortest reading (pistē) with the most external support is a difficult reading, for it makes Christian women solely responsible for the care of widows,[8] as opposed to a more general statement that calls all believers to care for the widows of the Christian community. It would certainly be more likely to have been broadened, especially in light of a few broad tis statements in 1 Timothy 5 (4, 8, 15).

Among the shorter readings, the second (pistos) and fourth (pistas) readings appear as linguistic changes intended to understand the care for widows as a broad Christian responsibility (“if any believer” and “if anyone has widows who are believers”). It would be likely for a scribe, or translator, to broaden the responsibility to “anyone” or to “a believer” than to limit it to the more difficult shorter reading, “a woman who believes” (i.e. a Christian sister). The latter best explains the former two readings.

The shorter reading and in the longer third reading (pistos e pistē). The longer reading makes the care of widows a gender-inclusive responsibility in the church (“any man or woman who believes”). Regarding longer variant readings, the conventional textual critical wisdom prefers a longer reading so long as the change is unintentional;[9] from a practical point of view, a copyist would “more likely” omit words than to add words.

Metzger concedes that “it is possible” that, if the longer reading is original, a copyist may have accidentally omitted pistos e;[10] however, the longer reading has late attestation and may be best explained as a conflation of the variants (pistos and pistas) attempting to broaden the responsibility to care for widows in 1 Timothy 5:16 to both male and female believers (cf. 4, 8). This would effectively diminish the leading role of believing women that Paul had in mind.[11] However, the more difficult reading is piste and is better attested; in fact, it requires an explanation as to why Christian sisters are called to care for their widows. The first reading, then, is better attested, shorter, and more difficult; and in terms of probability is a natural impetus to explain the other variants.

How English Translations Stack

The direction most modern translations go is to follow the strength of the textual basis for piste, “a woman who believes” over the longer reading in 1 Timothy 5:16.

Major English New Testaments which take the longer variant reading, however, are the AV/KJV tradition (1611, 1979), Moffatt (1922), NEB (1961); moreover, less familiar versions such as The Living Oracles/Sacred Writings (1828) and McCord’s Everlasting Gospel/FHV5 (2005) also include the longer reading.

Since the time of the American Standard tradition (1901, 1971, 1995), the following major translation has accepted the shorter reading: the Revised Standard tradition (1952, 1990), JB tradition (1966, 1985), the NAB tradition (1970, 1986, 2011), TEV (1976), the NIV tradition (1984, 2002, 2011), ETR (1987), REB (1989), NCV (1991), CEV (1995), NET (1996-2006), HCSB (1999), and ESV (2001). The less-known Plain English Bible (2003), The Voice Bible (2012), and the Jehovah’s Witness’ NWTR (2013) also have shorter and better-attested reading.

The wholesale selection of the shorter reading by the vast majority of modern English translations provides a supportive scholastic culture to the present evaluation of the external and internal evidence in favor of pistē.

Applying “Believing Woman”

Finally, it is critical to find the application of the present conclusion that the shorter variant has the strongest probability to be the text of 1 Timothy 5:16 and understand Paul’s instruction to Timothy regarding the care of widows in the church. The verse is situated in the final words of the pericope concerning directives for the care of widows and the expectations of young widows (1 Tim 5:3-16).[12] 

There is a strong distinction made between the church (5:8b, 9, 16) and Christian families with widows (5:4, 8a), and a distinction made between vulnerable widows to which the church has a responsibility to (5:5-7, 9-10) and young widows who should remarry and establish a proper family life (5:11-15). The last verse (5:16) apparently weaves these four counterpoint groups into a praxis for ministry towards widows which brings the Christian family to the forefront of such benevolent ministry; moreover, every Christian sister (widowed or not) is placed at the focal point to care for any widows they are related to (“she has”).

The counterpoint in this text is that such family ministry in Christian homes, carried out by a “woman who believes,” allows the church to care for the widows who are truly vulnerable (5:3, 5a, 16b). Bruce Winter observes:

Christian women were being called upon to relieve the church of the extra mouths to feed who were their widowed relatives. There is no censure in v. 16, but a call to shoulder responsibility for kinship relationships so that the church can adequately support widows who are without relatives.[13]

Bruce W. Winter, “Providentia for the Widows of 1 Timothy 5:3-16.” TynBul 39 (1988)

Indeed, this Pauline injunction demonstrates a corrective in the Ephesian church culture where Timothy evangelized. Apparently, the church had been “burdened” and “exhausted” (bareō/omai) financially for sure;[14] but also, perhaps the capacity to serve had reached its limit and so the church was significantly fettered.

Nevertheless, Paul is clear there are widows whom the church, as a community, must help (the true widow), but there are widows who must be cared for by their Christian families. In the latter point, Paul argues out the principle at stake: “if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Tim 5:8). Paul then calls upon Christian women specifically to meet this ministry need.

In the ideal realm, Christian families are responsible for their own widowed grandmother as a demonstration of godly repayment (5:4). Christians males (5:8) are responsible for this service (presumably the husband of the family), but the transition to women believers (remarried women, wives) is significant since they are described as the ones who “run” and “control” their household (5:14).[15]

Part of the power of connecting “wife” and household authority is that it “implies the new and improved position which was secured to women by the Gospel.”[16] Furthermore, this requires a full range of administrative responsibilities.[17] The practical application, then, appears to ask of the “believing woman” her full range of resources and ability to care for “her widow.” As such, if “a woman took good care of her household [including her widow], the enemy would not be able to say anything against them.”[18]

This understanding would encourage a multi-generational inclusive model of family responsibilities as part of a Christian worldview. There are, however, many methods of care for the older members of the family. Still, as Walter Liefeld[19] observes, a few considerations should be made to evaluate the need of a widow:

  1. Determine the actual needs of the widow. Do not presume to know their needs or abilities. It is critical to appreciate their abilities – known or latent. Moreover, consider that not all needs are physical (financial, home); some needs are emotional, spiritual, and intellectual.
  2. Revisit and reaffirm family ties and responsibilities. For family cultures that tend to live far from each other, it is vital to reconnect and reestablish family ties. Distance is not an excuse. Communication, visitation, and creating space for one’s widow to find their new or expanded niche.
  3. One must take into account a widow’s responsibility. Truly, a widow must learn to grieve in a healthy manner. Paul encouraged the younger widows to reestablish a family and marry. He further recognized a widow’s need to manage and maintain her relationship with God. Ultimately, she must find her role in ministry to others.
  4. The church has a role in supporting a family to care for their widow. (a) Consider enlisting a member to qualify for hospice care in order to be a bridge between the congregation and the grieving widow. (b) Develop an awareness of the stages of bereavement to better help to bring comfort and encouragement. (c) Develop a team that is knowledgeable of basic financial instruments and entitlement programs one might be amenable to. This would help bring awareness of issues. (d) There should be a visitation program that the elders, deacons and preachers, and members should participate in to check in on various needs. (e) While a congregation should not act as a private investigator’s office, a congregation should not act blindly toward senior abuse.

These are but a few items to consider in the quest toward New Testament discipleship concerning the care of widows.

Concluding Thoughts

While this paper was specifically focused upon the injunction by Paul to “any woman of faith” and her responsibility to care for “her” widow, it is critical to remember that this is one side of the coin for the care of widows in the church. It is true that the church should not be so burdened that it cannot function to carry out its mission; however, the community of the church has a responsibility toward its widows who are widows indeed.

The conclusion drawn here is that the shorter, well-attested variant reading piste best explains the other variants. Furthermore, it better weaves within the counterpoints in the discussion which finds closure in verse 16. It provides insight into the service which Christian women rendered on behalf of their faith, as an extension of their Christian family, and as an asset to the church and its ministry to its own widows. To add the fourth reading (pistos e pistē) provides an additional counterpoint that detracts from the focus on the “younger widows” (5:11).

Instead of carousing (5:11-13) they are to remarry and minister to their own widows whoever they may be (14-15). Knight legitimately proposes the possibility that this ministry to widows is an extension of the Christian sister’s husband and her household;[19] therefore, it seems reasonable to conclude that when she ministers to her widows, she ministers to her family’s widow.

The focus on “a woman who believes” is a powerful reminder of the importance Christian sister have in the church’s ministry and in their Christian homes. As in the early church, so today the need for “women of faith” to minister still exists within the church and their families.

The Voice Bible rendering reflects this emphasis:

Tell any woman of faith: if you have a widow in your family, help her so the church is unencumbered and is free to extend aid to the widows who are truly in need of its help.[20]

Endnotes

  1. (UBS5) Barbara Aland, et al., eds., The Greek New Testament, 5th rev. ed. (Stuttgart, Germany: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2014).
  2. Frederick G. Kenyon, The Text of the Greek Bible: A Students Handbook, Rev. ed. (London: Duckworth, 1949), 96.
  3. (NA28) Eberhard Nestle and Erwin Nestle, Novum Testamentum Graece, 28th rev. ed., eds. Barbara Aland, et al. (Stuttgart, Germany: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012), 63*. There exists no papyrus testimony which supports any of the variant readings in 1 Timothy 5:16.
  4. The fourth-century Codex Vaticanus (B) is silent on the variant readings due to the fact that it lacks the letters to Timothy. See Neil R. Lightfoot, How We Got the Bible, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2003), 38.
  5. Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2d ed. (1994; repr., Stuttgart, Germany: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2001), 574-75.
  6. Metzger, Textual Commentary, 12*-14*; J. Harold Greenlee, Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism, Rev. ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964; repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999), 111-14.
  7. Metzger, Textual Commentary, 14*.
  8. Donald Guthrie, The Pastoral Epistles: An Introduction and Commentary (1957; repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978), 104.
  9. Greenlee, New Testament Textual Criticism, 112.
  10. Since the extant evidence for these two variants is translational it is possible that the variants emerged in that process (Metzger, Textual Commentary, 575), or in the process of oral transmission since pistos and pistas may be pronounced the same (Greenlee, New Testament Textual Criticism, 57).
  11. Walter L. Liefeld, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, Kindle ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1999), loc. 9699. Liefeld writes, this “would not be the first time that an ancient copyist changed the text to give preference to the male” (fn 21).
  12. Bruce W. Winter, “Providentia for the Widows of 1 Timothy 5:3-16.” TynBul 39 (1988): 83-99.
  13. George W. Knight, III, The Pastoral Epistles (1992.; repr., Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2013), 222. Winter, “Providentia for the Widows of 1 Timothy 5:3-16,” 94.
  14. Gottlob Schrenk, “baros, barus, bareō,” TDNT 1: 561.
  15. Karl Heinrich Rengstorf, “despotes, oikodespotēs, oikodespoteō,” TDNT 2: 49.
  16. Walter Lock, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1924), 61.
  17. Linda Belleville, “Commentary on 1 Timothy,” Cornerstone Biblical Commentary, ed. Philip W. Comfort (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2009), CBC 17: 95.
  18. Belleville, CBC 17: 101.
  19. Liefeld, 1 & 2 Timothy, 186-88 (loc. 3722-65).
  20. Knight, The Pastoral Epistles, 229.
  21. The Voice Bible: Step into the Story of Scripture (Nashville, TN: Nelson, 2012).

Is Jesus a Poached Egg?

On By Jovan PayesIn Articles, C.S. Lewis, Christian Apologetics, Christology, Essays, Glendale Gleaner, Jesus Studies, New Testament, Published, Theology

Weird question, I know. Let me explain. This phrase is from C. S. Lewis’s classic book Mere Christianity.[1] Lewis journeyed from atheism to a believer in Jesus as the Christ. In Mere Christianity, he articulated an argument in support of the deity of Jesus commonly styled the trilemma.

