Tag: Paul

Status Update

~ Alex Poulos ~ Leave a comment

So I’ve dropped almost completely off the radar the past couple of weeks.  I’ve had tons going on at work and school (err, the typical excuse ;-) )  I’ve also been writing a rather large paper (it’ll end up being 25pgs probably)  for my Early Christianity class on Ignatius’ use of Paul, which has consumed lots of my writing energy.  On the plus side, I should be able to post more often now since things are slowing down *somewhat*.  I’ll likely blog portions of the essay I’ve been writing, which has been a blast so far.  I’m arguing that Ignatius’ understanding of martyrdom was shaped extensively by a “participatory” understanding of Paul.  Lot’s of good stuff :-)

more soon!

~alex

Greek Translation: 1 Cor 7:6-8

~ Alex Poulos ~ Leave a comment

The text:

6.) τουτο δε λεγω κατα συγγνωμεν ου κατ῾ επιταγην.
7.) θελω δε παντας ανθρωπους ειναι ὡς και εμαυτον. αλλα παντα εχει ιδιον χαρισμα εκ θεου. ὁ μεν ουτως, ὁ δε ουτως.
8.) λεγω δε τοις αγαμοις και ταις χηραις, καλον αυτοις εαν μεινωσιν ως καγω.

A rough translation:
6.) I’m saying this as a concession, and not as a command.
7.) I’d like for all to be as I am. However, all have their own gift from God. One has this gift, another that.
8.) To the widows and widowers I say: it is good for them to remain as I am.

Some notes:
6.) I’m thinking τουτο (this) refers to the instruction in 2/3-5, though I’m not sure.
7.) I’ve translated θελω very lightly as “I would like.” I think Paul is speaking rather lightly here, on the level of wish or preference. He’s quick to point out that not everyone has the gift that he does.
8.) The question here is precisely the meaning of αγαμοις. Most literally, it means unmarried. But in light of the rest of the passage, I think he’s speaking specifically to widowers, especially since χηρα seems to refer only to women. If that’s the case, then it might support the hypothesis that Paul himself was a widower, though pushing beyond singleness as the meaning of the “as I am” statements needs to be done carefully.

Meditating on the “gift of celibacy” is something that we Protestants should probably do more of. What does Paul mean when he speaks of singleness as a gift? What does it mean for a wife or husband to a gift? It’s a worthy line of thought methinks.

~alex

DoG: The Approach

~ Alex Poulos ~ Leave a comment

Other parts to this series can be found on my Deliverance of God page.

The approach of Campbell’s Deliverance of God is a bit different from what one may expect. The book is not primarily exegesis! Exegesis plays a big, important role in the argument, but it’s not primary. The argument is theory driven. This seems strange at first glance. In good protestant form, I too want to jump into Scripture first and sort out the results later. But Campbell’s theoretical approach is rather powerful for several reasons.

The basic argument works in five parts. Part One consists of a description of Justification Theory on a theoretical level. After describing JT, he explores the difficulty of this particular reading. He examines both intrinsic difficulties (those within JT itself) and systematic difficulties (those seen when compared to Pauline texts, especially Romans 5-8). Part One continues with Campbell’s critique of JT’s depiction of Judaism and its account of conversion itself. It ends with Campbell concluding that JT is responsible for many of the interpretive dilemmas in Pauline scholarship and within the Church as a whole.

Even after this theoretical examination of Justification Theory, Campbell doesn’t immediately jump into the exegesis (close reading of a Biblical text) right away. Instead, he begins with some interpretive (hermeneutical) considerations. The primary reason for doing this is that Campbell believes that “an important, and possible quite insidious, set of interpretative dynamics is operative that can distort any naive or merely unselfconscious approach to the texts” (221). For Campbell, these must be grasped and neutralized as much as possible before we can simply “read Paul.” In Part Two he builds an interpretive base for working with the texts. He also some gives some history of interpretation of Paul, including a highlight of the Reformer’s reading of Paul. Finally, he looks at some dangers that surround reading Paul in a modern European (or North American) setting. Only with these interpretive dilemmas and warnings presented does he finally proceed with exegesis.

