Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Why Paul wrote in Greek to the Romans
And why not -say- in Latin, the "official language" of Rome? Cicero
provides a concise, even if partial,
explanation (giving also - mutatis
mutandis - one of the reasons why this blog is
mostly in English rather than in Italian):
Juvenal's third satire (65 CE) tells us how contemporary Rome was filled with Greek-speaking people (divitibus gens acceptissima nostris, Juvenal says, with an interesting sociological remark). There is some modern relevance to the theme of people lamenting that their home country is "polluted" by foreigners and invoking the expulsion, in the name of the preservation of the "purer" race, of these foreigneres and in general of those adhering to foreign customs (emphasis mine):
Liturgically, Justin in his First Apology describes how the Eucharist was celebrated in Greek in Rome; on the other hand, we have a fragment of the De Sacramentis written by the Pseudo-Ambrose, ca. 400, where the Roman liturgy is apparently said in Latin. In liturgy then, the transition from Greek to Latin happened somewhere in between these data points, but it seems difficult or controversial to be more precise. We also know that under Pope Damasus (366-384) the Vulgate became the official version of the Bible used in the Roman liturgy. Greek did not disappear completely: for example, those familiar with Roman or Ambrosian Catholic rites can easily remember that parts of the Mass are still in Greek today (notably the invocation Kyrie Eleison). Note also the symbol IHΣ abbreviating the word ΙΗΣΟΥΣ, the so-called monogram of Christ XP, the two letters Α-Ω to signify beginning and end, and the iconography of the fish, Greek ΙΧΘΥΣ, acrostic for Ιησους Χριστος Θεου Υιος Σοτερ.
In summary, all evidence points to the fact that by the time Romans was written, a substantial part (if not the majority) of the population in Rome was bilingual, that contemporary Christian literature was indeed normally written in Greek, that Greek was a common (if not the usual) language of Roman Christians and a kind of lingua franca, and that Greek continued to be used in Rome and in Roman rites for several more decades and perhaps centuries. The transition from Greek to Latin happened gradually, with Greek's usage progressively disappearing; and by the end of the fourth century CE we have strong indications that Roman liturgy had converged into using Latin rather than Greek in most of its forms.
Nam si quis minorem gloriae fructum putat ex graecis versibus percipi quam ex latinis, vehementer errat, propterea quod graeca leguntur in omnibus fere gentibus, latina suis finibus, exiguis sane, continentur. (Cicero, Pro Archia, 23 - written 62 BCE)Which is not to say that Cicero did not want to cultivate good Latin writing, or that he was detached from his own Roman culture, as we know. I think this passage is interesting also because it could serve as a reminder of the difficult collocation of the literary genre of Romans: perhaps a personal letter to the Church of Rome, perhaps a sort of encyclical epistle, perhaps a kind of lehrbrief, or perhaps something else.
Juvenal's third satire (65 CE) tells us how contemporary Rome was filled with Greek-speaking people (divitibus gens acceptissima nostris, Juvenal says, with an interesting sociological remark). There is some modern relevance to the theme of people lamenting that their home country is "polluted" by foreigners and invoking the expulsion, in the name of the preservation of the "purer" race, of these foreigneres and in general of those adhering to foreign customs (emphasis mine):
Quae nunc divitibus gens acceptissima nostris et quos praecipue fugiam, properabo fateri, nec pudor opstabit. Non possum ferre, Quirites, Graecam urbem; quamvis quota potio faecis Achaei? Iam pridem Syrus in Tiberim defluxit Orontes, et linguam et mores et cum tibicine chordas obliquas nec non gentilia tympana secum vexit et ad circum iussas prostare puellas. Ite, quibus grata est picta lupa barbara mitra! (Juvenal, Satire 3, 58-66)Both Clemens Romanus (ca. 88-98 CE) and Ignatius of Antioch (ca. 98-115 CE) wrote in Greek, Ignatius specifically writing in Greek to the Church of Rome; there are several other examples of writers writing in Greek in Rome in the first centuries CE: for instance, Galen (in Rome after 168 CE, serving as physician to Emperor Marcus Aurelius and his son Commodus), or Justin Martyr (Apologia, 148-161 CE). On the other hand, the first known Christians writing in Latin are Apollonius and Pope Victor I (late 2nd half of II CE). Whoever visits the Roman catacombs soon realizes that most of the inscriptions there are written in Greek rather than in Latin: out of 534 inscriptions, 405 are in Greek, 123 in Latin, 3 in Hebrew, 1 in Aramaic, 1 is bilingual Greek-Latin, 1 is bilingual Greek-Aramaic (Fitzmyer, Romans, Introduction, VII; incidentally, the Italian edition - Lettera ai Romani, Piemme, 1999 - wrongly dates Cicero's Pro Archia to the 1st century CE rather than BCE). Apropos bilingualism, note the review of J.N. Adams, M. Janse, S. Swain, Bilingualism in Ancient Society: Language Contact and the Written Text, Oxford, 2002 - a book I hope to get access to soon.
