A collection of undergraduate and graduate research papers exploring John Locke’s contributions to theology, religion, morality, law, and the state, as well as his influence on the American political experience:

• ETH7630 – JUST WAR, REBELLION, AND THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION
• ETH7260 – THE PULPIT AND THE PATRIOTS; THE INFLUENCE OF CALVIN, THE PURITANS, AND THE PULPIT IN THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION
• ETH7610 – LOCKE, RELIGION, MORALITY, LAW, AND STATE
• ETH7503 – LOCKEAN MORAL PHILOSOPHY
• HIS5130 – LOCKE AND THE BAPTISTS; PARALLELS IN ECCLESIOLOGY AND LIBERTY
• THE6120 – LOCKE AND THE DOCTRINE OF SIN
• POT3054 – LOCKEAN LIBERALISM AND THE U.S. CONSTITUTION
• POT3054 – LOCKEAN LIBERALISM AND THE U.S. DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
• POT3302 – A COMPARISON BETWEEN MODERN AND CLASSICAL LIBERALISM; IS MODERN LIBERALISM TRULY LIBERAL?
• POT3302 – THE EVOLUTION OF LAISSEZ FAIRE; FREE MARKET ECONOMICS IN POLITICAL THEORY AND AMERICAN THOUGHT

Master Outline of all my Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary M.Div. Study Guides.

The reasons I made it:

(1) I wanted to be able to carry seminary with my in my pocket (on my iPhone as a document, etc).

(2) I wanted it as a reference for my Ph.D. work.

(3) I wanted to help fellow seminarians.

(4) I wanted to equip the church with a summarized version of what I got at seminary

MASTER TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1 – HERMENEUTICS

BTI5100: HERMENEUTICS – MIDTERM STUDY GUIDE 5

Task of the Interpreter; History of Interpretation; Recent Literary and Social-Scientific Approaches to Interpretation; The Interpreter and the Goal

BTI5100: HERMENEUTICS – FINAL STUDY GUIDE 24

Task of the Interpreter; History of Interpretation; Recent Literary and Social-Scientific Approaches to Interpretation; The Interpreter and the Goal

CHAPTER 2 – CHRISTIAN ETHICS

ETH5100: CHRISTIAN ETHICS – STUDY GUIDE 45

Ethical Theories; Understanding Worship; Ethics As Worship; Holy Spirit And “Disciplined Worship”; Sources Of Authority; Ethics, World Views, And Evangelism; Ethics And The Bible; Moral Dilemmas And Ethical Decision Making; Euthanasia; Cloning; Abortion; Punishment And Capital Punishment; War; Homosexuality

ETH6550: MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY – MIDTERM STUDY GUIDE 62

Marriage Crises; Old Testament Lessons On Marriage And Family; New Testament Lessons On Marriage And Family

ETH7503: SYSTEMS OF MORAL PHILOSOPHY – FINAL STUDY GUIDE 72

Systems Of Moral Philosophy; Thinkers Of Moral Philosophy; Reading Outlines

ETH7610: RELIGION, LAW, AND MORALITY – MIDTERM STUDY GUIDE 119

Les Miserables; Religion, Law, & Morality In The Bible; Roots Of Western Law

ETH7610: RELIGION, LAW, AND MORALITY – FINAL STUDY GUIDE 132

Philosophical Concepts Of Law; Theories Of Natural Law; Theories Of Legal Positivism; Natural Law Vs. Legal Positivism; Political Theology Of Karl Barth; Barth Vs. Brunner; Johnson, Braaten, & Henry; Charles, Grabill, & Heimbach; Hart-Devlin Debate

ETH7620: ETHICS AND THE STATE – STUDY GUIDE 149

Views On Religion And Politics; Biblical Perspectives On Government; Models Of Church State Interaction; Theological Principles Of God On Government; The Crises Of Moral Authority In America; Theonomy; National Confessionalism; Christian America; Principled Pluralism; Four Views On Religious Liberty; Church & State In Karl Barth; Issues

ETH7630: WAR & PEACE – MIDTERM STUDY GUIDE 163

Introduction; War & Peace In The Bible; Historic Perspectives On The Ethics Of War

ETH7630: WAR & PEACE – FINAL STUDY GUIDE 180

Contrasting Approaches To The Ethics Of War; Special Topics

CHAPTER 3 – BIBLICAL LANGUAGES

GRE6500: GREEK I-III – STUDY GUIDE 195

Greek I-III: Grammar; Nouns System; Verb System; Clauses; Linguistics; New Testament Textual Criticism

HEB5110: HEBREW I – MIDTERM STUDY GUIDE 251

Alphabet; Vowels; Three Syllable Rules; Three Shewa Rules; General Accent Rule; Qames-Hatup Rule; Dages Forte Rule; Dages Lene Rule; Bgdkpt; Gutturals Rule; Attributive & Substantival Adj.

HEB5110: HEBREW I – FINAL STUDY GUIDE 266

Independent Personal Pro.; Near & Far Demonstrative; Suffix Pronoun Chart; Qal Qatal (Present Tense); Qal Yiqtol (Imperfect Tense); Noun Endings; Attributive Adj.; Demonstrative Adj.; Qal Passive & Active

HEB5120: HEBREW II – MIDTERM STUDY GUIDE 275

Suffix Pro.; Independent Pro.; Qal Yiqtol; Niphal Yiqtol; Pronominal Suffix On Perfect Verbs; Volitional Mood 3^rd P; Volitional Mood 1^st P; Active & Passive Ptc.; Infinite Construct & Absolute; Imperatives

CHAPTER 4 – CHURCH HISTORY & MISSIONS

HIS5110: CHURCH HISTORY I – MIDTERM STUDY GUIDE 279

The Early Church: 1^st – 4^th Centuries

HIS5110: CHURCH HISTORY I – FINAL STUDY GUIDE 297

The Imperial Church: 4^th – 5^th Centuries

HIS5120: CHURCH HISTORY II – MIDTERM STUDY GUIDE 332

The Reformation

HIS5120: CHURCH HISTORY II – FINAL STUDY GUIDE 344

Post-Reformation To Modern Evangelicalism

HIS5130: CHURCH HISTORY III (BAPTIST HISTORY) – MIDTERM STUDY GUIDE 364

English Baptists To Early American Baptists

HIS5130: CHURCH HISTORY III (BAPTIST HISTORY) – FINAL STUDY GUIDE 379

American Baptists To Modern Baptists 1814-2000 A.D.

MIS5100: INTRODUCTION TO MISSIONS – STUDY GUIDE 399

Biblical Basis Of Missions; Theological Basis For Missions; Historical Basis For Missions; Practical Missions In The 21^st Century

CHAPTER 5 – BIBLICAL STUDIES

NTS5110: NEW TESTAMENT I – MIDTERM STUDY GUIDE 406

The NT Canon; Intertestamental Period (400 BC – 4 BC); The Synoptic Problem; The History Of Modern Criticism; The Four Gospels

NTS5110: NEW TESTAMENT I – FINAL STUDY GUIDE 419

The Life And Ministry Of Jesus; The Teachings Of Jesus

NTS5120: NEW TESTAMENT II – MIDTERM STUDY GUIDE 425

Acts; Pauline Epistles; Prison Epistles

NTS5120: NEW TESTAMENT II – FINAL STUDY GUIDE 457

Pauline Epistles; Pastoral Epistles; Other Epistles; Johannine Epistles

OTS5120: OLD TESTAMENT II – STUDY GUIDE 479

Shape Of The Writings, Psalms, Job, & Proverb

CHAPTER 6 – CHRISTIAN PHILOSOPHY

PHI5100: CHRISTIAN PHILOSOPHY – MIDTERM STUDY GUIDE 490

Socratic Method; The Meaning Of Life; Personal Identity; Substance Dualism; Free Will

PHI5100: CHRISTIAN PHILOSOPHY – FINAL STUDY GUIDE 502

The Problem Of Evil; Hell; Religious Experience; Making Sense Of The Resurrection; Making Sense Out Of The Trinity; Science, Faith, And Reason; Christianity And The Nature Of Science

PHI7550: CRITICAL THINKING & ARGUMENTATION – MIDTERM STUDY GUIDE 520

Socratic Logic; Fallacies Of Language; Fallacies Of Diversion; Fallacies Of Oversimplification; Fallacies Of Argumentation; Fallacies Of Induction; Procedural Fallacies

PHI7550: CRITICAL THINKING & ARGUMENTATION – FINAL STUDY GUIDE 530

Theories Of Truth; Square Of Opposition; Venn Diagrams; Detecting Arguments; Reducing Arguments; Methods For Testing Induction; Constructing Syllogisms; Enthymemes

CHAPTER 7 – CHRISTIAN MINISTRY

PRS6100: BIBLICAL EXPOSITION – STUDY GUIDE 541

Theology Of Preaching; The Dynamics Of Preaching; The Homiletic Process

CHAPTER 8 – THEOLOGY

THE6110: THEOLOGY I – MIDTERM STUDY GUIDE 555

Unit 1: Prolegomena; Unit 2: Doctrine Of Revelation; Unit 3: Doctrine Of God; Theological Essays

THE6110: THEOLOGY I – FINAL STUDY GUIDE 587

Unit 3: The Doctrine Of God; Unit 4: The Doctrine Of God The Father; Unit 5: The Doctrine Of Humanity; Essays

THE6120: THEOLOGY II – MIDTERM STUDY GUIDE 615

Unit 1: Theological Chair Texts; Unit 2: Hamartiology; Unit 3: Christology; Atonement Essays; Doctrinal Summaries;

THE6120: THEOLOGY II – FINAL STUDY GUIDE 645

Unit 1: Chair Texts; Unit 2: Pneumatology; Unit 3: Soteriology; Doctrinal Summaries; Theological Essays

THE6130: THEOLOGY III – MIDTERM STUDY GUIDE 661

Unit 1: Ecclesiology; Unit 2: Eschatology

THE6130: THEOLOGY III – FINAL STUDY GUIDE 683

Unit 2: Eschatology

THE7621: DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY – WORSHIP GUIDE 707

Trinitarian Worship: Triune Focus In Scripture, Tradition & Experience

LOCKE AND THE DOCTRINE OF SIN

Perhaps one of the greatest disappointments among Locke’s many accomplishments is his lack to provide a systematic treatise on theology. It was primarily questions of morality and religion that led him to draft his famous Essay in the first place. Such a concern would lead to the expectation of a similar robust treatment on theology, however Locke never took the time for such an endeavor. Although no such document was produced, Locke had sewn his thoughts on theology and morality throughout his various writings. In an attempt to systematically present these thoughts we will examine them under four sin-oriented worldview divisions: (1) Lockean Epistemology, (2) Lockean Theology, (3) Lockean Anthropology, and (4) Lockean Moral Philosophy. After developing the foundation of Locke’s essential ideas that formulate a Lockean worldview, we will survey Locke’s position on the origin, nature, consequence, and imputation of sin as it relates to his various intellectual commitments. We will then conclude with an evangelical critique regarding his hamartiological conclusions.

PART I: LOCKEAN WORLDVIEW

Locke’s lack of a systematic treatment on theology has been problematic. He is critiqued and condemned by both the Calvinist and Rationalist Divines of his day. Some contemporaries accuse him of denying the Trinity, while others accuse him of not going far enough in his rationalism. In response to Locke’s writings, J. Edwards would pen Some Thoughts Concerning the several Causes and Occasions of Atheism, as well as Socinianism Unmasked. In his critiques, he would accuse Locke of being a Socinian in his theology, calling him “the right Racovian breed.”[1] Edwards would carry his critiques even further, stating,

A man cannot be a Christian without the knowledge and belief of these Truths [Christ's true nature, satisfying divine atonement, justification by faith and not by works, the resurrection, final judgment, and eternity] . . . Wherefore for any man to make up Christianity without the belief of these is a Ridiculous and absurd attempt.”[2]

What drove Edwards to make such claims? Specifically, it was Locke’s propagation of a need to confirming a ‘minimum of belief’. Locke sought to hold up some singular belief that, once embraced, made one a Christian. This is not to be confused with rejecting what “is necessary to be believed by every man to make him a Christian” versus “what is required to be believed” by every Christian, which Locke both affirmed.[3] Locke would propose that the “fundamental article” is that Jesus is “the Messiah, our king”.[4] However, Locke’s musings in theology, and his statement affirming ‘Jesus as Messiah’ to be the fundamental article, cannot be observed apart from his environment. Alan Sell reminds us of this when he state’s “Locke’s quest of an indispensable minimum of belief was, then, prompted by his hatred of sectarianism, and by his conviction that toleration . . . requires tolerance where such matters are concerned.”[5] Locke witnessed terrible sectarian violence both abroad with the Huguenot refugees, and at home with the fallout of the Glorious Revolution. His environment was ripe with persecution and religious wars on the grounds of doctrinal disagreements, and this fueled his attempts to isolate one essential article. With these fundamental concerns in mind, we can turn to the epistemological, theological, anthropological, and moral components that formulate Locke’s worldview and contribute to his doctrine of sin.

