for what did christ atone in isa 53:4-5?christian tv or radio. for certain, many explanationisa...

TMSJ 6/2 (Fall 1995) 121-41

FOR WHAT DID CHRIST ATONE IN ISA 53:4-5?

Richard L. Mayhue Senior Vice President and Dean Professor of Pastoral Ministries

Isaiah 53:4-5 raises the question, "For what did Christ atone?" or more specifically, "Is physical healing in the atonement?" Outside Isaiah 53, Scriptures touching on Christ's atonement in Leviticus and Hebrews deal only with sin, not sickness. The context and language of Isa 53:3-12 address sin alone. A broad range of Scriptures teach that Christ died to deal with humankind's sin dilemma. Matthew 8:16-17 uses an illustration of physical healing to demonstrate a spiritual truth about the Christian's resurrection hope of being sinless and thus in perfect health. First Pet 2:24, studied in both broad context (2:18-25) and narrow (2:24-25), reasons that Christ atoned for sin, not sickness. Therefore, the conclusion is that physical healing is not in the atonement, but rather comes through the atonement after resurrection, because only then does the atonement eliminate the moral cause of physical infirmities, which is sin in one's personal experience.

* * * * *

As I browsed through some commentaries at my favorite Christian bookstore in Columbus, Ohio, a dear lady whom I had recently visited in the hospital and prayed for entered and walked toward me. Greeting her, I remarked how well she looked. She responded, "By His stripes I have been healed. Praise God there is healing in Christ's atonement."

The bookstore was no place that day for a theology lesson. I did not want to dampen her joy, nor did I want to rob her confidence that

121

122 The Master's Seminary Journal

God had somehow been involved in her physical restoration (Deut 32:39). However, her understanding of Isa 53:5 and 1 Pet 2:24 did not relate biblically to what she had experienced.

I wondered where she had learned those proof texts. Perhaps she had read or listened to a faith healer's explanation of Isaiah 53.1 A friend or neighbor may have told her. Possibly she heard this on Christian TV or radio. For certain, many explanations of Isa 53:4-5 at the popular level raise more questions than they answer and frequently prove to be less than precise biblical treatments of the subject at hand.

By a careful look at Isaiah 53 and related passages, the following discussion purposes to entertain biblically such questions as, "Is there healing in the atonement?" "If there is, what kind, how much, and when do I get it?" Perhaps it would be more accurate to inquire, "Was Christ punished for our diseases?"2 Or "In what way is physical healing related to the atonement?" or even "For what did Christ atone?"3 Did Christ bear our diseases in His body the same way He bore our sins? Can we have freedom from sickness in this life as we have forgiveness of sins?

The search for biblical answers begins by looking not at healing, but rather at the atonement.

1For brief historical summaries of the faith healing movement in the United States and Canada see Richard Mayhue, The Healing Promise (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1994) 27-39, and John Wilkinson, "Physical Healing and the Atonement," EQ 63/2 (April 1991):149-55. For more in-depth treatments consult J. Sidlow Baxter, Divine Healing of the Body (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979) 29-105; Frank C Darling, Biblical Healing (Boulder, CO: Vista, 1989); Christian Healing in the Middle Ages and Beyond (Boulder, CO: Vista, 1990); The Restoration of Christian Healing (Boulder, CO: Vista, 1992); David E. Harrell, Jr., All Things Are Possible: The Healing and Charismatic Revivals in Modern America (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University, 1975); Michael G. Moriarity, The New Charismatics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992) 20-86; Benjamin B. Warfield, Counterfeit Miracles (reprint, Edinburgh, Scotland: Banner of Truth, 1972) 33-69.

2Alva J. McCain, Was Christ Punished for Our Diseases! (Winona Lake: BMH, n.d.).

3W. Kelly Bokovay, "The Relationship of Physical Healing to the Atonement," ΔίδασκαΧυα 3/2 (April 1991):26, 35.

For What Did Christ Atone in Isa 53:4-5? 123

The Atonement Mention of the atonement sacrifice 0*35 [kippûr, "pacify, atone"])

first appears in Scripture as a part of the Mosaic sacrificial system5 (cf. Exod 29:33, 36-37; 30:10, 15-16). On this one day of the year, Israel's high priest entered the Holy of Holies, approached the Ark of the covenant, and sprinkled blood to atone for the sins of Israel.

Aaron, the brother of Moses, was the very first high priest to enter the Holy Place with a bull for an offering (Lev 16:3). Was it for a sin or a sick offering? Unquestionably, it was a sin offering (Lev 16:11). Aaron offered a bull for a sin offering—first for himself and his household (16:5-6).

And he shall make atonement for the holy place, because of the impurities of the sons of Israel, and because of their transgressions in regard to all their sins... (16:16, cf. v. 34).

Then Aaron shall lay both of his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the iniquities of the sons of Israel, and all their transgressions in regard to all their sins . . . (16:21).

Moses instituted the Day of Atonement by the authority of God about 1450-1400 B.C. Hundreds of years later (about 700-680 B.C.), Isaiah wrote prophetically concerning a coming servant who would be "the ultimate atonement." The Atonement ritual that Moses established and the atonement prophecy that Isaiah penned, Jesus Christ would later fulfill in reality when He died for sins—not sicknesses.

The book of Hebrews (the "Leviticus" of the NT) demonstrates

^Tie other significant question raised by Isa 53:4-5, "For whom did Christ atone?" is treated in such standard works as R. L Dabney, Systematic Theology», 2nd ed. (reprint, Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1985) 513-35; R. B. Kuiper, For Whom Did Christ Die? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959); John Murray, Collected Writings of John Murray (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1976) 1:59-85; and George Smeaton, The Doctrine of the Atonement According to the Apostles (reprint, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1988).

5Read John V. Dahms, "Dying With Christ," JETS 36/1 (March 1993):15-23, which carefully relates the OT atonement to Christ's substitutionary death.


the unity of Scripture. When the final atonement that propitiated God's wrath occurred, Christ served as both the high priest and the sacrifice.

But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation; and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption (Heb 9:11-12).

Jesus Christ as God incarnate became the Lamb slain for the sins of the world (John 1:29, 36; 1 John 2:2).

Hebrews 10 addresses the atonement's fulfillment in Jesus Christ. For example, 'Then He said, 'Behold, I have come to do Thy will.' He takes away the first in order to establish the second. By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all" (Heb 10:9-10).

In the old economy, year after year the high priest had to make atonement first for himself and his family and then for the nation. But with the new covenant, Christ had to sacrifice only once for everyone else, but not for Himself. Isaiah 53 anticipated Christ's one time sacrifice: "But He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God. . . . For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified" (Heb 10:12, 14).

Both Leviticus and Hebrews demonstrate that in God's mind the atonement dealt immediately with sin, not sickness. It had everything to do with humankind's sin problem and the redemption needed to remove sin and its penalty, so that true believers might stand eternally justified before a holy God. Christ's atonement paid the due penalty for sin when God poured out His wrath upon Jesus Christ while upon the cross.

Textual Comments on Isaiah 53 Isaiah 53 serves indispensably as the heart of anyone's healing


theology. One's biblical expectations for eventually restored health rest on this biblical bedrock. The "Magna Charta" of God's healing promise focuses on Christ's sacrificial death at Calvary. Clearly the emphasis of Isaiah 53 centers on spiritual salvation.7 Since sin is the moral cause of physical infirmities, it is not surprising (1) that sin and sickness are related and (2) that dealing with sin (the cause) eventually addresses sickness (the effect).

Isaiah 53 raises the question then, "What, if anything, does the prophet promise about physical restoration?"8 Or put another way, "Is Isa 53:4-5 limited to dealing only with sin and salvation?"

Surely our griefs He9 Himself bore, and our sorrows He carried; yet

6I have been greatly surprised by the deficiency of attention given to Isaiah 53 by some of the most recent, highly visible volumes advocating a contemporary healing ministry. For instance, Jack Deere, Surprised by the Power of the Spirit (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993) 169, devotes only one paragraph in a 299 page book on healing. John Wimber and Kevin Springer, Power Healing (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987) take less than four pages (152-56) out of 269 pages, but spend most of that space discussing what men have said rather than what the Scriptures teach. Benny Hinn, Lord, I Need a Miracle (Nashville: Nelson, 1993) provides less than two pages (55-56). Even Jeffrey Niehaus in The Kingdom and the Power (Ventura, CA Regal, 1993) devotes less than 3 pages (48-50). For an excellent exegetical discussion of Isaiah 53 see Edward J. Young, The Book of Isaiah (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972) 3:340-54.

7The New Testament consistently presents Christ as the Christian's substitutionary sin bearer in His atonement. See Matt 20:28; John 1:29; Rom 4:25; 5:6-8; 8:3; 1 Cor 15:3; 2 Cor 5:21; Gal 1:4; 3:13; 4:4-5; Heb 9:28; 1 Pet 3:18; 1 John 2:2; 4:10.

8This is a legitimate question in light of other passages in Isaiah which point to a time of physical healing, e.g. 29:18; 33:24; 35:5-6; 65:20.

^ i s writer has assumed the Messianic identification of Jehovah's servant in Isaiah 52-53. See detailed discussions of this issue in David Baron, The Servant of Jehovah (reprint, Minneapolis: James Family, 1978) 3-47, and Kenneth D. Litwak, "The Use of Quotations from Isaiah 52:13-53:12 in the New Testament," JETS 26/4 (December 1983):385-94. Litwak notes, "Though quotations from Isaiah 53 are not numerous in the New Testament, allusions to the passage are deeply imbedded in the work of all the principal New Testament writers as well as the early fathers, particularly Cement and Barnabas. From this tact it is certain that the interpretation of Isaiah 53 as referring to Jesus belongs to the earliest thought of the primitive church" (387). For a classic Jewish example of rejecting Messianic


we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed through for our iniquities; the chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, and by His scourging we are healed. All of us like sheep have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; but the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him (Isa 53:4-6).

The Hebrew words10 translated "griefs" ρ*?Πη [boli, "sick, weak"]) and "sorrows" p l x r p ö [ma&Ôb, "pain"])12 ili Isa 53:3, 4, 10 can legitimately refer to either physical infirmities, mental pain, or spiritual problems. Those who limit this language only to physical problems should more accurately say that the words "may" refer to physical problems, but not necessarily.13 Note also that none of the

implications see Gerald Sigal, The Jew and the Christian Missionary: A Jewish Response to Missionary Christianity (New York: KTAV, 1981).

10The language of Isaiah 53 is decidedly that of the atonement in Leviticus 16, which points strongly to a primaiy, if not exclusive, focus on the atonement's relationship to sin, not sickness. Read Douglas Judisch, "Propitiation in the Language and Typology of the Old Testament," CTQ 48/4 (October 1984):221-43; "Propitiation in Old Testament Prophecy" CTQ 49/l(Januaiy 1985):1-17; W. Kay, "Isaiah," in The Bible Commentary, ed. by F.G Cook (reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981) 5:266; F. Duane Lindsey, "The Career of the Servant in Isaiah 52:13-53:12" BSac 139/556 (October-December 1982):312-29 and 140/557 (January-March 1983):21-39.

nSee Isa 1:5; Jer 6:7,10:19; Hos 5:13 for examples other than actual sickness.

12See Ps 32:10; Jer 30:15; Lam 1:12,18 for examples other than actual sickness.

13"The terms "infirmities" and "sorrows," each of which should be identified as a metonymy of effect for cause, are used generally for all suffering which is viewed as the result of sin. This does not mean that Christ became sick or infirm in a substitutionary sense, nor that divine healing is guaranteed through the atonement (except in the ultimate sense of a resurrection body)" (Lindsey, "The Career" 23). See E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech in the Bible (reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1968) 538,560, for a discussion of metonymy in general and metonymy of effect in particular. Certainly, if metonymy is not the speech figure intended in 53:4-5, then metaphor easily explains the use of "healing" (ΝζΠ) in 53:5 (cf. J. Ramsey Michaels, 1 Peter, in vol. 49 of Word Biblical Commentary, ed. by David A Hubbard, et al. [Dallas: Word, 1988] 149, who opts for metaphor in both Isa 53:5 and 1 Pet 2:24). Heb. 12:12-13 provides a fine example.


primary translations—NASB, NIV, and NKJV—reflect the physical idea, but rather all translate with the spiritual in view.

Words should always be understood in a context and with a meaning intended by the author. Normally, the surrounding context indicates what the author meant by the words he used. A careful analysis of context frequently clarifies whatever definitional ambiguities may exist.

Contextually, Isaiah 53 uses three different Hebrew words for sin—translated "sin," "iniquity," and "transgression"—at least nine times in Isaiah 53 to identify decidedly the passage's intent. For example, in 53:5 Christ was "pierced through for our transgressions" and "crushed for our iniquities"; so that, in 53:6, "the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him." Further, He will "bear their iniquities" (53:11), and "He Himself bore the sins of many" (53:12). The obvious focus of Isaiah 53 is on sin, not on its immediate effects upon the body.14

Isaiah 53:4 reads that he "bore" (NtZ?3, näsä°) our griefs and "carried" Ç?1Q, säbal) our sorrows. Isaiah used these same verbs in w . 11 and 12. As one compares v. 3 with v. 4 and then v. 4 with v. 11 and v. 12, he can see that the emphasis relates to salvation. The more frequent use of redemption (w. 3, 11-12) interprets the use in 53:4. Christ took upon Himself sin, not sickness. It is also no small consideration that the LXX rendered the first part of 53:4 as an interpretive translation, "He bore our sins."

Note additionally that "He would render Himself as a guilt offering" (53:10), that "He will bear their iniquities" (53:11), and that "He Himself bore the sin of many" (53:12). Hebrews 9:28 also comes to this grand conclusion: "So Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many. . . ." Both Hebrews and Isaiah 53 focus on spiritual redemption.

The "scourging" or "wounds" (53:5) received by Christ, translated

14See also the parallel in 53:6 between "sheep going astray" and humans having turned to their own way and thus the Lord causing "the iniquity of us all to fall on Him." Christ was cut off out of the land of the living for the transgressions (53:8). He was numbered with the transgressors and interceded for the transgressors (53:12).


ΓΤΊΏΠ (fyàbûrâ, "stripe, blow"), can speak of actual physical wounds (Gen 4:23; Exod 21:25) or the spiritual afflictions of sin (Ps 38:5; Isa 1:6). Although Christ was physically afflicted by man before and while upon the cross, it is most consistent with the remainder of Isaiah 53 to see this in the latter sense of Christ being afflicted by the Father for the sins He bore (53:10-12).

Further, note that Isaiah used NÇH (räpä°, "heal, make healthful") six times in his prophetic book (6:10; 19:22; 30:26; 53:5; 57:18; 57:19). While räpä° can either be literal with regard to physical healing (Gen 20:17) or figurative in the OT, in each of Isaiah's five uses, other than 53:5, he employs it figuratively of healing from sin. In light of (1) this otherwise exclusive figurative use by Isaiah, (2) the previous discussion concerning metonymy of effect, and (3) the figurative use of "wounds," it is reasonable to conclude that Isaiah intended the use of räpä° in 53:5 to be figurative also.

Even though there might seem to be a veiled inference to the physical benefit that sin's removal can produce upon the body, the language of Isaiah 53 demands an understanding in terms of Christ's redemption of sinners. Isaiah intended to convey the thought that Christ atoned for sin.

Theological Comments Relating to Isaiah 53 Consider from other Scriptures some clarifying theological

observations relating to sin and salvation. First, the present body is corruptible; that is, it will degenerate

until death (1 Cor 15:50-58; 2 Cor 5:1-4). The physical element in this life will ultimately separate from the spiritual (Jas 2:26). But the good news for believers is that one day they will put on the incorruptible—a form that will remain eternally constant, pure, and without sin.

And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body (Rom 8:23).

Believers have only the firstfruits of the Spirit now and will not


begin to see what God will do in themselves until they leave this world and enter into His presence. Now they groan within themselves, eagerly awaiting their adoption as sons and the redemption of their bodies. The future will be fantastic by comparison. They will experience afflictions no more because the moral source of sickness—sin—will be no more.

Second, Christ died for sins. The gospel immediately becomes good news about the sin problem, but not necessarily so with physical problems. Read about this in such biblical texts as Matt 1:21, John 1:29; Rom 1:16; 1 Cor 15:1-3; Eph 1:7; Col 1:14; Heb 9:1-28; 1 John 3:5.

Disease is not sin, but a consequence of sin. Disease carries no penalty which must be atoned for as sin does. Disease does not interfere with a man's fellowship with God like sin does. A sick man can still enjoy fellowship with God in spite of suffering from disease, and his experience of sickness may even deepen that fellowship. Once we recognize that sin and disease belong to different categories we can readily see that the atonement will affect them in different ways. In the case of sin we can know forgiveness in this present life, but there is nothing corresponding to this experience of forgiveness in the case of disease. The only thing which could correspond to forgiveness would be an immunity to disease which would be as permanent as our forgiveness. Those who were healed by Jesus in the gospels were not given such an immunity for this would have meant that they would never have died. Even Lazarus who was raised from the dead eventually died again. What was true for them is also true for us today. When we receive forgiveness on putting our faith in Jesus Christ and His atonement on our behalf, we are not made perfect by having sin and its effects removed from us. Sin will only be finally removed at the resurrection. What applies to sin, also applies to its effects such as disease for these too will only be removed at the resurrection.15

Next, Christ was made sin and not sickness. Paul writes about the ministry of reconciliation. "He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him" (2

15 Wilkinson, Physical Heating 162-63


Cor 5:21). Christ was never made sickness. Fourth, Christ forgave sins, not sicknesses. John notes, "I am

writing to you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you for His name's sake" (1 John 2:12).

Fifth, Christ gave Himself for sins and not for sicknesses. "Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for our sins, that he might deliver us out of this present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father . . ." (Gal 1:3-4).

Next, the Bible teaches that if a person is truly saved, he cannot lose his salvation (John 10:28-29; Rom 8:28-39; Phil 1:6; Jude 24). Now, carrying this thought out to its logical conclusion, assuming (for argument's sake) that physical healing is as much in the atonement for today as is redemption, yields an interesting conclusion. A truly saved person cannot lose his salvation (John 5:24) and God has given salvation through no human merit—through no price that human beings have paid. Since these two biblical facts are true, then if physical healing did share in the atonement as does spiritual healing, people ought not to lose their physical health and thus would never die.

But is that what really happens or what the Scriptures teach? No! The Scripture teaches that all must die (Heb 9:27)! The deaths of such godly examples as Abraham, Isaac, Daniel, Paul, and Timothy show that God's greatest saints were sick and eventually died. Therefore, it is biblical to conclude that though a related physical aspect may be in the atonement, it will not apply until after death and the redemption of Christians' bodies by resurrection (Rom 8:23).16

Seventh, genuine believers have assurance of their salvation, but have no guarantee concerning the quality of physical life or health.

Come now, you who say, 'Today or tomorrow, we shall go to such and such a city, and spend a year there and engage in business and make a profit." Yet you do not know what your life will be like tomorrow. You are just a vapor that appears for a little while and then vanishes

16See Mayhue, The Healing Promise 85-116, for a detailed analysis of healing history in the OT, gospels, Acts, and the NT epistles.


away (Jas 4:13-14).

Believers have no certainty that any will be here tomorrow. But every biblical assurance is that placing faith in Jesus Christ will enable one to remain His son and daughter forever (Eph 1:5).

Next, if healing is in the atonement and if it applies physically today, those who ask by faith for physical healing and do not receive it have no logical right to assurance of their salvation. However, Scripture teaches that if one is saved, then that person has every right to believe in his or her eternal salvation (Rom 8:28-39; Phil 1:6). So, if physical healing were in the atonement and if someone asks to be healed and is not, not only does that one lose assurance of the physical restoration, but also assurance of spiritual redemption. Fortunately, one can reach these unbiblical conclusions only by first taking a wrong approach to what the atonement is really all about—the forgiveness of sins.

Ninth, assuming that physical healing in the atonement were to apply today, logic dictates that eternal life must also apply today with the acquisition of immortal bodies. But death is the great nemesis and stumbling block to this proposed truth. All are going to die (Heb 9:27). Death will not totally disappear in earthly human experience until the eternal state commences (1 Cor 15:25-26). Therefore, whatever physical benefits, if any, are found in the atonement, they will not begin until the resurrection. The Bible does not teach anywhere that sickness needs atonement, but it does teach everywhere that sinners require Christ's atonement for forgiveness of their sin.

If Christ paid the penalty for sin and if sin is the moral cause of sickness and is still continuing, what then ought to be the current experience in the physical realm? Total or impaired health? Just as believers have impaired spiritual health, so they will continue to have impaired physical health until sin is no more. Total health will not happen until death or until the Lord comes!

In reality, Christ paid the penalty for sin, but He did not remove sin from the life of the believer. Christ died for the moral cause of sickness, i.e., sin. But He did not remove sickness from the life experience of believers because He did not eliminate besetting sin.


Finally, if the conclusions reached in Isaiah 53 and elsewhere are true, then the NT should verify them. The Scriptures are marvelously unified and will not contradict themselves. As expected, Isaiah 53 is not without its New Testament witness.17

Philip encountered the Ethiopian eunuch reading Isaiah 53 (Acts 8:28, 32-33). When the eunuch asked Philip for an explanation, he preached Jesus to him (8:35). Apparently, the eunuch embraced Christ as his personal Savior and Lord because he next asked about baptism (8:36). The point to note is this—both Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch understood Isaiah 53 to be dealing with sin, not sickness. That is as anticipated from the above inductive study of Isaiah 53.

Matthew On Isaiah 53 Matthew 8:14-17 presents another challenge in referring back to

Isa. 53:4:

And when Jesus had come to Peter's home, He saw his mother-in-law lying sick in bed with a fever. And he touched her hand, and the fever left her; and she arose, and began to wait on Him. And when evening had come, they brought to Him many who were demon-possessed; and He cast out the spirits with a word, and healed all who were ill; in order that what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, saying, "He Himself took our infirmities, and carried away our diseases."

The challenge is to understand what use of Isa 53:4 Matthew intended. A cursory reading of the English text does not provide that clarification. It is a very difficult passage, and without an understanding of original language, comprehending what Matthew taught is elusive.

The Greek words translated "took" (λαμβάνω, lambanö) and "carry" (βαστάξω, bastaio) in Matt 8:17 are different from the corresponding Greek word, "to bear," in the Greek translation (the Septuagint,

17The New Testament directly quotes Isaiah 53 six times. (1) Matt 8:17—Isa. 53:4; (2) Luke 22:37-Isa 53:12; (3) John 12:38-Isa 53:1; (4) Acts 8:32-33-Isa 53:7-8; (5) Rom 10:16-Isa 53:1; (6) 1 Pet 2:24-Isa 53:4.


also referred to by LXX) of Isa 53:4, i.e., φέρω (pherö, "bear, carry'1). They are never used in the NT with the sense of atonement or propitiation. The words in Matthew 8 (lambanö and bastaio) mean "to take away from" or "to remove." Matthew's dramatic word change indicates that he is not saying that Christ lfbore" sickness, but rather He "removed" sickness. In contrast, the Hebrew words used in Isa 53:4 (näsä° and sàbal) mean "to bear sacrificially" as does phero in the LXX. Thus, the idea in Isaiah is that "He took our sins upon Him." A good reason then accounts for the word change.

Matthew is saying that Christ "took away" (lambanö) their sicknesses. Christ did not "bear" (pherö) in a substitutionary sense the sickness of Peter's mother-in-law. He did not say, "Fever, move from her into Me." He just touched her and it was gone. He bore in His body neither the afflictions of those who were ill nor the spirits of those who were possessed (8:16). Later, He would "bear" sin on Calvary, but at this point in Matthew 8 He had only "taken away" their sicknesses.18

Matthew uses Θεραπεύω (therapeuò, "heal, restore") in 8:16, whereas Isaiah (53:5) and Peter (2:24) use XÇH (räpä°, "heal") and ίάομαί (iaomai, "heal, cure") respectively. Therapeuò always refers to real physical infirmities in the New Testament; on the other hand, räpä° and its LXX/NT counterpart iaomai regularly indicate either actual physical healing (Matt 8:8, 15:28; Mark 5:29; Luke 5:17) or spiritual healing (cf. Isa 6:10; Matt 13:15; John 12:40; Acts 28:27). Contexts in Isaiah and 1 Peter point clearly to a figurative use of iaomai in the realm of salvation. However, Matthew's purposeful change to therapeuò signals his obvious intent to focus on the physical alone. From Christ's perspective, those healings provided Messianic credentials. From the perspective of the present time, they pointed to the resurrection hope that when sin disappears, human bodies will be free of physical infirmities.

Advocates of contemporary physical healing in the atonement

18Young, Isaiah 3:35, writes, "The reference in Matthew 8:17 is appropriate, for although the figure of sicknesses here used refers to sin itself, the verse also includes the thought of the removal of the consequences of sin. Disease is the inseparable companion of sin."


overlook the fact that what Christ did at Calvary actually occurred several years after His healing ministry at Capernaum.19 This means that there could be no effectual relationship between Christ's healings in Capernaum and His later atonement on the cross at Calvary. Rather, Matthew employed a normal illustration from the OT when commenting on Christ's healings. He found a point of continuity, a point of identity between Isaiah 53 and Christ's healing ministry in Capernaum. Matthew used Isaiah analogically.

Matthew 2:14-15 illustrates this principle when quoting Hos. 11:1:

And he arose and took the Child and His mother by night, and departed for Egypt; and was there until the death of Herod; that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled, saying, "Out of Egypt did I call My son."

Matthew writes in the context of the Lord's childhood and Herod's desire to put Him to death. Hosea, on the other hand, was writing about the historical exodus of Israel out of Egypt's bondage. So what relation is there between Israel and Christ? By analogy it is true that (1) they both were in Egypt, (2) they both are referred to as God's Son, and (3) God brought them both out from Egypt. These then are the points of analogy which explain why Matthew used the prophecy of Hos 11:1.

Consider this perspective: Matthew 8 is to Isaiah 53 (in terms of its analogy) as Matthew 17 (the transfiguration of Christ) is to Revelation 19 (the second coming of Christ). Matthew 17 is a preview, just as Matthew 8 is a foretaste of (1) resurrection life; (2) the coming millennial kingdom in which there will be healing; and (3) the ultimate

19Wilkinson, "Physical Healing" 157, provides another frequently overlooked point: "There is, however, one detail which is different from all the rest All the injuries and their effects which are described of the servant were produced by external agents at the time of His suffering." Thus Christ did not bear sickness within as he did with sin.


eternal kingdom which will be free of sin and therefore of sickness too.20

D. A. Carson has reasoned,

Indeed, as I have argued elsewhere, Matthew 8:16-17 explicitly connects Jesus' miracles of healing and exorcism with the atonement that had not yet taken place. They serve as foretastes of and are predicated on the cross work that is their foundation and justification.21

The conclusion is there is no more basis for believing that because Christ cared for physical affliction at Calvary there is now no sickness in the believer's life experience, than there is to suggest that because Christ bore our sins at Calvary sin has now been fully eliminated from the believer's life. As long as sin exists, the moral basis for sickness and physical debilitation will continue.

Believers have the present potential for incurable physical distress and the promise of eventual physical death. What Christ did at either Capernaum or Calvary neither eliminated sickness nor dying from the life of the Christian.22 Matthew 8 is best understood as a preview of

^Donald A Hagner, Matthew 1-13, in vol. 33A of Word Biblical Commentary, ed. by David A Hubbard, et al. (Dallas: Word, 1993) 211: "Properly perceived, these healings are most important as symbols of the much greater 'healing' that is at the heart of the gospel, the healing of the cross. At the same time, they foreshadow the fulfillment of the age to come when all suffering and sickness are finally removed (cf. Rev 21:1-4)."

21D. A Carson, Showing the Spirit (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987) 156-57. Baron, The Servant 86, perceptively notes, "The miracles of healing not only served to certify Him as the Redeemer, and as 'signs' of the spiritual healing which He came to bring, but were, so to say, pledges also of the ultimate full deliverance of the redeemed, not only from sin but from every evil consequence of it in body as well as in soul."

^Hagner, Matthew 1-13 211: "... Isa. 53:4 guarantees no one healing in the present age. What is guaranteed is that Christ's atoning death will in the eschaton provide healing...." Baxter, Divine Heating 136, unequivocally states, "Therefore, that the healing is in the atonement should not be preached on the basis of


Christ's future messianic ministry which authenticated his claim to be the Son of God and an illustration of the resurrection hope of true believers that when sin is gone, sickness will be also. At Capernaum, He merely removed sickness; He did not become the believer's substitutionary sickness bearer.

Peter On Isaiah 53 Before some final conclusions, a consideration of Peter's use of

Isaiah 53 is in order.

For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps, who committed no sin, nor was any deceit found in His mouth; and while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously; and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed (1 Pet 2:21-24).

Did Christ die for our sins or for our sicknesses? A wider reading from 2:18 to 2:25 shows that Peter is preparing his audience to endure more suffering, not to be relieved of it. Physical healing is not in Peter's thinking here. He teaches just the opposite. The context demands an understanding that Christ died for sins.

Now, consider the following, more narrow contextual analysis of 1 Pet 2:24-25:

1. The fact of salvation (2:24a) " . . . He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross,. . ."

2. The purposes of salvation (2:24b) " . . . that we might die to sin and live to righteousness;"

3. The means of salvation (2:24c) " . . . for by His wounds you were healed."

Matthew 8:16-17 unless it is endorsed by Scripture statements elsewhere. But it is not taught elsewhere, and it certainly cannot be safely adduced solely from Matthew 8:16-17."


4. The need for salvation (2:25a) "For you were continually straying like sheep,..."

5. The result of salvation (2:25b) " . . . but now you have returned to the Shepherd and guardian of your souls." Given the fact that elements 1, 2, 4, and 5 deal with sin, it would

be surprising to find element 3, "for by His wounds you were healed," to deal with the physical. Since nothing in the context supports this kind of anomaly and since the previous discussion of Isa 53:5 (which Peter quotes here) pointed to Isaiah's use of metonymy in substituting effect for cause, the conclusion is that Peter intended to address Christ's atonement for sin alone.

Peter used αναφέρω (anapherò, "bring up, offer, bear") in 2:24 to indicate the sin bearing role of Christ (cf. Heb 7:27, 9:28,13:15; 2 Pet 2:5).23 This corresponds directly with Isaiah's use of näsä°, sâbal, and the LXX use di phew in the sense of atonement sacrifice. This consistent use of sacrificial language stands in stark contrast to Matthew's use of lambanò and bastaio, meaning to "take away" in a spatial sense of disease being removed.

What does μώλωπι (mölöpi, "wound" or "by His stripes") mean (2:24)? Translated "stripes" in the KJV and "wounds" in the NASB and NIV, mòlòpi is best translated from ΓΠΉΓΤ (fyabûrâ, "stripe, blow") in Isaiah 53:5 as "wounds from physical abuse." Peter quoted Isaiah exactly, using a physical illustration (sickness) to portray a spiritual cause (sin), i.e., Peter used the speech figure "metonymy of effect" as did Isaiah.

In context, it is questionable whether Peter refers to the scourging and crucifixion that Christ received at the hands of the soldiers. The beatings and afflictions that Jesus suffered before He was nailed to the cross were nothing in comparison with the agony He suffered when God the Father afflicted God the Son with His wrath for the sins of the world (cf. Ps 22:14-17). Christ did not propitiate God's wrath with His suffering at the hands of men, but rather by that which was inflicted by

^Wayne Grudem, The First Epistle of Peter (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988) 133-34.


