Edition du printemps 2013

Sous la direction du

Dr Roger Pascoe,

Président de l’Institut pour la Prédication Biblique

Cambridge, Ontario, Canada

www.tibp.ca

Renforcer les capacités de l’Eglise dans la prédication biblique et le leadership

1ère Partie : La Preparation Du Predicateur

“Le prédicateur et l’œuvre de Dieu”(suite)

Par: Dr. Roger Pascoe,

Président de l’Institut pour la prédication biblique,

Cambridge, Ontario, Canada 

Dans le numéro précédent de cette Revue (voir l’édition du printemps 2013) nous avons commencé à aborder la question de la préparation spirituelle et personnelle du prédicateur, et c’est ce sujet que nous allons poursuivre dans le présent numéro. Nous avions souligné que, pour l’apôtre Paul, l’ordre de préparation commence premièrement la préparation du prédicateur, puis ensuite celle du message. En d’autres termes, avant que vous puissiez prêcher la Parole avec puissance, avec précision et avec crédibilité, vous devez être spirituellement et personnellement préparé et qualifié pour le faire. L’apôtre Paul appelle «homme de Dieu» une personne qui est qualifiée pour prêcher la Parole de Dieu.

Un homme de Dieu c’est quelqu’un qui est reconnu par Dieu comme étant «éprouvé et vrai» - testé et approuvé par Dieu. Même si cela peut sembler un standard difficile à atteindre, les Saintes Écritures nous donnent quatre grandes choses auxquelles nous devons donner la priorité si nous voulons être qualifiés pour le privilège incomparable de la prédication de la Parole:

1. Protéger votre vie morale
2. Diriger votre vie de famille
3. Nourrir votre vie intérieure ou votre spiritualité
4. Discipliner votre vie du ministère

Dans le numéro précédent, nous avions commencé à examiner la question de la protection de votre vie morale, en étudiant deux textes: 2 Tim 2:22; 1 Tim 6:3-12. Dans ces textes, nous constatons que pour protéger sa vie morale l’homme de Dieu doit :

1. ... fuir les pièges du péché - ils peuvent détruire votre ministère
2. ... rechercher les vertus pieuses - ils renforceront votre ministère
3. ... livrer des batailles spirituelles - ils vont attaquer votre ministère

La dernière fois nous avons vu que l’homme de Dieu doit «fuir les pièges du péchés». Cette fois, nous allons examiner la deuxième et la troisième caractéristique de l’homme de Dieu.

L’HOMME DE DIEU DOIT RECHERCHER LES VERTUS PIEUSES - elles renforceront votre ministère. Tout en fuyant les pièges du péché ... nous devons rechercher les vertus divines. Le temps utilisé (impératif) implique un effort continu, continuer de «rechercher» ou de «poursuivre» ces vertus divines. Tout comme nous ne pouvons jamais dire que nous avons fini de fuir les pièges du péché, de même nous ne pourrons jamais dire que nous avons terminé de rechercher les vertus divines. C’est une occupation pour toute la vie - fuir l’un et poursuivre de l’autre.

Notre texte énonce ces vertus divines en trois parties. Tout d’abord, l’homme de Dieu doit rechercher la droiture et la piété (1 Tim 6:11).¹ La droiture et la piété sont les deux faces d’une même pièce, car la droiture décrit notre relation à Dieu et à la piété décrit le reflet de Dieu en nous.

La droiture dont il est question ici n’est pas la droiture de Christ qui nous est imputée au moment de notre conversion et que nous n’avons pas besoin de poursuivre. La droiture dont il s’agit ici c’est la droiture pratique que nous devons manifester en vivant selon la Parole de Dieu. C’est ce qu’un homme de Dieu fait - vivre en droiture devant Dieu et devant ses semblables. L’homme de Dieu doit poursuivre la «droiture»:

1) en cherchant la «parole de la justice (droiture)» (Héb 5 :13). Cela concerne la maturité dans la Parole de Dieu. Nous devons être habiles dans la «parole de la justice» en l’étudiant et la maitrisant de sorte que nous soyons en mesure de l’expliquer avec précision et de l’appliquer dans la pratique. Sans cette maturité dans la parole de justice, nous restons de simples «bébés» spirituels.

2) en cherchant la «pratique de la justice (droiture)». Cela concerne la conformité à la volonté de Dieu. «quiconque pratique la justice est né de lui.» (1 Jean 2:29). La pratique de la justice est la marque de tous ceux qui sont «nés de Dieu». Leur comportement est droit, honnête, juste, équitable. En tant qu’enfants de Dieu, ils reflètent sa nature. C’est une obligation pour celui qui est né de Dieu (1 Pierre1:14-16).

3) en cherchant «l’activité de la justice (droiture)». Cela concerne l’activité dans l’œuvre de Dieu, « les œuvres justes des saints» (Ap 19 :8). Cela signifie être «zélés pour les bonnes œuvres» pour lesquelles nous avons été créés en Jésus-Christ (Eph 2:10)

Stephen Olford a écrit: «Tout ce que nous disons et faisons doit être caractérisé par la rectitude morale (droiture) et l’intégrité dans le ministère qui découle d’une bonne relation avec Dieu. Notre prédication doit être une activité intègre, tout comme notre vie»²

AW Tozer écrit: «J’ai entendu toutes sortes de prédicateurs. J’ai entendu ceux qui sont ennuyeux, ceux qui sont assommants ; j’ai aussi entendu ceux qui sont éloquents. Mais ceux qui m’ont aidé le plus sont ceux qui étaient émerveillés dans la présence du Dieu dont ils parlent. Ils peuvent avoir un sens de l’humour, ils peuvent être avoir un air jovial, mais quand ils parlent de Dieu leur voix prend totalement un autre ton. Là c’est différent, c’est quelque chose de merveilleux. Je crois que nous devons avoir à nouveau le concept biblique de Dieu, ce concept qui rend Dieu majestueux et pousse les hommes à se mettre face contre terre et crier: «Saint, Saint, Saint est le Seigneur Dieu Tout-Puissant». Cela fera plus de bien à l’église ... que toute autre chose.»³

4) en cherchant le «chemin de la justice» (2 Pierre 2:21). Cela concerne l’obéissance à la vie de Dieu. Ceux qui connaissent «le chemin de la vérité» (2:2) recherchent la «voie de la justice». Nous devons rechercher la «voie de la justice» en marchant dans l’obéissance totale à Dieu en paroles, en actions et en pensées.

Ainsi, l’homme de Dieu doit poursuivre la droiture (notre relation à Dieu) et il doit poursuivre sa vertu jumelle, la piété (notre reflet de Dieu). La piété a à voir avec notre spiritualité, la manifestation de Dieu dans nos vies, notre «ressemblance à Dieu», ou, comme D.A. Carson l’a dit, notre connectivité à Dieu. C’est ce que nous appelons communément la spiritualité.

Comme 1 Tim 3:16 le dit le «mystère de la piété» a été pleinement révélé en Jésus-Christ. Il est notre modèle, notre exemple de piété. Ainsi, l’homme de Dieu doit poursuivre et manifester la piété en nourrissant sa vie spirituelle.

Pour que nos vies soient un reflet de Dieu et que d’autres puissent voir Dieu en nous, nous devons en d’autres termes être comme Dieu. Dieu dit: «Soyez saints car je suis saint» (1 Pierre 1:16), de sorte que les autres puissent dire: «je sais que cet homme qui passe toujours chez nous est un saint homme de Dieu» (2 Rois 4:9). C’est cela que signifie pour un homme de Dieu de poursuivre la piété.

Ainsi donc, le premier volet dans cette liste de vertus divines que l’homme de Dieu doit poursuivre c’est la droiture et la piété. Le deuxième volet des vertus divines exhorte l’homme de Dieu à poursuivre la foi et l’amour (1 Tim 6.11). La foi et l’amour sont des vertus internes. L’homme de Dieu doit développer et de démontrer la foi dans sa vie. Cela concerne notre confiance en Dieu. «La foi» est synonyme ici de «confiance absolue en Dieu pour tout, loyauté complète à Dieu, confiance inébranlable en Son pouvoir, Ses desseins et Sa provision »⁴

Nous vivons par la foi (cf. Rom 1:17), prions par la foi (cf. Matt 21:22), combattons par la foi (cf. Eph 6:16), triomphons par la foi (cf.1 Jean 5 :4), et mourrons par la foi (cf.Heb 11-13). En effet, «Sans la foi, il est impossible d’être agréable à Dieu» (Héb.11:6). «La foi vient de ce qu’on entend et ce qu’on entend vient de la parole de Dieu» (Rom 10:17) «le fruit de l’Esprit, c’est la bienveillance (la fidélité)» (Gal 5.22)

Outre le développement et la démonstration de la foi, l’homme de Dieu doit développer et démontrer l’amour. Cela signifie être bienveillant envers les autres (cf.2 Thess 1:3; Tit 2:2). L’amour dans le sens biblique n’est pas une sensation sentimentale, mais il agit toujours dans l’intérêt des autres (Phil 2:4). C’est l’amour dont il est question dans le plus grand commandement - Tu aimeras le Seigneur, ton Dieu, de tout ton cœur, de toute ton âme et de toute ta pensée, et ton prochain comme toi-même (Matt. 22:37-39). «Le fruit de l’Esprit, c’est l’amour» (Gal. 5.22) «l’amour de Dieu est déversé dans notre cœur par le Saint-Esprit qui nous a été donné» (Rm 5:5). «Tu aimeras le Seigneur, ton Dieu, de tout ton cœur, de toute ton âme, de toute ta pensée et de toute ta force, et ton prochain comme toi-même» (cf. Mc. 12:30-31). «Aimez les frères et sœurs» (1 Pierre. 2,17). «Aimez vos ennemis» (Matthieu 5:44) ; les maris doivent aimer leur femme comme leur propre corps» (Eph. 5:28)

Ainsi, l’homme de Dieu doit rechercher la droiture et la piété, la foi et l’amour, et, troisièmement, l’homme de Dieu doit rechercher la patience et la douceur (1 Tim 6:11). Tout comme la foi et l’amour sont des vertus internes, ces deux traits spirituels sont des vertus externes. La patience est l’exercice d’une forte discipline soumise a la seigneurie du Christ. C’est l’endurance pour l’amour de Christ en toutes circonstances. C’est l’endurance d’un soldat, d’un fermier, ou d’un athlète (2 Tim. 2:3-6). Avoir de la douceur c’est ressembler à Christ. Il a dit: «laissez-vous instruire par moi, car je suis doux et humble de cœur» (Mt 11:29). C’est une attitude d’humilité, c’est considérer les autres comme supérieurs à vous-mêmes (Phil. 2:3), c’est traiter les gens comme Christ les traiterait, avec la douceur et la bonté de Christ (2 Cor. 10.1).

