tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7507253073421509852023-07-28T05:28:48.299-04:00The Schooley Files StudiesFull length articles on Christian theology, biblical exegesis, and literary interpretation.Keith Edwin Schooleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06328169815024415532noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-750725307342150985.post-59069743569584361292015-02-05T12:06:00.000-05:002015-09-15T08:51:27.607-04:00The So-Called Fivefold Ministries: a study on Ephesians 4:11<i>The traditional, cessationist understanding of <a href="http://biblegateway.com/bible?passage=Eph4:11">Ephesians 4:11</a> is that the five gifts listed--apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers--were offices of the early church, leadership positions and types of ministry that God had established, and that some of them passed away at the end of the Apostolic age. By contrast, many people, especially within some charismatic congregations, view this verse as teaching that God has established these five offices as the model of church leadership which should remain functioning throughout the church age. A variation of this view has recently come into prominence, arguing that every believer possesses one or more of these five gifts and should function in ministry according to whichever one is primary. A closer examination of the passage yields an answer different from any of the above formulations.<br />
<br />
In brief, the present study, originally published as four separate blog posts, argues that the so-called "fivefold" ministry gifts are only some of the many giftings that believers may have, and thus not all believers should be categorized as one of these five. They are indeed still functional and have been throughout the church age, but have in some cases been known under different names. Specifically, biblical Apostles are church-planting missionaries, and should be designated as missionaries to avoid confusion with the specific role of the Twelve. Prophets should be understood on the model of Old Testament prophets, typically people outside church leadership who call God's people (especially leaders) back to God's covenant. Evangelists are non-church-planting missionaries: i.e., their function is to preach the gospel to the unreached, not to stir up congregations of believers. Pastors and teachers should be considered as one group with two significant aspects (possibly with some members leaning toward one aspect or the other) that function as the primary leaders of an already-established local group of believers.</i><br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<h2>
Apostles</h2>
The term "apostles" (Gr. <span style="font-style: italic;">apostoloi</span>) is traditionally reserved for the original twelve that Jesus chose for intense discipleship and commission into ministry (<a href="http://biblegateway.com/bible?passage=Mat10:2;Lk6:13;Ac1:2">Mat. 10:2; Lk. 6:13; Ac. 1:2</a>) as well as the Apostle Paul (e.g., <a href="http://biblegateway.com/bible?passage=Rom1:1;1Cor1:1">Rom. 1:1; 1 Cor. 1:1</a>). Biblically, however, the term is used more broadly than that:<br />
<ul>
<li><span id="fullpost">On Paul's first missionary journey, Barnabas is included with Paul as an apostle (<a href="http://biblegateway.com/bible?passage=Ac14:4,14">Acts 14:4, 14</a>);</span></li>
<li><span id="fullpost">Paul refers to "our brothers" (two men whom he was sending to Corinth along with Titus) as <span style="font-style: italic;">apostoloi</span> (NIV, "representatives," <a href="http://biblegateway.com/bible?passage=2Cor8:23">2 Cor. 8:23</a>);</span></li>
<li><span id="fullpost">Epaphroditus is referred to as <span style="font-style: italic;">hymon apostolon</span> (NIV, "your messenger" , <a href="http://biblegateway.com/bible?passage=Php2:25">Php. 2:25</a>);</span></li>
<li><span id="fullpost">Paul refers to himself and his traveling companions Silvanus and Timothy as "apostles of Christ" (<a href="http://biblegateway.com/bible?passage=1Thess2:6">1 Th. 2:6</a>);</span></li>
<li><span id="fullpost">Jesus is called an apostle in <a href="http://biblegateway.com/bible?passage=Heb3:1">Hebrews 3:1</a>. </span></li>
</ul>
<span id="fullpost">Although translations in these passages tend to shy away from the term "apostle" if the referent does not include Paul, the Twelve, or Jesus, the same Greek term--of which our English word "apostle" is merely a transliteration--is used. It does not appear that the term is restricted as a technical term for a fixed group of people in the New Testament. </span><br />
<br />
<span id="fullpost">Based on this expanded understanding of the term "apostle," some church groups are choosing to adopt the term for themselves. While there is no universally-accepted definition of an "apostle," the term as it is used among these churches generally indicates some degree of authority above that of an ordinary pastor. It may be used of a senior pastor in a multi-staff church. C. Peter Wagner, in <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Your-Spiritual-Gifts-Help-Church/dp/0830736972/ref=pd_bbs_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1212870876&sr=8-2"><span style="font-style: italic;">Your Spiritual Gifts Can Help Your Church Grow!</span></a>, argues that it is someone who exerts authority over a group of churches, using Pastor Chuck Smith of the <a href="http://www.calvarychapel.com/">Calvary Chapel</a> fellowship of churches as an example. <span class="dropcaps"> </span></span><br />
<span id="fullpost"><span class="dropcaps"> </span></span><span id="fullpost"><span class="dropcaps"> </span></span><br />
<span id="fullpost"><span class="dropcaps">H</span>owever, while many references to apostles in the New Testament do indicate that those apostles were accorded authority and respect, neither the etymology of the word nor its usage in classical and Jewish parallels indicates authority as a primary component of its meaning. Literally meaning "one sent forth," the term refers to an emissary or ambassador: a messenger more official than an <span style="font-style: italic;">angelos</span>. When we examine those described as <span style="font-style: italic;">apostoloi</span> in the New Testament, especially in the larger circle beyond the Twelve and Paul, it becomes clear that those designated "apostles" were in fact missionaries. Paul, of course, in the New Testament becomes the apostle <span style="font-style: italic;">par excellence,</span> and was largely responsible for the missionary work that evangelized the western world, and several of the others so designated were his traveling companions. This also makes sense of how Paul expresses his apostolic authority: he reasons with the churches that he has established on the basis of his prior relationship with them; he doesn't merely assert authority on the basis of God's having appointed him as an apostle. Additionally, if we assume that an apostle is in fact a missionary, the lack of the latter term's appearance in the New Testament is explained. For reasons that will become evident later, I would argue that an apostle is specifically a missionary who plants churches. </span><br />
<br />
<span id="fullpost">Since there are still church-planting missionaries today, I do believe that there are modern-day apostles, but I do not advocate restoring the term "apostle" to these modern-day counterparts. First, in the present-day context, the wrong people are being termed "apostles"--generally, senior pastors or leaders of denominations or fellowships of churches. Unless these leaders have become leaders by personally going out and planting these churches, they are not doing the work of New Testament apostles. This is not to denigrate them in any way; it is merely to say that their gifts lie in other directions. The term, "apostle," has become so identified with the Twelve and Paul that taking the appellation today seems necessarily to involve assuming an equality of authority with those early apostles; such an assumption is presumptuous at best. Since we have a modern term for those who do the work of a New Testament apostle--"missionary"--there is no reason to go back to the older term, which is really no more than a transliteration of the Greek term. "Missionary" is quite an apt term, deriving from "mission" in the same way that <span style="font-style: italic;">apostolos</span> derives from <span style="font-style: italic;">apostello</span> ("to send out"). There would be a better argument for translating <span style="font-style: italic;">apostolos</span> as "missionary" throughout the New Testament than there would be for calling modern-day missionaries, "apostles." "He appointed twelve--designating them missionaries--that they might be with him and that he might send them out to preach" (<a href="http://biblegateway.com/bible?passage=Mk3:14">Mark 3:14</a>). What's wrong with that?</span> <span class="dropcaps"> </span><br />