His Heavenly Father (Isa 53:10). Peter refers to healing in 2:24 with iaomai which corresponds to

the LXX translation of the Hebrew text of Isa 53:5. Four other times (of 26 NT uses) iaomai is used in a spiritual sense.24 Given the context of 1 Pet 2:18-25 and given the otherwise exclusive spiritual use oí iaomai by NT writers when quoting Isaiah, it is most reasonable to conclude that this was Peter's intention when he quoted Isa 53:5 in 1 Pet 2:24. Oepke notes,

In 1 Pt. 2:24, Is. 53:5 is referred to the atoning work of Christ. In such passages ίασθαι denotes the restoration of divine fellowship through the forgiveness of sins, and all the saving benefits which accompany it.25

The context and language in 1 Pet 2:24-25 consistently deal with spiritual healing and Christ's payment for sin, not for sickness.26

Summing It Up Isaiah 53 refers to the atonement and its redemptive features, not

to its therapeutic effect in a physical sense. Five lines of evidence support this conclusion:

1. The idea of atonement in both Leviticus and Hebrews applies to salvation.

2. The context of Isaiah 53 focuses on Christ's atonement as provision for sin.

3. The theological context of Christ's death and salvation centers on

^Matthew 13:15, John 12:40, and Acts 28:27 quote Isa 6:10 while Heb 12:12-13 alludes to Isa 35:3.

^Albrecht Oepke, "ίασθαι, /¿τ.λ.," TDNT 3:214.

^It is noteworthy that Wayne Grudem, who might be thought to reason otherwise because of his Vineyard Fellowship connection, understands 1 Pet 2:24 in reference to salvation (The First Epistle of Peter 132). Of this "healing" D. Edmond Hiebert concludes, 'The verb 'healed* here does not denote physical healing ..." (1 Peter [Chicago: Moody, 1992] 189).


sin. 4. Matthew used Isa 53:4-5 illustratively to indicate that what Christ

did at Capernaum (8:14-17) with physical healing pictured the resurrection consequence of salvation, i.e., the end of sickness when sin has been eliminated.

5. Peter, the Ethiopian eunuch, and Philip understood Isaiah 53 in reference to sin.27

Isaiah 53 deals with man's spiritual being, not his physical. Its emphasis is on sin, not sickness. It focuses on the moral cause of sickness, which is sin, and not on the immediate removal of one of sin's results—sickness.

Matthew 8 is a limited and localized preview of Christ's millennial rule and a believer's resurrection experience when sickness will be no more because sin will have been eliminated. Christ did not personally bear sickness at Capernaum in a substitutionary way, but instead He removed it, even though illness would later return and those whom He had healed would eventually die.

Matthew referred to Isaiah 53 for illustrative and anticipatory purposes, but by no means intended to teach that Christ ultimately fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah 53 two years before He went to Calvary.

First Peter 2:24 rehearses the redemptive implications of Isaiah 53. Christ's atoning death provided the basis for spiritual health and eternal life. Christ bore our iniquities to satisfy God's righteous demand against sin. Physical health and healing are in view only in the sense that once the cause of sickness (i.e., sin) disappears, then sickness (i.e., the effect of sin) will also be no more.

Recall the question raised at the beginning. "Is there healing in the atonement?" This writer's answer is, "No." However, there is healing "through" the atonement or "as a result" of the atonement, but

27A sixth evidence, although not from Scripture, is the latter first-centuiy and early second-century use of Isa 53:4-5 by the post-apostolic fathers. Neither 1 Cement 16 nor Barnabas 5 quotes Isaiah 53 as teaching a contemporary healing ministry or even that physical healing is in the atonement. Nor do the fathers teach such elsewhere (cf. J. B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers (reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1976) 19-20,140).


it is never promised to believers for the present time. With the ultimate removal of sin, believers will receive physical healing in full; but only in the future, when our bodies have been redeemed by the power of God (Rom 8:23; Rev 21:4). Christ atoned for sin, not sickness.

No, healing for our mortal bodies is not in the atonement. This conclusion is supported at once by the fact that forgiveness of sins and cleansing from guilt are offered through the cross freely and certainly and at the present moment to all who sincerely "believe" whereas healing for all our infirmities and sicknesses is not offered freely and certainly at present to all who believe. Not one of those who have believed for forgiveness and cleansing has ever been denied, but thousands and thousands who have believed for physical healing have been denied. That cannot be gainsaid—for a very pertinent reason. Permitted sin in the present is never a part of God's plan or purpose for us, but permitted sickness often is, as we learn both from Scripture and from Christian testimony (more on this later). Both Scripture and experience, then, say no; bodily healing is not in the atonement.29

By (1) looking at the original languages used, (2) understanding the context in which the above passages are found, (3) appreciating the complementing passages in Leviticus and Hebrews, and (4) realizing what the atonement actually involved, the conclusion is that the atonement dealt with sin and the need to satisfy the righteous wrath of a just and holy God. Not until sin is removed from our personal

It seems more biblically precise to say, "There will be physical healing through the atonement" rather than "There ¿s physical healing in the atonement." I agree with Doug Moo ("Divine Healing in the Health and Wealth Gospel," TrinJ 9 [1988]:204): "We would prefer, then, to say that physical healing is one effect of the atoning death of Christ." See also Bokovay ("Physical Healing" 35): "It is misleading for anyone to suggest that healing is 'in' the atonement without major qualifications; sickness is only dealt with in the sense that it is an effect of sin and its eventual eradication is guaranteed because our sin has been atoned for."

29Baxter, Divine Healing 136-37. Dr. Baxter, who believes in a contemporary healing ministry, minces no words here in utterly denying that the atonement provides any basis for present physical healing.


existence will Christians have any hope of guaranteed physical well-being.30

J. I. Packer carefully captures the intent of Isaiah 53 with this insightful summary:

. . . We must observe that perfect physical health is promised, not for this life, but for heaven, as part of the resurrection glory that awaits us in the day when Christ "will change our lowly body to be like His glorious body, by the power which enables Him even to subject all things to Himself" Full bodily well-being is set forth as a future blessing of salvation rather than a present one. What God has promised, and when He will give it, are separate questions.31

^Wimber and Springer, Power Healing 154, cite R. A Torrey (Divine Healing [reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1974] 53 [actually on page 43]) writing on Isaiah 53 as meaning ". . . that based on what Jesus experienced on the cross, we as a consequence may experience one hundred percent healing here on earth." At best, this is an overstatement of Torrey's discussion (43-46); at worst, a misrepresentation.

31 James I. Packer, "Poor Health May Be the Best Remedy," Christianity Today 26/10 (May 21,1982):15.

^ s

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.

143

TMSJ 6/2 (Fall 1995) 143-80 PASTORAL MINISTRY IN HISTORY1

James F. Stitzinger Associate Professor of Historical Theology The biblical pattern for pastoral ministry derives from both testaments of the Bible. Deviations from that pattern crept into the church during the second century A.D., and continued, becoming increasingly severe into the Medieval period of the church. Nevertheless, isolated groups continued their efforts to follow the biblical pattern. These included Chrysostom and Augustine in the early church and the Paulicans, Cathari, Albigenses, and Waldenses during the Medieval period. The Reformation period witnessed a broader return to the biblical pattern through the magisterial reformation of Luther, Calvin, and others and through the Anabaptist reformation. During the Modern period, Puritan leaders such as Baxter, Perkins, and Edwards have led a return to biblical principles in pastoral ministry. Bridges, Morgan, and Allen were nineteenth century examples of biblical ministers. The late twentieth century has produced others, including Lloyd-Jones, Adams, and MacArthur. * * * * * In God's gracious sovereignty, He chose to reconcile believers to Himself through Christ. In His marvelous plan He has committed to them the ministry of reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:18), based upon His Word of reconciliation (5:19). The office and function of the pastor has a key role in this ministry as he proclaims the mystery of godliness. His functions have a close association with the church, the pillar and support of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15-16).

1The source of this essay is the volume entitled Rediscovering Pastoral Ministry, John F. MacArthur, Jr., ed. (Dallas: Word, 1995).


The duty and privilege of pastoral ministry has resulted in the development of the discipline of Pastoral Theology within the broader framework of Practical Theology.2 It has also produced a long proces-sion of individuals who have filled the pages of church history in responding to God's call to be faithful pastors and ministers of the truth. Sadly, traditions3

A plethora of mind-sets and often conflicting traditions emerge in a study of pastoral ministry in history, though all traditions claim a lineage going back to the apostolic age. In every generation some have sought to return to the basic fundamentals of primitive biblical ministry. This pursuit of the "true church" or primitivism has led Littell and others to speak of the concept of the "Believers' Church."

not measuring up to the standards of biblical scrutiny have skewed and embellished much of what has been called ministry.

4

2Thomas C. Oden notes, "Pastoral theology is a special form of practical theology because it focuses on the practice of ministry, with particular attention to the systematic definition of the pastoral office and its function" (Pastoral Theology, Essentials of Ministry [San Francisco: Harper, 1982] x).

Such a

3In early church history Christians understood "tradition" as "revelation made by God and delivered by Him to His faithful people through the mouth of His prophets and apostles." It was something handed over, not something handed down, and was thus in accord with divine revelation. In the period since the early church, "tradition means the continuous stream of explanation and elucidation of the primitive faith, illustrating the way in which Christianity has been presented and understood in past ages. It is, that is, the accumulated wisdom of the past" ("Tradition," in The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 2nd ed., ed. by F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingstone [Oxford: University Press, 1983] 1388). The latter approach to tradition has allowed much deflection from simple, primitive, biblical ministry.

4In Franklin H. Littell, "The Concept of the Believers' Church," in The Concept of the Believers' Church, ed. by James Leo Garrett, Jr. (Scottdale: Herald, 1969), 27-32, the author delineates at least six basic principles or marks of the "Believer's Church" which represent common themes in various churches. They include (1) the Believers' Church, although outwardly constituted by volunteers, is Christ's church and not theirs; (2) membership in the Believers' Church is voluntary and witting (done deliberately); (3) the principle of separation from "the world" is basic, although it has often been misinterpreted; (4) mission and witness are key concepts for the Believer's Church, and all members are involved; (5) internal integrity and church discipline are stressed; and (6) the proper concept of the secular in relationship to the sacred. The primary example of an application of this last theme is to a state church in which

Pastoral Ministry in History 145

church included people of various ages and regions who followed the same principles of commitment to apostolic truth. These are believers who "gathered and disciplined a `true church' upon the apostolic pattern as they understood it."5 The truth for these people was an ongoing pursuit, not a closed book in a "sectarian" sense. It was one which "wanted fellowship with all who bore the Name and lived the covenant of a good conscience with God."6

Other committed believers like these within the wider framework of church history have sought above all else the true, pure, primitive church. They have sought a church and a ministry patterned after the theology and practice of the book of Acts and the NT Epistles. Such individuals and churches have appeared in various forms and have come from various settings, but all display a desire to return to a vibrant, biblical church and ministry. Some have journeyed further in their plans than in their practice. Some have advanced further than others in their quest for biblical ministry.

This chapter focuses upon a history of those who have sought to teach and practice biblical pastoral ministry. Examinations of efforts to follow biblical ministry patterns rather than accepted tradition and recurring ministry practices can serve as a helpful guide to a future generation with the same goals. Such historical study provides valuable insights through enabling Christians and churches to learn from the past. Though history is not the unfolding of an unalterable tradition or a hermeneutical principle for interpreting ministry, "the flow of time bears divine sovereignty and providence on its wings and constitutes a general, not special, revelation of God himself."7

government attempts to control all ideology and thinking, thus limiting human liberty.

Only the Bible can teach the true theology of pastoral ministry, but the working of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of church leaders through the centuries

5Franklin Hamlin Littell, The Origins of Sectarian Protestantism (New York: Macmillan, 1964) xvii.

6Littell, "Concept" 25-26.

7Marc Mueller, "What is History" (unpublished chapel lecture, The Master's Seminary, Sun Valley, CA, Feb 16, 1989), 5.


can inform this theology and its practical implementation. The following subsidiary material will provide such information. THE BIBLICAL PERIOD Many have noted the elusive and complex nature of pastoral theology that makes the discipline hard to define.8 As Tidball points out, part of this "elusiveness stems from the multitude of labels which exist in this area and which seem to be used without any agreement as to their exact meaning or relationship."9 As a further reason, he points out that the difficulty "stems from the fact that so many sub-disciplines of practical theology are spoken of as if they are pastoral theology."10 The historical development of the doctrine of the church in general and of practical theology in particular, have no doubt contributed to this elusiveness since tension has surrounded this whole subject from the outset of church history.11

Thomas C. Oden, in expanding his definition of pastoral theology, observes the following:

Pastoral theology is that branch of Christian theology that deals with

the office, gifts, and functions of the pastor. As theology, pastoral theology seeks to reflect upon that self-disclosure of God witnessed to by Scripture, mediated through tradition, reflected upon by critical reasoning, and embodied in personal and social experience.12

Throughout history, it is precisely when the weight of tradition, critical reasoning, and experience have come to bear upon pastoral theology 8E.g., Derek J. Tidball, Skillful Shepherds: An Introduction to Pastoral Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986) 18.

9Ibid.

10Ibid.

11Note the divergence of views as reflected in Louis Berkhoff's development of the doctrine of the church (The History of Christian Doctrines [Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, n.d.] 227-41).

12Oden, Pastoral Theology 311.


that it has been most likely to drift from its biblical moorings. In reality, it is impossible to say that one has no tradition or critical thinking on this subject. It is therefore imperative that one begin, continue, and end with the Scriptures in a study of true pastoral ministry. The place to begin is with an investigation of the various aspects of primitive biblical ministry as they relate to the office and functions of pastors. A brief summary of the biblical data can serve as the basis for identifying historic efforts to reproduce that kind of ministry. Old Testament A history of pastoral ministry must begin in the OT. The theme, "The Lord is my shepherd" (Ps. 23:1), expresses the pastoral role of God with His people. Tidball describes this image as "the underlining paradigm of ministry," and points out that it contains "references to the authority, tender care, specific tasks, courage and sacrifice required of the pastor."13

The theme of God's love contributes to the shepherd theme too: "I have loved you with an everlasting love; therefore I have drawn you with lovingkindness" (Jer. 31:3). God demonstrates His love for Israel in vivid imagery with Hosea's marriage to a harlot (Hos. 1:2). Though Israel spurned His love, God continues loving, as He says in Hos. 11:1: "When Israel was a youth I loved him, and out of Egypt I called My son." In the end God is there to "heal their apostasy . . . [and] love them freely" (Hos. 14:4). The OT abounds with statements of God's love for His people. Another is in Isa. 43:4-5: "Since you are precious in My sight, since you are honored and I love you . . . do not fear, for I am with you."

Many passages, including Gen. 49:24; Isa. 53:6; Ps. 78:52-3; 80:1, contribute to the development of this theme. The OT often describes Israel as sheep who need a shepherd (Ps. 100:3; cf. also Ps. 44:22; 119:176; Jer. 23:1; 50:6).

14

Associated with the love of God is His disciplining of those He loves (Prov. 3:11); His holding accountable of those whom He loves (Ps.

13Tidball, Skillful Shepherds 54.

14See Leon Morris, Testaments of Love: A Study of Love in the Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981), 8-100; also Norman Snaith, The Distinctive Ideas of the Old Testament (New York: Schocken, 1964), 131-42.


11:7); and His command that men love Him in return (Deut. 6:5). Also associated with the divine pastoral concern is the profound theme of God's mercy (i.e., loyal love, Ps. 62:12; Isa. 54:10; 55:3)15

Thus the OT provides an important basis for understanding the office and function of the pastor. The Shepherd Himself displays his Fatherly care, love, mercy, discipline, compassion, and delight toward His people whom He desires to love and fear Him with a pure heart. The image of a shepherd also demonstrates God's authority and faithfulness, as well as the necessity and implications of obedience to Him. Servant leaders exemplify both strengths and weaknesses as God uses them to carry out His sovereign plan in human history.

God's compassion (Ps. 145:9), and His delight (1 Sam. 22:20). Combined with this are numerous examples of servant leaders`including Abraham, Joseph, Moses, Samuel, and David`who demonstrated the faithfulness of God as they accomplished His work through faith (Hebrews 11).

New Testament The NT builds on this OT foundation as it reveals the Chief Shepherd, Christ, in all His wisdom, glory, power, and humility (John 10:11, 14; 1 Pet. 5:4). The person and work of the Great Shepherd culminates in His death (i.e., the blood of the eternal Covenant, Heb. 13:20; 1 Pet. 2:25) and resurrection. The Good Shepherd gave His life for His sheep whom he calls to Himself (John 10:11-16). These "called out" ones are His church. Christ, as Head of the church, leads His church (Eph. 1:22; 5:23-25) and shepherds it. He calls pastors as undershepherds to function and give oversight under His authority (1 Pet. 5:1-4). Both as a doctrine (1 Corinthians 12) and through living example, the NT reveals the nature of the church and all its members and activities. It also furnishes clear teaching about church officers and 15The Hebrew word desei (>hesed) has been variously translated with meanings such as "mercy, love, loyal love, unfailing love, constant love, strong, faithful love, lovingkindness" (Morris, Testaments of Love 66-7). The>h esed or mercy of God as He covenants with His people to love them and to be faithful to that love always is a rich and profound study that furnishes important insight into true pastoral activity (see Nelson Glueck, Hesed in the Bible [New York: KTAV, 1975]; see also Snaith, Distinctive Ideas 94-130).


their functions. The role and duties of a pastor as presented in the NT are the basis of all future biblical ministry in history. Five distinct terms refer to the pastoral office: (1) elder (presbyteros), a title highlighting the administration and spiritual guidance of the church (Acts 15:6; 1 Tim. 5:17; Jas. 5:14; 1 Pet. 5:1-4); (2) bishop or overseer (episkopos), which emphasizes guidance, oversight, and leadership in the church (Acts 20:28; Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:2-5; Tit. 1:7); (3) shepherd or pastor (poim~en), a position denoting leadership and authority (Acts 20:28-31; Eph. 4:11) as well as guidance and provision (1 Pet. 5:2-3; cf. 2:25); (4) preacher (k~erux), which points to public proclamation of the gospel and teaching of the flock (Rom. 10:14; 1 Tim. 2:7; 2 Tim. 1:11); and (5) teacher (didaskalos), one responsible for instruction and exposition of the Scriptures. Such teaching is both instructive (1 Tim. 2:7) and corrective (1 Cor. 12:28-29). Scripture is quite clear that these descriptive titles relate to the same pastoral office. The terms "elder" and "bishop" are synonymous in Acts 20:17 and Tit. 1:5-7. The terms "elder," "bishop," and "shepherd" are synonymous in 1 Pet. 5:1-2. The leadership role of elders is also evident in the shepherdly activity of Jas. 5:14. As clearly noted by Lightfoot, in biblical times "elder" and "bishop" were synonymous terms.16 It was not until the rise of sacerdotalism in the second century that bishops took the places of the apostles and presided over groups of elders.17

First Tim. 5:17 and Heb. 13:7 associate the terms "teacher" and "preacher" with each other. Ephesians 4:11 connects shepherds (pastors) with teachers, as do 1 Tim. 5:17 and Heb. 13:7. These last two passages furnish no exegetical grounds for separating the work of

16J. B. Lightfoot, "The Christian Ministry," in Saint Paul's Epistle to the Philippians (reprint, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1953) 196-201. Though Lightfoot himself became Bishop of Durham in 1879 and remained strongly committed to the Anglican tradition, his work remains of primary significance in understanding primitive church ministry and subsequent embellishments in church history.

17Ibid., 95-99, 193-96. Both biblical and early patristic data support this conclusion (see John Gill, Body of Divinity [reprint, Atlanta: Lassetter, 1965] 863-64; A. E. Harvey, "Elders," JTS ns 25 [1974]:326.


governing from that of teaching.18

In addition to these five terms, a number of descriptive words shed light on biblical pastoral ministry. These include "ruler" (1 Thess. 5:12; 1 Tim. 3:4-5; 5:17), "ambassador" (2 Cor. 5:20), "steward" (1 Cor. 4:1), "defender" (Phil. 1:7), "minister" (1 Cor. 4:1); "servant" (2 Cor. 4:5), and "example" (1 Tim. 4:12, 1 Pet. 5:3). The NT also tells the pastor to preach (1 Cor 1:17), feed (1 Pet. 5:2), build up the church (Eph. 4:12), edify (2 Cor. 13:10), pray (Col. 1:9), watch for souls (Heb. 13:17), war (1 Tim. 1:18), convince (Tit. 1:9), comfort (2 Cor. 1:4-6), rebuke (Tit. 1:13), warn (Acts 20:31), admonish (2 Thess. 3:15), and exhort (Tit. 1:9; 2:15).

Consequently, the conclusion must be that pastoral leadership in the church included preaching, teaching, oversight, and shepherding. The parity of the titles look to a single role, the office of pastor.

So the Scriptures are clear regarding the office and functions of the pastor. The biblical pattern is simple, describing a Spirit-filled man who gives oversight, shepherding, guidance, teaching, and warning`doing all with a heart of love, comfort, and compassion. All of these functions are evident in the first-century church. Purity (including church discipline), primitivism (NT simplicity), voluntarism (no compulsion to join), tolerance (no persecution of those who disagreed), evangelistic zeal (missionary activity), observation of biblical ordinances (baptism and the Lord's supper), emphasis on the Holy Spirit, and dynamic ministry (involving both pastor and people)`not tradition, hierarchy, and corruption`marked the church at this early stage. In time, however, a more complex and embellished church doctrine and practice replaced this early church simplicity.19

This development had direct bearing on the nature of pastoral ministry as it reflected a similar change in scope and complexity of the pastoral role. The remainder of this chapter will identify major examples of those who approached biblical pastoral ministry following the pattern of the first century church.

18See Lightfoot, Philippians 195.

19Adolph Harnack, History of Dogma (Boston: Roberts, 1897) 2:77.


THE EARLY CHRISTIAN CHURCH 100—476 From its earliest days, the Christian church has moved from simplicity to complexity as it has drifted from a spontaneous living organism to a more settled institution.20 This ever dangerous institu-tionalism arose simultaneously in the second generation of many widely separated churches. No more vivid example exists than that of the second-century church which developed strong ecclesiastical traditions21 as it came to view the "bishop" as the successor to the Apostle.22 This trend progressed into the fourth century, causing the church to enter more and more into an era of "speculation on the law and doctrine of the church."23 The rise and development of sacerdotal-ism, with its elevation of clergy to the status of priests, in effect, made the minister an instrument of the saving grace of God as he participated with God in the salvation of human beings.24

20William A. Clebsch and Charles R. Jaekle, Pastoral Care in Historical Perspective (New York: Harper, 1967), 11-31; cf. also Carl A. Volz, "The Pastoral Office in the Early Church," Word and World 9 (1989):359-66; Theron D. Price, "The Emergence of the Christian Ministry," RevExp 46 (1949):216-38; B. H. Streeter, The Primitive Church (New York: Macmillan, 1929); T. W. Manson, The Church's Ministry (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1948).

This development of the threefold ministry of bishops, elders, and deacons represented a serious departure from simple NT ministry.

21Hans Von Campenhausen, Ecclesiastical Authority and Spiritual Power in the Church of the First Three Centuries (Stanford: Stanford Press, 1969) 149-77. He describes this process as the apostolic teaching and traditional teaching "taking in more and more material, historical, legal, and dogmatic" (151).

22The hierarchy of bishop, presbyter, and deacon became known as the "threefold ministry." As an endorsement of the doctrine of "apostolic succession," these layers of authority furnished the groundwork for the Papacy (see Dom Gregory Dix, "The Ministry in the Early Church," in The Apostolic Ministry, ed. by Kenneth E. Kirk [London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1946] 183-304, esp 186-91).

23Ibid., 177. See also Fenton John Anthony Hort, The Christian Ecclesia (London: Macmillan, 1914), 224.

24See Benjamin B. Warfield, The Plan of Salvation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955) 52-68.


In contrast to this general trend, several strong proponents of biblical ministry existed during this period. Polycarp (c. A.D. 70—A.D. 155/160) wrote, And the presbyters also must be compassionate, merciful towards all

men, turning back the sheep that are gone astray, visiting all the infirm, not neglecting a widow or an orphan or a poor man: but providing always for that which is honorable in the sight of God and of men. . . . Let us therefore so serve Him with fear and all reverence, as He himself gave commandment and the Apostles who preached the Gospel to us and the prophets who proclaimed beforehand the coming of the Lord.25

The spirit here is one of humble and loving service, with no seeming regard for the hierarchical relationship of bishops and elders. Clement of Alexandria (c. A.D. 155—c. A.D. 220) has written in a similar vein, emphasizing that ministers are those who are chosen to serve the Lord, who moderate their passions, who are obedient to superiors, and who teach and care for sheep as a shepherd.26 He also observed that "bishops, presbyters, deacons . . . are imitations of the angelic glory, and of that economy which, the Scriptures say, awaits those who, follow the footsteps of the apostles, having lived in perfection of righteousness according to the Gospel."27 Origen (c. A.D. 185—c. A.D. 254), his pupil, assigned a similar role to the one representing Christ and his house (the church) and teaching others of these truths.28

25Polycarp, "Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians," 6, in J. B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers (London: Macmillan, 1926) 179.

This emphasis contrasts sharply with that of Cyprian (c. A.D. 200—c. A.D. 258), the well known Bishop of Carthage who apparently limited his discussion of pastoral

26Clement of Alexandria, "The Stromata, or Miscellanies," vi:xiii, vii:vii, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983) 2:504, 535.

27Ibid., vi:xiii, 505. Though Clement mentions the threefold ministry, he does emphasize it or call attention to a special authority of bishop.

28"Origen against Celsus," v:xxxiii, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982) 4:557-58.


theology to the elevation of the bishop to the level of an apostle.29

The powerful pen of John Chrysostom (c. A.D. 344/354—A.D. 407) contributed significantly to the early church's understanding of the pastoral position.

30

He developed the role and functions of a pastor both in his commentaries on the Pastoral Epistles and in his Treatises. His statements about the nature of ministry are very biblical:

There is but one method and way of healing appointed, after we have gone wrong, and this is, the powerful application of the Word. This is the one instrument, the finest atmosphere. This takes the place of physic, cautery and cutting, and if it be needful to sear and amputate, this is the means which we must use, and if this be of no avail, all else is wasted: with this we both roust the soul when it sleeps, and reduce it when it is inflamed; with this we cut off excesses, and fill up defects, and perform all manner of other operations which are requisite for the soul's health.31

To this Chrysostom adds the necessity of living by example with the ambition that the Word of Christ would dwell in men richly.32 His statements warm the heart as perhaps the most useful expression of pastoral ministry during the period, but they also reveal signs of the monastic stranglehold fast coming upon the organized church of his day.33

29Cyprian, "The Epistles of Cyprian," Epistle lxviii:8, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981) 5:374-5; cf. also Cyprian, "The Treatises of Cyprian," Treatises, i:5-6, ibid., 5:5-6.

The monastic understanding of pastoral ministry was soon to have a profound effect upon church leadership.

30St. Chrysostom, "Treaties concerning the Christian Priesthood," A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, ed. by Philip Schaff (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983) FS IX:25-83.

31Ibid., 64.

32Ibid., 64-65. See Tidball's excellent description of John Chrysostom in Skillful Shepherds, 154-63.

33Note Chrysostom's statements about reclusion, ibid., 74-77. Monasticism began with Antony of Egypt just before Chrysostom's time.


Another important spokesman from this period is Augustine of Hippo (A.D. 354—430). Often best known as a theologian and preacher, Augustine devoted his life to pastoral ministry. Soon after his ordination he wrote to Valerius, his superior, First and foremost, I beg your wise holiness to consider that there is

nothing in this life, and especially in our own day, more easy and pleasant and acceptable to men than the office of bishop or priest or deacon, if its duties be discharged in a mechanical or sycophantic way; but nothing more worthless and deplorable and meet for chastisement in the sight of God: and, on the other hand, that there is nothing in this life, and especially in our own day, more difficult, toilsome, and hazardous than the office of bishop or priest or deacon; but nothing more blessed in the sight of God, if our service be in accordance with our Captain's orders.34

Augustine's ministry included many well-articulated biblical functions, including those of apologist, administrator, minister to the afflicted, preacher and teacher, judge, and spiritual leader.35 Much to his credit, he spent considerable time and energy in personal biblical ministry. Pastoral interaction and ministry appear to be at the heart of his book, The City of God, as he deals with those who challenge God's divine city with an earthly city.36

Independent groups are a final source of biblical ministry patterns during this period. As Gunnar Westin points out, "The process

At the same time, however, Augustine brought into the church a leprosy of monastic tradition involving both men and women (nunnery), thereby laying the groundwork for the Augustinian Rule.

34Augustine, "Letters of Saint Augustine," Letter xxi:1, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, ed. by Philip Schaff (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans) FS 1:237.

35See Joseph B. Bernardin, "St Augustine the Pastor," in A Companion to the Study of St. Augustine, ed. by Roy W. Battenhouse (New York: Oxford, 1955) 57-89.

36Augustine, The City of God, Book 1 in A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, ed. by Philip Schaff (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983) 2:1.


of development which transformed the original Christian congregations to a sacramental, authoritarian Church took place during the latter portion of the second century. . . . This change did not take place without protest."37 Many church historians have dismissed as "heretics" those churches that opposed the institutionalized churchà campaign often called "The Free Church Movement."38 Though some of these groups struggled with doctrinal purity, a closer look reveals that the heretical label in most cases was primarily due to their unwillingness to be loyal to the received tradition of the fathers,39 not to significant doctrinal weakness. A thorough investigation of these independents is difficult, because only the works of those who wrote against them have survived, for the most part. So some sensitivity in examining these writings is necessary. Such groups include the Montanists (c. A.D. 156), Novatians (c. A.D. 250), and Donatists (c. A.D. 313), all of whom left the official church of their day to pursue the pure church.40

It is beyond the scope of this survey to explore these groups in depth, but the comments of Philip Schaff regarding the Donatistsà group strongly opposed by Constantine after A.D. 325àre noteworthy:

An inclusion of these groups in the present discussion is not an attempt to demonstrate their consistent soundness of doctrine, but to point to their common commitment to the gospel and a primitive church with a primitive biblical ministry.

37Gunnar Westin, The Free Church through the Ages (Nashville: Broadman, 1958) 9.

38Ibid., 1-8.

39Jaroslav Pelikan (The Growth of Medieval Theology [600—-1300], vol. 3 of The Christian Tradition [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978] 3:17-18) writes, "The quality that marked Augustine and the other orthodox fathers was their loyalty to the received tradition. The apostolic anathema pronounced against anyone, even àn angel from heaven,' who preached à gospel contrary to that which you have received' by tradition was, as in the East so also in the West, a prohibition of any kind of theological novelty. . . . One definition of heretics could be `those who now take pleasure in making up new terminology for themselves and who are not content with the dogma of the holy fathers.'"

40See the discussion by Westin, Free Church 9-23; see also, E. H. Broadbent, The Pilgrim Church (London: Pickering and Inglis, 1931), 10-48; Donald F. Durnbaugh, The Believers' Church (New York: Macmillan Company, 1968) 3-40.


The Donatist controversy was a conflict between separatism and

catholicism; between ecclesiastical purism and ecclesiastical eclecticism; between the idea of the church as an exclusive commu-nity of regenerated saints and the idea of the church as the general Christendom of state and people.41

The critical issue for the Donatists was the purity of the church and the holiness of its pastors. This resulted in a more biblical minis-try.42

As the church of the NT passed through its early centuries and became the official or organized church, it frequently departed from simple NT patterns. Nonetheless, strong voices both inside and outside this church called for a biblical ministry.