Ainsi donc, l’homme de Dieu doit fuir les pièges du péché - ils peuvent détruire votre ministère. Deuxièmement, l’homme de Dieu doit poursuivre les vertus divines - ils renforcent votre ministère. Troisièmement, L’HOMME DE DIEU DOIT LIVRER DES BATAILLES SPIRITUELLES - Ils attaqueront votre ministère. “Combats le bon combat de la foi, saisis la vie éternelle» (1 Tim. 6:12-14).

Le ministère est un combat spirituel dans lequel nous confrontons constamment le monde, la chair, le diable et les mauvaises passions, les faux enseignements, les fausses valeurs. Ce n’est pas un combat contre la chair et le sang mais contre les esprits méchants dans les lieux célestes (Eph 6:12). Non seulement nous luttons contre les erreurs dans la croyance et le comportement, mais nous nous battons aussi pour la vérité, la foi donnée aux saints une fois pour toutes. Ce n’est pas «combattre» dans le sens de s’engager dans des controverses, mais c’est dans le sens de :

1) défendre notre confession chrétienne (12a). «Combats le bon combat de la foi» renvoie au contenu de la vérité (Jude 3) que nous devons défendre et proclamer. Donc, ne soyez pas fluctuant pas dans ce que vous croyez. Ne compromettez pas la vérité. Combattez pour «la foi» - l’énoncé de la vérité à laquelle nous croyons et que nous chérissons. C’est cela notre vocation en tant que chrétiens.

De même que Jésus n’a jamais fluctué dans la confession de vérité (il s’est accroché à sa confession même lorsqu’il était contre-interrogé par Pilate et sous la menace de la crucifixion), ainsi nous devons nous battre pour ce que nous savons et croyons. «Saisis la vie éternelle à laquelle tu as été appelé» - c’est-à-dire accompli le ministère avec l’éternité en vue. Prêchez la vérité que vous avez hardiment professée lorsque vous avez été sauvé. Faites de cette vérité de l’Evangile une réalité concrète dans votre vie et votre ministère. Gardez-la jusqu’à la fin, jusqu’à ce que vous obteniez le prix, sans changer de direction.

2) Garder la Commission Chrétienne (13-14). «garde le commandement reçu en vivant sans tache et sans reproche jusqu’à l’apparition de notre Seigneur Jésus-Christ». Ou encore, comme William Hendriksen l’a dit, l’homme de Dieu doit «garder sa commission sans tache et ni souillure jusqu’au jour même de sa mort ou la fin des temps si elle se produit avant ce moment ... autrement dit jusqu’à l’apparition de notre Seigneur Jésus-Christ.»⁵ Notre ministère doit être marqué par la pureté et la persévérance. Nous ne devons causer aucun opprobre au nom du Christ dans notre conduite et nous ne devons pas dévier de notre occupation dans le ministère. Ne modifiez pas votre direction, maintenez-la jusqu’à ce que vous franchissiez la ligne d’arrivée, jusqu’à ce que vous remportiez les batailles spirituelles de votre ministère.

2ème Partie : Le Leadership : Etre Un Modele Selon Le Cœur De Dieu

«Votre Sanctification Personnelle» (suite)

Par: Dr. Roger Pascoe,

Président de l’Institut pour la prédication biblique,

Cambridge, Ontario, Canada

Dans cette section, nous poursuivons notre étude sur ce que cela signifie d’être un modèle de piété en tant que leader chrétien. Cela concerne votre pureté personnelle. Dans les deux dernières éditions de la Revue Internet des Pasteurs, nous avons examiné la pureté personnelle dans notre conduite - dans notre comportement sexuel et notre éthique. Dans le présent numéro, nous examinons un autre aspect de la pureté dans notre conduite - LA PURETE DANS NOTRE CONDUITE SOCIALE. Cela concerne nos relations interpersonnelles.

En tant qu’homme de Dieu, vos relations interpersonnelles doivent refléter l’honnêteté et la franchise, l’ouverture et la transparence, et l’authenticité et l’humilité:

1) L’honnêteté et la franchise. Il s’agit d’un comportement éthique qui se manifeste dans nos relations sociales avec les autres. Les autres doivent nous reconnaitre comme des hommes de Dieu dont le «oui» est «oui» et dont le «non» est «non» (2 Cor. 1:17-20). Les autres ne devraient pas avoir à deviner ce que nous voulons dire vraiment. Les gens ne devraient jamais avoir à se demander si nous disons la vérité. Nos propos ne doivent pas être recouvert d’un vernis, ni notre communication enveloppée de mystère. Que nos paroles soient honnêtes et franches.

2) L’ouverture et la transparence. Imitons l’exemple de l’apôtre Paul, qui a dit aux Corinthiens: «Nous vous avons parlé ouvertement, nous vous avons largement ouvert notre cœur ... Maintenant en retour ... vous soyez aussi ouvert ... Faites-nous une place dans votre cœur! Nous n’avons fait de tort à personne, nous n’avons ruiné personne, nous n’avons exploité personne « (2 Cor. 6:11-13; 7:2).

Les hommes de Dieu ne doivent pas être sournois ou isolés. Les gens avec qui nous traitons devraient nous trouver accessibles et connaissables, parce que nous sommes ouverts et transparents. Je ne parle pas de révéler des informations confidentielles ou des choses qu’il ne serait pas sage de révéler. Mais je parle de nos relations sociales de tous les jours dans lesquelles d’autres personnes devraient être capables de communiquer facilement avec nous parce que nous sommes chaleureux et conviviaux ; parce que nous sommes des hommes de Dieu qui ont vécu les mêmes déceptions, porté les mêmes fardeaux, et confronté les mêmes tentations que les autres.

Les autres doivent être en mesure de voir que nous sommes faillibles et vulnérables, mais fidèle et honnête envers Dieu. En d’autres termes, nous construisons la confiance dans nos relations sociales avec d’autres personnes précisément parce que nous pouvons nous identifier avec eux dans les circonstances de leur vie et, par conséquent, nous pouvons sympathiser avec eux. De cette façon, nous établissons des relations avec des personnes de sorte à leur donner confiance en nous, et que nous puissions les aider à porter leurs fardeaux.

L’apôtre Paul a précisé aux Corinthiens que ses relations sociales, et interpersonnelles étaient l’exact opposé de ces faux enseignants qui ne font que «falsifier la parole de Dieu» (2 Cor. 2.17) et qui sont caractérisés par la ruse et la tromperie. Ce n’est pas ce que nous sommes, dit-il. Au contraire, sa conduite a été marquée par la sincérité devant Dieu (2 Cor. 2:17). «Nous rejetons les actions honteuses qui se font en secret, nous ne nous conduisons pas avec ruse et nous ne falsifions pas la parole de Dieu. Au contraire, en faisant connaître clairement la vérité, nous nous recommandons à toute conscience d’homme devant Dieu» (2 Cor 4:2). C’est ca la norme pour nous tous dans le ministère.

3) L’authenticité et l’humilité. L’authenticité a à voir avec qui vous êtes vraiment - ne cherchez pas à ressembler à une personne en public tout en étant une autre en privé. L’hypocrisie ne pas avoir de place dans un homme de Dieu. Nous devons être des hommes dont la vie et les relations sont exactement ce qu’ils apparaissent à l’extérieur pour les autres. Voilà ce que c’est que d’être authentique dans nos relations - pas de faire semblant d’être des saints hommes de Dieu, alors qu’en réalité, nous cachons un secret, une double vie. Rappelez-vous que Jésus détestait l’hypocrisie.

L’humilité va de paire avec authenticité. Une personne humble c’est quelqu’un qui ne cherche pas à attirer l’attention sur lui-même. Ne pensez pas que parce que vous êtes un responsable dans l’église que vous êtes «quelqu’un» et que vous devez toujours être le centre de l’attention. En fait, vous êtes le serviteur de tous (Mc 9:35).

L’orgueil est le contraire de l’humilité. L’apôtre Paul met en garde ceux qui manquent d’humilité: «Si quelqu’un enseigne une autre doctrine et ne s’attache pas aux saines paroles de notre Seigneur Jésus-Christ et à l’enseignement qui est conforme à la piété, il est aveuglé par l’orgueil, il ne sait rien, il a la maladie des controverses et des querelles de mots. C’est de là que naissent les jalousies, les disputes, les calomnies, les mauvais soupçons» (1 Tim. 6:3-4). L’apôtre Jacques a dit: «Dieu résiste aux orgueilleux, mais il fait grâce aux humbles» (Jacques 4:5; 1 Pet. 5:5). Et Paul dit encore: «Ne faites rien par esprit de rivalité ou par désir d’une gloire sans valeur, mais avec humilité considérez les autres comme supérieurs à vous-mêmes. Que chacun de vous, au lieu de regarder à ses propres intérêts, regarde aussi à ceux des autres» (Phil. 2:3-4).

Conclusion: Les hommes de Dieu doivent être connus pour la pureté dans leur conduite - sexuelle, éthique et sociale. Il est si facile de trébucher dans ces domaines et de gâcher votre témoignage ou, au pire, de ruiner votre ministère. Satan est si actif, en essayant de faire tomber les hommes pieux dans le péché par leur conduite et, par conséquent, déshonorer le nom de Christ. Satan n’aime pas ce que nous faisons et son objectif principal est d’attaquer notre ministère et si possible de le détruire. En le faisant, non seulement il provoque des ravages dans nos vies, mais aussi dans la vie de l’église, sans compter le ridicule et l’opprobre que peut subir le nom du Christ.

Ainsi, efforçons-nous de protéger nos vies morales, en étant des modèles de piété pour ceux que nous dirigeons et en tenant ferme à cause du Christ, afin que nous puissions terminer notre course avec joie, après avoir combattu le bon combat de la foi.

La prochaine fois, nous allons continuer le sujet sur comment être un modèle de piété à travers la pureté dans nos pensées, dans nos motivations, et dans nos paroles.

