Category: Christian Ethics

Working Through Church Problems

On By Jovan PayesIn Articles, Christian Ethics, Christian Leadership, Church Discipline, Church Leadership, New Testament

Are you looking for a perfect congregation? Take a number and stand in line. The perfect congregation is elusive because they are composed of imperfect people.

Yes, problems happen. If anything should tip our hand to this fact it ought to be the apostolic letters to the churches found in the New Testament. Even though the Spirit of God dwelt in the primitive church, the New Testament reveals those congregations were still imperfect.

Problems emerged, emerge, and will continue to emerge within the church, and within a congregation. Paul said that the heartache of “factions” can provide a lens to recognize who is “genuine” in the church (1 Cor 11:19 ESV).

We have been given biblical teaching as to how to respond to disruptions caused by Christian misconduct. The answers are found in the apostolic word. Consider three examples.

1. The Thessalonians

Certain members of the congregation in Thessalonica would not work in order to be self-sufficient (2 Thess 3:11-12), but instead, burdened the church as they received dietary support. Such was described as living in “idleness.”

Such was described as “busybodies,” which is a play on words contrasting the appropriate Christian ethic of being “busy at work.”

The point is some members of the Lord’s church in Thessalonica refrained from being productive in the workforce and had become guilty of lifestyles that were unproductive, intrusive, and disruptive to their lives about them.

The apostle Paul sets forth an apostolic injunction to prohibit those who willfully reject the divine ideal to “earn their own living” and received benevolent sustenance from the church: “if one is not willing to work, let him not eat” (2 Thess 3:10).

The church suffered at the hands of their disruptive behavior (i.e. “busybodies”). Since they were subsidized by the church, Paul aptly responds: “stop subsidizing their sinful behavior!”

Too many times, matters which affect the congregation (gossip, opinions, hypocrisy, etc.) are allowed to thrive due to a lack of solidarity to follow God’s teaching. Here Paul makes it clear that the congregation must make a stand together placing sanctions on those Christians who live contrary to the divine teaching on working to supply your own needs (2 Thess 3:6ff).

Only with a unified front, will there be sufficient godly pressure to make the defectors return to the “ranks.” The congregation is to apply the pressure of a well-intended, caring family towards “work” so that they may not be an unnecessary burden on others (3:8).

2. Paul and Barnabas

Sometimes problems develop within very successful ministry teams, particularly in matters of expediency.

In Acts 13:1-4, the setting for Paul’s ministry to evangelize the world is narrated. In fact, the Holy Spirit is quoted as saying, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them” (13:2).

This Divine call to action belongs to Barnabas as much as it does Paul. Still, throughout the reports in Acts of the various evangelistic labors, it appears that Paul (Saul) begins to gain special consideration (Acts 13-14).

An interesting footnote is placed at Barnabas and Paul’s transition from the Cyprus Island to the southern Asia Minor Roman province of Pamphylia (Acts 13:13). Luke writes that “John” (= John-Mark 15:37) was with them in their evangelistic campaign functioning as an “assistant” (Acts 13:5); however, for reasons unknown he left Barnabas and Paul and returned to Jerusalem (Acts 13:13).

After some time had elapsed, Barnabas and Paul were anxious to return to the “mission field” to see the well-being of the congregations which they planted in Asia Minor. At this point, Barnabas and Paul entered a “sharp disagreement” over the inclusion of John-Mark (14:36-41).

John-Mark who had served as an “assistant” (Grk. huperetes), a term which suggests the responsibility to care, guard, and to manage the resources of another,[1] had “defected” (= ESV “had withdrawn”) from the evangelistic team. Why, is anyone else’s guess.

While Mark broke his commitment to the evangelistic team, Barnabas wanted to give John-Mark a second chance; but Paul felt him undependable – an evaluation he publically reverses over a decade later (2 Tim 4:11). Mark is enshrined in Scripture as one whom Paul came to think of as helpful, beneficial, and useful (Grk. euchrēstos, 2 Tim 2:21; Philm 11).

Still, Luke does not append any evaluation upon who made the right choice, for Barnabas and Paul part ways here never to be found together again on the pages of Scripture; and yet, never disparaged for their differences on this issue. Possibly, they were both correct, and it is one of those cases where there are two right choices for the same problem (Prov 26:4-5). Wisdom is always a contextualized answer-solution to a contextualized problem.

It is unfortunate that such a successful evangelistic team should part ways, but the most significant point is that neither party refrained from evangelism. Paul continues to fulfill his ministry, as Barnabas continues the “encouragement” he is known for (Acts 4:36; 9:27).

Here is a powerful lesson, especially for advocates of non-denominational Christianity. At various times, brethren due to opinions – even strong opinions – must part ways for the common good of sharing the gospel with the world:

There is enough room for different expedient methodologies (provided they are biblical) to thrive side by side without any sense of competition of faithfulness to intrude our works.

Paul continues his work with the prophet Silas, and along the way picks up Luke and Timothy. Barnabas takes with him John-Mark to the island of Cyprus. One dynamic team turns into two evangelistic teams with capable leaders.

Sometimes we need to step back and realize, like Abraham, that we are brethren, and as such, we should not quarrel with each other over expedients (Gen 13:8; Rom 14:13). Disagreements can be worked through if the parties involved reflect heavenly dispositions to make peace (Jas 3:13-18). Faithful children of God must strive to “agree in the Lord” (Phil 4:2-3). Might one of those agreements be in the matter of ministry methods that are different but biblical?

3. Diotrephes and Gaius (3 John)

Sometimes a church setting can be thrown off its balance by a strong vocal minority. They typically are aggressive, carnally minded, and self-absorbed. Unfortunately, good-meaning brethren can give such ones an audience -and the podium- which encourages their behavior.

Such was the case with a man by the name of Diotrephes. In brief, the apostle John sent a few preachers to the church acquainted with this man in order to be welcomed and financially supported in their evangelistic and missionary work.

Read more about Diotrephes in “Studies in 3 John: The Fellowship of the Truth”

However, pumped with his own arrogance, he rejected the apostolic request, suppressed the request, attacked those like Gaius who provided for men like these, and imposed his own will upon them by ill-treating the preachers and casting their supporters “out of the church” (9-10). In practice, he was a “missions killer.”

Such “church gangsters,” the apostle John says, must have their nefarious operations exposed (“I will bring up what he is doing”). They operate in the brotherhood “alleyways” where their true face is revealed. They are punitive. For not only do they not support a “worthy” work, but they will also subvert them at all costs.

The church must stand up against those who are intoxicated with pride, those who manipulate behind the “church” scenes, and those who “always need a villain” in order to promote their agenda and get their way.

Concluding Thoughts

Problems come, but the church has, can, does, and will overcome them if we are faithful to God and gracious to each other. Some church problems are ethical or doctrinal; consequently, as in the Thessalonian situation, the only solution is to reinforce God’s plan for Christian conduct and teaching.

Other times, church problems emerge when leaders disagree over matters of opinion. Sometimes, we must realize that not every method is the only way to carry out a biblical command or expectation. Some methods and decisions can co-exist side by side. We must learn to be flexible and gracious in such scenarios.

Finally, some problems are instigated by a divisive minority who implement their plan in the shadows rather than in a clear view of all. They are coercive and manipulative. They seek and exercise power rather than submission to God. In such cases, exposure to such conduct is warranted in order to begin the process to restore peace in the church.

These situations do not exhaust every problematic scenario, but hopefully, they provide guideposts that will be helpful. May the church learn to acknowledge and work through our problems in a peaceful and God-fearing way.

Endnote

  1. James H. Moulton and George Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament Illustrated from the Papyri and Other Non-Literary Sources (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1914-1929), MM 654-55.

A Christian’s Perspective on Plagiarism

On By Jovan PayesIn Articles, Christian Ethics, Christian Leadership, Essays, Leadership Ethics, Perspective, Spiritual Formation, Spiritual Growth

Aristocratic Romans began education early in their children with the use of private tutors.[1] Historian Robert Wilken goes on to explain that even a certain “style of speech” was essential to embrace early on so that there was no “style” to unlearned later in life.

To give a sense of the aristocratic educational processes of the mid-first century AD, Wilken writes:

Roman education consisted chiefly of the study of rhetoric, the skill an enterprising young man would need most for a life in the law courts or a position in the civil bureaucracy. Grammar, recitation, analysis of classical literary texts, imitation of the great styles.[2]

Robert Wilken, The Christians as the Romans Saw Them (1984)

Such learning would include tremendous repetition.

That is probably why the Latins are attributed with the old saying: Repetitio mater studiorum est. Translation: “Repetition is the mother of all learning.”[3] After enough repetition, imitation is bound to appear – intended or otherwise.