Liturgically, Justin in his First Apology describes how the Eucharist was celebrated in Greek in Rome; on the other hand, we have a fragment of the De Sacramentis written by the Pseudo-Ambrose, ca. 400, where the Roman liturgy is apparently said in Latin. In liturgy then, the transition from Greek to Latin happened somewhere in between these data points, but it seems difficult or controversial to be more precise. We also know that under Pope Damasus (366-384) the Vulgate became the official version of the Bible used in the Roman liturgy. Greek did not disappear completely: for example, those familiar with Roman or Ambrosian Catholic rites can easily remember that parts of the Mass are still in Greek today (notably the invocation Kyrie Eleison). Note also the symbol IHΣ abbreviating the word ΙΗΣΟΥΣ, the so-called monogram of Christ XP, the two letters Α-Ω to signify beginning and end, and the iconography of the fish, Greek ΙΧΘΥΣ, acrostic for Ιησους Χριστος Θεου Υιος Σοτερ.
In summary, all evidence points to the fact that by the time Romans was written, a substantial part (if not the majority) of the population in Rome was bilingual, that contemporary Christian literature was indeed normally written in Greek, that Greek was a common (if not the usual) language of Roman Christians and a kind of lingua franca, and that Greek continued to be used in Rome and in Roman rites for several more decades and perhaps centuries. The transition from Greek to Latin happened gradually, with Greek's usage progressively disappearing; and by the end of the fourth century CE we have strong indications that Roman liturgy had converged into using Latin rather than Greek in most of its forms.
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
Freedom of, or freedom from?
After the post on the obedience
of faith, it seems fit to say something about freedom, a
concept popularly perceived as in opposition to obedience.
Romans 8:2 reads:
ὁ γὰρ νόμος τοῦ πνεύματος τῆς ζωῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ ἠλευθέρωσέν σε ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου τῆς ἁμαρτίας καὶ τοῦ θανάτου.
The point I would like to cover in this post regards the verb ἠλευθέρωσέν, aorist indicative from ελευθεροω, "to liberate", make free. As usual, I shall start looking where this verb (and the nouns ελευθερος, "free", and ελευθερια, "freedom") occurs in the NT, with the goal of better understanding its semantic domain.
First of all, the verb is from ερχομαι ("to go"), in the sense of "to go where one wishes", and therefore to be free. It is one of the key words of Paul's theology, where it is often used (to anticipate the conclusions) to mean freedom from the slavery of sin. The translations provided in this post all come from the ESV.
The verb ελευθεροω:
Here we need to note the key distinction between the two historical categories of the "freeman" (ελευθερος, latin ingenuus) and of the "freedman" (απελευθερος, latin libertinus). The freeman is the one who is born free. Does he have any merit for having been fortunate enough to be born free, or intelligent, or of a good family, or in the Western world, etc? No. The freedman, on the other hand, is the one who, although he was born as a slave, has been set free. Does he have any merit for this? No. (Regardless of his merits, his master could always refuse to grant him freedom.) But now, when we transpose this to Christianity, there is an important point to make: in the world the distinction between the freeman and the slave made free (the freedman) is still retained in terms of civil rights, or, in other words, being set free from your earthly master does not make you equal to a man born free (cf. Acts 22:28: The tribune answered, "I bought this citizenship for a large sum." Paul said, "But I am a citizen by birth."). In Christ, however, this distinction vanishes: what is important is only that you accept your being dependent upon (slave of) Christ, regardless of your natural descent: cf. Gal 3:28, οὐκ ἔνι ᾿Ιουδαῖος οὐδὲ ῞Ελλην, οὐκ ἔνι δοῦλος οὐδὲ ἐλεύθερος, οὐκ ἔνι ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ. And this for the very simple reason that, in Christ, it does not make sense to speak of a "natural freeman", because all are tainted by (i.e. enslaved by) sin - hence, the distinction disappears. In this sense, as the Roman freeman was the only true citizen of Rome, the Christian made free by Christ is the the only true citizen of the free city of Christianity.
This is all condensed in 1 Cor 7:22: ὁ γὰρ ἐν κυρίῳ κληθεὶς δοῦλος ἀπελεύθερος κυρίου ἐστίν· ὁμοίως ὁ ἐλεύθερος κληθεὶς δοῦλός ἐστιν Χριστοῦ. The noun ἀπελεύθερος refers to the free man who was once a slave (δοῦλος). So, Paul says, if you were a slave of a human master, you are now set free from that slavery (that is, from the slavery of the law); you are now a freedman, but still a freedman of the Lord (κυρίου). On the other hand, if you were a freeman, do not presume to be absolutely (literally: without ties, or bounds) free, because, if you accept the call of God, you are now a slave of Christ. If you don't, you simply remain in your state of slavery. 2 Pet 2:19: ἐλευθερίαν αὐτοῖς ἐπαγγελλόμενοι, αὐτοὶ δοῦλοι ὑπάρχοντες τῆς φθορᾶς· ᾧ γάρ τις ἥττηται, τούτῳ δεδούλωται. That is, if you don't remove the cause of what overcomes (ηττηται, from ητταω, lit. to make less, inferior) you - that is, sin -, you remain in a state of slavery with regard to exactly those things that overcome you.