Actually, Lewis’ classic argument emerges from his desire to disabuse his readers who are tempted to accept Jesus of Nazareth “as a great moral teacher” and yet reject his claims “to be God.” Lewis is very adamant, “That is the one thing we must not say.”[2] Why? The reason is simple. Jesus made claims to have divine privileges, claims to be divine, and exercised the rights of God by forgiving others of their sins.

How could we rationalize Jesus being a “great moral teacher,” Lewis argues, when he makes such claims to which places him beyond humanity? We are forced to make a decision: accept all that Jesus teaches or attempt to separate this claim to divinity from his teachings.

Decisions, We Have to Make One

At this point, the question about Jesus of Nazareth could be reduced to a dilemma. Professor Maurice Stanley explains that the “dilemma is among the most powerful forms of argument. Like the horns of a charging bull, its alternatives seem to leave you with no escape.”[3]

For example, we may argue that either Jesus is the Christ or He is just “a great moral teacher.”

If Jesus is the Christ, then his teaching is absolutely true.

If Jesus is just a great moral teacher, then his teaching is subjective.

Consequently, you are left with two alternatives: either what Jesus taught (1) is absolutely true, or (2) it is decidedly subjective (we may pick and choose).

As a dilemma, there is no both-and. If you accept one, you deny the other conclusion.

Lewis knew, however, there was a third element regarding the case of Jesus of Nazareth. It simply is not that Jesus is either the Christ or a great moral teacher. Jesus made too many claims to divinity recorded in the Gospel Accounts to leave it at those two options.

Lewis goes to see that Jesus is either one of three things.[4] Jesus is either (1) a lunatic (Lewis’s “a poached egg”), (2) a devil, or (3) the Son of God. This is the trilemma where there is no both-and-and. If you accept one, you deny the other two conclusions.

If you accept that Jesus is a lunatic, then he is the sort of man “who says he is a poached egg” — i.e, a madman.

No madman is a “great moral teacher.” Is Charlie Manson a great moral teacher? What about Jim Jones? Or, David Koresh? Hardly. These are the questions readers of the New Testament need to ask. Interestingly, we find that these questions were raised as well during the ministry of Jesus himself.

They Said, “Jesus is Beside Himself”

In Mark 3:20-21, the family of Jesus had heard that he was home in Capernaum (2:1). They rushed “to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself.” [All Scripture references are from the American Standard Version unless otherwise noted.]

The language is very vivid. Jesus’ own family was so concerned about what people were saying about Jesus that they rushed to take him into their “protective” custody. However, certain Jerusalem scribes had already come and dismissed the exorcisms of Jesus as the work and influence of Beelzebul and “the prince of the demons” (3:22).

The text forces the question concerning Jesus: He is either (1) “out of his mind” (i.e., “a poached egg”) or (2) in cooperation with evil spirits (“a demon”). In the latter point, no one disputed the supernatural elements of the exorcisms.

In this text, Jesus responds with a third option (Mark 3:22-27). He argues that He is not cooperating with Satan, nor is Satan in a civil war against himself since his kingdom would fall apart. Instead, Jesus demonstrates his power and authority over Satan by subduing him in his own home. Jesus, then, logically argues for his superiority over the demonic and satanic world.

This passage then, which questions his sanity, demonstrates that he possesses all his mental faculties (he is not crazy) and that he is no emissary of Satan (he is no deceiver). But true to his power and authority, he is in the company and presence of the Holy Spirit (he is from God). Mark presents Jesus as mentally stable and confident in his power over evil spiritual forces.

Did Jesus Go Crazy Later?

George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950), an Irish playwright, once claimed that Jesus began his teaching ministry as a sane Rabbi but later after being exalted by the masses as Christ lost his mind.[5] This is not, however, the testimony of the Gospel Accounts which are of such authenticity that they could arguably be “admissible as evidence in a court of law” as true ancient eyewitness documents.[6] This is significant since the only authentic evidence for the existence of Jesus, his teaching, and his ministry are the first-century documents of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

But still, if a person claims to be God today, we would say they are insane. The Gospel Accounts, however, are united in their presentation that Jesus claimed both the power and the nature of God. In Mark 2:1-12, Jesus demonstrates that he not only has supernatural powers to heal a disabled man but also the prerogative and power of God to forgive sins (2:7). He then affirms, “that ye may know that the Son of man hath authority on earth to forgive sins” he heals the man (2:10).

Jesus not only taught that he had this divine privilege, but he also claimed to be God in the flesh (John 1:14, 10:29-33). Furthermore, he accepted worship — a significant acceptance of an act only due to God (Matt 8:2; 9:18; 14:33; 15:25; 20:20; Mark 5:6-7; John 9:35-38).

When pressed about Jesus’ “I am God” claim as a demonstration that he was insane, psychologist Dr. Gary R. Collins responded that it is important to remember that “psychologists don’t just look at what a person says. They’ll go much deeper than that.”[7]

Dr. Collins sets forth four particular problems “disturbed individuals frequently show” that Jesus does not demonstrate, namely:

(1) Emotional instability.

(2) Out of touch with reality (misperceptions, paranoia, etc).

(3) Thinking disorders (e.g. cannot think logically)

(4) Demonstration of unsuitable behavior.[8]

Instead, Collins praises the emotional and mental stability of Jesus, giving his “diagnosis” as follows: “All in all, I just don’t see signs that Jesus was suffering from any known mental illness… He was much healthier than anyone else I know —including me!”[9]

The Significance of Jesus and His Resurrection

Ultimately, the Gospel Accounts emphasize the story of Jesus and his significance. This is summed up in the word “gospel” (Grk. euangelion) which means “a good tiding” or “a tiding of joy” (Matt 4:23; Mark 1:1; Luke 1:19, 4:18; John 1:11-13). Surely, the authors would not attempt to establish their gospel message upon a delusional Rabbi from a backwater city like Nazareth (John 1:46). Yet their story hangs on such an individual.

The only thing that makes Jesus’ claim to divinity (“I and the Father are one”) credible is the resurrection from the dead (Rom 1:3-5). While Lewis would ask us to choose between the three options based upon the logic of the Gospel Accounts, the real evidence lies in the resurrection of Jesus.

The strongest evidence for the empty tomb of Jesus is seen in the various conversions of those who did not believe in Jesus (James the brother of Jesus) and those who persecuted Christianity (like Saul-Paul the apostle), who was moved from being unbelievers to significant leaders of the primitive Christian faith (1 Cor 15:1-11).

Gary Habermas reminds us that the earliest belief “that they had actually seen Jesus after his death led to a radical transformation in their lives, even to the point of being willing to die for their faith.”[10] Their conversion and capacity to endure sufferings as eyewitnesses of the resurrected Jesus are unexplainable otherwise.

Concluding Thoughts

Similar arguments can be made from various other texts, but the present discussion should be helpful to demonstrate that Jesus is no “poached egg,” nor is he a liar. We are then led to the only true credible conclusion that Jesus is the son of God.

What will you decide based upon the evidence and testimony of the Gospel Accounts (John 20:30–31; 21:25)? As Lewis reminds us:

let us not come with any patronising [sic] nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.[11]

Endnotes

  1. Clive S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (NY: Macmillan, 1952).
  2. Lewis, Mere Christianity, 56.
  3. Maurice F. Stanely, Logic and Controversy (Boston, MA: Wadsworth, 2002), 192.
  4. N.T. Wright critiques Lewis’ “lunatic, liar, Lord” trilemma argument, or as he rephrases it “bad or mad or God,” by observing that the argument does not take into account the pre-existing “incarnational model” of Israel in the Scriptures and consequently “drastically short-circuits the argument” (“Simply Lewis: Reflections on a Master Apologist After 60 Years,” TouchstoneMag.com). That criticism acknowledged, Lewis does provide the basic contours of the question by forcing his readers to decide if Jesus was a lunatic, a liar, or Lord.
  5. Wayne Jackson calls attention to Shaw’s point of view in Jackson, Eric Lyons, and Kyle Butt, Surveying the Evidence (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press, 2008), 175.
  6. Pamela Binnings Ewen, Faith on Trial: An Attorney Analyzes the Evidence for the Death and Resurrection of Jesus (Nashville, TN: B&H, 1999). It has been reprinted with slight variation to the title, Faith on Trial: Analyze the Evidence for the Death and Resurrection of Jesus (Nashville, TN: B&H, 2013). The purpose of the volume is to demonstrate the credibility of the Gospel Accounts to have the internal evidence to stand up in a court of law as eyewitness documents. Ewen argues forcefully that they do. See also Simon Greenleaf, Faith on Trial: Analyze the Evidence for the Death and Resurrection of Jesus (1874; repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1995).
  7. Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ: A Journalist’s Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998), 146.
  8. Strobel, The Case for Christ, 146-47.
  9. Strobel, The Case for Christ, 147.
  10. G. Habermas, To Everyone an Answer: A Case for the Christian Worldview, eds. Francis J. Beckwith, William Lane Craig, James P. Moreland (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 189.
  11. Lewis, Mere Christianity, 56.

This is a reformatted and slightly expanded version of the article which originally published in The Glendale Gleaner (Newbern, TN: Glendale church of Christ).

Guardians of the Church: A Reading of 1 Timothy 3:1-7

On By Jovan PayesIn 1 Timothy, Bible Study, Christian Leadership, FHU, Freed-Hardeman University, Graduate Work, Greek Grammar, Greek Studies, Interpretation, New Testament, Pastoral Leadership, Paul's Letters, Technical Studies, Translation1 Comment
college papers

In Philippians 1:1, Paul addresses himself “to all the holy ones in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi with the guardians and servants.” In Acts 20, Paul addresses “the elders of the church” from Ephesus and calls them to a commitment to their pastoral ministry. In this admonition, he reaffirms that it was the Holy Spirit that “set them forth as guardians” (Acts 20:28). These few references point to the organization structure of the early Christian congregations in apostolic times but provide little by way of an exposition of qualifications needed to assume such a role.

Moreover, there are approximately four terms that are used in concert when touching the topic of church leadership; their common glosses are elder, overseer (“guardian”), shepherd (“pastor”), and steward. While this connection demonstrates their interdependence upon each other to explain the function of such leaders, only two pericopes develop the qualifications with specific details.[1] These are 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9 which show some variation in terminology, though “the same ideas are often expressed.”[2] The former is the focus of this reading.

Understanding the qualifications for those aspiring to the episkope in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 is a pressing need for the body of Christ, in general, and local congregations in particular which seek to establish their organizational model upon the pattern of the primitive church reflected in the New Testament. A reading of this passage will be accomplished in three progressions. First, 1 Timothy 3:1-7 must be understood in its connection to the previous chapters. Second, the passage must be taken as a whole along with its subdivisions. Finally, translation and reading of the passage will provide a proper understanding of the qualification of the guardians.

Evaluating the Internal Context

The context of the previous chapters must be considered. In the assumption that 1 Timothy is a genuine Pauline document, Paul is writing to Timothy at the beginning to the sixth decade of the first century A.D., to excel in his ministry of the word in Ephesus against various false teachers and threats to church life (1 Tim 4:11-16).[3]

Contextually, in the first two chapters Paul leads his letter with a reminder of his warning against false teachers and immorality (1:3-11), then balances the rebuke against false teachers with another reminder of God’s “mercy” (1:12-17), ending with a call to wage war against false teacher and detractors (1:18-20). In the second chapter, Paul shifts into another call for action and this time in reference to prayer that it may result in, among many things, lives framed in “dignity” in matters of authority, gender roles, and domestic roles (2:2; 2:1-15; cf. 3:4, 8; Tit 2:7).