3ème Partie : Meditation

«Le ministère des vases de terre (section 1): la nature du ministère» (2 Cor. 4:7-16)

Par: Dr Roger Pascoe,

Président de l’Institut pour la prédication biblique,

Cambridge, Ontario, Canada 

Si ce Dieu dont parle Paul est si puissant qu’il peut commander à la lumière de briller du sein des ténèbres, et s’il peut faire briller la lumière dans nos cœurs pour nous révéler sa gloire, pourquoi est-ce que les instruments humains dont il se sert dans le ministère sont si défaillants et impuissant? Pourquoi y a t-il un tel contraste entre la puissance et la gloire de Dieu d’une part et la faiblesse et la fragilité du serviteur de Dieu d’autre part? C’est cela le paradoxe du ministère. Dieu utilise des messagers faibles pour proclamer un message puissant afin qu’il n’y ait aucun doute quant à la nature et la source divines du message.

Nous verrons que l’apôtre Paul utilise une série de paradoxes pour décrire le ministère. Cet article va examiner le premier paradoxe: le faible messager comparé au puissant message.

LA PUISSANCE POUR LE MINISTERE. L’apôtre Paul la décrit comme un trésor glorieux contenu dans un vase de terre. «Mais nous avons ce trésor dans des vases de terre ...» (4:7a). «Ce trésor» c’est ce que l’apôtre Paul a désigné plus haut comme étant l’Évangile de la gloire de Christ (4:3-4); la lumière de la connaissance de la gloire de Dieu visible sur la face de Jésus-Christ (4:6). Le message que nous prêchons est le «trésor». Les «vases d’argile» sont les serviteurs, les agents humains en qui le trésor est incarné (incarné et manifesté), et par qui elle est proclamée. C’est le paradoxe du ministère - le contraste entre la gloire du message et l’incroyable faiblesse du serviteur que Dieu utilise pour proclamer ce message.

L’image ici est celle d’un pot fragile, cassable, un pot d’argile sans valeur qui contient un trésor. Cette image dépeint des mortels fragiles et faibles qui contiennent un trésor divin, qui est l’Évangile de Jésus-Christ.

Le contraste entre le «trésor» et le «vase de terre» est intentionnel - «afin que l’excellence de la puissance soit de Dieu et non de nous» (7b). Dieu a conçu le ministère de cette façon paradoxale, en utilisant des messagers humains pour proclamer son message divin afin mieux démontrer la source, la puissance, le caractère extraordinaire, et l’effet surnaturel de l’Evangile par les moyens mêmes qu’il choisit pour l’annoncer et l’afficher, à savoir, des instruments humains faibles et fragiles. Puisque l’Evangile transforme si radicalement la vie, il ne peut pas s’agir que d’un message purement humain, son auteur ne peut être que Dieu. Le puissant message de Dieu n’est pas limité par la faiblesse extrême de l’homme - au contraire, il est renforcé par celle-ci. Tel est le cas pour tous les serviteurs de l’Évangile: nous sommes faibles juste pour que la puissance de Dieu puisse se manifester à travers nous. C’est ainsi que c’était avec Gédéon et ses 300 hommes, qui a mis en fuite les Madianites en se contentant de rompre leurs vases de terre de sorte que la lumière puisse briller (Juges 7:15; Héb. 11:34). Et il en est ainsi avec nous - dans notre faiblesse avouée et évidente, Dieu manifeste sa puissance et sa gloire.

Cela nous donne une bonne perspective sur le ministère. Nous pouvons être reconnaissants pour notre faiblesse corporelle et nos limitations mentales, parce que c’est ce que Dieu utilise pour apporter la gloire à lui-même. Le messager est faible, dépendant, et temporel, mais le message est puissant, souverain et éternel. Nous sommes des créatures formées à partir de la poussière de la terre, et que Dieu dans sa grâce a choisi pour porter son nom, son évangile.

C’est cela la puissance paradoxale du ministère. Ensuite nous avons, LES PRESSIONS DU MINISTERE (4:8-9). Paul prend des exemples dans sa propre vie pour montrer la façon dont il a vécu le paradoxe de sa propre faiblesse humaine contrastée avec la puissance surabondante de Dieu. Malgré les circonstances les plus écrasantes dans sa vie, Dieu l’a toujours délivré. Ce qui humainement parlant semblait impossible n’était pas du tout un problème pour Dieu. Il a connu ...

         La pression: «pressés de toute part ... mais pas écrasés». Satan veut nous accabler au travers des pressions quotidiennes, mais il ne peut pas nous écraser.

         La perplexité: «perplexes ... mais non dans le désespoir». des situations se produisent dans le ministère que nous ne pouvons pas comprendre. Nous ne savons pas quoi faire, mais nous ne désespérons pas.

         La persécution: «persécutés ... mais non abandonnés» (voir 2 Tim. 4:16-17; 2 Tim. 3:12; Jean. 16:33 Heb.13:5; Matt. 28:20).

         Les agressions physiques: «frappés ... mais pas détruits». Paul a été agressé par lapidation à Lystres (Actes 14:19 f) et laissé pour mort, mais il n’a pas été détruit car Dieu l’a ressuscité nouveau.

Ce sont la quelques-unes des expériences paradoxales de la faiblesse du messager par lequel le puissant message de Dieu est proclamé.

Ainsi, nous avons vu les paradoxes rencontrés dans les pressions du ministère. Maintenant, voyons LE BUT DU MINISTERE (4:10-12). Ces versets sont la somme des versets 8-9. La réalité pour les serviteurs authentiques, c’est que, paradoxalement, ils meurent afin de vivre. La faiblesse de l’instrument humain se manifeste en «portant toujours avec nous dans notre corps la mort du Seigneur Jésus» (10a). Mais, la puissance de Dieu se manifeste dans notre faiblesse précisément dans le but que «la vie de Jésus soit aussi manifestée dans notre corps» (10b). En tant que serviteurs de Christ, nous sommes unis au Christ afin que sa mort soit la nôtre et que sa vie devienne la nôtre. «Pour nous qui vivons sommes toujours livrés à la mort à cause de Jésus, afin que la vie de Jésus soit aussi manifestée dans notre chair mortelle» (11). Toute souffrance vécue par le serviteur du Christ l’est uniquement à cause de «l’amour de Jésus.» Nous ne désirons pas de telles expériences, et nous ne les infligeons pas à nous-mêmes. Mais plutôt, de même qu’il a souffert, nous aussi nous souffrons. De même que le monde le haïssait, il nous hait aussi. Alors que nous nous identifions à Christ, nous vivrons ce qu’il a vécu. Nous sommes «livrés à la mort pour Jésus», vivants comme mort au monde, mais vivants pour Dieu, car vivre c’est pour Christ et mourir est un gain.

En mourant avec le Christ, sa vie est «manifestée dans notre chair mortelle.» Nous portons les marques de la mort de Christ en nous-mêmes et nous manifestons aussi sa résurrection, sa vie glorifiée. «Ainsi donc, la mort travaille en nous, mais la vie en vous» (12). En d’autres termes, à travers les expériences de mort de Paul (persécuté, écrasé, terrassé etc.) il a apporté l’Évangile aux Corinthiens, ce qui a produit la vie en eux. Pour leur permettre de vivre dans le Christ, il devait mourir spirituellement et métaphoriquement parlant. En fin de compte, cela vaut la peine de supporter chaque épreuve. Il ya un but dans le fait d’être «livrés à la mort à cause de Jésus» - à savoir que d’autres pourront ainsi vivre en lui. Ce fut le cas pour Jésus lui-même. Il est mort afin que nous puissions vivre. Et ce cycle se reproduit maintenant en nous et continuera jusqu’à ce qu’il revienne.

Ceci est un principe biblique: la vie naît de la mort. «Si le grain de blé ne tombe en terre et ne meurt, il reste seul. Mais s’il meurt, il porte beaucoup de fruit « (Jean 12:24). Ainsi, des hommes et des femmes donnent leur vie (spirituellement et, dans certains cas, physiquement) dans le ministère chrétien afin que d’autres puissent vivre.

Enfin, abordons LA PERSPECTIVE DU MINISTERE (4:13-15). Malgré les pressions du ministère, nous servons dans la perspective de la foi, la foi nous pousse à parler de Christ. Paul dit: Ce que le psalmiste dit dans le Psaume 116 à propos de son esprit de foi est vrai pour moi: «J’ai cru, c’est pourquoi j’ai parlé» (13). Ce que nous disons exprime ce que nous croyons (cf. Rom. 10:9). Inversement, la croyance doit être exprimée en paroles.

Malgré les pressions du ministère, nous servons les autres dans la perspective de l’avenir. La résurrection du Christ constitue les prémices (le précurseur) et la garantie de notre résurrection. Tout comme Dieu «a ressuscité le Seigneur Jésus» d’entre les morts (cf. Eph. 1:19-20), ainsi il «nous ressuscitera aussi avec Jésus, et nous présentera avec vous.» Un jour, ceux qui sont les fruits de notre ministère seront «présentés» avec nous devant Dieu (cf. Col. 1:22, 28).

La perspective de notre propre résurrection à venir, ainsi que celle de ceux que nous avons servis constitue notre encouragement pour le ministère ; cela en dépit de ce que nous vivons comme expérience, y compris la souffrance et la mort (cf. vv. 8-11). «Toutes choses» (15) - toutes les expériences dans le ministère - sont «pour pour vous» (ceux que nous servons). Ce que nous souffrons pour le Christ s’étend à ce que nous souffrons pour son peuple, afin que, paradoxalement, à travers nos expériences de souffrance et de difficultés, la grâce de Dieu se propage à un grand nombre et fasse «abonder des actions de grâces à la gloire de Dieu.» C’est cela la bonne perspective de ministère.

«Par conséquent, nous ne perdons pas courage» (4:16a). Remarquez comment cette phrase encadre ce passage au verset 1 et encore ici au verset 16. Tout ce qui est dit entre les deux (vv. 2-15) est une explication de la raison pour laquelle «nous ne perdons pas courage» dans le ministère. Et tout ce passage renvoie au ministère décrit dans 3:7-18 et dans 4:16 à 5:11, qui voit la mort physique comme la fin ultime des souffrances présentes dans le ministère.

Ainsi, la logique est la suivante:

1. Une image du glorieux ministère de la nouvelle alliance (3:7-18).
2. Ce ministère nous amène à ne pas perdre courage en dépit des circonstances (4:1-16a).
3. Même si nous mourons physiquement au cours de notre ministère, nous ne perdons pas courage à cause de la perspective d’une future résurrection (4:16-5 :11).