<br />
<h2>
Prophets</h2>
To get a sense of the role of prophets in the New Testament, a survey of New Testament references to prophets and to prophecy is necessary. Throughout the gospels, the term "prophet" refers most often to the prophets of the Old Testament, and usually to the fulfillment of their prophecies in the person of Jesus. The term is also used of Jesus; in fact, Jesus refers to himself as a prophet (<a href="http://biblegateway.com/bible?passage=Matt13:57;Lk4:24;Jn4:44">Matt. 13:57, Lk. 4:24, Jn. 4:44</a>) as well as John the Baptist (<a href="http://biblegateway.com/bible?passage=Lk7:26">Lk. 7:26</a>). There is a sense of continuity there: what the prophets are is defined in the Old Testament, and part of what Jesus and John are doing is continuing that prophetic tradition.<br />
<br />
<span id="fullpost">In Acts, references to Old Testament prophets and to Jesus as a prophet continue, but others are also referred to as prophets: Agabus, one of several in <a href="http://biblegateway.com/bible?passage=Acts11:27">11:27</a>, who predicted a severe famine throughout the Roman world, and who also foretold the Apostle Paul's arrest in Jerusalem (<a href="http://biblegateway.com/bible?passage=Acts%2021:10">21:10</a>); the "prophets and teachers" who appear to have been leaders in the church at Antioch and who were led by God to comission Barnabas and Saul for what became the Apostle Paul's missionary journeys (<a href="http://biblegateway.com/bible?passage=Acts13:1">13:1</a>); Judas and Silas, who brought the news of the Jerusalem council to the Gentile believers (<a href="http://biblegateway.com/bible?passage=Acts15:32">15:32</a>); and the daughters of Philip the evangelist (<a href="http://biblegateway.com/bible?passage=Acts21:9">21:9</a>). </span><br />
<br />
<span id="fullpost">In the epistles, Paul mentions prophecy among the gifts given to the Body (<a href="http://biblegateway.com/bible?passage=1Cor12:10,28-29">1 Cor. 12:10, 28-29</a>) and gives instructions for the proper use of that gift within the gathered assembly (<a href="http://biblegateway.com/bible?passage=1Cor14:29">1 Cor. 14:29</a>), contrasting it positively in that context with the gift of tongues (<a href="http://biblegateway.com/bible?passage=1Cor14:3-5,22-24">1 Cor. 14:3-5, 22-24</a>). Along with the apostles, they are called the "foundation" of "God's household" (<a href="http://biblegateway.com/bible?passage=Eph2:20">Eph. 2:20</a>). We can learn several things from this survey: </span><br />
<ol><span id="fullpost">
<li>There is a continuity between the Old Testament and the New Testament with regard to the role of the prophet. New Testament writers refer to Old Testament prophets as well as to contemporary prophets with equal ease and without distinguishing between the two. Just as Old Testament prophets spoke directly for God and yet did not supplant the foundational role of the Law, so New Testament prophets spoke directly for God and yet did not supplant the foundational role of Scripture. This should lead us to the position that New Testament prophets are essentially modeled after Old Testament prophets. Indeed, those living in the first century (especially Jewish believers) probably saw a renewal of an old gift, rather than the establishing of something radically different. </li>
<li>Prophets are not necessarily inspired writers of Scripture, and do not necessarily have authoritative roles such as the original Apostles had. The cessationist viewpoint almost always raises the objection that contemporary prophecy somehow negates the authority of Scripture, essentially identifying the prophetic role as necessary before the finishing of the canon of scripture, but superfluous (and somehow dangerous) afterward. If that were true, we would expect prophets to be the writers of Scripture, since the cessationist position essentially equates the two gifts. But Agabus, Judas, Silas, the daughters of Philip, and unnamed others are not writers of scripture; moreover, they are referred to by writers of scripture without any hint of threat or rivalry. Paul seems to have been able to write his inspired letters without any concern that the prophets (whom he views as foundational to the church) may set up some sort of rival authority. </li>
<li>Apart from a tortured interpretation of <a href="http://biblegateway.com/bible?passage=1Cor13:8-10">1 Cor. 13:8-10</a>, there is no sense in the New Testament that this gift of prophecy will cease prior to the parousia, the second coming of Jesus. Paul gives instructions regarding the use of the prophetic gift in <a href="http://biblegateway.com/bible?passage=1Cor14:29-33,39">1 Cor. 14:29-33, 39</a> (including the encouragement to "be eager to prophesy") that would ordinarily be considered binding to the present day, were he not referring to a gift that some have regarded as having ceased. </li>
<li>Nothing in the New Testament ever equates prophesying with preaching the gospel. Attempts have been made to equate the two in order to have something of a nonthreatening continuationism. Paul's rules on prophesying in <a href="http://biblegateway.com/bible?passage=1Cor14">1 Cor. 14</a> really don't make sense if one regards the "prophesying" as actually "sermonizing"--except perhaps in a Quaker context, in which no one person would take the lead but people would share as they felt led. However, this idea is far nearer to the Pentecostal model than the cessationist. </li>
<li>There also seems to be little support for the idea of a "personality gift" of being a prophet. On the supposition that the gifts listed in <a href="http://biblegateway.com/bible?passage=Rom12:6-8">Romans 12:6-8</a> are functions of different sorts of personality, it has been thought by some that certain tendencies of mind--particularly negative and critical tendencies--amount to a prophetic "personality gift." While it is probable that certain personality types lend themselves to certain spiritual gifts (most evangelists are probably outgoing, for example) and God, in his wisdom, may often marry the two, it does not follow that certain personality types by themselves equate to spiritual gifts, let alone offices.</li>
</span></ol>
<span id="fullpost">So what do we have, then? A prophetic ministry that builds on the tradition of the Old Testament prophets, extends throughout the New Testament period and implicitly beyond, is different than preaching or teaching or the writing of authoritative scripture, and is not identified with major, authoritative figures in the church. The link to the Old Testament model is particularly fruitful. By contrast to the priestly and kingly offices, both of which were formal and hereditary, the Old Testament prophets were usually outsiders, people whom God called from all walks of life, often to challenge unworthy examples of the hereditary offices to return to the ways of God. Far from threatening the foundational authority of the Law given by Moses, the prophets are sometimes called God's covenant lawyers, bringing a lawsuit against God's people for neglecting His Law. The Law and the Prophets are not rivals but work hand in hand. And although prophets at times did fortell events in the future, that was not their primary role. They were more "forthtellers" than "foretellers," calling God's people to account in their own contemporary setting--at times, warning of impending judgment if they did not change--more than simply predicting what was to come. </span><br />
<br />
