Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law?¹

With these words, Queen Elizabeth II was entrusted with the responsibility for preserving the Church and the Gospel within the boundaries of her domain. But what do those words mean – “the Protestant Reformed Religion”?

We looked at what it means to be a protestant last week, and religion seems fairly straightforward, but what does it mean to be reformed?

No, it’s not like being a “reformed prisoner” or a “reformed alcoholic”.

Instead, the word ‘reformed’ in this context has to do with being an heir of the teachings of John Calvin.

John Calvin

When Gerard Calvin and his wife Jeanne became parents of a little boy in northern France in 1509, they could not have known that he was destined to become one of the truly great men of all time. They named him Jean. We know him as John Calvin.

Upon reaching his teenage years, Calvin began formal studies towards becoming a Roman Catholic priest. He studied theology at Paris from 1523 to 1528, and did quite well. But he became increasingly disillusioned with the corrupt Catholicism of the day, and decided to study law instead.
But his heart was still restless, until at last it found its rest in God through true conversion in 1533. He left Roman Catholicism forever. But these were dangerous days for those who left Rome. Heavy persecution dogged the French Protestants, and Calvin himself was imprisoned for a short time from 1534 to 1535. So he decided to leave France.

His goal was to move to Basel, Switzerland, and take up a quiet and secluded life of study and writing. It was never to be. Passing through Geneva, he met the leader of the Swiss French Reformation, Guillaume Farel, who was immediately so impressed with young Calvin that he threatened him with God’s punishment if he did not stay in Geneva to preach and teach. Calvin stayed.

In 1536 Calvin published the first edition of his Institutes of the Christian Religion. It was immediately hailed throughout Europe as the finest systematic theology by a Protestant Reformer. It was to be his literary masterpiece and he later edited and expanded it several times through his lifetime.

One of Calvin’s main goals was a truly godly society. He viewed the Church and State on equal levels – separate in some areas, related in others. Before Calvin, Geneva was notorious throughout Europe for its sinfulness; after Calvin, it became one of the godliest cities the world has ever known. Calvin’s theology of the godly society gave rise to the modern ideas of the democratic republic, the Free Enterprise economic system popularly called Capitalism, and the Protestant Work Ethic. They were put into practice in Geneva. The plan worked.

Yet, whilst he accomplished great advances in the relationship between the Church and the State, his most abiding teachings were in the area of grace.

By grace alone

Last week, we learned that justification is the source of peace with God and, ultimately, salvation. This justification comes by faith (and only faith) in Christ (and only Christ). But the question Calvin asked was: where does that faith come from? Does it originate with us or with God? The church of Calvin’s day held that God has made it possible for us to come to him, but that faith is an act of our will by which we accept and appropriate his work. In other words, God’s grace plus our faith leads to salvation.

Calvin challenged this. Like Luther before him, he chose to search in the scriptures for the answers to questions like this, rather than relying upon the traditions handed down to him by the church. And when he did, he found passages like these:

You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. (Rom 5:6)
As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. (Eph 2:1–2)

Consider the words that the apostle uses to describe men and women before God acts to save them: powerless and dead. If I told you that a dead man must do something to bring himself back to life, you would rightly laugh at me – it is not the nature of dead men to do anything! Paul does not paint a very complimentary picture of us prior to our salvation. He continues in Ephesians 2:8:
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith — and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God — not by works, so that no one can boast.’ (Eph 2:8–9)

Faith is not from us – it is the gift of God. The very thing by which we can enter into the salvation that he has brought about through Christ – faith – is itself a gift of God. We tend to recoil against the idea that everything is from God, and nothing from us, chiefly because that is the way we are taught and trained to behave. Becoming responsible for yourself is an important part of growing up, and no adult likes to be entirely reliant upon someone else for help. We want to be the ones in control, even if only in some small way.

If you’ve ever spent any time around hospitals, visiting someone you care for, you will know what I am talking about. Most of us – whether we are relative or friend – feel utterly helpless the minute we walk into a hospital. All of a sudden we go from being self-reliant to being utterly dependent upon the doctors and nurses who are providing the necessary care. And so we rush to do whatever small things we can to help: turning down the bed, pushing the wheelchair, sneaking in junk food, decorating the room, and so on.

We think the same way when it comes to our salvation. We want to think of ourselves as grown up, as self-reliant, as at least minor contributors to our ultimate fate. And so we tell ourselves that we have exercised ‘free will’ in coming to Christ. He invited us and we came. He might have done 95% of the work, but that remaining 5%, that was me. Look at me, I’m a grown up!

But God doesn’t call us to be grown ups! Instead, he calls us to receive the kingdom, to accept our salvation, like children. ‘I tell you the truth,’ he says, ‘anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it’ (Mark 10:14).

Let me tell you a little about ‘free will’. Imagine that I have two balloons: one is filled with air, the other with helium. (If you’re under the age of 20, ‘imagination’ is kind of like green screen animation, only much better!) Whilst I hold on to them, neither balloon is ‘free’. But once I release them, they are indeed free – free to act according to their nature. Though they may be temporarily affected by external forces such as the wind, overall one will float up, the other down.

The unregenerate human will is like the balloon filled with air: when left to its own devices, it will over time sink into sin. As Paul puts it, ‘All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts’ (Eph 2:3). Whilst there may be brief periods when a wind will pick it up and carry it along and up, it is destined to end up on the ground. Nothing save a transformation of nature – replacing the air with helium for example – will change that. And that kind of transformation is a thing that we cannot achieve by ourselves; it requires the gracious act of God. It requires that we who are dead be made alive! Fortunately, God has done just this:

‘Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath. But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions — it is by grace you have been saved.’ (Eph 2:3–5)

Calvin himself wrote:

Ought we not then to be silent about free-will, and good intentions, and fancied preparations, and merits, and satisfactions? There is none of these which does not claim a share of praise in the salvation of men… When, on the part of man, the act of receiving salvation is made to consist in faith alone, all other means, on which men are accustomed to rely, are discarded. Faith, then, brings a man empty to God, that he may be filled with the blessings of Christ. And so he adds, not of yourselves; that claiming nothing for themselves, they may acknowledge God alone as the author of their salvation.²

As we know, faith is necessary for salvation, and this faith comes only by the gift of God – which we call grace. It is grace, and grace alone that brings about salvation. And, according to both Paul and Calvin, this is necessary otherwise God will not receive all the glory.

To God’s glory alone

Glory is an attribute of a person or thing that merits praise, honour, appreciation and respect. So, the glory of a day might be its blue sky, or the glory of a song might be the mad guitar solo in the middle of it. But the word is also used to denote the praise, honour, appreciation and respect that is given. So we can give glory to something that is glorious.

In God’s case, we rightly say he is glorious in every way. In fact, everything that God does or creates is intended by him to bring glory to himself. He is jealous of his glory, saying ‘I am the LORD; that is my name! I will not give my glory to another or my praise to idols’ (Isa 42:8).³ And since he is the creator of all, and sovereign over all, this means that everything is supposed to bring glory to God alone… including us.

Former generations of Christians, before they could be baptised, would have to memorise a long series of questions and answers, known as a catechism. They would then be asked these questions, and give the answers, at their baptism, as a sign that they knew what they were ‘getting themselves into’. One of the most famous of these catechisms starts out with this question: ‘What is the chief end [or purpose] of man?’ to which the response is ‘Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever’.⁴ The prayer our Lord taught us to pray begins: ‘Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name’ (Matt 6:9) – this is a prayer of glorification. Our primary responsibility as men and women is to give glory to God – and only God. But how do we do this? Let me give you three ways.

The first and most important thing we need to do to give glory to God is to acknowledge that he is sovereign over everyone and everything. Everything we have comes to us as a gift from God. Everything that we achieve, we do so by God’s grace. In particular, as we have already seen, he is responsible for our salvation; 100% God, 0% us. When we claim responsibility for our salvation, when we pretend that it is our faith that has brought us to him, we are claiming some portion of the glory that is God’s alone. So, give thanks for the things that God has given you, and acknowledge that they are gifts from him.

Another way we give glory to God is by making requests. Imagine you are paralysed, but you have a strong friend who helps you and looks after you. Someone else comes to visit. How can you glorify your friend? You would make requests. “Your visitor would learn from your requests that you are helpless and that your friend is strong and kind. You glorify your friend by needing him and asking him for help and counting on him.”⁵

When we ask God to provide, and then trust him to do so, we bring him glory. When we acknowledge his grace to us before others, we encourage them also to give glory to God. On the other hand, when we try to do things ourselves, and particularly when we try to do things that only God can do, we are taking away from the glory that we owe to God.

In John Calvin’s day, Christians used to present their prayer requests, not to God, but to the ‘saints’. These were dead Christians who, it was believed, could intercede with God on behalf of the one praying. Calvin rejected this idea, because it dishonoured Christ, and obscured the glory of his the cross, by which Christ himself became the mediator between us and God.⁶ Jesus, as we learned last week, is the only mediator required, and trying to put anyone or anything in his place is to detract from the glory of God.

The third way in which we give glory to God is in our worship. As Mark McCrindle put it last Sunday morning, we drink deeply upon the ‘spring of the water of life’ (Rev 21:6), and when we do we give an ‘ahhh’ of satisfaction – and this ‘ahhh’ is worship.

John Piper takes it a step further, when he writes:

[W]orship is a way of gladly reflecting back to God the radiance of His worth… If we do not gladly reflect God’s glory in worship, we will nevertheless reflect the glory of His justice in our own condemnation… But this unwilling reflection of God’s worth is not worship.⁷

One way or another, all people and all things will give glory to God. The question is, will it be by their worship… or their judgment?

All glory is due to God alone, since salvation is accomplished solely through his will and action—not only the gift of the all-sufficient atonement of Jesus on the cross but also the gift of faith in that atonement, created in the heart of the believer by the Holy Spirit. The reformers believed that human beings—even saints canonised by the Roman Catholic Church, the popes, and the church hierarchy—are not worthy of the glory that was accorded them.

Conclusion

It is somewhat ironic that Queen Elizabeth should have been charged with upholding the ‘Protestant Reformed Religion’, for it is that very Reformed religion that proclaims that it is God alone who can do this. To be a reformed Christian means to proclaim that God alone is sovereign over all, that he is the provider of all grace and so the only one to whom glory is due.

That is why I am a reformed Christian… and why I hope you will be too.

Bibliography

Calvin, Jean. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Translated by Ford Lewis Battles. Edited by John T. McNeil. 2 vols. Louisville: John Knox Press, 2006.
Calvin, John. Calvin’s Commentaries. Translated by Rev. William Pringle. 22 vols. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2005.
Piper, John. Desiring God : Meditations of a Christian Hedonist. Updated [i.e. 3rd] ed. Leicester: Inter-Varsity, 2004.
Schaff, Philip. The Creeds of Christendom. 6th ed. 3 vols: Baker Books, 2007.

Endnotes

1. Archbishop of Canterbury to Queen Elizabeth II at her coronation, 1953.
2. John Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries, trans. Rev. William Pringle, 22 vols. (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2005), XXI: 227.
3. cf. Isa 48:11.
4. Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, 6th ed., 3 vols. (Baker Books, 2007), III:676.
5. John Piper, Desiring God : Meditations of a Christian Hedonist, Updated [i.e. 3rd] ed. (Leicester: Inter-Varsity, 2004), 160-1.
6. Jean Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeil, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, 2 vols. (Louisville: John Knox Press, 2006), III.xx.21.
7. Piper, Desiring God, 84.

Hi, my name is Tim, and I am a Christian. But what kind of Christian am I? Are there different kinds of Christians? And if there are, is there value in knowing what the differences are? I believe that there is, because it helps us to identify the things that we have in common with each other, thus bringing us closer to one another. It also helps to anchor our beliefs to what is important, and thus stop us from drifting.

Over the next three weeks, I hope to explore three of the most important anchors of the Christian church over the last 2000 years, and in the process explain to you why I am a protestant, reformed, evangelical Christian.

What is a protestant?

‘Protest’ is a funny word much abused in our culture. When we hear on the news about protests, it is usually people protesting against something. But the root meaning of the word is more about being in favour of something. Thus people don’t protest against war they protest for peace; not against abortion but for the foetus’ right to live… and so on.

In Christian circles, to be a ‘protestant’ means to be a ‘protester’ for a specific set of beliefs, and it is these beliefs that I hope to survey this week.

