Memorization in Greek: 1 Cor 6:1-8

1.) τολμᾳ τις ὐμων πραγμα εχων προς τον ἒτερον κρινεσθαι επι των αδικων και ουκι επι των ἁγιων:
2.) η ουκ οιδατε ὃτι οἱ αγιοι τον κοσμον κεροῦμεν; και ει εν υμιν ὁ κοσμος κρινεται, αξιοι εστε κριτεριων ελαχιστων;
3.) ουκ οιδατε ὃτι αγγελους κρινοῦμεν; μετιγη βιοτικα.
4.) βιοτικα μεν ουν κριτερια εαν εχετε, τους εξοθενημενους εν τῃ εκκλεσια, τουτους καθιζετε.
5.) προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω. τουτῶς ουκ ενι εν υμιν ουδεις σοφος, ὃς δυνησεται διακριναι ανα μεσον του αδελφου αυτου;
6.) αλλα αδελφος μετα αδελφου κρινεται, και τουτο επι απιστων.
7.) ἣδη μεν ουν ὁλως ἡμμητα υμιν εστιν ὃτι κριματα εχετε μεθ᾽ ἑαυτων. δια τί μαλλον αδικεισθε; δια τί μαλλον αποστερεισθε;
8.) αλλα υμεις αδικειτε και αποστερειτε, και τουτο αδελφους.

Please forgive the many mistakes and sporadic accents, it was mostly from memory. One thing which immediately popped out even more clearly in Greek (not in the Greek!) was the κρινω words (judgement/law words). Apparently Greek gets quite a lot of mileage out of this one verb:

  • κρινεσθαι- go the law (the passive form)
  • κεροῦμεν- we will judge
  • κριτεριων- to preside over, sit as judges
  • κριτερια- lawsuits, disputes
  • κριματα- lawsuits

The κρινω words are everywhere in this passage! In fact, I suspect I’d find the same thing throughout the letter. I had considered doing a study on judgment in 1 Corinthians, and this just makes me want to do it even more! I probably won’t get to it anytime soon however.

And now, for a rather rough translation-
1.) Dare any of you who have a dispute with another, dare you take it before the unjust for judgment instead of before the saints?
2.) Or don’t you know that the saints will judge the world? And if by you the world is judged, are worthy to judge trivial matters?
3.) Don’t you know that we will judge angels? How much more trivial things!
4.)If you have disputes about trivial things, appoint even those who are of little account in the Church!
5.) I say this to your shame. Can it truly be that there is no one among you who is wise? Who is able to judge a dispute between one brother and another?
6.) But one brother goes to law with another, and this in front of unbelievers!
7.) This is already a complete defeat for you, because you have lawsuits with one another. Why not rather be unjustly treated? Why not rather be cheated?
8.) Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and do this to your brothers!

This is horribly awkward and inconsistent as it stands, but I’ll leave it without editing it. Some particularly difficult places:
1.) The verb τολμᾳ (dare you) at the beginning is very hard maintain when translating into English. I like it at the beginning because it sets the tone up for the rest of the passage, so I chose to just insert it again later in the verse.
2.) I’m wondering how many different ways the phrase και ει εν υμιν ο κοσμος κρινεται can be taken. The supplied “and if by you the world is judged” is pretty literal, but I also have the image of the world going to law against the saints. The first rendering is preferred, most likely, since Paul does later highlight the saints’ role in the final judgment.
3-4.) I wasn’t quite sure how to render βιωτικα. The UBS dictionary has “things pertaining to everyday life,” so trivial things may have been too strong a word. Things pertaining to everyday life was way too long though, so I went with “trivial things” to try and capture the contrast with judging angels. The NIV’s “things of this life” is probably better!
5.) Just awkward ;-)
7-8.) I wanted to keep the “just” root in αδικεισθε, which I why I used “unjustly treated.” The NIV’s cheated is nicer though, particularly for brevity’s sake.

Oh, and for 1-8, I often wanted to use a ‘!’? as punctuation since the questions are mostly of the biting, rhetorical kind. It looked too awkward though.

When I do this in the future, I’ll probably copy and paste the Greek text (or just eschew accents altogether when typing) It was great practice to type it out, but it took forever!

~alex

P.S. You can find my many mistakes by comparing me with this site.