THE MEDIEVAL PERIOD 476—1500 The general structure of the western medieval church focused on the authority and celibacy of its clergy. Many leaders had retreated to the ascetic life of the monastery to escape the worldliness of the Christianity of their day. The pattern of authority centered in Rome with the first pope, Gregory the Great (540—604), assuming power in 590. Though Gregory's papacy plunged the church into deeper political involvement and corruption, he also contributed a positive influence on the pastoral ministry of its clergy. In his Book of Pastoral Rule, he addressed many issues, including qualifications and duties of ministers as well as listing thirty types of members with rules of admonition for each.43

41Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity, in History of the Christian Church (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968) 3:365, cf. also 366-70.

He addressed the poor, the sad, the foolish, the

42See W. H. C. Frend, The Donatist Church, A Movement of Protest in Roman North Africa (Oxford: Clarendon, 1952) 315-32.

43Gregory the Great, "The Book of Pastoral Rule," in A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church ed. by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983) SS 12.


sick, the haughty, the fickle, and many others. This monumental work became a textbook of medieval ministry,44 yet Gregory's own preoccupation with political implications of the papacy caused him to neglect the souls of men while caring for his estates.45

The rise of the papacy produced complete corruption as popes, in their devotion to an increasingly pagan agenda, resorted to any available means to reach their goals. The monastic church, now fully developed, experienced tremendous corruption as well. In balance, however, Payne points out,

Though there was widespread spiritual famine in many nominally Christian lands and notorious corruption in high places, the theologians, the mystics and the reformers of the Middle Ages are further evidence of the Holy Spirit within the Church. They came, almost without exception, from the ranks of the clergy.46

During the thousand-year period from Nicea to Wycliffe, ministry took place in spite of the church more than because of the official church. Even more than in the early period, biblical ministry occurred among elements of the Free Church which were and are commonly regarded as heretics.47 Groups such as the Paulicans (c. 625), Cathari (c. 1050), Albigenses (1140), and Waldenses (1180) demonstrated a strong passion for a pure church with biblical ministry. As Bainton notes, these "very definitely were not heretics but only schismatic, and schismatics only because [they were] cast out against their will."48

44Roland H. Bainton, "The Ministry in the Middle Ages," in The Ministry in Historical Perspectives, ed. by Richard Niebuhr and Daniel D. Williams (New York: Harper, 1956) 98.

The

45Ibid., 86.

46Ernest A. Payne, "The ministry in historical Perspective," The Baptist Quarterly 17 (1958):260-61.

47Note the easy use of the term "heretic" even by evangelical historians, e.g., J. D. Douglas, The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978). The issue of perspective is always relevant when charging someone with being a heretic.

48Bainton, "Historical Perspective" 108.


Paulicans, in their important manual The Key of Truth, speak of a simple church built on "repentance and faith," and refer to what was "learned from the Lord" about the church. "Good shepherds," whose responsibilities included ruling, shepherding, preaching, caring, and administration of the sacraments, were its leaders.49

The following prayer offered at the time of an elder's election to office reflects the nature of Paulician ministry:

Lamb of God, Jesus, help us and especially this thy newly-elected servant, whom thou hast joined unto the number of thy loved disciples. Establish him on thy Gospel vouchsafed to thine universal and apostolic Church, the sure and immovable rock at the gate of hell. And bestow on him a goodly pastorship, to tend with great love thy reasonable flock. . . . Keep this thy servant with thine elect; that no unclean spirit of devils may dare to approach him.50

The Waldenses, who by 1184 had separated from the Church of Rome and formulated their own church and ministry, exhibit a similar theme of simple biblical ministry. Allix notes that "their ministers exercised these holy functions, extraordinarily to the edification of their people."51 Their long history of pre-Reformation Christianity in the Piedmont reflects a relatively pure and uncorrupted form of primitive Christianity.52

The beliefs and practices of the Albigenses, whose church was in southern France by 1190, also exemplified this theme of purity. They experienced heavy persecution and frequent misunderstanding from others. Commenting on their ministry, Allix writes,

49The Key of Truth, a Manual of the Paulican Church of Armenia, ed. by Fred. C. Conybeare (Oxford: Clarendon, 1898) 76-77, 106-11.

50Ibid., 112.

51Peter Allix, Some Remarks upon the Ecclesiastical History of the Ancient Churches of Piedmont (Oxford: Clarendon, 1891) 238 f.

52See "Waldenses" in Dictionary of Sects, Heresies, Ecclesiastical Parties and Schools of Religious Thought, ed. by John Henry Blunt (London: Longmans, 1891) 616-21; cf. also W. Jones, The History of the Waldenses (1816), 2 vols.


It appears therefore that the discipline of the Albigenses was the same

that had been practiced in the primitive Church: they had their Bishops, their Priests, and their Deacons, whom the Church of Rome at first held for schismatics, and whose ministry she at last absolutely rejected, for the same reasons that made her consider the ministry of the Waldenses as null and void.53

Perhaps the greatest voices for biblical ministry were those of the pre-Reformation reformers. These called for true biblical ministry in a day when such convictions often required men to die for their views. John Wycliffe (1324`1384), the leading Oxford scholar of his day, clearly addressed the issue of biblical ministry in his 43 Propositions.54 His writings "restrict the charter of the preacher to the expounding of Scripture," and state that "priests should exercise their primary function, namely, pastoral care. They should not lurk in cloisters."55

His most powerful statements are in his book On the Pastoral Office, where he states,

There are two things which pertain to the status of pastor: the holiness of the pastor and the wholesomeness of his teaching. He ought to be holy, so strong in every sort of virtue that he would rather desert every kind of human intercourse, all the temporal things of this world, even mortal life itself, before he would sinfully depart from the truth of Christ. . . . Secondly, [he] ought to be resplendent with righteousness of doctrine before his sheep.56

53Peter Allix, Remarks upon the Ecclesiastical History of the Ancient Churches of the Albigenses, new ed. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1821) 207.

54John Wycliffe, cited in Documents of the Christian Church, ed. by Henry Bettenson (London: Oxford, 1963) 173-75.

55Wyclif, Select English Writings, ed. by Herbert E. Winn (London: Oxford, 1929) 41, 68.

56John Wyclif, "On the Pastoral Office," in The Library of Christian Classics: Advocates of Reform, ed. by Matthew Spinka (London: SCM, 1953) 32, 48. In this discussion Wycliffe speaks of the primitive church and its importance on several occasions (e.g., 40).


John Huss (1373`1415) followed Wycliffe's rich emphasis on biblical ministry by calling for a pure church and ministry. In his writings are many examples of this teaching. He said, "The church shines in its walls, but starves in its poor saints; it clothes its stones with gold, but leaves its children naked."57

Gillett summarizes his teaching:

In the early church there were but two grades of office, deacon and presbyter; all beside are of later and human invention. But God can bring back his church to the old pattern, just as the apostles and true priests took oversight of the church in all matters essential to its well-being, before the office of pope was introduced.58

He further taught, "Not the office makes the priest, but the priest the office. Not every priest is a saint, but every saint is a priest."59 Spinka offers his summary of Huss' position: "His reform program may be summarized by defining it as restitutionalism`the return of Christ and His apostles as exhibited in the primitive Church. He contrasts the Church militant with the true spiritual Church`the body of Christ."60

The writings of William Tyndale (1494`1536) reveal a similar commitment to primitive biblical ministry.

61

In summary, the Middle Ages, though dominated by a powerful

57John Huss, cited by E. H. Gillett, The Life and Times of John Huss; or the Bohemian Reformation of the Fifteenth Century (Boston: Gould, 1864) 1:285.

58Ibid., 1:248.

59Ibid.

60Matthew Spinka, John Hus, A Biography (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1968) 19. See also, Matthew Spinka, John Hus' Concept of the Church (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1966). On Simony (1413), and On the Church (1415) are among Huss' own works.

61See S. L. Greenslade, The Works of William Tyndale (London: Blackie, 1938) 181-96. Tyndale's statements are in sharp contrast to those of his late-Medieval contemporaries; see Dennis D. Martin, "Popular and Monastic Pastoral Issues in the Later Middle Ages," Church History 56 (1987):320-32.


and corrupt institutional church, was a period when many rose up to challenge that body because of their pursuit of the truth. This should encourage present-day servants in their quest to rediscover true pastoral ministry. The effort may be extremely difficult in the face of strong traditions, but it is both necessary and possible. THE REFORMATION PERIOD (1500—1648) The Protestant Reformation was of great importance in the history of the church and the development of its ministry. Flowing out of late-Medieval piety, mysticism, and scholarship,62 its focus was upon reforming the existing church according to biblical principles. It was more accurately the "Magisterial Reformation," since the reformers retained the mind-set of the magistrate who compelled individuals in matters of faith. This state-church concept contrasted sharply with the free-church thinking of true Anabaptists`distinguished from a larger group of Anabaptists`who attempted to build a new church based on the Bible.63 This important difference has led an increasing number of historians to focus on the "Radical Reformation" as "a major expression of the religious movement of the sixteenth century."64

62See Steven Ozment, The Age of Reform 1250—1550, an Intellectual and Religious History of Late Medieval and Reformation Europe (New Haven: Yale, 1980) xi-xii, 1-21; Heiko A. Oberman, The Harvest of Medieval Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967); idem, The Dawn of the Reformation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992) 1-83.

Williams identifies this "Radical Reformation" as the "Fourth" Reformation in

63Littel has a good development of this important distinction in Sectarian Protestantism, xvii-xviii, 65-66, 73. Philip Schaff writes, "The Reformers aimed to reform the old Church by the Bible; the Radicals attempted to build a new Church from the Bible. The former maintained the historic continuity; the latter went directly to the apostolic age, and ignored the intervening centuries as an apostasy. The Reformers founded a popular state-church, including all citizens with their families; the Anabaptists organized on the voluntary principle, select congregations of baptized believers, separated from the world and from the State" (History of The Christian Church, Modern Christianity, The Swiss Reformation [reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969] 8:71).

64George Huntston Williams, Spiritual and Anabaptist Writers, vol. XXV of The Library of Christian Classics (London: SCM, 1957) 19.


distinguishing it from Lutheranism, Calvinism, and Anglicanism.65

Although acknowledging doctrinal differences within the fourth reformation, Williams observes,

Though Anabaptists, Spiritualists, and Evangelical Rationalists differed among themselves as to what constituted the root of faith and order and the ultimate source of divine authority among them . . . all three groups within the Radical Reformation agreed in cutting back to that root and in freeing church and creed of what they regarded as the suffocating growth of ecclesiastical tradition and magisterial prerogative. Precisely this makes theirs a "Radical Reformation."66

In seeking an understanding of the contribution of the Reforma-tion to biblical ministry, one must look to both the magisterial reformers (Luther, Bucer, Calvin, and Knox) and the free church (true Anabaptists). The former worked under the banner of reformatio (reformation) while the latter had restitutio (restitution) as its banner. Both offer important insight. The Magisterial Reformation An examination of the reforms implemented by Martin Luther (1483—1546) and John Calvin (1509—1564) reveals that they differed in degrees of progress toward the biblical pattern of church ministry. In the final analysis, both maintained a magisterial church-state system, believing that any reformation should ultimately result in a Christian state.67

65Ibid., 19. This distinguished Harvard scholar further develops the same distinction and the term "Magisterial Reformation" in George H. Williams, The Radical Reformation (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962) xxiii-xxxi. See also Roland Bainton, "The Left Wing of the Reformation," Journal of Religion 21 (1941):127.

The two distinguished between the visible and the invisible

66Ibid., 22. See also Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Modern Christianity, The German Reformation (reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967) 7:607.

67Williams, Radical Reformation xxiv; cf. also, Timothy George, Theology of the Reformers (Nashville: Broadman, 1988) 98.


church, viewing the invisible as the church made up of the elect only.68 Their view of the visible church, created by a magisterial church-state, precluded a simple doctrine of church and ministry. The difference between the two men was that Luther tended to retain in the church the traditions not specifically condemned in Scripture and Calvin tended to include only what Scripture taught explicitly about church ministry.69

According to general recognition, Martin Luther's doctrine of the church and ministry was complex and changed progressively throughout his life.

This difference is evident in the corresponding traditions of worship emerging from these founders, Lutheranism worship being very embellished and incorporating ritual and the Reformed mind-set reflecting more simple church settings.

70 In his "Open Letter to the Christian Nobility of the German Nation" (1520), Luther called for the pulling down of the three walls of Romanism and Popery, and offered proposals including reform to establish a simple national church with parish priests of godly character.71 The implementation of that church was more complex than Luther first envisioned,72 but contained the key elements of the preaching of the Word, the sacraments of baptism and the altar, the keys of Christian discipline and forgiveness, a called and consecrated ministry, public thanksgiving and worship, and suffering, the possession of the Holy Cross.73

68See R. L. Omanson, "The Church," Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984) 231.

He stressed ministry of the Word as the duty of pastors and of all believers. In particular, the functions of

69Williams notes this regulatory principle in The Radical Reformation xxvii. See also: Francois Wendel, Calvin (New York: Harper and Row, 1963) 301-2.

70Gordon Rupp, The Righteousness of God, Luther Studies (London: Hodder, 1953) 310-28.

71Martin Luther, "An Open Letter to the Christian Nobility of the German Nation Concerning the Reform of the Christian Estate," in Three Treatises (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg, 1947) 9-44, 47, 98.

72George, Theology 86-98.

73Rupp, Righteousness of God 322.


pastors included the ministry the Word, baptizing, administration of the sacred bread and wine, binding and loosing sin, and sacrifice.74 He put great emphasis on pastoral care, which always related directly to the ministry of the Word.75

Martin Bucer (1491-1551), an important disciple of Luther and a teacher of Calvin, had an important ministry in Strasbourg. Tidball rightly calls him the "Pastoral Theologian of the Reformation"

76 because of his extensive work in developing the office and work of the pastor. In his "De Regno Christi," Bucer identified three duties of a pastor: (1) a diligent teacher of the Holy Scriptures, (2) an administrator of the sacraments, and (3) a participator in the discipline of the church. The third duty had three parts: life and manners, penance (involving serious sin), and sacred ceremonies (worship and fasting). A fourth duty was care for the needy.77

Bucer wrote,

Those pastors and teachers of the churches who want to fulfill their office and keep themselves clean of the blood of those of their flocks who are perishing should not only publicly administer Christian doctrine, but also announce, teach and entreat repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, and whatever contributes toward piety, among all who do not reject this doctrine of salvation, even at home and with each one privately. . . . For the faithful ministers of Christ should imitate this their master and chief shepherd of the churches, and seek most lovely themselves whatever has been lost, including the hundredth sheep wandering from the fold, leaving behind the ninety-nine which remain in the Lord's fold (Matt 18:12).78

74Martin Luther, "Concerning the Ministry" (1523), in Luther's Works, Church and Ministry, ed. by Conrad Bergendoff, gen. ed. Helmut T. Lehmann (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1958) 40:21-29.

75Martin Luther, "Instructions for the Visitors of Parish Pastors in Electoral Saxony" (1528), in Luther's Works, Church and Ministry 40:269-320.

76Tidball, Skillful Shepherds 184,

77Martin Bucer, "De Regno Christi," Melanchthon and Bucer, in The Library of Christian Classics, ed. by Wilhelm Pauck (London: SCM, 1969) 19:232-59.

78Ibid., 235.


Calvin's contribution to a biblical understanding of pastoral ministry is tremendous. Though often viewed as primarily a theologian and exegete, Calvin was also a pastor and churchman.79

He devotes the fourth book of his Institutes to the church, speaking of the necessity of the church's function:

In order that the preaching of the Gospel might flourish, He deposited this treasure in the church. He instituted `pastors and teachers' [Eph 4:11] through whose lips He might teach His own; he furnished them with authority; finally, He omitted nothing that might make for holy agreement of faith and for right order.80

He used the title "mother" to illustrate the importance and place of the church: For there is no other way to enter into life unless this mother conceive

us in her womb, give us birth, nourish us at her breast, and lastly, unless she keep us under her care and guidance until, putting off mortal flesh, we become like the angels [Matt. 22:30]. Our weakness does not allow us to be dismissed from her school until we have been pupils all our lives.81

Calvin found the duties of a pastor throughout the Bible. Specifically, he observed that "the teaching and example of the New Testament set forth the nature and work of the pastorate in the calling and teaching of the apostles." This, he said, makes a delineation of ministerial work in the church an important aspect of theology.82

79For an excellent development of this side of Calvin, see, W. Stanford Reid, "John Calvin, Pastoral Theologian," The Reformed Theological Review 42 (1982):65-73. Cf. also Jim van Zyl, "John Calvin the Pastor," The Way Ahead (a paper read to the 1975 Carey Conference, Haywards Heath: Carey, 1975) 69-78.

80John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, in The Library of Christian Classics, vols. 20-21, ed. by John T. McNeill, trans. and indexed by Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960) iv:1:1 (21:1011-12).

81Ibid., iv:1:4 (21:1016).

82Reid, "John Calvin" 65-66.


Previous writings have described the fourfold office of pastor, teacher, elder, and deacon in Calvin's Geneva.83 Calvin placed strong emphasis on the preaching, governing, and pastoring: "A pastor needs two voices, one for gathering the sheep and the other for driving away wolves and thieves. The Scripture supplies him with the means for doing both."84 Furthermore, "Paul assigns to teachers the duty of carving or dividing the Word, like a father dividing the bread into small pieces to feed his children."85 Calvin's concern was the profit and edification of the hearer. To this he added the important tasks of administration of the sacraments and visitation of the sick. This philosophy developed into a church polity in Geneva that was difficult and complex due to Calvin's understanding of the visible church and a Christian magistracy.86

The most biblical of the outworkings of Calvin's ecclesiastical and civil views did not emerge until much later, since Calvin never rose above the magisterial state-church he inherited from Romanism. Woolley observes, "Calvin was influenced by Rome even while helping to counteract Rome," and "The greater fruitage of Calvin's ideas elsewhere than in Geneva is due to the fact that in other areas they were not subjected to implementation by the civil state to the same degree as was true in Geneva."

It resulted in a kind of Christian theocracy in Geneva because of the intersection of religious and civil authorities in implementing the polity.

87

83See George, Theology 235-49; cf. also, John T. McNeill, The History and Character of Calvinism (New York: Oxford, 1954) 214-21; John Calvin, Calvin's Ecclesiastical Advice, trans. by Mary Beaty and Benjamin W. Farley (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1991).

It was the issue of civil intolerance, brought

84John Calvin, The Epistle of Paul to Titus, in Calvin's New Testament Commentaries, ed. by David W. Torrance (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964) 361.

85John Calvin, The First and Second Epistles of Paul The Apostle to Timothy, in ibid., 314.

86Note the excellent work of Harro Hopfl, The Christian Polity of John Calvin (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982).

87Paul Woolley, "Calvin and Toleration," in The Heritage of John Calvin (Grand Rapids: Calvin College and Seminary, 1973) 138, 156.


about by the state-church such as existed at Geneva, that caused the Anabaptists to seek a more primitive and biblical church and ministry than what the Magisterial Reformers provided. This was an unfortunate flaw in the otherwise profound efforts of Calvin to purify, clarify, and systematize the truth of scriptural teaching regarding the ministry and other areas. One cannot consider the Reformation period without describing the legacy of biblical ministry from John Knox (1514`1572). Following Calvin's lead, Knox developed a manual for the English-speaking church of Geneva which he pastored from 1556`1559.88 In addition, his letters and pastoral records reflect a rich understanding of commitment to preach the Word with great passion, deep interest, and care for the spiritual welfare of men.89

The Anabaptist Reformation Anabaptism draws heavily on the work and influence of Luther and Zwingli in its contribution to biblical understanding of the church and its ministry. As hinted above, within the larger number known as "Anabaptists" was a smaller group whose root of faith was the Scripture, constituting them as the "true Anabaptists."90 This included men like Conrad Grebel (1495`1526), Michael Sattler (1490`1527), Balthasar Hubmaier (1480`1528), and Menno Simons (1496`1561). Though influenced by the theology of the magisterial reformers, these men went further in their efforts to re-institute a primitive, biblical church and ministry. In describing the nature of their ecclesiology, Bender remarks, "The Anabaptist idea of the church is derivative, based on the deeper idea of discipleship, which of course also implies an active covenanting into a brotherhood, without which discipleship could not be realized."91

88John Knox, "The Form of Prayers and Ministration of the Sacraments, Used in the English Congregation at Geneva, 1556," in The Works of John Knox, ed. by David Laing (Edinburgh: James Thin, 1895) 4:141-216.

89W. Stanford Reid, "John Knox, Pastor of Souls," WTJ 40 (1977):20-21.

90Note the classifications of Littell, Origins 163, and Williams, Spiritual and Anabaptist Writers 28-31.

91Harold S. Bender, "The Anabaptist Theology of Discipleship," Mennonite


As a general rule, the Anabaptists rejected the idea of an invisible church, viewing the church as a voluntary association of regenerated saints. They sought to restore the idea of a primitive NT church free from magisterial entanglements. This allowed the practice of church discipline, but meant that the church did not have a right to force its views on anyone or persecute those who opposed. Friedmann identifies the following characteristics of the Anabaptist church: (1) a visible covenantal community of believers, (2) a shared brotherhood practicing brotherly love, (3) a commitment to exclusion (ban) as an act of brotherly love, (4) a church of order where members submit to authority, (5) a suffering church under the cross, (6) a church practicing voluntarism or the liberty of conscience, and (7) a church practicing the two ordinances of baptism and the Lord's Supper.92

Within this primitive church structure, Anabaptism taught a simple ministry style. Michael Sattler described this ministry as follows:

This office [of Pastor] shall be to read, to admonish and teach, to

warn, to discipline, to ban in the church, to lead out in prayer for the advancement of all the brethren and sisters, to lift up the bread when it is broken, and in all things to see to the care of the body of Christ, in order that it may be built up and developed, and the mouth of the slanderer be stopped.93

Conrad Grebel held a similar position in his brief but important work,94 as did Balthasar Hubmaier`the scholar and pastor of Waldshut and Nikolsburg`in his major contribution.95

Quarterly Review 23 (1950):26; see also Harold S. Bender, The Anabaptist Vision (Scottdale: Herald, 1944).

The "Discipline of the Church,"

92Robert Friedmann, The Theology of Anabaptism (Scottdale: Herald, 1973) 122-43.

93"The Schleitheim Confession, 1527," in William Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions of Faith (Valley Forge: Judson, 1969) 22-30.

94Harold Bender, Conrad Grebel c. 1498—1526 (Goshen: Mennonite Historical Society, 1950) 204-8.

95Balthasar Hubmaier, Theologian of Anabaptism, trans. and ed. by H. Wayne Pipkin and John H. Yoder (Scottdale: Herald, 1989) 386-425. A careful study of these


an Anabaptist document from 1528, summarizes their position: The elders and preachers chosen for the brotherhood shall with zeal

look after the needs of the poor, and with zeal in the Lord according to the command of the Lord extend what is needed for the sake of and instead of the brotherhood (Gal. 2; II Cor. 8,9; Rom 15; Acts 6).96

Timothy George reports that Menno Simons97 said on his deathbed that nothing on earth was as precious to him as the church.98 This well summarizes the Anabaptist commitment to the primitive church and its ministry. Many paid the ultimate price for this love.99

The above discussion reveals that the Reformation era refocused the church on a biblical structure for the ministry. The Magisterial Reformers made significant progress in their reformation of the church. Among the Radical Reformers are those who carried through this commitment in seeking to re-institute a consistent biblical ministry.

THE MODERN PERIOD 1649—PRESENT The modern era has many examples of those who have sought a biblical church ministry. Some of them have drawn on the heritage of

writings reveals his deep commitment to sound preaching as well as strong pastoral commitment.

96"Discipline of the Church: How a Christian Ought to Live (October, 1527)," in Anabaptist Beginnings (1523-1533), ed. by William R. Estep (Nieuwkoop: De Graaf, 1976) 128.

97In a letter to Gellius Faber on the church and it ministry, Menno offers the following signs of the church: (1) the unadulterated doctrine of the divine Word, (2) the Scriptural use of the sacraments, (3) the obedience to the Word of God, (4) the unfeigned love of one's neighbor, (5) the confident confession of Christ, and (6) the bearing of Christ's testimony in persecution (Menno Simons, "Reply to Gellius Faber," The Complete Writings of Menno Simons [Scottdale: Herald Press, 1956] 739-41).

98George, Theology 285.

99William R. Estep (The Anabaptist Story [Nashville: Broadman, 1963]) gives a fair account of many Anabaptists persecutions.


progress toward a biblical ministry by the Magisterial Reformers. The survey of this chapter can cite only a few outstanding examples of biblical ministry. One such pastor was Richard Baxter (1615`1691), the early Puritan divine. He is best known for the book, The Reformed Pastor, which he wrote in 1656 during a nineteen-year pastorate in Kidderminister, England. The book concentrates on Acts 20:28 in developing his philosophy of ministry. He deals with the pastor's labors, confessions, motives, constraints, and dedication. The work is profoundly deep and intensely spiritual as it flows from the heart of a humble pastor to other pastors: I do now, in the behalf of Christ, and for the sake of his Church and

the immortal souls of men, beseech all the faithful ministers of Christ, that they will presently and effectually fall upon this work. . . . This duty hath its rise neither from us, but from the Lord, and for my part . . . tread me in the dirt.100

The larger Puritan movement advanced the church through its clear focus on the Word of God. Though never becoming a distinct and unified denomination, the Puritans nevertheless exerted considerable influence on many others. Anglicanism labeled most English Puritans nonconformists, yet the British Puritans were unable to establish their own churches as American Puritans were able to. Even in America, though, they identified with various denominations rather than forming their own church. Leland Ryken concludes: There was, to be sure, a theoretical Puritan consensus on most issues

involving worship and the theory of what a church is. Puritanism also bequeathed at least one permanent legacy, the phenomenon of a "gathered church" separate from the state and with an accompanying proliferation of independent churches.101

100Richard Baxter, The Reformed Pastor (London: Epworth, 1939) 58.

101Leland Ryken, Worldly Saints, The Puritans As They Really Were (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986) 112.


Ryken identifies several important aspects of the Puritan concept of the church. First, calling the extravagance and elaborate tradition in the church an inadequate authority for religious belief, Puritans reasserted the primacy of the Word, resorting to the "strongest control at their disposal, the Bible. They vowed to limit all church polity and worship practices to what could be directly based on statements or procedures found in the Bible."102 Second, Puritans viewed the church as a "spiritual reality." "It is not impressive buildings or fancy clerical vestments. It is instead the company of the redeemed," dissociated from any particular place. Certain activities and relationships`including preaching, sacraments, discipline, and prayer`define the church.103 Third, The Puritans elevated the lay person's role in the church and participation in worship. Many Puritans gravitated toward either Presbyterian or Congregational polity which provided for lay responsibility within each congregation in choosing ministers.104 Fourth, the Puritans embraced simplicity in various parts of worship. These included, orderly and clear organization, curbed ceremony and ritual, simplified church architecture and furnishings, simplified church music, simplification of the sacraments, and a clearly defined goal of worship.105

In this very biblical church setting the teaching and practice of true ministry was commonplace. The Puritan pastor was to preach, to minister the sacraments, and to pray. Preaching was primary, but closely associated was a godly life.

106

102Ibid., 112-13.

In his "Of the Calling of the Ministry," William Perkins (1558`1602) describes the minister as first, an "Angel" or "Messenger of God"`that is, the "Messenger of the Lord of Hosts" to the people. He is, second, an "Interpreter"`that is, "one who is able to deliver aright the reconciliation, made betwixt God and man."

103Ibid., 115-16.

104Ibid., 119, 123-24.

105Ibid., 121-23.

106Puritans associated theology with spirituality. See J. I. Packer, A Quest for Godliness, the Puritan Vision of the Christian Life (Wheaton: Crossway, 1990) 11-17.


"Every minister is a double Interpreter, God's to the people and the people's to God."107

To this he adds the necessity of being a "godly minister," and urges men to dedicate their sons to this, the highest office:

For the Physician's care for the body, or the Lawyer's care for the cause, are both inferior duties to this of the Minister. A good Lawyer may be one of ten, a good Physician one of twenty, a good man one of 100, but a good Minister is one of 1000. A good Lawyer may declare the true state of thy cause, a Physician may declare the true state of the body: No calling, no man can declare unto thee thy righteousness, but a true minister.108

This same pastoral perspective of Perkins characterized many future Puritans after him. "The great names of the Puritan era, John Owen, Thomas Brooks, Richard Sibbes, Robert Bolton, Thomas Manton, Thomas Goodwin and William Gurnal, all adopted this pastoral perspective in their writing of theology."109 The colorful ministry of William Tennent and his Log College in Neshaminy, Pennsylvania, is also worthy of note.110

Jonathan Edwards (1703`1758), known so well as a profound philosopher and theologian, was also a pastor. He wrote,

More especially is the uniting of a faithful minister with a particular

Christian people as their pastor, when done in a due manner, like a young man marrying a virgin. . . . The minister joyfully devoting himself to the service of his Lord in the work of the ministry, as a work that he delights in, and also joyfully uniting himself to the

107William Perkins, The Works of that Famous and Worthy Minister of Christ in the University of Cambridge, M. William Perkins, 3 vols. (Cambridge: 1608—1609) 3:430-31.

108Ibid., 435-36.

109Tidball, Skillful Shepherds 200. See also P. Lewis The Genius of Puritanism (Haywards Heath: Carey, 1975).

110See Archibald Alexander, The Log College (reprint, London: Banner of Truth, 1968); Archibald Alexander, comp. Sermons of the Log College (reprint, Ligonier, Pa: Soli Deo Gloria, n.d.).


society of the saints that he is set over . . . and they, on the other hand, joyfully receiving him as a precious gift of their ascended Redeemer.111

Westra states that Edwards knew the biblical name Jonathan meant "Jehovah's gift" and prayerfully dedicated himself to being "Jehovah's gift" to the souls of

his care; he did so wholeheartedly convinced that a faithful minister as a means of grace can be "the greatest blessing of anything in the world that ever God bestows on a people."112

One needs only to read the Puritans to see that they provide some of the finest pastoral theology of the modern period. After the Puritan era, Charles Bridges (1794`1869), a pastor in England for 52 years, wrote his respected The Christian Ministry. He combined a deep and accurate knowledge of Scripture with great spirituality and humility to produce a classic work worthy of careful reading. In a word, he feels that the "sum of our whole labor in this kind is to honor God, and to save men."113

Charles Spurgeon (1834`1892), primarily known for his preaching rather than his daily functions in the pastorate, taught his students the principles of preaching;

114 nevertheless, he viewed the ministry as centered around serving the spiritual needs of his people. He wrote, "Ministers are for churches, and not churches for ministers."115

111Jonathan Edwards, The Works of Jonathan Edwards, 2 vols. (reprint, Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1974) 2:19-20.

Significantly, the controversies surrounding Spurgeon's

112Helen Westra, "Jonathan Edwards and the scope of Gospel Ministry," Calvin Theological Journal 22 (1987):68; cf. also Edwards, Works 2:960.

113Charles Bridges, The Christian Ministry (reprint, London: Banner of Truth, 1959) 8.

114Charles Haddon Spurgeon, Lectures to My Students (reprint, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1954).

115Charles Haddon Spurgeon, The All Around Ministry (reprint, Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1960) 256.


ministry have everything to do with the application of his theology to pastoral duties, such as to evangelism in particular or philosophy of ministry in general.116

Nineteenth-century pastors, including G. Campbell Morgan (1863`1945)

117 and missionary Roland Allen (1868`1947), provided other important examples of faithful ministry.118 The long teaching ministry of Benjamin B. Warfield (1851`1921) at Princeton Theological Seminary (1887`1921) was a great positive influence in promoting biblical ministry.119

Since the twentieth century began, theological liberalism has found its way into every major denomination and replaced the passion for biblical ministry in many instances with an agenda of the social gospel.