Parts Three through Five deals directly with the Biblical texts. Part Three deals with Justification Theory and the texts which are used to support it. It primarily deals with Romans 1-4 as the “textual fortress” on which JT rests (Douglas’s metaphor). Part Four offers a rereading of Romans 1-4 (probably the most provocative piece of the argument. Part Five then extends this rereading of Romans 1-4 to the rest of Romans, as well as to other key texts which have been used to support JT.

I’m still working through Part Two at the moment, so I can’t comment on his exegesis yet. However, I must say that his approach is noteworthy. Starting with the theoretical models and working to the texts is novel, but I think it’s helpful and even necessary. He’s correct in that a “completely unbiased” reading of the text is impossible. We’re greatly influenced by the traditions we have received, regardless of their source. Highlighting these inherited “interpretative tendencies” is necessary work as we start to examine the texts. It keeps us honest and hopefully humble as we dialog with one another about the meaning of the Scriptures. I know I’ll find stuff to take issue with, but I’m deeply impressed at the breadth and depth of his argument.

~alex

DoG: The Heart of the Matter: The Justifcation Theory of Salvation

~ Alex Poulos ~ 1 Comment

Other parts to this series can be found on my Deliverance of God page

As part of my summary and (slight) analysis of Campbell’s The Deliverance of God (hereafter DoG), I will condense and articulate Justification Theory as Campbell states it.  Justification Theory (or JT) is Campbell’s name for the classic Protestant statement of the core of the Gospel, namely Justification by Faith alone.  Historically, this is often called the “Lutheran” reading, but Campbell opts for “Justification Theory” instead.

DoG is fundamentally a critique and rejection of Justification Theory.  Campbell appropriately begins his tome with his articulation of JT.  He acknowledges that he is susceptible to creating a “straw man,” but strives to articulate the “opponent’s reading” as well as he can.  For the sake of discussion on the blog here, it’s also necessary to state what JT says.  Growing up in a Protestant church, JT was rarely explained in full, but it was certainly latent in our thinking.  So, now we can begin!

Campbell describes Justification Theory as a soteriology (theory of salvation) of two contracts.  The first one is rigorous, and the second one is generous.  The first contract goes something like this:

  • Premises
    • Humans are rational, self-interested and ethical.
    • God is omnipotent and just.
    • Everyone knows God is omnipotent from examining the Universe.
    • Everyone knows God is just from their own conscience.
    • God’s ethical demands are made known to Jews through the Old Testament laws.
    • God’s ethical demands are made known to everyone else innately (through their conscience)
    • Rewards and punishments will be meted out by God in accordance to a person’s obedience or disobedience of these ethical demands.  (Have you obeyed or not?)
    • Present injustices will be resolved at the end of time on the day of judgment.
    • The future age will have a positive aspect (heaven) and a negative one (hell).
    • God will determine an individual’s destiny based on their merit, whether they’ve obeyed his ethical laws or not (in accordance with Romans 2:6-10).
  • The Introspective Twist and the Loop of Despair
    • As we try to fulfill God’s ethical demands, we fail.  After failing, we try harder to fulfill God’s demands.
    • The harder we try, the worse we fail.
    • This results in a “Loop of Despair,” where we grow more and more depressed as we realize we cannot fulfill God’s ethical demands.
  • At this point, the “Generous Contract” enters:
    • God redirects, graciously, the punishment we deserve to Christ (who dies).
    • Because of his sinlessness and divinity, Christ can offer unlimited satisfaction of divine justice through his sacrificial death.
    • God redirects, generously, the perfect righteousness of Christ to sinners who are now viewed as if this righteousness were their own.
    • God, again graciously, offers faith as the criterion for accessing this righteousness.  This is manageable, unlike the the rigors of the first contract.
    • Individuals who have this faith access the perfect righteousness of Christ and will receive a favorable judgment on the day of judgment (they’ll go to Heaven).