It would stand to reason that at some point imitation must give rise to personal stylistic variations and the development of a unique voice. Still, one might hear the echo of a common saying: “Imitation is the sincerest [form] of flattery” (QuotationsPage.com).

Nevertheless, not all imitation is flattery is it? Especially the kind of imitation which goes by the name of plagiarism. Dictionary.com denotes the term as:

[A]n act or instance of using or closely imitating the language and thoughts of another author without authorization and the representation of that author’s work as one’s own, as by not crediting the original author.

Dictionary.com

Unfortunately, despite the constant emphasis on academic responsibility, plagiarism appears in our educational institutions and academic organizations.

With the time of the year upon us where educational pursuits are reinvigorated by the rush of “back to school,” we thought it timely to address an issue which affects the school house as well as the church house.

The Issue of Plagiarism

If a dictionary definition does not bring home the problem of plagiarism, perhaps synonyms will provide some focus and sharpness to our understanding. Phrases such as “piracy,” counterfeiting,” and “passing off” (Dictionary.com) should be pointed enough to stress that this act is “literary theft” (Thesaurus.com).

A few years ago, ABC Primetime’s Charles Gibson spoke to many college students regarding cheating and plagiarism. One student interviewed said, “The real world is terrible […] People will take other people’s materials and pass it on as theirs. I’m numb to it already, I’ll cheat to get by.”[4]

It is unfortunate when Christians use equally transparently flawed reasons for intellectual dishonesty. The Christian ought to have an aversion to plagiarism out of sheer principle that we ought not to be thieves or robbers (Exod 20:15; 1 Pet 4:15).

This ethic would extend beyond physical property to include intellectual property as well. “Sticky fingers” is not supposed to be a part of the “worthy” calling of God (Col 1:10; Eph 4:1). And yet, it is no longer a shock to this author when it occurs “even in religious circles.”[5]

It is an amazing thing that some operate under the impression that they can provide a sort of “wave-of-the-hand” acknowledgment to another’s work, while copying line-after-line of material, without the common use of appropriate grammatical devices which indicate the identity of the real author.[6]

Wayne Jackson, “Hank Hanegraaff and the ‘Christian Research Institute’,” ChristianCourier.com

The goal to expand the knowledge of humanity is never deterred by documenting the sources used and borrowed – “whether facts, opinions, or quotations.”[7]

While doing research on dinosaurs, I stumbled upon a so-called hi-profile preacher and publisher who blatantly took the words of their collaborators only to claim those “words” to be the mutual property of their ministry. Meanwhile, they fail to forget that they did not do the heavy lifting of the research nor organize of the wording of the material. Further, they seem to disregard the fact that most publications are archived so that it becomes clear whose words were penned first.

There are, however, times when it may seem impossible to attribute individual concepts one has come to believe or understand due to considerable collaboration with others. We ought to acknowledge the fluid elements of learning and idea shaping. I always appreciate the “Acknowledgements” page at the beginning of the book where the author intends to show an indebtedness to their colleagues and friends for the stimulation and fertile ground where many of the ideas they have written about were seeded and planted.

So Why Plagiarize?

I suppose there are many reasons for the seductive temptation to take the words of another to employ them as though they are yours: need, laziness, lack of creativity, tight schedules, arrogance, etc. “Convenience, quick turn around and other elements are also factors,” says Jonathan Bailey, a victim of plagiarism.[8]

The action is, however, thuggish. It has been observed that “plagiarists chose their victims in much the same way and they often do so with much less skill than the common mugger chooses theirs.”[9] Would anyone, including a child of God, want to be considered a “mugger”?

There are two New Testament terms of significance here.[10] (a) Thieves (kleptes) operate by means of “fraud and in secret”; likewise, (b) robbers (lestes) obtain what is not theirs “by violence and openly.” The plagiarist resembles both of these terms.[11]

Joseph Gibaldi, in the MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers, observes:

Using another person’s ideas, information, or expressions without acknowledging that person’s work constitutes intellectual theft. Passing off another person’s ideas, information, or expressions as your own to get a better grade or gain some other advantage constitutes fraud.[12]

Joseph Gilbaldi, MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers, 6th ed. (2003)

It has been a painful thing to read the work of fellow classmates, and the work of others, only to discover that the words and research they employ are not their own – but that of others.

Not only has “intellectual theft” and “fraud” occurred, but blatant deception as well. Since liars, the greedy, and thieves will not be welcomed in that eternal abode (1 Cor 6:10, Rev 21:8), why plagiarize? There is no spiritual advantage. Frankly, there is no advantage at all.

What about the Sermon?

I was in the assembly of a congregation when a young preacher was “working” through his lesson. Then, the wording began to sound very familiar. I immediately looked for a pen and something to write on and jotted down what I suspected was his next few points. Sure enough, I had read this sermon before and apparently so had this young preacher. Was he plagiarizing? If I’m going to be a “stickler” about it, then yes.

However, there seems to be a sort of allowance among the preaching community for sharing and using the outlines and even content of another preacher. Yet, we must be careful. Gary Holloway shares a few anecdotal examples of “stolen sermons.” He introduces his segment of the practice among southern preachers with the following words:

Sermons, like most speeches, are not often copyrighted. Preachers felt no moral compunction in “borrowing” sermon ideas, outlines, and sometimes entire sermons verbatim from other preachers.[13]

Gary Holloway, Saints, Demons; and Asses: Southern Preacher Anecdotes (1989)

Holloway recounts two stories of famous Restoration Movement preachers of the early 20th century (H. Leo Boles and N. B. Hardeman) who happened to be visiting a congregation when their sermons were being presented verbatim by the local preacher.

Despite the cordial responses and humorous reactions by the original speakers,[14] Holloway footnotes these anecdotal stories with a concern. A concern which I share:

[T]heir humor is based on a serious issue. Although stealing sermons was a common and accepted practice, there is an underlying sense of the unethical nature of the practice that provides the humor in this situation. These young men got caught doing what most preachers did surreptitiously [i.e., covertly, secretly].[15]

Holloway, Saints, Demons; and Asses

For preachers and evangelists, then, plagiarism can present itself to be a true danger. I sympathize. If I only consider the math of my own preaching ministry, then at the minimum I speak about 52 weeks a year – that’s every week.

I speak, at the minimum, three times a week before an assembly 52 weeks a year. That means I present spiritual content designed to stimulate, provide a reason for meditation, and to ignite action approximately 156 times a year, 13 times a month, 3 times a week.

Most church goers do not realize the work that goes into just one of these messages. They can demand the energies of a small college term paper. Then multiply this three times a week, 13 times a month, 156 times a year. That’s is a lot of temptation to short-cut the content and plagiarize and ignore a moderate level of attribution for words or phrases which may be vital to the delivery of a sermon or message.

Here are a few guidelines that I follow and I share them here as benchmarks of genuine attribution in a field which it can be very hard to cite the source. These are in no order of importance, and they are benchmarks that I have put together over time.

  1. Remember that there is no copyright on truth. There is copyright protection for the presentation of that truth, but not on truth itself. Every preacher is influenced by the thoughts and studies of another. If you quote an author verbatim and at length introduce your quote with an attribution.
  2. When you make a linguistic argument, there is no need to cite every source which was consulted (nor the whole debate). Nor, should one make lexical lists of definitions for matters which are insignificant (I have heard one preacher spend over 10 minutes quoting lexicons over the definition of the word “cup”). If it is significant to the point of the lesson, refer by name the language tool being used and give the audience a sense of why that is important.
  3. When you follow a book, article, or commentary’s flow of thought then at the beginning of the message an acknowledgment to the author would be ideal. However, it would be best if the preacher worked through the text on their own and found their own sense of the flow of thought of the passage before they ever consulted other authors.
  4. Keep track of your research and sources of information by footnoting or parenthetical references in an outline or manuscript of the sermon. Sometimes I share outlines with the assembly so they can follow along or so they can study the passage again later. I’ve been asked, “why do you have all the footnotes in your outlines?” My answer, “so the brethren will know I have thought through my message.”

No doubt some will disagree with some of my suggestions. I’m sure some will say that I have missed a few more benchmarks. Yet, the above will go a long way to preventing plagiarism in the pulpit. We already have the greatest message in the world, there is no need to hide how we frame our thoughts.

Concluding Thoughts

It may be argued that plagiarism is not the worst thing “out there.” One might be tempted to agree, but the practice of hijacking the words of another robs one of learning and personal development. More importantly, it reflects a sinful disposition which must be rejected.