120 The rise of New Evangelicalism121 in 1958, with it intentional accommodation of error, along with its subsequent tributaries122

116Iain H. Murray, The Forgotten Spurgeon (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1966) 45-46, 99-101, 153-65.

into

117G. Campbell Morgan, The Ministry of the Word (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1919), and Jill Morgan, A Man of the Word, Life of G. Campbell Morgan (New York: Revell, 1951).

118He is especially known for his works on indigenization of missions, see Roland Allen, The Spontaneous Expansion of the Church (London: World Dominion, 1960).

119Benjamin B. Warfield, "The Indispensableness of Systematic Theology to the Preacher," in Selected Shorter Writings of Benjamin B. Warfield—II, ed. by John E. Meeter (Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1973) 280-88. He writes, "Systematic Theology is, in other words, the preacher's true text-book" (228).

120See B. J. Longfield, "Liberalism/Modernism, Protestant (c. 1870s—1930s)," in Dictionary of Christianity in America, ed. by Daniel G. Reid (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1990) 646-48.

121Edward John Carnell, The Case for Orthodox Theology (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1959), and Roland Nash, The New Evangelicalism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1963) 13-17.

122See Richard Quebedeaux, The Young Evangelicals, Revolution in Orthodoxy (New York: Harper and Row, 1973), and Richard Quebedeaux, The Worldly Evangelicals (New York: Harper and Row, 1977).


pragmatic ministry, was another step away from biblical ministry.123 Much true biblical ministry in recent years occurs in smaller denomina-tions or churches which have continued the Free Church tradition.124

During the last half of the twentieth century, several prominent examples of biblical ministry are worthy of note. The unusual way God has used these men is the reason for citing them. It is not that they have been the only ones.

The nature of such ministry is obscure and often difficult to identify because of a lack of adequate documentation.

One prime example is D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones (1939`1981). Lloyd-Jones was well respected as an expository preacher, but he was also a devoted and faithful pastor. His biography is full of examples of both preaching and shepherding.125 He was first a preacher, advocat-ing the irreplaceability of biblical preaching, a right relationship with the congregation (the pew is never to dictate the message, but the preacher must listen to his people), and an adequate preparation of the preacher in all areas.126 He also had a reputation as a pastoral counselor. Murray records, "Next to the pulpit, Dr. Lloyd-Jones throughout his ministry was constantly engaged in seeking to help individuals."127 Interestingly, he viewed people as in need of spiritual rather than psychological help.128

123See John F. MacArthur, Jr., Ashamed of the Gospel, When the Church Becomes Like the World (Wheaton: Crossway, 1993). See also John F. MacArthur, Jr., Our Sufficiency in Christ (Dallas: Word, 1991).

Besides, Lloyd-Jones was a pastor to

124See Ernest A. Payne, Free Churchmen, Unrepentant and Repentant (London: Carey, 1965).

125Iain H. Murray, David Martyn Lloyd-Jones, The First Forty Years, 1899-1939 (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1982), and Iain H. Murray, David Martyn Lloyd-Jones, The Fight of Faith, 1939-1981 (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1990).

126D. Martin Lloyd-Jones, Preaching and Preachers (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1971) 26, 143, 165.

127Murray, Fight of Faith 403.

128Ibid.


pastors as he sought to instill in them what God had taught him.129

Another example of biblical ministry is that of Jay Adams, long-time professor at Westminster Theological Seminary and a pastor. Adams has contributed greatly to current understanding of biblical ministry in several areas. In each case he has built his understanding of pastoral theology firmly on his biblical and exegetical theology. His first major focus was counseling where he developed a biblical model of "Nouthetic Counseling"`note the Greek word nouthete~o`and emphasizing the need to confront sin with biblical teaching.

130 He has also developed a series of textbooks on pastoral theology, covering pastoral life, pastoral counseling, and pastoral leadership. The foundation of all these is his firm commitment to sound biblical theology.131

He has written,

The directions that one's practical activities take, the norms by which he operates and the motivation behind what he does must emerge from a biblical theological study of the Scriptures. The pursuit of Practical Theology, therefore, must be seen as the study and application of the biblical means of expressing one's theology.132

In recent years, Adams has devoted his thinking to biblical preaching and its importance in ministry.133

Another important example of biblical ministry is John MacAr-thur, Jr. MacArthur defines the term "Shepherdology" as (1) the study of shepherding, (2) the science of leading a flock, (3) a method of

All his teachings have had a profound effect in redirecting ministry toward the biblical pattern.

129Ibid., 697-713.

130Jay Adams, Competent to Counsel (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1970) 41-50. Behind this approach is a solid theological foundation, xi-xxii. Adams also draws from the presuppositional apologetics of Cornelius Van Til, The Defence of the Faith (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1955).

131Jay E. Adams, Shepherding God's Flock (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986) 1.

132Ibid, 2.

133Jay E. Adams, Preaching with Purpose (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982) xiii, 114.


biblical church leadership.134 He develops this term by understanding all ministry to flow from the teaching of Scripture.135 The book The Anatomy of the Church represents a significant contribution to a biblical philosophy of ministry in defining the church as (1) the skeletal structure`unalterable doctrines or non-negotiable truths; (2) the internal systems`proper spiritual attitudes; (3) the muscles`spiritual activities which include preaching and teaching, worship, discipleship, shepherding, and fellowship; and (4) the head`the person and work of Christ.136 This model has become the basis for biblical ministry in many churches. MacArthur is continuing to contribute significant works challenging the church not to drift away from the truth. The most significant of these compares the Down-Grade controversy of Spurgeon's day to the pragmatism of many contemporary evangelical churches.137

His contribution is most valuable because he is a committed expositor, a theologian, and a pastor. He is one who has chosen to write and address significant issues in a way that the entire church can understand. God has used him to build a significant church in the Spurgeon tradition, then to start schools for the training of a future generation of servants and preachers and to author significant works dealing with important theological issues facing the church today.

CONCLUSION This is but a brief history of biblical pastoral ministry. Such accounts are often based on those ministries whose record remains for future generations to examine. There are many faithful ministers who have also sought a biblical ministry and whose accomplishments only 134John F. MacArthur, Jr. Shepherdology, A Master Plan for Church Leadership (Panorama City: The Master's Fellowship, 1989) 3. This is now available in a revised edition entitled The Master's Plan for the Church (Chicago: Moody, 1991).

135Ibid., 3-5.

136Ibid., 9-64.

137MacArthur, Ashamed of the Gospel xi-xx. See also John MacArthur, Our Sufficiency in Christ 25-43.


heaven has recorded. The future examination of each man's ministry (1 Cor. 3:13-15) and the recounting of faithful ministry for God's glory will be a time of great rejoicing in heaven. Today's pastors can find great encouragement and receive great challenges by examining the lives and convictions of faithful ministers of the past. May this generation and future generations of Christ's servants commit themselves to the purest form of primitive, biblical ministry so that when history records their efforts, they may say with Paul, "I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith" (2 Tim 4:7, emphasis added).

181

TMSJ 6/2 (Fall 1995) 181-95

THE RELIGIOUS LIFEOF THEOLOGICAL STUDENTS1

Benjamin B. Warfield

A minister must be both learned and religious. It is not a matter ofchoosing between the two. He must study, but he must study as in thepresence of God and not in a secular spirit. He must recognize the privilege ofpursuing his studies in the environment where God and salvation from sinare the air he breathes. He must also take advantage of every opportunity forcorporate worship, particularly while he trains in the Theological Seminary. Christ Himself leads in setting the example of the importance of participatingin corporate expressions of the religious life of the community. Ministerialwork without taking time to pray is a tragic mistake. The two must combineif the servant of God is to give a pure, clear, and strong message.

* * * * *

I am asked to speak to you on the religious life of the student oftheology. I approach the subject with some trepidation. I think it themost important subject which can engage our thought. You will notsuspect me, in saying this, to be depreciating the importance of theintellectual preparation of the student for the ministry. Theimportance of the intellectual preparation of the student for the 1Editor's note: The earliest plan of The Master's Seminary Journal was to makeavailable for its readers some of the time-honored articles from past generations oftheologians and scholars. The following is the first such essay. It is an addressdelivered by Dr. Warfield at the Autumn Conference at Princeton TheologicalSeminary on October 4, 1911. Its treatment of the relationship between studyingtheology and maintaining personal spirituality [where Warfield uses "religious," mosttoday use the term "spiritual"] merits the renewed attention of Christian leaders of thefuture and present. The prefatory abstract is an editorial addition to the originalarticle.

182

ministry is the reason of the existence of our Theological Seminaries. Say what you will, do what you will, the ministry is a "learnedprofession"; and the man without learning, no matter with what othergifts he may be endowed, is unfit for its duties. But learning, thoughindispensable, is not the most indispensable thing for a minister. "Aptto teach"—yes, the ministry must be "apt to teach"; and observe thatwhat I say—or rather what Paul says—is "apt to teach." Not aptmerely to exhort, to beseech, to appeal, to entreat; nor even merely, totestify, to bear witness; but to teach. And teaching implies knowledge: he who teaches must know. Paul, in other words, requires of you, aswe are perhaps learning not very felicitously to phrase it,"instructional," not merely "inspirational," service. But aptness to teachalone does not make a minster; not is it his primary qualification. It isonly one of a long list of requirements which Paul lays down asnecessary to meet in him who aspires to this high office. And all therest concern, not his intellectual, but his spiritual fitness. A ministermust be learned, on pain of being utterly incompetent for his work. But before and above being learned, a minister must be godly.

Nothing could be more fatal, however, than to set these twothings over against one another. Recruiting officers do not disputewhether it is better for soldiers to have a right leg or a left leg: soldiersshould have both legs. Sometimes we hear it said that ten minutes onyour knees will give you a truer, deeper, more operative knowledgeof God than ten hours over your books. "What!" is the appropriateresponse, "than ten hours over your books, on your knees?" Whyshould you turn from God when you turn to your books, or feel thatyou must turn from your books in order to turn to God? If learningand devotion are as antagonistic as that, then the intellectual life is initself accursed, and there can be no question of a religious life for astudent, even of theology. The mere fact that he is a student inhibitsreligion for him. That I am asked to speak to you on the religious lifeof the student of theology proceeds on the recognition of the absurdityof such antitheses. You are students of theology; and, just because youare students of theology, it is understood that you are religious men—especially religious men, to whom the cultivation of your religious lifeis a matter of the profoundest concern—of such concern that you willwish above all things to be warned of the dangers that may assail yourreligious life, and be pointed to the means by which you maystrengthen and enlarge it. In your case there can be no "either—or"

The Religious Life of Theological Students 183

here—either a student or a man of God. You must be both.Perhaps the intimacy of the relation between the work of a

theological student and his religious life will nevertheless bear someemphasizing. Of course you do not think religion and studyincompatible. But it is barely possible that there may be some amongyou who think of them too much apart—who are inclined to set theirstudies off to one side, and their religious life off to the other side, andto fancy that what is given to the one is taken from the other. Nomistake could be more gross. Religion does not take a man away fromhis work; it sends him to his work with an added quality of devotion. We sing—do we not?—

Teach me, my God and King,In all things Thee to see—

And what I do in anything,To do it as for Thee.

If done t' obey Thy laws,E'en servile labors shine,

Hallowed is toil, if this the cause,The meanest work divine.

It is not just the way George Herbert wrote it. He put, perhaps, asharper point on it. He reminds us that a man may look at his work ashe looks at a pane of glass—either seeing nothing but the glass, orlooking straight through the glass to the wide heavens beyond. Andhe tells us plainly that there is nothing so mean but that the greatwords, "for thy sake," can glorify it:

A servant, with this clause,Makes drudgery divine,

Who sweeps a room as for Thy laws,Makes that, and the action, fine.

But the doctrine is the same, and it is the doctrine, the fundamentaldoctrine, of Protestant morality, from which the whole system ofChris-tian ethics unfolds. It is the great doctrine of "vocation," thedoctrine, to wit, that the best service we can offer to God is just to do


our duty—our plain, homely duty, whatever that may chance to be. The Middle Ages did not think so; they cut a cleft between thereligious and the secular life, and counseled him who wished to bereligious to turn his back on what they called "the world," that is tosay, not the wickedness that is in the world— "the world, the flesh andthe devil," as we say—but the work-a-day world, that congeries ofoccupations which forms the daily task of men and women, whoperform their duty to themselves and their fellowmen. Protestantismput an end to all that. As Professor Doumergue eloquently puts it,"Then Luther came, and, with still more consistency, Calvin,proclaiming the great idea of `vocation,' an idea and a word which arefound in the languages of all the Protestant peoples—Beruf, Calling,Vocation—and which are lacking in the languages of the peoples ofantiquity and of medieval culture. `Vocation'—it is the call of God,addressed to every man, whoever he may be, to lay upon him aparticular work, no matter what. And the calls, and therefore also thecalled, stand on a complete equality with one another. Theburgomaster is God's burgomaster; the physician is God's physician;the merchant is God's merchant; the laborer is God's laborer. Everyvocation, liberal, as we call it, or manual, the humblest and the vilest inappearance as truly as the noblest and the most glorious, is of divineright." Talk of the divine right of kings! Here is the divine right ofevery workman, no one of whom needs to be ashamed, if only he is anhonest and good workman. "Only laziness," adds ProfessorDoumergue, "is ignoble, and while Romanism multiplies its mendicantorders, the Reformation banishes the idle from its towns."

Now, as students of theology your vocation is to studytheology; and to study it diligently, in accordance with the apostolicinjunction: "Whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord." It isprecisely for this that you are students of theology; this is your "nextduty," and the neglect of duty is not a fruitful religious exercise. Dr.Charles Hodge, in his delightful auto-biographical notes, tells of PhilipLindsay, the most popular professor in the Princeton College of hisday—a man sought by nearly every college in the Central States for itspresidency—that "he told our class that we would find that one of thebest preparations for death was a thorough knowledge of the Greekgrammar." "This," comments Dr. Hodge, in his quaint fashion, "washis way of telling us that we ought to do our duty." Certainly, every


man who aspires to be a religious man must begin by doing his duty,his obvious duty, his daily task, the particular work which lies beforehim to do at this particular time and place. If this work happens to bestudying, then his religious life depends on nothing morefundamentally than on just studying. You might as well talk of afather who neglects his parental duties, of a son who fails in all theobligations of filial piety, of an artisan who systematically skimps hiswork and turns in a bad job, of a workman who is nothing better thanan eye-servant, being religious men as of a student who does not studybeing a religious man. It cannot be: you cannot build up a religiouslife except you begin by performing faithfully your simple, dailyduties. It is not the question whether you like these duties. You maythink of your studies what you please. You may consider that you aresinging precisely of them when you sing of "e'en servile labors," and of"the meanest work." But you must faithfully give yourselves to yourstudies, if you wish to be religious men. No religious character can bebuilt up on the foundation of neglected duty.

There is certainly something wrong with the religious life of atheological student who does not study. But it does not quite followthat therefore everything is right with his religious life if he doesstudy. It is possible to study—even to study theology—in an entirelysecular spirit. I said a little while ago that what religion does is to senda man to his work with an added quality of devotion. In saying that, Imeant the word "devotion" to be taken in both its senses—in the senseof "zealous application," and in the sense of "a religious exercise," asthe Standard Dictionary phrases the two definitions. A truly religiousman will study anything which it becomes his duty to study with"devotion" in both of these senses. That is what his religion does forhim: it makes him do his duty, do it thoroughly, do it "in the Lord." But in the case of many branches of study, there is nothing in thetopics studied which tends directly to feed the religious life, or to set inmovement the religious emotions, or to call out specifically religiousreaction. If we study them "in the Lord," that is only because we do it"for his sake," on the principle which makes "sweeping a room" an actof worship. With theology it is not so. In all its branches alike,theology has as its unique end to make God known: the student oftheology is brought by his daily task into the presence of God, and iskept there. Can a religious man stand in the presence of God, and not


worship? It is possible, I have said, to study even theology in a purelysecular spirit. But surely that is possible only for an irreligious man, orat least for an unreligious man. And here I place in your hands at oncea touchstone by which you may discern your religious state, and aninstrument for the quickening of your religious life. Do you prosecuteyour daily tasks as students of theology as "religious exercises"? If youdo not, look to yourselves: it is surely not all right with the spiritualcondition of that man who can busy himself daily with divine things,with a cold and impassive heart. If you do, rejoice. But in any case,see that you do! And that you do it ever more and more abundantly. Whatever you may have done in the past, for the future make all yourtheological studies "religious exercises." This is the great rule for a richand wholesome religious life in a theological student. Put your heartinto your studies; do not merely occupy your mind with them, but putyour heart into them. They bring you daily and hourly into the verypresence of God; his ways, his dealing with men, the infinite majesty ofhis Being form their very subject-matter. Put the shoes from off yourfeet in this holy presence!

We are frequently told, indeed, that the great danger of thetheological student lies precisely in his constant contact with divinethings. They may come to seem common to him, because they arecustomary. As the average man breathes the air and basks in thesunshine without ever a thought that it is God in his goodness whomakes his sun to rise on him, though he is evil, and sends rain to him,though he is unjust; so you may come to handle even the furniture ofthe sanctuary with never a thought above the gross early materials ofwhich it is made. The words which tell you of God's terrible majestyor of his glorious goodness may come to be mere words to you—Hebrew and Greek words, with etymologies, and inflections, andconnections in sentences. The reasonings which establish to you themysteries of his saving activities may come to be to you mere logicalparadigms, with premises and conclusions, fitly framed, no doubt, andtriumphantly cogent, but with no further significance to you than theirformal logical conclusiveness. God's stately stepping in hisredemptive processes may become to you a mere series of facts ofhistory, curiously interplaying to the production of social and religiousconditions, and pointing mayhap to an issue which we may shrewdlyconjecture: but much like other facts occurring in time and space,


which may come to your notice. It is your great danger. But it is yourgreat danger, only because it is your great privilege. Think of whatyour privilege is when your greatest danger is that the great things ofreligion may become common to you! Other men, oppressed by thehard conditions of life, sunk in the daily struggle for bread perhaps,distracted at any rate by the dreadful drag of the world upon themand the awful rush of the world's work, find it hard to get time andopportunity so much as to pause and consider whether there be suchthings as God, and religion, and salvation from the sin that compassesthem about and holds them captive. The very atmosphere of your lifeis these things; you breathe them in at every pore; they surround you,encompass you, press in upon you from every side. It is all in dangerof becoming common to you! God forgive you, you are in danger ofbecoming weary of God!

Do you know what this danger is? Or, rather, let us turn thequestion—are you alive to what your privileges are? Are you makingfull use of them? Are you, by this constant contact with divine things,growing in holiness, becoming every day more and more men of God? If not, you are hardening! And I am here today to warn you to takeseriously your theological study, not merely as a duty, done for God'ssake and therefore made divine, but as a religious exercise, itselfcharged with religious blessing to you; as fitted by its very nature tofill all your mind and heart and soul and life with divine thoughts andfeelings and aspirations and achievements. You will never prosper inyour religious life in the Theological Seminary until your work in theTheological Seminary becomes itself to you a religious exercise out ofwhich you draw every day enlargement of heart, elevation of spirit,and adoring delight in your Maker and your Savior.

I am not counseling you, you will observe, to make yourtheological studies your sole religious exercises. They are religiousexercises of the most rewarding kind; and your religious life will verymuch depend upon your treating them as such. But there are otherreligious exercises demanding your punctual attention which cannotbe neglected without the gravest damage to your religious life. I referparticularly now to the stated formal religious meetings of theSeminary. I wish to be perfectly explicit here, and very emphatic. Noman can withdraw himself from the stated religious services of thecommunity of which he is a member, without serious injury to his


personal religious life. It is not without significance that the apostolicwriter couples together the exhortations, "to hold fast the confession ofour hope, that it waver not," and "to forsake not the assembling ofourselves together." When he commands us not to forsake "theassembling of ourselves together," he has in mind, as the term heemploys shows, the stated, formal assemblages of the community, andmeans to lay upon the hearts and consciences of his readers their dutyto the church of which they are the supports, as well as their duty tothemselves. And when he adds, "As the custom of some is," he meansto put a lash into his command. We can see his lip curl as he says it. Who are these people, who are so vastly strong, so supremely holy,that they do not need the assistance of the common worship forthemselves; and who, being so strong and holy, will not give theirassistance to the common worship?

Needful as common worship is, however, for men at large, theneed of it for men at large is as nothing compared with its needfulnessfor a body of young men situated as you are. You are gatheredtogether here for a religious purpose, in preparation for the highestreligious service which can be performed by men—the guidance ofothers in the religious life; and shall you have everything else incommon except worship? You are gathered together here, separatedfrom your homes and all that home means; from the churches in whichyou have been brought up, and all that church fellowship means; fromall the powerful natural influences of social religion—and shall younot yourselves form a religious community, with its own organicreligious life and religious expression? I say it deliberately, that a bodyof young men, living apart in a community-life, as you are and mustbe living, cannot maintain a healthy, full, rich religious lifeindividually, unless they are giving organic expression to theirreligious life as a community in frequent stated diets of commonworship. Nothing can take the place of this common organic worshipof the community as a community, at its stated seasons, and as aregular function of the corporate life of the community. Without ityou cease to be a religious community and lack that support and stay,that incitement and spur, that comes to the individual from the organiclife of the community of which he forms a part.

In my own mind, I am quite clear that in an institution like thisthe whole body of students should come together, both morning and


evening, every day, for common prayer; and should join twice onevery Sabbath in formal worship. Without at least this much commonworship I do not think the institution can preserve its character as adistinctively religious institution—an institution whose institutionallife is primarily a religious one. And I do not think that the individualstudents gathered here can, with less full expression of the organicreligious life of the institution, preserve the high level of religious lifeon which, as students of theology they ought to live. You will observethat I am not merely exhorting you "to go to church." "Going tochurch" is in any case good. But what I am exhorting you to do is goto your own church—to give your presence and active religiousparticipation to every stated meeting for worship of the institution asan institution. Thus you will do your part to give to the institution anorganic religious life, and you will draw out from the organic religiouslife of the institution a support and inspiration for your own personalreligious life which you can get nowhere else, and which you cancannot afford to miss—if, that is, you have a care to your religiousquickening and growth. To be an active member of a living religiousbody is the condition of healthy religious functioning.

I trust you will not tell me that the stated religious exercises ofthe Seminary are too numerous, or are wearying. That would only beto betray the low ebb of your own religious vitality. The feet of himwhose heart is warm with religious feeling turn of themselves to thesanctuary, and carry him with joyful steps to the house of prayer. I amtold that there are some students who do not find themselves in aprayerful mood in the early hours of a winter morning; and are muchtoo tired at the close of a hard day's work to pray, and therefore do notfind it profitable to attend prayers in the late afternoon: who think thepreaching at the regular service on Sabbath morning dull anduninteresting, and who do not find Christ at the Sabbath afternoonconference. Such things I seem to have heard before; and yours will bean exceptional pastorate, if you do not hear something very like them,before you have been in a pastorate six months. Such things meet youevery day on the street; they are the ordinary expression of the heartwhich is dulled or is dulling to the religious appeal. They are nothopeful symptoms among those whose life should be lived on thereligious heights. No doubt, those who minister to you in spiritualthings should take them to heart. And you who are ministered to


must take them to heart, too. And let me tell you straightout that thepreaching you find dull will no more seem dull to you if you faithfullyobey the Master's precept: "Take heed how ye hear"; that if you do notfind Christ in the conference room it is because you do not take himthere with you; that, if after an ordinary day's work you are too wearyto unite with your fellows in closing the day with common prayer, it isbecause the impulse to prayer is weak in your heart. If there is no firein the pulpit it falls to you to kindle it in the pews. No man can fail tomeet with God in the sanctuary if he takes God there with him.

How easy it is to roll the blame of our cold hearts over upon theshoulders of our religious leaders! It is refreshing to observe howLuther, with his breezy good sense, dealt with complaints of lack ofattractiveness in his evangelical preachers. He had not sent them outto please people, he said, and their function was not to interest or toentertain; their function was to teach the saving truth of God, and, ifthey did that, it was frivolous for people in danger of perishing forwant of the truth to object to the vessel in which it was offered to them. When the people of Torgau, for instance, wished to dismiss theirpastors, because, they said, their voices were too weak to fill thechurches, Luther simply responded, "That's an old song: better havesome difficulty in hearing the gospel than no difficulty at all in hearingwhat is very far from the gospel." "People cannot have their ministersexactly as they wish," he declares again, "they should thank God forthe pure word," and not demand St. Augustines and St. Ambroses topreach it to them. If a pastor pleases the Lord Jesus and is faithful tohim,—there is none so great and mighty but he ought to be pleasedwith him, too. The point, you see, is that men who are hungry for thetruth and get it ought not to be exigent as to the platter in which it isserved to them. And they will not be.

But why should we appeal to Luther? Have we not theexample of our Lord Jesus Christ? Are we better than he? Surely, ifever there was one who might justly plead that the common worshipof the community had nothing to offer him it was the Lord JesusChrist. But every Sabbath found him seated in his place among theworshipping people, and there was no act of stated worship which hefelt himself entitled to discard. Even in his most exalted moods, andafter his most elevating experiences, he quietly took his place with therest of God's people, sharing with them in the common worship of the


community. Returning from that great baptismal scene, when theheavens themselves were rent to bear him witness that he was wellpleasing to God; from the searching trials of the wilderness, and fromthat first great tour in Galilee, prosecuted, as we are expressly told, "inthe power of the Spirit"; he came back, as the record tells, "to Nazareth,where he had been brought up, and"—so proceeds the amazingnarrative—"he entered, as his custom was, into the synagogue, on theSabbath day." "As his custom was!" Jesus Christ made it his habitualpractice to be found in his place on the Sabbath day at the stated placeof worship to which he belonged. "It is a reminder," as Sir WilliamRobertson Nicoll well insists, "of the truth which, in our fanciedspirituality, we are apt to forget—that the holiest personal life canscarcely afford to dispense with stated forms of devotion, and that theregular public worship of the church, for all its local imperfections anddullness, is a divine provision for sustaining the individual soul." "Wecannot afford to be wiser than our Lord in this matter. If any onecould have pled that his spiritual experience was so lofty that it did notrequire public worship, if any one might have felt that the consecrationand communion of his personal life exempted him from what ordinarymortals needed, it was Jesus. But he made no such plea. Sabbath bySabbath even he was found in the place of worship, side by side withGod's people, not for the mere sake of setting a good example, but fordeeper reasons. Is it reasonable, then, that any of us should think wecan safely afford to dispense with the pious custom of regularparticipation with the common worship of our locality?" Is itnecessary for me to exhort those who would fain be like Christ, to seeto it that they are imitators of him in this?

But not even with the most assiduous use of the corporateexpressions of the religious life of the community have you reachedthe foundation-stone of your piety. That is to be found, of course, inyour closets, or rather in your hearts, in your private religiousexercises, and in your intimate religious aspirations. You are here astheological students; and if you would be religious men, you must doyour duty as theological students; you must find daily nourishmentfor your religious life in your theological studies, you must enter fullyinto the organic religious life of the community of which you form apart. But to do all this you must keep the fires of religious life burningbrightly in your heart; in the inmost core of your being, you must be


men of God. Time would fail me, if I undertook to outline with anyfullness the method of the devout life. Every soul seeking Godhonestly and earnestly finds him, and, in finding him, finds the way tohim. One hint I may give you, particularly adapted to you as studentsfor the ministry: Keep always before your mind the greatness of yourcalling, that is to say, these two things: the immensity of the taskbefore you, the infinitude of the resources at your disposal. I think ithas not been idly said, that if we face the tremendous difficulty of thework before us, it will certainly throw us back upon our knees; and ifwe worthily gauge the power of the gospel committed to us, that willcertainly keep us on our knees. I am led to single out this particularconsideration, because it seems to me that we have fallen upon an agein which we very greatly need to recall ourselves to the seriousness oflife and its issues, and to the seriousness of our calling as ministers tolife. Sir Oliver Lodge informs us that "men of culture are notbothering," nowadays, "about their sin, much less about theirpunishment," and Dr. Johnston Ross preaches us a much neededhomily from that text on the "lightheartedness of the modern religiousquest." In a time like this, it is perhaps not strange that carefulobservers of the life of our Theological Seminaries tell us that the mostnoticeable thing about it is a certain falling off from the intenseseriousness of outlook by which students of theology were formerlycharacterized. Let us hope it is not true. If it were true, it would be agreat evil; so far as it is true, it is a great evil. I would call you back tothis seriousness of outlook, and bid you cultivate it, if you would bemen of God now, and ministers who need not be ashamed hereafter. Think of the greatness of the minister's calling; the greatness of theissues which hang on your worthiness or your unworthiness for itshigh functions; and determine once for all that with God's help youwill be worthy. "God had but one Son," says Thomas Goodwin, "andhe made him a minister." "None but he who made the world," saysJohn Newton, "can make a minister"—that is, a minister who isworthy.

You can, of course, be a minister of a sort, and not be God-made. You can go through the motions of the work, and I shall not saythat your work will be in vain—for God is good and who knows bywhat instruments he may work his will of good for men? HelenJackson pictures far too common an experience when she paints the


despair of one whose sowing, though not unfruitful for others, bearsno harvest in his own soul.

O teacher, then I said, thy years,Are they not joy? each word that issuethFrom out thy lips, doth it return to blessThine own heart manyfold?

Listen to the response:

I starve with hunger treading out their corn,I die of travail while their souls are born.

She does not mean it in quite the evil part in which I am reading it. But what does Paul mean when he utters that terrible warning: "Lestwhen I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway?" Andthere is an even more dreadful contingency. It is our Savior himselfwho tells us that it is possible to compass sea and land to make oneproselyte, and when we have made him to make him twofold more achild of hell than we are ourselves. And will we not be in awful perilof making our proselytes children of hell if we are not ourselveschildren of heaven? Even physical waters will not rise above theirsource: the spiritual floods are even less tractable to our commands. There is no mistake more terrible than to suppose that activity inChristian work can take the place of depth of Christian affections.

This is the reason why many good men are shaking their headsa little today over a tendency which they fancy they see increasingamong our younger Christian workers to restless activity at theapparent expense of depth of spiritual culture. Activity, of course, isgood: surely in the cause of the Lord we should run and not be weary. But not when it is substituted for inner religious strength. We cannotget along without our Marthas. But what shall we do when, throughall the length and breadth of the land, we shall search in vain for aMary? Of course the Marys will be as little admired by the Marthastoday as of yore. "Lord," cried Martha, "dost thou not care that mysister hath left me to serve alone?" And from that time to this the cryhas continually gone up against the Marys that they waste theprecious ointment which might have been given to the poor, when


they pour it out to God, and are idle when they sit at the Master's feet. A minister, high in the esteem of the churches, is even quoted asdeclaring—not confessing, mind you, but publishing abroad assomething in which he gloried—that he has long since ceased to pray: he works. "Work and pray" is no longer, it seems, to be the motto of atleast ministerial life. It is to be all work and no praying; the onlyprayer that is prevailing, we are told, with the same cynicism withwhich we are told that God is on the side of the largest battalions—isjust work. You will say this is an extreme case. Thank God, it is. Butin the tendencies of our modern life, which all make for ceaseless—Ihad almost said thoughtless, meaningless—activity, have a care that itdoes not become your case; or that your case—even now—may nothave at least some resemblance to it. Do you pray? How much doyou pray? How much do you love to pray? What place in your lifedoes the "still hour," alone with God, take?

