As you read Paul’s impassioned letter to the churches in the Galatian provinces, you get a sense that he is very angry at what has taken place since he left and that he needs to fight for the faith of these believers. But what exactly was going on that made Paul go back into the stories of the Torah and creatively interpret them the way he does? In the following article (my senior thesis of my MA in Biblical Studies) I demonstrate that Paul’s rhetorical arguments are a point for point argumentation against some rival teachers who went to Galatia with a missionary endeavor to win the Galatians to a version of Christo-Judaism that acknowledges Jesus as Messiah but necessitates conversion to Judaism through male circumcision and strict Torah observance.

Easter Sunday.

It is the day that Christians celebrate the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. It is the day where Christians proclaim victory over sin and death and celebrate the ushering in of a new era of forgiveness of sins through trusting in him and his work on the cross and through his resurrection.

Many skeptics have pointed out, over the last two and a half centuries, some of the issues surrounding the claims made in the gospels and even the authenticity of the ones writing these gospels. While some of these claims can be apologetically answered, others of them should be considered and wrestled with ( like “are the gospels written by eyewitnesses?” “Are these first-hand accounts of the life of Jesus, or second [or even third] hand accounts written by people who never met Jesus and are just recounting the oral traditions of the early church?”) While these questions are debated (and rightly so) by skeptics and scholars alike, they need not disturb the Christian or the hope of the gospel. Why?

Tucked away in an undisputed, 100% authentically verified (by saints, scholars, and skeptics) letter of Paul, lies the hope of the gospel for all Christians. That letter is 1 Corinthians. In Chapter 15, this is what it says:

Now I want you to understand, brothers and sisters, the good news that I proclaimed to you, which you in turn received, in which also you stand, 2 through which also you are being saved, if you hold firmly to the message that I proclaimed to you—unless you have come to believe in vain.

3 For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures 4 and that he was buried and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. 

1 Corinthians 15:1-8 NRSVue

Paul is recounting one of the earliest creeds of the church of Jesus. This is the creed that the early church would recite and would pass along to each other. This creed declares the message of hope that the disciples witnessed and the earliest Christians accepted and taught:

“that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures and that he was buried and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures”

This is the εὐαγγελίον. The gospel. The good news.

Death and the grave did not win. Jesus is risen. And Paul’s logic in the rest of the chapter is this: If he is risen, we will rise as well in the resurrection.

This is what we celebrate Easter Sunday.

HE IS RISEN, INDEED!

In a world riddled with violence, retribution, and war, how is a follower of Jesus to view and interpret these things? Is there a personal position and a governmental position? These are just some of the questions I explore in this paper.

This is a paper from the summer of 2025 detailing the theological ideas of Christology from the early church until today. To view the paper in its entirety, click the link under the adobe acrobat viewer.

I spent the last 2 months researching and writing on this topic for a Christian Ethics class for my Seminary. Here is my paper if you would like to read it.

“Self-examination is a process whereby the Holy Spirit opens my heart to what is true about me … it is a way of opening myself to God within the safety of divine love so I can authentically seek transformation.” – Adele Calhoun, Spiritual Disciplines Handbook

This idea of opening ourselves to God to examen or test us can be found at the conclusion of Psalm 139. In verses 23 and 24 the Psalm writer says, “Search me, O God, and know my heart; test me and know my thoughts. See if there is any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting.” (Psalm 139:23-24 NRSVUE)

Through examen we are inviting the Holy Spirit to search our day and bring to memory all the things, good and bad, that we have lived. Theologically, we practice examen for both gratitude to God and repentance and restoration from sin as we celebrate Christ as redeemer. While the roots of the practice of Daily examen find their place in the early church fathers and mothers of the desert, the official practice began in the 15^th century with St. Ignatius of Loyola. Calhoun writes that “Ignatius was concerned that the missionaries in his society would know how to detect the movement of God in their lives. He believed that discernment came out of awareness of how God moved uniquely in each soul.”

The practice of examen usually includes a review of the day, gratitude for the events of the day, confession and repentance of sin, and a looking forward with a new perspective toward tomorrow.

In my sermon this past Sunday, I gave out an acrostic to help us remember how to pray the prayer of EXAMEN. Here is that acrostic with critical questions to ask during each part of the prayer:

Enter in gratitude – as you look over your day, what moments are you most grateful for? least? Where did you notice God’s presence in your gratitude?

eXplore where you fell short – as you look over your day, where did you fall short? What do you need to confess and repent of? Where do you notice God’s grace and forgiveness?

Assess your emotions – as you look over your day, what events stand out as emotional highs and lows? How could you notice God’s presence in the midst of your feelings?

Make a request – What one thing do you need to bring to the presence of God?

Expect change for tomorrow – How do you want to experience God’s presence more tomorrow that you did today?

