The Ultimate Imperative

Introduction

Having spent quite some time thinking about the New Testament's use of the imperative mood, and after exposing what a wide range of meanings it is used for, from requests to military-style commands, my thoughts turned to what could be called the ultimate imperative. Which is, of course,God's own use of the command. The proclamation which does not ask for obedience because His word in and of itself has power to achieve what it declares. For example, the creation word which begins the whole Bible, and the book of Genesis - the book of 'beginnings'.

"And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light."
(Genesis ch 1 vs 3)

That's some imperative. Literally, it says "LIGHT - BE!" We just don't have the tense flexibility to represent it properly. When you think about it, this is command at a level which is not possible for humans at all. Only God's word can accomplish what He sends it forth to do - without agency. When we humans issue commands, we are completely dependent upon someone else receiving our command and executing it - an 'agent'. Even if it is just the dog! Another living being has to be the recipient of the command and decide, whether coerced or not, to fulfill it. Without which, it doesn't get done. But God doesn't have that restriction at all.

The Faith Factor

 In fact, the whole essence of faith is the realisation that everything depends on this invisible word of the Almighty. Hebrews tells us:

"By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible." (ch 11vs 3)

That can only be 'seen' by faith. It's a tacit realisation that this is the way things work. Mind-blowing, isn't it, to appreciate that what we perceive as the so-solid, physical universe actually relies for its existence on something completely intangible. Faith says 'what God says goes. And comes. And is!'

So when we hear the promises of God concerning and unseen future, or our unseen hearts, or our unseen Lord, it is faith that insists that even though we can't perceive these things with our five senses, nevertheless they are realities. And we trust them completely. That faith rocks the world!

The Mystique of Magic

The history of our race demonstrates the preoccupation many have had with 'magic'. Childrens' fairy stories and adult fiction too entertains us with the idea of someone, somewhere being able to control the inanimate with a word of command - a spell. Harry Potter. Witches and wizards. Superstition. All ideas about our own tight control over our environment, and bending it to our will. But of course, it's just impossible, and may be our hankering after wanting to be our own God. To be able to do for ourselves what He does.

God's Perogative

As believers, we attribute great majesty to Him for this very thing:

"I am the Lord, the God of all mankind. Is anything too hard for me? " (Jeremiah 32 vs 27)

And of course, when Jesus stands in a fast-filling boat in the midst of a stormy sea and commands 'peace' to the winds and the waves - and all is still, He is demonstrating that He has this power of command, and thus He is God. Well might the disciples frame their question.

The centurion, of whom Jesus marvelled at his faith, got this, didn't he? Remember what he says to Jesus? Luke 7:

“Lord, don’t trouble yourself, for I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. That is why I did not even consider myself worthy to come to you. But say the word, and my servant will be healed. For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and that one, ‘Come,’ and he comes. I say to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it."

He sees - amazingly - that this is none other than God in human form, and that He has the power of God-speech. If Jesus just 'says it', it will be!

Indeed, the Lord didn't even have to utter words. When the devil throws in His face the worst case of demon-possession there ever was, the demons are reacting before He even speaks out loud:

"For Jesus had said to him, “Come out of this man, you impure spirit!”"
(Mark 5 vs 8)

God-speech for the New Creation

But it isn't just the creation 'ex-nihilo' of our universe. Paul, in 2 Corinthians 4, has this to say about our new life in Christ:

"For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of God’s glory displayed in the face of Christ."

Which brings the whole thing right home to us. We are a 'new creation' And God has brought this about by the same means - by commanding in our very being "let there be light" - that oh so powerful ultimate imperative. And there WAS light - there IS light. In you. In me. The light of the glory of God.

God-speech in Transformation?

So when it comes to Christian obedience, I wonder whether more is going on in our Spirit-filled hearts than just the process:

1. God speaks

2. I hear

3. I obey (or not)

I wonder whether the command-voice of God is at work here too. That when we 'hear' an instruction to do with our living out the life He has given us, there is that same empowering - on an ongoing basis, as we walk in the Spirit. And that whereas the process I have just outlined is how law works, this is precisely what the New Testament means when it insists that believers are not 'under law'. And that this is why His word is described as a 'living word'. So, we get what Paul says in Philippians 2 vs 12 & 13:

"... continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose."