Romans 12:6 and the Charismatics

I read quite a bit about the charismatics gifts back when I first started following God, but I was never satisfied with the explanation of this verse:

Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, in proportion to our faith;” Romans 12:6 (ESV)

Most of the teaching I heard around this verse seemed to have some almost “magical” definition of faith behind it. If we prophesy past our “faith bar” it’s not proper prophecy anymore! Of course that’s a parody and caricature, but it still seemed gets at how I viewed this verse. The ESV Study Bible’s note proved a little more helpful, “Paul instructs prophets to speak only when they have confidence that the Spirit is truly revealing something to them, and not to exceed the faith that God has given hem by trying to impress others.”

A thought occurred to me as I read this, what if Paul’s talking about trustworthiness instead of faith? The same Greek word πιστις is used for both concepts. This word plays a big part in the Pastoral epistles, particularly with the formula, “this saying is trustworthy.” Thus, the idea Paul would be communicating is to not prophesy past the trust you’ve established with the community. With itinerant prophets roaming around, this could be a problem.

That said, I’d have to argue for the whole passage being read that way, and look at how exactly Paul uses the word throughout the whole letter. It might be anachronistic to read the Pastoral Epistles back into Romans since they came later. However, this does make more sense of the passage, particularly in the context of Romans 12 and the ethical instruction to the church. Whether it makes sense in context with the whole of Romans is not yet clear to me.

~alex

Faith, Good Works, and New Creation (Part 3)

In the previous post, I looked at faith from the perspective of its object:  the person or thing in which we place our faith (in this case, God).  Essentially, our faith relies on God’s faithfulness.  Our faith must rest in God’s nature, not our ability to perceive him.  This worked its way toward God’s mission in the world, a mission in which we’re called to participate.  This was an unexpected turn, but I’ll run with it and return to trust and relationship later.

So, how on earth does faith relate to works?  These two have been wrongly divided in Protestantism for many years, although the problem goes back to the early Church, as James makes clear (James is reacting against a perversion of Paul’s message in James 2).  The Protestant discomfort with good works goes back to the reformation, with Sola Fide (by faith alone) being a banner under which most Protestants marched.  The problem is that in reacting to the extremities and perversions of medieval Catholicism (indulgences, self-flagellation, etc), Luther brought the Pauline message of justification by faith into direct contradiction with James:  “Do you know that you are not justified by faith alone?”  This has had enormous implications for subsequent Protestant teaching and ministry.  Any suggestion of the Christian duty to serve the poor, sacrificially give, or defend the defenseless throws up objections of works-righteousness.  “Oh, you’re just trying to earn your way into Heaven!” many exclaim.  However, even Paul insists on the necessity of good works.  He not only speaks of justification by faith, but also a justification according to works (Romans 2).

So then, how do we Protestants put the two back together?  If we reduce faith to mental assent to doctrine, it may be difficult.  But if faith is richer than this, if it includes trust in God, if it includes clinging to the blessed hope, if it includes faithfulness, then it is not as difficult.

Essentially, faith is not only the basis for good works (as if one could build a foundation of faith, and then leave it, not completing the house), but good works are the very means by which faith is proven.  One may have good works without faith, but one can never have faith without works, just as one may have sacrifice without love, but never love without sacrifice.  Good works must proceed from faith.  If we claim to trust in God, to believe what he has revealed in Scripture and in the Church, and then fail to act accordingly, then we betray our unbelief, our lack of faithfulness, our infidelity.  Now, this faith may express itself in any number of imperfect ways.  We won’t always see it;  in fact, we’ll probably rarely see it, both in ourselves and in others.  However, it’s no less necessary.  God is going to restore this world.  God’s saving mission for humanity is just the first part of him restoring the entire cosmos!  His mission in this world is much bigger than just saving a few souls.  If he’s going to redeem and restore the entire cosmos, then we’ve got work to do!  God loves to work through and with his human creatures.  This will take us to the next part of the series:  New Creation.  What are good works?  And how do they fit into God’s purposes for the world?  We’ll go all the way back to Genesis to sort through that question.  But I’ve rambled on enough for the moment.