C’est facile de perdre courage dans le ministère, mais voici la bonne perspective: vivons comme des gens qui sont prêts à mourir pour l’Évangile. Ne laissons pas les circonstances, les perplexités, ou l’abattement nous détourner du ministère. C’est le prix à payer pour être un véritable serviteur de l’évangile par amour pour Jésus et par amour pour son peuple.

4ème Partie : Plans De Predication

Par: Dr Roger Pascoe,

Président de l’Institut pour la prédication biblique,

Cambridge, Ontario, Canada

Jean 4:1-22, Le Dialogue De Jésus Avec La Samaritaine, Section 1

Pour la version audio anglaise de ces messages, cliquez sur ces liens: Link 1 - Jean 4:1-3; Link 2 - Jean 4:4-11; Link 3 - Jean 4:12-14; Link 4 - Jean 4:14-18

Titre: L’approche d’évangélisation du maître

Sujet: Surmonter les barrières spirituelles et sociales de l’évangélisation

Point n° 1: Surmonter les obstacles sociaux (7-9)

1. En rejetant les préjugés culturels

2. En s’engageant dans une conversation personnelle

Point n° 2: Passer à la vérité spirituelle (10-15)

1. En passant du physique au spirituel (10-12)

2. En passant de ce qui est temporel à ce qui est éternel (13-15)

Point n° 3: Toucher la conscience coupable (16-18)

1. En sollicitant une admission volontaire (16-17a)

2. En proclamant la révélation divine (17b-18)

---

¹ Adapté de Stephen Olford, La prédication par exposition ointe (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1998), p.43-44

² Olford, ibid., p.44

³ AW Tozer, cité par Austin L. Sorenson, dans Aides pour le pupitre Avril 1979

⁴ John MacArthur, «L'homme de Dieu», dans La Bible d’Etude du Croyant (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1991), 1866

⁵ William Hendriksen, «Commentaire sur 1 Timothée» dans Exposé sur les épîtres pastorales (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1957), 205

"Since your right eye offends you, pluck it out"?

Not "Since"

Several years ago a student at a Christian college in a major mid-western city was reading the Sermon on the Mount. This pious young man came across Matt 5:29 (“if your right eye offends you, pluck it out”). His understanding of Greek was that because this was a first class condition, it meant since. And, obedient to Scripture, he proceeded to gouge his eye with a screwdriver! The young man survived the attack, but lost his eye.¹

This crude story illustrates in a dramatic way the seriousness of knowing well the biblical languages. One of the most popular errors preached in our pulpits today starts out something like this: "In Greek, this is a first class condition. It really needs to be translated 'since.'" It is probably no exaggeration to say that countless thousands of preachers have opened with a line like that when expounding on some passage. Every year in first year Greek, when I ask whether the students had heard such a line from the pulpit, I get an almost universally positive response. The few who had not were almost always newer believers.

The motivation, in part, for such a view is simply that in several passages it is self-evident that the author believes the argument that he is making when he states it with the first class condition. Thus, for example, in 1 Cor 15:44 Paul declares "If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual [body]" [εἰ ἔστιν σῶμα ψυχικόν, ἔστιν καὶ πνευματικόν]. It is obvious that Paul believes in the existence of a physical body. Hence, many are prompted to translate this conditional particle as "since."

Or take 1 Thess 4:14 as an example: "For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with him those who are asleep through Jesus." Again, it is self-evident that Paul believes the protasis of the condition to be true. So why not translate it "since" as the NRSV does? The NIV here is even stronger: "We believe that Jesus died and rose again and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him." First John 4:11 also seems to fit this: "Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another." Who would dispute John's belief that God has loved us? Again the NRSV reads "since" as does the NIV. Cf. also the NIV in the following texts: 2 Cor 5:3; Gal 4:7; 5:25; Eph 4:21 ("surely"); Col 2:20; 3:1; 1 Pet 1:17; 2:3; 1 John 4:11. We will soon suggest that every one of these passages has been overtranslated.

On the one hand, it is an overly-facile and naive assumption that first class conditions mean "since."² Further, such a translation will wreak havoc with numerous passages. Note some of the following absurdities (which Prof. C. F. D. Moule would call "howlers"), if the first class condition were translated "since":

Matt 12:27 Since I cast out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your sons cast them out?

Matt 17:4 Lord, it is good for us to be here. Since you wish, I will make three tents here . . .

Matt 26:39 My Father, since it is possible, let this cup pass from me . . .

Luke 11:18 Since Satan is also divided against himself, how will his kingdom stand?

Luke 22:42 Father, since you are willing, remove this cup from me . . .

John 10:37 Since I am not doing the works of my Father, do not believe me . . .

Acts 25:11 Now since I am wrong and have committed a deed worthy of death, I am not refusing to die . . .

Rom 4:2 For since Abraham was justified by works, he has a basis for boasting . . .

Rom 4:14 For since those who follow the law are heirs, faith is canceled out and the promise is voided

1 Cor 7:9 But since they are not exercising self-control, they should get married.

1 Cor 8:13 Since food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat . . .

1 Cor 9:17 For since I do this willingly, I have a reward; but since I do it unwillingly, I have been entrusted with a stewardship

1 Cor 11:6 For since a woman will not veil herself, she should cut off her hair . . .

1 Cor 15:13 Now since there is no resurrection from the dead, neither has Christ been raised

1 Cor 15:19 Since in this life we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most miserable

1 Cor 15:32 Since the dead are not raised, "let us eat and drink for tomorrow we die."

Gal 2:21 For since justification comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing.

Gal 3:18 For since the inheritance is from the law, it is no longer from the promise.

Gal 5:11 Now brothers, since I am still preaching circumcision, why am still being persecuted?

Heb 9:13 For since the blood of goats and bulls . . . sanctifies those who have been defiled

Heb 12:8 Since you are without the discipline which all children share, then you are illegitimate and not sons

Jas 2:11 Now since you do not commit adultery, but since you murder, you have become a transgressor of the law.

I have supplied several verses to show that this is not an isolated phenomenon. To see the first class condition as meaning "since" is saying too much. For one thing, this view assumes a direct correspondence between language and reality, to the effect that the indicative mood is the mood of fact. For another, this view is demonstrably false for conditional statements: in apparently only 37% of the instances, according to J. L. Boyer, is there a correspondence to reality (to the effect that the condition could be translated since).

Not Simple

So much for the "since" view. But the pendulum has swung too far in another direction. Because of the compelling evidence that the first class condition does not always correspond to reality, some scholars have assumed that it is just a simple condition. This view goes back to a classical scholar, W. W. Goodwin: “When the protasis simply states a particular supposition, implying nothing as to the fulfillment of the condition, it has the indicative with εἰ.”³ The first class condition, in this view, is sometimes called the “simple condition,” “condition of logical connection,” or “neutral condition.” One might call this the “undefined condition” in that nothing can be said about the reality of the supposition.

But this view says too little. At bottom, it assumes a point of meaning for a syntactical structure, ignores the mood used (the indicative means something),⁴ and makes no distinction between the various conditions.⁵ All conditions can be said to make a logical connection between the two halves (e.g., the third class condition in Mark 8:3--ἐὰν ἀπολύσω αὐτοὺς νήστεις εἰς οἶκον αὐτῶν, ἐκλυθήσονται ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ [“If I send them to their homes starving, they will faint on the way”]). This is the nature of conditions in general, not just the first class condition. The question is not how little the first class condition says, but how much. What are its distinctives?⁶

Assumed True for the Sake of Argument

The force of the indicative mood, when properly understood, lends itself to the notion of presentation of reality. In the first class condition the conditional particle turns such a presentation into a supposition. This does not mean that the condition is true or means since! But it does mean that as far as the portrayal is concerned, the point of the argument is based on the assumption of reality.

Several examples will be provided to demonstrate this point. But three points need to be added.

First, even in places where the argument is apparently believed by the speaker, the particle εἰ should not be translated since. Greek had several words for since, and the NT writers were not opposed to using them (e.g., ἐπεί, ἐπειδή). There is great rhetorical power in if. To translate εἰ as since is to turn an invitation to dialogue into a lecture.⁷ Often the idea seems to be an encouragement to respond, in which the author attempts to get his audience to come to the conclusion of the apodosis (since they already agree with him on the protasis). It thus functions as a tool of persuasion. Note some of the illustrations below that demonstrate this point.⁸

Second, how can we tell whether a speaker would actually affirm the truth of the protasis? Context, of course, is the key, but a good rule of thumb is to note the apodosis: Does the logic cohere if both protasis and apodosis are true? Often when a question is asked in the apodosis, the author does not embrace the truth of the protasis. These are only simple guidelines. Where in doubt, check the broader context.

Third, not infrequently conditional sentences are used rhetorically in a way that goes beyond the surface structure. Hence, on one level the structure might indicate one thing, but on another level, an entirely different meaning is in view. For example, suppose a mother says to her child, “If you put your hand in the fire, you’ll get burned.” We could analyze the condition on a structural or logical level. These ought not to be ignored. But the pragmatic meaning of the statement is, “Don’t put your hand in the fire!” It is, in effect, a polite command, couched in indirect language.

Mt 12:27-28 εἰ ἐγὼ ἐν Βεελζεβοὺλ ἐκβάλλω τὰ δαιμόνια, οἱ υἱοὶ ὑμῶν ἐν τίνι ἐκβάλλουσιν; . . . 28 εἰ δὲ ἐν πνεύματι θεοῦ ἐγὼ ἐκβάλλω τὰ δαιμόνια, ἄρα ἔφθασεν ἐφ ᾿ ὑμᾶς ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ.

If I cast out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your sons cast them out? . . . (28) But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.

We have already seen that the particle in v 27 cannot be translated since. But leaving it as a mere simple condition is not saying enough. The force is “If--and let’s assume that it’s true for the sake of argument--I cast out demons by Beelzebul, then by whom do your sons cast them out? . . . But if--assuming on the other hand that this is true--I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.” This yields satisfactory results for both halves.

Matt 5:30 εἰ ἡ δεξιά σου χεὶρ σκανδαλίζει σε, ἔκκοψον αὐτὴν καὶ βάλε ἀπὸ σοῦ·

If your right hand offends you, cut it off and throw it from you!

