The Chiasmus of 2 Tim 1:3—14

³ I thank God whom I serve, as did my ancestors, with a clear conscience, as I remember you constantly in my prayers night and day. ⁴ As I remember your tears, I long to see you, that I may be filled with joy. ⁵ I am reminded of your sincere faith, a faith that dwelt first in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice and now, I am sure, dwells in you as well. ⁶ For this reason I remind you to— 

A. fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you

   B. through the laying on of my hands,

      C. ⁷ for God gave us a spirit not of fear but of power and love and self-control.

            D. ⁸ (i) Therefore do not be ashamed of

                 (ii) the testimony about our Lord, nor of me his prisoner, but

            E. share in suffering for the gospel by the power of God,

                F. ⁹ who saved us and called us to a holy calling,

X. not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began, ¹⁰ and which now has been manifested through the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel, (i.e., the gospel)

    F. ¹¹ for which I was appointed a preacher and apostle and teacher,

E. ¹² which is why I suffer as I do.

D. (i) But I am not ashamed, for I know whom I have believed, and I am convinced that he             is able to guard until that Day what has been entrusted to me^.13 

      (ii) Follow the pattern of the sound words that you have heard from me,

      C. in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus.

 

   B. ¹⁴ By the Holy Spirit who dwells within us,

A. guard the good deposit entrusted to you.

Are the Dispensationalists Right on Revelation 1:19?

Within the dispensational tradition of Revelation’s interpretation, 1:19 has been held as a sort of flagship verse; this verse is understood to present a summary (and chronological) outline of the entire book.  For instance, John Walvoord presents this verse’s threefold breakdown clearly, following Chafer and Criswell.[1]  My interest is particularly focused on the first two clauses of v. 19.[2] 

Regarding the first clause, “the things which thou hast seen,” Walvoord remarks, “the things referred to as having already been seen are those contained in chapter 1, where John had his preliminary vision.”[3]  However, “seen” in v. 19a is eidō, which is in the second aorist, active indicative in the second person.  In 1:2c this same verb is used, but only in the third person, thus St. John referring to himself, said, “of all things that he saw.”  Here, in v. 2, Walvoord recognizes that what the verb means is a “complete recital” of all the visions contained in the book.[4]  There does not seem to be, therefore, any exegetical ground for assuming that in 1:19 St. John means something as restrictive as the content of chapter one alone; rather, it is best to take the first clause of v. 19 as meaning the full content of all the visions of the book, as in v. 2.  Examining the second clause of v. 19 also points to this conclusion.

In strict conformity with the dispensational-chronological approach to v. 19, Walvoord suggests that v. 19b, “the second division, ‘the things which are,’ most naturally includes chapters 2 and 3 with the seven messages Christ delivered to the churches.”[5]  Ironically, what triggered my more careful analysis of this verse’s interpretive import was a remark made in The Companion Bible by Bullinger, who is well known for both his great scholarship and his classical dispensational treatment of Revelation.  Concerning the second clause of v. 19, Bullinger’s notes read: “the [things which] are = what they are, i.e. what they signify.”[6]  Accordingly, the first two clauses mean that John was to write down all the apocalyptic visions of the Revelation and also what they mean, or signify, or point toward.  A look at the language of the second clause certainly fleshes Bullinger’s hint out.

The verb used in v. 19b, “the things which are,” is eisi, the third person, plural present indicative of eimi.  When one traces its usage throughout the Revelation, it becomes clear that St. John intended this verb to serve as a flag for an interpretation of a particular visionary datum.  For instance, in its next use, 4:5, we learn that what St. John sees as the “seven lamps of fire burning before the throne…are the seven Spirits of God.”  Likewise, the seemingly strange anatomical features of the Lamb in 5:6, the “seven horns and seven eyes,” actually signify or “are” the “seven Spirits of God.”  The “golden vials full of odours…are the prayers of the saints” (v. 8).  Again, in 7:13, St. John asked the angel “what are these which are arrayed in white robes.”  The angel answered, “these are they which came out of great tribulation” (v. 14).  Moreover, the two witnesses “are the two olive trees…candlesticks” (11:3—4).  The frogs of 16:13 “are the spirits of devils” (v. 14); and the “seven heads…are seven kings” (17:9), just as the “waters…are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues” (v. 15).  Granted, apart from this interpretive usage paradigm of eisi, the verb is also used in simple predication (e.g., 4:11, etc.).  Nevertheless, the predicative use notwithstanding, the significance of the verb throughout the Revelation is that it flags a vision interpretation: picturesque datum à (eisi) à interpretation. 

