Exegesis and Theology

The Blog of Brian Collins

Exegesis of 1 Corinthians 7:36-40: A Father and His Daughter or a Man and His Betrothed?

by

The interpretation of 7:36-38 is a matter of debate as a comparison of the NASB and ESV reveals.

NASB:

But if any man thinks that he is acting unbecomingly toward his virgin daughter, if she is past her youth, and if it must be so, let him do what he wishes, he does not sin; let her marry. 37 But he who stands firm in his heart, being under no constraint, but has authority over his own will, and has decided this in his own heart, to keep his own virgin daughter, he will do well. 38 So then both he who gives his own virgin daughter in marriage does well, and he who does not give her in marriage will do better.

ESV:

If anyone thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his betrothed, if his passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry—it is no sin. 37 But whoever is firmly established in his heart, being under no necessity but having his desire under control, and has determined this in his heart, to keep her as his betrothed, he will do well. 38 So then he who marries his betrothed does well, and he who refrains from marriage will do even better.

The first obvious translation difference is the NASB’s “virgin daughter” in contrast to the ESV’s “betrothed.” In favor of “betrothed,” Garland cites several passages where the betrothed are said to be virgins (Matt. 1:18, 23; Luke 1:27; 2 Cor. 11:2). But in none of these cases does “virgin” mean betrothed. All who are betrothed would be expected to be virgins, but not all virgins are betrothed. Some appeal to the English idiom “his girl” to support the translation “betrothed” (Barrett, 184), but appealing to English idioms seems like an exegetical stretch. In favor of “virgin daughter,” παρθένος never means betrothed anywhere in Scripture (LXX or GNT), Plato, Philo, or the Apostolic Fathers. However, it must be acknowledged that when Scripture refers to a virgin daughter, in other passages “daughter” is explicit in the text (Judges 19:24; 2 Sam. 13:18, etc). In extra-biblical Greek Sophocles does use “my virgins” for “my daughters” (Morris citing LSJ, 117). On the balance, the usage leans towards interpreting “his virgin” as “his virgin daughter.” It may be that Paul avoided the term daughter to keep the relationship indefinite so that the teaching applies to both fathers and guardians.

The second translation difficulty is between the NASB’s “if she is past her youth” and the ESV’s “if his passions are strong.” After surveying extra-biblical usage (the word occurs only here in the Scripture), Winter concludes, “From these examples of ὑπέρακμος and its cognates a number of points emerge. Clearly the verbal form neither suggested that a person had reached menopause if a woman, nor impotence through age if a man. It was used to refer either to a woman who has reached puberty and therefore could engage in intercourse and safely conceive, or to the sexual drives or passions of either sex. Usually it referred to the man, and then to indicate the danger of being entrapped by immorality through his natural sex drives” (TynBul, 77). This means the ESV’s rendering is possible, but “if she has reached puberty” is also possible. The NASB’s rendering is probably not the best unless “youth” is taken to mean childhood.

Thus ὑπέρκαμος could refer either to a woman who has reached puberty or to the passions of a man or woman. Winter favors the latter on the basis that ἀσκημονέω often has overtones of sexual impropriety (TynBul, 78). This is true, but the word has a “variety of connotations” (Garland, 340) and can refer to any kind of impropriety (see Fee, 638 and Thiselton, 1049, 1051 on 1 Corinthians 13:5; see also Deut. 25:3 and Ezekiel 16 for other biblical uses). Another argument in favor of the ESV’s rendering is that the “unexpressed subject in a dependent clause usually picks up the subject of the preceding clause” (Fee, 351). But Fee also says, “one cannot be sure” and leaves open the possibility that the word here refers to the virgin (ibid.).

“And it must be so”/“and it has to be” is a reference forward to the marriage under either interpretation. If taking the NASB’s line of interpretation, this refers to the father or guardian’s conviction that he should permit his daughter to marry since it would be shameful otherwise. If taking the ESV’s line of interpretation, this refers to the betrothed man’s conviction that since he is acting in a sexually dishonorable way toward his betrothed, he must marry her.

The NASB renders the closing line of 7:36 “let her marry.” The ESV translates “let them marry.” In this case, the ESV is clearly correct. Γαμείτωσαν is clearly a third person plural. Garland says that under the father-daughter view the third person plural subject “abruptly brings in a third party” whereas the betrothed view naturally takes the “them” as the man and his virgin spoken of throughout the verse (Garland, 337). A. T. Robertson, however, suggests “the subject [is] drawn from the context” (Robertson, 1204).

Verse 37 provides a contrast to the “let them marry” of verse 36. Under the father-daughter view, the one standing firm refers to the father who is firmly convinced that he is doing the right thing in keeping his daughter a virgin. Under the betrothed view, the one firmly established is the man who is convinced that he is doing the right thing in not marrying his betrothed.

“Being under no constraint/necessity.” In the father-daughter view, “under no constraint” means the father is not under any compulsion (like the knowledge that it would be improper) to hold his virgin back from being married. In the betrothed view, “under no necessity” means the betrothed man is not under the compulsion of his own desires for sexual satisfaction. Thus he can refrain from marriage (Garland, 343).

In contrast to being under compulsion, the one who lets them marry/the one who marries must have “authority over his own will” (NASB) or have “his desire under control” (ESV). The difference here is simply a more literal translation on the part of the NASB and a more interpretive translation on the part of the ESV at this point. In the father-daughter view, having “authority over his own will” simply means that this action is not coerced. Paul doesn’t want men to keep their virgins just because of the pressure in the Corinthian church for an ascetic lifestyle (cf. 7:1). In the betrothed view, having “authority over his own will” means the man has control over his sexual desires.

Nothing to this point in 7:37 firmly points one way or the other. Either view can make sense of 7:37 up to this point. But “to keep his own virgin daughter” (NASB)/“to keep her as his betrothed” (ESV) presents a major problem for the betrothed view. As noted above, it is unlikely that παρθένος should be translated betrothed. Thiselton argues the verse should be translated, “to respect her virginity.” He says, this “cannot be intelligibly translated as to keep his own virgin without distorting Paul’s meaning. The noun refers to the-woman-as-virgin for which in English we should speak of the woman’s virginity.” Thus “it is difficult to improve on the REB’s to respect her virginity” (601). Against Thiselton, the noun refers not to virginity but to the-woman-as-virgin. The “his own” makes no sense if the noun refers to virginity. In support of “keep her a virgin” Fee cites Achilles Tatius 8.17.3 τηρησω δε σε παρθενον (but I will keep you a virgin) and 8.18.2 παρθενον γαρ την κορην μερχι τουτου τετρηκα (I have kept the maiden a virgin to this hour) (353n. 26). But note that Fee’s quotations don’t include the important “his own.” Fee says “this tends to be a difficult clause for any view,” but in reality this clause fits the father-daughter view quite well. It is a major difficulty for the betrothed view. It results in the odd conclusion that Paul is saying that a man may betroth a woman, and keep her as his betrothed, and yet never marry her.

In 7:38 Paul gives his conclusion. The key difference between the NASB and ESV is the phrase translated either “he who gives . . . in marriage” (NASB) or “he who marries” (ESV). The key word is γαμίζω. The dispute is whether the word γαμίζω can mean “marry” or whether it only means “to give in marriage.” Everywhere else in the New Testament (it does not occur in the LXX), γαμίζω means “give in marriage” (Matt. 22:30; 24:38; Mk. 12:25; Lk. 17:27; 20:35). The word γαμέω uniformly means “to marry” (Matt. 5:32; 19:9f; 22:25, 30; 24:38; Mk. 6:17; 10:11f; 12:25; Lk. 14:20; 16:18; 17:27; 20:34f; 1 Co. 7:9f, 28, 33f, 36, 39; 1 Tim. 4:3; 5:11, 14), including nine occurrences within 1 Corinthians 7 itself.