Jesus often put forth a number of challenges to current Jewish orthodoxy, such as that appendages and external things are what defile a person. Reading the text in light of that motif yields the following force: “If--and let us assume that this is true for argument’s sake--your right hand offends you, then cut it off and throw it from you!” The following line only enforces this interpretation (“For it is better for you that one of your members should perish than that your whole body should be cast into hell”). Jesus thus brings the Pharisees’ view to its logical conclusion. It is as if he said, “If you really believe that your anatomy is the root of sin, then start hacking off some body parts! After all, wouldn’t it be better to be called ‘Lefty’ in heaven than to fry in hell as a whole person?”

The condition thus has a provocative power seen in this light. Just the opposite of Jesus’ affirming that appendages cause sin (as many have assumed, since a first class condition is used here), he is getting the audience to sift through the inconsistency of their own position. It is not the hands and eyes that cause one to sin, but the heart.

Luke 4:3 εἶπεν δέ αὐτῷ ὁ διάβολος· εἰ υἱὸς εἶ τοῦ θεοῦ, εἰπὲ τῷ λίθῳ τούτῳ ἵνα γένηται ἄρτος.

The devil said to him, “If you are God’s Son, tell this stone to become bread.”

The force of this is “If--and let us assume that it’s true for the sake of argument--you are God’s Son, tell this stone to become bread.” Apparently, the devil was from Missouri (the “Show Me” state)!

1 Thess 4:14 εἰ γὰρ πιστεύομεν ὅτι ᾿Ιησοῦς ἀπέθανεν καὶ ἀνέστη, οὕτως καὶ ὁ θεὸς τοὺς κοιμηθέντας διὰ τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ ἄξει σὺν αὐτῷ.

For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with him those who are asleep through Jesus.

Many modern translations render the particle since. Although it is certainly true that Paul embraced this as true, to translate it as since keeps the audience at an arm’s length. The sentence becomes a lecture rather than a dialogue. By translating it if, the audience is drawn into the argument of the apodosis. Their response would be something like, “If we believe that Jesus died and rose again? Of course we believe that! You mean that this indicates that the dead in Christ will not miss out on the rapture?” In such instances it is not the protasis that is in doubt, but the apodosis. (Further, to say that the connection is merely logical hardly does such texts justice.) Not infrequently in the NT, the speaker draws his audience to just such a connection, basing his argument on what both speaker and audience already embrace as true. These instances are not without exegetical significance. Cf., e.g., Rom 3:29, 30; 5:17; 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 3:29; 4:7; 2 Tim 2:11; Phlm 17; Heb 2:2-3; 1 Pet 1:17; 2:2-3; 2 Pet 2:4-9; 1 John 4:11; Rev 13:9; 20:15.

Rom 8:9 ὑμεῖς δὲ οὐκ ἐστὲ ἐν σαρκὶ ἀλλὰ ἐν πνεύματι, εἴπερ πνεῦμα θεοῦ οἰκεῖ ἐν ὑμῖν.

But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you.

Here the conditional particle is a spin-off of εἰ, strengthening the ascensive force. This looks very much like 1 Thess 4:14--i.e., it too seems to be a “responsive” condition. The audience would most likely respond along these lines: “If the Spirit of God dwells in us? Of course he does! And this means that we are not in the flesh but in the Spirit? Remarkable!”

In conclusion, understanding first class conditions is crucial if one is to handle the Word of God properly in an expository ministry. Sometimes our evangelical zeal is not according to knowledge. The danger of this naiveté is immense on both a behavioral and theological level.

---

¹ This essay is, in part, an excerpt from the salient points in my book, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996) 679-712 passim.

²Grammarians such as Gildersleeve, Roberts, Robertson, BDF, etc., have looked at conditions in light of the mood used and have argued that the indicative mood in first class conditions is significant. But their language has often been misunderstood: “assumption of truth” has been interpreted to mean “truth.”

³Goodwin-Gulick, Greek Grammar, 294 (§1400).

⁴This approach agrees that the indicative assumes the untruth of a proposition in the second class condition (J. L. Boyer, “Second Class Conditions in New Testament Greek,” GTJ 3 (1982) 82: “they enjoy more agreement on the part of the grammarians than the other types and are less problem [sic] for the exegete”). To argue that the indicative mood is a key indicator of meaning in one condition but not in the other argues against the validity of the overall scheme.

⁵Boyer argues that the logical connection view fits “every one of the 300 NT examples and are equally true of every one of them” (“First Class Conditions: What Do They Mean?” GTJ 2 [1981] 82). But this is a minimalist statement that could be said of all conditions--first, second, third, or fourth class.

⁶In Boyer’s treatment of conditions, he appeals to classical scholarship: “The classical grammarians along with the older NT scholars had the right idea” (“First Class Conditions,” 83). But this is a misleading statement, for Boyer is appealing to a particular view within classical scholarship, viz., Goodwin’s, that was itself a reaction to the standard view that went back to Gottfried Hermann. Gildersleeve took Goodwin to task for his avant garde position and rightly criticized him for ignoring the mood. Many if not most classical scholars sided with Gildersleeve against Goodwin.

⁷Although many translations do this in various places as we have seen, such translations miss the literary force of the conditional statement.

⁸This usage could be considered one of the pragmatic functions of conditions. Because of the high frequency in the NT of this responsive or persuasive protasis with first class conditions, however, we are equally justified in placing this usage here.

“5:7 For there are three that testify, 5:8 the Spirit and the water and the blood, and these three are in agreement.”  ‑‑NET Bible

Before τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, the Textus Receptus reads ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατήρ, ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα, καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι. 5·8 καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ (“in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 5:8 And there are three that testify on earth”). This reading, the infamous Comma Johanneum, has been known in the English-speaking world through the King James translation. However, the evidence—both external and internal—is decidedly against its authenticity. Our discussion will briefly address the external evidence.¹

This longer reading is found only in eight late manuscripts, four of which have the words in a marginal note.  Most of these manuscripts (2318, 221, and [with minor variations] 61, 88, 429, 629, 636, and 918) originate from the 16th century; the earliest manuscript, codex 221 (10th century), includes the reading in a marginal note which was added sometime after the original composition. Thus, there is no sure evidence of this reading in any Greek manuscript until the 1500s; each such reading was apparently composed after Erasmus’ Greek NT was published in 1516. Indeed, the reading appears in no Greek witness of any kind (either manuscript, patristic, or Greek translation of some other version) until AD 1215 (in a Greek translation of the Acts of the Lateran Council, a work originally written in Latin). This is all the more significant, since many a Greek Father would have loved such a reading, for it so succinctly affirms the doctrine of the Trinity.² The reading seems to have arisen in a fourth century Latin homily in which the text was allegorized to refer to members of the Trinity.  From there, it made its way into copies of the Latin Vulgate, the text used by the Roman Catholic Church.

The Trinitarian formula (known as the Comma Johanneum) made its way into the third edition of Erasmus’ Greek NT (1522) because of pressure from the Catholic Church. After his first edition appeared (1516), there arose such a furor over the absence of the Comma that Erasmus needed to defend himself. He argued that he did not put in the Comma because he found no Greek manuscripts that included it. Once one was produced (codex 61, written by one Roy or Froy at Oxford in c. 1520),³ Erasmus apparently felt obliged to include the reading. He became aware of this manuscript sometime between May of 1520 and September of 1521. In his annotations to his third edition he does not protest the rendering now in his text,⁴ as though it were made to order; but he does defend himself from the charge of indolence, noting that he had taken care to find whatever manuscripts he could for the production of his Greek New Testament. In the final analysis, Erasmus probably altered the text because of politico-theologico-economic concerns: he did not want his reputation ruined, nor his Novum Instrumentum to go unsold.

Modern advocates of the Textus Receptus and KJV generally argue for the inclusion of the Comma Johanneum on the basis of heretical motivation by scribes who did not include it. But these same scribes elsewhere include thoroughly orthodox readings—even in places where the TR/Byzantine manuscripts lack them. Further, these KJV advocates argue theologically from the position of divine preservation: since this verse is in the TR, it must be original. But this approach is circular, presupposing as it does that the TR = the original text. Further, it puts these Protestant proponents in the awkward and self-contradictory position of having to affirm that the Roman Catholic humanist, Erasmus, was just as inspired as the apostles, for on several occasions he invented readings—due either to carelessness or lack of Greek manuscripts (in particular, for the last six verses of Revelation Erasmus had to back-translate from Latin to Greek).

In reality, the issue is history, not heresy: How can one argue that the Comma Johanneum must go back to the original text when it did not appear until the 16th century in any Greek manuscripts? Such a stance does not do justice to the gospel: faith must be rooted in history. To argue that the Comma must be authentic is Bultmannian in its method, for it ignores history at every level.  As such, it has very little to do with biblical Christianity, for a biblical faith is one that is rooted in history.

Significantly, the German translation done by Luther was based on Erasmus’ second edition (1519) and lacked the Comma. But the KJV translators, basing their work principally on Theodore Beza’s 10th edition of the Greek NT (1598), a work which itself was fundamentally based on Erasmus’ third and later editions (and Stephanus’ editions), popularized the Comma for the English-speaking world. Thus, the Comma Johanneum has been a battleground for English-speaking Christians more than for others.

Unfortunately, for many, the Comma and other similar passages have become such emotional baggage that is dragged around whenever the Bible is read that a knee-jerk reaction and ad hominem argumentation becomes the first and only way that they can process this issue. Sadly, neither empirical evidence nor reason can dissuade them from their views. The irony is that their very clinging to tradition at all costs (namely, of an outmoded translation which, though a literary monument in its day, is now like a Model T on the Autobahn) emulates Roman Catholicism in its regard for tradition.⁵ If the King James translators knew that this would be the result nearly four hundred years after the completion of their work, they’d be writhing in their graves.

---

¹1For a detailed discussion, see Metzger, Textual Commentary, 2nd ed., 647-49.

²Not only the ancient orthodox writers, but also modern orthodox scholars would of course be delighted if this reading were the original one. But the fact is that the evidence simply does not support the Trinitarian formula here—and these orthodox scholars just happen to hold to the reasonable position that it is essential to affirm what the Bible affirms where it affirms it, rather than create such affirmations ex nihilo. That KJV advocates have charged modern translations with heresy because they lack the Comma is a house of cards, for the same translators who have worked on the NIV, NASB, or NET (as well as many other translations) have written several articles and books affirming the Trinity. 