Therefore, according to 1:19 in the context of Revelation and St. John’s vocabulary and usage, it seems that the standard dispensational-chronological outline understanding of v. 19, as expressed by Walvoord et al., is a bit forced at best.  Instead, Jesus is here commanding St. John to write the visions and also report what they signify or mean.  Thoughts anyone? 

---

[1] John F. Walvoord, The Revelation of Jesus Christ (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1989), 48.

[2] Interestingly, the NIV seems to follow this tradition relatively hard with its highly interpretive take on 1:19: “Write, therefore, what you have seen, what is now and what will take place later” (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), ad loc.  Granted, the NIV is admittedly in the dynamic equivalent translation tradition.  However, that the translators decided to put “now” for the Greek verb eisi (i.e., ‘are,’ ‘be,’ ‘were’) is telling of their commitment to the dispensational interpretive tradition.  It reduces this verse of the text to an inaccurate paraphrase.   

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid., 36.

[5] Ibid., 48.

[6] The Companion Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1990), ad loc.

LIMITED ATONEMENT FROM JOHN 10

(A) Jesus laid his life down for the sheep (vv 11, 15, 18).
   (A. 1) If, Jesus' death was intended to atone only for those who believe;[i]
   (A. 2) and, being a sheep is a necessary precondition for belief (v 26),[ii]
   (A. 3) then, Jesus' death was intended to atone only for sheep.
(B) Certain ones, however, are not sheep (v 26).
(C) Therefore, Jesus' death was not intended to atone for non-sheep.

(D) The intent of the atonement was, therefore, limited.

---

[i] E.g., Jn 6:37—40 plainly states that all whom the Father gives the Son will come (ἤξει, the future, active indicative of ἥκω) to the Son; of those who come, the Son will never, never cast out (note double negative in the Greek); Jesus came to do only the will of the Father, which was to raise up on the last day all those given him, losing nothing.  The Father’s will, finally, is that every believing-one on Jesus should have eternal life (see also Jn 3:16 below).  Therefore, it is God’s will that only believers gain eternal life.  For these, and these only, did Jesus’ death atone. 

The same is demonstrable from Jn 3:16.

JOHN 3:14b—16 (trans. mine)

14b.   οὕτως ὑψωθῆναι δεῖ τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, 15a.   ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται,            b.   ἀλλ᾿ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον. 16a.   οὕτω γὰρ ἡγάπησεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν κόσμον,         b.   ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν,         c.    ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται,             d.    ἀλλ᾿ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον.

14b.   In this manner, [also], the Son of Man [must be lifted up, supplied from 14a], 15a.    in order that [or, for the purpose of] every believing-one into Him may not perish,         b.    but may have life eternal. 16a.   [This is so] because, in this manner did God love the cosmos,     b.   that He gave His only Son [to be lifted up on the cross],     c.    in order that [or, for the purpose of] every believing-one into Him may not perish,         d.    but have life eternal.

Granting the hina (Gk. ἵνα) clauses of v 15a and 16c, it is clear that the divine intention of the Father’s giving of the Son unto his cross-work was hina, that is, for the purpose of, or having the result of, eternal life for every believing-one in Christ.  The divine intention of Jesus’ cross-work and death was for those who would believe, regardless of how one may think that one comes to believe (see also 1 Jn 4:10). 

Romans 3:21—26, the heart of Paul’s gospel, which bears out similar evidence.  God’s saving righteousness, through the setting forth of Jesus was “for all who believe” (v 22).  “Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith” (vv 24c—25a ESV).  God put forward the propitiatory, wrath-satisfying, life-giving blood of Jesus “to be received by faith.”  This way, God might be both just and the justifier of the “one who has faith in Jesus” (v 26b).  The divine intention behind putting Jesus forth as Propitiator was only for those who believe, who have faith in Jesus.  Gal 2:16—21 also bear the same witness. 

[ii] Careful attention to the Greek is paramount for a correct understanding of the force of this premise (actually, it is prima facie clear in the English, but the Greek nuances only strengthen the plain English reading). John 10:26 reads, ἀλλ᾿ ὑμεῖς οὐ πιστεύετε· / οὐ γὰρ ἐστὲ ἐκ τῶν προβάτων τῶν ἐμῶν, / καθώς εἶπον ὑμῖν.  The γὰρ signals the grounds clause, which is “because (gar) you are not my sheep.”  The common conception of the principle that Jesus here expresses is that, certain people are not Jesus’ sheep, because they do not believe; or, similarly, one becomes a sheep of Jesus’ fold by believing.  Of course this latter expression is true, as far as it goes.  However, what is explicit in this verse is that one comes to believe by being a sheep; or, similarly, as Jesus puts it, certain people do not believe, because he or she is not one of his sheep.  Therefore, being a sheep is a necessary precondition for belief (see similarly, Jn 8:47).