Fee counters by noting “that the classical distinctions between -eo and -izo verbs had broken down in the koine period” (355). Thus he argues for the possibility that γαμίζω simply means “to marry” in 7:38. While Fee is correct that –ιζω was losing its distinctive force in the period of the New Testament, the question remains whether this was the case with γαμίζω. Apollonius Dyscolus, a second-century Greek grammarian, wrote that γαμῶ meant “I receive in marriage” and γαμίζω meant “I give in marriage” (BDAG, 188; Bekker, 280). This seems to indicate that the distinction between γαμίζω and γαμέω held longer than with other words. Furthermore, those who argue that γαμίζω and γαμέω mean the same thing need to explain why Paul changes the verb here since he used γαμέω nine times in this chapter. Why change the verb? Why change it here? Fee says that the best answer may simply be stylistic variation. He also floats the idea that γαμέω is used intransitively and γαμίζω is used transitively by Paul. This is a difficult statement to prove or disprove since this is the only occurrence of γαμίζω in Paul. On the whole, it is more likely that γαμίζω here means “give in marriage.”

The editors of BDAG minimize the Apollonius quotation by saying, “It is hard to say how far the rule of Apollon., quoted above, applies, since there are so few exx. of γ. In any case, his observation indicates that mistakes could be made in the use of either term.” They also note that γαμίζω is used for “marry” by the third-century bishop Methodius. Yet it is interesting that Theodoret of Cyrus, a fifth-century bishop text using the word εγγαμιζειν, which means to “marry off” (246, n. 23). Theodoret takes the father-daughter view without even noting another possibility.

On the whole, the father-daughter view seems preferable to the betrothed view. It adopts the attested rather than an unattested meaning for παρθένος. It provides the best explanation of “keep his own virgin.” It best accounts for the use of γαμίζω. It’s handing of ὑπέρκαμος is well within attested usage. It also seems to fit the cultural context better. The biggest challenge to the father-daughter view seems to be the subjects of ᾖ ὑπέρκαμος and γαμείτωσαν. The unexpressed subject of ᾖ ὑπέρκαμος would more naturally refer to the man, and on the father-daughter view the implied subject of γαμείτωσαν introduces a groom without previous mention. But neither of these are insurmountable challenges.

According to the father-daughter view, Paul concludes the chapter by looking at what a father’s attitude toward his virgin daughter should be (and the issue of remarriage after widowhood). Paul had been recommending (but not commanding) singleness for the sake of the kingdom of heaven (7:36–38). At the same time some Corinthians seem to have wrongly thought that abstinence from marital relations was a more spiritual state than marriage (7:1). In this context Paul warns fathers and guardians about improperly restricting the marriage of their virgin daughters. It seems from the opening question of the Corinthians that some fathers might have been under pressure not to marry off their daughters. Paul here tells them that to do so is no sin. If the father thinks he is not acting rightly toward his virgin daughter by not giving her in marriage, he should give her in marriage. A father may conclude that he is not wronging his daughter by her remaining single for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. But if this is the choice, it can’t be due to pressure from others. He has to be convinced in his own heart that he is acting rightly toward and not wronging his daughter. Paul observes that both courses of action are good. In keeping with his emphasis in this passage, however, Paul does express his preference for singleness.

In sum, Paul does not fully assent to the statement that it is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman (7:1). He denies that this is the case for people already married (7:2-6). He further does not believe that marriages should be dissolved, even if they are mixed between unbelievers and believers (7:10-24). But Paul does commend singleness. He wishes that everyone were single like himself (7:7). Because of the last days that have arrived (7:26, 29, 31), it is good not to marry so that undivided attention may be given to the Lord’s work. However, Paul concedes that this is simply his trustworthy opinion and not a binding restraint (7:25, 35). Paul wants it to be as easy as possible for undivided attention to be given to God’s work (7:32). Nonetheless, Paul notes that it is possible to render great service to the Lord and be married (7:29). In fact, to be single is a special gift from God not granted to everyone (this does not mean that those so gifted are superior to those who have differing gifts, see Paul’s discussion in 12:14-26) (7:7), and some who cannot control themselves (including both thoughts and actions) ought to marry (7:9).

Paul is clearly commending singleness in this passage. Many resist Paul’s clear teaching by attempting to limit the application of Paul’s teaching to a first century situation (e.g., a local famine or a time of persecution) while others may simply ignore Paul’s commendations. Neither should be done. On the other hand, Paul’s words must be placed within their broader canonical context. When the disciples respond to Jesus’ teaching on divorce by exclaiming that it would be better not to marry, Jesus replied, “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given” (Matt. 19:11).

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Barrett, C. K. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. Black’s New Testament Commentary. ed. Henry Chadwick. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1968.

Bekker, Imanuelis, ed. Apollonii Alexanrini De Constructione. Berlin: Reimeri, 1817.

Birkett, Kirsten and Lois Hagger, “Gift of Singleness? You’re not Serious? A Look at Paul’s Call to Singleness in 1 Corinthians 7,” Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 5 (Fall 2000): [Electronic].

Bruce, F. F. 1 and 2 Corinthians. New Century Bible. ed. Matthew Black. London: Oliphants, 1971.

Calvin, John. “Commentary on the Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians.” In Calvin’s Commentaries. vol. 20 trans. John Pringle Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996.

Fee, Gordon D. “1 Corinthians 7:1 in the NIV.” In Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 23 (December 1980): 307-14.

Fee, Gordon D. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. New International Commentary on the New Testament. ed. F. F. Bruce. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986.

Garland, David E. 1 Corinthians. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. ed. Robert W. Yarbrough and Robert H. Stein. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003.

Lightfoot, J. B. Notes on the Epistles of St. Paul. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999.

Morris, Leon. 1 Corinthians. rev. ed. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. ed. Leon Morris. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985.

Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. 2nd ed. New York. United Bible Society, 2002.

Piper, John. “Foreword: For Single Men and Women (And the Rest of Us).” In Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. ed. John Piper and Wayne Grudem. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1991.

Robertson, A. T. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in Light of Historical Research. Third ed. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1919. Reprint, Norfolk, VA: BibleWorks, 2005.

Theodoret of Cyrus. Commentary on the Letters of Paul. Volume 1. Translated by Robert Charles Hill. Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2001.

Thiselton, Anthony C. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. New International Greek Testament Commentary. ed. I. Howard Marshall and Donald A. Hagner. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.

Winter, Bruce W. “Puberty or Passion? The Referent of ΥΠΕΡΑΚΜΟΣ in 1 Corinthians 7:36.” In Tyndale Bulletin 49.1 (1988): 71-89.

 

Exegesis of 1 Corinthians 7:25-35

by

In verse 25 Paul picks up once again the subject of singleness. He says that regarding virgins (unfortunately rendered “betrothed” in some translations) he has no express command, though he does have a trustworthy (even inspired!) opinion. (Theodoret notes that Christ actually said not everyone could accept the condition of celibacy, which meant that Paul’s advice here could not be considered law; p. 187.) Paul’s opinion is: “I think that in view of the present distress it is good for a person to remain as he is. Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be released [echoing what he said previously]. Are you loosed from a wife? Do not seek a wife. But if you do marry, you have not sinned, and if a [virgin] marries, she has not sinned. Yet those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that” (7:26-28).

What does Paul mean by “present distress”? Some think that it refers to some immediate crisis, like a famine, in the locale of Corinth (Winter cited in Garland, 324). But this is unlikely in light of Paul’s fuller explanation (“This is what I mean… [v. 29]) which concludes with the statement “the present form of this world is passing away” (7:31). The present distress is the last days that stretch from the ascension of Christ to His return.

Paul’s opening words of his explanation (7:29-31) are quite shocking. They may perhaps be best understood by working backward from 7:31. The KJV translates this verse, “And they that use the world, as not abusing it.” The ESV translates “those who deal with the world as though they had no dealings with it,” but it is probably better translated, “and those who use the world as though they did not make full use of it” ([H]CSB, NASB). In other words, because this world is passing away don’t make the world the full focus of your attention. Note the end of 7:30, “those who buy as though they had no goods.” Paul admits people are going to buy, but don’t let their goods consume your attention. The first part of v. 30: “Those who mourn as though they were not mourning, and those who rejoice as though they were not rejoicing.” Paul is not commanding the absolute cessation of weeping or rejoicing. Garland notes, “He himself weeps (Rom 9:2; 2 Cor. 2:4; Phil. 2:25-30; 3:18) and rejoices (1 Cor. 16:17; 2 Cor. 7:4-10; Phil. 1:12-19; 4:10)” (Garland, 329-30). Paul’s point is that these are not ultimate. Don’t weep as if that’s all there is. Don’t rejoice as if that’s all there is. Don’t buy as if that is the end all. Don’t use the world as if it’s all that mattered. And the married should not live as though marriage is ultimate. It’s not. These are the last days. In the eternal state, marriage will not continue (Mark 12:25).