So, what is this freedom/ελευθερια? It is really "to go where one wishes", as the etymology suggests, but not primarily in terms of ethical behavior. It is freedom from the slavery of sin, and this freedom we can get through another freedom: the freedom to choose whether to be slave of sin, or not (and, incidentally, if we believe this is true freedom, we ought to respect it for what it is: if one really wants to be a slave, be he a slave). It is in the end really a freedom from, from sin, and from all sinful structures. 1 Cor 9:19: ᾿Ελεύθερος γὰρ ὢν ἐκ πάντων...: freedom from all, but which cannot be disjointed by the obedience of faith, by the slavery to Christ (hence, to all in Christ). Freedom and obedience go hand in hand. ελευθερια is primarily existential, ontological, theoretical, and only then practical and applied. Paul's paradox is in seeing that one first needs to accept its state of slavery before he can be set free, and that one needs to recognize that his real human nature calls for an actual recognition of his dependency on Christ's grace for salvation - which is perhaps a more palatable way, given our modern sensitivities, of expressing the need for one's voluntary slavery to Christ.
Romans 8:2 reads:
ὁ γὰρ νόμος τοῦ πνεύματος τῆς ζωῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ ἠλευθέρωσέν σε ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου τῆς ἁμαρτίας καὶ τοῦ θανάτου.
The point I would like to cover in this post regards the verb ἠλευθέρωσέν, aorist indicative from ελευθεροω, "to liberate", make free. As usual, I shall start looking where this verb (and the nouns ελευθερος, "free", and ελευθερια, "freedom") occurs in the NT, with the goal of better understanding its semantic domain.
First of all, the verb is from ερχομαι ("to go"), in the sense of "to go where one wishes", and therefore to be free. It is one of the key words of Paul's theology, where it is often used (to anticipate the conclusions) to mean freedom from the slavery of sin. The translations provided in this post all come from the ESV.
The verb ελευθεροω:
- Joh 8:32 and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.
- Joh 8:36 So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.
- Rom 6:18 and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness.
- Rom 6:22 But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the fruit you get leads to sanctification and its end, eternal life.
- Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death.
- Rom 8:21 that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God.
- Gal 5:1 For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.
- Mat 17:26 And when he said, "From others," Jesus said to him, "Then the sons are free."
- Joh 8:33 They answered him, "We are offspring of Abraham and have never been enslaved to anyone. How is it that you say, 'You will become free'?"
- Joh 8:36 So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.
- Rom 6:20 When you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness.
- Rom 7:3 Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress.
- 1Co 7:21 Were you a slave when called? Do not be concerned about it. But if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity.
- 1Co 7:22 For he who was called in the Lord as a slave is a freedman of the Lord. Likewise he who was free when called is a slave of Christ.
- 1Co 7:39 A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.
- 1Co 9:1 Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are not you my workmanship in the Lord?
- 1Co 9:19 For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them.
- 1Co 12:13 For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body--Jews or Greeks, slaves or free--and all were made to drink of one Spirit.
- Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
- Gal 4:22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman.
- Gal 4:23 But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise.
- Gal 4:26 But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother.
- Gal 4:30 But what does the Scripture say? "Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman."
- Gal 4:31 So, brothers, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman.
- Eph 6:8 knowing that whatever good anyone does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether he is a slave or free.
- Col 3:11 Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all.
- 1Pe 2:16 Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God.
- Rev 6:15 Then the kings of the earth and the great ones and the generals and the rich and the powerful, and everyone, slave and free, hid themselves in the caves and among the rocks of the mountains,
- Rev 13:16 Also it causes all, both small and great, both rich and poor, both free and slave, to be marked on the right hand or the forehead,
- Rev 19:18 to eat the flesh of kings, the flesh of captains, the flesh of mighty men, the flesh of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all men, both free and slave, both small and great."
- Rom 8:21 that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God.
- 1Co 10:29 I do not mean your conscience, but his. For why should my liberty be determined by someone else's conscience?
- 2Co 3:17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.
- Gal 2:4 Yet because of false brothers secretly brought in--who slipped in to spy out our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might bring us into slavery--
- Gal 5:1 For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.
- Gal 5:13 For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.
- Jam 1:25 But the one who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, he will be blessed in his doing.
- Jam 2:12 So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty.
- 1Pe 2:16 Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God.
- 2Pe 2:19 They promise them freedom, but they themselves are slaves of corruption. For whatever overcomes a person, to that he is enslaved.