Also to be noted, with reference to premise (B) above, is the hyperbatonic positioning of the οὐ in the second clause.  In this, Jesus emphatically stresses the fact that some of those to whom he is speaking are NOT (οὐ) his sheep.  

TO THE ENDS OF THE EARTH, Beaner's Romans Paper

Here’s a paper the Beaner wrote for last year’s Bible class. Not too bad for a then thirteen year old ;). Earlier this year, she did a piece on Nero, which I’ll post sometime in the not too distant future. I’m awful proud of God’s grace that works in her heart and mind; and I wouldn't trade the pleasure of homeschooling her any thing, getting to see her grow everyday in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ--in every discipline, with heart, soul, and mind.

INTRODUCTION

Martin Luther once said that Romans was “the chief part of the New Testament and the very purest of all the gospels.”[1] He believed we should soak our souls in this Epistle everyday, and for good reason. To know anything about Martin Luther is to know about the agonizing struggle he went through trying to become acceptable before a holy God. K. Scott Oliphint says that Romans 1:17 “began to soothe Luther’s guilty conscience and bring him to an understanding of the liberty of the gospel.” He further recounts that Luther said that this verse—“The righteous shall live by faith”—“struck my conscience like lighting” and was “like a thunderbolt in my heart.”[2]

If the question of our acceptability before God is the most important one that can be asked (and it is), and more directly than any other book in the Bible, the Epistle to the Romans answers that question, then our coming to better understand this Epistle should be the most important object of every heart. The purpose of this thesis, therefore, is to investigate and answer four of the basic but essential questions for a correct understanding of the Epistle to the Romans: The who, the when, the where, and primarily the why of Romans. I will venture to do so by presenting various hypotheses formed by a variety of conservative commentators, dating from the Reformation to today.

AUTHORSHIP

Most commentators automatically assume the apostle Paul to be the author of Romans, largely because of certain writings in earlier manuscripts written to the churches of various cities, namely Galatia. As Harrison argues, “If the claim of the apostle to have written the Galatian and Corinthian letters is accepted, there is no reasonable basis for denying that he wrote Romans, since it echoes much of what is in the earlier writings, yet not slavishly.”[3] Galatians provides many such examples. For instance, when Paul mentioned how “we know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing…” in Romans 6:6, this echoes “I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me…” in Galatians 2:20, written earlier. There are a number of other parallel phrases and concepts found between these two books thus further proving Paul as the author. [4]

DATING THE EPISTLE

Many commentators (e.g., Schaff, Harrison, Quarles, Bryan, Moo, and Hendrickson)[5] agree that the epistle to the Romans was undoubtedly written on Paul’s third missionary journey, sometime between the years of AD 53 and AD 58. Douglas Moo states, for example, “Paul writes Romans on his third missionary journey…probably in about AD 57.”[6] He was completing his third missionary journey and was heading back to Jerusalem with a collection (gift) from the Gentile churches, preparing for a missionary trip to Spain by way of Rome.

ORIGIN OF THE EPISTLE

In the book of Acts, Luke tells us that when Paul was in Corinth, testifying in front of the Jews, they opposed him and he said, “Your blood be on your own heads! I am innocent. From now on I will go to the gentiles.” The Roman church was predominantly a gentile congregation with some from the Jewish community. More than likely, Paul wrote this letter to Rome not long after he made this declaration. Many scholars support that it was most likely written in Corinth. Although, others, including Christopher Bryan and Douglas J. Moo, believe it was written in Cenchreae (a small seaport very near to Corinth).[7] Thus Paul was writing from Corinth or near Corinth about his plan to go to Rome.

PURPOSE OF THE EPISTLE

This is not an exhaustive list of supported reasons for Paul to have written the letter, but what follows are a few of the basics or more general themes and motives behind his writing the Epistle.

Paul’s Thesis Statement

Paul states the thesis of his Epistle in the first chapter. “I am not ashamed of the Gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith, as it is written, ‘The righteous shall live by faith.’” (Rom. 1:16-17). That Paul would write down a summery of his Gospel and the theology behind that in a letter and send it to Rome, so that the church there could digest his message, before his visit, is the main reason supported by scholars for Paul writing Romans. Barrett agrees, “Most commentators recognize in them [1:16, 17] the ‘text’ of the Epistle; it is not wrong to see in them a summary Paul’s theology as a whole.”[8]

