Devotions on the Greek New Testament

Given the nature of this blog, I was excited when I saw that Zondervan published a scholarly version of what I had been trying to do. Devotions on the Greek New Testament is a collection of 52 short devotions each written about a passage in Greek. Unlike my blog, the contributors to this book are all scholars. What's refreshing is that not only are they scholars, but they also write from the perspective of a believer in Christ. Some names you might recognize include William D. Mounce, Scot McKnight, Craig L. Blomberg, Ben Witherington III, and Darrell L. Bock. There are others, but these are some of the more famous authors.

Each devotional begins with the Greek text. The author then keys in on something from the text to help the reader further understand the meaning. For example, in the passage on Ephesians 5:18-22 (be filled with the Spirit), David L. Matthewson emphasizes how the five adverbial participles modify πληροῦσθε. It doesn't necessarily come off as well in English, but this passage shows us that addressing one another in psalms and hymns, etc., is what being filled with the Spirit looks like. Matthewson bases this on the way the participles work together.

There are also devotionals that will look at the structure of a passage. For example, David M. Morgan illustrates the chiastic structure of Colossians 1:26-28 and explains how Paul's suffering relates to Christ's suffering. He then connects this to Epaphroditus' ministry described in Philippians 2:20 to show how this is normative for a Christian. He also connects this passage to the general message of Colossians to explain how this is part of bringing the gospel to the world. 

I did not read the whole book as I do want to use it as a devotional and didn't want to plow through it all right away. However, out of the dozen or so sections I did read what I found was solid exegesis based on the text. The whole point of studying Greek and Hebrew is to get closer to the text. This devotional will help you to do that.

Of course, this book is not for everyone. It does presuppose that you've had at least a year of Koine Greek. I would have found reading each passage difficult after only one year, but I could have muddled through most of them. Looking back, I wish I had a resource like this after I finished my first year of Greek. It feeds the brain by giving examples of good exegesis and it fills the soul with the Word of God. Anyone who can read Greek should own a copy of this book.

Note that I received a copy from the publisher for review. 

Real Hope

1 Thessalonians 4:13 But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope.


13 Οὐ θέλομεν δὲ ὑμᾶς ἀγνοεῖν, ἀδελφοί, περὶ τῶν κοιμωμένων, ἵνα μὴ λυπῆσθε καθὼς καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ οἱ μὴ ἔχοντες ἐλπίδα.

I think it is pretty obvious that Paul uses "asleep" as a euphemism for "dead." Paul uses the subjunctive mood with the phrase ἵνα μὴ λυπῆσθε. This is the mood of possibility. It is not something that has happened yet, but it might happen. That is why it is translated as "may not grieve." This is one of the instances where it has a weak imperatival force to it. Paul is telling them not to grieve. He contrasts them with οἱ λοιποὶ οἱ μὴ ἔχοντες ἐλπίδα. This could be thought of as "the remaining." In other words, this is everyone else. Everyone who is not a Christian goes through life μὴ ἔχοντες ἐλπίδα. Note that ἔχοντες is a participle. This gives a continuous force to it. He is saying that everyone who is not a believer goes through life in a continuous state of hopelessness.

Of course, hope is big business. That concept got someone elected president. But if our hope is in any person then we are closer to this.I don't care if that person is a Republican or Democrat. There is no hope is a person apart from Christ.

This is a truth that we need to believe deeply. We say we do, but the way we live indicates otherwise. How zealous are we for evangelism? If our zeal is weak then it is because we do not believe this deeply. Do we despair when a brother or sister in Christ dies? We should be sad and miss them, but we should never despair because if they are in Christ then they have real hope. It's the same hope we have if we are in Christ.

But where this gets really tricky is the other side. Every funeral I've ever attended has promised that the deceased is in heaven. But how can someone say that unless he is sure that the person trusted Christ for his salvation? Otherwise, that person was living in hopelessness and will continue to do so for eternity.

It all begins and ends with Christ. He also is everything in between. You want real hope? It's in Christ and nowhere else.

Pleasing Preaching

1 Thessalonians 2:4 but just as we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel, so we speak, not to please man, but to please God who tests our hearts.


4 ἀλλὰ καθὼς δεδοκιμάσμεθα ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ πιστευθῆναι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, οὕτως λαλοῦμεν, οὐχ ὡς ἀνθρώποις ἀρέσκοντες ἀλλὰ θεῷ τῷ δοκιμάζοντι τὰς καρδίας ἡμῶν.