So Paul says to the married, live as though you had no spouse—in a certain sense. Certainly not as a celibate; Paul commands the contrary earlier in the chapter. Furthermore, Paul is certainly not encouraging couples to ignore their spouse’s needs. He assumes that the spouses will be concerned about one another (7:33). But Paul is telling the married that they should not view their marriage as ultimate. The ultimate should be service to the Lord since the end times are now.

In 7:32-35 Paul expands on why he encourages people to remain single. Though the married are to live in some ways as though they were not married because of the last days, Paul realizes that by its very nature, married people won’t be able to be as undivided in their service to the Lord. Married people are concerned how to please their spouse—and it is pleasing to the Lord that they are. But Paul recommends the single life for undivided service to God.

This should be kept in context. Paul begins the section by saying that his comments here are not commands from God, though they are trustworthy opinion (7:25). And as he concludes this section, he notes that he is not seeking to “lay any restraint” on his hearers (7:35). They may marry without sin (7:28).

Exegesis of 1 Corinthians 7:7-24

by

Verse 7 marks a transition. Most translations leave the conjunction in this verse untranslated, but the NASB rightly includes it: “Yet I wish that all men were even as I myself am.” In verses 2-6 Paul responds to the issue of whether or not it is good for men and women to have sexual relations. Paul’s response is that within marriage there is no choice—a husband and a wife must have such relations. But, here he does acknowledge a situation in which it is good for a man to not have such relations: “To the unmarried and widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am” (v. 7).

Paul is not saying that singleness is better than marriage. He says it is good. Marriage is good. Singleness may also be good. Paul does say that he wishes everyone could be single like him, but he recognizes that singleness is a gift from God. Other people may have other gifts and not this gift. Paul commends singleness as a good thing, but he recognizes that it is only good for those to whom God grants it as a gift. He then provides a sure indication that one does not have the gift: if a person is not exercising self-control, he does not have the gift of singleness and ought to marry rather than “burn in his passion” (some think the intended meaning is rather than “burn in hell,” but “to burn” was a common idiom in Paul’s day for “burn with passion”) (Garland, 273-74).

Beginning with verse 10 Paul gives further instructions to the married. In general he is urging them to remain married. In verses 10-11 he reiterates Jesus’ teaching that divorce is not an option for a Christian (cf. Matt. 5:32; 19:3–9; Mark 10:2–12; Luke 16:18). In 7:12-16 Paul deals with the issue of Christians who are married to an unconverted spouse. Paul acknowledges that Jesus said nothing about this during his earthly ministry (“to the rest I say (I, not the Lord)” 7:12). But Paul’s words here are inspired by God and thus still carry divine authority. Paul says that the Christian should try to keep the marriage together for the sake of the unbeliever and the children. The presence of the believer in the family has a sanctifying effect on the family which may result in the salvation of those in it who are lost (7:14, 16). If the unsaved spouse ends the marriage, the saved spouse is not bound to attempt to keep the marriage together (7:15). Paul supports his teaching with illustrations about circumcision and slavery. Hellenized Jews would undergo surgery to reverse the marks of circumcision. Paul tells circumcised Christians not to do this. Likewise, uncircumcised Christians had no need to seek circumcision. In the same way, slaves were to be content with their position as slaves, though in their case they may take advantage of an opportunity for freedom (7:21). These illustrations reinforce Paul’s teaching about marriage. People who are married should be satisfied with their condition. It is wrong to seek divorce. If, however, an unbelieving spouse leaves, the Christian should be willing to accept the new condition of singleness.

Exegesis of 1 Corinthians 7:1-6

by

The right understanding of 1 Corinthians 7:1 can be approached by a comparison of translations. The NIV 1984 translates 1 Corinthians 7:1 “Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry.” “Not to marry” is the interpretive translation of what the NASB translates literally, “it is good for a man not to touch a woman.” Since “touch a woman” is an idiom, an interpretive translation is helpful here. The NIV 1984, however, misinterpreted the idiom.

The idiom in question is fairly common in the ancient literature, occurring in Plato, Aristotle, Plutarch, Josephus, and Marcus Aurelius. The idiom also occurs elsewhere in Scripture. For instance in Genesis 20:6 God speaks to the Philistine king, Abimelech, in a dream: “I know that you have done this in the integrity of your heart, and it was I who kept you from sinning against me. Therefore I did not let you touch her.” “Touch” here refers to sexual relations, as the context makes clear. A less clear occurrence is found in Ruth 2:9. Proverbs 6:29 provides another clear example: “So is he who goes in to his neighbor’s wife; none who touches her will go unpunished.” “Touches” is here paralleled with “going in to” a wife, a clear reference to sexual relations (Fee, “1 Corinthians 7:1,” 308). Thus translation of the NIV 2011 improves on its predecessor by translating, “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.”

The second question that arises is whether verse 1 is Paul’s viewpoint or that of the Corinthians. In the ESV, (H)CSB, NRSV, and NIV 2011 the latter part of the verse is in quotation marks which indicate that Paul is quoting the Corinthians. The idea that this was a quotation stretches back as far as the church father Origen (Thiselton, 499; cf. Theodoret, 182). This seems likely due to the way that Paul immediately qualifies the statement in the following verses. Those who don’t view the latter part of verse 7 as a quotation, must take it as a statement of a thing good Paul thought good only in certain circumstances. Thus he immediately qualifies the statement (Calvin, Corinthians, 222-23).

In any case, Paul is responding to the questions of the Corinthians regarding the acceptability of celibacy. He counters the statement “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman” with the statement, “But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.” Despite the sound in English, Paul is not commanding everyone to get married. Those who attempt this interpretation invariably must soften the idea to a “general rule” that most people ought to get married (Morris, 102). But if Paul had wanted to encourage everyone (or even most people) to get married, he probably would have said, “each man should take [from λαμβάνω] his own wife” (also, to have told wives to take a husband does not fit the cultural situation) (Fee, Commentary, 278). The idiom Paul uses, “have [from ἔχω] his own husband or wife,” often indicates sexual intercourse. The LXX uses this idiom to translate the Hebrew word for “lain with” [שׁכב] in passages where sexual intercourse is clearly in view (Deut. 28:30; Isa. 13:16). Paul uses it in 1 Corinthians 5:1, “It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you…for a man has [from ἔχω] his father’s wife” (Fee, “1 Corinthians 7:1,” 310-11; Garland, 255-56; Theodoret, 182). Thus we could translate this verse, “each [husband] should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband” (NIV 2011). Verses 3-5, then, are a further expansion of the teaching of verse 2.

Paul’s point is this: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations” is not true for married people. Verse 1 does not endorse celibacy as better than marriage. Verse 2 does not command everyone to get married. Instead, in response to the question of celibacy, Paul’s first response is that married people ought not be celibate.

In verse 6 Paul says, “Now as a concession, not a command I say this.” What is the “this” that Paul is conceding and not commanding? With our understanding of the first 5 verses, Paul can’t be referring back to verse 2 and saying that he concedes marriage is acceptable, but that it is not commanded (cf. Hodge, 110-11). This is a popular view, but Paul actually uses imperatives in verse 2 and throughout the first five verses. In any event, Paul isn’t talking about getting married in verse 2. He’s telling husbands and wives not to deprive one another. Others think the “this” points forward to Paul’s wish that all were single as he is (Garland, 275), but this involves adopting a less likely textual variant (the “for” reflected in the KJV, NKJV) (Metzger, 489; Fee, Commentary, 272 n.19). More likely, Paul is referring back to the one concession he does make to the Corinthians about it being good for a man to not have sexual relations with a woman: verse 5, “except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer” (Fee, Commentary, 283-94; Barrett, 157).

Quarles on 1 Thessalonians 1:9

by

Quarles, Charles L. The ΑΠΟ of 2 Thessalonians 1:9 and the Nature of Eternal Punishment,” Westminster Theological Journal 59, no. 2 (Fall 1997): 201-12.

Quarles is responding to annihilationists who argue that since 2 Thessalonians 1:9 says the wicked will “suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord,” and since God is omnipresent, therefore to be away from God’s presence means to be annihilated. Quarles draws on passages from the Old Testament in which sinners who enter God’s presence are destroyed to argue that the απο, in this case, is not indicating separation, is in the ESV quoted above (cf. NASB, NIV, NRSV). Instead, the presence of the Lord is the source of the destruction. This understanding may be reflected in the translation of the CSB: “pay the penalty of eternal destruction from the Lord’s presence.”

