MENU

Where the world comes to study the Bible

Justification by Faith: The Case of Abraham and David (Romans 4:1-8)

Related Media

A Translation

1. What, therefore (ou]n), shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, found (euJrhcevnai)1 according to (katav) the flesh? 2

2. For if Abraham was justified by works, (then) he has a boast, but not before God.

3. For what does the scripture say? “But Abraham believed God and it was reckoned (ejlogivsqh) to him as (eij") righteousness.”

4. But to the one who works, the wage is not reckoned freely (kataV cavrin) but as an obligation.

5. But to the one who does not work, but believes in3 the one who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness,

6. just as (kaqavper)4 also David says about the blessing of the man to whom God reckons righteousness apart from (cwriV") works.

7. Blessed are those whose sins were forgiven and whose sins were covered.

8. Blessed is the man of whom the Lord will not reckon sin.

Synthesis

Paul proves from the Old Testament scriptures through the illustrations of Abraham and David that justification is the gift of God, appropriated by faith, not the payment for one’s works for which men would only receive judgment.

Exegetical Sentence Outline

    I. Paul gives the example of Abraham to show that even Abraham discovered that he was justified by faith. (1)

      A. Paul uses logic to prove that even if Abraham could boast before other men (and he could not), he still could not boast before God (verse 2).

      B. Paul uses Old Testament scripture which attests to the fact that Abraham was justified by faith. (3)

        1. Paul clarifies Gen. 15:6 by stating that justification for one’s works is payment for what is owed (verse 4).

        2. Paul further explains that justification on the basis of one’s faith is grace (verse 5).

    II. Paul gives an example from the life of David as further proof that one is justified by faith and should be grateful that he is not judged upon his deeds (4:6-8).

Exposition

Introduction

Paul has devoted the first three chapters to prove that the whole world is guilty before God. He has most recently made the point that “by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified” (3:20), that “none are righteous” (3:10) and that “all fall short of the glory of God” (3:23). But God in His graciousness provided justification through Jesus (3:26). Therefore, the only way to be justified in the eyes of God is by faith (3:28). To prove his point5 Paul shows that there are no exceptions and shows that this is not a new concept by giving scriptural examples from the lives of Abraham and David.

The Example of Abraham (4:1-5)

In first century Judaism, Abraham was considered to be a model of obedience to God. For example, 1 Maccabees 2:52 says, “Was not Abraham found faithful when tested, and was it not reckoned to him as righteousness?” And Josephus says, “He was a man of incomparable virtue, and honored by God in a manner agreeable to his piety towards him.”6 The Jews looked at Gen. 26:5 as further proof because in that passage God promised Isaac further blessing “Because Abraham obeyed Me and kept My charge.”7 Paul knows that in the Jewish mind, if anyone was justified by works, it was Abraham. If he can prove that this is not so, it will further his argument. Therefore, Paul shows that even for Abraham, who lead an exemplary life and for whom there is no scriptural record of heinous sins, that justification was still by faith.

Paul gives two arguments,8 one logical and the other scriptural, concerning Abraham’s justification.

    The Logical Argument (4:2)

His logical argument picks up on the concept of “boasting” in 3:27 as he asks “if Abraham was justified by works, then he has something to boast about.” This would seem to imply that Paul’s statement in 3:27 is not true, but he is doing two things here. Paul first defeats their argument by pointing out that even though one might boast before other men, it is unthinkable that one would boast before God. Second, one should recognize that this is a hypothetical argument.9 Paul is not actually agreeing that Abraham could even boast before men. He is simply saying that, even if Abraham were justified by works (but he was not), he still couldn’t boast before God. Some argue as to whether or not Abraham could boast before men or not. This is not the real issue. Abraham was not justified by works, so he could not boast before anyone, man or God.10 The issue is that faith excludes boasting because the one with the faith doesn’t do anything. Works is antithetical to faith.

    The Scriptural Argument (4:3)

The scriptural argument comes from Gen. 15:6 which says, “and Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.” This further validates Paul’s point that we are justified by faith because Old Testament scripture says that Abraham was also justified by faith. However, one must recognize that the scriptural argument would not be convincing to the Jewish audience because they typically saw Abraham’s faith as just another work.11 Consequently, Paul turns to an explanation of the difference between faith and works to validate his use of Gen. 15:6.

    Explanation of Genesis 15:6 (vs. 4-5)

Paul proceeds to explain what the Genesis passage means. The key to Paul’s explanation is in the terms “reckoned” and “believed.” The word “reckoned” means to take into account or credit something to someone (BAGD, p. 476). The readers have a choice. They can be credited for their works as payment for what is owed them, or they can be credited with righteousness for simply trusting God.

Expanding on his statement of 3:24 that justification is the result of grace, Paul points out that if justification was based on works, it would not be free. The word gift (carin) is significant because it shows that righteousness “credited” for “belief” is a gift. It relates back to the principle that justification is the result of grace. In other words, Abraham was credited with a righteousness that he did not deserve. Abraham’s justification was for his faith alone.

Paul will later show that Abraham was credited with righteousness before he was circumcised (vs. 10) and before the inauguration of the law (vs. 13).

The point of the passage turns on what you want credited to your account. Do you want God to credit you with what you are owed according to your works or do you want Him to credit you with righteousness for your faith.

The Example of David (4:6-8)

Lest his audience think that being credited with righteousness for one’s works is an option, Paul picks up on this last concept with a second example from another venerable “forefather,” namely, David.12 The Jews also held David in high regard. He was a man after God’s own heart (1Sa 13:14, Acts 13:22). In case his audience missed the point about Abraham, Paul drives the point home with a quote from Psalm 32:1-2. This passage makes it clear that the bestowal or “reckoning” of righteousness to David was not part of “what was owed” (cf. Vs. 4) but was in fact “in spite” of what was owed. David pronounces blessing on the man to whom righteousness is imparted apart from works.

The context of Psalm 32 and Paul’s quote in verse 7 is in the aftermath of David’s sin with Bathsheba. David had already committed the sin. There was nothing he could do except ask for forgiveness. Therefore, David supports Paul’s concept when he states that God was gracious to forgive him for his sins. He definitely did not deserve it, but this is certainly consistent with God’s character and the concept that God’s ways are not man’s ways.13

The point of his illustration is to show that man could not stand up under the scrutiny of God. If men were to receive what they deserved, they would not be credited with righteousness. They would, instead, be condemned to hell. That is what is meant when David says, “Blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not reckon his sin” (vs. 8). The only covering for sin (vs. 7) comes through faith in Jesus Christ.

Conclusion

Paul has demonstrated logically and scripturally that men are justified by faith. The core issue in this section draws on the first three chapters which teach that men’s works cannot stand up under the scrutiny of God. If men want God to “reckon” to them according to their works, they will be condemned. It is only when one accepts God’s undeserved gift of righteousness through faith that one is justified before God. Therefore, the church needs to be careful not to slip into the natural tendency to stress works as a way to gain merit with God.

Bibliography

Bauer, Walter and others, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 2nd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979).

Cranfield, C. E. B., The Epistle to the Romans Vol. 1. (Edinburg, T. & T. Clark LTD, 1975).

Godet, F., Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Michigan, Zondervan Publishing House, 1956).

Josephus, The Works of Josephus, Trans. by William Whiston (Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson Publishers, 1987).

Lenski, R. C. H., The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (Columbus, Ohio: Wartburg Press, 1945).

Metzger, Bruce, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Stutgart: United Bible Societies, 1971).

Moo, Douglas, Romans 1-8 (Chicago: Moody Press, 1991).


1 Some see euJrhcevnai as meaning “concerning Abraham” cf. Douglas Moo, Romans 1-8, (Chicago: Moody Press, 1991) p. 262-63. This is unlikely because it is redundant for Paul to say that Abraham is their forefather according to the flesh. Others see euJrhcevnai as going with ejrou`men. cf. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. (Columbus, Ohio: Wartburg Press, 1945), p. 279. This is unlikely, because Paul cannot assume what “we have found” concerning Abraham. That is what is being discussed. This interpretation also does not adequately explain the phrase “according to the flesh.” It seems best to take this as related to Abraham’s discovery because it best fits the argument of the passage. The issue is whether one can be justified according to the flesh (works) or not. Consequently, Paul wants to look at what Abraham “found” concerning this topic.

2 The NA26 apparatus gives the following four readings: (1) Tiv ou ejrou`men jAbraaVm toVn propavtora hJmw`n B, 6, 1739 (2) euJrhcevnai jAbraaVm toVn pavtera hJmw`n a1, C3 D F G Y (3) jAbraaVm toVn patevra hmw`n euJrhcevnai. Majority Text (4) euJrhcevnai jAbraaVm toVn propavtora hJmw`n a*, B, C, D*, G, 1506(*) Explanation: Although BDF follows the first reading which omits the infinitive (BDF p. 254), it is unlikely because there appears to be no reason as to why the infinitive would be added if it were not original in the first place. Cf. Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Stutgart: United Bible Societies, 1971), p. 509. The second reading simply smooths the uncommon word propavtora (a hapax legomena cf. BAGD p. 709) with the more common pavtera. The 3rd (Byzantine) reading in an attempt to indicate that the kata sarka is to be taken with the infinitive (euJrhcevnai) as opposed to the jAbraaVm toVn propavtora hJmw`n has placed the infinitive in juxtaposition to the prepositional phrase. In other words, the Byzantine reading is a scribal attempt to clarify the meaning of the text. The Byzantine reading also opts for the patevra. It is more likely that the last reading gave rise to the Byzantine reading. Conclusion: It seems best to go with the text as it stands in the NA26.

3 BAGD, p. 289 ejpiv = “in.”

4 NA26 cites kaqw" as a variant supported by D, F and G. kaqavper is more rare than kaqw" and is therefore to be preferred. kaqw" is simply a scribal attempt to make a more normal reading.

5 James Moo points out that the ou connects this section with 3:27-31 in Romans 1-8, p. 262

6 Josephus, Antiquities, I. 256.

7 Cf. Jubilees 24:11 which says the same thing.

8 The two gavr’s in vss 2 & 3 introduce the arguments concerning Abraham.

9 This is a first class condition which means Paul is assuming this to be true only for the sake of argument. The gavr connects the hypothetical question to the preceding argument and requires a negative answer to the question.

10 James Moo, Romans 1-8, p. 264, C.E.B. Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans vol 1, p. 228.

11 C.E.B. Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans vol 1, p. 229.

12 Not all agree that this is a second example holding that this is simply a quote from David which continues the argument from the example of Abraham. Cf. F. Godet, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House, 1956), p. 172.

13 Compare Isa 55:8 which is given in the context of God’s forgiveness.

Related Topics: Regeneration, Justification

Do All Things Really Work Together for the Good? Romans 8:28 in its Context

Related Media

You’ve heard it thousands of times: “Don’t worry; everything will work out just fine.” It’s the eternal optimism that is borne not in the crucible of reality but in the wishful thinking of the American dream, of Hollywood make-believe, or of a nave Pollyanna outlook. All of us know it isn’t completely true—we know of children who were cut down by cancer or drunk drivers, of drug addicts who came from good homes, of family men who lost their jobs, of soldiers who returned from battle with one less limb. We know of countless tragedies and needless suffering, yet we repeat the myth to our children without blinking an eye: “Don’t worry; everything will work out just fine.”

This sentiment is not new; it did not start in modern times. Ancient Greeks and Romans uttered something similar to their children, knowing that their words were hollow. And the apostle Paul also said something like this. The difference is that Paul did not write a sanguine blank check; he conditioned his sentiment with important qualifiers, and he defined the ‘good’ as other than comfort and wealth.

In real estate it is said that there are three fundamental principles one must follow when buying a house: location, location, and location. In interpreting scripture, there are also three fundamental principles: context, context, and context. Romans 8:28 is no exception to this rule. If we look at it in its context, we will understand its intent.

The overall context of Romans 8:28 is one in which Paul addresses living by the power of the Spirit in the midst of suffering and pain. Paul was no stranger to suffering; his several near-death experiences, beatings, imprisonments, and persecutions were enough to eradicate any Pollyannaism that might have lurked in his heart. In the immediate context—within the verse itself—Paul expresses prerequisites for the good to take place: “we know that all things work together for good for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose” (Rom 8:28, NET Bible). Paul is not giving this promise to all people, but only to those “who love God, who are called according to his purpose.”

But what does this mean? Those who love God are, in this context, Christians, because they are called according to God’s purpose (note v. 30: the ‘called’ are also the ‘justified’ who will be ‘glorified’). Some take the present participle ‘who love’ (ajgapw'sin) as a temporal condition, as if to say, “As long as you love God, things work out; but whenever you are not loving God, things do not work out for your good.” This interpretation, however, is unlikely. First, the tense in this construction is most likely a gnomic present, indicating a characteristic rather than a temporal condition. Second, the following verses (29-30) speak of our conformity to Christ, our glorification, as the inevitable outcome of those who love God. And that is not dependent on how much we love God but on the finished work of Christ on the cross. Paul concludes this chapter by making explicit that nothing can separate us from the love of God (vv. 38-39). And by implication that would include even our temporary lapses in our love for the Savior.

What, then, is the good? It is defined for us, initially at least, in v. 29, one of the forgotten verses of scripture: “because those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that his Son would be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters” (NET). The good is not our comfort, wealth, or health. It is conformity to Christ! This good is then fully defined in the next verse: “And those he predestined, he also called; and those he called, he also justified; and those he justified, he also glorified” (NET). Ultimately, all things work together to bring each Christian into conformity to Christ, to bring each Christian to glory. So certain is Paul that this will take place that he speaks of our glorification in the past tense! He uses what is called the “proleptic aorist,” a device in Greek when an author is indicating that “it’s as good as done.” Not only this, but no one is lost between predestination and glorification. Paul does not say “some of those” or even “most of those” when describing each stage of the salvation journey. From predestination to glorification, he uses the simple “those” (ou{" or touvtou"); the repeated pronoun refers back to the entire group mentioned before. No one misses the boat along the way.

When we read Rom 8:28 in its context we can give a positive answer to the questions of pain and suffering in the world. We may see nothing good come of misery and disaster in this world, but this world is not all of reality. There is an ‘until’; there is a place beyond the horizon of what our senses can apprehend, and it is more real and more lasting than what we experience in this mortal shell. God is using the present, even the miserable present, to conform us to the image of his Son. If we define the good as only what we can see in this life, then we have missed the whole point of this text. For, as Paul said earlier in the same chapter, “For I consider that our present sufferings cannot even be compared to the glory that will be revealed to us” (Rom 8:18, NET). Western Christians—especially American Christians—are prone to pervert texts such as Rom 8:28. If our lives are comfortable, if we have wealth, good health, that is fine and well. But it is not the good that Paul had in mind, and it is not the goal of the Christian life.

Related Topics: Scripture Twisting

The Meekness, Membership and Ministry of the Believer (Romans 12:3-8)

Related Media

A Translation

3. For I say, through the grace given to me, to every man among you not to think more highly than he ought to think, but to think so as to have sound judgment, as God has allotted to each a measure of faith.

4. For just as in one body we have many parts, but all parts do not have the same function.

5. so we, the many, are one body in Christ and individually members of one another.

6. And having gifts which differ according to the grace given to us; if prophecy according to the analogy of the faith;

7. if service, in serving; the one who teaches, in his teaching;

8. the one who exhorts, in his exhortation; the one who gives, in abundance, the one who leads, in diligence; the one who shows mercy, with cheerfulness.

Synthesis

Paul exhorts the Roman believers to live in meekness using their diverse membership in the body of Christ as opportunities for ministry to one another.

Exegetical Sentence Outline

    I. Paul exhorts the Roman believers to have an attitude of meekness (12:3).

      A. The Roman believers’ meekness was to be based on sound judgment.

      B. The Roman believers’ meekness was based on God’s gifts, not their own merit.

    II. Paul explains the concept of membership in the body of Christ (12:4-5).

      A. The many members have many different functions (4).

      B. The different members are still part of one body (5).

    III. Paul explains that the purpose of differing gifts is for ministry to other members in the body (12:6-8).

      A. Prophecy should be in agreement with the rest of scripture (6b).

      B. Those with the gift of service, teaching and exhortation should focus on the development of their gift and minister with excellence (7-8a).

      C. Giving should be done with generosity and pure motives (8b).

      D. Leading should be exercised with diligence (8c).

      E. Showing mercy is to be done with an attitude of cheerfulness (8d).

Exposition

Introduction

After devoting eleven chapters to theological discussion, Paul now turns to an explanation of how this theology works out in daily living. He exhorts the readers to dedicate themselves to obedience to God, and that obedience is to be motivated by the theology just revealed (12:1). His exhortation is that they not be captivated by the foolishness of the world (1:21), but would, through the wisdom of God, become pure and mature (12:2).

In verses 3-8 Paul gives three practical examples of how the wisdom of God should affect one’s life. The individual should be characterized by meekness as he recognizes his salvation is the result of grace. His meekness should result in smooth assimilation into the membership of the body of Christ and result in opportunities for ministry which will benefit the other members in the body.

Meekness

Paul begins verse 3 with “for” which connects his thought to the previous section. What follows is an application of what he means by “good and acceptable and perfect” in verse 2.

Before he gives his commands, Paul appeals to his authority as an apostle in a humble way by saying, “through the grace given to me …” Paul recognized that his gift of apostleship was through no merit of his own; it was a gift from God. This humble statement shows that Paul leads by example and does not ask the readers to do something that he himself does not practice.

He tells the readers literally, “not to think more highly than they ought to think.” Because the “of himself” found in most translations is not in the Greek, some, such as Calvin, have taken this to mean that Paul is telling them not to be overly wise. He explains that “we should not exceed the measure of wisdom.”1 Calvin’s point doesn’t make much sense. How does one limit his reasoning ability? As one commentator says, “It is like telling a penguin not to fly.”2 Additionally, Calvin’s interpretation does not fit the overall context of Romans.

Paul tells the readers to use sound judgment. What is sound judgment? Perhaps it is related to all that Paul has been writing about. The constant theme of the book of Romans has been that man is hopelessly lost and without any ability to please God (chapters 1-3), he is saved by faith (3:21-5:), salvation has come to the Gentiles only because of Israel’s rejection, etc. Sound judgment must take these truths into account, so there is no room for conceit. In the immediate context which follows, Paul deals with taking one’s place in the body of Christ and ministering to others which would be hampered by an attitude of superiority.

Finally, this is also consistent with the normal use of the word translated “to think highly.”3 Therefore, it is best to understand the command to “not think more highly” as meaning “not think more highly of himself than he ought to think.”

Paul gives another reason for humility which is that “God has allotted to each a measure of faith.” Although Cranfield tries to make this “measure” a standard by which we measure ourselves,4 that seems unlikely. Any form of comparison will invariably lead to just the opposite of the humility Paul is calling for.

The next issue to resolve is the meaning of “faith” in vs. 3. Is this saving faith or the objective faith which is the doctrine believed? It seems that it is neither. It is unlikely that Paul is talking about different measures of saving faith. If you are saved, you are saved. One is not more saved than another. And the truth of the gospel is the same for all, therefore, this faith must be the exercise of faith by the believer. It makes more sense to understand Paul to mean that each believer has been given a different “expression”5 of faith. That expression is his spiritual gift.6 Paul will pick up on this in verse 6. Paul describes gifts in this way to emphasize that faith is essential in exercising one’s gift.7

So, Paul calls for meekness on the part of the Romans because sound judgment reveals that they are Christians only by the grace of God, because their abilities and gifts are through no merit of their own, and because it is only through faith in the power of God that they will be able to carry out the proper exercise of their gifts.

Membership

Paul continues8 his application and explanation of the allotment of gifts by explaining the concept of the body of Christ. He uses the analogy of the human body which has many different parts. Likewise, the believers who make up the body of Christ are all unique and have different functions.

But just as the many parts form one human body, the many believers are a closely connected community and each person’s contribution is important to the proper function of the body of Christ.

The phrase “in Christ” emphasizes that the glue which holds this body together is not racial or physical. It is a supernatural bond which is in fact the mystery of Eph. 3:6.

Ministry

The purpose of the allotted faith and membership in the body is ministry to others in the body. Thus Paul launches into a description of the purpose and function of spiritual gifts. The Greek word for spiritual gifts indicates any word or action which brings grace to expression9 and is consistent with Paul’s emphasis that their gifts are through the grace of God. Paul mentions seven different gifts.

The first gift listed is prophecy. The one with the gift of prophecy gives new revelation from God. The guiding factor, according to Paul, is the “analogy of the faith.” Although some translations (RSV, NASB) translate this as “according to the proportion of his faith,” this sounds too much like the conclusion of verse 3. It seems redundant for Paul to repeat what he said in verse 3 only for the person with the gift of prophecy, so what does this qualification mean? There are two possible explanations: First, Paul may be warning the prophet to only speak what is revealed to him (according to the proportion of his faith) and not add personal opinion.10 A second option stems from the fact that the word translated “proportion” can also be translated “in right relationship to, or in agreement with.”11 If taken this way, it would mean that the revelation given by the prophet must be in agreement with the rest of scripture.12 The second option is to be preferred. The two views are not really contradictory. If one is prophesying only what is given to him by God (in proportion to his faith), then it is going to be in agreement with the rest of scripture.

Although there was a qualification for the exercise of the gift of prophecy, Paul does not maintain that with the rest of the gifts. 13 In the list of gifts which follow, the point Paul is making is that the believers need to focus on their own gift(s) and develop them. If their gift is service, then be a great servant. If their gift is teaching, then teach well, if exhortation, then exhort, etc. A few of the following gifts, however, do have qualifications or descriptions attached that deserve comment.

The second gift mentioned is ministry or service. This might refer to one of three things: ministry of the word, administration or “plain” service. Some think that this refers to the ministry of the word since it comes between prophecy and teaching in the list of gifts.14 If Paul is prioritizing the list, then dissemination of the Word would fit and is of primary importance. But although it seems strange to me that Paul would caution against conceit (vs. 3) and then give a prioritized list of gifts which would naturally make someone evaluate the importance of his function in the body, others could argue that that was in fact the reason he warned against conceit—because he was about to give a prioritized list. There is little support to take this as ministering the word other than its location between prophecy and teaching.

Some take the gift of ministry mentioned here to be that of management or administration. This stems from the use of the same Greek word for the office of deacon. If this is the correct understanding, then the limiting factor on the exercise of this gift is that it is to be done with an attitude of serving the members of the body and not with an attitude of lording it over the body. However, it seems unlikely that Paul would mention administration here and then list the gift of “leading” in the next verse.

Consequently, it seems best to take this gift of serving as just that—serving others in the body. And as discussed above, the limiting clause, “in our serving” is not limiting at all, but a call to devotion and excellence in service.

The one with the gift of teaching should devote himself to the task of teaching. The one who exhorts should exercise his gift in two spheres. The first sphere is that of confrontation and the second is consolation.15

The guiding factor for the one who gives may be either an attitude of generosity because the word translated “liberality” (NASB, RSV) can have the idea of generosity (2 Cor 8:2; 9:11, 13) or it might mean giving with pure motives, because the word also literally means “singleness.” This word is used by Jesus in Matt 6:22 and by James in 1:5 of a man with divided allegiances. This idea would indicate that the one who gives should give with single-mindedness of heart or with pure motives. His motivation should be for the good of others and not what he will gain from the gift. This is consistent with the concept of ministering to other members in the body.

The one who leads needs to lead with diligence.16 Diligence is certainly needed for the leader who must watch out day and night for the well-being of the body. The one who shows mercy should not do so grudgingly, but should do it with a cheerfulness that will encourage the afflicted. Otherwise, as Calvin writes, “to observe sadness in the countenance of those by whom assistance is given, makes them to feel themselves despised.”17

Conclusion

Paul calls the believers to meekness because it is the grace of God which saves them, which brings them into the body of Christ and which gifts them. Therefore, as unique members of the body of Christ, we need to appreciate our uniqueness and appropriate the gifts that God has given us to minister to one another.

Bibliography

Bauer, Walter and others, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 2nd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979).

Brown, John, Analytical Exposition of the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981).

Calvin, John, Commentaries on The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans, Trans. by John Owen, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1947).

Cranfield, C. E. B., The Epistle to the Romans Vol. 2 (Edinburg: T. & T. Clark LTD, 1975).

Dunn, James D. G., Romans 9-16 (Dallas: Word Books, 1988).

Murray, John, The Epistle to the Romans, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1968.

Robertson, A.T., A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1934).

Stevens, James D., “Calvin’s Interpretation of Romans 12.” Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1971.


1 John Calvin, The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans, p. 456.

2 James D. Stevens, DTS Master’s Thesis, p. 25. Stevens also points out that Calvin may have been over reacting to the humanists of his day who elevated the mind.

3 The word is uJperpronei'n which is a hapax legomena, but it typically has the meaning “to think too highly of oneself, or be haughty” in classical Greek literature. BAGD, p. 842.

4 C.E.B. Cranfield, Romans Vol. 2, p. 615.

5 James D.G. Dunn, Romans 9-16, p. 722.

6 Paul’s use of ejmevrisen in 1 Cor 7:17 and his use of ejmevrisen with mevtron in 2 Cor 10:13 are consistent with understanding this to mean that each believer is apportioned different tasks, lives, etc., or in our case “different gifts.”

7 John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, p. 119.

8 He links this section with the connective gaVr.

9 James D.G. Dunn, Romans 9-16, p. 735.

10 C.E.B. Cranfield, Romans Vol. 2, p. 621, also cf. John Brown, An Analytical Exposition of the Epistle of Paul to the Romans, p. 452.

11 BAGD, p. 57.

12 John Murray, Epistle to the Romans, p. 123.

13 The gift of prophecy is unique in this list because Paul uses kataV plus the accusative to emphasize a standard or rule for the practice of prophecy. (A.T. Robertson discusses this use of kataV, p. 608.) The other gifts are listed with associated dative clauses showing the sphere in which the gifts should be practiced.

14 John Murray, Epistle to the Romans, p. 124. Murray lists this as a possible meaning although he doesn’t hold to it.

15 parakalw'n can have the idea of exhortation which challenges one to change one’s actions or to console or comfort someone. BAGD, p. 617.

16 spoudhv means eagerness, earnestness, diligence. BAGD, p. 763.

17 John Calvin, Romans, p. 463.

Related Topics: Fellowship, Issues in Church Leadership/Ministry, Sanctification, Leadership

Paul and Civil Obedience in Romans 13:1-7

Related Media

Introduction

The Purpose of the Study

We live in a generation in which public opinion of those in political leadership is probably at an all time low. There are a number of reasons for this, including what appears to many as a "crisis in character." In any event, this is, generally speaking, the situation. The purpose of this study is to focus on what Paul had to say about authorities in Romans 13 in order that we Christians might better understand how it is that God would have us relate to those whom he, in is his sovereignty, has placed over us.

An Overview of the Study

The study will examine Paul's teaching on the Christian's relation to the civil authorities as outlined in Romans 13:1-7 and then compare that with 1 Peter 2:13-17. First, the study will survey the problem of the textual authenticity of the passage. Second, a translation and outline will be given followed by a brief look at the historical context of the letter and the social make-up of the church in Rome. Third, the bulk of the study will be taken up with an in-depth exegesis of the passage. Fourth, and final, certain similarities and differences between Paul and Peter will be delineated.

A Commentary on Romans 13

Romans 13:1-7: An Interpolation?

Virtually every serious commentary on the book of Romans has had to wrestle with the integrity of the last two chapters of the work, especially chapter 16.1 But, this is not the only place in the epistle where Pauline authenticity has been questioned. There are those, who for several different reasons, reject 13:1-7 as truly from the hand of Paul.2 One such interpreter who has advanced some of the strongest arguments in favor of Romans 13:1-7 as an interpolation (i.e., a later insertion into the text) is James Kallas.3

Kallas gives two general and three specific reasons for concluding that Romans 13:1-7 is an interpolation. In terms of the general observations, he says that it is likely that Romans 13:1-7 is an interpolation because 1) it is well known that the ending of the epistle has been altered radically and 2) nowhere else does Paul speak about the Christian's relationship to the civil authorities. In response, first, concerning the ending of Romans, it must be said that while there is continuing discussion about the authenticity of chapter 16 and parts of chapter 15, it is not a forgone conclusion that they are indeed spurious. Gamble has demonstrated that there is convincing evidence leading to the conviction that Romans 16 formed the original ending to the document.4 Even if Gamble's conclusion is rejected, it is questionable to assert that a pericope (i.e. paragraph) deep within the paraenetic section of 12:1-15:13 is somehow an interpolation due to the questionable nature of chapter 16—an epistolary ending. The problem with chapter 16 cannot be assumed to have occurred in 13:1-7.5 Second, the fact that Paul nowhere else speaks about governing authorities is an argument from silence based in part upon the doubtful authorship of the Pastorals.6 Even if the authorship of the Pastorals is questioned, it remains an argument from silence. We cannot forbid Paul to speak about something that he has hitherto, for whatever reasons, not mentioned. Paul's letters are occasional documents and the fact that he mentions something only once can more properly be explained as due to the occasion of that particular case. He mentions the Lord's supper only once (1 Cor 11:17-34). Does this mean that we should on that basis question its authenticity? Further, the universal offer (e.g. 1:16 and pantiV tw/' pisteuvonti) of the gospel to all people as outlined in the book of Romans clearly indicates its worldwide agenda. This, then, leads to the inevitable question of the relation of Christians to the state or governing authorities.7 The question of the Christian's relationship to the state is a discussion well suited to the book of Romans.

Kallas also raises three specific arguments against the Pauline authorship of Romans 13:1-7. His first two specific points include the idea that the passage is tightly constructed without logical connection to the previous section, and as such it not only stands in isolation, but also interrupts the flow of the argument in the context. The third argument Kallas raises suggests that Romans 13:1-7 "contradicts basic Pauline ideas and basic Pauline forms of expression."8 The first two objections can be responded to simply by seeing the logical connection that exists between both what immediately precedes and that which follows (i.e. the relation of 12:14-21 to 13:1-7 and 13:1-7 to 13:8-14). It seems that Paul's focus on "good" and "evil" in 12:17, 21 and the Christian's responsibility to be at peace with all people (12:18) provide sufficient basis for seeing a logical connection to 13:l-7—even though no grammatical connection is explicitly made through the use of gavr or diaV tou'to or some other Pauline connector. The idea of "clearing all debts" from 13:8 provides a nice flow out of the passage as well, whose end in verse 7 focuses on such issues. We will consider broader connections in the exegesis of the passage.

Kallas's third objection, concerning the lack of Pauline eschatology, and the use of ejxouvsiai" to refer to civil authorities (Rom 13:1), amounts to no real difficulty. Once again this will be demonstrated in the exegesis. Suffice it to say here that nowhere in the passage does Paul contradict an eschatological concept he elsewhere explicates. The fact that he may not emphasize eschatological ideas is no grounds for asserting a contradiction. Also, our understanding of Paul's use of language is at best descriptive, not prescriptive, and one cannot safely dismiss an author's consistency if he chooses to use the same term in different ways.9 Kallas has not proved his point of contradiction and thereby supported interpolation. We may proceed with the confidence that this passage is truly from the hand of Paul. The fact that it might represent or stem from earlier Christian tradition will be taken up further in the exegesis.10

An Exegesis of Romans 13:1-7

    A Translation and Outline of the Passage
      Textual Problems

13:1—The words Pa'sa yuchV ejxousivai" uJperecouvsai" uJpotassevsqw in the NA26 are replaced in one papyrus manuscript and certain Western witnesses (p46 D* F G it; Irenaeuslat and Ambrosiaster) with pavsai" ejxousivai" uJperecouvsai" uJpotavssesqe. The external evidence is decidedly in favor of the NA26 reading. Internally, pa`sa yuchv most easily gives rise to the other reading—the latter probably an attempt to avoid the Hebraic idiom involved in the presence of pa`sa yuchV.11

13:1-4—There are a number of minor revisions in the text which do not affect the sense much and the fact of their presence need only be mentioned in passing.12

13:5—The NA26 text reads ajnavgkh uJpotavssesqai, but p46 D F G it; Irenaeuslat Ambrosiaster leave out the ajnavgkh and read uJpotavssesqe. The overall witness for the NA26 reading is solid, including a A B Y. As Metzger comments, the changes appear to be an attempt to "simplify the construction."13 Dunn also suggests the possibility that the omission is due to an attempt to avoid "the implication of an impersonal cosmic necessity which dioV ajnavgkh may have suggested."14 In any case the manuscript evidence and the fact that ajnavgkh uJpotavssesqai is the more difficult reading all support its originality. That it is not too difficult (i.e. so difficult as to be virtually impossible) and awkward is demonstrated by the presence of ajnavgkh in Matthew 18:7 and Hebrews 9:16, 23.

Some have attempted to suggest that because Romans 13:1-7 is not found in Marcion's edition of the New Testament, it is therefore spurious. Actually, as F. F. Bruce points out, this is based primarily on "the ground that Tertullian, in his running commentary on Marcion's Pauline edition (Against Marcion v. 14.11-14), makes no reference to Romans 13:1-7. But there was probably no reason why he should refer to it."15 The only reasonable conclusion is that there is no good manuscript evidence for questioning the authenticity of Romans 13:1-7. (See above under "Romans 13:1-7: An Interpolation?")

      A Translation

13:1 Let every person be submissive to the governing authorities

13:2 For (gavr) there is no authority except [that which is given] by God and those who are appointed by God.

13:3 Consequently (w{ste) the one who resists authority, opposes the institution of God, and those who do so will receive judgment on themselves.

13:4 For (gavr) rulers are not a fear to good work, but to evil [work] Do you want to not fear the authority? Do good and you will have praise from it.

13:4 For (gavr) it is God's servant to do you good, but if you do evil, then fear, for it does not bear the sword in vain (eijkh`/). For (gavr) it is God's servant, an avenger to bring wrath on the one who practices evil.

13:5 Wherefore (dioV) it is necessary to submit, not only because of wrath, but also because of conscience.

13:6 For this reason (diaV tou`to gavr) you pay taxes, for (gavr) [those in authority] are God's servants who persist in this very thing.

13:7 Give back to all people what is owed; taxes to whom taxes are due; revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due and honor to whom honor is due.

      An Exegetical Sentence Outline

Subject/Complement: The reason the Roman Christians should submit to the governing authorities and give them their proper due is because the authorities have been appointed by God (as attested by conscience) and will praise those who do good and inflict punishment (i.e. wrath) on those who do evil.16

    I. The reason Paul commands the Roman Christians to submit to the authorities is because civil authority is God's institution and as such will punish wrongdoers and praise those who do good (13:1-5).

      A. Paul commands the Roman Christians to submit to civil authority because God has appointed that authority (1-2a).

      B. Paul commands the Roman Christians to submit to civil authority because the civil authorities will punish those who resist them (2b-3a) and praise and do good to them that obey (2b-4).

      C. Paul commands the Roman Christians to submit to civil authority because of the punitive action of the state (i.e. wrath) and also because of conscience (5).

    II. The way in which Paul enjoins submission to civil authorities who give themselves to collecting taxes is by giving back to them whatever is owed, whether taxes, dues, respect or honor (13: 6, 7).

      A. The reason the Roman Christians pay taxes is because God has appointed the state to receive taxes and they persist in collecting them (6).

      B. The way the Roman Christians are to demonstrate submission to civil authorities is by giving back to each authority what is owed, whether taxes, revenue, respect or honor (7).

    The Historical Setting of the Passage
      The Readership

There has been an ongoing discussion in scholarly circles with regards to the composition of the church in Rome. The letter was probably written to the church at Rome in the late winter/early spring of A. D. 57 so we can safely say that there were some Jews back in the city after being expelled due to the edict of Claudius in A. D. 49.17 Some of those Jews would undoubtedly have been Christians and were expelled for embroiling themselves in a dispute with other Jews over Jesus (cf. Acts 18:2).18 At this point Christians and Jews were considered to be basically one and the same group—at least as far as the state was concerned.19 During the middle to later years of the reign of Nero, Christians and Jews began to be distinguished as two separate groups.20 But the question remains as to composition of the church in Rome. Was the church composed of Gentiles? Jews? Or a mixture of the two? If so, did any group predominate?

The old Tübingen school, based on the Jewish element in chapters 9-11, postulated a solely Jewish church in Rome. Others have followed in a similar vein for various reasons including the assumption that the letter reads better if understood to refer to a Jewish Christian audience alone.21 Paul does refer to Abraham as propavtora hJmw`n which some have concluded indicates that the readers were primarily Jewish. As Harrison says, such an argument is "robbed of any great force" by Paul's reference to Israel as oiJ patevre" uJmw`n in 1 Corinthians 10:1 where the readership is primarily Gentile.22

Many interpreters argue for a primarily Gentile audience.23 Paul's reference to the audience as Gentiles among whom he has received grace and apostleship to call them to the obedience of faith (1:5, 12-14; 15:16); his reference in 6:19 to ajkaqarsiva/ and ajnomiva/ as well as the fact that he says that he explicitly addresses them as Gentiles (11:13) and says that they have received mercy due to Jewish unbelief—all this seems to indicate a Gentile audience. This has led to another, probably more accurate, theory.

Romans appears to be addressed to a mixed audience of Jewish and Gentile Christians. Due to the emphasis on the Gentiles, as indicated above, as well as Paul's personal call to the Gentile mission (15:16), it would appear that the Gentiles were in the majority. Perhaps this is, in part, due to the edict of Claudius wherein many Jewish Christians had been expelled, but not Gentile Christians. When the Jewish Christians returned (A. D. 54, 55?) the Gentiles were in the majority and in positions of leadership in the church.24

What was the church in Rome like in A. D. 57? From the lack of a reference to the church at Rome (i.e. meaning the entire church as a whole) in the book of Romans, combined with the fact that many different groups appear to be mentioned in Romans 16 (cf. 16: 5, 10b, 11), it seems rather safe to conclude at this point, that there was no central organization per se, or a central place of worship. Perhaps there were several house churches (cf. 16:5).

      The Political Setting

As has already been mentioned, the letter to the Romans was written in A. D. 57. Nero was in power, but in the early part of his reign (A. D. 54-68). There appears to be no indication that at this time he was a tyrant and brutal ruler.25 The Jews had been expelled in A. D. 49, but that was under Claudius and things appeared to be different in A. D. 57. There was a problem with "tax protests" under Nero in A. D. 58,26 but this does not appear to be relevant at the time of the writing of Romans. Therefore, we may assume that political conditions were fairly stable and that the Christian church which was undoubtedly born in the synagogues at Rome27 enjoyed the status of religio licita as they were still largely seen to be within Judaism's fold.

Marcus Borg suggests the possibility that Jewish nationalism had reached violent levels in Rome and for that reason the Jews were expelled28 and that such a situation forms the background to Romans 13:1-7. This appears to be cautious speculation. The expulsion occurred some eight years prior and there doesn't appear to be any concrete evidence to demonstrate that such was the case in A. D. 57. Ksemann suggests another possibility for the background to the passage. He claims that certain Christian enthusiasts had thrown off all restraint in the light of their heavenly calling and regarded "earthly authorities with indifference or contempt.29 This may be true, but it is difficult to defend from within or outside of the passage. Indeed the use of the indicative "you pay taxes" (v. 6) would tend to indicate that there was at least some degree of submission to the state already in the church.30 There have also been other suggestions concerning the background of the passage. It would appear, however, that we simply cannot be as precise as Borg or Ksemann suggest. We know that Paul exhorts the Romans in right conduct toward the state, but it is very difficult to say for sure what prompted such a discussion.

    The Literary Setting of the Pericope
    and Its Relation to the Argument of the Book

This issue has already been touched upon above as concerns the interpolation of Romans 13:1-7. There we saw that the pericope, while somewhat abrupt in that there are no explicit connectors,31 nonetheless continues the thought-line in the immediate setting of 12:9-21 and 13:8ff. There is the continual influence of Jewish wisdom from 12:9-21 and the use of similar language in 12:9-21 and 13:1-7.32 The passage relates well to 12:1-2, the major turning point in the focus of the letter (i.e. from the indicative to the imperative) where the Christian is urged on the basis of God's mercy to offer himself as a living sacrifice. This wholehearted submission of the Christian is expressed through a commitment to live righteously in an ever expanding series of relationships—including living in accordance with the government God has established.33 We must also consider the whole argument of Romans. Without entering into the rather great debate as to the purpose of the letter,34 we can see that there is a new defining line for the people of God—faith in Christ Jesus (3:21-24; 10:12).35 The Law, as it was so often used by the Jews to mark themselves out as God's people (cf. 3:2), has been replaced by Christ and one's attachment to him as the new defining line regarding the constitution of the people of God (10:4). As such, the Christian's relation to the state must be redefined, not as an opponent to be overcome necessarily, but as an ally as far as God's current program is concerned and as stewards to do good to those who obey. With this overarching theme in Romans, the civil injunctions in chapter 13 mesh quite well.

    The Exegesis Proper

The passage breaks down into three basic units consisting of the command to submit to authorities (13:1a), the rationale, including theological as well as practical considerations for such an injunction (13:1b-5), and certain matters of practical consideration covered by the command (13:6-7).