The truth of the matter is that it is an ethically deficient habit which not only hurts others but also ruins the trustworthiness of intellectual thief. It is a tragedy that some either do not know the courtesy of citing where they learned their information, are shallow or too lazy to follow through with it. We strongly encourage our writing brethren and friends to refrain from literary theft.

For our friends who are in the spotlight we submit this brief warning from Wayne Jackson:

Every writer should remember this. Once he has compromised his status as a serious student and a researcher of integrity, he will forever be suspect. Whose material are we reading—his or someone else’s? It behooves the Christian to be honorable in all things.[16]

Wayne Jackson, “Ethical Guidelines for Writers,” ChristianCourier.com

Indeed, Christians would do well to follow the words of the apostle Paul, “give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all” (Rom 12:17).

Sources

  1. Robert L. Wilken, The Christians as the Romans Saw Them (New Haven, Ct.: Yale University Press, 1984), 2.
  2. Wilken, Christians as the Romans Saw Them, 2.
  3. Amanda Moritz, “Repetition is the Mother of all Learning,” Brainscape.com.
  4. “A Cheating Crisis in America’s Schools,” ABCNews.com.
  5. Wayne Jackson, “Hank Hanegraaff and the ‘Christian Research Institute’,” ChristianCourier.com.
  6. Jackson, “Hank Hanegraaff.”
  7. Joseph Gilbaldi, MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers, 6th ed. (N.Y.: Modern Language Association of America, 2003), 142. Cf. Wayne Jackson, 1997-2012, “Advice to Aspiring Writers,” ChristianCourier.com. Jackson writes, “I have observed some writers quote line after line—even consecutive paragraphs—from other authors with no credit given whatever. Or, sometimes significant portions of a writer’s material will be “borrowed”—word-for-word with no quotation marks—but with some sort of generic acknowledgment added at the end. Literary “plastic surgery” is unethical. One never detracts from his own scholarship by giving proper acknowledgment to those from whom he has learned.”
  8. Jonathan Bailey, “Why Plagiarism is not Flattery,” PlagiarismToday.com.
  9. Bailey, “Why Plagiarism.”
  10. See: Jovan Payes, “Such Were Some of You (5),” Livingstoncoc.wordpress.com.
  11. Richard C. Trench, Synonyms of the New Testament, 12th ed. (London: Trubner, 1894), 157.
  12. Gilbaldi, MLA Handbook, 66 (emphasis added).
  13. Gary Holloway, Saints, Demons; and Asses: Southern Preacher Anecdotes (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1989), 25.
  14. When a preacher saw H. Leo Boles in the assembly, he apologized from the pulpit. Boles responded, “That’s all right; the fellow I got it from said you can preach it too” (Holloway, Saints, Demons; and Asses, 26).
  15. Holloway, Saints, Demons; and Asses, 26.
  16. Wayne Jackson, “Ethical Guidelines for Writers,” ChristianCourier.com.

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).

Modesty in Speech: Reflecting God’s Image in What We Say

On By Jovan PayesIn Articles, Christian Ethics, Discipleship, Glendale Gleaner, Kingdom Ethics, PublicationsLeave a comment

Introduction

Do words matter? Framed in another way, is there a fundamental connection between speaking and God? Again, is there a spiritual component to communication? Consider the following. The Bible asserts that the universe came into existence at the command of God, “God said” (Gen 1:3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 20, 24, 26, 29). The Hebrew writer asserts,

By faith we understand that the worlds have been framed by the word of God, so that what is seen hath not been made out of things which appear.

Hebrews 11:3 (All Scripture references are from the American Standard Version unless otherwise noted)

In fact, both the origin and the dissolution of the universe is subject to the declaration –“word”– of God (2 Pet 3:5-7). Communicating is, then, a core activity of God; in other words, God speaks His Mind.

There are people in this world who seek for a chance to hear God speak to them. God has spoken, in his wisdom, through two monumental venues. The first is creation; the second, are the Scriptures. In Romans 1:20, Paul affirms,

For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse.

Romans 1:20

The world essentially speaks of a powerful supernatural eternal being Who is the origin of all that is seen; in a nutshell, the “heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth his handiwork” (Psa 19:1).

Second, God has spoken his mind and has preserved it in the Scriptures. It is written,

For who among men knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of the man, which is in him? even so the things of God none knoweth, save the Spirit of God. But we received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is from God; that we might know the things that were freely given to us of God.

1 Corinthians 2:11-12

In fact, the unveiling of God’s mind is the cause which brought about the Scriptures. It is written, “Every scripture inspired of God” (2 Tim 3:16). God has spoken his unique message through his prophets, who have committed those oracles to print (Eph 3:1-6; 2 Pet 1:19). King David once said of himself, “The Spirit of Jehovah spake by me, And his word was upon my tongue” (2 Sam 23:2).

What this discussion points to is a fundamental truth about God. Inasmuch as God is the source of love, it is equally true that God is the source of disclosure. In other words, communicating and disclosing the eternal mind is fundamental to the nature of God. This is important for a proper understanding of human communication because humanity is made in the image of God (Gen 1:26-27). God’s people are expected to reflect their Creator’s nature. In fact, Peter writes,

but like as he who called you is holy, be ye yourselves also holy in all manner of living; because it is written, Ye shall be holy; for I am holy.

1 Peter 1:15-16

Little wonder that Peter would further admonish, “if any man speaketh, speaking as it were oracles of God” (1 Pet 4:11). Every aspect of godly living is to be set apart for God’s purposes (Rom 6:17-18), and this includes how a person speaks.

Speaking is a process which discloses the thoughts and movements within a person’s heart; it reveals what is in the heart (Matt 6:22-23; Mark 7:20-23). All things being equal, regardless of the truths or lies a person speaks, it derives from the inner workings of the heart. Since communication is a spiritual matter and reflects one’s heart, it is not surprising that Jesus would state the following: “And I say unto you, that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned” (Matt 12:36-37; cf. Rev 21:8; Rom 14:12, 10-12; 2 Cor 5:10; Eccl 12:14; Acts 17:30-31).

What a person “says” matters because it reflects a spiritual truth about a person’s heart. The heart is the touchstone upon which Jesus makes his case for a higher level of spirituality as addressed in the “Sermon on the Mount” (Matt 5:21-22, 27-28, 33-37, 43-48). When someone tells the truth, or lies, or uses a swear word, there is a corresponding spiritual truth which points to how one reflects the image of God. If one wishes to be a faithful child of God, one must “adorn” God’s teaching on modest speech (Tit 2:10). Our speech must reflect that we are made in the image of God, and it must exemplify the gracious and righteous nature of the gospel message.

Our Speech is to Reflect the Image of God

In writing to the Christians in Colossae, Paul walks through the conversion process (Col 2:10-3.4). They went through “the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with him in baptism” (2:11-12). In this “working of God” they were “raised with him” (2:12), and made “alive together with him” for forgiveness (2:13). To reinforce their commitment, Paul urges them to “put to death” their past vices:

now do ye also put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, railing, shameful speaking out of your mouth: lie not on to another; seeing that ye have put off the old man with his doings and have put on the new man, that is being renewed unto knowledge after the image of him that created him.

Colossians 3:8-10

A child of God should so speak from the heart that it reflects God’s image rebranded upon them. There is a deep truth here to unpack. The Lord Jesus warns and instructs how Christians are to treat others. One should not insult his brother (“Raca” Matt 5:22); instead, Christians are to be “the salt of the earth” and “the light of the world” (Matt 5:13).

Unfortunately, some are so good at the craft of sarcasm and caustic acidity that though they have not transgressed moral boundaries with their vocabulary, they are quite adept at verbally abusing their brethren. Instead, Christians should “receive one another, even as Christ also received you, to the glory of God” (Rom 15:7).

Our Speech is to be Exemplary

In writing to his protégé, Paul extends to Timothy an encouraging word for his ministry in Ephesus. He admonishes, “Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an ensample to them that believe, in word, in manner of life, in love, in faith, in purity” (1 Tim 4:12). The nature of Timothy’s “youth” (neotatos) is a matter of speculation, but based on inscriptional evidence he may have been in his twenties if not early thirties.

He needed this instruction to dissuade those that would be critical of Timothy’s ministry due to his age; namely, Timothy’s moral and spiritual reputation would be established by the moral pattern of his “word” (i.e. “speech”). Timothy’s speech is to be exemplary, a template. In these words to Timothy, when it comes to their speech Christians are enjoined upon to be a “model citizen.”

Does this mean that one is required to always speak as if they were a graduate from a charm or etiquette school? Hardly, but it does mean that God’s people should be proactive in speaking appropriately. There is room to be culturally flexible provided it is moral. Paul writes,

Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer each one.