From here, Paul transitions quickly into the qualifications of the “guardians” (3:1-7) and “servants” (3:8-13) which are framed in a virtue list. As such, then, Paul uses a common literary tool to “communicate his own theological intent.”[4] “Guardians” are part of the solution to protect and lead the church.

Breaking Down 1 Timothy 3:1-7

The pericope can be subdivided into reasonable progressions beyond the broader paragraph.[5] Gordon D. Fee organizes his analysis of this passage into five progressions (3:1, 2-3, 4-5, 6, 7).[6] Others focus on the two main aspects of this section: the faithful saying (3:1) and the qualifications (3:1-7).[7] This reading will follow a three-movement progression: the faithful saying (3:1), the things which must be (3:2-5), and the dangers of the Devil (3:6-7).

The first progression is based upon the introductory statement of 3:1, which is used elsewhere in the letter (1:15, 4:9). The second progression is established by the leading statement regarding the things which are “fitting” (or “necessary”) “to be” (i.e. the qualifications) in 3:2, introducing the virtue list which technically concludes in verse 7.

However, 3:6-7 are unique in the section because they set up two warnings in connection with two qualifications (“not a new convert” and “a good testimony from non-Christians”). For this reason, these last verses are seen as a final progression.

An outline of 1 Timothy 3:1-7 is as follows:

  1. The Faithful Saying (3:1)
  2. What the Guardian Must Be (3:2-5)
  3. Two Warnings for the Guardians (3:6-7)

A Reading of 1 Timothy 3:1-7

A reading and translation of 1 Timothy 3:1-7 a proper appreciation of the flow and meaning can be gained with the intention of having true “guardians” of church based upon the fifteen virtues in the apostle Paul’s list.

The First Progression. The first section of the pericope begins with no particle of transition or connective conjunction;[8] instead, 3:1 begins with the introductory slogan, “The statement is true” (pistos ho logos).

The nominatives stand grammatically separate, and the adjective πιστὸς stands in the predicate position to ho logos. Robertson disagrees with this slogan beginning the section; instead, he affirms this “phrase points to the preceding words (not like 1:15) and should close the preceding paragraph.”[9] In brief response, the “faithful saying” better introduces the protasis, “if someone aspires…,” in the present simple conditional clause in 3:1b.[10] In the end, the phrase is used to emphasize the following truth:[11] “If someone aspires to the responsibility of a guardian, he desires to secure a good work” (3:1b).

The second half of the verse contains the trustworthy maxim. First, consider the logic of 3:1b. As previously mention, it is a present simple conditional statement. The present middle indicative protasis, ei tis and oregetai, includes within it the personal emotional interest (lit. “I stretch myself to reach”)[12] of the one “aspiring to the responsibility of a guardian.” The verb oregetai takes the genitive episkopes as its direct object which suggests that episkopes defines what is the aspiration.[13] It is the episkopes and “no other” which serves as the root idea of the verb.[14]

The present active indicative apodosis, kalou ergou epithumei, portrays the simple consequence, “he desires to secure a good work.”  Another verb of emotion, epithumei likewise has a genitive as its direct object.[15] This verb is often associated with an inordinate emotion (i.e. sexual lust, covet, etc.), but in this instance the connotation of a positive desire as colored by its object “a good work.”

Second, there is a need to briefly explain why the term “guardian” (episkopos) and the phrase “responsibility of a guardian” (episkope) has been selected over its contemporary gloss “overseer” and “office of an overseer.” In brief, the New Testament use of these terms does not inherently suggest an “office” (status) as they do stress a responsibility (function). There is evidence in the papyri showing the use as a title and an office;[16] however, its contextual use in the New Testament emphasizes function over office.[17] Categories of use in the New Testament such as “one being present watching over” to care or to punish (Luke 19:44; 1 Pet 2:12), or “a position of responsibility” due to an assignment (Acts 1:20), and the act of “supervision.”[18]

In 1 Peter 2:25, God is both shepherd and “guardian” of our souls; moreover, in 1 Peter 5:2 “being guardians” displays the function of “overseeing.”[19] Agreeably, it does seem “important to try to combine the concepts of both service and leadership […] the responsibility of caring for the needs of a congregation as well as directing the activities of the membership.”[20] This is not an appeal for an exclusive gloss, but an attempt to emphasize the function of “guardian.”

Second Progression. In the second progression of 1 Timothy 3:1-7, Paul begins his virtue list regarding the “guardian” of the church of God (3:2-5). After the “faithful saying” of 3:1a, the impersonal present active indicative verb of obligation dei (lit. “it is necessary”) and oun transitions Paul’s readers to the virtue list with, “It is, then, fitting” (3:2). There is also the difficulty due to the wide “colloquial” use of dei, because it complicates how to view the nature of the obligation. Generally, it refers to “something that happens because” it is “fitting” (due to internal or external reasons) and is often followed by an infinitive verb as here (einai).[21]

In such a case, the infinitive may function as “the subject of a finite verb”[22] as it has been rendered here: “It is, then, fitting to be.” However, due to English grammar, the subject of the infinitive (ton episkopon) is translated along with the leading verb dei;[23] hence, “It is, then, fitting for the guardian to be.” The semantic force here displayed is what Wallace calls the “potential indicative” for it places an emphasis on the desire, not upon the doing.[24] This is a blanket declarative statement for each adjectival qualification.[25]

In keeping with what is fitting, the “guardian” (ton episkopon) stands as a representative of this class of church leadership.[26] In other words, in keeping with a virtue list which will be compared or contrasted against “deacons” or false teachers, the category of the “guardian” is in focus.  From 3:2b-5, Paul develops thirteen different qualifications, all adjectival words or participles in the accusative case. With a few exceptions, the terms are straightforward. Paul writes:

It is, then, fitting for the guardian to be: irreproachable, a-man-of-one-woman, clear-headed (i.e. wineless), self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, skilled in teaching, not quarrelsome, not combative, but forbearing, peaceable, not a lover of money, one who is engaged in the care of his own household, having children in submission with all dignity (but if he does not know how to care for his own household, how will he take care of God’s church?). (1 Tim 3:2-5 AT)

Of the thirteen terms enlisted above, three phrases were of interest in this reading. The most controversial phrase is “a-man-of-one-woman” (mias yunaikos andra, cf. 3:12, 5:12).[27] The anarthrous accusative andra is modified by the genitive mias gunaikos. Before any theological meaning can be derived from the phrase, the syntactical limits of the phrase must be established. It seems a qualitative[28] or descriptive genitive,[29] or a possessive genitive[30] are three of the best options. Of these three, a qualitative or descriptive genitive is probably under consideration as each of these uses underscores character over mere possession of a woman or wife.[31]

The second term, emphasizes the type of character which has as its primary meaning to be free of the influence of wine (i.e. wineless);[32] consequently, as a secondary meaning portrays a person who is “level-headed”[33] and “clear-headed.”[34] This is in contrast to the negative “not quarrelsome” (me paroinon) which has a primary meaning of being “given to drinking too much wine” as in being “addicted to wine;”[35] consequently, this refers to a person who would is abusive or brash, everything a guardian is not supposed to be.

The third phrase, is a present middle participle meaning “one who is engaged in the care of his own household” it describes “involvement or leadership” which must first be demonstrated “in house;” hence, the potential “guardian” must show himself to be an “active” family man who plays an important role in training and developing his children.[36] This last phrase is the subject of a parenthetical statement (3:5). In this statement, the apostle Paul forms a question in a present simple conditional sentence setting a portrayal of the sort of “guardianship” God intends to occur. “If he does not know how to care for his own household, how will he take care of God’s church?” In other words, if one has not been involved at home to personally mature and develop those in their care, the portrayal goes, the “guardian” of the church will not have the “how to” of experience.

The Third Progression. Finally, the last two verses (3:6-7) reflect the final progression with two strong warnings of how well-intended leadership can go bad. This last progression is built upon dei and einai from 3:2. It is, then, fitting for the guardian to not be “a new convert, so that he may not —having become conceited— fall into the judgment of the Devil” (3:6). The warning against a newly planted Christian becoming a “guardian” is seen in the hina and subjunctive clause, reflecting the potential result of such a fall into judgment. The same sort of warning closes the pericope: “But, it is also fitting to have a good testimony from non-Christians, so that he may not fall into the disgrace and snare of the Devil” (3:7).[37]

The section closes with a few similarities from within the pericope (3:1-7), in that a combination of an impersonal present active verb dei (lit. “it is necessary”) and the present active infinitive echein (lit. “to have”): “it is fitting to have.” The subject of the infinitive is the accusative “a good testimony” modified with the genitive of source “from non-Christians.” The point is, there is a certain fall out which results if these qualifications are not met.

The genitive of source is in contrast to the failures or work of the Devil, which depends upon how one reads tou diabolou in 3:6 and 7. In connection with 3:6-7, the genitive of tou diabolou shows there is a connection between the two “he may fall” statements and the Devil. What that connection may be is debated. The Devil may be the subject of the condemnation received from God or condemnation one endures at the hands of Satan (3:6).[38] It is read here with the former in mind; namely, in 3:6 the warning is against judgment as a result of arrogance. This is genitive of possession (“the Devil’s guilty verdict”) and it fits with the overall biblical context of the Devil’s standing before God (John 16:11).

In 3:7, there is a good reason to consider the genitive of agency or source. The context is of having a good testimony, which has its hindrances; namely, those which are done by or have their origin from tou diabolou (lit. “the adversary”). The Devil is ready to bring a shameful charge or a snare upon a would-be “guardian” to entrap him so that he falls. In both cases, the Devil stands as a warning to a prospective guardian. The Devil is the “poster child” for falling prey to arrogance, and in 3:7 stands as an ever-present enemy to those seeking to establish marturian kalen.

Concluding Thoughts

Jack P. Lewis once wrote, “Words create the patterns in which men think.”[39] It then follows that a reading and translation of this passage should help in this endeavor to think in the patterns Paul deems fitting regarding “guardians.” This reading of 1 Timothy 3:1-7 originates from a pressing need to explore the inner workings one of the two “complete” virtue lists in the New Testament for the “guardians of the church.”

The immediate context demonstrates Paul making a theological assertion about the leadership qualities of the “guardians” which reflect one who has restraint and conviction, steady relationships in the home and in the community, and is compassionate and genuine, a leader in the things which matter most in life and faith.

