A Study Of Pauline Passages On Inheriting The Kingdom

By René A. López

[This is the fourth article in a six-part series, “The Pauline Vice Lists and Inheriting the Kingdom.”

René A. López is Adjunct Professor of Greek and New Testament and Spanish Bible Studies, Criswell College, Dallas, Texas.]

Does the phrase “inherit the kingdom of God” mean possession of rewards in the millennial kingdom, or entrance into it, or both? And does Paul’s use of the word “kingdom” refer solely to a future kingdom or to a present reality? A study of the many passages where Paul used the phrase “inherit the kingdom of God,” the term “inheritance,” and the word “kingdom” can help answer these questions.

Romans 4:13-14

“For not through the law was the promise given to Abraham or to his descendants that he would inherit the world, but through the righteousness of faith. For if they become heirs by the law, faith becomes invalid and the promise nullified.”[1] To “inherit the world” here is based on “the righteousness of faith,” not on merits obtained through the Law; otherwise faith and the promise are ineffective and voided.

The word “promise” does not refer to any of the promises given to national Israel (e.g., land, Gen. 12:7; 13:14-17; 15:18-21; 17:6-8; 22:17), but to the promise of justification by faith offered to both Israelites and Gentiles (Gen. 3:15; 12:3; Rom. 3:27-30; Gal. 3:7-8). Thus the church composed of Jews and Gentiles is in view. Those who by faith “belong to Christ” are Abraham’s “children” (i.e., descendants) and are “heirs according to [God’s] promise” (Gal. 3:29).

It follows that those who are Abraham’s children by faith and who will thus inherit “the world” (Rom. 4:13; in the millennium) are the same as those who are heirs of God by faith alone (Rom. 8:17; Gal. 3:29; 4:1).[2]

Romans 8:17

“But if children, then heirs, on the one hand heirs of God, on the other hand co-heirs with Christ, if indeed [εἴπερ] we suffer with Him that we may also be glorified with Him.” In this verse Paul seems to have united both concepts of inheritance: the nonmeritorious aspect, which pertains to faith alone, and the meritorious aspect associated with suffering with Christ.

The subordinating conjunction εἴπερ introduces a contingent action or fact that confirms the reality of an event.[3] In 8:9 εἴπερ denotes “seeing that,” and some interpreters say it is equivalent to γάρ, or “if, as is the fact.”[4] Yet several details argue against this view in verse 17b.

All Christians are “heirs of God” (κληρονόμοι θεοῦ) simply by faith. However, to be co-heirs or joint-heirs with (συγκληρονόμοι) Christ is conditioned (εἴπερ) on believers’ suffering with Christ.[5]

Only mature sons of God who live righteously as they are led by the Spirit (8:13-15) attain co-heirship with Christ.[6] Four facts indicate that co-heirship with Christ (cf. 2 Tim. 2:11-13) is conditioned on suffering with Him.

First, the two Greek terms show the difference between the heirship (κληρονόμοι) obtained on believing in Christ and the co-heirship (συγκληρονόμοι) earned by suffering for Christ. This distinction is further seen by the use of the σύν compound verbs συμπάσχομεν (“suffer with”) so that believers may also be συνδοξασθῶμεν (“share in glory with”; cf. Rom. 8:18, where the meaning of glory is further defined).

Second, the first particle εἰ, which should be translated here as “since,” differs from the second conditional particle εἴπερ (“if indeed”), which introduces Christian suffering as an indispensable condition of future glory.[7] The shift of particles then indicates a transition in thought, from an established fact to a condition that follows.

Third, two other important particles—μὲν . . . δὲ—appear between “heirs of God” and “joint-heirs with Christ” and indicate two contrasting heirships.[8] Not seen in most English translations,[9] the contrastive sense may be rendered as follows: “On the one hand” (μὲν) heirs of God, but “on the other hand” (δὲ) joint-heirs with Christ. Paul used this same structure throughout Romans (2:7-8, 25; 5:16; 6:11; 7:25; 8:10, 17; 9:21; 11:22, 28; 14:2, 5), and it always indicates contrastive, but never conjunctive, constructions.[10]

Fourth, Scripture clearly supports this view in other places by showing that rewards are conditioned on works or suffering (Matt. 6:1; 25:14-30; Luke 11:19-27; 1 Cor. 9:16-27; 2 Cor. 5:10; Phil. 3:8-11; Col. 3:24; 2 Tim. 2:11-13; Heb. 10:35; 11:26; James 1:12; 1 Pet. 1:4; 1 John 2:28; 2 John 8; Rev. 2-3).[11] Thus Paul taught here that at regeneration all believers become heirs of God, but only those who suffer will “be glorified with Him.” This “glory” (δόξα) “revealed in” the “sons of God” (Rom. 8:18-19) refers to the faithful believers’ participation in the glorious honor, prestige, and reward of reigning with Christ over creation (vv. 18-23; cf. 2 Tim. 2:12; Heb. 1:8-9; Rev. 2:26-28). When a king was crowned (for his faithfulness to the kingdom he served; cf. Heb 1:5-9), he was “glorified.” So believers (as His “cabinet members” who remain faithful to Him) will also be crowned (1 Cor. 9:25; Phil. 4:1; 1 Thess. 2:19; 2 Tim. 4:8; James 1:12; 1 Pet. 5:4; Rev. 2:10; 3:11) and glorified (for their faithfulness) with many rewards.[12]

1 Corinthians 15:50

“Now this is what I am saying, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, neither can corruption inherit incorruption.” Some believe that this verse refers to obedient believers who will inherit rewards in the millennial kingdom when Jesus will rule on the earth. In this view to inherit the kingdom is something earned by one’s faithfulness to Jesus rather than as a realm that all believers enter when He returns.[13]

However, several factors argue against interpreting inheritance in this verse as referring solely to rewards rather than entrance into the kingdom. First, 1 Corinthians 15:50 connects with verse 49, which affirms that all believers will have bodies of a different nature that will help them live an obedient life (like “the man from heaven”) in contrast to that of the “man of dust” (the fallen man whose substance is controlled by the flesh, as in v. 44).[14] Then verse 50 connects with what precedes it (vv. 44-49) and with what follows (vv. 51-54) by the terms “corruption” and “incorruption.” Thus verse 50 affirms that those of the church (not saints of every era)[15] will not enter the kingdom of God in their present state, since everyone will be changed, as indicated in verse 51 (similar to 1 Thess. 4:13-5:10).[16]

Second, in 1 Corinthians 15:49 Paul used the first-person plural “we” to indicate that he included himself with the Corinthian believers. Also verse 49 is connected with verse 50 by the use of τοῦτο δὲ. Then in verses 51-54 he stated that this will take place at the rapture. In describing this Paul again used a first-person plural noun: “We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed” (v. 51). At the rapture every living believer will be immediately changed. They will be given an incorruptible, Spirit-controlled nature (v. 44), unlike the present state of the Corinthian believers who were letting their fleshly nature control them (2:13, 15; 3:1; 14:34-39).

When all church-age believers undergo this transformation at the rapture, they will “inherit [i.e., enter] the kingdom of God.” Paul hoped that this coming transformation would inspire the Corinthian believers to experience something of that future reality by living a Spirit-controlled life now.

When Paul wrote in verse 50 that “flesh and blood [those alive at the rapture] cannot inherit the kingdom of God,” he simply meant that believers cannot take part in God’s future kingdom in their weak, frail, and sinfully driven condition.[17] A fundamental change in their nature must take place in church saints in order for them to belong to that kingdom.[18]

Galatians 3:18, 29; 4:1, 7, 30

In Galatians 3:18, 29 “inheritance” refers to the “promise” that believers will experience in the world to come (i.e., the millennium). “For if the inheritance is founded on the Law, then it cannot be based on the promise, but God gave it to Abraham through promise.”

As seen in 3:15-19 this inheritance is based purely on faith and is given to believing Jews and Gentiles.[19]

Galatians 3:29 refers to the same concept, but it connects the heirs of the promise (Jews and Gentiles, v. 28) with both belonging to Christ and being Abraham’s seed by faith (cf. vv. 3:9-14). “And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise” (3:29). To be “heirs” (cf. “heir” in 4:1, 7, 30) is based solely on faith in Christ and is not earned (3:6-9). As shown in 4:1-7 a Jew or a Gentile becomes a child of God by faith in Christ.[20] “The inheritance promised to Abraham belongs to the children of the promise who, being believers themselves, are blessed with believing Abraham (3:9).”[21] As Dunn concludes, “The inheritance promised to Abraham (see on 3:18) . . . had been the point to the argument: if Paul was correct, the Gentile Galatian believers need do or receive nothing more in order to be sure of belonging in God’s family; they were sons already, and so their share in the inheritance of Abraham was secure.”[22]

Ephesians 1:11, 14, 18

Ephesians 1:11a may mean that believers are the inheritance (or the “chosen”; a passive verb ἐκληρώθημεν) whom God possesses in Christ along with everything else (v. 10). The New International Version translates it that way: “In him we were also chosen.” To interpret the verb ἐκληρώθημεν, “we were obtained by lot,” as Chrysostom does, and connect it with terms in Romans 8:28, 30, destroys the meaning of the verb and relegates κληρόω to a mere synonym of “to choose” or “to call.”

A better option is to see the passive verb ἐκληρώθημεν expressing the point that believers are God’s inheritance. This word, Hoehner says, “is a passive [verb] with the idea that the believer is viewed as God’s inheritance and could be translated ‘we were made a heritage (of God)’ (RV, ASV). The strength of this view is that it has OT precedent where Israel is called God’s possession (Deut 4:20; 7:6; 14:2) or heritage (Deut 9:26, 29; 32:9; cf. 1QS 2:2).”[23] Furthermore, since Ephesians 1:2-13 records a number of benefits believers receive from God, Hoehner concludes, “God possesses the believers because of all he has done for them.”[24]

Then in Ephesians 1:14 Paul wrote that the Holy Spirit “is the down payment [ἀρραβών] of our inheritance [κληρονομίας] until the redemption of God’s possession to the praise of His glory.” Here “inheritance” refers to the believer’s eternal life, which is guaranteed by the sealing of the Holy Spirit (v. 13; cf. 4:30), who was given as a down payment or guarantee of the believer’s future glorification (1:14). The genitive κληρονομίας seems to function as a partitive genitive, indicating that the Spirit does not represent the believer’s entire inheritance.[25] As Hoehner observes, “This inheritance qualifies believers to live eternally in heaven in the presence of God. We have a little bit of heaven in us, namely, the Holy Spirit’s presence, and a guarantee of a lot more in the future.”[26]

Although in verse 14 the term κληρονομίας refers to part of the believers’ inheritance that guarantees them a share in heaven, κληρονομίας in verse 18 refers to God’s inheritance in believers. “Because of his choosing, redeeming, adopting, and sealing us, we are his possession. Thus, his possession is located in the saints. He will fully gain his inheritance when the saints are removed from this earth and come into his presence. Therefore, not only do we have an inheritance (v. 14) but he also has an inheritance (vv. 11, 18).”[27]

In all three verses (vv. 11, 14, 18) the inheritance is nothing that believers earn by obedience; instead this inheritance stems solely from God’s grace.

Colossians 3:24

“Whatever you should be doing, work at it with all your soul, as to the Lord and not for people, since you know that from the Lord you will receive the reward of the inheritance [κληρονομίας]. Serve the Lord Christ.”[28] Some writers equate κληρονομίας here with “eternal life or salvation.” However, this view is highly questionable on a grammatical and theological level.[29]

First, grammatically the inheritance the Lord’s servants can expect to receive is in the future, as indicated by the future middle indicative verb ἀπολήμψεσθε.[30] If they do wrong, however, they can also expect to receive just retribution for that action. This too is indicated by the future middle indicative verb κομίσεται, “will receive” (v. 25).[31]

Second, numerous passages show that Colossians 3:24 does not refer to receiving eternal life as a reward for obedience. Instead it is a gift (cf. John 3:16; 4:10-12; 5:24; 6:40, 47; 20:31; Rom. 3:21-4:25; Eph. 2:8-9; Titus 3:3-7; Rev. 22:17). The heavenly inheritance (κλῆρος, “lot” or “portion”) mentioned in Colossians 1:12 and prepared for believers in heaven (termed “hope” and “glory”; 1:5, 27; 3:1-4) differs from κληρονομία.[32] As the context makes clear, this κλῆρος is based solely on faith in Christ (1:12-14).

Third, 3:23-25 indicates that obedience is a requirement for attaining this κληρονομία. If this inheritance refers to justification, then that contradicts Pauline thought elsewhere (Gal. 3:6-9, 18, 29; 4:1, 7, 30; cf. 4:2-5, 13). Instead κληρονομία in Colossians 3:24 is a reward paid to obedient believers.[33] As Bruce observes,

The judgment on disobedience is as certain as the reward for faithfulness. While salvation in the Bible is according to grace, judgment is according to works, whether good or bad, for believers as for unbelievers. It is probably implied that, while sowing is now, the reaping is hereafter—before the tribunal of Christ (as in 2 Cor. 5:10 [cf. Rom. 14:10-12; 1 Cor. 3:12-17; 4:4-5]). It may be difficult to understand how one who by grace is blessed with God’s salvation in Christ will nevertheless be requited for wrongdoing before the divine tribunal, but it is in accordance with biblical teaching that judgment should “begin with the household of God” (1 Pet. 4:17), and even if the tribunal is a domestic one, for members of the family of God, it is by no means to be contemplated lightly.[34]

In Colossians 3:24 κληρονομία then refers to a reward received for a believer’s faithfulness to the Lord.