On Epistemology: Against Innate Moral Principles

            Locke’s treatment of epistemology would become a major influence on his doctrine of sin. Locke developed his epistemology of tabula rasa mainly in his mentioned Essay, which taught that man was born as a blank slate, with sense experience and reflection writing the objects of knowledge called ideas upon the mind.[6] The influence of such a ‘blank slate’ theology would contribute to his rejection of imputation, given man would enter into this life with no inherited sinfulness and guilt. In response to the claims of his contemporaries that morality was innate knowledge, Locke’s epistemology would make no room for the claim, and instead he would argue that the law of nature “is not known through inscription or handed down by tradition but is known by reason through sense experience.”[7] In addition to aligning the discovery of moral laws through a Lockean understanding of epistemology, Locke would also siege the innate moralists with four main critiques. The first of these noted that conscience was simply opinion, with Locke claiming it “is simply one’s opinion of the rightness or wrongness of one’s own action, and one’s opinions can come from education, or custom, or the company one keeps.”[8] Locke would also note that innate moral rules were refuted by a lack of consistent inner shame inline with the concept of an inner conscious, claiming “people frequently break basic moral rules with no inner sense of shame or guilt, thereby showing that the rules are not innate.”[9] Supporting the former two critiques was a third directed at the lack of a universally accepted statement of these allegedly innate rules. A fourth critique offered by Locke was that reason made innate morality useless. As Chappell summarizes Locke’s warning of the danger involved in assuming an enthusiastic or authoritarian presence of innate moral knowledge, “to claim that certain principles are innate is to claim that there is no need for further thought about the matters they cover; and this in turn is an excellent tactic for anyone who wants certain principles taken on authority, without inquiry.”[10] With the difficulties and dangers of alleging an innate knowledge of moral laws established, Locke affirms the law of nature as right reason. Locke would therefore reject the equivocation of innate laws and the law of nature, stating instead that “there is a great deal of difference between an innate law and a law of nature; between something imprinted on our minds in their very original, and something that we, being ignorant of, may attain to the knowledge of, by the use and due application of our natural faculties.”[11]

On Theology: Creator, Creature, and Law

            While both affirming the existence of laws of nature and rejecting them as innately sewn and known within man’s conscience, Locke is left asking the question of their source and justification. In this, Locke is within the tradition of Christian Philosophers, regardless of the attempts of modernity to paint him as merely a humanist empiricist. Locke sets to continue Pufendorf’s attempts at making God’s role in morality central, and rejects the Hobbesian treatment by acknowledging God as the sole source of moral rectitude.[12] For Locke, God has a right to determine moral rules by virtue of his status as the Creator over we the creature. On establishing these laws of nature, Locke argued that God “has a right to do it, we are his Creatures: He has Goodness and Wisdom to direct our Actions to that which is best: and he has Power to enforce it by Rewards and Punishments, of infinite weight and duration, in another Life: for no body can take us out of his hands.”[13]

Morality for Locke thus focuses on obligations and laws, which furthers a discussion of the centrality of the Lawmaker. For Hobbes, law is simply affirmed in its legal positivist form, and as such obligation is focused on the earthly lawgiver. Locke fuses the solution to the dilemmas of obligation and God’s role in morality by noting a three-fold division of law, which he categorizes as “1. The Divine Law. 2. The Civil Law. 3. The Law of Opinion or Reputation,   . . . By the Relation they bear to the first of these, Men judge whether their Actions are Sins, or Duties; by the second, whether they be Criminal, or Innocent; and by the third, whether they be Vertues or Vices.”[14] God is thus the first and only perfect lawgiver whose ability and obligation requires “a life after this observable one, since it is plain that he does not make us obey him by rewarding and punishing in our present life.”[15] Locke’s morality is thus grounded on “the will and law of a god, who sees men in the dark, has in his hand rewards and punishments, and power enough to call to account the proudest offender.”[16] For Locke, sin is then the breaking of these divine laws against the will of the Creator. With this foundational premise of Creator/creature, and Divine Law with its eternal sanctions established, the analysis may move to the agent of moral actions.

On Anthropology: Moral Psychology of Desire and Duty

            Locke would come to develop a more optimistic moral psychology that would revise Hobbes and others by focusing on redirecting the inner response of desire. Locke affirmed that man was to pursue happiness, yet rejected both a pessimistic understanding of passion as sinful self-love, and the calls of ancients such as Cicero to extinguish desire. As Marshall notes regarding Locke’s moral psychology, Locke turned “not to an account of men as sinfully passionate because they were dominated by a corrupt self-love, but instead, as so often, to a naturalistic account of men based upon commitment to God’s bounty.”[17] Sin occurred when man was motivated to wrong actions by the passions, and “by not focusing upon God’s rewards and instead preferring terrestrial pleasures, allowing their reason to be led by the passions.”[18] Men are to pursue pleasures because God placed desire within them, however they are to utilize their rational capacities to mold their passions after God’s eternal divine law. Locke both affirmed a duty to pursue the passions, yet noted that these passions did not imply a solely terrestrial hedonism, but a God-centered pursuit.[19] Given God’s role as Lawgiver, and the presence of rewards and punishments in eternity, man’s reason should lead him to the reality that the greatest pleasure and greatest punishment resides not in the sanctions of a state, but in the sanctions and solace of a divine Sovereign. A terrestrial hedonism was thus converted into a celestial variation.[20] As Sell explains, “utility is not the criterion of virtuous action, the will of God is.”[21] The prospect of an agent’s happiness provokes desire, and provoked desire prompts questions of the greatest pleasure.[22] Pleasure is thus proper when pointed by reason to pursue God, given His divine moral prescriptions and principles, and the justification of these principles by the prominence and principality of the sovereign Creator.

On Moral Philosophy: The Moral Science of Unease and Action

With his epistemology, theology, and anthropology surveyed and serving as a foundation for an understanding of Locke’s hamartiology, Locke defined ethics as “the seeking out of those rules and measures of human actions which lead to happiness, and the means to practise them.”[23] For Locke this is hardly a static study of “bare speculation and knowledge of truth . . . [but] right and a conduct suitable to it.”[24] Even in regards to theology, Locke’s primary focus is one of moral, and thus political, behavior. Locke is focused on providing a moral philosophy that motivates not simply reflection but implementation, affirming as necessary to any real morality the rule of prescriptivity.[25] Locke then makes two conclusions stemming from his moral psychology and epistemology: (1) The ancients’ Summum Bonum fails prescriptivity; and (2) The will is not determined by belief and innate claims, but uneasiness. Regarding the Summum Bonum, Locke argues there is no point in discussing the highest good of the ancients. The question of ‘which life would give us the most happiness’, such as presented by Epicurus (‘the most satisfying one’), is derailed in light of the different degrees of desires and likings. Happiness is agreed to be the goal, but pains and pleasures “to different Men, are very different things.”[26] This then cannot possibly adhere to his rule of prescriptivity that actions must be practical and action guiding. In addition,

The will is not determined by our beliefs about what course of action would bring us the greatest amount of good. If it were, Locke argues, no one would sin, since the prospect of eternal bliss or torment would outweigh every other. . . . only thoughts of pleasures and pains can arouse uneasiness, so that laws not backed by sanctions would be quite pointless. They could not move us to act.[27]

Ethics was thus a science of action that focused on the “attainments of things good and useful . . . [relying on the] skill of right applying of our own powers and actions.”[28]

On Moral Philosophy: The Moral Calculus

Locke sought to place the focus of this science of action on action words, or ‘notions’. These action words, such as hypocrisy, justice, adultery, and murder, could be learned by observation, however they are mainly obtained by having them explained to us.[29] These notions are primarily definitional and prescriptive, and secondarily descriptive. The precision of these action words leads Locke to conclude there exists a mathematical precision to ethics, whereas falsity of the action words are impossible, and instead something can only be said to relate to the notions in degrees or wrong naming of instances.[30] The action words set up a definitional ideal, which leads the observer to implement the notions with others through conceptual analysis.[31] An example of Locke’s definitional calculus of morals would work as follows: (1) Property is defined as “a right to anything,” (2) Injustice is defined as “the invasion or violation of that right”, (3) Thus, the proposition is certain, that “where there is no property there is no justice.”[32] Essentially, Locke’s goal was to provide a reasonable and real morality that examined the divine laws evidenced in nature as gained through sense experience and rational reflection.

PART II: LOCKEAN HAMARTIOLOGY

Having briefly surveyed Locke’s views on epistemology, theology, anthropology, and morality, several points are worth noting prior to a systematic division of his hamartiological views. It has been noted that his tabula rasa epistemology sets up a diminished role of a Calvinistic ‘total depravity’, as well as a rejection of the imputation of sin. It has also been noted that his theological emphasis of Creator/Creature accentuated God’s sovereignty in establishing Divine laws of behavior, as well as their associated punishments and rewards. Finally, his anthropology emphasized a replacement of classical ‘total depravity’. Instead, Locke argued that desire was itself a good thing when properly applied, however humans misapply this desire in favor of actions against reason and revelation. With his great focus on developing a view of morality that fulfills the condition of prescriptivity, Locke then ventures to formulate some form of moral calculus in which to guide individuals against sin.

On the Origin of Sin

Having supplied Locke’s general worldview with an emphasis on how it influenced his understanding of sin, we may now turn to addressing a more systematic treatment of his hamartiology. In addressing Locke’s position on sin, it is useful to analyze and quote his various paraphrases of Scripture. One in particular that proves beneficial in analyzing Locke’s position on sin’s origin is his paraphrase of Romans 5:12:

You must know, that as by the act of one man Adam the father of us all, sin entered into the world, and death, which was the punishment annexed to the offence of eating the forbidden fruit entered by that sin for that Adams posterity thereby became mortal (Rm 5:12).[33]

Locke is not saying that sin is present within a federal headship in Adam, but rather that through Adam’s disobedience came the actual performance of sin, as well as the introduction of death. As Sell summarizes Locke’s position, “what Adam lost was immortality and the happiness of unsullied Eden.”[34]

On the Nature of Sin

Death then found its origin with the Fall of Adam, which led both to Adam’s loss of immortality and his further descent into sin. As will be discussed later, sin originates individually within every person’s willful decision to reject God’s law, and the origin of our earthly death is located within Adam’s rebellion. The second question then to be asked is what did Locke believe about the nature of sin? As Sell summarizes, for Locke sin was “that which deflects human beings from their proper course.”[35] The ‘proper course’ is that set by the divine laws of God, as revealed in Scripture. This is evidenced in another one of Locke’s paraphrases of Paul on ‘the flesh’:

For the inclinations and desires of the flesh are contrary to those of the spirit: And the dictates and inclinations of the flesh are contrary to those of the flesh; so that under these contrary impulses you doe not doe the things that you propose to yourself.[36]

Locke explains what was meant by ‘flesh’ further, commenting that “By flesh is meant all those vitious, and irregular appetites, inclinations, and habitudes whereby a man is turned from his obedience to that eternal law of right, the observance whereof god always requires and is pleased with.”[37] Locke’s understanding of the nature of sin is thus akin to acting against a law opposite of God’s will, and he understands Paul’s references to the flesh to be the appetites that incline us to disobey these laws. Although Locke would not embrace a Calvinistic understanding of depravity, given his earlier exposited position of ‘tabula rasa’ epistemology, he didn’t share the anthropological optimism of contemporary rationalists. Sell summarizes Locke’s position as follows:

Indeed, there is a strong hint in Locke’s epistemology and ethics as propounded in the Essay that left to their own devices human beings are in an important sense impotent. He there concedes that although human beings have “Light enough to lead them to the Knowledge of their Maker, and the sight of their own duties . . . I am forced to conclude, that good, the greater good, though apprehended and acknowledged to be so, does not determine the will, until our desire, raised proportionally to it, makes us uneasy in the want of it.”[38]

On the Imputation of Sin

It has been seen that Locke believes physical death had its origin in Adam’s sin, and also that man does not inherit punishable guilt from Adam. However, Locke still confesses that somehow man is ‘uneasy’ towards following the precepts of the law, and still in need of redemption. The next question to be asked in light of his understanding of origin and nature is his position on the imputation of sin.  As hinted earlier, Locke rejected both a federal headship view, and a view that Adam’s guilt is imputed upon us. Although “[We] all die in Adam . . . none are truly punished, but for their own deeds.”[39] Locke supports this understanding by supplying Romans 2:6, where he quotes it as saying “God will render to every one . . . According to his deeds,” (Rm 2:6).[40] In opposition to an imputation view, Locke is then objecting to the understanding that “all Adam’s posterity [is] doomed to eternal, infinite punishment, for the transgression of Adam, whom millions had never heard of, and no one had authorised to transact for him, or be his representative.”[41]Although in this understanding, Locke does not deny that in some way we have been incapacitated by the fall, and thus in necessary need of Christ for salvation. Although Locke insisted on the role of human rationality in preventing sin and propagating righteous moral behavior, Locke never lost sight of the reality of man’s moral weakness. As Sell then summarizes, “Locke concludes that sin is universal in that every person actually sins, and that each person’s guilt is the consequence of freely willed sinful behavior, and not the result of the imputation of Adam’s guilt.”[42]