Endnotes

  1. Donald A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005). As Carson and Moo observe, “It comes as something of a surprise to realize that, apart from the Pastoral Epistles, the New Testament has very little to say about it (and with it does, it speaks of forms like the apostle or the prophet, which, at least in their narrowest definitions, have ceased to exist). It is accordingly important that 1 Timothy has so much to say about ministers —more, indeed, than has any other New Testament writing” (575). The same can be said for the episkopos.
  2. Everett Ferguson, The Church of Christ: A Biblical Ecclesiology for Today (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996), 323.
  3. Carson and Moo, An Introduction, 571.
  4. David A. Mappes, “Moral Virtues Associated with Eldership,” BSac 160 (April-June 2003): 211.
  5. There are many popular commentaries that outline 1 Timothy broadly then focus verse by verse. David Lipscomb and J. W. Shepherd, 1-2 Thessalonians, 1-2 Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, ed. J.W. Shepherd (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate, 1942), Wayne Jackson, Before I Die: Paul’s Letters to Timothy and Titus (Stockton, CA: Christian Courier Publications, 2007), Denny Petrillo, Commentary on 1, 2 Timothy (Abilene, TX: Quality Publications, 1998), Carl Spain, The Letters of Paul to Timothy and Titus (Austin, TX: Sweet Publishing, 1970), William E. Vine, “1 Timothy,” volume 3 of The Collected Writings of W.E. Vine (Nashville, Tenn.: Nelson, 1996).
  6. Gordon D. Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus (1988; repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2000), 79-83.
  7. J. W. Roberts, Letters to Timothy (Austin, TX: Sweet Publishing, 1961), Walter Lock, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (1924; repr., Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1959), Walter L. Liefeld, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1999).
  8. R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians, to the Thessalonians, to Timothy, to Titus, and to Philemon (1937; repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2001), 576.
  9. Archibald T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (1931; repr., Nashville, TN: Broadman, n.d.), 4:572. This is also how the editorial committee of the NA28 have rendered the paragraph.
  10. Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, 79. Herbert W. Smyth, A Greek Grammar for Colleges (New York, NY: American Book Company, 1920), par. 2297. Lock, Pastoral Epistles, 35.
  11. Spain, The Letters of Paul, 34-35.
  12. BDAG 721; Archibald T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (1923; repr., Nashville, TN: Broadman, 1934), 508.
  13. James A. Brooks and Carlton L. Winbery, Syntax of New Testament Greek (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1979). “Some verbs have a root idea (i.e. meaning) which is so closely related to the root idea of the genitive (i.e. description, definition) that they take their direct object in the genitive rather than the accusative case” (20).
  14. Archibald T. Robertson and W. Hersey Davis, A New Short Grammar of the Greek Testament, 10th ed. (1958; repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1979), 230; cf. Robertson, Grammar, 506.
  15. Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 132. Wallace advises not to make much out of this construction because it generally takes a genitive direct object.
  16. G. Adolf Deissmann, Bible Studies, trans. Alexander Grieve (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1901; repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1988), 230-31.
  17. James H. Moulton and George Milligan, Vocabulary of the Greek Testament Illustrated from the Papyri and Other Non-Literary Sources (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1914-1929; repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997), MM 244-45.
  18. BDAG 379.
  19. L&N 35.43.
  20. L&N 53.71. Barclay M. Newman, Jr., A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament, revised ed. (Stuttgart: German Bible Society, 1993). Newman provides the following glosses: “overseer, guardian, supervisor” (72).
  21. BDAG 214.
  22. Ernest De witt Burton, Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in New Testament Greek, 3rd ed. (1900; repr., Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel Publications, 1994), 153.
  23. Burton, Syntax, 153.
  24. Wallace, Greek Grammar, 451-52. Wallace goes on to say that it “is important to understand that normal force of the indicative mood is not thereby denied; rather, the assertion is simply in the desire, not the doing. Thus, this usage is really a subcategory of the declarative indicative” (451). This seems to be the force here and in 3:6 (dei de and echein).
  25. Robertson, Grammar, 1168-72.
  26. Harvey E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey. A Manuel Grammar of the Greek New Testament (1927; repr., New York, NY: Macmillan, 1957), 144. Stanley E. Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament, 2d ed. (1994; repr., London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2005). Porter calls this the “categorical” use of the article, whereby, the article makes a substantive represent a category of items (104-105).
  27. Ed Glasscock, “‘The Husband of one Wife’ Requirement in 1 Timothy 3:2.” BSac 140 (July-Sept. 1983): 244-58, Robert L. Saucy, “The Husband of One Wife.” BSac 131 (July-Sept. 1974): 229-40.
  28. Wallace, Greek Grammar, 86-88.
  29. Wallace, Greek Grammar, 79-81.
  30. Wallace, Greek Grammar, 81-83.
  31. J. W. Roberts, “Exegetical Helps,” ResQ 2.3 (1958): 128-131. Andreas J. Köstenberger, “Hermeneutical and Exegetical Challenges in Interpreting the Pastoral Epistles,” Entrusted with the Gospel: Paul’s Theology in the Pastoral Epistles, eds. Andreas J. Köstenberger and Terry L. Wilder (Nashville, TN: B&H, 2010), 1-27.
  32. MM 426.
  33. BDAG 672.
  34. Richard J. Goodrich and Albert L. Lukaszewski, A Reader’s Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2003), 459.
  35. BDAG 780.
  36. Ron Clark, “Family Management or Involvement? Paul’s Use of Proistemi in 1 Timothy 3 as a Requirement for Church Leadership,” Stone-Campbell Journal 9 (Fall 2006): 251.
  37. Newport J. D. White, EGT 4:114. There “is something blameworthy in a man’s character if the consensus of outside opinion be unfavorable to him; no matter how much he may be admired and respected by his own party.”
  38. White, EGT 4:114.
  39. Jack P. Lewis, Leadership Questions Confronting the Church (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate, 1985), 11-12.

Organizing God’s House in 1-2 Timothy and Titus

On By Jovan PayesIn Commentary, Ecclesiology, Exegesis, FHU, Freed-Hardeman University, Graduate Work, Greek Grammar, Interpretation, Leadership Ethics, New Testament, Pastoral Leadership, Paul's Letters2 Comments
college papers

The ekklesia of the Pastoral Epistles (PE) is a challenging study.[1] Part of its challenge is that the study is can be very quickly clouded by the assertions against Pauline authorship from interpreters which make large assumptions based upon a perceived problems with the way the organization of the church is detailed in the PE; and, although a majority of New Testament interpreters categorize the PE as pseudonymous, and deutero-Pauline, there are salient and thoughtful responses to such criticisms[2] against Pauline authorship.[3]

This particular investigation looks into the use of ekklesia in the 1-2 Timothy and Titus (PE) and seeks an understanding of how these letters articulate the organization of the church, and to present a preliminary conclusion of whether or not this reflects a post-Pauline setting.

Ekklesia in Perspective

To begin with, of the 114 instances of ekklesia in the New Testament Paul’s use of the term accounts for 62 (54.39%) of these, three of which are only in the PE (2.63%).[4] The word is used in both non-biblical and biblical contexts.[5] In its ordinary sense, it refers to “the popular assembly of the full citizens of the polis, or Greek city state” (Acts 19:32, 41).[6]

It is incorporated into Jewish theology through the Septuagint (LXX) frequently to translate the Hebrew term qahal.[7] It is found in references to the assembly of Israel during  “their desert wanderings.”[8] It also would describe “Israel when it assembled to hear the Word of God on Mt. Sinai, or later on Mt. Zion where all Israel was required to assemble three times a year.”[9] There was the assembly “of the Lord” (Deut 23:2), or “of the people of God” (Judges 20:2; Acts 7:38).[10] It seems proper to understand ekklesia, then, as a word which in many cases depicts an assembly of God’s people prepared to hear God’s Word (Matt 16:18).

Ekklesia in 1-2 Timothy and Titus

The first matter to discuss is the usage of ekklesia in the PE. The limits of the use of ekklesia in the PE perhaps underscore Luke T. Johnson’s concerns regarding certain tendencies in how “the three letters are invariably treated together as a group.” This tendency results in the “characterization” of the PE by “coalescing” their contents and in effect “dulls the perception of the individual letters.”[11] There must be an internal reason for this limited use of ekklesia in the PE. Despite the data and Johnson’s concern, the concepts associated with church life are interwoven throughout the PE, demonstrated by the fact that ministerial concerns are ultimately church concerns: “Keep a close watch on yourself and to the teaching. Remain in them, for by doing these things you will save both yourself and your hearers” (1 Tim 4:16).[12]

The three uses of ekklesia in 1 Timothy are found in 3:5, 15, and 5:16. These will be considered in the order of their appearance. 1 Timothy 3:5 is a parenthetical maxim: “but if someone does not know how to care for his own household [tou idiou tou idiou oikou], how will he take care of God’s church [ekklesias theou]?” Not much later, Paul writes, “but if I delay, that you might know how one ought to behave in the household of God [en oiko theou], which is the church of the living God [ekklesia theou zontos], the pillar and the foundation of truth” (3:15). At the end of the discussion regarding the ministry toward widows, Paul writes, “If any believing woman has widows, let her provide them help and do not let the church [he ekklesia] be burdened, in order that She (i.e. the church) may provide for the ones who are truly widows” (5:16).

1 Timothy 3:5 and 15 are the most closely linked together not only in proximity but also the way they are integrated into Paul’s argument for the expected conduct in the ekklesia (3:15). In 3:5, the care given in the guardian’s[13] “own home” reflects his capacity to care for the “household of God”; moreover, this very “household of God” bears the “characteristic quality” (hetis)[14] as “the church of the living God” (3:15). The syntax may be understood in a few a ways. These institutions may find their origin in God (ablative of source); or, the genitive reflects them as God’s possession, if not they are defined by their relationship with God.[15] In either case, what God creates He possesses and has a relationship with what is His (John 1:12).

While these three are legitimate grammatical options, contextually the contrast between the household of the guardian and the household of God lays the emphasis upon possession: “God’s household” and “the Living God’s church.” Hence, as George W. Knight, writes, the Christian life is to be lived out in “the home built and owned by God and indwelt by him as the living one.”[16]

In 5:16, the closing statement requires the care for widows and presents a prohibition against burdening “the church” unnecessarily (he ekklesia). This is the anaphoric use of the article, pointing back to 3:15, which implicitly suggests this is a reference to the local congregation.[17] “The church” is the same as “the church of the living God” for as K. L. Schmidt observes, “the words tou theou are implied even when they are not specifically added, just as basileia in the NT always means the basileia tou theou unless some earthly kingdom is expressly mentioned.”[18] This fits well with the context, where there is a strong distinction made between one’s responsibility to “one’s own household” (5:4) and “member of the family” (5:8) with the responsibility he ekklesia has to care for its members who are “genuine widows.”

Taking a wider view, the phrase ekklesia theou is found in connection of the work of guardians who function as shepherds in Acts 20:28; moreover, the phrase ekklesia theou is found in the so-called “genuine” Pauline letters (1 Cor 1:2, 10:32, 11:16, 22, 15:9; 2 Cor 1:1; Gal 1:13; 1 Thess 2:14) and “deutero-Pauline” references such as 2 Thessalonians 1:4.[19]

The exclusive use of ekklesia in 1 Timothy demonstrates a few things. First, ekklesia must be understood in its connection to the genitival theou, which here emphasizes God’s ownership of the church. Second, ekklesia theou is explanatory revealing the “characteristic quality” (hetis) of the household of God (oiko theou 3:15). Third, the genitival construction ekklesias theou is consistent with the so-called “genuine” letters of Paul. This is significant since it is a consistent Pauline phrase to describe the saints in Christ (2 Cor 1:1). Fourth, as the “household of God” the church is distinct from the household of the “guardians” (3:1b, 5) and of the “servants” (3:12), and of the Christian families who must care for their own households (5:1-16).

1 Timothy’s use of ekklesia then is bound within what this writer would describe as a concentric responsibility. Guardians, servants, and Christian families must take care of their own households as part requisite to serve in greater echelons of the household of God, the church of the living God. The household metaphor will be explored next since it is pervasive in the PE.