Notice God’s presence with you. How has this experience made you more aware of God’s presence than you were before?

As you utilize this centuries old prayer practice, may you encounter the presence of God like never before.

Grace and Peace,

Sam

What do you do when life seems like it is 100% against you?

I’m sure this is exactly how the Biblical character Joseph felt. His brothers hated him, threw him in a pit, plotted to kill him, and eventually sold him to traveling Ishmaelites who eventually trafficked him to Egypt (some 100 miles, or so, away) where they sold him to an Egyptian official. Just when the young man was beginning to thrive as he started his life over as an Egyptian house manager, he was wrongfully accused of assault and thrown into prison. In prison he began to gain the trust of the guards and eventually helped two of his fellow inmates get out of prison (well, one, really… you probably can’t count the other one’s release just to get his head chopped off being “help”… but the dream was interpreted) only to be forgotten by the one who was released for 2 years.

I’m sure that Joseph felt like life was against him. But the author of Genesis reminds us of something that should not go unnoticed in this text. In Hebrew, the phrase is וַיְהִ֤י יְהוָה אֶת־יוֹסֵ֔ף which in english is translated “and the LORD was with Joseph.” We see this phrase pop up in Genesis 39:2, 39:21 (after verse 20 concludes with “even while he was in prison…”), and 39:23 where it says “The LORD was with him.” Even when life seemed fully against Joseph, “the LORD was with him.”

Eventually Joseph would be released from prison by pharaoh when he interpreted his dream. Even Pharaoh could see that God was with Joseph, when the author of Genesis has pharaoh declare in 41:38-39 that Joseph is “a man in whom is the spirit of God.”

My interpretive question when I read this story is this: “did Joseph know that the LORD was with him?” We aren’t given a window into the emotional state of Joseph during the highs and lows of this part of his story… but we are given a clue as to how he has processed all of this by what he named his two sons: Manasseh (מְנַשֶּׁ֑ה) and Ephraim (אֶפְרָ֑יִם). Manasseh means “God has made me forget my hardships” and Ephraim means “God has made me fertile in the land of my distress.”

So what do we do when life seems like it is against us? How can we maintain our devotion through distress?

I think that the key to all of it lies in that little phrase we find several times throughout this narrative: “and the LORD was with Joseph.”

What if we trusted that the LORD was with us?

What if we began to notice where the LORD was with us?

What if we acted like the LORD was with us?

What if the story of our distress was written down… would the author say with confidence “and the LORD was with __your name here__”?

My prayer for you is that this would be true.

Grace and Peace.

Sam

Question: Why does Paul pray concerning his converts that God “so strengthen your hearts in holiness that you may be blameless before our God and Father at the coming of our Lord Jesus with all his holy ones” (1 Thess 3:13; cf. 5:23-24)?  Another way to ask this: What, if anything, is at stake with regard to being found “blameless” (or not!) on that day?  By what means will those who have committed themselves to Jesus be found blameless on that day?  What role does Paul assign to union with/participation in Christ and to the Holy Spirit in this regard? (basically “what is the role of sanctification in our salvation?”)

            As we endeavor to answer the question of what role the process our sanctification plays in our salvation as it relates to Paul’s statement in 1 Thessalonians 3, it would be helpful to provide an exegetical context of 1 Thessalonians up to this point to understand why Paul felt the need to say what he did, why he goes on to say what he does in chapters 4 and 5 about our sanctification, and what we eventually discover about the process of our sanctification in salvation as it compares to other writings in the New Testament.

            In the first 3 chapters of 1 Thessalonians, Paul is expressing his thankfulness for the faith of the Thessalonian church, and his deep concern for the continuation of their faith amidst suffering. (1 Thess. 1:6-7) Paul sends Timothy to inquire about their faith and receives a good report. At the end of chapter 3, Paul prays a three-part benediction: 1) “May God direct our way to you,” 2) “may the Lord make you increase and abound in love for one another and for all,” and 3) “may God strengthen your hearts in holiness that you may be blameless before our God and Father at the coming of our Lord Jesus with all his saints.”[1]

Paul prays that their hearts would be strengthened in holiness. Holiness (ἁγιωσύνῃ – from ἁγιός – “holy or set apart”) is that quality by which we are set apart from the sinful and ordinary for and unto God. Paul prays that these believers would be strengthened by this separation from what is sinful, and that their hearts would find their natural abode in God. As their hearts are strengthened this way and set apart this way, they would be found blameless when Christ returns. This process of being separated from what is sinful and more and more set apart unto Christ, is elsewhere called “sanctification.” The goal of our sanctification is our holiness and wholeness in Christ.