Colossians 4:6

Ultimately, a Christian’s speech and vocabulary ought to create an attractive environment to their neighbors so that all may feel welcomed in their presence. The obvious illusion is to create an atmosphere where evangelism may occur (1 Thess 2:13; 2 Thess 2:14). Since it is God’s goodness that leads people to repentance (Rom 2:4), then it is also true that a Christian’s goodness can point others to their good God (Matt 5:16).

Concluding Thoughts

The biblical evidence shows that speaking and communicating the thoughts of one’s heart is an important spiritual component to being created in the image of God. Communication comes with a great challenge,

If any stumbleth not in word, the same is a perfect man, able to bridle the whole body also.

James 3:2

The entire course of one’s future can be directed by the outpouring of the thoughts and intentions of the heart when spoken (Jas 3:3-12). The most important aspect of what a person can do is to use one’s words to praise God and his son Jesus the Christ. As it is written,

Wherefore also God highly exalted him, and gave unto him the name which is above every name; that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven and things on earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Philippians 2:9-11

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

Christian Character During Tough Times (2 Pet 1:1-11)

On By Jovan PayesIn Articles, Christian Ethics, Commentary, New Testament, Spiritual Formation, Spiritual Growth2 Comments

Introduction

Someone has coined the phrase, “tough times never last, but tough people do.” As the years pass and the hurdles of life with them, this axiom becomes profoundly evident. Life is relentless, however, in its daily dosage of aches and pains – on all fronts.

Sometimes people flail their arms up and give up, feeling helpless. But, for those who are disciples of the Christ, a renewable source of strength and comfort is available: the apostle Peter says that we have been granted “all things that pertain to life and godliness” (2 Pet 1:3). This is the power of incorporating the word of God into a person’s life.

At some time near the end of his life, the apostle Peter dispatched a letter to a church suffering internally because of a number of false teachers were spreading immorality, anti-authoritarianism, and skepticism (2 Pet 2-3). It was, therefore, essential to stay grounded in the true knowledge. These Christians must carry the truth of the gospel in the one hand, and maintain a well rounded Christian lifestyle on the other hand.

In articulating these important instructions, we have been bequeathed a treatise that provides guidelines for developing Christian character during tough times. Tough times manifest themselves politically, socially, familially, spiritually, and emotionally. As in the first century, the contemporary climate of immorality, anti-authoritarianism, and skepticism is prevalent; and likewise, the inspired apostolic instruction is as relevant as when it was first composed nearly two thousand years ago!

To be sure more could be said; however, reflect on these quick notes on a section of Scripture that is often labeled “Christian Graces,” and in so doing perhaps this study will achieve its goal. The goal is to be more mindful of growing as a Christain (2 Pet 1:3-7), and to realize that being active in this process underscores our awareness of the redemption we have received in Christ (2 Pet 1:8-9). May the Lord bless you, as you strive to make your calling and election sure (2 Pet 1:10-11).

Greeting (2 Peter 1:1-2)

Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ: May grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord.

Unlike modern letter writing standards, ancient letter writers put the author’s name first, followed by some reference that connects the author and the readers. Peter calls himself a servant and apostle, two terms that are quite descriptive. As a servant (the word used for slave), Peter stresses his submission to God and his disposition regarding his ministry to others. The word apostle stresses his spiritual commission to represent God as His ambassador to the world, delivering His message exactly as God empowered him.

The readers are those who share the same faith as he does, they are on “the same level as the author.”[1] Here we find the principle of equality of a faith to be shared. This faith is personal, as developed with their relationship with God and Jesus. Then consistent with ancient letter writing, Peter sends them a greeting. Grace is usually seen as the Greek salutation while peace is typically considered to be the Hebrew way of saying hello. Consistent with the themes of his letter Peter sends this greeting in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord.

3-4: The Basis for Godly Living

His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire.

Peter continues the theme of knowledge and says that it is through Christ’s divine power (God-based ability), that Christians have been given access to all things that pertain to life and godliness. Christians cannot have the latter without the former. In agreement is Frederic Howe, we conclude that Christians must learn that “the ultimate condition, prerequisite, or essential foundation for holiness in the believer’s life is God’s divine power.”[2]

The Christian has this access through knowledge, but this is not simple knowledge, it is the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence. The reference to his glory and excellence is a “pointer” to which our calling finds completion -to abide with God. Yet this final reality can only be obtained in a life governed by knowledge of the Savior and his teaching.

Knowledge has given us his precious and very great promises, which are the means by which God allows us to become partakers of the divine nature (i.e. to share the holy nature of God). Modern man -even the modern Christian- may feel skeptical about this promise,[3] but it is a promise that in some way those who are faithful will “like him” in the immortal state (1 John 3:2). This holy nature is obtained as one learns how to escape from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire. Christians are expected to employ God’s knowledge to do this, holiness will not happen by accident.

5: Faith, Virtue, and knowledge

For this very reason, make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge,

Naturally, since the Christian aim is to escape the corruption of this world and partake of the divine nature through knowledge, Peter provides a list of “virtues” that must be added to one’s lifestyle in order reach these goals.

The virtues described in the chain in 1:5-7 not only are holy actions, but the very chain indicates the fullness of holiness that they must strive for. Thus those who seek them will be completely holy.[4]

In fact, the word supplement implies that “the believer contributes lavishly to the work of his salvation.”[5] Christians must contribute faith with virtue; moreover, this faith is probably the same referred to earlier -a personally developed reliance upon God- that must be contributed to with virtue (moral excellence).[6]

Furthermore, Christians are to supplement their moral excellence with knowledge, meaning that they are to have knowledge in the “how to’s” of a godly life. Contextually, this knowledge is what allows Christians to become partakers of the divine nature, after escaping the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire.

6: Self-Control, Steadfastness, and Godliness

and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness,

In addition to moral excellence and knowledge, to become completely holy and capable of partaking of the divine nature, the Christian is to assume the development of self-control, steadfastness, and godliness. Instead of self-control, some translations have the word temperance (KJV), but this is inaccurate since “temperance” usually implies a self-imposed censorship against alcohol. The Greek word in the text means, “to exercise complete control over one’s desires and actions – ‘to control oneself, to exercise self-control.’”[7] The overarching theme of self-control is one’s ability at self-mastery – i.e. self-government.

Next, is the idea of bearing up courageously under suffering, here translated steadfastness.[8] Perhaps this word provides a better hint of the local situation of Peter’s audience:

The need to persevere is particularly important in the situation Peter addressed, for the opponents were threatening the church, attracting others to follow them (2:2), so that some who began in the way of the gospel had since abandoned it (2:20-22).[9]

And then, disciples of Jesus are to supplement their behavior with godliness. One would think that this exhortation is unnecessary since the whole list of virtues revolves around the idea of devotion towards God in such a way where one “does that which is well-pleasing to Him.”[10] But this list of virtues would be incomplete without such an important inclusion of a vital virtue.

7: Brotherly Affection and Love

and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love.

The last two virtues of Christian godliness are brotherly affection and love, elements which are of special consideration because there is a distinction being made here between the two. Brotherly affection (philadelphia) is mutual love, while purposeful love (agape) is more encompassing because it requires self-generated love directed consistently upon another with their best in view.

Fred Craddock discusses these words in the following way:

Mutual affection is literally ‘love of one’s brothers and sisters’ (philadelphia) and is an essential component of church life. But that is just the point: mutual affection, reciprocal love, pertains to life in the church, to the fellowship. Beyond that, however is love, agape. Love does not require reciprocity; it includes the stranger, and even the enemy. It behaves favorably and helpfully toward the other regardless of who the other is or what the other had done.[11]

Sometimes the differences between these words are overstated, but these words of filial and “purposeful” love simply accentuate important capacities a person must engender in order to be a well-rounded Christian. We must be able to embrace the love (philadelphia) that comes easiest to us (usually familial love), and likewise be able to love on a deeper spiritual level – a beneficent love (agape).[12]

8-9: The Importance of these Characteristics

For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. For whoever lacks these qualities is so nearsighted that he is blind, having forgotten that he was cleansed from his former sins.

Peter does not hold back here, where people are prone to; instead, he affirms clearly that these things -qualities- must be in the Christians possessions and in the process of development. In so doing, he affirms, they will keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. Peter does not let loose of two concepts -godly living and knowledge- for the two are joined at the proverbial “hip.”

This stands more clearly in stark contrast to the false teachers in chapter 2. Rigorous training and development in godly behaviors assure one that they will not become “useless and unproductive” in the joys that exist in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.

A strong warning is made against those who would lack these qualities, stressing that to lack these qualities are the result of forgetting that a person’s sinfulness was forgiven and that these sins represent one’s imperfection and need to develop morally. Failure to do this will be detrimental to one’s calling and election.