Titus 3:7

Titus 3:7 mentions that believers are heirs and have a confident expectation of eternal life. When believers are saved apart from works (v. 5), “through [διὰ, ‘by means of’] Jesus Christ” (v. 6) and are “justified” (aorist passive participle, v. 7), they become κληρονόμοι (“heirs,” v. 7) who will receive eternal life. To become an heir of eternal life is based on God’s “mercy” (v. 5), and the salvation that comes through Jesus Christ is for those who believe.[35] To be an heir in this context is tantamount to being a Christian. As Brown explains, “Here, becoming an heir is described as a benefit of justification.”[36]

Romans 14:17

In seeking to settle matters between believers on questionable practices (whether one can eat foods offered to idols), Paul encouraged believers to focus on the most important issues in order to live in harmony with one another, “for the kingdom of God does not consist of food or drink, but of righteousness and peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit.” The “kingdom” may refer to the sphere where only the regenerate exist and where God rules in the lives of believers. Yet in the eight times the expression “the kingdom of God” occurs in Paul’s epistles (1 Cor. 4:20; 6:9-10; 15:50; Gal. 5:21; Eph. 5:5; Col. 4:11; 2 Thess. 1:5), it is more consistent to interpret it as a literal future kingdom, with present operative principles to be fully realized in the future after Christ returns.[37]

As McClain makes clear, “The thought here fits a future kingdom better than a present one. For surely in the present life no one can deny the importance of meat and drink; but in the future kingdom these things will be of no consequence. Therefore since the church is to reign in that kingdom, its members should not judge or grieve one another in such matters here and now (cf. vv. 13-21). All disputes of this nature should be left for ‘the judgment seat of Christ.’ “[38]

1 Corinthians 4:20; 15:24

In 1 Corinthians 4:20 Paul wrote, “For the kingdom of God does not consist of [idle] speech [ἐν λόγῳ] but of power [ἐν δυνάμει].” The “condition of its [the kingdom’s] existence” is “not in speech, but in power.”[39]

Fee admits that most of Paul’s uses of the term “kingdom” refer to the consummation of this era on Christ’s return. Yet he favors an “already, not yet” perspective and believes this verse refers to the kingdom’s present reality begun by Jesus’ resurrection and by the Spirit’s coming in power.[40] “Here is the line of demarcation between their view of spirituality and Paul’s. They were living in the Spirit as though the future had dawned in its fullness.”[41] Barrett also holds this view and places Romans 14:17 in the same category.[42]

Conzelmann believes that “the eschatological character of the ‘kingdom of God’ is not abrogated by the fact that it provides a criterion in the present; 6:9f; 15:50; Rom 14:17; Gal 5:21; 1 Thess 2:12 (2 Thess 1:5).”[43] That is, some characteristics of the future kingdom can apply to believers in the church. But what aspect of the kingdom did Paul have in mind? According to 1 Corinthians 4:3-8 Paul was seeking to influence the present behavior of the Corinthians in light of their potential rule in the future kingdom. That is consistent with the fact that in verses 5 and 8 he referred to the future reign in the kingdom in connection with present behavior. McClain observes the latter and notes another detail about the use of δύναμις elsewhere. “The same Greek term is used to describe the great public miracles which, according to Hebrews 6:5, belong to ‘the age to come,’ that is, the Kingdom age. To interpret 1 Corinthians 4:20 as a present kingdom of the saints would make Paul contradict what he had already written in verses five and eight.”[44] As Meyer concludes, “The βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ, again, is not here, as it never is elsewhere . . . the church, or the kingdom of God in the ethical sense, . . . but the Messianic kingdom.”[45]

First Corinthians 15:24 mentions that when τὸ τέλος (“the end”) arrives, Christ will hand over the kingdom to God the Father. What aspect of the kingdom did Paul have in mind here? First, one view suggests that this kingdom began at Christ’s exaltation to the right hand of God at His resurrection (Ps. 110:1; cf. Acts 2:26-36). Bruce defends this view.

The temporal adverb eita implies an interval of indeterminate duration between the parousia and the end, when Christ hands his dominion back to God; the context suggests that the interval is short. Earlier in this letter Paul has indicated that in the final phase of Christ’s kingship his people will share it with him (4:8) and judge the world (6:2). When this has been accomplished, the present age comes to an end. The kingship of Christ, the age of the Messiah, began with his exaltation to “the right hand of God”; Paul envisages him as reigning from that position of supremacy, in terms of Ps. 110:1.[46]

Although Bruce believes the context hints that the interval between the παρουσία and the end “is short,” nothing contextually suggests this. In fact, as he admits, εἶτα entails “an interval of indeterminate duration” and rather suggests a chronological order of time. Furthermore the term “king” is never used of Christ for His rule over the New Testament church; instead the term used is “Lord” (e.g., Acts 2:36; 16:31).[47] Thus it seems highly improbable that Paul meant that the kingdom in 1 Corinthians 15:24 is a spiritual form over which Christ is now ruling as King. 

Second, some have suggested that τέλος should be translated “rest” or “remainder.” Three groups of resurrected ones would then be in order: first, Christ as the first fruits, then believers at Christ’s coming, then the rest of mankind after an interval period in which believers rule with Christ in the millennium. While scholars hesitate to interpret τέλος as “end” (though that is possible), a threefold order can still be seen in verses 23-24, as McClain suggests:

The time of this Kingdom may be ascertained from the main subject matter of the context, which is resurrection. Every man must be raised from the dead, “but each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, then they that are Christ’s, at His coming, then cometh the end” . . . (vv. 23-24, asv). This threefold order of resurrection fits the eschatological system of the New Testament; first, the resurrection of Christ Himself; second, the resurrection of His saints . . . (1 Thess. 4:13-18); third, the resurrection of the unsaved at the “end” (cf. Rev. 20:11-15). Since the Kingdom is to be established at the second coming of Christ, and is to be delivered up to the Father at the “end,” the period of the Kingdom must be located in the future between the two resurrections, as also indicated clearly in Revelation 20.[48]

Two key elements favor McClain’s view. First, the context of 1 Corinthians 15 refers to the Resurrection. Thus the resurrection of unbelievers must also be in view, “of which their resurrection is the necessary premiss [sic],”[49] since only after the resurrection of the righteous and unrighteous will the end come, as various passages indicate (Dan. 12:2-3; cf. John 11:24; Rev. 20:11-15).[50] Second, since another rebellion and resurrection will occur at the end of the millennial reign of Christ (Rev. 20:5-15), the “end to all rule and authority” when Christ delivers the kingdom cannot come until after these events occur. Hence it seems better to understand that in 1 Corinthians 15:24 Paul referred to the end after the future millennial kingdom has transpired.

Colossians 1:13; 4:11

“He delivered us from the power of darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of the Son He loves.” This suggests a present form of the kingdom (without excluding the realization of a future kingdom), which occurs in a person’s life the moment he or she believes in Christ for eternal life.[51]

However, the positional language and the wider context suggest, as McClain writes, that this verse should be taken as “de jure rather than de facto.”[52] Colossians 1:13 should not be viewed as denoting the actual presence of a “spiritual kingdom,” but rather a judicial reality that transpires the moment one believes in Christ for justification. Ephesians 2:6 makes the same point: God “raised us up with Him and seated us with Him in the heavenly places with Christ.” As McClain explains, “Although we are not yet de facto seated in the heavenlies, the thing is so certain that God can speak of it as already done. In the same sense, we have been (aorist tense) transferred judicially into the Kingdom of our Lord even before its establishment. Being what He is, God ‘calleth the things that are not, as though they were’ (Rom. 4:17, ASV).”[53]

Colossians 4:11 states, “These are the only fellow workers for [or ‘unto’ = εἰς] the kingdom of God, who became a comfort to me.” The preposition εἰς can be seen as pointing to the direction to which these believers in the church were working as present representatives of the future kingdom.[54] For ambassadors, however, both realms exist, even though the future realm is not yet present.[55]

1 Thessalonians 2:12

In 1 Thessalonians 2:12 Paul exhorted believers to “live worthy of God, who calls” believers “unto [εἰς] His own kingdom and glory.” Walvoord says this verse encourages believers to walk in light of God’s future kingdom. “In view of these things, God has called us to a walk that is in keeping with our destiny.”[56] The concept of a future kingdom here resembles 1 Peter 5:10, “God . . . has called us unto His eternal glory.” “The language here is similar to other passages where believers are said to be called unto (eis) things not yet realized in Christian experience.” Although Milligan says Paul was speaking of a present kingdom elsewhere (Rom. 14:17; 1 Cor. 4:20; Col. 1:13), he believes various details in 1 Thessalonians 2:12 and elsewhere (1 Cor. 6:10; 15:50; Gal. 5:21; 2 Thess. 1:5; 2 Tim. 4:1, 18) point to a future kingdom. “That this is the case here [in 1 Thess. 2:12] is shown by its inclusion with the eschatological δόξαν under one article.”[57]

2 Thessalonians 1:5

In this verse Paul wrote, “This is proof of God’s righteous judgment that you may be made worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are also suffering.”

The context suggests that this verse refers to the future aspect of the kingdom. In verses 4-5 suffering believers are exhorted to endure persecutions and tribulations. In the future this will be reversed “when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels” to repay those who persecuted Christians (vv. 6-9).

Walvoord too says this kingdom is in the future. “The Thessalonians were in trial now, but this was to them evidence of their future glory.”[58] Marshall also concludes, “The goal of faith is entry to the kingdom of God, here conceived, as in 1 Th. 2:12, as the future sphere of divine blessing to which God calls his faithful people.”[59] And Bruce writes, “The kingdom of God here, as in 1 Thess 2:12, is identical with ‘that age’ in which the children of God will enjoy resurrection life.”[60]

2 Timothy 4:1, 18

In verse 1 there is little doubt that Paul referred to the future kingdom when he wrote, “God and Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom.” Regarding verses 1 and 18 McClain says:

The Apostle Paul brackets together in point of time the future “appearing” (epiphaneia) of Christ with “his kingdom” (2 Tim. 4:1). Later in the same chapter he expresses his firm assurance that the Lord will preserve him unto his “heavenly kingdom” (vs. 18). This expression is not synonymous [with] heaven, but rather indicates that the long-awaited Messianic Kingdom will be heavenly in origin and character as contrasted with earthly kingdoms. It is the closest approximation to the familiar phrase “kingdom of heaven” so frequently used in Matthew’s Gospel. Peter exhorts Christian believers to be diligent in walk and work so that they may have an abundant “entrance . . . into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ” (2 Pet. 1:11). In these texts cited there can be no question about the futurity of the Kingdom.[61]

The next article in this series will discuss Paul’s vice list in Galatians 5:19-21 and the phrase “will not inherit the kingdom of God” in verse 21.