<span id="fullpost">So should there be a office of "prophet" in the church today? While I believe that there are, in fact, contemporary prophets, I do not think that a formal office or title is necessary or desirable. The prophets were always informally related to the structure of Old Testament Israel and the New Testament church. To formalize the office would be to restrict God's hand in choosing whom He will to speak truth wherever it needs to be spoken. To take the title formally is both presumptuous and unnecessary. There may, in fact, be many who actually are in the role of prophets without necessarily being recognized as such or even recognizing themselves as such. I'm thinking of writers, people who are not actually in formal church ministry but who write, calling the church back to be what God wants it to be. I don't have any names to suggest; years ago I did, but I'm not so sure now. It may be that we are in a prophetic lull at the moment. But if there are prophets, it is likely that they are controversial and probably rejected by much of the church world. It was always that way.</span><br />
<br />
<h2>
Evangelists</h2>
When we come to the term, "evangelist," we are dealing with a term used far less often than "apostle" or "prophet." <i>Euangelistes</i> occurs only three times in the New Testament: <a href="http://biblegateway.com/bible?passage=Acts21:8">Acts 21:8</a> refers to "Philip the Evangelist, one of the Seven.". In <a href="http://biblegateway.com/bible?passage=2Tim4:5">2 Timothy 4:5</a>, Paul encourages Timothy to "do the work of an evangelist." The third reference is in the verse presently under discussion, <a href="http://biblegateway.com/bible?passage=Eph4:11">Ephesians 4:11</a>.<br />
<br />
Etymologically, <i>euangelistes</i> means "one who preaches the Gospel." Most often, it is Jesus and the apostles who preach the gospel (<i>euangelizo</i>); presumably, an evangelist would be someone who preached the gospel and who didn't fit into one of the other recognized ministries. If we look at the example of the one person actually named an "evangelist" in the New Testament, we can gain a better perspective of what this office entails.<span id="fullpost"> </span><br />
<br />
<span id="fullpost">As mentioned above, Philip is first mentioned in connection with the Seven who had been chosen to assist the Apostles in <a href="http://biblegateway.com/bible?passage=Acts6:3">Acts 6:3</a>. We next meet him in the aftermath of the persecution in Jerusalem that began with the stoning of Stephen (<a href="http://biblegateway.com/bible?passage=Acts8:1-3">8:1-3</a>). "Those who had been scattered preached [<i>euangelizo</i>] the word wherever they went. Philip went down to a city in Samaria and proclaimed the Christ there" (<a href="http://biblegateway.com/bible?passage=Acts8:4-5">8:4-5</a>). This is the first mission to non-Jewish people recorded in Acts. Philip's ministry was extremely effective--accompanied by miraculous signs and the evident conversion (signified by baptism) of many who had previously followed a sorcerer named Simon (<a href="http://biblegateway.com/bible?passage=Acts8:6-12">8:6-12</a>). It was only after the success of Philip's ministry ("the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God," <a href="http://biblegateway.com/bible?passage=Acts8:14">8:14</a>) that Peter and John were sent to lay hands on the people for them to receive the Holy Spirit. <span class="dropcaps"> </span></span><br />
<br />
<span id="fullpost">Philip was next used in the conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch (<a href="http://biblegateway.com/bible?passage=Acts8:26-40">8:26-40</a>), the first recorded conversion of a fully ethnic Gentile. God had simply directed him to go by a certain route toward Gaza, which he never reached. He met the eunuch on the way, who was already reading one of the "suffering servant" passages in Isaiah, he "began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news [<i>euangelizo</i>] about Jesus" (<a href="http://biblegateway.com/bible?passage=Acts8:35">8:35</a>). The eunuch asked to be baptized, Philip did so, and was immediately transported to Azotus "and traveled about, preaching the gospel [<i>euangelizo</i>] in all the towns until he reached Caesarea" (<a href="http://biblegateway.com/bible?passage=Acts8:40">8:40</a>). </span><br />
<br />
<span id="fullpost">So what is Philip's ministry? He goes to unreached people, preaches the gospel with effectiveness and supernatural power, baptizes people--and then moves on. The key term here is "unreached people." It appears evident that the evangelist, biblically, is yet another type of missionary: one who is called specifically to reach the unreached and whose work essentially ends with conversion. An evangelist is supernaturally empowered to bring the Gospel to the lost with the result that they come to faith in Christ. The difference between an evangelist and an apostle is that while the latter is a church-planting missionary who not only brings people to salvation but also births, nurtures, and provides subsequent oversight to communities of faith, the evangelist's work is more specifically to introduce the gospel to people and to bring them to a saving knowledge of Christ. It may be the case, as it evidently was in Samaria, that the evangelist spearheads the work in an unreached area and the apostle comes in subsequently to establish and ground the work. </span><br />
<br />
<span id="fullpost">Or one person may fulfill both roles, as the Apostle Paul evidently did, and as did the other New Testament character associated with the term, "evangelist," Timothy. Included among the apostles in <a href="http://biblegateway.com/bible?passage=1Thess2:6">1 Thess. 2:6</a>, Timothy was appointed by Paul to stay behind in Ephesus while Paul traveled to Macedonia (<a href="http://biblegateway.com/bible?passage=1Tim1:3">1 Tim. 1:3</a>), and in 2 Timothy, written when Paul was expecting to be martyred for his faith, Paul exhorts Timothy, in the midst of doctrinal confusion and rejection of the truth, to "keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry" (<a href="http://biblegateway.com/bible?passage=2Tim4:5">4:5</a>). Timothy is never exactly called an evangelist, as is Philip; he is exhorted to "do the work of an evangelist"--presumably, one of Timothy's gifts is to preach the gospel to unbelievers and bring them to faith. Rather than being wholly distinct offices, we can see that the types of ministry that God had given to the church may be somewhat fluid; C. Peter Wagner profitably discusses a "gift mix" rather than each person having only one specific gift. But Philip most clearly embodies the evangelist <i>qua</i> evangelist: a missionary who reaches the unreached and brings them to faith in Christ. </span><br />
<br />
<span id="fullpost">What appears to be clear is that the evangelist, biblically, is not what is usually termed an evangelist today--an itinerent speaker who goes from church to church, possibly with a message of salvation, but largely to excite, motivate, or possibly teach or otherwise minister to believers. The modern-day evangelist might better be termed a "revivalist." This is not to say that there is necessarily anything wrong with having such "revivalists"; it is merely to say that when Paul writes that "it was he who gave some... to be evangelists," (<a href="http://biblegateway.com/bible?passage=Eph4:11">Eph. 4:11</a>), he had in mind more of a missions emphasis and less of a revival emphasis than we normally associate with the term. In some sense, "evangelist" is to "apostle" what "preacher" is to "pastor": the former term boils the much larger and complex role of the latter term down to the essence of proclamation. Just as with "apostle," in "evangelist," we are dealing essentially with a transliteration of a Greek word. A native Koine Greek speaker would have heard "good news" in the very term, "evangelist," and that good news is very specifically the message of salvation through the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus.</span> <span class="dropcaps"> </span><br />
<br />
<h2>
Pastors and Teachers</h2>
On the "five-fold ministry" model, pastors and teachers are two separate ministries with differing gifts and roles to play in the Body of Christ. The Greek construction of this verse, however, strongly indicates that these are two different titles for the same group, or at least, that the two groups are being considered together in this context. <span id="fullpost"> </span><br />
<br />