I don't really have a ton of deep exegetical insight about this. This is just a verse that struck me today. I do think that the word πιστευθῆναι is translated "to be entrusted with." This word is πιστεύω, which typically means something like "to believe" or "to have faith in." I don't want to make too big of a deal about it as this would preach really well and I'm not sure it is valid, but you could almost say that God had faith in Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy. But isn't that what "entrusted" is all about? God trusted them. Why could He do that? He is the one who gave them new hearts so that they would be worth trusting. It's not about their inherent character and it's not something that they can manufacture. I fear that would how this could be preached and I would hate to do that.

What is their response? They speak so as to please God rather than man. They are not so concerned about making man happy as they are about making God happy. If you read the rest of this chapter you will see that this is not a license to bring out the big gilded pew bible and use it as a sledgehammer. However, it is a clear call to faithfulness in gospel ministry.

Frankly, that is the call that we all have. Want to make God happy? Preach the gospel. It seems that we look for hoops to jump through. God is not happy with you simply because you dress a certain way, avoid certain movies, and don't drink beer. In this case, Paul emphasizes that his preaching the gospel makes God happy.

Let's focus on that, amen?

Knowing the Elect

1 Thessalonians 1:4 For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you, 5 because our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction. You know what kind of men we proved to be among you for your sake.


4 εἰδότες, ἀδελφοὶ ἠγαπημένοι ὑπὸ [τοῦ] θεοῦ, τὴν ἐκλογὴν ὑμῶν, 5  ὅτι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ἡμῶν οὐκ ἐγενήθη εἰς ὑμᾶς ἐν λόγῳ μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν δυνάμει καὶ ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ καὶ [ἐν] πληροφορίᾳ πολλῇ, καθὼς οἴδατε οἷοι ἐγενήθημεν [ἐν] ὑμῖν δι᾽ ὑμᾶς.

One fairly common criticism of Calvinism is that it squelches evangelism. The argument goes that if God elects people from before the world began why bother with evangelism? Won't He save the people He means to save no matter what?

The short answer to that is of course a simple "yes," but that is woefully inadequate. This verse gives a little more insight into the issue. The phrase τὴν ἐκλογὴν ὑμῶν is translated "he has chosen you," but technically it is "your election" or "your choosing." Verse 5 explains this. How do we know about your election? It is because the gospel came to them ἐν δυνάμει καὶ ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ καὶ [ἐν] πληροφορίᾳ πολλῇ. What Paul means is that the gospel was not mere words to the Thessalonian believers, but it had true power to them.

How do we know who the elect are? They are the ones who respond to the gospel. It is our job to pray, preach, persuade, and do whatever we can to clearly communicate the gospel to people. But we cannot save anyone. All we can do is put the gospel out there. Their acceptance is between them and the Lord. We know the elect by the fruit of the gospel in their lives?

Does that mean that everyone who appears to live a godly lifestyle is saved? No. But we can be pretty sure that anyone who is not changed by the gospel is not saved. We can never be certain about anyone's future state. This is why we keep preaching the word. We put it out there. My prayer is that my preaching today would fall on fertile soil and produce fruit.

Walking Evangelistically

Colossians 4:5 Walk in wisdom toward outsiders, making the best use of the time.


5 Ἐν σοφίᾳ περιπατεῖτε πρὸς τοὺς ἔξω τὸν καιρὸν ἐξαγοραζόμενοι.

I know that I tend to gloss over some of these short exhortations near the end of Paul's epistles. I feel like I got most of the meat earlier and now I'm just getting bits of potato with gravy. But I think we make a big mistake if we overlook this short verse. The verb περιπατεῖτε is in the imperative and while it technically does mean "walk," it has the sense of lifestyle. In other words, Paul is telling the Colossians that their lifestyles should be wise toward outsiders. I also take τὸν καιρὸν ἐξαγοραζόμενοι to mean that we should seize any opportunity to show or share Christ with τοὺς ἔξω, or "those who are outside." The word ἐξαγοραζόμενοι is a present participle, so that gives a sense that it is something we should routinely do.

I think about how I interact with my neighbors. Do I take care of my house? That's part of my witness toward them. How do I interact with my coworkers? Do I do the best job I can? That's part of my witness. Do I tip well at restaurants? Am I polite with people who help me at restaurants and stores? That doesn't necessarily mean that I get to a gospel presentation every time, but I want my way of life to be wise toward outsiders.

Do we really believe the second half of this verse? It is not hard to imagine seeing a bunch of cars outside a neighbor's house one day only to find out that someone died. Did I share the gospel with that person? Or maybe a coworker quits or gets fired before I can share the gospel with him. Am I looking for opportunities and making the best use of the time or am I being lazy?

This is really convicting for me. It is one more reason why I need to work as hard as I can at the office. It is something I am prayerfully improving upon lately, but there is still room to grow. Ultimately it comes down to the gospel. Do I believe it enough to prayerfully change my life so that I can share it effectively?