As we continue reading in 1 Thessalonians, we encounter two more times where Paul talks about this process of being set apart unto holiness for God. The next encounter is in chapter 4 where Paul says, “For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality.” There is something about sexual immorality (πορνείας – a word meaning a whole host of sexual sins) that is not separate unto God but that separates us from God. Paul encourages our sanctification and setting apart unto God by separating from these sexual sins. In 1 Corinthians 6, Paul echoes this sentiment when he says we should “shun fornication” (πορνείαν) because we are not our own and have been bought with a price, so we should, therefore, glorify God with our bodies and how we use them daily. (1 Cor. 6:17-20) As we are continually separating ourselves from these sinful indulgences, we are separating ourselves unto God who redeemed us.

Finally, Paul reaches a pivotal concluding point about what he wants to communicate about sanctification in 1 Thessalonians, which, consequently, is just the beginning of his thoughts on the matter in the New Testament corpus. In the final paragraph of chapter 5, Paul, as a part of his closing statements, says:

May the God of peace himself sanctify you entirely, and may your spirit and soul and body be kept sound and blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. ²⁴ The one who calls you is faithful, and he will do this. (1 Thess. 5:23-24 NRSVue)

Paul prays that God would fully and entirely set this church apart for Himself, and that they would be kept blameless, like he prayed before, at the coming of Christ. It seems, in this letter at least, that Paul’s idea of sanctification fits within the broader idea of ‘salvation’ as a whole. It seems as if the term “salvation” and the doctrine thereof, details a whole process consisting of election, justification, sanctification, and glorification. This would mean that ‘salvation’ is more than justification or more than the moment where one “receives Christ as savior,” but rather it is the whole of bringing about rescue and restoration from sin and death in Christ. As it relates to Paul’s discussion so far, it is difficult, with only observing this text, to answer the question if there is “anything at stake with regard to being found blameless (or not) on that day.” It is also difficult to determine if this idea of entire sanctification was prescriptive and, therefore, something for every church for all time, or if this was a specific prayer for this specific church because of the struggles of suffering and questions of faith and the misunderstandings of the ‘parousia’ (return of Christ) that they were experiencing. In order to answer these questions in a more complete way, we must go beyond the scope of 1 Thessalonians to see how Paul and others explain the concept of sanctification in other New Testament contexts and its relation to salvation.

            In sticking with the Apostle Paul’s writings on sanctification, we need to turn to the letter of Romans. In Romans 6, Paul asks a type of Socratic question: “If when we sin, we get more grace from God, therefore, ‘should we continue in sin in order that grace may abound?’” His answer is “absolutely not!” What follows that answer helps us understand this idea of sanctification and its role within our greater salvation.

            Paul’s first argument in answering this question in the emphatic negative, is that we have died to that way of living, buried it with Christ, and He has raised us to live a new life. Our baptism shows that our life is hidden, or ultimately found within Christ. “For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.” (Rom. 6:5 NRSV) Paul helps his audience understand that our life of sin and death has been crucified and buried. Our new life is in Christ and to be found in Christ. We are, then, freed from our bondage and enslavement to our sinfulness. That is why he goes on to say in verse 19:

…For just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and lawlessness, leading to even more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness, leading to sanctification. (Rom. 6:19 NRSVue)

In essence, Paul is stating that we have been set free from what separates us from God so that we can be bound to what separates us unto God. Paul states, in no obscure way, that being bound to our sinfulness leads to death. The wages (ὀψώνια – compensation for work done) of our sin is death. (Rom. 6:23) On the other hand, however, the free gift of God’s grace (that we should not be abusing… that is the context we find ourselves in with Romans 6 and the conversation on sanctification) is eternal life through Jesus.[2] This brings us back to verse 22. In this verse, Paul lays out the advantage of being free of the enslavement to sin, and rather being enslaved to God: “the fruit you have leads to sanctification, and the end is eternal life.” (Rom. 6:22 NRSVue) It seems in this passage that Paul is helping us understand that our sanctification is a part of our larger salvation that brings eternal life. The question that remains for me, however, is this: “Is this something that I must work toward or do under my own strength in order to be viewed as ‘blameless’ on that day?” Paul further helps us understand our sanctification in a more ‘synergistic’ way in Philippians 2:12-13 when he encourages to “work on (out) your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who is at work in you, enabling you both to will and to work for his good pleasure.” It seems as if Paul is espousing that our sanctification is a part of the process of working on and working out our salvation. We work our salvation out while God works it from within. This is why we cannot go on sinning so that grace may abound. We are to be putting our old sin to death and working out our new life in Christ while God works our salvation from the inside out. But one might ask, at this point, “isn’t this just a works-based salvation?” The answer is no. We are justified through faith in Christ, not our ability to obey and work out the law. Our sanctification is the refining process of making us holy and separated from our old sinful life to be spotless and blameless in Christ. (Eph. 5:27) The one who is not being sanctified should wonder if they have ever been justified. (1 John 2:3-6) The way in which we are sanctified, according to Paul in his letter to the Galatian church, is by keeping in step with the Spirit. As we follow the Spirit, we will put to death the works of the flesh, manifest the fruit of the Spirit, and be found blameless in Christ because of Christ.