I am sure that if you once get a true glimpse of what theministry of the cross is, for which you are preparing, and of what you,as men preparing for this ministry, should be, you will pray, Lord,who is sufficient for these things, your heart will cry; and your wholesoul will be wrung with the petition: Lord, make me sufficient forthese things. Old Cotton Mather wrote a great little book once, toserve as a guide to students for the ministry. The not very happy titlewhich he gave it is Manductio ad Ministerium. But by a stroke of geniushe added a sub-title which is more significant. And this is the sub-titlehe added: The angels preparing to sound the trumpets. That is whatCotton Mather calls you, students for the ministry: the angels,preparing to sound the trumpets! Take the name to yourselves, andlive up to it. Give your days and nights to living up to it! And then,perhaps, when you come to sound the trumpets the note will be pureand clear and strong, and perchance may pierce even to the grave andwake the dead.

197

TMSJ 6/2 (Fall 1995) 197-221

CHARLES FINNEY'S THEOLOGY OF REVIVAL:MORAL DEPRAVITY

Sean Michael Lucas1

Charles G. Finney is famous for his career in revival ministries, but hepatterned his theology to fit his revivalistic practices. His unique view oforiginal sin included a distinction between physical and moral depravity, theuniversal nature of moral depravity, and a rejection of the doctrine ofimputation. Three possible reasons for his alteration of the theology in whichhe received training include the influences of Jacksonian democracy, aninclination toward favoring his legal training, and pragmatism. Finney hashad a lasting influence on the church, including those who tend towardpragmatic methodology in ministry. Today's church must beware of suchpragmatism and of being dragged into Finney's Pelagianistic theology.

* * * * *

In the study of American evangelicalism, it is important torecognize key contributors to the evangelical mind, individuals whoseinfluence is still apparent. One such key individual is CharlesGrandison Finney.2 Perhaps Finney's ability to popularize is one

1Sean Michael Lucas is in the PhD program at Westminster Theological Seminary,Philadelphia. He has bachelor and master degrees from Bob Jones University. Hislocal church affiliation is with the Open Bible Baptist Church, Furlong, PA.

2Mark Noll believes that Finney "may have had a greater impact on the public lifeof antebellum America than any of the nation's politicians" (A History of Christianity inthe United States and Canada [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1992] 170). SydneyAhlstrom calls Finney "an immensely important man in American history by anystandard of measure" (A Religious History of the American People [New Haven: YaleUniversity, 1972] 461). Others also call Finney a giant on the evangelical landscape(Paul K. Conkin, The Uneasy Center: Reformed Christianity in Antebellum America[Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 1995] 262; Donald W. Dayton, Discovering

198

reason he is such an important figure in history. He popularized the"New Measures" methodology, which he borrowed from theMethodists and perfected for his ends.3 From the Methodist"mourner's bench" to Wesleyan perfectionism, Finney adapted variousparts of Methodism into a New School Presbyterian framework.

an Evangelical Heritage [1988 rpt., Peabody, MA: Hendricksen, 1976] 15-24; Timothy L.Smith, Revivalism and Social Reform: American Protestantism on the Eve of the Civil War[1980 rpt., Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 1957]).

3Conkin, Uneasy Center 122, 262-63.

Charles Finney's Theology of Revival: Moral Depravity 199

In addition, he popularized the New Haven theology. Thisnew mutation of the New Haven theology has been called "OberlinTheology" by historians because it includes the addition of Christianperfectionism.4 Finney popularized this new brand of theologyaround the country, arguing that his success as a revivalist justified histheological positions.5

James Johnson, in a seminal journal article, suggests that Finneyconsciously sought to develop a theology which would be "patternedto fit his career as a revivalist. . . . Since his theological system wasdesigned to complement his career as an evangelist, his theology oftenassumed strange shapes in order to accommodate to the revivalisticmilieu."6 Johnson, in the rest of his essay, sketches Finney's modifica-tions in each area of theology. Johnson argues that it was necessary forFinney to set aside the Calvinistic developments on depravity,regeneration, and natural ability so that he could "construct aconsistent system of free will and moral responsibility, and thusproject an all-inclusive invitation into his revival meetings."7 By

4Frank Hugh Foster states that "among the great leaders of New England" Finneywas "Taylor's true successor" (A Genetic History of the New England Theology [rpt., NewYork: Garland, 1987] 453). Keith Hardman, the recent biographer of Finney, arguesthat Finney's theology was essentially Pelagianistic and that he was the "mostprominent exponent of the New Haven theology" in the United States (CharlesGrandison Finney 1792-1875: Revivalist and Reformer [Syracuse: Syracuse University,1987] 46-48, 100, 226, 289).

5Finney, in his Memoirs, seems desirous to stress this point. In comparing his ownministry to that of his first theological teacher, George Gale (who at first was OldSchool in his views), Finney writes, "He [Gale] followed out his views with very littlepractical result. I pursued mine, and by the blessing of God the results were theopposite of those which he predicted. When this fact came out clearly in my labors, itcompletely upset his theological and practical education as a minister. This result . . .annihilated his hope as a Christian, and finally made him quite another man as aminister" (The Memoirs of Charles G. Finney: The Complete Restored Text [hereafterMemoirs], Garth M. Rosell and Richard A. G. Dupuis, eds. [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989] 57, cf. 154, where Finney records that Gale changes his theologicalposition strictly on pragmatic grounds).

6J. E. Johnson, "Charles G. Finney and a Theology of Revivalism," CH 38 (1969):338.

7Ibid., 344.


insisting that depravity resides in the free moral decision of anindividual, Finney tried to persuade the individual to change hispattern of decision from self-gratification to glorifying God. Thus, hecould record "conversions."

This essay will develop Johnson's suggestive thesis, that Finneyactively and consciously molded his theology to fit his revivalisticpurposes. Finney recognized that the positions which he held werevastly different from the moderately Calvinistic milieu which stillcharacterized evangelicalism at that time.8 One question which haspuzzled scholars is which came first, Finney's theology or revivalisticsuccess. The question is problematic because Finney makes it appearin his Memoirs that he had always held the New Haven theologywhich he articulated in later life. However, that he always held theNew Haven theology is unlikely. It is far more likely that he did notform his positions during the revivalistic struggles, but in the quietreflection of the Ohio wilderness at Oberlin.9 To substantiate thisthesis, the following discussion will develop a case study, examiningthe area of moral depravity. How did Finney modify his doctrine oforiginal sin to promote his revivalistic career?

HOW FINNEY MODIFIED HIS THEOLOGY

Though a minister in the Presbyterian church, and though he

8For example, Finney opens his Memoirs by stating that his purpose was to defendthe revivals which he conducted. Here he acknowledges that "this movementinvolved, to a considerable extent, the development of some modified views ofChristian doctrine which had not been common, and was brought about by somechanges in the means of carrying forward the work of evangelization" (Memoirs, 1). He also acknowledges that "many have looked upon me as rather prominent,especially in assailing some of the old forms of theological thought and expressionand in stating the doctrines of the Gospel in many respects in new language, andintroducing other forms of thought" (ibid., 2).

9Hardman, Charles Grandison Finney 384. In all probability, for Finney the newmeasures came first and then the theology. Finney began his missionary service in1824, three years after his conversion. In just three years he was the rage of NewYork revivalism, leading up to the famous New Lebanon Conference with AshaelNettleton and Lyman Beecher in 1827. Considering this sequence, the strongimplication is that Finney sought to justify his revivalistic practice with his theology.


subscribed to the Westminster standards as part of his ordinationvows, Finney's attitude toward the evangelical theology of his fellowchurchmen was less than charitable. Finney was particularlyvehement in his attitude toward the Old School theology which headmits was the theology of "most of the Presbyterian ministers of thatday."10 Finney felt the Old School theology was "utterly erroneous"and feared "that it has been instrumental in ruining hundreds ofthousands of souls."11 In his theological magnum opus—Lectures onSystematic Theology, written when he was the professor of SystematicTheology at Oberlin Collegiate Institute (later Oberlin College)—Finney says he was "embarrassed" by the Old School position on man'smoral depravity:

The doctrines of a nature, sinful per se, of a necessitated will, ofinability, and of physical regeneration, and a physical Divineinfluence in regeneration, with their resulting and kindred dogmas,embarrassed and even confounded me at every step.12

At another point, the Old School teaching on moral depravityappears to make him very upset when he writes,

This doctrine is a stumbling block both to the church and to theworld, infinitely dishonorable to God, and an abomination alike toGod and to the human intellect, and should be banished from everypulpit and from every formula of doctrine, and from the world. It isthe relic of heathen philosophy, and was foisted in among the

10Memoirs 152. "Old School" theology is that theological position which heldstrictly to the Westminster Standards. It opposed to the "New School" theology,which modified doctrines of the will, moral depravity, and regeneration. Thistheological battle eventually led to the division of the Presbyterian church in 1837. For a recent discussion of the issues involved, see George Marsden, The EvangelicalMind and the New School Presbyterian Experience (New Haven: Yale University, 1970).

11Ibid., 274.

12C. G. Finney, Lectures on Systematic Theology (reprint of 1878 ed., Minneapolis,MN: Bethany House Publishers, 1994) 1 [hereafter referred to as FST]. Finney sayslater in the paragraph, "The distinction between original and actual sin, and the utterabsence of a distinction between physical and moral depravity, embarrassed me."


doctrines of Christianity by Augustine, as everyone may know whowill take the trouble to examine for himself.13

Finney also calls Old School formulation of the doctrine ofmoral depravity "absurd," "anti-Scriptural and non-sensical dogma,"and claims that it makes the gospel "a farce". At one point, Finneymocks his opponents with sarcasm when he writes, "Sin an attribute ofnature! A sinful substance! Sin a substance! Is it a solid, a fluid, amaterial or a spiritual substance?"14 Finney demonstrates clearopposition to the Old School theology.

How did Finney mold his theology of revival in relation to thedoctrine of moral depravity? He did it first by postulating adistinction between moral and physical depravity. This distinctionlimited sin to the act of sinning and postulated an option to thehistorical position of constitutional depravity. However, Finney wascareful not to allow anyone to believe that he was free from sin; rather,he argued extensively for the universal moral depravity of everyindividual. He had to argue thus so that he could justify preachingregeneration and conversion to the masses. Finally, Finney denied theidea of imputation of Adam's sin. He set forth a key theological axiomthat it was impossible for one man to do something in the place ofanother. However, according to Finney, Adam's sin did have an effecton his posterity; it exposed man to aggravated temptation as a resultof physical depravity, which had no moral character in itself because itwas involuntary. Thus, Finney secured his theology of revival bybuilding a case for sin's residing solely in the individual's will,bringing deserved guilt upon the individual, and offering thepossibility of the sinner "making himself a new heart" in conversion.

A Distinction Between Physical and Moral DepravityThe first innovation that Finney proposed in developing his

theology of revival was a unique distinction between physical andmoral depravity. In Finney's system, "physical depravity is thedepravity of the constitution, or substance, as distinguished from

13Ibid., 263.

14Ibid., 261-62.


depravity of free moral action. It may be predicated of the body ormind."15 What Finney meant by physical depravity was thedeterioration of the body and of the mind, whether throughdebilitating disease or through old age. It may be or is a result ofmoral depravity; however, it is important to note that for Finney thisphysical depravity "can have no moral character in itself, for the plainreason that it is involuntary, and in its nature is disease and not sin."16 This distinction becomes important later in his argument, for Finneywill declare that the sensibilities are physically depraved and thereforeprovide a powerful, almost irresistible temptation to the will to sin.

Contrasted to physical depravity is moral depravity:

Moral depravity is depravity of free will, not of the faculty itself, butof its free action. It consists in the violation of moral law. . . . Moraldepravity is depravity of choice. It is a choice at variance with morallaw, moral right. It is synonymous with sin and sinfulness.17

Notice that it is not depravity of the will, for that would be physicaldepravity. Rather, moral depravity is a choice in violation of themoral law. What was a choice in violation of the moral law forFinney? A choice in violation of the moral law consisted in "the choiceof self-indulgence or self-gratification as an end."18 Simply stated, forCharles Finney, moral depravity equals sin, sin equals selfishness, andsin can only happen where there is sinning. He writes,

Moral depravity, as I use the term, does not consist in nor imply asinful nature in the sense that the substance of the human soul issinful in itself. It is not a constitutional sinfulness. It is not aninvoluntary sinfulness.19

15Ibid., 243.

16Ibid. 243-44. Finney also argued this when he wrote, "It should be distinctlyremember that physical depravity has no moral character in itself" (265).

17Ibid.

18Ibid., 245.

19Ibid.


Sin must be voluntary to have moral character.Through this rationale Finney provided himself an opportunity

to construct a theology of revival; he argues for a distinction betweenmoral depravity and physical depravity, only the former having amoral character. A sin nature is nonexistent; rather sin consists solelyin sinning, the decisions of the will to satisfy self rather than glorifyGod. Therefore, in order to have a conversion, it is necessary toconvince an individual to cease making decisions to satisfy self and tobegin making decisions to glorify God. This was conversion, the warpand woof of Finney's revivalism.

The Universal Nature Of DepravityHaving developed a distinction between physical and moral

depravity and argued that moral depravity resides solely in thedecisions of the will, Finney had to prove for the sake of his revivalisticinstincts that sin is universal. He had to demonstrate this in order forlisteners to feel the necessity of conversion. So he sought to demon-strate that "subsequent to the commencement of moral agency, andprevious to regeneration, the moral depravity of mankind isuniversal."20

In arguing this point, Finney offered several supportingreasons. First, Finney contended that it is universally true that manhas a wicked heart.21 What did he mean by "heart"? He equated heartwith character and wrote, "The very idea of moral character implies,and suggests the idea of, a free action or intention."22 That is, the heart

20Ibid., 247.

21Ibid.

22Ibid., 245. Elsewhere Finney writes, "The heart is often spoken of in the Bible, notonly as possessing moral character, but as being the source of moral action, or as thefountain, from which good and evil actions flow, and of course as constituting thefountain of holiness or of sin, or, in other words still, as comprehending, strictlyspeaking, the whole of moral character. . . . Our own consciousness, then, mustinform us that the heart of the mind that possesses these characteristics, can benothing else than the supreme ultimate intention of the soul. . . . Now we have seenabundantly, that moral character belongs to, or is an attribute of, the ultimate choiceor intention of the soul" (ibid., 272-273).


really equates to the will, in biblical usage; the understanding and theaffections are in the category of physical depravity, which has nomoral character. Therefore, Finney's first argument to support thenotion of the universal nature of moral depravity was the declarationthat men everywhere consistently make corrupt decisions because thewill is depraved. Next, Finney argued that the universal need ofregeneration proves that humankind is universally depraved. Third,universal observation proves that all are morally depraved. Finally,Finney argued that the universal consciousness of the unregenerateproves that all are depraved.23

Not only did Finney believe moral depravity to be universal, healso saw moral depravity as total and complete. He argued this bydemanding that "the moral depravity of the unregenerate is withoutany mixture of moral goodness or virtue, that while they remainunregenerate, they never in any instance or in any degree, exercisetrue love to God and to man."24 Yet Finney held that man was borninnocent. How then can Finney argue that unregenerate individualscan "never, in any instance or in any degree" exercise genuine love toGod or man? He can do so because of his definition of sin. To Finney,sin is selfishness: "sin consists in the spirit of self-seeking."25

Though born innocent, man can only have one end at a time; itis plain to Finney that "the will cannot embrace at the same time twoopposite ends; and that while one end is chosen, the will cannot putforth volitions to secure some other end."26 Thus, man cannot have the

23Finney stated these points much the same way; he simply offered thepropositions with a Scripture passage and no other support (cf. FST, 247-48).

24Ibid., 248. It is this negative portrayal of unregenerate man that leads L. Sweet tocomment, "Notwithstanding Finney's disavowal of the mechanistic limitationsimposed upon human nature by the Old School Calvinists, Finney's moral modelwhich stressed human freedom, responsibility, and ability commensurate with dutyresulted in the same practical view of man: all men were inevitably sinners,unwilling but not unable to perform all that God required. . . . Moral depravityreplaced physical depravity. But it was depravity nonetheless, a depravity madeworse by being of man's own making" (L. I. Sweet, "The View of Man Inherent InNew Measures Revivalism," CH 45 [1976]:207).

25FST 178.

26Ibid., 248-49.


mutually exclusive ends of self-love and love toward God, of self-gratification and glorification of God. It is an impossibility. Men must"change their hearts, or their choice of an end" before they can possiblechoose an end other than self-love.27 This simplified the revivalist'stask. All that is necessary for the revivalist to do is to persuade theindividual to "make a decision" to choose to glorify God (a decisioncouched in language such as "make a decision for Jesus"); if the sinnerchooses God, this is conversion.

In order to avoid postulating an inherited (or as Finney wouldsay, "necessitated") corrupt nature for mankind, Finney sketched outan alternative. He worked from the basic presupposition that "moraldepravity consists, remember, in the committal of the will to thegratification or indulgence of self—in the will's following, orsubmitting itself to be governed by, the impulses and desires of thesensibility, instead of submitting itself to the law of God revealed byreason."28 Notice the latter part of the explanation—Finney saw sinoccurring whenever the will submits itself to sense-based desires. Therefore, the actual body is the enemy. He wrote, "It is plain that bythe term flesh they [i.e. the Scripture writers] mean what weunderstand by the sensibility, as distinguished from intellect, and thatthey represent sin, as consisting in obeying, minding, the impulses ofthe sensibility. . . . The body is the occasion of sin."29 If the body is theoccasion of sin, how does it gain the upper hand on the will, so that inevery case, the will chooses the end of self-gratification? Finneyanswers by arguing,

27Ibid., 249. This change of one's heart for Finney is "regeneration": "Regenerationthen is the radical change of the ultimate intention, and, of course, of the end or objectof life. . . . Regeneration to have the characteristics ascribed to it in the Bible, mustconsist in a change in the attitude of the will, or a change in its ultimate choice,intention or preference."

28Ibid., 264-65.

29Ibid., 264. That Finney understood flesh to be the same as the body man inhabitsis proven by the fact that he was a strong advocate of the Graham diet. By placing hisbody under the regimen of the Graham diet, he felt he could minimize the effects ofphysical depravity upon the will. See Hardman, Charles Grandison Finney 362-63;Dayton, Evangelical Heritage 42.


The sensibility acts as a powerful impulse to the will, from themoment of birth, and secures the consent and activity of the will toprocure its gratification, before the reason is at all developed. Thewill is thus committed to the gratification of feeling and appetite,when first the idea of moral obligation is developed. This committedstate of the will is not moral depravity, and has no moral character,until the idea of moral obligation is developed. The moment this ideais developed, this committal of the will to self-indulgence must beabandoned, or it becomes selfishness or moral depravity. But, as thewill is already in a state of committal, and has to some extent alreadyformed the habit of seeking to gratify feeling, and as the idea of moralobligation is at first but feebly developed, unless the Holy Spiritinterferes to shed light on the soul, the will, as might be expected,retains its hold on gratification.30

Notice two things about this statement. First, Finney's attitudetoward the body was to call it "feeling and appetite." At first glance hisstatements parallel ancient Gnostic sentiments concerning the dualityof matter and spirit. To Finney as to the Gnostics, the flesh—feelingsand appetites which reside in the sensibility—is evil; the goal is to gaindominance over the will so that the will may consistently and infalliblychoose to gratify the senses. On the other hand, the spirit, which forFinney consisted in a desire to do God's will as revealed in his morallaws, is righteous and seeks dominance of the will as well. However,the flesh has the upper hand, for from birth it teaches the infant tochoose self-gratification continually.

A second aspect in the above explanation is Finney's attitudetoward infants. He felt that children can sin, but because infants donot have moral obligation, what they do is not truly sin. Infantscannot be "moral agents" since they cannot understand what they havedone. Since they are not moral agents, they do not have "moralobligation"; and without moral obligation, sin cannot happen. Besides,"Previous to moral agency, infants are no more subjects of moralgovernment than brutes are; therefore, their sufferings and death areto be accounted for as are those of brutes, namely, by ascribing them to

30FST 265.


physical interference to the laws of life and health."31 Infants, then, arenot under God's moral government; they have no moral obligationbecause they are not moral agents. They are simply amoral brutes,until that point in time the reason develops to the degree that itactivates moral agency.

What happens to the infant that dies before reaching the pointin time of becoming a "moral agent"? Finney argues that "if infants aresaved at all, as I suppose they are, they are rescued by the benevolenceof God from circumstances that would result in certain and eternaldeath, and are by grace made heirs of life."32 So then the basis ofinfants' salvation is the benevolence of God. This means it cannot betruly of grace, though Finney claims it is, for how can God showunmerited favor to one who is innocent? In the end, however, "it isuseless to speculate about the character and destiny of those who arenot confessedly moral agents."33

"Moral depravity is then universally owing to temptation. Thatis, the soul is tempted to self-indulgence, and yields to the temptation,and this yielding, and not the temptation, is sin or moral depravity."34 Just as with humankind's first parents, who yielded to temptation inthe Garden, so with humankind; each individual will inevitablychoose to yield to the temptation offered by the flesh at the beginningof life as infants. As this habit continues, the flesh soon gainsascendancy over the will so as to enslave the will to bodily appetites. By the time the infant realizes its moral obligation to forsake sin andchose righteousness, it cannot; it has become morally depraved, lockedby the chains of self-indulgence.

In the light of the fact that the flesh overpowers the will beforean individual becomes a moral agent, so that properly it is not truly"free," how does Finney argue this position consonant with hisdemand for a truly free will? He did not answer this question; hesimply stated, "Free, responsible will is an adequate cause in the face of

31Ibid., 259.

32Ibid., 261.

33Ibid.

34Ibid., 265.


temptation" to account for moral depravity.35 He said nothing more toexplain this seeming contradiction. Thus, in maintaining his theologyof revivalism with its emphasis on immediate conversion andregeneration, Finney had to demonstrate that all individuals need tobe saved from their moral depravity.

He offered supporting arguments to prove that moraldepravity is universal and total. However, in order to avoidpostulating a necessitated corrupt nature, he speculated concerningthe methodology which sees humankind as universally depraved,starting at birth to develop a pattern of habitually capitulating to thesense-based desires of the flesh. By the time the infant acquires themoral obligation to leave off self-gratification, he finds it impossibleand has become moral depraved. Therefore, it is necessary for theindividual to choose to satisfy self no longer, and to change hishabitual choice so that he consistently chooses to obey God's law. When the individual changes his own will, Finney deemed thisconversion. This process of conversion is the essence of revivalism.

The Question of ImputationAfter a look at Finney's distinction between moral and physical

depravity and the way he accounts for universal moral depravity, anexamination of Finney's view of how Adam's sin relates to hisposterity is next in order. Finney, in seeking to maintain the individu-al's responsibility for his own sin, denied the idea of imputationaltogether. He did not address directly the idea of the imputation ofAdam's sin, but he denied the imputation of Christ's righteousness tobelievers. Writing on justification, Finney said,

The doctrine of an imputed righteousness, or that Christ's obedience tothe law was accounted as our obedience, is founded on a most false andnonsensical assumption; to wit, that Christ owed no obedience to thelaw in His own person, and that therefore his obedience wasaltogether a work of supererogation, and might be made a substitutefor our own obedience; that it might be set down to our credit,because he did not need to obey for Himself. . . . If Christ owedpersonal obedience to the moral law, then his obedience could no

35Ibid., 258.


more justify himself. It can never be imputed to us. He was bound forHimself to love God with all his heart, and soul, and mind, andstrength, and his neighbor as Himself. He did no more than this. Hecould do no more. It was naturally impossible, then, for Him to obey inour behalf.36

Obviously for Finney, it is impossible for one man to do somethingin the place of another. This axiom was a controlling principle in histheology. This accounts for why he indirectly denied the imputationof Adam's sin, why he defended the governmental view of theatonement, and why he demanded that sinners change their ownhearts. In dealing with the key passage for the imputation of Adam'ssin, Rom 5:12-21, Finney simply gave it a passing notice:

The Bible once, and only once, incidentally intimates that Adam'sfirst sin has in one way been the occasion, not necessarily physicalcause of all the sins of men [Rom 5:12-19]. It neither says norintimates anything in relation to the manner in which Adam's sin hasoccasioned this result. It only incidentally recognizes the fact, andthen leaves it, just as if the quo modo was too obvious to needexplanation.37

In Finney's understanding, Paul does not go into detail in this passage. He simply assumed that his readers would understand how Adam'ssin effected his posterity. Indeed, Paul used Adam's sin as a type ofrhetorical device in his letter. Thus, Finney dismissed in threesentences the passage which is the central text in the debate overimputation.

However, Finney did view Adam's sin has having some kind ofeffect upon his posterity. Adam's sin exposed humankind to

aggravated temptation. Not only the physical constitution of all men,but all the influences under which they first form their moralcharacter, are widely different from what they would have been, if

36Ibid., 362-63 (emphasis added).

37Ibid., 264.


sin had never been introduced.38

In other words, Adam's sin started the pattern of physical depravity. Because of Adam's sin, human beings now experience physicaldegeneracy, which brings much stronger temptations than would havebeen the case if Adam had not sinned. That is the extent of theinfluence of Adam's sin on his posterity in Finney's development.

The above discussion has developed a full understanding ofFinney's teaching on moral depravity and noticed how this teachingcontributed to his theology of revival. Finney postulated a distinctionbetween moral and physical depravity so that he could advocate thatsin resides solely in the sinning, for voluntary actions alone areconsidered to have moral character. However, people are unable to gothrough life without sinning; sin is universal because it starts frominfancy to gain the upper hand over the slowly developing reason. Bythe time the infant reaches the age of moral obligation, his will inclinestoward sin; this is moral depravity, and it is the infant's own fault. God does not impute Adam's sin (or for that matter, Christ'srighteousness) to anyone. It is impossible for one person to dosomething in the place of another; rather Adam's sin simplycontributes by aggravating temptation for everyone.

Thus, the revivalist can preach, persuade, and invite individu-als to make a voluntary decision to choose to sin no longer and toglorify God. Not only can the revivalist invite an individual to do this,but he can invite a sinner to be converted immediately andinstantaneously. If salvation resides simply in the choice of theindividual, then the steps of preparation, which were common in theseventeenth and eighteenth centuries, are unneeded; indeed it wouldbe blasphemous to wait for divine preparation when one can beconverted immediately. If salvation resides simply in the choice of theindividual, then to desire electing grace is the height of blasphemyagainst God, who has made people capable of choosing to be saved. This teaching gives confidence to the revivalist to press the claims ofthe Gospel upon his hearers in order to see them "converted."

38Ibid., 266.


WHY FINNEY MODIFIED HIS THEOLOGY

Having observed thus far the how Finney modified histheology, another question is why—what motivated Finney to modifyhis theology? Among suggested motivations leading the revivalist tomodify theological positions in order to gain converts, three areprimary. First was the spirit of the times, a spirit summed up with thelabel "Jacksonian Democracy." Next was the influence of Finney's legaltraining which happened to coincide with the common sensephilosophy of the age. Finally came the pragmatic desire for largenumbers of conversions as a motivation.

Jacksonian DemocracyMany historians believe that a key factor which motivated

Finney's adaptation of theology is sociological, associated with the riseof Jacksonian democracy. For example, Perry Miller argues thatFinney summed up the tone of Jacksonian America:

In the 1820s and 1830s much depended, for the health and futuredevelopment of the revival, upon what sort of man Finney was, andon what vision of the nation he possessed. Again the analogy withJackson forces itself upon us. With it comes an urgent reflection: arevival in Connecticut, under the sober control of settled pastorscould suit with a Federalist temper in politics, could bridge thetransition to the Whig Party. But the kind of revival stimulated byFinney in upstate New York, though it refrained from politics andwas not necessarily confined to Democrats, was a mass uprising, arelease of energy, a sweep of the people which made it an explosionof energy we call Jacksonian America.39

To Miller and those who follow his interpretation, the revivalswhich Finney led in the 1820s and 1830s were nothing more than anaffirmation of the common man. Finney in leading these revivals wasaffirming the potential and dignity of the common man. Individuals

39Perry Miller, The Life of the Mind in America from the Revolution to the Civil War(New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1965) 30.


when freed from the oppressive "Old School" theology of the pastgeneration could "change their own hearts."

Keith Hardman believed that Finney sought to "democratize"Christianity so that anyone could participate in it. In this way Finneyand Jackson parallel each other. Hardman writes,

There is his determination to democratize American Protestantism,and the relationship between this force embodied in his career andthe democratizing influence of President Andrew Jackson's politicalthought, who was elected to the nations' highest office in 1828. Justas Jackson railed against privilege, monopoly and property qualifi-cation for voting, Finney railed against the social conservatism of thePresbyterian church structure. Increasingly, Finney came to regardthe Old School Theology as disastrous to the cause of evangelism at atime when multitudes needed to be reached and brought into thechurches, and the Old School hierarchy of the Presbyterians as a top-heavy bureaucracy with entrenched power. His calling, as he cameto view it, was to overthrow its stifling theology of election, and dowhat he could to redistribute its power in a more democratic fashionamong the laity itself. So, Jacksonian democracy and Finney's desirescomplemented each other.40

This view holds that the spirit of the times—namely, thedemocratization of all facets of life—caused Finney to view thecommon man as essentially good, at least good enough to exercise his"vote" for God correctly. Finney thus modified the Old Schooltheology which was at fault because it failed to produce any "results,"a modification conditioned by Finney's desire to "redistribute power ina more democratic fashion among the laity itself." Yet does this viewof Finney account for all the facts? This writer submits that Finneywas not nearly as liberal and progressive as some would like tobelieve; rather, Finney was essentially conservative, a stance thatimpacted his theological stance.

40Hardman, Charles Grandison Finney 151. Hardman also proposes that theJacksonian democracy hypothesis accounts for Finney's emphasis on activism andvoluntarism (99, 256), individual freedom (38), and the primacy of the laity over theclergy (281). See also Nathan Hatch, The Democratization of American Christianity(New Haven: Yale University, 1989) 196-201.


Leonard I. Sweet rightly critiques Hardman's view when hewrites, "Far from expressing a simple confidence in humanity, thebasic thrust of Finney's thought was conservative, status-conscious,and pessimistic about human nature."41 This statement is a paradigmthat makes possible a critique of the Jacksonian democracy hypothesisas a motivation for Finney's theological innovation. First, Finney'sthought was basically conservative. By "conservative," Sweetunderstands that Finney's intent was not to arouse enthusiasm andemotionalism as an end in themselves, but rather to use thatemotionalism as a means to the end of assaulting the reason. Hewrites,

Far from emotions being the most positively virtuous of man'scapabilities, natural affections or what Finney pejoratively termed`animal feelings' were not to be appreciated: they were to bemanipulated for the advancement of revivals. Accused by hisadversaries of arousing human passions and anti-intellectualsentiments, Finney justified his appeals to the emotions as a means tothe end of appealing to the intellect.42

By his appeals to the reason, Finney sought to avoid the charge that hewas a reincarnated James Davenport, that is, that he was preachingenthusiasm. In this sense, he was seeking to be truly conservative. Asa conservative, Finney was not seeking to unleash an explosion ofenthusiasm among the common populace.

Second, Finney was also status conscious. It cannot be accurateto construe Finney as a "revivalist of the people" in light of the peoplewho backed and bankrolled his endeavors. Indeed, the strongimplication is that if it were not for the Tappan brothers and "theAssociation of Gentlemen," Finney would have not achieved the levelof notoriety that he did. Wealthy New York businessmen paid forboth of his New York pastorates—at the Chatham Street Chapel and atthe Broadway Tabernacle. The Tappans also endowed Finney'stheological professorship at Oberlin and subsidized his moving

41Sweet, "View of Man" 206.