On the Consequence of Sin

Finally, the last concern to be addressed from the Lockean perspective is the consequence of these sins. Individuals are responsible for their sinful acts, and in their state of ‘uneasiness’ and ‘moral weakness’, are in need of the Messiah who brings about the kingdom. What is then the result of being counted among Christ’s righteous, or among those law-breaking rebels?  Given God is the sovereign ruler of the universe, and has established divine laws, it is to be expected that there exists some form of divine punishment upon the breakage of such laws. Locke notes that God does not directly punish every breakage of his Divine law, and in addition with the revelation of Scripture, argues that it is reasonable to assume some punishment in eternity. As he states regarding this post mortem condition,

It seems the unalterable purpose of the divine justice, that no unrighteous person . . . should be in paradise: but that the wages of sin should be to every man, as it was to Adam, an exclusion of him out of that happy state of immortality, and bring death upon him . . . Immortality and bliss, belong to the righteous . . . but an exclusion from paradise and loss of immortality is the portion of sinners.[43]

Although Locke does mention the transgression of the law includes some punishment “upon pain of hellfire,” what is lacking in this quote is notable: the eternality of punishment.[44] Here we discover that, although Locke affirms the eternal bliss of the righteous, he holds to an annihilationist view of the soul. Sin is then punished after death to a degree that reflects the celestial crimes committed. Sell summarizes Locke’s conclusion on the eternal consequence of sin, stating,

The question which presses . . . is, does Locke think that ‘punishment in eternity’ is synonymous with ‘never-ending eternal punishment’? It would seem that he does not, and that after a measure of post mortem punishment the wicked will simply die, or be annihilated. This is the conclusion of his paper, ‘Resurrectio et quae sequuntur’ of c. 1699.[45]

PART III. CONCLUSION

Having surveyed Locke’s general worldview, as well as a condensed systematic treatment on his doctrine of sin, the following can be concluded: (1) Locke rejected the imputation of Adam’s guilt, (2) Locke believed that Adam’s fall in some manner incapacitated and morally weakened individuals, (3) Locke believed individuals were responsible for their sin and that guilt originated upon the first transgression of God’s divine law, and (4) Locke held to a post-mortem annihilationism, believing that individuals were rewarded with eternal life in Christ, or punished post mortem until their crimes paid for where they were then annihilated. Although not quite the socinianism J. Edwards accused him of, given the lack of anthropological optimism normally seen among the ‘racovians’, Edwards does seem justified in some critiques and reservations. With that said, Locke cannot be separated from his political underpinning. Chief among these were his fore-mentioned goal of a single ‘minimum of belief’ article, as well as his motives of writing against Filmer’s monarchial governmental philosophy, which all sought to propagate a ‘toleration’ among Christians. Even then, Locke’s hamartiology leaves much for evangelicals to desire. Specifically troubling is his post-mortem annihilationism, as well as the ambiguity of his understanding of man’s moral weakness. Perhaps a fairer critique of Locke is found in his contemporary Richard West, who wrote a fitting evangelical critique on Locke’s doctrine of sin, stating,

But as he makes Adam’s Punishment to consist only in a Temporal Death, or a total ceasing to be; so does he confine the End and Design of our Saviour’s coming into the World, to the freeing us from such a Death only, and restoring to us that Immortality, which our First Parents lost. Which overthrows the Notion of our Saviour’s redeeming us from an Eternity of Torments, and makes the effect of Original Guilt no more than becoming subject to Death; and so destroys in a great measure the Doctrine of Christ’s Satisfaction.[46]

Bibliography

Chappell, Vere. The Cambridge Companion to Locke. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.

Edwards, Socinianism Unmask’d. London: J Robinson and J. Wyat, 1696.

Locke, John. A Letter Concerning Toleration, in Clarendon Edition of the Works of John Locke. Edited by E. S. de Beer. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1976.

________. A Paraphrase, in Clarendon
Edition of the Works of John Locke. Edited by E. S. de Beer. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1976.

________. A Second Vindication of the Reasonableness of Christianity, in Clarendon
Edition of the Works of John Locke. Edited by E. S. de Beer. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1976.

________. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Edited by Peter H. Nidditch. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976.

________. Reasonableness of Christianity, in Clarendon Edition of the Works of John Locke. Edited by E. S. de Beer. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1976.

Marshall, John. John Locke Resistance, Religion and Responsibility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.

Pojman, Louis. Ethics Discovering Right and Wrong. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1990.

Sell, Alan. John Locke and the Eighteenth-Century Divines. Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1997.

________. Locke and the Compass of Human Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970.

West, Richard. Animadversions On a late Book entituled the Reasonableness of Christianity As delivered in the Scriptures. Oxford: L. Lichfield for G. West and A. Piesley, 1697.

SOTERIOLOGY

Leonard O Goenaga

SEBTS, THE6120

Theology II

Dr. Whitfield

I. On the Nature of Salvation

Salvation is necessitated as based upon man’s fallen condition. Given the Fall and its consequences, as well as the individual rebellion of every human person, man stands in judgment and rebellion against a sovereign God. He is both guilty of his sin (Rm 5:6-10), and inable to save himself and his fellow man from its consequences (Lk 19:10). Nor does he normally desire to do so, or recognize such. Sin is irrational, destructive, and chaotic. Given his need and condition, a divine intervention is necessary in order for salvation to come about, and this is centered on the person of Christ Jesus.

Salvation is the God’s work at saving sinners from the death-producing consequences of sin and restoring them to a life-giving relationship with God (1 Jn 5:11; Ep 1:3-13). Central to Salvation is the life, work, and result grounded within union to Christ. Christ is both the center and the source of salvation (Jn 15:5; Gal 2:20; 2 Co 5;17). Salvation is positionally and experientially accomplished in and through Christ.

Positionally, believers are in Christ. God views Christ’s work and righteousness when He looks upon individuals. The believer is righteous and holy because they are in Christ, who Himself is Holy and Righteous. Through His obedience, the church is made righteous (Rm 5:19). The believer is dead, buried, and resurrected in Christ. Christ pays the penalty of sin, and secures the victory over death on the believer’s behalf.

Experientially, Christ is in believers. The positional work secures for believers the experiential promises and practices. Through the positional work of Christ on the Cross, the experiential work of the Spirit progressively sanctifies the believer in the image of Christ. Positionally, they are ‘in Christ’, and experientially, Christ is in them in the Spirit making them like Christ (Ep 1:13–14; Rom 8:9–11; 1 Co 6:17, 19; 12:13).

II. On the Conditions and Components of Salvation

God is sovereign over all the universe, and providentially cares for His creation. God wills the salvation of all, and creates man with a degree of self-determinism (1 Tm 2:4; 2 Pt 3:9). The elect of God are appointed for salvation by the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of God the Spirit, and for obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ (1 Pt 1:2; Rm 8:29).

Salvation is foremost a work of God (Rm 8:35). As such, it is impossible for true believers to override God’s work and commit apostasy (Rm 8:28, 35). God saves through the conversion of individuals evident within repentance and faith. Salvation is through the sole work of God on the condition of repentance and faith. Repentance is the conviction of one’s sinfulness and a total mind/body turning away from the former lifestyle of rebellion (Lk 15:17; 2 Co 7:9-10; Lk 15:18). Faith is the laying hold of the promises found within the person and work of Christ (Eph 2:8-9). Faith rests upon right knowledge (Rm 10:8, 17), right assent (Mt 9:28), and right appropriation (Jn 1:11-12). Upon the evidence of true repentance and right faith (Jn 1:12; Eph 2:8; Hb 11:6), the believer is instantly regenerated before God and the Spirit imparts eternal life (Eph 2:5; Jn 6:63; 2 Co 3:6). Upon being united with God, believers experience justification and sanctification. Believers are positionally declared ‘not guilty’, and also then progressively sanctified to conformity of their newly rendered verdict (Rm 8:1; Rm 3:19-4:9; Mt 1:21). Sanctification is both positional and experiential. Positionally, the believer is seen as sanctified and washed in Christ (1 Cor 6:11). Experientially, the believer is conformed progressively into Christ-likeness through the work of the Spirit in and through the Body of Christ (Ep 5:26).

HAMARTIOLOGY

Leonard O Goenaga

SEBTS, THE6120

Theology II

Dr. Whitfield

I. On the Origin of Sin

Out of nothing, God creates the universe and all of its inhabitants. Upon his final day of creative activity, God crowned His creation by creating the first historical humans in His very image (Gen 1-2; Rom 5:12; 1 Tm 2:14). With such a jewel upon the crown of creation, God deemed it very good. However, the great deceiver Satan, already fallen sometime before man’s creation, decided to deceive this first pair of humans through the guise of a talking serpent (Rev 12:9). Adam was created to obey and enjoy God, while subjecting the earth and its creaturely inhabitants to his rule and work. With the serpent’s seductions, Adam’s wife Eve willingly fell to the temptation to reverse her cosmic role, and in eating of a tree forbidden by God, sought the idolatrous act of being her own God (Gen 3:1-5). Adam rejected his guardian position over Eve, allowing her to seek her own façade divinity, and disorder and depravity entered into existence, seen chiefly in the reversal of the serpent over man, and man over God. The result of this Fall ended in Adam and Eve experiencing a nakedness and shame (Gen 3:7), in a distortion of proper relationships evidenced in their attempts to hide (Gen 3:8-19), in the knowledge of good and evil (Gen 3:22), and in the death God promised upon the act of rebellion (Gen 3:22-24). However, this death was not simply physical, but related more to their standing after their fall: outside the garden, and thus outside communion with God. Man’s sin led to a spiritual death that separated Him from his initial intended purpose: to worship God and enjoy Him forever. However, even within this origin of man’s Fall, God’s grace is on display in the protoevangelium promise of a seed of Eve who will crush the head of the serpent and reverse man’s fallen state back into the Garden (Gen 3:15).

II. On the Nature of Sin

Sin itself becomes something beyond simple actions (“sin[s]”), and instead roots itself within the very nature of humanity. It involves missing God’s standards, twisting and disfiguring them, and rebelling against them (Gen 4:7; Matt 1:21; Ps 32:5; 1 Cor 6:9; Is 1:2; Rom 5:14). All sin is committed against God (Ps 51:1-4). With Adam and Eve’s rebellious act of disobeying and rebeiling against God, disorder and chaos entered into creation. The dominion roles are ironically reversed with Eve’s attempt to place herself at God’s level. This act of idolatrous worship is the essence of sin, which is a factual condition of our human tendency to replicate Eve and aim wrongly directed worship at anything or anyone other than God. Various prohibitions are offered through the Old Testament against acts of idolatry, from the incident at the Tower of Babel (Gen 11:4-9), to Decalogue’s first commandment (Ex 20:3; Duet 5:7). The prophets continued these warning, declaring idolatry as a chief example of folly (Ps 115:4-8; Isa 40:18-20; Jer 10:1-5). The New Testament also confirms the centrality idolatry has in propagating sins, with Paul noting idol worship as a sign of judgment (Rom 1:22-25), and Jesus affirming in the Golden Rule the centrality and primacy of rightly directing worship to the one true God (Mk 12:30).

III. On The Consequences of Sin

The consequences of man’s self-worship and cosmic rebellion are evident in Adam and Eve’s exile from the perfection and communion in the garden. From the moments after the Fall, there seems to be a rupture in various relationships. The consequences of sin are seen throughout three primary relationships. The relationship between man and God is ruptured by sin, leading to God’s holy disposition against sin in the form of wrath against the sinner (Ps 5:5; Prov 6:16-18; Zech 8:17), to an enmity between a Holy God and a polluted humanity (Gen 3:7; Gen 3:22-24), to an attainment of subjective and objective guilt on the part of the sinner (Ezek 18:20), to the resulting necessity of punishment (Heb 12:10-11), and essentially to this punishment in the form a physical, spiritual, and eternal death (Gen 3:19; 1 Cor 15:55-56; Eph 2:1-3; Rev 20:14-15). In addition, our relationships with one another are ruptured, leading to alienation, disharmony, envy, and progressive social corruption (Gal 5:19-21; Mk 15:10). Even our understanding of the self is contaminated by sin, leading to bondage, self-centeredness, and self-delusion (Rom 6:17; James 3:16; Jer 17:9).

IV. On the Imputation of Sin

Scripture affirms that this epidemic of sin is universal.  The witness of the Old Testament confirms the universality of sin, beginning with the first sin committed by Adam and Eve leading to cancerous attachment of sin to human nature (Gen 3:4-6). Various Old Testament passages affirm man’s sinfulness from his youth, as well as existing no one who isn’t under sin’s sickness (Gen 8:21; Ps 143:2; 1 Kings 8:46). The New Testament continues to affirm the universality of sin, with Paul writing clearly on sin’s universal presence within every human (Rom 1:8-3:20; Eph 2:1-10). Sin has contaminated all aspects of human nature, and although everyone is not as bad as they could be, all aspects of their humanity have been affected by this fallen state (Eph 2:1-3). Mankind both inherits this sinful nature through the natural headship of Adam, as well as through the willful sinful actions stemming from this individual’s nature (Rom 5:12-19). Although it has been noted that sin has its imputation within Adam’s natural headship of humanity, and that this epidemic is universal, the question of the salvation of infants naturally arises. Clearly, Christ’ substitutionary atonement is necessary for sinful man in order to be rightly reconciled to God. It is also noted in scripture that infants are in a state of sin in need of regeneration (Job 14:14; Rom 5:14). However, various passages note a relative innocence among infants (Deut 1:39; Jon 4:11; Rom 9:11). In addition, David speaks of going to his deceased child, as well as Jesus holding children up as an example of innocent (2 Sam 12:23; Mt 18:5-6).