      The Command to Submit to Authorities (13:1a)

13:1a Pa'sa yuchV ejxousivai" uJperecouvsai" uJpotassevsqw. "Let every person be submissive to the governing authorities."

Pa'sa yuchv—literally means "every soul." It occurs in one other place in Romans with the same meaning as 13:1 (cf. 2:9).36 The expression has a Semitic background and is essentially a metonymy for the "person" as a living being. It occurs in Leviticus 7:27; 23:29; Acts 2:43; 3:23 and 1 Clement 64, among other places. In Leviticus 23:29-30 the Hebrew text has vp#n lk* which the LXX translates as pa'sa yuchv. Clearly this refers to the "person" to whom God was stipulating the regulations for the Passover. The references in Acts 2:43, 3:23; 7:14 and 27:37 also refer to the "person as a whole," not just the inner man. 1 Clement 64 reads, "May the all-seeing God. . . grant to every soul that has called upon his magnificent and holy name . . . ." Here Clement uses yuchv to refer to the person as a whole, and with pa'sa to refer to "every" person—the context being the delimiting factor in the "every." In summary, pa'sa yuchv focuses on the person as a whole (obliquely conveying the idea that man has a soul) and may yield overtures of creation—the fact that man was created a living being (cf. 1 Cor. 15:45 and Gen 2:7).37 Having shown that the phrase is a Semitism, such an emphasis must not predominate though, for it is used as the subject of a predominantly Hellenistic term, namely, uJpotavssw.38

ejxousivai" uJperecouvsai"—"governing authorities." The term ejxousivai" is the plural form of ejxousiva and refers not to the principle of authority as such (cf. ouj gavr e[stin ejxousiva further in the same verse), nor to the domain in which a certain authority is carried out (cf. Luke 4:6; 22:53; 23:7; Eph 2:2). Instead, it refers to the rulers themselves who are charged with exercising such rulership (cf. Luke 7:8; 19:17, esp. 20:20). Thus it refers to an official power or authority invested in certain individuals (cf. Luke 12:11 and the reference to the taV" ajrcaV" kaiV taV" ejxousiva" which probably refers to Roman authorities).39 In describing the rule of life for the Essene community Josephus says that a potential initiate "will show fidelity to all men, and especially to those in authority, because no one obtains the government without God's assistance" (War 2.140).

The term uJperecouvsai"40 is also used to refer to rulers. In Wisdom of Solomon 6:5 the text reads "because severe judgment falls on those in high places" where kings and rulers (cf. 6:1, 2) are clearly the referent for those in high places. Consider also 2 Maccabees 3:11 and the relation of wealth to positions of power and Philo, De Agricultura, 121, for its use to refer to a superior athlete.

The term ejxousivai" therefore had a wide a extensive usage in and around the time of the New Testament in reference to human rulers and combined with uJperecouvsai" serves to refer to the highest rulers (e.g. governing authorities) over people. We now turn our attention to certain questions concerning differing interpretations of ejxousivai" and uJperecouvsai". We will begin with uJperecouvsai".

Porter argues that the emphasis in the term uJperecouvsai" is not particularly superiority in rank, but qualitative superiority as well (i.e. justness). He cites several instances from Greco-Roman and Pauline literature where the term is used to refer to a qualitative difference. He says, "adopting the qualitative sense, Paul in Rom 13:1 is commanding obedience not just to any superior authorities or to those who occupy a superior position, but to authorities who are superior in some sense qualitatively or, specifically in this case, according to their justness."41 This interpretation is probably not correct. First, Porter uses this particular interpretation (i.e. the state's superior quality of justness) to influence the answer he gives to the question of obedience to the state. But, Paul says that obedience to the state is motivated by fear, praise and inner sense, i.e. conscience—not one's state greater "justness" as opposed to another. Second, there is nothing in Romans 13:1-7 that tends to favor a qualitative reading of the participle. Therefore, it seems that Paul's readers would have taken the term simply to refer to authorities who preside over them, since as has been shown, this was the normal use of the term in a context of a discussion about political rulers. We now turn our attention to the referent for the term ejxousivai".

The question that has arisen in the interpretation of ejxousivai" is, "Does the term refer only to human rulers in Romans 13 or to human rulers plus angelic rulers as well? Oscar Cullmann represents several scholars since the turn of this century who argue for a double referent—that ejxousivai" refers both to human rulers as well as to angelic authorities controlling (cf. Cullmann's term "instruments") them.42 The following discussion will be a consideration of his arguments.

Cullmann argues that the "authorities" in Romans 13 are indeed human rulers, but they are controlled by angelic powers. He says that "only when this conception is found there does the entire section become really clear; only then does it fall into harmony with the entire outlook of Paul."43 There is "abundant" evidence, he adds, in the book of Daniel, The Wisdom of Jesus, Son of Sirach, Enoch, the Talmud and Midrash for such a conclusion. Thus there is a straight line of continuous thought in Judaism on the issue running from the post-exilic44 period right up to and well beyond the time of the New Testament. He says that in 1 Cor 2:8, "Paul manifestly means both the invisible "'princes of the world,' who are often mentioned as such, and their actual human instruments, Herod and Pilate."45 He argues that 1 Cor 6:3 is unintelligible unless such a view be maintained.46 Cullmann criticizes G. Kittel who attempted to overturn the idea by citing ordinary Greek usage as not supporting such a double referent. Cullmann responded to this problem by claiming that ordinary Greek usage knows nothing of the late Jewish idea of angelic powers over state rulers. In other words, Paul is distinctly influenced by the Jewish idea. Further, this idea is found among the Gnostics in their interpretation of Romans 13:1 (cf. Ireneaus, Against Heresies, 5. 24. 1).

Personally, I think that angelic authorities are involved in the affairs of people and governments (cf. Dan 10:21). But, for several reasons, I do not think that is in Paul's mind in Rom 13:1-7. First, Cullmann's reading of 1 Cor 2:8 and 6:3 is by no means "manifestly clear" as to the involvement of both angels and rulers.47 Second, the reference to ejxousivai" in the plural provides no solid ground for concluding that it refers to angels as well as men, and the fact that it is not immediately joined to ajrchv as it is in Ephesians 1:21; 3:10 (cf. 6:12 also) further weakens Cullmann's thesis. Third, despite Cullmann's arguments to the contrary, subjection to spiritual authorities does detract from the centrality of Christ and in no other place in the New Testament is such a command issued. In fact, the opposite is enjoined on Christians (cf. Eph 6:12). Fourth, nowhere is it asserted that Christ's death and resurrection has accomplished subjugation of fallen angels to the point of conscripting them toward a positive role in his service. This does not appear to be in the New Testament and if one holds to a mostly futuristic view of Rev 13, then the fallen angelic authorities will at some future time rebel against Christ by political means.48 Fifth, it is difficult to understand angels in verse 6 in the context of paying taxes.49 Sixth, as Ernst Ksemann has pointed out, in Romans 13 "the terminology we encounter has its origin in the vocabulary of the of secular government in the Hellenistic world," not in Judaism with its view of angelic rulers.50 For these and other reasons, many commentators have rejected the idea of a double referent in Romans 13.51

So it can be said, according to the context in Romans 13 and Pauline usage elsewhere, that the authorities (i.e. ejxousivai") spoken of in Romans 13:1 refer solely to human rulers. Since the term lacks the article52 and is plural, it probably refers to anyone in a governing position acting on behalf of and with the authority of the Roman government (cf. 1 Pet 2:14).53

uJpotassevsqw—The verb is a 3rd person, singular, present middle imperative. Immediately one is confronted with the change from the second person singular in 12:19-21 to the third person singular in 13:1. Why this abrupt shift? We have dealt with Romans 13:1-7 and its asyndetic nature, but we have not probed the reason for the switch to the third person in 13:1. First, we observe that this shift in person does not continue through the entire unit. It persists until 13:3b where Paul returns to the second person singular (qevlei"/poivei/e{xei"). Therefore the switch to the third person singular covers the actual command to submission and the rationale wherein all authority comes from God (vv.1-3b). 1 Peter 2:13 reads uJpotavghte pavsh/ ajnqrwpivnh/ ktivsei diaV toVn kuvrion. Peter admonishes obedience to the authorities using the aorist, second person plural. Perhaps the change to the third person singular in Paul indicates that the command is really for all people, saved or not, whereas the commands in 12:19-21 for example are really only possible for Christians—those who have been recipients of the mercy of God. It is clear in 13:1 that Paul has Roman Christians in view, but it may be that the imperative is true for all people without exception, thus the use of the third person with Pa'sa yuchv.54 It is difficult to know whether Peter, writing from Rome, borrows from Paul or whether both are original or both go back to a tradition developed early in the church to deal with conflicts with the governing authorities.55 If they both go back to an earlier tradition, such as that found in Mark 12:13-17, then perhaps that tradition got lifted to the level of a universal principle that we see highlighted by the use of the third person rather than the second. If indeed Paul is working with a tradition that was well known in Rome, that would account for the lack of a connecting particle (i.e. joining 13:1-7 to 12:21) as he simply allowed the tradition to stand as is. It must also be remembered that at times paraenetic material is often without tight argumentation (Rom 12:9-21; 1 Thes 5:16-22).56

Another question remains concerning the term uJpotassevsqw. What kind of submission is Paul talking about? The term is used 18 times in Paul and 20 other times in the New Testament. In the book of Romans he uses the term in conjunction with savrx and its inability to submit to the law of God (8:7) and the subjection of the creation to futility by God (8:20)57 as well as Israel's failure to submit to God's righteousness, instead creating their own. It also occurs twice in our passage, namely, verses 1 and 5. Paul uses the term to refer to submission of all things to Christ in the process of redemption (1 Cor 15:27, 28; Eph 1:22; Phil. 3:21; Heb 2:5, 8; 1 Peter 3:22) and in relationships in the church. Prophets are to be in submission one to another so that peace and order may be maintained (1 Cor 14:32). This is also true of women's roles in the church (14:34) and husband/wife relations as well. The wife is to submit to her husband as to the Lord (Eph 5:24; Col. 3:18; Titus 2:5; 1 Peter 3:1, 5; and Ps. Callisth., 1. 22. 4).58 Slaves are to be subject to their masters (Titus 2:9; 1 Peter 2:18), men and women to their spiritual leaders ( 1 Cor 16:16; 1 Peter 5:5) and of course submission to God himself is enjoined (Heb 12:9; James 4:7). The idea of submission to political authorities is seen in Titus 3:1 and 1 Peter 2:13-17. Finally, as far as NT usage is concerned, Luke uses it to refer to Jesus' submission to his parents after the Temple incident (Luke 2:51) and the fact that the demons had to submit to the disciples Jesus had sent out on a mission (10:17, 20). Its use in the New Testament, then, basically yields the idea of humble, informed submission to another in the light of God's will and redemptive work. That submission happens in all relationships in life.

The term is found in literature outside the New Testament as well. Josephus uses it in relation to the submission of Israel to foreign powers, i.e. Rome (War, 2.433; 4.175). It is also seen as a commendable attitude in The Letter of Aristeas, 257 where the text refers to a person who has a willing desire to submit to others. The king asks the question, "How can one find welcome abroad among strangers?" The answer given includes the idea of "appearing inferior rather than superior to those among whom one is a stranger." Here again we see that humility is at the core of the idea inherent in uJpotavssw.

The term is employed in the LXX about 30 times. Two instances of the verb in the middle voice are of note: 2 Maccabees 9:12 and 13:23. In 9:12 the writer relays the story of how Antiochus IV eventually submitted to God after God had smitten him with a wasting disease. In 13:23 the text says, "he [Antiochus] was dismayed, called in the Jews, yielded and swore to observe all their rights." From these two examples we can see that humility is involved in a process of submitting oneself to a higher authority—ultimately a voluntary submission in the light of the power of the higher authority.

From this evidence it is clear that the term has the idea of curbing one's will to the will of another; in this respect, a higher authority. In only one instance in the New Testament does it carry the idea of "forced submission," i.e. compulsion (Luke 10:17, 20). But there are other observations that can be made as well. The term as used in the New Testament has the constant reminder that there is a divine "order" at work, wherein God values societal order and is seeking in the context of redemption to bring such a result out of the chaos of sin in human relations. Thus even Jesus had to submit to his earthly parents and his work on earth was carried out according to God's design and order (Luke 2:51). He will someday, according to God's order, turn over the kingdom to the Father and he himself will be subject to God (1 Cor 15:28). Insofar as this order and submission is inherent in the Trinity and its inner relations, so it must occur in the redeemed community—in worship, in family relations and in all other relations—as ones who have received the mercies and Spirit of the Trinity. If the Son has to submit, we must all submit to whatever authority God the Father has appointed (cf. 1 Cor 11:12 in context).

The choice of the term uJpotavssw is interesting in the light of other terms Paul could have chosen—stronger terms which are rendered "obedience." They include peiqarcei`n, peivqesqai and uJpakouein.59 This probably indicates that Paul does not have in mind slavish, uncritical obedience to the state, but that there are various points at which the Roman Christians could not, and indeed must not, submit to the authorities.60 This particular aspect of the issue is not taken up, however, as it was his purpose to stress submission.

What Paul wants then, according to Romans 13:1 is willing, intelligent submission to the authorities, out of humility, because one is conscience of God's appointing and working through them.61 Underlying Paul's injunction is the understanding that the government is doing what God has appointed it for—that it knows between right and wrong (13:3) and carries out its role of maintaining harmony among the citizens.

A few other things must be said about submission to governmental authorities. Paul is not putting his carte blanche on all government actions per se, but is instead upholding the principle (13:1b) of "government and order" as an end towards responsible, peaceful living in a fallen world. When a government fulfills its functions of maintaining peace, and generally protects the welfare of its people, both against those from within and without who would threaten these things, then it is carrying out the end to which it was appointed. It must be obeyed even if some things are tough—e. g. paying high taxes. But, when it crosses these boundaries and becomes an instrument for evil, violating the explicit will of God as outlined in Scripture, then it must not be followed (i.e. obeyed) at that point.62 When the explicit will of God conflicted with certain authorities, Peter said we must obey God, not men (Acts 5:29). Paul accused the governing authorities of carrying out sentence without proper jurisprudence and he demanded certain actions be taken to remedy the situation (Acts 16:37).63 If the spreading of the gospel is unwelcome by one's own state, then the Christian must suffer the consequences, but nevertheless continue to obey God. There does not appear to be the possibility in Romans 13:1-7 that a Christian could take up arms against the state.

If indeed the problem in Romans 13 is strife between Christians and the state over the payment of taxes, then Paul says, "Give back to the state the taxes you owe" (v. 6, 7). But someone might say, "The state uses tax money for immoral purposes." Paul does not address these kinds of issues here. His assumption is that the government in power (even Rome with its erroneous religious views, etc.) is better than the evil that would result from anarchy.64people must learn to live in a posture of submission. This goes back to creation and God's ordering of the world, especially of those in the church. In the end, one will always find oneself under the punitive authority of the state. Even Peter and Paul, as far as tradition is concerned, were killed by Roman authorities. So, if we do not follow the state in all its ideology and demands, we will end up being judged by them should they disagree with our Christian convictions.65

      The Rationale for Submission (13:1b-5)

A Theological Basis (13:1b-2a)

13:1b ouj gaVr e[stin ejxousiva eij mhV uJpoV qeou', aiJ deV ousai uJpoV qeou' tetagmevnai eijsivn. " For (gavr) there is no authority except [that which is given] by God and those who are appointed by God."

The gaVr indicates that what follows is the rationale for the command given in 13:1a. Paul says that every man should subject himself to the governing authorities because God is the originator and "establisher" of that authority. The twice repeated uJpoV qeou' clearly indicates the emphasis is on divine ordering, and the exclusion of any authority apart from (eij mhV) God furthers the idea of his sovereign control and ordering of the affairs of men. Later on Paul will talk about other motivations for civil obedience—fear, praise and conscience—but for now he wants his readers to know that governmental authority and those who carry it out are from God.

The question arises, does the term ejxousiva refer to specific authorities? Or, does it refer to the principle of authority itself? If we say that Paul is simply referring to the principle of authority and rulership we anchor the theology more closely with the nature of God—one who is ordered within himself and the Trinity. This observation definitely follows from the text, but it may not be the explicit denotation for ejxousiva here. The use of uJpoV and the elliptical nature of the clause, suggest the provision of a transitive verb of some kind, perhaps ejdwvqh (i.e. given), or possibly uJpov has the force of ajpov.66 If this is true, then Paul is likely talking about rulers as "individuals given"—as concrete expressions of God's authority. Second, the last clause in the verse is joined by way of parataxis (dev) to the clause preceding. This would tend to further the idea that what we have in the last clause is support for those individuals mentioned as ejxousiva.

The term tetagmevnai is in paraphrastic construction with eijsivn. The construction tends to emphasize the present aspect of the appointment and tetagmevnai continues the language of order and submission that pervades Romans 13:1-7.67 Such language includes: uJpotassevsqw/ uJpotavssesqai, ajntitassovmeno", diataghv and ajnqevsthken. Tetagmevnai is a perfect middle from tavssw which means "to determine," or "to appoint;" the same meaning it carried in non-biblical Greek.68 The term is used in the New Testament eight times. It can mean simply "to point out, choose or indicate," as in the case of Jesus choosing the mountain where he wanted to meet his disciples (Matt 28:16); the church at Antioch choosing or designating Paul and Barnabas to the special task of going to the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:2); Paul's choosing a day to meet the Jewish leaders in Rome (Acts 28:23); and with no necessary negative inferences, the household of Stephanus choosing themselves to serve the saints (1 Cor 16:15). The term is also used theologically with God as the subject and the one who "appoints" people to eternal life (Acts 13:48) and the one who had already "chosen" or "marked out" a plan for the Apostle Paul's life (Acts 22:10). It is used one other time in Luke 7:8. In this passage the centurion recognizes something of Jesus' authority, knowing that he can heal just by "saying the word." The theological use of the term as well as its use in Luke 7:8 is instructive for it sets out some parameters which we may bring into the situation in Romans 13 in order to help us further understand the nature and boundaries of civic appointment. We will discuss this in a moment, but it is necessary to address first from whence Paul is deriving his idea of governmental authority. The background of the passage has had a bearing on this question in the history of discussion of this text.

It seems fairly clear that Paul is deriving his idea of the authorities being appointed by God, not directly from the gospel or early church tradition per se, but instead from the OT and his Jewish background, perhaps as a Diaspora Jew.69 The books of Isaiah, Jeremiah and Daniel make abundant reference to such ideas which form the background to Paul's thinking here in Romans 13. In highlighted fashion, Isaiah 45:1-7 says:

1Thus says the Lord to Cyrus His anointed, Whom I have taken by the right hand, To subdue nations before him, And to loose the loins of kings; To open doors before him so that gates will not be shut: 2I will go before you and make the rough places smooth; I will shatter the doors of bronze, and cut through the iron bars. 3And I will give you the treasures of darkness, And hidden wealth of secret places, In order that you may know that it is I, The Lord, the God of Israel, who calls you by your name. 4For the sake of Jacob My servant, And Israel my chosen one, I have also called you by your name; I have given you a title of honor Though you have not known Me. 5I am the Lord, and there is no other; Besides Me there is no God. I will gird you, though you have not known Me;

6That men may know from the rising to the setting of the sun That there is no one besides Me. I am the Lord and there is no other, 7The One who forming light and creating darkness, Causing well being and creating calamity; I am the Lord who does all these.

Isaiah clearly says that God is the one who will raise up and appoint Cyrus to the task of serving him, in order that YHWH's purposes with Israel might be served—that Israel would realize that there is only one true God and He is YHWH. We note in this passage that Isaiah is speaking proleptically and thus there is an eschatology inherent in God's dealings with nations as he raises up leaders and peoples according to his grand purposes.70

Jeremiah 21:7, 10 and 27:5-7 also declare God's sovereign, punitive purposes as he works through the Babylonian nation and King Nebuchadnezzar to bring judgment upon his people Israel. Jeremiah is very conscious of God's sovereign control of people on the earth and the Jews knew what it was like to live under foreign domination. Though the church has a different commission than did Israel, the analogy carries over in that God's people in the world have always had to determine how they would relate to the worldly structures. In the same way as Jeremiah was able to discern the workings of God through the pagan nations, so Paul is able here in Romans 13 to borrow on that precedent and declare that all authority on earth ultimately comes from God. There is an eschatology in Jeremiah that concerns the nations' dealings with Israel in that God is using them to bring about a purified people. He is using Babylon to bring about a nation obedient to him which will then fulfill his eschatological purposes promised in Genesis 12:1-3 and 2 Samuel 7:12-16 (cf. Matt 1:1).

Perhaps no prophet makes it more clear that God is in control of human affairs and places leaders in positions of authority for the carrying out of his purposes than does Daniel (cf. Dan 2:21, 37, 38; 4:17, 25, 32; 5:21). In 4:17 Daniel says, "The decision is announced by messengers, the holy ones declare the verdict, so that the living may know that the Most High is sovereign over the kingdoms of men and gives them to anyone he wishes and sets over them the lowliest of men." These kingdoms are set over the lowliest of men, that is, for their government. But again, there is an eschatological outlook on these kingdoms for they are only forerunners to the great climactic kingdom which God himself will set up in the end (2:44).71

The fact that God is the one who sets up governments and establishes authority is seen not only in the Old Testament, but also in Jewish intertestamental materials as well. Sirach 10:4 says that "the government of the earth is in the hand of the Lord, and over it He will raise up the right leader for the time" (cf. 17:17). In the middle of a discussion about the Essenes and their duties, Josephus says that an Essene should obey the ruling authorities "because no one obtains the government without God's assistance" (War 2. 140). The author of the Letter of Aristeas says that a person can avoid envy by realizing that "God assigns glory and greatness of wealth to kings, each and every one, and that no king is independent. All of them wish to share his glory, but they cannot—it is a gift of God." The same emphasis is seen in intertestamental apocalyptic materials. 1 Enoch 46:5 says that the apocalyptic Son of Man can dispose of kings who do not glorify and obey him, the One who is "the source of their kingship" (cf. also 2 Apocalypse of Baruch 82:9).72

Both Dunn and Cranfield agree that Paul is here pulling on his heritage, both in the OT and as a first century Jew.73 Dunn, however, argues further from the OT and Jewish intertestamental materials that not only has Paul derived the idea that God has ordained the state, but that the OT and Jewish sources indicate that the state must function within its God-given ordering (cf. tetagmevnai) or design. If the state does not function according to its proper authority, but exceeds such limits by calling for "greater submission than God has ordered, [it] will come under the judgment of God."74 According to Dunn, this balancing of the truth of governmental authority is implied in Paul's discussion of the state here in Romans 13—that is, insofar as it is explicated in the OT and Jewish sources Paul relied upon. But, says Dunn, it has simply not been Paul's ambition to spell it out here. Porter takes issue with Dunn's approach. The OT and Jewish sources may lay behind the passage, but as Porter says, such a reconstruction of a wisdom tradition "is unnecessary to introduce into the discussion." Instead Porter argues that the limits on the authority of the government are to be found in the text itself wherein Paul refers to the ejxousivai" uJperecouvsai".75 These, he states, are a reference to "just" authorities. When the authorities are not being "just" then they have not been appointed by God or are at the least going outside their divine ordering. This interpretation rests on the qualitative use of uJperecouvsai" which we rejected above. Since the term is used simply to refer to "governing" authorities, it is difficult to believe that the Roman church would have understood it in a qualitative sense at all. It simply refers to those who are rulers, in a political sense. A better approach to defending the nature and boundaries of governmental authority from the text would be to recognize that the term tetagmevnai implies "delegated authority;" an authority which was bestowed by a holy God who cherishes order in society. One may also refer to the terms diavkono" (v. 4) and leitourgoiv (v. 6) to see that the authorities are servants and they, too, have a Master to whom they will give an account. This, then, is enough to demonstrate that Paul was conscious of the state's responsibility as well as the Christian's. The background materials, contrary to Porter, are important in this case for they give us a feel for ideology influencing the Apostle Paul.

13:2a w{ste oJ ajntitassovmeno" th'/ ejxousiva/ th'/ tou' qeou' diatagh'/ ajnqevsthken. "Consequently (w{ste) the one who resists authority, opposes the institution of God,"

The term w{ste76 introduces an inference deduced from the preceding argument, namely, that God is the one who has established governments and their rulers with the result that anyone who resists government, de facto opposes the institution of God himself.

The substantival participle oJ ajntitassovmeno" comes from the verb ajntitavssw which is used only five times in the New Testament and here in Romans 13 forms the antithesis to the verb uJpotavssw used in verse 1. Luke uses it to refer to the Jews who opposed and abused Paul during his ministry in Corinth (cf. Acts 18:6). James uses the term twice in 4:6 and 5:6. In 5:6, though the opposition spoken of was only hypothetical to show the injustice of the rich oppressors, it carries with it here the note of strong, determined opposition, sufficient to warrant decisive action on the part of the opposed. In James 4:6 (i.e. the other time he uses it) as in 1 Peter 5:5, the term is quoted from Proverbs 3:34 in the LXX (see also 1 Clement 30:2; Ignatius to the Ephesians 5:3). Here it is remarked that "God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble." Again, the opposition spoken of would qualify as "determined resistance" in an attempt to frustrate—only here in a good sense since God is the author of the opposition. Thus its usage in the NT carries the idea, not of mild resistance against someone or something, but a conscious determination to resist or oppose the will or action of another. When God is not the subject it is always used in a negative sense and the resistance is actually something disapproved of by God, or men, or both.

Josephus uses the term when referring to the Jews who opposed Caius Caesar when he wanted to set up his statues in the Temple, destroy those who resisted and take captive the rest of the nation (War 2. 184-85). Josephus says, "while all the nations in subjection to them [Rome] had placed the images of Caesar in their several cities, among the rest of their gods,—for them alone [i.e. the Jews] to oppose it was almost like revolters, and was injurious to Caesar" (War 2. 194). The Jews got together in large numbers in this instance to oppose what their rulers were doing, hence ajntitavssw has the same sense as in the NT—a strong determination to resist something, in this case, Caesar's decree.

The term is used in 1 Kings 11:34 in the LXX to render the Hebrew Wntva which itself has the idea of "to place" or "put" [him]. God "resisted" Solomon and eventually gave the kingdom to someone other than Solomon's sons (11:35).77 Another occurrence of the word is found in Hosea 1:6. Here the MT says that God will not show love to the House of Israel with the result that He would forgive their sin. The LXX renders God's refusal to forgive Israel by the language of opposition—"I will no longer show mercy to Israel, but will surely oppose her" (my translation). These are strong words showing God's commitment to resist Israel in her adultery.78 Thus the term is used in the negative sense in the OT and Jewish literature as well.

The idea that Paul has in mind is opposition to governing authorities on issues that should not result in Christian opposition. The source of the opposition is probably arrogance and pride since the term came to be associated with Proverbs 3:34. We notice also that the opposition rendered by certain individuals in the NT (where God is not doing the opposing), is always against God's chosen individuals and therefore ultimately against Him. This is the case in Acts 18 with the Jews' who opposed Paul. It is also the case in Romans 13 wherein Paul will not tolerate those in the church to resist those in government (cf. th'/ ejxousiva.

The term diataghv means "ordinance, direction or instruction"79 and continues Paul's heavy emphasis on the language of submission. But inherent in the term in Romans 13 is the idea of God's order and structuring (i.e. design) of human society.80 It is used 2 Esdras 4:11 (LXX) to refer to a "copy" of the letter certain men had sent to King Artaxerxes. It is also used once in the Apostolic Fathers in 1 Clement 20:3. Clement says, "The sun and the moon and the choirs of stars circle in harmony within the courses assigned to them, according to his direction, without any deviation at all." Thus the cosmos maintains its order by virtue of the directions of the Creator. Stephen (i.e., Luke in Acts 7:53) uses the term in the sense of the instruction rendered by the angels who acted as mediators during the giving of the Mosaic Law (cf. Gal. 3:19). Concerning angels as instructors and mediators of the Mosaic Law, Josephus maintains a similar idea (Ant. 15. 136). Thus Paul refers to the governing authorities as ruling according to a divine order and God's express will concerning the management of societal affairs. Morris says the term diataghv refers to a "divine institution."81 This is definitely the sense in Romans 13.82

Paul says that the one who resists governmental authorities opposes (ajnqevsthken) the order or structure which comes from God. The term ajnqevsthken is used 14 times in the New Testament, eight of which are found in Paul (Rom 9:19, 13:2; Gal 2:11; Eph 6:13; 2 Tim 3:8, 4:15)83 where it clearly refers to strongly "opposing" someone or something. Why the shift from ajntitavssw to ajnqivsthmi? Most commentators who address the issue claim that it was for stylistic purposes and that the terms carry the same basic meaning.84 But, as Dunn points out, its usage in the LXX is illuminating since it constantly denotes a rather useless resistance against an obviously superior power (Lev. 26:37; Deut 7:24; 9:2; Josh 1:5, etc.), including resistance against God which is futile at best (Job 9:19; Ps. 76:7; Jer. 49:19; Wisdom of Solomon 11:21 and cf. 12:12 with Rom 9). Thus there was probably a conscious shift for Paul as he attempted to hint at the utter folly of opposing what God has instituted. Porter argues that the shift in verb was to indicate a more determined resistance to God's order in government than ajntitavssw could achieve.85 He bases this distinction on Pauline usage, but Paul uses ajntitavssw only once, i.e., here in Romans 13. Therefore such a comparison is unfounded. While the result is perhaps true, it is best derived from OT usage as Dunn has shown.

A Practical Basis (13:2b-5)

13:2b oiJ deV ajnqesthkovte" eJautoi'" krivma lhvmyontai86 "and those who do so will receive judgment on themselves."

Paul says that those who "set themselves to oppose" (ajnqesthkovte")87 the divine institution of government will receive krivma. What does the term krivma denote? Does it refer to divine wrath? Now? At the last judgment? Or does it refer to some punitive action of the state? The term is used 48 times in the NT, six times in Romans alone (2:2, 3; 3:8; 5:16; 11:33; 13:2). It can refer to a person's judgment or estimation of another (Matt 7:2); to God's temporal judgment of sin (Rom 2:2, 3; 1 Cor. 11:29, 34); to God's eternal judgment (Mk 12:40; Acts 24:25; Heb 6:2; 2 Pet 2:3; Jude 4) or to a political sentence handed out by the state or ruling authorities (Luke 23:40; 24:40; 1 Cor 6:7). Since Paul's focus is on the state in Romans 13 it seems best to understand this judgment here as a temporal judgment handed out by the state to the offending party. This interpretation fits the use of the term and allows for the force of the gavr in 13:3 and the following explanation that rulers hold no terror for those who do good. But, it must be said that while Paul's focus is on the state and the judgment it will render, we must remember that it has been appointed by God and is his servant to mete out punishment when necessary (13:4).88 Therefore, although the term krivma refers to a sentence handed out by the state, the state is nonetheless acting on behalf of God. When acting within its God-given sphere, the state rules for God and He is the ultimate reason for necessary punitive action. Dunn sees the judgment as divine and eschatological, the result of a program of deliberate opposition to God's instituted authority. This may well be the result of such a course of action, for opposing what God institutes will always incur judgment on "the final day," but if the gavr of verse 3 be allowed to go with verse 2, then the judgment is God's but mediated through the state. This appears to be Paul's emphasis.89 C. K. Barrett says, and I believe accurately, that "when resistance is offered to the state divine judgment comes into operation at once by means of the state's own judicial procedures."90

13:3a oiJ gaVr a[rconte" oujk eijsiVn fovbo" tw'/ ajgaqw'/ e[rgw/ ajllaV tw'/ kakw'/. " For (gavr) rulers are not a fear to good work, but to evil [work]"

The term gavr is an explanatory conjunction and should go with the idea of judgment in verse 2 and not the command in verse 1 so that what follows is an explanation of the means of the execution of judgment, by the state.91 The oiJ a[rconte" could refer to angelic beings (Eph 2:2), but due to its parallel with ejxousivai" in verse 1 and the reference here to punishing the good (cf. mavcairan in v. 4) it seems almost certain that it refers to the Roman rulers (Matt 20:25; John 7:26; 12:42; Acts 3:17; 1 Cor 2:6-8; Ps Sol 17:36; Jos. Ant. 20. 11).92 The plural use of a[rconte" demonstrates that "the Apostle [sic] is speaking quite generally."93

The expression tw'/ ajgaqw'/ e[rgw refers to any good work or deeds done within the confines of the law enforced and upheld by the state.94 This is clear from the following verse wherein Paul talks about "doing good" (i.e. verse 4). The expression tw'/ kakw' refers to the opposite of tw'/ ajgaqw'/ e[rgw and has the idea of any deeds or actions which oppose the state and its laws. These expressions have the broadest reference and scope. Dunn says,

Once again the ajgaqov"/kavko" antithesis signals that Paul is expressing himself in terms which would gain the widest approbation from men and women of good will . . . whatever the abuses perpetrated on the system by corrupt rulers, this statement of principle would be widely accepted. . .That good citizenship may be particularly in view is suggested by the following clauses, but in societies where religious performance and piety were part of good citizenship that indicates an already broad reference.95

The question that has arisen here concerns the idea that Paul has apparently taken no account of unjust authorities.96 Many commentators see the problem97 and Cranfield surfaces three possible explanations. First, says Cranfield, there is the possibility that Paul is speaking out of his good experiences with the Roman government and has forgotten or neglected the fact that Rome could do and had done evil. That this is the explanation is severely weakened by the fact that Paul had been treated unjustly by the Roman authorities (Acts 16:22, 37; 2 Cor 11:25) and it was ultimately those authorities that he understood to be the ones who crucified Christ (1 Cor 2:8). Second, Paul, though fully conscious of the possibility that the government might commit evil, is here only speaking of its true and natural duty as a magistrate under God and appointed by him. Third, Paul is saying that consciously or unconsciously, in one way or another, the government will praise the good work and punish the evil. Cranfield argues for the third possibility based in large measure on the "absoluteness" of the promise. He says,

The promise of v. 3 is absolute: the Christian, in so far as he is obeying the gospel, may be sure that the power will honour him. It may indeed intend to punish him, but its intended punishment will then turn out to be praise. It may take his life, but in so doing it will confer a crown of glory. On the other hand, if he does evil, it must needs punish him.

I find it difficult to see Cranfield's rationale for the acceptance of this third option. Paul does not appear to be talking abstractly, or about such accidental benefits to the saint as death and a crown of glory, but is simply saying that those in authority will punish the wrong and praise what is good. The second explanation for the passage seems best as Paul is arguing for the role of the state in the light of the diatagh/` of God. He is here assuming as a norm a positive and just role for the state.98

13:3b qevlei" deV mhV fobei'sqai thVn ejxousivan toV ajgaqoVn poivei, kaiV e{xei" e[painon ejx aujth'"" Do you want to not fear the authority? Do good and you will have praise from it."

Paul has commanded that all people are to be subject to the governing authorities and this because God is the originator of that authority. To resist authority is therefore to resist God (1-2a). Those who do so will receive the state's discipline (2b-3a). Now, Paul gives a positive reason for submission to the state, namely, praise. Those who obey will have praise from the state and need not live in fear of it (13:3b).

The term qevlei" introduces either a question, independent statement or a conditional statement. Though the difference between these possibilities is fairly negligible, perhaps it is best to take it as a conditional statement: "If you do not want to fear the authority, then do good, and you will have praise from it." In this case qevlei" forms the protasis with the imperative poivei forming the apodosis.99

The use of the second person singular appears to have the force of diatribe style and lifts the discussion to a very personal level with the readers.100 As Porter aptly says, "the use of the second person in the diatribe style creates a personal address in the midst of the larger sweeping statements about governmental authority. The result is a direct and impressive forcefulness to Paul's rhetoric."101

Is Paul saying that the state will, no matter what, recognize in a public way, such individuals who do good?102 Is this the meaning of e[painon? Barrett suggests the possibility that "statues and inscriptions" were bestowed on those who made a notable contribution to society.103 Hendricksen, while recognizing this possibility, understands the idea of e[painon to be the government forming "a favorable opinion of that well-behaved person, and will, whether only in "its heart" or even by means of an openly expressed commendation, approve of him."104 This view most likely reflects what actually happened in most cases and, therefore, fits Paul's general approach here.

13:4 qeou' gaVr diavkono" ejstin soiV eij" toV ajgaqovn. ejaVn deV toV kakoVn poih'/", fobou' ouj gaVr eijkh'/ thVn mavcairan forei' qeou' gaVr diavkono" ejstin e[kdiko" eij" ojrghVn tw'/ toV kakoVn pravssonti. " For (gavr) it is God's servant to do you good, but if you do evil, then fear, for it does not bear the sword in vain (eijkh`/). For (gavr) it is God's servant, an avenger to bring wrath on the one who practices evil."

The particle gavr has an explanatory force related to the idea of e[painon in verse 3b. Thus, the Apostle is saying that the reason one will have praise if they do good is because the ruling authorities are God's servants to do that obedient person good, i.e., praise them. The verse as a whole, however, outlines two purposes for the state as God's servant. It is to reward the good and punish the evil.

The term diavkono" is used 44 times in the New Testament and is joined here to qeou' which is placed first in the clause for emphasis.105 The state with its representatives, as Paul has so clearly outlined in 13:1-2 is God's servant. As Morris says, "The ruler is God's servant, no less. And servant reminds us that he is no more; he is not God even if some rulers had a very exalted view of themselves and their functions."106 Nowhere else does Paul or any other NT writer refer to the state as the qeou' diavkono".107 But the term does appear to have been used this way in and around the time of the NT108 and instances of such usage can be seen in the LXX (Esther 1:10; 2:2; 6:3109) as well. It is probably from these sources that Paul derives his language of the state as God's servant.

Two of the more important questions that have arisen in the interpretation of this clause concern the meaning of soiV and toV ajgaqovn. The pronoun soiV is most likely a dative of advantage.110 But to whom does it refer? Cranfield (cf. also M. Borg)111 argues (contra Barrett)112 that it parallels (by contrast) tw'/ toV kakoVn pravssonti and relates to the second person singular subject of the poivei in the preceding verse.113 This means that it is not a general reference to Christians in Rome as Dunn asserts,114 but refers particularly to "the one who does good." Cranfield would seem to be correct in his interpretation. The continuing of the second person from 13:3b and the parallel with tw'/ toV kakoVn pravssonti bear this out. Taken as simply a general reference to the readership in Rome would seem to downplay these obvious connections.

What, then, is the meaning of toV ajgaqovn? Does this refer to the government treating its citizens well resulting in personal prosperity, or, the government working for the common good?115 Or, does it have a more spiritual denotation as in 8:8? That is, does the state play a role in furthering God's eschatological purposes in salvation?116 Or, finally, does it refer to the government creating the conditions for people to live a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness (1 Tim. 2:2)?117

The term diavkono" does bring to the text a theological nuance and so the possibility does exist, as Cranfield points out, that here we have the idea of the state furthering God's purposes in salvation. The problem with this view appears to be the kind of ministry the state is to fulfill. Romans 13:1-7 gives no indication that it is some kind of salvific role. This is to read too much soteriology into diavkono" in Romans 13. There is no doubt that a sovereign God working out his purpose of salvation will use the state to those ends, but this is not made explicit here. It would seem that the other solutions proposed for the problem are not that far apart. Providing for the common good and maintaining order are related to each other. But, the government is not a welfare organization in Paul's mind and so the best solution would appear to be that the government is to maintain civil order. This seems to be the emphasis of the following clause wherein Paul says that the state will punish those who do evil. And, as Hendricksen points out, this coheres well with Paul's teaching in 1 Timothy 2:2.118

After relating the positive function of the authorities, Paul goes on to indicate how they will deal with those who do evil (cf. the mild adversative dev). Continuing the diatribe style he says that "if you do evil, then fear, for it [i. e., the state] does not bear the sword in vain." The term ejaVn sets up a third class conditional statement,119 with the apodosis found in the imperative fobou'. In this context toV kakoVn refers to anything that is opposite to toV ajgaqovn and therefore renders society a dangerous place in which to live and undermines societal order. A person who causes such things, according to Paul, ought to fear because of the punitive function of the state.

Concerning the punitive role of the state, two further issues must be looked at in the interpretation of this verse. What is the meaning of thVn mavcairan forei' in verse 4b and what does ojrghVn in verse 4c signify? The connector gavr (v. 4b) is explanatory and introduces the reason why the person who does evil should fear, namely, because the state does not carry (forei')120 the sword for nothing. Therefore, the term mavcairan (i. e. sword) is a symbol121 which refers to judicial action carried out by the state against a person who has in some way opposed the state.122 The question that has often come up in the discussion of this term is whether or not it refers to such extreme action as capital punishment.