10-11: Making Your Calling and Election Sure

Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to make your calling and election sure, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall. For in this way there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Because of the dangers that inhere should a Christian not develop these qualities of godly living, Peter warns with a logical conclusion, be all the more diligent to make your calling and election sure.[13] The answer to the question “why?” is provided, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall. It is crystal clear that Peter is demonstrating that one’s salvation can be a fragile thing should one neglect personal development.

Neglect will give way to falling, and contextually, this fall refers to one’s failure to enter into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Peter even affirms, by supplementing one’s life with godly characteristics, one will be richly provided an entrance into this kingdom; however, failure to do this makes this entrance void – it is not just the richness of the heavenly entrance being considered, it’s the entrance into heaven itself.[14] And here we see another major crack in the veneer of the Calvinistic error “Once Saved, Always Saved”.

Conclusion

2 Peter places a high premium on knowledge, especially as it pertains to knowledge and morality, and knowledge and truth. True knowledge appropriately originates from God and of Jesus our Lord and provides the proper framework for the development of godly living. This knowledge is now collected in the 27 documents of the New Testament, as the final revelation of Jesus Christ (John 16:13; Heb 1:1-2).

Guy N. Woods once observed that in this passage a godly character is developed and revealed in the person of deep Christian virtue: (1) those which are necessary to form the Christian character, and (2) those traits which reveal a follower of Christ to be a genuine servant of God.[15]

One of the most striking things about this section of Scripture is the methodical response of the Christians against the false teachers. It was not a brutal attack by physical force – a literal blow by blow as they stand toe to toe. The Christians were to respond with godly character, with love and truth. Viewing this life as concluding with the final judgment, only godly conduct will withstand the type of final exam the Divine Tribunal will release (2 Pet 3:9-13).

Finally, recalling the problem facing the group of Christians of 2 Peter was internal church problems of false teaching manifested in immorality, anti-authoritarianism, and skepticism (2 Pet 2-3). The best way, it seems, to outlast troublesome times, is to endure and become spiritually tough. This is precisely Peter’s point. False teachers with their troubles will come and go, but spiritually tough churches will last and last because they are grounded in godly knowledge and have kept their calling and election sure. And for that matter, so will spiritually tough Christians!

Sources

  1. Pheme Perkins, First and Second Peter, James, and Jude (Louisville, KY: Knox, 1995), 167.
  2. Frederic R. Howe, “The Christian’s Life in Peter’s Theology,” BSac 157 (2000): 307.
  3. Perkins, First and Second Peter, James, and Jude, 169; Guy N. Woods, A Commentary on the New Testament Epistles of Peter, John, and Jude (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate, 1991), 149.
  4. Jerome H. Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (New York, NY: Doubleday, 1993), 154. Michael Green’s observation of the use of the Stoic practice of making similar virtue lists, and comments, that the “practice of making lists of virtues was already well established among the Stoics, who called it a prokope, ‘moral advance.'” This is not an attempt to make the church thinking like the world (i.e. the Greek world), but to use a familiar practice and leverage its familiarity to equip these Christians to embody Christian character (The Second Epistle of Peter and the Epistle of Jude [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002], 75-76).
  5. Simon J. Kistemaker, Exposition of the Epistles of Peter and the Epistle of Jude (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1987), 251.
  6. Barclay M. Newman, Jr., A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1993), 24.
  7. (L&N) Johannes P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains, 2d ed. (New York, NY: United Bible Societies, 1989), 1:751.
  8. William E. Vine, Merrill F. Unger, and William White, Jr., Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (Nashville, TN: Nelson, 1984), 2:200.
  9. Thomas R. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 2003), 300.
  10. Vine, Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary, 2:273.
  11. Fred B. Craddock, 1 and 2 Peter and Jude (Louisville, KY: WJK, 1995), 101.
  12. Michael Green has a worthy quote on agape and philadelphia: “This word agape is one which Christians to all intents and purposes coined, to denote the attitude which God has shown himself to have to us, and requires from us towards himself. In friendship (philia) the partners seek mutual solace; in sexual love (eros) mutual satisfaction. In both cases, these feelings are aroused because of what the loved one is. With agape, it is the reverse. God’s agape is evoked not by what we are, but by what he is. It has its origin in the agent, not in the object. It is not that we are lovable, but that he is love. This agape might be defined as a deliberate desire for the highest good of the one loved, which shows itself in sacrificial action for that person’s good” (80).
  13. Perhaps no one word is so misunderstood as the term “called” in the New Testament. Essentially, the church is a group of individuals called out to assemble into a congregation (ek, out of, plus kaleo, to call = ekklesia). A person is called by the Gospel (2 Thess 2:14) and becomes a member of the church (a called out group) through immersion for the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38-47; Gal 3:26-29 – notice the transitional tenses – “you are” because “you were”).
  14. Kistemaker, Exposition, 257-58.
  15. Woods, Peter, John, and Jude, 152. Woods hand selects which virtues form character and which other virtues reveal genuine discipleship, and here we must disagree because such a segregation is artificial, and not natural with the flow of the passage. In fact, there is the reason to believe that the list of eight virtues is consistent with a literary form called sarites, “in which we have a step-by-step chain that culminates in a climax” (cf. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, 297). At any rate, we agree with Woods’ observation – albeit modified to be descriptive of all the virtues enlisted by the apostle.

James on Controlling the Tongue

On By Jovan PayesIn Articles, Christian Ethics, Spiritual Formation2 Comments

I’ll be honest. I have not always used my tongue in the most positive, and constructive of ways. I could append my guilty plea with the excuse, saying, “it wasn’t me, the devil made me do it,” but such trifle excuses remove personal responsibility from the case. So what am I to do? Repent, seek the counsel of the Scriptures, and then implement that wisdom on a consistent basis.

As in all spiritual quests, the journey is quite personal. Spiritual progress is a tailor-made phenomenon, for no two people are exactly the same and all have individualized challenges. It is the struggle of overcoming, and harnessing the impulses of our body, and conforming them to the teaching of God as revealed in the Bible that unites all men searching for spiritual solutions to their plight with sin.

Perhaps, the most pervasive struggle is the use and misuse of our tongue. This little piece is focused on providing an encouragement and to provide ammunition in the battle over the tongue.

A Warning by James

When the brother of the Lord addressed the church spread across the Roman Empire, James provided one of the most lengthy sections committed to illustrating the danger and misuse of the tongue in the New Testament (3:1-18).

The passage connects two main themes articulated to resolve a number of problems facing the Jewish-Gentile church. On the one hand, a section affirming that faith and action must go hand in hand in order to be genuine faith (2:14-26); and on the other hand, James makes the connection that a wise and understanding person is not only demonstrated by a “good conduct,”[1] but that because of a behavior saturated in heavenly wisdom, such a person can contribute to the diffusion of quarrelings (3:13-4:12).

James argues, therefore, that all members should act in a spirit of humility grounded in the recognition of God (4:4-10; cf. Jas 1:27); otherwise, they will continue to be guilty of sins exasperating the church climate of James’ audience (4:17). So James addresses the use of the tongue and the need to minimize the “heat” amplifying the problems, and to maximize “light” in order to diffuse the internal strife.

James halts the multiplication of teachers by affirming that a teacher should be a mature Christian and that a mature Christian teacher is to be able to control the tongue (3:1-2). The reason? Because, despite its apparent insignificant size, it actually wields a large span of control over a person’s influence and ability (3:3-5a).

Furthermore, its destructive power (unrighteous use) can destroy lives presently and eternally (3:5b-6), but its most consistent problem is found in its duplicity (3:7-12): “with it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse people who are made in the likeness of God.”

Therefore, James warns against “wanna-be teachers” who are too immature to enter the fray of “church problems.” Such matters are to be left to those who have demonstrated a pattern of life guided by wisdom and understanding (3:13). Such individuals will ideally refrain from acting “earthly, unspiritual, [and] demonic,” and instead will act on “the wisdom that comes from above” (3:14-17).

The results?

A harvest of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace. (James 3:18 ESV)

Despite the great dangers of the tongue, James says that it can form the foundation needed to resolve conflict – physically, socially, and spiritually. Imagine just how much better people and churches we would be if we constantly sowed the seeds of peace within the congregation and among our congregational neighbors.

In James’ approach to church conflict, he highlights an important trait of the Christian involved: it must be a mature Christian who can win the battle of control over the tongue. It may not always be a perfect use of the tongue, but the tongue will not be allowed to run wild. This is a decision all Christians can make; and so, what we are saying is this: the control of the tongue is an absolutely obtainable spiritual goal.