[1] Paul may be alluding to what he will be addressing in chapter 4 about the coming of the Lord here in a foreshadowing way

[2] One cannot help but see the irony in Paul’s words that the very thing we work toward brings death but the thing we cannot work toward but receive brings eternal life.

            Many arguments have been made and discussed and debated over the topic of the ancient book of Jonah in the Hebrew Bible by biblical scholars.  While some argue for a literal, historical reading of the text and a literal authorship by the prophet himself, the consensus position still remains that this text is a scathing, satirical, and metaphorical critique on the nation of Israel in an anti-prophet prophetic style of writing. 

The aim of this article is to provide the necessary literary evidence and subsequent scholarship to affirm that position. We will attempt to place this text within its literal historical context, compare it to the historical Jonah, and then compare and contrast it to both literary and historical writings and documents of its time to gain a better understanding of the purpose of its writing.  The aim of this article is not to use 21^st century scholarship and contemporary methods and approaches to that scholarship, such as trauma, postcolonial, or feminist to interpret or re-interpret the text of Jonah as some have done recently.[1]  

The Historical Jonah

            To accurately understand the type of literature of the text, we must first have a basis of understanding of the historical prophet named Jonah and, second, the time and date of the writing of this text. 

            Although not much is mentioned of a historical prophet to the nation of Israel named Jonah, we do find him mentioned in the book of 2 Kings.  In 2 Kings 14, we find that Jeroboam II is king of the northern kingdom of Israel.  The text says that Jeroboam reigned as king for forty-one years and “did evil in the eyes of the LORD.” We are introduced to Jonah, son of Amittai, the servant of the LORD, the God of Israel, in verse 25.  Jonah is said to have been a prophet from the land of Gath Hepher. Because of the prophecy of Jonah to king Jeroboam II, he was able to “restore the boundaries of Israel from Lebo Hamath to the Dead Sea.”[2] This means that Jonah made a positive prophecy from the LORD to a wicked king of Israel and it came to pass. Often concerning prophecy in the Hebrew Bible, the prophet of the LORD prophesies against the wicked kings and for the righteous ones. To further complicate things, we find in the book of Amos, (a contemporary prophet with Jonah) these words of prophecy against Jeroboam II, almost in correction of the prophecy of Jonah:

Then Amaziah the priest of Bethel sent a message to Jeroboam king of Israel: “Amos is raising a conspiracy against you in the very heart of Israel.  The land cannot bear all his words.  For this is what Amos is saying: ‘Jeroboam will die by the sword, and Israel will surely go into exile, away from their native land.’” (Amos 7:10-11, NIV)

            To further complicate the narrative, what Jonah prophesies to the wicked king Jeroboam II comes to pass, while there is no evidence in either the text or in history that Jeroboam II died by the sword (a phrase meaning he would die during battle) or that the Northern kingdom of Israel was dragged away into exile during his reign. We know from history that Assyria would eventually conquer and decimate Israel, but it did not happen during the reign of Jeroboam II.  We could derive from this, that Amos was a false prophet of Israel because his prophecy about Jeroboam did not come to pass, but as Dr. Stephen D. Cook writes,

“The fact that his message was preserved in the Bible suggests that the people who compiled the Hebrew Bible were less concerned about whether a prophet’s predictions came true or not, and were more concerned about the moral implications of their message, and whether or not they were able to persuade the community to change for the better.”[3]

            Jonah being alive during the reign of Jeroboam II and a contemporary of the prophet of Amos places the historical Jonah prophesying around 785 BCE or during the 8^th century BCE.  This becomes problematic to the literal, historical reading of the text of the book of Jonah because Nineveh, although a city in the Assyrian Empire during this time, would not become the capital of the Neo-Assyrian Empire until Sennacherib officially made it so during his reign as king of Assyria. Sennacherib lived between 705-681 BCE, almost 100 years after the time of Jonah.[4]  Jonah being called to preach against “The great city of Nineveh” would have been a moot point in 785 BCE because it would not have been the capital city of Assyria, and would have rather been a smaller trade city until Sennacherib’s reign. It wasn’t until Sennacherib made it the capital, that Nineveh grew to be one of the largest cities in the world. 