C. K. Barrett argues that the reference is to the state's right of capital punishment. Referring to mavcairan he says, "This last expression recalls the technical term ius gladii, by which was meant the authority (possessed by all higher magistrates) of inflicting sentence of death."123 But, as A. N. Sherwin-White has pointed out, the comparison of ius gladii with the thought of general governing will not stand. Ius gladii referred to the right of a provincial governor to maintain military discipline among the Roman soldiers under his command without being hampered by the provisions of laws of provocatio."124 There is not a sufficient analogy in Romans 13 to ius gladii to base capital punishment on such a comparison.125

Though the parallel to the ius gladii will not stand, this does not mean that the sword does not represent capital punishment. The "sword" is used in the NT on many occasions to refer to the authorities' right to take life if it is deemed that one has committed an offense worthy of such punishment (cf. Matt 26:52; Luke 21:24; Acts 12:2; 16:27; Heb 11:34, 37; Rev 13:10).126 The sense here in Romans is precisely that, though Paul would include the magistrate's punitive authority in much less serious matters as well. Murray has correctly said:

The sword which the magistrate carries as the most significant part of his equipment is not merely the sign of his authority but of his right to wield it in the infliction of that which a sword does. It would not be necessary to suppose that the wielding of a sword contemplates the infliction of the death penalty exclusively. It can be wielded to execute punishment that falls short of death. But to exclude the right of the death penalty when the nature of the crime calls for such is totally contrary to that which the sword signifies and executes. We need appeal to no more than New Testament usage to establish this reference.127

The fact that Paul says that the state does not "bear the sword in vain, i.e., to no purpose" (eijkh') seems to further strengthen the fact that the state's authority over wrongdoers reaches to the point of capital punishment.128

Insofar as the state does this, it is the servant of God (qeou' diavkono") as an agent (e[kdiko") of wrath (ojrghVn) on the one who practices evil (tw'/ toV kakoVn pravssonti). The gavr (v. 4c) is again introducing the reason why the person doing evil ought to fear, namely, because the state is God's servant; an avenger in the carrying out of divine wrath on the wrongdoer. The term e[kdiko" can be used in three distinct senses. First, it can refer to one who places himself outside the law by committing an offense against it.129 Second, it can refer to a "legal officer" but this usage tends to be somewhat earlier than the New Testament.130 The third sense appears to be closest to what we have in Romans 13. By assimilation to ejkdikavzw (a Hellenistic development away from its root ejkdikevw) the term came to mean not one who is outside the law (i.e., a criminal), but one who decides a legal process, i.e., an "avenger."131 This is certainly the meaning in its only other Pauline use in 1 Thessalonians 4:6. In this text Paul is stating that the Lord is an "avenger" (e[kdiko") against those who wrong their brothers in matters of sexual purity, that is, the Lord is the one who will punish those who commit this evil.132 The term is also used in this way in Jewish materials as well. In referring to a well brought up son who can take issue with his father's enemies, Sirach 30:6 says that "He [i.e. the father] has left behind him an avenger against his enemies, and one to repay the kindness of his friends" (italics mine). Josephus (War 5. 377), when he was exhorting the Jews not to fight against Titus, asked them this question, "And when was it that God, who is the Creator of the Jewish people, did not avenge them when they had been injured" (italics mine)?133 In summary, the term as it is used here and in other places in the literature speaks of the active pursuit of those who do evil.

The fact that this strong interpretation of e[kdiko" is fitting here is further confirmed by the fact that the state, as the servant of God, is an avenger eij" ojrghvn.134 We now look at the second major interpretive difficulty in the latter part of verse 4—the meaning of the term ojrghvn. Paul has referred to the final day of judgment (ojrghv) in Romans 2:5 and 5:9 and has also spoken of another, present expression of God's wrath ejpiV pa`san ajsevbeian kaiV ajdikivan ajnqrwvpwn in 1:18 (cf. also 9:18). In this passage God gives men and women over to their sin thus fitting them even more for the final day of wrath. But in 13:4 the question arises as to whether it is divine wrath or simply the wrath of the state. J.C. O'Neill says that "the word wrath means not God's wrath but simply fear of the punishment able to be meted out by the ruler."135 He argues that the word God is not repeated and if one inserts it, it renders the entire argument tautologous. O'Neill understands the idea of conscience (v. 5) to refer to God and therefore Paul would be saying that "the state is an avenger for God's wrath and we should submit because of God" (i.e., conscience). But this reading of the passage has at least two weaknesses. First, it is built on an either/or choice which, given the data (e.g. the fact that the state is established by God), is not entirely adequate. Second, conscience should not be identified that closely with God. Most commentators take it as referring to God's wrath meted out in punitive action by means of the state.136 With this I agree (cf. also 12:19). Paul clearly says that the state is God's servant. O'Neill seems to have disregarded this point. Finally, there may be some merit in the idea suggested by both Barrett and Ziesler that the wrath executed by the state prefigures that which will come against all lawlessness in the end. Since the apostle has spoken of this eschatological wrath already in Romans (e.g., 5:9), perhaps this forms part of the rationale for the apostle's use of the term here.137 He has been desirous of linking the state to God throughout the passage.

13:5 dioV ajnavgkh uJpotavssesqai, ouj movnon diaV thVn ojrghVn ajllaV kaiV diaV thVn suneivdhsin. "Wherefore (dioV) it is necessary to submit, not only because of wrath, but also because of conscience."

The term dioV138draws out a conclusion based upon the preceding argument in 13:1-4. In verse 5, Paul summarizes what he has argued by saying that submission to the authorities is grounded in their punitive capabilities and in a man's conscience. That this verse does indeed form a summary of verses 1-4 will be demonstrated in the following exegesis.

The reference to submission (uJpotavssesqai) once again takes us back to the imperative in verse 1. The term ajnavgkh needs further definition. In Greek literature and thinking it was understood to be the force that "defies all knowledge, which controls all things and which conditions reality."139 It lost this sense, however, with the increasing amount of rationalization in Greek thought and became instead the rational concept of an imminent necessity. Later in Hellenism, ajnavgkh was associated with certain deities and surfaced as a personified concept once again. It was also understood in a dualistic world to be that which constrains and opposes the spirit. There are many ajnavgkai which arise from the ajnavgkh, according to Aristotle, and these must be controlled as they are hindrances to the soul.140

The term is also used in the LXX (2 Macc 15:2), Josephus (Ant. 3.223; War 5. 568), the Epistle of Aristeas, Philo (De Aeternitate Mundi 21; 52), and the Didache 12:2 to refer to the idea of "necessity"141 but in no way does it carry the idea of a personified force of some kind.

jAnagkhv is used in the NT approximately 18 times.142 It can refer to a present moral crisis (1 Cor 7:26), to negative coercion (1 Cor 7:37; 2 Cor 9:7; Phlm 14) or positive compulsion as in the case of Paul's need to preach the gospel (1 Cor 9:16). It is also used to denote the idea of distress which results from divine judgment (Luke 21:23), from unjust persecution (1 Thess 3:7) or simply from the hardships which arise in the course of the apostolic mission (2 Cor 6:4; 12:10). And in certain texts it conveys the idea of logical necessity; as in the case of the New Covenant superseding the Old (Heb 7:12, 27; 9:16, 23). Thus, there emerges from this survey the two basic ideas stated above. The term is used in the NT to refer to either a "necessity" or a "distress or calamity." Perhaps the best parallel usage to that in Romans 13 (which is clearly a reference to "necessity") is Matthew 18:7 where Jesus says that "things (skavndalon) that cause people to sin must (ajnagkhv) come. Here Jesus is conscious of living in a fallen world, where just as blue is to sky, so temptations are to people in a fallen world. If you have one, you de facto have the other. The rule is intrinsic to the state of affairs. So it is in Romans 13. Paul is not saying that there is an impersonal law that governs the world that requires that all submit to governmental leaders, but through the use of ajnagvkh he is elevating the idea of order as essential to the nature of the way in which the world is to run as God would have it. God will certainly always punish the wrongdoer. This is the way it is and always will be.143

The possibility of incurring wrath is not the only reason the Apostle enjoins lawful living, but also because of suneivdhsin. In regard to this term, two important questions surface: 1) what is the meaning of the term? and 2) how does it contribute to the preceding argument? The term itself occurs 30 times in the New Testament in Acts (2x), Romans (3x; 2:15; 9:1 and 13:5), 1 and 2 Corinthians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Hebrews and 1 Peter. Paul uses it 22 times.144 In a study done in the mid-fifties, C. A. Pierce concluded that the Pauline use of suneivdhsin always refers to knowledge one possesses about oneself in the light of acts committed in the past. It is knowledge that is mostly always painful as it is concerned with bad acts from which the suneivdhsi" produces guilt. In this sense argues Pierce, Paul stands in the tradition of Classical and Hellenistic writers.145 But both Christian Maurer and Margaret Thrall have shown that such an emphasis on past acts alone, and personal knowledge, as in Greek literature, is not accurate in terms of Pauline usage.146 In our passage most commentators see the term as a reference to prospective acts which weakens Pierce's argument.147 That future acts are in view is made quite clear when one considers the fact that Paul uses the present tense to urge continuous (obviously future from the standpoint of the readers) submission to the authorities (vv.1, 5). Suneivdhsin, then, refers to the conscience and in this context refers to knowledge a Christian possesses of God as the ultimate author of the state's authority. To then go and deliberately break the laws of the state would be to incur a pang of conscience.148

Therefore suneivdhsi" refers to the conscience in a Christian and provides direction for life in relation to the state. Its contribution to the argument has been carefully demonstrated by Stein. He has shown that Paul has not introduced a new argument here by his reference to conscience, since he does not develop it at length. What we have in verse 5, argues Stein, is a summary by way of chiasm, of verses 1-4.149 In verses 1-4, Paul has exhorted believers to submit to the state for two reasons: 1) God has established the state and 2) the state will punish wrongdoers. In verse 5, Paul says obedience is necessary because of wrath (i.e. the state will punish wrongdoers) and conscience (God has established the state).150 The chiasm looks like this:

      A: God is the one who establishes authority

        B: The State will punish those who do evil

        B': The state will carry out wrath against those who practice evil

      A': All should obey due to conscience; the knowledge that God has established the state and to disobey the state is to disobey God.

Now that Paul has clearly reasoned out the Christian's relation to the state in the first five verses, in verses 6 and 7 he is going to outline practical areas of submission taken in by the command.

      The Example of Submission (13:6, 7)

13:6 diaV tou'to gaVr kaiV fovrou" telei'teleitourgoiV gaVr qeou' eijsin eij" aujtoV tou'to proskarterou'nte". "For this reason (diaV tou`to gavr) you pay taxes, for (gavr) [those in authority] are God's servants who persist in this very thing."

The expression diaV tou'to looks backward, not to conscience alone,151 but to the entire argument Paul has been making regarding the origin and function of the state.152 The gaVr is explanatory indicating that Paul is here laying out a case (i.e., the payment of taxes) that demonstrates that the rulers are from God and deserve obedience. This is obvious he says, because fovrou" telei'te. The Roman Christians paid taxes and this is an indication that the state has been appointed by God. As Fitzmyer says, "Paul takes it for granted that the Christians of Rome have been paying taxes."153 The term fovrou" means "taxes" or "tribute" (land or poll tax, but in either case, a direct tax)154 and the presence of the gavr renders almost certain that telei`te is to be taken as an indicative not an imperative.155 Stein indicates that there are 22 other instances in which gavr occurs with adverbial kaiv and none of the following verbs are in the imperative.156

The second gavr is explanatory and indicates that Paul is going on to give a reason for the collection of taxes. Taxes are collected by the authorities because they are leitourgoiV. . . qeou' eijsin. The term leitourgoiv means "servants," but appears to always have a sacral connotation. It is used to refer to angels as God's servants (Philo, De Virtutibus Prima Pars 74; Heb 1:7; 1 Clement 36:3), to priests (1 Clement 41:2), including the Great High Priest (Heb 8:2); to the prophets (1 Clement 8:1) and here in Romans Paul refers to himself as such in 15:16. The use of the term continues the emphasis on the state's relation to God, an emphasis we saw in verses 1-4 and especially in the term diavkono". The state is closely connected to God via God's appointment and thus her authority is delegated, not absolute. It is not going too far to claim for the state, then, a sacred function in the outworking of God's plan. The state is to promote peaceful living and punish evildoers.157

The expression eij" aujtoV tou'to proskarterou'nte" has caused interpreters some difficulty. The participle proskarterou'nte" has the idea of "adhering to" or "persisting in" something.158 It usually takes the dative direct object, but here it is followed by the accusative.159 Thus the authorities give themselves persistently and persist eij" aujtoV tou'to. To what does eij" aujtoV tou'to refer? The nearest antecedent for the phrase would refer to the collection of taxes paid by the those living in Rome.160 Barrett,161 on the other hand, suggests that the reference is to the government's promotion of the good and punishment of the evil as outlined in verses 1-4. Stein suggests that the antecedent is to the fact that the state has been appointed to be ministers of God. He bases this interpretation on the fact that the two references in this verse to tou`to are identical and both refer to the argument of verses 1-4.162 As Cranfield indicates, it is not easy to choose between these options. Perhaps the best one is the payment of taxes. It is the nearest and therefore most reasonable antecedent, all other things being equal. In this case, Paul is saying that the state is a minister of God committed to the process of collecting taxes.163

13:7 ajpovdote pa'sin taV" ojfeilav", tw'/ toVn fovron toVn fovron, tw'/ toV tevlo" toV tevlo", tw'/ toVn fovbon toVn fovbon, tw'/ thVn timhVn thVn timhvn. " Give back to all people what is owed; taxes to whom taxes are due; revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due and honor to whom honor is due."

In conclusion Paul gives a broad, sweeping principle that directs the Christians in Rome to give back (ajpovdote)164 whatever they owe (taV" ojfeilav").165 Pa'sin refers not to all people per se, but as the following kinds of debt make clear, (i.e., tax, tribute, respect, honor), it refers to all those "in authority." The Christians are to give back to the authorities fovron (direct taxes),166 tevlo" (custom duties or indirect taxation),167 fovbon (respect)168 and timhvn (honor).169 Cranfield argues that the term fovbon refers to the fear of God based on a parallel with 1 Peter 2:17 and the use of fobei`sqai and fovbo" in the NT, but this does not appear to fit very well in the context of Romans 13. He does not seem to have sufficiently overcome his own objections to the view, namely, that pa'sin becomes very awkward if God is in view and indeed Paul has been quite a bit less than clear.170 Some have further observed that fovbon may indicate a higher form of respect than timhVn and may refer to those higher up in government.171 As Stein has indicated, this may be difficult to maintain.172 In any case, the point Paul is making is simply that there is an outward submission to authorities (paying taxes) and an inward attitude (fear and respect) concomitant with that outward expression.

Some have seen in this text a reference to the tradition found in Mark 12:17 and parallels. Two facts seem to support such a conclusion. First, the term ajpovdote in Romans 13:7 recalls that same term spoken by Jesus in Mark 12:17: "TaV Kaisaro" ajpovdote Kaivsari. Second, the reference to taV" ojfeilav" recalls a similar expression in Mark 12:17: kaiV taV tou` qeou`. There is also the observation that the indicative mood in 13:6 presupposes that the Christian community to whom Paul was writing knew that it was their responsibility to pay taxes. Where did they get this knowledge? Perhaps from the tradition of this dominical saying of Jesus, a saying which was also recorded by Mark. Peter appears to have picked up on this tradition also (cf. 1 Peter 2:17).173

In summarizing these verses Barrett says:

Honour and respect are due to earthly rulers not because they are powerful and influential men, but because they have been appointed by God. It follows that to treat them with less than their due of honour is to dishonour God; and honour without its practical corollary of the due payment of taxes for the maintenance of the authority would be a mockery.174

Romans 13:1-7 and 1 Peter 2:13-17:
A Brief Comparison

The point of this section of the paper is to briefly overview some of the similarities and differences between the civil instructions recorded by Paul and Peter in an attempt to understand the traditions employed by both writers.

Similarities

    Structural Similarities
      The Asyndetic Nature of the Passages

Both Romans 13:1-7 and 1 Peter 2:13-17 stand grammatically unconnected to their immediately preceding contexts. This may indicate that they were both pulling on a well known tradition that needed no special introduction.

      The Overall Structure of the Passages

First, both writers issue the command exhorting believers to a certain posture before civil authority. Second, they proceed to relate the command to God or Christ—thus they relate it to the Christians' faith. Third, most of the remainder of the material is concerned with giving the rationale in each of the two situations for the command. In this regard, while Paul is longer both argue for the retributive function of the state as well as its role in promoting the good by praising it. Fourth, both writers end with universal appeals describing the kind of posture Christians are to maintain before all people.

    Linguistic Similarities
      The Use of uJpotassevsqw/ujpotavghte

Both authors employ the verb uJpotavssw as the controlling idea in terms of the Christian's relationship to the state. Paul uses the present imperative, while Peter uses the aorist imperative. The result however, is virtually the same. As indicated in the commentary, the undefined action inherent in the aorist is further defined as ongoing by the use of the participle ajgaqopoiou'nta". Thus both writers are setting out what they believe to be the norm in this area. The use of this term as opposed to some other suggests that they may be following a certain common tradition. Although Paul wrote some eight years earlier there does not appear to be direct literary dependence on Peter's part.

      The Use of uJperecouvsai" and uJperevconti

The use of uJperevcw once again suggests a common tradition from which these writers are drawing. They both render to Caesar and his governors the highest possible human court. Their Christianity has not caused them to dismiss worldly structures as unimportant and of no consequence in the lives of believers. In fact, both Peter and Paul argue that from the foundation of their Christianity Christians are to recognize world leaders and governmental authorities.

      Eij" ejkdivkhsin and e[kdiko"

Paul and Peter both lived under and witnessed the penal authority of the Roman government. That they both refer to the government and its retributive justice with the same language of "revenge" or "avenger" would seem to point to a common understanding and tradition.

      The Use of ajgaqopoiw`n/poivei ajgaqovn and e[painon

Once again, both Paul and Peter use similar language, albeit not identical, to refer to the Christian's behavior in the world and before the state. The Christians are to do good and the result is, under normal conditions, that they will have praise from the authorities.

      The Injunctions in Romans 13:7 and 1 Peter 2:17

The injunctions in both Romans 13:7 and 1 Peter 2:17 are universal in their appeal. Both writers use the term "all" (pavnta" in Paul and pavsin in Peter) as the object of the first verb of the commands. Peter issues four commands which eventually end in the last command to honor all men. Paul states one command and then follows it up with a fourfold list of "things owed." He ends the list focusing on honor. To be sure, there are differences that will be discussed below, but the place of this verse at the end of the passages as well as its similar structure, seem to indicate a common tradition between Peter and Paul.

    Contextual Similarities

It is a matter of no little debate concerning the role of Christology in these passages. Often times in this discussion, the broader literary and historical contexts of the writers are forgotten. The point I want to make here is that both Paul and Peter, insofar as Romans and 1 Peter are concerned, demonstrate quite clearly that they have similar theologies regarding salvation and Christian living. Both of them are therefore writing from a similar soteriological context and perspective. This is important when trying to assess the relative weight to be placed upon differences in these texts. Differences do not have to be taken as incompatibilities, unless of course there is genuinely a material contradiction.

Differences

    Overall Content

Paul saw the need to communicate almost twice as much material on the subject of the state than did Peter. This, of course, is not a serious difference, but one that raises the question as to the nature of the extra material, as well as the redaction question and the nature of the original tradition. The former question will be looked at below, but the latter will have to await further study.

    The Historical Context for Application

It is difficult to ascertain the exact context in which Paul is applying this tradition. Perhaps it has to do with taxes, but this is in no way a certainty. The best that can be said is that his audience is in Rome and Paul had no doubts that Christians and the state would soon have dealings; especially in the capital city. For this reason he instructs the church on the relationship they must maintain with the state.

Peter on the other hand, is dealing with false accusations arising from the populace and directed at Christians (2:11, 12). He appears to take Christian tradition on church-state relations and applies it to the Christians so that the state will not entertain the accusations and decide to persecute the Church. That is, the Christians are to silence the slander by doing good and in this way the state will not be provoked to disciplinary measures (cf. 2:15).

    Paul's Theology of the Divine Origin of the State

Paul maintains a solid commitment to originating all civil authority in God's appointment (13:1-2). Peter does not explicate such ideas as clearly. But, with the presence of ktivsei (1 Pet 2:13), it is possible to see traces of this idea. For Peter, because the authorities are created human beings, they owe their origin to the Creator God . Paul goes much further than Peter does in expanding on these ideas. He refers to the state as the diavkono" and leitourgoiv of God. This is absent in Peter. On the other hand, Peter urges submission to the state, based in part on the theology of the Christian's freedom (cf. 1:18; 2:16).

    The Ultimate Jurisdiction of the State

Both Paul and Peter materially agree on this as pointed out above. But Paul goes much further than Peter does. He talks about the power of the state to legitimately determine life and death. For Paul the state does not bear the sword for nothing, and, as such, acts as God's avenger for the meting out of punishment. Perhaps such an idea is inherent in ejkdivkhsin in 1 Peter 2:14, but it is not spelled out as clearly as in Paul.

Preliminary Conclusions

There are a fair number of further similarities and differences that were not mentioned as they seem to be relatively minor to the task at hand. The similarities that are mentioned, however, are enough to demonstrate that while there does not appear to be literary dependence (though such a possibility is open on chronological/historical considerations), both Paul and Peter appear to be drawing on a similar Christian tradition. The differences in emphases concerning the rationale for the command to submit can probably be accounted for on the basis of the different historical situations to which each was writing. The overall structure of the passages is similar and both emphatically maintain that the Christian's relation to the state is to be one of submission. This is an important fact. Thus, both Paul and Peter agree in large measure on the origin (i.e., in God), nature (i.e. rulers invested with authority) and function (i.e. to punish and to praise) of the state and certainly on the Christian's relationship to it (i.e., submission).

Given the strength of the similarities it would seem that Paul and Peter are drawing on a common stock of paraenetic material for their instruction, but the differences appear to rule out any direct literary dependence, i.e., Peter using Romans as a direct source. The origin of this material appears to be found in the LXX and Jesus' teaching in the Synoptic tradition (cf. Mark 13:13-17). Questions concerning the Christians' relationship to the authorities was addressed in the early church (cf. Acts 4, 7, 19:23ff, 25, 26, 28) and ultimately the traditional material we find in Peter and Paul seems to have been molded as catechetical material in the Hellenistic context of the mission to the Gentiles.

Selected Bibliography

Books

Achtemeier, Paul. Romans. Interpretation. Atlanta, GA: John Knox Press, 1985.

Barrett, C. K. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. London: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1957.

________. New Testament Essays. London: SPCK, 1972.

Best, Ernst. 1 Peter. New Century Bible Commentary. Edited by Matthew Black. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1971.

Black, Matthew. Romans. New Century Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1973.

Bornkamm, Günther. Paul. Translated by D. M. G. Stalker. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1971.

Brown, Raymond E. and John P. Meier. Antioch and Rome: New Testament Cradles of Catholic Christianity. New York: Paulist Press, 1983.

Bruce, F. F. 1 & 2 Thessalonians. Word Biblical Commentary. Edited by Ralph P. Martin, Vol. 45. Waco: Word Books, Publisher, 1982.

________. The Letter of Paul to the Romans. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1985.

Carr, Wesley. Angels and Principalities: The Background, Meaning and Development of the Pauline Phrase hai archai kai hai exousiai. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981.

Cranfield, C. E. B. The Epistle to the Romans. The International Critical Commentary. Edited by J. A. Emerton and C. E. B. Cranfield, Vol. 2. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1979.

Cullmann, Oscar. The State in the New Testament. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1956.

Deidun, T. J. New Covenant Morality in Paul. Analecta Biblica. Vol. 89. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1981.

Dibelius, Martin. A Fresh Approach to the New Testament and Early Christian Literature. London: Ivor Nicholson and Watson, 1937.

Dunn, James D. G. Romans 1-8. Word Biblical Commentary. Edited by Ralph P. Martin. Vol. 38a. Dallas, TX: Word Books, Publisher, 1988.

Dunn, James D. G. Romans 9-16. Word Biblical Commentary. Edited by Ralph P. Martin. Vol. 38b. Dallas, TX: Word Books, Publisher, 1988.

Eckstein, Hans-Joachim. Der Begriffe Syneidesis Bei Paulus: Eine Neutestamentlich-Exegetische Untersuchuing Zum 'Gewissenbegriff'. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament 2 Reihe. Edited by Martin Hengel and Otfried Hofius. Vol. 10. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1983.

Feine, Paul and Johannes Behm. Introduction to the New Testament. Rev. ed. Edited by Werner Georg Kümmel. Translated by A. J. Mattill. New York: Abingdon Press, 1966.

Fitzmyer, Joseph A. Romans. The Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday, 1993.

Franzmann, Martin H. Romans: A Commentary. St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 1968.

Freed, Edwin D. The New Testament: A Critical Introduction. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1986.

Furnish, Victor Paul. The Moral Teaching of Paul. 2nd ed. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1985.

Goppelt, Leonhard. A Commentary on 1 Peter. Edited by Ferdinand Hahn. Translated by John E. Alsup. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1993.

Guthrie, Donald. New Testament Introduction. Rev ed. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1990.

Harris, Horton. The Tübingen School: A Historical and Theological Investigation of the School of F. C. Baur. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1990.

Harrison, Everett F. Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1964.

Hendricksen, William. Exposition of Paul's Letter to the Romans. New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1980.

Jewett, Robert. Christian Tolerance. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1982.

Ksemann, Ernst. Commentary on Romans. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1980.

Ksemann, Ernst. New Testament Questions of Today. London: SCM Press, 1969.

Lake, Kirsopp and Silva Lake. An Introduction to the New Testament. London: Christophers, 1938.

Lampe, G. W. H., ed. A Patristic Greek Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961.

McNeile, A. H. An Introduction to the New Testament. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1927.

Metzger, Bruce. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 1971.

Morris, Leon. The Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988.

________. The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Edited by R.V.G. Tasker. Vol. 7. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1958.

Morrison, C. D. The Powers That Be. Earthly Rulers and Demonic Powers in Romans 13:1-7. Studies in Biblical Theology. Vol. 29. London: SCM Press, 1960.

Munro, Winsome. Authority in Paul and Peter: The Identification of a Pastoral Stratum in the Pauline Corpus and in 1 Peter. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series. Edited by R. McL. Wilson and Margaret E. Thrall. Vol. 45. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.

O'Neill, J. C. Paul's Letter to the Romans. London: Penguin Books, 1975.

Perrin, Norman and Dennis C. Duling. The New Testament: An Introduction. 2nd ed. Edited by Robert Ferm. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1982.

Pierce, C. A. Conscience in the New Testament. London: SCM Press, 1955.

Ridderbos, Hermann. Paul: An Outline of His Theology. Translated by John Richard De Witt. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1975.

Robert, A. and A. Feuillet. An Introduction to the New Testament. Translated by Patrick W. Skehan, Edward P. Arbez, Kathryn Sullivan, Lawrence J. Dannemiller, Edward F. Siegman, John P. McCormick and Martin R. P. McGuire. New York: Desclee Company, 1965.

Sampley, J. Paul. Walking between the Times: Paul's Moral Reasoning. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991.

Selby, Donald J. Introduction to the New Testament: The Word Became Flesh. New York: The MacMillan Company, 1971.

Selwyn, Edward Gordon. The First Epistle of St. Peter. London: MacMillan & Company, 1947.

Sherwin-White, A. N. Roman Law and Roman Society in the New Testament. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963.

Stuhlmacher, Paul. Der Brief an die Rmer. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989.

Theissen, Gerd. The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity. Edited by John H. Schutz. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982.

Theissen, Henry Clarence. Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids: William. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1955.

Weiss, Bernhard. A Manual of Introduction to the New Testament. Translated by A. J. K. Davidson. Vol. 1. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1887.

Young, Edward J. The Book of Isaiah. Vol. 3. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1972.

Zahn, Theodore. Introduction to the New Testament. Translated by John Moore Trout, William Arnot Mather, Louis Hodous, Edward Strong Worcester, William Hoyt Worrell and Rowland Backus Dodge. Vols. 1-3. Grand Rapids: Kregal Publications, 1953.

Ziesler, John. Paul's Letter to the Romans. TPI New Testament Commentaries. London: SCM Press, 1989.

Essays

Bammel, Ernst. "Romans 13." In Jesus and the Politics of His Day. Edited by Ernst Bammel and C. F. D. Moule. 365-83. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984.

Bruce, F. F. "Render to Caesar." In Jesus and the Politics of His Day. Edited by Ernst Bammel and C. F. D. Moule, 249-63. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984.

Donfried, Karl Paul. "A Short Note on Romans 16." In The Romans Debate. Rev ed. Edited by Karl P. Donfried, 43-52. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991.

Grogan, G. W. "Isaiah." In The Expositor's Bible Commentary. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein. Vol. 6, 1-354. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1986.

Gundry-Volf, J. M. "Conscience." In Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. Edited by Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin and Daniel G. Reid, 153-56. Downers Grove, IL:: Intervarsity Press, 1993.

Harrison, Everett F. "Romans." In The Expositor's Bible Commentary. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein. Vol. 10. 1-171. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976.

Hart, H. St J. "The Coin of 'Render Unto Caesar . . .'." In Jesus and the Politics of His Day. Edited by Ernst Bammell and C. F. D. Moule, 241-48. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984.

Karris, Robert J. "Romans 14:1-15:13 and the Occasion of Romans." In The Romans Debate. Rev ed. Edited by Karl P. Donfried, 65-84. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991.

Klein, Gunther. "Paul's Purpose in Writing Romans." In The Romans Debate. Rev ed. Edited by Karl P. Donfried, 29-44. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991.

Longenecker, Richard N. "New Testament Social Ethics for Today." In Understanding Pauline Ethics. Edited by Brian S. Rosner, 337-50. Carlisle: The Paternoster Press, 1995.

Mott, S. C. "Civil Authority." In Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. Edited by Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin and Daniel G. Reid, 141-43. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993.

Reasoner, M. "Citizenship, Roman and Heavenly." In Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. Edited by Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin and Daniel G. Reid, 139-41. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993.

Stuhlmacher, Peter. "The Purpose of Romans." In The Romans Debate. Rev. ed. Edited by Karl P. Donfried, 231-42. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991.

Thomas, Robert L. "1 Thessalonians." In The Expositor's Bible Commentary. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein. Vol. 11. 227-298. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1978.

Wiefel, Wolfgang. "The Jewish Community in Ancient Rome and the Origins of Roman Christianity." In The Romans Debate. Rev. ed. Edited by Karl P. Donfried, 85-101. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991.

Articles

Abineno, J. L. C. "The State, according to Romans Thirteen." South East Asia Journal Theology 14 (1972): 23-7.

Arzt, P. "ber die Macht des Staates nach Rm 13, 1-7." Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments 18 (1993): 163-81.

Austad, Torleiv. "Attitudes towards the State in Western Theological Thinking." Themelios 16 (1990): 18-22.

Balch, D. L. "Early Christian Criticism of Patriarchal Authority: I Peter 2:11-3:12." Union Seminary Quarterly Review 39 (1984): 161-73.

Bammel, E. "The Commands in I Peter II. 17." New Testament Studies 11 (1965): 279-81.

Barraclough, R. "Romans 13:1-7: Application in Context." Colloquium 17 (1985): 16-22.

Bolognesi, P. "La Situazione Del Cristiano Davanti All'autorita Secondo Romani 13." RicBibRel 17 (1982): 9-23.

Borg, Marcus. "A New Context for Romans XIII." New Testament Studies 19 (1972): 205-18.

Botha, J. "Creation of New Meaning: Rhetorical Situations and the Reception of Romans 13:1-7." Journal of Theology of South Africa 79 (1992): 24-37.

Botha, J. "Social Values in the Rhetoric of Pauline Paraenetic Literature." Neotestamentica 28, (1994): 109-26.

Boyer, Susan. "Exegesis of Romans 13:1-7." Brethern Life and Thought 32 (1987): 208-16.

Bruce, F. F. "Paul and the 'Powers That Be'." Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 66 (1984): 78-96.

Carey, George L. "Biblical-Theological Perspectives on War and Peace." The Evangelical Quarterly 57 (1985): 163-78.

Cranfield, C. E. B. "The Christian's Political Responsibility According to the New Testament." Scottish Journal of Theology 15 (1962): 176-92.

Cranfield, C. E. B. "Some Observations on Romans XIII. 1-7." New Testament Studies 6 (1960): 241-49.

Crawford, R. G. "Theological Bombshell in South Africa." The Expository Times 98 (1986): 9-13.

Culpepper, Alan. "God's Righteousness in the Life of His People." Restoration Quarterly 73 (1976): 451-63.

Cuvillier, E. "Soumission aux autorites et liberte Chretienne. Exegese de Romains 13, 1-7." Hokhma 50 (1992): 29-47.

Dennison, William D. "Indicative and Imperative: The Basic Structure of Pauline Ethics." Calvin Theological Journal 14 (1979): 55-78.

Denova, R. I. "Paul's Letter to the Romans, 13:1-7: The Gentile-Christian Response to Civil Authority." Encounter 53 (1992): 18-38.

Draper, J. A. "'Humble Submission to Almighty God' and Its Biblical Foundation: Contextual Exegesis of Romans 13:1-7." Journal of Theology for Southern Africa 63 (1988): 30-38.

Dunn, James D. G. "Romans 13:1-7: A Charter for Political Quietism?" Ex Auditu 2 (1986): 55-68.

Dyck, H. J. "The Christian and the Authorities in Romans 13:1-7." Direction 14 (1985): 44-50.

Eller, V. "Romans 13 (Actually Romans 12:14-13:8) Reexamined." TSF Bulletin 10 (1987): 7-10.

Ellul, J. "Petite Note Complementaire Sur Romains 13, 1." FoiVie 79 (1990): 81-83.

Emslie, B. L. "The Methodology of Proceeding From Exegesis to an Ethical Decision." Neotestamentica 19 (1985): 87-91.

France R. T. "Liberation in the New Testament." Evangelical Quarterly 58 (1986): 3-23.

Friedrich, J., W. Pohlmann and P. Stuhlmacher. "Zur historischen Situation und Intention von Rom 13, 1-7." Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 73 (1976): 131-66.

Fuchs, Eric. "Romains 13, 1-7." Bulletin du centre protestant d'etudes 29 (1977): 58-62.

Gale, Herbert M. "Paul's View of the State: A Discussion of the Problem in Romans 13:1-7." Interpretation 6 (1952): 409-14.

Garrett, J. L. Jr. "The Dialectic of Romans 13:1-7 and Revelation 13: Part One." Journal of Church and State 18 (1976): 433-42.

________. "The Dialectic of Romans 13:1-7 and Revelation 13: Part Two." Journal of Church and State 19 (1977): 5-20.

Goldstein, H. "Die politischen Parnesen in 1 Peter 2 und Rm 13." BibLeb 14 (1973): 88-104.

Grant, W. J. "Citizenship and Civil Obedience." The Expository Times 54 (1943): 180, 81.

Heiligentahl, R. "Strategien Konformer Ethik Im Neuen Testament Am Beispiel Von Rm 13.1-7." New Testament Studies 29 (1983): 55-61.

Herzog, W. R. "Dissembling, a Weapon of the Weak: The Case of Christ and Caesar in Mark 12:13-17 and Romans 13:1-7." Perspectives in Religious Studies 21 (1994): 339-60.

Hultgren, A. J. "Reflections on Romans 13:1-7: Submission to Governing Authorities." Dialog 15 (1976).

Hutchinson, S. "The Political Implications of Romans 13:1-7." Biblical Theology 21 (1971): 49-59.

James, Stephen A. "Divine Justice and the Retributive Duty of Civil Government." Trinity Journal 6 (1985): 199-210.

Kallas, J. "Romans XIII. 1-7: An Interpolation." New Testament Studies 11 (1965): 365-74.

Ksemann, Ernst. "Rmer 13, 1-7 und unserer Generation." Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 56 (1959): 316-76.

Krodel, Gerhard. "Church and State in the New Testament." Dialog 15 (1976): 21-28.

Kroger, D. "Paul and the Civil Authorities: An Exegesis of Romans 13:1-7." Asia Journal of Theology 7 (1993): 344-66.

Lgasse, S. "La soumission aux autorits d'aprs 1 Pierre 2. 13-17: Version spcifique d'une parnse traditionelle," New Testament Studies 34 (1988): 378-96.

Laub, F. "Der Christ und die staatliche Gewalt—Zum Verstndnis der 'politischen' Parnese Rm. 13, 1-7 in der gegenwartigen Diskussion." Münchener Theologische Zeitschrift 30 (1979): 257-65.

Lee, Page. "'Conscience' in Romans 13:5." Faith and Mission 8 (1990): 85-93.

S. Lgasse, "Paul et Csar, Romains 13, 1-7: Essai de synthse," Revue Biblique 101 (1994): 516-32.

Lorimer, W. L. "Romans XIII. 3." New Testament Studies 12 (1966): 389-91.

McDonald, J. I. H. "Romans 13. 1-7: A Test Case for New Testament Interpretation." New Testament Studies 35 (1989): 540-49.

________. "Romans 13.1-7 and Christian Social Ethics Today." Modern Church 29 (1987): 19-25.

Meeks, Wayne A. "The Polyphonic Ethics of the Apostle Paul." The Annual Society of Christian Ethics (1988): 17-29.

________. "Understanding Early Christian Ethics." Journal of Biblical Literature 105 (1986): 3-11.

Moiser, Jeremy. "Rethinking Romans 12-15." New Testament Studies 36 (1990): 571-82.

Moulder, J. "Romans 13 and Conscientious Disobedience." Journal of Theology for South Africa 21 (1977): 13-23.

Munro, J. "Romans 13:1-7. Apartheid's Last Biblical Refuge." Biblical Theological Bulletin 20 (1990): 161-68.

Neufeld, K. H. "Das Gewissen. Ein Deutungsversuch Im Anschluss an Rm 13, 1-7." BibLeb 12 (1971): 32-45.

Neufeld, M. G. "Submission to Governing Authorities: A Study of Romans 13:1-7." Direction 23 (1994): 90-97.

Neugebauer, F. "Zur Auslegung von Rm. 13, 1-7." KerDogma 8 (1962): 151-72.

Nurnberger, K. "Theses on Romans 13." Scriptura 22 (1987): 40-47.

Ogle, A. B. "What Is Left for Caesar? A Look At Mark 12:13-17 and Romans 13:1-7." Theology Today 35 (1978): 254-64.

Porter, S. E. "Romans 13:1-7 As Pauline Political Rhetoric." Filologia NeoTestamentica 2 (1990): 115-39.

Racine, J. F. "Romans 13,1-7: Simple preservation de l'ordre social?" EstBib 51 (1993): 187-205.

Reese, J. T. "Pauline Politics: Rom 13:1-7." Biblical Theological Bulletin 3 (1973): 232-331.

Refoule, F. "Soumission et liberte." Vie Spirituelle 690 (1990): 331-42.

Rodriguez, R. Lugo. "El verbo 'Hypotassein' y la parenesis social de 1 Pe 2, 11-17." EfemMex 9 (1991): 57-70.

Romaniuk, K. "Il Cristiano e l'autorita civile in Romani 13, 1-7." RevistBib 27 (1979): 261-69.

Senior D. "The Conduct of Christians in the World (2:11-3:12)." Review and Expositor 79 (1982): 427-38.

Shearier, Jeffery. "The Ethics of Obedience: A Lutheran Development." Concordia Journal 12 (1986): 55-63.

Stein, R. H. "The Argument of Romans 13:1-7." Novum Testamentum 31 (1989): 325-43.

Strobel, A. "Furcht, Wem Furcht Gebuhrt. Zum Profangriechischen Hintergrund Von Rm 13:7." ZeitNTWiss 55 (1964): 58-62.

Talbert, C. H. "A Non-Pauline Fragment At Romans 3:24-26." Journal of Biblical Literature 85 (1966): 287-96.

Thrall, Margaret. "The Pauline Use of Suneidesis." New Testament Studies 14 (1967): 118-25.

Venetz H. J. "Zwischen Unterwerfung Und Verweigerung. Widerspruchliches Im Neuen Testament? Zu Rm 13 Und Offb 13." BibKirch 43 (1988): 153-63.

Vonck, P. "All Authority Comes From God: Romans 13:1-7--a Tricky Text About Obedience to Political Power." African Ecclesiastical Review 26 (1984): 338-47.

Webster, A. F. C. "St. Paul's Political Advice to the Haughty Gentile Christians in Rome: An Exegesis of Romans 13:1-7." St. Vladimers Theological Quarterly 25 (1981): 259-82.

Wells, P. "Dieu Createur et politique." RevRef 27 (1976): 30-44.

Winter, Bruce W. "The Public Honouring of Christian Benefactors. Romans 13.3-4 and 1 Peter 2. 14-15." Journal for the Study of the New Testament 34 (1988): 87-103.

Wright, N. T. "The New Testament and the State." Themelios 16 (1990): 11-17.


1 Cf. Karl Paul Donfried, "A Short Note on Romans 16," in The Romans Debate, rev. ed., ed. Karl P. Donfried (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991), 43-52.