42Ibid., 214.


expenses. Another item which shows that Finney was not a "revivalistdemocrat" was his attitude toward African-Americans at ChathamStreet. African-Americans were invited to the services, but "weresegregated in a place reserved for them to the side of the sanctuary." Though personally opposed to slavery, Finney was against"amalgamation," the term used for the social mingling of whites andblacks. This opposition to amalgamation within the Chapel serviceseventually led Lewis Tappan to leave the church.43 Thus, the companyFinney did, and did not, keep reflected his status-consciousness.

Third, Finney was ultimately pessimistic, not optimistic, abouthuman nature. Although Finney postulated that human beings areborn innocent, he also held that man universally and infallibly choosesto sin. This belief marks his essentially pessimistic view of man. Finney still held that all have sinned. Sweet argues that Finney andthe Old School Calvinists shared "the same practical view of man: allmen were inevitably sinners, unwilling but not unable to perform allthat God required."44 Thus, the sinner's depravity was even worse inFinney's system than in the Old School system because it rested solelyon that individual's choice. This is not the language of a Jacksoniandemocrat. Rather, it is the language of a revivalist who hadmotivations beyond that of an inspirational belief in the worth,potential, and dignity of mankind. Thus, Jacksonian democracyalone was not an adequate motivation to account for Finney'stheological modifications, because the hypothesis runs counter toFinney's basic thought which was conservative, status-conscious, andpessimistic about human nature.

The Influence of Legal StudiesA second important possible influence in Finney's development

of a theology of revival was the influence of his legal studies. In thisconnection David Weddle notes, "Finney developed his system oftheology through the application of legal reasoning to the text of theBible."45 This in particular is what Finney wanted people to think. He

43Hardman, Charles Grandison Finney 262, 274-75.

44Sweet, "View of Man" 207.

45David L. Weddle, The Law as Gospel: Revival and Reform in the Theology of Charles


studied theology under his pastor, George Gale. As he read the booksin Gale's study, he found that

the more I examined the books, the more I was dissatisfied. I had beenused to the close and logical reasonings of the judges, as I found reported inour law books. But when I went to Brother Gale's Old School library, Ifound almost nothing proved to my satisfaction.46

The reason nothing proved the theological propositions to Finney'ssatisfaction was that Gale's "rules of interpretation did not meet myviews. They were much less definite & intelligible than those to whichI had been accustomed in my law studies."47 Throughout his Memoirs,Finney criticezed the Old School theology because it did not match upto the system of logic and reasoning he knew as a lawyer.

However, were the Old School theologians illogical, or didFinney approach theology with a different philosophical paradigmthan the "Old School" theologians? This writer argues that the latter isthe case. Previously noted is the fact that Finney set down at thebeginning of his Systematic Theology that the one chief axiom of histheology was "that the will is free, and that sin and holiness arevoluntary acts of the mind."48 If one were to trace this axiom back pastthe influence of the New Haven theology, it is this writer's opinionthat one would find its source in the Enlightenment philosophy of theday, Scottish Common Sense. Starting from the common senseproposition that the mind can know actual objects, not simply ideas orimages, Finney rejected out of hand the idea of inherent depravity,because it is not a knowable object. Hence his ridicule—"Sin anattribute of nature! A sinful substance! Sin a substance! Is it a solid, afluid, a material or a spiritual substance?"—takes on new meaning. Sinmust be a knowable object for the mind to understand it. If one

G. Finney (Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow, 1985) 6. Weddle focuses on the influence ofFinney's legal training upon his theology.

46Memoirs, 55 (emphasis added).

47Ibid., 45.

48FST 2.


relegates sin to the "idea" of nature, which is essentially imperceivable,then sin loses its force. Thus, sin is solely the wrong action of the will,for one sees the results of the will's acts; one does not necessarily seethe results of the appetites of the body or of the passions.49

Yet even more important than actual teachings of ScottishCommon Sense inculcated by Finney, is the tone which he adopted. The common sense of the common man characterized that tone: "I hadread nothing on the subject except my Bible, & what I had there foundupon the subject I had interpreted as I would have understood thesame or like passages in a law book."50 Finney understood the Bible asa common man would, as a lawyer would, using his common sense totake the words at face value. He could not recognize that the commonsense philosophy which he had imbibed might possibly affect andskew his own interpretations of Scripture. Hence, the influence ofFinney's legal studies coupled with the philosophy of the day causedhis theological development to differ significantly from his Old Schoolopponents.51

49Sydney Ahlstrom, "The Scottish Philosophy and American Theology," CH(1955):257-72; see also Henry F. May, The Enlightenment in America (New York: Oxford University, 1976) 341-50.

50Memoirs, 44 [emphasis added].

51It must be noted that the Princetonians were influenced by the Scottishphilosophy as well. However, though Finney battled them regularly, particularly inthe pages of his Oberlin Evangelist, it appears that his main opponent in hisSystematic Theology is Jonathan Edwards, and in connection with him, the NewDivinity men such as Leonard Woods (cf. FST, 250-54 and especially 303-18, 333). Edwards, as has been noted by Mark Noll, was a difficult figure for both thenineteenth-century New England men and the Princetonians to adopt, becauseEdwards was explicitly an idealist, while both Andover and Princeton werecommitted to the Scottish Philosophy (Mark A. Noll, "The Contested Legacy ofJonathan Edwards in Antebellum Calvinism," in Reckoning with the Past, ed. D.G. Hart[Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995] 200-17; for the Princeton commitment to the Scottishphilosophy, see Mark A. Noll, Princeton and the Republic, 1768-1822 [Princeton: Princeton University, 1989]). Thus, Edwardsean idealism conflicted with Finney'scommon sense realism which caused an inability in the latter to understand theformer.


PragmatismA final factor which was part of the motivation for Finney's

theological modifications is pragmatism. The word comes upfrequently in studies about Finney. For instance, Leonard Sweetwrites,

If new measures revivalism had any idolatry, it was success. Truthwas measured not in terms of faithful exposition of doctrinalheirlooms, but in terms of numerical success in saving souls. The testof veracity and validity of a measure of message was its performance. If it worked, God was behind it, for God was a sanctifier of success. .. . Finney's democratic simplification of theology which reducedtheological complexities to catchy slogans was grounded in a concernto be understood and make an impression, not in the conviction thatdoctrines could be democratized without distortion. Doctrinaldisputes were to be avoided because they created diversionsinterfering with revival labors and thus impeding conversions. Aderivative and simplistic thinker best characterized as a `pulpittheologian,' Finney casually manipulated his theology and methodsto achieve immediate goals.52

In Sweet's view, Charles Finney based everything on results. Theology was modified to achieve the goals. As long as "it worked,"as long as people were being "converted," this satisfied Finney that hehad divine approval. James Johnson concurs with Sweet's assessment: "He [Finney] wanted a system that worked, one that produced results,and consequently employed the pragmatic approach that the NewEngland theology had spawned."53 The characteristic of pragmatismcomes not only from the critic; it also comes from Charles Finney'sown writings. At one point Finney judges ministers based solely onpragmatic criteria: "Those are the best educated ministers, who winthe most souls."54 His biographer writes that "as to his new measures,

52Sweet, "View of Man" 212-13.

53Johnson, "Finney and Revivalism" 357.

54Charles G. Finney, Lectures on the Revival of Religion, ed. William L. McLoughlin(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1960) 185-87.


the blessing of God has certainly been upon them, if success in conver-sions be any criterion."55

Finney's motivation mixed these three forces—the spirit of theage, the common sense philosophy which Finney imbibed through hislegal studies, and the pragmatism of gaining numerous converts. Onecould say that all three were motivating factors, though not any one ofthem alone could account for the furious activity of Finney's career orthe vehemence with which he sometimes attacked his theologicalopponents. Finney employed all of the new measures in order to seemen "converted." Conversions were the bottom line. Finney was notabout to give up his success as an evangelist in order that he mightadopt the Calvinism presented to him by the Old School theologians. For Finney, a man with a "retainer from the Lord," conversion was thebottom line and the only line, both in revival and in theology.

LESSONS FOR TODAY

Charles G. Finney consciously and purposefully molded histheology in order to justify his revivalistic practices. In proof of thisthesis, the above discussion has investigated one particular area ofFinney's theology, the area of "moral depravity." Finney introducedteaching on moral depravity in three areas: first, he made a uniquedistinction between physical and moral depravity. This enabled himto regard only choices of the will as having moral character. Sin is inacts of the sin only, Finney would say. Next, Finney sought tomaintain the universal nature of sin. Though he argued that infantsare born innocent, he also contended that before they reach the age ofunderstanding—thereby gaining moral obligation—their wills becomeaccustomed to choosing self-gratification. Thus, by the time of moralobligation, this habitual action is sin, or "moral depravity." Finally, heargued that Adam's sin only has relation to his posterity byaggravating the temptations they experience, for it is impossible forone man to do something in the place of another. These innovationsallowed Finney to claim that individuals can choose to stop sinning,just as they chose to sin in the first place. This choice to stop sinning

55Hardman, Charles Grandison Finney 283.


and to glorify God is "conversion," and conversions are the "stuff" ofrevival.

After a description of Finney's innovations, it was in order toaccount for the motivation behind these theological innovations. Possible motivations were three in number. First, Finney's theologicalmodifications could have resulted from the sociological influence ofJacksonian democracy. Next, the influence of his legal studies foundedupon the widespread common sense philosophy of the day was vastand colored Finney's reading of Scripture and theology. And finally,sheer pragmatism was a strong motivation for Finney to adapt histheology to his revivalistic practices. These three combined in Finneyto provide a paradigm by which he interpreted the Scriptures andengaged opposition to his theological positions. Finney's emphasisupon "the philosophy or the workings of my own mind as they wererevealed in consciousness" in his hermeneutic allowed him to modifyOld School positions in order to maximize his evangelistic appeal.

As we look at our own day, it is readily apparent that CharlesG. Finney has exercised a massive influence upon the evangelicalmind. This influence has resulted from the fact that Finney was apopularizer of both the New Measures methodology and the NewHaven theology. Finney influenced the crowds to whom he preachedin a number of ways—as the regenerate saw the unregenerateconverted, they gave the credit to the efficacy of Finney'smethodology. The newly converted felt that they owed their verysalvation to this preacher who had come to persuade them to turntheir wills from selfishness to the opposite end, that of the glory ofGod. As a result, his listeners became his best public relationsmachine. They publicly defended and justified the new measuresbased on the fact that individuals were being "converted." Our daylikewise sees great emphasis on all types of "new measures"—such asseeker-sensitive services and high level church marketing. LikeFinney, the practitioners of these modern measures justify theirtechniques by virtue of their "success." Could it be that the modernnew measures, which mirror those of Finney, reflect the samePelagianistic theology which was part and parcel of his ministry? Maythe Lord give the church discernment and wisdom from her study ofthe past as she seeks to understand the movements of the present.

223

TMSJ 6/2 (Fall 1995) 223-32

PAUL'S USE OF ELIJAH'S MT. HOREB EXPERIENCEIN ROM 11:2-6

AN EXEGETICAL NOTE

Michael G. Vanlaningham1

Paul's use of 1 Kgs 19:10-18 in Rom 11:2-6 has an important role inhis proof that God has not cast off His people Israel. His main dependence isupon the Massoretic Text rather than the Septuagint. He makes a number ofchanges in his adaptation of the OT passage, none of which violates themeaning of the OT context. Despite apparent parallels between Elijah andMoses in the OT, the 1 Kings passage does not elevate Elijah to the level ofMoses in God's plan. Rather it emphasizes the sovereignty of God at work topreserve a remnant. Paul's theological emphasis in Rom 11:2-6 is upon God'spreservation of a remnant of Jews through grace, not human merit. Throughthis means He guards against the total loss of the people of Israel.

* * * * *

The prophet Elijah has an important place in both testaments,and has attracted moderate attention from NT scholars.2 One of thereferences to Elijah that has not attracted as much attention (andrightly so) is Paul's reference in Rom 11:2-6 to the pericope involving

1Michael G. Vanlaningham is pastor of the Fox Lake Baptist Church in Ingleside,Illinois, and is a candidate for the PhD degree at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

2Cf. Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., The Uses of the Old Testament in the New (Chicago: Moody,1985) 77-88, and the bibliography in these pages.

224

Elijah on Mt. Horeb (1 Kgs 19:10-18). Though this NT citation of an OTtext is not as theologically problematic as other references to Elijah, itnevertheless has a pivotal position in Paul's argument in Romans 11. It supports his case that God has not cast off His people. It thereforedeserves careful attention.

Exegetical Note on Rom 11:2-6 225

This exegetical note purposes to examine the textual, hermeneutical,exegetical, and theological details of 1 Kgs 19:10, 14, and 18 in their context, andthen to determine why Paul used the verses in his apologia of Rom 11:2-6 and whatthe OT verses add to his argument.

TEXTUAL AND HERMENEUTICAL FACTORS

When one examines the MT, LXX, and Paul's citation in Rom 11:3-4, moreagreement between Paul's text and the MT is apparent than between either of theseand the LXX. Several notable differences between the NT and MT passages occur,however. The following will focus on some hermeneutical implications of thesedifferences. First, Paul abbreviates 1 Kgs 19:10 and 14 by omitting the MT's mention ofElijah's zeal ( I/'ENIq O'Naq, qann@~o qinn~e@ti, "I have been very zealous"), Israel'srejection of the covenant (lE'Ar[cIy yEn[B %[/yIr[b ub[zA; [#~az+eb=u b+er=i t+ek~a b+en=e yi$sr~a@~el, "the sons of Israel have forsaken Your covenant"]),3 the mention of the sword(berejeb, be>hereb, "with a sword"), and the rather redundant HA?[jaq[l (l+eqa>ht~ah, "totake her [Elijah's life]"). Also the phrase ol qavAn>'Ol rev]' hepah>lAk[w (w+ek~al-happeh @+a+ser l~o@-n~a+saq l=o , "and every mouth which has not kissed him") in 1 Kgs19:18 finds no parallel in Paul's citation. With the possible exception of the firstomission (Elijah's zeal, qann@~o qinn~e@ti), no significant theological reason for Paulto have shortened these verses is evident. The points to which Paul refers are quitesufficient for his purposes and do not violate the OT sense.

Second, Paul inverts two phrases from 1 Kgs 19:10, 14: ug[rAh %ye'yIb[n (n+eb=i @=ek~a h~ar+eg=u, "they have killed your prophets")—to?yw prof /htaw soy 'a p3ekteinan (tousproph~etas sou apekteinan) and usArAh %ye/Oj[B[zIm (mizb+e>h~ot=ek~a h~ar~as=u, "they havetorn down your altar")—t?a uysiast /hri?a soy kat3eskacan (ta thysiast~eria sou kateskapsan). H. A. W. Meyer maintains that the inversion is accidental and has no real signifi-cance.4 Meyer may be correct, but possibly Paul inverted them to de-emphasizethe killing of the prophets. Though Paul's situation was always perilous (cf. Rom8:36), it was not as critical when he wrote Romans as Elijah's was at the time of thepericope. Perhaps his intent was to avoid drawing a parallel between himself andElijah, and thus he placed the killing of the prophets first. It is impossible to becertain of Paul's motivation on this point, however.

Third, and perhaps most significantly, is the apparent change by Paul of afuture-referring Hiph'il perfect first common singular verb yI?[ra'[vIh[w (w+ehi+s@art=i ,"I will leave") in 1 Kgs 19:185 to the aorist kat3elipon6 (katelipon, "I have left") in Rom

3It is impossible to say dogmatically why Paul omitted the mention of breaking the covenant. Perhaps he viewed this as a fairly nebulous thing, with the killing of the prophets and destroying ofthe altars being a more concrete and observable evidence of that breach. But this is speculative.

4H. A. W. Meyer, A Critical and Exegetical Handbook on the Epistle to the Romans (1886 6th Funk andWagnalls ed., Winona Lake, Ind.: Alpha, 1979 reprint) 428.

5For the future force of the verb, cf. Gerhard Hasel, The Remnant: The History and Theology of theRemnant Idea from Genesis to Isaiah (Berrien Springs, Mich.: Andrews University, 1972) 169; NormanH. Snaith, "1 Kings," in The Interpreter's Bible, ed. George Buttrick (New York: Abingdon, 1956)


11:4. The shift may not be as significant as one might suppose. While the sparingof the remnant was probably as yet future, the context of 1 Kings 19 shows thatGod's decision to spare the 7000 had already been made before the interaction in19:18 with Elijah and that the 7000 even at that point were being preserved.7 Possibly, then, Paul is emphasizing in Romans this antecedent decision by God topreserve some,8 and Paul reflects this emphasis with the use of the aorist katelipon.9

3:164; Ernst Käsemann, Commentary on Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980) 299. Though thesewriters do not justify their interpretation of a future sense with yI?[ra'[vIh[w, the fact that it is a wawconversive with an Hiph'il perfect (the w_qtl combination; note the shewa with the waw, the shiftingof the Mêr_khâ accent to Milra`, and the w_qtl combination following the future-referring[imperfective] Hiph'il imperfect /yImAy in 19:18), as well as being found in God's discourse, supporttheir conclusions. Cf. Bruce K. Waltke and M. O'Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax(Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1990) 456-58, 527-28.

6The NA26 indicates that there is a textual variant with kat3elipon, most likely due to itacism. Themore likely choices are between the imperfect kat3eleipon, which has ancient proto-Alexandriansupport (P46 A 1739) and support from the Western F and G, and the aorist kat3elipon, which hasequally strong support from Alexandrian (' B), Western (D), and Byzantine texts. The problemprobably has to be decided on the basis of intrinsic probability, in which case kat3elipon is thepreferred reading. The context argues for a reading which reflects God's selection as a completeaction (the aorist aspect; cf. 'a p3osato, pro3egnv [11:2];5e kamcan [11:4]), rather than a backgroundprocess (the aspect of the imperfect tense). In either case, neither the meaning nor the theology isaffected much. What is most surprising is that the LXX text, based on Vaticanus, reads katale3i ceiw(future active, second person singular) in 1 Kgs 19:18, but Vaticanus in Rom 11:4 reads the aoristkat3elipon (first person singular). More on this point will follow below.

7If God's decision had not as yet been made, then 19:18 would hardly function as either anencouragement for or a reproof of Elijah. God corrects Elijah's statement that Elijah was the only oneto God among the entire people. If in fact the 7000 were not already alive and in the process ofbeing preserved, Elijah's statement would be accurate, not in need of revision, and thus would nothave evoked God's correction.

8C. E. B. Cranfield apparently hints at this interpretation when he says, "Paul writes the firstperson [kat3elipon], adds1e mayt;:v, and uses the aorist tense, referring the words to the divine decision" (ACritical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1979] 2:546,emphasis added).

9Regardless how one resolves this problem, a more intriguing one exists when considering thereading of the LXX, which has the second person singular verb as distinguished from the MT's firstcommon singular or Paul's first person. The Vorlage of A and B apparently read /r'vhy(pointedA? -), not having the final yod found in the MT. The Syro-Hexapla (according to James A.Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Books of Kings [New York: CharlesScribner's Sons, 1951] 318) and Origen (cf. Fridericus Field, Origenis Hexaplorum [Hildesheim: GeorgOlms Verlabsbuchandlung, 1964] 1:636) also have a second person reading, supporting katale3i ceiw,while the Lucianic Greek reading is katale3i cv (Montgomery, Kings 318). Perhaps a consideration ofthe context can account for the second person reading. It may be that the 7000 of 1 Kgs 19:18 wereseen as essentially the same group as the 7000 of 1 Kgs 20:15 (LXX 21:15). If this is true, perhaps partof the text history reflects an interpretation in which Elijah had a hand in the preservation of that7000 under Ahab (cf. the unnamed prophet, usually identified as Micaiah, in 1 Kgs 20:13 ff., 22 ff.,etc.). But the reading of the first person by the MT and Paul fits better with the strong contextualemphasis in 1 Kings on God's decision to preserve a remnant apart from human agency, in this case,


Paul's change of tense is not completely ad hoc if this interpretation is correct.Fourth, Paul makes one notable addition to the OT texts, an addition not

reflected either in the LXX or the MT. In Rom 11:4 he adds the first personreflexive pronoun1e mayt;:v (emaut~|o , "for myself"). By adding this word Paul does notdo great violence to the OT meaning of the passage. In the context of 1 Kings 20where the figure 700010 occurs again in reference to the soldiers under Ahab in hisfight against Ben-hadad, it is evident that God intended to preserve the 7000soldiers at least in part for His own sake—so that Ahab would revere the true God(20:13, 28). Hence Paul's use of emaut~|o , along with the other variations from theMT, does no violence to the OT meaning of the text.

EXEGETICAL FACTORS

Two primary procedures appear to have guided the formation of 1 Kgs19:10, 14, 18. One is inter-textual and the other is inner-textual. Both contribute toPaul's reading and use of this OT text in his epistle.

Several scholars draw attention to the remarkable parallels between Elijah'sexperience at Mt. Horeb and Moses' experiences.11 Despite these parallels, thewriter of 1 Kings probably shows a fundamental disparity between the twoindividuals, not a correlation. In the exposure he had to God, Moses receivedencouragement for his work,12 but according to Robert L. Cohn the interaction of

apart from Elijah's participation.

10The 7000 of 1 Kgs 19:18 has been viewed traditionally by Rashi (cf. C. F. Keil, I & II Kings [GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1980 reprint] 263-64) and by Jarchi (presumably Yarchi, aka Rabbi Abraham Ben-Nathan; cf. Otto Thenius, Die Bücher der Könige [Leipzig: Weidmansche Buchhandlung, 1849] 236) asthe same group of 7000 found in 1 Kgs 20:15. It is doubtful that this is the case, though as Keil (264)points out, "The sameness in the numbers is apparently not accidental. . . ." It is possible that whilethe two groups were distinct in the mind of the author of 1 Kings, he nevertheless mentioned thesame size of the two groups in order to emphasize God's ability and intention to preserve such agroup. That God would spare 7000 in 1 Kings 19 is observable in His miraculous and gracioussparing of a different 7000 in 1 Kings 20.

11Some of the parallels are as follows: While Moses passed 40 days on Mt. Horeb (Exod 34:28),Elijah took 40 days to get there (1 Kgs 19:8); Elijah is in gArA;[Mah ("the cave"—note the article),probably an allusion to the location in which Moses found himself in Exod 33:22; God is said to"pass by" both Moses (Exod 33:22, yIr[bA;, rOb];aB) and Elijah (1 Kgs 19:11, rEbO;), and bothreceive a vision of God (for Moses, see Exodus 34; for Elijah, see 1 Kgs 19:11-13). Furthermore, likeMoses, Elijah contended on behalf of God against apostates, called for a decision to follow God, andwent to Horeb for reassurance. Elijah's theophany shared with the theophany given to Moses andIsrael the elements of wind, earthquake, and fire (cf. Exod 19:9; 20:18-19; Deut 4:9-10; 5:24-25). For adiscussion of these parallels, cf. Klaus Seybold, "Elia am Gottesberg: Vorstellungen prophetischenWirkens nach 1. Könige 19," Evangelische Theologie 33 (1973):10-11; William J. Dumbrell, "What AreYou Doing Here? Elijah At Horeb," Crux 22 (1986):15-17; Brevard Childs, "On Reading the ElijahNarratives," Interpretation 34 (1980):134-35; Robert L. Cohn, "The Literary Logic of 1 Kings 17-19,"JBL 101 (1982):341-42.

12Cf. Exodus 6; 19:1-25; 32:7-17; 33:12-23, etc.


Elijah and God was essentially a decommissioning of Elijah as a prophet.13 William J. Dumbrell maintains that Elijah did not learn anything in the theophanyhe experienced, nor was any information communicated to him in the "still, smallsound." Elijah was an "accuser of the brethren" rather than an intercessor on behalfof the people as Moses was. Dumbrell suggests that through these differences theauthor is indicating that Elijah was not a new Moses, and that God was notbeginning a radically new movement through him. All of this tends to emphasizethe point made overtly in 1 Kgs 19:18, namely, that God Himself would preserve afaithful remnant that would not worship Baal, and that He would do thissovereignly and graciously apart from any significant involvement by Elijah.14 Dumbrell writes,

Israel's future did not depend upon the manifestation of his [Elijah's] particulargenius of giftedness. It depended as it always did and would upon the sovereignintervention of Yahweh, who would continue to honour his commitment made atSinai to Israel, through the in-struments and circumstances which he from time to time wouldchoose. . . .15

In essence, then, Elijah would not enjoy the prominence in God's plans that Mosesdid.16 The differences between Elijah and Moses support the concept of thesovereignty of God to work as He sees fit in the preservation of a remnant apart

13Cohn, "Logic" 342-43. Contra A. Sanda, Die Bücher der Könige (Münster: AschendorffscheVerlagsbuchhandlung, 1911) 452; Leah Bronner, The Stories of Elijah and Elisha: As Polemics AgainstBaal Worship, Pretoria Oriental Series, ed. A. Van Selms (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1968) 26-27; and Burke O.Long, 1 Kings: With an Introduction to Historical Literature (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984) 200. Bronner and Long argue from the parallels with Moses and God's appearance to Elijah that this is tobe viewed by the reader as a re-commissioning of the prophet. They fail to consider the fairlynegative nature of the interaction between Elijah and God. But Cohn may go too far in hisevaluation. If God were as displeased as Cohn maintains, it would be hard to reconcile thatdispleasure with His provision of food (1 Kgs 19:5-8) and with His theophany. Perhaps it ispreferable to say that God was showing Elijah that the significant part of his ministry was over; butthis is not the same as Elijah being "fired."

14Dumbrell, "Elijah" 15-18. Cf. also R. A. Carlson, "Élie àL'Horeb," Vetus Testamentum 19(1969):438-39.

15Dumbrell, "Elijah" 18-19. Cf. also Gene Rice, Nations Under God: A Commentary on the Book of 1Kings (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990) 163, who writes, "At Horeb Elijah learns . . . that despiteappearances to the contrary, God is in control, . . . that God's timetable may differ from ours, andthat the final victory may rest with a future generation and with other leaders God has alreadychosen."

16Cohn ("Logic" 347) maintains also that the miracles Elijah experienced emphasize God'ssovereignty and increased participation in the affairs of His people. In 1 Kgs 17:22, God actedindirectly through Elijah to restore life to the widow's son; in 18:38, God acts more visibly on behalfof Elijah; and in 19:12 ff., the theophany is an even more direct display of God's power. Thus theauthor presents God's intervention as increasingly more direct, even to the point of Elijah becomingvirtually unnecessary.


from human participation. Other factors within the passage itself also point in thisdirection.17

Inner-textual factors also influenced the formation and meaning of 1 Kings19, the main one being the point mentioned above, the presence of the figure 7000in chapters 19 and 20.18 Though Cohn maintains rightly that 1 Kings 17-19 is "anexample of a carefully woven literary tissue . . . ," he also maintains wrongly that 1Kings 20 is " . . . an unrelated war story."19 Chapter 20 does appear to be unconnect-ed with what precedes. However, the promise God made to Ahab that he wouldbe victorious over an enormously superior foe in Ben-hadad suggests literary,theological, and exegetical connections with 1 Kings 19. The most important ofthese connections is God's gracious preservation of the 7000 soldiers even thoughthey did not merit God's preservation. Ahab did not deserve the protection hereceived from God. This inner-textual factor (the preservation of 7000) may haveplayed an important role in Paul's use of the pericope in Romans 11.

THEOLOGICAL FACTORS

In light of the textual, hermeneutical, and exegetical considerationsreviewed above, three theological observations emerge. First, Paul's main point inRom 11:2-6 is that God was preserving a remnant of Jews, just as He had in 1Kings. The two situations are analogous (oytvw o eq \O(=,y)n ka eq \O(4,i) eq \O(1,e) n t eq\O(;,:,v) n eq \O(;,y)n kair eq \O(;,:,v) . . . [hout eq \O(~,o)s oun kai en t eq \O(~,|,o) nyn kaireq \O(~,|,o) . . ., "therefore so also in the present time," Rom 11:5]). Second, He accomplishes this preservation kat' eq \O(1,e) klog eq \O(4,h)n x eq\O(/,a)ritow (kat' eklog eq \O(~,e)n charitos, "according to the election of grace," 11:5)and x eq \O(/,a)riti, o eq \O(',y)k eq \O(3,e)ti eq \O(1,e) j eq \O(5,e) rgvn (chariti, ouketi ex erg eq\O(~,o)n, "through grace, not from works," 11:6). This preservation of a remnant inPaul's day fits precisely with the preservation revealed in 1 Kgs 19:18, andobserved in 1 Kgs 20:15, where the preservation is entirely through God'ssovereign intervention and grace apart from all human merit (since Ahab had

17There are other points in 1 Kgs 19:10-18 worth consideration. Brevard Childs and Gene Ricerightly maintain that the repetition of the questions God asked of Elijah in 19:9 and 13 were reproofsrather than a request for information (Brevard Childs, "On Reading the Elijah narratives," Interpreta-tion 34 [1980]:134-35; Rice, Nations Under God 158-59). Elijah's response(s) in 19:10 and 14 to God'squestions are also informative. The first words of Elijah's responses were yI/'ENIq O'Naq, whichSimon J. DeVries translates as "I have been furiously zealous for Yahweh" (1 Kings, in vol. 12 of WordBiblical Commentary [Waco: Word, 1985] 237). The infinitive absolute frequently carries a stronglyemphatic force, as Ronald J. Williams maintains [Hebrew Syntax: An Outline, 2d ed. (Toronto: University of Toronto, 1976) 37-38]). Alan J. Hauser and Russel Gregory maintain that Elijah's state-ment in 19:14 (yIDab[l yIn]' rE/AuI'Aw, "and I alone am left") suggests that Elijah had an over-inflated view of himself and his role in the fight against Baal, as if he were indispensable (FromCarmel to Horeb: Elijah in Crisis [Sheffield: The Almond, 1990] 75). Each of these points emphasizesGod's sovereignty in the preservation of a remnant.

18Cf. 00-00, and esp. n. 11, 00.

19Cohn, "Logic" 334.


none). Third, some NT scholars maintain that in Rom 11:1-6 the whole nation is inview. The entirety (p eq \O(;,a)w 1Isra eq \O(/,h)l [pas Isra eq \O(~,e)l, "all Israel"], 11:26)will be saved in the end.20 But in Romans, as in 1 Kings, the point Paul makes isthat the Jews as a people would be completely lost apart from the gracious, sover-eign intervention of God.21 In 1 Kings, the people were lost in Baalism and thus,without God's intervention, lost in the ensuing judgment of God. In Romans 11also, the people were lost. God preserves a remnant, guarding against the totalloss of the people.22

20Cf. Peter Stuhlmacher, "Zur Interpretation von Römer 1125-32," in Probleme biblischer Theologie:Gerhard von Rad zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. Hans Walter Wolff (München: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1971) 557;Johannes Munck, Christ & Israel: An Interpretation of Romans 9-11 (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1967) 136;Käsemann, Romans, 300; Cranfield, Romans, 2:547; John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, NICNT(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965) 2:68; James D. G. Dunn, Romans 9-16, WBC (Dallas: Word 1988)681.

21I have attempted to demonstrate elsewhere that p ;aw 1Isra /hl in Rom 11:26 does not necessarilyrefer to the nation as a whole (Michael G. Vanlaningham, "Romans 11:25-27 and the Future of Israelin Paul's Thought," The Master's Seminary Journal 3 [1992]:141-74, esp. 158-64). The many uses of thephrase in the LXX support the idea that p ;aw 1Isra /hl refers only to whatever group of Jews is in theimmediate context where the phrase occurs, and usually does not refer to the nation as a whole.