³This manuscript which contains the entire New Testament is now housed in Dublin. It has been examined so often at this one place that the book now reportedly falls open naturally to 1 John 5.

⁴That Erasmus made such a protest or that he had explicitly promised to include the Comma is an overstatement of the evidence, though the converse of this can be said to be true: Erasmus refused to put this in his without Greek manuscript support.

⁵ Thus, TR-KJV advocates subconsciously embrace two diametrically opposed traditions: when it comes to the first 1500 years of church history, they hold to a Bultmannian kind of Christianity (viz., the basis for their belief in the superiority of the Byzantine manuscripts—and in particular, the half dozen that stand behind the TR—has very little empirical substance of historical worth). Once such readings became a part of tradition, however, by way of the TR, the argument shifts to one of tradition rather than non-empirical fideism. Neither basis, of course, resembles Protestantism.

9-16-04

The Authenticity of 1 Thess 2.13-16

Preface: Conjectural Emendation and an Evangelical Bibliology

1. Definition of Conjectural Emendation

Conjectural emendation normally refers to an addition to the text that has no manuscript (or versional or patristic) support. Such an emendation comes from the mind of an exegete who feels compelled to alter the text since it makes little sense as it stands. However, conjectural emendation can also refer to other kinds of textual alteration besides addition. Substitution, transposition, and omission are also conjectural emendations.

2. Definition of the Doctrine of Preservation

The doctrine of preservation states that the text of the Bible has been preserved in one or more of the external witnesses. In its most extreme form, this doctrine states that the majority of Greek MSS have preserved the text of the original.

a. But is it a true doctrine?

In my article, “Inspiration, Preservation, and New Testament Textual Criticism,”¹ I argued that (1) the doctrine of preservation is recent (first articulated in anything resembling a semi-official ecclesiastical document in the Westminster Confession of 1646);² (2) the major texts used to support cannot really be used to argue for it; (3) the view is bibliologically schizophrenic in that it does not work for the Old Testament (since OT scholars have to employ conjectural emendation in a few places). In short, this doctrine fails at the historical, exegetical, and empirical levels.

b. If not true, what can we say about the preservation of the text?

I prefer to speak about God’s providential care of the text without elevating such to the level of a doctrinal commitment that lacks biblical basis. It is obvious, on the basis of the empirical evidence, that God has cared for the text of the Bible, for the Bible has more copies and earlier copies than any other ancient piece of literature.³

3. What is at Stake?

Whether a particular passage needs conjectural emendation of any sort cannot, in principle, be argued against on theological grounds. Otherwise, we would have to argue against all such conjectures in the OT when there is a definite need for such in a few places. If we argue against conjecture in the NT, then, on theological grounds, we are in danger of adopting a Marcionite view of the text!

What is at stake is not theology. Rather, what is at stake is method. It has often been remarked that, with reference to theological positions, “The Germans create it, the British correct it, and the Americans corrupt it.” In other words, Germans are good at coming up with new ideas—usually borne out of philosophy, British are good at tempering those ideas on the basis of historical evidence, and Americans—because of their strong individualism which sometimes elevates idiosyncrasies to a hero-worship status—are good at taking a German idea beyond all logical comprehension. At bottom, what is at stake is reason vs. evidence. How resolving an issue of this sort speaks volumes about our exegetical method. Although reason has a very important place in the exegetical process, so does evidence. And when solid, concrete, and unanimous evidence for the words of the text stands on one side, and reasonable explanations for their omission stands on the other, the evidence should probably be considered more important. Listen to the Alands on this matter:

[F]or purposes of textual criticism the gospel [of John] comprises twenty-one chapters in their present sequence of 1 through 21. It is only in this form, with the final chapter appended and in the present order of chapters, that the book is found throughout the manuscript tradition. Any editing, rearrangement, revision, and so forth it may have undergone must have occurred earlier, if at all (with the exception of the Pericope Adulterae, which is lacking in a considerable part of the tradition).⁴

One of the great values of textual criticism is that it has a sobering influence on New Testament scholarship. In short, fanciful theories of composition and the like are constantly falling shipwreck on the rocks of textual criticism.⁵

All of this reminds me of the aphorism that Professor William Lane kept prominently displayed on his desk: “An ounce of evidence is worth a pound of presumption.”

Applied to our present text, it should simply be noted that 1 Thess 2.13-16 is not omitted in any MSS, versions,⁶ or fathers, as far as modern scholarship is aware. And since these verses are found in early and widespread witnesses such as A B D F G H I P Y 0208 0278 33 1739 Itala Syriac Coptic Origen Athanasius Jerome Augustine Chrysostom et plu, all of the evidence is on the side of inclusion. Unless there is no rational explanation for the inclusion of the verses, then we should let the text stand as is and interpret it as best we can.

4. Implications for other Disputed NT Passages

a. 1 Cor 14.34-35

If 1 Thess 2.13-16 should be excised on the basis of conjectural emendation, then 1 Cor 14.34-35 have an even greater claim to inauthenticity. Gordon Fee and Philip Payne both argue that these verses should be excised from our NTs; but there are no Greek MSS that omit them. Payne argues, unsuccessfully I believe, that Codex Vaticanus indicates with a marginal siglum (something that Payne calls a “bar-umlaut” based on its appearance) that this scribe knew of MSS that omitted these verses.⁷ If Payne is right, then we certainly need to consider the prospect that vv 34-35 were added by a later scribe. But if he’s wrong, then even though the Western witnesses place the verses at the end of the chapter, they most likely are a part of what Paul originally wrote to the Corinthians.⁸

b. Mark 16.9-20

In his paper, “Mark 16:9–20 and the Doctrine of Inspiration,”⁹ Wilbur Pickering argues that if any portion of the NT is lost, then inspiration is not only irrelevant—it also is not true:

Among those who wish to believe or claim that Mark’s Gospel was inspired by the Holy Spirit, that it is God’s Word, I am not aware of any who are prepared to believe that it could have been God’s intention to terminate the book with εφοβουντο γαρ.

Are we to say that God was unable to protect the text of Mark or that He just couldn’t be bothered? I see no other alternative—either He didn’t care or He was helpless. And either option is fatal to the claim that Mark’s Gospel is “God-breathed.” . . . if God was powerless to protect His Word then He wouldn’t really be God and it wouldn’t make all that much difference what He said. . . . If God permitted the original ending of Mark to be lost then in fact we do not have an inspired text.¹⁰

Anyone who denies the authenticity of Mark 16:9–20 cannot consistently affirm the Divine Inspiration of Mark 1:1–16:8. I now submit the question to the reader: have I not demonstrated that to reject Mark 16:9–20 is to relinquish the doctrine of Divine Inspiration—for Mark, certainly, but by extension for the rest of the Bible?¹¹

In response, it should be noted that, among other things,¹² although Pickering is unaware of any evangelical who thinks Mark ended his Gospel at verse 8, there does indeed seem to be an increasing number of scholars who believe this, evangelicals included among them.¹³ Ernest Best states, for example, that “It is in keeping with other parts of his Gospel that Mark should not give an explicit account of a conclusion where this is already well known to his readers.”¹⁴ Further, he argues that “it is not a story which has been rounded off but an open story intended to draw us on further.”¹⁵ At one point he makes a rather intriguing suggestion:

Finally it is from the point of view of drama that we can appreciate most easily the conclusion to the Gospel. By its very nature the conclusion forces us to think out for ourselves the Gospel’s challenge. It would have been easy to finish with Jesus’ victorious appearances to comfort the disciples: they all lived happily ever after. Instead the end is difficult… The readers or hearers of Mark know the disciples did see Jesus… Listen to the story as a believer and work it out for yourself. It is like one of Jesus’ own parables: the hearer is forced to go on thinking.¹⁶

Although one would not say that Ernest Best is an arch-conservative, his overall interpretation of the reason for the shorter ending should cause no offense to evangelicals, as is evident by the fact that a number of evangelicals do believe that the Gospel was intended to end at verse 8.¹⁷

c. Jas 2.18

The logic of this verse has often been noted as being the opposite of what the author intended. Rather than spend much time on the matter, however, suffice it to say that some NT scholars have suggested that the order of the objection needs to be reversed: instead of “But someone may well say, ‘You have faith, and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works’ ” (NASB), James’ argument is: “But someone may well say, ‘You have works, and I have faith’.” This then is followed by James’ rebuttal (which is preserved for us in v 18): “Show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works’.” Pfleiderer and others offered this conjecture, which is also found in it^ff. Admittedly, this is one of the thorniest exegetical problems in the NT, for James’ overall argument seems to be that works are necessary, while v 18, as it presently stands, has the interlocutor arguing that James’ view is that faith is necessary. The logic of the whole passage seems confused. This may well be one place in which a conjecture should be urged. In its favor are the following points: (1) unlike the omission of 1 Thess 2.13-16 and 1 Cor 14.34-35, there is some textual support for this view (one Itala MS);¹⁸ (2) the Greek witnesses for the catholic letters are not nearly as strong as the witnesses for the Gospels or Paul; hence, the likelihood of the necessity for conjecture increases with the catholic letters; and (3) the logic of the conjecture is compelling, while the wording of the text is quite problematic, creating exegetical gymnastics by many a scholar who is trying to defend the author’s coherence.

At the same time, the conjecture is such an obviously correct interpretation of the matter that one wonders why, if it represents the original wording, scribes did not correct their exemplars early on? Surely some early scribes would have double-checked the wording of their MSS against their exemplar once the seeming illogic of the wording became apparent. If so, their very hesitancy to alter the text in the direction of “you have works, and I have faith” seems to show that this wording was not in their exemplar. At this stage, we should probably affirm with the bulk of NT scholars that the point of v 18, regardless of the wording, is fundamentally the same: the author is arguing that faith and works cannot be divorced from one another.

5. Conclusions

Although we are convinced of no theological arguments against conjectural emendation in 1 Thess 2.13-16, without corroborative textual evidence, we need to regard the interpolation theory as a last resort. We now turn to exegetical arguments in its behalf, recognizing that the burden of proof rests on the shoulders of those who wish to athetize the text.