2 Consult Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Romans, The Anchor Bible, vol. 33 (Toronto: Doubleday, 1993), 663, 64 for a list of commentators who reject the passage due to the lack of Christological emphases. C. H. Talbert, "A Non-Pauline Fragment at Romans 3:24-26," JBL 85 (1966), 287-96, is an example of one who sees other possible interpolations in the epistle. A quick review of the textual data on 3:25, 26, listed in the NA26 reveals that the reading is most likely original and Pauline. The only substantive problems concern the definite article th`" in 3:25 and the addition of Cristou` in 3:26. For a more detailed survey of textual issues in Romans, cf. H. Gamble, Jr., The Textual History of the Letter to the Romans: A Study in Textual and Literary Criticism, Studies and Documents, 42 (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1977). There are those who go further yet and claim that the entire epistle is a compilation from two and in some cases many different sources. For reference to those who make such claims see Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, rev. ed. (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1990), 426, n. 6 and 427, n. 1. Paul Feine and Johannes Behm, Introduction to the New Testament, 14th rev. ed., ed. Werner Georg Kümmel and trans. A. J. Mattill, Jr. (New York: Abingdon Press, 1966), 226, say that "the supposition that the original text of Romans contained 1:1-16:23 . . . explains the textual tradition the most convincingly."

3 James Kallas, "Romans xiii. 1-7: An Interpolation," NTS 11 (1965), 365-74.

4 Gamble, Textual History, 91.

5 F. F. Bruce, "Paul and 'the Powers That Be,'" BJRL (Spring 1984), 80.

6 References to civil authorities in the Pastorals include 1 Timothy 2:1, 2 and Titus 3:1-2.

7 Perhaps it is just such contacts with the state, that forms part of the rationale for Luke writing to Theophilus, if indeed, Theophilus is a high-ranking official in the Roman government as some claim (Luke 1:3; Acts 1:1). See Richard N. Longenecker, "Acts," in The Expositor's Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 9 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 253; I. Howard Marshall, Acts, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, ed. R. V. G. Tasker, vol. 5 (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing House, 1980), 55.

8 Kallas, "Interpolation," 367.

9 In this very book Paul uses novmo" to refer to the O.T. as a whole (3:19); to the Pentateuch (3:21) and to the principle of law in general (3:27). Note the use of oijkonomiva in Ephesians 3:2, 9. The first use in 3:2 refers to Paul's personal responsibility to make known the mystery of the gospel. The second use in 3:9 refers to unification of Jew and Gentile in one body as the expression of God's plan in Christ.

10 Other commentators doubt Pauline authorship due to the lack of a Christological foundation in the passage. But as Ksemann says, "it is characteristic of our chapter that any Christological, as well as any eschatological, patterning is found wanting. To ignore this is to build castles in the air and to betray oneself in so doing by the Christology and cosmology one employs." See Ernst Ksemann, "Principles of the Interpretation of Romans 13," in New Testament Questions of Today (London: SCM Press, 1969), 206. With this conclusion I must agree, but it does not lead to doubtful Pauline authorship.

11 Cf. Bruce Metzger, ed., A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (London: United Bible Societies, 1971), 528, 29.

12 Perhaps they are due to a process of "tidying up the text." See James D. G. Dunn, Romans 9-16, Word Biblical commentary, ed. Ralph P. Martin, vol. 38b (Dallas, TX: Word Books, Publisher, 1988), 758, note b. On the variant tw/' ajgaqoergw/' in 13:3 see W. L. Lorimer, "Romans 13:3," NTS 12 (July 1966), 389-91. Lorimer, on the basis of Greek writers' reluctance to repeat a compound, argues for the authenticity of tw/' ajgaqoevrgw. Given the strength of the manuscript tradition this is highly unlikely and may be a later scribal attempt to focus on the "one who does good," rather than on the "works" themselves as Paul appears to be highlighting. Cranfield, Romans, 2:664, n. 5, sees it as an attempt to improve the text. He does not say in what particular fashion.

13 Metzger, Textual Commentary, 529.

14 Dunn, Romans, 2:758, note d.

15 Bruce, "Paul and 'the Powers That Be,'" 78, n. 2.

16 See the exegesis for the explanation for the comparison of conscience with God and wrath with the state. The two major underlying questions concern why and how to submit to the civil authorities. The question of how has been subsumed under the subject in the subject/complement statement and the emphasis has been put upon the why (complement).

17 F. F. Bruce, "Christianity Under Claudius," BJRL 44 (March 1962), 318, writes: "Christian and non-Christian Jews alike were expelled from the capital. But it is plain that, before many years had passed, both Christian and non-Christian Jews were back in Rome in full force, together with many Christians of Gentile stock. When Paul writes to the Roman Christians in A. D. 57, he obviously writes to a flourishing community which includes many Gentiles, although it is not forgotten that its base was Jewish."

18 Suetonius, The Deified Claudius, 25.4, writes concerning Claudius: "Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome." Though the meaning of Suetonius's words is disputed, it appears to be a genuine reference to Christ. The fact that he refers to Christ as Chrestus only indicates that the two spellings would have been pronounced the same. And, if it were some other person other than Christ one would expect him to have used quodam Chresto. See n. a in J. C. Rolfe's translation. For an opposing view see E. A. Judge and G. S. R. Thomas, "The Origin of the Church at Rome: A New Solution?" RTR 25 (Sept.-Dec. 1966), 85-88.

19 Cf. Acts 18:12. See also Bruce, "Christianity Under Claudius," 310, 16.

20 Suetonius, Nero, 16.2 states: "Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition." A "class" of men seems to imply a distinction from other groups at this point, including Jews.

21 Cf. Guthrie, Introduction, 405.

22 Everett F. Harrison, Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1964), 283. See also Romans 9:10.

23 Cf. Feine, Behm, Kümmel, Introduction, 219.

24 Cf. Guthrie, Introduction, 405-06. It is also possible that the expulsion applied only to Jews who were not Roman citizens; cf. M. Reasoner, "Rome and Roman Christianity," in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, ed. Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin and Daniel G. Reid (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 853; C. E. B. Cranfield, Romans: A Shorter Commentary (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1985), xii-xiii.

25 See William Sanday and Arthur C. Headlam, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, The International Critical Commentary, 5th ed. (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1902), 370.

26 Tacitus, Annuls ab excessu divi Augusti, 13:50, 51, writes: "In the same year, as a consequence of repeated demands from the public, which complained of the exactions of the revenue-farmers [Companies of Roman Knights] Nero hesitated whether he ought to decree the abolition of all indirect taxation and present the reform as the noblest of gifts to the human race." That this does not form the background to the passage has been argued by Winsome Munro, "Romans 13:1-7: Apartheid's Last Biblical Refuge," Biblical Theological Bulletin 20 (Winter 1990), 164, 5.

27 Though the origin of the church in Rome is a matter of great debate, it seems reasonable that the Jews who heard Peter's sermon in Acts 2 :1-13 (cf. v. 10) carried the good news back to Rome with them.

28 Marcus Borg, "A New Context for Romans XIII," New Testament Studies 19 (April 1972), 205-18.

29 Ernst Ksemann, Commentary on Romans, trans. and ed. Geoffrey Bromiley (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1980), 351.

30 See also Hermon Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology, trans. John Richard De Witt (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1975), 323, who says: "Was there not in the fact that Christ was the church's Lord the possibility of dissociating itself from every "worldly" bond. ..." See also Günther Bornkamm, Paul, trans. D. M. G. Stalker (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1971), 213.

31 The passage is somewhat asyndetic, a feature common in Pauline style (see Rom 9:1; Eph 3:1, 2). Cf. BDF, *463. See also Stanley E. Porter, "Romans 13:1-7 as Pauline Rhetoric," Filologia Neotestamentica 3 (Nov 1990), 119.

32 Cf. ajgaqov"/kavkov" in 12:21 and 13:3, 4; oJrghv in 12:19 in 13:4, 5; ejkdikevw/e]kdiko" in 12:19 and 3:4; pavntwn ajnqrwvpwn/pa`sin in 12:17, 18 and 13:7; ojfeilhv /ojfeivlw in 13:7, 8. There are also many linguistic parallels to 2:7-11. See Dunn, Romans, 2:758.

33 For a nice description of the growing circle of relationships as one moves from Romans 12:1 to 13:1-7 see Porter, "Romans," 118.

34 For a brief summary of the problem as it currently stands see, Günter Klein, "Paul's Purpose in Writing the Epistle to the Romans," in The Romans Debate, rev. ed., ed. Karl P. Donfried (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991), 29-43. See also L. Ann Jervis, The Purpose of Romans, JSNTS 55, 1991.

35 See Fitzmyer, Romans, 341.

36 This is yet another link that renders this section relevant to the argument of the book.

37 Compare 1 Cor 15:45— and Genesis 2:7— .hY:j' vp,n<l] !d;a;h; yhiyw".

38 Gerhard Delling, TDNT, VIII, 41; cf. also Porter, "Romans," 120, n. 22.

39 Concerning taV" ajrcaV" kaiV taV" ejxousiva" as a reference to Roman officials see, John Nolland, Luke 9:21-18:34, Word Biblical Commentary, ed. Ralph P. Martin, vol. 35b (Dallas, TX: Word Book, Publisher, 1993), 680.

40 This is the participial form of the verb uJperevcw. It is functioning here adjectivally with respect to the noun ejxousiva.

41 Porter, "Romans," 123, 24.

42 Several scholars have held this view which seems to have its modern impetus from Martin Dibelius, Die Geisterwelt im Glauben des Paulus (Gttingen, 1909). Dibelius later changed his view. See idem, "Rom und die Christen imersten Jahrhundret," SAH (1942), 7. Other examples include K. L. Schmidt, "Zum theologischen Briefwechsel zwischen Karl Barth und Gerhard Kittel," TB 13 (1934), 328-34 and "Das Gegenüber von Kirche und Staat in der Gemeinde des Neuen Testaments," TB 16 (1937), 1-16; G. Dehn, "Engel und Obrigkeit," Theologische Aufstze Karl Barth zum 50. Geburtstag, ed. E. Wolf (Munich, 1936), 90-109, developed Dibelius's ideas. Cf. also R. Walker, Studie zu Rm 13:1-7 (Theologische Existenz Heute; Munich: Kaiser, 1966), 12-15. Cf. C. E. B. Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, The International Critical Commentary, ed. J. A. Emerton and C. E. B. Cranfield (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1979), 656-57 cites some of these commentators. For our discussion here see Oscar Cullmann, Christ and Time: The Primitive Christian Conception of Time and History, trans. Floyd V. Filson (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1950), 191-210. This view was also held in the patristic period; see Ernst Bammel, "Romans 13," in Jesus and the Politics of His Day, ed. E. Bammel and C. F. D. Moule (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 365.

43 Cullmann, Christ and Time, 194.

44 This statement of course is built on Cullmann's dating of Daniel. He does not say when this is, but probably it has a date sometime after the temple desecration perpetrated by Antiochus IV (i.e 167 B. C.-164 B. C.)—around 160-140 B. C. In the long run, it really does not matter, only that Daniel is sometime before the writing of the New Testament and that Daniel's writing influenced Paul in the way Cullmann asserts.

45 Cullmann, Christ and Time, 191.

46 Ibid., 193.

47 For the interpretation that only men are in view, see, W. Harold Mare, 1 Corinthians, in The Expositior's Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 10 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing Company, 1976), 200, 22.

48 See Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, ed. Gordon D. Fee (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1977), 248.

49 Susan Boyer, "Exegesis of Romans 13:1-7," Brethern Life and Thought 32 (Autumn 1987), 209. I list this point as a possible rebuttal to Cullmann's view. Although it could be said that Cullmann never argues that only angels are in view, he clearly argues for a double referent—both men and angels. Therefore, the command to pay taxes is not necessarily out-of-line with a double referent. At best, the focus on paying taxes is a corroboratory argument for human rulers only.

50 Ksemann, "Principles of the Interpretation of Romans 13," 204. Ksemann is following A. Strobel, "Zum Verstndnis vom Rm, 13 ZNW 47 (1956), 67-93, at this point. His idea about Hellenistic sources is true to a point and can be seen in the use of uJpotavssw. But, the rationale Paul gives for obedience to the secular authorities, seems to come from Jewish OT and intertestamental materials. This is pointed out in the exegesis of verse 2. Ksemann's argument is raised here simply to show that it is by no means certain as Cullmann would have us believe that angels are also in view in Romans 13:1 for even the background of the passage is difficult to discern with absolute certainty.

51 Cranfield, writing in 1965, suggested that he was not certain that the authorities spoken of in Romans 13:1-7 were angelic or not. Then in his commentary, written in 1979 and his shorter commentary written in 1985, he argued that such an identification was not likely and that Paul only had in mind the civil authorities. Cf. C. E. B. Cranfield, "Some Observations on Romans xiii. 1-7," NTS 6 (1959), 241; idem, Romans, 659; idem, Romans: Shorter Commentary, 320. See also William Hendricksen, Romans, New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1980), 429-31; Ernst Ksemann, Commentary on Romans, trans. Geoeffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1980), 353; Everett F. Harrison, Romans, in The Expositor's Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976), 140; Fitzmyer, Romans, 666; Dunn, Romans, 2:760. Clinton D. Morrison, The Powers That Be: Earthly Rulers and demonic Powers in Romans 13:1-7 (Naperville, IL: Alec R. Allenson, 1960), 63-100, argues that the Greco-Roman period as well as the Jewish people assigned angelic beings to rulers over nations. Just because, he says, it is not clearly mentioned in the New Testament does not mean that it is not there. The problem with this view is that it proceeds by way of silence as regards NT data. It is at best a hypothesis without a lot of internal support.

52 Cf. BDF, *252 (1) and the generic use of the article.

53 On 1 Peter 2:14 see, Norman Hillyer, 1 and 2 Peter, Jude, New International Biblical Commentary, ed. W. Ward Gasque (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1992), 78; Ernest Best, 1 Peter, New Century Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids; William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1971), 114.

54 Robert H. Stein, "The Argument of Romans 13:1-7," Novum Testamentum 31 (October 1989), 326.

55 For the view that Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2 share a common heritage in early Christian paraenetic material, see S. Lgasse, "La soumission aux autorits d'aprs 1 Pierre 2. 13-17: Version spcifique d'une parnse traditionelle," NTS 34 (July 1988), 378-96.

56 Cf. Ernst Ksemann, New Testament Questions of Today (London: SCM Press, 1969), 199.

57 The "one doing the subjection" is not mentioned here. Some have postulated sinful Adam, others Satan, etc. It seems however, that most would agree that God is in view here. See Cranfield, Romans: Shorter Commentary, 196, 97; Dunn, Romans, 2:471; Fitzmyer, Romans, 508; Harrison, Romans, 93-95; Hendricksen, Romans, 266-68.

58 Delling, TDNT, 8: 40.

59 Porter, "Romans," 120, 21.

60 See George L. Carey, "Biblical-Theological Perspectives on War and Peace," The Evangelical Quarterly 57 (April 1985), 169, who says concerning unconditional obedience to the state: "Paul would have been horrified by such an inference."

61 See Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), 461.

62 Some commentators, due to the strong use of subjection language in the passage seem to imply an obedience to the state which is rendered without question. See Morrison, The Powers that Be, 113. This fails to recognize the import of Mark 12:13-17 (Caesar and God) and the underlying premise in Romans 13, namely, that the state is permitting one to be and live as a Christian.

63 The magistrates (perhaps these rulers make up part of the eJxousiva Paul is talking about in Romans 13.) treated Paul and Silas unlawfully. They violated their own laws by beating a Roman citizen. Paul may have made such an issue out of it in order to protect the Christians in Philippi from any further unnecessary harassment from the authorities, but at the bottom of it lies the just protest of one who was unjustly handled by the state. On Paul's rights as a Roman citizen, see I. Howard Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, ed R. V. G. Tasker (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1980), 274, 75; Richard N. Longenecker, "Acts," in The Expositor's Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 9 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 466, 67.

64 Cf. J. I. H. McDonald, "Romans 13.1-7: A Test Case for New Testament Interpretation," NTS 35 (October 1989), 543.

65 Ksemann says that obedience to the state "ends when further service becomes impossible." One cannot deny their Christianity, but he says, this is not the same thing as having to adopt a new form of worship because of the state. See "Principles of the Interpretation of Romans 13," 214-216.

66 So Fitzmyer, Romans, 667, who recognizes that the sense is ajpov but that the manuscript evidence for it is basically Western with its tendency to smooth out the text. The preferred reading is uJpov.

67 The use of the perfect tetagmevnai conveys a sense of the permanence of the governmental authorities. See Morris, Romans, 461, n. 15.

68 Gerhard Delling, TDNT, 8:27f.

69 This does not in anyway negate the cross or bring into question the Pauline authorship of this segment. Paul is simply applying truths from the OT and his background which he felt illuminated the Christian church's responsibility in the world, as a witness for Christ. For further discussion of this issue, see N. T. Wright, "The New Testament and the State," Themelios 16 (Oct/Nov 1990), 14.

70 See Edward J. Young, The Book of Isaiah, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1972), 194-200; G. W. Grogan, "Isaiah," in The Expositor's Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 6 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 1986), 270, 71.

71 John F. Walvoord, Daniel: The Key to Prophetic Revelation (Chicago: Moody Press, 1971), 75, 76.

72 For Rabbinic examples consult Herman L. Strack and Paul Billerbeck, Kommentar zum neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrash (München: C. H. Beck'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1926), 304, who cite GnR 94 which says, "R. Judan (um 350) hat gesagt: Wer sich frech gegen den Knig benimmt, ist wie einer, der sich frech gegen die Schekhina (Gottheit) benimmt." Cf. also Midrash on Psalm 2:2.

73 Dunn, Romans, 2:761; Cranfield, Romans, 2:663. Several other commentators agree with an OT, Jewish background to Paul's rationale here. See C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1957), 245; Matthew Black, Romans, New Century Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1973), 160; Fitzmyer, Romans, 667; Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 366, 67; John Zeisler, Paul's Letter to the Romans, TPI New Testament Commentaries (Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1989), 30.

74 Dunn, Romans, 2:762.

75 Porter, "Romans, " 126, 27.

76 The construction is w{ste plus the indicative—a construction found only 6 times in the Gospels and 15 times in Paul, three of which are in Romans. In Romans 7:4, 12, Paul uses the term w}ste in a similar way. BDF *391 (2) state: "w{ste is used in the NT to introduce independent sentences , too (as in classical), and may take the indicative, imperative, or hortatory subjunctive. . . ." See also BAGD, 899 *1a; Dunn, Romans, 1:361; Fitzmyer, Romans, 667; Morris, Romans, 462; Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 367.

77 1 Kings 11:34 in the LXX reads: "kaiV ouj mhV lavbw o{lhn thVn basileivan ejk ceiroV" aujtou', diovti ajntitassovmeno" ajntitavxomai aujtw'/ pavsa" taV" hJmevra" th'" zwh'" aujtou', diaV Dauid toVn dou'lovn mou, o}n ejxelexavmhn aujtovn." It appears that the participle is being used to enforce the certainty of the future form of the verb, i.e. ajntitavxomai. This is certainly a highly interpretive rendering of the MT.

78 The MT reads .!h,l; aC;a, acon:AyKi while the LXX renders the phrase: ajll! h] ajntitassovmeno" ajntitavxomai aujtoi'". This use of the participle with the finite future verb is exactly the same construction in 1 Kings 11:34.

79 See BAGD, 189.

80 Ksemann, Romans, 356. He says that "diataghv means 'structure' . . . and the "result is that even the fallen world can point to manifestations and instruments of the order which God has set up."

81 The genitive construction th'/ tou' qeou' diatagh' could be taken as a subjective genitive (see Porter, "Romans," 128), but the emphasis on the permanence of the government (cf. tetagmevnai) favors a more static idea, i.e. "institution" and the genitive appears to reflect more the idea of "source." God is the source of the governing authorities. See also Morris, Romans, 462. He also references the work of Deissmann who "cites a second-century inscription which he thinks read tw`n qeivwn dia[tag]w`n and meant "imperial ordinances", "a most exact parallel to the celebrated passage in the Epistle to the Romans, which also refers to the Roman authorities." Fitzmyer, Romans, 667, refers to Deismann's work and says the text should have been reconstructed as tw`n qeivwn dia[tagma]tw`n.

82 Herbert M. Gale, "Paul's View of the State: A Discussion of the Problem in Romans 13:1-7," Interpretation 6 (1952), 414. Gale recognizes the exalted position Paul affords the state and its incredible authority—which has been read by some to mean absolute authority. He argues that the idea of "being divinely instituted" is used of the Law in Galatians (which was only limited authority and jurisdiction) and therefore the authority possessed by the state is not final and absolute. Gale's argument could more easily be made by an appeal to the language of diavkono" (13:4) which clearly indicates derived authority and concomitant responsibility.

83 It is always used in the sense of the middle voice: "to set oneself up against." (cf. Morris, Romans, 462, n. 18).

84 See Bruce, Romans, 223 and Dunn, Romans, 2:762, who says, "ajnqevsthken is nearly synonymous and may be introduced for reasons of stylistic variation."

85 Porter, "Romans," 128.

86 The expression krivma lhvmyontai appears to be a Semitic locution: "to receive judgment." See Matt 12:40 Luke 20:47; James 3:1; cf. Black, Romans, 160; Cranfield, Romans, 2:664; Dunn, Romans, 2:762.

87 The use of the perfect emphasizes the resolve involved in resisting the authorities (see Dunn, Romans, 2:762).

88 The idea of God meting out judgment through human instruments is a familiar Jewish as well as Hellenistic concept (Isa. 13:17-19; Dan 7:9-14; Zeph 1:14-2:3; Mal 4:1; Wisd Sol 12:12).

89 Cf. Dunn, Romans, 2:762.

90 Barrett, Romans, 245. Cranfield, Romans, 2:664 argues that both the eternal judgment as well as a temporal judgment are in view. His emphasis though is on the divine judgment and he takes the gavr of 13:3 as introducing another reason for obedience to the state. This, however, appears to disrupt the flow of the passage. Other commentators who hold to the judgment as both that of the state and God include: Porter. "Romans," 129; Ksemann, Romans, 357; Morris, Romans, 462. Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 367 limit it to the state: "There is no reference here to eternal punishment." For the tension that exists between the age of God's grace in the gospel and the punishment of the state on wrongdoers, see Stephen A. James, "Divine Justice and the Retributive Duty of Civil Government," Trinity Journal 6 (Autumn 1985), 199-210.

91 There is debate as to whether gavr gives a further reason for the command in verse 1 or introduces an explanation relating to the krivma of verse 2. Porter, "Romans," 129 understands the connection to the command in verse 1, but on better grounds Stein, "Romans," connects it with verse 2.

92 The change from ejxousivai" (verse 1) to oiJ a[rconte" (verse 3) is probably stylistic to avoid a redundancy.

93 Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 367. The plural, though, cannot be used to substantiate the "generic character of the political situation," as Fitzmyer, Romans, 667, maintains. Simply because Paul is speaking quite generally at this point does not mean that there is no specific occasion in mind.

94 Cf. Ziesler, Romans, 312. The fact that Paul is referring to moral behavior that falls within the limits set out in the laws of the land, does not mean that he is speaking solely of political behavior; see Cranfield, Romans, 664, n. 5; Ksemann, Romans, 358.

95 Dunn, Romans, 2:763.

96 An example of a current problem concerns apartheid in South Africa. For the devastating use of this passage in a modern setting see Munro, "Romans 13:1-7: Apartheid's Last Biblical Refuge," BTB 20 (1990), 161-67.

97 Bruce, Romans, 224; Dunn, Romans, 2:763; Fitzmyer, Romans, 667 (notice his use of the term "legitimate" when referring to the authorities); Hendricksen, Romans, 434; Morris, Romans, 463; O'Neill, Romans, 210, 11; Porter, "Romans," 130, (Porter gets the idea of a "just" authority from the use of uJperecw in verse 1); Stein, "Romans," 333; Ziesler, Romans, 312.

98 See Morris, Romans, 463.

99 See BDF, *471 (3) refer to this text as an example of parataxis in the place of conditional subordination and says that (*494) "the resolution of a sentence into unconnected components produces a more powerful effect than would the periodic form proper." See also, Morris, Romans, 463; Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 367.

100 J. C. O'Neill, Romans, 211, follows Rudolph Bultmann, Der Stil der paulinischen Predigt und die kynisch-stoische Diatribe (Gttingen, 1910), 15ff, and argues for the diatribe style here.

101 Porter, "Romans," 131. See also S. Lgasse, "Paul et Csar, Romains 13, 1-7: Essai de Synthse," Revue Biblique 101 (October 1994), 520, who affirms that "La diatrib est caractristique de Paul."

102 Morris, Romans, 463, seems to understand the reference to toV ajgaqoVn in 13:3 as a reference to "law-abiding." See also, Black, Romans, 160. That this is certainly part of Paul's idea is clear from the command in 13:1. But he may have more in mind as well. The imperative poivei refers to actively doing good deeds as a member of society, not just passively keeping within the limits of the laws of the land. Not many people receive praise for staying within the law, but perhaps someone might receive praise for not only staying within the limits, but also going beyond the law in service to people (cf. Gal. 6:10 and the toV agjaqovn, also, 1 Peter 3:13).

103 Barrett, Romans, 246.

104 Hendricksen, Romans, 435. See also Bruce W. Winter, "The Public Honouring of Christian Benefactors," JSNT 34 (October 1988), 87-103.

105 This is also the case in its second, parallel use later in verse 4.

106 Morris, Romans, 463.

107 The expression occurs only in 2 Corinthians 6:4 where Paul says, ajll! ejn pantiV sunivstante" eJautouV" wJ" qeou' diavkonoi. Here, of course, he is speaking of the holy and blameless character of the mission he carried out for the Lord.

108 See Moulton and Milligan.

109 In these passages in Esther, the LXX translates the Hebrew term trev;m] as diavkono", although the LXX generally translates the term with leitourgov" (see H. Strathmann, TDNT, 4:231 n. 8).

110 Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 367;

111 Borg, "A New Context," 217.

112 Barrett, Romans, 246, simply ignores the presence of the pronoun soiv in his translation and commentary. Cranfield is responding to this generalized interpretation of the passage.

113 Cranfield, Romans, 2:666. Borg, "A New Context," 217.

114 Dunn, Romans, 2:764.

115 Ibid. See also Fitzmyer, Romans, 668; Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 367.

116 Barrett, Romans, 246; Cranfield, Romans, 2:666.

117 Hendricksen, Romans, 435.

118 Ibid.

119 BDF, *371 (4). In other words the condition is very general with no necessary inference as to the fulfillment of the protasis. However, if the protasis becomes a reality, so also does the apodosis.

120 BAGD, 864 (1). The term is used in the NT only five times (Matt 11:8; John 19:5; Romans 13:4; 1 Cor. 15:49; James 2:3.) The reference in Matthew, John and James refer to wearing clothes (see also Josephus, Ant. 3, 153). The reference in 1 Corinthians refers to Christians taking on the likeness of Christ just as they had the likeness of Adam while on the earth before glorification. See Leon Morris, The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, ed. R.V.G. Tasker (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1958), 230, 31. In each use of the word in the NT it has the idea of "continually bearing" (i.e. wearing) and that is the sense here in Romans 13:4 as well. It is a continual function of the state to mete out punishment on those who do evil.

121 BAGD, 496 (2).

122 Working strictly from OT usage, Borg, "A New Context," 216-218, argues for the sword as a symbol of the war-making capabilities of the state—especially to put down Jewish rebellion. He has disregarded the context in Romans 13 with its focus on the individual and his conclusion therefore seems highly unlikely. Paul's concern is not with rebellion en masse, but with the Christian as an individual living in a political world. Paul says the government is God's avenger unto wrath against the one who does evil.

123 Barrett, Romans, 247. He cites Tacitus, Histories, III. 68 as support for the comparison. The text refers to Vitellius, who after having suffered the humiliation of defeat offered his dagger to Caecilius Simplex, the consul standing beside him, in order that the consul might put him to death.

124 A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963), 10. He contends that "the term ius gladii has not been used in a technical sense for the power of the governor over either Roman citizens or peregrini" (p. 9).

125 Many commentators reject the comparison, including Cranfield, Romans, 2:666, 67; Dunn, Romans, 2:764; Fitzmyer, Romans, 668; Morris, Romans, 464; Murray, Romans, 152 and Ziesler, Romans, 312.

126 See also Philostratus, Lives of the Sophists, 1. 25 which says, dikastou` gaVr dei`sqai aujta" xivfo" e]conte" "For they needed a judge with a sword in his hand."

127 Murray, Romans, 152.

128 Cf. BAGD, 222 (3). Note The Letter of Aristeas 168: The text says that "no ordinances have been made in scripture without purpose or fancifully, but to the intent that through the whole of our lives we may also practice justice to all mankind. . . ." Stein argues on the basis of Ex 21:12, 14; Lev 24:17 and Num 35:16-34 that perhaps the state exercised the sword in obedience to the command of God. This is highly unlikely. Ziesler, Romans, 312, says that just because the state is the servant of God does not mean that it is consciously cooperating with God.

129 Gottlob Schrenk, TDNT, 2:444.

130 See P Oxy. II 26114 (A. D. 55) which says sunestavkenai aujthn toVn progegravmmenon uiJwnwVn hjmovna e]gdikon ejpiV pavsh" ejxousivai", "that she has appointed her said grandson Chaeremon to appear for her before every authority." Though somewhat later, see P Oxy. II 237vii (A D 186). The term also carried this meaning into several patristic writers. See G. W. H. Lampe, ed., A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961), 427. See also Wisdom of Solomon 12:12: "Who will come before you to plead as an advocate for the unrighteous."

131 Cf. Schrenk, TDNT, 2:444; BAGD, 238.

132 See F. F. Bruce, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, Word Biblical Commentary, ed. Ralph P. Martin, vol. 45 (Waco: Word Books, Publisher, 1982), 85 and Robert L. Thomas, "1 Thessalonians," in The Expositor's Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E Gaebelein, vol. 11 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 1978), 272, who argues that the avenging is a future eschatological punishment.

133 Note also 4 Macc 15:29.

134 Dunn, Romans, 2:765, says that e]kdiko" is to be taken in its strongest sense. Its use with eij" ojrghvn "puts the question beyond dispute." For a different perspective on the force of the term see Ziesler, Romans, 313.

135 O'Neill, Romans, 212.

136 Black, Romans, 160; Calvin, Romans, 283; Dunn, Romans, 2:765; Fitzmyer, Romans, 669 and Ksemann, Romans, 358, who says that "earthly punishment carries out God's wrath." See also Bruce, Romans, 224; Hendricksen, Romans, 436; Morris, Romans, 464; Murray, Romans, 153; Porter, "Romans," 132; Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 368; Stein, "Romans," 336.

137 Barrett, Romans, 247; Zielser, Romans, 313. Stein, "Romans, 336, disagrees with this observation.

138 BAGD, 198, cite this reference as an example of an inferential conjunction meaning "therefore," or "for this reason."

139 See Walter Grundmann, TDNT, 1. 344-47. By Greek literature, Grundmann means Aristotle (Metaphysics 4. 5) and Plato for the most part.

140 Ibid, 344, 45.

141 The example from the Didache 12:2 is important for it has the same construction as Romans 13:5, namely, ajnagkhv plus the infinitive. The term is also used in the LXX (Ps 106:13; Zeph 1:15) and in Josephus (War 5, 571; Test 2:4) to refer to judgment or calamity, but not in any way in connection with a personified deity as in Greek usage.

142 Note the textual problem in Luke 23:17.

143 So Dunn, Romans, 2:765; contra Ksemann, Romans, 358. There is more here than the simple idea of necessity. There is the implication as stated in the text that here we have the divine ordering of things. Perhaps it is not as deterministic as Dunn implies, but it is not just a necessity for those who want to share in the practical results described in verses 3, 4; so Porter, "Romans," 133.

144 This count includes six occurrences that come from the Pastoral Epistles.

145 C. A. Pierce, Conscience in the New Testament (London: SCM press, 1955). Pierce argues, (p. 71) that Paul's concept of conscience is clear: "it is the pain a man suffers when he has done wrong." As to the origin of the term he states (p. 72) that "St. Paul takes the Greek idea and sets it firmly and brilliantly in a significantly but hardly, as will be seen, pre-eminent place in his Judeo-Christian Weltanschauung." See Paul Jewett, Paul's Anthropological Terms: A Study of Their Use in Conflict Settings (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1977), 440, who also argues for conscience as a reference to acts already committed.

146 Christian Maurer, TDNT, 7:917; Margaret E. Thrall, "The Pauline Use of Suneivdhsi"," New Testament Studies (October 1967), 123, 125, says that conscience provides "guidance for future moral action and also as being able to assess the actions of others." For similar criticisms against Pierce, see J. M. Gundry-Volf, "Conscience," in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, ed. Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin and Daniel G. Reid (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 153-56; Page Lee, "'Conscience' in Romans 13:5," Faith and Mission 8 (Fall 1990), 88, 89.

147 Barrett, Romans, 247; Black, Romans, 160; Bruce, Romans, 224; Cranfield, Romans, 2:668; Dunn, Romans, 2:765; Fitzmyer, Romans, 669; Hendricksen, Romans, 437; Porter, "Romans," 134; Stein, "Romans," 337. But Dunn, Romans, 2:765, says that "Paul appeals to the moral sensibility of the ancient world." The background may lie here as Maurer has shown, but Paul has developed the concept more than Dunn is willing to allow.

148 W. J. Grant, "Citizenship and Civil Obedience," The Expository Times (1943), 80, 81, argues that inherent in the idea of conscience is the responsibility of the Christian to obey "just" authority, and to choose righteousness and God over the state should the two conflict.

149 The presence of the diov in verse 5 lends further credibility to Stein's proposal that what Paul is doing is summarizing his previous argument in verses 1-4.

150 For a more detailed presentation see Stein, "Romans, " 339, 40.

151 So Cranfield, Romans, 2:668; Hendricksen, Romans, 436.

152 The expression diaV tou'to occurs in Rom 1:26; 4:16; 5:12; 13:6; 15:9; 1 Cor 4:7; 11:10, 30; 2 Cor 4:1; 7:13; 13:10; Eph 1:15; 5:17; 6:13; Col 1:9; 1 Thes 2:13; 3:5, 7; 2 Thes 2:11; 1 Tim 1:16; 2 Tim 2:10; Phlm 15. In all these instances it refers back to the previous argument not to a single term. See Stein, "Romans," 340, who understands the phrase to look backward to the preceding argument as well as forward to leitourgoiV gaVr qeou' eijsin eij" aujtoV tou'to proskarterou'nte". Porter, "Romans," 134, interprets it to refer only to the preceding argument, not to anything following it. This is a difficult decision to make and there does not appear to be enough clear evidence to be dogmatic on one side or the other.

153 Fitzmyer, Romans, 669.

154 See Konrad Weiss, TDNT, 9:80-83; BAGD, 865; Fitzmyer, Romans, 669 and Ziesler, Romans, 314.

155 Bruce, Romans, 225, seems to feel that it could go either way, but again, the presence of the gavr seems to rule out the imperative. See also Ksemann, Romans, 359, who takes it as an indicative.

156 Stein, "Romans," 341. Many commentators take telei`te as an indicative and an example therefore of the divine origin of civil government.

157 Dunn, Romans, 2:767, attempts to draw out of the term all cultic overtones and leave it as it is found solely in Hellenistic usage—a reference to one who serves the body politic. The heavy emphasis in the passage on God's appointment of the state and its direct connection to qeou` would seem to weaken such a conclusion. J. L. C. Abineno, "The State, according to Romans Thirteen," South East Asia Journal of Theology 14 (1972), 26, says that "this term (leitourgos) does not possess the cultic meaning it has in the Septuagint, so that gathering taxes is not the same as making an offering. Nevertheless, the term 'servant' is not to be given an everyday meaning. It means at least that the office of the government official, his leitourgia is from God. Consciously or not he works at God's direction. Thus Christians must obey him and pay their taxes."

158 BAGD, 715.

159 This presents a problem for translation, as Dunn, Romans, 2:767, comments. The sense, however, is clear from the context and if we take the accusative as reference/respect, then we could translate the clause as follows: "these leitourgoiv give themselves with respect to this very thing."

160 So Cranfield, Romans, 669; Fitzmyer, Romans, 669; Morris, Romans, 467.

161 Barrett, Romans, 247.

162 Stein, "Romans," 342.

163 Ksemann, Romans, 359, takes exception to this interpretation arguing that the sense is as follows: "we take the verb to be active concern for something, the meaning might be that as rulers discharge their functions they remain within their divine commission." See also Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 368.

164 jApovdote is an imperative verb with a continuous nuance. For the idea of "give back" see BAGD, 90, *2. BAGD list the meaning of the term under *1 "give away, give up, give out." This does not seem to take into account that when the Christians in Rome are rendering to the state, they are giving back to God (as the author of the state) what has been entrusted to them.

165 The term means a "general obligation or duty;" so BAGD, 598, *2a.

166 BAGD, 865. Dues paid by a subject nation (cf. 1 Macc 10:33; Luke 20:22). See Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 368.

167 BAGD, 812, *3 (cf. 1 Macc 10:31; Matt 17:25).

168 BAGD, 864, *2b b.

169 BAGD, 817, *2b.

170 Cranfield, Romans, 2:670-72. See Morris, Romans, 467.

171 So Fitzmyer, Romans, 670.

172 Stein, "Romans, " 342, points out that, "The parallelism and rhyme (fovron-fovbon; tevlo"-timhvn) should be noted. Due to the poetic nature of 13:7b-e one should probably not seek a precise or technical meaning in these four Greek terms." This means that the interpreter must be hesitant in referring one term (i.e. timhvn) to one kind of ruler and the other term (i.e. fovbo") to a lower ruler.

173 See Cranfield, Romans, 2:669, 70 and Dunn, Romans, 2:768, who also cites the fact that Luke 20:22, 25 uses the term fovron. S. Lgasse, "Paul et Csar," 526, argues that Romans 13:1-7 is pre-Pauline, but that it does not go back to Jesus' words in Mark 12, some Hellenistic concept, or even to God as Creator, but rather to Christ's example of submission, even to the point of death. Note also Leonhard Goppelt, A Commentary on 1 Peter, ed. Ferdinand Hahn and trans. John E. Alsup (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1993), 173, 80, who understands it to originate with Jesus.

174 Barrett, Romans, 248.

Related Topics: Cultural Issues

The Argument of 1 Corinthians 12-14

Related Media

Introduction

The Purpose of the Study

The purpose for the following study is to briefly analyze the various divisions in 1 Corinthians 12-14 in an attempt to understand the overall argument of this section.

An Outline of the Study

First, the study will begin with a brief look at the textual problems in this portion of Scripture. Second, a statement of the overall argument of chapters 12-14 will be offered. Third, the overall argument will be developed through an analysis of the various paragraphs that form this section of the book. It must be said at the outset that not every paragraph could be dealt with at the same level of detail. Some portions required more attention than others. This portion of Scripture has generated an enormous amount of literature and no little number of interpretive problems. These problems were dealt with only insofar as they were immediately pertinent to establishing the argument of a particular section.

The Argument of 1 Corinthians 12-14

Textual Issues in 1 Corinthians 12-14

There are over 60 textual variants listed throughout 1 Corinthians 12-14 in the NA26 Bible, but apart from one difficult one, none of them seriously affects the meaning of the passage. Some of the variants include: 1) the omission of a word in certain traditions (14:4 gavr); 2) the replacement of a certain term by another (12:24 uJsterounti for uJsteroumevnw/);1 3) an insertion of a word (13:11 deV); 4) a change in word order (13:13) and 5) replacement of certain words with others.2

The most difficult textual problem in 1 Corinthians 12-14 occurs in 14:34, 35.3 Several Western witnesses including D, F, G, 88* itd, g Ambrosiaster, Sedulius and Scotus place the verses after verse 40. The problem does not arise from the lack of attestation for the verses in early, solid manuscripts, but from internal considerations. As Gordon Fee says: "Although these two verses are found in all known manuscripts, either here or at the end of the chapter, the two text-critical criteria of transcriptional and intrinsic probability combine to cast considerable doubt on their authenticity."4 Fee argues that the verses are spurious for at least three reasons: 1) the verses obscure the sense of Paul's argument concerning tongues and prophecy; 2) the verses contradict Paul's teaching in 11:5 where women are permitted not only to speak, but to prophecy and 3) the usage of certain terms appear foreign to Paul.