22Cf. Hasel, Remnant 171-73; Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,1988) 399; C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 2nd ed., BNTC (London: A & CBlack, 1991) 194.


CONCLUSION

Paul's use of the Elijah-Horeb pericope in Romans 11 demonstrates hiscareful reading of the OT (probably the Hebrew viz-a-viz the LXX). His use of theOT passage in no way wrests it from its narrative and theological milieu. Inapplying it to his current situation, Paul shows that there is a very close analogybetween his own situation and Elijah's. Some were questioning the validity ofPaul's gospel in light of the almost wholesale rejection of it by the Jews. By the useof 1 Kings 19, Paul demonstrates that in fact God's plans for the Jews had notfailed. He had not rejected His people. On the contrary, the gracious preservationof a (small) remnant had been squarely within God's sovereign plan throughouthistory, as seen conspicuously in the statement God made to Elijah on Mt. Horeb.

233

TMSJ 6/2 (Fall 1995) 233-63

BOOK REVIEWS

John H. Armstrong. Can Fallen Pastors Be Restored? Chicago: Moody,1995. 205 pp. $9.99 (paper). Reviewed by Alex D. Montoya,Associate Professor of Pastoral Ministries.

Here is a book that jumps into the thick of the battle. Itaddresses a problem that either the church refuses to face or when itdoes face it, it elects the easier way out. Can Fallen Pastors Be Restored?confronts the problem of sexual misconduct among pastors andChristian leaders and the church's response to it. John Armstrong,former pastor and director of Reformation and Revival Ministries, Inc.,states,

Although no one seriously doubts that sexual sin has always been aproblem among ministers, the extent of the present problem has made ita major, fast spreading, and almost incurable cancer in the body ofChrist. What little research data presently exist bear out this observation(18).

The book is not about the problem of sexual misconduct butabout the church's handling of the problem. Here is a useful tool forthe church on what to do if the pastor or Christian leader falls intoimmorality or is accused of some sexual misconduct.

The twelve chapters range from exposing the present-dayproblem of immorality in the American pulpit to explaining the majorpoint of the book: that a fallen minister should not be restored backinto his pulpit, although he must be restored back to the Lord, hisfamily, and to the fellowship of the church. The case against restoringthe pastor back to the pulpit is made by

1. Showing the unique and awful sinfulness of immorality with anexposition of 1 Cor 6:18.

2. Explaining from the Pastoral Epistles the biblical qualificationsfor a minister.

3. Making a strong case from 1 Cor 9:27 on the matter of


disqualification and apostasy.4. Reviewing church history to show that immorality in the past

almost always led to disqualification from ministry.Dr. Armstrong presents a strong case for not restoring a pastor

back into the ministry. He delivers a stinging indictment againstcertain ministries and churches which restore men back to their pulpitsin a matter of months. He also answers their rationale for their actions.

All in all, this is a helpful volume and its strongest appeal isJohn Armstrong's high view of the Christian ministry. Holiness is notto be compromised. In a day of compromise and lowering ofstandards, it is encouraging to see someone taking an unpopular standagainst moral decline.

Cyril J. Barber. The Books of Samuel, vol. 1. Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux,1994. 383 pp. $22.99 (cloth). Reviewed by James E. Rosscup,Professor of Bible Exposition.

The author has added to his more than thirty books, andWarren Wiersbe's Foreword commends the present effort for seriousBible students and expository pastors.

Barber lays out the exposition of 1 Samuel in twenty segments,each treating one to four chapters in the book. The titles are attractive: "Rules of the Game" where Saul obeyed some of God's guidelines butbypassed others (15:1-35); "A Most Unlikely Successor," David (16:1-23); "The Bigger They Are, the Harder They Fall," on David downingGoliath (17:1—18:5); and "Uncertain Future," dealing with David'sfleeing into hiding (23:15—24:22).

Barber concludes the theme of 1 and 2 Samuel to be thesovereignty of God. He underscores the importance of knowing whoHe is and obeying what He says. This is the first time that the Biblecalls God "Yahweh of Hosts (heavenly armies)." This designationviews His omnipotent control and right to rule. The commentatorpoints out examples of God's dealing sovereignly, e.g., Hannahconceiving a child as God's answer to her prayer; Hannah's song ofpraise for His sovereign working of the impossible (2:1-10); His settingaside Eli's house and choosing Samuel; His permitting the Philistinecapture of the Ark, and plaguing them until they returned it; His

Book Reviews 235

defeating the Philistines at Mizpah when Samuel prayed; His enablingDavid to defeat Goliath; His sparing of David's life when Saul pursuedto try to kill him. He cites examples in 2 Samuel as well.

Barber rejects theories of various authors for 1 and 2 Samuel,and also proposals that the books lack unity. He favors the view thatSamuel initially worked on the writing with Nathan and Gad, one ofwhom carried the writing on after Samuel's death (2 Chr 9:29). Whoever compiled the final copy used other sources (he cites 2 Sam1:18; 1 Chr 27:24). Barber dates the period covered by the books ofSamuel c. 1105—971 B. C.

The work has a fairly good discussion of religious, social, andpolitical conditions (27-33). Often the exposition has well-organizedpoints that assist readers. An example is Hannah's prayer (1 Samuel 1)that shows elements of real intercession. It expresses her submissionto God's will, identification with His purpose, fervency in pleadingwith Him, specificity in her request, and perseverance in waiting onHim (43). Barber often develops and illustrates spiritual lessons thatthe exposition points up. A pertinent one occurs when Saul onlypartially obeys and mingles partial obedience with his own will (ISamuel 15). Barber illustrates with a case of a woman in a church whofelt that if she did all the things in her busy service, God would let herhave her own will in one matter, in divorcing her husband andmarrying another man. She went ahead with the new marriage, butshe and her family reaped awful consequences from her sin (178-79).

Copious chapter footnotes from diligent research are at the end(327-60). The author has furnished indexes for Scripture, persons, andtitles. The work is a lucid, usually well-informed exposition,provocative to Christian growth.

Norbert Brox. A Concise History of the Early Church. New York: Continuum, 1994. viii + 184 pp. $18.95 (cloth). Reviewed byDennis M. Swanson, Seminary Librarian.

The author, professor of Early Church History and Patrology atthe University of Regensberg, has produced a helpful volume coveringthe history of the early church through the Council of Chalcedon inA.D. 451.


As both the title and size of the book indicate, the purpose ofthe author is to strike a "balance between survey which is easy tofollow and one which is sufficiently detailed" (viii). In both respectsthe author has accomplished his purpose. The book has eight chaptersdetailing the history, structure, and theology of the early church aswell as how the church has related to society and political structures. At the end of each chapter the author has provided a helpful bibliogra-phy pertinent to the chapter subject.

Highlights in this book are the author's chapter on the "ChurchLife and Organization," particularly his explanation of thedevelopment of the sacraments and the rise of the power of thebishops (67 ff.). Other noteworthy sections are his discussion on thedeleterious influence of Alexandrian theology and hermeneutics,particularly in the person of Origen (137-38) and his excellentsummaries of the first four ecumenical councils (149 ff.).

Though the author's failure to acknowledge the sovereign workof God in church history and his tendency toward an "evolutionary"approach to history will distract some, this work is still a valuablesurvey and will provide the reader with an excellent framework of theearly church.

Ed Buckley. Why Christians Can't Trust Psychology. Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1993. 368 pp. $9.99 (paper). Only God Can Healthe Wounded Heart. Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1995. 317 pp. $8.99 (paper). Reviewed by Trevor Craigen, Associate Professorof Theology.

A review of these two books is not out of place in this journal,given the keen interest The Master's Seminary has in equipping itsstudents to do biblical counseling as shepherds of the flock. Thepublication in 1995 of Introduction to Biblical Counseling, edited by JohnMacArthur and Wayne Mack, attests to the school's interest in thatobjective. Ed Bulkley's two books provide an exposé of that Christiancounseling that willingly integrates the error of secular and humanisticpsychology with biblical truth.

To present his material Bulkley opted for a mixed genre: facts,comments, quotations, and evaluations interspersed by a story. This

Book Reviews 237

story of a pastor sounds an all too realistic note. Here is a man "in thetrenches," with whom the reader readily identifies. He is in the throesof trying to deal biblically with a difficult situation both outside andinside his home. Yet he must face the scornful comments of colleaguescaught up in a strong integrative approach. One wonders finally if thestory is not perhaps better viewed as a case-study based on real-life.

What surfaces continually throughout both books is therealization that integration invariably leads to a loss of scripturalauthority and a severe limiting of the sufficiency of Scripture. Usingthe interplay of story/case-study and facts, comments, andevaluations, Bulkley captures this denial of authority and sufficiencyin action. None of the situations are farfetched; indeed, this reviewerhas heard of similar stories from close friends and ministerialcolleagues.

The biblical counseling hero in the story endorses that for whichThe Master's Seminary stands: "I would recommend that seminariesreturn to teaching theology, biblical languages, hermeneutics, prayer,holiness, and principles of biblical counseling. Seminaries should begraduating pastors—not psychologists" (Why Christians 206). Since agrowing number of psychologists and psychiatrists are warningchurches that they have bought tainted goods and should go back tobiblical wisdom, Bulkley concludes: "What the church needs at theend of this second millennium are leaders, pastors, seminaries, andBible schools that will regain their confidence in the sufficiency of theWord of God" (222).

The reader must keep in mind the clearly stated purpose of thefirst book which carries over into the second:

My purpose is not to attack the Christian integrity of any individual, butto show in specific detail that much of what is called Christiancounseling has conformed to secular psychology, and as a result has lostits spiritual perspective and authority (Why Christians 33).

Despite the straight talk evident throughout both books, an irenicattitude also prevails. Bulkley is not out on a witch-hunting crusadebut has embarked upon the task of graciously confronting others andsounding a warning about the dangers of integration. It is the voice ofone speaking from the depths of studied conviction, not mouthing offbecause of a shallow, emotional reaction. Indeed, Bulkley issues aword of balance lest one tends to write off everyone with


psychological training: "One must be careful not to lump allpsychologists under the label of pagan incompetence" (Why Christians79). But he also quickly appends a caution: "Yet the fact remains thatwhile there may be an occasional trustworthy psychologist, Christianscannot uncritically trust a counseling system that is based upon non-biblical foundations" (80).

The author has anticipated someone asking, "Why make such abig deal over counseling philosophies?" His reply is, "Because theconsequences of this issue are enormous. It determines for manypeople their ultimate source of truth and authority for daily living"(Why Christians 59).

Part Two of the first book addresses the myths of psychology. The chapters follow one another like the consecutive blows of ahammer so that the reader begins to understand that psychology is notscientific, is not effective, is not motivated by compassion, is nottrustworthy, does not provide meaningful labels or categorizations,and finally cannot heal the past. Marshaling critical citations from bothsecular and Christian psychologists only adds to the force of thehammer blows and leads well into the question dealt with in PartThree: "Are Psychology and Christianity Compatible?" It comes as nosurprise that Bulkley finds the two quite incompatible. Once againpsychologists, Christian and other, provide much of the evidence forthis negative answer. What comes out is integration's inherent dangerof subtly redefining the Christian faith.

Any reader familiar with what biblical counseling really is willalso recognize immediately the false caricaturing of what the biblicalcounselor does, as though all the pastor can do is throw verses and aprayer or two at the counselee. It is always the expert counselor pittedagainst the poorly trained pastor who is simply out of his leaguebecause all he knows is the Bible. One can hear echoing behind thewords of the psychologists in the story and behind their own factualstatements the condescending exclamation, "Poor pastor! Incompetentbut sincere!"

Some readers, undoubtedly, will frown at what they mightperceive to be an unjustified caricature of Christian psychologists inboth books, but if they listen to the facts provided, they will have toask at the end of the reading: "Is this really a caricature? Given theirown statements it seems a rather kind presentation? Is not theirconsistent failure to view prayer and worship and to use biblical truth

Book Reviews 239

in their counseling an indictment of their Christian sincerity?"The second book responds in more detail to what is already in a

chapter of the first book, namely memories of the past, repressed andforgotten, but lurking beneath the surface, having to be exorcised andhealed. Bulkley shows how coupled with the therapy of digging uprepressed memories is the growing tendency to require as part of thetherapy, that the victim/counselee cut off all links with family who donot and will not understand their pain. Every counselee, it appears, isnever anything else but a victim. Something is decidedly wrong insuch therapy. Deliberately aiding and abetting in the creation of falsememories so as supposedly to heal one's life but devastate the lives ofothers must rank as the crime of the century. Citing specific cases insupport thereof, Bulkley shows how the others who are nowconfronted and then cavalierly dismissed are always presumedguilty—the recovered memory carries far more weight than factualevidence! It is alarming that several States have passed legislationallowing for repressed memories to be used as substantial and primaryevidence in their law-courts. It is somewhat reassuring thatpsychological research is beginning to call into question such therapiesand has highlighted what has come to be known as FMS, falsememory syndrome. What also alarms is that in this environmentMPD, multiple personality disorder, is being increasingly diagnosed.

This frightening scenario is one that pastors may faceincreasingly in coming days, so they must be prepared to comfort,encourage, help, and counsel with truth those caught in the trap ofplumbing the depths of pain-racked memories.

Comments based on Scripture occur at pertinent pointsthroughout both books. Bulkley displays the mark of a biblicalcounselor—he knows where to go in the Scriptures and he knows howto bring it to bear upon the life of the counselee. A second reading ofthe books, concentrating only on this aspect, would be helpful. Thiswould yield an appreciation of what to say and what to do in certainsituations. The reader will find it hard to fault Bulkley's use ofScripture.

References from his own experiences in counseling alsoabound, but it is not always and only stunning successes, but also theheartache of seeing folks leave without resolution. Citations fromnewspapers, magazines, journals, books, and research papers providea depth of documentation backing up Bulkley's arguments and


conclusions. Having footnotes would be better than endnotes becausethe reader will find he has to know the name of who said that or didthis, or from where the information came. Unfortunately, there areinstances where the reader looks for documentation and finds none. Why not? To say, "A well-known Christian psychologist . . ." or "Acertain therapist . . ." or "A well-known author wrote . . ." and then togive information without citing a source creates frustration. Thereader wants to know who and where. Naming others in less thanpositive light from their own writings and statements should notpreclude naming these who apparently were just as wrong in whatthey were saying.

Toward the end of the second book, Bulkley anticipated thedispleasure of some victims of abuse: "If you have read this far, youobviously are interested in genuine healing from God" (296). Ah! How one hopes that all would read that far! It would truly be aneducation for most. By this time the Scripture used should haveimpacted the heart and mind; by this time, the consistent emphasis ontrusting the Lord and doing good and on actually obeying not justreading the Word of God should also have motivated aright andconvinced of the need to get back to truth. It should have convicted ofthe need to be careful about talking to those `experts' who slyly shuntthat truth aside.

Since church members will undoubtedly buy and read themuch touted books of Christian psychology, it behooves any pastorwho wishes to stay abreast of what is impacting his people's thinkingto read both books by Bulkley. They cannot but motivate him (1) toturn earnestly to his Lord and his Word to help him in his ministry, (2)to seek out those more formal textbooks which would increase hisknowledge and skills in true biblical counseling, and (3) to alert him tobooks which his Sunday School or Bible-study classes ought not toentertain as study-guides without much advance preparation andmodification.

For those who notice such things and might be irritated thereby,beware in the second book of the abundant use of a dash, which in sizeis no different from a hyphen. It makes for jerky reading at first untilthe eye adjusts to what is happening on the page. Also, several timeshyphens appear where one is not needed—in the middle of a normalword. Did page reformatting shift an-end-of-the-line hyphen into themiddle of a word on the next line? More careful editing is needed

Book Reviews 241

before the next printing.At the end of Appendix B "A Special Word for Pastors" (Why

Christians 355), Bulkley confidently asserts, "You can counsel yourpeople!" To which must be added a hearty Amen!

David B. Calhoun. Princeton Seminary: Faith & Learning 1812—1868,vol. 1. Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1995. xvii + 495 pp. $28.95(cloth). Reviewed by Dennis M. Swanson, Seminary Librarian.

For over 100 years (1812—1929) Princeton Theological Seminarywas perhaps the most significant voice in America for orthodox Christianityand also served as a model for seminary education. The author, a professorof Church History at Covenant Seminary, has written a history of "OldPrinceton" in two volumes.

This first volume chronicles the initial fifty-six years of Princeton,from the origins of the school to just after the Civil War. Though this workis painstaking in its detail, the author writes in a clear and refreshing stylethat is all too uncommon in historical works. The lives of the keypersonalities, Archibald Alexander, Samuel Miller, Ashbel Green, andCharles Hodge, are given thorough treatment. Of particular value is thesection dealing with the relation of Princeton and the Princeton men to the"Old School-New School" controversies of the 1830s, which resulted in thesplit of the Presbyterian Church and the demise of the Plan of Union withthe Congregational Church.

The author has researched well and skillfully intersperses quotationsfrom personal correspondence and published writings of key figures with hiscareful presentation. One is immediately struck by the qualities which madethe instructors at Princeton so effective in the hand of God: (1) theircommitment to the truth of Scripture and sound doctrine, (2) their love forthe students, (3) their commitment to sound preaching of the Scripture, (4)their commitment to evangelism, and (5) their commitment to excellence inthe classroom.

The work has two excellent appendices, the most interesting beingthe "Plan for a Theological Seminary" written by Ashbel Green, whichbecame the charter for the seminary and serves to remind the modern readerthat "strategic planning" existed before the last twenty years. The otherappendix is the author's excellent narrative discussing various bibliographic


sources available for the study of Princeton.This reviewer recommends the volume very highly and eagerly

awaits publication of the second volume (scheduled for Spring 1996).

Bryan Chapell. Using Illustrations to Preach with Power. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992. 223 pp. $12.99 (paper). Reviewed by Alex D.Montoya, Associate Professor of Pastoral Ministries.

A preacher often feels like a rescuer of a near-blind man from adarkened cavern with only candlelight to help him guide the poor lostsoul from his darkened state. That is why Bryan Chapell's book UsingIllustrations to Preach with Power is such a refreshing and useful tool. Itgives the preacher more "light," a bigger candle to help the near-blindto see his way to the true light.

Dr. Chapell is equipped to write about preaching to preacherssince he is presently Professor of Practical Theology at CovenantTheological Seminary, St. Louis, after pastoring several churchesbefore joining the seminary faculty in 1986. In addition, he is Vice-President and Academic Dean of that seminary.

The volume is thoroughly researched, each chapter beingdocumented with copious footnotes and the book having a thirteen-page bibliography of homiletical works. Undoubtedly, this author hasdone his homework.

He states his view on the use of illustrations at the outset:

Illustrations are not supplemental to good exposition; they are anecessary form of exposition in which biblical truths are explained to theemotions and the will as well as to the intellect. Illustrations will notallow mere head knowledge. They exegete Scripture in the terms ofhuman experience to create a whole person understanding of God'sWord. By framing biblical truths in the world in which we live andmove and have our being, illustrations unite our personalities, our past,our present, our affection, our fears, our frustrations, our hopes, ourhearts, our minds, and our souls in the understanding of that which isdivine. They are integral to effective preaching, not because theyentertain, but because they expand and deepen the applications themind and heart can make (13).

Book Reviews 243

Chapell wrote the book to demonstrate why and howillustrations can be used in biblical preaching. First, he discusses thebackground of and theory on the use of illustrations. Here the readerformulates his opinion on the validity of using illustrations inpreaching. In the second section, the author shows how to find andmake illustrations to help explain truth. The third section has threechapters on the right use of illustrations and other helpful suggestionson illustrations.

The writer is very careful to stress the importance of the biblicaltext as the essence of preaching. Illustrations adorn and elucidatetruth, but must never supplement truth. This reviewer heartilyrecommends this volume to those who preach expositional sermons. Its reading will be of great help in bridging the gap between audienceand preacher.

James H. Charlesworth and Walter P. Weaver (eds.). What HasArcheology to Do with Faith? Philadelphia: Trinity Press Interna-tional, 1992. xi + 116 pp. $13.95 (paper). Reviewed by Dennis M.Swanson, Seminary Librarian.

One of the most interesting aspects of biblical studies is that ofarcheology. In recent years archeologists have discovered severalnoteworthy items, such as an inscription referring to the Davidic lineof kings in the northern area of Dan and the tomb of Caiaphas insouthern Israel near Jerusalem. This book raises the question, what dodiscoveries such as these have to do with "faith"?

A foundational problem with this volume is that though itdefines "archeology"—which denotes "biblical archeology"—in delicatedetail, it has no definition of "faith." Several distinct meanings occursomewhat interchangeably. Is faith the embodiment of Christiandoctrine? Is faith a manifestation of a corporate religion? Is faith theact of believing? Or, is faith some type of existential experience? Allthe contributors tend toward lexical ambiguity on this point, and theycome up with no unified workable definition.

The contributors attempt to prove that the true relationship ofbiblical archeology and Christian faith lies somewhere between theposition of Burke Long, who regards the Bible as a "holy book that tells


stories" (66), and the positions of the Near East Archeological Society andBryant Wood, who "begin with the conviction of Biblical inerrancy"(65). Yet one of the contributors concludes that their position is "notentirely satisfactory from either a theoretical or methodological pointof view" (66).

The authors of this work make assumptions regarding botharcheology and "the faith" that are problematic at best. Any concept ofbiblical inerrancy belongs to the realm of "arcane fundamentalism" (x). They reject the historicity of the creation narrative and the patriarchs(69). They redefine the claims of Jesus regarding both His deity andsubstitutionary death, as presented in the NT and historicallyunderstood by the church, so that they bear little resemblance to theApostle's Doctrine. Even the Doctrine of the Trinity becomes aninvention of the Nicene era to "protect the Christian claim that anencounter with Jesus is really a revealing and saving encounter withGod" (p. 79).

Several times they claim that what archeology does for theChristian faith is to enable it to be "freed from the cancer of Docetismand the false belief that Jesus only appeared to be human" (19, 79, etc.). Unfortunately they substitute an Arian Jesus, who was only a man. Features such as this make it difficult to recommend the book toanyone who is not theologically discerning.

David S. Dockery, Kenneth A. Mathews, and Robert B. Sloan, eds. Foundations for Biblical Interpretation: A Complete Library of Tools andResources. Nashville, TN: Broadman and Holman, 1994. 614 pp. $29.99 (cloth). Reviewed by James E. Rosscup, Professor of BibleExposition.

Twenty-seven evangelical scholars writing about their ownspecialties contributed essays. The book provides a comprehensivesummary and an immense reservoir of learning in each area related tothe Bible. It offers guidelines on principles of interpretation andinteracts with key issues in contemporary scholarship. Dockery is VicePresident for Academic Administration and Dean of the School ofTheology at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville,Kentucky. Mathews is Professor of Divinity, Beeson Divinity School,

Book Reviews 245

Samford University, Birmingham, Alabama. Sloan is Dean of theGeorge W. Truett Theological Seminary, Baylor University, Waco,Texas.

Essays focus on the Bible as literature (Leland Ryken),geography of the Bible (Keith Schoville), NT use of the OT (DarrellBock), archaeology (J. A. Thompson), OT textual criticism (BruceWaltke), OT historical criticism (Duane Garrett), OT history andchronology (Donald Fowler), OT political background (Edwin Yamau-chi), OT biblical theology (Walt Kaiser, Jr.), NT textual criticism (DavidA. Black), NT historical criticism (Craig Blomberg), NT history andchronology (Harold Hoehner), and others. The book supplies aScripture index and a name index. Each chapter closes with a list forfurther reading, usually five to twenty books, the brevity of whichjustifies a questioning of the validity of the sub-title's claim, A CompleteLibrary. . . . Yet many of the best sources do appear, with muchpotential benefit.

James E. White wrote the chapter on biblical inerrancy. Hisstand is for full inerrancy, i.e. "where the Bible speaks, it speakswithout error" (27). Dockery's chapter has a general statement on usesof the Bible, the history of interpreting since the early church, nineguidelines for interpretation, seven steps to bridge the gap betweenbiblical author and interpreter, and applying the Bible. The lastsection, only about one page, is disappointingly cursory.

Waltke's chapter on OT textual criticism attests a high degree oftextual soundness. Only ten percent of the text is affected by problemsof variant readings. Of these, "only a few percent are significant andwarrant scrutiny; 95 percent of the OT is therefore textually sound"(158). He sees many differences as inconsequential (157), citingDouglas Stuart:

It is fair to say that the verses, chapters, and books of the Bible wouldread largely the same, and would leave the same impression with thereader, even if one adopted virtually every possible alternative readingto those now serving as the basis for current English translations("Inerrancy and Textual Criticism," in Inerrancy and Common Sense, ed.by Roger Nicole and J. R. Michaels [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980] 98, citedby Waltke, 157-58).

Garrett's chapter on historical criticism is well-done. Hereviews arguments for both an early and a late date for the exodus,


favoring evidence for the early date (203). Hoehner's study on historyand chronology surveys Persian rule by various leaders relevant toscriptural background (539—331 B.C.), Hellenistic control (331—143B.C.), Hasmonean rule (143—63 B.C.), and Roman dominance (63BC—A.D. 100). He dates the birth of Jesus between the spring of 5B.C. and the winter of 5/4 B.C. (476). He places Jesus's ministry inA.D. 29/30—33, during a span of 3½ to 3¾ years (477). He argues foran A.D. 33 crucifixion, on a Friday, and offers a chart covering tendays (Saturday to the second Monday) for events including thetriumphal entry, Olivet Discourse, Last Supper, betrayal/arrest, trial,death, and resurrection. Another chart shows years and dates fromJesus's birth to the Day of Pentecost. Paul's ministry, Hoehnerbelieves, was in A.D. 35-68. Another chart lists events from thecrucifixion to the destruction of Jerusalem.

Black, who has served on the part-time faculty at Talbot Schoolof Theology, deals with NT textual criticism. He says that in preachingit is good to realize that "most variants are insignificant and nodoctrine of Scripture rests on a disputed passage" (412). He deals withkinds of textual errors, sources of evidence for textual criticism, historyand methods of textual criticism, principles for discerning the originalreading, modern approaches to NT textual criticism, how to read thetextual apparatus, examples of NT criticism (e.g., Eph 1:1), and how todeal with textual problems while preaching.

Overall the work is a very competent summary of evangelicalperspectives. It is helpful for serious beginners, theological students,and pastoral staffers. Its many special areas also make it a fine tool forreview by advanced students and mature scholars.

Hans Finzel. The Top Ten Mistakes Leaders Make. Wheaton: Victor,1994. 200 pp. $10.99 (cloth). Reviewed by David C. Deuel,Associate Professor of Old Testament.

The author, drawing upon a decade of leadership trainingministry, sets out to prevent his readership from making the samemistakes he and his own leaders made. His concern is not to offer aconsistent and cohesive model of leadership or philosophy of ministry. He, rather, points out areas where leaders often fail. He combines

Book Reviews 247

biblical and pragmatic arguments from administration theory to makehis points.

Mistakes addressed are the top-down attitude, puttingpaperwork before peoplework, the absence of affirmation, no room formavericks, dictatorship in decision making, dirty delegation,communication chaos, missing the clues of corporate structure, successwithout successors, failure to focus on the future.

Even if those mistakes the author presents are not actually thetop ten leaders make, or even if his arguments are not taken directlyfrom biblical propositions, the book is stimulating reading for anyonewho finds himself in a leadership role. Regardless of whether oneagrees with the author's approach to leadership, on the whole or inpart, the book will force him to think about leadership issues thatwrongly and typically go unaddressed.

Ronald B. Flowers. That Godless Court: Supreme Court Decision onChurch-State Relationships. Louisville, KY: Westminster/JohnKnox, 1994. 177 pp. $15.99 (paper). Reviewed by David C. Deuel,Associate Professor of Old Testament.

Should the Supreme Court be godless? that is, "Where is theline between religion and civil authority in this country?" One thingfor certain it "is a legal, ultimately a constitutional, concept" (ix). TheSupreme Court's role as final arbiter of constitutional issues makes itsdecisions church-related or church-impacting and the churchparticipates as individual voters in the selection of the court. That is,in spite of the lines either government or church draw on the matter ofchurch-state relations, each ultimately impacts the other. Add to theconfusion a media that offers "brief and superficial" reports of thecourt's activities and decisions and you have the current situation inour country.

Ronald B. Flowers, Professor of Religion and Chair of theDepartment of Religion at Texas University, writes for pastors and laypeople about the relation between church and state as reflected in thedecisions of the Supreme Court. He would like to get his readershipbeyond the perceived barriers of understanding church-state relations.

"An explanation of what the court has done over the years in


the highly volatile area of church-state decisions and a strongargument for the care and nurturing of religious freedom" (backcover). Treating topics such as government aid to church-relatedschools and prayer in public schools, the author assists the reader inthinking through the issues as well as the Court's rulings.

In spite of the book's legal and technical nature, Flowers hasworked hard to simplify and explain complex issues. The book isrecommended to those interested in the timely and significant arena ofchurch-state relations, or as the author corrects "relationships betweenreligion and civil authority" (x).

Robert H. Gundry. Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for aMixed Church Under Persecution. 2nd ed., Grand Rapids: Eerd-mans, 1994. 685 pp. $36.99 (paper). Reviewed by Tim Dane, ThMcandidate and Faculty Associate, The Master's Seminary.

In 1982 Robert Gundry (Professor of New Testament and Greekat Westmont College in Santa Barbara, California) introduced the firstedition of his commentary on Matthew. The first noticeable change inthis second edition is that the sub-title has been changed from "ACommentary on His Literary and Theological Art" to "A Commentaryon His handbook for a Mixed Church Under Persecution." The newsubtitle is indicative of Gundry's renewed commitment to understand-ing Matthew's theological purpose as that of addressing issues in thecontemporary first-century church.

Gundry notes that aside from various corrections, a newpreface, and the addition of an appendix and endnotes, thecommentary has not undergone any changes since its original release. This includes the fact that Gundry's purpose is still to present aninterpretation based upon Redaction Criticism. For the most part, hedoes not interact with other views, but presents his understanding ofMatthew's theological purpose.

Gundry notes on p. xii of the preface that his commentarymight seem "old fashioned" because it focuses on Redaction Criticismand does not deal with structural, literary, narrative, social scientific,materialist, feminist, psychological, and deconstructive criticisms,criticisms more recently in vogue. He also notes that he sees strong

Book Reviews 249

evidence that Matthew the Apostle wrote the gospel and that he wroteit before A.D. 70. For such reasons, he apparently considers himself tobe on a more conservative side of scholarship than many.

In dealing with passages like 13:24-50 and 22:11-14, Gundryproposes that Matthew is writing in light of the presence of both trueand false disciples in the first-century Church. He sees Matthewwriting to the saints to encourage faithful endurance in the face ofpersecution and to avoid the antinomianism of the false disci-ples/teachers. He believes the rebuke of the Pharisees in chapter 23represents Matthew's warning against antinomian false teachers in thechurch. He believes this antinomian false teacher paradigm willpersist in the church up to the end of the age, because Matthew did notinclude the widow's mite incident between chapter 23 and the end ofthe age discussion in chapters 24 and 25 (a redactional insight). Gundry also believes that discipleship and the teachings of Jesus playa very significant part in this gospel, which Gundry believes is "struc-turally mixed."

To this reviewer, Gundry's work represents an immenseattempt to interpret the first Gospel. One cannot help but note thedetail it offers. However, one very crucial question is relevant: "IsRedaction Criticism a legitimate discipline?" Gundry wholeheartedlyendorses the concept and applies it liberally. Furthermore, acomparison of Gundry's work with other commentators reveals thatGundry is more zealous than many in his application of redactioncritical thinking (cf. xiii). What is the implication of this?