Two Kingdoms

 Colossians 1:13 He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins


13 ὃς ἐρρύσατο ἡμᾶς ἐκ τῆς ἐξουσίας τοῦ σκότους καὶ μετέστησεν εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ υἱοῦ τῆς ἀγάπης αὐτοῦ, 14  ἐν ᾧ ἔχομεν τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν, τὴν ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν·

This is one of those passages that I tend to read through fairly quickly, but don't stop to ponder. Something made me slow down a bit this morning and I am glad. The word ἐξουσίας is translated "domain," but it also has the idea of authority. Of course, the word βασιλείαν means kingdom. We are accustomed to seeing reference to the "kingdom of God," which I believe is synonymous with the kingdom of His beloved Son. Verse 14 tells us that in Christ we have redemption, that is to say the forgiveness of sins.

Sadly, I think that we often neglect the truth that this implies. Most faithful gospel presentations in America will talk about how we are subject to the wrath of God because of sin. That is certainly true and it is something we must understand. But what we also need to emphasize is that we belonged to a completely different team. It's not that we were indifferent to God we He saved us, but we were hostile to God.

If you like sports metaphors think Yankees and Red Sox. Or think Cowboys and Redskins. Ohio State and Michigan. There is no middle ground when we talk about these kingdoms. We are either loyal to τῆς ἐξουσίας τοῦ σκότους or to τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ υἱοῦ τῆς ἀγάπης αὐτοῦ. We can't have it both ways.

So how are you living? If someone examined your life and had to guess which kingdom you were in, what would he say? If you're abroad and you see a big guy with a thick Brooklyn accent wearing a NY Giants jersey and another guy with an English accent wearing a Manchester United jersey, you can safely guess who is from England and who is from America. How we live and act belies our ancestry.

But let's not be double-agents either. There are many who go through the motions of the kingdom of God, but their hearts are still in the kingdom of darkness. American fundamentalism breeds folks like this with its cultic manipulation tactics. Let's live as citizens of heaven, but with pure hearts that only come from regeneration, amen?

Restrictions

2 Corinthians 6:12 You are not restricted by us, but you are restricted in your own affections.



12 οὐ στενοχωρεῖσθε ἐν ἡμῖν, στενοχωρεῖσθε δὲ ἐν τοῖς σπλάγχνοις ὑμῶν·

Some exegetes make a big deal of the word σπλάγχνοις. It does technically refer to ones "guts" or "bowels." This was the word that was used to describe the heart of a person. It describes what makes a person tick, if you will. Paul describes how they were στενοχωρεῖσθε or "were restricted" in their feelings.

As we seek to plant a new fellowship within the body of Christ we are looking at various church constitutions. I read one that is based on the template provided by the Christian Law Association. This appears to be a favorite of those who are of the more Independent Baptist persuasion. I find the tone fascinating. Basically, it assumes that we want nothing more than to fall headlong into sin and, therefore, we must set up fences far enough away from sin so that we won't even get close to the sin.

That's all well and good, but what it fails to account for is the affections of the heart. It assumes that we will feel no affection for God. In fact, it doesn't even address that we should. All this does is then create a bunch of Pharisees who are good at being good. It doesn't deal with the matter of the heart.

We all need rules or else the New Testament would not have any. However, obedience starts with the heart. It begins with a heart that desires more of God. And as we experience more of Him then the temptations of the world begin to fade away. We are not as tempted to sin when we are satisfied in Christ. So rather than focusing on rules, let's instead focus on our σπλάγχνοις.

The Righteousness of God

 2 Corinthians 5:21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.


21 τὸν μὴ γνόντα ἁμαρτίαν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησεν, ἵνα ἡμεῖς γενώμεθα δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ.

This is one of those verses that just about everyone has heard at some point. It makes for a great song too. But what does it mean? Paul uses the aorist subjunctive γενώμεθα for this. The subjunctive can be thought of as the mood of possibility. In other words, what Paul is saying is that Christ's death made it possible for us to become the righteousness of God.

Why is this necessary? We are sinners and God is holy. Because He is perfectly holy He cannot stand sin. Sin has no place in His presence; therefore, there must be righteousness instead. The witness of Exodus and Leviticus is that there must be blood as a payment for sin because God's justice must be satisfied. The problem is that even unblemished lambs do not permanently remove the stain of sin.

There had to be a perfect sacrifice for sin that worked once for all time. The most wooden translation of this verse is that "The one who did not know sin on behalf of us was made sin." Obviously the ESV is a lot prettier. The point is that Christ actually became sin for us on the cross.