- which really reads as:

"... continue to demonstrate in your lives your salvation ... for it is God who energises you to will and act ..." (two different words for 'work')

Hmm - food for thought!

John's use of 'anomos' in 1 John 3

Introduction

Various ‘agendas’ make some want 1 John 3 vs 4 to read as the KJV and other translations have it:

“Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.”

The trouble is that the original Greek does not have the words ‘transgress’, ‘transgression’ – these were added by the translators, and place a specific interpretation upon the text. The ESV is the preferred translation:

“Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness.” (vs 4)

Literally, John says:

“Everyone who is doing the sin is also doing the lawlessness and the sin is the lawlessness”

I have argued that this is indicating precisely the adverse – ‘transgression’ requires the law to be present, whilst ‘lawlessness’ indicates that there is no law in play. That said, some will still insist on arguing that ‘anomia’, the root word for ‘lawlessness’ means the breaking of law rather than the lack of it – and it can! So the matter must be decided upon other grounds, and, as always, context is prime.

John’s Argument

The issue, then, is not what we would like it to say in order to support some over-riding doctrinal persuasion from elsewhere. What is John’s point?

Lawlessness vs righteousness

Prominent and obvious is his use of a parallel expression by contrast:

“Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous.” (vs 7)

Or literally,

“Whoever is doing the righteousness is righteous.”

We can see that the sentence structure is identical. The point being that it is the ‘doers doing’ that indicates the nature of the ‘doer’. Plain and simple.

The Argument

Following John’s line or argument from the beginning of the chapter, we can see him saying:

1. That we are called the children of God demonstrates His great love for us

2. Thus as with Him, so with us – the world does not know us

3. We are His children now, and what we will be ‘has not appeared’ yet

4. But when He ‘appears’ (same word) we will be like Him

5. This hope means we purify ourselves as he is pure (so that we are like Him)

Now, this point:

6. Those whose lifestyle is ‘sinning’ are also doing ‘anomian’; sinning is ‘anomia’

7. (But)   Christ appeared to remove our sins – in Him is no sin

8. No-one who is in Him (therefore) can carry on sinning – to do so demonstrates that they are nothing to do with him

The line of logic plainly indicates that John is not making a statement about ‘law’ at all. He is elaborating “by their fruits you will know them”. The nature of the children of God cannot result in a perpetually sinning lifestyle. Where we see that lifestyle, we are to conclude that those are not God’s children.

The Common Use of ‘Anomia’

We must allow common usage of language in and around the time that the various New Testament documents are written and circulated to inform how we read them. What did the original recipients understand by what is said? For that will be our basic meaning too. Davison has this to say:

“In sum, anomos and its cognates almost always mean evil, wicked, or sinful in Jewish literature before 70CE, and the vast majority of examples refer to Jews or to the wicked in general and not to gentiles.”

So we see that even Jews – who had the Law – can be ‘lawless’.

From “The Encyclopaedia of Identity”:

“Anomia re-emerged in the Greek Old Testament around the 3rd century BCE as a translation for about 20 different Hebrew words that corresponded to English terms such as wickedness, evil, sin and iniquity. Anomia was seen as a general moral term and the polar opposite of moral law. In the New Testament, the meaning of the term was extended to include unbelief and the rejection of Christ as the son of God”

‘A general moral term’, then, for wickedness, evil, sin, iniquity.

From Gutbrod:

“In Judaism ho anomos or hoi anomoi is a common term for gentiles. Here it is hard to distinguish a mere affirmation that they do not have the law and a judgement that they are sinners. In general the latter view seems to predominate.”

So, predominantly, a derogatory - or, at least, contrasting - term meaning ‘sinners’.

One more – from “A Commentary on the Letters of John: An Intra-Jewish Approach” by Birger Olsson:

"… the letter does not support viewing the reference as an offense against the Law of Moses. … In apocalyptic texts the word anomia most readily carries the sense of lawlessness, godlessness, rebellion against God. The evidence for such an apocalyptic content is manifold … the sense of transgression against the Law of Moses is not attested in the NT."