The implication of this a priori assumption (that RedactionCriticism is legitimate) is that the commentator becomes the judge ofthe text and deems himself worthy of identifying those statements thatare true and those that are lies (called by other more palatable termsand statements such as "unhistorical redaction," xvii; "unhistoricaltheological constructs," xx; "free adaptation and embellishment," xxiv;"Matthew distorts," xxiv; Matthew "creates" events, xxiv; "Matthewadds," xxvii; "Matthew makes," xxvii; "Matthew's creation," xxviii).

Are falsehoods such as Gundry postulates compatible withJesus' words in John 17:17, "Thy Word is truth"? Conservative theolo-gians have long rejected the notion that they are. Gundry, however,believes his views are acceptable (he sees his view as representingMatthean redacting and thus Matthean use of unhistorical embellish-ment).


For Gundry, Matthew's assumed editorial work did not keepthe gospel from acceptance by the early church, because even though"the embellishments in the New Testament apocrypha went so far asto make themselves obtrusive and objectionable," those in Matthewdid not (xxi). In other words, compared with uninspired literature,Matthew's falsehood is the same in kind, but simply less in degree. ForGundry, "Matthew's taking less liberty (than uninspired writers) neednot have raised people's eyebrows then and need not seem unlikely tous now" (xxv).

In summary, one can admire the great detail that Gundrypresents. This reviewer found certain helpful observations from theGreek text at various points. We must ask the question, though, couldnot Gundry have contributed much more if he had assumed theconservative non-redactionist position that the Holy Spirit inspired aperfect and truthful text?

D. Edmond Hiebert. Working With God Through Intercessory Prayer. reved., Greenville, SC: Bob Jones University, 1991. 129 pp. $9.95(paper). Reviewed by James E. Rosscup, Professor of BibleExposition.

Hiebert left a legacy of evangelical usefulness when he passedmore fully into the presence of God at his death in 1995. Since 1955 hehad been Professor of New Testament at the Mennonite BrethrenBiblical Seminary, Fresno, California. Several commentaries had comefrom him (Mark, Thessalonian Epistles, Pastorals, James, First Peter,Second Peter and Jude). This book on prayer originally appeared in1987. Many evangelicals find his works well researched witharticulate exposition.

Here are ten well-organized and expository chapters, some ofwhich deal with working by prayer, the power of prayer, empower-ment through intercession, and learning to pray from Daniel. It isextraordinary to find eight pages on "The Prayer of Jabez" dealing withtwo verses (1 Chr 4:9-10). The verses chronicle the effectiveness ofspecific prayer. More than ten pages discuss "Epaphras, Man ofPrayer." Scripture and subject indexes help locate comments. Hiebert's book shows judicious use of works on individual texts,

Book Reviews 251

commentaries, and topical books (cf. "Bibliography," 115-20). Hematurely pulls key facets of effective prayer into the discussion. Thebook can greatly help one cultivate a regular vigil of prayer under thetutelage of God’s Word.

Hiebert's main focus is on the intercessory emphasis in prayer. He sees prayer in general as "God's gracious arrangement wherebyHis saints are privileged to work together with Him in furthering Hissovereign purpose." He adds, "It is the most noble and most essentialministry God gives to His children—but is the most neglected"(Preface).

Chapters 2-4 expound key NT texts on intercession. Chapters5-7 discuss three men of prayer. Many texts receive either brief orlengthy exposition: e.g., Exod 17:8-16; 1 Chr 4:9-10; Isa 59:15-16; Ezek22:30-31; Dan 9:3-4; Matt 9:37-38; Luke 11:9-13; John 14:12-13; Acts 6:4;12:5, 17; Eph 6:18-19; Col 4:3-4; 2 Thess 3:1-2; 1 Tim 2:1-4. A number ofothers also receive mention. Hiebert expounds passages phrase byphrase.

Frequent illustrations and poems on prayer spice thediscussions. For example, the evangelism of R. A. Torrey in variouscountries was the result of long Saturday night prayer surges (11).

The book specializes in the one aspect of prayer, intercession,but incorporates many details in other areas. A Christian can profitfrom what is emphasized, but a caution is healthy. To avoid beingspiritually unbalanced in prayer and to be properly balanced, oneneeds to cultivate a blend and balance in all aspects of prayer. Aggressiveness is imperative in more than just intercession, or anyother single aspect of prayer (praise, thanks, confession, petition forone's own needs, etc.). Scripture shows the need to saturate prayerwith a correlation of all these elements, and even other aspects such asaffirmation of truth ("Lord, I love you"; or "Lord, I know you loveme"). A daily interweaving and growing in all areas enhances aprayer life in accord with the will of God as reflected in the Word ofGod.

The intercessory part of prayer in this book is well-developed. The work can be a significant help to teachers, pastors, and anyone inChristian service.


Tremper Longman, III, and Daniel G. Reid. God Is a Warrior. GrandRapids: Zondervan, 1995. $16.99 (paper). 224 pp. Reviewed byDavid C. Deuel, Associate Professor of Old Testament.

The first in the series, "Studies in Old Testament BiblicalTheology," the present work purposes to lay bare an outline of thebiblical-theological development of the divine warrior theme "and inthis way provide a grid for the reader to understand other passagesand texts" (27).

The Divine Warrior theme or motif as a window to God'sperson and works offers great promise to evangelical preachers andteachers.

. . . The Bible is about Yahweh. It is His self-revelation. TheBible, however, is not about Yahweh in the abstract; it is aboutGod in relation to mankind. Furthermore, this relationship isnot so much described as it is narrated. There is a historicaldimension to biblical revelation. Thus a proper biblicaltheology must take into account the subject matter of theBible, the divine-human relationship, and the fact that theBible's message is told through time (15).

The present study takes as its impetus the biblical metaphor orpicture of God as the Divine Warrior (cf. Exod 15:3, "The LORD is awarrior"). It is recognized that God's relationship with His people isset forth in Scripture through many such metaphors each emphasizinga different aspect of this relationship. "No one metaphor is capable ofcapturing the richness of God's nature or the wonder of hisrelationship with his creatures" (15).

The authors choose a synthetic approach over against a study ofindividual passages where the metaphor occurs. A truly biblical-theological approach would be a large and tedious project. In this theauthors are justified. Once acknowledged, the book may beappreciated for its true contribution.

Because the divine warrior theme is more difficult to see in thegospels a more textual method is employed. Pauline literature (asopposed to that of Hebrews or Peter) draws out the future of thetheme and finally the book of Revelation "as an outstanding exampleof the motif" (18) receives a thematic treatment.

Book Reviews 253

Even though the present study gives needful consideration tothe historical institution of holy war in ancient Israel, its primary focusis upon the image or picture as it is employed by biblical writers. Inaddition, the authors treat the biblical text "as a single writing thatpresents an internally consistent message, including an internallyconsistent, yet unfolding picture of God as warrior" (26).

A second and related methodological issue impinges on thefirst assumption. An earlier writer (G. von Rad, Holy War in AncientIsrael 52) argued that holy wars (the historical realities) lackedconsistency in structure. To this the authors respond that it is thenature of biblical narrative rather than actual "lack of coherence in holywar theory or practice" (33). This leads them to structure the studyunder the sequential format:

1. Before the War(a) Seeking God’s will(b) Spiritual Preparation(c) Ritual Cleanness in the War Camp

2. During the War(a) Numbers and Weapons Technology(b) The March(c) The Ark(d) The Combatants

3. After the Battle(a) Praise(b) Plunder (Herem Warfare).

This pattern, argue the authors, is detectable from Genesis throughRevelation.

The book is stimulating reading. As the first in this series, itleaves this reader anticipating more to come. The book isrecommended to those committed to the challenge of biblical theologyas a basis for systematic theology.

Calvin Miller. The Empowered Leader: 10 Keys to Servant Leadership. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1995. 227 pp. $17.99(cloth). Reviewed by Alex D. Montoya, Associate Professor ofPastoral Ministries.


Calvin Miller is Professor of Communication and Writer inResidence at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. This book ishis second in the "Professional Development" series by this publisher,The Empowered Communicator: 7 Keys to Unlocking an Audience beingthe first.

The author's intent is threefold:

First, I want the wisdom of Scripture to speak a clear and usableword to every contemporary Christian leader. Second, I want thosesound leadership themes that dominate current thinking to be linkedwith Scriptural insight. . . . Finally, I hope to define Christian leadershipin such a way that it escapes the haphazard reputation it often acquires(xi-xii).

The author uses David as the prime example of servant leader-ship and develops the usual themes associated with leadership aroundten keys:

Key 1: Fostering an honest image.Key 2: Seeing yourself as a leader.Key 3: Networking and the special friends of a leader.Key 4: Vision.Key 5: Decision.Key 6: Defining, structuring, and motivating.Key 7: The policies of grace and abuse of power.Key 8: Coping with difficult peopleKey 9: The art of delegation.Key 10: Surviving a visible mistake.

Miller is a masterful communicator and his works are delightfulto read. He has a way of condensing the topic to a few meaningfulparagraphs filled with concise quotable statements. Each chapterincludes pithy quotations suitable to the topic and a letter from acongregant to his pastor concerning leadership. A splendid idea!

Although the book follows the biblical theme of David's leader-ship style, it seems to convey more secular principles of leadershipadorned with biblical references. Perhaps the author relied too heavilyon secular writers he consulted (cf. xii). References to great works onleadership by Christian authors of the past and present are absent.

Miller does the ministry a service, however, that of redefiningservant-leadership by making the reader understand that leadership isnot some weak aimless fearful task, but rather a divine mandate which

Book Reviews 255

every leader must fearlessly execute with excellence. Church leadersneed to hear this side of leadership.

David Powlison, Power Encounters: Reclaiming Spiritual Warfare. GrandRapids: Baker, 1995. 160 pp. $7.99 (paper). Reviewed by RichardL. Mayhue, Senior Vice President and Dean.

David Powlison has served the evangelical community wellwith this excellent volume. In recent years a number of surprising,even alarming, evangelical books have appeared proposing thatdemons can bodily indwell Christians creating the need for exorcism,i.e., casting out. The names Anderson, Bubeck, Dickason, Murphy,and Unger are the better known writers who have proposed thistheory based more on natural revelation and clinical data than biblicalevidence. This teaching runs counter to both historical Pentecostal andnon-Pentecostal teaching. Powlison makes a convincing casewith regard to a true believer's spiritual battle against Satan anddemons. His book is thoroughly biblical, non-pejorative, and irenicthroughout. He evidences pastoral involvement with people,indicating that he is not writing as a mere ivory tower theologian.

The author focuses on what he calls the "ekballistic mode ofministry" (EMM), the method claimed by so-called evangelicalexorcists. Powlison demonstrates clearly that the approach is in errorbiblically and lays out for the reader a biblical perspective and biblicalresponse when dealing with Satan and demons. With regard to EMMhe writes, "Some aspects, in fact, are down right dangerous to thechurches' view of God, sin, the Devil, the Christian life, prayer, andministry."

Powlison concludes that EMM specialists are masters atmisdiagnosing spiritual problems and dispensing unbiblical advice. Inthe end, he answers a number of commonly asked questions such as"Should we name demons?" "Can we inherit demons from ourancestors?" "Are there stages of demonization?" "Should we binddemons?" and "If it's wrong, why did it work for me?"

This reviewer recommends this volume highly to those whoseek clear, compelling biblical answers to questions regardingChristians and demons.


William M. Ramsey. The Westminister Guide to the Books of the Bible. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 1994. xi + 564 pp. $30.00 (cloth). Reviewed by Dennis M. Swanson, SeminaryLibrarian.

This work is an expansion of the author's earlier work, TheLayman's Guide to the New Testament (1981). Its purpose is to providean introduction for use by Sunday school teachers, pastors, andinterested lay-people. The author posits himself in the "mainstream ofbiblical scholarship," but attempts to write with "respect for thescholarship and integrity of those in the very conservative camp andfor those of the opposite extreme" (x).

The book has two main parts, Old Testament and New Testa-ment, with two smaller sections on "Interpreting the Bible" and "TheApocrypha." In the section dealing with interpretation the authorclearly summarizes several schools of hermeneutical thought, showinghis preference for the redaction and canon criticism techniques. Hemakes no mention of the Grammatical-Historical approach tointerpretation, including instead only an unfortunate caricature of the"naive literalist" (2).

In general the work is well laid out with summary charts foreach book. The end-notes are thorough, but perhaps not as balancedas the author suggests. The absence of indexes and bibliographyseverely reduces the volume's usefulness.

Beyond this, critical problems abound. Ramsey rejectstraditional authorship (e.g., the Pentateuch, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, inthe OT; the Gospels, Pastoral epistles, Ephesians, Colossians, Peter'sepistles, and Revelation in the NT). In the OT section he generallyaccepts the theories of Julius Wellhausen dating the "final" version ofthe Pentateuch at 450 B.C. (18). Other instances of "late dating" is theauthor's placing of Daniel at about 166 B.C. (220) and Peter's Epistles atA.D. 120-25 (496). Without denying them outright, the authorquestions the literal reality of miracle accounts and the resurrection(359-65). With some qualification, he also refers to recent work of the"Jesus Seminar" as scholarship "which does a great service" (290).

In short, this book may have value as a compendium of the

Book Reviews 257

theories and interpretations of the last century of liberal scholarship,but as a work to introduce students to the Word of God it is not useful.

John R. W. Stott, Romans: God's Good News for the World. Bible SpeaksToday series. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1994. 432 pp. $19.99 (cloth). Reviewed by James E. Rosscup, Professor of BibleExposition.

John Stott is a household name for many because of hisnumerous books. Among them are commentaries in this series, onGalatians, Ephesians, the Thessalonian epistles, and 2 Timothy. Hehad a previous work just on Romans 5-8, Men Made New (Chicago: InterVarsity, 1966). Now with treatment of the whole book, hehas one of the best overall popular and highly readable expositions ofRomans. He includes a brief introduction and a clear outlinethroughout. At the end David Stone has added a study guide (408-32)for Stott's commentary. He repeats the outline and lists key questionson many issues.

Stott's labor is along lines readers have learned to expect of him. He keeps his writing quite orderly, vital, clear, often arresting inexpression, conversant with views, seasoned with choice quotes,aware of Greek word-meanings, often supplying reasons forinterpretations.

As expected, any reader knowing exegesis and exposition willagree with Stott at times and disagree at others. The work will bestrong or weak depending not only on Stott's diligence and detail buton the direction he takes on many verses.

For serious lay readers and to some degree for pastors, much isinformative, provides competent review, pulls salient things togetherwith a refreshing vigor and style, and puts matters cogently. Yet thework is overly general on some things, and passes over others whereclear-cut comment would help.

Stott cites Chrysostom's 4th-century exposition of Romans ascalling the epistle Paul's "spiritual trumpet." He wants readers to hearthat trumpet again and respond obediently (11).

He lists 33 notable commentaries (15-17) and has a good sectionon the letter's influence. He grapples with recent views on the


purpose, one of them Krister Stendahl's disagreement that the maintheme is justification. Stendahl saw the pervasive theme as God's planfor the world and how the salvation of Gentiles, their coming to Goddirectly through Christ and not via the law, fits into this plan (25). Inthis view chapters 9-11 form the summit of the argument, chapters 1-8being only a preface. Stott integrates both themes as compatible and"interwoven" (25, 36). Justification by faith is strategic, and all (Jewsand Gentiles) who put faith in Jesus Christ are the true children ofAbraham, having equality (36). Chapters 9-11 are an integral part ofthe logic.

Stott offers a brief overview of Romans, tracing the flow ofthought step by step (36-43) before his detailed treatment. He arguesthat "the spirit of holiness" (1:4) is the Holy Spirit; 2:6-10 assumes that"authentic saving faith invariably issues in good works, and . . . if itdoes not, it is bogus, even dead." Romans 2 and 4 are in harmony withJames 2:14-26. Stott discusses views on "we establish the law" (3:31),favoring the idea that the justified who live according to the Spiritfulfill the righteous standards in the law as in 8:4; 13:8, 10 (121). Hecould have done more to clarify 4:15, "where there is no law there is notransgression" (131). He sees 5:13b, "sin is not taken into account (i.e.punished as in death) when there is no law" as pointing to a time whenno direct command confronts a person, i.e., when there is no"expressly revealed ordinance of God" (152). Though all did not havesuch a command at all times, all who died in physical death—thepenalty for sin—did so because all sinned in and through Adam.

Stott takes up the issue of how far back Adam lived. Adam wasaround 10,000 years ago, but a type of homo sapiens existed at least twomillion years ago, Stott decides. He apparently believes that these(pre-Adamic hominids) were not authentically human, not God-like,not bearing God’s image, not homo divinus as Adam was (164). Stottalso favors animal as well as hominid death before the death thataccrues from Adam, and sees the relevance of death in Rom 5:12 asonly in reference to mankind in the sense of Adam and hisdescendants. Many will regard his comments here as a failure to giveGenesis or Rom 5:12 their proper due.

He sees baptism in 6:3 as water baptism, but does not suggestbaptismal regeneration; baptism only pictures union with Christ anddoes not secure it (173). The "body of sin" in 6:6 is not the physicalbody (cf. 6:13; 12:1) but "the sinful self" or fleshly, selfish nature. Some

Book Reviews 259

will disagree with Stott's opinion that this view fits the context best(175).

One finds helpful comments on reckoning (6:11) and "present-ing" (6:13). On 7:14-25, some will feel that Stott confuses the issue inseeing a reference to Jewish Christians of Paul's day, regenerate butnot enjoying freedom in Christ, under the law but not yet in or underthe Spirit, reborn but enslaved to rules and regulations (210). To Stott,Romans 8 goes on to describe the ideal, the life free in Christ. He doesnot clarify how his view of 7:14-25 harmonizes with his comments on8:14. In the latter, only those led by the Spirit are sons and daughtersof God (231), which would appear to exclude the persons Stott sees in7:14-25 as reborn yet not in or under the Spirit.

The author assumes on 11:25-26 that the church is "the Israel ofGod" of Gal 6:16. He still believes that in Romans, "Israel" is ethnic ornational Israel in contrast to Gentile peoples. In v. 26, he argues, Israelhas to mean those of ethnic, national Israel. The great mass of Jewswill be saved (Stott is not exactly clear when), not every singleIsraelite. Stott obscures vv. 25-26 further by seeing "all Israel" asIsraelites saved throughout this present age, a steady flow into thechurch (305). He appears to be amillennial, to have no room for amillennium with a future for ethnic Israel as distinct from the church.

Comments on 14:10b are in vague generality with no detail onthe judgment seat of God. A reader would reasonably expect to findsome help on how this important subject relates to other passages inPauline letters on this judgment (e.g., 1 Cor 3:10-15; 4:5; 2 Cor 5:10; Eph6:8; Col 3:24). The commentary offers an insightful discussion of facetsin Paul's request for prayer (15:30-32).

As to its value on most passages, the commentary rates highlyamong popular, vigorous expositions of Romans for the generalreading audience. For diligent expository pastors and teachers, it willretain value at many points, but they will need to turn to other worksbesides.

Joseph M. Stowell. Shepherding the Church into the 21st Century. Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1994. 274 pp. $11.99 (cloth). Reviewed byAlex D. Montoya, Associate Professor of Pastoral Ministries.


Joseph Stowell knows ministry, pastoring, preaching, and thetimes and the culture. So Joseph Stowell is qualified to write Shepherd-ing the Church into the 21st Century, a book on effective spiritualleadership in a changing culture. Here is a pastoral ministries manualin a conversational style for a contemporary Christian leader.

Stowell is president of Moody Bible Institute, has pastoredchurches in Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan, and is a writer and giftedcommunicator. The book reflects the experiences, personality, andpassion of the author. It reads like a well-written sermon, artisticallyarranged, and uplifting intellectually as well as emotionally.

The author covers four major areas of pastoral work and life. The first is entitled "Perspective" where he discusses the philosophy ofpastoral ministry and seeks to lay out the priorities of ministry. Thesecond section is "Personhood," where he stresses the importance of aminister's character as the basis for ministry. The third section is"Proclamation" and serves as a contemporary primer on preaching. The preacher will find some timely hints on transformationalpreaching. He calls the last section "Proficiency." It is a short butpotent appeal to run the race with endurance so as to end well.

The author summarizes his work by writing,

Shepherding the church into the twenty-first century requires a fixedfocus on creating a ministry worthy of respect through paying closeattention to ourselves, and demonstrating observable progress in ourpersonhood, the effectiveness of our preaching, and the proficiency ofour work through the exercise and maximizing of our gifts (272).

This reviewer read the work with great delight, and as a pastor,found the book extremely helpful and encouraging. Joseph Stowell isa pastor's friend and mentor. His book should adorn the shelf of everyminister of the gospel!

Robert L. Thomas. Revelation 1—7: An Exegetical Commentary. Chicago, IL: Moody, 1992. 524 pp. $29.99 (cloth). Revelation 8—22: An Exegetical Commentary. Chicago, IL: Moody, 1995. 690 pp. $29.99 (cloth). Reviewed by Richard L. Mayhue, Senior VicePresident and Dean.

Book Reviews 261

Dr. Robert L. Thomas, Professor of New Testament at TheMaster's Seminary and past president of the Evangelical TheologicalSociety, has recently completed his long-awaited two volumecommentary set on John's Apocalypse. This monumental work resultsfrom over thirty years of study; its 1200 plus pages represent the mostdetailed, exegetically oriented, dispensationally directed commentaryon Revelation known to this reviewer. In the truest sense of thephrase, this two volume set represents Thomas' magnum opus.

The central emphasis in this work is an in-depth exegesis usinga historical, grammatical hermeneutic which results in a conservative,evangelical theology. The reader, however, will not get a narrow viewof problem passages as the commentary interacts with a range ofmajor views, both evangelical and non-evangelical.

The author targets the informed laymen, serious students,pastors and the scholar. All exegesis and exposition is based on theoriginal language of Revelation and the translations used are those ofthe author. Textual criticism and word studies are included whereappropriate. For the scholar, Dr. Thomas has also included additionalgrammatical notes of a more detailed nature at the end of each majorsection.

An extensive introduction is provided (1:1-46). It includesdiscussions of: (1) authorship, (2) writing date, (3) prophetic writingstyle, (4) apocalyptic language, (5) the Greek text, (6) literary structure,(7) hermeneutics and (8) John's use of the OT. Also, an extensivebibliography is included (1:xvii-xxvii).

Five excursuses conclude these volumes—two in Volume 1 andthree in Volume 2. They include: (1) The Chronological Interpretationof Revelation 2-3. (2) The Imprecatory Prayers of the Apocalypse. (3)The Structure of the Apocalypse: Recapitulation or Progression? (4)The Kingdom of Christ and the Apocalypse. (5) An Analysis of theSeventh Bowl of the Apocalypse. Additionally, there are four helpfulindices at the end of Volume 2 which catalog the materials in bothvolumes. These include: (1) subject, (2) Scripture, (3) ancient literatureand (4) modern authors. Throughout both volumes the reader willfind extensive documentation for further research.

Every preacher, teacher, and serious student of Revelation willwant to own these volumes. Without them, one's treatment of Revela-tion will be lacking; with them, one's preparation will be enhanced.


Warren W. Wiersbe. Be Myself. Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1994. 347 pp. $11.99 (cloth). Reviewed by Alex D. Montoya, Associate Professorof Pastoral Ministries.

Be Myself is the autobiography of Dr. Warren W. Wiersbe,written to build a bridge, or as he puts it,

As I look back, I can see that I've always been building bridges. Someof the bridges I've built are the kind that everybody has to build forthemselves if their lives are going to be meaningful; a few of my bridgeswere special assignments from the Lord. . . . I'm writing it [this book] tofulfill another assignment in bridge-building, this time between me andyou (12).

So begins the autobiography of a legend. Here is a story of oneman who did the work of dozens. Wiersbe recounts how he began hislife in scholarship and tranquility, and then how God took him intoministry, first to Youth For Christ, then into the pastorate, whichincluded his pastoring of historic Moody Memorial Church inChicago, then to Bible teacher of the "Back to the Bible" broadcast. Hehas written over 100 books and the autobiography contains anappendix dating the sequence and occasions of these books.

This reviewer has always been a great admirer of Wiersbe, bothof his books and of his sermons. So it was with great anticipation thathe read this volume and was by no means disappointed. The authorin a simple and humorous manner relates the delights and trials of hisministry. He has the reader both laughing and deeply movedthroughout the book.

Be Myself is a glimpse of a human being used mightily by God. It is not one boasting of his accomplishments, but rather an invitationof the writer to the reader to witness the "Ebeneezer stones" of a lifelived in dedication to God.

Dr. Warren Wiersbe will undoubtedly go down as one of thegreatest Christian leaders of our century. We are indebted to him forthis volume in helping us appreciate his life and ministry.

Book Reviews 263

Michael J. Wilkins and J. P. Moreland, eds. Jesus Under Fire. GrandRapids: Zondervan, 1995. 243 pp. $16.99 (cloth). Reviewed byEddy D. Field III, ThM candidate at The Master's Seminary andAdjunct Professor of Biblical Studies, The Master's College.

In their introduction, Wilkins and Moreland state that the twomain objectives of Jesus Under Fire are (1) "to address current teachingsthat undermine the biblical record of Jesus and his life and ministry"and 2) to "present a rationally justified affirmation of the biblicalteaching of the particular topics" (11). The book is an anthology ofessays from the evidentialist perspective in which the authors strive tovindicate the gospels from the attacks of critics.

The strength of the book is its criticism of the Jesus Seminar. The editors are correct that the Christian's conflict with the Seminar isa clashing of world-views (1) and they offer a critique of thephilosophical naturalism that undergirds gospel criticism (8-10). Theyalso show that presuppositions inherent to this system are not inconcord. For example, the critics attempt to be objective when theyestablish criteria by which to distinguish historical and non-historicalmaterial in the gospels, and at the same time hold that objectivity isnot possible (3). Blomberg exposes the arbitrary restrictions the JesusSeminar places on what Jesus could have said (20-21). The authorsalso draw attention to the circular reasoning (5), inconsistency (91),and unargued bias (128) of gospel critics.

The weakness of the book is its poor defense of the gospelrecords. The basic approach of the authors is to apply the standardcanons of historiography to the Gospels as they would any otherliterature (3, 39). Applying this method, Blomberg concludes that thenotion that someone invented Jesus's sayings is only "unlikely" (33)and he can only affirm the gospels' "general trustworthiness" (39). Evans estimates that the occurrence of several events in Jesus' life,including the Romans' crucifying him as "king of the Jews," is only"highly probable" (103). Habermas approves Blomberg's statement inanother article that the "earliest forms" of certain miracle stories in thegospels are "most probably historical" (131). Craig asserts that theBible's record that Joseph laid Jesus' body in his own tomb is "probablyhistorical" (148) and the investigation of the empty tomb by Peter andJohn is "historically probable" (151). A compounding of all theseprobabilities makes the gospel records seem untrustworthy.


It is on this quicksand that the authors build their defense of thecontent of the gospels, and this defense has flaws as well. Craig writesthat if Jesus' resurrection occurred, it possibly has a supernaturalexplanation (146). Geivett argues that the Bible has the "greatestsupport" among competing revelation claims (195). In the end, thewriters have offered a world-view that is possible, but not certain. Theeditors can only reassure that by their methodology "we increase ourchances that our decisions are based on true beliefs" (7). It isapparently here that reason ends, and faith begins.

The basic fallacy of this approach is putting the gospels into thesame category as any other literature. But the gospels are not like anyother literature, they are God's revelation. The authors encounter afundamental epistemological conflict by using rationalism andempiricism as final judges of what they conclude is the final judge,God's revelation. For example, Geivett writes that the Bible is mostlikely God's revelation partly because it is "compatible with what isrevealed about God apart from the source of that special revelationclaim" (195). He means that the Bible is most likely God's Wordbecause it coheres with his (Geivett's) natural theology. This begs thequestion, though, of how he confirmed his natural theology.

Blomberg uses ancient non-Christian literature, archaeology,and later Christian writings to contradict or corroborate the gospels(39-41). This procedure only raises the questions of how he verifiedthis evidence, and what he will do if future evidence appears tocontradict the Bible. The authors' autonomous starting-pointnecessarily ends in subjectivity and skepticism. Objectivity andcertainty, on the other hand, are possible only by starting with God'sknowledge revealed in his self-authenticating Word.

Jesus Under Fire offers some benefit in its critique of the JesusSeminar, but this reviewer cannot recommend it because of its flawedmethodology and skeptical conclusions.

John D. Woodbridge (ed.). Ambassadors for Christ. Chicago, Moody,1994. 352 pp. $24.99 (cloth). Reviewed by James E. Rosscup,Professor of Bible Exposition.

Sixty tributes look at notable witnesses of Christ in treatments

Book Reviews 265

of three to ten pages each. The sections give compact biographies onChristians in a variety of missionary roles in several countries. Theeditor is Professor of Church History at Trinity Evangelical DivinitySchool, Deerfield, Illinois. He also edited More Than Conquerors andGreat Leaders of the Christian Church, both winners of EvangelicalChristian Publisher Gold Medallion Awards.

Some entries are very well-known. Others are unfamiliar tomany, though not to God. For example, vignettes view William Carey,Adoniram Judson, David Livingstone, Billy Graham, Ruth BellGraham, William Cameron Townsend, the Auca Five, J. HudsonTaylor, "Praying" Hyde, Jonathan Goforth, Peter Deyneka, Sr. and Jr.,Edith Schaeffer, and Josh McDowell.

It was special for this reviewer to see two alumni of TalbotTheological Seminary from the years he was a faculty member there. These are Josh McDowell, campus speaker in many countries, andTokunboh Adeyemo, a church leader in Africa. And it hit close tohome, as well, to find singing artist Steve Green, because Green'sfather and mother first invited and took him—the reviewer—to agroup where he received Christ.

The writers are professors, missionaries, editors and writers,executives, pastors, etc. One finds a winsome presentation of muchhere. The book is set in two columns, often having various appealing,colored panels with thumb-nail sketches, summaries, or lists forreading.

The work includes some present-day personalities, such as CarlF. H. Henry, Joe Gibbs, Bill Hybels, Sammy Tippit, Billy and RuthGraham, Ralph Winter, Tokunboh Adeyemo, and Josh McDowell. Ithas many others to whom the index at the end provides quick access.

Articles pull together key events, contributions in witnessingimpact, illustrations, inspiring incidents, and heartbreaks. Frequentcomments on devotional habits of these ambassadors are a feature.

Among the sad notes is a reference to Carey's first wife,Dorothy, who lost her health after the death of their son Peter, and her"ranting and raving at Carey, often in the next room as he worked totranslate the Bible into Bengali . . ." (25).

Overall, the book is one of the most frequently challenging andrefreshing this writer has read on the impact of Christ's enterprise. Speakers can find much to use for inspiration through their messages.

Sub-titles highlight key themes such as plodding (Carey),


muscular Christianity (Peter Cartwright), rescue from alcoholism (MelTrotter), Jesus's transforming power (John Perkins), a farmer readingthe Bible (Victor Landero), faith (Hudson Taylor), "I Cannot Deny MyJesus" (Wandaro of Ethiopia), patient and gentle answers (EdithSchaeffer), being uncompromising (Peter Beyerhaus), having a will toget the message out on the campus (Josh McDowell and CliffeKnechtle).

All knowledgeable readers will wonder why the volumepassed over some names they think were (or are) of even greatersignificance. This is bound to differ with every reader, and of course,God's appraisal is the one that counts the most.