Here we need to note the key distinction between the two historical categories of the "freeman" (ελευθερος, latin ingenuus) and of the "freedman" (απελευθερος, latin libertinus). The freeman is the one who is born free. Does he have any merit for having been fortunate enough to be born free, or intelligent, or of a good family, or in the Western world, etc? No. The freedman, on the other hand, is the one who, although he was born as a slave, has been set free. Does he have any merit for this? No. (Regardless of his merits, his master could always refuse to grant him freedom.) But now, when we transpose this to Christianity, there is an important point to make: in the world the distinction between the freeman and the slave made free (the freedman) is still retained in terms of civil rights, or, in other words, being set free from your earthly master does not make you equal to a man born free (cf. Acts 22:28: The tribune answered, "I bought this citizenship for a large sum." Paul said, "But I am a citizen by birth."). In Christ, however, this distinction vanishes: what is important is only that you accept your being dependent upon (slave of) Christ, regardless of your natural descent: cf. Gal 3:28, οὐκ ἔνι ᾿Ιουδαῖος οὐδὲ ῞Ελλην, οὐκ ἔνι δοῦλος οὐδὲ ἐλεύθερος, οὐκ ἔνι ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ. And this for the very simple reason that, in Christ, it does not make sense to speak of a "natural freeman", because all are tainted by (i.e. enslaved by) sin - hence, the distinction disappears. In this sense, as the Roman freeman was the only true citizen of Rome, the Christian made free by Christ is the the only true citizen of the free city of Christianity.
This is all condensed in 1 Cor 7:22: ὁ γὰρ ἐν κυρίῳ κληθεὶς δοῦλος ἀπελεύθερος κυρίου ἐστίν· ὁμοίως ὁ ἐλεύθερος κληθεὶς δοῦλός ἐστιν Χριστοῦ. The noun ἀπελεύθερος refers to the free man who was once a slave (δοῦλος). So, Paul says, if you were a slave of a human master, you are now set free from that slavery (that is, from the slavery of the law); you are now a freedman, but still a freedman of the Lord (κυρίου). On the other hand, if you were a freeman, do not presume to be absolutely (literally: without ties, or bounds) free, because, if you accept the call of God, you are now a slave of Christ. If you don't, you simply remain in your state of slavery. 2 Pet 2:19: ἐλευθερίαν αὐτοῖς ἐπαγγελλόμενοι, αὐτοὶ δοῦλοι ὑπάρχοντες τῆς φθορᾶς· ᾧ γάρ τις ἥττηται, τούτῳ δεδούλωται. That is, if you don't remove the cause of what overcomes (ηττηται, from ητταω, lit. to make less, inferior) you - that is, sin -, you remain in a state of slavery with regard to exactly those things that overcome you.
So, what is this freedom/ελευθερια? It is really "to go where one wishes", as the etymology suggests, but not primarily in terms of ethical behavior. It is freedom from the slavery of sin, and this freedom we can get through another freedom: the freedom to choose whether to be slave of sin, or not (and, incidentally, if we believe this is true freedom, we ought to respect it for what it is: if one really wants to be a slave, be he a slave). It is in the end really a freedom from, from sin, and from all sinful structures. 1 Cor 9:19: ᾿Ελεύθερος γὰρ ὢν ἐκ πάντων...: freedom from all, but which cannot be disjointed by the obedience of faith, by the slavery to Christ (hence, to all in Christ). Freedom and obedience go hand in hand. ελευθερια is primarily existential, ontological, theoretical, and only then practical and applied. Paul's paradox is in seeing that one first needs to accept its state of slavery before he can be set free, and that one needs to recognize that his real human nature calls for an actual recognition of his dependency on Christ's grace for salvation - which is perhaps a more palatable way, given our modern sensitivities, of expressing the need for one's voluntary slavery to Christ.
Thursday, September 07, 2006
The obedience of faith
In Rom 1:5 we find the expression
υπακοη
πιστεως:
Rom 1:1Παῦλος δοῦλος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ, κλητὸς ἀπόστολος, ἀφωρισμένος εἰς εὐαγγέλιον θεοῦ,
2ὃ προεπηγγείλατο διὰ τῶν προφητῶν αὐτοῦ ἐν γραφαῖς ἁγίαις,
3περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ τοῦ γενομένου ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυὶδ κατὰ σάρκα,
4τοῦ ὁρισθέντος υἱοῦ θεοῦ ἐν δυνάμει κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν, Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν,
5δι' οὗ ἐλάβομεν χάριν καὶ ἀποστολὴν εἰς ὑπακοὴν πίστεως ἐν πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν ὑπὲρ τοῦ ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ,
6ἐν οἷς ἐστε καὶ ὑμεῖς κλητοὶ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ,
How should one translate εις υπακοην πιστεως? What does it refer to?
As for translation, one could literally render it as "to obtain/bring about obedience of faith" and be done with it. But in reality there are several questions to be asked:
1. The meaning of υπακοη
This is where the word υπακοη occurs in the NT (ESV translation):
A cursory look to the lists above shows that υπακοη seems to be a rather cherished word for Paul. Etymologically, υπακοη is formed by υπο + ακουω, i.e. "hear under". There is then the meaning of attentive listening, and, by implication, of conforming to some command or authority.