<span id="fullpost">Without going into actual Greek wording, we can see even in an English translation the repeated, "some to be..." construction, which occurs not five but only four times, the last time, before "pastors and teachers." What is not seen in an English translation are the articles. In English, there are two types of articles: indefinite articles ("a," "an") and definite articles ("the"). Greek has only one type of article, roughly corresponding to the English definite article, which tends to be used much more often than articles are used in English. If we were to add the articles to the passage, we would get something like this: "It was he who gave some to be the apostles, some to be the prophets, some to be the evangelists, and some to be the pastors and teachers." The one article covers both "pastors" and "teachers," strongly suggesting that they are being considered together here. There are also Greek words that form a bit of an untranslatable marker dividing the different groups (if one were to translate them, one might say, "on the one hand... on the other hand..." except that there can be as many "hands" as needed). Once again, this marker appears four times, not five, grouping the final two words together. </span><br />
<br />
<span id="fullpost">So is it one group with two names, or two groups that are similar enough to be thought of together in this context? I would suggest that it doesn't really matter. Those with this gift ministering in a church setting are likely to be called pastors--but as we will see, a primary responsibility of the pastor is teaching. Those with this gift ministering in an academic setting are likely to be called teachers--but a teacher should teach with a "pastor's heart"; that is, with genuine concern for the spiritual development of each student. The two aspects of the gift go hand in hand. </span><br />
<br />
<span id="fullpost">I have done a much more in-depth study on the biblical role of a pastor, entitled <a href="http://www.quodlibet.net/schooley-pastor.shtml">"What Is a Pastor?"</a> (<a href="http://www.quodlibet.net/">Quodlibet Online Journal</a> 2.2). It seems clear to me that the term "pastor" is the same thing as is meant by "elder" (or "presbyter") and "overseer" (or "bishop"). As the church was beginning to coalesce and the role of apostles was increasingly less direct, terms were needed to describe leaders in the church who were not apostles. Generally speaking, "elder" came from a Jewish background--leaders among Jews were often called elders--while the Greek term translated "overseer" or "bishop" was the preferred Greek term for a leader. "Pastor" literally means "shepherd," and picks up on Jesus' frequent shepherding analogies in His teaching, as well as the Old Testament use of "shepherd" as an analogical term to describe Israelite rulers (it was also used of other Middle Eastern rulers as well), especially in <a href="http://biblegateway.com/bible?passage=Ezek34">Ezekiel 34</a>, a highly instructive passage. </span><br />
<br />
<span id="fullpost">When one looks at the passages referring to elders, overseers/bishops, and shepherds, when used metaphorically in Jesus' teachings and in the Old Testament, a pattern emerges: </span><br />
<ol><span id="fullpost">
<li>God the Father and Jesus the Messiah are together the preeminent Shepherd/Pastor over all of the people of God; the authority of local pastors derives from this divine authority. </li>
<li>The focus of the ministry of the pastor is the welfare of the sheep--that is, the people who come under the leadership of that pastor. The pastor's work is not one of self-expression or self-gratification, but rather care for the sheep. </li>
<li>The conduct of the pastor is to be exemplary. Much of what the Bible discusses regarding church leadership in general has to do with godly behavioral characteristics. Pastors teach as much by how they live their lives as by what they say. </li>
<li>The content of the pastor's ministry is, largely, teaching. This becomes clear as one examines the pastoral epistles and sees how many times they focus on teaching and teachers. The one major difference between the qualifications of deacons and elders or overseers in the Pastoral Epistles is that the latter group need to be "able to teach" (<a href="http://biblegateway.com/bible?passage=1Tim3:2;5:17;Tit1:9">1 Tim. 3:2, 5:17; Tit. 1:9</a>). A large component of this teaching ministry is protection of the people of God from false teachers (<a href="http://biblegateway.com/bible?passage=1Tim1:3-7,4:1-3">1 Tim. 1:3-7, 4:1-3</a>). Although this protection may come partially in the attempt to silence false teaching (<a href="http://biblegateway.com/bible?passage=1Tim1:3;Tit1:11">1 Tim. 1:3, Tit. 1:11</a>), to a larger extent it comes as a result of patient explanation of biblical truth and drawing people's attention to topics that are important, rather than those that are spurious.</li>
</span></ol>
<span id="fullpost"> Going back to the context of the verse we are studying, <a href="http://biblegateway.com/bible?passage=Eph4:11">Ephesians 4:11</a>, it is worth noting that the goal of what we may now see as a "four-fold" ministry--the spiritual maturity of the Body (<a href="http://biblegateway.com/bible?passage=Eph4:13">4:13</a>)--has as its result the effect of protecting the people from being "blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming" (<a href="http://biblegateway.com/bible?passage=Eph4:14">4:14</a>).</span><br />
<br />
<span id="fullpost">The role of the Pastor/Teacher largely comes on the heels of the other three groups: Apostles (church-planting missionaries) establish the church in a new territory, Prophets proclaim God's truth directly and draw people back to the ways of God, Evangelists (soul-winning missionaries) reach the unreached and bring them to saving faith, and Pastor/Teachers care for the Body, teaching by example and verbal instruction the truths of God's word and the right way to live. It may be that <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=Barnabas&version1=31&searchtype=all&limit=none&wholewordsonly=no">Barnabas</a> is the best example of a Pastor/Teacher that Scripture gives us. More or less a washout on the mission field--when the going got tough, Saul, suddenly called Paul, stepped to the fore (<a href="http://biblegateway.com/bible?passage=Act13:6-12">Acts 13:6-12</a>)--Barnabas had done his work for years previously, sticking his neck out and nurturing a former persecutor of the Church, Saul of Tarsus. Without Barnabas's patient instruction and godly example, would Paul have been able to be the foremost missionary the world has ever seen?</span>Keith Edwin Schooleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06328169815024415532noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-750725307342150985.post-54670821703340233372010-09-17T13:40:00.001-04:002015-02-05T10:46:41.658-05:00N.T. Wright's Surprised by Hope<i>I read <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Surprised-Hope-Rethinking-Resurrection-Mission/dp/0061551821/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259042635&sr=8-1">N.T. Wright's </a></i><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Surprised-Hope-Rethinking-Resurrection-Mission/dp/0061551821/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259042635&sr=8-1">Surprised by Hope</a> <i>last summer, and it made a big impact on me. The following article is a summary of what stood out to me in that book. Wright argues that Evangelical theology tends to gloss over the Resurrection of Jesus, and thus also glosses over the doctrines of physical resurrection of believers and the renewal of the earth that is promised in Romans 8 and Revelation 21. He writes that by recovering the centrality of the Resurrection to our understanding of faith, we can also recover a sense of purpose in our lives in present-day reality.</i><span id="fullpost"></span><br />
<a name='more'></a><span id="fullpost"><br /></span><br />
<h1>
<span id="fullpost">The Problem with a Cross-Centered Theology</span></h1>