There is no easy solution to this problem and Fee is to be commended for his recognition of both the internal tension that these verses place upon the context and the weaknesses inherent in the common replies to the problem.5 All this notwithstanding, one ought to be very cautious, however, when deeming certain texts spurious on the basis of transcriptional probability and internal difficulties when there is no substantial external data to lend support to such an hypothesis. In the end, the verses should be permitted to remain in the text (after verse 33) due to excellent manuscript support.6

A Statement of the Argument of 1 Corinthians 12-14

    The General Structure of 1 Corinthians 12-14

That chapters 12-14 are indeed to be taken as a literary unit seems apparent from three facts: 1) the repetition of the Greek terms periV deV in 12:1 (cf. also 7:1, 25; 8:1; 16:1, 12) indicate a break from the previous discussion regarding the Lord's supper; 2) the material of 12-14 is unified around the idea of spiritual gifts and 3) chapters 15 and 16 concern themselves with matters other than spiritual gifts, i.e., the resurrection body, etc. Having outlined the literary context, it must be said however, that the issue of spiritual gifts is part of an immediate larger historical context, namely, the corporate worship of the church addressed in 11:2-14:40.7

First Corinthians 12-14, then, comprises one section focused on a single theme. The general structure of the literary unit consists in a movement from the general to the particular. It can be outlined as follows: 1) A basic test concerning spiritual realities (12:1-3); 2) the unity and diversity of the body with respect to the operation of various spiritual gifts (12:4-31); 3) the emphasis on love as the vehicle through which gifts can operate beneficially (13:1-13) and 4) the primacy of edification in the exercise of spiritual gifts, with particular reference to tongues and prophecy (14:1-40).8

    The Corinthian Problem in 1 Corinthians 12-14

From the text of 1 Corinthians 12-14 (and certain other passages) we can create with some degree of accuracy, it would appear, the problem in the Corinthian church. Their questions addressed to Paul were not simply about spiritual gifts per se, as if all they needed were more information on the issue. Paul's response reveals that it is a problem with the gift of tongues and the nature of true spirituality. The Corinthians had made the gift of tongues the sign of true spirituality and had urged all to speak in tongues as evidence of such spirituality. Paul's response involves information, but it is primarily corrective. Though he starts out in somewhat general fashion in chapter 12 and 13, he lands squarely on the issue in chapter 14 wherein he provides the remedy for their abuse of the gift and their confused ideas about genuine spirituality. It appears that the Corinthians were more zealous for the "miraculous gifts" insofar as they demonstrated one's superior spirituality (14:12), but they had pursued such a course to the detriment of their fellow brothers and sisters. This penchant for the miraculous may very well reflect an over-realized eschatology that appears in their denial of the body certain sexual needs (7:6) and in their denial of the corporeal aspects of the resurrection body (15:1-58).9

    Paul's Argument in 1 Corinthians 12-14

In response to the Corinthians' abuse of the gift of tongues and their misguided views of true spirituality, Paul argues the following: true spirituality consists in love of the brethern which manifests itself by making all attempts to bring edification and strengthening to the diversified body of Christ. Under this umbrella he argues that uninterpreted tongues are detrimental to the body because no one is edified by a manifestation of the Spirit they cannot understand. Prophecy is to be preferred in this light since it is comprehensible to the body, providing the nourishment it so desperately needs. Also, order is to be maintained in the exercise of the gifts as this promotes edification and reflects a God who produces peace in and between believers (cf. Col 3:15).

The Development of the
Argument through an Analysis of
the Main Divisions in 1 Corinthians 12-14

The Principle in 12:1-3

    The Structure of the Passage

The structure of this passage is fairly straight forward. Verse 1 forms a basic introduction to the paragraph (and indeed the whole literary unit from chapter 12 through chapter 14) indicating the apostle's concern that the Corinthians not be ignorant of certain truths about the things of the Spirit. Verse 2 gives the rationale for the concern, namely, their problems with idols during their pre-Christian lives. In verse 3 Paul provides a corrective to the problem by stating a very simple spiritual rule in regard to who possesses the Spirit and who does not.

    Interpretive Questions and Problems

Before we can make a final summary of the passage and state clearly its contribution to the argument of the larger unit, we must engage some of the interpretive questions and problems this text poses.

First, there is the issue of Paul's somewhat vague language. The first phrase of verse 12:1a reads: PeriV deV tw'n pneumatikw'n and the question arises as to the referent for pneumatikw'n. The noun could be either masculine or neuter. Does it refer to "spiritual men" (masculine) or to "spiritual gifts" (neuter) or simply to "the things of the spirit" (neuter)? F. F. Bruce states that it is preferable to take it as a reference to "spiritual persons" in light of its use in 2:15 and 3:1 (cf. also 14:37). In 2:15 Paul refers to oJ pneumatikov" who can discern all things (2:15) and 3:1 laments the fact that the Corinthians were not very mature spiritually; he could not refer to them as pneumatikoi`".10 The strength of this view is that it would maintain a consistent analysis of the gender and use of the term in 1 Corinthians. The weakness includes the fact that the immediate context of 12:1 does not seem to be primarily referring to persons per se. The emphasis seems to be more on gifts than on those who possess them. With this in mind, William F. Orr and James Arthur Walther, although cognizant of the focus on people and gifts in the following context (i.e., 12-14), argue that the term is neuter and does indeed refer to "spiritual gifts."11 This referent for the term is supported by its use in 14:1. D. A. Carson also argues that the term is neuter, but his reasoning rests in large measure on the conceptual parallel that exists between pneumatikw`n and carivsmata—a term that never refers to persons. According to Carson, the term simply refers to "spirituals" and the vagueness is overcome when we understand that the Corinthians understood the questions they had asked of Paul. In other words, they understood his response, even if we do not.12 Fee, in his excellent commentary on 1 Corinthians, argues that pneumatikw'n emphasizes the Spirit's role whereas carivsmata emphasizes the manifestation, the gift as such. He further adds that the reference, then, is to "the things of the spirit."13 This seems to be Paul's meaning here. His focus on a general concept—"spirituals" or "things of the spirit"—allows him to take the Corinthians back into their pagan past (when they possessed no gift of the Spirit) from which he will demonstrate a major point about spiritual experience— not everything that claims to be inspired utterance is from the Spirit of God. This leads us into verse 2.

Second, why does Paul refer them to their pagan experience which included idol worship (v. 2)?14 This question surfaces a further question concerning the relationship of 12:2 to 12:1 and 12:3. The traditional and predominant understanding is to link v. 2 closely with v. 3 such that together they form the substance about which Paul does not want the Corinthians to be ignorant (v. 1). Along these lines, since 12:2 talks about their pagan background and refers to their worship of dumb idols and 12:3 seems to refer to a test concerning spiritual utterances about Jesus (Lord or cursed; especially the fact that Paul mentions ajnavqema jIhsou`"), many commentators have sought a connection to the ecstatic utterances found in the Mystery religions in which many of the Corinthians were undoubtedly involved at one time.15 This structuring of 12:2 and 12:3 together, has resulted in the idea that the cursing going on in v.3 was somehow in the Corinthians' present experience. But who would do such a thing in the congregation? Numerous solutions have been proposed, none with any degree of satisfaction and many of which ultimately leave 12:1-3 disconnected from what follows concerning the source and diversity of the gifts (vv.4-11).16

There is another way to structure Paul's comments in 12:1-3 that is more sensitive to the grammar and alleviates the problem of trying to find a specific referent or situation for the "cursing." Carson, following, G. de Broglie and Andr Mehat, argues that v.1 and v. 2 belong together and that v. 3 alone provides the content about which Paul does not want the Corinthians to be ignorant.17 There is no o{ti clause in v. 2—which one would expect following Paul's formula ouj qevlw uJma'" ajgnoei'n (see 10:1 and Romans 1:13). There is, however, a o{ti clause in v. 3 after the gnwvrizw which for its part seems to be resumptive of 12:1. Grammatically, then, it seems best to link vv. 1 and 2 together and allow v. 3 to remain relatively separate as the resumption of verse 1.

This being the case, v. 2 simply reinforces Paul's statement that he does not want them to be ignorant about "spirituals." After all, even the Corinthians had to admit their blindness in the past as evidenced by idol worship. The cursing of v.3, then, is not to be seen as something that actually occurred, or a test to establish true spirits from false,18 but only a statement that true spirituality—far from being determined on the basis of spiritual utterances or manifestations—is evidenced when a person personally confesses Jesus as the Lord. It is a test to see who actually had the Holy Spirit in the first place. If anyone can genuinely confess Jesus as Lord, he/she has the Spirit of God. If anyone curses Him, he/she does not. This stands in contrast to the Corinthians who, as further exegesis will show, undoubtedly held to the opinion that those who do not manifest the gift of tongues are without the Spirit, or at least do not possess Him to the degree that others who speak in tongues do. This understanding of the 12:1-3 helps us to better understand how Paul can immediately dive into the "varieties" of the ministries of the Spirit (4-11) as a polemic against this Corinthian reductionism.19

    Summary and Contribution

The test that Paul employs, then, in 1 Corinthians 12:1-3 is not the test of orthodoxy; distinguishing false spirits from true, but a test to see who has the Holy Spirit in the first place. To those who would look for a particular spiritual manifestation (e.g., tongues) as a guarantee of the Spirit's presence Paul says: "you're on the wrong track." If a person in the Corinthian congregation thought that the gift of tongues was the telltale sign of the Spirit (and it appears that many did) they were wrong. The telltale test consists in the idea of whether a person can personally acknowledge Jesus as Lord. Paul's purpose then, in these opening three verses, is to clarify the nature of genuine spirituality—the confession of Jesus as Lord. Anyone who can confess Christ as his/her Lord, is spiritual, gifts notwithstanding. Having said this, Paul is now ready to launch into a further corrective regarding the breadth of the gifts sponsored by the one and same Spirit.

The Principle in 12:4-11

    The Structure of the Passage

The paragraph is joined to that which preceded by the use of dev (12: 4). The first three verses (4-6) emphasize, by means of a parallel structure, the Trinitarian source of the gifts as well as their diversity. Verse 7 states the purpose of the gifts, that is, for the common good. The last four verses (8-11) indicate practical examples of the kinds of gifts the Spirit gives to each person as He so determines.

    Interpretive Questions and Problems

The dev functions in a mildly contrastive way. Paul has just argued that it is the personal confession of Jesus which indicates a person's possession of the Spirit, but that is not to say that that is the only "manifestation" the Spirit produces. Quite the opposite. He also gives gifts to people for the common good of the body (i.e., and not as a sign of Spirit possession).

In verses 4-6 the Apostle lays heavy emphasis on the distributions of gifts, ministries and workings, but that they all come from the same Spirit. The term diairevsei" stands in an emphatic position at the front of its clause in all three verses. It can refer to the idea of an "allotment" or "distribution." Judith 9:4 says: "You gave up their wives for booty and their daughters to captivity, and all their booty to be divided (eij" diaivresin) among your beloved children who burned with zeal for you and abhorred the pollution of their blood and called on you for help—O God, my God, hear me also—a widow." But the term might also indicate a "difference" or "variety" in the allotment.20 With the upcoming display of the variety of gifts (12:8-11), the latter interpretation seems reasonable, but in the end, the fact that: 1) diairevsei" is plural; 2) is in contrast to toV deV aujtoV pneuvma 3) parallels the idea of fanevrwsi" in verse 7 and 4) is paralleled by the verbal form which means "to apportion" in 12:11; seems to emphasize "allotment" rather than "distinction."21 This does not mean that "variety is not implied; it certainly is. But the focus on "distributions" as a verbal noun places the emphasis not on any one gift per se, but on the Giver: the same Spirit, Lord and God, and highlights the fact that becomes explicit in verse 7: each one has a gift.

There is probably not a great deal of distinction to be put upon the successive terms: "gifts," "ministries," and "workings." They may all be subsumed under the idea of "manifestation" in verse 7. Their respective use, however, with each member of the Trinity, is particularly appropriate since it is the Spirit who is associated with carismavta;22 the Lord who is easily connected to the idea of ministry (i.e., diavkono")23 and God (the Father) who is often associated with the idea of ejnergevw (Gal 2:8; Eph 1:11; 3:20; Phil 2:13).24

Four things can be said about verse 7 in terms of Paul's overall argument in this paragraph. First, as indicated above, each person receives a gift. Not just a few special people. Second, the use of the passive divdotai clearly rules out any human effort or excellence that could attain the gifts on its own. Third, the focus again on the Spirit-source for the gifts is a rebuke to Corinthian pride. Fourth, in contrast to Corinthian opinion, wherein the gift of tongues was held to be a sign of true spirituality, Paul says the gifts were given for the common good (sumfeVron).

In verses 8-10 Paul brings out the idea of the diversity of the gifts as he lists nine of them. It is not necessary for our purposes to define and explain all the gifts except to make a few comments.25 First, whatever gift is in view at any time, it was given for the common good (v. 7), not for personal status in the community. The "common good" is defined by Paul as the strengthening and edifying of each member of the body (14:3, 12). Second, once again Paul emphasizes that it is one and the same Spirit behind the gifts. Third, verse 11 makes it abundantly clear that the Corinthian reductionism of making the gift of tongues the sine qua non of true spirituality (and obliging others to seek it) is wrong-headed because it is the Spirit who distributes the gifts according to His will, not according to what seems to be of quintessential importance, humanly speaking.26

    Summary and Contribution

Paul has argued that the entire Trinity is involved in the gifting of each member of the body, but that particular emphasis falls on the Spirit's role. The Spirit gives a variety of gifts and does so for the common good of the body and exclusively according to his own will. Paul's comments have the effect of silencing the group in Corinth who taught the supremacy of tongues as a sign of spiritual maturity. "The Corinthian individualism is destroyed."27

The Principle in 12:12-27

    The Structure of the Passage

The passage as a whole functions as an explanation by way of illustration (cf. gavr in 12:12) for Paul's argument that it is one and the same Spirit who sponsors a diversity of gifts (12:4-11).28 The passage constitutes an extended image from 12:12 until 12:27 concerning the human body and Christ's body which is the church. There are two distinct divisions in the text. First, vv. 12-19 focus on the fact that the body of Christ is made up of many parts, not one. Second, vv. 20-27 focus on the fact that while the body has many parts it is still nonetheless only one body. The first three verses (12:12-14) give the theological basis for the body imagery as found throughout the rest of the section.

    Interpretive Questions and Problems

The phrase ou{tw" kai; oJ Cristov" (12:12)29 at first glance seems a bit awkward. If the phrase were simply to stand as is, one might think the Apostle to be comparing the human body with Christ's physical body. That Paul is indeed thinking of the church as Christ's body is clear from: 1) the overall context and focus on the church in these chapters and 2) his reference to the body as the church in 12:28 (see also 12:27). The implication that flows from this is that the church stands in very close relationship to Christ and that any offense committed against the body is seen as being directed against Christ.30

The source of the image has caused some problems for interpreters as well. Bruce, while suggesting that it is not that helpful in trying to determine the source of Paul's body imagery, nonetheless suggests that it might have come from Paul's Jewish heritage and understanding of corporate solidarity, or from his conversion on the Damascus road (Acts 9:4; 22:7; 26:14). Others, like Conzelmann for example, see a connection with political ideas current at the time.31 Fee simply states, on the basis of the commonness of the metaphor, that it is irrelevant to seek a source other than the culture in general.32 He is probably correct in this and attention should be placed on how Paul handles the image.

Another question surrounds the relationship of the image to the church. Is it simply the language of description or is it an ontological category Paul uses here? Fee argues that:

Much of the theological discussion of the metaphor, as to whether Paul is concerned with some mystical truth about the church as a living organism, is quite irrelevant. For Paul it is a metaphor pure and simple, whose point is not the nature of the church per se but the need for it to experience its proper diversity in unity.33

While it does appear to be true that Paul is using the image to encourage diversity in the midst of a church that appears to have been squelching such expression, there is nothing in such a discussion that rules out an ontological idea here. The fact that believers upon conversion are baptized into an existing body seems to argue for a mystical idea here.34 As such it becomes a powerful argument against the idea prevalent in the Corinthian church that only a few, with the same gifts (e.g. tongues), are really needed.35

The baptism spoken of in 12:13 is not water baptism,36 but Spirit baptism insofar as the Spirit is the means by which Christ does the baptizing (cf. Mark 1:8)37 Thus all believers are placed in Christ's body and all drink or receive the sustaining life of God through that one Spirit.38

The argument of 12:12 has been to focus attention on the oneness of the body, but 12:13 focuses attention on the diversity of the body. This is the thought that will occupy the Apostle for the next several verses, until 12:19. The whole section is centered on the rhetorical question, "What would happen if all the parts of the body were one and the same" (cf. 12:17, 19)? Answer: the body would not be a body! A person in the Corinthian congregation who did not possess the more spectacular gifts should not conclude that they do not therefore belong to the body. This is simply not true because, as Paul says in 12:18, God is the One who places each member in the body just as He wants (hjqevlhsen).

In 12:20-27 Paul argues that because there is one body, one member cannot say to another, "I have no need for you." Paul's point is that the body would no longer be a body under such conditions and the common good eclipsed. Thus, even in this second section (12:20-27) the focus is still on the member of the body, of whom, the rest are inclined to think they have no need. In other words, in the last section (12:14-19) the focus was on that same member—only what he thought about whether he should be in the body. In this section, the focus is still on that member, but what the others think about his membership in the body. Paul's response to this latter situation is to remind his readers that: 1) just as a person cares for the unseemly parts of their body, so also the church ought to care for each member (e.g. a weaker member, vv. 22-23) and 2) God has composed the body so that those that lacked honor, He gave greater honor (not greater than others in the body, but greater than they had previously) that there might be no divisions. The result of such equality is that when one person suffers, the others do not gloat over it, but instead they suffer too, and if one part is honored, of course, all rejoice (12:26). Would that we could learn this truth in our churches today!

    Summary and Contribution

The contribution of this section to Paul's argument is to affirm, against the arrogance and self-centeredness of many of the Corinthians, that all members of the body are needed and that despite whether the "weaker" members are convinced of their place, or whether the "stronger" members are not convinced of the weaker person's place in the body, God is the One who has placed all the members in the body and who works with them so that there might be no divisions. The Corinthian tongues speakers ought to remember this point.

The Principle in 12:28-31

    The Structure of the Passage

The structure of this passage is fairly straightforward. In 12:28 Paul focuses our attention back on God as the sovereign One who organizes the gifts and people in the church (12:28). In 12:29-30 he asks several rhetorical questions which demand a "no" answer. In 12:31a he commands them to desire the "greater gifts" with 12:31b providing an excellent transition into chapter 13.

    Interpretive Questions and Problems

Is there a ranking going on in the order of the people and the gifts listed here? This seems inescapable given Paul's language: prw`ton, deuvteron, and trivton in reference to the apostles, prophets, and teachers, respectively. Apostles and prophets are held to be a group in Ephesians 3:5 and play an important role in the foundation of the church (2:20). Insofar as the teacher's function was similar to that of an Apostle or prophet (the exposition of the OT in the light of early Christian paraenetic material),39 he could be grouped with them. He, like they, was responsible for leading the church in sound teaching; the doctrinal and ethical foundation of the church (1 Cor 14:6; cf. also 1 Tim 4:13).

The reference to apostles, prophets, and teachers, seems to be a reference to people to whom God had given that particular gift. But the following reference to miracles, gifts of healings, etc. do not seem to come in any particular order and focus on the gift, not a person or office. Having said this, though, the question comes up as to why "tongues" is mentioned last. It appears last in the list in 12:8-10 and last again in 12:29-30 wherein Paul asks a series of rhetorical questions. Some have suggested that this is due to the fact that it is the least of the gifts.40 Fee takes opposition to this reasoning. He argues that the term is listed last because it is at the heart of Paul's argument and the Corinthian problem. He says: "It is listed last not because it is "least," but because it is the problem. He always includes it, but at the end, after the greater concern for diversity has been heard."41 The fact that this is so is further strengthened by the observation that it appears last, as a gift of utterance, after administrations (12:28) and healings (12:30), neither of which have anything to do with a "speaking" gift or ministry. It's place at the end of 12:30 also provides an excellent introduction to the issue of love (13:1-13) and the crux of the problem: uninterpreted tongues (14:1-40). Thus, its position in the list is not determinative for its rank among the other gifts.

    Summary and Contribution

The passage focuses once again on God's sovereign placing of individuals in the body, and the list of gifts followed by the rhetorical questions are meant to underscore, against the Corinthian bias for tongues only, that there are many gifts and God does not want all members to have one gift, but that there be the exercise of many gifts in community (cf. 14:1).

The Principle in 13:1-13

    The Structure of the Passage

The structure of 13:1-13 can be outlined as follows: 1) first it must be noted that 12:31b really stands as an introduction to the chapter: the love spoken of in this chapter is indeed the demonstration of the uJperbolhVn oJdov" of 12:31b; 2) Verses 1-3 argue for the pre-eminent nature of love as compared to even the greatest gifts or sacrificial religious acts; 3) Verses 4-7, in the explanation of no less than 15 beautiful graces, argue for the practical nature of love; 4) Verses 8-13 argue for the permanence of love, enduring beyond spiritual gifts, indeed even beyond such things as faith and hope.42

    Interpretive Questions and Problems

Paul begins this picturesque chapter by making 5 conditional statements using ea[n plus the subjunctive, introducing hypothetical third class conditions in the respective protases.43 That they are certainly only hypothetical (and thus do not describe a real situation) is evidenced by the fact that Paul knows that no one can fathom all mysteries, nor does anyone have all knowledge (v. 2). This means that while Paul spoke in tongues (14:18), he did not speak with the tongues (i.e., languages) of angels. It was common in Judaism to refer to such, and one wonders, with the over-realized eschatology of the Corinthians, if they were not claiming such experiences. As far as Paul was concerned, such claims would have meant very little in a church where love was so clearly absent. This is not to say that love replaces the gifts, even tongues or prophecy, but only that without love they do more harm than good (i.e., when they are used in a carnal way).

Paul mentions several gifts or abilities in the first three verses, but it is clear that his argument centers on the gift of tongues and its detriment to the body when it is practiced without love. The emphatic position of the term glwvssai" in 13:1, as well as the emphasis on ajgaphvn (in each of its three occurrences), and ouqen (den), throughout the section, bear out such an interpretation. Paul says the practice of tongues without love makes a person, a nobody.

There are several other issues that this chapter raises, but we shall deal only with two of them because they have played a major role in both the history of the interpretation of this passage and the present-day applications that are so often drawn from it. The first concerns the meaning of pauvsontai (13:8). The second concerns the meaning of tevleio" (13:10). Obviously these two are related.

Stanley Toussaint argues that based upon 1) the change from katargevw to pauvw in 13:8; 2) the omission of tongues in 13:9, 12; and 3) the change in voice to the middle in pauvw—all point to tongues ceasing before Christ comes.44 The first two points do not really contribute much to the argument that tongues ceases at a time different from prophecy and knowledge, i.e., before Christ comes. The difference in meaning between katargevw and pauvw is immaterial45 and the change can easily be accounted for on stylistic, rhetorical grounds. The argument from 13:9 and 12 is not particularly convincing either.

Many have held the argument from the voice of pauvw to be fallacious as well. They claim that the verb pauvsontai is in the middle voice and as such functions as a deponent verb with active force.46 Thus the subject of the verb (i.e., "tongues") is not acting on itself (i.e., a reflexive idea), but is simply an intransitive, active verb (cf. Luke 8:24). But as D. B. Wallace points out, the argument may contain more merit than is generally afforded it, for the verb may not be a deponent at all, but a middle as Toussaint has argued.47 Even granting this, however, there is nothing in the passage that necessitates a ceasing of the gift during the apostolic age. All one can say for sure is that the terminus ad quem is the coming of the perfect as described in 13:10. The point of the passage seems to be that all three gifts—prophecy, knowledge and tongues—are temporary and not eternal, like love. The Corinthians need to focus on what is eternal.

Another interpretive problem revolves around the meaning of tevleio" in 13:10. Some commentators have argued that since Paul uses the imagery of a child (nhvpio", v. 11) and an adult (i.e., ajnhvr, v. 11) he means by tevleio" a contrast between maturity and immaturity. On the surface of it such an idea is quite possible, but it does encounter several problems upon closer inspection. First, the comparison is between the gifts being partial, not people. This is clearly indicated in 13:9 and its connection to 13:8 through the use of gavr. Second, even personal, spiritual maturity cannot produce the kind of knowing and being fully known to which Paul refers in 13:12. This is clearly an eschatological perfection or completion that Paul has in mind here.48

Others argue that tevleio" refers to the completion of the canon or the completion of Scripture. There are at least two reasons why such an identification is to be rejected. First, neither Paul nor the Corinthians were canon conscious. To attribute such an idea to them, is pure anachronism. Second, if tevleio" refers to the canon, then the assumption is that the canon is a complete, exhaustive revelation, with the result that one can experience a "face to face" revelation of God. Such is simply not true. The Bible is a sufficient revelation for the present age, but it is not an exhaustive one. Concerning the sufficiency of Scripture, the biggest issue is the equivocal use of language and man's fallen condition distorting the reading and apprehension of inscripturated revelation.49 Third, this view ignores the fact that the contrast is with the present time and the eschaton (13:12).

There has also been the idea that tevleio" refers to the death of the believer and his being immediately in the presence of the Lord. While this view recognizes the personal aspect of 13:12, it tends to ignore the corporate context of Paul's discussion of the gifts and emphasis on love in relationships. This interpretation focuses on v. 13, but it takes it out of context. Paul is simply using the illustration of v. 13 to demonstrate the partiality of the present time and the complete nature of the future.

Some commentators take the tevleio" to refer to the "coming of Christ for His church." This is to be preferred over the other interpretations. First, it must be said that such a view does not fall on the use of the gender of tevleio" which is neuter.50 Instead of referring to Christ as a person (masculine), it could simply be referring to the second coming as an event (neuter). The neuter would cover such an idea quite well. Second, the abruptness of o{tan deV e[lqh/ seems to indicate a sudden change. The parousia would fit such an event quite well. Third, the change spoken of in v. 12 (which looks at an event, cf. v. 10) is an eschatological change. Fourth, Paul uses tevleio" to refer to this period (cf. 1 Cor 1:8; 15:24). Perhaps one problem with this view is the fact that the gifts of prophecy and knowledge do seem to continue into the millennium after Christ returns (cf. Isa. 11:9). But, the "partial" is a focus on what the gifts produce, not the gifts themselves. In the Millenium, they probably function in a complete way, not partial, with the result that such an objection poses no real problem.

    Summary and Contribution

There is no doubt that this passage (13:1-13) is a very difficult one. It does, however, yield itself to a general level of meaning though all the particulars are difficult to pin down. The focus in the passage is on love of course, and its permanence in contrast to the temporality of the gifts and the partial nature of what they produce. Paul's overall argument can be summarized as follows: 1) the eschaton is characterized by love; 2) the eschaton has been inaugurated by the coming of Christ and the Spirit (Acts 2:25-36; 1 Cor 3:16; Gal 3:14); 3) therefore, let us focus on love as those who are sharing in the present form of the eschaton and who will certainly participate in the eschaton when Christ returns. To use a contemporary saying: "Let us major on the majors and minor on the minors." There may or may not be an implied distinction between the gift of knowledge and prophecy, on the one hand, and tongues on the other, but such is not explicitly brought out. The only thing that one can say is that the terminus ad quem for the operation of the gifts as they presently operate is the coming of Christ. To move beyond that is to move beyond the passage.

The Principle in 14:1-19

    The Structure of the Passage

After having stressed the preeminence of love, Paul wants those in the church to excel at edifying others with their spiritual gifts, as an application of that love. Prophecy is to be preferred to uninterpreted tongues because in the case of the latter, no one is edified, unless the tongues are interpreted (vv. 1-6). In vv. 7-11 Paul illustrates what he means by uninterpreted tongues through the use of musical instruments and languages unknown to a speaker. Once again in v. 12 he affirms his central thesis that the Corinthians ought to seek to use their gifts for the edification of the church. In vv. 13-19 he stresses the need for the interpretation of tongues in prayer and worship so that the believer who does not have the gift of interpretation (which would be the majority of them) may benefit.

    Interpretive Questions and Problems

The term diwvkete is not to be taken as a command for an individual to pursue the acquisition, somehow, of other gifts. First, 1 Cor 12:11 makes it clear that the Spirit is the One who distributes them according to His will, not a believer's. Second, the focus on diwvkete is against the Corinthian reductionism that maintained that the only true gift was that of tongues. Third, the meaning of diwvkete is further developed in chapter 14 to refer to seeking to use the gifts in the proper way (i.e., through love for edification). The conclusion is that the believers are to allow for the practice of other gifts, besides tongues. But, they are to especially encourage prophecy.51

What is the nature of the gift of tongues Paul speaks about in 14:1-19? First, it must be remembered, that according to 1 Cor 14:1 it is a spiritual gift, given by the Holy Spirit. As such its proper use was to be encouraged in the assembly (14:39-40).

Second there is nothing in this text that demands that tongues be understood as real human languages.52 The reference to various human languages in the world in 14:10-11 is simply to illustrate the fact that if a language is incomprehensible to the listener, the speaker is wasting his time. Paul's point is not to identify the gift of tongues as human languages, but to show that if the gift of tongues is practiced without an interpreter, the tongues speaker is wasting his time. No one else is edified. The point of comparison is the unintelligibility in both cases. The same is true in the case of the quotation from Isaiah (14:21). The fact that Paul had to spell this out to the Corinthians shows their self-centered, selfish ways in the church. Having said this though, if the tongues spoken in Corinth are of the same kind as those spoken in Acts 2, we may say that they are indeed human languages.53 There is nothing in the passage to deny such an interpretation and it is highly unlikely that they were some kind of angelic language.54

Third, the gift of tongues is not some form of direct communication with God, as was undoubtedly thought of by the Corinthians and is often thought of today as well. People today often appeal to 14:2 in support of such a contention. This reading of the passage is fallacious for it is not Paul's point in v. 2 to affirm that the speaker has some mystical direct communion with God. His point is that since the tongues speaker (i.e., without an interpreter) speaks words that no one else can understand, he ends up speaking only to God, that is, only God can understand. To everyone else he speaks mysteries.55 Support for this idea cannot be garnered from 14:4 or 14:14-15 either. In each of these cases, uninterpreted tongues is the issue and only the speaker is edified. He may be encouraged well enough, as is anyone who exercises their gift. He may even be more so since his gift tends toward the spectacular (i.e., the ability to speak a foreign language without having studied it). But, his immaturity has lured him toward a fascination for the miraculous at the expense of the needs of his own brethern. This is carnality, not genuine spirituality (3:1ff).

Fourth, tongues is not an uncontrollable phenomena. With the exhortation in 14:40 and the statement of confusion in 14:33 we may be sure that there was chaos in the Corinthian assemblies in the exercise of the gifts. But Paul says very clearly that a person has the ability to control its (i.e., tongues) expression in their gatherings. They should speak each in his own turn and not at all if there is no interpreter.

Fifth, there were those in Corinth who claimed as many do today that all men should speak in tongues. Appeal is made to 14:5. There Paul says that he wished that all of them spoke in tongues. But, how can he be taken literally, when he has just finished arguing at length in chapter 12 against the Corinthian reductionism that everyone must speak in tongues. No, he boldly proclaimed that the Spirit had given varieties of gifts and that not all had the gift of tongues. If all did have the gift, how could someone fill the spot of the ungifted (i.e., without the gift of tongues), as according to his argument, they did (cf. 14:16)? What then is the need for an interpreter in the assembly? The reason Paul says this is that if all speak in tongues he could be guaranteed, because of their selfish state, that everyone would get edified, the very thing for which he is arguing. In the end though, uniformity is not the design of the Spirit (12:11).

Sixth, there is nothing in the passage that suggests that the gift was soon to cease. There is no hint that the Lord was considering ceasing the gift due to the problems associated with it in Corinth. But, it appears to take on a fairly low rating, even when interpretation is considered (cf. v.19, 27 and the conditional "if"). This may appear to demean a gift of God, but the text (v. 5) appears to clearly relegate it to a subordinate role.

In the final analysis it seems that the gift of tongues was a Spirit-inspired gift that enabled the speaker to speak the praises of God (Acts 2) in human languages previously unknown. This was undoubtedly the reason for the Corinthian fascination with the gift, and as practiced by an individual, would certainly lead to a fascination with the power of God (and an elitist mentality). As such the gift perhaps reveals that God is attempting to undo the results of Babel and bring men back together in Christ. Due to the Corinthian ignorance and arrogance, it had the opposite effect.

    Summary and Contribution

The Corinthians had practiced uninterpreted tongues with the result that nobody but the speaker was edified. Paul says that if a tongues speaker is speaking (2-12) or praying (13-19) such should be done only if an interpreter is present and, since each member should seek to build others up it would be better if they chose to speak or pray in a known language, taught something in a known language and overall sought prophecy more earnestly. In this way they could personally contribute to the exhortation, consolation and edification of others.

The Principle in 14:20-25

    The Structure of the Passage

In 14:20-22 Paul urges the Corinthians to be mature in their thinking (regarding tongues) and quotes from Isaiah to demonstrate the purpose for tongues. In vv. 23-25 he gives the conclusion or results that follow from a wrong perspective on this issue as far as non-Christians were concerned.

    Interpretive Questions and Problems

This particular passage has given rise to many interpretations in the light of the problems involved in Paul's use of the Isaiah passage (Is 28:11, 12) and its relationship to the following verses, and indeed to the situation in Corinth.56 There simply is not space enough here to cite all the various interpretations, but only to surface a few problems and attempt to give what appears to be the best reading of the text.

First, there is the problem of to whom the sign of tongues was given? Hodges argues that it applies only to Jewish unbelievers. He says:

Tongues were given as a sign to the Jewish people only, from which it follows that the average heathen visitor to the Christian assembly (far more likely to be a Gentile than a hostile Jew) would be exposed to a phenomenon never intended for him in the first place. On the other hand, the intelligible use of prophecy for the edification of the assembly, perfectly understandable to a Gentile visitor, would be likely to have powerful side effects, searching him, and begetting within him the fear of God. 57

This cannot be the case for 1) it relies on a direct carry over from the OT quotation, but there was no gift of tongues in the OT; 2) there is no mention of an ethnic concern in the gift in Corinth and 3) since the makeup of the church in Corinth was predominantly Gentile, one would expect them to be included in the illustration. Therefore, it is best to see the sign of tongues as being for all unbelievers.58

Second, the result of taking the Isaiah quotation as applicable to all unbelievers, it is clear that Paul is using the reference in an analogical way "where the example of God judging the nation through the unintelligible tongues of the Assyrians is compared to the judgment of unbelievers by uninterpreted tongues in the first century."59

Carson suggests that some of the Corinthians might have been extolling the gift of tongues before unbelievers as evidence of God's work among them (i.e., the Corinthians).60 To this end, Paul agrees quoting from Isaiah, but it is not the kind of sign believers want to give unbelievers, for it is a sign of God's judgment. The point Paul is making in 14:20-22 is that uninterpreted tongues61 are a sign to unbelievers of God's judgment and prophecy is likewise a sign to believers of God's work among them.

In 14:23-24 Paul gives two hypothetical examples.62 The point of the examples is to show that unbelievers who come into the assembly and see all of the believers speaking in tongues will think that they are demon possessed.63 They will conclude the exact opposite from what they ought to conclude about those who name the name of Christ (cf. John 13:34-35). On the other hand, an unbeliever64 will come to understand his need for the grace of God when he enters into an assembly and hears them prophesying.65 Thus prophecy is superior evangelistically to uninterpreted tongues.

    Summary and Contribution

The point that Paul has made through this brief passage is that once again prophecy, since it edifies all and is even instrumental in the salvation of the unbeliever who hears, is to be preferred in the assembly. It is prophecy that is the sign of God truly working among them, since it is God who wants all to be edified and unbelievers to be saved.

The Principle in 14:26-33

    The Structure of the Passage

These verses form a fitting summary of what Paul has been arguing to this point in chapter14. Everything done in the assembly, whether it be the use of tongues, prophecy, etc., is to be done for the edification of believers (v. 26) and in an orderly way (vv. 27, 31) because God himself is a God of peace not of confusion (v. 33).

    Interpretive Questions and Problems

There are two interpretive problems that I would like to surface in this section. First, there is the meaning of the phrase "let him speak to himself and to God" (v. 28). How is he to speak to himself if he does not understand the meaning of what he is saying? To interpret the dative (ejautw`/) as one of advantage certainly clears up that problem, but it creates another: there does not seem to be any good reason for Paul saying "let him speak for himself to God."66 This appears to be redundant and a use of the dative inconsistent with the rest of its occurrences in the chapter (cf. vv. 2 and 4). The best idea is to read it as a dative, direct object. With this in mind, it seems that Paul is allowing for a private use of the gift, but given the focus on mutual edification in the context, this can hardly be said to be the best course to follow.

Another question that surfaces in the interpretation of this section is, "Who are the "others" (oiJ a[lloi) who pass judgment on the statements of the prophets (v. 29)? Three referents have been suggested. First, some suggest that oiJ a[lloi refers to others in the congregation who have the gift of the discernment of spirits. Second, some argue that other prophets are in view.67 Third, oiJ a[lloi could refer to all the rest of the believers in the assembly exercising a discerning role over what is prophesied.68 Every view has some merit and probably took place in the assembly. The second view takes oiJ a[lloi as connected with profh`tai in the same verse and seems to make good sense. But, the referent may be broader than just the prophets. In 14:37 Paul encourages not only the prophets, but also all who are spiritual to discern what he is saying. We may say then, that it is likely that oiJ a[lloi refers to the rest of the prophets and others in the entire assembly who are spiritual.

    Summary and Contribution

The point Paul has been making all along is that the gifts must operate in love so as to bring edification to believers. In order to promote that thesis, he has argued in this section that all come prepared to contribute during the worship, that tongues must be interpreted (or remain unspoken before others), and that the prophets speak, each in his own turn, and that all things be done in an orderly manner.

The Principle in 14:34-36

    The Structure of the Passage

This next section concerning the role of women in the church has caused no little controversy. The passage seems unconnected to what has come before and many have attempted to dismiss it as an interpolation on such grounds. It appears to be in direct conflict with 11:5 wherein Paul seems to allow the women to speak. It begins with a command for women to remain silent (v. 34) and to learn at home (v. 35). Lest the Corinthians disagree with this application, Paul asks them if they were the originators of the Word of God or its only recipients (v. 36)

    Interpretive Questions and Problems

There have been several different interpretations of these verses.69 Perhaps the best interpretation is the one that sees a direct connection to Paul's previous discussion about prophecy. In this sense women are not to speak in the evaluation of prophecy, though they are allowed to prophesy (11:5). This may seem contradictory at first sight, but giving a prophesy for others to evaluate is less authoritative than standing up and evaluating others'. This would prevent a women from standing in judgment on a man and thus appearing to reverse the order of creation (cf. 11:3).

    Summary and Contribution

The discussion about women not evaluating the prophesy of a man allows Paul to continue his argument for order in the church. Apparently women were somehow disrupting the meetings and so he tells them to bring their questions to their husbands at home. This disruption endangered the strengthening and encouragement of the body.

The Principle in 14:37-40: The Conclusion

In these final verses the apostle warns the Corinthians to recognize that what he is saying is from the Lord Himself. If anyone does not do so, the Lord will disregard him (vv. 37-38).70 In the final two verses the apostle once again tells them to earnestly desire the spiritual gifts of prophesy and tongues, but that order is to be the modus operandi in the assembly—a fitting way to end this section.

Conclusion

Certain influential members of the Corinthian Christians had basically identified the gift of tongues as the sine qua non of genuine spirituality. The result was devastating to the health of the body and so Paul argues the following points to correct the error: 1) the true test of one having the Spirit is not the gift of tongues, but instead one's personal confession of Christ as Lord (12:1-3); 2) the Spirit has indeed sponsored a diversity of gifts and calls all to belong and be unified in the body (12:4-31a); 3) love, as a permanent quality is the only basis for a true exercise of the gifts which are only temporary and not the point of focus (12:31b-13:1-13); 4) all the gifts are to be used for the edification and encouragement of others and therefore tongues is to be interpreted (or not practiced audibly) and prophecy is to be preferred (14:1-38); 5) all things are to be done in an orderly manner as this promotes edification and is consistent with a God of peace (14:39-40).


1 Many of these simply involve spelling changes.

2 For further information on some of the textual problems in 1 Corinthians 12-14, see Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 1971), 562-67. He deals with 12:9; 13:3, 13; 14:19; 14:26, 34-35, 37-40.

3 The textual problem here concerns the authenticity of the entire two verses, i.e., 34-35. The problem of the term gunai`ke" (as well as other minor problems) is not important for our purpose here and will therefore not be considered.

4 Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, ed. Gordon D. Fee (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 699.

5 Fee, 1Corinthians, 699-705.

6 See Metzger, Textual Commentary, 565. See also C. K. Barrett, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, Harper's New Testament Commentaries (New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1968), 332, states concerning the theory of interpolation: "There is much to be said for this view, especially since the language of these verses can be explained as based upon I Tim. ii. 11f., but the textual evidence is not quite strong enough to make it compelling . . . If any significant MS. omitted the verses all together it would probably be right to follow it."

7 This includes three areas: 1) women in the congregation (11:2-16); 2) the Lord's supper (11:17-34) and 3) the use of spiritual gifts (12-14). For further comment on Paul's use of periV dev to mark out a new section of thought see, J. C. Hurd, The Origin of 1 Corinthians (Macon, GA: 1983), 186-95.