Campbell goes through these in more detail, but that will suffice as a depiction of JT.  Toward the end of chapter 1, he lists these as the “root” metaphors of Justification Theory:

  • Humanity is ultimately individual, rationalistic, and self-interested. Humans are primarily cognitive (thinking is our most basic task).  By thinking, we discern the second “root” idea:
  • God is primarily an authority figure of strict justice. The “philosophical man” discerns the most fundamental divine attribute is retributive justice (that is, God punishes wrongdoing and rewards right-doing).
  • Humanity perceives itself to be “ethically incapable.” Humanity tries to do right in light of God’s justice, but is unable to fulfill these commands.
  • There needs to be compensatory mechanism of satisfaction, namely, Christ’s atonement. Jesus’ death pays for the sins from which humanity cannot escape.
  • The criterion of salvation is faith.   An individual accesses this work of Christ by believing in the revelation of Christ’s death and resurrection.

Campbell is working here on the theoretical level.  He only wants to with JT on a theoretical level since his approach is “theory” driven.  Discussion of the key Biblical texts will come later, but right now he wants to highlight the integrity (and also the difficulties) of JT before interacting with the important texts.

I’ll respond a little bit to his method in a separate post, but I find his articulation of the classic interpretation fair.  Admittedly, I haven’t done a tone of reading on classical Protestant theology, but it does fit will with both my reading and my experience growing up in Church.  If there’s something “amiss” in this representation, please let me know.  I’ve cut out a lot to make the summary manageable, so it’s likely I left something important out!

~alex

Participation as a Correction of “Dominion Theology”

~ Alex Poulos ~ Leave a comment

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

~ Alex Poulos ~ 1 Comment

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

~ Alex Poulos ~ 2 Comments

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

Accordance has arrived!

~ Alex Poulos ~ Leave a comment

The title says it all. My copy of accordance arrived today and I’m quite excited. I’ve already purchased the Apostolic Fathers add-on. Now I just have to learn how to use this amazing tool!

Also, I got The Deliverance of God by Douglas Campbell from the Library. I don’t know that I’ll ever work my way through all of it, but it looks interesting so far. Finally, I got A Reader’s Greek English Lexicon from the Library as well. I’m not sure if it’ll be helpful to my memorization stuff, but it may.

~alex

Greek Study: 1 Cor 6:12-16

~ Alex Poulos ~ Leave a comment

Today, we’ve several more verses:

12) Παντα μοι εξεστιν, αλλα παντα ου συμφερει. Παντα μοι εξεστιν, αλλα ουκ εγω εξουσιασθησομαι υπο τινος.
13) τα βρωματα τῃ κοιλιᾳ και ἡ κοιλια τοις βρωμοσιν. ὁ δε θεος και ταυτην και ταυτα καταργεσει. το δε σωμα ου τῃ πορνεια αλλα τῳ κυριῳ, και ὁ κυριος τῳ σωματι.
14) ὁ δε θεος τον κυριον ἣγειρεν και ὐμας εξεγερεῖ δια της δυναμεως αυτου.
15) ουκ οιδατε οτι τα σωμα ὑμων μελη Χριστου εστιν; αρας οὗν τα μελη Χριστου ποιεσω πορνης μελη; μη γενοιτο.
16) η ουκ οιδατε οτι ὁ καλλωμενος τῃ πορνῃ ἓν σωμα; Εσονται, γαρ φησιν, ὁι δυο εις σαρκα μιαν.