The “Household” in 1-2 Timothy and Titus

The second matter to consider is the church organizational structure found in the PE. Despite the limited use of the ekklesia various church leaders are discussed within the PE. In 1 Timothy and Titus there those who would take on “the responsibility of a guardian” (episkope; 1 Tim 3:1-7; Tit 1:5-9). Only 1 Timothy provides a virtue list for those who would be “servants” (deacons) in the church (3:8-13). There is an “enrollment of the widows” which may refer to an “order” of godly women who are supported by the church (1 Tim 5:1-16). Again, Johnson’s caution is reiterated that the PE are individual letters in spite of many overlapping features, and these distinctions must be respected. Nevertheless, the familiar Greco-Roman metaphor of “household” is evident throughout the PE and provides the organizing principle for churches in Ephesus and Crete.[20]

The “household” metaphor is significantly used throughout the PE. It is not without precedent that Paul uses metaphors (the body, the bride, the temple, etc.) to describe the interworking relationships of the church. David J. Williams introduces his research on metaphors in Pauline literature by calling attention to the literary fact that

metaphor is a way of presenting a truth that is wholly or partly unknown by likening it to something that is known to the person or persons under instruction. A metaphor is an aid to the perception of a truth (its intuitive recognition). It helps us to “get a handle” on a truth, but it does not necessarily furnish an explanation, certainly not a complete explanation, of the truth in question.[21]

In the Greco-Roman backdrop, the household metaphor lent itself to the political realm. According to P. H. Towner, the Roman emperor “came to be viewed as a father and the state as his household. And many functions or positions in relation to the state were derived from the ‘household’ root.”[22] As such, the metaphor of “household” would include derivative analogies such as immediate family members, slaves, freedmen, servants and laborers, and many other household personnel.

It is clear that “household” is an overarching metaphor Paul draws from in the PE. This is seen in the PE’s phrase, “how one ought to behave in God’s house” (1 Tim 3:15b). Paul does use the term “house” in his correspondences in the sense of one’s own home (1 Cor 11:22) and in the sense of where Christians meet (Rom 16:5; Phlm 2). Yet, it is in the metaphor of household that the PE develop the analogy of the church as “a social unit, made up of various members, each responsible to one another and ultimately to the householder.”[23]

This emphasis on household imagery could explain the omission of spiritual gifts as the connective tissues of church organization and leadership, which is a critical concern that some interpreters find to be evidence pointing against Pauline authorship. Therefore, if it is granted to Paul that the household metaphor better pointed out “truth” to his recipients then at the very least the viability of Pauline authorship cannot be dismissed lightly. Such criticisms, which centers on the PE’s use of non-Pauline metaphor for ekklesia, appears forced and arbitrary.

The household metaphor for the church organization, then, is developed in the PE in the following ways. In 2 Timothy 2:20-21 there is a brief comparison of the church to “a great house” (en megale oikia). Such a comparison suggests that the house must have various elements of worth. 1 Timothy 2:1-3:13 more emphatically develops that there are expectations in the household of God (3:15).[24]

Let us summarize a few points regarding expectations. First, 1 Timothy 2:1-15 develops the roles of the church as a whole (2:1-7), and gender role expectations in the assembly (2:8-15). Second, 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9 addresses the qualifications for the managerial and senior members of the household of God (guardians and elders). Moreover, Titus 1:7 calls the elder and guardian a “steward of God” (theou oikonomon), which refers to a member of the household who is entrusted with a task by the master of the household.[25] Third, 1 Timothy 3:8-13 provides a virtue list for servants (diakonous) who function in various roles in a household. In this connection, Timothy himself is described as a diakonos Christou Iesou who later on is called to fulfill his work as an evangelist (2 Tim 4:5).[26] Fourth, there is the familial treatment between Christian “siblings” and the care of widows as members of the household of God (1 Tim 5:1-16). Timothy and Titus are both regarded as a “true child” (1 Tim 1:2; Tit 1:4), and Timothy is also described as “beloved child” (2 Tim 1:2).

Does this Fit with Paul’s Authorship?

With the evaluation of much of the internal evidence of the PE, it must be considered whether the picture of the church is of such a state that it weighs against Pauline authorship. The use of the household metaphor for organizing “the church of the living God” in the PE is pervasive, providing analogies for every ministry of ekklesia; moreover, it is all inclusive with specific guidelines for the various ministries considered.

Gerd Theissen, however, argues that “the notions of the community are not very Pauline. The image of the body of Christ in which all members have equal rights is absent.”[27] Quite to the contrary, the “notions of community” in the PE are every bit as comparable to so-called “authentic” Pauline teaching of the body of Christ. In Romans 12:3-8 the body of Christ is filled with many members with differing gifts. Paul writes the gifts are given “each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned” (3 ESV), and “so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another” (5 ESV).

Furthermore, in 1 Corinthians 12 Paul makes a similar argument. All the spiritual gifts are from a single source, but every Christian has a different ministry: “there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit” (4 ESV).  In this context, Paul raises the issue of church leadership: “Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles?” (29 ESV).

There appeared to be equal opportunities to serve but different areas of ministry based upon the will of God. This is precisely how the household metaphor presents ministry in the PE. Such evidence ought to reduce the weight of observations like those of Theissen who reject Paul’s authorship on the belief that the community in the PE is inconsistent with the so-called “authentic” letters of the apostle.

Some Conclusions

The conclusions drawn here are preliminary, but they lean toward a realization that each letter in the PE must be respected for their individual contribution and voice. Yet, for the focus given to individual church leaders (Timothy and Titus) and their concerns for conduct in the household of God, there is a commonality between them which can be evaluated in unison. There are three preliminary conclusion which can be made at this time.

First, the limited data of the use of ekklesia in the PE demonstrates that 1 Tim has particular expectations for its members to understand the difference between one’s own household and God’s household. This clearly suggests a rebuke and an attempt to recalibrate the Christian behavior. Titus and 2 Timothy apparently had different church concerns.

Second, the church organization revealed in the PE is quite clearly patterned after the metaphor of “household” with God as the master. In employing this metaphor, the PE reveals that leadership roles are subject to God’s prerogative to entrust a task for His household servants. Timothy and Titus along with the other leaders and servants appear cooperative; there does not appear to be a portrayal of a second century monarchical type of hierarchy as in Clement of Rome and Ignatius.[28]

Finally, the criticism that the PE “office holders” have replaced a “charismatic-functional church structure”[29] overlooks the pervasive and organic nature of the “household” organizing principle, and upon closer look reflects similar levels of diversity of ministries and personnel.

Endnotes

  1. Pastoral Epistles (PE) will be used throughout this essay. There is some objection raised as to the use of this nomenclature due to the correct view that neither Timothy nor Titus are pastors in the modern sense. However, Paul does address the qualifications for the episkopos, the overseers, or the guardians of the church; so, in this sense as documents which speak to this office these letters are viewed as pastoral, if not episcopal, in the New Testament sense.
  2. The internal areas of discussion are fourfold: the historical problem of fitting the PE into the historical scheme of Acts and the Pauline corpus, the connection between church organization in the PE and second century church organization, the distinct style of the PE and its unfamiliar robust vocabulary, and the dissimilar use of Pauline theological terms and lack of common doctrinal concerns.
  3. Donald A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005), 554-68; Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 4th ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1990), 612-36; a centrist, Luke Timothy Johnson and Todd C. Penner, The Writings of the New Testament: An Interpretation, rev. ed. (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1999), 424-28.
  4. Peter T. O’Brien, “Church,” DPL 124. Cognates of ekklesia are used throughout in 1 Timothy (6:12) and 2 Timothy (1:9; 2:20, 22), but they are not used in Titus.
  5. “ekklesia,” BDAG 303-04.
  6. O’Brien, “Church,” 123.
  7. O’Brien, “Church,” 124; Karl Ludwig Schmidt, “ekklesia,” TDNT 3:527; BDAG 303.
  8. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Pauline Theology: A Brief Sketch (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1967), 76.
  9. O’Brien, “Church,” 124.
  10. See also the assemblies in 1 Kgs 8:55 and 1 Chr 29:10; interestingly, the Hebrew writer speaks of the redeemed in a similar way (Heb 12:22-24).
  11. Johnson and Penner, The Writings of the New Testament, 424.
  12. Unless otherwise noted all translations are those of the author.
  13. “episkopos,” L&N 35:43.
  14. “hostis, hetis, hoti,” BDAG 729.
  15. Boyce W. Blackwelder, Light from the Greek New Testament (1958; repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Hook House, 1976), 131; James A. Brooks and Carlton L. Winbery, Syntax of New Testament Greek (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1979), 8-9, 23
  16. George W. Knight, III, The Pastoral Epistles (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1992; repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2013), 181-82.
  17. Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 217-20.
  18. Schmidt, “episkopos,” TDNT 3:507.
  19. Blackwelder, Light from the Greek New Testament, 131; Charles B. Cousar, The Letters of Paul (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1996), 89-90, 163-80.
  20. Cousar, Letters of Paul, 178, 202.
  21. David J. Williams, Paul’s Metaphors: Their Context and Character (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999; repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004), 1. Williams sees the use of “household of God” (oiko theou) as a probable metaphor for the church in 1 Tim 3:5 and 15, and he compares this with the “household of faith” in Galatians 6:10 (30).
  22. Philip H. Towner, “Households and Household Codes,” DPL 417.
  23. Towner, “Households and Household Codes,” 418.
  24. Cousar, Letters of Paul, 202; Towner, “Households and Household Codes,” 418.
  25. “oikonomos,” BDAG 698.
  26. This is of particular importance since Timothy is thought of as a type of monarchial bishop from the second century. Neither Timothy nor Titus are so named.
  27. Gerd Theissen, Fortress Introduction to the New Testament, trans. John Bowden (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2003), 136.
  28. Howard Lee Kee, Understanding the New Testament, 4th ed. (Englewood, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1983), 315. Although Kee rejects Pauline authorship, he does concede that there is “no hint” of a single bishop in a city or territory with central authority over the Church in the PE.
  29. Udo Schnelle, The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings, trans. M. Eugene Boring (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1998), 330; trans. of Einleitung in das Neue Testament (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994).

Philippians 4:13: Did Paul Write “Christ”?

On By Jovan PayesIn Christology, Essays, Exegesis, Greek Grammar, New Testament, Philippians, Technical Studies, Textual Criticism1 Comment

As the apostle Paul closes his immediate words acknowledging a recent gift from the Philippians (Phil 4:10-12), Paul interweaves a statement which transcends gifts and the encouragement to endure that they provide. In Philippians 4:13, Paul’s words read, “I can do all things through…”[1]

It ellipses into a scene from a role playing game. At this point, the verse breaks out into three possibilities (variant readings) as to how the verse ends. The first two are represented by mainline translations, but the third is my translation (AT) since there are none that I am aware of to represent it:

(A) I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me. (NKJV; CEV, FHV4, KJV, NLT, Tyndale)
(B) I can do all things through him who strengthens me. (ESV; ASV, Barclay, CEB, HCSB, NASB95, NET, NIV, NRSV, Phillips, RSV, Weymouth, Wycliffe)
(C) I can be able to do all things through Christ. (AT)

In truth, Paul’s point is transparent regardless of the textual problem. In them, Paul, at bottom line, concludes his statement with a powerful declaration that “Christ/God gives me the strength to face anything.” Yet, at times questions are asked as to why a translation has this word or is missing that word, so this aspect of the text will be explored here.[2]

So here, in this note, we are not so concerned with the sense of the passage than we are with the original wording of the passage. For while these variants are theologically harmonious, they differ but in two ways; case in point, did Paul label Christ as his enabler, or did he leave it undefined for a reason? Let us consider the textual question, then attempt to put the most probable words in context.