Let that sink in a bit. There has only ever been one man who lived without sin and that one man had to take on the sin of the world. Imagine if you were to find out that some large debt you have was canceled. If you're a homeowner your mortgage is a great example. Then imagine that you find out that some close friend had actually sold all of his possessions so that he could pay off your debt. That would be unbelievable, right? It would be a gift so incredible that most of us would have a hard time accepting it. Imagine the gratitude we would feel toward that person afterwards.

That only begins to scratch the surface of what Christ endured on the cross. He suffered unbelievable physical and spiritual anguish. If you are in Christ, take a little time to consider this today. I know that I have been blessed by this.

"Our" Ministry

 2 Corinthians 4:1 Therefore, having this ministry by the mercy of God, we do not lose heart.

1 Διὰ τοῦτο, ἔχοντες τὴν διακονίαν ταύτην καθὼς ἠλεήθημεν, οὐκ ἐγκακοῦμεν

This verse picks up where we left off in the previous post. The verb in the first clause is  ἠλεήθημεν, which is in the aorist passive. This means that Paul is telling them that God gave them ministry at some point in the past. It doesn't tell us how it happened, but it does tell us that it was given to them. Also, the verse does not expressly state that it comes from the mercy of God, but it does say that it came by mercy. It's pretty safe to infer that God is the one who granted them mercy.


As someone who is in the middle of planting a church, I find this to be an encouragement. I think it is safe to extrapolate this verse to describe ministry in general. Really the word is τὴν διακονίαν, which is the word from which we get "deacon." It refers to ministry or service. What I get out of this is that any ministry or service we get to do for God's people comes from the mercy of God. This verse starts with the phrase Διὰ τοῦτο, which literally means "therefore this." This explains the phrase at the end. Why don't we give up hope? We don't give up hope because we received ministry from the mercy of God.


This gives me hope because that I trust God to do His will. I enjoy the blessing of being an instrument in His hands, but really it is His ministry. If we assemble a fellowship it will be because God in His mercy brought a fellowship to us. My concern is my personal holiness. Although God can use anyone at anytime to do His will,  I also know that it will be a lot easier for me if I am walking closely with Him. I've often heard it said that if you want to know God's will you need to think the way He thinks. How do you do that? You walk in close fellowship with Him through prayer, time in the Word, fellowship, worship, etc.


The point of all this is that I find great encouragement knowing that this is God's ministry and that it is enabled by His mercy. That takes the pressure off of me to make it succeed. I certainly must do my part as well as God has gifted me to do it, but I don't need to think that it is all about me. As with all of life, it is all about Him.

Fulfilled Promises

 2 Corinthians 1:20 For all the promises of God find their Yes in him. That is why it is through him that we utter our Amen to God for his glory.

20 ὅσαι γὰρ ἐπαγγελίαι θεοῦ, ἐν αὐτῷ τὸ ναί· διὸ καὶ δι᾽ αὐτοῦ τὸ ἀμὴν τῷ θεῷ πρὸς δόξαν δι᾽ ἡμῶν.

This is one of those verses where we need to look at the language a little bit. The phrase  ὅσαι γὰρ ἐπαγγελίαι θεοῦ, ἐν αὐτῷ τὸ ναί does not translate into English in a one-for-one manner. Quite literally it is something like, "For as many as the promises of God, in Him the yes." The New American Commentary understands the ὅσαι  to refer to an indeterminate number of OT promises of God. That seems to make good sense of the passage.


The point is that the promises of God in the OT are not fulfilled in Israel. They are fulfilled in Christ. Now Romans 9-11 tells us that there is a future hope for some remnant of ethnic Israel, but if we focus on Israel we have missed the point. The point is Christ. 


The Bible is not a book about Israel, though Israel is in it. The Bible is about Christ. Specifically, it is about how God created man, man fell, and what God did to redeem His people back to Himself. Why was it such a long history instead of redeeming them right away? Ultimately it was for His glory, which He deserves. Also, keep in mind that if He had done it sooner then you would not be reading this and would not have a future hope of eternity with Him.


If you are in Christ, rejoice that He saved you. If you are not, what keeps you from repenting and believing?

Until He Comes

1 Corinthians 13:12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.

12 βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾽ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον· ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

This is a passage that should be taught in freshman orientation at ever seminary. The problem is that many seminaries' theological presuppositions won't let that happen. Nevertheless, this is a great verse for anyone who studies theology. That means every Christian, but seminarians in particular.


This verse comes at the end of Paul's famous "love chapter." If you've been to a wedding you've likely heard it recited. Paul explains the virtue of love. Of course, this chapter comes in the middle of a discussion on spiritual gifts and it does not necessarily pertain to marriage, but it still sounds nice as part of the ceremony.