<span id="fullpost"><span class="dropcaps">T</span>hose who know me know that I wear a cross signet ring.<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_2dwejWYBLUc/S7eO_D-KLLI/AAAAAAAAAOI/vCdmH3VhTpY/s1600/Cross+Ring.jpg" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img alt="" border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_2dwejWYBLUc/S7eO_D-KLLI/AAAAAAAAAOI/vCdmH3VhTpY/s320/Cross+Ring.jpg" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5455986687631568050" style="cursor: pointer; float: right; height: 287px; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; width: 320px;" /></a> It's actually my college class ring; I wanted something that I would want to continue wearing, and not just put in a box somewhere, so my parents bought me a plain signet ring and had a cross etched in it. It was intended as a statement of my faith, as an opportunity to share Jesus with others.<br /><br />The cross has been the main symbol of Christianity for most of its history. Not all of its history--it wasn't until crucifixion stopped being actively used by the Romans as a means of torture and death that Christians began widely using it as the symbol of their faith. But it has long been Christianity's predominant symbol. Every church has at least one. Most Christian organizations use it in their logos. And it's not hard to see why. What Jesus did on the cross for us is central to what we believe.<br /><br />Most Christians, if asked what they believe, would offer something like this: "God created human beings to be in a relationship with him, but we messed that up through sin, so he came to the earth as a human being--Jesus--and lived a sinless life and then died on a cross in our place, so we could be in a relationship with him again and spend eternity with him in heaven." You'll notice that the cross is at the very turning point of this statement of faith. It's completely central.<br /><br /><span class="dropcaps">N</span>ow, although I agree with every part of that statement, there's something I think is missing--and it's more significant than simply the fact that the whole thing needs a lot of fleshing out and explanation. What's missing is the resurrection of Jesus. Having had this issue brought to my attention by N. T. Wright's fantastic book, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Surprised-Hope-Rethinking-Resurrection-Mission/dp/0061551821/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259042635&sr=8-1">Surprised by Hope,</a> it is astonishing to me that any statement of Christian faith could ever be made without reference to the Resurrection. And yet I wonder how many people, reading that statement the first time through, noticed its absence or considered it significant.<br /><br />Of course, you could tuck it in there, right between "place" and "so," and it would fit. And Christians do believe in the Resurrection and do think that affirming the Resurrection is important. My problem isn't that Christians don't believe in Jesus' resurrection; it's that the Resurrection ends up being an afterthought in the way most of us think about our faith.<br /><br />Think about it: we view the central problem as sin, and the fact that a holy God can't simply let sin slide. The penalty--death--must be paid. The solution is a substitute: if someone who doesn't deserve to die dies in our place, then we don't have to die ourselves. The crime is paid for. And that's what Jesus did on the cross. But notice what we've done: Jesus' work on the cross solves the problem. When He said, "It is finished," it really was--that is to say, the whole problem is solved. It's like the end of a detective story: once the detective solves the crime, the story is, for all intents and purposes, over. The technical term for the ending of a story, after its climax, is <i>denouement.</i> It's really just window dressing, and a lot of modern writers try to get rid of it entirely, and just end at the climax. You can think up your own window dressing, imagine how it came out on your own.<br /><br /><span class="dropcaps">T</span>hat's what happens to the Resurrection, in the typical way of looking at it. It happened, and we believe in it, but it's not really crucial to the story. If it hadn't happened, it wouldn't really matter, because the sin problem is already taken care of at the Cross. We try to make it matter, by saying that it demonstrated that Jesus really was who he said he was, or that it proves that there is life after death. But whatever it demonstrated, or whatever it proves, really doesn't matter in the end--the real work had already been done.<br /><br /><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_2dwejWYBLUc/S7ePo9jTfXI/AAAAAAAAAOQ/FM1nk47uKHY/s1600/empty_tomb-750089.jpg" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img alt="" border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_2dwejWYBLUc/S7ePo9jTfXI/AAAAAAAAAOQ/FM1nk47uKHY/s400/empty_tomb-750089.jpg" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5455987407462825330" style="cursor: pointer; float: left; height: 286px; margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; width: 400px;" /></a>But that's not how the Apostle Paul saw it. "if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith" (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20cor%2015:14">1 Cor. 15:14</a>). For Paul, the Resurrection is absolutely central. All of the gospel messages preached in the book of Acts make the Resurrection central. What Jesus did on the Cross was very important. But the biblical writers seem to indicate that what he did by rising from the dead was equally important, maybe even more so.<br /><br />In my next few blog posts, I'm going to sketch out why I think the Resurrection needs to occupy a more central place in our theology. And I'm wondering if we've missed a rather obvious symbol of the faith. The world has seen us as people of the cross for a long time. Maybe it's time we need to be seen as people of the empty tomb.<br /><br /><h1>
What Resurrection Means</h1>
<span class="dropcaps">I</span>n order to understand the importance of the Resurrection, we first have to understand what the first-century views of resurrection were. What were the prior expectations of the people who first heard the story of Jesus' resurrection?<br /><br />In the non-Jewish Greco-Roman world, there were two predominant views of the afterlife. The first was the basic materialist stance that there is no afterlife. The Greek Epicurean philosophical school would be an example of this stance. Although construed somewhat differently than contemporary philosophers and scientists would use the terms, this point of view would hold that the material universe is all there is. There is no "spirit" apart from the body in which there is any consciousness, hence there is no continuing existence once the physical body ceases to function. Dead is dead.<br /><br />The other major strand of Greco-Roman thought is well represented by Plato. There is a continued existence after death; in fact, this is what earthly existence longs for--a release from bondage to the body and the corrupted physical realm. We are essentially spirits trapped in bodies, longing for release. You may recognize this point of view--many Christians' view of "heaven" owes more to Plato than to the Bible. This earthly life is something merely to be endured until we escape it to live in heaven forevermore with God. More on this later.<br /><br />For now, the relevant point is that no one in the Greco-Roman world was expecting anything like physical resurrection. It would either have been considered impossible or pointless. The spirit either didn't exist apart from the physical body, or if it did, the last thing it wanted was to be re-embodied. (The concept of reincarnation did exist, but this is different from resurrection--it is embodiment in a different body, not the same one, and was not considered the goal of existence, but rather a punishment or a continued stage on the way to fully-realized--that is, disembodied--spirituality.)<br /><br /><span class="dropcaps">B</span>ut that's the non-Jewish world. Christianity arose in a Jewish cultural context. What did the Jews believe regarding resurrection?<br /><br />Once again, there were two predominant views. And once again, one of them precluded resurrection. The Sadducean group, which dominated the Temple priesthood, rejected resurrection (as well as angels and providence). While present-day Christians tend to scoff at this point of view, it actually accords with the Sadducees' generally more strict reading of the Hebrew scriptures, which must be admitted to have little to say on the afterlife in general and resurrection specifically.