Now, for a rough translation:
12) “All things are permissible,” but not all things are beneficial. “All things are permissible,” but I myself will not be mastered by anything!
13) “Food for the stomach and the stomach for food.” But God will destroy both of these! The body is not intended for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body.
14) God raised the Lord, and he will raise us also through his power.
15) Don’t you know that your bodies are members of Christ’s body? Should I then take the members of Christ’s body and join them to the body of a prostitute? Absolutely not!
16) Or don’t you now that the one who joins himself to a prostitute becomes one body with her body? For it says, “the two will become one flesh.”

Some notes
12-13a) I love Paul’s quotations of the Corinthians slogans, and the force with which he corrects their thinking. The second correction in verse 12 is particularly forceful, where Paul uses the pronoun εγω when it’s not necessary. It’s for that reason I added the kinda awkward “myself.” Paul certainly wants the Corinthians to follow his example and not the example of those flaunting their “freedom in Christ.” Paul correction goes so far in verse 13 that he calls for God’s judgment.

13b) This is a puzzling piece to me, and I’m not quite sure how to interpret the datives. It’s not uncommon in Greek to leave the verb implicit, and Paul does it here. Usually the verb ειμι (to be) is implicit. Apparently the food saying had wider implication than simply justifying gluttony. It seems the Corinthians were using it in a general sense: my desire for an object justifies me fulfilling that desire. Thus, if I want sex, it’s okay for me to engage in temple prostitution (this is a common argument today, even if it’s left implicit). Paul can’t stand this, which is probably why he makes such a strong statement about “God destroying both of these.” Paul’s corrective here is that our bodies are not for πορνεια (same root word as prostitute, something like sexual immorality) but for Christ. He then throws in the extra little bit that I can’t completely wrap my head around: “και ὁ κυριος τῳ σοματι,” “and the Lord for the body.” Paul undoubtedly has his “church as the body of Christ” metaphor in mind here, and I think Paul is saying that Jesus’ intention is toward his Church. I’m not really sure how to unpack this further though. How exactly is the “Lord for the body” or “intended for the body?”

14) Paul links proper behavior with resurrection. Basically, our physical bodies matter for two reasons. One, the Lord was raised in a physical body. Two, God will raise us in physical bodies like he did for the Lord. Thus, what we do in our physical bodies now is extremely important, as they are part of God’s good creation.

15) The body metaphor comes out very clearly in this verse. I wasn’t really sure how to translate μελη.  Literally, it refers to a part of the body. I don’t like the word member since we don’t really use that to refer to a part of the body, but part didn’t sound right either. In characteristic fashion, Paul uses some argumentum ad absurdum. He makes a ridiculous deduction (we should join Christ with a prostitute!) to show the absurdity of the Corinthian behavior.

16) Paul continues his scolding of Corinthian sexual behavior, this time with a scriptural quotation. In Greek, the verb εσονται (will become) is split off from the rest of the quotation by the linking words γαρ φησιν (for it is said). By doing this, I believe Paul is emphasizing even more the ramifications of sexual immorality, the “oneness” of the two participants. In engaging with a prostitute, you are assuming her identity.

Next up are verses 17-20. I may do a summary of the whole chapter afterwards as well.

~alex

P.S. This passage does not serve to condemn the many who are tragically trapped and exploited in the sex trade every year. Paul makes it clear in verse 11 that some of the Corinthians had indeed come out of prostitution. The prostitution going on in this city was likely temple prostitution, which had a cultic, pagan quality to it. The end of sexual exploitation is something Christians are called to work for in the present, even if it won’t be ended entirely until the Lord returns.

Greek Study: 1 Cor 6:9-11

~ Alex Poulos ~ Leave a comment

Since I’m currently going with 4 verses a day, I actually got through verse 12, but I’ll delay that verse since it starts a new section.