Arguments for Interpolation

Among those who advocate an interpolation of part or all of vv 13-16 are F. C. Baur, P. W. Schmiedel, Albrecht Ritschl, Spitta, Pfleiderer, Teichmann, James Moffatt, Schmithals, J. Bailey, Holtzmann, Knopf, Goguel Rodrigues [who omits vv 15-16; mentioned in NA27 apparatus], John Knox, S. G. F. Brandon, and especially Hendrikus Boers, Daryl Schmidt, Helmut Koester, and Birger Pearson.¹⁹

There are five or six basic arguments used in support of seeing these four verses (or parts of them) as an interpolation. We will offer these in canonical order, since they neatly fall out that way, followed in each case by a brief critique. Birger Pearson has stimulated the discussion the most by being the first to articulate at some length that all four verses were inauthentic. We will focus on his arguments.

1. Thanksgiving in 2.13, Dislocation of the Whole

Structurally, v 13 does not follow naturally on the heels of v 12; rather, vv 13-16 seem to disrupt the narrative sequence. Note how smoothly vv 11-12 flow into v 17:

(11) As you know, we dealt with each one of you like a father with his children, (12) urging and encouraging you and pleading that you lead a life worthy of God, who calls you into his own kingdom and glory.

(17) As for us, brothers and sisters, when, for a short time, we were made orphans by being separated from you—in person, not in heart—we longed with great eagerness to see you face to face. (NRSV)

Pearson notes that, in agreement with Robert Funk, vv 11-12 introduce an ‘apostolic parousia,’ but the parousia does not begin until v 17. In this reconstruction, one thing that Pearson fails to recognize is that in v 11 Paul and Silas are regarded as fathers, while in v 17 they are regarded as orphans. Thus, although it could be argued that they belong together in some sense (as we have argued when discussing the textual problem of v 7), to insist on the juxtaposition as Pearson does adds yet a second mixed metaphor in close proximity to the ‘metaphor in distress’ in vv 7-8. In other words, Pearson’s solution compounds the metaphor problem that is already found a few verses earlier. Although Paul is not altogether consistent with his metaphors, nowhere does he mix them as rapidly as the interpolation theory would necessitate (assuming that nhpioi in v 7 is authentic).

In addition, Wanamaker (32) points out that “Pearson’s final claim that the letter is better structured without 2:13-16 is a matter of individual opinion. With Marshall (9) and Jewett (Thessalonian Correspondence, 38), I would argue that 2:13-16 is a necessary component of the letter, though rhetorically it may be termed a digression… it explains why Paul was so anxious to revisit the Thessalonians, as he recounts in 2:17-20. Without 2:13-16 it would not be at all clear why Paul was so concerned about his converts.”

2. Judean Christians Set Up as Examples to Follow (v 14)

Pearson ( 87) notes that “Not only is it improbable that Paul would cite the Judaean Christians as examples for his Gentile congregations; the mimesis usage in this verse does not cohere with Paul’s usage elsewhere.”

But is this really what is going on? “Pearson’s discussion of the mimesis terminology in v. 14 is misdirected. Paul does not instruct the Thessalonians to become imitators of the Judean Christians, as Pearson implies. Instead he tells the Thessalonians that they have already become imitators of the Judean Christians by virtue of having suffered oppression from their fellow citizens. In the light of this it is not surprising that the term for imitation is used in a different fashion than is customary in Paul.”²⁰

3. Persecution of Christians in Judea (v 14)

“With reference to the alleged persecutions in Judaea, 1 Thessalonians 2:14 would be the only New Testament text—were it a genuine expression of Paul—to indicate that the churches in Judaea suffered persecution at the hands of the Jews between 44 AD [sic] and the outbreak of the war against Rome.”²¹

Okeke²² (129) notes that “For these scholars [Baur, Brandon, and Pearson] the proper picture of the Judean Christian church is therefore that of a community living in absolute peace with the rest of the Jews.”

He then argues that “It seems reasonable that the Galilean followers of Jesus who returned to Jerusalem in the expectation of the immediate parousia of Jesus Christ would initially lead a quiet life. Yet it is equally reasonable to consider that Paul’s persecution of the Church prior to his conversion is not an isolated case of an eccentric Jew who oppressed the Church while the rest of the Jews welcomed Christianity as a popular sect within Judaism.”²³

4. “Jews killed Jesus” (v 15)

The statement in v 15 that the Jews “killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets” is nowhere else explicitly found in Paul’s writings; in short, “he never attributes the death of Jesus to the Jews.”²⁴

But apart from the questionable exegesis of 1 Cor 2.8—a passage which may well indicate that Paul thought of certain Jews as responsible, at least partially, for Jesus’ death—the notion that Jews were responsible for Jesus’ death “is paralleled in the later traditions of Acts and Matthew. At an historical level it can hardly be denied that the Jerusalem ruling elite were guilty of complicity in Jesus’ death. … From his and his contemporaries’ viewpoint, the persecution of the Christians in Judea represented a continuation of the phenomenon going back to the prophets of the OT period and recently manifested in the experiences of Jesus and Paul himself (cf. 2 Cor. 11:24).”²⁵

5. Vicious Tone in v 15

In conjunction with 15a, in which Paul allegedly claims that the Jews were responsible for Jesus’ death, the rest of the verse notes that these same Jews “displease God and are hostile to everyone.” For this reason, Pearson says, “I find it also virtually impossible to ascribe to Paul the ad hominem fragment of Gentile anti-Judaism in v. 15.”²⁶

Again, Wanamaker notes (31): “That Paul was incapable of the scurrilous ad hominem attack against the Jewish people in v. 15, as Pearson believes, is questionable (cf. Phil. 3:2).” One might add that, in the historical context painted in Acts 17, one could well imagine the apostle feeling pretty beat up by fellow Jews, causing him to reflect on what other Jews in Judea had done to the Lord Jesus. In short, the statement here fits well with Paul’s temperament and the historical situation assumed in Acts.

6. ἔφθασεν δὲ ἐπ ᾿ αὐτοὺς ἡ ὀργὴ εἰς τέλος (v 16)

Schmiedel et alii regard this line as a vaticinium ex eventu—i.e., history written as though it were prophecy. The event in view is the destruction of Jerusalem, an event that took place twenty years after Paul wrote 1 Thessalonians.

Crucial to the argument is that ἔφθασεν cannot be a proleptic aorist. The basis for this is that εἰς τέλος demands that the time of the verb is referring to an event already past. After a lengthy discussion on the options, Pearson states:

All of these suggestions fail to do justice to the text as it stands. The aorist ἔφθασεν must be taken as referring to an event that is now past, and the phrase εἰς τέλος underscores the finality of the “wrath” that has occurred. It need only be inquired further what event in the first century was of such magnitude as to lend itself to such apocalyptic theologizing. The interpretation suggested by Baur and others is still valid: 1 Thessalonians 2:16c refers to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. [sic].²⁷

We will not answer this argument in great detail here. However, here we do wish to note Wanamaker’s two excellent points on the matter:

(1) “[T]he historical setting in the period after AD 70 suggested by Pearson is unnecessary. The first Jewish-Roman War, which culminated in the destruction of Jerusalem, was undoubtedly the greatest catastrophe to overtake the Jewish people in the first century, but it certainly was not the only one of major proportions. The death of the Jewish King Agrippa in AD 44, the revolt of Theudas in 44-46, the famine in Judea in 46-47, and the expulsion of the Jews from Rome in 49 were all major crises for the Jewish people. If 1 Thessalonians was written around 50, a date most scholars are agreed on, the riot in Jerusalem during the passover of 49 may well be in mind, as Jewett (“Agitators,” 205 n. 5) has suggested. Josephus (Ant. 20.112 and War 2.225) claims that twenty to thirty thousand people were killed in the riot. Even if his figures are considerably inflated, as seems likely, this would have appeared to contemporary Jewish people to have been a major disaster, one that Paul might have interpreted as divine punishment for the oppression of Christians in Palestine, as Jewett points out.”²⁸

Wanamaker later adds that “In both 1 Thessalonians itself and also Romans ‘wrath’ has present and future references. Thus the passage does not exclude the possibility that God may finally be gracious to the Jewish people. Εἰς τέλος does not imply the finality of the wrath that has come upon the Jewish people but that wrath has come upon them ‘until the end.’”²⁹

Arguments for Authenticity

Among those who argue for authenticity are Werner Georg Kümmel, Paul Schubert, John Lee White, F. F. Bruce, N. Hyldahl, C. A. Wanamaker, and especially G. E. Okeke.³⁰

Okeke notes that “it is mainly the theology of this pericope that makes it suspect as a later interpolation” (127); he then proceeds to argue that the theology conforms to Paul.

1. Structure of 2.13 (εὐχαριστοῦμεν)

See Wanamaker’s discussion above, in response to the first point.

2. Apocalyptic Theology and the Olivet Discourse

Both the apocalyptic theology of Paul and Matthew 24/Mark 13 seem to share some oral tradition. Only if one is predisposed to reject the Olivet Discourse as a later invention,³¹ or that Paul could not have learned of the Lord’s teaching on the matter before it was inscripturated in the Gospels, would there be a reason to see 1 Thess 2.13-16 as verbally dependent on the Olivet Discourse. But not only are the parallels at certain points conceptual rather than verbal,³² but if Paul took Jesus’ prophecy seriously, then he may well have mimicked it here. We will discuss the intricacies of this point in our exegesis of the text.

3. Acts 17 as a Valid Historical Basis

The pathos of Paul, as we pointed out earlier, is completely understandable in this pericope, given the troubles he had in Thessalonica. But if one is predisposed to reject the historicity of Acts, then he will regard Acts 17 as somewhat irrelevant to the discussion at hand. In addition, Pearson plays his hand by arguing that “Probably all of the N.T. writings, with the exception of the genuine letters of Paul, were written after 70 A.D. [sic].”³³

4. Text-Critical Factors

These were noted earlier. Although no papyri yet attest to this portion of the letter,³⁴ 1 Thess-alonians nevertheless has early and widespread witnesses, none of which omit these four verses.

Conclusion

Although the arguments for the interpolation view are impressive, they are not decisive. In the end, there is nothing in these verses that Paul could not have written, and the external evidence is unanimous in favor of them being authentic. In such an instance, we must acknowledge their authenticity and interpret them as well as we are able.

---

¹ “Inspiration, Preservation, and New Testament Textual Criticism,” in Grace Theological Journal 12 (1992) 21-51 (reprint of article in New Testament Essays in Honor of Homer A. Kent, Jr. (ed. Gary T. Meadors; Winona Lake, IN: BMH Books, 1991): 69-102.

² The lack of ancient support for this doctrine is not in itself telling; however, this coupled with the fact that the biblical texts used to support it are so used only at the expense of solid exegesis, and that the OT text requires in a few places emendation, is a strong argument against it.