<br /><br />On the other hand, the Pharisaical group which dominated the rabbis in the synagogues did believe in resurrection. However, this resurrection was not expected to occur until the eschaton--the final culmination of history. After the death of Lazarus in John 11, his sister Martha expresses this point of view in her dialogue with Jesus: "Martha answered, 'I know he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day'." So yes, there were Jews who believed in resurrection, but not in present-day reality--only at the end of history. It's also worth noting that resurrection played no part in Jewish messianic expectations. Messiah was to bring about the liberation of Israel as a nation and reestablish the throne of David; neither the death of the messiah nor a resurrection was envisioned.<br /><br />What does this all mean with regard to Jesus' resurrection? Quite simply, it means that the usual explanations for why Jesus' resurrection is important are wrong, or at least beside the main point.<br /><br /><span class="dropcaps">C</span>hristians generally view Jesus' resurrection in terms of God vindicating Jesus, demonstrating that he was the Messiah, God in flesh, and innocent of any crime or sin for which he should die. But while this all is true, it reflects backward reasoning: if we come to trust in Jesus and believe that he was God in human flesh, then his resurrection takes on all these meanings. But resurrection itself would not have demonstrated any of these things to anyone in the first-century world. Remember, nobody was expecting anyone to be resurrected--not in the Gentile world at all, and not in the Jewish world in the here-and-now.<br /><br />But for those who were hoping for resurrection "at the last day," as Martha was, Jesus' resurrection would have meant something mind-blowing and worldview-changing: that something that had been hoped for at the end of time was a present reality, right now. It was a glimpse into a deeply longed-for future, breaking into the present. Evidently, when Jesus (and before him, John the Baptist) were proclaiming that "the kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Matthew 3:2; 4:17), it really was.<br /><br />Everything they had ever hoped for was beginning to come to pass. Right now.<br /><br /><h1>
What Resurrection Implies</h1>
<span class="dropcaps">W</span>hat Jesus' resurrection meant was that what the Jews (at least some of them) were hoping for at the end of time was breaking into present-day reality. The technical way of saying this is that their eschatological hopes were being realized. Imagine everything you've ever longed for beginning to come true. That's what was going on for the first believers, the ones who saw Jesus after the resurrection.<br /><br />But what did this imply to them? So far, just one guy had come back from the dead (I'm not counting Lazarus and other resuscitations--I mean permanent resurrection), and he didn't even stick around all that long. Granted, Jesus' followers would certainly be happy to see him return from death, but why would that have created a worldwide movement?<br /><br />Well, it didn't simply mean that there was life after death after all, and that if we believe in Jesus then we can live with him in heaven forever after we die--and yet that is what most contemporary Christians believe today. That idea reflects the view that we are really spirits trapped in earthly bodies in a corrupt world, and what we are longing for is release from this corrupt world so we can live spiritually--that is, non-physically--forever, all of which reflects Platonic philosophy more than it does the Bible.<br /><br /><span class="dropcaps">T</span>he biblical view is that Jesus' resurrection was not an isolated incident, however pivotal or unique. It was rather the spearheading of a new age coming into being in our present one. "But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man" (1 Cor 15:20-21). "Firstfruits" is an agricultural term meaning the beginning of a harvest. Its importance is not so much in itself as in the promise of the full harvest to come. The "harvest" of which Jesus was the firstfruits is not merely a harvest of souls to be saved (although it includes that) because Jesus didn't need saving. Jesus' resurrection was the firstfruits of a new age, a new creation, what Jesus and John the Baptist had called the Kingdom. God's plan is simply much larger than simply rescuing a few of us sinners off of this wicked old earth. He plans to bring into resurrection life the whole first creation:<br /><blockquote>
The creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.<br />
<br />
We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved. <span style="font-style: italic;">(Romans 8:19-24)</span></blockquote>
Christians generally look forward to being with God eternally in heaven, often looking to Revelation 21:1 for a new heaven and a new earth (although they are not really much interested in the new earth), especially noting that "the first heaven and the first earth had passed away." Let's not worry about this world, because God's going to scrap it anyway. But in the above passage from Romans, creation itself is eagerly longing and groaning like a woman in labor, not for its own destruction, but rather for liberation from its bondage to decay and for being brought into freedom and glory. God isn't going to scrap the old creation and start fresh, any more than he was willing to scrap us sinful human beings and start fresh with a new Adam and Eve on Venus. Just as God's desire is to renew and transform us, his plan is to renew and transform the old creation. If you will, the "new heaven and the new earth" are going to be made <span style="font-style: italic;">out of</span> the old ones. God's not opposed to physical reality. He created it.<br /><br />That's where the resurrection of our bodies fits in. Why are we going to be resurrected? Because we're going to inhabit the new physical reality that God is going to create by redeeming and transforming the old one. And just as we are still ourselves, but redeemed, purified, and changed, so also the creation will still be the same creation, but redeemed, purified, and changed. The last chapter of the Bible doesn't speak of us going off to heaven, ridding ourselves of this awful physical universe once and for all; rather, it speaks of the New Jerusalem coming down out of heaven to earth. It's not us going off to live with God, but God coming down and inhabiting earth with us. The passage is worth quoting:<br /><blockquote>
I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God." <span style="font-style: italic;">(Revelation 21:2-3)</span></blockquote>
<span class="dropcaps">G</span>od's plan is to come to earth and be with us eternally in an incorruptible world which will be born out of the world we are presently in. While you may go off to be with God in heaven after you die--for a while--your ultimate destiny, if your trust is in Jesus, is to be an eternal resident of this world, once God is through remaking it. Jesus first, and then those of us who trust in him, are the beginnings of that new creation. And therefore, Paul's challenge to us is to live as though we were resurrected people right now:<br /><blockquote>
Where, O death, is your sting? The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, my dear brothers, stand firm. Let nothing move you. Always give yourselves fully to the work of the Lord, because you know that your labor in the Lord is not in vain. <span style="font-style: italic;">(1 Corinthians 15:55-58)</span></blockquote>
Here's the point: if we know we're going to be resurrected, we need to begin living as though we were resurrected; and if we know that this present creation is going to be redeemed, then we need to live in it as though we were an agent of that transformation.<br /><h1>
Overcoming an Objection to Physical Resurrection</h1>
<span class="dropcaps">O</span>ne of the stumbling blocks to Christians fully embracing the biblical teaching of physical resurrection lies right in Paul's exposition of the importance of resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15. Verses 42-43 read,<blockquote>
So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.</blockquote>
