Greek Memorization/Translation: 1 Cor 7:9-16

The text:
9.) ει δε ουκ ενκρατευονται, γαμησατωσαν. χρειττον γαρ εστιν γαμησαι η πορυσθαι.
10.) τοις δε γεγαμηκουσιν παραγγελω, ουκ εγω αλλα ὸ κυριος. γυναικα απο ανδρος μη χωριςθηναι.
11.) εαν δε και κωρισθῃ, μενετω αγαμος η τῳ ανδρι καταλλαγετω, και ανδρα γυναικα μη αφιεναι.
12.) τοις δε λοιποις λεγω, εγω ουχ ὸ κυριος. ει τις αδελφος γυναικα εχει απιςτον και αυτη συνευδοκει οικειν μετ᾽ αυτου, μη αφιετω αυτην.
13.) και γυνη, ει τις εχει ανδρα απιστον, και ὃυτος συνευδοκει οικειν μετ᾽ αυτης, με αφιετω τον ανδρα.
14.) ἣγιασται ὁ ανερ ὁ απιστον εν τῃ γυναικι και ἡγιασται ἡ γυνη ἡ απιστον εν τῃ αδελφῳ. επει αρα τα τεκνα υμων ακαθαρτα εστιν, νυν δε ἁγια εστιν.
15.) ει δε ὁ απιστος κορισθῃ, κοριζεσθω. ου δεδολωται ὁ αδελφος η ἡ αδελφη εν τοις τοιουτοις. εν δε ειρηνῃ κεκλεκεν υμας ὁ θεος.
16.) τι γαρ οιδας γυναι, ει τον ανδρα σοσεις; η τι οιδας ανερ, ει την γυναικα σοσεις;

The Translation:
9.) But if they can’t control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
10.) To the married I give this command, not I, but the Lord. A woman must not separate from her husband.
11.) But if she separates, she must remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a man must not divorce his wife.
12.) To the rest I say, I not the Lord, If a brother has an unbelieving wife and she is willing to live with him, he should not divorce her.
13.) And if a woman has an unbelieving husband, and he is willing to live with her, she should not divorce the husband.
14.) For the unbelieving man is sanctified by the believing wife, and the unbelieving woman is sanctified by the believing husband.
15.) But if the unbeliever leaves, let them be separated. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances, as God has called you to peace.
16.) Who knows, woman, if you’ll save your husband? Who knows, man, if you’ll save your wife?

Some Notes:
The big translation issue here it how to render αδελφος. Literally, it means “brother” or “sister.” Paul is using it figuratively here to mean “fellow Christian.” In fact, this is his favorite word for “Christian” (he actually never uses the Greek word for Christian). Keeping it as brother (or sister) helps communicate the familial nature of the Church. However, it’s also going to confuse those who don’t understand the language. Christians were accused of incest for a long time because they referred to one another as “brother” and “sister.” For instance, in 1 Corinthians 9, Paul writes that he has the right to take a “sister” as a wife. He means a female Christian, but it does sound funny ;-) Pagans made a natural inference when hearing stuff like this, though an incorrect one.

Theologically, I love v. 14. In some way, having a single Christian in a home “makes holy” the rest of the home. The participatory aspects (being in Christ) of 14 and 16 are quite interesting, as I noted here. I also love Paul’s practicality here. As I delve into theology, history, and biblical studies, I hope I can maintain the deep practicality of all of it.

 εν αυτῳ,
~alex

Participation as a Correction of “Dominion Theology”

As I’ve been thinking more about the topic of participation in Paul’s letters, I’ve realized that participation theology (that is, a solid understanding of the believer dying and rising with Christ), may serve as a needed corrected to some aspects of Charismatic theology. Let’s start with a bit of background. Protestantism historically has embraced a pessimistic attitude toward humanity, even toward the believer. Especially for Luther, the believer remains plagued with sin, while still a saint, and must cling by faith to the coming deliverance of Christ. Justification is something God does for the believer, once and for all, in the cross. It is imputed to the believer, but the believer’s is still torn between both flesh and Spirit (à la Romans 7). There may also be a tendency to delay the “good things” about believers into a future age, whether it’s inheritance, sanctification, etc.