8 Cf. also Charles H. Talbert, Reading Corinthians: A Literary and Theological Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians (New York: Crossroad, 1987), 81, who argues for a chiastic arrangement of the three chapters: A. Spiritual Gifts (12:4-30); B. Proper motivation in manifesting the gifts (12:31-14:1a); A'. Spiritual Gifts (14:1b-40).

9 Cf. also A. C. Thistleton, "Realized Eschatology at Corinth," NTS 24 (1978): 510-26.

10 F. F. Bruce, 1 and 2 Corinthians, The New Century Bible, ed. Matthew Black (London: marshal, Morgan & Scott, 1971), 116, 17.

11 William F. Orr and James Arthur Walther, 1 Corinthians, The Anchor Bible, ed. Raymond E. Brown (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1976), 276, n 1.

12 D. A. Carson, Showing the Spirit: A Theological Exposition of 1 Corinthians 12-14 (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1987), 22, 23.

13 Fee, 1 Corinthians, 575, 76.

14 Verse two is an incomplete sentence in the Greek text. There have typically been two ways to resolve the issue of how to connect the o{ti with the wJ". Barrett, 1 Corinthians, 278, suggests that the wJ" is a resumption of the o{ti. See also Hans Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, Hermeneia, trans. James W. Leitch, ed. George W. MacRae (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975), 204. This solution is problematic for at least two reasons: 1) the o{ti is too near to need resumption and 2) it renders the participle ajpagovmenoi logically and syntactically disconnected from the rest of the sentence. The best solution is to insert h[te for the participle and regard it as the main clause. See D. Bock, "Paul: An Apostle to the Gentiles: Practicum Exegetical Notes on 1 Corinthians" (unpublished class notes in 226 1 Corinthians, Dallas Theological Seminary, n.d.), chapter 12, page. 3; Fee, 1 Corinthians, 576, 77; Leon Morris, The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, ed. R. V. G. Tasker (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1958), 166, 67.

15 For example, see F. F. Bruce, 1 and 2 Corinthians, 117.

16 See Bock, "1 Corinthians," 3, 4 for a list of ten different suggestions and the authors that hold them.

17 See Carson, Showing the Spirit, 26, 27; G. de Broglie, "Le texte fondamentale de Saint Paul contre la foi naturelle," Recherches de Science Religieuse 39 (1951):253-66 and Andr Mehat, "L'Enseignment sur 'les choses de L'Esprit' (1 Corinthiens 12, 1-3)," Revue d'Histoire et de Philosophie Religieuses 63 (1983):395-415.

18 If this were the case, the test would fail, for it is decidedly to broad.

19 That many of the Corinthians were reducing the gifts to one or two (e.g., the gift of tongues) as the only true manifestation of the Spirit is evident from Paul's rhetorical questions in 12:29-30. See also 12:14, 17, 19; 14:18

20 See BAGD, 183 (1).

21 Heinrick Schlier, TDNT, 1:185. See also Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 208, n 9.

22 At least here in 1 Corinthians 12-14.

23 Paul often refers to his own ministry, the ministry of Timothy, and others as diakoniva (2 Cor 3:7-9; 4:1; 2 Tim 4:5). Luke also uses the term in this way in Acts 6:4. Though the term is never used to describe Jesus' ministry directly, it is not difficult with the "servant language" to see how the early church picked up on it as description of those who claimed to serve Christ and people.

24 The connections of these terms to the respective members of the Trinity may foster the idea of a distinction between: 1) "gifts," as spirit-inspired ability; 2) "ministries," as spheres in which the gifts operate and 3) "workings," as the effects of such gifts in ministry contexts, but such is not the emphasis here. The point is rather to show that the various "allotments" come from one and the same God.

25 In fact it is clearly not Paul's desire to explain what he means by each and every gift listed. They are simply enumerated to show the diversity involved in the Spirit's work.

26 The diversity of the gifts is emphasized in verse 11 in that pavnta deV tau`ta stands first in the clause and the sovereign distribution of the gifts is emphasized by the emphatic position of bouvletai at the end of the sentence.

27 Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 207, n 9.

28 See Robertson and Plummer, 1 Corinthians, 269.

29 For a discussion of the chiastic structure of 12:12 see Fee, 1 Corinthians, 601. See also Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 212, n 12 for a brief discussion of the phonics of the chiasm.

30 Bock, 1 Corinthians, 2.

31 Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 211, n 7 and n 8.

32 Fee, 1 Corinthians, 602, n 1.

33 Fee, 1 Corinthians, 602, n 13.

34 See Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 212, who states: "Verse 13 does in fact point in the direction of the assumption that we have here not merely a figure, but a "proper" usage. This, to be sure, is not conclusively implied by the expression that we were baptized eij" e{n sw`ma, 'into one body.' But the thought and the sequence of thought certainly do point in this direction. . . Thus the disturbance in the sequence of thought is an indication in favor of the interpretation that the body of Christ is pre-existent in relation to the 'parts.'"

35 But see G. B. Caird, The Language and Imagery of the Bible (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1980), 187, who says, "when Paul says of the church in Corinth, 'You are the body of Christ' (1 Cor. 12:27), there should never have been any doubt that this is a metaphor, since it comes as the climax of fourteen verses of simile."

36 See George R. Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962), 167-71 (esp. 167-71). Much of Beasley-Murray's argument proceeds by way of comparison with Gal 3:27f. The emphasis in that text, however, has to do with salvation, whereas in 1 Corinthians 12:13 the issue is the church. One wonders how close the analog really is.

37 See Daniel B. Wallace, "Selected Notes on the Syntax of the New Testament," 4th edition (unpublished class notes Advanced Greek Grammar 210, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1981), 62, who says: "By calling the Spirit means here does not deny the personality of the Holy Spirit! mhV gevnoito! Rather, the Holy Spirit is the instrument Christ uses to baptize, even though he is a Person. . . This also renders highly unlikely the common Pentecostal position that there are two Spirit baptisms in the NT, one at salvation and one later."

38 For a brief discussion of the contemporary significance of 12:13 see Craig Blomberg, 1 Corinthians, The NIV Application Commentary Series, ed. Terry Muck (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 252. He rightly points out that Spirit baptism is not to be confused with water baptism and that since all the Corinthian believers (immature and mature without distinction) were so baptized it is impossible to take Spirit-baptism as a reference to any kind of second blessing or subsequent experience of God apart from conversion and the initial arrival of the Spirit in a person's life.

39 Note the reference to oJdov" in 12:31 and its use to represent early Christian and Jewish ethical teaching in Acts 18:25; 19:9; 24:22; 2 Peter 2:2; Apocalypse of Peter 7:22; 13:28 and 1 Enoch 104:13. See especially 1 Cor 4:17.

40 See W. Harold Mare, "I Corinthians," in The Expositor's Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelin, vol. 10 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), 266, who states that the gift of tongues is mentioned last probably because it is the least of the gifts. Mare also suggests that it might be due to the fact that Paul is going to focus on the issue in chapter 14 (p. 267).

41 Fee, 1 Corinthians, 572.

42 This outline is reflected by many commentators. The fact that verse 8 does indeed begin a new subsection within the paragraph, and does not go strictly speaking with 4-7, is indicated by the repetition of hJ ajgavph (cf. hJ ajgavph in verse 4).

43 See BDF, 373 (3).

44 Stanley D. Toussaint, "First Corinthians Thirteen and the Tongues Question," BibSac 120 (1963), 311-316.

45 As far as a support for the time when tongues will cease is concerned. The timing is picked up in 13:10 with o{tan deV e[lqh toV tevleion. Therefore, the answer to the question as to when the cessation of tongues will occur is bound up with the referent for tevleio".

46 BAGD, 638. See also Bock, "1 Corinthians," 3.

47 See Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 422, 23. See also John F. MacArthur, 1 Corinthians, The MacArthur New Testament Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1984), 359, who says: "Unlike katargeo, this verb is here used in the Greek middle voice, which when used of persons, indicates intentional, voluntary action upon oneself. Used of inanimate objects it indicates reflexive, self-causing action."

48 To allow the child-adult imagery to overrule the whole text is to give more weight to an analogy than to Paul's explicit language.

49 An appeal to 1 Cor 2:14-16 as a defense for a clear understanding of Scripture is misguided. Paul's point here is to talk about the reception (cf. devcetai in v. 14) of spiritual truth, i.e., the gospel, not the understanding of it per se. He presupposes that they reject it because they do understand.

50 Contra MacArthur, 1 Corinthians, 365.

51 The use of the I{na clause in 14:1 seems to be imperatival since a I{na of purpose would indicate that all the gifts are for a prophetic end. There is no indication in the passage that such would be true or even possible.

52 Harold W. Hoehner, "The Purpose of Tongues in 1 Corinthians 14:20-25," in Walvoord: A Tribute, ed. Donald K. Campbell (Chicago: Moody Press, 1982), 55, argues that since: 1) the term glwvssa usually refers to a known language; 2) tongues need to be interpreted; 3) Isaiah refers to real human languages of the Assyrians and 4) Acts 2:4 appears to be real languages; 5) Luke and Paul seem to indicate by their writings that both the phenomena in Acts and 1 Corinthians is the same; 6) Paul told the Corinthians to control their use of the gift it could not be ecstatic utterance—the interpretation of glwvssa is real human languages. The fact that glwvssa is normally used to refer to human languages, that tongues need to be interpreted and that Isaiah refers to human languages is no argument against these languages being something other than mere human languages. The most decisive element in Hoehner's argument is the strength of the parallel with the phenomena in Acts. On this basis it is likely that here we have human languages. The other arguments then simply corroborate such a conclusion. On the use of the term diermhveuevtw to mean "interpret" as opposed to "translate" see William Richardson, "Liturgical Order and Glossolalia in 1 Corinthians 14.26c-33a," New Testament Studies 32 (1986): 150, 51. Finally, it must be pointed out that the reference in 13:1 to the "tongues of men and angels" does not demand that Paul was equating the gift of tongues with languages spoken by men or angels. The statement is hypothetical and may reflect a Corinthian slogan among the pneumatikon. If this is true, it is simply a descriptive statement indicative of the Corinthian situation, not an evaluation, prescriptive statement of the gift of tongues.

53 Cf. Acts 2:4 and v.6. We can be sure that the men proclaimed the wonders of God in the languages of the Parthians, Medes, Elamites, etc. See I. Howard Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, ed. R. V. G. Tasker, vol. 5 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 69, 70.

54 As I commented above, 13:1 does not refer to an angelic language. It is hypothetical language; the language of hyperbole, in order to demonstrate the surpassing greatness of love as compared to what would seem to the Corinthians to be the greatest of spiritual gifts—"the tongues of angels."

55 The "mysteries" he speaks do not concern spiritual mysteries or something previously hidden, but now revealed to the speaker. This would certainly fit Paul's use of musthvrion in other places (cf. Rom 16:25; Eph 3:3-5). But, the immediate context here indicates that the mysteries are simply ideas and words that are incomprehensible to the listener. For that reason, Paul calls them mysteries.

56 For a survey of some of the interpretations of this passage, see Carson, Showing the Spirit, 108-17.

57 Zane C. Hodges, "A Symposium on the Tongues Movement. Part One: The Purpose of Tongues," BibSac 120 (1963): 231.

58 So Hoehner, "1 Corinthians," 60, 61.

59 Bock, "1 Corinthians," 15.

60 Carson, Showing the Spirit, 114.

61 The idea of uninterpreted or unintelligible tongues (both accomplish the same purpose) is clear from the reference in Isaiah to eJteroglwvssoi" where the emphasis falls on the idea of e{tero" as different and therefore unknown. This was all in accordance with Deuteronomy 28:49.

62 Cf. the use of ea[n to communicate a third class hypothetical situation. Again, the hypothetical nature of the statement in v. 23 makes it highly unlikely that Paul envisioned all of them being able to speak in tongues. He is speaking in hyperbolically.

63 The meaning of the term maivnesqe seems to entail the idea of possession and relationships with demons. Cf. also Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 243, n 26, who understands it more as a reference to the ecstatic part of pagan worship.

64 There is much discussion around the use of the terms ijdiw`tai and a[pistoi. It seems that both of them refer to unbelievers, but perhaps the former refers to the one who has no real experience with Christianity and the latter a person who has already chosen not to believe. See Barrett, 1 Corinthians, 324, 25.

65 See Wayne Grudem, "1 Corinthians 14.20-25: Prophecy and Tongues as Signs of God's Attitude," WTJ 41 (1978, 79): 394, 95.

66 Barrett, 1 Corinthians, 328, suggests a dative of advantage; "Let him speak for himself."

67 See G. Friedrich, "profhvth" k.t.l." TDNT, 6:855, 56, who says, "In 1 C. 14:37 Paul expects that the prophets in Corinth will agree with his presentation. Only prophets can see to it that human opinion is not proclaimed as God's Word in the congregation." For further discussion of Corinthian and 1st century prophecy, see also Terrance Callan, "Prophecy and Ecstacy in Greco-Roman religion and in 1 Corinthians," Novum Testamentum 27 (1985): 125-40.

68 Fee, 1 Corinthians, 694, 95

69 Some of the more common interpretations include: 1) Paul contradicts himself outright; 2) the verses are an interpolation; 3) taking verse 35 as the key, some argue that Paul is responding to a particular problem in Corinth wherein women were attempting to secure positions of equality in the church as demonstrated by throwing off head-coverings in chapter 11; 4) Paul is talking to married women only; 5) women are being prohibited by the apostle from speaking in ecstatic speech; 6) some argue that two services are in view here. In 11:5 the focus is on house churches and therefore women are allowed to speak, but in 14:34, 35 the focus is on corporate worship and in this context women are forbidden to speak; 7) Calvin et al. have argued that 11:5 is only hypothetical and Paul later condemns the whole idea of women talking in 14:34, 35; 8) other commentators argue that Paul is here dealing with a Corinthian slogan which Paul ultimately rejects; 9) Paul is here only referring to authoritative teaching in the church which does not include the idea of prophesying in 11:5. For a fuller discussion of the views see Bock, "1 Corinthians," 18. See also J.W. MacGorman, "Glossolalic Error and Its Correction: 1 Corinthians 12-14," RevExp 80 (1993): 399.

70 It does not matter what his experience is, if he does not conform to apostolic doctrine, he will disregarded by the Lord.

Related Topics: Spiritual Gifts, Introductions, Arguments, Outlines, Resurrection

Deception Vs. Devotion (2 Corinthians 11:3)

Related Media

The Text

But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ.

The Proposition

Paul was deeply concerned for the Corinthian believers because, as Eve had believed the lies of the serpent, they were believing the lies of the false teachers who were leading them away from single-minded devotion to Christ.

Exegetical Outline

    I. Paul is afraid for the Corinthians in their obedience to the gospel.

    II. Paul explains the manner of the deception with an analogy to the Garden of Eden.

      A. Just as the serpent was a servant of Satan, so are the false apostles.

      B. Satan is crafty and his methods are subtle.

    III. The Reason for Paul’s fear was the doctrine of self-confidence preached and modeled by the false teachers which was contrary to confidence in Christ.

      A. The Corinthians were being deceived by the words and actions of the false teachers.

      B. The model of the false teachers was leading them from their single-minded devotion to Christ

Theological Outline

    I. Every pastor should be concerned that his flock will be enticed away from the truth.

    II. The lies of Satan are extremely deceptive.

      A. The analogy of the garden of Eden shows the deceptive nature of Satan.

      B. The problem in Corinth was intellectualism and performance based Christianity.

    III. The goal of Satan’s deception is to keep people from worshipping God.

      A. There is a spiritual battle raging for control of the believer’s mind.

      B. A doctrine of self-confidence destroys confidence in and devotion to Christ.

2 Corinthians 11:2-3

Introduction

How many Biblical scholars does it take to screw in a light bulb? . . . Four.

  • One to write a paper on the text of the wrapper. If this happens to be a Mazda bulb rather than a General Electric one, this could take a major portion of someone’s career.
  • One to write an article on the writing found in the small circle at the end of the bulb.
  • One to write a discussion of the relationship between these two texts.
  • And one to write the text for Biblical Archaeology Review article asking its readership what to do with the object.

What is the point? What does this illustrate? It shows how someone can be immersed in intellectualism and miss what is important. You might have noticed that the light bulb never did get changed. Certainly, there is a need for textual criticism in Biblical studies, but it should not become the priority in Bible study.

When we leave class or chapel and head back to the Walvoord Student Center, where do our conversations center? Are we talking about how the message can apply tomorrow or are we dissecting the speaker’s use of Greek or Hebrew syntax? We are developing patterns here at seminary that we will characterize us in later ministry.

There are numerous ways we can be sidetracked from what is important. Today we are going to talk about two of them—Intellectualism and performance based Christianity. The reason we are singling these two out is because they are the problems Paul was dealing with in 2 Corinthians, and we will see they are problems we face today.

So turn to 2 Corinthians 11:3.

The first thing we see is Paul’s distress for the Corinthians. He was afraid for their spiritual welfare.

I. We need to be aware of Satan’s deception

    Context of 2 Cor. 11:3

Paul has been defending himself against false accusations in the preceding section, and he will continue to defend himself in the following section (11:16f). In the midst of his defense, he pauses to explain his motivation for his defensiveness. He uses the image of a father who has a daughter engaged to be married.

Background on betrothal period—Marriage in Paul’s day involved two separate ceremonies. There was the betrothal or engagement ceremony in which the couple was pledged to each other and then usually a year lapsed and the marriage ceremony and consummation took place. In the meantime, the couple was viewed as married, the agreement could only be broken by death or formal written divorce and any infidelity was viewed as adultery.

Since Paul had started the Corinthian church, he felt like a father to them. He was their spiritual father. And just like any father would want to proudly present his daughter as pure to her new husband, Paul wanted to present the Corinthians to Christ as a pure bride who is faithful to her husband. Perhaps he calls it foolishness in vs. 1 because the false teachers (to whom Paul refers in the following verses) are certainly going to scoff when he explains his motivation as pure.

So, verse 2 really sets the stage for verse 3. And although Paul would like to be able to present them as pure to Christ, circumstances seemed to dictate otherwise. He begins verse 3 by saying he is afraid for them.

Transition: What is he afraid of? That leads us to the second point.

He is afraid that they are being deceived, and he describes their danger by comparing it to the familiar account of the serpent’s deception of Eve. Let’s look at the analogy.

II. Beware of Satan’s subtle deception

We are in a spiritual battle, but the lines are not always clearly drawn like they were during WWII or Desert Storm. They are more like Vietnam. You don’t know if the enemy is in front of you or behind you.

    A. The pattern of deception was established in the Garden of Eden

The analogy points us to Satan’s method. We all know the account of how the serpent deceived Eve. He told her lies to get her to doubt God’s word. He twisted the commands of God a little to make it seem unfair. And finally, he flat out denied the punishment. Eve bought the lie and ate the fruit. Eve didn’t understand why God had made the rule. What he told her appealed to her and seemed to make sense.

Transition: How does this compare with the Corinthians’ situation? Let’s look at their situation. What was the deception that they were falling into?

    B. The problem in Corinth was performance based Christianity and intellectualism

If you read through 2 Corinthians, it becomes apparent that the problem was certain false teachers had come along with a new gospel. From the analogy that Paul has just used of the serpent, we know that they were ministers of Satan.

Performance based Christianity—It is not directly stated what they were teaching, but we can be fairly certain from the things which Paul emphasizes throughout the letter. There are many places where Paul emphasizes his weakness, and God’s power. He refused be proud of his accomplishments. He condemns those who are proud and who take pride in appearance. Cf. 1:9, 12; 3:5; 4:5,7,11; 5:7,12; 6:4,11; 10:3f,7,12.

Intellectualism—In our verse Paul warns that their “minds” will be led astray. Also, in 10:5 Paul says he was “destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God.” Perhaps these false teachers had come along saying that they had the answers to those tough questions. People don’t like uncertainty. That’s why most people prefer an 8-5 job with a steady paycheck over a 100% commission sales job with unlimited potential. There is a lot of uncertainty in a relationship with God. He is infinite. Like Isaiah says, His ways are higher than our ways and we can’t understand the “how” and especially the “why” of things related to God—why people suffer, why there is evil in the world, etc.

These false teachers probably came along and said they had the answers. They may have laid out a set of rules to follow by which they could measure their spirituality. These leaders made the rules and probably followed them best of all and were proud of it.

Illustration: (Performance based Christianity)

I think we can relate to this today. We are all aware of the Lordship Salvation movement. I think the appeal of the Lordship Salvation movement is that it helps people deal with the uncertainty. It gives people a concrete list of things to check off to see if they themselves and others are Christians. Although it ultimately results in uncertainty about one’s own salvation, there is something tangible to hold on to and it seems to offer certainty. It is deceptive.

Illustration: (Intellectualism)

John Gerstner wrote a spiteful book against dispensationalism last year called Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth, and in it he makes the statement that “Dispensationalism has no philosophy of its own.” He appeals to a extra-biblical, human wisdom which is superior to the statements of scripture. I have a friend who read this book and became enamored with the debate to the extreme that he has forsaken matters of witnessing or being a good husband and father. He is caught up in the philosophical intellectualism. He thinks he is spiritual, but he has been deceived. He is so close and yet so far from what is important.

Transition: What is important? That leads us to the next point which shows us what Satan’s purpose is for deceiving us.

III. Beware of Satan’s deception, designed to lead us from devotion to Christ (11:3c)

There are a couple of Greek words that are significant in our verse. The first one is a little preposition (a'po/) translated “from” which shows separation and alienation. What were they being separated and alienated from?

I think the key word in the last part of verse 3 is the word translated as “simplicity” in the NASB and KJV and as “sincere” in the RSV and NIV. The Greek word a`plo/uv does mean simple and sincere, but the primary meaning is “single.” I think the idea of singleness of mind is especially appropriate here as Paul is discussing a battle that is going on for control of the mind. He also referred to it in 10:5. Paul also says in our verse, lest “your minds should be led astray…” The battle that is going on is for control of our minds. If Satan can control our minds, everything else will follow.

In contrast, if we are single mindedly focused on Christ, then we will be devoted to Him and want to worship Him and give Him the glory for everything. Although the word “devoted” is not actually in the Greek text, it is a great translation because that is what Paul means by being single-minded.

Conclusion

Central Proposition: Beware of Satan’s deception which is designed to lead us from devotion to Christ.

How does all this apply to us at Dallas Theological Seminary? What danger do we have of losing our devotion to Christ?

As future pastors, we will need to be concerned for our congregations, that they do not become enamored with the controversial issues to the extent that they forsake spirituality.

Finally, like my friend, I think we can easily become caught up in the intellectualism of studying the Word and not let it affect our lives. We can be busy studying Greek, Hebrew, eschatology, etc., and become proud of our knowledge and our ability to do exegesis, and perhaps our ability to teach. We can become dependent on ourselves for life. We can leave God out of the picture.

My challenge to you is to stay focused on and be devoted to Christ. Don’t let studying become an end in itself. Don’t become proud of your knowledge and insights. “Don’t major in the minors.” Recognize that doing so is playing into the hands of Satan.

Related Topics: Introduction to Theology, Teaching the Bible, False Teachers

Facing An Affliction That’s Like A Sentence To Death (2 Corinthians 1:8-11)

Related Media

Introduction

With the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, we witnessed the most horrible, painful, and destructive attack on our nation ever, but we have also seen and heard marvelous stories of bravery, heroism, loving concern, with some events bordering on the miraculous. The other evening I was watching an interview between Bryan Williams of MSNBC and four or five firemen who were miraculously delivered from what they were all sure would result in their death. They were coming down the stairs of the first World Trade Tower that had been hit, and they were helping an older lady descend the stairs. Though I am not sure, I believe her name was Josephine. She had come all the way from about the 74th flour and was exhausted when she met up with these brave and caring firemen. They began to help her continue down the steps. When they reached the fourth floor, the tower began to collapse. They had been forced to stop on the fourth floor because Josephine had reached her limit and could go no further. But this fact was the means God used to save them, because being on the fourth floor turned out to be the one place that became a place of refuge. While there, the tower began to rumble, and they realized it was all collapsing. It was at that point that the firemen thought they would surely die. Several of the firemen mentioned in the interview that they were thinking, “Well, this is it; we are going to die.” Some of them mentioned the fact that they offered a short prayer, and one even prayed that death would be quick. They were in a situation that, from all appearances, was a sentence to death, but in that situation, knowing that there was no possible human solution regardless of their expertise as firemen, some prayed and committed themselves into God’s hand. Now, I do not know what they believed or if any of them were believers in the New Testament sense, but this story gives us a graphic illustration of how any of us can find ourselves in a situation that, from all appearances humanly speaking, is a sentence to death.

In July of this year, 2001, I began to have asthmatic symptoms. At first my doctor thought I had pneumonia, but after more tests, I was diagnosed with stage four non-small cell lung cancer. It was in both lungs and there was a large tumor in the medial sternum area of my chest that was malignant with squamous cell carcinoma. One oncologist told me that with no treatment I had maybe a year to live, and with treatment, perhaps from a year to five years. If I made it to five, then I would probably be in permanent remission, but even that, of course, was far from certain. My father, who had smoked all his life, died of lung cancer when he was in his early seventies, but I had never smoked. Regardless, apart from God’s divine intervention, being diagnosed with stage IV lung cancer appeared to me to be nothing less than a sentence to death. There is a sense, of course, in which we are all terminal, for it is appointed for people to die once, unless the Lord returns in their lifetime (1 Thess. 4:13-18), and after that, to face the judgment (Heb. 9:27). Though he gives us no details, the apostle Paul writes of just such an experience in his own life in 2 Corinthians 1:8-9a:

“For we do not want you to be unaware, brothers and sisters, regarding the affliction that happened to us in Asia, that we were burdened excessively, beyond our strength, so that we despaired even of living. Indeed we felt as if the sentence of death had been passed against us”

Through this passage from the apostle Paul, the Lord gives us a crucial message faced with such an apparently hopeless situation, a message that can help us rest in God’s provision and care. It is a passage that the Lord has used to bring comfort and strength to my own heart since diagnosed with lung cancer. But before looking at verses 8-11, let’s look at the context that forms the backdrop for the message of verses 8-11.

The Context

In verses 3-7, Paul sets forth the basic biblical perspective that all Christians need whenever faced with one or more of the varied afflictions that are a part of life in this fallen, sinful, and pain-ridden world. And this perspective is true regardless of the source, nature, or size of the affliction. The opening paragraph of 2 Corinthians 1 focuses the reader on one of the chief emphases of chapters 1-7, namely “God’s comfort in the midst of affliction.” The message of God’s comfort is seen in three key terms that dot the landscape of chapter 1:1-7. First, the noun (paraklesis, “comfort, encouragement”) occurs six times and the verb form (parakaleo, “to cheer, comfort, encourage”) four times. Then, there is the noun thlipsis (“trouble,” “affliction”), which occurs three times and the noun pathema (“suffering”), which occurs four times. Obviously, the troubles of life are a key item in these verses.

But more important and central to the issue of suffering and affliction are the ways the apostle focuses us on God. In these opening verses of this epistle, He is described as:

    1. “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (vs. 3a),

    2. “the Father of mercies and God of all comfort” (vs. 3b),

    3. “who comforts us in all our troubles” (vs. 4),

    4. and as the “God who raises the dead” (vs. 9b).

These descriptions of God with the terms for affliction and comfort remind us that this life is not a bed of roses (even a rose bed is loaded with thorns). We must simply learn to live with the reality that we are not in the Garden of Eden nor are we yet in the future and glorious millennial reign of Christ. Rather, we live in a fallen world where afflictions of various sorts and sizes abound. For instance, in another passage, Paul speaks of our suffering in this life in terms of groaning while we wait for our final redemption (Rom. 8:18-23). But even though such sufferings abound, Christians, those who have a personal relationship with God through faith in the Lord Jesus, never face their afflictions alone. But as the sufferings abound, so also does God’s comfort. Thus, we must learn, like Paul, to seek our comfort in a Sovereign Savior and in the purposes He has for our suffering. One of the many paradoxes of the Christian life is that the grace of God is often most keenly experienced in what seems to be the worst of times, rather than the best of times. Naturally, we should long for our final exaltation or redemption in the glorious reign of Christ (cf. 1 Cor. 4:8), but the fact is that it is most often in the humbling circumstances of affliction that we can find God’s grace and peace in more abundant ways (cf. 2 Cor. 12:9; 1 Pet. 5:6-7).

Another lesson taught in verses 3-7 is that God gives comfort not just that we might be comforted (experience inner peace and strength), but that we might become comforters of others. The comfort that God gives becomes a gift that He wants us to pass along to others who are experiencing pain (vs. 4). Nine months ago, after her long battle with a form of cancer called multiple myeloma, the Lord called home my precious wife Kathie, my helpmate and sweetheart of 42 years. As a pastor for nearly thirty years, I performed numerous funerals and memorial services, many of which involved the loss of a spouse. I always tried to imagine their pain and sought to bring God’s comfort through God’s Word, but until now, I simply had no clue of the pain these dear people were going through. A few months ago I visited Chuck Swindoll’s church in North Dallas. Since we had been in Dallas Seminary at the same time, I went down to say hello. I told him about Kathie’s home going, and, undoubtedly thinking about what life would be like without his dear wife, he said, “I just can’t imagine, I just can’t imagine.” He was so right. After and even before I lost my Kathie, many Christian friends came alongside and offered their support and told me that they were regularly praying for me, and they still do. But you know, those who were able to help me the most were those who had been through what I was facing. The very fact they had walked through the same valley and had found God’s strength to continue on with His peace and joy in the midst of their grief was tremendously encouraging or comforting to me.

Finding strength to go on focuses our attention on another truth we can glean from verses 3-7. In verse 6, the apostle speaks of endurance as one of the effective results of experiencing God’s comfort. He wrote, “…it is for your comfort, which produces in you patient endurance of the same sufferings we suffer” (NIV). Oh, how we need to understand that another objective of experiencing God’s comfort is the spiritual fruit of endurance. God’s design in our suffering goes beyond just our comfort or even our ability to comfort others. The goal is that the Corinthians (and we too) might experience patient endurance (2 Cor. 1:6). Naturally, to experience godly endurance or patience, we do need the strength that only God can give, but let’s not lose sight of the fact this strength is for an endurance that is tied in with a joyful and thankful heart for all that God has done for us in Christ, and for what He is continuing to do in and through us with a view to an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison to temporal things (cf. Col. 1:11-12 and 2 Cor. 4:16-18).

“Patient endurance,” as translated by the NET Bible, is hupomone, “endurance, fortitude, steadfastness, perseverance.” This noun comes from hupo, “under,” and meno, “to abide, remain.” It speaks of remaining under a trial without giving in, of an ability to endure or remain or be steadfast regardless of the intensity and length of the testing. Hupomone is used in relation to the variegated kinds of trials that we all face in life as human beings: sickness, pain, financial loss, death of loved ones, warfare, physical and spiritual weaknesses, satanic attack, persecution, and on the list can go. It’s the perfect word for the kinds of trials faced by Job, or by Joseph in Genesis, or by the hall of faith characters listed in Hebrews 11. It’s interesting that in classical Greek this word is “used of a plant’s ability to live under hard and unfavorable conditions,”1 a fact that should remind us of Psalm 1:3 and especially Jeremiah 17:8. Speaking for the Lord and of those who trust in the Lord and put their confidence in Him, the prophet wrote:

They will be like a tree planted near a stream whose roots spread out toward the water. It has nothing to fear when the heat comes. Its leaves are always green. It has no need to be concerned in a year of drought. It does not stop bearing fruit (Jer. 17:8).

Finally, one last thought on these opening verses of 3-7. We can find God’s comfort in “all our affliction.” (emphasis mine) Notice that this excludes nothing. As the God of all comfort, He is there for us no matter what we face. We somehow tend to think that our troubles are unique to us or that they are worse than what others are going through. But not only are our trials common to man (1 Cor. 10:13), but none are bigger than our God and beyond His power and wisdom, His grace and mercy, and His steadfast love and goodness.

This leads us to the main focus of this study—the deadly peril Paul faced as described in verses 8-11. Here the apostle turns to a specific illustration of God’s comfort in his own experience, one that adds a vital dimension to the issue of affliction, of finding God’s comfort and strength, and of being a good comforter of others. I have divided these verses into four key points:

    1. the Verdict Paul Experienced,

    2. the Viewpoint We All Need,

    3. the Vanguard of Prayer, and

    4. the Virtue of Praise,

The Verdict Paul Experienced:
the Feeling of Condemnation to Death (vs. 8-9a)

for we do not want you to be unaware, brothers and sisters, regarding the affliction that happened to us in Asia, that we were burdened excessively, beyond our strength, so that we despaired even of living. Indeed we felt as if the sentence of death had been passed against us,

First, the plural “we” used in verses 3-7 is clearly inclusive, first of Paul and Timothy, and then of all members of the body of Christ. As previously mentioned, the God of all comfort seeks to comfort all believers that they in turn may be able to comfort other Christians. But some have raised the question about the “we” in verses 8-11. While it is obviously not certain, the “we” in these verses may be an illustration of the editorial or literary “we” where the apostle is really referring to his own experience, but uses “we” to perhaps avoid repetition of references to himself (cf. 2 Cor. 10:10-12) though he does do that in some contexts (cf. 2 Cor. 11:1-12). However, it does seem that he is speaking about his own experience.

St. Paul in this Epistle, with unusual frequency, uses the plural hemeis when speaking of himself; sometimes this can be explained by the fact that Timothy was associated with him in the writing of the letter (i.1), but in other passages (e.g., vers. 10, v.13, 16, x.7, 11, 15, xi.21) such an explanation will not suit the context, which demands the individual application of the pronoun.2

Undoubtedly because Paul deeply desired the continued prayer support of the Corinthians, and because of the vital lessons he wanted to share as a comforter of others, the apostle did not want his readers to be uninformed about what he experienced in Asia. So, verses 8-9a point us to the experience Paul wanted to share with his readers. One of the interesting things here is that the apostle does not describe any details regarding exactly what he had faced in this particular incident. In other places the apostle mentioned some of the things he suffered (6:1-13; 7:1-16; 11:23-33; 12:1-10), but here he leaves us in the dark. Many suggestions have been made as to the exact nature of the excessive burden—an illness that appeared to be fatal, fighting with wild beast in Ephesus, (cf. 1 Cor. 15:32), the tumult in Ephesus by the guild of the silversmiths, a tumult in which Jewish opposition was also marshaled against him (Acts 19:23-41), the plots against the apostle by the Jews in Asia Minor (Acts 21:27), and the experience of stoning mentioned in Acts 14:19-20. However, any explanation we may consider is really only conjecture because of the lack of hard evidence available. But even though we cannot be certain about the nature and source of the apostle’s affliction, we can be sure about the wonderful lessons he wishes us to draw from it: namely, the importance of prayer for one another, the need of total dependence on God who raises the dead, and praise and glory to God. That he described no details of the experience may indicate that the Corinthians knew what he was referring to. As with Bernard, I am inclined to think that it was some form of severe physical infirmity or affliction.3 This is suggested by the perfect tense, “we had the sentence of death within ourselves.” In this context, the perfect tense would focus on the resultant state, and a grave and terminal kind of illness could certainly lead to that conclusion unless the resurrection power of God precluded it. Again, we can only guess. The fact that Paul does not specifically describe the experience certainly allows for a broader application to our own situations in life regardless of their source or nature.

As I mentioned, after my doctors had reviewed all my x-rays and CAT scans, they informed me that I had non-small cell lung cancer and that, of four possible stages, I was in stage IV. When I heard that news, I knew that without God’s divine intervention as the God of resurrection power, that this was nothing less than a sentence to death. We had gone through the same thing with my beautiful wife when she was diagnosed with multiple myeloma, which is also usually deadly and often very painful. Now just 8 months later, I too was diagnosed with an affliction that is very often terminal, especially at stage IV. As I mentioned previously, the prognosis that the oncologist gave me was not very encouraging. Thus, after such a prognosis, I was truly able to relate to Paul’s next statement, “that we were burdened excessively, beyond our strength.”

These words, “that we were burdened excessively, beyond our strength,” show that Paul’s affliction was so great or heavy that it was beyond anything Paul could possibly handle, at least from his own resources as a human being. “Burdened” is the verb bareo, “to weigh down, to lay a heavy burden upon.” But Paul was not just burdened. He was burdened “excessively.” To stress the extreme heaviness of this burden, the apostle combined a preposition, kata, plus the noun huperbole, “excessive, extraordinary in character or degree.” The preposition is used here with the noun to focus on the nature of the burden as one that was far beyond the ordinary. Paul had been burdened “excessively, to an extraordinary degree, beyond measure.” So what did that mean? I think it meant that from all appearances, the only verdict at which he could arrive was that he was going to die. In fact, as Paul goes on to explain, it was so excessive, it was “beyond his own strength” to be able to bear or handle. Humanly speaking, there was nothing he or anyone else could do.

The result was that he “despaired even of living. Indeed, he felt as if the sentence of death had been passed against him.” “Despaired” is exaporeo, a compound word that means “to be in utter despair,” or “to be at a complete loss.” The idea is that there seemed to be no possible way out. Of the afflictions that Paul suffered, both physical and emotional, he would later say, “We are experiencing trouble on every side, but are not crushed; we are perplexed, but not driven to despair (exaporeo),” but at this point in his life he was at a complete loss. Perhaps it was from the lessons he learned here that he could later say, “we are perplexed, but not driven to despair.” This is because the trials of life are tools that God uses to mature us and give us greater capacity to encourage others.

Thus, the apostle adds an emphatic explanation of just how severe the affliction really was and of what he means by being at a loss. “Indeed” is the emphatic use of the conjunction alla, which gives emphasis to the clause that follows and explains the nature of what he faced. Indeed, it was like a sentence of death. Literally the text reads, “Indeed, we ourselves had within ourselves the sentence of death.” “Had” is another perfect tense. The Greek perfect can either stress the fact of a completed action or it may stress the results that the writer views as continuing. The use of the perfect suggests that the vivid remembrance of Paul’s experience still lingered on, perhaps because he wanted to focus the readers on the results expressed in the next clause, “so that we might not trust in ourselves.” “Sentence” is apokrima, which properly refers to “an official judicial sentence,” and then “an answer, reply.”4 But the apostle literally says, “in ourselves, we had the sentence of death.” This reference to having the sentence of death in ourselves suggests a subjective experience.

It was not so much a verdict pronounced by some external authority, but rather a perception in the heart and mind of the apostle himself. It follows then that apokrima was probably not a sentence of death pronounced by some magistrate. It was more likely either the verdict passed by his own mind perceiving the dire straits in which he found himself, …5

Thus, we turn to the viewpoint we all need, which was God’s design in this entire episode in Paul’s life.

The Viewpoint We All Need:
To Trust in God Alone (vs. 9b-10; cf. Ps. 62)

so that we would not trust in ourselves but in God who raises the dead, who delivered us from so great a risk of death and will deliver us. We have set our hope on him that he will deliver us yet again,

The Greek text reads, “who delivered us from so great a death.” “So great” is telikoutos, “so great, so terrible, so large.” Rather than “risk of death” or “peril of death,” Paul simply says, “so great a death.” There are probably two things in mind here: (1) whatever he faced, it may have been of such a nature that he regarded it as a terrible way to die, and (2) he regarded himself as a dead man with no way of escape, humanly speaking, because it was so bad that deliverance required nothing less than an act of God who raises the dead. The effect of this was to drive home the need to never trust in himself, but in God. If God can raise the dead, can He not also deliver us from the gates of death? As with Abraham, may we always remember that God is the one who (1) gives life to the dead and (2) brings the non-existent into existence (cf. Rom. 4:17).

“We have set our hope on him that he will deliver us yet again” sets forth a further result and the positive side of what the apostle learned and experienced. This describes the apostle’s perspective of life, “to live with his hope firmly fixed on God alone as his deliverer.” The words, “have set our hope,” again represent the perfect tense in the Greek, which here looks at the results of a past event. In this context, the perfect looks at the apostle’s present state of mind. This was the result, however, of the past experience he is describing—the so great a death followed by God’s deliverance. Thus, “that he will deliver us yet again as you also join in helping us by prayer” states the apostle’s confidence. As long as the Lord continues to have a purpose for our lives, He will deliver us. In fact, all deliverances come from the Lord whether we realize it or not (Ps. 68:19-20). Our hope, then, must be fixed on Him. Paul’s confidence here is somewhat similar to that expressed in Philippians 1:19-24.

While the Bible reveals a number of purposes for suffering, the apostle highlights three purposes in 2 Corinthians 1:3-11:

    1. One purpose for suffering or affliction was expressed in verse 4, “that we might be able to comfort those who are in affliction.”

    2. A second is seen in verse 11, “that many will give thanks to God.”

    3. Now with verse 9, we see a third—“that we would not trust in ourselves, but in God who raises the dead.”

To trust in God alone is the truth that the Psalmist also applied to his own life and circumstances in Psalm 62:1-2 and 5-8.