The birth of protestantism

In the summer of 1520 a document bearing an impressive seal circulated throughout Germany in search of a remote figure. “Arise, O Lord,” the writing began, “and judge Thy cause. A wild boar has invaded Thy vineyard.”

The document, a papal bull – named after the seal, or bulla – took three months to reach Martin Luther, the wild boar. Long before it arrived in Wittenberg where Luther was teaching, he knew its contents. Forty-one of his beliefs were condemned as “heretical, or scandalous, or false, or offensive to pious ears, or seductive of simple minds, or repugnant to Catholic truth.” The bull called on Luther to repent and repudiate his errors or face the dreadful consequences.

Luther received his copy on the tenth of October. At the end of his sixty-day period of grace, he led a throng of eager students outside Wittenberg and burned copies of the Canon Law and the works of some medieval theologians. Perhaps as an afterthought Luther added a copy of the bull condemning him. That was his answer. “They have burned my books,” he said, “I burn theirs.” Those flames in early December, 1520, were a fit symbol of the defiance of the pope raging throughout Germany.¹

Martin Luther² was a German monk, theologian, and church reformer. He is generally considered to be the founder of Protestantism.

Luther first came to be famous when he vocally opposed the sale of ‘indulgences’, a kind of pardon for sins that one could buy for themselves or for a dead relative to escape purgatory. According to Luther, salvation was attainable only by faith in Jesus as the messiah, a faith unmediated by the church. These ideas helped to inspire the Protestant Reformation and changed the course of Western civilization – and it is these ideas that we will explore tonight.

Whilst Luther’s teachings on indulgences were the spark that set the fire of the Reformation, they are not his most important teachings. Rather, his most abiding legacy is his recovery of a teaching long lost to the church: that faith – and only faith – is the means by which justification (and hence salvation) may be achieved.

Faith alone

This revelation came to Luther whilst he was meditating on and wrestling with a particular word of Scripture. The Scripture was from Paul’s letter to the Romans, and it goes like this:

I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.” (Rom 1:16–17)

Luther himself writes:

I hated that word “righteousness of God,” which… I had been taught to understand philosophically regarding the… righteousness… with which God is righteous and punishes the unrighteous sinner.³

To Luther, then, the gospel was that God punishes sinners, and by punishing removes guilt. The only way out, then, was to be as good as one could in doing good works, to confess and do penance, and thus ‘pay for’ bad works, and if all else fails, purchase indulgences to make up any shortfall. Since Luther had become convicted that indulgences were not biblical, this meant that he was left to his own devices; and, though he thought of himself ‘as a monk without reproach’ he nevertheless felt himself a ‘sinner before God with an extremely disturbed conscience’.⁴

The turning point came when he considered the words surrounding this phrase, ‘the righteousness of God’. In his own words:

At last, by the mercy of God, meditating day and night, I gave heed to the context of the words, namely, “In it the righteousness of God is revealed, as it is written, ‘He who through faith is righteous shall live.'” There I began to understand that the righteousness of God is that by which the righteous lives by a gift of God, namely by faith. And this is the meaning: the righteousness of God is revealed by the gospel, namely, the passive righteousness with which merciful God justifies us by faith, as it is written, “He who through faith is righteous shall live.” Here I felt that I was altogether born again and had entered paradise itself through open gates. There a totally other face of the entire Scripture showed itself to me.⁵

Here is the lesson that Luther had learned, the teaching that had been lost by the church for centuries: justification comes by faith alone. This is crucial to protestantism and, indeed to Christianity… but to understand it we need to know what those key words, ‘justification’ and ‘faith’ mean.

Justification is interpreted in Protestant theology as, “being declared righteous by God”. Only those who are righteous may have a personal relationship with God and thus enter eternal life. In all of history there has ever and will only ever be one person who is righteous on their own account, Jesus Christ; for the rest of us, we rely upon justification. So you see, this is a big deal. But how does justification happen? What must happen in order for justification to occur? The answer is: faith.

Faith is another word for ‘trust’. But faith needs to have an object. The sentence “I have faith” is not complete; you need to say “I have faith in something”. You wan this object to have two qualities. Firstly, it needs to be reliable in proportion to the amount of trust you place in it. Second, it needs to be capable of achieving the thing(s) for which you trust it. For example, I have faith in my car. It is generally reliable, and it is capable for the task of getting me to and from work each day. But if I needed to get across the Gibson desert, or up the Oodnadatta track I would be in real trouble because it is not that reliable, nor is it that capable.

In the context of justification, the object of your faith refers to who or what you are trusting in for justification. Here’s a quick test to help you determine where your faith for justification lies. Complete this sentence: “I have a relationship with God because…” Whatever the next word is, it is likely that that is the object of your faith. Here are some examples of ways people today might finish that sentence:

• I am basically a good person, or at least I’m better than average;
• I do good things – I give to charity, serve in a soup kitchen etc.;
• I hang with the right crowd;
• I prayed the ‘sinner’s prayer’ when I was young;
• I read my Bible and other Christian books, and I pray every day;
• I go to church, have been baptised and take communion every week.

Do you notice the theme here? If your answer to why you have a relationship starts with “I…”, then you are probably relying on works – things that you do or are. But this is not very reassuring, because if you are anything like me you have good and bad days; what happens if you have too many bad days? And that is assuming that even on your ‘good’ days you are ‘good enough’, which the Bible tells us is not true: ”There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one’ (Rom 3:10–12). Your own works – you yourself – are neither reliable nor capable, especially when it is eternity on the line!

It is important to understand the relationship between justification and works. Justification is received by faith only, not good works. Having said that, in classical Protestant theology saving faith is automatically accompanied by good works. As one theologian puts it:

[T]hough we are justified by faith alone, the faith that justifies is never alone. It produces moral fruit; it expresses itself “through love” (Gal. 5:6); it transforms one’s way of living; it begets virtue.⁶

The point is this: our faith requires an object much more constant and effective than us or our works. So if our faith is not to be in “I”, who is worthy of our faith? Who is reliable and capable enough to be trusted? The answer is Jesus Christ, and him alone.

Christ alone

We know that Jesus is reliable because he was sent by God to accomplish the very thing we rely upon him for.⁷ The Bible assures us that God is ‘not a man, that he should change his mind’ (1 Sam 15:29).⁸ Having sent Jesus to save us, then, he is not going to turn away and do something else.

If Jesus had simply declared these things then we could possibly dismiss him as all talk and no action. He demands attention, however, by the miracles that punctuated his ministry speak for both his authenticity⁹ and his power; or, to put it another way, his reliability and his capability.

For these reasons and more, the apostle Paul speaks of our salvation as an accomplished fact when he writes:

Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. (Rom 5:1–2a)

It is Jesus Christ who makes us at peace with God if we have faith in him. We know that he is reliable because he has already died in our place.¹⁰ And we know that he is capable, because God has honoured him by raising him from death!¹¹ As Paul argues:

Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him! For if, when we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! (Rom 5:9-10)

If Jesus was willing to go to the cross for us, do you think he will now let us slip through his fingers? That would be like someone studying really hard for their HSC and then not bothering to show up to their exam! Or getting engaged, buying the ring, doing pre-marriage counselling, planning the wedding… and then not showing up on the wedding day!

But just because Jesus is one capable and reliable object for our faith, that doesn’t mean that he is the only such object does it? Could there be another?

We should take Jesus very seriously when he says ‘No one comes to the Father except through me’ (John 14:6b). He is the only one who knows the Father, and has always known him, since before the creation of the world.¹² He is the only one who has ever lived entirely without sin, and thus can come into the Father’s presence based on his own righteousness.¹³ The entire letter to the Hebrews is intent on showing how far superior Jesus is to any other ‘alternative': he is superior to prophets¹⁴ (including the greatly revered prophet Moses¹⁵) and angels;¹⁶ he represents a greater salvation,¹⁷ for he is a greater high priest¹⁸ who serves in a greater tabernacle¹⁹ as mediator of a New and better Covenant,²⁰ offering a greater sacrifice for sins.²¹ The old ‘is only a shadow of the good things that are coming – not the realities themselves’ (10:1) and that ‘what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear’ (8:13). If you place your faith in something that ‘will soon disappear’, then you are in a lot of trouble!

The church in Martin Luther’s day thought to place itself between people and Christ, as though to say: ‘No one comes to the Son except through us’, much like the disciples who thought to control access to Jesus by preventing children from coming to him.²² What things do we put between us and Jesus today? Do we feel closer to God when we sing the right songs, pray the right prayers, hang out with the right people, go to the right camps or conferences? But with these people and these things, Jesus is just as furious as he was with the disciples those many years ago, saying ‘Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these’ (Mark 10:14).

What is a protestant?

So we finally have an answer to the question we started with: ‘What is a protestant Christian?’ A protestant Christian is a person who, with Martin Luther (and the apostle Paul), proclaims the great truth that the only means of achieving justification, peace with God and, ultimately, salvation is faith. And the only object of that faith is Jesus Christ, for he is the only one who is both reliable and capable of accomplishing that justification.

That is why I am a protestant Christian… and why I hope that you are too.

Bibliography

Luther, Martin. Luther’s Works Vol. 34, Career of the Reformer. Saint Louis: Philadelphia : Concordia Publ. House ; Fortress Pr., 1960.
Packer, J. I. Concise Theology : A Guide to Historic Christian Beliefs. Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House, 1993.
Shelley, Bruce L. Church History in Plain Language. Updated 2nd ed. Dallas, Tex.: Word Pub., 1995.

Endnotes

1. Bruce L. Shelley, Church History in Plain Language, Updated 2nd ed. (Dallas, Tex.: Word Pub., 1995).
2. b. November 10, 1483. d. February 18, 1546.
3. Martin Luther, Luther’s Works Vol. 34, Career of the Reformer (Saint Louis: Philadelphia : Concordia Publ. House ; Fortress Pr., 1960), 336. The immediate context of this quotation refers to the death of Johnn Tetzel, the indulgence hawker, which occurred in 1519. This would put Luther’s ‘conversion’ some two years after his posting of the 95 theses.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid., 337.
6. J. I. Packer, Concise Theology : A Guide to Historic Christian Beliefs (Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House, 1993), 160.
7. John 6:57; 10:25-30.
8. cf. Num 23:19.
9. See especially Matt 3:16-17 par.; John 10:25.
10. Rom 5:6.
11. 1 Cor 15:17.
12. John 1:1; 10:15; 14:9.
13. Heb 4:15; cf. 1 John 1:8.
14. 1:1-2
15. 3:3
16. 1:4
17. 2:3
18. 8:1-2
19. 9:11
20. 8:13
21. 9:14
22. Mark 10:13-16 par.

In Heb 12:22-23a we are told: ‘But you have come to Mount Zion, to the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living God. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly, 23 to the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven.’ This is a tremendous picture of worship, but we are liable to interpret it as belonging more or less to the future because it is ‘heavenly’. This week we will study another meeting on another mountain to see how ‘heavenly’ worship extends into today.

Read John 4:4-18.

• Why was it unusual for Jesus to be talking to this woman? What kind of ‘barriers’ spring up that prevent you from sharing the gospel?
• What is the ‘living water’ Jesus speaks of?
• What does the woman find most attractive about the living water? Why? Are these the same things that attract you to Jesus?
• Why does Jesus ask about the woman’s husband, when he obviously already knows the answer?

At this point the Samaritan woman changes the topic (or does she?).

Read John 4:19-26.

The topic she chooses is one that had been well-argued by Jews and Samaritans for as long as there had been Jews and Samaritans. The Samaritans were enemies of the Jews. They claimed to worship Yahweh, but chose to do so in their own way, rather than in the way God had commanded; they set up their own temple in opposition to the temple at Jerusalem. This was a source of great bitterness between Samaritans and Jews: the Jews had destroyed the Samaritan temple, whilst the Samaritans in return had attempted to desecrate the Jerusalem temple. So there are two conflicting temples, each claimed as the location of God’s presence. Each of these temples was built on a mountain: the Jewish temple on the imaginatively named Temple Mount, and the Samaritan temple on Mount Gerizim (where this story takes place). Mountains in Scripture consistently represent places where people meet with God, and where God reveals himself (compare Heb 12:18, 22). The conflict between the Jews and Samaritans came down to this: where is God found, and to whom has he revealed himself?