I think Quarles makes a good case. However, I don’t think it is a necessary case to oppose an annihilation view. Even if από is separative, it does not imply annihilation. The presence of God does not always refer to God’s omnipresence. Sometimes it refers to a special fellowship that God’s people have with him. Adam and Eve lost this in Eden, it was symbolically restored in the tabernacle, further restored in the Incarnation, and then advanced in the giving of the Spirit. The presence of God is significant for all these events, but it is not omnipresence that is in view.

Interpreting 2 Thessalonians 2:3

by

Robert Cara highlights a difficulty that interpreters for 2 Thessalonians 2:3 face. That verse “has signs occurring before the Second Coming” whereas “1 Thess. 5:2 … apparently does not” (Robert J. Cara, A Study Commentary on 1 and 2 Thessalonians EP Study Commentary [Webster, NY: Evangelical Press, 2009], 199). Cara seeks to resolve this problem by arguing that “the appearing of the Antichrist and Christ’s battle with him will essentially take place at the same time” (Ibid., 206).

I don’t find this to be a satisfying resolution to the problem.

James Hamilton observes that the “rebellion” that Paul refers to in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 probably relates to “the following statements in Daniel, each of which uses the Hebrew noun פסע (peša’), rendered as ‘transgression’ (e.g., ESV, NKJV) or ‘rebellion’ (HCSB, TNIV [TNIV cited here]):

  • Daniel 8:12, ‘Because of rebellion’
  • Daniel 8:13, ‘the rebellion that causes desolation’
  • Daniel 8:23, ‘when rebels have become completely wicked’ (participial form of the cognate verb)
  • Daniel 9:24, ‘ to finish transgression’

These texts that refer to ‘rebellion/transgression’ and ‘rebels’ in Daniel are accompanied by the references to ‘the abomination that makes desolate’ (Dan. 11:31;12:11 and cf. the similar phrases in 8:13 and 9:27)” (James M. Hamilton, With the Clouds of Heaven: The Book of Daniel in Biblical Theology, New Studies in Biblical Theology, ed. D. A. Carson [Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2014], 192).

Included in Daniel 8 is the specific period of time which either amounts to 2,300 days or 1,150 days (the difference being whether evening and morning are counted individually or together as the indication of a single day).

Also, on Cara’s view, why would Paul’s response simply have been, if the Day of the Lord had happened, you would know because Christ would be present. To explain why Paul did not simply argue in that way, Gene Green argues that 2:2 should be translated as it is by the KJV: “that the day of Christ is at hand,” Green agues: “The following discourse on the signs before the end (vv. 3ff.) itself indicates that the concern was not about whether the day had already come but its imminence” (Gene L. Green, The Letters to the Thessalonians, Pillar New Testament Commentary, ed. D. A. Carson [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002], 305).

But in taking this position Green is arguing against the undisputed “natural sense of ἐνέστηκεν“ (F. F. Bruce, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, Word Biblical Commentary, ed. David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker [Waco, TX: Word, 1982], 165) in favor of one based on an inferred apodosis. Frame notes, “ἐνέστηκεν means not ‘is coming’ (ἔρχεται I 52), not ‘is at hand’ (ἤγγικεν Rom. 1312), not ‘is near’ (ἐγγύς ἐστιν Phil.45), but ‘has come,’ ‘is on hand,’ ‘is present’” (James Everett Frame, The Epistles of Paul to the Thessalonians, International Critical Commentary, eds. Samuel Rolles Driver, Alfred Plummer, and Charles Augustus Briggs [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1912], 248; see also Jeffrey A. D. Weima, 1-2 Thessalonians Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, ed. Robert W. Yarbrough and Robert H. Stein [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2014], 501-502). The NRSV correctly translates the phrase, “that the day of the Lord is already here” (cf. NIV, NKJV, NASB, ESV, [H]CSB).

The preceding discussion has revealed two problems: (1) Why did Paul not argue simply that they were not in the Day of the Lord because if they were in it Christ would have already come? (2) How is 1 Thessalonians 5, which indicates that there are no signs preceding the day of the Lord, to be harmonized with 2 Thessalonians 2, which seems to give two events that must precede the day of the Lord?

The solution to the first problem is noted by Weima: “Most commentators conclude that the Christians in Thessalonica likely did not understand the day of the Lord to be a single and instantaneous happening but rather to be a complex number of events, of which Christ’s parousia was just one part (so, e.g., Frame 1912: 248; Best 1977: 279; Marhsall 1983: 186; Morris 1991: 217; Wanamaker 1990: 240; Dunn 1998: 301n37; for objections, see Nicholl 2004:117). The claim that ‘the day of the Lord has come,’ therefore, would be interpreted by the Thessalonians to mean that the series of events connected with that eschatological day have begun to unfold and that ‘the coming [parousia] of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering to him’ (2 Thess. 2:1) are about to take place” (Weima, 502). This interpretation makes sense both of this passage and as well as with the numerous other passages about the Day of the Lord which, when put together, point to that Day including both the tribulation judgment at the end of the age and the following reign of Christ (in the millennium). The one modification I would make to Wiema’s statement is that the coming or parousia of Christ, is not simply a part of the complex events that make up the Day of the Lord but is itself a complex event.

The second problem, how to reconcile this passage with 1 Thessalonians 5, which says the Day of the Lord will come “as a thief in the night” while people are saying “There is peace and safety” (cf. Matt 24:36-44).

I think the key to this problem is the fact that the phrase in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 “that day will not come” is not present in the Greek text but is supplied by translators. Thomas argues that the supplied apodosis should be “that day is not present” rather than “that day will not come.” He reasons that the present tense in the context indicates that the supplied apodosis should be present tense also. (Robert L. Thomas, “The Place of Imminence in Recent Eschatological Systems,” in Looking into the Future, ETS Studies, ed. David W. Baker [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001], 210-11).

Furthermore, πρῶτον need not indicate that the apostasy and man of lawlessness come before the Day of the Lord. Martin notes that “its placement in the sentence slightly favors the understanding that the apostasy comes ‘first’ and then the lawless one is revealed.” (D. Michael Martin, 1, 2 Thessalonians, New American Commentary, ed. E. Ray Clendenen [Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1995], 232. On this reading, Paul is saying that the Thessalonians will know that the day of the Lord is present when they see, first, the apostasy and, second, the revelation of the man of lawlessness. Best also observes that the placement of πρῶτον could indicate that Paul is itemizing here rather than saying that the apostasy and man of lawlessness come before the Day of the Lord. However, he notes that word order is not determinative (281).

Despite these observations, neither Martin or Best adopt the above view. Martin makes the odd objection that if the above view were true, the restrainer of would have been mentioned in 2:3 as well as 2:7-8. It is by no means clear that this is the case. Best makes the more reasonable observation, also made by Weima (510), that Paul does not add the word “then” or “second” as might be expected in such a situation. This objection is not decisive. Ellicott (109) and Milligan (98) both note the καί can carry this role—and does so elsewhere in the Thessalonian correspondence.

In sum, I would argue that a defensible translation is: “Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you, brothers, not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord is already present. Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day is not present, unless, first, there come a rebellion, and [second] the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction.”

In this view, the interpretational choices favor the interpretation that the day of the Lord is not present because if it were present, there would be a rebellion followed by the revelation of the man of sin, and those things have not yet happened.

1 Thessalonians 4:13-17 and the Timing of the Rapture

by

The timing of the rapture is a complicated subject because any interpreter’s conclusions depend on interlocking assumptions brought from the interpretation of other passages. On the one hand 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17 is the key rapture passage. It is the passage about saints being caught up into the air to meet the Lord. And yet, this passage, on its own, (arguably) reveals nothing of the timing of the Tribulation (Hiebert, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 218). Note the difficulty of even stating the question without bringing in one’s understanding of other passages. Hiebert and Hoekema, for instance, are going to have differing understandings of the Tribulation to which the Rapture is being related (cf. The Bible and the Future, 332). Thus, the timing of the rapture has to be discerned by relating the passage to other Scriptural passages.

When it comes to 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17 there seem to be two major arguments in favor of a post-tribulation view, one internal to the passage and one external.