            The consensus concerning the date of the writing of the book of Jonah is that it was written sometime after the Babylonian exile during the 5^th or 4^th centuries BCE, but no later than the 3^rd century. This dating would account for the fact that Nineveh was viewed as “The great city of Nineveh.” A later dating of the text would be fascinating, because Nineveh would fall to the Medes and Babylonians in 612 BCE.[5] 

Metaphorical and Satirical components

            Although the straightforward reading of the text of Jonah seems to be a prophetic, historical narrative at first glance, one cannot ignore the glaring metaphorical, mythic and satirical components of the book. When we first encounter Jonah, son of Ammitai, he receives a word from the Lord and immediately heads “down to Joppa.” The word “down” is the Hebrew word yarad (ירד) and it is used not only to show Jonah literally going down (down to Joppa, down in the bottom of the boat, down into the depths of Sheol, etc…), but also metaphorically to show his disobedience as a prophet. A prophet who would be obedient to the word of God would “go up” to the Holy Temple. Jonah, however, is shown to do the exact-opposite, therefore he is an anti-prophet. This literary motif would fit the historical prophet we find in 2 Kings quite well, who ended up giving a favorable prophecy to a wicked king. Jonah, then, would have been viewed as an anti-prophet by those who sought righteousness and obedience to God, and, therefore, the prime candidate to be the main character of this narrative. 

            Another satirical piece of this text is the great fish found at the beginning of chapter 2 in the Hebrew Bible. The text tells us that this fish was great enough to swallow Jonah whole, as well as to keep him safely for 3 days and nights at the bottom of the sea without drowning, as well as not fully digest him in those three days. Although many have tried to come up with theories and plausibility of how this could be a literal, historical occurrence, the best explanation is often the simplest: it is a literary construct not meant to be read literally. In fact, if taken symbolically, the fish could easily represent the exile of the people of Israel. 

            Metaphorically, one of the main themes of Jonah is obedience or the lack thereof.  As we examine the text, we find that everyone and everything that Jonah encounters in this story is obedient to the LORD, except Jonah. We encounter the sailors on the boat to Tarshish, who eventually become obedient to the LORD, despite their allegiance to their idol gods. We find that the great wind upon the sea calms and becomes obedient to the LORD when Jonah’s body touches the Mediterranean Sea. The great fish that the LORD prepared that swallowed Jonah is commanded by the LORD and obediently vomits Jonah up on dry land. The people of Nineveh, and even the King of Nineveh, all become obedient to the LORD. In a strange turn of events, the cows and animals are even shown in a posture of repentance. A plant becomes obedient to the LORD as well as a worm that devours the plant on the implied instructions of the LORD. All of this metaphorically points out that, if everything else in the story can be obedient to the LORD and repent, why can’t Jonah? 

            The final motif we find in the story that points to satire is Jonah’s prophetic message to the people of Nineveh.  This message is not one of repentance, but one of doom.  The text tells us:

Jonah began by going a day’s journey into the city, proclaiming, “Forty more days and Nineveh will be overthrown.” (Jonah 3:4, NIV)

Jonah speaks five words in Hebrew (עוד ארבּעים יום ונינוה נהפכח) that are translated into 8 words in the English language, and the entirety of the Ninevite people, along with their king and their animals repent. This, once again, points the reader to the ridiculous satirical reading of this story. 

            The ancient near east world often use themes and motifs in their wisdom writing like satire, metaphor, parable, and myth to communicate deep truths to their readers.[6]  As one author has said, “Facts aren’t the only thing that make something true.”

A “Whale of a Story, or a Story of a Whale?

While the historical Jonah did exist as a prophet in the history of the Northern Kingdom of Israel, and did make prophetic predictions according to 2 Kings 14, it is this author’s conclusion that this story is not an historical account of actual happenings in his lifetime. This author agrees with the consensus of scholars that the book of Jonah, rather, is a scathing, satirical, and metaphorical critique on the nation of Israel in an “anti-prophet, prophetic” style of writing. 

Jonah is a metaphorical “stand-in” for the nation of Israel and God’s critique of their attitude toward the other nations that God used to overpower them because of their disobedience and idolatry. It is a nationalistic call to the nation of Israel, post exile, to repent and turn back to God.

It may also be a scathing, satirical, and metaphorical critique of the Northern Kingdom of Israel and their unwillingness to repent and the LORD’s dealings with them because of it. Either way, the story of Jonah serves to explain to whomever would read it the attitude of the LORD toward all peoples of the earth:

The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness … (Exodus 34:6, NIV)

[1] For more research on 21^st century methods of scholarship to the text of Jonah, see the article The Book of Jonah in Recent Research by Aron Tillema.  Aron tackles how trauma, feminist, postcolonial, and ecological scholarship has affected the readings and interpretations on this text as well as the effect of a Meta-critical approach to the text builds new meaning and asks new questions of the text.

[2] All scripture references in English (unless otherwise noted) will be from The New International Version of the Bible, copyright 2011 by Zondervan. 