It is not a surprise, then, that this woman should choose this issue as the litmus-test for establishing the identity of this ‘prophet’. She wants to know where she should go to find and worship the true God.

• What are some of the places that people expect to find God today?
• What is Jesus’ response? What does it mean to ‘worship in spirit and truth’?
• Is it truly necessary for both spirit AND truth in worship? What would a church look like that worshiped only in spirit? Only in truth?

There are three main occurrences of the word ‘must’ in John, and together they outline the gospel. First, Jesus instructs Nicodemus: ‘You must be born again’ (3:7). This is the first step, the source from which a life of faith and worship springs. If you are not a Christian, this is where you must start, for flesh can only give birth to flesh and not to spirit; if you want to worship God in spirit, as he requires, you must first be born again. Jesus knew that this could not happen unless he was obedient to his Father, submitting himself to his Father’s will even though it meant death. This is the meaning of the second ‘must': ‘Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert the Son of Man must be lifted up’ (3:14). Walking through the desert, the people sinned against God, and his wrath was turned against them; only those who looked to the bronze snake that the LORD told Moses to make and lift up on a pole were saved. The message is clear: we must be born again, but cannot because we are sinful and God’s wrath is against us… yet God has provided a way by ‘lifting up’ Jesus, so that anyone who looks to him can be saved. There is only one proper response to this, the third ‘must': ‘God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship him in spirit and in truth’ (4:24).

Don’t miss the importance of this. Worship is not an additional extra to the Christian life; it is not something the Christian chooses to do, or not, according to their preferences, plans or passions. It’s not just that God accepts worship in spirit and truth, God seeks it! (4:23) Worshipping God is the responsibility of all believers. ‘God is spirit, and his worshippers’ – all of us! – ‘must worship him in spirit and in truth’ (4:24).

• What is the woman’s response to what Jesus has told her? What is your response?
• What have you learned about worship from this text? How does this compare with your own experience of worship? What needs to change?

1 Ἀδελφοί, ἐὰν καὶ προλημφθῇ ἄνθρωπος ἔν τινι παραπτώματι, ὑμεῖς οἱ πνευματικοὶ καταρτίζετε τὸν τοιοῦτον ἐν πνεύματι πραΰτητος, σκοπῶν σεαυτὸν μὴ καὶ σὺ πειρασθῇς.	Brothers [and sisters], if a person is surprised [discovered? caught? sprung?] in any transgression, you the spiritual ones restore this one in a spirit of gentleness, watching yourself carefully that you are not also tempted.
2 Ἀλλήλων τὰ βάρη βαστάζετε καὶ οὕτως ἀναπληρώσετε τὸν νόμον τοῦ Χριστοῦ.	Bear one another’s burdens, and in this way fulfil [indicative? imperative?] the law of Christ.
3 εἰ γὰρ δοκεῖ τις εἶναί τι μηδὲν ὤν, φρεναπατᾷ ἑαυτόν.	For if anyone supposes he is someone being noone, he deceives himself.
4 τὸ δὲ ἔργον ἑαυτοῦ δοκιμαζέτω ἕκαστος, καὶ τότε εἰς ἑαυτὸν μόνον τὸ καύχημα ἕξει καὶ οὐκ εἰς τὸν ἕτερον·	Let each one test his own works, and then for himself only he has a boast and not for another;
5 ἕκαστος γὰρ τὸ ἴδιον φορτίον βαστάσει.	For each will bear his own load.
6 Κοινωνείτω δὲ ὁ κατηχούμενος τὸν λόγον τῷ κατηχοῦντι ἐν πᾶσιν ἀγαθοῖς.	The one being taught the word must share with the one teaching in all good things.
7 Μὴ πλανᾶσθε, θεὸς οὐ μυκτηρίζεται. ὃ γὰρ ἐὰν σπείρῃ ἄνθρωπος, τοῦτο καὶ θερίσει·	Do not be deceived, God is not mocked. For if a man sows, this also he reaps;
8 ὅτι ὁ σπείρων εἰς τὴν σάρκα ἑαυτοῦ ἐκ τῆς σαρκὸς θερίσει φθοράν, ὁ δὲ σπείρων εἰς τὸ πνεῦμα ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος θερίσει ζωὴν αἰώνιον.	The one sowing into his flesh reaps from the flesh destruction, but the one sowing into the spirit from the spirit reaps eternal life.
9 τὸ δὲ καλὸν ποιοῦντες μὴ ἐγκακῶμεν, καιρῷ γὰρ ἰδίῳ θερίσομεν μὴ ἐκλυόμενοι.	Let us not grow weary of doing good, for in its own season we will reap, not giving up.
10 Ἄρα οὖν ὡς καιρὸν ἔχομεν, ἐργαζώμεθα τὸ ἀγαθὸν πρὸς πάντας, μάλιστα δὲ πρὸς τοὺς οἰκείους τῆς πίστεως.	Therefore, then, just as we have a season [occasion, opportunity, time? cf. v. 9], let us work good to all, but especially to the household of faith.
11 Ἴδετε πηλίκοις ὑμῖν γράμμασιν ἔγραψα τῇ ἐμῇ χειρί.	Look how large are the letters I write to you by my very own hand!
12 Ὅσοι θέλουσιν εὐπροσωπῆσαι ἐν σαρκί, οὗτοι ἀναγκάζουσιν ὑμᾶς περιτέμνεσθαι, μόνον ἵνα τῷ σταυρῷ τοῦ Χριστοῦ μὴ διώκωνται.	As many as desire to make a good showing in flesh, these are the ones compelling you to be circumcised, only in order that they might not be persecuted by [reason of] the cross of Christ.
13 οὐδὲ γὰρ οἱ περιτεμνόμενοι αὐτοὶ νόμον φυλάσσουσιν ἀλλὰ θέλουσιν ὑμᾶς περιτέμνεσθαι, ἵνα ἐν τῇ ὑμετέρᾳ σαρκὶ καυχήσωνται.	For neither are the [very] ones circumcising keeping the law, but they want you to be circumcised, in order that they might boast in your flesh.
14 Ἐμοὶ δὲ μὴ γένοιτο καυχᾶσθαι εἰ μὴ ἐν τῷ σταυρῷ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, δι᾿ οὗ ἐμοὶ κόσμος ἐσταύρωται κἀγὼ κόσμῳ.	But to me may it never be to boast except in the cross of our lord Jesus Christ, through whom the world has been crucified and I to the world.
15 οὔτε γὰρ περιτομή τί ἐστιν οὔτε ἀκροβυστία ἀλλὰ καινὴ κτίσις.	For what [is of importance] is neither circumcision nor uncircumcision but new creation.
16 καὶ ὅσοι τῷ κανόνι τούτῳ στοιχήσουσιν, εἰρήνη ἐπ᾿ αὐτοὺς καὶ ἔλεος καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν Ἰσραὴλ τοῦ θεοῦ.	And as many as are living to this rule, peace upon them and mercy and upon the Israel of God.
17 Τοῦ λοιποῦ κόπους μοι μηδεὶς παρεχέτω· ἐγὼ γὰρ τὰ στίγματα τοῦ Ἰησοῦ ἐν τῷ σώματί μου βαστάζω.	Of the rest, let noone cause me any trouble; for I myself bear in my body the marks of Jesus.
18 Ἡ χάρις τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ μετὰ τοῦ πνεύματος ὑμῶν, ἀδελφοί· ἀμήν.	The grace of our lord Jesus Christ [be] with your spirit, brothers [and sisters]. Amen.

Be Free! (Gal 5:1)

Translation & Textual Notes

The Law is of no benefit (5:2-4)

Translation & Textual Notes

Structure:

• Declaration:
  • Circumcision is not an asset (2)
  • Circumcision is a liability (3)
• Relying on the law separates you from Christ (4)

Purpose: For the first time in this Epistle, Paul directly addresses the issue of circumcision, though it was no doubt clear to the Galatians that he had been building towards this all along. In particular, he has expounded the theme of freedom in chapters 3 and 4, ending in the climactic exhortation of 5:1: ‘To freedom Christ has set us free; therefore stand firm and do not be burdened again by the yoke of slavery.’ In 5:2, he turns from theory to practice by applying what he has said to the Galatian situation. This marks the commencement of the parenetic section of the Epistle.

Gal 5:2. ἴδε is common in the gospels, but is found only here in the rest of the NT. It is used to draw attention to something.¹ This, along with the lack of a conjunction joining this verse to the previous, requires a pause from the reader, lending great weight to what follows. This is amplified by the solemnity of Paul’s address. In supplying the superfluous personal pronoun, ἐγὼ, and his name, Paul is mustering every ounce of his apostolic authority and pouring it into this declaration: being circumcised negates the value of being in Christ.

The form of Paul’s declaration is akin to an oath, an impression strengthened by his repetition and use of the verb μαρτύρομαι in the next verse. Clearly Paul is ‘on trial’, as has been the case throughout the Epistle, and here the forensic language is particularly strong. Thus he demands a verdict from the Galatians, which will serve as the basis of the parenesis that constitutes the remainder of the Epistle.

Gal 5:3. The Apostle goes on to provide the grounds for this statement: submitting to part of the law requires submission to all of it. He thus argues from a specific case to a more general rule, taking circumcision as representative of the requirements of the law in general.

Paul punctuates his point with rhetorical word-play. Circumcision means the Galatians do not profit (ὠφελήσει) by Christ, but are rather in debt (ὀφειλέτης) to the whole law.

Much ink has been spilled over the latter half of the verse. The key issues are: (1) what is the frame of reference when Paul speaks of τὸν νόμον? (2) Did Paul believe it was possible to do (ποιῆσαι) the entire law? On the first, we may note at once that τὸν νόμον must include at a minimum the Pentateuch, since it is circumcision that is at issue here. Gal 4:10 may also give us an indication that this extended to the OT canon at large. It seems unlikely, however, that Paul would acknowledge the Pharisaic traditions, which he refers to as παράδοσις in 1:14, as νόμος here. As for whether Paul believed ‘doing’ the ‘whole’ law possible, the direction of his argument suggests not. For he moves on to speak in verse 4 of falling away from grace as a foregone conclusion. The two verses form an enthymeme, with the unstated minor premise that it is not possible to do all the law.

Gal 5:4. This verse draws the required conclusion from the previous verse. Those who seek justification have ‘severed’ (κατηργήθητε) themselves from Christ and ‘fallen from grace’ (τῆς χάριτος ἐξεπέσατε). δικαιοῦσθε may be passive (‘be justified’), or middle (‘justify themselves’) but the emphasis is on the ineffectuality of the act, rather than the agent, and the point remains the same in either case.

This verse accounts for proponents of the NPJ who claim that Paul has here misunderstood (or at least misrepresented) Judaism as a works-religion, when it was actually based on ‘covenantal nomism’. Jews, so the argument goes, did not require absolute perfection in obedience to the law. The OT cultus was provided as a means of ‘grace’, with atonement being made for imperfections. Observance of the law was required as a means of remaining within the covenant of grace, much in the way that the Israelites were required to remain within their homes during the first Passover. Quite apart from the difficulty inherent in believing that a such an advanced student of Judaism (1:14) should have so fundamentally misunderstood the religion for which he was so zealous, it is clear from this verse that if Paul had once considered OT sacrifice as a means ‘of grace’, he did so no longer.

Parenesis

Translation & Textual Notes

Endnotes

1. BDAG, “ἴδε”, 1

Translation and Textual Notes

Translation and Textual Notes

Translation and Textual Notes

Allegory of Hagar and Sarah (4:21-31)

Narrative (4:21-23)

Translation and Textual Notes

Structure:

• v21. You want the law, but do you not know the law?
• v22. The law prescribes two kinds of sons:
  1. v23a. Slave sons, born of a free woman by the flesh;
  2. v23b. Free sons, born of a free woman by a promise.

Purpose: This section develops the theme of being sons of Abraham. It is not enough just to be a Son of Abraham, for he had two kinds of sons. In particular, we see two nexuses: flesh and slavery on one hand; and promise and freedom on the other. Ultimately, Paul’s objective is to associate the former pair with the Law, and the latter with the Spirit.

v21: The strong imperative, λέγετέ μοι, coupled with an interrogative, signals a return to Paul’s ‘interrogation’ of the Galatians (FIXME – left off where?). He is asking the Galatians to give an account of their beliefs. They are to be both witness and judge.