PNEUMATOLOGY

Leonard O Goenaga

SEBTS, THE6120

Theology II

Dr. Whitfield

I. On the Triune God

On the Trinity: Before all began, God was. Out of nothing, God Almighty brought forth all things seen and unseen (Gen 1:1-3). There are no other gods before, behind, below, or above Him (Isa 44:6). He is the One and only Living God (Jer 10:10). His Name is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Matt 28:19). He is a Perfect Tri-unity of Persons indwelling in One Essence (1 John 5:7; 2 Cor 13:14; Jer 10:10; Isa 48:12). In God is One Perfect Being of Three Distinct Persons (Matt 3:16-17). In God is all perfection of power, knowledge, goodness, freedom, truth, and justice (Job 11:7; Ps 90:2; Ps 115:3). In God are true life, grace, mercy, love, holiness, forgiveness, and judgment (Ex 34:7; John 5:26; Acts 7:2; Ps 119:68). God is the Creator, and all else the Created (Gen 1:1-3). God is the Sovereign, and all else the Subject (Gen 17:1; Rev 4:8). God is to be obeyed and worshipped, and all else is to be obedient and awestruck (Rev 5:12-14).

II. On the Person of the Holy Spirit

On Person: The Spirit is the Third Person of the Triune God. He is presented in his triune divinity within Christ’s baptismal formula (Mt 3:16-17), within the Great Commission baptismal formula (Mt 28:18-20), within Paul’s benedictions (2 Co 13:14), and within election (1 Pt 1:2). Like the other persons in the Trinity, He is not a force but a person, and shows intelligence (Jn 14:26), emotions (Ep 4:30), and will (1 Co 12:11). He is also relational (Jn 16:14), and His personality is distinct form His power (Luke 1:35; 4:14; Acts 10:38; Rom. 15:13). He is fully divine, and His divinity is evident in His divine names (Ac 5:3-4; 1 Co 3:16), His divine works (Creation—Gn 1:2; Regeneration—Jn 3:5), and His divine attributes (Omnipotence—Rm 15:19; Omniscience—Rm 11:34; Omnipresence—Ps 139:7-10).

On Personality: The Spirit comes to universalize the teaching and ministry of the Son (Jn 14-16). He serves the Church as our comforter, our encourager, and our advocate (Jn 14:16-26). He both provides the abiding presence of God as well as dwelling within believers (Jn 14:17-18). He is commissioned as “the Spirit of Truth” and serves as our teacher, completing and reinforcing the pedagogical work of Christ (Jn 14:26; 16:12-15). He comes at the request of the Son for the continuation of his ministry (Jn 14:25-27), and proceeds from the Father and Son (Jn 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7; Ac 2:33; 9:31; Rm 8:9-11; Ga 4:6). He also convicts through the hearing of the Gospel the man’s sinful condition, and God’s positional provisional righteousness (Jn 16:10, 11, 19; Ac 2:37; 7:51; Lk 5:8).

III. On the Work of the Holy Spirit

On Work: Through Him is found the power of the Son’s conception (Mt 1:20). He is vehicle of the inspiration of Holy Scripture (2 Pt 1:21). He is the medium of the washing and regeneration of believing Sinners (Tit 3:4-7). He is the seal of our promised eternal inheritance (Eph 1:13). He is our sanctifying instructor and guide (Jn 14:26). He is the empowerment of the Church for Godly living, service, communion, and mission (Ac 1:8).

On Regeneration: Regeneration is the graceful work of God to provide within the believer eternal life through a regenerating rebirth (Ti 3:5; Jn 3:3-8; Ep 2:5; 2 Co 3:6). It is instant and coincidental with conversion (Jn 1:12-13). The Spirit is the agent of regeneration, and accomplishes the work of rebirth through the means of the Spirit-inspired Scriptures (Jm 1:18, 21; 1 Pt 1:23)

On Baptism: Baptism of the Holy Spirit is the grafting of the believer into the Body and Life of Christ (Rm 6:2-5; 1 Co 12:12-13; Ga 3:26-27; Col 2:12). It is promised to all who repent and turn towards God, and occurs at the moment of salvation (Ac 2:38; 1 Co 12:13; Gal. 3:26-27; Rm 8:9).

On Indwelling and Sealing: The indwelling and sealing of the Holy Spirit is the continual presence and promise of the Spirit within the life of the believer (Rm 5:5; 8:9-11). It is the seal, sign, and guarantee of our eternal security (2 Co 1:22; 1 Co 6:19-20; Ep 1:13; 4:30). It is the evidence of salvation, and a down payment of an inaugurated sanctification (Rm 8:9, 16; 2 Tm 2:19).

On Equipping: The equipping of the Holy Spirit is the continual provision through the Spirit and to the believer to serve the Church and the world through the disbursement of spiritual gifts (1 Co 12-14). They are supernatural gifts uniquely and intentionally given to individuals for the purpose of building the Body of Christ and advancing its missional commission (1 Co 12:7, 11, 18-23, 24-26, 31).

CHRISTOLOGY

Leonard O Goenaga

SEBTS, THE6120

Theology II

Dr. Whitfield

I. On the Triune God

Before all began, God was. Out of nothing, God Almighty brought forth all things seen and unseen (Gen 1:1-3). There are no other gods before, behind, below, or above Him (Isa 44:6). He is the One and only Living God (Jer 10:10). His Name is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Matt 28:19). He is a Perfect Triunity of Persons indwelling in One Essence (1 John 5:7; 2 Cor 13:14; Jer 10:10; Isa 48:12). In God is One Perfect Being of Three Distinct Persons (Matt 3:16-17). In God is all perfection of power, knowledge, goodness, freedom, truth, and justice (Job 11:7; Ps 90:2; Ps 115:3). In God are true life, grace, mercy, love, holiness, forgiveness, and judgment (Ex 34:7; John 5:26; Acts 7:2; Ps 119:68). God is the Creator, and all else the Created (Gen 1:1-3). God is the Sovereign, and all else the Subject (Gen 17:1; Rev 4:8). God is to be obeyed and worshipped, and all else is to be obedient and awestruck (Rev 5:12-14).

II. On the Person of Christ Jesus

In Jesus Christ is found the Son of God as the Davidic Messianic King, our rescuer and redeemer through His blood (Ps 2:6; Luke 1:33; Eph 1:22, 23). In Him is found the Sinless Sacrificial Lamb, Fully Man and Fully God, who is our substitutionary atonement for sins (Rev 5:12, John 17:6; Rom 8:30, Rom 8:3). In Him only is found the great High Priest and Prophet, our advocate and hope for eternal communion with God (Isa 42:1; 1 Peter 1:19, 20; Acts 3:22; Heb 5:5, 6). He was conceived by the power of the Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary (Matt 1:22, 23). He was tortured, crucified, and killed under Pontius Pilate (Acts 13:37). He rose bodily from death, ascended into heaven, and petitions the Father as our High Priest, Intercessor, and Hope (Rom 8:34).

III. On the Divinity and Humanity of Christ Jesus

In Jesus Christ two natures in one person is evident. In his forgiving of sin (Mark 2:5, 7), in his position as judge of the world (Matt 25:31-46), and in his reception of prayer and worship (John 20:28), his divinity is clearly seen. Furthermore, he not only shares in the deeds and attributes of God, but is also explicitly called “God” (John 1:1, 18, 20:28; Acts 20:28; Rom 9:5; Titus 2:13; Heb 1:8; 2 Pet 1:1; 1 John 5:20). In his birth of a virgin woman (Matt 1:22), in his experience of true temptation (Heb 2:18; 4:15-16), and in his various earthly sufferings, his humanity is clearly seen. His hypostatic union is fully God and fully Man, yet one in person. The necessity of His deity is evidenced in the need of God to survive, satisfy, and meet God’s wrath. The necessity of His humanity is evidenced in the reality that man must pay the penalty for man (Rom 5:18; Heb 2:17), that only the Christ could live in full obedience of the law, and only could the Son in human flesh obey on our behalf (Rom 5:19).
IV. On the Temptation of Christ Jesus

In Jesus Christ true temptation was experienced (Heb 2:18, 4:15-16; Matt 26:36-46). Such temptations did not require that he have a sinful nature, and instead Jesus never succumbed to any temptations (Rom 8:3; 1 Cor 5:21). Christ succeeded in winning over temptation where Adam and Eve failed, and although he experienced real temptation, he would not sin (Gen 3:6; Luke 4:1-13; 1 John 2:16).

V. On the Atonement of Christ Jesus

In Jesus Christ’s salvific work on the Cross, as presupposed by his divinity and perfect humanity, atonement for sin is found. He has offered himself as a sacrifice, taking the punishment that was due to humanity for its rebellion (Mark 10:45). The sacrificial lamb was offered as a substitution, propitiating God’s Holy wrath against the wicked (1 Peter 2:24). Through this wondrous work, enmity with God was corrected, and reconciliation with the Cosmic Creator attained (Rom 5:10). Not only was man’s place and punishment taken by Christ, and man’s relationship with God reconciled, but those who come to Christ in faith are also declared righteous (2 Cor 5:21). Further still, believers are adopted as God’s children, attaining through Christ sonship, complete with its inheritance (1 John 3:1). This act of atonement is extended freely to all, as the Father intends for the entire world to be saved through faith in his Son (John 1:29; John 3:16-17; Titus 2:11; Heb 2:9).

VI. On the Resurrection of Christ Jesus

In Jesus Christ all these claims of his person and work were verified through his resurrection from death. The resurrection vindicated that he is the Son of God (Rom 1:4). The resurrection vindicated that he is Lord and Christ (Act 2:32, 36). The resurrection insured the salvation of believers (1 Cor 15:17-19; Rom 4:25; 1 Peter 1:3). In the resurrection is found man’s eternal hope and objective confirmation of God’s promises.

IMB POLICY ON PRIVATE PRAYER LANGUAGES

Leonard O Goenaga

SEBTS, THE6120

Theology II

Dr. Whitfield

It is undeniable that among Christian theology and missions, few things have been as influential and powerful as the modern Pentecostal movement. Besides stirring within nearly every theological camp discussions on the nature of the Spiritual gifts, Pentecostalism has more importantly grown from 0 adherents in the 19^th century to well over 500,000,000 today. Any movement that manages to grow to such numbers within merely 100 years is worthy of serious examination. In addition to their rapid missional growth, Pentecostalism has benefited the Church by reinvigorating worship and how we approach the third Person of the Trinity. What once was a quickly passed over subject, or a stale and solemn worship ceremony, the church now actively seeks to be filled by the Spirit during worship (in and out of the church). However, such benefits in theology and missions have not arrived without problems. The Pentecostal movement itself is riddled with a degree of pluralism and schism beyond what was normally found within other Protestant grounds. Two Pentecostal churches could disagree ecclesiology, soteriology, Christology, hamartiology, and eschatology, yet still call themselves Pentecostal. In addition to this great degree of splintering, the movement has little theological vigor. Whereas it has a rich empowerment in the realm of missions and worship, it has visibly lacked in the academics and theology department. Besides these weaknesses and divisions within Pentecostal camps, the 20^th century brought about battled waged across traditional denominations. Whether Catholics, Methodists, or Baptists, churches were split apart by disagreements over the spiritual gifts. This produces much anguish on the part of divisionary tendencies, and as such certain denominational establishments have sought to buffer their systems in the hope of preventing such escalations.  One of great importance within Southern Baptist Life is the International Missions Board (IMB). With the likely goal of preventing such schisms, the IMB has forwarded a policy that prevents individuals from qualifying as IMB missionary representatives on the basis of whether or not individuals have a private prayer life. With the history of conflict in mind, a question remains: Is this policy legitimate in light of the conflict, or is it an excessive condition for otherwise well qualified missionaries? The argument of this paper will side with the latter, arguing that the IMB overreaches in its attempt to prevent divisionary conditions as evident on the basis of Scriptural, Theological, and Missional reasoning.

The IMB’s policy itself comes in the form of an explanation of (1) Glossolalia, (2) Prayer Language, and (3) Application. Regarding glossolalia (‘tongue’), the IMB first makes the point that (1A) the New Testament speaks of it as an actual known language. This first point is understandable, and it is even to be noted that among antiquities, ‘tongues’ lacked the definition of spirit-driven groaning. Rather, when glossolalia was used, it was always in reference to an actually known language. After this first point, the IMB policy then rightly states that (1B) glossolalia is a gift to be used to advance a purpose in worship, such as the edification and mission of the body. Although these two points are somewhat agreeable, the third point is where problems arise (1C): “In terms of worship practices, if glossolalia is a public part of the candidate’s current practice and it does not fall within the definitions of Parts 1 and 2 above, the candidate has eliminated himself or herself from being a representative of the IMB of the SBC.” The problem arises with a hidden premise crucial to the argument, namely, that private prayer language does not have a function in the exercise of public worship.