Notes

1. Unless indicated otherwise, all Scripture quotations are the author’s translations.
2. See René López, Romans Unlocked: Power to Deliver, rev. ed. (Springfield, MO: 21st Century, 2009), 93-94.
3. F. Blass, A. Debrunner, and R. W. Funk, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961), 237 §454.2.
4. C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: Clark, 1980), 407. William H. Simcox believes that εἴπερ in Romans 8:17 indicates a “fact.” See also Max Zerwick, Biblical Greek: Illustrated by Examples, trans. Joseph Smith (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1963), 107; and William E. Brown, “The New Testament Concept of the Believer’s Inheritance” (Th.D. diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 1984), 95-103.
5. Many commentators view the particle εἴπερ either as a conditional admonition to be fulfilled or as an encouragement to suffer with Christ in order to be glorified with Him. See Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 506 n. 50; Bernhard Weiss, Der Brief an die Römer, 9th ed. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1899), 358; and Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1993), 502. James D. G. Dunn says, “Paul takes up the already established link between sonship and suffering in Jewish thought (as in Prov 3:12; Tob 13:4-5; Wisd Sol 3-5; Add Esth 16:14-16; Pss. Sol. 13.8-9 . . .) and adapts it to Christian eschatology. Here again a distinction between εἰ and εἴπερ is evident: in v 17a εἰ denotes a necessary and sufficient condition fulfilled (‘since’), but εἴπερ denotes a condition not yet fulfilled and therefore a consequence dependent on the fulfillment of the condition . . . . ‘in order that we might be glorified with him.’ The final force of the ἵνα should not be weakened. The implication is again clear: suffering with Christ is not an optional extra or a decline or lapse from the saving purpose of God. On the contrary, it is a necessary and indispensable part of that purpose. Without it future glory would not be attained” (Romans 1-8, Word Biblical Commentary [Waco, TX: Word, 1988], 456).
6. Obviously the Holy Spirit does not automatically lead all believers. The Spirit’s leading depends on the believer’s choice, since Christians can grieve the Spirit and choose to ignore His leading (Gal. 5:16-18, 22, 25; 6:8; Eph. 4:30; 5:18).
7. Wilhelm Michaelis, “συμπάσχω,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, vol. 5 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967), 925-26. Michaelis also sees συμπάσχω as indicative of genuine Christianity, fellowship with Christ, and the bestowal of divine sonship (ibid., 926).
8. This is not an innovative concept. An inheritance may be obtained (unmeritoriously) as a gift, and may also include stipulations necessary to obtain further blessings (meritoriously).
9. However, both the New Century Version and the New Living Translation employ the contrast by translating the second conjunction δε; as “but.”
10. Although most commentators do not see this condition here, other interpreters do. See Dillow, The Reign of the Servant Kings, 376; Zane C. Hodges, The Gospel under Siege: Faith and Works in Tension (Dallas: Redención Viva, 1981), 127, 129, 181; Robert N. Wilkin, “Christians Who Lose Their Legacy: Galatians 5:21,” Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society 4 (autumn 1991): 32. Earlier commentators have also held this view: C. H. Mackintosh, “A Voice from the Past: Sonship and Heirship,” Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society 10 (spring 1997): 65-68; G. H. Lang, Firstborn Sons, Their Rights and Risks: An Inquiry as to the Privileges and Perils of Members of the Church of God (London: Oliphants, 1943; reprint, Miami Springs, FL: Conley & Schoettle, 1984), 65, 120-21; Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (London: Rivingstons, 1865; reprint, Chicago: Moody, 1958 [4 vols. in 2]), 2:69; H. C. G. Moule, The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans, Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1899), 148. Frederick L. Godet says, “Paul knows well that, as ambitious as we are of glory, we are equally ready to recoil from the necessary suffering. Now it is precisely in suffering that the bond between Christ and us, in virtue of which we shall be able to become His co-heirs, is closely drawn. We only enter into the possession of the common heritage of glory, by accepting our part in the common inheritance of suffering; εἴπερ: ‘if really, as we are called to it, we have the courage to’ “(Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, trans. A. Cusin [Edinburgh: Clark, 1883; reprint, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1956], 311, italics his). Similar to Godet’s view is that of John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), 299.
11. See Harry Ashe Lane, “Paul’s Use of the Root Kleronomeo in Relationship to the Believer’s Inheritance in the Eternal Kingdom” (Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1978), 43-46; and Hodges, The Gospel under Siege, 127-30. A similar proverbial saying occurs in Sirach 22:23. “Obtain the trust of your neighbor in his poverty, that you may rejoice with him in his prosperity; stand by him in time of affliction, that you may share [κληρονομίᾳ] with him by being a co-heir [συγκληρονομήσῃς].”
12. This “glory” should be distinguished from the “glory” that will be experienced by all believers in heaven. Glorification is the third and final stage of salvation (following redemption and sanctification). For an expanded discussion of this subject see López, Romans Unlocked, 173-82. Δόξα may be defined as “honor as enhancement or recognition of status or performance, fame, recognition, renown, honor, prestigereputation” (Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek–English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed., rev. and ed. Frederick W. Danker [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000], 256-57, italics theirs).
13. Dillow holds this view. “Paul’s statement, in order to be made consistent with the rest of the Bible, requires that there is a difference between being a resident of the kingdom and inheriting it. Clearly, human beings in mortal bodies [will] live in the kingdom, but they are not heirs of that kingdom” (The Reign of the Servant Kings, 78). George H. Peters also equates inheriting the kingdom with becoming a ruler (The Theocratic Kingdom of Our Lord Jesus, the Christ [New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1884], 1:602). Two problems plague this interpretation. First, Paul here spoke only of saints of the church age rather than all believers. The verse refers to church saints, not tribulation or millennial believers who will have mortal bodies. Second, the context does not address rewards. Instead, it motivates believers to be faithful by noting that they will receive a glorious, resurrected body before being transferred to the kingdom.
14. First Corinthians 15:44 states, “It [the present body] is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is a physical body.” Many believe this verse teaches that believers now have a “material-physical” body, but in the Resurrection they will have an “immaterial-spirit” body. Paul could not mean the resurrected body is “immaterial” because that would argue against the point he made that all matter is not of the same “kind” of substance. The contrasts in the analogies are not denoting two different substances of human existence (immaterial-spirit versus material-flesh) but two different kinds of material substance (material-Spirit-controlled versus material-flesh-controlled). Furthermore Paul did not use the adjectives “natural” (ψυχικός) and “spiritual” (πνευματικός) in the Corinthian letter to refer to objects or persons composed of immaterial or material substance. Instead he employed the terms to emphasize the kinds of powers that are controlling a person. Either a person is controlled by a fleshly, carnal, or human force or he is controlled by the Spirit (1 Cor. 2:13, 15; 3:1; 14:37). See René A. López, The Jesus Family Tomb Examined: Did Jesus Rise Physically? (Springfield, MO: 21st Century, 2008), 226-29.
15. The statement “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor. 15:50) is not a universal truth applicable to all believers in every age; rather it applies only to church-age believers (as vv. 51-54 indicate), since many in the Tribulation will enter the millennium in natural bodies (Matt. 24:13; 25:34-46).
16. Joachim Jeremias also connects 1 Corinthians 15:51 with 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17 (“Flesh and Blood Cannot Inherit the Kingdom of God,” New Testament Studies 2 [February 1956]: 153).
17. Ibid., 152.
18. Although Old Testament saints at the resurrection before the millennium (Rev. 20:1-6) may undergo a similar transformation like that of the church (1 Thess. 4:13-5:10), 1 Corinthians 15:50-54 speaks only of church-age saints.
19. F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 174; and K. M. Campbell, “Covenant or Testament: Heb 9:16, 17 Reconsidered,” Evangelical Quarterly 44 (April–June 1972): 107-11.
20. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians, 200, 225. See also Brown, “The New Testament Concept of the Believer’s Inheritance,” 106-10.
21. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians, 225.
22. James D. G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Galatians, Black’s New Testament Commentary (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1993), 222.
23. Harold W. Hoehner, Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002), 226-27.
24. Ibid., 227.
25. For a discussion of partitive genitives see Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 84-86.
26. Hoehner, Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary, 243.
27. Ibid., 267.
28. The last sentence, “Serve the Lord Christ” (τῷ κυρίῳ Χριστῷ δουλεύετε) can be interpreted as indicative or imperative. Some manuscripts add the word γάρ (“for”) to clarify the relationship to the previous clause and to read the sentence as an indicative: “Because you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord, for it is the Lord Christ you are serving.” Yet other manuscripts exclude γάρ and present the sentence as imperative. In this sense “serve” matches the imperative ἐργάζεσθε (“work”) in verse 23. The imperative seems to fit best with the γάρ in verse 25, which explains the outcome that will result if the believer does not heed the command. For an extensive discussion of this issue see Murray J. Harris, Colossians and Philemon, Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 185-86.
29. Numerous scholars equate this “inheritance” (as they do almost all of Paul’s usages of the word elsewhere) with eternal life. Eduard Lohse says this verse refers to salvation that could be lost. “No one would want to forfeit this precious gift through disobedience” (A Commentary on the Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, Hermeneia [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971], 161). But if it is a gift, how can it be based on obedience (cf. Rom. 4:2-5)? The contradiction is evident. See also Harris, Colossians and Philemon, 185; O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, Word Biblical Commentary (Waco, TX: Word, 1982), 229; James D. G. Dunn, The First Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 257; Brown, “The New Testament Concept of the Believer’s Inheritance,” 152-53; and William Hendriksen, Exposition of Colossians and Philemon, New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1964), 174.
30. R. McL. Wilson, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Colossians and Philemon, International Critical Commentary (London: Clark, 2005), 285.
31. Robert W. Wall, Colossians and Philemon, Pillar New Testament Commentary Series (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1993), 162. Rewards (Judg. 9:16; 2 Sam. 19:37) and just retribution in the future were common concerns in the Old Testament (Pss. 69:22; 91:8; 94:2; Jer. 51:57; Hos. 9:7). This is true especially in the eschaton (Isa. 34:8; 61:2; 63:4). The same emphasis is seen in Second-Temple Judaism (1 Enoch 22:11; Testament of Abraham 10:15; 12:15). Philo mentioned that future inheritance comes to those who obey with all their hearts and so they will be rewarded (De Specialibus Legibus 2.90; 3:1.137-38; cf. 1 Pet. 2:19-20). See also Dunn, The First Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon: A Commentary on the Greek Text, 256.
32. Werner Foerster, “κληρονόμος,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 3 (1965), 758-60.
33. Dillow, The Reign of the Servant Kings, 68.
34. F. F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 169-70.
35. “Before moving on to the goal of God’s salvific endeavors (v 7b), Paul summarizes the discussion so far (vv 4-6), much in the same fashion that Rom. 5:1 summarizes 3:21-4:24. Δικαιωθέντες, ‘having been justified,’ stands in stark contrast to δικαιοσύνη, ‘righteousness,’ in v 5. There it describes human attempts to perform certain works and to earn one’s salvation; here it describes true justification, which can only be received as a result of God’s graciousness and the believer’s faith. . . . God initiates the process that is carried out through the work of Christ and the Spirit, and as a result believers become heirs” (William D. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, Word Biblical Commentary [Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2000], 450-51).
36. Brown, “The New Testament Concept of the Believer’s Inheritance,” 110.
37. Moo acknowledges that almost all the passages noted above “refer to the future state of the kingdom established by Christ at his return.” However, he believes that 1 Corinthians 4:20 is “the only other clear reference in Paul to the present kingdom of God” (and perhaps Col. 1:13) (Romans, 857 n. 40). Since he says “the only other clear reference,” he may think that Romans 14:17 refers to a present form of the kingdom. This does not mean Paul could not use the term in question differently here than elsewhere, but the burden of proof lies on the person saying so, especially since the context points to future realizations (Rom. 14:4, 11-12).
38. Alva J. McClain, The Greatness of the Kingdom: An Inductive Study of the Kingdom of God (Chicago: Moody, 1968; reprint, Winona Lake, IN: BMH, 1974), 434 (italics his).
39. Heinrich A. W. Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Hand-Book to the Epistles to the Corinthians, trans. D. Douglas Bannerman, 5th ed. (New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1884), 104 (italics his).
40. Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 192.
41. Ibid.
42. C. K. Barrett, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, Holman New Testament Commentary (New York: Harper & Row, 1968), 118.
43. Hans Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians: A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, trans. James W. Leitch, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975), 93 n. 29.
44. McClain, The Greatness of the Kingdom, 435. Of course this does not prove that δύναμις is always used with the future kingdom in mind, since Paul clearly used it in Romans 1:16 to reveal that God’s power is able to justify, sanctify, and glorify church-age believers in the future, as well as to fulfill His Old Testament promises to Israel. For a discussion of the latter see López, Romans Unlocked, 25, 38-40. Yet δύναμις can also be used as McClain suggests.
45. Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Hand-Book to the Epistles to the Corinthians, 104 (italics his). Mary Katherine Birge believes that in 1 Corinthians 4:20 the kingdom of God “invariably carries an eschatological notion with it, as it does here” (The Language of Belonging: A Rhetorical Analysis of Kingship Language in First Corinthians [Dudley, MA: Peeters, 2002], 43).
46. F. F. Bruce, 1 and 2 Corinthians, New Century Bible (London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 1971), 147 (bold face copy his). See also Barrett, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 357.
47. First Timothy 1:17 designates God the Father, rather than Christ, as King, as is typical throughout the Old Testament, New Testament, and rabbinic literature. For a detailed discussion see Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 60-62.
48. McClain, The Greatness of the Kingdom, 435 (italics his).
49. Ibid. (italics his).
50. For a thorough discussion similar to McClain’s view see Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Hand-Book to the Epistles to the Corinthians, 356-60.
51. Bruce, The Epistle to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians, 52. Dunn also notes the tension of the present and future reality (The First Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon: A Commentary on the Greek Text, 79).
52. McClain, The Greatness of the Kingdom, 435.
53. Ibid., 435-36. Romans 8:30 expresses the future glorification of believers in the aorist tense (ἐδόξασεν) as if it has already occurred. Here Paul again described an event that has not yet occurred as though it is already accomplished (see Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics, 563-64). Lohse says, “Wherever Paul mentions the ‘rule of God’ (βασιλείατοῦθεοῦ) in his letters, the futuristic meaning of the concept is presupposed” (Colossians and to Philemon, 37-38).
54. McClain, The Greatness of the Kingdom, 436. Also Wilson believes that “perhaps” Paul referred to the future kingdom in this passage (Colossians and Philemon, 117.
55. Although Lohse states in an earlier comment that the future aspect of the kingdom of God is presupposed in Pauline letters, he says of this passage that “the eschatological character of the concept is no longer in the foreground” (Colossians and to Philemon, 172). However, the fact that someone works for his “retirement” does not mean that he is presently retired. One can work toward something or for someone as a representative without the state or realm actually existing at the time the work is taking place.
56. John F. Walvoord, The Thessalonians Epistles (Findlay, OH: Dunham, 1955), 32.
57. George Milligan, St. Paul’s Epistles to the Thessalonians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952), 27. David J. Williams notes, “The two concepts of kingdom and of glory are drawn together in the phrase before us by the single preposition and article to give the sense ‘God’s glorious kingdom.’ This denotes the aspect of his kingdom that is yet to be revealed, when the restoration of God’s rule to his rebellious creation will be completed at his return” (1 and 2 Thessalonians, New International Bible Commentary [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1992], 44). Other commentators also see this as a reference to a future kingdom: Charles J. Ellicott, A Critical and Grammatical Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistles to the Thessalonians, rev. ed. (London: Parker and Son, 1858), 26; William Hendriksen, Expositionof 1 and 2 Thessalonians, New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1955), 68; I. Howard Marshall, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, New Century Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 68; F. F. Bruce, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Word Biblical Commentary (Waco, TX: Word, 1982), 37; and Earl J. Richard, First and Second Thessalonians, Sacra Pagina (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1995), 108.
58. Walvoord, The Thessalonian Epistles, 10.
59. Marshall, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 173; and Bruce, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 149.
60. Bruce, 1 and Thessalonians, 149.
61. McClain, The Greatness of the Kingdom, 433. See also Kelly, The Pastoral Epistles, 205, 210, 220; Davies, The Pastoral Epistles: 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus, 83, 88; Walter Lock, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: Clark, 1924), 112, 120; Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles, 799, 826; and Mounce, The Pastoral Epistles, 572, 598.

Α Study Of Pauline Passages with Vice Lists

By René A. López

[This is the third article in a six-part series, “The Pauline Vice Lists and Inheriting the Kingdom.”

René A. López is Adjunct Professor of Greek and New Testament and Spanish Biblical Studies, Criswell College, Dallas, Texas.]

Α study of passages (other than 1 Cor. 6:9-10; Gal. 5:19-21; Eph. 5:3-5) in which Paul used virtue-vice catalogs will help distinguish between his references to believers and unbelievers and show how he understood inheriting the kingdom of God. Examining these verses will also help readers know whether Paul deviated from or followed conventional usage of the terms in these many vice lists.

Romans 1:29-32; 2:8; 13:13

Romans 1:29-32 records vices of a group of people who manifest “ungodliness and unrighteousness . . . [and] who [in this way] suppress the truth in unrighteousness” (v. 18).

They have become filled with all kinds of unrighteousness, sexual depravity, greediness, evil, full of envy, murder, fighting, deceit, malicious, gossipers, slanderous, God haters, violent, arrogant, boastful, contrivers of evil schemes, disobedient to parents, senseless, covenant breakers, hardhearted (without affection), unmerciful; although they know the righteous requirement of God that those doing such things deserve death, not only do they do these things but also they approve of others practicing them.[1]

Although these individuals know God in the sense of having an innate knowledge of Him (v. 21) as Creator,[2] they have refused to acknowledge Him by their actions. Hence Paul summarized, in 3:9-12, 20, 23, that apart from faith in Jesus, Jews and Gentiles remain unrighteous sinners. “Paul’s first leveling argument in 1:18-32 will deal with all persons outside of Christ, but in particular Gentiles and their fallen condition and sin.”[3] The people practicing the vices in 1:18-32 are Gentile unbelievers, as the evidence suggests.[4]

Romans 2:8 mentions three vices: “those who live from selfish ambition and disobey the truth, [and] obey unrighteousness” (cf. 1:18; 2:5, 8; 3:5). Similar to those in 1:18-32 who are under God’s wrath, the people mentioned in 2:1-3:8 are ἀναπολόγητος (“without excuse,” 1:20; 2:1).[5] Those who seek to approach God on the basis of their works, especially by claiming to keep the Law, are Jews.[6]

Both groups, Jews and Gentiles, are under God’s condemnation and are characterized by the vice list. Grammatically the inferential conjunction διο; (“therefore”) connects the first group in 1:18-32 with the second group in 2:1-3:20, who also are under God’s wrath.[7] Thus the vices mentioned in 1:29-32 and 2:8 characterize all unbelievers, both Gentiles and Jews.[8]

However, in Romans 13:13 Paul exhorted believers not to practice vices characteristic of unbelievers (as shown earlier in 1:29-32; 2:8) known as “works of darkness” (13:12).[9] He wrote, “Let us put on the armor of light. Let us live correctly, as in the day, not in revelry and drunkenness, not in lewdness and lust, not in strife and envy. Rather, put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not make provision for the flesh in order to raise up its strong desire” (vv. 12-14). Murray summarizes Paul’s point about the need for believers to avoid the vices that characterized their former state of unbelief. “Sleep, night, darkness are all co-related in our ordinary experience. The same is true in the moral and religious realm. And what the apostle is pressing home is the incompatibility of moral and religious slumber with the position which believers now occupy in the great drama of redemption. . . . But the consideration Paul is now pleading is one that could apply only to the particular ‘season’ contemplated in the present passage and urged as the reason for godly living.”[10]

1 Corinthians 5:10-11

These verses contain two vice lists. “And I did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or the greedy and thieves, or idolaters, since you would have to depart from the world. Yet, now I write to you not to associate with anyone named a brother who is sexually immoral, or greedy, or an idolater, or a slanderer, or a drunkard, or a thief, with such a person do not even eat.”[11]

Paul addressed a sexually immoral believer in the church (vv. 1-2) who was to be judged by those in the church (vv. 3-4, 12) and excommunicated (v. 5). Open rebellion in the church destroys the testimony of the church before the world (vv. 6-8). However, Paul corrected a misunderstanding arising from a previous letter in which he commanded believers to withdraw from immoral people. He did not mean that believers were to have no contact with people outside the church (vv. 9-10). Instead believers were not to fellowship with immoral Christians (v. 11).

In verse 11 the New American Standard Bible refers to an immoral Christian as a “so-called brother.” This translation implies that he was not a genuine believer but only claimed to be.[12] While this is possible, since “brother” may refer to a fellow member of a community (not necessarily a believer), it is contextually indefensible. This person is contrasted with (a) Gentiles (v. 1), (b) those in the world (v. 12), and (c) those outside the church (vv. 9-10, 12-13). Nowhere else does the Greek verb ὀνομάζω (“named” or “called”) carry a sense of doubt.[13] Hence Paul distinguished the immoral believer from unbelievers, though they were alike in their behavior.[14] According to these verses, though Christians sometimes practice the sins in these two vice lists, believers should not be characterized by them, since verse 10 implies that these vices characterize those of “the world.” This explains why the church members were to excommunicate the immoral believer from their assembly.

2 Corinthians 12:20-21

Eight vices are listed in verse 20 and three vices are noted in verse 21. “For I fear that somehow when I arrive I will not find you as I desire, and you will find me such as you do not want; since there may be strife, jealousy, anger, selfish ambition, slander, gossip, conceit, and confusion. Lest when I come again to you, God will humble me to you, and I will grieve for many of those who previously sinned and have not repented from impurity, sexual immorality, and the sensuality they have practiced.”