Don’t Get Jittery, We Love the Bible

Every early Sesame Street kid remembers the lyrics: “Three of these things are kind of the same; Can you guess which one of these doesn’t belong here?” Sometimes when the topic of textual criticism emerges upon the scene of our faith it feels so flippant and cruel. “You mean to tell me that it was God’s Word in the time of my grandma but now ‘scholars’ know [sarcasm] it isn’t.”

But the study and search for the earliest wording of the biblical text is an act of devotion to God’s word and not some academic display of nerdiness. While there are areas of subjectivity to the evaluation process of the textual variants, so much as been done to minimize them as much as possible.

Why? Because for the most part textual criticism shows a love for the Bible. So in the words of the late Dr. Dowell Flatt, let us be clear that the search for the earliest wording of the biblical text is not (1) a liberal versus conservative issue, (2) a high view versus a low view of inspiration debate, nor is it (3) a study of the varied English versions, or (4) a study of what the providence of God should have done or not done.[3]

However, variants make it necessary to “arrive at nearest thing we can have to that which” is God-breathed;[4] “it is, after all, somewhat difficult to study or interpret a document accurately unless one first knows exactly what the document says.”[5] This is, then, a necessary element of biblical interpretation.

How can one explain the text if there is an uncertainty in the wording of the text? Unfortunately, the everyday student of the Scriptures (versus someone like an academically trained student of the Scriptures) rarely walks through these ancient halls and so it becomes something of a mystery. It does not need to be so.

An Evaluation of the Textual Variants

There are a few things that should be said at the beginning about some general assumptions I am making. There are more refined treatments of this subject to be sure,[6] but these will at least give some reason for the approach taken here.

First, this evaluation is based upon the premise that (within reasonable limits) the closer a manuscript is in age to the timeframe of its composition, then the more probable it is that it represents its autographic wording (i.e. original wording). The closer one is to the source it is typically regarded more pure.

Second, wide geographic distribution is a vastly important consideration of the evidence,[7] but it is not as weighty as the date of the manuscript evidence. For example, a reading may have a significantly wide geographic distribution, but if an earlier reading exists also having a wide distribution, then (all things being equal) the oldest reading is more probable to be the autographic wording.

Third, in most cases one must consider what is the variant which is the hardest to explain and would be most likely create a need to correct or clarify a difficult reading. Sometimes, for example, the shorter reading is taken to be the most probable reading since variations are often additions rather than deletions.

There are many exceptions to these general assumptions, but these are laid out in full disclosure. Let us, then, turn to the three textual variants of Philippians 4:13b.

From the Least Likely to the Best Supported

First, the (C) variant has the weakest evidence to be the probable reading of the early text of Philippians 4:13. It is only mentioned in the UBS4 textual apparatus.

The only manuscript supporting this reading in the apparatus is from the twelfth to thirteenth century (minuscule 1573). This variant can be easily dismissed due to its weak and late support, but it is an interesting combination of the next two variants. It is also weak since because variants (A) and (B) are more difficult to explain than the (C) variant.[8]

Second, the (A) variant is perhaps the most well-known among the three to the English reader. This is due in large part to the influence and dominance of the King James/Authorize Version tradition (1611). It is well known and it clearly establishes the source of Paul’s endurance – Christ.

I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.

Manuscripts. The strongest manuscript evidence is seen in second hand “corrections” to the text of both Aleph (4th century) and Claromontanus (6th century). Yet, since they are second corrections the Christo notes are from about 7th century (Aleph) and 9th century (Claromontanus) respectively.[9] Despite support in the later Byzantine text (Byz) and in church lectionary readings (Lect), the reading is found in the ancient versions of the Syrian Peshitta (5th century) and Ethiopian tradition (6th century).

The evidence in the early church leaders (i.e. Church Fathers) is mixed. The mid-4th century finds roughly about half of Eusebius’s manuscripts which include “Christ,” and several late 4th and early 5th century Greek writers with verifiable references to 4:13 (Basil, Gregory, Chrysostom, Cyril, Theodore in latin). Four-fifths of Jerome’s unstable Latin text (419-20) and Paulinus-Nola (481) are witnesses of the Latin church. 

Distribution. While this variant has a wide geographic distribution among its witnesses (Western, Alexandrian, Byz), the strongest and earliest examples are substantially late and statistically problematic. David A. Black calls us to be open-minded to the possibility that “a later MS may preserve an early reading. It is the date of the reading and not of the MS, that is important.”[10] Still, the strength of this variant reading is its wide geographic distribution.

Probabilities. The earliest witnesses for this reading come from ancient translations and quotations from church leaders in both the Latin and Greek church and are omitted in the body of earlier Greek manuscripts. Instead, they exist in much later corrections notes. This leads to the probability that the reading emerged as “a later addition for the sake of clarity,” perhaps due to influential church leaders and the lectionaries harmonizing Philippians 4:13 with other passages with similar wording (2 Tim 4:17 and Eph 6:10).[11]

In other words, the reading emerged to identify the one who strengthens Paul and all subsequent Christians. Further, as Metzger observes, “If the word [Christo] had been present in the original text, there would have been no reason to omit it.”[12] One would more likely need to explain the “elusiveness” of the text rather than to delete Christ from the verse, as such, it would be a “predictable” variant.[13]

Third, on the whole, the evidence for the (B) variant is decidedly better to be the wording of the earliest text of verse 13. It’s vagueness better explains (A) and (C) because it is the most difficult reading between the three.

I can do all things through him who strengthens me.

Manuscripts. This reading has a strong representation from the manuscripts regarded as the most reliable witnesses of the New Testament. They date from the 4th century (Aleph*,[14] Vaticanus) and the fifth century (Alexandrinus). Also, it is represented in the fragmented Freerianus (5th century) and the Claromontanus (D* 6th century) manuscripts.

It is also represented by early third-century text of Clement of Alexandria (before 215). It is insightful that statistically there are alternative texts among fourth-century church leaders Eusebius (1/3) and Didymus (1/3) with this reading. This shows a similar instability of their texts which include variant (A) above. Still, various fourth and fifth-century witnesses to this reading are from Latin church leaders.

Distribution. Witnesses to this reading are geographically broad. It is found in Alexandria and Western manuscripts to eastern translations (Armenian, Vulgate, Coptic), and as far West as Britain (Pelagius after 418). This distribution weighs stronger for the (B) variant due not only to its distribution but also due to its earlier witness.

Probabilities. The evidence of the manuscripts and early church leaders indicates strongly that this variation is older and is in the best position to explain variants (A) and (C). The later “scribes” understood Paul’s intent to be Christo (“Christ”), no doubt because Paul, as Gerald Hawthorne observes, “paradoxically gained all by losing all for Christ; he who longed to know Christ and the power of his resurrection (3:7-10), and so on, could only envision Christ as his true source of inner strength.”[15]

So we conclude here that the text reads, “I can do all things through him who strengthens me” (ESV). The evidence above explains why the majority of modern translation have the “unspecified” reading in the body of their texts (ASV, Barclay, CEB, HCSB, NASB95, NET, NIV, NRSV, Phillips, RSV, Weymouth, Wycliffe). So if this is the text, who then is “the one who strengthens” Paul?

So Why the Vagueness Paul?

Let us start with a verb. The verb endunamao used in Philippians 4:13 (“I make strong”) is used approximately 7 times in the New Testament, the majority of time by Paul (Rom 4:20; Eph 6:10; 1 Tim 1:12; 2 Tim 2:1, 4:17). The balance is one reference about Paul gaining strength as an early Christian (Acts 9:22) and those whom the world was not worthy due to their faith (Heb 11:34). The verb itself is part of a larger word family (based on the duna- stem),[16] but we will limit ourselves to endunamao.

Abraham, Paul argues, “grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God” (Rom 4:20). Before Timothy, Paul evokes in prayer “him who has given me strength, Christ Jesus our Lord” (1 Tim 1:12). In his last letter, Paul both encourages Timothy and acknowledges the role of “the grace that is in Christ Jesus” and “the Lord [who] stood by” has in their lives to strengthen them (2 Tim 2:1, 4:17). Moreover, in Ephesians Paul empowers his readers with, “Finally be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might” (Eph 6:10). The title “Lord” (kurios) is predominately a title for Christ Jesus in the letter.

Aside from Paul’s discussion of Abraham’s faith in Romans, Paul is clear to connect the empowering force in his life with the Lord Jesus Christ, his grace, and God his Father. This leaves us with Philippians 4:13b and its “vagueness.” The phrase, “the one who strengthens me,” requires explanation – who is that?

The truth is that Paul was not vague, elusive, or unspecific. Paul was perfectly clear. The articular particple (to endunamounte) points back to the “Lord” (kurios) in 4:10a. Again, consistent with Paul’s use in Ephesians, “Lord” (kurios) is used throughout the Philippian letter for “Jesus Christ” (Phil 1:1; 3:20). There is perhaps no greater example in Philippians that “Lord” refers to Jesus than 2:11: “every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”

In the immediate context of 4:13b, Paul already expresses his great joy to be “in the Lord” (4:10; 3:1). Paul repeats this locative phrase “in the Lord” several times in Philippians (1:14; 2:19, 24, 29; 3:1, 4:1-2, 4) and such a phrase is unique to Paul. It is one of those phrases that he seems to have just made up to convey a Christian concept where the Lord Jesus’ presence dwells within – an immanent Christian context.[17] “In the Lord” means, then, “Jesus is here” or “in the presence of Jesus.”

So contextually, “the one who strengthens me” (4:13b) goes back to the presence of Jesus (“in the Lord”) in 4:10a and it is obvious that this is Paul’s intended meaning, even though it is not Paul’s words. But why the so-called “vagueness”? Perhaps it is simply a matter of style or syntax convention.

Consider one example along these lines. In Philippians 1:6, there is a similar example of a “vague” articular participle, “he who began a good work in you…” The context begins with “God” (1:3). “God our Father” is always connected to the work of Jesus Christ (1:1). Even in the context of 4:10-13, Paul calls upon God to “supply every need” of the Philippians “according to this riches in glory in Christ Jesus” (4:19) as part of his gratitude for their gift (4:18). But it is God who is the source of our salvation (1:28) and the exaltation of the Lord Jesus (2:9). It is God who consummates the work He begins in His children at the day of Christ (2:13-16).

So contextually, the “vague” articular participle, “he who began a good work in you,” goes back to “God” in 1:3. This is a parallel to 4:13b and leads me to conclude that Paul is not being vague, elusive, or unspecific.

In both cases, Paul leads with God or the Lord, then references back with an articular participle. It is God “who began a good work in you” (1:6) and it is the Lord through whom Paul can “do all things” (4:13). These participles are functioning as anaphoric abstract adjectives for God and for the Lord.[18] In other words, it points back up the text and to a previous referent (God, Lord).

Concluding Words

In seeking an answer to the textual variant in the Greek text of Philippians 4:13b, we walked through some history of the text in the early church. Christians seem to have needed a stronger sense of the one through whom Paul was empowered to endure all things. Was it a slip of the pen? Was it a theological harmonization with other passages using so many similar words? Hard to say.

But the history of the text shows a few things. Theologically, the variant is insignificant because all three variant readings are essentially harmonious. They say the same thing just with a difference in nuance.

Still the question remains: why so vague Paul? The answer is most likely a matter of convention. It is not that Paul is purposely elusive as if he wishes the Philippians to guess. We see a parallel in 1:6 and 4:13 using the articular participle to tell us more about God and Jesus.