Whilst it is possible that οἱ ὑπὸ νόμον θέλοντες εἶναι refers to the ‘agitators’ this is unlikely, since Paul nowhere else in this Epistle directly addresses them. His concern is to encourage the Galatians to return to the Gospel they were taught at first. He has no brief for engaging in dialogue with the ‘agitators’ themselves; his attitude to them is much more direct (5:12)!

v22: In spite of the citation formula (γέγραπται γὰρ ὅτι) there does not appear to be a specific quotation here.

Paul continues to draw on the example of Abraham, which he has been doing since 3:6. More specifically, he elaborates upon the idea of being ‘sons’ of Abraham by giving the examples of Abraham’s two most prominent sons. Neither mothers nor sons are named, however, signalling that this is more than simply a narration of biblical history.

The contrast developed here between slave and free is related but distinct from the image used at the beginning of the chapter of a heir who is ‘under guardians and stewards’ (Gal 4:2). There the image is a dynamic one, where one naturally progresses from child to adult and, consequently, from ‘slave’ to free. Here, the image is much more static: one’s freedom (or otherwise) is determined by the one who gave them birth, and the means by which they were conceived. In the language of the Fourth Gospel, one must be ‘born again’ (John 3:3) of a different mother, and according to promise, if they are to be free.

Is there a reference here also back to the τέκνα μου of verse 19? The question is implicit: if the Galatians are ‘children’ of Paul, with which son are they to be identified? This can only be answered by consideration of the source and mechanism of their conception.

v23. Notably, neither son is named or identified as either slave nor free. There are likely two reasons for this:

1. Paul has already indicated In Gal 3:28 that there is ‘neither slave nor free’. His emphasis here, then, is on the mothers;
2. By leaving the identifications vague, Paul leaves room for the dramatic reversal that is to come: the Jews are to be identified with the slave woman!

‘Flesh’ is here contrasted with ‘promise’ as the mechanism of conception/birth. One might have expected ‘spirit’ instead of ‘promise’, but the two have already been identified as coextensive (‘the promised Spirit’ 3:14). Of all Paul’s epistles, only Colossians has a higher frequency of occurrence for flesh-related words.¹ However, the majority of Colossians references are either positive or neutral, whereas Paul’s usage in Galatians is overwhelmingly negative. Thus he consistently uses σάρξ (Gal 1:16; 2:16, 20; 3:3; 4:13–14, 23, 29; 5:13, 16–17, 19, 24; 6:8, 12–13) with the more neutral σῶμα in Gal 6:17.²

Interpretation (4:24-27)

Translation and Textual Notes

Application (4:28-31)

Translation and Textual Notes

Endnotes

1. Based on searching for terms in Luow & Nida “A Body (8.1–8.8)”, Colossians registers 9.25 occurrences per 1000 words, Galatians 6.86 and 1 Corinthians 6.76.
2. Does this suggest a negative connotation for the phrase σαρκὶ καὶ αἵματι (Gal 1:16)?
3. Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2d, Accordance electronic ed. New York: United Bible Societies, 1994), 527.
4. So Metzger, who quotes Zuntz: ‘gives the text a broader, pastoral application, but obscures Paul’s distinction between the ‘chosen ones’ and the ‘sons of Hagar” (Metzger, 528.; cf. Philip W. Comfort, New Testament Text and Translation Commentary (Accordance electronic ed. Wheaton: Tyndale House Publishers, 2008), 570.
5. So Metzger, 528.; Comfort, 570. Comfort also notes the frequency with which the two pronouns (ὑμεῖς and ἡμεῖς) were confused.
6. Comfort, 570.

Argument from Experience (Gal 3:1-5)

Translation & Textual Criticism

Structure:

• Rebuke (1a)
• What are your eyes on? (1b)
• How did you begin? (2)
• How will you finish? (3)
• Have you suffered in vain? (4)
• Does God work by works of law or by faith? (5)

Purpose: Having defended his gospel at length, Paul now argues that the Galatians have moved a long way from that which was preached at first. He asks a series of rhetorical questions that appeal to the Galatians’ own experience, knowing the response they must give.

Gal 3:1. The insult here (Ὦ ἀνόητοι Γαλάται) is typical of Hellenistic and Jewish diatribe,¹ and should not be taken too seriously. Paul’s intent is to motivate the Galatians to a response, and to direct their attention to what is to follow. In particular, it is clear that the antitheses to be presented next are no mere minor distinctions; one side is to be considered ‘foolish’, and Paul leaves no room for doubt which it is.

The link between the two clauses that make up the rest of the sentence is the eyes. βασκαίνω meant to ‘exert an evil influence through the eye’² and to ‘be resentful of something enjoyed by another’³. Paul thus, at one fell swoop, characterises the agitators as envious (cf. Gal 2:4?) and evil. Over against this, Paul reminds the Galatians of Christ crucified. Had they kept their eyes on him as they ought, they would have been proof against the ‘evil eye’.

Gal 3:2. In using μαθεῖν (‘to learn’), Paul ironically casts himself as a student desiring to learn from the ‘wise’ Galatians. Again, the question he asks of them relates to their own experience, this time what they heard, rather than what they saw. The Galatians had received the Spirit, the undeniable proof of the fulfilment of God’s eschatological promises to Abraham and his descendants. That this occurred before their newfound desire to submit to works of the law, and so the latter must be superfluous to entering covenantal relationship with God (cf. 3:14).

The antithesis between Spirit and law is found only in Paul, and then only in Galatians and Romans (Rom 7:5-6; 8:2-3; Gal 3:2, 5, 12-14; 5:18),⁴ but would have been unusual to his Galatian audience. This unfamiliarity he resolves by appeal to the more familiar antithesis between πνεῦμα and σάρξ, to which Paul next appeals.

Gal 3:3. Paul draws out his implication more fully with a further question: If you have begun with the Spirit, why expect to finish by the flesh? Whilst cast in the interrogative, when coupled with the insult in 3:1 (note the repeated ἀνόητοι) this constitutes an accusation.

In shifting the contrast from πνεῦμα/νόμος to πνεῦμα/σάρξ, Paul has inseparably identified the law with the flesh. That the specific issue at hand is one of observance of the law by a mark of the flesh may be deliberate on Paul’s part, but is probably coincidental as circumcision is not specifically in view here.

Gal 3:4.

Gal 3:5

Translation & Textual Criticism

Endnotes

1. FIXME?
2. BDAG, “βασκαίνω” 1
3. BDAG, “βασκαίνω” 2
4. cf. Especially Rom 8:2, where Paul can speak of ὁ νόμος τοῦ πνεύματος, almost as a ‘rival’ law, though he clarifies this a few verses later in 8:6, where Spirit implicitly allows one to satisfy the requirements of the law (cf. Gal 5:22-3).
5. cf. BDAG s.v. ὅμως.
6. cf. Richard N. Longenecker, Galatians (WBC 41; Accordance/Thomas Nelson electronic ed. Waco: Word Books, 1990), 145. According to Longenecker, this is a ‘prepositional phrase’ meaning “before the coming”.