Paul defended his apostolic authority before the Corinthian church (2 Cor. 10-13) and desired to strengthen believers (12:19). But he reluctantly believed, perhaps based on reports from Timothy, Titus, and Silvanus (1 Cor. 16:10; 2 Cor. 1:1, 19; 7:13-14; 12:18), that he would find them practicing the vices described in 12:20-21. These vices characterized unbelievers. Therefore Georgi believed Paul used missionary terms (e.g., προαμαρτάνω and μετανοέω, v. 21) that show Paul questioned the Corinthians’ original profession of faith, assuming that they had not become “Jesus-believers.”[15] However, Thrall observes problems with Georgi’s view.

This interpretation is not impossible, but the linguistic argument is perhaps rather weak. Certainly, the verb μετανοέω is a mission term in Acts 2:38; 3:19; 17:30; 26:20, but the present occurrence is the only instance of it within the Pauline corpus. We cannot, therefore deduce what connotations it carried for him. Moreover, when he uses the cognate noun μετάνοια in 2 Cor 7:9, 10 he is not talking of repentance of pre-Christian vices, although, admittedly, he does use it also in Rom 2:4, of God’s intention for the unconverted. The verb προαμαρτάνω occurs only in this section of 2 Corinthians (12:21 and 13:2) in the whole NT, and whilst the simple verb ἁμαρτάνω does, in Romans, refer to human existence apart from Christ (Rom 2:12; 3:23; 5:12, 14, 16), this is in the context of theological argument rather than missionary appeal. Nevertheless, since the vices specifically named here are all related to sexual misconduct, and since, in Paul’s view, such behaviour was a prominent characteristic of the pagan habits renounced at conversion (1 Cor 6:9-11), he could here be thinking in the way Georgi suggests.[16]

That the Corinthian believers practiced vices similar to those of pagans does not mean they were unbelievers. Otherwise no one in the Corinthian church was saved, since Paul discussed all sorts of sins (some not even practiced by unbelievers; 5:1). Yet though they were questioning Paul’s authority and were sinning, Paul affirmed the fact of their justification in 13:4-6. In verses 5-6 he wrote, “Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Do you not know yourselves that Jesus Christ is in you? Unless indeed, you are disqualified. Yet I trust that you will know that we are not disqualified.” After carefully analyzing the context of these verses, Brown concludes the following.

To summarize, might the Corinthians have found themselves disqualified if they examined themselves too closely? Not at all! Paul knew they were Christians, and the Corinthians knew it too. Why then did Paul make such probing remarks? He made them because of the absurdity of questioning his motives and authority in the first place. The Corinthians were Christians; there can be no doubt about it from the way Paul structured his remarks. His ministry had introduced them to Christ; there is no doubt about that either. So when the Corinthians looked at themselves and realized they were who they were because of God’s power and authority working in Paul, then the apostle could close his argument by saying, “But I trust that you will realize that we ourselves [ἡμεῖς emphatic in Greek] do not fail the test” (v. 6 ).[17]

Then in 13:7 Paul exhorted them once more to stop practicing evil (perhaps thinking of the sins in 12:20-21) and practice what is good, regardless of what they thought of his apostleship. These Christian converts needed to disassociate themselves from their pagan vices of the past.[18]

Ephesians 4:31

The context of Ephesians 4:31 verifies that these vices refer to believers. “Put away [ἀρθήτω, aorist passive imperative] bitterness, and anger, and wrath, and quarreling, and blasphemous talk from you, and evil speaking.”[19] Verse 22 attests that these were believers who were to leave behind former practices belonging to the “old man.” Verse 30 also confirms their saved status, since Paul encouraged them not to grieve the Holy Spirit, who “sealed” them until “the day of redemption.” Also verse 32 validates that the referent in verse 31 is believers, since they were commanded to practice the virtues of “being kind to one another, compassionate, forgiving one another, just as God in Christ forgave you.” Paul would not command unbelievers to do such things. Thus although these vices characterized believers before their conversion (vv. 17-22), they could still resort to old habits by not heeding Paul’s command to eliminate them (vv. 22-32).[20]

Philippians 3:2

The vice list in Philippians 3:2 is short. “Watch out for those dogs, watch out for those evil-doers, and watch out for those mutilators of the flesh.” Here Paul issued three warnings by using the imperative βλέπετε. Each warning has a noun in the accusative case that describes a vice (κύνας, κακοὺς, and κατατομήν) that the Philippian believers should avoid and guard against. According to O’Brien the three vices in this verse describe unbelievers, since Matthew and the Psalter employ similar terms for unbelievers or enemies of Israel (Matt. 7:6; 15:26-27; Pss. 5:5 [LXX, v. 6]; 6:8; 14 [LXX, 13]:4; 36 [LXX, 35]:12).[21]

Philippians 3:3 has an explanatory γὰρ and the emphatic ἡμεῖς . . . ἐσμεν (“we are”), which further strengthens the contrasts to the vices in the previous verse by describing the real people of God.[22]

Hence these three vices refer to unbelievers rather than to believing Jews who reverted to legalism,[23] since Paul, like these detractors, had attempted to attain righteousness through the Law.[24]

Colossians 3:5-9

Colossians 3:5-9 mentions a list of twelve vices that believers are commanded to avoid: “fornication, uncleanness, lustful desire, evilness, greed, which is idolatry, wrath, anger, malice, blasphemy, dirty language, and lying.” These vices are contrasted with eight virtues in verses 12-14 that believers are to practice: “tender mercy, kindness, humility, gentleness, patience, bearing with one another, forgiving one another, and putting on love.”

The context clearly reveals two things. First, these vices originate from man’s fallen nature,[25] which Paul elsewhere ascribed to unbelievers (cf. Eph. 2:2; 5:6). He reminded the Colossian Christians in Colossians 3:7 that they formerly belonged to that group and used to live like them. Thus these vices derive from the corrupt nature of unbelievers. Paul commanded Christians to “put off the old man with its practices” (v. 9) and to “put on the new man who is renewed in knowledge according to the image of Him who created him” (vv. 9-10).[26] Bock critiques numerous English renderings of the Greek phrases τὸν παλαιὸν ἄνθρωπον (“the old man”) and τὸν νέον (“the new”). Many interpret these phrases to mean “old nature” or “old self” and “new nature” or “new self” (see NASB and NRSV). In these translations a believer’s spiritual life becomes the focal point, as two predispositions compete to control an individual’s will.[27] However, Bock suggests that “the rationale for the exhortation is not individualized.” Instead, in Colossians 3:9-10 (as in Eph. 4:22-24), Paul used the figures of speech “the old man” and “the new man” as a way of describing and distinguishing two communities (cf. Eph. 2:15). “The old man” refers to the practices of the unregenerate state of the old community that Paul’s readers once belonged to, unlike the new community (the “new man”) that should influence their behavior according to their regenerate state.[28]

Second, though it is unnatural for believers as part of the new community to practice these vices, it is possible (and a reality in Colosse) for believers to practice them. Otherwise why did Paul write, “Put to death [νεκρώσατε] the members of the earth”?[29] Although believers can still behave like unbelievers, Paul classified these vices as belonging to unconverted persons, “sons of disobedience.”

As MacDonald notes, “The pattern of moving from doctrinal assertions to ethical exhortations is frequent in Pauline correspondence (e.g., Rom 6:1-14). The reference to death [in Col 3:5] echoes [Col.] 3:3. . . . The problem with those who are tempted by the false teaching (see 2:8-23) is that their ‘dying’ has not led to this required ethical comportment; they live as though they still belong to the world (2:20). The idea of transformation of the self underlies this verse (cf. 3:10).”[30] The addressees are obviously believers who need to look anew to Christ and their new position in Him (v. 11).

1 Timothy 1:9-10; 6:4-5

Paul wrote to Timothy that some had “strayed” (1:6) from following “sound doctrine” (v. 10) termed “the faith” (4:1). Paul urged Timothy to “teach” the believers at Ephesus “not to spread false doctrine” (1:3). Some had strayed from teaching apostolic truths to teach what they wrongly interpreted as the Law (v. 7).[31] Hence Paul wrote in verses 8-10, “However, we know that the law is good if one uses it correctly, by knowing that the law was not intended for the righteous person but for the lawless, and rebels, ungodly, and sinners, unholy, and profane like those who kill their fathers and mothers, and murderers, fornicators, homosexuals, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and if anything else opposes sound teaching.”

Although some had strayed from sound teaching, nothing in the context implies that they were unbelievers.[32] They had strayed from teaching the correct use of the Law to teach “myths and endless genealogies” (v. 4; cf. 6:3-5), and Paul listed a set of vices in order to show these teachers how to use the Law properly in instructing people what to shun. Those who were teaching error were not those of the vice list, though they might end up practicing those vices if they continued (cf. 6:3-5).

The people criticized in this passage, however, seem to be members of the believing community. . . . The reference to those who wanted to be teachers of the law allows a digression to explain what the value of the law really is. . . . This law is understood to teach the lawless and unruly what to avoid. Bad behaviour is characterized in a list which is made memorable in the Greek by assonance and alliteration. . . . There is no suggestion that believers at Ephesus, not even those teaching differently, were guilty of any of these particular deeds. Extreme cases are used for rhetorical effect, to cause repugnance in the reader. They represent the end to which lawlessness tends, in contrast to the goal of the instruction which is love (verse 5).[33]

Δίκαιος in verse 9 does not refer necessarily to a justified believer (although a believer may be the referent in Paul’s mind) but to an ethical person who obeys the principle of the Law.[34] An obedience is expected of all believers according to their new position (cf. Titus 2:12).[35] However, those who partake of the sins in this list seem to be the unbelievers who behave “contrary to sound doctrine,” termed the “glorious gospel of the blessed God” (v. 11) that Paul himself once opposed.[36] Paul also mentioned three vices that characterized him when he was an unbeliever. The term ὑβριστήν (“insolent man”), which Paul used of himself (v. 13), appears in a catalog of vices in Romans 1:30 that describes unbelievers. These vices describe unbelievers, including Paul before he became a believer. Those in error were not those of the vice list; they were the erring believers of the community who were not teaching sound doctrine.

However, it seems that those who may fall prey to the vices mentioned in 1 Timothy 6:3-5, which are not as grave as those mentioned in 1:9-10, were believers. “If any one teaches differently than the latter and does not agree with sound doctrine as those of our Lord Jesus Christ that are according to godliness, he is conceited and knows nothing, but has an unhealthy interest in controversies about words that result in envy, strife, malicious, evil suspicions, and constant arguing by people of corrupt mind and deprived[37] of truth who suppose that godliness is a means to financial gain.” They seem to have been believers, since they were part of the community and were teaching those who belong to it. Otherwise why warn them to avoid teaching from those outside? On the other hand some writers believe these were people “outside the community” who denied some teachings by Jesus or His entire message.[38] Whether these were believers or not is difficult to decide since there are no clear indicators, nor was the text written apparently with this question in mind. These teachers may be the same as the teachers mentioned in 1:6-8, who were not teaching sound doctrine (vv. 9-10). Ironically these teachers also fell prey to vices similar to those of unbelievers.[39]

2 Timothy 3:2-4

In 2 Timothy 3:1-4 Paul predicted, “Yet know this, that in the last days difficult times will come. For men will love themselves, love money, be boastful, arrogant, blasphemers, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful and ungodly, unloving, unforgiving, slanderous, lacking self-control, brutal, despisers of goodness, traitors, reckless, proud, lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God.”[40] Paul then commanded Timothy to ἀποτρέπου (“avoid” or “turn away from”) people who behave this way (v. 5).

Some details suggest that these vices refer to unbelievers. First, in verse 2 Paul used οἱ ἄνθρωποι (“people”) rather than οἱ ἀδελφοὶ (“brothers”). Second, Paul told Timothy to avoid such people (v. 5) for they were without knowledge of the truth (v. 7).

Four times Paul used the phrase ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας (“know the truth”), all in the Pastoral Epistles (1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Tim. 2:25; 3:7; Titus 1:1). The phrase ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας refers solely to eternal salvation (1 Tim 2:3-4; 2:23-26; 3:7), which should result in godly living.[41] By contrast, in 2 Timothy 3:8 Paul wrote that people like Jannes and Jambres (Pharaoh’s magicians who opposed Moses), who follow the practices listed in verses 2-4 “also resist the truth” and have a “depraved mind” (v. 8). Therefore the vice list in verses 2-4 describes unbelievers whom Timothy was to “avoid” (v. 5), since they rejected the truth and had not “come to the knowledge of the truth” (v. 7).[42]

Titus 1:6-7, 10; 3:3

The short vice list in Titus 1:6-7, 10—contrasted with a short virtue list in 1:6, 8-9—supports Paul’s instruction to Timothy on how to choose an ἐπίσκοπος, “elder” (cf. 1 Tim. 3:2-5).[43] “An elder must be blameless, a one-woman man, and must have faithful children not insubordinate. For an overseer must be blameless, as one trusted with God’s stewardship, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not a drunkard, not violent, [and] not greedy for money. . . . For there are many rebellious people, idle talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision.”

If anyone aspired to the office of elder in the Christian community, Timothy was instructed to pick a person characterized by the virtues mentioned in Titus 1:6, 8-9, and to reject those characterized by the vices in verses 6-7, 10.

Titus 3:3 states, “For at one time we were also foolish, disobedient, deceived, enslaved to numerous passions and desires, living in evil and envy, being hated and hating one another.” Paul also exhorted believers to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts, and to live soberly, righteously, godly in the present era, and to look forward to the coming of Christ, who saved them, in order to serve Him in good works (2:12-15). Paul continued in 3:1-2 with a virtue list that describes how believers should behave. They ought “to submit to rulers and authorities, obey, be ready to do every good work, slander no one, not be a fighter, be gentle, showing humility to all men.”

However, in verse 3 Paul transitioned (by using an explanatory γάρ) to a description of the state of events before Paul’s recipients were saved.[44] Dibelius and Conzelmann wrote that verses 3-7 “speak of the state of the reader with regard to salvation, before and after becoming a Christian. Note that the author includes himself in the characterization. In the comparison of Tit 3:3-7 with Rom 6:17f; 1 Cor 6:9-11; Col 3:7, 8; Eph 2:2ff; 2 Clem. 1.6-8, a significant similarity in the train of thought is apparent. Such a presentation of a person’s past before becoming a Christian, followed by a description of his condition as a Christian, played a common role in early Christian preaching.”[45] Clearly this vice list describes what used to characterize believers before they became Christians, as the positional statement in verses 4-6 indicates, and it serves to motivate believers to avoid sin.[46]

In short, some vice lists describe unbelievers and are addressed to believers, who are admonished to avoid these sins. The next article in this series discusses Paul’s references to inheriting the kingdom in relation to his vice lists.