Until next time,

~alex

Translation Question: Philemon 1:5

This questions comes following a post I did here. My question comes from the second paragraph where I talk about verse 5. Basically, is the NIV justified in rendering the verse “because I hear about your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love for all the saints.”  The underlying Greek is this: ἀκούων σου τὴν ἀγάπην καὶ τὴν πίστιν ἣν ἔχεις πρὸς τὸν κύριονἸησοῦν καὶ εἰς πάντας τοὺς ἁγίους. A rather literal translation would be, “I hear about your love and faith(fulness) that you have toward the Lord Jesus and toward all the saints.” The basis for translating according to the (T)NIV, as I understand it, is something called chiastic structure. Basically, it’s a literary structure where the pairs go A B B A. If that’s the structure Paul has in mind, then the majority of modern translations are justified in going with pairing faith with Jesus and pairing love with saints. If πιστις is rendered as faith, then I understand how the chiastic structure is necessary. If we go with a broader meaning for πιστις, like faithfulness or loyalty, then it would be perfectly fine to have both πιστις and αγαπη applying to both Jesus and the saints. What is the full justification for rendering it like the NIV? I’ve only seen the chiastic structure assumed, not argued. Are we harmonizing with Colossians 1? Input from more knowledgeable in Greek would be wonderful. :-)

Philemon

The bible study I’m a part of took a look at Paul’s letter to Philemon this week, so I’m going to reflect here a bit after my study and our discussion.  I definitely have a lot to grow in terms of bible study participation.  I neither communicated well nor listened well.  Hopefully that will change as the study progresses. 

First, I had this letter memorized in the NIV (from participating in teen bible quiz), so I was most familiar with that translation.  As I ventured out beyond the NIV, I tried to look at some other translations, and the underlying Greek.  Verse 5 in particular jumped out to me, which I rendered as, “I hear about the love and faithfulness that you have toward the Lord Jesus and toward all the saints.”  That doesn’t quite bring out the distinction between Jesus and the saints (Paul uses two different words which can be translated as toward), but this seemed more vibrant than the NIV’s “because I hear about your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love for all the saints.”  Notably, I think Paul is commenting on Philemon’s love and faithful loyalty toward the saints and toward Jesus.  Philemon is demonstrating loving faithfulness in his actions toward God and God’s people, enough so for Paul to hear about it. 

Verse 6 also made more sense as I studied it further, “I pray that the fellowship/partnership (gk koinonea) of your faith would effectively grow toward the knowledge of every good thing that’s ours in Christ.”  Seeing the Greek word koinonea excited me, because it brings out tones of not just partnership, which Tom Wright highlights, but also of rich, Christian fellowship.  Both the ESV and the NIV render the beginning of the verse to like this, “I pray the sharing of your faith would be…” To me, the term “sharing your faith” seems foreign to the New Testament but very common in contemporary evangelical lingo.  Perhaps that’s why Tom Wright, Eugene Peterson, and the TNIV translate along the lines of “partnership” instead of “sharing your faith.”  For me, this fits in better with the rest of the letter, which is not primarily concerned with evangelism (though evangelism is important!) but with the reconciliation of a runaway slave to his master, which will hopefully result in liberation for Onesimus.  Among other things, this would mean that Onesimus could continue helping Paul in Philemon’s place (verse 13)  Verse 7 brings out the depth of joy and affection which Paul feels toward Philemon.  It’s clear that Philemon is a very dear friend in the Lord, and that Paul is deeply encouraged and joyful because of his vibrant, godly life. 

This, I think forms the basis of the appeal for Onesimus.  He appeals on the basis of love (verse 8), on the basis of a deep affection and encouragement (verse 7), and on the basis of a shared partnership and fellowship in the gospel (verse 6).  This is why Paul can make a very bold appeal to Philemon.  Of course, this love is not just toward Philemon, but also toward Onesimus, whom he calls, “my very heart.” (verse 12)  Paul cares deeply for both, and for their sakes and the sake of the Gospel he makes the appeal for reconciliation (there’s interesting connections here with 2 Corinthians, perhaps worth exploring elsewhere).  Paul also drops subtle hints of their equal standing before God, which he develops elsewhere in Colossians and Ephesians.  He wishes that Onesimus could “take your [Philemon’s] place” in helping Paul, and urges Philemon to welcome him back, “as much more than a slave, and a brother in the Lord!”  The deeply subversive nature of the christian gospel fascinates me.  Paul recognizes the legal and practical bases on which Philemon could punish or even kill Onesimus, but he urges him to consider the Gospel, to consider what I have done for you, to consider our koinonea in the faith.  These clearly trump the reasons which come from an earthly point of view (what about the other slaves; our economy is based on slavery! etc).  Paul persuades christianly.  He doesn’t lord his authority over Philemon (though he does remind him of their past together).  That’s one thing I think we need to learn from Paul: how to persuade christianly.  As christians, we have to learn not to beat people up with scripture (or anything else).  Instead we have to argue on the basis of love and affection.  We have to persuade in the shining light of what Jesus has accomplished.  To beat people up or “lord over people” in the name of Jesus, even for something good, is to undermine the faith we declare (especially when we beat up our brothers and sisters!).  God, help us sort this out!