Conclusion

Thus it would seem the consensus agrees that ‘anomia’ generally is synonymous with ‘wicked’ and ‘anomos’ means ‘wickedness’ – moral deficit. It is not a specific reference to the law of God being broken … UNLESS the context, as in Romans 2, indicates specifically that that is what is being spoken of.

To impose that meaning on the text contorts it and makes it say what it does not say.

Imperative Imposters?

Introduction

Some New Covenant Theology adherents want to insist that even in the new covenant, whilst

expounding vigorously that believers are not under the old covenant Law, nevertheless they ARE under a new kind of law. They would call this 'the Law of Christ', using Paul's phrase from Galatians 6. When asked how we are supposed to discover what, precisely, this law contains, various answers are given. A common one is to assert that 'the Law of Christ' is made up of all of the 'imperatives' of the New Testament - the command-style statements made through those writings. And that these are the new-law 'commandments' which we are supposed to be obeying. However, on closer examination, this definition proves to be woefully inadequate on various counts. And one problem is the Greek use of the imperative 'mood'. Here is a quick survey of Greek verbs:

"Ancient Greek verbs have four moods (indicative, imperative, subjunctive and optative), three voices (active, middle and passive), as well as three persons (first, second and third) and three numbers (singular, dual and plural).

In the indicative mood there are seven tenses: present, imperfect, future, aorist (the equivalent of past simple), perfect, pluperfect, and future perfect. (The last two, especially the future perfect, are rarely used). In the subjunctive and imperative mood, however, there are only three tenses (present, aorist, and perfect). The optative mood, infinitives and participles are found in four tenses (present, aorist, perfect, and future) and all three voices. The distinction of the "tenses" in moods other than the indicative is predominantly one of aspect rather than time."

Greek, then, is much more precise than English, and sometimes our translators have struggled to adequately represent what is being said. They do a valiant job. Just, sometimes, we need to know a little more so that we do justice to all that the text is saying.

Imperatives have 'strength'

We must also see that all imperatives are not equal. They vary in ‘strength’. In other words, there are ‘levels’ of commanding, and this can be quite adequately seen in English. James L Boyer says:


“Much popular exegesis of the Greek imperative mood rests on unwarranted assumptions. Analysis of the actual usage of the imperative in the NT reveals that many common exegetical conclusions regarding the imperative are unfounded. For example, a prohibition with the present imperative does not necessarily mean "stop." And when it does, it is context, not some universal rule of the imperative, that determines the meaning. The imperative mood has a wide latitude of meanings from which the exegete must choose in light of contextual clues. The temptation to standardize the translation of the various imperatival usages should be resisted.”
Grace Theological Journal 8.1 (1987) 35-54.
https://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/new_testament_greek/text/boyer-imperatives-gtj.pdf

Even in our own language, we can see that imperatives can be used in different ways. Let’s take a single-word imperative – “Go!” – and see if I can illustrate.

1. Encouragement – “Go for it” (implies ‘you CAN do it’)
2. Exhortation - “Go on – shoot!” (as my football team’s striker nears the goal)
3. Direction - “Go left at the next junction” (Satnav command)
4. Authoritative - “Go into all the world and preach the gospel”

There are probably others. What determines? Context, of course. Boyer, again:

"Commands include a broad spectrum of concepts--injunctions, orders, admonitions, exhortations--ranging from authoritarian dictates (a centurion ordering his soldier to go or come, Matt 8:9), to the act of teaching (Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, Matt 5:2, cf. 12ff.). Commands are distinguished from requests as "telling" is from "asking." The distinction, however, is not made by the mood used but by the situation, the context. They are used in the language of superiors to subordinates and of subordinates to superiors, and between equals."

To reiterate, Greek is far more ‘analytical’ than English. It has more tenses. And tenses have moods. As an example of this, there is a ‘mood’ in Greek called a ‘hortatory subjunctive’. It converts an imperative into an exhortation – usually translated ‘Let us’. But it is still an imperative. See, for example, Galatians 5 vs 26 

“Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another”. 

So what we might conceive of as New Testament ‘laws’ aren’t to be read indiscriminately as such, even if we take the view that the ‘law of Christ’ consists of all of its imperatives. For example, there are imperatives in what we know as the Lord’s Prayer. Are we, then, commanding God? Of course not.