It is useful to compare it with its opposite "disobedience", i.e. παρακοη (cf. Rom 5:19, 2 Cor 10:6), formed by παρα + ακουω, that is, "hear aside", or mis-hear, and, by implication, neglect to hear. παρακοη is a rare word, and is purposedly employed in contrast with υπακοη. In Rom 5:19, παρακοη is the sin of Adam, which sheds some light on its true meaning (cf. Gen 3): the willful refusal of God's commandments. By contrast, then, obedience is true listening to God's message; in particular, the Pauline model of obedience is Christ, and this not only ethically, so to speak, but soteriologically: the effects of Christ's obedience, that is, διὰ τῆς ὑπακοῆς τοῦ ἑνὸς δίκαιοι κατασταθήσονται οἱ πολλοί, are in themselves a model for the individual effect brought about by obedience: through (δια) obedience the Christian shall be saved. Paul states the same thing in Rom 6:16, when he speaks of obedience εἰς δικαιοσύνην, εις having as usual a meaning of causality: obedience toward/meant to achieve/leading to righteousness.
It is interesting to note that a more common word for "disobedience" is απειθεια, rather than παρακοη, cf. e.g. Rom 11:30, ὥσπερ γὰρ καὶ ὑμεῖς ποτε ἠπειθήσατε τῷ Θεῷ, νῦν δὲ ἠλεήθητε τῇ τούτων ἀπειθείᾳ ("Just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience"), which is from α + πειθω, i.e. "un-convince", or "un-believe". While παρακοη is contrasted to υπακοη within the framework of the presence of God, απειθεια is more linked to unfaithfulness, or refusal to believe in the first place. So the Vulgate, for example, translates Rom 11:30 as "sicut enim aliquando et vos non credidistis Deo nunc autem misericordiam consecuti estis propter illorum incredulitatem." In other words, υπακοη is a word whose meaning must be looked within the context of faith (note the aorist tense of ἠπειθήσατε). And indeed, in Rom 1:1-8 it is clear that Paul speaks to "all who are in Rome, loved by God", and who have already embraced the faith of Christ ("I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is proclaimed in all the world", Rom 1:8). The "bringing about" of obedience is something that applies to the faithful.
From the quotations above, we see that in the NT "obedience" can be seen as the response of a slave toward a master. For Paul, who declares himself (Rom 1:1) δοῦλος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ, this would then be first and foremost obedience to Jesus Christ or, more precisely, to the claims of Jesus Christ. This is the obedience that (2 Cor 10:5) aligns every thought toward (εις) Jesus, that is, toward hearing and following him. Mishearing him then is disobedience (παρακοη), that must be fought and eventually punished (2 Cor 10:6). But it is important to stress that this "obedience" is really dedication of the slave to his master: in other words, Christian obedience implies positive engagement and personal commitment, rather than simply submission. (cf. Col 3:22, "obey [...] not by way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but with sincerity of heart.")
But while we are speaking of positive engagement, it is interesting to note that in Classical Greek the verb υπακουω has also the meaning of "answer (by voice or act) when called", or "answer (in a dialogue) when questioned" (LSJ). So, for example, in Homer, Odyssey 10.83, we find
ὅθι ποιμένα ποιμὴν ἠπύει εἰσελάων, ὁ δέ τ' ἐξελάων ὑπακούει
which can be translated as "where herdsman calls to herdsman as he drives in his flock, and the other answers as he drives his forth." I suggest that this link between obedience and [proper] answer to the call of God is implicit in the word υπακοη as used by Paul, and should not be forgotten. It is also apparently this meaning that the translation of Act 12:13b renders as "a servant girl named Rhoda came to answer [ὑπακοῦσαι]". ("answer a knock at the door" is another meaning of υπακουω found also in Classical Greek, and explicitly listed by LSJ.)
2. The genitive πιστεως
The positive engagement mentioned above is actually embedded - so to speak - in the Pauline concept of faith. For Paul, faith originates from personal hearing:
Rom 10:16᾿Αλλ᾿ οὐ πάντες ὑπήκουσαν τῷ εὐαγγελίω
17ἄρα ἡ πίστις ἐξ ἀκοῆς, ἡ δὲ ἀκοὴ διὰ ῥήματος Θεοῦ.
Which we may translate as, "But not all properly answered to (ὑπήκουσαν) the call of the gospel [or, obeyed to the gospel]. So, faith comes from hearing (ἐξ ἀκοῆς), and hearing comes through the word of God". Obedience then, which originates from faith through the word of God, is obedience to the gospel (the gospel "of our Lord Jesus Christ", 2 Th 1:8). Obedience (υπακοη), then, is the ultimate hearing (ακοη), and the complete expression of faith.