First, post-tribulationalists argue that ἀπάντησις is used to indicate going out to meet a dignitary in order to lead him back to the city. This points toward a rapture in which the saints immediately return to earth with Christ after having been caught up to meet him in the air (though it should be noted that Beale and Weima take the clouds and the snatching up to be apocalyptic imagery rather than an indication of any actual movement).

The argument that ἀπάντησις is a technical term is argued for by Peterson in TDNT. It has subsequently been adopted by a number of commentaries. However, after tracking down the usage of the term in the sources noted in LSJ and elsewhere, it seems to me that TDNT’s treatment of ἀπάντησις is an example of the kind of thing for which James Barr critiqued TDNT. The term ἀπάντησις can be used to indicate going out to meet a dignitary with the purpose of bringing him back to one’s city, but it is not always thus used. Thus EDNT seems to exhibit sounder judgment when it says, “The evidence (Peterson [TDNT] 683–92) is not so much proof for a t.t. [technical term] … as for the existence and form of an ancient custom” (1:115). Whether that ancient custom is in view in a particular text depends not on the presence of the term but on “the exegesis of the respective contexts” (Ibid.). In this case, it is not a delegation that goes out to meet Christ; all those in Christ meet him. Nor do they go out to meet him; they are caught up to meet him. It doesn’t seem to me that the exegesis favors the post-tribulational understanding of ἀπάντησις. For further discussion, see here.

More impressive, in my opinion, for the post-tribulation position are the parallels that seem to exist between Matthew 24 and 1 Thessalonians 4. On a pre-tribulation view, Matthew 24 deals (primarily) with the second coming proper whereas 1 Thessalonians 4 deals with a previous rapture. The post-tribulation position is able to identify these two passages with the same event.

Greg Beale lists the following parallels in his commentary on the Thessalonian epistles:

    1. Christ returns
    2. from heaven
    3. accompanied by angels
    4. with a trumpet of God
    5. believers gathered to Christ
    6. in clouds

Nonetheless, the parallels between Matthew 24 and 1 Thessalonians 4 are not as impressive as they appear at first glance. Points 1, 2, and 6 would, in the nature of the case, be the same at the rapture and at the second coming proper even if these two events are distinguished. Point 4 is a more exact point of comparison, but if one, for other reasons, sees the events as distinct there is nothing to prevent a trumpet sound at both. Points 3 and 5 are more ambivalent. With regard to point 3, the Thessalonians passage merely mentions the voice of an archangel. The accompaniment by angels is only mentioned in Matthew. With regard to point 5, the Thessalonians passage has the saints caught up to meet Christ in the air. Matthew has the angels collect the elect from the four winds. It is unclear whether this terminology refers to a catching up or to a gathering on earth. These differences are harmonizable, but they are differences rather than similarities.

I would say that all things being equal the parallels between Matthew 24 and 1 Thessalonians 4 would lead toward interpreters identifying the two events. But if other considerations come into play, the differences may take on more significance for the interpreter. In any event, the similarities are not of the nature as to compel Matthew 24 and 1 Thessalonians 4 to refer to the same event.

What considerations might lead to the conclusion that 1 Thessalonians 4 and Matthew 24 are distinct events―or better, distinct parts of a complex event that we call the second coming? There seem to be two major arguments in favor of a pre-tribulation reading of 1 Thessalonians 4.

The first argument is the lack of harmony between the sequence given in 1 Thessalonians 4 and the sequence given in Revelation 19-20. The sequence of events in 1 Thessalonians 4 is significant because it is at the heart of the argument that Paul is making in that passage. Consider the argument of Weima. He holds that the need for this instruction came from the Thessalonians’ concern that fellow believers “who had already died would be at some kind of disadvantage at the parousia.” That this is the concern is indicated by Paul’s emphasis that the living will not precede the dead at the parousia, the dead will rise first, the living and the resurrected dead will meet Christ together in the air. To argue, as some do, that this is an unreasonable concern “underestimates the great anticipation and hope that the Thessalonians have about participating in the glory of the parousia event (Weima, BECNT, 312-13).

Having established that the sequence given in 1 Thessalonians 4 is significant, it is important, then, to note that pre-millennialists have long argued that Revelation 19-20 gives a sequential description of future events. Here is the complexity noted above: as an amillennialist Weima, for instance, probably does not accept the argument that Revelation 19-20 is sequential, so an argument for a pretribulation rapture that presumes the a sequential interpretation of Revelation 19-20 will not be persuasive to him. Nonetheless, there is a powerful case for seeing Revelation 19-20 as sequential.

  • Revelation 19 narrates the return of Christ and his dealing with the beast and the false prophet. But Satan, a key opponent of Christ, is not dealt with until the beginning of chapter 20. Remembering that chapter breaks were added at a later date, it seems that a natural reading would travel directly from chapter 19 to chapter 20 (noted by Bruce Ware, “Boyce College Eschatology Forum with Schreiner, Ware, and Brand,” Audio Recording, 1:01:03).
  • If there is a sequence that moves from Revelation 19 into Revelation 20, as any premillennialist must argue, Revelation 20:4 continues the sequence. This is especially so since there is a sequence of Καὶ εἶδον (and I saw / then I saw) extending from 19:11 through 21:1 (19:11, 17, 19; 20:1, 4, 11, 12; 21:1) that seems to mark the sequence of events.

The sequence that runs from Revelation 19 through Revelation 20 does not harmonize with the sequence in 1 Thessalonians 4. In Revelation Jesus returns with the armies of heaven, casts the beast and his prophet into the lake of fire, chains Satan in the abyss, sets up his throne on earth, and then raises saints from death. In 1 Thessalonians 4, Jesus appears in the clouds, raises the dead saints to life, and catches all the saints, living and resurrected, into the clouds. The inability to harmonize these two sequences indicates that these passages refer two separate events (or to different parts of the complex event that is the second coming).

In further support of the distinction between 1 Thessalonians 4 and Revelation 20 is the fact that the only saints raised in Revelation 20:4 are the Tribulation martyrs. Michael Svigel argues:

“Since the vision from 19:11 through 20:10 appears to be in sequence, and since the armies accompanying Christ are the resurrected, glorified Church, it seems best to understand the unmentioned subject of the third person plural verb in Rev 20:4 as referring to Christ and the armies of heaven accompanying him [cf. KJV, NKJV, NASB]. The passage begins: Καὶ εἶδον θρόνους καὶ ἐκάθισαν ἐπ αὐτοὺς καὶ κρίμα ἐδόθη αὐτοῖς. Some translations have recognized the problem of the lack of the subject here and have adjusted their translations accordingly [cf. NIV, NRSV, ESV, (H)CSB]. However, if one reads the entire passage from 19:11 through 20:10 as one vision described by John, one realizes that immediately before 20:4 the only persons remaining in John’s vision are Christ and his armies descending upon the earth. Thus, those who sit upon the thrones and those to whom judgment is given are those accompanying Christ on white horses. If this is the case, the ones resurrected in Rev 20:4–6 would be limited to the saints martyred during the Tribulation. [Michael J. Svigel, “The Apocalypse Of John And The Rapture Of The Church: A Reevaluation,” Trinity Journal 22:1 (Spr 01) p. 51-52.]

In any event, the only ones identified as being raised in 20:4 are Tribulation martyrs who did not worship the beast. Verse 5 says the rest of the dead are not raised until after the Millennium. This would either mean that on a post-tribulation view that only Tribulation saints are resurrected with the rest of the dead (including the dead in Christ) having to wait until the end of the Millennium. No post-tribulationist actually holds this view because it contradicts 1 Thessalonians 4. On the pre-tribulation view, Tribulation martyrs were the only dead in Christ that were still in need of resurrection at the time of Revelation 20:4. If all other believers were already raised at the (pre-tribulation) rapture, and if the Tribulation martyrs were raised just after the second coming, then only the lost dead remain dead through the Millennium. This latter reading seems more probable.

The second argument in favor of a pre-tribulation reading of 1 Thessalonians 4 relates to what Thessalonians itself says about wrath and the day of the Lord. In the context of the Day of the Lord, which is a day of wrath, 1 Thessalonians 5:9 says that Christians are not destined for wrath (cf. 1 Thess. 1:10). Given the context, it is more likely that wrath refers to the Day of the Lord than merely to Hell. This would also harmonize with Revelation 3:10. Obviously, much more could be said about this second argument.