[3] Quote taken from the article The Bible in Conversation with Itself: Jonah versus Amos by Dr. Stephen D. Cook, September 10, 2021

[4] Nineveh from the World History Encyclopedia published on March 6, 2011

[5] History of Babylon and Nineveh by Muhammad Ali Khan Arshi, Rangeen Press, 1900.

[6] For more information on how literary motifs were used ancient near east literature, read Sara J. Denning-Bolle’s article Wisdom and Dialogue in the Ancient Near East, Numen Vol. 34, Fasc. 2, Dec. 1987 pp. 214-234, Brill publishing

In the last two hundred years or so, there has been debate amongst both confessional and critical Biblical scholars over the Pastoral Epistles, especially 2 Timothy. Arguments have been made over the authorship of the epistle and whether it is Paul or someone using Paul’s name posthumously, how to translate the word πᾶσα (pasa) and whether it means “all” or “every,” whether the word γραφὴ (graphe) should be translated “scripture” or just generically as “writings,” whether or not θεόπνευστος (theopneustos) means “divinely inspired” or “life-giving”[1] and whether or not the adjectives θεόπνευστος (theopneustos) and ὠφέλιμος (ophelimos) in verse 16 should be attributive adjectives or predicate adjectives.  It is the final of these five that I would like to discuss through my exegetical study of these verses. 

My aim is to argue that there is sufficient grammatical and contextual evidence within the Greek of these verses to determine that these adjectives need to be viewed in the predicate and not in the attributive, as some have suggested.  Before we venture into the exegetical study of the text, however, some background information is necessary to determine why some have argued for these adjectives to be attributive, and what it means for both translation and interpretation if they are. 

The History of the argument for these adjectives to be attributive

            While it is not clear in my research where this idea began, what is clear is that as scholars began taking a closer look at the grammar and syntax of verse 16 in particular, something major began to stand out to them: the sentence fragment of verse 16 contains no clear verb in the Greek.  The Greek text reads as follows:

πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος καὶ ὠφέλιμος πρὸς διδασκαλίαν,

πρὸς ἐλεγμόν, πρὸς ἐπανόρθωσιν, πρὸς παιδείαν τὴν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ,

As we analyze the text, what we discover is that we have no immediate verb in this part of this run-on sentence. The sentence begins with the adjective πᾶσα (every/all) in the nominative feminine singular (NFS) that is attributively modifying the noun γραφὴ (scripture/writing) also in the NFS, and the adjective in question, θεόπνευστος (God-breathed) immediately following it in the NFS as well.  The sentence then has another adjective and a long series of prepositional phrases until the comma at the end of verse 16.  The question is whether the adjectives θεόπνευστος and ὠφέλιμος are in the attributive or in the predicate, or if one is attributive and one is predicate and if the word καὶ had been added at a later time. In 1961, J.W. Roberts asserted that the grammar of 2 Timothy 3:16 matches several other sentences within the New Testament that begin with the adjective root πασ + a subject and then immediately followed by another adjective, and none of those translates the second adjective in the predicate.  In his article addressing this, professor and scholar Dr. Daniel B. Wallace quotes Roberts in saying:

“There are twenty-one instances in the New Testament in which pas is used to modify a noun which is immediately followed by another adjective as in 2 Timothy 3:16. In every case the Greek order of words is 1) pas, 2) the noun, and 3) the adjective.  Typical examples are “every good tree” (Matthew 7:17); “every idle word” (Matthew 12:36); “every spiritual blessing” (Ephesians 1:3); “every good gift” (James 1:17)… In no case of this usage is the adjective separated from the noun so as to be taken as a predicate.”[2]

Roberts makes a valid point in his argumentation that we must take into consideration, because this is a grammatical possibility within this sentence.  If this is the case, the sentence would be translated something to the effect of:

“Every God-breathed and useful scripture is for teaching, for convincing, for correcting, and for training in righteousness…”

or

“Every God-breathed scripture is useful for teaching, for convincing, for correcting, and for training in righteousness…”

In the first translation, all three NFS adjectives are acting in the attributive and are modifying the NFS subject of scripture.  I will point out later in this article why this reading cannot and should not be rendered due to the simple fact of the grammar of the sentence not supporting this translation.  The second translation, however, is a plausible rendering of this text.  While this reading is plausible, there are still, in this author’s opinion, a few issues with the grammar, the translation, the interpretation, and the contextual meaning. 

Some scholars and exegetes have gone so far as to say that, because verse 16 has no verb, and because 16 and 17 are one, long, run-on sentence, we must borrow a verb from 17 to make 16 make sense.  If that is the case, we must borrow the verb ᾖ (present subjunctive active – 3^rd person, “may be”).  If we were to add this verb to verse 16, it would completely alter the translation of the text.  We would have to translate it something akin to:

“Every God-breathed scripture may be useful for teaching, for convincing, for correcting, for training in righteousness…”

This certainly is a plausible, grammatically correct translation of this part of the sentence, but we must ask ourselves a simple question: Is it likely?  Just because something is plausible, and even grammatically correct, doesn’t make it likely.  In order for this translation to work, it must also fit within the passage as a whole, not just grammatically as a stand-alone proof-text.  Therefore, the primary question to pursue is this: “Does this rendering of 2 Timothy 3:16 fit within the immediate and larger context it was written in?”