“Excuses, Excuses”

Usually, we find ourselves under the delusion of our own excuses: “I was raised to cuss like a sailor,” “I was angry and I lost it,” “I need to work on that, but I always forget.” We could plumb the depths of the excuse abyss ad infinitum and find a defense for every one of our misconducts. But we do ourselves a true dis-service by accepting defeat, instead of trusting in Him who raised Jesus from the dead (Rom 6:6-14, 8:32).

The apostle Paul says that we are more than conquerors through God’s power (Rom 8:37), and to raise the white flag is to accept defeat unnecessarily. Such determinism is Calvinistic to the core, and utterly rejects the free-volitional-will that God endowed upon His Imago Dei (Gen 1:26). A person can choose to serve God or not – it is within the hands of the person (Josh 24:15, cf. Eccl 9:10). Furthermore, it dismisses the seriousness of the sins of the mouth, which God has already spoken of as behaviors under His wrath (Prov 6:16-19; Rev 21:8).

Returning to the situation confronting the church James addresses, it is essential to notice that one of his main objectives is to denounce and expose the erroneous excuse that God has placed us in a difficult situation only to fail and that we have no recourse but to sin (cf. Jas 1:12-18). To overthrow this deception, James sets forth the themes of his letter:[2]

Knowing this, my beloved brothers: let every person be quick to hear [1:21-2:26], slow to speak [3:1-18], slow to anger [4:1-5:6]; for the anger of man does not produce the righteousness that God requires. (James 1:19-20)

Such a letter demands personal responsibility in the employment of true religion. Furthermore, true religious expressed through the Christian lifestyle is dependent upon the ability to control the tongue (Jas 1:27-28). This is clearly stated in James 3:2:

For we all stumble in many ways. And if anyone does not stumble in what he says, he is a perfect man, able also to bridle his whole body. (James 3:2)

Chalinagogeo, the word used for “bridle” in James 3:2 is the same word used in James 1.26. It means to literally “lead with a bridle”; and among all the New Testament documents it appears in James alone. Moreover, it carries the metaphorical force of restraint and the ability to keep things in check (cf. NIV).[3]

Amazingly, James reaffirms his statement about the tongue in 1:26-28 , and applies it to the need to control the whole body (i.e. behavior and character) in 3:2. In light of this data, could anything be more clearer than the spiritual need to overcome his or her tongue?

In what way could the excuses above carry weight against the inspired words of James? An uncontrolled use of the tongue can not be explained away with frivolous excuses, nor will they stand when they are brought before the Divine Tribunal in the judgment (Eccl 12:14; Matt 12:36).

With such clear biblical data, excuses must be tossed to the side, responsibility must be taken for the misuse of the tongue, and a course of action must be taken to consistently (daily) manage the tongue knowing full well that it is “a restless evil, full of deadly poison” (Jas 3:8).

Some Suggestions

A study like this would be incomplete without attention being brought to possible strategies to minimize the misuse of the tongue and to maximize the potential of reaching true religion with the proper use of the tongue. Some of the points come from Scripture, and others come from common sense. There is no doubt that these are but a sample of all that could be said.

(1) Check the Heart

Jesus once made the statement that the heart was the source of all of our actions. Notice how Matthew records this affirmation:

[W]hat comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person. (Matthew 15:18-20; cf. Mark 7:14-23)

Indeed, we see the wisdom of Proverbs 4:23, saying, “Keep your heart with all vigilance, for from it flow the springs of life.” Many feel that the best way to succeed in life is to expose oneself to everything that can be known, and then let the chips fall where they may; thinking that exposure is the same thing as protection. Actually, the opposite is true.

The apostle Paul penned the following inspired words: “I want you to be wise as to what is good and innocent as to what is evil” (Rom 16:19). Two things are said here: we must be thoroughly informed about what is good, and we must be unadulterated with evil.

Layering these passages together, it is clear that the heart must be guarded against evil influences by filling it with “what is good.” This will enable a person to control what proceeds “from the heart.” Certainly, then, with a tongue controlled at its source, the course of our lives will be better.

(2) Upgrade the Filter

Have you ever heard of BTM? BTM stands for “brain to mouth” and is commonly used to describe a popular “syndrome” of sharing whatever comes to mind – i.e., you think it, you say it. Surely this cannot be a prudent method of communication.

It is enlightening to observe some passages from Proverbs and how they describe BTM-ish uses of the mouth. Note a couple of passages:

  • The heart of the righteous ponders how to answer, but the mouth of the wicked pours out evil things. (15:28)
  • If one gives an answer before he hears, it is his folly and shame. (18:13)

There is evidence to conclude then that Christians should upgrade their tongue with a filter that makes them ponder of what they are going to say. Moreover, a person can say what is on their heart without forsaking forethought when talking with other people.

Word choice – and it is a choice – is an important part of the communication process. It will enable us to speak morally, honestly, correctly, empathically, and positively. So the next time you are on the verge of a brain-to-mouth moment, pause, “hear” and “ponder” over the matter at hand before you speak. This filtration system just might be the best thing you do to change the direction of your life for the better (Jas 3:2-6)!

(3) Embrace Silence

In chapter 3 of Ecclesiastes, the “Preacher” (Eccl 1:1),[4] presents his famous “there is a time” monologue (3:1-8). In verse 7 of this passage, he pens, that there is “a time to keep silence, and a time to speak.” What was Solomon addressing?

The overruling theme of this section of the book focuses upon two main things: (a) in this transient life humanity has many ways (i.e. the “a time to” statements, 3:2-8) to stay busy (3:1, 10); and (b) despite the ability for the mundanity of life to bring despair (3:9), everything is beautiful “in its time” in light of the eternal consequences of living the life designed by God (3:11-14).[5]

Now that we have established the context, the actual verse needs some clarification. The whole verse reads (3:7):

(A) a time to tear, 
and (B) a time to sew; 
(A') a time to keep silence, 
and (B') a time to speak

As seen above, from the first verse to the eighth each verse is broken down into four parts of what can be best expressed as “opposite extremes.”

For example, in 3:2 birth and death are “opposite extremes” of each other, and then in a similar vein, the vegetative imagery is used of planting a productive plant seed and then plucking the plant to end its productivity. The two lines are very similar in their emphasis, there is a time to begin life and a time that life and all its productivity will come to an end.

Ecclesiastes 3:7 follows a similar pattern, only that here the passage seems to refer to the customs of mourning and grief shown during the event of a death. Customarily, in the cultural milieu of biblical times a garment was “torn” to show grief,[6] but when it was time to overcome grief reconnecting the torn pieces (i.e. “a time to sew”) would symbolize “picking up the pieces” (for lack of a better phrase).

Likewise, carrying this pattern of posing “opposite extremes” against each other, the Preacher says that there are appropriate times that justify silence -like death- and that there are times when we must resume our daily conversations.

Solomon stresses that life often confronts us with these opposite extremities of life. One moment, we are careful without a concern in the world; and then, in the next moment, it would seem as if the whole world were on our shoulders and every detail must be right. However, in the grand scheme of things, knowing that eternity looms in the future, and we have a purpose in the world, we face each challenge with spiritual and moral strategies in place. We fear God and keep his commandments (Eccl 12:13).

Amazingly, one of those spiritual and moral strategies is to be silent or conversant depending upon how the situation demands us to act. Often, spiritually concerned individuals feel that they must consistently insert their lips into every problem or situation, thinking perhaps that it is the conscientious thing to do. Solomon reminds us – there is a time for it, and then there is a time when it is highly inappropriate to speak.

Conclusion

What can we say, our tongue is the battleground. So much depends upon our ability to control this little muscle organ. As we have observed, the use of our tongues stems from our own maturity and spiritual depth. We must be vigilant than to guard our hearts, be more patient and think before we speak; and finally, we must recognize that just because we feel we have something to say, the occasion may not call for it.

May this study be enriching and encouraging to you in your quest to live a life of biblical faith.