Απαντησις in 1 Thessalonians 4:17 and Dispensationalism in Scholarship

by

Two Articles on Απαντησις

Michael R. Cosby, “Hellenistic Formal Receptions and Paul’s Use of ΑΠΑΝΤΗΣΙΣ in 1 Thessalonians 4:17,” Bulletin for Biblical Research, Vol. 4 (1994): 15-33.

The TDNT article on απαντησις, written by Peterson, claims that απαντησις is a technical term for a delegation that goes out to meet a dignitary and returns with him to the city. Cosby found this claim attractive since he was seeking to leave behind the pretribulational views of his youth. He planned on translating additional work by Peterson on this matter, but he began to see significant deficiencies in Peterson’s argument as he worked on this project. Though not returning to a pretribulational position, Cosby said scholarly integrity compelled him to abandon Peterson’s understanding of απαντησις as an argument against it.

Cosby found that “only a minority of the uses of these terms describe formal receptions” (20). This alone does not rule out a technical use, but Cosby found it notable that in all the patristic discussions of this text, only Chrysostom, who lived in an imperial city, made the connection between this term and an imperial reception. In addition, the claim that that απαντησις is a technical term because Seneca included it in untranslated Greek in a Latin text referring to a procession is relativized by Cosby’s observation that Seneca often included untranslated Greek terms in his writing. In other words, the fact that Seneca left the word untranslated does not itself demonstrate that the term is technical.

Cosby then notes six differences between 1 Thessalonians 4 and the “Hellenistic receptions.” 1. These receptions were planned, but Christians do not know when Christ will arrive. 2. Those who greeted dignitaries wore special clothes, which Christians will not do at the return of Christ. 3. The dignitary was not announced with trumpets or heralds. 4. Donations were given to the dignitary. 5. Judgement of the wicked was not a part of these dignitary visits, but it is a major part of Christ’s return. 6. The dignitary would offer a sacrifice, but Christ already offered the final sacrifice.

Robert H. Gundry, “A Brief Note on “Hellenistic Formal Receptions and Paul’s Use of ΑΠΑΝΤΗΣΙΣ in 1 Thessalonians 4:17,” Bulletin for Biblical Research, Vol. 6 (1996): 39-41.

Gundry’s response to Cosby’s article concedes the point that “απαντησις does not by itself connote a reception of that kind,” meaning that it is not a technical term for a delegation that goes out to meet a dignitary and return with him to a city. However, Gundry holds that instead of differences between the Hellenistic receptions and 1 Thessalonians 4, there are similarities. 1. Gundry holds that Christians will know ahead of time when Christ will arrive (2 Thess. 2:3-12). 2. Christians will be newly clothed with imperishable bodies (1 Cor. 15; 2 Cor. 5). 3. Gundry grants the difference between “the shouts of acclamation” at a Hellenistic reception and “the summoning shout and trumpet blast at the Parousia.” But he claims that they “share the element of happy noise.” 4. Gundry holds that believers present themselves to Christ as holy, blameless, and mature (Col. 1:22, 28). 5. Gundry observes that Cosby noted that prisoners were sometimes executed at these events. 6. Gundry says that Cosby presents a good reason for the absence of the sacrifice—Christ already provided the final sacrifice.

How does Gundry’s critique hold up? Points 1 and 3 do not hold. Even if there are signs preceding this event, a matter that is debated, that doesn’t mean Christians know when Christ will return. And the difference in point 3 cannot be erased by claiming they are both happy noises. Points 2 and 4 depend on reaching outside the passage. There is no case made that the Thessalonians would have been able to make the proposed connections. Gundry seems to be correct with regard to point 5. He seems to indicate that point 6 is an exception to the rule. I’d grant that if there were sustainable parallels in the other five points, but it is hard to maintain when four of the other five points fail to hold.

Conclusion

It seems that απαντησις can refer to a Hellenistic dignitary reception, and if one holds to a post-tribulation position, it makes sense to float that as a possibility in 1 Thessalonians 4:17. But it also seems that the word is not a technical term. Further, given the absence of the elements of such a reception in this passage, a posttribulation reading of this passage cannot be mandated on the basis of this term.

Thoughts on Dispensationalism in Scholarship

Toward the beginning of his article, Cosby makes plain that though he is opposing a key argument in a posttribulational reading of 1 Thessalonians 4, he is not advocating the pretribulational position. Problematically, Cosby only engages with Hal Lindsey’s The Late Great Planet Earth and a popular book by John Walvoord. This article was published several years after the initial wave of books on Progressive Dispensationalism came out. There were plenty of recent scholarly books and articles that Cosby could have interacted with.

Similarly, in reading Robert Cara’s 2009 commentary on the Thessalonian epistles, when he footnotes his discussion of pretibulationalism, he cites two articles by Walvoord from the 1960s and 1970s. I read the articles, and they were unimpressive―an exercise faulty assumptions and in reading one’s system into the text.

What troubles me is that both Cosby and Cara’s citations show exceedingly poor scholarship. Why, at a time when the first wave of Progressive Dispensationalist articles and books were being published, is Cosby citing Hal Lindsey in an academic journal? And why, in a 2009 commentary are articles from 30 to 40 years ago being cited? Why is there no interaction with more careful and more recent literature? I am a bit at a loss as to why scholars whose work I appreciate in other areas set aside their scholarship when dealing with dispensationalism.

Galatians 4:21-31: An Allegory?

by

How should the Bible be interpreted? To read some dispensational interpreters the answer is found in Milton Terry. Too many dispensational books begin laying out a priori principles for interpretation apart from any biblical demonstration of these principles’ validity. Indeed sometimes the principles don’t cohere with the way the NT utilizes the Old, and ad hoc solutions are developed, such as Inspired Sensus Plenoir. In other words, NT writers can interpret the OT in ways that we cannot.

This seems to undermine the sufficiency of Scripture with regard to hermeneutics. How do we interpret Scripture? Scripture itself repeatedly demonstrates how by showing us examples in which one passage interprets another.

Does this approach justify allegorical approaches, such as those found in the church fathers—hermeneutical approaches that seem divorced from authorial intent and any hermeneutical control other than the analogy of faith?

Galatians 4:21-31 serves as a good test case. Paul clearly states, “Which things are an allegory” (4:24, KJV). Or is this clearly an allegory? A comparison of other translations shows that things may not be so straightforward. The ESV clarifies that Paul is not claiming Genesis was written as an allegory; it is his interpretation that is “allegorical”: “Now this may be interpreted allegorically.” Other translations remove the word allegory altogether: “which things are symbolic” (NKJV); “These things are illustrations” (HCSB); “These things are being taken figuratively” (NIV 2011; CSB). The best way forward is to see what Paul is doing in this passage.

Opening Question

Verse 21 sets the stage. Paul concludes his argument against those Galatians who wished to submit themselves to the Law by asking whether they have considered what the Law actually says about being under the Law. Verses 22-23 direct the readers back to the Abraham narrative. In its original setting in Genesis, this narrative is about the promises of God and the response of Abraham to these promises with growing faith.

Interpretation of Genesis 16, 21

In Galatians 4 Paul specifically highlights Abraham’s two sons to exemplify two ways in which Abraham sought to receive the promises. Genesis 16 records the birth of Abraham’s first son. In the previous chapter, when Abram reminded the Lord of both the seed promise and his lack of children (15:2-3), God re-affirmed the seed promise and further specified that Abram himself would have a son (15:4-5), and Abram believed God (15:6). But chapter 16 opens: “Now Sarai, Abram’s wife, had borne him no children.” If Abram is to have children, it is his wife who would bear them. And yet Yahweh, the giver of the promise, had “prevented” Sarai from having children.

Genesis 16:1 shows a possible way out of this dilemma: “[Sarai] had a female Egyptian servant whose name was Hagar.” The passage is clear that this is not God’s way of fulfilling the promise. When Abraham had previously consulted with God about a servant being the key to fulfilling the promise, God had rejected that solution (15:4). Ominously, in Genesis 16 God was not consulted. Moses also uses language that draws the reader’s mind back to Genesis 3: “And Abraham listened to the voice of Sarai” (16:2) just as Adam “listened to the voice of [his] wife” (3:17). Like Eve, who “took” and “gave also to her husband” (3:6, NASB), Sarah “took” and “gave to her husband” (16:3, NASB).