The stumbling point is in the contrast between "natural" and "spiritual." In post-Enlightenment rationalistic thought, "natural" means material, physical, and "spiritual" means non-material, non-physical. So even though we'll affirm the reality of resurrection because it's there in the Bible, the really relevant teaching to us is "to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord" (2 Cor. 5:8). Being reunited with the body seems mostly anticlimactic.<br /><span id="fullpost"><br />But this is a misreading of the words "natural" and "spiritual." "Natural" is Greek ψυχικον, <i>psychikon;</i> it refers not to the substance of which the body is composed, but rather the nature of the motivating force behind that body's activity. The "natural" body's activity is driven by the human psyche--i.e., the mind. Similarly, the "spiritual" body does not refer to the substance (or lack of it) of which that body is composed. The Greek word is πνευματικον, <i>pneumatikon;</i> the motivating force behind that body's activity is the Spirit of God. Paul is not saying, "It is sown a physical body, it is raised a non-material body"; he's saying, "It is sown a mentally-motivated body, it is raised a Spiritually-motivated body."<br /><br />The main difference between the natural body and the spiritual body is not that the spiritual body is immaterial; it is that the spiritual body is imperishable, glorious, powerful, and motivated by God's Spirit. The main physical aspect of this resurrection body is that it is incorruptible, not subject to decay; but then, the entire creation will be incorruptible as well: "the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God" (Romans 8:21). Once again, we are confronted not with disembodied spirits sitting on clouds with harps, but with a renewed physical creation. The picture is more like Adam and Eve pre-fall than it is like what we generally think of as ghosts or spirits--or even, dare I say, the mental pictures most of us have involving heaven.<br /><br /><span class="dropcaps">A</span>s I write this, I can look out my window on a beautiful spring day. The sun is shining, the trees are in bloom--I really should get outside today. I'm blessed to live in a place where I can see at least a little of the beauty of nature. But think of the difference in my perspective, if I think on the one hand, "This is beautiful, but temporary and corrupt. The <b>real</b> thing God has for me waits on the other side of death, or the Rapture. One glad morning, when this life is o'er, I'll fly away," or if I think on the other hand, "This is beautiful, and in some sense, this is the home God has given me forever. God is going to remake it, reshape it, remove the sting of sin and death; I may leave it for a while, but eventually I will be brought back, and therefore, in some sense, I am an eternal being in an eternal place."<br /><br />If you are a disciple of Jesus, then today think of yourself as an eternal being in an eternal place, and see if it doesn't change your perspective on things.<br /><br /><h1>
"Your Labor Is Not In Vain"</h1>
<span class="dropcaps">T</span>o wrap up this summary of what was memorable to me in <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Surprised-Hope-Rethinking-Resurrection-Mission/dp/0061551821/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259042635&sr=8-1">N.T. Wright's <i>Surprised by Hope</i>,</a> I'd like to focus on a particular verse that Wright points out as significant, and which ended up being perhaps the most significant insight in the book for me. It occurs at the end of 1 Corinthians 15--that is, at the end of Paul's powerful defense of physical resurrection as a necessary future event, and of his description of the resurrection body. In verse 58, Paul writes:<br /><blockquote>
Therefore, my dear brothers and sisters, stand firm. Let nothing move you. Always give yourselves fully to the work of the Lord, because you know that your labor in the Lord is not in vain.</blockquote>
Here's the point: the traditional view of the afterlife, with us being whisked off into heaven and this present creation being destroyed, tends to leave a futile view of our actions in the present life. It's often said in Evangelical churches that the only thing that really counts is how many people we bring along with us into heaven. Although it's seldom directly stated, we're left to infer that everything else in life is pretty much just marking time until we die or until Jesus comes. <br /><br />Even a view that takes resurrection seriously can be liable to the same distortion. This present life is just marking time. God's going to remake both our bodies and our world, so what we do in this lifetime doesn't ultimately have any value. What we do to this world, or to our bodies, might be regrettable--as when we give ourselves cancer through smoking or a poor diet, or poke a hole in the bottom of the ocean and let it spew oil into our oceans--but it's ultimately unimportant. God's going to right it all.<br /><br />But that's not at all the point of view that Paul is espousing in this verse. Rather than ending his treatise on resurrection by saying, "Therefore, relax. Continue trusting in Jesus, and know that God will resurrect your bodies and remake this world," Paul specifically affirms to his readers the value of their work in the Lord. In some sense, our work is going to endure. What we do in the Lord's service, in this present fallen world, matters.<br /><br /><span class="dropcaps">M</span>ost Evangelicals would see "your labor in the Lord" as referring, in some sense, to evangelism. What Paul means here is that our labor produces new followers of Jesus, who will then be resurrected and inhabit God's new creation: in that way, our labor is not in vain. That is how it endures.<br /><br />Certainly that is at least part of what Paul means here. But it's hard to see that that's everything that he means. For one thing, there's very little about overt evangelism either in the context of this verse, or in 1 Corinthians in general--which deals much more with Christian character and behavior than it does with evangelism--or, to be honest, in the Pauline epistles in general. This is not to say that evangelism is unimportant; but taking "your labor in the Lord" to refer exclusively to evangelism is an assumption that has to be imported into the text. You can't get it out of what Paul writes here.<br /><br />It seems much more likely to me that "your labor in the Lord" refers to anything and everything that we do in this life because we are followers of Jesus--whether it's fighting against the slave trade, conducting one's business in an honorable and charitable manner, working toward conservation of the environment, reaching people for Christ, standing against abortion, helping those who are oppressed, sharing grace and mercy to people, opposing unjust business or governmental practices, or anything else we do to live out Jesus' life in us. It all matters. It's all going to carry over into the future creation that God has envisioned for us.<br /><br /><span class="dropcaps">A</span>s a matter of fact, it might be instructive to look at how prophecies in the Old Testament were fulfilled. Let's take the one about the city of Tyre in Ezekiel 26. While Ezekiel makes clear that God is accomplishing the judgment against Tyre, the actual fulfillment occurred through the actions of human beings. God worked through people, including some who were not following him and were not consciously trying to fulfill the prophecy, to accomplish his work. <br /><br />While the new heavens and the new earth spoken of in Revelation 21:1 and Romans 8:21-22 certainly seem to involve a supernatural transformation, there may be in some sense a redemptive aspect to what we do in this age. Perhaps, instead of God just speaking the word and the world's transformation happening, we will be a part of it happening. Perhaps we are supposed to be a part of it happening even now. And maybe that's the way in which our labor is not in vain.</span></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-750725307342150985.post-87787043345549389742008-06-26T01:00:00.001-04:002015-02-05T10:47:02.377-05:00"Salt" and "Light" An Exercise in Biblical Allegory<span style="font-style: italic;">Abstract: An attempt to find a methodological principle to control the interpretation of analogies in Scripture, with a focus on salt and light in Matthew 5:13-16 as a case study. Not all properties of an image used as a metaphor are fair game to be "spiritually applied."