The question in this verse is about what it is that Paul awaits. Who or what will he see πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον? There are those who strongly believe in the cessation of all miraculous gifts (i.e. the "sign gifts") and they will say that this refers to the completion of the canon. Paul was in the middle of writing the New Testament and, therefore, he was not able to see everything clearly. I don't think that makes sense.


The language here seems to refer to the return of Christ. This also seems to correspond to the end of chapter 15 which discusses the final resurrection of the saints upon Christ's return. I have a lot of Bibles, but none of them have a face. The phrase τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην also bears inspection. Quite literally this would be, "and then I will know as I was known." However, various lexicons say that with regards to spiritual things this has more of a sense of "fully knowing," which explains the ESV translation.


Does the Bible know me? Only in as much as it is related to Christ as in John 1:1. I think it makes a lot more sense to think of this as Christ. He knows me. I know Him in part. But when I join Him in eternity then I will know Him fully. 


Is this a hope that you have? If not, repent and turn to Christ. A glorious future awaits those who know Him, even if we do only know Him as looking through a foggy window.

True Discipleship

1 Corinthians 11:1 Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.

1 μιμηταί μου γίνεσθε καθὼς κἀγὼ Χριστοῦ.

Paul makes quite a bold statement here as he links arguments together. He uses the imperative γίνεσθε to command the Corinthians to imitate him. We need to be careful not to stop reading there, though I’m afraid that is easy to do. What I think is interesting is the phrase καθὼς κἀγὼ.

This same phrase starts off 1 Corinthians 10:33 and is translated “just as I am.” By itself, the word καθὼς carries the idea of “as” or “even as.” The word κἀγὼ is a combination of και and εγω and has the idea of “and I.” Putting these words together creates kind of an odd construct to an English reader because we don’t have anything quite like this. Unpacking it a bit might be something like, “Be imitators of me, even as I also am of Christ.” The genitive form of Χριστοῦ is what makes it “of Christ” instead of just “Christ.”

The point is that Paul is telling them to imitate him, but he is doing it in the sense of how he imitates Christ. In other words, he is not saying that he is perfect and that he is worthy of imitation because of his perfection. Rather, he is telling them to imitate the way he imitates Christ.

This is a vital distinction for us. We live in a world where we want to worship celebrities. Some young guys want to preach like Mark Driscoll. Or maybe it’s John Piper. Maybe we want to imitate the reckless sacrifice of Francis Chan. These are fine role models. However, there is a problem because they are all sinners.

Instead, we should imitate John Piper’s pursuit of knowing God. We should imitate Mark Driscoll’s focus in saving the lost within the community he has targeted. We should imitate Francis Chan’s willingness to cast everything aside for the sake of knowing Christ. But we should not imitate them as men.

And if you ever plan to be in Christian ministry you need to make this distinction clear with your people. They should not be imitating you. They should be imitating you as you follow Christ. They should imitate your pursuit of Christ. However, ultimately they need to pursue Christ.

This means that we need to give them a model to follow as well. But fortunately it is not up to us to save them. It is up to the Lord that we are trying to imitate. Let’s focus on Him and the rest will fall into place.

Portable Water

1 Corinthians 10:4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ.

4 καὶ πάντες τὸ αὐτὸ πνευματικὸν ἔπιον πόμα· ἔπινον γὰρ ἐκ πνευματικῆς ἀκολουθούσης πέτρας, ἡ πέτρα δὲ ἦν ὁ Χριστός.

This is another passage that makes one wonder if it means what it appears to mean. If we read this and take it at face-value it looks like Paul was saying that Christ traveled with the Jews in the wilderness. Can that possibly be what he means?

Well, the language is clear enough. The phrase πνευματικῆς ἀκολουθούσης πέτρας is very literally, “the spiritual rock, the one that followed.” This is connected with the weak conjunction δὲ and it clearly states that the rock was Christ. There is no ambiguity in the language here.

The problem is that this creates something of a tension for us. We know from Paul’s teachings in places like Colossians 1 that the church was a mystery until the revelation that came from Christ. Yet here we see him describing how Christ traveled with the people. The passage goes on to explain how they were apostate despite having Him with them.

What to do? I think that we need to accept Scripture for what it says. Somehow Christ was represented in the rock that traveled with them and provided water. As God saved Israel through the wilderness Paul makes a connection to Christ. Does this mean that Christ was really present with them? It appears so, but I’m not sure that it is necessary to see it this way to interpret this passage faithfully.

One takeaway is to understand that Christ appears in the Old Testament more than is clear at face-value. He was certainly a mystery, but Paul shows us that He was there. This also helps us to understand the language of Ephesians 1:10 that describes how God had “a plan for the fullness of time.”