Notes

1. Unless indicated otherwise, all Scripture quotations are the author’s translations.
2. “First, God made it crystal clear in [en] them before He visibly showed it to them. While the phrase to them captures the external evidence explained (with “For,” gar) in v 20 that God makes plain of Himself through natural revelation [i.e., creation], the phrase in them refers to the knowledge about God that all humans possess inherently. That is, humans are not intrinsically atheist, agnostic or devoid of moral knowledge (2:14-15). Discoveries of all civilizations show the opposite, for all of them give evidence to having a god-conscience [by their practice of some kind of] . . . cultic-worship-system (whether these systems are idolatrous or not) and rule of law” (René A. López, Romans Unlocked: Power to Deliver, rev. ed. [Springfield, MO: 21st Century, 2009], 44).
3. Ben Witherington III and Darlene Hyatt, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 59.
4. Ben Witherington III says, “We might add that Rom. 1:18-32 is a perfectly good example of a description of rebellion against God which could be called apostasia, and it is clear that there the subjects are not Christians” (1 and 2 Thessalonians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006], 216 n. 49). Douglas Moo notes that traditionally scholars have viewed the group in question as Gentiles. Yet he observes that since the term ἀνθρῶπων (“people”) instead of ἔθνοι (“Gentiles”) is used in 1:18-32, Paul’s accusations should include Jews (The Epistle to the Romans, New International Commentary on the New Testament [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994], 96-97). For this view see C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: Clark, 1975), 1:105-6; and Jacob Jervell, Imago Dei: Gen 1, 26 f. im Spätjudentum, in der Gnosis und in den paulinischen Briefen (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1960), 316-19.
5. David E. Malick suggests, “Paul’s thesis is that all mankind is condemned and needs God’s righteousness, including the unrighteous who reject God (1:18-32), the moralists in their hypocrisy (2:1-16), and Jews who trust in the external aspects of their religion (2:17-3:8). Paul then validated this from Scripture by affirming that all are under sin (3:9-19)” (“The Condemnation of Homosexuality in Romans 1:26-27,” Bibliotheca Sacra 150 [July–September 1993]: 333).
6. Many believe that in Romans 2:1-3:9 Paul made a twofold distinction. See Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 137-38; López, Romans Unlocked: Power to Deliver, 51; and James D. G. Dunn, Romans 1-8, Word Biblical Commentary (Waco, TX: Word, 1988), 76-77, 79. Others, however, see a threefold distinction consisting of Gentiles (1:18-32), Gentile moralizers (2:1-16), and Jews (2:17-3:8) (R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistles to the Romans [Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1936], 128-29; and Karl Barth, A Shorter Commentary on Romans [Richmond, VA: John Knox, 1959], 31-32). Others say 2:1-16 applies generally to both Gentiles and Jews (C. K. Barrett, The Epistle to the Romans, rev. ed., Black’s New Testament Commentary [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991], 41). As Cranfield explains, “The references to Jews and Greeks (that is, in the context, Gentiles) in 1:16; 2:9, 10; 3:9 suggest that in the construction of 1:18-3:20 Paul would be likely to keep to this twofold division of mankind: a brief reference in passing to the morally superior among the Gentiles might be understandable, but scarcely the lengthy treatment which 2:1ff would be” (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 138).
7. “For 1:18-19, which functions as a kind of heading for all of 1:18-3:20, includes reference to all humanity. On this reading, Paul would be saying in 2:1 that because God’s wrath is revealed against all people, and because all people have been given knowledge of God, therefore even the person who judges is ‘without excuse’ before God. Although it might be objected that connecting 2:1 with 1:18-19 skips over too much intervening material, it can be said in response that 1:18-19 establishes what is Paul’s main point in 1:18-32 so that the ‘therefore’ in 2:1 resumes the main sequence of Paul’s argument” (Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996], 129-30, italics his).
8. According to 1 Thessalonians 4:5 Jews and Gentiles fell prey to these vices that originally arose from paganism. “Paul contrasts his audience with pagans, not with Jews, probably because the majority of them came to Christian faith as pagans, not as either Jews or God-fearers. He is thus dealing with temptations that Jews like Paul believed Gentiles often fell prey to, and no doubt they did. . . . After idolatry, sexual immorality and covetousness were seen as the major pagan vices (cf. Gal. 5:19-21; 1 Cor. 5:9-11; 6:9-10; 2 Cor. 12:20-21; Rom. 1:29-31; 2:21-22; 13:13)” (Witherington, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 116). Abraham J. Malherbe makes a similar observation (The Letters to the Thessalonians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, Anchor Bible [New York: Doubleday, 2000], 230-31). Moo sees this group as unbelievers (The Epistle to the Romans, 138).
9. John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans: The English Text with Introduction Exposition and Notes, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), 170. Eduard Schweizer says believers have the ability to practice the vices that the heathen commit (“Gottesgerechtigkeit und Lasterkataloge bei Paulus [inkl. Kol und Eph],” in Rechtfertigung: Festschrift für Ernst Käsemann zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. Johannes Friedrich, Wolfgang Pöhlmann, and Peter Stuhlmacher [Tübingen: Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1976], 468).
10. Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 169. See also Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1993), 683.
11. Paul’s words “Purge the evil men from you” repeat the fivefold admonition in Deuteronomy to separate covenant violators from the community (Deut. 17:7; 19:19; 21:21; 22:21; 24:7). See Mary Katherine Birge, The Language of Belonging: A Rhetorical Analysis of Kingship Language in First Corinthians (Dudley, MA: Peeters, 2002), 48-50.
12. G. G. Findlay, “St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians,” in The Expositor’s Greek New Testament, ed. W. Robertson Nicoll (New York: Hodder and Stoughton, 1903; reprint, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002), 2:813.
13. See Mark 3:14; Acts 19:13; Romans 15:20; Ephesians 3:15; 5:3; and 2 Timothy 2:19. “Does a person’s involvement in moral filth, however, necessarily indicate an unregenerate nature? Paul attacked the terrible sin of incest (1 Cor. 5) but he made no appeal for regeneration, nor did he imply that the lack of salvation might be the problem” (Duane A. Dunham, “An Exegetical Study of 2 Peter 2:18-22,” Bibliotheca Sacra 140 [January–March 1983]: 47). Witherington also says, “It [discipline] does not involve a human judgment about a person’s eternal salvation, which is for God to judge. Paul continues to call this errant brother a brother, and the disciplinary action is meant to be remedial” (Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995], 160).
14. Joseph C. Dillow, The Reign of the Servant Kings: A Study of Eternal Security and the Final Significance of Man (Hayesville, NC: Schoettle, 1992), 321; and John H. Elliott, “No Kingdom of God for Softies? or, What Was Paul Really Saying? 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 in Context,” Biblical Theology Bulletin 34 (spring 2004): 21. John MacArthur Jr. sees the context as addressing discipleship, not distinguishing between a genuine or spurious believer (1 Corinthians, MacArthur New Testament Commentary [Chicago: Moody, 1984], 131). D. A. Carson believes that 1 Corinthians 5:10-11 addresses a spurious believer (“Reflections on Christian Assurance,” Westminster Theological Journal 54 [spring 1992]: 16-20).
15. Dieter Georgi, The Opponents of Paul in Second Corinthians: A Study of Religious Propaganda in Late Antiquity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), 237.
16. Margaret E. Thrall, 2 Corinthians, International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: Clark, 2000), 868-69.
17. Perry C. Brown, “What Is the Meaning of ‘Examine Yourselves’ in 2 Corinthians 13:5?” BibliothecaSacra 154 (April–June 1997): 187. Murray J. Harris summarizes the two ways 2 Corinthians 12:6 is commonly understood. “If the Corinthian self-audit yielded a positive result—assurance that they were in Christ and Christ in them—they would also have come to a positive evaluation of Paul as an apostle of Christ (1:1), belonging to Christ (10:7), as a servant of Christ (11:23), and as Christ’s spokesman (13:3). The Corinthians’ genuine faith and Paul’s genuine apostleship were inextricably related; they stood or fell together. If they were true believers, he was a true apostle, since they had come to faith through his preaching (1:19; 3:1-3; 11:2). On the other hand, if their faith was counterfeit, so too was his apostolicity. After v. 5 we might have expected Paul to say ‘I hope you will discover that you pass the test,’ but he says ‘I hope you will know for certain that we [ἡμεῖς] also do not fail the test,’ for he assumes that the Corinthians will give themselves a ‘pass’ on their self-audit and hopes that they will clearly perceive the indissoluble link between their ‘pass’ and his ‘pass’ “(The Second Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005], 922-23).
18. Ibid., 903-4. Schweizer sees a different structure of this vice list than others. He believes these were Christians who were in danger of “brüderliche Zusammenleben gefährden” (“jeopardizing the brotherly existence”) by the triad of three vices (“Gottesgerechtigkeit und Lasterkataloge bei Paulus [inkl. Kol und Eph],” 466).
19. Henry Newland notes that “to put away” these vices does not merely mean “to be restrained for a time, but entirely to be removed” (A Practical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle of Paul to the Ephesians: In Which Are Exhibited the Results of the Most Learned Theological Criticisms, from the Age of the Early Fathers Down to the Present Time [Oxford: J. H. and Jas. Parker, 1860], 290). On the question of whether the aorist infinitive ἀποθέσθαι is a command (“put off the old man”) or an aorist indicative (“you have put off the old man”) see Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 606.
20. G. G. Findlay also makes a similar observation (“The Epistle to the Ephesians,” in The Expositor’s Bible, ed. W. Robertson Nicoll, 2nd ed. [New York: Armstrong and Son, 1898], 291). Harold W. Hoehner writes, “The last exhortation in this section lists vices for believers to put away followed by three positive injunctions, all of which encompass the conduct of the new person and include every area of life” (Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002], 633).
21. Peter T. O’Brien, The First Epistle to the Philippians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 354-55, 357.
22. O’Brien also notes this contrast (ibid., 358). Several scholars see a contrast with the previous verse that emphasizes the true people of God (e.g., Gerald F. Hawthorne, Philippians, Word Biblical Commentary [Waco, TX: Word, 1983], 126-28; and Marvin R. Vincent, The Epistles to the Philippians and to Philemon, International Critical Commentary [Edinburgh: Clark, 1897], 93). Although the issue involves the Philippians’ salvation, this was not the primary point Paul was addressing. As Gordon D. Fee says, “In saying that ‘we,’ both Jews and Gentiles together who have put our trust in Christ, ‘are the circumcision,’ Paul indicates that the primary issue is not the Philippians’ salvation, but rather the identification of the people of God under the new covenant” (Paul’s Letter to the Philippians, New International Commentary on the New Testament [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995], 298).
23. Apparently the Philippians’ opponents in 3:2 are also those mentioned explicitly in 1:15-17, 27-29. This was noted by Herbert W. Bateman IV (“Were the Opponents at Philippi Necessarily Jewish?” BibliothecaSacra 155 [January–March 1998]: 54-55). He concludes, “The point is that these people were professing Christians on a mission to convert others. Their motivation for preaching Christ was self-oriented (1:15-17)” (ibid., 56).
24. Michael J. Vlach concludes, “Those who are circumcised in heart are the ‘true circumcision.’ They have believed in God by faith in contrast to the ‘false circumcision’ (3:2)—those who rely on physical circumcision to save them. When Paul called the Philippians the ‘true circumcision’ he was not calling them ‘Israel,’ he was identifying them as those who had trusted in Christ by faith alone” (“Has the Church Replaced Israel in God’s Plan? A Historical and Theological Survey of Replacement Theology,” Calvin Theological Journal 4 [April 2000]: 28).
25. The phrase “on the sons of disobedience” (ἐπὶ τοὺς υἱοὺς τῆς ἀπειθείας) is omitted in some English versions (ESV, NASB, NIV, RSV, TNIV), and it is included in others (ASV, KJV, DBRY, NET, NKJV, YNG). This poses a difficult textual problem. First, without the phrase in verse 6 the verse is difficult to understand. The words in verse 7 ἐν οἷς seem to have no antecedent without the phrase ἐπὶ τοὺς υἱοὺς τῆς ἀπειθείας in verse 6. However, the neuter oi|" could perhaps refer to the vice list in verse 5. Second, the parallel account in Ephesians 5:6 has a similar phrase that could have influenced scribes to add it here. Noting this textual problem, the NET Bible concludes, “Further, although the witness of B is especially important, there are other places in which Β and Π46 share errant readings of omission. Nevertheless, the strength of the internal evidence against the longer reading is at least sufficient to cause doubt here. The decision to retain the words in the text is less than certain.” On the other hand it is probable that the phrase was in the original since there is solid evidence that Paul elsewhere characterized unbelievers by these vices (see above) as “sons of disobedience” (Eph. 2:3; 5:6). Also the textual witness and geographical distribution of the texts is solid, which is why a number of English translations include the phrase. Whether the phrase is original is irrelevant to identifying whether those of the vice list are believers or unbelievers. Nevertheless the phrase strengthens the case that unbelievers are referred to in the vice list. For further discussion see Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed. (Stuttgart: Biblia-Druck, 1994), 557.
26. Peter T. O’Brien writes, “Obedience to the apostolic injunctions to reject sin and be clothed with the graces of Christ is necessary for men and women who are in a new relationship with God through Christ and have become part of God’s new creation” (Colossians, Philemon, Word Biblical Commentary [Waco, TX: Word, 1982], 180-81). See also Siegfried Wibbing, Die Tugend- und Lasterkataloge im Neuen Testament und ihre Traditionsgeschichte unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Qumran-Texte (Berlin: A. Töpelmann, 1959), 123-27.
27. Darrell L. Bock, “‘The New Man’ as Community in Colossians and Ephesians,” in Integrity of Heart, Skillfulness of Hands, ed. Charles H. Dyer and Roy B. Zuck (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), 157.
28. Ibid., 159-60.
29. Similarly Romans 8:13 is addressed to believers. “For if you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.” Here Paul referred to a life that only obedient believers can and will experience. For more on this see López, Romans Unlocked, 168-70.
30. Margaret Y. MacDonald, Colossians and Ephesians, Sacra Pagina (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 2000), 134.
31. Anton Vögtle believes the author probably had the Decalogue in mind (Die Tugend- und Lasterkataloge im Neuen Testament: Exegetisch, Religions- und Formgeschichtlich Untersucht [Münster: Aschendorffsche, 1936], 16). Wibbing holds the same view (Die Tugend- und Lasterkataloge im Neuen Testament und ihre Traditionsgeschichte, 83).
32. Robert J. Karris states, “In 1 Tim 1:9-10 and 2 Tim 3:2-4 a catalogue of vices is used to describe the opponents. . . . The use of these vices is not parenetic, i.e., the author is not telling his audience what to avoid. Rather the author employs these catalogues of vices to deride the sophists and cause aversion for them in the minds of his readers” (“Background and Significance of the Polemic of the Pastoral Epistles,” Journal of Biblical Literature 92 [December 1973]: 553-54). For more on the catalogs of vices used this way see Philo, Quod Deterius Patiori Insidiari Soleat 73; Lucian Pseudologista 25; Rhetorum praeceptor 15.22; Dialogi mortuorum 369-70; Fugitivi 16; Timon 55; and Piscator 29.34. Others have also noticed Lucian’s use of the catalog of vices (Hans Dieter Betz, Lukian von Samosata und das Neue Testament; Religionsgeschichtliche und Paränetische Parallelen: Ein Beitrag zum Corpus Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti [Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1961], 194; and Wibbing, Die Tugend- und Lasterkataloge im Neuen Testament und ihre Traditionsgeschichte, 89). See also Neil J. McEleney, “Vice Lists of the Pastoral Epistles,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 36 (April 1974): 205.
33. Margaret Davies, The Pastoral Epistles: 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus, ed. Ivor H. Jones (London: Epworth, 1996), 5-6 (italics hers).
34. Possibly all these vices refer to the Ten Commandments (I. Howard Marshall, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, International Critical Commentary [Edinburgh: Clark, 1999], 378-79).
35. Marshall states something similar. “For the righteous person (δίκαιος, 2 Tim 4:8; Tit 1:8 and note) is a person who keeps the law and does not need to be told what to do; the concept of being justified by faith is not in view. The principle here expressed could be true generally of any law-abiding citizen, but it may also be used to describe true believers as they ideally are (see especially the theological orientation given the concept in Tit 2:12)” (ibid., 377).
36. In mentioning the list Paul possibly thought of himself in his preconversion days when he opposed the truth. Noticing this point William Hendriksen wrote, “Paul would certainly place himself among them. . . . Paul very definitely and explicitly tells us that he includes himself, note verse 15 (which must already have been in the mind of the writer when he wrote verse 9)” (Exposition of the Pastoral Epistles, New Testament Commentary [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1957], 66-67). McEleney believes the vice list describes pagans but that the “false teachers” were Jewish Christians who did not view the Law as having passed away (“Vice Lists of the Pastoral Epistles,” 207-10).
37. The word ἀποστερέω, “to defraud or deprive,” in 1 Timothy 6:5 signifies “being deprived of the truth.” In 1 Corinthians 6:8 and James 5:4 this verb refers to believers cheating other believers.
38. J. N. D. Kelly, The Pastoral Epistles, Black’s New Testament Commentary (London: Black, 1960; reprint, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1960), 133-34. Kelly does not directly say these may be unbelievers, but one gets that impression since the “errorists” rejected Christ, seeing that they denied “the wholesome words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ.” However, since the context refers to submission, godliness, and correct teaching about godliness, it seems that these are believers. And nothing in the context points unambiguously to the “errorists” being unsaved.
39. If believers fall prey to teaching heretical doctrines, this does not mean that they are unbelievers (Davies, The Pastoral Epistles: 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus, 48).
40. “There are many similarities between this catalogue and the vices mentioned in Rom. 1, the main difference being that in the latter Paul is describing the contemporary Gentile world, whereas here a future condition is being envisaged” (Donald Guthrie, The Pastoral Epistles: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957], 156). See also Karris, “Background and Significance of the Polemic of the Pastoral Epistles,” 559 n. 42, 560, 662.
41. “The concluding part of this verse, to come unto the knowledge of the truth, accords better with spiritual salvation than natural preservation, unless it means that peaceful conditions assist the propagation of the gospel. The phrase knowledge of the truth is reminiscent of John and is not found in Paul outside the Pastorals. It should be understood as the whole revelation of God in Christ, to know which must be the ultimate aim of Christian salvation” (Guthrie, ThePastoral Epistles: An Introduction and Commentary, 71-2, italics his).
42. McEleney notes that Paul employed “a list of standard vices associated with the wicked” to show that they are unbelievers (“Vice Lists of the Pastoral Epistles,” 212).
43. Martin Dibelius and Hans Conzelmann, The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, trans. Philip Buttolph and Adela Yarbro, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972), 132.
44. McEleney observes, “The list of Tit 3:3 describes the pagan’s moral degeneracy as the former state of the Christian” (“Vice Lists of the Pastoral Epistles,” 217).
45. Dibelius and Conzelmann, The Pastoral Epistles, 147.
46. Paul often included statements about the believers’ position in Christ after he gave a vice list (as seen in Titus 3:3 and then verses 4-6). In this way he was pointing up a change in actual status in order to influence behavior. Paul used this pattern elsewhere (1 Cor. 5:10-6:10 and then verse 11; Col. 3:5-8 and then verses 9-12; Gal. 5:19-21 and then verses 22-25; Eph. 5:3-7 and then verses 5:8-12).