1 Ἔπειτα διὰ δεκατεσσάρων ἐτῶν πάλιν ἀνέβην εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα μετὰ Βαρναβᾶ συμπαραλαβὼν καὶ Τίτον·	After fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem, taking along Barnabas and Titus.	The ordering of πάλιν ἀνέβην is supported by P46 ℵ A B K P Ψ 81 614 1739 vg syr(p), h copsa arm, and is clearly the preferred reading on external evidence. The readings ἀνέβην πάλιν (D F G ar b) and πάλιν ἀνῆλθον (C) are later and secondary.
2 ἀνέβην δὲ κατὰ ἀποκάλυψιν· καὶ ἀνεθέμην αὐτοῖς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ὃ κηρύσσω ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, κατ᾿ ἰδίαν δὲ τοῖς δοκοῦσιν, μή πως εἰς κενὸν τρέχω ἢ ἔδραμον.	I went up according to a revelation. I set before them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but in private to the influential ones1, lest somehow I was running or had run in vain.
3 ἀλλ᾿ οὐδὲ Τίτος ὁ σὺν ἐμοί, Ἕλλην ὤν, ἠναγκάσθη περιτμηθῆναι·	But not even Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was forced to be circumcised.
4 διὰ δὲ τοὺς παρεισάκτους ψευδαδέλφους, οἵτινες παρεισῆλθον κατασκοπῆσαι τὴν ἐλευθερίαν ἡμῶν ἣν ἔχομεν ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, ἵνα ἡμᾶς καταδουλώσουσιν,	But because of the inflitrating false brothers, who had snuck in to spy out our freedom we have in Christ, in order that they might enslave us,	The insertion of μή after ἵνα in F G is narrowly supported, and does not seem consistent with the surrounding statements.
5 οἷς οὐδὲ πρὸς ὥραν εἴξαμεν τῇ ὑποταγῇ, ἵνα ἡ ἀλήθεια τοῦ εὐαγγελίου διαμείνῃ πρὸς ὑμᾶς.	We did not allow them obedience for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might remain for you.	Some MSS (syrp Marcion Greek mssacc. to Ambrosiaster Ephraem) omit οἷς – Metzger suggests that this was deliberate, in order to resolve anacoluthon.2 The omission of οὐδὲ, both with and without οἷς, is more serious in its implications. The resultant reading (‘Because of the false brothers… I yielded for a brief time’) seems at odds with both the literary context of this epistle and Paul’s own temperament. It is possible that this represents a deliberate emendation, along the lines of the principle articulated in 1 Cor 9:20-23 of being ‘all things to all men’ for the sake of the gospel, as well as the events of Acts 16:3 where Paul circumcised Timothy. There is a minor variant (A F G) that substitutes the indicative διαμενη instead of the subjunctive διαμείνῃ, but this has only slender external support, and is most likely a substitution of the more familiar indicative.3
6 Ἀπὸ δὲ τῶν δοκούντων εἶναί τι, – ὁποῖοί ποτε ἦσαν οὐδέν μοι διαφέρει· πρόσωπον [ὁ] θεὸς ἀνθρώπου οὐ λαμβάνει – ἐμοὶ γὰρ οἱ δοκοῦντες οὐδὲν προσανέθεντο	But from the influential ones – of whatever kind they were makes no difference to me; God does not receive the face of man – for to me the influential ones added nothing.
7 ἀλλὰ τοὐναντίον ἰδόντες ὅτι πεπίστευμαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τῆς ἀκροβυστίας καθὼς Πέτρος τῆς περιτομῆς,	But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted the gospel of the uncircumcision just as Peter of the circumcision,
8 ὁ γὰρ ἐνεργήσας Πέτρῳ εἰς ἀποστολὴν τῆς περιτομῆς ἐνήργησεν καὶ ἐμοὶ εἰς τὰ ἔθνη,	(for the one working in Peter for apostleship of the circumcision, worked in me also for the Gentiles)
9 καὶ γνόντες τὴν χάριν τὴν δοθεῖσάν μοι, Ἰάκωβος καὶ Κηφᾶς καὶ Ἰωάννης, οἱ δοκοῦντες στῦλοι εἶναι, δεξιὰς ἔδωκαν ἐμοὶ καὶ Βαρναβᾷ κοινωνίας, ἵνα ἡμεῖς εἰς τὰ ἔθνη, αὐτοὶ δὲ εἰς τὴν περιτομήν·	and recognising the gift given to me, James and Cephas and John, the ones seeming to be pillars, gave to Barnabas and me the right hand of fellowship, so that we to the Gentiles and they to the circumcision.	Several MSS substitute the more familiar Greek Πετρος in place of the Aramaic Κηφᾶς (P46 D F G itd, g, r goth Marcion Origenlat Marius Victorinus Ephraem Ambrosiaster Jerome). Of these, all but P46 and itr give prominence to Peter by placing his name first. Given the strength of the external evidence, together with the greater likelihood of substituting the more familiar Greek rather than the less familiar Aramaic, the reading Ἰάκωβος καὶ Κηφᾶς is likely original.
10 μόνον τῶν πτωχῶν ἵνα μνημονεύωμεν, ὃ καὶ ἐσπούδασα αὐτὸ τοῦτο ποιῆσαι.	Only of the poor, that they be remembered, which also I was eager to do.
11 Ὅτε δὲ ἦλθεν Κηφᾶς εἰς Ἀντιόχειαν, κατὰ πρόσωπον αὐτῷ ἀντέστην, ὅτι κατεγνωσμένος ἦν.	But when Cephas came into Antioch, I opposed him to his face, that he was being condemned.	κατεγνωσμένος could potentially be middle (‘having condemned himself’) or (divine?) passive (‘having been condemned’). cf. BDAG s.v. καταγινώσκω. Once again, some MSS (D F G M it vgmss syh Ambst ) substitute the Greek Πετρος for the Aramaic Κηφᾶς. See notes above.
12 πρὸ τοῦ γὰρ ἐλθεῖν τινας ἀπὸ Ἰακώβου μετὰ τῶν ἐθνῶν συνήσθιεν· ὅτε δὲ ἦλθον, ὑπέστελλεν καὶ ἀφώριζεν ἑαυτὸν φοβούμενος τοὺς ἐκ περιτομῆς.	For before certain ones came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came, he drew back and set himself apart, fearing those from the circumcision.	A number of generally reliable MSS (P46vid ℵ B D* 33 330 2492 al) attest to the singular ἦλθεν rather than the plural ἦλθον (sometimes in combination with τινα substituted for τινας). Metzger suggests that the ‘singular number ἦλθεν is probably due to scribes who either imitated ὅτε δὲ ἦλθεν Κηφᾶς of ver. 11, or were unconsciously influenced by careless assonance with the immediately preceding and following verbs that end in -εν.’4 This offers the best explanation of how the various readings, although Metzger’s argument that ‘he sense of the passage seems to demand the plural’5 is less convincing. One or many emissaries from James, the point remains the same: Peter’s behaviour altered in response to the new arrival(s), to the detriment of Jewish/Gentile relations.
13 καὶ συνυπεκρίθησαν αὐτῷ καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ Ἰουδαῖοι, ὥστε καὶ Βαρναβᾶς συναπήχθη αὐτῶν τῇ ὑποκρίσει.	And the rest of the Jews joined his hypocrisy, so that even Barnabas was being led astray by their hypocrisy.	A number of MSS (P46 B 6. 630. 1739. 1881 pc ar f vg bo) omit the και following αύτῳ, however a slight majority of MSS include it. NA27/UBS4 include it in brackets to indicate that its marginality. In any case, little hangs on the difference, since it at most slightly intensifies the idea already implicit in the prefix ‘συν-‘.
14 ἀλλ᾿ ὅτε εἶδον ὅτι οὐκ ὀρθοποδοῦσιν πρὸς τὴν ἀλήθειαν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, εἶπον τῷ Κηφᾷ ἔμπροσθεν πάντων· εἰ σὺ Ἰουδαῖος ὑπάρχων ἐθνικῶς καὶ οὐχὶ Ἰουδαϊκῶς ζῇς, πῶς τὰ ἔθνη ἀναγκάζεις ἰουδαΐζειν;	But when I saw that he was not walking rightly toward the the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before everyone, “If you, a Jew, are existing as a Gentile and not living as a Jew, how are you compelling the Gentiles to live as Jews?	Several western texts substitute the familiar Greek Πέτρῷ for the Aramaic Κεφῷ. See notes above. There are a number of variants on the phrase καὶ οὐχὶ Ἰουδαϊκῶς ζῇς: καὶ οὐκ Ἰουδαϊκῶς ζῇς (F G 6. 630. 1739 pc): The slightly diminished emphasis of the οὐκ (compared to οὐχὶ) does not match with the context. The Apostle’s point is that Peter is a Jew but not living as a Jew. This is probably a scribal omission, or assimilation to the earlier portion of the verse. The external support for this reading is slender and late. ζῇς καὶ οὐκ Ἰουδαϊκῶς (D2 M): Once again, the support for this reading is narrow and late. It is probably a stylistic correction to connect the verb more directly with the preceding clause, rendering the following clause subordinate. On the substitution of οὐκ for οὐχὶ see above. ζῇς καὶ οὐχὶ Ἰουδαϊκῶς (D✱ 326. 1241s. 1505. 2464 pc vgcl): Whilst enjoying marginally more external support than the previous readings this is probably also a stylistic amendment as per number 2 above. ζῇς (P46 1881 pc ar b d; Ambst): This shortened reading lessens the rhetorical force of Paul’s point. It is likely that this is an accidental scribal omission. καὶ οὐχὶ Ἰουδαϊκῶς ζῇς (ℵ A B C H P Ψ 0278. 33. 81. 104. 1175 pc): This is clearly the best attested variant, and preserves a strong emphasis consistent with the context. It is thus to be preferred.
15 Ἡμεῖς φύσει Ἰουδαῖοι καὶ οὐκ ἐξ ἐθνῶν ἁμαρτωλοί·	We ourselves are by nature Jews and not sinners out of the Gentiles.
16 εἰδότες δὲ ὅτι οὐ δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ἔργων νόμου ἐὰν μὴ διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐπιστεύσαμεν, ἵνα δικαιωθῶμεν ἐκ πίστεως Χριστοῦ καὶ οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων νόμου, ὅτι ἐξ ἔργων νόμου οὐ δικαιωθήσεται πᾶσα σάρξ.	But we are knowing that a person is not made righteous out of works of the law except through faith in Jesus Christ, and we ourselves have believed into Christ Jesus, so that we are made righteous out of faith in Christ and not out of works of the law, because all flesh will not be made righteous out of works of the law.	A number of generally reliable MSS (P46 A D2 Ψ 0278✱. 33. 1739. 1881 M syh) omit the contrastive δὲ at the beginning of this verse, however it provides a contextually appropriate (if relatively weak) contrast with the preceding verse. It also has slightly stronger MS support (ℵ B C D✱ F G H 0278c. 81. 104. 1175. 1241s. 2464 pc lat ). These factors weigh in favour of its inclusion. The transposition of Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ and Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν both have relatively narrow external support, and are of no significance. Several late MSS (C D2 H Ψ M f vg) substitute διότι for the final ὅτι. This is probably a deliberate change, either for stylistic variation or, more likely, to distinguish it from the ὅτι at the beginning of the verse, which functions as a ‘marker of narrative or discourse content’6.
17 εἰ δὲ ζητοῦντες δικαιωθῆναι ἐν Χριστῷ εὑρέθημεν καὶ αὐτοὶ ἁμαρτωλοί, ἆρα Χριστὸς ἁμαρτίας διάκονος; μὴ γένοιτο.	But if, seeking to be made righteous in Christ, we also are found to be sinners, is Christ, then, a servant of sin? By no means!	Some witnesses (B2 H 0278. 365. 945. 1175. 1739. 1881 al it; Ambst) substitute the inferential ἄρα in place of the interrogative ἆρα, but this is both late and contextually improbable in the middle of a rhetorical question.
18 εἰ γὰρ ἃ κατέλυσα ταῦτα πάλιν οἰκοδομῶ, παραβάτην ἐμαυτὸν συνιστάνω.	For if the things I destroyed these things I build again, I demonstrate myself a transgressor.
19 ἐγὼ γὰρ διὰ νόμου νόμῳ ἀπέθανον, ἵνα θεῷ ζήσω. Χριστῷ συνεσταύρωμαι·7	For through the law I myself died to sin, so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ.
20 ζῶ δὲ οὐκέτι ἐγώ, ζῇ δὲ ἐν ἐμοὶ Χριστός· ὃ δὲ νῦν ζῶ ἐν σαρκί, ἐν πίστει ζῶ τῇ τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἀγαπήσαντός με καὶ παραδόντος ἑαυτὸν ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ.	But it is no longer I myself who lives, but Christ lives in me; that which I now live in flesh, in faith I live to the son of God, the one who loved me and gave himself for me.	Several important witnesses (P46 B D* G itd, g Marius Victorinus Pelagius) support the reading θεοῦ καὶ Χριστοῦ in place of τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ. Metzger argument that this would be unusual since ‘Paul nowhere else expressly speaks of God as the object of a Christian’s faith’8 is unconvincing since Paul speaks of Abraham believing in God (Rom 4:3, 17; Gal 3:6) and speaks of believers trusting in God (Rom 15:13). Nevertheless, Metzger offers the most convincing reconstruction as to how this variant came about, arguing that the scribe’s eye skipped from the first to the second τοῦ, and later attempted to go back and correct by adding και Χριστοῦ.9
21 Οὐκ ἀθετῶ τὴν χάριν τοῦ θεοῦ· εἰ γὰρ διὰ νόμου δικαιοσύνη, ἄρα Χριστὸς δωρεὰν ἀπέθανεν.	I do not nullify the grace of God; for if through the law [came] righteousness, then Christ died in vain.

Endnotes

1. cf. BDAG s.v. δοκέω 2.a.β. : ‘be influential, be recognized as being someth., have a reputation’
2. Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2d, Accordance electronic ed. New York: United Bible Societies, 1994), 522.
3. διαμένω is found in the subjunctive only here in the NT, compared to three instances in the indicative (Luke 1:22; Heb 1:11; 2 Pet 3:4) and one participle (Luke 22:8).
4. Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2d, Accordance electronic ed. New York: United Bible Societies, 1994), 524.
5. Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2d, Accordance electronic ed. New York: United Bible Societies, 1994), 524.
6. “ὅτι,” BDAG, 731.
7. The clause Χριστῷ συνεσταύρωμαι (‘I have been crucified with Christ’) is placed at the beginning of v. 20 in most English versions, but both NA²⁷, UBS⁴ and the NRSV place it here.
8. Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2d, Accordance electronic ed. New York: United Bible Societies, 1994), 524.
9. Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2d, Accordance electronic ed. New York: United Bible Societies, 1994), 524.

Galatians 1:1-5 – Greetings and thanksgiving

Translation & Textual notes

Galatians 1:6-9 – There is no other gospel

Translation & Textual Notes

Galatians 1:10-24 – The Gospel of God, not of men

By Revelation (1:10-12)

Translation & Textual Notes

Structure:

• Is my goal to persuade/please men or God? (10a)
• If I am pleasing men I’m not serving God. (10b)
• But I am serving God by proclaiming the gospel (11a), which:
  • is not from men (11b – 12a);
  • but was revealed by Jesus Christ. (12)

Purpose: Paul commences his defence of his apostolic independence – or, more accurately, the independence of the gospel he preaches. He has just established that the gospel is the rule by which people are to be judged (1:8) and not the other way around. Here he points to the divine origin of his gospel – it comes δι᾿ ἀποκαλύψεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (1:12). The implication is that the ones disturbing (οἱ ταράσσοντες, Gal 1:7) the Galatians bring a gospel κατὰ ἄνθρωπον (1:11), and παρὰ ἀνθρώπου (1:12). This is important in the overall epistle, because it establishes the strong antithesis between Paul’s gospel and that of the opponents (which Paul calls no gospel at all) based on its origins.

Gal 1:10. The two verbs prominent in this verse both have potential to invoke negative images. πείθω (‘I persuade’) carries the idea of (dishonest) cajolery,⁷ whilst ἀρέσκω can mean ‘to act in a fawning manner’.⁸ Yet God is also the direct object of πείθω (?) suggesting a more neutral reading of this verb at least. Similarly, Paul implies that by ‘serving’ Christ he is ‘pleasing’ Christ. We may gain greater insight into his meaning by considering the adverb ἔτι.

ἔτι (‘still’, ‘yet’) suggests that Paul is either confessing or being accused of having at some time striven to ‘please men’. Given the apologetic tone of this section, it is more likely the latter. This is confirmed when we consider that Paul has yet to establish the connection between Judaism (the most probable referent if this reflects Paul’s self-understanding) and pleasing men.

Gal 1:11. The preferred reading here is Γνωρίζω δὲ (see above), with δὲ suggesting a mild contrast with the previous verse. Thus, Paul is not pleasing men but preaching the gospel. Thus there is a striking similarity in this verse to 1 Cor 15:1, where Paul uses Γνωρίζω δὲ in speaking of the gospel that he preached and the Corinthians received. A majority of commentators note, therefore, that he is here also ‘reminding’ the Galatians of the gospel that they received at first. The divine origins of Paul’s gospel should not be new information to the Galatians; they need only be ‘reminded’ of it.⁹ The point should not be pressed, however, since the overwhelming majority of Paul’s uses of γνωρίζω (Rom 9:22–23; 16:26; 1 Cor 12:3; 2 Cor 8:1; Eph 1:9; 3:3, 5, 10; 6:19, 21; Phil 1:22; 4:6; Col 1:27; 4:7, 9) refer to the unveiling of new information, with only 1 Cor 15:1 definitely connoting ‘reminding’.