But we also must be careful not to interpret every piece of wood as the cross or every instance of water as baptism. Not every drop of shed blood in the Old Testament points to Christ’s shed blood at Calvary. However, we also need to be sensitive to how the New Testament authors saw Christ in the Old as they wrote under inspiration of the Holy Spirit

We Must Preach

 1 Corinthians 9:16 For if I preach the gospel, that gives me no ground for boasting. For necessity is laid upon me. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel!

16 ἐὰν γὰρ εὐαγγελίζωμαι, οὐκ ἔστιν μοι καύχημα· ἀνάγκη γάρ μοι ἐπίκειται· οὐαὶ γάρ μοί ἐστιν ἐὰν μὴ εὐαγγελίσωμαι.

Here Paul is making an argument about why ministers should be paid for their work, but that he waived those rights. He uses the phrase ἀνάγκη γάρ μοι ἐπίκειται, which involves a passive construction. There is nothing to unpack beyond how the ESV puts it. The word literally means that something has been put on. I think of it like a burden placed on an animal or on someone's shoulders. There is a weightiness to this charge.


Paul goes so far as to call woe upon himself if he does not preach the gospel. Clearly he considers this to be important. Of course, he was the Apostle Paul; therefore, it was vital for him to preach the gospel. Right?


That is true of Paul, but it is also true for you and me if we are followers of Christ. This is not a task given just to the "ministers" of the gospel. It is given to all Christians. We tend to like our professionals to do work for us. An advanced society is like that our of necessity. I don't know anyone who slaughters and butchers his own meat. I don't know anyone who grows all of his own vegetables. I don't know anyone who processes his own flour. I've never met anyone who physically built his own house (at least not in America). An advanced society has moved to the point of specialization so that we buy and sell products and services.


However, that does not apply to the ministry of the gospel. There is no such thing as a professional. There is in the strictest sense in that some men serve in gospel ministry full-time and get paid to do so, but really there is no distinction between "clergy" and "laity" when it comes to evangelism. We all have different gifts and we all will speak more effectively to different people, but we are all called to gospel ministry.


In other words, woe to any of us if we do not preach the gospel!

There is One God

 1 Corinthians 8:5 For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth--as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"-- ⁶ yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

5 καὶ γὰρ εἴπερ εἰσὶν λεγόμενοι θεοὶ εἴτε ἐν οὐρανῷ εἴτε ἐπὶ γῆς, ὥσπερ εἰσὶν θεοὶ πολλοὶ καὶ κύριοι πολλοί, ⁶  ἀλλ᾽ ἡμῖν εἷς θεὸς ὁ πατὴρ ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰς αὐτόν, καὶ εἷς κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς δι᾽ οὗ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἡμεῖς δι᾽ αὐτοῦ.

Paul writes this short interlude in the middle of an argument about food. Food was a big deal to the Jews and consequently this became a big deal to the early Christians. What difference did it make if food was offered to an idol? It mattered for the conscience of the person who knew about this. It didn't matter to the Christian, but to the idolater it would be considered some form of validation.


Paul referred to the objects of this idol worship as λεγόμενοι θεοὶ. Because λεγόμενοι is a passive participle it can be understood as "those who are being called Gods." The ESV flows better, but that would be the unpacking of "so-called." The point is that someone can call Baal, Molech, Allah, or anything else a god, but they are that in name only.


This is incredibly important for us in our society today. Because we don't want to offend anyone we as a society preach a message of supposed tolerance and pluralism. We say that everyone is free to believe whatever he wants, but that we should not impose that belief system on others. A quick glance at the news shows the impossibility of this stance.


This is fine for a Hindu with a pantheon of gods who sees Jesus as just one more. This is fine for the liberal in any faith tradition who does not consider the sacred material to be binding. However, this is unacceptable to a true Muslim, for example. If the Koran is correct and it is true that "there is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet," then everyone should become a Muslim. Why? Because if they are right then the Christian understands the fundamental of reality incorrectly. If we have the Creator wrong then everything else is going to be wrong.


Conversely, a Christian cannot stand for true pluralism. Certainly he can tolerate anyone believing whatever he   wants to believe. But it is incumbent upon the Christian to explain reality to everyone. That reality starts with the God of Scripture. If the Bible is correct then the natural consequence is evangelism about Jesus. It has to be. There is no alternative.


There is a corollary to this as well. If the God of the Bible is the one true God then where does that leave everyone else? They are worshiping demons. They are fundamentally no different than the priests Elijah battled on Mount Carmel. And, if the Bible is true, they will have an eternity of suffering in the presence of demons. There is no middle ground here. On which side do you stand?