Wenham observes:

The fact that the phrase ‘obey,’ lit. ‘listen to the voice’ (שׁמע לקול), occurs only here and in Gen 3:17 would be suggestive enough. But more than that, in both instances, it is a question of obeying one’s wife, an action automatically suspect in the patriarchal society of ancient Israel [or should this be, in the ethical norms of Scripture?]. That this is more than a chance allusion to the fall seems to be confirmed by v 3, where further echoes of that narrative are found. [Wenham, WBC, 7; cf. Waltke, Genesis, 252]

Thus, as in the Garden of Eden, God’s word was not believed and humans took matters into their own hands. Because they sought the promise through their own efforts, Paul says, “The son of the slave was born according to the flesh” (Gal. 4:23), that is Ishmael was born of human contriving.

Note, however, that Abram and Sarai did not entirely disbelieve God. They were trying to fulfill God’s promise through their own efforts. Calvin comments:

The faith of both of them was defective; not indeed with regard to the substance of the promise, but with regard to the method in which they proceeded; since they hastened to acquire the offspring which was to be expected from God, without observing the legitimate ordinance of God. [Calvin, Genesis, 1:424]

Genesis 21 records the birth of Abraham’s second son. In this passage Moses specifically says that Isaac was born “as He had promised” (21:1, NASB). He reinforces the fulfillment of the promise by noting that the birth took place “as He had said” (21:1, NASB) and “at the time of which God had spoken to him” (21:2). Moses also emphasizes the Lord’s involvement in the birth of Isaac by specifying that the Lord “visited” Sarah, a term that indicates God’s special involvement. Abraham’s personal righteousness had nothing to do with the fulfillment of the promise, for he had failed once again in the previous chapter. His old age (noted in 21:1, 5, 7) also indicates that God fulfilled his promise. It is on the basis of this passage that Paul says, “The son of the free woman was born through the promise” (Gal. 4:23).

Application of Genesis 16, 21 to the Galatians

The circumstances of the birth of Abraham’s two sons parallel the two options that lie before the Galatians. They can seek to achieve the promises of God through human effort, or they can trust God to bring about what he has promised. Paul exploits this parallel by a figurative interpretation that draws further parallels between the mothers of those sons and the two covenants that the Galatians may live under: the Mosaic covenant or the new covenant.

The association of Hagar with Mount Sinai makes a clear connection to the Mosaic Covenant. The present Jerusalem probably refers to “the whole legal system of Judaism, which had its world-centre in Jerusalem” (Bruce, NIGTC, 220). And what of Arabia. Calvin and Schreiner suggest that the mention of Arabia signifies that those under the Mosaic Covenant have not entered the promises of God. Ridderbos, however, prefers to understand the verse as saying: Although Sinai is in Arabia, Hagar is nonetheless to be identified with the present Jerusalem.

The covenant symbolized by Sarah is not clearly identified, so interpreters divide over whether it is the Abrahamic covenant or the new covenant. In favor of the new covenant, the Galatian churches are Gentile churches, and they become the seed of Abraham and beneficiaries of aspects of his covenant because of their union to the Seed of Abraham (Gal. 3:27-29). This union happens only through the new covenant sacrifice of Christ. The heavenly Jerusalem is neither the church triumphant (Aquinas) nor the church militant (Calvin). It is instead future Jerusalem, from which Christ establishes his righteous reign over all the earth. Some aspects of this righteous reign have begun with the inauguration of the new covenant, but its consummation awaits the future.

Interpretation of Isaiah 54

The connection between the Judaizers and the Mosaic Law is self-evident. But Paul must demonstrate the connection between the Galatian Christians and Sarah / the free woman / the new covenant / the Jerusalem above (note the γάρ, which indicates that Paul is grounding his claim of 4:26). He does this by quoting Isaiah 54:1.

Isaiah 54-55 links the Abrahamic covenant, the new covenant, and Gentile salvation while also having a nice verbal connection to Paul’s illustration through the word “barren.” Isaiah alludes to the Abrahamic (54:1-3), Mosaic (54:4-8), Noahic (54:9-17), and Davidic (55:3b-5) covenants, and he does so in terms of their fulfillment in the new covenant (compare Isa. 54:10 with Eze. 34:5; 37:26 and Isa. 55:3 with Isa. 61:8; Eze. 37:26).

Isaiah 54:1 connects to the Abrahamic covenant by speaking of Zion in terms of a barren woman having offspring (Isaiah 54:1 and Genesis 11:30 are parallel in Hebrew and especially in the LXX). The connection continues with the reference to “spread[ing] abroad to the right and to the left” (54:3), which calls to mind Genesis 28:14. Genesis 28:14 not only promises numerous offspring to Abraham but also says the blessing of Abraham’s seed would be to “all the families of the earth.” Isaiah brings those two ideas together in his exhortation for Zion to enlarge her tent because her seed will possess the nations (54:2-3).

What does it mean for Israel to possess the nations? The closest parallel to גּוֹיִ֣ם יִירָ֔שׁin Isaiah 54:3 is Amos 9:11-12: “‘In that day I will raise up the booth of David that is fallen and repair its breaches, and raise up its ruins and rebuild it as in the days of old, that they may possess [יִֽירְשׁ֜וּ] the remnant of Edom and all the nations [הַגּוֹיִ֔ם] who are called by my name,’ declares the LORD who does this.” The emphasis in Amos is on Israel possessing all the nations. Edom is given as a concrete example, and perhaps also “as a synecdoche for the phrase ‘all the nations’ (כל־הגוים) which parallels it” (Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, WBC, 398). The Lord identifies these nations as “called by my name.” This indicates “that the nations will not simply come under Israelite hegemony (as before), but that they will actually become one with God’s people” (Niehaus, “Amos,” Minor Prophets, ed. McComiskey, 1:492; also Finley, WEC, 325). James appealed to Amos 9:11-12 to make the same point that Paul is making in Galatians: circumcision and obedience to the Law of Moses are not necessary for salvation (Acts 15:1-21).

Notably, this will happen not by natural means (as when a married woman has children), but it will be a supernatural work (like a deserted, barren woman who has never been in labor having more children than the married woman) (Isa. 54:1).

Application of Isaiah 54 to the Galatians

Thus Paul can conclude that the Galatians, “like Isaac, are children of promise” (4:28). These Gentiles have become part of the people of God not through their own efforts but through the supernatural working of God and in accordance with his promise to Abraham (Gen. 28:14).

Application of Genesis 21 to the Judaizers

After having established the identity of the Galatian Christians, Paul establishes the identity of the Judaizers: they are like Ishmael, for they persecute those “born according to the Spirit” (4:29). This connection is made on the basis of Ishmael’s treatment of Isaac in Genesis 21:9 (cf. Matt. 5:11; 1 Pet. 4:4). Calvin rightly understands the seriousness of Ishmael’s mocking:

“And there is no doubt that his manifest impiety against God, betrayed itself under this ridicule. He had reached an age at which he could not, by any means, be ignorant of the promised favour, on account of which his father Abraham was transported with so great joy: and yet—profoundly confident in himself—he insults, in the person of his brother, both God and his word, as well as the faith of Abraham. [Calvin, Genesis, 543]

Paul then applies the judgment that falls on those aligned with Ishmael (that is those under the Mosaic code): they will not receive the promised inheritance. Paul gives this warning based on the words of Sarah: “Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman” (Gal. 4:30). In the flow of Paul’s argument, this quotation seems to be a warning that fits with Paul’s opening admonition: “Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not listen to the law?” Submission to the Law results in being cast out from the family of promise.

In verse 31 Paul reiterates the conclusion that he reached in 4:28 about the identity of Christians. In 5:1 he concludes his exhortation and prepares the way for the following section by exhorting the Galatians to stand firm in their freedom and not to submit to the slavery of the Mosaic code.

Contrast Between Paul’s Method and Augustine’s

Throughout this passage Paul exploits surface similarities (Hagar’s bondage with the bondage of the Law; Sarah’s freedom with the freedom of the new covenant; Sarah’s barrenness and later fecundity with Zion’s barrenness and later fecundity) to illustrate aspects of his present situation, but when probed these surface similarities have deeply rooted, substantive connections. It is these roots that set Paul’s practice in this passage apart from the allegories of the patristic and medieval eras. For instance, Augustine extended Paul’s allegory to apply also to Abraham’s children by Keturah.