Paul’s Call to Unity within the Church

Another clear reason behind the Epistle, which is held highly by commentators, is that Paul wanted to address and correct certain problems existing in the Roman church; in particular, calling them to unity. Thanks to Gods providence, through Roman conquest, the pax Romana (“Peace of Rome”) helped to tare down nationalistic boundaries that would have kept Christian evangelists from reaching the nations, keeping the Great Commission. Rome also sustained a ‘universal,’ common language, Koinē Greek, which made it possible to communicate the Gospel to every “tongue, tribe, nation, and people”—or “the whole world.” Moreover, a highway system that allowed for easy travel. Despite these external benefits of Rome’s peace, this peace did not go deep enough to touch human hearts. There still existed bitter hostility between ethnic, social, religious, and cultural groups throughout the empire. The clearest tension lies between the Jews and Greeks, and the enmity was mutual. This disunity spread through all areas of their lives, but the one it was most evident in was their religion. The church in Rome was born under this area of false ‘peace.’ This disunity was at the heart of the church, and it was obvious. The attitude of resentment toward each other was the one Paul was facing when he was writing the letter. Bryan articulates this by saying, “Paul sought to address both groups not with a ‘compendium of Christian doctrine,’ but with an account of how the Gospel accords with God’s promises to restore creation (Rom 8:18—25) and how that should affect the attitude of believers toward each other (Rom 12:1—15:13).”[9] Paul is trying to point out that Caesar’s counterfeit peace could not reach the core of peoples hearts and Jesus’ genuine peace can (Ephesians 2:11-22).

Paul’s Personal and Theological Introduction to the Church in Rome

Since Paul had been longing to go to Rome for so long (Rom 1:11), and the Roman church had never seen him or heard his message, he sought to formally introduce himself and give them a full exposition of his Gospel. In this way, they would not be totally ignorant of his message and perceive it wrongly. Many commentators hold to the belief that this was at least part of the purpose of the letter.[10] Not least, C. K. Barrett, who puts it this way, “An obscure provincial, Paul plans to visit the center of the world; a self-styled apostle, lacking the self evident authorization of the Twelve, he approaches a church where his authority and even his credentials may well be questioned.”[11] Never the less he marches on, because that is what God called him to do.

CONCLUSION

I set out to answer the questions, who, when, where, and why, and I have done so to the best of my ability. There is no reason to doubt that the Apostle Paul wrote the Epistle to the Romans on his third missionary journey, between AD 53 and AD 58 in the city of Corinth. He did so, because that was God’s plan for him to fulfill the Great Commission in Rome.


[1] Luther, Martin, Commentary of Romans, (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications. 1976) xiii.

[2] Oliphant, K. Scott, The Battle Belongs to the Lord: The Power of Scripture for Defending Our Faith, (Phillipsburg – New Jersey: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing. 2003) pp. 107—8.

[3] Everett F. Harrison, “Romans,” pp. 519—605 in The Expositors Bible Commentary, Barker, L. Kenneth, John R. Kohlenberger general editors, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing. 1994) p. 519.

[4] E.g., Rom 6:3//Gal 2:20, 3:27; Rom 6:9//Gal 2:19-20; Rom 6:21, 22//Gal 6:8; Rom 7:4//Gal 2:19; 5:22; Rom 7:23//Gal 5:17; Rom 8:6//Gal 6:8; Rom 814—17//Gal 4:3—7, etc.

[5] Respectively: Phillip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 1, (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers. 2006), holds AD 58. p. 369; Everett Harrison, “Romans,” EBC, dates the epistle to early AD 57. p. 519; Charles Quarles, “Romans, letter to the,” pp. 1409—15 in Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Brand, Chad, Charles Draper, Archie England general editors, (Nashville, TN: Holman Reference. 2004), agrees on AD 56 – 57. p. 1410; Christopher Bryan, “Romans, book of,” pp. 697—703 in Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible, Kevin J. Vanhoozer general editor, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic Publishing. 2005), concurs with AD 56 – 57. p. 697; William Hendrickson, Survey of the Bible, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books Publishing. 2005), also maintains Paul’s third missionary journey as the time of writing. p. 341.

[6] Douglas J. Moo, “Romans,” pp. 291—96 in New Dictionary of Biblical Theology: Exploring the Unity and Diversity of Scripture, Alexander, T. Desmond, Brian S. Rosner, D.A. Carson, Graeme Goldsworthy general editors, (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press. 2000) p. 292.

[7] Christopher Bryan, “Romans, Book of,” DTIB, is comfortable with either Cenchreae or Corinth, p.697. Douglas J. Moo, “Romans,” NDBT, says, “Cenchreae, near Corinth…” p.292.

[8] C. K Barrett., A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, (New York, Hagerstown, San Francisco, London; Harper & Row, Publishers, 1957.) p. 27.

[9] Christopher Bryan, “Romans, Book of,” DTIB, p. 699.

[10] Charles Quarles, “Romans, Letter to the,” HIBD, p. 521; Everett Harrison, “ Romans,” EBC, p. 1411.

[11] C. K Barrett, Ibid.