The Old Self

 1 Corinthians 6:11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

11 καὶ ταῦτά τινες ἦτε· ἀλλὰ ἀπελούσασθε, ἀλλὰ ἡγιάσθητε, ἀλλὰ ἐδικαιώθητε ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ ἐν τῷ πνεύματι τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν.

Paul had just explained again about how all kinds of sinners would not inherit the Kingdom of God. Then he uses a wonderful word in  ἦτε. This is the imperfect form of "to be." What Paul means here is that there was a time when our lives were characterized as sexually immoral, swindlers, etc. Then he uses the very strong adversative ἀλλὰ. It is terrible English, but the most literal translation of this would be, "And this is the way some of you were, but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified." There is no grammatical reason for him to use the word three times, so it is a good guess that it is for emphasis. Paul is creating a stark contrast between the former life and the new life in Christ. 

As I wrote previously, there is an assumption in Paul's writings that the Christian will have experienced a changed life. We can call ourselves whatever we want, but if we are truly new creations in Christ then our lives will show it. To paraphrase an old children's song, if you're saved and you know it then your life will surely show it.

Please understand that I am not promoting a works-righteousness as the disciples of Zane Hodges may accuse me of doing. Nor am I saying that the Christian walks in perfect obedience. The book of 1 John certainly contradicts that idea as does the testimony of my life. But all of these things represent ways of life. Is my life characterized by sin now or is it characterized by freedom? That's really the question I need to ask myself.

The good news is that if I am truly in Christ then as far as God is concerned I will ultimately be seen as perfect because Christ is perfect. He represents me as the great High Priest as well as the perfect atoning sacrifice for my sin. It is not based on my performance. However, if my life does not change then I need to question what my salvation really means to me.

This seems to be a theme in 1 Corinthians. He is challenging them in the sense that if they want to call themselves Christians then their lives should be Christlike. The challenge is no different for us today.

Does Paul Really Mean This?

 1 Corinthians 5:11 But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler--not even to eat with such a one.

11 νῦν δὲ ἔγραψα ὑμῖν μὴ συναναμίγνυσθαι ἐάν τις ἀδελφὸς ὀνομαζόμενος ᾖ πόρνος ἢ πλεονέκτης ἢ εἰδωλολάτρης ἢ λοίδορος ἢ μέθυσος ἢ ἅρπαξ, τῷ τοιούτῳ μηδὲ συνεσθίειν.

This is one of those verses that is easy to gloss over because it cannot possibly mean what it seems like it means, right? Paul uses the word συναναμίγνυσθαι. This is an infinitive form and it literally means "to mix together with." This word appears in the LXX in Hosea 7:8 where it reads that "Ephraim mixes himself with the peoples." It appears earlier in 1 Corinthians 5:9 with basically the same usage. It also appears negatively in  2 Thessalonians 3:14 where Paul commands that the recipients "have nothing to do with" certain people. Clearly this word connotes close fellowship.  


Does Paul really mean that we are not to associate with those who do such things if they are in the church? What about grace? Shouldn't we love on these people rather than purge them from our midst?


Obviously there is a place for grace. There is always a place for grace. However, that does not mean that such people should worship in the fellowship. This is tied into the commands for church discipline in Matthew 18. There is a standard of holiness expected for believers.


Now this can easily turn into the kind of legalism seen in some independent fundamentalist churches if we focus on conduct. This is similar to how well-meaning Christian parents raise obedient Pharisees because they focus on the conduct. Obedience to this command starts with the heart. 


What it does not mean is that we should feel comfortable driving to our megachurch in a $50,000 vehicle to hear a sermon about how other people have problems and we need to fix them. It does mean that we need to examine our own hearts and look for these sins. We need to confess them and repent. 


And we also need to take care not to become morality police. This passage refers to people whose lives are characterized by these practices. It does not mean someone who looks at a brother's iPad 2 and thinks how great it would be to have one. It does not mean someone who is out with his friends and occasionally drinks one pint too many. It does not mean someone who has clicked on a link he knows that he shouldn't have and then repented of it. No, this refers to people whose lives are characterized by these sins. You could call them "besetting sins" to use some old parlance. There are no hard and fast lines to be drawn here.


The point is that to Paul the idea of accepting Christ as your Savior without repentance is unthinkable. If anyone does that and his life shows no change then it is time to get back to the gospel because he is not a brother in Christ. 

More Folly

1 Corinthians 2:14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

14 ψυχικὸς δὲ ἄνθρωπος οὐ δέχεται τὰ τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ θεοῦ· μωρία γὰρ αὐτῷ ἐστιν καὶ οὐ δύναται γνῶναι, ὅτι πνευματικῶς ἀνακρίνεται.