In addition to this treatment of glossolalia, the IMB policy then expands on (2) Prayer Language). The first premise of this understanding is that (2A) spiritual experiences are to be tested by the Scriptures. This is an acceptable premise. Second, the IMB policy states that (2B) the New Testament teaching is made to be understood. Although this is debatable (what is meant by understood? By someone else, or by God? What is the standard of understanding?), we will proceed for the sake of simply highlighting the problem of the policy. The third point is that (2C) the Board rejects ecstatic utterance as a prayer language. The fourth point is thus (2D) if such an ecstatic utterance is part of the prayer life of a person, they are disqualified.

As mentioned earlier, there is a problem with their treatment of glossolalia, namely that there exists a hidden premise to their second point. Namely, it is assumed there exists no specific benefit to the public of a private prayer life. This hidden premise however may be put into great speculation by the example of Paul. As evidenced through his life, Paul received various visions and revelations that were specifically targeted to him and only for his immediate benefit (2 Cor. 12:1-10). However, incidents such as the thorn in his flesh were surely beneficial to the church at large, as such visions and experiences further produced within Paul great piety and practice. The church thus indirectly benefited from Paul’s direct experience/communication.

Although this evidences that the personal practices do indirectly affect the worship of the church, are there any additional evidences in Scripture to buttress the point and thus expose the error of the IMB’s hidden premise? The answer is that there are, as found in the treatment by Paul of marriage and singleness. It is first to be noted that both are mentioned in Paul’s Corinthian epistle to be gifts of the nature of charismata. This sets them alongside the other grace-given gifts listed by Paul to advance the “common good” of the life of the church (2 Co 12:7). However a problem then arises. We can see how exhortation and other such gifts publically benefit, but how do individuals gifts of singleness and marriage advance the church’s worship and mission? It would appear to be along the same lines of a private prayer language. All three seem to be gifts given to individual persons within the domain of charismata. As has been hinted earlier with the example of Paul, all three meet the requirement of gifts being given to serve the church and not simply the self. Gifts may be individually given and experienced, yet still benefit and edify the church body. This would be seen in healthy marriages, or prudent singleness, or even private prayer languages. Since marriage, singleness, and prayer languages exist within the same domain of being gifts individually experienced but indirectly beneficial, it would seem that, having exposed the IMB’s hidden premise, they should also prevent individuals gifted with marriage or singleness from serving on the mission field, given “a gift had specific uses and conditions for its exercise in public worship”. The ad-absurdum of the hidden premise, and thus the policy, lies exposed.

Both Paul’s example and parallel gifts that are experienced individually but beneficial indirectly make the IMB’s policy disagreeable. There is nothing within a private prayer life that can prevent someone from being a good Southern Baptist, and a good missionary. Such a position does not alter any notable Baptist distinctive, and it serves at best as a third level doctrine. Hardly does it warrant the prevention of missional service. Given the strains already placed upon the church, as well as a desire to see a Great Commission Resurgence, it is difficult to see how this proves beneficial. If anything, it seems a bit more problematic, given the additional Scriptural difficulties it presents. Given one can serve as a missionary who holds to Baptist distinctive while still maintaining a private prayer life, the IMB’s policy seems excessive and hard-placed. Although the spirit behind such a policy is commendable, given historical precedent, the policy is overreaching and unbiblical, and thus worthy of being reformed to allow individuals who hold to private prayer languages to serve as IMB missionaries.

PDF copy of Debate Outline without WordPress format/outline errors: THE6110 Women Leadership Debate Outline

LINK to the Opposition’s Argument: http://www.theologyforthechurch.com/1/post/2011/12/can-women-be-senior-pastors.html

NOTE: I do not subscribe to the Egalitarian position. I am a compatabilist who believes in the equality of persons yet distinctions of roles. I was assigned this debate position for my Theology III course.

FAL2011: THE6130 DEBATE OUTLINE

DEBATE: A CONSECRATED FEMALE CHRISTIAN IS ELIGIBLE TO BE CONSIDERED FOR ALL AVENUES OF MINISTRY, INCLUDING PREACHING, TEACHING, AND THE ROLE OF SENIOR PASTOR.

Leonard O Goenaga

SEBTS, THE6130

Theology III

Dr. Keathley

1. EXTORDIUM: INTRODUCTION
2. Introduction
3. Thesis

                                             1.     A consecrated female Christian is eligible to be considered for all avenues of ministry, including preaching, teaching, and the role of senior pastor.

1. NARRATIO: BACKGROUND INFORMATION/PROPOSITION
2. Propositio

i.     As is the evidence of the whole counsel of God, women are recognized and empowered for leadership. An egalitarian understanding of women leaders provides (1) better explanatory power on redemptive-canonical grounds, (2) better explanatory power on grammatical-historical grounds, and (3) greater empowerment on missional grounds.

1. PROBATIO 1: BETTER EXPLANATORY POWER: ON   REDEMPTIVE-CANONICAL GROUNDS
2. P1: Men and Women Shared Equality in the Garden

                                             1.     Men and Women were created to share jointly the responsibilities of children and dominion.

1. The Bible teaches that woman and man were created for full and equal partnership. The word “helper” (ezer) used to designate woman in Genesis 2:18 refers to God in most instances of Old Testament usage (e.g. I Sam 7:12; Ps 121:1-2).

                                             2.     The Bible teaches that the forming of woman from man demonstrates the fundamental unity and equality of human beings (Gen 2:21-23).

1. In Genesis 2:18, 20 the word “suitable” (kenegdo) denotes equality and adequacy.

                                             3.     The Bible teaches that man and woman were co-participants in the Fall:

1. Adam was no less culpable than Eve (Gen 3:6; Rom 5:12-21; I Cor 15:21-22).
2. P2: Upon Sin’s Contamination, Subjugation Enters

                                             1.     The Bible teaches that the rulership of Adam over Eve resulted from the Fall and was therefore not a part of the original created order.

1. Genesis 3:16 is a prediction of the effects of the Fall rather than a prescription of God’s ideal order.
2. P3: Women Held Prominent Positions as Teachers, Leaders, and Prophets in the OT

                                             1.     Leadership of Miriam (Ex. 15:20-21) is viewed as a special gift to Israel (Mic 6:4)

                                             2.     Deborah served as judge, general, and prophetess (Jg 4-5)

                                             3.     Hulda the Prophetess declared an old scroll to be indeed the Word of God and called the nation to a repentance that resulted in a great revival (2 Kings 22:8-20; 2 Chron 34:14-28)

                                             4.     “Wise women” played a considerable role in the moral and political life of Israel (2 Sm 14:1-20; 20:14-22; Pro 14:1).

                                             5.     Female cult officials served in both the tabernacle and temple (Ex 38:8; 1 Ch 25:5-6; Ez 2:65; Neh 7:67; 10:39; Ps 68:24-25; Lk 2:36-37).

                                             6.     Female Prophets functioned throughout the history of Israel (Ex 15:20; Neh 6:14; Isa 8:3; Ezek 13:17-23; Lk 2:36-37).

                                             7.     Courage of Esther caused may to convert to the Jewish faith in the postexilic period (Eth 8:17).

1. P4: The Inter-testamental Period Encouraged A Negative View of Women

                                             1.     Rabbis encouraged not to teach or even speak to them.

1. “From garments cometh a moth and from a woman the iniquities of a man. For better the iniquity of a man than a woman doing a good turn.” (Sir. 42:13-14).
2. P5: Jesus Reversed This Attitude in Teaching and Behavior

                                             1.     Spoke to women (Jn 4)

                                             2.     Taught women (Martha & Mary Lk 10:38-42)

                                             3.     Admitted women as followers & disciples (Lk 8:2-3)

                                             4.     After the resurrection our Lord first appeared to women and made them the bearers of the good news even to the apostles (Mt 28:8-10; cf. Jn 20:14-16).

                                             5.     “Thus, women are attested as the primary witnesses of the birth, crucifixion, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.”

1. P6: Women Held Prominent Positions of Leadership in the Early Church

                                             1.     Sign and seal of the covenant of grace, baptism, now administered to women and men (Ac 8:12; 16:15).

                                             2.     Women may perform the ministry of prophecy (Ac 2:18; 21:9; 1 Cor. 11:5).

                                             3.     Paul surrounded by woman coworkers

1. 10 out of 29 persons mentioned in Romans 16 are women.
2. A number of these women presented in same terms as male collaborators: Timothy, Apollos, Epaphras, Titus.
3. Verb for “worked very hard” (16:6, 12) used for ministerial service.
4. Phoebe is called a deacon and one who presides.

                                             4.     Women are priests without distinction.

1. Christians of both sexes are “living stones . . . built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood.” (1 Pt 2)
2. In Revelations, Christians in general are presented as “a kingdom and priests” (Rv. 1:6; 5:10).

                                             5.     Priscilla enjoyed an outstanding ministry along with her husband, Aquila, whose name usually stands second (Act 18:1-4, 18-28; Rm 16:3-4; 1 Co 16:19; 2 Tim 4:19)

1. C: Thus, We find that Scripture affirms a positive view of the role of women in ministry. Women are affirmed throughout the canon as leaders and prophetic teachers. The question is reallt about whether women can hold authoritative offices in the local church (such as Senior Pastor). It is to the roles we now turn.

1. PROBATIO 2: BETTER EXPLANATORY POWER: ON GRAMMATICAL-HISTORICAL GROUNDS
2. P2: NT Women Leaders

                                             1.     More women named as leaders than men

1. Phoebe as “deacon” (Rm 16:1-2), and Mary (Ac 12:12), Lydia (16:15), Chloe (1 Cor. 1:11), and Nympha (Col. 4:15) as overseers of house churches.

                                             2.     Location: The more Romanized the area, the more visible the leadership of women.

1. P1: Women Served as Patrons of House Churches

                                             1.     Churches are identified as meeting in the homes of women, who apparently gave them leadership (Act 12:2; 16:40; Rm 16:4-5; 1 Cor 1:11; 16:19; Col 4:15; 2 Jn)

1. John wrote his second letter to the elder, the elect or chosen lady, and to her children, whom he loves in truth. Kuria, the word translated “lady,” is the feminine form of “Lord or Master.” Clement of Alexandria agreed[xvii] that John called her the woman “chosen to be in charge.”
2. Romans 16 mentions Phoebe as, “A deacon of the church at Cenchreae.” Her name means bright or radiant. Paul expressly includes himself among those to whom Phoebe ministered, calling her an overseer (prostatis). She was more than just a regular church member. No other person is called a prostatis in the NT, but later Apostolic fathers used this word in the masculine form (Prostates) to designate the bishop presiding over the Eucharist.
3. P2: Women Served as Prophets

                                             1.     Recognized leadership role.

                                             2.     Luke recognizes leadership of the church in Antioch as “prophets and teachers” (Ac 13:1-3)

                                             3.     Prophets role consisted of public conviction of sin (1 Cor. 14:24), instruction (1 Cor 14:19, katecheo), exhortation (1 Cor 14:31), and guidance (Ac 13:3-4; 16:6).

1. katecheo and didasko are virtually synonyms in the NT.
2. Paul speaks of being taught (katechoumenos) by the law (Rm 2:18)
3. Luke uses katecheo and didasko interchangeably in Acts 18:25.

                                             4.     It was to “God’s holy apostles and prophets” that “the mystery of Christ has now been revealed by the Spirit” (Eph 3:5)

                                             5.     Thus why Paul calls their utterances “revelation” (1 Cor 14:29-30)

                                             6.     Paul treats the prophetic activity of women as identical to the prophetic activity of men (1 Cor. 11:4-5)

1. P3: Women Served as Teachers

                                             1.     Priscilla instructed Apollos in the “way of the Lord” (Ac 18:24-26)

1. Word exethento (expounded) is used, not edidaxe (taught), but that is the same word used when Paul preaches to the Jews in Rome (“he expounded” [exetitheto], Ac 28:23)

                                             2.     Female prophets at Corinth instructed the congregation (cf. 1 Co 11:5, 14:19)

                                             3.     Gift of teaching comes after apostleship and prophecy in one spiritual gift list (1 Co 12:28).

1. Teaching is linked with the gift of pastoring in another (“pastor-teacher” Eph 4:11)
2. Part of the job description of a prophet (“to instruct” [katecheo] 1 Co 14:19)

                                             4.     Everyone in the congregation was expected to teach (Col. 3:16; Hb 5:12)

1. P4: Women Served as Deacons

                                             1.     Chrysostom mentions Phoebe along with Prisca, “These were noble women, hindered in no way by their sex…and this is as might be expected for in Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female.”