In the OT, faith, listening, and obedience are also closely linked: "obedience" is often the translation of שׁמע, originally "to hear", but also (BDB, Qal) "to hear with attention or interest, listen to", "to give heed", "to obey, be obedient"; it is typically associated with "voice" (very often of God), and translated in the LXX with ακουω or εισακουω (take notice in the latter word of the dynamics introduced by the preposition εις, and compare it with the Latin oboedire, from ob+audire). Cf. for example Gen 22:18, Gen 27:8, Ex 5:2 ("Who is the Lord, that I should obey his voice..."), Dt 4:30, etc.
Having considered all these things, how should we interpret the genitive πιστεως then? The preposition εις in the expression ἐλάβομεν χάριν καὶ ἀποστολὴν εἰς ὑπακοὴν πίστεως gives us a hint, since it suggest a movement toward obedience, in a context of faith. It does not seem then that an epexegetical genitive is appropriate here, that is, it does not seem that Paul wants to identify faith with obedience ("obedience that is faith"). Similarly, it does not seem that Paul has in mind an objective genitive, "obedience rendered to faith", as if identifying faith with a corpus of doctrines to which obedience is due. And it is not a genitive of production ("obedience produced by faith"), not in the sense of the production of obedience directly coming from faith, as a necessary consequence.
Rather, it seems to me that a translation of εἰς ὑπακοὴν πίστεως needs to take into account several points: attentive submission, personal commitment and answer, and the dynamic nature of obedience as expression of a growing faith. As Heb 5:8 shows (καίπερ ὢν υἱὸς, ἔμαθεν ἀφ᾿ ὧν ἔπαθε τὴν ὑπακοήν - "although he was a son, he learned obedience through [or from/because of] what he suffered"), and as the preposition εις confirms with its meaning of purposedness, obedience is a progressive engagement, incarnated - if I may say so - in our incarnated faith. A faith that, to adopt terminology dear to Pauline theology, must always take into account our nature of man subject to personal sin. A suitable translation (or rather paraphrase) of the expression εἰς ὑπακοὴν πίστεως could then be along the lines of "to bring about that obedience, that is personal answer to and full expression of faith [in the gospel of Jesus Christ]".
3. Conclusion
Many translations simply translate εις υπακοην πιστεως with "to bring about the obedience of faith". But an understanding of the meaning of true Christian obedience is vital to avoid falling, on the one hand, into rigid and cold observance of precepts ("the law"), and, on the other hand, into the illusion that faith by itself provides or produces obedience.
In this post I have argued instead that Christian obedience does come from faith, but in an evolving way, as a result of our journey in the faith of Jesus Christ, and that obedience can only be conceived in a framework of personal engagement with the gospel. In this sense, we should speak of the daily walk toward obedience, ultimate expression of the Christian faith.
Rom 1:1Παῦλος δοῦλος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ, κλητὸς ἀπόστολος, ἀφωρισμένος εἰς εὐαγγέλιον θεοῦ,
2ὃ προεπηγγείλατο διὰ τῶν προφητῶν αὐτοῦ ἐν γραφαῖς ἁγίαις,
3περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ τοῦ γενομένου ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυὶδ κατὰ σάρκα,
4τοῦ ὁρισθέντος υἱοῦ θεοῦ ἐν δυνάμει κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν, Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν,
5δι' οὗ ἐλάβομεν χάριν καὶ ἀποστολὴν εἰς ὑπακοὴν πίστεως ἐν πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν ὑπὲρ τοῦ ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ,
6ἐν οἷς ἐστε καὶ ὑμεῖς κλητοὶ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ,
How should one translate εις υπακοην πιστεως? What does it refer to?
As for translation, one could literally render it as "to obtain/bring about obedience of faith" and be done with it. But in reality there are several questions to be asked:
- Does the translation "obedience" truly make justice to the meaning of υπακοη? What does Paul mean by "obedience"?
- What type of genitive is πιστεως? Should we say "obedience that is expression of faith"? Or simply "obedience that is faith" (epexegetical, or genitive of definition)? Or "obedience produced by faith" (genitive of production)? Or again "obedience rendered to faith" (objective genitive)? Does our understanding of faith (πιστις) influence our choice of the type of genitive and how?
1. The meaning of υπακοη
This is where the word υπακοη occurs in the NT (ESV translation):
- Rom 1:5: through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations,
- Rom 5:19: For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.
- Rom 6:16: Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?
- Rom 15:18: For I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has accomplished through me to bring the Gentiles to obedience--by word and deed,
- Rom 16:19: For your obedience is known to all, so that I rejoice over you, but I want you to be wise as to what is good and innocent as to what is evil.
- Rom 16:26: but has now been disclosed and through the prophetic writings has been made known to all nations, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith--
- 2Cor 7:15: And his affection for you is even greater, as he remembers the obedience of you all, how you received him with fear and trembling.