The argument for these adjectives to be translated in the predicate

            For the remainder of this article, it is my aim to provide an argument for why the words θεόπνεθστος and ὠφελίμος should be translated in the predicate as they have been traditionally.

The argument from the Greek grammar

            In order to argue my point from the grammar of these verses, we first need to parse each word to find out their part of speech, gender and number.  Here is a snapshot of 2 Timothy 3:16:

What we discover in this translating exercise, partially, is what we have already discussed in that the beginning of this two-verse run-on sentence has no inherent verb.  We have two choices when this happens in a sentence. We can either look for another verb that would explain the sentence and insert it in English for both where it exists already and also where it should be translated in another part of the sentence, or we can supply a verb that is not there to help make sense of the sentence in English. In both of the early examples used above, the verb “is” has been supplied to help make sense of the Greek sentence in English.  Like we have already stated, this approach to the grammar is technically correct.  In the third example, we borrow the verb ᾖ from the back half of the sentence we find in verse 17 and translate it in the front half as “may be.” This, too, could also be “technically correct” grammar in Greek.  The question then is this, if these can all be construed as “technically correct” ways to grammatically translate these verses, what in the Greek grammar and syntax would cause us to declare that the adjectives in question should be translated in the predicate rather than in the attributive?  This is where we get an assist from Dr. Wallace. Wallace argues that Roberts’ assertions are not correct, because the examples that Roberts, and others who hold to this position, give “are from non-equative clauses” and what we find in 2 Timothy 3:16 is an “equative clause.”[3]  According to the SIL glossary of linguistic terms, an equative clause is “a clause which describes a feature of its subject. It contains a subject complement and, typically, a copula.”[4]  The example that is given in the glossary is “He is a doctor.”  Here is another important question: how do we know that, in 2 Timothy 3:16, πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος καὶ ὠφέλιμος is an equative clause?  Wallace goes on to say:

“the construction πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος καὶ ὠφέλιμος constitutes an equative clause because it requires an implied verb which, in turn, asserts at least that all scripture is profitable.  This is entirely apart from the issue of θεόπνευστος’s special relation to γραφὴ.”[5]

What we deduce from Wallace’s analysis about equative clauses is this: at the minimum, the adjective ὠφέλιμος must be read in the predicate.  This, therefore, rules out the first attempt to read both adjectives in the attributive.  This also, along with the contextual argument, would also rule out the borrowing of ᾖ from verse 17 because it is unnecessary to do so. 

            While that may resolve one issue, what about reading θεόπνευστος as an attributive adjective and ὠφέλιμος as predicate adjective though?  That seems to fit the equative clause construct that Wallace is arguing for.  To understand why this also cannot be the case, we must look to both the immediate and the greater context of what is being written in 2 Timothy 3.

The argument from the immediate and greater context

2 Timothy 3:16 & 17 were not originally meant to be a proof-text for the inspiration of the scriptures.  When this sentence was originally penned, it was a conclusion to a paragraph that was discussing the role of the γραφὴ in the life of Timothy and how he was trained to understand these scriptures and how they pointed him toward salvation from them.  Here is how the paragraph reads in the NRSVUE:

¹⁰ Now you have observed my teaching, my conduct, my aim in life, my faith, my patience, my love, my steadfastness, ¹¹ my persecutions, and my sufferings, the things that happened to me in Antioch, Iconium, and Lystra. What persecutions I endured! Yet the Lord rescued me from all of them. ¹² Indeed, all who want to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted. ¹³ But wicked people and impostors will go from bad to worse, deceiving others and being deceived. ¹⁴ But as for you, continue in what you have learned and firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it ¹⁵ and how from childhood you have known sacred writings that are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. ¹⁶ All scripture is inspired by God and is^[b] useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, ¹⁷ so that the person of God may be proficient, equipped for every good work.

2 Timothy 3:10-17 NRSVUE

It should be noted, that the NRSVUE has a footnote after the words “inspired by God” that reads: “or “every scripture inspired by God is…” This footnote reflects the discrepancy in the Greek grammar that this article is addressing and the multiple ways this verse can be translated.  As has been state before, though, there is a big difference between what is plausible and allowable, and what is likely.