So what Paul wants his readers to know is that Jesus is here, in his life, manifesting the power of the resurrection and it gives Paul (1) insight to be content in the face of real challenges and (2) the capacity to endure all things that come his way (Phil 3:7-11, 4:10-13). This is the grace and source of strength for all those whose citizenship is in heaven (Phil 3:20).

References

  1. The Greek texts and apparatuses used are the following: (NA28) Barbara Aland, et al., eds. Novum Testamentum Graece, 28th ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012); (UBS5) Barbara Aland, et al., eds. The Greek New Testament, 5th revised ed. (Germany: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2014).
  2. Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2d ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2001), 11*; Jack P. Lewis, Questions You’ve Asked about Bible Translations (Searcy, AR: Resource Publications, 1991), 91; David Alan Black, “Textual Criticism of the New Testament,” Foundations for Biblical Interpretation, eds. David S. Dockery, et al. (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1994), 396-97.
  3. Dowell Flatt, “Can We Be Certain of the Text? —New Testament,” in
    God’s Word for Today’s World: The Biblical Doctrine of Scripture,
    eds. Don Jackson, et. al (Kusciusko, MI: Magnolia Bible College, 1986), 103-04.
  4. Lewis, Questions You’ve Asked about Bible Translations, 100.
  5. Michael W. Holmes, “Textual Criticism,” Interpreting the New Testament: Essays on Methods and Issues, eds. David Alan Black and David S. Dockery (Nashville, TN: B&H, 2001), 46.
  6. Black, “Textual Criticism of the New Testament,” 396-413; J. Harold Greenlee, Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism, revised ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964; repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999); Michael W. Holmes, “Textual Criticism,” 46-73; Frank Pack, “New Testament Textual Criticism,” Biblical Interpretation Principles and Practice: Studies in Honor of Jack Pearl Lewis, eds. F. Furman Kearley, et al. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1986), 214-25.
  7. “A geographically widespread reading is more likely to be original than a reading preserved in only one locale” (Black, “Textual Criticism of the New Testament,” 404).
  8. Metzger, A Textual Commentary, 13*-14*.
  9. NA28, 59*.
  10. Black, “Textual Criticism of the New Testament,” 404.
  11. Jacobus Johannes Müller, The Epistles of Paul to the Philippians and to Philemon (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1955), 147; Archibald T. Robertson, Paul’s Joy in Christ: Studies in Philippians (New York, NY: Revell, 1917), 256; Alfred Plummer, A Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians (London: Roxburghe, 1919), 102; Frederick F. Bruce, Philippians (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002), 151. Compare this variant of Philippians 4:13 (to endunamounti me Christo) with (a) 1 Timothy 1:12, endunamosanti me Christo Iesou, (b) 2 Timothy 4:17, endunamosen me, and (c) Ephesians 6:10, enedunamousthe en kurio.
  12. Metzger, Textual Commentary, 550.
  13. After evaluating the variants, the footnote in NET Bible has this comment: “But this kind of reading is patently secondary, and is a predictable variant. Further, the shorter reading is much harder, for it leaves the agent unspecified.”
  14. The * in Aleph* and D* (Claromontanus*) refers to the original hand of a given manuscript. That is to say, it is the reading in the main body of the manuscript text, versus a correction of the text in the margins.
  15. Gerald F. Hawthorne, Philippians (Nashville, TN: Nelson, 1983), 201; William Hendrickson agrees (Exposition of Philippians [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1962], 206); Handley C. G. Moule labels this variation (A) “a true ‘gloss’” (Studies in Philippians [1893; repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 1977], 118).
  16. Walter Grundmann, “dunamai, et al.,” TDNT 2:284-317.
  17. Albrecht Oepke, “en,” TDNT 2:541. Albrecht Oepke observes that en kurio is a formula that is “not found prior to Paul” and is “rare outside the Pauline corpus.” In fact, Oepke speculates that not only is this formula “peculiar to Paul,” but that such constructions perhaps find origin with him. The phrase en kurio “characterizes an activity or state as Christian.”
  18. Daniel B. Wallace, The Basics of New Testament Syntax: An Intermediate Greek Grammar (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000), 98-104.

Devotional: Remember, God is Faithful and Righteous (1 John 1:9)

On By Jovan PayesIn 1 John, Articles, Devotional, Discipleship, Grace, New Testament, Perspective

But if we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous, forgiving us our sins and cleansing us from all unrighteousness. (New English Translation)[1]

“I never get it right.” “I feel like such a failure.” Ever say this to yourself with respect to your Christian relationship with God? You are not alone; in fact, you are not alone in more ways than this sense of moral and spiritual frustration. But, I’m jumping the gun a little; so read on.

The apostle John writes these words to a group of Christians that are actually having the opposite problem. As hard as it may be to believe, this letter was written to remind Christians that admission of spiritual and moral failures (sin) is actually a mark of faithfulness. Some had become so misguided to believe that how a person lives does not affect their relationship with God.

But the apostle of love reminds them that living in denial is actually lying (1:6), self-deception (1:8), and an outright attack upon God’s integrity (1:10). All this is a reflection of human arrogance, and as such reflects a life lived in darkness (1:6). It appears, then, that when we try to cover up our moral and spiritual failures, weaknesses, and limitations, we are in fact covering up our dependence upon a faithful and just God.

Growing up in San Francisco, I would often look out into the bay and see sailboats. Sometimes, if close to the breakers I can even see windsurfers speeding along. A sailboat depends upon the wind in its sail to propel it upon its nautical journey. Would it not be the most ridiculous thing for the captain of the vessel to say, “I do not need the wind!” Stuck in the bay would be his lot. For that matter, ask a windsurfer how important wind is to her endeavors. The matter is equally obvious.

The Christians who first read these words were struggling with a teaching that encouraged a sense of arrogance about their lifestyle, that they were not accountable for their decisions; however, today, many Christians are afflicted with an unbalanced sense of guilt for their past sins, and for those more current, to the point where they judge themselves beyond the borders of God’s continued forgiveness.

In putting these early Christians in their place, John gives all Christians in every generation the truth that consoles the self-afflicted: God is faithful – despite our sins – and He will not abandon His children should they approach Him confessing sin, seeking forgiveness. Forgiveness is a privilege of “sonship”; and as such restores us in conscience and service by the cleansing power of God as he imparts to us the righteousness that is not our own (Phil 3:9).

Knowing this, let us remember our shortcomings are a reminder that we are not always faithful and just – but God is. It is the faithfulness of God that should give us confidence and joy in the face of our spiritual struggles. If he prepared to forgive us initially through Christ, shall he not also keep us in spite of our sins through Him as well? The answer is obvious.

Hymn: Faithful Love

Source

  1. New English Translation of the Holy Bible, Bible.org (Bible Studies Press, 2005).

Sonship, Spiritual Formation, and Eschatology: A Reading of Romans 8:12-17

On By Jovan PayesIn 2014, Discipleship, Essays, Exegesis, Freed-Hardeman University, Graduate Work, New Testament, Paul's Letters, Romans, Technical Studies, Translation
college papers

The initial basis for looking into Romans 8:12-17 was due to an interest in Paul’s use of “adoption” (huiothesia) in his Christian application of a legal technical term. Paul’s use of the term is not limited to Romans (8:15, 23; 9:4) for it is also found in the letters to the Galatian (4:5) and the Ephesian (1:5) Christians. This is the combined data of Paul’s use of the term in particular and in the New Testament in general.

In Romans 8:15 Paul assures his readers that they had received “a spirit of adoption”; similarly, but with a different nuance, in Galatians 4:5 Paul writes of an “adoption” dependent upon the redemptive work of Jesus as he frees those under the law (4:4). In Ephesians, Paul again establishes the connection between “adoption” and Jesus; specifically, the saints are to understand their “adoption” was preordained and accomplished through Jesus (1:5). However, in Romans 8:23 “adoption” is something yet to come when the body will be delivered. Lastly, Romans 9:4 calls attention to the fact that “adoption” is a possession of the Israelites along with “the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises” (cf. Exod 4:22).

It appears that “adoption” is an important term in Paul’s argumentation in Romans to explain sonship which belonged to Israel “according to the flesh” (9:5), but belongs also to “the children of the promise” (9:8). Nevertheless, the limited use of huiothesia demonstrates that “adoption” has a specialized context of application and is not widely used by other New Testament authors. Although huiothesia holds a striking image which reflects the full inclusion of the Christian into the family of God with all its benefits, a reading of Romans 8:12-17 demonstrates that “sonship” (huiothesia, huioi theou, tekna theou) requires spiritual formation (8:13) with a view to a joint glorification with Jesus (8:17).

There are many subordinate points to be sure; however, these three generalizations serve as a critical bridge to carry Paul’s argument further from Romans 8:1-11 to 8:18 which continues a discussion about living in the spirit (contra kata sarka 8:5) and anticipating a “glory that is to be revealed to us.” These points will be borne out in the translation and reading prepared below.

Translation of Romans 8:12-17

[12] So then, brothers, we are not debtors to the flesh (namely, to live according to the flesh). [13] For if you live according to the flesh then you are destined to die, but if you put to death, by the Spirit, the deeds of the body, then you will keep yourself alive. [14] For all who are led by God’s Spirit, these are God’s sons. [15] For you have not received again a spirit of slavery towards fearfulness, but you received a spirit of adoption in which we cry out: “Abba-Father!” [16] The Spirit testifies along with our spirit that we are God’s children, [17] and if we are children, then we are heirs as well –on the one hand, God’s heirs, and on the other hand, joint heirs with Christ– if, after all, we suffer together in order that we may share in glory.

Exegesis and Reading of Romans 8:12-17

According to the 28th edition of the Nestle-Aland text, Paul begins this with the strengthened phrase Ara oun (“so then”), which is a combination of two “inferential conjunctions”[1] designed to link it with the preceding rhetoric written against living kata sarka. In Romans, Ti oun (3:1, 9; 4:1; 6:1, 15; 7:7, 13; 8:31; 9:14) or oun (5:1; 6:12; 11:1, 11; 12:1) are used to string large sections of questions and rhetoric along;[2] moreover, ara appears in the letter in its basic function as an inferential particle (“So” 7:21; “therefore” 8:1).[3]

Interestingly, Ara oun marks significant shifts to capture both the inference and the transition in the text (5:18; 7:3, 25b; 8:12; 9:16, 18; 14:12, 19).[4] Consequently, Paul is doing two things in 8:12. He is affirming an inference while transitioning his argument forward to oppose living kata sarka: “brothers, we are not debtors to the flesh (namely, to live according to the flesh)” (8:12).[5]

In reading opheiletai esmen ou te sarki Paul’s main point is established; namely, “we are not debtors with reference to the flesh.” Daniel B. Wallace states that opheiletai is a verbal-noun of personal interest formed from its cognate verb opheilo (“I owe”) which requires the dative to complete its thought (te sarki); moreover, te sarki also limits the state of the subject and verb (“we are not debtors”) which suggests this is a Dative of Reference, or Dative of Respect.[6] The next clause tou kata sarka zen is translated parenthetically because it appears best understood epexegetically.

Stanley E. Porter makes two helpful points. First, Porter writes, “when an infinitive is used as part of a prepositional phrase, this syntactical construction must be taken seriously.” Second, when the infinitive follows tou it may function “epexegetical or appositional.”[7] Since the infinitive draws out the meaning of “we are not debtors to with reference to the flesh,” it seems best to regard it epexegetical and parenthetical. This is in complete accord with his argument in Romans 8:5-8.