After the startling accusation of 1:6, and the double anathema (1:8-9), the familiar address, ἀδελφοί, strikes a conciliatory note. Paul’s diatribe is directed towards the opponents at this point, not the Galatians (though this is not the case throughout – cf. 3:1!). These are the men and women that Paul ministered amongst (1:11), and his attitude toward them is amazement (1:6) rather than hostility.

Paul firstly states his case negatively, declaring that his gospel is not according to man (i.e. of human origin). It is possible that this indicates the ground upon which the agitators were denigrating his gospel and calling the Galatians to something else. Several commentators, however, warn against assuming this. Barclay notes the inherent ambiguity of undertaking mirror-reading on a polemical work such as Galatians: (1) Paul is not directly addressing the opponents, but rather the Galatians; (2) Paul’s fierce polemic is aimed at persuading the Galatians rather than (directly) refuting the agitators; and (3)¹⁰ Thus, in this verse Paul may be outlining the grounds of his defense against some other charge, perhaps following the advice of Quintilian (so Betz, 59), rather than responding directly to a criticism from the agitators.¹¹

Gal 1:12. Paul presents the grounds for his assertion that his gospel is not κατὰ ἄνθρωπον, first negatively then positively.

Negatively, he denies having received from (παρέλαβον) or been taught by (ἐδιδάχθην) (a?) man the gospel that he proclaimed. If Paul is here responding to a direct criticism, it is likely the criticism was couched in terms of a contrast with the superior quality of their own ‘gospel’. There are a number of possibilities: (1) they had their gospel from James, a ‘pillar’ apostle, whereas Paul had his from some ‘no-name’ disciple in Damascus; (2) they received their gospel by direct revelation of the Spirit; (3) they were teaching the OT scriptures, and thus the word of God. All three possibilities find some support in the context of this Epistle, but (1) seems the most likely in light of the extended discussion on Paul’s relationship with the Jerusalem church (1:13-2:10).

Positively, Paul proclaims that he received his gospel by ‘revelation’ (ἀποκαλύψεως) of Jesus Christ. Much ink has been spilled over whether Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ should be taken as a subjective or objective genitive here. Both are possible – Christ was both the revealer (on the road to Damascus) and the content of the revelation – and there is no need to choose between them.

Not by Judaism (1:13-14)

Translation & Textual Notes

Not from Jerusalem (1:15-17)

Translation & Textual Notes

Not from Apostles (1:18-24)

Translation & Textual Notes

Endnotes

1. Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2d, Accordance electronic ed. New York: United Bible Societies, 1994), 520.
2. Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2d, Accordance electronic ed. New York: United Bible Societies, 1994), 520-521.
3. Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2d, Accordance electronic ed. New York: United Bible Societies, 1994), 521.
4. Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2d, Accordance electronic ed. New York: United Bible Societies, 1994), 521.
5. W. Hall Harris, ed., The NET Bible Notes (1st, Accordance electronic ed. Richardson: Biblical Studies Press, 2005), n.p.
6. BDAG, 740. They cite variant readings in Mk 5:3; Lk 12:26; 20:36; J 1:25; Ac 4:12; 1 Cor 3:2; Gal 1:12a; 1 Th 2:3; Rv 5:3; 9:20; 12:8; 20:4.
7. BDAG, 791
8. BDAG, 129.
9. cf. Betz, 56, where he argues that Paul is ‘pretending’ to introduce new information as a rhetorical device for reminding.
10. Barclay, “Mirror-reading a Polemical Letter”, 368-70.
11. Indeed, Barclay raises the possibility that the ‘opponents’ did not consider themselves in opposition to Paul, but believed they were carrying on in the tradition of his own teaching. (ibid., 373.)
12. Constantin von Tischendorf, ed., Novum Testamentum Graece: Editio Octava Critica Maior (Accordance electronic ed. 3 vols.; Leipzig: Giesecke & Devrient, 1869), 630.
13. W. Hall Harris, ed., The NET Bible Notes (1st, Accordance electronic ed. Richardson: Biblical Studies Press, 2005), n.p.

15:1-11

Vocabulary

• κατέχω – I hold fast
• ἐκτος – outside
• έκτος εἰ μή – except
• εἰχῆ – in vain, to no purpose, without due consideration.
• θάπτω – I bury
• ὤφθη – aor. pass. of ὁράω to see; pass. appear.
• ἐπάνω – more than, over, above
• πεντακόσιοι – five hundred
• ἐφάπαξ – at once; once for all
• ὡστερεί – as, as it were
• ἔκτρωμα, τό – untimely birth, miscarriage
• κἀμοί – also to me
• ἐλαχιστος – least
• ἱκανός – qualified, fit; sufficient
• κενός – vain, without result; without effect
• περισσότερος – more, greater
• κοπιάω – work hard, toil

Translation

1. Γνωρίζω δὲ ὑμῖν, ἀδελφοί, τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ὃ εὐηγγελισάμην ὑμῖν, ὃ καὶ παρελάβετε, ἐν ᾧ καὶ ἑστήκατε,	Now I make known to you, brothers and sisters, the gospel which we gospelled to you, which you received and in which you stand,
2. δι᾿ οὗ καὶ σῴζεσθε, τίνι λόγῳ εὐηγγελισάμην ὑμῖν εἰ κατέχετε, ἐκτὸς εἰ μὴ εἰκῇ ἐπιστεύσατε.	Through which you are being saved, with what word I gospelled you if you hold fast, outside except you believed in vain.
3. παρέδωκα γὰρ ὑμῖν ἐν πρώτοις, ὃ καὶ παρέλαβον, ὅτι Χριστὸς ἀπέθανεν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν κατὰ τὰς γραφὰς	For I delivered to you in the first, that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
4. καὶ ὅτι ἐτάφη καὶ ὅτι ἐγήγερται τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ τρίτῃ κατὰ τὰς γραφὰς	That he was buried and that he was on the third day according to the Scriptures,
5. καὶ ὅτι ὤφθη Κηφᾷ εἶτα τοῖς δώδεκα·	And that he was seen by [‘appeared to’? (NIV, ESV)] Cephas, then the Twelve;
6. ἔπειτα ὤφθη ἐπάνω πεντακοσίοις ἀδελφοῖς ἐφάπαξ, ἐξ ὧν οἱ πλείονες μένουσιν ἕως ἄρτι, τινὲς δὲ ἐκοιμήθησαν·	Then he was seen by more than five hundred brothers [and sisters] at the same time, out of whom many remain until not, although some have fallen asleep;
7. ἔπειτα ὤφθη Ἰακώβῳ εἶτα τοῖς ἀποστόλοις πᾶσιν·	Then he was seen by James then all the apostles;
8. ἔσχατον δὲ πάντων ὡσπερεὶ τῷ ἐκτρώματι ὤφθη κἀμοί.	But last of all, as to one born suddenly [i.e. without adequate preparation], he was seen by me also.
9. Ἐγὼ γάρ εἰμι ὁ ἐλάχιστος τῶν ἀποστόλων ὃς οὐκ εἰμὶ ἱκανὸς καλεῖσθαι ἀπόστολος, διότι ἐδίωξα τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ θεοῦ·	For I am the least of the apostles, who is not worthy to be called an apostle because I persecuted the church of God.
10. χάριτι δὲ θεοῦ εἰμι ὅ εἰμι, καὶ ἡ χάρις αὐτοῦ ἡ εἰς ἐμὲ οὐ κενὴ ἐγενήθη, ἀλλὰ περισσότερον αὐτῶν πάντων ἐκοπίασα, οὐκ ἐγὼ δὲ ἀλλὰ ἡ χάρις τοῦ θεοῦ [ἡ] σὺν ἐμοί.	But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain, but I worked harder than all of them, though not I but the grace of God with me.
11. εἴτε οὖν ἐγὼ εἴτε ἐκεῖνοι, οὕτως κηρύσσομεν καὶ οὕτως ἐπιστεύσατε.	Therefore whether I or they, in this way we preached and in this way you believed.

Notes

• Begins with resurrection of Jesus to prove general resurrection
• Not response to Corinthian letter (no περὶ δὲ), but to what some are saying (15:12), perhaps reported by Chloe’s people.
• Deferred discussion until end
  • Climactic effect?
  • Bookends of Cross (1:18-2:5) and Resurrection (15)
• Preaching of resurrection is at foundation of kerygma – Paul’s and everyone else’s!

1-2

1

• γνορίζω reiterates earlier knowledge discussion – here is knowledge that matters.
• τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ὃ εὐανγγελισάμεν – deliberate, emphatic repetition of cognate words.
• παρελάβετε – tradition language (cf. 15:3)

2

• σῴζεσθε – present tense, indicates continuing faith
• τίνι λόγῳ εὐηγγελισάμην – further repetition of εὐαγγελιζω verb
• εἰ κατέχετε, ἐκτὸς εἰ μὴ εἰκῇ ἐπιστεύσατε – underlines urgency; not holding to this gospel = believing in vain.

3a

• Language of tradition (cf. 11:23)
• ἐν πρώτοις – ‘first in importance’ or ‘first in time’ – meaning is unaffected either way.

3b-4

• Content of tradition, probably in credal form.
• Combination of ‘buried’ and ‘raised’ points to bodily resurrection.
• Repetition of κατὰ τὰς γραφὰς indicates both events and significance are rooted in Scripture.
• ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν – cf. Is. 53:8-9

5

• May be part of credal formulation, but may also be start of Paul’s list of witnesses. If the latter, he presumably gives prominence to the authoritative witness of Peter.

6-8

• Unanimous witness
• ‘All the apostles’? Group distinct from 12, commissioned to be missionary witnesses.

8

• Personal testimony -> defence of apostleship
• ἐκτρώμα – premature birth – without benefit of normal preparation, such as was given to other apostles.

9-10

• Defence – why interrupt such an important argument? Because of strength of attack.
• Balanced hyperbolic claims – unworthiness, great labours, retraction of boasting.
• Repeated ‘ἠ χάρις τοῦ θεοῦ’.
• οὐ κενή will be connected to belief in resurrection:
  • If Christ is not raised, our hope is in vain (14)
  • But because Christ has not been raised, our labour is not in vain (58)

11

• Returns focus from proclaimer to proclamation.

15:12-19

Vocabulary

• ψευδομάρτυς – false witness
• εἴπερ – if indeed, if after all, since
• ματαίος – fruitless, worthless, useless
• ἐλεεινός – pitiable, miserable

Translation

12. Εἰ δὲ Χριστὸς κηρύσσεται ὅτι ἐκ νεκρῶν ἐγήγερται, πῶς λέγουσιν ἐν ὑμῖν τινες ὅτι ἀνάστασις νεκρῶν οὐκ ἔστιν;	But if Christ is preached, that he was raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?
13. εἰ δὲ ἀνάστασις νεκρῶν οὐκ ἔστιν, οὐδὲ Χριστὸς ἐγήγερται·	If there is not a resurrection of the dead, neither was Christ raised.
14. εἰ δὲ Χριστὸς οὐκ ἐγήγερται, κενὸν ἄρα [καὶ] τὸ κήρυγμα ἡμῶν, κενὴ καὶ ἡ πίστις ὑμῶν·	And if Christ was not raised, then our preaching is empty and your faith is empty.
15. εὑρισκόμεθα δὲ καὶ ψευδομάρτυρες τοῦ θεοῦ, ὅτι ἐμαρτυρήσαμεν κατὰ τοῦ θεοῦ ὅτι ἤγειρεν τὸν Χριστόν, ὃν οὐκ ἤγειρεν εἴπερ ἄρα νεκροὶ οὐκ ἐγείρονται.	We are even found false witnesses of God, since we witnessed against God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if after all it is true that the dead are not raised.
16. εἰ γὰρ νεκροὶ οὐκ ἐγείρονται, οὐδὲ Χριστὸς ἐγήγερται·	For if the dead are not raised, neither was Christ raised;
17. εἰ δὲ Χριστὸς οὐκ ἐγήγερται, ματαία ἡ πίστις ὑμῶν, ἔτι ἐστὲ ἐν ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις ὑμῶν,	And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile, you are still in your sins,
18. ἄρα καὶ οἱ κοιμηθέντες ἐν Χριστῷ ἀπώλοντο.	And therefore the ones asleep in Christ have been destroyed.
19. εἰ ἐν τῇ ζωῇ ταύτῃ ἐν Χριστῷ ἠλπικότες ἐσμὲν μόνον, ἐλεεινότεροι πάντων ἀνθρώπων ἐσμέν.	If only in this life in Christ we have hoped, we are the most pitiable of all people.