Now if someone has gained confidence from the Apostle’s very clear demonstra¬tion that these two sons are to be understood allegorically and also wishes to see in Keturah’s sons some figure of things to come—for these events involving such persons were not recorded of the Holy Spirit for nothing—he will perhaps find that they signify heresies and schisms. They are indeed sons of a free woman, as are the sons of the Church, yet they were born according to the flesh, not spiritually through the promise. But if so, they are also found not to belong to the inheritance, that is the heavenly Jerusalem, which Scripture calls barren because for a long time she did not bear sons on earth. [Eric Plummer, Augustine’s Commentary on Galatians: Introduction, Text, Translation, Notes, Oxford Early Christian Studies, ed. Gillian Clark and Andrew Louth (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), 195]

Augustine’s allegory does make superficial connections, but an examination of Genesis 25 reveals that it lacks any substantial connection to the teaching of Genesis 25.

Conclusion

Galatians 4 shows that Paul is willing to use Old Testament narratives illustratively, and he is willing to apply those narratives to the present situation of Christians. But Galatians 4 also shows that when Paul does this, his interpretation of the Old Testament remains rooted in the original meaning of the Old Testament texts.

Further Thoughts on Gender Language and Translation Philosophy

by

One of the reasons that I’m skeptical about the use of the indefinite “their” in Bible translation is that translations that have sought to be gender-neutral in other areas have often unwittingly obscured the text and/or significant theological matters.

Adele Berlin on Lamentations 3:1:

The speaker is not Jerusalem, or her people, or a poet observing Jerusalem and her people. Rather, the chapter gives voice to a lone male, speaking in the first person about what he has seen and felt and what sense he can make of it. Because the first-person speaker announces himself so forcefully in his maleness (geber), many interpreters have puzzled over who this geber, this speaking voice in chapter 3, represents.

. . . . . . . . . .

The male voice is a counterpart to the female voice of the city in chapter 1. Zion, personified as a woman, speaks in chapter 1, and here a male voice also speaking in the first person echoes, form a different perspective, the experience of destruction and exile. Just as the imagery in chapter 1 was feminine–the widow, the unfaithful wife, the raped woman–so here the imagery seems more masculine, invoking the physical violence against the male body associated with war and exile.

The poem begins: ‘I am the man.’ The Hebrew geber registers forcefully the maleness of the speaker. Gender-neutral translations, like NRSV, dimninish he impact by translating, ‘I am the one.’

Adele Berlin, Lamentations, Old Testament Library (Louisville: WJK, 2002), 84, 88.

[Note: the TNIV aligned with the NRSV in mistranslating this verse, but the NIV2011 correctly translated “I am the man.”]

Robert Yarbrough on 1 John 3:9:

Edwards 1996: 91-92 questions the wisdom of translating John’s ἀδελφός as ‘brother and sister’ or other generic label (cf. NRSV, NLT; cf. also English translations of Strecker 1996: 47 and Schnackenburg 1992: 82). CEV reads, “If we claim to be in the light and hate someone.” TNIV opts for ‘those who claim to be in the light but hate a fellow believer,’ thus avoiding ‘brother’ but also losing the individual focus of the assertion by changing the particular ‘one who says’ into an unspecified collection of persons. The original spotlight an arrogant individual (ὀ λέγων), not an impersonal group. (Paul’s periphrastic rendering of Ps. 32:1-2 in Rom. 4:7 is reasonable and legitimate, but hardly jutifies a translation philosophy that would render Ps. 32:1-2 plural or Rom. 4:7 singular.) The words of Porter 1989: 33-34 on the CEV and gender language come to mind: ‘At points the biblical text may wel be considered hopelessly insensitive in matters of gender, but I cam convinced that it is in the best interests of making the meaning of the original text clear if the celar meaning that exists is in fact obscured.’

Robert Yarbrough, 1-3 John, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), 103, n. 15.

[Note: Yarbrough refers to the translation of the TNIV. The NIV 2011 moved away from “fellow believer” to “brother or sister.”]

Bruce Waltke:

In contemporary English the third person singular pronoun (‘he/she,’ etc.) is a stylistic bramble patch. Although I desired to use inclusive language as much as possible, I opted to continue the third person masculine pronoun as the common pronoun for both genders, hoping that those who choose other options will not take offense. The loss of individualization by shifting from singular constructions to plural constructions is too great a loss in sense, and the loss of agreement between singular subjects and plural qualifiers by grammatical disagreement or by shifting between pronouns or by combining them is too great a stylistic loss.

Bruce Waltke, The Book of Proverbs 1-15, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), xxiv.

Robert Letham on Union with Christ:

The current tendency, influenced by the pressure of gender-inclusive language, to refer to believers as ‘sons and daughters’ of God is misleading, blurs this vital truth, and has the effect of blunting the church’s appreciation of what union with Christ entails. Jesus Christ is the Son of the Father, and is so eternally; that is his name and that is his status. It is not a sexual term, for God is not a sexual being. By referring to Christian believers as ‘sons,’ the NT is not, under the influence of patriarchal culture, bypassing half the human race. Instead, it is pointing to our shared status with the Son of the Father, in and by the Holy Spirit. The introduction of talk of ‘daughters’ obscures this point, placed at the hub of the Christian life.

Robert Letham, Union with Christ (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2011), 54, n. 19.

David Garner makes a similar point in his recent book Sons in the Son. His title refers to all Christians, not only male Christians. We might note that we have something similar with all of the church, men and women, constituting the bride of Christ.

Scott Oliphint on the headship of Adam:

Throughout the book, I refer to this relationship in gender-specific terms—that is, as a relationship between God and “man.” Although such usage has fallen out of favor in much biblical and theological writing, I continue to find it helpful and appropriate, for three reasons: (1) Until forty or so years ago, the word “man,” when used generically, was understood to represent both genders. This usage is rooted in the biblical narrative of God determining to create “man,” male and female (Gen 1: 26; the Hebrew word for “man” is adam). (2) The use of the term “man” in this rich biblical sense tacitly acknowledges that Adam personally represents each and every human being, covenantally speaking. Regardless of gender, all people are children of Adam; there are no “sons of Adam and daughters of Eve.” (3) “Humanity” is an abstraction by definition, referring only to our common nature. In that sense, ironically, “humanity” is not nearly as inclusive as it seems; it does not represent either gender or any particular individual. In my opinion, this abstract language, even if used in the interests of inclusion, serves in its own small way to further enable the deep and distressing gender confusion rampant in so many cultures around the world. God did not create humanity in the abstract; He created Adam as the covenant representative of all men (male and female), and he created Eve from Adam. I am convinced that the church can better serve the cause of the gospel by returning to biblical language (and its underlying rationale) in this matter. The editors of Lexham Press were kind enough to leave this style decision to me.

K. Scott Oliphint, The Majesty of Mystery: Celebrating the Glory of an Incomprehensible God (Bellingham, WA: Lexham, 2016), Kindle Locations 49-62.

George Hammond on the Image of God in Man:

To write about the doctrine of image of God necessarily requires referring to human beings, but in the post-modern world questions of how to do so can be vexing. According to Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary Tenth Edition, the primary meaning of the word “man” is “an individual human.” For centuries the English word “man” has been understood to have at least two meanings. While it could be used to refer to the male member of the human species, it has often been used to indicate an individual human being of either gender. In recent years, sensitivity has developed toward language that is suspected of being gender exclusive. The word “man” has thus come to be viewed with misgivings, despite its lexical meaning.

This work endeavors to employ the inclusive nouns “humanity,” “humankind,” and “people” when possible. However, to say “humanity is made in the image of God” may convey that only the human race collectively, and not individuals, is made in the image of God. The inclusivity of nouns such as “humanity” and “humankind” is found in their collective nature, but it is precisely their collective nature which connotes that what is in view are human beings jointly, rather than human beings severally. The word “man” is often employed in this book as being the most accurate expression of the thought being conveyed, or for stylistic reasons. The reader should understand that unless the clause is gender conditioned, “man” as it is used here is employed in its lexical sense of “an individual human” without respect to gender.

George C. Hammond, It Has Not Yet Appeared What We Shall Be: A Reconsideration of the Imago Dei in Light of Those with Severe Cognitive Disabilities (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2017), xvii-xviii.