Vice Lists In Non-Pauline Sources

By René A. López

[René A. López is Adjunct Professor of Greek and New Testament and Spanish Biblical Studies, Criswell College, Dallas, Texas.

This is the second article in a six-part series, “The Pauline Vice Lists and Inheriting the Kingdom.”]

Vice Lists In The Old Testament

Surprisingly the technical use of vice lists does not appear in the Old Testament. Easton admits, “Lists of the kind [found in the New Testament] are all but absent from the OT and are very scantily represented in the Talmud, while the (acrostic) catalogs of sins recited in the synagogue confessions can scarcely be traced back of the fifth Christian century.”[1] Aune notes, “That ethical lists are extremely rare in the OT (two examples are the short vice lists in Jer 7:9 and Hos 4:2) and relatively common in Greek ethical discourse from the 5th cent. BCE on, strongly suggests that such lists originated in Hellenism and were widely adapted throughout the syncretistic cultures of the eastern Mediterranean including early Judaism and early Christianity.”[2]

Although technical vice/virtue lists do not appear in the Old Testament as in the New Testament, several verses seem parallel (Exod. 20; 33:14-26; Lev. 17-19; Deut. 27:15-26; 30:15, 19; Ps. 15; Prov. 6:17-19; Ezek. 18:5-17; Hos. 4:1-2). The Torah identified numerous sins.[3] Particular sins to avoid were part of a holiness code for the Israelite community to remain pure.[4]

Evidence also demonstrates Wibbing’s observation that not until the Prophets and in Proverbs did such a vice/virtue list develop “into a solid literary form.”[5] Ezekiel 18:5-17 exhorts Israelites to behave ethically by avoiding vices in order to remain in the community. Jews are exhorted to “walk in [God’s] judgments and persevere” because the “righteous man will certainly live” (v. 9).[6] Hosea 4:1-2 refers to a רִיב oracle, commonly known as a lawsuit, that Yahweh (the Suzerain) brought against His disobedient people Israel (the vassal), accusing them of breaching the covenant (by persisting in vices) that resulted in God’s covenant curses.[7] “Hear the Lord’s word, you sons of Israel, since the Lord brings a charge against the inhabitants of the land: There is no truth or mercy or knowledge of God in the land. By swearing and lying, killing and stealing and committing adultery, they break all restraint, with bloodshed upon bloodshed.”

Jeremiah asked, “Will you steal and murder and commit adultery and swear dishonestly, and sacrifice to Baal, and follow other gods whom you do not know?” (Jer. 7:9). Jeremiah 22:17 mentions three vices, and Psalm 15 along with Proverbs 6:17-19 cites a number of vices. Five of the sins Jeremiah mentioned were noted by Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Galatians 5:20-21; and Ephesians 5:3-5. These sins appear in vice lists commonly found in second-temple literature and in the New Testament period. Hatfield correctly concludes, “Though no formally structured list appears in the OT, its influence on the NT materials cannot be denied.”[8]

Vice Lists In Extrabiblical Literature In The Old Testament Period

Vice lists appear in the early classical Greek period in the writings of Homer, Aristotle, Plato, and the works of Ariston, Chrysppus, Zeno, and others.[9]

Classical-Greek Period (Before 336 B.C.)

Traits of virtue/vice lists appear in the classical Greek period, and commentators notice similarities between the classical writers’ use of these lists and Paul’s lists.[10]

Aristotle recorded a long list of virtues and contrasting vices.[11]

Irascibility	Spiritlessness	Gentleness
Rashness	Cowardice	Courage
Shamelessness	Diffidence	Modesty
Profligacy	Insensitiveness	Temperance
Envy	(nameless)	Righteous indignation
Profit	Loss	The just
Prodigality	Meanness	Liberality
Boastfulness	Self-depreciation	Sincerity
Flattery	Surliness	Friendliness
Subservience	Stubbornness	Dignity
Luxuriousness	Endurance	Hardiness
Vanity	Smallness of spirit	Greatness of spirit
Extravagance	Shabbiness	Magnificence
Rascality	Simpleness	Wisdom

Aristotle also juxtaposed a long and informal description of these character qualities, explaining in detail each of the virtues (e.g., “gentleness . . . courage . . . sobriety,” etc.) before describing in detail each of the vices.[12] When comparing the Pauline vice lists in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Ephesians 5:3-5; and especially the vice and virtue lists in Galatains 5:19-24 and Colossians 3:5-12, one cannot miss the resemblance. All these lists were employed to inform and motivate people to change their behavior.[13]

Plato described vices like falsehood, imposture, license, luxury, insolence, and incontinence, and he referred to others as “remediable offences” that will be rewarded accordingly “here and in the nether world.” Those doing “extreme wrong” will “as a result of their crime . . . become incurable.”[14] They are examples for others not to follow since they end in “the infernal dungeon [as] a spectacle and a lesson to such of the wrongdoers.” But those who live a “holy life in company with truth” are rewarded by ruling in judgment.[15] Elsewhere Plato furnished a much shorter comparison of evil characteristics with a brief description of the virtues of righteous character.[16] He included another list of virtues in Phaedrus 114A–115E that one should practice or else end in Tartarus as those who “have committed great sins.”

Plato declared that only virtuous men could be kings.[17] Dio Chrysostom attributed a similar view to Homer.[18] Thus Knust observes that “following Plato’s lead, Greek historians evaluated kings by their relative virtues.”[19]

These lists, by no means exhaustive, suffice to illustrate the similarities of these virtue/vice catalogs to those of the New Testament. Classical writers basically believed that anyone was capable of practicing either these vices or virtues. Moreover, certain vices were unforgivable while others were forgivable.[20] Condemnation in the afterlife awaited those who were involved in the unforgivable vices.[21] Greco-Roman writers (like their New Testament counterparts) used virtue/vice lists to exhort people to behave properly.[22]

Pseudepigrapha

First Enoch 91:5-7 includes a list of vices that will result in God’s wrath and temporal destruction.

For I know that violence must increase on the earth, and a great chastisement be executed on the earth, and all unrighteousness come to an end: Yea, it shall be cut off from its roots, and its whole structure be destroyed. And unrighteousness shall again be consummated on the earth, and all the deeds of unrighteousness and of violence and transgression shall prevail in a twofold degree. And when sin and unrighteousness and blasphemy and violence in all kinds of deeds increase, and apostasy and transgression and uncleanness increase, a great chastisement shall come from heaven upon all these, and the holy Lord will come forth with wrath and chastisement to execute judgement on earth.[23]

Jubilees 21:21 and 23:14 record a similar temporal judgment falling on those who practice wicked vices that appear in a short list. “I see, my son, that all the works of the children of men are sin and wickedness, and all their deeds are uncleanness and an abomination and a pollution, and there is no righteousness with them. . . . And all these shall come on an evil generation, which transgresses on the earth: their works are uncleanness and fornication, and pollution and abominations.”

Using the term “spirit” metaphorically to represent behavioral characteristics of wicked individuals, the Testament of Reuben 3:2-8 cites a number of vices in a list that ultimately brings destruction on those partaking of them.[24] Shorter and informal lists of vices appear in the Testament of Judah 16:1-2 and 19:1-4. The latter passage is followed by an explanation in 20:1-4 of the dualistic components that still reside within people and that render them capable of doing good or evil (i.e., “the spirit of truth” or “the spirit of deceit”). In the Testament of Gad 5:1-3 another vice list appears—lying, false witness, bitterness, slander, conflict, violence, envy, injustice, and greed—in which the author encourages the reader to follow the virtues of loving the Lord, righteousness, and humility to eliminate evil. The Testament of Asher 2:5-6 has yet another vice list—stealing, injustice, robbing, cheating—that incurs God’s wrath on those practicing them. The Testament of Benjamin 6:4 describes a set of virtues and cites their opposites by supplying a contrasting list of vices that the righteous should eliminate.[25]

Other extensive vice catalogs appear in the Sibylline Oracles 2:253-97, which designate those who will be cast into Gehenna for punishment. For example, “And then all will pass through the blazing river and the unquenchable flame. All the righteous will be saved, but the impious will then be destroyed for all ages, as many as formerly did evil or committed murders, and dread destroyers of houses, parasites, and adulterers, who pour out slander, terrible violent men, and lawless ones, and idol worshipers; as many as abandoned the great immortal God.”[26] Another extended vice list is included in Sibylline Oracles 3:36-45.

Second-temple Jewish eschatological works (with extensive Christian redaction) by the early Christian church period (when the Sibylline Oracles may have been written, i.e., 30 B.C.–A.D. 250), encourage readers to avoid these vices and adhere to virtues in order to attain immortality at the last judgment.[27]

A similar vice list appears in the Assumption of Moses 7:1-10. God’s temporal wrath, as noted in previous texts, will fall on the wicked who practice these vices.

Third Baruch enumerates thirteen vices and 13:3-4 describes fourteen vices (many of which Paul listed in his epistles), which together total fifteen distinct vices.

murder	adultery	fornication
perjury	theft	greediness
slander	envy	drunkenness
strife	jealousy	grumbling
gossip	idol worship	divination

Contextually these vices characterize the “unrighteous” who await God’s eternal judgment.

Three things stand out from Pseudepigraphal texts. First, eternal punishment is not the main focus in numerous texts. Instead, temporal punishment will befall those who practice these vices. Second, some texts, however, do stress eternal punishment for those who exhibit the sinful characteristics enumerated in the vice lists. Third, these vices seem to be used in a parenetic form to exhort those in the community to cease such behavior. Therefore in all cases the writers assumed two contrasting behaviors.[28]

Apocrypha

The Apocrypha also contains virtue/vice lists in various places. The writer of Wisdom of Solomon 14:23-31 gives an extensive vice list that describes the pursuits of the unrighteous.

For either they murder children in their initiation rituals, or either celebrate secret mysteries, or either hold frenzied ravings with strange rules leading to revelry, they no longer keep either their lives or their marriages pure, instead they either kill by ambushing one another, or either grieve one another by committing adultery, and all have confusedly blood and murder, theft and deceit, corruption, unfaithfulness, furor, perjury, confusion over defining good, forgetfulness of favors, defilement of souls, sexual perversion, disorder in offspring, disorderly marriages, adultery, and sensuality. For the worship of unnamed idols (not to be named) is the beginning and cause and end of every evil. For their worshipers either cheer furiously and prophesy lies, or live unrighteously, or willingly commit perjury; for since they trust in lifeless idols they swear evil oaths and do not expect to suffer harm. But just penalties will overtake them on both counts: because they thought evil of God and kept serving idols and swearing falsely to deceive, despising holiness. For it is not the power of the things that men swear, but the just punishment for those who sin, that always pursues the transgression of the unrighteous.

In contrast Wisdom of Solomon 8:7-9 describes the behavior of the righteous by personifying “wisdom” (as in Prov. 8) and showing her virtuous character. “And if any one loves righteousness, her labors are virtues; for she teaches self-control and prudence, justice and courage; nothing in life is more profitable for men than these. . . . Therefore I determined to take her to live with me, knowing that she would give me good counsel and encouragement in cares and grief.” An informal list appears in Sirach 7:1-7 as a way to motivate readers to obedience.

The Apocrypha exhorts people to avoid vices and seek after virtue, since this is the way of comfort in the midst of turmoil.

Vice Lists From 323 B.C. To A.D. 500

In these centuries virtue and vice lists were commonly cited to encourage people to live righteously.

Greco-Roman Period

Vice lists appear in the Greco-Roman period in the writings of Plutarch and others.[29] In these writers one can see elements of virtue/vice lists as well as arguments similar to those Paul used.[30]

Cebes of Thebes, a disciple of Socrates and Philolaus (390 B.C.) who made a cameo appearance in Plato’s dialogue Phaedorus, seeks after virtue instead of giving in to vices. Of the three works attributed to him (by Suidas and Diogenes Laërtius—Hebdome, Phrybichus, and Tabula of Cebes (or Pinax)—only the latter remains. This is believed to be a first-century A.D. pseudonymous work, as evidenced by the content and verbal anachronisms,[31] in which the author discussed both the virtues that crown a person and a list of vices that bring grief and destruction.