What a lot of Charismatic theology has done is reclaim the good things the New Testament has to say about the believer. Charismatics love passages like Ephesians 2:3-10, where the believers are portrayed as being seated with Christ in the Heavenly realms. We love Romans 8, and the triumphant “Life by the Spirit.” We love 2 Cor 5:17-21, where the believer is called a new creation! We definitely love statements like, “As the father has sent me, so I send you.” The miraculous aspects of Jesus’ ministry typically follow. Some Charismatics go so far to promulgate a “Dominion Theology” where Christians are supposed to “reign with Jesus” in places of leadership throughout the secular world. See this for a bit more info.

On the whole, I think this a good progression from Luther’s pessimism, but it does have some problems. First, there are a few practical problems. An exalted view of the believer is an easy recipe for spiritual arrogance and pride. The prosperity gospel probably came from this imbalance. Also, it can lead to some existential quandaries. Sometimes, life sucks. Even if I’m a son of God, I sure don’t always feel like it! Along with this, any struggle is automatically because of demonic oppression. Or, if God doesn’t answer my prayer, my faith is really shaken!

The traditional doctrine of justification actually encourages these, in my mind. The problem is that the cross is thought of primarily (or exclusively) as something that God did through Jesus for us. This is absolutely true! But it’s not the complete story. We are also called to emulate the cross, to participate in the dying and rising with Christ. We Charismatics love to emphasize the power of resurrection without the suffering of the cross, but God calls us to both. They’re definitely linked in Paul’s mind. Philippians 3:10-11 is a very good example of this, “I want to know Christ, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, and so somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead.” This balance is absolutely crucial. It helps us make sense of the challenges of life (which sometimes get downright terrible; but then again, so was the cross!). I helps us make sense of the awesome points of life (after all, we’re sharing in the power of his resurrection!). It helps us remember that the way to exaltation and glorification is through the the Cross, the way of humility. We are heirs with Christ, but this involves sharing in his suffering (Romans 8:17).

Overall, I think that a robust “participationist” reading of Paul will help us live much more effectively. It helps us remain humble in suffering while celebrating the glorious parts in the life of the believer. Charismatics heartily embrace the power of the Resurrection. Hopefully we can embrace the suffering of the Cross as well.

~alex

Participation in Paul: 1 Cor 6 and 7

As I’m thinking more about suffering in Paul’s thought and Ignatius’ thought, I’ve realized that I’m going to have to defend a “partcipationist” reading of Paul. Typically, this is done by arguing the “in Christ” notion of Paul as being more fundamental or important than his justification/legal language. I’m not terribly interested in attacking justification, but I do want the participation language to take its proper place. The early fathers read Paul almost exclusively on these terms, where as Protestants have done the complete opposite: we have read Paul exclusively from justification/legal terms. We need to understand both! As I’ve been working through 1 Corinthians and memorizing, I’ve been surprised by the participatory language that is present. It’s couched in very practical sections, but it’s there nonetheless.

The first thing I noticed was 1 Cor 6:17, “But the one who joins himself with the Lord is one with him in spirit.” The contrast here is with the prior verse, and the one “who joins himself with a prostitute.” Here, our union with Christ is compared to sexual union. If that’s not participatory language, I don’t know what is! Of course, as I’ve noted somewhere prior, I don’t want to run off to strange places with this metaphor. But what remains is that there is something “mystical” (for lack of a better word) going on here. There’s is more to conversion than simply what Christ accomplished on the cross (magnificent though it was!). In baptism, we die and rise with Christ. We become a part of his body. We participate in his suffering and in his glorification.