1. “This text teaches with the authority of the Apostle that even women are instituted deacons in the Church. This is the function that was exercised in the church of Cenchreae by Phoebe, who was the object of high praise and recommendation by Paul…And thus this text teaches at the same time two things: that there are, as we have already said, women deacons in the church, and that women, who by their good works deserve to be praised by the apostle, ought to be accepted in the diaconate.”
2. P5: Women Served as Colleagues

                                             1.     Euodia and Syntyche are mentioned as colleagues of the apostle Paul (Php 4:2-3),

1. P6: Women Served as … Apostles?

                                             1.     Some early fathers understood Junia (Rm 16:7) to be a female apostle, although modern translators give the masculine name “Junias”, a name unattested in the ancient world

1. Chrysostom wrote about Junia saying, “Indeed, to be an apostle at all is a great thing; but to be even amongst those of note; just consider what a great encomium that is…Oh, how great is the devotion of this woman, that she should even be counted worthy for the appellation (classification or delegation) of apostles.”
2. Despite his bias against women, even Jerome concurred that Junia was a female apostle (Liber Interpretationis Hebraicorum Nominum 72,15). The identity of Junia as a woman apostle was not questioned until the Middle Ages when translators tried to change the gender of the name to the masculine “Junias.” The name Junia was a very common woman’s name, but the name Junias was unknown in antiquity (and girls weren’t named boy names and vise-versa, like today).
3. P7: Women Served in Early Church History
4. P8: Leadership is Not the Same As Authority

                                             1.     Authority

1. Congregationalism + Priesthood of All Believers + Whole Counsel of God
2. Leadership vs. Authority
3. Lack of use word authority (exousia) attached with local church leaders.
4. It is the church that Jesus gives the “keys of the kingdom” (Mt 16:19), and authority to “bind” and “loose” (Mt 18:18).
5. The church tests prophetic utterances, chooses missionaries and church delegates, disciplines, etc.
6. Individuals appointed to represent the church’s interest are empowered to equipt congregation. “Christ gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastor-teachers, to prepare God’s people for the work of the ministry” (Eph 4:11-12)

                                             2.     Leadership

1. Prophet
2. Deacon
3. Teacher
4. C:  Thus,  it is clear throughout the Canon that women served as leaders. The question isn’t whether women can ‘lead’. The clear testimony of the Inerrant word of God is a resounding “Yes!” When taken in its canonical and historical contexts. Why then, have we arrived at such a position that hands so much theological weight on single incidents of prooftexts?

1. PROBATIO 3: GREATER MISSIONAL POWER: ON GREAT COMMISSION RESURGENCE GROUNDS
2. P1: Women Served the Great Commission in Early Church History

                                             1.     Tertullian

1. Wrote that there were four orders of female church officers, all of whom are mentioned in the Bible: female deacons, virgins, widows, and elderesses.
2. Some of these women were considered clerics, given ecclesial authority, and seated with the other clergy (Testament of the Lord 1.23)

                                             2.     Pliny

1. Pliny reports two ministrae, or deaconesses, as leaders of a Christian community (Epistles 10.96, 8).
2. Historical records from 112 AD, show that Roman governor Pliny the Younger detailed his effort to interrogate the Bithynian leaders who were two slave women called “ministrae.” Pliny states that these two ministrae, or deaconesses, were the leaders of that Christian community (Epistles 10.96,8).

                                             3.     Apostolic Constitutions VIII. 19-20

1. Ordination service of deaconesses still preserved in the Apostolic Constitutions (VIII.19-20).

                                             4.     Early Catacombs

1. Earily catacomb paintings show women in the authoritative stance of a bishop, conferring blessing on Christians of both sexes.

                                             5.     Early Frescoes

1. Two frescoes appear to show women serving communion.
2. P2: Women Are Denied Service; An Inclusio is Evident (The Constantinian Boogeyman)

                                             1.     Hellenistic Misogyny

                                             2.     Beginning about 350 the following prohibitions were issues against women’s activities:

1. Council of Laodicea – Serving as priests or presiding over churches, establishing presbyteresses, or presidents in the churches, approaching the altar
2. Fourth Synod of Carthage – Teaching men or baptizing
3. First Council of Orange and the councils of Nimes, Epaons, and Orleans – Ordination of deaconesses.

                                             3.     Patter: Scripture’s Witness (OT), Inter-testamental Rabbinical Religion, Scripture’s Witness (NT), Post-Testamental Church/State Religion.

1. P3: A True Great Commission Resurgence

                                             1.     Returning to the Purity of the Scriptures.

1. P4: Example – Phoebe Palmer, Evangelist

                                             1.     Associate of D. L. Moody, who himself advocated for biblical concept of equality.

                                             2.     Phoebe is herself credited with the conversion of 25,000 souls.

                                             3.     Declared the church to be a sort of potter’s field in which the talents of women are buried.

1. C: Therefore

1. REFUTATIO 1 – THEOLOGICAL
2. Arguments include a theology that centers around universal and eschatological proclamations of Galatians 3:28 that in Christ “there is neither male nor female,”
3. Prophet Joel who declared “in the last days your sons and daughters will prophesy” (Joel 2:28)
4. A1: Jesus was Male.

                                             1.     “Women cannot be ordained because they are female and hence do not fully represent the male humanity of Christ.”

                                             2.     “As Christ is the bridegroom of the church, those representing him must also be male.” (Orthodox, Reformed, high liturgical churches).

                                             3.     CA: Christs disciples were also Jewish, as were his 12, but that doesn’t prevent us.

1. A2: Natural Law Arguments

                                             1.     Natural law cast doubt on the ‘rightness’ and natural aptitude of women to lead and preach.

1. A3: Arguments from Tradition

                                             1.     Reformation. Justification by Grace Alone through Faith Alone

1. A4: Arguments for Subordination

                                             1.     Women are intended to have a role and place under men.

                                             2.     “To the extend that we have inherited Greek gender ideals as part of our civilization, these notions of subordination run very deep.”

                                             3.     Supported by 1 Cor 11.

                                             4.     Order of creation does not witnessed to inferiority

1. CA: Adam was created after the animals.
2. CA: “helpmate” used most often of God helping people and thus does not connote subordination.

                                             5.     CA: 1 Cor 11

1. Much clear passages teach equality.
2. Bared heads of women associated with fertility cults.
3. Word “head” better interpreted as “source,” rather than leader.
4. A5: Arguments from Silence

                                             1.     1 Timothy 2:12-14

1. The Kroegers, in I Suffer Not a Woman, argue that the rare Greek word translated “authority” (authentein) in 1 Tm may be better rendered “usurping authority,”
2. And the word “silence” here connotes peace and harmony (hesuchia).
3. The references to Adam’s priority and Eve’s duplicity make snese as a refutation of the pervasive Gnostic belief in Eve as a fertility goddess, the source of all life, who cleverly outwitted the Creator and Adam.”

                                             2.     1 Cor 14:34-35

1. Culturally embedded and at odds with Paul’s own practices and Galatians 3
2. The greek word “speak” (laleo) in Corinthians is easily rendered “babble,” and the word “silence” (sigao) bears connotations of desisting from chatter.
3. A6: Women are Easily Deceived than Men

                                             1.     Gn 3

                                             2.     1 Tm 2

1. These latter verses are most readily understood as directed against the Gnostic belief discussed above.

                                             3.     Do we allow easily deceived women to teach children?

1. REFUTATIO 2 – SCRIPTURAL
2. P1: 1 Corinthians 7

                                             1.     “wife has authority over her”

1. 2But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. 3The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4The wife’s body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband’s body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. 5Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer.

                                             2.     Mutuality in Marriage

1. What needs to be carefully observed is complete mutuality in the marital relationship emphasized here. Stunning when considered against the Greek background of Corinthians (1 Cor. 7:2-5, 10-11, 15-16)
2. 1 Cor. 7:2-5, Note: The wife has authority over her husband’s body.
3. P2: 1 Corinthians 11:2-16

                                             1.     “And the head of woman is man”

1. 3Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 4Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is just as though her head were shaved. 6If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. 7A man ought not to cover his head,b since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 8For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.
2. 11In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God. 13Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. 16If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.

                                             2.     Note special emphasis of Paul to balance his statements (11:11-12) lest women’s rights might be considered abridged by what he said.

                                             3.     Note that women may pray and prophesy in public (11:5, 13).

                                             4.     Headcoverings argument made on grounds of creation order. (CR 1 Timothy 2)

1. Paul uses Eve analogy in an adhoc manner. Eve was created for Adam’s sake; therefore women should wear head coverings.
2. However, after this argument, Paul reminds us that, in the end, neither men nor women are independent of the other (1 Cor 11:7-12).
3. Holy Kiss repeated as often as head coverings (Rm 16:16; 1 Cor 16:20; 2 Cor 13:12; 1 Thess. 5:26; 1 Peter 5:14)
4. P3: 1 Corinthians 14:33-36

                                             1.     “Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says.”

1. 33For God is not a God of disorder but of peace.
2. As in all the congregations of the saints, 34women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.
3. 36Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? 37If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command. 38If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored.i
4. 39Therefore, my brothers, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. 40But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way.

                                             2.     The problem seems not to be teaching, but rather that the women are learning—too loudly!

1. Throughout 1^st century Mediterranean world, novices were exected to learn quietly, but more advanced students were expected to interrupt all kinds of public lectures with questions.
2. Plutarch, On Listening to Lectures; Aulus Gellius 18.13.7-8; 10.10.1-6; Tosefta Sanhedrin 7:10

                                             3.     Problem:

1. Directly contradicts 11:5, 13.
2. Taken strictly, it would also prevent women from sharing in congregational singing.
3. Thus, we must interpret this differently.

                                             4.     One could perceive that what Paul is forbidding is a kind of disruptive babbling and questioning that would interfere with a worshipful attitude in the church.

1. Questions must be asked at home, not during the service.
2. Reason why women are mentioned rather than men may be due to the fact that women were the majority in Corinthian.
3. Unless Paul changes the subject from women’s general silence in church (1 Cor 14:34) to them asking questions to learn (14:35a) and then back to women’s general silence in church (14:35b), Paul is addressing their asking questions in an effort to learn.

                                             5.     “When you gather . . . each has a psalm, a teaching, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation” (14:26a)

1. P4: Ephesians 5:22-33

                                             1.     “wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord” (5:23)

1. 22Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
2. 25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26to make her holy, cleansingb her by the washing with water through the word, 27and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— 30for we are members of his body. 31“For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”c 32This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

                                             2.     It is preceded by a commandment for general submission (5:21).

                                             3.     The context is the home and carries no implication of roles in society, in the church, or other relationships not affecting the home.

1. Submission of children/parents, and masters/slaves underscores the context of the home, and does not bear an implication for church offices or society.
2. It is not a violation of God’s order when a son has a higher army rank than his father
3. or a higher place in a corporation
4. or a pastoral office in a church in which the parents are members.
5. P5: 1 Peter 3:1-7

                                             1.     “1Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, 2when they see your respectful and pure conduct.”

1. 1Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, 2when they see the purity and reverence of your lives. 3Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes. 4Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight. 5For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to make themselves beautiful. They were submissive to their own husbands, 6like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her master. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear.
2. 7Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.

                                             2.     Same spirit as Ephesians 5.

                                             3.     Enjoins submission for wives to husbands, but ennobles their function in the home.

1. P6: 1 Timothy 2:9-15

                                             1.     “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent”

1. 9I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, 10but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.
2. 11A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15But womena will be savedb through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

                                             2.     Does is Bar Teaching?

1. (1) Paul could not forbid mothers to teach their children, since this is enjoined in Pro 1:8; 6:20; 31:26; and Dt. 6:7.
2. Also against commendation given to Lois and Eunice (2 Tm 1:5) who guided Timothy toward the faith.
3. (2) It appears Paul does not refer to teaching profession per se, since probably a majority of all teachers have been women and have often been blessed in this function. In Paul’s day teachers were slaves, thus did not involve taking undue authority.

                                             3.     Further Difficulties?

1. In 1 Tm 2:8, it seems that “the men should pray”, however this activity surely should be open to women both at home and in the church (1 Cor. 11:5)
2. The creation account could stress order of fall rather than special type of failure.
3. Complications also arrive with the plural verb “women will be saved”. We know that Paul is not talking about women being saved by childbearing, because faith saved. Dealing with Genesis, perhaps he is referencing Eve (3:15) and Mary (3:15)’s role in redemptive history.

                                             4.     Is this a universal rule?

1. Has its exceptions: Husband-wife team teaching a ministerial student (Acts 18:26)
2. Spirit-directed utterance, like prophecy (1 Cor 11:4-5), from which people could also learn (1 Cor 14:31)
3. Possible that the text is the exceptional one, which can be argued if it can be shown to address a particular situation.

                                             5.     If there are exceptions, are there situational elements?

1. (1) Are there exceptions? As noted above, there are exceptions, in contrast to genuinely universal biblical rules like those prohibiting homosexual behavior.
2. (2) Are there situational elements? The one passage in the bible that specifically prohibits women from teaching is addressed to the one church where we know that false teachers were effectively targeting women.
3. False teachers targeted women in their households (2 Tim. 3:6)
4. These women were incapable of learning correctly (2 Tim. 3:7; cf. 1 Tim 4:7)
5. Some women would go from house to house spreading “nonsense” (1 Tim. 5:13)
6. Gordon Fee’s survey of every use in extant Greek literature of word translated “busybodies” in 1 Tm 5:13 reveals word was used for those speaking nonsense, and in moral and philosophical contexts it typically refers to those spreading false or improper teaching.

                                             6.     If we accept it as transcultural, what about the precedent?

1. To Timothy: Most do not prohibit the drinking of only water for those with stomach ailments and compel them to use wine as well (5:23).
2. Similarly, if we are to obey 2 Timothy, each of us should come to Paul quickly, making sure we pick up his cloak and books from Troas before coming to him (2 Tim 4:9-13)

• That Paul also calls Titus to come to him in Titus 3:12 surely attests this as a transcultural requirement.