For God alone I patiently wait; he is the one who delivers me. He alone is my protector and deliverer. He is my refuge; I will not be upended.

Patiently wait for God alone, my soul! For he is the one who gives me confidence. He alone is my protector and deliverer. He is my refuge; I will not be upended. God delivers me and exalts me; God is my strong protector and my shelter. Trust in him at all times, you people! Pour out your hearts before him! God is our shelter! (Selah)

One of the most natural things people tend to do is to turn to their own resources and solutions. The Bible highlights this tendency through a number of images like (1) leaning on the arm of the flesh (Jer. 17:5), or (2) lighting our own firebrands to find our way (Isa. 50:11a), or (3) digging out cisterns for ourselves (Jer. 2:13). Of course, each of these passages also highlights the negatives of turning to our own resources. “Leaning on the arm of the flesh” results in becoming like an unfruitful shrub in the desert rather than a fruitful tree with its roots spread by a stream (cf. Jer. 17:6 with vs. 8). “Lighting our own firebrands” ultimately leads to stumbling in the dark and lying down in torment (cf. Isa. 50:11b), and “digging our own cisterns” leads to attempting to get water out of broken cisterns that hold no water, which, of course, is futile (Jer. 2:13).

Thus, there is in all of us that constant tendency to trust in our own resources and solutions when looking for an answer to whatever problems we face, but such is not the way we are to live the Christian life. As bondservants of Christ, we need to learn to live in total dependence on Him. Certainly, God intends for us to use our God given abilities and to look for legitimate answers to a problem of suffering. For instance, if you get a in your eye, you naturally try to flush it out with water, but we need to remember that a grain of sand may also be used to make a pearl. If a Mack truck is zooming in on me, I have the responsibility to try to get out of the way while crying out for God’s help. I don’t just stand there and expect God to miraculously move me or zap me to the side of the road. Naturally, He could do that, but that’s not the normal way He works. It is never wrong to go to a physician, or to improve our diet, or use supplements to help our bodies function better. God has designed our bodies to function best when we follow certain principles of good health. But following such principles, though not wrong in themselves, can reveal a sinful mindset if we do them while depending primarily on the medical profession and man’s remedies rather than on the Lord (cf. 2 Chron. 16:12). The Lord must be our first and primary hope. When one digs his own cistern for water, it’s because he has first “left or forsaken the Lord” (cf. Jer. 2:13a). And one leans on the arm of the flesh because his heart has turned away from the Lord (Jer. 17:5b). Likewise, lighting one’s own firebrand to light his path stems from failing to rely on his God (Isa. 50:10). I am presently undergoing chemo and using a very powerful immune system builder with other supplements, but I am convinced that unless the Lord is at work in all of these things, I will not get well no matter what I do.

No one ever prayed for the Lord’s guidance and researched the options for dealing with multiple myeloma (traditional and alternative therapies) better than my dear Kathie. And no one ever rested it all on the Lord, and with that in mind, was as dedicated to doing what we believed was the best approach to her sickness than Kathie. One dear Christian doctor told us that he had never known anyone who followed the therapy for her treatment (mostly alternative solutions) in a more dedicated manner than Kathie. But let me quickly add that her primary trust was in the Lord, not in the therapies. No one ever rested her life in God’s hands more than Kathie. One of her favorite Psalms, and one she had committed to memory, was Psalm 62 quoted above. On a number of occasions we would lie in bed at night, either before or after praying, and she would quote various Psalms out loud for us, and one of these was Psalm 62. However, in God’s eternal and infinite wisdom, He chose to call her home in spite of all that we did, in spite of the prayers of many, and in spite of my pleadings before the throne of grace.

So what should we do when faced with a deadly affliction? With the Lord as the center of our focus and the prime object of our faith, we should prayerfully investigate our options and what our human responsibilities might be, and then, resting everything in God’s hands with our hope fixed on Him, we are to follow through on our responsibilities or our part in the process. In my case, that includes such things as (1) prayerfully and continually committing my condition and life to the Lord as His servant, (2) seeking His guidance regarding treatment, (3) requesting the prayer support of believers, (4) seeing a doctor or doctors to get their recommended treatment, (5) eating right, taking medication and supplements, and (6) doing whatever else I believe God is leading me to do. But regardless, I must always remember that:

Blessed be the Lord, who daily bears our burden, The God who is our salvation. Selah. God is to us a God of deliverances; And to God the Lord belong escapes from death (Ps. 68:19-20, NASB).

The Vanguard of Prayer:
Helping One Another Through Prayer (vs. 8a & 10b-11)

For we do not want you to be unaware, brothers and sisters, regarding the affliction that happened to us in Asia, . . . We have set our hope on him that he will deliver us yet again, as you also join in helping us by prayer, so that many people may give thanks to God on our behalf for the gracious gift given to us through the help of many. (emphasis mine)

As previously discussed regarding the plural “we,” it is possible that the apostle is speaking about his own experience, or about an experience that he and Timothy experienced together. Regardless, the apostle clearly saw the need for the Corinthian believers to be informed about the gravity of the affliction that he, or he and Timothy experienced in Asia, and to understand the lessons that he learned from this experience. The principle is this: we simply cannot help one another or work with God in His purposes through prayer if we are kept in the dark or if we keep others in the dark regarding needs, lessons learned, and answers to prayer. Keeping others informed is part of the process of learning to comfort one another with the comfort that we ourselves have received from the God of all comfort.

When the apostle wrote, “. . . We have set our hope on him that he will deliver us yet again, as you also join in helping us by prayer,” he chose a very picturesque and expressive verb to portray the nature of their prayers on his behalf. It’s the verb sunupourgeo, “to join in helping, to cooperate by means of something,” or “to work together to support, to undergird someone.” (emphasis mine) The means by which they could and did give the support that would lead to his deliverance was “by prayer.” What an amazing truth that God, the sovereign Creator and Deliverer, has chosen to use our prayers to accomplish His purposes. This is a mystery, but nevertheless a vital truth of the Scripture.

This section is titled, The Vanguard of Prayer: Helping One Another Through Prayer. So what is a vanguard? A vanguard is the foremost position in an army or a fleet as it advances into battle. We might compare it to the solid front or phalanx described by Paul in Col. 2:5. The word that is translated firmness is stereoma, which means a solid bulwark, an immovable phalanx. It describes an army set out in an unbreakable square, solid and immovable against the shock of an enemy’s charge. Within the Church there should be disciplined order and strong steadiness, like the order and steadiness of a trained and disciplined body of troops who step forward like a vanguard or phalanx. It is clear that the apostle strongly believed in the prayer of the saints and shows us in this passage of 2 Corinthians that the prayer of the saints is a vital element in overcoming the forces of Satan and his world system that are marshaled against us. In this we see the tactical genius of God’s truth and provision for us in Christ. Our prayers for one another can be likened to the solid phalanx used by Alexander the Great in ancient times to defeat the forces marshaled against his troops.

Alexander’s conquest of the entire Near and Middle East within three years stands unique in military history and is appropriately portrayed by the lightning speed of this one-horned goat. Despite the immense numerical superiority of the Persian imperial forces and their possession of military equipment like war elephants, the tactical genius of young Alexander, with his disciplined Macedonian phalanx, proved decisive.6

Simply put, in His sovereign plan, God has chosen to use our prayers to accomplish His purposes. He wants us to be undergirding others in prayer: (1) that they might experience God’s comfort and encouragement, (2) that they might endure joyfully with thanksgiving, (3) that they might be delivered, naturally in keeping with His will, and (4) that God might be glorified through praise as it is offered to Him for answered prayer.

In view of this, the apostle does not want the Corinthians to be uninformed about his situation—his need and the way God had answered their prayers. One of the great ministries we can all have as believer-priests is the ministry of intercessory prayer for others, especially for those in the body of Christ, and I so appreciate those faithful believers who prayed for my dear Kathie and who have continued to pray for me. But for this to take place effectively, it is important for us to share our needs with others as well as God’s answers to their prayers and ours. Knowing that God has chosen to use our prayers as part of His means to accomplish His purposes is not only motivational, but this teaches us that we become helpers together with one another and with God in His plans for His people. Paul’s tremendous confidence in the intercessory prayers of believers is also seen in Romans 15:30-31, Philippians 1:19, and Colossians 4:12.

The Virtue of Praise:
Giving Thanks to God for Answered Prayer (1:11b)

so that many people may give thanks to God on our behalf for the gracious gift given to us through the help of many.

We dare not miss this beautiful virtue that God wants to establish in each of us. Seeing God’s answers to prayer naturally leads to thanksgiving and praise to God for answered prayer, which constitutes another reason for suffering—praising and giving thanks to God, which brings Him glory. Please note that in the Greek text, this element of praise is very vivid in the words, “so that many people may give thanks to God.” The Greek text reads, “in order that from many faces (perhaps portraying many persons with their faces lifted upward to God in prayer) much thanksgiving will be made to God on our behalf for the gracious gift given to us.” In his Word Pictures of the New Testament, A. T. Robertson writes:

Prosopon means face The word is common in all Greek. The papyri used it for face, appearance, person. It occurs twelve times in II Corinthians. It certainly means face in eight of them (3:7, 13, 18; 8:24; 10:1, 7; 11:20). In 5:12 it means outward appearance. It may mean face or person here, 2:10; 4:6. It is more pictorial to take it here as face “that out of many upturned faces” thanks may be given …for the gift to us by means of many.7

The gracious gift is undoubtedly the deliverance or the preservation of Paul’s life with the privilege of continued ministry as God’s servant in the cause of Christ (cf. Phil. 1:21-24). Of course, God does not always answer our prayers as we expect. In His infinite wisdom, sometimes His answer is to deny our request, sometimes it is to delay the answer, and sometimes His answer is disguised in a way that we cannot understand or discern at the present time. God is not only the Sovereign one who sits in the heavens doing what He deems fit (Ps. 103:19; 115:3), but He is also at work in ways beyond our comprehension, and we must, like Daniel’s three friends, entrust our lives to God’s infinite wisdom and purposes regardless of the consequences to us. Remember, we walk by faith, not by sight (2 Cor. 5:87. Our prayers may not lead to the kind of deliverance we might hope and pray for, but, knowing the nature and character of our God, we must learn to rest in God’s infinite wisdom, goodness, and love. In Daniel 3:13ff we have the story of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego who refused to worship the statue of Nebuchadnezzar. For their refusal, they were thrown into the fiery furnace, but regardless of what they faced, they made no conditions with the Lord. They were totally committed to Him regardless of the outcome. Their response to the earthly monarch’s threat is tremendously instructive. Nebuchadnezzar said to them:

If you don’t worship it (the statue), you will immediately be thrown into the middle of the furnace of blazing fire. Now, who is that god who can rescue you from my power?” (Dan. 3:15b)

But these Godly men of faith replied:

“We do not need to give you a reply concerning this. If our God whom we are serving exists, he is able to deliver us from the furnace of blazing fire, and he will deliver us, O king, from your power as well. But if not, let it be known to you, O king, that we don’t serve your gods, and we will not worship the golden statue that you have erected.” (Dan. 3:16-17).

They knew that with God all things are possible, or to put it in the negative, there is nothing impossible for God. Thus, their deliverance was no problem for Him, but they also knew that deliverance or death were equally possible in God’s sovereign plan, a plan that always operates according to His infinite wisdom and purpose.

So what can we know and rest in? We can know that God is good, infinitely wise, and all-powerful, and that, in keeping with His wisdom and purposes, the plans He has for us are plans for welfare and not for calamity or evil, but to give us a future and a hope (cf. Jer. 29:11). And this is equally as true in our trials and painful situations of life as it was for Israel when she was facing seventy years of deportation into Babylon. To the nation, deportation to Babylon was terrible, but it was vital to God’s plan for them to remove their idolatrous ways from their hearts. So we also can know that the trials of life have their beneficial purposes and are equally important to our future and growth.

We can also know that until our purpose on earth is done, God will deliver us, but we cannot know when He will be done with us, or when He will be ready to call us home. When my dear wife’s kidney failure reached a certain point, the doctor told us that she had no more than four to six weeks to live, at the most. He was wrong. Before the Lord called her into glory, He gave her a full six months of quality life with her family along with a vital witness to her faith in the Lord Jesus. Her testimony reverberated around the world through her e-mail messages and through the testimony she wrote that is now posted on the Biblical Studies Foundation web site, “Calm Amidst the Storm” (/docs/splife/storm.htm). The hospice nurses that cared for her the last six months stood absolutely amazed at her joy, her continued sense of humor, and peace right down to the last, to the night she went into a coma. One of them, the main nurse who cared for Kathie, told another hospice nurse, a good friend of my daughter, that she had never witnessed anyone face death with the degree of calm and peace like our precious Kathie. She was not only a continual witness on how to live the Christian life in every sphere, but she also taught us how to die.

Conclusion

The apostle Paul was obviously a man of tremendous faith and commitment, and yet, through this experience, even the apostle learned a great lesson that we too must come to embrace with all our hearts. The lesson is simply this:

In the apostle’s estimation, what he faced was nothing less than a sentence unto death from which there was no possible escape, humanly speaking. But from this despairing experience, one that he viewed as a sentence to death, the apostle learned another lesson and developed a perspective that was, in many ways, equivalent to resurrection. It was only God’s intervention that snatched him from the gates of death and brought him back to the realm of the living. The divinely designed effect was to undermine his self-confidence (cf. 2 Cor. 12:9, 10) and bring him to the place of utter dependence and trust in God alone not matter what. Why? Because from God, the sovereign Lord, comes escape from death. He is the God of resurrection, and if He can raise the dead (and He can), then He can rescue the dying from the grip of death. Speaking about his co-worker, Epaphroditus, Paul writes:

Indeed, he greatly missed all of you and was distressed because you heard that he had been ill. In fact he became so ill that he nearly died. But God showed mercy to him—and not to him only, but also to me—so that I would not have grief on top of grief. Therefore I am all the more eager to send him, so that when you see him again you can rejoice and I can be free from anxiety. So welcome him in the Lord with great joy, and honor people like him, since it was because of the work of Christ that he almost died. He risked his life so that he could make up for your inability to serve me (Phil. 2:27-30). (emphasis mine)

But sometimes God does not deliver us from death’s door, as was the case with my dear wife. Indeed, unless the Lord returns in our lifetime, we must all face death eventually. There will come a time when it is His will to call us on home to be with Him, and we will face the journey home, but not alone. Perhaps because of the direct revelation Paul received from the Lord, he seemed to know when he wrote from his Roman imprisonment to the Philippians that his time and ministry on earth was not up, and that he would be released. By contrast, I do not know if the Lord is going to deliver me from this disease, or whether I’ll have another six months or six years, but I can know that He cares, and that vital to my deliverance, as with all of us as Christians, are the prayers of other believers who undergird and help by means of their prayers.

For the Christian, the one who has believed in the person and work of Christ as his or her Savior, death means being ushered directly into the presence of the Lord Jesus. To die is gain; it is to be with Christ, which is far better than life on this earth (Phil. 1:21-23). So it is not death that we fear; it is the process of dying that can cause us fear because of the pain and misery that can accompany the dying process in some forms of terminal disease. But even in this, we must count on the fact that He will never leave us or forsake us. Thus, no matter what we face in the path of life, our Lord is more than adequate to meet our need and give us strength to endure. As with all of life, so we must rest this issue in God’s hands as well. As David prayed to the Lord, “When I am afraid, I will trust in You” (Ps. 56:3). We must remember, we can find God’s comfort and strength in “all our affliction.” (emphasis mine) Again, this excludes nothing. As the God of all comfort, He is there for us in spite of what may we face. None of our trials are uncommon to man (1 Cor. 10:13), and certainly none are bigger than our God and beyond His power and wisdom, His grace and mercy, and His steadfast love and goodness.

Some Concluding Thoughts About Suffering

A Simple Definition of Suffering:

Consider the work of God: For who can make straight what he has made crooked? In times of prosperity be joyful, but in times of adversity consider this: God has made one as well as the other, so that no one can discover what will happen in the future (Eccl. 7:13-14).

What is suffering? What are these bends in the road that God puts in the path of life that we are to carefully consider? Simply stated, suffering is anything that hurts or irritates. In the design of God, however, it is something that also makes us think. Why? Because, as James 1:2-4 and 1 Peter 1:6-9 teach us, suffering is a necessary tool that God uses to get our attention and to mature us so that He can accomplish His purposes in our lives in a way that would never occur without the trial or cause of suffering.

In this regard, in his study on 2 Corinthians, my good friend Bob Deffinbaugh writes:

Several years ago, I heard J. Oswald Sanders speak on the subject of spiritual leadership. It was an excellent word given by an elder statesman of the faith. He summed up his teaching on the subject with three words, each beginning with an “s.” The first word was “sovereignty”: God sovereignly raises up those whom He has chosen to lead. The second was “servanthood”: Those who would be spiritual leaders are those who understand and practice servanthood. The third “s” was “suffering”: Suffering is the tool which God employs in the life of the Christian to make him a leader.8

Some General Causes for Suffering

People approach the issue of suffering in some very different ways. Some approach the issue of suffering in a way that attacks the character and nature of God. They maintain that either God is too weak to stop our suffering, or that He doesn’t care. This approach attacks God’s essence—His power and goodness. Such an approach completely ignores or rejects the clear teaching of Scripture regarding the sovereignty, omnipotence, and goodness of God. Then there are those who, like Job’s friends, see suffering as caused by some sin or failure in a person’s life. For these people, suffering is always a form of discipline. This belief is often associated with a prosperity kind of gospel that teaches God wants you healthy and wealthy, and if you will just follow this or that formula, you will be prospered. This, of course, flies directly in the face of the many afflictions found in the lives of the saints of the Bible (cf. Heb. 11; 2 Cor. 4:8-11; 6:4-5). “This tragic error brings accusations and guilt upon the sufferer at the very time he or she most needs comfort and compassion.”9 Finally, there is the biblical approach to suffering that corrects our thinking and that recognizes there are a number of reasons for the problem of suffering. Regardless of how some may approach the matter of suffering, the fact remains that the Bible teaches a number of general reasons for suffering.

First, we suffer because we live in a fallen and sinful world that often groans in pain because of Adam’s fall as recorded in Genesis. The fall has affected even creation, is the source of man’s sin and rebellion against God, and is related to the presence and activity of Satan who hates man and seeks his harm.

For I consider that our present sufferings cannot even be compared to the glory that will be revealed to us. For the creation eagerly waits for the revelation of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility—not willingly but because of God23 who subjected it—in hope that the creation itself will also be set free from the bondage of decay into the glorious freedom of God’s children. For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers together until now (Rom. 8:18-22).

Second, it is true that some of our suffering is the product of our own ignorance, lack of self-control, and foolishness. Suffering can be nothing more than self-induced misery. We reap what we sow. When we sow to the flesh, we reap of the flesh (Gal. 6:7-9), but such is not the source of all our suffering.

Third, Christians may sometimes suffer because it is God's discipline to train and mature us in Christ. "For the Lord disciplines the one he loves and chastises every son he accepts but he does so for our benefit, that we may share his holiness. Now all discipline seems painful at the time, not joyful. But later it produces the fruit of peace and righteousness for those trained by it." (Heb. 12:6, 10b-11).

Fourth, Christians and others may suffer because of persecution for their faith. This is especially true when they take a stand on the things they believe when these run contrary to the beliefs of the society or culture. For Christians, it often occurs when they take a stand for biblical principles, i.e., suffering for righteousness sake (2 Tim. 3:12). We have seen this kind of persecution against the saints all over the world, and it is rampant against many Christians in many places today.

But beyond these general reasons, there are a number of specific reasons why Christians suffer.

Some Reasons Why Christians Suffer

First, sometimes God allows us to suffer to enhance our testimony or witness. This includes the following areas: (a) we may suffer to glorify God before men and even the angels who are intensely interested in what God is doing in the church, the body of Christ (Job 1-2; 1 Pet. 1:12; 4:16; Eph. 3:10); (b) we may suffer to manifest the power of God to others (2 Cor. 12:9, 10; John 9:3), or to manifest the Character of Christ in the midst of suffering as a testimony to win others to Christ (2 Cor. 4:8-12; 1 Pet. 3:14-17); (c) we may suffer so that praise and thanksgiving may be given to God for the Christ-like character manifested in the life of the sufferer, or for the deliverance God may give as mentioned in 2 Corinthians 1:11.

Second, we may suffer to develop our capacity and sympathy in comforting others (2 Cor. 1:3-5).

Third, we may suffer to teach us not to trust in ourselves but in God who raises the dead (2 Cor. 1:8-11), and so that in our weakness we find God’s strength (2 Cor. 12:8-10).

Fourth, we may suffer to keep down pride (2 Cor. 12:7). The Apostle saw his thorn in the flesh as an instrument allowed by the Lord to maintain a spirit of humility and dependence on the Lord because of the special revelations he had been given as one who had been caught up to the third heaven.

Fifth, we may experience suffering as a training tool that God lovingly and faithfully uses to develop personal righteousness, maturity, and our walk with the Lord (Heb. 12:5f; 1 Pet. 1:6; Jam. 1:2-4). This includes the following areas. In this sense, suffering may be designed:

    (a) As discipline for sin to restore us to fellowship through genuine confession (Ps. 32:3-5; 119:67).

    (b) As a pruning tool to remove dead wood or unsightly areas in one’s life (weaknesses, sins of ignorance, immature attitudes and values, etc.), and, as a result, to increase one’s fruitfulness (John 15:1f). Trials may become mirrors of reproof to reveal blind spots in our lives (Ps. 16:7; 119:67, 71).

    (c) As a tool for growth designed to cause us to rely on the Lord and His Word; trials test our faith and cause us to use the promises and principles of the Word (Ps. 119:71, 92; 1 Pet. 1:6; Jam. 1:2-4; Ps. 4:1 [The Hebrew of this passage can mean, "You have enlarged, or made me grow wide by my distress]). Suffering or trials teach us the truth of Psalms 62:1-8, the truth of learning to "wait on the Lord only."

    (d) As a means of learning what obedience really means. A trial may become a test of our loyalty, etc. (Heb. 5:8). Illustration: If a father tells his son to eat ice cream, and if he loves ice cream, he has obeyed, but he hasn't really learned anything about obedience. But if his dad tells him to eat squash or mow the lawn, that becomes a greater test which teaches something about the meaning of obedience. Point: Obedience often costs us something and is hard. It requires sacrifices, courage, discipline, and faith in the belief that God is good and has our best interests at heart regardless of how things appear to us.

Sixth, sometimes God uses suffering to manifest the evil nature of evil men and the righteousness of the justice of God when it falls (1 Thess. 2:14-16).

My good friend, Bob Deffinbaugh, was kind enough to read this manuscript for me, and he reminded of two more very important reasons.

Seventh, as Bob pointed out, “suffering makes us discontent with this world, and hungry for heaven (2 Corinthians 4-5; Romans 8:18-25).” I am reminded of the old hymn, “this world is not my home; I’m just a passing through,” but our tendency is to try to make this world our home and our heaven. As Christians, we are to live as aliens and sojourners (1 Pet. 1:17-21; 2:11). As our loving heavenly Father, God will often use suffering to help us keep our bearing.

Eighth, suffering “affords a unique opportunity for the Christian to enter into fellowship with Christ” in a deeper way (Philippians 3:10).” See also Hebrews 12:1-2.

Regardless of the reason or reasons God allows suffering into one's life, rarely does it not also reveal areas of need, weaknesses, wrong attitudes, and a wrong focus, etc., as it did in the life of Job (cf. Job 38:1-42:6.

The Nature of Suffering

Suffering is Painful: it is hard and never easy. Regardless of what we know and how hard we apply the principles of God’s truth, suffering is going to hurt (cf. 1 Pet. 1:6--"distressed" is lupeo, "to cause pain, sorrow, grief").

Suffering is Perplexing and somewhat mysterious: We may know some of the theological reasons about suffering from Scripture, yet when it hits, there is still a certain mystery. Why now? Why me? What is God doing? In this, it is designed to build our trust in the Almighty.

Suffering is Purposeful: it is not without meaning in spite of its mystery. It has as one of its chief purposes the formation of Christian character (Rom. 8:28-29).

Suffering is a Test: "Trials" in James 1:2 is the Greek peirasmos, which refers to that which “examines, tests, and proves the character, or integrity of something.” "Testing" in this verse is dokimion, which has a similar idea. It refers to a test designed to prove or approve. Suffering is that which proves one's character and integrity along with both the object and quality of one's faith (cf. 1 Pet. 1:6-7 where the same Greek words are used along with the verb dokimazo, which means, "put to the test, prove by testing as with gold").

Suffering is a Process: "We know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, proven character; …" (Rom 5:3-4). "Knowing that the testing of your faith produces endurance. And let endurance have its perfect result, that you may be perfect (mature) and complete, lacking in nothing" (Jam. 1:3-4). As a process, suffering takes time. The result God seeks to accomplish with the trials of life requires time and that requires endurance. As believers, we want the product, changed character, but want to avoid the painful process. As they say, “no pain, no gain.” But because of our make up and spiritual needs as human beings, we can't have one without the other.

Suffering is a Purifier, a Cleanser: No matter what the reason, even if it is not God's discipline for blatant carnality, it is a purifier, for none of us will ever be perfect in this life. There is always room for growth (Phil. 3:12-14).

Suffering Provides Opportunities: It provides opportunities for God's glory, our transformation, testimony, and ministry, etc.

Suffering Requires Our Submission and Cooperation: It requires the right response if it is to be successful in accomplishing God's purposes. It’s easy to want the product, transformed character; but being willing to live through the process, suffering, is another story.

Suffering is Predetermined or Appointed; it is inevitable: (1 Thess. 3:3; 1 Pet. 4:12-13).

1 Thessalonians 3:3 so that no man may be disturbed by these afflictions; for you yourselves know that we have been destined for this. (NASB)

1 Peter 4:19 Therefore, let those also who suffer according to the will of God entrust their souls to a faithful Creator in doing what is right. (NASB)

The question we must each face is not, "if I am going to have trials in life," but "how am I going to respond to the trials God allows in my life?"


1 Cleon L. Rogers Jr. & Cleon L. Rogers III, The New Linguistic and Exegetical Key to the Greek New Testament (Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 1998), 392.

2 J. H. Bernard, The Expositor’s Greek Testament, Vol. III, ed. W. Robertson Nicoll (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rabids, Michigan,), 40.

3 Bernard, 40.

4 G. Abbott-Smith, A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament (T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh, 1973), 51.

5 Colin Kruse, The Second Epistle of Paul To The Corinthians, An Introduction and Commentary, ed. Leon Morris, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, 1987), 65.

6 The Expositor's Bible Commentary, OT, gen. ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 1976-1992), electronic media.

7 A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol. 4, Epistles of Paul, electronic media.

8 Robert L. Deffinbaugh, Religious Affections: A Study of Paul’s 2 Corinthian Correspondence (Biblical Studies Press, 1998), 2.

9 Deffinbaugh, 3.

Related Topics: Suffering, Trials, Persecution

God’s Comfort in Suffering and Our Responsibility (2 Cor 1:1-11)

Related Media

I. Outline

    A. Address (1:1-2)

      1. The Senders (1:1a)

      2. The Recipients (1:1b)

      3. The Salutation (1:2)

    B. Comfort from God in the Midst of Trials (1:3-11)

      1. The Reason God Comforts Paul and His Companions (1:3-7)

      2. Hardships in Asia (1:8-11)

II. God’s Comfort in Suffering and Our Responsibility (2 Cor 1:1-11)

    A. Address (1:1-2)

      1. The Senders (1:1a)

Paul is the writer of the letter and Timothy is serving with him in the establishment of the gospel in Corinth. Paul refers to himself as an apostle, that is, one who was specially given authority from the Lord to preach the word and call all men to the obedience of the gospel (1 Cor 9:1-3; Rom 1:5). Paul spoke authoritatively in the name of the Lord to the congregation in Corinth and they were to regard his instruction as coming from the Lord. After all, he was an apostle by the will of God (Gal 1:1).

      2. The Recipients (1:1b)

Even though the first letter to the Corinthians reveals enormous struggles in the church, including: division and discord (1-4), sexual immorality of a kind that doesn’t even occur among the pagans (5), lawsuits among each other (6), misunderstandings regarding marriage and divorce (7), the proper use of freedom and injuring other people (8-10), contention over head-coverings, drunkenness, and extreme selfishness at the Lord’s Supper (11), abuses of the spiritual gifts, with an unhealthy concentration upon the miraculous (especially tongues) as a sign of greater spirituality (12-14), and a faulty view of the resurrection (15)—even though all this was going on, not to mention the trouble they personally gave the apostle, he nonetheless refers to them as the church of God in Corinth. One needs only read through the letters of 1 & 2 Corinthians noting the presence of the term brothers to see that Paul regarded them as Christians (though perhaps not every single one) even though he was deeply grieved over their spiritual condition at times, including their immaturity and lack of love (cf. 1 Cor 3:1-17; 6:11, etc.).

      3. The Salutation (1:2)

Paul gives the church one of his standard greetings. Grace refers to that unmerited favor of God toward unworthy sinners that leads to peace in their hearts (i.e., God’s peace that he possesses in himself), in their relationship with God, and also in their relationships with others. As with everything else Paul teaches, it is always Christocentric because it is only in Christ that the plan of God is accomplished and realized in the lives of the saints. For Paul, everything grew out of his understanding of the gospel (1 Tim 1:11).

    B. Comfort from God in the Midst of Trials in Asia (1:3-11)

After Paul has formally introduced the letter and given his characteristic greeting, he moves on to discuss the nature of his apostolic ministry among the Corinthians since it had come under such fire from certain opponents (cf. 2 Cor 11:23). In this section he will explain the change in his travel plans which had obviously been a sore spot with the church. The fact that he does not open with thanksgiving for the church (cf. Phil 1:3-8; Col. 1:3-8) nor a prayer for them (Phil 1:9-11; Col. 1: 9-14) indicates that the issue of his trial in Asia is ringing fresh in his ears and that the trial, as well as his travel plans, need to be discussed immediately. Only the trial in Asia will be discussed in this paper. However, the context must be pointed out so that the reader realizes that 1:3-11 is functioning in a much larger semantic unit, namely, 1:3-7:6. So then, after Paul deals with the comfort God had given him in the province of Asia (1:3-11) he will tackle the problem of the sinning brother in 2:5-11. Finally, 2:14-7:6 will be dedicated to the nature of the apostolic ministry. Taken together, then, the point of 1:3-7:6 is to reinforce in their minds his commitment to them and to help them understand the nature and problems of spiritual ministry.

      1. The Reason God Comforts Paul and His Companions (1:3-7)

v. 3 Paul starts this section off by ascribing blessing to God. While this opening was a typical way a Jew approached God it was nonetheless an expression of deep piety and reverence. But here, as in Ephesians 1:3 (cf. also 1 Pet 1:3) God is specifically identified as the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. As we mentioned in the introduction, for Paul everything was Christocentric. Thus, the way one knows and experiences God is through his Son, Jesus Christ. And it is indeed the “son” that is our Lord (kurios). The use of Lord to refer to Jesus picks up on the Greek Bible’s translation of YHWH as Lord (kurios) and affirms the exalted status of Jesus. With the reference to our Paul demonstrates his solidarity with the church under the Lordship of Christ.

God is to be praised for many reasons, for all that he is and does, and the sheer greatness of his being (Ps 145:3), his love (Ps 86:15), faithfulness (Lam 3:22-23), strength (Isa 41:10), and inscrutability (Romans 11:36). Here Paul, in light of his deliverance from deadly circumstances in Asia minor reflects on and gives thanks to God for his immeasurable mercy. In fact, he calls God the Father of mercies (note the plural, “mercies”) and the God of all comfort (Mic 7:19; Isa 40:1; 66:13). God’s mercy is his pity upon us in our helpless (though not necessarily innocent) state and it results in his comfort being shown to us. Paul had experienced that deep compassion of a father who gives mercy a totally new name and who loves a needy son and extends mercy to him in the midst of his struggles (cf. Rom 5:1-5: God has poured out his love into our hearts…”). He comforted the apostle undoubtedly through the Holy Spirit and ultimately by delivering him from the deadly peril (v. 11).

v. 4 And God does not pick and choose when he will comfort us. Further, there is never a time when we deserve his special presence in mercy. Remember it is according to his mercies—which are many—and in all our affliction or in every affliction we go through. You may have sinned and as a result suffering the consequences, but God will nonetheless draw near to you to comfort you if you allow him.

So God comforts us in all our afflictions. One reason he does this is so that we can comfort others who are in affliction with the comfort by which we were comforted by God. In other words there is a reason why God comforts us. To be sure it is so that we ourselves experience his love and help, but he also wants us as Christians to be conduits of that love, not storehouses. Once we have experienced God’s compassion and comfort in the midst of a trial we are better equipped to minister that same comfort to others. We know what it takes, by the grace of God, to help others who are suffering. This is at the heart of the gospel.

v. 5 Paul gives the reason why the argument of v. 4 is true. It is true because just as the sufferings of Christ overflow toward us, so also our comfort through Christ overflows. The sufferings of Christ do not refer to any suffering Messiah endured on the cross en route to securing our redemption. Rather, they refer to the sufferings Paul underwent in the context of his apostolic ministry, that is, suffering for Christ which in fact every Christian encounters as a result of living in the “now/not yet.” There is an eschatological element in the sufferings as they are destined by God in order to fill up the full measure of Messiah’s suffering (Col 1:24). They are Christ’s sufferings since they come as a result of his life in us. Indeed, as he lives in us in the current expression of the kingdom, he endures them with us until they are completed.

But as the sufferings overflow so also our comfort through Christ overflows. But, Paul says, the more I suffer the more I experience comfort through Christ. The particular emphasis here is on the experience of comfort in the midst of suffering, not being comforted by being removed from suffering. Though God did save Paul from such a deadly peril (1:8-11), he was nonetheless comforted in the midst of the trial.

1:6 Paul picks up the general thought in v. 4 and applies it to his relationship with the Corinthians. In verse 4 he says that God gives comfort to those in trials so that they can comfort others who are going through trials. He brings this truth home to bear in v. 6 when he says if we are afflicted, it is for your comfort and salvation; if we are comforted, it is for your comfort that you experience in your patient endurance of the same sufferings that we also suffer.

Two points must be noted in v. 6. First, Paul’s afflictions in the course of his ministry of preaching the gospel for Christ result in the salvation of those who hear the message. This, of course, included the Corinthians. Thus they owe their salvation—which brought them comfort and the experience of God’s presence—as it were, to the suffering of the apostle. Second, the fact that Paul is comforted in his trials, demonstrates to the Corinthians that they too can be comforted by God. The mention of this fact, though we are ignorant of the particular afflictions of the Corinthians, awakens them to the possibility of God’s comfort. The end result is that everything God did through Paul was both for his benefit as well as the benefit of the Corinthians.

1:7 Since the sufferings Paul refers to are unique to the Christian—sufferings the Christian undergoes in consequence of being a Christian in a fallen world—and the Corinthians are sharing in these sufferings, Paul is confident that the church will also share in a similar comfort; Paul is ultra confident that God will minister his comfort to them. The implication is that they too will be able to comfort each other in the trial they are enduring.

      2. Hardships in Asia (1:8-11)

1:8 With the use of a common formula in Pauline writing, the apostle says for we do not want you to be unaware, brothers and sisters. Paul wants them to know the affliction that happened…in Asia, that he and others were burdened excessively, beyond their strength, so that they despaired even of living. The word for (gar) connects this paragraph, namely, vv. 8-11, with vv. 3-7 in the following way: since they can share in his sufferings and comfort he tells them about his great struggle in Asia. Scholars are not certain as to precisely what happened in the province of Asia, but many feel that it relates in some way to distress caused the apostle by Jewish opponents (cf. 2 Cor 11:23). Although we cannot know for certain what the struggle was, it nonetheless brought Paul to his knees—so to speak. He was burdened beyond his ability to endure, beyond his strength, with the result that he despaired of life.

A Note on Paul’s Affliction in Asia

There have been many suggestions as to precisely what Paul was referring to in 1:8-11: (1) On the basis of 2 Cor 11:25 it has been suggested that “drowning” may have been the affliction. This is unlikely since drowning is not generally thought of as an affliction and it seems that such is unlikely in the province of Asia; (2) Other commentators think Paul was talking about fighting wild beasts in Ephesus (1 Cor 15:32); (3) some suggest the riot at Ephesus which Demetrius, the silversmith, instigated along with the help of others (Acts 19:23-41); (4) some scholars suggest that Paul is referring to a deadly sickness of some kind. This option seems to square with the language about “receiving the sentence of death in them” (2 Cor 1:9); (5) Another option is that his trial in Asia refers to the Jews who gave him a great deal of grief. In Acts 20:19 Paul himself refers to “the trials which came upon him through the plots of the Jews.” And, when Paul was in Jerusalem it was the Jews from Jerusalem who stirred up the multitude to lay hands on the apostle (Acts 21:27; cf. also Acts 19:23-41 and Alexander’s role with 2 Tim 4:14). The plots of the Jews to harm Paul fits well with the Jewish opposition recorded in the book (cf. 2 Cor 11:23).1 In the final analysis, however, we cannot be certain about the kind of trial, but we can say that it was extremely painful for Paul, perhaps life threatening.

1:9 Paul says that he felt as if the sentence had been passed and death was the verdict. At least this is the place he had come to in his own thinking. He thought for sure that there was no way out whatsoever and that death was inevitable. But, after the entire affair was over he said that God permitted it so that we (he and others with him) would not trust in ourselves but in God who raises the dead. Paul had come to view all of his life in the sovereign hands of God and his good purposes. He knew that God had permitted all of his affliction to occur for many reasons, one chief one being the apostle’s dependence on God. As Christians, we have, by virtue of becoming a Christian, learned to rely on Christ and not ourselves. We learned that through conversion. But the lesson really never ends and in certain ways is greatly accelerated when we suffer. The deeper the suffering, the deeper the despair. The deeper the despair, the deeper the feelings of death. The deeper the feelings of death, the deeper our cry goes forth to the one who can save us from death. What does all this produce: a greater God-given ability to comfort others who are suffering.

1:10-11 Paul is convinced that God delivered him, and those with him, from so great a risk of death and that he will continue to do so in the future. But he wants the Corinthians to know that such deliverance comes about when God’s people pray and petition him in such cases. But the prayer is for more than mere deliverance; it is also for the whole work of proclaiming the gospel and all that such an enterprise entails. The end result of such prayer and “help” is that many will give thanks to God on behalf of his gracious gift of deliverance for Paul and His advancement of the gospel.

III. Principles for Application

1. The worship of God is not a Christian past time. It is our very life and is as integral to the Christian life as “blue is to sky.” You cannot have one without the other. “As a thoughtful gift is a celebration of a birthday, as a special event out is a celebration of an anniversary, as a warm eulogy is a celebration of life, as a sexual embrace is a celebration of marriage—so a worship service is a celebration of God” (Ronald Allen, Worship: Rediscovering the Missing Jewel). Praise is a integral element of celebrating God’s mercy and compassion upon us, the unlovable. Paul praises his Father and blesses him. Can we do less?

2. The Christian church in America is staunchly individualistic and yet the surest sign of Christian infancy is the thinking, rampant in our churches, that all is for me and that God blesses me with no necessary thought of extending that to anyone else through me. But God told Abraham that he would bless him and the world through him! Paul says that God comforts us so that we can comfort those with the comfort we have received from God. This is what saves us from useless religion! Certainly in our culture there is someone within arms reach who needs God’s encouragement through you. Find them and love them.

3. “For two years, scientists sequestered themselves in an artificial environment called Biosphere 2. Inside their self-sustaining community, the Biospherians created a number of mini-environments, including a desert, rain forest, even an ocean. Nearly every weather condition could be simulated except one, wind. Over time, the effects of their windless environment became apparent. A number of acacia trees bent over and even snapped. Without the stress of wind to strengthen the wood, the trunks grew weak and could not hold up their own weight (Jay Akkerman).” We must remember that the wind of adversity strengthens our resolve to rely on the lord and not on ourselves. In effect, like trees subjected to the winds of storms, we end up possessing a greater strength. So it was in the case of Paul, and so it will be in our case as we rely on the Lord who raises the dead.

4. The net result of all that God does is praise. Paul begins this section of 1:3-11 with praise and blessing and ends with compounded praise and thanksgiving being given to God. Remember in your life that all praise goes to God, for from him, and through him, and to him are all things!


1 See Colin Kruse, The Second Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, ed. Leon Morris (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 68-69.

Related Topics: Suffering, Trials, Persecution, Comfort

Cybersalvation?

Related Media

Editor’s Note: This essay first appeared in the spring 1998 issue of Kindred Spirit, Dallas Seminary’s popular Christian magazine. It has been used with permission of the author.

Daniel B. Wallace
September 10, 2003

It was a month before Christmas, and for George Ponsford the prospects were not pleasing. Doctors had determined he had lymphoma cancer with only a few months to live. Matters of spirituality had not greatly concerned George during his adult life. Now, the closeness of eternity and concern for his standing with God brought fear and sadness.