We see similar things a chapter later. After instructing believers married to unbelievers not to leave their spouses, Paul offers this little statement:
For the unbelieving man is sanctified by the [believing] wife, and the unbelieving woman is sanctified by the [believing] husband. If this were not so, your children would be unclean. As it is, though, they are holy”
and, after another verse:
how do you know, wife, that you won’t save your husband? how do you know, husband, that you won’t save your wife?”
1 Cor 7:14,16

What’s strange here is the “high view of the believer” for lack of a better term. Paul states that an unbelieving spouse is made holy by a believing spouse. He also states that a believing spouse may save an unbelieving spouse. I think this is difficult to make sense of in a traditional, justification-driven framework.

For example, if I lead a friend to Christ tomorrow, and then introduce to my pastor as “my friend who I just saved,” I’m probably gonna get a rebuke about how it’s only Jesus who saves people, not me. Likewise, If I pray for a sick person and they become well, it’ll sound strange if I say, “I just healed someone!” I’ve been corrected along those lines before, in my more youthful and zealous days. But whereas that kind of language makes us uncomfortable, it doesn’t seem to phase Paul here (though he does have problems when he’s mistaken for a Greek deity ;-) ). The New Testament occasionally will name an apostle as healing someone without making explicit reference to God, like in Acts 28:8: “Paul visited him and cured him by praying and putting his hands on him. “

I think this make much more sense if we take Paul’s participation language into account. How on earth can a believer make an unbeliever holy? How on earth can a believer make their children holy? And how on earth can a believer sanctify an unbeliever? Well, if we’re “one with the Lord in Spirit” then it makes sense. If we’re participating with Jesus in the power of resurrection and the fellowship of sufferings (Philippians 3:10) then we can talk like this. It’s not me κατα σαρκα (according to the flesh) that saves or sanctifies someone, it’s me κατα πνευμα (according to the Spirit). It’s the me that has joined itself with the Lord, and become one with him in Spirit.

A high view of the believer (contra Luther, perhaps?) makes plenty of sense when we consider that we are μελη χριστου, members of Christ’s body. In some way we take part in the suffering and the glory of the risen Messiah. From this standpoint, I think we can begin to understand what’s going on here in 1 Corinthians regarding “saving” and “sanctifying.” The people correcting me were right to an extent, it is only the triune God that saves and heals. The funny thing is, we’re called into that triune fellowship, that communion, in Christ and by the Spirit. I don’t know what that means exactly, but it’s tremendously exciting. I’m looking forward to discovering more!

~alex

Participation and Paul’s Understanding of Suffering

So, as I’ve stated before, I’m currently working on an essay that examines Ignatius’ suffering in light of Pauline suffering. To do this, I have to clearly articulate what we learn about Paul’s understanding of suffering from his letters. Right now, I’m trying to think of texts to examine this. Philippians will definitely play a large role in my construction, but 2 Corinthians will also likely play a big role. There also seem to be little germs spread out in other letters where suffering isn’t an explicit theme, like Romans 8:17, Colossians 1:24, Ephesians 3:13, Galatians 6:17, and throughout Thessalonians.

Baptism seems to play a large part in Paul’s theology of suffering. In baptism, we participate in the passion, the death and resurrection of Christ. In baptism, we have been “crucified with Christ,” (Gal 2:20), and are “clothed with Christ” (Gal 3:27). Paul goes into more depth in Romans. In understanding suffering, I think we have to understand the participation language in Paul, and not simply think in forensic terms like Protestants typically do. That’s to say that while there is a large amount of legal terminology in Paul, where something is done by God for the sinner, there’s also quite a bit of participation language in Paul. When taken into account, this means that the sufferings of Christ are not only something done for us, but also something which we ourselves participate in to some degree. This is seen in Philippians 3, among other places, “I want to know Christ, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead.” Of course, the justification language in Paul is very important as well, but I don’t think we’ll correctly understand Paul’s ethics, and especially his views on suffering, without understanding the participation of the believer in Christ.

~alex