- 2Cor 10:5: We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ, (lit: the obedience of Christ, εἰς τὴν ὑπακοὴν τοῦ Χριστοῦ)
- 2Cor 10:6: being ready to punish every disobedience (πᾶσαν παρακοήν), when your obedience is complete.
- Phm 1:21: Confident of your obedience, I write to you, knowing that you will do even more than I say.
- Heb 5:8: Although he was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered.
- 1Pet 1:2: according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ (ὑπακοὴν ...᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ) and for sprinkling with his blood: May grace and peace be multiplied to you.
- 1Pet 1:14: As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your former ignorance,
- 1Pet 1:22: Having purified your souls by your obedience to the truth (ἐν τῇ ὑπακοῇ τῆς ἀληθείας) for a sincere brotherly love, love one another earnestly from a pure heart,
- Mar 1:27: And they were all amazed, so that they questioned among themselves, saying, "What is this? A new teaching with authority! He commands even the unclean spirits, and they obey him."
- Mar 4:41 (par. Mat 8:27, Luke 8:25): And they were filled with great fear and said to one another, "Who then is this, that even wind and sea obey him?"
- Luk 17:6: And the Lord said, "If you had faith like a grain of mustard seed, you could say to this mulberry tree, 'Be uprooted and planted in the sea,' and it would obey you.
- Act 6:7: And the word of God continued to increase, and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests became obedient to the faith (ὑπήκουον τῇ πίστει).
- Act 12:13: And when he knocked at the door of the gateway, a servant girl named Rhoda came to answer (ὑπακοῦσαι).
- Rom 6:12: Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal bodies, to make you obey their passions.
- Rom 6:16: Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?
- Rom 6:17: But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed,
- Rom 10:16: But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?"
- Eph 6:1: Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right.
- Eph 6:5: Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ,
- Phi 2:12: Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling,
- Col 3:20: Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord.
- Col 3:22: Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not by way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord.
- 2Th 1:8: in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.
- 2Th 3:14: If anyone does not obey what we say in this letter, take note of that person, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed.
- Heb 5:9: And being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him,
- Heb 11:8: By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place that he was to receive as an inheritance. And he went out, not knowing where he was going.
- 1Pe 3:6: as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening.
A cursory look to the lists above shows that υπακοη seems to be a rather cherished word for Paul. Etymologically, υπακοη is formed by υπο + ακουω, i.e. "hear under". There is then the meaning of attentive listening, and, by implication, of conforming to some command or authority.
It is useful to compare it with its opposite "disobedience", i.e. παρακοη (cf. Rom 5:19, 2 Cor 10:6), formed by παρα + ακουω, that is, "hear aside", or mis-hear, and, by implication, neglect to hear. παρακοη is a rare word, and is purposedly employed in contrast with υπακοη. In Rom 5:19, παρακοη is the sin of Adam, which sheds some light on its true meaning (cf. Gen 3): the willful refusal of God's commandments. By contrast, then, obedience is true listening to God's message; in particular, the Pauline model of obedience is Christ, and this not only ethically, so to speak, but soteriologically: the effects of Christ's obedience, that is, διὰ τῆς ὑπακοῆς τοῦ ἑνὸς δίκαιοι κατασταθήσονται οἱ πολλοί, are in themselves a model for the individual effect brought about by obedience: through (δια) obedience the Christian shall be saved. Paul states the same thing in Rom 6:16, when he speaks of obedience εἰς δικαιοσύνην, εις having as usual a meaning of causality: obedience toward/meant to achieve/leading to righteousness.
It is interesting to note that a more common word for "disobedience" is απειθεια, rather than παρακοη, cf. e.g. Rom 11:30, ὥσπερ γὰρ καὶ ὑμεῖς ποτε ἠπειθήσατε τῷ Θεῷ, νῦν δὲ ἠλεήθητε τῇ τούτων ἀπειθείᾳ ("Just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience"), which is from α + πειθω, i.e. "un-convince", or "un-believe". While παρακοη is contrasted to υπακοη within the framework of the presence of God, απειθεια is more linked to unfaithfulness, or refusal to believe in the first place. So the Vulgate, for example, translates Rom 11:30 as "sicut enim aliquando et vos non credidistis Deo nunc autem misericordiam consecuti estis propter illorum incredulitatem." In other words, υπακοη is a word whose meaning must be looked within the context of faith (note the aorist tense of ἠπειθήσατε). And indeed, in Rom 1:1-8 it is clear that Paul speaks to "all who are in Rome, loved by God", and who have already embraced the faith of Christ ("I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is proclaimed in all the world", Rom 1:8). The "bringing about" of obedience is something that applies to the faithful.