</span><br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<span id="fullpost"><br />Jesus' metaphorical use of salt and light to describe his disciples in <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/bible?passage=Matt5:13-16">Matthew 5:13-16</a> is one of the most familiar illustrations in scripture. It is also one of the most mishandled in interpretation, especially in interactive teaching settings. The usual procedure, often spelled out in Sunday school and youth group curricula, is for the participants to offer as many different properties and uses of salt and light as they can think of, then to find a "spiritual application" by way of analogy to each of these properties and uses. The leader is then to encourage the group to exhibit those applications in their own lives.<br /><br />The problem with this type of interpretation, which amounts to allegorizing, is twofold. First, there is no control on the interpretations allowable. It is usually brought up that salt flavors food, acts as a preservative, was a valuable commodity, etc. But since there is no control--i.e., any property of salt is allowable--we may presumably find a "spiritual application" for the fact that salt is a stable crystalline compound, composed of the two highly reactive elements sodium and chlorine. Light illuminates darkness, makes vision possible, creates heat, etc.; we may again attempt to find a spiritual application for the fact that light acts both as a wave and a particle, and travels in a vacuum at a constant speed of about 186,000 miles per second. It may be objected that during Jesus' lifetime such scientific facts were unknown, but surely divine intelligence knew them when putting the metaphors in the Bible and knew that twenty centuries later we would learn them. At any rate, although such obscure facts usually do not come up in the context of an informal Bible study, the point is that there is nothing in the method to exclude them, precisely because the implied assumption is that everything about salt and light is somehow analogous to some aspect of the Christian life.<br /><br />This brings us to the second problem with this type of interpretation: it ignores what the author (and in this case the speaker, Jesus) intended by the images used. It is not apparent, or even intrinsically likely, that Jesus meant that his disciples were similar to salt or light in every possible respect. Analogies normally resemble their objects in only one respect, or in a limited range of respects; usually the relationship is made clear by the context of the analogy itself. Therefore, the proper goal of interpretation in this case should be to discover in what way or ways Jesus' disciples are similar to salt and light. This is a point unfortunately lost even in some excellent commentaries.[1]<br /><br />The first thing that should be noticed is that the examples are parallel. After the analogy itself is made, the point made about both of them is that they can be made ineffectual, and lose any benefit that they may otherwise offer. Therefore, the most reasonable assumption we may make is that both of these analogies are being used to illustrate a single point. If then salt and light are analogous to us in a similar way, they would therefore be similarly analogous to each other. This immediately precludes most of the interpretations we may make based on the properties or uses of light or salt individually--for these two substances are distinctly dissimilar to one another. Jesus is making a single point in these verses, reinforced by using two analogies, but a single point is being made.<br /><br />That single point is evident by what is done with the analogies: in both cases, the useful property of the element involved is lost or made ineffectual. In verse 13, the salt "loses its saltiness"; in verse 14, the possibility of the lamp being lit and "put under a bowl" is envisioned (in the form of a rejection). Therefore, whatever it is that salt and light do, there are situations in which they are prevented from doing it. That is the point: believers can become ineffectual in this world, and Jesus is warning them against it.<br /><br />In the case of the salt, losing its saltiness makes it worthless (v. 13). Nothing can be done with it; it can only be disposed of. "How can it be made salty again?" is a rhetorical question; there is no answer. The point is that unsalty salt is useless to anyone--therefore precautions were taken to protect salt from humidity, which would leech it out.[2] Putting a lamp under a bowl (v. 15) similarly makes it useless. No one can benefit from the light of a covered lamp. But everyone benefits from a lamp "on its stand" that "gives light to everyone in the house." It is for this reason--the common need for light--that "a city on a hill cannot be hidden." Jesus goes on in verse 16 to apply the analogy directly to his disciples: "let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven."<br /><br />Herein lies the key to both analogies: letting one's light shine before people somehow involves letting them see one's good works--not in the ostentatious manner of the Pharisees (cf. Matt. 6:1-18), but in a way that gives glory to the Father in heaven. That is, what we are as believers--the fact that we are believers, and what that means in terms of what God is doing in our lives--must come out, find expression in our daily lives. This shouldn't have to be forced, but should be natural--as natural as a lamp being placed where it gives light, or salt being salty. Yet there is a danger that this will not be the case--else Jesus' warning loses its import.<br /><br />If there is a difference in Jesus' handling of the two analogies, it would be that while the salt is actually lost, the lamp is only covered (although a covered flame, starved for oxygen, would presumably go out soon enough). Jesus may be saying that a disciple's testimony can be made ineffectual either by assimilation to the world (the salt losing its saltiness) or by hiding it from the world (the lamp covered by a bowl). But if such a distinction is made, it should be made on the basis of what Jesus actually does with the analogies, not on the basis of the intrinsic properties of salt and light themselves.<br /><br />Examples of such overapplication of analogies are legion, and constitute a common fallacy in biblical interpretation. They have in some circumstances contributed to unbiblical Christian practice. One of the most common examples is that of "shepherd," applied (first metaphorically to Jesus) to Christian ministers. Everything that a shepherd does for his sheep is applied to the work of the pastor: feeding them, protecting them from enemies, leading them to water, etc. "Spiritual applications" can again be found for all of these aspects of shepherding. But careful study of how "shepherd" is used metaphorically in scripture indicates that it is used, in the Old Testament, never of the prophet and priest, but of the king; i.e., it is a leadership quality, not a prophetic and priestly one. In the New Testament, it is used primarily of leadership through teaching. Overapplying the shepherding analogy may be convenient for those parishioners who aren't interested in being anything but sheep, or for leaders who prefer to control every aspect of their people's lives, but it isn't biblical. It contributes to the overwork of pastors, the lack of responsible body ministry, and the general negligence of average Christians to grow into responsible positions of service.<br /><br />In both academic and pastoral worlds, there is substantial pressure to come up with interpretations that are novel, creative, different. We want to pull out of a passage everything that may be gleaned from it. Unfortunately, we may at times overinterpret, discover meanings that were never intended by the writer, or the Holy Spirit. We need the discipline to distinguish between interpretations that are supported by the text and those that aren't.<br /></span><br />
<hr />
<span id="fullpost"><br /><span style="font-size: 130%;"><b>Notes</b></span><br /><br />[1] E.g., Carson, D.A., Matthew, in The Expositor's Bible Commentary, Vol. 8, ed. by Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), p. 138-39.<br /><br />[2] Salt could lose its saltiness if a cake of salt containing impurities had the actual salt leeched out by humidity (Carson, 138). This is relevant to the extent that it makes the image itself understandable to modern people, for whom salt losing its saltiness is not a common occurrence. It would not do, however, to spiritualize the impurities, the leeching process, etc.</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1