Notes

12

• Any rejection of general resurrection is rejection of specific resurrection.
• Appeal to logic

13-14

• Logical chain
• References to proclamation and faith reinforce vv. 1-2.
• Implications for proclamation and faith picked up in v. 15 & vv. 17-18 respectively.

14

• t.v.
  • ὑμῶν – earliest, most important witnesses. Required by context – ‘your faith’ correlates to ‘our preaching’. cf. v17
  • ἡμῶν – either itasticism or mechanical assimilation to previous ἡμῶν.
  • ὑμῶν, ἔτι ἐστὲ ἐν ταῖς ἁμαρτίαισ ὑμων – only late miniscule support, and is either accidental (homoioteleuton) or a deliberate conflation with v. 17.
  • Thus ὑμῶν best accounts for the others.

15

• Implication -> those who proclaim Christ’s resurrection must be liars – Paul, Peter & Apollos alike.
• ψευδομάρτυρες τοῦ θεοῦ – objective rather than subjective genitive, thus ‘concerning God’.

16

• Reiteration of v. 13, new logical chain/set of implications.

17

• Not only is faith empty, but victory over sin is in doubt, because Jesus’ vindication is in doubt.
• ματαίος and κενός are very similar.
  • κενός (BDAG) – ‘pert. to being devoid of intellectual, moral, or spiritual value’
  • ματαίος (BDAG) – ‘pert. to being of no use, idle, empty, fruitless, useless, powerless, lacking truth’
• In sins is both personal (individual sins), and cosmic (under power of sin). N. B. plural of sins

18-19

• Hope is gone for those both dead and alive.
• ‘Those who have fallen asleep’ is drained of its hope.
• μόνον modifies ἐν τῇ ζωῇ ταύτῃ rather than ἠλπικόντες ἐσμὲν, since the latter relies on a weaker meaning of hope than Paul’s usual use of ἐλπίζω. It is push to the end for emphasis.

19

• Hyperbole? Dismisses joys and rewards of serving Christ in this life? cf. sacrifices of comfort, status & safety in vv. 30-32.
• Genitives of comparison

15:20-28

Vocabulary

• ἀπαρχή, ἡ – first-fruits
• ἐπειδή – since, since then
• ζωοποιέω – I make alive, quicken
• παραδιδοῖ – pres. subj 3 s. of παραδίδωμι
• ἐχθρός, ὁ – enemy; adj. hostile
• δῆλος – clear, evident
• ἐκτός – except, outside

Translation

20. Νυνὶ δὲ Χριστὸς ἐγήγερται ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀπαρχὴ τῶν κεκοιμημένων.	But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of the ones who have fallen asleep.
21. ἐπειδὴ γὰρ δι᾿ ἀνθρώπου θάνατος, καὶ δι᾿ ἀνθρώπου ἀνάστασις νεκρῶν.	For because through a man [there was] death, also through a man [there is] resurrection of the dead.
22. ὥσπερ γὰρ ἐν τῷ Ἀδὰμ πάντες ἀποθνῄσκουσιν, οὕτως καὶ ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ πάντες ζῳοποιηθήσονται.	For just as in Adam all die, in this way also in Christ all will be made alive.
23. Ἕκαστος δὲ ἐν τῷ ἰδίῳ τάγματι· ἀπαρχὴ Χριστός, ἔπειτα οἱ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐν τῇ παρουσίᾳ αὐτοῦ,	But each in his/her own order; Christ the firstfruits, then those of Christ at his appearing,
24. εἶτα τὸ τέλος, ὅταν παραδιδῷ τὴν βασιλείαν τῷ θεῷ καὶ πατρί, ὅταν καταργήσῃ πᾶσαν ἀρχὴν καὶ πᾶσαν ἐξουσίαν καὶ δύναμιν.	Then the end, when he delivers the Kingdom to the one who is God and Father, when he destroys every rule and every authority and every power.
25. δεῖ γὰρ αὐτὸν βασιλεύειν ἄχρι οὗ θῇ πάντας τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑπὸ τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ.	For it is necessary for him to rule him until he has put all his enemies under his feet.
26. ἔσχατος ἐχθρὸς καταργεῖται ὁ θάνατος·	The last enemy being destroyed [is] death.
27. πάντα γὰρ ὑπέταξεν ὑπὸ τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ. ὅταν δὲ εἴπῃ ὅτι πάντα ὑποτέτακται, δῆλον ὅτι ἐκτὸς τοῦ ὑποτάξαντος αὐτῷ τὰ πάντα.	For he [i.e. God?] has subjected all things under his [i.e. Christ’s] feet. But when it says that every thing has been subjected, it is clear that the one subjecting all things to him is excepted.
28. ὅταν δὲ ὑποταγῇ αὐτῷ τὰ πάντα, τότε [καὶ] αὐτὸς ὁ υἱὸς ὑποταγήσεται τῷ ὑποτάξαντι αὐτῷ τὰ πάντα, ἵνα ᾖ ὁ θεὸς [τὰ] πάντα ἐν πᾶσιν.	But when all things are subjected to him, then the son himself will be subjected to the one who subjected all things to him, in order that God be all in all.

Notes

• Reaffirmation of central truth: Christ has been raised.
• Movement from negative consequences of denial to positive consequences of affirmation.

20

• Νυνὶ δὲ – logical transition rather than chronological ‘now’.
• ἀπαρχὴ – is Paul’s interpretation, suggesting Christ’s resurrection is not alone. Thiselton:
  • First in time
  • Representative
  • Contains promise of more to come

21-22

• ἀνθρώπου – ‘man’ rather than generic ‘human’ because of the Adam/Christ analogy that follows.
• Corporate solidarity: being in Christ leads to resurrection as being in Adam leads to death.
• Second-Adam Christology.
• ζωοποιηθήσονται – suggestive of God’s creative power.
• πάντες – those who have responded in faith to the proclamation of vv. 1-11.
• Translation of ανθρωπου – generic ‘human’ or the ‘men’ of following discussion?

23

• Return to language of firstfruits.
• Guards against over-realised eschatology, by pointing out necessary sequence of events.
• Reminder of promise of future resurrection.

24-26

• Victory over death placed in context of larger triumph, now in process of being brought about.
• Uses language from Ps 110:1 and Ps 8:6.
• Reminder that since death is still present, final consummation has not yet occurred.

27-28

• Christ, as representative firstfruits, acknowledges the kingship of God the Father so the eternal kingdom is undivided. This is the fulfilment of the Messiah’s work.
• ὁ ὑιὸς / ὁ θεὸς – it is ‘the Son’ who subjects himself to the one who subjected all things to him.
  • Not only commenting on earthly, but heavenly relationship between them.
  • It is ὁ θεὸς who reigns, meaning perhaps that Christ’s reign is not swallowed up but perfected in universal rule of trinitarian God.

15:29-34

Vocabulary

• ὁλως – actually, w. neg. not at all
• κινδθνεύω – be in danger, run a risk
• καθ᾽ ἡμέραν – daily
• νή – particle of affirmation, by my pride in you
• ὑμέτερος – your
• καύχησις, ἡ – boasting, pride
• θηριομαχέω – I fight with wild beasts
• ὀφελος, τό – benefit, profit
• αὔριον – adv. tomorrow
• πλανάω – Ι deceive, lead astray
• φθείρω – I corrupt, destroy
• ἦθος, τό – custom, manner, habit
• χρηστός – good, pleasant, kind
• ὁμιλία – company, association
• ἐκνήφω – I become sober, come to my senses
• ἀγνωσία, ἡ – ignorance
• ἐντροπή – shame, humiliation

Translation

29. Ἐπεὶ τί ποιήσουσιν οἱ βαπτιζόμενοι ὑπὲρ τῶν νεκρῶν; εἰ ὅλως νεκροὶ οὐκ ἐγείρονται, τί καὶ βαπτίζονται ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν;	Then what will the ones baptising on behalf of the dead do? If the dead are not raised at all, why are they being baptised on behalf of the dead?
30. Τί καὶ ἡμεῖς κινδυνεύομεν πᾶσαν ὥραν;	And why do we endanger ourselves every hour?
31. καθ᾿ ἡμέραν ἀποθνῄσκω, νὴ τὴν ὑμετέραν καύχησιν, [ἀδελφοί], ἣν ἔχω ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ τῷ κυρίῳ ἡμῶν.	I die every day, by my glorying in you [cf. Thiselton, 1250-1], brothers [and sisters], which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord.
32. εἰ κατὰ ἄνθρωπον ἐθηριομάχησα ἐν Ἐφέσῳ, τί μοι τὸ ὄφελος; εἰ νεκροὶ οὐκ ἐγείρονται, φάγωμεν καὶ πίωμεν, αὔριον γὰρ ἀποθνῄσκομεν.	If I fought wild animals in Ephesus according to a human [standard? reason?], what gain to me? If the dead are not raised, we [should?] eat and we drink, for tomorrow we will die.
33. μὴ πλανᾶσθε· φθείρουσιν ἤθη χρηστὰ ὁμιλίαι κακαί.	Do not be deceived; Evil company corrupts kind morals.
34. ἐκνήψατε δικαίως καὶ μὴ ἁμαρτάνετε, ἀγνωσίαν γὰρ θεοῦ τινες ἔχουσιν, πρὸς ἐντροπὴν ὑμῖν λαλῶ.	Sober up properly and stop sinning. For some have ignorance of God. I speak to you for shame.

Notes

• Return to consequences of not believing in resurrection (cf. 13-19).
• Exposes two practices that don’t make sense unless there is a resurrection: baptism for the dead and suffering for the sake of the gospel. Finally, exhortation to sober up and stop sinning.

29

• ad hominem argument
• Options for the practice:
  • Vicarious baptism for unbelievers- Paul doesn’t challenge because of higher priorities.
  • Vicarious baptism for believers who had not been baptised.
  • One’s own baptism, motivated in part by desire to be reunited with beloved believers.
  • τῶν νεκρῶν is metaphorical, referring to oneself dead in sins.

30-32

• Paul appeals to own example
• κινδνεύω appears only here in Paul, but cognate noun occurs 8 times in 2 Cor 11:26, so that could be considered an amplification.
• Shift from “we” to “I” and from literal danger language to hyperbole of daily death.

31

• t.v. inclusion or omission of ἀδελφοί.
  • External support is fairly evenly divided, with
    • Some early Alexandrian sources (א A B…) favour inclusion
    • P46 and later western sources omit
  • Internal evidence is that inclusion would be consistent with Pauline usage, particularly in such a solemn asseveration. cf. similar assimilation in 11:2 (but only in NA27 + Metzger, Textual Commentary as UBS4 does not include this variant).

32a

• Possible reference to Acts 19:28-32. i.e. metaphorical usage of ἐθηριομάχησα.

32b

• cf. Isaiah 22:12-13

33-34

• Moral exhortation – μὴ πλανᾶσθε often introduces these.
• ὁμιλίαι can mean ‘conversation’. Misleading talk about no resurrection can lead to immoral behaviour.
• cf. connection between Corinthians’ worldliness and lack of theological perspective in 4:8-13.
• Quotation from Menander.
• ἀγνωσίαν – dig at ‘knowledge’ party?