At this point the reader is directed (gar) to a series of cohesive conditional statements, marked off with ei, which portray the curse of living according to the flesh (8:13a) and the blessing received when led by the Spirit of God (i.e. spiritual formation; 8:13b-15). It is important to rehearse that conditional statements are two clauses which are combined to portray a contingency; they are not necessarily portrayals of reality.[8]

Usually, the first clause contains the contingency under consideration (protasis); meanwhile, the second clause is a statement – the portrayal – about what will happen, or not happen, should the contingent action occur (apodosis). In 8:13a, then, ei… kata sarka zete, mellete apothneskein, is a portrayal of the contingent curse upon unfaithful Christians: “if you live according to the flesh” (contingent), then “you are destined to die” (portrayal). There exists a cause and effect relationship portrayed in this conditional statement: death will occur if one lives fleshly. Wallace debates the idea of whether this should be viewed exclusively spiritual or literal. Although he is probably right to lean towards a literal view, this is not a grammatical question. Nevertheless, sin is accompanied with both a physical and spiritual curse of death (Gen 3:3; Rom 5:12, 6:23).

In Romans 8:13b, the text reads: ei de pneumati tas praxeis tou somatos[9] thanatoute, zesesthe. The de provides a hint that the forthcoming text is adversative but not so strong it is unrelated to the previous words. This is quite helpful, since the contingency under consideration, “if you put to death, by the Spirit, the deeds of the body,” is designed to counter life kata sarka. The verb thanatoute (“you [pl.] put to death”) is an active verb, which is significant for an understanding of how the dative pneumati functions in the apodosis. Initially, one must consider if the Dative is of Agency or of Means.

There is a key to distinguish between the two, though both, as Porter observes, “label a relationship by which (normally) a thing (and occasionally a person) brings about or enters into an action with respect to something else.”[10] The main key is found in the verb thanatoute, being a present active verb, which places the burden of the action (“I kill”) upon Paul’s readers not upon the Spirit. In order for the dative pneumati to be a “clear” grammatical demonstration of agency, Wallace states the verb must be perfect passive.[11] The protasis reads, then, “if you put to death, by means of the Spirit, the deeds of the body.” As in the previous conditional statement (13a), there is no structural marker establishing the “then” clause (apodosis); however, the semantics of the construction is obvious. The middle verb Zesesthe completes the “if-then” clause, portraying the effect: “you will keep yourself alive.” The reader should understand there is a cause and effect relationship portrayed in this conditional statement: The Christian’s life will be kept, if the Christian employs the instrumentality of the Spirit to kill off the body’s “sinful” actions. Clearly the Christian participates in their spiritual formation when they embrace the life-giving relationship of the Spirit.[12]

The reader is directed (gar) again to a series of cohesive statements (8:14-15) which provide reassurance to Christians regarding their inclusion into the Father’s family. Verse 14 appears to be an implied conditional statement since the grammatical markers are lacking to introduce the contingent clause.[13] If this is the case, there may be an ambiguity which is at play in the text. The verse reads: hosoi gar pneumati theou agontai, houtoi huioi theou eisin (“for all who are led by God’s Spirit, these are God’s sons”). In the assumption of an implied contingency, “If you are all led by God’s Spirit,” is followed by, “then, you are God’s sons.” Or, as Wallace states the converse, “If you are the sons of God, you are led by the Spirit.”[14] In either case, what is at the core in this implied contingency is spiritual formation (as “sons of God”) not conversion.

Moses E. Lard, taking eisin in a durative sense, translates and observes: “these remain sons of God. For the Apostle is not speaking of originally becoming sons, but of continuing such.”[15] The means by which this occurs is stated in the present passive + Dative of Means clause, pneumati theou agontai. The agent of Christian spiritual formation is, then, God’s Spirit – not the deeds of the body (tas praxeis tou somatos) or the flesh (sarka).

In verse 15, then, Paul extends (gar) this argument to further intertwine spiritual formation with the assurance of sonship: ou gar elabete pneuma douleias palin eis phobon alla elabete pneuma huiothesias en ho kradzomen: abba ho pater (“For you have not receive again a spirit of slavery towards fearfulness, but you received a spirit of adoption in which we cry out: Abba-Father”). In both cases of the aorist active elabete, the verb functions in a culminative sense (resultative, perfective, effective aorist), which places a “slight emphasis” upon “the conclusion or the results of the completed action.”[16]

Particularly is this true with verbs having roots which “signify effort or attempt or intention or process, and it indicates the completion or attainment of such things.”[17] In the first instance, elabete is modified by the negative particle ou and the adverb palin; whereas pneuma douleias is the condition (“benefit”) not received.[18] On the contrary (alla), Paul affirms the conclusive nature of what they have received: pneuma huiothesias. This is a statement regarding a status change. Christians are not merely “slaves” who had been freed from the servitude to sin (manumission) but are huioi theou, because they have received pneuma huiothesias. There is a logical connection between pneuma huiothesias and the prepositional phrase (taking the dative) en ho and the governing dynamic of their outcry (kradzomen). Does en ho suggest “within” (Locative), located “within the sphere of influence, control…” (Spherical), or is it manner or cause (Instrumental)?[19]

Despite the overlap in many respects, Dative of Sphere – an extension of the Locative – retains the emphasis of the Spirit’s influence. The result is spectacular for the content of the Christian outcry is: abba ho pater.[20] This is where spiritual formation and sonship/adoption interlock; namely, in affirmation.

The Christian not only affirms sonship, but “the Spirit himself” (auto to pneuma) is involved in affirming the Christian’s status before God. Paul writes: auto to pneuma summarturei to pneumati hemon hoti esmen tekna theou (8:16). The verse emphasizes the Spirit’s identity with the predicate construction auto to pneuma (cf. Rom 8:26).[21] The Spirit is involved in affirming “we are God’s children” (esmen tekna theou). There is no question Whom the subject of the verb is; however, there is a question regarding the relationship between the verb summarturei (“he testifies” to/for) and the dative-genitive construction to pneumati hemon (“to/for our spirit”).[22]

On the one hand, the Spirit’s testimony may be viewed in terms of Dative of Association which renders the reading “the Spirit testifies alongside with our spirit”; on the other hand, maintaining the dative-genitive as the indirect object the reading is “the Spirit testifies to our spirit.” Wallace states that grammatically, Dative of Association is usually based upon verbs compounded with sun but this is not an exhaustive rule. The reason being, sun may also be intensive rather than associative. Wallace, following Cranfield, recoils at the notion of the associative since the Christian spirit “has no right at all to testify” along with the Spirit.[23] This is a theological exacerbation of the grammar. Trevor Burke responds, “the compound verb… with the dative expression would more naturally mean ‘bears witness with our spirit’ as two witnesses linked together indicating that we are God’s sons.”[24] It would seem consistent with the movement of the overall thrust of the passage that the Spirit’s leading crescendos in a united confirmation (“The Spirit itself testifies along with our spirit”).

Adoptive sonship is at the heart of verses 16-17, so much so that Paul transitions from huioi theou (“God’s sons”) to tekna theou (“God’s children”) after assuring his Christian readers they have received pneuma huiothesias (“the spirit of adoption”). The transition is significant and is the basis for the eschatological conclusion of this segment of Romans 8, picked up in verse 18. The text, structured semantically as a conditional sentence,[25] reads: ei de tekna, kai kleronomoi: kleronomoi men theou, sungkleronomoi de Christou, eiper sumpaschomen hina kai sundoxasthomen. As in verse 13b, de is adversative but not so strong it is unrelated to the previous words. In fact, it further develops the argument from the previous verse with the conditional clause: “if we are children [tekna], then we are heirs as well.” The protasis is evidential not causal, and the apodosis is inferential not effectual; moreover, heirs as children is further explained: “on the one hand, God’s heirs, and on the other hand, joint heirs with Christ.”

Paul concludes this pericope with an intensive form of ei (eiper) meaning “if indeed, if after all, since, if it is true that.”[26] The strength of the closing clause is in its eschatological connection. Spiritual formation through the Spirit, and adoptive sonship with its inheritance, are connected to a joint-glorification through suffering: “if after all we suffer together in order that we will share[27] in glory.”

Concluding Words

Romans 8:12-17 is a tremendous contribution to the Gospel’s appropriation of all those freed from the lordship of sin and redeemed by the blood of Jesus. Where they were once flesh led, now Christians are Spirit led. Where once they were outside of the family of God, they are made adopted sons and confirmed as children with an inheritance. Christians are given the resources through the Spirit to use “death” to kill the deeds of the body in order to have life. The Spirit provides the context for spiritual formation. The model of slavery and emancipation from slavery were probably very vivid the Roman Christians, but perhaps the most eye opening is God taking former slaves and embracing them as members of his own household as sons and children. This is not a token adoption, but a full investment complete with inheritance, making the Christian a joint heir with Christ in suffering and glorification.

Endnotes

  1. Archibald T. Robertson and W. Hersey Davis, A New Short Grammar of the Greek Testament, 10th ed. (1933; repr., Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1979), 317.
  2. Stanley E. Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament, 2d ed. (London: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 305.
  3. BDAG 103.
  4. BDAG 104; Robertson and Davis, New Short Grammar, 317.
  5. Unless specified the translation used in the body of this paper is that of the author.
  6. James A. Brooks and Carlton L. Winbery, Syntax of New Testament Greek (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1979), 36; Harvey E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (New York, NY: Macmillan, 1957), 85.
  7. Porter, Idioms, 198.
  8. Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 680-87.
  9. The Nestle-Aland textual apparatus notes the variant reading: tes sarkos. Although there is some antiquity to the variant reading, and some linguistic consistency (sarx); in keeping with the more difficult reading which would require such a scribal adjustment, tou somatos is viewed as the best wording.
  10. Porter, Idioms, 99.
  11. Wallace, Greek Grammar, 163-166. Wallace concedes that a passive verb would be sufficient.
  12. The two conditional sentences portray the outcomes of the two paths of spiritual formation. Living kata sarka leads to death, but living pneumati maintains life by killing sin at its source tas praxeis tou somatos. This is in keeping with Paul’s overall argument in Romans 8: “To set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace” (ESV).
  13. Wallace, Greek Grammar, 685-86.
  14. Wallace, Greek Grammar, 686.
  15. Moses E. Lard, Commentary on Romans (1875; repr., Delight, AR: Gospel Light, n.d.), 264.
  16. Brooks and Winbery, Syntax, 100.
  17. Brooks and Winbery, Syntax, 100.
  18. This is an adamant declaration: “you are not slaves again for you have been freed from sin” (cf. Rom 6.17-18).
  19. Porter, Idioms, 156-58.
  20. Robertson and Davis, New Short Grammar, 215. Robertson calls this idiomatic construction, “The Articular Nominative as Vocative”; meaning, a “vocative of address” is formed in the nominative yet its case is vocative.
  21. Porter, Idioms, 120; Dana and Mantey, Manual Grammar, 129
  22. Wallace, Greek Grammar, 160
  23. Wallace, Greek Grammar, 159
  24. Trevor J. Burke, “Adoption and the Spirit in Romans 8,” EQ 70.4 (1998): 322.
  25. Wallace, Greek Grammar, 683.
  26. Porter, Idioms, 209; Barclay M. Newman, Jr., A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament (Stuttgart: German Bible Society, 1993), 53; Dana and Mantey, Manual Grammar, 262; Richard J. Goodrich and Albert L. Lukaszewski, A Reader’s Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2003), 344.
  27. Brooks and Winbery, Syntax, 103. The grammatical reading of the passage takes the aorist passive verb as “I am glorified with,” but the hina and the anticipation inherent in the clause would suggest the aorist is functioning as a Futuristic Aorist.