The Virtues take him in hand and lead him to that place from which he first came. They show him how those who spend their time there spend time wickedly and live wretchedly; how they are shipwrecked in life, wander aimlessly, and are led about in submission as if enemies, some by Incontinence, others by Pretentiousness, Avarice, Vanity, and the other Vices. From these terrors, to which they are bound, they cannot free themselves and so be saved and arrive here. Rather, they are troubled throughout their lives. They suffer this lot because they are unable to find a path here. For they have forgotten the command of the Daimon.[32]

Following Pythagoras and Plato’s division of the soul, Cicero said virtues and vices stem from different sides of the soul.[33] Cicero defined “virtue” “as a habit of mind in harmony with reason and the order of nature. Therefore if we have become acquainted with all its parts we shall have considered the full scope of honour, pure and simple. It has four parts: wisdom, justice, courage, temperance.”[34] He did not, however, see these virtues as practiced automatically. Instead he believed that teaching virtuous “customs” and perseverance are necessary requirements to behaving ethically.[35] This is similar to Paul’s presentation of the virtue/vice lists in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11; Galatians 5:19-24; and Ephesians 5:3-8. All three passages address believers who are regenerated and endowed with the Spirit (hence the Spirit appears contextually in all three passages), but it is not automatic that believers will always behave in accord with their new position (Rom. 6:6-7, 11-13; 1 Cor. 6:11; Gal. 5:24; Eph. 4:22-24; 5:8). So Paul exhorted them to behave in harmony with their new position in Christ.

Lucian of Samosata made so close an association between the virtue/vice list and a person’s nature that he personified the good or evil character traits by masculine and feminine genders.[36]

Plutarch described a number of virtues that people are capable of expressing, which originate in the reason and war against the part of the soul that cooperates with the body and results in behaviors that run contrary to reason (which he called “vices”).[37] Plutarch called the two elements of the soul, vice and virtue, “the appetitive” and “the spirited.”[38] He defined the virtues and cited a number of instructions for his readers to succeed in reaching the goal of being virtuous people. Plutarch mentioned Ariston of Chios, Zeno of Citum, and Chrysippus, as those who define and explain how virtues function over against vices.[39]

Greco-Roman writers believed that within every man exists the capacity to practice vices or virtues. These writers were not thinking in theological terms of believer or unbeliever. They employed these lists as a way of characterizing individuals and to exhort them to behave morally.[40] Although Greco-Roman writers did not think in Pauline terms,[41] these catalogs support the premise that these lists were common rhetorical stock lists of the day that were used to exhort people to behave ethically.[42]

Qumran

The Manual of Discipline 1QS 4:9-11 includes a list of twenty-one vices practiced by those who will face judgment, and a list of thirteen virtues (4:6-8) practiced by those who will receive eternal life.

The Qumran community was celibate and ascetic. However, this does not mean that the Qumran community did not believe in marriage or never mentioned “fornication” in a vice list, or that they were not exhorted to monogamous marriage. In CD 4:13-21 three vices are mentioned that include avoiding “fornication” by not taking “two wives,” and readers are exhorted to avoid that sin by remaining in a monogamous marriage as God intended in creation. Klijn notes that “lists of this sort are popular in both Judaism and Christianity, cf. 1QS 4:9-10.”[43]

Philo

Philo (13 B.C.–ca. A.D. 45) followed the common tradition of the day by contrasting the virtues of temperance, frugality, economy, sobriety, and moderation, against the vices of pernicious attacks, intemperance, and covetousness.[44] He mentioned homosexuality and lust, which can lead to “lascivious” behavior.[45] In another list he mentioned lust, bestiality, and adultery.[46]

Philo also recorded an extensive list of virtues followed by a list of contrasting vices.

Virtues	Vices
piety, holiness, truth,	unjust, reckless, unholy,
justice, orderliness, fidelity,	profane, murder-stained, rude,
kindness, courage, modesty	cowardly, insatiable, envious[47]

Like Paul, Philo exhorted readers to avoid these vices at all cost and to seek after virtues, since those characterized by such vices will not be present at the banquet (which he probably understood as the eschatological kingdom). Also Philo used the vices to exhort proselytes to abandon old behavior and to live virtuously. Like Paul, he juxtaposed virtues and vices, and pointed to the eschaton as a motivator to influence present behavior.[48]

Josephus

Like Philo, Josephus listed a number of sins to be avoided.[49] In describing Cain, Josephus cited bodily pleasure, outraging his companions, increase of wealth by rapine and violence, inciting to luxury and pillage all whom he met, craftiness, and many others. Josephus wrote that avoiding these sins is the only course of wisdom and of virtue that originally comes from the Law.[50]

In another vice list Josephus described an ambitious man as unscrupulous, crafty, malicious, a ready liar, marked by deceit and knaveries, and a brigand.[51] Josephus accused the Jews of not obeying God’s Law and of partaking of vices, in which even the Romans did not participate.

Secret sins—I mean thefts, treacheries, adulteries—are not beneath your disdain, while in rapine and murder you vie with each other in opening up new and unheard of paths of vice; aye and the temple has become the receptacle for all, and native hands have polluted those divine precincts, which even Romans reverenced from afar, forgoing many customs of their own in deference to your law. And after all this do you expect Him, thus outraged, to be your ally? Righteous supplicants are ye, forsooth, and pure the hands with which you appeal to your protector![52]

Josephus seems to have listed these vices to show how wicked people outside the Law-abiding community behaved and to exhort the Jews to change.

Rabbinical Works

The Mishah, Talmud, and Midrash all refer in some way to virtue/vice lists. Mishnah ͗Abot 2:7 records an informal list of vices that all who study the Law should avoid in order to inherit “the world to come” (i.e., the kingdom).[53] A similar concept, without mentioning an extended list, appears in ͗Abot 3:12. And ͗Abot 5:19 cites the virtues of “a good eye and a humble spirit and a lowly soul” in contrast to the three vices of “an evil eye, [a] haughty spirit, and a proud soul.”[54]

These three virtues are indicative of those who not only enjoy this life but who also will inherit the kingdom. Another extended list of virtues surfaces in ͗Abot 6:1, 6. These include “friend, beloved [of God], lover of God, lover of mankind,” “humility,” “reverence,” “righteous,” “saintly,” “upright,” “faithful; and it [the Law] keeps him far from sin and brings him near to virtue, and from him men enjoy counsel and sound knowledge, understanding and might.”

In b. s̆abbat 127a six virtues are mentioned, showing that all who practice these will reap rewards both now and in the future kingdom: “hospitality to guests, visiting the sick, introspection in prayer, early rising to the schoolhouse, raising one’s children for study of the Torah, and giving one’s fellow the benefit of the doubt.’”[55] Minor tractate Derek Eres Zuta 1:1 cites numerous virtues that characterize a scholar. “The characteristics of a scholar are that he is meek, humble, alert, filled [with a desire for learning], modest, beloved by all, humble to the members of his household and sin-fearing. He judges a man [fairly] according to his deeds, and says, ‘I have no desire for all the things of this world because this world is not for me.’ “[56]

Derek Eres Zuta 7:1-2 refers to factors that characterize an “uncultured man” and a “wise man.”[57]

Midrashic commentary Ecclesiastes Rabbah 1.16 cites a list of virtues that follow the man whose heart seeks after God, and mentions vices to be avoided by the godly.[58]

Three concepts may be drawn from these works. First, to control the vices common to man, one must know and obey the Law.

Second, these rabbinical works used the virtue/vice lists in a manner similar to the way they function in the New Testament, namely, to compare the expected behavior of those who belong to the community of Torah (the Lord) with that of those who do not and to exhort the readers to behave ethically. Third, those who are characterized by the vices will not reap the benefits of this life and will not inherit (enter or inhabit) “the world to come” (i.e., the kingdom). While the New Testament makes it clear that faith alone in Jesus is the sole means of obtaining the righteousness necessary to enter the kingdom and that proper conduct is needed if believers are to reap rewards now and in the kingdom, both rabbinical and Pauline theology affirmed that those who practice the vices listed will not inherit the kingdom.

Apostolic Fathers

The apostolic fathers also employed virtue/vice lists. The Didache does this against the backdrop of “two ways,” avenues that end in life or death. The Didache stressed that “there is a great difference between the two ways.” First Clement 35:5-9 also uses a vice list as a rhetorical device to persuade readers to behave ethically, unlike the “unrighteous man.”

The Epistle of Barnabas 20:1-2, 39 mentions many vices that characterize the unsaved.

But the way of the dark person is crooked and completely cursed. For it is a way of eternal death and punishment, in which contains things that destroy men’s souls: idolatry, arrogance, increase of power, hypocrisy, doublemindedness, adultery, murder, robbery, pride, disobedience, deceit, malice, stubbornness, sorcery, magic, greedy lust, lack of fear of God. They are persecutors of all that is good, and are for those who hate truth, who love a lie, not knowing the reward of righteousness, not adhering to what is good, nor to righteous judgment, ignoring the widow and the orphan, nor are they alert to fear of God but for what is evil, from whom gentleness and patience are far away and distant, loving worthless things, pursuing reward, having no mercy for the poor, not working on behalf of the oppressed, reckless with slander, not knowing Him who made them, murderers of children, corrupters of God’s creation, turning away from the needy, oppressing the afflicted, advocates of the wealthy, lawless judges of the poor, entirely sinful.[59]

Before listing these sins, however, The Epistle of Barnabas 19:1 exhorted believers to walk righteously. “This, therefore, is the way of light; if any one desires to make his way to the designated place, let him be diligent in his works. The knowledge, then, which is given to us that we may walk in it is as follows.”[60] A number of virtues are then cited in chapter 19 in an apodictic manner (“You shall not”), similar to the commandments in Exodus 20.

The Shepherd of Hermas, Visions 3:8.3-8 describes seven women around a tower that seems to symbolize the church. The seven women symbolize virtues (faith, self-control, sincerity, innocence, reverence, knowledge, and love). If believers practice these (or can be understood as characterized by these), then they will be saved, a possibility available only to those who belong to the Lord’s church.[61] In The Shepherd of Hermas, Similitudes 9:15.1-3 a virtue/vice list is used to exhort readers to behave according to the virtues or else they will not enter the kingdom of God. To enter the kingdom of God one must avoid all vices and apply all virtues.

Successors to the apostolic fathers seem to have noted that the vice lists describe what characterize unbelievers but which can also be practiced by believers. Hence they used the lists as a rhetorical device to exhort believers to behave ethically or else miss entering the kingdom of God.[62] The value of investigating the church fathers centers on their proximity to the apostles and the likelihood that they used the vice and virtue lists similarly to the way the first-century writers used them.

Gnostics

The Nag Hammadi tractate On the Origin of the World cites a list of seven vices personified as demons. “Then Death, being androgynous, mingled with his (own) nature and begot seven androgynous offspring. These are the names of the male ones: Jealousy, Wrath, Tears, Sighing, Suffering, Lamentation, Bitter Weeping. And these are the names of the female ones: Wrath, Pain, Lust, Sighing, Curse, Bitterness, Quarrelsomeness. They had intercourse with one another, and each one begot seven, so that they amount to forty-nine androgynous demons. Their names and their effects you will find in the Book of Solomon.”[63]

Then, immediately following this account, to combat these demons coming from Death (son of Ialdabaoth), another child from Ialdabaoth named Zoe created seven virtuous spirits. “And in the presence of these, Zoe, who was with Sabaoth, created seven good androgynous forces. These are the names of the male ones: the Unenvious, the Blessed, the Joyful, the True, the Unbegrudging, the Beloved, the Trustworthy. Also, as regards the female ones, these are their names: Peace, Gladness, Rejoicing, Blessedness, Truth, Love, Faith. And from these there are many good and innocent spirits. Their influences and their effects you will find in the Configurations of the Fate of Heaven That Is Beneath the Twelve.”[64]

The Aprocryphon of John switched the scheme and personified the vices as demons.

The four chief demons are: Ephememphi who belongs to pleasure, Yoko who belongs to desire, Nenentophni who belongs to grief, Blaomen who belongs to fear. And the mother of them all is Aesthesis-Ouch-Epi-Ptoe. And from the four demons passions came forth. And from grief (came) envy, jealousy, distress, trouble, pain, callousness, anxiety, mourning, etc. And from pleasure much wickedness arises, and empty pride, and similar things. And from desire (comes) anger, wrath, and bitterness, and bitter passion, and unsatedness, and similar things. And from fear (comes) dread, fawning, agony, and shame. All of these are like useful things as well as evil things. But the insight into their true (character) is Anaro, who is the head of the material soul.[65]

In both of these accounts the contrasts in the virtue/vice lists are obvious. One can conclude from these Gnostic texts that people characterized by vices belonged to a different order from those characterized by the virtues. Though this evidence is much later than the Pauline passages in question, besides coming from groups on the fringes of Christianity, these lists show how the lists were viewed after Paul wrote.[66] Yet one must be careful in pressing this point since terms used earlier may not be employed by Gnostics with the same meaning or theological concepts.[67] Two things seem clear. First, virtue/vice lists were a conventional way of juxtaposing two diametrically opposite groups, and second, the lists were a rhetorical device used by many rhetoricians, even in groups on the fringes of Christianity.[68]

Conclusion

Formal virtue/vice lists are not found in the Old Testament, but informal parallels do exist in various passages in Torah. Such parallels became more fully developed in the prophets and wisdom literature.

Extrabiblical writers employed virtue/vice lists in divergent ways.[69] However, all seem to have two elements in common. First, individuals or groups belonging to communities are never viewed as being unable to practice vices. Lists are used to motivate ethical behavior appropriate to the new community in contrast to the group to which addressees once belonged.[70] Second, a strict dichotomy exists between those characterized by virtues (where theological affinities allow) as those who have a part in the “world to come” and those characterized by vices who do not. Universally, those who inherit the kingdom or the world to come are the righteous vis-à-vis the wicked who do not. No degrees exist in such comparisons.