15:35-41

Vocabulary

• ἐρεῖ – fut. of λέγω
• ποῖος – of what kind or sort
• ἄφρων – without reason, senseless, foolish
• ζωοποιέω – make alive, quicken
• γυμνός – bare, naked
• κόκκος, ὁ – grain
• τυγχάνω – happen, chance, impers.
  • εἰ τύχοι – it may be, perhaps.
• σῖτος, ὁ – wheat, grain
• κτῆνος, τό – domesticated animal
• πτηνός, τό – winged; subst. bird
• ἐπουράνιος – heavenly
• ἐπίγειος – earthly
• ἥλιος – sun
• σελήνη, ἡ – moon
• διαφέρω – differ

Translation

35. Ἀλλὰ ἐρεῖ τις· πῶς ἐγείρονται οἱ νεκροί; ποίῳ δὲ σώματι ἔρχονται;	But someone will say, “How are the dead raised?” or “With what body do they come?”
36. ἄφρων, σὺ ὃ σπείρεις, οὐ ζῳοποιεῖται ἐὰν μὴ ἀποθάνῃ·	Foolishness! That which you sow is not made alive if it has not died.
37. καὶ ὃ σπείρεις, οὐ τὸ σῶμα τὸ γενησόμενον σπείρεις ἀλλὰ γυμνὸν κόκκον εἰ τύχοι σίτου ἤ τινος τῶν λοιπῶν·	And the thing which is sown, it is not the body which will be that is sown but a naked seed, perhaps of grain or something else.
38. ὁ δὲ θεὸς δίδωσιν αὐτῷ σῶμα καθὼς ἠθέλησεν, καὶ ἑκάστῳ τῶν σπερμάτων ἴδιον σῶμα.	But God gives it a body just as he has willed, and to each [kind] of seed[s] its own body.
39. Οὐ πᾶσα σὰρξ ἡ αὐτὴ σὰρξ ἀλλὰ ἄλλη μὲν ἀνθρώπων, ἄλλη δὲ σὰρξ κτηνῶν, ἄλλη δὲ σὰρξ πτηνῶν, ἄλλη δὲ ἰχθύων.	Not all flesh is the same flesh but some of humans, another flesh of animals, another flesh of birds, another of fish.
40. καὶ σώματα ἐπουράνια, καὶ σώματα ἐπίγεια· ἀλλὰ ἑτέρα μὲν ἡ τῶν ἐπουρανίων δόξα, ἑτέρα δὲ ἡ τῶν ἐπιγείων.	And [there is] a heavenly body, and an earthly body; but other [is] the glory of the heavenly, another [is] the [glory] of the earthly.
41. ἄλλη δόξα ἡλίου, καὶ ἄλλη δόξα σελήνης, καὶ ἄλλη δόξα ἀστέρων· ἀστὴρ γὰρ ἀστέρος διαφέρει ἐν δόξῃ.	Other [is] the glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon and another glory of the stars; for a star differs from stars in glory.

Notes

35

• Objections to resurrection, in form of questions. Evidence that the objections were to bodily resurrection.

36-37

• Rebuke – σύ probably belongs with ἄφρων rather than ὃ σπείρεις, since the emphasis makes more sense this way.
• ‘Fool’ in OT sense – one who ‘says in his/her heart: “There is no God”‘ (Ps. 14:1).
  • cf. Mk 12:24-27 – there it is ignorance of the Scriptures and the power of God that leads to error about the resurrection. Incidentally, Mark also uses the verb πλανᾶσθε found in v. 33 above.
• εἰ τύχοι is aorist optative of τυγχάνω, literally ‘if it should so happen’, and introduces list of examples.

38

• Both conclusion and bridge to following analogy.
• Variation in tenses from δίδωσιν (‘God gives’) to ἠθέλησεν (‘he willed’) may suggest difference between providential activity and creation design.

39-41

• Variety of bodies, each suited to its environment. Thus, if we expect the environment to be different at the resurrection, so too will the bodies provided be.
• σώματα ἐπουράνια – sun, moon and stars or heavenly beings? Perhaps both, with transition from one to the other between 41 and 42.
• Both present and future body have their own glory; neither should be despised.

15:42-50

Vocabulary

• φθορά, ἡ – corruption, dissolution
• ἀφθαρσια, ἡ – incorruptibility, immortality
• ἀτιμία, ἡ – dishonour
• ζωοποιέω – make alive, quicken
• χοïκός – earthly, made of dust
• οἷος – of what sort, (such) as
• φορέω – bear constantly, wear
• κληρονομέω – I inherit

Translation

42. Οὕτως καὶ ἡ ἀνάστασις τῶν νεκρῶν. σπείρεται ἐν φθορᾷ, ἐγείρεται ἐν ἀφθαρσίᾳ·	In this way also the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruptibility.
43. σπείρεται ἐν ἀτιμίᾳ, ἐγείρεται ἐν δόξῃ· σπείρεται ἐν ἀσθενείᾳ, ἐγείρεται ἐν δυνάμει·	It is sown in dishonour, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power.
44. σπείρεται σῶμα ψυχικόν, ἐγείρεται σῶμα πνευματικόν. Εἰ ἔστιν σῶμα ψυχικόν, ἔστιν καὶ πνευματικόν.	It is sown an unspiritual body, it is raised a spiritual body. If it is an unspiritual body, it is also a spiritual.
45. οὕτως καὶ γέγραπται· ἐγένετο ὁ πρῶτος ἄνθρωπος Ἀδὰμ εἰς ψυχὴν ζῶσαν, ὁ ἔσχατος Ἀδὰμ εἰς πνεῦμα ζῳοποιοῦν.	And so it is written: The first man, Adam became an unspiritual living one, the last Adam a life-giving spirit.
46. ἀλλ᾿ οὐ πρῶτον τὸ πνευματικὸν ἀλλὰ τὸ ψυχικόν, ἔπειτα τὸ πνευματικόν.	But not spiritual [was] not first but the unspiritual, then the spiritual.
47. ὁ πρῶτος ἄνθρωπος ἐκ γῆς χοϊκός, ὁ δεύτερος ἄνθρωπος ἐξ οὐρανοῦ.	The first man [was] from the earth, made of earth; the second man from heaven.
48. οἷος ὁ χοϊκός, τοιοῦτοι καὶ οἱ χοϊκοί, καὶ οἷος ὁ ἐπουράνιος, τοιοῦτοι καὶ οἱ ἐπουράνιοι·	As the one made of earth, so also the ones made of earth; and as the heavenly one, so also the heavenly ones.
49. καὶ καθὼς ἐφορέσαμεν τὴν εἰκόνα τοῦ χοϊκοῦ, φορέσομεν καὶ τὴν εἰκόνα τοῦ ἐπουρανίου.	And just as we have borne the image of the one made of earth, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly one.
50. Τοῦτο δέ φημι, ἀδελφοί, ὅτι σὰρξ καὶ αἷμα βασιλείαν θεοῦ κληρονομῆσαι οὐ δύναται οὐδὲ ἡ φθορὰ τὴν ἀφθαρσίαν κληρονομεῖ.	I say this, brothers [and sisters]: flesh and blood are not able to inherit the kingdom of God, nor the perishable to inherit the imperishable.

Notes

42-44

• Paul applies analogies of seed and different kinds of bodies.
• Asserts existence of resurrection body, but it differs from present body:
  • imperishable
  • (more) glorious
  • powerful
  • spiritual – although not reflecting Greek dualism but biblical eschatology i.e. a body governed by the Spirit.
• σῶμα indicates totality of integrated self

45

• Basis for expectation is double solidarity with Adam (present, ψυχικός, life) and Christ (πνευματικὀς life).
• Citation of Gen 2:7 likens resurrection of Christ to giving life to Adam.

46

• Paul reasserts necessary ordering of events, perhaps over against ‘over-realised’ eschatology.

47

• More likely refers to nature than origin.

48-49

• Application: as we have shared in Adam’s earthly nature, so in Christ we shall share his heavenly nature.
• t.v. φορέσομεν (‘we shall bear’) vs. φορέσωμεν (‘let us bear’).
  • External evidence favours the latter, harder reading of hortatory subjunctive. Thus, let destiny govern present life.
  • UBS4 editors preferred indicative because the context is not hortatory.
• οἷος and τοιοῦτος work together as qualitative correlative adjectives – “as… so also”.

50

• Conclusion: It is ridiculous to reject resurrection on false assumption of unchanged body; the kingdom requires transformation.

15:51-58

Vocabulary

• ἀλλάσσω – I transform, change
• ἄτομος – subst. moment; indivisible
• ῥιπή, ἡ – twinkling, rapid movement
• σάλπιγξ, ἡ – trumpet
• σαλπίζω – I sound a trumpet
• θνητός – subject to death, mortal
• ἀθανασία – immortality
• καταπίνω – drink down, swallow
• νῖκος, τό – victory
• ἐδραῖος – steadfast, firm
• ἀμετακίνητος – immovable, firm
• περισσεύω – abound
• κόπος, ὁ – toil, labour; trouble
• κενός – vain, without result

Translation

51. ἰδοὺ μυστήριον ὑμῖν λέγω· πάντες οὐ κοιμηθησόμεθα, πάντες δὲ ἀλλαγησόμεθα,	Behold I tell you a mystery: not all will sleep, but all will be changed.
52. ἐν ἀτόμῳ, ἐν ῥιπῇ ὀφθαλμοῦ, ἐν τῇ ἐσχάτῃ σάλπιγγι· σαλπίσει γὰρ καὶ οἱ νεκροὶ ἐγερθήσονται ἄφθαρτοι καὶ ἡμεῖς ἀλλαγησόμεθα.	In a moment, in the blink of an eye, in/at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound and the dead will be raised imperishable and we will be changed.
53. Δεῖ γὰρ τὸ φθαρτὸν τοῦτο ἐνδύσασθαι ἀφθαρσίαν καὶ τὸ θνητὸν τοῦτο ἐνδύσασθαι ἀθανασίαν.	For it is necessary for this perishable [body] to put on imperishable and this mortal [body] to put on immortality.
54. ὅταν δὲ τὸ φθαρτὸν τοῦτο ἐνδύσηται ἀφθαρσίαν καὶ τὸ θνητὸν τοῦτο ἐνδύσηται ἀθανασίαν, τότε γενήσεται ὁ λόγος ὁ γεγραμμένος· κατεπόθη ὁ θάνατος εἰς νῖκος.	When the this perishable [body] puts on imperishability and this mortal [body] puts on immortality, then will happen the word which is written: Death has been swallowed up in victory.
55. ποῦ σου, θάνατε, τὸ νῖκος; ποῦ σου, θάνατε, τὸ κέντρον;	O death, where [is] your victory? O death, where [is] your sting?
56. τὸ δὲ κέντρον τοῦ θανάτου ἡ ἁμαρτία, ἡ δὲ δύναμις τῆς ἁμαρτίας ὁ νόμος·	The sting of death [is] sin, and the power of sin [is] the law.
57. τῷ δὲ θεῷ χάρις τῷ διδόντι ἡμῖν τὸ νῖκος διὰ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.	But thanks to God, the one giving to us the victory through our Lord, Jesus Christ.
58. Ὥστε, ἀδελφοί μου ἀγαπητοί, ἑδραῖοι γίνεσθε, ἀμετακίνητοι, περισσεύοντες ἐν τῷ ἔργῳ τοῦ κυρίου πάντοτε, εἰδότες ὅτι ὁ κόπος ὑμῶν οὐκ ἔστιν κενὸς ἐν κυρίῳ.	Thus, my beloved brothers [and sisters], be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, having known that your work is not empty in the Lord.

Notes

51-52

• From argument, Paul now turns to praise and encouragement.
• Opening words draw attention to importance, but may also imply against human expectation.
  • God’s great creative act on the last day.
  • Some see this as a development in Paul’s theology, because of formula of proclamation of something new.
• FIXME: t. v.?

53-55

• Reiterates contrast between two kinds of body, two orders of existence, and thus need for great change.
• Juxtaposition of Isaiah 25:6-10a & Hos 13:14
  • In both cases, νῖκος is substituted -> Song of triumph, celebrating Christ’s victory over death.

54

• FIXME: t. v. ?

56

• Explanation of 55.
• First half extends triumphing in Christ’s victory over sin. Also a reminder that if Christ has not been raised, there is no victory and they are still in their sins (15:17).

57

• Doxology – thanks is given for triumph, and declares, once again, agency of Christ in bringing that about.

58

• From celebration to exhortation.
• ἀδελφοί μου ἀγαπητοί – intensification of normal hortatory form of address.
• ἐν τῷ ἔργῳ τοῦ κυρίου – work of building up people of God (cf. 3:10-15; 9:1).
• Comparison to that which is ματαίος and κενός in 10, 14, 17. (cf. also Eccl, where everything is meaningless (LXX ματαιότης).