³ It should be noted as well that the Westminster Confession was framed by Protestants who were embroiled in debate with Roman Catholic scholars. The Catholics were speaking of the Protestant Bible—principally the Textus Receptus that stood behind all translations—as a “paper Pope.” More than one scholar has pointed out that the Westminster divines were defending the TR, arguing implicitly that its readings preserved the original.

⁴ Kurt and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament, 297.

⁵ This is not to say that these views are necessarily wrong, but that they lack sufficient evidence to be compelling. The Alands preface their remarks by noting that “the competence of New Testament textual criticism is restricted to the state of the New Testament text from the moment it began its literary history through transcription for distribution. All events prior to this are beyond its scope” (297). Thus, such compositional theories (and we may include Raymond Brown’s five-stage composition of John in this) need to be qualified as belonging to the realm of the pre-literary stages. (For a discussion of this point passim, see D. B. Wallace, “John 5,2 and the Date of the Fourth Gospel,” Biblica 71 [1990] 177-205.) Further, if evidence is forthcoming, it needs to be reckoned with. Thus, Philip Comfort has recently argued that John 21 shows evidence in some of the early papyri as having been added to the Gospel. Whether his argument proves convincing or not, this is certainly the kind of corroborative backing that is needed to make out a convincing case.

⁶ However, a lone Vulgate MS omits the last sentence of v 16 (ἔφθασεν δὲ ἐπ ᾿ αὐτοὺς ἡ ὀργὴ εἰς τέλος).

⁷ For a thorough examination of Payne’s evidence, and a denial of the validity of his argument at this text, see Jeff Miller’s 2000 DTS master’s thesis. This has now been published, in modified form, in JSNT: “Some Observations on the Text-Critical Function of the Umlauts in Vaticanus, with Special Attention to 1 Corinthians 14.34-35,” J. Edward Miller, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 26 (2003): 217-36.

⁸ The text-critical note for these verses in the NET Bible sums up the issue well:

Some scholars have argued that vv. 34-35 should be excised from the text (principally Straatman, Fee, Payne). This is because the Western witnesses have these verses after v. 40, while the rest of the tradition retains them here. There are no mss that omit the verses. Why, then, would some scholars wish to excise the verses? Because they believe that this best explains how they could end up in two different locations, that is to say, that the verses got into the text by way of a very early gloss added in the margin. Most scribes put the gloss after v. 33; others, not knowing where they should go, put them at the end of the chapter. G. D. Fee points out that “Those who wish to maintain the authenticity of these verses must at least offer an adequate answer as to how this arrangement came into existence if Paul wrote them originally as our vv. 34-35” (First Corinthians [NICNT], 700). In a footnote he adds, “The point is that if it were already in the text after v. 33, there is no reason for a copyist to make such a radical transposition.” Although it is not our intention to interact with proponents of the shorter text in any detail here, a couple of points ought to be made. (1) Since these verses occur in all witnesses to 1 Corinthians, to argue that they are not original means that they must have crept into the text at the earliest stage of transmission. How early? Earlier than when the pericope adulterae (John 7:53-8:11) made its way into the text (late 2nd, early 3rd century?), earlier than the longer ending of Mark (16:9-20) was produced (early 2nd century?), and earlier than even “in Ephesus” was added to Eph 1:1 (upon reception of the letter by the first church to which it came, the church at Ephesus [c. ad 60])—because in these other, similar places, the earliest witnesses do not add the words. This text thus stands as remarkable, unique. Indeed, since all the witnesses have the words, the evidence points to them as having been inserted into the original document. Who would have done such a thing? And, further, why would scribes have regarded it as original since it was obviously added in the margin? This leads to our second point. (2) Following a suggestion made by E. Earle Ellis (“The Silenced Wives of Corinth (I Cor. 14:34-5),” New Testament Textual Criticism: Its Significance for Exegesis, 213-20 [the suggestion comes at the end of the article, almost as an afterthought]), it is likely that Paul himself added the words in the margin. Since it was so much material to add, Paul could have squelched any suspicions by indicating that the words were his (e.g., by adding his name or some other means [cf. 2 Thess 3:17]). This way no scribe would think that the material was inauthentic. (Incidentally, this is unlike the textual problem at Rom 5:1, for there only one letter was at stake; hence, scribes would easily have thought that the “text” reading was original. And Paul would hardly be expected to add his signature for one letter!) (3) What then is to account for the uniform Western tradition of having the verses at the end of the chapter? Our conjecture (and that is all it is) is that the scribe of the Western Vorlage could no longer read where the verses were to be added (any marginal arrows or other directional device could have been smudged), but, recognizing that this was part of the original text, felt compelled to put it somewhere. The least offensive place would have been at the end of the material on church conduct (end of chapter 14), before the instructions about the resurrection began. Although there were no chapter divisions in the earliest period of copying, scribes could still detect thought breaks (note the usage in the earliest papyri). (4) The very location of the verses in the Western tradition argues strongly that Paul both authored vv. 34-35 and that they were originally part of the margin of the text. Otherwise, one has a difficulty explaining why no scribe seemed to have hinted that these verses might be inauthentic (the scribal sigla of codex B, as noticed by Payne, can be interpreted otherwise than as an indication of inauthenticity). There are apparently no mss that have an asterisk or obelisk in the margin. Yet in other places in the NT where scribes doubted the authenticity of the clauses before them, they often noted their protest with an asterisk or obelisk. We are thus compelled to regard the words as original, and as belonging where they are in the text above.

⁹ A paper circulated to members of the Majority Text Society, September, 1988.

¹⁰ Ibid., 1.

¹¹ Ibid., 4.

¹² For a lengthier response, see my “Inspiration, Preservation” article.

¹³ So much so that W. R. Telford could argue, “While a number of scholars would still adhere to the view that the Gospel originally extended beyond 16:8, more and more are coming to the opinion that it was intended to end at 16:8, and that it does so indeed, in literary terms, with dramatic appositeness” (“Introduction: The Gospel of Mark,” in The Interpretation of Mark, ed. W. R. Telford [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985] 26). Cf. also C. S. Mann, Mark: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, Vol. 27 in the Anchor Bible (Garden City: Doubleday, 1986) 659 (“Mark did indeed finish his gospel at v. 8, and . . . he had a specific and well-defined purpose in doing so”); R. P. Meye, “Mark 16:8—The Ending of Mark’s Gospel,” BibRes 14 (1969) 33–43; H. Anderson, The Gospel of Mark, in the New Century Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976) 351–54; H. Paulsen, “Mark xvi. 1–8,” NovT 22 (1980) 138–70; N. R. Petersen, “When Is the End Not the End? Literary Reflections on the Ending of Mark’s Narrative,” Interp 34 (1980) 151–66; T. E. Boomershine and G. L. Bartholomew, “The Narrative Technique of Mark 16:8,” JBL 100 (1981) 213–23. Among those who are evangelicals (in the strictest sense of the word—i.e., inerrantists), a number of authors antedating Pickering’s essay held to this view: cf., e.g., N. B. Stonehouse, The Witness of Matthew and Mark to Christ (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1944) 86–118; W. L. Lane, The Gospel of Mark in the New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974) 582–92; J. D. Grassmick also seems to lean toward this view (Mark in the Bible Knowledge Commentary [Wheaton: Victor Books, 1983] 193–94). See now the bibliographic data in Clayton Croy, The Mutilation of Mark’s Gospel, where the author demonstrates that the intentional ending at v. 8 view emerged as the predominant view of this Gospel in the 20^th century.

¹⁴ E. Best, Mark: The Gospel as Story (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1983) 73.

¹⁵ Ibid., 74.

¹⁶ Ibid., 132.

¹⁷ See n. 13. Besides literary criticism, another argument could be used to support the view that the gospel ended here: only if Mark’s Gospel were originally published in codex form (in which case the last leaf could have possibly fallen off) could one argue that the ending of Mark was lost. But if, as extrabiblical parallels are increasingly showing to be more likely, the Gospel was originally written on a scroll, then the last portion of the book, being at the center of the scroll, would be the least likely portion of the book to be lost.

¹⁸ I have not yet checked B. Aland, K. Aland, G. Mink, and K. Wachtel, eds., Der Jakobusbrief, Section IV, Part I of Novum Testamentum Graecum Editio Critica Maior (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1997), which has a complete collation of all extant witnesses on this verse. Perhaps other witnesses will also turn up from an examination of the Editio Critica Maior.

¹⁹ See in particular Birger A. Pearson, “1 Thessalonians 2:13-16: A Deutero-Pauline Interpolation,” HTR 64 (1971) 79-94. Many of these advocates are also listed in Okeke’s article, passim, as well as Wanamaker, 29-33.

²⁰ Wanamaker, 32.

²¹ Pearson, 86.

²² G. E. Okeke, “1 Thessalonians 2.13-16: The Fate of the Unbelieving Jews,” NTS 27 (1981) 127-36.

²³ Okeke, 129.

²⁴ Pearson, 85.

²⁵ Wanamaker, 31.

²⁶ Ibid.

²⁷ Pearson, 82-83. Pearson moves from this point to the excision of the rest of the four verses in question (83): “Nevertheless, it is not sufficient merely to excise this one sentence as a post-70 gloss, for formally it constitutes the conclusion to the material represented in the participial clauses of vv. 15 and 16 modifying τῶν  ᾿Ιουδαίων in v. 14.”

²⁸ Wanamaker, 30-31.

²⁹ ibid., 31.

³⁰ See in particular Okeke’s article, as well as Wanamaker, 29-33..

³¹ As Pearson does. After conceding that Jesus “may even have prophesied the destruction of Jerusalem” he quickly adds (92-93), “But it is the author of the gospel of Matthew that must be credited (or debited!) with putting these motifs together in the way in which they now stand in the passage quoted. His work reflects a historical situation that did not pertain prior to the destruction of Jerusalem: the final break between the church and the synagogue has taken place.”

³² Pearson has a nice discussion of the parallels (92-93), though he underscores only on the verbal parallels.

³³ Pearson, 93, n. 71.

³⁴ Although an excellent case has been made by Michael Svigel that P⁴⁶ originally had this pericope in it. The MS lacks most of 1 Thessalonians, but Svigel has reconstructed the text by noting the number of lines per page and letters per line that the papyrus consistently had. He argues that P⁴⁶ should be given a vid at this juncture.