Now that we have the entire context in front of us, we need to ask exploratory questions to help understand the text better.  The first question we must ask is “from whom did Timothy learn what he believed?” The answer is found in chapter 1 verse 5:

⁵ I am reminded of your sincere faith, a faith that lived first in your grandmother Lois

and your mother Eunice and now, I am sure, lives in you.

The second question is this, “what are the sacred writings that this author is appealing to that Timothy learned from?”  The author of 2 Timothy is most assuredly pointing back to the Hebrew Scriptures, but maybe, more specifically, the Septuagint.  Timothy, the book of Acts tells us, was the son of a Jewish mother and a Greek father.  Paul met Timothy during his second missionary journey as he traveled through Derbe and Lystra.  Acts tells us that Paul actually circumcised Timothy, so it was likely that, while Timothy would have been instructed by his grandmother and mother in the ways of the Jewish faith and through the Torah and the writings, he was not a practicing Jew.  In fact, the details of Acts 16:1-3 tell us quite the opposite: 

Paul^[a] went on also to Derbe and to Lystra, where there was a disciple named Timothy,

 the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer, but his father was a Greek. 

² He was well spoken of by the brothers and sisters in Lystra and Iconium.

 ³ Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him, and he took him and had him circumcised

 because of the Jews who were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.

Timothy was considered by the Jewish people in Derbe and Lystra to be a Gentile, because his father was.  This is why Paul had him circumcised, so that he might not be an offense to the Jewish community in which they were trying to convert to Christianity.  Despite his Gentile status, Timothy was trained by both his grandmother, Lois, and his mother, Eunice (who was a believer) to know and understand the Torah and the prophets and the writings of the Hebrew Scriptures.  These are the same “sacred writings” that they would go from city to city, from synagogue to synagogue, and argue from them how Jesus was the promised “Messiah.”

The third question is this: “What has been Timothy’s relationship with the scriptures in his upbringing and youth?”  The author of 2 Timothy mentions that these “sacred writings” have been present in Timothy’s life since his childhood and prepared him, or “instructed him”. (according to the NRSVUE) for salvation through faith in Jesus Christ.  The word used for instruct in verse 15 is σωφίσαι, an aorist active infinitive “to make wise.”  The verb stem is the word σωφίζω which means “I make wise.”  When this word is used in the aorist infinitive active, it connotates a simple, single, one time, one moment action. Therefore, the best translation of this word and for the Greek phrase τὰ δυνάμενά σε σοφίσαι εἰς σωτηρίαν διὰ πίστεως τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ should be “able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.”  Timothy’s relationship with the sacred writings, the ἱερὰ γράμματα, is that they helped him by giving him the necessary wisdom to understand and discern who Jesus Christ is, leading him to salvation through faith. 

With this as the background context, we need to ask a serious contextual question of this text: Is it more likely that the author of 2 Timothy would ambiguously refer to only some of these γραφὴ, only some of these ἱερὰ γράμματα, as θεόπνευστος?  If so, which ones?  Did this author know?  Did Timothy know?  Was there a list somewhere of which texts were and were not θεόπνευστος? 

What is more likely is that the author of 2 Timothy had the whole of the Hebrew scriptures in view, especially the Septuagint, when penning this text.  They may have even had books and writings that are no longer accepted as Hebrew Biblical canon today (apocryphal and deuterocanonical books) in view, because these are referenced again and again in the New Testament writings either explicitly or implicitly. 

Conclusion

            In conclusion, based on the grammar of the sentence, based on the argument that this is an equative clause, and based on the immediate and greater context, it is more likely that the adjectives θεόπνευστος and ὠφέλιμος are not in the attributive and modifying γραφὴ, but rather are predicate adjectives and provide crucial information about the γραφὴ by describing its unique characteristics.[6] 

[1] This idea is explored in full in the book The Invention of the Inspired Text: Philological Windows on the Theopneustia of Scripture (The Library of New Testament Studies, 640) – by John C. Poirier.  In his book, Poirier explores extra-biblical occurrences of the word qeopneustov to better understand how first and second century people would have used and understood this word.

[2] This quote taken from the online article written for bible.org titled “The relation of qeopneustov to grafh in 2 Timothy 3:16” by Daniel B. Wallace

[3] This quote taken from the online article written for bible.org titled “The relation of θεόπνευστος to γραφὴ in 2 Timothy 3:16” by Daniel B. Wallace.  Wallace argues that equative clauses demand that a predicate adjective is needed to assert something about the subject. 

[4] This quote taken from the SIL Glossary of Linguistic Terms that can be found at https://glossary.sil.org/term/equative-clause#

[5] Wallace, “The relation of θεόπνευστος to γραφὴ in 2 Timothy 3:16”  https://bible.org/article/relation-2-timothy-316#_ftn15

[6] This definition of a predicate adjective in Greek grammar is a paraphrase of the definition given in The Basics of Biblical Greek by William D. Mounce, Zondervan publishing.