But of course, the greatest theme we see here is the theme of reconciliation.  The ministry of reconciliation which we have been given is astounding.  As God made his appeal through the apostles, “be reconciled to God!” so he continues to do into the present age.  We are to be his ambassadors, his peacemakers, his agents of reconciliation.  Undoubtedly, this won’t be easy.  Sin is nasty.  The full fruition of sin in the fall works out into a fractured and divided humanity.  We have blood feuds which go back generations.  Yet, we must hear God’s desire for reconciliation, and prayerfully step between the slave and his master, all in the name of Jesus, motivated by His love and power.  The world desperately needs this news.  Reconciliation won’t be quick or easy.  Indeed, we won’t see its full fruition until the parousia, until God puts the whole world to rights, but we absolutely have to anticipate it now, because our labor is not in vain:  Happy are the peacemakers, because they will be called children of God. 

Reflections on Tom Wright’s Justification

I wanted to record a few little bits as I go along reading N.T. Wright’s book on Justification. More will be coming as I continue to read through the book. Hopefully I’ll get to write a review of the whole book once I finish.

I just finished up his bit of exegesis on Corinthians. His reading of 2 Corinthians 5 I found challenging, as I often do when I read Wright. I think he’s correct in his exegesis, but it does fly in the face of how I’ve heard that passage read and read it myself for years. However, it makes much more sense of the text. As I recall, the argument is basically that the end of 2 Cor 5 (especially the "that we might become the righteousness of God" part) is the climax to the 3 chapter long expose on the nature of his apostleship. The we here functions first to refer to the apostles. The point of becoming the righteousness of God is not so much we’re not going to hell, or we’re pardoned from sin, or that we’re going to heaven but that through the apostles (and in turn the whole church) God is making his plea of reconciliation to the world, God is displaying his covenant faithfulness in us (faithfulness to the covenant is Wright’s definition of righteousness as understood in second temple Judaism and early Christianity). We have made the primary focus of this passage what Paul has made the implicit, underlying assumption. Paul is not talking primarily about what happens to us when we become Christians, he’s rather discussing his apostolic calling, and indeed the call of the entire church. By dying and rising with Christ, by the washing of baptism and the seal of the Holy Spirit, in the power and wisdom of the Spirit we call out to the world: "be reconciled to God!" As usual, Wright’s reading of the text, though not always agreeing with the Protestant tradition which I’ve grown up in, does give me the "Aha!"’ moment. Scripture makes much more sense than it did before.

His comments on Ephesians, too were interesting. In our Protestant zeal to divorce soteriology (how we get saved) from ecclesiology (our beliefs about the church), we’ve lost the New Testament’s very high ecclesiology. Frankly, it’s hard for me to reconcile Paul’s picture of a glorified church with our rather spotty track record over the past 2,000 years. I suppose that’s another part of learning to live with the eschatological tension, the tension which groans in the present because we’ve experience a down payment of what’s to come. I do find it comforting that the primitive church was far less perfect than we sometimes imagine it. Paul too, as he wrote Ephesians, knew that the church was not perfect. He knew that racial tensions were rampant, and that false prophets and teachers abounded. His letters to the Corinthians showed how "colorful" the church could be. Yet he still paints the broad, view of a jew+gentile church, one which is seated in heavenly places with Christ, which is, indeed, the bride of Christ. It’s a fascinating picture which Paul paints for us, and understanding the jew+gentile tension certainly helps it resonate more deeply within me.

Thanks for reading!