MY QUESTION: 1 Corinthians 15:34 Think carefully about what is right, and stop sinning. For to your shame I say that some of you don’t know God at all. NLT Considering my study on all the aspects of the greatness of God, and how the modern Church is so focused on the nice things about God, the NLT of this verse would seem to support that very well. Is the NLT a good translation of that verse?

 

ANSWER:

Summary of main points

• The NLT captures the thrust of 1 Cor 15:34 well (a sharp moral wake up call tied to bad theology about the resurrection).

• Its first clause is interpretive but defensible (Greek is literally sober up / wake up rightly).

• Its last clause “some of you don’t know God at all” is rhetorically punchy but slightly stronger than the Greek, which more exactly says “some have ignorance of God.”

• So: NLT is a good dynamic rendering for impact, but for precision the ESV / NASB style rendering tracks the Greek more closely, especially in the final clause.

Exegesis

1. Original language (Greek)
   NA28 (and [Unverified] likely identical in UBS5 main text, but I cannot verify the UBS5 apparatus here):
   eknepsate dikaios kai me hamartanete agnosian gar theou tines echousin pros entropen hymin lalo

Greek text as commonly printed in NA28:
eknepsate dikaios, kai me hamartanete; agnosian gar theou tines echousin. pros entropen hymin lalo.
Source: Novum Testamentum Graece, 28th rev. ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012), 1 Cor 15:34.

Key terms and semantic range

• eknepho (eknepsate, aorist imperative): to become sober, to sober up, to come to ones senses, to wake up from stupor. It is vivid language: snap out of it.

• dikaios: adverbially here, rightly / justly / in the right way. The phrase is not “think carefully” in a cognitive-analytic sense so much as “come to your senses in the right way.”

• me hamartanete (present imperative with me): stop sinning / do not go on sinning. In context it targets an ongoing pattern.

• agnosia: ignorance, lack of knowledge, not-knowing. It is not the normal NT term for “unbelief” (apistia) but for culpable ignorance.

• agnosian theou: ignorance of God. Genitive can be objective (ignorance about God) but in Pauline usage it is typically relational-covenantal in effect: not acknowledging God as God, not living under the reality of God (compare the OT background where “knowing God” is covenantal recognition expressed in fear and obedience).

A very literal rendering
“Sober up rightly, and do not keep sinning; for some have ignorance of God. I say this to your shame.”

2. Grammar and syntax

• Two coordinated imperatives: eknepsate … kai me hamartanete. The logic is: doctrinal stupor produces moral drift; recovery of right judgment should terminate ongoing sin.

• Causal clause introduced by gar: the reason the rebuke is warranted is that “some” (tines) in the community “have” (echousin) ignorance of God.

• pros entropen hymin lalo: “I speak to you toward shame” = I say this to shame you (a rhetorical strategy in antiquity, aiming at moral correction, not mere insult).

3. Textual variants (only if significant)

• [Unverified] I cannot check the NA28 / UBS5 apparatus in real time here. In standard critical editions, 1 Cor 15:34 is not known for a major variant that changes the meaning of the verse materially. The translation question is therefore driven primarily by semantics and style, not by text-critical uncertainty.

Is the NLT a good translation of the verse?
NLT: “Think carefully about what is right, and stop sinning. For to your shame I say that some of you don’t know God at all.” Source: Holy Bible, New Living Translation (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House, 2015), 1 Cor 15:34.

Comparison to a more formally equivalent translation
ESV: “Wake up from your drunken stupor, as is right, and do not go on sinning. For some have no knowledge of God. I say this to your shame.” Source: The Holy Bible, English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2016), 1 Cor 15:34.

Evaluation clause by clause

1. “Think carefully about what is right”

• This is an interpretive paraphrase of “sober up rightly.” The NLT chooses a modern idiom that captures the functional sense (regain moral clarity) rather than the metaphor (sobriety). It is not wrong, but it is less vivid and slightly shifts the image from moral-spiritual stupor to mere careful reasoning.

• If your theological point depends on Paul accusing them of being dulled or intoxicated by bad influence, the ESVs “wake up from your drunken stupor” communicates the metaphor more transparently.

2. “and stop sinning”

• This is strong and quite close to the force of me hamartanete in context: Paul is confronting ongoing sinful practice being enabled by false thinking (“if the dead are not raised, let us eat and drink”, 1 Cor 15:32). NLT is good here.

3. “some of you don’t know God at all”

• This is the most interpretive part. The Greek says “some have ignorance of God” (agnosian … echousin). That can imply profound spiritual deficiency, even within a church context, but the phrase does not technically assert absolute God-ignorance in every sense (as if they are total pagans with zero awareness). It is a moral-covenantal indictment: their posture and thinking are functionally godless.

• So the NLT is directionally correct (it is a severe rebuke), but “at all” is an intensifier not demanded by the Greek. ESVs “some have no knowledge of God” is closer to the lexical shape and still sharp. The NLT is preaching-strength; ESV is exegesis-strength.