Simply, imperatives are not always ‘imperative’! Read Boyer's article.

An Inadequate Definition

What I am seeking to demonstrate is that if this ‘law of Christ’ is going to be loosely defined as consisting of “all of the imperatives of the New Testament”, this is woefully inadequate. It does not give us enough basis for us to be able to decide what is ‘in’ and what is not. Which imperatives? How do we know? Second, we have no information about what the first church considered to be a part of it, and no way of deciding that. And what happens, without exception, with those who hold this is that they utterly fail to even attempt a definitive description. It is simply left as an extremely loose assertion, which is somehow expected to be convincing.

Paul's Use of "Ennomos" in 1 Corinthians 9

In 1 Corinthians 9, Paul makes this intriguing statement:

" To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law." (vs 21)

Elsewhere, he repeatedly and pointedly states that believers are not 'under law'. It might seem, therefore, that he contradicts himself. But if we have a consistent view of God's word, we know that this cannot be so. It is the Holy Spirit who is the author behind the author of every written part of our Bible, and it is inconceivable that He argues against himself. So, we who take this view must seek to understand what is going on here.


Some have taken this verse and, standing it alongside Galatians 6 vs 2, which speaks of believers 'fulfilling the law of Christ', have constructed a kind of 'believers' law' which stands in the new covenant where the Law of Moses stood in the old. But what of Paul's emphatic insistence that those who are in Christ are NOT under law?


Countering this argument, others have noted that the actual words used in 1 Corinthians 9 are not 'hupo nomos' - 'under law', but 'ennomos', which, strictly translated, means 'in-lawed' to Christ. Their opponents argue back that this is splitting Greek hairs, and that the two terms are virtually synonymous. I have considered this discussion for some time, and have recently come across something which may well throw all the light on it that we will ever need! But before I reveal this enlightenment, let me explain why I am not happy that this verse speaks of believers being 'under law'.

The Perspicuity of Paul

Historically, Protestants have argued for a doctrine known as 'the perspicuity(clarity) of Scripture'. This states that:

...those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them" (1646 Westminster Confession of Faith)

So, within this, we can also expect Paul to be plain in what he says. It would be no exaggeration to describe this learned, skilled Apostle as 'God's mastermind'. It is not for nothing that God used him to write 13 of the 29 documents which comprise our New Testament. Their contribution to our understanding of our faith is inestimable. And we can trust utterly his grasp, and his expression, of what God commissioned him to communicate - to the first church and to us. His extensive Jewish scholarly background, his understanding of the cultures of the churches he was writing to, and, not least of all, the enlightenment and Godly training of the risen Christ in his life had sharpened this finest of 'God's tools in the toolbox' to the nth degree and fit him for God's purpose. And yet he knows he writes to untrained men and women, non-scholars, in the various places in which God has used him to plant and nurture churches. So he, and the Spirit through him, ensures that his language is, as far as possible, plain and succinct. He writes to be understood!


When it comes to him using a different word from the usual and expected one in the context of 1 Corinthians 9, then, my suspicions are aroused. Why does he not just say,

To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law."

... using 'huper nomos' as would be perfectly reasonable? Surely, if he wanted to make that point abundantly clear, beyond the realms of conjecture, he could so easily have done so. But what he does is to state,

To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but in-lawed to Christ."

Notice that what has happened is that the object of the sentence is different to the way most of our translations present it - Paul's object is Christ, not law. I don't think that is accidental. 'In-lawed' at least, here, becomes descriptive of the way he, as a believer, is related 'to Christ' - he is not 'under ...', he is 'in-lawed'. Whatever else is going on, that at least, is significant, and I don't think we can reasonably just shrug shoulders and say "but he meant 'under the law ...'"

And then again, if the maxim of believers yet being 'under law' is so important, why is it not everywhere and all through his letters, employing this word freely and liberally? Why only once, and only to Corinth?

All Greek To Me

So here is the shaft of bright sunlight! I am indebted to a very thorough study by Fred Naiden in his book titled "Ancient Supplication". It gets a bit technical, but I will try to keep my explanation simple.