Sources

  1. All quotations are taken from the English Standard Version of the Holy Bible unless otherwise noted (Wheaton: Crossway, 2001).
  2. Although many have suggested outlines for the book of James, we agree with John Niemela’s assessment of the organization of the letter based upon the thematic structure of the letter (“Faith Without Works: A Definition,” Chafer Theological Seminary Journal 6.2 (2000): 3-6). In brief: (1) Prologue (1:1-18), (2) Theme (1:19-20), (3) Themes Subdivided (1:21-5:6), (4) Epilogue (5:7-20).
  3. Ralph Earle, Word Meanings in the New Testament (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1998), 434.
  4. The word used for Ecclesiates’ author, the “Preacher,” translates as a difficult word according to R. K. Harrison (Introduction to the Old Testament [1969; repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004], 1072-73). Perhaps a helpful way of thinking about the term itself is in the following way, “Ecclesiastes is a Greek translation of Heb. qohelet ‘one who convenes a congregation,’ presumably to preach to it. ‘Preacher,’ then, is not an inaccurate translation of either Greek or Hebrew. However, Qoheleth (sometimes spelled Koheleth) would hardly parallel the Christian meaning since his texts were taken more from his own observations of life than from the Law or the Prophets” (William S. LaSor, David A. Hubbard, and Frederic W. Bush, Old Testament Survey, 2d ed. [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996], 497-98). For a brief but good response to the question of Solomon’s authorship in light of linguistic criticisms certain scholars use to reject Solomonic authorship see Gleason L. Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids:, MI Zondervan, 1982), 255-58.
  5. Derek Kidner, The Wisdom of Proverbs, Job, and Ecclesiastes (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1985), 97-99.
  6. Several passages in the Old Testament alone demonstrate this cultural practice: Gen 37:29, 34, 44:13; Num 14:6; Josh 7:6; Judg 11:35; 2 Sam 1:11-12; 2 Sam 13:19, 31; Ezra 9:3; Esth 4:1; Job 1:20, 2:12; Isa 37:1, etc. These is not all the passages that could be listed, but these are sufficient to demonstrate the pattern of behavior.

Recommended Reading

  1. D. Edmond Hiebert, “The Unifying Theme of the Epistle of James,” BSac 135 (1978): 221-31.
  2. Wayne Jackson, “James 3:1 – A Warning to Teachers,” ChristianCourier.com (Accessed: 17 May 2002).
  3. Wayne Jackson, “The Tongue – One of Man’s Most Dangerous Weapons,” ChristianCourier.com (Accessed: 21 March 2005).

Purge the Evil Person: A Brief Analysis of 1 Corinthians 5:1-13

On By Jovan PayesIn 1 Corinthians, Bible Study, Christian Ethics, Christian Leadership, Church Discipline, Church Leadership, Essays, Exegesis, Kingdom Ethics, Leadership Ethics, New Testament, Paul's Letters3 Comments

One of the most difficult public displays of Christian obedience to God is the withdrawal of fellowship from a recalcitrant Christian. It is perhaps one of the most dynamic of commands to follow in the New Testament. Before reaching such a public excision, the Lord Jesus addressed the problem of confronting a wayward brother with the view to “gain” him (Matt 18:15-17).

Preliminary Thoughts

The Lord sets forth a four-pronged redemptive procedure that begins under the most private of circumstances – “you and him alone” (18:15); in this setting, then, a private appeal to repent is offered. If the rebellious child of God maintains their posture, then the circle of brotherly concern widens to “one or two others” that come to witness the call to repentance (18:16).

Unfortunately, even at this point, some are so entrenched in sin, that they will not hear the admonitions; consequently, the Lord says, “if he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church” (18:17). The publication of the situation allows the church as a whole to make an appeal to their fellow saint. All the “ties that bind” are summoned to invite this wayward soul to repent.

The Lord acknowledges that some will not be gained back to the fold by these loving and redemptive attempts, and sets forth the final process – consider the rebellious Christian as both an outsider of the blessings of the Christian covenant and a traitor who has chosen to serve Satan instead of Christ. In other words, the congregation must “disassociate the offender from the church fellowship.”[1] The saved has now become the lost – how ironically tragic.

A Flagrant Issue

The New Testament has several examples of discipline; most usually they are of a very flagrant issue. For example, in 3 John 9-10 the apostle of love forewarns his audience that he will bring discipline upon Diotrephes the “missions” killer. Or, when Paul abbreviates his role in the discipline of Hymenaeus and Alexander (“delivered them to Satan”), who made shipwreck of their faith (1 Tim 1:19-20).

However, in 1 Corinthians 5:1-13, Paul deals with an outlandish mode of porneia that is not even “tolerated” among the pagans (5:1 ESV). Porneia is the Greek word that is commonly translated “fornication” in older translations, and in newer translations as “sexual immorality.”

The truth of the matter is, porneia is a generic term for “illicit sexual intercourse.”[2] It is an umbrella term, and context must determine the type of sexual act that is under consideration. The flagrant form of porneia Paul addresses in 1 Corinthians 5:1 is this, “a [Christian] man has his father’s wife” (i.e. his stepmother). The severity of this behavior is evident by the fact that Paul appeals to the fact that Gentiles – or pagans – do not even permit such behavior.

This context provides the most insightful New Testament example of withdrawing Christian fellowship from recalcitrant saints. And as careful Bible students, we must definitely rehearse the valuable instruction of these verses.

The Duel Rebuke

Paul moves from the case of the man with his stepmother and draws attention to the congregation’s part in this flagrant relationship. The church had been “arrogant” and not “mournful” about the sinful relationship (5:2) and argues immediately that removal of the Christian was the appropriate reaction. The church at Corinth was laden with arrogance (4:6, 18-19), and here Paul rebukes them for this dispositional flaw that was affecting their decision-making process on this matter.

Paul demonstrates that not only is the rebellious person accountable to God, but that the church too cannot subscribe to a lax posture about known – public – sin in the church. The church is responsible and accountable to respond to a situation where a saint’s sin has become public knowledge. The apostle prescribes that the congregation should respond with a period of “mourning” and move into “disciplinarian action.” This is the divine reaction to sins of a public and flagrant nature (1 Cor 14:37).

The Judgment

With the next flip of his pen, Paul moves into position to make the judgment Corinth should have – he places judgment upon the Christian and the sexually immoral relationship with his un-Christian stepmother (5:3-5). There is no clear statement regarding the woman in view, aside from the fact that she is the wife of his father.[3]

However, since the judgment is upon the Christian man, “it seems safe to assume that she is not a Christian.”[4] Paul writes:

When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord. (1 Cor 5:4-5 ESV)

The context for such a procedure is the public assembly of the church. This recalls the instruction of Jesus regarding the procedures to discipline another for sin (Matt 18:15-17), the last two of which are set in a public context. Paul assesses that this situation is a public matter; and consequently, the licentious Christian must be disciplined immediately by the church in the public eye. The goal of this withdrawal is redemptive – “that his spirit may be saved.”[5]

The judgment is upon his sin and behavior, but the goal of the discipline is to restore him – i.e. to regain him (Matt 18:15). In Hebrews 12:12-13, the author demonstrates that discipline is a privilege of sonship (12:5-8) and that the purpose is so “that the lame may not be put out of joint but rather be healed” (12:13).

Discipline is not designed to “disable permanently those who have experienced the crippling effects of sin. Rather, His purpose is to heal and restore the repentant to spiritual usefulness”;[6] in other words, “that we may share his holiness” (Heb 12:10).

The Imagery of Influence and Purity

Corinth was crippling the unfaithful man’s ability to be restored by failing to address his immoral relationship. Paul makes very clear that both the church and the man were in a spiritually precarious position. Paul appeals to the imagery of the Passover, where preparing unleavened bread demanded the need to remove the leaven (yeast) from the lump of dough (5:6-7).

The bread is the congregation, and the leaven (yeast) is the culprit sinner (and his influence) in the church, and Paul speaks very clearly that the bread must be prepared for the Passover feast which is the Christian faith. From this, the apostle suggests that the Christian who is in a sexually immoral relationship with his stepmother must be removed from the congregation. Otherwise, the church would be affected by the “leaven” (influence) of this morally and spiritually rebellious relationship.

But the truth is, they were already being afflicted by his influence, making it necessary for a public withdrawal to maintain the purity of the loaf (i.e. the church). David Williams, in his profitable work, Paul’s Metaphors: Their Context and Character, writes:

Paul had been speaking of the leaven (yeast), every trace of which had to be cleaned out of the house before the Passover was celebrated. On this analogy, he demanded that the Corinthians put their “house” in order by removing from among themselves what he called the “old leaven,” a particularly appalling instance of sexual immorality that the church had condoned (vv. 1-5).[7]

The apostle, then, was addressing what should have been quite obvious; but, because of the Corinthian’s arrogance the real issue (i.e. the issue of purity) was not seen as relevant – how shameful. May we strive to learn then the lesson of Corinth.

The Place of Christian Judgment

Paul later recalls a previous letter, where he instructed them “not to associate with sexually immoral people” (5:9 ESV). But it does not seem that they were even practicing such instruction, evident by the fact that they had allowed this immoral situation a harbor of protection in the bay of misguided church fellowship. Yet, Paul did not even suggest merely sexually immoral people in general. He meant defiant immoral Christians are not to be associated with (5:9-11).