1. To the Church as a Whole: Widows must not be put on the list for church support unless they are at least 60 years old (1 Tm 5:9), and have brought up children and washed saints feet (5:10). , so few widows fulfill these requirements.

                                             7.     Argument by Analogy?

1. CR: Eve & Women Headscarves (1 Cor 11:8-9)
2. CR: Eve’s Deception & Corinthian Christians (2 Cor. 11:3)
3. 3But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ.
4. Basis of comparison is that both were easily deceived.
5. Paul could apply the image to anyone who was easily deceived.

                                             8.     Referencing to the Old Testament?

1. Paul drew an analogy with Eve and all the Corinthin Chrisytians (male and female, 2 Cor 11:3)
2. Paul uses analogy in his arguments. Some are closer to the text than others.

                                             9.     23Stop drinking only water, and use a little wine because of your stomach and your frequent illnesses. (1 Tm 2:9-15)

1. P7: 1 Tm 3:11

                                             1.     “Women [deacons], likewise, are to be worthy of respect, not slanderers, temperate, and trustworthy in everything.” (1 Tm 3:11)

                                             2.     “[Male] deacons likewise must be worthy of respect, not double-tongued, not given to much wine . . . Women likewise must be worthy of respect, not slanderers, temperate” (8, 11)

                                             3.     Greek word order of verses 8 and 11 is identical.

                                             4.     These credentials are the exact duplicates of those listed for male deacons in 1 Timothy 3:8-10.

                                             5.     Post-Apostolic Writers understood Pail to be speaking of women deacons.

1. Clement of Alexandria (2/3^rd century)
2. “For we know what the honorable Paul in one of his letters to Timothy prescribed regarding women deacons” (Stromata 3.6.53)
3. John Chrysostom (4^th century)
4. Talks of women who held the rank of deacon in the apostolic church (Homilies on Timothy 11 [ on 1 Tm 3:11])
5. P8: Transcultural Principles

                                             1.     Slaveholders (Eph 6:5)

                                             2.     CR: 1 Corinthians 11

1. P9: 2 Timothy 3:16-17

                                             1.     When we read in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 that all Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for ‘teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,’ we might have expected that after these descriptions of ministry Paul would use a term for ‘the man of God’ that emphasizes distinctive maleness, but, in fact, the language he uses is that of generic humanity and applies to women as well as men.

1. ἄνθρωπος
2. Strongs: a man, one of the human race. Generic term for “mankind”. People, including women and men (Mt 4:19, 12:12).
3. Relates to both genders.
4. Used instead of ἄνδρες

                                             2.     We have to remember this when understanding 1 Timothy 2:9-15.

1. VIII.           PERORATIO
2. Restated Thesis
3. Summation

                                             1.     Better Explanatory Power: On Redemptive-Canonical Grounds

                                             2.     Better Explanatory Power: On Grammatical-Historical Grounds

                                             3.     Greater Missional Power: On Great Commission Resurgence Grounds

1. 2 Timothy 3:16-17, anthropos
2. Mt 28:8-10, After the resurrection our Lord first appeared to women and made them the bearers of the good news even to the apostles (Mt 28:8-10; cf. Jn 20:14-16).
3. Closing Illustration

                                             1.     Missionary Cards Illustration

                                             2.     “If you want a great commission resurgence, here it is…”

PHILIPPIANS 4:1-9 GREEK EXEGESIS 

Step 1: Survey the Historical Context

            In an effort to best exposit the gospel truths from the Greek text to the audience, David Alan Black’s 10-step exegesis proves valuable. This exegesis will adapt such a model in a survey of Philippians 4:1-9 that intends to produce a hermeneutical outline fueled by Greek exegetical analysis. As with any initial survey of a text, the analysis of context is critical. Regarding its historical setting, several important questions may be asked. First among these includes the question: Who authored the letter? As Carson and Moo summarize, “the letter claims to have been written by Paul, and no serious doubt is raised against the claim.”[1] The Tübingen School’s F.C. Baur made the only objections to Pauline authorship worth noting during the 1840s, and more recently objections were made by A. Q. Morton and J. MacLeman’s computer analyses-based protests.[2] Regarding Baur’s critiques, Morna Hooker called them “entirely subjective—the letter did not conform to what he expected from a Pauline epistle.”[3]

Although Pauline authorship is widely accepted, the same cannot be said about the document’s unity. Kent summarizes the critiques waged against the unity of Philippians as being brought about on several grounds: (1) the use of “finally” at 3:1, (2) the change in subject matter and tone at 3:1 or 3:2, and (3) Polycarp’s use of the plural ‘epistles’ in referring to Paul’s communications with the Philippians (To the Philippians, 3.2).”[4] Hooker responds to the literary solution by stating as a solution it hardly solves anything, but rather compounds the problem by begging for an explanation as to why an editor would leave behind such sloppy editorial work.[5] It is easier to attribute the changes in subject to Paul than to an editor.[6] In addition, both chapters share various Pauline terms and ideas used throughout the letter.[7] As O’Brien concludes in favor of Philippian unity and against the interpolation hypothesis, “it can be argued that the evidence is not ambiguous but supportive of the letter’s integrity, a conclusion endorsed by at least one recent exponent of rhetorical criticism.”[8]

On the question of where the letter was authored, again we enter into a realm of much disagreement. The traditional view, held by scholars such as Luter, Hooker, and Kent, argues “the circumstances and wording of Philippians best fit with the two-year confinement of Paul mentioned in Acts 28:30-31. Further, the early Marcionite Prologue (c.a. A.D. 170) states that Philippians was sent from Rome.”[9] Critiquing the traditional view are scholars such as Carson, Moo, and Keck, who argue that the approximately 800 mile distance between Rome and Philippi, and the Philippians requirement of several journeys, makes a closer city like Ephesus more likely.[10]

As for Philippi itself, its Greek colonist founders from the Thasos Island originally named the city Krenides around 360 AD. The city would later be captured and renamed after Philip of Macedon in 356 AD.[11] Romans would later conquer Philippi in 42 BC due to its strategic location along the Via Egnatia, which connected Eastern Roman provinces to Rome.[12] The colony itself was quite privileged, and would even receive the citizenship-granting official title of Colonia Iulia Augsta Philippensis.[13] To the church at Philippi is also awarded the honor of being the first known Christian congregation in modern Europe.[14]

The church’s origin is located in Acts 16:6-40. After Paul receives his ‘Macedonian Vision’ in Acts 16:8-10, he responds by traveling across Aegean and towards Philippi. Paul would have likely found a notable group of Roman citizens and other gentile residents. Given both the biblical and archaeological witness, it would seem the number of Jews quite small, given the lack of a synagogue and its requirement of Jewish male leaders.[15] Paul’s relationship with the church was overtly warm and tender, calling them in 2:16 and 4:1 his ‘joy’ and ‘crown’, and the object of his boasting on judgment day.[16] Although this warm relationship is apparent throughout, it appears certain Philippian needs prompted Paul to pen his epistle. In addition to expressing his gratitude for the Philippian’s financial gifts, updating them on Epaphroditus, and informing them on his present state, scholars have long wondered whether the letter contains a central purpose to its structure.

Step 2: Observe the Larger Literary Context

Traditionally, scholars have argued that the prevailing theme of the letter is one of joy and thanksgiving, and that the letter itself was without form and purpose.[17] Clearly, Philippians is the genre of a letter, and it contains the classic contemporary features of an initial salutation, body, and concluding greetings. It is also notably personal, using the first person “over one hundred times, showing great rapport.”[18] Although the resounding note of joy and thanksgiving is prominent, recent scholarship has been rejuvenated by linguistical and rhetorical contributions. As O’Brien notes, “the epistle, while possessing the characteristics of a personal letter, has been carefully constructed.”[19] In his analysis of its structure, D. F. Watson has argued that the epistle is “organized and written according to the principles of Greco-Roman rhetoric.”[20]

In addition to scholars acknowledging against Deismann and Lightfoot that there exists an intended and organized structure as evidenced in rhetorical finds, Scholars have also noted the existence of a central literary theme supported by the epistle’s macrostructure. In “The Theme and Structure of Philippians,” Robert swift has suggested that the “partnership in the gospel” (1:5) is the central theme of Philippians.[21] Luter agrees, stating:

“Partnership in the gospel” (1:5) is both the unifying theme and theological hub of the letter. The intimate concept of partnership or fellowship (Gk. koinonia) speaks of a common bond in furthering the gospel (1:5; see 4:3, 15), the church’s corporate “fellowship with the Spirit” (2:1), and the need for all to be conformed to Christ’s death and resurrection (3:10-11, 15).[22]

Using discourse analysis to evaluate the macrostructure of the letter, David Alan Black has arrived at a similar conclusion, stating “It is evident that “unity for the sake of the gospel”—the only thing that Paul urges as the only (μόνον) needful thing (1:27)—is a permeating, interlocking theme in Philippians.”[23]Adapting a theological interpretation of the letter of Philippians, N.T. Wright has also arrived at supplemental conclusions, stating “its chief and largely unremarked value for theological interpretation is the way in which it hammers out a Christian view of what it means to live within a pagan society.”[24] Whether on rhetorical, textlinguistical, or theological interpretive grounds, there seems to be some growing consensus on the emphasis of living in unity for the sake of the gospel, and such a purpose will be assumed in this exegesis.

After using discourse analysis to develop a comprehensive outline of the epistle’s “macrostructure”, Black produces “a division of the letter into 24 pericopes that, as independent units of meaning, together constitute the entire discourse.”[25] Commenting on this outline, Black acknowledges the rhetorical nature where he states:

This outline shows that Paul reacted to the Philippian situation by putting forward an argument in two parts (1:12-2:30; 3:1-4:9), proving the need for unity and why it should be exemplified in the church. The juxtaposition of positive and negative advice indicates that Paul is using the opposing rhetorical categories of persuasion and dissuasion, a characteristic strategy of deliberative rhetoric.[26]

Converting his macrostructure pericope outline into classic rhetorical form, Black provides the following rhetoric-based outline: “I. 1:1-2 Epistolary Prescript, II. 1:3-11 Extordium, III. 1:12-26 Narratio, IV. 1:27-3:21 Argumentatio, A. 1:27-30 Propositio, B. 2:1-30 Probatio, C. 3:1-21 Refutatio, V. 4:1-9 Peroratio, VI. 4:10-20 Narratio, and VII. 4:21-23 Epistolary Postscript”[27]

His analysis is convincing, and this exegesis will assume both the purpose of the epistle as grounded on 1:27’s call for gospel-unity, and its structure as being rhetorically argumentative. Having surveyed the historical and literary context of the epistle, a detailed Greek exegesis of Ephesians 4:1-9 may now commence.[28] For organizational purposes, we will assume the textual unit consists of four exhortation-based parts: (1) Bridge – 4:1, To Steadfastness, (2) Particular Exhortations – 4:2-3, To Unity in the Cause of the Gospel, (3) General Exhortations – 4:4-7, To Joy and Harmony in the Midst of Difficulties, and (4) Final Exhortations – 4:8-9, To Godly Patterns of Thought and Conduct.[29]

Step 3: Resolve any Significant Textual Issues

            The next step of the exegetical task is addressing any significant textual-critical issues that affect interpretation. Although several minor textual issues exist, two primarily affect the passage’s interpretation. The first includes substituting the word καὶ for ναὶ in 4:3. The translation of the text would then be altered from “Yes I urge you” to “And I urge you”. The distribution of the external evidence is as follows:

On this textual variant, Meztger concludes, “the Textus Receptus, in company with 462, erroneously reads καί. All other witnesses, as it seems, read ναί.”[30] The acceptance of ναὶ seems preferable on the grounds of the external evidence outside of the Textus Receptus. A second variant effecting translation of 4:3 includes alternative readings to “τῶν λοιπῶν συνεργῶν μου” (“the rest of my coworkers”). The variants substitute it with “τῶν συνεργῶν μου καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν” (“my coworkers, and the others”), or simply “τῶν λοιπῶν” (“the others”). The distribution of external evidence is as follows:

On the variant, Meztger states that “because of scribal inadvertence two early witnesses (p^16vid א*) read τῶν συνεργῶν μου καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν (‘. . . with Clement and my fellow workers, and the others whose names are written . . .’).”[31] G. F. Hawthorne agrees where he explains that א* and p^16vid have a slightly longer text “because of scribal inadvertence”.[32] Both the external and internal evidence supports “τῶν λοιπῶν συνεργῶν μου” as the original rendering.

Step 4: Determine the Meaning of Any Crucial Words

            The fourth step to our Greek exegesis is to determine the meaning of any significant words. Out of the 104 verses in the epistle, various names for Jesus are used over 50 times.[33] In addition to the Christo-centricity of the passage, it opens up with a note of Paul’s fondness for the Philippians. Paul calls them “χαρὰ καὶ στέφανος μου,” his “joy and crown” (4:1). J. B. Lightfoot, H. A. A. Kennedy, K. Barth, J. Gnilka, O. Merk, and J. F. Collange understand this joy to be future-oriented. As for the word for crown, it is notable that στέφανος (wreath, crown, prize, adornment, or pride) is used instead of διάδημα (crown, in the sense of sovereignty).[34] To Paul, the church is both his present joy and his future prize.