I had come to know George and his family through one of my sons. George and I are grandfathers of my son’s lovely daughter. As soon as I learned of George’s diagnosis, I expressed my regrets and assured him of my prayers. Unknown to me, George, using his extensive computer know-how, began to search the Internet for answers to his spiritual questions. One day, my son told me George wanted to speak with me, but he had become too ill to meet immediately.

Within a couple of days George was admitted to the hospital. I went immediately to see him. Though in pain and discomfort, he was able to talk. He had been searching the NET for answers, he said. When I asked what he was looking for, he said, “Heaven, forgiveness, assurance.” “Did you find anything?” I asked. “Yes,” he said, and quoted several passages of Scripture and the Lord’s prayer.

I asked George if he believed the promises these passages contained. “Yes,” he replied. As nurses were working on him, I led in a simple prayer of thanksgiving for what I believed was God’s salvation for George.

Two days later—with George feeling much better—we were able to talk alone and at length. It was a wonderful time of fellowship as we spoke about the Lord and our families. Since George knew his health was precarious, the Lord led me to review what George had told me two days earlier and to ask him a question familiar to those who have studied or used Evangelism Explosion. “George,” I asked, “if you were to stand in the presence of God today and He asked you why He should let you into His heaven, what would you say?”

“No way,” he replied, “I am a sinner.”

“So that’s it.” I said, “You don’t get to enter heaven?”

“Oh yes,” he said, “because Jesus Christ died for my sin.”

“George,” I told him, “I believe on the basis of God’s Word and your belief that I can say you have been saved. Your answer was exactly what I hoped to hear.”

Good fellowship followed, and I ventured to ask exactly how he had used the Internet to find the answers he had been seeking. Using the search engine, Yahoo, he had done a key word search first in religion then Bible, specifically, looking for salvation issues. He located the Dallas Theological Seminary (www.dts.edu) and the NET Bible (www.bible.org) sites. He downloaded the applicable portions on heaven, sin, forgiveness, and assurance and memorized several passages, i.e., the ones he had quoted to me.

NetLife? Cybersalvation? Sounds a bit sensational, but there’s no getting around it. God used His Word, the DTS web page, the NET Bible (translated and developed in part by Dallas Seminary scholars), and the Internet to minister salvation to George Ponsford. I was just blessed enough to witness and rejoice in the miracle!

George’s hospitalization and the story mentioned above occurred the last week of January 1997. He did return home with hospice care, and I continued to visit, call, and encourage him. With the help of his son-in-law Jason, George continued to study the Word and downloaded a whole follow-up program for new believers put together by a DTS alumnus on a web site. George got a lot of encouragement, as well, from reading Chuck Swindoll’s Hope Again. On March 31, 1998 the Lord took George home. Although he must have had quite some discomfort in his final days, George nevertheless had a sense of real peace and reconciliation with the Lord.

Related Topics: Soteriology (Salvation), Cultural Issues

Discipleship Overview

Related Media

Introduction

In a church questionnaire for the men’s group, men were asked if they would like to be mentors or be discipled. When the results came back, many men wanted to be discipled, but very few men volunteered to be mentors. Many people are reluctant to take on the job of mentoring or discipling. Why is that?

Why Is There Such
Reluctance to Discipling?

False Humility

One reason there might be a reluctance to discipling is because, if a person volunteers, it feels almost like he is saying that he has it all together. Well, nobody has it all together, and if you feel like you do have it all together, then you probably need to be discipled not be the discipler.

But if we have been walking with God for a long time, hearing sound teaching for a long time, studying on our own for a long time, then we ought to be further ahead than someone new in the faith. If we have lived more years than someone else, we ought to have many experiences that we can relate as examples of how biblical truths have played out in our own lives. So, just because a person commits to being a discipler, it doesn’t mean he thinks he is more spiritual than the next guy. In fact, it is my conviction that a new Christian, who is faithful with the little knowledge that he has, is going to receive more rewards that the intellectual who doesn’t apply much of what he knows.

Lack of Commitment

Discipleship takes a lot of time.

Fear of Being Open

Some people are afraid to open up because they are afraid they will be rejected.

Ignorance

Another reason people are hesitant to be a discipler is because they don’t know what to do. What will I teach the disciple? What should we talk about when we get together? What plan of action should I follow?

We will discuss the discipleship process and lay out a plan of action to follow. This is not THE plan. It is just a suggestion. But, I think it is a biblical one, and hopefully it will give a course of action to follow.

The following is an outline and proposed order of topics, but each disciple is unique, with his own special needs, background, etc. If he is an ex-Mormon or ex-Jehovah’s Witness for instance, you’d probably need to deal with areas of Christology in more detail. If he is having marital problems, we might need to deal with those areas up front.

Also, some of the passages used to explain Biblical truths are passages that have meant much to me. You might use others that have really spoken to your needs because you can explain those more easily.

Why Disciple?

The Benefit to the Disciple

When we bring a newborn home from the hospital, we don’t just sit down the infant seat and say, “Welcome to the family, Johnny. Make yourself at home. The towels are in the hall closet upstairs, the pantry is right here, the can opener is in this drawer. No crying after 10 p.m. If you have any questions there are lots of people in the family who would love to help you so don’t be afraid to ask.”

You laugh and say that is ridiculous, but that is what usually happens to new Christians. Someone gets saved and starts going to church but never gets much personal attention. We devote 18 years to raising our children, but don’t even spend six months helping a new Christian get started in understanding the spiritual world. As a result, many people have been Christians for many years, but have not grown very much. Hebrew 5:12 refers to this phenomenon.

So, new believers need someone to give them guidance and help them grow. Like a newborn, they need some personal attention.

The Benefit to the Discipler

There are two big lakes in Israel. The Sea of Galilee and the Dead Sea. The Sea of Galilee has a number of rivers flowing into it and the Jordan river flowing out of it to the south. The Sea of Galilee is a beautiful, healthy lake with much life in it. The Dead Sea on the other hand, only has rivers flowing into it. Nothing flows out of it. Consequently the mineral content has built up and nothing can live in its waters. They don’t call it the Dead Sea for no reason.

Many Christians sit in churches all their lives hearing the Word taught. They learn Bible doctrine. They experience life and learn from their experiences, but they never pass on their knowledge and experience to others. They benefit from their knowledge and experience, but never allow others to benefit.

When we sit in the pew for our whole lives and don’t pass on our knowledge and experience to others, we become like the Dead Sea.

1 Corinthians 1:3-4 says:

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort; who comforts us in all our affliction so that we may be able to comfort those who are in any affliction with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God.

God doesn’t want us to hoard all that He has taught us. He wants to use us to help others grow. That process is discipleship.

The Results of Preparation

Another good thing about discipling someone is it gets us into the Word. If we know we are going to have to teach a class next week for Sunday school, we are going to do some preparation. If we are going to be meeting with a disciple, we are going to need to be prepared with some idea of what we want to talk about. It may not be the purest motivation for getting into the Word, but Isaiah 55:11 says God’s Word does not return void and He will use the opportunity to speak to us if we will let Him.

Once we start learning really neat things in the Bible that transform our lives, we are going to want to share what we’ve learned.

The corollary to this is that if we aren’t bursting with the desire to share the new discoveries we’ve made, then maybe we aren’t making any. Maybe we aren’t growing. Maybe we need to evaluate ourselves and see where we might improve our study time.

When we start spending individual time with another Christian for the purpose of having a ministry in his or her life—time together in the Word, prayer, fellowship, systematic training—something happens in our own lives as well.

The Benefit to the Church

We live in an entertainment-centered, spectator-oriented society. Most people spend much time watching TV, movies, sporting events, etc. but little time actually involved in playing the sports they watch. Coach Bud Wilkinson, Oklahoma football coach, once described a football game the following way: Thousands sit in the stands in desperate need of exercise while 22 men are on the football field in desperate need of rest.

I think that we have carried the spectator mentality into the church. Although I don’t think we would get too many people to say it out loud, many people come to church to be entertained and to be ministered to. They have the idea that ministry is what the professionals do. We pay the pastor to minister to us. If we go back to our football analogy, we have a congregation full of people who need to get some exercise and a few professionals who are in desperate need of rest.

One or two pastors can’t possibly meet the needs of 500 or even 100 people with one or two messages per week. To really minister to someone you need to spend time with them and develop a close relationship. You can really only do that with half a dozen to a dozen individuals. The care groups churches have established is one attempt to address this problem. The discipleship process is another.

When we are learning and growing and passing our discoveries on to someone else, and they are doing the same, then the principle of multiplication will cause the church to grow. And it will be good solid growth with Christians in varying stages of maturity. Not a spectator church with a few professionals and a lot of babies.

The Discipleship Process

Be a Friend! Someone has said that we need to get rid of the teacher/student, guru/guree relationships and just be friends. I don’t think that we can totally do away with the teacher/student relationship. The idea of doing away with the teacher/student relationship is an over-reaction to the tendency of most discipleship programs to be nothing more than an information transfer. But we don’t want to throw the baby out with the bath water. There is a place and a need for learning doctrine along the way. We just have to understand that there is much more involved. I heard someone describe discipleship as friendship with a spiritual perspective, and I’ve also heard it described as friendship with a vision. I think these descriptions put discipleship in the right perspective because 90% of what a disciple learns is caught from our lives more than from our teaching. We should place our emphasis on being a friend and let people see how we deal with things, how we study, how we pray, how we love, etc. We don’t want to just give him all the facts. We need to allow him see how we work through various issues and help him work through the issues himself.

Deuteronomy 6:6f is a good model for what the discipleship process should be like. Just as a father and mother should take opportunities to relate daily events and actions to God’s sovereignty and our responsibilities, so the mentor can turn conversations towards learning opportunities and not just talk about the weather, sports, or computers.

Speaking of computers, let me give you an example: I love working with computers and I love to talk about them. The other day I was at lunch with someone (a computer programmer) and we were talking about one of our favorite subjects—you guessed it—computers. But in the midst of our enthusiasm about computers was an opportunity to discuss spiritual truth. With just a couple of questions, the conversation was turned toward a discussion of how he and I both have a tendency to use the computer as an escape from facing real life … and from working on relationships with others, about how the computer is a safe place where nothing is expected of us with regard to relationships. It is much easier and safer to go into the study and work on some project for several hours than to interact with people who will disagree with us, argue with us, disappoint us, etc. We had a great conversation, and now I can’t sit in front of my computer without questioning myself as to whether I should be there or be riding bikes with the kids or talking to my wife. This doesn’t mean I don’t use my computer any more, but now I make sure I’m there for legitimate reasons.

So, the process is friendship—friendship with a vision.

Philosophy of Discipleship

I’ve been impressed lately with the emphasis throughout Scripture on the importance of relationships—both with God and with other people. For example, in the midst of predictions of coming judgment for failure to love their fellow man, Amos calls for “justice and righteousness” (5:24) which showed that their worship was hypocritical (5:21-23). Micah calls for justice, kindness and humility before God (6:8) instead of empty sacrifice (6:7). Jonah epitomizes lack of love as he refuses to forgive the Assyrians and has no compassion for them, all the while espousing that he serves the true God. The emphasis in the Sermon on the Mount is on relationships—forgiveness, reconciliation, not judging, etc. The priest and Levite in the parable of the Good Samaritan knew the Law and had just been to worship God, but would not help/love the injured man. There are countless examples.

In the past I would have designed a discipleship plan around doctrinal content teaching everything from theology to eschatology. My course outline would have looked like a seminary curriculum with the emphasis on content. I think a lot of discipleship programs are nothing more than a transfer of information from the teacher’s notebook to the disciple’s notebook. But when the author of Hebrews says they could not handle deeper truth because they had not learned the elementary things, I’m convinced the problem was application. They did not practice what they had learned (Heb 5:14). And the thing that is most difficult to practice is loving one’s neighbor and building good relationships.

Therefore, I am designing my discipleship plan with an emphasis on relationships. Certainly, the doctrinal content is necessary.

To borrow an illustration from the Four Spiritual Laws booklet: The engine is Fact, the middle car is Faith and the caboose is Feeling. The caboose can’t go anywhere without the engine. We can’t have proper feelings without the facts. If there are no biblical principles guiding our love, it will be purely emotional and very up and down—mostly down. So we will list many topics to be covered in our discipleship plan. We will learn many facts, but rather than just teach a disciple a bunch of facts, the mentor needs to take special care to relate the facts to real life and take the time to discuss and evaluate how the disciple is progressing in his application of the facts to current situations.

The discipler needs to be open and show how the facts work out in his own life. We need to follow the model of Paul who said in Phil 4:9, “The things you have learned and received and heard in me, practice these things; and the God of peace shall be with you.” The discipler needs to be a model. And that involves more than just having the disciple watch you. You need to be open and talk about how things affect you too.

Goal

What is the goal of a discipleship program? When Jesus left the earth, He gave the disciples a final command. Matthew 28:19-20 says to go make disciples … teaching them to obey all that I commanded you.

The Obedience

Notice the word “obey.” Too often we skip over that word and just worry about the content. If we can teach them the facts, then they will be disciples. But application is the hardest part and that is where true discipleship really focuses. As disciplers, we will need to be involved in discussing the methods (how to do it), accountability (did he do it), evaluation (how well did he do it), etc.

The Commands

Perhaps a good place to start in looking for things to teach a disciple is by looking at what Jesus specifically commanded His disciples. This is not to imply that the black letters in your Bible are not as important as the red letters. This is just a good place to start for seeing the discipleship process. After all, I think the reason Jesus waited three years to be crucified was so he would have time to train the disciples. In John 17:4, Jesus says that he had accomplished the work which God had given him. He hadn’t died on the cross yet, so what was He talking about? Training the disciples.

If we look at the words of Jesus and specifically at the commands He gave his disciples, we can narrow them into four categories. Therefore, the goal of our discipleship will be to teach and develop the following qualities in the disciple:

  • Supreme love for God (Matt. 10:37-40)
  • Study and devotion to God’s Word (John 8:31)
  • Denial of self—God-ward and man-ward aspects (Mark 8:34)
  • Reflection of Christ’s love toward others (Matt. 22:39)

These characteristics build on one another. We can’t love others until we have learned to deny self. We won’t deny self until we have studied the Word and seen why we need to deny self. We won’t have a devotion to God’s Word, until we have a supreme love for God and want to know what He has said in His Word.

If we have a formal discipleship relationship where someone has asked us to disciple them, then lay these out as goals and move through the commands sequentially. If we don’t have a formal discipleship relationship, then it is not necessary to tell the person that my goal is to instill the above characteristics in him, but we could still use this as our outline to give us a sense of direction as we practiced “friendship with a vision.”

As we move through these characteristics we will discuss many verses. In a more formal setting, we can have our Bibles out and work through them. In the less formal discipleship relationship, we as the discipler will need to have read, understood and applied these verses to our lives so we can discuss them as the topics come up in real life situations. That is the way Jesus did it. That is the Deuteronomy 6 model and that is the most effective way to disciple because we are meeting a need and dealing with relevant issues. But it is also the hardest to do.

Supreme Love for God

The Command

First discuss the passages which call for us to put God first.

  • Matthew 10:37-40 (here are some of those red letters). This passage shows Jesus’ command to love Him the most. The issue is not hating family, but the surpassing love for God. Raise question of why someone might not be willing to be devoted to God. Ask the disciple what might stand in his or her way. Perhaps it is fear of what others will think, especially family members (context of Matt. 10:34-36). How do we reconcile the statement that Jesus came to set fathers against sons with the idea that God wants us to have good relationships with others? If a son or daughter forsakes the “family” religion, they may be disowned.
  • Another question people have is, “Will this love for God cause my family to receive less of my love?” The answer is No, because one of the ways we show love for God is by showing love for others. (For example Ephesians 5:18f shows that if we are filled with the Holy Spirit, then that will affect our relationship with our church, spouse, children, employers, etc.)
  • John 8:42. Love for God is a characteristic of one who is saved.

Evaluation: Ask for commitment to work on relationship with God and learn how he can show his love for God.

The Motivation

We’ve been commanded to love God, but why should we? What is our motivation. In order to have a supreme love for God, we need to have an understanding of the basics of anthropology, soteriology and christology. You’re probably thinking, “Hey! I thought your discipleship program wasn’t going to look like a seminary curriculum.”

The categories sound ominous for beginning sessions with a new convert, and they could indeed take a lifetime to study, but the emphasis should be on explaining, in a simple manner (maybe even without ever mentioning the theological words), the relationship between the three, and how one’s view of mankind (one’s anthropology) affects his view of salvation (soteriology) and of Christ (christology). Essentially the issue is, if he has a high view of man, he will have little need for God. We often say in reference to evangelism that you have to get them lost before you can get them saved. But this carries forward into the area of sanctification or growth. If a person does not have a realistic view of mankind, he will not appreciate his salvation. If he does not fully understand the greatness of his evil and the sacrifice God made for him, he will not have a supreme and incomparable love for Jesus Christ. Instead he will have a tendency to think he deserves God’s love and blame God when things don’t go just right.

How might we approach this subject in a less formal discipleship relationship? Undoubtedly we’ve all heard people say, “I think that there is a little bit of good in all of us …” or something to that effect. The next time you are with your disciple and you hear someone say that, ask him or her what they think about that. Do they think it is true? Why or why not? From there, you can point out what the Bible says.

If we have a more formal teacher/student relationship, then we would take one or two weeks for each topic—man, sin, and the Savior. It would certainly not be in depth, but the important thing is understanding the relationship of these issues so he will have a framework to build upon as we move through the study. One thing this will do is solidify the disciple’s assurance of his salvation. When he understands that he can’t earn his salvation and God’s approval, that will free him up from thinking he can do something to lose his salvation. The various topics covered should also demonstrate man’s sinfulness and make him appreciate God’s grace and result in a supreme love for Christ.

Man’s Sinfulness:

  • Genesis 1-3 —These verses deal with creation, the fall, and separation from God. The emphasis is on breaking of the relationship. We know that man was created in God’s image and that it was not good for Adam to be alone, so God created Eve. Therefore relationships are very important and our relationship to God is most important. Emphasize that just as Adam and Eve’s sin in the garden broke their relationship with God, so does our sin today breaks our relationship or fellowship with God.
  • Isaiah 64:6 —This passages tells us all of our good works are worthless. People usually compare themselves to others and think that relative to others, they are okay and that their good deeds outweigh their bad deeds. But God’s standard is not relative. It is absolute. Compared to his perfect righteousness, all our good deeds amount to nothing.
  • Romans 1:18f and 3:21f —These passages show the depravity of man and his inability to earn salvation. This should result in gratitude for what God has done.

God’s Holiness:

  • Habakkuk 1:13 —God cannot have fellowship with sin.
  • Isaiah 6: —This passages shows motivation. It was Isaiah’s vision of God’s holiness which convicted him of his sinfulness and caused his repentance and commitment.

Christ’s Work:

  • Romans 5:8f —God’s love
  • John 3:16 —God’s love
  • Matthew 20:28; Mark 10:45 —substitution

This is not in depth by any means, but when a person understands his sinfulness and God’s holiness and how God overcame that barrier, it will result in a tremendous gratitude and supreme love for God.

Evaluation: Ask for commitment to work on relationship with God and learn how he can show his love for God. This love for God is foundational to the rest of the process.

The Expression

What will it look like when we do love God with all our heart? Ask the disciple how he expresses his love for his girlfriend, or if married, to his wife when they were dating. If he took every opportunity to spend time with her, shouldn’t he do the same with God?

How do we spend time with God? Through prayer. If we have a supreme love for God, we are going to need to communicate with Him in order to build a relationship. Share with him how you talk to God, what you talk about with God, how you listen to God. Share how you look for answers.

  • Matthew 6:5f, Luke 11:1-13 The disciples’ prayer as a pattern for prayer.1
  • Assurance of answered prayer (Luke 18): Discuss the parable of the persistent widow. In that parable a poor widow goes to an unjust judge and pesters him until he hears her case. It is important to understand that this parable is one of contrasts. God is the opposite of the judge. God is just. We are the opposite of the widow. We are God’s children. We are related to God. If we don’t understand the contrasts we will think God must be pestered, argued with and bribed in order to get our prayers answered. The parable is not teaching that. God wants to answer the prayers of his children. We lose heart because we don’t understand God’s timing or purpose. We ask questions like, “When … Why now … How could you … ?” We challenge the justice and goodness of God. This parable deals with two issues: God’s character and God’s chronology. Persistent prayer is the demonstration of faith in the character of God’s attributes and the chronology of His actions. This parable teaches that the only legitimate reason to stop praying for something is the return of Christ. (vs. 8) It says, “When the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on the earth?” The demonstration of that faith is persistent prayer. When we stop believing a prayer will be answered, we stop praying. We have given up hope. We have no faith. Discuss with the disciple what items have dropped off yours or his or her prayer list that need to be put back on. God is a loving father who wants His children to keep coming to Him. If we are a parent, we should be able to identify with that.
  • When a new Christian, especially someone who has not spent his whole life in church begins to pray, there will be a few theological problems with what they pray. For example: He might start off, “God, this is Bob, I’m here in George’s house … I pray that you will be with me as I …” Those kinds of prayers are honest, innocent and priceless. Don’t correct him and explain to him that God is omniscient and knows who he is and where he is and that God is omnipresent and has promised to always be with us. As he studies and learns doctrine, he will probably stop praying those things. But hopefully, the honesty and innocence of his prayers will not change. If we start correcting him and saying, “you’re doing it wrong,” he is not going to feel very comfortable praying.
  • Another option is to take him through passages on prayer or find a good book on prayer and read it separately and discuss it during a meeting.

So, under the goal of developing a supreme love for God, we’ve discussed the biblical command to do it. We’ve discussed the motivation which is appreciation for all that a gracious and merciful God did for a wretch like me, and we’ve discussed a little bit about how we express that love to God in communication with Him. Prayer is how we communicate with God, but how does He communicate with us? Through His Word.

The next major characteristic grows out of and is an expression of love for God. Christ says, “If you love me you will keep my commandments” (John 14:15). Therefore, the disciple must know His commandments, which means he must be devoted to knowing and obeying God’s Word. The next characteristic also completes the communication process begun just above. If we pray to communicate with God, then one of the ways He communicates back to us is through his Word.

Devotion to God’s Word

Once a person is saved, interested in becoming a disciple, and has affirmed his love and desire for relationship with Christ, we should stress that Scripture is God’s instruction to us for knowing Him, knowing His will for our lives and for learning how to love God and people. He needs to have an understanding of the importance of the Word and a model for studying.

Importance

  • John 8:31. Abiding or obeying God’s word is a sign of discipleship. It sets us free from Satan, sin, death, etc. This is motivation. John 14:15
  • Psalm 119 makes many statements about the importance of God’s word and the benefits of following it. Go over some of the word pictures about scripture such as the Word is a lamp, sword, etc.
  • Psalm 19 describes the communication process between God and man.

God speaks to us on the left side of the diagram through his world and His Word. We have called this natural revelation and special revelation.

We speak to God on the right side of the diagram. Our prayer is a response to His Word, His special revelation. Our praise is a response to His world, His natural revelation. Of course we can also praise Him for things we learned about Him from His Word, but most of the praise in the Psalms is about God’s work in creation.

Christ is central to this whole process. He is the final revelation. He is our intercessor. We go to God through Christ. We pray in Jesus’ name. John 1 says that the light came into the world and was the light of men… . Jesus was the Creator and has enlightened every man through creation (natural revelation) and He came in person (special revelation).

When Satan wants to attack this process and keep us from worshipping God, where does he start? Does he come into the church and have demons disrupt the service? Not usually. That would more than likely motivate Christians to stand strong against him. He is more subtle than that. Instead, he works on destroying the left side of the circle.

How has Satan attacked natural revelation? Special revelation? Christ? God?

  • Through evolution which attacks the general revelation. It says, God didn’t make the world.
  • Through rationalism, which says, God didn’t write the Word. The Bible is not the truth. There is no truth. Relativism is closely related.
  • Through liberalism, which says, Christ is not God.
  • Through existentialism which goes so far as to say God is dead.

Satan knows that if he can cut off the left side of the diagram, he makes the right side ineffective because we have nothing to respond to. Proverbs 28:9 says, when a person will not listen to the law, even his prayers are an abomination. If I’m not listening to the left side, my prayer is an abomination to Him. If we aren’t taking in the Word, we won’t even pray except when we want something. Our prayer is to be a dialogue, not a monologue of requests. So, if we aren’t taking it in, there is static on the line. That is the connection between the Word and prayer.

  • Use the hand illustration from the Navigators to show the importance of the Word and the five things we need to do to get a firm grip on it. Hear (Rom. 10:17), Read (Rev. 1:3), Study (Acts 17:11), Memorize (Psa. 119:1,9) and Meditate (Psa. 1:2-3)
  • 2 Timothy 3:16. Discuss profitability, inerrancy, inspiration.

Study Method

We used the illustration of bringing a new baby home and how we wouldn’t dream of just letting him fend for himself from day one. We can go back to the baby analogy for this point. When your child is about a year old, he is going to want to try to feed himself. At first he is going to make a big mess. He will miss his mouth, get it in his nose, hair, ears, etc. Our tendency is to want to do it for him since we are much more efficient, and we don’t make messes that have to be cleaned up later. It is the same with a new Christian. He needs to be taught to study on his own. He can’t depend his whole life on the Sunday sermon for his information. At first he may not do it very well, he may make a mess, but with practice, he will learn to feed himself.

Using the model laid out in 2 Timothy 3:16, teach him the basics of studying the Word.

Teaching

What does a passage teach us? Teach the disciple what questions to ask: who, what, when, where, why, how. This step involves observation of the broader context, and the details within the passage.

Reproof

How should this passage convict us? How are we failing in this area? What should we stop doing?

Correction

What do we need to do? The Bible never gives a negative (reproof) without supplying a positive command to fill the void in our lives.

Instruction in Righteousness

What will it look like if we do the right thing? What will righteousness look like in the various areas of my life? We are going to talk about that in the next couple of characteristics of the disciple.

Howard Hendricks teaches a Bible Study Methods course at Dallas Theological Seminary and has four basic steps to follow: Observation, Interpretation, Application, Correlation. These four steps in 2 Timothy 3:16 parallel the four steps in Hendricks’ course.

    1. Teaching

    Observation/Interpretation

    2. Reproof

    Application

    3. Correction

    Application

    4. Instruction in Righteousness

    Correlation

Evaluation: Ask the disciple if he will commit to consistently spending 30 minutes each day on his own, reading and studying God’s Word. And ask him to commit to meet with us each week so we can do it together. The first time, show him how to work through the four steps. Then in consecutive weeks, each person studies a passage on his own and then discuss each other’s findings during the meeting. As we work through the rest of the discipleship characteristics and study the verses associated with each, we should help him learn how to use this study method.

Also, as the disciple looks into the Word it will help him see himself and help him see things that he needs to change. One of those is his attitude about himself. Thus the next characteristic:

Denial of Self

The command to deny ourselves comes from Mark 8:34. The parallel passages are in Matthew 10:38 and Luke 9:23. These passages are addressed to both the multitudes and the disciples. Therefore, denial of self is a requirement of both salvation and sanctification. Paul says in Galatians 3 that we live the Christian life the same way we began the Christian life. That is why Jesus says the same thing to both unbelievers and believers. What does it mean to deny self, take up the cross and follow Jesus?

A person can control his life and refuse to drink alcohol or coffee, or smoke, or eat meat, dance, go to movies, watch TV, not drive a car, etc. Is that self-denial? Yes. Is that the denial Jesus is talking about? No. Biblical self-denial is not some monastic life of asceticism.

Galatians 5:16f is a good passage to look at as a background to this principle. This passage shows us that the desires of the flesh are the opposite of the desires of the Holy Spirit. That is why we need to say no to ourselves. There is a conflict between the works of the flesh—what we do—and the fruit of the Spirit—what God does through us.

Denial involves limiting ourselves and our natural desire to want to do things out of the energy of the flesh. Our natural tendency is to want to take control of our own lives, the situations around us and the people around us in order to find happiness. Someone who moves to a monastery, gives up drinking, smoking and women is exercising the ultimate fleshly control over his life. But that is not the self-denial that Jesus is talking about.

It’s interesting to think about monks and monasteries. I don’t think that God really likes that lifestyle. He wants us to be in the world but not of the world. But, in spite of that, God has used monks throughout history to preserve his written Word, to get it translated into other languages, etc. It just shows that God can use us even when we are lopsided in our theology or application of it.

What kind of self-denial is He talking about? Under this characteristic we need to deal with three issues:

  • A proper self-identity—Before we can deny ourselves we need to have a proper view of ourselves.
  • Self-denial in relation to God.
  • Self-denial in relation to man.

A Proper Self-Image

Before we can properly deny ourselves we need to have a proper view of ourselves. People usually go to one of two extremes in their view of themselves. They either think too lowly or too highly of themselves.

Romans 12:3 is a good passage to launch this topic.

I went to an Exchanged Life conference a few months ago and it was very good. They dealt with the problem of having a proper self-identity. One of the speakers pointed out that we all have needs which need to be met. We perform deeds to try to meet those needs. As time progresses, we continue to do those deeds that worked for us and they become habits. After a time, those actions seem normal and we look at our deeds and begin to derive our self-identity from what we do. Some people have well adjusted flesh that seems to work well and usually have a fairly positive self-identity. Others have poorly adjusted flesh—maybe they are too passive, too violent, etc. Their flesh doesn’t work so well and they begin to have a negative self-image. What we need to do is have a self-image based on who we are in Christ. Our self-image is based on our relationship with God.

We might develop a study on the self-image to work through the different wrong attitudes that the disciple might have. Ask him questions that require him to describe his view of himself. When he identifies a characteristic that is too low or too high, we would take him to passages that show the balanced self-image.

Evaluation: Ask the disciple to evaluate his thoughts over the next week to see if he projects these wrong images and then help him think through the proper attitudes. Then move to the importance of self-denial and show him how he must deny himself in two ways: in relation to God and in relation to man.

In Relation to God

We have discussed the flesh and how it is opposite of what God wants to do through us through the power of the Holy Spirit. It is important to understand our insatiable desire to control every aspect of our lives—both circumstances and other people. The disciple needs to turn control over to God and follow His leadership. Since God has proven His love for us and He is omniscient, omnipotent, etc., we need to deny ourselves and place ourselves under His will and submit to His authority.

Passages:

  • Hosea 2:5-7. Gomer tried to find life in illegitimate relationships. We try to find life in the same way or through materialism, prestige, etc. God blocks our attempts to drive us back to Him. Show through the example of Gomer and Hosea’s responses this concept in detail. Discuss how you, the mentor, have learned this lesson. Reveal what you do to try to find happiness apart from God. How has God blocked your attempts to find life without Him?
  • Jeremiah 2:14. Broken cisterns represent our futile attempts to find life apart from God. They don’t hold water.
  • The life of Jacob is a great illustration of someone who spent his whole life trying to manipulate those around him. He finally gave up (during his wrestling match with God) and God was able to bless Him.
  • Matthew 6:24-7:11 shows that God is our Heavenly Father and He will take care of us. If a person doesn’t believe this, he will never deny self (i.e. give up control). He will never let go of trying to control his own life. Discuss the issue of trusting in material things and why we won’t depend on our Heavenly Father who loves us and will do what is good for us.
  • This vertical aspect of denying ourselves is necessary to fulfill Christ’s commands to “follow Him” in Matthew 16:24, Mark 8:34 and Luke 9:23.
  • Luke 9:57-62 shows self-denial in giving up comforts, cares, family in order to follow Christ. Discuss what that might mean for the disciple.

Evaluation: Ask the disciple if he is willing to stop trying to control his life, to trust God to provide for him and follow His leading. Ask him to evaluate whether or not he is too attached to the things of this world such as family, comforts, things, etc. How would he feel about going to the mission field, etc.? If we are not willing to go, then maybe we are too attached to our “stuff.”

In Relation to Others

Another way the flesh operates to control its surroundings is to try to control people. Although this really is part of surrendering control to God, how we deal with people is such a major area of our lives we need to treat it in great detail.

We naturally try to manipulate others to meet our own perceived needs and goals and to protect ourselves from pain.

There are several ways we can do this:

  • We can withdraw—being a loner, introverted, giving someone the silent treatment, being preoccupied with projects, crafts, work, hobbies are all ways of keeping others at a distance so that they can’t hurt us.
  • We can dominate others—by being dictatorial, demanding or pushy, overbearing, intimidating others (perhaps with a know it all or dogmatic attitude, by yelling or swearing at them, or by use of guilt).
  • We can be self-sufficient—being a perfectionist, legalistic, etc. If we’re not dependent on others then they won’t let us down.
  • We can be self-indulgent—impulsive, hasty, compulsive shopping, eating sprees, getting drunk, etc.
  • We can be insensitive—uncaring, indifferent, unsympathetic.
  • We might resist authority—be uncooperative, unteachable, argumentative, stubborn, etc.
  • We can be pessimistic—if we always expect the worst, then we won’t be disappointed so much, or at least we deny our disappointment.
  • We can be critical—always finding fault with others or myself.

These are some of the ways that we manipulate and control others.

We talked about the flesh being opposite of the Spirit; well these traits are certainly opposite of the fruit of the Spirit mentioned in Galatians 5:22. We often hear people say, “I’m just a loner, or I’ve always been a perfectionist …” like it is okay, and as if it is supposed to excuse us. But it is not okay.

We need to learn to deny self, deny trying to control those around us, and stop trying to protect ourselves from those around us. When we stop doing these things mentioned above it will leave us vulnerable—but that is where God wants us. That is where He can use us the most. Read Romans 12. The whole chapter shows that we need to sacrifice ourselves for the good of the community so we can serve others. What does it mean to sacrifice?

This is a very misunderstood concept. Usually people think of sacrifice simply as servant-like acts of kindness. Although those are included, a person can be subservient and act like a doormat without engaging in relationship with others. People can also perform the “sacrificial” acts of a servant and have a martyr attitude which in reality causes bitterness or withdrawal into a shell. The reason for the sacrifice is so we can move into the lives of others to make an impact in their lives and help them grow. Jesus is the example. He came to earth to die for us so that we could have a relationship with Him. His sacrifice was the willingness to be rejected, to be hurt and to die for us so that He could sanctify us.

Passages:

  • Ephesians 5:25f: Christ is our example. Show how this would work out in a relationship like marriage. For example: willingness to engage one’s spouse in deep conversation or confrontation and risking being hurt (the true meaning of sacrifice) in the verbal onslaught, silent treatment, etc. that might follow if the spouse is not receptive to the confrontation. Or risking ridicule if one is revealing hopes or fears. The preceding context of Ephesians 4:30 shows that it grieves the Spirit when we fail to enter into relationship with others. So, denial of self means denying myself the self-protection that I long for and denying myself the tendency to want to control my wife.
  • Exodus 20:12-17: Why are most of the commands negative? Because loving others involves limiting oneself. Discuss why. Use Matthew 5-7 to explain full meaning of Ten Commandments.
  • Romans 14: The law of love—not eating, drinking, etc. out of concern for others to avoid making them stumble. The way we might approach this topic with a disciple in a friendship context is when the topic of drinking comes up.

Evaluation: Ask the disciple if he is willing to work on limiting himself and his natural inclinations for the good of others.

Self-denial in relation to God and others is very important. We started off by talking about having a proper self-image. We can’t sacrifice ourselves and be vulnerable if we are insecure about our identity. If we derive our identity and security from our bank account or the way others respond to us, then we are not going to stop trying to control life and other people. What is ironic is that we cannot control life or others. It doesn’t work. That is why there are so many miserable people out there having panic attacks, getting divorces, caught up in various addictions, etc.

As the disciple begins to try to deny himself and tries to show love for others, he is certainly going to find himself with the same frustration as Paul in Romans 7. This may be a good time to discuss the role of the Holy Spirit in enabling him to deny himself and do the things he now wants to do. An explanation of Romans 6-8 and the old and new natures should be in order. In Romans 6 there is the new nature/disposition along with the old nature/disposition and we do not need to be subject to old one. In Romans 7 we see that we can choose to obey the new nature, but we cannot do it on our own. Romans 8 shows us we need the Spirit. Also use Galatians 5:16, Ephesians 5:18 to show the role of the Holy Spirit.

When we stop trying to control others and keep others at a distance to protect ourselves, it frees us up to really love others and that leads us to the next characteristic …

Showing Love to Others

This principle comes from Jesus when he summarized the law with the commands to love God and love our neighbor in Matthew 22:39 and Paul’s summary in Galatians 5:14; Romans 13:8f.

Passages:

  • Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37). One of my favorite passages for showing this relationship between love for God and love for people is the parable of the Good Samaritan. Although the priest and Levite had just finished worshipping God (love for God), they refused to help the injured man (love for people) and showed through their hypocrisy that they did not love God. The one who showed love for his neighbor, proved by his actions that he really loved God more than the priest and Levite and he was the one who was on the inside (in the kingdom).

Ask the disciple what it would mean to love his neighbor and challenge him to broaden his concept of who his neighbor is. Teach how the principle of love for our neighbor works out in various areas of our lives. Which areas we focus on would depend on the disciple’s needs.

Ephesians 5:18f gives us a good outline for this: It says, be filled with the Spirit and if we are it will affect our relationships in the church, in our marriage, with our children, with our parents, with subordinates and superiors.

Church

  • Spiritual Gifts—Romans 12, 1 Corinthians 12, Ephesians 4. The goal of our gifts is service/love for others in the body as seen in lesson 2.
  • Unity—Ephesians 4:1f, 1 Corinthians, Romans 12.
  • Judging—Matthew 7:1f. After sharing the ethic of the law in a deeper sense than the scribes and Pharisees, Jesus says don’t judge. The difficulty with all that we understand is that we become critical of others who don’t understand as much as we do. This is how subtle that bent of the soul is. Right when we think about loving, the tendency is to criticize someone for not loving the way we know they ought. “Do not judge” does not mean don’t discern, but does mean don’t condemn, criticize.
  • Church discipline—Matthew 18: Involves confrontation procedures but the goal is restoration—repentance and forgiveness.

Family

  • Husband/wife relationship—Ephesians 5-6. Issues of love, sacrifice, authority, submission.
  • Divorce and remarriage—Matthew 5:32; 19:9; 1 Corinthians 7. Issues of commitment, forgiveness and restoration.

Unforgiving Servant (Matt. 18:21f). Forgiveness means to cancel the debt and not try to make the offender pay us back. It is understanding that we are as evil as the offender and appreciating God’s forgiveness of us that allows us to do this. I’m convinced that most divorce is the result of not being able to forgive. And I don’t think it is any accident that the discussion on divorce in Matthew 19 follows the parable of the unforgiving servant.

Evaluation: Find out who he has not forgiven and ask him what it would mean for him to do so and challenge him to do it.

  • Children—Deuteronomy 6:, Ephesians 6:, Proverbs—training, discipline,
  • Parents—honoring, responsibility

Work

  • Relationship with superiors (Eph. 6). Example of Joseph’s loyalty, integrity, etc.
  • Relationship with subordinates—Example of Nehemiah’s sacrifice and refusal to take extra portion allowed him.
  • Relationship with peers (Matt. 18:21f). Example of the unforgiving servant—we can forgive because we have been forgiven.
  • Honesty on the job—Proverbs
  • Working diligently—Giving employer our best, not stealing from company—Proverbs.

World

  • Responsibility to government—taxes, military service (Rom. 13).
  • Responsibility for missions (Matt. 28:19-20). Spread of gospel in Acts as apostles moved out into the world.

In our discipleship process we see that this last characteristic—showing love for others—is dependent on successful adoption of the other characteristics. Unless we really love God and turn over control of our lives to Him, we won’t be able to love others.

Special Topics

Depending on the disciple’s needs we might use the following resources either at the end or during the process, as issues come up, to deal with special circumstances or problems he is facing. It will take several months to move through the above issues, but we should also take time to deal with any of the following areas:

  • Perhaps take a book like Growing in Christ put out by the Navigators which walks through several of the basic doctrines and gives numerous verses associated with each. Those topics not already covered would be studied.
  • Since we’ve been doing a lot of single verse or passage analysis over the last few months, we might teach him how to do synthesis of some book of the Bible like 1 Thessalonians, Habakkuk, Haggai, etc.
  • If he is married we might take him through a book like The Marriage Builder by Larry Crabb which is excellent on explaining one’s tendency towards manipulation versus ministry.
  • Perhaps use a book like Bold Love by Larry Crabb to talk about how to deal with problems with parents, spouses, etc. and deal further with issues of forgiveness, confrontation, etc.

Conclusion

Although this is an outline and proposed order of topics, each disciple is unique, with his own special needs, background, etc. We can’t just give a person a list of things to do to solve his problems. His problems will be solved or at least better handled when he adopts all of the above characteristics of a disciple.

Just remember, 90% of what a disciple learns is caught from the mentor’s life more than from his teaching. We need to place our emphasis on being his friend and let him see how we deal with things, how we study, pray, love, etc. Don’t just give him all the facts, help

Related Topics: Discipleship

Pages