Theological analysis

1. Arminian / Provisionist and Dispensationalist synthesis

• Paul treats theology and ethics as reciprocally causal: corrupt doctrine about resurrection (and thus judgment and eschatological accountability) fosters sin; therefore the remedy is repentance at the level of mind and allegiance (“sober up rightly”) that issues in concrete moral cessation.

• In a non-extreme Free Will frame, this fits the biblical pattern: genuine believers can be deceived, morally dulled, and in need of urgent correction. The warning functions as a real means God uses to reorient responsible agents. The text does not require deterministic categories; it assumes addressability and moral responsibility.

• Dispensationally, the ecclesial context matters: this is a church problem, not merely a pagan problem. “Some” within the covenant community (the Corinthian assembly) exhibit “ignorance of God” in a way that is compatible with being inside the visible church, whether regenerate or not. Paul does not pause to sort soteriological status; he targets the communitys toleration of doctrinal-moral drift.

2. Contrast with Calvinist / Reformed positions (briefly)

• Reformed readings commonly take “some have ignorance of God” as evidence that unregenerate persons are present within the visible church, and the rebuke functions to expose them or to awaken the elect. That is possible.

• A Free Will reading can equally say: even regenerate persons can act in ways that deserve the charge “ignorance of God” in the Hebraic-covenantal sense (not acknowledging God rightly), without implying loss of regeneration. The language is covenantal and moral, not necessarily a metaphysical claim about the absence of regenerating grace.

Historical context

• In Second Temple Jewish and wider biblical idiom, to “know God” is not merely to possess data about God. It is covenantal recognition and obedience. The prophets frequently equate “not knowing God” with moral collapse and idolatry (for example, the logic pattern of Hosea: lack of knowledge -> social breakdown). Paul is using a thoroughly Jewish moral-theological category inside a Greek-speaking church.

• Greco-Roman moralists also used “shame” language as a corrective social mechanism, but Paul grounds the shame not in mere social decorum but in theology: their resurrection denial is practically atheistic in effect.

Scholarly insight (selected)

• Gordon D. Fee emphasizes in this chapter that Paul sees the resurrection as morally and theologically foundational; denial destabilizes Christian ethics and hope. Source: Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), on 1 Cor 15:33-34.

• Leon Morris notes the force of the sobriety metaphor and that “ignorance of God” is a serious charge within the community. Source: Leon Morris, 1 Corinthians, TNTC (Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1985), on 1 Cor 15:34.

• I. Howard Marshall, in broader NT theology, treats “knowing God” language as relational and obedience-involving, not mere cognition, which aligns with how this rebuke functions. Source: I. Howard Marshall, New Testament Theology: Many Witnesses, One Gospel (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), sections on knowledge of God and discipleship ethics.

Metaphysical level (what reality itself is doing)

• Paul presupposes a moral ontology in which eschatological reality (resurrection, judgment, new creation) is not an optional add-on but a structuring feature of moral life. If resurrection is false, the moral world collapses toward hedonism and nihilism (“eat and drink”). If resurrection is true, reality is teleological: actions are accountable within Gods enacted future.

• “Ignorance of God” is thus not merely a psychological state but a disorder of orientation to ultimate reality. To not acknowledge God is to misread the grain of the universe, which expresses itself as sin.

Psychological-spiritual level (soul, will, affections)

• The sobriety metaphor implies intoxication: not necessarily with alcohol, but with ideas, social pressures, and appetites. Bad company and bad doctrine are not neutral; they dull discernment, lower inhibitions, and re-train desires.

• Pauls remedy is not “learn more facts” only, but a recovery of right-mindedness that results in volitional change (“stop sinning”). In biblical categories: cognition, affection, and will are integrated.

Divine-perspective level (how God sees and wills this)

• God treats the church as morally responsible agents: He addresses them with commands and rebukes that presume they can and must respond.

• The statement “some have ignorance of God” functions as divine indictment of a community condition: God is not merely assessing their doctrinal quiz score; He is evaluating whether their communal life acknowledges Him as the living God whose future (resurrection) governs present holiness.

Practical application (for your modern-church concern)

• The NLTs punchy “dont know God at all” aligns rhetorically with your critique: a church can speak about God while functionally living as if God is only “nice” and never judge, never holy, never eschatologically real. That functional godlessness is close to what Paul condemns.

• For teaching and argumentation, use the ESV (or similar) for close exegesis and then you may legitimately explain the implication: Paul is saying that their doctrinal and moral posture amounts to living like people who do not truly acknowledge God.

• If you are making a precision claim, phrase it as: “Paul says some have ignorance of God” (Greek agnosia), which in biblical idiom can mean practical, covenantal non-recognition of God, not necessarily a philosophical denial of Gods existence.

Bottom line

• Yes, the NLT is a good dynamic translation for overall sense.

• The place it most over-interprets is the intensifier “at all.” The Greek is severe but slightly more exact as “some have ignorance of God / no knowledge of God.”