9.) ἧ ουκ οιδατε ὃτι αδικοι θεου βασιλεαν ου κληρονομησουσιν; μη ανασθε, ουτε πορνοι ουτε ειδωλολατραι ουτε μοικοι ουτε μαλακοι ουτε αρσενοκοιται
10.) ουτε κλεπται ουτε πλεονεκται ου μεθευσοι ου λοιδοροι ουκ αρπαγες βασιλεαν θεου κληρονομησουσιν.
11.) και ταυτα τινες ἧτε, αλλα απελουσασθε, αλλα ἣγιασθητε, αλλα εδικαιωθητε εν τῳ οναματι του κυριου Ιεσου Χριστου, και εν τῳ πνευματι του θεου ἡμων.

Now for a rough translation:
9) Or don’t you know that the unrighteous will not inherit God’s kingdom? Do not be deceived! Neither those who practice sexual immorality, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, male prostitutes, nor homosexual offenders,
10) Nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor slanders, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
11) And you were some of these things, but you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God!

Notes:
In verse 9, I’m curious about the significance of the word order for θεου βασιλεαν versus βασιλεαν θεου. Both mean kingdom of God, and word order is much freer in Greek than in English. However, Paul inverts the normal word order with θεου βασιλεαν in verse 9 and then reverts back to the normal order in verse 10. Is Paul bringing special emphasis to God in bringing the word θεου forward in the sentence? I’ve asked the B-Greek mailing list and I’ll update later with some of their thoughts.

In verse 10, I’m puzzled as to why Paul reverts to ου… ου… ουκ for the last few items instead of keeping up the ουτε. Again, no difference in meaning, but it seems peculiar to someone new to Greek.

Verse 11 is my favorite of the group. The verse doesn’t exactly play nice with what I was taught concerning salvation and sanctification. I was always taught that sanctification followed salvation, and was an ongoing process through the believers life. Here, Paul says very clearly “you all were sanctified,” or “You all were made holy.” Sanctification does have an ongoing aspect, but Paul chooses here to focus on sanctification as an act which took place in the past. After all, how can you be a saint (which in the New Testament is synonymous with believer) if you have been made into one (sanctified). Απελουσασθε (you all were washed) probably refers to baptism, and one could argue on the basis of 1 Cor 12 that that is what Paul has in mind here.

The repetition of αλλα is also interesting. I don’t *think* that it’s grammatically necessary for Paul to repeat the αλλα, though I don’t know enough to say for sure. If my hunch is correct, then the repetition of αλλα serves to drive home the correction even harder. From what I’ve read from Steve Runge and Rick Brannan, αλλα is generally used as a corrective ‘but.’ It thus serves to say, it’s not this but that! Here, I think it’s serving to forcefully remind the Corinthians of both their previous way of life, and their baptism, sanctification, and justification, mostly so that they’ll start acting like appropriately. Repeating the ‘but’ would be awkward in English, but you get a similar effect by repeating the “you were,” which could be dropped.

Finally, I’m curious about the  εν τῳ …. εν τῳ … phrase at the end of verse 11. As is usually the case in Greek, εν is a remarkably flexible preposition. It often means ‘in’ with the sense of location. It can also mean ‘by.’ I was surprised to come across two εν’s because I was familiar with the NIV’s “in the name… by the Spirit of …” This verse definitely parallels with 1 Cor 12 where Paul speaks of being baptized “by (εν) one spirit into (εις) one body.” Once Accordance arrives, I’ll look for some more examples where εν and εις are used together to better understand what’s going on there.

Next up, verses 12-16!

~alex

Update: My post to the B-Greek board garnered several responses. It was agreed that this was a “marked” word order, which means that since the word order is unusual there’s some meaning to it. What it actually means is not that easy. Another interesting idea mentioned was that θεου modified αδικοι instead of βασιλεαν. This means that instead of:

“Don’t you know that the unrighteous will not inherit God’s kingdom?”

it would be translated something like this:

“Don’t you know that the unrighteous with respect to God will not inherit the kingdom?”

It’s a bit awkward to me to see it that way, but I guess it’s grammatically possible. The Greek genitive is extremely flexible in how you interpret it, so there’s probably other ways to understand the construction as well.