First, note that Paul is writing to the church at Corinth - a Greek church. For many years, that great city functioned almost as the capital. Their society had inherited the full complement of the Greek pantheon of gods, and now, added to all of them, were the extra Roman ones. Temples abounded, and the practice of the worship of their gods was 'sewn in' to their society - extremely deeply embedded.


When we examine the way that their religious system operated, we will immediately notice that for both Greeks and Romans, there was no distinction between 'politics' and 'religion'. In other words, the two were intertwined, and the ruling authorities legislated in matters of worship. As a member of that society, the plan was first to choose the right god for the right cause, the right occasion. You then had to gain their attention somehow, and present your particular request for their benevolence, in whatever way you needed it. This was a complex business. If you got it wrong - by presenting the wrong oblation, on the wrong altar, at the wrong time - you could incur wrath and blight instead of the favour you sought. And ... not only for you, but for anyone else who happened to be in the vicinity at the time your displeased deity was visiting his/her wrath on you (think Jonah in his storm-beleaguered ship). So it was expedient for the government to do whatever they could to make sure that only those who 'qualified' could actually even get to the altar. They had to 'apply', and they were called 'suppliants'.


Here is what Naiden has to say:

Supplication incorporates divine sanctions against perjury and against the expulsion of the innocent from altars and divine injunctions to allow a suppliant to approach and have his request heard.

… it also incorporates numerous regulations passed by the assembly of any given community, notably Athens. For their part, the gods endorse sanctions, injunctions and regulations. For its part, the assembly addresses every part of the practice. Besides regulating how citizens deal with one another and with the community, it regulates how the community deals with the gods."

Their application was duly considered by a Council, or an Assembly. And if they were found to be ok - guess what

- their 'supplication' was said to be 'ennoma', and they were said to be 'ennomos'! Naiden again (he is taking specific examples from Greek literature to illustrate his point):

No matter what the suppliant’s station and request, the supplication that he or she makes must be ennoma, or the suppliant must be ennomos – the Samian formulation. The moral side of these terms appears in the assertion that Dioscurides is worthy. But the legal side is larger and more complex. In regard to the first two steps, ennoma or ennomos means that the suppliant is eligible to supplicate and has done so at the right time. Ennomos in the Samian inscription supplies the first meaning, “eligible to supplicate”, and ennoma in the Attic inscriptions supplies the second meaning, which is presenting oneself at the right time. In regard to the last two steps, ennoma complements hiketeuin as a verb of speaking and means that the suppliant has made a lawful request. Finally, since the lawful request has led to the passage of a decree granting honours, annoma also means that the supplication has proved “valid”, a sense of ennoma in other legislative contexts."

Thus, we see that the word 'ennomos' has specific meaning for Paul's hearers, within the Graeco-Roman religious culture of the day. It is in common usage, and it is transparently understood.

1 Corinthians 9 vs 21 in New Light

Paul loves playing on words. And he is not averse to 'borrowing' a word or two from the current climate and making it work for him. He does it in Galatians with the Roman practice of 'paedagogue'. And it is my persuasion that he does it here too. This also explains why

a) It is done specifically with the Greek-backgrounded church of Corinth

b) He never uses this rather loaded term again elsewhere. Perhaps he can get away with it once, because these people knew what he was referring to (and now, we do!). But doesn't want to make it major.

So what is Paul doing with this word in this verse?

First we see, that this use is as an illustration of his main point, which is all about Christians foregoing their 'rights' out of love for one another. He says to the Corinthians, "and this is what I have done in my preaching of the gospel - I have 'become all things to all men'". Then follows the Jew/Gentile/weak elaboration. And he wants to emphasise that becoming like a Jew does NOT mean coming again under law. And then, that becoming like a Gentile does not mean being 'outside (the meaning of the old English word 'without') God's law'. Rather in respect of God's law, he is 'ennomos' - he has been granted 'licence', or 'legitimate status' to supplicate to Christ - to present worship and prayer to Christ. Here, then, is as much of 'law' as Paul is wanting to make claim to, and what it gives him is the right of approach; of full access. And not just to a god who is no god, but to the risen Christ.

Thus we can see that even though it makes reference to both 'law' and to 'Christ', this verse, in all probability, has nothing to do with what Paul speaks of in Galatians 6, and that to 'patch' those two verses together actually makes something of nothing.