It is very interesting to observe that Paul moves from a specific case of porneia, and ends with formulating a generic principle against Christians practicing immorality in general – poneroi (i.e. evil doers).[8] Verse 11 is very clear that purity focused Christians are not to be involved with Christians who practice evil, and it is transparent where Paul stands on the matter by saying that eating a meal with them is forbidden. Such a withdrawal of Christian fellowship reflects the disfellowshipped Christian’s heavenly reality – estrangement from God (Matt 18:18-20).

Christians have a responsibility to each other before the Lord (Matt 18:15-17). This responsibility is to “judge” each other regarding sin when necessary (1 Cor 5:12). To support his case, Paul appeals back to a formula common in Deuteronomy that highlights the need to judge insiders rather than outsiders of the covenant (17:7, 19:19, 21:21, 22:21, 24, 24:7),[9] and affirms: “God judges those outside. ‘Purge the evil person from among you’” (5:13).[10]

The Aftermath: Mission Accomplished

What ever became of this gentleman and his situation after being withdrawn from? The answer depends upon the view taken as to how many letters Paul wrote to the Corinthians. It is true that Paul mentions a previous letter written to them prior to 1 Corinthians (1 Cor 5:9), but did he write a third letter that would chronologically fit between 1 and 2 Corinthians (2 Cor 2:3-4; 7:8)?[11]

Without delving into this academic discussion, we set forth our assessment of the discussion. Essentially, we assume for the time being that Paul wrote three letters: (1) A lost letter prior to 1 Corinthians (5:9); (2) 1 Corinthians known as the “sorrowful letter” or “severe letter” (2 Cor 2:3-4; 7:8); and (3) 2 Corinthians.

Chronologically placing 1 and 2 Corinthians together contributes greatly in answering our question. In 2 Corinthians 2:6-11, Paul speaks of the reward of making the Corinthians sorrowful, and a certain punishment rendered by the majority of the congregation upon a certain individual. The connection is drawn that the man in 1 Corinthians 5 is the same as the gentleman made sorrowful in 2 Corinthians 2.

This man was sufficiently disciplined (2:6), and now the congregation’s responsibility was three-fold (2:7-8):

(1) “forgive him”

(2) “comfort him”

(3) “reaffirm brotherly love.”

There will a great deal of Divine judgment upon those that do not respond in this fashion to a penitent brother or sister, for this is a great test of Christian obedience (2 Cor 2:9-10; Matt 6:14-16).

To the apostle, it appears that the matter of restoration of fellowship is just as important as the withdrawal of fellowship; the reason being, Satan is prepared to take advantage of our shortcomings at these pivotal moments (2:11). Would it not be appropriate to make the restoration announcement just as public as the withdrawal process was? It would definitely seem so (Philem 10-21).[12]

Conclusion

It seems important to stress, therefore, that the same amount of effort it took in the discipline process should follow in the restoration process. There is to be no more invisible line of fellowship between the restored and the brethren, for that is over and the saint has returned. Neither should a “we’ll see” attitude embody the brotherhood, but a loving reception – a mirror of heaven – is expected by Paul.

This is the victory of faith, the power of the blood of Christ, and the faithfulness of God. This is a great test of Christian faithfulness. May we be ever minded to discipline when needed and repair the splintered connections of fellowship after restoration. May we likewise be faithful to receive those who have been restored.

Sources

  1. J. Carl Laney, “The Biblical Practice of Church Discipline,” BSac 143 (1986): 361.
  2. William E. Vine, et al, Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (Nashville, TN: Nelson, 1984), 2:252; Joseph H. Thayer, Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (1896; repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999), 532.
  3. The phrase reads: hoste gunaika tina tou patros echein. Simon J. Kistemaker observes that “in Jewish circles, the wording wife of his father meant ‘stepmother,'” and observes that God repeatedly told the Israelites to refrain from sexual relationships with their father’s wife (Lev 18:8, 20:11; Deut 22:30, 27:20). “‘Deliver This Man to Satan’ (1 Cor 5:5): A Case Study in Church Discipline,” Master’s Seminary Journal 3.1 (1992): 35.
  4. Tommy South, That We May Share His Holiness: A Fresh Approach to Church Discipline (Abilene, TX: Bible Guides, 1997), 87. Read my book review regarding South’s excellent but brief volume.
  5. Some view the expulsion here as permanent, and redemption only to be found at the end of time (Harris 146-48); however, such a conclusion runs counter to the instruction of Jesus on discipline (Matt 18:15-17), to Paul’s use of similar language in disciplining and restoring false teachers (1 Tim 1:20), and the general tenor of the New Testament regarding cleansing of sin in the Christian’s life (1 John 1:6-2:3). Gerald Harris, “The Beginnings of Church Discipline: 1 Corinthians 5,” Understanding Paul’s Ethics: Twentieth-Century Approaches, ed. Brian S. Rosner (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 129-51. Cf. Wayne Jackson’s article on the forgiveness available to Christians in sinful lifestyles is quite compelling: repentance, confession, prayer, and the cleansing blood of the faithful Christ. “God’s Plan of Salvation for His Lost Children,” ChristianCourier.com (Accessed: 7 July 2004).
  6. Laney, “Biblical Practice of Church Discipline,” 355-56.
  7. David J. Williams, Paul’s Metaphors: Their Context and Character (1999; repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004), 248.
  8. Peter S. Zaas, “‘Cast out the Evil Man from You Midst'” (1 Cor 5:13b),” JBL 103.2 (1984): 259.
  9. Zaas points out that aside from a minor adjustment by Paul, the Greek phrase is parallel with the LXX (i.e. Septuagint) formulations in Deuteronomy (“‘Cast out the Evil Man from You Midst,'” 259).
  10. Richard B. Hays has a brief discussion on this passage in his work, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1989). For Hays, Paul showed, if not in retrospect, that the Corinthians are part of the same covenant tradition as Ancient Israel. As such, the use of this formulae to expel the fornicator would have implicitly emphasized this relationship and demanded the logical obedience the congregation is to display in the removal of the sexually immoral brother from the congregation. In this action, they show themselves to be Israel – not figurative, but real Israel. Whether or not the Corinthians completely understood Paul’s use of this excommunication formulae Hays cannot prove, but he does respond to this point: “In this instance, [the] direct quotation becomes an allusive trope: only the reader who recognizes the source of the words will grasp the bold theological proposal implied by Paul’s metaphorical act of addressing Corinthian Gentiles as children of the covenant” (97).
  11. Daniel B. Wallace, “2 Corinthians: Introduction, Argument, and Outline,” Bible.org. For those interested in this issue, Wallace’s discussion will be of help on some of the complexities of this issue.
  12. James Pilgrim, Withdrawing from the Disorderly (West Monroe, LA: Central Printers, n.d.). I agree with Pilgrim’s observation that, “To fail to forgive and receive the returning brother is as wicked as not marking him in the beginning (2 Cor 2:11)” (17).

Bibliography

Harris, Gerald Harris. “The Beginnings of Church Discipline: 1 Corinthians 5.” Pages 129-51 in Understanding Paul’s Ethics: Twentieth-Century Approaches. Edited by Brian S. Rosner. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995.

Hays, Richard B. Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul. New Haven, CT: Yale University, 1989.

Jackson, Wayne. “Church Discipline – A Tragic Neglect,.” ChristianCourier.com(Accessed: 8 June 2000).

Jackson, Wayne. “God’s Plan of Salvation for His Lost Children.” ChristianCourier.com.

Kistemaker, Simon J. “‘Deliver This Man to Satan’ (1 Cor 5:5): A Case Study in Church Discipline.” Master’s Seminary Journal 3.1 (1992): 32-46.

Laney, J. Carl. “The Biblical Practice of Church Discipline.” BSac 143.572 (Oct.-Dec. 1986): 353-63.

Pilgrim, James. Withdrawing from the Disorderly. West Monroe, LA: Central Printers, n.d.

South, Tommy. That We May Share His Holiness: A Fresh Approach to Church Discipline. Abilene, TX: Bible Guides, 1997.Joseph H. Thayer,

Thayer, Joseph H. Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. 1896. Repr. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999.

Vine, William E. Vine, Merrill F. Unger, and William White, Jr. Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words. Nashville, TN: Nelson, 1984.

Wallace, Daniel B. “2 Corinthians: Introduction, Argument, and Outline.” Bible.org.

Williams, David J. Paul’s Metaphors: Their Context and Character. 1999. Repr. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004.

Zaas, Peter S. “‘Cast out the Evil Man from You Midst'” (1 Cor 5:13b).” JBL 103.2 (1984): 259.