Another word worth mentioning is the present active imperative verb στήκετε (stand firm, 4:1). Black notes an interesting inclusio formed “by πολιτεύεσθε . . . στήκετε (1:27) and πολίτευμα . . . στηκετε (3:20-4:1).”[35] The verb likely opens up each of the two main argumentative sections, and what follows is what the church is supposed to stand firm in. The verb παρακαλῶ (to appeal to, to urge, to encourage, to request, 4:2) then begins the series of particular exhortations. Paul uses the rebuke a total of two times, once with each woman, and its usage here “tells us a great deal about the seriousness of the Philippian problem that Paul should find it necessary to take such a step.”[36]

In addition to urging these women to reconcile their divisive differences, Paul calls upon γνήσιε σύζυγε (genuine yokefellow, 4:3) to help the two women reconcile. The identity of the once-used σύζυγε has been widely debated, with scholars genuinely identifying it as (1) some particular unnamed person, (2) as a proper name, Σύζυγε, or (3) as the intended church audience as a whole.[37] Although the third view as argued by Silva and Hawthorne have some commendable qualities, the second view seems preferable. Firstly, the name is found within a list of proper names, and a proper name is thus to be expected (Εὐοδίαν, Συντύχην, σύζυγε, Κλήμεντος). Secondly, Paul has used proper names before in a manner that appeals back to the names definition, as seen in the wordplay with Onesimus in Philemon 1:11.[38]

Another word worth investigating is ἐπιεικὲς (gentleness, graciousness, 4:5). Hooker argues that although it means gentleness, “it denotes generosity toward others and is a characteristic of Christ himself (cf. 2 Cor 10:1); the NEB’s ‘magnanimity’ and the REB’s ‘consideration of others’ catch its meaning.”[39] Silva also agrees, helping bring out the fullness of the word when he says “Paul expects believers to be guided by a frame of mind that does not put priority on personal rights.”[40]

Step 5: Analyze the Syntax

            The fifth step to our exegesis is analyzing any important syntactical issues. Chief among these are the usage of the conjunction Ὥστε and the adverb οὕτως in 4:1. Normally, ὣστε means “so that” and indicates result, effect, or consequence. However, in this incident the usage is “designed to ask the readers to look back and to take action in light of what has just been said . . . in what way are they to stand firm?”[41] O’Brien expands on this double-duty usage, claiming that “as in 2:12 ὣστε (‘therefore, so then’), together with the equivalent of ἀγαπητοί μου, here introduces an independent sentence with a verb in the imperative mood (στήκετε). It is an inferential conjunction that spells out the consequences of the preceding paragraph.”[42] The ὣστε then functions as a bridge between the preceeding and current text, while οὕτως (so that) “points them in the opposite direction (cf. BGD)—not backward now, but forward and onward to undertake immediately those things he is about to introduce with a flurry of imperatives.”[43]

Another syntactical feature worth noting is the prominence of the preposition ἐν. Paul calls the Philippians to στήκετε ἐν κυρίῳ (4:1). The ἐν preposition is repeated throughout the literary unit, as well as within former sections, and seems to tie the preceding and proceeding units with a shared emphasis of standing ‘in Christ’.[44] I addition to the notable repetition, the emphasis sown throughout is on Christ’s central role in our unity and humility. Paul uses the preposition ‘in Christ’ (or a variation thereof) nearly 216 times. We can then expect that whatever follows within the literary text, Christ is central to the exhortations to unity.

A third syntactical element worth mentioning is Paul’s positioning and usage of ταῦτα λογίζεσθε and ταῦτα πράσσετε (4:9). Although each ὃσα throughout 4:9 is gramatically dependent on the first ταῦτα, we find the phrase coming after. We should then read it as saying, “‘pay close attention to these things, namely the things that are true, noble, just, pure, lovely, and admirable.’”[45] While the definite relative pronoun ἃ takes up the former ταῦτα of verse 8, it is dependent upon the later ταῦτα πράσσετε.[46] It is also interesting that we find πράσσετε in a present tense, as if to say: ‘keep on doing/practicing these things’. The four aorist active indicatives dependent upon πράσσετε also seem to have some pattern, with ἐμάθετε καὶ παρελάβετε (you learned and received), and ἠκούσατε καὶ εἴδετε (you heard and saw), stressing Paul’s teaching as inherited by the Philippians, and Paul’s modeling as witnessed by them.[47]

Step 6: Determine the Structure

            The sixth step of our Greek exegesis is to determine the deep structure of the passage. This is evidenced in the following structural diagram, as well as the following translation:

Τὸ λοιπόν, ἀδελφοί, || λογίζεσθε| ταῦτα:
                                                            / ὅσα ἐστινἀληθῆ,
                                                            / ὅσα σεμνά,
/ ὅσα δίκαια,
/ ὅσα ἁγνά,
/ ὅσα προσφιλῆ,
/ ὅσα εὔφημα,
/ εἴ τις ἀρετὴ καὶ εἴ τις ἔπαινος, 

πράσσετε| ταῦτα:

/ ἃ καὶ ἐμάθετε
                          / καὶ παρελάβετε
                          / καὶ ἠκούσατε
/ καὶ εἴδετε | (ἐν ἐμοί),
καὶ ὁ θεὸς τῆς εἰρήνης || ἐσται | (μεθ’ ὑμῶν.)Therefore my brethren dearly beloved and longed for, my joy and my crown, in this manner stand firm in the Lord, friends:I urge Euodia, and I urge Syntyche, to live in harmony in the Lord. Yes, I ask you also, genuine yokefellow, help these women who labored with me in [the work of] the gospel, together with Clement and the rest of my fellow laborers, whose names are in the Book of Life.Rejoice in the Lord! I’ll say it again: Rejoice! Let your graciousness be known among all the people. The Lord [is] near! Be anxious about nothing, but in everything, by prayer and petition with thanksgiving, let your requests be known to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and minds in Christ Jesus.

Finally, brethren: whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is righteous, whatever is sacred, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute—if [there is] any excellence and if anything worthy of praise—dwell on these things. What you learned and received, and what you heard and seen in me, keep on practicing these things. And the God of peace will be with you.

NOTE: The deep structure seems to reveal (1) 4:1 functions as a bridge towards what the Philippians are to stand in, as consisting of (2) Particular exhortations with the two women, (3) General exhortations regarding behavior and prayer, and (4) final exhortations summarizing his previous appeals.

Step 7: Look for Any Significant Rhetorical Features

            The seventh step of our exegetical process is to evaluate any significant rhetorical features. Within 4:1-9 we find plenty. Besides the earlier mentioned rhetorical structure, we find various examples of rhetorical flourishes. They can be summarized and evidenced as follows:

ὅσα δίκαια,

ὅσα ἁγνά,

ὅσα προσφιλῆ,

ὅσα εὔφημα,

Homoioteleuton: Refers to the rhetorical repetition of similar sounding endings in parallel or adjacent words. “There is a deliberate play on the endings (homoioteleuton) of these adjectives: two end with η, four with α. Note also v. 9, where five verbs end in –ατε or –ετε.” (O’Brien 499).ὅσα ἐστιν ἀληθῆ,ὅσα σεμνά,ὅσα δίκαια,

ὅσα ἁγνά,

ὅσα προσφιλῆ,

ὅσα εὔφημα,ταῦτα πράσσετεἃ καὶ ἐμάθετε
   καὶ παρελάβετε
καὶ ἠκούσατε
καὶ εἴδετεMetonymy: Refers to the rhetorical usage of figure of speech to call something by a word that is not its name but closely identifies it with a concept (Exp: the term ‘Hollywood’ used in reference to American Cinema). An example is found in 4:1. “Here Paul, with a deep sense of gratitude, states that the Philippians are his joy. χαρά, by metonymy, describes that which causes joy or is the object of joy (cf. 1 Thes. 2:19-20; Lk 2:10).” (O’Brien 475)Ὥστε, ἀδελφοί μου ἀγαπητοὶ καὶ ἐπιπόθητοι, χαρὰ καὶ στέφανος μου,Polysyndeton: Refers to the rhetorical repetition of grammatically unnecessary conjunctions. “Suddenly Paul changes the sentence structure to conditional clauses—‘if anything is. . . .’—a rhetorical device that forces the reader to exercise his own discernment and choose what is ‘excellent’ . . . and ‘praiseworthy’” (Kent 152). εἴ τις ἀρετὴ καὶ εἴ τιςἔπαινος, Repetition: Refers to the rhetorical repetition of words, phrases, or ideas. “Paul uses four different words in reference to prayer . . . This variety does not indicate an attempt to identify four discrete types of, or elements in, prayer. Apart from the occurrence of eucharistia—which certainly refers to the distinct aspect of thanksgiving and which appears to receive some emphasis . . . the variation has a stylistic motive, reflected also in the triplet νοῦς, καρδία, νόημα . . . and in the fourfold repetition of πᾶς (pas, all; in the forms pantote [v. 4], pasin [v. 5], panti [v. 6], panta [v. 7]).” (Silva 195).Χαίρετε| (ἐν κυρίῳ)
ἐρῶ:
/ πάντοτε· πάλιν
χαίρετε.
τὸ ἐπιεικὲς ὑμῶν || γνωσθήτω| πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις.
ὁ κύριος [ἐστίν] ἐγγύς.
μεριμνᾶτε| μηδὲ
/ ἀλλ’ (ἐν παντὶ τῇ προσευχῇ καὶ τῇ δεήσει)
/ (μετὰ εὐχαριστίας)
\ τὰ αἰτήματα ὑμῶν || γνωριζέσθω| (πρὸς τὸν θεόν).καὶ ἡ εἰρήνη τοῦ θεοῦ || φρουρήσει| τὰς καρδίας ὑμῶν καὶ τὰ νοήματα ὑμῶν (ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ.)
| (ἡ ὑπερέχουσαπάντα νοῦν)

Step 8: Observe How Any Sources Were Used

            The eighth step of our Greek exegetical task is to determine how any sources were used. One specific section as an alleged source initiates the most discussion. This section concerns the interpretation and source of the listed virtues in 4:8 (ἀληθῆ, σεμνά, δίκαια, ἁγνά, προσφιλῆ, εὔφημα). Hawthorne and others interpret the section as Paul referencing a list of traditional Greco-pagan virtues found within “the Philippians cultural background, that is, to their familiarity with current pagan morality.”[48] This interpretation seems appealing, given the earlier play on the Philippians citizenship, however the surrounding context proves it unnecessary. Silva succinctly refutes the understanding of the list a borrowed Greco-pagan virtues by concluding:

Paul’s very use of the citizenship motif is intended to draw the Philippians attention’ to their higher Christian allegiance, and that is surely the case here as well. The idea that at this point in the letter Paul descends from such heights and asks his brothers merely to act like well-behaved Greek Citizens can hardly be taken seriously. Given the broad context of the epistle as a whole, the narrower context of 3:2-4:9 . . . and the immediate context of verse 9 in particular, we must understand Paul’s list as representing distinctly Christian virtues (though we need not deny that many non-Christian citizens exemplify such virtues in their lives).[49]

Step 9: Determine the Key Thought of Your Passage

            Having surveyed the historical and literary structure, and having addressed and analyzed any major textual, lexical, syntactical, structural, and rhetorical elements, we may now conclude with determining the central truth of the passage: Paul particularly exhorts Euodia and Syntyche to reconcile their differences for the sake of the gospel, and calls upon the church to aid in this reconciliation. In addition to urging Euodia and Syntyche towards “unity for the sake of the gospel” (1:27), Paul provides various general exhortations to guide Christians in “standing firm” for the Gospel’s sake (4:1). A homiletical outline may now be developed from these thoughts.

Step 10: Derive a Homiletical Outline From the Text

Bibliography

Black, David Alan. Linguistics for Students of New Testament Greek. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1995.

Carson, D.A., and Douglas J. Moo. Introducing the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005.

Fee, Gordon. Paul’s Letter to the Philippians. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995.

Gingrich, F. Wilbur. Shorter Lexicon of the Greek New Testament. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1969.

Hawthorne, G. F. Word Biblical Commentary: Philippians. Waco: Word Books, 1983.

Hooker, Morna. The Letter to the Philippians. Vol. XI, in The New Interpreter’s Bible. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2000.

Keck, Leander. “The Letter of Paul to the Philippians.” In The Interpreter’s One-Volume Commentary on the Bible, edited by Charles M. Laymon. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1971.

Kent, Homer A. Philippians. Vol. 11, in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, edited by Frank. E. Gaebelein. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978.

Luter, A. Boyd. “Philippians.” In Evangelical Commentary on the Bible, edited by Walter A. Elwell. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House Company, 1989.

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

O’Brien, Peter T. The Epistle to the Philippians. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1991.

Rutherford, John. International Standard Bible.com. Edited by James Orr. 1939. http://www.internationalstandardbible.com/P/philippians-the-epistle-to-the.html (accessed 12 2, 2011).

Silva, Moises. Philippians. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005.

Swift, Robert. “The Theme and Structure of Philippians.” Bibliotheca Sacra, no. 141 (1984): 234-254.

Watson, D. F. “A Rhetorical Analysis of Philippians and Its Implications for Unity Question.” Novum Testamentum 30 (1988): 57-88.

Wright, N. T. “Book of Philippians.” In Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible, edited by Kevin J. Vanhoozer. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006.