From the quotations above, we see that in the NT "obedience" can be seen as the response of a slave toward a master. For Paul, who declares himself (Rom 1:1) δοῦλος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ, this would then be first and foremost obedience to Jesus Christ or, more precisely, to the claims of Jesus Christ. This is the obedience that (2 Cor 10:5) aligns every thought toward (εις) Jesus, that is, toward hearing and following him. Mishearing him then is disobedience (παρακοη), that must be fought and eventually punished (2 Cor 10:6). But it is important to stress that this "obedience" is really dedication of the slave to his master: in other words, Christian obedience implies positive engagement and personal commitment, rather than simply submission. (cf. Col 3:22, "obey [...] not by way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but with sincerity of heart.")
But while we are speaking of positive engagement, it is interesting to note that in Classical Greek the verb υπακουω has also the meaning of "answer (by voice or act) when called", or "answer (in a dialogue) when questioned" (LSJ). So, for example, in Homer, Odyssey 10.83, we find
ὅθι ποιμένα ποιμὴν ἠπύει εἰσελάων, ὁ δέ τ' ἐξελάων ὑπακούει
which can be translated as "where herdsman calls to herdsman as he drives in his flock, and the other answers as he drives his forth." I suggest that this link between obedience and [proper] answer to the call of God is implicit in the word υπακοη as used by Paul, and should not be forgotten. It is also apparently this meaning that the translation of Act 12:13b renders as "a servant girl named Rhoda came to answer [ὑπακοῦσαι]". ("answer a knock at the door" is another meaning of υπακουω found also in Classical Greek, and explicitly listed by LSJ.)
2. The genitive πιστεως
The positive engagement mentioned above is actually embedded - so to speak - in the Pauline concept of faith. For Paul, faith originates from personal hearing:
Rom 10:16᾿Αλλ᾿ οὐ πάντες ὑπήκουσαν τῷ εὐαγγελίω
17ἄρα ἡ πίστις ἐξ ἀκοῆς, ἡ δὲ ἀκοὴ διὰ ῥήματος Θεοῦ.
Which we may translate as, "But not all properly answered to (ὑπήκουσαν) the call of the gospel [or, obeyed to the gospel]. So, faith comes from hearing (ἐξ ἀκοῆς), and hearing comes through the word of God". Obedience then, which originates from faith through the word of God, is obedience to the gospel (the gospel "of our Lord Jesus Christ", 2 Th 1:8). Obedience (υπακοη), then, is the ultimate hearing (ακοη), and the complete expression of faith.
In the OT, faith, listening, and obedience are also closely linked: "obedience" is often the translation of שׁמע, originally "to hear", but also (BDB, Qal) "to hear with attention or interest, listen to", "to give heed", "to obey, be obedient"; it is typically associated with "voice" (very often of God), and translated in the LXX with ακουω or εισακουω (take notice in the latter word of the dynamics introduced by the preposition εις, and compare it with the Latin oboedire, from ob+audire). Cf. for example Gen 22:18, Gen 27:8, Ex 5:2 ("Who is the Lord, that I should obey his voice..."), Dt 4:30, etc.
Having considered all these things, how should we interpret the genitive πιστεως then? The preposition εις in the expression ἐλάβομεν χάριν καὶ ἀποστολὴν εἰς ὑπακοὴν πίστεως gives us a hint, since it suggest a movement toward obedience, in a context of faith. It does not seem then that an epexegetical genitive is appropriate here, that is, it does not seem that Paul wants to identify faith with obedience ("obedience that is faith"). Similarly, it does not seem that Paul has in mind an objective genitive, "obedience rendered to faith", as if identifying faith with a corpus of doctrines to which obedience is due. And it is not a genitive of production ("obedience produced by faith"), not in the sense of the production of obedience directly coming from faith, as a necessary consequence.
Rather, it seems to me that a translation of εἰς ὑπακοὴν πίστεως needs to take into account several points: attentive submission, personal commitment and answer, and the dynamic nature of obedience as expression of a growing faith. As Heb 5:8 shows (καίπερ ὢν υἱὸς, ἔμαθεν ἀφ᾿ ὧν ἔπαθε τὴν ὑπακοήν - "although he was a son, he learned obedience through [or from/because of] what he suffered"), and as the preposition εις confirms with its meaning of purposedness, obedience is a progressive engagement, incarnated - if I may say so - in our incarnated faith. A faith that, to adopt terminology dear to Pauline theology, must always take into account our nature of man subject to personal sin. A suitable translation (or rather paraphrase) of the expression εἰς ὑπακοὴν πίστεως could then be along the lines of "to bring about that obedience, that is personal answer to and full expression of faith [in the gospel of Jesus Christ]".
3. Conclusion
Many translations simply translate εις υπακοην πιστεως with "to bring about the obedience of faith". But an understanding of the meaning of true Christian obedience is vital to avoid falling, on the one hand, into rigid and cold observance of precepts ("the law"), and, on the other hand, into the illusion that faith by itself provides or produces obedience.
In this post I have argued instead that Christian obedience does come from faith, but in an evolving way, as a result of our journey in the faith of Jesus Christ, and that obedience can only be conceived in a framework of personal engagement with the gospel. In this sense, we should speak of the daily walk toward obedience, ultimate expression of the Christian faith.