Notes

1. Burton Scott Easton, “New Testament Ethical Lists,” Journal of Biblical Literature 51 (March 1932): 1. Hans Conzelmann also observes, “This is a form which has no model in the Old Testament” (1 Corinthians: A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, trans. James W. Leitch, Hermeneia [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975], 100).
2. David E. Aune, “Lists, Ethical,” in The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, ed. Katharine Doob Sakenfeld (Nashville: Abingdon, 2008), 3:672.
3. Neil J. McEleney, “Vice Lists of the Pastoral Epistles,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 36 (April 1974): 217; and B. J. Oropeza, “Situational Immorality: Paul’s ‘Vice Lists’ at Corinth,” Expository Times 110 (October 1998): 9. Paul, well versed in both the Torah and Hellenism, would have understood Old Testament vice enumerations and their use in this period, and as a result he may have employed them likewise. See Jennifer Wright Knust, “Paul and the Politics of Virtue and Vice,” in Paul and the Roman Imperial Order, ed. Richard A. Horsley (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity International, 2004), 159. These vices are also cataloged and collected in ancient Assyrian treaties as seen in Shurpu’s Akkadian series of adjudication, which contains most of the commandments in the Decalogue of Exodus 20:2-17 and Deuteronomy 5:6-21. See Mesopotamian texts in Walter Beyerlin, ed., Near Eastern Religious Texts Relating to the Old Testament, trans. John Bowden, Old Testament Library (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978), 131-32.
4. For a covenant with a stipulation list between a king and its servant (suzerainty-vassal treaty) established from the ancient Near East, see René López, “Israelite Covenants in the Light of Ancient Near Eastern Covenants (Part 1 of 2),” Conservative Theological Journal 9 (fall 2003): 91-111; and idem, “Israelite Covenants in the Light of Ancient Near Eastern Covenants (Part 2 of 2),” Conservative Theological Journal 10 (spring 2004): 73-107.
5. Siegfried Wibbing, Die Tugend- und Lasterkataloge im Neuen Testament und ihre Traditionsgeschichte unter besonderen Berüchsichtigung der Qumran-Texte (Berlin: Töpelmann, 1959), 217.
6. Unless indicated otherwise, all Scripture quotations are the author’s translations.
7. For a discussion of treaty curses, see López, “Israelite Covenants in the Light of Ancient Near East Covenants (Part 2 of 2),” 78-87.
8. Stephen G. Hatfield, “The Rhetorical Function of Selected Vice/Virtue Lists in the Letters of Paul” (Th.D. diss., Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1987), 15. Such an example appears in Leviticus 18, along with an expanded list of blessings and curses in Proverbs 6:17-19; Jeremiah 7:9; Ezekiel 18:5-17; and Hosea 4:2.
9. Later Plutarch mentioned these earlier works (Mulierum virtutes 441A). See Edward N. O’Neil, “De Cupiditate Divitiarum,” in Plutarch’s Ethical Writings and Early Christian Literature, ed. Hans Dieter Betz (Leiden: Brill, 1978), 4:309. See also Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 100.
10. Hans Dieter Betz, Plutarch’s Theological Writings and Early Christian Literature, Studia Corpus Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti, ed. Hans Dieter Betz (Leiden: Brill, 1975), 3:309; and Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 100.
11. Aristotle, Ethica eudemian 2.3.4.
12. Ibid., 4.5-6.10. This is also noted by Hatfield, “The Rhetorical Function of Selected Vice/Virtue Lists in the Letters of Paul,” 11.
13. Aristotle recorded a set of virtues and vices to help people find happiness and motivate them toward this noble goal through “moral goodness” (Ethica eudemian 1-2). He wrote, “It is clear, therefore, that Moral Goodness has to do with pleasures and pains. And since moral character is, as even its name implies that it has its growth from habit, and by our often moving in a certain way a habit not innate in us is finally trained to be operative in that way (which we do not observe in inanimate objects, for not even if you throw a stone upwards ten thousand times will it ever rise upward unless under the operation of force)—let moral character then be defined as a quality of the spirit in accordance with governing reason. . . . Hence moral goodness must be concerned with certain means and must be a middle state. We must, therefore, ascertain what sort of middle state is goodness.” Aristotle then cited the list, defined each vice carefully, and commented on how to avoid each (ibid., 2.2.1; 2.3.4-18). Then he clarified how one can reach this goal. “For our state of character is related to and concerned with such things as have the property of making every person’s spirit worse and better. . . . Hence all men readily define the virtues as insensitiveness or tranquility in regard to pleasures and pains, and the vices by the opposite qualities” (ibid., 2.4.4).
14. Plato, Gorgias 525.
15. Ibid., 526.
16. Plato, Res publica 6.490C–E.
17. Ibid., 427C–434D, 543C–580a.
18. Dio Chrysostom, De regno I, 1.14, and De regno IV, 83-96. See Abraham J. Malherbe, Moral Exhortation: A Greco-Roman Sourcebook, Library of Early Christianity (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986), 139-41.
19. Jennifer W. Knust, “Paul and the Politics of Virtue and Vice,” in Paul and the Roman Imperial Order, ed. Richard A. Horsley (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity International, 2004), 159.
20. Plato, Gorgias 525-26.
21. In the classical period Greeks believed the afterlife was a gloomy place where a person (soul/spirit) would remain and pay for his wrong. For example in Iliad 24.549-51, the last sentence states this concept emphatically: “You will not resurrect him [οὐδε μιν ἀνστέσεις] before you suffer a further evil.” See also Iliad 24.756; Aeschylus, Eumenides 647-48; idem, Agamemnon 565-69, 1019-24, 1360-62; Sophocles, Elektra 137-39; Euripides, Helena 1285-87; Aristotle, De anima1.406b.3-5; Aristophanes, Ecclesiazusae 1073-74; and Herodotus 3.62.3. N. T. Wright notes this in The Resurrection of God (London: SPCK, 2003), 32-33 nn 1-9. But in Plato’s writings the afterlife took a more positive turn in that when the soul was released to the afterlife the happiness one hoped to reap depended on what was cultivated while the person was alive.
22. Apart from the works already cited, Pseudo-Crates, Epistles 15 also confirms this. “Shun not only the worst of evils, injustice, and self-indulgence, but also their causes, pleasures. For you will concentrate on these alone, both present and future, and on nothing else. And pursue not only the best of goods, self-control and perseverance, but also their causes, toils, and do not shun them on account of their harshness. For would you not exchange inferior things for something great? As you would receive gold in exchange for copper, so you would receive virtue in exchange for toils” (Abraham J. Malherbe, “Epistles,” in The Cynic Epistles, ed. Wayne A. Meeks [Atlanta: Scholars, 1977], 65). Malherbe sees a parallel to Galatians 5:19-23 in which Paul described vices and then virtues (Moral Exhortation: A Greco-Roman Sourcebook [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986], 141; see also 138-43).
23. Elsewhere the present author has argued that God’s wrath occurs in time and should be distinguished from eternal judgment. These verses should thus be viewed as God’s displeasure displayed temporally against unrighteousness (René A. López, “Do Believers Experience the Wrath of God?” Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society 15 (autumn 2002): 45-66.
24. These vices include fornication, insatiableness, fighting, flattery, trickery, pride, boastfulness, arrogance, lying, jealousy, deceit, stealing, and injustice.
25. For an analysis of the virtue/vice genre in the Pseudepigrapha see John J. Collins, “Testaments,” in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus, ed. Michael Edward Stone (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 334-39. A short list of three vices in the Testament of Dan appears rhetorically to distinguish “the young Christian congregation from their environment” (Edward Schweizer, “Traditional Ethical Patterns in the Pauline and Post-Pauline Letters and Their Development (Lists of Vices and House-tables),” in Text and Interpretation: Studies in the New Testament Presented to Matthew Block, ed. Ernest Best and R. M. Wilson [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979], 195).
26. Sibylline Oracles 2:253-60.
27. James H. Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: Expansions of the “Old Testament” and Legends, Wisdom and Philosophical Literature, Prayers, Psalms, and Odes, Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works (New York: Doubleday, 1985), 2:330-31. The dating of the Sibylline Oracles is debatable.
28. See also the Testament of Simeon 5:1-5, which exhorts the readers through Joseph (in Genesis) to avoid “wickedness” and follow God and not Beliar.
29. Dieter Lührmann, “The Beginning of the Church in Thessalonica,” in Greeks, Romans, and Christians: Essays in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe, ed. David L. Balch, Everett Ferguson, and Wayne A. Meeks (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), 237-49. See Plutarch, Moralia 6.440-52. Noting the similarity to Paul, John T. Fitzgerald writes, “The functions of the NT lists are broadly analogous to their use outside of early Christian literature. For example, Greco-Roman philosophers frequently began their speeches with a list of vices in order to depict the wretched moral condition of the masses. Paul, similarly, uses a vice list at the beginning of Romans (1:29-31) to depict the condition of people who have not appropriated the knowledge of God” (“Vice/Virtue Lists,” in Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman [New York: Doubleday, 1992], 6:858).
30. Benjamin Fiore, “Passion in Paul and Plutarch 1 Corinthians 5-6 and Polemic against Epicureans,” in Greeks, Romans, and Christians: Essays in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe, 135. After comparing Paul’s style with Greco-Roman rhetoricians, R. Dean Anderson concludes, “It is particularly important to set Paul’s writings off against the background of the Graeco-Roman culture in which he lived and worked” (Ancient Rhetorical Theory and Paul, rev. ed. [Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1996; reprint, Leuven: Peeters, 1999], 290).
31. “Cebes,” in Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th ed., 592. Regardless of who wrote it, if it was written in the New Testament period (or earlier), it helps clarify the usage of the virtue/vice list.
32. John T. Fitzgerald and L. Michael White, The Tabula of Cebe (Chico, CA: Scholars, 1983), 99. B. J. Oropeza says, “Graeco-Roman lists, however, do not seem to derive from Jewish traditions, and since Paul in [1 Cor] 10:5-10 addresses vices committed by Israel in the wilderness, he is no doubt echoing traditions related to the latter source” (“Situational Immorality: Paul’s ‘Vice Lists’ at Corinth,” 9).
33. Cicero, Tusculanae disputationes 5.10-11.
34. Cicero, De inventione rhetorica 2.53, 159.
35. Ibid., 2.53-54.164.
36. Lucian, Piscator 15-17.
37. Plutarch, Moralia 6.444-52.
38. Ibid., 6.441.
39. Ibid., 440. See Johannes Ab Arnim, ed., Chrysippi Fragmenta Moralia (Stuttgart: B. G. Teubner, 1964), 59, 99-100; and idem, Zeno et Zenonis Discipuli (Stuttgart: B. G. Teubner, 1964), 48-49, 86. See also Plato, Moralia 97e and 1034c.
40. Seneca noted this point. “Posidonius holds that not only precept-giving . . . but even persuasion, consolation, and encouragement, are necessary. To these heads the investigation of causes. . . . He remarks that it will also be useful to illustrate each particular virtue; this science Posidonius calls ethology, while others call it characterization. It gives the signs and marks which belong to each virtue and vice, so that by them distinction may be drawn between like things. Its function is the same as that of precept. . . . Would you, for instance, deem it a useful thing to have evidence given you by which you recognize a thoroughbred horse, and not be cheated in your purchase or waste your time over a low-bred animal? But how much more useful it is to know the marks of a surpassingly fine soul—marks which one may appropriate from another for oneself” (Epistulae morales 95:65-67, italics his). See also Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, 138. Similar to Philo’s Quot deterius patiori insidiari solest 73, Lucian also cited a catalog of vices in accusing the sophists of not practicing what they preach (Pseudologista 25; Rhetorum praecestar 15.22; Dialogi mortuorum 369-70; Fugitiri 16; Timon 55; Piscator 29.34).
41. Benjamin Fiore, “Passion in Paul and Plutarch 1 Corinthians 5-6 and Polemic against Epicureans,” 139. See also Plutarch, Mulierum virtutes 443B–444E.
42. Fiore, “Passion in Paul and Plutarch, 1 Corinthians 5-6 and Polemic against Epicureans,” 135-43.
43. A. F. J. Klijn, The Acts of Thomas: Introduction, Text, and Commentary, 2nd ed. (Leiden: Brill, 1962), 85.
44. Philo, De specialibus legibus 1.172-74.
45. Ibid., 3.7-8, 37-43.
46. Philo, De Abrahamo26. 135-36.
47. Philo, De sacrificis Abelis et Caini 5.26-27, 32.
48. Philo, Virtues 180-83.
49. Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews 1:2.2, 60-66; idem, Against Apion 2:19-28; and idem, The Jewish War 2:21.1; 5:9.4, 401-3.
50. Josephus, Against Apion 2:19-28.
51. Josephus, The Jewish War 2:21.1.
52. Ibid., 5:9.4, 401-3.
53. Hermann L. Strack and Paul Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrash (Munich: Beck, 1961), 1183-92. Ecclesiastes Rabbah 1.16 employs such a list in describing the state of one’s heart in relation to God. Other lists appear in b. s̆abbat127a and b.͗Abot 5.19. For a discussion of the ethical list in rabbinic literature and use of end-time language see John G. Gager Jr., “Functional Diversity in Paul’s Use of End-Time Language,” Journal of Biblical Literature 89 (September 1970): 333.
54. This translation is from Herbert Danby, The Mishnah: Translated from the Hebrew with Introduction and Brief Explanatory Notes (New York: Oxford University Press, 1933), 458.
55. This translation is from Jacob Neusner, The Babylonian Talmud: A Translation and Commentary (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2005).
56. This translation is from Abraham Cohen, Minor Tractates (London: Soncino, 1965).
57. See also Gerard Mussies, “Catalogues of Sins and Virtues Personified,” in Études preliminaires aux religions orientales dans l’empire romain, ed. R. van den Broeck and M. J. Vermaseren (Leiden: Brill, 1981), 319; and Strack and Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrash, 3:75, 577.
58. See H. Freedman and Maurice Simon, The Midrash Rabbah (New York: Soncino, 1977), 4:46-49. Hatfield also notes some virtues and vices that are listed in rabbinical materials (“Rhetorical Function of Selected Vice/Virtue Lists,” 14).
59. Author’s translation.
60. After also observing this, Gay L. Byron explains. “The virtues, in contrast to the vices, are indicated as ‘the way of the knight’ (heœ hodos tou phoœtos). Both lists are introduced in chapter 18 in the discussion about the ‘Two Ways’ [18:1-2]. These lists usually indicated certain behaviors that led to life and certain threats that led to death and destruction” (Symbolic Blackness and Ethnic Difference in Early Christian Literature [New York: Routledge, 2002], 62).
61. The Shepherd of Hermes, Visions 3:8.7-8 says, “Their powers are controlled by one another, and they follow one another, in the order in which they were born. From Faith is born Self-control; from Self-control, Sincerity; from Sincerity, Innocence; from Innocence, Reverence; from Reverence, Knowledge; and from Knowledge, Love. Their works, therefore, are pure and reverent and divine. So whoever serves these and has the strength to master their works will have a dwelling in the tower with the saints of God.”
62. Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, 138.
63. On the Origin of the World II 5, 106:28-107:3. This translation is from James M. Robinson and Richard Smith, eds., The Nag Hammadi Library in English, 4th rev. ed. (Leiden: Brill, 1996).
64. Ibid., II 5, 107:4-18.
65. The Apocryphon of John, 18:14-35.
66. See Darrell L. Bock, The Missing Gospels: Unearthing the Truth behind Alternative Christianities (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2006).
67. The Gnostics understood that the vices in their writings were unbecoming of people belonging to their group. This is similar to the way Paul and others used vice lists. People characterized by these vices typify behavior that is unbecoming of Christians.
68. For an excellent discussion on the use of the virtue/vice catalogs in the Gnostics and other groups see Gerard Mussies, “Catalogues of Sins and Virtues Personified,” in Études preliminaires aux religions orientales dans l’empire romain, 315.
69. Though Gnostic literature is very ambiguous, for the purpose of this study two things may be drawn from it. First, though some passages present a spiritual form of the kingdom, the common meaning of an awaited kingdom remains in the future. Second, one enters this kingdom by knowledge and obedience.
70. E. Schweizer knows that the traditional vice lists were used to motivate by contrasting inside/outside characteristics unbecoming of new converts; but he also acknowledges that becoming a new convert does not guarantee absolute success even if given power to overcome weakness (“Traditional Ethical Patterns in the Pauline and Post-Pauline Letters,” 195-96, see also 197-209).