There is a thread that follows through this portion of 1 Corinthians with the contrast between the ways of the world and the ways of God. Once again we see Paul use the word  μωρία to describe how the world perceives the Gospel. Not only does the natural man (the unconverted man) see the gospel as folly, Paul writes that this man οὐ δύναται γνῶναι. Literally, this means that he does not have the ability to comprehend.


This underlies the doctrine of election. That is to say that some are called to salvation and others are not. That is the only way to make sense of this. There is nothing in the natural man that enables him to accept the gospel. To quote the great theologian Austin Millbarge, "We mock what we do not understand."


I find it interesting that election is resisted so strongly by so many in America. It is interesting because I think that it speaks to the heart of our contemporary culture. From a very early age we are told that we can be anything we want to be. We just have to work hard and put our minds to it. Of course, many can realize that is absurd with any examination. I was never going to be a professional basketball player no matter how hard I worked. Even if I was the smartest point guard in the world I am too short, my reflexes are too slow, and my muscles just do not twitch quickly. In contrast, Jason Kidd was never going to get a degree in Chemical Engineering from any accredited university, but he has been a fantastic basketball player. We all have different gifts.


The point is that, despite the absurdity just beneath the surface, we have been sold this bill of goods. Therefore, we chafe at the idea that some are never going to believe the gospel. We think that if we just package it the right way we will win some. We think that we just need to break down all their arguments and they will believe it. But that is not what this passage says.


Learn apologetics and use them. Refine your evangelistic techniques. Be wise in how you interact with people. But also realize that ultimately salvation is between a person and the Lord. All we can do is scatter seed and pray that God would make it grow.

The Folly of the Cross

1 Corinthians 1:18 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

18 Ὁ λόγος γὰρ ὁ τοῦ σταυροῦ τοῖς μὲν ἀπολλυμένοις μωρία ἐστίν, τοῖς δὲ σῳζομένοις ἡμῖν δύναμις θεοῦ ἐστιν.

At the risk of committing an exegetical fallacy, I want to point something out in this verse. The word  μωρία is translated as "folly" here. It could also be translated "foolishness." This word seems to be related to the word μωρός, which is where we get our word "moron" from. I normally chafe at this kind of a word association game, but I think it applies here for illustration purposes.


The point is that the cross seems foolish or even moronic to those who don't believe the Gospel. But for those of us who are being saved it is everything. It is the power of God.


This helps to explain the problems we have with evangelism and witnessing. As we talk to people about the cross we get a lot of funny looks and arguments. They don't understand how this works. What does a man dying on a cross have to do with my standing before God? If we believe the gospel we understand that it has everything to do with that. If not, then it is ridiculous. It takes God to open the spiritual eyes so that it makes sense.


This does not remove our obligation for evangelism, but it does provide comfort when a clear presentation of the gospel falls on deaf ears. The cross was folly to me before I was saved and it is folly to anyone else that cannot see with spiritual eyes. Remember that as you evangelize. You are evangelizing, right?

Submitting to Authorities

Romans 13:1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.

1 Πᾶσα ψυχὴ ἐξουσίαις ὑπερεχούσαις ὑποτασσέσθω. οὐ γὰρ ἔστιν ἐξουσία εἰ μὴ ὑπὸ θεοῦ, αἱ δὲ οὖσαι ὑπὸ θεοῦ τεταγμέναι εἰσίν.

This is one of those verses that many of us choke on. After all, here in America we can point to all kinds of corruption in the government. Everyone has that and everyone can find governing authorities that clearly have beliefs that are antagonistic to the Christian. For example, a wildly pro-choice elected official should cause problems of conscience to the sincere believer. Can't we just ignore a President who holds beliefs that are clearly contrary to Scripture?


But we have to deal with this verse. I find the phrase αἱ δὲ οὖσαι interesting. This is a participle that is broken up by the weak adversitive δὲ. Basically, what this reads is "those that are." In other words, anyone who is in power is there because God put him there.


A lot of American Christians have problems with Barack Obama, and legitimately so. I have my issues with his politics. Yet he was instituted by God. Taking this further, Nero was instituted by God. Stalin and Hitler were instituted by God. Their positions were established by Him and they were put there by Him for His purposes. To think less would be to grossly understate His sovereignty. 


I realize that this philosophically borders on theodicy in a way, but we cannot ignore this verse. When we reach a tension like this we have two choices. We can say that God must fit the way we think things should be, which is what a lot of people do. Or, we can change our view of God based on Scripture. That is the way we should do it. That's easy to write, but difficult to do.